Talk:Toyota Aurion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Toyota Aurion has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Specification section move?

Should the Specification section be moved to form it's own article, similar to the Specification levels of the Ford BA Falcon?SenatorsTalk | Contribs 23:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I would probably kill the list altogether and convert the key points it into prose. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I willSenatorsTalk | Contribs 06:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
So someone cut the specifications section down, which I thought was a good idea, and now there's a tag saying to expand the specifications section? Makes no sense. Alphabeta777 04:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I cut the specification section down and I placed a expand template because there was not enough information in that section. Eventually I want it to look like this section located here.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 06:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
So exactly how do you want the section to be expanded? It's easy to just go to Toyota's website and find every tiny little detail about each variant, but that'll make the article stuffed full of information. Alphabeta777 12:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
God I must say Senators, you really love that BA Falcon article :) It is a good idea though. HarrisonB Speak! 06:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More photos of Aurion?

Currently, this page has a number of photos of the Toyota Aurion. However, they are all of the Sportivo SX6 (except the Aurion AT-X uploaded by someone else) and aren't very high quality. I know because I took them in a rush last year before leaving the motor show. They also have the door open, and I don't have any pictures of the normal non-sport designs nor do I have any interior photos.

Does anyone have any photos of say an Aurion Presara/Prodigy? Also does anyone have any photos of the interior of any Aurion.

I could get them, but it's not the easiest task out there. I'm 16 years old, and I'm sure a car dealership won't be terribly pleased to hear someone not interested in buying their car, especially a 16 year old, taking photos of it.

P.S. Now that the TRD Aurion is out, I think photos of that are needed as well, I don't think the Sports Concept photo cuts it anymore now the real deal is actually out. It changed in quite a few places in exterior design before becoming a production vehicle (such as the black grille surround area and the wheel design). Alphabeta777 14:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

In time more photos will be put on the Aurion article, but finding pictures for the TRD Aurion is going to be very hard due to the rarity of the car.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 23:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I doubt the car dealers would really care. If you told them that you were going to include them in the Wikipedia Toyota Aurion article, for what reason would they get annoyed? I cannot see why the salespeople at Toyota are going to get annoyed if you are promoting the vehicle that they are trying to sell. When I went to my local Holden dealership to take pictures of various Holden models, the salespeople there even offered me back issues of Wheels magazines and brochures of every model. I would hardly say that those are the sign of someone "getting annoyed," would you? Regards OSX (talk • contributions) 08:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know that dealerships were so nice.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 22:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I just want to let people know that I am not really able to contribute with photos much, I am better to help with text. HarrisonB Speak! 06:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
the same story applies to me, I can not contribute much photos.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 23:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
new images are on the way. I'll have them up by next week. Basic profile shots and some close ups. I'm not affiliated with Toyota but own an Aurion and really like to share what I like about it. Capital photographer (talk) 09:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I reverted the infobox image back to a more focused one adapted from mine by another user. However, I only did so on a proviso that it remain 300px wide, otherwise it looks too small. Capital photographer (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
New images are up. enjoy, feedback welcome. The images look vibrant but I would like to note that the appearance of the car is unaltered. Good morning light, a nice backdrop and a good camera produce fine results along with some editing of the background! Capital photographer (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] more info in specification section?

Does anyone think that the specification section has enough information? I am trying to compare it to a similar car article called the Ford BA Falcon which is a Good Article.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 00:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a run through it and make some edits. If it's not satisfactory, feel free to revert it.Alphabeta777 11:58, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this article should become a FA, so therefore is needs more information. HarrisonB Speak! 03:18, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
It may take some time to get to FA status.SenatorsTalk | Contribs 06:26, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review

