Template talk:Chevrolet cars timeline 1980 to date

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Automobiles This template is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles

Where is the pre-80's Chevy timeline? Not found in list, or search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.195.45 (talk) 05:17, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created one at Template:Early Chevrolet cars. No pre-80s truck timeline just yet. --Vossanova ^o< 18:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the 200+ Impala is a W-Body, it should be included in the midsize category, not the fullsize, as are other W-Body cars.

The Tracker was not a crossover; it was truck-based. --ApolloBoy 04:31, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I was trying to place the Geo Prizm in its correct category, Sub-compact, I believe I may have misplaced a few things. I don't know how to fix the problem. KansasCity 20:14, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Impala SS really belong as a separate entry on this timeline? In both instances it's just an option package on the base car (Caprice or Impala). It has no separate article and as such I feel it doesn't belong as a separate entry here. If there's no objection, I'll remove it after allowing a period of time for discussion. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 17:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused on your question. I feel the way the table is set is appropriate to how the models were actually sold and marketed. The 94-96 Impala SS was not an option package you could check on a Caprice and a standard Impala did not exist in those years. The Impala SS was a different model based upon the B-Body Caprice of the time (which included a lot of options and features previously not found on the Caprice), and it had a separate name, emblem, window sticker and brochure than the regular Caprice. Furthermore, the full size Impala SS was not offered at the beginning of the Caprice model run and only became available in late 1994. The 2000 and newer Impalas are a completely different model in a completely different size category (mid-size as oppose to the full size 94-96 Impala SS). It would be appropriate to say the newer Impalas SS (2006-present) are the same car as the standard Impala with an upgrade package. I hope this clears some confusion up. -HumanZoom 06:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With these colours, you can't see clearly if there is a car or a gap. That's why I put more contrast. But someone changed it back. What do you think about this? [http://www.NaBUrean.tk/ NaBUru38 - March 10th 2006 20:05 UYT

The current colors are the standard for all GM divisions' timelines. Don't change them without community input, please. And if the community agrees to change them, then it needs to be changed for all GM divisions for consistency. I have no problem differentiating between the current colors on a variety of computers with both LCD and CRT displays. ⇒ BRossow ^T/_C 22:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The template was recently changed to reflect the Trailblazer being introduced in 1999. I'm sorry, I don't think this should quailify as part of the TrailBlazer line. The Trailblazer and the Envoy in 1999 were still based off the Blazer (and Jimmy respectfully) and was simply considered a trim level (like the Denali is to a Yukon). I'll wait until it is discussed a bit more, but I think the template should be changed and the article should reflect that the first Trailblazers were just a trim level (not a seperate or new model). -HumanZoom 10:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The S-Blazer and Blazer should be removed from the 'Crossover' class. They were both body on frame truck based wagons. They should go into the compact SUV segment. Where it gets ugly is that the TrailBlazer (introduced as a 2002 model) and Blazer overlapped until 2005. Blazer was sold as in 4 door models until 2004, and the 2 door model until 2005.

I would consider the 1994-1996 Imapala SS a full size car, but why was the 2000- model moved to full size? Especially since the Monte Carlo (basically a two door Impala) was kept in the mid size section. I've reverted the changes for now, unless someone can reference a reliable source. -HumanZoom 21:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have found several sources that classifiy the Impala as a "mid-size" car. [1] [2] [3]. I've reverted the Impala back to mid-size. Please see Talk: Chevrolet Impala for more information. If you have some other source that states otherwise, please post the link. -HumanZoom 08:46, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the timeline to include the 1980s. I will also make a pre-1980 timeline as well in the future. --Kuroki Mio 2006 00:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I've read many claims that the Firebird was the only musclecar that was never discontinued for a second from it's induction to 2002. That would obviously mean that the camaro and corvette both had a hiatus sometime along the line. Does this ring a bell for anyone? I don't know about the validity of the claim. JaderVason 15:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen anything to this effect. The Firebird was always a 'secondary' model to the Camaro (the Camaro was likely going to be Chevy-only until Pontiac dealers asked for their own version because Pontiac had nothing truly similar). Strictly speaking, the Corvette had a 'hiatus' in that there was no 1983 model - they basically stretched production of the 1982 a bit longer and introduced the 1984 C4 early. The Camaro and Firebird nearly had this same hiatus on the transition from first to second generation, when the second-gen cars were released as '1970 1/2' in some regards because they didn't actually hit the market until 1970.Ayocee 18:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, be careful who you use that word 'secondary' around; you're certain to get some heated responses. It seems to me that the Trans Am has almost always been just a step quicker than the Z28, withholding the IROC Z28. But not only is this irrelevant, it probably isn't the right place, either. JaderVason 00:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Corsica and Beretta are NOT compact cars and were not marketed as such. The Corsica was marketed as a smaller mid size. The Beretta was marketed as a sporty mid-size coupe. In 1993 the Geo/Chevy Prizm increased in size with it's new body style and was marketed as a compact K_Watson1984

