2010 California Driving Enjoyment vs Newer version

It seemed like there was a visceral reaction when the first California came out, before anyone had even seen it. Not a "proper" Ferrari, "rebadged Maserati," rear end is "too fat," etc ... it's interesting to go all the way back to the beginning of the California forum to read those threads about how terrible a car it was going to be. Once people saw it in the flesh and drove it, those negative responses were tempered with people who were enthusiastic about it, although there are still some people (to this day) who mock it because Paris Hilton drove one, "perfect car for your hairdresser" and so forth.

2009-2011 is the first generation California. Some reviewers thought the car was a little underpowered in the midrange, if you can call 460 horsepower "underpowered."

2012 is the first generation with the added 7 years of free maintenance and I believe there were some changes to the speed sensor in the dual clutch transmission to alleviate some failures that occurred.

2013-2014 is the California 30, which shed 30 kilos of weight (66 pounds) and added 30 horsepower. This woke the car up a bit in a way that is noticeable when you drive it back to back with the 2009-2012 cars. This is the last of the naturally aspirated Californias.

2015-current is the California T, different nose and rear, and a turbo engine, lots more horsepower and torque.

Overall, the California is/was a very popular car, and I don't think it will wind up as an orphan. Of all the modern Ferraris, it's the one most likely to be driven and have miles put on it, as it is probably the most comfortable and accessible car, which is why it is so popular. You could argue that the FF is, as well, and that's true, but it is not nearly as popular because sticker prices approached $400k on those cars, and prices have fallen into the low-mid $100s on cars with a lot of miles on them. If there's an "orphan" recent Ferrari, it's probably the FF, which is a shame as it's a tremendous car.

The 612 is an older car, of course. The manual 6-speed cars seem pretty terrific to me; but I think most are F1 transmissions, which has a reputation for being expensive to maintain and can be problematic if not maintained properly -- it seems common to have to replace the clutch on the F1 in 30k miles or so, and there are some other problems with actuators that can be very expensive to replace. Nonetheless it is a larger car and I'm sure it's very liveable as a comfortable cruiser. It's is also a V12 so it will sound amazing. The F1 is a fun transmission to drive, as well, but it's not as good as the dual clutch found in the California/458/FF/F12 etc.

The F430 will be an improved and faster version of your 360 spider with easier maintenance due to the timing chains. But the manual transmission cars have skyrocketed in price. I had an F430 Berlinetta with a 6-speed and as great a car as it was, I missed the open-air experience and my wife did not like that car at all ... too low, too loud and too much attention to be comfortable for cruises with her. She likes the California, although she will not drive it. I wonder sometimes if I had chosen a Spider if I might not have kept that car. But the coupe wound up being not a good fit for me.

I was happy going from the F430 to the California 30, the Cali 30 performs quite well and it is easily driveable and more under the radar if you don't choose a red one. I've put 10,000 miles on it in two years, I don't think I would have driven the F430 nearly as much.

I think the bottom line for me would be ... how important is the convertible aspect for you (which would rule out the 612) and whether or not it's comfortable enough getting in and out of an F430 Spider compared to the California. I think the California would be a good fit for you, and the best thing to do, if you can, would be to drive all three versions and see how they feel. What I like about the California compared to the F430 is it has two personalities ... a comfortable GT car that you can drive leisurely with the top down or rack up miles on the highway, and you can also unleash it on the back roads and it performs really nicely.

If you don't need a convertible I would at least take a look at an FF, because that is a heck of a lot of car for the money at this point, has very useable back seats (unlike the Cali), plus it's AWD so you can drive it all year if you are in a wintry climate.

There really isn't anything else that compares with the California from other marques -- I'm a longtime 911 guy but even a 911 Turbo seems staid to drive in comparison to the Ferrari even though it is much faster -- I drove a 2017 Turbo cab a couple weeks ago. You can get a great deal on a used Maserati GT and that car sounds great, but it's a bit more boat-like to drive. Better back seats, though. Mercedes and BMW convertibles (with back seats) are not in the same class, the R8 or Jaguar does not have a back seat, etc.

 

Nice post Vic.

 

No problem, went through this same thought process a couple years back!

When I was looking at Californias, I took out a 2012 car, and when I liked it, the salesman warned me, tongue-in-cheek, don't drive that red 2013 we have on the lot or you'll want that one instead. Of course I had to drive it then. He was right. But the 2012 car was still a nice car, for the way I drive. But, I do think the 13-14 car is worth the small price differential at this point, and my thinking is it should be buttressed a little on resale by the 2009-2012 cars as it does have the extra power and it is the last of the naturally aspirated cars. We are getting to the point where the 7-year maintenance thing is not as important, as the 2012 car is getting closer to having it wear off, but on the other hand, if the free maintenances have been done you have some assurance that the car has been cared for, as opposed to a seldom driven 2011 that maybe skipped a couple over the years because it just hasn't been driven much. Also, the maintenance needs to be up to date to get the extended warranty, which is something I opted for on my car.

