Talk:Ferrari 360

Shouldn't links

Shouldn't links to Ferrari 360 Modena, Ferrari 360 Spider and Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale be removed as they are in this article. If any other links point towards those the should be redirected to just Ferrari 360. Also does anybody have any pictures of the 360 as it is needed

Mark alec 06:04, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Pictures

I added three pictures of a 360 that I took a couple years ago. I put them in the public domain.

Deane 21:10, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

Ferrari 360 Modena GTC

How about give the 360 Modena GTC a mention as it seems to regularly arrear in GT races a lot these days Willirennen 19.27 05 April 2006 (utc)

Why....

...do we need 7 pictures for one car? Can't we just have front/rear views of a few variations of the 360?

Considering that the 360 was built in Modena, Spider, CS, and GT-C variants (excluding the Challenge version), front/rear views of the few variants would comprise 8 pictures. So... your point is? P924 CarreraGTS (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Metric and typos

Corrected a lot of typos and make a lot of units consistant. Also removed all the commas on the numbers as numbers should not be spaced with a comma. Wiki editors need to understand how to write out units. Kg and mp/h for example are unacceptable

External Link

Hi i have currently made a new exotic car site here. I was wanting to add the relevant pages to relevant wiki pages and wondering if thats ok to do so? Please let me know.

Thanks

Richard

Naming

I'm kind of interested to know what Ferrari was doing here.... they put in an "F" for the F355, F40, F50, F60 (Enzo), and F430. So why isn't 360 "F360"? Is this article inappropriately named, or was the car line inconsistently named? Chaparral2J (talk) 09:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

It went 308, 328, 348, F355, 360, F430. So perhaps the F355 and F430 were the inconsistently named ones? The F40 and F50 were not in the same line of cars so I don't think they are relevant. I wouldn't call the Enzo an F60, as it was 4 years prior to the 60th anniversary of Ferrari. swaq 16:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, what is it with Ferrari and names? They've come out with a new model of the F430 that they call the 430 Scuderia, NOT the F430 Scuderia. Chaparral2J (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

"Spider is the Italian phonetic spelling of the English word "speeder". So, "spider" spoken by an Italian native speaker would sound like "speeder" spoken by an English speaker. 220.235.226.215 (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

360 Modena vs. F355

360 modena's engine: eliminate 5-valve
F355's engine: using 5-valve Nagara373 (talk) 06:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge discussion

• Agree The 360GT article is very brief (and needs citations!), just merge it into a separate section here. -- David Spalding (☎ ✉ ✍) 11:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

• Took Action It's been done. P924 CarreraGTS (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ferrari 360. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070831120402/http://www.natsoft.com.au/cgi-bin/results.cgi?23%2F11%2F2003.MOUN to http://www.natsoft.com.au/cgi-bin/results.cgi?23%2F11%2F2003.MOUN

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Ferrari 360 Designer

Can we please stop making edits on the designer of the Ferrari 360 without credible sources? There have been repeated changes to the designer attribution that are not supported by reliable, verifiable sources. This issue needs to be addressed in accordance with Wikipedia’s core content policies.

All available official materials from Pininfarina consistently credit Lorenzo Ramaciotti as the designer responsible for the Ferrari 360. This attribution is further supported by the United States design patent associated with the vehicle, which aligns with the sources currently cited in the article.

Claims attributing the design to “Goran” appear to rely solely on employment at Pininfarina. Employment alone is not sufficient evidence of authorship. By that standard, numerous individuals involved in the design process would also need to be credited, which is not how authorship is determined in reliable sources.

Additionally, there are no known design patents or authoritative sources for the Ferrari 456 GT or Ferrari 550 Maranello that attribute authorship to Goran. If such claims are to be made, they must be supported by strong, independent, and verifiable references. If anyone can provide such sources or patents, please present them here for review.

