User talk:Mr.choppers/Archive 3
 | 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. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
Peugeot 604 + Fiat 600
In the Peugeot 604 article the statement at the top has been reworded again as i feel it's close to POV and unneutral. For the Fiat 600, i merely added what the articles connected to it claimed in the successor box. The Fiat 500 article (i'm sure it was that one) claims it replaced the 600 and so i changed the 600 article to say that aswell, so if you intend to remove one then please remove the other. Thanks Jenova20 09:38, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- I don't know where that came from, the Fiat article successors and predecessors appear correct now so maybe i was editing while tired.
- Jenova20 10:37, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- First of all, one shouldn't generally accept what another Wikipedia article says without thinking critically first.
- As for the 604, I cannot understand why this statement (which merely touches on the luxury car market, not the 604 specifically - the Lexus LS400 brought something new to the market in its at the time unrivalled combination of quality and price, plus the ease of the dealership experience compared to the perceived snobbishness of MB and BMW dealers in the US at the time) should offend you so much. It is a comparatively inoffensive statement regarding the luxury car market in general, and helps explain what the 604 was lacking. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Probably because that's not the section i've been editing that you have in quotes, although i would point out there's a couple weasel words in there.
- Thanks Jenova20 16:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- The section i removed and you readded was "This meant that the car had to steal customers from marginally more established brands - usually by being remarkable in some tangible respect."
- And i changed it to "This meant that the car had to steal customers from marginally more established brands in some way."
- I would argue that mine looks less POV and without the weasel words, wouldn't you?
- I have not edited the example you gave as far as i am aware.
- Thanks Jenova20 16:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- As for the 604, I cannot understand why this statement (which merely touches on the luxury car market, not the 604 specifically - the Lexus LS400 brought something new to the market in its at the time unrivalled combination of quality and price, plus the ease of the dealership experience compared to the perceived snobbishness of MB and BMW dealers in the US at the time) should offend you so much. It is a comparatively inoffensive statement regarding the luxury car market in general, and helps explain what the 604 was lacking. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 15:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is exactly the sentence that I am referring to. Without the rest of the sentence it is truncated and largely meaningless. As it stood, it leads into the next bit about the 604's capacities and doesn't say anything about the 604 itself but rather about markets in general - to break into a hitherto unexplored segment one must by needs bring something remarkable. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- But that's POV.
- It also suggests a car can only succeed by being remarkable, but many cars may not steal customers in that way at all as most people will either buy what they need or what they like, rather than just the best thing on the market they can afford.
- Then there's also the Weasel aspect of using statements and examples in the sentences that are not needed, POV, Weasel words, and unsourced.
- I respect that you most likely have more knowledge on this than me but it seems unnecessary to add them when "in some way" is short and sweet, without any unpleasantness.
- Thanks Jenova20 16:23, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- That is exactly the sentence that I am referring to. Without the rest of the sentence it is truncated and largely meaningless. As it stood, it leads into the next bit about the 604's capacities and doesn't say anything about the 604 itself but rather about markets in general - to break into a hitherto unexplored segment one must by needs bring something remarkable. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 16:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- How is this POV? How is this a "weasel word"? You use those expressions but you don't in any way show how they apply to this sentence. Later in the section there is an entire sentence ("Contemporary journalists attributed this relative failure to a variety of reasons, such as the unambitious styling, the lack of technical innovation...") which expands precisely on how the 604 failed because it did not bring anything new to the table - precisely because it wasn't remarkable in any way, even though the car was definitely competent overall and had many good qualities. There is no issue of POV in either versions, but your sentence is largely without meaning and does not in any way illuminate the rest of the section. The point of this section is to clarify how the 604, a good car by the standards of the time and certainly better than its competitors in certain ways, still did not have any success to speak of - and with your removal of material a good part of this meaning is lost. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- If you could find a reference and quote it rather than stating it as fact, i wouldn't have as big a problem with it but it still strikes me as POV and Weasely, to state that the car is remarkable in your own words, when the same would be said about every car every created.
- I don't see the need for the addition there, it's very trivial and it doesn't add anything to the article other than a POV.
