Talk:Suzuki Cultus

Geo Metro, Chevrolet Sprint, Pontiac Firefly Merge

I have begun integrating the Geo Metro, Chevrolet Sprint and Pontiac Firefly articles into the Suzuki Cultus article. The early sections of the Suzuki Swift article belong under the Cultus, as well. Discuss. 842U (talk) 03:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Rewrite and Merge

The way it was rewritten, it's now implied the car was sold as the Suzuki Forsa in Japan. It wasn't, it was a Cultus right from 1983, when it was introduced (not 1985). Then, calling the car is called a subcompact in the introductory paragraph, when it's about a Japanese domestic model. And then there was the addition of gigantic bulleted lists about the Geo/Chevrolet Metro, which so far has it's own article. There's nothing in the intro about the Cultus Crescent (Esteem) anymore, and a line about the Indian-built Maruti 1000 was switched from the Cultus proper to the Cultus Crescent (which is wrong, the Suzuki Esteem never had a 1.0L engine in any market). If these problems are not addressed, I'm simply going to revert the latest changes. --Pc13 (talk) 23:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Pc13. I appreciate your feedback. I'm sure there are' mistakes, so please help in pointing them out or correcting them. There were huge gaps in logic in the original Cultus article... and since it was virtually unreferenced, there will be mistakes. Again, I appreciate your eye and your feedback. Please bear with me... if this doesn't work we can go back.

You will notice that there have been off and on MERGE discussions with the Chevrolet Sprint, Pontiac Firefly and Geo Metro.

The idea here is to bring the article into conformance with the Wikipedia Automobiles Project, where the article would come to resemble the Daewoo Kalos article, to which the Chevrolet Aveo, Pontiac Wave etc. links lead. In other words, there is no Chevrolet Aveo or Pontiac Wave article... they are incorporated into the Kalos article. The idea is also that there won't be a Geo Metro or Firefly article anymore: the intention is that the article will be from the perspective of the original country of origin... not from the Geo Metro's country of origin, for example... or the Holden Barina's country of origin, for example. And the idea is that the Cultus Crescent will have its own article, shared with the Baleno, Esteem article.

The "giant bullited list" you refer to is from the GM M platform... which is highly related in understanding the Cultus as a whole.

The Cultus Crescent has been restored to the introduction with links to its section of the article. I'm not positive I see where you see a "Maruti" mistake.

I'm sure there are some other mistakes, so please, by all means help out. I have tried to correct the problems you pointed out... let me know if you see anything else. 842U (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

You were probably confused with the use of the Esteem name. The Maruti Esteem was not the Suzuki Esteem, it was the Suzuki Swift Sedan. The Indian market Esteem (Cultus Crescent) was called Baleno, just like in Europe. As for merging everything into the Cultus article, as was done with the Daewoo models, it won't be easy. The Swift name, for example, is now used in Japan as well, and a previous Japanese market Swift was sold in Europe as the Ignis, which was developed for the European market first. And then there's the problem whether the Cultus Crescent (later just Cultus) should have its own article. --Pc13 (talk) 12:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you clarifying that. It sounds like you might really understand some of the nuances here -- I'll have to do more homework. Could you please look at the Suzuki Swift article and tell me what you think about the accuracy of that article... particularly the generation names, the original name of the car.

It seems that the Cultus itself spawned a wide group of nameplate variations, but essentially the core vehicles, the core body styles, manufactured then in Japan, CAMI, Hungary etc. Nameplate divergences such as the Canadian Swift+ model, the current Japanese and European Swift models, and the Cultus Crescent (later just Cultus again) present vexing but I think solvable issues.

Also, what would you think of moving "manufacturing" to after "overview"?

I added a NOTES column to the 'manufacturing table' and changed Geo Metro to North America vs. USA; I believe that's correct.

