Talk:List of automotive superlatives
Rules
The following questions have been resolved by a public vote and discussion.
- Honorable mentions for disputed entries - A consensus is required before a dispute about an entry bumps it down to honorable mention status.
- Production numbers - The "20 produced" rule refers to the superlative version, not just the named model in general.
2005 Mitsubishi Lancer VIII FQ400
How about we decide this one now?
The way I see it, the main question seems to be whether or not it qualifies as a "original manufacturer" vehicle because of its somewhat unusual/convoluted status. I don't want to try to disentangle the commentary above so maybe we can pick up the discussion here. While it is an impressive achievement and my view is that even if it somehow doesn't make the final leap, it deserves honorable mention at the very least. If it gets the nod from all of us it would also trump the Edonis for highest specific-output in the forced-induction category at an even 200bhp/liter.
Anyway, does anyone have any ideas how we can establish its status definively? The admittedly limited research I did into this has confused rather than clarified the issue - at least for me. According to the Mitsubishi Motors UK website's "history" section [1], Mitsubishi UK is a "a joint venture partnership between Mitsubishi Corporation and Colt Automotive Limited". Furthermore, there is some ill-defined linkage between MMC and DaimlerChrysler (if AMG had tuned the car instead of Mitsubishi UK it might have been a simpler issue). Meanwhile, according to this page [2] "Colt Cars has only two shareholders, namely Colt Automotive Limited (CAL), substantially owned by [David] Blackburn, and Mitsubishi Corporation". So, at best Mitsubishi is only part-owner of Mitsubishi UK. This would seem to suggest that the FQ400 is going to have a hard time being considered an "original manufacturer vehicle" for the purposes of this list. I mean, it isn't like they're a wholly-owned subsidiary like AMG is of Daimler.
I propose a compromise: I'll wholeheartedly support the FQ if everyone else will get equally behind the Radical and Ultima and we can ditch this "disputed stats" disclaimer for them. Jeez, I'm starting to sound like some sort of policitian lurking in a smoke-filled back room making deals to get pork-barrel-legislation passed...
Who's in?
--JonGwynne 04:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Not me... Colt is just the UK distributor for Mitsubishi. Look at the bottom of any page at mitsubishi-cars.co.uk. Mitsubishi USA used to be called Colt too. It's as much "the manufacturer" as Mazda of America is for Mazda in the US. Shall we disqualify the Mazdaspeed Miata just because it's built for a single market? The FQ400 is listed as a regular version of the Lancer Evolution on mitsubishi-cars.co.uk, so it sure looks like an official production car to me, albeit one with a limited production run. According to the official brochure, it's a 1997cc engine and produces 302.13kW or 151.3 kW (202.9 hp) per Litre with a cat and road-legal tuning. Impressive. --SFoskett 05:19, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, but Mitsubishi doesn't wholly own the company that is doing the modification. That makes it an aftermarket tuner even if Mitsubishi does own a part of it. See what I'm saying? I mean, if Ford bought a share of Steve Saleen's company and gave him the right to sell Ford products to the public, he's still be an aftermarket tuner and Saleen-tuned Mustangs wouldn't be considered for this list, right? --JonGwynne 05:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Colt is not a tuner organization or specialty builder like Saleen. It is the only distributor of Mitsubishi cars in the UK. Would you suggest that no UK Mitsubishis are eligible since they are distributed by Colt? Of course not. I know what you're getting at - that Colt specifically designed and farmed out production of the FQ-400 on its own. But is this really any different than any other port- or dealer-installed option? There's no dispute that these cars exist, that they produce that much power, that they were available to the public (in the UK) as new from the official UK distributor of Mitsubishi products. They appear to be covered by the manufacturers warranty even. It's much more of a production car than a certain radical alternative I can think of... *grin* How about an asterisk or note? By the way, my local Ford dealer sells Saleen-tuned Mustangs as new with full Ford warranty coverage. And my local BMW dealer sells Dinan cars. Welcome to the rathole... --SFoskett 05:41, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- No, I wouldn't suggest that *all* UK Mitsubishis should be disqualified. Clearly, the cars that are manufactured by Mitsubishi and shipped to the UK for resale without separate modification would be eligible. The problem is that Mitsubishi doesn't manufacture or even warrantee the FQ400. A company that isn't owned by Mitsubishi takes the cars, modifies them and then offers them for sale to the public with their own warrantee. See what I mean?--JonGwynne 05:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Let's look at this a different way. Why is Colt less of a manufacturer than Radical? Since the FQ400 is a completely legal production car in the UK, why not include it? There are 100 of these things zooming around legally Britain's roads. I seriously doubt there are 100 SR3s on the roads there... It is a grey area. On that we both agree. If we include the FQ400, do we include the Saleen Mustangs? They're 50-state legal and carry official Saleen VINs, and are "type approved", including crash testing and emissions. Are the FQ400s type approved or SVA? --SFoskett 05:59, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- Excellent question. Radical is more of a manufacturer because they build their cars from scratch with the exception of the drivetrain which they buy from other suppliers and then substantially modify in both operation and application (i.e. they take a motorcycle engine and adapt it for use in a four-wheel car after substantially increasing the power output). BTW, many other manufacturers buy both transmissions and even engines. But, any way you slice it, the FQ400 is a tuner car (like a Hennessey Viper or AMG Mercedes). The only question is whether the company that did the tuning is owned by the original manufacturer. In the case of AMG, the answer would be "yes" and we'd consider the car to be "manufactured by Mercedes". In the case of the Hennessey Viper, the answer would be no because Chrysler doesn't own Hennesey. In the case of the FQ400, it is pretty clearly "no" as well since Mitsubishi is only part-owner of the company called "Mitsubishi UK" who sells cars there.--JonGwynne 06:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- So this isn't about the FQ400, it's about the Radical. Well, it's very simple. If the FQ400 is marketed by Mitsu UK and obeys Euro III emission regulations, it's in. If it's sold by Mitsu UK as a regular Evo.8 and then shipped to Colt for after-market modifications, and/or doesn't obey Euro III emissions regulations, it's out. The question isn't whether the tuning arm is owned by the brand or not. AMG Mercs are sold to the public after completion (or alteration), i.e. they're not modified after buying. By your reasoning, the Volvo C70 would be disqualified because it's completely made by Tom Walkinshaw Racing. Trading the FQ400 for the Radical doesn't win your argument.
- The Ultima's record was achieved with a special version that doesn't obey emission regs in Europe or the US. I'd gladly welcome any records by a LS1 (or derivatives) powered Ultima. Radical has not provided any specs for a road-going version of the SR3, one which includes, per the SVA kit, a different fuel management and a catalyst. A similar situation happened with the Renault Clio V6 (another TWR product, by the way), which was capable of 285 hp in racing trim, but had to be detuned to 230 hp to be approved for road use.
- To Sfoskett, the Saleen Mustang may be type-approved, but so are the Alpina BMWs, the Brabus Mercedes, the Abt VWs, and the Ruf Porsches. Would you like a 740 hp 996 Turbo here? They're still modified after purchase. --Pc13 09:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Only one problem, the FQ400 isn't manufactured by Mitsubishi, it is tuned by a difference company and is, therefore, a "tuner car". Since Mitsubishi doesn't own the tuner and since they don't provide factory support (i.e. warranty) for the result, that only reinforces the status as a tuner car. The C70 is an even thornier issue. On the one hand, it could be argued that since Volvo is a minority shareholder in the operation (they own 49% of the factory - or at least they did when this article was written [3]), the C70 isn't really a Volvo. On the other hand, it could be argued that they're simply sub-contracting the construction of a model and since the deal was initiated by Volvo, then the car is still theirs even though they paid someone else to built it for them. Anyway, it doesn't matter because the C70 isn't up for any of these categories, is it?--JonGwynne 17:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
For my money, the FQ400 qualifies, and the Saleens & Dinans don't (not that they were part of this debate, just mentioned as an aside). Why? A few reasons. Mitsubishi UK [b]does[/b] offer a 3 year/36000 mile warranty. They commissioned the car. They sell the car. They spend their money advertising the car. BMW does not do that for Dinan, nor Ford for Saleen. From the Mitsubishi UK press release for the FQ400: "As befits its status as an official Mitsubishi Motors UK product, the FQ-400 has undergone extensive reliability testing and is supplied with a three years/36,000 mile manufacturer’s warranty." Can't get more conclusive than that IMHO. --Zaktoo 00:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Largest V12
Ericd has made an important point: only two Pagani Zondas were produced, so the car is ineligible for the Largest V12 honor (though an honorable mention might be nice). Ericd replaced the Zonda with the Mercedes CLR. I was under the impression that the CLR had a V8. The Mercedes CLK-GTR had a 6.9L V12, which might be the record holder (25 roadgoing versions were built). More recently, for 2002 two CLR-GTRs were equipped with the 7.3L V12 featured in the Pagani Zonda, but of course this doesn't qualify either.
