Talk:Nash Metropolitan

Delete option
The article said, "(It is unlikely that a Metropolitan could have been purchased without Heater & Radio, as all vehicles left the factory with both items fitted)." This was obviously written by someone who's never heard of a "delete option", by which it was perfectly possible to order a car without either, or both. This was very common until "option packages" (which don't permit deleting any 1 part) became standard. Trekphiler (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not the first
The Nash Metropolitan was not the first American-designed car to be made entirely in Europe. The Model T was made extensively in the UK. Take a look at Ford of Britain. At first, it was made using imported parts, but after 1914 the British eventually created the entire car in Britain for their own consumption. The Nash is probably the first American-designed car made in Europe for American consumption, however. However, I am removing this statement from both this article and Captive import. Chaparral2J (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Dual classification
I've awarded the Polly dual classification---"economy car" and "subcompact car". I think it's correct, in light of the citations. But if there are strong arguments against ambiclassification, and signs of indignant fury among its opponents, the Polly can just as easily be reduced to the ranks of one or other category and given a good spanking. — Writegeist (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral point of view?
The material pasted below was removed from the article (in the "Collectibility" section) because it fails the Wikipedia requirement: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves." (Please see policy: WP:ASF.)

Another problem are the author's claims and opinions that are not based on facts about the subject discussed. These include statements that are wrong or misrepresent the actual history of the automobile or the business environment at the time. It is not enough for an author to express their opinion in a publication. Just because the publication may be reputable, this does not necessarily mean that the opinions expressed by someone in that publication does not mean they are necessarily grounded from facts. In other words, any opinions and statements should be based on careful research and scientific work. It is evident that the author of these opinions, Brian Sewell is also known for his particular, acerbic reviews. Moreover, the author admits (in the quoted article) that his experience with the subject was based on "the decrepit survivor in my hands a month or two ago" — that does not establish a solid basis of verifiable facts and quotes to be included in this encyclopedia article.

— CZmarlin (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

> begin

Brian Sewell, the British art critic and writer on historic and collectors' cars, cites the 1500 cc version as the one "now perversely recognised as a collector's car", and says that the Metropolitan is "worth a moment's consideration, for in the history of the post-war American car industry it was the only genuine attempt to provide the market there with a mass-produced small, cheap car that could hold its own in urban traffic and slot into parking spaces far too small for even the smallest Ford or Chevrolet...[but] the steering, dreadfully hampered by the enclosure of the front wheels, is so insensitive, and the turning circle so wide, that parking is a wretched business, the slack response of the huge steering-wheel a feature common in lumbering US cars of the period."

Sewell adds that the car "failed so badly that in 1957 Austin began to offload it in Britain" '''(This statement is factually INCORRECT; The verifiable facts are that Austin specifically applied for a license in October 1956, to market the Metropolitan in the UK and overseas markets, where American Motors did not have a presence. The sales of the Metropolitan in the US reached 12,226 in 1957 (ref. "The Metropolitan Story" by Patrick Foster) and was one of their best years for sales. It definitely was not a case of off-loading stock in England, especially when you realise the US stock would be LHD and not RHD that would be required for the UK market.  Although Austin Metropolitan sales were not high, they did sell about 9,400) where it was damned as "a preposterous aberration incorporating the worst of everything American" (Please state to whom this statement is attributed)'''. Calling it "one of the nastiest cars ever built", Sewell cites the "nylon plaid and plastic leather" upholstery; the "vile colours", which have "a thick opacity about them, as though mixed with milk"; the styling, "a grotesque parody of quirks that merely look absurd on cars of larger scale"; (In Brian Sewell's opinion, which is not shared by Metropolitan enthusiasts) and the "wretched" performance of its functions, which make it "dangerous at anything higher than perambulator speed". '(This statement is grossly irresponsible. The writer is implying that anyone who drives a Metropolitan is driving a "death-trap" which compromises the safety of the driver and other road users. This is blatantly indefensible. "Road Test" magazine of 1954 stated :- ..on roadability and responsive handling, the Met shines. It also offers easy maintenance and downright stinginess when it comes to gasoline consumption. Also, it's literally a brute for punishment. On several occasions I took familiar corners at speeds half again what I would dare to use in some cars of twice the weight - proof that proper weight distribution, low center of gravity and well engineered suspension have more to do with roadability than massiveness, weight and long wheelbases. Admittedly, the short wheelbased Met does pitch moderately on very rough roads, but the sensitivity and ease of steering make driving a pleasure''..... Does this sound like a car dangerous at anything higher than perambulator speed?; Not very likely!! A properly maintained Metropolitan is no more dangerous than any other car on the road)''' He advises buying the open version in "as late a model as you can (it ceased production in 1961) – this has slightly more panache, and with the hood down it's much easier to load [at the supermarket]."

