Template talk:Infobox automobile platform

Example

Yes, but what if the manufacturer was bought by another manufacturer during production of the platform? Should the manufacturer be changed, should a note be put under a break (which is what I will do with Goggomobil), or should a "parent company" field be added? Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Use just same way as other car infoboxes --Typ932 ^T·C 16:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposal for additional parameters

Since this infobox is about the mechanical configuration of a family of cars, how about adding:

• Type: unibody/ladder frame/platform chassis etc.
• Front suspension: Mac Pherson/double wishbone/beam axle etc.
• Rear suspension: multilink/live axle/torsion beam/trailing arms etc.
• Engine disposition: transverse/longitudinal. Could also be integrated into Layout, e.g. transverse front-engine, front-wheel-drive; if it ends up being too long, transverse front-engine, FWD should be as easily understandable by most readers.

Mentioning at least the suspension layout is essential in my opinion. In case, it would be useful have for each entry a list of predefined conventional options, to avoid ambiguity such as between live/solid/beam/dead axle. –Cloverleaf II (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Inevitably there will be discrepancies over how much and which pieces of information can be included in the infobox: you are constrained by the limits of the available sources. And inevitably any list of predefined conventional options will risk oversimplification as people try and squeeze hybrid and experimental suspension formats into "standard" classifications. That's a particular challenge once you go back before about 1940 and where sources are not in the English language, so that you're left trying to figure out whether some elaborately described structure was actually a shock absorber or an anti-roll bar from before the terms had become mainstream. And - again especially in the 1930s, 40s and 50s - how firmly do the floor and body need to be welded together before someone decides to call it a "Uni-body". The VW Beetle itself is a bit of a half-way house in this respect, as far as I remember. And you'll always have the ongoing differences of opinion over whether we should be using British English or US English words. BUT none of that is a reason not to give contributors the possibility to provide the "bullet point infobox" format information to readers who don't have time (or don't wish to take it...) to comb through six chunky paragraphs of prose in order to find out how the body was structured or how the architecture of the springing worked. Success Charles01 (talk) 10:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for chassis type

I think this is quite straight forward. I propose to add a Chassis field. Mentioning the chassis type is essential, whether it a unibody/monocoque, ladder frame, or other types, a very important distinction for automobile platforms. Andra Febrian (talk) 16:10, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for additional parameters

With upcoming EV platforms, new parameters are needed:

• Battery capacity(from-to)
• Battery chemistry
• Battery geometry (pouch, cell, in-frame)
• charging power (given in KW)

• range of ranges (e.g. 150- 500 miles)
• range of engine output(assuming different engine options. Cylinders and displacement arent important, we can look at power and torque)

Gerdolfo (talk) 09:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)