Talk:Chevrolet Aveo (T200)

Daewoo Kalos

On the WikiProject Automobiles[1] page, there appears to be a consensus that the country of origin's convention be adopted. I vote to have this entry moved to -Daewoo Kalos, which is the vehicle's name in Korea, and the facts aligned to that of the Korean market. This convention is adopted for all other automotive entries to date at Wikipedia, apart from a few exceptions that editors have not got to yet. Stombs 12:30, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Unless there are sufficient differences between the Kalos and the Aveo to warrant two pages, I second the motion. --SFoskett 13:09, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

If you think this page should be moved, first list it at WP:RM to start a proper voting procedure, then provide a correct voting and discussion template on this talk page, as suggested by Wikipedia:Requested moves#Instructions. --DmitryKo 14:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Note: This naming convention/move discussion has been centralized at the Automobile WikiProject. Dragons flight 02:30, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't the article name be changed to 'Daewoo Gentra' if we are going by the name in the country of origin? This vehicle is no longer called the Daewoo Kalos in Korea, see [2]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortonar (talk • contribs) 22:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

pronounciation?

Anyone have any information on the pronounciation of the word "aveo"? I've heard both "ah - vee - oh" and "ah - vay - oh". Hosterweis (talk) (contribs) 21:12, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Moved

Page moved to the Daewoo version and double redirects fixed as per requested move. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Chevrolet Aveo is now a disambig

How great is this? :mad: --DmitryKo 23:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Because the Aveo doesn't have its own page, it is mentioned on the pages of the Daewoos its based on. Since they are two different vehicles, they are on seperate pages. The disambig exists to direct people to the page they are looking for. Bok269 20:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Aveo should have its own page. -Paul- 21:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree - at this point, the article jumps back and forth, describing markets and models in a way that would be confusing to a reader interested in a particular model/country. Granted, all these models vary from each other by a few cc's and millimeters :) but for a reader researching their model of interest, I think they'd prefer to have distinct model pages. --Bikeduckquack (talk) 02:06, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Pontiac Version in Mexico

I remember there being a version of the Kalos sold in Mexico, possibly called the G2. When I went to the Pontiac of Mexico website, it showed a Matiz-based (not Kalos based) car under that name. Can anyone confirm that there was a model as I describe sold there, and I'll add it? Bok269 21:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Pontiac G3 -> http://www.g3.com.mx/ Bravada, talk - 21:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Poor performance in crash tests

I've noticed recently on the EuroNCAP website that the Aveo received 2 stars for the Adult Occupant Rating, with one of the stars "flagged" to note a particular danger in some aspect - this is quite alarmingly bad for such a modern car. I think this should be noted in the article somewhere, but I'm not sure where to put it and I have to go for lunch now! --Zilog Jones 12:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a massive blow to its image, it completely massacred TK Barina sales in Australia... When the story surfaced, I didn't have time to put it there, and then I forgot - if you could please, I would be grateful! Bravada, talk - 13:38, 10 July 2006

It has done very well on the US government crash tests, getting 4 or5 out of 5 in all categories.[3] Lack Thereof 17:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Which model is this in Europe http://www.euroncap.com/carsearch.aspx?make=260db6d4-0b9e-49e4-aeb9-ddaceac2fb5a kalos or aveo...or both, then we need add the other results also to the page--— Typ932^{T | C}  09:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The article now lists three test results for the Kalos: Europe, North America and Austalasia, and address the difference in crash test results: it's clear the tests are different and the vehicles are differently equipped (e.g., the Barina was tested with out side airbags). There may be other differences.

