Talk:Car/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 9

Introduction and current number of cars in use

The quoted figure in the introduction "As of 2003, there were 570 million passenger cars worldwide" is hopelessly outdated. A more recent figure shows the dramatic increase in the number of trucks in use worldwide and its projection into the near future:

The number of automobiles worldwide, at 750 million in 2006, is expected to triple by 2050. Ref: Ogden, J (2006). High hopes for hydrogen. Scientific American, 295(3), 94-101.

I would very much appreciate if this conservative estimate would be included in the article so readers get a feeling of the scope.

I´ve changed "2002... 590 million cars" to "There are approximately 600 million" and included an extra reference because most numbers given (that I´ve seen) are approximations around this figure (including the 590 mil figure), and it´s no longer 2002. As I understand it more a precise figure would be very difficult to come by because so many parts of the world have very poor or non-existant scrappage data. GrahamTM (talk) 16:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Question & Answer

What is the thing called in the interior of the car, above both the passenger and driver seats that usually has a mirror and helps block sunlight? I keep trying to remember the name of this thing but I do not have a car manual with me and I can't find the name anywhere on the Internet because car diagrams only showing the major parts. It is driving me crazy. Sammasa 13:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

A sun visor? Hmmmm - the link on this page points at Sun visor - which is a redirect to Visor - which is a disambig page - which says that the part of an automobile is called a Sun visor - which is a link back to...

Quick! Someone write an article about Sun visors! SteveBaker 21:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

130.166.31.98 18:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

This page has been subjected to abuse with the word "poo" I could not edit as it is protected.

I made something in it, at least... Andrewrhchen 14:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The Citroen car caption says "The 1955 Citroën DS; revolutionary visual design and technological innovation." while the image description (click on the picture) says "A 1975 Citroën D Super DS FD photographed by myself at Prins Bertil Memorial in Stockholm, Sweden."

This Article Is A Complete Mess

im bored I've been looking at the article quality metrics for project Automobile - and this article is an embarrasment. It's the most important article in the entire project - and it's been rated has "Top" priority in the overall Wikipedia importance ratings - yet it's only "B-grade". This is not good. I've done a bit of cleanup - but the amount of work to be done is horrifying.

IMHO, we need to do the following:

1. Y Done Dramatically shorten the history section. This is a top level article, it should merely sketch out the history in a few paragraphs and punt the bulk of the discussion to a more detailed article - as we do in other sections.
2. References...jeez...this is a top importance article and it has a grand total of four references...that's AWFUL! We all need to look on our bookshelves and look at what facts in the article can be backed up by information in books that we collectively own. Or we have to look at our daughter articles and see what books they quote to back up those same facts. I'm sure that if everyone spent a half hour doing that, we'd have a decently referenced article in no time.
3. Y Done Years are linked...bad.
4. Y Done Units are not linked and don't have non-breaking spaces...bad.
5. General attention to spelling and grammar is poor.
6. Y Done Photos are disorganised - some are not needed.
7. Introduction needs to be bulked out to three or four good sized paragraphs.
8. We need more sections in the big table of links covering things like car magazines, legal matters, clubs, technical qualifications, jobs in the automotive industry.
9. "from the Greek language by combining auto [self] with mobilis [moving]" -- but mobilis is from Latin, not Greek. (Note that this mixed-heritage word isn't used in modern Greek language. In Greece, it's an autokineto.) Tom239 (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

We should be able to at least get this article through WP:GAC - the present situation is discraceful.

SteveBaker 05:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had a big rewrite of the Fuel and Propulsion section. It still needs more references but I will have a dig around.

Malcolma 12:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Can I also add a suggestion (though I won't be bold and just do it without at least one voice in support)? The "See also" section seems to just be a monstrously bloated tabulation of the various automobile categories, and could be almost completely removed. Just pipe links to the three or four major sub-categories, maybe? I'll try and have a closer look tomorrow as well if I have time. --DeLarge 00:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I spent a lot of effort to create those tables because I feel strongly that they are needed. There is a precedent for this approach since many of the 'top level' articles in Wikipedia work that way. See for example Physics or Computer or Geography or Psychology or Philosophy - each of these has large lists of links either at the end or scattered in big blocks throughout the article. This article should serve primarily as a navigation aid because nobody really wants to know all about everything about cars - and there simply isn't room in one article to say it all anyway. Our readers will have come here to answer some question because they didn't know where to look. Simply pointing them at category listings (which are not as well organised as the big tables of links here) doesn't come anywhere close to getting people where they need to be. It's been my experience that nobody in the "real world" has any clue about the category links at the bottom of the article - and in any case, they are always cluttered with junk and hard to navigate. SteveBaker 15:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

<indent reset> Well, I disagree about the Categories, since I've used them myself almost since day one -- they seemed very straightforward to me, auto-alphabetised and much more intuitive than most "See also" lists. I can only go by my own experiences on that.