In contrast, I drove a California T and while it had some very nice visual, interior and performance improvements, it was not worth the price to upgrade at the time (to me) which was about $50k. That delta has shrunk somewhat now, probably a $30k difference between a Cali 30 and a Cali T. The Cali 30 has enough performance for me and I do prefer the sound of the naturally aspirated car, although the turbo sounds very good, too.

There is a current thread on the FF forum about a 2013 (formerly owned by an F-chatter) which has a fair amount of highway miles on it from cross country trips (53k) and is for sale asking $129k. Nice car, with a very high sticker, although the black rims are not to my taste. But it sparked some spirited discussion on values for cars with miles. The consensus seems to be it's a good buy at $115k or so which is a heck of a lot of car at that price.

Here is that thread: http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/ff-gtc4lusso-f12-812s/552738-please-share-opinions-ff.html

 

Vic did a great job with his write-up. I can only think of a couple of points to add.

MagneRide - since you come from a 360 ownership you will have some reasonable expectations for sportiness from an Fcar. You will regret not having MagneRide if you omit this in the Cali. To put it in perspective, you will need to spend an extra $200,000 to get it on a Lamborghini Aventador. If you buy the lambo it only comes in the Aventador SV and it makes the car significantly more responsive in handling.

HS Pack - you can only get this or do it as an upgrade in a Cali30 and the car must have MagneRide for it to be added as an upgrade. It transforms the car into a much better handling and faster responsive car that you will enjoy on spirited drives. The standard handling setup is a bit clumsy when you drive the twisties. Both the Cali30 and the current HS CaliT are midlife upgrades for the 2 versions of the Cali for very good reasons. While newbies to FCar experience will likely be happy with the earliest and minimum spec Cali if you like spirited driving that would not be your best choice.

IMO, with the right specs and perhaps after market upgrades the Cali is a very fast and involving car to drive.

 

I don't have much to add to Vic's excellent post. In terms of drivability and creature comfort, all of the nonT cars are pretty much the same, so long as you get one with Magneride shocks. Unless all the roads where you live are racetrack smooth, this is a must-have in my opinion.

The next thing of significance is the California 30. If that meets your budget, that's the one to get, as the differences in power and handling are significant and can be felt. The 2010s and 11s are OK, but while it seems DCT issues are rare, they seem to have affected earlier cars more than '12 and later. All will ride far better than your past 360 spider, and except for some cars with power operated top issues, most should be far more reliable and less expensive to maintain than your 360. So my suggestion would be a '12 or newer with Magneride, or if you can find one within your budget, a California 30.

In terms of resale, in my estimation, all seem to be on a fairly steep depreciation curve compared to mid-engine 458s of the same era. In about the same period, Calis lost 50% of their purchase price, while 458s lost 33% or less. I had an '11 that dropped by about $100k in a four year period. Granted, that is probably close to the depreciation of an M5 over the same period, but that seems poor for a Ferrari (the exception being the FF, which is worse in terms of depreciation).

 

Excellent point about Magneride, I do have that on my 2013 and it is very nice to have.

The 458s have done amazingly well with depreciation (or lack thereof). I think at least some of that is the 488 being a turbo. Much as the F430 manuals have retained (regained) a lot of value because they are the last of the breed.

The depreciation on the California is a double-edged sword ... a lot of it has already occurred so you can get a pretty nice one for reasonable money and I have a hard time thinking that aside from high mileage examples that it will fall much below $100k for nice cars. But I could be wrong, of course. The California is interesting as while the cars look similar there have been substantial improvements over its life, which is not generally the case on the mid-engine cars ... 355, 360, F430, 458 (aside from the special limited editions like the Speciale, Scuderia, etc.).

 

Hey there, I don't know how old you are but I am 61, retired, with three grandchildren. My 9 year old grandson lives with us and he loved the backseat in my 991tts since it fit him perfectly. The Cali T has pretty much the same seat and he loved his first ride in the car with the top down. If I want him to behave, all I have to do is promise a ride in the Ferrari.

Health problems come with age but some are worse than others. I like the Cali because it sits a little higher than the 911 did and it drives and rides far better. I can safely say that as I logged 15,000 miles on my 991tts in 2 1/2 years of ownership.

I view car ownership at my age this way. There isn't enough time left to own all the cars I would like so I am being selective but working my way through the list. Nothing that I want to own is cheap to buy or to own. When I am dead, the kids can sort out what's left. They won't be unhappy I don't think.

As to cost, there are a lot of Cali T's out there dropping in price and with the ability to add exhaust note from Ferrari now, you might find it's more in reach than you thought.