At present, the repeated addition of unsourced or weakly sourced claims goes against: Verifiability No original research Neutral point of view

Before making further changes to the designer field, please: Provide high-quality, independent sources explicitly supporting the claim Ensure those sources clearly establish authorship, not just employment or involvement Discuss proposed changes here on the talk page if there is any ambiguity

Until such sources are provided, the attribution to Lorenzo Ramaciotti—supported by official documentation and existing citations—should remain stable.

Repeatedly adding contested material without proper sourcing may be considered disruptive editing and may lead to administrative intervention if it continues. Ferrari360OG (talk) 21:19, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

You need to understand that Ramaciotti was not the stylist, he was a managing director, a supervisor to the team of designers. That is why as a director he is on the patent documents, exactly the same way as Fioravanti is on the Camardella-designed F40 patent documents, as a director. You are jumping to conclusions based on their specific corporate structure. YBSOne (talk) 12:05, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I understand the distinction being made here, but I do not think it invalidates attributing the Ferrari 360 to Lorenzo Ramaciotti.

The issue is not whether car design is collaborative — of course it is — but whether Ramaciotti was merely an unrelated administrator. The available sources do not describe him that way. Auto & Design identified him, at the time of the 360’s launch, as “General Manager of Pininfarina Studi e Ricerche” and directly quoted him explaining the design brief and the themes developed for the 360 Modena. FCA/Stellantis’ own corporate biography for Ramaciotti also states that during the 17-year period in which he headed Pininfarina design, he “developed” the 360 Modena along with the 550 Maranello, Enzo, F430 and 612 Scaglietti.

The patent trail points in the same direction. U.S. design patent D411,138 for the production car lists Ferrari S.p.A. as assignee and Lorenzo Ramaciotti as inventor. Whatever one’s view of internal studio workflow, that is still part of the formal attribution record for the finished design.

So I am not claiming Ramaciotti worked alone or that no individual stylists contributed within the studio. I am saying that crediting the design director / head of design for the completed work is a normal and source-supported way of attributing authorship in a team medium. It is broadly analogous to crediting the director of a film: many people contribute, but the director is still commonly treated as the accountable creative lead for the final work. In Ramaciotti’s case, even later coverage describes him as Pininfarina’s design director for the latter two decades and the person responsible for signing off major Ferrari designs.

For that reason, I continue to credit Lorenzo. That does not erase team contributions, but it does reflect the strongest documented attribution presently cited. So the material I added was not “jumping to conclusions”; it was based on the patent attribution and published descriptions of Ramaciotti’s actual role at Pininfarina during the 360 program. If there are equally strong reliable sources naming another person as the principal stylist of the 360, those can certainly be discussed as well. Ferrari360OG (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2026 (UTC) Ferrari360OG (talk) 12:27, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

"I am not claiming Ramaciotti worked alone", yes you do, claiming he was the "sole inventor" just because the patent only lists him because he was the general director at the time. This is the part of a synthesis you still hang on to, but is false. See the Ferrari F40 designers and patent for the analogy.YBSOne (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

To be clear, the sentence in question was describing the patent document, not asserting that Ramaciotti necessarily worked alone in a broader studio sense. U.S. design patent D411,138 for the 360 explicitly identifies Ferrari S.p.A. as assignee and lists Lorenzo Ramaciotti as the sole inventor named on the patent. That is a factual statement about the contents of the patent record.

The Ferrari F40 analogy does not make that wording false. Its U.S. design patent, D306,274, likewise identifies Ferrari as assignee and names Leonardo Fioravanti as the inventor on the patent. So the point of comparison may be useful for discussing the limits of patent attribution, but it does not change the basic fact that the 360 patent itself names Ramaciotti as the only inventor listed on that document.

