Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 58

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

Archive 59

If anyone has access to the book titled Bandini Vehicles, Including - Bandini 1100 (... by Publisher: Hephaestus Books (1993) could they assist me with referencing and information at Bandini Automobili. I am trying to save the article from deletion and the references I have found so far are a bit weak. NealeWellington (talk) 06:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I can't help you with this request directly, but I just wanted to mention a couple more print sources you may want to seek out. The book "ILARIO BANDINI" by Franco Fabbri and Cesare Sangiorgi should have some coverage of the Bandini cars. The Revs Institute has a copy in their library according to WorldCat, maybe someone there can assist you. Also the magazine "Auto d'Epoca" (Vintage Car) had a feature on Ilario Bandini in their December 1988 issue. There are a couple on eBay right now. Good luck to you, I love rescuing/improving car articles with old print sources! Prova MO (talk) 21:43, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The company article is not at risk of deletion. It needs a rewrite desperately, but it looks like it's getting one. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:13, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks User:Prova_MO for the references, and yes, QuicoleJR, it would be if it had stayed the way it was without any useful referencing. But thanks to both of you it's well on its way back to safety. You have both been very helpful. NealeWellington (talk) 09:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

• 
  GB/T
• 
  CCS1
• 
  CCS2
• 
  CHAdeMO
• 
  NACS

We have some illustrations for the various DCFC connectors. Do we have one for the North American Charging Standard available? The article currently doesn't have one. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see one from a quick search. Somebody can probably use tesla's design patent drawings (USD694188S) to quickly make one, however. IPBilly (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to RickyCourtney (talk · contribs) for creating the new NACS diagram -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated Elwood Haynes for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Art truck (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems like it should be an overview article, much like art bike and art car, instead of being a redirect to Japanese art trucks. Airbrushed trucks in North America, or trucks with paint schemes, lights and bells in Southeast Asia, and other such, would seem to lack coverage. -- (X-Post from WT:TRUCKS as suggested there) -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it would be better to redirect it to the "truck art in south asia" article or to create an overview article for art trucks like there is for art cars, rather than for it to redirect to Dekotora, which is a very specific subculture of art trucks in Japan. TKOIII (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I want to invite you guys to participate in the discussion I opened on the Talk:BYD Atto 3 regarding this article name. This electric car is manufactured in China and sold in the Chinese and Latin American markets as the BYD Yuan Plus but renamed BYD Atto 3 in Europe and Oceania. Also, it should be considered that this vehicle belongs to the nameplate BYD Yuan, with the BYD Yuan Pro as its predecessor. Please fell free to support or oppose the proposed name change. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Identifying the vehicles in this photo would do a lot to set an earliest possible date. I am certain that 1896 is far too early, maybe even off by a decade or more, but I'd like to have something firmer than that to write to the GLAM we sourced it from. - Jmabel | Talk 04:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Lacking any response here, I'll take this to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. - Jmabel | Talk 02:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

It looks circa 1905 to me and certainly later than 1896. The middle car looks like an electric runabout. But I'm not an expert in that era. I can't even identify which particular cars they are, although I can say that they are contemporary with the start of the Model T but are not actually a Model T.  Stepho  talk  04:40, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The car in the centre of the three parked nose to tail is a Baker Inside Driven Coupe which dates the photo to 1907 at the earliest. I would guess 1896 is the date that the Library was moved to that site, not the date of the photograph. Mighty Antar (talk) 14:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

On that last, exactly. They had several photos of early library locations similarly misdated.

Thank you both for the responses. - Jmabel | Talk 16:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:6 Hours of Nürburgring#Requested move 10 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 13:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

During the summer two of our volunteer photographers have been out and about, and now a couple of categories over on Commons can use some love adding descriptions, categories and SDC and the images find their way in to articles. First AleWi visited Västerdalsträffen and then Arkland visited Meguiar’s Drag Festival for some high octane action. I hope you find the images useful. /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Thought of creating a new template, Template:0to100kmh. Type {{0to100kmh}} and you get this: 0–100 km/h (62 mph). If this seems at all usable to others I will make two more, for 60mph and for 100mph (as those three seem to be the most common accelaration figures).  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if you followed the excellent website Aronline and have used it's great resource for British Leyland and Rootes companies and products, but unfortunately Keith Adams who runs the site has decided to close the site down next month, after 20 years.

The good news it is backed up to archive.org via wayback so we won't lose the references.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate and respect the COI issue. I was hoping you could, or you know someone who could create and edit a post about the RVIA and their Top Tech Challenge. At best I would hope to provide some first-hand knowledge to the creator, editor, or publisher. I so much enjoy being a part of the RV industry and community that I am hoping to generate more appreciation for it. It seams like a great idea to get it posted on Wikipedia. There are many articles about the competition and the participants. What the tasks were that made up the competition. I thought it would be a worthwhile addition to the culture of the knowledge base of this community. By no means did I intend to write, edit, or publish this myself. I do not see myself as a writer. I am looking for some guidance on how to get such a historical record into the Wikipedia database. Are you able to point me in the right direction, or assist in some way? Thank you for your help, I am sure together we can make the difference. Brandon as Top Tech (talk) 00:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Can anybody identify this pickup truck seen in London for me please? Just to aid categorisation. Alansplodge (talk) 18:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Toyota Hilux Monettt (talk) 01:58, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

That's it, many thanks! Alansplodge (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

Hello, I have to say that I'm worried to see flourish these kind of sections (example below), I don't see the encyclopedic value of knowing on which day a vehicle was launched in every country in the world, or the name the importer decided to give to trim-levels, on any of these things. The Toyota Yaris Cross isn't a single case. Only specificities should be listed in my opinion. Has this topic been discussed before ?

