Talk:Dodge Aspen

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.

Archives of past discussion

Archive 1

Cubby bin capacity: Litres vs. cubic metres

Typ932, you have twice changed the metric conversion of the station wagons' cubby bins' volume from cubic metres to litres. This seems a strange conversion; the cubby bins are used to store miscellaneous solid items of irregular shape and size, just like the boot and the passenger compartment. I live in a country that has long used SI Metric measurements, and have never seen litres used to specify the capacity of a cubby bin, a luggage compartment, a cargo compartment, or a passenger compartment on an automobile (or the interior volume of a microwave oven, or of a refrigerator, or of a household storage bin…) That doesn't necessarily mean it's never done anywhere; perhaps in some countries it is customary to measure space of this type in litres. But before you make this change again, you need to please provide some solid support for your claim that the litre is the correct unit. I believe MOS probably also has something to say on the subject. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C03:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heh in Europe for example boots or cargo space is very often expresses with litres, nobody would use expression 0.042 m3, it tells nothing, very hard to figure the actual space maybe from 0.x m3 upwards is suitable... same thing is for example miles nobody would use 0.00001 miles when there is smaller unit available or 0.1 km when you can use 100 metres --Typ932 ^T·C 17:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soooo…do or don't you don't have support for your assertion that the litre is an appropriate unit here? Simply repeating the assertion does not constitute support. I agree that nobody would use 0.00001 miles; that's what yards and feet and inches and suchlike are for. And it's very common at least in some countries to use tenths of km (0.1 km, 0.8 km, etc.), but for divisions smaller than that, we have m, dm, cm, mm, and so on. But what you are proposing here doesn't accord with those examples. You propose to convert cubed linear measurements to fluid-volume measurements, and that just doesn't seem kosher to me. I'm still open to being shown I'm mistaken, but so far you haven't really tried to do so. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:30, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is isnt official si-unit but it is used very commonly for other stuff than fluids also, just use google "boot space litres" or

"trunk space litres" or if you insisnt to use si-unis then you have to use dm3, which really isnt widely used... but its up to you I dont wanna arque this kind so clear thing, if you want it to be wrong feel free , check also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litre --Typ932 ^T·C 08:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scheinwerfermann: "You propose to convert cubed linear measurements to fluid-volume measurements" is a silly statement to begin with; the litre was created as one-thousandth of the cubic metre, so they're historically both equally "cubed linear measurements" and "fluid-volume measurements". Furthermore, all the reputable sources (Auto,_Motor_und_Sport, Teknikens_Värld, etc) routinely report Kofferraum volumes in litres, and have done so since about forever. HTH! --CRConrad (talk) 02:00, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protest over car's name in Aspen, Colorado

Circa 1976, Aspen, Colorado residents protested the use of their town's name for the Dodge Aspen. It's a neat bit of history that should be added. I recall a wag writing, "no one told the town of Aspen they stole their name from a tree". All in all, I think this bit of trivia has merit. Someone, please help out in adding this.Theaternearyou (talk) 20:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Until someone comes up with reliable support for this what you describe, it's not a "neat bit of history", it's just a story. Could be true or could be apocryphal. Find a source or two and then it's worth adding. Til then, it's not. On the surface, it looks very dubious. The Aspen was hardly the first car to share a name with a town. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV: no mention whatsoever of recalls?

The Dodge Aspen/Plymouth Volare recall is not mentioned at all in this article. Popular Mechanics ranked it as "One of the 5 most notorious recalls of all time"[1]. The Aspen/Volare were called "the most recalled car" to date and were exceptional for being one of the only cars ever recalled for rust.[2]. The "most recalled car" title apparently originated with Consumer Reports before being vouched by later sources. Ralph Nader's Center for Auto Safety gave it the Lemon of the Year Award for 1977. After a successful, well-received, introduction with strong sales (511,000 units in 1976 and 695,000 in 1977), the recalls pushed sales down to 455,000 in 1978, then down to to 350,000 in 1979, at a time when the rest of the car industry was experiencing boom sales. The cost of the recalls was some $200 million.[3]

I've seen claims in questionable sources that the cost of these recalls pushed Chrysler to near-bankruptcy and led to the 1979 bailout, but I haven't found any high-quality sources that support that. The cause of Chrysler's troubles were much bigger and begin before the Aspen, though the Aspen/Volare quality was cited as a symptom of the deeper problems at Chrysler. The specific cause of the problems was engineering cutbacks in engineering staff, so adequate testing was not performed.[4]. Many sources have said that Chrysler's problems can be traced to cost cutting during lean times leaving the company unprepared for the next boom. This cyclical cash-flow problem is typically traced to Chrysler's small size compared to GM and Ford.

I found several sources saying Chrysler had a strong reputation for quality compared to Ford and GM, and that it was the Aspen/Volare that first undermined that -- "terribly harming the company’s reputation" and becoming the focus of Lee Iacocca's efforts to reform the company.[5] Part of the negative image was due to an extraordinary 8 recalls in the first year, rather than spread over time, which the NHSTA called "unprecedented" and the AP said had a greater impact on sales than when recalls are spread over time (AP, Donald Woupat May 19, 1978, "Don't Expect A Quick Fix for Recalled Dodge Aspens Or Plymouth Volares").

A significant part of this article -- the entire 'Production history section' consists of marketing claims taken directly from press releases, touting the unproven benefits of wind tunnel testing, supposedly better visibility, the benefits of the suspension. The only source cited is Chrysler press releases. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Volaré vs Volare

Volaré is indeed Spanish for "I shall fly", but while the Italian "Volare" does mean "to fly", it has no accent whatsoever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.14.216.78 (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]