Talk:DeLorean Motor Company

Photo
Any chance of a photo of one?2toise 12:56, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

How about a detail shot - the steering column - specifically the little drawer that was just the right size for about three, maybe four, packets of cocaine. I sat in a De Lorean once, and that's the thing that sticks in my mind. ;Bear 04:25, 2004 Apr 8 (UTC)


 * Har har. Here's the owner's manual in PDF format, with no coke compartment to be found. There is an ashtray, a compartment behind the driver's seat, and a passenger-side glove compartment. Besides, he was acquitted of trying to sell $24,000,000 worth (in 1984 dollars) of cocaine, way more than would fit in the steering column. --Arteitle 22:53, Apr 9, 2004 (UTC)

Move (2004)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I wonder if moving the article from "De Lorean" to "DeLorean" was appropriate, given that in the original owner's manual I linked to above, it's always written with the space, as it is on the emblems on the body of the car itself (see pictures here). Though it's often written without one, these sources would suggest that the article should include the space. --Arteitle 19:11, Apr 26, 2004 (UTC)


 * I note that even enthusiasts of the cars spell it without a space in their pages that you cite, though. One would have thought that they at least would pick the 'right' version, given how much such people tend to be sticklers for the correct vs common version.  References to without-a-space outnumber with-a-space sixteen to one online.  However, I'll do some more research and if it seems that the official version was unambigously always with a space, I'll put it back -- no change is irreversible on Wikipedia, after all.


 * Update: it seems that in official DMC publications that a half-space was used. See http://www.dmcnews.com/faq/img/docs/doc_11c.gif (part of the dealer information pack), for instance.  There is space between De and Lorean, but it is not a full inter-word space either.  I wonder if this is the source of the confusion; that neither a full space nor no space are correct? &mdash;Morven 20:21, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. The owner's manual was turned into a PDF, which may have meant that if half-spaces were used, they were reinterpreted as full spaces. I can't tell if the window sticker uses a half or a full space, but there is a space in "De Lorean". But you're right that usually it's typed without the space on the web. --Arteitle 01:14, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)

This archive from the DeLorean Mailing List mentions the confusion (search for "spelling problems"). A few quotes:


 * It depends on when the name De Lorean was written. John changed his name from Delorean to De Lorean to sound french...so the book "Grand Delusions" states.  Since it is his name and his car I would say that the correct spelling is De Lorean! (That is unless he decides to change it again :)


 * Part of the confusion of the spelling of DeLorean (my preference) comes, no doubt from the use of the stylized letters in the logo. I have the window stickers to both my original 81 and my present 83 and there it is printed with what appears to be, at best, a half space between the e and the folowing L.

 --Arteitle 01:31, Apr 27, 2004 (UTC)
 * And the correct answer is A  because John always signs his mail as John Z. De Lorean. Not only but also have a look at the name badge on the bonnet if you have an 1982 car, there is clearly a gap, and the original company in Dunmurry spelt it that way on their letter headings etc.


 * Do you happen to know at what point Delorean became De Lorean for John? In historical contexts we probably want to use the correct version at the time.  I'll definitely be changing the car name back, at least, since it seems that official company literature uses a space. &mdash;Morven 07:16, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Y'know, not to beat this horse again, but JZD's autobiography is clearly titled DELOREAN by John Z. DeLorean. This spelling is consistant throughout the book, including references to his parents, and the transcript of United States of America, Plaintiff, v. John Z. DeLorean, Defendant. Also, I had him autograph the owner's manual of my DMC-12, and it's signed DeLorean - cursive with the "e" and "l" connected. This, added to the fact that DeLorean is far and away the most commonly expressed version, leads me to believe that our current versions are incorrect. Oh, and Grand Delusions, and Dream Maker also display "John Z. DeLorean" on their covers. What say?