"Americas Costa Rica The AC200 series Yaris Cross was launched in Costa Rica on 17 August 2023.[57] Available in New Line, High Line and Hybrid grades, the former two grades are powered with the 1.5-litre 2NR-VE engine, while the latter is powered by the 1.5-litre 2NR-VEX hybrid powertrain.[58][59]

Peru The AC200 series Yaris Cross made its South American debut in Peru on 21 September 2023, with 4 variants: Full M/T, Full CVT, HEV Full e-CVT, and Full D-Lux CVT.[60]

Bolivia The AC200 series Yaris Cross was launched in Bolivia on 22 September 2023, with 4 variants: Mid M/T, Mid CVT, High CVT, and HEV e-CVT.[61]

Jamaica The AC200 series Yaris Cross was launched in Jamaica on 5 October 2023, with two powertrains: 1.5-litre 2NR-VE engine, and the 1.5-litre 2NR-VEX hybrid powertrain.[citation needed]

Trinidad and Tobago The AC200 series Yaris Cross was launched in Trinidad and Tobago on 7 October 2023.[62] It is available in a single trim, powered solely by the 1.5-litre 2NR-VEX hybrid powertrain. Toyota Safety Sense is standard.[63]

Chile The AC200 series Yaris Cross was launched in Chile on 11 October 2023, with 3 variants: XI M/T, XI CVT, and XG CVT.[64]

Panama The AC200 series Yaris Cross was launched in Panama on 13 October 2023. It is offered in two grades: Base and Full, both are only powered by the 1.5-litre 2NR-VE petrol engine mated to a CVT.[65]

Guatemala The AC200 series Yaris Cross was launched in Guatemala on 18 October 2023. Three grade levels are available, the highest grade is powered by the 1.5-litre 2NR-VEX hybrid powertrain. Toyota Safety Sense is standard.[66]"

Monettt (talk) 21:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I thought about it as well. Anytime my watchlist is filled with "added X country" "added Y country" I can only eyeroll. Andra Febrian (talk) 00:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I think something needs to be done at some point, because letting some people adding a country in encouraging other contributors adding their country, thinking that's a normal thing to do. I think 95% of what I posted can be deleted and replaced by something like "The Toyota Yaris Cross has been launched during second half of 2023 in various Latin America countries such as Costa Rica, Peru, Bolivia, Jamaica, Trinidad, Chile, Panama and Guatemala.". And honestly, it's already too much in my opinion. Monettt (talk) 17:40, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

I think I can see where they are coming from. Years ago, most articles had just US, UK and maybe Australian editors (with Canada often being treated as US plus one). Each would make a detailed section for their country that listed introduction dates and specifics for their country. All fine when there are only a few countries. But now Wikipedia has become more popular internationally and naturally each country wants to be listed alongside those previous few countries. It's kind of hard to tell Chile that we're going to have a massively detailed US section but Chile can't have a single entry.  Stepho  talk  22:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's not that hard, the only thing that should matter is specificity. Many vehicles have an US-spec model, because of different regulations and different customer needs, on a market that is big enough for the manufacturers to provide adaptations. No vehicle have a Chile-spec model, because there is no such thing. When there are specificities (as the Citroën Citroneta, which is a Chile-spec Citroën 2CV), they definitively should me mentioned, but it's pretty rare. However, even when there is nothing specific in Chile, we can include Chile indirectly. For example : "The second-generation Citroën C3 was manufactured in Europe, except for models sold in Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay which were Brazilian-made, with specificities including an ethanol engine, a new dashboard, [...]". Chile is here included with the European-made models, as they were offered this model, and not the Brazilian-made one.

Don't get me wrong, I also hate when we have unnecessary details for the US, the UK, Australia, it happened a lot and still happens. And I also advocate for giving smaller countries entries, when there is something to say. For example, I recently added to the Toyota Corolla E90 article a mention and a picture of a panel van model, even though it was only sold in very selected countries such as Portugal. That's a specificity.

Knowing that the Toyota Yaris Cross uses the same motor in Trinidad than in 50 other countries in the world is not a specificity. Monettt (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

And I also advocate for giving smaller countries entries, when there is something to say. - this, a thousand times this. These additions are not useful and just add turgid masses of equipment levels to wade through.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:35, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if anyone cares, but there is a user changing infobox images for many automobile articles. I've reverted a couple because I feel that if the infobox image has been there for awhile, I don't see any reason to change it, unless it's the same image that has a better resolution. I feel that it should be discussed and a consensus be reached. But with that said, if nobody has an issue with this then I will leave it alone.Pennsy22 (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not a problem as long as the new image is at least as good as the previous one and obeys WP:CARPIX.  Stepho  talk  22:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

There is a discussion regarding the editor in question at AN/I; see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Antares600. --Sable232 (talk) 00:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I notice that the adjective "luxury" is often used without attribution to describe models whose status as luxury cars is questionable at best. I assume that this is either the result of overly-proud owners adding the term to the article about their cars (I think I once saw it come up in the article about the Rover 200 or another similar model) or editors simply being unfamiliar (perhaps because they are kids or not native English speakers) with more appropriate terms (ie. "premium", "executive", etc). Ignoring the aforementioned more-egregious cases, I still believe there are various issues with this usage, such as:

1. Some models may have luxury trim levels without it being appropriate to describe the entire range as a "luxury car". For example, the Mercedes-Benz E-Class can most certainly be a luxury car in its higher specifications, but many (possibly most) E-Classes are cheaper variants with small diesel engines that are intended to be used as taxis or other fleet vehicles.
2. A car may have a high initial purchase price, however the defining characteristic of a luxury vehicle is generally that it is expensive to own, and not just to buy new. A brand-new BMW might be a luxury product, but a fifteen-year-old BMW is usually just another used car. A Rolls-Royce remains a luxury car that is expensive to run indefinitely, even if depreciation means it loses most of its sale value.
3. "Luxury" is fairly unambiguously a MOS:PEACOCK term when used by someone who has a vested interest in selling a product. Generally speaking the term should only be used with attribution in prose unless a consensus amongst independent reliable sources that a particular item is a "luxury" product can be demonstrated. (Obviously WP:COMMONSENSE can be applied in certain cases, I do not think it is necessary to have an argument about whether a Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Maybach, Toyota Century, Mercedes-Benz S-Class, Bugatti Royale, Cadillac V-16, Daimler DS420, or a Lagonda Taraf is a luxury automobile).
4. Conversely, the term "luxury" can be used by those who wish to dissuade others from purchasing a particular product to give the impression that the item in question is snobbish or overpriced. This is a particular WP:NPOV concern when the term appears unattributed in articles about more mainstream models such as Minis or Volvos.
5. Sources often have differing definitions as to what constitutes a "luxury car". In particular, models in what might be called the "premium" or "executive" segments will often have some sources saying things like "it's one of the cheaper luxury cars on the new car market" while others will say things like "it isn't very luxurious for the price point", which fairly unambiguously makes the unattributed use of the term "luxury" a WP:NPOV violation.