Also, of the articles you mentioned, Physics splits its tables over two sections and puts prose in between, which helps slightly, and Computer had a good deal of hostility to the tables during its peer review. Neither of the other three has its links laid out in huge tables, and looking at other similar "overview" articles they don't have them either; I see no demonstration of "precedence" for the current layout. I've been here for a year or so, but as soon as I saw those tables I just glazed over and scrolled past them; I imagine many casual readers would do the same.

== If you're going to insist on keeping them, I'd suggest culling or reorganising them a bit; in Articles relating to parts of automobiles the Car Engine/Other cell has seven rows of text at 1024x768, and many others have five or six. That's a lot to take in. Also, how about splitting the tables further so you have 4-5 smaller ones instead of two large ones, and follow the lead of Law, which hides its tables (OK, navigation templates) and lets the user pick the one(s) he needs? --DeLarge 16:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There may be no good precedent for this layout - but plenty of articles have honking great navigational templates in the "See also" section. I find them very useful - they are better than categories because they don't get cluttered with poorly categorized stubs - we can control which set of articles covers the subject - and we can conveniently divide the set of links by sub-subject. I'm happy to discuss slimming down the number of articles - and I'm happy to discuss changing the look and layout - but categories really don't do it for me - I use this table all the time! SteveBaker 03:03, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This page perhaps deseves a "wikify" tag? it is just ugly, improperly formatted, and just seems like a page this major deserves better!user:mceliececm

Largest automobile

Like the subject says, what is the largest automobile ever built? I think this deserves mention in the same way as the Spruce Goose is famous for being one of the largest airplanes ever built.172.168.37.167 01:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

See List of automotive superlatives - the trouble with adding that stuff here is the "where do you stop?" question. If we are putting the largest - then someone will want the smallest, then the fastest, the most fuel efficient...and before you know it, you have that list article inside the automobile article. I think we should 'See Also' that article and leave it at that. This article is supposed to give the briefest of overviews - then punt you off to more detailed articles. SteveBaker 02:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Further reading section

Is all of that stuff in further reading neccessary? Sure they are automobile related and probably useful in that regard, but I think we should remove the column on the right and just have the primary topics. For example instead of having "Car body style" and then all the styles, we should just have a link to that. It would cut down the section and make it more readable. This is a top level article, it just doesn't need all the specific components of a car engine listed (Hypereutectic piston). James086^Talk 03:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

.

Greatest Source of Death?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rate lists it down at 2% whereas the article currently quotes it at 25%

Two percent of all deaths, 25 percent of injury-related deaths in group E.1 (i.e. if you get cancer or have a stroke, you're not being "injured"). --DeLarge 09:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should add the following websites to this article: 469 reasons to eliminate automobiles (http://www.carsstink.org/), adding that we should build massive 100-story live/work/play Tower cities connected to/by maglev Trains in the future; The GM Street Car Conspiracy which forced all people to need a car (http://www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm); Maglev Trains of the future connected to Tower cities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maglev_train); Car Crash photos http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/car_accident_photo.html. "Why Reduce Automobile Dependence" http://www.priorities.org/carfree.htm. Car Free Cities of the Future http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/05/carfree_city_us_1.php. Sundiiiiii 21:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox: "Wikipedia articles are not: propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views." --DeLarge 22:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Changes to Section "Economics and Impacts"

I expanded on the section "Economics and Social Impact" and changed the name to "Economics and Impacts". The name change is because "social impacts" are now represented by named subsections on environmental costs and impact on public health. Economic costs are now broken into multiple subsections as well.

Questions for the group:

1. are there other kinds of "social impacts" that should be included here?
2. the last subsection, called "alternatives", is an expansion of content that was already in this section. Should alternatives be broken out of the "Economics and Impacts" section and turned into a level 2 heading?

I've tried to keep each of these very concise, but let me know if you think I've missed anything or included things that don't belong.Pladuk 00:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Only one. I deleted

"In the united States, the number of fatalities per year is around 42 thousand."

as U.S.-biased; if anybody has stats for other nations (2 or 3, even), to add some perspective, I'd say put them all in. If possible, I'd suggest a contrast in driving styles or road building: U.S., Germany, Italy, Japan, say. Trekphiler 02:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Car Facts?