--Detriment 20:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It might be a typesetting thing. I don't remember seeing intercapitalized words in the 1970s (with the exception of Pontiac LeMans), and it seems to have crept in with word processors and less advanced typesetting programs in the 1980s (e.g. word processors which could not do half-spaces). I personally say there was a half-space in typesetting, and that that should be written with a full space in contexts such as Wikipedia. In period magazines I remember there being a space. The absence of a space in the transcript could well be to do with De Lorean's actual name on his birth certificate, which I understand did not have a space. Subsequent uses, with the intercapitalized form, could well be a carryover from bad '80s typesetting that we've inherited. This doesn't answer your autograph point, though I do note that my own signature omits a space between my Christian name and surname, and I definitely wouldn't want people to spell it without that space! Stombs 21:21, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've had a look at some DMC stock certificates, and it's clearly De Lorean, as is the name on the front of the manufacturing plant. The car has the same format on it's original documentation and bumper. JZD has had patents issued in both forms, but 7 to 2 (searchable) in favor of DeLorean. He's obviously used both versions at various times, and I have to agree with you on your signature argument - actually the one I have looks like "DeL orean", but I won't lobby to add that version to the list. His relatives seem to use DeLorean or Delorean. The typesetting theory is quite speculative, though. I don't know why I'm going on about this or why I really care, but it just strikes me as odd that as a DeLorean owner for years and a member of a few owner's associations, I have always known the car, company, and man as Delorean, or more formally DeLorean, yet wikificially it's De Lorean. Evidence is evidence, but I think if I had my choice, I'd have to go with De Lorean for the car and company, DeLorean for the person. --Detriment 04:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, when he first retired from GM, among other interests he owned a GM dealership in Cleveland. I believe his personal ownership is historical, but the dealership retains the name of that era when he procured it: DeLorean with the second capital but no space.  The transformation of his name was a topic of the time as well.  --Pmeisel 02:56, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Misc
The bit about mesmerizing Thatcher's government is spurious - the deal for the creation of the plant was arranged with the previous Labour government, and entailed heavy government subsidy, something completely at odds with both Thatcherism and capitalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.252.128.13 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Image
I just added an image, since two of them showed up at the weekly Garden Grove, California car show. This one was the more stock of the two. The other was completely done up as the Back to the Future car, complete with external wiring harness, internal controls, external stuff around the engine compartment, etc. I believe this is the car that I saw recently sold on eBay. Couldn't get a photo, though, too many people milling around ... &mdash;Morven 02:31, 22 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you have a photo of the BTTF car? That page could do with one! Thanks, Mark Richards 23:14, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

commercial use?
Why is a commercial link included on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.2.2 (talk • contribs) 03:16, 21 December 2004 (UTC)

Move (2005) to De Lorean Motor Company?

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Shouldn't this article really be moved to De Lorean Motor Company? De Lorean as a concept was probably a good idea at a time when the man, the car, and the car company all shared a page...but it seems like now, this really should just refer to the company itself. Any thoughts? --Milkmandan 08:59, 2005 Jan 27 (UTC)


 * agreed --Detriment 17:57, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Also, I think it makes sense to redirect De Lorean to De Lorean DMC-12 if these pages get moved&mdash;my experience is that when people say De Lorean, they mean the car, not the company. --Milkmandan 08:09, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Well, I tried to move this, and the admins want a more formal vote called. This is sortof a backwater page at the moment, but I suppose I jumped the gun. So, votes to move De Lorean to De Lorean Motor Company? Clearly, I support. --Milkmandan 07:39, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Support. I agree with Milkmandan's original comment. SamH|Talk 11:22, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I normally agree with Milkmandan's edits and comments but I wonder: would a newbie searching for info on the company go to De Lorean or De Lorean Motor Company? I tend to think the former. Sorry—decline here. Stombs 21:23, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)


 * De Lorean is nearly universally used to describe the car, not the company. Shouldn't it redirect to the De Lorean DMC-12 instead?  --Milkmandan 21:31, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)


 * I think that De Lorean should be a disambig to the company (at De Lorean Motor Company, its proper name), the car, and the person, as well as anything or anyone else that might share that name. SamH|Talk 21:46, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Maybe SamH's solution is best because I agree with Milkmandan that some would search for the car under De Lorean, but there will be those who know less about the subject that might search for the car, the company or JZD. Stombs 02:40, Jan 29, 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree--Pmeisel 17:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Agree, the disambig could address the spelling variations as well. --Detriment 04:01, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For what may turn out to be an interesting extention to this debate goto Requested_moves and vote again. Philip Baird Shearer 16:35, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Patents
I did a quick patent search for De Lorean (which, oddly, are all under Delorean&mdash;whatever). Some of these may be relevant, but I really don't have the energy to sort through them right now. --Milkmandan 14:17, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC) 1      6,142,320 	Full-Text 	 Method of storing elongated implements between corner side walls, a holding member, and a floor 2 	D283,882 	Full-Text 	Automobile 3 	4,394,050 	Full-Text 	Apparatus for securing an article to a plastic frame-like structure 4 	4,383,818 	Full-Text 	Molding process 5 	4,382,626 	Full-Text 	Attachment of a stainless steel outerbody to a glass reinforced plastic inner body 6 	4,378,658 	Full-Text 	Mounting for a vehicle door 7 	4,373,885 	Full-Text 	Vacuum system for a moving production line 8 	D260,510 	Full-Text 	Automobile wheel 9 	4,042,746 	Full-Text 	Composite material and method of forming 10 	4,034,137 	Full-Text 	Composite sheet structure and method for manufacturing same 11 	4,026,747 	Full-Text 	Composite tubing 12 	4,013,102 	Full-Text 	Composite tubing 13 	3,975,492 	Full-Text 	Method to produce 3-dimensional matrix surface 14 	3,944,704 	Full-Text 	Composite structure

