Jump to content

Talk:Passenger vehicles in the United States

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Outline and possible future expansion

[edit]

Please leave suggestions in sections below and then revise the outline General Blueprint for this article:

  1. Summary
  2. Passenger vehicles in the US
    1. Statistics:
      Overview with graphs and references to sources (in lieu of long tables and citing raw data), historic development, comparison with other developed countries, explanation of differences and trends.
      1. Total number of cars and past/current trends started
      2. Car per licensed driver started
      3. Cars per 1,000pop started
      4. Cars per 1,000pop, cars per licensed driver started
      5. Age of vehicles in operation started
      6. Pricing of vehicles started
      7. Fuel consumption started
      8. Body styles coming
      9. Retention rate coming
      10. Comparison with other developed economies, discussion of differences and peculiarities.
        - I wonder whether drivers should be discussed here or in a separate section. (probably)
    2. Regulations (CAFE, EPSA, NHTSA, car vs. truck etc.)
    3. Market (overall sales and historic development, segments, domestic vs. foreign, cars vs. trucks, average prices and whatnot)
  3. Automotive industry in the US
    1. Historical perspective coming
    2. Present day started
      1. Domestic vehicle
        A discussion of the different meanings of this term
      2. The Big Three
        A description of what the Big Three are (a kingdom for a good reference to the origins of the term)
      3. GM started
      4. Ford started
      5. (Daimler-)Chrysler started
      6. Other manufacturers present in the US (with short description of mfg. activity and its history)
  4. Car culture
    1. The car and the American way of life
    2. The car in popular American culture and on TV/movies
  5. See also
  6. References

Above is my suggestion for the outline of this articles- I welcome your input and suggestions. Regards, Signaturebrendel 02:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above now contains mine :D Bravada, talk - 10:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good, it revised the outline a bit so we don't have any sub-sub-sub section like (1.2.2.3), I kept all your suggestions and made a little revision. Signaturebrendel 17:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great, but puhleeeze keep the "stats" section readable and involving. I think of "statistics" as a working name only! Bravada, talk - 18:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm doing my best, but please feel free to flesh out those sections a bit more. Signaturebrendel 19:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section is no longer relevant since Chrysler was purchased by Cerberus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.198.14 (talk) 23:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daimler-Chrysler - non-Chrysler manufacturing operations

[edit]

I don't think we should go into the details in the list, I believe the section should be expanded with a historic perspective anyway, and a short description of the Big Three anyway, so I guess Spartanburg et. al. can be mentioned there. Bravada, talk - 23:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the thing is that Mercedes manufactures cars in the US and it is part of Daimler-Chrysler. So where should that info be located. Signaturebrendel 23:49, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's for sure, and also other units are located in the US (parts of Commercial Vehicles Group), but describing them separately creates some confusion, IMHO. After all, they are one corporation today, unlike e.g. Mazda which is listed under Ford. So, I would have the entire DCX discussed within the "Big Three" section with some short explanation how it came about and some previous history of Chrysler Group and Daimler-Benz in the US. Bravada, talk - 09:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Also, Mitsubishi should not be listed under DCX, they severed their capital ties and what is left is a joint-venture and other joint projects.

Descriptions of manufacturers

[edit]

I believe they belong in the "manufacturing" section. While we are at that, the "domestic cars" section needs some really good and careful referencing - otherwise it's just expression of a POV. Again, I don't think what you wrote is wrong, it's just that such statements cannot be left unreferenced. I also think the discussion "domestic content" and such issues would belong there. Bravada, talk - 00:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but actually I wanted to list all the cars GM sells in the US in that section. As to the domestic, I used sites like MSN and other car shopping sites and just looked what they call domestic. It is a difficult to answer question since cars in the US are divided into domestic and import. The problem is whether or not a Toyota made in the US is an import while a Ford made in Mexico is an import. I invite you to come up with a better description of the term is used, since I myself feel that my defenition of the term is somewhat clumsy. Also, here's what I have in mind for the article:

  1. Intro (kind of done)
  2. American manufacturers (a brieft desctiption of them w/ link to the main article)
  3. Statistics of Cars in America (started)
  4. A brief history of cars in America (coming)
  5. Cultural Role of cars in America (coming)
  6. See also
  7. References

