Talk:Car

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2023
2001:8F8:122B:D431:F970:174B:4C96:5EDD (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC) The automotive industry designs, develops, manufactures, markets, and sells the world's motor vehicles, more than three-quarters of which are cars. In 2020, there were 56 million cars manufactured worldwide,[114] down from 67 million the previous yea
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  13:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

First mass-produced cars
Maxeto0910@undefined added a claim that the first mass-produced cars in the world were the Oldsmobile Curved Dash and the Ford Model T. Both a certainly contenders for the title and are both significant cars. But I have found that American reference tend to ignore things outside of their own borders when claiming such titles. When they say "the first car to xxx", they often really mean "the first in America to xxx". This is often because they are an American magazine/newspaper/book writing to an American audience about an American topic, so it is kind of understandable in that context - but not for an international audience.

Counter-claims are:
 * the Benz Velo. See https://theinventors.org/library/weekly/aacarsassemblya.htm
 * the Panhard & Levassor Type A. See https://www.belairdirect.com/blog/history-automobile

Thoughts?  Stepho  talk 11:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * As I said in my edit summary, it's simply not a valid argument claiming that sources may be biased just because they're writing about something of their own country. It's also a logical fallacy, since it could be said about every source that they report in favour of their country, and claiming that this would be only true for American media is per definition quite racist.


 * At least in the sources I gave, it's clearly not the case that they're only reporting about the situation in the USA: The NY Times article also mentions France and Germany, and the Washington Post article writes about the Model T that "historians credit it with revolutionizing the industry".


 * Benz Velo: Your source given claims that it was the first standardized car, meaning that every car was different from each other until then. However, only around 1,000 cars were produced within 8 years, compared to the Oldsmobile Curved Dash's 20,000 in 6 years, which is probably why it's not considered a mass-produced car. Arguably the first serial-produced car, but not the first mass-produced car.


 * Panhard & Levassor Type A: Seems to be quite unpopular, I find very little information about it online. I don't know how many cars were sold or produced, but probably also not very many based on how little seems to be known about it. Anyway, it doesn't seem to be widely considered a mass-produced car either.


