Was the California originally meant to be a Maserati?

Yes, as Ferrari was managing Maserati at the time!

 

Yes Ferrari (fiat) owned Maserati at the time. No it was not meant to be a Maserati at all. It was designed all aluminum as the first mid front engine with 7 speed dual clutch and retracting hard top. All a new from Ferrarito test sales for all future front engine cars they had planned. Nothing is the same except the engine block and normal common parts (non Ferrari parts)

The joint venture was just for the F136 that Ferrari was selling to Maserati. Internet seems to think they jointly engineered it but that is not true. It was an old engine Block used in the F430 that they were selling Maserati for the grand tourismo to make significant power over other models. They also did not use rotating assemble or flat plane crack etc. total different animals but similar look.

Oh i forgot the valve covers are the same color

that’s pretty much the same argument as a Gallardo and an R8 are the same car. But those two are way way more similar....

 

I don't know that but I know that PlayStation originally meant to be Nintendo CD reader

 

i had both cars so just speaking from experience. I’m not educated just straight common sense from working on these cars.

 

The short explanation is this.

Maserati was developing the car that would eventually become the Cali. Maserati was trying to develop a more high end model using a real Ferrari engine. At this time, Ferrari was in charge of Maserati.
Shortly before the car was set to debut, it was deemed too expensive for the Maserati market. At the same time, Ferrari felt that a more entry level and more feminine appealing car was a good idea. The styling was tweaked a bit and it became the Cali.

It's funny how some Cali owners get all bent out of shape over this. Then when you go to a Maserati forum, they are just as bent out of shape. But there they think Ferrari stole what was supposed to have been the greatest Maserati.

Why is it important? The car is now a Ferrari. What does it really matter how it started life? Ferrari and most notably Luca, deemed it worthy of the badge. It is what it is.

 

Wouldn’t that mean that both the California and the GranTurismo were being developed by Maserati at the same time?

Matt

 

Not entirely sure about the exact timeline. I believe that the Cali was supposed to have been a new model of its own. Basically a GranCabrio based on a seperate platform the coupè and QP models. Then that became way too pricy, and they moved the project to Ferrari.

 

It is what it is. Not sure what's to vote about really. Votes won't change the cars history.

 

u guys crack me up. Everything from the aluminum frame up is different than any Maserati. I don’t get bent up I just know the difference is obvious and to think it was building built as a Maserati is just a dream or as you stated “i believe”

 

Talk to the people who were at Ferrari then were transferred to Maserati at the time. The California was the replacement for the Maserati 4200/GranSport as part of Luca’s vision to make Maserati the entry level to Ferrari and as a “Daily Driver” Ferrari.

Marchionne had a different vision moving Maserati back to Fiat Auto and pairing it with Alfa in search of larger volume and greater cost sharing.

 

Who actually cares?
I LOVE my Ferrari California
Everyone who comments to me about my car when I’m out and about or even backing out of my drive says “nice FERRARI “ I’ve never heard anyone say is that a Maserati?
No one
Not once

cheers Andrew

 

I think the Granturismo actually looks better than the California. The Cali may be the better car overall. I Just saw both parked next to each other a few days ago,
a few people standing around talking and they thought the same. Both very nice looking cars that are aging well.

 

There's a reason the GranTurismo has had such a long run. It's one perfect car in terms of styling. The Cali being polarizing from the start for a number of reasons, Maserati design, first hard top convertible, first direct injection, I believe first wet sump and first front non-mid engine, first with a cup holder, too, just too much to gain immediate acceptance by the community. And yes, it was a Maser prototype and most certainly controversial styling most notably the fat bottom and vertical exhaust tips. Funny how the opinions in the poll are split. It is what it is. Having owned them both, I'd say the Cali enjoys somewhat better build quality, but that's not saying much. GranTurismo is pretty but it's skin deep. They both feel underpowered until you get to the Cali 30. Though whether it began life as a Maser or not, the Cali is a Ferrari, and what will ultimately always separate them is that every single production Maserati manufactured will depreciate to zero. The Cali will not.

 

Lol. You crack me up too. You say we know nothing, and yet you say it was never supposed to have been a Maserati. We NEVER said it was the same frame or sheet metal, that we know perfectly well. But fact is that for most of its development life, it was a joint venture between Maserati and Ferrari, and Ferrari was in charge. Then late in the game it was deemed too expensive as a Maserati, and Ferrari saw an opportunity to finalize the program as a hardtop 2+2 that could compete with the SL v12 etc. You may not like it, but it is well known fact. So before you get all too cracked up over what you might consider other peoples ignorance, you need to check your own facts first.