I deleted "by modifying the Carnot Cycle." Carnot never built an engine; his Cycle describes the ideal cycle for a heat engine (including steam, diesel, Otto, Rankine, or Stirling). I also deleted

"Joseph Cugnot, who crashed his steam-powered "Fardier" against a wall in 1771, "

since it's disputed Cugnot's vehicle ever ran.

This comment is not coherent with the information published here : http://www.drire.gouv.fr/ile-de-france/vehicules/homolo/cnrv/histoire.htm, nor is it coherent with numerous relations of the facts that Cugnot built two socalled "fardiers", which are reported to be around 2500kg heavy and effectively ran for respectively about a mile (a quarter of an old French "lieue" which is about 4 kilometers) and about three miles (5 quarter of a "lieue", as described in the report made in 1770). The fardier is still kept and can be seen in the museum of the "arts et métiers" (trades and arts) in Paris.Zolegd (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the article says "11,450 lbs of carbon dioxide"; over how long? I added

"Its disadvantages include poor heat efficiency and extensive requirements for electric auxiliaries."

and

"This makes clear the often-ignored fact road design and traffic control also play a part in car wrecks; unclear traffic signs, inadequate signal light placing, and poor planning (curved bridge approaches which become icy in winter, for example), also contribute."

The last is something I'm unsure really belongs here, but there was an implication all car wrecks can & should be blamed on driver error or bad car design, which is clearly untrue. Trekphiler 02:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Under 'Fuel and Propulsion', 'Diesel' it says that diesel engines have a 50% burn efficiency compared with 27% in the est gasoline engines. The source is from 1988, and recent technological advances have been huge on both the diesel and gasoline engine, and it seems to me that these would have change over 20 years with the advances in fuel economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.8.99 (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a car expert, but I must note, that engine efficiency and vehicle efficiency are two very different topics of interest.Fuel economy, Fuel efficiency in transportation, Fuel economy-maximizing behaviors, Fuel efficiency, Fuel efficiency in transportation, Low-energy vehicle bkil (talk) 23:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

POV in "Economics and Impacts" section

This section is not neutral in its presentation of either the economics or the impacts of the automobile, and thus contravenes the WP:NPOV policy.

A POV neutral presentation would include:

• Not only the economic costs, but the value of the offsetting benefits too.
• Not only the negative impacts, but must include all the positive impacts too.

Should we delete this section until a neutral version appears? -- de Facto (talk). 09:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

It' usually easier to construct a neutral version from a non-neutral one than from nothing at all. As long as the section is tagged as non-neutral (which it is) I think it's fine to leave up unbalanced content until it can be fixed. -- Beland 15:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the single sentence section about Toyota, which has been added to several different articles by User:Altermike, initially in a highly POV fashion.

First, let me quote the opening paragraph of the reference (originally at Reuters; the autonews.com citation is a subscriber-only regurgitation): "Japan's Toyota Motor Corp. outsold General Motors Corp. by around 90,000 vehicles in the first quarter, moving a step closer to unseating its U.S. rival as the world's biggest automaker." Clearly, the text I've bolded indicates that to represent Toyota as "the world's largest manufacturer" without caveats would not be accurate. That claim is afforded based on annual production, and based on 2006 GM stays on top (just). The 2007 figures should certainly put Toyota on top barring a fairly astonishing recovery from GM, but until the year's over, let's not indulge in crystal balling.

Second, I culled the note entirely because single sentence sections are strongly deprecated. We've covered this news at Automobile production statistics and Toyota, and that's more than sufficient. --DeLarge 15:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

This section is not neutral because it doesn´t cover the economics of the car, specially in a changing world. There are statistics in the market, there are tendences in the market and all this has been DELETED from this article, there is no minimal reference here. So, the article is NOT NEUTRAL. I don´t know what people has elected with their free right to choose. And the impact of carbon-free legislation. As said, this article live in the past, not in the present--Altermike 06:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

AM. Suggest some positive benefits if you will. I can think of the the people employed to produce the energy, steel, aluminum, plastics, leather, fuel, oils, and so on to support the automobile. There may be other cited sources for this type of information. Would you mention them please? William (Bill) Bean 21:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

We would create an automotive market section and full article, with consumer preferences. --Nopetro 20:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

• The current limitations of this section are almost shocking. The Car is, without doubt, one of the major polluters in the world today. (Live somewhere where there are none, you will see the difference). The effects of meeting the demands for oil (wars etc..) are phenomenal. Cars bring both great benefits (mobility etc..) and also great ills to the modern world. Such is their impact that - if no separate article already exists - that it warrants a separate article. Marcus22 13:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Section 5.3 as it currently stands is accurate and massively documented. Could be more complete but certainly should not be left out of this assessment. ericbritton 08:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Terminology

