Talk:Maserati Quattroporte

Deleted:

However, it was essentially a BMW M3 rival and did not fare well against the German car. This is an opinion. The Q'porte 3.2 was about 50% more expensive than the M3 and aimed at another market segment ... more the 5-series V8-customer who was looking for something different. --NicolasCH 11:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Clean-up

• I removed the "Future" section on a rumored future Quattroporte model. The paragraph itself even stated the rumor could be false, making it not suitable for Wikipedia. I added a reference section as well which I encourage editors to add to. With referencing, copy-editing, and removal of POV, this could become a fantastic Quattroporte article. - Bobo is soft 07:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

• The Maserati Quattroporte III article has been merged and redirected into the Maserati Quattroporte III section in this article. Since the other article was small and some info overlapped, merging them together in this article seemed appropriate. - Bobo is soft 21:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Success in Popular Culture

I have added this section as I believe that the success of the Quattroporte in popular culture is beneficial to the current status of the QP. It was compiled from trivia on the Maserati page and trivia that was previously deleted from this article. I don't disagree with the fact that the trivia was deleted from the page, but as stated above I believe that it is extra information that displays the success of the Quattroporte, among other things. I know that Wikipedia doesn't like users changing Trivia sections into Pop Culture sections, but i have changed it from just stating facts, to proper sentence form. Does anyone agree or disagree with what I've done?

I have also changed some of the formating around so that all images lie within their respected sections and added more in the current QP section (QP5, 2004-on). I would like to know if it is any better now? And, how are the additions to trim levels, competitors, and transmissions

mattytay 07:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

QP V specifications

This section describes the F1 automated manual as using a "twin plate dry clutch," but in fact it is not a dual-clutch transmission at all, it is rather a single clutch plate like a conventional manual. Safulop (talk) 08:12, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

"Twin-plate dry clutch" refers to a multi-plate clutch, not a dual-clutch transmission. I've wikilinked it, hopefully it's clearer now.—Cloverleaf II (talk) 15:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Image quality Quattroprte VI

#1

#2

#3

#4

#5

#6

#7

There's been a lot of churning through the various images available of the Quattroporte VI lately. Most of the images selected have - in my sometimes humble opinion - significant issues. Anyhow, maybe it's time we lined them up together and invited opinions. Please, if you have opinions to share, do so here. And thank you. Regards Charles01 (talk) 13:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Image#4 is a showroom image and has terrible quality. Majority of the images here are of the Quattroporte VI in dark exterior colours, which in my opinion, hides the car's aesthetic features. I think Image#1 is a suitable candidate to be put on the infobox. Others may disagree. U1Quattro (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Most colours have their challenges, but I agree that highly polished black and dark blue are particularly difficult for a "portrait" shot intended to show what the car looks like. Regards Charles01 (talk) 15:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, colours are challenges but we have to keep in mind that non car people along with critics view the pages and they need to see the car as a whole with every design curve and exterior feature exposed. The dark colours just hinder that. U1Quattro (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. And here are my thoughts:

1. Quite good IM(H)O
2. Nice and clear. Angle uncontroversial. Background unintrusive. But lighting conditions challenging for a dark blue highly polished car, so you do get reflections that distract from the form and details of the car rather than highlighting them. Also it's a pity about the bit of pavement/sidewalk blocking a corner of the read wheel. Not a bad picture but not without significant issues either. IM(H)O
3. Nice and clear. Angle good, though I think it would be even better if you'd stood slightly further back and held the camera slightly higher. Contrasting buildings and tiresome bollards create a slightly messy background. Major concern is reflections. It's a bad start if you can see the car across the road reflected in the paintwork and - even more intrusively in this case - there's a strong window shape prominently reflected in the windscreen and at least one other (less prominently) reflected on the bonnet/hood. Not a bad picture but not without significant issues either. IM(H)O
4. Nice and clear. Background unintrusive almost to a fault. Angle slightly challenging but I think he gets away with it on this occasion. Big issues are with ugly reflections on windscreen and bonnet/hood. Not a bad picture but not without significant issues either. IM(H)O
5. Spotlights give show car effect which is fine for a show, but not specially impressive for an encyclopaedic effect. And I'm not sure this is terribly good even as a showcar picture. Panel shapes tend to get overwhelmed by contrasting lighting effects and many of the panel gaps simply disappear. Mixed up background into which, at the back of the car, the shape of the car blends disarmingly with the bar scene (if that is what it is) behind. Not a good picture for encylopaedia purposes IM(H)O.
6. Badly troubled by strong reflections IM(H)O.
7. Nice and clear. Difficult colour to "get right". He's got the panel gaps and shapes well along the side of the car but the front is deeply shadowed so the detail disappears and the front part of the car merges seamlessly with the similarly shaded road surface. I think I'd prefer the angle if he'd held the camera maybe 20cm / 8 inches higher. And it's a pity about the shadow of a pole halfway along the side of the car. Not a bad picture but not without significant issues either. IM(H)O

