Isn't the California a Grantourismo?????

You are right - in the same way a Bentley Flying Spur is a VW Phaeton and a Lexus LS is a Toyota Avalon and a Cadillac is a Chevy and a Porsche 911 is a new Beetle and a Gallardo is an Audi A4 and a Jag is a Ford.

 

Maybe a "Petit Turismo"..............

 

then per your reasoning the F430 and Alfa 8C are all Maser, too.

 

CharlieHorse your statement regarding his reasoning is incorrect since the F430 and Alfa 8C do not share the same platform, nor does the F430 share the same platform with any Maserati. The 8C and a Maserati do share a platform however. Your statement does not reflect Tube Guy's reasoning and seems to indicate a misunderstanding of what constitutes a platform.

To answer Tube Guy's question: No. The California does not share the Granturismo platform. The Granturismo platform was derived from the Quatroporte and is entirely different.

The confusion may lie in the fact that at the time the California platform was developed Maserati was under Ferrari and the platform was intended for a new Maserati. However, when Maserati was placed under Fiat, Ferrari kept the platform for itself. The California is the only car in all of Fiat using the platform.

The engine is another story. The same block was used as a starting point in the F430, 8C and Maserati, but differing significantly in terms of displacement, crank design, pistons, head design, and so on. It appears all that the engines have in common is the basic block design and bore centers. Everything else is very different.

So it appears that the originating block design is the primary thing that the California and the Granturismo have in common, and that is not the platform. There is a visual similarity to the front end design though in many people's opinion.

 

Your good explanation of the nature of Maser/Fiat/Ferrari relationship notwithstanding, the engine platforms are the same, mate; they share it; the essence of Ferrari is the engine and has been since the company began. Same idea for the mid-engined cars, 3x8s up to the 360, are all Dinos.

Differences between the variants are commonplace in platform-sharing.

 

In the auto business a platform is described here: "A basic definition of a platform in automobiles, from a technical point of view, includes: underbody and suspensions (with axles) — where the underbody is made of front floor, underfloor, engine compartment and frame (reinforcement of underbody)". It specifically refers to the structural body of the car and its attendant parts, but not necessarily the engine, although of course that can also common across platforms.

While Wikipedia is not always correct, it is useful here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_platform

Engines are not platforms, pal. These are two very distinct and different concepts in the car business. Creating a semantic called "engine platform" obfuscates the issue instead of clarifying things for the original poster. The original poster asked a straightforward question, and deserves a straightforward, industry standard answer as do other readers on Fchat. Obviously there is confusion to eradicate and disinformation and obfuscation are not helpful.

The Dino and the 308 did not share platforms. Nor did the 308 and the 360. However, the 360 and the F430 share platforms, although not engine origins as you know. And the 3x8 series shared engine origins with the 360 but not the platform. These fact contradicts your point.

Furthermore, the 612 and the 599 share a platform, but not engine origins as we all know since the 599 engine was all new and from the Enzo.

I guess you could say then recent history at Ferrari is that sharing platforms does not usually include sharing engines of common origin, but sharing engines of common origin is common across platforms.

This clearly shows that engine origin and platforms are different and very independent things.

We need to eliminate disinformation on Fchat as there is a lot of it. Let's not twist things around to try to rectify an error. It is better just to correct misinformation when it comes up. No big deal.

Continuing to insist there is some kind of "platform" sharing with the California and the Granturismo is counterproductive and incorrect as they do not share platforms. Full stop, no other facts relevant to the OP's question.

 

The information I provided was factual; there is no disinformation, friend. The OP's premise is what is false.

The original premise was about the chassis; I know what a platform is, my friend. He asked if the Ferrari is a Maser, essentially. And this has all been asked before, in most cases in the posts as a way to justify bashing the California, as it's mocked as being "really" a stillborn/afterbirth'd Maser --which it's not.

Everyone has seen these threads "It's just a leftover Maserati as a pathetic attempt to pass it off as a Ferrari....etc... " Following this board for the past year you've seen that going around.


About engine variants, you can call the engines' origins whatever you wish, but they are derivatives of the same design, as I stated earlier. Variants of engines can be of different cylinders as well, as in the case of the Dino engine family/ "platform"

To add, I never ventured to say nor imply that the chassis across the the cars mentioned were the same. That's silly. A 328 and 360 do not share any chassis similarities or components. That was never attempted to be obscured or misinformed here.

It's about the engines, my posts are about engines, not chassis mounting points for suspensions and other shared things.

 

The California's chassis is something truly original to both Fiat and Ferrari. I think that this subject is something that has been overlooked.

Is the Cali's chassis superior to or does it have technical advantages over the Ferrari's other front-mid engined models like the 612 and 599?

If you cut the roof off of the 612 or 599 how would they stand up to a cowl shake and torsional rigidity comparison to the California?

 

A new Granturismo S with some options is $150,000! The California with it's folding roof starts at $197,000.

A Ferrari is generally more expensive than a similar Maserati. What do you think a Granturismo S Convertible will cost when it arrives in 1-2 years? Probably $175- $185,000? But by then then the California will probably be $205,000!

So if you like the Maserati S convertible more, then save the extra $15-$20 K for a Ferrari and use the savings to get a new a watch to wear when you drive!

 

No. I have both an '07 430 and a Quattroporte (had an '08 and now have an '09). Maserati quality is NOT the same as Ferrari. I also drove a Cali the other day. There is not a comparison. I'd take the Ferrari for the 50k more ANY day.

 

........and the day you drive it off the lot the Ferrari will depreciate a little. The $150k Maserati will be worth $80k. Believe me, i've been watching values closely. Maserati's drop like a rock. (unfortunately i have also first hand experience)

 

+1 that is totally true

Masers do not hold their value at all. It is shocking how fast they become common used cars. They're pretty cars, but sink to the bottom of the lake.

 

California a Maserati GT? Where do people get these ideas?
(Photos are of Maserati GT Convertible mule vs Ferrari California mule, note door handle position)
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Given the the Maserati GT is on a box steel frame and that the California is on an aluminum spaceframe, how much really could have carried over? Given the different materials, it seems the strengthening, rigidity, manufacturing, etc would all be at least somewhat different. Maybe the silhouette is similar, but are the underpinnings reall that close? I don't know.