Talk:Renault Master

Article
This article is wrong. The first generation masters were a 2.5 Diesel SU8 model SOFIM engine (not turbo diesel), they didnt go to the turbocharged (su9) engines until the master 2. I have four master mk1's in my field all of which definitely have the su8 8144.67 typecode engine in them. Along with the ducato of the period, and various other marquees. SOFIM = Society of french and italian manufacturers, hence why it appeared in various marquee's.
 * This article is very light and indeed needs more detail, but if you have the reference sources, let's get it right, so where is the censorship? Warren (talk) 13:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

You can start at :- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault_S-Type_engine

The SxU displaces 2.5 L. is a Fiat-Sofim diesel engine. Applications:

* S8U o 1981–1997 Renault Trafic o 1997–2001 Renault Trafic o 1997– Renault Master o –1997 Renault Master * S9U o –1997 Renault Master

1997 = mk2 onwards.

Just to complicate things you could buy a mk1 master right at the end of the mk1 production run which had a facelift grill and could be ordered with a su9 1995-1997, for example :- http://www.gumtree.com/london/98/73368098.html This is all I can really find documenting the years, although Ill check my peter russek su8 manual later to see if it has any more detail. Ive seen a su9 equipped mk1 facelift before and wondered if it was a factory fitted unit, so its good for my knowledge also to look... http://www.minelloautodemolizioni.it/produits/s9u_moteur_pour_Renault_Master_2.5_TD

However not all facelift mk1 masters were fitted with this (I own a su8 facelift master). But with the facelift came a power steering option too (which anyone who's ever drove a manual mk1 will be cheering at...)

It could also be ordered in pickup, short and long wheelbase varients which itself could be ordered with a low or hightop roof, or bare of rear bodywork for coachbuilding motorhomes. The hightop option was a fibreglass section added and the main van body roof section removed, although the standard height doors were retained. Your current picture is of a very very ratty lwb hightop mk1. The reason they often looked like this but were still in use is because the chassis section of body was galvanized during manufacture, so normally they look like crap but are still solid underneath. The transaxle itself was interesting because it was a derivative of the famous (in mid engined specials car building circles) un1 transaxle as used in the lotus esprit, delorian dmc, renault 25 turbo etc, it was given a bigger set of diff bearings and a lower ratio differential to toughen it up and designated the un5. Sadly (or happily if you don't want to see mk1's vanish overnight as their transaxle becomes suddenly worth more than the van on the s/h market) the change in bearing size and the needed casting and 1st motion shaft changes to accomodate this means they are not interchangeable so its stuck with the 5.85:1 van diff or pay for custom gearsets... I don't like the mk2 onwards much due to gearbox and engine reliability issues, hence Ive never had any to comment on them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.147.135.174 (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Mascott
I've added some citation checks. The Mascott is described as an alternative name and a version. I don't think this is right; the reference given in the Mascott section, whilst giving evidence of the point it's used for, goes on to back up my doubts. I think the Mascott looked like a Master due to shared cab components / design, but was in fact a bigger, heavier chassis, so hardly a "version" but really another model, in the middle of the light trucks range. It happened to share the biggest Master engine, but that's hardly uncommon practice. Any other references out there? – Kieran T  (' talk ') 16:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Replacement picture for Nissan Interstar
Hello, came to proposed a picture replacement for the Nissan Interstar on the Second generation (1997–2010) section.

Why I choose this image because obviously it higher resolution and better quality then what is currently on the article. The current one is just 29 KB and looked like it was used only because there was no other images of that van. Thoughts? --Vauxford (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)




 * I think I agree.  The Vauxford image here is at a much better angle and you got the settings right on your camera - and/or else the automoatic functions functioned nicely.   You waited till the sun was in a good place for your purposes.   You didn't stand too close and distort the image with your zoom lens:  the other fellow did.   However, someone - I think you - has already linked the Vauxford image to several wikipedia entries in non-European languages plus, I think, Russian, most of which I cannot begin to fathom.   Nor, I think, you.   I am happy that you seem - as I suspect you always did on the quiet - to possess some insight into what makes a good image (and so, by implication, what doesn't).   But you surely must understand that if the same image turns up on several different language versions - as already is the case here - wikipedia begins to get rather monotonous aka avoidably dull with regard to the images used on the automobile entries, even where the picture in question is competent or better than competent.   Competent is good but avoidable monotony / dullness is bad.   And of course in this case doubts and unease are only increased where the single image appears to have been linked by the same individual who appears to have taken the picture.   It really is not necessary.   If you sit back and leave other people - like people who actually contribute to the different language versions which you continue to haunt - you may be pleasantly surprised that over time other people also will want to link your pictures to wiki-entries.   And the nice thing is that since they are not "marking their own homework" or afflicted by a residual urge to link pictures which they have themselves uploaded on an obsessive scale, those guys will bring a reassuring level of objectivity to the entire business.   I'm not trying to be difficult, Vauxford.   But honestly, what I recommend here is no more or less than what most other contributors manage to do most of the time without any of the difficulties that you seem to get yourself into.   Please do try it!   Regards Charles01 (talk) 21:06, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Nope - Too dark and the colour of the van is awful, The angle on the current image is poor but imho it's still better than the one proposed. 22:34, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I guess you're right . I have been doing it far less but I admit I did replaced the one on the other language Wikipedias and I think it time to stop doing that. There some users out here who is still doing it with their own images, take for Alexander-93 for example, he is still doing it with his own images shortly after uploading them. I thought it was common sense to replace a image that is far superior when it comes to resolution, I don't see it being too dark either, it is manufacturer colour for the Interstar (Metallic Mercury Z54). --Vauxford (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You thought wrong, Images are never replaced based on resolution etc, If the previous image is fine then as a rule previous image stays, That's how it's always been. – Davey 2010 Talk 20:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Replace The old one is very poor. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ - I've replaced the image with s one, Whilst I still think my concerns are valid there's stronger consensus for than there are against so as such I've replaced it, Thanks, – Davey 2010 Talk 18:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Renault Master E-Tech
The Renault Master E-Tech will be launched in Europe on 2023. Bachelor 200 (talk) 17:17, 2 December 2022 (UTC)