>end

--Here is the section as it stands at present, with the curious boldface opinions removed:

The "Metropolitan's staying power and its never-ending cuteness wins it a place among the Greatest Cars of All Time" in the opinion of automotive writer Jack Nerad, a former editor of Motor Trend magazine: "No, the Metropolitan didn't come from a top-of-the-line manufacturer. No, it doesn't have a proud racing history. And, no, it wasn't built in huge numbers. But [it] possesses an ageless, cuddly quality that has made it a perennial favorite of car lovers and car agnostics alike." Nerad adds: "If you wanted to...wring the Met through its paces, you would be rewarded with a 0-60 miles per hour acceleration time of nearly 30 seconds. The Met was reasonably light at approximately 1800 pounds, but that weight was squared off against 42 horsepower."

In the opinion of syndicated auto journalist and author Bill Vance, the 1200 cc Metropolitan "was quite a stylish little car" that was "ahead of its time" and performed well against its competition. Road & Track road-tested a Metropolitan in 1954, recording acceleration from 0 to 60 mph in 22.4 seconds, "almost half of the VW’s 39.2." However at 60 mph, a common American cruising speed at the time, the Metropolitan was revving at 4300 rpm, which shortened engine life, whereas the Volkswagen could travel at the same speed at only 3000 rpm.

Brian Sewell, the British art critic and writer on historic and collectors' cars, cites the 1500 cc version as the one "now perversely recognised as a collector's car", and says that the Metropolitan is "worth a moment's consideration, for in the history of the post-war American car industry it was the only genuine attempt to provide the market there with a mass-produced small, cheap car that could hold its own in urban traffic and slot into parking spaces far too small for even the smallest Ford or Chevrolet...[but] the steering, dreadfully hampered by the enclosure of the front wheels, is so insensitive, and the turning circle so wide, that parking is a wretched business, the slack response of the huge steering-wheel a feature common in lumbering US cars of the period."

Sewell adds that in England it was "damned...as a preposterous aberration incorporating the worst of everything American." Calling it "one of the nastiest cars ever built", he cites the "nylon plaid and plastic leather" upholstery; the "vile colours", which have "a thick opacity about them, as though mixed with milk"; and the styling, "a grotesque parody of quirks that merely look absurd on cars of larger scale". He also says that the "wretched" performance of its functions" make it "dangerous at anything higher than perambulator speed". However "Road Test" magazine said in 1954 that "on roadability and responsive handling, the Met shines. It also offers easy maintenance and downright stinginess when it comes to gasoline consumption. Also, it's literally a brute for punishment. On several occasions I took familiar corners at speeds half again what I would dare to use in some cars of twice the weight - proof that proper weight distribution, low center of gravity and well engineered suspension have more to do with roadability than massiveness, weight and long wheelbases. Admittedly, the short wheelbased Met does pitch moderately on very rough roads, but the sensitivity and ease of steering make driving a pleasure."

Metropolitans have the very soft ride preferred by Americans at the time, instead of the firmer suspension preferred in Europe. One marque enthusiast says that Nash’s subcompact was "the Smart car of the '50s." Although his Metropolitan is unsuitable for long journeys owing to "a lot of wind noise and really poor suspension," it can cruise at 50 mph and has a top speed of 75 mph. Parts are "relatively easy" to obtain and the car is "easy to work on."

