From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Automobiles (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles , a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale .
  High   This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale .

Van [ edit ]

I'm not convinced that van counts as a "car" type. I did add people carrier myself - but that makes sense - as they are all car derivations of the early passenger vans. (I.E. The still present Volkswagen Caravelle isn't a car, it is a type of van).

Zoney 08:05, 28 May 2004 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

weeeellll... I added it, and my thinking was that many small vans are really cars with a particular body style (a car body style). I'm not sure if you're a UK resident, but think of the Ford Escort, Bedford Beagle, Marina... they are all basically cars with van type bodies. If they don't get put here, then where would they go? Graham 10:26, 28 May 2004 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Yeah, I hadn't thought of that - I've amended the section (I briefly removed it before I saw your comment) to point out what a van is in the context of a car model. While the models you've mentioned are types of cars, as possibly are the half-car/half-van small utility vehicles such as Ford Courier and Fiat Doblò , I don't think Volkswagen Transporter , Ford Transit etc. count! (Maybe they do - am I wrong here?) Zoney 12:29, 28 May 2004 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
Isn't CDV (Car-derived Van) an appropriate term for the van body style you are talking about? It makes it obvious that we're not talking larger commercial vehicles. Or is CDV a manufacturer-specific word (I know Rover use it on their 25 Commerce Van)? Pseudonym 16:35, 7 September 2004 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]
It's a manufacturer specific term. In words rather than initials, it might make mroe sense, but even so ... —Morven 20:06, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)
Over here, the only term I've seen used is "tall wagon" for things like the Mitsubishi Colt Vista and Honda Civic wagon thingy. We don't have the Courier...-- SFoskett 20:11, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

Removed [ edit ]

Grand Tourer (a.k.a Gran Tourismo or GT)
sporty or high performance variant of a car designed for long tours in comfort rather than shorter bursts of speed. This type of vehicle would usually have a sedan or coupé style of body rather than a distinct style of its own, but with a notably more luxurious interior than average.

since in my opinion a GT is a class of car rather than a body style - this belongs in the Car classification article. —Morven 10:44, 28 May 2004 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Agree, Zoney 12:30, 28 May 2004 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Sportshatch [ edit ]

I don't think that Sportshatch should be included as a body style because it a synonym for other styles, not a distinct style in itself. Whilst it may be argued that other synonyms are included, such as the British word saloon for a sedan, these are justifiable because they are not simply words manufacturers have invented for their cars. By including manufacturer invented words and terms we would have to include Sports Activity Vehicle (BMW SUVs), Avant (Audi estates/station wagons), Sportscross (Lexus estates/station wagons) and probably many others. 999 11:15, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK, but I don't really see anything wrong with that. The point is, a USER of WP might be thinking, ummm, I wonder what a Sportshatch is, or Sports Activity Vehicle, etc. If they do a search, it will turn up nothing and so they're none the wiser, whereas in fact these terms really have some relation to car body styles. Keeping the article "pure" for the sake of it isn't helpful to the user, who ultimately is the person we are serving here. Graham 12:53, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
My aim isn't 'purity', it is to present the best article for the majority of users. I would imagine that most users who come to this article are interested in the actual body styles themselves, not the names that manufacturers use to describe body styles (of which I'm sure there are many). They will probably find it easier if there is not a load of synonyms mixed up amongst the unique body styles. However, I do agree that some users will be interested in particular names and these need to be explained. Remember though, unless you create separate articles for each one, doing a search will not find anything. I think that explanations of these names are most relevant on the individual manufacturer pages. Furthermore, I think that if someone is interested in for example, what an Avant is, they are far more likely to go to the Audi page than the car body style page, especially if they have heard or read Avant in context. Therefore, I suggest that the car body style page should stick to only the most commonly used words, whilst names such as Avant should be explained in the manufacturer pages, possibly with a link to the car body style page. 999 19:45, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
One day we can hope that WP's search facility is fully reinstated and works as it should - after what is an encyclopedia without it? ;-) Your argument is reasonable, and I won't be too upset if sporthatch et. al. gets moved elsewhere. It strikes me though that a resaonable compromise would simply be to create a separate section in this article where manufacturers' made-up terms could be grouped (we'd need a better section heading than that of course!). What do you think? Graham 07:48, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK, a separate section in this article sounds like a good compromise. I'll try to come up with an appropriate heading for it. With regards searching, I agree that it would be nice if the search facility was fully operational, but doing a Google search has worked pretty well for me on the occasions I have used it. 999 08:53, 11 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I've added a section as discussed above. Obviously I intend to add more to it but for now it's just a rough idea. I'd like people's opinions on what they think of it and how it should be improved. Thanks, 999 19:09, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Why did you (999) also change the Van (road vehicle) link back to the disamb Van ? Is it not better to link directly to an article rather than a disamb page? MH 09:32, 2004 Jun 13 (UTC)
Sorry. I didn't even realise I had done that. It must relate to van being directly above the section I was editing but I can't think exactly what happened. Fixed now. 999 09:43, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that "combi coupé" might appropriately be moved to the new section. I'd never heard of it, or of "wagonback" before I read this page, and the article it links to strongly suggests these terms only apply to Saabs, so I'm thinking that company made them up. RivGuySC 03:21, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Agree. I'll start adding more soon. 999 09:01, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Reverted removal of targa top explanation [ edit ]

