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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 11:42, April 15, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
There is a small GMC truck seen in Europe that seems to fit in the category are they sold in Japan ? or is it a japanese rebranded truck ?
Piaggo also build similar vehicles are they sold in Japan ?
Ericd 08:10 16 May 2003 (UTC)
No I live in Nice they use some GMC minitrucks for garbage disposal in some quater. I'll try to take digital potho when I see one this will help to identify the engine.
But isn't the GM a shareholder of Isuzu ?
BTW the Honda N360 and Z and the Honda minitruck where well known in Europe.
There is also a small car branded Marutti which seems to be a Suzuki, I don't where it's built.
Ericd 18:13 21 May 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for answering, would be very nice, if you can take a picture.
Referring to GM-Homepage and then `Automotive' and `Auto Brands' both Isuzu and Suzuki belong to GM. Oh, I'm suprised: Subaru as well.
I'd say it's probably a rebadged Suzuki Super Carry of some variety. They were sold in the UK and Ireland in the late '80s and '90s as the Bedford Rascal (Bedford was a GM commercial vehicle brand at the time). --Zilog Jones 10:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think today it isn't very common for japanese companys to export Keicars, caused this cars are left handed,... Of course there are a few exceptions: e.g. Daihatsu Cuore (in Japan: Daihatsu Mira), Suzuki Wagen R, Alto, Jimny... but rebuild: right handed, with an about 1000ccm engine, larger bumpers,...
Yeah, I know about the N360, the Z and the Honda minitruck (maybe T360 and T500?). But this cars were built in the 60's and 70's. And today this cars are very seldom in Europe as well as in Japan. Here is a German page about (all?) Honda models. Very complete as I think :-). anobo 01:09 22 May 2003 (UTC)
"Keicars can be also equipped with air condition or Navigationsystems." Is it worth to write this? anobo 02:25 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I have no idea what "and no proof for a parking lot" means. Could this be explained in clearer language, please. Adrian Pingstone 16:47, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)
One can not buy a _normal_ car in Japan without this proof. The space on the streets is very less. I don't know how to obtain this. One doesn't need the proof if buying a Keicar. :anobo 15:29, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)
13 years later... you obtain a printed map with the dimensions of your home (and parking) from the real estate agent. You then go to the local police station with the appropriate forms and they will send someone round to measure the parking space, and compare those dimensions with those of the car you wish to purchase. 14:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC)Spacecowboy420 (talk)
Car Ghana a nhumub fybh b## Mushipe (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well love the baby Love Mushipe (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little bit of a little bit of a nhumub fybh are not in a nhumub you are interested in this email is this a nhumub are you ready you ready you are you still have been a nhumub fybh you sleeping in the baby is the question is Mushipe (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how much response I'm going to get for this, but are the dates for the Regulations correct? According to [1], many k-cars (e.g. Mitsubishi Minica, Suzuki Alto were 547 cc until March 1990, when they all switched to 660 cc. I reckon the 1984 date for this change is not correct. -- DeLarge 09:10, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know where they got the information from. I took it mainly from the "automotive guidebook of japan" which is released every year (mostly) in Japan and from here [[2]] (this is the official page). anobo 20:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - that's a better source than my reference in the external links, and it corroborates my suspicions about 1990 being the critical date. I'll add it in. --DeLarge 23:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Removed speculative "Supposedly, the Keicar will be featured in The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift." First, there's no reference to any keicars in the "featured cars" section of The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift. Second, a Google search brought up absolutely nothing to support this. And third, encyclopedias don't deal in "supposedly" rumours.
Removed almost all the external links, as they refer to individual models, not keicars in general. They should really be added to the entries for those cars (and ironically, they look like they need to be in the case of the Honda Beat). I'll add them to individual car articles later this afternoon.
Added some of the individual keicars previously deleted by the IP 84.160.65.88 (user:Anobo?) back in December - just because he thinks "they are not famous" is no reason to exclude them, as they all have their own WP entry and therefore must have passed Wikipedia's standards for notability.
