Talk:Car/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Steam automobiles predated gasoline

The article attributes the first automobile to Benz, but a number of steam-powered automobiles pre-dated it.Landroo (talk) 17:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Landroo Steam-powered cars were really not practical but rather experimental. Benz's Motorwagen was the first practical car (that is, a car that could be used without issues, reproduced, sold), and therefore his car is regarded as the first one. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Well this does not match Wikipedia's own article on Steam cars. There were numerous manufacturers and they were manufactured in series, sold and used. There were also steam powered bus services.

And while these vehicles did have their shortcomings, so did Benz's Motorwagen. As far as production is concerned, once again, Wiki articles would seem to contradict this. See Peugot, for example, who were producing cars with suspension and a more modern layout before Benz. The first industrial factory for automobile production is generally regarded to be FIAT in Turin.

There is no doubt that Benz did make a usable Motor Tricycle using an internal combustion engine which was sellable. That is (possibly) a first, but the claim that he is the 'inventor' or the 'father' of the automobile does seem rather pretencious, even if the claim is made by referenced third parties. 88.87.126.220 (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source, so we have to go with third-party sources, and most of them credit Benz with the first (practical, modern) car. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 18:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

It’s a shame this debate has lasted so long, but as an extension to what has been said and cited over at Talk:Benz Patent-Motorwagen, I present to you just a few third-party sources mentioning steam automobiles as the first practical automobiles:

• Collier, James Lincoln (2006). The Automobile. Marshall Cavendish. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-7614-1877-1.
• Flint, Silas (2014-09-26). The First Auto Laws in the United States. Silas Flint. ISBN 978-1-310-87668-4.

^(Although this is a self-published source, Silas Flint is the pen name of Duane L. Ostler, an author with a PhD in legal history.)

Also, prior to diff 1115292228, you stated that “Nationalism also plays a role unfortunately as some Brits, Italians and French don't want to accept it”, and to that I respond that yes, there is a possibility of nationalistic bias in this conversation, but with the same point you are putting forward, I could argue that — seeing as your username is in the Gronings dialect — you may have a particular affinity for your German nextdoor neighbours and that may be why you believe Benz created the “first practical automobile” rather than someone like Cugnot. — Mugtheboss (talk) 15:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Collier doesn't describe steam automobiles as the "the first practical cars". He uses the term "practical" once on that page, when referring to steam cars, not cars in general. And as you mentioned, Flint is a self-published source, so not suitable. Although not entirely objective, even Mercedes(-Benz) acknowledge that there were practical precursors to Benz, but also state Benz developed the automobile "into a product for everyday use, which he then brought to market and as a result made his idea useful for the entire world - unlike the other inventors mentioned here". This line is generally accepted as a reason to give the Patent-Motorwagen the title "first (modern) practical car". E.g. Steven Parissien, from the book you, Mugtheboss, have added to the Benz Patent-Motorwagen page, states "Ford did not actually invent the car; that honour properly goes to the German engineers Karl Benz and Gottlieb Daimler." (p. 2), "The father of the modern car was Karl Benz" (p. 3) and "Benz was not the first man to invent a horseless carriage. All previous experiments had, however, been steam-powered and distinctly uncommercial" (p. 3). Lastly, Ken Helmick, president of the Steam Automobile Club of America, gave his thoughts on Quora on vehicles with steam engines. Even he acknowledges that steam cars aren't really that practical. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 16:55, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

As there can be unclarity as "when the first car was invented" (see e.g. here), I understand the reason for this discussion. But as there are already many sources crediting Benz for creating the "first (practical, modern) car" (and explaining why in the process), I see no reason to change it. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

If Collier has described steam cars as “practical” in any sense of the word, then that has contradicted a point you made; you stated on the other talk page at 21:07, 9 September 2022 UTC that “The world's first practical car is Benz's one, as steam-powered cars are not practical and electric cars came around later.”, that claim has since been superseded and made redundant by this ref.

As for Flint’s ref not being suitable, in the link to the policy on verifiability I provided earlier, it states that “Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications.” Check and check.

