Talk:Opel Astra

Brazilian Chevrolet Vectra plaform

Is there any proof that the Brazilian Vectra is actually the Astra H/C, which is built on the Delta platform? The external design is the same, but I've heard that it's built on the T-body platform like the Astra G/B, not the Delta platform. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.251.253 (talk) 21:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

old first level discussion

the last picture is retarded. that's not the new opel astra. here is a good picture, someone paste it please: http://www.autoindex.org/images/cars/3392/4372/norm_1_Astra_GTC_HPC_MY2005_Eu.jpg

-petrik

---

Nobody uses the terms "Opel Astra A", "Opel Astra B" or "Opel Astra C", they are called "Opel Astra F/G/H" in Germany. I know it, because I am from Germany!"

I'd almost put money on it that the version uploaded by the anon was copy/pasted from somewhere else -- copyvio or not. —Morven 05:22, Jul 18, 2004 (UTC)

Well here's another one from 213.122.31.131: --SFoskett 18:08, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

VAUXHALL ASTRA MK1/OPEL KADETT (1979-1984)

The original Vauxhall Astra was first produced in Britain in the summer of 1980, but it had been on sale for a year as the German built Opel Kadett. It was marketed as a three- and five-door hatchback and estate with 1.3 and 1.6 petrol engines as well as an economical 1.6 diesel. The Astra filled the gap in the Vauxhall range which had been vacated by the ageing Viva, but it stole many sales off the smaller Chevette which remained in production until the launch of the Nova three years later.

The real star of the original Astra range was the 2.0 GSi, which was launched in 1981 and had a top speed of nearly 120mph. This rounded off an impressive modern range of small family cars which proved to be a credible rival for the likes of the VW Golf and Ford Escort.

VAUXHALL ASTRA MK2/OPEL KADETT (1984-1991)

The second generation Vauxhall Astra was based on the same chassis as its predecessor but used an entirely new aerodynamic bodyshell which took time to accept. The engine range was more extensive than before, with the addition of 1.2 and 1.4 petrol engines. A saloon version (badged Belmont in the UK) was introduced in the spring of 1986.

In 1986 the Astra range was boosted by the launch of the GTE 16-valve, which used the GSi's 2.0 engine but was bolstered to give more power and an overwhelming top speed of nearly 140mph. The downside to the new fast version of the Astra was the fact that its chassis could not match its performance.

When production of the second generation Astra ceased in the autumn of 1991, South Korean manufacturer Daewoo purchased the rights to produce the car and it remained in production for a further six years as the Daewoo Nexia.

VAUXHALL/OPEL ASTRA MK3 (1991-1998)

With the third generation model, the Astra was finally badged as both a Vauxhall and Opel throughout Europe, although the Kadett name was still used in Africa. An Australian-built Holden Astra was also produced.

The engine line-up was entirely new, with 1.4, 1.6 and 2.0 petrol engines all getting fuel injection. There was also a 1.7 non-turbo and turbo-diesel. Ride and handling were acceptable but still not class leading.

Vauxhall-Opel brought the Astra range up to date in all areas, especially specification. For the first time the Astra could be had with power steering, electric windows, airbags and antilock brakes.

A facelift at the end of 1994 saw the Astra's engine mildly updated but the rest of the package was very much the same as before.

VAUXHALL/OPEL/CHEVROLET/HOLDEN ASTRA MK4 (1998-2004)

General Motors introduced the fourth generation Astra in the spring of 1998, with all-new 16-valve engines (1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0 and 2.2) plus 1.7 and 2.0 turbo-diesels. There was also a 2.0 turbo capable of 150mph. Build quality, reliability, ride comfort and handling were greatly improved over the stodgy previous Astra. The Astra was now badged across the world under four different marques - Vauxhall in Britain, Opel in Europe, Chevrolet in America and Holden in Australia.

The Astra chassis spawned off three different cars within two years of its launch - the seven-seater Zafira compact MPV plus the Italian-built Astra Coupe and Cabriolet which were designed and manufactured by design studio Bertone.

The fourth generation Astra was a big step forward for General Motors. It was unimaginatively styled inside and out, but was one of the best small family cars in Europe in terms of ride, handling, refinement and accommodation. Prices were competitive too.