Was this meant to be a discussion on changes or just an attempt at validating major changes you're going to make without other editor's feedback? Roguegeek (talk) 07:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to offend any editors with my edits, but I have found several government websites listing the Corsica as a Mid-size. I am a former Corsica owner and am a long time member of the only known Corsica discussion board and consider myself knowledgeable about Corsicas and Berettas. And I assure you it is a mid sized car. I admit it's on the smaller side of mid sized cars but it is a mid size. Here [4] is one of the websites listing the Corsica as a midsize. K_Watson1984

He's right, the Corsica is in no way a compact. I had the (dis)pleasure of driving one for roughly a year and it's not a large car, but it's certainly bigger than the Corolla-based Prizm and the J-Body. I've driven a fair number of compacts before and since and none of them have comparable room to the Corsica inside. However, I do question why the Impala/Monte are listed as 'mid size' when a better name would probably be 'full size FWD'. Those cars are larger than the Corsica. Ayocee 12:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to wait 24 hours to fix the template because of 3RR, but if any other wikipedians out there would be so kind I would appreciate it --Tesquivello 15:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sable, why do you keep trying to remove pertinent generational information? Ayocee 01:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because it clutters up the template and in most cases makes it longer. There is a pertinent discussion on these templates going on right now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles, but apparently most of you don't care about that. I've been trying to take care of this diplomatically with another user, who actually has a solution. --Sable232 01:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which, so far, has no relevant discussion as to whether or not generational gaps should be removed, and even then, it's not like you removed all of them - your version still has generational gaps on the Camaro and Corvette, for example. Every other template I've come across has generational gaps noted, what is really gained by removing them? Ayocee 05:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there were some generation gaps that were untrue, for example monte carlo 2006-2007, which caused spacing issues due to the long name of the vehicle in the short space. I went through the timeline removing these untrue generation gaps, and doing my best to shorten the names used for the vehicles, by seperating beretta and corsica (since there was available space) and removing the Geo marque (since all but one existed as a chevrolet either before or after it was under the Geo marque). The result is a clean template that looks better on all screen resolutions. —Denimmonkey 12:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where is there any policy about 'small screen resolutions' for templates? I searched and wasn't able to find anything indicating as such, and the condensed template has some strange inaccuracies such as implying that the Impala was a Beretta replacement. If screen real estate is the issue, I think we'd be better served by splitting the template into perhaps a 1980-1990s for articles covering those cars, and a 1990s-up template for the 'current' cars. Ayocee 16:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to come up with a way of indicating which cars were sold under Geo from 1989-1997 while adding minimal text to the template. A possible solution is User:Denimmonkey/Template:Chevrolet, however I don't want to make this change without input, seeing as it would differentiate the Chevrolet template from all the others.

Please stop making significant changes to the template without first discussing the changes here. K Watson1984 19:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please put the generations back on the template, in their correct and accurate places. Thanks. K Watson1984 19:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Chevrolet Sonic is a 2012 vehicle, not a 2011 vehicle. 68.37.41.158 (talk) 23:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I, a random editor, edited the timeline to add the 2013 Malibu and Impala models. If anything, it would be much abliged if anyone could fix the small white space on the title bar of the timeline. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.90.250 (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't understand why Geo is in this timeline. To a reader not experienced in this area or who isn't familiar with GM may think that Geo is it's own model, in other words, they may think it's a "Chevrolet Geo". Geo is a separate brand from Chevrolet, therefor it should, and already has it's own timeline. It would be like including Pontiac in this timeline, because the old Pontiac G8 is now the new Chevrolet Caprice. Just some food for thought. Bookster451 (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering how should we deal with all of the fleet only models: 2001 Lumina, 2014 Impala Limited, 1987 Corsica, 2004-2005, 2008, 2013 Classic? VX1NG (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. Not even the Canada only models. 216.145.66.231 (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Chevrolet Bel Air continues to be made unitl 1981 model year. See Canada-only Chevrolet Bel Air models: Eighth generation (1977–1981). Rjluna2 (talk) 00:40, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]