These are only one person's opinions. Please feel free to say (write) where and why you disagree with them. And please, if you have a moment, feel free to add your opinions on these pictures. And (if you did) thank you. Regards Charles01 (talk) 14:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

MY updates

Maserati Academy publication from 2012 covers Quattroporte V 2008-2012 ie MY09 to MY13. Year 2012 is MY13. YBSOne (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

QP III climate control panel

The statement that "The climate controls came from the Plymouth Horizon," while not as inaccurate as the earlier claim about "instrumentation," is still somewhat misleading. While it's true that the control panel in question is common between USA-spec Quattroportes (specifically those optioned with manual climate controls) and the 1990 version of the Plymouth Horizon, it's anachronistic to say that it came from the 1990 car. (It stands to reason that the component must have originated with some other inexpensive American car--it's inconceivable that this out-of-place American-looking control panel was developed originally for the Maserati--if they were doing anything other than adopting an existing component to meet USA regulations for the demister, they would have just added a button and a relay to the panel used in ROW-spec cars.) Someone should try to find a source that tells the whole story here, or else remove this sentence from the article entirely, since it's not a particularly noteworthy anecdote in the first place, and the cited source (Jalopnik) isn't really appropriate as a sole source for inclusion of information in a Wikipedia article. Jelliott4 (talk) 18:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

What sources in your opinion are considered acceptable? The Quattroporte III can share parts with inexpensive cars as Maserati was struggling financially at the time it was introduced. The part doesn't have to be specifically made for Maserati. You are just butthurt that your favourite four door poster car had cheap electronics. You obviously don't know how Wikipedia works. This is a notable fact and have been verified by a third party reliable external source. Unless you can prove that Jalopnik is unreliable as a source, this stays. We just verify the facts added, without going into much depths as this is an informative article, not a history paper in which we have to search for the whole story. Statement from someone who creates inappropriate drafts of articles doesn't have much weight.U¹ _quattro TALK 09:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to this, in part because it appears that you didn't actually read anything that I wrote above, with the possible exception of the last sentence. So I guess I'll start there; as for what's an acceptable source, context matters—Jalopnik is credible enough that if, for example, they interview someone, quoting from their interview would be fine, but historical/technical anecdotes provided by their authors in passing aren't subject to any sort of editorial fact-checking and thus aren't appropriate as a sole source for inclusion of information in a Wikipedia article. But you don't have to take my word for it; refer to the official guidance here, specifically "Information provided in passing by an otherwise reliable source that is not related to the principal topics of the publication may not be reliable" and "the more people engaged in checking facts...the more reliable the publication." (As far as I know, Jalopnik doesn't have anyone engaged in checking facts.)

It appears that you've now added another random sentence stating that from 1984 the climate controls had more in common with those of the Biturbo; the fact that the two sources are in conflict should perhaps serve as a clue that at least one of them isn't a reliable source! Does it not bother you that the Jalopnik post you originally cited (now Ref 22) features a 1984 model and appears to include the climate control panel that's shared with the 1990 Plymouth Horizon while the new Ref 21 suggests that a 1984 model should have the climate control panel shared with the Biturbo? (The version shared with the Biturbo is recognizable by having six buttons rather than five, and an additional air conditioning control to the left of the buttons.) So either Jalopnik got the year of their featured car wrong, or the other source is wrong about the year of the transition to Biturbo-derived climate controls, right? (My only interest here is in deleting demonstrably false information, and I don't know which source is wrong, so I'm not going to invest any more time/energy in trying to improve the article [now that you've made it almost consistent with what the Jalopnik author actually wrote], but I would encourage you to reflect on whether "drive-my.com" can be considered a reliable source in any context.)

