Jump to content

Talk:Saab 900

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mr.choppers (talk | contribs) at 11:48, 18 November 2024 (→Issues over infobox). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Untitled

Can someone please check the new para inserted (03:31, 8 June 2006 68.109.116.217 (→Convertible)). I have relocated it and done a fairly major reword but I feel that it needs verifying and better integrating into the article, so we don't have the comment ref. US/Swedish spec., that is unfitting for an encyclopedic article. - Ballista 04:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable appearances

Why did this section have to go? there are a numerous other car pages like [Volkswagen_Beetle] and [De_Lorean_DMC-12] that have either "notable TV appearances" in their page sections. Either this should be done consistently across all car pages or not. I've seen the Saab 900 appear in a lot of good movies / series. Eelke —Preceding comment was added at 19:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pop culture section for this article was just a laundry list of appearences. It did not say anything about the 900s actual effect on pop culture, which is what the prose section from the Beetle and De Lorean pages try to do. Pop culture appearences should only mention trully significant usages of the vehicle where it was clearly chosen for specific qualities rather than just being a car driven by a character. Both the Beetle and the Del Lorean pop culture section need serious clean up, it just looks like no one has gotten around to it yet. A well written and referenced section on how the 900 impacted pop culture would be welcome, but the consensus both on WP:CAR and elsewhere is that lists of appearences trivial and are better suited for places like IMDB. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New 'Overview' section needs wikifying

Nice piece of material - however, it needs 'wikification' as soon as possible & I have run out of time today, sorry - Ballista 07:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewording needed after verification

I have flagged this up previously and feel it is still in need of confirmation or verification and rewrite "This may not be accurate for Swedish Saabs, but is for the American versions". This is not encyclopaedic writing. - Ballista 04:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely contradict the statement. I have an American 1990 model and it has turbo badges on the front fenders as well as the hatchback. El Mariachi 02:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

To conform with other car articles that deal with model changes Mercury Cougar, Ford Cortina, Jaguar XJ, etc, Saab 900 (NG) should be merged into Saab 900. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 20:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, but if you're going to merge anything, please do it right or else don't bother. It is important to delineate between these two completely different cars (with the same name). The overall organization of the article should reflect this fact but still doesn't: one original article was apparently just glued onto the end of the other one. Sheesh! 69.30.112.12 (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A different merge suggestion which is more logical given the body style: Give the 900 Classic its own page with all the special editions of it and the two nose styles. Make a new page for the 900NG and 1st generation 9-3 as the 900NG is a completely new car, and the technical difference between a 900NG and a 9-3 hatchback is comparable to the headlight facelift of the 900 Classic. Finally the current 9-3 (2002-current) should get its own page because that is a complete clean sheet redesign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.107.5.100 (talk) 09:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They have same GM2900 platform, so its not a new car -->Typ932 T·C 10:37, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What i meant is that there should be one 900 Classic page, and one page for the GM2900 versions... which will make both the 9-3 page and the 900 page a bit more logical. So you get the following pages: - 900 classic - 900NG and 9-3OG on GM2900 - 9-3 Epsilon (84.107.2.21 (talk) 08:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Classic vs. New 900

There are, of course, two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT Saab 900 cars which happen to share that name: those built through MY 1993 and those following. This article is very strongly biased toward the Classic 900, which is probably perfectly reasonable given the vastly greater history, number and variations of those cars, vs. the "NG900" models.

However, in the interests of accuracy, clarity and honesty, I would ask those making contributions to or editing this article to make better efforts to distinguish among the "Classic" and "new" 900's when making broad definitive statements-- in particular in the section titled "Overview"-- rather than blithely and carelessly defining the 900 only in terms of the earlier "Classic" generation. 97.120.77.129 (talk) 00:36, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Information on BAIC deal wrong

The deal did not include the previous 9-3, but in fact (and to the surprise of many) the 9-3 II, presumably in an earlier incarnation. BAIC has shown a prototype clearly indicating this. Unfortunately, I presently cannot find the reference, but the pictures also emerged on www.saabsunited.com. Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 13:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Longitudinal engine placement and double wishbone front suspension were not unusual at the time.

I have removed this language from the article: "Very few front-wheel drive cars used a longitudinally-mounted engine configuration. Fewer still used a double wishbone suspension design."

I compiled a list of cars produced during the period contemporary with the "Classic" 900, 1979 - 1998, with their production date ranges and notation of double-wishbone suspension where present. Here is the list:

  • Oltcit 1981 - 1995 double-wishbone

Citroënist (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saab900t16sfr.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Saab900t16sfr.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:02, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

headlight wipers

would the 1998 900 model wiper fit the 1987 900 model — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.81.221 (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@188.29.81.221: You should contact a Saab dealer or spares supplier for this info as it's too detailed for this Wikipedia article. Tony Holkham (Talk) 13:28, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Uniqueness

"The TE-05 is unique in that its exhaust inlet flange utilizes a Garrett T3 pattern."

Does that sentence make sense? Basically it says that the TE-05 is not unique, seeing as the Garrett T3 has the same pattern. Just thinking out loud here... --Stizzleswick (talk) 11:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stizzleswick - A lot of the engine development info is beyond me technically, and much of it is unsourced, but if you know about these things, you should make the changes you think best. The whole article needs some serious work, I think. Cheers, Tony Holkham (Talk) 12:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that was not a technical point, but semantic. The article contains the quote I have up there, which makes me scratch my scalp a little because it seems self-contradictory to me. --Stizzleswick (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed "unique". Tony Holkham (Talk) 15:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

conflicting information

The first sentence says the car is a mid-sized car. The first sentence of the overview says it's a compact car. On the other hand, that's consensus (all or most editors agreed to it). Wonkopedic (talk) 00:08, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Issues over infobox

I am unsure why is there a specific bias over a photo of a black car with poor quality in the infobox of the first generation of the 900 when WP:CARPIX clearly states that:

"The image selected for an article's top (lead) infobox does not need to show any particular version or generation of the vehicle, such as the latest, the last, the first, the best-selling, or any other. However, the image must be representative; low-volume, obscure/unusual, or otherwise unrepresentative variants are generally not preferred for the lead infobox image. Vehicle production date is not a factor when determining the quality of an image and its suitability to illustrate the lead infobox."

Yet User:Mr.choppers again has developed a bias for a specific photograph and has reverted the edits multiple times.

Furthermore, the guidelines for Template:Infobox automobile clearly show that all bodystyles of a vehicle have to be listed out separately. When clear guidelines are present for a template, there is certainly no need for inventing own guidelines just because one editor thinks that it is fine. "3/5-doors" and "4/5 speed" makes less sense than this information listed separately. 223.29.234.202 (talk) 07:37, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is supposed to be of a representative car, in good condition, with a non-distracting background. Not of a modified car, preferably a car on original wheels. The convertible is quite rare so not a good example for the main infobox.
Different number of doors does not make a different bodystyle. I quote (emphasis mine): State the number of doors as a numeral and the body style. See Help:Infobox for how to use infoboxes; it is to be kept Concise. Infobox templates are "at-a-glance", and used for quickly checking facts..  Mr.choppers | ✎  10:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You also keep reverting without discussion - when you do a mass of edits to an article and get reverted, the onus is on you to discuss and have edits agreed upon before reverting. You are skirting very near the line of becoming a disruptive editor; I don't want to have to bring this elsewhere but I will have no choice if you cannot work in a collaborative manner.  Mr.choppers | ✎  11:48, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saab_900&oldid=1258154291"