Talk:Ferrari Berlinetta Boxer

Discussion

The picture of 512BB is representing a modified version, not the original one. Please replace with a correct image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.61.119.4 (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

All the infoboxes for different topics are color coded. The auto ones need to have the automobile standard color specified at Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles/Layouts. If you're going to change them, change them to that. Thanks.Hektor 19:32, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

MR or RR? Is the Berlinetta boxer mid-engined or rear-engined? In the main text of the article it is MR, and in the factbox it is RR. 80.203.247.217 19:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That's kinda a tricky question. In a rear-engine car ( vw, porsche, corvair ), the engine is generally entierly behind the transmission. In a mid-engine car ( 288gto, Fierro, Mondial T ), the engine is in front of the transmission. In the BB the engine is actually centered OVER the transmission.

Dr.mike 09:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Front, Front-mid, mid, and rear engine designations are determined by the placement of the engine with respect to the front and rear axles (or half-axles). A front engine has at least a small "amount" of the motor over or forward of the front axle. A front-mid engine car has the engine entirely behind the front axle, e.g. the Dodge Viper. A mid engine car has some (usually most) of the motor in front of the rear axle. A rear engine car has at most a small "amount" of the motor over the rear axle and most of it behind the rear axle.

It's a midengine.

OK, so there's some movement in the hp/tq numbers for the Boxers. Looks like we've got some owners jostling for bragging rights. I am editing the page to reflect the numbers from the Ferrari Owner's Manuals. At least this is an attributable source.

User:buzzm 1 June 2007

19 Aug 2007. The hp/tq numbers continue to dance. I am once again reverting back to the info from the Ferrari Owner's manuals. If you have another, CONSISTENT source of hp/tq numbers, then by all means please do make the changes to all 3 (365/512BB/512BBi) and cite the reference. Citing your own dyno numbers is not appropriate in this context. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Buzzm (talk • contribs) 13:53:31, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

1 June 2009 We have some disagreement again, and now both the 365 and the 512 are "the fastest of the series." We need to get some better, consistent attribution and edits in here. And perhaps the content needs reshaping to illuminate the fact that there are several "authoritative" sources of hp, tq, acceleration, and top speed for these cars. Buzzm (talk) 03:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I have a comprehensive set of numbers from both the owners manuals and the workshop manuals now and will get that info in there in a consistent way. Buzzm (talk) 15:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I have all three owner's manuals and the workshop manual and have recorded the page location of the stats (hp,tq,speed,etc) that get edited here a lot. Owner's Manual pages 10,15, and 16 for the 365 and 11 and 17 for the 512/512i. Workshop Manual pages 5, 6, and 13 for all 3 (365/512/512i). I know the owner's and workshop manuals are not consistent and they probably aren't accurate either -- but those are the best consistent published numbers that we have. People are welcome to add other additional citable sources of stats, but let's leave the Ferrari-published stats where they are. Buzzm (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone feel that a more revealing top-of-article is appropriate? A ground level, front-on photo -- especially this one -- does not really show the overall shape of the car. Buzzm (talk) 03:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:OWN

I find it to be just another indication of the gang mentality here at WP. My edit clearly improved the article by providing information many are unaware of. However, an entrenched editor keeps deleting it, claiming it is not needed. I guess that's the difference between people who want to improve and those who want to protect things in their preferred version, all objectivity aside. There have been maintenance templates at the top of the article for a long time, but you haven't done anything to rectify those issues, so why delete my additions? Simply because you don't like them. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:08, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Providing information many are unaware of is not the purpose of a Wikipedia article. It is to provide a concise encyclopedic summary of the subject. Anyone could add infinite amounts of trivial and unnecessary information under the guise of "Many are unaware of it". What is the firing order for the V12? I don't know, let's include it in the article! Is it really relevant to the summary of the Ferrari BB? No. How about what colors Ferrari offered on the car? What brand of tires was the car offered with? All information someone might want to know, but are not necessary in an encyclopedic summary.