Please make any suggestions! Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think listing all cars GM sells (and then presumably same for other automaker, and then historic data) is a good idea. I am, in general, against creating lists of lists of lists that serve the sole purpose of being more or less complete. As concerns listing all vehicles, I guess that's what our lovely automotive templates are for, and information on markets that they are/were sold in belongs in specific model articles.
So, my take is - save the section and discuss "domestic" (with sources, liek what MSN says etc.), but do not make those listings. Other sections seem great ideas to me, though I wouldn't consider "American manufacturers" done by any means - there's much more that could go in there. Other sections I believe might be interesting (the list will be expanded in due course):
  1. Regulations (CAFE, NHTSA, emissions - along with historic view)
  2. Vehicle classes (official classification, pricing information - a summary of relevant articles)
Bravada, talk - 00:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have started the table but you can rearrange the way in which we list the vehicles. Also just so we're both on the same page; we only list cars sold in the US, right? I guess we could move my mini description of GM to "American manufacturers" and just a listing after the stats section. How does that sound? Signaturebrendel 00:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gerd, again, I REALLY don't think this is a good place to do such lists. I appreciate your effort, but this is (or should be) all covered by appropriate templates, no need to stuff this article with a list which would be of little interest for most users and on top of that very hard to keep complete and up-to-date. Bravada, talk - 00:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OKay, I see your point now. Yes, such lists would be very long, besides I can always start the List of passenger vehicles in the United States. I have made some changes and removed the list, and revised the outline I posted here on the talk page above. Also, I think we should first list the big three and then others according to sales. Regards, Signaturebrendel 01:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A general thought here - what I believe should be in this section are mini "Given manufaturer in the US" descriptions, so e.g. in the case of VW the Pennsylvania factory, the peculiar naming ("Rabbit" etc.), the cultural and market role and image of VW in the US. There is no point describing VW as a whole, this is what the main article is fore. Same goes also for FoMoCo (and others from the Big Three) - why even list Daimler if the brand can't be sold in the US. I also think that in case of manufaturers/brands like Porsche, who are present in the US but nothing really notable can be said about that in particular, mentioning would be pointless. So, I wouldn't try to create a COMPLETE listing here (then we would have to mention companies like Zimmer et al. and it would be another sisyphean challenge. Bravada, talk - 10:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The US - the biggest what?

[edit]

Saying that the US is the biggest "industrialized country" requires defining "industrialized country", providing a proof for the fact that the US are one (obvious, but still), then defining what we mean by "biggest", and again a proof that the US is biggest - that's a lot of kerfuffle. How about referring to Wikipedia itself and the List of countries by GDP (PPP) - from it is clear that the US is the biggest economy in the world (and, as most economists would agree that GDP is a good measure of the economy's "size", no further explanation is required). Bravada, talk - 00:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, then again I'm not married to the idea of mentioning the US as the largest economy in the world ;-), One thing though, the US only has the biggest economy of any country in the world, as the EU outranks the US according to the World Bank and the Monetary fund. ThanxSignaturebrendel 00:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't think about it, but you're absolutely right here. How else can we say "country with the highest GDP"? Bravada, talk - 00:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't we just leave it out or say, "one of the highest," we can't go wrong with that.
There's nothing wrong with saying it DOES have the biggest GDP (by any standards), I thought this phrase was less than appealing, but if it looks OK to you than let's have it there. Bravada, talk - 10:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The United States is home to the largest passenger vehicle market of any country, which is a consequence of the fact that it has the largest Gross Domestic Product of any country in the world."

The second half of this statement shouldn't be there at all. The US may have the highest GDP and the largest vehicle market, but correlation does not imply causation. Nor is it even particularly important to the article even if causation could be proved. Exia 04:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I opened this article, and have to say, I agree. If anything, the "causation" is probably the U.S.'s large sections of relatively unsettled land, propensity for suburban sprawl, and public policy encouraging automobiles over other modes. Cars may be more likely to to cause the GDP to be high (increased economic activity), rather than the GDP causing cars to be common. I added a "citation needed" notice to "consequence" in that opening line. Bolwerk (talk) 18:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

China's market has recently overtaken the USA's market.85.241.107.179 (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to http://www.oica.net/category/sales-statistics/ China sold 10.0 million cars 2015 Q2, and during that same period 3.9 million cars were sold in the United States. Therefore, calling the United States the largest car market is woefully out of date. Kellycoinguy (talk) 19:37, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spellchecking

[edit]

As a non-native English speaker and terrible speller I find this a rather important problem - this article is being developed quite rapidly and in some sections spelling really could use a brush-up, and I can tell that even with my limited English knowledge (e.g. integret part of the American automobile indutry). May I suggest we use some spell-checker before saving edits? Besides, one thing that keeps recurring is corperation - AFAIK, it's corporation. Bravada, talk - 10:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a good idea ;-) Signaturebrendel 17:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

I am very happy to see good, modern-style references in this article, but I think the {{cite web}} template is not used properly with regard to the description ("title") of the page referenced - Template talk:Cite web#Examples contains, well, examples :D of how to use this field. For example, "FoMoCo" is hardly a clear description of the page it links to, I guess it should say "Ford Motor Company corporate site". If there's a specific section or piece of information being linked to, the example page here contains examples how to deal with that. Thanks. Bravada, talk - 10:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have changed that. Those kind of things are still subject to change. Signaturebrendel 17:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template

