Talk:Car classification

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Soft Roaders

The examples of soft-roader SUVs given seem to be not very correct. The Porsche Cayenne for example has low range gearing, raiseable suspension, and all the other goodies you'd expect. Same with the BMW and Mercedes AFAIK. If you're going to call all unibody, indipendently sprung SUVs "soft-roaders" you'd have to include such formitable examples as the Range Rover and Mitsubishi Pajero. -- stewacide 09:39, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

There are probably better examples of soft-roaders than those. Reasons for including those - they were designed exclusivly for road use, and I've seen an X5 being towed from a muddy field by a very old Volvo estate. I doubt that anyone using an 4x4 for serious off-road work would pick the X5 - but I'm happy to be corrected if anyone has heard of such a thing. When I was working on this I tried to select some typical examples, but there is much to do, since I have a very UK perspective! This article needs a lot more work I think. akaDruid 16:01, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I'll try and expand the class definitions and give a better runthrough of the variation within each class. More importantly I'll try and refrence standard vehicle and size classes as recognized by the industry and governments, and from a world perspective (e.g. A, B, C, D class car, "light trucks" in the US, "kei cars" in Japan, etc.). But I have to do some real (school) work now ;) ... -- stewacide 03:26, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
We should also note that these classes are blurry, and getting blurrier all the time (e.g. what's the Rx-8? A sedan? A coupe? A sports car? A GT?).
Also I wonder if we shouldn't drop the "midsize" and "full size" (etc.) labels, since they seem to differ by market. What I understand to be midsize sedans in Europe (e.g. the Mondeo) aren't very popular here in North America and are considered as somewhere between "compact" Focus/Golf/Civic sized cars and "midsize" Taurus/Accord/Camrey sized cars which are somewhat bigger (the North American Camrey and Accord are totally different than the European model). Those "midsize" cars which share platforms in NA and Europe (e.g. the GM midsizes) are stretched for North America (and generally dumbed down otherwise)...
...now would it be better if I put all those if, ands, and buts under the general Midsize heading, or should we include European, North American, etc. classifications in seperate sections/articles? -- stewacide 03:43, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
We could have a mid-size heading with sub headings covering different markets. There are probably different names for these vehicles too. For example, 'Compact' is not used over here in the UK, but seems to be common use in the US. akaDruid 18:44, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Smaller Minivans

I removed the sentence "They use more fuel than a family car, and are more dangerous in an accident, primarily to other road users." under ===Smaller Minivans=== because I'm not sure that's necessarily true. They're higher than cars, but not necessarily heavier, and their ride heights are often the same as cars. I therefore don't see that they're necessarily any more dangerous except for the (retained) mention that they're higher & thus harder to see around.

The aerodynamics of such a vehicle will be worse (in general) than a pure car of the same size, engine and weight, and thus the fuel consumption will be somewhat worse. However, the removed sentence implied that the fuel consumption of any small minivan is necessarily worse than any family sedan, and that's not accurate. —Morven 20:05, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good move. Also I don't think they're any more top-heavy since they're basically cars with the roof raised a bit. -- stewacide
Maybe they're a little higher off the road in terms of center of mass, but not to the degree of full minivans let alone anything else. And minivans don't have a bad safety record.
An accident in a average sedan with a minivan or a 4x4 is much more dangerous as the same accident with another sedan (mostly due to the height of the vehicle - lorries are even worse). For example, I have seen a video of an MPV hitting the side of a VW Golf at 20mph (as a crash test). The bulk of the MPV went over the window line of the Golf. The passengers of Golf would have been in closed caskets in this case - had it been another Golf, they would have walked away. The fuel economy suffers a lot due to the increased weight and increased drag - in the UK these vehicles are almost exclusively diesels for this reason.
The statement applies equally to all minivans. The reason for putting it under small minivans was a comparison between a small minivan and the sedans they are based on - since they are basically the same vehicle in terms of carrying capacity etc but with all disadvantages but none of the advantages associated with full minivans. I would say it is useful info to anyone trying to understand the differences between vehicle classes, different impacts, and different appeals.
I admit I'm a little biased here - I'm somewhat of a car enthusiast, and I tend to be overly critical of cars like these. For that reason I shall leave it to someone else to sum up the pros and cons of these vehicles. akaDruid 13:18, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
The problem with putting it under 'small minivans' is that those vehicles, of all the non-car classes, show these tendencies the least. Especially since some very 'car-like' vehicles are included in the listing of that category, like the Chrysler PT Cruiser. With a vehicle like that, the solid mass of the vehicle is definitely under the window-line of the average car by quite some way. I think part of the problem is that that category applies to both 'blown-up cars' and 'shrunken minivans' and the behavior of both is (I suspect) quite different. I'm sure the video you saw involved a full size minivan/MPV.
I think that the sentence I removed would work better at the top of the whole minivan/MPV section, because before it looked like the smaller minivan was being singled out as being dangerous and thirsty while the full-size minivan was not. —Morven 17:37, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, that's probably a better way of doing it. The area is covered in some depth in the Crash incompatibility and SUV articles anyway, albeit with more emphesis on SUVs rather than minivans, since they represent more of a crash threat than minivans. akaDruid 10:34, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Page Structure