Given the concerns above, I think that it would be advisable to draw up some sort of guideline about how, when, and where it is appropriate to use this term. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

I generally agree, but I think there are a couple of issues that will make this difficult.

1. For perspective, in the case of the E-Class specifically, those non-luxury trims aren't always available in all markets. This doesn't warrant calling it a luxury car (or not), but it could explain some confusion.
2. The standards for luxury change with time. Aspects like features, build quality, and interior finishings that were exclusive to luxury cars 20yrs ago are available on budget models today. Should we be evaluating whether something was a luxury car in its day or by modern standards? The V12 7-series is an interesting edge case I think and one could argue that simply having a larger, more powerful, engine doesn't make it more luxurious than an otherwise similarly equipped 8 cylinder 7-series.
3. In the US at least, entire brands (or marques) are often considered luxury and anything falling under that brand is therefore a luxury vehicle. example. Supposed reliable sources seem to apply the term willy-nilly as well. second example.

I don't think something being expensive to own is an appropriate measure for luxury as there's a lot of factors that affect operating cost unrelated to how luxurious the car is. Avoiding the use of the term "luxury" altogether might be a viable option given how subjective it is. IPBilly (talk) 14:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Tesla Cybertruck, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has an RfC for can Munro & Associates media content ever be used as a source in the Cybertruck article. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. N2e (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I noticed we have 42-volt electrical system and 48-volt electrical system; are there articles for 36-volt electrical system / 24-volt electrical system / 12-volt electrical system (ie. current industry standard electrical/ignition system) / 6-volt electrical system (ie. the old standard ignition system) ? -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't know the answer to your question. However, the 42-volt electrical system article is specifically about a cross-industry effort started in the 1990s to (potentially) have a number of manufacturers and OEMs develop a new standard, and 42-volt electrical system was the particular WP:COMMONNAME that the group decided to call themselves, for the decade and a half before the initiative stalled. On the other hand, the 48-volt electrical system article is more about the actual company-by-company and vehicle-by-vehicle practice of using 48 V in some hybrids and some electric vehicles, beginning after circa 2018. N2e (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

As I brought it up above, rather than put this through AfD which isn't necessary unless it is a last resort, I propose to merge the McLaren F1 LM article into McLaren F1 GTR.

Compared to the Lancia Delta HF Integrale (as discussed above), the McLaren F1 GTR (whom its based on) as both have strong motorsport record and compared to the Porsche 911 Carrera RS 2.7, which has a high Wikipedia notability potential because it frequent features in magazines, has books or a large subsection in books written about it, often appears on or sometimes tops ‘greatest Porsche’ lists in medias. What has the F1 LM got?

Besides rarity, all that article has is some trivial tidbits without asserting notability. So, why should it be that special to have its own article? I had hoped to merge it if nobody objects. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the LM does not merit a standalone entry, but the LM is not a competition version so I think it would be a better fit at McLaren F1. From the article: The McLaren F1 LM is a track oriented iteration of the McLaren F1 built to honour the five McLaren F1 GTRs built.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposing to merge these following

• Ferrari SF90 XX into Ferrari SF90 Stradale
• Ferrari 599XX to Ferrari 599

As with the SF90, if you read though all the sources, you will know that they are all the same. That's because they were all are regurgitated from the same press releases by Ferrari. Other than some claimed lap record, the 599XX also fails to assert notability, hence the rationale to merge both. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Support as per nom.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Also proposed for merger are these...

• Ferrari FXX-K into LaFerrari
• Ferrari FXX into Ferrari Enzo

What is written about the car sounded like it came off a press release. In all, XX Programme events do not get press coverages and do not get covered by the motoring media from looking at web searches. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpacedFarmer (talk • contribs) 10:38, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose Race cars can and sometimes should have separate articles. YBSOne (talk) 11:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Except the XX Programmes is not a racing event, events are never timed, more of a trackday. I would've had no objections to a keep if there was more written about it. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

trackday is a type of race and on a race track.YBSOne (talk) 11:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

So, what about the GT3 cars, do they all deserve their own article? SpacedFarmer (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Simple variants of existing models with little independent notability. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:27, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

We used to have two articles (three including the Delta S4) for the Lancia Delta: one for all of the generations, and a standalone called Lancia Delta Group A which covered the Group A rally iterations. Someone requested a technical move since that was not the actual name of the car, and asked it to be moved to Lancia Delta HF (rally car). Then some well meaning person moved that page to Lancia Delta HF, which changes the scope of that page.

Before, we had one article on all street-legal Deltas, including all generations and all equipment levels, and one article for the rally car. Now, we have one article for Lancia Delta and one for any version of the Delta which includes the letters HF.The original Delta HF was a front-wheel drive, turbo model introduced in 1983, not at all with rallying in mind. The later HF 4WD was also not intended for rallying; that was a decision taken after Group B was cancelled. Putting those versions into a separate article does not make sense.

Furthermore, there are Delta HF versions of the second generation Delta, which make for an even more uncomfortable fit at Lancia Delta HF.

I propose either of the following:

• A) change the standalone, rally car article's title into Lancia Delta (Group A) - easy, not incorrect
• B) Split all first generation Delta content, including the rally history but excluding the Delta S4, into a new article titled Lancia Delta (tipo 831) or Lancia Delta (first generation) - feels reasonable in light of how much content there is on the first gen Delta

Thank you,  Mr.choppers | ✎  15:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I was the one who made the change, as the car was never called Lancia Delta Group A. I made that because I strongly objected to that name. Furthermore, I changed it to Lancia Delta HF for the same reason as the articles for its other Gr. A counterpart with their own articles such as Toyota Celica GT-Four, Ford Escort RS Cosworth and Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution.