[edit]

Gerd and everybody else, how about using this Template:Inuse template to indicate somebody's working on the article at the moment and avoid edit conflicts? Secondly, may I suggest not putting any more "narrative stats" and try to arrange them in a more useful and readable format now? I mean, a number is of little use unless put in a relative (like compared to other countries) or temporal perspective, and explained in terms of causes and/or consequences? We will have to do it anyway! Bravada, talk - 18:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have treid to make the text more readable in the Sales section. (I do see your point) The problem is that when discussing sales, average age and driver/car ratios in the Statistics section I find it difficult to minimize my use of numbers. I think as the article grows more non-statistical sections will be added. I see what I have written so far as the skelleton. And statistics arn't that bad of a skelleton. FYI: I didn't even know about that template, Thanks for telling me! Also, I'm going to be done for the next few hours, so you can have at it and there'll be no editing conflicts. Thanks. Regards, Signaturebrendel 19:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Domestic vehicle" discussion

[edit]

I would like to explain my edits. First, the S-Type (and not X-Type, as was incorrectly stated once) is made in Castle Bromwich, so no wonder that it is considered an import, as it is one. A better example might be the Ford Fusion/Mazda6 case - the 6 is, AFAIK, an "import", even though it is made by AutoAlliance in the US, while the Mexico-made Fusion is "domestic". If we don't need to stick with being technically related, then how about Chevrolet Aveo and Suzuki XL-7/Nissan Altima/whatever? There was an article sometime ago that compared "US content" in several vehicles and listed Toyotas that bettered even some US-assembled GM vehicles - if somebody could dig that out, it would be great.

Secondly, let's not spread Dave Zatz propaganda here. I believe that the place to settle and describe the DCX merger controversy is the DCX article itself. Moreover, AFAIK the Kerkorian case was based solely on his questioning the "merger" status, and he lost it. I know there was another similar case, but I would like to make sure it was also based solely and completely on that claim, and that the court decided in favor of it NOT being a merger. As of now, DCX is headquartered in both Stuttgart and Auburn Hills, and AFAIK is incorporated as a domestic company in both Germany and the US. Bravada, talk - 19:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS. I just received your message, I'll check the references of the DCX article in a moment. Still, for controversial issues I believe other Wikipedia articles as far too less to justify a statement.

EDIT: OK, the C&D note is too general to be considered a good reference. An article stating that the judge explicitly said DCX was NOT a merger would be. I am not saying this was a merger or not, I am only saying this is strongly controversial and therefore should be VERY well referenced.

Okay, lets leave out controversial info, but how can an MB made in South Carolina be an import if a Chrysler made in Canada is a domestic, even though the parent company is the same? As for the S-Type. If you read the paragraph you'll notice that being called a domestic vehicle doesn't really have anything to do w/ being made in the US but rather w/ being made by one of the Big Three! Otherwise those Fords made in Mexico wouldn't have domestic VINs and the Toyota's made here would have domestic VINs. You see vehicles that are actually imported are labeled as domestics while vehicles which are actually made in the US are imports while other vehicles break the first rule by being made by one of the big three in a foreign country, yet labeled an import. I can however see how the Lincoln/Jag example can confuse a reader (It should be noted, however, that the termonology does get confusing because import doesn't mean import); thus I am going to use the Ford Fusion/Mazda example. Signaturebrendel 20:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the DCX thing is just one peculiarity of the system. Chevrolet/Saab might be a similar one (I think Saabs still get import VINs, even the Saablazer). I think those should be mentioned as such, not referring to a totally separate discussion on the "mergerness of the merger". I'll try to get back to that when I'm done with something else. Bravada, talk - 20:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty, yes that's another good example the Saab SUV, which is undoubtely a rebadged GMC Envoy/Chevy Tahoe. Regards, Signaturebrendel 21:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Three

[edit]

Continuing the topic, I have edited the section to take out the redundant discussion in two places and moved it all to the Chrysler section, also referring the readers to the DCX article for more information on the merger. BTW, I want to say the way the DCX issue is described in the above paragraph is very good and neutral!

Now what needs to be done are two things:

  1. Find some good references as to the origins and usage of the term "Big Three". For example, was it the case that the Big Three were so much bigger than the AMC that they were referred to as such back in the 1970s? And even if so, was it because the difference in sales volume between Chrysler and AMC was so big, or for some other reasons? It could be very interesting to find out more about that, and I hope American Wikipedians have access to some insightful sources on that.
  2. It is a good reason to clean up and improve the Chrysler, Daimler-Benz, DaimlerChrysler and Mercedes-Benz articles, which are in miserable shape now. In particular, the "merger" debate needs to be well-referenced and described in a neutral and balanced way in one place (I'd say the DCX article) and be referenced to in other. I also believe the Chrysler article should continue to describe the Chrysler Group, and the Chrysler brand specifically, after the merger, in an appropriate section, so this has to be updated too.

