Talk:List of Chrysler platforms

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Dodge Viper#First generation (SR I; 1991–1995)|SR]] The anchor (First generation (SR I; 1991–1995)) has been deleted.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Untitled[edit]

Note: In progress --Sfoskett 04:50, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Why have P-body and G-body been named AP and AG, following Chrysler's naming structure introduced in 1989 when all platforms added a character (A), yet AA, AC and AY are named A, C and Y? --93JC 22:55, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, why are XJ, YJ and ZJ mentioned? They were designed by AMC. -- 93JC 23:17, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

True, but they spent most of their production time (in the ZJ's case, all of its time) under Chrysler. --ApolloBoy 03:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it's like calling the SJ a Chrysler or AMC platform (it was designed by Kaiser-Jeep). It's just... wrong! You know what I mean? I suppose ZJ is sort of "Chrysler". They tinkered with the original AMC design (redesigned the engine bay for example to accept LA V8), but YJ, XJ? Chrysler didn't have a thing to do with them, other than serve as manufacturer in their later lives.

I think the perfect analogue to this situation is what is happening over at the List of Chrysler engines page, where a huge number of the engines listed are in no way, shape or form Chrysler engines (Mitsubishi, AMC, Willys, Kaiser, Renault, Peugeot and Volkswagen, if I remember correctly). --93JC 03:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well technically speaking, the XJ, YJ, ZJ are Chrysler platforms since AMC is now a part of Chrysler, so that would make those Chrysler platforms. --ApolloBoy 02:32, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By extension that means every AMC, Rambler, Nash, Hudson, Kaiser, Kaiser-Frazer, Willys, Overland, etc. platform is a "Chrysler" platform. Better get cracking, ApolloBoy.

By your same line of thinking none of these are Chrysler platforms at all: they're DaimlerChrysler AG platforms. Guess we better rename the article and include every Mercedes-Benz, Maybach, smart, Setra, Mitubishi Fuso, Freightliner, Thomas Built, American LaFrance, Sterling and Western Star product in the list too. Now you've really made a lot of work for yourself.

Technically speaking, which is to say, mechanically, the XJ and YJ are AMC through–and–through. Legally speaking they are the property of DaimlerChrysler AG because AMC's property was Chrysler Corporation's, and is now DaimlerChrysler's. Do you want to make the distinction from a technical or legal standpoint? If technical, I'll go ahead and remove XJ, YJ and MJ from this list. If legal, I'll rename the article "List of DaimlerChrysler platforms" and leave you to scrounge up the platforms from the dozens of companies that make up DaimlerChrysler AG. Personally I think it's disingenuous the do it from a legal standpoint. Not to mention a lot more work. But if you want to muddle the article, go ahead. I won't stop you. Nor will I help, of course. --93JC 00:30, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't accuse me of muddling things up; I'm tired of you accosting me like this. Don't forget to remember your civility. I really don't want to get this to the point where I have to set up an arbitration... --ApolloBoy 04:55, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please... You know what? I've figured out a better solution: I'll remove Jeeps from the article altogether, make a "List of Jeeps" article, and put a "see also" link in this article. Satisfactory? Then we won't have to make the distinction. --93JC 18:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you sounded like you were accosting me. If you weren't, I apologize. --ApolloBoy 06:50, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]