User talk:CZmarlin/Archive 2006

Rambler Marlin

Thank you for editing Rambler Marlin, however, next time you edit, please cite your sources, and split up your material into sections. Mo-Al 02:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

I was in the process of putting in the sections and other upgrades on the page and previewed the page several times. However, as I tried to save the page, the system told me that someone else edited (deleted) the page at the same time.

Thank you for your evaluation about my text, but this article about the history of the Marlin and AMC's strategy is not plagiarized. It is a slimmed down version of my research on this company (perhaps you may have noted the name I use: "CZmarlin"? I also have material about these cars on my own web pages. You can google for “1967 AMC Marlin fastback” and get lucky. Therefore, I am the author of the material I was trying to enter including the references and footnotes that I did not yet get a chance to get in. I am new to this “free encyclopedia” and do not have the skills to pre-enter all the proper section breaks, links, etc. Just as I was trying to work on it, all the effort I put into it was deleted. I guess you have to have everything perfectly set up before posting. I am not a computer expert and this coding stuff is way above me. Perhaps I was mistaken in that others would jump in and help to improve the articles. I thought I was just starting the ball rolling on this subject. All I can say is: I am sorry that I tried. My life is very busy and I do not have that much free time to work on this. Thanks anyway!

If you reaserched from sources, just add them to the bottom of the page. Also, you can revert my deletion if you were going to add citations. Just add {{inuse}}
links talk edit to the top of the page and no one will revert your changes. The only problem is that if you dump a huge amount of uncited unformatted information into an article it essentially makes that article impossible to read. If you don't use the template, no one will know that you are still working on the page. Sorry if I caused you any trouble, Mo-Al 03:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I can revert my deletion in the article, and add sections. It's ust that, from a glance, it looked like someone had just dumped a bunch of text from a website onto the page, while removing the info that used to be there. I apoligize. Mo-Al 02:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

AMC collectibles

Please put in a word for saving this page, all the wiki-killjoys want to quash any attempt to put collectible toys in any fashion on WP. You'll need to go into the deletion notice, and then the talk page. So far everybodys think no sane person would ever be interested in looking up information on an automobile collection. I started it because they removed collectibles from the Matador page, and now they won't permit it on any other page. I hate those guys. --matador300 17:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Teague Premier

Watchout for ApolloBoy. He erases any mention of AMC lineage to Chrysler, especially the Premier. Some deep feelings out there. He refuses to allow naming the Premier as successor to the AMC Matador, maybe you can have better luck at that. I think the AMC page already lists Matador and Premier in the same midsize car list. Premier is probably the only important AMC car more obscure than the Matador. I bought a 87 legend and 96 minivan instead, but thought it was a slick car. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wiarthurhu (talk • contribs) 09:27, 2006 July 16 (UTC)

Haven't we been through this before? Please STOP trying to paint me as a bad guy, and stop attempting to add your original research. And BTW, the Premier isn't a mid-size. --ApolloBoy 19:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Ambassador has always been the big luxury car at AMC, so it more properly should be the Ambassador heir, but they've always shared the passenger compartment behind the nose anyway. You may have noticed I have chosen not to fight that one to the death. The Premier was a little bigger than the k-based midsize cars, which is why the LX cars have all but killed sales of the k-sized cloud cars.--matador300 21:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC).

François Castaing

Just noticed your working on Teague, can you help do some research and fill out this article? They killed that AMC Collectibles page, the bastards. I'm on the auto project firing line again, I need some backup to fight off the bullies. --matador300 21:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

* I hope the new article about Castaing will be up to "wiki" standards! There should be enough references to back up all the information. I think there is more than found in most other articles. CZmarlin 03:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of successful automobiles

Can you help out with the voting on this page? I think you can add the entry for the Ambassador which had a ridiculously long nameplate lifetime, but it's about to be deleted. --matador300 21:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Teague's son

Put this in, add it to Taurus, and make a page for him too. --matador300 00:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.smartfellowspress.com/killing_the_goose_21.htm Meanwhile, Jeff Teague, the son of AM’s Dick Teague, was designing a new kind of station wagon with less emphases on utility and more emphasis on style. The Taurus wagon became such a hit that many people who could afford a BMW bought Jeff’s wagon for its looks alone.