VAUXHALL/OPEL ASTRA MK5 (2004-present)

The fifth generation Astra was launched in the spring of 2004 by General Motors as a successful bid to produce a class leading car in the small medium sector. Vauxhall-Opel was now producing a stylish, well-built, competitively-priced and fun to drive small family cars which was intent on stealing sales off the Ford Focus.

When Astra MK5 production began, it was sold only as a five-door hatchback, but a three-door hatchback and five-door estate are set to follow within the next year.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_Astra"

I spotted one about the Audi 80 (another editor originally caught it and concluded the same) that read like this writer's work, but from IP 213.122.148.205. I am not sure if it is copied though. They both read a bit brochure-like but there are parts that wouldn't have been in such a document, such as the international names. Also, this same writer tends to write 'MK1' which would never be allowed in professional writing (Mk 1 or Mk. 1, with a space, being the correct forms). I did quick searches of a few phrases and couldn't find them on the web. Never mind, as between the three of us and other Wikipedians we have a superior replacement. Stombs 06:01, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

He's back

IP 213.122.196.51 is probably the same person and introduced some changes to this page, either factually incorrect or reflecting an opinion. I've reverted them. Stombs 23:12, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect 2004 Astra photo

The photo of a supposed 2004 Astra is actually the 2000 model (which looks quite different) and should be replaced with one of a real 2004 Astra.

For examples of the 2004 Astra, see http://www.autoindex.org/bodies.plt?no=3392&ass= GagHalfrunt 17:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

GTC and GSI

There must be a sub-title about these special products. With respect, Deliogul 23:05, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Astra Mk5 Platform

Can someone verify whether or not the Astra Mk 5 is based on the General Motors Delta platform? The Delta platform entry suggests otherwise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GM_Delta_platform --Whatsoverthere 23:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The current Astra is not on Delta. It's still a T-car, but an FWD T-car at that. The next Astra will be on Delta and will possibly be joined by Saturn in the US. -Daniel Blanchette 15:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Article naming: Opel Astra or General Motors Astra?

I think the article is wrongly named General Motors Astra. It would be more properly called Opel Astra. The Astra is not present in the North American market, so it´s not branded as GM Astra in any place I know of. I will move it to Opel Astra. In Brazil it´s called Chevrolet Astra and is not in line anymore with the european Opel Astra, since it recieved a few facelifts instead of bringing the current Opel Astra model. What do you think? Is it really correct to call it the General Motors Astra? Wikipedia guidelines for article names advice us to use the term a user most probably would type search box. In this case it's definitely not General Motors Astra (Chevrolet Astra and Opel Astra would be much more likely the case). Just in case, if General Motors Astra stands, so Opel Tigra and Opel Vectra should be changed also. Loudenvier 17:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, my cut´n´paste move was reverted. I wasn´t able to move the page because Opel Astra (the correct title for this article) is alread "taken" with a redirect for General Motors Astra. The one reverting did not even bothered reading the talk page, nor posting. So I will propose the move instead, so an administrator could handle it. The article naming is definitely wrong. Please explain your motives. I will not move back because cut´n´pasting to move pages is something too radical and I do not want to start a revert war either. Actually the revert simply caused more load on wikipedia servers instead of relieving it, keep it in mind if the intention was only to show that a Cut´n´paste move was a wrong way to move. Loudenvier 19:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It is General Motors Astra, because the Opel Astra refers to just one of the regional variants. As this is a top-level article covering the Vauxhall, Opel and Holden Astras, "Opel Astra" is incorrect as a title.

Requested move

General Motors Astra → Opel Astra – Rationale: The article's talk page has deeper information on this, but to summarize: the Opel Astra was not available on the North American market and there isn´t a single place where it´s called General Motors Astra. The article's history section also indicates it´s not General Motors Astra, but Opel Astra, a car originated from the Opel Kadett from 1979 in Germany. The Astra is an European car, from Opel, a subsidiary of General Motors. The car is known as Opel Astra all around the world except in Latin America where it´s know as simply Astra (from Chevrolet). The category for this car is Category:Opel vehicles, so how come the title for the article is General Motors Astra? Under Wikipedia Naming conventions this article title is wrong. I did a cut´n´paste move (which was wrong, I assume) and it got reverted without arguments. I wasn't able to move the page to Opel Astra because Opel Astra is now a redirect to General Motors Astra, but it should be the opposite of this (that´s why I fell to the temptation of the cut´n´paste move). Loudenvier 19:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Since I am responsbile in a way for this kerfuffle and I believe the issue should be solved ASAP, I would like to add a few cents to the discussion:

1. The general standard adopted by WikiProject Automobiles is that articles on automobiles are named the way the model is called in its "original" market (the market where the company/brand headquarters is located and/or for which it was primarily developed). Therefore, the naming of the article "General Motors Astra" is wrong and this should be changed, as there is/was no vehicle called GM Astra in any market.
2. The history of the model is actually a few different histories - that of the Opel Astra itself (with Opel arguably being the "original brand" and continental Europe being the "original market", as the Astras were predominantly developed in Opel design centres in Europe), Vauxhall Astra, which is parallel to the last generations of the Opel Kadett and later Opel Astra, that of the Holden Astra (which, before it became one with Opel Astra, was also a nameplate used for rebadged Nissans), and the Latin American Chevrolet Astra, which generally follows the lineage of Opel Astra, but has not yet progressed into the third generation. Additionally, it also covers the Opel Astra Classic models (and derivatives), but those do not have any technical differences or peculiarities that would prevent them from being discussed together with other Astras.
3. The article currently most closely discusses the Vauxhall Astra history from an UK market point of view, which creates unnecessary confusion for users looking for information on other Astra models. A separate Holden Astra article exists, more or less accurately explaining the usage of the nameplate in the Australia and New Zealand markets.
4. As the Opel Astra is arguably the "original brand" for the last three generations of the vehicle (A/F, B/G, C/H), information on those should be moved to the Opel Astra article.
5. The remaining Vauxhall Astra article should discuss the usage of the nameplate in the British market, directing users to main articles on given generations - Opel Kadett or Opel Astra
6. Chevrolet Astra in general follows the lineage of the Opel, without divertions like in the case of Vauxhall or Holden, so it should be discussed within the Opel article with eventual differences explained - the Chevrolet Astra should be a redirect to Opel Astra.

If there are no general objections or alternative suggestions, I propose we submit this version to Requests for Move. Regards, Bravada, talk - 20:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support (since I did propose the move in the first place... :-) Loudenvier 19:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, makes sense to me. Recury 17:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The same should be done to General Motors Corsa and General Motors Zafira. --Pc13 11:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'd just like to note that I support Bravada's suggestion, and made a similar suggestion years ago but never acted on it... --SFoskett 13:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support, but please retain short articles specific to each make/model combination, with references to the origin model. In the future, GM may diferentiate the divisions and substitute a different car design for one or more makes, while still calling them by the same model name. There was a time when the Cadillac Seville was an upscale Chevy Nova, but later the Seville became a completely different front-wheel drive design and the Nova did not. Hypothetically speaking, it would have been inconvenient to have to go back and split a combined article about the two cars, and reconstruct the individual histories of each model. Put the common information in a common article, and the different information in separate articles, and use the hypertext features to link them.71.31.237.126 20:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

