Ferrari Califórnia 2015 - mais potente, leve e rápido e V8 turbo!

[RodrigoFernandes]

Era capaz de levar mais rápido o 4C Spider que o Califórnia...com tudo o que de ridículo possa parecer!!

Também eu!
Com o ordenado que tenho mais uns anos e comprava o 4C. Já o Califórnia é uma miragem!

[FMVC]

Tão giro o carro.

[Papas1973]

Sem dúvida que há qualquer coisa de especial em todos os Ferraris e este não é excepção.

Acho o designs mais americanizado, mas faz sentido já que afinal tem o nome de Califórnia.

Posso- me enganar, mas vai ser dos Ferraris mais vendidos nos EUA.

[reckoner00]

[RespectRequired]

Não gosto muito dos retrovisores Muito básicos, parecem dum corvete ou algo assim...

Prefiro aquele desenho tipo gota, mais ao género do F430 ou 458.

[topspeedPT]

Não gosto muito dos retrovisores Muito básicos, parecem dum corvete ou algo assim...

Prefiro aquele desenho tipo gota, mais ao género do F430 ou 458.

Realmente parecem mesmo de vette! Só reparei agora!

[JEDI]

De facto os retrovisores estão fraquinhos...

[Scuderia]

Espero que ao vivo seija melhor tou curioso com o som dele

[RespectRequired]

Não arranjas essa foto do teu avatar em grande, scuderia?

[S2]

[reckoner00]

[Jroadster]

o california cinza já tem uma luz de travão fundida

[ttrodrigues]

o california cinza já tem uma luz de travão fundida

Realmente podia ter feito uma inspecção visual antes de o enviarem para o local de descarga.

[topspeedPT]

o california cinza já tem uma luz de travão fundida

Italiano, é normal

[ASOT]

Já gostava do anterior e continuo a gostar deste.

Uma curiosidade: vejo que nos lugares de trás não há encostos (que é normal). No entanto, vejo umas saliências na zona do plástico atrás dos bancos. São os arcos de protecção em caso de capotamento?

[reckoner00]

Ao vivo de Pequim:

[reckoner00]

Ferrari California T - Le Nostre Impressioni Di Guida - Quattroruote

Alla Ferrari sono fatti cosi. Si trovano davanti un problema e lo trasformano in un’opportunità. È più forte di loro. E l’hanno dimostrato anche stavolta, con la nuovaCalifornia T, che riporta a Maranello il turbo dopo un’interruzione di quasi trent’anni. Era dai tempi dell’indimenticabile F40, infatti, che dalle parti di Modena vivevano felici nel mondo degli otto e dei dodici cilindri aspirati, capaci di girare sul filo degli 8/9.000 giri, ma è arrivato il momento di arrendersi: il turbo ormai è l’unico modo per mettere insieme prestazioni, consumi e rispetto per l’ambiente. E dov’è il problema? Be', semplice: il turbo (un turbo inteso in maniera molto diversa dagli anni Ottanta) non è propriamente quel che serve per la sportività, più che altro dal punto di vista delle sensazioni.

O per lo meno non lo è stato fino a questo momento, perché la California dimostra che, anche con la sovralimentazione 2.0, si possono fare dei gran bei motori, perfetti per soddisfare anche i palati più schizzinosi.

Come va. Gli ingegneri della Ferrari avevano ben presente i problemi legati alla sovralimentazione - ritardo nella risposta e scarsa sonorità allo scarico, in particolare - e ci hanno lavorato sopra alla grande. E basta guidare un po’ la California per capire che sono tutte faccenduole brillantemente risolte. Si parte con una prontezza meravigliosa già ai bassi regimi e si continua con un allungo degno di nota, né più né meno ciò che ci si aspetta da una Ferrari. Ovvio, non è quello micidiale di una 458 Italia, ma è comunque qualcosa di strepitoso. Insomma l’ennesima conferma che i motori, come li fanno in Emilia non li fanno da nessun’altra parte del mondo. Anzi, dell’universo. Merito anche dei Newtonmetri, che aumentano col crescere dei giri. Altro che coppia piatta, insomma: quella è roba buona al massimo per un turbodiesel da 100.000 chilometri all’anno.

