Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 53

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

→

Archive 59

Motor Magazine = The Motor?

In Citroën 2CV and Hot hatch, two references are to some publication apparently called Motor Magazine. Is this The Motor? Or some other publication actually called Motor Magazine? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

You have already linked your question to the wikipedia entry on "Motor" which states that it was called "The Motor", later just "Motor". I respectfully submit that this is your answer. I don't know when the name change happened. By 1968, when my mother gave me an annual subscription to it as a Christmas present, it had become plain "Motor". I think the cover price by then was 2/6 (that's two shillings and sixpence), though it might still have been 2/0 (two shillings) at that point. Regards Charles01 (talk) 19:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the answer in my question. Motor and Motor Magazine may well be two different publications, just like Circulation (ISSN 0009-7322) and Circulation Journal (ISSN 1346-9843) are two different publications. It could also refer to Motor (Hearst magazine) or Motor (magazine). I note that the Hearst magazine article distinguishes between itself, The Motor, and Motor Magazine. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Headbomb. The reference in the hot hatch article is Motor (Australian magazine). The 2CV reference could be either Motor (American magazine) or The Motor; given that it is discussing a Citroen, I think the latter is more likely. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

In this case, Citroën 2CV, it is The Motor of 27 September 1950 (not 17 September 1950). Here is a link to the front cover (I wish they'd cost me only ninepence - more like 1/6) and the contents (still The Great paper shortage so very thin brief publications on cheap paper were the norm) and some images of the related content

More detail: The 2c.v. 375 c.c. Citroen better

I have corrected the article. Very happy to enter a discussion as to why it is that publication - the suggested alternatives are all monthlies. Eddaido (talk) 10:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Eddaido: don't spend too much time on this. I only wanted to have the citations in the articles clear for the reader since WP:JCW/WP:MCW showed potential issues (at WP:JCW/Target15#The Motor). These have been fixed as far as I'm concerned, although certainly do feel free to further improve the articles by providing better links. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

New car pictures uploaded

Forgot to mention that I uploaded plenty of new pictures the latest cars on the road as well as quite a few in-betweens. I will leave it between you guys if there any that could be used in a article. I can already see a few that could be used such as the new Vauxhall Vivaro. Thanks.[1] --Vauxford (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't seem like anyone is interested or likely care. Reason why I'm asking because (in case you forgot) I cannot do it myself due to my community restriction. Maybe in the future I might make another discussion on here with a assortment of pictures I recently uploaded and ask members on here if these could be usable in articles. Thoughts of this idea? --Vauxford (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Good idea -->Typ932 ^T·C 16:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Vauxhall Vivaro

Can someone please add one of the Vauxhall Vivaro Mk 3 that I uploaded onto the galley section of the article, thanks. Citroën_Jumpy#Mk3 --Vauxford (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

added -->Typ932 ^T·C 16:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Cars introduced in X

There is a dispute regarding articles such as Ford Fiesta which includes the following categories:

Category:Cars introduced in 1976

Category:1980s cars

Category:1990s cars

Category:2000s cars

Category:2010s cars

The WP:SUBCAT guideline says that since a car introduced in 1976 is a 1970s car, an edit like this which added Category:1970s cars is wrong. On the other hand, someone with an exaggerated sense of neatness might feel 1970s cars naturally should appear at the bottom of the article. Has this been discussed? What is the prevailing view? My interest is due to a dedicated IP editor who does not use talk pages. More opinions before I engage further would be desirable (see my talk). Johnuniq (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Agree; per SUBCAT, should not go in the parent cat (the decade) and I have 'always' done it that way. Eagleash (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I've seen flipping back and forth for this over the last few weeks. WP:SUBCAT says that the 1976 cat is preferred and the 1980s cat should be deleted. However, as you said, many people don't realise this. So I've taken to doing it as follows:

[[Category:Cars introduced in 1986]]
<!-- [[Category:1980s cars]] not needed because [[WP:SUBCAT]] says [[Category:Cars introduced in 1986]] overrides it -->
[[Category:1990s cars]]
[[Category:2000s cars]]
[[Category:2010s cars]]

Doesn't stop all of them but it does help.  Stepho  talk  00:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Er... Is it me? (Often is!) 1976 overrides 1980s? Overrides 1970s yes, but not understanding 1980s? Eagleash (talk) 01:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

My mistake, 1976 cat overrides 1970s cat. Too early on a Sunday morning the and the WP servers are fighting me :(  Stepho  talk  01:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Been there; done that! :) Eagleash (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

My view: the more specific subcategory has been created far more recently than the parent category; grouping by date of introduction fits best (per WP: SUBCAT), but the large number of auto articles is still in the process of catching up. This also allows for better categorization of automobiles that have multiple articles (the Ford Fiesta example being one of them)--SteveCof00 (talk) 08:24, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I took the liberty of repairing Stepho's entry above so as to avoid confusion. I myself did the same thing (overcategorizing) for a brief moment, but then someone explained it to me (just once, that was all it took). Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Eagleash, Stepho-wrs, Eagleash, and Mr.choppers: (and anyone with an opinion) I think everyone who responded says that because Ford Fiesta is in Category:Cars introduced in 1976, the 1970s decade category (Category:1970s cars) should be removed. I have been asked to block an IP who repeatedly adds the latter category without discussion so I would like a clarity—is my understanding of the above correct, namely that everyone agrees the 1970s decade category should be removed? Johnuniq (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

"Everyone agrees" seems to be quite a "big ask" on anything .... Maybe "yes:no" works for early computers. Maybe even for early gods. (Depends in your early gods, of course. And maybe on your computers) But many wikpedia contributors are human. Success Charles01 (talk) 09:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

That phrase should be read in conjunction with the earlier "everyone who responded". Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

John, yes, that's how I read it. "an article should be categorised as low down in the category hierarchy as possible, without duplication in parent categories above it." Therefore the 1970s cat should be removed because the 1976 cat is lower down in the category hierarchy and underneath 1970s. But I would put an appropriate comment for those those don't know about WP:SUBCAT yet.

If somebody is doing something repeatedly without discussion that goes against consensus then the lack of communication is a reason for being disciplined in itself.  Stepho  talk  10:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes the parent cat is not non-diffusing so should only be in the subcat. Eagleash (talk) 13:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

There have been questions about whether or not those categories should be non-diffusing, and therefore included. There was previously a discussion here but the constant personal attacks quashed interest in continuing it.

I don't have a particularly strong opinion one way or the other, but I can see the reasoning behind having them non-diffusing so that may be worth contemplating. --Sable232 (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Cross Brand Successors?