- Thanks Jenova20 09:49, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- How is this POV? How is this a "weasel word"? You use those expressions but you don't in any way show how they apply to this sentence. Later in the section there is an entire sentence ("Contemporary journalists attributed this relative failure to a variety of reasons, such as the unambitious styling, the lack of technical innovation...") which expands precisely on how the 604 failed because it did not bring anything new to the table - precisely because it wasn't remarkable in any way, even though the car was definitely competent overall and had many good qualities. There is no issue of POV in either versions, but your sentence is largely without meaning and does not in any way illuminate the rest of the section. The point of this section is to clarify how the 604, a good car by the standards of the time and certainly better than its competitors in certain ways, still did not have any success to speak of - and with your removal of material a good part of this meaning is lost. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
- Again, the sentence does not say anything about the 604 being remarkable; rather it refers to the complications inherent in entering a new market segment. You appear to be misinterpreting this sentence. Again, I would like an explanation of how this is weasely or POV before I accept the deletion of material (not originally added by me, BTW) ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- "This meant that the car had to steal customers from marginally more established brands - usually by being remarkable in some tangible respect."
- It incorrectly states that usually cars steal customers by being remarkable, but that's POV, cars lose customers for many reasons, including reliability, money issues, or the family wanting something practical.
- It certainly isn't OK to suggest the easiest way to steal the market is with the best car as there's much more to it than that, including reliability, price and practicality.
- You may not have added it the first time but you did the last 2 times Jenova20 10:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Again, the sentence does not say anything about the 604 being remarkable; rather it refers to the complications inherent in entering a new market segment. You appear to be misinterpreting this sentence. Again, I would like an explanation of how this is weasely or POV before I accept the deletion of material (not originally added by me, BTW) ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 09:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Remarkable in some tangible respect" refers to all of those things you list, including reliability, price and practicality - I don't know why you assume that "remarkable" necessarily refers to the cars technical aspects? ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Well i'm only objecting to the use of remarkable, it doesn't come across as neutral to me.
- A car doesn't have to be remarkable to outsell the competition, an aspect can be described as such, but that's just POV isn't it?
- I'm actually wondering now if i'm being unreasonable though in light of recent events
- What do you think?
- Thanks Jenova20 10:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- "Remarkable in some tangible respect" refers to all of those things you list, including reliability, price and practicality - I don't know why you assume that "remarkable" necessarily refers to the cars technical aspects? ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- A car doesn't necessarily have to be remarkable to sell well, but to break into a new market segment something special is indeed necessary. Low price, a stunning warranty, or sheer competence. I hope you don't mind if I restore the sentence, cheers, ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Your comment when uploading this picture
Hi, you tagged the picture with Description=1987-1988 Lamborghini Countach 5000 QV, US spec. I don't know if the odd front wing is original fitment, does anyone? - the reason for the front wing is mentioned in Lamborghini_Countach#5000QV - For the first time, a US specification model was produced by the factory, with styling changes to allow bumpers to meet US federal standards (large, bulky bumpers were used that, to many people, ruined the smooth lines of the car). - 88.67.144.113 (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
- Well, no, the reason for the bumpers I know. My curiosity relates to whether the peculiar-looking wing is an aftermarket item or if it was placed there by Lamborghini SpA. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Message
Hello. You have a new message at Anna Frodesiak's talk page. 12:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Just a note, I have removed the criticisms section again. Criticism sections are treated differently from other sections and it is inappropriate to list them if there are no valid sources.
This is especially true when the criticisms are personal criticisms and do not reflect the general sentiment. Although as long as one person (the person who wanted to air his grievances on Wikipedia) criticises, it technically is a criticism, but this is not a valid reason to include it.
What we need is a trustworthy source to support the criticisms before adding it in, otherwise it will only be counted as personal criticisms. This should not be difficult to find if it really is a general sentiment, yet I do have problems finding one.