As for steam vehicles being uncommercial, one could argue that an invention doesn’t need to be profitable to exist.

Now we require not only established consensus on the meaning of “practical”, but now it’s a Collier vs Parissien situation. I’ve now figured out that we’re getting absolutely nowhere in reaching consensus regarding this matter. — Mugtheboss (talk) 18:47, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know why you are trying to put forward discussions about my older posts instead of just replying to my most recent ones. I had already deleted the bit about nationalism but somehow you are putting it back - for what? I also don't know why my exact comment from more than a month ago is relevant now since I've already elaborated on it since. I also don't think having a PhD in legal history is making Flint an expert in the field of automotive history. One thing we can agree on is that we aren't going to reach a consensus here. There is thus a clear reason why steam cars e.g. didn't make it as a product for everyday use (and for the average household) and why Benz rather than Cugnot is credited. Have a great night. Cheers, Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 21:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

”I don't know why you are trying to put forward discussions about my older posts instead of just replying to my most recent ones.”

So you’re saying that your older comments about this matter aren’t as relevant as your most recent, and that they should be disregarded?

“I had already deleted the bit about nationalism but somehow you are putting it back - for what?”

I simply replied to an opinion you regretted stating. I have not modified any of your replies, and yet you decide to blank parts of mine, why?

“I also don't know why my exact comment from more than a month ago is relevant now since I've already elaborated on it since.”

How have you elaborated on that very point, exactly?

“I also don't think having a PhD in legal history is making Flint an expert in the field of automotive history.”

Wouldn’t you agree that knowing the laws regarding steam automobiles could allow one to understand how practical they are?

“There is thus a clear reason why steam cars e.g. didn't make it as a product for everyday use (and for the average household) and why Benz rather than Cugnot is credited.”

Please tell me where the clear reason is. — Mugtheboss (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Newer, elaborated comments/discussions are obviously more relevant. There is e.g. no need to simply quote my exact comment from more than a month ago, and then stating "If Collier ... this ref", to just try and cover the fact you didn't read your own source properly. I have already made myself clear, see e.g. my comments above from 16:55/17:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC) (or this one), and I have no desire to keep talking to a brick wall. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

”Newer, elaborated comments/discussions are obviously more relevant.”

Now that this has been said, everything that has been stated from your side up to this point falls apart, you have personally told me that the very foundation of your side of the debate is irrelevant. Time to find another!

”There is e.g. no need to simply quote my exact comment from more than a month ago, and then stating "If Collier ... this ref", to just try and cover the fact you didn't read your own source properly.”

I did read my own source properly, but somebody ended up deciding to try and argue their point using nothing but the word “practical”. Speaking of sources, throughout both talk pages I have provided five which support my side of the debate, where are yours?

”I have already made myself clear, see e.g. my comments above from 16:55/17:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC) (or this one)”

You just said that newer comments are more relevant, why are you now mentioning something you said at the very beginning of this debate?

I would be satisfied if we could call it here, agree to disagree and just say something in a note along the lines of “some sources credit Benz as being the creator of the first practical automobile,*refs* while others credit prior steam automobile innovators.*refs*” — Mugtheboss (talk) 16:59, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't try to cheaply bend my words, you know what I mean. I'm simply stating that in this very conversation (on this talk page), e.g. my latest comments and latest discussions (like those from two days ago) are worth more now than my initial comment from 10 July, since I've elaborated on it and have made several explanations since. I've never said all of my previous comments are worthless now. Why is this even a debate?

"I did read my own source properly, but somebody ended up deciding to try and argue their point using nothing but the word “practical”. Speaking of sources, throughout both talk pages I have provided five which support my side of the debate, where are yours?" LOL - you don't read your sources properly (e.g. you also didn't research the Parissien one you provided thoroughly), or else you would have known that the Collier reference couldn't have supported your statement ("I present to you just a few third-party sources mentioning steam automobiles as the first practical automobiles"). And if you can't seem to find any of the sources I've provided already, it's time for you to go to Specsavers I'm afraid. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

“Don't try to cheaply bend my words, you know what I mean.”

No, I don’t.