I noticed an interesting discussion today between Sable232 (talk · contribs) and Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs). There is long standing text across numerous vehicles articles that point to a successor that is a different brand when the parent brand of the vehicle dies. Plymouth Voyager points to Chrysler Town and Country. Oldsmobile Bravada points to Saab 9-7X (but 9-7x doesn't point anywhere else). What should be the rule for this? The OEMs wanted to keep buyers in the family but there aren't really many reliable sources saying X is the successor of Y. Voyager was designed to be the value model while the T&C was designed as the high end model in the US while the T&C in Europe was named Voyager (can it be made more confusing...). spryde | talk 22:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

If reliable sources don't verify it, then delete it. If they do, then keep it. If a company markets the Ford Probe as the successor to the Ford Mustang, and we can verify they said it, then we can say they said it, using in-text attribution. If quality sources disagree, we can say their opinion of what the "true" successor is, and attribute that to them, again, in-text, not just a footnote. If there are no significant reliable sources who disagree over what, if anything, is the successor, then that fact can go in an infobox and maybe in a hatnote. Any time it's unclear or disputed, leave the infobox fields blank and explain the situation in the body text of the article.

Infoboxes are really meant as quick aids that readers can glance at and be confident they're getting good, but basic, information. Anything requiring nuance and qualifications shouldn't be in an infobox. We don't force-fit facts into infoboxes for the sake of makeing sure every field is filled in. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

There are cases to be made for such successor migrations on occasion, but Purplebackpack is definitely engaging in OR imho. I agree with Dennis and also with spryde's comment at pbp's talk page.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:57, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

This one is particularly egregious. Buick Skyhawk -> Saturn S-series???  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that in cases like this we should have a RS making the claim. In some cases I would argue we could go with a platform based successor. Consider something like the Mercury Tracer which was based on a Mazda platform that also was the base for the US model Escort. Mercury was discontinued but the Escort was replaced by the Focus. In that case it might be reasonable to point to the C170/Focus platform as the replacement since it was the FoMoCo small car platform that replaced the Mazda based platform. I wouldn't say the Focus was a successor to the Tracer. Rather, in the Mercury lineup there was no successor since the entire brand was discontinued. Springee (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

In most cases, anything outside of the same brand should have a reliable source - preferably either a manufacturer's press release or a reputable news source reporting a statement from the manufacturer. (There's likely no shortage of speculation from various commentators the same way there is that speculation here.) Lineages within a brand are clear, but anything beyond that would be speculative. Yes, the Buick Rainier and Saab 9-7x were introduced around the same time the Oldsmobile Bravada was discontinued - does that mean both were its successor? One or the other? It stands to reason that GM would expect Olds buyers to move to Buick but probably not to Saab, yet that's merely speculation on my part and wouldn't belong in the article, unless there is something along the lines of "GM intends to steer Bravada buyers to the Rainier, while the 9-7x is aimed at gaining new customers outside of GM" from a reliable source to reference. --Sable232 (talk) 01:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

It's pretty unclear what should and shouldn't qualify as a predecessor/successor to a particular vehicle. I have my own ideas of where I'd draw that line and it is inconsistent. Much like what is an "SUV" vs a "crossover", I doubt there's a rule that could be applied even in "most" situations. Predecessor and successor should be reserved for cars that have generation-specific pages e.g. Volkswagen Golf Mk4, otherwise things can get confusing when models/brands are discontinued or combined (see: Cadillac XTS + Cadillac DTS + Cadillac STS) or when there has been a several year hiatus of a model (see: Pontiac G8/Chevrolet SS which is somehow succeeded by the Buick Regal?). May as well list the new Corvette as the successor to the Fiero.

A similar discussion could be had for the "Related" section in the infobox, and in a lot of instances these vehicles are getting double listed as both related and predecessor/successor. I'm also seeing instances of vehicles that were sold for several years simultaneously listed as predecessor/successor. If it can't clearly fit into one of either related or predecessor/successor it probably doesn't deserve to be in the infobox at all. --IPBilly (talk) 00:57, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Talkpage discussion

Talk:Ford_Transit#Ford_Transit_facelift_picture and Talk:Renault_Master#Replacement_picture_for_Nissan_Interstar

Please see talkpage discussion when you have the time, thanks. --Vauxford (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Ford FE engine

In the article the author states that the 428 was available in the Mercury S-55s, indicating that was the only Mercury’s to receive the 428. While this it true, the 428 was also available in other Mercurys. It is listed in the “ Motor’s” Manual. I have an original 1966 Mercury Parklane with the 428 “ Super Marauder” . Just a slight error, but it is an error. I’m new to this and don’t know how to do all the things asked her. My email is <redacted> if you need to contact me. Steve Hill.47.217.135.27 (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia is crowd sourced and people can either make mistakes or outright lie. So any fact can be challenged and any challenged fact needs to be verified from a reliable source. Reliable sources can be things like books, magazine articles, web sites from reputable companies (not forums or self published personal sites). Sales brochures can also be considered (although power figures from these are often treated as suspect because manufactures often exaggerate). As a last resort, a link to a photo of the car's build plate showing the engine code might do but since manufactures often don't publish details of how to decode them then this might also be not enough. Make sure your car had that engine from the factory - it is common for people to swap in better engines later in its life. Make sure it wasn't a special order - these generally don't count unless the car has special notability.  Stepho  talk  22:33, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Standard Ensign Image

Talk:Standard_Vanguard#New_Standard_Ensign_image

Please see talkpage discussion when you have the time, thanks. --Vauxford (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Done.  Mr.choppers | ✎  20:17, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Production dates in section headers

There is a constant stream of edits in my watchlist as people edit the years listed in section headers, changing them back and forth based on their opinions, model years vs production years, chauvinism, etc etc. This is problematic as it is a waste of time, it causes instability when people pipelink, and the inconsistency makes the dates meaningless.

I was always under the impression that when an end date is included in the section header, it should be when the car was discontinued or received a direct successor from the original manufacturer in its home/main market. Now this obviously still leaves a lot of room for interpretation, for instance with Japanese producers who often kept station wagons in production for quite a while longer, or with cars like the 2CV that was kept in production in Portugal but still sold back home in France (viz., Beetle in Mexico). Including every single market becomes completely meaningless when the results looks like this (from Nissan Navara):

• First generation D22 series (1997–present)
• Second generation D40 series (2004–present)
• Third generation D23 series (2014–present)

Additionally, at what point is a car no longer the same car? The original Renault 5 continued to be produced in Iran until 2013, sort of, although it only retains the body panels (with modifications), having had its underpinnings replaced by those of the Kia Pride. Is that the same? What about the Chinese versions of various Japanese pickups that have a new name and different engines and altered appearance?

