Talk:Toyota MR2

message: The External Links needs to be cut down a lot. I don't know what qualifies under WP:EL but if someone could help cut it down that would be great. SkylineBNR34 08:03, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many links 

message: I'd love to see the source of the comment 'and a new CT26 (sometimes going by the misnomer CT20b) turbocharger'.  I've heard the term CT20b used almost universally by people in the UK and Australia / New Zealand, but only by word of mouth and I've never seen it on anything official.  I've never seen or heard anything to suggest it's called a CT26 either though.  I once tried to buy one from the leading turbo charger reconditioner in the UK, and they refered to it by the number cast into the casting, '74040', but I imagine that was just a convenient way for them to identify the part rather than an official Toyota designation.  I bought a new one from Toyota and as you can see from http://www.mr2turbo.info/pics/ct20b.html there's no mention of 'CT26' or 'CT20b' on the part itself.  The original part that came off my 1994 car didn't have a CT designation either, unlike pre 1994 where 'CT26' is often clearly on the inlet casting.  I heard there are 'CT20' turbos on other cars that are nothing like the turbos used on the MR2, but that in itself isn't proof the 94+ MR2 turbocharger doesn't have the designation 'CT20b'. --Robin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.195.28.120 (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1994+ Turbocharger designation 

message: I think some of the power figures are wrong (i.e. not the official ones).  A 1994 onwards Japanese Domestic Market MR2 GT / GT-S (turbo) has a max power 245 PS at 6000 rpm (source: a 1998 Japanese Toyota brochure amongst others), which I think is about 245 hp, not 240 hp as mentioned in the article.  245 PS is often quoted as 240 BHP.  A BHP usually seems to be slightly more than an 'American' HP and this is probably where the confusion comes from.  Similarly I think the earlier Japanese turbos were 225 PS but I've never seen this figure on official literature yet.  As far as I can remember the American MR2 turbos are indeed 200 hp though.  I've corrected the figure for the 1994 turbo but left the other figures as they are as I'm only 100.0% sure about the 245 figure.  What I suggest is to try to find the 'PS' figures for the cars (preferably from Japanese brochures), as that seems to be the form that Toyota Japan uses (these tend to be equivalent to hp figures).  Then multiply by 0.73549875 to get the kilowatt figures.  You'll notice in the article the ratio between the hp figures and the kilowatt figure varies.  The situation is further confused by Toyota GB occassionally quoting PS figures as 'BHP' figures in brochures.  Also as far as I've heard the Japanese 3S-GEs have slightly higher figures than the UK 3S-GEs, which is probably due to Japan having higher octane fuel than the UK. --Robin
:BHP refers to "brake" horsepower, as opposed to "wheel" horsepower - not "British" horsepower, as you allude.  As such, there's no such thing as American Horsepower.  (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower#Brake_horsepower_.28bhp.29)  Theoretically, if it's not to SAE spec, they may use BHP as opposed to "HP (SAE)".  There is a minor difference between PS and HP, however, which is why there is the 245PS vs. 240 BHP discrepancy.  100 DIN PS = 98.63 HP (SAE), so that would make 245PS = 241.6 HP (SAE).  (I'm not sure when this equation was true, as SAE recently changed their calculation specifications, which also take into account a motor installed in a chassis environment). --Michelmreid 03:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Power figures 

message: I removed this text: " The more cynical press accused the MR2 being a ripoff of Fiat's X1/9, but despite the similar design concept, the results were completely different. Where Fiat had failed, Toyota had created a huge success." Apart from being highly POV, it's inaccurate - Fiat's car was pretty successful, with many thousands sold and an almost 20 year lifespan. In fact in comparison the MR2 model didn't last one fifth as long. If you want to make a comparison, fair enough, but at least be reasonable. Graham 11:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Since writing that, I have been through the article with a fine-toothed comb and fixed up a lot of spelling and grammar issues. However, I also had to fix some of the more blatant NPOV issues - clearly the author is a great fan of the car and knows a lot about it, but tends to get a bit carried away. You have to stick to the facts - opinions about sales success, handling, its reception by the press, etc need to be factual. There are still numerous POV issues I've left in since I don't know the facts - but someone who does should make an attempt to fix/neutralise the text as necessary. Overall, I also think the article is too long and contains too much detail, but that's open to argument. One thing I definitely did change - "twincam" was not a term coined by Toyota for this car - the term has long pre-existed and I doubt its origins can be definitively traced. (e.g the Ford BDA twincam engine from the 70s, but I expect it goes back well before that). Graham 11:26, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

