Talk:Volkswagen Karmann Ghia

Disputed

"Ghia took an existing, but unused, design (originally intended for Chrysler or Studebaker) and modified it..."

That is an alternative theory but not the conventional history. There is certainly disagreement about about that history and I think it incorrect to state that view so flatly as if it were fact.

The designer at Ghia denied that the Chrysler prototype was the source inspiration for his design.

---

According to the original source from which this account came, the wording of the article is not correct in either case.

Virgil Exner (the former chief designer of Chrysler) and his son, Virgil Exner, Jr., maintained that the Karmann Ghia's design was a scaled-down adaptation of the Chrysler D'elegance show car that Exner Sr. designed and Ghia built in very small numbers (perhaps 25 copies) in 1953. According to an article entitled "Thinking Ahead: Virgil Exner's Ghia-Chrysler Showcars" by Richard Langworth in Special Interest Auto No. 30 (Sept.-Oct., 1975), the elder Exner said "when the Karmann Ghia came out, it was scaled right down to the fraction" from the D'elegance. The D'elegance had a different front clip, and it had the fake Continental kit decklid later found on some Chrysler cars. Virgil Exner, Jr., said that "on account of the rear engine the nose [of the Karmann Ghia) was changed" and adds "I went to school for a time in Austria, and saw the prototype down in Torino. They asked my opinion -- did it look too much like the D'elegance? I said no, it looked just like it." [Both quotes from the Langworth article, p. 18.] Exner, Jr. reiterated those thoughts in a recent set of comments he made on my website. He said:

"In 1955 I had turned 22 and was attending the Kunst und Bilden Akadamie in Wein (Vienna) Austria. When school was out in late May a buddie [sic] of mine and I made our way to Torino to visit Luigi Segre and Ghia. Paul Farago, my father's and my great associate car builder, was there and he asked Luigi to roll out the first Karman Ghia [sic] production prototype, as 'it was developed from the D'Elegance.' Chief Engineer Giovanni Savonuzzi had done a beautiful job of scaling down the D'Elegance and making it into the K-G. Segre had bought out Mario Boano in 1954. Boano was a good friend, but was prone to changing my fathers designs. Paul had an issue with Gigi as to weather the windshield header might be too low on the K-G as to make the roof look too heavy. They both asked me. I said that I thought so too, and that I would raise it by an inch. 'Done,' said Luigi and it was, just before production was announced. I showed Segre some of my advanced design sketches for my 'Simca Special,' the chassis of which I had bought from Paul in his Detroit sport car shop the previous summer. Luigi wrote me a letter of contract after I had returned to Notre Dame in the fall of 1955 to supply sketches and drawings from time to time when I had time....under a more complete contract with Segre in 1959, I designed the concept for the Karmann Ghia 1500 Type III."

[comment left by Exner on the website Ate Up With Motor on April 10, 2009]

Boano and several other of the Ghia craftsmen later insisted (for example, in Jan Norbye's book on Volkswagen, of which I don't have a copy) that the Karmann Ghia design was purely Boano's invention. Since this appears to be a conflict of opinion between the actual designers of the vehicle, both sides of which have been repeated in published quotes and interviews, I would suggest that the article mention both versions, with the appropriate citations. Accepting either as definitive or true seems arbitrary, rather than accurate. ArgentLA (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Sports car?

Hmmmm... the beetle of the time, and was certainly seen by many as underpowered. But while the Mark II Sprite addressed , and often seem to forget that the vast majority of sports car owners will never drive on a race track in their lives.

Not quite sure how to handle this. As the sports car article says, where exactly to draw the line is fraught with difficulty. The Honda probably qualifies, and the Celica (even the early 1600) might just scrape in. Andrewa 20:10, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm again... neither the Prelude nor Celica articles are in Category:Sports cars, although both article introductions clearly (and accurately IMO for the Honda at least) describe the vehicle as a sports car. Andrewa 20:17, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

not a sports car

Even VW in its marketing was euphemistic in its use of "sports car"

842U (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

is too a sports car

Most would call the '56 Porsche Speedster a sports car. According to Car and Driver, "You just have to accept the fact that the last Speedster built is a Karmann Ghia."

See and enjoy http://www.karmannghiaconnection.com/72roadtest.html, the August '72 article comparing the two cars.