This is not something I know a lot about, so I'd like to get some opinions on it first, but I'm thinking the CLR-GTR should be the largest V12, with the CLK-GTR Super Sport and the Pagani Zonda being mentioned. How's this sound? TomTheHand 21:02, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm not sure if its the CLR or CLR-GTR or CLK-GTR and what's the exact engine capacity, I have to read some old magazines to verify. But the the Zonda doesn't qualify. The Mercedes (the cars that tooks off like planes in Le Mans) were mostly race cars but however Mercedes build a small serial (20 ?) of them for road use unlike his competitors (I will burn in hell forever if Toyota sold only one GT-One to customers !). Ericd 21:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The CLR was homologated as LM-GTP, so there were no minimum production requirements. Mercedes built 25 CLK-GTRs, and followed up with another 25 CLK-GTR Roadsters. I'll wade through the DaimlerChrysler press site to see if I can find the exact engine capacity. But the CLK-GTR may not be the biggest engine, as the Lister Storm had a 7.0L V12. Since the car had to be homologated for the FIA GT Championship, it's conceivable Laurence Pearce built at least 25 of those. --Pc13 00:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I've verified the CLK-GTR was powered by a V12 while the CLR used a V8. The CLK-GTR V12 is 6898cc and the car was produced in 30 units (25 coupes + 5 roadsters). However the Lister Storm has a 6996cc but I don't know how many were build this should be at least 25 IMO to compete in FIA-GT championship. Ericd 17:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Does that "30 units" figure refer to the number built and sold new for use on the street, or the overall production? I know this information is hard to find; I've had a lot of difficulty too. TomTheHand 17:54, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
- This is the number built. Nearly all the coupés where used for racing, however the car was street legal. But I think it would be more useful to look for production figures of the Lister Storm that has a bigger engine. Ericd 18:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Are you guys sure about the Zonda production numbers? I was working on the Zonda article and there are a lot of 7.3 L models. There seemingly has to have been more than 2 produced. The company switched over to the 7.3L engine in 2002 and is said to have produced about 25 per year since then... Also, this engine was used in the AMG SL73 from 1995 or so. --SFoskett 21:18, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Autoweek reviewed 7.3L roadster number 8 in 2004 so presumably eight roadsters were built. this article has 6.0 and 7.0 production numbers, 5 and 15, respectively. --SFoskett 21:38, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
- Road & Track reports 50 Zondas built as of June. So this means three more 7.3s have been built since February for a total of 17. Getting close... --SFoskett 18:01, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)
I found [4] (good source btw) and it mentions a 13.5 litre engine in the US Pierce-Arrow 6-66 Raceabout of 1912–18, the US Peerless 6-60 of 1912–14, and the Fageol of 1918. // Liftarn
I just noticed that the Mercedes CLR is still in the "largest V12" spot because this discussion sort of died :-) The CLR doesn't even have a V12! I'm going to add the CLK-GTR as a placeholder, and if anyone has an argument, feel free to replace it. Enough examples were definitely produced, and it's a big V12. If anyone finds production figures on roadgoing Lister Storms, go ahead and swap them. TomTheHand 16:19, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
- The forum at the official Lister website has a mention that "in excess of 25 cars were delivered to various parts of the world". Since the car is a regular runner in the FIA GT Championship, then at least 25 cars had to have been built for road use in the European Union in order for FIA to grant the car homologation. In this case, 6996cc for the Jaguar XJS V12 is the record holder. --Pc13 17:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. I just wanted to put a V12 in the "largest V12" spot as a placeholder ;-) TomTheHand 18:22, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
- The Chevy V8 engine is used in the LMP car only, not the GT. All GT Storms have the 7.0 L Jaguar V12 in them. The Lister Storm V12 is homologated for racing in the FIA GT Championship. In order to be allowed to do that, the constructor needs to prove 25 road-going cars exist. The FIA granted the car a sporting homologation in April 1999. Non-homologated cars can run in the FIA GT Championship in the G2 and G3 classes, but they are not eligible for points. --Pc13 20:10, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)
What about the zonda C12S roadster edition which also features the 7.3 V12 Edition?? Pagani Built 40 unit already, both of Topgear And 5th gear tested the cars already and according to viki from 5th gear that they've sold 35 edition already while making the episode. EvolutioniuM
- Are you sure about that? Was it in the magazine or the TV show? Can you provide references, please? -- Pc13 18:29, July 28, 2005 (UTC)
- It was featured in 2004.11.14 Top Gear episode by Richard Hammond but he didnt mention how many Of the 40 Roadsters are made, but when viki from 5th Gear tested it in Italy she said that 35 of the 40 Roadsters are being delivered already, frankly I dont know the video release date but you can get both of the tests from racingflix by creating a free account there, here are the links
http://www.racingflix.com/getvideo.asp?v=403 http://www.racingflix.com/getvideo.asp?v=894
- Btw Pagani doesnt make the 7.0L V12 edition anymore, all of their produced cars features the 7.3L V12 since 2002 including the Roadster and the new C12 F, and Zondas will be build in a biiger factory with a capable of producing 250 cars per year, 70 of these cars will be the first Zondas to officially be sold in the US EvolutioniuM 02:03, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
Tuner cars
So what defines a tuner car as opposed to a small-volume car? In other words, is the Saleen S281 and cars like it a tuner car or a limited-production modified car? I mean, Saleen builds these things at a factory based on incomplete mustangs from Ford, they're 50-state certified, have Saleen VIN codes, and are purchased new with a warranty at regular auto dealers. They're not modifications of complete cars, let alone "non-new" cars like the majority of tuners. Compare Saleen with Roush (definitely a tuner) and you'll see quite a difference. Why is a Saleen any different from a Panoz? Or more specifically, why is the Saleen S281 any different from the Saleen S7? --SFoskett 13:43, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
- I am having some difficulty here. On the one hand, I could say the S7 is different from the S281 in that Saleen builds the chassis; in the same way Panoz can be separated from Saleen's tuner cars. On the other hand, I'm not sure why it matters and why we would try to exclude these cars. Many small car manufacturers don't build all of their cars: engines are often outsourced, and surely every small car manufacturer doesn't engineer things like brake calipers from scratch. Where do you draw the line between tuner and manufacturer? Argh! ;-) What matters most to me is compliance with the full range of safety and emissions laws; this is what makes a "real car" for me, and Saleen obviously manages this. I really don't know what to say here. TomTheHand 14:48, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
- This is my problem. I don't really want to include the S281 since it looks like a tuner car. But with a Saleen VIN and full type approval in the USA, it really is a separate car from the Mustang. It's not a staged kit of bolt-ons like a Roush or something. Same goes for modern AMG, though that's less ambitious since it's owned by DCX. Panoz used an entire Mustang driveline and running gear under the Panoz AIV - it just didn't look like a Mustang. Se we take it case-by-case then. If a car seems like a real car (because of VIN, certification, type production, etc) then it counts. --SFoskett 15:14, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
- I dunno... I mean, I'm perfectly willing to admit that A Saleen S7 is a "stand-along" car and I doubt anyone would argue the point. But I think cars like the S281 should still be considered "tuned Mustangs" because Saleen start with Mustang bits and then add their own. Some tuners take a full car, pull off the bits they don't like and substitue their own, in Saleen's case, he's got a cozy enough relationship with Ford that they send him partially-assembled Mustangs to save him the trouble (and his customers the expense) of doing it the other way. But that still makes it a tuned Mustang in my book. I mean, it is still more Mustang than Saleen, right? Compared to something that may use the drivetrain from a Mustang and yet be a completely different vehicle (e.g. Panoz or Marcos). I wouldn't worry that it gets a Saleen VIN, I think that's a red-herring. It gets a Saleen VIN because the car isn't completely assembled until it leaves Saleen, right?--JonGwynne 05:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The logo in the front says it's a Mustang. It's also clearly recognizable as a Mustang. I would say it's not an independent automobile. They do the same thing like companies that build limousines, hearses, ambulances et.c. They build on on existing model. a simmilar problem are factory tuned cars. For instance VAZ Lada sent new cars directly to a company in (then) Czechoslovakia (I don't remember the name) where they were tuned and outfitted with Momo steering wheels. SAAB does a simmilar co-operation with Hirsch Performance AG [5] (the 305 bhp 9-5 would be the most powerfull front wheel drive if this was allowed). // Liftarn
- Yes, but since it is a tuner car, it isn't. So I'm removing it from the main article.--JonGwynne 08:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- That depends. It looks like you can walk into a SAAB dealer (not in the USA) and get the 9-5 Aero Hirsch. Yesterday my girlfriend walked into a SAAB dealer to look for some power steering fluid and there she picked up an issue of "Saab News". It doesn't say it directly, but you can order your Aero with Hirsch details if you want. // Liftarn
- You can apparently buy Saleen-tuned Mustangs from Ford dealers but they're still tuner cars. The rule for this list is that the car has to be built by the "original manufacturer" (in your case, Saab). There was an exception made (with which I didn't completely agree) that tuners who are wholly-owned by the original manufacturer are also included (e.g. AMG) does Hirsch qualify?--JonGwynne 18:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Probably not, they have some kind of co-operation, but they are probably no more than partially owned. Would it matter who fitted the extras? If the Hirsch extras were fitted by SAAB. I'll have to look into it better. // Liftarn
- In order to be considered a factory car, the name Hirsch would have to be used as the sports model designation by the factory, eg AMG is used by Mercedes as the sports model designation (C 55 AMG, E 55 AMG) and Abarth by Fiat (Fiat Stilo Abarth). The Saab 9-5 Aero Hirsch isn't. --Pc13 09:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- I haven't got al the facts yet, but it seems it's still called "Aero". The stuff I have doesn't give much info, just talks about "Aero plus more". I've tried the SAAB sites, but it doesn't seem to be available yet anyway. "Saab Automobile and Hirsch Performance of Switzerland are working together to develop a portfolio of sporty engine, chassis and styling enhancements, branded Saab Performance by Hirsch, which will allow Saab customers an exciting opportunity to individualize their cars. Enhancements include the addition of a 305-hp 9-5 Aero model." [6] // Liftarn
- This sounds very similiar to the relationship between Ford and Saleen. Saleen's aren't eligible for consideration as "original manufacturer" vehicles and, unless Saab owns Hirsch, neither should the 305bhp Aero. And on a personal note... a 305bhp turbocharged, FWD car? That's pretty bizarre. I can't begin to imagine how the thing would be remotely drivable without massive interference from the traction-control system I assume it must using to keep the front wheels from going insane every time the driver puts their foot down. Sorry, but if there was any way for me to come up with a rule that disqualified powerful cars with unswitchable traction-control from any of the categories here, I'd be fiercely advocating it. It is simply bad design to create a powerful car and then fit it with full-time traction-control (or really any sort of traction-control in my opinion). I mean what's the point of building a powerful car and then giving the car veto power over the throttle? Traction-control is nothing but an electronic 'nanny' that says "You didn't really mean to put your foot down, I'm going to do what I think you meant to do, not what you asked to do."
