Talk:Maserati GranTurismo

New engine?

Is there really new engine, because I havant seen any other article than this one blog. http://horisly.blogspot.com/2007/06/maserati-spy-shot-at-2007-barcelona.html, is there any other sources for this? I think its error --— Typ932^{T | C}  08:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though I posted it, I also think that it is made up! But it could stay there for now until more sources come through. mattytay 06:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Its made up, its the same engine as used in all the current Ferraris and Maseratis but its not sourced as they put it from Ferrari at all. Its really a Maserati and Ferrari Designed engine used by both companies.

The engine is however built in a Ferrari Factory and delivered tested to Maserati.

Picture

I switched the picture back to the one from before. Not because I'm the one that took it; I think it shows the car better even though the reflections are a little too strong. Anyway, a creative commons search on flikr pulled up this image. I'm not sure how to properly upload images from flikr, but that might be a nice alternative to use.~ Dusk Knight 02:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

That image can't be used unfortunately; it is licensed, but it's got the non-commercial tag on it (the sign like $ crossed out) and so we can't use it. When searching flickr for free images try using advanced search and ticking all of the creative commons boxes. I agree that the angle you provided of the car is a bit better. James086^{Talk | Email} 02:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Maserati-Aston Martin

No offense but, the new Maserati Gran Turismo looks too much like an Aston Martin DB9. That's my comment!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Redferrari104 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 18 August 2007.

I disagree, but is that really a bad thing? The DB9 is one of, if not the best looking cars ever. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.19.248 (talk) 05:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And the DB9 didnt take anything from the 3200 then? lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.157.242 (talk) 21:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Reference

The first reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maserati_GranTurismo#cite_note-autonews.com-0 is no longer valid. It just links to the front page of "Auto News Europe," which no longer has any mention of a convertible GranTurismo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LesPaul75 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Maserati GranTurismo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131110234009/http://www.quattroruote.it/francoforte2009/articolo.cfm?codice=201533 to http://www.quattroruote.it/francoforte2009/articolo.cfm?codice=201533
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070305172012/http://www.pininfarina.com/index/storiaModelli/ultimi/GranTurismo.html to http://www.pininfarina.com/index/storiaModelli/ultimi/GranTurismo.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090914153402/http://www.pininfarina.com/index/storiaModelli/ultimi/Maserati-GranCabrio.html to http://www.pininfarina.com/index/storiaModelli/ultimi/Maserati-GranCabrio.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:44, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

August 2020 revert

Hi U1Quattro. I am restoring the version of the article by Davism0703 that was reverted by you, because I believe the changes are an overall improvement to the article. Davism0703's claims about the transmission description are supported by the existing sources in the article. I think you have a good point about the American spellings, so I support those changes if you would like to improve that in the now-current version of the article. But as per WP:REVONLY and WP:ROWN, this does not justify nuking all of his changes. The main purpose of reverting is to remove vandalism, which is clearly not the case here. So please show some consideration by being more targeted with your edits. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

