Talk:Volkswagen

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Hippies[edit]

There is a passing reference to the "hippie" movement but this does not appear to be referenced or expounded on. At minimum a reference is appropriate. But given how significant this "trend" had on the popularity of the Beetle (and Volkswagen) it seems appropriate to expand this discussion a bit. Anybody have more info on that aspect of history? --Mcorazao 18:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Is this page about the brand or company?[edit]

The Prophets and the AG would make this page look like a company, but shouldn't this page be about the brand Volkswagen, and put the prophets on the VW group article similar to Mercedes and ChryslerDaimler set-up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alan Frize (talkcontribs) 18:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

Vandalism[edit]

I had deleted a vandalized section in the beginning. Please check to make sure, and lock if needed. Thank you.Ryou-kun16 17:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Largest car manufacturers[edit]

I believe the introductory paragraph might be outdated, as some figures have now listed Toyota as being the largest auto manufacturer, having surpassed GM. Lapunkd 16:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Founded[edit]

Is it fair that you use the Nazi Germany flag, it gives Volkswagen abad image, and i dont think its really fair. The modern VW company was founded after the war with the help of a British Army General anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.113.24 (talk) 23:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article talk a bit about the relation of VW with the Nazis and the SS at the time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.126.34 (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The SS had nothing at all to do with the volkswagen project, and technically speaking neither did "the Nazis" as you so colloquially put it, it was the DAF, the National Socialist Party's trade union. The Grumpy Hacker (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I don't like how the story of VW skips from the 1930s to post war. Although placing the Nazi flag is unfair as VW and the Nazi regime were not one and the same, it is unforgivable to forget or gloss over the ugliest part of this company's history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.241.52 (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree, putting a Nazi flag gives them a bad reputation. You don't see a German Empire flag for BMW on its page when it was founded in 1916. The full history should be kept on it though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.191.208.60 (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


Type 82 or 83?[edit]

The caption below the picture of the Beetle identifies it as a "Type 83." Yet clicking on the picture itself leads to its own page, where it is labeled with a "Description: VW Typ 82." Which is correct? 66.234.222.96 (talk) 13:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Build Quality[edit]

I believe this article should include a section for some of VW's build quality issues, notably the 2.0L I4 in the old Jetta and the Jetta itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.166.105 (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

BlueTec and BlueMotion[edit]

There's a serious mistake in the article. BlueTec is a technology for injecting an additional fluid ("AdBlue") to the exhaust of a diesel engine which does not reduce the car's carbon dioxide emission. BlueMotion, though, is more of a bundle of low-tech measures for reducing the car's air resistance, weight, etc. as well as minor tweaking of the gearbox and the engine software. The BlueMotion bundle, which sells at as little as 250 EUR, reduces the car's carbon dioxide emission by roughly 15-20 g/km. The only thing these two "technologies" have in common are their application to diesel systems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.229.184.223 (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Privatisierung durch 600 Bundestagsabgeordnete Parlamentsdebatte Top 12[edit]

195.194.75.209 (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Help![edit]

Before anyone gets upset at me, I just want to make it clear that I did not delete the contents of the article.

I came across this article where it only contained the text "Volkswagens are sexy, brahh" and, I think, "XOX ally". I attempted to restore the article, but have not been able to do so. However, I was able to remove the silly text.

I have made minor edits in Wikipedia before, but I do not know how to do a full restore. If anyone knows, please restore article. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.217.50 (talk) 07:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the heads up. --Matt (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Adolf Hitler?[edit]

