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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brands 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.
So what caused it to initially do so well, and then fall off, as the figures stated at the top of the article suggest?
Introduced 1985. After 3 years (1988), 170,000 produced. After 7 years (1992), 187,300 produced. Or a mere 17,300 in the last 5 years compared to almost 10x more in the first 3. Do we have any references as to what was going on there? I wouldn't call that "commercially quite successful" in the grand scheme of things. More a very hyped car soon being proved to be awful, and after the initial 3 year honeymoon period, the first set of once-excited buyers going elsewhere for their next purchase and the model lingering for a few years while they prepared a replacement then quietly dropped it. Compared with similarly boxy stablemates the Fiat Panda and Uno which just kept selling and selling and selling for about 15 & 10 years respectively (or the more similar strada and regata, of which i think my dad's terrible, short-term keeper Regata was about the only one I have ever, ever seen). 220.127.116.11 (talk) 23:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
About collapse, Im not sure but it maybe caused by that Alfa 164 was introduced and it sold also quite well...hard to find production data info, those values at intro are from two different sources. --— Typ932T | C 14:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I am unrepentant about the chnages I made. I refer to vrious articles as published in CAR magazine written by that 'doyen' of motoring journalists LJK Setright] He was most clear about the physics of automobile suspensions. In particular the so called "shock absorbers" reduce the amplitude of oscillations of the springs, - 'i.e.' they damp the motion - and hence should be called "dampers". The springs themselves absord the shock - by changes to their internal (usually metallic) structure -that goes for all sorts of springs: torsion bars, leaf springs, coil springs('i.e' volute springs snd others. Common usage and the physical realities of the matter disagree - and I was attempting to right the matter in one article, which means a lot to me: I used to drive a 2-litre 'Twin Spark' Alfa 75 and it was the best handling car I have ever driven! Hair Commodore (talk) 10:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC) I submit that given Leonard Setright's observations, my edit was correct and should therefore be reinstated!