Page move (2005)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

(from WP:RM)

De Lorean &rarr; De Lorean Motor Company
Short discussion already took place at the De Lorean talk page. The target already has a history of redirects because of misspellings and a previous attempt to move. Consensus is to put disambig at old De Lorean page. Milkmandan 14:06, 2005 Jan 31 (UTC)
 * Oppose. DMC was set up to make cars which were called De Lorean.  There should be a primary topic disambig at the start for the De Lorean DMC-12 car. Using equal disambig in cases like this should be avoided. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:22, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a prime example while this RM is a mess at the moment: Tony Sidaway did you go and look at the page? If you had, you would have seen that there was no move template so as it stood at the moment the people who watched the "De Lorean" page would have had no idea that a debate about an aledged consensus on talk:De Lorean was being debated on this page. (I have just added it). How did you come to an informed position without reading the debate by people who are interested in the subject and probably know more about it than you and I, or if you did read the debate why did you not add the template to warn them that you were going to vote against most of them on another page? Philip Baird Shearer
 * Phil, please do not blame me for failing to put a move template up for a move that I did not propose and do not support, and please do not falsely claim that I have not visited Talk:De Lorean and read the discussion there or that if I had done so I should have performed a piece of housekeeping that the proponent had failed to do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:13, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I did not claim that you either visited or did not visit the page. You have now explained that you did, but that you did not add the template because "I did not propose and do not support" and I believe you. However this is not supposed to be a competition to score points against an opposition. It is supposed to be a debate which ends in a consensus. Surely if one has contributed to a number of these polls and if one is the first to cast a vote, one ought to help out if one see an admission on the page to be moved, because many people who are proposing the move will be doing it for the first time and so it is easy for them to make a mistake? Philip Baird Shearer 10:14, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Philip, please stop repeatedly casting around for a reason to assume bad faith. I repeat: I did not propose this move, I did not have a duty to, and nor did I, carry out an inspection to make sure that the move had been correctly proposed.  I seldom get angry, but I'm angry now.  Take you revolting, false and unjustified insinuations elsewhere. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Tony, I don't understand why you think the De Lorean company is the predominant topic, and that equal disambig should be avoided. And also, the car was not named De Lorean, it was named DMC-12. SamH|Talk 18:18, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The tale of DMC is the most interesting thing about De Lorean. On Wikipedia, we go by popular names, not "official names".  Most people know that the car in Back to the Future was a De Lorean, nobody gives two hoots that the manufacturer called it the DMC-12.  Equal disambig should always be avoided where possible because it's annoying. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:24, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Regarding the name of the car, we use the name DMC-12 in the De Lorean articles, so to avoid confusion, I think it's best to stick to that name when talking here. It's also the more factually correct name. But that's just a minor issue. However, you say that "the tale of DMC is the most interesting thing about De Lorean.". It may be so in your assessment, but I don't think we should force that assessment on all Wikipedia readers who search for De Lorean. Anyway, even if it could be proven that the De Lorean Motor Company is the most interesting topic of the name "De Lorean", that still wouldn't make it the predominant topic. I hope you'll change your mind. SamH|Talk 10:27, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the confusion with the missing template&mdash;that was my fault. I totally spaced putting it on there when I listed it here.  Nevertheless, the story behind the car really is mostly listed on the De Lorean DMC-12 page.  The De Lorean (Motor Company) page is, rightly so, devoted primarily to the development and fall of the company.   --Milkmandan 04:42, 2005 Feb 1 (UTC)


 * Support. Philip Baird Shearer 16:39, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. SamH|Talk 17:53, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Detriment 22:25, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * If the car was not named De Lorean, why is this move even under debate? Oppose.  ADH (t&m) 01:21, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't think you understand; This article is not about the car. There is already an entry for the car, De Lorean DMC-12. There is also an entry for John De Lorean. The article under debate, titled "De Lorean", is about the company, "De Lorean Motor Company" which should be it's title. --Detriment 02:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't think you understand; that's precisely my point. ADH (t&m) 07:28, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification (ehem)...if your point is that the article should be titled "De Lorean Motor Company", then why are you opposing?


