So disappointing...

Yes, 2.

1. That's not their market focus.
2. They're not allowed to undercut Ferrari.

Also, that was a pretty old platform and though it got a lot of updates from Ferrari it still began life in the design stage back in 1990. Of course you could argue the same for the 911 ...
Now they have a single platform and it's very modern.

Bob S.

 

And that's the problem. Not a good idea.

 

Not a good idea for, F E R R A R I.

Also, Maserati probably really can't afford 2 distinct platforms as yet.

I wish they would produce something smaller, lighter and performance oriented but that's not going to happen anytime soon.

Sop enjoy what you have.

Now if someone could produce a reasonably priced 100% correct Gransport conversion kit for all those coupes out there ...

Bob S.

 

I was dissapointed they didn't keep the Gransport line as well. But I wasn't surprised one bit that they went the comfort route. There was a constant wave of negative feedback from the press looking for Mercedes comfort and Ferrari performance. There was also a steady wave of complaints about the harsh F1 system from the owners. Many, from what I saw, bought the coupes and quattros, left them in full auto mode, and burned up the clutches quickly. The 3k service put a damper for quite a few unwilling to operate the f1 manually.

I was hoping to see a Gransport with upgraded suspension, ride height, and engine hp output. An entirely refreshed and updated version of the same basic design.

The Granturisimo S is a nice looking car but too big for me. I don't need a 4 seater, I don't need an automatic, or the extra weight, and size. I'm perfectly happy with the f1 system. They could have refined it to make the shifts faster etc and brought in the new technology. However, its pretty obvious that both the old 4.2 & current 4.7 Maserati engines are "detuned" so that it won't compete with Ferrrari models.

The suspension, even on the gransport, was most certainly adjusted for non-competitive purposes. You can see now with the all new Quattroporte it rides lower and has a 30% stiffer suspension. They should have done this with the Gransport and even offered different modes like comfort, sport, & race as is on the 430.

I'm holding my coupe with the hopes that eventually Maserati will offer that lighter, more performance orientated design.
I doubt they will though, and will most likely get a pre-owned 430.

 

we have to sell cars! no mods. allowed, no time sky is falling! anyway my take on 550 vs my 02 cc spyder. big difference on track, bob ate my lunch at pocono me thought 02 spyder was hot. well it was for me, i was in over my head. thanks bob. by two more years 550 at claremont ind, was great. i wasn't. but both made it home without a blemish. 550 is a smooth easy to control car maserati is a road car out of the box

 

What I'd like to see is a SWB convertible version (with only 2 seats) of the Gran Turismo S. Add lots of carbon fiber, sport seats, and the superfast F1 box and you've got something rather spectacular and not the difficult to do.

Now, that would be really cool.

 

I have to agree with you on this one, the GS is an amazing car performance wise, looks great too. My only hope is that Maserati will integrate the GS platform into newer cars to come that are more advanced in performance, almost like they didn't "ditch" the GS, they're just taking a break and letting new ideas form around an already great car.

 

Let me add something... from my experience driving on Europe's most difficult roads, I can confirm that the GS handles better than the 550!! The 550 understeers too much and always feels very front-heavy. It is something you notice if you drive it really hard on mountain roads or in a succession of very tight curves.

What the GS needs is an extra 50-80 HP and improved sway bars to reduce roll and reduce understeer even more. IMHO a fine-tuned GS can hold up against an amateur driving a Porsche GT3. The GT3 handles great but is very twitchy at the limit - a bit like the Corvette Z06 it can get scary at the edge. While the GS feels safe and linear all the way up to its limit of grip. Hence in the real world (i.e. no professional drivers, road tires) a GS with the minor handling mods above could keep up with the best.

The GS platform may be old but don't forget that it was radically reworked in 2002 when the gearbox was moved to the back and the turbocharged engine was replaced with the 4.2L. The two platforms (1998-2002 and 2002-2006) have very little in common. And even the mighty F430 is effectively an upgrade of the F360, whose platform dates back to... 1999. So having an old platform is no big sin if the starting design is fundamentally good.

 

Have thought about aftermarket chip (+30 to 40 hp), and adding the Formula Dynamics suspension upgrade & brake upgrade. Aside from the money thing (I'm guessing $4-5K for chip / suspension / brakes), I'm just hesitant to go aftermarket while I'm still under warranty. Maybe in a couple more years I can set the car up the way it ought to be.

I really like the comments regarding "real life" vs. "track" experiences. I love my GS, even in its current form. Its not my everyday car, so every time I step into it, it feels like a special occasion. We have our fair share of twisty mountain roads in Southern California, so taking my GS out on a sunny day is my little way of rewarding myself.

I've never driven a 550, so I can't comment.

Happy Holidays!!!

 

I had my favorite test track when I used to live in Switzerland - it was a little known secondary road twisting in the mountains between two little Swiss villages. The road is flat, well paved and has a series of left and right bends separated by short straights. I used to drive it in the 550, and it always surprised me when I tried to push it a little bit faster and the result would be a very untidy understeer in the tightest bends. While the 550 was monstrously fast in the straights, it lacked some composure in the tightest curves.