Can anyone explain the difference between "make" and "model"? To clarify my question, I will use the Honda Civic DX Sedan 2007 as an example. Does "make" refer to the vendor (e.g. Honda) or to the trademark class (e.g. Civic)? Does "model" refer to the trademark class (e.g. Civic), to its version (e.g 2007), to its subclass (e.g. DX, LX, etc.), or to it general category (e.g. Sedan)? Thanks. I think this article should include a more comprehensive section on automobile terminology. Michael Safyan 06:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Make: Maker. Model: Car_model. I agree with the proposed idea about terminology. --Nopetro 20:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Make is the manufacturer name. Such as Nissan, Citroen, Ford, Hyundai, and so on. Model is the specific version such as Sentra, 2CV, Focus, Tiburon and so on. Subclass becomes part of the model name; at least here in the U.S. William (Bill) Bean 21:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Per example above, Make = Honda, Model = Civic, and Trim = DX Sedan Editors of Kelley Blue Book 20:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Make is a U.S. usage. Brits use "marque". "Subclass"? Trim level. Trekphiler 16:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually here in the UK we don't use 'marque' we use 'make' also Rmg12 (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not that 'marque' is a British term it's more that the term 'marque' is used to describe 'makes' with class and heritage. Rolls-Royce, Ferrari, Alfa-Romeo are 'marques', Hyundai and Toyota are 'makes'. It's a very loaded subjective POV difference though so I wouldn't suggest using the term 'marque' on Wikipedia as a differentiator. It would just be an invitation to a fanboy edit war. Dino246 (talk) 09:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Ethanol as an alternative source of fuel

I've noticed that there is no reference to ethanol in the fuel list. Anyone volunteers to write about it?

We have LOTS of articles about that (arguably - too many!): Ethanol fuel, Common ethanol fuel mixtures, Alcohol fuel, Cellulosic ethanol, Biomass, Biofuel, Biogas, Butanol fuel (OK - not quite), Ethanol fuel in Brazil (where it's principally used), Ethanol fuel in the United States, Ethanol fuel in Sweden, Ethanol fuel in Australia, Flexible-fuel vehicle, Gasoline-equivalent gallon, Cellulosic ethanol commercialization...I don't think we need more articles on this subject! SteveBaker 14:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

New reports show that ethanol sources are not enough to deal with the current energy crisis. Maybe that can be mentioned. Er ethanol sources might be reported as not enough but take into account the big money people who want to keep ethanol out of car fuels. Check www.maxol.ie for some info on bioethanol production in Ireland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.71.40.140 (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Car Template/Cost

This hit me when I was looking up cars on Wikipedia: the car templates have no price ranges on them. I think this is a big hole that somebody missed and we should add the car prices to all the templates. I'm willing to help the guys on WikiProject: Cars with this if everybody agrees with me. WikiTaco 20:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Esperanto?

Is anybody else getting "In other languages" at both top & bottom of page? Trekphiler 16:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Further reading section

I converted the tables in the further reading section to templates, feel free to revert/add/correct. If someone feels it is appropriate, each template can be added to the corresponding articles as well. Regards.--Old Hoss 06:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Section merge

I propose merging Current and future commercialization and research with Future car technologies. These sections seem very similar. the commercialization and research section seems to contain nothing about commercialization, and would fit much better under the future tech section. Any objections? Nicholas SL Smith 00:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention - I went ahead and merged the sections - it seems to flow a lot better now - Nicholas SL Smith 00:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Article Semi-Protect

I added a restriction to this page - the level of vandalism was phenomenal. I'm not sure what made this page a target -- but it certainly is. Nicholas SL Smith 03:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops - how about a sorry - I just requested protection formally -- Nicholas SL Smith 03:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Eye of the Mind! Nicholas SL Smith 16:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Environmental impact

I have removed the following paragraph as it is, as presently written, the sort of nonsense that gives the environmental movement a bad name.

"Car driving produces carbon dioxide. One gallon of petrol produces 2.26 kg of carbon. Garry Stokes from Joint Global Change Research Institute (Washington) has calculated that this equals one coal briquette thrown away every 400 meters. An average American drives 16 000 km a year which equals 40 000 briquettes. "

• "Car driving produces carbon dioxide." - true
• "One gallon" - what kind of gallon?
• "produces 2.26 kg of carbon" - no it doesn't. It produces some carbon in the form of soot, the rest is carbon compounds.
• to quote a briquette conversion requires a standard briquette. There isn't one.

Malcolma (talk) 09:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your question Malcolma. The cars emit between 120-250 grams of carbon per kilometer. Thus, in a 10 km car ride the environmental load is in average carbon dioxide equivalent to 2 kg of pure carbon. The grill briquettes are close to 100 % of carbon. You can weight the 2 kg of grill briquettes and it will help You to visualize the environmental load of the drive. . The differences in the legislation and car models could be included in the article.