Il turbo sul display. Per il turbolag, non si sono accontentati di renderlo virtualmente inesistente: si sono concessi anche una piccola debolezza narcisistica. Al centro della console, tra le bocchette della climatizzazione, hanno piazzato lo schermo del Turbo Performance Engineer: si può scegliere tra varie schermate, ma le due più interessanti raccontano quanta prontezza si ha a disposizione in quel momento (in percentuale, considerando come 100% la massima prontezza) e quanto si stia sfruttando il turbo in maniera efficiente.

Equilibrio perfetto. Per il resto, verrebbe da dire che è la solita California. Ed è un complimento, perché il feeling di guida è quello di sempre, un magico incrocio di qualità, che rende una Ferrari diversa da tutte le altre e, soprattutto, capace di coinvolgerti anche se non sei nato col Cavallino disegnato sul cuore. Il tutto portato, però, a un livello ancora superiore rispetto al passato, perché gli affinamenti non mancano: la scatola dello sterzo è nuova, il controllo della trazione (F1 Trac) e delle sospensioni (Magnaride) profondamente rinnovati. La California mantiene quella capacità di rimanere sempre in perfetto equilibrio: la si può considerare una Gran Turismo o una sportiva di razza. E per decidere quale delle due nature far prevalere, basta un gesto: quello con cui si modifica la posizione del manettino, parola che forse si dovrebbe scrivere con la maiuscola, visto che ormai è utilizzato alla stregua di un nome proprio dagli appassionati di tutto il mondo.

Look giovanile. E la linea? Gli aggiornamenti l’hanno slanciata e ringiovanita. Adesso gli omaggi al passato sono molto meno evidenti: è nuovo il frontale, sono nuovi gli sfoghi per l’aria sul cofano e pure l’estrattore, dietro, è inedito. E la zona posteriore, più in generale, ha una vivacità che prima proprio non aveva. Qualcosa, però, su questa Ferrari non è stata toccata: la capacità di passare da coupé a spider in appena 14 secondi. In fondo ci si poteva già accontentare, no?

[reckoner00]

Ferrari California T - Top Gear

California T. T for...?Turbo. But you knew that, because the idea of turbos on a Ferrariengine is such a revolution that there's been an avalanche of advance hype and uninformed opinion. How would a Ferrari be if it had to do without sky-high revs, scalpel-sharp throttle response and an unmuffled scream?

So what's your opinion, informed as it now is by a drive?

That a turbo engine is just about right for a car like the California, a fast suave effortless GT.

Any old turbo engine?
Nope. Ferrari has done some clever stuff. And it does meet the aims above: little lag, nice noise, and torque that rises with revs.

How they do that?
It's an all-new 3,855cc V8 of a stonking 560bhp, power that's enough to see off that pesky AMG SL63. The engine is nothing to do with the Maserati Quattroporte's unit by the way. It's extremely compact, and tucks its turbos low down on the outboard side of each bank. They use normal anti-lag techniques: they're small, they are twin-scroll units, and the engine itself is direct injection with variable cam timing.

To make sure the thing sounds right, it has a pair of insanely complex (read: expensive) exhaust manifolds that look like a nest of vipers. This keeps each tract the same length, and from that issues sweet harmonics.

And as for the torque business, well the engine is capable of 557lb ft in seventh gear, over a range of 2500-5500rpm. But in first, second and third, the torque is limited at low revs to about 410lb ft, and then rises towards a peak at 6000 - just like a normally aspirated engine. (The curves for fourth, fifth and sixth are progressively more like the one for seventh). This sounded a bit silly to me at first - why limit the performance of an engine with a rampant horse on the red-painted heads?



