Talk:Dodge Spirit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Spirit R/T performance

There are literally dozens of front-wheel drive vehicles that surpassed the Spirit R/T's numbers. To say it's "one of the fastest" is an outright lie. These statements are based on internet sources from so-called "enthusiast" web sites.--Bryanmenard 21:22, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't say "one of the fastest" it says "one of the quickest front wheel drive cars ever offered in the American market". "Fast" generally refers to top speed while "quick" generally refers to acceleration, in automotive writing. What other front wheel drive car can hit 60 in less than 5.8 seconds? I'd say that's quick even by today's standards. I was prepared to remove this whole claim until I looked up the Car and Driver review in my collection and realized it was right on. --SFoskett 01:04, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, to my knowledge, the only FWD production sedans that were in the same league were the Spirit R/T's own K-car platform-mates, such as the Dodge Omni GLH.

And to the original poster—why are you putting scare quotes on the phrase "enthusiast web sites?" Are you implying they are not, in fact, run by enthusiasts? That would seem a rather silly accusation, as no one other than an enthusiast would have much incentive to run websites devoted to cars of yesteryear :). —Ryanaxp 14:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• The Omni wasn't a K-Car, BTW. --ApolloBoy 01:33, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Enthusiast web-sites are biased. Any enthusiast of a vehicle is forgiving of its weaknesses and tries to paint the car in a different light. They are certainly not factual. They're editorials...opinions. I'd trust Car and Driver before I trusted an enthusiast web-site. I'd put Consumer Reports above all else.--Bryanmenard 21:21, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree about many enthusiast web sites. Car and Driver recorded 5.8 seconds, though. The only FWD car I could find that beats this is the modern Dodge SRT-4, which is sometimes reported at 5.3. Others include the latest Accord and Maximas at around 6 seconds, which is pretty remarkably quick if you ask me! --SFoskett 18:54, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, the bias inherent to car enthusiast websites devoted to particular makes or models is patent. However, as SFoskett pointed out, this particular car (the turbo Spirit) really was one of the quicker FWD quarter-mile sprinters of its day—and that can be verified by mainstream car rags. If I weren't so contemptibly lazy I'd go look it up and edit the article to inlude the citation (although SFoskett graciously has already provided the info from Car and Driver)... (By the way, you seem to know how to spin a word or two without egregious grammatical and/or spelling errors, a fact that places you in the highest percentile of anonymous Wikipedia contributors. Would you consider adopting a permanent user name and establishing an account here, just for the sake of facilitating conversation? ^^;) —Ryanaxp 20:51, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I am a registered Wikipedia user....my first entry here wasn't under my name...didn't realize I wasn't logged it at the time. --Bryanmenard 20:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Additions and cleanups

Added section headings for engines and transmissions, added FFV info, added passive restraint info. Stainless steel exhaust was definitely standard equipment at least as early as 1991 and may have been standard equipment right from the start in 1989; I am checking into this. A604 trans was used on most (but not all) 1989-1992 V6 cars, 3-speed auto on most (but not all) '93-'95 V6s. Scheinwerfermann 14:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Predecessors

Just remember that Dodge went from having five (Omni/Aries/Lancer/600/Diplomat) regular cars (as opposed to sports cars, trucks, minivans, etc.) in the 80s to three (Shadow/Spirit/Dynasty) in the early 90s, so the 90s successors have to overlap the old markets somewhat. Shadow fell in between the Omni and Aries; Spirit fell in between the Aries and Lancer/600; Dynasty fell in between the Lancer/600 and Diplomat. jgp (T|C) 19:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Spirit absolutely did not fall between Lancer, 600 and Aries. Aries was a complete, distinct step below Spirit, Lancer and 600. Frankly I'm at a loss as to why so many people just cannot make the distinction. Maybe too many people forget the 600 and Lancer existed. But let's inject this with some facts. Yes, the Dodge lineup did indeed have five "regular cars" in the mid-to-late-'80s: Omni, Aries, 600, Lancer and Diplomat. This is assuming we ignore an oddball here and there like the Colt, which never really fit in at all. Yes, this five-car lineup dwindled to three by 1991: Shadow, Spirit, Dynasty. I think we can all agree that Omni-Aries-600/Lancer-Diplomat and Shadow-Spirit-Dynasty, from lowest to highest, are the correct hierarchies for each respective lineup. Lancer and 600 could for all intents and purposes be swapped depending on how you want to look at it: I think it's reasonably safe to say Lancer and 600 were roughly on the same level but courted different consumers. 600 went after traditional "American car" buyers, whilst Lancer was a little more ambitious and sought a more effete consumer who wanted something pseudo-European in look and manner.

