Talk:Dodge Daytona

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Hmm...

I think this page should only focus on the 1980s Daytona, since the 1960s and 1970s versions were modified Chargers, while the 1980s Daytona was a model of its own. --ApolloBoy 06:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I agree. The usual Wikipedia practice is to cover all uses of the name in one article, even when they are used on different vehicles. So I would say the early Daytona data goes here legitimately, but with good links to the relevant Charger data. RivGuySC 01:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess

This article is so messy and I agree with the previous post it should focus on 1980's Dayotna. But it should include the history of the name so the reader know the background of the name.

Charger/RAM Based Daytona should have its own article or moved to their own article.

Done. I hope this page will do! --ApolloBoy 03:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lazer/Laser

The article mentions both Chrysler Laser and Chrysler Lazer, I suppose that only one is correct? It is said « the new Plymouth Laser (at this point with a shift in spelling from 'Lazer' to 'Laser') » but there are mentions of Chrysler Laser too... Or did they continue to produce a Chrysler version at that time? Anyway it is strange to have Laser in the first part of the article, then Lazer further, only explained briefly later. Antp 11:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2.5 T-I High Torque

Quote: "Optional on Iroc was the 2.5l "High Torque" Turbo, available as a very rare option (less than 230 produced). " -> Source? imho the only turbo engine available on the 92 daytonas other than the 2.2 T-III actually was the 2.5 T-I HighTorque rated at 152hp/210lbft, so any 2.5 Turbo in a 92 is a HighTorque? at least those rated at 152hp with the 5speed are HT's, but there are rumours about variations (150hp/190-ish lbft) for the automatic equipped ones. Renizer (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I believe all the 2.5 Turbos in 92 were "high torque" versions. They were basically a carry over of the 2.5Ts found in the 91 Shelbys (in fact, some early 92 2.5 Irocs were badged as "Shelbys", and retained the Shelby Perf Pkg sales code) Jon the dodgeboy (talk) 03:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dodge Daytona. 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://archive.is/20121219230600/http://mywebpages.comcast.net/cvetters3/test1.htm to http://mywebpages.comcast.net/cvetters3/test1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]