So er, why?
Well, when you drive it, things become clear. For a start, lag is inconsequential at anywhere above 2500rpm. When you go peacefully in the upper gears, the things works like a normal turbo engine. You just surf along relaxedly on a wave of torque. And save gallons of fuel. But when you drop gears and drive with a bit of passion, you have to concentrate, use the right gear, and use the throttle with determination. Then you get that lovely feeling of more and more urge coming as the needle passes each notch on the rev-counter's circumference.

Still, sounds like a bit of an artificial game
Well yes, but driving is artificial innit? It's called character. If you want instant, silent, level torque, go drive an electric car. The other thing is, with torque limited in the lower gears, it's much easier to meter out the effort at the rear wheels. Anyone who's driven an AMG SL will be very familiar with the blinking of the traction light. Or the eye-widening jolt of sudden oversteer if you switch it out. In the Cali T, things are easier to control. But still, if you travel to 7500rpm, its blisteringly rapid. Ferrari says it'll do 0-62 in 3.6 seconds, and 0-125 in 11.2. Which from where I sit is both entirely believable and very much not hanging about.



And the sound?
Well the variety of sound effects isn't as wide as Ferrari's NA V8's, but it has a fruity and musical quality. And the fact it's quieter isn't at all a bad thing in what's supposed to be an everyday GT car. It does a bit of a cackle on gearshifts in sport mode. But in the end I wanted more vocals when I was really going for it.

This is a Ferrari. If I wondered before about the turbo engine, I was never worried about the chassis
Indeed. It's got amazing traction, heaps of grip and wonderful composure. But for a car that'll be driven as a GT, I think the steering is either a bit too quick (likely), or not progressively weighted (less likely). Whatever, I found myself taking too many corners in a series of bites not a smooth arc. And I spoke to others who found the same. Nor is there anything like the delicious steering feedback of the other Ferraris. Actually the best thing about the chassis is the amazing ride. Despite all that control, the way the car absorbs both big road-turbulence and little pineapple-textured roughness is a revelation, and a real asset for a GT.

Looks better too...
Yup. Every panel is new except the roof and glazing. The sides are maybe still a little overdone, but the designers have done a great job on the tail, killing that old tall pinched look and drawing it down to the road.



And inside?
Big change: a new satnav/ents system at very long last. TBH it has glitches, but they say it's still in beta. Also, they're due to add Apple CarPlay soon. In other interior news, you'll note a fresh dash and seats, looking good and working well, plus some slightly dodgy plastics (probably included as standard so as to nudge you into upgrading to expensive optional carbonfibre decor). Very nice aromatic leather. Low turbulence with the roof off. Half decent boot even roof down.

The boring numbers?
Price is £154,490, CO2 is 250g/km. The former number much like the old California, the latter some 49g/km better. And it's not like no-one bought the old Cali; it was one of the best-selling Ferraris ever, even though it attracted a bit of derision from hardcore fans.

OK, if the old one was sneered at, is this one the real Ferrari deal?
Hmmm. Well I felt like I was driving a Ferrari with very thick gloves on and earplugs in. It feels rather remote for a Ferrari, even if it's more engaging than an SL. Maranello's marketers would no doubt argue that this muted character is appropriate for their everyday car. But the FF is for everyday, and that's a wonderful sensory experience.

[reckoner00]

Ferrari California T first drive Review | Autocar

What is it?

Why, it’s the new and improved version of the Ferrari’s folding hard-top grand tourer: the California T.

The new model is a sizeable facelift of the six-year old California, with an additional T on the badge referencing the most significant change to the car: the adoption of a twin-turbocharged engine.

The new engine is a 3.9-litre (well, 3.85-litre, or 3855cc if you want to be really picky) unit instead of the old 4.3, but the fitment of two, twin-scroll turbos mean power is up by 70bhp to 552bhp.

Extra poke isn’t the primary reason for the forced induction, though. Instead it’s to improve efficiency, because even Ferrari isn’t immune from such trends. In place of the 299g/km CO2 output of the old model, the California T emits 250g/km and returns 26.9mpg. That’s marginally better than a Vauxhall Insignia VXR. While making 552bhp and, at times, 557lb ft.

