Talk:Volkswagen Passat

User 85.166.149.32

I've seen a couple of B2 hatchback passats with the odd remark GT, along with 2,2 engines. Did volkswagen build B2 with such engines originally or are these cars modified? Norwegian salesthread 85.166.149.32 14:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Tronni

• They are original cars. The B2 received three engines with 5 cylinders: 2.0L 115 hp (85 kW), 2.2L 136 hp (100 kW) and 2.2L with catalytic converter 115 hp (85 kW).194.25.108.84 09:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

British B2 Passats were available with the 1.9L 5 (85 kW) when it was current 217.205.121.71 (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. Did VW in Europe market a car named the Passat in the 70s and 80s? In the US, the passat doesn't appear until the early 90s. The VW Quantum and VW Fox pre-date that. The Passat models are usually designated with a letter and number, B3 Passats are circa '90 to '93 (the ones without the front grille). B4 Passats to '97, with the rounded B5 Passats introduced in '98 hard to distinguish from the Audi A4. Also, the technical specs.. what year and model is that for? --ChrisRuvolo 05:34, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

the answer is yes and no. quantum was us name for early(2nd gen) passat saloon. fox was the us name for an argentinian built vw similar to the jetta. see VW Santana, VW Fox. Passat article needs stuff on this, if it still needs doing when i have time, i'll have a look. vw fox and gacel should be added to {{VW}} akaDruid 13:33, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

also a quick google shows the tech data to have been lifted from Ralph Becker's page about his 2001 Volkswagen Passat GLS V6 Sedan akaDruid 13:36, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks the the reply and the information. The tech data shouldn't be a copyvio (can't copyright facts), but his customizations and personal experience (tires, tire life, wheels) I don't think are ok to include. Thanks for finding that. I'll edit the specifications. About the models.. which qualify as the B1 and B2 passats? Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 14:00, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Can't be exactly sure but I imagine the B1 would be 78-87 model, and B2 the 87-93 model. Since the 73-78 model was rebadged Audi 80, I doubt it would follow the same numbering scheme. 14:52, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)~

The B naming is as written on the page you are discussing. Mark1(B1) 73-81, mark2(B2) 81-88. The rest am I a bit usertain about, it says mark'x' = B'x' in the main article but it has not always said so. I thaught 88-93 and 93-96 passat used the same platform, just with some exterior changes..? 85.166.149.32 14:02, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Tronni

User 213.122.31.131

This user just changed the entire article. Doesn't look like a copyvio, but this text should be integrated, not overwritten!

Here it is: VOLKSWAGEN PASSAT MK1 (1973-1981)

The first generation VW Passat was sold initially as a large three- and five-door hatchback (and later a five-door estate) which used the same 1.3 and 1.6 petrol engines as the Audi 80 saloon which had been introduced a year earlier. It was one of the most modern family cars in Europe, and was intended as a contemporary rival for the Ford Taunus (Cortina) and Opel Ascona (Vauxhall Cavalier). The Passat was also sold in the U.S.A as the Volkswagen Dasher.

VOLKSWAGEN PASSAT MK2 (1981-1988)

The second generation VW Passat was an all-new car but on its launch in 1981 it was instantly recognisable as a member of the Volkswagen family. The engine range was now more extensive, it included a 2.0 petrol and a 1.8 diesel. As well as the Passat hatchback and estate there was also a saloon, which until the beginning of 1985 was sold as the Santana. Although the Santana nameplate had been abandoned, it remains in use to this day on cars produced at Volkswagen's Shanghai factory in China.

The second generation Passat was a typical Volkswagen, hardly exciting but proving to be a quality alternative to its rivals.

VOLKSWAGEN PASSAT MK3 (1988-1996)

The third generation Passat was a completely new car and its curvy looks were a world away from the boxy appearance of its predecessor. Its fuel injected engines were all-new, and gave better performance and refinement than the carburettor units previously used. But the star of the range was the Passat VR6, which had a 2.8 V6 engine and a top speed of 140mph. This high performance power unit also found its way into the smaller Golf and under the bonnet of the Corrado coupe.

The Passat underwent a mild facelift in 1993 and was now available with improved safety equipment including airbags, but it remained the same basic design as before.