Sewell advises buying the open version in "as late a model as you can (it ceased production in 1961) – this has slightly more panache, and with the hood down it's much easier to load [at the supermarket]."

Ken Gross, a director of the Petersen Automotive Museum, warned against "rust, especially in the floor pan and lower fenders," and "electrical gremlins." He said that most of the British-made mechanical parts were available on the unspecified date of his article's publication, but that sheet-metal was "a challenge."

Some owners modify their Metropolitans. Simple changes can make the cars more drivable and usable. Among more extreme modifications are conversion into a pickup truck, Station Wagon, Stretch Limousine, installation of a V8 engine, and conversion into a "Metro-Sled" with a rear-mounted snowmobile engine driving twin tracks. Some cars that were originally hardtops have been converted to convertibles.

There are active clubs for Metropolitan owners and enthusiasts. New, used and reproduction examples of various parts and accessories are available.


 * So the above "fails" WP:NPOV, and specifically WP:ASF? Nonsense.


 * WP:Neutral point of view: "To write from a neutral point of view, one presents controversial views without asserting them; to do that, it generally suffices to present competing views in a way that is more or less acceptable to their adherents, and also to attribute the views to their adherents." (My bold emphasis.)


 * The section complies.


 * WP:Neutral point of view: "...assert the fact that an opinion exists, by attributing it to reliable sources."


 * The section complies.


 * WP:Neutral point of view: "It is not sufficient to discuss an opinion as fact."


 * The section complies. (It does not present opinion as fact. It merely informs the reader of the opinion by including it and attributing it.)


 * WP:Neutral point of view: "We accept, for the purposes of working on Wikipedia, that "human knowledge" includes all different significant theories on all different topics...we can agree to present each of the significant views fairly and not assert any one of them as correct. That is what makes an article 'unbiased' or 'neutral' in the sense presented here."


 * The section complies.


 * WP:Neutral point of view: "A potentially biased statement can be reframed into an NPOV statement by attributing or substantiating it."


 * The section complies.


 * WP:Neutral point of view: "The goal here is to attribute the opinion to some subject-matter expert, rather than to merely state it as true."


 * The section complies.


 * WP:Neutral point of view: "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The neutral point of view policy is often misunderstood. The acronym NPOV does not mean 'no points of view'. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy by simply labeling it 'POV'." (My bold emphasis.)


 * Therefore please, CZmarlin and Davidjohnaustin, desist from the practice of eliminating attributed viewpoints on the grounds that they fail WP:NPOV when in fact they only differ from your own POV. The viewpoints you wish to censor in this instance clearly do not fail WP:NPOV in general or WP:ASF in particular.


 * — Writegeist (talk) 20:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Writegeist here. Sewell's views on the vehicle are certainly notable enough for inclusion especially as they are balanced with accolades from other notable sources.  You are welcome to disagree with Sewell or find flaws in his reasoning, but he is still a noted critic and his opinion should be presented per WP:NPOV. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on Davidjohnaustin's Talk page
Someone might care to copy here the discussion re the Collectibility section on Davidjohnaustin's talk page. (I don't know how to.) I have made what I believe is an overwhelming case for its inclusion, and have reinstated it for the fourth or fifth time--following Dja's repeated deletions on the grounds that the quoted and clearly attributed views are "subjective" etc. On his talk page I have drawn his attention to numerous WP guidelines that support and encourage inclusion of properly attributed views such as those referenced in the Collectibility section.

My only real concern about the information in the section is that some of it, e.g. performance figures, might be more useful if placed elsewhere in the article. Perhaps a separate "Performance" section? I dunno. — Writegeist (talk) 07:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK I've relocated some of the info, added some more; also a new section. — Writegeist (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Trivia?
Is this section trivia? If so, shouldn't it be removed? Writegeist (talk) 01:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This section has been removed. Thank you! CZmarlin (talk) 03:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Nash Metropolitan. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.rmauctions.com/PressRelease.cfm?PressID=587

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 08:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Starter
Can hear no action Elviserin (talk) 13:06, 3 September 2023 (UTC)