Thx, Bravada, talk - 10:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still have to look for a source, but the volume of vehicles sold by AMC was so much less than that of Chrysler that AMC was not part of the Big Three. Yes, many MB articles need to be revised and the Chrsyler article needs a revamp really badly. Signaturebrendel 16:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "other manufacturers" section

[edit]

This is a subsection of the "Manufacturing" section. What makes are sold in the US has little to do with manufacturing. What is interesting, though, is what other automakers apart from the Big 3 have manufacturing operation in the US, perhaps what are they and which models are made there. I guess even a brief description of this activity might be interesting, like in the case of the Big 3. And the list of "other makes sold in the US" is quite pointless, it would perhaps never be complete (there are always some minor garage automakers that would be overlooked). I'll try to be bold now, beware :D Bravada, talk - 22:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I just wrote some placeholder stuff for this section - I know it is junk, I didn't even worry about references as I thought when you write a section that is a kind-of summary of another article you don't have to do those, and now I see how wrong I was. But along the way some things occured to me:
  1. The need for a "market" section, the temporal changes in proportions between cars and trucks, domestic and import as well as vehicle classes (e.g. fullsize vs. midsize) etc. need to be discussed somewhere, as well as the gradual entry of Japanese and later Korean automakers, and the withdrawal of lower-end European makers, the gradual unification of models sold in America and Europe, and perhaps also in other parts of the world etc. etc.
  2. On the other hand, manufacturing clearly needs a lead section discussing general patterns and historic development, including the rise and decline of the rust belt, as well as the localization of new "transplants" in Southern and other non-traditional auto states, moving production to Canada and Mexico etc. Also, now-defunct auto manufacturers have to be mentioned.
  3. The structure of the article also needs to be rethought then - e.g. where does VW's Pennsylvania plant go, into market or manufacturing?
Gosh is this a lot of work to be done... Bravada, talk - 01:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed there is a lot of work to be done and quite frankly I am glad to get some help writing this artice! You're edits may lack proper referencing but they are a big improvement and provide a good base to work with. Its a start... Regards, Signaturebrendel 04:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph

[edit]

Overall there were an estimated 243,023,485 registered passenger vehicles in the United States in the year 2004.[3] Since 1960 this number has increased steadily, along with the average age of vehicles, indicating a growing number of vehicles per household.

The first statement is obviously daft. You can't estimate the number of passenger vehicles to the nearest unit in a whole year: after all, it changes every second. If some "source" purports to give such a precise number for the number in existence in a whole year (as opposed to, say, the number registered at a particular instant during the year), that source is daft too.

Secondly, I don't understand why the increasing number indicates an increasing number per household. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. But to show that it's true, you'd need to show changes in the number of households, and unless I've missed something, the article does not.

