Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.
// request.cf · coarse context
A page that knows where it met you.
Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Engineering, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of engineering on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EngineeringWikipedia:WikiProject EngineeringTemplate:WikiProject EngineeringEngineering
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There ia a statement in the Ultramatic topic that Packard was the only independent (non-Big Three) automaker to develop its own automatic transmission. This is incorrect. Studebaker developed its own automatic transmission, marketing Studebaker Automatic Drive beginning in 1950. This is noted, among other places, in the Wikipedia article re Chrysler's PowerFlite transmission: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PowerFlite . Other sources include http://clubs.hemmings.com/clubsites/hpsdc/Page6.html.
I have taken a look at your concerns. The book was published in 2008. The history of the Wikipedia article reveals the text was created in May 2005 and this edit indicates it was determined not to be a copyvio at that time. It appears the book may be a reverse copyright violation of Wikipedia. I have removed the copyright violation template. — CactusWriter |needles08:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)Reply