Maserati To Launch First Plug-In Hybrid In 2017, CEO Not Excited


Maserati Only Currently Makes Gas Gulping Machines

Maserati Only Currently Makes Gas Gulping Machines

“My Maserati does 185…”

Soon it will plug in allowing electric drive.

Maserati has officially announced that its first plug-in hybrid will launch in 2017.

Plug-in hybrids will proliferate across the Maserati lineup, but Maserati boss Harald Wester doesn’t seem too thrilled by this:

“I have serious doubts about what we are doing. How can it be right that a 2000kg high-end luxury car is rated at 70g/km when a small diesel supermini is rated at 90g/km?”

“We’re neglecting the wheel-to-well energy balance, but as a car company we are being put in a position we don’t want to be in. We are shifting issuing from the cities to somewhere else – we are doing anything but save the planet.”

Regardless of his position on the matter, Maserati is moving forward with its electrification plans for its Quattroporte, Ghibli and upcoming Levante SUV.

Expect to see Maserati’s first PHEV go on sale in the second half of 2017.

Source: Autocar

Categories: General

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

33 Comments on "Maserati To Launch First Plug-In Hybrid In 2017, CEO Not Excited"

newest oldest most voted

even the big boss doesnt get but he can see that the market has changed and he has no choice but to follow the trend.
So, after a comment like this one guys, all i can pretty much say is, tap on the back to everybody in the EV community, job well done indeed!
Now, about Honda and Toyota… nevermind, the market will speak.
That made my day!

How can shifting the waste from cities to the location of the electric plant be progress? We note that Hybrids have helped by reducing the amount of fuel that is used! Put how do we evaluate Electric Cars when the energy is produced in most cases by burning some type of fossil fuel (as coal, oil, or natural gas ). When will we understand the Big Picture!

It burns fossil fuels… Except when it doesn’t. Here in Ontario we get 80% emissions free electricity.
And then again, how much electricity is consumed for extracting, refining and transporting oil?
From Alberta’s oil sands, there is as much electricity in 10 l of gasoline (some 18 kWh) as my Leaf needs for 100 km.

You are late on big picture – the update is that the world is moving to renewable electricity at astounding pace. Many countries already have a large part of electricity produced by renewables, plus if you want you can explicitly buy renewable electricity to zip your EV.

I would add to Ontario and vadik’s comments that even if the electricity comes from fossil fuel power plants (using the typical US mix), the efficiency of EVs make total emissions in that scenario lower or at least on par with that of an efficient hybrid. Then of course there is the fact that the emissions of a gas or diesel cars are not well to wheel either, since they don’t take extraction, transport and refining emissions into account.

Nope. Well-to-wheels CO2 emissions for BEVs are NOT on par with efficient hybrids like the Prius and Accord Hydrid (50 & 47 mpg respectively) for a very large part of the US, mainly the midwest. The next generation Prius is expected to get 60 to 65 mpg, giving it less CO2 emissions than BEV’s in even more states, specifically the southern states and mid-atlantic states.

The above info comes from the Union of Concerned Scientists, which calculated electric-car well-to-wheels CO2 emission equivalencies in MPG as of September 2014 for all the various electrical grids across the US.

50MPG is an ideal situation for a Prius. And don’t forget all the cold starts. Also, you need to do a wells-to-wheels for gasoline, not just using a hybrids MPG.

Good point about a hybrid’s MPG not including CO2 emissions from well-to-gas-pump. Any fair comparison between hybrids and BEVs should include well-to-wheels CO2 emissions for both.

Oops. The hybrid MPG figures DO INCLUDE an estimate for upstream CO2 emissions based on the GREET1 2013 study by the Argonne National Laboratory. Therefore, the hybrid MPG figure factors in well-to-wheels CO2 emissions.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists’ website, their report used the following methodology:

“Notes on calculations: The updated analysis is based on the original State of Charge report methodology including the following updates: . . . 2) GREET 1 2013 for global warming emissions of petroleum as well as estimates for upstream electricity emissions. . . .”

And considering the smog levels in Milan and Turin, it can’t come too soon.

Does he really believe that full and true well to wheels analysis really favours his legacy gas guzzlers? Especially when you consider the recycling or repurposing of automotive battery packs.

One by one they’re all adjusting to the new reality.


The funny thing is, once they start getting rave reviews for how responsive and silky-smooth their cars become, they’ll embrace electric drivetrains.

Fantastic opportunity to put out a better product.

If he was truly concerned about the emissions of a 2000kg luxury behemoth he would just shut down Maserati

Does he think their current path was in the best interest of saving the planet?

Sounds like a load of excuses.

Harald Wester is quoted as saying:

“We’re neglecting the wheel-to-well energy balance… We are shifting issuing from the cities to somewhere else –- we are doing anything but save the planet.”

I’m not sure, but it -reads- like he’s referring to the EV-haters’ “Long tailpipe” myth. Is it actually possible he believes something that has been so thoroughly and completely discredited, not merely years but -decades- ago?

If so, then that’s as bad as Tobacco company execs continuing to insist “There is no scientific evidence that smoking causes lung cancer”, for years or even decades after every informed person knew that wasn’t true.

I’d really like to think that legacy auto makers are not actually evil, like Big Tobacco and Big Oil are. But quotes like that make it hard for me to think otherwise.

Never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by visible-from-orbit, flaming insanity and plain old ignorance.

+2 on the ignorance factor

“I’m not sure, but it -reads- like he’s referring to the EV-haters’ ‘Long tailpipe’ myth. Is it actually possible he believes something that has been so thoroughly and completely discredited, not merely years but -decades- ago?”