As with proposal A, didn't it also do Group N rallying? If so, what about its career?

Because I had looked to merge the McLaren F1 LM article into McLaren F1 GTR, which is a road legalised version of the latter, sans safety equipment, considering that version was largely ignored. I know this will be objected by Forza clowns.

As with proposal B, wasn't the first generation better known to everybody but I think the HF was the only memorable model of all. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

• The S4 is an almost entirely unrelated vehicle so trying to bundle it into the same article as the other Lancia Deltas doesn't make much sense to me. I think the Integrale's history as a rally car is almost certainly noteworthy enough to warrant a separate article as well. An article titled something like "Lancia Delta in rallying" that covers the Integrale's competition history alongside the S4 may be appropriate. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2024 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 18:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with keeping the Delta S4 separate; sorry if that was unclear in my proposals.

I'm not sure what SpacedFarmer is saying regarding McLarens, but I do not think they are analogous to the Delta. You raise a good point in that the Delta was definitely campaigned in Group N as well, which is why I favor creating a standalone article for the first generation Delta. As for the HF being more memorable, many Delta HF were not rally cars (and not intended as such until years after the equipment level was introduced), many were of the second generation. Most Deltas built were not the HF model, and personally, I find the quotidian versions every bit as interesting as the sporty ones.  Mr.choppers | ✎  22:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

How about Lancia Delta HF (Group A) and Lancia Delta (831)? Delta S4 is a Group B silhouette not a Delta. YBSOne (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with Lancia Delta in rallying as the Delta S4 was one of Lancia's better known rally cars. I would prefer back to Lancia Delta HF (rally car) but I would prefer Lancia Delta HF (first generation), the latter out of recognisability. SpacedFarmer (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ybsone: SpacedFarmer pointed out that the same car was also used in Group N rallying. The problem is that we used to have one article for all generations of the Delta, one for the S4, and one for the Group A (and Group N) rally versions. The recent renaming changes this division, and is now trying to make a separate article out of Deltas that use the HF badge, for which there is no logical reason. Why should the front-wheel drive Delta HF from 1983 be in a standalone article? It's just a Delta with 25 horsepower more than a Delta GT.

As I see it, Lancia Delta (831) (or some variant of that title; I like to include "tipo" but it's of marginal importance) should be its own article and it would comfortably encompass the non-Group B rally content as well. Lancia Delta S4 remains untouched, and some day maybe the Nuova Delta (tipo 836) gets its own article.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

"Lancia Delta (831)" is gibberish to anyone who didn't work for Fiat in the 1980s. "Lancia Delta (first generation)" or "Lancia Delta (1979)" are infinitely preferable. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@HumanBodyPiloter5: regarding tipo 831, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Nomenclature: Version: more often, automobile models are ambiguous temporally; they refer to different vehicles produced at different times. In order to avoid ambiguity, reference to vehicles with multiple versions should be explicit in which version is being referred to. With respect to article titles, when the information is scant, there is no need to use more than one article. If the article becomes unwieldy, splitting into multiple articles should be considered.

Model code: when disambiguating between identically named automobiles, or referring to different generations of the same lineage (such as when splitting up an existing article into separate generational pages), disambiguation should usually be made using the applicable model code. In most cases, the model code should be placed in parentheses after the make and model. For example, the fourth generation Lexus LS (2006–present) is designated "XF40", so this article is thusly titled, "Lexus LS (XF40)" and this is also the term used when referring the vehicle elsewhere in long form. Sometimes different model codes are utilized for automobiles that are very similar, and therefore grouped into the same article. For example, the fifth generation BMW 3 Series has different model codes for each body style: sedan (E90), wagon (E91), coupe (E92), and convertible (E93). The most common or prominent version should be given precedence. In the case of the fifth generation BMW 3 Series, the sedan (E90) is given priority, and the article is resultantly titled "BMW 3 Series (E90)". This is because the sedan was the first version to be released, and also because the sedan sold in higher volumes than the others.

It's just a Delta with 25 horsepower more than a Delta GT.

The convention of using manufacturer's internal R&D codes for disambiguation blatantly flies in the face of WP:RECOGNISABILITY in the vast majority of cases (examples like the Rover SD1 or Toyota AE86 are the exception rather than the rule and are usually the result of a model being sold under many different names). There is no good reason in this case to use the obscure and abstruse "Lancia Delta (tipo 831)" over the immediately clear and comprehensible "Lancia Delta (first generation)" or "Lancia Delta (1979)" beyond gatekeeping and pedantry. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@HumanBodyPiloter5 but that is how we set up those names: Alfa Romeo Giulia (952), Maserati Ghibli (M157). This is not gibberish, this is practised.YBSOne (talk) 07:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

And those articles should be immediately renamed because their titles do not meet WP:CRITERIA and are only comprehensible to people who work for those companies or people whose specialist subject on Mastermind is car company's internal R&D codes. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 21:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Please note that I did not say "these terms are gibberish", I said "these terms are gibberish to a layperson". You are fundamentally misrepresenting my argument here. To the vast majority of people "Lancia Delta (tipo 831)" is either confusing and misleading (it's not the 831st generation of Lancia Delta) or meaningless (there's nothing about the model code that makes it clear which Lancia Delta this is referring to, in contrast with something like "Opel Corsa A" or "Chevrolet Corvette C3" where the nomenclature follows a clear logic that requires no specialist knowledge to follow). HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The original Skyline 2000GT-R had 30 horsepower more than the Skyline 2000GT-X too, only the former's racing record is why it has an article just like the Delta HF. Bare in mind, the 2nd gen Delta was not as widely available as the 1st gen Delta. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