I had never heard of the term "keicar" until seeing this article, and the first 10 or so Google results for the word are just duplicates of this article (answers.com and whatnot). I have often seen "K-car" used by journalists in the UK and Ireland (in reference to the Wagon-R, Move, etc.), and the Japanese WP article lists this as another name (and not "keicar" in roman nor kana). A google search for "k-car japan" gets 65,800 results - compare this to 9,840 for "keicar", and 49,200 for "k-car chrysler". There are very few results for "keijidousha" (756), "keijidosha" (299), "kei jidousha" (361) and "kei jidosha" (1,050) in comparison.
English-speaking people I know who've lived in Japan usually refer to them by their yellow number plates, possibly not knowing the proper name or assuming I wouldn't understand "keijidousha".
So from use I've seen both outside and within the internet, I believe that "K-car" is the most common name used in English, and appears to be used more in reference to these than the Chrysler K platform. I think this should be moved to "K-car", with a disambig line at the start of the article pointing to the Chrysler K-cars. Either that or possibly keeping the current disambig page on "K-car" and moving this to "K-car (japan)", if there is opposition to the above.See my comments below --Zilog Jones 10:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I tried looking for "Daihatsu keicar", "Daihatsu k-car", "Suzuki keicar" and "Suzuki k-car" (these being the largest k-car manufacturers), and some japanese websites turn up k-car on roman characters. The difference in hits from "Suzuki keicar" to "Suzuki k-car" was about 20 to 1 in the latter's favor. Like, never mind, d00dz! --Pc13 10:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you search for "kei car" with a space (which is how it's often written), then the situation is reversed for both Suzuki and Daihatsu. --DeLarge 12:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's strange, I have always heard of this vehicles being referred to as keicars, though I have more experience with non-English texts on the matter. So, what is the correct Japanese name for those and its romanization? I believe we should first and foremost follow Japanese terminology. I do not support moving to K-car, as this would create unnecessary confusion with Chrysler K-cars. Bravada, talk - 11:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd oppose the move. I first heard of "kei cars" about 15-20 years ago when they started importing them to Europe, and my experience in terms of journalists using it is the opposite of yours - I always see kei cars used, so it's definitely not a neologism created by Wikipedians. Jalopnik.com, one of the more popular automotive portals, has an entire section devoted to, and named after, keicars, while an Edmunds.com article only a month or two old referred to it. Further, English language press releases by manufacturers of the vehicles also use the term. Here's examples from Mitsubishi, Suzuki and Daihatsu.
I'd also be unhappy about a move away from a term where there's no confusion, to a term which right now requires a disambiguation because of the Chrysler reference.
Finally, I'd question your Google search parameters, as "K-car Japan" could in fact include references to Chryslers ~ you have to set the search up to avoid cross-references/duplications. A Googlefight between "K-car" +japan -chrysler and "K-car" +chrysler -japan indicates that the most common context is in fact in relation to Chrysler (38k to 28k), although with all these results, the relative paucity of results indicates a lack of conclusion either way.
PS while 'keicar' gets >10,000 hits, 'kei car' gets over a million. --DeLarge 12:02, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DeLarge: WRT the manufacturers articles, the Suzuki Kei is actually the name of a particular car (IIRC similar to the Suzuki Ignis), the Mitsubishi page uses the term "kei minicars", and the Daihatsu page only uses the word "kei" to describe the source of the "K" in the engine name. Also, Googling 'kei car' leads to a lot of articles not really using the "kei car" term specifically and a lot of results about the Suzuki Kei. Googling "kei car" (with quote marks) only gets 885 results, and again some of these could be refering to the Suzuki Kei.
