Talk:Ute (vehicle)

message: The D50 is definately not a ute, it's bed isn't integral with the rest of the body- though it does fit very close to the cab. Dodge made a ute version of their front-drive Omni car.
as the article says a ute is "any commercial vehicle that has an open cargo carrying space, but requires only a passenger car licence to drive. This includes both coupe utilities, pickup trucks and traybacks (flatbed pickup trucks). An example of the broadness of this definition is that anything from a Ford F250 XL to a Proton Jumbuck called a ute." so although i dont know what it is your description defines it as a ute  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grinchsmate (talk • contribs) 08:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dodge Omni and D50 

message: I've seen various 'definitions' of the Coupe Utility over the years & this is the first time I've seen 'monocoque' as being a pre-requisite. Surely, Lew Bandt's original 1934 utility wouldn't qualify under this definition, as all Fords of that era were built on a full chassis. As a matter of fact, arguably the most popular ute ever built, the HQ to WB series Holden & Kingswood (1971-1984) also had a full perimeter frame chassis. 
I think the 'Coupe Utility' can be clearly defined by the 'tray combined with cab' design, but I have serious issues with any requirement that it be monocoque.
Another anomaly from the modern era would be the Ford Falcon ute from AU to FG (99 to current) has its tray separate from the cabin, again not fitting the Coupe Utility definition.
The last paragraph where it is said that any ute or pick-up with a 'style-side' tray could loosely be called a ute, even if it was not based on a passenger car design is OK, as long as is it made clear that it is not a Coupe Utility.
(Terrybebb (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Terry, thanks for bringing that up. My knowledge on the exact definition of a coupe utility is not up to standard so feel free too make any changes to this article. Don't worry about stuffing any of the formatting up or anything, I'll fix it up for you. I was personally under the (vague) impression that to be a coupe utility the requirement was for the utility to be car-based, like the AU Falcon you cited, but maybe I'm wrong. Thanks — OSX (talk • contributions) 08:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Another example like the AU–FG would be the VY/VZ Crewman. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:38, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I kind of half-fixed it up. You may want to check it though. OSX (talk • contributions) 10:44, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think than neither the Ford AU-FG or the Holden Crewman could be considered a Coupe Utility. The Crewman is clearly a cab-chassis design similar to the One-Tonner, as the Ford is also. Getting back to Lew Bandt's basic concept, it has to have the cargo body integral with the passenger cab & has to be car-based. I think that the 2007 FPV Cobra Ute should be deleted from the 'Famous coupé utilities of the past' list for this reason.(Terrybebb (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: All AU/BA/BF/FG references have been removed form the article. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

text: Surely you don't mean to suggest that the Ford Falcon ute is in the same class as the Ford F-150.  Correct?  That wouldn't make sense and I refuse to believe that manufacturers consider them to be in the same class.  Regardless of what manufacturers prefer, I think this group should consider what the point of defining a class is.  Surely there are other factors, but I think one of the most logical reasons to have a class is to group vehicles that a) compete directly with each other or b) have similar objective characteristics.  There are few modern cars more similar than the Holden ute and the Ford ute.  I think the only people who would say they don't fit in the same grouping are either Ford fanboys or GM fanboys.  In any case, if the term 'coupe utility' is determined to be only for pickup trucks whos box sheetmetal is the same as the cab sheetmetal, then I would propose a new class, 'car-based utility'. Unfortunately, there are no car-based trucks offered in my home country now but, in my opinion, this class would be far more meaningful than the former.  Jon1234567 (talk) 00:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monocoque Definition

message: Given that "ute" and "pickup" are both just location-specific terms for trayback vehicles, I believe the topic of this article is actually something like "trayback vehicles sold in Australia" (since the rest of the world calls them "pickups"). While the "ute" may have been originally marketed as a "coupe utility", the generally accepted term these days is "ute". Examples: 
* one of the largest sites for advertising vehicles has a category for "utes" with no mention of the term "coupe utility". 
* Holden (a major manufacturer of utes) does not use the term "coupe utility". 
* Ford (a major manufacturer of utes) does not use the term "coupe utility". 
In my experience, many Australians understand that "ute" is short for "utility", however no-one is familiar with the term "coupe utility". 
I suggest that this article should be renamed "ute (vehicle)", since this is the more commonly-used term. 1292simon (talk) 08:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Support. Coupe utility may well have been a historical name, but is certainly not in wide use these days and clearly the verifiable use would be "Ute". <B>Warren</B> (talk) 08:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed rename to "ute (vehicle)" 

message: In accordance with WP:BOLD, I have made the following changes:
* since the term "ute" is specific to Australia/New Zealand, text about vehicles sold in other countries has been moved to pickup truck. Likewise, in future I will move text from pickup truck relating to the term "ute" to this article
* reworded definition to account for the very general use of the term in Australia (everything from Subaru Brumby to Ford Falcon to Toyota Hilux to Dodge Ram are often referred to as "utes")
* removing vehicles which were referred to as "pickups" instead of "utes" (most commonly since they were not sold in Australia)
* added refs for BMW M3 ute (which was referred to as a ute by the Australian media and a pickup by the US and UK, further proof that ute vs pickup/truck is a location-specific term rather than a strict definition of body style)
* trimmed some text not supported by references
* added section regarding use of the word
Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 01:38, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  October 2012 changes 

message: Maybe somebody else can make more out of this: 
*Chevrolet Uteforce
*Corresponding vehicles
This might have swapped over the Indian Ocean from Australia, from where GM South Africa also produces Chevrolet badged passenger cars. --L.Willms (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice that http://www.chevrolet.co.za/cars/utility/model-overview.html uses "Chevrolet Utility" as the vehicle name but always refers to the type as a bakkie. I'd say they the popular name for this type of vehicle in S.Africa is still bakkie and this is just the marketing department desperately looking for a new name for a single vehicle.  Stepho  talk  22:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ute also in South Africa 

message: We recently visited Australia for the first time in several decades. Our host met us and transported us to his place in his new Ute. I had seen many of them in the UK but was unaware they were called Utes in Australia.
I have just checked out what Wikipedia says about utes and was surprised to see there is no mention of four-door utes.
The majority of those I saw in Sydney had four doors - and looked as though they had never seen the outback!
86.145.137.138 (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority in the west coast are two-doors (Sydney is in the east). They're roughly divided into 50% work vehicles and 50% sports cars with large boots. They aren't designed as 4WDs, so few of them go bush but country people do like them for general cargo carrying duties to/from town.  Stepho  talk  05:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four-door Utes 

message: The assumption that ute is a local dialect is incorrect as the coupe utility is an original invention... the 34 ford ute..as as such is the correct name for the vehicle type 2door with styleside at the rear.through time trayback utes  came onto the market, and 4wd ones.a ute is a vehicle described above that can be driven with a car licence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barana (talk • contribs) 11:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit  re etymology

message: An anon-IP and myself have a disagreement about whether pickups should be included here or not – specifically the Nissan Navara but the Toyota Hilux would also fall under this discussion. From the article:
To me it seems obvious that the Navara and Hilux are pickups but are not coupe utilities because they are not based on passenger vehilces. Since "ute" is an abbreviation of "coupe utility" and the Navara and Hilux and not coupe utilities, then they are not utes.  Stepho  talk  04:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone in NZ (or Australia) that would agree that a 4WD Hilux or Navara isn't a ute. The NZ and AU national automobile associations call Hiluxes or Navaras utes and popular NZ automotive magazines often even include Land Cruisers and Land Rovers in their definition . Major news outlets also report news using the definition, e.g.    130.195.253.57 (talk) 23:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pickups