You sure Adolf Hitler was a founder of Volkswagen? He owned a Mercedes-Benz

Marauder09 (talk) 23:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

While Hitler's backing was instrumental in getting Porsche's Volkswagen project started, the founding directors of the Gesellschaft zur Vorbereitung des Deutschen Volkswagens mbH were Porsche, Jakob Werlin and Bodo Lafferentz (according to The VW Story by Jerry Sloniger, at least). I think these three are probably the most appropriate to be listed as founders in the infobox. Letdorf (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC).
...in fact, if one considers Hitler to be a founder of VW, would one consider Harold Wilson or Tony Benn the founders of British Leyland? They all provided the political will, but left the management of the formation of the business to others. Letdorf (talk) 12:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC).
I agree--no credible public reference I can find claims Hitler to be a "founder" of the Volkswagen company. He merely called on private industry to create an automobile with certain general characteristics at a certain price point. The project was undertaken by Porsche initially then taken over by the DAF under the leadership of Robert Ley. Not even the German Wikipedia articles on Volkswagen and Volkswagen AG mention Hitler as being a "founder." People who continually add Hitler to the list of founders do so for their own amusement only, not based on any historical fact. The Grumpy Hacker (talk) 18:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
Letdorf et al have my full support to leave Adolf Hitler out. He did not "found" the company. There was no real "founder" in the sense of the word. Official initiator was the Nazi organization „Kraft durch Freude“ which founded in 1937 the "Gesellschaft zur Vorbereitung des Deutschen Volkswagens mbH (GeZuVor)" ("Corporation for the preparation of the German Volkswagen Ltd.") Bodo Lafferentz was Managing Director ("Geschäftsführer") of GeZuVor. 1938, the name of GeZuVor was changed to Volkswagenwerk G.m.b.H. Ferdinand Porsche was made Managing Director (Geschäftsführer) of the company and had a seat on the supervisory board. Just as Lafferentz, Porsche received a job, he was not a founder. Likewise would I remove Jakob Werlin. he was a car salesman, sold Hitler his first Benz. Became Hitler's consultant in automotive matters, ran the Daimler-Benz subsidiary in Munich and was a board member of Daimler Benz. According to the German Wikipedia, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakob_Werlin he once worked in an honorary capacity as a Managing Director at Volkswagenwerk G.m.b.H., but he supposedly did that at the same time as Porsche. Bottom line: There was no real "founder." If people insist on a founder, then it's either KdF or GeZuVor.--BsBsBs (talk) 13:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
If we use May 28, 1937 as the inception date of the company, then Kraft durch Freude must be noted as the founder. May 28, 1937 was the date when KdF founded GeZuVor --BsBsBs (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
The meaning of the "founder" field in the infobox template is defined in the template documentation as "Person or persons who founded the company." Taking into consideration BsBsBs's argument, it might be better to omit this field altogether? Letdorf (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC).
I'd say so. --BsBsBs (talk) 19:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Largest Car Company? Merger with Porche[edit]

I have removed the claim that VW will become the world's largest car manufacturer by 2018. It is no doubt true that they would like to, and that they are making plans to do so, but the claim is speculative and probably much less certain than they would like us to believe. Similarly, it seems inappropriate to have detailed information in the introductory paragraph describing the merger plans, both because it is speculative (it hasn't happened yet) and because it really isn't part of a proper introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.192.92.37 (talk) 16:12, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The status of this article needs to be revisited. Please see Talk:Automotive industry#Porsche / Volkswagen naming. 65.166.89.2 (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

where was vws first factory> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.233.163.170 (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Did not beat Toyota in 2009[edit]

I have removed the claim that Volkswagen ( plus Porsche) did beat Toyota in 2009. This is an urban legend, worthy of Snopes.

I am one of the maintainers of the Volkswagen AG entry in the German Wikipedia. I worked for more than 30 years for VW. Full background on the urban legend at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskussion:Volkswagen_AG (in German.) Salient points follow.

I had to remove the urban legend several times for the German entry. Since 2/1/2010, the removal was no longer necessary, as official data had become available.

On 1/11/2010 Volkswagen AG said in a press release: „in 2009, Volkswagen has exceeded the deliveries of the prior year and reached new record results. 6.29 million (2008: 6.23 million +1.1 percent) units were delivered to customers.”

Official release by Toyota, dated 1/25/2010 “TOYOTA MOTOR CORPORATION (TMC) announces its production, domestic sales and export results, including those for subsidiaries Daihatsu Motor Co., Ltd. and Hino Motors, Ltd., for December 2009 and the 2009 calendar year (CY2009). “ The report is delivered as a table. At the bottom of the table are 7,234,439 units.

In 2009, Toyota was a million units ahead of VW.

It also should have come to someone's attention that Porsche has not been part of Volkswagen in 2009.

Official rankings are kept by OICA, and OICA has not yet released rankings for 2009.