 * Support. A company is a company and a car is a car. --Pmeisel 01:46, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * I think Support. A question for clarification. After the move, De Lorean would become a disambiguation page with links to both De Lorean DMC-12 (the car) and to De Lorean Motor Company? If that is true, then I support completely. older ≠ wiser 03:09, Feb 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * I proposed that (De Lorean to become a disambig) at Talk:De Lorean and it was well supported, so I imagine that is what will happen. SamH|Talk 10:08, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I Support. I agree with Pmeisel. De Lorean, and De Lorean Motor Company are two different things. De Lorean is a car. De Lorean Motor Company is a company.CJS102793 01:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. De Lorean should be a disambiguation page to the separate articles about car, company and man. (For a long time, both car and company were on the same page at that location, but it has recently been split). &mdash;Morven 02:18, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)
 * Exactly, car, company, and man. Each is an interesting story in its own right, and there were a lot of people who thought the DMC12 an interesting car and Delorean/DeLorean/De Lorean a fascinating man, but thought the company story the least interesting and saddest of the three.  Almost bought a De Lorean and a liveaboard boat with my then girlfriend -- wish I had all three now.  --Pmeisel 02:44, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Support. Concise title leaves no room for misunderstandings. Daeron 07:03, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Support Milkmandan's submission for disambiguation page. Stombs 12:34, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Prototype?
Does anyone have any information about the 2005 - "prototype"? Here's the image link: http://s89196484.onlinehome.us/files/delorean2005large.JPG —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.31.176 (talk) 20:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Requested move (2008)

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

De Lorean Motor Company → DeLorean Motor Company — There is no external support (that I can find) that shows a space between "De" and "Lorean" being used in everyday and common use. All sources I find (Google and BTTF) show no space. The article title should be titles on how most people spell the name. — Nuclear  Vacuum  14:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Mention of new endeavours
When would it be appropriate to add material about things like DeLorean's taking over the Pontiac Solstice and perhaps the rest of Pontiac? Frotz (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Never; since it never happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.24.235.8 (talk) 20:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Requested move (2011)

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: nomination withdrawn (non-admin, housekeeping closure). Jenks24 (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

– This page was moved from De Lorean Motor Company to DeLorean Motor Company in 2008 without any discussion on the move. Information about the company naming suggests that there should have been some debate with a definitive decision before a move was made. There was some discussion in 2004-2005, but no definitive decision. I am requesting a reversion back to De Lorean Motor Company and opening of debate as to what should be the article title. My view: even though most spell it as DeLorean, official company documents say De Lorean, so that would be the correct spelling for the company and the car. For the man, that depends on when people want to count it as official: his latest signature, public record, etc. Ctetc2007 (talk) 02:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * DeLorean Motor Company → De Lorean Motor Company
 * John DeLorean → John De Lorean
 * DeLorean DMC-12 → De Lorean DMC-12
 * DeLorean time machine → De Lorean time machine


 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. Just google it - if you search "De Lorean" it redirects your search to "DeLorean". Look at the NY Times, the BBC, DMOZ, the list of owners clubs, the name of the current incarnation of the company, etc. Virtually every source you can find talks about "DeLorean", including all of the books cited in this article as well as DeLorean DMC-12. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:13, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose, basically per Biker Biker. "DeLorean" is clearly the common name used by the large majority of reliable sources and Wikipedia's naming convention is to follow the common name, not the official. WP:OFFICIALNAMES is a useful essay that you may be interested in reading. Jenks24 (talk) 08:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jenks24 for the naming conventions page, that's just what I was looking for. I will agree on grounds of Wikipedia's naming convention to use the common name.  With that in mind, am I able to withdraw my move request or close the discussion? Ctetc2007 (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

