Talk:Hyundai Elantra/Archive 1

Discussion of Merge
It makes sense to me. The Avante article adds no information that couldn't just be a paragraph at the end of the Elantra article. IFCAR 22:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merged. Hondasar e GOOD  21:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Elantra Touring
An Elantra Touring is an i30. In a photo, there is no difference. Therefore, there is no reason to use a bad photo of the Elantra Touring when a good photo of the i30 tells readers what the Elantra Touring looks like better. The only point of the photo is to convey information, and the i30 photo available conveys the information much better than Elanta Touring photo. What name the car has is irrelevant in illustrating what that car looks like. Look at many other articles for examples. Mazda Familia uses pictures of Proteges. Mitsubishi Lancer includes Mirages. Daewoo Lacetti has a half-dozen images of cars that are identical to but not called "Daewoo Lacetti." And so on. Unless you can come up with a consensus on this talk page of why convention should be broken so that a lower-quality image can be used, do not revert.IFCAR (talk) 11:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well first off I think the lead in to the 4th gen section should feature the most prominent worldwide example of the Hyundai Elantra (which is the sedan). Not a picture of the limited market hatchback i30 which is lifted I might add from the Hyundai i30 article. It is a different car for the 2008 model year. The i30 picture despite not seeing the i30 badge does convey INCORRECT information about he Hyundai Elantra. A picture of the sedan is preferable, even if of lower quality. As for other examples of incorrect information you use above, just because they're also wrong doesn't make it right. They should also be changed to reflect reality. Gateman1997 (talk) 17:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You're proposing a large-scale change. I suggest you deal with it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles before trying to implement it yourself. If you decide not to and continue with reverting based on hopelessly ridiculous logic (a picture isn't "wrong"; it is what it is, and the i30/Elantra Touring is more global than the sedan whose image you admit is worse), I'll be delighted to post a mention there myself. IFCAR (talk) 21:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, looks like our dispute was ended for us. Gateman1997 (talk) 23:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hybrid
The Elantra Hybrid is already sold in Korea. It runs with LPG instead of normal gas and has lithium polymer batteries. (http://www.hyundai-blog.com/index.php/2009/07/07/hyundai-avante-lpi-hybrid-receives-more-than-1000-orders/) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.109.148.27 (talk) 15:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Hyundai i30 merge
The i30 is one name for a car also sold as the Elantra wagon or Elantra Touring. It doesn't need a separate article. IFCAR (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No way. The i30 hatchback is sold in Europe, whereas here in North America, we are getting the i30 wagon as the Elantra Touring. -- Bull-Doser (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Hyundai Elantra --> Hyundai Avante

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus to support move. JPG-GR (talk) 03:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions states "Article titles shall bear the name used in the original market by the original manufacturer or marketer", which is South Korea so the name "Hyundai Avante" should be used. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm kind of confused about the state of this proposal. I checked out the RM page and couldn't understand its status. Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - In this case the car in question is referred to as the Hyundai Elantra in all markets EXCEPT South Korea and that's only due to a trademark dispute. I believe Naming conventions (common names) would dictate that Elantra be used over a Wikiproject guideline as most people will be looking for Elantra not Avante, particularly in English speaking countries. Gateman1997 (talk) 02:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The article name should reflect the common name for the product, in the US.--Funandtrvl (talk) 07:10, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well not just the US as that would pose too much of a US bias. But the car's name in all nations (English speaking or not) with the lone exception of South Korea is Elantra, not Avante. And Avante is only used in South Korea because of a trademark dispute in that country. Gateman1997 (talk) 17:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Top Speed, Current Model Years
I see the following stats: 2.0L DOHC engine 138 hp (132 hp in PZEV configuration) 0-62 mph: 8.3 sec., top speed: 131 mph (211 km/h) MT. 2.0L DOHC engine 138 hp (132 hp in PZEV configuration) 0-62 mph: 10.1 sec., top speed: 127 mph (204 km/h) AT.

