Talk:City car

Claim to be first

Sorry if this has already been debated at length — I'll be surprised if it hasn't been — but is it reasonable of this article to claim that the Fiat Panda was the first city car? Starting with Fiat themselves, they produced many cars before the Panda which fit the definition. What about the original 500, and the later 126? And an absolutely classic city car, even marketed as such in all but name (and perhaps even in name, I haven't checked), for swinging 60s London, the original Mini.

Also, please note that I'm making the mistake of saying all small cars are city cars; the Volkswagen Beetle and Citroën 2CV were not aimed that way.

Later addition to comment: I've been looking into this a bit, cos it's one of those curiosities you just can't ignore. I found this online (in Google's cache, not in the page currently at this URL): [1] — it's from a product design magazine, and speculates that the BMW Isetta "bubble car" may have been the first "city car". – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 19:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The Isetta is a two-seater, therefore a microcar, like the Smart ForTwo (city cars are all four-seaters).

Some competitors of the Fiat 500 have been replaced by larger, newer models. A careful tracking is needed to avoid confusions; that's why I've done some time charts / templates (VW, Ford, Citroën, Fiat). There you can see if an early car would be classified as a supermini or a city car. The problem is that many articles on older cars are very short and aren't accurate on which competitors they had. I've corrected some mistakes in these articles, but an extensive seach in Google would take too much time for only one person. - NaBUru38 20:43, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not sure that microcar and city car are neccessarily mutually exclusive. But the work you're doing sounds great and I don't mean to undermine it. What we definitely need though, is a clearer definition. For example, the way the city car article is worded doesn't actually rule out two-seaters (and the way it mentions microcars is too subtle to explain the point you've just made here.) The Car classification article doesn't use seats in its city car definition at all. – Kieran T ^{(talk | contribs)} 23:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

City car / Microcar

The statement "microcars which are two-seaters;" is wrong. [[2]] shows a new four seater with a fairly clear description from a reliable source and many microcars have more than two seats Zundapp Janus for example. Mighty Antar 10:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I musdt say many automobile websites use wrong terms. I've seen the Fiat Punto be called a compact car, the Twingo a supermini... City cars simply can't be two-seaters, therefore the Smart Fortwo isn't one. I guess there might be one or three-seater microcars, but the most common ones are two-seaters. -- NaBUru38 (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, "compact car" and "super mini" are just descriptive terms. Like most car classifications they are relative and non-specific. Organisations like Euro NCAP use them only in this relative way so that you can compare your car with a near sized rival, not as a precise classification - all the cars from Smart to Lamborghini do the same Euro Ncap test. Like most unscientific classifications, everyone knows what a particular class of car is (or at least thinks they do), until they try to define it in very precise terms. Are the Lotus Elan and Lotus Carlton both sports cars? If you park your Fiat Punto alongside a Range Rover, which is the compact car? Mighty Antar (talk) 11:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Microcars are different from city cars in a way only touched upon in the article, power. Microcars (Like Kie cars) have tiny engines and aren't capable of massive speed whilst (Modern)City cars should be capable of motorway speeds. The reasons for this are mainly that microcars were generally designed to get around laws by not strictly being cars.(Morcus (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC))

Article for Deletion Discussion

Oppose; just because sources for classification for this class of car can't be found, doesn't mean this article should be deleted (Regushee (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC))

• Please express your opinions on the relevant deletion discussion page, WP:Articles for deletion/City car. See also, Guide to deletion. — Rankiri (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Merger Proposal with A-segment

Someone proposed this. I did not see any discussion. Hence, Created a new section for the Same. Vinay84 (talk) 05:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Opppose. A-segment is EU specific. City car is generic and more inclusive. Rmhermen (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Support. There is clear overlap of two different terms for the same thing. Much like supermini and B-segment. If I was provocative, the whole A/B/C... segment series of articles seems to be predicated on only one EU document. Would be good to have a discussion on what is the proper common name. I would suspect it is City car in this instance. Warren (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Support. They are both generic terms without any precise definition. The terms relating to market segment are more common in formal trade/technical journalism, City car etc. are more common in commercial publications, but sometimes you get both. Mighty Antar (talk) 23:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Support. As per Warren above. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on City car. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/automobiles/28CARS.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130113190446/http://fwd.five.tv/cars/city-car to http://fwd.five.tv/cars/city-car

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:51, 8 August 2017 (UTC)