If the concern is that readers may confuse patent inventorship with sole overall design authorship, then the remedy is not to remove the patent fact, but to word it more precisely. For example: “Ramaciotti later filed a U.S. design patent for the 360’s external form; patent D411,138, granted on 22 June 1999, names him as the sole inventor on the patent and depicts the production 360 Modena from multiple views.” That keeps the statement accurate, document-based, and avoids over-reading the patent. Ferrari360OG (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

This is a patent for Ferrari F40 designed by Pietro Camardella under Aldo Brovarone, states that Fioravanti is the "sole inventor". YBSOne (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Take a look how many Fiat/Ferrari/Maserati cars are "invented" by Ramaciotti. Almost as if that was his job to oversee? YBSOne (talk) 15:35, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

another interesting find. Alfa 164 designed by Enrico Fuamia, "invented" by project manager Giorgio Guelfi.

"Two project managers will follow the entire definition of the models: engineer Giorgio Guelfi and Mr. Alfonso Cosma." YBSOne (talk) 16:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Here is something interesting:

In 2007 Andrea Pininfarina invented Maserati GranTurismo, the car designed by Jason Castriota, but in 2009 Ramaciotti also invented the very same car, designed by Jason Castriota. YBSOne (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

You still have not provided the one thing required here: a reliable source specifically crediting Goran Popović as the designer of the Ferrari 360. Everything you have posted about the F40, Alfa 164, GranTurismo, or Ramaciotti appearing on multiple patents is beside the point. None of that sources the Ferrari 360 to Goran.

By contrast, there are multiple sources directly connecting Lorenzo Ramaciotti to the Ferrari 360. At the car’s launch, Auto & Design identified Ramaciotti as “General Manager of Pininfarina Studi e Ricerche” and quoted him directly, in first-person plural, explaining the 360’s design brief and the proposals developed for the car. FCA/Stellantis’ own corporate biography of Ramaciotti states that during the 17-year period in which he headed Pininfarina design, he developed approximately 20 concept cars and “directed projects of successful automobiles,” specifically including the Ferrari 360 Modena.

The patent record says what it says. U.S. design patent D411,138 for the 360 names Ferrari S.p.A. as assignee and Lorenzo Ramaciotti as the inventor named on that patent. If your argument is that patent inventorship does not automatically settle every question of studio authorship, that is a separate point. But it still does not provide a source for replacing Ramaciotti with Goran Popović as the credited designer of the Ferrari 360.

Just as importantly, Pininfarina’s own design process was not a one-man exercise. A case study on Pininfarina explains that specific projects were distributed to teams specialised by client, and that these teams were “composed of 6 to 7 car designers led by a design team leader”. That actually cuts against your present edit, because it supports the point that Pininfarina projects were team efforts under design leadership, not that an unsourced individual name should simply replace the documented head of the programme.

So the sourcing issue remains very simple:

1. There are direct sources tying Ramaciotti to the Ferrari 360.
2. There is a patent record naming Ramaciotti on the 360 patent.
3. There is also evidence that Pininfarina handled projects through multi-designer teams.

What is still missing is a reliable source that specifically says Goran Popović was the Ferrari 360’s designer. Until that source is produced, you should stop restoring that claim as if it were established fact.

If you have a source showing that Popović was part of the Ferrari 360 design team, then the only potentially valid edit would be to add him among the other designers/design team contributors, with the wording matching exactly what the source says. What you do not currently have is a source strong enough to justify inserting him as the singular designer of the Ferrari 360 in place of the documented design director. Ferrari360OG (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

For the record, I reviewed the design section I wrote, and it does not generally present Lorenzo Ramaciotti as a lone stylist working in isolation. The wording repeatedly frames him as the person directing or leading the project at Pininfarina, while also making clear that the work was done by a team and that many designers contributed.

The relevant wording I used was:

• “Under the direction of Lorenzo Ramaciotti, head of Pininfarina’s design studio, the team produced a curvaceous, aerodynamically efficient body...”
• “Ramaciotti’s team at Pininfarina began by exploring a number of full-size clay models during 1996–97...”
• “Although many designers contributed during the development phase, Ferrari and Pininfarina only officially credit the completed design to Pininfarina under Lorenzo Ramaciotti’s direction.”

Those are not statements of sole studio authorship. They explicitly describe Ramaciotti as overseeing and directing the work of a team.