As far as Volkswagen's goals for beating Toyota by 2018 go, the plans are reality. Hubris or not, we shall see. I leave that point to the maintainers of this page. As Wikipedia deals with facts, I'm all for leaving it out.--BsBsBs (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

VW Group overtaking Toyota was reported in The Guardian [1] in November 2009, based on a report by IHS Global Insight which estimated that the combination of VW Group and Porsche had produced 4.4m cars "so far this year" (it's unclear what the exact dates are) compared to 4m for Toyota. So, slighty more substantial a claim than a typical urban legend, and possibly even true for a period in early 2009. However, as you say, these were not official figures, and including Porsche is debatable, as the merger process was still in its preliminary stages in early 2009. Letdorf (talk) 12:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC).
I documented this on the talk page of [[2]] IHS Global Insight had done a botch job, and the media just ate it up. I spare you the details. Porsche wasn't part of Volkswagen at the time. "So far this year" referred to beginning of November 2009. Should have caused more suspicion. If VW makes 6 million cars a year, how can they surpass Toyota if they just had made 4 million in November? At VW, Global Insight forgot to count Audi, Seat, Skoda etc., but they counted Porsche (wrong.) At Toyota, they forgot to count Daihatsu and Hino. Anyway, the annual reports cleared it up. Toyota a million ahead of VW. As far as Porsche goes, that wasn't debatable. In most of 2009, Porsche had tried to take over Volkswagen, Piech turned the table on Porsche, but by 12/31/2009, the takeover wasn't consummated. (As a matter of fact: VW just raised the money for the takeover a few days ago. --BsBsBs (talk) 14:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Christian Klingler[edit]

I took the liberty to remove the Christian Klingler entry from the info box. Nothing against him, he's a nice and capable guy. But the entry makes it read as if he's the whole "Board of Management of the Volkswagen Passenger Cars" which he's not. He's the new sales chief. Officially, he is "Member of the Board of Management of Volkswagen AG responsible for ‘Sales and Marketing’, Member of the Board of Management of the Volkswagen brand responsible for ‘Sales, Marketing and After Sales’." So even the title was erroneous. If we list Klingler, then we would have to list the whole board, which would be beyond the scope of the infobox. The German version doesn't even list Piech in the box. If someone wants to keep track of comings and goings on the board of the Volkswagen AG, and the different brand boards (different thing) then be my guest, but be warned: It's a chore. Would need a special section. --BsBsBs (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Urgent Cleanup Needed[edit]

This article is in dire need for cleanup and referencing. I have given it a "This article needs additional citations for verification" tag for the time being. The intro is too wordy and strays too much from the topic. Discussions of the Morgenthau plan for instance belong elsewhere. Largely due to a lack of citations, the article contains a lot of mistakes. A small sample:

- "The first reference to the name Beetle occurred in U.S. advertising in 1968, but not until 1998 and the Golf-based New Beetle would the name be adopted by Volkswagen" is just wrong. I wrote the Volkswagen Catalogues in the 70s and the title was "Der Käfer" (The Beetle). First recorded usage of "Der Käfer" in Volkswagen brochure print number 152.947.00 2/68 of 1968.

- "By 1955 sales were on a basis that warranted the building of the fine Volkswagen plant on a 32 acre site on Scarboro's Golden Mile." Unencyclopedic and wrong. It wasn't a "plant", it was an office building / warehouse. "See 1959 Canadian Register of Commerce & Industry held in the Western Libraries at the University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario" needs to be turned into a proper reference. If it's worth keeping. We can't possibly reference every office building of VW ...

- The sequence Polo - Passat - Golf is wrong. It's Passat - Scirocco - Golf - Polo. The Derby reference is confusing. The Derby came later, in 1977, and was short-lived. AFAIK, it was never sold outside of Europe and should not appear in an article that seems to be written from an U.S. viewpoint.

- The Volkswagen Law needs to be explained better. The shot down version has been replaced by a new one. It is still in effect. Citations!

- The takeover by Porsche and counter-takeover by Volkswagen needs to be explained better. Citations!

I could go on and on. If the editors would go to the trouble of properly referencing their work, it would be more precise and less convoluted.