Has the “long tailpipe” myth been thoroughly and completely discredited? I posted these links in a comment above. The Union of Concerned Scientists calculated electric-car well-to-wheels CO2 emission equivalencies in MPG as of September 2014 for all the various electrical grids across the US. Efficient hybrids like the Prius and Accord Hybrid (50 & 47 mpg respectively) produce less well-to-wheel CO2 emissions than BEV’s in the Midwestern states, and the next-generation 2016 Prius is expected to get 60 to 65 mpg, which will also produce less emissions than BEV’s in Southern states and Mid-Atlantic states.

Yes, the “long tailpipe” is a dead horse.

Hey Sven, did you and your people factor in the huge Gulf Oil Spill in your well to wheels calcs? Or any of the other major oil spills over the last, oh, 40+ years?
Or don’t they count?
How about a few little Gulf Wars? Factor in all the CO2 produced by those babies did ya? Nah, and what’s a few trillion dollars thrown away here and there, right?
Maybe you people should just wake the f**k up. And, yes, I have a suggestion on what you can do with your long tailpipe…

Who exactly are my people? The Union of Concerned Scientists? Did you and your people factor in all the environmental damage caused by fracking for natural gas and mining for coal in your well-to-wheel calcs? How about poisoned water supplies, water that catches on fire, earthquakes from injection wells for fracking waste water, mountain top removal for coal mining, filling river valleys and waterways with coal mining waste/debris, and toxic coal ash ponds from burning coal with dikes just waiting to burst, not to mention dead coal miners from cave ins, mine explosions, and black lung.

Maybe you should learn to be civil to other posters or just shut the f**k up. And yes, I have a suggestion on what you can do with a CHAdeMO plug. . .

Fracking isn’t done for natural gas, it’s done for oil. Coal power plants are slowly disappearing from the face of the Earth, and it won’t be too soon. You think coal plants were built just to power EVs? EVs that charge at night cause NO extra pollution from the way the electricity is generated, since it’s generated anyway and was previously just wasted. They generate NO point of use pollution, unlike your hybrids and gas burning ICE cars.
Anyone posturing your argument at this stage of the game doesn’t deserve civility. Maybe PT Barnum’s statement needs modifying for the 21st century – “there’s a moron born every minute.”

“Fracking isn’t done for natural gas, it’s done for oil.”

That’s about the dumbest thing I’ve heard in long time. Where exactly did the recent enormous glut of natural gas in the US come from, your butt? Fracking is now done for both natural gas and tight oil, but was originally developed and used for DECADES to extract natural gas from gas-saturated sandstone formations. Only recently with the advent of horizontal drilling has it been used to extract oil and natural gas from shale rock formations, mainly in the US. You can read all about it in Wikipedia.

The Dangers-Of-Fracking website says: “So What is it? Hydraulic fracturing, or ‘fracking’, is the process of drilling and injecting fluid into the ground at a high pressure in order to fracture shale rocks to release NATURAL GAS inside.”

“Gasland” is documentary movie about the negative affects of NATURAL GAS fracking on US communities. Perhaps you’ve heard of it, since it was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary in 2011.

Rick, your lack of knowledge is Dangerous.

You said: “there’s a moron born every minute.” I do enjoy your self-deprecating humor! 😀

Rick, the coal power plants that you think are “slowly disappearing from the face of the Earth” are actually reappearing in China and India. The World Resources Institute identified a whopping 1,200 coal plants in planning across 59 countries, with about three-quarters in China and India!!!

In case you didn’t notice, the study from the Union of Concerned Scientist that I mentioned and linked to in my original comment, and that apparently set you off on your crazy tirade, is the very same one used to refute a USA Today electric car hit piece!!! Here is the link to the article on InsideEVs:

I hope it doesn’t make you feel like a fool. Not.

You can thank government regulations from around the world for this… this is exactly the sort of company the rules were made for… they would burn coal directly if that was the status quo.

Well . . . I do thank them.

Sure . . . they can be clumsy and a bit inaccurate. But getting cars to be plug-ins combined with renewable portfolio standards that get the grid to be more green combine to move us in the right direction. It is working. I don’t agree with all of it but they largely push things in the right direction.

The writing is on the wall. The days of the internal combustion engine is numbered, but these guys are not going down without a fight. I will continue to watch Toyota and Honda to see when they will through in the towel.

What a clown, or maybe I should say CLONE.

Its obvious that Harald is parroting his idiot boss Sergio about EVs. So maybe that makes him a Clown Clone.

Its so sad that so many established automakers filled with so many talented and even brilliant engineers, designers and workers are mostly bereft of visionary leadership at the top levels.

I believe that Elon and Tesla will go down in history as the ones who virtually saved the automotive industry from these idiots.

The strict EU CO2 limits were forcing the luxury makes down this road any way. What Tesla did was show that their excuses and whining were falsehoods.

That car looks a lot like a Tesla Model S.

Then again . . . a Tesla looks a lot like previous Maseratis.

This Maserati Exec sounds like the banker who told Henry Ford, “buy a horse”.

“Soon it will plug in allowing electric drive”

I don’t think that is the right number of syllables.

This is why the divestment campaign makes no sense. In the US the three companies most responsible for senseless carbon emissions are GM, Jeep, and Ford. Boeing, UPS, United, Peterbilt, etc. all maximize fuel efficiency in order to maximize profits. The major oil companies and the Saudis counterintuitively want their customers to maximize efficiency because the lower the price and cost the more likely the oil econony will perpetuate…the worst thing for the Saudis would be $150 barrel oil that drives customers to alternatives. So the only companies that don’t care about maximizing efficiency are companies that sell passenger vehicles and actually developed SUVs to circumvent CAFE regulations.