Jump to content

Talk:Smart (marque)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Smart (automobile))

How about some criticism?

[edit]

There has got to be someone out there who thinks something else about this car... How about some ROI figures to justify this "smart" buy?75.200.169.225 (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I Do. Somebody please write a criticism section. In-Correct (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, buying half a car for a full price, how smart is that ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.83.215.81 (talk) 07:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Microcar? Really?

[edit]

An 1800 lb. microcar? Really? Original VW's and even Geo Metro's were 1500 lbs. and I never heard them called microcars. The smart is short, but it is also tall. But all these new small cars are big when compared with small cars from the 70's and earlier. Plus the gas mileage isn't what you would expect in a microcar. The new Mini's and Fiat's have little in common with the originals other than general shape and appearance. All these would be subcompact, or even compact when comparing weight and hp with cars from the 70's.Flight Risk (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate Page

[edit]

This article is duplicated at Smart Fortwo ... these pages should be merged...

Total Mess

[edit]

Much of the information in this article is outdated or completely wrong.

---FoxMajik 19:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution in US

[edit]

I took out a lot of the stuff about Zap moters because it sounded like a corporate shill. For other people's reference, Zap says on their web site that they have "forged an exclusive technology licensing agreement with Smart-Automobile LLC allowing the certification of the Smart Car". Smart-Automobile LLC is _not_ affiliated with Daimler-Chrysler. Zap is not the only importer and may not even have been the first. I also took out the part about "[the smart-car is not sold in the US] owing to a fear of possible market positioning confusion, Mercedes-Benz wishing to maintain an aura of high priced luxury that enables it to keep profit margins high. That aura is also used to cancel its B-Class program for the American market in light of escalating fuel prices." because it strikes me as unlikely and as conjecture. If someone has a citation they can put it back in. Jerdwyer 04:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We should at least mention them, since they are one of only a few distributors. --WhiteDragon 15:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference I cannot currently find, but the "market confusion" issue is precisely why Mercedes-Benz (or Daimler AG, that produces the smart line) has no connection to the smar range in the US - rather they are sold via smartUSA, part of the Penske Automotive Group. The "Rest Of The Known World Other Than The US" Mercedes supports the smart range.

Fernblatt (talk) 02:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization

[edit]

I don't like the way this page is titled. I originally called it "Smart (automobile)".

The company calls itself "smart" (lowercase), but I tend to favour capitalization of all trademarks despite brand managers often wanting everyone to mimic the typography logos.

The thing "Smart" is a car, not a company. At least, this is the most sensible way of adding (type) information. If we use (company), then just about every manufactured product - guns, planes, etc. - get lumped in to being a (company) - not useful. The page does not define an individual vehicle of course, but the word "automobile" is quite acceptable to describe an automobile type as well as an actual vehicle. It's fine to describe the company history in an (automobile) page of course.

MCC changed its name to Smart GmbH in September 2002. --Pc13 08:12, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps (car) would be better still, although I've started to use (automobile) elsewhere - for Bristol etc. -- Hotlorp

(car) is better than (automobile). (automobile) is North American usage whereas (car) is used globally. Apart from a global word being better anyway, as a European product, I think the style guide suggests (car) over (automobile). On the subject of capitalisation, if "Smart" is going to be used generally, there should be a reference to the car being marketed as "smart". GavinTillman 14:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support your recommendations. Please make the necessary changes; or, ask me to help :-) --Ed Poor

I'm ok with redirects, but how do you remove a page entirely? Is this something only sysops can do? I've noticed several weird titles (with titles that look like typos) still around, but as redirects. Do you like car or automobile? -- Hotlorp

I don't think you or I can remove pages entirely. Just delete all their text, and write "please delete" in the summary box before you click the "Save page" button.
Please list any titles with typos, at my talk page, and I will fix them.
I don't care much whether it's Beetle (car) or Beetle (automobile), as long as we're consistent. --Ed Poor

Returning to the issue of lowercase or other special capitalization when companies seem to request it for their trademarks -- smart, quattro, BAE SYSTEMS -- we need to be careful. The typographic convention that trademarks should have an initial capital is very old, and very useful. Since we can all publish, we are all typographers now, many of us inexperienced. For matters like capitalization some people (including magazine editors) are too easily swayed by "authority" to use the capitalization that an organization uses in its publications, or in its logo. It's important to realize that use of a trademark outside of an organization is a different thing to usage by its members. The word exists outside of the logo, and will outlive its managers in Wiki and related places; the fact that it's a trademark -- and thus not to be found in most dictinonaries -- is a useful fact that is succinctly recorded in its capitalization.

