Talk:DeSoto Airflow

Merger discussion
I believe this page should be merged with the Chrysler Airflow page since both the Chrysler and DeSoto versions were the same car, and this page contains a lot of information that I think would be useful on the Chrysler Airflow page. --ApolloBoy 05:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * And I disagree and believe that this article should remain on its own under the DeSoto banner and not diminshed as an asterisk to the Chrysler model. My reasons are thus:


 * DeSoto was a different brand, and the Airflow is an important car within the brand's history; the car's legacy played a role in the ultimate failure of the DeSoto marque in 1961.
 * The DeSoto Airflow and the Chrysler Airflow are two different cars. While they shared the "Airflow" name and construction, the cars were built on different wheelbases, aimed at different price points with in the automobile market and had different trim and panels.
 * The Desoto Airflow's impact on DeSoto was far different than the Chrysler Airflow's impact on Chrysler; Chrysler's circumastance with their Airflow is considerably different as they had the regular bodied Chryslers to sell along side of the Airflow whereas DeSoto was stuck with the Airflow exclusivly for 1934.
 * For much of automotive history, this DeSoto has been overlooked because of the more glamourous Chrysler Airflow being a better known name - merging it into the Chrysler article would be one more example minimizing the vehicle and its role in DeSoto's history.
 * I also do not like the idea of merging vehicles unless they are badge engineered twins, which the DeSoto was not.
 * In short, I believe that merging this article is bad for the article, and bad for DeSoto, dishonest to a degree in that removes a piece of history and assigns it to the wrong place and hurts DeSoto entries on Wikipedia. Stude62 15:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree They're different vehicles with different histories from different marques and should in no way be merged into the same article. There are many, MANY examples on Wikipedia of rebadged vehicles that enjoy separate pages when in reality nothing more than plastic trim differentiates them. Suggesting these be merged is inappropriate. &rArr; BRossow T/C 21:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Disagree I'd like to see these kept separate for the reasons given above. Even badge engineered twins should be kept separate in my view if there is enough "there" there to justify it.  + +Lar: t/c 22:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Here, here! - But I can think of two instances were I would support one article for two cars - Dodge and Plymouth Neon and the Hudson and Nash Rambler. Now in these cases, the only difference was what the name the glue held down. Stude62 00:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The Chrysler "cloud cars" (Dodge Stratus, Chrysler Cirrus, Plymouth Breeze) are another example of rebadged cars that (IMHO) all belong in the same article. But I'm straying off-topic.... &rArr; BRossow T/C 01:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Engine
No info about engine. Sca (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)