Talk:List of automobile manufacturers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The term "Motor Brands" is more widely known as a brand of muscle car t-shirts (search Google under "motor brands.") It is also a US Trademark name of a corporation. This page should not be re-directed since it is less used to describe a list of automobile manufacturers and is more notable as a certain brand of t-shirts. --frank stein 18:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed the category "2005 cars" at the top of the list, since it had no following information and isn't really part of the "list of automobile manufacturers". --SatyrTN 19:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edsel

Removed the Edsel, it was never a brand by itself, see Ford Edsel -- Egil 05:54 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

This is quite untrue. While the Edsel was a product of Ford Motor Company, the Edsel was a stand alone marque, with its VIN numbering system, dealer network, etc. When first introduced, its was built by its own division within Ford (which was then reorganized into the Mercury-Edsel-Lincoln M-E-L Division). Stude62 13:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As I have already explained "mini" is the name of a car not a manufacturer or a marque it does not therefore belong on this list, I am therefore removing it G-Man 15 April 03 21:18

I'm sorry but the first Mini where branded either Austin or Morris but the last where branded Mini. Thus Mini was a brand (in fact we are listing brands not firms we are listing Chevrolet not GM). It's interresting to notice that Mini didn't produce only the Mini but also a later model the Metro (Mini Metro) I know what I'm taking about I had one. Ericd 21:27 Apr 15, 2003 (UTC)

Note that the new Mini removes all doubt about the previous, since it is definitely branded only Mini, no other names on it. Morven 08:58, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Having read it's unclear to if they were any BSA car produced. I know BSA owned Daimler and produced Daimler cars (you can mount BSA motorcycle pistons and connecting roads in a Daimler V8). But was there BSA branded car ? Ericd 21:49, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I answer to myself : There was BSA cars see : http://www.bsafwdc.co.uk/ Thanks Google Ericd 21:51, 21 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I've noticed that there seems to be no standard about how car brands should be disambiguated. It's about equally split between, for a car brand Thing, between using 'Thing (car)' and 'Thing automobile'. Is there a preferred form. Should this be altered to make a standard? --Morven 00:10, 26 Aug 2003 (UTC)

At least some of them are based on what the company called them, like "Hudson Motor Car". A standard form for comapanies that didn't use terms in their name but need to be diferentiated from just the company name might not be a bad idea. -- Infrogmation

[edit] Page moved

I notice that the page was moved from "List of automobiles" to "Car manufacturers". While the old title wasn't great, I'm not too fond of the new one either. This is still a list, rather than an article about car manufactuers, and the list just concerns itself with motorcar/automobile makers, not makers of rail cars or other types of cars... unless there are plans to add that here? -- Infrogmation 15:54, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Karukera, if you're going to reorganize the page, please keep alphabetical order! -- Infrogmation 15:59, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Reorder

What do people think about moving the list of international car manufacturers to the top ahead of the country-specific list? The international manufacturers make up the largest, most well-known companies and probably most useful articles. akaDruid 10:47, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Revert

I reverted the anon who removed Merkur and made other changes. That Merkur was just the badge applied to German Fords sold in the US does not matter; what does matter is that it was a marque. It was not a 'Ford XR4ti' but a 'Merkur', no matter who actually built it. This page is really List of automobile marques rather than the current title, but I think it's simpler if it stays where it is.

I did agree with their move of Britain to United Kingdom, and re-added it. —Morven 09:10, Jun 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Range Rover

Does anyone know if the Range Rover has ever been marketed as a brand, separate to the Land Rover brand, rather than a product of the Land Rover brand? I don't think it has but I'm no expert on the matter. If it hasn't then it would seem to me that it doesn't belong in this article. 999 09:52, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

It isn't a brand. Nodody calls it the Land Rover Range or Land Rover Range Rover, not even Land Rover themselves, but there is a LR badge at the back. Plans are under way, though, to market Range as a separate brand, should the proposed Range Rover Sport model get off the ground. --Pc13 09:14, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I believe the manufacturers use the description Range Rover by Land Rover Andy G 18:19, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] List of major corporations

I took up the challenge at the bottom of the page and reordered the list of corporations by conglomerate. What do you all think?

