Talk:Audi 80

All images in this article were on speedy delete list so removed. Please use free pictures in future. Justinc 23:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed an add-on to the S2/RS2 section; this is an encyclopedia, not a free bulletin board for ads.

Variety of English

I hesitate to bring up this thorny issue... but the present article has got a mixture of US English (sedan, station wagon, liter) and British English (coupé, with the e acute, and also "petrol tank" rather than "gas tank"). The British version seems justified because of the e acute being part of the actual model name, so far as I can see.

The Manual of Style says we should never have a mixture. But there are two conflicting cases about what to do: one suggests to go with the variety of English used in the home country of the product, and we get into the thing of Germany not having its own variety, but being part of Europe where the only official variety of English is British (not considering differences for Scots and Irish...); therefore British English should be used. But the other consideration in the Manual of Style is not to make mass changes of English variety for their own sake. On that basis it would also be a bad thing to change the page. My personal view is that the need for consistency over-rides this.

So on balance I'm minded to bring consistency to the article by switching to British English and changing sedan to saloon. Will this hugely offend anyone? – Kieran T ^(talk) 13:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend "fuel tank" in cases where the type of fuel is not important. —überRegenbogen 08:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Panhard rod?

The geometry of the stabilizing strut (citing physical observation of mid-1970s Audi Foxes and VW Dashers) is significantly different from the illustrations and description in the Panhard rod article. Notably, rather than connecting to the body and cross-beam with ball joints, it is welded to the cross-beam and to the body-end of one of the trailing arms—forming a solid a-frame with them (and eliminating the arc motion that is specifically cited as a disadvantage of a Panhard rod).

The question—or questions—then are:

Does this difference in design make it not a Panhard rod design?
or:
Is the Panhard rod article too specific in its description?

—überRegenbogen 09:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Model 80 with Inline 5 cylinder Engine

It suggests in this article that the 2.3L I5 was not offered in the 1991 (80), but I owned a 1991 US model 80 with that particular setup. It was a front wheel drive, 2.3L I5, with a 5-speed manual transmission. It still had the B3 body style, so i don't think that it was an early B4.

Does anyone have any insight about this?

Magnacurt 23:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)magnacurt[reply]

Picture

I added my picture of the 93 90S back, since someone removed it when the put up the picture of the white cabriolet.

Power

Can somebody check the power outputs of the various engines? This change by an anon from 110bhp to 101bhp, for a 1.6 engine which is in both cases more powerful than the 2.0 makes me suspicious that we may have subtle vandalism creeping in. When figures change without a reference or an edit summary it's always tempting to just revert, but it's often not obvious that the initial figure has any more authority — without going back to find who first added it, which is obviously very time consuming. Incidentally, no offence to this particular anon. If you're making valid changes, however, would you please start to use edit summaries to explain them, or source your information with references? Ta. :( – Kieran T ^(talk) 09:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]