Bravada: The correct Japanese name is 軽自動車（けいじどうしゃ）, or "keijidōsha" as said in the article (I'm not sure if it should be romanised as "kei jidousha" though), with "kei" meaning "light" and "jidōsha" meaning "automobile". The Japanese WP seems to use "軽自動車" throughout discussion of such cars, and it seems to be used specifically to this restricted category. I have often seen references in English using the "kei" word (like "kei car", "kei class of cars", etc.), but rarely "keijidōsha" (or other romanisations).
OK, I guess "K-car" probably isn't the best solution, but I'm still not happy with the current name. I don't see why it should be one word, and the Google results for "keicar" are quite misleading as a significant amount of them are WP references (and some are articles which say "kei car" but the filename/webpage path contains "keicar"). What about "kei car", or just "keijidosha"? --Zilog Jones 14:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Given the Google results presented by DeLarge, the solution is obvious - "Kei car". Although the original name is different, it is quite related and appears to be in common usage in Western countries. There is also no article under this title yet. Any objections? Bravada, talk - 14:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me, and since there's no current redirect there we won't need to ask an admin to move it. --Zilog Jones 15:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Being bold, and since there's consensus here, I've moved it. --DeLarge 18:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now there's the issue of renaming the category - that'll be... fun. --Zilog Jones 13:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since there's been no dissenting comments, I'll count this category as a typographical error, which makes it eligible for speedy renaming. Fingers crossed... --DeLarge 09:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Great! Thanks for that, I didn't have a clue what to do with regards to renaming cat's, and was kinda busy over the last few days. I'll try and contribute as much as possible to the category - I still have more plans for the Suzuki Wagon R article for starters, and sorting out cars with export models that barely resemble the Japanese versions (I'm not sure if the export Suzuki Alto was ever a real Alto O_o). --Zilog Jones 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
in my opinion, the manufacturers section is not exactly correct. the smart vehicle does not fit in the kei category as it has a width of 1,51m (1,56m for the new model), wider than the mandatory 1'48.
also, correct me if i'm wrong, but nissan has never been a kei manufacturer per se. it's been selling kei cars since 2001 (if i recall correctly), but they are produced by suzuki and mitsubishi, not by nissan.
mazda isn't a manufacturer too nowadays, as their products are rebadged suzukis, but can fit in there because it made its own models in the past.
i edited the page and wiped out smart, but did not deleted nissan and mazda for not being that nitpicking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.44.41.212 (talk • contribs) 01:43, November 24, 2006.
Details of the Japan-only "Smart K" which is compliant with the regulations can be found at daimlerchrysler.co.jp--DeLarge 09:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contrary to what the article says, the Caterham 7 160 is sold in Japan as kei car despite its 80 PS of power, clearly above the nominal 64 PS limit. [1], [2]. Some more information is needed, obviously.
I have removed the final paragraph of the introduction since it doesn't fit the principles of wikipedia. The lack of citations and detail mean the paragraph adds nothing to the article. Bliskner (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to fix the capitalization of 'smart' but for some reason even though it's in lower case in the source it's capitalized in the output. -FoxMajik (talk) 00:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the pipetrick. However, I believe it's correct as it is. "Smart" in the context of being the name of a vehicle, is a proper noun and should be capitalized in an encyclopedia article. We're bound by the rules of English grammar, not the whims of a logo designer. Just because it's written in all lower caps on the back of a car does not mean we're obliged to follow suit. --DeLarge (talk) 11:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are they speed limited?
Is a "normal" driver license required? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.106.34.195 (talk) 12:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are not speed limited legally, though the car itself has physical limitations due to the engine size. A normal driver's license is required to drive a kei car; it's a car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.250.9.162 (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Domestic kei cars implement a speed limitation of 140 km/h. This is not a legal requirement, but a measure adopted by Japan Automobile Manufacturers Association (一般社団法人 日本自動車工業会, Ippan Shadanhōjin Nihon Jidōsha Kōgyō-kai), or JAMA [1], [2], [3].