- A car with traction control doesn't even have a throttle pedal, but a "throttle request" pedal at the mercy of the computer. Sorry, but anyone who buys a powerful car and asks for traction-control should go buy a 1.6 liter Mazda Miata or something else that won't scare them (or cause them to hurt people) and leave real cars to real drivers [/rant].--JonGwynne 16:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The same can be said about ABS brakes, that they are just "brake request". Anyway, it seems the Aero Hirsch isn't available in shops yet so it shouldn't be added until then anyway. It may be bizzare with a 305bhp turbocharged, FWD car, but some find them driveable. There is even a Nordic Uhr tuned Saab 9-5 Areo taxi. The owner claims to have the fastest taxi in Sweden (there are other claims to the title, for instance one in a Subaru Impreza GT Turbo). I saw an interview with him and he was asked if that much power really was necessary in a taxi and if he had ever used it. He said he did use it one. He drove a woman in labour to the hospital and asked for fight of way and then stepped on it. [7] // Liftarn
- I agree. In heavy cars, ABS is not only useful but often necessary. However, in performance cars (i.e. light-weight with big brakes) then ABS is unnecessary and to mandate it as some markets have done is unconscionable. I remember when I read that Lotus was being forced to fit ABS to the Elise, they did ultimately comply but they put a three second delay on the ABS so that experienced drivers could still use it to help drift the back end around corners. Think about that for a second... a car with an ABS system that doesn't kick in for three whole seconds... Wouldn't it have been easier and better for everyone to just allow Lotus to fit it with switchable ABS? --JonGwynne 16:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
Update
I went into a SAAB store and asked about the 9-5 with Hirsch package and I received an interesting reply. The 305 hp 9-5 is not available as an aftermarket add-on, it has to be factory ordered. According to the person behind the counter it is not possible to upgrade an ordinary 9-5 Aero to Hirsch. I asked why it wasn't available as an option on the web, and according to him you had to talk to a salesperson to get it. It sounds a bit odd that you can't upgrade an existing car so I guess I'll have to call the sales department to find out more. // Liftarn
Cadillac superlatives
I just added a crap-load of superlatives claimed by various Cadillac fan web sites. I'm not sure if they're true, but some were interesting and should spark real investigation. Who had the first LED brake light? Trip computer? Dual-zone climate control? --SFoskett 19:26, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
- To the best of my knowledge, the Maserati 3200 had the first LED brakelights. --JonGwynne 03:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Some good questions! I know (or think I know!) the following:
- The '92 Cadillac Seville used LEDs for its third brake light, but not the regular brake lights. This was the first production LED use, at the very least in the U.S. The Maserati was probably first with an all-LED setup. See this.
- The first trip computer I ever saw was in the '80 Lincoln Mark VI, Ford Thunderbird, and Mercury Cougar. It could do miles to empty, average miles per gallon, fuel remaining, and maybe a few other things I've forgotten. These were the first vehicles with all-digital instruments also.
- They are preceeded by the Aston Martin Lagonda with its dodgy digital dash circa 1976. I think you'll find it had a trip comp too. --LiamE 15:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
- IMHO, the first dual-zone climate control was in the '95 Buick Riviera--it was standard equipment. If it existed any earlier, I'd feel pretty sure it was in another Buick. I can't recall when the Park Avenue got it.
- Other Caddy trivia:
- 1974 Fleetwood Talisman - first and only use of front and rear velour-covered consoles
- 1928 - first use of laminated safety glass (according to the 1978 Cadillac showroom brochure)
- RivGuySC 03:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Units in power to weight, specific power categories
It's rather odd to be using a combination of imperial/customary US measurements (horsepower) and metric (kilograms or liters) in these. Shouldn't it be instead either hp/lb and hp/in³ or kW/kg and kW/liter? —Morven 20:36, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying, but I think in the US, when talking about new cars, hp/L is used the majority of the time and hp/in³ is sort of a throwback to earlier times (muscle car era, etc). I agree on unit consistency for power:weight ratios though. TomTheHand 22:37, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- In Europe (at least in Sweden) most people prefer using hp even if both usually are given so hp/kg is actually more used than kW/kg (or W/g). // Liftarn
- With regards to the specific output of engines, I've only ever seen it expressed as bhp/liter. Also, with regard to the specific power of vehicles (i.e. power:weight ratio) I have seem several different ways of expressing it but by far the predominant seems to be bhp/ton (where a "ton" is a metric ton - i.e. 1000kg). --JonGwynne 23:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- I've heard kW/L, but not from US sources. Of course I've heard hp/in^3, but it seems pretty out of date. In reference to power:weight, I've heard lbs/hp many times, which is really weight:power but which might be worth including. TomTheHand 23:53, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, I've seen lbs/hp in a few US magazines - seems to be an "Americanism" but it also seems to be a bit counter-intuitive in the sense that the lower the number, the better it is. I suspect that's why bhp/ton is popular... I don't have any problem with alternate measurements though... If you'll notice, I stuck mpg in parens in the mileage rating for the European car in addition to the L/100km rating they had. It may mean something to Europeans, but I think in terms of MPG and I suspect most other people do too. --JonGwynne 00:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
- If you're going to use MPG, it's worth noting that there is a difference between US MPG and Imperial MPG. --Zaktoo 01:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Mosler MT900 production
My edits got squashed by Pc13, I think accidently. I'm adding them here: TomTheHand 22:33, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
JonGwynne, can you post the link that shows production numbers for the MT900S? I missed it; all I saw was the "Locate a MT900" link which shows too few cars produced. TomTheHand 21:38, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
I see the performance figures you quoted are for the MT900 Photon, not the S; still, can you post a link showing production figures for the Photon? TomTheHand 21:52, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
According to Warren Mosler himself, in a message posted in the Moslerauto official forum, in January 2005, there were only two finished road cars, one Photon, and one MT900S. The Photon is a different version of the car, with reduced weight, so it's not the same model as the MT900S. The objective is to have 25 road-going MT900S by the end of the year, in order to achieve FIA homologation. --Pc13 22:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- I tried to post the link, but they've gone and gotten clever on that web site and the link to the article doesn't seem to be able to be copied/pasted. When I do, it provides a link to "javascript:remoteLink('mosler_link','www.moslerauto.com/article_012604.html','2')" but the URL doesn't link to anything. Anyway, it is 8th from the top in the "News" section and is labelled "The Mosler MT 900 S • English • Deutsch". It says, "...For the moment 25 cars for Europe are manufactured. The goal is it to manufacture so many cars for Europe that the Homologation of the FIA is reached."
- It is possible that they haven't finished building all the cars yet, but if they're in the process of building them, they should be eligible, wouldn't you say? --JonGwynne 23:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
- The article you quoted seems to be in reference to the MT900S, which did not set the records in question. The article does not mention the Photon. TomTheHand 23:51, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
- As near as I can tell, the MT900S and the MT900 Photon differ only in their transaxle, the former uses a Porsche unit and the latter a sequential unit from source whose name eludes me. Same engine, same body... --JonGwynne 00:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
- That transaxle seems to be good for 200 lbs weight savings and 0.4 seconds shaved off the 0-60 time. Not buying it. One set the record in question, the other did not. Provide evidence that the record-setting car has enough examples produced and it's fine. TomTheHand 02:11, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
- I'd say, at the very least, wait until they have actually produced 25 examples before even considering it. The exotic car market has too many examples of grandiose plans coming to nothing.
- And I agree that records set by a one-off model don't count, when the differences make a notable change in the performance. —Morven 06:29, May 10, 2005 (UTC)
- It isn't a one-off model. Please be careful when using this term, it has a specific meaning (i.e. a model which the manufacturer has deliberately limited to a single example). The Mosler MT900 is available in different configurations, more than 20 of them have been built according to the write-up in the German publication, ergo I think it meets the qualifications. --JonGwynne 03:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- There aren't 20 MT900s fully built yet, even counting the MT900R racing versions. There are only 2 built Photons, which is a different configuration from the standard MT900S, weighing 100 kg less than the MT900S, thanks to carbon seats, magnesium wheels and carbon fiber bodywork. This is not the same as adding heated seats, a CD player and extra cup holders. These are modifications with a direct effect in handling and performance. By the end of the year, Mosler hopes to have 25 MT900S's built, in order to homologate the car for GT racing. Not Photons, as carbon fiber bodywork is not allowed in GT racing. After that, Mosler will build the cars to order, so hopefully we'll see more Photons, but until then, this is hardly past prototype stage. --Pc13 13:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
- You mean like when Lamborghini offered introduced carbon-fiber bodywork on the Diablo? Did that make it a different car? The article reports that the 25 have already been built, is the article wrong?--JonGwynne 16:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the Diablo point. Can you summarize? --SFoskett 16:09, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
- If the Lamborghini Diablo with carbon-fiber bodywork hit a particular record that the regular Diablo was incapable of meeting, there would need to be at least 20 examples built for the record to qualify for this list. You haven't presented any sort of evidence that 20 Photons have been built. The article may be mistaken, given that it seems to be contradicted by statements by Warren Mosler. Either way, the article does not mention the Photon at all, which is the variant that matters in this particular case. Jon, you might want to check the following link, which contains information about the page's policy on whether the "20 produced" rule applies to superlative versions or only to the car in general: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_automotive_superlatives#Vote:_Production_Numbers TomTheHand 16:12, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
Looming shakeup
AutoWeek reports that the Bugatti Veyron 16.4 has been tested in production form at 248.5 mph (400 km/h)! And the car is still producing 1001 (metric) hp. So we have two new records on our hands as soon as 20 have been produced. Car and Driver went to the factory and production really is underway! --SFoskett 14:02, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
- Awesome! I have to admit, I'm a Volkswagen guy, so seeing a VR6-derived engine become the most powerful production car engine ever is pretty exciting. I can't wait. TomTheHand 14:34, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
I have also seen a magazine having the new, more powerfull Saab 9-5 on the cover. It will probably be available in shops soon. Perhaps we will eb able to tell if it's a tuner car or not by then. // Liftarn
"To the public..."