* OK. His son now has a separate article: Jeff Teague. I may try to add to it among all my other projects! CZmarlin 03:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

PDness of stamps

Hi, what is your evidence that Image:Sharjah-Stamp-1970-1-rl Rambler.jpg is in the public domain? It is extremely unusual for post-1960 stamps to be public domain, US is about the only one. You'd have to be able to point to Sharjah and/or UAE law that specifies the copyright term for government-produced works (my guess is that it borrows UK crown copyright law, which is 50 years). Stan 04:01, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

• Stan, please help me out on this issue. All I wanted to do is to show this concept car on a stamp. Most people would nave no clue what it would be if described in words. Even trying to explain where Sharjah is would not accomplish the purpose of informing a reader about the image of this AMC car. Moreover, the image of this stamp can be found on web pages if one knows how to search it out. When I added it to the AMC Cavalier article, I went through the list of "tags" and thought I had picked out the "right" one to attach to the upload. I probably did not see all the differences between them. It is possible to change them. In any case, please correct the designation for this image to what it should be. I have no clue what the laws are in Sharjah and/or UAE! Thank you, Chris CZmarlin 05:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Fuel injection

Hi, CZM. Yep, I intended going back and reëditing the Electrojector paragraph this morning, but last night I just had to fix that sentence broken in half. I've reworked the paragraph for proper chronology, but it really cries out for more detail and factual support from start to finish. Chrysler had problems with Electrojector in '58, too, and most of the cars originally so equipped were subsequently retrofitted with 4bbl carburetors. I am not familiar with AMC's 1957 Electrojector experiment. Are data available on how many cars were so equipped, of which how many were actually sold to the public, of which how many retained their Electrojector setups? Too, it would be nice to have comparative HP and torque numbers for both the AMC and Chrysler offerings. I'm working on obtaining production/retention and HP/torque numbers for the '58 Chrysler offering, maybe you can do likewise for the '57 Rambler? --Scheinwerfermann 15:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the references, that's a decent start. Allpar.com has a great deal of interesting comment, but unfortunately there is absolutely no fact-checking at all (write it and send it in, and if it's topical, the site owner will put it up intact), and a great deal of what appears on that site has no veracity. I have long been hesitant to recommend allpar unreservedly even as a resource for finding out how to fix one's Mopar. Too many factual errors!

I've amended the paragraph in question again. As additional information and specs become available, we can flesh it out further. It seems the '57 Rambler EFI option nearly made it to production, but was cancelled at the last minute (very last minute, after owner's and service literature had already been printed). The '58 Mopar Electrojector option actually was available, and cars so equipped were sold, but most of them were retrocarbureted after first sale. Interestingly enough, a similar situation arose in the early 1980s: Chrysler put a Bendix TBI system on the 318 in the Imperial, and it proved so problem-prone that a TSB and service package were released...the package consisting of all parts necessary to retrofit a 4bbl carburetor! I'm gathering info on this latter-day debacle and will add it to the FI article when I've got it available. --Scheinwerfermann 18:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Right you are, many/most of the early US-brand attempts at fuel injection were highly troublesome and unreliable. The concepts were mostly sound, but the implementations were very poor because the US automakers refused to pay much of anything more than they'd spent on carbureted fuel systems. You get what you pay for, whether you're a consumer or a corporation. The GM system found on early Sevilles was a crude knockoff of Bosch D-Jetronic—some of the components even interchange! The analogue brain box was crude by modern standards, but here again, the difficulties were at the implementation level, not the conceptual. A conceptually identical analogue ECM was used with fine reliability in the D-Jetronic system. Ford likewise had dreadful reliability problems with their TBI in '80-'83, though things got better for '84. --Scheinwerfermann 22:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)