text: I didn't say the MR2 didn't outsell the Fiat, I was saying that you can't call the Fiat a failure. If I sold 170000 of anything I think that would be classed as an unparalleled success, don't you? Give the small size of the car and its limited production and market, 170000 seems pretty good. I have eliminated some of the more obvious bias, but there is still some which requires greater knowledge of the MR2 than I have to fix. I hope that in using the text from the Finnish MR2 club no copyrights were violated - if so, the whole thing will have to be scrapped and rewritten anyway. Finally - a minor point but one that really bugs me - please stop writing "it's" everywhere where you mean "its". Unless you mean "it is" or "it has", then the word never has an apostrophe. This is most of the the time. For an example of incorrect usage, see above - you wrote "it's 17-year production". See apostrophe. It's especially tedious to fix these errors because they're hard to see in the edit text sometimes. Anyway, forgive my carping, it's generally a pretty good article, and very informative. I like the MR2 as well and wouldn't mind having a Mk1 targa top as a classic runabout - they're cool :) Graham 04:40, 29 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc 

message: ...Toyota changed the 1992 model to include wider rear tyres and changed the rear suspension so that the car would be more prone to understeer, thus making it more difficult to push the car into snap oversteer. These changes also made the cornering abilities a bit worse...
Any documentation to back this up?  I have driven both a 91 and a 93 and I disagree.  In fact I believe this is a point of contention among many MR2 owners.  It should probably not be presented as a fact that the 93 suspension is worse.  (Note: In the US, these changes took effect for the 1993 model year, are you using 1992 because that's when the JDM changes took place?)
I haven't found any _official_ documentation on the suspension changes, despite heavy searches.  However, it's clear to see the figures for suspension geo/settings when comparing the Revision 1 cars against the Revision 2 cars (JDM as well as UK models).  Having owned three different revision MR2s, the difference is most definately noticable; the rear of the Revision one models is definately more 'lively' and more prone to fishtailing.
:There were changes to the suspension, but I suspect the 10% wider rear tyres made the biggest difference. 203.132.65.136 08:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspension changes 

message: The AW11 section states that a targa top was available in Japan.  Is this a reference to a true targa top (where the entire roof section is removable) or is this in reference to the T-bar top (with a bar running down the centre)?  Big difference, as the T-Top was standard on some US models.
:It had a T-Top.  For some reason Toyota refers to a true targa as an "aero top", for example as used on the JZA80 Supra. 203.132.65.136 08:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  T-Bar/Targa Top? 

message: I'm putting in collectible article for Toyota, but some editors says Wikipedia has no place for such an article and will remove any attempt to write about toy MR2  or a toy anything. Thoughts?? I'm a toy car collector. --matador300 07:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: collectibles

message: there is no mention in the article of a mk1.5.  i definitely think this deserves some sort of honorable mention.
   I agree, the Mk1.5 should be mentioned along with the history of it. Starting with Deno Plumley in America.
http://www.mk1point5.com/
Also point out the modded V6 and V8 MK1s that are being built or have been built.
Bill Strong www.MR2OC.com 18:01, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  mk 1.5? 