Omni we know and accept as a sub-compact hatchback. Aries, I contend, we should all agree was a multi-body-style compact, maybe the quintessential early-'80s compact. 600 and Lancer were bigger than Aries, better equipped, more powerful, and a good 20-40% higher in price. Diplomat was a holdover dinosaur from the '70s kept around to compete with the then-dwindling pool of Caprice/Impala and LTD Crown Vic buyers. It was a little smaller than those two though, sort of a "large-midsize" or "small-fullsize" (maybe the best modern-day corollary is the Chevrolet Impala, which doesn't really compete with the likes of Ford Crown Vic, Toyota Avalon, Buick Lucerne, etc. but is just a little bit too big for you to completely believe it would compete with the likes of Accord, Camry, Fusion and Chevrolet's own Malibu), Shadow bordered sub-compact and compact. Dimension-wise it was slightly smaller in length and wheelbase than the Aries (shorter wheelbase than Omni in fact), but a lot of that length to the Aries can be attributed to an unnecessarily long hood. Interior volume was roughly the same as the Aries’. Feature-wise it was on par with both Aries and Omni. It had a hatchback, like Omni, but sedan styling, like Aries. It was available with the larger 2.5L four-cylinder engine, like Aries, and a two-door bodystyle, like Aries. Pricing of Shadow was higher than Aries and Omni, but not by much (~$1000 over Aries).

Spirit was longer than Lancer, but shorter than 600. Interior volume was comparable between the three (Spirit had a significantly larger rear-seat than 600 and Lancer, though; in fact it had more legroom than Dynasty and Diplomat). Spirit was priced roughly $1000-2000 more than comparable 600s and Lancers. Dynasty was slightly smaller than the Diplomat in every exterior dimension, front-drive and for the most part V6-powered, but by virtue of being the biggest sedan in the Dodge range I think we can all agree it was the Diplomat’s successor.

So, to the question at hand: how does Spirit replace Aries? If it’s not only bigger, better equipped and more expensive than Aries, but bigger, better equipped and more expensive than 600 and Lancer, how does it take any of the Aries market? How does a mid-size car with mid-size features at a mid-size price point steal market from a compact? Answer: It doesn’t.

600 & Lancer -> Spirit

Omni & Aries -> Shadow

--93JC 20:08, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Very well put, and I totally agree.

--ApolloBoy 22:33, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the Dodge Charger, which was replaced by the Shadow for 1987. Bull-Doser 17:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

According to a Dodge Spirit article on ConsumerGuide [1], the Spirit's predecessor was the Aries. The Shadow was priced above 600, Aries, Diplomat or Lancer, but it didn't quite replace the Aries. The Shadow only replaced the Charger & Omni as the hatchback Dodge. The Dodge Omni's demise in 1990 priced the Shadow much lower than the Omni & Spirit.

Here Was The Dodge Car Pricing (1988-89):