Again, thanks for helping keep the article accurate. 842U (talk) 13:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Swift seems to have been written from an American perspective with bits of other markets later shoehorned in. Right now it's a mess and should probably be rewritten from perspectives for North America, Europe, India and Australia. If the 1995 "MK3.5" is different from the Japanese platform (which continued in other markets up to 2007), it might require a section of its own. I think we should skip the MK1/2/3 designations and use the internal Suzuki codes to differentiate between different generations.

As for the Cultus article, I'd suggest having a section for manufacturing and another for the nameplates, skip the overview section and then separate the different generations. I took most of the Japanese market information from an official Suzuki history website, in Japanese, which is what's at the head of the "overview" section now. I'm still unsure how best to incorporate the export model infos in here. As far as I'm aware there are only two generations proper, so once more, the "MK1/2/3" sections need to go.

And the Cultus Crescent could have its own article, if we merge the Suzuki Esteem into it. --Pc13 (talk) 13:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

The Pontiac Firefly, Geo Metro and Chevrolet Sprint models have now been redirected here.

I understand the Generation issue, and see how messy the Swift "generations" are denoted. What is currently referred to as Generation III was North American only.

Would the current generation of the Swift be considered as separate completely, as in, not Cultus related?

I'm thinking the smart way to handle the Swift may be to keep a separate article with clear redirects here where there is overlap.... much as the Holden Barina will need to keep. 842U (talk) 14:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations and thanks, 842U, for taking up the sisyphean task of merging the Cultus back into one. The article surely needs an immense amount of work, and I hope others will chip in too. Some of my remarks after first read:

1. Yes, a Suzuki Swift disambig page would be more than adequate, perhaps in Barina style, detailing the use of nameplate on different vehicles. The Suzuki Swift page for the current worldwide Swift should be moved to Suzuki Swift (code), where "code" is the manufacturer's chassis code (generation is ambiguous, as it is a "different generation" Swift in every market.
2. Suzuki Cultus Crescent should definitely have its own page, incorporating content on the Baleno and Suzuki Esteem. A brief mention/hatnote in this article would suffice.
3. The main infobox should contain info only pertaining to all generations of the vehicle, not a summary of all kinds of everything + some minor memos such as "Suzukis", "GM versions" etc. - if some verion of the car is still in production, it should be stated that production span is "1983-present".
4. I would rather divide the article generation-wise than by nameplate, but perhaps I just need to read it again.

Kind, PrinceGloria (talk) 18:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Prince for your feedback. The "codes" or internal designations that you are referring to would really help. Some European articles at Wikipedia Deutsch, for example, have clear sets of codes, but I'm not certain they are international.

Please check out this article: Suzuki Swift, which is now both the disambiguation page for Swift (like Barina) as well as the article that covers Generation IV.

In addition to your comments, the current article gives very short shrift to India, Pakistan and South America. And there is a lot of redundancy still with this new structure, that perhaps a generational structure could lean out.

The Cultus Crescent information needs to be handled carefully, so as to respect it's place as an JDM evolution of the Cultus, but then lead to a more full article that is perhaps a modified version of the Baleno/Esteem article.

Miles Per Gallon

I'm interested if anyone could find some stats on the fuel consumption of these models. It seems noteworthy to me as they are sold and marketed as "economy cars", at least in the US —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.91.185.56 (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many different models and it varies by year and Every country and company has a different way of testing it ... So If we put it the article would be vary crowded ... but if you are interested in fuel economy check out http://www.fueleconomy.gov/ Speer320 (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, if comprehensive and independently verifiable information even existed, it would need to cover the 25 years the car has been in production, from Pakistan to South America to Hungary. It's a far larger task than it seems on the surface -- and probably why it's not usually appropriate to even go there. 842U (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My 1.0GLS gets about 11 miles to the litre of 95octane unleaded —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.20 (talk) 13:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we don't have a definitive set of information, but the fact remains that this is one of the highest MPG cars available, and there is no mention of the car's mileage until the Geo Metro section. Another tidbit is the fact that these cars regularly sell for above KBB prices, despite their age and poor construction. This is entirely due to the car's reputation as a highly efficient vehicle. I propose at least a section on the perception of this car as an efficient vehicle.KY Metro (talk) 20:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Cultus B Family and R13B engine usage