As a point of further discussion outside of the move request, I do disagree with Biker Biker on the substance of the discussion. Just because everyone spells it DeLorean doesn't mean it's the true official name, it's what's on the company record that counts as the official name. I'll also give that the current incarnation is DeLorean, but the article is about the original company, which was the De Lorean Motor Company. Ctetc2007 (talk) 15:47, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * If you look in the London Gazette and search for DeLorean you see recent records. If you search for De Lorean you see all the records from 1982 relating to the time the company went under. So I have no argument that the official name was "De Lorean", it's just that nobody but the tax man and the insolvency service and companies house refer to it by that name. --Biker Biker (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: I have closed the discussion per your request, Ctetc, but left the latter two comments so that you can continue this conversation if you wish. Feel free to drop me a note on my talk if you feel I've placed too much or too little in the archived section (or be bold and alter it yourself). Best, Jenks24 (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Steve Wynn?
What evidence is there that the Texan billionaire entrepreneur Steve Wynn is the owner of DMC? According to this article on the BBC News website, "Stephen Wynne" is the owner of DMC, and he's a mechanic from Liverpool, England - you can see him being interviewed in this video (also more recently here, on Fox Business News) where it is claimed he is the "President" of Delorean Motor Company Houston, Texas, and he's clearly from Liverpool, and not Texas. I think this article has its wires crossed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.222.193.237 (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Have now updated the article to remove the incorrect references to the Texan billionaire. 188.222.193.237 (talk) 20:07, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on DeLorean Motor Company. 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/20070509193207/http://minneapolisfed.org/Research/data/us/calc/ to http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/data/us/calc/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Split (April 2018)
This article is attempting to describe two separate companies with the same name. Consequently it is using past tense to refer to the original company, even though the Texas company is operating in the present. The article is also under representing the activities of the Texas company (lobbying for legislation, multiple lawsuits, branches in 5 states, new car production, etc). So it seems prudent to split off a new article about the new company and call it DeLorean Motor Company (Texas). Although the current article call it DMCH; DMC (Texas) is how the company refers to itself on its own website, here. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I would agree with the proposed split. The two companies are completely unrelated in terms of history and I would be in favor of a split. Expandinglight5 (talk) 03:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I also agree. The first DMC should be considered totally removed from the current company which "only" supports the original's products and is otherwise a completely different entity. Allreet (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

How has this not happened yet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.24.235.8 (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This page needs to be split into two separate pages; one for the original DeLorean Motor Company and one for the DeLorean Motor Company (Texas) that started in 1995, as the two companies are stated to have nothing to do with one another. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.24.235.8 (talk) 20:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support it is a bad idea to conflate two topics just because they share a name. WP:NOTPAPER we are not restricted to one page per topic name. IT shouldn't be done here, and it definitely should not be done to merge the two Fisker articles as is currently proposed there at Talk:Fisker Inc. (that would become a WP:COATRACK, as this might become as well) -- 70.51.201.106 (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - Since they are separate companies they shouldn't share the same article; however, the information on the modern company is still rather sparse. Splitting that section into its own article would work better if there were more content for it to stand on its own with. --Sable232 (talk) 01:40, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - I previously added my support comments in April 2018. The two companies are completely unrelated in terms of history and I would be in favor of a split.  Expandinglight5 (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

DeLorean Fraud (serious omission)
Lack of mention of the fraud by John DeLorean, Colin Chapman, and Fred Bushill, is a major deficiency in the article. "Chapman, then at the height of his career when his cars dominated the Grand Prix circuit, only agreed after DeLorean offered him a large bribe: he would split with him the $16.5m he had raised from investors to put into the project in Belfast. The trail of DeLorean's half was later uncovered but Chapman took the secret to his early grave."

"Just three months after signing the master agreement with the British government, in July 1978, well before the foundations of the factory were laid, DeLorean decided that he should benefit personally from the cash windfall, courtesy of the investors. A contract with Colin Chapman chairman of Lotus through an intermediary GPD, a Panamanian company with offices in Geneva, would be the conduit to move the cash out of the company. In all $17.65 million of payments went walkabouts to GPD and onwards. The money was split between Colin Chapman chairman of Lotus and John DeLorean with the loose change going to Fred Bushell the finance director of Group Lotus. The fraud would have gone unnoticed if not were not for receivership. It wasn’t too long before the receiver’s staff noticed a hole in DeLorean Motor Cars Ltd’s accounts and reported this to the government."


 * —John Navas (talk) 17:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Certainly an ommission that should be addressed. Some belongs on the DMC page while other info may be more appropriate on the John DeLorean page. Expandinglight5 (talk) 03:12, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Flounder vs founder
, "founder" means to sink, "flounder" means to flop about. There is room for confusion in a maritime context whereby a ship may "flounder" prior to "foundering". In this context, (the company had floundered /foundered before the first movie was made) the company had already collapsed, ceased to be, it was an ex-company, i.e. it had foundered. For "floundered" to be correct, the meaning would have to be that the company had flopped about, or struggled ineffectually, at some point before the first movie was made, without any indication of the company's status at the actual time of the movie.

It is clear to me that the first meaning, being congruent with the facts, is the one intended, and that "foundered" is the correct word. I have reinstated.

