Jump to content

Talk:Trabant

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Trabant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Trabant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emissions

[edit]

nine times the hydrocarbons and five times the carbon monoxide emissions of the average European car of 2007

A comparison of a 1957/1962 Card/Engine with a modern 2007 Car really doesn't make much sense. It doesn't really tell us how bad the emissions where at the time. --95.91.202.225 (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Brilliant design"?

[edit]

Regarding this revision as of 19:23, 25 August 2016:

There are widely different views of the merits of the Trabant. One is that it was a brilliant design, well ahead of its time, with a body made largely of recycled materials over an integrated steel structure, with a compact, simple and cheap-to-build engine mounted transversely driving the front wheels, and all-independent suspension, capable of transporting a family or four adults in reasonable comfort at 40-50mph all day. It's two-stroke fuel-oil ratio was 50:1 at a time when British motorcycle engines used 16:1 and from 1960 it even had an all-synchromesh gearbox. Once warmed up, it did not produce visible smoke in normal driving.

Is there a reliable source that supports this material? Issues of undue weight may arise, considering that other reliable sources describe the car in decidedly less glowing terms. —Coconutporkpie (talk) 07:14, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's true except ratio fuel-oil: 50:1 was from 1974. In den 1950th it was 25:1 for Trabant as well. The crazy blue smoke came in general because of incorrect driving (with full activated start choke or too much oil put in the fuel.) --Max schwalbe (talk) 22:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Used cars costing more than new?

[edit]
Due to the long waiting period, used Trabants could fetch higher prices than new ones. People who finally received their own Trabant treated the car gently and were meticulous in maintaining and repairing it.

That's certainly an interesting factoid, but wasn't in any of the sources for this article that I looked at. "People who" is vague as well. Could this be original research? —Coconutporkpie (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Coconutporkpie: What I guess is meant is that in Communist countries the prices in government-run shops were directively kept low, so there was always a shortage of goods. That's why the waiting periods were long. So, a car which was slightly used but which you could receive immediately could cost more than a new car, which you had to wait for long. But this was commonplace for all goods in Communist countries. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 22:58, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
People who finally received their own Trabant treated the car gently and were meticulous in maintaining and repairing it Sorry this is not true - or to be more exactly, not a phenomen of Trabant - it's the attitude of germans to their cars in general. repair more than necessary - to be sure to be sure to be sure... That's the case until now... the difference is that Trabant was, after reaching it's end of life, not scrapped. It was completely rebuild in a repair shop for the next 20 years of life. This was because of long waiting time for new cars, indeed. --Max schwalbe (talk) 22:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with finding reliable sources for that 'phenomenon' is that the overwhelming numbers of used car sales in the GDR were informal transactions with the true details kept between the seller and the buyer for a number of reasons dictated by the political and social realities of the GDR. In other words: everybody in the GDR (and West Germany) knew that a used car could almost triple its official selling price (Lada/VAZ) but nobody talked about it openly. Only the Saporoshez was the only vehicle immediately available but almost never bought despite of the limited availabiliry of automobiles in der GDR (which might give a hint about the quality of that vehicle).2A02:560:422C:BB00:CC56:14B7:E568:64A1 (talk) 18:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trabant and Motorsport

[edit]

The introduction should be improved (maybe this could do somebody well english speaking person). It should be mentioned that the Trabant was used for motorsports already since 1960, with some big sucuess. details see here https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trabant_(Pkw)#Motorsport best, max --Max schwalbe (talk) 10:30, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Trabant. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trabant. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Trabant. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Reliable Sources Noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is www.team.net. Thank you. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DeMuro's opinion

[edit]

We have editors on two sides of including his opinion of the Trabant. I'll argue in favor of inclusion but will seek consensus. I'd like to avoid the edit warring. Lets start with a few questions: is he a reliable source? Yes. He is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. He is an automotive journalist and has reviewed numerous vehicles. His opinion is in line with the others that are in the article. Rick Cotta is a source. He is an auto journalist as well. How is Cotta's inclusion (quoted as "patchy assembly quality") appropriate but Demuro's not? MartinezMD (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

