Talk:Zastava vehicles/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Image:1990yugo2.jpg Proof of the Porsche connection - eat dust now !!! Nestore

The engine was off course an old stock 1300ccm Fiat engine as seen in Fiat 128 e.g., the fuel-injection off course from BOSCH but as for SEAT Porsche did the design for the engine - that means the fuel injection etc.- using for that the fiat and bosch components.

the nestore version seems to bee the most informative and extended one-though in poor english

someone should correct the grammar, but it contains a lot of beautiful pics and very amusing facts about the simpsons e.g., good links, and also the truth of the nato-bombing. the car assembling-line of zastava got indeed very badly damaged - check cnn-history sites - and of course it was the Pentagon spokesman Ken Bacon who declared it as collateral-damage.read the following pages before reverting stupidly

[1] [2] pics of the destroyed car assembling-line, especially for you ignorants [3] [4] observe the factory mentioned in kragujevac is of course zastava [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]



i don't know who is posting that the fuel injected car has porsche engine, but that is not true. it was just a 1300cc fiat based engine with bosch fuel injection. i am the USA fiat parts distributor, i have owned fuel injected yugos, and it is just not true. if you want to discuss this please contact me a yugo@yugoparts.com and quit entering falsehoods into the page. oh, and the thousands of people who are still driving them say they are good cars. unless you own one, i don't think you have the right to keep posting other wise. thank you


What is up with it being a good car?

I'm the person who added the note about it probably being flawed in production, not design, after reading a few review online about people actually liking their Yugos. However, it was voted "The Worst Car of the Millennium" on the Car Talk website, and I don't think that--at least in the beginning--it was the target of a smear campaign. As far as I can tell, it was trying to be the VW Bug and not doing very well. -Litefantastic 17:31, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The car was designed after Fiat 127, produced in the early seventies. Yugo started production in the early eighties, since then it did not have any significant improvement. The car still ships with carburetor. For a car not to be redisigned in 20 years is a design flaw (of course, there is poor quality control as well).
The meaning of the phrase design flaw in the context of the sentence we were modifying was different, it meant that the cars didn't have systematic errors that affected all produced models. It didn't attempt to make any reference to what one might call mis-features or lacks of features. --Joy [shallot] 22:07, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Sorry about responding late. I think that even suggesting that Yugo did not have design flaws is incorrect and biased. There is no reason for us to make such a statement. Everything from interior plastic to engine parts is failing on regular basis. Most of Yugo owners, especially ones in Former Yugoslavia, don't have access to Internet so you can't find representative expiriences on-line. There are no grounds for such a statement, so I suggest removing it and not getting into dispute of why the car is of such a poor quality. We don't have enough information to claim anything, and we only know the fact is that Yugos are failing. I can probably dig out Bozidar Djelic's (ex Serbian finance minister) making a statement that his Yugo is too unreliable to be driven out of city. Reliable Yugos are rare. They are cheap to fix in former Yugoslavia, so many people still opt to buy them. --Dejan Cabrilo 05:36, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Everything is failing on other old cars, too, and reliable 20 year old cars are rare in general. I just don't see why we need to pick on Yugo so much, as you say, without actual clear information. Though it does seem that we still make a bit of judgement, I'll fix that. --Joy [shallot] 11:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The ones that worked fine were exported to the USA, and were hand picked.
I find that statement about as hard to believe as the claim that you could puncture the hull with a pencil... --Joy [shallot]
Cars exported to America did pass quality control, that's what I meant by "hand picked". Cars for Yugoslavian market did not. I can elaborate on this if you would like me to. --Dejan Cabrilo 05:36, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
However, majority of Yugos ended up in Yugoslavia, or was exported to third world countries (Yugo not as much as Zastava 101). I don't see why should this article defend Yugo. Especially with stories about wrong motor oil, etc. --Dejan Cabrilo 21:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It shouldn't defend it, but it also shouldn't attack it, either. If we state that it has a bad reputation, we can't just leave it at that, we need to explain it. If that explanation includes evidence to the contrary -- and I see many >15 year old Yugos still being driven in hr (they have to be that old because we never imported any new ones after the wars) as well as refitted with household natural gas and whatnot -- then we wouldn't be doing justice to the truth if we didn't include that, too. --Joy [shallot] 22:07, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Yes, you do see them, but you should probably ask the owners how many times a month they need to take it to the mechanic. FYI it's not houshold natural gas, but LPG (propane and butane mixture). --Dejan Cabrilo 05:36, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I knew several owners and one of them told me quite clearly that maintenance after two years cost him more than the a new (or "new") Yugo purchase. But that still isn't much reason to bash the car, we can state all this without showing bias. Thanks for the correction about the gas, I knew that but I initially remembered just that it was in the characteristic orange tanks :) --Joy [shallot]

