User talk:Mr.choppers/Archive 4

Familia
Just have a question to ask: Why not spell out months? It would be more clear if it's spelled.

Also, whenever you make a caption, you are supposed to put it in: |caption=Caption text, and NOT in |image=  , because it would not work.

--Chacha15 (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Incorrect. See WikiProject Automobiles/Layouts for an example article of the favored layout of articles on automobiles. Study it carefully, and then discuss. Thanks.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 19:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you are wrong. Look at the Familia article. You cannot see ANY caption in the generation infoboxes anymore... --94.9.145.251 (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have already explained this to you: the caption now reads if you let your cursor hover above the image. See the link I gave you above before you make any more style changes.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 18:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Giovanni Michelotti
You state that the PAC project dated from 1985. This was five years after GM died. Is it something produced by his firm after his death or did he have substantial involvement in it before he died ? RGCorris (talk) 11:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't exactly know, I am just stating what's in a period source (August 1985).  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 18:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * So what exactly does the "period source" say ? RGCorris (talk) 19:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There is also an accompanying picture, which claims 23 kW and 115 km/h. Anyhow, Michelotti himself was probably not involved with the PAC - the Cuore upon which it was based wasn't even presented until July 1980. But Michelotti as a company continued until the early nineties, in the hands of his employees and his son. I believe it was then merged with Vignale? Anyhow, I have no sources for the later history of Michelotti, so it will have to wait until another day.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. I would suggest that as the page is about the man, not the company, this doesn't belong there. Perhaps the company deserves its own page ? RGCorris (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * While the title of the article is indeed Giovanni Michelotti, the content is nearly entirely about the company. I would suggest a renaming, with perhaps the creation of a new article for Giovanni himself. Although, since there are no sources regarding Giovanni (all of the sources regard the cars, with not even a citation for his birth and death dates!) there might not even be enough for a stub. If you disagree, we could always bring it up somewhere else where more opinions could be aired, such as the Project Automobile talkpage. Best,  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 06:55, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, if someone else has time to create a stand-alone entry on The Man, I should be happy and interested.  Italian wiki does seem to spin out "...Michelotti worked for a number of design houses, notably Vignale, before opening his own design studio in Ita..." to a enough for a couple of small paras / a "stub".   And it includes as a source the image of a page from an Italian motor magazine recording an interview the man gave of which the first (relatively long) answer appears to cover some of the "before he was famous" stuff.   Other bits of that interview might also furnish the odd shaft of new insight.   Shame (at least for me) that it's in Italian.   But of anyone ever does have long enough to struggle with it, it has the makings of the beginning of something that might in due course grow up to become a respectable biographal entry.   Regards Charles01 (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * That article contains a little smidgeon, certainly enough to maintain a stub for the man. No matter what, much work carried out by Michelotti as listed in the article was probably done by his staff and his son, so I think that such a listing would be better placed in Michelotti (company). Charles, what would you recommend we title the page on the company?


 * No strongly held views.  But having looked around wikipedia for all of 120 seconds to see how they approach comparable questions on Giugaro, Pininfarina, Bertone ....   My first thought (after noting that I should have gone to bed hours ago) is that one call the entry on The Man "Giovanni Michelotti" (or "Giovanni Michelotti (designer)" if you follow the Italian and French wikis and plain "Michelotti" for the company.
 * I don't have the information related to how far which models were done by Giovanni on his own and how far by collaborators or his son.   If that info doesn't turn up in a biography or even company publicity from the period (or subsequent) I'm not sure I would wish to go down the road of "what if..."s and "probably".   If one of us were able to access such a source in the future, then it might indeed recommend another answer on what we should call the business "Fratelli Michelotti" (tho I think not), "Michelotti e figlio" (tho somehow...)  or whatever.   Regards Charles01 (talk) 23:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the company was originally called Carrozzeria Michelotti. By 1977 it was called G. Michelotti Studio Stile, and by 1986 it is listed as Studio Tecnico Design Carrozzeria G. Michelotti. If not just plain Michelotti, I suggest Carrozzeria Michelotti, as it would have some continuity and clarify the difference between the designer and his firm. His son Edgardo was deeply involved for many years, so simply ascribing all Michelotti designs to Giovanni might be a bit hasty. The firm lasted until 1993, and was reborn as Michelotti Design in 1995 (in Edgardo's hands). Cheers,  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It sounds to me as though you have found the answer. Carrozzeria Michelotti it is.   Also you seem to have started researching the article which is even better.   If I was feeling very pedantic, I would say that "Carrozzeria Michelotti"  sounds like a firm that concentrated on making car bodies, as in Carrozzeria Ghia.   However (1) I have very little Italian and may well have a wrong understanding of "Carrozzeria", (2) I have very little knowledge of the business:  maybe they did construct more car bodies that I knew about, or at least planned to do so when Giovanni M chose that name for his business and (3) "Carrozzeria Michelotti" is a beautiful and euphonious combination of syllables.   Please, as they say, go for it.   And success Charles01 (talk) 18:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The firm certainly made car bodies - one of the reasons Standard-Triumph used them was because they could turn a sketch into a full car in double-quick time. The Stag was originally made by the firm to demonstrate what they were capable of at a motor show but S-T liked it so much it was withheld for subsequent production. As far as the article name is concerned, I think the firm is usually referred to simply as "Michelotti", in the same way that Bertone, Ghia, Zagato or Pininfarina are - the strict official name(s) of the business is rarely mentioned. There seems to be little biographical detail of Giovanni available in English, and I question whether there is a need for two articles, one called "Giovanni Michelotti" about the man and a second called "Carrozzeria Michelotti" about the design house - it might be better to have a single article called "Michelotti" which would include sections on the man (and perhaps the son) and the design house. RGCorris (talk) 13:23, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Such might indeed be best. We are luckily not restricted to English-language material, but since Giovanni and his firm are inextricably linked I guess a split isn't necessary. If the material gets unwieldy we could always split it later.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 16:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

'Rusty' Canadian car
That pic on the Familia article...

