Talk:Coupé utility

Use of the term, inclusion of post 1960s Australian vehicles

As per the Talk page on other articles, I do not believe the term "coupe utility" has been commonly used to describe Australian utes for many years. Therefore I request references proving otherwise if content regarding recent Australian utes is to be included.

In my opinion, the claim that "coupe utility" is commonly used enough to be considered WP:notable needs to be supported by references. If these references are specific to a certain country (eg America) then this should be mentioned, to avoid the false impression that the term is used worldwide.

Also, the start of the article needs to better define the difference between "coupe utility" and "pickup truck" (eg is "coupe utility" a subset of pickup? is it regional slang?). Before the History section can be included, the term needs to be better defined.

PS Most of the "cn" tags are regarding whether the vehicle is commonly described as a "coupe utility". Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is not about Australia's use of the word "ute". It is about the automotive body style "coupe utility", and it is a term that I've already proven to you on your talk page is used by people in other countries today, and in Australia (at least in the past, if not commonly in the present).

I have cited the article to back up my claims. Namely, I have cited the definition of the body style as a passenger car derived vehicle with an open bed in the back. Whether you actually call the Holden Ute and Ford Falcon Ute coupe utilities in Australia is irrelevant: they fit this definition. Besides, the terms are not self-inclusive: a Holden Ute is both an example of the coupe utility body style AND a ute by the common Australian use of the word. I have also proven that we use the term in the United States.

-TBustah

Hi TBustah, thanks for the explanation.

1) Yes, I realise it isn't about the Aussie term "ute". However, until the term "coupe utility" is clearly defined (with a definition supported by references), we need to be careful to avoid confusing the words. References on Talk pages don't count for anything, refs need to be integrated into articles so that readers can judge for themselves.

2) The current definition is vague in that it doesn't show how it fits in compared to other similar body styles. eg it really needs a sentence "The difference between a coupe utility and a pickup is..." (supported by references, of course)

3) Since I have strong beliefs that the term is only used in certain countries, I am restoring the "globalize" tag until this is dealt with in the article.

4) Just a reminder about the WP:own policy, wikipedia is all about collaboration and if I see anything I'd like to try to improve, I believe that I am allowed to edit it at any time. Glad to hear you'll be adding more refs.

5) The "cn" tags are regarding whether these vehicles are commonly referred to as "coupe utilities". Also, if the definition only exists historically or in a few textbooks but isn't used in the real world, I question this article's WP:notability. Each article needs to be a standalone page with its own references rather than relying on references on another page (eg in case the other page changes).

6) Regarding your references, the reference.com article is a mirror of an old wikipedia page so can't be used. Termwiki is also not WP:verifiable. The ford article describes a few Ford utes, but doesn't define the term "coupe utility". Nor does the rides.com article support the text in definition. Therefore, other references would be needed to support the definition. Also, my concern is that it is a historical term, so if the references are regarding older vehicles this needs to be noted, otherwise references defining "coupe utility" for modern vehicles need to be provided. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 08:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, WP:selfpub sources (such as Youtube, Ebay and other ads, personal blogs, forum posts, reader contribution articles and facebook pages) are not WP:verifiable, and the Youtube description is also a mirror of a previous wikipedia page. The rest of my changes are described above. Just FYI, I am concerned that this article is about a fringe theory, which is why I'm being so picky about references. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Please see #5 above regarding the "cn" tags in the list of vehicles. You have removed these tags multiple times without any explanation, could you please use a more collaborative approach? 1292simon (talk) 11:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as though some users believe a coupe utility to be any car based pickup. Not all car based pickups are coupe utilities and not all coupe utilities are car based. Car based pickups such as Mazda Familia/Kia Brisa/Isuzu Wasp have a separate cargo bed and are therefore not coupe utilities but regular pickups based on a passenger car chassis. Similarly it can be argued that Peugeot 203/403 pick ups are not coupe utilities because they do not have integrated fixed side panels, but removable side panels and the 503 is again a pickup with a separate cargo bed. Also in Australia there were coupe utilities available from International, Chrysler (Dodge, Fargo and DeSoto) and General Motors (Chevrolet & GMC) based on the smallest light truck chassis in their ranges. These differed from the cab chassis and regular pickup also offered by these manufacturers and have at times been marketed as coupe utilities to distinguish them from other variants. If this article is about the body style then these should be included as examples, regardless of whether they are light trucks. Also I believe the fact the term fell out of usage in marketing these vehicles is irrelevant to the inclusion of an example that fits the definition.--Sv1ambo (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chevrolet SSR

TBustah and myself seem to have a difference of opinion about whether the Chevrolet SSR is a coupe utility or not. This article itself says the distinguishing features are the coupe roofline and the utility body. The Chevrolet SSR has both. TBustah has is discluding the SSR based on it not sharing sheet metal with a passenger vehicle and sharing its chassis with the Trailblazer and S10 pickups. This article makes no mention of requiring a separate chassis, nor does it make any mention of it requiring to share sheet metal with a passenger car. Comments? Stepho talk 02:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the SSR should not be included, not because it is based on the light truck chassis, but becuse it doesn't have a fixed roof. I believe it is an example of a Roadster utility, but not a coupe utility.--Sv1ambo (talk) 00:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Based on which vehicle?