Before the reversion pens come out, let's discuss this. Should cars like the Ferrari Enzo Ferrari not get a full place since some contend that they were not really generally available? I believe that Enzos were indeed sold by invitation only. Was the McLaren F1 available to the public? Can any of these super-exotics really be considered "available to the public"? I mean, if I had the cash, I could walk into any Ferrari dealer and order a Ferrari 612 Scaglietti, so that's definitely generally available. But what about the Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren or forthcoming Bugatti Veyron? PS, Jon, it would be nice to initiate discussion before making such an edit. --SFoskett 20:33, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- re the F1... I used to work with a guy who did some of the electrical engineering for the car as a subcontractor. He told me that anyone who walked into McLaren's office with a fat enough wallet could drive an F1 home. To me that's "available to the public". Cars that are sold by invitation only to a private group of individuals don't qualify. As far as I know, the only people who own Enzos outside the original group hand-picked by Ferrari are people who bought them second-hand. As soon as Bugatti sells the requisite number of Veyrons (assuming they are sold to anyone who wants one) then it should take its place on the list. Sorry about not opening the question first, but in my view, the Enzo clearly doesn't meet the qualifications for this list - there didn't seem to be anything to discuss since it wasn't sold to the general public. --JonGwynne 14:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, Jon is quite wrong about the Ferrari Enzo. Ferrari inquired a group of potential customers if they were interested in buying the car. They then built one unit less than the total number of orders (349). However, strong customer interest led Ferrari to accept 50 outside extra orders for the Enzo. So that makes it 50 cars available to the public. However, "not available for sale to the public" means something else, that the cars are to be used specifically for commercial purpose, eg a taxi is not available for a regular person to own, only a public transportation company. Jon is also wrong about the most powerful car right after the Enzo - the Maserati MC12 actually has 632 hp DIN (465 kW), while the McLaren F1 had 627 hp DIN (461 kW). --Pc13 20:33, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
- Given Pc13's description of the situation above, I believe the Enzo belongs on the list. I also agree that the "available to the public" clause is intended to restrict commercial vehicles rather than vehicles that have very limited availability. TomTheHand 21:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I didn't know enough to judge the situation, but I concur that if PC13's description is correct, then the additional 50 cars makes the Enzo acceptable on the list. I also agree that the "general public" rule was intended to exclude taxis and trucks, not invite-only vehicles. But I guess we'll handle it on a case-by-case basis. --SFoskett 19:04, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- A relevant quote: "Enzo owners are not the sort of people who have to worry too much about the practicality of their Ferraris, it must be said. All of them were previous owners of the marque who were invited to apply to own one (in a hope to keep down the speculative market that had risen quickly behind other limited edition Ferraris)." [8]. In other words, the Enzo was not sold to the public, but rather to an exclusive, private club made up of a handful of people hand-selected by Ferrari to apply for the honor of buying one. Some were turned down and those who were accepted were, according to some reports, required to sign a contract promising that they would not sell the car for at least a year. In other words, this was not a car that was sold to the public. Tom, if you're going to jump the gun and revert things without discussion, next time would you have the common courtesy to not wipe out other additions with your revert? --JonGwynne 05:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- Are you kidding me? You're honestly going to accuse me of jumping the gun, with your history of unilaterally bumping entries, of which this is an example? And "other additions?" Don't make it out like you made some enormous contribution that I maliciously reverted; consensus should have been sought before the Enzo was removed, and consensus seemed to be that the Enzo was fine, so I restored it. I didn't move your addition to an honorable mention because there's no reason to have a second place for every entry on the list. TomTheHand 11:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Here, let me help you out... When you make a mistake like wiping out other people's work, the correct response isn't belligerent defensiveness or belittling the contributions that you destroyed - it is simple contrition. Instead of copping a "'tude" and trying to rationalize your mistake, what you could have said was something along the lines of "Ooops, I didn't mean to wipe out other people's edits, I will be more careful in future". See the difference? --JonGwynne 16:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- I did not wipe out other people's work! I reverted the edits you made, which you should have sought consensus for, and which wouldn't have been made if you had tried to seek consensus. I did not touch anything else. TomTheHand 16:21, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Yes you did wipe out other people's work. Here: [9] is what you did. And you've still failed to justify your reverts - why do you insist on making them? --JonGwynne 01:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- Forget this. I'm reverting again. A simple couple of minutes has turned up numerous links that confirm what Pc13 has said: that the Enzo's production was increased from 349 cars to 399 because of customer demand. See [10], [11], [12], and try a little Googling. Also read above, where Pc13, Sfoskett, and I agree that the "to the public" clause is meant to restrict commercial vehicles not intended for private use. Consensus is that the Enzo belongs on the list; stop removing it. TomTheHand 15:01, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- If you'd bothered to actually read those links you'd posted, you'd have seen that none of them address the issue at hand. The question isn't whether or not Enzo production was increased. The question was whether the cars were sold to the public. They weren't. The additional 50 were sold in the same way as the previous 349. In other words, none of those articles you posted address PC13's unsupported claim that the extra 50 were available to anyone who strolled into a Ferrari dealer with the requiste financial resources. But at least you tried. --JonGwynne 16:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- I'd also like to address the issue of "the rules". If a rule forbids something, the solution isn't to create a rationalization as to why something can slip past the rule in question, the solution is to change the rule so the rationalization isn't necessary. The question of whether or not something was sold to the general public is unambiguous. The Enzo simply does not qualify under the current rule set. If we want it in, we're going to have to change the rules. I'm not sure it shouldn't be here as well - but as the rule set currently stands, it is disqualified. This is a black & white issue. Trying to convince us that it is grey isn't the answer. --JonGwynne 16:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but the Elegant-Lifestyle.com article does address the issue at hand. Here's a quote from Luca di Montezemolo: "Many collectors expressed dismay that they could not have the car, so that I was forced to say we would build 50 more, but that is all". These were people that were left out of the invitation, and the extra cars were built to accomodate their desire. If that is not public demand, I don't know what is. --Pc13 22:37, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you don't know what public demand is, but the fact remains that if a member of the public can't walk into a dealership or manufacturer's office off the street and buy one, then it isn't for sale to the public. Sale "by invitation only" doesn't constitute sale to the public. We're still waiting for a single piece of evidence that the Enzo was freely available to the public - and we'll be waiting a long time because it wasn't. --JonGwynne 01:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- Jon, now you're just being argumentative for its own sake. I know exactly what public demand is, and it's what I wrote down. Luca di Montezemolo's words on the subject couldn't be more clear: "Many collectors expressed dismay that they could not have the car, so that I was forced to say we would build 50 more, but that is all". People that didn't get the car wanted it, so Ferrari built more. And on the subject of the most powerful car after the Enzo, you continued to ignore that the Maserati MC12 actually has 632 hp DIN (465 kW), while the McLaren F1 only had 627 hp DIN (461 kW).--Pc13 07:49, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
- I got my original Maserati power figure from an article in Car & Driver magazine. After seeing your comments, I double-checked and they seemed to have gotten it wrong. According to supercars.net, the MC12 makes 623.6 bhp [13]. I'm prepared to accept that as the official figure. Incidentally, 623.6 bhp = 632.2 PS (i.e. "metric horsepower") - by that measurement, the F1 would have made 636 metric horsepower. As to the issue of the Enzo, you can dance all you like, but the fact remains that you or I couldn't (if we'd won the lottery) go into a Ferrari dealership and buy one - even if we'd done so before the production run was sold out. They were not sold to the public but to a private group selected by Ferrari. It is true that, as the result of demand, Ferrari built an additional 50 units but those cars were sold the same way as the first group. --JonGwynne 22:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You are wrong, Jon. The McLaren's 627 hp value has always been for metric horsepower - 627 PS. McLaren = 461 kW; Maserati = 465 kW. As for the Enzo, Ferrari built 50 extra units in response to public demand. Those 50 people had been left out. They wanted the car. They got it. Can't get more clear than that. --Pc13 07:36, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
- I've got several independent sources that all list the McLaren's 627 horsepower as bhp (The Sept 2003 issue of Classic & Sports Car - with a special feature on the F1, the "Complete Book of Collectible Cars" (ISBN 0-7853-4313-X), "The Ultimate History of Fast Cars" (ISBN 0-75258-508-8) and the final nail in your argument's coffin is Supercars.net who lists the F1's output as 627.1 bhp and 476.6 kW). Using my own conversion utility (ESBUnitConv 4.5.1) I converted 476.6 kW to both brake horsepower (627.1) and metric horsepower (635.8). Any way you slice it, the Maserati isn't as powerful as the McLaren... close but not quite. Another point not working in your favor is that the F1 was built by a British company and all British carmakers use brake horsepower rather than metric - even when they're using engines built in Germany (as McLaren did with the F1). --JonGwynne 16:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, and on the subject of the Enzo... You still haven't shown any evidence that Joe Blow could have, after winning the lottery, walked into a Ferrari dealership and said "I'll have an Enzo please" and driven away in one as the original owner. The indisuputable fact remains that every single Enzo was sold to people on a list of those invited to buy the car by Ferrari HQ. Part of the purchase was a trip to the factory in Modena where the owner would have the driver's seat custom-fit to their wealthy ass. I believe Ferrari also followed the practice common to the production of low-volume cars of creating a plaque with the purchaser's name and bolting it to the car somewhere. But my point is that the general public were never able to buy an Enzo. --JonGwynne 16:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Luca di Montezemolo's words, that I've mentioned above, are quite clear on the subject and are all the evidence I need that the car was made available to the public. Those 50 complainers were Joe Blow. The 1995 and 1996 editions of the Automobil Revue Katalog (ISBN 3-44-10444-3 and 3-444-10455-3, respectively) both mention 461 kW. The Katalog is a yearly publication available for purchase every Geneva Auto Show, and has been published since at least 1949. Please check what horsepower figures were given for german and italian models to see if they were converted to bhp or not. I don't consider supercars.net a reliable source. British manufacturers that conform to type-approval, such as McLaren, MG Rover, Bentley, Rolls-Royce, Caterham, Morgan and Lotus all have to use kW as official measurement, and the horsepower values are converted to PS. --Pc13 16:58, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
- Signiore Montezemolo's words do not address the issue at all. They are simply an explanation of why Ferrari went back on their promise to only produce 349 examples of the Enzo. This is a potentially serious issue for companies like Ferrari who produce limited numbers of certain models. Some buyers based their decision to purchase the vehicle on the manufacturer's promise to only build a certain number of cars. Witness the flack Porsche took for reneging on their promise to limit production of the 959. The idea that people came in off the street and asked Ferrari to build them an Enzo and that this induced Ferrari to build an extra 50 is laughable. The fact remains that all 399 cars were sold to private individuals who were vetted by Ferrari before being approved as buyers - not the same as being sold to the public. --JonGwynne 01:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just for the record 400 were made not 399. Number 400 was presented to Pope John Paul II and subsequently auctioned for charity.
Of the 399 that were sold all were sold by invitation. None ever sat on a dealer's forecourt. The 399 that did buy them were of course members of the public but a fat wallet was never enough to buy one new unlike say the F1 which did indeed have a dealership in Park Lane for several years that you could walk into with a big fat cheque and buy one. Should the Enzo qualify? I'd come down on saying yes because it was sold to the public - its just that Ferrari were rather picky about who that public was. --LiamE 15:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
McLaren F1 power
- re the McLaren power. The Automobil Revue website doesn't mention the F1 - at least not that I've been able to find. Your opinion of Supercars.net's reliability aside, you have yet to produce a single supporting document for your claim that the McLaren's 627 horses were PS rather than BHP. On the other hand, I have produced four (or three if you want to eliminate supercars.net). As to your claim that British manufacturers all use either kW or PS... I've just visited Lotus, Caterham and McLaren to pick three at random... Guess what? They all quote their cars' power in bhp. So even if you won't take supercars.net's word for the F1's output, I assume you'll take the word of McLaren Cars, Ltd. Now... are you still going to dispute the McLaren's 627 bhp output or insist that the Maserati is more powerful? Face it, you're as wrong about this as you are about the Enzo. --JonGwynne 01:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- There's nothing to look for in the website. I told you the McLaren information is available in the 1995 and 1996 Katalogs. Read carefully please. I know the sites mention bhp. Here, have the press-release, and compare the PS values to those on the website. And here's the Bentley Continental GT press-release. Want me to show you a press-release from a german company using bhp when it should read PS? --Pc13 16:58, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
- Yes, actually, the relevant information can be found at McLaren's website [14] - simply click on the F1 icon in the upper right (that will bring up a picture of the original car) and then rest the mouse pointer over the engine compartment and it will provide you with the stats you require... 627 bhp, not 627 PS. If McLaren had quoted the car's output in PS, it wouldn't have been 627, it would have been 636, as it is here: [15]. QED. --JonGwynne 18:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- And where are the complete technical specs? Where does the McLaren website confirm with the correct value in kW?--Pc13 23:03, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
- McLaren, like other British car companies, don't use kW as a measurement. As to the complete specs, since the car is no longer in production I wouldn't be surprised to see that they are no longer posted. --JonGwynne 19:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"kW" is only used once on the real McLaren Cars web site. Here, the accompanying "HP" number is definitely metric - 400 kW is 544 metric horsepower (PS), or 537 "regular" horsepower. So perhaps we can assume that McLaren routinely quotes metric hp. By this logic, the F1 produces 627 PS (618 hp/461 kW).