A lot of effort is going into this page but I think it's structured all wrong. Firstly instead of proviving a few examples of each vehicle type we should point to complete List of articles. Secondly we really need to make an effort to internationalize and standardize some of the currently very arbitrary size classes (I'm gonna' do some reading into letter size classes: e.g. C, D, C/D, etc.). -- stewacide 05:30, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I was thinking a while back that we could add information on where our divisions relate to certain standards, such as EuroNCAP and rental vehicle classes. The current structure was based around existing articles in the WP.
I agree that links to definative lists of vehicles would be far superior, but I don't know that any of these exist as yet. Perhaps as the lists expand here, they could be used to create list pages? akaDruid 10:28, 30 Mar 2004 (UTC)


A really international classification scheme might be tough to do. I know that traditionally the categories used in the U.S./Canada were different from those of most of the rest of the world, and I suspect there may be other anomalies out there in the global market. It might be clearer just to note the differences and inconsistencies as they arise, as Stewacide suggests above, rather than try for the compleat system.

Just for discussion, here's the Detroit hierarchy as it was I got my license in the 70's--in those days any car freak could recite it like a liturgy:

  • luxury (including large personal luxury)
  • premium standard
  • standard, or full-size
  • intermediate, or mid-size (including muscle cars & smaller personal luxury)
  • compact (including ponycars)
  • subcompact
  • Corvette (it not being like anything else)

Since then the classes have become much less distinct, though still generally discernable. Trucks used to be just trucks, but now they have about as many categories as cars do, and some SUV's are even blurring that boundary.

RivGuySC 05:57, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm thinking this page is getting rather out of control and needs to be tightened up quite a bit, or it's going to become way too general and will include too much info that should be on pages pointed to by this page. I'm thinking about how to proceed. —Morven 06:39, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sports, luxury, and mainstream cars

In North America there's a fairly clear distinction between high-priced sports-luxury cars (BMW 3-series, Jaguar XJ, Saab 9-3, etc.) and "mainstream" cars (e.g. Honda Accord, Chevrolet Impala, Ford Focus, etc.). As I understand it, however, this distinction isn't so clear in Europe (where you can buy inline-4 powered 3-series' which compete with Ford and VW models for example). How should the article reflect this?

I also noticed there aren't any North American examples under Family Cars (except the Accord which is completely different in North America), which is why the confusion isn't yet evident. It simply wouldn't make sense to group the Chevrolet Cavalier with the Volvo S40, although as currently structured that's what the article would suggest...

Any ideas? -- stewacide 14:28, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sub-compacts

Surely a sub-compact is just the US term for a supermini? A Ford Fiesta (listed as a sub-compact) is a definative supermini. akaDruid 10:41, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That could be true, but if so we'll definitely have to list both terms to make it comprehensible to a wide audience. I never heard of a supermini until I started reading this page. RivGuySC 18:17, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

OK I'll rework it to cover that. They are synonymous terms. akaDruid 14:00, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I agree that sub-compacts and superminis appear to be the same class of car, simply named differently in North America and Europe. I think they should be brought under one heading but that we should explain the different names. 999 10:22, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've merged superminis and sub-compacts. Feel free to edit it if you don't like it. 999 11:39, 24 May 2004 (UTC)

