
This page lists Wiktionary:superlatives of the automobile industry - that is, the smallest, largest, fastest, lightest, best-selling, and other such topics. In order to keep the entries relevant, the list (except for the #Firsts section) will be limited to automobiles built after World War II. Many odd vehicles emerged in the early days of the automobile industry. There is #Pre-War for early superlatives, however. The list will also be limited to production road cars that meet the following conditions: # 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 # They must be street-legal in their intended markets and capable of passing any tests or inspections required to be granted this status # They must have been built for retail sale to consumers for their personal use on public roads - no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible ==Some notes about units of measurement used herein...== ===Engine Capacity/Displacement=== *1 liter = 1,000 cubic centimeters = 61.0237 cubic inches *1 cubic inch = 16.3871 cubic centimeters ===Engine Output=== Power *1 horsepower (hp) = 1 brake horsepower (bhp) = 1.0139 metric horsepower (PS) = 0.7457 kilowatts (kW) *1 metric horsepower = 0.9863 horsepower = 0.7355 kilowatts *1 kilowatt = 1.3410 horsepower = 1.3596 metric horsepower Torque *1 pound-foot of torque (lb-ft) = 1.3558 Newton-meter (nM) *1 Newton-meter = 0.7376 pound-feet ===Fuel Economy=== *1 mile per US Gallon = 1.2009 miles per Imperial Gallon = 0.4252 kilometers per liter = 235.208 liters per 100 kilometers *1 mile per Imperial Gallon = 0.8327 miles per US Gallon = 0.3540 kilometers per liter = 282.4731 liters per 100 kilometers *1 kilometer per liter = 2.3521 miles per US Gallon = 2.8247 miles per Imperial Gallon *1 liter per 100 kilometers = 235.208 miles per US Gallon = 2824731 miles per Imperial Gallon ==Engine capacity== * Straight-3 ** Smallest I3 engine (petrol) - 0.55 L (543 cc/33 in³) - 1982 Suzuki Cervo ''F5A'' ** Smallest I3 engine (Diesel) - 0.8 L (799 cc/48.8 in³) - 2000 Smart (automobile) ''cdi'' *** Others: 1.0 L (993 cc) - 1984 Daihatsu Charade ** Largest I3 engine (petrol) - 1.2 L (1198 cc/73 in³) - 2002 Volkswagen Polo/Seat Ibiza 1.2 ** Largest I3 engine (Diesel) - 1.8 L (1779 cc/109 in³) - 1984 Alfa Romeo 33 1.8 TD * Straight-4; ** Smallest I4 engine (petrol) - 0.36 L (358 cc/21.8 in³) - 1961 Mazda Carol ''Mazda OHV engine#358'' ** Smallest I4 engine (Diesel) - 1.25 L (1248 cc/65 in³) - 2003 Fiat Panda ''Fiat Multijet'' ** Largest I4 engine (petrol) - 3.2 L (3188 cc/194.5 in³) - 1961 Pontiac Tempest ''Pontiac V8 engine#195'' *** Others: 3.0 L (2990 cc/182 in³) - Porsche 968 ** Largest I4 engine (Diesel) - 4.3 L (4334 cc/278 in³) - Isuzu NKR ''Isuzu 4HF1 engine'' * V4 ** Smallest V4 engine - 0.9 L (903 cc/55 in³) - 1939 Lancia Ardea ''Lancia V4 engine'' ** Largest V4 engine - 2.6 L (2568 cc/157 in³) - 1930 Lancia Lancia Lambda ''Lancia V4 engine'' * Straight-5 ** Smallest I5 engine (petrol) - 1.9 L (1921 cc/117 in³) - 1981 Audi 100 1.9 E ** Smallest I5 engine (Diesel) - 2.0 L (1986 cc/121 in³) - 1978 Audi 100 2.0 D ** Largest I5 engine (petrol) - 3.5 L (3464 cc/211 in³) - 2004 General Motors ''GM Atlas engine#L52'' ** Largest I5 engine (Diesel) - 3.5 L (3469 cc/212 in³) - 1990 Toyota Land Cruiser ''Toyota PZ engine'' Diesel * Straight-6 ** Smallest I6 engine (petrol) - 1.5 L (1500 cc/91 in³) - 1927 Alfa Romeo 1500 ''Alfa Romeo 6C'' ** Smallest I6 engine (Diesel) - 2.4 L (2383 cc/145 in³) - 1979 Volvo 240 ''Volvo D24 engine'' ** Largest I6 engine (petrol) - 4.9 L (4917 cc/300 in³) - 1965 Ford ''Ford Straight-6 engine#300'' ** Largest I6 engine (Diesel) - 5.9 L (5883 cc/359 in³) - 1989 Dodge Ram ''Cummins Cummins B Series engine'' * V6 ** Smallest V6 engine (petrol) - 1.6 L (1597 cc/97 in³) - 1992 Mitsubishi Lancer ''Mitsubishi 6A10 engine'' *** Others: 1.8 L (1845 cc/113 in³) - 1992 Mazda MX-3 ''Mazda K engine#K8'' ** Smallest V6 engine (Diesel) - 2.5 L (2497 cc) - 1996 Audi 2.5 TDi (in multiple cars) ** Largest V6 engine (petrol) - 4.3 L (4300 cc/262 in³) - 1985 General Motors ''GM Vortec engine#4300'' ** Largest V6 engine (Diesel) - 4.3 L (4304 cc/262 in³) - 1982 General Motors ''LT6'' * V8 ** Smallest V8 engine (petrol) - 2.0 L (1990 cc/121 in³) - 1975 Ferrari GT4#208 GT4 *** Others: ATS/BRM/Coventry Climax and Ferrari Formula One 1.5 L V8 engines ''(none of them used into a road car)'' ** Smallest V8 engine (Diesel) - 3.3 L (3328 cc/203 in³) - 2000 Audi A8 ''3.3 TDI'' ** Largest V8 engine (petrol) - 8.1 L (8194 cc/500 in³) - 1970 Cadillac Eldorado ''Cadillac V8 engine#1963'' ** Largest V8 engine (Diesel) - 7.3 L (7275 cc/444 in³) - 1997 Ford F-Series ''Ford Power Stroke engine'' ** Smallest American V8 engine - 3.5 L (3532 cc/215 in³) - 1961 Buick Special ''Buick V8 engine#215'' ** Largest small-block V8 engine - 6.7 L (6689 cc/408 in³) - Ford 335 engine#400 * V10 ** Smallest V10 engine - 4.9 L (4921 cc/301 in³) - Volkswagen Touareg V10 TDI *** Others: 4.0 L - 1992 Yamaha OX99 ''(never produced)'' ** Largest V10 engine - 8.3 L (8277 cc/505 in³) - 2003 Dodge Viper * V12 ** Smallest V12 engine - 2.0 L (1995 cc/122 in³) - 1948 Ferrari 166 ''Ferrari Colombo engine'' ** Largest V12 engine - 7.0 L (6996c cc/427 in³)- 1998 Lister Cars *** Honorable mention: 7.3 L (7291 cc/445 in³) - 2003 Pagani Pagani Zonda C12S used an Aufrecht Melcher Grossaspach-tuned version of that same Mercedes-Benz engine but only 17 examples have been built. * V16 :''Note:'' The 6.0 L (366 in³) V16 in the 1995 Cizeta-Moroder V16T is the only post-war V16 production engine. A 13.6 L V16 was used in the General Motors concept car Cadillac Sixteen. ==Dimensions== ===Overall=== * Shortest (3 wheels) - 1340 mm (52.8 in) - 1962 Peel P50 * Shortest (4 wheels) - 2286 mm (90 in) - 1956 Isetta * Longest - 6,426 mm (253 in) - 1975 Cadillac Fleetwood ** Honorable mention - 6852 mm (269.8 in) - Checker Aerocar ''(Not a consumer vehicle)'' * Lowest * Highest ===Wheelbase=== * Shortest wheelbase - 1500 mm (59.1 in) - 1956 Isetta ** Others: *** 1800 mm (70.9 in) - 2003 Suzuki Twin *** 1812 mm (81.3 in) - 1998 Smart_(automobile) * Longest wheelbase - 151.5 in (3848 mm) - 1971-1976 Cadillac Fleetwood sedan ** Honorable mention - 4800 mm (189 in) - Checker Aerocar (''Not a consumer vehicle'') ===Track=== * Widest track - 1943 mm (76.5 in) - 1961 Jaguar Mark X ===Weight=== * Lightest passenger vehicle (3 wheels) - 59 kg (132 lb) DIN - 1962 Peel P50 * Lightest passenger vehicle (4 wheels) - 350 kg (770 lb) DIN - 1956 Isetta ** Others: *** 370 kg (816 lb) DIN - 1992 LCC Rocket * Heaviest passenger vehicle - 3428 kg (7558 lb) curb weight - 2006 Hummer H1 Alpha ===Other=== * Largest disc brake - 406 mm (16 in) - 2004 Bentley Continental GT ==Power== ===Most power=== *Petrol/gasoline - (naturally-aspirated) - 650 hp (485 kW) - 2003 Ferrari Enzo V12 (Note: the Enzo's status is disputed since the car was not available for sale to the public but to a private group of individuals selected by Ferrari) ** Honorable mention: 627 hp (6.1 liter V12)- McLaren F1 (Note: this is the most powerful undisputed car on the list though it is not currently in production) ** Honorable mention: 624 hp - 2004 Maserati MC12 (note: Maserati and Ferrari are now owned by Fiat the MC12 uses a detuned version of the same V12 engine in the Ferrari Enzo and is the most powerful, publically-offered car currently in production) ** Honorable mention: The TVR Cerbera Speed 12 prototype produced an estimated 940 bhp (701 kW) (the central shaft of TVR's dynomometer snapped before they could complete the test) but the car never entered production ** Front-wheel drive: 300 hp SAE (223 kW) - 2002 Cadillac Seville and Cadillac Eldorado *Petrol/Gasoline - (forced-induction) - 806 hp SAE (601 kW) - 2004 Koenigsegg CCR supercharged V8 *Diesel - 325 hp SAE (242 kW) - Ford Ford Power Stroke engine, 2004 Ford Excursion ===Most torque=== *Petrol (naturally-aspirated) - 2003 Dodge Viper SRT-10 - 712 Nm (525 ft·lbf) - 8.3 liter (505 in³) V10 engine. *Petrol (forced-induction) - 2003 Mercedes CL ''65 AMG'' - 1000 Nm (736 ft·lbf) - 6.0 liter (366 in³) turbocharged V12 engine. *Diesel - 2005 Dodge Ram (Cummins 610 Turbodiesel), 826 Nm (610 ft·lbf) ===Most specific power (power to weight ratio)=== * 100–200 hp — 288.75 hp/ton (7.6 lb/hp) — Lotus 340R, 190 hp (142 kW) and 658 kg (1451 lb) * 200–300 hp — 266 hp/ton (8.5 lb/hp) — 1994 TVR Griffith 4.3 liter 280 hp (209 kW) and 1080 kg (2381 lb) * 300–400 hp — 381 hp/ton (5.8 lb/hp) — 2003 TVR Tuscan S 400 hp (298 kW) and 1050 kg (2315 lb) * 500+ hp — 620 bhp/ton (3.2 lb/hp) — 2004 Koenigsegg CCR supercharged V8 806 hp (468 kW) and 1180 kg (2513 lb) ===Most specific engine output (power per unit volume)=== *Naturally-aspirated rotary engine - 191.1 hp (140.5 kW)/liter - Mazda_RX-8 ''Mazda Wankel engine#Renesis'' (250 hp (184 kW) Japanese Industrial Standard 1.3 L) *Forced-induction rotary engine - 214.1 hp (157.4 kW)/liter - 2003 Mazda_RX-7 Type R Bathurst'' Mazda Wankel engine#13B'' (280 hp (206 kW) Japanese Industrial Standard 1.3 L) *Petrol/Gasoline (naturally-aspirated) piston engine - 125 hp (92 kW)/liter - 2000 Honda S2000 ''Honda F20C engine'' (250 hp (184 kW) JIS 2.0 L I4) :''Note:'' The 250 bhp (186 kW) version was available in Japan only. For the rest of the world, the engine produced 240 bhp. Also, the 2.0 L engine is no longer available in North America, it has been replaced by a 240 hp (109 hp/L) 2.2 L ''Honda F20C engine'' :* Honorable mention: 168 hp (125.3 kW)/liter - 2002 Radical Motorsport ''SR3'' (252 hp (184 kW) 1.5 L I4) - (''Note:'' The Radical's status as a production car is disputed, and numbers refer to the competition version, there is no official data for the road version) *Petrol/Gasoline (forced-induction) piston engine - 202.9 hp (151.3 kW) per liter (302.13 kW (405.2 hp), 1997cc turbo ''Mitsubishi 4G6x engine'' I4) - 2005 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution (''UK-only, classification is disputed as the car is not manufactured by Mitsubishi but rather the UK distributor'') ** Honorable mention: 191.48 bhp/liter (720 bhp 3,760 cc V12 twin-turbo) - B Engineering Edonis **Honorable mention: 171.4 hp (126 kW)/liter (600 hp (441 kW) DIN 3.5L V12 quad-turbo) - Bugatti EB110 ''Super Sport'' *Diesel (naturally-aspirated) - 45.4 hp (33.4 kW)/litre (136 hp (100 kW) DIN 3.0 L I6) - 1995 Mercedes-Benz E-Class *Diesel (forced-induction) - 91 hp (67.5 kW)/litre (272 hp (200 kW) DIN 3.0 L I6 twin-turbo) - 2005 BMW 5-Series ===Most specific torque (torque per unit volume)=== *Petrol (naturally-aspirated) - 114 Nm (84 ft.lbf)/litre (370 Nm (273 ft.lbf)) - 2003 BMW M3 ''CSL'' *Petrol (forced-induction) - 206.6 Nm (152.2 ft.lbf)/litre (412 Nm (304 ft.lbf)) - 2004 Subaru Impreza ''WRX STi'' (japanese market) ** Honorable mention: 233.6 Nm (172.1 ft.lbf)/litre - 700 Nm/516&ft.lbf Dauer 962, road-going Porsche 962 replica *Diesel - 187.1 Nm (138 ft.lbf)/litre (560 Nm (413 ft.lbf)) - 2005 BMW 5-Series ===Least specific engine output (power per unit volume)=== * Petrol - 22.5 hp (16.8 kW)/litre (115 hp (85.8 kW) 5.1 L V8) - 1973 Chevrolet Small-Block engine * Diesel - 18.4 hp (13.7 kW)/litre (105 hp (78.3 kW) 5.7 L V8) - 1980 Oldsmobile V8 engine#LF9 ==Performance== * Highest USA EPA mileage - 61/66 mpg - 2005 Honda Insight 5-speed * Highest not EPA rated mileage - 67/67 mpg - 1955–64 Messerschmitt KR200 4-speed (reverse by running engine backward) * Lowest EU average fuel consumption - 2.99 L/100 km (78.6 mpg (US)) - 2002 VW Lupo 1.2 TDI 5-speed * Quickest 0-60 mph: ** 3.2 s - 2001 Koenigsegg CCR ***Honorable mention - 3.1 sec - 2004 Caterham Cars - (''Note:'' the Caterham's status as a "production car" is disputed) ***Honorable mention - 2.8 seconds - 2005 Ultima GTR [http://www.ultimasports.co.uk/newrecord.html] - (''Note:'' production numbers for GTR are not available and the GTR's status as a "production