Talk:Luxury vehicles/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Further Vandalism by Zouf

Zouf, I am leaving this automobile section and possibly the entire wikipedia. You have a free hand now to vandalise as much as you want. I have also read some of your edits on other pages, serious readers will know from reading these edits what their quality is. Samstayton 00:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Acura - Not a proper luxury brand

Though Acura is often seen as a luxury brand, it is actually only a semi-luxury brand. The vast majority of Acuras sold were not proper luxury vehicles. While the majority of Acura's sales used to be proper luxury cars, the company has been in decline for almost a decade. Today Acura is by technical defenition is not a luxury brand rather it is a semi-luxury brand. Due to its past prestige as the luxury brand it once was I listed it in italized writing at the bottom of the luxury brand list. Thank you Gerdbrendel 17:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I noticed that the user with the IP 66.75.124.134 has removed the notice concerning Acura not being a proper luxury brand, it is not-that's proven by indisbutable sales data but if he or she has a valid concern fell free to mention it on my user page, please get an account first though. Thank you for your interest Gerdbrendel 03:46, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

I pulled "Some critics have speculated that Asian manufacturers do not have any presence because they fear no one will accept their products in this category." out of the ultra luxury segment because it is a weasel statement that has no backing. If someone can cite the "some critics", then it should be returned. Elijahmeeks 04:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems like your statement is the weasel. Unless you can point out a single successful asian brand in Ultra-Lux, this statement goes back. Asian brands are not accepted by Caucasians even in high-end and middle end easily. Lexus is the only successful asian brand to date. Look at Infiniti sales, it will be very revealing to you. The flasgship Q45 sells may be thousand cars a year if that. Also Lexus is successful because its prodcucts are superior to germans by a wide wide margin. Massive! So as you see in Europe, no caucasian drives EVEN Lexus. Their sales are pathetic. Samstayton 07:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay but that doesn't relate to Acura not being a luxury brand. It's true though that statement is POV. Signaturebrendel 04:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As I stated, the phrase "Some critics" is not going to fly unless you can cite those critics. If you can, then this statement is perfectly fine. If not, then it's not suitable for an encyclopedia.Elijahmeeks 18:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, you could certainly call the sales numbers critics. Signaturebrendel 20:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

General definition

This does seem to be a very narrow definition, seen through the eyes of a US buyer? Arguably, all cars are a luxury to the vast majority of people as they can not afford to own one. However, in the range of cars that are available clearly there are some that are considered to be luxurious, but I don't think that the MSRP in the USA can be taken to be the definition of luxury globally. Perhaps the article should be retitled "Luxury car in the USA"?Markb 09:52, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Western European defenition of a luxury car is pretty close, check out the VDA annual report, besides I should know-I'm German. But of course the situation looks a lot different in developing countires but considering this issue it would be plain IMPOSSIBLE to have a defenition of what a luxury car is. But also consider the following if you apply the General Defenition on any market it will point out the luxury cars in that market. Even in developing countires such as Russia no one calls an Escort a luxury car, even if they themselves can't afford it. But the cars that fit the criteria outlined in the "General Defenition, and most propbably only those, will be identified by the people of that particular developing country as a luxury car. Even though I'm gonna think of a way to create a sperate defenition for developing countries, it really does seem to be impossible. Thanks for being concerned though, Gerdbrendel 05:52, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
understood, Gerdbrendel. Perhaps making clear the MSRP only refers to the USA? If the VDA report has a specification, then include that to cover Western Europe?Markb 09:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, for now I have added "(U.S.}" above all sections that relate to the U.S. market. I will later add a section for Western Europe. Thanks for the input. Gerdbrendel 19:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Difference between luxury and non-luxury brands

Hi, there needs to be differinciation between cars made by luxury brands and car made ny mainstream brands. For cars made by luxury brands the threshold for them to be considered entry-level luxury cars lies at $29k, to include the Lincoln Zephyr, Cadillac CTS, Lexus ES etc..., all of whom are condifered to be entry-level luxury cars by kbb, nctd, forbes and all other leading publications. For non-luxury brands the same threshold lies at $36k, as to include the Volvo S80 and Buick Lucerne (which are entry-level luxury according to kbb, forbes, etc...) but exclude the Yukon which is not considered to be a luxury vehicle by leading media. Thanks. Gerdbrendel 20:12, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

We should also change the heading from "luxury Car" to Luxury Vehicle" to give it a broader focus. Samstayton 01:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


Luxury car was moved to Luxury vehicles as to include light trucks. Signaturebrendel 00:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Legitimacy of this Article

