Talk:Car body style

message: :;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)
replies: text: Agree, Zoney 12:30, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reverted removal of targa top explanation 

message: 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)
thread_title: Targa

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Need pictures 

message: 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)
thread_title: 2+2

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Jeep 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Dead external link... 

message: 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 80.202.105.149 (talk) 16:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  4 door vs 5 door 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Toorak Tractors 

message: 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)
thread_title:  U.S. hatchbacks 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  4x4 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Giardinetta 

message: 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.</br>
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  merger proposal