This has fascinated me as I have lived in different countries and formed a "scheme" in my own head. This might be total nonsense but I thought I'd share it:
  • microcars – e.g. Mitsubishi Minica, Smart ForTwo
  • superminis – e.g. Volkswagen Fox, Chevrolet Aveo
  • subcompacts – e.g. Volkswagen Gol, Seat Ibiza, Ford Fiesta
  • compacts – e.g. Ford Focus, Volkswagen Golf, Toyota Corolla
  • mid-size – e.g. Ford Mondeo
  • intermediate – e.g. Toyota Camry
  • full-size – e.g. Holden Commodore
The difficulty is the problem of the ever-growing automobile and that "my" classifications are marketing-based. Sometimes it's affected by engine sizes. Therefore, I would class the Fiesta as "bigger" than the Aveo, even if a tape measure might not. Stombs 23:47, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)


You have forgotten the city cars, which are between 3.30 and 3.60 metres long. They are smalller than superminis but have seating for four (unlike the microcars).
The real problem is the standard/luxury distinction. In Europe, the sedan versions of small family cars are around 4,40-4.55 m long, while the large family cars are around 4.60-4.75 m. But executive cars like the BMW 3-Series, Audi A4 and Lexus IS belong to the "large family cars" category, although they are smaller... and have more powerful engines. This happens because they are luxury cars, they are parallel classfications.
And two cars with the same size may correspond to different categories. The Renault Mégane Sedan (small family car) is 4.55m long, and the Renault Laguna (large family car) 4.60 metres. So? The Mégane has less interior room but bigger boot than the Laguna. Besides, the building and material quality is inferior, and it has smaller engines.
The exact length or interior room may not matter, the categories are more related to the car as a whole: engines, building quality, interior room and boot... (More trouble will come after the sedan 1-Series is released...)
As you might expect, some cars are neither luxury cars nor standard cars. In Sweden, Saab and Volvo are as cheap and "not-much-appreciated" as Renault or Ford. Alfa Romeo and Subaru are in the same situation.
For a clearer sight, you can check the List of recent automobile models by type, where the standard/luxury distinction is a little clearer. NaBUru38, March 2nd 2006, 14:10 UYT

[edit] Example vehicles

Surely example vehicles should be classic, revolutionary or genre-defining examples? There are an increasing number of concept vehicles, limited production vehicles, or generally uninteresting types appearing here. An example should identify the class. It is also pretty pointless creating examples linking to pages that don't (and might never) exist, like the bulk of the microcar examples.

As a side issue to that, people seem to be using this page as a tool to promote their own favourite vehicles, including some really unsuitable ones. For example, the recently added section 'Convertables'. Convertable is a body style, not a class of vehicle.

Finally, my pet hate:- Does anyone object if we terminate references to the MX-5? It should be left as an example budget sportscar, but nothing else. This car is dull and insignificant - calling it the standard-bearer for a new generation of convertibles is POV, unencylopedic and non-factual. It's currently popularity stems entirely from it's cheapness and marketing, and there are even much better examples of cheap, well marketed cars - VW Beetle anyone? There must be an MX-5 forum on the web for the middle-aged hair-trimming zealots to air their opinions, and allow us to keep the WP to facts. end-of-rant, and apologies to any offended middle-aged hair-trimming zealots  :) akaDruid 10:18, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

There should IMO be a section on body styles too, though -- if nothing else because people will expect to see them here. Or at least a link to a corresponding page on them. Coupe, convertible, hatchback, etc. are an orthogonal set of classifications.
As to the vehicle examples - we should be careful to give only a very representative set of very well known or influential cars. —Morven 11:45, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree that examples should be class-defining and preferably well known and with a good article about them. As for body styles, we already have pages on coupes, convertibles, sedans, station wagons and hatchbacks so we don't need to do much on body styles, maybe just a little overview at top of the page with links to the main articles. If we do that though, we need to be clear that body styles aren't classes of their own. 999 09:18, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm thinking that we should have a seperate page on Car body style which is an overview of them. It should probably also serve as an index to older names mostly extinct now, such as laundaulet, tonneau, etc. that are old coachbuilding terms used for cars through about World War II but not used after. There are also words like landau, brougham that have been used as model designations since the war but not accurately according to the traditional coachbuilding definitions. —Morven 16:37, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
OK, good idea. You seem far more knowledgable on body styles than I am but I'll contribute to this new page where I can. Also, some pages like roadster and spyder could probably do with some work being done on them. 999 17:51, 25 May 2004 (UTC)
Started work on such an article. Nowhere near complete yet, but take a look anyway ... —Morven 00:31, 26 May 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Sports cars and GTs