Much to my chagrin, I found the old lie about "Volkswagen #1" perpetuated again. I had already covered this above under "Did not beat Toyota in 2009." I was astounded to find this again, despite published numbers by Volkswagen and Toyota to the contrary. I am floored by the fact that speculations along the lines of "whilst this is a significant change in the global pecking order, it's widely believed that Toyota will overtake Volkswagen again, possibly by the end of 2009, as production is ramped up as the world emerges from its economic slump" could survive the vigilance of WP editors - not to mention the fact that 2009 is long behind us. I have edited the chapter, along with proper references. WARNING: If the lies resurface, they will be mercilessly reverted. I have worked for VW for more than 30 years and I love the company. But lies are lies.

If I find the time, I will clean up the article later. But be warned, if I do it, a lot of the current content will go. If you value your contributions, please clean up and most of all properly reference your materials. --BsBsBs (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: In rereading the article, it becomes very evident that it needs structure. There is a lot of repetition. Talk about cars battles with talk about the company. At de:Volkswagen AG the structure is CEOs, mirroring the Volkswagen custom of dividing their history into "eras" of the CEOs. Any suggestions for other structures? --BsBsBs (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your points, assuming you can find RSs for your corrections. The structure of the History section seems broadly reasonable to me, though the two sections dealing with 1974 onwards need to be resolved. --Letdorf (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, the discussion was meant to encourage prior editors to provide RSs for their assertions. There is a shortage. If no-one volunteers, I'll do the rewrite with RSs, when I find the time.
I had a little time on my hands and started working on it. Then I saw the sentence "This article is about Volkswagen Passenger Cars. For the business group, see Volkswagen Group. For Volkswagen vans, trucks and buses, see Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles." I immediately stopped. If that is to be taken seriously, then all corporate stuff should be taken out, possibly ported over to Volkswagen Group. Would simplify things a lot. Opinions? --BsBsBs (talk) 18:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, there will inevitably be some awkward overlap between the two articles given the history of Volkswagen, but there is some material in this one that doesn't really belong in an article ostensibly about a car marque, rather than a corporate group. Particularly the Global Ranking and Volkswagen Law sections. --Letdorf (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ownership[edit]

To put an end to the endless "Porsche owns Volkswagen" edits and reverts, I added a table as a best effort to reflect the ownership of Volkswagen. To understand the many facets of the many "Porsche" companies is beyond the scope of this article. One thing can be said with certainty: The company that makes the Porsche cars does not own the company that makes the Volkswagen etc. cars. -- BsBsBs (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

What & where[edit]

While removing Uzbekistan from "Central America and Caribbean," I noticed these interesting tables of which VWs are (were?) sold where. It is certainly interesting to learn that the SpaceFox is (was?) sold on the tiny island of Reunion, and to watch the VW line-up on Saint Barthelemy. However, the data are completely unsourced and unverifyable. I also have my doubts about their notability. I happen to know the VW sales on the Bahamas, and they aren't many.

The Caribbean is covered in great detail, China (where Volkswagen is selling more cars than at home) is getting short shrift. South America, where VW has an ancient tradition, is AWOL. Also, sometimes mere trim/engine levels (such as GLI) are listed as cars.

Sorry, can't help. In the more than 30 years I worked for VW, I gave up on tracking what is sold where under which name. Just tracking the many permutations of Bora, Jetta, Jetta, Sagitar and Vento is a nightmare. -- BsBsBs (talk) 05:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this kind of data is difficult to source and to keep up to date. I think the article would be no worse off without it. Letdorf (talk) 12:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC).
I'll wait a week and put it out of its misery if nobody else speaks up. Speaking of which: The article turns more and more into an article about the company, the intro notwithstanding. I think we should leave it at that. The major cars could get a small blurb, and then a link to the car itself. I've just been on a little Snopes tour of the Volkswagen Jetta and Volkswagen Golf - some people put too much trust in German logic ... -- BsBsBs (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite[edit]

I started rewriting / copyediting the article. I begun when I started writing for Volkswagen, in 1973, when the Passat was launched. After that, I did every Volkswagen car launch. I put the cars in their correct order and removed some fluff. The lack of sources bugs me, this is a rewrite/copyedit, I am not responsible for the lack of references. I checked the years against my notes and compared it with de:Volkswagen AG, of which I had written a large part some years ago. The article needs more tweaking. With a little time ... -- BsBsBs (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know[edit]

My enthusiasm for major edits of this article wanes. There simply is too much unsourced and wrong material, oftentimes skewed by a U.S. and UK view, which is natural, given the language of the article.