VOLKSWAGEN PASSAT MK4 (1996-present)

The fourth generation Passat was entirely new and aimed as a clearly upmarket rival for the Ford Mondeo and Opel Vectra. Power came from entirely new 1.8, 2.0, 2.3 and 2.8 petrol engines as well as 1.9 and 2.5 turbodiesels. All of the engines were smooth, refined and strong performing, and coupled to a good chassis which gave excellent ride comfort. The interior was also luxurious and well-equipped, with a long equipment list which included electric windows, air-conditioning, CD player, electric mirrors, electric sunroof and leather upholstery. The £16,000 starting price in the UK put it £1,000 above the equivlant Ford Mondeo, but the price difference showed when it came to luxury and upmarket feel.

A facelift at the end of 2000 saw the non-turbo 1.8 petrol engine dropped and the exterior styling tweaked, but the Passat was still very much the comfortable, well-built and luxurious large saloon and estate which had been launched four years earlier. Traditional Volkswagen trademarks of build quality and reliability continued to boost the Passat's reputation.

The Volkswagen Passat is now one of the oldest cars in its sector at eight years old, but it is still one of the best. A replacement is likely to appear in the not too distant future.

I have integrated this into article text, keeping the Mark1, Mark2 nomenclature as well as the B1,B2 one. Spute 20:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Passat generations are wrong?

The generations listed in the article are not right at all. Passat owners describe their passats based upon the VW platform specification, such as B3, B4 or B5. See for example [1]. The years are also wrong. My passat is from 1996, and has very little in common with the 1999 models pictured. Perhaps the difference comes from the European models versus the North American models? Any explanations? Thanks. --ChrisRuvolo 00:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that foreign markets get their Passats later than domestic ones—e.g. I think the US is only getting Golf Vs this model year, whereas they have been out for the previous model year in most markets. In such cases, it may be wiser to stick with the case of the domestic market; the same would apply for American cars, e.g. the Chrysler minivans and Ford Taurus were pretty late getting out to Europe, so the US model years should be the "master version" IMO. Stombs 22:08, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

1998 is the year the B5 platform was introduced to the US. I'll make a note of it in the text. Seano1 23:41, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've re-named the sections so that it agrees with Volkswagen B platform but also included the simpler Mark1, Mark2 nomenclature, as used by e.g. Volkwagen UK as i think it's easier for people not intimately familiar with VW platform nomenclature to understand- i think it's best to compromise by using both this and the B1-B6 systems. I hope it is now correct? Spute 20:10, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Personally I don't see the point in the mark1 mark2 thing. I don't quite know where you got it from and it should not be in an encyclopedia. I have never heard the term used in the UK with respect to the Passat. The B1 to B6 nomenclature was defined by the manufacturer and is understand by enthusiasts and should surely be the only names used. If people are confused by it then the job of this site is surely to explain it to them as it is. dieselnutjob

The Mark nomenclature is common and should be included. As i pointed out above, VW UK use it.Spute 17:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

A common problem with wikipedia's car articles is that they tend to be written by geeks for geeks. There's nothing wrong with knowing a lot about a subject (i'm a geek myself and not ashamed of it), but we should allow a wide variety of people to understand the article. The fact is that the mainstream press, as well as car magazines would call the 3rd generation Passat the Mark III or Passat 3, and the man in the street would understand. This obscure B platform stuff is something only an avid VW fan would understand. There's a place for both, that's why both are included. Edits to wikpipedia should concentrate on making the articles more informative and easy to understand. See here for an example of VW using the Mark system, with no mention of the B number. Spute 18:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Further example of the "Mark" nomenclature this time in car review website, Parkers here. Incidentally, the German Passat article uses another system - "Typ 32", etc, presumably these are the actual internal VW product names. Perhaps these shjould be introduced as well, without removing any information. Spute 19:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Why is discussion of the Mark 4 included under the heading Mark 5 (B5 platform) (1996-2005)?

And the most recent major redesign was in 2006 not 2005 I believe. Historian932 (talk) 18:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

new one

The A4 switched to a platform called B6 in 2002. Sure this isn't the one? From the name alone, it appears that the Passat is going to once again share a platform with the A4.

If the A4 has a transverse engine and Haldex now, then that would be a dead give-away that the platform will be shared again.