--EdwardEditor (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sources

The article could really use sources. 842U (talk) 11:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If I don't hear from anyone on this, I'm going to start restructering the article around referencable information. The whole "English Pewter" thing sounds interesting, but it's got some puffery in it that sounds suspicious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 842U (talk • contribs) 15:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Karmann Ghia in popular culture

The "... In Popular Culture" section should be deleted. It is only a list of movie/TV appearances, which did not contribute to either the development or (unless proved otherwise) the sales success of the car. Not only that, the section was renamed from "Trivia" to "... In Popular Culture" here. You can find a discussion on trivia sections in automotive articles here, here,here and here. --Pc13 (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know... they are factually based and referenced. The car's popularity and social importance ARE reflected in this section of the article. 842U (talk) 17:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really, that's just a list of film appearances. Are they even relevant to the movie's story or plot? Because they are not relevant to the success (or lack thereof) of the car, nor to its development. Appearing in those films did not impact the sales of the cars. Therefore, it isn't needed, it's only irrelevant trivia. --Pc13 (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

You also said those film appearances are referenced. I don't see any refs in this page. --Pc13 (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

How again, do we know whether these appearances impacted sales -- what is our source of that information? And how can movies impact sales of a car that's out of production? Can we use a different standard for a car that's out of production? Realizing that issue has been argued, but not resolved, the thought is that lists like this can substantiate (or not) the notability of a car. I say it's ok to leave the list in for now. 842U (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I told you to look here, here, here and here for previous discussions. WikiProject Automobiles has a standard for trivia sections, and that standard is for movie/TV/videogame appearances to not be included, unless they significantly impacted the sales and development, such as was the case with the Mini Moke, or at the very least were relevant to the plot, such as the DeLorean DMC-12. Trivia sections have been consistently deleted by WP:CARS members. What substantiates notability for the car is technological development (eg Lancia Lambda's monobloc design or the Jensen FF's all-wheel drive), technological trend setting (Renault 16 initiating the general hatchback body trend among European midsize cars) and sales figures (see Volkswagen Beetle and Toyota Corolla). --Pc13 (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I read those discussions -- not everyone agrees -- keeping in mind that I didn't place any of the questioned items into the article. No rudeness intended... we all know that Wikipedia has some flexibility built into it. As frequently as these sections get removed, they get put back. Some like yourself feel the debate is closed. I don't. Nothing about this section of the article is in stark contrast to the Five Pillars. Thanks for keeping up the discussion... and keeping it civil. 842U (talk) 11:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hatnote

To those who have added a hatnote disambiguating this article with the Carmen Ghia article, please note, WP:hatnote advises against trying to disambiguate trivial information (5.1) or information that... isn't ambiguous (5.4). It isn't enough that Carmen Ghia is a homonym with Karmann Ghia... there has to be a reasonable argument that the two would be confused — or that their connection isn't trivial. On top of this, the Carmen Ghia article has serious problems; it is missing citations and doesn't meet criteria for notability. 842U (talk) 20:25, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

842U, having seen your explanation, I have to say I see where you're coming from, and on balance, that does sound right, so I will leave the hat note off. Thanks for the clarification. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 23:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Andie's car...

This was Andie's car in the 80's movie 'Pretty in Pink'. It was mauve, and I don't know what year it was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.168.40.4 (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Volkswagen Variant

Refering to the Type 3 as a Volkswagen Variant (and linking it to the Type 3) is incorrect. The term Variant in the VW context refers to a station wagon, not the Type 3 platform. The so called "Squareback" was the first Volkswagen Variant, and was a Type 3, but there are various other Type 3s, the Notchback and Fastback being the most well known. Elsewhere on Wikipedia there is a discussion on stationwagons, and this is all explained there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.51.11.6 (talk) 06:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Volkswagen Karmann Ghia. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080223183326/http://www.vwtrendsweb.com/features/0110vwt_volkswagen_karmann_ghia_history/ to http://www.vwtrendsweb.com/features/0110vwt_volkswagen_karmann_ghia_history/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cardesignnews.com/site/home/display/store4/item276559/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051109134954/http://type34.org/gallery/tour to http://www.type34.org/gallery/tour

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 15:40, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Claim about Walter Dorwin Teague

The article claims that Walter Dorwin Teague named this car one of the world's most beautifully designed products, but it was either his son who did that, or it's a completely fabricated claim. The only source I can find for the claim is a Volkswagen ad which named "W. Dorwin Teague", and claimed that he named it as such in 1969. Teague died in 1960, so he obviously would've not been able to do anything like this.

I'm not editing it myself because I have no idea how exactly I'd phrase it instead. Scrabcrab (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)