And a general point: I'd thought buses and railroad cars were passenger vehicles. Was I wrong? -- Hoary 08:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, according to the US Departement of Transportation which is the source for the entire article's statistics does not call buses or railroads passenger vehicles. Second, the number of households is mentioned several times througout the article, and as to "You can't estimate the number of passenger vehicles to the nearest unit"- this is not an estimate but the number of vehicles registered, these are statistics from the Federal Government. The government published its statistics in a like-wise manner. You are right though clearly the number changes througout the year. Nontheless it gives quite a good idea of how many cars there were. As to the ratio of vehicles per household, the fact that both average of veicles and the increasing number of them does indicated that households are now in the possions of more vehicles than ever before. There are more cars, yet they are older. Why? Becuase people keep there old ones and keep buying new ones at the same time. The entire statistics and number of househols are listed right in the first section. Hope this helps! Regards, Signaturebrendel 16:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
First, the meaning of passenger vehicle. Both my native competence in (admittedly un-American) English and the US English dictionaries that I have at hand say that the word vehicle has strong connotations of "on land" -- while a boat or plane can be a "vehicle", it normally isn't -- but make buses and railroad cars just as much vehicles as cars are. Perhaps the title should be Passenger vehicles in the United States (as defined by the US Department of Transportation); or, much more concisely, Cars in the United States. (Cars in the latter would include trucks used as cars; for convenience's sake, below I'll refer to the combination of both as "cars".) What does your preferred English dictionary tell you that vehicle means? ¶ Second, precision versus reality. To give a good idea of the number of cars (together with trucks used as cars; ), you could just say "243M", minus the spurious precision added by the US DoT. ¶ Third, households, etc. If the number and age of cars is increasing, this might indeed be for the reasons that you give, but you don't prove this and I suspect that it's not true. You say that the number of households is listed in the first section, but I can't see it. My guess is that the increasing number and age of cars results from a number of factors: (i) the increasing number of households, (ii) the impoverishment of the lower and lower middle classes, (iii) a diminution of interest in cars among Americans in general and young males in particular. NB I merely put this forward as a guess; right now I lack the time to hunt down the facts, but I'd point out that the article also lacks facts on how the number of households has changed over time. -- Hoary 01:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, the US Departement of Transportation is the highest authority on the issue- the word cars would exclude SUVs and pick-ups which contstitute a great percentage of the passenger vehicle population. Yes, vehicle means inldues railroads, but passenger vehicles is commonly used to refer to what you call cars. The increasing number of cars per households is proven through the statistics included in the referenced statistics, you can clearly see there are more cars per household now than ever before. "I'd point out that the article also lacks facts on how the number of households has changed over time"- not true, the table clearly states the number of households in millions for all years since 1960. Regards, Signaturebrendel 02:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"vehicles": I'd concede that the US DoT is the highest authority for how it cares to use the term "passenger vehicles". Let's keep non-US English out of this US-specific article, so my own native but non-US intuition doesn't count. I suggest using a US dictionary to find the meaning. The US dictionary I looked at doesn't even hint that a train or bus is less of a vehicle than a car is. Which dictionary do you use, and what does it say? Or do you think that the US DoT is a better guide to usage than a dictionary is? ¶ number of households: You say, the table clearly states the number of households in millions for all years since 1960. Are we looking at different tables? I see a table titled Vehicle and population ratios since 1960. This has a column for Population. It says nothing about households. Please tell me where this article tells the reader about the changing numbers of households. -- Hoary 06:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have changed it to vehicles per capita, I got households and popultion confused in my post above-Sorry. "Do you think that the US DoT is a better guide to usage than a dictionary is"- That is what I was assuming as the DoT creates the termonology used by the government for policy and taxation. While dicitionaires may differ in their definition, in the end its up to the DoT to decide what is what. Let me know if the change I made to the intro helps. Signaturebrendel 15:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now we're starting to make some progress. Here's my own suggested version (with footnotes temporarily stripped):


-- Hoary 09:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's a good way of clarifing what the article encompasses. I put the headliner you suggested into place. Signaturebrendel 16:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added, then deleted, this text after reading the Wikipedia COI policy:

Private vehicle registration data reports on vehicles in operation (VIO) and automotive market research firm Hedges & Company reports approximately 248.9 million vehicles in operation in 2013.[1]

Open to suggestions on adding this data in such a way to avoid COI... Jhedges (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]

GA passed

[edit]