Kindly discuss the matter on the page talk if you feel otherwise. --220.255.1.88 (talk) 03:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
- I have replied on the talkpage, and again, we do not simply delete things with which we don't agree. I have undone your deletion. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for merging the Innoceni Mini articles. Am I correct in saying you also expanded the article? Either way, it looks great.--Pineapple Fez 22:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
- I did expand it considerably. I have goodly amount of material still to be included, but there are also countless parties to be gone to and lots of glögg to be drank. And thanks. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In Fiat 124 Sport Spider, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Bertone (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Global Automakers
Hi, Mr. Choppers. I've just made some changes to the Global Automakers draft and posted a new reply at WikiProject Automobiles. Care to take a look? Thanks, WWB Too (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, can you close this for me and begin the split to Citroën C3 Picasso Thanks, merry xmas Jenova20 10:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Hello, I don't think that I have the right to close a discussion. Nonetheless, and since there is no dissent to speak of, feel free to go ahed and split the article on your own. Best regards, ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 10:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Since the edit history of the Picasso parts is irretrievably commingled with the rest of the article, I trust you to split it off into a new article without any loss of content or such. I would recommend beginning with a straight transfer of material, leaving any improvements for later. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 11:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
- Looks good thus far. The infobox will come sooner or later; there are people out there who really like adding them. And copy/paste is the method most use for them, you could just bring one over from the C3 page and then make the necessary changes. Merry Christmas, ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
File upload
Oh my god! This picture that I had taken was deleted. Nissan Langley N12 photos. This picture I had taken half years ago by camera and I uploaded it to my facebook page. I downloaded my photos back from my page when i needed and share it to wiki. Isn't it this photo upload illegal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Philip Yong (talk • contribs) 10:52, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
- Don't fret, the file is still there. It was just removed from the article; because the car is so altered and beat up so as to not be illustrative. See all these photos. Thanks, ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Suzuki Cultus
Hello, I have been trying to clear a backlog of articles requiring to be split. This is the only article in Feb 2010 still requiring to be split. The talk page showed a concensus to split and yet it has not happened. I would do it myself, but I could not work out which sections ought to go in which articles. Since you are the only person involved in the discussion that is still showing any intrest in the article, does it still require splitting or should the tag be removed? If it should be split then could you please indicate what the new articles should be called and what sections need to be put into them? Op47 (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- It should indeed be split. My modfified variant of OSX's suggestion was to place articles one and two into one article (Suzuki Cultus), with the Baleno/Cultus Crescent/Esteem in another (Suzuki Cultus Crescent), and with Geo Metro being turned into very brief sections on generations one and two with redirects to Cultus, with the third generation having all its content on this page. Once it's done we can always see if there are issues. I don't have much editing time at the moment, but I'll check back in when I can. Best, ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
The Honda That's and the Honda Life are the same vehicle
The Honda Life was sold at Honda Primo and the Honda That's was sold at Honda Verno and Honda Clio. The Honda Zest replaced the Honda That's, but because Verno, Primo, and Clio are no longer used, the Zest and the Life are sold together.(Regushee (talk) 15:18, 27 December 2011 (UTC))
- I am aware that they share nearly the entirety of their underpinnings, but since the car has unique bodywork as well as a separate name, as well as a separate article on Japanese Wikipedia, I feel that there is no need to merge it (somewhat awkwardly, in my opinion) into the Life page. For instance, the Citroën Dyane is simply a rebodied Citroën 2CV, yet receives a stand-alone. So does the Nissan Be-1 (a rebodied Micra) and countless others. If you still disagree, we could always have other editors provide input in the matter. Best, ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 19:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I see your point; something that I've seen done might serve this situation. The Subaru Brat has its own page, and it's included in the Subaru Leone, since the Brat is a vehicle built on the Leone platform. I moved the That's over to the Life because the That's was a stub, and the That's is no longer in production, and thirdly, the Japanese article was sparse with information. The Zest, the replacment for the That's, is still in production. but should probably be mentioned on the Life as well, with a similar article approach. One of the reasons why I researched and added the Honda dealership sales channels is to shed light on why there are so many Honda products, and the different sales channels disclosed that some vehicles were exclusive to particular retail outlets.Regards(Regushee (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2011 (UTC))
- Yes, I welcome the info on the Japanese dealership networks - for some reason similar articles on all of the various bizarre Japanese dealership networks were deleted back in the days, since they were (stupidly, in my opinion) not considered encyclopeadic. I think it is time to create a new article containing this information - we could call it Honda sales channels (Japan)? That way we could provide proper links to a good article instead of having to waste space on explaining the system in every article. I assume that the content over at Honda was written by you?