Ford designer Lew Bandt developed a vehicle based on [which vehicle] and the model (called a "coupe utility" at the time) was released in 1934

The article doesn't name the vehicle on which the first "ute" was based. I'd have thought that this was a fundimental piece of information. Van Dieman (talk) 05:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like during one of the big shuffles between article names/redirects/etc a few months ago someone did a cut and paste from the rendered form of the article instead of from the wiki markup. You can see rferences became like plain format '[1]' instead of a little blue link. This will require us (hopefully not me) to go back through the history and restore it. Stepho talk 07:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have now updated this information. Also the statement that roadster utilities were built by Ford in the 1930s is not mentioned at all in the accompanying reference. Sv1ambo (talk) 21:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Number of doors

Is the definition restricted to vehicles with two doors? Can the four-door Subaru Baja be counted as a coupé utility as it lacks the so-called "coupe roofline". I found one reference referring to the Baja as a "sedan utility". OSX (talk • contributions) 01:09, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected link to Toyota Open Deck

Trekphiler, I replaced the piped link Toyota bB#Open Deck (2000–2001) with a redirect link Toyota Open Deck. This is because the article about the Open Deck may move from being a section in the bB article to being its own article or possible a section in Toyota concept vehicles, 2000–09 (I must remember to give it stub there). If it moves then the redirect will be updated once and every article that uses the redirect will continue to work correctly. But articles that refer expictly to the section in the bB article will point to the wrong spot and are hard to find when it is time to change them. WP:REDIRECT explains this in more detail. Stepho talk 08:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with Ute

Apparently, someone wants to merge this page with Ute (vehicle). I don't think they understand why the pages are separate.

This page is about the coupe utility, a specific automotive body style that is defined within its text. It serves to explain what the body style is, and has a list of vehicles that fall under the definition. Ute is about the Australian term (which is a blanket term that includes both coupe utilities and traditional pickup trucks) and the impact utes have had on Australian culture.

Originally, Ute (vehicle) was about coupe utilities, but it was hijacked by an Australian user who wanted to make it about the Australian usage of the term rather than starting a new page. Rather than going through the lengthy process of appealing to a higher authority, I simply started a new one for the body style. Each page serves a different function, and I think it would be best to leave things the way they are for the sake of clarity. -TBustah 06:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense to me. --Pete Tillman (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:16, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the consensus not to merge.

Resolved

Klbrain (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Coupé utility. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:10, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Text from Ute article

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Ute (vehicle) was copied or moved into Coupé utility with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

1292simon (talk) 03:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added an All-Electric Coupe Utilities section and properly attributed the first all electric coupe utility vehicle.

Moderator Stepho-wrs is of the opinion that vehicles not mass produced by corporations specializing in vehicle manufacture are something that Wikipedia "doesn't do".

Under the Wiki for "Truck", an independent inventor that did not mass produce vehicles was properly credited: "Trucks and cars have a common ancestor: the steam-powered fardier Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot built in 1769."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truck#History

Under the Wiki for "Car", the same independent inventor was also properly credited, amongst others: "Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot is widely credited with building the first full-scale, self-propelled mechanical vehicle or car in about 1769; he created a steam-powered tricycle."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Car

Under the Wiki for "Motorcycle", independent inventors were again properly credited for their advances in automotive engineering: "The first internal combustion, petroleum fueled motorcycle was the Daimler Reitwagen. It was designed and built by the German inventors Gottlieb Daimler and Wilhelm Maybach in Bad Cannstatt, Germany in 1885."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorcycle#History

As a first in automotive engineering it is thus only appropriate to publicly recognize and credit Simone Giertz et al. for creating the first and only all-electric coupe utility.

The following was the source code of the entry that has been indiscreetly reverted and will be reinstated:

==All-Electric Coupe Utilities==
Truckla. Simone "Queen Of Shitty Robots" Giertz et al. were the first to create an all-electric coupe utility vehicle. The road-worthy coupe utility was engineered from an adapted, modified, and reverse engineered 2019 Tesla Model 3.^[1]

^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKv_N0IDS2A

- signed Dannybam (talk · contribs)

First up, I need to point out that I am not a moderator. However, all editors are allowed to revert what they think is wrong (subject to consensus on the talk page, of course).