It's the only image uploaded on WikiMedia Commons that features the rear view of the North American version. That's why, please keep it. --Chacha15 (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * My dear Chacha, there is simply no need to include a front and a rear view of every single iteration in every single market in the article. Nonetheless, I don't particularly enjoy this constant reverting so I'll leave it there for someone else to remove. And I will bring a camera with me when I go to work today, hopefully I'll find a better car to photograph.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Familia
Why do you have to add the 323C and Lantis images into the gallery? It's not good because it belongs to its sections. They should be distinguished from the normal 323/Protege. --Chacha15 (talk) 11:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have not, this time. Other editors did (check the history). Because there is no need for so many large photos, and because the Lantis/F has its own article where there are tons of photos. I have already explained this several times in my edit summaries, if you had bothered to read them. And it's not just me, User:IFCAR feels the same way.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops, my bad - that was my edit. Anyhow, the reasons still stand. Look, me and another editor are spending hours reverting your changes because they make the article worse. I have already given you a link to a "model page" for automobiles. This is the style to be followed, whether you agree with it or not. I don't like certain strictures (such as the use of a comma and then a space between a number and the unit: 1,800 cc looks like crap to me, I prefer 1800cc) but these are the rules and I follow them because it makes life easier for everyone. Just collaborate, and maybe get a few more edits underneath your belt before you begin to engage in big style changes such as these.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Re:
Hello Choppers!

Sorry, but I was off last day. On portuguese wikipedia we use Captcha for new users even others projetcs editors. User accounts are not created in global login automatically, but when you access the community page. Start making small edits and it will be gone. If you have problems with the Portuguese, I suggest you go to "Preferences" and change the language to English. So it'll be easier to edit. Any help with Portuguese just ask. I started editing here and I am very confused. All buttons are in the wrong place

'Willy'  'Weazley'  15:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Portuguese version:

"As contas de usuário não criadas no login global automaticamente, e sim quando você acessa a página da comunidade. Caso você tenha problemas com o português, sugiro que vá em "Preferências" e mude a lingua para inglês. Assim vai ser mais fácil editar. Qualquer ajuda com portugues é só perguntar. Eu começei a editar por aqui e estou muito confundido. Todos os botões ficam no lugar errado!!!!"


 * I was hoping it would go away automatically, good to know this is the case. I know enough romance languages to decipher Portuguese without real problems, I just wanted to say I am not going to be trying to write content in a language I cannot handle. Obrigado,  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 15:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, everybody calls me Wikicat there. But do not listen the gossips. God this Brazilians and Portugueses editors!



'Willy'  'Weazley'  15:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Rollback
Why did you removed all the contents of the Opel Movano page, if there was no reason for that? Maby do some research on your own, before you delete randomly things on Wikipedia. I guess you are able to understand some German right, therefore take a look on the contents from the German wikipedia site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Binefor (talk • contribs) 08:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Predecessor and successor can be subjective. Unless you can find a source (and another WP page is not a source) you can't enter such info. Also, Kalaua/Scheno/Miniotx - stop using sockpuppets and please go away until you learn how to work with others.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, then tell me what i can do better. I haven´t written manure nor offended anyone of you. I'm not an old Wikipedian to know all the rules here, so please don´t hold this against me, if i did something wrong.


 * I believe that you were originally blocked for uploading images that were copyright violations. Copyvios (such as official Opel photographs, as the constant stream of Opel Mokka photos you are trying to upload) are very dangerous to the entire Wikipedia project; a successful US lawsuit could bankrupt this entire endeavour in a heartbeat. You also have a Very Bad history of communicating with other editors, and after you were originally blocked for some infraction or other you have begun creating new accounts and kept editing in spite of your blocks. You also engage in incessant monomaniacal wikifiddling, and have often engaged in unfounded additions of new articles and material. As an example, the Opel Movano is not a successor to the Opel Blitz, unless you can find a reputable source to the contrary. And if another editor should disagree with your opinion of something - there are often good sources that state contrary opinions - don't just create a new account and revert them over and over and over again. Be polite, be communicative, and if things become deadlocked invite uninvolved editors to help settle matters.