Here's something really funny for you to consider. Got to a Maserati forum, or join a GranCabrio owners club, and state your facts. They will be even more pissed off than Cali owners whom are fed up with people calling their pride and joy a Maserati. They generally seem to think that Ferrari stole what was supposed to have been the greatest GranCabrio of all time, and they have a seriously hard time letting that go.

I call it a Ferrari and don't really have a dog in this fight, as I would not have cared any more for it, had it had a Maser, Lancia or even a Merc badge on it, because I think the car for all intended purposes was not really that good. If you own one and like it, then everything is peachy, as you as the owner should be the one who likes it.

Happy motoring

 

In my view the California was the start of Ferrari giving up with Maserati and embracing the easy and lazy way that will result in devaluating the Ferrari brand.
The Maserati brand had been crushed before, so Ferrari had an opportunity to revive and develop it, which Maserati more than deserved with its rich history - at the same time it would have allowed to keep the production for Ferrari low, to retain a distinctive spirit for the brand.
But that would have been a real business challenge, and a true achievement in the benefit of both Maserati and Ferrari in case of success.
Instead, Ferrari decided it was easier to milk the Ferrari brand, increasing production while maintaining the higher margins allowed by perceived exclusivity.
My guess is that it is not really sustainable long term, and it will eventually be a dead-end.
Maybe long term does not exist, with cars replaced by self driving abominations soon enough, so at least Ferrari will have taken as much money as possible...
Besides, the California is a Ferrari, and it should not be a shame to be designed as a Maserati.

 

To me, it's a moot point since the Gran Turismo and Cali were both designed during that period when Ferrari owned 100% of Maserati. I mean purists will say all post-Enzo Ferrari are dressed up Fiats (and they have a point.)

I've always considered the Gran Turismo and QP 5 as Ferrari 'lite.' I don't mean that in any way negatively, I think they present incredible values for folks that want a taste of the Ferrari experience. When working on my QP, the majority of the parts have "Ferrari" printed on the box/part (often times literally stickered over with a Maserati tag.)

The California is 100% Ferrari. Ferrari forged flat crank F139, Pininfarina designed, built inside the Ferrari factory in Maranello (not Modena.) What more do you need to qualify as a Ferrari?

 

The first GT was unveiled in March 2007, the Cali Oct 2008 - so about a year and a half apart. To me it makes sense it was a 'joint' development.

Me thinks Maser was creating the GT, at some point Luca said a derivative would be worthy of the prancing horse.

To me as long as the heart is Ferrari, design is Pininfarina, and built in Maranello. Nothing more needs to be said.

 

What point would that be? They they are being silly? Yes, they make that point very convincingly indeed...

 

Well, given Ferrari is owned by Fiat during a time period, you know as well as I some cross pollination occurs.

I certainly don't hold the opinion post 69 is faux Ferrari, but do acknowledge the argument of 'purists.'

I think given the general sharp delimiter of 1969 in values, I argue many others do as well

 

If anything, today's Ferraris are much more bespoke than back in the day when they used a lot of off the shelf parts (like all small manufacturers did).

 

Well, kind of. I think the initial Fiat era with the 355 etc. was a bit of a parts bin mess. Looking way back, the cars also had a very bespoke feel if you will. Switches in a 250 fot example were not from another car, but rather universal electronics components. Still off the shelf, but not from a cheaper car - quite good quality industrial stuff actually.

The instruments were always pretty bespoke, and of course still are.

I think the early to mid 90's were probably the worst period in terms of parts bin cars.

Today if makes a lot more sense to use universal parts. Why on earth would or should Ferrari spend time developing an alternator, ABS or windshiekd wiper motor, when Bosch automotive can do a much better job? Fact is that as actual cars, Ferraris are better than ever, and whether we like to admit it, the last era of Enzo was in fact a pretty bleak time for Ferrari. The quality was crap and the cars did not perform very well. Not sure what kind of purity was in the Mondial, 328, and 400 series, but I suspect that had Ferrari continued down that path, we would be looking at a marque which would be almost gone - because change was needed. There are things I don't like about the Luca way of doing things, but as far as cars go, he saved the marque. I have not feared for the future of Ferrari previously, but with the addition kf the Aston Roma and the FUV, I have a profound sense of unease.

 

it actually wasn’t LDM’s call, it was Marchionne’s who wanted larger volume from Maserati and dualed it with Alfa. While you can criticize the move, it was actually working with Maserati returning a 13+% margin. However he made the mistake of putting Chrysler management in charge of Maserati and it all went to $#!+.