It meets the requirements for the GA process. It is thoroughly well written and easy to read. Good statistics/text balance through the article. Lincher 15:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I'm excited! Signaturebrendel 17:02, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to spoil the fun, but I am afraid I have to delist the article. I know it is inappropriate for a contributor to pass a GA, but I think it is OK to delist. Specifically, the article fails criterium 4 ("broad in its coverage") - see discussion above. I also can't agree with it being in complete compliance with criterium 1 ("well written") - not that it is terrible, but I disagree with it having thoroughly good balance between statistics and prose. Some sections don't read well to me, and I am fairly interested in the topic. I believe there are many users who are not car buffs and will find it even harder to digest.
Besides, there are still small, but annoying spelling mistakes and other inaccuracies and small mistakes here and there. I guess a Good Article should not feature such.
In general, this article is halfway on its way to be a perfect (i.e. eligible to FA status), and GA should not be awarded to articles which are still "in statu nascendi". It is rather to be used to award to articles which, for some reasons, cannot be as extensive as most FAs. This article has to be extensive by definition - it covers a very broad topic - so I guess it will probably only be able to get FA status.
Please do not take this personally, I only want to preserve the integrity of GA, which has been applied pretty liberally of late. Bravada, talk - 17:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I have contributed to a couple of GAs so I would like to preserve the integrity of the GA as well. But please contribute in order to make this article better, or spread the word. I really cannot write the entire thing by myself. Signaturebrendel 17:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to answer briefly. As I see the unfurling of this article ... it will go through major subarticling (if this word would exist) which means that the article will be so big and unmaintainable that it will have to be cut into many sub-articles. As of now, it follows the broadness coverage asked to become a GA (IMO). As for the minor mistakes mentioned ... they could easily be taken care of by correcting them instead of just delisting the article. That goes with the Be bold saying that WP tries to go by. I request the re-instatement of the GA status as the article met the requirements of the GA process. Lincher 18:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Two more things, when you delist articles, be sure to use the 5 tildes (18:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)) to sign only the date. And please, use a real account, not an IP address, to remove articles from the GA page. Lincher 18:19, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I Agree the article's meets the GA requirements. Signaturebrendel 18:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GA re-instated ... this was a new reviewer to the GA process. Only minor things need to be assessed and they aren't even required for the GA status as long as the prose is good and as the broadness gives (around 20kb of prose IMO). Lincher 18:36, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I should mention that I am one of the main editors of this article, seeing it as my signature being plastered all over this page ;-) Still I do think it meets the GA requirements-I also conducted a spell and grammar check using Word 2003. Signaturebrendel 18:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that an article in order to pass criterium 4 should cover all facets of the article. Period. If this means that the article would be too long, this of course WOULD probably induce requests for "subarticling" some of the content, leaving out more concise summaries of some "subarticled" topics. Currently, the article is incomplete in its scope, delving into very high detail on some "subtopics", but totally omitting the others. Much of the perceived girth of the article is due to "narrative approach to statistics" rather than presenting them in an informative graph/chart form.
Bottom line is: important aspects of the topic are NOT covered by the article. Regardless of size considerations, which are a totally different thing, this is a valid and important failure in meeting the GA criteria.
I will also try to make some senior reviwers, as well as initiators of the whole GA procedure, to look into the issue. Regards, Bravada, talk - 18:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Please excuse me for not signing properly while delisting, I was using two browsers at the same time and I did not notice I was not logged in in both.
PS2. Correcting minor mistakes - I have done my share of those, but I think this should be the final stage of "brushing up" the article, as perhaps more small formal imperfections will ensue while expanding. Therefore, until the article will be complete according to other, more important criteria, it makes little sense to cleanse it. One of my general reservations to this article is that it is not yet finished, and as such should not be nominated to GA or any other such status.
Well, is any Wikipedia article ever finished? Also, I do think spelling checks make sense, a user finding them here could hurt WP's credibility so checking is never a bad things. Regards, Signaturebrendel 18:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In some sense, no Wikipedia article is finished, but a GA or FA nominee should be complete and "stable" in the sense that no major facet of the topic, as known at the time of nomination, is missing and no major expansion can be suggested to further improve it. Most FAs and GAs (I mean really good GAs, as the inherent flaw of the GA nomination process provides for some really mediocre articles being awarded this status) are fairly complete and only rarely expanded - mostly in the cases when a new development ensues. If it is found that a GA or FA should be extensively edited for some other reason, it usually results in a review or delisting (depending on the status).
Please understand that I only mean to preserve the legitimacy of the GA process. If an article not meeting the GA criteria is given the GA status, then it futher dents the sense of the whole process, as another articles can be passed, not meeting the criteria, quoting this example.
I would also like to once again express my deepest appreciation of your efforts to create and further expand and enhance this important article. I believe, however, that some articles are, by definition, tougher to advance to FA or GA status, especially those on braod and important subjects, while some minor topics, even including the often-derided Pokemons, have articles created and passed quite easily. I know this is frustrating, but I also believe it should be viewed as much more praiseworthy when a really tough-to-achieve GA or FA status is finally reached. I believe you can unashamedly claim the creation of this article as one of your (many, to say the least) major accomplishments in improving Wikipedia, even if it is not up to GA or FA status yet. Bravada, talk - 19:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what your saying. Also, perhaps requiring the agreement of multiple editors for the acheivement of GA status would raise its integirty. (Just some food for thought ;-)) Signaturebrendel 19:35, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I believe that much could be done to restore the prestige of the GA status. I wanted to propose some reforms to the author of the concept, but unfortunately he felt so disconcerted by the current downfall of the GA process that he retreated from WP (for some time, hopefully). I have actually emailed him concerning this very discussion, and I hope this will bring him back.
Another conclusion that occurred to me that in case of topics as broad as this, it would be good to first develop a very sound and complete outline through thorough discussion of the editors (and other users) interested, and only then start developing the article, first creating an overview under each section heading, so that all topics are covered at least in general, and than progress expanding the sections, until perhaps they would need separate "subarticles". I could see an article containing a complete overview of this topic, yet more general and not as specific in some areas as it is here, being promoted to GA (though perhaps deepening the description would be necessary for attaining the FA status). Bravada, talk - 19:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so where are we finally with that? Is this a good article or not? Bravada, talk - 02:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I agree with you that the status of the GA needs to be preserved-but think that this article is a GA and will actually help preserve the GA status' prestige. So I think it is... I mean, it could be developed further and is perhaps better suited for FA but until then I say it is extensive enough to be a GA. Signaturebrendel 04:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, and I say that it is a VERY GOOD article, but it is not a WP:GA, because it fails to comply with an important criterium. Oh, now I see there is a review feature! Great, I will submit it for review! Regards, Bravada, talk - 09:17, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under review

[edit]

I would like to inform you that, as I said previously, I have submitted this article under GA review at WP:GA/R. My aim is to collect opinions of users previously NOT involved in either editing or nominating/promoting/delisting this article. Please do not turn it into a copy of the discussion we have just had here. Bravada, talk - 12:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS. To Gerd - please forgive me the impersonal style of my nomination, which you might probably find even rude towards yourself and your efforts. This was not my intention, I just realized it reads like that, but I tried to keep it impersonal and focused on the issue. I still fully appreciate your efforts and the work you put into starting and expanding this article with high-quality references, and also considering and including other users' comments and suggestions. This is a very good example of dilligent work on an article, only it unfortunately does not fall under the criteria set for GA.

