Talk:Vehicle size class

EPA

The US EPA website is truly outrageous. It has four things to say:

1., Please buy a pick-up truck, so federal employees do not have to waste precious time dealing with your gaz-guggler tax sheets. 2., Those yellow midgets over the Pacific dare to produce 1/10th of the US emissions per capita and there are 7 times as many of them as us. They should be nuked, all those Wangs and Chandras. 3., Kyoto is the protocols of the learned elders of Germany and must be banned. 4., Production of consumer goods reduces emissions. So as long as USA continues to produce more percent of the world's industrial output than it produces percent of global total emissions, everything is A-OK, because the pollution and greenhouse gases will magically disappear. The optimal outcome of human history is planet Earth covered knee deep in DVD players.

I request US EPA website link be erased from this wiki article.

Give me a break. This is Wikipedia. If you think the US EPA is POV, please take the discussion to them. --SFoskett 19:32, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Europe size classification

I'd like to read up more on this. Is there a source or link ? 13:30, 20 August 2005 218.111.204.103

I've searched on Google for some information that supports the article when it says that Europe classifies cars as A, B, C and so on, but haven't been able to find any reference to this. The only area I've found that refers to a similar classification seems to be in racing cars but I don't think that's what this article is about. And, of course, there are the Mercedes A class, B class, C class and so on, but these are brand names, not European classifications.

Perhaps someone can provide a source that shows where this information about European car classification comes from. Adrian Robson 08:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've managed to find some sources while Googling. [1] turns up many relevant hits. Note that it seems that the LETTER-segment notation seems to be used in India as well as Europe. [2] is a particularly good source for classification (note that it's a PDF). Hope that helps. jgp (T|C) 09:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's helpful. The results seem to suggest that this is a classification used primarily in India (and perhaps other parts of Asia). The small number of results, though, (only 149 in a world-wide search, including Wikipedia derived results ) suggests that it isn't very widely used and hardly at all in Europe. Since this is an English language term, searching on Google UK ought to produce a lot of results if this classification is really used in Europe. But it only produces 13 results, some of which aren't about cars. Click here.

So my impression is (a) this classification seems to be quite widely used in India; (b) it isn't used by the general public in English-speaking Europe; and (c) where it is used in Europe, it may be an advertising industry internal classification system but not used when communicating with the public.

Compare these nine or 10 results with the 13.7 million results you get when you search for UK pages on Google UK for "compact car", or the 10.8 million results on Google UK for "executive car".

On the basis of these numbers, I fear that the part of the table saying that Europe classifies cars as A, B, etc looks wrong. I'd be inclined to drop it, leaving the EuroNCAP classification to represent Europe. Adrian Robson 09:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I'd suggest renaming the "Euro size" column to just "Segment", then filling in the rows with just "A", "B", "C", etc., and removing the rest in that column. Then maybe a footnote "Used primarily in India" could be added. --Vossanova ^o< 13:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Thanks for the suggestion. I'll make this change. Though I'll leave the footnote to someone else. Personally, I don't know how widely it's used in India; I just have the impression that it is from a single Google search, which isn't very authoritative! Adrian Robson 07:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen these letter segments used occasionally in magazines and newspapers in Ireland (and possibly UK publications too). Though saying this, in the "real world" I'd say most people here wouldn't be familiar them, and supermini, small/family car, medium, executive, etc. are a lot more commonly used. --Zilog Jones 09:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japan size class

i havent added as i dont have a link.

afaik there is 3 number for width <1700mm and engine size<2litre, and 5 number for larger.

This page needs sorting out.

I don't know anything about Vehicle Size Class (beyond general knowledge) but this page is a mess, and not especially informative.

Has anyone got the knowledge and the time to clear it up?

Duplicate?

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

This article seems to be duplicated in terms of information over at Car_classification, to the point where the templates are (almost) the same but the examples are different. Is there a reason the two are seperate (i.e. European classifications and American classifications)? --TheSock 04:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a merge candidate. I like the European (X)-class section; that could move straight into the Car classification article. Meanwhile, the latter could stand to be cleaned up a bit, especially the example lists. --Vossanova ^o< 16:43, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a merge candidate. But where does this idea about (X)-class in Europe come from? I've never heard of it in Europe. My ignorance doesn't mean it isn't true, of course! But I'd like to see a citation spelling out which countries use this classification. Adrian Robson 17:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added merge tags and started a similar discussion to this one, over at Talk:Car classification. That article seems to be slightly bigger and to have a better name, and thus is my nomination for the resultant merged "master" article. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Subcompact

Is Hyundai accent a subcompact? What then is Suzuki Alto?

Yes, and the Alto is a city car or a kei car, which are smaller than subcompact cars. -- NaBUru38 15:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge with Car classification.

The following is a closed 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

This article is called 'Vehicle size class' - but it's badly named - it talks mostly about cars and trucks, not other vehicles such as spacecraft, trains, boats, etc - and it doesn't only talk about "size" - there are other classification criteria mentioned. Since we already have articles Car classification and Truck classification - it seems to me that we should expand those articles with the relevent information from this one - then redirect from here to Car classification. Additionally, there is some confusion over which article to link to - the vast majority of car articles (more than 2,000 of them) link to Car classification - but quite a few link here instead...which is something we could clean up and harmonize if the articles were merged.