I am somewhat of a car fan, to say the least. I read up on new cars, and research older ones. However, upon viewing this article, I have to say that I have never heard of these terms used ever before. I find this article to be almost completely illegitimate, in that it is almost completely unsourced. Who made up this info? I would comment out the parts of the article that I feel were unsourced- therefore illegitimate, but I'm afraid I would have to comment out the entire article. Having over half the edits done by an IP might also explain this.
Firstly, would someone please explain to me where this superior definition of luxury car came from? Who thought up that terminology about the MSRP. I admit, maybe there's something I didn't read, something major that I'm missing, but I don't know. Even if there was, please, someone cite it! I don't quite see the point of the entire article. Basically, you're categorizing cars into their MSRP classes, and then claiming this to be be the definition of what type of luxury car it is. I have found an interesting morsel of truth while researching the claims of luxury found in this article. Zouf

This, beyond a doubt, proves that the number to classify luxury cars is completely illegitimate. The luxury car market is not determined by User:samstayton. Furthermore, what about the problem of every antique / old luxury car? How are they classified? Clearly, a 1990 Caddy Eldorado is a luxury car, and a 1980 Rolls is a luxury car- but how on earth would they be classified in this system?
This article needs major revamps, but more than just copyeditting, but in the actual content of it. There is more absurd info in it, such as the "10% of vehicles sold by price" for the mid-level, and the "1% of vehicles by price sold in the US" for the high-end" and the "0.1% of vehicle market" for the ultra. Now, unless this is the most freakish- logarithmically perfect- setup of numbers ever, I think these numbers are slightly fabricated, to say the least. Also, these numbers don't fit with the luxury's definition of the "10% of cars sold by price", as if you add the entry-level, the number goes far higher than 10%, thus eliminating its own definition.
O, another thing, "vehicles"- what is that supposed to mean. Since the people who made this article wikilink it to the automobile article, that must mean it accounts for all automobile. Do you mean to include trucks and buses in these percentages- I'm sure you didn't. And if I am misunderstanding these numbers, which are most likely fabricated to begin with, they could sure use a bit of work to make them clearer and not be ridiculous to understand.
This article needs even more work than what I have just said. In fact, this aritcle is so undercited, and even makes derogatory claims (Jaguar X-Type attack?), that it honestly should have its entirety commented out. Will someone please message me back, or make another post. This article is beyond repair- because I do not feel that it makes any substantiated claims. (by the way, anything above the S500 Mercedes (S55, S600, S65 would be an "ultra" luxury; and so would a 750 and 760 Bimmer) Zouf 02:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

It is not beyond repair and info is NOT MADE UP. I will add a reference section. Yes a 1990 El Dorado is a luxo car and fits the cateogries if you consider inflation. If you're really such a car fan, than you'd have heard these terms before. High-end lux, Mid-lux, Entry-level- You never heard these before????? Look up Forbes, edmunds. And yes the S600 is ultra but not he S430 or S500. I edited out the POV. The defenition is simple. Comfort + $38k MSRO = Luxo car OR Comfort + $29k + Luxo brand = Luxo car. Very easy. As I said, I'll add my references in the next few weeks, but I tell again the info IS NOT MADE UP! Thank you. Signaturebrendel 04:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Answer to Zouf

Zouf, may be you are the fabricator here. The 0.1%, 1% and 10% precentages are based on mathematical analysis and strong evidence. The ultra luxury category includes vehicles above 100K . Now lets count year 2005 sales in US:

Rolls Royce 400
Bentley 3000
Aston Martin 900
Ferrari 1500
Maserati 2000
Maybach 150
Porsche (Turbo + GT3+ Cayenne Turbo) 2000
BMW: (760i and 760Li) 550
Mercedes: (CL + SL-AMG + S600) 3000

It comes to about 15-16,000 cars. Which means 0.1%. So before you start bad-mouthing others check your mind.

The 1% market-share for high end Luxury can be proven in the same manner.

Also Jaguar comment is not POV I will add reference now. Samstayton 06:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I just added the Jag reference and this should vigorously shut your mouth full of illegitimacy. Samstayton 06:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal from Zouf