I'm going to ask for a cite. The cite currently is the Edmunds.com review, which doesn't touch on top speed. I've done the math, and this vehicle with 138 HP should top out at 115-120 depending on gearing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.87.12.183 (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Dates
Could someone familiar with this take a look at the dates for each generation? Several anonymous users were playing with them and I reverted the lot of it, but I can't be sure if the article was right before they started messing with it. --Sable232 (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Fifth Generation, 2012 model?
What is the source that says the fifth generation Elantra is a 2012 model? Edmunds says it is a 2011 model. Is this based on hearsay that sales in the USA of the fifth gen Elantra will begin only in early 2011? 76.251.68.128 (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It's not a 2012 model.. every site is reporting it as 2011.. Wikipedia as usual is inaccurate.-- --67.142.168.30 (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding the Korean/general Meaning of Elantra to Article
For trivial: possibly on the article such as: the word elantra in Korean means............etc Many of the names of automobiles are not made up, rather are derived from another thing, ford mustang (mustangs), Ford Taurus (obviously possibly from astronomical orgin)


 * I am not sure if "elantra" has a meaning. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

As to the Ford Taurus deriving its name from astronomy, I fins astrology to be a more likely source, since FoMoCo consulted an astrologer to figure out the best date to realease the car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icanhasaccount (talk • contribs) 22:00, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Major Confusion Between SE and GLS 2007 to 2010 Models
Could we create a new section in the article about the common confusion between the GLS and SE? Many people incorrectly sell them: such as a SE being sold as a GLS and a GLS being sold as an SE, the SE models have Alloy rim and the GLS models do not! The SE models additionally have radio controls on the steering wheel and the GLS doesnt. You can check cars.com and see immediately that this is frequent/common. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendenhows (talk • contribs) 01:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's actually not true. You could get GLS models with alloy rims or the wheel controls as extras. The only real difference that I don't believe was an option for the GLS models were the stability control which is why the GLS was often rated lower on things like Consumer Reports.Gateman1997 (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead Image
The lead image can not be related by anyone, because it looks nothing like the common hyundai elantras in the United States —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendenhows (talk • contribs) 06:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The image additional is very low quality, the vehicle doesnt exist in the united states, and does not belong in the article about the hyundai elantra! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendenhows (talk • contribs) 08:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * First of all, that generation of Elantra WAS sold in the United States -- from 1996 through 2000. There's a slightly different grille on the pictured European version, but the U.S. model is also pictured in the article.
 * Secondly, even if it had never sold in the United States, that would not mean it does not exist.
 * What is your quality complaint with the photo? IFCAR (talk) 16:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No one can reconize the car, it is to vague of an image, something like an 2003 elantra would be much better, not a hyundai model called a Lantra.


 * This picture should be removed and used for the lantra article only, not for the american article on the elantra! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendenhows (talk • contribs) 20:52, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I recommend reading this Wikipedia article, which states perfectly clearly that "Lantra" is just another name for "Elantra" used in some parts of the world. The cars are the same. IFCAR (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I own a hyundai elantra and have read the article, and is an excellent car. The lead image should have something more current though, such as the 2003 or 06 elantra, something that is more reconizable for people living in the United States.  You can barely see the hyundai logo in the grill of the red car.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendenhows (talk • contribs) 21:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * There is no need for the top infobox to illustrate any particular generation of the car. Note the field "Production: 1990–present" -- it refers to all generations. That version of the Lantra/Elantra/Avante was sold all over the world -- including in the U.S. -- for five years. It is not obscure. IFCAR (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Brenden, since you own an Elantra that is more recent than the red European example, you are more than welcome to upload a photograph it and replace the current lead infobox image. However, you will need to make sure that your image is of equal or better quality. I'd suggest you choose a natural background, take the photo when it is not sunny, and ensure that you get a perfect 3/4 view of the front and side of the car (like File:Hyundai Lantra front 20081204.jpg).