message: I think it would be suitable to mention the limited BEAMS engine as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.3.147.244 (talk • contribs).
:It is mentioned, second last para of the first section under the SW20 heading 203.132.65.136 08:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beams 

message: quote: The SW20 has become a major collector's car since the 2003 Ultimate Street Car Challenge win of Brad Bedell and his yellow V6-powered MR2. The 1MZ-FE motor, that comes from the V6 powered Solara and Camry, has quickly become a popular modification as the expense of switching to the V6 motor is roughly in line with installing a turbocharged motor into a formerly naturally aspirated car.
Now Brads victory was an awesome success, tried by a handful of MR2 owners before. But I am pretty certain that the MR2 is NOT a major collector car. The resale prices of late model MK2 turbo MR2s has gotten a bit out of hand for a few years, the prices were climbing well before Brads victory. And a modified MR2 would not increase the value of stock model. 
That quote just does not make sense.  Bill Strong www.MR2OC.com 18:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collector car? 

message: I think there should be a section showing the following MR2s:
The Group S TTE Rally MR2. I have specs and images of the Toyota Museum car and also of the other that is located in Germany.\
History of this car is rampant with internet rumour. It would be nice to finally get a detailed inventory of the actual history of the car.
here is the white Museum car. I have more as well, including inside shots and engine shots of the black TTE rally car.
http://mr2ownersclub.com/groups.asp
The Convertible MK1 (MR2 Spider)
http://www.mr2ownersclub.com/mk1convertible/
MK2 Bonneville jet car along with the Tri-Jet MK1
Bob Norwoods Turbocharged 4AGE powered MK2 MR2
http://www.bobnorwood.com/The%20Fastest%20Little%20Sports%20Car%20in%20Utah.htm
Bob Norwood also has a book that basically shows how to make the V6 MK2 MR2 - forget the publisher, but it is a big tuning manual for aftermarket ECUs.
This was done back in the late 90s to early 2000s.
Bill Strong www.MR2OC.com 18:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Modified MR2s 

message: "It is a common misconception that the MR2 was Lotus-designed but assembled and distributed by Toyota. In actuality the Lotus M90 (a.k.a. the X100) project was scrapped after a single prototype was built"
This kills me... this Lotus was actually closer related to the RWD Corolla GT (AE86) as it used the engine and drivetrain from this car. It may outwardly look like a triangle form and the Mr2, hell, even the TVR and the X1/9, but it is a front engine rear drive.
ref: http://python.rice.edu/~arb/arbmotorsports/arbmotors_2003/lotus_elan_m90.html
so basically this car has nothing to do with the MR2 and should never even be mentioned in the same sentence. It would be closer related to the Corolla
Bill Strong www.MR2OC.com 18:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening statement 

message: "The engine was also equipped with a Bosch L-Jetronic type multi-point fuel injection and a variable intake geometry (T-VIS), giving the engine a maximum power output of 128 hp (95 kW). US engines were rated at 112 hp (84 kW), European engines at 124 hp (93 kW), Australian engines at 118 hp (88 kW) and Japanese engines at 130hp (97 kW)."
This is wrong. Not all engines used the L-Jetronic injection system. Only countries that required strict emissions standards used the L-Jetronic. The D-Jetronic was used on non-emissions built cars. These cars also did not come with catalyst. This explains why the non-North American cars made more more power. In place of the Cat a resonator was placed. Other changes were related to fuel quality and compression rations (I believe that secondary timing also played a small difference in relation to fuel quality.)
Power ratings also changed with the rev2 change to the Supercharged block with the wider bearings and heavier components. Simplify build by just using one component instead of many. 
There is also reference to the Mk1 C50 transaxle. There was an article written in a car magazine in the mid-80s about Toyota quality. About how Toyota sent engineers to dealerships to review warranty cases like the weak transaxle issues that the MR2 was seeing. One of the benefits of this was that the engineers would see what was breaking and how, then get this info to the factory engineers so that they could implement changes to the production models. They made these changes on the fly. Something that other companies like GM and Ford could not do at the time. I do not have reference to the magazine, it could have been Autoweek or one of the other big guns in the states.  
Bill Strong www.MR2OC.com 18:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  4AGe power ratings and injection type 

message: Is this a North American thing? They're quite common here in the UK, and I don't think I've ever heard them called "Mister Two". Loganberry (Talk) 00:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...frequently called the "Mister Two." 