- As for the That's' stub status, I think that the article was of a fairly reasonable length for such a short-lived and unimportant car - calling it a stub would be incorrect. I still think it would be a better fit on its own page, but you are right in that they should both receive mention in the Honda Life article. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
- I had tried a similar approach to the Japanese dealerships as both a separate article and as a category, but both efforts were reverted for various issues. My contributions to Honda (and both Toyota and Nissan) seem to have remained, and as of yet, haven't been contested. I've read that Mitsubishi also tried the sales channel approach, and the Mazda sales channels are also reasonably documented (Autozam, Efini, etc.), and when I find more information, I'll add it (I discovered somewhere that Subaru in Japan also sold Porsche, Volvo and Saab for awhile). With regards to the sales channels currently being used in Japan, only Toyota seems to be maintaining them. When I menntion a Japanese sales channel in a particular article, I try to keep it as brief as possible, with a more detailed explanation at the manufacturers article under the "marketing" section.Regards(Regushee (talk) 20:23, 27 December 2011 (UTC))
AGAM
Um…wow. I've just left my thoughts at Talk:Association of Global Automakers and here as well. Perhaps you'd like to take a look. I can't blame you for washing your hands of it. —Scheinwerfermann T·C05:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
Horrific safety bumpers
Horrific safety bumpers? No way, they add character to the SLC. It's possible that my tastes are a concerning attribute, but the combination of horrific safety bumpers, US quad headlamps (the only Benz that these US-spec lights actually look good on), C-pillar venetian blinds, long-wheelbase, and the very 1980 chocolate brown paintwork make for the best looking C107 I have ever seen. Where can I buy this? I want it. Because it's over 25, 20 years, old (whatever, I can't remember the actual number of years required), being left-hand drive doesn't matter in Australia. OSX (talk • contributions) 16:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- It's pretty cool - I often use "horrific" as an honorific. I added the location to the shot, if you want me to I can leave a note with your e-mail. I did undraw some dents and stuff, it's a bit mangled in real life. Thanks! ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 20:41, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
- No need to defend your wording—I agree that US "safety" bumpers normally look bad, but for some reason I just like them on the C107. However, even on the C107, I agree that they do stick out far too much. Maybe it is because they make the car appear more imposing (especially with those overriders on the front). By the time one was to import a US market car like this, it would be easier just to order the relevant parts in and apply them to a local car. Plus there's no point owning a car like that unless it is immaculate—condition is everything.
ANI discussion
Hello. There is currently a discussion at ANI regarding a matter in which you may have been involved. —Scheinwerfermann T·C04:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Daihatsu Rugger, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alcantara (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:27, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Facel 2 pics
Have you got any more and EVEN BETTER Facel 2 pics?
The Facel 2 article badly needs them - it was just SUCH a beautiful car.
Thanks for the one you have added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tolesi (talk • contribs) 21:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Mystery trucklet
- I want to thank you both for your interest, and for this communication ! If you visited Greece, especially in the past, you must have noticed that there used to be an infinite number of small companies and even workshops that built these funny "agricultural" vehicles - just as there were similar ones building 3-wheelers in the late 1960s. Many of these builders could not be classified as "proper" manufacturers, since they did not use standardized parts, while their vehicles were often sad contraptions, to say the least. It is difficult to recognize many of these, since they often shared the same cab (if one could name this a cab !). They also, naturally, were sold around their "home bases", so if similar vehicles appeared in Corfu, chances are they were made by a local company such as Hercules. Similar cab I have seen in vehicles built in Crete and the Peloponnese. The few makers I included in my book and transfered to Wikipedia, are those (even if some of their creations look pathetic !) that were somehow "true" organized manufacturers. I am sorry I can't help you with a more specific answer. Please feel free to contact me for any other relevant issue, I'll be happy to help more if I can. Best Regards,Skartsis (talk) 16:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Mazda Familia
- See User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Mazda Familia. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Re: Stefan Johansson
Yeah, I thought it was funny too. DH85868993 (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Miniotx the new BS Bob?
