Talk:Automotive industry/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

History

should be about the history of the automotive industry as a whole. The history of automobile manufacturers and the development of the industry. The history of the automotive industry in each country should be moved to History of the Automotive industry by Country, otherwise editors will keep adding countries making the article to long and unorganized.Viddea9 (talk) 16:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Every country has an automotive history, should we include a paragraph for 200 countries? That would make the article too long. Instead, the History section should describe the history of the Automotive industry as a whole, and the history of the individual national histories should be at Automotive industry by country. Viddea9 (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The stubs of the history of the automotive industry in each country can be removed, IF a general history of the automotive history is written instead. Until then, I suggest not to remove these stubs. Schalkcity (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone write a proper general History of the whole automotive industry to meet article standards? The development of the automobile, the earliest manufacturers, and modern manufacturers. Viddea9 (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

"[...] Many dozens years US was the world's leader of car production. Since 1980s Japan and then since 2009 China becamed a new leaders."

Can't begin to explain how many things are wrong with that sentence.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.66.1.139 (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Top vehicle manufacturing groups (by volume) flawed

While the numbers on which the ranking is based, are from 2008, the table seems to get continously updated with respect to the "conglomerations". This leads to the situation that the table does not properly reflect the current situation. Most prominent example will be Saab, which was removed from the list of GM brands, however not given it's own position in the ranking as an independent manufacturer. It should show up at rank ca. 44, maybe as "Saab Spyker" ? Instead, it was added to Spyker in the minor manufacturers list, thus becoming the biggest entry to that list (by a factor - 10?) Thyl Engelhardt213.70.217.172 (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as vehicle production by manufacturer are referenced to 2008 OICA numbers, the data should not be changed at all, and should reflect the 2008 OICA data. 2009 OICA data by manufacturer have not been released yet. As long as the list references OICA data (and it should) Saab must remain listed as part of the GM group for 2008, even for 2009. The deal with Spyker closed in 2010.

Glancing over Top vehicle manufacturing groups (by volume), this list also reflects the status as per 2008, hence, the brands and divisions must reflect that time. Just some examples:

GM - Must list the "old" brands (Pontiac, Saturn, Hummer et al.)

VW - May not list Porsche. Porsche has not officially become part of Volkswagen to date, it definitely was not in 2008 (see footnote.)

Ford - Must reflect Volvo through 2009 and into 2010. Deal with Geely has been signed, but has not closed

Chana - Should be Chang'an

Geely - may not list Volvo, see above

I probably overlooked some.

Special care should be given to the Chinese joint ventures, which are not listed at all. These joint ventures account for a large part of the production of the majors, definitely GM and Volkswagen. --BsBsBs (talk) 17:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

The list is based on OICA 2008 numbers. OICA 2009 numbers will be released in summer 2010. However, in the meanwhile, there have been many changes, of which most (if not all) are mentioned here above. To leave the list to the 2008 status, is however not useful, because then all these changes are not reflected. However, the list now is based on the current company structures with the production stats of 2008, that is also not correct. I think the best way to update the list, is to maintain the 2008 list with all brand names and mention in the list that a certain brand has been sold to the respective company or production has been stopped, including the year in which it occurred. So in this case, Volvo will be listed under Ford but it will be listed as 'Volvo (sold to Geely in 2010)' or something similar.

About the joint ventures, these are mentioned in the company relationships part. It is impossible to do that in the list itself. The company relationships part may be extended to include more JV's (especially in China). Schalkcity (talk) 19:41, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Very sensible suggestions. I think we should rename "Top vehicle manufacturing groups (by volume)" to "Top vehicle manufacturing groups" and lose the OICA reference. The sort order can remain as is unless someone objects. This way, the ownerships can be brought up to date without having to wait for OICA. However, we should only change ownerships when the deal has effectively closed. Pending deals can get footnotes as suggested. On that list, I would combine Hyundai and Kia. Saab/Stryker can show up, somewhere, as no numbers would be attached. On THAT list, I would combine Hyundai and Kia.

