Talk:Toyota Sera

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Automobiles Mid‑importance Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Brands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands 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.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Okay I've reverted the two engine capacity changes. The first one, changing 1.5L to 1.8L seems wrong. Everything I've read about Seras (including the engine plate on my own) lists the 5E motor as 1.5L capacity. Just can't find anything suggesting that it's a 1.8L. Oh and on the second change, if there's one thing the Sera ISN'T, it's a 6.8L beast. :) Ozlucien (talk) 17:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure I've heard this style of gullwing described as 'butterfly wing', but a quick google search finds no references like this... If anyone else has come across the term as well, is that evidence enough to put that term into the article proper? :) --Nemo 01:04, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

yeah ive heard that term, but if you think about it,its inacurrate. as butterfly wings pivot at the bottom and completely meet at the top. not really that appropriate i reckon. if anyone asks about my sera i just call them gullwing, cause they have a similar motion (opening up and out like a delorean for example)

Please

sign your posts on talk pages, user 81.156.213.78. Andrewa 13:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply

]

I've always heard of it as "beetle-wing" referring to the way the carapace of a beetle folds up and forward to reveal the wings underneath. But a search on that phrase now only seems to find aftermarket rear-spoilers for the VW Beetle. This sound familiar to anyone else? Ozlucien 06:38, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed text:

Yes, the boot size is limited, but as a previous editor has stated, the seats fold down to make the boot space very spacious. The high loading lip is a problem though.

The shell is pretty rigid - the sills are very very strong indeed (I've tried cutting through them in the past), and the A and B pillars are very strong as this forms a rollover cage. I suspect the shell is much more rigid than the Starlet the car is based upon.

Pronounced body roll is due to the springing and damping the car comes with. This can be fixed with a set up uprated dampers and springs, but the trade off for handling is a loss of ride comfort.

All added by user 84.45.131.91. Some of it could be incorporated into the article I think, taking care of NPOV and the article format. Andrewa 13:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The comment* towards the end of this article is incorrect..

the 1967 Alfa Romeo Stradale had exactly the same glass design doors as the sera.

Zoo yorker 22:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Ammended*- I started an article on the Stradale, and linked to it. Zoo yorker 10:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a Sera owner I'm trying to avoid making edits or removals that would appear to be POV, but I question the use of the word 'disappointing' to describe the small cargo opening. Disappointing to whom? If this forms part of a critical review of the car (extremely possible) then it should be cited. Otherwise perhaps less emotive phrasing, such as "the rear cargo area has a notably small access opening etc etc" would be preferable? Ozlucien (talk) 02:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that that whole section was added by an anon user (210.233.219.49), I think a rewrite is fine. That phrase on the article is almost three years old now (from 19 August 2005). The complete diff between then and now shows a remarkable amount of flowthrough from the original wording in that section. I say go ahead and make the change (Wikipedia:Be_bold) :)

between Aug 2005 and Jul 2008

--.../Nemo (talk) 04:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough in the spirit of being bold I've actually yoinked the whole article into a sandbox and am in the process of reworking it a bit. The more I read the more I found it to be a little untidy (maybe just a personal pref, but we'll see). :) Will plug away at it for a couple of days and then post the link in here and see what folks think.

Oh and that's so incredibly *not* a comment on the original article itself, but more that it seems to be showing signs of several "it's bad because of this", "but it's good because of this", "but it's bad because of this" type edits that kinda spoil the flow and structure of the info. Ozlucien (talk) 07:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, in the spirit of being bold I've uploaded the refined version of this article that I've been sandboxing over the last couple of weeks (of course if this is too much then feel free to revert). What I tried to do was rearrange the article structure to link common parts of the entry, provide a better order of reading (from original car through factory versions to after-market mods etc), and also factually report on the good and bad aspects of the car in a way that is (hopefully) much less POV than before. Yes I've expanded it a bit but not with anything vastly life-altering. What I haven't done is remove any particular fact outright or put in citations for some of the facts and figures that I really think need it (in particular the production figures, and some of the more detailed bits of aftermarket tuning). It's still not perfect but with any luck now reads a bit more like an encyclopaedic entry. So let the critiquing, flaming and general ripping and re-ordering begin :) Ozlucien (talk) 04:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've not closely looked at the new version of the article, but I have had your sandbox version in my watchlist and been noticing the diffs now and then as you've updated - and they've all looked good to me. :)

A tangent comment not directed at anyone though - One thing I'd like to see is a few more good Sera photos - after all, it is such a visual car once the doors are open! --.../Nemo (talk) 04:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Bit of a relief as this is my first major edit. Also completely agree about the additional pictures. The old Yahoo group for the Sera is a wealth of great images but there's the Fair Use issue. Maybe a call out to one of the online communities might provide a couple of examples. Ozlucien (talk) 03:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, between the Yahoo list and the webforums (both of which I lurk alot, and post only rarely), some good photos can no doubt be sourced. I'll put a request up soon (when I'm not at work) if I'm not beaten to it. :) And given that I have a decent camera on loan, I might even try to snap a couple of decent shots of mine... :) --.../Nemo (talk) 03:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ive got access to a japanese EPC there you can get the date of manufacture from the chassis number. Chassis numbers from the Sera are in range EXY10-0001001 - EXY10-0016942 (so the overall production should be 15942).

But i cant find a way to verify this data to others

here is a list of production per month, perhaps someone can verify it?!

BlackyP8 (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Automobililamborghini (talk · contribs) and myself have a disagreement over whether the Sera.jpg image (see right) should remain in the article. He is quite right that it is blurry. My argument is that the blurriness is unnoticeable as a thumb view and not too bad in full resolution. The photo demonstrates the special opening feature of the doors better than the other photo with a single door open. The blurriness is only distracting for the number plate and the Toyota emblem on the front - both of which I can tidy up with an image editor. Comments?  Stepho  talk  00:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Something for discussion... the top photo was changed a few months ago by User:Charles01. The reasons for the change are good - it's a cleaner photo without a distracting background. However, it means the article is now without a photo displaying the most notable feature of the Sera - it's doors. I don't see any particularly good photos on [1] which both shows off the doors, and is clean. Does anyone have one they can add to the pool, or have a different view on this? --.../NemoThorx (talk • Contributions) 03:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This looks the best one to me on wiki-commons to illustrate the doors opening. As a "portrait" shot I don't think it does the business, but what do I know? As an illustration of the doors it looks good to me. I would normally add it and await reactions, but right now I'm on a laptop by a window which adds up to non-standard aka bad lighting conditions so I'll let someone else judge (or come back and add it when the light is better for this screen). The one you proposed loooks to me very dark indeed, but that might simply be my screen playing billy suggers. Regards Charles01 (talk) 14:48, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is what happens when I have a think, and then a forget for 9 months. I didn't propose any specific replacement. I hoped someone might have one... but I've since remembered that a friend took some photos of my Sera many years ago, and explicitly gave me permission to wikipedia them. I'll dig them up... :) .../NemoThorx (talk • Contributions) 06:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]