Self-styled Autoextremist Peter DeLorenzo has few– as in no– kind words to lavish upon Maranello’s latest Parisian fashion. “For me, the Ferrari California is a derivative, uninspiring, design mishmash of creases and folds (and horrific dimestore-quality side vents) that lacks cohesion and imparts an overall feeling of cheapness when viewed in person that just cannot be swept under the rug.” So who’s sweeping? I mean, Sweet Pete must know that there are plenty of ugly, ungainly Ferraris in the brand’s canon. And what possible difference does that make to anyone, anyway? ‘Cause the new California is brand sacrilege! Not only is the car ugly, but “It could also be termed the first ‘parts bin’ Ferrari, as it shares pieces with the Maserati Coupe GT and Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione underneath (even though Ferrari insists that it’s ‘all Ferrari’).” And there’s another problem. “It’s also the first time that Ferrari has come up with a car blatantly designed to expand its production capacity for its burgeoning global reach in markets around the world.” And that puts Ferrari on the same path as Porsche, maker of SUVs and four-doors. What? “With the California, Ferrari’s iron-clad grip on its soul has started to slip. It may be imperceptible at this point, but the fact remains that they made the conscious decision to build a lesser Ferrari – and make no mistake that’s exactly what the new California is – and it will prove to be a defining moment in Ferrari history. As we like to say around here, Not Good.” As we like to say around here, drive the car.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
I read AE as well (in fact my email about F1 cancelling the Canadian GP was just published there) but I’m kinda getting sick of his tired colloquialisms… the whole “notgonnahappen.com” and “as we say around here, Not Good” as if it’s some creative catchphrase…. getting really repetitive.
Handsome compound curves, unfortunate name.
The “California” name alone signals poseur-mobile.
For as old as Peter DeLorenzo seems, you’d think he’d remember Dino.
Somehow, Ferrari survived.
…and then he actually looks at the pictures! The folding hardtop seals it. How unfortunate…
Hey, give Pete credit. He began his page first, when the interwebs was just a series of tubes. He’s published weekly for years…..
Now, as to the Ferrari, they have the same problem BMW has. You sell a no compromises car to the enthusiast. The guy who knows what track day is, and the guy who cares about the marque.
His neighbor sees it, and catches the “cool” aspect. He too wants one, but the depth of his experience is to get the local mechanic to change the oil in his Cam-Cord.
Company realizes that there are far, far more of the neighbors than the enthusiast, even though the enthusiast is the recommender, and “expert”.
This results in the M3 being a headache for the leasing company, as it “rides too hard”. Likewise, that 12 cylinder Italian car is sitting on the west side highway, idling in traffic, on the way to Wall Street (maybe not so much anymore ?). One only has to watch the “appliance creep” on BMW to see this.
Those new Maseratis ? Rolling slowly on the way to the Golf Course and back, never hitting redline either way.
Meanwhile, the enthusiast becomes disenchanted as the car is now “too soft” or “too mass market” (Subaru, are you in the house ?) as the company aims to build automotive Rolexes for neighbor.
Porsche = that silly SUV thing. But I still lust for a Cayman.
BMW = the X6….WTF, ? saw that in a showroom recently. From the same company who built my 3-er ?
Some companies miss it totally, like MB, who always stayed away from hardcore sports, Lexus who despite the “F” is not a sports car company.
Sitting in a Boardroom, there is a huge business case to be made for the automotive rolex for the neighbor. The Four Door Porsche is another example.
Ferrari is at least signalling us that this is not the hard sports car, it’s the car to take up PCH while looking at the scenery and blocking the cycles behind you.
Anyone who knows me will know that I am the last person in the world to warrant the tag ‘Ferrari fanboy’.
But.
I actually saw the California in the metal today, and I think it’s the best-looking car Ferrari have made since the 456 went out of production.
Yes, really.
Now admittedly I don’t think much of Ferrari’s stylistic direction since then, and I think the rear of the Cali is still fairly weak, but overall it’s cohesive and nicely detailed in a way no Ferrari has been IMHO since the turn of the decade.
As for this bit of drivel:
“It could also be termed the first ‘parts bin’ Ferrari, as it shares pieces with the Maserati Coupe GT and Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione underneath (even though Ferrari insists that it’s ‘all Ferrari’)”
…this merely gives the lie to any suggestion that PDL has the slightest clue what he’s talking about. It might help if he told us which bit is allegedly parts-bin special, but in the absence of such information, one must assume he is referring to the engine, since the chassis has precisely zip to do with any Maser or Alfa. That would be a 4.3-litre (Maser/Alfa 4.7), direct injection (others non-DI), flat-plane crank (cross-plane for the 4.2/4.7), etc, etc…
If we want to talk about ‘lesser Ferraris’, we could do worse than start with the Mondial. Likewise, if we want to talk about ‘lesser journalism’, we could do worse than start with this piece of infantile ranting.
Peter generally has something interesting to say, but he can also be such a blowhard. His rant against Ferrari is pretty typical.
Brand dilution is a very real issue in the auto industry, so I’m glad that someone waves the bloody shirt once in awhile. In Ferrari’s case I’m not so sympathetic to the charge. This is partly because I’ve never been that attracted to the brand, but more broadly because no one is exempt from the need to achieve decent economies of scale. To my mind, execution matters more than principle here. My problem with the Cayenne isn’t that Porsche entered the SUV market, but that what they came up with was too generic and badge engineered.