I reviewed the article and found it to be very interesting. There was only one thing I was a little confused about. In the lead section, it says "...alongside the Aurion in the Middle East and Australasia, that being Australia and New Zealand." The last clause seems that it was not connected properly to the rest of the sentence. Since I am not sure what the sentence is trying to say, I cannot fix it myself. Other than that flaw, the only other problem is that a lot of the article is composed of jargon describing engine types, etc. (No, I do not mean when the article says 4-cylinder 4.5 liter engine), but that cannot be helped since, obviously, this is an article about a car. All I think that should be done is fixing that sentence in the lead section. Then it would be OK. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 22:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The 4.5 litre 4-cylinder engine sounds very interesting. I don't think such a displacement has ever been used in a four-cylinder engine. Anyway, thanks for the review. Cheers OSX (talk • contributions) 23:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Never mind, I figured out that the last clause is defining Australasia as being Australia and New Zealand. Please fix the sentence so it states it a bit clearer. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 22:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I fixed the flaw myself. I think that this article poses a very intriguing view on this car and that it clearly qualifies to be a GA, since it is nicely put together, is referenced a lot (with very reliable sources), and covers the topic nicely. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 23:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, it feels fantastic to have finally got the article to GA status. Special thanks to Alphabeta777, OSX and Senators. HarrisonB - Conributions 08:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Based on Sixth or Seventh generation Camry?

The article suggests that the Aurion is based on the 6th generation Camry, but the exterior styling of the Aurion looks remarkably similar to the 7th generation Camry. Besides, the wheelbases are the same between the Aurion and the 7th generation Camry which is contrary to the fact that wheelbase of Camry has increased from 6th to 7th generation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.72.131 (talk • contribs) 18:01, April 23, 2008

You are right, the Aurion it is based on the seventh generation Camry. The reason why it says "sixth" is because when the majority of editing was done on this article, the Toyota Camry stated that the "current model" (2006–2008) was the sixth generation Camry. However, the article has since undergone an overhaul to align it with the Japanese market Camrys, rather than the U.S./Australian models, which vary slightly, to the fact that an entire generation was skipped in the U.S. and Australia. When doing this change I forgot to fix up the changes on this article, but this issue is now resolved. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Images layout and Asian Camry

Firstly, I move that a gallery of three images showing front, rear and side profiles of the vehicle remain. Along with the more details images integrated in the article, the result is a logical and neat layout with the right balance of text and images.

Regarding the Aurion and export to Asia under the Camry nameplate, I move that the export variant be restricted to an image and text in the Export section and that more detailed information about the camry be put in the camry article. The majority of this article should be for vehicles with the Aurion nameplate. The Asian camrys have different engines and options to the actual Aurion and are outside the scope of this article. Capital photographer (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Replied to on User:Capital photographer's talk page. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:20, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The large car debacle

Here I am addressing my exchange of edit comments and reverts with OSX concerning the classification of the Aurion as "large car" or otherwise. Please see article's history for details of this rather nasty debacle that ensued. I would like to now try to make up a bit to the Wikipedia community and do it the way it should've been from the start.

OSX is arguing that the Aurion should be billed a mid-sized car, based on a discussion that occurred in his talk page - see it here. He refers to it as consensus, what I can see is an unfinished discussion. There were a lot of arguments being discussed, unfortunately many without much encyclopedic/Wikipedia merit. I guess the notion that a North American classification has to be used on this Australian car stems from the fact that there is no proper article for the Australian large car term.

Please note, however, that the vehicle can be given a class even without linking to it - there is no need for an article to exist to call a subject by its name (although perhaps it would be advisable to create one to address the subject). I perceive classifying the Aurion as a mid-sized car just because it might resemble a North American mid-size car or because it might have been classified as such had it been subject to EPA classification is rather convulted, with all due respect to the well-meaning editors.

Again, I will be accussed of referring to a convention that have not been formally put down (though actually can probably be found somewhere in the archives of WikiProject Automobile's talk page), but in general experienced editors of car articles and/or members of the WikiProjec seem to agree that if a "class" for a vehicle is given, it should be one used in its intended market, rather than some other one. I.e. while the Ford Contour article refers to it as a compact car, following EPA's official classification, the article on the near-identical Ford Mondeo does fine with defining it a large family car, according to EuroNCAP.

