Talk:Standard Vanguard

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Coventry (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Coventry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CoventryWikipedia:WikiProject CoventryTemplate:WikiProject CoventryCoventry articles

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Standard Vanguard or Standard Ten image

Someone has placed a picture - rather a good one - in the info box for the Standard Vanguard Phase III. Trouble is, that to my eye this is a picture of a Standard Ten. The Vanguard Phase III was a lot bigger. I lived in England when these things were new, which I think will have been the largest market for them.

The problem arises, I think, because in Sweden - where the car in the picture is (I think) registered - the smaller car was evidently badged as a Standard Vanguard Junior. Whether this applies to a handful of cars in the Swedish market or to a larger number of cars sold in many markets I do not know.

IF the picture stays on the Vanguard page, then I think it needs to go somewhere other than in the info box for the Vanguard Phase III. And it really needs a short para to explain how a car which most readers (who recognize it at all) will not see it as a Standard Vanguard, nevertheless features on the Standard Vanguard page at all. Does anyone have access to a better source than my memory to do that?

We also need a decent picture of a Standard Vanguard Phase III (or Standard Ensign which used the same body shell) for the info box. It was rather a fine looking car - one of Michelotti's early designs, nicely balanced - as far as I remember. And I remember seeing a lot in the 1960s because I lived then near an RAF (British Royal Air Force) base, where they kept several of the things. But these days, of course, they are vanishingly rare. Or rather, merely vanished.

Any volunteers?

Regards Charles01 (talk) 06:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely correct. The photo is of a Standard Ten so I have removed it and added it to the Ten article. I have also added a note in the intro about the Vanguard Junior. There is at the moment on EBay a Danish Standard Vanguard Junior brochure for sale and it clearly states that it has a 1000cc engine so it cannot be the Eight. An estate car, van and pick-up are also illustrated so they were sold as well. The car in the (removed) photo is in Sweden so I have taken an educated guess that the Junior name was used in both Sweden and Denmark. Was the car sold in Norway?

We still need more Vanguard photos. Malcolma (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I found an Ensign in a field full of old-timers near Brentwood today! Whoopee. Now (in my judgement...) the priority is to find a Series II which was like a Series I but with a boot that stuck out like the ones on 'modern' cars. Charles01 (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is now a Phase III photo available in Wikipedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Standard_Vanguard I feel that this would be more appropriate than the otherwise excellent Ensign photo for the Phase III Infobox GTHO (talk) 10:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard Diesel Phase I - Fact or Fiction?

The article states that the Diesel was introduced in 1954 but lists it under both Phase I and Phase II. Given that the "petrol" Phase II replaced the "petrol" Phase I in 1952 and that the quoted reference (A-Z of Cars 1945-1970) lists the Diesel only as a Phase II I have to ask if we have gone astray with this chapter of the Vanguard story? GTHO (talk) 10:19, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree but Malcolm got in first. I also switched the pix. Regards Charles01 (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abouth the Pobeda (and the Vanguard)

The styling of the car resembled the pre-war Plymouth with a sloping "beetle-back".
Russian media claimed that styling of this car had been in part influenced by Russian GAZ-M20 Pobeda, which had been in development from 1943 and went into production in 1946.

Let me add some details. "Russian media" sometimes states that the whole idea of the Vanguard's exterior (not only the fastback roofline but also the "ponton" body without separate fenders, and the grille) bears much resemblance to the Pobeda and *could* be influenced by the GAZ (an example of such article [1]). However it is only an assumption. And such possibility is called in modern works "utopian". Other sources state that this resemblance is a result of following the same American prototypes (exact prototypes are not called however).

Amazing but the British media of the period stated that the Soviet Pobeda "shows a certain exterior resemblance to the Standard Vanguard" :-) (original article in "The Motor" (1952) - [2]) despite the Vanguard appeared one year later.

DL24 (talk) 11:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanguard Sportsman

Can anyone add a suitable photograph of the Sportsman ? RGCorris (talk) 07:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking - writing - as a man with a camera who likes to attend oldtimer festivals, I'm still looking. But more than happy if someone else gets there first! Regards Charles01 (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Replacement and end of Standard

There seems to be no mention in either the Vanguard or the Triumph 2000 articles of the cancelled "Zebu" (I think) replacement project, with the reverse-angled rear window, that was aborted partly because the Ford Anglia with the same feature was ready for release and Standard did not want to be accused of plagiarism. Without this being covered the article misses out an important part of the process that resulted in the 2000 replacing the Vanguard and the Standard name being dropped. RGCorris (talk) 14:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Ensign

Wasn't the Ensign discontinued and then brought back?

Vanguard Spacemaster

In the 1960's there was a fairly common car on the road in Australia called a "Vanguard Spacemaster". Maybe this name was only used in Australia.```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lathamibird (talk • contribs) 15:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Standard Ensign image

I would like to suggest three new images to replace the existing one on the Standard Ensign & Ensign De Luxe section. Although mine still have distracting background, it far superior then the cluster mess the existing front image has. Plus there is no rear image or even interior image which I kindly provided below but were never used. To add, the example I photographed is from the British Motor Industry Heritage Trust collection. Thoughts? --Vauxford (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Front
Old Front image
Rear
Interior

Your image is definitely an improvement. The angle is better, and while there is still background distraction, there's less of it.

The rear and interior images could be helpful added to a gallery with the image of the estate - and as an added benefit, it would take up the whitespace in that section. --Sable232 (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Go for it. Blurryman (talk) 00:00, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blurryman I can't do it myself since I'm sanctioned from adding or reverting photos taken by me on the article. I need someone else to do the adding/replacing for me once clear cut consensus is reached. --Vauxford (talk) 13:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done, all the best. Mr.choppers | ✎ 20:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]