Captainllama (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Didn't see you had written here as well, so I'll copy and paste from my talk page - That is only one meaning. In business, to flounder uses another definition "be in serious difficulty." "many firms are floundering" "Similar: struggle financially be in dire straits face financial ruin" MartinezMD (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks, sorry for the double post.
 * You're right, in business to flounder means to be in serious difficulty, to face financial ruin. It's a metaphorical extension of the meaning to "flop about ineffectually", like a ship in a storm, like horses in deep snow, or like the eponymous fish out of water. It's all about "struggling".


 * So the content would be saying that, at the time of the first Back to the Future film, The DeLorean company had (i.e. at some prior time) struggled financially, had faced financial ruin. While no doubt true, so what? If it had stopped struggling it's irrelevant, or had it still been struggling? If so, being an on-going action, the tense would be that at the time in question, the company was struggling, not had struggled.


 * "To founder" means to sink, to run aground, to fail, to end. That is what had happened to the Delorean company in 1982, three years before the first Back to the Future film was made in 1985. It had sunk, gone bust, had ended in receivership and bankruptcy. The Delorean company wasn't floundering when Back to the Future was made, it couldn't have floundered if you put 1 million volts through it. It was dead, it had foundered three years before. Captainllama (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * So you're saying it floundered then foundered? lol. How about we pause and hear from other editors. I wasn't the one to write flounder so there is at least someone else thinking it's appropriate language. MartinezMD (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)


 * (Long pause)


 * "...you're saying it floundered then foundered?" Exactly so! It floundered for a while, then it foundered, then the movie was made.


 * floundered: There is little point in writing that that the company had (at some indeterminate past time) struggled before the movie was made, without no explanation of how long the struggle lasted, what was the outcome, and crucially how it is relevant to the movie. It pushes several "so what" buttons, and worse, could be taken to incorrectly imply that the making of the movie resolved the company's difficulties.


 * foundered: On the other hand, to write that the company had ceased to be and gone bust before the movie was made instantly and completely resolves those questions.


 * Thanks for the discussion, I hope it is as clear to all as it is to me that the first version is vague and misleadingly ambiguous, and that the second version concisely conveys the intended meaning. All down to a single letter! lol


 * founder flounder difference
 * Captainllama (talk) 15:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be better to just change it to a more widely understood term? FDW777 (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * . Captainllama (talk) 21:18, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

DeLorean not DMC-12
There is explanation on the DMC DeLorean page explaining the correct name of the vehicle and significant discussions have been archived on the talk page as well explaining the DMC-12 is not a correct name of the vehicle.

Expandinglight5 (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Rightly or wrongly, people call this car the "DMC-12".    Google returns 1.75 million hits for "Delorean DMC-12". I see no reason not to acknowledge this fact in this article. Letdorf (talk) 22:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC).


 * It is incorrect. The car was never sold as a DMC-12.  An encyclopedia should only discuss in facts not incorrectly spread false statements even if wide spread.


 * Expandinglight5 (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)


 * DMC Sticker.jpg
 * The sticker clearly indicates that the name of the production model is "DeLorean", not "DMC-12". But, anyway, the article about the car needs more sources on this matter. The more references the article has, the better the doubts will be clarified. --Mark Gasoline (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't see what the big deal is. It's not unusual for internal model designations to enter common parlance in the automotive world: see for example the Ford 7Y, BMC ADO16, Rover SD1, BMW E39, Porsche 997, Volkswagen Type 2 etc. These designations might never have appeared on any brochure or advert or sticker, but that doesn't make them "incorrect" − adverts and brochures and stickers don't tell the whole story, and the reality is that this is how these models are/were referred to, both inside and outside of the company that made them. An encyclopaedia should describe the real world, so why not mention unofficial or alternative names/designations, as long as it's made clear what was "official" and what wasn't?


 * The links I give above show that the DeLorean has been referred to as the "DMC-12" in such notable publications as Time, R&T, Autocar and the Sunday Times, so it's clearly very common practice. I can't understand why you wouldn't want to acknowledge this fact in a WP article?


 * You could say it is "incorrect" to call the F-16 a "Viper", but you can't deny that people do call it a "Viper" and of course its WP article mentions this, because, well, why wouldn't it?


 * Besides, in this particular article, it's entirely appropriate, IMHO, to note that the DeLorean was referred to internally as the "DMC-12" in a list of DMC projects, where all the others are identified by DMC- numbers. Omitting any mention of "DMC-12" from the list of DMC projects gives the false impression that the DeLorean was unique in not being assigned a DMC- number, which of course is not the case! Letdorf (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2021 (UTC).

