is the ghibli based on the current 300, or will the future 300 based on the ghibli

[d-quik]

topic? anyone know the definitive answer?

[Ferrer]

Future 300 will based on the Ghibli/QP platform. The new QP saw the debut of the new large front engine, rear wheel drive architecture from FGA. This will also underpin the future Charger and Challenger, the new Thema (if it survives) and the sci-fi thing they call the large Alfa Romeo saloon.

[d-quik]

so what about the sources that say that it is the opposite? all mistakes?

[RacingManiac]

I think it makes more sense the other way around....at least from a cost standpoint...

Then again this is the Italian we are talking about, they don't usually make sense, if at all...

[pimento]

The current 300 platform is a few generations old E-class platform, yea? Much more sense to make a new one if you're going to expand the range of vehicles using it.

[Ferrer]

so what about the sources that say that it is the opposite? all mistakes?

Yep.

In the same way that the 4C isn't really a KTM/Dallara car, but rather a bespoke chassis designed jointly with Maserati.

I think it makes more sense the other way around....at least from a cost standpoint...

Then again this is the Italian we are talking about, they don't usually make sense, if at all...

The LX platform is quite old now, also large, I guess Fiat wanted to start with a clean sheet for their large rear wheel drive offerings.

The current 300 platform is a few generations old E-class platform, yea? Much more sense to make a new one if you're going to expand the range of vehicles using it.

Actually it wasn't. It was a Chrysler-developed platform with some components sourced from older Daimlers (amongst them the W210 E-Class).

[d-quik]

Yep.

okay i don't want to really pick at you but can you show me in any way that the sources that agree with you are more credible than the sources that agree with me?

i'm a skeptic by nature and would love to know the truth

[Ferrer]

okay i don't want to really pick at you but can you show me in any way that the sources that agree with you are more credible than the sources that agree with me?

i'm a skeptic by nature and would love to know the truth

Spanish edition of Autoblog.

es.autoblog.com

They are quite knowledgeable and usually have reliable insider info (like the Giulietta is getting a estate version soon), especially from FGA and Lotus.

[md11]

Yep.

In the same way that the 4C isn't really a KTM/Dallara car, but rather a bespoke chassis designed jointly with Maserati.

Actually, you're a bit off target. Bold statement from the new guy I know, but I read that often and this is a slow day.

I used to work at Maserati during the time the 4C was being finalized, and I worked on the production line development. I can't state much on the technical differences between the X-Bow and the 4C as I didn't work on either, but I can assure you the production is completely different. The X-Bow has basically an old-school carbon fiber tub, each ply is manually positioned on the molds, finished, trimmed and so on. The 4C on the other hand could be considered as a mid step between that kind of production and the new BMW i cars', where they are using CFRP (polymers reinforced with carbon fibers, rather than carbon fibers kept together with polymers) and the production is quite automated. Something like what McLaren does with their MonoCell. Othewise they would never be capable of producing as many 4Cs in so little space (Maserati's buildings are packed with no room for expansion) and so little time.

Even if I know the two cars, the KTM and the Alfa, should be very similar chassis wise (as I said, I'm not 100% positive as I didn't work on that), as far as I know the 4C project started life using the KTM as a reference in size and performance, so the original design was very similar. Production necessities (the automation bit) and final product differences forced different solutions so even if the two cars may still have a similarly proportioned chassis with similar characteristics and performance (the chassis', not the car's), they are definitely not the same chassis. I think the differences are far greater, but in a way it would be like saying the original V12 in the Lamborghini 350 GT was the same as the one in the Diablo or Murcielago. I doubt they have even just one screw in exactly the same position.

Indeed I'm not even sure Dallara was involved in the 4C after the initial stage, and it's a bit difficult to get that info. I went to their factory near the Varano de Melegari circuit two years ago right after the 24 hours of Le Mans and the two big crashes of the R18s. At the time Audi was saying the R18 was their own design, Dallara was saying the relationship with Audi was much reduced compared to the R8 days and that they didn't even know if Audi was going to replace the cars, yet I had two brand new R18 chassis in front of me ready to be packed and shipped. The guy had a hard time keeping a straight face.

You're right though on the Chrysler 300 ties with the W210 E Class, one would expect that was common knowledge by now. Also right on the Ghibli/300 relationships. There are a few Chrysler and Fiat components in the latest Maseratis, the Quattroporte VI and the new Ghibli, but it's minor stuff and just a matter of scale economy rather than technical requirements. They have been using Fiat components for ages and likely some of them, produced by Magneti Marelli, Bosch, Infineon, TRW and so on, are also used by other companies in other cars, both less and more expensive.

As a matter of fact, if the Ghibli was related to the 300, it wouldn't be built over here (Turin), but in Canada. That may be a problem for the Levante, but I know little about it. Apparently the chassis will be based on the Grand Cherokee as we all know, but it will basically be a new variant much like the Giulietta is compared to the Bravo. Another option calls for the chassis to be based on the Ghibli/QP platform, so to more easily produce it in Turin as well, also admitting no one needs an off-road Maserati in the true sense of the word. The BMW X6, as disgusting yet successful as it, allowed many automakers to ditch the off road intentions (not necessarily going to become "capabilities") of their SUVs, as the X6 has none yet people didn't even bother talking about it while parting way with their bank account.