For more than 30 years, I worked in various capacities for (not at) Volkswagen. I was the consultant of high executives. A lot in this article does not reflect the facts. However, absent of sources, my knowledge would be Original Research.

One example. The article states: “By the early 1990s, Volkswagen's annual sales in the United States were below 100,000, and many car buyers found the company's products to be lacking in value. Some automotive journalists believed that Volkswagen would have to quit the North American market altogether. VW eventually realized that the Beetle was the heart and soul of the brand in North America, and the firm quickly set about creating a new Beetle for American and Canadian showrooms.”

Partially truth and partially fiction.

It is true that a withdrawal from U.S. shores was discussed, not only by journalists. The reason to stay was not the New Beetle. In the words of one high Volkswagen exec: “The U.S. sets world standards for comfort, quality, emissions, safety. Withdrawing from that market would mean losing touch. If we cannot compete in the U.S., then we will fail in the world.” So they toughed it out. With only 243,472 units sold in 2009, the U.S. market is still a relative nobody at Volkswagen. In China, VW sold 1.12 million in the same period. However, being head of VWoA is a glamorous job. Heading up China, VW’s largest market, was for a long time thought as a demotion to Siberia.

Like many things, the New Beetle was a fluke. It was never intended as the savior of the U.S. market. Wishful myth-building. The New Beetle started as a design study by young designers in VW’s new design studio in California. A mock-up was shown at several auto shows and drew large interest. Eventually, the car was built. Wolfsburg remained skeptical. One indicator: Wolfsburg did not launch the car as “Neuer Käfer” in Germany, but as “New Beetle”, testament to their ambivalence. Due to a lack of a proper engine, the car was nearly launched with a diesel in the U.S., a disaster that could be averted at the last moment.

Nostalgia and retro design often result in a pop that quickly fizzles. Such was the case with the New Beetle. After its launch, it sold quite briskly in the U.S. In Europe and elsewhere it never really caught on. The last number I heard was 1 % of VW’s sales. Fact: Last year, only 3,400 changed hands in Germany.

Anyway, much of this you won’t read elsewhere, and I won’t write it without a source. Properly fixing it would mean weeks in the Volkswagen archives and a year of edit wars. While I’m not holding my breath for the New Beetle, don’t hold your breath for a big rewrite of this article. Both seem a lost cause. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BsBsBs (talkcontribs) 05:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Introduction[edit]

The introduction is meant to be a summary of the article. After reading the introduction, you should have an idea of what the subject is all about. The fact that VW is one of the world's largest car manufacturers belongs in the introduction, as it is a key fact. It would be hopeless if readers would have to read a long article just to distinguish a major company from a minor one. The introduction is less than satisfactory and needs improvement. Trivia like former slogans could probably be removed. Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section), the introduction could also be twice as long. Josh Gorand (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the intro is way bloated. I had to banish the size discussion into its own chapter after outrageous claims were made. You may have noted that I bolstered the "Europe's largest" with a source and additional info. You have my full blessing to trim the intro way down. And that's just the start of what needs trimming. Less verbiage, more references. -- BsBsBs (talk) 14:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
That better? -- BsBsBs (talk) 14:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that was a clear improvement. Josh Gorand (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Clean Diesel[edit]

"Clean Diesel" is a marketing term developed and used by VW. It's still a diesel engine. Ja3kko (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What about Adolf Hitler[edit]

This car called "volkswagen" by Adolf Hitler and actually the first drawings of the car was made by Hitler.... You should mention it in the first paragraph... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.139.95 (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