1989 Dodge Omni: $1,275 - $1,450

1989 Dodge Colt: $1,350 - $1,875

1989 Dodge Shadow: $1,275 - $1,475

1988 Dodge 600: $1,125 - $1,350

1988 Dodge Aries: $1,100 - $1,225

1989 Dodge Spirit: $1,225 - $1,650

1988 Dodge Lancer: $1,125 - $1,350

1989 Dodge Diplomat: $1,300 - $1,475

1989 Dodge Dynasty: $1,400 - $1,750

-- Bull-Doser 16:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no. ConsumerGuide is an OK tool for judging used-car prices, but it is definitely not an authoritative source regarding lineage and evolution of a maker's product range. There's no incentive for them to do anything but fill a couple of lines of space discussing any particular car's predecessors; nobody reading ConsumerGuide to decide on a $1200 used car cares if the Spirit's predecessor was the Aries or the 600. That is why considerable time and effort has been devoted here amongst those of us involved with this article on determining the actual, factual predecessor. 93JC's work on the question, above, is considerably more thorough and authoritative. I have reverted your change again; do not change it back without a full-scale discussion here. Scheinwerfermann 16:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Bull-Doser, I should let you know that I got into a similar discussion months ago, and now I agree with 93JC and Scheinwerfermann. As said before, the Spirit was more expensive and better equipped than the Aries, and although the Shadow was intended to replace the Charger and Omni, it wound up replacing the Aries as well since they were both compact and were equipped with similar equipment (for example, the Shadow used the 2.2 L engine that was used in the Aries as well as the optional 2.5 L engine). And although the Shadow was a hatchback, it was styled like a coupe/sedan, so there's another good reason why the Shadow replaced both the Aries and the Omni.

And as Scheinwerfermann said, used prices are not a good way at all to determine predecessors or successors of a certain car. --ApolloBoy 18:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate to humiliate you guys, but here it is:

http://www.allpar.com/eek/k/kron.html "As seemed to be Chrysler's tradition, the Ks, for their final year, were allowed to share the showroom floor with their replacement model - in this case, the larger A-body Spirit. The Spirit would offer features new to the K-car, such as stiffer steering (first seen in the "Euro-style' Lancer and LeBaron GTS) and a V6 motor." I can't believe the quality of research here is as bad as the guy who claimed the F-14 wasn't an air superiority fighter. --matador300 23:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote you cite demonstrates that this is not a valid quality reference. The entire sentence reads as follows (bold mine):

"As seemed to be Chrysler's tradition, the Ks, for their final year, were allowed to share the showroom floor with their replacement model - in this case, the larger A-body Spirit. The Spirit would offer features new to the K-car, such as stiffer steering (first seen in the "Euro-style' Lancer and LeBaron GTS) and a V6 motor. (The Webmaster suggests that the Sundance may have been meant to replace the K, with the Spirit replacing the 600, LeBaron, etc. However, the Spirit and Sundance were both heavier than the Reliant, leading to slower acceleration!)"

So what you have is a quote which disputes itself, and establishes a link from Spirit to Aries based solely on performance? '-- DeLarge 07:42, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

http://www.partstrain.com/ShopByVehicle/DODGE/SPIRIT Dodge Spirit Parts The first Chrysler K-cars, specifically the Dodge Aries, were a success and when it is time for them to be replaced, Chrysler planned to use a similar body platform. In 1989, Chrysler introduced its Extended K (EK) platform in the form of two cars, the Dodge Spirit and the Plymouth Acclaim. Both shares the same platform used by the Dodge Aries, although a bit longer this time.

The Dodge Spirit is a compact, traditional 4-door sedan that provided America a reliable transportation from 1986 to 1995. It is almost similar to the Plymouth Acclaim except for a few body and exterior designs and characteristics. Although the Plymouth Acclaim offers a more comfortable and reliable ride, the Dodge Spirit offers a firmer ride and better handling capability.