The only sentence using singular wording was the patent-related sentence:

• “The patent (US design patent D411,138, granted 22 June 1999) lists Ramaciotti as the sole inventor and depicts the production 360 Modena from multiple views.”

That sentence was plainly referring to what the patent document says. It was not written as a general statement that no other designer contributed to the Ferrari 360 project. In fact, the surrounding text says the opposite by expressly referring to “the team” and to “many designers” contributing.

So it is simply not accurate to say that my design section uniformly claimed Ramaciotti was the sole designer of the Ferrari 360. The text, as written, mainly presents him as the design leader / design director under whom the project was carried out, while the patent sentence separately reports the wording of the patent record itself. Ferrari360OG (talk) 19:48, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

"Claims attributing the design to “Goran” appear to rely solely on employment at Pininfarina. Employment alone is not sufficient evidence of authorship" This is original research. We don't do this on Wikipedia. We also don't use our own interpretation of the documents, we rely on automotive historians that have interviewed multiple designers. You will find out that Pininfarina does not credit any designers on their own, and even redact their signatures. I hope this case is closed. YBSOne (talk) 20:10, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

No — that is not original research. Original research would be me inventing a theory or drawing a conclusion without sourcing. What I posted was sourced material, and where I made factual statements, they were taken directly from published sources and from the wording of the cited patent record. Reporting what a source says is not original research.

What is a problem here is that you keep asserting broad counter-claims such as “Pininfarina does not credit any designers on their own” and “we rely on automotive historians that have interviewed multiple designers,” yet you still have not produced a reliable source that specifically credits Goran Popović as the designer of the Ferrari 360. That is the central issue. Under WP:V and WP:BURDEN, challenged material must be supported by a reliable source. Repeating objections is not a substitute for citing one.

I also reject the suggestion that nothing can be said unless an automotive historian interviewed multiple designers. That is not Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia uses reliable published sources, including books, period publications, company material where appropriate for straightforward factual claims, and formal records such as patents when they are being described accurately and without overstatement. That is exactly what I did.

To be absolutely clear: I did not invent authorship, I did not write my own theory, and I did not rely on “employment alone”. The text I added described Ramaciotti using source-based wording such as directing the project, heading the studio, and being named on the patent record. In the design section itself, I also explicitly stated that many designers contributed during the development phase. That is the opposite of original research and the opposite of claiming a one-man effort.

If you want to challenge any specific sentence, then challenge that sentence and explain exactly which source-backed wording you believe is unsupported. But blanket dismissals of sourced content as “original research” are not convincing, especially while you continue to avoid supplying a direct source for your own preferred attribution.

So no, this case is not “closed” merely because you say so. It is closed when reliable sources are applied consistently. At present, I have cited sources for what I added. You still need to cite a reliable source that explicitly attributes the Ferrari 360 to Goran Popović if you want that claim maintained. Until then, your position remains unsupported. Ferrari360OG (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

A further source worth noting here is Top Gear’s interview piece “Meet the king of Italian car design”, written by Sam Philip and published on 1 April 2015.

That article describes Lorenzo Ramaciotti as having remained at Pininfarina for over 30 years, serving as its design director for the latter two decades, and says he was responsible for the sign-off of major designs including the Ferrari 456, 550 and Enzo. That is relevant because it again supports the point that Ramaciotti was not being treated in the sources as a detached administrator, but as the senior design authority overseeing and approving major Pininfarina/Ferrari work.

There are also later automotive-publication sources that credit him with the 360. Kenneth Hall wrote in Motor Authority that during the 17-year period in which Ramaciotti headed Pininfarina design, he developed approximately 20 cars including the Ferrari 360 Modena. Automobile Magazine likewise described him as having been in charge of countless vehicle projects at Pininfarina, including standout Ferraris such as the 360 Modena. Noah Joseph also referred to Ramaciotti’s “hits like the Ferrari 360 Modena” in Autoblog.