If organizations start to exert control over this aspect of referring to them, there's no telling where it might end... Insistence on use of a special symbol (Prince)? Insistence that all mentions of "smart" are hyperlinked?

Perhaps it's wrong to characterize the problem as typographic - more useful might be a distinction between spelling (which excludes capitalization) and orthography (which includes it).

Stand up for a great typographic tradition!

-- Hotlorp

I agree that one cannot use lower case in a proper noun in English. If I wrote my name "david", would anyone else write it that way. At most not often. Certainly companies should not have more rights than private individuals. In addition, there is the practice of using Capitals for the first letters of the titles of Wikipedia articles and heading. The logo is shown, so anyone can see that they write in in lower case. A logo need not use proper English but an encyclopedia must. David R. Ingham 00:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, notice that there is a Smart car (smart car) page, about cars with artificial inteligence. David R. Ingham 03:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the capitalization here and everywhere I found the names. Some links to model names must not have worked until I changed the other pages to agree with changes here. david 00:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is sort of funny using lower case to name a mini- or micro-car, like submissives on Internet chat. David R. Ingham 01:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason one cannot write an encyclopedia with lower case proper nouns is like the reason one cannot write a complicated computer program in simple Basic with all its line numbers and GOTOs. It is not readable locally. In the case of Basic, the problem is that one can't ever fix or change anything without looking at the rest of the program to see if control is transferred there from somewhere else in a way that causes a new bug with the change. Programs in that computer language, therefore, become "worn out" faster than programs (well) written in languages like C++ and Ada. So if we keep doing things like using lower case proper nouns, the encyclopedia may eventually get worn out, in the sense that no-one can read it or change it because the articles are too long to read all of, and the individual paragraphs don't make sense by themselves because they appear to do things like using adjectives as proper nouns.

People such as James Joyce and E. E. Cummings can write that way, though it limits the potential readership, because a novel, unlike an encyclopedia, is intended to be read from cover to cover. David R. Ingham 16:46, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, Mervyn, you found one I missed. Maybe it is good after-all that I am not working on software anymore. David R. Ingham 07:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, it was in quotes. David R. Ingham 07:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added the lowercase tag. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(technical_restrictions)#Lower_case_first_letter April 5th, 2006. Seems to be the proper procedure in such cases as these.

No I don't think the title of this article should be in lower case. "Smart" is here a proper noun. The manufacturer is free to use lower case but that can't be carried into an encyclopedia. David R. Ingham 21:53, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the result of this discussion is to name the page "Smart", not "smart". Which is done... for the talk page, but not for the article. Since when do these two get different names? Why is the page not renamed according to consensus? --87.189.71.126 (talk)
I'd like to refer my fellow Wikiepdians to this article, by professional copy editor Bill Walsh: [1]. If we have the smart car, we also have to have TOYOTA and CHEVROLET and pretty much every car except Jeep, not to mention macy*s, GUESS? and YAHOO!. I think it's untoward to bend to the will of logo designers. Our job here is to provide information as accessibly as possible, not to make cute word pictures. 161.11.130.249 (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I've finally gone through and corrected the whole article to use standard English title case rather than the company's current typography. That should hopefully be the end of it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hambach

[edit]

Hambach is in France (Lorraine), not Germany as someone just changed it to. It probably was in Germany some years ago...

Sorry! I looked up Hambach on Google and all the results came up in German, so I jumped to the wrong conclusion. -- Heron

Sources:

Alsace and Lorraine are natively German speaking but now part of France. They were annexed by Germany after the Franco-Prussian War and taken back by France after WW I. So the earliest Bugattis were German. Most early Bugattis were 1500 cc and probably lighter than the Smart. David R. Ingham 01:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the creator of Bugatti cars was Italian. It just happened his factory was first in German territory and now what is French territory. The cars are really no more French than they are German..