If you find a reliable source, and maybe a link to the drawings, we'll do. Actually, under the Hitler regime, the car was called "KdF Wagen". There is a lot on Adolf, Volkswagen etc further down in the text, and that's where trivia like these belong. BsBsBs (talk) 04:45, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. I was astonished to find no mention of Ferdinand Porsche in the history of Volkswagen! Porsche worked since the 20's on his idea for a small car for the masses, but found no buyers. He drew the first shape of the "Beetle". Hitler was interested in this concept, they talked together in the early 30's, and when no established car company would agree to take on this project, Hitler directed the state to form a company, and basically used Porsche's ideas as the blueprint, with a few requirements of his own. Then Hitler went back his other duties, checking in occasionally. As soon as the factory was complete though, war broke out and production was switched over to military vehicles. Only a very few Beetles were produced under Hitler's reign, and the company was re-organized after the war, becoming the Volkswagen gmbh of today. I don't understand this fascination with making Hitler the "father" of VW - his support was critical initially, but Porsche, Hirsch and Nordhoff were the ones to really make the company and the first car work. (BTW, I fixed the oversight of Ferdinand Porsche) Nerfer (talk) 05:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Too Long[edit]

The article is too long, and needs to be cut down. I propose moving the History of Volkwagen to its own article and creating an article that lists volkswagen vehicles.

I have made prototype pages. Please give me feedback on them and tell me what should be moved/worked around.

Volkswagen, List of Volkswagen vehicles, History of Volkswagen

Also, what should the title of the articles be named? If it is called List of Volkswagen vehicles, then would people mistake it for all of the groups vehicles including Audi, Porsche, SEAT, etc? Should there be a about tag that says "This page is about Volkswagen Passenger Cars. For other cars manufactured by the Volkswagen Auto group, see (Put article name here)." L Kensington (talkcontribs) 21:50, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree the model lists could be factored out (How about "List of Volkswagen passenger cars" as a title? I don't think readers should expect to see other VW Group models in it, if the title doesn't mention "Volkswagen Group") but we still need at least a potted history of the company in this article, IMHO. Per WP:IG, the large gallery could probably be got rid of. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 12:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC).
Im not sure about splitting it yet, this current article could be cleaned and fixed much shorter by replacing those model tables, reducing link section and overall cleaning. -->Typ932 T·C 18:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
It definitely needs cleaning, but the History section takes up a lot of space. If it won't be moved, then it needs to be significantly shortened. A page with the current history of vehicles + changes I've made and a removal of the endless list of VW cars, is still 86kb. Volkswagen Passenger Cars. L Kensington (talkcontribs) 20:35, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree the current History section could be used as the basis of a separate "History of Volkswagen" article, but if we did that, we'd have to condense or rewrite it into a shorter version that is still coherent and representative for this article. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 13:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC).
Would you just recommend taking out the current cars section and replacing it with lists? L Kensington (talkcontribs) 05:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a fairly straightforward first step. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC).


Absolutely. The intro says "This article is about Volkswagen Passenger Cars. For the parent group, see Volkswagen Group." Most of the content here, including the history, belongs to the group level. "Volkswagen Passenger Cars" are Volkswagen branded cars. Not more, not less. BsBsBs (talk) 20:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Hitler Fascination[edit]

What's with the Hitler fascination?

I took the liberty of removing old Adolf as a key person. He's dead. Died long ago. "Key persons" are by definition living persons who are key to the company. Try getting keyman insurance on someone who died 1945. Both Ford and General Motors list currently serving and living people as key people.

Key person insurance defines a key person as "anyone directly associated with the business whose loss can cause financial strain to the business. For example, the person could be a director of the company, a partner, a key sales person, key project manager, or someone with specific skills or knowledge which is especially valuable to the company." If you are dead, you can't be key.

Please leave it at that.

It wasn't even clear that Adolf was a founder. See above. Let him roast in hell.

If there is a reliable source that an Adolf Hitler currently serves as a key person at Volkswagen, then he can be reintroduced. BsBsBs (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Volkswagen Law[edit]

I took the liberty of amending the Volkswagen Law paragraph in the "Relationship with Porsche" section. My main concern was the technicality that the Advocate General does not "rule", but only delivers a non-binding opinion to the court. The error was probably due to the misleading BBC article which I did not remove because it provides comprehensive information on that topic. Instead, I added the official documentation on the case. If anyone has a more accurate article, it should be substituted. Please revise and amend as required. The-hilario (talk) 13:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Model range[edit]

The current overview of models only lists models sold in Europe. I recommend adding the models sold in Asia and Latin America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.235.176.195 (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hitler designed the Volkswagen?[edit]

