Talk:Audi 80
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. | |
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Sports Car Racing, an attempt to improve and standardize articles related to various sports car racing series throughout the world. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
All images in this article were on speedy delete list so removed. Please use free pictures in future. Justinc 23:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I removed an add-on to the S2/RS2 section; this is an encyclopedia, not a free bulletin board for ads.
Contents |
[edit] Variety of English
I hesitate to bring up this thorny issue... but the present article has got a mixture of US English (sedan, station wagon, liter) and British English (coupé, with the e acute, and also "petrol tank" rather than "gas tank"). The British version seems justified because of the e acute being part of the actual model name, so far as I can see.
The Manual of Style says we should never have a mixture. But there are two conflicting cases about what to do: one suggests to go with the variety of English used in the home country of the product, and we get into the thing of Germany not having its own variety, but being part of Europe where the only official variety of English is British (not considering differences for Scots and Irish...); therefore British English should be used. But the other consideration in the Manual of Style is not to make mass changes of English variety for their own sake. On that basis it would also be a bad thing to change the page. My personal view is that the need for consistency over-rides this.
So on balance I'm minded to bring consistency to the article by switching to British English and changing sedan to saloon. Will this hugely offend anyone? – Kieran T (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
- Recommend "fuel tank" in cases where the type of fuel is not important. —überRegenbogen 08:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Panhard rod?
The geometry of the stabilizing strut (citing physical observation of mid-1970s Audi Foxes and VW Dashers) is significantly different from the illustrations and description in the Panhard rod article. Notably, rather than connecting to the body and cross-beam with ball joints, it is welded to the cross-beam and to the body-end of one of the trailing arms—forming a solid a-frame with them (and eliminating the arc motion that is specifically cited as a disadvantage of a Panhard rod).
The question—or questions—then are:
- Does this difference in design make it not a Panhard rod design?
or: - Is the Panhard rod article too specific in its description?
—überRegenbogen 09:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Model 80 with Inline 5 cylinder Engine
It suggests in this article that the 2.3L I5 was not offered in the 1991 (80), but I owned a 1991 US model 80 with that particular setup. It was a front wheel drive, 2.3L I5, with a 5-speed manual transmission. It still had the B3 body style, so i don't think that it was an early B4.
Does anyone have any insight about this?
Magnacurt 23:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)magnacurt
[edit] Picture
I added my picture of the 93 90S back, since someone removed it when the put up the picture of the white cabriolet.
[edit] Power
Can somebody check the power outputs of the various engines? This change by an anon from 110bhp to 101bhp, for a 1.6 engine which is in both cases more powerful than the 2.0 makes me suspicious that we may have subtle vandalism creeping in. When figures change without a reference or an edit summary it's always tempting to just revert, but it's often not obvious that the initial figure has any more authority — without going back to find who first added it, which is obviously very time consuming. Incidentally, no offence to this particular anon. If you're making valid changes, however, would you please start to use edit summaries to explain them, or source your information with references? Ta. :) – Kieran T (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
- The 1.6 E used the new crossflow engine with MPI that had 101 PS (74 kW). It was more popular in Southern Europe where engine displacement was taxed. The 90 PS (66 kW) 2.0 was available in Germany to have an 80 in a lower insurance bracket (insurance is payed according to horsepower). A 1993 or 1994 Automobile Revue Katalog will confirm those horsepower values. --Pc13 10:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] B1 had auto tranny
When I was a kid we had a 1975 Audi Fox station wagon with automatic transmission. This was in Texas. Unfortunately I don't know any more about it (# of speeds). --ScottJ 22:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Scott, the early 80/Fox was available with a four-speed manual or a three-speed automatic only. --328cia (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Removed
this sentence:
The Audi 80 sold well in Germany, however the Netherlands and Denmark were its two biggest selling markets.
It simply cannot be that Audi sold more 80s on comparatively small markets (totalling about 300.000 cars per year each) than on its home market (2.5 million cars per year).
Also, I removed the hint concerning mainland European cars with the US-style quad headlamps. These were at no time used by the factory in Europe (except on the pre-facelift Coupé and Ur-Quattro, where they were standard, and on the first-gen Audi 200).
--328cia (talk) 13:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- FWIW, I finally found a source with some figures to back up my claim made above:
- All Audi models sold, Denmark 1983/1984: 758/638
- All Audi models sold Netherlands 83/84: 38.059/42.286 (Volkswagen included!)
- Audi 80 sold in Germany 83/84: 77.654/71.306
- --328cia (talk) 00:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Rs2logo.gif
Image:Rs2logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