Internal codes such as Honda DC2, BMW E39 etc. are official chassis codes or production generation designations. Often times these codes are integrated into the VIN or are official internal generation codes within the manufacturer. “DMC-12” is neither. The DeLorean had multiple pre-production monikers prior to the official name of the DeLorean as indicated on the Monroney sticker (which is always the official name of the vehicle.) Prior to the official name of “DeLorean”, during development the car was referred to as the DeLorean Safety Vehicle (shorted to DSV-1) and then later changed to DSV-12 and then DMC-12. The 12 represented the targeted sale price of what at the time was $12,000. Many cars have project codes or secret names during development that are subsequently discarded as is the case for DMC-12 and the other previously used monikers (DSV-12 and DSV-1).

As for the other concepts, they were exactly that and never developed beyond that and thus the only reference would be DMC-24, etc. for those projects. However, the DeLorean was an official production vehicle and should only be referred to as it’s official name. I do find it bizarre how “DMC-12” has proliferated throughout the Internet in recent years but it nevertheless is incorrect. None of the marketing materials, owner’s manuals, official service manuals, etc. from release ever reference “DMC-12” nor is “DMC-12” badged anywhere on the vehicle or included in the VIN. Every writeup from the automotive press during it’s release in 1981 all refer to it as a “DeLorean” and make no reference to “DMC-12” and most importantly, as previously mentioned by another editor, the official name is always listed on the Monroney sticker which indicates “DeLorean.”

Expandinglight5 (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2021 (UTC)


 * In a few minutes I can find four books on the subject, three written by former senior DMC employees,   and the other published in 1983,  which all refer to the production DeLorean model as the DMC-12. To quote the preface of Wills' book, "My stories cover the years during which the production DeLorean (code-named DMC-12) was created, manufactured and sold". Maybe that's why “DMC-12” has proliferated throughout the Internet?  Are you seriously going to argue three senior managers/directors of DMC are all "incorrect" about their own product? Letdorf (talk) 21:53, 25 August 2021 (UTC).

DMC-12 was one of several code names used during development. Just the same as DSV-12 and DSV-1. However, there is no dispute that the name of the vehicle is the DeLorean. DMC-12 was dropped during development and the name DeLorean was chosen as indicated on the Monroney sticker.

Besides, considering the “12” in “DMC-12” represents a $12,000 MSRP, it would make no logical sense to have DMC-12 as the name since the actual MSRP in 1981 was $25,000 and was never $12,000.

With all due respect, I believe you’re misreading the quote you referenced. "My stories cover the years during which the production DeLorean (code-named DMC-12) was created, manufactured and sold". He states the production DeLorean. He mentions the code name DMC-12 used during development but he isn’t saying it was manufactured and sold as a DMC-12.

Expandinglight5 (talk) 16:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * If you've read Wills' book, you'll know that he refers to the car that was designed/engineered by Delorean Motor Company Ltd and Lotus in the UK as the DMC-12 pretty consistently throughout the book. The DSV-1 was an early prototype that shared very little apart from the styling with that car - the one that former employees (and others) consistently call the DMC-12. I'm not sure what your point is about the "12" - $12,000 was the target price at the point in the project when they chose the DMC-12 designation. It wasn't $12,000 when it finally went on sale a few year later. So $12,000 was too optimistic and they missed their target. That's hardly unusual! Once they had chosen a designation, they weren't going to keep changing it according to the latest retail price estimate as the project progressed!


 * I'm not claiming the car wasn't officially called the DeLorean or that the car was sold as a DMC-12. My last edit (that you reverted) didn't do that either.


 * Reading the above comments, it seem like we agree on two facts:
 * (a) The DeLorean was referred to internally as the DMC-12 during development ("DMC-12 was one of several code names used during development").
 * (b) Lots of people still like to call it that ("...“DMC-12” has proliferated throughout the Internet").


 * We can then summarize the above as:
 * (c) The DeLorean is also commonly known by its internal designation DMC-12.


 * Therefore, can you explain why you reverted my edit which added the text "(also commonly known by its internal designation, DMC-12)" to this article? Letdorf (talk) 19:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m pinging, , and  as they all had input on this issue on the DMC Delorean page.

Maybe I’m making a bigger issue out of this than necessary but I’m trying to prevent the spread of an incorrect name. As previously discussed, there is a spread of misinformation surrounding the DeLorean name and many incorrectly refer to the car as a DeLorean DMC-12.