So, while I have not yet found an ideal open-access historian source phrased exactly as some editors may prefer, there are plainly published automotive sources that connect Lorenzo Ramaciotti to the Ferrari 360, including a contemporary design article quoting him directly about the creation of the car. Ferrari360OG (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2026 (UTC) Ferrari360OG (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

It is literally the first source in the article: , That is why we use multiple sources from people that know what they are talking about. Also take note that journalists do jump to easy conclusions and attribute every design to the Carrozzeria name-sake, like in case of Bertone and Nuccio Bertone. Drop the stick. YBSOne (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

That is exactly why my position has been consistent: I have no objection to Goran Popović being mentioned in the design section as one of the contributing designers involved in the Ferrari 360 program, if that is what a reliable source specifically supports. What I do object to is the attempt to elevate that into a claim that the Ferrari 360 was his project/design, or that Lorenzo Ramaciotti can be removed from the design account. Those are entirely different claims, and they require entirely different sourcing.

Comments like “drop the stick” are not sourcing arguments and do not help resolve the content dispute. If this discussion is now at an impasse, then it should be reviewed by an uninvolved third party.

Ferrari360OG (talk) 01:43, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Could the article temporarily use Pininfarina as the design attribution, rather than naming either Lorenzo Ramaciotti or Goran Popović individually, while the current sourcing discussion is being resolved?

The individual attribution is actively disputed, and a broader company-level attribution would be a neutral interim wording that avoids reader confusion until consensus is reached through the talk page and third-party input.

This request is only for temporary stability and does not seek to prejudge the final outcome of the discussion. Thank you. Ferrari360OG (talk) 02:42, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Just because you are disputing something does not mean the sourced material should be removed. Automotive historians did their job correctly and have found out, by interviews etc, who designed which car. It is not reasonable to remove their work and replace it with your opinion based on the misinterpretation of the "inventor" section of the patent, which is still your main argument in spite of numerous errors that I have shown you it may lead to.

Usually the designer section is for the person who's first original design was used and evolved by the team under certain leadership. If you take Ferrari Testarossa as an example. One book will credit Emanuele Nicosia, because he worked on the project, one source will credit Fioravanti as a director but the car's original sketches were made by Diego Ottina, as proven by an interview with his superior at that time Enrico Fumia for example.

Also when you show a promotional source about any designer each of his works will be presented as if he was the only designer of it. It always works that way. And just because someone "signed-off" a design does not mean he designed it, just approved is as a director.

Goran Popović is the designer of Ferrri 360. His original sketches of the car were chosen to create the exterior of the car by Pininfarina designer under the leadership of Ramaciotti. You can see his 1993 concept art... signed by Sergio Pininfarina, because why not...

One last thing, there is no such thing as an attribution of a designer by Pininfarina. They never attribute any particular designer to the project, and even redact their signatures, like mr Fumia or recently E. Nicosia (you can see the Jaguar XJS concept on their Facebook page .)YBSOne (talk) 20:29, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

For the benefit of uninvolved editors reviewing this, the dispute is specifically about the design section and the designer attribution in the infobox/body, which has been repeatedly reverting back and forth.

I want to state my position as clearly and narrowly as possible:

• I am not arguing that Lorenzo Ramaciotti was the only person who worked on the Ferrari 360.
• I am not asking for every mention of Goran Popović to be removed.
• I am saying the Ferrari 360 was a Pininfarina project under Lorenzo Ramaciotti’s direction, and that any mention of individual designers such as Goran should be handled in the design body as part of a collective studio process, not by treating the car as Goran’s sole project unless there is an explicit reliable source saying exactly that.

The sources I am relying on for Lorenzo are straightforward:

• Auto & Design (1999), a contemporary design publication, identifies Lorenzo Ramaciotti as “General Manager of Pininfarina Studi e Ricerche” and quotes him directly about the Ferrari 360 Modena project: “we were asked to create a completely new model” and “We came up with two suggestions...”.
• FCA/Stellantis’ published biography of Ramaciotti states that during the 17 years in which he headed Pininfarina design, he “directed projects” including the Ferrari 360 Modena.
• Top Gear (Sam Philip, 2015) describes Ramaciotti as Pininfarina’s design director for the latter two decades and responsible for the sign-off of major Ferrari projects.