So Mr Shirer writes in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, "He himself, it was said, took a hand in the actual designing of the car, which was done under the supervision of the Austrian automobile engineer Dr. Ferdinand Porsche". However, if you consult more credible sources such as The VW Story (Sloniger, PSL, 1980), The Birth of the Beetle (Barber, Haynes, 2003) or Battle for the Beetle (Ludvigsen, Bentley, 2000), then this is clearly overstating the case somewhat. Hitler did suggest various parameters to Porsche - at their first meeting he specified that it should be four-wheel-drive, with a 3-cylinder front-mounted diesel engine and cost less than RM1000 (Ludvigsen, p.15) - but that is far from "taking a hand in the actual designing". To claim that Hitler was involved in its design at the same level as Porsche, Rabe or Kales is absurd. If, perhaps, Shirer was alluding to popular myth at the time, it would be misleading to quote him here without making that clear. Letdorf (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC).

This is repetitive, see various other sections above dealing with Hitler. Hitler's role in the company of Volkswagen is about as direct as his role in the Autobahn system - he promoted it, funded it and got it built. Then the U.S. copied the idea decades afterwards. So our interstates owe a debt of gratitude to Hitler. For that matter, so does our rocket program that put a man on the moon.
BTW, although Nelson's book "Small Wonder" has the same basic idea - Hitler had some suggestions on Porsche's basic design - it doesn't say anything about 4WD or front-mounted diesel engine, but says Hitler wanted it to be air-cooled so nothing could freeze as Germans didn't have garages then. Porsche had worked on a 3 cylinder rotary engine for prototypes of small cars previously, but found it hard for mechanics to maintain. Nerfer (talk) 05:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I don't agree if anyone is implying that Hitler shouldn't be credited as an important contributor to the Beetle, whether you call him a designer or VW founder or whatever. No matter what title you give Hitler, establishing the design parameters is extremely important. The early Honda Civics were a challenge to Detroit's larger, less efficient, more expensive cars because of the design parameters. The willingness to believe it's worthwhile to build a car only so big, with only so much power, etc. Other companies lacked the vision to build such a car. The Honda Super Cub was another important example. Takeo Fujisawa was no engineer, but his concepts: price, size, low maintenance, ability to ride with one hand (i.e. no clutch), and the low cost, stupendously high volume manufacturing that were critical to the monumentally influential motorcycle that resulted. Fujisawa, with some difficulty, convinced Soichiro Honda to follow this idea, and Honda handed the engineering details to a more junior engineer. But it was the idea, the design parameters, that separated the Super Cub from the many, many other motorcycles of the time that had nowhere near the same importance, because other motorcycle companies lacked the vision.

If Hitler is the one who decided how much the Beetle would cost, its engine and drivetrain type, and so on, then that's a big deal. Or if Hitler's parameters were changed, then an explanation of why is important. Saying he "just promoted and funded it" is as misleading as saying that "Fujisawa just handled the financing of the Super Cub." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Nuclear powered Volkswagen[edit]

There is reference to an idea/concept of a nuclear powered, brain wave controlled VW proposed by a Volkswagen worker in the 1950/60's at http://specialcarnews.com/?p=292 Would anyone have a better reference than this - hopefully the original news article. I am trying to determine if it was a genuine concept (ok I know you can't have nuclear reactor on the back of your car, but at the time there were several concept cars with that as an idea) or something else. NealeFamily (talk) 19:10, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

I really can't decide whether it would be funnier to string you along for a while and let others join in the fun, or whether I should let you down gently. But I'm a nice guy (for a biker) so I suggest you read the start of the article again. Carefully... --Biker Biker (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Stolen?[edit]

"savings of these 336,000 people were stolen by the Russians in 1945 when they captured Berlin." Really? "To the victor goes the spoils"? "Captured" or "seized" would be a factual statement, not an opinionated one. According to the laws of war, the country doing the capturing owns the military and state property of the capturee. Since the company (and it's assets) was owned by and run by the German government, nothing was stolen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.48.202.89 (talk) 10:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOLD - go fix it then! --Biker Biker (talk) 10:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

some discussion of the the 2008 short squeeze, please[edit]

See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/globalbusiness/3362913/Porsche-crashes-into-controversy-in-the-ultimate-short-squeeze.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikedelsol (talkcontribs) 15:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Urgent cleanup needed[edit]