- No, actually, we can't. McLaren is now working extensively with Mercedes (I even seem to recall hearing that Mercedes bought shares in McLaren's roadcar business) and can be expecetd to follow the leads of their corporate masters. --JonGwynne 19:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jon, note that "bhp" refers merely to the measurement technique, not the units. It connotes net power versus gross power. The real discussion is hp (SAE) versus PS, not "bhp" vs PS. --SFoskett 01:41, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
- The BMW World.com website gives the F1 618 hp (SAE). Granted, it's only an enthusiasts site, albeit a very complete one. I'll be out of office until Thursday (I'm going to the Saab 9-5 Sport Hatch media presentation), but after that I'll try to have the Automobil Revue Katalog pages scanned. --Pc13 08:03, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)
- Has any source (other than that German discussion group thread) ever listed the F1's output as "636 horsepower"? If so, then this would clearly be metric horsepower, since it's higher than any other source. I have never seen this - it's always listed as either 627 hp or 618 hp. This fact alone lends credence to the contention that the true output of the F1 is 627 PS (618 hp/461 kW).
- A Google search finds just five instances of "mclaren f1 636 hp", 217 for "mclaren f1 627 hp", and 7 for "mclaren f1 618 hp". But one of those sources was an excellent Car and Driver article which compares it to the Veyron near a discussion of metric horsepower. I am feeling more and more confident in the 461 kW as the true actual output. --SFoskett 15:42, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
Let's sum up: I'm searching for any unambiguous references to the McLaren F1's power output. Here are the "votes":
- 618 hp
- 627 hp
Still no definitive source. Car and Driver seems sure that it's 618, while the others say it's 627. --SFoskett 23:36, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
- The error seems somewhat obvious, Car and Driver is incorrectly labeling metric horsepower (PS) units as standard horsepower (hp) units, while the others are using std. hp, because...
- 618 PS * 1.013869665424 (hp/PS) = 626.571453232032 hp
- ...round up and get 627 hp. The kW errors are probably due to incorrect conversions, e.g. PS * kW/hp = fangled kW. -- Prometheus235 20:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, obvious. But the other way around - 627 PS is 618 hp - PS are "smaller". And those few sources that list the power as 636 are assuming that 627 is regular and wanting to convert to PS. This I believe to be true. But still no proof. --SFoskett 01:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
- I'd go with that. Unfortunately, BMW's historical archives aren't working with my browser set-up. Anyone else want a stab at using them to find out definitively? http://www.historicalarchive.bmw.com/ I have the Autocar McLaren F1 book that was published at the time of the F1's release, and it further muddies the water by quoting the power as 627 bhp. Given that the power figures would have been given by BMW, I think it is safe to assume that they were in PS, however I too would like absolute proof thereof. --196.2.127.9 02:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
No-one here has mentioned the Bugatti EB 100 SS. 31 were made, and it produced 650 PS as far as I can see. I need to dig up some corroboration on that - I can't find a definitive source online. --196.2.127.9 02:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- The Bugatti EB110 SS was turbocharged, not naturally aspirated. TomTheHand 12:43, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
- No arguments here on that score. Question is, why are we slapping such an arbitrary requirement on the list? I move for 3 lists - a combined absolute maximum output (both NA & forced induction), and one each for NA & forced induction. Either that or the combined list. It shouldn't matter *how* the engine gets its power, only that it does and is by some definition a production car, IMHO. --Zaktoo 23:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- The most powerful forced induction engine will almost certainly be more powerful than the most powerful naturally aspirated engine; therefore they are both listed, and the distinction is made. It is not an arbitrary distinction, and your suggesting boils down to creating a third list, which is simply the forced induction list repeated over again. TomTheHand 00:36, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
"To the public" Vote
Let's clarify the "rules":
- "Rule 1 - 20 or more examples must have been made by the original vehicle manufacturer and offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition - cars modified by either professional tuners or individuals are not eligible"
Should this rule include limited-production/invite only cars, provided that the other conditions hold true? If so, shall we modify this from "to the public" to "to private individuals" to clarify this situation? If not, shall we modify this from "to the public" to "to the public with no restrictions"? I will not vote on the issue. --SFoskett 20:20, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- to private individuals - The discussion above is contradictory: If Ferrari sent out invitations to buy the Enzo, then built one fewer automobile than it received orders for, then built fifty more because so many people wanted them, then 49 Enzos were available to the "public," or people who were not invited the first time around. People who weren't invited apparently contacted Ferrari and said "Hey! We wanted Enzos too!" and Ferrari obliged them. Therefore someone is wrong up there. Either way, it's a moot point to me, because in my opinion this rule should read "to private individuals." TomTheHand 00:41, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- I don't think there's anything to vote about. In my opinion, the Checker taxicab should have been kept in the superlative list anyway. "Homologated for road use" is the real issue.
- If we need to clarify, to private individuals should be what is meant. But yes, this is small potatoes - road use is what is truly important. I'd rather have kept the Checker too, since it is, by my definitions, a car. I'm just not sure how to specify a car in such a way that buses don't get in. —Morven 06:27, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)
First 4x4
Here's a link on the subject of "first 4x4":
http://www.4x4abc.com/4WD101/who.html
Four wheel drive is almost as old as automobiles are. I would be fine with including one of the vehicles on the above link but I'd also like to indepedently verify the info. TomTheHand 21:45, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
Liftarn beat me to the punch :-) Thanks. However, the link for the Lohner-Porsche doesn't seem to mention 4WD. TomTheHand 13:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry to edit again immediately, but this link: http://www.carkeys.co.uk/features/classichistoric/2938.asp says that while a 4WD Lohner-Porsche was built in 1901, it seems to have been a one-off and the cars were in general 2WD. TomTheHand 13:46, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- This is why I love this place - I love being corrected and learning new things! I assumed the Jeep was NOT the first, but it certainly wasn't the Jensen FF either... So the Porsche is a one-off. How about the Spyker? How many were built? How about the Benz? --SFoskett 19:02, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
Goodness, it's difficult to find information about these cars! TomTheHand 21:56, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
- At http://www.spykercars.com/ I found (under About - Passion for Heritage - 1903) "Spyker introduced the 60/80 HP. It was an extremly advanced car: it was the first car with a six cyliner engine (Ah, another first!) as well as permanent four-wheel drive". http://www.4wdonline.com/A/History.html is also interesting. But according to http://www.4wdonline.com/ClassicCars/Spyker.html only one 4WD was made so it can't be included. There was "perhaps 40" Caldwell Vale [27] made, but it's a truck so that can't be included either. FWD (Four Wheel Drive Auto Co) started in 1911 obviously made 4WD, but that's also trucks... // Liftarn
- I think we're going to have trouble dealing with the trucks/cars distinction here. The CJ-2 is, after all, a quarter-ton truck, and was a work vehicle before it was a recreational vehicle. I think barring a clear distinction, the first series-produced 4WD vehicle should be here, truck or not. TomTheHand 15:08, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- We should probably mention all of - the first 4x4 (even if non series production), the first series production 4x4 truck, and the first 4x4 car. I think the Jensen FF deserves a mention, because I can't think of an earlier car with full-time AWD, and it was certainly the one that introduced the idea that AWD might be something desirable for a performance vehicle, rather than just for off-roaders. —Morven 15:51, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Was more than a single one built? Were they sold to the public? Were they used on the road, or just in racing? It's hard to tell from the information available online. There are pictures of a museum specimen, but it might be a one-of-a-kind.
- "The 4WD is thought to be the only one that Spyker made". It seems it was an one off made for racing. It did quite well too, especially in hillclimbs. // Liftarn
- Was it a permanently engaged AWD system or just a get-out-of-trouble part-time one? —Morven 00:45, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
- "Six cylinders, 8.7L, full time four wheel drive" so it was permanent 4WD. I see we use both 4WD and AWD and (possibly) mening different things. This probably needs to be cleared up. // Liftarn
Let's open discussion back up on this. Here's what I'm seeing:
First 4WD: 1901 Lohner-Porsche. The Lohner-Porsche started production in 1898, but the one-off 4WD version was built in 1901.
First mechanical 4WD: 1902 Jacobus Spyker, which was also a one-off.
First production 4WD truck: Perhaps 1910 Caldwell Vale trucks, perhaps 1911 Four Wheel Drive Auto Co. trucks? I feel iffy about where to draw the line about what trucks to include. After all, the CJ-2 was a truck, but I imagine we'd include it if it qualified for a record... so what's considered too "trucky" for this list?