car" is disputed) ** Sports car (4 seat) - 3.8 s - 2000 TVR Cerbera (4.5 liter version) ** 4-door car - 3.5 s - 2005 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution 2.0 L (''Note:'' the FQ400's status as a "production car" is disputed) ** Pickup truck - 4.9 s - 2004 Dodge Ram ''SRT-10'' * Quickest 0-100-0 mph: **Sports car (2 seat) - 11.5 sec - McLaren F1 LM (''Note:'' this is the best 0-100-0 time for an undisputed production car) ***Honorable mention: 9.8 seconds - 2005 Ultima GTR [http://www.ultimasports.co.uk/newrecord.html] - (''Note:'' production numbers for GTR are not available and the GTR's status as a "production car" is disputed) ***Honorable mention: 10.73 sec - 2004 Caterham 500 - (''Note:'' the Caterham's status as a "production car" is disputed) * Highest top speed: ** Sports car - 390 km/h (242.4 mph) - Koenigsegg CCR ** 4-door car - 282 km/h (175 mph) - 1989 General Motors Omega ** Pickup truck - 249 km/h (154.6 mph) - 2004 Dodge Ram SRT-10 ==Sales== :''See also List of bestselling vehicle nameplates'' * Best-selling models: ** Best-selling car nameplate - Toyota Corolla ''(more than 27,000,000 sold in nine generations since 1966)'' ** Best-selling vehicle nameplate - Ford F-Series ''(more than 29,000,000 sold since 1948)'' ** Best-selling single model - Volkswagen Beetle ''(more than 21,000,000 of the same basic design sold worldwide between 1947 and 2003)'' ** Best-selling sports car - Ford Mustang ''(more than 7,800,000 of five generations sold between 1964 and 2004)'' ** Best-selling 2-seat car - Mazda Miata ''(more than 700,000 of two generations sold between 1989 and 2004)'' ** Best single-year sales - over 912,000 - 2004 Ford F-Series ''(23 years in a row as the top-selling single vehicle, 28 years as the best-selling truck in the USA)'' * Lowest-production models: ''(excluding limited-production vehicles)'' ** Pickup truck - avg. 223 per month, Lincoln Blackwood ''(3,356 sold in 15 months)'' ** Sports car - avg. 6 per month, Toyota 2000GT ''(337 sold in 5 years)'' *** Honorable mention: avg. 79 per month, Bricklin SV-1 ''(2,857 sold in 3 years)'' ** SUV - avg. 4 per month, Lamborghini LM002 ''(301 sold in 6 years)'' *** Honorable mention: avg. 200 per month, Suzuki X-90 ''(7,205 sold in 3 years)'' * Marques and manufacturers: ** World's top-selling manufacturer, 2004 - General Motors, followed by Toyota and Ford Motor Company ** United States top-selling marque, 2004 - Tie, Ford and Chevrolet ''(each has a valid claim depending on which models are included)'' ==Firsts== Full-production vehicles are listed here. Many were preceded by racing-only cars. * First automobile manufacturer - Panhard (1889) (followed by Peugeot in 1891) * First standardized automobile - Benz Velo (1894) * First mass-produced automobile - Oldsmobile Curved Dash (1901) ===Engine types=== * V4 ** First V4 - 1922 Lancia Lambda *** Honorable mention - 1903 Marmon ''(few produced)'' * Straight-6 ** First 6-cylinder - 1903 Napier * V6 ** First V6 - 1950 Lancia Aurelia *** Honorable mention - 1904 Marmon ''(few produced)'' ** First American V6 - 1962 Buick Special * Straight-8 ** First I8 - 1919 Isotta-Fraschini *** Honorable mention - 1920 Duesenberg * V8 ** First V8 - 1910 De Dion-Bouton *** Honorable mention - 1904 Marmon ''(few produced)'' ** First mass-produced V8 - 1914 Cadillac ** First mass-produced monobloc V8 - 1932 Ford Model B ** First OHV V8 - 1949 Oldsmobile V8 engine/Cadillac V8 engine#1949 * V10 ** First V10 - 1992 Dodge Viper ** First V10 sedan - 2004 Volkswagen Phaeton * V12 ** First V12 - 1916 Packard "Double-Six" *W12 ** First W12 - 2002 Volkswagen Phaeton (5998cc W12 engine - four banks of three cylinders) *V16 ** First V16 - 1930 Cadillac V-16 *** Honorable mention - 1931 Marmon and 1932 Peerless *W16 **The Bugatti Veyron is expected to be the first production car from a major manufacturer to use a W16 engine, however, several smaller firms have either developed prototyped or produced small numbers of cars - including the Jimenez Novia which used a 4.1 liter W16 based on four I4 Yamaha motorcycle engines. *W18 **No production cars yet are known to use a W-18 configuration, however Bugatti has experimented with both three-bank and four-bank designed for various concept cars. ===Engine technologies=== * First carburettor - 1896 Daimler * First overhead cam engine - 1898 Wilkinson Motor Car Company * First variable displacement engine - 1905 Sturtevant 38/45 six ** Honorable mention - 1917 Enger Motor Car Twin-Unit Twelve * First DOHC engine - 1925 Alfa Romeo Alfa Romeo 6C ''(Peugeot had a DOHC multivalve Grand Prix car in 1913)'' * Multi-valve engines ** First 3-valve engine - 1924 Bugatti Bugatti Type 35 ''(Bugatti Type 18 had a 3-valve in 1912, but only 6 or 7 were made. Type 35 used the engine from the 1922 Bugatti Type 29 racing car.)'' ** First 4-valve engine - 1931 Bugatti Bugatti Type 51 DOHC *** Honorable mentions - An SOHC 4-valve engine appeared in 1910's Bugatti Type 13 racing car, while a 4-valve straight-4 was also developed by Bugatti in 1914. The Linthwaite-Hussey Motor Company of Los Angeles manufactured and advertized a four-valve straight-4 engine in 1916. ** First 5-valve engine - 1991 ''tie'' Bugatti EB110 3.5 L V12 and Toyota ''Toyota A engine#20 Valve 4A-GE'' I4 ** First 3-valve Diesel - 1989 Citroën Citroën XM ** First 4-valve Diesel - 1994 Mercedes-Benz Mercedes-Benz E-Class ** First multi-valve turbocharged engine - 1984 Saab Automobile Saab 900 ''Saab H engine#B204'' * First carburetor air filter - 1915 Packard Twin Six ** Honorable mention - 1922 Rickenbacker had a modern dry element * First crankcase ventilation - 1926 Cadillac V8 engine * First automatic choke - 1932 Oldsmobile * First four-barrel carburetor - 1941 Buick * Fuel injection ** First FI engine - 1910 Adams Farwell Diesel ** First non-Diesel FI engine - 1952 Gutbrod Gutbrod Superior *** Honorable mention - 1955 Mercedes-Benz 300SL ** First