On the page of automotive superlatives the cultus is listed as the car with an engine with the highest specific output and lists that engine as an R designated engine. Early in this article it is said that this car was made with B family engines and no mention of R family usage. I don't know anything about the cultus because it is a JDM car and I am not familiar with it... however, it seems odd that the superlatives page and this one are in conflict. I have added a "citation needed" to the end of part of the article discussing the suzuka edition cultus because it should be noted that that car uses an R family engine, or that it used a B family engine and the superlatives page needs to be cleaned up. I do not personally know which is true, or how to verify which is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.177.227 (talk) 18:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Split into several articles

The article is too long. I think it should be subdivided into at least 3-4 articles, such as the three different generations of the Cultus. Giving the Geo Metro its own article is possible, too. Jgera5 (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. The vehicles differ only slightly from market to market, and this compilation follows the guidelines for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. 842U (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not disagreeing with having one article for several badge-engineered vehicles. But there are several well-known vehicles that have individual pages for each generation (see Ford Taurus, Chevrolet Camaro, Honda Accord, etc...), and each section of the three Cultus generations are longer than some articles for entire cars (see Chevrolet Cobalt). We could easily have four pages split off of this one: the three generations, and a list of the Cultus derivatives like the Geo Metro. I just think the article as a whole is unnecessarily lengthy. That's all. Jgera5 (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC).

For what it's worth, the history of this page tells the whole story. When the article was in separate pieces (Cultus, Firefly, Swift, Metro) there was a desire to consolidate the article — And rightly so, these cars weren't Metro derivatives; they were mostly badge engineered models. I'm not sure what the problem is with the length of the article; it's broken down logically and it's well organized. But hey, help me understand why it would be better if the article were broken down again. 842U (talk) 20:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I too, think that this page could use some breaking down - whether by generation or by name shouldn't matter too much? What if one page, called Geo Metro, covered all the North American iterations, and Suzuki Cultus covered the rest of the world (perhaps including North American market Suzukis). My biggest issue, besides length and confusing layout, is that there is currently a "3rd generation Suzuki Cultus" listed even though that car was never sold with the Cultus nameplate, as it was only ever offered in US/Canada. In general, the US market vehicles have generally been quite different from those sold elsewhere, excepting the Swift GTi versions, so I think that such would be the most logical division.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather go by generation (as usual), and have Geo Metro as a set index article, just like the Ford Ranger page. The Cultus page would be split into generations one and two, while the Geo Metro page would have three thumbnail images (one for each generation). The captions of the first two images would direct readers to the appropriate Cultus article, with the third image caption directing readers to a separate article titled "Geo Metro (third generation)" or similar. This method removes the much-maligned content duplication, whilst ensuring that non-existent models remain that way. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The third generation poses an interesting dilemma. Shouldn't it technically be called Suzuki Swift? I do agree with you though, Geo Metro (third generation) makes sense since this seems to be the most commonly used label in what might be considered the cars home market. Maybe a nice little diagram would help resolve things too, a la the one used on the Toyota Camry page but with a Japanese, North American, and a European branch.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Also, do you propose having all the NAm nameplates (Chevrolet Sprint, Pontiac Firefly, etc) redirect to Geo Metro? I own a Sprint myself and I don't think it's a bad idea, so I don't imagine there will be any real protests.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:55, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The convention for articles like this is to have them under their core nameplate, not their international derivatives, per Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. The article at one time existed as separate articles... the models are no longer made and thus the article isn't prone to grown more than it has already. In other words, the article is fairly stable and doesn't need to be splintered. 842U (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with the article as now is that what is called the "third generation Suzuki Cultus" was only ever available in North America and only under other nameplates. I'm not even sure where it was developed and by whom? It looks as if it was drawn by GM designers, does anyone know for sure?  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to change my suggestion slightly. I think that the Suzuki Cultus Crescent information should be listed on the main Suzuki Cultus article, just like on the Japanese Wikipedia. The Cultus Crescent (third generation) replaced the Cultus (second generation). However, both models remained on sale alongside one another in Japan. In most other markets, the Cultus Crescent replaced the Cultus-based Swift. After the second generation Cultus was withdrawn from the Japanese market, the "Cultus Crescent" was rebranded "Cultus". As before, Geo Metro would become a set index article with a separate article for the third generation.