(It looks like this was proposed over a year ago - but no action and very little discussion ensued)

SteveBaker (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be merged asap, I would take the lack of significant response to the previous suggestion as being indicative of a non-controversial merge. I've never merged an article before, but would be happy to attempt this merge or assist if required. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have done that - but I don't think the correct warning templates were added the first time around - so I thought I'd better do it right. SteveBaker (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I support the merge, but as far as the truck classification page goes, it only covers the United States system, and doesn't mention the European/Canadian systems at all, so that should probably be addressed. - Tmaull (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - we'll have to address that - remember, this is a merge not a deletion of this article. There is lots of good stuff here that needs to be pushed out into truck classification and car classification. I don't want to lose any of that - just rearrange it into a more useful form. SteveBaker (talk) 01:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would contend that as the Car classification article currently stands, there is also a lot of overlap between it and the Car body style article so I've added a merge tag there as well (merge not delete!). Most of the "classifications" shown in the table here that have a dash in the segment box are both subjective classifications and body styles. In my opinion the car classification article should be based around such specifics as insurance and tax group ratings as well as the precise enviromental ratings covered on the vehicle size class page. The EuroNCAP classifications and market segment "classifications" are very non-specific groupings and as precise as general magazine classifications. Mighty Antar (talk) 12:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Both articles quite oibviously cover different topics, and both are long enough to stand on their own merits. Merging would create one massive article that would be impossible to navigate. MickMacNee (talk) 14:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are really lists and should cover distinct and different topics, but currently they overlap, are very vague and are totally unreferenced. Article length is not synonymous with article quality and I am not proposing that from three articles we end up with a single article. Mighty Antar (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I support the merge of car/vehicle classification, but~~ oppose the merge of truck/vehicle classification. The point has been made that not all vehicles are cars, but cars and trucks are two different beasts and deserve seperate articles. Especially since the truck classification system has a specific numbering system by vehicle weight, used for commerical vehicle purposes and whatnot. The car classification is kinda vague in some cases. Anyway, thats my two cents. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, One article clearly deals with legal distinctions, the other is about cultural definitions. MickMacNee (talk) 20:15, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One article deals only with a particular US/Canadian legal definition, not one that is internationally accepted. Mighty Antar (talk) 13:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, fueleconomy.gov distinguishes between "market class" and "epa class". The article "car classification" is based on marketing. 70.146.169.191 (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)mike victor[reply]

Oppose In that case I change my vote. Pehaps the differences should be made more obvious to the casual reader, and there should be a disclaimer link at the tops of each page linking to the other. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 23:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Cars, in the main, are only roughly classified around the world by their size and/or level of energy efficiency. Trucks, on the other hand, are (usually) very rigidly classified by their carrying capacity. To combine the two articles, and confuse the distinctions between a car (for people) and a truck (for cargo), would be counter-productive. Duncan1800 (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Suggested merge w/Vehicle Size Class article

Bad idea. Readers and contributors are already confused enough by either article on its own. Each pertains to its own measurement system and that system's reason for being; they do not overlap and have nothing in common: one is about size relative to environmental impact, the other about weight with respect to hauling capacity, regulation of commerce, driver licensing, and assessment of vehicle license and operation fees based upon road wear caused by each class of vehicle (by weight). Both articles need expansion, editing for quality of content, and ongoing monitoring for errant entries.Wikiuser100 (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea to mix the two. Years down the line maybe. But as is, there is lots of gray area that needs worked out. I'm going to be deleting merge suggestion sometime unless someone else chimes in.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 14:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asia>Japan

Normal size Passenger vehicles - Removed the following line: "The tax paid on the size of vehicles in this class is ¥39,500 yen per year for private use and ¥9,500 yen per year for business use (taxi)."

While Japanese vehicle taxes for keijidousha are calculated separately, taxes for passenger vehicles* are not decided by vehicle size class. Yearly vehicle tax (自動車税　jidoushazei) is calculated by engine size alone based on increments of 500cc. Vehicle weight tax (自動車重量税　jidoushajuuryouzei) is paid every two years based on increments of 500kg with a modifier for the age of the vehicle. While vehicle size classifications obviously and quite likely purposefully overlap with these increments, they are not determinate of the tax rate by themselves. ¥39,500/¥9,500 is the standard yearly tax rate for an engine of at least 1500cc and under 2000cc. While some "normal size passenger vehicles" do have engines within this size range many more are not, rendering the above statement entirely false and therefore fit for removal.

(In Japanese the term 普通自動車 (futsuujidousha) or shortened 普通車　(futsuusha) in everyday use is commonly used to describe any passenger car which is not a keijidousha. They are only broken down further into "small" or "normal" size for the purposes of official classification, registration and inspection.)

Shaken - Removed the following line: "The tax charged for the size and engine displacement of the vehicle is paid when the inspection is successful" and replaced with more appropriate text.

Before an official inspection may be performed the vehicle must be proven to have both valid vehicle weight tax and mandatory national vehicle insurance (自動車損害賠償責任保険) paid in advance for a period of two years. The only engine displacement based tax that exists is in fact the yearly "road tax" contrary to the following line stating: "This is separate from the road tax paid yearly." This tax is only payable at this time if the car is either new or has been temporarily de-registered.1.79.29.227 (talk) 09:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]