The more I think about it, the more I think that end dates serve no purpose beyond providing a locus for conflict. The introductory date (already optional) provides enough information, and aside from the Model Year aficionados it also leaves much less room for disagreement. Opinions? If we have already covered this then the consensus ought to be added to the guidelines. @Toasted Meter:  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:09, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think successor introduction is all that good a line, the E30 kept going for four years after the E36 was launched. End of production by the original manufacturer might work, but I am not sure how the line should be drawn with subsidiaries and joint ventures, do cars made by Magna Steyr count. Toasted Meter (talk) 02:19, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I do not think you will ever end ALL disagreements about how to identify the year when a model was discontinued, though your own opening for this discussion sets out some some common sense guidelines. In export markets where consumers are not well informed about recently launched models, manufacturers often manage to list and sell older cars as new models for several years after production has ended, simply by clearing out old stocks. On the other hand, seveal French automakers perfected the habit of continuing to produce and sell runout models on the home market for several years after replacing them for all export markets. Only adds to the confusion. The important thing is that the text of the entry highlights and clarifies any SIGNIFICANT unclarities. I guess for the content of the infobox itself, where there is no clear right or wrong answer for the year when production ended, there is scope for a one/two word clarification in the infobox :"1980-1990 (Japan)", "1982-1991 (Europe)", "1982-1994 (UK, Ireland & Malta)". Gratuitous complexity? Sometimes. It needs to be judged case by case. But I would disagree with a "one size fits all rule" which says that entries - even their infoboxes - should ALWAYS fail to provide accurate information simply because doing so makes life more complicated. Regards Charles01 (talk) 10:46, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I've always thought that build dates cover all years that it was built - without artificial restrictions on favourite countries or parallel production lines. If a generation was built in one country, then also built in another country and that country continued that model for decades even when the home country has moved on to new generations, then that model was in production for a long, long time.

However, the suggestion of dropping the end date in section titles has merit and I would be happy to support that if it avoids further arguments. I would still support using end dates in the infoboxes for all production, no matter how long or how how many successor models have come after.  Stepho  talk  22:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this recently, given the increasing number of instances where a vehicle is redesigned or discontinued in its home market but not in another. It's pretty cut and dried for, say, the Oldsmobile Omega (save for those who believe that model years are invalid and need to be expunged from Wikipedia), but with the Buick Regal, there's North American and Chinese production with differing years. (Currently, the section headings reflect Chinese production of the two most recent generations.)

Removing the end dates from section headings as Mr. Choppers suggests, at least in the ambiguous cases, would go a long way towards resolving this. Typically, the introduction date isn't as unclear, and it still provides adequate information for a reader looking at the table of contents trying to find a year rather than a numbered generation. --Sable232 (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Someone looking for the year of their own car in the section titles can get into trouble no matter which way we decide. Let's say they have a vehicle made in the second country well after production has stopped in the first country. If we use the production dates of the first country then they will not find it. So let's flip to the opposite case. If the we use the combined production dates this person in the second country will have multiple sections to look in. Both cases will cause trouble to somebody. But luckily we have images for most generations of most vehicles - especially the long lived ones. So they scroll up and down until they see one that looks like theirs.  Stepho  talk  23:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly - that ambiguity exists regardless of whether one or both are in the header, but keeping the introduction year at least gets the reader close. --Sable232 (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Just wanted to make clear that I absolutely support including any number of valid dates in the infoboxes, as laid out by Charles01 and all others. It sounds as if we have pretty strong support for generally omitting end dates in the section headers (doubtful there could be exceptions, although I cannot imagine them yet), but I think we can wait a week or two. The real discussion is yet to come, I'm sure.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

We should put this on the conventions page. I've already notice editors adding them back to pages where they were removed.  Stepho  talk  01:47, 30 November 2019

There is no reason for this! It’s not necessary and causes confusion.

Ee2mba — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ee2mba (talk • contribs)

Do you mean using the end dates is confusing or removing the end dates is confusing? Your comment is very confusing...  Stepho  talk  10:16, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I mean using them is confusing Ee2mba (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Promotional article

The Creative Workshop's entry reads entirely like promotional content. Some eyes are definitely needed here. @Classicsworkshop:.  Mr.choppers | ✎  07:38, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree. It looks like an advertisement and the primary contributors are clearly spam accounts. I would propose deleting the article. Springee (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

RFC B6 transmission

What is a B6 tranmission? Please respond at this discussion. Thanks!Coastside (talk) 22:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

"Historic"

Historic means (says Google)

• 1. ADJECTIVE famous or important in history, or potentially so. "the area's numerous historic sites"
• 2. GRAMMAR (of a tense) used in the narration of past events, especially Latin and Greek imperfect and pluperfect.

Historic means 'famous or important in history', as in a historic occasion, whereas historical means 'concerning history or historical events', as in historical evidence: thus a historic event is one that was very important, whereas a historical event is something that happened in the past.

Asking for opinions because I see that WP has so much recent classifying of (very) ordinary cars that recently went out of production in lists headed "Historic". Would this not be better headed "Out of production" or need there be a special heading at all? Yes 2019 is now history. Are its cars therefore "historic" along with every one of its events? Eddaido (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The word is an example of editorializing, or lableing. Saying a model from the past is "historic" can very well be a valid opinion, but it's still an opinion and requires in-text attribution to an expert whose opinion we have good reason to be interested in. It's not a classification at all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:13, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you point out an example on WP?  Stepho  talk  01:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's an example here on this page and another and more and Skoda up to 2018. Apologies for my slow response. Eddaido (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Eddaido. Categories in the wp mainspace are generally a bit of a mess, but that's probably mainly because most readers and editors do not use them to find articles.  Mr.choppers | ✎  23:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Talkpage discussion, multiple image proposal and new set of images uploaded

I uploaded a batch of images when I went to the Salon Privé at Blenheim Palace, taken photographs of old historical Bentleys as well as the first set of the new Flying Spur uploaded on the Commons, rare sports cars and supercars and cars produced by start-up make that debuted there (E.g. Jannarelly, Automobili Pininfarina, Austro Daimler ADR 630, Fenyr SuperSport, PAL-V flying car, Brabham BT62. Puritalia, Ateliers Diva, Rimac and Tushek) some of which has no images of in their respective article. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photographs_by_Vauxford_%E2%80%94_Salon_Priv%C3%A9_2019

Please see talkpage discussion when you have the time, thanks. Talk:Porsche_911#Infobox and article image proposal Talk:Porsche_992#Infobox and article image proposal

Please can you also check on the Ford Transit facelift discussion because there has been no comments since December. Talk:Ford_Transit#Ford_Transit_facelift_picture --Vauxford (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