 * As a contributor of automotive photography at Wikipedia, I'll be on the look out for more recent Elantras and I am sure IFCAR will do the same. OSX (talk • contributions) 23:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Lead Image isnt horrible and bad, but, possibly if someone has images of a 01, 03 or possibly and 06 model, would be better.


 * An example would be the Ford Explorer article, the lead image is of an 98 model ford and not the early ford explorer, which is less known


 * What ever gives the beginning of the article a hook and makes it appealing would be good. Hyundais are less popular cars, however they are very common now as much as fords and other cars.


 * The time that hyundais became very popular was in the early 2000s, because of the warrenty and the launch of the Hyundai Santa Fe.


 * Here is the image that I took of my car (used), the hyundai elantra 2008 se model (factory installed spoiler, 16in alloy inch wheels, cloth seating, radio control buttons on stearing wheel) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Elantra_se_model.jpg
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendenhows (talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * That image has reflections, there are other cars in the background, and is not of the preferable 3/4 view (it shows the front in detail, but profile of the side is difficult to see). OSX (talk • contributions)

Remember, per WP:CARPIX, "The image selected for an article's top (lead) infobox does not need to show any particular version or generation of the vehicle, such as the latest, the last, the first, the best-selling, or any other. Vehicle production date is not a factor when determining the quality of an image and its suitability to illustrate the lead infobox." So while we do already have some nice photos of later-generation Elantras and can no doubt get more, a photo must be better than the existing one -- not just okay -- to merit its replacement. IFCAR (talk) 13:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

26 October 2010
updated lead picture with 4th gen picture. the quality is better than 2nd gen euro model IMHO. the best picture should be 5th gen, but since there are people in the states who need to see the car on the road to qualify 4th gen picture would do it. if you disagree, please enlighten me.

5th generation image of elantra should be used in my humble opinion; this particular model is being sold (maybe not in the states, but then again, en page is not about the states either) this car should come out in the states by end of year, too.

the picture itself was well taken and shows the general impression of the car well. if the reflection of the states is that important, then the 4th gen car's picture with the higher resolution should be used.

the particular 2002 red euro model picture is not "the best" picture of the elantra either in terms of quality. not the highest resolution + shows a lot of post-processing artifacts.

i have absolutely no idea why there are people insisting that the 2002 euro model pic is the "best" quality among all the elantra pictures. Shimman (talk) 09:09, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Indented line Brendenhows, please understand that U.S.A. is not the only country presenting en.wikipedia.com, and the new model will be sold soon (heard by end of 2010) in the states, so you should be able to relate the car. shimman —Preceding undated comment added 08:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Indented line Brendenhows, if you feel that the 5th gen picture is too unrelated to you, 4th gen which should have been sold in the states for while should have been used. 4th gen pictures are higher quality than 2002 euro models which i don't think you can relate too much IMHOshimman —Preceding undated comment added 08:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC).


 * Any generation can go in the lead infobox; whether it is sold in the U.S. or not is irrelevant. The criteria for image selection is based primarily on quality not the "latest and greatest" generation/trim level/colour, et cetera. OSX (talk • contributions) 11:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * OSX, have you compare 5th gen picture i initially chose as a lead picture with the red euro model 2nd gen picture? can you explain what are your reasons for choosing 2nd gen red euro model in details? what makes it the "best" quality picture among all elantra pictures as i don't get it. thanks Shimman (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * en.wikipedia.org is NOT only for United States of America (note Brendenhows); not to mention, there is NO federally recognized language in United States, so the picture does NOT have to reflect what you see on the road in the states. However, when I was in the states recently, majority of Elantras I saw was the 4th generation Elantras and few 3rd generation Elantras. In addition, I have not seen any 2nd generation Elantra in the states that the lead image is reflecting.