Hmmm.... interesting, I think that this proves my point quite well. Note the self-induced reducing of the MSRP for luxury cars. O, so this number is from other car sources according to Brendel? Apparently not, unless Samstayton is the author of Forbes magazine. Furthermore, in your little number count, you include Ferrari. O, thats interesting... its not a luxury car!!!!!! Neither are all Aston Martins (some are, I do not doubt that). Also, those Porsches (except for the Cayenne) you listed ARENT LUXURY CARS. CLEARLY, it is illegitimate. YOU NEVER LIST THOSE CARS OR COMPANIES IN THE ARTICLE!!!!!!! I'm glad though that you are able to add up cars to make 0.1%. What about the 1% and 10%? Unable to back it up? HM, thought so. Again, you did not explain what a "vehicle" is either... hm, another glitch? You also forgot some models of Audi in your little bit of math there.
Again, let me re-emphasize that, as of yet, there is still no substantiated claims. As I have proven, the numbers are fabricated. IT IS MADE UP IN THE COMMENT LEFT ON BRENDEL'S DISCUSSION PAGE! Also, I have heard of the terms before, (entry, mid, high, ultra), but I've never seen it defined in such concrete and, frankly, fabricated terms for the sake of a nice definition. This article might be a nice personal reference for car shopping, but it is not substantiated (in the manner you made it sound) in any car mag I've read. Maybe it is, but, again, PLEASE cite it. The comment that I previously left is 100% correct, in that everything I said is coherent. You have done nothing to correct what has been mentioned except cite the Jag reference and do some shoddy, half-job math to try and substantiate the one claim of 0.1%. Again, PLEASE define vehicles, AND FIX ALL OF THE NUMBERS. They do not make sense. There are still quite a few sport cars that would skew this freakishly (I'm sure not coincidental) system of percentages. Fix it, please.
I have people look at this article who are not only confused by the definition of vehicle, but are amazed at the way in which a luxury vehicle is classified. This is before I can let them know that it is NOT legitimate, because the claims are NOT PROVEN. THere's no citing, and I even checked www.kbb.org to see if the categories exist, and surprise to me, they don't.
You dare call my mouth full of illegitimacy Samstayton, when I have proven that you made up those numbers? When I proved to you that you did not cite your jag comment? When I proved to you that your math is almost completely incorrect because you add things and leave them out?...hm...time for some introspection? This is not meant to be a personal attack on anyone, and I don't intend it to be. However, this is an attack on the falsified, and unsubstantiated claims made on this article.
You shall silence me when you give me physical evidence that these numbers are legitimate terms (if they are not, say so in the article), and that these percentages actually exist.
Yours truthfully Zouf 13:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Read up! No the Corvette isn't a luxury car. Just because its expensive doesn't make it lux. That's why we have a prestige car article. Prestige car is any car that gets a wow! when coming down the street like Corvettes and Vipers. The don't offer comfort! Come on, luxury implies comfort and opulance. Read Forbes, its not marxist, but a good place to read up on cars and its where I've done most of my research. The Jag wasn't successful, it just wasn't. An article on Forbes clearly stated that a HIGH LEVEL OF COMFORT is part of luxo car. Surely you have heard the difference between a super preformance car and a luxury car. The math is correct, how exactly is Sam's math wrong, his numbers are pretty sound. Let me be frank here, you havn't proven anything. You have made angry, non-productive claims but not proven anything! Please do some research whie I add more refs and then AFTER you've done some research and I some adding refs, see if you still have a problem. Signaturebrendel 15:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Restatement of Argument

OK, I never said Vettes were luxury cars. Vettes are among my most favorite cars, and I know they aren't luxury cars. Look at the graph of Sam's comment. He includes Ferrari in his lux car argument. THATS NOT WHAT IT SAYS IN THE ARTICLE. Sam's numbers are unfounded, they are based off of expensive cars. We're not discussing expensive cars, we're discussion luxury cars. I do know Forbes, and I agree with their definition, it is a high level of comfort. However, where is this MSRP definition coming from? As I clearly showed in my rebuttal, it is a fabricated number by Sam... I showed it with the provided quote. Is it not clear? The quote explicitly states that he/she made the number!!! So, again, where is the justification of that random MSRP used to define a luxury car. Again, Sam answered the Jag comment with a link and a reference, the proper way to go about proving his comment about Jags. You must have not read the above rebuttal, because much of your argument is not in attack of anything new... it was what was said last night.

I will reiterate my argument, so that there is no confusion in what my argument is