Dear Wikipedians,

Let me summarize this discussion about the nature of the lis of automobile manufacturers.

I think there is a huge need for a convention in the terminology. My contribution is as follows:

A. "Manufacturer"

A manufacturer of a car has a company name which is never identical with a "brand" because consists of a leading part (e.g. Renault), some words describing the activity (e.g. Motor) and a part indicating the legal form of the firm (e.g. S.A., AG, Ltd). Accordingly, this list is not a list of manufacturers, in strict sense.

Manufacturers sometimes use brands of other companies because of brand licensing or for corporate reasons. (It is commonly called "rebadging").

B. "Makes"

This word is commonly used for distinguishing between "makes" and "models". (e.g. Toyota and Prius). The problem arises in cases such as Edsel. Edsel was - in fact - marketed in itself. No "Ford Edsels" used to exist! The word "make" is ambiguous in this respect. The situation of Edsel is commonly called "a separate brand", "a separate make".

C. "Brands"

This words is overwhelmingly used in commerce since directly refers to the connection of a certain make and a certain product. "Mini" is a brand that has been used in various forms.

D. Trademarks

Trademarks refer to the legal protection of a name. Accordingly, no third party can use this name or confusingly similar names relating to cars, means or transport ( or for other goods or services, where the trademark is considered to be famous or well-known.)

E. Types

This word is sometimes used for "makes" or sometimes for "models" (e.g. Jaguar Type D).

As you see, all possible variations have their problems.

Summarizing all, I feel that "The list of automobile makes" is still the best.

The practice in Wikipedia for separate entries for company names, car makes and models is to be followed.--Millisits 13:31, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dear Authors,

Dino should be removed since it never has been a separate manufacturer of cars (see Ferrari Dino, Fiat, Pininfarina and Bertone. Regards, --Millisits 19:45, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

- - - -

Dear Wikipedians,

"Heinkel" is listed here as "Heinkel (Heinkel Trojan). It suggests that "Heinkel Trojan" was a Heinkel model - but it wasn't. "Heinkel" and "Trojan" are separate makes,however, the first is German and the latter is British. This misunderstanding can be easily explained - Heinkel and Trojan are frequently mentioned together. In fact, Trojan bought the licence of Heinkel to build Heinkel's bubble car model - which was never marketed as Heinkel but Trojan 200. If nobody has any comments, I will correct the list (and the relevant entries) accordingly. Hi, --Millisits 01:02, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Dear savvy Wikipedians,

I would suggest a major restructuring of this list because it becames more and more voluminous and unpractical.

Several models of restructuring can be introduced such as copying the model of "List of companies" completed by lists of automobile manufacturers by country. Automobiles as a category should cover the enumeration of lists only and particular manufacturers could be devided into current companies and Defunct companies.

There are also lists of subsidiaries. I think the philosophy of the present list i.e. covering ownership and interest of some giants in others makes confusion since some manufacturer names appear twice such as Fiat. By the way, Fiat is not owned by General Motors (takover plans are over) but Fiat appears here as a subsidiary. My proposal is: subsidiaries of automobile manufacturers such as General Motors should be mentioned as General Motors (including Buick, Chevrolet, Pontiac etc. divisions). In addition, these divisions should be mentioned by their alphabetic order (or by their country, if applicable).

Thoughts?

--Millisits 21:00, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Was there any car sold under the brand Zagato ? Ericd 20:24, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think so; all I've ever known about have been <something> Zagato; Alfa, Aston, Lancia, etc. —Morven 20:36, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Morven is correct, Zagato only builds coachwork (i.e. the interior) and not the body or engine or anything else. — Dan | Talk 15:12, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

OK,OK, I know that you are right. However, is there a List of automobile designers ?? Or even a List of automobile coachbuilders? I would be happy to see these. I disagree that there is a List of automobile brands. This is not the diferentia specifica here. Accordingly, a complete redoing of this list should be advisable. In strict sense, only a few automobile manufacturers are represented here by company name and not by brand (see: FSO of Poland (in brackets there are separate brands produced). Or Lada is not an automobile manufacturer but a brand. Should Subaru also be deleted because tthe company name is different? If you want to be consequent, only company names would be placed here. What do you think?

