Talk:Vauxhall 30-98

Automobiles 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	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.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

"The . . ." is / was

Why must the first word in an article about a car be *the*? and why is there a split on tense between is and was? Eddaido (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its a 30-98 and not a 30/98

The article name needs to be changed. Eddaido (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Eddaido. Besides, in the article the car is consistently called 30-98, not 30/98. So if no-one objects, I will move the page. Mark in wiki (talk) 20:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Origin section

Alternatives have been proposed for the wording of a sentence in the section.[[1]] They were discussed on my talk page rather than on the article talk page. I am copying the exchange here to try to get consensus as to which is best. SovalValtos (talk) 04:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

May we discuss your reason for changing my grammar (you said spelling). Eddaido (talk) 06:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead User:Eddaido. My intention was to improve our article. You could always revert and explain if you think it worse. SovalValtos (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, why did you do it? I'm certain it was in good faith, I just need to know why. thanks, Eddaido (talk) 21:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for assuming good faith User:Eddaido. As I said above, I did it because I thought it improved the article. I still do. I am not sure which version you prefer, but if the first, perhaps it would be best to take the alternatives to the article talk page, to get consensus? SovalValtos (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What nonsense. Both the alteration and the suggestion. Eddaido (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual to see such ready confirmation. Eddaido (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comparative engines

This is close to six in line 4.2 litres engine in AMC Pacer, its last deveolopment was the Jeep Cherokee Limited 4.0 HO, that in the way lost the balanced crankshaft AMC had for this type of engine until 1980. The Pacer delivered an estimated 115 hp. Same, but 55 years later, than Vauxhall 30/98 OE with overhead valves, similar displacement, 4 in line motor, at same rpm, with motor makers and gasoline refiners ignoring then causes of detonation, knock. Progress! What a pity Vauxhall cars installed only a few Argyll (car) Single Sleeve valve engines, Burt-McCollum type. Blessings + — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.13.173.22 (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]