Original: Car driving produces carbon dioxide. One gallon petrol produces 2.26 kg carbon. Garry Stokes from Joint Global Change Research Institute Washington) has calculated that this equals one coal briquette thrown away every 400 meters. An average American drives 16 000 km a year which equals 40 000 briquettes. Imagine if we could see them all. Watti Renew (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

It's worse than that though - we have cars that get 12mpg and cars that get 70mpg and we have electric cars and hydrogen cars and compressed-air cars that produce no carbon at all (although the power stations that ultimately power them might). No number you can come up with can possibly be correct even to within a factor of five. Let's simply note that for gasoline/petrol vehicles, the amount of CO2 produced is XX grams per liter (YY ounces per US gallon, ZZ grams per UK gallon) and that an AVERAGE gas/petrol car gets WW miles per gallon in 2008. Let's just do away with the silly analogies. We're an encyclopedia - not some pop-sci column in a kid's comic. SteveBaker (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

The level of childish vandalism to this page has reached epidemic proportions. I have proposed that it be semi-protected so that anonymous IP users can no longer claim that their school friend invented the car or question Henry Ford's sexuality.. For all you good users who regularly rollback these posts, please check also the post before the last post as often the last good version of the article is 2 or 3 edits back and undoing only the last edit can cause confusion. Thanks to everyone who monitors this page and as for the kids who keep scribbling on it - grow up, really. Dino246 (talk) 09:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

We've had this problem MANY times before - it comes about because when kids first find Wikipedia, they overwhelmingly tend to type the name of some familiar object (frequently either "Car" (which redirects here) or "Computer") into the search box - try to edit and are amazed to find that they can. Sadly, no admin that I've yet talked to is prepared to provide PERMENANT semi-protection to either Automobile or Computer - so we'll probably have no problem getting someone to give us a few weeks of semi-protection - but before you know it another admin will come along and say something like "Let's try removing the semi-protection and see if the problem has fixed itself"....which works when there are just a few individuals doing the vandalising - but not when it's a different person each time - as I'm sure it is here. We really need permenant semi-protection - and we aren't likely to get it. SteveBaker (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Meanwhile it's protected and no one has so much as moved a comma in 4 days so thanks to Oxymoron83 for that. Dino246 (talk) 05:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Just wanted to disambiguate NSU Motorenwerke AG and found that I can't edit the page. Oh, well. 24.199.86.49 (talk) 14:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ferdinand Verbiest's 'car'

I have been trying to verify the claims that Ferdinand Verbiest built the world's first 'car'. Sources are scarce, and I have found no really good on-line reference (in English!) to support them. It does not help that the claims are asserted on several WP pages -- supported by dubious references -- and through the usual mirror sites these pages set up a smokescreen to hide anything useful (smoke and mirrors!).

The general view, from the sites that seem to know, is that the 'car' was only a (scale) model, and may not have been built at all (although people have built working copies from his plans).

There is one book which should answer most of the questions; written by Horst O. Hardenberg and published by the Society of Automotive Engineers in 1995: "The Oldest Precursor of the Automobile - Ferdinand Verbiest's Steam Turbine-Powered Vehicle Model" (Amazon page - includes ISBN etc). Could anyone with a copy of this book please update the articles accordingly?

Anyone know of any other good references?

EdJogg (talk) 13:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Alternatives section

Should it mention animal powered vehicles? They aren't normally practical alternatives but are used as alternatives (e.g. in Bristol there's a group that use a horse draw recycling collection van). I think pack animals are a more practical alternative than the skateboard which is mentioned.(Morcus (talk) 21:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC))

Fastest car

the Thrust SSC is the fastest car in the world. It is capable of reaching speeds of 763 mph. It has two nice large jet engines n the side of the huge car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.174.82.254 (talk) 04:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

ThrustSSC is indeed the current holder of the World Land Speed Record. -- EdJogg (talk) 07:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I undid what 83d40m did.

I undid what 83d40m did because the picture looks more like a drawing, not a picture. The picture looks a lot better.

Also the removal of the writing is unnecessary, it does't help the article, it detracts from it.

DineshAdv (talk) 00:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd always been under the impression that "car" was short for "autocar" which is what the early cars were known as, not for "motor car" which came later. Dino246 (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, Autocar, the British motoring magazine, came on the scene in 1895 and, according to the Online Etymology Dictionary, "automobile" dates from the same year (the two dates may not be a coincidence!). This shows that we have the French to blame for the word 'automobile', not the Americans ( :o) ).

