Talk:Audi A4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

B6 platform?

It's linking to the Volkswagen B6 platform.

Last I checked, the VW B6 platform has a transverse engine, whereas the Audi B6 platform has a longitudal engine.

VWAG is confusing like that... but what should be done about this?

For now, I'm removing the link. However, should we cover both Audi AND VW B platforms? Or, should we split it into two articles, one for VW and one for Audi? --Bhtooefr 17:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"At the time, besides Audi, the Ferrari F355 was the only production automobile in the world with a five-valve head design."
Deleted this line; both Mitsubishi (Minica, 1990-1997)[1] and Toyota (Corolla GT, 1991-1998)[2] had 5-valve cars available in Japan at this time. -- DeLarge 07:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was aware of the Corolla/Sprinter's use of the 5-valve engine at the time, but it completely slipped my mind when I wrote that. The confusion comes from the fact that the Audi A4 was the first standard production to feature five valves in Europe, and the Ferrari F355 was the only car available in the European market at the time with a 5-valve head (the Bugatti EB110 was not in production). --Pc13 07:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Class

Seems like there's been a recent edit war on this issue. I have to say, I agree with the IPs who've been classifying it as a compact car; see the EPA ratings. If EuroNCAP calls it a "large family car" (which they do) then I think we should simply refer to that directly, rather than "transliterating" to an American description which isn't verifiable by the primary source. --DeLarge 07:01, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a European car, therefore we should use European descriptions. Squirrel 23:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Once again it's a "large family car". The term "compact" is not used in Europe when referring to cars. And once again it's a European car, so use the EuroNCAP description of it. Have changed it back now. Squirrel 08:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The A4 is a compact executive car, that means something like "a premium/luxurious large family car". The same term applies to the 3 Series, C-Class, X-Type, 159, 9-3, S60... Please check that article to verify that. -- NaBUru38 14:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The compact executive car article doesn't have references. --Pc13 17:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Body style terminology

Have anglicised the terms used for the body shapes, eg "saloon" rather than "sedan" and "estate" rather than "station wagon" - this is a European car, therefore the terminology should be European.

My B7 platform A4 is described as a "saloon" not a "sedan". Squirrel 22:58, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The car is sold in America so it should be described as other vehicles sold in America are. Otherwise we would have many confusing names in many different languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.201.180.136 (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Current lineup

What's this table about? Are all those engines currently available? Which are 4 cyl and which are 6 cyl? What are the Saloon/Avant/Convertible columns for if they're empty? This table needs work. --Vossanova o< 16:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lineup. What else could it be? Of course the engines are available, and whether they're 4 or 6 cylinders isn't as relevant as their displacement. And the columns aren't empty. They're filled out exactly as they should be. --Pc13 07:26, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see the check marks, I was browsing with images off. Would be nice if the images had an alt="x" tag or similar, but it's not a big deal. There's actually a table above this one that does have 4 vs 6 cyl, so I don't see why this can't have the same. The confusing tag can probably come down soon. --Vossanova o< 16:09, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it used to have "X"s when I made it. Somebody replaced them with tick mark images later. As for the cylinder columns on the other generations line-up, I only ever intended to do a current lineup table. --Pc13 19:19, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

B6 and B7 are much of the same...

The B7 is essentially a B6 with a new front grille grafted on. How can it be considered a new generation? Almost all of the panels are carry-over. The 2008 A4 is the first truly new A4 since the B6.

talk) 15:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Suspension

I came to this page because I was not sure what type of suspension the A4 had, but then discovered that the word "suspension" was not even contained in the page. Someone who knows whould fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.205.47 (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luxury car?

How come the A4 is called "luxury" with a link to "Luxury car", which it isn't, at all. At best, it's "entry level luxury". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.194.227.173 (talk) 11:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest First?