Normal driving license is required for kei cars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante Matsui (talk • contribs) 05:49, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult for the Europe and America people to imagine Kei car. I chose the latest beautiful photograph, and displayed. And, I chose the photograph of historical Kei cars. DeLarge edit is not understood easily for Europe and America people. Moreover, AZ-1 1990 model of Today, and Twin were the failure works model. And, Mitsubishi i MiEV is a model paid attention to most as Oncoming generation Kei car. DeLarge should esteem a Japanese aspect. I wait for DeLarge answer. --AvengerX (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"It is difficult for the Europe and America people to imagine Kei car." Ehh? How is it difficult, exactly? It's a class of very small cars. We can somehow imagine stuff like the Smart Fortwo, and in fact we buy thousands of them every year, so I think you're underestimating the intelligence of our readership if you think a photo of the Wagon R is going to confuse them. The Suzuki is clearly more representative, by overall sales and the fact that most current keijidosha follow the same front-engined mini-people carrier design. It's certainly more representative of the class than an electrically-powered version of a mid-engined niche model from Mitsubishi (which is even outsold by its eK sister model). The i is a fascinating car, but it's not very representative of the class in general. Quite the opposite; it's pretty unique compared with the last forty years of motoring. --DeLarge (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article generally implies that these cars are unknown outside Japan. This may be true in North America, where anything smaller than a main battle tank is considered impracticably small, but they sell in large numbers in Europe and Asia. In my experience the term Kei car is only used by motoring journalists though, not by the general public. --Ef80 (talk) 12:27, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't that hard for European people to imagine Kei cars. Daihatsu for example sells Kei cars in Europe, but Chevrolet, Smart, Piaggio and Suzuki for example sell cars in the Kei car format, but there also are cars for the disabled people. For example, the WaaijenbergCanta from the Netherlands is close to the original size of the Kei cars from the 1950s. Unintentionally, it is also used as a Kei car. However, it is only allowed on the places pedestrians and cyclists go. Americans have the Commuter Cars Tango T600, but that car isn't that well-known.--92.111.35.244 (talk) 14:57, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How the f*** am I supposed to know how much yen is? Is one Yen six US-cents or two thousand US-dollars? Using US-dollars or EURO is much easier. 88.88.19.194 (talk) 00:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Or, at least it would be, if this wasn't an English article on a strictly Japanese subject. There really isn't much else of a choice.
Mr.choppers cannot read Japanese Language.
So, He thought that Suzuki was a fire truck.
Therefore, he placed the photograph of the not the best classic van.
His act destroys a Kei-car chapter.FFGR79 (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the Jimny is a firetruck is irrelevant. What does matter is to have at least one representative of a classic keitora. The pictures here are meant to illustrate typical kei trucks and from as wide a range as possible (without including too many pictures). Come up with a good rationale for including the Town Box rather than the Sambar (or any other, more representative trio of trucks) and I will be happy to discuss the matter with you.
Also, the Jimny caption was much better as it were: the point here is to explain to non-Japanese, English-speaking users of Wikipedia that the Jimny is considered a commercial vehicle in Japan. This may seem commonplace knowledge to you but needs explaining. Mentioning that it is a postal truck really doesn't pertain to this article. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 17:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are always making an poor excuse. You had misunderstanding "Jimny is a fire truck". And you presented the obscure classic van from your poor resource. Your awkward remark is altogether recorded on wikipedia. FFGR79 (talk) 01:57, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(cur | prev) 07:42, 10 October 2011 Mr.choppers (talk | contribs) (13,276 bytes) (→Commercial vehicle: Replace with one picture of old vehicle (too many firetrucks!)) (undo) ←WHAT IS THIS ? FFGR79 (talk) 02:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I have given several reasons for why the Sambar makes a better picture than the Town Box firetruck and you have not responded to any of them, I will revert again. I will also invite a few more eyes to this article since you refuse to respond in a civilized fashion. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 06:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed that a vehicle was a fire truck because it was red: I didn't enlarge the picture enough to read the logos. Big deal. This was never (and still isn't) an important reason for why the Sambar makes for a more illustrative picture; I have already explained to you several times why an image of a classic keitora belongs here. You also baselessly keep changing the caption of the Jimny, for the worse.
