Talk:List of Chrysler platforms

Untitled
Note: In progress --Sfoskett 04:50, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why have P-body and G-body been named AP and AG, following Chrysler's naming structure introduced in 1989 when all platforms added a character (A), yet AA, AC and AY are named A, C and Y? --93JC 22:55, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, why are XJ, YJ and ZJ mentioned? They were designed by AMC. -- 93JC 23:17, July 31, 2005 (UTC)


 * True, but they spent most of their production time (in the ZJ's case, all of its time) under Chrysler. --ApolloBoy 03:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but it's like calling the SJ a Chrysler or AMC platform (it was designed by Kaiser-Jeep). It's just... wrong! You know what I mean? I suppose ZJ is sort of "Chrysler". They tinkered with the original AMC design (redesigned the engine bay for example to accept LA V8), but YJ, XJ? Chrysler didn't have a thing to do with them, other than serve as manufacturer in their later lives.
 * I think the perfect analogue to this situation is what is happening over at the List of Chrysler engines page, where a huge number of the engines listed are in no way, shape or form Chrysler engines (Mitsubishi, AMC, Willys, Kaiser, Renault, Peugeot and Volkswagen, if I remember correctly). --93JC 03:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well technically speaking, the XJ, YJ, ZJ are Chrysler platforms since AMC is now a part of Chrysler, so that would make those Chrysler platforms. --ApolloBoy 02:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * By extension that means every AMC, Rambler, Nash, Hudson, Kaiser, Kaiser-Frazer, Willys, Overland, etc. platform is a "Chrysler" platform. Better get cracking, ApolloBoy.
 * By your same line of thinking none of these are Chrysler platforms at all: they're DaimlerChrysler AG platforms. Guess we better rename the article and include every Mercedes-Benz, Maybach, smart, Setra, Mitubishi Fuso, Freightliner, Thomas Built, American LaFrance, Sterling and Western Star product in the list too. Now you've really made a lot of work for yourself.
 * Technically speaking, which is to say, mechanically, the XJ and YJ are AMC through–and–through. Legally speaking they are the property of DaimlerChrysler AG because AMC's property was Chrysler Corporation's, and is now DaimlerChrysler's. Do you want to make the distinction from a technical or legal standpoint? If technical, I'll go ahead and remove XJ, YJ and MJ from this list. If legal, I'll rename the article "List of DaimlerChrysler platforms" and leave you to scrounge up the platforms from the dozens of companies that make up DaimlerChrysler AG. Personally I think it's disingenuous the do it from a legal standpoint. Not to mention a lot more work. But if you want to muddle the article, go ahead. I won't stop you. Nor will I help, of course. --93JC 00:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Don't accuse me of muddling things up; I'm tired of you accosting me like this. Don't forget to remember your civility. I really don't want to get this to the point where I have to set up an arbitration... --ApolloBoy 04:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh please... You know what? I've figured out a better solution: I'll remove Jeeps from the article altogether, make a "List of Jeeps" article, and put a "see also" link in this article. Satisfactory? Then we won't have to make the distinction. --93JC 18:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, you sounded like you were accosting me. If you weren't, I apologize. --ApolloBoy 06:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)