Talk:Maserati Biturbo

Next person to add a section that goes like...
"Many people didn't understand that these cars require (Ludicrous list of maintenance requirements goes here) leading to a false reputation of unreliability" gets slapped with a live haddock. You can put 500K on a Trabant if your maintain the living shit out of it. That doesn't make it well engineered. - Richfife (talk) 06:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems what they're trying to say (which my experience with these cars bears out) is that the discrepancy between purchase price and cost of maintenance results in many poorly-maintained examples, contributing to the "reputation of unreliability." Would a sentence to that effect be reasonable? The same could be said about the Porsche 944 or 928, reasonably well-engineered vehicles. It's not meant excuse poor design decisions in the case of the Biturbo.  Egg  Saladin  20:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)


 * No, that's not what I'm saying. There is a reasonable expectation of maximum required maintenance for a vehicle (change the oil this often, inspect the valves that often, etc).  This applies to all vehicles of a particular time from a Tata Nano to a Bugatti Veyron.  If a car requires maintenance of a frequency and effort far outside that, then it's poorly engineered.  I'm very specifically excluding the price of an individual part from that equation.  This is about the frequency and depth of maintenance.  Think labor costs and total parts count more than parts costs. - Richfife (talk) 23:33, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Organizing
I would welcome proposals for how to best arrange and organize the countless versions derived from the Biturbo - currently some rather unimportant versions like the 420 have their own pages which appears senseless to me. But how best to organize them? One article each for two-doors, four-doors, and Spyders? By periods? All of them on a single page?

The most obvious choice for me would be a picture list of all the iterations at Maserati Biturbo which would allow to you to go to individual pages for various models, either standalones (228, for instance) or some that group together nicely (222/422 for instance). Any suggestions for how to best solve this thorny situation?  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃  (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)


 * One page would be my preference if they fit. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They maybe fit now but not for a long time as other version gets more texts, no we have already Racing,Karif,Ghibli II,Barchetta,420 -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 14:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Racing,Karif etc can be see as own model, the 420/425/430 series could be one, the Spyder and 228 also, the most problematic is the original biturbo section which includes the Racing also -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 14:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Maserati Karif merger proposal
I propose that Maserati Karif be merged into this article. My reasons:
 * The Karif is basically a hot-rodded Biturbo: the shortest wheelbase Spyder chassis, with a fixed top for torsional strenght and the most powerful engine available. Therefore the engine, suspension and chassis are already described here in this article.
 * Without making it a duplicate of Maserati Biturbo, there will never be enough content to justify a standalone article for the Karif.
 * The 228 - which would be the first of the Biturbo family in line for a standalone article (entirely different bodywork, different dimensions and class) - is treated here.

Cloverleaf II (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You may be correct. I am vaguely opposed, simply based on a gut feeling. But maybe I am biased, since I truly loooooovve the Karif. Consider this 1/4 of a vote against!  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  07:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)