To keep reverting without responding directly to a single thing I say (instead just harping on the fact that the pictured Jimny is a postal rather than a fire vehicle) is not an acceptable form of behaviour. Please stop being rude and begin communicating instead. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 06:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are becoming very rude. You refuse to respond to any argument I make, instead just reverting without reason. Please change your behavior for the better. I am aware that you are new here, so I am giving you some leeway. I suggest that you please visit Wikipedia:Etiquette and read it carefully. ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Prohibition of personal attacks FFGR79 (talk) 08:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not engaged in any. You, on the other hand insist on undoing my edits without any explanation. I would still like to hear what your reasoning is? ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃ (talk) 13:21, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(too many firetrucks!) ←very nice FFGR79 (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm by no means a Kei expert, but I would have to say the classic image is of more interest than the Jimny, which for many Europeans is not considered a Kei car but just a small 4x4. And a pig to drive if the one I tried in Grenada is anything to go by. Warren (talk) 23:01, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mr.choppers=Vandalism Adyop (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
なんで日本語全く出来ない奴（＝Mr.choppers）が、軽自動車の項目を勝手に編集している訳よ？ 116.81.47.196 (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2.I looked for the IIHS report, and while I found something on LSVs that kei trucks, the tests were made on a GEM e2 (US manufacturer) & a Changan Tiger (Chinese), it also mentioned that LSVs are not required. It also states "NHTSA doesn't require LSVs to have airbags or other safety features beyond belts" - which is most certainly not the case for a Kei car as per Japanese regulations, and "They must be able to go at least 20 mph but no faster than 25 mph." which again is not the case. If there is another IIHS report that is relevant to actual kei jidōsha not LSV being mistakenly referred to as kei jidōsha, then it should be used, but I can't find it.
3. Speed limits. "traffic rarely gets above 50 km/h (31.1 mph)" seems like original research to me. Japan is full of highways, expressways etc. Kei cars are certainly not prohibited from travelling on these roads and are capable of speeds well in excess of 120kmh. It's also assuming that people actually follow the speed limits. It's making a lot of assumptions.
I would suggest that if you want a safety section, then look at some Japanese safety reports that actually focus on kei jidōsha and get some translations. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The J-wiki doesn't seem to have the same scope that this one. The J-wiki one not only covers "kei" cars, but "kei" (light) vehicles (軽自動車) in general (自動車 is also vehicle instead of just car in that article) as defined by Japanese law, from motorcycles to trucks and from highway-capable to so-called mopeds/"ultra compact" for city transit (although, in practical terms, it mostly focus on light road-going cars as this one does, and just mentions some basic elements of the law for light vehicles in the intro). I don't know if that a problem or not, as most people in the English-speaking world thinks on the funny-looking highway-capable cars when thinking on kei. Thoughts? Urbanoc (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the scope of this article is correct, in dealing only with the specifically Japanese vehicle class known as kei jidosha. There is Microcar and Moped and other articles that deal with various other kinds of small vehicles. Instead of comparing this to the Japanese entry, perhaps look at de:Kei-Car or it:Vetture Keicar. Any non-Japanese article ought to share the same viewpoint as this one. Mr.choppers | ✎ 18:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.choppers: I just saw this answer, sorry, my fault! My poor excuse is that I couldn't really be around Wikipedia for a long time and some things flew over me. Thanks for your points, I think you're right as there are abundant English-language sources calling this specific type of vehicle "kei car" and Wikipedia is primarly about sourcing, not interwiki consistency. I was curious on the opinion of other editors on the scope discrepancy, but you were the only one to give an answer (thanks again), so I think there is no real problem... --Urbanoc (talk) 21:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Urbanoc:. And don't worry about delay in replying, nothing should really be a rush here. There is always time. Mr.choppers | ✎ 22:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