At times? Yes. Only when seventh gear is engaged on the twin-clutch transmission (which has longer overall ratios than before), does the engine make its full complement of torque. And it’s not because the driveline (which owes more to 12-cylinder Ferraris than the early California) can’t hack the torque.
No. It’s because the company’s engineers are as concerned about the character of a turbocharged Ferrari as you or I might be. Ferraris are meant to rev stratospherically. They’re meant to get faster as they move up the rev-range. They’re meant to sing. They’re meant to feel naturally aspirated.
So in short gears the California T’s torque is capped – to around 440lb ft in first, second and third – and the torque increases with revs. In higher gears it peaks earlier and the slope is flatter, until you reach the full-whack, table-top curve of seventh.

The idea is that the T feels more like a naturally aspirated car in low gears – Ferrari makes some bold claims about the response times of the twin-scroll turbos – but is as lazily responsive as a GT car should be in higher gears. Does it work? We’ll come back to it.

Elsewhere, the exterior panels, save those for the unchanged roof, are all different. The interior has been looked over; the dashboard refined; leather upgraded; a boost monitor (all but unreadable in sunlight) added; and the communications screen refreshed (for one that still lags behind the best).
And, finally, underneath there are 12 per cent stiffer springs, a 10 per cent quicker steering rack (not that I remember thinking it needed one) and the latest-generation magnetorheological dampers – they can stiffen or soften very quickly, is what you need to know about those.

What is it like?

Better. Leagues better. The old California wasn’t a duffer, but it never quite pulled off the trick of either riding properly or maintaining correct control of its body movements. This one does both, at the same time. In fact, it rides particularly well, regardless of in which position (Comfort or Sport) you place the manettino, which brings stiffer damping.

It’s not as tied-down as a 458 Italia, say, but then it’s not meant to be. Some 70 per cent of California buyers are new to the brand and “they’re not the same type of guys” who buy mid-engined Fandangos, so there’s precious little crossover.
But whereas you’d wonder if the old California really represented Ferrari, or whether it was an extension too far for the badge, the California T feels like a product of Maranello should.

So it’s responsive; eager. The engine, you could argue, is a bit on the quiet side, perhaps inevitably given it’s a turbo, but it still has a flat-plane crank and quite a lot of work has gone into creating equal-length exhaust manifolds. That means it still sounds raw and clean and crisp like a flat-plane V8 should, rather than like a Subaru, as far as I can tell from the simulation Ferrari played us. But it is fairly quiet.
And in those lower gears the sensation of increasing urge really is there. Peak power is present right through the last 1000rpm to the 7500rpm redline (high for a turbo), so there’s pleasure to be had from wringing the Ferrari's engine out.

There’s not a lot of turbo lag in lower gears (you notice it a little, but that’s inevitable), and while there’s more lag in higher gears, you’re rewarded with more urge without having to shift down or work the engine hard, so it makes for a fine grand tourer. But for what noticeable lag there is, this isn’t a frustrating engine. Response, at higher revs, is genuinely impressive whatever the aspiration.

Less satisfactory, to me, at any rate, is the steering. I found it a bit light; a bit quick (at around 2.3 turns lock-to-lock it might not sound super-fast, but the turning circle’s good so the ratio is rapid). I wasn’t alone. You get used to it, it makes the car seem lighter than it is, and there’s a fair degree of self-centering, but I’d prefer a system that felt more natural.

Still, it allows you to exploit the California’s fine handling balance. The T does what a front-engine, rear drive car with a slight rearward weight bias ought to. There’s a touch of understeer, which you can neutralise with a trailed brake on turn-in, and then there’s ample power, and a limited-slip differential, to loosen the tail. Oppo, dab, away, etc.

Other notables? The price is still around £150,000. Diddy rear seats are now the only option because only one per cent of the old model’s buyers chose a rear bench. The raw stats say 0-60mph in 3.6sec (launch control, see) and 196mph flat out. And it’s quite easy to spend an awful lot of money on options.

Should I buy one?

