3 posts tagged “naming”

I see Volkswagen is bringing out a Chrysler-based minivan called the Routan.
   Daft name, but I guess if it already has a minivan called the Touran in Europe, it was a matter of swapping two letters around in the mould.

07touran05

Volkswagen Routan

Wouldn’t it be fun to look for cars called 600? Maybe not. I know I have missed the Fiat 600 and the BMW 600 (remember when BMW made bubble cars that make the Smart ForTwo look huge?) but how about these with the same name? These are all from Autocade.

Mercedes-Benz 600

Mercedes-Benz 600. 1963–81 (prod. 2,677). 4-door saloon, 4- and 6-door stretch limousine, 4- and 6-door landaulet. F/R, 6330 cm³ (V8 SOHC). Largest Mercedes offered at the time, meant to be an example of the ultimate in German engineering. Hydraulic power for many features, including opening boot and automatic doors. Adjustable air suspension. Customers included the Pope as well as numerous dictators (Mao Tse-Tung, Idi Amin, Nicolae Ceauşescu, Kim Il-Sung). Not directly replaced, though 450 SEL 6·9 did its best; Maybach 57 and 63 probably the closest to a direct successor.

Saab 600

Saab–Lancia 600. 1981–6 (prod. unknown). 5-door hatchback. F/F, 1499 cm³ (4 cyl.). Scandinavian interpretation of Lancia Delta, the result of a distribution agreement with Fiat that also included the Autobianchi A112 (sold in Sweden, as most of Europe, as the Lancia A112). The 600 was sold in Sweden and Norway only with the 1·5-litre engine in three trims. Some trim differences to “Saabify” original car, including grille and Saab typeface on badging. 

Dodge 600

Dodge 600. 1983–8 (prod. 309,590). 4-door sedan, 2-door convertible. F/F, 2213, 2507, 2555 cm³ (4 cyl. OHC). Stretched K-car, twin of Chrysler E-class. ES model marketed as a sports sedan that could rival Mercedes W123 and BMW 5-series. Never managed to, but very good alternative to Pontiac 6000 and other GM A-cars. Considered roomy, well sized for mid-size car buyers, and helped Chrysler restore its fortunes in the early 1980s. Convertible actually a rebadged Dodge 400, i.e. K-car, sold from 1984 on shorter wheelbase. Mitsubishi 2555 cm³ engine deleted after 1985 model year; convertibles had 2507 cm³ option in final year, 1986. ES replaced in 1986; SE trim introduced.

Rover 600

Rover 618/Rover 620/Rover 623. 1993–9 (prod. 270,988). 4-door saloon. F/F, 1850, 1997 cm³ petrol, 1994 cm³ diesel (4 cyl. OHC), 1994 cm³ turbo, 2259 cm³ (4 cyl. DOHC). Rebodied Honda Accord, sharing front windscreen, doors and roof with Japanese car. Many interior elements identical. Usual Honda dynamics of sophisticated suspension in low, sporting design. Designed by Rover team at Honda; Richard Woolley styling has British overtones.  

I thought communists were more in to revisionist history than democratic governments. From the Fairfax Press:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4316159a12.html

   I am glad I got to the Republic of China to see the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial before this sort of government-sanctioned vandalism happened.
   The Democratic Progressive Party, indeed. Bit like the German Democratic Republic.
   I can’t speak for those inside the Republic but I would say that the majority of overseas Chinese will react similarly to me. Gen Chiang was not Franco or Stalin.
   The DPP calls Chiang’s Kuomingtang (KMT) repressive. I assume they have romantic notions of what was happening across the Taiwan Strait after 1949—or, for that matter, during the Sino–Japanese War.
   I am not exaggerating: in my time in Taiwan in November I met intelligent people who held beliefs that life was better under Japan than under the KMT, conveniently ignoring massacres such as the Rape of Nanking where hundreds of thousands were slaughtered.
   However, I accept that their positive ideas stem from the fact that some Japanese officials in Formosa did try to be good governors of the island.
   Back then, however, we weren’t talking about two Chinas. When 9-11 happened, it’s not as though Californians were cheery because they were comfortable, while the Twin Towers fell in New York.
   While the KMT did its share of demolishing memorials of Japanese colonialism after the war, it doesn’t make it right.
   My main view is that those of us outside need to respect the wishes of those within who participate in the Republic’s democracy. All we can realistically do from faraway keyboards is create a bit of noise when we are upset, just as we might with the War on Terror or other international matters.
   The Republic’s government also needs to know that this act insults those of us who hope that all of China will be ruled by a free and democratic republic, and whose families left because we did not believe such a China could exist under the Reds.
   Our hope was placed in the last free part of China that remained, that part in exile in Taiwan.
   Sadly, we are not voters in Republican elections. Only the inhabitants of Taiwan are.
   What now? Will a portrait of Mao be erected?
   One wishes that the DPP recognizes that it would not even exist without Chiang and the remnants of the Republican government in exile in Taiwan, but this latest incident suggests it does not.
   From an overseas Chinese view, it’s seen as an acceptance by Taipei that the Communist Party is correct across the Taiwan Strait, doing its work to erase memories that the Chinese people can have freedom.
   Indirectly, this is a slap in the face of the June 4, 1989 protesters in Tiananmen Square.
   Rebranding is something to be done carefully, more so when it comes to national monuments and symbols of national identity. Rebrands are meant to unite, not divide.
   Calling the Memorial the Democracy Memorial Hall sounds well and good on the surface—but divisions and the months of protest suggest the movement is foolhardy.
   For me, there was nothing wrong with calling it by its new name officially, while leaving the traditional lettering honouring Chiang Kai-shek’s memory intact. It was a suitable compromise and a recognition of history. It also reminds people of the freedom that Taiwan enjoys and the setting for its prosperity. Freedom, tolerance and open-mindedness are what separate it from Red China—which is still a dangerous place to visit or invest in, at least without high-level official help.
   Years after the American Civil War, there are still states (Louisiana and Tennessee) that call a certain holiday Confederate Memorial Day—and that does not seem to have harmed the Union.
   So what harm is there to retain the Chiang Kai-shek name in the interests of national unity on the island? Does the DPP seriously prefer disuniting Chinese people?
   At best, this was an ill thought through development.
   At worst, this was a desecration and an affront to traditional Chinese beliefs that memorials to the dead should be respected.
   Talk of independence or a two-China system is dangerous. It would be easy for the Politburo in Beijing to raise its voice—without even threatening violence—and Taipei can watch its stock market index fall. And I would hate to see any of my people suffer once again.
   Part of Taiwan might not know of Maoist suffering under the Reds, but I would never wish for any Taiwanese to be directly reminded of it.
   Beijing itself should not cheer at this latest development at the Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Hall as it sets the stage for separatism. During 2008, with worldwide attention focused on the Olympiad, the separatist movement might think it could get away with more mischief than usual.