electronic fuel injection - 1968 Bosch D-Jetronic - Volkswagen VW Type 3/VW Type 4 * First turbocharged car - 1962 Oldsmobile Cutlass ''Oldsmobile V8 engine#Turbo Jetfire'' and Chevrolet Corvair ''Chevrolet Corvair engine'' * First variable-nozzle turbocharger - 1989 Shelby CSX * First point ignition - 1910 Cadillac/Delco * First electronic ignition - 1960 General Motors Delco * First flat-engine - 1905 Knox (automobile) * First Oversquare engine - 1906 Premier (automobile) * First monobloc engine with removable cylinder head - 1908 Ford Model T * First counterbalanced crankshaft - 1908 Mercer Type 35 * First V8 crankshaft - 1923 Cadillac V8 engine * First gas turbine car - 1950 Rover (car) JET 1 ''(Experimental only; no gas turbine car ever reached real production)'' * Wankel engines ** First Wankel engine - 1964 NSU Motorenwerke AG Spider ** First 2-rotor Wankel engine - 1965 Mazda Cosmo ''(60 preproduction examples were produced and registered)'' *** Honorable mention - 1966 NSU RO80 ''(Preceded the production Cosmo by one year)'' ** First 3-rotor Wankel engine - 1991 Mazda Cosmo *** Honorable mentions - 1969 Mercedes-Benz C111 and 1970 Felix Wankel-refitted Mercedes-Benz 300SL ''(Not production cars)'' * First Miller cycle engine - 1996 Mazda Millenia * First Atkinson cycle engine - 2004 Toyota Prius * First modern hybrid car - 1997 Toyota Prius (Japan) ===Body=== * First production closed-body car - 1910 Cadillac * First monocoque - 1924 Lancia Lambda ** Honorable mentions - 1917 Ruler Four ''(few produced)'', 1934 Citroën Traction Avant * First coupe convertible - 1934 Peugeot 401 D Eclipse * First fiberglass body - 1953 Chevrolet Corvette and Kaiser Darrin * First MPV - 1956 Fiat 600 * First convertible - 1957 Ford Skyliner * First hatchback - 1958 Austin A40 Farina ''(first conventional hatchback hinged from top of the rear door was Austin A40 Farina-based Austin A40 Farina#Innocenti of 1962)'' * First fiberglass monocoque - 1959 Lotus Elite * First crossover SUV – 1980 AMC Eagle * First Graphite-reinforced_plastic monocoque - 1991 McLaren F1 ===Transmission=== * First synchronized transmission - 1929 Cadillac (automobile) * First overdrive - 1934 Chrysler Airflow * First automatic transmission - 1938 Oldsmobile/Cadillac "Hydra-Matic" ''(1934 REO was a pair of self-shifting manuals)'' * First torque converter automatic - 1948 Buick "Dynaflow" * First modern cone synchromesh transmission - 1952 Porsche Porsche 356 * First five-speed gearbox - 1953 Ferrari 212 * First limited slip differential - 1956 Studebaker * First continuously variable transmission - 1958 DAF 600 "A-Type" * First six-speed gearbox - 1986 Porsche 959 ** Honorable mention: 1986 Honda Civic Wagon 4WD * First seven-speed gearbox - 2003 Mercedes-Benz Mercedes-Benz 7G-TRONIC ===Layout=== * First RR layout car - 1896 Hertel (automobile) * First front wheel drive - 1929 Cord Automobile L29 ** Honorable mention - 1900 Pennington Car Company and 1928 Alvis Cars ''(did not sell more than 150 units)'' ** Honorable mention - 1934 Citroën Traction Avant * First transverse front wheel drive - 1949 Saab 92 ** Honorable mention - 1959 Mini ** First transverse front wheel drive Straight-5 - 1993 Volvo 850 ** First transverse front wheel drive V8 - 1985 Cadillac DeVille * First four wheel drive vehicle - 1898 Lohner-Porsche [http://leo.worldonline.es/jaumepor/angles/porsches/loh_porsche.htm] ** Honorable mention - First mechanical 4WD 1902 Jacobus Spyker * First all wheel drive car - 1966 Jensen FF ''(Bugatti created an AWD racer, the Bugatti Type 53, in 1932)'' * First FR layout transaxle - 1950 Lancia Aurelia ''(the 1914 Stutz Bearcat featured a primitive transaxle)'' * First MR layout car - 1957 Zündapp Janus (or possibly the 1923 Benz Drop-Shaped racer) * First MR layout all wheel drive car - 1990 Panther Solo ===Suspension=== * First torsion bar suspension - 1921 Leyland Motors * First front independent suspension - 1924 Lancia Lambda * First hydraulic shock absorbers - 1933 Hudson (automobile) (Monroe) * First coil spring/shock absorber suspension - 1934 Cadillac, Chrysler, and Hudson (automobile) * First MacPherson strut suspension - 1950 Ford Consul * First Chapman strut suspension - 1958 Lotus Elite * First air suspension (vehicle) - 1958 Cadillac Brougham ** Honorable mentions - 1909 Cowley and 1933 Stout-Scarab (Firestone) * First electronically-controlled suspension - 1985 Nissan Maxima (Japan-market model) ===Brakes=== * First power brakes - 1919 Hispano-Suiza Hispano-Suiza H6 (mechanically assisted) ** Honorable mention - 1921 Duesenberg Model A * First vacuum-assist power brakes - 1928 Pierce-Arrow * First standard disc brakes - 1956 Triumph TR3, Girling (car) ''(Jaguar (car) pioneered disc brakes at 24 Hours of Le Mans in 1953)'' * First antilock braking system - 1966 Jensen FF (Dunlop Maxaret system, previously used in aviation) ** First electrical antilock braking system - 1969 Lincoln Continental Mark III *** Honorable mention - 1970 Cadillac (automobile) (rear only) ** First electronic antilock braking system - 1986 Lincoln Mark VII/Lincoln Continental and Chevrolet Corvette * First emergency brake#Electric parking brake - 2003 Lincoln LS * First diagonally split, dual brake circuits - 1962 Saab 95/Saab 96 * First asbestos-free brake pads - 1983 Saab Automobile ===Driver-aids=== * First standard rear-view mirror - 1912 Marmon * First power steering - 1951 Imperial (automobile) * First cruise control - 1957 Imperial (automobile) ** Honorable mention - Peerless had a centrifugal governor speed control system in the 1910s * First GPS navigation system - 1983 Honda Accord * First traction control - 1987 Bosch Mercedes-Benz S-Class/BMW 7-Series * First dynamic stability control system - 1996 Bosch/BMW ** Honorable mention - 1997 Cadillac * First night vision - 2000 Cadillac DeVille ===Passive-restraint=== * First airbags - 1974 General Motors vehicles * First head airbags - 1998 BMW 