Talk:Maserati Ghibli

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

2.0 vs 2.8

I'm not sure the timeline for the 2.0 and 2.8 versions is entirely correct. My understanding (after reading an article in Evo magazine) is that the 2.8, 285 bhp version was what we got in the UK. In the rest of the Europe they got a 2.0, 305 bhp version due to the tax regime in place in certain countries at the time, which effectively limited many cars to just under 2 litres (cf Ferrari 208). Then, of course, there was the "Cup" version that had 330 bhp from the 2.0 engine with a pair of IHI roller-bearing turbos. Carl w 23:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh and the 2.0 does not have the highest output of any road legal car, for one, numerous cars built by Radical offer far higher bhp/ccSennen goroshi 04:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge third gen

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to merge. These appear to be different cars and merging is not appropriate. Eagleash (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the M157 needs a standalone article? There is currently not nearly enough content to necessitate such a split. Mr.choppers | ✎ 10:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - While sharing a similar name, I see no benefit in merging to very different cars. Warren (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I agree 100% with Warren's response. Jaredclce (talk) 15:27, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The cars are very different, also I think that there is more than enough material to merit an own article.Crispulop (talk) 10:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose-The Maserati Ghibli (M157) is a completely different car with the name being the only thing they have in common. I feel that there's no need to merge these articles. I see no reason why we can't retain the split.--Kevjgav (talk) 02:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Platform

I propose that we designate this car as using the Chrysler LX platform. As many have noted, the car was based on the platform, and while there are some suspension changes... FCA should not be allowed to misrepresent this car as unique. It has point-for-point position matches throughout the powertrain and interior with the LX platform. Any objections? 73.48.150.124 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1992-1998

Ghibli II production 1992-1998
https://www.maserati.com/international/en/brand/our-story/maserati-classic-cars/biturbo-and-derivates/ghibli
http://www.maserati-alfieri.co.uk/alfieri241.htm
YBSOne (talk) 12:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]