--Millisits 17:31, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I have just added Magna Steyr, an Austrian car assembly plant. This 'is an automobile manufacturer but in strict sense, it is not a brand.

--Millisits 01:32, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A factory in a different country does not an automobile company make

I've noticed Audi, Opel and Suzuki have been added to the list of Hungarian manufacturers, obviously due to the existance of factories there. This addition is inviting disaster, allowing people to put manufacturers everywhere they please simply because they have factories in those countries. I believe they should be removed. --Pc13 09:28, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I strongly agree. SamH 10:23, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Dear Pc13,

Before judging whether adding existing automobile factories in countries where these really are is a disaster or not, I humbly draw your attention to my remarks above on this page.

I wonder why do you feel that people would be confused to know that Audi TT is produced only in Hungary by a factory owned by Audi of Germany. They won't be, I think. The clasification of manufacturers by countries is, by the way, very old fashioned, because under EC rules, the place of origin of the goods can be indication as 'Made in EEC'. Or: is Acura a Japanese car? Certainly not. This is a car marketed by an American company.

The main problem is, I strongly feel, is in the philosophy of this list. As it stands, this intended to be a list of automobile manufacturers but it is not. Manufacturers are companies having company names and having one or several brands. The present list is a mixture: generally only the distinctive element of company names is listed here. E.g.

Ford Motor Company is a name of a company but Maserati is not a company name only the distinctive element. Company names are colloquially simplified to brands. But what do you think about Subaru? It is not a company name at all, it is a trademark (the leagal aspect) and a brand (the trade aspect) at the same time!

One should should decide, further, why are companies grouped by portfolio of giants?

I think, the concept of this list should be changed. We have a category automobiles, another category Defunct companies. Why do not we use these lists to include some entries in this list? Why do not we restrict this list to existing manufacturers grouped by countries mentioned under its whole company names in English (if these are available). Brands like Subaru would be indicated " Fuji Heavy Industries (see:Subaru)" and Fuji Heavy Industries would maintain a redirect to Subaru.

I think discussion is not a disaster. To delete existing companies from a list just because the distinctive element of their company names are brands of a mother company is a clear discrimination of some nations. Who wants discriminate others? I personally won't.

--Millisits

Millisits - By "distinctive element" I think you mean marque. There is a List of automobile marques but it redirects to this list of manufacturers - wouldn't it be best if these two were separate, so the manufacturers list could have GM, Ford, Honda, FIAT etc. and the marques could have GMC, Chevy, Cadillac, Buick, Aston, Volvo, Ford, Jag, Honda, Acura, Fiat, Ferrari, Maserati, etc? — Dan | Talk 15:12, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi Rdmith4, thanks for your comment. I think the list of automobile marques is the same as List of automobile brands would be. I think a seaprate list of this kind would be advantagous but this List of automobile manufacturers needs being reformed. 1.I think this list would rather cover companies and not brands (trademarks, marques, as you like). 2. I think "deadwood"" should be removed from here to a subcategory of Defunct companies such as List of defunct automobile manufacturers or so. As far as I know there were several thousands of different manufacturers in automobile history. 3.List of automobile manufacturers would cover short company names such as Kia Motors or Audi Hungária etc. Eventual changes in name, mergers etc. would be redirected to the most popular version of the name. Thoughts?

--Millisits

I don't think we should have two different articles for manufactuers and marques (a.k.a. makes, brands, copyrights) because it is useful to be able to relate manufacturers to their marques (eg. as we have done in the "Current automotive corporations" section of this article). However, I do think we need to make a clear and consistent distinction between manufactuers and marques in this article. SamH 15:54, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've read all of the comments, and I agree that defunct companies/brands should be moved to a page of their own. As for the question of separating brands and manufacturers, it isn't really necessary, as they are somewhat indessociable.