Glad to see I'm not alone in reverting edits by Miniotx. He is quite disruptive with his constant wikifiddling. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- Well, he is a sockpuppet and will be blocked before long. See here. He's already been blocked in the Commons for copyright violations and sockpuppetry. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
Cars portal
- (From my user page)
There is no need to add the "Cars Portal" to every page. It alredy appears on the talkpage of every relevant article. Thanks, ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 16:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- There is no need to omit the Cars Portal from automobile articles. Most readers don't view article talk pages, and hence, won't see the option to view the portal, which offers a unique way to browse automobile-related articles. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
- It provides unnecessary clutter in articles, just to link to a (largely unused) portal. If it was all that necessary, we could simply have a bot automatically include it in every article which belongs to the Automotive Project - after a discussion. If you still feel very strongly about it, I suggest starting a conversation over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- The small template box doesn't clutter articles whatsoever, in my opinion. Are there any instances in which you think the portal template should be used in articles? If you think the Cars portal could use improvements, consider improving it! Northamerica1000(talk) 04:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think that the portal perhaps might belong in a more general car article such as Automotive design, but even there I would find it dubious. But whether I find this portal useful or not is besides the point: it is not normally included in the actual car articles, although it is always linked on the talkpage. I feel that this signifies a consensus. If you would like to change that consensus, that is fine and I will be happy to abide by the results - but I feel that adding it unilaterally to every single car related article is merely a nuisance. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying, it's only been added to some select articles, not every single one! I agree that it the link shouldn't be on every car article. However, I disagree that it should be omitted from all of them. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- I think that the portal perhaps might belong in a more general car article such as Automotive design, but even there I would find it dubious. But whether I find this portal useful or not is besides the point: it is not normally included in the actual car articles, although it is always linked on the talkpage. I feel that this signifies a consensus. If you would like to change that consensus, that is fine and I will be happy to abide by the results - but I feel that adding it unilaterally to every single car related article is merely a nuisance. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- The small template box doesn't clutter articles whatsoever, in my opinion. Are there any instances in which you think the portal template should be used in articles? If you think the Cars portal could use improvements, consider improving it! Northamerica1000(talk) 04:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
- It provides unnecessary clutter in articles, just to link to a (largely unused) portal. If it was all that necessary, we could simply have a bot automatically include it in every article which belongs to the Automotive Project - after a discussion. If you still feel very strongly about it, I suggest starting a conversation over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 00:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
After viewing "What links here" on the Cars portal page (Here), I see what you're saying. Thanks for the clarification. Northamerica1000(talk) 05:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
SAIC Group
Hi, I would be most grateful for your comments at a post which I have made on the Talk page of the above article (Talk:SAIC Group#Conversion to SAIC Motor article about whether that article should now be converted to one about SAIC Motor following the recent company reorganisation. Thanks in advance.Rangoon11 (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Guess who?
Ranuralip (talk · contribs) - does this user seem familiar? :-) --Biker Biker (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- What a twit. Hopefully he tires soon. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 18:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just pointed out the link to the admin who closed the SPI. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- In the words of the great Freddie Mercury "Another one bites the dust".... --Biker Biker (talk) 18:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I just pointed out the link to the admin who closed the SPI. --Biker Biker (talk) 18:24, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Fiat 147, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pickup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Laforza