"By Manufacturer" should be renamed to "World's largest manufacturers by production." I would slavishly reflect the current OICA data only and not allow any edits. If a list refers to a siongle source, it must reflect that source in all respects. The adding of SCANIA to VW for instance should be undone. If OICA doesn't count SCANIA as part of VW, who are we to correct them? SCANIA will most likely show up in the 2009 count. VW's annual report 2009 says "SCANIA was consolidated in fiscal year 2008 ... The prior year figures presented in this chapter relate to the period from July 22 to December 31, 2008." Volkswagen's fiscal year is the calendar year. The 2009 report lists SCANIA, but does definitely not list Porsche as a Volkswagen Group company. Any other suggestions before the big cleanup?--BsBsBs (talk) 14:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hyundai and Kia are not 1 company anymore, as far as I know. Hyundai holds a minority share in Kia (38.67%), so unless I'm wrong, don't combine those two. Saab/Spyker should be listed as Spyker, with 2 brand names: Spyker and Saab. Is the Volvo-Geely deal closed yet? If so, list Volvo under Geely, otherwise list Volvo under Ford with a footnote that the sale to Geely is pending. Volkswagen holds a majority voting rights for Scania (68.6%), so it should be listed under Volkswagen. Porsche should be listed separately, because it will take until mid-2011 before Volkswagen acquires >50% of the shares of Porsche. However, it should be mentioned in a footnote that the Volkswage/Porsche merger/takeover is pending. Technically, Volkswagen should be listed under Porsche because Porsche holds 50.74% of the Volkswagen shares and Volkswagen holds 49.9% of the Porsche shares. And the GM brands that have ceased operations after 2008 should not be in the list. A footnote mentioning that GM shut down those brands is useful. Anything else? Schalkcity (talk) 14:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

- As for Hyundai / Kia, Hyundai Kia Automotive Group says that 51% of Kia was bought by Hyundai. Kia Motors says Hyundai's shares are less than 40%. So says Hoover. I'm not an expert in the byzantine South Korean business relationships, but the statement in Hyundai Kia Automotive Group that "Hyundai Motor Company [is] regarded as the de facto representative of the Group" is definitely correct. Hyundai Motor Company's 2008 annual report (no later report available on-line) lists Kia as a subsidiary. Absent more recent information to the contrary, so should we.

- Volvo-Geely is not closed yet.

- Scania must definitely be listed as part of VW in the "Manufacturer Groups" list, my remark was targeted at including Scania under VW in the 2008 production numbers, therefore altering the 2008 OICA numbers, which should not be done. It sets a bad precedent.

- Porsche is complicated and often confused. There is the Porsche Holding in Austria, the Porsche Holding SE in Stuttgart, the Porsche AG (the company that makes the cars) and probably more. Let's leave it alone and wait for the deal to close. Eventually, Porsche will be part of Volkswagen, which is owned by members of the Porsche clan, the state of Lower Saxony, and individual stockholders. --BsBsBs (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't it make sense to add a column for segments to explain in which segments the marques are placed in? Such as sports cars, premium sports cars, supersports cars, SUV/offroad, premium SUV/offroad etc. Just like done with the column markets. E.g. Porsche - premium sports cars, premium SUVs/offroad--192.109.190.88 (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

(Belated) Spring Cleanup

I’ve done a little cleanup.

• Added worldwide production table, back to 1997
• Cleaned-up the lede
  • The 2007 – 2009 part was a bit messy
  • Brought all production numbers in accordance with OICA
  • Deleted the prognosis about what could happen in 2008 – it’s over
  • Deleted first 5 month data for 2010 – recentism. We can’t possibly update this all the time
  • Deleted the prognosis about what will happen in 2010 – we don’t really know (personally, I believe China will come in at between 15 and 17m, but it won’t be double the U.S. -however, this has no room in an encyclopedia.)