These editors who want to delete what Doug said have 2/3 reverts (all on Trabant), nothing else. Had the privilege (it was a privilege to have a car in socialism) to use a Trabant, Doug was pretty accurate. Seems that it ruined some people dream of what socialist "paradise" really is: average worker not only is not free but even when he saves to buy something he needs to wait for a long time and product (if build/designed in said "paradise") is "patchy", at best.--81.101.159.55 (talk) 04:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's clearly presented as an opinion. As an opinion of the car, it's one that was widely shared at the time and has been widely shared subsequently. It belongs in the entry. If you actually click on the link you get to an entry with a certain amount of US tub thumping monoculturalism. That may have upset our other contributor. But the man DeMuro still seems to know his cars. Some of us might argue that the car was terrible because of the shortage of appropriate materials and of money in East Germany. Not because it was made by "Communists". And that the shortage of money and materials was more a function of political decisions taken in Moscow and Washington at he end of the second world war, and subsequently, than because the people who lived and made their lives in East Germany were all, defined from Uncle Sam's perspective, "commies": some were ideologically committed Marxists or at least went along with the Soviet version of Marxism that the authorities backed, while some just kept their heads down and concentrated on ... stuff - survival, family etc. But (1) that's part of another much bigger discussion and (2) it does nothing to suggest or even to hint that the poor old Trabi was smooth, fast, reliable and sweet smelling. (It's still pretty iconic IM(H)O). ) Demuro is a journalist who knows about cars and has taken time out to investigate the Trabant. That's good enough for me. Charles01 (talk) 06:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair - if you would strike out everything directly related to the Trabant, that 'report' could have been a description of almost every vehicle assembled in the US or the related factories in Mexico and Canada from the 1960s till the 2000s. And that is even more embarassing in the light of the facts for the automotive and certain journalistic parts of the USA. Like, you know, when you sit in the glasshouse... 2A02:560:422C:BB00:CC56:14B7:E568:64A1 (talk) 18:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you compare the way Doug drives the car (or well... Is told to operate it) in his YouTube video about it, and how it is explained how to drive it in the user manual that came with the car from the factory, it shows he had no idea what he was doing behind the wheel.
It's like having a luxury sports car reviewer review a tractor or a schoolbus on how well it drives. And then still heavily clinging onto his opinion for his authority on a different vehicle. A Trabant with a two stroke engine is nothing like a four stroke car... Neither have I seen him drive similar vehicles to the Trabant.
The state of the Trabant he got to drive was also not very good. Which makes sense, it was a car from an enthusiast based in America, a country where old trabant parts are hard to come by, and the amount of good translated information is scarce, as the largest amount of enthusiasts by far are located in Germany, Hungary etc.
Things like the inconsistencies of the gap between the doors were pointed out to be communist tolerances and careless engineering whilst there are manufacturing videos that show they mill these all perfecly to have the same clearance everywhere on the car. The door was simply replaced at some point, and the person restoring the car did a bad job at making it fit well.
So even were Doug to be a credible enough voice to be a valid source for reviewing a car like a Trabant, the Trabant he got to review was really not up to spec compared to a well maintained one someone would've driven through East Germany at the time. MTMBVD (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Reliability issue

[edit]

Some anonymous editor keeps reverting edits but won't discuss the issue on the talk page. So I'll bring it up and hope he will. We have two current sources giving direct opposite positions on reliability - "Reliability was terrible, and the gearshift mechanism is generally agreed upon as one of the worst ever invented."[1] vs "But the Trabant's strongest point was its reliability, based on its simplicity – important when its customers had little money to fix it when it went wrong."[2] I'd like to have a resolution. Maybe another or a few more reviews to clarify the issue? Opinions/input from other editors please. MartinezMD (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The 12 worst cars ever built". The Globe and Mail. May 11, 2018. Retrieved May 11, 2019.
  2. ^ John, Honest (October 19, 2013). "Trabant 601 (1964 - 1991)". Honest John. Retrieved May 11, 2019.


This demonstrates a severe problem with wikipedia. The first source is a tabloid newspaper article, written to entertain people by appealing to their prejudices, often disregarding facts in the process. The second source is an actual car expert.