Also, I just checked, Yugo is modeled after Fiat 127. Zastava 101 was modeled after 128. You can check it by googleing for images.--Dejan Cabrilo 21:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In retrospect, I think my statement in regard to quality control should probably be referenced or something...just to make sure I'm being correct about all this or whatever. -Litefantastic 03:06, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • This has nothing to do with anything, but I just love how the guy who designed one model of the Yugo is the same guy who designed the DeLorean. -Litefantastic 03:06, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That claims about wrong oil and the negative marketing campaign were added anonymously and are unverified, but they don't seem too implausible. We need a rationale to keep or remove that. --Joy [shallot] 11:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've never heard anything about either, except for this page. The story about the gas certainly seems possible, but I wonder about the smear campaign. So far as I know, the car was it's own smear campaign in the United States. -Litefantastic 12:19, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The later Yugo models, like the Sana, which are NOT on the front page ( although the typified bashing is going on ) are based I think on the FIAT Tipo.

Sana The Yugo Sana

http://zastava.c2000.pl/www_htm/tech/yugo/yugo_florida_sana.htm

Yugo vs. Model T

It says Yugos are about as complicated as Model T Fords. I suppose it's a bit much to ask, but is there anyone reading this who has worked on both, and can confirm or decry that? -Litefantastic 23:51, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't work on Model T, but read about it. It's as similar as any other pre 1980 car really, since it still uses (actually, that may have changed in last couple of years) carburetor vs. fuel injection, there are no onboard computers, etc. I would argue that less computerization means lot more work hours nowdays, at least in more developed countries, so I will alter the paragraph to reflect that. --Dejan Čabrilo 00:04, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Err, not my view of maintenance cost, but the fact that any pre 1980 car can be considered similar to Model T :) --Dejan Čabrilo 00:13, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, my father and I have worked on my Yugo and his Ford Model T. Both are about as equally complicated. As far as the level of complication, it's not that high. My father has built two Model T's from the ground up, however, so he knows them well. I, on the other hand, haven't met a problem on my Yugo that I haven't been able to fix myself, and likewise on the Model T. --Brandon Simonson 06:51, 05 January 2006 (UTC)

If Yugos are failures then why are there still thousands on the roads? i sell parts for yugo's, and unless you have the data to back it up, you shouldn't be attacking something you know nothing about. Jay Pierce


"Put it in 'H'!"

In the TV section, under the Simpsons, there was a not about how there was a Yugo with an automatic transmission. This part of the article has since been removed. Is there a Yugo with an automatic transmission? -Litefantastic 15:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there is a Yugos came with automatic transmission, but an automatic Yugo in the USA is as rare as a Cabrio. - Karrmann
Stranger things have happened on The Simpsons. I say lets keep it. -Litefantastic 01:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

As I said , there were 300 units sold in US named GV Plus with automatic-transmission gear-box as well with AC equiped.Nestore

I have streamlined the TV section and corrected the references to the Simpson's television show. Here are list of things corrected.

  • Homer's pink sedan has been on the show since season 1. The scene originally referenced occured in season 4.
  • There is no evidence that the family station wagon is a Yugo. The image of the pink Simpson's toy car in not good enough to be used as evidence because the family station wagon in a red/orange colour.
  • I could not understand the reference to Murder on the Orient Express or why it was under the Simpsons area so I removed it.
  • I removed the second image of the 128, as it seemed redundant.
  • I corrected the Mr. Plow reference and added the Great Louse Detective reference. Movementarian 11:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

