Talk:Maserati M139 platform
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors |
Ferrari California is not related
[edit]As per suggestion by Warren Whyte, here's my ref for not including the California as a M139 derivative.
Maserati Quattroporte M139 front frame structure;
Maserati GranTurismo/GranCabrio M145 (M139 derived) front frame structure;
Alfa Romeo 8C Competizione (M139 derived) frame;
Ferrari California front frame structure.
Same applies to all other parts of the chassis, and can be checked by anybody on any of the online Ferrari/Maserati spare parts websites which have all parts drawings, including chassis parts.
Very different structure, no correlation at all.
--Aprovera (talk) 13:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
- Good job. M139 and California are totally unrelated also because M139 platform is made of steel while California is made of aluminum alloy.
- Scott DNA (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
That, and completely different construction methods as well. M139 is made with stampings and assembled with weldings; Ferrari chassis are mostly made with extruded profiles, and castings for suspension mounting points, with very few stampings. They also make heavy use of mechanical fastenings (rivets) and structural bonding, to replace or supplement weldings. --Aprovera (talk) 22:22, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
front sub-frame proves nothing (each model can have different), show the drawings of the main frame, also the material does not matter, more proof please YBSOne (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
"The 2010 Ferrari California reportedly shares a basic structure with the larger Maserati GranTurismo coupe, but re-engineered for maximum rigidity at minimum weight. " "We hear the California is an artifact of Maserati's M139 Spyder project, which was developed with Pininfarina about six years ago, when Ferrari owned Maserati. The retractable-hardtop-convertible design was rejected by Ferrari in 2005, but was evidently not forgotten, as it's said to be the starting point for the 2010 Ferrari California. As a result, Maserati, which now answers to different masters, is reportedly furious over the new baby Ferrari, proving once again that even the nicest families have squabbles. "
http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2010-ferrari-f1492.htm YBSOne (talk) 19:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but that source is wrong. And the pics I posted aren't of a front subframe. They are of the front part of the main frame. Look for yourself at the spare part tables. They aren't even remotely similar. Not by design, not by material, not by construction methods. Also, your source says "reportedly", doesn't state the (wrong) info as factual.
- Real life pictures:
- California frame, front
- California frame, middle
- Still frame capture from official Ferrari video, showing overall California structure
- 8C chassis (M139 based)
- Please notice how different they are. Maserati uses steel stampings which are joined almost exclusively by weldings. Ferrari uses aluminium extrusions, with aluminium castings for the suspension mounts, and very few aluminium stampings. They also make extensive use of mechanical fasteners (rivets).
- Please also notice that the Ferrari's front suspension is mounted directly on the frame, while the Maserati has both front and rear suspension mounted on subframes. If you don't believe that either, here's your proof.
- GranTurismo/GranCabrio front subframe, with suspension mounts
- GranTurismo/GranCabrio rear subframe (robotized gearbox), with suspension mounts
- GranTurismo/GranCabrio rear subframe (automatic gearbox), with suspension mounts
- California front suspension, mounted directly on the aluminium casting in the main frame
- California rear suspension, mounted on the aluminium casting in the rear subframe (part 9 in third picture above)
- There is no similarity. Source is wrong and is reporting unfounded rumors. I stand by my edit. --Aprovera (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Just because there is no simillarity now does not mean that the platforms hadn't same roots. The California's platform could be re-engineered. Also the suspensions mountings can be changed, best example is a Fiat's Tipo 2 platform which is also in the Alfa GTV, although heavy modified, You will say they have nothing simillar about them right? This is just Your personal opinion based on the visual simillarities, nothing more. Sources please. California's platform is just an M139's derivative. YBSOne (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
You must be kidding. If you look at the GTV 916 and the Tipo chassis, you can clearly see the relation between them. And yes, I know them quite well.
The source you provided is just reporting on (wrong) rumors, and it even gets other facts wrong. There is no M139 convertible, for example: the GranCabrio has a M145 chassis. ALso, it says that the California is built largely by Pininfarina in Turin: Pininfarina doesn't build a single part of the California. Not even a nut. Whoever wrote that article has no knowledge of Ferrari. By the way, the Maserati relationship is even acknowledged as just a rumor on the California page.
There are absolutely no common roots between the California and M139 and derived (M145 and 8C) platforms, and it's painfully evident to anyone with even a basic understanding of chassis design. It's not a derivative, nor a re-engineered version. It's an entirely different design.
Since you are so intent on external sources, even after the vast amount of evidence I provided, here's two.
- "The all-new chassis works amazingly well at maintaining the rigidity we've come to know and love in Ferraris."[1]
- "The all-new chassis features a flat undertray with venturi tunnels front and rear for greater downforce."[2]
--Aprovera (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing interesting about the links, just that someone wrote the chassis is all-new, and yet it can date 2005 and still be all-new. It is highly possible that initially the chassis was being developed by Maserati and then "robbed" by Ferrari after split. But i agree that this will probably only remain a rumor.YBSOne (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, that is not the case. Also, the very definition of a derivative is that it isn't all-new. So it can't be both all-new and M139 derived. Maserati did not develop the California chassis. They do not use that kind of construction methods, nor materials. Ferrari has never been interested in "robbing" Maserati platforms, which are completely different and unsuitable for Ferrari products. The sources talking about Ferrari retaining M139 for themselves after the split are ridiculously wrong. M139 is, and always has been, controlled by Maserati and FGA. And the proof is M145 and 8C. The California chassis was designed for the California, and that's it. All the Maserati rumors originated from the fact that early California test mules were cleverly disguised as GranTurismos. At the same time, real GranCabrio mules were being tested. That immensely confused people, including your sources. If you knew where to look though, you could easily tell real GranCabrio mules from disguised F149s. --Aprovera (talk) 07:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)