Talk:Aston Martin DB9/Archive 1

Name

Does DB stand for David Brown Limited or Sir David Brown (entrepreneur)? Cutler 00:27, 22 March 2004 (UTC)

DBR9 Image

I suggest that the dbr9 image might be better off on the dbr9 page and not the db9 page. skyskraper 11:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Gallery

Yes, I know it's flashy sportscar that liccle boys like, but we don't need 2 pictures that appear almost identical of the Volante. The DBR9 can go, because there is a completely separate article for that, related to the DB9 as it may be, the two green-ish DB9 pics are OK, but have thumbs too small, have no.plates visible (but otherwise could be used) so all we now need is two decent shots of front and rear of the DB9, Volante or not.

I may also consider taking a photo of the 'Sports Pack DB9' in a magazine. Other than just about everything else, it's seems a great article! Abarthaddict 16:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Would it really be the SL? Wouldn't it be more of a CL competitor? Even then you can buy lower-powered CLs, which you can't of the DB9. Abarthaddict

the SL is more imo akin to the db9 then the cl. two door sports car in hard and soft top rather then two door luxury barge available in hard top only. to me anyway, the db9 is clearly focused at the SL/6 Series lines rather then CL series. yes the CL, SL and DB9 are all larger GT cars, but the SL and DB9 have more in common then CL and DB9 skyskraper 19:01, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Aston Martin DBRS9 'racecar'

Will someone please explain to me why we need a picture of the DBR9 on the DB9 page? We have a DBR9page, use it.

It's OK to have some pictures of the DB9 and Volante but the DBR9 should be a similar article, not included in this one. They are related but as I've already point ed out numerous times, we have a DBR9 page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abarthaddict (talk • contribs) 18:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC).

Shut up you idiot its an amazing car stop moaning—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.86.164.237 (talk • contribs) 08:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC).

Why do you feel the need to insult someone over a long closed issue? Do you even comprehend what was said in the previous post?~ Dusk Knight 03:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

External Link

Hi i have currently made a new exotic car site here. I was wanting to add the relevant pages to relevant wiki pages and wondering if thats ok to do so? Please let me know.

Thanks

Richard —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard300187 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Top Gear reference

well technically jeremys wife bought it, not jeremy.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Splat man (talk • contribs) 14:02, 14 May 2007.

Bond

has this appeared in any bond films? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.231.231 (talk) 17:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Not as the main car, no. The DBS has been used in the past two films and the Vanquish before that but the DB9 has yet to make an appearance. Tp271 (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

DBS Picture

Just wondering, but why is there a picture of a DBS Volante on the DB9 page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.235.87 (talk) 02:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Aston Martin DBX

I'm pretty sure there shouldn't be a section pertaining to the DBX, as it doesn't really exist. It's just a rumor from a few years ago, that never came to anything. Some people think that it became the new One-77, but even if this is true, it still has now place in the article, because the two cars are almost completely different.

2.101.24.164 (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC) Erm - the DB9 is NOT built at Gaydon! The Vantage is, though. 2.101.24.164 (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Aston Martin DB9/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Reviewing at original nominator's request. This review is third in a list of three, so not much is likely to happen before the weekend. Pyrotec (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Initial comments

Sorry for the delay. I'll be starting this review shortly, today. I'm going to quickly skim-read the article first so as to draw some initial comments. Pyrotec (talk) 15:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I've now done a quick read of the article, but I've not checked any references or looked at the copyright status of images, but these will be done later. My first comments are: the lead seems to have a bit of marketing hype "the spiritual successor of the DB7." - really! and "... built at Aston Martin Gaydon facility" is missing an apostrophe and an "s". Later, in the body of the article, the car (British, I presume) has some American terminology, "fender" is a US term, in Britain its a "bumper". Regardless of these comments, its probably a GA-class article.

I'm now going to review it in a bit more depth, starting at the Development and design section and finishing with the Lead. Pyrotec (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Didn't want to break up your comments, but I have tweaked the lead and fixed the USism. The car is indeed British, but many of the sources (in addition to myself) are American, so I've likely become confused. If you see any more, please let me know; I'm sure I've missed a few. Superflat Monogram 20:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the fixes. The language and spelling of the article appeared to be almost entirely British-English; so, firstly, "fender" stood-out somewhat and, secondly, I had not realised that you were American. The statement of mine above was not intended to be anti-American comment. Pyrotec (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

P.S. If you need to add any comments, questions, etc, just stick them below the relevant comment of mine (signed & dated). There is no need to collect them all together in one place, well you can if you want to. Pyrotec (talk) 21:41, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Development and design -
  • First (untitled) subsection -

• I'm not too keen on "spiritual successor". I'm not going to delay sentencing because of this, but the substitution of another comparable clause would be an improvement.