My point is therefore not that Lorenzo was the only contributor, but that there are multiple published sources placing him in design leadership on the 360 project itself.

On the other side, the argument being made is that senior Pininfarina figures are often named in patents or journalism in a way that does not necessarily identify the original hands-on stylist, and that Goran Popović’s sketches show his involvement. I accept the general point that studio authorship can be more complex than a single name in a patent or magazine profile.

However, that still leaves the key sourcing question unresolved:

Is there a reliable source that explicitly says the Ferrari 360 was Goran Popović’s project, or that the production 360 was developed from his chosen original sketch?

Because that stronger claim is what seems to be driving the current infobox wording and the repeated reverts.

At present, what has been shown on talk is a sketch by Goran and an argument that this proves authorship of the finished Ferrari 360. I do not think that step is established by the sourcing shown so far. Unless a reliable source explicitly says that Goran’s sketch was the selected origin of the production 360, concluding that from the sketch itself would be a synthesis step under WP:OR / WP:SYNTH.

That concern is reinforced, not weakened, by the way Pininfarina itself is described in published sources. A case study of Pininfarina explains that projects were distributed to specialized teams and that the teams were “composed of 6 to 7 car designers led by a design team leader”. That is why I keep saying this should be treated as a collective studio process.

The patent point is also being overstated on both sides. I agree that patent inventorship should not automatically be treated as identical to sole creative authorship of every studio contribution. But it is also not correct to suggest there is some blanket rule that “the boss is always the named inventor”. Justia’s Pininfarina patent index includes one patent naming multiple inventors — Lorenzo Ramaciotti, Riccardo Majocchi, Bruno Gho and Alberto Cavaletto — and another naming Jason Castriota alone. So that explanation is not universally demonstrated by the patent record.

There is also a narrower legal point here. The USPTO states that, in a design patent, the claimed subject matter is the design embodied in or applied to an article of manufacture, and that a picture standing alone is not statutory design subject matter. I am not raising that to make a legal authorship argument for Wikipedia, but only to point out that a standalone sketch is not, by itself, the same thing as documented authorship of the final production design. For Wikipedia purposes, a reliable source still has to make that connection explicitly.

That is why my proposed compromise has been consistent:

• keep the infobox/design account at the level of Pininfarina / Pininfarina under Lorenzo Ramaciotti’s direction, because that is what the currently available published sourcing supports;
• mention individual contributors such as Goran Popović in the design body if the source supports that he contributed to the Ferrari 360 program;
• do not elevate Goran into the sole or principal designer of the finished 360 unless a reliable source explicitly says that.

To put it another way: I am not disputing Goran’s involvement. I am disputing the stronger claim that the Ferrari 360 was his project or his sole design, because I have not seen reliable archival sourcing that actually proves that.

I would appreciate outside views on what the most neutral, source-faithful wording is for the design section and infobox, given:

1. multiple published sources connecting Ramaciotti to leadership of the 360 project;
2. published evidence that Pininfarina worked through multi-designer teams;
3. and the absence, so far as I can tell, of an explicit reliable source proving that the Ferrari 360 should be attributed in the infobox as Goran Popović’s sole/principal design.

I would also add one further point about the two sketches that have been presented. Their existence does not, by itself, establish the origin of the Ferrari 360 design, nor do they show where the idea “started”. On their own, they only show that Goran Popović produced design sketches connected to the project.

What is still missing is a reliable source explicitly stating that these were the chosen originating sketches for the production Ferrari 360, or that the finished 360 was developed directly from Goran Popović’s original design proposal. No commentary, interview, Pininfarina document, or published design history source has yet been provided making that connection in clear terms.