Well seeing it as we disagree on how this article meets the GA criteria and independent review is the best and perhaps the only solution ;-) (That's why I made a peer review request weeks ago) Signaturebrendel 16:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've delisted this article for reasons posted here: GA Disputes --The Talking Sock talk contribs 15:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure this is explained somewhere in Wikipedia, but in general, it would really help those of us not privy to the ins and outs of Wiki definitions and policies, to please DEFINE an acronym the first time it's used in a text. What does GA, FA, PA mean? My guess is it has something to do with grading the quality and acceptability of an article, maybe it stands for "good article", "fair article" and "perfect article"? (just a wild guess) -- but it would help to define this at first mention and also provide a link as to what the criteria are. Thanks, 24.58.175.197 (talk) 18:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)john wilkinson[reply]

Boring colors

[edit]

Why is it that almost every car comes in nothing but boring colors? What happened to red, orange, yellow, lime green, royal blue, and purple? Are they restricted to the hot cars now?

Yes, yes. Even the Mary Kay Cadillacs arn't really pink anymore Past, Present. Signaturebrendel 17:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Bleah, it's not only not really pink, it looks like a bar of soap! Still better than the DTS though... Anyway, the US still seems lucky to me given the photos I see uploaded here and the choice of colours I see in manufacturer's pages - you can actually get bright colours, and have a choice of some nice beige, champagne, mauve etc. For most of the mainstream models in Europe, you have a choice of "very dark green", "very dark blue", "not quite black" and "the only red in the world that fades into the background". Most of those colours look the same anyway, so you have trouble finding your cark in the parking lots, and it looks like it wasn't washed for a few years from day one. Who buys those? Bravada, talk - 18:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS. As an example, here is the colour selection for the Opel Astra C [2] - take out the (priced extra) Magma red and Arden blue and you're left with a palette of the most boring colours on Earth.
PS2. It's not what this talk page is for, is it?

Current Article Quality (March 2007)

[edit]

There are a number of problems with the current version of this article. The article..

  • doesn't seem to carry a neutral point of view in spots;
  • carries an overlong discussion of the long discussion about "Domestics vs. Imports" which really belabors the point;
  • makes a few specious claims, such as "there is no actual definition of the term 'Import vehicle.'" In fact, there are legal and regulatory definitions for the term, and there are respected authorities that cover the Automotive Industry (i.e., beyond Wikipedia) that certainly have defined the term.
  • makes a few inaccurate statements, such as "due to the national origin of its manufacturer, all Toyotas carry a Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) identifying them as import vehicles." Not true! And the "footnote" doesn't prove the point, and isn't even an authoritative source.

As far as the NPOV issue, the article purports to talk about Automobiles (Passenger vehicles) in the United States but concentrates on a lot of negatives; doesn't talk much about why (or even whether) Americans love the automobile; doesn't talk about the cultural relationship between Americans and their cars: (Route 66, 1957 Chevies, Drag Racing, NASCAR, car culture and customization, convertibles?) It's all "land yachts" and "fuel economy" right now.

Flagged for both NPOV and factual cleanup. Anybody interested in tackling? I will make a stab in a few days. hadley 2007-03-27.

I originally wrote the article and agree that there is room for improvement. Please feel free to "take a stab at it." As for the import/export controversy please consider that there may be a difference between the legal definition and the vernacular usage of the term. "Import" and "Export" are ambigous terms, as they are not always used in accord with the legal definition- that needs to be mentioned in the article. Also, the article isn't just land-yachts (which I personally love to drive btw) and milage-it also talks about how many cars there are, how old they tend to be, how much they tend to cost. What is really lacking is a section about car culture. I just haven't had the time or will to do the research yet-so I encourage you to add something on car culture-something that should definitely be mentioned here (after all so many people-including myself-adore their cars) Signaturebrendel 04:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There were some major factual problems with the "import vehicle" section which I have tackled, with some citations. Hope that helps. Blackplate 04:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I wasn't aware of "major factual problems," but your edits have definitely improved the article. Thanks for your effort! Regards, Signaturebrendel 05:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel consumption table

[edit]

I have added the metric conversion of fuel consumption to the table in the article, as is required in the WP:MOS. I admit that I had to check the accuracy of those figures, it is amazing that the average US car needs 13.7 litres of fuel to travel 100 kilometres (17.1 MPG), but it is true! In the EU we will need to travel at least 5 L/100 km (47 MPG) for petrol cars, and 4.5 L/100 km (52 MPG) for diesel cars, by 2012. Many are complaining that this target is too lenient. 81.155.125.119 (talk) 20:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the conversion - yes, there is quite the divide between the U.S. & EU (even Canada is quite different). Regards, Signaturebrendel 00:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Age of vehicles in operation