Once I was given a Gransport "MC Victory" for a test drive and while it felt a lot slower than the 550 (it had a very green engine with only 150 miles on the clock, wasn't even run in), it was a revelation how accurately and sharply the front end pointed into the curves, with very little understeer compared to the 550. It also felt a lot lighter (which it wasn't) by virtue of its sharper front end set-up. The fact that the V8 sits behind the front wheels while the 550's V12 sits across the front axle plays a great role in giving the GS that "mid-engined" feel that the 550 cannot have. Indeed, when Prodrive developed the 550 into a mighty GT1-class world championship contender, one of the first things they did was to push the engine back behind the front axle and right into the cockpit!

Now, all the GS needs is even sharper sway bars and as much power as it can get. It could take up to 500 HP and still be great fun to drive. However without invasive modifications 440 HP is about the limit, nonetheless it should be enough to keep up with the best given that it has a much beefier mid-range torque curve than any V8 Ferrari or Porsche 911 (bar the turbo). And mid-range torque is sometimes more important than peak power for a road car...

 

These Maser GTs from 2002 to 2007 (?) are grossly underrated; the Formula Dynamic mods make the car the way it should have left the factory....

 

I hear the above a lot. Am I missing something? I thought that Ferrari and Maser were completely different companies. Ferrari used to own them I know, but gave up that distinction a few years ago, and they stopped making the maser engines. But dont Alfa, Fiat , Ferrari and Maser share some of the same techno on many things? I thought one was owned by Alfa and the other by Fiat group now (eventhough all used to be part of Fiat??). I cant remember. But the point is, why is it universally considered that Maser isn't "ALLOWED" to compete in Ferrari's market like Lamborghini does?

 

Ask yourself who essentially owns both of them?

Bob S.

 

I'd like a clearer answer, but I'll assume that you're saying Fiat Group has an unwritten or written rule that all other cars made by any other company in the Fiat family of manufacturers OTHER THAN Ferrari are NOT allowed to create a vehicle with the same or better specs than ANY of the Ferrari made and labelled cars??? Is it a price gouging thing, since Masers would be in a different price range? Why not same performance or better and put prices at the F-car level... What about the MC12?

I find it hard to believe that they would consciously hold one of their companies back, if they had the where-with-all to "up the game". And Maserati does.

Is Ferrari really THAT highly regarded that no one would dare to step on their toes?? Oh no, here come the Tifosi to flame me...

 

I don't know why you're so shocked. GM spent untold millions and millions to reintroduce the new Camaro yet there are no plans to reintroduce a new Firebird. They are spending billions on the new Volt and it will only be offered as a Chevy, not a Saturn. Brands always bump into each other so it's necessary to set limits to avoid duplication of effort. It happens in cars, breakfast cereal, and even toilet paper every day.

 

There is something called "corporate strategy" here. Within the Fiat Group, Fiat makes small/city and utilitarian mid-sized cars; Lancia takes a more upmarket take from Fiat's segments; and Alfa Romeo is aimed at the "premium" segments in a way that should be similar to BMW ("should"...) starting from fancy premium compacts (149, Mito) all the way to premium sedans. However, Alfa Romeo only gets up to BMW 3-series level; Maserati takes care of the higher band (7-series, S-Class) with the Quattroporte and Granturismo. Plus the Granturismo S takes Ferrari technology to aim for the more performance-oriented customers. And Ferrari positions itself firmly in the "supercar" league - a position that it holds unchallenged in the Fiat Group. This sometimes means that Maseratis are artificially limited in their potential to avoid stepping into Ferrari's segments.

In my opinion this is a totally unnecessary and artificial limitation of Maserati that prevents it from becoming a true anti-AMG and anti-Porsche. However, this is the overall strategy of Fiat Group and there is nothing we can do about it. The only thing would be for customers to become extremely vocal in communicating to Fiat that they request Maseratis to have Ferrari-like performance, while also convincing Fiat that this will not in turn cannibalize Ferrari sales. Which is why Fiat is being so conservative and risk-averse to Maserati's disadvantage.

 

It did evolve. It's called the 8C, 50 more HP, lower, wider, sexier, F1 superfast tranny, great performance. just doesn't have the rear seats. which makes it faster.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

bdelp, maranello71, and staatsof, thank you very much for your answers. I had figured as much along the lines of what you all said, and I was eager to hear from others their take, thanks alot. I does all make sense, however disappointing (as the thread title mentions).

I heard somewhere that Alfa specs out the Maser engines now since Ferrari backed away (maybe Im wrong).

Wouldnt it make Fiat Group more sales if they gave us 2 options with different designs on similiar high performing cars? Some people do prefer the mystique of a Maser over the Heritage of an F-car (or one design over another), it's true. Either way they're selling a car with the performance we want (and keeping consumers captured in their brand) rather than going to a Porsche CGT, GT2 or a Lambo. Perfect example: I'm, looking at either an LP560 or a DBS and hadnt even considered an F430, cause the design doesnt excite me (here come the flames).
But ooooh if they had a short-wheelbased, 2 seat Granturismo-ish light weight, all carbon fibed-out car, pushing 540hp screaming at 8800rpm I'd be all over it "The NEW GranSport" (another 250k in Fiat's pocket rather than the other guys). But I guess thats the Scud, huh.

Oh well every corporate strategy is different.