But HF was also used on a host of Lancia Deltas which were not intended for rallying. Also, most people refer to "Delta Integrale" when they mean the Group A/N rally car; Delta HF is not a well known name.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't follow Lancia much, so my apologies if I get some Lancia and/or Delta stuff wrong.
From WP:CRITERIA: "When titling articles in specific fields, or with respect to particular problems, there is often previous consensus that can be used as a precedent."
Such as how we use Toyota codes (Toyota Corolla (E210)), BMW codes (BMW 3 Series (E30)), Porsche codes (Porsche 911 (930)) and Mercedes codes (Mercedes-Benz W114). The use of model codes (eg, E210, E30, 930, W114) was agreed by consensus on this talk page about a decade ago as a decent way to distinguish generations. Enthusiasts often use these numbers to refer to a specific generation of a specific model. As correctly pointed out by HumanBodyPiloter5, non-enthusiasts (or beginners) don't know these codes. However, they do know the name of the model and will go to the Lancia Delta article. That article will have sections for each generation and each of these sections can have a {{main}} link to the appropriate article for that generation. Thus, the gibberish codes are easily discoverable. If the reader forgets the exact code then they can simply go back to the top level article, find the generation section and follow the link again. It won't take many goes for them to learn the number of their favourite models. To help the process, they can type in "Lancia Delta" into the search box and it will provide a short list of the various articles, including the generations and race versions/programs. No gatekeeping or secret handshakes involved. All above board and easily discoverable.
Alternatives are:

• First/second generation. Works great except when some countries started on the second generation (missing the first). They tend to call that generation "first". I don't know if this is a problem for the Delta.
• The year a generation was introduced. Also has problems when different countries got the car starting from different years. Also, do we use calendar years (as used by most of the world but apparently unfathomable to Americans) or model years (confusing everybody except Americans).

I don't know anything about how special the HF is. If it is like the Skyline GT-R then it is worth having a separate article. It may or may not cover both generations.
Also not sure about how special their race program is. If it has lots of facts (and supporting references) then it may be worthwhile to have a Lancia Delta (motorsport) article. Otherwise, just have a "Motorsport" section for the appropriate generation. I guess it depends on the "weight rule" (ie, make a separate article when it gets big enough).
Lastly, sometimes we can have our cake and eat it too. Name a generation article something like Lancia Delta (tipo 831). But also have a redirect like Lancia Delta (first generation) that redirects to it. Or the other way around if that's what we agree to. If we keep a single article covering multiple generations then Lancia Delta (first generation) can link to the approproriate section within that article. Lots of variations here to help readers find their favourite model. See WP:REDIRECT.  Stepho  talk  07:06, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Stepho-wrs: - The seminal Delta version is the Delta Integrale, the turbocharged, wide-fendered, rally hero. The only reason they renamed the Group A article "Delta HF" is because in 1987 and 1988 Lancia did not yet use the Integrale moniker on their rally model. The Delta HF badge had already been used (since 1983) on earlier, non-rally, non-4WD, non-distinct, and non-famous models which have nothing to do with the rally cars. There was also a Delta HF of the second gen which would further muddle this article. HF usually means more sporty, like GT or S. "Delta HF" is not the name these cars are known by, they are referred to as "Delta Integrale", and that would have been a great title except for those pesky, 1986-1987 Delta HF 4WDs.

Lancia Delta (motorsport) would be expected to include the Delta S4, which really does merit a standalone article (mid-engined, Group B monster), whereas Lancia Delta Group A was an article specifically for the post-Group B rally versions. The original organization of these articles was very good, except the Delta was also rallied in Group N.

As for "first generation", the Lancia Delta (1911) would like a word. My question is, does the Group A/N (HF/Integrale rally models) need a standalone or should it form a part of Lancia Delta (tipo 831)? I lean towards having a standalone for the rally history, since it is so extensive, but I am racking my brains for a title that won't trigger someone to move it again. Lancia Delta (Group A/N) would work, but is a bit of a mouthful.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Ford Falcon (BA) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 21:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I 100 per cent agree. It’s well written and all but everything else needs a check. 750h+ (talk) 06:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, i've recently reverted a couple of edits where someone has put the Opel Vectra as the (indirect) successor to the Wartburg 1.3 in the infobox because the factory that made the Wartburg went onto make the Vectra. I removed the Vectra from the infobox but left the sentence about how the factory went onto make the Vectra. I just wanted to make sure that I was correct in reverting this and that a factory going onto produce another car does not make that an "indirect successor" to the car previously produced there. TKOIII (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Since the Wartburg 1.3 and Opel Vectra are completely different cars with different manufacturers, the place of manufacture is irrelevant. Otherwise, we may as well say that a particular person in factory A moved over to factory B, therefore cars made in factory B are successors to cars made in factory A.  Stepho  talk  23:17, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, a good example is Steyr-Puch who assemble all sorts of makes in their factory. Greglocock (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed as per the others. That's even sillier than all the "spiritual" successors people come up with.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:19, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed - it's absurd. It'd be like calling the E80 Corolla a successor to the array of GM products built at Fremont, or Teslas the successors to the Toyota Tacoma. --Sable232 (talk) 23:06, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I would like to create an article on the recent trend of oversized trucks and SUVs, tall hoods, taller and heavier cars, and the resulting pedestrian safety crisis

This topic has been covered at length recently in reliable sources:

• https://www.fastcompany.com/90932290/cars-and-trucks-are-getting-bigger-and-its-causing-a-safety-crisis-on-our-streets
• https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/12/suvs-trucks-killing-pedestrians-cyclists/621102/
• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/02/world/australia/big-cars-big-parking-spots.html
• https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/vehicles-with-higher-more-vertical-front-ends-pose-greater-risk-to-pedestrians
• https://www.businessinsider.com/trucks-are-getting-taller-heavier-and-more-dangerous-for-pedestrians-2023-3
• https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/americas-cars-trucks-are-getting-bigger-are-front-blind-zones-children-rcna52109

I'm wondering if work on this subject already exists in the WikiProject Automobiles?

I don't have a good name for the article yet. Is anyone aware of a suitable WP:COMMONNAME for the subject?

