Talk:Chrysler Sebring (coupe)

Requested move[edit]

Chrysler Sebring (coupe) → Chrysler Sebring – same car just different body style Ejfetters 04:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC) i say no i am 4 i idt wiki dnt chng it proc 1994-2005 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.69.176 (talk) 18:19, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Procedural Oppose - this is not a requested move, this is a MERGE request. 70.51.9.174 09:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Oppose", because besides for sharing the same name, these Coupes have very little in common with other Sebrings, Just my thoughts Jon the dodgeboy (talk) 02:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Add any additional comments

Support No need to have sepearate pages for all a car's different body styles. This is confusing, it would make more sense to add them all into one article and seperate entries for the different styles like in most other car pages. Ejfetters 04:50, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose The Chrysler Sebring article was a giant mess flooded with infoboxes until I split them up and amde the article managible. Karrmann 12:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article split the way it is now is clearer. The Sebring is an unusual case in that the body styles are not mechanically similar (the sedan is identical to the Dodge Stratus, the convertible is based on but not identical to the Stratus and has different styling (especially in thie first generation) and the coupe is a Mitsubishi Eclipse). Trying to cram all this information plus images of the different versions into one article made a muddled mess. IFCAR 00:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per IFCAR. --Interiot 12:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per IFCAR. The previously consolidated single article can be seen here, and it was indeed a mess; the split improved things. As a caveat, however, casual readers shouldn't have to figure out what body style they're interested in; they should be able to reader a generic Sebring article. So I reckon the Chrysler Sebring page needs more work. --DeLarge 07:38, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Sebring may have had seperate underpinnings from one body style to another, but as a Chrysler they were placed under the same "Sebring" model umbrella; as it stands the seperate body style pages can be confusing or at the very least difficult to navigate and should/could be organized into one page. Ghost650 (talk) 16:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, all of these articles need serious attention. Karrmann 10:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Mechanically speaking the Coupes have VERY few similarities to the other model Sebrings. IF the articles are merged it would require completely separate sections for each trim level Sebring. It makes more sense to have separate articles but have links to the other trim levels at the top of every page so that they are easily accessible yet still aesthetically pleasing and easy to read.XGreenmanx (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screwed up[edit]

The layout is seriously flawed, there are 4 edit buttons in a row... I would fix it, but I am really bad with wiki code. Also, why does it have the 2000 year listed under both categories? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nafango2 (talk • contribs) 06:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Second generation Dodge Stratus Coupes and Chrysler Sebring Coups used Mitsubishi Transmission and not Chrysler. They used the F4A42 for 4cyl models and F4A51 for V6 models ,transmission as used in the Mitsubishi Eclipse with an a manumatic shift mode in the R/T and upper level models similar to their own INVECS with driver learn shift patterns.Kongkit (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)KongkitKongkit (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]