Talk:Volvo 200 Series/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

NPOV

This article has a folksy, conjectural tone to it that's completely inappropriate. 842U (talk) 13:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You're quite correct; this article needs a great deal of cleanup. Volvo 240s, like some other cars, inspire great loyalty in their owners. Unfortunately, that tends to increase the skewed perception of such loyal feelings as objective facts appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. So…cleanup, clarify, rm POV, rm personal essay, lather, rinse, repeat! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Durability

Discussion through 14 Feb 2009

The durability of this car, in relation to what was on offer at the time, is often overlooked. This is not a point of view, it is a matter of fact. I have again added mention of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.235.138 (talk) 10:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It is true, but does not belong in the article with that wording, so I have removed. Might want to say something like "Are known for excellent reliability and durability in excess of 150,000mi" or something less immatre sounding. Sixthstar (talk) 03:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

No, that wouldn't do. Remember, the standard by which information is judged for inclusion in a Wikipedia article is not whether you or I or anyone else thinks it's true, but whether it is verifiable by reference to reliable sources. An edit saying the subject cars "are known for excellent reliability and durability in excess of 150,000 miles" as Sixthstar suggests would be immediately reverted unless it were robustly supported. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with the wording. You might argue a reference or two is needed but even that is debatable given that a glance down the road in the 1980s confirmed the point - i.e. ALL the competition rusting! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.117.133 (talk) 18:43, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Original research such as what you think you remember seeing when glancing down the road in the 1980s is not acceptable for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, yes. Are you trying to be argumentative? It's not a question of what I 'think' I remember, it is what I (and many others) know from the evidence. I owned the same Volvo 244DL from 1981 to 2007 and covered well over 300,000 miles. And most of that was with my poor maintaince. The car was still running well when sold (note - not scrapped). If properly maintained the car was undeniably one of the most, if not the most, durable cars of its time / in its class. In the 1980s Volvo were claiming a Volvo to have the 'longest life expectancy of all car makes'. According to the statistics of the Swedish Motor Vehicle Inspection Authority some 17.9 years! Most other cars back then might struggle to last 10 years. [1] I feel strongly that there should be mention of durability. If you wish to alter my wording, then do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.23.101.251 (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Please read the links you're being given to Wikipedia protocol; your strong feelings do not qualify your own observations for inclusion in a Wikipedia article. It works the same for my strong feelings about my own observations, or anyone else's strong feelings about his or her own observations — you're not being picked on or singled out. Any questionable assertion in any Wikipedia article needs to be verifiable, and supported by reference to reliable sources. This is no impediment to inclusion of durability-related text in this article; I agree with you that the 240 is a notably sturdy, durable car, and much has been published (in reliable sources!) to that effect, so it should be easy for you to find and cite a few such sources. Your link right here in this discussion (referring to the Swedish Motor Vehicle Inspection Authority) is a terrific start in that direction; please refer to it with proper citations when you add your text on durability to the article. Thanks for editing coöperatively and in accord with Wikipedia protocol! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C21:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand the need for referencing. Although I also recognise that it is not necessary to reference that which is obvious. I did not say my strong feelings served to qualify my own observation. I simply said that I felt ‘strongly that there should be mention of durability’. This is because the car’s durability is well known (as you appear to concede) and arguably one of the most distinguishing features of the car. So much so that I am not convinced that it is necessary to reference this fact beyond what is given. More to the point, I am puzzled that strangely and somewhat in contradiction, you seem happy to allow the statement ‘Because it is cheap and robust…’ without any reference to support either assertion. Applying the same logic, how do we know either is true? For what it’s worth the former point is incorrect, this car was neither cheap to buy, run nor maintain. It is more likely that the strong and durable construction of the car made it suitable for rallycross and banger racing (although in fact its soft crumple zones do not lends themselves to the latter). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.83.120 (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is really quite a bit simpler than you seem to be trying to make it. Whatever you or I or anyone else might consider obvious does not affect the need for reliable support. The "cheap and robust" assertion needs to be supported or removed; you're right, the 240 was not inexpensive to buy, nor to maintain. But there it is in the article, an unsupported assertion from somebody's personal point of view. This is an excellent illustration of why any assertion of particularly notable durability, reliability, or any other aspect of this or any other automobile needs to be supported: just like the "cheap and robust" assertion, a "notably durable and reliable" assertion can (and sooner or later will) be challenged with the entirely reasonable question "Says who?".