I disagree with removing the explanation of a targa top simply because there's an article on it. There are articles on most of the other body styles too. This page is intended as a summary. —Morven 06:20, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)

Maybe then the summary should be rewritten as it now is incorrect, specifically the B-pillar reference of the given example, Fiat X1/9 (see picture in the Targa top article, as that does not have any B-pillars. MH 11:08, 2004 Jun 12 (UTC)
Agree with reinstating it, as I wrote it, but maybe I mean C pillars then - it certainly has very substantial roof pillars at the rear, whatever they're called (I assumed B being the ones next along from A at the front - the example being a 2-seater car there is no possibility of an intermediate pillar between the front and back, and being mid-engined makes these more B pillar than C pillar to my mind). Perhaps some explanation is called for somewhere, exactly what is meant by A, B and C pillars? This is an encyclopedia after all. Graham 08:29, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Kammback [ edit ]

Anybody want to make a try at this odd word? I don't know where it comes from or exactly what it means. All I can remember that they used to call the Vega wagon one, but it looked pretty much like a wagon to me. Did GM make it up? Vega Wagon RivGuySC 01:34, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

  • The AMC Gremlin also had that word used for it, so I don't think it was a GM thing ... —Morven 02:00, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • Researched it: see Kammback . German aerodynamicist Wunibald Kamm invented the concept of the cut-off tail for sports cars, showing that cutting off the end of a teardrop shape actually made it better. Thus, cars with a tapered and then chopped off rear shape are correctly Kammbacks, though the term has pretty much died out. Seems that GM and AMC used it mostly as another term for 'station wagon' or 'hatchback', though. —Morven 20:44, Jun 23, 2004 (UTC)
      • Excellent research! I'd always wanted to know this. But I think the explanation on the main page still needs work--"car with a rear that tapered to half maximum cross section then abruptly cut off" doesn't convey a complete idea to me. What you said above seems clearer, actually. RivGuySC 22:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • Better? I trimmed it to a much shorter version, we can add to this if we need. Maybe an example car is needed? —Morven 03:14, Jun 24, 2004 (UTC)
          • Yes, much clearer, IMHO. A picture of an example would be good, but I don't exactly know what vehicle I would nominate. I looked at my Riviera yesterday, thinking about this--it has quite a tapered tail, but I don't know if it's chopped off enough to qualify. RivGuySC 14:25, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)
            • The Honda CRX is an excellent example of Kammback-inspired styling. I always thought it was stupid looking, but now I understand that it's stupid looking with a practical reason in mind.

Dear Morven,

Car body styles are - I think - words or combinations of words commonly used by car manufacturers. Please note that AVANT (a word mark) is Community Trade mark Registration No. 000019422 owned by Audi AG of Germany. (See http://oami.eu.int/en/CTMOnline/RequestManager/Detail ). Consequently, this word is not a car body style.