You might well. The Ferrari California T can hold its own against anything that’s meant to do a similar job: Mercedes SL AMGs, a Bentley Continental, whatever.
And whatever you pick, the Ferrari California Thas some relative merits against it. It does things differently to any other GT but now that ‘different’ includes a greater dose of finely honed Ferrari character, different is no bad thing at all.

Ferrari California T

Price £150,000 (est); 0-62mph 3.6sec; Top speed 196mph; Economy26.9mpg; CO2 250g/km; Kerb weight 1625kg (dry); Engine type, cc 8 cyls, 3855cc, V8, twin-turbocharged, petrol; Power 552bhp at 7500rpm;Torque 557lb ft at 4750rpm; Gearbox 7-spd dual-clutch automatic

[reckoner00]

Autocar

[reckoner00]

[RespectRequired]

Que desilusão o barulho.

[Missigno]

Ja tive ao pé de um na sede da revista Turbo e é muito bonito

[orion]

Nem por isso, refiro-me ao som.
O que merecia um retoque era a "boca" estilo peugeot.

[reckoner00]

Teste do Chris Harris

Not one but two Ferrari launches in the space of two months, eh? Those Italians must be paying me even more money now. Although the California T did leave me with something of a conundrum because in theory I viewed it as the launch of an engine. For those of you asleep at the wheel, this is Ferrari's first turbocharged motor since theF40, and it will form the basis of the engine in the 458 replacement. In many ways it signals the death of the normally aspirated performance car engine, because if Ferrari feels it has to switch to forced induction, you can assume pretty much everyone else will have to follow suit. Assuming they haven't done so already, which most of them have.

Let the F-Type discussion start again!

But what about the rest of the car? Before the Geneva Motor Show, I needed persuading of the California possessing any redeeming qualities - it truly was the worst car I drove in 2009 - but I thought the facelift was actually very good. And when a company can renew a gopping, whale-mouthed monstrosity like the original California into the T, I always reserve the vague hope that the same might be possible with the vehicle dynamics. The original California had the body control of a inexpertly set jelly.So I went along ostensibly to experience this new dawn of Modenese turbocharging, but also with a lingering hope that Ferrari's SL rival might have become a proper Ferrari. Oh, did I mention that Ferrari has sold more than 10,000 Californias, making it the most popular production Fandango of all time? Proof, as in the case of National Socialism, that popularity is a poor denominator of quality.
Let's begin with the engine. Ferrari began the process of replacing the current naturally aspirated V8 back in 2008, spending much time and cash trying to create a turbocharged motor that would replicate the response, sound and free-revving nature if its atmospheric engines. Witchcraft, in other words.

There are two seats squeezed back there

The result is a 3,855cc V8, running 9.5:1 compression and two twin-scroll turbos. Nothing especially new there, and the turbos sit snugly on the sides of the motor, unlike BMW's clever positioning within the vee for reduced pipework length and therefore improved response.There's some real trickery in the actual header and exhaust pipes though - they're all of equal length, to a tolerance of a few mm, and the turbine is sandwiched between three special castings that are then connected and bolted to the engine. It doesn't look cheap. But then again, there's nothing revolutionary here.
That comes in the engine calibration work. This motor is clearly capable of producing more torque than the rear axle can handle, but Ferrari has seen its best chance to replicate the feel of increased power and performance as the revs increase. We're now accustomed to people limiting the torque of these new turbo motors in the lower gears, but Ferrari has gone a step further and mapped each gear with its own individual torque curve. When you ask the team how long it took, they instinctively look into the double espresso to their right. Especially when you consider how connected the powertrain is to the complicated electronic differential and stability control systems.