UTQG jumbled order of components

In the Uniform_Tire_Quality_Grading article, the components Treadware, Traction, and Temperature are presented in one order in the first sentence, and a different order in the rest of the article. Which is correct? It's crucial to know that order to interpret the tire safety rating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.46.127.73 (talk) 19:55, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Since the labels on the tyre are spelt out in English, the order is not super critical. But since it is trivial to do it right, we may as well. The reference https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/49/575.104 says "The words “TREADWEAR,” “TRACTION,” AND “TEMPERATURE,” in that order, may be laid out vertically or horizontally." The pictures in the article show the same order. This question should have been asked on the articles talk page.  Stepho  talk  21:59, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Recent pictures uploaded

I uploaded a good amount of pictures of the latest cars on the road. I can already see a few that could be used in articles such as the new Vauxhall Corsa, Vauxhall Astra, Ford Puma (2019), Peugeot 2008, many of the new Audi and BMW models, Mazda models, Renault models, Volkswagen models and Skoda models Thanks. --Vauxford (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Pilgrim

Hi,

There seems to be confusion around the word "Pilgrim" in the context of automobiles. There is a stub for an American car called a Pilgrim reportedly built-in 1914, but there is also a British factory in East Sussex that has been called "Pilgrim" in several guises since the 1970s. They built Kit-cars including the Pilgrim Bulldog (series 1-4), Pilgrim Bulldog FT and continue to build the Pilgrm Sumo, which is a clone of the iconic Shelby AC Cobra.

Most times I have ever tried to edit anything on Wikipedia, my edits have generally been deleted or amended, and as I am the treasurer of the (not for profit) Pilgrim Car Club, for enthusiasts, I imagine exactly the same thing if I tried to disambiguate. But - in the context of cars - my Pilgrim is not a 1914 car from Detroit, but a 1980s car from England.

I don't mind having a go as my first project, but I have a fear of retribution. Everywhere I look there are three more pages of rules to read and all of the rules look to be trying to STOP new stuff getting created, so is there much point? Anyway - Wikipedia should have a page on the English Pilgrim cars. Dhjv (talk) 12:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

In the German wikipedia both companies seem to have pretty decent articles: de:Pilgrim Cars, and de:Pilgrim Motor Car Company, and there are categories at Commons (commons:Category:Pilgrim vehicles) with pictures of British Pilgrims. I think it should be possible to write an article on English Wikipedia for the British company. If you use good sources to back up statements in the article the chance of survival increases greatly. ⛐Boivie (talk) 12:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes - but who has time to risk that? I have already had to note my COI, being treasurer of the not for profit owners club. So - Wikipedia says I shouldn't write the article and what is my motivation anyway? Do editors really curate content in which they have no COI? Dhjv (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

early V10 engines

Hi folks. Can anyone think of a production V10 engine from before the 1990s? Or was the Dodge Viper actually the first? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Diesel V10s did exist in heavy duty applications before the 90s. But in a road car I think the Viper would be first, a few race cars used them before. Toasted Meter (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks, Toaster Meter. Even though it's a bit of an oddball layout, I'm still a bit surprised that no-one produced one before 1990. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Lamborghini was close with the P140 but it was canceled. Isuzu, Mercedes-Benz, MTU, MAN, Deutz and Tatra all made Diesel V10s, it seems odd that the page only mentions the Volkswagen motor. Toasted Meter (talk) 23:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Trucks?

I am trying to move some trucks and would appreciate anybody stopping by. The less you know about trucks the better, this is about their names, not the vehicles themselves. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 17:24, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Lloyds

I was doing something Lloyd-related and found the article to have a very strange title. I welcome input at Talk:North German Automobile and Engine. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  05:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

User:Moonythedwarf and deletionism

I think I may have gone over the top here. (Losiing weight - still attempting it, albeit a bit half-heartedly - makes a person grumpy at this time of day .... all through the day, actually.) I wonder if anyone else has a view to share on the relevant tak page. Please? And thank you Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Charles01, Hello, Hello! Yes, I will acknowledge I spend a lot of time deleting things, but in this case I genuinely believe the thing in question does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Could you please point me toward what guidelines prove it notable?

I generally try to avoid taking offense to things, so don't worry about that (I spend a lot of time doing anti-vandalism/anti-advertisement work, there's at least one person on this planet who would rather I didn't watch recent changes). MoonyTheDwarf (Braden N.) (talk) 08:35, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Andy Dingley's edit summary here "a model (or two) of a production car from a major maker would usually be considered notable, even from the 1920s" is not strictly correct. It is a fair observation to say that in past experience, nearly every car model from a major manufacturer has met the criteria for notability, but that is not the same as saying every model is inherently notable. Per WP:NRV "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists". If one believes car models are always notable, it ought to be all the easier to cite evidence. If you can't, then you have to give up the notion that every model is notable. WP:PRODUCT applies to all products, even cars, motorcycles, airplanes. It doesn't happen as often with cars as with motorcycles, but there are some that lack sufficient coverage to justify an article.

That doesn't mean we should rush do delete an article like Opel 8/40 PS, and I wouldn't use WP:PROD. WP:AfD is more appropriate, but I wouldn't even go there without checking on the talk page in a case like this. It's likely with a topic like this that the sources are offline, and a little time is needed to check them. Even if it turns out this model doesn't meet WP:PRODUCT, the outcome is going to be an upmerge to the company page or a parent vehicle model if it's a sub-model or derivative of some kind. In which case, cut to the chase and propose a merge, not deletion.

It appears now the only source is Werner (2001) and whether or not that sufficient to meet notability is already being discussed at Talk:Opel 8/40 PS.

Whether Moonythedwarf is a deletionist or not is irrelevant. Whether all of Moonythedwarf's edits are deletion nominations or not is irrelevant. The car either has sufficient coverage to meet the notability criteria or it doesn't. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

• If I'd meant "inherently" or "implicitly", then I'd have written that. "Usually" is precisely correct: although some may be seen as non-notable, that is unusual, i.e. it does not happen often.

If you want to AfD this as non-notable, then go ahead, but I doubt you'll raise much support for that. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:12, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Coming from a person who loves to know about the obscure and inbetweens which others might considered "non-notable". It doesn't sit with me well that articles of these automobiles are being nomianted for deletion. If these article are deleted, a part of that history that automobile had along with the sources it provided will be lost forever. Since I own books such as Deutsche Autos: 1920-1945 that covers that particlar Opel model, I might have other German-language books that would include the Opel that isn't by Werner but it still more then enough to cover WP:NRV. I personally think all automobiles no matter how obsurce or little known they are deserve a article on here since they all had a part in the history of it. --Vauxford (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

German Ford LTD?