Regards, -- Millisits 23:34, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It is , however, Audi's trademarked term for station wagon/estate car. Therefore, it should be here as a translation between the Audi term and those in general use. Note that there is no hint that it has usage outside of Audi, but when used by Audi it means a very specific style of car. —Morven 07:20, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Morven,

I am not really convinced that Wikipedia needs proprietary words (i.e. trademarks) among generic terms without clear specification such as Avant (a trademark of Audi for.... or Variant (a trademark of Volkswagen for... or Verso (a trademark of Toyota for... Or a special sub-list can be helpful in this entry to indicate Everyday usage of trademarks (words) cannot lead to genericize these trademarks (see: Genericized trademarks). Editors of dictionaries such as Webster, take special care of this phaenomenon.

-- Millisits 17:18, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We are not a dictionary; thus, things are different. I don't think that we have a duty to trademark holders to note every time we use a trademarked word. We are using Avant here in a way that does not dilute Audi's trademark in any case; we are simply saying that when Audi uses "Avant" in a car's name, this is what it means. There might be an improvement in wording possible, of course. —Morven 04:04, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

"Orthogonal" [ edit ]

Could somebody explain what is meant by "These (...body...) styles are largely (though not completely) orthogonal to a car's classification in terms of price, size and intended broad market"? Sounds a bit nonsensical to me. mat_x 21:01, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Meaning (though this is probably not the best wording) that we're not talking about attributes of price, size and (largely) market segment, except inasmuch as body style influences market segment. Size and body style are largely orthogonal, using that word in the sense a computer programmer might use it; they're independent variables, they can be seperate axes on a chart. One can have a compact coupe, a mid-size coupe, a full-size coupe; conversely, one can have a compact coupe, a compact sedan, a compact roadster.
If you can think of a better way to word that, please feel free to try it for size! —Morven 07:16, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
I have tried 'independent' to replace 'orthogonal' with a rather less 'tech-speak' word. How does that read? —Morven 07:19, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)
Tcha, compscis. I've never heard 'orthogonal' used to describe anything that isn't literally at 'right-angles' to something else, that's why I had no idea what was meant, to suggest a replacement. In the event that I'm being naive I'm happy for it to remain as it was. As long as you specify the inner product that you're using :-} -- mat_x 08:47, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I would point out that any good dictionary mentions that "orthogonal" is used in a more metaphorical sense quite often ... but since a more common word can substitute, let's leave it like that. Math majors. Always so literal ... —Morven 10:02, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC) (grinning)
I did check out dictionary.com actually, I don't like to be too gung-ho. mat_x 12:54, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ran across a good article on coachbuilding types and terminology . It's on a page that's way too long, though, so you'll have to keep scrolling down or else search for THE RETURN OF THE BROUGHAM .

							23:28, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Targa [ edit ]

Is the use of Targa meaning targa Top actually tradmarked by Porsche as stated? Since the 911 Targa is named after the Targa Florio rally, I had always understood that the targa top itself was too - since many cars of that era that took part in the rally were open topped in this way, but having rollover bars added for safety compliance, so the targa style originated from that. Graham 01:49, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I can't say as to the trademark issue, but my best guess is that Targa as a coachbuilding term probably comes from the car and not the race. The Targa Florio was never very famous outside Europe, whereas the 911 Targa was known worldwide (or pretty close to it). As additional evidence, Ford produced wrapover bands in the 50's (see the '55 pic in the Ford Crown Victoria article), but such things never became known as Targa bands until the Porche came out in the late 60's. RivGuySC 04:39, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Roof [ edit ]

Can anybody add a classification by car roof type ??? (are there any other general criteria for rational classification)?.

Need pictures [ edit ]

We need lots and lots of pictures. Pictures and photos are faster to absorb. When I've got the hang of copyright etc i'll come back here Jago25 98 09:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)jago25_98 Reply [ reply ]

How about ilustrations instead of pictures? Wouldn't it be easier if someone (and I am completely and shamelesly pushing this job for somebody else) drew the designs, in a standard way? We'd need an artist of sorts, but I guess it would be easier than to hunt for actual car pictures. Daniel Trielli 02:54, 16 September 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

2+2 [ edit ]

Given how comprehensive this list is, is there any good reason why 2+2 is listed as an "also known as..." rather than being a main entry in the list? I think having any significant term such as that in the main list would be easier for readers. – Kieran T ( talk | contribs ) 19:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Jeep [ edit ]

