Talk:Hillman Husky

I believe expanding this page is wrong. This should clearly be a disambig, and the info contained here should be included in the respective articles on Minx and Imp (AFAIK, Audax has no separate article as of now) - it would have to anyway, so this is creating unnecessary redundancy. Regards, Bravada, talk - 04:25, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bravada! I appreciate the oddness of an article on what appear to be two different cars with the same name, both of which are derivatives of other models with their own articles. But it's precisely because of the complex history of British model nomenclature that I'd say separate articles are helpful, so long as the appropriate cross-links are in place. Compare with the Chrysler Sunbeam article! That's essentially a rebodied Hillman Avenger but it gets its own article (as you know... having just created it ;) and the Husky with uniquely short wheelbase and tall wheels is as distinct a model from the contemporary Hillman Minx. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Now I might have not read the article thoroughly enough - I was thinking primarily of the Hillman-based Husky, which was hardly a separate model, but rather just a different body style. If the original Husky is really as different from the Minx as the Sunbeam is from the Avenger then of course ir should be covered in a separate article, with a disambig link to the Imp article for the later model bearing the same name. Bravada, talk - 12:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It's somewhere in-between! It's more than just a different body, since the wheelbase is considerably shorter. I don't know whether the suspension and gearing were also different, but I suspect that they may well have been. I'll check that out. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 12:54, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I have now taken a brief look at the promo brochures of the early 1950s Husky and Minx and I believe they can be deemed separate models, especially given the existence of the regular Minx estate. Does what you say hold true for Audax-based Huskies too? Bravada, talk - 13:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, in much the same way. I'd argue the same for the Imp-based one. There's a lot of re-engineering to be done to allow a loading bay to go above a rear engine which loses much of its cooling in the process! But also, it seems confusing to me to miss a Husky out of the article just because the donor car changed. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really. All the obvious examples elude me at the moment, but there are many times when a badge is revived on a totally different car, and used to designate a body style or even just a trim level. See Fiat 500 Panoramica for an example of another RR-small-car-based estate. I believe it would be quite confusing to suddenly describe the Panoramica as a separate model, while it was just for Fiat's decision to put the "500" before Panoramica to make its situation different from the Imp-based Husky. Estate versions always require some reengineering from the standard versions. Oh, another, not RR example, is Morris Mini Traveller or whatever those estates were called. Or Rover Tourer, the 200/400-based one. Bravada, talk - 13:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

"Morris Mini Traveller" and "Austin Mini Countryman" or Morris Minor Traveller etc. Austin Rover used Countryman on a Montego estate I seem to recall.GraemeLeggett 14:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean... we ought to have three articles then; Hillman Husky (1954-58) (or Hillman Husky (Mark 1)), Hillman Husky (1958-65) (or Hillman Husky (Audax)), and Hillman Husky (1967-70). I'd argue very strongly that there be nothing but a disambiguation on Hillman Husky because I hate the messy confusing situation exemplified by Jaguar S-Type and Jaguar S-Type (1963).

seconded on disamig from Hillman Husky - i doubt we would ever get to a sufficient level to warrant an article for each incarnation. GraemeLeggett 14:00, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I think actually both S-Types could go together in one article, as they are both models separate from all other Jaguars of their time and quite similar in principle. I don't think we need separate articles for Mark 1 and Audax-based Huskies, they are logical continuation of one another (I mean the latter of the former), it's like Scenic and Megane (I don't mean those cars are like Megane and Scenic, it's that we do not need a separate article on the new Scenic). The Imp-based Husky is rather a different story, even though it is similar in a way, it is much smaller and actually is little more than a bodystyle of the car - Rootes-Chrysler.co.uk, which I would usually consider an authority on that, merely mentions the Husky as an "estate version". Otherwise, we would need a separate article for the Sunbeam Stiletto too... Bravada, talk - 14:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Resetting indentation!

For Graeme – am I right in understanding that you're suggesting/voting that the Huskies all go into the respective Minx and Imp articles, with just the disambig page?

For Bravada – The Sunbeam versions with the unique coupé bodywork, Sport running gear and racing successes? Okay, okay, no, I'm not about to argue for them to get an article... but the Husky has a special merit of its own: it spawned the Commer Cob, thus becoming a donor car in its own right. My authoritative source on these things isn't the website, but Graham Robson's excellent "Cars of the Rootes Group" (ISBN 0-947981-35-7) which I'd better put in as a reference. It describes the Husky in the midst of the descriptions of the Minx family, but it gives it a lot of em[phasis as a seperate model. However, I'm not meaning to make a crusade out of this, and since I appear to be in the minority now, I'll go along with a merger if that's the consensus :) – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 14:24, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I have just taken a brief look at the Google search results for "Commer Cob" and it seems it it just a panel van version of the original (Minx-based) Husky. I guess if we consider the Cob a separate model, why won't we start an article on the Astravan? More constructively, however - I believe all subjects could get their own articles in the end provided there is sufficient content. For example, there was precious little about the Sunbeam said before I expanded the article, so it wasn't that unnatural to have it within the Avenger article to avoid creating a stub. However now that the article is expaned (and it is still quite superficial, I would say), it is quite too long to fit as a subsection of Avenger. Same with Hillman Imp - if one day the sections on Stiletto and Imp-based Husky will grow so big that keeping them within the article would become unweildy, they should obviously be spun into separate articles.

What we have now, however, is an article that is still quite stubbish, and I am afraid the section on the "Imp" Husky would not pass this stage without copying redundant information from the Imp article. After learning more about the "Minx" Husky, I believe there is enough material to fill the article, and there are reasons to keep it in a separate article rather than mix with Minx :D (which is a total mess itself, actually, but that's not a valid reason here) I guess the current wording of the Husky section could more or less stay with a link to "Main article - Hillman Imp" (or perhaps the section, once it would be created.

I am not sure whether I expressed myself correclty, but I hope your intelligence will make up for my deficiencies in this area... Bravada, talk - 14:47, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Minx Husky information would be be better on the Minx page which is decidedly underwhelming at the moment - should it ever develop enough momentum to be spun off again then so be it. consider Ford Escort for how this article might well look. less the giant templates. GraemeLeggett 15:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The Minx article is indeed a sad thing right now. Since I've got some time on my hands, I'll have a go at it this week sometime, leaning heavily on the two sources mentioned above of course. Once it's a half-decent article it should have an obvious place for the Husky to be slotted into. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Production totals

This sentence in the current article: "42,000 of this Husky were sold until the model was replaced in 1958 (a year after the "parent" Minx was itself replaced). 159,960 produced." seems more than a little confusing. Looking at the article on the Minx, it doesn't look like the "Mk Vlll" Minx itself had 159,000+ units produced, so I'd tend to believe the 42,000, but I don't have the referenced book to check. What's the correct number? 96.238.148.17 (talk) 04:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

I put in the statement on production figures and am not sure where the rogue 159,960 came from. My confession is that I probably cut and pasted the book info for the ref and took a bit of a previous statement as well and then did not check the result. Apologies. It is clearly wrong and now deleted. The actual figure in the Robson book is 41,898. Malcolma (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I was just wondering what was happening.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)