  1. The definition of a luxury car is not sourced. There is no proof, not even in the provided reference, of the precise number used to define a luxury car. Please provide me with concrete evidence that $38K is the defined price for a luxury car. If this is provided, this part of the argument shall be resolved.
  2. Define vehicle. It is very unclear what a vehicle is...just a car? or all automobiles (trucks, cars and buses) as the wikilink implies.
  3. The percentages are clearly fabricated. User:Samstayton provides a graph that is intended to prove that ultra-luxury cars are 0.1% of the market. However, this number is clearly forced... as he includes Ferraris and Porsche super-cars... which are not in any way luxury cars. He also does not inlclude any Audi's (where a few deserve to be included).
  4. Samstayton proves that 0.1% of the automobile market is ultra-luxury cars. He says nothing about the other percentages which were haphazardly thrown into the argument. It is surely not a coincidence that high end cars are 1/10 of mid-level cars and ultra-cars are 1/10 of high end cars. PROVIDE EVIDENCE FOR THESE CLAIMS!
  5. The article provides very few references and the one referring to luxury cars brings one to a website that is almost impossible to navigate (I am not the only one that had trouble determing what the page is trying to do, other than list somewhat random information about everything from cars to jewelry). Please link the article to the proper part of that website.
  6. This article is unfounded, and the vague reference to www.kbb.org proves nothing (there is no mention of prices set on entry, mid...etc.)


Let me make it clear. I know cars very well. I do not doubt that Samstayton and Brendel also know cars very well, they seem to be very knowledgable. I, in fact, have seen the use of entry, mid, high, and ultra. However, in the magazines I have read, I have never seen such a set price and definitive cut off as Brendel and Samstayton seem to suggest. While I do not doubt that there exist levels of luxury cars (and I, by the way, never said anything about vettes or vipers being luxury cars), I do not think that your methods of determination are true. MSRP does NOT define the price of cars. PROVE (with legitimate quotes) that $38,000 is not made up by Samstayton (as my quote proves [see quote at top of rebuttal]). Until then, as I have evidence that the information is falsified, and you have no evidence that it is true, this article is illegitimate.
I rest my case by claiming that you have provided no substantial, clear, and consistent evidence to the length and duration of the debate. Your claims are clearly wrong, and there has been no rebuttal to what I have said other than a somewhat of a non-sequitur (clearly Brendel did not read my post).
On another note, stop personally attacking me. "shut your mouth full of illegitimacy", "Zouf, may be you are the fabricator here", "Read Forbes, its not marxist" are unnecessary comments to make in an argument regarding cars. I did not call any of you fabricators or acutally illegitimate. I do claim this article to be illegitimate. My political should have nothing to do with this article. You are going "below the belt" to mention anything of the sort. Let's keep this business... please.
Yours truly, Zouf 17:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm trying to keep this professional as well, sorry if the "Forbes, its not marxist" comment offended you. Okay here's how the MSRPs came to life. I look at all the different car publications in the US and Germany. I made a long, long list of all the lux vehicles. Then I checked with Forbes and Kbb whether or not these vehicles are really lux. By doing so I already establisahed what brands were luxo brands and what cars were luxo cars. Now I looked at the segment they were put in. Alright, now I had a list of all luxo cars in the US and Germany as well as their marketing classification (Entry-level, High-end, etc...). Okay so besides just putting this list up I started looking at why these vehicles were called luxo cars. Then I made a list of all the things these vehicles had in common. All the cars had a high level of comfort (that was stated in Forbes). According to KBB the cheapest luxo car was the Volvo S80 with a $38k MSRP; thus, setting that treshold. I also found that Forbes, edmunds and NCTD differntiated in their defenition between non-luxo brand and luxo-brand. So, I found that the leading car mags classify all luxo-brand cars between $29k and $40k (BMW 3-Series etc...) as luxo cars. Then I found that for mainstream cars the treshold was set higher ($38k). For the guidelines of High-end, I again looked at the prices of cars who according to Forbes, edmunds, NCTD, and KBB were said to be high-end. All of these vehicles had MSRPs ranging from $60k to $100k. A Forbes article then stated that all cars above $100k are Ultra-lux, so I just took their word for it. Then I triple checked my tresholds and found that the information I had gathered was correct. Now I will go back and try to gather all the articles I have look at over months in order to build a reference section. This project, however, will take a bit of time, so please bear with me. Also, I'm saying this with all due respect, but no, your argument wasn't very clear (now it is) and the qoute you selected from my discussion page didn't really get the message through. Again, please bear with me until I gather my srouces, alright? Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

(Sigh of Relief) Finally, there seems to be some kind of conclusion to a very long and drawn out debate. The MSRP issue is starting to make sense. I would like to clarrify that small correspondence with Samslayton though... and how the threshold was moved based on Samslayton's own preference. I feel much better that the MSRP issue has been resolved... it certainly makes this much more understandable. A few loose ends remain. The comments about percentages need to be removed until Samslayton can substantiate them (In my above argument, I show that they aren't as legitimate as they should be), and vehicle needs to be better defined. I don't mind if you take your time doing the references... so long as they are going to be done. Thanks for joining me in this very lively debate about luxury cars, it certainly was interesting. Yours truly, Zouf 18:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Massive Vandalism by Zouf

Zouf, considerbale amount of time has been spent by Me and Gerd to write this article. Your arguments should be brought on talk page first. You are simply editing the article on some whims which is not acceptable. Also, it is not allowed that you edit data and text without any basis. If you think I am wrong or the data is in correct, you should point with with your caluculations on Talk page first. Vandalism has serious repurcussions. Also, your articulation is one thing and writing fact based article is another. Samstayton 01:27, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Article 1 from User:Samstayton's talk page

I just read quite a bit of interesting stuff. Some of my facial expressions includes "hm, interesting", and others included a writhing face that was appalled at what was said.