I don't have a problem with indicating the active presence of a company/brand in a country other than that of origin, especially when they have specific models, but under the current conditions it's not practical. The country lists are already to large.

Millisits, you don't have to tell me about discrimination, as I'm from a country (Portugal) where we have a tremendous lack of self-esteem compared to other developed countries and we feel the need to hype ourselves in front of foreigners as much as possible, but I'd be against including Toyota, Citroen, Opel, Mitsubishi and VW in the Portuguese brands listing. However, if we remove the "deadwood" (aka deceased brands), I'll be the one following you, including as many factories in as many countries I know of, as well as sub-contracted plants such as Valmet, Bertone or Pinin Farina. --Pc13 15:11, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] A few points in response to previous issues raised here

1. Zagato have produced cars branded as "Zagato". The list includes the Bambu, Zuma and Raptor. I think that the fact that they were not production cars is immaterial to this discussion - they were definitely released as Zagato cars.

In that case the list is incomplete, we should include many Italian designers and all the race car constructors ? Ericd 09:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

2. On the whole, merely having a subsidiary in a country different to the parent company should not get the subsidiary listed as a manufacturer in this other country. However, I do feel that should the subsidiary have produced models under the parent marque name that without doing so under instruction of the parent comapny but with the blessing of the parent, that should immediately qualify the subsidiary to be listed seperately from the parent. For instance, mercedes-Benz and BMW both have manufacturing plants in South Africa. To the best of my knowledge though, only BMW SA have produced a product not initiated by the BMW parent in Germany. At least 4 models were unique to BMW SA: the 325iS Evo I & II, the 333i and the 745i (not to be confused with the 745i available in Europe from BMW). I would argue that BMW SA deserves to be recognised as a bona fide manufacturer on these grounds, whilst Mercedes-Benz SA should not. There are of course many examples around the world - Volkswagen Brazil, Volkswagen Mexico, Renault Argentina, Fiat & Alfa in Brazil, etc.

Some of these subsidiaries have a rich history, that deserve its own article IMO, for instance Ford France was originaly a joint-venture with Mathis then became Ford France (producing it's own model differents from US/UK and German models) then was sold to Simca that was sold to Chrysler and then sold to Peugeot....

3. Mini - under British leyland at the time - certainly was a seperate marque. The present-day MINI marque is also completely different from the origianl - BMW insist on it having all-capitals in the name too.

4. The Dino was most certainly marketed as just Dino initially. Later versions were brough back into the Ferrari stable though.

5. I think that the official names of the manufacturers should be listed first, and their common name next. For example, Ferrari would be Societa per azioni Esercizio Fabbriche Automobile e Corse (Ferrari), FIAT should be FIAT Auto SpA (FIAT), Daihatsu would be Daihatsu Kogyo Company (Daihatsu) etc.

Not a very good idea as many constructors changed the name of the company during their history. Ericd 09:14, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

6. Perhaps listing manufacturers active per decade would be helpful in ordering the vast amount of information that is and will accumulate here? Perhaps even a list of only the currently active marnufacturers too?

Ciao

Zak

[edit] Laforza?

Does anyone know anything about the Laforza? It seems they produced Pininfarina-bodied Ferrari-badged SUVs. I suspect they're Italian, but I'm not sure. Googling for Laforza doesn't really bring anything up, but I did see one on eBay recently.

Any ideas? --Milkmandan 00:44, 2005 Mar 13 (UTC)

The Laforza was built by italian manufacturer Rayton Fissore, powered by BMW straight six engines. It was imported into the USA by California-based Laforza Engineering, with Mustang V8 power. Car production was phased out during the early 90s, I believe. --Pc13 14:21, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Manufacturers/defunct manufacturers

Could someone please separate defunct automobile manufacturers from the others, just like what has been done with the list of airlines? I was very confused because so many defunct manufacturers were put alongside others. - posted by anonymous

