Template talk:Chevrolet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Since the 200+ Impala is a W-Body, it should be included in the midsize category, not the fullsize, as are other W-Body cars.
The Tracker was not a crossover; it was truck-based. --ApolloBoy 04:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Editing the Template
As I was trying to place the Geo Prizm in its correct category, Sub-compact, I believe I may have misplaced a few things. I don't know how to fix the problem. KansasCity 20:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Impala SS?
Does the Impala SS really belong as a separate entry on this timeline? In both instances it's just an option package on the base car (Caprice or Impala). It has no separate article and as such I feel it doesn't belong as a separate entry here. If there's no objection, I'll remove it after allowing a period of time for discussion. ⇒ BRossow T/C 17:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
- I am a little confused on your question. I feel the way the table is set is appropriate to how the models were actually sold and marketed. The 94-96 Impala SS was not an option package you could check on a Caprice and a standard Impala did not exist in those years. The Impala SS was a different model based upon the B-Body Caprice of the time (which included a lot of options and features previously not found on the Caprice), and it had a separate name, emblem, window sticker and brochure than the regular Caprice. Furthermore, the full size Impala SS was not offered at the beginning of the Caprice model run and only became available in late 1994. The 2000 and newer Impalas are a completely different model in a completely different size category (mid-size as oppose to the full size 94-96 Impala SS). It would be appropriate to say the newer Impalas SS (2006-present) are the same car as the standard Impala with an upgrade package. I hope this clears some confusion up. -HumanZoom 06:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Timeline colours
With these colours, you can't see clearly if there is a car or a gap. That's why I put more contrast. But someone changed it back. What do you think about this? [http://www.NaBUrean.tk/ NaBUru38 - March 10th 2006 20:05 UYT
- The current colors are the standard for all GM divisions' timelines. Don't change them without community input, please. And if the community agrees to change them, then it needs to be changed for all GM divisions for consistency. I have no problem differentiating between the current colors on a variety of computers with both LCD and CRT displays. ⇒ BRossow T/C 22:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Trailblazer
The template was recently changed to reflect the Trailblazer being introduced in 1999. I'm sorry, I don't think this should quailify as part of the TrailBlazer line. The Trailblazer and the Envoy in 1999 were still based off the Blazer (and Jimmy respectfully) and was simply considered a trim level (like the Denali is to a Yukon). I'll wait until it is discussed a bit more, but I think the template should be changed and the article should reflect that the first Trailblazers were just a trim level (not a seperate or new model). -HumanZoom 10:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Blazer/TrailBlazer
The S-Blazer and Blazer should be removed from the 'Crossover' class. They were both body on frame truck based wagons. They should go into the compact SUV segment. Where it gets ugly is that the TrailBlazer (introduced as a 2002 model) and Blazer overlapped until 2005. Blazer was sold as in 4 door models until 2004, and the 2 door model until 2005.
[edit] Impala Full Size
I would consider the 1994-1996 Imapala SS a full size car, but why was the 2000- model moved to full size? Especially since the Monte Carlo (basically a two door Impala) was kept in the mid size section. I've reverted the changes for now, unless someone can reference a reliable source. -HumanZoom 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- I have found several sources that classifiy the Impala as a "mid-size" car. [1] [2] [3]. I've reverted the Impala back to mid-size. Please see Talk: Chevrolet Impala for more information. If you have some other source that states otherwise, please post the link. -HumanZoom 08:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 1980s
I have expanded the timeline to include the 1980s. I will also make a pre-1980 timeline as well in the future. --Kuroki Mio 2006 00:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Firebird never discontinued
Now, I've read many claims that the Firebird was the only musclecar that was never discontinued for a second from it's induction to 2002. That would obviously mean that the camaro and corvette both had a hiatus sometime along the line. Does this ring a bell for anyone? I don't know about the validity of the claim. JaderVason 15:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've never seen anything to this effect. The Firebird was always a 'secondary' model to the Camaro (the Camaro was likely going to be Chevy-only until Pontiac dealers asked for their own version because Pontiac had nothing truly similar). Strictly speaking, the Corvette had a 'hiatus' in that there was no 1983 model - they basically stretched production of the 1982 a bit longer and introduced the 1984 C4 early. The Camaro and Firebird nearly had this same hiatus on the transition from first to second generation, when the second-gen cars were released as '1970 1/2' in some regards because they didn't actually hit the market until 1970.Ayocee 18:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
- Heh, be careful who you use that word 'secondary' around; you're certain to get some heated responses. It seems to me that the Trans Am has almost always been just a step quicker than the Z28, withholding the IROC Z28. But not only is this irrelevant, it probably isn't the right place, either. JaderVason 00:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