842U (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The US test was full frontal, whereas the EU test was offset, hence the obviously large difference in results Joescotchman (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Care to cite a source for this? 842U (talk) 17:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Just added the abysmal 2 stars EuroNCAP rating for the T250. I can not understand why no one added this basic piece of information before. Any thoughts???. Randroide (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Merge request

The Aveo, Gentra, and Kalos are all the same vehicle, and there is no unique information in any of the articles, and Kalos is the home-market name. IFCAR 03:02, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

But the Aveo name is much more widely known in the English speaking world, and that takes priority on the English Wikipedia. - 66.93.200.116 01:41, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is to use the home-market name. Aveo would be a redirect. IFCAR 13:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as the Aveo is a re badged Kalos it would be much more prudent to merge Aveo in to Kalos

One question: how similar are the T200 and T250? If they are different enough, there could be one article for each generation. Now, if the T250 is only a major facelift, the three pages should be mergerd into one. -- NaBUru38 19:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

They were one page and were doing pretty fine before Bull-Doser administered his self-appointed split to stuff in more of his pics. The Gentra is nothing more but the name for a facelifted sedan version, it isn't any more "different" than the pre- and post-facelift second-gen Seat Ibiza/Cordoba. PrinceGloria 11:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

The merge makes sense to me. 2 articles on the same car isn't necessary, Aveo should redirect. Lack Thereof 17:48, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree - for current or prospective owners researching a particular model, available in a particular country, the merged article presents challenges. As an article on the platform it works well, but as a reference for the make/models, the wealth of information here can be quite confusing. --Bikeduckquack (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

---

EDIT by Wave owner:

Would be nice of you to put back the picture of the Wave (and perhaps add a picture of a Gentra, which you can easily find online). If you can't find it, I happen to own a Wave that is equipped just as the one shown in the Gentra entry.

new engines

Aveo 09 brings:

- Kalos disappears, will now be called Aveo as it is in numerous countries. - Updated platform (Not T250, I think the whole controversy relating the T250's crash test is responsible for that). - New, Opel derived engine selection, North America will receive the 98 hp (1.4L) variant, which is way more efficient than the current dated Daewoo E-TEC II line (103 hp : 1.6L). - Better sound dampening (something they do every year, I swear the T400 series is a test platform :V). - Sedan interior ported to the updated hatch. - Hatch receives a new face and rear, completely different from the sedan's. However, it keeps the side panels the current iteration (08) has.

Model goes on sale this winter... In January, I believe.

I'm hoping they'll be giving it a 5-speed GM transmission as soon as possible, they're currently making the transition from 4 to 6 on several models, see Malibu 08 for details.

It has yet to be confirmed whether it will be rebadged as a Pontiac (Canada and Mexico) or Daewoo (South Korea), but I can hardly imagine what it would look like with either brand's facia-style (butterfly grille is somewhat doable, but would have to borrow several cues from the Vibe 09... But the Daewoo grille, man... That would look awful.)

---

The old engine used in North America was also an 'Opel derived' engine, not a daewoo engine. It was a GM family II engine. The Ecotec engine (Family I) is an updated version of the family II engines. The new engine is still a 1.6 as well. It produces 106hp and 105lb/ft of torque, it is more fuel efficient than the out going engine.--Mortonar (talk) 03:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

one more club for Aveo in Ukraine

http://aveo.com.ua

приглашаю в наш клуб / welcome 2 our club

212.42.77.58 08:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC) Iluhis Ukraine,Kharkov

Tata Indica - Iv noticed the Tata Indica is mentioned in the "also called" section. The Tata Indica isnt a rebadged Chevrolet Aveo

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 27, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail

2. Factually accurate?: Pass

3. Broad in coverage?: Fail

4. Neutral point of view?: Fail

5. Article stability? Fail

6. Images?: Pass

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— OSX (talk • contributions) 06:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand someone who's contributed to the article nominating it, but OSX, by contributing heavily to the article, doesn't that disqualify you from assessing the article? I'll see if I can get someone else to also review the article.

Please cite instances where the writing could be better, the coverage broader, the point of view more neutral. The article definitely isn't stable.

On: NPOV:

• The article cites the "stop delivery order."
• The article lists under awards that the Aveo placed 8th and 12th in their Least Satisfied survey.
• The article discusses the poor safety performance of the vehicle and links to the Holden Barina article where there is a more robust discussion.
• There are from what I can tell no peacock terms in the entire article.