In this article the newest generation comes first. In most other car articles the oldest comes first. It would be a major change, but we might want to have the oldest come first 67.171.172.44 (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering most readers would want information on the current car (right?) why make them dig through the history of the model? This would not be possible in printed media. but with electronic, you can always ensure the most requested information is always at the top. Lexlex (talk) 17:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should be like every other car article, if we want to change it one shold write to
WP:CARS talk page --Typ932 T·C 18:38, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Well, it obviously got changed. 67.171.172.44 (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

images

The lead image - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2001_Audi_A4.jpg - which keeps being reverted to is very inappropriate - for three reasons:

  • It is generally a very poor quality image, (dark car contrasting against a relatively dark background, large shadow at rear of car, shadow/shade on the interior, numerous reflections on the exterior paintwork, dirty alloy wheels)
  • It does NOT reflect the current Audi A4 (this isn't a 'requirement' - but common sense should prevail, and use the latest offering where possible)
  • It does NOT show the manufactures specification as per its home market (ie European), and is a "US-centric" image (point number 6 of the project page!)

The WP Automobiles project page clearly states that articles, including images should have a 'core' emphasis on their original "home markets". 78.32.143.113 (talk) 08:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is that the image you prefer, has a more distracting background with other vehicles of the same color behind it, has dirtier wheels and is still a US market vehicle (not to mention that fact that it is out of focus). I'll take a better picture next week that will address your concerns regarding the lighting, but home market is not in any way a requirement or a preference and is mentioned no where on the conventions page (you might want to take another look at point number 6 ). It has been a long standing consensus that generation should not be a factor in lead image box selection and the highest quality image should be used, I understand your issues with the lighting, but honestly take a close look at the two pictures at full size and ask yourself which one is "poor quality." --Leivick (talk) 09:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. The replacement image has a "busy" background and does not show the interior at all due to reflections in the windows. The original image is far better. DES (talk) 12:35, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two notes:
1) There is no "common sense" that says the lead image must be the newest. The opposite is very explicitly stated. The top infobox covers the entire vehicle range.
2) A photo of a US-specification car is not "US-centric." There is certainly no policy that says you may not include information about or photos of the US versions of cars, only that the article should include a global focus. My understanding is that the policy says to avoid US-centric because that's what has proven to be the biggest problem here; it does not mean that we should go to the other extreme of Euro-centric.
That said, neither photo is all that great, but the lighting and angle of the 2001 image (too dark, too much of a front view instead of 3/4) make it the less desirable. Perhaps there is a third alternative someone would like to propose, without suggesting that including a US-market vehicle is somehow makes the article US-centric or that the lead image must be of the newest car. IFCAR (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take your pick DES (talk) 12:51, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get anything better than this?
I invite other nominations (and if anyone can get some new good photos, even better), but this is the only one I'm finding that could be better than what we have now, though it's a bit too focused on the front end.
Thoughts? IFCAR (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B8 engines