General standard warnings:

• Keep “sales” and “production” apart
• The world doesn’t have a “light vehicles” count, use total motorvehicles with 4 wheels and more
• When using national data, be careful what they refer to. “Motorvehicles” can be anything with an engine, including motorcycles. “Cars” sometimes are passenger cars only.
• Use only accepted sources, such as ACEA, OICA, and the national associations. Be wary of market research companies
• In Japan, a huge segment called “Minivehicles” is separately reported, make sure you get the total -- BsBsBs (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

IKCO

An IP did set a {{verification}} template with the edit comment "By Manufacturer: Iranian car company IKCO produced 680,000 vehicles in 2010." This template was removed. Rationale:

• The "By Manufacturer" section is single sourced on data compiled by the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers, or “Organisation Internationale des Constructeurs d’Automobiles” (OICA). OICA is industry-wide considered as the last word in automobile production statistics. The section is properly sourced and requires no additional sources
• Their most recent by manufacturer list covers 2008 and can be found here
• A by manufacturer list covering 2009 should be published quite soon. It will be included when published.

As for IKCO or Iran Khodro, I cannot find them on the 2008 OICA list. If they are not listed there, they cannot be listed here. Once they are included in the 2009 OICA list, they will be included here. For the purpose of this list, 2010 data are irrelevant. 2010 is not over yet. Full 2010 data will be reflected sometime in summer 2011, when the 2010 OICA list is published. -- BsBsBs (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Then, your list is wrong. Kuozui, with only 67,891 cars produced in 2008, is listed here. IKCO cannot have increased production by half a million in just 2 years. Saipa should also be listed here (with about half a million cars produced in 2010). 69.116.236.229 (talk) 07:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned by BsBsBs, the list has OICA as its source. So, the list is correct. The source may or may not be correct, but that does not mean the list is incorrect. If you disagree, complain to OICA, not here. Schalkcity (talk) 09:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I just read Wikipedia:Verifiability and it says "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth".. Then I guess you are right. The day some source will decide to report that planet earth is flat (again), we'll just have to accept it at face value here. While other scientifically verifiable stories, which have been completely blacked-out by mainstream media (for whatever reason), will be left out. Sad, because wikipedia can and should do better in my opinion. 69.116.236.229 (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the matter is the responsibility of the car manufacturers. They have to see to it that their production numbers are properly reflected by their national or regional association, which then reports it to OICA. OICA is the umbrella organization of the car industry. The OICA list is industry-wide accepted as the authoritative list. The entry here reflects OICA numbers. Possibly, the missing companies will be included in the 2009 OICA list, then they will be included here. We only list full year results. 2010 isn't over, and it will take more than a year for full 2010 numbers to become available. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the earth being flat or mainstream media bias. This list is not sourced on media reports. The complaints are misdirected. I know Iran Khodro, I think it's a shame that they are not on the OICA list, but the matter is out of my hands. -- BsBsBs (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

OICA 2009

We thank Khalidshou for adding the updated 2009 OICA numbers. Great job! And sorry, no Iran Khodro on that list either. -- BsBsBs (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The definition of motor vehicle and OICA figures

In India, monthly cars sales are above 150,000 and since most of these cars are manufactured in India, one can safely assume India's annual production to be about 2 million. Annual passenger car sales in India crossed 1.5 million in 2009. And this does not include motorcycle sales. India's second-largest two-wheeler manufacturer, Bajaj Auto, sells more than 300,000 units in one month. Therefore, it is safe to assume that India's monthly motorcycle sales are close to 1 million (and annual motorcycle sales easily cross 10 million).

Therefore, the OICA's assertion that India annually manufactures only 2.5 million motor vehicles is laughable because the term motor vehicle includes motorcycles and scooters. It should be stressed that the figures do not include motorcycle sales. --King Zebu (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

By definition 2 wheelers are not part of motor vehicles. Motor vehicles include 3 and more wheeled vehicles. So OICA's definition is correct. So the number for India (2.5 million) is realistic (12* 150,000 = 1.8 million). Schalkcity (talk) 17:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

