Talk:Volkswagen Up

3.68 metres does not equal 141.7 inches
A length of 3.68 meters would be 145 inches. Alternatively, a length of 141.7 inches would be 3.599 meters. I'm not sure what to do about this. — The Storm Surfer 14:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The wheelbase (55.9") does not make sense. Most cars have a wheelbase of about 100" and this car has a length of 135.8" which is more than twice the wheel base??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.209.117 (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right about the wheelbase. From what I've been able to find on Google, VW has never given a wheelbase measurement.  I think the author erroneously got his number from http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/3353/Volkswagen-up%2521-Concept.html, which provided a track measurement, for which 55.9 inches makes sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.57.46 (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Idont care — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.230.163.116 (talk) 11:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

up!?
Is the model name always in lower case - i.e. "up!" rather than "Up!" ? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. See, for instance, here. Letdorf (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC).


 * In marketing terms it might be a small u but for Wikipedia it probably should be a capital U as it is a proper name... Warren (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It sounds dictatorial, it's Volkswagen up!, just like iPhone, eBay etc... it's the proper name of the product and it is known universally as “up!”, capitalization is not an arbitrary rule! Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Never give up on the UP5...

END

Merger proposal
As discussed at Wikiproject Automobiles, I propose that the SEAT Mii and Škoda Citigo be merged into this article as they are essentially the same vehicle and their articles add little to no information not already covered on the VW up!'s article.-- Pineapple Fez  21:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support -- Pineapple Fez 21:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support -- >Typ932 T·C 04:09, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support OSX (talk • contributions) 11:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support A classic example of badge engineering. Warren (talk) 15:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

About the merge
These are not 100% excatly same car, so for example length of those car ar not same, this should be fixed on this article, dont know if there are other minor differencies? -- >Typ932 T·C 04:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was move per request, unanimously supported and within policy.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:15, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Volkswagen up! → Volkswagen Up – Wikipedia mentions "stylized" names but doesn't use them as page titles. For example, see Kesha (where repeated requests for a move to Ke$ha are broadly opposed). See also Pepsi, Allmusic, MSNBC, Kiss (band), CNET, Macy's... --BDD (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support move. Warren (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per MOS:TM. Powers T 16:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. Yep, textbook case of MOSTM. Jafeluv (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

VW Up-SEAT Mii-Skoda Citigo merged articles
Can someone give a suitable explanation why only the Škoda Citigo WP article has been separated from the VW UP one? It was supposed that both the SEAT Mii & Skoda Citigo WP articles had been merged into the VW UP one, however it seems now that it is only the SEAT Mii article which has been kept merged.

So if this will be the case and things won't change, it looks natural for my view to split the SEAT Mii artcile too.(LeonCR (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC))

Opinion rather than fact?
Paragraph four of the opening contains the following comment: "... the 2011 production model has a less efficient front-engine, front-wheel drive layout...". How do you quantify efficiency between a concept car and a production one? Why does engine placement have anything to do with this? Rear-engine cars such as the Smart fortwo have rather ordinary real-world fuel economy compared with front-wheel drive ones, depending on selection criteria, so this is an opinion not verified by fact or by any published source I can find. It probably should be removed since what actually matters is the efficiency of the production Up! against its real-world rivals in the marketplace.

Bwob (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)