Lo and behold, if you can cite it without starting an edit war, you can include it in the wiki article. Even if the result is a contradictory page of nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:A442:581E:1:81FD:E7F0:F37D:619A (talk) 15:04, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To cut all the nonsense out the article would be a lot smaller and easier to read. A description of the car and it's technical features, product history, manufacturing and the role it played in society, that would be useful and informative. For the most part this is only available on Wikipedia in German. In English we're told nonsense about the gear shifter by some hack who's never seen a citroen DS before either. 2A02:A442:581E:1:81FD:E7F0:F37D:619A (talk) 15:14, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have to learn about WP:consensus. We discuss it here then make changes in the WP:BRD cycle. MartinezMD (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a point of discussion for your ass, let's look at this line:
"The Trabant's build quality was poor,[13] reliability was terrible,[10] closer inspection revealed "patchy assembly quality",[14] with an atrocious maintenance record."
How can the Trabant, a model of car, have "an atrocious maintenance record"? A specific example of a Trabant car might, and it might not. But to say the Trabant categorically has such a thing is ridiculous. A car's maintenance record is when you write down the oil changes and tyre rotations you've done to it, when you've fitted new window wipers, that sort of thing. In other words, a maintenance record isn't a quality imbued by the maker, it's a history of a single example of an object.
It's like saying that the album Abbey Road has a scratch on it. As in, not a specific CD in your glovebox, but the music itself being scratched.
What we have here is an article that not only contradicts itself between paragraphs but also has nonsensical, hallucinatory statements in it. 2A02:A442:581E:1:756A:FBF9:7B17:AF3C (talk) 22:07, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
First you can watch your tone with me. WP:NPA My ass has nothing to do with your comments. Secondly, maintenance record is easily taken as the reliability/typical cost of maintenance or repair across a model line, not an individual unit. Agencies such as JD Power use data like that for their reliability ratings and estimates for TCO (total cost of ownership). I'd like to hear from a neutral editor now. MartinezMD (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Secondly, maintenance record is easily taken as the reliability/typical cost of maintenance or repair across a model line"
No it can't. That's not a convention of human speech or writing. A car's maintenance record is the record of maintenance done on an individual car. That is what it means.
Good luck on your wait for a "neutral" person, whatever that is. 2A02:A442:581E:1:B5E9:C1C3:9348:9F3C (talk) 16:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions that we find in sources and other contributors find to be "POV".

[edit]

Editors deleted a section were a statement was given as to why, for 30 years, the Trabant was produced without significant changes, quote from source - "The now-fallen communist state provided ideal conditions for the creation of a truly awful vehicle: a demoralized labour force, incompetently-run factories, and a iron-fisted political system that crushed innovation." [1]. Another statement was that, production ended with the fall of Communism (1990), quote from source - "[..] Trabant was the only car available [..] went out of production in 1990. The fall of the Berlin Wall removed the Trabant's key feature - a monopoly position."[2] and when East Germans had other cars available they abandoned the Trabant, quote from source - "Thousands of East Germans drove their Trabants over the border when the Wall fell, which made it a kind of automotive liberator. Once across the border, the none-too-sentimental Ostdeutschlanders immediately abandoned their cars. Ich bin Junk!"[3]. What do others think about this?! Thank you.--81.101.159.55 (talk) 07:01, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "The 12 worst cars ever built". The Globe and Mail. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  2. ^ "The 12 worst cars ever built". The Globe and Mail. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  3. ^ "The 50 Worst Cars of All Time". TIME. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Rebrand or Trabant NT

[edit]

Before Herpa in 2007 japanese Car company Suzuki wanted to buy the name Trabant for rebranding his Jimny as Trabant N1 for better sells in Europe. They had did that in India and Spain before. But the german Treuhand didn't make a Joint venture and so no factory was built. Maxian D-C (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sources chosen in bad faith?

[edit]

Reading the Trabant article i found it odd that some of the sources were quit biased and sensational, this specifically in the article: "The Trabant's build quality was poor, reliability was terrible, and it was loud, slow, and poorly designed."

The sources that supported these claims are as follows

(13) 10 Worst Cars Ever Made (And 10 of the Most Unfairly Judged)". Auto.Wize.com. Retrieved 29 June 2019.

(10) The 12 worst cars ever built". The Globe and Mail. January 2010. Retrieved 29 June 2019.

(3) De Muro, Doug (November 2016). "The Trabant Was an Awful Car Made by Communists". Autotrader.com. Retrieved 17 November 2018. 2A00:801:70A:86A6:960:78A8:E31D:DAD (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DeMuro is a mainstream automobile reviewer. I can't speak for the other sources. MartinezMD (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trabant edit rejected

[edit]
Moved from User talk:GorillaWarfare

I understand the reference I used is not necessarily solid, but the ones are currently cited are incredibly subjective and invalid. Hence I concider the blogpost to be an upgrade. The term "worst" or "best" for a car is subjective. A Trabant is slow and loud, in that aspect not very good, but it is simple in it's construction, repairable, and engineered with a philosophy to be reliable, meaning in that aspect its a great car. I'd definitely encourage for you to look at these articles.

One source, autowise.com, the journalists authority is "wrecking cars for as long as hes been driving them". No proof to have ever driven them, and besides calling them "death boxes", not explaining why the build quality is poor ([13]).