 * Regarding the relating to any particular member, I would edit the picture to remove the plate. The actions being taken appear to be more of bureaucratic actions rather than attempt to improve the contents. Shimman (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes en wiki is not just about the US but we (the community) use images from where ever and don't just use images from the US. It doesn't matter what you see, it is what the community feels that will suit the article. I'm with OSX on this. Bidgee (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Indented line Bidgee, "Low-volume, unusual, or otherwise unrepresentative variants are generally not preferred for the lead infobox image." WikiProject Automobiles; i guess "community" can choose to use, but not preferred. there should be merit of using older unrepresentative picture over other ones.


 * Even OSX stated, "I'll be on the look out for more recent Elantras", so I guess, as long as we can find a better recent picture of Elantra, it should be good to go to change the lead picture which i personally does not like. Shimman (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Indented line there is merit of replacing older model picture with other later generation Elantra pictures in wikipedia.
 * reflect what's on the road better or shows what's being sold now rather than ten years ago
 * being consistent with other articles of vehicles which show the current picture
 * pictures are sharper with less artifacts (post-processing)
 * Shimman (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * checked other related pages of small cars namely honda civic, toyota corolla, mitsubitshi lancer, ford focus, mazda 3, and Chevrolet aveo. all had the latest car as a lead image. (ford focus had two different pages, NA (current model picture rather than upcoming vs international (with new gen picture as it is being sold); chevrolet aveo has the car NOT being sold yet)


 * this can cause a misleading impression on the current gen elantra. for the consistency sake alone being a good enough merit to change the lead picture to the latest which we already have in en wiki.


 * perhaps except Brendenhows, what's on United States less matter in terms of choosing the lead picture. hope, most agree. for Brendenhows, the 5th gen elantra should be release in few months in the states side Shimman (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not misleading at all. The Hyundai Elantra page covers all generations of the car from 1990 to 2010. An image of any generation will adequately illustrate the article. If the second generation image bothers you so badly, maybe it would be wise to get your camera and take a better photograph. See WP:CARPIX for some photography hints. So long as it is a better image, I would have no objection. OSX (talk • contributions) 00:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, if you want to talk about "misleading images", then an image of the current generation could be considered "misleading" to people living in Europe where the HD fourth generation Elantra was never sold (as far as I know). OSX (talk • contributions) 00:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

29 Oct 2010

 * 4th generation is being sold as in EU nations as well as Lantra/I30. 4th gen picture should be good to represent. perhaps, i will add difference in euro/asian/na/me market differences laterShimman (talk) 03:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

5th generation picture is better in my opinion. not only it shows the consistency with other cars (being most current; soon to be released in NA), but it is a good picture shows mostly the car + no reflection + clear/well focused. i have not heard anything about the quality of the 5th gen picture in the article. only thing i heard was about the representation of the US roads as it has not been released in the states (by end of 2010 according to one of the hyundai press releases)

add any reasons why 5th gen picture should not be used as a leading picture; before referring the auto picture policy, consider this one of five wiki founding principles Wikipedia does not have firm rules Five_pillars thanks Shimman (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

plate removed 4th gen picture; i prefer 5th gen, but i think both would do for now; any nay say'er leave comments why do you prefer 2nd gen file:Hyundai_Lantra_front_20081204.jpg over below two pictures.