There is something that strikes me as odd over in the German langauge Wikipedia, and I wonder if anybody might be able to help me with this matter: Someone made an edit to the Ford LTD article, claiming that the North American Ford LTD was sold in Germany for the 1981 model year. That is somewhat plausible, however, this editor claims that the LTD was fitted with a 4885 cm³ engine producing 101 kW / 137 PS. As far as I know, such an engine was never offered for the LTD. Does such a Ford engine even exist? Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:32, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I figured it myself: It's the 302 in³ Ford Windsor V8 with 4 in bore and 3 in stroke. They used the tax formula ($0{,}78\cdot b^{2}\cdot s\cdot C$; b=bore, s=stroke, C=number of cylinders) with millimetre figures rounded to half millimetres (4 in = 101.6 mm → 101.5 mm; 3 in = 76.2 mm → 76 mm). Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Holden Captiva (CG). Help needed in Commons

please see commons:Category talk:Holden Captiva (CG). Help is needed to solve problems there--Estopedist1 (talk) 14:23, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Potential merge candidates: Oltcit Club & Citroën Axel

Just curious what other people think about these articles. Essentially the same vehicle badged for Romania or western European markets, with the major difference being one engine that was only available in Romania. Given the already slightly tortuous history of the Citroën LN/LNA/Visa and Peugeot 104 and Talbot Samba, there is a chunk of "history and development" text that's been cut and pasted into several articles, which always worries me that things are going to be updated in fewer than all relevant places. Perhaps best to merge these two? Then there's a bit of work to be done working out where best to locate that development story. – Kieran T ^(talk) 15:17, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Cleaning up electric cars

Hi all. I'm not a member of this Wikiproject but I recently spent a lot of time making a first-pass attempt at cleaning up the battery electric cars; initially by taking the Category:Battery electric cars—with nearly 200 articles in it—and at minimum trying to separate the ones in current production from the long history of previous (short-lived, or uneconomical, or manufacturer was just playing with very limited-production EVs, or mere concept cars, ...) battery electric cars.

With 30+ hours into it, we've now got Category:Battery electric cars currently in production, Category:Battery electric cars in development, Category:Battery electric cars that were formerly produced, and Category:Battery electric concept cars. I"ve also been working on a cleanup of List of electric cars currently available which was a horribly out of date list article; literally over half of the cars listed there were not currently available; still working on that.

Would really appreciate it if some of the more experienced car-interested editors might take a look at the work I've recently done. And heck, if interested in helping get this new class of powertrain for cars represented better in the English Wikipedia as these things do seem to be going mainstream, would love it if anyone would want to help with the effort to better curate electric car articles. Cheers. N2e (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi N2e. Thanks for your efforts to better categorise the EV articles. It looks good to me. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 10:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

As I've already mentioned at Category talk:Battery electric cars currently in production, I don't like the idea of splitting out car categories by "in development", "currently available", and "formerly produced". They will have to be continuously updated as cars go in and out of production. Also, where is the precedence? I don't know of any other car categories split out like this. What was so bad about the category before? I see car categories with many more articles which haven't had any complaints. --Vossanova ^o< 19:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this for a couple of reasons. First, there is not a one size fits all distinction between "in production" and "in development", and "in development" and "concept". Furthermore, there is a difference between "in production" and "available to buy" that could complicate these classifications. Second, the foundation of the in development and concept categories is on the line of WP:CRYSTALBALL in a lot of cases. Absent pseudo-official announcements from the manufacturer most of the material that would go into the page of a not yet in production vehicle is either rumors or speculation. Certainly there are exceptions, but I don't think these categorizations encourage best practice use. IPBilly (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I admire your enthusiasm, but I have to agree with the two responses above with regard to the complexities and never-ending updates required to keep on top of such categories - even sourcing sufficiently accurate material to keep them up to date would tax the most diligent Wikipedians. Such nuances as the precise moment a concept car becomes a car 'in development' are often resolved subjectively unless something does appear in production and for sale, you're creating a rod for your own back. Better and much more easy to manage would be 'introduced in 2011' or 1920s, 1930s etc. Mighty Antar (talk) 16:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Aston Martin Lagonda Series 3

Could someone add this in the article when you have the time, thanks. Talk:Aston Martin Lagonda --Vauxford (talk) 20:50, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Should Knockoff wheel redirect elsewhere?

Please see discussion at Talk:Wire_wheel#Should_Knockoff_wheel_redirect_elsewhere?. Thanks! Prova MO (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Talkpage discussion/Skoda Rapid

[2]

Please see talkpage discussion when you have the time, thanks. --Vauxford (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

autokwix.com additions?

Nikolay.kozhukharenko (talk · contribs) has been busy adding a range of text sections, supported by references to https://autokwix.com/blog/shock-absorbers/ Do we want these, or not?

I would say not. The additions are poorly written, barely in English, and the supporting web link is well below WP:RS.

Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:06, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Andy Dingley (talk · contribs)

some addition may be written better, but I did my best to write them and quality is above average, for sure

Article which is linked is high quality, read it, please.

I feel disappointing about your flagging. It's not a spam, for sure, I would like to make hight quality contribution to Wikipedia

Please, remove me from this list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#autokwix.com

Nikolay.kozhukharenko (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

That is not a list, it is a project aimed at preventing spam. Your edits look very much like spam, and persistently trying to add them after being reverted makes them look even more suspicious, I recommend that you stop trying to add citations to autokwix.com, if your edits do get reverted ask why on the article talk page or the talk page of the user who reverted you. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Andy Dingley (talk · contribs), I'm not very experienced in contributing to Wikipedia. Deal, I'll stop adding links to the mentioned article. Thanks for detailed explanation, but the fact that you indicated me as a spammer upsets me because I really want to make hight quality contributions to Wiki. Nikolay.kozhukharenko (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it looked like some spamming I have seen in the past, good luck with your future edits. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Holden Commodore (VE) FAR

I have nominated Holden Commodore (VE) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. buidhe 00:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@Buidhe: The Ute section could probably need a few citations and the prices should be removed, the other two sections look fine to me. What's the quota of references to text you need?  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Fast station wagons

Looks good in brown.

Hi folks. Could you please put your thinking caps on about the earliest performance version of a station wagon that was produced? The oldest I can think of is the 1988 BMW E34 M5, but I'm guessing there's some 60s or 70s American wagons out there? Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not thinking that this would make for a genuine "apples vs. apples" comparison (considering that some 1970s full-size wagons outweigh the M5 Touring by over 1,500 pounds, a foot of width, and nearly 4 feet of length). For 1973, Chevrolet produced a Chevelle Malibu SS station wagon powered with a 454 cubic-inch V8, producing 245 hp. --SteveCof00 (talk) 07:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Australian Falcons from 1966 onward had V8 options, up to the 5.8L 351 engine. Starting in 1969, the Falcon wagon could have the GS (Grand Sport) pack added.

The 1968 Holden HK had a station sedan (aka wagon) that had a V8 option 5.0L 307 option. Later models increased this to the 5.8L Chevy 350.