”LOL - you don't read your sources properly (e.g. you also didn't research the Parissien one you provided thoroughly)”

I was referring to the Parissien ref, but as I already stated, “If Collier has described steam cars as “practical” in any sense of the word, then that has contradicted a point you made; you stated on the other talk page at 21:07, 9 September 2022 UTC that “The world's first practical car is Benz's one, as steam-powered cars are not practical and electric cars came around later.”, that claim has since been superseded and made redundant by this ref.”, why are we running in circles? Aren’t we mature enough to come to a compromise that satisfies both parties instead of bickering our opinions thin? I’m sure these authors wouldn’t appreciate us waving their books around like auction paddles.

“And if you can't seem to find any of the sources I've provided already, it's time for you to go to Specsavers I'm afraid.”

It’s probably time for you to go to Pearle, as you haven’t managed to see that you haven’t used a single cite template in this whole conversation — just plain links — and you provided me a ref from the Mercedes website that would — if it weren’t subjective — support my side of the debate, you said it yourself; “even Mercedes(-Benz) acknowledge that there were practical precursors to Benz”. The second ref you provided is on a user generated website, akin to citing a YouTube video. Only your third ref is valid. — Mugtheboss (talk) 11:42, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

A person doesn't have to use the cite template to provide sources; you managed to open and read the refs from these "plain links". "Even Mercedes(-Benz) acknowledge that there were practical precursors to Benz" ==> don't skip the important bits here as MB then go on to state that Benz developed the automobile "into a product for everyday use, which he then brought to market and as a result made his idea useful for the entire world - unlike the other inventors mentioned here". So MB state here that Benz made the car practical (that is: for individual, everyday, commercial use - unlike previous inventors, precursors), which is the point of the debate (and looking again at that page, MB don't describe any precursor as "practical", so I don't know why I put that word there). Again, there are plenty of books which point to Benz's car as the first (practical) one (such as Parissien). But just to give some examples from authors with WP pages (and thereby neglecting 99.9% of the books in which the same facts are stated, not to mention the books which haven't even been translated into English):

• "Cars, 1886-1930" (Georgano, 1985) ("the first motorcar, which the Benz is considered to be because it was followed within a few years by replicas built for commercial sale", p. 16).
• "Energy and Civilization: A History" (Smil, 2018) ("Karl Benz builds the first practical car", p. 452).
• "The Motor Car: Past, Present and Future" (Genta et al., 2014) ("The first motor car (meaning the first car manufactured for sale and not for scientific experiments), the Benz Patentwagen", p. 30). Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

But one thing I agree with you is that this has just been a childish debate from both sides, and we should just end now. I don't mind changing "as the world's first practical automobile" to "as the world's first practical modern automobile" on the Benz Patent-Motorwagen page. Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 15:05, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

You know what, if — as an addition to that — there is text somewhere in the page (perhaps as an efn?) that indicates or acknowledges that there were steam automobile innovators (albeit nobody who could mass-produce steam automobiles) that made Benz’ invention possible, that sounds like a deal. — Mugtheboss (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

What do you think of this? Eem dik doun in toene (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I think that we’ve reached consensus! — Mugtheboss (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Automobil

„Both forms are still used in everyday Dutch (auto/automobiel) and German (Auto/Automobil).“

I can't imagine Dutch people saying „automobiel“ but I can assure you, we in Germany don't use „(das) Automobil“ besides in ironical use. We say „(das) Auto“.

Even the automotive industry uses „Auto“, https://www.volkswagen.de/de.html (Autoabo [car subscription], Autokauf [car buying]) or alternatively „(das) Fahrzeug [driving device]“ (which sounds either businesslike or juristic) or „(der) Wagen [car]“ https://www.mercedes-benz.de/passengercars.html?group=all&subgroup=see-all&view=BODYTYPE. But „Automobil“ only sounds old-fashioned or historical and that since decades! I'm seventy years old, and one of my first words was „Auto“, but I've never heard or seen „Automobil“ before I read the name in some old books. Sometimes is referred to the car industry as „Automobilindustrie“ or even „Autoindustrie“, but the word „Automobil“ on its own would only be used corncerning oldtimers.