message: MR stands for "Midship Runabout."  An example of the Japanese market MR2 badge: http://www.mrs-passion.com/catalog/images/BadgeJSpec.jpg 124.176.22.162 23:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Midship Runabout 

message: :Image:MR2-Ferrari355.jpg 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 ensure 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) 12:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:MR2-Ferrari355.jpg

message: These "related" sections in the infoboxes are getting out of hand, for example "Pontiac Fiero" in the SW20 box?!  The MR2 shares engines with many other cars but that's the end of any similarities.  I've removed them. 124.176.49.201 (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related? 

message: I know all of us are proud of our cars, and put the picture of the car in there, but this isnt a competition, this is an uncyclopedia, therefore, an image of the car in PERFECT conditions must be posted for informational purposes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjmorabrenes (talk • contribs) 02:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Competition Over Images

message: Autotrader has MR2 on its up coming list for a 2012 release.(Morcus (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future section. 

message: Where did this originate anyways? Many Toyota enthusiasts use it for the Celica, Supra, and MR2, but where did it come from? Is there any Toyota literature supporting this naming scheme? We probably should either remove it or include a note if it's not a Toyota term. Bdc101 (talk) 18:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mark I/II/III" Naming Scheme 

message: I made some changes and removed quite a bit of text from the article -- mostly excessive or unverifiable information, and I removed an entire paragraph from the MkII section that basically repeated the previous paragraph in someone else's words. The MkII section in particular had lots of grammar errors and bad info. I'd like to bring this article up to "B" article standards, so please chime in if you have an opinion. Bdc101 (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Updates

message: I would argue for naming the sections simply "First generation (W10)", "Second generation (W20)", and "Third generation (W30)", leaving production years out of section headings - as they are often subject to constant changes by people who favor model years or have some other ideas. I am going to try and dig up some reliable early info too.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a fair point. But their have been a number of vehicles where there were arguments about the generation number depending on which generation it was introduced in different countries and under which name. Eg is the Prius XW11 first or second gen, is the Cressida X30 the first gen even though it is almost identical to the Japanese Mark II X30 (which also has an argument over whether its first gen is the T60 or the X10), does the Camry start at the A40 Celica Camry (a variant of the Carina) or at the V10? Their is no real argument over the MR2's generations but I'd like to keep the Toyota articles to the consistent format that was hammered out at Talk:Toyota Camry. I'd like to leave the calenader years in because many new readers don't know what W10 means but most know roughly what year their vehicle is. I've found that even when Americans change the titles to match model years, they most accept my reverts with the summary 'Revert good faith edit. Using internationally understood calendar years instead of US specific model years'. There are always a few die hards who believe that US model years are the one and only system allowed, with no other system allowed but most seem content to allow calendar years to stand once the international angle is pointed out to them. And I'm quite prepared to continue correcting them - like I've been doing for the last few years. Cheers.  Stepho  (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears this discussion has moved over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Conventions#Consensus on using chassis codes for section titles. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Generation titles