I suspect that US Fords and Chevy's had similar V8 options of their wagons.  Stepho  talk  10:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Further checking, the 1955 Chevrolet Nomad had a 4.3L 283 V8.  Stepho  talk  10:52, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz W 111 230 S Universal

Volvo 145S

AZLK-2137

Mercedes-Benz S 123 280TE

• In 1966 and 1967, the Mercedes-Benz W 111 230 S was offered in an estate version called "Universal". It was made by I.M.A in Belgium, but officially sold by Mercedes-Benz dealerships. It had a 2.3 litre, straight-six engine with 88 kW, which was fast for a 1960s car, considering that the "smallest Mercedes" (W 110) had a 40 kW engine at the time.
• The 1973 Volvo 145 with its 2 litre straight-four engine (74 kW or 91 kW) seems fast to me.
• When compared with a Trabant 601 Universal, the 1975 AZLK-2137 with its peppy, modern 1.5 litre, cross-flow cylinder head, four-cyinder engine, rated 55 kW, is a fast estate.
• The 1978 Mercedes-Benz S 123 280TE with its 136 kW striaght-six engine is possibly one of the earliest "modern high perfomance estates" I can think of.
• German body maker Schulz has made at least one BMW E28S M5 touring (3.5 litre straight-six 210 kW) in the second half of the 1980s, but that car was never officially sold through BMW dealerships, though some BMW dealerships used models of the Schulz E28 as service vehicles throughout the 1980s.

--Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:24, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks SteveC, Stepho and Johannes. SteveC, a 454 cuin V8 in a station wagon sounds like heaven.... until I read the 245 hp power figure... yikes!

I could probably have explained it better sorry, I'm looking for cars marketed as sports models, rather than a bigger engine option on a family wagon. So the question is probably whether the equivalent sedans were considered performance models, which I don't think is the case for the Volvo, Mercs, AZLK and Bel Air Nomad. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 23:40, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

• What's a "station wagon"? There have been some quite esoteric and high-performance ones early on, before the obvious production examples, but they were built by custom coachbuilders as station-wagon conversions on saloon car chassis. There were many of these on Jaguar XJ6 chassis, later on the XJS, earlier on Rolls-Royce, even a few Lamborghini. Then of course there was the famous Rolls-Royce pickup in the 1920s, built to move Rolls-Royce R engines to the race teams. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

In the category of coachbuilt station wagons, this Vignale-bodied Ferrari 330 from 1967 comes to mind. Although I'm not sure if a 2-door shooting brake meets your criteria, as I usually think of a station wagon as having 4 doors. Prova MO (talk) 03:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

We also need to consider if he is talking about factory production vehicles or after market conversions. For the most part, WP articles are about production vehicles.  Stepho  talk  07:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

• Articles on production models should be about production models, if they want to claim "the first". But for the concept of "station wagon", it should include the one-offs. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Outside opinions needed at List of fastest production cars by acceleration

The discussion at [[3]] is stuck and outside opinions are needed. Drachentötbär (talk) 22:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Skoda Rapid & Octavia Infobox

Can we please conclude what image we should use on the infobox. The Rapid image discussion has been up for over a month and nothing has happened. I have created another discussion, this time for the Octavia infobox. This ambiguous new user is just self inserting their own photos simply because it the current generation. --Vauxford (talk) 15:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

[4] [5]

Allard J2 primary topic

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand what the need for a disambiguation page Allard J2 is? Surely most people who type in "Allard J2" are looking for Allard J2 (original), and also it's not like the other article even claims to have the same name, it is just Allard J2X-C. I think we should move Allard J2 (original) to Allard J2 and maybe put a hatnote to Allard J2X-C. They aren't really all that relevant (since the names aren't the same anyway) but the pageview stats back up that more readers are looking for the old roadster [6]. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 05:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Your proposal sounds fine. However, I would create a redirect Allard J2X that links to Allard J2#J2X. Similar for the J2X2 and J2X MkII. And I would add a (small) section in the J2 article that mentions and links to Allard J2X-C. As always, this should be discussed on one of the article talk pages, with just a shout-out here and on the other page to get our attention.  Stepho  talk  11:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

There's no requirement for it to be discussed in any particular place. I considered putting it in the talk page of Allard J2 (original) but it doesn't even have a talk page so I didn't see any point (and after all I could have just been bold and just done the moves anyway). I agree with the redirect you suggest, not sure why it doesn't already exist. If anything the current Allard J2 disambiguation page could be moved to Allard J2X since they both would have J2X in common. A7V2 (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

For any pagewatchers of Allard J2 (original) and Allard J2 who don't also watch this page (and may be interested in this discussion) I have placed a note on the talk pages. A7V2 (talk) 13:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I have used Template:For in situations like this. See Ferrari 212 E Montagna for an example. I find it more intuitive than having a link in "See also" or a section in the text, but I'm not sure whether one method is widely preferred/recommended. I also agree with the original proposal. Prova MO (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm an idiot who did not previously know what a "hatnote" is, I see now that this is exactly what A7V2 is proposing. Dusting off the brain cobwebs this monday morning! Prova MO (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

It was my (apparently incorrect) understanding that I would be able to carry out these moves myself... I moved the disambig page Allard J2 to Allard J2X but wasn't able to move Allard J2 (original) to Allard J2 over the new redirect even though it has a trivial edit history. I've listed it at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests. This is not good as now I'm not sure if Allard J2X should be changed a bit to reflect the current situation or just wait until the other move is completed first (since Allard J2 is currently a redirect). A7V2 (talk) 00:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

The page has now been moved and I've updated the disambig page Allard J2X as well as added a hatnote to Allard J2 to the Group C car. A7V2 (talk) 01:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Alfa Romeo Giulietta (940)

• Alfa Romeo Giulietta (940)

Hey I don't know if anyone's interested, but it looks like this article may be in need of an update. There's been persistent edit warring over it but it's all just updating the infobox with no sources and reversions with no actual discussions or attempts to update the content of the body itself. Based on the fact that there has been no discussion I can't even tell exactly what the dispute is over but it looks like the vehicle is being discontinued or something? I've fully protected the article for now but obviously that doesn't do anything to improve the situation in the long term. If any volunteers want to take a look and see about updating the article, let me know and I'll unprotect it. Thanks! ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 16:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll gladly volunteer, given that I don't encounter ego maniacs there. U¹ _quattro TALK 04:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Addition of Dauer 962 in McLaren F1 article