So, since the appropriate Australian authority has officially named the Aurion a large car, I see no reason why we should call it anything else here. PrinceGloria (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Toyota Camry Toyota Aurion
Wheelbase: 2775 mm Wheelbase: 2775 mm (same)
Length: 4815 mm Length: 4825 mm (10 mm more)
Width: 1820 mm Width: 1820 mm (same)
Height: 1480 mm Height: 1470 mm (10 mm less)
For starters, the Aurion is basically a faceifted Camry V6 that is sold in the United States (there are some other mechanical differences, but I will stick with facelifted). In the United States, the Camry is a mid-size car, so common sense would prevail making the Aurion mid-size too. We should not forget that the Aurion is sold is East and Southeast Asia as the Camry, and also in the Middle East under the Aurion name. In both these markets the car is referred to as "mid-size" ([1], [2], [3]). When disucussing this article earlier, you refered to the Aurion Camry as being "at least as "important" as its role in the Australian market." So by saying this, you are stating that the Aurion's role in Asia is just as important as it is in Australia. Moreover, the Aurion in the Middle East is also referred to as "mid-size". Although I don't really like to bring it up, two against one.
Another reason why we should steer away from the Australian classification system is because it is flawed. Here is a list complied from the 2007 "Australia's Best Cars" (ABC) awards magazine.
* The "mid-size" classification system is used to denote both U.S. "compact" and "mid-size" cars. For example, the Honda Civic and Honda Accord Euro, Holden Astra and Holden Epica, Hyundai i30 and Hyundai Sonata (I4), Toyota Corolla and Toyota Camry, and Ford Focus and Ford Mondeo are all listed in the same "mid-size" category.
* The "crossover SUV" Ford Territory is listed in the "large car" category along with the Toyota Aurion, Holden Commodore, Ford Falcon and Hyundai Sonata (V6). The issue with the Sonata is also an interesting one. I don't see how a car with a larger engine has anything to do with its size. The Sonata I4 and Sonata V6 are classified as "mid-size" and "large" respectively. Very ambiguous.
* The "people mover" category lists the Toyota Kluger along with the traditional minivans (Toyota Tarago, Kia Carnival et cetera). There are many more cases similar in nature, but I am not prepared to go further. If you want the information buy the magazine online.
On top of this, the Australian system is very vague, there are no guidelines stating how big a car has to be to be classified as "small", mid-size", "large" et cetera. Now what's the point of that? One rule for automaker A, another for automaker B. There is no consistency. Quite frankly, the European "large family car" designations and the like are equally as stupid. Although the Euro NCAP "A" and "B" segment" designations seem more logical. Enough of this discussion now. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place to discuss the merits of particular cars or classification systems. We go by official classification, and it is "large car" for Aurion in Australia. If you can provide official classifications for the Aurion sold as Camry in other markets, we might discuss. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe you should use your common sense for once. Yes fine, it is a large car in Australia and the Camry is mid-size. But they ARE both the same size! The Aurion offers NO additional interior volume what so ever. So they are both mid size. I have provided an official source for the Aurion Camry being classified as mid-size but you have ignored it twice. I know it is easier to turn a blind eye to a situation, but what does that show? The reason why there are not achives of official source stating the Aurion Camry as mid-size is because these government organizations probably do not exist. The difference between Australia and Southeast Asia (Thailand, Indonesia et cetera) is that the latter countries are all developing whereas Australia is a developed country. Therefore, in Australia we logically have these services that are not available in Asia. I don't see you objecting to using the Japanese classification system in the Japanese cars do I? *Sacasm* Why are you using an American classification system to classify a Japanese car? Surely, the illogical Japanese tax bracket system should be used. *End sarcasm* After all, it goes by the same principle.
What do you mean "there was NO obvious consensus" ([4]). Yes, there was. VectorD and myself both agreed it should state "mid-size", and HarrisonB followed suit as can be seen in this edit. Look outside the square PrinceGloria. On the other hand, Senators did not, but he often ignores the full perspective of things, being all-to-quick to rush to a definite black or white conclusion. Alphabeta777 was somewhere in the middle of the argument, acknowledging both sides of the argument. I would like to point out that both VectorD and myself gave quite a lot of evidence to support the term "mid-size" based mainly on the idea that the "definition for a large car in Australia is extremely loose". On the other hand, I acknowledge that the first generation Holden Commodore is also mid-size despite the fact that it competed with the full-size Falcon. May I provide some evidence to support why the Commodore was a class below the Falcon. The Holden Kingswood typically was the sales leader in the large segment in Australia. When the Commodore was first launched it was also the sales leader, mainly due to the high oil prices at the time. When these prices stabilised, the Commodore sales dwindled significantly. The Falcon outsold the Commodore almost 2:1. Surprise, surprise, when the second generation VN Commodore was introduced in 1988 the Commodore became the bestselling car in Australia (Ford also introduced a new Falcon in the same year, so the "well the Ford was an older design" argument does not apply here). Now to today, petrol prices are at AU$1.50/litre the Aurion is gaining some ground as it consumes 9.9L/100 km compared to the Commodore's 10.9L/100 km. When Holden and Ford introduce their diesel Commodore and Falcon models respectively, I would not be surprised at all if the Aurion's sales slump. Just because a car competes with cars in different classes, it does not all of a sudden place them in the same class. The Aurion is not a full-on competitor to the Falcon and Commodore. It is more of a direct rival to the six-cylinder versions of the Honda Accord, Subaru Liberty, Nissan Maxima, and the Mitsubishi 380 until it was cancelled, although the Aurion does sell in higher volumes that these other models. OSX (talk • contributions) 02:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Your perception of "common sense" is one thing, how Wikipedia works is another. I really do not want to read what essentially constitues your original research, and even though you might think it is right, please acknowledge it is such! If you believe you are right, please try and go and publish your thoughts and we might then reference your works.
Now - there are at least two editors (Senators and myself) who are AGAINST your "consensus", and another one who took part in the discussion and didn't take your side either. Out of the six editors who voiced their opinion, only three agree with you (incl. yourself!) - how in the world does that constitute "consensus"? Actually, a consensus should be achieved by making all parties concerned agree, so we are still far off!
My common sense also fails to tell me how we should override official classification just because an editor thinks its rubbish. We go by official classification because it is, well, official, so somebody put it down and it is undisputable. Actually, US classification could also be proved rather "rubbish", i.e. how in the world an Accord is "large" w/o sunroof and midsize with one? But if the EPA says, a car is this or that, I believe this is what we should quote when talking about an American car.
My personal opinion is that class is rather unimportant, contentious and of little value to Wikipedia, so I would be glad to do away with it or simply bury somewhere in the article rather than display in the infobox and lead, providing food for endless edit warring. I believe a much better ground for consensus is to establish that the Aurion is just "a car made by Toyota" and stop trying to establish which classification is the "best". Cheerio, PrinceGloria (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