  • First off, I would like to refute the claim, "Only mercedes was considered traditional luxury". Cadillac? Lincoln? Rolls Royce?...yes, enough said
  • "As I said earlier, brands like Ferrari and Porsche and bentley rapidly evolved in the 90s and are even evolving now." Well, Bentley? How can you categorize Bentley with that group? It's nearly impossible. Unlike Ferrari and Porsche, they've moved from luxury to performance, not the other way around!
  • "In the 80s even BMW was not considered luxury"... Wow, I almost broke the computer reading that one. Just look at pictures. My friend, who knows that cars have engines, and that "hp" is a unit of power, knows that BMW is lux. Even he was surprised at this comment.
  • "Besides in next 10-15 years when European Union moves closer" I don't know where Sam lives, but from an international POV, I don't quite know what that means. "moving closer". Perhaps you meant becomes stronger...expands?...develops?... but certainly not "move closer". I don't quite know what that means.
  • Why do we mention suspension and cargo space at all. This is obscene. These just plain aren't luxo cars factors. They aren't. A good ride, yes, that's luxo car factor. Comfortable interior room, yes thats a factor. But, to measure cargo space? and to claim anything about the suspension itself is absurd. If these factors are allowed to apply- what? is an 18-wheeler more of a lux car than a BIMMER (note its not BEEMER...arg...) because it has a softer suspension and way more cargo room. I'm not refuting any one particular claim here. I'm just saying that let's leave these factors out in discussion of luxo car. Let's keep it to head/leg room (etc.) for the "cargo" and the comfort of the ride for the "suspension".
  • "Its like Theory of Relativity which uses Speed of Light as constant and other variables revolve around that constant "c" ". I swear, I was granted some kind of higher power to resist my temptation to destroy the computer screen in front of me. I'm going to study physics throughout college, and it is quite the interest of mine. This analogy is wrong, let's not refer to this ever again, especially in reference to cars. (btw, A professor at my school saw this and screamed "What the hell is this crap" when eh saw it... continuing to use this as a claim to destroy the legitimacy of all of wikipedia...arg... disbelievers)
  • Sam:"Definitions based on "constants" are stable defintions"
    Sam:"As I said we don't need constants."
    Should or should not a constant be used?



Now, to build my case. Clearly, as a wikipedia article, it is not intended to be too subjective, as it is supposed to be factual. However, as we have seen in the pages of discourse, it is a very "split" field, in terms of opinions. I do agree with Sam on the contention that some kind of constant is necessary. This is true for all factually based arguments. Therefore, using as legitimate sources as I could find, I would like to provide a defintion that I think would fit best with a luxury car... then continue to clarify it.

Merriam Webster defines "luxury" as "a condition of abundance or great ease and comfort : sumptuous environment". Car is easy enough to figure out. So, by extension, I combine the phrases by claiming, according to M&W a luxury car is a car which provides a great abundance of ease and comfort (Now, this is based on M&W's definition. You can refute this by claiming it as a biased source... but its M&W... let's not go there.) (N.B. when I say car, I mean the the traditional sedan, coupe, hatchback, roadster, station wagon, etc. in addition to SUVs and light trucks (e.g. luxo pickups like Lincoln LT.) Now, the crux of this debate doesn't lie in "ease" and comfort". Alone, those are easy enough to understand. The crux is the "abundance"... and this is the debate that permeates our arguments, believe it or not. M&W defines "abundance" as "relative degree of plentifulness". In this case, can be extended to a relatively plentiful degree of luxury.