PK-WIKI (talk) 23:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I think autobesity is the article you are looking for.  Stepho  talk  09:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

This is my complaints with the list of cars with non-standard door designs; bloated with unsourced examples, some have red links. It lists custom cars when it shouldn't be there, race versions of a pre-existing road version (or in 1990s GT1 case, vice versa); as for that, are they necessary? Some of those are common design language of a brand, therefore we are listing every single example by a brand (Lamborghini, McLaren, Koenigsegg).

In my opinion, this needs too much work to bring it upto scratch. Why need this list when a category will do better. Even though I see this as a last resort, I recommend euthanising this list for good. SpacedFarmer (talk) 15:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @SpacedFarmer, Should I remove all the redlinks to help?

I have a lot of free time on my hands, I can help!

Cheers, Arotparaarms (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Made a page for the Montecarlo Rascasse to remove a red link!

Cheers, Arotparaarms (talk) 19:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Red links are not a flaw to be deleted, they are an encouragement for someone to create the missing article. See WP:REDLINK.  Stepho  talk  21:39, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

But yes, categories seem a better way to do this. Gives the same information and much easier to maintain.  Stepho  talk  21:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Arotparaarms That'll be great. SpacedFarmer (talk) 22:14, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I think the list is usefull and the refs should be present on each corresponding article, provided there is one. Non-standard door were much more exotic back when and now the list grew. I think it is incorrect to insert only a "representative" portion of each manufacturer as not all of those cars are the same, and that will also help show some misconceptions about particular exotic brands. I would leave it as is, check the articles for correct refs and add refs to no or red links.YBSOne (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I'm going to write a couple of more articles for the day!

Hoping to help!

Cheers, Arotparaarms (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Wrote Kepler Motion

Cheers, Arotparaarms (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Chevrolet Volt (first generation) has been nominated for a good article nomination. If you are interested in the discussion, feel free to review or comment on the article. Best, 750h+ (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Holden Commodore has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'll look into it.

Cheers, Arotparaarms (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Given the rise of unconventional door handles being seen on EVs for drag reduction purposes, does this warrant an article being made? For example, the 2023 Cadillac Lyriq had a button that would unlatch the door and pop it out, and the door is opened the rest of the way by pulling on a fin or edge of the door. Several other EVs have flush handles that are only accessible when stopped and unlocked. Though I was mainly focusing on exterior handles, some Lexuses have an electronic interior door latch button, and some special edition exotics have a pull-strap to save weight. Finally, it is a recent trend for high end limousine style luxury cars to have power closing doors, sometimes operated by the brake pedal.

Is this subject worthy of its own article under Wikipedia guidelines? Needlesballoon (talk) 15:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support - You're on to something, and I approve.

Cheers, Arotparaarms (talk) 06:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I won't argue my rationale here again as I have with my argument in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#XX Programmes. Looking through the sources, I can determine that they all look like they have been written from the same press release, thus WP:SIGCOV are very lacking. Being a trackday toy doesn't help either as these events are not newsworthy. This explains why I am merging Maserati MCXtrema into Maserati MC20. Editors needs to think before they create another unnecessary article. SpacedFarmer (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I really appreciate you letting me, the creator of the page, know. Cool. X750. Spin a yarn? _{Articles I've screwed over?} 17:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

SpacedFarmer, when you merge a page you need to... actually merge content from one page to the other. A "blank-and-redirect" is not a merge and it's disingenuous to call it such. Please identify the unique content from Maserati MCXtrema and include it in Maserati MC20, and remove the links to the former article that are in the latter. Otherwise, please self-revert. It's very bad form to do a passing blank-and-redirect and then not even take the now-circular links out of the target article. --Sable232 (talk) 15:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure this has probably been discussed before, but can someone point me to the convention or guideline about discussing modified versions of a car in articles (both individually modified cars and ones modified by 3rd party tuners). I'm also interested in any guidelines around the motorsports section and the inclusion of factory backed vs non factory backed racing efforts. TKOIII (talk) 06:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we have an official guideline but we should probably add one to WP:AUTOCONV.

My own preference is that on articles about factory offerings (eg Nissan Skyline or Ford Mustang, we restrict ourselves to only the factory offerings. If we start listing custom and tuner variants then we will be listing thousands of cars with little notability in themselves.

However, exceptions could be high profile cars like the convertible Toyota 2000GT used the James Bond film You Only Live Twice and cars sold through the dealerships of the original manufacturer like the Shelby Mustang.  Stepho  talk  07:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

My thoughts are that custom cars or tuner versions of a car should only be included within a car's main article if they're of very high significance or have/had a clear effect on that car's public image or sales. I think this would more often apply to modification movements rather than individual cars, such as mentioning the fact that the Pontiac Fiero was a common base for supercar replicas, as that is a significant part of its public image. The same goes for non factory backed racing efforts. For instance, the baja bug section in the Volkswagen Beetle article, or the (currently not amazing but relevant) drifting section in the Nissan Silvia article are significant enough to the history and public image of those cars that they warrant inclusion. TKOIII (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. I am generally an inclusionist, but tuner cars are a slippery slope. But some of them cannot (and should not) be ignored.  Mr.choppers | ✎  00:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

In articles such as the this section on the Mazda CX-5, multiple fuel economy numbers are listed. However, the long unit names and conversions make them difficult to read multiple in a row such as when listing EPA numbers for city/highway/combined.

For example, something that may be written as short as "26 mpg city, 31 mpg highway, and 28 mpg combined" in US article is written as the following in Wikipedia:

26 mpg_‑US (9.0 L/100 km; 31 mpg_‑imp) city, 31 mpg_‑US (7.6 L/100 km; 37 mpg_‑imp) highway and 28 mpg_‑US (8.4 L/100 km; 34 mpg_‑imp) combined

In my opinion, the long unit abbreviations make the sentence snippet hard to follow, especially in context of more sentences with similar unit conversions. Is there some correct way to format this in a manner that is less confusing on the eyes? Perhaps tabulating the numbers could help, but they feel suboptimal for this purpose. Needlesballoon (talk) 15:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

True, it is hard to read. But as an Australian, US mpg figures are meaningless (we use either L/100 km or the older folk use British mpg). For British readers, US mpg figures look familiar but are actually misleading (Britsh gallons are different to US gallons). And US readers seem unable to read anything that is not in their native units.