Although grand tourers and sports cars can be defined within quite clear boundaries, in my eyes they do not appear to be classes in the same way as the supermini class for example. This is because, unlike superminis, not all GTs compete against each other. The BMW 6-series and the Bentley Continental GT for example, are both undeniably grand tourers but they are separated by £60,000 in purchase price. The same applies for sports cars. Because of this, I'm not sure whether or not these two types should be included in this article or not, and whether we need to create a subheading for every different class of GT and sports car. I'd like your opinions on what we should do, if anything. 999 16:44, 23 May 2004 (UTC)

This is not a bad point, but if consistently adhered to I think it would work against a logical classification system. Minivans and sport utilities and ordinary sedans/saloons also sell in a broad price range and not all of each type compete with each other. I think logically the physical type and intended use of the vehicle should trump price as the most important criteria. RivGuySC 00:17, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
RivGuySC makes an important point: is it necessary for this article to divide cars into strict market segments? Certainly not a bad goal, but I don't think that it's necessary either. I have a feeling that you're (999) trying to set up each section so that the cars listed are true competitors, and you're wanting to get rid of classifications in which the cars are not necessarily competitors. —Morven 00:30, 26 May 2004 (UTC)
Whilst I do still think that GTs, minivans and sport utilities could be divided into market segments (that undeniably exist), you have helped me to realise that it is not the aim of this article. Also, separating them could lead to endless nit-picking about what car goes where and would probably make for a less reader friendly article. Thanks.
PS. I apologise for taking so long to reply. 999 18:30, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
No problem. One of the issues in trying to divide by market segment is that different cars are in different segments in different markets. E.g. in the UK, the Land Rover Freelander and Toyota RAV4 are competitors priced similarly, but in the US market, the Land Rover is more expensive and the RAV4 cheaper. —Morven 19:57, Jun 4, 2004 (UTC)
Good point. Coming from a purely UK perspective (which is where is reside), that's something I hadn't considered. 999 21:40, 4 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Having been brought up in the UK and moving to California getting on 8 years ago, it's very noticeable. Japanese cars in particular are 'voluntarily' restricted in numbers in the UK and are thus sold at a much higher price than they are in the US. Thus they are automatically perceived as being more valuable cars, even if the same specification is sold elsewhere as a much cheaper vehicle. At the same time, the cheaper end of manufacturers such as Mercedes and BMW are much more affordable cars in the UK (and they sell cheaper models that are not sold in the US at all). The relative position of things like Fords are about the same, to my perception.
Pricing of cars is a question of charging whatever the market can bear, rather than a mechanical percentage on top of production costs; witness in the US the huge profit margins on SUVs and 'luxury' pickup trucks, simple vehicles that don't actually cost all that much to build. —Morven 00:24, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

I'm wondering where Coupés fit into this classification system - I'm thinking of sporty cars with a two-door bodyshape that are primarily based on a standard sedan/saloon underpinnings like the Ford Probe, Ford Puma, Opel Calibra, Opel Astra Coupé, Rover Coupé, Fiat Coupé, Nissan 200SX, Hond Civic Coupé, Mazda MX6, BMW 3 Series Coupé and many others. They're not Sports Cars by the definition on this page (i.e. not "lightweight" "performance" models as such) and they're certainly not Grand Tourers or Supercars - perhaps with a little editing they could be combined with the Personal Luxury Car ? I don't have any North American specific examples. Also - could some mention of Roadsters be put into Sports Cars as a sub category for lightweight open top cars which as noted includes distinctly non-performance ones like the Suzuki Cappachino and Ford SportKa to the medium performance Mazda MX5 and Rover MGF through to TVRs, Porche Boxsters and Lotus Elise ? Dagdaireland