Help me understand how the article could better reflect an NPOV.

I look forward to your collaboration in improving the article. Thanks

842U (talk) 14:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest I haven't actually heavily contributed to the article, I made one substantial edit here and another minor here. The rest were to do with repairing these edits which were later reverted. For the writing quality there are several instances. A fair amount of the content under "History of Development" is presented as bullet points when it should be in prose, a complete list of features under "US model year changes" should be reconsidered. For broader coverage, the article has extensive information of the T200 model, but little on the T250. I would also like to see more information of the powertrains. Like what are the transmissions used? I know that they are a four-speed automatic and a five-speed manual respectively, but which transmissions exactly. Likewise there is no mention of the engine output figures, which should be presented in a table under the "Engines" section. I also have a few concerns with NPOV, but they are nothing major. There seems to be no mention of the car's mixed fuel consumption figures in comparison to its performance, which is reportedly average ([4]). A few concerns have also arrisen over reliability ([5], [6]).

Also, may I add do we really need information about U.S. marketing? If so, we better get a marking section for every region that the car is sold in. My other objections have to do with the numerous MoS issues which would be tedious to list, and the references. All but three citations only include the URL and title, but the author, publication date, publisher and accessdate also should be included if available.

I will be happy to help progress this article further, but cannot do so if my edits are going to be undermined. After all, I have already progressed four car-related articles to GA status, along with another to FA status. I hope that my initial failing is not perceived to be an attack against the other editors of this article, but rather as a good faith decision. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

response

OSX, great. Thanks for taking the time to open a discussion. This is very helpful.

I'm relatively new here, but as you can see, I've contributed a lot to the article, and just recently learned the articles could be reviewed. I've since checked out your pages and some of your contributions -- I see you've made a lot of very positive contributions. I look forward to further collaborating on the Kalos article.

For someone who seems concerned with being undermined, your "nice try" comment, unnecessarily rudely calling an edit "poorly reverted" and the "do it properly" comment seem distinctly undermining and snarky. Who's to say you're edits weren't undermining mine? Are you the unbiased editor you think you are? Why not let someone else review the article next time?

When I saw that the auto articles could be "graded," I reviewed the Ford Taurus article -- because I saw that it had received the highest grade. I was astonished at how much actual editorializing the article presents -- much unreferenced. Either way, when a subject is more technical, a list or table can more clearly communicate the information -- I can't imagine that having prose would always be considered an improvement -- see your Captiva article.

There is info on fuel consumption, but it varies -- and whose information is worth reporting? I certainly don't mind reporting the deficiencies, but fuel consumption and reliabiltiy are areas where verifiable, impartial information is tough to come by. The problem with the Kalos fuel mileage seems from what I can tell to do with the disparity between EPA or "testing" figures and real-world figure -- and ostensibly the difference between the Kalos' mileage and the mileage of other cars in its class -- both these areas aren't measured by an independent, neutral party -- hence they're "indeterminate." I notice the Holden Commodore article is considered "good" though it mentions neither neither fuel econmy or reliability.

The article has cited for some time reference to the Indian advertising campaign -- did you have a problem with that? Seems not. The advertising campaigns have been notable in the US -- crafted by a globably prominent director with highly specific reference to the subject car, the Aveo, mimicking scenes from a prominent film. It remains to be seen if there are notable campaigns elsewhere -- and I'm not certain a paucity of information in one area of the world would dictate removing information from an area where there is information. Interestingly, the A rated Ford Taurus article waxes poetically about that car's promotional campaign:

“ Dear Ford premiered the Taurus in a resounding way. In mid-1985, Ford gathered executives and the press for the unveiling of the Taurus and Mercury Sable. The event took place at the MGM Studios Soundstage 85, where Gone with the Wind had been filmed. The studio was decorated in a space theme, with stars on the walls, flying saucer decorations, and refreshments served in flying saucer shaped coolers.[8] For the unveiling, "space" music started playing, as projected stars floated around the room in dance floor fashion. The outlines of the cars glowed green through the curtain; as the curtain flew up, strobe lights flashed, highlighting the cars. ”

By burying the Aveo and its info fairly deeply into the article, it doesn't dominate. There will be much more info to come on the other markets.