There has been a dispute going on about the inclusion of the Dauer 962 in the McLaren F1 article. Two editors are coming up with reasons like "it has been here for four years" and "The verified top speed record of the Dauer 962 LM was 404.6 km/h, not 402 km/h (which is the manufacturer claim) and you can find several sources for it, as well as sources which consider it a production car." While in reality this editor failed to present any of those "several" sources which he claims we can find regarding this. Only Evo magazine called it a production car in their September 2003 issue for most likely promotional purposes and a German magazine Autobild copied the term from there. Autobild also published what the company told them. There is no evidence that the record run was performed and after reading these two sources. As the McLaren's speed record was verified by Guinness, shouldn't we add those cars those records which were verified by Guinness? Because adding a controversial record to a good article certainly affects it's quality and wiki can get called out like this again. U¹ _quattro TALK 01:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Two editors think that when dealing with a poorly defined term like "production car" noting that some publications have said that the Dauer beat the F1 before the CCR or Veyron, and that it is due to mention how some sources differ on this subject. U1Quattro disagrees with this. Some other editors weighing in on this would be great. Toasted Meter (talk) 01:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Only two publications have said that. There hasn't been "several" publications that have said this as claimed. Production car while poorly defined should not give rise to such a term being used for promotional purposes included in the article when it is clear that Dauer converted some racing 962s into street legal specs. These cars also have Porsche VINs unlike Ruf cars which have their own VINs. That is in no way a production car. Also saying that something has been on Wikipedia for a long period of time doesn't merit that it is correct as seen in the link posted above. U¹ _quattro TALK 02:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

It absolutely does not matter for this discussion, but they don't have Porsche VINs, they have KBA no WMI VINs, as race cars they never had a VIN. Toasted Meter (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes it does matter for this discussion as only a production car can surpass the F1s record and for a vehicle to be a production car it has to have its own VIN. Ruf vehicles have their own VIN, this doesn't. U¹ _quattro TALK 06:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Also it seems funny to me that the beloved Dauer is not included in the List of fastest production cars because it does not meet Wikipedia's rules to be included in the list, yet two editors argue on reliable sources for it to be included on the McLaren F1 page. U¹ _quattro TALK 07:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Jaguar XK6 engine

Hi, considering to translate this article into German, its C-Class quality and Low-importance ratings have made me hesitate:

Personally, I would rate its importance rather as "Subject is only notable within its particular field or subject and has achieved notability in a particular place or area.", i.e. Mid-importance, as (1) this engine, when introduced in the late 1940s, was notable for its advanced DOHC design hitherto typical for racing rather than volume-production street cars (notwithstanding its long stroke, then typical in the UK and elsewhere for tax reasons), (2) in its various development stages it was by far the most important Jaguar power unit for 35 years until the advent of the AJ6, (3) it had an even longer production run of 43 years until the demise of the DS420 (and in specimens of the latter it may still be doing official duty in niches such as the wedding/funeral trade) -- but such rating is not for me to decide.

Perhaps more importantly: While I find the article "not too bad" from a factual and level of detail point, I would, before translation, appreciate some hints as to how to improve its quality, e.g. where to add more citations (only two such flags in place), or where to shorten? Many of the quoted sources are reputable and authoritative, being written be experts well known and acknowledged in the scene.

Lastly, and as already pointed out in Feb. 2007 (!), I find it unfortunate and inappropriate to name the article "Jaguar XK6 engine" in an effort to distinguish it from its single-specimen, experimental/development predecessors and its four-cylinder version which, even if officially announced as an option, never made it into series production. Throughout all the plentiful literature as well as the club scene, it is always referred to as "Jaguar XK engine". But again, while I would strongly advocate a renaming, it is not for me to decide.

Thanks for your consideration of the above points, HReuter (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC) (for 40+ years, owner and maintainer of a car propelled by this engine, cf. here, with a corresponding amount of relevant literature at hand, mainly from the UK)

I think that the article lacks a proper description of the cylinder head design. The reader gets to know that the engineers wanted to create an engine that has good "breathing" and "bmep". What I reckon this is supposed to express is that the engine was meant to have good gasflow so it would have a good cylinder charge, which would result in a high specific torque output. There are several more pieces of text that put emphasis on this, but the article generally remains vage about how exactly the good cylinder charge was achieved. There is some text that explains the inlet port swirl, the valve layout, the combustion chamber design, and that the engine has two camshafts. But does the engine have advanced valve timing or intake manifold design? What is the general cylinder head layout, is it a crossflow cylinder head, or does it have its inlet and exhaust ports on the same side? Do the inlet ports have a gas-flow-optimised surface? What about the pistons, do they have a specially shaoed surface? The article could be a lot more specific about these things. I also happen to have a picture of the Type C version of this engine, it can be found on commons. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 04:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Multiple manufacturers in Fiat infobox

Hi, In the Manufacturer part in infoboxes on some Fiat models Typ932 has been replacing

"Fiat S.p.A. (2014)
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (2014–present)"

-

"Fiat (2007-2014)
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles (2014-2016)" and

-

"Fiat Auto (2005-2007)
Fiat Group Automobiles (2007-2014)
FCA Italy (2014-2018)

with just "Fiat",

Template:Infobox automobile states "You may show the parent company of a given manufacturer in parentheses after the manufacturer entry, if applicable."
So should Fiat SPA/Fiat Chrysler/FCA Italy be in the infoboxes as I would consider these to be applicable however Typ932 doesn't so wanted to see what others thought.
Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 16:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I didnt consider ? You just put Fiat Chrysler there, you didnt follow the infobox guideline Manufacturer (Parent Company). And if most car model articles doesnt have parent in manufactuer field , I dont see why we would need to put it now? . As/If we talk this again, this doesnt concern only Fiat but all car brands. This is discussed million times before in this Wikiproject earlier- Thats the reason we have guidelines made . I think that whole parent group should be removed from that infobox guide, its only some very rare cases when it would be helpful. - -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I never added it there ? I just reverted you?, Due to the nature of this in that there are various manufacturers not just one I wasn't sure if it was best to keep them, Some Fiat models don't mention Fiat SPA, Fiat Chysler or FCA Italy which is why I think these should remain, But I'd be happy to hear others opinions and if others people these should be removed then I'll remove them:), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 17:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Most of car model articles dont have parent company there, Ill quess 90-95% of them dont have that info. One of the main goals of this whole project is keep articles look same and have consistency. -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Just because most don't doesn't mean this shouldn't .... IMHO consistency is sort of irrlevant here - As I said most Fiat articles dont mention the manufactureres within the body hence why it should be atleast in the infobox but we'll wait to see what others think thanks –Davey2010^Talk 19:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