I've been looking at this page [[28]] and it's pretty interesting. It seems that the first 4WD production car might be the Citroen 2CV Sahara, which featured 4WD and two engines(!) in 1958. There's plenty of information on these, and apparently 694 were built, so it could be our first 4WD car unless we find a better one. TomTheHand 12:55, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- We simply cannot mention every one off/experimental car in this list - that's more suited to the main four wheel drive article. I say we include both the 1910 and 1911 trucks, note the sahara as an oddball, and leave the FF in, since it's widely regarded as holding this record. Here's my proposed edit:
- First four wheel drive vehicle - 1910 Caldwell Vale or 1911 Four Wheel Drive
- First all wheel drive car - 1966 Jensen FF
- Thoughts? --SFoskett 18:41, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- I definitely see what you're saying. However, if you're dropping some of the one-offs, I would feel more comfortable dropping the Jacobus Spyker and keeping the Lohner-Porsche. After all, they're both one-offs, and the Lohner-Porsche came first, even if it had a weird 4WD system. I would also personally prefer to give the 4WD car record to the Citroën 2CV Sahara, since it was a production car and it definitely came before the Jensen FF. I'd be happy to leave a mention of how the Sahara was an oddball two-engine design while the Jensen FF was the first conventional 4WD automobile. I also think we should standardize on either "all wheel drive" or "four wheel drive." TomTheHand 21:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
Vote: Radical Motorsports SR3
The Radical Motorsports SR3 listed on the page is not street legal; horsepower figures for a SR3 modified to pass SVA approval are not available. An SR3 with SVA kit features a catalytic converter and different engine management. These changes would reduce horsepower output. Should the SR3 remain on the list in spite of not meeting any standards of legality, or should it be bumped to Honorable Mention?s
- It is an unwarranted assumption that addition of cats and the use of a different engine management system would substantially reduce reduce output. If you have evidence to support this claim then feel free to provide it. Incidentally, I just came acrosss an article in EVO magazine in which an street-legal (with number plates and everything) SR3 took on various other cars in a track "shootout" at Silverston's bike circuit and gave them a pasting. It was pretty impressive. It beat a Lambo Murcielago by 5.9 seconds, a Porsche 911 GT3 by 5.3 seconds and (surprising to me at least) a Suzuki GSX-R1000 motorcycle by 3.4 seconds. Alas, they didn't put the Radical on a rolling road. However, my point is that Radical themselves supplied the car (and the driver) and it was in their best interest to supply the one that would give the best showing. If the non-street-legal version had any sort of power advantage then surely that's the one they'd have used. --JonGwynne 15:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Jon, you're the one who submitted a race-prepared machine. Now go and find how much horsepower the SR3 has with the catalytic converter installed and with EFI instead of carburetors. --Pc13 17:07, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
- Yet there is no evidence that the power outputs would be different. Catalytic converters tend to reduce power slightly - however, with modern, high-flow cats, the backpressure isn't significantly greater than the rest of the exhaust system. Also, EFI tends to increase efficiency and, therefore, power, when compared to carbs. Given that there is no signficant difference in acceleration between the street-legal SR3 and those prepared exlusively for track use, there is no reason to assume that there is a significant difference in power. --JonGwynne 00:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- You're the one that has prove you didn't submit a racing car. If you think the car would have more power with EFI, than you have nothing to lose. --Pc13 16:59, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
- And I did prove it. If the power was singificantly lower in the street-legal version of the car, the performance would be significantly different... it isn't. --JonGwynne 18:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Not really. Since the Powertec 1500 is based on the Hayabusa's 1300 engine, and the Hayabusa would have about 200 bhp if it were 1.5L, it would still be quite impressive, with 400 bhp/ton (instead of the normal 500), beating the Lambo's 350 and the GT3's 275 (both without the benefit of a 6-ft wide rear wing and having to cope with a higher gravity centre), while the GSX-R would not be able to negotiate Silverstone's tightest corners without significant speed reductions. --Pc13 22:58, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
- Ummm... the street legal version (replete with number plates) was the one used in the shootout and its performance didn't differ significantly from the track-only version. Ergo, it is reasonable to conclude that the power output isn't materially different between the two versions - especially considering the nature of the car. The combination of low weight, grippy tires, low torque and rear-mid engine placement means little (if any) power will be squandered on wheelspin. --JonGwynne 05:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Bump to HM - TomTheHand 00:45, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Bump to HM until figures with SVA kit are available. An e-mail sent to Radical Motorsport asking for figures with the SVA kit installed went unanswered. --Pc13 10:07, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
- Bump to HM until performance figures for the production version are available and there is evidence that an adequate number of cars so-equipped have been produced, sold, and used on the road. --SFoskett 18:16, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- Bump to HM until street-legal performance figures available. —Morven 20:30, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)
Units of measurement
I mean no offense by this, but I'm unsure about the inclusion of units of measurement on the page. All of this information is redundant; it can be found in other articles if someone is interested in a particular unit of measurement. TomTheHand 12:34, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- I agree - perhaps a link to engine displacement, horsepower, and torque would be sufficient? --SFoskett 18:17, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
- I know it can be found elsewhere, but not in this form and it might be handy to have it in an article that uses so many different units for measurement - especially given the recent confusion betwween brake horsepower and metric horsepower with regard to the McLaren F1. --JonGwynne 15:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I still feel that we can remove this section. This is a list of automotive superlatives, not a list of units of measurement. Perhaps a leading paragraph could include this information? I would be happy to write it. --SFoskett 23:55, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
- Like I said, it serves a valuable purpose (IMO) - it not only makes clear the relationships of the units (something that someone might not want to wade through the articles on the specific units in order to see) but it also makes clear the difference between hp, bhp and PS when talking about the power of an engine and in a page on superlatives, this it an important thing on which to have clarity. Wouldn't you agree? --JonGwynne 05:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree; this is "List of automotive superlatives," not "Comparison of automotive units." If you'd like to write that article, fine, but if it's not an automotive superlative, it doesn't belong on this page. TomTheHand 12:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
- It is part of the prelude - along with the discussion of the rules - to make the page more clear. --JonGwynne 14:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- The rules are specific to this page. Information on horsepower, torque, and fuel economy are readily available in their respective articles, and with greater clarity and detail, if anyone has a specific interest or questions. TomTheHand 16:05, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
- But not in this form - which is specifically formatted to facilitate and clarify comparisons... --JonGwynne 07:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- Surely the best option is to link the terms bhp, kW and so on to pages explaining them. IMHO there is no reason at all to stray from SI units anyway. I propose changing all the units on the page to only SI units, with links to pages explaining them. --196.2.127.9 08:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. If there are no objections I'm going to remove this redundant section. The only person who seemed to be for it was JonGwynne anyway, and he's been banned from Wikipedia :-/ I'm not comfortable with switching to all SI units, though; most Americans are more comfortable with horsepower and lb-ft than kilowatts and newtons. I'd prefer to continue to list both. TomTheHand 02:22, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
Least/worst
This "Least specific power" thing is just funny. Now we're down to 22.5 hp per liter - anyone want to go lower? I'd love to see a "worst power-to-weight" item, too... --SFoskett 18:39, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm having fun researching this, but I still feel a little iffy about it, for a few reasons. First is that we need to set a start date for it to be fair. I'm sure that even the Chevy 307 from 1973 beats what they were putting in cars in 1898. Second is the switch from gross to net horsepower in the early 1970's in the US. That pretty much screws everything from 1973 onward. Second, that gross-to-net change coincides with the addition of emissions controls. Essentially, the vehicles with lowest specific output WILL be from 1973, unless you allow very old vehicles. TomTheHand 18:56, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you guys can't go any lower than that. I was going to trump Sfoskett's with a 190hp version of the GM 500 engine, but the Chevy 307 beats that. The worst European car I could find is the 1956 ZIS 110 (a Russian limousine) with 23.1 hp/L. --Pc13 19:25, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
- But the problem is the gross/net thing. If the ZIS 110 was rated according to gross horsepower, then it's actually worse than the Chevy 307, which is rated according to net horsepower. They're not really comparable and there isn't an accurate conversion factor between the two, though I've seen it estimated that net is about 80% of gross. TomTheHand 19:49, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Ford RS200 Evolution
An anon added the Ford RS200 Evolution to the list yesterday as the fastest 0-60. I was thinking that we need to review this. I wasn't aware of this car before, and it seems pretty cool. However, Googling around, I'm finding wildly differing performance figures. There seems to be a lot of myth surrounding this vehicle, and there's a big problem with people presenting performance figures of modified cars as stock figures. On the other hand, 24 were produced, so if we can find solid performance data, I believe this car can qualify for certain records.
So far what I've found is that a total of 200 Ford RS200's were produced. Most were equipped with a 250 hp 1.8L turbocharged four cylinder. Rally versions ran higher boost and seem to have been available at up to 450 hp. The Evolution version, of which 24 were produced, had a 2.1L four cylinder, for which power figures vary pretty wildly. I've seen figures from 500+ to 700+ but 550 hp seems to be the correct figure.
This link is interesting: http://www.preromanbritain.com/gwem/martbean/rs200/performa.htm It's the result of 0-60 and 0-100 testing on a modified 600+ hp RS200 Evolution. It shows 0-60 speeds of 3.07 seconds. I've seen this figure here: http://www.motorsm.com/Collection/Supercars.htm as "fastest road test," not fastest production car, and the dates match up (1994) so I think the former link's test is what the latter link is referring to.
The impression that I get is that the RS200 Evolution, stock, put out 550 hp. This makes it our winner for highest specific output. However, a modified RS200, tuned to over 600 hp, only managed 0-60 in 3.07 seconds. A stock one would be somewhat slower. That makes the 1.8 second claim pretty dubious.
I'm eager to hear more information if you guys know anything. TomTheHand 14:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
- The RS200 Evo is the competition version, not a road car. It has different levels of power because each owner tuned the car independently. --Pc13 11:22, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
- I was under the impression that the RS200 Evo, though intended for competition, was completed too late (after Group B was cancelled) and all 24 cars were sold to the public. TomTheHand 12:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Check out this history piece in Pistonheads. The 2.1-second mark was, apparently, made by Stig Blomqvist in a race-prepared car, and isn't even canonic. --Pc13 13:54, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
- Indeed, I don't think the Evo set any acceleration records, but I do think it may set one for specific power. Check out [this site], which tries to keep track of the 200 RS200's. It has information on the individuals who purchased the Evos, and sometimes information about when and where the car was registered. A couple went to racing teams, though I don't think they could have competed with them given the death of Group B rallying. However, it looks like most were sold to the public, and some still have fewer than ten miles on them! TomTheHand 15:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
- Actually, Group B cars were used in the European Rallycross Championship up to and including 1992. Eurosport used to have a show called International Motorsports in the early to mid 90s, and I remember seeing Metro 6R4s in the Scottish Rally Championship as far as 1995. And Pat Doran is still using his RS200 in the British Rallycross Championship, isn't he? That site you mentioned has pics of three of the Evos (besides the 012 chassis), and they're all race-prepped (089, 145 and 182). --Pc13 22:19, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
- As you can see, I don't know a whole lot about the rally scene. Nevertheless, the site I gave shows that while some of the cars were used for various competitions, some were definitely purchased by private individuals. Chassis 70, 83, 84, and 106 at least are seen in photographs as street cars and their histories seem to indicate they were purchased as such. Other Evos have less information about their histories but appear to have been street cars. So what's the criteria here? More than 20 were definitely produced and they were definitely available to the public. Does it have to be shown that more than 20 were actually purchased by the public for road use, or are public availability and minimum production separate requirements? Beyond that, were these street legal? TomTheHand 16:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
- Any opinions on this? 24 were built, they were available to the public, but some cars were purchased by racing teams, so less than 20 were actually sold to private individuals. TomTheHand 18:02, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
This is a good question. It reminds me of the Mosler MT900, of which 11 racing models have been sold, but it appears that no (or maybe one) street version was sold. Or the Mosler Intruder, where 4 were built but just one was sold. I'm inclined to say that 20 have to have been sold to private parties since the racing versions are often substantially different than the civvie ones in ways that affect performance. But I'm not sure. --SFoskett 18:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I believe this is a different case from the MT900. In this case, as far as I can tell there isn't a distinction between the "racing" and "street" versions. The Evos were supposed to be race vehicles, but with the cancellation of the RS200 program they were sold to the public and to independent racing teams. Many were modified before or after delivery to the specifications of the owners, but I'm not sure if they were actually custom built automobiles or if 24 were built to the same (record-setting) spec, made available to the public and to any racing teams that wanted them, and then modified. TomTheHand 20:01, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- The situation is quite distinct from the Mosler. The RS200 Evo was caught in a transitional phase that allowed certain buyers to acquire them for purposes other than that originally intended by the manufacturer.
