Talk:Opel Kadett

message: The notation in the fifth paragraph that the Kadett-D was GM's first front-drive model in 1979 is clearly incorrect.  That was the Oldsmobile Toronado in 1966.  Maybe the author meant to say Opel's first, or GM's first in Europe?  But I don't know enough about the European models to edit in a correction.  RivGuySC 18:07, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I noticed that somewone changed the naming in the boxes from Kadett A,B,C,D,E to mk1,mk2 etc. without stating the reason for this. Why? The kadetts were never called mk1,2 etc or have i missed something? --Dahlis 23:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: Myredroom: please define how something is deemed to be relevant or not. Surely if a car gains notoriety, that is relevant and as such it is reasonable to include a note to that effect on the page. I would direct you to the Lancia Beta page, which also features a note of the car's appearance on the same Top Gear episode.
:This is a classic example of an "in popular culture" item. Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Automobiles has a policy based on extensive discussion and consensus that such material is not worth including if it is most significant to the popular culture item, but only if it is most significant to the car itself. For example, mentioning The Italian Job is worthwhile on the Mini article because it helped significantly to raise the car to icon status.
:So, are a couple of Top Gear appearances, no matter that they were cute and funny, able to demonstrably cause a massive resurgence in public awareness of this model, or a surge in values? You'll need to provide references for that, or the section, having been challenged, will surely go. (The onus is on one to prove notability, not to disprove it.)
:Regarding the Lancia Beta citation — that too is controversial and against the guideline by the same argument, so not a good precedent. – Kieran T (talk) 13:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top Gear Appearance 

message: From the 1984 Kadett E through the 2011 Uzbeck Daewoo/Chevrolet Nexia, 27 years and still going. That's quite a while to be building basically the same car. Not many cars have had such long production lifetimes. Bizzybody (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not that uncommon - Fiat 124 and 125 survived in various forms in eastern Europe as a Lada and FSO respectively, with the Lada extending the car's life from 1966 to 2012, a mere 46 years! <B>Warren</B> (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Design longevity 

message: Hi there. I believe it would be a good idea to merge Chevrolet Kadett into this article, the two being the same car under different badges. What do you think about this? Saludos, Cvalda (talk) 10:27, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Support - even the pictures show Opel badged Kadetts! <B>Warren</B> (talk) 10:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Support, but I think that the Chevrolet Kadett page should remain in condensed form, à la Mazda 121.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:33, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Oppose the merger idea.   There are various cars from all over the world that shared sub-assemblies, pressings etc - and in the case of the Kadett C virtually the entire design of the car - with the Opel Kadett, but if they all get merged into a single long entry, methinks you'd need a fully functioning global positioning device simply to navigate your way round the resulting multi-dimensional wiki-entry.   Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Support, Like User:Mr.choppers, I think that the Chevrolet Kadett page should remain, but in a condensed form, similar to the Sixth generation Oldsmobile Cutlass (not to tout my own work). A main article link to the Opel Kadett and a quick description of differences between the Opel and Chevrolet versions.VX1NG (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge [[Chevrolet Kadett]] in here 

message: According to German wikipedia they sold 430,000 Kadett Bs in the USA (where it was branded simply as the "Opel" and sold though Buick dealers) and we've taken that number to the English entry.
It's entirely possible.  But getting on for half a million cars is quite a lot of metal to be shifting in a single national market, even in a market as large as the US in the boom years of the late 1960s: off the top of my head that means roughly one American in every 600 (including the infants and others for one reason or another not active as car buyers) was an Opel buyer.   Far from impossible, but still quite a lot.   
Does anyone have access to a published source for the number of cars sold in the US, by brand & model, in the period 1966 - 1972, please, that we could use as a source (or, if necessary, corrective) for this number?
Thanks for sharing any info/thoughts.  Regards  Charles01 (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Sales volumes Kadett B 

message: I wonder what the total production is of the Kadett E and all the vehicles based on it through the present? I've looked at many pictures of the various versions and it looks like the core of even the latest 2013 Uz-Daewoo version is identical to the 1984 Kadett E except for the door handles. I'd bet the doors could interchange across the entire history of the Kadett E and its descendents. Bizzybody (talk) 23:13, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: They may be interchangeable, but one never knows what little invisible modifications have taken place over the years/continents/manufacturers.  Mr.choppers | ✎  21:56, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Total production of Kadett E based vehicles? 