"What is a Boxer engine" is not the subject of this article. We have an article on that, Flat engine, discussing the differences between the two. Providing an entire section on what makes a Flat or Boxer engine in this article is undue weight, as it is not relevant to subject matter. Although the instance of the Boxer name being incorrectly applied is relevant, the specifics of Boxer engines is not. This note already existed in the article without needing an entire section dedicated to it, and has now been moved to where it is more relevant and includes the necessary Wikilinks.

As for ownership and improving the article, I wrote the entire section on the Ferrari 512 BB LM, which as you can see has addressed the issues in the article regarding inline citations and referencing. I provided it because the history of the BB racing program is quite notable. As for the road car, I have no readily available sources and I know very little about Ferrari road cars, therefore there is nothing for me to provide to improve that half of the article. In fact this article was only added to my watch list since the addition of the BB LM information, so only about the last three months. Entrenched? Sorry, but no. Preferred version? Hah, yeah because this is clearly an article of Featured Article status; this is obviously the state I want it in. I would also point out that I was not the only editor to remove your addition. Nor have I stated any "dislike" for anything in the matter.

I would also point out that the maintenance tags suggest adding referencing to this article (which in fact was only added this week, not "a long time"), of which your entire section had none. It's a bit of a problem to bemoan someone else not adding references (I did, four, in the section I wrote) while you did nothing to improve what the maintance tag asks for either. The³5₉ (Talk) 19:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Your statements are ridiculous. The article is meant to be informative, and a lot of people would question why a car that has "boxer" in its name is not a boxer. But what else is to be expected from Wikipedia? Your edits and those of others who delete information are destructive. Frankly you ought to be ashamed of yourself. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:59, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The article is informative. It states that the Berlinetta Boxer is not a true Boxer, that the name is a misnomer. The article on Flat engines is also informative. We don't need a copy of the Boxer engine section from Flat engine on Ferrari Berlinetta Boxer because that would be redundant and unnecessary. What exactly are people not being informed of? The information is readily available with a simple click. Shall we explain the history of Ferrari on this article as well so that people are "informed"? And if someone did add a thorough history of Ferrari that was "informative" and then another editor deleted it, would they be destructive? How much "informative" information shall we add on before the article becomes a bloated trivial how-to guide on the Ferrari Berlinetta Boxer and ever element of what mechanically made the car and its name?

I am not ashamed and stand thoroughly by my edits. I'm sorry, this article will not be a soapbox for your attempt to dismantle the basic tenets of Wikipedia, or at the very least laugh at them, as you seem to be attempting based on your recent editing history. Do not however confuse this editing based on Wikipedia policy for "ownership" or "censorship." Those are ridiculous statements. The³5₉ (Talk) 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Sales in the USA

I've deleted the words about sales in the USA: "No BB was ever originally sold in North America, as Enzo did not believe it to be worth the cost of complying with the extra environmental and safety regulations. However, third parties made conversions, and quite a few of them are now in the United States." There's no citation for this, and I've found two current sales contradicting this: http://www.classicandperformancecar.com/ferrari/512/ferrari-512-bb-lhd-in-maldon-essex-united-kingdom/246917/ad ("The example offered here is a 1981 left hand drive 512BB in Rosso Corsa with Black Leather, sold new to Mr James Landrum of Pittsburgh Pennsylvania") and http://www.classicandperformancecar.com/ferrari/512/ferrari-512-bb-1980-in-netherlands/268844/ad ("This BB was delivered new in USA, and came to Europe in 1992"). --Phil Holmes (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Phil. You are right there was no citation so I used the article from May 2011 Forza (it was actually my car involved in the article) and fixed up the language a bit. It's funny how owners and many enthusiasts know about Enzo's no-import edict and just assume it is common knowledge. Buzzm (talk) 23:42, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Is it maybe time for the lead photo of the Boxer not to be a narrow angle shot with something dangling from the rear view mirror...? n — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzm (talk • contribs) 01:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