- 1 The Ford RS200 was originally produced to allow a quasi-prototype to enter rallying, as per Group B regulations.
- 2 The RS200 had a 1803 cc engine, which per the 1.4x correction factor for turbos, gave the car a nominal capacity of 2524 cc, which did not take full advantage of being in the 3.0 L weight class.
- 3 The Evo model was released two years after the base model, in the same year that Group B cars were banned. The timeline of the Evo's release was coincidental with the need for a more developed model in the WRC.
- 4 The Evo model had a capacity of 2137 cc, which puts it slightly below the 3.0 L limit with the 1.4x correction factor.
- 5 The Evo's engine was prepared by Brian Hart. Hart had considerable experience in the field of Ford-based racing engines, not in road-going cars.
- 6 Official power figures for the Evo range from 550 to 600 to 650 bhp, according to various sources. RPM was not divulged, neither were torque figures. That is consistent with racing engines officially released figures, as power estimates are usually conservative and vary from car to car and from race to race.
- 7 The number of Evos built is consistent with the number of homologation vehicles needed for Group A Evos - Grp.A: Base 5000, Evo 500 - Grp. B: Base 200, Evo 20. However, Evolution models need not have been built straight for road use - e.g. Volvo 240 Turbo with water injection.
- 8 Whether private individuals bought the car is irrelevant. Of the 20 cars, most of these would have been sold to private racers.
- 9 Whether cars have license plates is irrelevant. Rally cars are supposed to be able to move from stage to stage by their own means, i.e. they need to travel through public roads and require license plates, but are still race cars. --Pc13 21:06, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
Ariel Atom
The Ariel Atom seems like it should break a couple of the records: http://www.ariel.us.com/
- Most specific power (power to weight ratio): 657 bhp/metric ton (300 hp, 456 kg) (Source: http://www.ariel.us.com/04/specs.htm) -- This is the supercharged 300HP model
- Quickest 0-60 mph: 2.9 seconds (Source: Top Gear 12/26/2004, BBC TV)
It is supposedly road-legal with indicators and lights (Top Gear, UK only?) and in production, but I don't have figures, so who-knows. (The Ariel (vehicle) article says 30/year, which is also a record for "Lowest-production Models," but there is no reference to where that number came from, so I'm even more skeptical on that.
-- Prometheus235 21:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- That's a good point - it should at least get an HM --JonGwynne 14:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
On a side note, why does it state that the Ariel may not be street-legal in the US? Is it of any relevance whatsoever? None of the other vehicles mentioned in that section are legal for use in the US anyway. --196.2.127.9 09:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
B. Engineering Edonis
Does anyone know if this car was actually produced, and in the requisite numbers? All I can find are news stories back from 2001 in which B. Engineering was saying they were planning to build 21 cars. The chassis were to be used for Bugatti EB110's but were bought up by B. Engineering upon Bugatti's bankruptcy. While it seems like a very cool and very impressive vehicle, it also sounds like yet another story of a company turning out a concept vehicle and then disappearing. TomTheHand 18:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- They look dead. Their web site hasn't been updated in three years from the looks of it, and their last press mention that I could find was 2003. Too bad... --SFoskett 18:47, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
- I wouldn't necessarily go by the web site. There was a nice write-up on them in the April 2005 issue of Evo magazine which describes their development efforts to get to the 720bhp output promised from their original concept. They have a limited number of chassis' with which to work, so they're going to limit production to just 20 units. Like I said, I think it is good enough for an HM --JonGwynne 08:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I've checked out the article and it seems they're still building and refining their prototype(s). I say let them build a real car (perhaps even 20 of them, like the rules state) and then add it here. I'm surprised that the car was put on the list at all when all that was available was a four year old promise to produce 720 bhp out of 3.8 liters. TomTheHand 15:02, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)
Points brought up by 66.167.248.149
Just wanted to discuss points brought up by the user with IP 66.167.248.149. Please check this link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_automotive_superlatives&diff=15727293&oldid=15725870 to see what I'm talking about.
To start off, welcome to the "List of automotive superlatives" page!
Now, on to addressing your specific concerns. First, in reference to most powerful engine, the supercharged Mercedes Benz engine is not eligible because... it's supercharged! :-) That particular category is for naturally aspirated engines. If we had a "more than 1000 units" requirement, I imagine the winner might be the Dodge Viper.
Second, in reference to vehicles not street legal in the US, we actually have significant debate going on on that very subject. What it boils down to so far is that as long as it's street legal in its intended market, it's ok for inclusion on the list. The place where the debate gets nasty is where we start to define "street legal." The UK, for example, allows "Single Vehicle Approval" to more lenient standards for low-volume vehicles. Are these vehicles fully street legal? We don't agree, so we mostly just yell at each other.
As for cars from the 1960's winning the 300-400 hp power to weight category, an important factor to keep in mind is that US vehicles before 1973 were measured according to gross, rather than net, horsepower. Net horsepower is generally ~20% less than gross horsepower, so modern cars are more powerful than they appear when compared to muscle cars.
And finally, on the subject of the Koenigsegg CCR, this page http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=102363 says they currently produce and sell 15 CCR's a year and plan to be up to producing 40 per year by the end of 2005.
Please post if you've got more detail you want to contribute on anything! I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong or anything, just trying to justify what we have on the page right now. Since every entry tends to be up for debate, we usually try to discuss on the talk page before making big changes. TomTheHand 03:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
First hatchback
Man oh man, check out the Aston Martin DB2/4. It had a hatchbackin 1953! Photos here. Anyone agree that this bumps the Austin A40 Farina? --SFoskett 12:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Wow, that was unexpected. I would have said no if the car was a 2-seater, but like this... go for it! --Pc13 12:42, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
First GPS
1983 sounds a little early, Pc13. 1990 by Pioneer sounds a little more like it: http://www.pioneer.co.uk/uk/content/company/company/history.html -- Gabriel S. 2005-07-08
- The German magazine Auto Bild published a two-page article about superlatives earlier this year. The first car to use GPS was the '83 Accord. --Pc13 July 9, 2005 09:08 (UTC)
- According to this history of GPS: [[29]] on September 16, 1983, "Following the Soviet downing of Korean Air flight 007, President Reagan offers to make GPS available for use by civilian aircraft, free of charge, when the system becomes operational. This marks the beginning of the spread of GPS technology from military to civilian aircraft." The GPS constellation was nowhere near complete in 1983. It was years after that before civilian GPS systems became available to the public. TomTheHand July 9, 2005 14:41 (UTC)
Widest Track
Removed blatantly incorrect entry for 1961 Jaguar Mark X. It was incorrectly stated as 1953 mm. When the correct figures are found, they will be far from the widest. --Zaktoo 01:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Early records
Just wanting to throw a few things in here: The Bugatti Royale is listed even though 6 (or 7, depending on your source) were made. This is less than the 25 minimum decided on. Also, if it is eligible to stay for some reason, the chassis #41100 has a 14726cc straight 8 engine. Also, the biggest 6 cylinder pre-WWII engine I know of is a 21112cc (21 litre) Panhard et Levassor 50 CV from 1905. It is a straight 6. The biggest 4 is a 1912 Benz 82/200 with 21495cc from its 4 cylinders. --Zaktoo 23:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. Go ahead and update the page! :-) And post sources here, if you wouldn't mind. TomTheHand 00:50, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, the Royale had just 6 produced. And just three were sold, all to hand-picked buyers. So it really ought not to qualify. But it is almost universally accepted as a special, notable automobile and is listed in about every car book. We have to include it, but I'm not sure about letting it take all the records. Maybe it just gets an honorable mention for anything it's eligible for? It'd probably take the "heaviest" category, too, as well as longest wheelbase... --SFoskett 14:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Sources
Benz 82/200: DaimlerChrysler media archives http://archives.daimlerchrysler.com
Panhard et Levassor: Illustrated Motor Cars of the World (specifics to follow)
--196.2.127.9 09:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
May I suggest a slight rule change? 20 cars was an awful lot back in the days of coach building and would discount virtually every pre war Ferrari and Aston to name but 2 manufacturers. I would suggest being much broader pre-1939, say perhaps 5 examples to qualify and anything other one offs pre 1914. Just an idea. --LiamE 15:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
Specific Power
The term "specific power" means the power obtained per volume, not power-to-weight ratio, which is what is being listed currently. Also, there it makes no sense at all to mix both naturally-aspirated and forced-induction types. I move again for 2 lists - one for NA engines, and one for forced-induction. And please, let's get either the heading fixed, or the figures amended appropriately. --Zaktoo 00:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- The term "specific power" is broader than that. Before I came here, I had never heard it used to describe power-to-weight ratio of an entire automobile. However, "specific power" is commonly used to describe the ratio of power produced to ENGINE weight (so a light engine would have a high specific power). I am not quite sure if the usage on the page is appropriate, but it does seem to fit the definition of specific power. Anyway, BOTH definitions of specific power are listed (power to weight, and power to volume).