The Yugo is a Zastava

It was called as i have written in the article in the beginning Zastava Jugo 45. But further on for export reasons the brand-name was changed, also in the article. So all models or versions are the same car in different periods:whether Zastava Jugo 45 or Yugo GV etc or Zastava Koral IN etc. So all stages should be in the article. And all version have one common reason: the history of Zastava.without the history-part there still would be Yugos imported to US, but because of the mentioned reasons (war etc.) the success-story suddenly ended in US. This should be in the article - otherwise readers would think that the Yugo was withdrawn of the US-market only of its bad reputation and poor quality-myths. all pictures are Yugo models or for the domestic-market Zastava.the florida was the attempt of a evolution of the yugo 45 or gv etc. it was also named YUGO. and the new zastava 10 is now the third evolutory stage of the yugo also cooperated with fiat like all stages of evolution.so previous versions are not non-sense. but certain persons should read more before claiming knowledge.Good links are mentioned above by Nato-Observer, also i recommend [11], the official yugo information site (zastava- its the same - yugo was just the name for americans who would have problems to pronounce it) with all the truths and facts. who of you would claim that they - the producers- would say non-sense? You bad informed ignorants and fascistic-US-chauvinists.... Persons like You allowed your government to bomb this unguilty persons for imperialistic reasons with the effect that the cheapest car ever imported to the us-market was withdrawn- with sanctions first attempted and then with bombings. yes they also manufactored weapons, so what? if this is the reason to allow the us to bomb this plant, so how many reasons would all other countries in the world have to bomb all facilities and plants in us which produce not only small guns like zastava but also weapons of mass-destruction?how would you like this? ah ok. only the us has the right to produce weapons a to claim for itself to bee the good ones. but for how long? all countries in the world even old allies like germany and france hate the us for its wars spreading mentality.the whole world... except israel. but a country without friends and allies will not survive long... the history of the yugo is a parade-example for americas unjustice and bad-fortune in the future.people can apologize but people will never forget...Some links for fascistic-us-chauvististic ignorants: [12] [13] [14] [15] observe the factory mentioned in kragujevac is of course zastava [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21]

Nestore 20:47, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

First of all, please don't call names. Second of all, Yugo was never a success in the USA. Can you back that up? It was always seen, in Yugoslavia as well as in the USA, as a bad car. The difference is that due to protectionism it was still sold relatively well in Yugoslavia, but it could've never compete with Korean and Japanese cars on the US market. If the fact that the car is ridiculed and was often proclaimed the worst car ever is not enough for you, than look at the sales number. --Dejan Čabrilo 23:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes which was 160.000 sold units in just 4 years, with customers-orders without end... which could not be fullfilled due of known and above mentioned reasons,...Nestore 20:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, you're right about the company being called Zastava, although your reasoning for the Yugo name was incorrect. The brand was called Yugo in Western Europe as well, and the Zastava Jugo was sold as Yugo 45/55/65 (according to power level) or, in Italy, Innocenti Koral. And the Yugo suffered from the same reliability as the Fiat 127, even in Europe. People only bought it because it was cheaper than any European supermini. The Zastava Florida is not a modernized version of the Yugo, it was a rejected design for the Fiat Tipo and used the Fiat T3 platform. Now, instead of a cliché rant against the evil imperialistic war-mongering americans, you would be more productive by actually adding and correcting information about the company and cars. --Pc13 12:00, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
"The Beaulieu Encyclopeadia of the Automobile by Nick Georgano - (Forward by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu) has the car listed under Zastava, with a picture on 1781 vol 3 as the Zastava Yugo Tempo. In Britain I remember the early days when the 101/311 range was imported into the UK and the brand was Zastava back then...which became Zastava Yugo..then Yugo for short...

will have to look where the Datsun Cedric is!!!!

Copyvio

I removed a big chunk of article as it seems to be a copyvio. The source is in the edit summary. Do not put it back in until the status is clarified. --Dejan Čabrilo 03:11, 19 November 2005 (UTC)


Engineering Equivelent of a 1940s Tractor

I'd desperately like to find a source that the Yugo is in fact the engineering equievelent of a 1940s tractor. I'm a mechanical engineer, and I happen to know for a fact that it is. Seriously, if you've convinced one to run for more then 10 years you've got a miracle on your hands (or a complete engine-block rebuild, one of the two). However, until we can source it I'd say this has to go: "This failure of the vehicle has nothing at all to do with the fact that is the engineering equivalent of a 1940s tractor. Seriously."

Because we all know how many 1940's tractors were front wheel drive and have SOHC engines... :D User:K-111

There is one saying in Serbia, I will try to translate it: "You get as much music, as much you paid for it". Tell me what do you expect from a car which is 3990$ cost. That at least has four wheels and motor and that it can drive you from point A to point B. Yugo can do that. Hey it was not built to compite with Audi, or Mercedes. It was built to be cheap and that you can drive it. Yugo achieved even much more. To be loved and to be fetish car for many people around. Why do you offend it then? Yugo achieved everything what was it's mission and I do hope that it will run long and well for all their owners.