The etymology of 'autocar' would be a good addition, if you can cite sources. As has been proved in the article already, the word 'car' pre-existed any powered form of the vehicle. Nowadays I suggest 'autocar' refers exclusively to the magazine.

EdJogg (talk) 08:15, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the 100 year anniversary issue of Autocar (1st November 1995), 'autocar' comes from 'automatic carriages' and was coined by the editor, Henry Sturmey, in the first edition of the magazine: "Horseless carriage; automobile carriage; automatic carriage; autocar. All these names have been used to designate the latest production of the ingenuity of man, the motor-driven road carriage, irrespective of whether steam, electricity, hot air, or petroleum be the motive power. The last is the latest".

The term 'motor car' came later.Dino246 (talk) 10:34, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't know 'car' is short for 'Autocar', thats new to me. You say Autocar, the British motoring magazine started in 1895, but the Daimler Motorized Carriage was made in 1886 (according to Wikipedia). Dino246 said that 'motor car' came later - I think we can safely assume that 'motor car' is a short form of 'motorised carrige', and so the fact that the Daimler Motorized Carriage was produced in 1886 proves it couldn't have come later.

Also EdJogg said "This shows that we have the French to blame for the word 'automobile', not the Americans", sorry, I don't get that - how? And anyway, who said we had the Americans to blame?

DineshAdv (talk) 22:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

If you look at the link I provided for its etymology, the word 'automobile' is a French word that pre-existed the internal combustion engined car by 30 or 40 years. As for 'blame', it was a weak joke. Personally I hate the word, and it grates whenever I read an article that talks about automobiles or autos...but then, I use British English rather than the American variant. :o)

As for 'safely assume', you can't assume any such thing here. The discussion above has proved to me that we cannot be sufficiently certain of the origins except through what is defined within dictionaries. Hence 'car' existed earlier than any of the other terms and is not actually shortened from anything else, although nowadays the general assumption is that something like 'motor car' came first. Also, I could provide a cite that 'motor roller' came into use to distinguish the new IC-powered road rollers from steam rollers. It is not much of a leap of imagination to suggest that the same thing happened with cars. The first steam cars were more like (horse-drawn) carriages, hence you could easily suggest the usage went something like: steam carriage --> steam car --> motor car --> car but until we have a properly scholarly source to reference, we cannot put it in the article.

EdJogg (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

The word automobile grates for me too. It's as foreign as, say voiture to us in the UK. I thought Americans were moving away from it a bit?? Is it really the most internationally-suitable name for the article?Major-General Clanger (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

It grates with me, too, but it's tricky; we can't call it car, much as we'd like to, as etymologically this is a shortened version of carriage - and we'd then have disambiguation issues with the likes of street car (tram), etc etc. It comes down to automobile vs motor car really, and I don't see the latter gaining traction with our US friends! :) Blitterbug (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism - again

It is quite evident from the current level of vandalism from unregistered editors that the "semi-protection" applied to the page has now expired. Consequently I have removed the padlock icon again. (However, I have not had time to request potection be re-applied -- perhaps someone else can find time to do that?)

As mentioned in the Vandalism section, above, what this article needs is permanent protection. How often we have to request semi-permanent protection before it is extended to fully-permanent? I don't know.

EdJogg (talk) 14:30, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Re-requested over at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Current requests for protection. —Sladen (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Inline References

"The combination of high wages and high efficiency is called "Fordism," and was copied by most major industries."

Citation needed for the claim that high wages are/were paid by most major industries. --70.143.42.155 (talk) 12:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Asking for collaboration

I added the following information:

In Russia in the 1780s Ivan Kulibin started working on an automobile. He finished working on it in 1791. Some of it's features were a Flywheel, Brake, Gear box, and Bearing. His design had three wheels. Unfortunately, like many of his inventions, the government havent seen it's marketing potential and ignored it.

In Russian when you write his name and automobile you get many links at Google, but I havent found any in English. Please help. Moscovite Knight (talk) 15:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the English source you provided and the diagrams on the Russian sources, this vehicle was pedal-powered. Is this correct? Does it belong in the automobile article?Dino246 (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

The article on Ivan Kulibin also describes this vehicle as being pedal-powered. I'm reluctant to delete the reference to it on the automobile page without being able to understand the Russian sources and confirming. However, if it was indeed powered by the driver then it was not an auto-mobile and isn't really relevant to this article, (interesting though it may be).Dino246 (talk) 14:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the Russian sources, it was powered on electricity and it had a steam engine, which was something Kulibin used in general to try on ships and stuff. I mean, if it would be a huge bisycle how would it have a gear box? It was an automobile. Moscovite Knight (talk) 16:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

