Harvey_Tim
Member
- Messages
- 317
Apparently not according to EVO magazine (this is copied from a recent article) :I’ve looked at the California: Was it actually conceived as a Ferrari from the outset?
Perhaps that’s because it wasn’t really a Ferrari at all. Instead, this car was originally conceived as a new flagship for Ferrari’s sister company, Maserati. As a replacement for the old Coupé and Spyder, it would have been logical, also being a front-engined, V8-powered car with a grand touring bent. But when horse and trident went their separate ways in 2005, cash-strapped Maserati couldn’t justify launching a brand-new model on a bespoke platform with an all-aluminium shell, a folding metal roof, and an expensively specified powertrain. All it could really afford was a cutdown Quattroportechassis using existing tech clothed in a new steel body, which is what it gave us with the hastily developed GranTurismo of 2007, leaving Ferrari with an unwanted but almost-completed front-engined car of more exotic spec.
Rather than throw it in the bin, the visible parts were restyled and, hey presto, Ferrari suddenly had an entry-level car. But ‘entry level’ never sounded right for this Ferrari. Not because it sounded cheap, but because it sounded like we were about to get a new Dino rather than a heavy, front-engined cruiser with some odd chassis tuning, an awkwardly proportioned rear end and a strange lack of identity that could be blamed on its difficult conception. Of course, purists will tell you the Dino wasn’t really a Ferrari. But in heritage and personality, neither was the California.