I see you've added a statement to the sport compact article that says Front Wheel Drive cars are prefered for autocross. Can you reference that? I only ask because I autocross a FWD car, and I consider it to be a considerable disadvantage. In fact, Adam Breaky, the founder of autocrossforum.com, calls FF cars "wrong wheel drive": http://www.autocrossforum.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1940&st=0 If you look further down in that same thread, you will notice that Ian Steward (2005 National ProSolo Champion for STU)lists his requirements for a prosolo/autocross car, and the very first requirement is RWD. Evenprime 18:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- If you look at the results of Solo II nationals, it looks like there's a somewhat even mix of FWD/RWD/AWD, or at least it's clear that no single layout completely dominates, and no single layout is completely missing from the standings. So perhaps the article shouldn't state any preferences, or shouldn't state them so unequivocally. --Interiot 18:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- That seems reasonable to me. I'd say that part of the article should be removed. Let's see what Morwan has to say Evenprime 18:44, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
- I'll go ahead and change it to 'fairly popular'. I was just looking at the national rankings for stock classes, the Celica, Integra, and Mini Cooper S seem to dominate their respective classes, but that may be due to the classifications themselves.Morwan 14:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
Merging Sport Compact
I've cleared up most of the NPOV-related talk because it's more or less been settled.
I've marked Sport Compact to be merged into Sport compact. I think this article is just missing a short section on hot hatches, but beyond that, I think that Sport compact contains all of the important information in the Sport Compact article and a little bit more. -- Morwan 18:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Merge from Compact performance car
The Compact performance car article talks about the same car type as this article. Besides, the sport compact term is more commonly used (only 154 results in Google). -- NaBUru38 00:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
In "Classification and debate" the article refers to domestic cars, and the fact that it is refering to American cars is not mentioned until the end of the paragraph. I would think refering to American cars as domestic is very US-centric and should be changed. Apologies if I am missing something. Robogymnast 17:49, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
- Is the term Sport Compact used outside the US or North America at all? I don't think I have ever seen the term used in the UK (or Australia or New Zealand) motoring press, or heard it used on BBC Top Gear program (for example).
- I think the whole page is only relavent to the US/North American market, so maybe page needs to be tagged as such? Is there some tag/template that warns readers that the page does not represent a global view? Perhaps the best way would be if page simply stated, that "A sport compact is a term used in the US (North America?) to describe a high-performance version..." so readers from other countries would not misled --Xagent86 (talk | contribs) 00:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- I thought I would try to be a little more articulate than the last user. I agree that the terms are different enough to warrant separate pages. Hot hatch is used almost exclusively in Europe while Sport compact is used almost exclusively in the US. These words have different history and to some extent refer to different types of cars. Some overlap exists but I think that the difference in use and history make separate pages the best choice. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
- Also, from a purely practical standpoint, they are each rather long articles. Thefirstdude02 06:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
- No! They are distinct terms. One is used in the US, one in Europe. Don't Americanise everything! R5gordini 08:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
- Have to agree with the opponents to a merger. These two terms are not used interchangeably in real life and cannot be used as substitute for each others. KEEP 'EM SEPARATE (BUT EQUAL) :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LaVieEstBelle75 (talk • contribs) 09:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
NO It seems like a bad idea to me. I basically agree with the other comments. As a Brit who lives in the US I think the contrast is required. No-one in the US talks of "Hot Hatches", but everyone in the UK knows what they are - and vice-versa for "Sport Compact". Heck, most people in the UK would say that a Golf GTI (for example) is a mid-sized car! Not only that, but the cultural aspects are different. I doubt any British "Hot Hatch" owner could identify with "Sport Compact". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickt (talk • contribs) 23:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
They Should not be merged as the deffining feature of a hot hatch is its versatillity, I hot Hatch will almost always have folding rear seats which twinned with a hatch means you can carry large objets, also propper hot hatches will seat 4 or 5 adults in relative comfort. Contrary to this, sports compact is aterm that includes genuine Coupés like the Prelude and MR2 which are about as far from practical as you can get. Finally, almost every car used as an example on this page wouldn't be consided 'Compact in the UK, most would be either in the small/large Familly segment or the Coupé/fullsize Coupé segment. there isn't really a term which covers both so merging would be foolish.(Morcus (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC))
- The two phrases do not mean the same thing - in the UK a hot hatch is a hatchback. In the US, a sports compact often means a saloon. To avoid confusion, perhaps the detailed North American references in Hot hatch need to be relocated in to Sport compact? Warren (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
The external links seem a little too "link farmy" - particularly the inclusion of a "miscellaneous" section.
More importantly, however, the article has comparatively few references.
TFOWR 10:08, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
requisites to be a real sport compact
hello i would like to add some requisites to classify real sport compact's.
the 100 hp and up rule should be more explicit because back in the day (80s) if a 4 cilinder car have more than 100 HP it was a true sport compact but right now a sport compact with 100 hp is a joke (no offense intended) so my idea is this, create a list of HP needed to a car to be a sport compact.
70s and early 80s (remember sport compact's and "hot hatch" weren't used terms back in the day so this cars we're just compact's although some of them can be classified as sport compact's) 80 HP and up
1985 to 1989 (in 1985 the words "sport compact" and "hot hatch" start to be a used really often so companies start manufacturing compact cars intended to be fast and for a juvenile market) 100 HP and up
90s 120 HP and up
2000s 140 HP and up
modern time 160 HP and up
another requisite i think should be applied is the car needing to be "sportish" i mean i know is really hard to a 15000 to 20000 car to look like a lambo but i have seen some guys with those indian make cars saying his car is a sport compact and im sorry but it isn't even if it have the needed HP the car must looks like "sportish" let me give you some examples.
also i would like to say that not every sport compact must be "high-performance version of a compact car" let me give you a example the basic version of the VW corrado it's a sport compact even when it's cheaper (something similar happen's with the scirocco and some asiatic made car's).
sorry for bad english im just trying to help.
Merge proposal (econosport and sport compact)
I think econosport and sport compact cover the same ground. Since Wikipedia articles are generally about things, not terms, having two separate articles is a form of content forkery. I'm assuming that "sport compact" is the more common term based on some quick google searches, though I could be wrong. — Æµ§œš¹ [ãːɱ ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɪ̃ə̃nlɪ] 00:31, 22 September 2012 (UTC)