I have narrowed this debate, without using any obsequious sources, to defining relative. And clearly, since luxury is higher than, we are referring to a "higher degree" of luxury. This is where the classes fit in perfectly! Entry Level could be defined as anything that has a higher degree of luxury relative to any average passenger car or SUV (done by nation). (e.g. In the U.S., entry level would be a smooth ride (not seamless), CD, power windows, locks, leather standard, etc.). Mid Level would then follow suit, as would high end and ultra. Again, as I have clearly demonstrated, there are strong opinions as to what relative even refers to. Therefore, I claim that we should dump the "cut-off" MSP and go for a guide. For example, if Company X makes a car that offers all the luxuries found in the average Mid-level car, but sells it for 36K... why shouldn't it be includes... just because of price!? That's ridiculous! By the same token, the Ferrari argument would be solved. Yes, Ferrari has made leaps and bounds in luxury. But, does it have anything on a Bentley or Rolls Royce... or an S65 (no more!!!! =( )... ASBOLUTELY NOT! Therefore, even though its more expensive than every mid-level car... it should still be put into the same class because that is all of the creature comforts it offers... those of a mid-level car.

In this case, my "constant" actually contains a variable...eww... I know! I am going by a defintion here... but how else can we go about it? Hyundai just made the beautiful Hyundai Azera... but its very cheap! I don't know the exact stats of it, but just because Hyundai can produce a car for a cheaper price than a Bimmer... should it not be considered a luxury car!?

The Prestige Car article is for the designation of the little horse (Ferrari, Porsche, etc.) on the front of the car, the luxury car article is about how relatively comfortable someone is inside of the car.

Despite this, I do not propose that everyone hop onto Wikipedia and spew out their emotions on the newest Bimmer, fighting over what class it should be. I do, however, feel that in order to properly classify cars, we need to use general guidelines. Sam, you are completely right... the car market is changing, we need to account for it. We cannot use percentages, and I shall explain why:

  1. Country A has a per capita that is substantially higher that of country B. In Country A, 1% of the cars might be all supercars, and in Country B they might be all entry-level sedans.
  2. Luxury cars manufacture the same cars despite the economy of other countries. If Mercedes always puts out the same amount of the S class every year, but if country C's economy increases substantially one year, then more people might be able to buy S classes. Does this make it any less of a luxury car... certainly not. Percentages would require a reassessment of a country's economy as well as the success of each car company to be legitimate.



To conclude, I would like to emphasize that there needs to be a general guide where...yes... MSP is included. But, it should not be the sole factor. Instead of developing a system where we have to convene to make an exception (e.g. H1), we should make a system where it can work on "auto pilot". Of course, as things develop and become more common, they move farther down the "list of luxury" until they become almost universally standard (e.g. power steering), but it should be able to function based on round-about numbers. Your designation of MSP's is about right, but it is to finite. Let's open the field to allow cars to move out of certain levels because of the features they have. In essence, we are not allowing a company to produce a "high end" car, if it has a <$60K MSP. Absurd. Also, this guideline can be used to incorporate older cars by adding in inflation (since it is just a round number, this is much easier). Actually, now that I think of it, the way of dealing with older cars is a major factor in this article.

Thank you for your patience and cooperation in this long and drawn out debate. By the way, my name is "Zouf" (nickname... my real name is Matt), and I live in New York City... in case you wanted to know. Ironically, I'm not a major fan of American cars... as there are frequently stupid problems with the cars that GM, Chrysler and Ford make. They, annoyingly, range from little engine problems to major ones as well as problems with overall quality. I look forward to engaging in more discussion about this topic (which has now become uniquely interesting solely because of the heated debate attached with it). Peace!


Article 2 from User:Samstayton's talk page

Again, the argument about expensive comes back to my defintion argument. In essence, "relative" is what makes something "expensive". Again, I dont claim Azera is luxury... first, I havent sat in one yet, second... it most likely isn't. My argument about the price, as you can see in my example is to take the price as a "threshold" out, and make it a guideline. For example, the avg. high end car has "x" amount of luxury features and a price of "y". If a mid-level car (by your price thresholds) makes "x" amount of luxury features and has a lower price, it should still be a luxury car (within reason). I'm sure you understand that companies do weird pricing options, for example, you know you pay a couple thousand dollars when you buy a Ferrari for the emblem. I'm saying, break away from the "prestige" idea, and focus on the aspects of a luxury car. I do not doubt it should be expensive. But, two situations that I commonly see are perfect examples here:

  1. A car has an MSP of 55,000 but offers all of the same features that a 75,000 car does. I mean, exactly the same. Except, the 70,000 is a "prestige car". Shouldn't both be "high end"? If not, than is it fair to keep the first out soleley because its 5000 under? Again, a guideline would allow for this.
  2. A car costs 75,000 dollars but since it is so rare/uncommon/ "hot", it offers nothing that the other high end luxo's offer. Shouldn't it be a mid-level?