I think that the third generation Geo Metro information should be titled "Geo Metro". Having it titled "Suzuki Swift" would interfere with the actual Suzuki Swift article which is completely separate and unrelated. I would actually be willing to bet that the third generation Geo Metro was designed by GM in North America (it looks similar to other contemporary Chevrolets, but unlike the designs utilised by Suzuki in Japan at the time). And yes, the North American nameplates (Chevrolet Sprint, Pontiac Firefly, et cetera) should redirect to the Geo Metro set index article. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The timeline below (based on the Japanese market) shows that the Cultus Crescent is a continuation of the Cultus line, even though the Cultus (Swift) and Cultus Crescent (Baleno) hatchbacks were briefly sold alongside each other.

OSX (talk • contributions) 01:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hm. I don't know that the Crescent/Baleno/Esteem replaced the Cultus in any market besides the Japanese, and even there it wasn't quite a replacement but more of the abandonment of the disappearing B-segment for the C-segment (I know no one agrees on an official definition). Also, while there is no unified English speaking market name for the Crescent/Baleno/Esteem ("CcBE" from now on), it did occupy a niche separate from that of the various Cultus derivatives in all English speaking markets of which I have knowledge. (Things may have been different in the Antipodes, I don't know, but it was labelled Baleno there, right?) And as is made clear by the table, the 'CcBE' was labelled Cultus Crescent in Japan for more than half of its existence.

In conclusion: Placing the 'CcBE' content solely on the Cultus page would be incorrect, as it was a separate car with a different name (excepting a portion of its existence in the JDM market). Placing it under Suzuki Esteem or Suzuki Baleno is also not optimal, since either one would violate the naming conventions (and rightly so). Suzuki Cultus (third generation) would make the 'CcBE' seem like a seamless and common replacement for the previous Culti (sic), a suggestion which holds untrue for all markets in which it was offered. Titling the article Suzuki Cultus Crescent, naturally with the appropriate redirects present, seems to me to be by far the best possible solution of the five available to us.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:14, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

While production of the Cultus did not end immediately before CcBE sales, the Cultus Crescent was introduced as a more premium offering. This is not much different to the 1998–2004 Opel Astra continuing alongside the 2004–2010 model as the "Astra Classic".

The CcBE sedan definitely succeeded the Cultus (Swift) sedan in 1995 (at least in Japan and Australia). Can anyone confirm the production run for the Cultus (Swift) sedan in other markets? The three-door hatchback Cultus (Swift) continued alongside the equivalent three-door CcBE in Japan (Cultus Crescent) until 1998, and Australia (Baleno) until 2000. Japanese sales of the CcBE three-door ended in 1999 prior to the introduction of the Swift (Ignis) in February 2000. In Australia, the Ignis arrived in October 2000, with the Baleno three-door continuing on until November 2001 when the entire range was replaced by the Liana (Aerio).

Back to the point... the above shows that in 1995, the Cultus Crescent replaced the Cultus in Japan (with Cultus hatchback sales continuing on until 1998). In other markets, the CcBE was sold alongside the Cultus (Swift) until the CcBE was replaced by the Ignis and Aerio/Liana ranges. It comes down to perspective: do we want to follow the Japanese (home market) perspective and have just one article, or follow the North American/European/Australasian perspective and separate the two? I am not too fussed my self, but would like to keep at least a passing mention of the CcBE in the Suzuki Cultus article.

So are there any objections to my original suggestion?