And the Cavalier didn't replace the Chevette??? Get with it.. --matador300 23:59, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Two problems here. First off, in the first source, even the webmaster suggests that the Shadow was a better replacement to the Aries than the Spirit, and most of the stuff on Allpar is contributed by other people, so it's not a very reliable source. Neither is the second source which even goofs up the Spirit's production years (1989-1995, not 1986-1995). If you can bring up reliable sources, then we'll talk. --ApolloBoy 00:12, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And you're presenting how many sources to back up your assertion? I have two and you have a lot of original research, but NO citations. I win by WP rules, darn it. The Shadow looks nothing like the Aries, won't hold 6 adults in 2 benches like a Dodge Dart. Hallucination, my eye, any car that is boxy, small and holds 6 is an heir to the Dart/ Valiant, period. I'll bet you've never even been in a car with 2 honest bench seats. Do you even know what a bench seat is, or why it's been favored by Americans until very recently? I used to own a Plymouth Valiant. Only a geek would say that since the Spirit uses the extended platform, it has less in common with the Aries than the Shadow. (oh, but I'm not calling you a geek) And for a guy that claims the Premier is a favorite car, you do real job on excluding most edits that make it look important. ::--matador300 01:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The observations above are based on hard facts. The Spirit was significantly better equipped than the Aries and the Spirit was significantly larger than the Aries. The Shadow was equipped at about the same level as the Aries, and the Shadow was similar in size to the Aries. Seating doesn't really play a factor. And as I said, your sources are not reliable, read my statement again, please. And don't challenge my knowledge again, I know what a bench seat is and why bucket seats are favored over it. As I said before, age IS NOT related to knowledge. And although the Premier is one of my favorite cars (and I do agree with you about how the Premier was quite advanced for its time), I don't add my POV about the car to it. :::--ApolloBoy 01:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And what's more, Allpar is like Wikipedia, except without any of the mechanisms Wikipedia has in place that tend to cull bad info and guide articles towards factual correctness. Anyone can write anything for Allpar; the site owner, whom I've known for many years, is too busy to check factual veracity. For that reason, Allpar is full of erroneous assertions; it only gets better in small fits and starts when someone writes in with correct information. Not only that, but backing up your assertions with canned text grabbed off of a parts sales website, of all things, is beyond schlock. Wiarthurhu, your argument is tantamount to "But, I read it in a book!" (Or, "But, I read it on a website!"). Such arguments always lose in the face of actual reality when the reality is plainly different from what you think you read and/or think you understood from somewhere. The Spirit did not replace the Aries, and that has been thoroughly demonstrated by detailed comparison of the actual cars' sizes, weights, interior volumes, equipment levels and suchlike. This is not "original research", despite your imaginative assertion that it is. :::Scheinwerfermann 01:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

You can analyze all you want, but it's original research. You find even one article that supports your position, I've got two citations, and you have zero. You concluded what a logical sucessor was, you did not get it from Chrysler, nor quoted some other analyst. So must have constructed it. By that logic you should leave it blank. That makes even less sense than to state that the Premier was the next midsize AMC car after the Matador, at least that's a fact, but somebody decided you can't say facts like that. Also remember by this time, Chrysler was getting hurt by the Taurus and GM Lumina / A-cars both much larger than the K-cars, so to stay in that niche, it had to be larger. They didn't have a competitive car until they reworked the Premier into the LH cars, which are much more popular than the cloud cars. The space defined by the Dart was 2 bench seats, smaller than a big car, fits 6 people. That fits the Dart, Aspen, Aries, and Spirit, but not the tiny Shadow. Lancer and 600 didn't sell in numbers anything like the Aries. You guys don't even play by your own rules, just like the F-14 isn't an air superiority fighter no matter how many or how good the refernces are guy. Allpar at least is populated by people who generally know what they are talking about as opposed to generalized people who think they know more about everything than anybody, and I should know, I run into them all the time, though I can't say if this description applies to you folks. --matador300 02:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"...as opposed to generalized people who think they know more about everything than anybody, and I should know, I run into them all the time, though I can't say if this description applies to you folks."

I can think of one person this applies to... --93JC 02:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Quality of citations is arguably more important than quantity. Objectively observable reality does not require a citation. Furthermore, your injection of Darts and Valiants into this discussion is interesting, but not well informed. Darts were available with bucket seats from the very start of the A-body Dart in 1963 to the end in 1976. Spirits were available with bucket seats from start (1989) to finish (1995). Judging car successors by, of all things, seat type undermines your accusations of silliness and poorly-backed assertions in others. Fact is, upon the cessation of one product range and the introduction of another not containing substantially identical vehicles, there will exist debate over lineage such as the one we're pointlessly rehashing now. In the face of observable facts and objective measurements, your insistence that you're correct suggests that for you, this debate is mostly about your apparent hate-on for ApolloBoy. I will not take his side in the war evidently going on between you two, but nor will I take yours. All I will do is remind you that personal vendettas do not constitute a valid or sound basis for assertions, even if you use them indirectly (as for instance by dredging up flimsy citations). Scheinwerfermann 02:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

And Wiarthurhu, I suggest you read WP:NOR again, and look at this statement...