[Unindent] The sources used for this section are under dispute. Please see Talk:History of the automobile for further discussion, and if you might be able to provide Reliable Sources (and/or translations of Russian webpages) to support the assertions made.
[Large quantity of text copy-and-pasted by Anon IP user: removed and summarised by user:EdJogg (talk)]

Kubilin's pedal-car (again)

Having examined the English references, and at least one Russian webpage that provides some very clear diagrams, it is clear that Kubilin's machine does warrant coverage within the history of the automobile, rather than the bicycle. However, (i) the diagrams clearly show a human-powered vehicle, (ii) the English source makes no reference to any other kind of engine used, (iii) the history section in this article is supposed to be a summary of History of the automobile, and it is currently far too long to be classed as a summary! With these points in mind I have heavilly pruned the section about Kubilin. When the section is properly summarised (as it needs to be) I would suspect that Kubilin's role will be seen as too minor to be included in the summary; for now, however, it can remain.

EdJogg (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"Euro" street racing car

Can we define "Euro" in relation to the modern slang term for a foreign compact car with a small engine and loud exhaust running on U.S. streets. Did it originate with a european cars? Does it only include european cars? Is it incorrectly, or correctly being used in ralation to Japanese cars? Is 'Euro' the correct spelling for the expression? 68.104.186.93 (talk) 06:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC) MG of MG Fabrication

I think it is merely an isolated American term (never heard it myself) not used by English speakers in the majority of the world and certainly not in Europe or Japan.

Changes since 1980s

I notice one omission from the article: since the 1980s car design, at least in Europe, has been driven more by engineering than by marketing / brandng considerations. The first signs of this were the Ford Sierra and Audi 100, both designed to minimise drag. Soon after this computer aided design started enabling designers to apply finite element stress analysis and thus reduce both weight and manufacturing cost without sacrificing strength in critical areas. As a result most cars below the luxury band now look much more similar than they did before the early 1980s. However these changes have also caused some criticisms: susceptibility to cross-winds (mainly overcome); difficulty for drivers in judging the length of their cars becuase of the steeply sloping bonnets and high boot lines.

It would also be worth mentioning changes in the names and numbers of manufacturers: Toyota, Nissan (then Datsun) and Honda became noticeable in the 1970s; Daewoo, Kia and Proton (possibly others) in the 1990s; Skoda became a real presence in Europe after VW took it over; Ford took over Volvo's car operation & Jaguar; etc. -- Philcha (talk) 14:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

See also

The Automobile#See also section is sprawling; it should be possible to work most of these individual terms into the article itself and clean out the list, per WP:ALSO. —Sladen (talk) 12:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

safety of the car - referenced from a single source?!

Howdy! Could we please have a more diverse set of sources for the safety question? The table seems to present fair values, though it would be interesting to see how multiple sources compare. I'm especially interested from the viewpoint of bicycle safety, as I have seen much better rankings for it before. Although it's also true that not all countries and cities produce the same statistics. bkil (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

A very anglo saxon's point of view!

"What is not in doubt is that Richard Trevithick built and demonstrated his Puffing Devil road locomotive in 1801, believed by many to be the first demonstration of a steam-powered road vehicle although it was unable to maintain sufficient steam pressure for long periods, and would have been of little practical use." How comes it is not in doubt? Because he is British? This is a very partial view. Please take a view at the German or the French versions on Wikipedia.

Also it is very surprising there is no reference to Amede Bollee (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Am%C3%A9d%C3%A9e_Boll%C3%A9e) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.243.113 (talk) 14:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Grammar and Spelling

Spelling error: Fuel and Propulsion Technologies→Gasoline→"realised" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.91.105.168 (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Miles per gallon

• "Our scientific testing has led us to believe that the PICC will increase the mileage of all personal vehicles to over 100 miles per gallon (city or highway)."

--Gjeremy (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

History

I'm unregistered so I can't make an addition to the history page. It is not mentioned that the first automobile built in America was built as a prototype by the Baushke carriage company of Benton Harbor, Michigan. It became known as the Baushke automobile. See http://www.swmidirectory.org/Baushke_Car.html as well as http://books.google.com/books?id=o5XRzBhhABoC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=Baushke+automobile&source=web&ots=lmvFoXploK&sig=fRAbVW8ao4mWKDLgLQM4Tk8XVhs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=10&ct=result —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.11.232.221 (talk) 12:43, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

indica

indica is india's first indeginiously produced car launched in 1998 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.95.217.88 (talk) 18:02, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Fuel propulsion technologies

Electric The first automobile with a top speed of 100km/h was an electric car built in 1899 and called the "jamais contente" (never happy). Built and driven by Jenatzy, for the purpose of advertising for his company, which built carts in Belgium and France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zolegd (talk • contribs) 11:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Fact tag needed?