 * Anyhow, this is probably the first useful attempt at communication that I have ever seen from you, and it makes me happy. Please continue like this, and I shall be happy to collaborate with you. Remember that the interest you have in pages is shared by many others, whose opinions may differ from yours in subtle ways, and treat others the way you would like to be treated. And please stop uploading pictures you find on the 'net. Best,  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 06:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you, i apologize for my behavior in the past and i am looking forward to collaborate with you and the others as well. Can i change my Wiki name or should i keep the current one? Can i still make edits without having to be locked or reported immediately? Greeting, Binefor
 * That is up to the relevant admins. Understanding what went wrong usually goes pretty far. When writing messages, always begin with one colon more than the preceding editor did - this will cause the section to indent and makes it easier to follow a conversation. Use the "preview" button, and test it out. Also, to sign a message on a talkpage, end it with four tildes (~) and your signature will appear automatically, like this:  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Familia
You have messages on the Mazda Familia talk page. --Chacha15 (talk) 11:04, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

...
I understand it but, please, can you stop hunting me down on every edit I do? --Chacha15 (talk) 18:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * You keep making disruptive edits. It took weeks to get you to stop adding double images to infoboxes, and following you around to clean up is the only way to protect articles from your depradations. Please calm down, take your time with your edits, and try to make sure that you are actually improving articles rather than just reshuffling and adding photos. Cheers,  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 18:14, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd be grateful if you could come and take a look at Mini (marque), where Chacha15 is doing exactly the same thing as on other car-related articles - trying to impose reverted changes through edit warring. Rangoon11 (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

When...
...did we engage?--IIIraute (talk) 02:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ahhh, the unforgiving type... ok. got it: Internal combustion engine - well, the ref was wrong, and it isn't that "intellectual" to credit one person for it. I showed good behavior after your edit; didn't I? So, don't bear a Grudge. --IIIraute (talk) 02:58, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess we did interact - had forgotten about that. And yup, you were definitely willing to quietly disengage. I have a feeling that the original quote was actually in EB as stated, and was edited afterwards - sort of like quoting WP itself - this is why I much prefer printed sources when possible.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 04:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Never - I have just been following your edits and arguments tangentially. The word "engage" itself is a bit problematic if read the wrong way, reminding me of airplane dogfights... I am not saying you're always wrong (e.g. I agree with you that "Mini (Marque)" is a crap title which inevitably leads to a crap article), I am just saying that what you write often comes across as fantastically rude and I think you therefore find yourself in many more arguments than you should. Rangoon11 has his own problems (impulsive, edit-warrior) and so do I (although I can't imagine what they may be). In any case, the fact that I have a history of cooperation/communication with Rangoon while I am wary of you was mainly intended to strengthen my support for your position. Best,  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 02:53, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * ...so rather the stalker-type (I'm just kidding.) - well, yes... what am I supposed to say. I'll try to better myself. No harm meant! --IIIraute (talk) 03:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * And no harm meant by me - I would like for you to stick around as you're clearly sane and productive, qualities which are hard to find on the internet and in the world in general. Stalking has also often lead me to many interesting situations... Grüßli,  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm relieved to hear that. Although it maybe doesn't look that way - but I honestly really hate these agressive discussions - really hate them! It consumes so much time & energy. A while ago, one of the editors wrote: editing the WP is like building a sand-castle - the next day you come back to the beach, it is gone. If you have a look at some of the points I made earlier ...maybe sometimes I do get a bit emotional and impatient, but I really tried to keep it peaceful.... however, it just went down a one-way road. The article as it is, just makes no sense. WPs strength is also its demise. Isn't it ironic that with all our technological progress during the last 4000 years, we haven't really developed anything longer-lasting than Cuneiform script. Grüßli in return, --IIIraute (talk) 03:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I have come to realize that when another editor is completely wrong, then stating my point of view and then withdrawing usually has one or several of the following effects:


 * The silly other editor realizes their fault (always surprising to me)
 * other uninvolved editors get around to seeing the conversation (hopefully it is not an argument yet - people are much less likely to follow a long acrimonious exchange carefully)
 * I change my own mind - this can be somewhat embarrassing if steps one and two have also occurred, but I think that acknowledging such a change may gain one more future credibility.
 * One may realize that the entire argument is based on some faulty principles, and the real problem becomes apparent = the capitalization of MINI wouldn't really matter if the articles were properly and logically divided.


 * But leaving an article in what I consider a bad state for a week or so doesn't really matter. I obviously don't always follow these strictures myself, viz my ongoing attempts to get Chacha15 to stop pissing everyone off, but when I disagree with another mature person then things hopefully become different. And say what you will, but both you and Rangoon want what's best for WP.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 04:31, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Your DYK– MV-1
Assuming you are self nominating, you need to go here and follow the bouncing ball. FWIW, you taxicab article could use a few more citations, I think. Good luck. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 00:09, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, I really don't care enough about the MV-1 to go through any further work to include it, so I guess I'll just let it wither on the wine. Thanks, though.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, just saw your additions - thanks! Even if I personally don't really care about the MV-1 (I just happened to snap a photo and it needed somewhere to go), I am glad someone else feels the article worthy of an effort. Cheers,  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 05:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Citroen C3 Picasso
Hi Chopper. Is there a manual of style preference for the layout of the references section and external sources? I can't find one. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 15:52, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but usually if there are different ideas then the rule is to stick with the existing method. Is there a conflict?  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 19:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I changed the C3 Picasso layout to the way I like it to look, just to show. Feel free to change it back if you'd like. What I like about the article is that I cannot tell whether you like the car or not, it displays an admirable level of evenhandedness. I made some other minor edits as well.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't drive and it's an ugly car lol. I did the best i could with the information i could find and displayed everything as neutral as possible =]...And i didn't even get a barnstar =P (HINT)
 * I like the change you made, i just don't like when the "external sources" bit is below the references as it seems hidden. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 20:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed, one usually reaches the references by clicking through directly from the in-line reference in question, while the external source section should be more accessible while browsing. Cheers - sorry, I don't give barnstars, all you'll get from me is a compliment in writing ;)  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll take it =P
 * I know your speciality is car articles but can i ask for a review on Pink News as i'm out of ideas of what to do there now? Thanks Chopper  J e n o v a  20 20:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Uh, I don't know too much about how articles about online magazines are supposed to look, sorry. And although I work only a block away from the Stonewall Inn, I must admit I am not to sharp on LGBT issues either. Although if one thing, it seems that the article is mostly about two particular controversies and nothing else, maybe something about the layout of the site and its overall composition (how much celebrity stuff vs real news, is there only LGBT-related content?). That's the best I can do, cheers.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 03:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't need to know anything about LGBT things, it's not rocket science. Good one on the composition of the article, i'll work on that. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 08:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies
Hey, apology acepted. It was not your fault, anyways.Rockclaw1030 (talk) 20:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for MV-1
The DYK project (nominate) 16:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