message: Traditionally European car engines had long thin cylinders while North Americans favo(u)red short fat cylinders - ie closer to or beyond "oversquare".    Whereby bore (cylinder diameter) exceeds stroke (distance of longitudinal piston travel within the cylinder). 
The reasons are partly lost in the mists of time, but partly down to nutty taxation policies.   In most of the car buying countries of Europe car drivers paid an annual car tax based on the "tax horsepower", a system of tax bands which in many countries was a function of cylinder bore/diameter (so encouraging these long thin cylinders in order to minimize the car tax burden).   
:(In fact the German system at least by the later 1930s had done away with this distorting tax regime.   In 1933 the Hitler government decided the car industry was important to economic recovery and abolished annual car tax.   But German automakers did not go out on any particular limb when compared to French and British automakers in the 1930s in terms of the ratios between cylinder bore and cylinder stroke)
"Oversquare" engines are "better" (despite my own lack of any sort of engineering background) because the larger cylinder diameter means the cylinder inlet and outlet valves can be more efficiently located and / or larger.   More scope for a more efficient combustion process, even more effective use of twin or triple carbs set-ups.   Economy, performance and whehey....   Undersquare engines are "better" for European consumers because they protect the domestic automakers from floods of cheap imports from Detroit (and did so pretty effectively in the 1920s and 1930s).   
:(If you're on the American side of that argument you say that's because Detroit were MUCH more efficient at making cars.   If you want to justify the European side, you point out that everyone was a protectionist at this time and the European autoindustry was the original autoindustry and needed protecting and the Americans had access to economies of scale that the Europeans couldn't access and the Americans has access to wads of investment cash which wasn't available to Europeans because European politicians liked to spend a higher proportion of government - and everyone else's - income on ruinously expensive world wars in Europe and on sustaining increasingly cash neutral or cash negative empires elsewhere...., while the Americans believed in something called isolationism and don't mention the Philippines or Cuba and there's more than one kind of empire or .. or... )
In the 1950s many European automakers were still using engines that had been designed in the 1930s.   That includes Opel.
So a new oversquare engine in the 1960s (which for other reasons, too, as you read on in the Kadett entry, was unusually efficient eg because of the way the camshaft and valvegear were driven) was significant both as a defining improvement for Opel and as a signal to the future.   "Oversquare" here is a sort of short hand for "better and new and more efficient and pointing the way to the future".
Who cares?   Our Canadian colleague has removed the adjective "oversquare"  in the context of the engine from the intro para with the question at the head of this note.   I think that's probably a wrong judgement by him.   On your rhetorical question, I don't think it "essential to the car" that we have an entry on any car in wikipedia at all, but that is a piece of cheap pedantry on my part.   The question to consider is whether the "oversquare" bit is sufficiently important to (1) the Opel Kadett and (2) the developments in the European auto-industry more generally to feature in the intro para of the entry.
But I figured it would be polite/prudent (as well as being helpful to my own mental processes) to try and set out why I think the thing important, rather than just going back and reversing your edit.
Do you, dear TP, or does anyone else care enough to share an opinion?   And please?   Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...why is "oversquare" essential to the car?..." 

message: The first two digits of the chassis number identified the body type and equipment level as follows:
;Chassis number . . . . . . .Years . . . Body type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Equipment level
* Chassis number 31........: 1965-73: two door "Limousine" (saloon/sedan):  Standard equipment level 
* Chassis number 32........: 1965-70: Coupé („Kiemen-Coupé" / "Gills coupé"), "L" equipment level
* Chassis number 32........: 1966-70: code "32.." also used for "Rallye-Coupé" 
* Chassis number 33........: 1967-70: five door "Caravan" (estate/station wagon):  Standard equipment level 
* Chassis number 34........: 1965-73: three door "Caravan" (estate/station wagon):  Standard equipment level 
* Chassis number 35........: 1967-70: five door "Caravan" (estate/station wagon):  "L" equipment level 
* Chassis number 36........: 1965-73: four door "Limousine" (saloon/sedan):  Standard equipment level special "Ascona" branded Kadett for Swiss assembly
* Chassis number 37........: 1965-73: four door "Limousine" (saloon/sedan):  "L" equipment level 
* Chassis number 38........: 1965-73: two door "Limousine" (saloon/sedan):  "L" equipment level 
* Chassis number 38........: 1973: code "38.." also used for limited edition "specials" "Kadett Festival" and "Kadett Holiday" 
* Chassis number 39........: 1965-73: three door "Caravan" (estate/station wagon):  "L" equipment level
* Chassis number 91.........: 1967-70: two door "LS" fastback "Limousine" (saloon/sedan) with forced air ventilation
* Chassis number 92.........: 1967-73: two door fastback "Coupé F"
* Chassis number 92.........: 1967-73: code also used for "Coupé F" bodied "Kadett-Rallye""
* Chassis number 95.........: 1965-72: two door "Coupé F" USA export version
* Chassis number 96.........: 1967-70: four door "LS" fastback "Limousine" (saloon/sedan) with forced air ventilation
* Chassis number 97.........: 1967-70: Opel Olympia: four door "LS" fastback "Limousine" (saloon/sedan).  Similar to Chassis nbr "96.." cars but with modified front and "Olympia" level (better) equipment
* Chassis number 98.........: 1967-70: Opel Olympia: two door "LS" fastback "Limousine" (saloon/sedan).  Similar to Chassis nbr "97.." cars but with only two doors
* Chassis number 98.........: 1967-70: Opel Olympia: two door "Coupé F".  Similar to Chassis nbr "92.." cars but with modified front and "Olympia" level (better) equipment
 Mr.choppers | ✎  02:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Kadett B model codes (since removed)

message: "....as part of a larger reparations package agreed upon by the victorious powers." agreed by themselves for themselves
the set up "victorious" "powers" you mean  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:582:7C50:4800:47D:2EDE:9915:43C1 (talk) 15:38, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  a comment