That sound good, but how should merged and bought out brands be handled. I suppose the main thing is independent companies, but it might surprise people if common brands are marked as extinct because their ownership has changed. Then there is tha case of only part of the stock being owned by an other automobile manufacturer. --David R. Ingham 21:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Ah yes, that's a very good point. I guess the idea of separating defunct manufacturers with the others is a bad idea then. I don't think merged and bought out brands should be put in the defunct list. - posted by anonymous

How about including the years of separate operation, who it merged with and current status (name no longer used, independent, owner, group) in parentheses. There seems to be some inconsistency. Lincoln and Oldsmobile are listed only as models, while Bentley and Humber are listed separately. These were all originally separate but bought out or merged. --David R. Ingham 15:12, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea too. How did I not think of that? That was helpful when it was put on some of the defunct automobiles (ex: "Apal" was put in Belgium's list and it said in parentheses: Before 1995, now Germany). Thanks for the idea. - posted by anonymous

How about also separating aircraft manufacturers from the list, such as Heinkel and Messerschmitt? I do not understand why Heinkel and Messerschmitt were put in the list, because others like Airbus, Fokker, and Boeing were not in the list. - posted by anonymous

Did Airbus, Fokker, and Boeing make cars? Boeing made furniture when airplane sales were down and they were still a woodworking companty. --David R. Ingham 16:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Did Heinkel and Messerschmitt make cars also? Why are they in the list if they made only aircraft? - posted by anonymous

They're in the list because they made cars. Duh! Here's the Heinkel Trojan and here's the Messerschmitt Tiger. --Pc13 10:10, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Under "Other US automobiles" I have added quite a few other makes -- most of them no longer produced; but certainly had an influence upon those that did survive. Behind the model, I placed the date when that manufacturer produced the car. In some instances the car was introduced for example in 1919 but was sold as a 1920 model. The difference in date should be made known in the write-up of that model. Also, some models have two or more dates. That is because a company began with that name for their cars, then quit producing. Later another company (or even the same company) started production and chose the same name. The prime example is that of the Monarch (1903 and 1905 and 1907 and 1913). I put the "and" between them to avoid thinking that the car was offered in 1903, then in 1905, then in 1907, and finally in 1913 by the same manufacturer. Others may be able to flesh these out to distinguish the different manufacturers. Also as much as possible, I used the convention "Manufacturer Name (automobile) | Short Name" —Cadillac 23:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I chanced on the page List of defunct automobile manufacturers and think that the list should be merged with the list of cars in "Other US automobiles" The fact that a car is no longer produced does not mean that it should not be listed. The purpose of a list is to help the reader find the article about the item. - Cadillac 15:17, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I very much agree.--David R. Ingham 18:23, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Woohookitty, I understand where you are coming from when you renamed the heading from "Other US automobiles" to "Defunct US automobiles" -- however, one of the models in that list is Cadillac (my "handle" too) :) and so far it is not defunct. -- So, for me, it seems as though having a split between those models which are current and those that are defunct is not not a helpful distinction. What happens for instance when a manufacturer (as Rambler did) drops the name for 40 years and then picks it up again. Would it be a defunct manufacturer for a time and then we have to be alert to change it to a current? Does this not defeat the purpose of an encyclopedia? When I flip through a printed ency., I expect to find a list of all the US autos regardless of whether some are current or not. For instance, if I am restoring a Packard and my neighbor is restoring a Chev, wouldn't it be reasonable to look at the same page to see the basic info of when it was offered? In that way we could list a model as, "Super Jupiter (automobile):Jupiter" (1922-1967). Thereby indicating when it started production and when it became defunct.

For these reasons, I'd like to merge the current models with the listing you have entitled "defunct." I notice that the models offered in other countries are not distinguished in those two categories.

