Talk:Chrysler Pacifica (crossover)

2009-2010 (Discontinuation) No such thing

Guys... There is no such thing as "Paris Automotive Show in June 2009". (The Paris Motor Show in the fall is a biennial event, in even-numbered years.) Cannot determine who is "John Christopher" at Chrysler Group. And I can find absolutely no indication that the Chrysler Pacifica was produced after 2008. Just saying.

Rayeth19 (talk) 03:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

R-Class Platform

Isn't the Chrysler Pacifica the same as the R-Class Mercedes? with maybe different engines?

Nope. The Pacifica is based upon the Chrysler minivans, while the R-Class has its own platform. They may look alike and are built by the same company, but they're totally different. --ApolloBoy 04:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sales Graph shows a continuous rise, contradicts text, and has no source.

Sales Graph shows a continuous rise up to end of production, which contradicts the text, and has no source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Greasywheel (talk • contribs) 23:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The graph should be removed. The numbers do not remotely match the figures in the chart, and they are simply wrong. The data is also not sourced, which is not surprising given it is highly incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.193.53.122 (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2013 (UTC) Jrgilb (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

seating for how many people —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.119.117.69 (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

The Chrysler pacifica is one of the worst rated vehicles in terms of reliability on consumer report's list of vehicles, and yet this article does nothing but sing its praises, this article reeks of Corporate intervention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fireemblem555 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I was going to say the article seemed to display a lot of opinion about the vehicle, mostly negative, and should be cleaned up to be limited to a factual discussion. Maybe it was a bad choice of design elements.

Crashj (talk) 13:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Chrysler Pacifica. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to move the SUV section into its own page!

Since there is a replacement minivan, the SUB portion should be moved to its own page or given an executive summary. The Winter of Steppes (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pacifica concept vehicle

It's not a 1999 but rather a 1994 according to Chrysler's site: (archived) http://web.archive.org/web/20040414130844/http://www.chrysler.com/design/vehicle_design/gallery.html?bypass=true 50.67.152.103 (talk) 07:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chrysler Pacifica (RU) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Chrysler Pacifica (minivan) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Crossover?

I spotted that there was some vandalism on this page earlier challenging the notion that this is a "crossover" (whatever that means anyway), and while those edits weren't constructive I have to say that skimming through the references (that aren't dead links) on this article I think the vandal may have a point. The sources cited generally seem to describe this car as a "minivan", a "people mover", or a "station wagon". Looking at the photographs of this car it looks to me like an example of what I would call a "people carrier", but since that's presumably the British English term and WP:ENGVAR exists I'm not going to advocate for describing it as that. However I do think that a change in title should be considered, possibly just to "Chrysler Pacifica (mark one)" or "Chrysler Pacifica (first generation)", and the description in the infobox may need to be amended. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 August 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus (non-admin closure) Havelock Jones (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chrysler Pacifica (crossover) → ?
Chrysler Pacifica (minivan) → ?

– Several sources used in the article about the earlier model use the word "minivan" while describing it, such as The Truth About Cars, Cars and Racing Stuff, Consumer Guide Auto, and Edmunds. Most of the sources in the earlier model's article appear to be either dead links or irrelevant, and searching brings up a lot of information about the newer model and not much about the older one. Regardless, the current disambiguation does not seem to be WP:PRECISE enough, and seems to rely somewhat on nebulous marketing jargon. Moving the articles to "Chrysler Pacifica (first generation)" and "Chrysler Pacifica (second generation)" or "Chrysler Pacifica (2003)" and "Chrysler Pacifica (2016)" would both seem reasonable to me. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC) — Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 01:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Those sources use the word "minivan," but in a context that clearly isn't calling it a minivan ("married a minivan’s utility with an SUV’s machismo"; "Towing capacity is a minivanlike 3500 lb" etc.). I'm not sure that disambiguating by year is more helpful for reader navigation than type of car, and both minivan and crossover appear to be commonly-used, notable terms with their own articles, not nebulous jargon.--Yaksar (let's chat) 21:07, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From the wording of the sources it is entirely reasonable to believe that many people would interpret this car as being a minivan, just as others might call it a station wagon and others might call it an SUV. It's quite obvious that in most cases car body styles are subjective descriptors that different people are unlikely to agree upon, and many of these terms are industry WP:JARGON which may be familiar to the sorts of people who write Wikipedia articles about cars but which are not familiar to the typical layperson. Regardless, the disambiguator should try to avoid being ambiguous, which the current one clearly is compared with an objectively true statement like "(2003)" or "(first generation)". HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 16:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources could be interpreted as saying the first car is a minivan? The ones provided don't seem to create that confusion. I agree we don't want to use jargon as the disambiguator, but again, both terms appear to be commonly used in both official sources, mainstream non-auto media, and industry outlets.--Yaksar (let's chat) 22:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.