512 BBi vs. BB 512i

For over 10 years there has been back and forth on this. I assert the manufacturer's documentation at the time of production clearly indicates "BB 512" and "BB 512i" as the names of the cars, not "512 BB" and "512 BBi". The Ferrari website (Past Models section) unfortunately uses the BB/BBi "nicknames" and every once in a while someone (expert or otherwise) comes in and changes all the refs. Both references from a citation perspective are "valid". The question is: which is more appropriate here? I argue that the website may change but the immutable historical artifacts that describe the models use BB 512 and BB 512i. Comments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buzzm (talk • contribs) 01:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

To put this in perspective, look at the 365 GT4 BB pic at: https://www.ferrari.com/en-US/auto/365-gt4-bb No driver's side mirror and no 365 had the 4 taillight treatment; that was a 512 modification. Do not assume the website is the historical record. Wish it was. Buzzm (talk) 02:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, and I agree that period factory literature puts the "BB" first. However, in cases like this where there are multiple common names for something, my view is that the article should mention all names in common use. There's a couple sections in the Wikipedia policy/manual of style that touch on this, see WP:OTHERNAMES, MOS:LEADALT and perhaps WP:POVNAMING. For example, one could say "Factory literature at the time of the model's launch refers to them as a BB 512/BB 512i, however other sources in the automotive press commonly use 512 BB/512 BBi nomenclature." This could be readily cited from both the manufacturer's brochures/manuals and the numerous sources in the automotive press, Ferrari website, auction houses etc that use the "incorrect" name. Just like the section in this article about the origin of the BB nomenclature, I've found that the best way to avoid edit warring and periodic reverts is to clearly state the existence of common alternate names in the text and explain their origins/use as much as can be supported with reliable sourcing. While I admire the passion for correctness, my interpretation of wikipedia best practice is that if multiple reliable sources consistently use alternative names for a subject, it is probably worth noting in the article. As an aside, the official Ferrari history website is not the best source at times, but I don't think that changes my conclusions here as there are plenty of other reliable sources that put the BB last. Prova MO (talk) 16:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I have no issue with keeping BB 512/BB 512i as the primary nomenclature for these cars in the article. I think that is the right course of action. I'm just suggesting including an acknowledgement in the article text of the widespread use of the alternate "512 BB" nomeclature. Prova MO (talk) 16:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Prova_MO Your observation is reasonable and you seem to have a good deal of experience with the pages for the older Ferrari road cars. In the absence of a "second opinion" I always try to drive (no pun intended) to the absolute objective references. I will add some minimally distracting/confusing text around this. Buzzm (talk) 23:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

BB does not stand for berlinetta boxer

The engine is not technically a boxer, it is a flat 12. Ferrari told people that BB stands for berlinetta boxer because the car was actually named for famous actress Bridget Bardot. 174.49.8.136 (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

This account of the name's origin is already discussed under the existing BB Acronym section of this article. Prova MO (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The Article currently says: 'This nickname was shortened to "BB"'. No, it was certainly not Ferrari workers who did that. "BB" had already been well established in common parlance as a nickname for Brigitte Bardot at the time. --BjKa (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Nice formatting everyone

Just mentioning that over the past 2 to 3 years, the layout of this article has improved. In particular, I like the aesthetic of each variant (365,512,512i) having a main pic, description, then a modest gallery with comments about the features. Personally I am not excited about the yellow-green 512i in the grey market section because it shows no EPA/DOT mods (esp. side marker lights) but it is a ... rare .... color. Buzzm (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and remove that photo of the green car. Like you said, it has nothing to visually indicate it is a federalized/grey market car. So it's not helpful for that section and the caption calling it a grey market car seems like WP:OR. Just thinking out loud, it would be nice to have a photo of some of the more drastic federalization modifications that were occasionally done like impact bumpers. Unfortunately no such photos exist in commons as far as I can tell and cars with these modifications are becoming rarer as they are returned to factory specification. At least the red BBi has side markers from federalization. Prova MO (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2023 (UTC)