Well as the Brand Bugatti was bought by Volkswagen they are indeed German ;) (now) As well as Rolls Royce and Bentley who were bought by BMW and Volkswagen.

History should include EPA approval date.

I was hoping wikipedia would tell more about engine/drive layouts, suspension, transmission etc. Smart certainly doesn't seem to want to hand out much info.

Why has this page been moved? Smart (car) is the sensible page name. Please also justify using the lowercase 's', as we're not in the context of marketing the car. Hotlorp 00:27, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I support a move back or we should move Mercedes-Benz to DaimlerChrysler Mercedes-Benz ? Ericd 20:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

      • Absolutely. You couldn't remember "General Motors Hummer H2 American Red Cross Emergency Response Vehicle"? I mean, come on. I'd love a "Ford Motor Company Land Rover Range Rover Sport TDV6". By the way, if you don't find the sarcasm, look harder or realize that I think it's a dumb idea to add "DaimlerChrysler" in front of the name of every asset of one automotive manufacturer. No one sells a Lexus SC400 as a Toyota Motor Corporation Lexus SC400. If anything, it's a "Lexus Supra". Zchris87v 00:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brand names

[edit]

Doesn't "Forfour" infringe on Morgan's 4/4? David R. Ingham 02:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superflous information

[edit]

A lot of the information about Smart outside of Europe seems focused on the forTwo... this information is in the forTwo article, so shouldn't it be trimmed down a bit?

[edit]

I've tagged the section on distribution in the United States as copyright violation, since most of it is directly copied and pasted from an article available on the Daimler-Chrysler website. --benwildeboer D(talk - contribs) 18:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture section also in Smart Fortwo article

[edit]

When I started the Smart vehicles in popular culture section, I was unaware that another existed here [2]. Since then both sections have grown, but while I wouldn't want to see them both disappear, it does seem superfluous for them to both list the same thing. Should one of the sections be deleted, should they be left alone, should there be a seperate article (a bit much at this point given how brief the list is), should one section direct to the other, or what?

[edit]

I tried to integrate some of the external links into footnotes where relevant, and I took out some really silly ones. Should more be done? I'm wondering about the smart car modification site and the MOMA expo, to be specific. Rkaufman13 15:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

URL format for linking to this page

[edit]

This does not form a proper URL and is impossible to link to with the _(automobile) in the URL. The page needs to be moved to a page with a standard name! 142.165.246.30 (talk) 15:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_(automobile)

Drive

[edit]

As the engine is rear-mounted, I question whether this vehicle is rear wheel, front-wheel or all-wheel drive. I can't see it mentioned anywhere.

trezjr (talk) 04:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page for the ForTwo says it's RR, rear engine/wheel drive. John Nevard (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To add to article

[edit]
  • What is the layout of the engine and transmission of this car??
  • What is the weight of the different varieties of this car?
  • Can it legally be driven on the highway in Europe or North America (because it is so tiny)?
  • What is the top speed of the non-electric Smart car being sold in the U.S.?

Badagnani (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The smart can reach motorway speeds without any difficulty, and its legal status is no different from that of any other car on the road. I see them on the 401 and other major roads regularly, and that's the older version, which didn't have as good acceleration. I don't know the precise top speed, but certainly it's higher than any speed limit you're likely to encounter. David Arthur (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd asked about the weight because it looks so small that two big guys could carry one off. Badagnani (talk) 05:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found a brochure that gives its weight as 820 kg for the convertible, and 840 kg for the regular model. David Arthur (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US section outdated

[edit]

I'm seeing SMART cars buzzing around almost every day here in San Diego; they are becoming commonplace. Yet the US section still refers to their future availability in the States etc. Well ... the future is now. Someone who cares more than I do should really update this with the latest info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leeconte (talk • contribs) 16:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


AND the info commenting on older smarts unable to be registered in the US is also false or outdated, as many states recognize these models and allow them to be registered and titled. In August of 2009 I purchased a 2006 Canadian market CDI. It is legally registered in Tennessee with no modifications needed and it is recognized by my auto insurance company as well as the company that financed it.