• Suzuki Cultus: article outlining generations one (1983–1988) and two (1988–2000).
• Suzuki Cultus Crescent: article outlining Cultus Crescent and Baleno/Esteem derivatives (1995–2001). The article will need to be renamed from its current name ("Suzuki Esteem") to "Suzuki Cultus Crescent".
• Geo Metro: set index article (similar to Ford Ranger) pointing readers to the Suzuki Cultus article for the first two generations, and a separate Geo Metro (third generation) article for the third.

OSX (talk • contributions) 09:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support: Sounds very good to me, and naturally the Cultus Crescent needs a mention on the Cultus page (sort of like what it has right now, under the "Marketing: Japan" header.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

• Support, particularly for the third generation since it was never sold under the Cultus name. Makes little sense to have that generation at a naming convention the car never actually went by and per WP:COMMONNAMES. Gateman1997 (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Split Tag

I tried to split the article in accordance with a long standing split tag. Mr Choppers described the required split as follows (copied from his talk page):

It should indeed be split. My modified variant of OSX's suggestion was to place articles one and two into one article (Suzuki Cultus), with the Baleno/Cultus Crescent/Esteem in another (Suzuki Cultus Crescent), and with Geo Metro being turned into very brief sections on generations one and two with redirects to Cultus, with the third generation having all its content on this page. Once it's done we can always see if there are issues. I don't have much editing time at the moment, but I'll check back in when I can. Best, ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 7:24 pm, Today (UTC+0)

However, when I came to do the split, I found that the article Suzuki Cultus Crescent in fact already exists. Since carrying out the split requires more expertise on the subject than I have, I will remove the split tag (because it is now redundant and tag the sections in accordance with Mr Choppers suggestions. If the tags are not acted on in a reasonable time (or removed) then I will see what I can do. Op47 (talk) 21:36, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe that that article exists as part of the effort to split it - a job that seems to have halted mid-way. I'll get cracking...  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 05:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

SA310/413

The recent edits delineating these model codes/names are not entirely correct - AFAIK 310 means three cylinders and 1.0 litre displacement, while 413 means four cylinders and 1.3 litres displacement. "SA410" is a rare name only used in a few developing country markets which received the 970cc F10A four-cylinder engine, and not for a developed version. Suzuki's own internal model codes are much more confusing than that (AA43, AB43 and so on). I have deciphered them before but they are a bit of a nightmare and don't provide much illumination and so I decided not to include them in the article.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

--fair, thanks for clarifying. I will adjust accordingly as early and late until I can clarify the model codes Simon.pilepich (talk) 10:46, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Discontinuation of the Lingyang (Chinese Version)

I have noticed that the article says the second generation Cultus, called the Lingyang, is still being produced in China. However, I have found compelling evidence that it has been recently discontinued. This seems to be suggested by the sales data, as well as the Changan Suzuki official website. It is no longer listed listed as a model from the top drop-down bar on the website, and using the Wayback Archive, I found that they stopped listing the Lingyang in that section last fall. Still, I am hesitant to make edits and I would like to see if anyone has any supporting or contradictory evidence. Themikepeng (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Themikepeng: - done, thanks for the source.  Mr.choppers | ✎  17:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Platform

GM S platform redirects to this page. I understand that GM used the S platform for larger, Toyota Corolla E80, E90 based vehicles built by NUMMI, such as Chevrolet Nova (1S, 5th generation), Geo Prizm, or Pontiac Vibe. IMHO, the Cultus was built on the M platform.--Chief tin cloud (talk) 10:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Corrected redirect.--Chief tin cloud (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Suzuki Cultus. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050703084450/http://www.hardrive.com/reviews/geometro.htm to http://www.hardrive.com/reviews/geometro.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217003706/http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safercar/menuitem.db847bd57e3dc1f885dfc38c35a67789/?vgnextoid=c95df2905bf54110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD to http://www.safercar.gov/portal/site/safercar/menuitem.db847bd57e3dc1f885dfc38c35a67789/?vgnextoid=c95df2905bf54110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 23:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)