While I admire Giertz's work, comparing her to pioneers in the early history of the field is not justifiable. She has done an interesting custom job but it is by no means the first electric pickup. Plenty of people have done electric conversions of pickup's before. By allowing custom vehicles in you open the door for literally thousands of custom vehicles such as utes with twin V8's (eg Blo Bak 2), 4-door utes made by combining 2-door utes with 4-door wagons, convertible utes, utes with turbo's, utes in a pretty shade of blue, utes made by combining a Supra front end with a Hilux rear end (eg Utopia), utes made from liftbacks (popular with the Holden Torana liftback), lowered utes that scrape the ground, raised utes so high that they no longer trigger the magnetic sensors embedded in the road at traffic lights, utes with Caterpillar tracks. All of these have been done by creative enthusiasts. The list is near endless. Stepho talk 11:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently Steph-wrs is not a moderator, but an editor. Neither this page nor "Truckla" are about trucks. That electric pickup trucks, modifications of combustion engines, grafted automotive bodies, and variations of colour exist is irrelevant to the first all-electric coupe utility. When a production all-electric coupe utility is introduced, it will have a category to be entered into, following the pioneer of the form. Dannybam (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that the first owner made twin V8 coupe utility is not worth mentioning. But the first owner made all-electric coupe utility is worth mentioning. I fail to see why one category is worth mentioning and the other is not.

And as I said above, it isn't the first by a long shot. Here's just a few that I found

All these are pure electric coupe utilities. So the Trukla is by no means the "first all-electric coupe utility". Stepho talk 21:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it has no place here. This page is about a body style. It only concerns production models, prototypes, and (in the case of the Ford Durango) manufacturer-sanctioned conversions. We don't even include stuff made by third-party coachbuilders (if we did, there would be a TON of flower cars here, as many of them check all the boxes) or kit manufacturers like Smyth (the people who make those coupe utility kits for the Jetta and other cars), let alone one-off vehicles cobbled together by people in their backyards. If Tesla decides to outsource conversion to Gietz someday (doubtful, considering that they can barely keep their own lights on), then it will belong as it would fall under the same category as the Ford Durango, but as it stands the Truckla is no different from any of the other one-off conversions out there.

-TBustah 09:59, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical Order

I think we should stick with alphabetical order (by marque) for example entries rather than switching to chronological.

-First and foremost, ordering them chronologically is inherently less neat because many models from the same manufacturer were produced concurrently, sometimes even for the same market. This is true of cars in general, like when Volkswagen continued to sell the fourth generation Jetta as the Jetta Clasico in Mexico for several years, alongside the fifth and sixth generations. There's at least one example of this in the coupe utility world: the Volkswagen Caddy. The Typ 9U was being sold in Europe during the original model's run in South Africa. Granted, the lists are separated by market now (a change that I actually think makes sense), but there's still potential for an issue here.

-A lot of these production dates aren't even confirmed by outside sources. For many of the coupe utilities that I've added to the lists, I could only find start and end dates for the model that they were based on (and even then, only on that model's Wikipedia page), and nothing for the ute versions themselves. Sometimes the ute version doesn't sell as well and is axed early, or they keep making the older version for a couple years before switching to new tooling based on the new model.

-Adding new entries is much easier. You don't have to think about if you should place an entry before or after one that was built around the same time, you just stick it where it belongs alphabetically.

-TBustah 09:40, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ford Maverick

Would the Ford Maverick be considered a coupe utility? The same can be asked for the Subaru Baja. 2600:8800:3280:83:1D58:94FE:6BE7:B5C4 (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of a coupe utility is that it is a utility that can be mistaken for a coupe. Ie, "a vehicle to go to church in on a Sunday and which can carry our pigs to market on Mondays". The Maverick is car based underneath but it still looks like a pickup and looks nothing like a coupe. Stepho talk 23:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is subjective to say what does and does not look like a coupe. Why is the Subaru Baja on the list of Asian models, when you could argue it does not look like a coupe either? Both vehicles are unibody, car-based, compact vehicles. I would argue it would be a coupe utility, based on those factors. 2600:8800:3280:83:1D58:94FE:6BE7:B5C4 (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Baja shares front sheet metal with the Subaru Legacy (third generation). So, from the front or front 3/4 view, the Baja does indeed look like a coupe or sedan. Whereas the Maverick looks nothing like a coupe or sedan from any angle. Looking like a coupe (at least from the front) was the whole point of the coupe utility and is what differentiates it from other types of utilities. It's all in the look, so that the farm vehicle can be driven to church on Sunday without looking out of place in the church carpark. Stepho talk 06:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As was said, the Baja design was based off the Legacy/Outback, whereas the Maverick was designed as a pickup truck from the start. It's no more a coupe utility than a Honda Ridgeline or Hyundai Santa Cruz. To be honest I don't really even consider the Baja as a coupe utility (in part because it has four doors), but if the consensus is there I'll leave it be. --Vossanova ^o< 14:39, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect information regarding Dacia

In the European section, the Dacia information is not correct. Please cross-check with the Dacia Pick-Up and Dacia Logan pages. 79.118.166.246 (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since you already know the answer, can you give us some more details of what you think is wrong? Stepho talk 09:22, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKv_N0IDS2A

[1]