Cleaned Up

I have tried to clean up the article and streamline the information. I have also tried to remove as much of the Zastava information as possible. Hopefully I have made some headway. I also removed the clean-up tag. Movementarian 16:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent Edits

Please talk about things before reverting a massive section. The Simpsons references are correct as is. There is not a Simpsons Episode called Murder on the Orient Express. See The Simpsons Episode Guide and therefore the reference does not belong in that area. There is also no concrete proof that Homer's car is a Yugo. There is just a reference.

I think the Pop Culture references to the Yugo are a little out of hand. The amount of photos in that section makes the article look untidy. I have removed a few them more than one time, but they keep getting readded. Under movies Moonlighting is mentioned with a comment that it stars Bruce Willis and Cybill Shepherd. That was a television show not a movie. Whilst it is apparent that there are some Yugo entusiasts that would like every single appearance listed, I believe that the point can be made just listing the more prominent ones. Perhaps limiting movies to Drowning Mona and Dragnet, where they were part of the story as opposed to just a car in the movie. Television references could be limited to the Simpsons, Whose Line, and the Midas commercial. Again, because they were part of the story.

I removed the point about Inspector Gadget driving a Yugo in the movie Inspector Gadget - because he was driving a Chevette, not a Yugo - and even reffered to the car as a Chevette verbally in the film. User:K-111

I touched up the TV section and removed the R. Kelly bullet. I looked through that entire website and could not find a single refernce to Yugo or Zastava. Either way, unless the vehicle is going to be marketed as a Yugo it does not belong here. It would belong on the Zastava page. Movementarian 04:22, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It is part of the marketing strategy not to put a connection between yugo and zoragy. but the zoragy is manufactored in serbia and montenegro in particular in lazarevac. this groups works for the zastava-yugo group in kragujevac. this link should exist, because it shows the capacities of yugo, and if the sanctions and bombings would never happen, imagine what cars would come from yugo... the name zoragy comes from the designer zoran radivojevic and his partners and was in the beginning a concept-car introduced at the chicago-motor show, where r.kelly felt in love with it and took it for his video. it is built on a toyota-mr2 plattform which also provides the engine and the middle-motor-concept. as i know only 3 cars were made, and only one was registered in e.u. in luxemburg particularly. the registry templates seen in the video exist only in luxemburg. nevertheless it is possible to order a zoragy with individual design etc. price is unknown.Nestore 06:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, but I disagree that it belongs here. It would be like listing the Audi A3 as a Volkswagen. They are the same parent company and share some of the same parts, however they are different entities. I think that the company needs it own article and not a mention on the Yugo page. Movementarian 03:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
the zoragy is not a own company like audi, its more a own model of the yugo designers, maybe some people did not understand here that tha yugo is as well a model of a car as well as a brand name. whether zastava or yugo (written with a Y) it is a name.for domestic sales the yugo was called zastava koral or zastava jugo. for export after 86 always in europe yugo 45 etc. and usa yugo gv etc. i think it is worth mentioning it because it shows what yugo the manufactor is producing, and the article is about yugo.Nestore 17:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Different badge, different company. The Opel Speedster and Vauxhall VX220 are essentially the same car, but you would not list the Vauxhall under Opel. The Zoragy deserves it's own article and not a mention here. Movementarian 04:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

the point of view" "In 1999, US military aircraft bombed the Zastava factory as part of the NATO peacekeeping operation in Kosovo. The attack targeted the military production site of the Zastava plant and as a result of it's close proximity, major damage was caused to the civil production site as well. it is a fact in history that the yugo factory was directly targeted, and not collateral damage. the is a provable fact, and it needs it be corrected.

NPOV thing

Dunno what's been going on here, but the Yugo#Terroristic NATO Aggression during Kosovo-war 1999 section is a tincy wincy bit off the NPOV standard... It's fine to say the factory was bombed, it's fine to say that only the civilan part of the plant was dammaged while the weapon manifacturing portion survived and such, but let's stick to facts and not start speculating on pentagon's motives and what not. --Sherool (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Somebody keeps pushing a version which is full of factual inaccuracies, copyvios, POV, etc. We worked hard to clean up the article and I'd say that such behavior is vandalism at this point. --dcabrilo 17:29, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