USDOT allows for purchase of cars sold in Canada, but not offered in the US - the seller must be a private citizen, and the transaction must take place in the US. Those same rules would have forbidden me to have purchased the car from a Canadian auto dealer, though. This info is per verbal advice of my local county court clerk's office (Rutherford county TN) where I registered the car. There are allowances in USDOT and EPA rules for such sales. I could have cited the sections last summer when I purchased the car, but unfortunately cannot remember the specific sections. As for EPA rules, it meets or exceeds current EPA diesel engine criteria, again, verbally per my local motor registration office and emission control contractor.

Fernblatt (talk) 02:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smart EV

[edit]

The smart ev section says 1998...should that be 2008? Andy Johnston (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smart ebike and Smart escooter

[edit]

At the 2010 Paris Motor Show Daimler's Smart division showed the new Smart ebike and Smart escooter. Future updates of the main Smart page should include these two products. For reference, here is the Daimler web page link discussing the Smart ebike and escooter and a reference to the Paris Motor Show: http://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1335025-1-1337571-1-0-0-0-0-0-16694-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html

Now that the Smart brand appears to include a bike and a scooter, I would like to suggest that the title of the main article should be changed from Smart (automobile) to Smart (vehicle). (That is until they introduce the Smart toaster and Smart massage chair.)

Since the Smart division seems to be fully integrated into the Daimler brand, I am thinking that the main Smart article might be better placed as part of the Daimler article. It might be better to just redirect searches for Smart vehicles to Daimler. Figlinus (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page is a mess

[edit]

Just going down the page you see the name Hayek without a first name (Nicholas only appears quite a way down and w/o link (he just died not long ago)) in its first occurrence. The page needs a real going over. 143.232.210.150 (talk) 22:54, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Investing

[edit]

This car is going to take over the world (at least in US cities where people can't drive easily like SF.

If someone can tell me the best way to invest in this company, I'll spend some time updating the entry.

Send me email at bezenek@gmail.com.

Bezenek (talk) 04:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 November 2016

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to Smart (marque). Bradv 00:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Smart (automobile) → Smart Automobile – WP:NATURAL SSTflyer 09:53, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • OpposeOppose as proposed.[Note my support below for an alternative renaming]. The proposed move does not meet WP:NATURAL, which "Using an alternative name that the subject is also commonly called in English reliable sources, albeit not as commonly as the preferred-but-ambiguous title. Do not, however, use obscure or made-up names". This is not a commonly-used name -- this ngram shows that "smart car" is far more widely used than "smart automobile". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Smart Automobile" is not a made-up name, it's the name of the company. Why would ngram results between 1800 and 2000 be relevant for a company that was founded in 1994 and released its first product in 1998? SSTflyer 10:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I assumed that an experienced editor could focus on the relevant period of the chart, but if that's confusing then here's a 1994-onwards ngram. Still a massive preponderance for "smart car".
        AFAICS, the company's name since 2000 has been Smart GmbH. I haven't found any evidence that it was ever officially called Smart Automobile. What evidence have I missed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a move to natural disambiguation. Even BrownHairedGirl's objection above shows that "Smart Automobile" is in use, and therefore fits the needs of WP:NATURALDIS. More sources are easily found.[3][4] However, it's true that "Smart car" is much more widely used than "Smart Automobile", let alone the unused construction "Smart (automobile)";[5] as such I'd suggest moving to Smart car instead.--Cúchullain t/c 19:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And delete the dab page currently at Smart car per Amakuru. The other items are not really called "Smart car" and can just be linked in a hat note.--Cúchullain t/c 21:58, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, a cursory search on Google Books shows most references referring to this subject, with only a minority referring to other uses (not all of which are covered on Wikipedia, and so don't concern us here.) The article autonomous car doesn't mention the phrase "smart car" or use "smart" in relation to such a car. Vehicular automation, which is largely an overlapping subject, does briefly mention "smart car". On Google Books, however, quite a few references appear to use "smart car" when talking about autonomous cars, so there's that.--Cúchullain t/c 18:54, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Yes, the closest analogy would be the MINI division of BMW which is now referenced as Mini (marque), so I would support Smart (marque) for this brand. — JFG talk 17:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Primary topic

[edit]