I deleted the 180PS petrol engine because it is NOT available in the United Kingdom - THE largest market of English speaking countries for the Audi A4. If the 180PS variant is available in Germany, then let that be reflected in the German wikipedia entry. If/when a 180PS variant DOES become available in either the UK, the USA, Canada, or any other English speaking market, then we will re-add the 180PS engine - until then, engines which are NOT available should NOT be included in this article. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 180PS/132kW variant is available (with multitronic) in Australia/New Zealand (English speaking markets). See: http://www.audi.co.nz/newcars/a4/a4/A4_Spec_MY09.pdf http://www.audi.com.au/etc/medialib/cms4imp/audi2/au/pdf.Par.0058.File.pdf Dusan (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2.0 TFSI, both the 132kW and 155kW variants (with manual or multitronic transmission) are being offered also in South Africa. http://www.audi.co.za/specs/?rid=a4 The audi.co.za web site is in English so I guess this is also an English speaking market (English is also an official language in South Africa) Dusan (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take look in those PDFs when I have finished with the UK one, and if appropriate, I will reinsert the 180PS. But I think we need to add another column to the table, with 'notes' to describe market differences. Is this OK? 78.32.143.113 (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, IMHO, an article should list all engine options, but annotate those known to be not available in certain territories. Letdorf (talk) 16:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
I don't see any reason why the engine list should reflect English-language markets only. The list should include all engine options, whether they are available in English speaking countries or not. Also, "not available in the UK" is not enough to differentiate from the rest of Europe. "Not available in the UK" is no different from "Not available in Slovenia" and there's no need to indicate that sort of difference. --Pc13 (talk) 17:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now re-added the 180PS engine to reflect the global english-speaking markets. But rather than indicating where a specific variant is not available (because you could have a list as long as your arm), I think it is better to just state the markets where they are available. Hope this meets everyones agreement! Regarding the 'Slovenian' comment - well if any engine is available to only one (or a limited number) of non-english speaking regions/countries, then their own languge version of the Wikipedia article should reflect that. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 09:44, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's now how we do stuff here. We list everything, whether it's available in English-speaking countries or only in others. Other car articles in the English Wikipedia have engine listings include models only available in Greece or only available in Sweden. How they do things in other language Wikipedias is up to them. --Pc13 (talk) 10:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the Talk:Audi_A4#images section, you insist that the focus should be on the "home market", but in this section, you insist that it should be on English-speaking markets. What does "home market" mean, anyway? Germany? Europe? Whatever supports your current position? This is an encyclopedia, not a pissing contest. DES (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B6 2001 Engine change

In the section on the B6 platform, the following statement is made: "The 1.8 L 20-valve Turbo was now available in two additional versions, with 150 PS (110 kW; 148 bhp) or 180 PS (132 kW; 178 bhp), this one with a standard six-speed manual gearbox, while the naturally aspirated 1.8 L straight-4 and 2.8 L V6 were replaced by 2.0 L and all-aluminium alloy 3.0 L units..." As the owner of a 2001 A4 Quattro Avant with a 2.8 Liter, normally aspirated V6 I am compelled to question the above statement. --Jfreas (talk) 16:55, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US market received the A4 one year after Europe. --Pc13 (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Luph25 edit warring

You have been invited several times to take part in editorial discussions on this topic here and have routinely ignored them. You have been given Three-Revert warnings, abused page protection templates without trying to understand their implementation and several requests made to your talk page. Maybe this is the only page you read, but it is advised that you cease this behavior immediately. Participating in the above linked discussion now, may help your cause. --Falcadore (talk) 06:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diesel performance data?

I noticed incorrect data on top speed of diesel versions - DI 75 reached 172 km/h, TDI 90 reached 183 km/h, more than it is written here. This should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.165.159.179 (talk) 18:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B8 Top Speed info?

How can the less powerful 1.8TFSI CVT have higher top speed than the 2.0TFSI CVT? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.45.145.139 (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please!!!!

Do NOT compare this with rear-wheel-drive cars. Comparing a FWD model with a RWD one is considered sockpuppetry, competition abuse, and insulting. A 328i or a C250 does not compare with an A4, either. Here are some of the competitors: + Volvo S60 + Saab 9-3 + Lexus ES 350 + Acura TSX or TL, FWD models + Lincoln MKZ --174.141.208.118 (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a rule, but recommended that you only compare rear-wheel-drive cars with rear-wheel-drive cars, and front-wheel-drive cars with front-wheel-drive cars. 119.252.27.68 (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Audi A4. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Audi A4. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

Sourcecheck
}}).

This message was posted before February 2018.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:23, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Integration of A4, S4 and RS4 articles

Has anyone discussed changing the way that the A4, S4 and RS4 articles are integrated together? Right now it seems they're only linked at the top, but given their close relation and the fact that the S4 and RS4 articles have vastly more detailed info than the main A4 article, I feel like a main article or see also tag either at the top of each generation section or above the specific info about the S4 or RS4 in each section would work much better. What does everyone else think? TKOIII (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Audi A4 (B10)

The Audi A4 (B10) will be launched on 2023 as an sedan and estate (Avant). Bachelor 200 (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Audi_A4&oldid=1205481766"