7-Series ===Tires=== * First use of pneumatic tires - 1895 Peugeot L'Eclair (Michelin) * First standard pneumatic tires - 1896 Bollee Voiturette * First radial-ply tires - 1949 Michelin "X" ''(patented in 1946) * First self-repairing tires - 1950 Goodyear ===headlight/electrical=== * First electrical lighting - 1898 Columbia (automobile) electric * First standard lights - 1904 "Prest-O-Lite" acetylene * First standard electrical lights - 1908 Peerless * First integrated electrical and lighting system - 1912 Cadillac (automobile) Delco * First "dipping" headlights - 1915 Guide Lamp Company * First dual-beam headlight - 1924 Bilux * First swivel headlights - 1936 Tatra (car) Tatra T77 * First fog lights - 1938 Cadillac (automobile) * First electric windows - 1938 Buick Y * First rear window defogger - 1948 Cadillac (automobile) * First combination key and ignition switch - 1949 Chrysler * First auto-dimming headlights - 1952 Cadillac (automobile) ''Autronic Eye'' * First Alternating current alternator - 1960 Plymouth Valiant * First auto-on/off headlights - 1964 Cadillac (automobile) ''Twilight Sentinel'' * First halogen headlights - 1965 Hella * First sealed battery (electricity) - 1971 Pontiac "Freedom Battery" * First modern U.S.-market car with sealed beam headlights - 1984 Lincoln Mark VII * First multiplexed wiring - 1987 Cadillac Allanté * First alternating current High-intensity discharge lamp lights - 1991 BMW E32 * First direct current High-intensity discharge lamp lights - 1997 Lincoln Mark VIII * First neon lights - 1997 Lincoln Mark VIII * First all-light-emitting diode tail lights - 1998 Maserati 3200 GT ===Other=== * First tilt-away steering wheel - 1912 Peerless * First dash-mounted fuel tank gauge - 1914 Studebaker * First original-equipment radio - 1923 Springfield (automobile) * First windshield defroster - 1928 Studebaker * First air conditioning - 1938 Studebaker Commander ''(1939 Packard and 1941 Cadillac (automobile) were next)'' * First windshield washer - 1937 Studebaker * First Fibre reinforced plastic wheels - 1989 Shelby CSX * First differential (mechanics)#Active differential - 1997 Honda Prelude ''SH'' - ''(The 2005 Ferrari F430 and Acura RL feature the first fully-integrated electronic differentials)'' * First split folding rear seats - 1961 Renault 4 (''Fiat patented the system in 1978'') * First tilt/telescope steering wheel - 1965 Cadillac (automobile) * First heated seats - 1966 Cadillac (automobile) ** Honorable mention - 1972 Saab 99 * First automatic climate control - 1964 Cadillac (automobile) * First digital climate control - 1975 Rolls-Royce Camargue * First ventilated seats - 1997 Saab 9-5 ===American types=== * First standardized American automobile - Duryea Motor Wagon (1896) * First American electric car - Detroit Electric (1907) * First American hybrid car - Honda Insight * First American hybrid car SUV - Ford Escape Hybrid ==Pre-War== * Best-selling pre-war vehicle - Ford Model-T ''(15,000,000 sold between 1908 and 1928)'' * Least-expensive full-featured automobile - 1927 Ford Model-T ''($300 is about $3200 in inflation-adjusted 2004 dollars)'' * Largest vehicle - Bugatti Royale - 21 ft (6.4 m) long, 180 in (4.57 m) or 170 in (4.32 m) wheelbase depending on model * Largest pre-war I4 - 12.9 L (12867 cc/785 in³) - 1903 Bugatti Bugatti Type 5 * Largest pre-war I6 - 13.5 L (13518 cc/824.8 in³) - 1914 Peerless and Pierce-Arrow ''(tie)'' * Largest pre-war I8 - 12.8 L (12763 cc/778 in³) - 1929 Bugatti Royale ==See also== * [http://www.classicautoprints.com/history.html Classic Auto Prints' Automobile History Timeline] Automobiles
:''See also Talk:List of automotive superlatives/Archive'' ---- 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 [http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk/company/history.asp], 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 [http://www.madderthanmost.com/carnews13154.htm] "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? --User: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 [http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk 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 [http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk/evolution/key_features.asp?strCar1=QD5 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. --User: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? --User: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... --User: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?--User: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? --User: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.--User: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. --User: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 [http://www.drive.com.au/editorial/article.aspx?id=1301&vf=1]), 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?--User:JonGwynne 17:39, 10 May 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? User: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 !). User: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. --User: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. User: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. User: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. User:Ericd 18:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) Are you guys ''sure'' about the Zonda production numbers? I was working on Pagani Zonda 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. --User:Sfoskett 21:18, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC) ::[http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=101088 Autoweek reviewed 7.3L roadster number 8 in 2004] so presumably eight roadsters were built. [http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=5696 this article] has 6.0 and 7.0 production numbers, 5 and 15, respectively. --User:Sfoskett 21:38, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC) :::An answer. Car and Driver [http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=29&article_id=9049&page_number=1 reports] that 14 7.3 L C12S cars have been built as of February 2005. It's not 20, but it's not 2 either... --User:Sfoskett 04:23, Apr 20, 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... --User:Sfoskett 18:01, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) I found [http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=43473] (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. // User: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. User:TomTheHand 16:19, May 6, 2005 (UTC) : The forum at the [http://www.listercars.co.uk/cgi-bin/forum/index.cgi?board=news;action=display;num=1057846064 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. --User: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 ;-) User:TomTheHand 18:22, May 6, 2005 (UTC) ::: Uh, oh - Supercars.net [http://www.supercars.net/cars/1007.html reports] that just three road Storms were built. And Lister now uses all Chevy V8 engines. Perhaps those 25 cars are V8 LMP or GT models, not the original V12 Storm? I just wrote up Lister Storm about the Storm and found this troubling... --User:Sfoskett 18:49, Jun 13, 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 [http://www.fia.com/sport/Homologations/Europe/countries/great_britain.html 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. --User:Pc13 20:10, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC) == Tuner cars == So what defines a tuner car as opposed to a small-volume car? In other words, is the [http://www.saleen.com/s281_main.htm 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 [http://www.roushperf.com/# 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? --User: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. User: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. --User: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?--User: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 [http://www.saab-performance.com/] (the 305 bhp 9-5 would be the most powerfull front wheel drive if this was allowed). // User:Liftarn ::Yes, but since it is a tuner car, it isn't. So I'm removing it from the main article.--User: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. // User: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?--User: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. // User: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. --User: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." [http://www.saabnet.com/tsn/press/020319.html] // User: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].--User: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. [http://www.shellkonto.nu/carmania/members/taxi103_e.htm] // User: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? --User:JonGwynne 16:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC) == 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? --User:Sfoskett 19:26, May 6, 2005 (UTC) :To the best of my knowledge, the Maserati 3200 had the first LED brakelights. --User:JonGwynne 03:02, 2 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? User: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. User: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). // User: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). --User: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. User: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. --User:JonGwynne 00:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC) == Mosler MT900 production == My edits got squashed by Pc13, I think accidently. I'm adding them here: User: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. User: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? User:TomTheHand 21:52, May 9, 2005 (UTC) According to Warren Mosler himself, in a [http://www.moslerauto.com/wwwboard/messages/4979.shtml 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. --User: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? --User: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. User: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... --User: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. User: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. User: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. --User: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. --User: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?--User:JonGwynne 16:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC) I'm not familiar with the Diablo point. Can you summarize? --User: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 User: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! --User: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. User: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. // User: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. --User: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. --User: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). --User: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. User: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. --User: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)." [http://www.verdictoncars.com/jsp/vocmain.jsp?lnk=701&featureid=3&pageid=9]. 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? --User: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. User: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? --User: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. User:TomTheHand 16:21, May 25, 2005 (UTC) :::::::::Yes you did wipe out other people's work. Here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_automotive_superlatives&diff=14197727&oldid=14181936] is what you did. And you've still failed to justify your reverts - why do you insist on making them? --User: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 [http://www.pininfarina.it/eng/press/geneva2003/e_f_enzo.html], [http://www.elegant-lifestyle.com/Ferrari-Enzo-Ferrari.htm], [http://www.italiaspeed.com/news_2002_18.html], 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. User: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. --User: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. --User: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. --User: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. --User: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).