message: I'm starting to get dizzy from the lead image changing daily. Let's discuss it here first. I have a personal preference to the first generation but no generation has any official preference. But I'm not keen on that red first gen image because the truck in the background makes it look cluttered. The black image is much cleaner - but a less front-on angle would show it's lines better. Any other comments?  Stepho  talk  22:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - I think that the red image is a lot better as an illustration, but would be more than happy with a better one.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: Timeline is/was US centric. ZZW30 clearly introduced in Australia 13 October 2000 as SMT only,  while article cites 2002 as SMT introduction. Google, in its infinite wisdom keeps giving me Australian sources. Can a US editor confirm that SMT only became available in USA in 2002, or that 6 speed SMT was available a year earlier than Australia, whichever is correct, and edit accordingly?? Unclear to me as article stands. Seasalt (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sequential Manual Transmission 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Toyota MR2. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://ichiba.geocities.jp/seiyaa_desk/sardmc8-seiyaaaz.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:06, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Toyota MR2. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100615080649/http://autozine.org/classic/toyota.htm to http://autozine.org/classic/toyota.htm#MR2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100626173224/http://www.mr2mk1club.com:80/_newsite/index.php?currPage=mr2mk1 to http://www.mr2mk1club.com/_newsite/index.php?currPage=mr2mk1
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101121034759/http://www.racecar-engineering.com:80/articles/rallycar/275877/group-s.html to http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/rallycar/275877/group-s.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714090906/http://www.midengine-motorsports.com/Competition/Toyota/MR2/MC8R.htm to http://www.midengine-motorsports.com/Competition/Toyota/MR2/MC8R.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120422000106/http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com:80/2000-to-2005-toyota-mr2-spyder-7.htm to http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2000-to-2005-toyota-mr2-spyder-7.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Toyota MR2. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.toyota.co.uk/cgi-bin/toyota/bv/generic_editorial.jsp?navRoot=toyota_1024_root&edname=Heritage_MR2_Main&catname=%2Ftoyota_1024_root%2Fmain_nav%2Fused_cars&menuid=91022&zone=Zone+MR2&id=Heritage_MR2
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/rallycar/275877/group-s.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100127180929/http://www.groupbrally.com/toyota.shtml to http://www.groupbrally.com/toyota.shtml
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://consumerguideauto.howstuffworks.com/2000-to-2005-toyota-mr2-spyder-7.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: and  keep changing the lead image. Can you two (and any other interested parties) please discuss here instead of flip-flopping the article daily. For my 2 cents, I would be happy with either image.  Stepho  talk  09:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: GreenGhost's image seems best to me, but it is always hard to claim impartiality about one's own photo, presumably of one's own car. But the blingy black photo is not so good.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The white image or the first black image are both fine by me. The white image has aftermarket wheels and the black image is slightly harder to make out details of the body lines - I could live with either. But that last black shiny image has way too many reflections - I can barely make out any of the body line details (esp. around the side gills).  Stepho  talk  09:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The white image actually depicts the car with the stock 1993 wheels. The paint on the center caps is a little worn, but they're stock. I really just wanted to supply a nice, high quality image of an unmodified SW20 MR2 for the article. I'm not very partial to it being a photo of my car, as I don't even intend to keep my MR2 completely stock much longer. That said, I'm considering completely photoshopping out the license plate in the photo and re uploading it to better showcase the car. GreenGhost74 (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

text: [EDIT] I went ahead and tried photoshopping the plate out, and I personally think it makes for a better photo. GreenGhost74 (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: My preference is to leave the number plate in - more indicative of what we see on the street. But it doesn't bother me much either way.  Stepho  talk  22:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm with Stepho on this one, that's how the majority of cars look, after all. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  04:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, makes sense to me. GreenGhost74 (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

text: I'm actually flattered that a recent photo of my car has been mistaken for a real promo shot from the 90s, because that's essentially the look I was going for. Feel free to take a look at this forum topic [link] where I semi-frequently post photos of my car. On August 22nd 2018 I even posted two alternate shots from the same date/time/location as the photo I've uploaded to Wikipedia commons. All the best, GreenGhost74 (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 2 

message: Hi I'm new to Wikipedia and am an MR2 enthusiast, I noticed that when you click on Akio Yoshida's name it brings you to a page of a Japanese soccer player. From the research I've done it seems like these are different people should this link be taken off or should a page be created for Mr. Yoshida?
Thanks (Sk8kid99 (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't find an article about the engineer, nor do I have any information to create one. So I guess we just have to delink his name.  Stepho  talk  22:43, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Akio Yoshida 

message: Found some info on the disappearing SARD MC8 at https://shakotantoday.com/home/2019/9/14/sard-mc8
Not sure how accurate or verifiable this is but it gives us something to trace.  Stepho  talk  11:45, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  SARD MC8 update 

message: The W20 was produced in Japan in December 1989, and was subsequently released to other markets (such as the USA and UK) 1990, therefore the production date of 1990 is incorrect and false information.
I corrected the date but someone keeps changing it back. 82.4.137.39 (talk) 16:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, that would be me. Somehow I thought your change was from 1989 to 1990 - ie, a common American move to US style model years. I have undone my bad revert. My apologies.  Stepho  talk  23:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Production Date