"However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." --ApolloBoy 21:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I have directly supporting sources. You have none. As I understand it this "Shadow replaces Aries" is only a theory based on "if you compare this". That's quite different from "

The Shadow was a replacement for the Aries" which can be found on the net with not much snooping. The only source for Shadow being a replacement is WP, which shows how effective the research skills of most WP editors is. That precisely we need more people who can do a decent web search like me than the "black hat" people who simply make things up, or reverse the thesis of articles I forward to them. As I recall you ran across a reposting where ApolloBoy claimed to agree that the Spirit did replace the Aries, but was somehow dissuaded from someone from the dark side. What's the story on that? --matador300 22:16, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Chrysler Corp. info source

OK, folks, end of the line for this debate. I just today received a photocopy of a Chrysler Corporation Master Technician Service Conference book, "New Model Service Highlights '89". It goes into detail on body and mechanical differences in the 1989 Chrysler Corp. vehicle lineup. Pages 2 and 3 cover Shadow/Sundance, and the first two sentences on page 2 are "Shadow and Sundance are the new compact hatches. They offer about the same size and capacity as the outgoing Aries and Reliant, but with much more efficient packaging. At first glance, you won't recognize them as hatchbacks!" Pages 4 and 5 (and the end of a paragraph on page 6) are devoted to the new-for-1989 Spirit and Acclaim. The first sentence of the introductory passage to this section reads as follows: "Spirit and Acclaim are the new midsize sedans, replacing 600 and Caravelle." The rest of the book discusses the C-bodies, airbags and new starters and alternators for the M-bodies, various turbo engine availability and spec changes, new fuel injection for the V8 trucks and vans, and other new-for-'89 stuff. I called DDS and they no longer offer availability on this or any other 1989 MTSC books (not surprising, they don't keep them for very long; they are published for use in update training sessions for service techs). If any of you wants a copy, watch eBay; occasionally a service tech who has kept his MTSC books over the years clears them out. Scheinwerfermann 03:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --93JC 13:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

That's all very well, but that has to be squared against other sources:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiarthurhu (talk • contribs)

Elaboration: The Standard Catalog series contains a great deal of good information, but it is far from flawless. We have here an excellent illustration of the basic flaws of any effort to retell a sequence of events after they occur: Once a fact (or factoid) gets uttered or printed or posted, it gets repeated and cited as authoritative regardless of its veracity. Errors are thus propagated and imbued with increased levels of baseless veracity. I emphasize my intent is not to deride "Standard Catalog" as useless or fatally flawed or riddled with errors or anything of the sort, but a statement's inclusion in those publications does not necessarily imply veracity. This combined with the extreme weakness of some of the cites for the "Spirit replaced Aries" view (e.g. aftermarket parts vendors' websites) points up the need to evaluate sources' quality, not just their quantity. This is not a majority-rules vote or popularity contest to see who can come up with the greatest number of sources supporting his assertion, it is an effort to create an accurate encyclopædia entry. Chrysler Corp. made the cars. Therefore, their statement on the matter is authoritative. End of debate. Further, I have deleted from this page Wiarthurhu's recount of the edit history on this matter, for it doesn't need to be here. Everyone can see it plainly by viewing the article's history; that's why Wikipedia provides the "History" tab. Scheinwerfermann 16:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

In accordance with user:Wiarthurhu's very grownup new effort at coöperation (see talk:Plymouth Acclaim) I have inserted NPOV compromise predecessor text in the article body, and reinstated Aries in the list of predecessor models. Scheinwerfermann 01:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Mexican/South American markets

Just added a section on the Mexican domestic-market Spirits, 1990-1995, with pictures and a link. Scheinwerfermann 01:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Chrysler vs. Dodge: Resemblance

Okay, let me ask a question: is it so terribly wrong and "unencyclopedic" to state that a car strongly resembles another car? The point is, Scheinwerfermann said that only Chrysler cars can resemble each other? Well tell me, does the Chrysler Cirrus, for example, resemble the Spirit? Not at all. Does the 300m? No. Does the Dodge Dynasty -- which is part of a division of the Diamler Chrysler company -- resemble the Spirit? Of course, nearly everyone would find that obvious. So why does it matter so much what branch of the company the car is in? Hypothetically, I could say a car made by Ford resembled the Spirit. What is so terribly wrong about saying another car just looks like another? I'm not saying they're actually based on each other -- but they sure do look similar. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JEMASCOLA (talk • contribs) 220:10, 2006 October 25 (UTC)