saying the truth is considered to you as vandalism? or do you have the right to censor this page? remember wikipedia is a free encyclopedia for everbody and also can should be edited freely for everybody!--Nestore 17:48, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia also has a NPOV policy. It's not free for all, and many of us certainly don't agree with what you call "the truth". The article needs to be factual, but also balanced, well written, and on topic. --dcabrilo 11:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I exmplained all that already. Nestore simply erased my comments from his/her Talk: page. -Litefantastic 22:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I am going to disagree with you for an entirely different reason. This in an article about a car not a war. The issues you are trying to post belong in Legitimacy of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Movementarian 02:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
All written things are facts also proved with external links. do you really dispute the fact that the car-plant got hit etc. ? Do You really think that the destroying of the factory and the uprise of the yugoslavian war which lead to the disappearance of the yugo car from the market and from the streets should not be in the article? If this is not part of the Yugocar history - what else then? Maybe you want do hide this shameful part of recent us-history- i think that is your only motivation from constantly deleting these very important facts of the car-history. Nestore 02:05, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
Facts are fine as long as they are presented in a neutral way and are backed by verifiable sources. Mentioning that the factory was bombed, and what kind of dammage was done scertainly seems relevant. However turning it into a raving rant about the evil terrorist NATO bombing and whatnot violates WP:NPOV, simple as that. --Sherool (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

aha this is progression, confessing the facts is allready the first step to the truth, but destroying and bombing of a souvereign state is undisputable an evil terroristic barbaric act and should be described like that. facts are not npov, whith this explanation then hitler's actions during second world war or saddam hussein regime also cannot be described as barbaric, which certainly was, so what? do people have the right to choose what is npov when it seems shameful for their own? all verifiable sources are listed at external links at my versions. Nestore 16:38, 26 December 2005

I've just edited out the most painfully political rants in the article. Seriously, though, if you can't see that what you wrote was a long way away from anything resembling a neutral, objective point of view, you have been spending too much time near the propaganda machine of a totalitarian regime. Discussing the merits of the NATO campaign is fair enough. But in the appropriate areas of Wikipedia (hint: A talk page, maybe?). And an article about cars is not a good place to do it. Believe me. What's next? Using an article about sauerkraut to condemn German militarism? Whatever one may think of the subject, the facts/"facts" or the validity of the conflict is completely and utterly irrelevant. It may be the most vile international crime of all time for all I care, IT STILL DOES NOT BELONG IN THIS ARTICLE. Comprende, Nestore? [Arild] 01:36, 05 Feb 2006 (CET)

Scope Of Clean Up.

I think we should move all of the general Zastava information off of this page, and just focus on the Yugo brand name vehicles. Zastava already has it's own page, so it's not necessary for us to have further discussion of the company here. All we really need to mention about Zastava is that Yugo is a brandname of theirs. We should only be detailing the Fiat 127 and 128 vehicles that were solds as Yugos on this page in my opinion. I think we can cut back, condense, and omit a large portion of what is presented on this page currently, as well as add a good deal of more useful information. - User:K-111

Exactly, We should change the history section to give information about the Yugo, not Zastiva --Karrmann

if you want to leave the article a bunch of lies , controlled by a child. okay . you better be able to prove what you say. it is not vandalising when i correct lies. you better contact someone who knows the truth before printing lies. there was never a porsche motor in a yugo, etc. i guess this 13 year old knows more about cars than i do.

This looks more like..

Maybe this article should just be about the Yugo 45/55/Koral models with all the other infomation about the company moved to the main Zastava page.

Lock her up boys

Ok, this is getting old. Orphan1 is continually vandalising this article wiht POV, and removing any info about the Yugo generally being considered a crappy car by the general public. a peatial lock should be used to let the heat drop and then we can open her up. Orphin just joined, so wyhy don't we just do the anon and new lock. --Karrmann if you want to leave the article a bunch of lies , controlled by a child. okay . you better be able to prove what you say. it is not vandalising when i correct lies. you better contact someone who knows the truth before printing lies. there was never a porsche motor in a yugo, etc. i guess this 13 year old knows more about cars than i do. oh, i am new to this, so your objection is "point of view". what i changed was not point of view, like illegally bombing a country. it was facts, which i can prove. there was no porsche motor. parts are available where i said they were. that certain models were added to the line up is true. and the yugo jokes are slander, you can not prove that it was a bad car, you never owned one, so you have no right to insult yugo owners, yes human beings who own these cars, and you are ruining the value of their property. show me what i changed is point of view, and we will discuss it. what if i made jokes about your toys, and the other children laughed at you? would you like it?

  • Excuse me, but we don't tolerate personal attacks or any form of age discrimination here.--MONGO 06:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow, you are asking to be blocked Orphan1, I wonder what Jimbo has to say....... --Karrmann