I like the idea of separating current and defunct marques. Perhaps not separating, but at least distinguishing with tags like (defunct), (merged with [company]), (moved to [country]) etc. For example, under each country, there could be a list of marques from that country which currently market cars, listed in alphabetical order. Under this "current" list could be a second list of all other marques that have existed in that country, but for whatever reason no longer market cars from that country. Next to each "old" company could be a tag explaining why it's no longer "current." This way, the fact that some companies have been bought out or merged, others own partial stakes in each other, etc. is of no relevance. If they are currently selling cars under their own marque, they go in the current list. If they are not, they go in the old list, with a tag that gives a reason why. Comments, questions, ideas? I definitely couldn't do much of the reorganizing myself, but I'd love to help. CBecker 22:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fisker Coachbuild

For your information, there is currently an Article for deletion vote regarding the Fisker Coachbuild car manufacturer here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fisker. You may wish to comment on this. --Edcolins 09:00, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Duplicate?

This page seems to be the similar to List of cars. Possible to merge the two? Howard81 19:49, 24 Nov 2005 (GMT)

I think the original idea of List of cars was to produce a list of models as well as manufacturers. This is clearly a hopeless task as the list would be enormous. Lists of models would be much better placed with each manufacturer's entry, as is often but not always done. Malcolma 22:18, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted part

Who erased the section called "The Major Automotive Industries" and Why? --anon

[edit] Electrobat and Riker

1. I have deleted "Electrobat" from the list as it was the name of the vehicle manufactured by the Electric Carriage and Wagon Co. It seems the discussion here has ruled that this is list of manufacturers and not vehicle names.

2. I have changed the name of "Riker Electric" to "Riker Motor Vehicle." Andrew L. Riker started "Riker Electric Motor Co." in 1898 to build electric motors, not cars. He formed "Riker Motor Vehicle Co." in 1898 to manufacture electric cars.

Thanks --RedJ 17 23:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mini and MINI and BMW

There still seems to be a lot of reverting going on about Mini, MINI and BMW. Some of that is caused by the odd comments at the top of this talk page.

But before anyone changes it again, please read the articles entitled Mini and BMW MINI - and feel free to verify what they say by reading the copious references in the first of those two articles. Now:

The 'classic' Mini (1959 to 2000) is a kind of car - but it was NEVER the name of a manufacturer - no more than a Ford Mustang is a manufacturer. They were made by Austin, Morris, BMC, Leyland, Rover, Authi, Innocenti and a bunch of other manufacturers - but there was NEVER a manufacturer or even a factory called 'Mini' - so please stop putting that into this "List of automobile manufacturers".
The 'modern' MINI (2001-present, always written in CAPITAL LETTERS to distinguish it from the classic Mini) is most definitely both a manufacturer and a kind of car. MINI (the manufacturer) are 100% owned by BMW but operated as a separate company with their own dealerships (at least in the USA) and a factory that makes nothing but their own cars. Hence 'BMW MINI', or 'MINI (BMW)' - a manufacturer who belongs on this list.
The one and only MINI factory is located in Great Britain (in Oxford) - but they are 100% owned by a German parent company. Does that make them a British manufacturer or a German manufacturer? I don't know. I would say British - but if you buy a car from them, the first letter on the VIN tag will be a 'W' - which is Germany - not 'S' which would be British. Go figure.

So - please do not put Mini into this list - or erroneously confuse MINI with Mini. Please do not remove MINI. Please feel free to argue about whether it counts as German or British. SteveBaker 13:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skoda? Entry level?

Skoda aren't really entry level any more, so I have changed them to "mainstream" Duke toaster 09:14, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that was a mistake I must have made. You're right they are mainstream. Regards, Signature^brendel 21:12, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you to whoever

Thanks to whoever that updated this article as of recently. People, most likely Americans are flaming over the intention that Ford is number one and Toyota is number three. People need to look at the facts and reality and accept it and move on. There should be less time for America great, largest, forever at top mentality. It was POV before, but now it's fact based. Hooray! Thanks 168.253.10.75 05:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes the changes improve the article a great deal! But the former table I created was not POV. I did not mention Ford as the No. 2 based on nationalistic reasons. The reason Ford was No. 2 in the old table was becuase it was based on 2004 data! The update is definitely an improvement but I just want to make it clear that the previous version was not US-centric POV. The only mistake was to list Lincoln as near-luxury- Lincoln is obviously a luxo brand, the TC which has been the best selling model costs over $42k, the average base MSRP if over $38k for this model year (just compare the Lincoln line-up to that of say, Audi), and Lincoln doesn't even sell cars as cheap as the Audi A4, BMW 2-Series, or MB B-Class. Regards, Signature^brendel 05:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Major US Companies

Where are all of the major US car companies? Mrld 19:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

There are only two, well 2 1/2. GM, Ford and the Chrysler branch of Damiler-Chrysler are all among the world's largest automakers and are listed in the very first section, just below the index. Signature^brendelNow under review! 16:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WOW Who did Porsche Upset ?