[edit] Vote for deletion

I think this page is a total loss. There really are no lines anymore separating categories. What Wikipedia needs is simply a list of articles about perceived vehicle types (e.g. Sport utility vehicle, Muscle car, etc.). Perhaps this page can be salvaged into an article on the European vehicle market or something like that? -- stewacide 03:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I've just reread the article for the first time in a while, and I don't think it's a total loss. It's not perfect, but a good bit of thought has gone into it and it does have both sense and organization to a considerable degree. Just because it needs doctoring is no reason to put the poor old thing down, IMHO. RivGuySC 02:01, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
A possibility is to make two articles, one for the Northamerican car classification and another one for the European.
By the way, why were some links deleted and removed from the list? (in black) - NaBUru38, March 2nd 2006, 17:55 UYT

[edit] Saloon

What in the freak is a "saloon". I thought it had four doors. Does it mean a car with a roof? If so, the term is kind of antiquated to describe a sports coupe, for example. I changed it to Sedan. Alos the classification at the top sucks. It should be moved further down. CJ DUB 16:55, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

What the freak is a "sedan"? Just because you use a different word to describe it, does not mean that you should change it to your choice of word from that which it was. Just because you would prefer a more NA centric view of the world does not make it a suitable edit. If you wish to change it, please discuss which Wikipedia policy it was in contravention of before doing so. Nasty 21:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
A sedan has a fixed definition; saloon car does not. Lets call everything a saloon then. That's not precise. Sedan is interchangeable with "Four-Door Saloon". So I'm suggested that. You can fix it. I never suggested a NA view, I favour a world view. At this time the page is too eurocentric, especially with regard to the examples. For instance, the link from "Sports Saloon" main article didn't go anywhere, until I changed it to "Sports sedan", then presto-change-o, it works. Also, you say MR2 is a Cabrio? Funny. Its a targa, like Porsche's designations: Coupe, Cabrio, Targa. CJ DUB 02:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that if you look up the Oxford English Dictionary, you'll find a definition for saloon. Therefore, I don't see what is more precise about using sedan over saloon. The only reason to do so is to change the page to a more NA centric view. I think that you will find that the latest MR2 is actually a cabrio, though earlier versions were targas. If you can point me at the wikipedia policy that the page violated before you "fixed" it, I'll leave it as is. Otherwise, I'm going to continue to revert it back to its original language. If you really feel strongly about having a page which uses a more NA centric view (and lets be honest, that is why you changed it), write one and have two pages, the original and a "Car classification (North America)" page. It should allow for the fact that we would often use the exact same terms to refer to different types of car and we classify cars differently. Nasty 08:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
What am I saying? This page isn't Eurocentric at all. Haha. Almost all the examples are cars available in England (possibly available as some iteration in europe, Opel, etc.). I was not aware of the new MR2 Spyder, (god that's an ugly car). Cars are classified differently in the two main market areas, I have experience with both. I propose making a table for each description with Euro models and NA models. If you think I am so keen on making the page fit my North American standard then you are very short-sighted. Having saloon and not acknowledging "sedan" (especially when it is the more common) is also shortsighted, espcially when, saloon means a "closed automobile with a separate boot". Probably the most ambiguous definition I have heard, meaning Lamborghini Gallardo, Morris Minor, and Ford Mustang all have the same classification. Btw. I added the SUV catgories because they are a reality, not cause i'm a NA redneck. This can be a good page. But simply saying "our system of organizing cars is better in Europe" is not going to get you anywhere and certainly not to the level of Wikipedia standard, because people will keep editing it. CJ DUB 18:27, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it was eurocentric, but that is no reason to change it to NA-centric. The new MR2 is ugly. I think that it would be a good idea to have Europe and Rest of World tables, giving examples for both. A saloon is loosely described as above, but in reality most people view a saloon as a car with 4 seats, a fixed roof, boot, and steeply raked rear windscreen, though there are some exceptions (original Volkswagen Beetle is a saloon). I would just like to point out, that just changing it to an NA centric view is no imporvement and just because it uses eurocentric language is no reason to change it. Nasty 20:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I made the first step towards rectifying the blatant European bias by dumping in a lot of American and Asian cars revising the "hot hatch/sport compact" section--there are plenty of cars, especially cars sold in America, that meet all the criteria for hot hatches except the hatchback. What would you call a Honda Prelude? A Chevrolet Cobalt SS? A Nissan Sentra SE-R. "Sport compact" is a much better descriptor than "hot hatch" for this class of car, as many prime examples of the class (such as the Sentra SE-R) have trunks. Also, I added a section for full-size vans. We're already dealing with body-on-frame SUVs, so this article already covers trucks. Might as well cover all the trucks. And no, full-size vans aren't just for businesses. Many American families use full-size vans as their primary vehicles. A few people even live in decked-out vans. Pickup trucks should also be added, as they are by far the highest selling vehicles in the US market, which is the largest in the world (the Ford F-150 sells 900,000 units per year, while the highest-selling sedan, the Toyota Camry sells only 450,000). I think some Japanese Wikipedians might want to take a look at this as well. There is plenty of reason to change this, because it not only has Eurocentric language, it practically ignores the existence of car markets outside Europe.--70.146.175.68 06:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merger by reason of duplication