• User:Bravada stated on my talk page that "the title General Motors Astra looks absolutely atrocious to users from Europe or North America." That was also my impression (In fact I didn't recognized until Bravada´s comment that when I typed Opel Astra in the search box I was actually being redirected to General Motors Astra simply because I would never expect such atrocious thing :-) Loudenvier 19:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• I think the Vauxhall Astra should not be considered a separate article,but instead be merged on the Opel Astra article and the General Motors Astra article should redirect to Opel Astra too (as already requested). The Holden Astra deserves a mention on the Opel Astra article but also an article for itself, since it was a very different car in the past, with a very distinctive history. 20:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • The history of the Vauxhall Astra nameplate is quite different than that of the Opel Astra, and keeping them together creates confusion - as of now, it is not that evident, but after the move you would have an article on Opel Astra starting with the description of cars that weren't Opel Astras! Rather than that, a short article explaining the usage of the Vauxhall nameplate referring to relevant sections of Opel Kadett and Opel Astra articles (and, of course, countrereferences in those articles) could be more informative - just like in the case of Holden Astra. Bravada, talk - 22:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Eventually, the General Motors Astra entry should be deleted totally (after all wikilinks would be corrected), as it is an entity exisiting only on WP (there is no such car in real world per se), creating a very dangerous precedent. Bravada, talk - 22:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
    • I can see the reasoning behind having a General Motors Astra, even if such a thing doesn't exist as an actual car (I don't see the problem, personally, since there does indeed exist a car called the "Astra" made by General Motors". It saves a lot of duplicate effort that would be spent maintaining separate articles for Opel Kadett, Opel Astra, Vauxhall Astra, Holden Astra, etc etc. There's got to be a better option. Collard 02:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Again, creating entities that only exist within WP is a very bad practice, and there IS and SHOULD be a separate article for Opel Kadett in case you didn't know. The proposed separate Vauxhall Astra article would not be any longer than the current Holden Astra, which hardly duplicates anything said in the current article. Bravada, talk - 08:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
• This page is already submited to the Request for moves. Afterwards we could propose other moves if necessary. Loudenvier 20:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• There's no need to put on-hold on the request for move entry because the procedure calls for consensus, so I will remove the on-hold tag to allow people to follow the ordinary move request process, which is to discuss the move on the talk page :-) Loudenvier 21:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• I don't think this issue is so controversial that it requires a formal process, and additionally a split would be more effective than a series of consecutive edits. I have asked an administator involved in the topic for assistance and I hope he will find some time to help with that. Regards, Bravada, talk - 22:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• I've just added information on the General Motors Corsa(sic) that the proposed move for the Astra will besoon proposed to the Corsa. If I were an administrator, moving these wrongly titled articles should be easier. Loudenvier 14:27, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Vegaswikian 05:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Praise the Lord!

Kudos to Vegaswikian for finally sorting out the kerfuffle. For the article to live up to its new title, I have moved the Vauxhall-specific content to Vauxhall Astra. Still, both articles require much attention and editorial work. I hope there will be plenty of volunteers :D Bravada, talk - 14:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Current Chevrolet Astra

The current chevrolet Astra has a front and hear a litle different from the Astra G. It's not the Astra H tough. I don't know quite well how to put this information inside the article. Maybe tha brazillian Astra is the Astra G facelifted. Perhaps a small picture left aligned of the brazillian Astra would suffice. Loudenvier 13:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes

The Astra article has good content, but it's diagramation is horrendous!!! The infoboxes are not aligned with the sections they pertain to. If we could provide Infoboxes varying in alignment (left and right) then we could fix this diagramatin issue. I don't know how to edit the infoboxes themselves to allow this option (left alignment) (perhaps it's already possible and it's only me being too damn stupid!). Could someone shed some light on this? Regards Loudenvier 13:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's no easy solution for that, other than using the <br style="clear:both;" /> tag (which breaks up paragraph formatting so that the next paragraph only begins after all tables, templates, images etc. anchored in the previous paragraphs finish. What we need is just fill in more text for each generation, there is so much more to say!

By the way, Chevrolet, Holden and Vauxhall Astra versions are all mentioned in the main infobox, I think there is no need to reiterate that, just the versions which were unique to one generation (like "Opel Kadett F" in South Africa with regard to Astra A/F). I think we need to compile a nifty list for every generations clarifying all names and where they were used, like in the Opel Zafira and Opel Corsa articles.

I was also wondering whether to mention the naming of generations as "Astra I", "Astra II" and "Astra III". It is quite often used e.g. in Poland in technical and automotive literature, and I think also in marketing (though I'm not sure whether I've ever seen it in anything else than dealer advertising and promo materials). Normally we don't mention it that people would call the second model in a row "second" or "2nd" generation, because it is quite obvious, but would that be or not? Bravada, talk - 13:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

In Brazil we know the Astra's as: German Astra (the Astra imported in 1995), Astra (the 1998 Astra G) and New Astra (the current brazilian Astra which seems to be a facelifted Astra G). To the common user (driver) Astra A, B, C, D, Z, Y :-) means nothing around here, but, perhaps Astra I, II and III would be more meaningfull. The problem is that the Chevrolet Astra line is outdated in realtion to the Opel line. Astra I would relate to German Astra, Astra II to Astra and Astra III to New Astra, and it would be different from Astra I, II or III for the correct Opel naming. Loudenvier 14:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a bit of info...