No. The B6 A4 and the B6 Passat will be different platforms, and the A4 does not have a transverse engine or Haldex now, as far as I know. TomTheHand 19:47, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

OK, so the naming is bad. I've heard that VAG uses "B6" to simply mean the 6th B-sized car, while there is a longer name that properly identifies the platform. The articles should switch to using the longer names.

I agree with you there, but I don't know the full platform names involved, so I can't help with that :-) The B5 Passat and B5 A4 shared the same platform. The A4 moved to the B6 platform in 2002, while the Passat received a facelift for 2001.5 and was often referred to (by VW enthusiasts at least) as the B5.5. Now the A4 is moving on to the B7 platform (for the 2005.5 model year) and the Passat is moving to a DIFFERENT B6 platform from the one the A4 used. So confusing. TomTheHand 03:35, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

b3 production years

these comments were added to the VW Passat redirect by 84.32.94.178 (t c). Moved them to here and cleaned up redirect. --ChrisRuvolo (t) 18:55, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

b3 is from 1988 12 till 1993 12 --84.32.94.178 (talk · contribs)

Article does now state this correctly. Spute 12:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

B2/B3 Diesel Engines

B2

At some time, the 1.5 l Engine (38 kW/50 hp) was enlarged to 1.6 l producing 40 kW (54 hp). I think that transition was at or before the change from B1 to B2. There was a turbo-charged version producing 51 kW (70 hp). These versions were available in Germany until the end of B2.

B3

B3 was introduced with the turbo-charged 1.6 l engine. Due to an added intercooler, the output was 59 kW (80 hp). After a about one year, that engine was replaced by the new 1.9 l diesel. There was a non-turbo-charged version producing 50 kW (68 hp) and a 66 kW (90 hp) turbo-charged engine.

I am not aware of a 1.8 l diesel engine available in the Passat or any other Volkswagen.

I'm pretty sure that the 1.9 turbo diesel in the B3 had only 75bhp. It was the Umwelt engine and was detuned for low emissions. The power increased for the B4 though. The B4 had a 1.9 TD with mechanical indiect injection and the 1.9 TDI both in 90bhp and 110bhp forms and used electonic control and direct injection. dieselnutjob

Mechanicals

I can track down an engine repair manual for a B1/B2 Passat (Haynes); I am sure that it mentions that one of the peculiarities for which which Passats are renowned is that the whole engine can be removed on a dismountable dolly, which makes it easy for service. Rolinator 11:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

B3 and B4 link to web page

About six or seven years ago I wrote this web page http://www.christiantena.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/motor/vag/passat/vwindex.html

it's an enthusiast site not a commercial one.

it has quite a bit of info about the B3 and B4 Passat on it which isn't here. Personally I think that it deserves a link, but then I would I suppose.

I don't know what the correct protocol / etiquette is for adding a link, so I thought I would ask; is it acceptable? dieselnutjob

Passat Mk 5 - Why is is split in two?

The Mk 5 section is split in two main headings, "PQ46 platform (2005-present") and "B6 platform (2006-present)". Are you sure the car was modified for that year? -- NaBUru38 15:49, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, that seems to have been entered erroneously when the subject headings got changed around yesterday. Analoguekid 16:02, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I'm tagging this article as not being Neutral Point of View. There are far too many statements such as: "stylistically more sophisticated" and uncited sentences about the poor/excellent build quality. Please note that as a VW owner, I know a fair amount about this car, and I'm not necessarily disputing the accuracy of said statements, I just think that an encyclopedia article needs to be neutral in subjective topics such as styling. As for quality concerns, they have been mentioned many times in various publications such as Consumer Reports, Car & Driver and the like. Everyone should hopefully make an effort to say where they got their information; something to the effect of: "The B5.5 Passat had problems with ignition coil packs" and then cite a newspaper article about the recall (just an example). Please see (if you haven't already): Wikipedia:Citing sources. --Analoguekid 18:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Can't we just get rid of the subjective adjectives and make it NPOV?