[RacingManiac]

^ Good first post...

Audi's R18 thing is not surprising at all. Audi has been pretty well understood in that their racecar are very much done like a company making a road car. They do a lot of the in-house engineering, but they go out and source the actual physical bits from their suppliers who actually are the experts in the required field, and they do the integration of the final product. Dallara may well just build the car to the way Audi designed it. Especially since they may not necessarily have the full capability to do the tub in house. IIRC Dallara built quite a few OEM's race car as a supplier.

[Revo]

Welcome md11, and thanks for the fantastic insight on the topic.

It never ceases to amaze me the quality of commentary one can get from this forum.

[Ferrer]

Actually, you're a bit off target. Bold statement from the new guy I know, but I read that often and this is a slow day.

Well you wrote five full paragraphs to explain your bold statement, which were knowledgeable and insightful. It's hard to start better than that. Welcome on board.

[md11]

Thank you for the welcome guys.
I'm not much of a forum person but this seemed like a nice place, I've been brought here by Google many times, so why not?

What actually made me post the comment is the usual bashing a car gets if it's sharing some components (the larger, the worse) with other cars. There are a few things wrong with this, as first of all using the same parts means close to nothing for the final user experience. I dare any of us to test a batch of cars, and then pretend to say which share the chassis or even the engine if we didn't know first hand. Secondly, it makes a huge economical sense, and in most cases it's not any easier from the technical standpoint. It wasn't that simple for example to fit the V6 diesel engine in the new 300/Thema as it wasn't supposed to be that engine in Chrysler's project, and it's not just as simple as to "see if it fits, drop it in". Just to name one aspects, vibrations with diesel engines are a nightmare. You can feel them as a passenger, but remember you're seating inside the cabin after so many filters, just imagine what it is like to have your head touching the engine for the whole trip, because that's what the chassis is doing. And then pretend everything doesn't crack in half when you launch it against a wall at 64 km/h (speed is underrated by the way).

At the same time there are of course some weird decisions coming from the upper levels. I for one always doubted the necessity to sell the Chrysler 200 Convertible in Europe without a diesel engine. I've been told it coulnd't be done, which I guess it's true. So why bother at all then? Marketing, brand awareness, being there, having something more in the showroom, a requirements from the purchase of Chrysler, many more aspects which are never considered and that could explain this admittedly odd presence in Lancia's portfolio.

Also, what we often forget and I'm 100% guilty of this, we are enthusiasts, our perception of the automotive reality is bent like the bodywork of a Miura. We don't have a clue of the real world and what Joe Buyer needs in his new car. Probably 4 wheels, a steering wheel, some oomph and an ego-boost. And probably at least one aspect his wife required.
That and people who comments on blogs drive me crazy, I know they are just a bunch of kids with a keyboard while all I had at their age was two buckets of Legos, but I'd still kick them

So much for all the hours spent at the office...

[Ferrer]

It's interesting the topic you bring up of differentiation of hardware components and software components in cars.

I'm not at all against (some) component sharing in cars, especially in those areas where it doesn't affect the driving experience. For instance, car manufacturers sharing electrics, wiring, electronics and gadgetry between models is a good idea since in theory it allows them to save costs on those aspects and invest them where it matters (in truth what they do is save costs everywhere and increase profits because they are after all here for the business, but that's another story).

I never understood, for example, why having the sat-nav of a Volvo in an Aston Martin was such a big problem. If I fancy an Aston Martin it certainly isn't because it has a top notch, bespoke an uniquely designed sat-nav system; it is because it has a big great V12 up front and it roars and it goes sideways and stuff.

The problem is when that component shares reaches places where it actually affect the driving experience, in some cases reaching the point where only the bits that can be seen are actually different, the rest being actually the same. And it's even worse when they charge you more because parts-bin bits are mounted underneath something with a posh badge.

Time ago I drove a Skoda Fabia and a Seat Ibiza, and to be brutally honest it was hard to see the difference. Yes, perhaps the Skoda had a suspension which was a little bit softer and the Ibiza's body control was slightly better, but essentially, they were the same car. You had to concentrate so hard to see the differences that there was no point really.

Maybe in that particular cases, the cars are set up similarly, and perhaps in the Polo and A1 there are greater driving differences because of different tuning and settings, as you say, but somehow I doubt it. And yet for some reason the Audi is much more expensive than an Ibiza or Fabia. I know it is better appointed and it has some equipment and gadgets that the other can't have, but essentially they are the same car. And I don't like paying more for the same.

You might argue that all of this irrelevant because pretty much everyone doesn't give a damn for understeer, body control or communicative steering, and you are right, because they don't. My aunt think her brand new A-Class is a lovely car because it sort of cute and it has leather inside and screens and of course a massive Mercedes-Benz badge in the grille; but it isn't, it doesn't ride or handle properly, the steering is weird and it uses more fuel than a supertanker (for a diesel). It's awful, but it sells by the million, precisely for the reasons you mention (the Renault engine in the base diesel models is especially hilarious).