I remember reading in Motor Trend that a design for the next generation Saturn Ion was scrapped and was going to be a rebadged Opel Astra. I added it to the article. 70.57.81.173 23:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, if you could find the source and cite it then this information would be very welcome to the article (a kind of an Astra in USA...)... But we need a reference for that! Could you provide us one? Regards, Loudenvier 03:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Astra in the USA

I think we should not dismiss the source car may be GM hit as a newspaper gossip that should not be taken. I propose we add this information again since it has a source (in fact, more than one source, because I was able to find a few places citing that the Astra will hit the USA as stated on the above dismissed link). Perhaps adding a temporal template stating that this is about a current or future event is enough. Leting this info out is diminishing the value of this article because it's a great impact to the Astra family: hit the US. If no objections are made I will restore the link and will put the temporal template in place. Regards Loudenvier 17:34, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Objection - even widespread gossip is still gossip. Wikipedia, in general, should not include statements about future, unless they are absolutely certain. I believe in case of automobiles this means a statement from the manufacturer directly, i.e. a link to a media.gm.com press release. Until GM releases one (and I believe they still haven't), this is still high-profile gossip. Remember that WP should be the most factually accurate rather than most up-to-date. Bravada, talk - 18:14, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

A widespread gossip could have a place in wikipedia in my opinion, if it was not so then the Template:Current and all of the Temporal templates would be of no use. (Pluto as a planet discussions would have to wait for the final statement to make into wikipedia.) The wording on the article could state clearly that it is a scheduled and/or, to some extent, uncertain event. For the sake of completeness I would include this information on the article, and one of the main reasons for that is that this is a too much important piece of information that the wikipedia article should not let it out. Waiting for a manufacturer statement could be a pointless requirement for adding something to the article. If you read the Fiat Marea article you would see that the Brazilian Fiat stated that the Marea SX with 127hp didn't valve admission control phase variator of the HLX, and that exchanging the SX fuel injection chip for the HLX would be of no use. The manufacturer statement was a big lie. The Marea SX had this device disabled by way of a reprogrammed electronic fuel injection chip, and exchanging this chip for the HLX model would bring back the full 147hp of that model. All that is needed for wikipedia is a reliable source. The cited newspaper seems reliable to me. I'll wait for further discussion on the subject but I'm inclined to bring the info back to the article if no more deeper reasons for ommiting it surfaces. Regards Loudenvier 22:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Current" templates are one of the most abused on WP, and the sole existence of the "current automobile" template in present form is one big abuse, but I don't have the time to go back to fighting that again. It serves as a pretext for outright ignoring the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" WP:NOT policy, and this is why you can see so manybad examples of that. Uncertain events should have no place in WP. An encyclopedia is not about speculation, it is about information. In principle, we cannot inform about anything that has not yet happened.

Referring to the Fiat Marea example, it is not referenced, and one would need some really good references for the statement that the described chip change is possible, and first and foremost, to an official Fiat source declaring that it is not. As for now, it is an unreferenced claim on both accounts. Besides, the manufacturer is the one who decides whether they release a model or not - no paper can be more authoritative on that, as they are not the ones who make the decision, so this is an entirely different case.

And, while you may not trust manufacturers entirely (although, again, this is totally irrelevant in that case, as they are the ones who make the decisions, so there is nothing not to trust them about), the press is far less reliable, eager to "create news" out of the little gossip they have. Do I have to refer you to countless examples of press specualtions proving to be wrong, no matter how widespread some gossip was?

The article is currently in a laughable state, failing to convey even a brief roundup of all the factual, 100% verifiable information there are on the past 15 years of the Astra, so I guess we can live without starting a gossip column... Bravada, talk - 23:07, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