You know it really comes down to the pure facts: the Aurion was designed using the underpinnings of the sixth generation Toyota Camry to save money. Now is anybody arguing whether the Camry should be called a large or mid sized car? No. Whether the Australian public thinks if the Aurion is mid-sized or not, you can't argue with the pure fact that the Aurion basically is a Camry that has been redesigned for 'Australian tastes'. Maybe there should be a mention of the car being called a large car or something along the lines of that. HarrisonB - Talk 02:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I have nothing against leaving the class out of the lead and infobox, and informing the reader that Australian authorities classify the car as "large", while it is marketed as "mid-size" in some Camry markets. PrinceGloria (talk) 05:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Multiple factors in Australia including vehicle body measurements, price, engine, layout and target market decide how a car is classed. No where does anyone call the Aurion a mid size car. The majority of sources call it either large or family size. Many sources realize the camry is now very similar and are also referring to it as a large car. I have updated the classification and as you can see, included multiple source, showing Australian Motoring groups, ANCAP and Toyota itself consider the Aurion a large car. Even the Full Size article on Wikipedia lists Commodore, Falcon and Aurion as large cars in Australia. Capital photographer (talk) 13:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted these edits. We are here to give our readers accurate information about the class of the car, not the inaccurate information portrayed by ANCAP and God forbid Toyota itself. OSX (talk • contributions) 05:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
How is this "accurate"? Vehicle class is merely a convention - somebody simply decides this car is in that class. For that matter, any car can be in any class - no classification is authoritative. That is why we go by classifications governed by legal bodies in the vehicle's domestic market - they aren't objectively any better or worse than other classifications (even if subjectively users, including myself, can prefer other ones), but at least we have some standard to abide by in those contentious issues. PrinceGloria (talk) 06:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I am back to check how things are doing, at least for a brief amount of time. Surprisingly, this argument has continued on. As I've stated before, there are points for both sides of the argument. It will be quite hard to reach a conclusion, but a person suggested this, and it doesn't seem like such a bad idea. How about removing any mention of the class in the infobox and classifying it in the body under what different countries market it as? Alphabeta777 (talk) 12:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
This proposition has my sincere support. Please note I also favored removing the "class" field from the Infobox Automobile altogether to avoid such cases - it isn't really that informative anymore hence classes vary and definitions can be vague. PrinceGloria (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)