A brownie for you!
 ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃  (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Honda City
A while back you made a proposal at Talk:Honda City. Might be time to have another look? Warren (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Philippine WikiCon
You are invited to the 3rd Philippine Wiki Conference (WikiCon) on May 26, 2012 9am-1pm at the co.lab.exchange in Pasig City. Please fill this form should you signify interest. --Exec8 (talk) 17:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: Ur add to my "talkpage" at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QUIX4U#Delica
Cheers..

Oh ... AND NO.

Mitsubishi Motors Corporation .. "actually" called the COLT - as a ?

Mitsubishi Motors Corporation Colt T-120.

MINE was "one" of about ELEVEN variants.

Mine was the : Mitsubishi COLT T-120-Y (Cab Chassis ONLY -- that was "shipped" DIRECT FROM JAPAN..

As a COLT.

And ...? Nowhere in ANY of the "original" FIVE publications .. sourced DIRECT from:

Mitsubishi Moptors Corporation (in Japan)..

Had any of these ever "mentioned" that these COLT trucks & VANS

All ELEVEN VARIANTS THEREOF = 11 Models. (including trucks / panelvans & with passenger 10 & 11 seater VAN models - also included)

Nowhere were any mentioned as being -- "from" anything other than a BROAD range of "COLT variants..

There was absolutely NO MENTION (anywhere) that THESE COLTS .. were called ? Delica (either here in NZ - where DELICA's - as VANS ONLY - were sold twenty years later) Re:

http://tractors.wikia.com/wiki/File:15-_Mitsubishi_T120_COLT_-_1973-_74_Engine_Workshop_Manual_-_4G4_Neptune_Motor.jpg

http://tractors.wikia.com/wiki/File:14-_Mitsubishi_T120_COLT_-_1977_Workshop_Manual_-_Chassis_Group.jpg

http://tractors.wikia.com/wiki/File:13-_Mitsubishi_COLT_1978_T120_-_C27005_PARTS.JPG

http://tractors.wikia.com/wiki/File:15-_Mitsubishi_T120_COLT_-_1978_Workshop_Manual_-_Chassis_Supplement.jpg

http://tractors.wikia.com/wiki/File:21-_Mitsubishi_COLT_T120_1977_%26_1978_(all_models)_General_View_Pic%27s_1-3.jpg

http://tractors.wikia.com/wiki/File:22-_Mitsubishi_COLT_T120_1977_%26_1978_(all_models)_General_View_Pic%27s_4_5.jpg

??? Delica .. That (model) never became even known in NZ .. until many, many YEARS later. 20 in fact.

When the "flash" L300 "Passenger & Panel" vans .. were sold ..

IN THE Early 1990's ... Twenty YEARS after the "original" Colt (variants) were sold.. in NZ

http://tractors.wikia.com/wiki/Mitsubishi_pickup_trucks

QUIX4U (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, Mitsubishi used the "Colt" name in export markets, often removing all mentions of Mitsubishi. Part because it was thought hard to pronounce and spell, and part from bad memories of the Mitsubishi Zero. But the car was called Delica in Japan, and as export versions have received a plethora of names over the years, "Mitsubishi Delica" is the correct name for the article. I like your list of vehicles, and my request still stands: A good-sized picture of your Colt T120-Y with a free license would be much appreciated. Cheers,  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

unusual, OLD & small cars... the weirder & less known the better.
So..?

U like cars.. that are unusual, small AND OLD.. well golly gee.. so do I. And I have several PHOTOS.. stills AND the other type too (Moving ones)

They're called video and I do them with an even smaller camera than the one you apparently use. It's my Nokia .mpeg4 cellphone.

re:

Austin Mini Moke 1964 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVl3i6H1VCY

Polaris QUADBIKE (dual use 8.wheeler) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mft49z87WU

(yes) W E K N O W (our lights are on) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Re4KaXlqU

Inverted Smallness ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP3Qg2amPww (oops too large) ?

Old, Older & REALLY (REALLY) OLD !!! Includes Renualt Crawler Tractor (only working one in existance)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sltsZaFmS4

Wireless (radio controlled) Crane Truck http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mPITu5-ZfiA

M Y J E W L (Austin 1936 Ruby 7 Jewel) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwJRYypSjiY

Morris Oxford (can't remember it's vintage) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wxQs9e9NrE

WWII Brengun Carrier, WWII M/C ... Oh & a BATTLETRUCK (or two)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zPNFZY4k60

Lots of weird & wacky ones.. including an ?

OLD LIVE STEAM ROAD TRACTION ENGINE (being driven) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4w7kcT5LiMU

Bradford Jowett Van (miniature) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPq-RpJqqRU (video includes a photo slideshow of "lots" of other "variant" Bradfords., etc)

Original "Suzuki" (2.wh 6.People 1.Seat) "People_Mover" ... With a genuine 3.wh (iron_road) hand-trolley - (in a pictorial slideshow only) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rT2ztzVyrdY

Some 3.wh Hydraulic (foot operated) single person LADDERS

Called Hy-Picks & Hydralada's http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f0YA0MX42s

A couple of really (really) "ancient types" .. one a putt-putt single banger (chain driven) & the other .. Modified

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KA60YpMWhw

3. Snowcats.. WIDETRACK (ex) Antartica Snow Tractors http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRR_t35zFKY

Several "cars" that MOVE without wheels even.!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH8de19EM1o

And lastly .. some pedal powered railcars.? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6cq82D1W0U

I still haven't UPLOADED the 4.seater 1936 Morgan 3.wheeler CAR Nor some others.. recently taken.

But yes ... I "too" like unusaul, small vintage cars etc... QUIX4U (talk) 03:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Congrats

 * Thanks! And as I said, it was a pleasure, and I learned all sorts of interesting titbits.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 21:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One final thing, the nice looking header at the top of your talk page inspired me to spruce up the dated and shabby looking orange boxes at the top of my talk & user pages - hopefully they are now good for another five years now. -- The frood  (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC) Smiley.svg


 * Much better - I cannot remember from whom I stole it, but I can't claim credit for the layout. Cheers,   ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 02:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Kia Sephia
FYI, there seems to be an issue with this ISBN. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:39, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks - I apparently mix and matched the ten- and thirteen-digit isbns. Btw, you wouldn't happen to have any sources for the Ford-badged Titans sold in Oz, would you?  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Subaru Outback
I do not appreciate what you did. I created those articles to make the split more smooth. The concerns of mine and one other person that I have seen were completely ignored. There is almost no point to having a talk page if it is ignored like this. I have just overlooked it, forgetting it exists (I haven't edited in a while), but you blatantly ignored my concerns. I apologize for what I have done, but I feel that it was absolutely necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcusHookPa (talk • contribs) 18:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Terribly sorry, but you and one other editor do not override the consensus in this case. Try to change the consensus, rather than just reverting. Anyhow, I am heading over to report you for WP:3RR right now, we'll see how that goes.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 18:38, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I will back off until the merge is done. However, I do feel that I fixed the issues, but if the general consensus disagrees, who am I to argue?

MarcusHookPa (talk) 18:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, and I came to an agreement with you, so I doubt your report will get you anywhere. Anyway, good luck with the article. I hope you can provide as much information as the last version with this approach that you are taking. MarcusHookPa (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That is not correct - coming to an agreement (and following WP guidelines) would also mean returning the POV forks (at Subaru Legacy Outback and whatever you named the Outback Sport article) into redirects until the conversation has run its course. And I challenge you to show any information lost, there is none lost. The info just now presides in the appropriate generational articles - since a 2004 Outback shares much more with a 2004 Legacy than it does with an Outback of the next generation.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I never said any information was lost, I simply stated that this new article does not contain as much information, and you are currently ignoring the consensus which seems to be even at the moment, and you continue to ignore it. The edits you made are too controversial, it would have been better left alone. I wanted to incorporate as much information as possible in one article instead of scattering it into many different articles. I wanted to make Wikipedia easier to navigate, and now the consensus seems to be following along. So we will see who the next report is filed against. MarcusHookPa (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Peugeot 604
Hi:

Thanks for tidying up the references in the Peugeot 604 entry. I didn´t know there was any kind of a limit on the number of views one could add to an article so I´ve simply read them and condensed them and added them in date order. The idea was that readers could draw their own conclusions whereas if I try to boil down the nine magazine reviews I feel I am adding my own opinion. On my own time I´m writing an essay about this car (with no commercial or educational goal in mind at all) and here I will boil things down and try to parse the language; that I see as being something personal that doesn´t fit in to Wikipedia´s style or principles. Incidentally, only one review I´ve read, the Motor test (Nov 1975)actually described the car as it would be seen later on (as mostly average but with a good ride and nice rear seats). Everyone else at the time raved about the fine ride and lovely interior and more or less underplayed the downsides (esp. the dashboard). Was Motor prescient or were its views out of step? I rather think that the difference between Motor and just about every other review is that Motor downplayed the qualitative factors and focused on the quantitative ones. And this is how we are today.

So, how many critical appraisal references would you consider as appropriate?

RichardCasalingua (talk) 19:57, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We try to limit the editorial view points a bit, but like you say, condensing and distilling the various opinions is at risk of becoming original research. Anyhow, I would suggest that various opinions on a car can usually be kept down a bit, with more recent views (benefit of hindsight) gaining some prominence while being offset by period opinions if they differ. But this is all a balance walk, the main thing is that I would request that you combine references using the "ref name" function, and if possible provide author and title of article info. Thanks again for your contributions, which are all useful and very unbiased.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 06:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rollbacker flag revoked
Rollback should never be used in content disputes or when reverting good-faith edits. Please thoroughly read and understand when to use rollback before requesting it again. -- slakr \ talk / 07:12, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Broad warning concerning you and other editors
I strongly suggest that all editors involved in this edit war view and take heed of the warning I've given at Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring. -- slakr \ talk / 07:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ford Taurus Merge
Hello! Not to be bothersome considering you're in the middle of contributing to the dispute over the Outback, but could you give me another opinion as to whether or not to merge the Mercury Sable into Ford Taurus? Thanks! Bookster451 (talk) 19:16, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your input again in the article. I wasn't trying to be pushy, I just simply needed another set of eyes on this one.  Unless you're interested in the merge, you're work there is done.  Thanks again.  Bookster451 (talk) 14:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, I didn't feel that you were pushy in the least - I like the thought of someone wanting my opinion. Cheerio.  ⊂&#124; Mr.choppers &#124;⊃   (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2012 (UTC)


 * No problem. Bookster451 (talk) 20:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Found Hino factory photo of Briska
Hello, can we use the photos of the Briska at this site using the same copyright declaration used for the factory photos of the Chevy Corvair? (Regushee (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC))


 * I honestly don't know - my method of dealing with copyright is to only upload my own, as things often seem to get thorny otherwise. However, since there are exactly zero freely licensed photos of the Briska I'd say yes. The worst that could happen is that someone deletes it. If you could scan your own (I collect brochures but have no Hino material) it would probably be even better.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  05:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Love your photos on Wikipedia
Here are two more shots:

It's a lovely car - I renamed the rear view and replaced it in the article. Cheers! Also, I would recommend not posting your digits or mail addresses here, you might end up with a lot of spam. Med bästa hälsningar,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  05:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Subaru merger mania
I just added a merge suggestion tag to the Impreza, the WRX and the STi, since the Impreza articles are in so much more dissarray than the Legacy, the Outback and the Baja.(Regushee (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC))


 * Yeah, but the WRX and STi fanboys are a hundred times more numerous than any Outback-fanatic. I cannot even imagine the stress of trying to straighten out those messes.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  16:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

C3 Picasso
Wow! Nice additions =] I'll get straight to work! Thanks Choppers  J e n o v a  20 09:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I had to remove the section you added to the Aircross as Google Translate shows that a news source quoted Citroen as saying they were going to increase production to 2000 units, and this isn't about the Aircross, it's about their general Latin America presence. Thanks though  J e n o v a  20 09:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You cannot always trust machine translations - the article states that Citroën do Brasil has sold 36,700 cars there in the first six months of the year (=>6,000 per month), and then it ends in talking specifically about the AirCross. Best,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  18:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Are you able to reword this for me?:


 * "The C3 Picasso is capable of a top speed of 117 mi/h in 10.6 seconds and 120 PS (Exclusive and VTR+ models only), a choice of two diesel or two petrol engines, which were co-developed by BMW, and the option of seven different trim levels:"
 * I would like to remove the brackets and incorporate them into the text but can't see how. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 15:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Which brackets? You can use "disp=slash" to get this result:


 * "The C3 Picasso is capable of a top speed of 117 mi/h in 10.6 seconds and 120 PS (Exclusive and VTR+ models only), a choice of two diesel or two petrol engines, which were co-developed by BMW, and the option of seven different trim levels:"


 * What does "10.6 seconds" refer to? 0-100 km/h or 0-60 mph?  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  18:42, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This: "(Exclusive and VTR+ models only)"  J e n o v a  20 18:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Something like this, perhaps. Since the performance data is only for the 1.6 120, it could simply be broken up into two sentences.


 * "The C3 Picasso in its top Exclusive and VTR+ models is capable of a top speed of 117 mi/h, of 0-60 mph (?) in 10.6 seconds and 120 PS. This, and a smaller petrol engine, were co-developed with BMW. There are also two diesel options, and the lineup offers seven different trim levels:"
 * I think i got it. Already inserted on the page. Thanks =D  J e n o v a  20 19:26, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