As for the notability of this anecdote, I'm again compelled to point out that context matters. While Wikipedia's official guidance says very little about notability vis-à-vis content within an article, leaving it largely up to your subjective judgment, common sense suggests that if you're going to mention the climate control panel, you should also discuss the climate control vents, the blower motor, the heater valve, the aircon expansion valve, the aircon receiver/dryer, the aircon pressure switches, the transmission, the starter motor, the power window switches, the power window actuators, the front spindles, the air injection bypass valve, the air injection pump, the electronic ignition module, the fuel system, etc.—all of which were (IIRC) borrowed from other manufacturers' cars. (Note that the first six items that I listed are all part of the climate control system, but are borrowed from vehicles other than the Plymouth Horizon—another reason why it's misleading to simply add a sentence that claims "the climate controls came from the Plymouth Horizon.") Mentioning only the climate control panel implies that it's unique among the car's component sourcing when, in fact, small-volume manufacturers like Maserati routinely borrow from others' "parts bins" for such equipment, and the QP III is no exception. (Ask yourself—what's uniquely notable about the climate control panel of early USA-spec cars optioned with manual climate controls, that its sourcing warrants a mention in this otherwise-brief article, when none of those other shared components are similarly noteworthy?) You should also perhaps include some of the context I alluded to above—why did certain versions of the QP III use an out-of-place and American-looking climate control panel, for example. And I'd be remiss if I didn't reiterate that claiming the climate control panel comes from the Plymouth Horizon is misleading, since that climate control panel only appeared in the 1990 version of the Plymouth Horizon—note that the Jalopnik author you're citing was careful to say "...shared with the era’s Plymouth Horizon" (emphasis added), being deliberately vague to avoid the sort of misleading statement that you've added to this article. If you believe that "this is a notable fact," I would encourage you to figure out from what vehicle it actually originated.

I should also point out, for your own edification, that there's absolutely nothing electronic about the climate control panel in question; it consists entirely of 1) a blower switch, 2) a lever that's connected mechanically to the heater valve, and 3) five buttons that open/close the various vents and engage the aircon compressor—that's it—no electronics. (You've never actually seen a Quattroporte III or a Plymouth Horizon up close, have you?)

Jelliott4 (talk) 06:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

I do find all of the little compromises small-scale manufacturers are forced into interesting, and thus hopefully encyclopaedic. Such a panel is also something that a customer sees and touches frequently. But inclusion of this factoid should be done properly, with consideration and without any form of editorial tilt. Was the panel in question some sort of commonly used Mopar part or was it only shared with the Omni/Horizon? Best regards,  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:14, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I figure it must be an existing Mopar part, but I’ve never been able to identify the original application. (Pickup truck, maybe?) That’s what I was trying to say in my original comment when I said that “It stands to reason that the component must have originated with some other inexpensive American car--it's inconceivable that this out-of-place American-looking control panel was developed originally for the Maserati--if they were doing anything other than adopting an existing component to meet USA regulations for the demister, they would have just added a button and a relay to the panel used in ROW-spec cars.” But I guess that sentence was just too long to expect comprehension by other stakeholders who were just looking for an excuse to employ vulgar slurs, because it attracted a response that appears to be in reply to something other than what I actually wrote! Jelliott4 (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't care what you think on this aspect. I don't have to add the whole working of a climate control unit just because I added this verified fact Wikipedia policies don't force me to do that so I won't do it on the orders of another editor. Speaking about sources, what proof do you have that Jalopnik doesn't have a team for fact checking. That is obviously your personal judgment which doesn't hold much weight as it merely amounts to your self research. If you have a source which confirms what you say about Jalopnik, I'd be happy to discuss that with you. About the drivemy.com source, it says that the climate control panel was modified "around 1984" it can be later in the 1984 model year and the QPIII shown in the Jalopnik article might be an early 1984 model. About seeing a Quattroporte III or a Plymouth Horizon, I don't have got the time to waste in hunting then down just to see if their climate controls match or not. I'm not required to do that by any means. I found a fact, which was verified by a reliable source and added it. End of the story, I'm not required to do any more researching over that.U¹ _quattro TALK 05:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

So I looked over the internet for some images of both of these cars and found the climate control panel similar. here is the interior of a 1979 Plymouth Horizon. The climate control panel is located to the left of the steering wheel. here is the climate control panel of a 1982 QPIII. The only difference I could find was that in the QPIII, the graphics on the control panel are coloured while on the Horizon, they are not.U¹ _quattro TALK 07:29, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

1979≠1990. I don't think Jalopnik is lying, but they are definitely stating things a certain way for effect. Not an optimal source, but not necessarily untrue either. The same controls were indeed used on Dodge trucks and elsewhere, here in a 1978 Dodge Ram Van dash. Chrysler used it for decades. Simply stating that the climate control panel on early US-market QPs (pre-1984) with manual controls came from the Chrysler parts bin should suffice - it is indisputable and does not contradict any of the sources.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

1990? Where does it say that? The QPIII control panel pic which I have attached is of a 1982 QPIII. I have proven my point here.U¹ _quattro TALK 07:51, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