Similar story for the next source, theglobeandmail, where the author does not even show to be any authority on cars ([10]).

Then theres the journal article "The Trabant: Consumption, Eigen-Sinn, and Movement", where there's only once referred to "poor" build quality of products from the DDR in general. With no footnote or citation to go with it ([11])

And the last source is finally a piece of satire on how the author struggles driving in a Trabant with a bunch of extagerrations. Which is, again, an opinion of an individual, and not anything factual ([14]).

Finally all of these sources are from a region in the world where the Trabant is generally made fun of and misunderstood as there are barely any driving around there, and an incredibly unlikely sight to be seen. When looking at German forums or anything else in that region, people speak much more fondly of these cars. They are misunderstood and maligned in echo chambers, mainly for the fact they're from a disputed region at the time. These cars are joked about, but the joking nature is lost in translation and taken too literally.

The author of the blogpost I referenced, has neither more nor less autothority to speak about these cars. There is no bias, it provides factual information, neither for or against the quality of Trabant cars. The youtube video I reference helps people to make up their minds about the structure of the car. The majority of people think they're made of cardboard, or structurally completely of plastic. This is not true, it holds up to par compared to similar western european vehicles of the time. (im not talking about high luxury cars like audis or porches, but whatever normal people drove like compact peugeots, fiats, citroens, etc).

I'd like you to compare the quality of the blogpost compared to whatever is listed currently. I think this source is AS adequate to pull a conclusion from. Though, if we want to improve the quality of wikipedia as a source at all, I think it would be best to simply get completely rid of this statement.

I think, as a Trabbi driver myself, I have personally more experience than the writers of these sources on these cars and the build quality to go with it. And I can tell you, from personal experience, its either satire or completely not true. These cars are really solid, reliable, easy to drive if you're used to manual transmissions, and if you've ever gone to a Hungarian trabbi rally, youll see them drive into trees and flip over constantly without the drivers really getting hurt.

Please either review the sources, or remove the statement completely that the buildquality is poor. This is based on nothing and its simply NOT true. On the Dutch page, it lists that trabants are robust and easy to maintain: Trabants stonden in het Westen bekend als kwalitatief slechte auto's. In werkelijkheid was en is de Trabant echter een robuuste wagen met een vrijwel onverslijtbare techniek die door de eigenaar eenvoudig zelf te onderhouden en te repareren was.