C3 Picasso Aircross
Do you have a reference for the claims made about selling 2000 Aircrosses? I don't believe the one provided is that badly translated and it really does appear to talk more about Citroen increasing their presence in Brazil. Please read it again or provide one more reference to back it up if possible. Thanks Chopper  J e n o v a  20 19:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to reword it either way, from:
 * "Citroën is building around 2,000 AirCrosses per month and they are exported across the subcontinent"
 * To:
 * "Citroen was building around 2,000 Aircrosses per month and has been exporting them.
 * Issues - i don't see any date for this and subcontinent is vague. It could be Brazil, Europe, possibly even Africa - although that's unlikely. Thanks  J e n o v a  20 19:31, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The subcontinent is obviously the South American one (it is built in Brazil). The end of the article talks about the AirCross' sales and how they will increase Citroën's market share. If you still doubt, I suggest you request clarification from some other editor with French as a first language. I actually found the ref through the french C3 Picasso article, where it is used as reference for 2,000 per month.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  19:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I read it wrong...that happens sometimes as i'm dyslexic. I believe i've been able to use it to reword the entire section and incorporate your sentence. What do you think? Thanks  J e n o v a  20 19:58, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I like it, although I removed the reference to UOL - it seems unimportant. If you don't like my version, ALWAYS feel free to revert or discuss further. Pleasure doing business with you.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  04:03, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I only stuck it in because i want to head off a (told) tag in future. I like working with you Mr Choppers, you're a decent editor =] Thanks and please let me know if you notice anything else or just want help with something else  J e n o v a  20 08:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you and likewise.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  14:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Mini Vote
Hey, I have proposed a vote for something to be agreed on once and for all regarding the Mini issues; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mini_%28marque%29#Vote Yellowxander (talk) 11:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No need to have a project article template and ranking on what is only a redirect
The reason for removing the "project" template from the Timor (car) page is because it is a redirect to the actual article. In other words, the project template and its quality and importance ranking belongs on the talk page of the actual article (with the correct name and appropriate section) about the automobile, and not on a redirect to that article. This is because a redirect page is not an article and does not need to be assessed, such as whether is has low or high importance. It is also not possible to "improve" the quality of a redirect page by adding more content! Attaching these project templates on a redirect page also messes up the summary project statistics. There is no need to list this redirect as an extra article that is then included the project summary table. Therefore, I have removed the notices so as to clean up the "talk" on the redirect page. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah, but the Timor (car) is of certain relevance to Indonesian history and politics, so then you should definitely have moved the Indonesian template over to Kia Sephia - although this might cause confusion as well? Interested to see which one of two, both admittedly imperfect, solutions would be better here.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  05:37, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok - added the Project Indonesia template on the Kia Sephia article to attract contributors improve the Timor car section. Thanks! CZmarlin (talk) 14:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you!  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  22:51, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

300BC
I really like your photos of my SIATA 300BC. Thank you for sharing them on Wikipedia! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.187.248 (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It is an absolutely stunning car. Your neighbor with the Giulia GTC allowed me in to photograph his car, and I snapped a nice rear view of yours while inside the fence. I would be happy to receive some more info about your Siata, is it a 750 or an 1100? Cheers and best regards,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  06:31, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a Crosley 750cc originally built by Otto Linton at Speedcraft Enterprises. More info at www.300bc.com but lots I still need to add. Feel free to contact me through the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markabean (talk • contribs) 20:54, 13 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Great! I forgot to say (and it didn't matter in any case), but I voted for yours for the popular favorite. It was either the Siata or the Longchamp.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  02:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Please stop vandalizing Honda D engine.
first off I have a D16A vtec in my car as we speak, and we dyno the motor after putting it in. als o I have contacted Honda of Japan and go the true specs on the engine, so my editing of the page is current and correct. You should do your research better before emailing someone that has done theirs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerimiah702 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The D16A absolutely does not have 188hp, don't be absurd. As for the redline, find a quotable source and use that. I haven't emailed you. As for dynoing your own motor, is it standard? And in either case, such data would violate WP:OR.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  16:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

toyota stout and lite stout
as a owner of a 1962 RK45 toyopet stout and a 1976 RK101 toyota stout i find it sad that the most common version on the internet of the the stout is the RK43 lite stout. i do a google every day on toyota stout and have been to near every page there is on them and so much info is based off what is posted on wikipedia which is incorrect, no i am not savvy to the workings of wiki. the RK45 had very poor sales and only 1038 were made as there were no exact figure due to changes, this info was in Japanese and translated by google. in production of the RK45 there were a few that were left hand drive and MPH speed display, the RK100 was a bit more refined with extra headlights and a slightly larger 2R engine that was quickly replaced by the 3R. the lite stout had a few different versions that did not get put into production starting in 1962 as continuations models of the 40 series as lite stout prior to the release of the renamed 100 series "full" stout. in 1963 the lite stout was featured along side the stout in marketing and were still badged as toyopet, 1964 toyopet name was dropped for toyota as it was considered a more marketable name. with the name of toyota the lite stout was marked in north america as stout, mid 1964 the RK43 came into existence as the true export models over the RK40 and RK41. the 1964 apart from the front grille change the stouts cab had been extended 50mm two inches and the more powerful 3R and 3R-B engines were fitted to both the RK100 and RK43 lite stouts and both models were produced in the hino plant. due to the changing emission laws the engine was up graded in late 1967 to the 5R in the now RK101 and the 12R in the lite stout RK43, in some markets north america the RK43 was replaced with the next generation of the former hino/toyota briska aka hilux.

my RK45 is one of the first 10 imported to australia, in my quest i have removed a 12R out of a 1976 lite stout RK43 and when i first started to research online of course wiki was as good as useless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whysmee (talk • contribs) 05:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Apologies for intruding but I'll answer since much of the blame is mine. I created the Stout article based on the little information available to me (early brochures I own, international Toyota ID catalogue, Japanese Wikipedia). Naturally there are models missing and some of my educated guess work was wrong.


 * You changed the end of production date for the second generation from 1968 to the new date of 1978. I doubled checked this and found you were quite correct.


