Talk:Audi 80

message: All images in this article were on speedy delete list so removed. Please use free pictures in future. Justinc 23:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I hesitate to bring up this thorny issue... but the present article has got a mixture of US English (sedan, station wagon, liter) and British English (coupé, with the e acute, and also "petrol tank" rather than "gas tank"). The British version seems justified because of the e acute being part of the actual model name, so far as I can see.
The Manual of Style says we should never have a mixture. But there are two conflicting cases about what to do: one suggests to go with the variety of English used in the home country of the product, and we get into the thing of Germany not having its own variety, but being part of Europe where the only official variety of English is British (not considering differences for Scots and Irish...); therefore British English should be used. But the other consideration in the Manual of Style is not to make mass changes of English variety for their own sake. On that basis it would also be a bad thing to change the page. My personal view is that the need for consistency over-rides this.
So on balance I'm minded to bring consistency to the article by switching to British English and changing sedan to saloon. Will this hugely offend anyone? – Kieran T (talk) 13:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Recommend "fuel tank" in cases where the type of fuel is not important. —überRegenbogen 08:56, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Variety of English

message: The geometry of the stabilizing strut (citing physical observation of mid-1970s Audi Foxes and VW Dashers) is significantly different from the illustrations and description in the Panhard rod article.  Notably, rather than connecting to the body and cross-beam with ball joints, it is welded to the cross-beam and to the body-end of one of the trailing arms—forming a solid a-frame with them (and eliminating the arc motion that is specifically cited as a disadvantage of a Panhard rod).
The question—or questions—then are:
*Does this difference in design make it not a Panhard rod design?or:
*Is the Panhard rod article too specific in its description?
—überRegenbogen 09:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, but by the 80s the rod was articulated at both ends (with rubber bushings). You can see it quite well in this picture  which is a 1982 Coupe unit. Huw Powell (talk) 03:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panhard rod? 

message: Can somebody check the power outputs of the various engines? This change by an anon from 110bhp to 101bhp, for a 1.6 engine which is in both cases more powerful than the 2.0 makes me suspicious that we may have subtle vandalism creeping in. When figures change without a reference or an edit summary it's always tempting to just revert, but it's often not obvious that the initial figure has any more authority — without going back to find who first added it, which is obviously very time consuming. Incidentally, no offence to this particular anon. If you're making valid changes, however, would you please start to use edit summaries to explain them, or source your information with references? Ta. :) – Kieran T (talk) 09:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The 1.6 E used the new crossflow engine with MPI that had 101 PS (74 kW). It was more popular in Southern Europe where engine displacement was taxed. The 90 PS (66 kW) 2.0 was available in Germany to have an 80 in a lower insurance bracket (insurance is payed according to horsepower). A 1993 or 1994 Automobile Revue Katalog will confirm those horsepower values. --Pc13 10:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that info. Nice to know the edit was genuine. – Kieran T (talk) 10:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Power

message: When I was a kid we had a 1975 Audi Fox station wagon with automatic transmission. This was in Texas. Unfortunately I don't know any more about it (# of speeds). --ScottJ 22:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  B1 had auto tranny 

message: :Image:Rs2logo.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Rs2logo.gif

message: I know for a fact that there are 1987 B2 audi 80/90s in europe, AKA Audi 4000, but also Model year 1987 B3's in Europe, along with 1992 B3's. Are we going with Model years or production years for year designations? Pastorboy0 (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Model years are for American cars only. We go with production years for all other cars. --Pc13 (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Model years Vs Years of production? 

message: The Audi Coupé "B3" and Cabriolet (typ 89, more correctly 8B and 8G) definitely deserve their own article. As it stands, they are a very awkward fit on the Audi 80 page as they are a mishmash of B3 and B4 parts, and have entirely different development histories. I suggest a page titled Audi Coupé/Cabriolet for these cars. Additionally, the Audi Cabriolet is referred to as a B4, which is not correct. The Cabriolet is based on the typ 89 Coupé (nicknamed B3), it just happened to appear around the same time as the introduction of the "B4" Audi 80. Also, such a change would allow us to place the Audi S2 Coupé in its correct place rather than (perversely) as a subsection to the B4.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Audi Coupé/Cabriolet B3

message: Didn't Giugiaro design the B1 as well?  He is not credited in this article or on his page, but he did design the very similar sister model, the VW Passat B1.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jason404 (talk • contribs) 04:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Every place I look credits him for the B2 but not the B1, including GG's own Facebook page (assuming it's real).  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Didn't Giugiaro design the B1 as well? 

message: Look at the "Audi S2" part. It used a 2.2L engine. The power output of the new engine that launched in 1992 is increased from 220 PS to 230 PS. But, why the acceleration time become worse, from 5.7s in old engine to 5.9s in new engine? This is odd.RaymondSutanto (talk) 09:41, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably more safety equipment, bumpers and side impact stuff. Either that, or they didn't cheat the second time around. Are the times both to 100km/h?  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:29, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Audi S2 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 25 February 2012 
;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.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Audi 80 L 1978.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Audi 80 B3 never sold in Greece with a 1.4 lit. engine as mentioned. 
It came straight with the 1.6/75 ps engine as the base option.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.72.128.194 (talk) 15:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  B3 in Greece 

message: I'm not an expert when it comes to the Audi 80, but it seems like the "1.8 E 20v – 92 kW (125 PS; 123 bhp), in-line four-cylinder" listed in the B4 section is actually an engine for the B3. I was browsing an old Motorweek Rivals section  and came across a 1987 Audi 80 Quattro with this 125 hp 1.8 engine. I would change the article but I don't know for sure if i'm correct, or the exact engine details/what model it came in. TKOIII (talk) 21:04, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the 1.8 20V was a later engine. Those Motor rivals sections seem a bit sloppy imho. The most powerful 1.8 I know of in the B3 was the 1.8E with 112 hp (metric); I have cross referenced numerous period sources as well as the German and Italian WPs. As a matter of fact, the 1.8 20V only appeared in the 1994 Audi A4 as far as I know and was never installed in the B4 either. See more here.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: 125PS 1.8 was added by an IP back in 2009; they also added a fake BLS-V model here - so I will delete this. The Audi Cabriolet, an offshoot of the B4, was indeed fitted with the 1.8 20V 125PS engine, but that model has been split off onto another page so it no longer belongs here.  Mr.choppers | ✎  13:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  1.8 engine option in the B4 section