So, if no one has any objections, I will change that. Dä Chronist (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

What change are you proposing? Springee (talk) 16:04, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I would omit „Automobil“ and/or attach the Volkswagen Site behind „Auto“. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dä Chronist (talk • contribs) 16:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I would change the sentence as follows:

„The form „auto“ is still used in everyday Dutch (auto) and German (Auto) .“[with the VW link] Dä Chronist (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I would remove the sentence as it's not really about the English language use of the word. Springee (talk) 17:32, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, perhaps the easiest way. Dä Chronist (talk) 18:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2023 (2)

In this phrase:

Many cities in Europe, have banned older fossil fuel cars

Please remove the comma. 120.21.35.15 (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done RudolfRed (talk) 20:17, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 January 2023

In the introduction, please merge the concluding pair of paragraphs. Right now, "there are costs and benefits to car use" begins a paragraph that doesn't mention any benefits, and then there's a paragraph with no introduction. 120.21.35.15 (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done  Stepho  talk  01:10, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

What are the recent changes without comments please?

@Michael7604: Please could you explain the changes you made without comments. I object to the removal of the diagram of the electric car and your statement that “Cars contain three internal parts systems essential to their function: The internal combustion engine, the drivetrain, and the chassis control system.“.

I am reluctant to rollback all your changes as some may be good. But that is hard to tell as you did not write any change comments at all, so I don’t understand the purpose of some of your changes Chidgk1 (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. A battery electric car or fuel cell car obviously does not have an internal combustion engine. Electric cars with wheel hub motors obviously don't have a drivetrain. Neither does a rocket car. In the early 20th century there were steam cars with external combustion engines, eg the Stanley Steamer.  Stepho  talk  23:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I have rolled back all the changes but I have no objection to some of them being redone with suitable comments - for example the info about steering might be good Chidgk1 (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree that there were problems with my changes, since not all cars have an internal combustion engine. But I thought the article was too focused on the societal aspects of cars, and on the development of electric cars, and lacking in an overview of the mechanisms of how cars commonly used today work, which is likely something that someone starting to learn about cars would want to learn about. Maybe we could divide the section "Operating principles" into subsections for internal combustion engine-powered cars and electric cars. Michael7604 (talk) 19:49, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Dunno - maybe others have opinions. Anyway why not start with (hopefully) non-controversial stuff like steering - I thought the steering diagram you added was really good. Adding an alt text for that diag too might be interesting for you. I think maybe nowadays a default alt text can be added in Commons Chidgk1 (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Also if you are interested in condensing the history section that keeps the article a reasonable length even if you add more stuff about ICE cars Chidgk1 (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps consider replacing history with an excerpt of the main article - although that would need a new talk page section here as others might not agree Chidgk1 (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

My 2c is that any section with a corresponding main can be cut ruthlessly back to a single paragraph, maybe a couple for particularly complicate topics. After all, its the job of the linked main article to go into detail.

Batteries can be mentioned in the 'Fuel and propulsion technologies'. This section should mention (but only in passing) batteries, alternative hydrocarbon fuels (eg LPG, CNG, ethanol), compressed air engines, clockwork engines, flywheel engines, (eg KERS), steam engines (eg Stanley Steamer), and fuel cells. Probably also mention gearboxes, diffs, wheel hub motors. And of course point to a list of main articles. Not sure if all those articles exist yet in a form we can directly point to but its a target to aim for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepho-wrs (talk • contribs) 07:30, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Michael7604: Have added a little on batteries and a tiny sentence on wheel hub motors. Unlikely to do much else on this article - over to you re the rest of Stepho-wrs suggestions Chidgk1 (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Should the history section be an excerpt?