4th gen File:NA_2007_Hyundai_Elantra.jpg 5th gen File:20100804_hyundai_avante_1.jpg Thanks Shimman (talk) 04:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Merger of Elantra LPI Hybrid
The Hyundai Elantra LPI Hybrid page should be merged here as it has very little content and is not significantly different to the non-hybrid car. Community consensus at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid is overwhelmingly against separate articles for different powertrains. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:39, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support for merge --Typ932 T&middot;C 16:27, 10 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Each article has to stand on it's own merits, so notability is what matters, not the result of a discussion based on specific arguments (Toyota uses the same power train in all of it's hybrids.) This is the first Hyundai hybrid and it is the first hybrid in the world that uses LPI not gasoline, as all other hybrids in the market. And by the way, this discussion should have been located in the talk page of the hybrid version article, not here, to give more opportunity to those interested to give their opinion. We can still move it over there.--Mariordo (talk) 07:53, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Clearly you have no clue about Wikipedia policy because Help:Merging states, "all "Discuss" links to lead to the talk page of the destination page". OSX (talk • contributions) 05:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is disappointing to see OSX once again resorting to personal attacks and name-calling when faced with opinions that differ from his own. Ebikeguy (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Mariordo, weren't you that one that said, "from the environmental POV (policy/economics/sustainability) it does for those HEVs with enough notability, such as the only 4 existing exceptions: Fusion Hybrid, Civic Hybrid, Escape Hybrid and the Camry"? From this statement, the LPI Hybrid is not notable enough for its own article, only the Fusion, Civic, Escape, and Camry are. OSX (talk • contributions) 08:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support, the LPI Hybrid is just a powertrain and trim package of standard Elantra. No need to have a separate article. A section in the main article would suffice. Gateman1997 (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose, The LPI hybrid contains an entirely new, ground-breaking drivetrain which is notable in and of itself. It is the first drivetrain to use LPI instead of gasoline and utilizes a ground-breaking battery pack as well.  While the Elantra provided a convenient platform for this new technology, calling this vehicle "just another Elantra" would be roughly equivalent to calling the Tesla Roadster "just another Lotus."  It is the entirely new, technologically advanced drivetrain, not the overall automotive platform, that makes this model significant.  Ebikeguy (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Mariordo and Ebikeguy. Article is clearly notable in its own right. Johnfos (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Same car just different powertrains which can have a section in this article. I do not feel that this vehicle's powertrain is notable enough for its own article. Bidgee (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support merge On the basis of the RFC at Talk:Toyota Camry Hybrid, it's a no brainer. The reasons for and against are almost identical. --Falcadore (talk) 03:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I must respectfully disagree with Falcadore in his assertion that "The reasons for and against are almost identical" to those used in the Toyota Camry Hybrid RFC. In the Camry, the hybrid drivetrain was very similar to other hybrid drivetrains used in various Toyotas under the "Hybrid Synergy Drive" moniker.  Those in favor of the Camry merge stressed this point enthusiastically and repeatedly.  In stark and vivid contrast to the Camry Hybrid, the drivetrain in the Elantra LPI Hybrid is entirely new and unique, and the battery pack in this vehicle is new and unique as well.  As I mentioned above, the Elantra body is simply a convenient showcase for Hyundai to use in demonstrating this new technology.  The real importance of this product lies in the technological breakthroughs of the LPI hybrid drivetrain and lithium battery pack, not in the base car model the manufacturer decided to use to showcase this technology.  Ebikeguy (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So unique that you afford it a grand total of two paragraphs. OSX (talk • contributions) 21:43, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Like the Camry, the powertrain it is not unique to the Elantra. Kia (owned by Hyundai) also offers a Kia Forte LPI Hybrid, and this car uses the same 1.6 litre LPG engine and electric motor. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that all short articles should be merged with larger articles on similar subjects?Ebikeguy (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * No I think you're missing the entire point of the RFC and the comments of the unnvolved edittor. The difference is hybrid technologies do not sufficiently alter my point, or the points of the RFC contributors. My opinion stands. --Falcadore (talk) 23:35, 19 August 2010 (UTC)


 * So, what differences in a vehicle would be enough to merit an independent article? If Toyota decided to produce a rocket-powered Corolla, and that particular sub-model got huge amounts of press coverage, would that be enough to merit its own article?  As I have pointed out in previous discussions, certain automotive sub-models which, such as the Subaru Impreza WRX STI, have their own articles, despite the fact that these sub-models are far more similar to the other trim lines of the model in question than the Elantra LPI is to the other Elantras.   Yet people in "the automotive crowd" do not seem to object to the WRX STI having its own article, perhaps because they deem that the performance improvements of the WRX STI are significant enough, within their area of interest, to merit a separate article.  I just wish that you could recognize that the "automotive crowd" is not the only editing group within Wikipedia to recognize significant differences within their areas of interest.  Those of us who are interested in electric vehicles see far more reason to create a separate article for the Elantra LPI than for the WRX STI.