Also, please indent your comments on talk pages correctly and remember to sign your comments every time — neglecting this creates a mess for someone else to have to clean up, which is not coöperative or polite. Thanks! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

(If I may jump into the debate here,) I would like to think that I understand the need for referencing material from reliable sources here on Wikipedia to ensure that subsequent articles are as accurate as possible, and at the same time I believe that the Volvo 240 is an exceptionally reliable/durable/long-lived car, especially compared to cars that were made during the same time period as the 200-series. I am a former Volvo 240 owner myself and recognize that my affection for my car likely does skew my opinion of it and the type of material I'd be likely to contribute on here.

I've just done a cursory Google search to see if I could turn up, quickly, any "reliable" on the 240's durability. However, I noticed--and I suspect this will be the case for many of the similar online searches for 240 information--that a lot of the websites that turned up were either questions posted *about* the reliability of the Volvo, or personal statements from individuals who had owned Volvos who were stating themselves (just like some of the people editing on here) that their car was quite reliable.

I think that the numbers of 240s still on the road today, plus the overwhelming opinion visible on the Internet today, demonstrates that there's definitely something special about the durability of these cars. However, recognizing the need for accurate, reliable sources and not finding any (yet; readily), can you give an example of what might be a reliable source from this case? Does a series of owner-experience forum posts cited online count? Does several instances of eBay feedback citing the durability count? Do various semi-professional websites commenting on 240s as being "durable" used cars worth buying count? What kind of website might be appropriate to cite as a reliable source?

--158.143.163.87 (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC) KeplerNiko

Ebay feedback doesn't count, nor do personal testimonials or enthusiast forum postings or google hits. Really, it shouldn't be too hard to come up with some refs that count as reliable sources. Consumer Reports considered them durable cars, if I recall correctly, as did most of the motoring press. Historical magazine articles are generally considered reliable. Twenty minutes on books.google.com (or, perhaps, better, twenty minutes with the Reader's Guide to Periodical Literature at your nearest public library with a good collection of old periodicals) ought to yield a bunch of juicy sources. There's a never-ending stream of "best used cars" books out there; many of them are sure to mention the 240. The support's out there! —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C15:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Why do you allow the dubious point relating to this car being cheap to remain (this car was not cheap but it was durable) yet seem strangely determined to challenge the mention of durability - despite the reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.168.42 (talk) 07:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Trim levels

I removed the info and left it as plain information, as it probably constituted original research. --Litherlandsand (talk) 11:00, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Badges

This section is only relevant to the north american market so i intend to modify it to include the rest of the world which was quite different --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

B280

"The updated B280 engine used in the final years of the 760 and 780 models did not suffer from the same premature camshaft wear as the earlier PRV engines."

as far as i know the 200 series never saw the B280 (the last v6 being the ´85 265, 2 years before the B280) so this line should be removed from the article and i intend on doing so unless someone can show otherwise.--Lotsofmagnets (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Merger, controlling Turbo fan

Turbo fanboy User:Nfjb, also editing as 99.244.224.73 and most likely as User:Nbritto both here and in the [commons] is on an apparent mission to mould the Volvo 240 page into his preferred image. His constant refusal to cooperate with other editors (except once, and then only in asking for my support against the nefarious IFCAR who keeps removing his blurry copyvio photos from the infobox). I suggest a merge of the completely unnecessary Volvo 200 Series - Turbo Intercooler (zero original content) and continued patrolling to keep this user in check.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 19:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Obvious merge candidate. Since the 200 series article already covers the turbo in some detail, we aren't losing anything. The turbo model is not sufficiently different to warrant a separate article. --Daniel 19:50, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Volvo 200 Series - Turbo Intercooler is in fact a very obvious candidate for speedy deletion under criterion A10. I've tagged it as such. Somebody (Mr.choppers?) may want to open a sockpuppet investigation on Nfjb and Nbritto and 99.244.224.73 if there is sufficient evidence to support it. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C20:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

No need to go to such extreme measures. Only creted a new one because I couldn't remember my last password. No worries, lesson learn't I'll back off. Deal? Not really sure if I can post this here so don't freak. - NFJB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfjb (talk • contribs) 00:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't talk sockpuppet as it didn't at all appear as if that was the idea behind the several accounts. Nfjb, if you write four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your messages, your signature will automatically appear. Best,  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool thanks alot! Umm I was looking around just now and I found a seperate Volvo 900 Series page based on the 940. Figure instead of tagging it for deletion we just transplant all the 900 stuff from the 700 page there and update the 200 Series links. What you think? Nfjb (talk) 03:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Not'ny more, you won't find that redundant Volvo 940 stub! I've redirected it to Volvo 700 & 900 Series. No link changes are necessary; the redirect handles it automatically. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C04:56, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't really need this discussion. Let's face it I'm not doing anything wrong per say, I was just unclear of some policies. Do we really need this up? Nfjb (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess it could be archived - and please continue to partake, your contributions are valued as is your willingness to cooperate with other editors.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2