All Fiat articles have manufacturer in infobox, like all other makes like VW, Audi, Citroen etc, but any of them doesnt have parent company -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Didn't we do this a few years back? With some companies like Jaguar changing owners every few years, we decided to just use whatever was on the badge as the infobox manufacturer. The reader is almost always interested in the car, not the company, and very rarely the parent company. If the reader does want to know about corporate history then they can follow the link to the company article, which has far more detail.  Stepho  talk  23:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

yes this was discussed many times earlier maybe 2-5 years ago last time, give your opinions, should we change something? our conventions are based on these discussions here. -->Typ932 ^T·C 08:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey Stepho-wrs, Unfortunately I had no idea discussions took place and having asked Typ for links alls I got was "go find them" which I wasn't prepared to do seeing as I wasn't the one being Bold, Anyway many thanks for your comment - I've removed those from all Fiat models :), Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 10:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Just in case my memory is wrong (getting more often these days), here are a few:

• 2006 - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_3#Manufacturer_name_in_the_infobox
• 2008 - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_16#The_Pontiac_Vibe_debacle
• 2009 - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_18#Manufacturer_rule
• 2010 - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_24#Parent_company
• 2015 - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_39#Overly_specific_manufacturer_descriptions

There are more but this seems to cover the ground without lazy ol' me looking into every archive.  Stepho  talk  11:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

You sir are amazing!, thank you so much!, I'll save these just incase a similar issue arises,

Thanks for finding those I do greatly greatly appreciate that, Stay safe and take care Stepho, Thanks, Regards, –Davey2010^Talk 11:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Note also that the manufacturer and brand might be different. For example, Rolls-Royce cars are not made by Rolls-Royce and Škoda cars are not made by Škoda. Therefore it is better to use company names such as Rolls-Royce Motor Cars Ltd and Škoda Auto a.s. Gwafton (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Help at Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class?

Can we have some other eyes on Talk:Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class#A good faith edit is not a WP:HOAX. Please do not make such accusations? This is partially related to the question of future product announcements, and also accusing WikiProject Automobiles editors of hoaxing. Same at Mercedes-Benz SLK-Class (R172). --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

W126 Mercedes

Greetings In your write up re the Mercedes W126 you mention that all the Mercedes 500 SEL and 500 SEC had ABS brakes and than post 1985 all the models had them. I have a 1984 Mercedes 500 SEL in the USA and it does not have ABS breaks. It has all the extras but no ABS. Regards Markus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.37.157 (talk) 06:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

You would probably have more luck asking the same question at the article's talk page at Talk:Mercedes-Benz W126. I don't know much about Mercedes myself but it's possible that the article was written from a European perspective and that US delivered models had different options. In which case, the article should be corrected. Just a guess.  Stepho  talk  11:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Late 1940s convertible

Can someone help identify the late 1940s convertible at left in this photo? Quite high-resolution, you can click through to see it quite well. - Jmabel | Talk 18:35, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a Custom 1946 Ford Super De Luxe Convertible. Mighty Antar (talk) 21:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Certainly plausible. Any other possibilities? - Jmabel | Talk 22:10, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It is definitely a modified Ford-made car from around then. I think it's more likely a Mercury (1946/7/8, I'm not sure) though as they have both the split windscreen (which the Lincoln didn't have) and the two-part grille (which the Ford didn't have). But it definitely could be a Ford with modified front end also. A7V2 (talk) 23:31, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

I lean more toward the Merc. Thanks! If anyone can work out anything more definitive, please feel more than free to edit the description & categories. - Jmabel | Talk 00:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I've slightly changed the description you added. Both the Ford and the Mercury have the split windshield, but the Ford doesn't have the dual grille. A7V2 (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Old Renault automobile

• • • Copied from Village pump.

Someone identified als a Renault automobile, but I have not found the type in the Wikimedia documentation. Is it a Renault automobile?Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• Better asked at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles. - Jmabel ! talk 15:41, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Smiley.toerist: This might be a Type DM coupe. De728631 (talk) 18:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi to you too... The someone was me, as you can see in history/watchlist...

I moved that file because it's a Renault and was in Category:Unidentified automobiles in France so I thought it was better to change; and/but, as I said a few before, many unidentified vehicles... So it's no more an unidentified auto.

Many, so many pics so alone... Many US cars too. Thanks.

Llann .\m/ ^{(Lie 2 Me ...)} 23:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

supercars.net

There is a discussion at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard about this site, and editors of this Wikproject might have a useful perspective, pro or con. The thread is WP:RSN#Supercars.net. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

PSA ES/L engine

Is PSA ES/L engine a suitable name for that article? I moved it from "V6 ESL engine" so the title would align with typical conventions, only to find afterwards that the previous name was the result of vandalism - someone did a cut-and-paste move to evade the move protection on PSA ES engine. The engine is apparently called "ES" by Peugeot and Citroën and "L" by Renault. I'm not familiar enough with PSA to know if titling the article "ES/L" is suitable or if it should revert back to simply "ES" as that nomenclature was stated to be the more common one by the editor who attempted to retain it as the title. --Sable232 (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

This article has a bunch of problems. It starts with no sources. What is this article based on? Original research? The lemma could be anything, what exactly makes it the ES/L engine? Apparently, only Wikipedia calls it that. The article doesn't even explain how the engine works. A quick-dig through my library just showed that this engine definitely exists, but I couldn't find out the engine's name. Maybe, I will have a closer look at this later on. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 10:40, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Toyota Coaster

Hi y'all, I would welcome some more eyes at Toyota Coaster where we are having some discussions regarding images. I went to Project Buses, but it seems dormant. Best,  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

List of BMW engines

List of BMW engines The article might need a rework and correction of information and I'm not the best with engines. Just had to reverted after being heavily disrupted by a blocked IP range. --Vauxford (talk) 17:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Carfolio.com

There is a discussion at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard about this site. A comment of users related to automobiles is required regarding the reliability of this website. The thread is WP:RSN#Request for comment: Carfolio.com. U¹ _quattro TALK 10:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Concept car categories

So i've been noticing that some concept car articles use the by year categories such as "1990s cars" or "Cars introduced in 1995" and the rest of those types of categories but some don't. Is there an existing consensus on whether they should use these or not? Personally I don't think they do. I think that it makes sense for only production cars to feature in those categories but what about y'all? TKOIII (talk) 19:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't recall a past consensus on it, but I would agree that only production cars should be included in those categories. --Sable232 (talk) 21:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

If a concept car was introduced to the public, at an auto show for example, then technically it was "introduced" in a specific year and could be categorized as such. Those categories have no other definition. On the other hand, categories such as "1990s cars" are defined as "cars that were produced in the 1990s", so they should exclude concept cars. But "Cars introduced in ####" is a subcategory of "####s cars". So, "####s cars", no, and "Cars introduced in ####", I have no opinion either way. --Vossanova ^o< 21:11, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't think that prototypes should be included in either of these categories. -- Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 23:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Article for Deletion (AFD): Nivomat

Hello! I have nominated a small automotive-related article (Nivomat) for deletion, and wanted to let you know as it may be of interest to this WikiProject. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:58, 4 June 2020 (UTC)