Talk:Volkswagen Up

message: A length of 3.68 meters would be 145 inches.  Alternatively, a length of 141.7 inches would be 3.599 meters.  I'm not sure what to do about this.  — The Storm Surfer 14:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The wheelbase (55.9") does not make sense. Most cars have a wheelbase of about 100" and this car has a length of 135.8" which is more than twice the wheel base???  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.209.117 (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right about the wheelbase.  From what I've been able to find on Google, VW has never given a wheelbase measurement.  I think the author erroneously got his number from http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/3353/Volkswagen-up%2521-Concept.html, which provided a track measurement, for which 55.9 inches makes sense.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.57.46 (talk) 16:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 3.68 metres does not equal 141.7 inches

message: Is the model name always in lower case - i.e. "up!" rather than "Up!" ? Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. See, for instance, here. Letdorf (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  In marketing terms it might be a small u but for Wikipedia it probably should be a capital U as it is a proper name...  <B>Warren</B> (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  It sounds dictatorial, it's Volkswagen up!, just like iPhone, eBay etc... it's the proper name of the product and it is known universally as “up!”, capitalization is not an arbitrary rule! Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 16:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  up!? 

message: As discussed  at Wikiproject Automobiles, I propose that the SEAT Mii and Škoda Citigo be merged into this article as they are essentially the same vehicle and their articles add little to no information not already covered on the VW up!'s article.--Pineapple Fez 21:13, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal

message: These are not 100% excatly same car, so for  example length of those car ar not same, this should be fixed on this article, dont know if there are other minor differencies? -->Typ932 T·C 04:55, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the merge 

message: Can someone give a suitable explanation why only the Škoda Citigo WP article has been separated from the VW UP one?
It was supposed that both the SEAT Mii & Skoda Citigo WP articles had been merged into the VW UP one,
however it seems now that it is only the SEAT Mii article which has been kept merged.
So if this will be the case and things won't change, it looks natural for my view to split the SEAT Mii artcile too.(LeonCR (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  VW Up-SEAT Mii-Skoda Citigo merged articles 

message: Paragraph four of the opening contains the following comment: "... the 2011 production model has a less efficient front-engine, front-wheel drive layout...". How do you quantify efficiency between a concept car and a production one? Why does engine placement have anything to do with this? Rear-engine cars such as the Smart fortwo have rather ordinary real-world fuel economy compared with front-wheel drive ones, depending on selection criteria, so this is an opinion not verified by fact or by any published source I can find. It probably should be removed since what actually matters is the efficiency of the production Up! against its real-world rivals in the marketplace.
Bwob (talk) 16:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion rather than fact?