 * With that, I suggest restoring my version. It could be argued if the phrasing should be changed to "widely considered" instead of "considered" to emphasize that the actuality is not quite clear (mass-produced is ultimately a subjective term), but this is how it's mostly regarded by historians and the media.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you for entering this discussion.
 * This discussion hinges on what defines "mass production" and whether we have reliable, independent sources to back it up.
 * Steps towards mass production were:
 * The very first cars were hand-crafted - each unit was hand-made and differed from the previous one.
 * Then they introduced serial production where each unit in a batch was still hand-made but substantially the same as the rest of the batch.
 * Next they built them in bigger numbers - moving from 10's of units to 100's and sometimes over 1000.
 * Bring in the assembly line and we have today's idea of mass production of 100's per day of identical cars.
 * It's not clear which of steps 2-4 constitutes "mass production". My sources tend to defining step 2 as mass-production. Yours tend to step 4.
 * The NY Times and Washington Post are certainly respectable and reliable sources for anything recent and especially about economics and politics. However, they are not motoring journals and I have found that newspapers and magazine history articles tend to be one guy's idea of history and often have errors in the fine details. I've even seen motoring magazines with such errors when not covering their centre of interest - eg muscle car mags giving a history of early Toyota's almost always have errors. Books cover this far better because the writer spends years researching it instead of hours or days. Put simply - the NY Times and the Washington are not writing about their areas of expertise.
 * The NY Time article mentions "mass-produced" only once - for the 1954 Chevrolet Corvette. The entire mention of the curved dash is "1901: The curved-dash Oldsmobile becomes the first car to be made in quantity." The model T is only mentioned as "1908: Ford introduces left-hand steering with its new Model T, which sells for $850." and "1927: ... On May 21, Ford produces its last Model T, number 15,007,033." Hardly an in-depth analysis. I do note your point about their mentioning French and German milestones - although it mentions 1 each and skips quickly to mentioning only American milestones after those 2, only returning at the end of the article to reiterate those first 2 milestones.
 * The Washington Post article says "The T was an entirely new car, and historians credit it with revolutionizing the industry by putting Americans on wheels in a reliable, inexpensive mass-produced automobile." No question that the Model T was mass-produced or that it revolutionised the industry. But I do question how many before it also qualified for as mass production. This is very short article that doesn't mention any history outside of the early Ford cars.
 * So far the 2 references are quite weak.
 * WP:INDEPENDENT warns "Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject?" In this case flag waving, probably unintentional. Pointing this out doesn't make me racist. I'm aware that most countries quite rightly want to support their own people. That's why I'd like to see your claims supported by stronger sources with at least one from another country.
 * The Type A is hard to find sources in English. The French (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panhard_%26_Levassor_Type_A#cite_note-1) and Italian Wikipedia articles (https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panhard_%26_Levassor_Type_A) both list it as mass-produced, as do their corresponding references (Google translate being most helpful). I do recognise that this might be flag waving on the part of the European sources - everybody likes to wave their own flag.
 * From the above I have shown: 1) "mass production" has not been defined very well. 2) The NY Times and Washington Post are weak references, possibly with an unintentional bias toward their own countrymen. 3) There are other sources claiming other cars from other countries were also mass produced. Therefore the claim added to our article possibly gives an inaccurate view and requires further discussion or at least some rewording.  Stepho  talk 14:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Regarding the definition of mass production, we should clearly differentiate between serial- and mass-produced cars. The Benz Velo (or Type A) is the first serial-produced car because it was the first whose produced units were standardized, whereas the Oldsmobile Curved Dash is widely considered the first mass-produced car by the media.
 * "Put simply - the NY Times and the Washington are not writing about their areas of expertise": This is an ad-hominem argument because it criticizes not the information but the publisher of the information.
 * As I already said, "mass-produced" is ultimately a subjective term, meaning that it can never be said with certainity what the first mass-produced car was, regardless of how many decades a car enthusiast or historian spent researching. Thus, it's primarily defined by the media to which car this title belongs, and they majority considers the Oldsmobile Curved Dash to be it, rather than the Benz Velo or Type A.
 * Yes, I know that the Model T is only briefly mentioned in the NY Times article. That's why I only used it as a reference for the Curved Dash, not the Model T.
 * "although it mentions 1 each and skips quickly to mentioning only American milestones after those 2, only returning at the end of the article to reiterate those 2 milestones." Yes, but the fact that the article also mentions other countries than the USA shows that the article is about the worldwide development of cars and not only in the USA, since your initial argument was that the article was merely referring to the first mass-produced car in the USA and not worldwide.
 * The article states: "historians credit it with revolutionizing the industry". This implies that it's the world's first mass-affordable car, not just in the USA.
 * I don't understand Italian, but I understand a bit of French, and in the French Wikipedia article, the car is described as the first serial-produced (not mass-produced) car. In the German Wikipedia article, for instance, the Benz Velo is described as the first serial-produced car ("das erste in Serie produzierte Auto"), and the Oldsmobile Curved Dash as the first mass-produced car ("das erste in Großserie hergestellte Automobil").
 * In summary, it can be said that it's not quite clear what the first serial-produced car was (Type A or Benz Velo), but there seems to be a relatively clear consensus in the media that the Oldsmobile Curved Dash was the first mass-produced car. Regarding your 3 main points at the end: 1) Yes, as I said, "mass production" is not a clearly defined term. That's why we should use the media consensus as a reference. 2) I explained why I find that the references are suitable. If you sill find there are issues with them, I may search for more sources. 3) I think I explained that's about the first serial-produced, not mass-produced car. Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Most soled car in Q1 2023 is no car
According to this article Carl Benz was the inventor of the car, since he invented the first "practical, marketable" car. I mean La Mancelle was sold 50 times more often than the "Benz Patent-Motorwagen" but it had no internal combustion engine. So obviously unpractical. A shame that all the Tesla buyers do not know. All the reliable sources say that. OK there is the 15th edition of Brockaus. And all the other encyclopedias of that time (1920s) that cite Siegfried Marcus. And the British that had extra tolls for cars a hundred years earlier. But it was corrected by the "Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda" that also destroyed all false evidence. So has to be right! What a luck we had, that the Nazis came to power none has disputed this false claim before they did.

Sorry it is absolutely obvious that the original definition of "soled" and "with internal combustion engine" was chosen by the Nazis to make a German (non Jew) to the inventor of the car. No other article makes the sale a requirement for a invention. No normal thinking man would make a internal combustion engine a requirement for a car. When it became too obvious that this definition is hogwash the less precise and therefore less falsifiable "practical" term of John Nixon was used.