This discussion began at Talk:Vehicle size class

The present article (Car classification) and Vehicle size class contain much of the same information, and by keeping them separate we risk information becoming out-of-synch. – Kieran T (talk | contribs) 13:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bit of a mess, isn't it?

This article is all over the place. What's the point in separating hatchbacks and saloons/sedans like it is now? There's both saloons and hatchback in most car categories, from superminis to large executive cars, so it's a bit silly and confusing to make them the primary categories. Also, I don't think we should try and group classes from different regions together when they're not very similar, e.g. K-cars are a specific category in Japan with specific dimension and engine size restrictions, whereas "city car" isn't really a standard class and generally include engines up to 1 litre (K-cars are limited to 660cc). I also wholeheartedly agree to the merger with Vehicle size class. --Zilog Jones

[edit] Less, Better Examples?

Perhaps we should use less but better examples. For instance, for Supercar, we should list a few cars which are least likely to cause contention. Eg:

  1. Ferrari 250 GTO
  2. Mosler MT900S
  3. Porsche 959

There are too many examples, and it dilutes the article.

Also, the examples should probably be chosen to give a broad spectrum in terms of country of origin, era, and manufacturer. Nasty 19:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and thinned out the examples per Nasty's suggestion (although it was reverted). I feel that having long lists of examples defeats the point as one might as well list every car that fits the category. Having three or four good examples that represent different manufacturers and countries would be best in my opinion. Any comments.Daniel J. Leivick 00:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I totally agree, this article should describe car types, not list cars; we already have List of recent automobile models by type, which could be expanded with new articles with models from the 1990s, 1980s and 1970s. This article should focus on differences between segments, and show three or four examples (in the same line, maybe). -- NaBUru38 22:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open bed vehicles and light truck/SUV clarification

Typically classified as utes or trucks/pickups, depending on whether they are based on a car-like unibody or truck chassis. SUV's are listed on the car index, even though many of them are built on what is technically a truck chassis. There needs to be some form of cross reference and clarification. --Pauljs75 07:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

There is a real problem throughout automotive articles on Wikipedia in use of the words 'car' and 'automobile' (which actually means "car"). We don't have an English word that means: "Cars and light trucks and SUV's - but not 18-wheeled trucks and not motorbikes and maybe not golf carts". It is necessary then to be a little generous and/or flexible when using the word "car" and to allow things like light trucks and SUV's to creep into those articles. I'm open to other suggestions - but we've talked this to death over on Talk:Automobile and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles and nobody has a better solution. SteveBaker 16:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian classifications

In almost all wikipedia car articles I see the North American classifications are used, yet in the Australian media no specific set of terms are used. I seem to remember growing up with "large family car" being a common term. Does Australia have its own set of classifications or can the writer choose which one they use? Is the use of North American classifications a recent trend? - Diceman 05:21, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

As of December 2006, no article describes any Australian car classification system in detail. Some information is spread in articles like mid-size car and full-size car, but these may be inconsistent. I can't help because I don't know very much about the Australian market, but if you do you can add it.
If the terms are the same as in North America or Europe, you just describe the usage in that article. If there are other words, you can do one of two things. You can create new articles, like supermini car, small family car, large family car, executive car and compact executive car, which didn't exist a year ago. Another option is to merge the info into another template, if that segment is very similar to one of another region; for example, compact executive car and entry-leel luxury car describe almost the same cars, so both are into the same article. Good luck! -- NaBUru38 23:04, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/a/r/Talk%7ECar_classification_46c0.html"