 

The F-chat Cali brain trust had weighed in. I echo what wrs said, easier getting out of a Cali than 911. Plopping yourself in is equally facile once you get a system down pat! [emoji3] If your health issues include a cranky back - like I have - make sure to ride in the Cali for a while. 911 much more comfy seats IMO, especially if you're planning on doing road trips. After about 2 hours in the Cali, I need to move around, stretch, etc. We just did a 1,000 mile road trip in the 911. No problems. I have seat heaters in both, and those help.

In my opinion, Cali 30 is sweet spot for price to performance ratio. If you plan on doing significant sporty driving, I'd spring for Cali T with HS package. F-chat reviews seem very positive.

If you're planning largely gran torismo driving with the top down, I'd save my dough and get a well loved, low mileage first gen with CPO and drive the living heck out of it. That's my plan, anyway!

Good luck in the search.

T

 

Im 49 and have owned a 355, 360 and now a 2010 California.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the way the California drives. Its a fantastic car, even the first Gen like I have.

Is it a 355/360 ? No..and thats why I bought it. I wanted more of a GT cruiser. Thats exactly what i got.

Im not racing stoplights. Im not seeing how fast i can carve a canyon. At times i push it a little, but nothing like i did in the 355/360.

The California is more than up to the tasks I give it.

You will dig it.

 

At your age, and as a car enthusiast, you cannot afford NOT to have a Ferrari!

Yes, you have it summed up correctly, except Vic may well be right that for the earlier cars, most of the heavy depreciation may already have been incurred, so you may be getting a bargain, and if you do want to sell it later, it could fetch close to what you paid for it.

 

I did some math a few weeks back. Only produced over 2 years... there are only about 3,000 Cali30s.

 

NextCEO recently posted some wholesale April Mannheim auction numbers for three 2013 Californias at various mileages.

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/attachments/california/2391631d1494554839-looking-cali-30-screenhunter_39-may.-11-21.06.jpg

The range was $129,000 to $138,000 at varying mileages and conditions. Average was $130k for a 7800 mile car. Not that three cars is a particularly illuminating sample.

Of course, you can't tell the options or what color the car is ... a low mileage silver car with a blue interior probably won't bring as much as one that is resale red over tan. Ferrari of New England had a bright electric green 2013 with black interior with green stitching. Not everyone's cup of tea. I've seen a yellow one with a red interior that looked like it might be Ronald McDonald's ride. But it gives you an idea of wholesale values.

Cars at Ferrari dealers may be higher priced, presumably they keep the really nice ones for themselves. Add a little bit for a 2014 ... drop some for a 2012 and so forth, although I think the drop for a 2009-2012 would be steeper.

From what I've seen ... nice 2009 cars are down around $100k, nice 2013-2014 are in the $130-150k range, and 2015+ seem to be at $180k and up. There are cheaper ones on eBay, and more expensive ones at highline and Ferrari dealers across the board. Owners, CPO and warranty matters, as do certain options -- Daytona seats, Magneride, shields, HS package, 20" rims, etc. Some cars are strippers -- 19" rims, no shields, plain non-heated seats and so forth. Some have challenged color combinations or are loaded with every option conceivable. Watch out for cars that were rentals.

There are, as usual, pretty clear mileage delineations ... under 5k, under 10k, under 15k and on from there.

These cars are rarely rational financial decisions, so don't go by price alone, find the car that ticks all the boxes, even if it's a few bucks more. Or less : )

 

I think your pricing expectations are reasonable. F of San Francisco has a 2013, asking $139k, and might take $129k, maybe less. http://www.ferrarisanfrancisco.com/certified/Ferrari/2013-Ferrari-California-San-Francisco-Bay-Area-d19fc33d0a0e0a1739fb5aa3f16b3db4.htm

I did not bother to check the specs, but was just looking to validate price. I sold my '11 for $120k about a year ago, so this seems right, and also tends to validate Vic's theory about most of the depreciation having already occurred for the earlier cars.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

To give you an idea, asking prices on the 13-14 Cali have dropped about $10-15k from last year. I tried to swap my 09, dealer was giving $95k, to get into a nice 14 and they wanted $165k. Since the delta on these cars was only $40k I respectfully declined. Last year the swap was worth $55k max to me, they wanted $70k, this year $45-50k and I suspect they will want $60k min. My 09 Cali still rides wonderfully at 12k miles.

I wouldn't pay more than $150k for an early FF with 20k miles... The arrival of the Lusso will quickly push prices lower.

I also own a manual 612, seeing what you wrote, I would get a 13-14 California for around $140k and call it a day. If I had only one Ferrari, it would be convertible and with dual clutch. As a bonus, the California is much more modern and feels more solid than early 612.

 

I think you should also list the other sports dream cars which meet your taste and desires. Not just other Ferrari's in your price range but also other marques.

I assume you've test one. What did you think of the seats? Were they comfy? How was the visibility? Will the tiny rear seats work for the grandkids ? Did your u like the open top?

Did you like the engine note? How was your test
drive?

 

Read my thread and your Fcar lust may go away forever.