New Images: More 2009 Ferrari California pics

It's alright but i would rather own an Aston Martin DBS over this or anything else...

— ubercool (View Profile)

Posted on 7/17/2008 8:34:00 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

Fantastic stater Ferrari, looks like a very tight package but I have some questions.

The center/floor console looks awkward, like it was designed for a MT but this version has the AT.

Why make this a 2+2, especially when you have a hard folding roof, seems that you don't get a back seat or trunk. I would think that most would lose the back seat for better truck storage. I cant believe that its for insurance so is it an engineering problem with folding hard tops and the space they require while still trying to get desired styling lines and proportions

— mpwr (View Profile)

Posted on 7/17/2008 8:59:56 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

^^^mpwr, good point. You can hardly call this a 2+2. I think the 911 has more rear leg room. They should have left it a 2 seater and let the 612 do the 2+2 work. This car does look pretty mean with the top up, though.

BTW, I think that's the same UConnect radio/navigation unit that Chrysler uses. Looks like the one in my Grand Cherokee, anyway.

— NARunner (View Profile)

Posted on 7/17/2008 9:27:48 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Beautiful. An absolute work of art. I agree w/ u guys. I would have scrapped the 2 + 2 idea.

— snatchandgrab (View Profile)

Posted on 7/17/2008 10:09:55 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

that's one ugly cockpit and funcitonality flow of the controls in the center console are not 260K worth

— corelink (View Profile)

Posted on 7/17/2008 10:10:46 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

it's a really nice lokin car but those last pictures reminded me of a Solstice

— jat403 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/17/2008 10:27:12 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 0   

Pretty damn nice.

— answer (View Profile)

Posted on 7/17/2008 11:05:46 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 2   

I'd wish they have the following option: no top. Yep, a full time Topless roadster. Seriously, this car is to be driven topless anyway and if it's raining, why would you be driving a Ferrari around? Imagine the weight savings. The profit margin would be better too because it's cheaper to make. Or at worst, have a lightweight fabric top for "emergencies", but I'd rather have no top at all.

— quizz (View Profile)

Posted on 7/17/2008 12:29:18 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

sweet!

— Htay7500 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/17/2008 12:30:21 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Ugliest Ferrari to date!

— sector (View Profile)

Posted on 7/17/2008 12:45:42 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

I'd buy one.

— kut17 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/17/2008 2:22:04 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

One of the ugliest Ferraris ever. What was Ferrari thinking?

— MercedesBenz00Z (View Profile)

Posted on 7/17/2008 11:12:29 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

Styling is subjective. I think minimum for a Ferrari should be the F430. Otherwise get something else. There are some cool attributes to this model but there are things that cheapen the image of Ferrari in my opinion. I wouldn't be surprised if this don't sell like hotcakes. And if it did it's just those fanboys who can't afford an F430 but finally can dig up the change to get this to say "I drive a Ferrari".

The way I look at it is either you at least have an F430 and get up to it or don't drive one at all. It's like Lamborghini's Gallardo. If they had anything more entry level than that I would say the same.

I'm a Ferrari fan but a fan can have opinions too so I split the beans. Hate it or love it! =)

— Agent63 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/18/2008 1:36:16 AM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1   

There's something about the headlights that I don't care for. Overall, it's a great package! I'm glad to see Ferrari come out with something like this, it shows a willingness to deviate from a set pattern or formula.

— mattman953 (View Profile)

Posted on 7/18/2008 7:48:31 PM | reply to this comment | Votes: 1