Yes the lead of History of the automobile should be expanded and excerpted here. For various reasons including that the section here is far too long now Chidgk1 (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes - as per my mini rant a few sections above.  Stepho  talk  10:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2023

Please correct the spelling of the inventors name to Karl Benz, from the incorrect spelling of Carl Benz. 2600:1004:B252:166C:E520:2070:43EA:8317 (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Please change Carl Benz to Karl Benz 2600:1004:B252:166C:E520:2070:43EA:8317 (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

N Both forms of his name are well attested in English references - including him starting a company called "C. Benz Söhne". There is no preference for one over the other. To avoid endless flipping between them, we have arbitrarily settled on "Carl".  Stepho  talk  01:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2023

2001:8F8:122B:D431:F970:174B:4C96:5EDD (talk) 13:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The automotive industry designs, develops, manufactures, markets, and sells the world's motor vehicles, more than three-quarters of which are cars. In 2020, there were 56 million cars manufactured worldwide,[114] down from 67 million the previous yea

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

First mass-produced cars

Maxeto0910 added a claim that the first mass-produced cars in the world were the Oldsmobile Curved Dash and the Ford Model T. Both a certainly contenders for the title and are both significant cars. But I have found that American reference tend to ignore things outside of their own borders when claiming such titles. When they say "the first car to xxx", they often really mean "the first in America to xxx". This is often because they are an American magazine/newspaper/book writing to an American audience about an American topic, so it is kind of understandable in that context - but not for an international audience.

Counter-claims are:

• the Benz Velo. See https://theinventors.org/library/weekly/aacarsassemblya.htm
• the Panhard & Levassor Type A. See https://www.belairdirect.com/blog/history-automobile

Thoughts?  Stepho  talk  11:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, it's simply not a valid argument claiming that sources may be biased just because they're writing about something of their own country. It's also a logical fallacy, since it could be said about every source that they report in favour of their country, and claiming that this would be only true for American media is per definition quite racist.

At least in the sources I gave, it's clearly not the case that they're only reporting about the situation in the USA: The NY Times article also mentions France and Germany, and the Washington Post article writes about the Model T that "historians credit it with revolutionizing the industry".

Benz Velo: Your source given claims that it was the first standardized car, meaning that every car was different from each other until then. However, only around 1,000 cars were produced within 8 years, compared to the Oldsmobile Curved Dash's 20,000 in 6 years, which is probably why it's not considered a mass-produced car. Arguably the first serial-produced car, but not the first mass-produced car.

Panhard & Levassor Type A: Seems to be quite unpopular, I find very little information about it online. I don't know how many cars were sold or produced, but probably also not very many based on how little seems to be known about it. Anyway, it doesn't seem to be widely considered a mass-produced car either.

With that, I suggest restoring my version. It could be argued if the phrasing should be changed to "widely considered" instead of "considered" to emphasize that the actuality is not quite clear (mass-produced is ultimately a subjective term), but this is how it's mostly regarded by historians and the media.-- Maxeto0910 (talk) 11:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for entering this discussion.

This discussion hinges on what defines "mass production" and whether we have reliable, independent sources to back it up.

Steps towards mass production were:

1. The very first cars were hand-crafted - each unit was hand-made and differed from the previous one.
2. Then they introduced serial production where each unit in a batch was still hand-made but substantially the same as the rest of the batch.
3. Next they built them in bigger numbers - moving from 10's of units to 100's and sometimes over 1000.
4. Bring in the assembly line and we have today's idea of mass production of 100's per day of identical cars.

It's not clear which of steps 2-4 constitutes "mass production". My sources tend to defining step 2 as mass-production. Yours tend to step 4.

The NY Times and Washington Post are certainly respectable and reliable sources for anything recent and especially about economics and politics. However, they are not motoring journals and I have found that newspapers and magazine history articles tend to be one guy's idea of history and often have errors in the fine details. I've even seen motoring magazines with such errors when not covering their centre of interest - eg muscle car mags giving a history of early Toyota's almost always have errors. Books cover this far better because the writer spends years researching it instead of hours or days. Put simply - the NY Times and the Washington are not writing about their areas of expertise.