Turbo trickery pays dividends on the road

So this really is some trickery - artificially limiting the performance available in lower gears to give the sensation of needing to rev the motor out above 6,000rpm to enjoy peak power. It sounds a bit contrived because they've actually shaped the torque curve of every point in every gear to give the feeling they're looking for. The conundrum came in the higher gears, where they've chosen to let the turbines properly breathe, leaving the car with potentially similar roll-on acceleration in several gears.To give the sensation of really hanging onto a gear, the ratios are much longer than before, with sixth now matching the old seventh, of course there's now enough torque to support such legs and the mapping allows surge to build as per a normally aspirated engine. The California T is just one great confidence trick, which had some of my colleagues in something of a froth, but if the results on the road make for a great drive, and the throttle response is good and the noise is proper Ferrari, I don't really see the problem.

There are other benefits. This motor is very compact with the crankshaft 110mm lower within the overall depth of the engine compared to the old N/A unit, and it sits lower too, the cumulative effect being a 30mm reduction is the centre of gravity of the motor. That's quite a lot. The claimed efficiency gains are 15 per cent in overall consumption, now up to 26.9mpg. I firmly believe that people who buy these cars don't care so much about consumption as they do range. The tank remains 78 litres and the test drivers say 300 miles between fills is about right.

Soft dampers and Sport on Manettino is just right

Moving away from the engine, the T carries a comprehensive list of modifications. Every body panel apart from the roof mechanism (which is carried over) is new. Spring rates are up, the adjustable dampers are new, the carbon ceramics are the latest spec, as are all the chassis electronics. Quite a big change to be summarised with the letter 'T'. Mind you, last time Ferrari added the Tango moniker it moved a V8 transversely in the back of a Mondial, which probably wasn't the work of a single afternoon. T must denote 'tossing hard graft'.Is this new motor the work of the devil? It's quieter on start-up, certainly. The exhaust parps, but less than in the old car and far less ostentatiously than in a 458, but it immediately sounds like a flat-plane V8 and that's all good for me. As I've said many times, all this start-up racket is too much for me, and this car's supposed to be a more refined GT anyway.

Pull the right lever to grab first and you roll away with minimum fuss. One day soon I might stop marveling at the way these dual clutch transmissions have revolutionised slow progress in the fast cars, but for now I'm still in awe: 560hp and it's really no more difficult to drive than a piddling hatchback. But that's what everyone expects these days. The market assumes the sales explosion at the very top end of the market is down to increased global wealth, but is it also partly attributable to ease-of-use? Ergo, is the DSG, DCT a notable part of the sales funnel? For going fast and slow, this is a masterful transmission - right up there with the Porsche 991 GT3.

557lb ft, but only in certain gears

I digress, and we mooch out onto some Tuscan roads with the all important 'bumpy road' button pressed for soft damping. But with the little Manettino switched to Sport for faster throttle and gearbox response, the soft damper mode is actually harder than in the comfort Manettino mode. But not as hard as full Sport damping. Capiche? Me neither.Five minutes later, assuming like me you have a good working knowledge of the old California, you'll be pretty amazed by what they've done here. The chassis is miles better than before. Set to soft, the dampers are supple and good up to around eight tenths, whereupon the car loses some dignity and begins to lurch a little and kiss the suspension stops - but for me that's about right in an SL rival. In the stiffer mode, you lose a good deal of the comfort and gain support at higher speeds, but you really do have to be driving like a loon to find those limits. I left it in bumpy road mode.

Can you tell the car is turbocharged? Yes, but only if you demand absolutely immediate throttle response in an almost unnatural, repetitive manner. It feels linear, is receptive to very small alterations in throttle position and the mapping strategy just works. Initially I was unsure because the car felt a little lacking in mid-range in second gear, but then I switched all the chassis gubbins off and had a glimpse into what the next generation of fast RWD cars will be like. Because in the Cali T, torque has been mapped not only for subjective feel, but to match available traction. It feels entirely natural as the rear begins to move around a little and much more delicate and therefore easier to balance than, say, an SL63 which just dumps most of its torque into tyre smoke.