Matt

To some extent yes, however, there are unsourced claims that the Passat is very reliable. It could be, but CR hasen't always given it high marks. The problem is that the article is fundamentally flawed the way its written now. It probably needs a complete re-write that sticks to using cited sources.--Analogue Kid 15:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't have hard data off hand, but in Europe it (and most of VW) is generally seen as reliable. The main differences were tighter maintence sequences (75k mi timing belt) and a synthetic oil (there is no sludge problem on 1.8Ts in Europe) requirement from the get-go. Its not NPOV, but rather different statistics. I think removing all references to reliablity might be the way to go? Nmpls 03:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's true that VW is perceived as being much more reliable in Europe than North America. We could remove all references to reliability, but I would think it would be better to add sources for specific claims rather than removing them entirely. I certainly don't disagree with many of the assertions, I'm just trying to improve the article by adding citations where needed.--Analogue Kid 03:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Passat B1

I´ve removed the quite nonsensical Lamborghini Espada reference. Besides, the Espada (introduced in 1968, when Giugiaro was already involved with his own company ITALDESIGN) was designed by Gandini (as stated in the Espada article), not by Giugiaro. Also, the B1 Passat was NOT cheaper than the Audi 80, at least not on its home market; Werner Oswald, Deutsche Autos 1945-1975, lists the prices of base models as of March 1974: VW Passat, DM 9.070; Audi 80, DM 9.070, i.e. as identical. Plus, the hatchback variants were introduced as late as January 1975.

--328cia 12:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we get any citations on the claim that every body panel on the Mark 4 (B4 platform) (1995–97) was new?

Because I can't find any evidence to support it, and recently saw both versions parked side by side and to me it just looks like a facelift on the front and rear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Impulsion (talk • contribs) 00:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I can hardly believe it myself, but Kittler, Deutsche Autos seit 1990, vol. 5, p. 323, says: "Nach Werksangabe waren so gut wie alle Blechteile neu - was man dem Auto aber nicht unbedingt ansieht.", which translates to: "According to the factory, virtually all body panels were new - even if, looking at the car, one won´t neccessarily realize it." --328cia (talk) 03:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

TSI/TFSI

I see that there is a 1.8 TSI engine (Fuel Stratified Injection and turbocharger). Also, theres a 2.0 TFSI engine (Fuel Stratified Injection and turbocharger). They are basically the same engine, except from the engine displacement. Why did Volkswagen call one of them TSI and the other TFSI? This creates a lot of confusion, as TSI usually refers to the Golf's 1.4 Twincharger. Why didn't they call both of them TFSI? Thanks for any help.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.115.135.58 (talk) 07:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

TSI and TFSI acronyms are interchangeable since they mean the same thing, like you said. The F stands for Fuel; TFSI is generally used by Audi, while TSI is used by VW, Seat and Skoda. Since there's a sharing policy in VW Group, the same engine (e.g. the 1.4 TSI Twincharger) can be found in different cars, of different manufacturers. They may have two different acronyms, but they are the same engine.--Roccometeora (talk) 13:14, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Torque steering

The B5 section claims that the B5 received a four-point front suspension "to eliminate torque steering". However, I would expect torque steering to be practically non-existent on a car with a longitudinal engine. The primary cause of torque steering is the unequal length (and therefore weight) of the left and right drive shafts on cars with transverse engines, where the transmission and differential are off-center. More likely, the B5, like every other VAG model at the time, received a multi-link suspension simply because it improves ride quality and handling. DES (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Why so many dashers in iraq??

they are everywhere in news photos why is this??? Are these German or Brazilian? They are early 1980's body styles.

Volkswagen do Brazil exported these Mk1 Passats to Irak in the early eighties. -- Alfacevedoa (Talk to me) 20:52 06 may 2009 (UTC)

Engine not listed

I don't see the BHW engine listed under the 5.5 Passat.

edit: and also WHERE'S 2.0 tdi 110cv common rail? I've one! Last series it was made in 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.31.208.117 (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

B5.5 1.8T performance

This is a capable engine that supports modding well and is already faster than most cars on the road. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.79.66 (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Santana China

(Moved from user talk page, this is in everybody's interest.)

