Vs 2009 Ferrari California vs. 2009 Mercedes-Benz SL63 AMG

[Merc1]

Ferrari finally succumbs to the market appeal of a front-engine V-8 in a folding-hardtop convertible—despite a nefarious weight gain. In doing so, it invites a face-off with another prime ‘trophy car,’ the Mercedes-Benz SL63 AMG.


For 54 years while Jaguars, BMWs, and Cadillacs have come and gone, the Mercedes-Benz SL has been the king of the trophy-car convertibles—the sort of car that not only says its owner has arrived but that he’s been around for a while.

Ferrari’s latest offering, the California, uses the template of the latest-generation SL: a folding-hardtop convertible and a transmission that does without a clutch pedal. Ferrari is positioning the California as a less expensive companion to the 599GTB and 612 Scaglietti grand tourers, leaving the mid-engined F430 to represent the harder-edged realm of Ferrari’s sports-car ambitions. So the overlap in price—the California’s base price of $197,350 is only $22,810 less than the convertible F430 Spider’s—isn’t supposed to be a problem, but some sales cannibalization is to be expected.

Also inevitable are comparisons with other cars in the segment, even if potential owners more likely cross-shop their purchases with helicopters or gold-plated hovercraft. This brings us to the Mercedes-Benz SL63, recently updated for 2009 with revised styling, a new (for the SL) 6.2-liter V-8, and a shift-time-hastening multiplate clutch (in place of a torque converter) between the engine and the seven-speed automatic transmission. The SL65 AMG, which starts at $198,175, might be closer in price to the Ferrari, but the maniacal power of its twin-turbo V-12 and the extra heft over the front wheels in the SL65 make the SL63 a more manageable and enjoyable car to drive. Plus, the SL63’s output of 518 horsepower is closer to the California’s 453 ponies.

On paper, it’s a pretty even matchup. And after two days of driving in Bavaria, neither car stood out as clearly superior. So, picking a winner was as difficult as giving back the keys at our test’s end.


First: 2009 Ferrari California
Second: 2009 Mercedes-Benz SL63 AMG




2009 Ferrari California vs. 2009 Mercedes-Benz SL63 AMG - Comparison Tests


Car and Driver's "beta" test site isn't working for the pics.


M

 

[Zafiro]

I've seen Ferrari California in real life and its not a beauty. and only one hour ago I saw a grey SL63 AMG

 

[ateekt]

They talked slightly more about Ferrari & liked it better! If I've to take one, it would be the Merc!

 

[Merc1]

Pics have posted online.......

M

 

[Mr Robert]

The California is lacking the typical presence of a Ferrari...

 

[LaArtist]

Damn thats one ugly ferrari...

 

[VroomVroom]

That Ferrari is f^&*ing ugly! Words don;t even describe the back let alone the front!

SL63 all the way! And its on my favorite combo (White with red leather)

 

[ree]

Love this pic:

Stunning combo of colours - sit a SL 65 AMG at the dealer today…definitely to heavy and big for a sports car would always go for the SLK 55 AMG!!

 

[CarGuy]

The Ferrari California rear, reminds me of this....

It is a rather strange resemblance...lol

 

[ALI]

Love this pic:

Stunning combo of colours - sit a SL 65 AMG at the dealer today…definitely to heavy and big for a sports car would always go for the SLK 55 AMG!!

Looks like a fine wet b*t*h having a nice bubble bath .

Ding* !!

 

[cawimmer430]

The rear of the California. Man, it just looks so unbalanced. I've seen this car a few times here in Munich and I just don't like it. The facelifted SL in my opinion is only a looker with the AMG package or if it is a real AMG and in a nice color.

 

[Giannis]

I think I am the only one here that likes the California. It sure doesn't have the looks of the 599, but it looks definitely good, and nothing like a Ferrari on a budget.

 

[NarutoRamen]

I don't think the California is ugly, but compared side by side to the SL, it's not a beauty either. As much as jaw dropping you can do by telling folks you're driving a Ferrari, I'd still take the SL and be happy with myself instead.

 

[Centurion]

^^
it's barely a year old and already looks aged next to the 458 Italia.

 

[NarutoRamen]

^^
it's barely a year old and already looks aged next to the 458 Italia.

Considering that the 458 has a lot of Cali's design DNA, you're absoultey right. In some sense, the 458 is what the California should've been.

 

[Cashmere]

never imagined I would actually prefer an MB over a Ferrari.

 

[martinbo]

The SL is one of Mercedes Benz's peerless models. In terms of looks it knocks the ungainly California out of the park. The SL is pure class and, regardless of its specification (except the brash BS version), will never look out of place rolling up at a red carpet venue. The SL 63 AMG is the finest of the range by far and in these shots it completely eclipses the California. That the latter is a Ferrari says two things, firstly how good looking the SL is and secondly how utterly cheap (yes, cheap!) the California looks.

Good Ferraris don't necessarily have to be good looking but they do need drama and presence. The California has none of these attributes.

Once again, Maranello gives the world a softer, more broadly appealing, more versatile 2+2 Ferrari and, again, it's rubbish.

The California does have a nice drivetrain though - but in this company it's simply not enough. I'm off to the 458 Italia thread to gush superlatives for my favourite car brand.