About the Marea chip: It's not a claim without substance. Just open the Marea caput and you'll see that the missing valve control is present. I've changed the chip on my Marea and the full 147hp were back (the engine blowed not because of the chip change, but because my mother drove the car and did not paid attention to the low oil warning light!). Many sources for that Fiat lie exists: [1] [2], I could go on, but I think you will not waste your time trying to read all those sources in portuguese :-). If any previous encyclopaedia could be so dynamic as Wikipedia I'm sure they would document current events. All that is need is common sense. For example, those many games that are still in developement sometimes make good articles, even before the games are released. Grigori Perelman prove of Poincaré Conjecture would not be in wikipedia because it's still a litle controversial and current event. But, man, it's encyclopedic, as I think the information that Astra could reach the USA is also. Regards. Loudenvier 13:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I clicked the Perelman link but it was revealed to me that he is a mathematician, and therefore I refuse to read the article on principial grounds (not to mention the scary photo ;D ). Coming back to the topic - why don't we just wait a few months until the matter gets cleared out? There is such a vast array of past, and certain, facts that are still not covered by Wikipedia that we do not have to worry that we aren't covering all the latest gossip. Bravada, talk - 13:54, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Astra in USA

Please, until GM make a statement it still unofficial info. Wikipedia is not meant to be a newspaper. The compromise we found is a good one: citing the interveiu with Bob Lutz. Adding anything further than that will be in violation of wikipedia guidelines. I will back-up Bravada in any reverts until such a statement is made by GM or Saturn. To avoid a revert war I suggest leaving this part of the article as it reads now: it tells about the high probability of Astra in the USA, letting the reader to figure out if it is or not for certain. Regards. Loudenvier 17:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ontopic site

I have submitted a site; http://opelastrah.com to the external links, and it has been removed. I believe it is not spam, and it is very ontopic. Roy

Opening Paragraph

I find this is wording does not work. At the end of the first paragraph, it states 'It competes mainly against the Ford Focus and Volkswagen Golf.' I find this is rather amibguous now that the car will be sold in North America this year (Under the Saturn Brand). My reasoning for this is that while the Ford Focus may be considered a mid-range car in Europe, it is most certainly NOT in North America. Stating that the car competes mainly with a Ford Focus and the Volkswagen Golf will lead a person from the US or Canada to believe that the price point on an Astra can vary between $12,000 CDN to $28,000 CDN. (As the North American Focus is priced at $12,000 - $15,500 CDN and the Golf is $25,000 - $28,000 CDN) SJM 26 February 2007

Hey, thanks to whomever changed this so promtly. SJM 28 February 2007

Astra F engine spec uploaded

engine spec for astra F uploaded, information taken from Haynes service and repair manualScorpio wan1945 21:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorpio wan1945 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

Panoramic windscreen

I read

panoramic windscreen (unique for a production car at the time of its launch) which extends into the roof area. This type of window is not a panoramic windscreen.

A car with a real panoramic windscreen haves A-pillars with a vertical angle like opel Kapitän P1 This way the A-pillars block Les visibility.

regards

Stef —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.92.132.118 (talk) 10:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge Saturn Astra into Opel Astra

Hi people, there's an on going discussion about this on the Saturn Astra article talk page. It would be interesting if we participate so that we can really reach a better understanding of the issue. Please, visit the talk page of Saturn Astra to participate. Loudenvier (talk) 19:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You could post also to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles

--— Typ932^{T | C}  19:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

OK - the conclusion of that debate was a clear consensus to merge - so Saturn Astra is now a redirect to this page. The original Saturn Astra page is stored at the bottom of the talk page for that article. SteveBaker (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Error in dimensions

There's something wrong with the width of the hatchback - it can't be 2032 mm (80 in) vs 1753 mm (69 in) / 1759 mm (69.3 in) for the other models. PMJzz (talk) 02:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Easytronic

One, or more of the generations had the Easytronic transmission. I am fairly sure it was the Astra-G and Astra-F - can someone clarify/confirm, and add it to the article, thanks. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Interior panorama

Do you think that is useful to add an external link to this panorama: Interior of an Opel Astra . I only propose it.--RobCatalà (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Bad production dates

Astras F were produced and sold in Poland until late 2001 and sold as Astra Classic, as opposed to Astra G marketed in Poland as Atra II. I own this model produced in august 2001, bought in november 2001 from dealer in Poznań.

Production dates should be expanded at least to 2001 or even early 2002.

Yanc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.253.149.39 (talk) 10:11, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Engine

The engine table really needs to clarfify which engine code corresponds with which model. It is also missing the 1.2 Corsa engine used in some (underpowered) Astras

File:Opel logo 2009 .png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Opel logo 2009 .png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 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) 09:03, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Astra J OPC PR photo.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Astra J OPC PR photo.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. 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. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)