Which do we consider the primary topic of this article? It seems less and less clear with every edit. If it's just the Smart marque, it's still wholly owned by Mercedes-Benz AG (at least outside China), not by Geely. If it's the Mercedes-Geely joint venture (something that would make sense from a practical standpoint, as it seems all the Smart-related business will be carried through it) as various editors insist we do, we just have to focus in the JV company within the infobox and remove mentions to local operations. Also, we probably should move the article to other title as "Smart Automobiles" or "Smart (car manufacturer)", being that the marque itself would not be the main focus anymore. Thoughts? --Urbanoc (talk) 13:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to propose to create a "Smart Automobile Co. Ltd." as a short section in this article until I realized Smart Europe GmbH is actually the subsidiary of the joint venture. Based on their website, Daimler's annual report and the history section of this article, this is how I envision how the beginning of the article would look like. Mind you this is still a rough draft:

(Title could either kept or be moved to "Smart Automobile")

smart Automobile Co., Ltd.
Company typeJoint venture
IndustryAutomotive
Founded1994; 30 years ago (1994) (brand)
2019; 5 years ago (2019) (joint venture)
Headquarters
Hangzhou Bay, Ningbo
Key people
xxx
ProductsElectric vehicle
OwnersMercedes-Benz AG (50%) Zhejiang Geely Holding Group (50%)
Websitemedia.smart.com
smart Europe GmbH
Company typeSubsidiary
IndustryAutomotive
Headquarters
Leinfelden-Echterdingen, Stuttgart, Germany
Area served
Europe
Key people
Dirk Adelmann (CEO)
OwnersSmart Automobile Co., Ltd.

Smart (stylized as smart) is a German automotive brand owned by Smart Automobile Co., Ltd., a joint venture of Mercedes-Benz AG and Zhejiang Geely Holding Group headquartered in Hangzhou Bay, Ningbo, China. It produces small battery electric vehicles in their manufacturing plant in China, while previously the brand was known to produce microcars and subcompacts, primarily the Fortwo and Forfour, at the Smartville in Hambach, France and in the Revoz plant, Novo Mesto, Slovenia. Its distribution, marketing and after-sales activities in Europe are currently handled by smart Europe GmbH.

The brand was founded in 1994 by Micro Compact Car AG (MCC), a joint venture between SMH and Daimler-Benz. MCC became a wholly owned subsidiary of Daimler-Benz in 1998, and was subsequently renamed to MCC smart GmbH, then smart GmbH. smart GmbH was then absorbed by DaimlerChrysler (later Daimler AG) in 2006, making smart a brand within the Mercedes-Benz Cars division. In March 2019, Geely and Daimler AG announced the creation of an equally-owned global joint venture called the Smart Automobile Co., Ltd., aimed at producing Smart-badged cars in China to be marketed globally.

The name Smart derives from its founders, Swiss company Swatch with Mercedes-Benz: "Swatch Mercedes ART". ...

Any comments on this? Andra Febrian (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andra Febrian: Looks mostly OK to me. Just two caveats:
As things look, the Smart marque itself isn't owned by the joint venture but by Mercedes AG alone (in fact, there still is a separate sub-website managed by Mercedes-Benz AG, athough it will probably be closed down), at least outside China. The venture seems the only entity that will produce and sell Smart cars from now on, but that's it. If Mercedes-Benz AG clarifies it will also transfer the marque ownership to the venture, we can change it, but I don't want to assume that's the way things will go. So I'd prefer something like this, more neutral, for the first few lines:

"Smart (stylized as smart) is a German automotive brand. Smart Automobile Co., Ltd. is a joint venture established by Mercedes-Benz AG and Zhejiang Geely Holding Group in 2019 and aimed at producing Smart-badged cars in China to be marketed globally. It is headquartered in Hangzhou Bay, Ningbo, China"

Following that, I'd remove the last sentence of the second paragraph. From "It produces small..." on, I'd keep your text, except the already mentioned exception.
I'd also remove the second infobox. I do not see the point on including the European subsidiary, we can just list it in the subsidiaries parameter in the first infobox and describe it in the lead section/article if it's important to do so. If it turns to be an entity as key as its parent or more so, we can create an article/section just for it. --Urbanoc (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andra Febrian: I was WP:BOLD and revamped the article. As they were bold edits instead of consensus ones, you can revert me if you want. --Urbanoc (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fine to me, I might do some minor copyedit. Andra Febrian (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Smart_(marque)&oldid=1258631244"