 * You have already demonstrated that there are more people interested in creating separate articles for sub-models with slightly different engines and suspensions than there are people interested in creating separate articles for vehicles with "standard" hybrid drivetrains. However, to say that a radically different vehicle such as the Elantra LPI does not merit its own article, while allowing the WRX STI to keep its separate article would be hypocrisy in the extreme.  Ebikeguy (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I suggest you re-read the RFC I pointed to, which you contributed to and take on board the opinions that RFC generated. What you have just stated does not differ signficantly from the previous case. --Falcadore (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't take this as an attack on hybrid vehicles as such. I do not believe we should have articles such as Subaru Impreza WRX STI or Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution either. There are many others at WP:CARS that share this view, but maybe can't be bothered with the hassle of these discussions. The performance improvements of the WRX STI are not significant enough for a separate article in my opinion. If it would make you feel less "victimised" I'd be happy to nominate mergers for these articles as well, albeit, one at a time. As I said on Talk:Toyota Camry last month:


 * "[A]utomobile articles in general are shifting towards separation by generation, [so] it makes more sense to group essentially identical designs and explain these differences on one page. It is for this reason why I strongly oppose the existence of articles such as Toyota Camry Hybrid and Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution, et cetera. In reality, the 2007–present Lancer Evolution X has much in common with the 2007–present standard Lancer, but would share very few if any components with the 1992–1994 Lancer Evolution I. Lancer Evolution I and Evolution X are related in name and concept only." OSX (talk • contributions) 06:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support - Although I thought that the Hybrid Camry should have its own article (I just didn't want to get involved with the BIG argument over there), I do support this merge, purely because there's not enough information for it to be its own article. Also, why can't we all just be friendly with one and other? -- Pineapple Fez 07:35, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support merge - The basic vehicle's design is the same. Simply because it is available in a hybrid power version is not unique and a reason for a separate article. A benefit of merging the articles is that it will simplify comparisons between the different drive systems. CZmarlin (talk) 01:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose; because it will never be launched in production in the near future, so it should remain as a seperate article for interest and for miscellaneuos purposes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brendenhows (talk • contribs) 01:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is a production car; it is sold in South Korea and there is talk of exports. OSX (talk • contributions) 06:31, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * If it was never to be launched then that would definately be a reason to merge or delete. --Falcadore (talk) 02:11, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Support Great achievement or not, it's still an Elantra and should be treated as such. Icanhasaccount (talk) 21:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Support: as nominator. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Since this discussion culminated in September, and no further discussion has since taken place, there appears to be a clear consensus to merge this article (8 supporting votes, versus 4 opposing votes). One of the (unsigned) responses states opposition because, "because it will never be launched in production in the near future, so it should remain as a separate article for interest and for miscellaneous purposes". Since this is completely untrue, this vote should probably be discounted as it is based on a misunderstanding.

As a result, I will be moving the article titled "Hyundai Elantra LPI Hybrid" to "Hyundai Elantra (HD)" and will transform it into a general article for the HD series Elantra/Avante. OSX (talk • contributions) 01:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Tail lights controversy
My dad owned one of these in South Korea, and according to him, the first ones used to have really nice tail lights that looked like tiger eyes but they changed it after some complaints came in about them being scary/disturbing to the car behind, but they didn't recall the ones already sold. Should this be included?

Sorry I made a new topic Jji7skyline (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2011 (UTC)