Yes, another Jeep nut... anyhow, I know the word "jeep" is not an official car body style, but I am changing the wording of the defenition here to dis-clude the statement of the word's origin and instead refer the reader to the Jeep#History page & section where they can get the info and make a decision for themselves. 17:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Entirely support your desire to move the discussion to the appropriate page, but I suspect saying "...can be researched on the...page." falls foul of Wikipedia's guidelines about avoiding self-reference. It would be better to reword it to include the link but not implicity direct people to click it. – Kieran T ( talk | contribs ) 17:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Dead external link... [ edit ]

The external link for basic car body terminology was found to be dead on 15 Dec, 2006. Could someone verify that this is not server downtime or a bad DNS problem. -- Pauljs75 07:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

4 door vs 5 door [ edit ]

I came to the Car Body Style page mainly (but not only) to find out what the REAL definition of a 5 door versus a 4 door car is. On this page, and on the pages of the spesific body styles, I have gleaned some information about this, but I am still not entirely sure.

Could anyone (who know the definition) include a small section on what separates a 5 door from a 4 door car? And of course at the same time, what separates a 3 door from a 2 door car.

Just to mention what I have gleaned. It seems that a a 4 door sedan has a luggage compartment that is completely sealed off from the rest of the car. Whereas in a 5 door sedan, the interior of the car can be accessed from the trunk lid as well. Probably (usually) by the trunk lid being a hatchback which includes the rear window.

However, I am uncertain as to whether an (apparantly) 4 door can be called a 5 door if the rear seats can be collapsed to gain access from the luggage compartment to the interior of the car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ( talk ) 16:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Toorak Tractors [ edit ]

The citation provided for the 'Toorak tractors' claim doesn't work, I don't know if it was also for the claim that people call SUVs 'soft-roaders' too. I've never heard soft-roaders used and I've only heard Toorak tractor on Top Gear Aus, I have a feeling it's only used in Sydney where Toorak is; that hardly makes it Australian and if it's only used in Sydney or NSW then it's hardly noteworthy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingturkey ( talk contribs ) 11:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

U.S. hatchbacks [ edit ]

It says that in the U.S. the liftgate door isn't usually counted as a door and thus hatchbacks are either 2-door or 4-door. However, this isn't exactly true. The Mazda3 hatchback is a 5-door, the Toyota Yaris Hatchback is 3-door or 5-door, etc. Maybe it's only when the car comes in a sedan version as well? Does anyone know? Ingridjames ( talk ) 02:18, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Didn't find hatchbacks without tail gate like some two- or 4-door Buick Regals, French Citroën CX, British Austin Princess. -- Chief tin cloud ( talk ) 08:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

4x4 [ edit ]

I think, 4x4 or AWD is not a body style but a technical feature that is/was available for all kinds of cars, trucks or SUVs. Purpose is not only to give better performance in difficult terrain but also to improve handling on road cars, pioneered by Jensen and Audi, and widely followed since. On the other side, there were cars that looked like offroaders but weren't, Matra-Simca Rancho for example with its FWD. And many Blazers, Broncos etc. were delivered with RWD instead of AWD. -- Chief tin cloud ( talk ) 08:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Indeed, "A four-wheeled vehicle with a drivetrain that allows all four wheels to receive power from the engine simultaneously" - what has that to do with body style? It's true that 4x4s are typically of a certain body style, but it's this body style that needs to be described in the article under whatever the proper name for it is. — Smjg ( talk ) 13:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

Giardinetta [ edit ]

This designation was not only used for the Autobianchi but for station wagons in general. For example, it was used for many Fiats (Topolino, 1400, 1900 etc.). -- Chief tin cloud ( talk ) 10:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

merger proposal [ edit ]

Hi, are you guys aware of the car classification article? It seems to me that there is a lot of overlapping content between car body style and car classification , therefore I propose they are merged.
Also, please note that changes are needed needed to get the current content in line with WP:NOT#DICTIONARY , WP:NOT#LINK , WP:ORIGINAL and WP:VERIFY . Cheers, 1292simon ( talk ) 10:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]

A week has passed without any discussion. Therefore, as per WP:merger#Proposing a merger I'm going to merge them. Cheers, 1292simon ( talk ) 22:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC) Reply [ reply ]