Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles

Saleen and Tata Harrier

Good morning, I would like to point out that I have corrected the Saleen and Saleen S1 entry by adding the sources and the acquisition of the company by the Chinese Jiangsu Secco Tecnology, if someone can correct any errors in the notes and grammar. And Saleen is a public company? Many source cite is a private and chinese!

also in Tata Harrier there are many Indian news sites and articles and I would like to know if they are suitable for an encyclopedia, many seem superfluous (for example the many competing cars that I eliminated). thanks and good job

sorry but in Tata Motors there is the "Notable Vehicle" section which seems useless and repetitive as already mentioned in the entry and the specific entries are already present.

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)

Hyundai Aero Town

Does anyone have sources for this on the model history? I am trying to figure out when it started becoming available, but there's very little I'm able to find about its history under English search. Graywalls (talk) 13:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

The Korean wiki says "Hyundai Aero Town was modified by Hyundai Motor on June 24, 1994 based on the U-MK117 / 517 model of Midi's Mitsubishi Fuso Truck & Bus Aero Midi, and trimmed with a streamlined design." Unfortunately it doesn't provide a source for this and the only archived links from the Hyundai page I could find lead to press release image pages with the text in Korean, so you can't even copy and paste the text to translate. Mighty Antar (talk) 18:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Electric vehicles Tesla, Inc.

I have just found a note in a responsible publication that Tesla which manufactures electric vehicles is now valued at more than Mercedes-Benz and BMW combined. Is this significant or a temporary pandemic phase or plain wrong? Eddaido (talk) 02:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

The crazy run up in the price of Tesla shares puts their value second only to Toyota. Lots of opinions regarding if the company should be valued so highly given the company has never had a yearly profit, the profits shown are often accompanied by questionable accounting etc. But none of that changes the simple fact that the market cap really is that high right now. What this should mean in the Wikipedia article? I'm not sure. The extrodinary share price certainly is a notable aspect of the company but recall that just over a year back the shares were $170 vs $1000. I suspect we will see big changes one way or the other in the next year or two. Personally I think the price will implode but I can't say when. I also thought it would implode when the shares were around $300 so it's probably best not to assume I have magical insight. Springee (talk) 02:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Adaptations for disabled Drivers or Passengers.

This Automotive Wikipedia forum currently does not include any information about the range of adaptations available for disabled people, yet it does include a sub section about electric vehicles.

I worked in the automotive industry for 45 years and for the last 10 I was also the voluntary diversity chairperson for disability within one of the leading multinational vehicle manufacturers, this was mainly due to my own son having multiple disabilities, whom I encouraged and supported to get through his driving test, he now drives a heavily adapted VW T6 shuttle using a drive by wire joystick system, https://www.paravan.com/ and a rear tai lift to access the vehicle, stage 1 modifications (base vehicle changes) by https://www.gmmobility.co.uk/

I Decided to add this sub topic having read on the VW transporter T6 wiki page about it being a common vehicle for conversion to a motor caravan, but no information about these same vehicles and many others being adapted for use for disabled people as either drivers or passengers.

The UK based Research Institure for Disabled Customers (RIDC) has an extensive guide to choosing a vehicke for people with disabilities, https://www.ridc.org.uk/features-reviews/out-and-about/car-search

In order for Wikipedia to be truely diverse it is essential that the area of vehicle adaptations for the disability gets more covereage in the Wikipedia pages. Many years ago I edited the disability pages to include vehicle adaptations, yet these were backed out, I still do not truely understand why.

Would one of the Wikipedia editing guru’s please get this new section off the ground and work with me to help build factual information to assist disabled people looking for transportation, as the motor industry & governments continue to ignore the requirements of the disabled compared to electrification of vehicles and disabled people will be further excluded from independant transportation unless they are very rich. e.g. the vehicle my son drives has approximately £20,000+ of adaptations fitted, this will increase as more electric only vehicles become the norm, unless awareness of the divide improves. IMHO Wikipedia can help bring this awareness about. Thanks.

Dbridge276 (talk) 06:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)