 * Many of the other changes I have no way of verifying if they are right or wrong. The Japanese Wikipedia matches some of your changes but the Japanese WP is also lax with their references. I too was tempted to revert your changes mostly because they were unverifiable (ie no references) but I held off while I went through my resources to see what I could verify. I will list my findings on the at talk:Toyota Stout and hopefully we can make a better article using verifiable information that matches reality. Cheers.  Stepho  talk 08:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I will respond there, so that all interested parties can see.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  16:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

the LJ50 suzuki
before i owned a toyota stout i had LJ suzuki 4X4's. i just love the F8A, i knew those motors backward and believe i could do anything to them blindfolded. the LJ50 550 engine has always interested me and when i was younger heard that they could be over sized to 800cc, bolt on a toyota SC12 or SC14 supercharger and fit in a ke10 corolla or lower go cart style a lj50 4x4. reality struck and i gave up on cars (i started to walk and ride a bicycle) til i eventually was given a 1974 RK101 years later, i had owned a 1969 toyota RU12 dyna that originally was used as a mail delivery truck on the nullabor so i knew what i was getting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullarbor_Plain — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whysmee (talk • contribs) 08:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Sweet. I also only ride a bicycle these days, living in NYC. Haven't really owned any cars of serious interest, just a Peugeot 505 Turbo and a Chevrolet Turbo Sprint - both '87s. Cheers,  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

XtremeFanatic
Hi. The above user has just come on my radar. I understand that you have had some dealings with them in the past. Having just had to waste some time undoing their junk edits on a number of car-related articles I just wanted to let you know that I would support taking them to ANI on grounds of lack of competence. There is enough work to do here already without having to waste valuable time clearing up after the terminally incompetent. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support you on that. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Full support from me - I have been travelling for a while, sorry about the late reply.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  15:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for responding to my request and participating in the move discussion at Talk:Daimler 2.5 & 4.5 litre. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Urbanowatcher
has over the last couple of days started making large scale changes to numerous automotive industry and ca-related articles. The edits are wholly uncited, and in my view illiterate. The editor is attempting to impose their changes through edit warring and is not engaging in the article talk pages.

I would be most grateful if you, or anyone else interested in car articles looking at this, could take a look at the articles Automotive industry in Russia‎, Automotive industry in the United States and this editor's recent edit list and generally try to keep an eye on them. I am coming up against 3RR on a number of articles, and also fear that if this editor is not quickly restrained then they are going to do a substantial amount of damage and consume a lot of time. Thanks. Rangoon11 (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think that this guy can be moulded into a useful editor. Let's convert him instead of running him off, shall we? Meanwhile I will keep an eye on him.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  16:11, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes he could, and I wasn't advocating trying to put them off editing altogether, but he will first need to learn not to add massive amounts of uncited content, and not to edit war to impose very low quality edits.
 * Many of the articles they are working on have been neglected and do need work and it is good to see someone take an interest in them and show some enthusiasm for the topics. The "Automotive industry in" articles are generally especially poor and I would be the first to welcome some quality editing there. However I do feel that this editor needs to have their enthusiasm curbed at this point or they will not be able to grasp where they are going wrong and why their bulk changes are not, in their current form, appropriate. Rangoon11 (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Dear wikiuser. Many thanks for your constructive and objective skill, in a difference of uncompromising reverter Rangoon11, that does not trouble itself with viewing of sources in the same article below and in concerned linked articles, and without discussion and/or arguments often, makes a total reverts including of wikification, last figures, illustrations even. I would very glad if you have time a correct English in texts after my updating and adding contributions, if this so strong need as seems to my impulsive opponent. Urbanowatcher (talk) 06:24, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It says a lot about you that you think of Rangoon11 as your opponent. Wikipedia is a collaborative not a combative environment. Your edits were reverted by Rangoon11, myself, and others not because we want to fight or compete, but because they were badly written and unsourced. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Quite. In fact the last thing we want to spend our time on here is engaging in endless talk page discussions about editing behaviour rather than focusing on the far more enjoyable and productive activity of actually editing articles.Rangoon11 (talk) 12:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Engine downsizing
You seem to be missing the point of the engine downsizing concept. The high output smaller engines are replacing much larger engines, and yes, small engines still exist. Note a BMW 328 is actually now powered by a 2.0, or a Mercedes E250 powered by a 1.8 engine but with an output that is similar to the much larger engine. The article doesn't suggest that smaller engines don't exist, so I don't know why you keep deleting the examples! Warren (talk) 23:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * For one thing, I cannot read the article because I used up my NYT allowance. Secondly, using a bigger number to denote a larger engine isn't new in any way - viz the 2007 BMW 335 (3.0), or the eighties' BMW 745 (3.2). And thirdly, the labels are themselves meaningless. Having engines of different sizes with disparate outputs is hardly a new idea. The only actual news here is the now fully completed dislocation of three-digit codes from displacement on the rumps of German cars. I believe that the entire article is nonsense, as the idea of evermore efficient engines means that the history of the car always contains within itself the history of engine downsizing. Also compare the 28-litre racing Fiats (S.76) being superseded by lithe 2.3-litre Bugattis and such, around the time of World War I. Fluctuations of preferred engine sizes is hardly news. Back in the eighties, Chrysler tried replacing their big engines with considerably smaller but more powerful turbocharged engines. It wasn't a new idea then either.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  06:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right about 740SE
Sorry, my bad. I thought of the special add-on package (also) named SE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volvo_740#Models — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exry (talk • contribs) 22:03, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * cheers and no worries.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  06:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)