Not Harris driving. It's straight, for a start

And the noise is just fine. I say just fine because post-355 I've never been that into the Ferrari V8 noise - search beneath the fancy exhaust valves and it's more four-cylinder than V8. So the starting point for me is quite ordinary, and adding blowers doesn't do much damage. It's a little quieter than before, but boss-man Felisa admits that the company's GT cars probably need to be a little less raucous because the customers find them a touch noisy. Expect a more subtle sounding FF sometime soon - I'm in favour.The longer gearing and controlled torque-release really works in second and third because you feel like you can hang on to a gear and let it rev out to 7,500rpm - although peak power is actually at around 6,000rpm. The charade is exposed when you snick up into fourth at low revs and push the right pedal because subjectively the thing feels just as potent as it did in third. Likewise in fifth as yet more torque is allowed to work. You can either view this as unholy and evil; or an engine that can play fast, revvy and responsive in the lower gears and then pull like a monster in higher gears with little effort. In this car, it works brilliantly.

'God, I could quite like living with one'

But how will it work in a car like a 458? You'll miss the razor-throttle much more. The high gear torque will seem more unnatural, and the noise will be much more of an issue. But you just get the feeling that this first turbo experiment is a stepping stone and the engineers will deliver a further step for the new mid-engined car. There are rumours of 4 litres and, in testing, power figures reaching 750hp. Expect less for production, purely to give the more expensive V12 cars a chance.Back to the Cali - the faster steering is still aloof, but not as much of a problem as I'd expected. Roof down, there's more buffeting than in an SL, but it's still a great cruiser and the cabin is covered in very expensive former cow. The two rear seats are now standard because so few people opted for the rear bench last time. The roof goes up and down, not much more to say about it than that.

So I went to sample perhaps the most important shift in Ferrari powertrain philosophy in the company's history, and came away not remotely worried about the future. But I pre-judged the California as being the same non-Ferrari as its predecessor and was quite wrong. If I couldn't stand the last one, taking into account the fact that I now really like the way it looks, it's now a properly fast car (0-125 in 11.2sec) and can play the cruiser when you want, it's the best facelift I've encountered. It even has a couple of spots in the back for the school run, knees-on-chest. God, I could quite like living with one.

---

FERRARI CALIFORNIA T
Engine: 3,855cc V8 twin-turbo
Transmission: 7-speed dual-clutch auto, rear-wheel drive
Power (hp): 560@7,500rpm
Torque (lb ft): 557@4,750rpm (in 7th gear)
0-62mph: 3.6sec
Top speed: 196mph
Weight: 1,625kg (dry 'with lightweight optional equipment')
MPG: 26.9mpg (NEDC combined)
CO2: 250g/km
Price: £154,490

Author:

Chris Harris

[reckoner00]

Ferrari California T - EVO

Rating:

What is it?
The replacement for the Ferrari California, which arrived in 2009. With 10,000 units sold, the previous version was Ferrari’s most successful ever single model. The car was something of a departure for Ferrari – it was the marque’s first front-engined V8 in the modern era. It was much more a GT car than a true sports car, so although it never truly satisfied like its stable mates, it did meet with approval among drivers who wanted to use their Ferrari everyday.

The previous California was a significant model for Ferrari because 70 per cent of buyers were new to the brand. Ferrari can’t afford to misjudge its replacement, then, so we shouldn’t expect any great revolution from California to California T.

Technical highlights?

Apart from in the engine department, that is. For the first time since the F40 of 1987, Ferrari has fitted turbochargers to a series production car. The 3.9-litre twin-turbo V8 is entirely new, having been in development for four years. It produces 553bhp and 557lb ft of torque – but only in seventh gear. Ferrari has developed a Variable Boost Management system to gradually increase torque output in each gear to, it says, give the engine the same non-linear, building sense of acceleration as a normally aspirated engine.

In fact, an awful lot of work has gone into making this new engine behave as much like a normally aspirated unit as possible, both in its power and torque delivery and the way it sounds. Like the rest of the industry, Ferrari will have to adopt downsizing and turbocharging in order to improve fuel efficiency in the coming years. The California T is our first impression of Ferrari’s oncoming turbocharged era.