Please refrain from misquoting me. I did not say that "only Chrysler cars can resemble each other", nor anything of the like. You seem to be a little confused regarding the intent of this article, which is to describe and catalogue the Dodge Spirit/Chrysler Spirit automobiles. Your addition to the article was as follows: "In addition, the Spirit has an unequivocal resemblance to the Dodge Dynasty." This really does not add anything of especial value to the article, and is unencyclopædic by dint of being an esthetic judgement, i.e., an opinion. While it is true that both the Dodge/Chrysler Spirit and the Dodge/Chrysler Dynasty were 3-box, 4-door sedans, it is a matter of opinion whether and how far the resemblance extends beyond that categorical similarity. As many differences can be enumerated as similarities. For example, the Dynasty has a flat, squared-off front end, while the Spirit has a rounded front end. The width:length ratios of the two cars are considerably different, the rooflines are markedly different, the rear end styling and design are different, the glass configuration is different, etc. That being the case, the resemblance between these vehicles cannot legitimately be called "unequivocal", and doing so is not NPOV. I'm afraid "they sure do look similar" is likewise unencyclopædic, and for the same reason. Also, please don't forget to sign your posts on talk pages. --Scheinwerfermann 04:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Photo captions

Bull-doser, please stop editing photo captions to make them less detailed and informative. This is counterproductive behaviour in the construction of an encyclopædia article. The image currently captioned "1991-'92 base-model Dodge Spirit" shows exactly that. it is not a 1989 or 1990 model, it is not a 1993 or newer model, and it is not an ES, SE, LE, or R/T model. Likewise, the image currently captioned "1993-'95 Dodge Spirit" shows exactly that. It is almost certainly a 1993, but if it is a Canadian model it could be a 1994 or 1995. It is not an ES. There is no good reason to make the captions vague by changing them to "pre-facelift" and "facelifted", so please stop doing it. Thank you. --Scheinwerfermann 05:18, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Date production ended

71.62.242.186, the AA-body cars (Spirit, Acclaim) did indeed go out of production in December of 1994, at which time they were replaced in Chrysler Corporation's model lineup by the JA-body "Cloud" cars (Cirrus, Stratus, Breeze). Please stop changing this date in the article to December 1995, for that is incorrect and would've entailed 3 months' production of 1996 Spirits and Acclaims, of which in fact there were none. If you feel you have information supporting your claim that 12/95 is correct, please present it here, engage in topical discussion, and the date in the article can be changed when/if consensus supports doing so. If you carry on re-inserting your incorrect date without discussion, you will be referred for administrative action. Thank you for being a coöperative Wikipedian. --Scheinwerfermann 14:25, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I really do apoligize for that. The reason I kept doing that is because I thought production ended in December of 1995, becuase of the confusting model years that were presented in the production slot in the article-71.63.42.172 (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that after production ended in December 1994, the final Spirits that were produced continued to be sold on the market through early 1995.-24.125.169.130 (talk) 19:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

1993-1995 Spirit images

The metallic red and the white car can only legitimately be captioned "1993 Dodge Spirit" and "1994-95 Dodge Spirit" if the photographer checked and recorded the 10th digit of each vehicle's VIN, which identifies the model year. The 1993, 1994, and 1995 Spirits all have identical front end appearance. If the cars shown are US models, then they are both 1993s, for they both have manual passenger side front seatbelts. However, Canadian 1994-95 Spirits also had manual passenger side front seatbelts, so in the absence of a front licence plate that might offer clues to where the cars are registered, the "1993-95" caption is most appropriate for accuracy and illustrative intent. I chose to keep the metallic red car and delete the white one, for I felt both were of approximately equal quality, but certainly if it is felt that the white car offers a better illustration, I don't see a problem using that one instead. --Scheinwerfermann 16:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

1993-94 Spirit ES image

I realise it's not common to spot '93-'94 Spirit ES models in the US and Canada due to their relative scarcity, and I'm glad we've got a good quality image here representing this submodel. But, can we all please keep our eyes open for one without the fugly and decidedly non-stock hood modification? For encyclopædic purposes, it's best to show unmodified cars. —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Archive 1