But I know nothing will change. Since the "Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda" is no more we now need write protection from IPs that want to cite the unlivable source Brockhaus from 1925 instead of the reliable source of Brockhaus from 1941. And there are so many other people that are citing the newer edition! --04:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC) 2001:9E8:2DD7:2500:DA5E:D3FF:FE0E:3424 (talk) 04:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I think you mean "sold", not "soled".
 * Wikipedia can only repeat what it finds in reliable sources - see WP:VERIFY, WP:FACT and WP:RS. WP:TRUTH is also good to read - it is not official policy but it does explain the official policy. If you can present reliable sources that support your claims (both the invention and the suppression) then we can put it in Wikipedia. If different sources contradict each other then we present both claims (with references) and leave it to the reader to decide.  Stepho  talk 05:59, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * As I said before: The debate is old. It will be a long discussion about spelling mistakes, if the 15th edition of Brockhaus is a reliable source... In the end the article is write protected and you will decide that the claim is disputed. Since most of the newer sources are now citing the first lines of Wikipedia, you will let the obviously false claim on top and say that according to WP:BALANCE minority views should be discussed somewhere else later. If you would be interested you would go to the Reference section of History_of_steam_road_vehicles. Almost all of them obviously falsify the clam that the first car was build after 1880. But thinking that 1771 was before 1886 would be WP:NOR. But there is no debate about facts. No one disputes that Benz was building more cars than anybody else from 1894 until the Model T came around and that the La Mancelle was it bevore (being only build half as often as the Benz Velo). It is just the definition of "practical" and if "practical" and "marketable" should be a requirement for a car. Other than from Benz itself, there is absolutely no source from before 1939 that is claiming that this is a requirement. And it is cited in several Wikipedia-articles that you edited yourself that the Nazis made this effort to put this in place. Afterwards most sources changed to the Nazi view. And since there are several Wikipedia policies say that you should prefer newer sources. – No exception for historic events even so it is obviously stupid. – In the end, unless there is some admin that is  willing to go WP:IAR, nothing will change. --2001:9E8:2DD7:2500:DA5E:D3FF:FE0E:3424 (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC) Edit: spelling mistakes. --2001:9E8:2DD7:2500:DA5E:D3FF:FE0E:3424 (talk) 09:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm reading some of the background. I've no doubt that Marcus made a handful of experimental cars. He sold his engines via a business but didn't appear to sell the cars. I've also no doubt that the Nazi's did all they could to discredit/erase his name. But there were also earlier inventors who made one-off motorised cars/bike/tractors using steam/electric/petrol engines. All of these required intimate knowledge to run - typically the operator was the builder. Benz seems to be the first to have made them to sell - ie multiple copies built to be driven by a (wealthy) person without requiring special mechanical aptitude. I'll keep reading.  Stepho  talk 00:59, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Drive a replica of the old ones and than look when your children try the first time to drive with manual gearing, ask about traffic rules... And then we discuss about knowledge needed to drive a modern car. To the "operated by": Even if it would be true war are discussing about "marketable". So Mercedes run taxis and Formula One racing cars are no cars, since they are operated by the producer? This is just stupid. Benz would be the inventor of car marketing. Not cars. And it is not true. Like mentioned before the La Mancelle was soled in a very similar fashion. Marcus is the inventor of the first petrol driven car. This is the fact that the Nazis didn't like. So they insisted in these stupid restrictions for the definition of car. But this article is obviously not any more about petrol driven cars.
 * While the definitions for cars differ slightly, absolutely no one defines cars in this way when it is not in the context to determine the inventor.
 * Most definition look like this:
 * 1. That they run primarily on roads.
 * 2. Mainly transport people, not cargo.
 * 3. Use internal energy to change the position
 * 4. Not used for mass transport.
 * So the inventor should be Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot in 1771 if you add that passengers have to sit inside it would be 1769 or if you insist of 4 wheels probably Trevithick in 1801. (Also I highly object since it would mean that Robin, Ape Twizy and isetta are no cars.)