Solutions?

1. Do everything in metric. I can already hear the Americans crying.
2. Do everything in US terms. I can already hear the rest of the world crying.
3. Use whatever units the reference uses. Will probably wind up with some generations using US units and other generations using metric - making comparison very difficult.
4. Use the native units of the country of origin. Note that the MX-5 is Japanese and they use mostly metric.
5. Use the long format. Virtually unreadable (as Needles pointed out).
6. Only show mpg type figures in tables where they can be spaced out a bit.
7. Show all conversions for the first figure, then show just the country of origin native units (typically metric) for the remainder, with the user viewing them relative to the fully converted units.
8. Other. Make suggestions.  Stepho  talk  22:05, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll make a suggestion. Update Template:Convert to add a "disp=tooltip" parameter, allowing the output figures to appear in a tooltip template when you hover over the input figure. For example: 26 mpg_‑US. Then just use the appropriate base unit by region of article. --Vossanova ^o< 23:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

In a similar predicament, US figures are hard to read as an Australian myself, I'm more familiar with metric myself so,

its easy to see what I'm choosing,

Option 1 - Sorry Americans Arotparaarms (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Why would you want to use an obsolete British measurement at all? Why not metric (US) or the other way around, maybe dependent on the country of manufacturer? That way you would have only two unit systems and wouldn't need the subscript "US" or "imp" at all. Insult old Brits, not the US. ("regressed back to imperial measurements for many things"? Oops, not obsolete, sorry).

I'd like to defend US miles (only, not other units). Most of the US in surveyed in miles, trying to change to metric would make many legal documents, as well as most street addresses, wrong. We didn't invent these damn measurements, we were stuck with them. Sammy D III (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Stuck with them? How do you explain countries like Australia that completely converted to metric in the 1970s? HiLo48 (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Much of the US west of the original 13 states on the east coast was broken up into a 1 mi x 1 mi grid, nicknamed the Jefferson Grid. A 5x5 section of the grid may form the borders of a township, and a collection of those square townships form a county. Many states completely consist of main roads following the 1x1 mile, only diverting slightly around rivers, lakes and city centers. While this doesn't necessarily prevent the national conversion to the metric system, it would be a cause for significant pushback as the roadway system is literally built by the mile. Anecdotally, I can mentally calculate the distance and time needed to travel around my areas due to the simplicity of each major road intersecting every 1 mile. Needlesballoon (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Australia used miles in many similar ways up to the 1970s. The major roads in my area are in a rectangular grid, a mile apart. We changed, without moving the roads. Most people younger than me are not even aware of the historical use of miles. NOBODY wants to go back to miles. HiLo48 (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

hmmmmmm, I think It should be written like:

30km(18.64 m)

So that all parties are happy,

Cheers Arotparaarms (talk) 19:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Just opinion, not position: when I saw "m" my first thought was "meter ?" (US POV). I would think that the first number would be chosen by the units of the majority of sources, so there would be a minimum of reverse converts (I take your metric first as an example, not implying which one should be used). I do think there are probably uses for Imperial units on old Brit cars. And FWIW, I think US units are stupid, too, I'm just stuck with them. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 20:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

To clarify things, Americans think in their version of mpg (with US gallons, different to British gallons) and have great trouble thinking in anything else. Brits swapped to metric and then, for reasons that totally baffle me, regressed back to imperial measurements for many things, including mpg (with Imperial gallons different to American gallons) and have great trouble thinking in anything else. Pretty much everybody else uses the metric system and have great trouble thinking in anything else. It's the " and have great trouble thinking in anything else" part that screws us. For systems not commonly used in your country, we may as well be saying 29 farqalquartzs per furtlitzbins. Hence the need for conversions.

Articles must always consistently use a main system of units. WP:CARUNITS and WP:UNITS say use metric for the main units in most articles but allow articles closely tied to the US and UK to use their systems. We do not choose the units according to the majority of sources just because the yanks (or Brits or Aussies or others) happen to be noisier in writing. We still convert to the other 2 systems. The input to {{convert}} and {{cvt}} should always be the units used in the reference but we use |order=out to change the order to match the rest of the article.

I like the tool-tip idea. We can display the first figure with all 3 conversions (with the main units of the article first). Then nearby figures can show only the main units of the article, with the other units (possibly including that from the reference) can be in the tool-tip.

Fuel economy was 12 L/100 km (24 mpg_‑imp; 20 mpg_‑US) for the city, 9.0 L/100 km for highway and 10 L/100 km combined.

That tooltip part is a bit hard to write (and has trouble with subscripts) but I can make a simpler template to do it.  Stepho  talk  00:46, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Stepho, you are a power here and I'm not, but I don't understand you. The first paragraph in WP:CARUNITS seems to contradict both you and the first bullet in it's own "General conventions for units:".

In WP:UNITS the last sentence of the first paragraph sounds like "use local" to me. It then lists US and UK usage. "In all other articles" says "or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic". In an Australian auto article I would expect the majority of RSs to use the local units. Not carved in stone, of course, but probable.

Could it be that you are thinking of current World cars, where a common platform is widely used, while I am thinking of nationally built and sold older cars?

I have gone from converts to units used, sorry if that's too off-topic. Thank you for your time. Sammy D III (talk) 03:03, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

hmmmmmm alright, I'll leave you all to it

Cheers Arotparaarms (talk) 09:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, there's some grey area in which unit is the primary. There is even a discussion about it at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Primary_Unit. For now, we can skip over that and just concentrate on the format we wish to use.

L/100 km is as unintelligible to anyone in the U.S. as mpg_‑US presumably is to anyone in Europe or Australasia. That makes options 1-4 highly undesirable.