Whilst pages like the German one and Polish one don't even bother to make a remark about the quality of the car (implying its just average). MTMBVD (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MTMBVD: I've moved this comment from my talk page to the article talk page, which is where it really belongs. I would recommend familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia's reliable sources policy. If you think the current sources are only presenting one viewpoint, please feel free to provide new reliable sources that support different ones. But I'm not seeing any reason to discount the sources entirely. Similarly, we should not be accepting a lower-quality blog source simply because it agrees with your personal perspective on this subject, rather than the perspective reflected in the current RS used. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 22:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not only do I think they are representing one viewpoint, I think the authority behind these viewpoints is dubious. The sources are either citations without sources, wrongly cited, and the least serious offender is a biased author (comparing the handling of a two-stroked engine car with the modern cars the author usually reviews that use four-stroke engines). I'd wish for you to spend some time to go through those sources and I hope you'll be able to see what I mean.
As for reliable sources, id rather put my eggs in the basket in Europes largest automobile association's remarks:
https://www.adac.de/rund-ums-fahrzeug/autokatalog/marken-modelle/trabant/?filter=NONE&sort=SORTING_DESC
atleast stating it's simple design and reliable engine. It only states the reputation to be poor, rather than the tech behind it. (At the end of the lifespan the tech WAS outdated, but again, to compare an early 60s Trabbi to it's western counterparts):
A website hosted by classic car enthusiasts gives an unbiased view:
https://www.klassiekerweb.nl/merken/trabant/
stating it came with a bunch of innovative things for such a cheap car that most cars in the same segment did not have, and it was a strong competitor.
It shows, it is impossible to say that its a bad and unreliable. Compared to what? Compared to a similar car that rolled off the production line the same year as the Trabant 601 did for the first time, the Trabant had great performance. But in its last years, it was an outdated design.
The blog source does not agree with my personal perspective. It doesn't state any opinions, it is just a decent reference of pretty well known info within the Trabbi community.
I think this already shows that the claim currently made in the wikipedia page is bold and very divisive. Therefore I do not think it is appropriate for it to be listed in the Wikipedia page. I do not necessarily fight for my own edit, but I strongly believe that the statement currently made is ungrounded, and something has to be done about it. I suggest to atleast delete the sentence. MTMBVD (talk) 23:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some other interesting sources:
https://www.autoplenum.de/auto/trabant/601/limousine-1964/0-6-26-ps#:~:text=Erfahrungsbericht%20Trabant%20601%200.6%20(26%20PS)%20von%20thunfischgretl%2C%20Juni%202022&text=Einfach%20das%20Kultauto%20schlechthin%20.,super%20und%20er%20stinkt%20gut%20.
Stating the car's ease of maintainance (which again, compared to modern cars, obviously this one won't be as comfortable and luxurious, but imagine copy pasting "The --insert oldtimer--'s build quality was poor, reliability was terrible, and it was loud, slow, and poorly designed." in every article about a car from before the whatever.. 60s? 70s? simply because it doesnt compare to modern standards.
These are reviews by car enthusiasts (genuine enthusiasts rather than satire from a tabloid).
https://www.nzz.ch/mobilitaet/auto-mobil/und-er-faehrt-immer-noch-der-trabi-ld.814677
Stating, cheap and reliable. This source is a swiss high-status newspaper.
https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/ddr-autos-keine-feierlaune-beim-trabant-jubilaeum-100.html
An article from a German culture related radio station. Containing quotes, also from workers from the old Trabbi factory in Zwickau, showing the attitude towards the car from the perspective of east germans. Negative comments being made as the regime wanted to move from private cars to public transport and jealousy, but overly positive comments about the car for it being a status symbol as it was hard to obtain during the time.
Also seeing others having issues with this remark, the phrase "The Trabant's build quality was poor, reliability was terrible, and it was loud, slow, and poorly designed." does not belong to the Wikipedia page. It is subjective, there are plenty of sources that state otherwise. It does not add any valuable information to the reader to learn about this car.
You can not say something is worse than something else if you do not state what "something else" is. Is it bad compared to what?
Modern cars?
Other two stroke cars?
Other east German cars?
Other eastern European cars?
Other eastern european cars from back in the day?
Western cars from the same age as the beginning of production of the Trabant?
Western cars from the same age as the END of the production of the Trabant?
Which model Trabant?
Worse in what aspect? Speed?
Reliability?
Maintainance cost?
Repairability?
Design?
Intricacy?
Simplicity?
Torque?
User friendliness?
If most English speaking forums can not even agree with VEB Sachsenring's user manual on how to operate the car itself, how credible are the currently listed articles anyways. MTMBVD (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]


The article reads like a total damning of the Trabant car. Although it was far from a cutting-edge design at birth, it wasn't "terrible" nor "poorly designed", with especially the former term not being appropriate for a Wikipedia article. The design reflected the characteristics of the GDR at the time, a country in severe debt (both financial and technical, due to war reparations) and which had experienced significant brain drain. References are also of insufficient quality, since the article quotes or cites mostly "pop culture" articles with no particular attention to fairness. 151.45.179.147 (talk) 17:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The two "10 worst car" type sources do not seem reliable enough and offer no good substance. The other 3 articles are more specific in their reasoning. Putting aside what you may think of Muro's style, he gives his rationale "I’ve covered a few of the reasons — fuel/oil mix, no rear seat belts, no tachometer, no turn signal or headlight indicators, no fuel gauge — but it goes so much deeper than that. For example: The panel gaps are inconsistent — some are large, some are small — and they can even vary along the same panel. There’s no headliner. There’s also no trunk liner, or trunk insulation of any kind. There’s no glovebox. The fuses sit uncovered next to the steering wheel. There are open screws on the outside of the car. The only interior door lock is on the passenger side."
Rubin's article is extensive and seems very well balanced and fair. It considers the economics of the time and location during which the car was built - "And they were partly right – a Trabant (like many other East German products) was not as high quality as most West German products, even down-market goods. But as historians working at the forefront of research on automobiles in the Soviet bloc, such as Lewis Siegelbaum, have suggested, it makes most sense to consider socialist cars in a ‘decentred’ way."
Cotta considers the reputation as well "Is it really the worst car in the world?" and discusses the poor pedal placement, the awkward shifting, poor brakes, and being underpowered for it's role.
Lastly, you have to look at weight. In the entirety of the article, the apparent point of contention is a single sentence? I've removed the portion of the statement about reliability as that was not supported by the references and removed the "worst car" hyperbole sources from the sentence, but the other sources are clear and the points of their criticism clear.MartinezMD (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trabant&oldid=1208162831"