--User: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 [http://www.supercars.net/cars/2004@$Maserati@$MC12x.html]. 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. --User: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. --User: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). --User: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. --User: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 [http://www.automobilrevue.ch/ 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. --User: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. --User:JonGwynne 01:25, 5 Jun 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 [http://www.lotuscars.com/lotus.html Lotus], [http://www.caterham.co.uk/showroom/index.htm Caterham] and [http://www.mclarencars.com/content/sections/mainfr/cars.htm 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. --User: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 [http://media.mg-rover.com/rover/mshows_press_packs/model_packs/2004/25/en/25presspack.doc press-release], and compare the PS values to those on the website. And [http://www.bentleymedia.com/en/html/news/cars/469.html 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? --User:Pc13 16:58, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC) :::Yes, actually, the relevant information can be found at McLaren's website [http://www.mclarencars.com/content/sections/mainfr/cars.htm] - 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: [http://www.speedheads.de/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2964]. QED. --User: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?--User: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. --User:JonGwynne 19:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) "kW" is only used [http://www.mclarencars.com/content/sections/press/slr99.htm 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. --User: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. --User:Sfoskett 01:41, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC) : The [http://www.bmwworld.com/engines/12cyl.htm 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. --User: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 [http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=9402&page_number=3 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. --User:Sfoskett 15:42, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC) :::Here's a link to a physics textbook that lists the F1's output as 468 kW (a.k.a. 627 bhp/636 PS) [http://hypertextbook.com/physics/mechanics/power/] and lists McLaren's web site as a reference to the figure (though they don't say where on the site they found the info). --User:JonGwynne 16:45, 9 Jun 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 ** Car and Driver - July 2003 [http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=6734&page_number=2] ** Car and Driver - May 2005 [http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=9402&page_number=3] ** BMW World - [http://www.bmwworld.com/engines/12cyl.htm] ** Bimmer Forums - Engine FAQ [http://www.bimmerforums.com/engine_faq/] * 627 hp ** Motor Trend - April 2005 [http://motortrend.com/future/spied/112_0504_bugatti/index1.html] ** Road and Track - July 2003 [http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=627&page_number=7] ** Road and Track - December 2002 [http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?print_page=y§ion_id=31&article_id=392&page_number=1&preview=] ** Supercars.net [http://www.supercars.net/cars/1177.html] (also lists output as 468 kW) ** Autocar road test - [http://www.classicandsportscar.com/Roadtest_Summary.asp?RT=204160&linkMake=135&linkModel=25270&linkEdition=44261] ** Top Gear [http://www.topgear.com/jsp/individualRoadTest.jsp?carType=used&mCode=ZC&rCode=YY&mDesc=Mclaren&rDesc=F1&roadTestNumber=01.html] Still no definitive source. Car and Driver seems sure that it's 618, while the others say it's 627. --User: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'' * Horsepower#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. -- User: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. --User:Sfoskett 01:36, Jun 18, 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. --User: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." User: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. User: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. User: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. User: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. User: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? --User:Sfoskett 19:02, May 24, 2005 (UTC) Goodness, it's difficult to find information about these cars! User: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 [http://www.4wdonline.com/ClassicTrucks/CaldwellVale.html] 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... // User: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. User: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. User:Morven 15:51, May 25, 2005 (UTC) ::::Beg to differ on the Jensen FF, the Spyker Spyker 60/80 HP was clearly made for racing. // User:Liftarn :::::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. // User:Liftarn :::::Was it a permanently engaged AWD system or just a get-out-of-trouble part-time one? User: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. // User: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 http://www.4wdonline.com/A/History.html 