1990 was stated earlier by Jelliott4, not sure why. In any case, it is clear that the panel did not come from the Horizon as it had already been in use for the 1978 Dodge Ram Van and on other Mopar products even earlier. It's a general parts bin piece. The only reason Jalopnik mentions the Horizon in particular is because it is the lowliest of cars and as such the most shocking comparison.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:50, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the 1990 Plymouth Horizon, you'll see that it has the same buttons and graphics as on the Maserati, i.e. it's presumably actually the same part. Earlier Horizons have the panel as described above, which is very similar to, but not actually the same as that of the Maserati. (Were it not for the 1990 version of the Horizon, this whole discussion should be about some kind of "simlilar to" statement, NOT "the same as.") It seems unlikely (but not impossible, I suppose) that Chrysler randomly decided to adopt the version that their supplier made in tiny numbers for Maserati a half-decade earlier, which is why I suspect that the panel found in certain early QPIIIs is actually identical to that of some other Chrysler product, i.e. the 1990 Horizon was actually adopting a panel that already existed in Chrysler's parts bin, including the colors and labeling. Jelliott4 (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Unless you present a source which supports your assumptions, your opinions about this hold very less weight. U¹ _quattro TALK 06:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

QP II image

Can a photographer out here please take a better image of the Quattroporte II? The existing one is of the rear and is not a very good depiction of what the car looks like. U¹ _quattro TALK 09:48, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Next time I see one of the thirteen QPII's built on my street, I'll get a shot. ;)  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:49, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

acceleration times

Hi U1Quattro. In response to your edit summary from when you reverted my changes:

• both sources say 0-62 mph (100 km/h)
• the links work fine for me, it must be a problem at your end.

Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:52, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The links are fine for me. Having a table with two different measurements from different sources seems wrong, they are not directly comparable. The tested times should be in prose with a attribution about who tested them. Toasted Meter (talk) 10:44, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

They don't work. Autocar is giving a 404 error while carsales is accessible to Australian users. Also CAR magazine states a 0-60 mph time.U¹ _quattro TALK 18:15, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

All the sources are available to me, and even if they weren't they could still be used: WP:SOURCEACCESS. All sources cited support 5.6 and 5.4 seconds 0-100. CAR says 0-60 in the prose but lists the correct 0-62 in the infobox (scroll down). Better not to mix in 0-60 times with 0-100. C&D's test time seems verrrry low, unless there is a shift point between 96 and 100 km/h.  Mr.choppers | ✎  18:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Quattroporte 3 lead image

What do you all think of this as a lead image for the Quattroporte 3? I know the foreground is busier, there's a watermark, and there is some weird lighting stuff going on but I think the image quality and car quality are still a lot better than the current image. I'm undecided though. TKOIII (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Oh yeah, also, another option I was looking at would be this green one but i'm also not sure if its better either. TKOIII (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2020 (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 1247 large cut.jpg.customImageFormat.870.582.100.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Contact

I would like to engage Maserati Headquarters directly in Italy. I’m a huge fan of the 5th generation of the sedan Quattropote model and want more technical advice before i buy Kind Regards Thabo Manne South Africa Pretoria 083 262 9326 41.114.121.81 (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Changed to mid-size/executive

Hi, whether or not my edits get reverted, I do not care (I will not make any more changes); but I still stand by my point. One of the references points to the diesel-powered six-cylinder Quattroporte versus the Panamera and 640d Gran Coupe M Sport of similar specification, and the 1,885-kilogram Maserati was cheaper than the 1,885-kilogram BMW in that particular test by Auto Express. Also, the fourth-gen Quattroporte was definitely an E-segment car, barely out of D-segment (even just by looking at its exterior dimensions and engine displacement options; the biggest engine offered was a 3.2-liter twin-turbo V-8, which is normally D-segment territory if you remove the turbos). 2600:6C50:4000:27D0:D8A6:E5CF:D749:9ABC (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

An update: an article shouldn't need to explicify whether or not it is one size class or segment. That's just my opinion. Implicitation flies just as well, especially in comparison posts. Coming from the same people who refer to a Porsche Cayenne as a "full-size" SUV just because some authors call it as such. 2600:6C50:4000:27D0:D8A6:E5CF:D749:9ABC (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The Porsche Panamera and the BMW 6 Series Gran Coupe both are listed as E-segment as well (used in direct comparison). If something credible as an automotive magazine who knows its specifications and driving dynamics from the opinions of a Wikipedia editor knows how to compare a car (in terms of price and equipment; in a serious, not random kind of matter) with another car that happens to be classified as one segment or another, an editor should reserve the right to change according based on price and/or size (maybe even weight matters). The Quattroporte is a very lightweight car for an F-segment car. 2600:6C50:4000:27D0:D8A6:E5CF:D749:9ABC (talk) 03:17, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia goes by what reliable sources state, not WP:Original research. Neither reference stated that the Quattroporte is an executive or E-segment vehicle, so the content was removed. Bahooka (talk) 03:18, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

And that's fine with me. 2600:6C50:4000:27D0:D8A6:E5CF:D749:9ABC (talk) 03:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)