Talk:2+2 (car body style)

Head room

To call them "not very spacious" is a heinous understatement. An MGB GT 2+2, for example, has barely enough space between the seat squab and the headlining for my shoulders. I'd never be able to sit in it, and I'm not that large - only 5'10"... 86.11.124.189 18:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is a RX8 a 2+2 ? Under the strict definition it is. I've been in one - those back seats are definitely "+2". Also this agrees - http://washingtontimes.com/autoweekend/20051103-083621-7764r.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.114.226.172 (talk • contribs) 18:14, 26 January 2007 (GMT).

Fair enough, on the basis that Wikipedia's criteria is "verifiability, not truth", as per WP:VERIFY. I think there will be good sources which contradict the Washington Times and say a 2+2 can't have 4 doors, which they would say make it a saloon or at best a 4-door coupé. But that's not the point ;-) So thanks for finding that source. – Kieran T ^(talk) 18:23, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other ones

I can think of a few incredibly cramped "sporty" cars off the top of my head which could fit this definition - namely, the Camaro (similar in design to the Mustang), and the Nissan 240SX, although the latter is less of a coupe style. Zchris87v 23:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sedan/Coupe

I've removed a discussion about Sedan and Coupe because this page is absolutely nothing to do with either. 2+2's are not about being a coupe or a sedan - any discussion of this should be kept to another page, but feel free to discuss what a 2+2 is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mw-wsh (talk • contribs) 12:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reat seats

2+2 means 2 seats in the rear NOT 3 cramped seats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mw-wsh (talk • contribs) 08:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested full protection to avert an edit war. I've tried to find a way of gaining some concensus with GoldDragaon but no succeess so far. GoldDragon doesn't like the definition of a 2+2 only having 2 rear seats and believes it shouldn't be mandatory. I'd be interested in hearing some more views on this.--Mw-wsh (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GoldDragon

I requested protection for this page to prevent the continuous cycle of undo's, but was told to let it go through the discussion page. I've messaged GoldDragon directly but without success. He/She seems to be a serial offender with cycling undo's. Will apply for protection again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mw-wsh (talk • contribs) 08:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience they're very reluctant to use protection unless the page receives multiple vandalistic efforts on the same day, every day, or is highly controversial, such as the page for Kosova, for example — a much bigger topic than this one, in other words. So, what do? Well, I've been noticing this going on for a few days though and agree that GoldDragon has – let's assume in good faith – got the wrong idea, so in the absence of protection or a conversation with that person, I'll certainly join you in keeping an eye on the accuracy of the page. If we keep Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles informed there are more editors who should also be able to help from there too. – Kieran T ^(talk) 13:42, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not just cars...

Some light aircraft are also described as having 2+2 seating, and I'd like to add some references here to show examples. That being the case, I'm also thinking of moving this article to 2+2 (seating arrangement). Is "2+2" really a "body style" as such anyway? (as opposed to being a seating arrangement used in some coupes and perhaps sedans or hatchbacks — all of which seem more like "body styles" to me...) --Rlandmann (talk) 13:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A good point, but actually I'd suggest it should be resolved with a "see also" to either another article, or a relevant section in an article on aeroplane design. The reason being that yes, this one is about a "body style" because 2+2s classically come from the practice of stretching and heightening roadster designs with sometimes radical effects on the looks and dynamics (the Jaguar E-type being a perfect example of what I mean) so it isn't just a seating arrangement. The way this article is used, i.e. the way it is linked to, is connected to the way people link to other car body style articles, so it's very much one of a set. – Kieran T ^(talk) 14:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kieran, I think its better to keep this as "2+2 (car body style)". Whilst the 2+2 implies a seating arrangement, it does also imply the style of body. I think a "see also" make perfect sense.--Mw-wsh (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RX-8 Confusion

The RX-8 Page specifically says that it is NOT a 2+2. So which page is right?--75.80.43.80 (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Was this an insurance thing?

I remember reading in a car magazine many years ago about why 2+2's exist, since they don't rally seem to serve any purpose. The answer was that 2 seater sports cars were considered more dangerous than four seater sedans and therefore had a much higher insurance cost. Supposedly if these cars were 2+2 they weren't considered 2 seater sports cars and were therefore cheaper to insure. I never understood this logic, since the cost of fixing/replacing the car should be the only issue on how much the insurance costs. Has anybody ever read anything about this? If so, it might be worthy of including in the article for explaining their use. __209.179.36.56 (talk) 01:53, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]