You deleted some referenced material in the VW Santana article. While your contribution was not untrue (the joint venture corporation wasn't formed until October 1984), production did start in April 1983. Chinese production of the Santana is referenced in Auto Katalogs 1983 and 1984 (ich spreche auch ein bissl Deutsch), printed in August of 1982 and 1983 respectively. AK '84 even has a picture of a Shanghai Santana, printed in August 1983, and the following text: "Zwar werden im Reich der Mitte auch in den nächsten zehn bis zwanzig Jahren wohl noch die Radfahrer dominieren; doch die ersten selbstmontierten Fahrzeuge westlicher prägung rollen bereits auf der Straße. Dabei handelt es sich um den VW Santana LX mit 1.6 Liter-Motor und einer Leistung von 55 kW (75 PS). Der erste Vertrag mit den Wolfsburgern beinhaltet die Montage von 100 Wagen. Die Teile dafür liefert VW." (p.60) I will be happy to provide you with scans if you'd like me to.
mit besten Grüssen aus NYC,  ⊂Mr.choppers⊃  (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Some of the people who started SVW are personally known to me. No need to send me the Auto Katalog. In a way, the Katalog is right, but only in a way. What happened was a trial production. The seminal book is Posth's "1000 Days in Shanghai." Posth was the head of SVW until 1988. He doesn't contradict the Autokatalog, but he knows better. On page 34, he writes: "Prior to concluding the joint venture contract, the partners had agreed to a two-year spell of trial assembly (1982 - 1984) as a practical test of whether Germans and Chinese can find a compatible style of working." On page 18, he writes: "Based on Western standards the critical production threshold for cars is 1,000 units per day. Serial production starts to become profitable and competitive on an international scale when you reach this level. The two Santanas a day which the Chinese had assembled manually since 1982 in the scope of assembly trials in Anting put Shanghai Volkswagen miles away from this target." (Emphasis mine.) "Mid-October 1985, the first assembly line started production." (Page 113) "In September 1986 we celebrated the production of the 10,000th Santana in China. To achieve this total volume took two years after the contract was sealed." (Page 85.)

VAG was not a party to the contract, Volkswagenwerk AG was. 1985, their name changed to VOLKSWAGEN AG. V.A.G was the name of their distribution channel. I was intimately involved with V.A.G, from the beginning to its untimely end. See VAG Rounded. Mit den besten Grüssen to my former home -- BsBsBs (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks for the extra info - I will have to purchase Posth's book ASAP, it sounds interesting.  ⊂Mr.choppers⊃  (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a great book. Recommended. The (true) story of how the Chinese picked the Santana is worth the whole book. Say, maybe I can get your assistance. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Volkswagen_Jetta#Article_bloat . Also, the Volkswagen article needs renewal. See talk page. Tschüss aus Peking. -- BsBsBs (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

By the way, the German WP claims "Santana" is derived from the famous Santa Ana winds. Nobody told us that when the car was launched. I saw it first in 1980, as a prototype. I hummed a few bars of "Oye Como Va" and said: "Ah, Santana! You want to appeal to the younger target audience!" They didn't get it and said: "No, quite the opposite." -- BsBsBs (talk) 17:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Heh! I do like the candor of their response though. Too bad that anecdote would violate WP:OR.  ⊂Mr.choppers⊃  (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is a usually reliable source. Not for this anecdote, but for a bunch of others. Forgot to write this one up. -- BsBsBs (talk) 07:17, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Santana-izing

How about this, folks: We take all the Santana stuff out and move it to Volkswagen Santana.

Three reasons:

• 1.) Volkswagen Santana is sitting there like an orphan
• 2.) At Volkswagen, the Santana was never thought as a Passat, it was a Santana. Just like a Jetta is a Jetta, and no Golf.

• 3.) We aren't merging the Audi 80 into the Passat, so why the Santana?

The article is bloated and anything to lighten it up helps. Of course, there will be the cross reference to the Santana ...

If there are no major voices against it, I might even volunteer .. - BsBsBs (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I was actually thinking about doing exactly this earlier today. Maybe leave a short para about the Santana in this article, with a {{main}} hatnote? Letdorf (talk) 23:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC).

Please do it. The question of whether the Santanta is viewed as a Passat notchback or as a stand-alone model is really down to the marketing department. And they may well have handled that differently in different markets. (You get the same with the Vauxhall Belmont / Opel Kadett notchback in the late 1980s: separate model in England but low volume niche complementary variation in mainland Europe.)

My general feeling is that the more you try and push (slightly or otherwise) different models together in cases such as this of (possible) doubt, the harder the overall entry becomes to sequence coherently and the higher the risk of indigestion for the reader. So if you have the time to do it carefully, please split out the Volkswagen Santana here. And thank you. Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

When the car was launched in Germany (I was there) it definitely was launched as a totally separate model. -- BsBsBs (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Same in England. But I don't know how (or if) the Santana was marketed in USA, Japan, Brazil or Iraq. I know they sold a lot of Santanas in China, but I do not know if in China the Santana was sold as a type of Passat or as a separate model. It would be interesting to learn more about how the Santana was presented in those markets from contributors based in those countries. (A more appropriate analogy than the Opel I mentioned above would have been the VW Polo notchbach / VW Derby which never entirely decided whether it was a separate model or not. Or if it did, I nevertheless remained confused.)