Ladies and gentlemen, this article is a mess. It purports to cover Volkswagen passenger vehicles, but it time and again describes matters pertaining to the Volkswagen Group, as there are:

  • History, with the inevitable never-ending fascination with Hitler and the Nazis. There was no Volkswagen Passenger Vehicle entity during Nazi times, and there was none long thereafter.
  • Operations
  • Size
  • Worldwide presence
  • Work-life balance
  • Relationship with Porsche, and the Volkswagen Law

…and probably a few more. These chapters all pertain to the GROUP, not to Volkswagen Passenger vehicles. This has been mentioned several times over the past years, and it never has been fixed. The article is quite specific, saying that "This article is about Volkswagen Passenger Cars. For the parent group, see Volkswagen Group. For Volkswagen vans, trucks and buses, see Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles." This serves as notice to discuss and repair. If nothing is done for a month, I will have to do the cleanup myself.

Also, a source is needed for the claim that Volkswagen Passenger Vehicles is a “Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung”. As far as I know, Volkswagen Passenger Vehicles is an unincorporated business unit and brand. Volkswagen’s 2013 Annual Report backs that up:

“Volkswagen AG is the parent company of the Volkswagen Group. It develops vehicles and components for the Group’s brands, but also produces and sells vehicles, in particular passenger cars and light commercial vehicles for the Volkswagen Passenger Cars and Volkswagen Commercial Vehicles brands.” BsBsBs (talk) 15:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Dow Jones VW "AG"[edit]

Wir bauen Auto, die auf Amerikanischen Autobahnen ("Reichsautobahn") mit mindestens 300 Kilometer pro Stunde fahren muessen. Bosten nach San Franscisco in 25 Stunden. Wir haben im Jahr 2014 insgesamt 10 Millionen Auto verkauft. Wir wollen jeden US Buerger zum Besitzer der Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft machen, deshalb verkauften wir 300 Millionen VW Aktien an 300 Millionen US Buerger zum Preis von 1 Dollar und zahlen innnerhalb der naechsten 50 Jahre bis 2064 pro Jahr jeweils 5 Dollarcent Dividende. Aus 1 Dollar Aktienwert werden garantiert bis zum Jahr 2064 3 Dollar und 50 Dollarcent. 129.177.121.25 [3] [4] (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

e-smartConnect[edit]

Suggest include information about e-smartConnect. --Lagoset (talk) 07:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

V-Park[edit]

Suggest include info about VW V-Charge. --Lagoset (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

The savings of these 336,000 people were seized by the Russians in 1945 when they captured Berlin[edit]

Any sources? The story sounds fantastic. The Reich collapsed together with the banking system.Xx236 (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Volkswagen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Top 10 cars[edit]

Whilst the link may be correct, the criteria are a bit dubious. If a company continues to use the same name for new platforms of cars then eventually they will get into the list. More relevant I think is the same vehicle chassis/platform, in which the original beetle makes the list but the new would not, and not passat either. A top 10 of keeping the same marketing name for the same size vehicle is not a great achievement. I have revised the paragraph slightly.Mike163 (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

We need better sources than just 24/7 Wall Street, but every top 10 or top 5 list you can cite is going to have the same flaws. The Corrola is going to be #1 but that includes multiple generations. We're not really here to give readers our opinions as to what is or isn't a great achievement. Describe the list criteria factually, without editorializing. If good sources say VW has 3 cars on the top 10 list, then we include that. So the best way to help here is to find a higher-quality source than clickbait lists like AutoGuide.com, Investopedia.com, 247wallst.com, etc. I'd look for industry, academic or book sources rather than websites. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Please create redirect from Emissionsgate to Volkswagen emissions violations[edit]

I do not have a Wiki account. Please help me write a redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.34.166 (talk) 03:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done --Munja (talk) 12:51, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Volkswagen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Wolfgang Porsche, listed as "Founder", was born in 1943... VW was founded in 1937.[edit]

In what way does Wolfgang Porsche satisfy the definition of "founder"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.161.251.161 (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Volkswagen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Volkswagen of America, Inc.[edit]

The hyperlink of this article in infobox is for Volkswagen of America, Inc., not for Volkswagen AG. --IM-yb (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Volkswagen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)