The NY Time article mentions "mass-produced" only once - for the 1954 Chevrolet Corvette.
The entire mention of the curved dash is "1901: The curved-dash Oldsmobile becomes the first car to be made in quantity."
The model T is only mentioned as "1908: Ford introduces left-hand steering with its new Model T, which sells for $850." and "1927: ... On May 21, Ford produces its last Model T, number 15,007,033." Hardly an in-depth analysis.
I do note your point about their mentioning French and German milestones - although it mentions 1 each and skips quickly to mentioning only American milestones after those 2, only returning at the end of the article to reiterate those first 2 milestones.

The Washington Post article says "The T was an entirely new car, and historians credit it with revolutionizing the industry by putting Americans on wheels in a reliable, inexpensive mass-produced automobile." No question that the Model T was mass-produced or that it revolutionised the industry. But I do question how many before it also qualified for as mass production. This is very short article that doesn't mention any history outside of the early Ford cars.

So far the 2 references are quite weak.

WP:INDEPENDENT warns "Is this source independent or third-party, or is it closely affiliated with the subject?" In this case flag waving, probably unintentional. Pointing this out doesn't make me racist. I'm aware that most countries quite rightly want to support their own people. That's why I'd like to see your claims supported by stronger sources with at least one from another country.

The Type A is hard to find sources in English. The French (https://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Panhard_%26_Levassor_Type_A#cite_note-1) and Italian Wikipedia articles (https://it.wiki.x.io/wiki/Panhard_%26_Levassor_Type_A) both list it as mass-produced, as do their corresponding references (Google translate being most helpful). I do recognise that this might be flag waving on the part of the European sources - everybody likes to wave their own flag.

From the above I have shown: 1) "mass production" has not been defined very well. 2) The NY Times and Washington Post are weak references, possibly with an unintentional bias toward their own countrymen. 3) There are other sources claiming other cars from other countries were also mass produced. Therefore the claim added to our article possibly gives an inaccurate view and requires further discussion or at least some rewording.  Stepho  talk  14:26, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the definition of mass production, we should clearly differentiate between serial- and mass-produced cars. The Benz Velo (or Type A) is the first serial-produced car because it was the first whose produced units were standardized, whereas the Oldsmobile Curved Dash is widely considered the first mass-produced car by the media.

"Put simply - the NY Times and the Washington are not writing about their areas of expertise": This is an ad-hominem argument because it criticizes not the information but the publisher of the information.

As I already said, "mass-produced" is ultimately a subjective term, meaning that it can never be said with certainity what the first mass-produced car was, regardless of how many decades a car enthusiast or historian spent researching. Thus, it's primarily defined by the media to which car this title belongs, and they majority considers the Oldsmobile Curved Dash to be it, rather than the Benz Velo or Type A.

Yes, I know that the Model T is only briefly mentioned in the NY Times article. That's why I only used it as a reference for the Curved Dash, not the Model T.

"although it mentions 1 each and skips quickly to mentioning only American milestones after those 2, only returning at the end of the article to reiterate those 2 milestones." Yes, but the fact that the article also mentions other countries than the USA shows that the article is about the worldwide development of cars and not only in the USA, since your initial argument was that the article was merely referring to the first mass-produced car in the USA and not worldwide.

The article states: "historians credit it with revolutionizing the industry". This implies that it's the world's first mass-affordable car, not just in the USA.

I don't understand Italian, but I understand a bit of French, and in the French Wikipedia article, the car is described as the first serial-produced (not mass-produced) car. In the German Wikipedia article, for instance, the Benz Velo is described as the first serial-produced car ("das erste in Serie produzierte Auto"), and the Oldsmobile Curved Dash as the first mass-produced car ("das erste in Großserie hergestellte Automobil").

In summary, it can be said that it's not quite clear what the first serial-produced car was (Type A or Benz Velo), but there seems to be a relatively clear consensus in the media that the Oldsmobile Curved Dash was the first mass-produced car. Regarding your 3 main points at the end: 1) Yes, as I said, "mass production" is not a clearly defined term. That's why we should use the media consensus as a reference. 2) I explained why I find that the references are suitable. If you sill find there are issues with them, I may search for more sources. 3) I think I explained that's about the first serial-produced, not mass-produced car. Maxeto0910 (talk) 17:45, 3 June 2023 (UTC)