 * In the end all I would like to have is the same definition of car for the invention as for the rest of the article. --Fabiwanne (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In the end I would just remove the "Inventor" from the box since slight definition changes make up for dozends of years. Or put disputed on there. Like I said Bez is obviously wrong, since the La Mancelle meets all reasonable criteria and was earlier. Determine the first one is much more complicated. This is why the Nazis where that successful – thy provided a easy answer for a complicated topic. --Fabiwanne (talk) 20:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Although this discussion is somewhat hard to follow, I agree with Stepho-wrs and I would like to elaborate on it. Reading this, I think there is also a dispute about the definition of a car, split between precursors (any vehicle that can move itself internally so it could even be a steam car) and modern cars (which is what this article should be about, the kind of vehicle we use nowadays)? Anyway, Benz has been regarded by most as the inventor of the (modern) car, not just "because of the Nazis". For example: when Benz died in 1929 (so before the Nazis came to power), even a newspaper from Middle America called him "the inventor of the automobile" ("Karl Benz". Des Moines Tribune, 24 April 1929. P. 10). Even with the knowledge of the Nazi involvement in erasing Marcus' name, automotive historians such as G. N. Georgano have still hailed Benz as the main man. Georgano said in his book Cars, 1886–1930 (note how he starts in 1886, the year of the Benz Patent-Motorwagen) that the Motorwagen was "the first motorcar" due to its commercial production. It may seem odd to give credit to someone just because he made it into a commercial (practical) product, but cars of people like Marcus were rather experimental/not practical for daily use (Marcus' "automobile" wasn't even the first to have an internal combustion engine, btw) and we would never have the automobiles of today if it wasn't for Benz and the men after him. This also goes into detail why Benz’s car was the first (modern) one. Steam vehicles (such as La Mancelle) are not regarded as (modern) cars, partly due to them having an external combustion engine.
 * I concur that for important inventions such as the car, multiple individuals should always be given credit, not just one figure. However, to suggest Benz did not invent the car (or rather: should not belong to the people given credit) and that his popularity is only due to the Nazis, is just pure nonsense. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Modern" made sense when the Otto Engine seemed to be the "winning" engine for cars. But with now a fifth (and growing) of the cars having no internal combustion engine it is more a misstep in history. Yes, Benz did a lot of things in the development of modern cars but even more did Ford or Cugnot and while their achievements prevail most of the things Benz invented are now obsolete. The "Patent Motorwagen 1" was much less practical than anything mentioned here and the Velo came much later. As I said: You can give him a lot of credit. But the "Patent Motorwagen 1" matches almost no definition of a car. (Since it has not 4 wheels, the passengers do not sit inside ant it has no lights.) While the La Mancelle matches almost all of them. So he is just not the inventor of the car. He was the first one who produced bigger amounts of cars with internal combustion engines. But this has nothing to do with "modern" cars. They are electric. Excluding one type of heat engine while allowing a lot of others even electric engines makes no sense. --2001:9E8:2DCF:9800:DA5E:D3FF:FE0E:3424 (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not me "giving him credit", Benz's name comes up the most (or at least almost always) in relation to the invention of the car. Statements like "more did Ford or Cugnot" or "almost no definition of a car" are just unfounded and WP:OR. Also, by saying "a misstep in history", it seems like you have an agenda here... Just to note: electric cars were around way before the 21st century. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
 * He and the Nazis had an agenda. This is well documented. This is the reason why he comes up everywhere. And you yourself admitted that electric cars were around way before the 21st century. So you know that the thing you like to have written here are just wrong. So sorry seems much more for me that your have the agenda to spread misinformation. --2001:9E8:2DCF:9800:DA5E:D3FF:FE0E:3424 (talk) 07:59, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that "first modern, practical" car is an extremely vague term and it seems to me like the definition of a "real" car was somewhat laid out to apply to Carl Benz as well. I'm also in favor of clarifying that this is a controversial issue, which should be noted as such in the article. Maxeto0910 (talk) 00:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Change the Volkswagen Beetle image to the older model
Currently the initial image of the page say “Volkswagen beetle the most recognizable car of all time” but then it shows a updated 2.0 version of the beetle introduced way later, it should be changed to the early version because that version is more recognizable and impactful 2804:14C:BF2E:A640:9DBC:ED3F:BAF9:F2FE (talk) 23:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Agreed. The late version is only recognisable because it looks (vaguely) like the first version.  Stepho  talk 02:58, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Types of engine
how many tyos of engine ae threre 43.239.200.209 (talk) 11:47, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Many. See engine - particularly the engine section.  Stepho  talk 13:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)