As per the previous model, the basic layout is a transaxle arrangement within an aluminium bodyshell, suspended by double wishbones at the front and a multi-link setup at the rear. The gearbox is a twin-clutch paddleshift item, sending torque rearwards through a locking differential. Only the folding hardtop roof is carried over from the previous model.

What’s it like to drive?

The first impression is that the California T rides superbly. Road surface imperfections are rounded off with a real pliancy both in Comfort and even in Sport mode. It’s a reminder that the California T needs to be approached as a GT car rather than a full-on sports car. Expect Ferrari 458 levels of agility and you’ll think it lazy, but keep in mind its intended purpose you’ll find very much to commend about its dynamic performance.

The steering initially feels unnaturally quick. It’s actually not quite as hyperactive as a 458’s helm, for instance, but for the first few miles you do find yourself dialing in a little too much lock for a given corner. Very soon the driver recalibrates to the steering’s rate of response and it becomes natural and intuitive, though. The steering always feels a little remote, however, with only a vague sense of connectivity once the chassis is really loaded up.

With 53 per cent of its weight over the rear axle the California T doesn’t feel anything like as front heavy as the layout and dimensions might suggest. That gives it both a sense of agility on turn in and a neutral balance mid-corner.
There is almost no perceptible natural understeer at road speeds. Rather than pushing on at turn in, the car instead collapses a little onto its rear axle. The rear anti-roll bar is soft, which gives the California T huge traction at corner exit, but it also means the driver must dial back a little to accommodate that initial roll. The firmer chassis mode corrects this slightly, though not entirely.

The optional magnetorheological dampers can be set to an intermediary ‘bumpy road’ mode when the manettino is set to Sport. This gives the chassis an impressive secondary ride over smaller lumps and bumps, isolating the occupants from the road surface while still retaining enough body control when the corners come thick and fast. That mode will work superbly in the UK.

Ferrari limits the torque through the gears, which benefits traction and drivability. Unleashing the full amount of torque in second gear at corner exit would simply bonfire the rear tyres. Instead, it’ll only be provoked into modest slides away from the apex under full throttle in second gear, giving the car that sense of fun and agility that we expect of sports cars, but perhaps not of GTs.

This new V8 is as impressive as forced induced engines come and the gearbox is remarkable; each new gear seems to bang in before you’ve even fully pulled the paddle. There is no discernable turbo lag and the top end is just as useable as the mid-range, but there aren’t, as we should expect, the top end fireworks that we so love Ferrari’s normally aspirated engines for. There isn’t the same aural excitement either, despite the flat-plane crank and the equal length exhaust header pipes, although at very low engine speeds this new V8 does emit a crisp, hollow exhaust note that calls to mind a 458.

How does it compare?

The most obvious rival is the Bentley Continental GTC. The Ferrari matches that car for refinement and useability, but the California T a much more engaging car to drive at or around the limit.

The more powerful Mercedes SL65 AMG is similarly priced at £170,815, but that car can’t match the Ferrari for kerb side appeal or for driver involvement.

Anything else I need to know?

The cabin, both faultless in its quality and attractive in its design, is plenty spacious enough for two, although the laughable rear seats are much better folded down to create a stowage shelf and a useful load space into the boot.


In the context of the California T the twin-turbocharged V8 is a triumph; it’s both a class leading turbo engine and it suits the car’s GT nature. This engine doesn’t, however, allay all fears that under a new forced induction regime the drama and excitement of Ferrari’s normally aspirated engines will become a thing of the past. Ferrari CEO Amedeo Felisa insists, though, that his engineers will capture that excitement when a similar engine is used in a sports car installation. Time will tell.

A brilliant GT; impressive turbo V8

We’d sooner have a 458

evo SPECIFICATIONS

Engine:

V8, 3855cc, twin-turbocharged

Max power:

553bhp @ 7500rpm

Max torque:

557lb ft @ 4750rpm (7th gear)

0 - 60mph:

3.6sec (claimed 0-62mph)

Top speed:

196mph (claimed)

Price:

£154,490

[reckoner00]

[reckoner00]

* Continuação

[reckoner00]

CAR:

[topspeedPT]