Advertising Last completed movie pages
2010 Mercedes-Benz S 400 HYBRID [W221] Ep. 1Class: Cars, Sedan — Model origin: 
![2010 Mercedes-Benz S 400 HYBRID [W221]](/i564953.jpg)
![[*]](/res/star.png){kind=small}
Vehicle used a lot by a main character or for a long time
Comments about this vehicle| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
◊ 2013-01-09 20:56 |
2010 Modelyear for the facelift |
|
◊ 2013-01-09 20:57 |
![[Image: vlcsnap-00052.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/3321/vlcsnap-00052.jpg) ![[Image: vlcsnap-00054.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/3321/vlcsnap-00054.jpg) ![[Image: vlcsnap-00116.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/3321/vlcsnap-00116.jpg) Ep. 4 ![[Image: vlcsnap-00453.1.jpg]](http://pics.imcdb.org/3321/vlcsnap-00453.1.jpg) Ep. 6 VIN: WDD2211951A296291 -- Last edit: 2013-03-05 21:29:21 |
|
◊ 2013-01-10 17:20 |
which means it is still 2009 model? (or else why didn't you change it?) |
|
◊ 2013-01-10 17:49 |
The plate just tells about the date of first registration, not the modelyear |
|
◊ 2013-01-11 03:03 |
I'm still not on board with the model year doctrine, I prefer the year the car was actually built/registered when that information is available. My Saab was first registered in April 1998 but it's a 1997 model. So it would be listed as a year older here? And in this case a year younger than it really is. (Årgang: 2009) |
|
◊ 2013-01-11 13:39 |
 Me too. |
|
◊ 2013-01-12 01:04 |
Thank you, we must fight the establishment. |
|
◊ 2013-01-14 17:05 |
Makers (and car enthousiasts) often refer to the models by the year. So we list them in the usual way they are listed/identified. We use the "model year" because it is an identification based on visual details, it is easier than having to use the registration or building year, which cannot often be known (except cases like here). And mixing different date systems is worse. |
|
◊ 2013-01-18 01:54 |
But we already do that quite happily if registration date calendar year is after the nominal model year. For consistency we should recognise when registration date calendar year is before the nominal model year. It's not so much a problem of mixing date systems, more a hierarchy of accuracy - at the top registration dates (provided they're solidly based for the car in question), then at the next layer down when solid registration info is not available, the model year (which has many notorious examples of being a totally unreal/artificial/nonsensical random designation). And sometimes gives the absurd situation where a car is later than the film. Registration info can often be inconsistent in quality and scope, but when it is solid it is a lot more precise than arbitrary model years. |
|
◊ 2013-01-18 02:22 |
Quite. EDIT: Now that I read all of it I agree even more. .gif ":)") -- Last edit: 2013-01-18 02:48:38 |
|
◊ 2013-01-18 09:17 |
@dsl/chicomarx: I have followed your discussion and hoped it was a language barrier issue. Now I realize it's not. Yes there sometimes are what seems to be erratic model years. That's a fact. Sometimes a manufacturer would provide a pre-production model for a movie. Or if shooting late - autumn, early winter - they may be a modelyear ahead of the film. On the other hand, a real-life car may have been left at the dealer and therefore registered into the next model year. So you are used to - in real life - expecting these kind of deviations. Car manufacturers have operated with model years for some sixty years now. Most of them change model year in the autumn, around the summer holidays. But some have been known to launch a new model as early as in the spring the year before - i.e. a 2014 would be just around the corner. I know this is a bit confusing, but bear in mind that this site is about the cars - not their registrations, which are often erratic or false anyway. |
|
◊ 2013-01-18 14:34 |
Another comment(s) of DAF555, which IMO defend the "model year" system quite well: /vehicle.php?id=334434 I admit in the past I also preffered the reg. dates. |
|
◊ 2013-01-18 16:28 |
I agree with the use of model years but it has some problems, especially when people start to link them with registration dates. My stance is that a vehicle's model year should be listed as different from the date of registration only when there are visible differences that suggest this is the case, or a vin number which gives the model year. Too often people tend to assume that because a car is registered after a certain point of time in the previous year it belongs to the next model when this is not the case. First of all, it is quite common for cars to be registered late on as unsold stock, and secondly model years don't follow obvious patterns. For instance, as tore-40 says some 2014 cars will be out now (especially on the US market) and believe it or not some model years aren't started into the next year. I remember having to change this car: /vehicle_463318-Jeep-Cherokee-XJ-1996.html back to 1996 a few times. Somebody believed it was a 1997 because it was registered in October whilst failing to realise it doesn't have the new fascia introduced for that year. And then you have cases like the 2005 Focus MKIs and 1996 Cavaliers. Cars which couldn't possibly be from that MY. |
|
◊ 2013-01-20 15:13 |
The rule was that visual identification decides the model year, the year given by the plate is there only to help narrowing the year range, as the plate does not give the model year but just the build/registration year. We used that system since a few years, it works well as long as everybody use the same rules... -- Last edit: 2013-01-20 15:14:57 |
Add a comment Advertising Advertising