- On the subject of the figures, to me it makes perfect sense to list both forced induction and naturally aspirated engines. I really don't understand your problem with it, but I would prefer that it remain this way. TomTheHand 00:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- We're in agreement then; I looked under "specific power", not "specific engine output". Mea culpa :/ I see both NA & forced induction are listed, which is also exactly what I was wanting to see... On the subject of "specific power" though, I have only seen it used in electrical context, not internal combustion engine context. "Specific power" or "specific output" or "specific power output" is only correctly used when giving power per volume. The correct term for what you describe is "power density". However, I can't find online or offline references to back these assertions up. --196.2.127.9 03:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- "Specific power," in the sense of power to weight ratios, is also used to describe rocket engines. I believe "power density" is synonymous when used in an electrical context. It is not often used to describe internal combustion engines, but I have heard it used that way before. On the other hand, I do consider its usage on this page to be strange, especially since it is describing the power to weight ratio for the entire vehicle, not for the power plant. I don't think it would be possible for us to make an accurate list of specific power (power to weight) for just the engines because accurate, complete, directly comparable information isn't available. I would favor changing it to simply "power to weight" like you suggest. TomTheHand 03:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Longest Wheelbase
Mercedes-Benz Pullmans (S 500 & S 600 Pullman from 2000 and 600 Pullman from 1964) are both longer than the Cadillac, at 4085mm and 3900 mm respectively. I'd be surprised if the 2000 model Pullmans were produced in quantities smaller than 25; the 1964 variants were comfortably past the 100 mark. --Zaktoo 00:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- Tough one, and an interesting question. I would imagine that they are available for sale to private individuals, and unlike most limos, Mercedes-Benz purpose-builds these itself. They are not modified post-production by another firm. Looks good to me, but I hope the rest of the community weighs in on it. TomTheHand 00:56, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- The Pullman is exactly analogous to the Fleetwood "limousine" - it was produced by the company and readily available to private individuals. Many were purchased by companies, and many were purchased by individuals. Looks like we have a new record. --SFoskett 14:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Heaviest
How is the Hummer considered an "automobile"? It's a truck if anything.
The Maybach 62 is the heaviest proper car I know of post WWII; it weighs 2855 kg. --Zaktoo 00:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
- It is a passenger vehicle, available to and marketed to the public, therefore it meets the requirements for the list. Frankly I wouldn't want to have to come up with a hard definition of "truck" anyway. TomTheHand 00:54, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- Thinking about it a little further, it would be a good idea to have a "heaviest sedan" entry as well. TomTheHand 03:45, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
- I have no problem with the Maybach listed as a heavy sedan or something. But the Hummer is definitely a passenger automobile, at least here in the USA! --SFoskett 14:19, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Engine Capacities
Unfortunately, there seems to be quite a few errors in this section.
- Honda's 360cc engine as mentioned is an inline 4, as far as I know. See http://world.honda.com/history/challenge/1962autoproduction/text/04.html where they mention it to be a straight 4.
- It was the prototype that had a V4. My mistake. Pc13
- The Suzuki Fronte (at least in 1972; possibly other years) had a straight 3 cylinder petrol engine of 357cc, easily eclipsing the current superlative example.
- Don't complain, replace it. Pc13
- Smallest straight six that I know of: MG 1087cc (K3 Magnette, Magna). Also Amilcar C6 1094cc; and BMW 303 1182cc. The Alfa Romeo mentioned as the current superlative is pre-WWII in any event (as are the others that I mentioned). The smallest post-WWII straight 6 I know of is the Maserati A6-1500 of 1947 (1488cc). A Fiat 1500 of 1949 is 1493cc.
- Actually, I once proposed the idea of moving the superlatives from post-WWII to post-WWI, but we never talked about it anymore. And don't complain, replace them. I was pretty sure that Alfa engine couldn't be the smallest, but I couldn't find anything else. Pc13
- A 1952-53 Hudson Hornet has a 5047cc straight six. (current: 4907cc Ford) http://www.allpar.com/cars/adopted/hudson-hornet.html
- Don't complain, replace it. Pc13
- Smallest V6: smart produced a limited run (I seem to recall that 10 were made) of 1300 cc V6 roadster-coupés. Also, between 1960 and 1966, DKW/Auto-Union had V6 two strokes of 1000cc-1600cc capacity. While not one particular model was produced in huge numbers, at least 100 such engines were made. At least 13 DKW F102 cars had the V6.
- Smart roadster-coupe V6 was never produced in any capacity. And are you sure about the DKW being a V6? I can only find examples of it having a 4-stroke straight-3 (800-1200cc). Pc13
- Smallest petrol V8: Suzuki made a prototype in 1997 with 1600cc V8. Also, Lamborghini, Fiat and Alfa Romeo all had production road car -litre V8s, the sizes were 1994cc, 1996cc and 1995cc respectively. Close enough for a mention too I think.
- Prototypes don't count, although that one certainly merits a HM. That Lambo V8 might take the cake. Which model used it? And I'm trying to find info about a 1948cc TVR V8 from the early 80s, but can't find anything. Pc13
- Largest petrol V8: The decidedly odd 1967 Mohs Ostentatienne Opera had an 8990cc V8. Not sure if it meets production requirements though.
- I don't see the point of a special entry for "Smallest American V8". I vote to scrap that point. Ditto the one for "Largest small-block V8". It's a pretty arbitrary distinction IMHO.
- Abstain. Pc13
- V10s: The Yamaha OX99-11 was actually a V12. 3.5 litre at that. http://www.automobile-sportive.com/guide/yamaha/ox99-11.php FWIW, 3 were produced.
- Don't complain, replace it. Pc13
- V12s: the smallest I know of is a 1.5 litre ferrari V12 in the 125 S of 1947. Not sure if it meets the criteria for inclusion here though. Possibly worth a mention.
- It doesn't. I once though the 125S might have been a road car and added it, but it was a racing car only, so I replaced it with the 166S (which was actually Ferrari's first real road car). Pc13
- The Mercedes engine that the Pagani Zonda uses was also used (in different tune) for the 1999 Mercedes-Benz SL 73 AMG.
- Unlike other AMG models, the SL 73 AMG wasn't part of the Mercedes-Benz catalog and was considered an aftermarket special. If you could move the superlatives limit date to post-WWI instead of post-WWII, the 1930 Maybach Zeppelin would have the biggest V12, a 7977cc. Pc13
- The 2003 Rolls-Royce 100EX concept also have a V16 engine, could also be worth a mention.
- Prototype only, and not really. The Cadillac Sixteen prototype has a bigger engine. Pc13
--Zaktoo 23:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
- All replies by Pc13 06:53, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
- About "don't complain, replace it", I was under the impression that things are to be discussed before willy-nilly modifying what is there already. I'll fix the erroneous ones; the others I'd be happier seeing discussion around first... --Zaktoo 10:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- Discussion is usually called for on performance vehicles. They tend to attract favorites, and are also plagued by small production volumes and strange homologation procedures which calls some cars into questioning. Usually, simply replacing them won't attract attention.
- Histomobile confirms the Suzuki Fronte for smallest straight-3 and the Maserati A6G for smallest straight-6. If Allpar confirms the Hudson Hornet for largest straight-6, I'd strongly consider it, but Histomobile mentions the 5.0 L (5024 cc, not 5047) engine was a V8, and the straight-6 was 4.8 L.
- Likewise, we'd need some sort of corroboration on the DKV's V6. Lamborghini's 2.0 L V8 might take the title for smallest V8 (just need to know in which car), until I find some info on that TVR engine (which I'm not sure was actually fitted to any road car). -- Pc13 14:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
- Discussion is usually called for on performance vehicles. They tend to attract favorites, and are also plagued by small production volumes and strange homologation procedures which calls some cars into questioning. Usually, simply replacing them won't attract attention.
- About "don't complain, replace it", I was under the impression that things are to be discussed before willy-nilly modifying what is there already. I'll fix the erroneous ones; the others I'd be happier seeing discussion around first... --Zaktoo 10:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
- All replies by Pc13 06:53, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
First VVT and 4WS?
Does anyone know what were the first production cars to have electronically-controlled fuel injection, variable valve timing and four-wheel steering? Here's what I've got so far - I'm not sure if they're the firsts, though:
- First production VVT: Honda B16A VTEC engine, available in certain 1989 CR-X, Civic and Integra models
- First four-wheel steering: 1985 (R31) Nissan Skyline [30] [31] (sorry the references are in Japanese, but any of you can read the "1985" and "HICAS" (the name of Nissan's 4WS system) in them)
--Zilog Jones 20:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- Mazda's 4WS waited until 1988, Honda was 1987, so I think the Nissan system is the earliest modern system. I'm sure 4WS was used on some vintage cars, however... --SFoskett 10:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- Alfa Romeo had production VVT from 1980. http://spiderfaq.home.att.net/dev_his.htm --Zaktoo 14:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- Honda's VTEC was the first to vary lift, timing, and duration. Others varied one or more of those in different ways. Maybe the Alfa was the first, but I'd bet there was an earlier example... --SFoskett 14:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
- I thought I would be wrong about the first VVT engine. I remember seeing some car from the '50s or '60s with four-wheel steering, but I don't know if it went into production. HICAS is probably the first electronically-controlled 4WS to appear in a production car, however. --Zilog Jones 18:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
- There's a bit on the history of variable valve timing right here on Wikipedia, actually... --SFoskett 21:10, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Smallest american V8
Putting aside the question of whether or not this is a meaningful sub-category, any particular reason why the Ford Taurus SHO 3.4L V8 shouldn't be listed here? My only guess is that it's because it was developed in a partnership with Yamaha. In my mind, though, it was an American company's engine, and in the days of globalization, that's good enough.
Nothing so sinister. We just forgot. Pc13 12:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
First American Hybrid
I don't see how the Honda Insight can be considered to be the first American hybrid, as it is, as far as I know, a Japanese car. Two Halves, who is confused
Most powerful normally aspirated car
I very much doubt they have sold 20 of these bad boys yet but they are in production and you can buy them. And knowing the company it will be in production for a LONG time selling a few units each year. To the best of my knowledge Bristol are not given to overstatement. They currently quote 628/660bhp for the Fighter S. The higher figure is quoted as the power output 'at speed' as the engine performance is improved by ram effects. Link to their site here.
Should we wait till they have sold 20 to stick it in the list as they are VERY unlikely to quote any sales figures anyway?
- I'm not so sure about this power output "at speed" stuff. Many high performance vehicles utilize a "ram air" effect but we don't attempt to use the power figures obtained at high speed. Using the Bristol Fighter S's "at speed" horsepower would be an apples to oranges comparison and wouldn't really belong on the list. TomTheHand 22:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)