The new cars by Chevrolet, Ford and Mercury have set off a fuss over their designation. Ford Motor Co. likes to assert its new cars embody a "new concept" — right between the compact and the standard car. The Chevy II, Chevrolet says, is "an extension of our line" although the Chevy II pretty much fits the accepted definition of a compact. But to George Romney, American Motors president and the most fiery exponent of the compact cars, all three are compacts.

Some fuel was added to the industry's battle of semantics a few weeks ago when Automotive News, a respected auto industry weekly, decided to set up three size classifications — compact, intermediate and standard. Compacts, under the trade paper's definition, had less than a 115-inch wheelbase and total length of less than 195-inches; intermediates from 115 to 118-inch wheelbase and 195 to 205-inches total length; standards everything above these figures.

According to the classifications, four cars qualify as intermediates — the new Ford Fairlane and Mercury Meteor and the Dodge and Plymouth, both of which were reduced in size for 1962.

Naturally, Romney takes issue with this classification. He feels that both the Fairlane and Rambler Classic should be grouped together, whatever the classification.

"I don't think it is in the public interest to people who buy cars to imply the intermediate cars have something better," Romney said, noting that his Ramblers have more interior room than the Fairlane in all but one dimension.

And Ford isn't too happy with Romney trying to tack a "compact designation on its new "in between" cars. "Who gave George the right," said a Ford spokesman.

Personally, I think the whole argument is downright silly. To paraphrase the late Gertrude Stein — "a car is a car is a car." There are so many models with so many accessories that a buyer can go from low-price to high-price with any given make. Rather than such terms as compact and intermediate — which can be twisted to fit almost any particular need — I would prefer a term such as "functional." After all, this is what the industry is really trying to sell. Auto buyers — especially fleet buyers — aren't interested in designations. They want cars that perform well at a reasonable cost. As one auto dealer told me recently: "I could sell a car 20-feet long if it cost only $1,695." Translated: the public really isn't interested in smaller cars, only smaller prices.

Granted, that compact has become associated with economy — largely through Romney's efforts. But compact doesn't necessarily mean economy in either operation or cost. Even Romney varied his definition of compact. When he first coined the term in 1955 when he brought out the first full-line of 108 inch wheelbase Ramblers he applied it only to wheelbase. Later he broadened the term to include any car with an overall length of from 170 to 200-inches.

There are several 1962 cars that go a long way toward meeting my definition of functional. Unfortunately, there aren't enough. But there is hope. As I've said before, the industry is going all out for longer-life cars. Not that the industry was ever against functionalism. Just that the emphasis was on styling. Now, with several engineering breakthroughs, it has turned its attention to mechanical improvements. This is fine. And I don't care what you call them as long as they are functional and fill the needs of the fleet user.