" I've bolded indicates that to represent Toyota as ""the world's largest manufacturer"" without caveats would not be accurate. That claim is afforded based on annual production, and based on 2006 GM stays on top (just). The 2007 figures should certainly put Toyota on top barring a fairly astonishing recovery from GM, but until the year's over, let's not indulge in crystal balling. 
 ::Second, I culled the note entirely because single sentence sections are strongly deprecated. We've covered this news at Automobile production statistics and Toyota, and that's more than sufficient.   
 ::: This section is not neutral because it doesn´t cover the economics of the car, specially in a changing world. There are statistics in the market, there are tendences in the market and all this has been DELETED from this article,  there is no minimal reference here. So, the article is NOT NEUTRAL. I don´t know what people has elected with their free right to choose. And the impact of carbon-free legislation. As said, this article live in the past, not in the present  
 ::::AM. Suggest some positive benefits if you will. I can think of the the people employed to produce the energy, steel, aluminum, plastics, leather, fuel, oils, and so on to support the automobile. There may be other cited sources for this type of information. Would you mention them please?   
 :::: We would create an automotive market section and full article, with consumer preferences.   

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

 * Section 5.3 as it currently stands is accurate and massively documented. Could be more complete but certainly should not be left out of this assessment.   

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

 : Make: Maker. Model: Car_model. I agree with the proposed idea about terminology.   

 : Make is the manufacturer name. Such as Nissan, Citroen, Ford, Hyundai, and so on. Model is the specific version such as Sentra, 2CV, Focus, Tiburon and so on. Subclass becomes part of the model name; at least here in the U.S.   

 : Per example above, Make = Honda, Model = Civic, and Trim = DX Sedan   
 ::Make is a U.S. usage. Brits use ""marque"". ""Subclass""? Trim level.   

 : Actually here in the UK we don't use 'marque' we use 'make' also    
 ::It's not that 'marque' is a British term it's more that the term 'marque' is used to describe 'makes' with class and heritage. Rolls-Royce, Ferrari, Alfa-Romeo are 'marques', Hyundai and Toyota are 'makes'. It's a very loaded subjective POV difference though so I wouldn't suggest using the term 'marque' on Wikipedia as a differentiator. It would just be an invitation to a fanboy edit war.    

 == Ethanol as an alternative source of fuel == 
 I've noticed that there is no reference to ethanol in the fuel list. Anyone volunteers to write about it? 
 :We have LOTS of articles about that (arguably - too many!): Ethanol fuel, Common ethanol fuel mixtures, Alcohol fuel, Cellulosic ethanol, Biomass, Biofuel, Biogas, Butanol fuel (OK - not quite), Ethanol fuel in Brazil (where it's principally used)