I think Vossanova's suggestion for a tooltip is the most reasonable way to handle this. Fuel economy figures probably aren't that interesting to most readers (unless they're trying to use Wikipedia as a buyer's guide, which it is not) except in relation to how the figures changed with passing years and generations. So, if the figures appear in the home-market units but a tooltip is available for those who are interested, that would be the most helpful to the largest number of readers without making it unreadable.

I don't like the idea of putting together tables (option 6). Inclusion of fuel economy already has the potential to get out of hand - for any given vehicle, there would need to be a figure for every powertrain of every year. In some cases, this would basically take over the entire article. For example, the 1975 AMC Matador has twelve different configurations that would need to be listed; the 1981 Ford F-Series has twenty-two. (I consider it fortunate that fuel economy isn't listed in most articles.)

The lack of subscript in the tooltip probably isn't a big problem, since the difference between rendering as "mpg_‑US" and "mpg-us" or the imperial equivalents is minimal in practical terms. --Sable232 (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding tables, I think adding them to the Engines/Powertrain tables is the best alternative to adding them inline with a potential convert template tooltip. I think we can all agree that adding fuel economy for every year is overkill, but we can at least display one fuel economy figure (average, most common, first, or last) per engine/powertrain and generation. --Vossanova ^o< 01:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

A table would be the best place if there is already a table listing engine variants, etc.

If you really want it inline in the text then here is a template that I made quickly (it would need some more work before going mainstream).

Eg:

Fuel economy was {{cvt|9|L/100km|mpgimp L/100km mpgus|disp=out|0}} city cycle, {{fuel economy|14|metric|first=uk}} country cycle and {{fuel economy|11|metric|first=uk}} combined.

displays as:

Fuel economy was 31 mpg_‑imp; 9 L/100 km; 26 mpg_‑US city cycle, 20 mpg-imp country cycle and 26 mpg-imp combined.

Template documentation at {{fuel economy}} - it can accept a metric/uk/us number as input and display it with any of them first and the other two as a tooltip. Thoughts? Suggestions for improvement?  Stepho  talk  08:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

What if there was a template that grouped city/highway/combined numbers of each unit together? I think that may be easier to read without needing tooltips. A couple of possible formats assuming mpg-imp is the region's unit:

1. Fuel economy was 31 mpg-imp city, 20 mpg-imp country, and 26 mpg-imp combined (9.1/14.1/10.9 L/100km; 26/17/21 mpg-US).
2. Fuel economy was 31 city, 20 country, and 26 mpg-imp combined (9.1/14.1/10.9 L/100km; 26/17/21 mpg-US).
3. Fuel economy was 31/20/26 mpg-imp (9.1/14.1/10.9 L/100km; 26/17/21 mpg-US) in city, country and combined cycles respectively.
4. Fuel economy was 31 mpg-imp city (9.1 L/100 km; 26 mpg-US), 20 mpg-imp country (14.1 L/100 km; 17 mpg-US), and 26 mpg-imp combined (10.9 L/100 km; 21 mpg-US).

The idea is that the grouped numbers are easier to read since one doesn't need to jump to locations within several parentheses to find their preferred unit, and it cuts down on repeating the long unit names several times. Option 1 is the most verbose and feels the most correct in sentence form. Option 2 is a possibly grammatically incorrect version of 1. Option 3 is most compact and likely easiest to make a template for, but the format might be clunky to use in context. Option 4 is what using the current convert template results in, note how much longer and less legible it is. Needlesballoon (talk) 07:36, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment - I like the "tooltip" idea floated above. For me, fuel consumption is an extremely imprecise measure - not only does everyone measure it differently (those pesky Swedes measure it in litres per Swedish Mile, which is 10km), but the methodology varies wildly across time, countries, and whoever does the measuring. Not to mention the city/country/combined divide. To me, fuel consumption numbers are nearly entirely meaningless; they skate close to being subjective. I almost never add fuel consumption figures for this reason, and I will just stick to that and not have to worry about making sense of something with no useful answer.  Mr.choppers | ✎  02:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

As an alternative to my {{fuel economy}} template, the {{convert}} template has some interesting |, and |and options. Eg:

{{cvt|31|,|20|,|26|mpgimp|L/100km mpgus mpgimp|order=out}} → Fuel economy is 9.1, 14.1, 10.9 L/100 km (26, 17, 22 mpg_‑US; 31, 20, 26 mpg_‑imp) for city, country and combined cycles.

{{cvt|31|,|20|and|26|mpgimp|L/100km mpgus mpgimp|order=out}} → Fuel economy is 9.1, 14.1 and 10.9 L/100 km (26, 17 and 22 mpg_‑US; 31, 20 and 26 mpg_‑imp) for city, country and combined cycles.

Still a lot of numbers but at least the ones each reader cares about are grouped together.  Stepho  talk  06:27, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This is exactly what I was looking for! Numbers are grouped for readability, and the overall length is shorter. While it is still a bit long, I really don't think there's a reasonable way around it.

Fuel economy should not be listed very often anyways, as there can be so many different configurations and rating organizations, and they can change often. It is good practice to only list them sparingly like when they are significant or interesting. Needlesballoon (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello contributors of the WikiProject Automobiles project. The Aston Martin DB9 article is at the featured article candidacy stage with the hope of it becoming a featured article in the near future. If you have any criticisms, add them to the page. Best,  750h+ | Talk  15:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The question of whether it is reasonable to try to assign a nationality to individual car models is being discussed at Talk:China Car of the Year#Validity of "Winner by country origins" table, if you are interested. Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:27, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

There are two topics on Talk:China Car of the Year that edotors here might be interested in participating in:

• Excessive and undue tables in article lead
• Flags

Thanks. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we need a few more participants on this one please. -- DeFacto (talk). 18:13, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

On flags:

Flags icons should not be used here, as the subjects in question are not national sports teams, military entities, or a ship with a registration. Any commentary on automaker nationality should use the country's name in words. Needlesballoon (talk) 10:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Needlesballoon, thanks for commenting. The full discussion is taking place at Talk:China Car of the Year#Flags if you'd like to participate there. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)