Talk:Toyota Aurion (XV40)/Archive 1

message: Whoever it is that is vandalising this article, please don't do it.
Alphabeta777 09:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalising

message: I think this article is need of some attention; for starters, it has no introduction paragraph, and it's a bit hard to read because it's somewhat repetitive at times. --ApolloBoy 08:22, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now the article looks OK. Thanks again Boivie! --ApolloBoy 06:35, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Some of the tenses need to be cleaned up as well. The Aurion is out, and yet some sections still refer to "will be", or similar (in some cases this is true, eg: upcoming variants, but particularly in the Development section, this uses an old tense). 59.167.142.74 16:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: what source do you have that the TRD aurion will be only front wheel drive? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PAuLw1985 (talk • contribs) 02:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well toyota hasn't told us any differently so until they do it's a fairly safe assumption 149.167.29.99 22:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hear that it will be awd. Downunda 05:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense, 250kw through the front wheels is a bit daft. I hope it isn't as boring as the normal Aurion is =\ Comradeash 00:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the Aurion TRD will be front-wheel drive. It seems a Toyota spokesman confirmed it here. It's an old article but a more recent one still points to it being FWD. This will make it one of the most powerful FWD cars in production. I personally have doubts on handling but I'll reserve judgement. VectorD 11:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: likewise, given that the current one handles like a pile of crap if you push it --220.253.153.195 01:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  front wheel drive or all wheel drive? 

message: Sorry, I don't know how to cite stuff. But here are the links in order of where "citation needed" is.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/news/now-its-round-two-for-toyota/2006/02/09/1139465785084.html - all ready has been referenced
http://www.mellor.net/mellor/enews.nsf/edition/EB2772816ADDFDA5CA25710F002CB5F7/$file/GoAuto_enews322.pdf - all ready has been referenced
For the last tag, these three weblinks.
http://www.toyota.com.ph/cars/new_cars/index.asp
http://www.toyota.com.tw/vehicle/vehicle_index.asp?CategoryID=216
http://www.toyota.com.cn/vehicles/camry/index.html - all are irrelevent to the topic
Alphabeta777 13:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing references 

message: Should the Specification section be moved to form it's own article, similar to the Specification levels of the Ford BA Falcon?SenatorsTalk | Contribs 23:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would probably kill the list altogether and convert the key points it into prose. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I willSenatorsTalk | Contribs 06:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So someone cut the specifications section down, which I thought was a good idea, and now there's a tag saying to expand the specifications section? Makes no sense. Alphabeta777 04:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I cut the specification section down and I placed a expand template because there was not enough information in that section. Eventually I want it to look like this section located here.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 06:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So exactly how do you want the section to be expanded? It's easy to just go to Toyota's website and find every tiny little detail about each variant, but that'll make the article stuffed full of information. Alphabeta777 12:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: God I must say Senators, you really love that BA Falcon article :) It is a good idea though. HarrisonB Speak! 06:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specification section move?