For that reason, the auction listing / auction description is not sufficient evidence on its own to verify that Goran Popović designed the Ferrari 360, nor that the production 360 was developed from his original design as the lead concept. Making that additional step from “these sketches exist” to “therefore this was his design and the project originated with him” would require an explicit reliable source, not inference from the images themselves. Under WP:V and WP:SYNTH, that distinction matters. Ferrari360OG (talk) 21:55, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

I think at this point it is best to leave this for third-party review. We have both set out our positions in detail, searched widely for sources, and said everything that can reasonably be said on the basis of the material currently available. Unless Pininfarina itself provides clearer archival information, this is the source base we have to work with. Rather than continuing to go back and forth, I suggest we pause here and let uninvolved editors review the sourcing and propose the most neutral wording. Ferrari360OG (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

"Is there a reliable source that explicitly says the Ferrari 360 was Goran Popović’s project, or that the production 360 was developed from his chosen original sketch?"

Yes, I have already told you: "It is literally the first source in the article: that you yourself just replaced with Ramaciotti article of the same website: so I understand you also concur this website is a reliable source?

And please stop using AI to write you an essay and just listen to arguments. YBSOne (talk) 11:07, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Couple more that will be added to the article: . YBSOne (talk) 11:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

My argument is not that Goran Popović should be erased, and it is not an attempt to remove credit from him. My point is that Pininfarina worked through teams, under leadership, and that the person directing the project can reasonably be treated in a similar way to a film director: not because they personally did every part alone, but because they were the lead creative authority overseeing the final work.

That is why I keep saying this is not about denying Goran’s involvement. It is about simplifying the attribution in a way that is clear and neutral for readers. The infobox should stay at the level of Pininfarina or the project leader/director supported by the sources, while the design body is the better place to mention individual contributors such as Goran Popović and other designers involved in the process, along with sketches or other source-backed material where appropriate.

To me, that is the most balanced way to reflect both points at once:

• the Ferrari 360 was a collective Pininfarina project;
• individual designers can still be credited in the body without turning the infobox into a contested claim about sole authorship.

Ferrari360OG (talk) 17:10, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@YBSOne: What is your take on this?

I found a 2019 university-hosted research report from Kurume Institute of Technology by 松中完二 (Matsunaka Kanji). It is not a fan blog. I haven't had it professionally translated, so the English below is machine-assisted and should be treated with caution. I am not treating it as conclusive, but I do think it is worth considering.

The report appears to say that Davide Arcangeli was responsible for the Ferrari 360 Modena’s design, and that the design was later revised by Ramaciotti for aerodynamic reasons. It also includes Ken Okuyama’s published comments praising Arcangeli’s work on the Peugeot 406 Coupé. However, I don't think this source shows that Okuyama co-designed the Ferrari 360 with Arcangeli.