I find it odd that Porsche is NO WHERE to be found... how did this happen ?? Can someone PLEASE FIX ??

Porsche is not one of the world's largest automakers and thus is listed according to its national origin. Porsche is listed under Germany. Regards, Signature^brendelNow under review! 16:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] added note

"Note!: Renault now owns controlling interest in Nissan Motors, And Ford now owns controling interest in Mazda. The above tables dont reflect this but this would make Ford, Mazda the #2 manufacturer and Nissan Renault would displace DamlerChrysler. ^[1]"

This more acuratly displays current stats. 68.224.14.81 06:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

also added reference 68.224.14.81 06:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Renault - Nissan relationship

Renault describe their relationship with Nissan as an alliance. Nissan is not a subsidiary of Renault. Indeed Nissan have a 15% stake in Renault. See the Renault website page on the subject. Renault website -- de Facto (talk). 14:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of Wrightspeed and Teslamotors from minor car manufacturers

Wrightspeed and Teslamotors both have prototypes and have not created production vehicles yet. A manufacturer creates production vehicles, and when these companies start producing their prototypes and selling them I will gladly add them back to the list. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.182.15.218 (talk) 20:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Removal of Teslamotors

Like before I took Tesla motors off of the list because they are not manufacturing cars yet. They are a company with a prototype and pre orders who plan on begining production soon. But until that production happens they cannot be labeled a manufacturer. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajgilbertson (talk • contribs) 18:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Manufacturers or marques?

Is this a list of manufacturers only or is this a list of marques? Some comments above regarding the removal of the likes of Merkur, Mercury, Edsel, etc. lead me to believe that this is a list of marques. If that's going to be the case, the title of the article should reflect that. --Sable232 20:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm... I haven't even noticed that. The list commonly states the manufacturer (e.g. Ford Motor Company) and then lists the marques belonging to that manufacturer (e.g. Lincoln, Mercury, Jaguar, Volvo, Land Rover, etc...). So, I guess either list of marques or list of manufacturers would be accurate. Regards, Signature^brendel 20:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps it would be a good idea to have separate pages for the separate topics. I personally would call "Ford Motor Company" a manufacturer, whereas I would call "Ford" a marque or a brand or something like that. This list appears to be overwhelmingly more about marques than manufacturers in that sense. Maybe someone should separate the two lists, if people can agree on this. If I knew absolutely nothing about car makes and I wanted to refer to an encyclopedia to find out more, I would be seriously confused if I saw both "Ford" and "Ford Motor Company" in the same list. --CBecker 22:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main markets ?

The column in the table showing main markets is silly. Aston Martin is "global" but Volvo is "Europe/North America" ?? Makes no sense. You are much more likely to see a Volvo in China or Taiwan or Australia than you are to see an Aston Martin in those places" . Furthermore, although Europe and North America are the largest markets for just about everything, I do not think that the percentage of Aston Martin sales outside those two markets is any larger than the percentage of Volvo sales. Eregli bob 01:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renault-Nissan

Renault-Nissan is one company so it must be on list as 4th world car company like in every normal economic magazine accept wikipedia! Ceterum censeo! Big error Number 1.! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.172.116.210 (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Skoda, Seat and Fiat

Big error number 2. Skoda and Seat are entery level manufactures and Fiat is main stream, Fiat Punto are much more expensive than Seat Ibiza and Skoda Fabia simply because they use defunct ancient Volkswagen platforms and motors and have cheaper interiors. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.172.116.210 (talk) 10:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC).