Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:41, 24 June 2019

Automobiles B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Misplaced Pages. 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Weight standard?

Where's the source that says the weight is according to DIN? The launch press release (http://www.alfaromeopress.co.uk/press/article/5460) makes no mention of the standard used, which implies that unless FIAT Chrysler is in breach of the law, the figure is according to the EC vehicle weights directive (1230/2012/EEC).

I will remove the "(DIN)" disclaimer on the weight figure until someone posts a supporting reference to show that this is indeed the basis of calculation.

92.51.196.226 (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2015 (UTC)KrisW

Production Setbacks?

The Giulia was originally meant to arrive in 2013, then was pushed back because MArchionne was unsatisfied by the design of the car.

Allegedly, it would have been a relatively tall, at 1.45 mt, quite long - at 4.92 mt - and quite narrow - 1,80 mt - car, as a result of an ill-fated combination of an italian sourced C class platform (the stretched CUSW) with american components and design clues.

Of this, nothing appears in the article... At least the setback is commonly known, so it should be noted somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.50.151.57 (talk) 18:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Article title

Should the page be moved to Alfa Romeo Giulia (952), in keeping with WP:AUTOCONV and the practice used with other Alfa Romeo homonyms (e.g. Alfa Romeo Giulietta (940))? It would also be a less questionable title, since this car can be seen as a 2015, 2016 or 2017 model considering alternatively its introduction date, market launch or the first model year.—Cloverleaf II (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes -->Typ932 08:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Since a month has passed since my proposal and we're at least two editors supporting it, I'll boldly move the article. —Cloverleaf II (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Why doesn't this title read Tipo/Type 952? It seems odd to just quote a number. Or is it standard Alfa practice? CtrlXctrlV (talk) 15:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Its model designation to differiate it from other older Giulias, look eg here http://www.international-auto.com/alfa-romeo-miscellaneous/alfa-romeo-model-identification.cfm -->Typ932 03:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

I know that :) I was just saying, simply a number in brackets makes no sense. It should read "Tipo 952" or "Type 952" - or why doesn't it? The site you quote says "Series", which wouldn't be ideal, but supports my point that just a number is neither intuitive nor strictly correct? CtrlXctrlV (talk) 08:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Engine

Even they say its 2.9 L it might still be closer to 3.0, but we have to wait official figures -->Typ932 03:48, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Engine 2

Hi everyone. Please see the Ferrari F154 Engine talk page about the validity of the information presented in this article about the V6 used in the Quadrifoglio version. Jaredclce (talk) 19:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Let the engine size be 2.9 L as the official video says that size, well get more accurate size later , the V angle is 90 degree, so its not derived from Maserati engine either -->Typ932 19:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone know if it will be sold in the usa as the next Dodge Dart

I hear it might be sold in the USA as the next generation Dodge Dart but I am not sure if it's true or not 65.175.243.206 (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Is this a joke? The Dart is based on the smaller front-wheel drive Giulietta... at most, the future Chrysler 200 will share some architecture of the Giulia only because the Giulietta will (typically, suspension, firewall, doors, engines but not in the same exotic materials if applicable), but it doesn't mean it will just be a rebodied Giulia. Give google a try - read this for example and this  :) CtrlXctrlV (talk) 06:04, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The Fiat Tipo has been tapped as the new Dodge Neon to replace the Dart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BuffMyRadius (talk • contribs) 20:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Reverts to article and merit for 2 engine tables

Due to incessant reverts/edits compromising the article, others' comments and views would be appreciated at WikiProjects Automobile, in the hope this will refrain Typ932 from further edit warring in the meantime. Thankyou. CtrlXctrlV (talk) 12:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed it for you. --77.22.144.77 (talk) 14:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Engine crankshaft/ignition timing

Anyone knows the crankshaft configuration? Or seen a diagram?

A 90º V6 derived from a V8 is problematic: if it was a 120º (like some Ferrari F1 engines: Ferrari 156 F1, Ferrari 126C) the ignition timing would be uniform (one explosion for each 120º). But a 90º V6 needs either split journals (later versions of the PRV engine had that), or individual crankpins (unlikely to be used, since the cylinder spacing would no longer be equal to the v8), otherwise it will have uneven ignition timing. Rps (talk) 12:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

https://www.alfaromeousa.com/content/dam/alfausa/pdf/giulia/2017_AR_Giulia_SP.PDF : "Crankshaft: super finished forged nitride steel with single conrod pin" I suppose it means that two conrods are paired on the same crankjournal and thus the firing intervals are 90°-150°. Dovatf (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Gearboxes

Noticed that there is two different gearboxes mentioned to Q version, other says is Getrag and other says is ZF S6-53: http://aftersales.fiat.com/eLumData/IT/83/620_GIULIA/83_620_GIULIA_604.38.898_IT_02_05.16_SA_QV/83_620_GIULIA_604.38.898_IT_02_05.16_SA_QV.pdf https://www.alfaromeousa.com/content/dam/alfausa/pdf/techsheet/usa/giulia/2017_AR_Giulia_FA.pdf this needs some more facts which one is it, or can US version have different box than Europe? Maybe thay Q user manual is more reliable than that US pdf-->Typ932 10:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Return of RWD

I suggest to change "The Giulia is also the first high volume production Alfa Romeo in over two decades to use a longitudinal engined rear-wheel drive platform, since the 75 was discontinued in 1992" to: "The Giulia is also the first saloon by Alfa Romeo in over two decades to use a longitudinal engined rear-wheel drive platform, since the 75 was discontinued in 1992" The Spider type 4 was namely produced until 1993 and was also a mass production vehicle (or is something different meant with high volume production vehicle?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.239.64.157 (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

2.0 Turbo Q4 in Europe vs USA

This is really intresting when comparing these:

• 2.0 L I4 GME MultiAir Turbo AT8 Q4 1,995 cc (121.7 cu in) 280 PS (276 hp; 206 kW) at 5250 rpm 400 N·m (300 lb·ft) at 2,250-4,500 rpm 250 km/h (155 mph) 4.9 s 5.9 L/100 km (48 mpg-imp; 40 mpg-US) 148 Europe
• 2.0 L I4 GME MultiAir Turbo AT8 Q4 1,995 cc (121.7 cu in) 280 hp (284 PS; 209 kW) at 5250 rpm 306 lb·ft (410 N·m) at 2,250-4,500 rpm 149 mph (240 km/h) 5.1 s 5.9 L/100 km (48 mpg-imp; 40 mpg-US) 148 North America

something really odd here...cant understand how US version with 4hp more is slower, or then there is some errors on US website specifications? -->Typ932 06:57, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi Typ932! IMO engine is identical but they want to say it has 280 HP in USA due to marketing reasons and most possible that engine in either case has even much more power. If you looked at Quadrifoglio data then in USA it says 505 HP while for us in Europe is 503 HP or 510 PS. So I suggest to you that to make separate tables for US and EU engine list. 280 HP engine in US is both as RWD and AWD (Q4). Regarding 0-100 km/h time in EU gasoline Veloce it's interesting that at Paris Auto Show it was table with 5.2 seconds. Go figure. I almost forgot it. Top Gear tested US 280 HP in both RWD and AWD form. That article mentioned US Veloce with electrical turbo so it's good for future citations. http://www.topgear.com/car-reviews/alfa-romeo/20-tb-4dr-auto/first-drive I must say that some German car lovers are in disbelief for that particular engines and they think I (or maybe you) all made up. --FGA cheerleader (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes maybe better do separate list for us/eu, ddint figure it before that Q version has also some difference in horsepower figues. -->Typ932 19:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit wars

Please stop edit wars on this article on photos. It doesn't seem mature neither it is in accordance with Misplaced Pages policy. Grow up and stop the favourism on photos. U1Quattro (talk) 18:47, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

Typ932 has been trying to replace the infobox for the Alfa Romeo Giulia. I disagreed with the proposed image for several reasons.

• Although there a lack of reflection, reason why it like that because the fact it is taken at such a awkward angle the light does reflect around it. Although the current one does has reflection it is a lot more sharper and at a nice 3/4 as well as showing the grille properly.

• It is blurry on one side, especially around the wheel

• The background is full of distraction such as people, cars, sign posts etc

• Weird light shining on the rooftop where the current one doesn't has that

Looking back the two they both have the same amount of reflection then any other car with that colour and I find this ironic since in the past Typ932 has been trying to replace the infobox with a much more reflective black coloured Giulia and claiming that it better then the red one.

(For everyone's sanity, including mine, please refrain bring up any personal remarks about anyone in this discussion and I won't do the same)

Thoughts? --Vauxford (talk) 19:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Scudetto has to be visible on an Alfa. A pic between those 2 would be best. Right now the frontal one is better.YBSOne (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

A side view is a poor choice for an infobox, and I see no particularly compelling reason to use it. Toasted Meter (talk) 21:35, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

That Vauxdord picture is awful, I can find several pictures from wikimedia which are better, it has horrible reflections from car itself and from windows back of it, its messy picture with another car next to it. Car color is wrong, Alfa has not that red of any cars, not edited as it should be. My choice is way better despite angle not just 100%., You can see grille from other pictures. My opinion quality is more important than some angle. Vauxford pic Alfa doesnt look like Alfa, looks very weird because those errors in it, especially reflections in rear end of car, looks very weird -->Typ932 05:31, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

even these are better ones

I disagree, the background is busy on both of them, the only significant deficiency (as compared to the side shot) is the reflection of the sign on the hood, and I think being able to see the front of the car is more important than somewhat distracting reflections. I don't think it's close to perfect but as a infobox photo it's the best we have. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Typ932 You are correct about those dark reflections on the back side window on the current pic, it changes the shape slightly, but it is still a bit better than the rest of the candidates, it could be improved. YBSOne (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd prefer Vauxford's image although it's not perfect. But currently theres no better image on wikimedia.--Alexander-93 (talk) 09:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

If that penultimate black Giulia would be silver it would be almost perfect YBSOne (talk) 10:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

I find the current image the most informative & least distracting of them all. The two darker cars have funky reflections that bother me, & the other two are at angles that seem to conceal more. The white one would be my second choice; it doesn't seem to show the hoodlines as well. (I'd sooner the current car wasn't red, but that's only because I still wonder who the Porsche Indians are. ;p ) TREKphiler 10:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Typ932 For being such a new car, I should hope it the factory colour when clearly is. The fact I'm trying to say, there was several problem with the one you trying to replace with. It quite blurry on one side for starters while the current image is at a good angle and it sharp, the reflection is not the best I admit though. --Vauxford (talk) 12:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Whats wrong with black color? how would it be better as silver? even that is better picture than Vauxfords. And yes it factory color but the color in picture isnt right red, so either you camera or your edit makes it wrong color.- -->Typ932 17:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

(Silver is the most shape-revealing, that's why designers use silver foil to cover the clay model with it to study reflections.) YBSOne (talk) 09:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

The Vauxford red car picture is seriously flawed in terms of the distracting nature of the reflections over the front, the slightly unconventional interpretation of red that his equipment has ended up providing, and the messy background. Also (though others may think this works out just fine) in my opinion he stands too close which leads to the shape of the car becoming distorted. The red car image proposed by Typ932 is technically more or less competent and the reflections at least go with the shape of the car rather than cutting across it. The car stands out from the background rather than tending to merge into it at the back. I think, again, that's a question of how you choose to adjust your zoom lens. BUT it's not a particularly appealing angle and the images (including the Vauxford one) for which the photographer has moved just a little bit more from the side view to the front view are more informative, I think.

None of the other pictures is a particular show stopper either, in my opinion. I have photographed a few of these cars myself over the past couple of years, but didn't seriously consider landing any of the results on wikipedia. Those glaring reflection issues.... I wonder if Alfa Romeo put more gloss in the paint / shiny stuff than other manufacturers?

Anyhow, although the Vauxford image features many of the characteristic Vauxford problems, if you look for inspiration to see which image has been selected in other language versions of the article you will find that in many cases the same flawed Vauxford image has ended up there too, in approximately fifteen different languages. It's what he does, of course. Replacing it here is likely to lead to the kind of highly toxic edit warring that Vauxford loves to inflict on wikipedia, and I'm not sure it's worth enduring six weeks of that in order to "vote" for any of the alternatives currently available on commons. The solution, then, is for someone somewhere to get lucky with the position of the sun and produce a decent picture of the car. And ... please?

Regards Charles01 (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Charles01 Of course Charles, I'll just wait for hours upon hours just so the sun get into the right place. I mentioned this before and I mention this again, your philosophy when it comes photograph stuff like cars is completely irrational and impractical. Half of the stuff you talk is about me rather then the pictures themselves, you can't seem to help slipping how I photograph stuffs or mention past peers or saying it a "vanity project" over and over again. I'm not going into detail and I know it fruitless to say, I'm kindly asking you please stop with this personal grudge towards me. --Vauxford (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Typ932 It would be nice that you didn't replace the infobox before a consensus has been reached, and it safe to say people are favouring the one already on there and the one you did put wasn't in the discussion. --Vauxford (talk) 22:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I need no concensus to edit in Misplaced Pages, anyone can edit Misplaced Pages freely. If there is problem you can discuss it here. Im not to start voting system before all my edits in Misplaced Pages. Image used in infox is clearly better one, anyone who knows something about phographing or pictures can see it. Also there is conflict of interest because you are promoting your own images here in Misplaced Pages even they are not better in all cases -->Typ932 06:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Typ932 This reaching consensus thingy from my POV is to stop edit wars. If people had the same mentality as you described it, then it will just be anarchy, we need stuff like this if we want to solve any edit dispute. I'm not promoting my own image in a way you are implying it, if that the case, then everyone who ever put their own photos on Misplaced Pages is some "personal vanity project". I use images taken by me because I believed their the better choice, sometimes I'm wrong, but replacing any odd photos while ignoring the talk page discussion and taking matters into your own hands is disruptive editing. Another thing, the photo you trying to ram in is far worst then any other, it blurry, it distracting, it taken by a awkward angle, the edit seem to be a act of desperation all because people preferring the current standing image and it just so happen it was taken by me. --Vauxford (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Well I have hobbied photographing over 40 years, so I know something about photographing and pictures in generally, and there is several better pictures in Wikimedia than that. There isnt any other dispute than you want use own images at any price in these articles, even they are clearly worse one. You cant take all articles at your own hands -->Typ932 06:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't matter how long you been doing this hobby, that image been like that for a while and I forgot it was even there, if you actually look at the current discussion before all this went haywire you could see people prefer the current one over the others. --Vauxford (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Well it doesnt matter even the picture has stayed here 10 years or one day , its still bad. People isnt 2 people. -->Typ932 07:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The current stance you are showing could be easily taken as being disruptive, please consider what you are doing and think. --Vauxford (talk) 07:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No, its you should consider what you are doing in here Misplaced Pages, you cant put your own images to all articles at any cost. Think what others say about your pictures quality, before adding to them all articles . You cant revert all images to your owns , its against Misplaced Pages rules -->Typ932 07:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Well that's makes 85% of all Wikipedian liable for sanction if they can't put their own images in article. I'm cutting this opinion-filled discussion short, the fact aside that people prefer the other one no matter what and nobody else has pointed out any bogus colour they saw on the picture other then you. --Vauxford (talk) 08:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

they can put, but not if the picture is very bad like in this article, there is no reason to put your own pictures at any cost, you can see clearly its wrong color if you compare it to other pictures, its not the same color you eyes see. You have edited it wrongly and havent edited its colors in raw editor, And thats not the biggest issues, those reflections are very big issue, the cars back end looks like other car. -->Typ932 08:36, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

The only person who has problem with the "colour" is you, everyone else all thinks (I assumed) the colour is factory spec. Unless the car is bright pink this argument is completely trivial and unnecessary and I'm not going continue this. --Vauxford (talk) 08:41, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Because they dont maybe know the right color? It just look wrong Alfa red, its ofc ourse factory red, but its poorly edited in editor, clolors are not corrected right way, they should be corrected as you see them, cameras dont produce right colors necessarily-. as said those reflections are the main issue. Color can be edited to right--->Typ932 08:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Well it definitely Competizione Red. Please read what other users had to say, they all agree that the reflection is concerning but out of the lot, including the one which you didn't include in the discussion, they prefer the current one. 4 people prefer it, possibly 5. --Vauxford (talk) 08:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

This is Competizione Rosso https://cdn.dealeraccelerate.com/sfsc/1/842/31498/1920x1440/2017-alfa-romeo-giulia-quadrifoglio , you picture isnt near of it. -->Typ932 08:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

https://www.alfaromeo.co.uk/content/dam/alfaromeo/uk/en/form/gab/download/Alfa-Romeo-Giulia-Quadrifoglio-Brochure.pdf This the UK brochure from February 2017, which is also when the car in picture is registered, it correctly shows (at page 23) that it Competizione Red, it definitely not Alfa Red that for sure. --Vauxford (talk) 08:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep, but those are rendered not actual photos, and forgot the color, it can be edited. But those reflections in back end cant be fixed anyway. The car just look wrong at back end -->Typ932 09:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I give up at this point, you simply won't budge no matter what, the fact is, it the correct colour and if it slightly different the what you seen, maybe there some slight effect of the lighting at the time I took the picture. Currently, you just seem to refuse to corporate and spurting out nonsense about stuff that isn't there. --Vauxford (talk) 09:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

You know what, forget about the colour, please read what people have to say about the selection of pictures! --Vauxford (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that there are any decent photos on Commons, but Vauxford's is one of the better ones. If this doesn't come to an end soon, I'd might go find a good Giulia myself and take a photo of it. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:08, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes we need better photo, as said this looks bad in the rear end , and there is better ones in wikimedia also -->Typ932 07:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

I actually managed to find a decent car in the first district's streets, but I could not get a perfect shot; the sunlight and the metallic paint didn't match that well. I'll upload the pics in a bit. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 11:21, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Here we go; these pics are not perfect, but maybe an alternative, due to their greater focal length? @Vauxford, Charles01, and Typ932: Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:42, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• 135 mm
• 70 mm
• 90 mm

It's only one person's opinion, but in mine (my opinion...) these have their own issues. I think they are not sufficiently better to be worth enduring another six weeks of toxic edit warring for. However, (1) it is interesting and educationally instructive to be able to study the effects of the different lenses and (2) I am grateful that now we can know what you mean by the "first district". I had indeed wondered. I see that (3) I wrote above " I wonder if Alfa Romeo put more gloss in the paint / shiny stuff than other manufacturers?": I wonder still. And thank you. Plus (4) if you live close to the city centre and this nicely kept car is regularly there, you might get dramatically better results simply by waiting for a cloudy but not so humid day, or simply by trying a few hours earlier or later (I can never remember which way the sun goes round...). Also (5, and completely off topic, but I couldn't resist it) here or worse here is what happens where the photographer really gets the position of the sun wrong. What was the fellow thinking of? I'm pretty sure I wouldn't dare to upload ones like that these days - far less paste them to a wiki-entry! Success Charles01 (talk) 13:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Typ932 The ones you said are "better" were rejected by other users because they were bad. if I was not mistaken it sounds your desperately want the picture on the article gone because it was taken by me. --Vauxford (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Telling Typ932 what you think he thinks is not what this page is for. Typ932 already knows what he thinks far better than you (or I) can. I wonder if you might consider (1) counting to ten and (2) thinking about all the advice we keep trying to give you and (3) reverting that comment. Please. Charles01 (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

• B-Class Automobile articles
• Mid-importance Automobile articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English