However, I would like to believe that people which are driving enthusiasts do care about those things and that are able to tell them apart and shop for cars/like them accordingly.

[md11]

Good points all around.

The Volkswagen Group is probably suffering for having too many brands with little specific identity aspects to differentiate them. Seat and Skoda for example basically lack any sort of intrinsic DNA I'm afraid. Seat has been for too much time the cheaper alternative to Fiats or VWs cars, then all of a sudden they decided Seat was going to be what Alfa Romeo is (supposed to be) for Fiat, yet they released the not so bad Altea, the Altea XL and the terrible Toledo, or as you said cars basically identical to what Skoda is offering, except for some weirdly stiff sporty variants with tasteless bodykits slammed on them. Skoda itself was just an econobox maker, but as people moved away from base models they just became slightly cheaper than VWs, or to put it simply they closed the gap left by VW which was moving upmarket, moving Audi itself upmarket. Indeed I have a hard time reminding when the first generation A4 wasn't so expensive after all.
Eventually, you end up with a car in many variants: Audi (expensive, finished, etc), VW (standard? still quite expensive), Skoda (the truly standard car) and Seat (supposedly sporty).
I think here the problem doesn't lay in sharing parts, rather in having one or two brands which you didn't gave enough peculiar aspects, or couldn't. At the lower end of the market is rather difficult to add something without increasing the costs or loosing shares as most buyers just want an ordinary car.
Something similar happened in Fiat when the Abarth brand was born once again. What they basically did is positioning one car just underneath the Mini, in terms of price and style, and one over the Mini in terms of performance. Enter the Alfa Romeo MiTo and the Abarth Grande Punto. I think it has been a good strategy that delivered its results (with the Fiat 500 allowing for an even less expensive alternative to the Mini, also canalizing the female audience away from the MiTo), but I kept wishing something more for the MiTo and that's apparently not going to happen. If one was to think of a sportier Bravo, he would just get the Giulietta, while they luckily figured an extreme variant (an Abarth Bravo) would have been just too expensive and limited in numbers. Of course, if Ford can build some Focus RS500, why should Alfa, Abarth or Fiat?
Then there is of course the finished and slightly larger model, the Lancia Delta, which I think was great when I rented one, but it's now in need of some attention. It's been a few years after all.

So again I think the problem is more about marketing and brands rather than shared parts. For example you'd expect the A1 to be the best of the lot in terms of just about everything. Even if I found it to be quite finished and equipped with nice materials, I too thought it was just too expensive. They could make it sportier (I think Audis and some VWs already have a pointless firm ride) but most customers wouldn't know the difference, or would think there is something wrong and who knows what else.

On the upper end of the market though there is much more room, both in terms of cost you can add to the car, and in terms of differentiation. The profits are much larger and therefore you need much less cars (comparatively) to balance the costs. In this case I'm thinking specifically of the E Class and CLS, which share a lot of important parts yet turn out to be completely different. That's because the E Class is completely oriented to comfort and luxury, the CLS is the sporty variant with little importance given to the comfort of who is sitting in the back seat. Men like sporty and low cars, so it's not much of a risk. On the contrary, Mini found the hard way that as much as people were looking for a sportier car, possibly a coupe, there weren't as much actually willing to pay for it. Indeed the Coupe isn't performing well on the market, same for the Veloster and all the other bold products that are expensive but still belong to the part of the market where customers may have some money to spend on a car, but the margin is very thin.

Also, for most customers what makes the difference is the experience with the car in a wider sense of the word. Where we think of the ride, the engine, the response to our inputs, they just think about the comfy seat, the nice audio system, the high tech touch screen and so on. Which is basically what differentiates in a way the E Class from the S Class. I mean, the E is already a great car, excellent in many aspects and I'm sure even the latest offerings from BMW, Audi, Lexus, etc are on the same level. What the larger models add is not really something you could perceive despite being there (thinking about the sound proofing levels of the S or LS), but it's a whole array of extras. Indeed, with the exception of Mercedes maybe, no one used to make money out of these cars. The costs are too high for a bespoke chassis, low production engines and so on. Luckily the list options is endless and customers can loose perception of value when adding 2.000 € to a 100.000 € car. It's only the 2%, but it's still 2.000 € for something that you may never use. This is also why they need mroe and more "modular" platforms. It also saves tons of money in crash tests and fitting of the various auxiliary systems.

As for the little part of the market who does care about how the product is and how it behaves, we enthusiasts, the problem instead is about education and knowledge. An uninformed and pretentious enthusiast, which these days means about any kid visiting some blogs and lame websites, can deliver quite the wrong message to the uninformed relative or friend. I think I just described 99% of all automotive journalists as well.

Reading the whole post, two things: 1 I write a lot, 2 I'm not criticizing this place, in case it wasn't clear.