2 wheelers definitely are not part of the OICA numbers. OICA counts the production of "cars" and "commercial vehicles". Passenger cars are defined as "motor vehicles with at least four wheels, used for the transport of passengers, and comprising no more than eight seats in addition to the driver's seat." If two and three wheelers would be counted, then China wold have an annual production of approx 50 million "motor vehicles." Also, careful when comparing "sales" with "production." Im- and exports sometimes lead to large differences. Lastly, keep the OICA admonishion in mind: "All the data available at OICA are included here. For more details, please contact the individual OICA member associations directly. The OICA secretariat does not have any further data." BsBsBs (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Schalkcity, your suggestion that "by definition 2 wheelers are not part of motor vehicles" is amusing, particularly because you didn't provide any source to back your claims.

Here's a fact -- by definition, motor vehicle is any "self-propelled wheeled conveyance that does not run on rails". [1] [2] Commonsense dictates that two-wheelers fall very much in the category of motor vehicles.

The article currently suggests that the OICA list is for motor vehicle production, and that is factually incorrect. As User:BsBsBs mentioned, the OICA list is specifically for "cars" and "commercial vehicles" and the article should point that out prominently. --King Zebu (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Fiat-Chrysler takeover

Considering the fact that the Italian car manufacturer Fiat recently bought 52% of Chrysler, don't you think that the two firms should be considered as a single company? --Conte di Cavour (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Chrysler is now properly a Fiat subsidiary. Tomh009 (talk) 11:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Rankings

The rankings are based on the currently available rankings by OICA. Please DO NOT edit these single-sourced rankings in a way that makes them deviate from the current OICA list, even if this reflects recent changes.

I edited "Top vehicle manufacturing groups (by volume)" so that the list reconciles with http://oica.net/wp-content/uploads/ranking-2009.pdf and also with the "By manufacturer" ranking on the same page.

"Top vehicle manufacturing groups (by volume)" says that "the table below shows the world's largest motor vehicle manufacturing groups, along with the marques produced by each one. The table is ranked by 2009 end of year production figures from the International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (OICA)." Please keep it as promised.

Grouping Nissan and Renault together is a common mistake. Nissan-Renault is an alliance, not a group. The companies do not want to be listed as a group, and they do not consolidate their production numbers in OICA reports. If and when they are listed as a group by OICA, we shall do the same.

A new 2010 manufacturer ranking should be published by end of July. Then we can bring the lists up to date, which should only be necessary once a year.

Except bringing the rankings in sync with OICA, no other edits were made, and no further fact checking was performed. BsBsBs (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Khalidshou

All hail Khalidshou for his work in getting Top vehicle manufacturing groups (by volume) in sync with the new OICA data. It is a big job. I already had it in a database, ready to spit out a list after a few weeks of programming, and Khalidshou beat me to it. Thank you!

Some minor cleanup:

• Toyota, removed "except Iran and Caucasus"
• GM, removed "(Opel will be introduced over there in 2012)"
• Hyundai, removed "except Sierra Leone, Montenegro, Cape Verde, Guyana"

Opel in Australasia removed, because it's not 2012 yet, and it ios unclear what "over there" is. I don't think it is possible for us to track sales activities by large auto groups. They change daily. I think too much detail is distracting here.

MAN was doubled. I removed it from Volkswagen and kept it in its own place. The deal is not closed, and this list reflects year-end 2010.

There is possible confusion with some Chinese makers. Hard to track. #36 at OICA is JIANGXI JIANGLING AUTOMOTIVE. We have a Jiangling Motors, makers of the Landwind. The list currently points to Qingling. I honestly have no idea ... Thank you!!!! BsBsBs (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

1989 4.3 v6 oil system.

I have a 1989 astro, only 219.000 miles on it. I have every intention of putting 500,000 on this vehicle. the astro is an outstanding,long lasting,dependable vehicl.I have developed a small problem, the oil pressure gage is climbing to over 3/4. I've had two guys say oil pressure sending unit. but that was new 1 1/2 yrs ago. oil and filter new every year. if anyone can help me I'd be greatfull. all ideas wellcome — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.56.28.38 (talk) 19:29, 30 September 2011 (UTC)