This should not, please, distract from my support for your proposal to give the Santana a separate wiki-entry in anglophone wikipedia.

Regards Charles01 (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Santana was sold in China as the Santana. It still is. The Passat is also sold, different car. I am based in China, and I have a grade A source: A book written by the first German CEO of the joint venture. -- BsBsBs (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Full support for splitting of Santana. It's grown into rather a separate branch on the VW family tree anyhow.  ⊂Mr.choppers⊃  (talk) 17:56, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Polo / Derby. I did all Volkswagen introductory campaigns since the Passat into the early 80s, and was responsible for the catalogs. For VW HQ. The Derby was introduced as a separate model. There was no "Polo Derby" (too bad, it would have had a nice ring to it.) I think a lot of this convoluted writing comes from enthusiasts showing off their knowledge of who influenced what. In a time where cars are based on platforms, or "kits" in the VW parlance, such a discussion is moot and creates nothing but confusion. Nothing against mentioning platform and pedigree. But a Santana needs its own article, just like a Jetta or New Beetle have their own articles and are not bunched-in with the Golf. There is more intermarriage between cars and brands of the VW empire than between Appalachian families. -- BsBsBs (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The was no Polo Derby. But at some stage in the 1980s what had been the Volkswagen Derby turned up rebranded as the Volkswagen Polo Classic. This may, however, be chiefly a UK issue rather than an international one, since I don't think that in Germany the sales held up so well for the Derby/Polo Classic as for the Polo hatchback. (Same sales trends in UK, but maybe it was a sharper difference in Germany.) I think the name change did happen in Germany too, but VW name/model changes in the UK sometimes happened at different times (usually later) and with less fanfare than in Germany, presumably where there was a backlog of the previous year's right-hand drive cars to shift and UK was closer than Japan.

The German situation seems to be summarized by German wikipedia thus: "Nachdem 1984 nur noch 5.044 Derby verkauft wurden, wurde die Modellreihe 1985, genauso wie der Stufenheckableger Santana des Passat, mit dem Namen des Basismodells versehen. Der Derby wurde somit in Polo umbenannt ... [usw]..." German wikipedia may not be always right in every detail, but it is the best information I have to hand, and here it roughly aligns with what I remember about the VW Derby. I am sorry if I originally misphrased my comment, but this, in any case, is what I was thinking about when I wrote it.

Mexico may represent a further set of complications on the same theme, but I don't understand Spanish. Laut Wiki-DE "In Mexiko wird der Polo Classic, basierend auf dem VW Polo 6N, weiterhin unter diesem Namen [dH Derby?] verkauft".

I am sorry to have supported this digresson lifting off. I really do not think it is very important! And I will resist the temptation further to digress, this time towards incest in the mountains of Virginia. Your point about intermarriage between individual VW and Audi models is well made and well taken.

So .... reply if you wish but I don't expect you to and you don't need to for my sake. But do please split out that Santana info into the Santana entry!

Regards Charles01 (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the German WP. Two observations: The de:VW Polo entry is short and sweet. But in typical Teutonic anal retentiveness, every Polo generation has received its own article, and the de:VW Polo works as a Polo portal to de:VW Polo I through de:VW Polo V. That keeps it organized. For the Passat, they do it according to platforms, from de:VW Passat B1 all the way to de:VW Passat B6. The de:VW Derby received only one article, but that one demonstrates all symptoms of serious appalachification. I translate in pertinent part: "It was left to the successor Polo III (6N) to receive a sedan version, the now four-door Polo Classic. However, this was an optically modified Seat Cordoba, which, in turn, was the sedan version of the Seat Ibiza. It shared a common technical basis with the Polo 6N, for instance the same dashboard. It didn’t turn into a great success either. Nevertheless, Volkswagen launched another notchback model on the basis of Polo IV (9N). This was a Brazilian import. It also remained without success, it vanished from the German market with the facelift of the Polo 9N in May 2005. Abroad, the notchback variant is still being produced and sold. Almost 370 000 units were made under the Derby name until the beginning of 1985. In Mexico, the Polo Classic, based on the VW Polo 6N, continues to be sold under that name."