Your suggestions are largely constructive, and the article will only improve with your input and our collaboration. I look forward to working with you on the article, I appreciate your contribution, and I especially appreciate your experience with Wikipedia and with car articles. Thanks again for taking the time to point out directions where the article can improve.

842U (talk) 18:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Two generations? Or one generation + one facelift?

I would like to get clear on whether the differences between the T200 and T250 constitute a generation or a facelift.

Compare the Kalos to say the VW Golf, and it's clear that nothing significant changed between the T200 and the T250 -- no dimensional changes, no significant content changes.

I wonder if the generation change wasn't from T100 Lanos to T200 Kalos and that the T250 is only a facelift. In retrospect, five years from now, I'm thinking it will be clear what we have with the T250 is a restyle.

Also, the article makes a great deal of the two internal codes at GM and GMDAT, but doesn't cite a source for the info.

Thoughts? 842U (talk) 11:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I basically agree - the T250 is a "mid-life update", although one of the more substantial in scope, but still I don't think it constitutes a new "generation" - which is a purely subjective term anyway, which is why I believe manufacturers' codes are a more tangible subject for an encyclopedia. I know no source was given, but this is a widely known bit of info in GM enthusiast circles. I guess I need to dig out something on that, never occurred to me we actually should :/ PrinceGloria (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd like to get a bit more input on this as we go along. I like articles that are structured clearly -- and something tells me the structure of the article is getting off track if it emphasizes this generation thing vs. facelift thing. I'm curious also if the restyled (USA 2008.5 or 2009) Five-door (with the "I want to eat you" grill) is now a T250? I'm thinking it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 842U (talk 842U (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've made a change here that I feel is correct. If not please revert. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

OSX, I believe we could do away with this "First generation" altogether, until GM DAT releases the second one (kinda like Queen Elizabeth wasn't Elizabeth I until, well, quite recently ;) ) - FWIK now, there might as well be no second-gen Kalos, perhaps they will replace it with an all-new car and nameplate?

As concerns the new hatch, I've been told it is NOT a T250, but I didn't get to learn the exact code now... PrinceGloria (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking PrinceGloria might be on to something with Queen Elizabeth -- getting the correct internal code will be interesting.

I wonder about prioritizing the internal code as the nomenclature around which the article is structured, but the jury is out on that til we have that other code.

I'm not liking now that the subheadings on T200 don't "seem" to apply to the facelift... and I'm thinking they should.

Good discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 842U (talk • contribs) 14:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

US model year changes

This section is a confusing mess. It looks like someone took a list of changes and copied it into a single paragraph without any formatting. In addition to better formatting, it can stand to be cleaned up, as not every single little change in each model year needs to be listed here (see WP:IINFO). Really, this section would be best converted to one or two summarized paragraphs with complete sentences. --Vossanova ^o< 20:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

correction of completly inaccurate info

i made a few corrections. the whole article had completely inaccurate info. furthermore i suggest that the article gets renamed to "Chevrolet Aveo". Daewoo doesn't exist any longer since it was bought by Chevrolet.

And the "Kalos" is a complete different car. So i suggest someone makes a cleanup here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.233.73.87 (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Of note for editors not familiar with the issue: the above is partly untrue and partly imprecise. GM Daewoo, the manufacturer of this vehicle, is reporting record results and production numbers as we speak, while the Daewoo Kalos and Chevrolet Aveo are identical but for minor decorative details (and the usual stuff varying by per market specs). PrinceGloria (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Very bad car. 66.176.117.29 (talk) 16:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)