Talk:Porsche 924: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:51, 24 February 2011

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Automobiles C‑class Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sports Car Racing Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sports Car Racing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sports Car Racing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sports Car RacingWikipedia:WikiProject Sports Car RacingTemplate:WikiProject Sports Car RacingSports Car Racing articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

The Production section of this article wass lifted from section 3 of the 924/944/968 FAQ [1] at 09:22, 29 January 2006 by 72.131.0.232 I checked with the copyright holder(email address on title page of FAQ) who asked for that section to replaced by a link. I'll do it... (Arnhemcr 2006-03-14)

A Japanese 924 ripoff

is it me or the Mazda RX-7 "SA" and "FC" types are a shameless rippoff of the 924????

Seems worthy to be mentioned in the article. Paris By Night 19:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)wow[reply]

The 924 and the 1st and 2nd gen rx-7's were designed by the same person.

Of course, the Rx-7 was based off the 944. except the RX-7 looks better.76.69.165.47 (talk) 07:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on this page

A line of text has been been vandalised and restored

PaulHereNow 22:00, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would have to agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.240.154 (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Engine capacities

Any reason why these are rounded up, e.g. is this a Wikipedia convention or similar? Xyster (talk) 11:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point. I don't know if there is a convention, but I suspect it's down to cultural differences between contributors. If you ask someone the time in the street in Germany or Switzerland they will most likely answer you to the nearest minute. If a train arrives one minute late in Zuerich it is late. Try asking the time in the street in London or Chicago, and you'll be given (by Japanese or German standards) an approximation. If a train arrives within five minutes of schedule in a London station at a busy time of day you celebrate. I've seen it suggested that engineering tolerances used to vary, too, so that with a car built in England in the 1960s there could easily have been differences of several cc between different engines of the same type: it has been suggested that when assembling the main engine components, if a con rod didn't want to fit round the crankshaft, you tried fitting it round another crankshaft. I've no idea if that's true or not, but the fact that it gets reported says something about the engineering tolerances applied to engine assembly at some of the more old fashioned UK auto-plants fifty years ago. No doubt these days tolerances are much tighter: the robots will insist on it. And no doubt the folks at Porsche were always meticulous. I'm not sure this directly answers your question, but it does indicate why it might be difficult obtaining a wiki consensus on whether a 1,098 cc engine should be called a 1,098 cc engine or an 1,100 cc engine or a 1.1 litre engine. Happy day. Charles01 (talk) 11:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All true, it's just that Porsche invariably quote the engine capacities for these vehicles at 1984cc and 2479cc (as do insurance websites etc here in the UK) - though of course we still refer to them as 2L and 2.5L in conversation, otherwise I suspect it would seem a bit geeky! 82.36.75.208 (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is down to taxation issues in certain countries where cars are classified according to engine capacity, and the manufacturers try to make the engines as large as they can without going into a higher tax bracket. So although a 1984cc engine, to all intents and purposes, has a capacity of 2 litres it would not fall into a "2 litres and over" bracket for taxation purposes. Finbarr 13:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 :Interesting point.   I don't know if there is a convention, but I suspect it's down to cultural differences between contributors.   If you ask someone the time in the street in Germany or Switzerland they will most likely answer you to the nearest minute.   If a train arrives one minute late in Zuerich it is late.   Try asking the time in the street in London or Chicago, and you'll be given (by Japanese or German standards) an approximation.   If a train arrives within five minutes of schedule in a London station at a busy time of day you celebrate.   I've seen it suggested that engineering tolerances used to vary, too, so that with a car built in England in the 1960s there could easily have been differences of several cc between different engines of the same type: it has been suggested that when assembling the main engine components, if a con rod didn't want to fit round the crankshaft, you tried fitting it round another crankshaft.   I've no idea if that's true or not, but the fact that it gets reported says something about the engineering tolerances applied to engine assembly at some of the more old fashioned UK auto-plants fifty years ago.   No doubt these days tolerances are much tighter:  the robots will insist on it.   And no doubt the folks at Porsche were always meticulous.   I'm not sure this directly answers your question, but it does indicate why it might be difficult obtaining a wiki consensus on whether a 1,098 cc engine should be called a 1,098 cc engine or an 1,100 cc engine or a 1.1 litre engine.   Happy day. [[User:Charles01|Charles01]] ([[User talk:Charles01|talk]]) 11:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
 :: All true, it's just that Porsche invariably quote the engine capacities for these vehicles at 1984cc and 2479cc (as do insurance websites etc here in the UK) - though of course we still refer to them as 2L and 2.5L in conversation, otherwise I suspect it would seem a bit geeky! [[Special:Contributions/82.36.75.208|82.36.75.208]] ([[User talk:82.36.75.208|talk]]) 12:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
+: This is down to taxation issues in certain countries where cars are classified according to engine capacity, and the manufacturers try to make the engines as large as they can without going into a higher tax bracket. So although a 1984cc engine, to all intents and purposes, has a capacity of 2 litres it would not fall into a "2 litres and over" bracket for taxation purposes. [[User:Finbarr1962|Finbarr]] 13:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)