If a derivative doesn't sell, moving it back under the umbrella of the master model is a good move, because it saves marketing expenses and aids in quietly putting the patient out of its misery.

Trying to apply logic to the supposedly logical and disciplined naming and marketing regimen of Volkswagen will never succeed. Witness the dueling "winds" and "sports" schools of naming concepts (which tricked some into believing that the Golf was named after the Gulf stream, never mind that it's an ocean current, and no wind.) I stopped long ago from trying to make any sense of it. -- BsBsBs (talk) 16:32, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I've merged the Santana content into Volkswagen Santana and adjusted various redirects and links accordingly. I've included the Corsar and Carat too as, AIUI, these were merely Santanas rebadged and assembled for their local markets. By the way, do you know of any published sources for "Golf" actually being named after the ancient Scottish game? Letdorf (talk) 13:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC).

Thank you! I'm working on some sources for both Passat and Santana. I'll add them when I have them organized. Re: Golf, VW never commented about where the name came from. At the time, there was a "winds" faction,. and a "sports" faction. However, they would never publicly admit that a sport for the few (at least in Germany) lent its name to the new Volkswagen. We made some coy references to "Golf" in the launch campaign. We put a Golf on a spot of green with a small flag next to it, and headlined it "Der neue Volkssport: Golf" (the new popular sport: Golf). Sorry, don't have it anymore. The GTI had a golf ball as a shifter knob. -- BsBsBs (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Please put pronunciation key for "Passat" in the beginning of section. I found out that in Brazil it may be "Passat" or "Passá", omiting the letter "t" at the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.198.217.194 (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't prescribe a pronunciation in the article unless you have supporting reliable sources. Letdorf (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC).

"Marks"

Just wanted to say that I fully support Letdorf's removal of the unofficial and unclear "mark" designations.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 14:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Most clear would be using generations, B markings are not familiar to those people who doesnt know Volkswagen -->Typ932 ^T·C 16:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Normally, I'd agree, but in this case, "generations" are ambiguous too, e.g. was the B4 the fourth generation or a facelifted third-generation Passat? Which generation was the B5.5? etc. Letdorf (talk) 11:20, 27 October 2010 (UTC).

The B4 is facelift of 3rd generation (B3) according to the article and 5.5 is facelift of 4th generation (b5) according to the text. -->Typ932 ^T·C 15:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

That's what it says at the moment, yes, but there are no sources cited to verify this particular definition of Passat generations. Letdorf (talk) 11:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC).

Top infobox photo

User:OSX and I have gone back and forth on this point a couple of times, and I'd like to see if anyone else would like to weigh in on these photos.

I prefer the top photo, which had been in place, for its less-cluttered background of an open lot and distant trees as opposed to closely parked cars. I've noticed also that its hood creases are more visible than the slightly washed-out white car.

User:OSX prefers the bottom photo because there are fewer reflections on the car's body, which he considers distracting in the top photo.

I am open to other suggestions -- from any appropriately representative generation of Passat, of course, per WP:CARPIX -- but I don't feel User:OSX's preference in this case of a car in a crowded lot can come across as the best photo Wikimedia has to offer of the Passat line. Which is, of course, what we are looking for to fill this infobox. IFCAR (talk) 14:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd noticed your ... um ... discussion on this, and had even got round to thinking about it

I do not much like the top picture because of

1. the reflections

2. the lack of colo(u)r contrast between the car and its background

3. and because the thumbnail sized version doesn't look very sharp, tho the picture is of 1.7 mb and when you look at the big version on Commons it looks sharp enough. Don't quite know what to make of this. Also

4 It might be possible to improve it by slightly cropping round the edges and lightening it. But it will never be a show stopper.

I do not much like the second picture because

1. The photographer is stood slightly too close to the car, which to my eye leaves the thing looking distorted. I suspect you couldn't step further back without something else getting in the way somewhere: that's one of life's bleep-it moments. I know this stuff is in some degree - quite a lot of degree - in the eye of the beholder, but my eye sees the backpart of the car getting smaller rather quickly. A bit too quickly.