[edit]

I'm interested to know whether there is data on the number of years it takes to turnover the U.S. fleet of automobiles or perhaps some sort of half-life figure (i.e., assuming that consumer tastes shift to more fuel efficient models how long does it take for less fuel efficient models to be completely removed from operation). Jaedglass (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- The US has a "scrapage" rate of about 5%. In a given year about 5% of the fleet is crushed. That would mean a nominal 20 year turnover. -- Bob on the Buttes (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


The age section contains numbers which are confusing. First off, the second paragraph talks about median and mean ages. These are two different concepts, yet the two are mixed and compared in the paragraph, so the reader is hard pressed to make conclusions about this. But the other comment is the numbers are not easy to reconcile for the mean age. According to the article, there are 250 million passenger vehicles in the US. The latest figures for last year and the few years prior are 17 million new passenger vehicles sold per year. This would make the mean age 250/17 = 14 years, in a steady-state situation, which, admittedly we don't have, but this is so far off the mean age numbers quoted. Actually -- it would be more accurate to say that the numbers indicate it would take 14 years, on average, to turn over the entire passenger vehicle inventory in the US -- which, in a steady state situation would eventually translate into a mean age of 14 years. (This year, due to the recession, there will be only 13.6 million sold, and the next year 13 million are projected, making the average age approach 19 years, when the mean age equilibrates in the future). I would like to see an explanation as to why the mean age numbers quoted are so much smaller -- about half, than what these numbers indicate.24.58.175.197 (talk) 16:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)john wilkinson[reply]

hey man, never been to school? if I have 100 pcs of something in my warehouse and sell 10 of them every day, then each item will spend 10 days in my warehouse on average. The average age is 5 days. Capisce? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.176.0.55 (talk) 18:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The number of vehicles sold in the US has been decreasing at a gradual yet continuous rate since 1999, when nearly 8.7 million vehicles were sold in the US. Looking back at history however, reveals that such decline is only part of normal market trends and most likely only a temporary affair. "

I question the logic here. In the last decade or two expectation of vehicle life has changed. When I first started driving in the 1960s a car that reached 100,000 miles was considered used up. During the 1970s and 1980s we started to raise our expectations via our experience with Japanese vehicles. Now many of us expect more like 200,000 mile life out of our cars. History may not repeat itself. Bob on the Buttes (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title

[edit]

I maintain that the title of this article is misleading. I refer to "Passenger" vehicles in the title. I propose that this article should be revised as "Vehicles in the United States". The US government shows 253,639,386 for 2012 and this consists of all motor vehicles including those not generally considered as "passenger" vehicles. Here are the six vehicle types included in that number:

1). Light duty vehicle, short wheel base (defined by the US government as a replacement for the old category "Passenger car"; this includes "passenger cars, light trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles with a wheelbase equal to or less than 121 inches").

2). Motorcycle

3). Light duty vehicle, long wheel base (defined by the US government as "large passenger cars, vans, pickup trucks, and sport/utility vehicles with wheelbases larger than 121 inches")

4). Truck, single-unit 2-axle 6-tire or more

5). Truck, combination (most common of this is "semi trucks"; any vehicle combining a large truck with one or more semi trailers)

6). Bus

Jhedges (talk) 16:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Jhedges (talk) 15:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/sites/rita.dot.gov.bts/files/table_01_11_1.xlsx

Issues with balance?

[edit]

Why does Chrysler have the largest section on this article? It is "one of the most important" automakers, how, exactly? Crystler isn't even in the top ten largest automakers (world wide production). Toyota and Hyundai are larger, yet they are relegated to "other" and have MUCH smaller descriptions. The idea that Crystler is somehow American yet Toyota is somehow not is just plain wrong. Crystler is owned by the Italians now. This article seems imbalanced toward "American" automakers, especially the smallest Big Three "American" automaker (which is actually Italian).

I just find that very strange and imbalanced. It does not mention that Toyota sells the most American made car in the United States, but continues to perpetuate the myth that the "American" automakers are the only domestic producers. I honestly dislike Toyota quite a bit, but even I do not think that seems very far… I find it even more unfair that Tesla was excluded from the "Domestic vehicles" section, which says only the Big Three automakers are domestic. Why is Tesla indirectly marked "Import" even though the company was founded in the US, builds cars only in the US, and will soon manufacture batteries in the US? I will add Tesla Motors to the Domestic sections, even though I find the current article to be fundamentally flawed. Zagadka314 (talk) 13:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Passenger vehicles in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States&oldid=1203258973"