The argument I made supports everything you said, especially about being expensive. But, I think that the numbers should be slightly more flexible than such a swift cut off. BTW, when GM offered employee discounts, it lowered many of the MSP's (for a given set of months) from over 60K to under 60K. So, based on your current model ( and being a stickler, =P) they all went from high-end to mid-level... and then back again. This happens a lot, in different ways.
I'm starting to see a trend between the arguments. Threshold vs. Guideline... It'd be nice to get some 4th party input here. Clearly, you and Sam feel that it's threshold, and I clearly feel its guideline. .. hmm...
Yea, sorry about the bimmer thing. Bimmer is such a common spelling and sooooo many kids spell it "beemer" because they don't know any better. I didn't realize that it was a language thing... usually its just an incompetency thing, ha!!
BTW, I saw a marauder today. Seeing as your a TC fan, I'm sure this is your favorite car...ever? If it isn't, I'd be interested to hear why not. Peace! Zouf 04:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttal of Vandalism

Uhm, both of you need to stop double-teaming me. You might have spent time on the article, but it certainly does not perfect the article. First off, my edits changed some typos... but Samstayton reverted those...nice job Sam. Secondly, I doubt Sam read my comment on his MSP graph, and so he put it back without looking at the comments... nice job Sam. Thirdly, I took off the unsourced percentages because they were clearly fabricated, or based off illegit numbers... and he reverted it... nice job Sam. I would really like to deal with Brendel... not Sam in terms of this article. I do not mean this to be personal, please don't make it to be that. But, you are not structuring your argument or particularly watching what you are doing.

My evidence, definitions, and sourcing is sound. I use legit dictionary sources for a definition, I use common sense, I use proper grammar, and I also clean up unsourced info. I have articulated my argument quite clearly, with numbering and bulleting. There is no need to recite it, it can be found above. Although the majority of what is stated in the article is "right", there is a substantial number of things that are wrong. Since when is BMW's flagship sedan under $100,000? Are you outright insane?... is the 745 flagship over the 760! Not all SUV's offer more luxury than their sedan counterparts... the QX56 is the most "luxurious" car by Infiniti in terms of features and overall comfort... as is the Cadillac Escalade ESV. Ferrari's are not luxury cars. This is heresy to speak of. Every single person I have talked to has backed me up on this. That is absurd... they are performance. Also note their location on this graph...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Prestige_cars_copy.png... made by Brendel himself. You have ommitted innumberable points of my argument... and I have consistently responded to each of your contentions. Some of them have been just outright... almost hilariously... wrong. Please respond back in a way that disproves me. In sheer logical formulas... I have not yet been disproved... many of my arguments have not been refuted.

I would also like to point out the true vandal here. If Sam has reverted changes back to a "typoed" state... if he has replaced faulty information (information like the BMW's 745 being flagship), and adding information that is unsourced ALL AFTER it had been fixed... who is the true vandal? Let Brendel take care of the rest, User:Samstayton, please. I do not mean it to be personally offensive, but Brendel has been much more reasonable and understandable in his arguing.

As described in my argument, I will again revert this article. Further action to revert again to information that has been clearly disproved will most likely result in my talking to an administrator. If you feel it should be reverted again, destroy my argument, I welcome you to.

Even though I have already used one of your sources to prove my own argument, I will use another. Car.com (the source used to define class) states

Entry luxury cars usually cost between $25,000 and $40,000, and they don’t always have a luxury brand attached to them. Mid-luxury cars typically run between $40,000 and $60,000, and always carry a nameplate that resonates with image-conscious Americans. Super-luxury cars cost upwards of $60,000 but less than $100,000, and inspire envy in both friends and enemies. Ultra-luxury cars are six-figure expenses guaranteed to land the hottest date in town and the best parking spaces at the trendiest nightspots.


Semantics, gentlemen, semantics. They are not defining a threshold... but a general number to go around. If theres a $59,999 Benz... according to you two, its mid-level. This is ridiculous. I will only stand to hear a structured, legitimate debate. Until I do, the person who has best proven his point (the best structure argument) will have the correct version posted. Please take none of this personally. Thanks! Zouf 04:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I see you found the pricing guideliness. As to SUVs, there probably the same in terms of comfort when compared to their full-size sedan counterparts. A Navi probably is little less lux than a TC, smaller seats and not quite the same ride. Nonetheless any statement saying sedans are better than SUVs or SUVs are better than sedans is POV, and doesn't actually belong here to begin with. The pricing guidelines you have found are the same ones we currently use, so there shouldn't be a problem with them, if there is let me know. There are however two problems:

  • In the entry-level segment there is a difference between cars made by a luxo brand and non-luxo grand. See, if you say all cars upwards of $25k you're opening the door for cars that are priced below the average MSP in the US of $26k. $26k is the average price paid for a car in this country, $25k would be below that. Besides is the Mercedes-Benz C-Class really in the same class as the Buick Lacrosse?
  • A rather minor thing, above $60k they're called High-end not super because on wiki supercars are an entirely different class of vehicle. We don't want to confuse articles so we call 'em High-end Luxury vehicles. Thanks. Ragards. Signaturebrendel 22:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert Comment

I didn't see Brendel's edit before Samstayton's. I like Brendel's much better. I read over his comments, and I decided to add some of his info to the revert I made. If anything, I would like to work with his minor reverts of mine more than working with the article's original text. Thanks again! Zouf 05:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually there is a $3,500 tolerance. That's why the $58k LS430 is high-end. So the $59,995 Benz would still be a luxury vehicles. Thought you might want to know. Regards, Signaturebrendel 21:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Continued Vandalism by Zouf

This new preson has started vandalising the article with impunity. He has also started childish threats of referring others who do not agree with him to the Administrators. His juvenile prank has degenerated into lengthy and baseless arguments. I have worked a lot on this article just as Gerd and do not wish to see this vandalism continue. Because of the nature of wikipedia, a well-sourced, well referenced article can at once be vandalised by persons like Zouf. I have plenty of energy but no time to keep reverting like he is doing and fixing the mess he creates. This is also because of the R&D work I am doing and the projects I am involved in at the moment. The future of this article looks very bleak and will likely loose its authority because of this person's careless and juvenile attitude and messy involvement. If he continues this low quality modification and vandalism, this article will loose its flair, sophistication and factual base. Samstayton 06:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well that's very unfortunate Sam. However, I will not let this article sink like the Titanic. I will make sure that this article remians a respectaple source for those wishing to statisfy their curisosity. I will take into consideration each user's proposal, and will do my best to keep this article a "sophistication and factual base." Thank you. Signaturebrendel 01:29, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, a couple of ground rules:
1. Please try to be more civil. Try to discuss the contents of the article, rather than discussing individual editors.
2. Please don't refer to good-faith efforts to improve an article as vandalism. Consensus may decide that specific edits don't improve the article, but edits made in good faith should not be dismissed as vandalism. If you disagree with specific changes, you should discuss the changes rather than simply reverting.
3. Nobody owns an article.
Regarding the content specifically, I think that the term "luxury car" is defined slightly differently by different manufacturers, car magazines, and individuals, and trying to pin down a specific price cut-off is probably not productive (or if specific price cut-offs are to be stated, it would be better if they're backed up with far stronger sources, the current sources seem to be along the lines of "for this specific article, we define luxury to mean ..."). Cut-off prices may be defined for legal purposes, and those should be mentioned in the article, but most car magazines and manufacturers most likely don't adhere to legal definitions when using the term for marketing or journalism purposes. It's probably much better in the long run to state at the top of the article that the term is subjectively defined, and then procede from there. --Interiot 22:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

ANswers: 1. I am probably as civil as any wikipedia contributor has ever been. So I believe I do not need these lessons. 2. The changes by Zouf were outright vandalism. He deleted graphs and large amounts of texts without any reason. Before going ahead with the vandalism, he did not discuss it properly on talk page. This seems like a clear case of favoritism by you, since it seems like Zouf is your buddy. Wikipedia is and will loose more authority with time, or at the very least poison the readers mind if persons like zouf continue to edit it. 3. You are right nobody owns the article, but very few people can contribute genuinely and from what I see, the edits made by persons like Zouf are so far away from it, it does not need any further proof. Anyone can read the article for themselves and see the poor writing and references. 4. At this point I do not even feel like contributing to automobile section anymore. This article has more or less lost its authority and valadity. 5. Wikipedia will have to seriously re-think its policies and code of conduct and distinguish serious contributors from those who write lengthy juvenile trolls, otherwise this giant exercise will fail and countless hours of efforts by serious people will be lost with a click of a button. I now feel I wasted countless hours of my own and I will never be able to recover those because of the lack of safeguards. More than three days were exhausted in painstakingly making the chart and collecting the data and confirming it several times (the sales and the selling prices). In one minute this vandal deleted it, because of some whims. 6. I think you have the upper hand here. You are administrator and can do whatever you wish. But my time is precious, and I do not intend to spend it anymore answering your comments or anyone else on this talk page or any other page. Readers will be able to judge from the history the level of my contribution. 7. I do not have anything else to add further. Good night and good luck

Samstayton 00:24, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is subjective but there are guidlines, and this article simply presents them. Signaturebrendel 23:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/u/x/Talk%7ELuxury_vehicles_Archive1_770e.html"