2. The colo(u)r background combination are unutterably dull. I know you can't always find a car that is red or yellow or bright blue. And you can't always find a background with sky or fields in them - something resful enough to please but not so interesting as to distract. But a rather cramped showroom forecourt...

Also I am frustrated not to recognise the cars parked (uncomfortably close) in the background. Could that be a Bora? And if it is, maybe you guys call it something else (Jetta? Son of Rabbit?) if you're not in Europe.

But this one is nice and sharp. I THINK I prefer it from the two as they are at the moment.

My serious more important point is that neither of these pictures is good enough to be worth fighting over. The best solution is to go out and find a bright day and place without too many reflections and find a better one (of which to take a picture). Meantime, I think one or two of the sedan/saloon images of this car might at least make a change and a couple aren't spectacularly less appealing than these variant/kombi ones. Though, frankly, I wouldn't kill even for one of these.

Bear in mind that a lot of this stuff is pretty subjective. You are under no obligation to agree (nor to disagree) with my views. But having given birth to them, I knew you'd wish me to share them with you.

Anyhow, taking a show-stopper picture is a nice challenge for all of us, though I don't rate my own chances. Here in the UK they don't seem to be selling too many Passats just now We're up to something above $8 US per US sized gallon - that's something like $10 per nice traditional imperial (British) gallon, so I guess they (the taxing people who like to spend all our money on distant wars of uneven legality) really want to see us all in very small Skodas. Or not going anywhere.

Or not. Happy day.

Charles01 (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

As we are illustrating a car article, the quality of the car if more important than the background. The first image does not show the car very well from a thumbnail at all—and identification from the thumbnail is paramount. Readers have no choice but to click on the enlarged version just to properly see what the Passat actually looks like.

The second version shows the car very well from a thumbnail but has a less attractive background as it was photographed at a dealership.

The third image has colour balance issues, has washed-out doors, too much contrast and the front-end is too dark—it looks very artificial. The fourth image has far too many reflections to warrant inclusion. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

You have problems, guys ;) Maybe a short statement from my point of view:
Picture 2:
+ sharp
- focal lenght (distortion)
- background
- reflections of clouds
- no license plate (it's the show-stopper par excellence at german Wiki)

Picture 3:
+ focal length (realistic illustration = good proportions!)
- not sharp at all
- partly too dark

Picture 4:
+ contrast
+/o barely acceptable focal length
- not really sharp
- reflections
- best source of light

And now, your struggle can go on! ALLEZ-Y :D

greetings from the german wikipedia, -- M 93 (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Choosing infobox photos is a common source of editwarring in my experience, which is probably to be expected since it can be quite a subjective judgement. As for the two photos in question, IMHO, there's not much to choose between them - as Charles01 says, the first has better perspective and a less-cluttered background, but the second is better lit. Regards, Letdorf (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2011 (UTC).

Major cleanup needed

This page is filled with technical jargon, mostly unsourced, and useless, and especially useless to North American readers... to the point of being incomprehensible to North American readers. It is mostly just a long euro-list written in prose. It needs a major overhaul!!!!--Tallard (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

About Passat selling figures in United Kingdom

I think that "Volkswagen Passat in the United Kingdom" should be removed because it is of no use to anyone, it's filled with unreferenced material and since the page is about VW Passat, which is present all over the world, this section seems too "anglocentric".--Roccometeora (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

The Volkswagen Passat is NOT MID-SIZED!!!

According to dealers and commercials, they want people to know that the Passat is a midsize (large family, D-segment "large") car, but when we compared the Passat with the Avalon and Impala, it is considered a full-size (executive, E-segment "executive") car. The Jetta is not a compact (small family, C-segment "compact") car, it is considered a midsize car. The Scirocco and Golf are the ones being compact cars, with the Beetle being a subcompact. The VW CC is a midsize premium car (which is also "executive" or E-segment). The Phaeton is a full-size luxury car like the A8 (luxury, F-segment "luxury"). --198.228.216.17 (talk) 05:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Future 2020 model for North America

I see that the information about the upcoming redesign for the North American market is sourced, but the external link doesn't seem to be working. Shouldn't the links be accessible to all readers? Not sure if it's a dead link, I don't see the maintenance tag, so I thought I'd consult the talk page before adding the "dead link" tag.--2601:153:900:43F0:3813:9EF8:FA5A:C703 (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2018 (UTC)