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• The final sentence is: "At launch, Aston Martin planned to build between 1,400 and 1,500 DB9s per year.[10]" and its referenced with a ten-year old (2003) citation. I'm likely to come back to this later: I don't think (I might have missed it in my quick-scan) the article gives the actual production rates.

Note: the info box and the Lead claim that production started in 2004, but that "fact" is both unreferenced and absent from the body of the article. At this point I'm beginning to regard the article as non-compliant with WP:WIAGA clauses 1(b), (possibly) 2(b), and 3(a); but I'll make a final decision when I get to the end, in the case the end of the Lead.

• • Interior -

• The first paragraph is unreferenced, but I'll let that go as (possibly) it does not include "direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons". However, I'm not too keen on the phrase "The DB9's interior is made of leather with walnut trim", more strictly "The DB9's interior trim is made of leather with walnut wood".

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• The second paragraph makes a number of claims that are referenced by two references, the first of which (ref 11) specifically refers to the 2013 model. This reference does not necessarily confirm that the seating package was available in earlier models: this aught to be clarified.

• • Exterior & Wheels -

• These two subsections look to be OK.

• • Chassis -

• To verify my thoughts, I looked up Chassis on wikipedia and it discusses: In the case of vehicles, the term rolling chassis means the frame plus the "running gear" like engine, transmission, driveshaft, differential, and suspension. I'm happy to accept "chassis" and "rolling chassis" as being interchangeable, but this subsection also discusses body structure and inner door frame. I suspect that the subsection title should be something like Chassis and body work, perhaps the word "design" might be used; however, this subsection is slightly "wider" that just "Chassis".

• Y Pyrotec (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Variants -
  • DB9 Volante -

.... stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 21:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

• Looks OK.

• • DB9 LM -

• This needs a minor update: It states "... to be available in the first quarter of 2008 and a September 2007 article is being used as a citation that only a limited number will be built.

• • DB9 Carbon Black, Morning Frost, and Quantum Silver -

• Looks OK. Pyrotec (talk) 16:06, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

• Motorsport -

• This section looks OK.

• Reception -

.... stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• This section looks OK.

• WP:Lead -

• This appears to be non-compliant with WP:WIAGA clause 1(b) and WP:Lead:

• The first paragraph contains a statement that does not appear in the body of the article (and which is unreferenced). It states that the car was ".....launched by Aston Martin in 2004". The body of the article only mentions that the car was "...first revealed at the 2003 Frankfurt Auto Show.[4][5]". This statement should be added to the body of the article and a citation provided.
• It does not cover (summarise) the "Variants" section, which is almost one quarter of the body of the article, by size.

• Other comments -

The inclusion of an Info box is not a GA-requirement, but it does include information that is not adequately covered by the article. The infox box gives the layout as Front-engine, rear-wheel-drive layout, but that is not covered in the body of the article. Well, in Motorsport, DBR9, the prop shaft is mentioned as being carbon fibre. Note: this change is not mentioned in the Lead.

Production is somewhat undermentioned. so, I'm considering non-compliance with WP:WIAGA clause 3(a). "The DB9 is the first model to be built at Aston Martin's Gaydon facility in Warwickshire, England." and "At launch, Aston Martin planned to build between 1,400 and 1,500 DB9s per year.[10]" is about all that is given. The latter is referenced with a ten-year old (2003) citation; and almost no newer information was given. The exception being the DB9 LM was intended to be a limited edition of 124 cars, but that information did not appear to have been updated to reflect actual sales. Pyrotec (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

At this point the article appears to be non-compliant with WP:WIAGA clause 1(b) and clause 3(a), so I'm putting the review "On Hold" for these and other outstanding problems to be addressed. Pyrotec (talk) 18:28, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Due to lack of progress, I amended the Lead myself to make it compliant. I'm also closing this review, so the existing GA-status remains in place. Pyrotec (talk) 17:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Facelifts

This article would need some more information on the 2010 and 2013 facelifts. Crispulop (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)