As of 2002, there were 590 million passenger cars worldwide (roughly one car per eleven people).[citation needed][2]

A citation needed tag and a citation: Which one to drop? --Ernest lk lam (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Depends whether you consider the cited source as reliable or not. EdJogg (talk) 14:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

References

3d models car —Preceding unsigned comment added by LpGod (talk • contribs) 23:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Redirect of Cars

An editor recently changed the redirect on Cars from Automobile to Cars (film). I changed it back to automobile. Another option would be to redirect "cars" to Car (disambiguation), but I disagree with that, I think it should be kept at automobile. I also bring this up because I noticed Robots redirects to Robot (disambiguation) instead of simply Robot, presumably also because of the fairly well known film. I disagree with that too and plan on changing it. Any opinions on this? LonelyMarble (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

For an example of a precedent, Cats redirects to Cat, and not to the famous musical or to the disambiguation page. LonelyMarble (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Other pollution

Can we add Heat pollution & Water pollution & Soil pollution & Noise pollution & Light pollution which are all caused by automobiles too? Stars4change (talk) 04:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Cars cause crime

About 5 years ago I read an article about a college professor who studies the growth of America & he said that cars can be connected to every crime. Does anyone know more about this? Stars4change (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Vehicles kill 1 million animals a day! http://www.santacruzhub.org/pp/roadkill/stats.htm I'm panicked because in one month I saw 2 dead baby fawns dead on the road. Can we say that soon there won't be any animals? Stars4change (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

May I add links to Debt bondage, Divorce, Child abuse (caused by car rides), & Suicide? Stars4change (talk) 03:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Children are left alone every day because parents either can't afford or find childcare so they can work, so can someone add this link? & maybe start an article on it: http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/home_alone_031019_nyt.html? And do an article on children who die in cars every year from hyperthermia? Stars4change (talk) 05:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Brand of car

According to users at Talk:Sergei Rachmaninoff#Citation not needed the brand must be proved. Fanoftheworld (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Please remember the policy: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point...

...for that is exactly what your recent edit was trying to do.

I can (sort-of) see where you are coming from, although this very scary path will lead to an encyclopaedia with no pictures, since the only ones usable will be from reliable sources, which will have copyright issues too -- no user-provided images would be permissable.

Bye-bye WP.

As you obviously feel strongly about this, go and find the appropriate Village Pump forum or helpdesk and ask for advice there.

EdJogg (talk) 12:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

What EdJogg has written above is not relevant. Once again: "According to users at Talk:Sergei Rachmaninoff#Citation not needed the brand must be proved.". If it can not be proved, the brand names must be removed according to Talk:Sergei Rachmaninoff#Citation not needed. Fanoftheworld (talk) 15:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Who cleans up car crashes?

Would it be good to add who cleans up after bloody car crashes? & the effects on their psyche? Stars4change (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Benz velo

Karl Benz's "Velo" model (1894). Wouldn't it be better if there were a picture of a contemporary automobile instead of an old one? I don't seem to get that trend of putting photos of ancient things to represent something fairly common and everyday. Perhaps moving the picture in the history section, while moving that of Mini Cooper in its place, or even uploading a new one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.216.168.144 (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Add youngest car thieves

These are almost funny articles about the youngest car thieves; can you add them? Doesn't anyone know to hide their car keys yet? :) http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=41f_1231364891
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/29/7-year-old-car-thief-its_n_99178.html
http://www.kwtx.com/home/headlines/29252724.html
http://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local-beat/Daddys-Little-Car-Thief.html
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14305211/detail.html
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/hotstories/6506551.html
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6b0_1197486252
There are so many! Stars4change (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

You certainly can't add them, this sort of stuff is what we call unencyclopedic. Sorry! - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok true. How about adding link for Motor vehicle theft? Stars4change (talk) 23:09, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Add 2 war links

May I add 2 links (War in Afghanistan and Iraq War (need oil for autos)? Stars4change (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Also add link Traffic collision? Stars4change (talk) 22:49, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

We also need an article about in-depth studies of millions who have a fear of automobiles. And Carfree city & building only UP. http://www.fearofstuff.com/travel/fear-of-driving/ Stars4change (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Revelation 21:4 "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." Someday we'll eliminate cars worldwide, & build tower cities. Start now please. Stars4change (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the reason so many people fear cars is probably the cost!! i really don't know many people who don't like cars but i beat they don't again because the cost and gas...ect —Preceding unsigned comment added by Koolperson1112 (talk • contribs) 23:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)