Arguably the statement, “the DeLorean is sometimes incorrectly referred to as a DMC-12” might be more appropriate?

Expandinglight5 (talk) 23:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think that would be an appropriate addition, especially since we had some struggle with good sources naming DMC-12. MartinezMD (talk) 23:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I fully agree that it should be clarified that the name DMC-12 is used incorrectly in reference to production cars. And I also insist that the article needs more sources because otherwise this confusion about the name will never end. Greetings. --Mark Gasoline (talk) 13:12, 28 August 2021 (UTC)


 * "Incorrect" implies that either the "DMC-12" referred to a different car altogether or was never used in any context to refer to the DeLorean. it would be incorrect to call a Ford Mustang a DMC-12. It would be incorrect to say the DeLorean was given the internal designation XYZ-123. But, based on multiple reliable sources, it is entirely correct, IMHO, for a WP article to say the DeLorean was given the internal designation DMC-12. I can see why you might get irritated by various writers using "DMC-12" without that clarification, but I think it would be more helpful if the relevant WP articles actually explained where "DMC-12" came from rather than pretend it didn't exist at all. Letdorf (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC).

Just because other sources, even if the source is reliable, mistakenly call the vehicle by the wrong name doesn’t make it correct. We’ve agreed that the correct name of the vehicle is a DeLorean and if it’s commonly referred to by another name (DMC-12), it should be noted that is incorrect. Since it’s a common error, I agree it makes sense to address in the article as mentioned by and  as well. An example of this is on the Tucker 48 page which discusses it being called the Tucker Torpedo noting that this name is incorrect.

I would propose: “the DeLorean is sometimes incorrectly referred to by one of its pre-production monikers, the “DMC-12” However, the correct name of the vehicle is the “DeLorean” and the name “DMC-12” was never used in conjunction with the production model.”

Expandinglight5 (talk) 00:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I just made a few changes to the article, including that clarification about the name. We just need to add more sources on that topic in the History section. --Mark Gasoline (talk) 11:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for updating the DMC DeLorean page. We'll wait to hear back from before updating the DeLorean Motor Company page. Expandinglight5 (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem. In this discussion I added a link to the December 2018 discussion about the title change in the DMC DeLorean's talk page, where users can see the links to some documents about the car and where it is clearly seen that the DMC-12 name is not used. --Mark Gasoline (talk) 18:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Using internal type designations for Wikipedia lemmata is perfectly acceptable and already used for most car articles. This is because car names are not uniform across all markets, and because car manufacturers reuse their existing names for entirely new models. Imagine if we had single-model articles like BMW 520i or Toyota Corolla instead of the much more reasonable BMW E28 and Toyota Corolla (E20). In this case, using DeLorean DMC-12 is perfectly acceptable as long as this car has this type designation, even if DeLorean never made more than this one model. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 19:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * The problem is DMC-12 is not an internal type designation. It was a pre production moniker abandoned in favor of the final name.  You cannot compare that with Porsche 911 and Porsche 996. Expandinglight5 (talk) 20:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)


 * I think you're trying to split hairs here. In any case, the DMCL Managing Director's Report of 22 April 1981 shows they were still referring to the car internally as the DMC-12 three months after full production started. Letdorf (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC).


 * "Just because other sources, even if the source is reliable, mistakenly call the vehicle by the wrong name doesn’t make it correct.". Well, I'm afraid in the context of WP, it does. As far as WP is concerned, "correctness" means in accordance with reliable sources - see the WP:RS and WP:V guidelines. In particular, WP:RS says we publish only the analysis, views, and opinions of reliable authors, and not those of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. If the three former senior DMC employees who wrote books about it, wrote in their books that the car was called the DMC-12 inside DMC, then I can't see how there can be any valid objection, under the principles of WP, to saying that the DeLorean was referred to as the DMC-12 inside DMC, in a WP article. I still think it's harsh, inappropriate and misleading to label DMC-12 as "incorrect", when its only sin was to have originated outside of the context of sales and marketing. Letdorf (talk) 20:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC).


 * Everyone should bear in mind that this is the article about DeLorean Motor Company, the manufacturer, not the article about the car itself. We're dealing with a single sentence here that could very easily read "The DeLorean, sometimes referred to as the DMC-12, was the only car produced by DMC." That's it. There's no need to delve into whether or not it's "correct" or where it came from. The intricate details of the car's name should be dealt with at DMC DeLorean.To the point, "DMC-12" is a well-known and oft-used designation that is supported by reliable sources. I can see no justification for omitting it. --Sable232 (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)