• Reference: p.20, lines 457–459
  • Original: 「しかし360 モデナはある二点の欺きを隠し持っている。その二点とは、空力の効率化とそれに伴う目に見えない操縦性の偽り、その結果生じたラマチョッティによるデザインの下方修正である。」
  • Machine-assisted translation: “However, the 360 Modena conceals two problematic points: improved aerodynamic efficiency together with an accompanying, less visible compromise in handling, and the downward revision of the design by Ramaciotti that resulted from this.”
• Reference: p.20, lines 460–461
  • Original: 「フェラーリ360 モデナのデザインを担当したのは、ピニンファリーナ社に当時在籍していたイタリア人デザイナーのダビデ・アルカンジェリ(Davide Arcandeli, 1970－2000)である。」
  • Machine-assisted translation: “The person responsible for the design of the Ferrari 360 Modena was the Italian designer Davide Arcangeli, who was then employed at Pininfarina.”
• Reference: p.20, lines 461–463
  • Original: 「アンカンジェリは360 モデナの前には、素晴らしいデザインの車としてよく引き合いに出され、また世界的に高く評価されるプジョー406 クーペ(1997－2004)を手掛け、360 モデナ発表の後にピニンファリーナを辞めてBMW に移り、BMW5 シリーズ(2003－2010)のデザインを担当した人物である。」
  • Machine-assisted translation: “Before the 360 Modena, Arcangeli had worked on the Peugeot 406 Coupé (1997–2004), a car often cited as an example of excellent design and highly regarded internationally; after the 360 Modena was announced, he left Pininfarina, moved to BMW, and was involved in the design of the BMW 5 Series (2003–2010).”
• Reference: p.20, lines 464–467
  • Original: 「奥山清行(2010:118)16)は、“このクルマのデザインは本当にシンプルながら、一見シンプルに見えても、じつはこだわり抜いた手法による造形であり、このクルマはデザインのつじつまがとてもよく合っている。それも大まかなところだけでなく、細部にわたるまで。たいていのクルマは、よく見るとどこかでデザインが破綻しているものだが、それを発見することはできなかった”」
  • Machine-assisted translation: “Kiyoyuki Okuyama (2010:118) writes: ‘Although this car’s design is truly simple, even if it looks simple at first glance, it is in fact a form created through an extremely thought-through method, and the design of this car is remarkably coherent. That is true not only in the larger elements, but down to the details. Most cars, if you look closely, reveal some point where the design breaks down, but I could not find that here.’”
• Reference: p.20, lines 467–468
  • Original: 「そしてデザインで一番重要なのは『プロポーション』であると断言し、いいプロポーションの車は玄人や車好きの人間だけでなく、美しさの分かる人間には必ず理解されて、長い間人々の口に上り、いつまでも思い出に残る、と結ぶ。」
  • Machine-assisted translation: “He then states unequivocally that the most important thing in design is ‘proportion,’ and concludes that a car with good proportions will be appreciated not only by experts and car enthusiasts, but by anyone who understands beauty; it will remain in people’s conversation for a long time and stay in their memory.”
• Reference: pp.38–40
  • Original: 「引用・参考文献」 / numbered references continuing to 「49)」, followed by 「出典」
  • Machine-assisted translation: “The article includes a formal ‘References / Works Cited’ section, continuing through numbered reference 49, followed by a separate ‘Sources’ section for figures/images.”
• Reference: p.40, Fig.110 source line
  • Original: 「Fig.110 FACOLTÀ TEOLOGICA のホームページより」
  • Machine-assisted translation: “Fig. 110: from the FACOLTÀ TEOLOGICA website.”

Ferrari360OG (talk) 05:50, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

We know that cars are designed by a team of designers. You have to understand that the "designer" field in the infobox is not there to list every employee of the design studio, but to give credit to that designer whose original idea, drawing was ultimately developed into a car. Not his boss, not his collegues, not that particular designer that developed it but the person behind the original design. See all of the other articles. See those that Michelotti designed, he did them mostly as a drawing only, they were developed by Alfredo Vignale most of the times, but Michelotti is credited as the original idea guy. Even if Arcagneli did most of the design process from the drawing to the model, the drawings were made by Popovic, so he is credited with the design in the infobox. YBSOne (talk) 20:04, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the best way forward is to stop going back and forth over the infobox and improve the design body instead.

The sources discussed so far support that Goran Popović was involved in the Ferrari 360 design, and at least one source credits the design to him directly. Other sources place the project at Pininfarina under Lorenzo Ramaciotti’s direction. What I have not seen, however, is a reliable source that clearly says the production Ferrari 360 began from Popović’s chosen drawings or that the final car was developed directly from his original sketch.

That is why my preference is to keep the infobox at Pininfarina and then explain the fuller story in the body: that the 360 was a collective Pininfarina project, developed under Lorenzo Ramaciotti’s direction, with individual designers such as Goran Popović mentioned in the design section and sketches used there with careful wording.

That seems like the clearest way to avoid overstating what the current sources do and do not prove. Ferrari360OG (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

I see no reason to change this article how you like it and leave every single other article as was established so far, so no, your "preference" is not going to be implemented. YBSOne (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

 Not done: the page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. meamemg (talk) 21:19, 24 March 2026 (UTC)