First of all, I did not violate WP:ROWN. Second of all, follow WP:CONSENSUS as Wikipedia does not work by what you believe, it works by seeking other's approval. If anyone else agrees with you, then we can move forward with the changes. I don't see any existing source which support Davidsm0703's changes. He was warned about the use of American English multiple times yet he continues with the same edit pattern. So it is Davidsm who needs to follow WP:BRD here.U¹ _quattro TALK 16:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Listen U1Quattro, I understand that the spelling changes probably weren't called for, and I apologize, but I do not see how that affects the article in any way. And, as Simon said, that doesn't justify reverting all of my edits, they weren't destructive edits, after all. The article is still perfectly coherent and legible. I take responsibility for the spelling changes, and I am sorry, I didn't realize it would offend anyone. I didn't the article to vandalize it, or just to plain trash it, I edited the article because it needed the fix. As for the transmission, it is, in fact, an automated manual transmission, you can look it up. Maserati refers to it as a robotized manual gearbox, but that is, in fact, the same thing. I'm not a fan of labeling all these transmissions as "electrohydraulic manual transmissions", I don't think that's a very "reader-friendly" term if you know what I mean. The average first-time reader who stumbles across the article is going to have no idea what the term "electrohydraulic" means, and automated is a much better term, and that's exactly what this transmission is. It is fully-automatic in operation, not semi-automatic, but it is an automated manual transmission (AMT). Plus, all these transmissions are not "electrohydraulic" necessarily, per se. Some use hydraulic actuation, but there are other forms of actuation too, like pneumatic, electro-mechanical, vacuum-operated, even electromagnetic, which I wasn't even aware of! So, we've established automated manual transmission is a more user-friendly term than "electrohydraulic", granted that only some of these transmissions use hydraulic actuation, whereas others do not, as I mentioned above. Some transmission is semi-automatic in driver operation, while others are fully-automated, we must to clarify that and make that more clear and distinct in the article. I will say again, I didn't edit the article to cause harm or intentionally vandalize it, I simply made a few changes to transmission information, as that was incorrect, and I thought it would only be fair to the readers if I fixed it. These transmissions aren't all sequential, some can skip gears, and they aren't all semi-automatic in operation, some are fully-automated. They all have their origins in older clutchless manual transmissions from the 20th century. As for the spelling edits, it was not to harm the article or be destructive, it was to be constructive, but I do accept the word of warning, and I apologize for my mistake. I wasn't sure if that was allowed on Wikipedia, I had no idea, but I know now. Please forgive me, and let's all work together as editors and collaborators on Wikipedia, and make it a better source of factual and descriptive information for all. Kind Regards, Davism0703 (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I think we should go with Maserati refers to the transmission as because after all, Maserati made and marketed the car. All of the technicalities of the transmission is in the transmission article whether electrohydraulic or automated manual. If Maserati says what you are saying, then sure I have no problem with what you're trying to do. However, if it does not say what you are saying then your changes are not acceptable. U¹ _quattro TALK 03:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Having considered both yours and Davism's perspectives, I find that the points raised by Davism0703 are the more important considerations. Also, there is a question of factual accuracy- do you have any sources supporting your claims that it is a sequential manual transmission? And that it operates only as a semi-automatic transmission rather than a fully automatic one? These claims are contrary to the existing sources in the article.

I disagree that your revert was not a breach of WP:REVONLY and WP:ROWN, especially the second time that you reverted, which was in the middle of Talk page discussion. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 09:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You don't want to read WP:CONSENSUS or even want to bother with that. So I don't consider your view points important. Yes I have sources regarding that which are the existing sources in the article. Someone just chimes in and says that no, this thing works like this and it is fine in your eyes? I disagree about this, the way you reverted my edit at Ferrari 360 is a proof that you don't care to read the sources and are only focusing on reverting my changes. Your habit of reverting edits first and then starting a talk page discussion has not changed and that would be a hindrance in any other discussion with you. U¹ _quattro TALK 18:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

2023 GranTurismo Folgore

The existing article may need some tweaking before the following information is added:

• Emily Dreibelbis (2022-10-03). "Meet Maserati's First Electric Vehicle, the 2023 GranTurismo Folgore". PCMag.
• Nick Yekikian (2022-10-03). "2023 Maserati GranTurismo First Look: The GT Is Back!". Edmunds.
• DIMITAR ANGELOV (2022-08-31). "Everything We Know About The 2023 Maserati GranTurismo". TopSpeed.

Deepred6502 (talk) 04:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes, It needs to be changed into a double generation article.YBSOne (talk) 13:41, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

2023 GranTurismo infobox

The infobox needs to be split into one for each generation. It makes no sense and is far too complicated to have both generations in a single box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.6.237.202 (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Maserati GT23 Folgore.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

MC Stradale numbers

Those numbers are from the corespondence with Manager of Archivio Storico Maserati:

Total production (2010–2012): 508 units
Europe: 229
China: 45
Hong Kong: 12
Taiwan: 23
Japan: 33
Indonesia: 11
Australia: 27
Other Countries: 128
2013–2015: unknown
From: Archivio Storico Maserati S.p.A.

Any "Head Office" does not have a better numbers. YBSOne (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)