Talk:Oldsmobile Aurora

message: The aurora also came with an option for a 4 litre propane & vinegar 500 hp, 500 ft-lb torque option for around $120,000
:I do not know where you got this information, but there was no such engine that provided 500 hp and 500 ft-lb of torque for the Aurora. The 4.0 L engine only produced 250 HP and 260 ft-lb of torque. -JohnMcClane 16:34, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldsmobile Aurora Engine Option 

message: There is are many undocumented sources that have been let slide... such as the marque being changed to aurora, and the point of "fiscal trouble found oldsmobile"... what about higher up GM authority knowing what was going to happen.  Why put money into a brand you are going to kill?  My .02 that I don't want to put time into --Tygone2 02:20, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article errors/speculative comments 

message: I added this section. 24.96.69.81 01:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added Collectibles Section 

message: The dual image in this case serves to enhance the article overall quality and the readers understanding since there were only two styles made for this particular vehicle.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dual image

message: Please explain objection to changes, what weasel words, there are no weasel words? All the sources out there list the Aurora as a midsize including the fueleconomy.gov website. The STS is is also a midsize.  The Aurora replaced the Toronado Trofeo in the line-up, even though the two cars are not the same. The Olds 98 continued until 1996.Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 20:53, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't think a value judgement like "luxury sport sedan" is something that should have some evidence to back it up? You really think expect to concoct some story as to how this car, a large four-door sedan, really replaced a personal luxury coupe? All without a single source? Where are "all the sources out there" listing it as a midsize (something besides the EPA, many articles here diverge from that)? A 114" wheelbase (three inches longer than that of the outgoing Ninety Eight) certainly qualifies as a full-size. Just because the 98 continued on for two more years doesn't mean the Aurora didn't supersede it. The Lumina and FWD Impala were sold concurrently for a couple years, as were the Aerostar and Windstar. --Sable232 (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (Restored inadvertently removed sources by the way). You just termed the Toronado a "personal luxury coupe," so are you wanting to call the Aurora a personal luxury sedan?  How about the Aurora with touring package edition be termed a "luxury sport sedan?" The government calls it a midsize. Can't find a single other website that calls the Aurora a full-size. The STS is mid-size. Should we contradict other sources that call it a mid-size? Is there a source for what is full-size? The 98 had a much bigger trunk, larger inside? and longer overall? Suggest that we use the EPA fuel economy.gov classifications for mid-size and full-size to be consistent on models in the American market. Concerning features, the Aurora had GM's premium luxury level of feature appointments, so its justifiably called luxury. The changes/editions enhance the article, no sure of your objections.  Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:14, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: (edit conflict, please post your thoughts in one piece and move on) This isn't about the STS. I don't care about the STS. This page is for the Aurora. Are you actually going to offer sources or just keep dodging the questions? "Personal luxury car" is an accepted car classification, but again, this page isn't about the Toronado. And even if it were, the "personal luxury" part is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The Aurora is a 4-door sedan, and no matter how much you wish for it, those two extra doors aren't going to disappear. The Aurora replacing the Toronado is a figment of YOUR imagination and it is YOU who have to prove that it should stand in the article. --Sable232 (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

text: There are opinion based reviews on webites that say the Aurora replaced the Toronado Trofeo eg.,  .  But nevertheless, its still  factual to say that GM dropped the Toronado Trofeo and added the Aurora. Whether you want to use the word "replaced" or suggest another way to say that is fine.  It is factual to say that they Aurora is a "luxury sedan," it is equipped with GM's luxury features, the New York Times called it the "Aurora luxury sedan.". Views, eg. Allexpert.com called the Aurora a "luxury sedan". By extension, wouldn't you say that the Aurora touring package edition makes that model a luxury sport sedan? And why not use the EPA classifcations for American models to be consistent so as not to contradict other sources, by that the Aurora is a midsize? The changes / editions are commonly described views of the Aurora and the feature descriptions are supported by GM past descriptions of the Aurora. Thomas Paine1776 (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's also factual to say that they dropped the Cutlass Calais and added the Aurora. Or that they dropped the 98 and added the Alero. It doesn't mean one "replaced" the other. --Sable232 (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Project consensus?