Hi, Sorry if I send you this message but I notes your intervention on the article about the Laforza. Unfortunately your statement about the Sofim/Iveco engine it is not correct. Also if the origin and engine block is similar to the one used by the Fiat Nuova Campagnola second series ( 2445 Sofim 8140.61 first series diesel 72 hp @4200 141Nm @2400 aspirated!!!) it is not the same of the Magnum 4x4 as stated in your addition. The power and torque are different since these engines came strait from a second series used by the Iveco turbodaily 4x4 and early series VM90 as well as other Fiat vehicles (not the Campagnola). In fact the TurboDiesel Sofim used by the Magnum 4x4 was the Sofim 8140.21 95HP @4100 and 217Nm @2300 . An other miss informed statement is that only the first series of Magnum from 1985 to 1987 used the Sofim td. (about 700 units) witch by the way I owned back in 1986 . The majority of the Magnum TD (probably about 3000 units including the Italian police and other forces (1500) used the VM motori (of Cento) 2.4 112 hp from 1987 onward and the 2.5 120hp from 1991 onward coupled with the 5 manual gears ZF (reverse pattern) gearbox or the normal pattern 5 gears Peugeot and BW (Borg Warner 1345 Transfer case). Please correct the information, if you really want to link to the Fiat Campagnola anyway, you can always state that the Rayton Fissore was the only 4x4 build entirely in Italy after Fiat ended the production of the “Nuova Campagnola “ in 1987. If you can understand/read Italian you can get information on the differences of the Sofim engines at this link: http://www.giordanobenicchi.it/SOFIM.htm Greattings
Alessio
www.laforzafissore4x4.bravehost.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.225.45.67 (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ciao Alessio. I just quoted the period Quattroruote article (which stated that the engine was the same), and since the engine block is largely the same I see no real problem. In any case, feel free to update the article with better sources (always with sources!) and I will be happy to help you with formatting or questions of grammar or whathaveyou. Your edit was reverted mainly because you deleted all of the references, leaving the article all sorts of messed up. Best regards, ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi again, Yes, quattroruote it is normally a very good and knowledgeable auto magazine, but in this case and often, when they write “generalist” articles speaking about relatively rare vehicles (with a mysterious history like the Rayton Fissore Magnum and Laforza) they are also making mistakes. I can only tell you that my “sources” are my first hand information I got throughout the years owning several Magnum and Laforza (6). The passion for these “dinosaurs” did the rest. Back in the 80th I visit the company in Cherasco were the Rayton Fissore was first build several times. I got to know some of the engineers and head of mechanics building the car. I also had the chance to drive few prototypes in that period. In California I actually follow the same sort of rout ending up in Escondido were the second company (Laforza automobiles) with Dave Hops as CEO was building and commercializing the Laforza. I then become friend with Mr. Hops and the “Master” designer Tom Tjaarda (designer of the first Magnum in 1984-5 and several other famous and wonderful vehicles Detomaso Pantera Chevrolet rondine, Ferrari California, etc.). I then also create a site dedicated to the Laforza and Magnum (www.laforzafissore4x4.bravehost.com) to help ( after the company close down in 2003) the owners and future owners to find parts and solve small problems with their cars. I can personally tell you that the information on my site are pretty precise, on the contrary especially in Italy, the Magazines and especially the net are normally giving very confused and incorrect info on those vehicles. By the way this Laforza article on wiki was started by me as well as the Italian version back in 2007 and also if the form in English wasn’t perfect I assure you the facts and info are correct. I also want to point out that the engine you are referring it is as we already wrote basically the same block but with several changes, first of all the addition of a turbo and several other components. In addition there are not any turbodiesel engines used by Campagnola and/or Nuova Campagnola. It is like to compare a 302 Ford truck version Efi and a GT mustang SEFI 5.0. Yes, it is basically the same engine but the heads, camshaft, pistons, intake, valve body, electronic management, it is totally different. To many different components make at the end a completely different type of engine in torque curve, power and drivability. I hope you will understand my point, especially when the difference it is from aspirated to turbocharged version. Also if you want more precise sources then my personal experience and word, you can find a link to almost all the magazines that throughout the years review the Magnum and Laforza in a PDF file on my link page: http://www.magix-website.com/mppo01/50/AA/B2/76/E0/3A5411DE812F55FD975CB003/AAB276E03A5411DEB78CE75C975CB003.pdf (these are Italian magazines like auto in fuoristrada, quattroruote, auto 4x4 etc.) and some of the American magazines at this link of my site: http://www.laforzafissore4x4.bravehost.com/Magazines%20on%20Laforza%20Magnum%204x4.htm
Hope this help
Alessio — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.225.45.67 (talk) 23:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- Great, I will definitely use our site as a source. And I know that one engine is turbocharged, but I would still consider it the "same" engine. That's a question of judgment rather than fact. Nonetheless, all of this will be clarified, both using your site and various printed resources. Cheers from NYC, ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Great If you need any other info or other sort of documents feel free to ask. Best regards
Ale — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.225.45.67 (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Gurgel BR-800, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sedan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:40, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 4
Hi. When you recently edited Nissan Bluebird, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Triumph (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)