So, yes, drive the California before judging. And as for the styling, I find it pretty typical Ferrari — overly busy boy racer. It’s actually not as bad as some of the recent excesses by BMW, MB and Lexus. Sometimes there’s a market for not so bad.
IIRC the Engine that is in the Maserati and the Alfa 8C was designed by Ferrari.
The Dino was never actually officially sold as a Ferrari. Outside of that fact the Dino was more than worthy of the Ferrari badge. It was a rather advanced design for its time and the first mid-engine Ferrari model. In all fairness the Dino was so significant that it went on to set the design language for Ferrari for the next 2 1/2 decades. Park a F430 and a Dino 246 side be side and it is clear that that the Dino is the fore-father of the 430.
The Mondail was NOT a less expensive Ferrari, it actually cost more than a 308/328. It was never meant to be “entry level” in any way it ws simple meant to be a 308 2+2.
With Maserati and Alfa Romeo inside of the Ferrari fold today I really do not see the need for a less expensive entry level car with a Ferrari badge on it. This is a bad move and WILL damage the mystic of the Ferrari brand.
Today Ferrari IS the top of the heap in terms of automobiles. It is considered to be the one “exotic” make of cars that has not been “pimped”. Somethings must remain exclusive for them to remain truly special. Today the price of admission to the “new” Ferrari club is about $200,000 and a wait of about a year. THAT IS PART OF THE MYSTIC OF OWNING A FERRARI! Everyone one (even rich guys) can not afford or get one. This is way folks do feel special when they buy a Ferrari and are willing to put up with the hassles of ownership. To reduce Ferrari prestige to teh level of a 911 is just plain dumb! The last thing Ferrari needs for it long term future is for folks to see a Ferrari and say “no big deal”.
Today Lamborghinis and Bentleys are a dime a dozen in the “Hood” while Ferraris are still non-existent there. This says a lot even to the so-called “players” in the hood. It says Ferrari are for the really rich and special in the world. That California thing can really hurt that image.
HPE :
Anyone who knows me will know that I am the last person in the world to warrant the tag ‘Ferrari fanboy’.
But.
I actually saw the California in the metal today, and I think it’s the best-looking car Ferrari have made since the 456 went out of production.
Yes, really.
I think the problem with modern Ferraris is that they look truly crap in pictures and videos yet look great in the metal and this is a massive problem for armchair speculators since they never get to see one.
My first impression of the California has not been exactly heart-stopping, but let’s please not call it the ugliest Ferrari. That award surely goes to the F430, and I say that as someone who thinks the 360, 599 and 612 are achingly gorgeous. I also say that assuming the Cali will impress more when I see it in the flesh.
Wow Ed, This spring was my first chance to compare the 430 spider and a 360 spider side by side. I love the 360 but came away liking the 430 better. Opinions differ but ugly is a hard sell for the F430.
Now the 348 and Mondial with the cheese graters on the sides…
Seems that a lot of people have reacted badly to the pics of the Cali but most who have seen it really like it.
I don’t think adding a front engine GT roughly equivalent to the F430 sports car dilutes the brand at all.
Cheerio,
Bunter
Best way to view a Ferrari? From the hand-stitched driver’s seat, looking out over the steering wheel. Once Old Man F got older, he started making the cabins more than an office. I “tried on” both a 612 and 599 at their Pebble Beach intro. Too bad I’m poor.
I suspect that Peter simply got tired of talking about Detroit and what an amazing guy Lutz is, so he turned his ire and fire on the Italians. Oh, but wait …. GM almost ended up owning Ferrari. GM nearly bought Fiat (in fact, they paid a divorce settlement of $2B to get out of it). Fiat owns Ferrari. Ergo, GM almost bought Ferrari. Imagine what Lutz could have done with the prancing horse!
All things considered, the new Ferrari California looks like a freaking brilliant move compared to what could have been. We could have seen the next version of the Cadillac XLR sporting “Body by Ferrari” stickers and a Camaro with “Maranello Tuned Suspension”.
Anyway, I think the new California looks way cool in the photos! Vroom, Vroom.
Miscellanea:
This is not the first Ferrari called “California” by any means.
Ford tried to buy Ferrari in 1963. It ended in acrimony, and led directly to the Ford-Ferrari battle at Le Mans in the middle of the decade.
The last Dino WAS eventually also badged as a Ferrari — not the 206/246, but the eight-cylinder 308GT4. See here. It was perhaps the least desirable of all Ferraris, but the world did not end.
According to many accounts, Enzo Ferrari was profoundly disinterested in the Ferrari road cars, and openly contemptuous of the poseurs and wannabes who bought them. Part of the reason he courted Ford and eventually got hitched with Fiat in the sixties was that he wanted to hand off responsibility for the day-to-day stuff and the street cars so he could focus exclusively on racing, which was the only thing he really cared about.
The new California looks like the post-rhinoplasty offspring of a Mercedes SL and a Corvette C6. I’m not inspired by it in pictures, but I’ve seen worse.
Yeah, I used to be one of those types who’d bark on & on about branding and diluting a marquee and what not. Not so much anymore.
Come on here, we’re talking about a Ferrari, not a badge-engineered Jeep Compass that couldn’t make it 30 feet off-road without its shocks giving out.
Would an Enzo driver want to unload his ride just because of the California? Do Acura NSX drivers cringe when they see an RSX? Did any ZR-1 drivers turn in their keys when the Cobalt came out?
The biggest damage that can be done to the Ferrari brand is not the California. It’s the miserable gong show that its F1 team is putting on right now.