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. User: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 Auto * First all wheel drive car - 1966 Jensen FF ** Honorable mention - 1902 Jacobus Spyker ''(One produced)'' ** Honorable mention - 1932 Bugatti Type 53 ''(Three produced)'' ** Honorable mention - 1958 Citroën 2CV ''(Dual-engine all wheel drive)'' :Thoughts? --User: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." User: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. --User: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. --User: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. --User: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. --User: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. --User: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. --User: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. --User:JonGwynne 05:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) * Bump to HM - User: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. --User: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. --User:Sfoskett 18:16, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC) * Bump to HM until street-legal performance figures available. User: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. User:TomTheHand 12:34, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC) :I agree - perhaps a link to engine displacement, horsepower, and torque would be sufficient? --User: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. --User: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. --User: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? --User: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. User: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. --User: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. User:TomTheHand 16:05, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) :::::::: But not in this form - which is specifically formatted to facilitate and clarify comparisons... --User:JonGwynne 07:02, 18 Jun 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... --User: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. User: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. --User: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. User: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. User: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. --User: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. User:TomTheHand 12:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) ::: Check out this history piece in [http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=103&i=7138 Pistonheads]. The 2.1-second mark was, apparently, made by Stig Blomqvist in a race-prepared car, and isn't even canonic. --User: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 http://www.rs200.org/ 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! User: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). --User: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? User:TomTheHand 16:22, Jun 17, 2005 (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. -- User:Prometheus235 21:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :That's a good point - it should at least get an HM --User:JonGwynne 14:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with List_of_automotive_superlatives:
List_of_automotive_superlatives
List_of_automotive_superlatives
List_of_automotive_superlatives/Archive
List of automotive superlatives
This page lists Wiktionary:superlatives of the automobile industry - that is, the smallest, largest, fastest, lightest, best-selling, and other such topics. In order to keep the entries relevant, the list (except for the #Firsts section) will be limited to automobiles built after World War II. Many odd vehicles emerged in the early days of the automobile industry. There is #Pre-War for early superlatives, however. The list will also be limited to production road cars that meet the following conditions: # 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 # They must be street-legal in their intended markets and capable of passing any tests or inspections required to be granted this status # They must have been built for retail sale to consumers for their personal use on public roads - no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible ==Some notes about units of measurement used herein...== ===Engine Capacity/Displacement=== *1 liter = 1,000 cubic centimeters = 61.0237 cubic inches *1 cubic inch = 16.3871 cubic centimeters ===Engine Output=== Power *1 horsepower (hp) = 1 brake horsepower (bhp) = 1.0139 metric horsepower (PS) = 0.7457 kilowatts (kW) *1 metric horsepower = 0.9863 horsepower = 0.7355 kilowatts *1 kilowatt = 1.3410 horsepower = 1.3596 metric horsepower Torque *1 pound-foot of torque (lb-ft) = 1.3558 Newton-meter (nM) *1 Newton-meter = 0.7376 pound-feet ===Fuel Economy=== *1 mile per US Gallon = 1.2009 miles per Imperial Gallon = 0.4252 kilometers per liter = 235.208 liters per 100 kilometers *1 mile per Imperial Gallon = 0.8327 miles per US Gallon = 0.3540 kilometers per liter = 282.4731 liters per 100 kilometers *1 kilometer per liter = 2.3521 miles per US Gallon = 2.8247 miles per Imperial Gallon *1 liter per 100 kilometers = 235.208 miles per US Gallon = 2824731 miles per Imperial Gallon ==Engine capacity== * Straight-3 ** Smallest I3 engine (petrol) - 0.55 L (543 cc/33 in³) - 1982 Suzuki Cervo ''F5A'' ** Smallest I3 engine (Diesel) - 0.8 L (799 cc/48.8 in³) - 2000 Smart (automobile) ''cdi'' *** Others: 1.0 L (993 cc) - 1984 Daihatsu Charade ** Largest I3 engine (petrol) - 1.2 L (1198 cc/73 in³) - 2002 Volkswagen Polo/Seat Ibiza 1.2 ** Largest I3 engine (Diesel) - 1.8 L (1779 cc/109 in³) - 1984 Alfa Romeo 33 1.8 TD * Straight-4; ** Smallest I4 engine (petrol) - 0.36 L (358 cc/21.8 in³) - 1961 Mazda Carol ''Mazda OHV engine#358'' ** Smallest I4 engine (Diesel) - 1.25 L (1248 cc/65 in³) - 2003 Fiat Panda ''Fiat Multijet'' ** Largest I4 engine (petrol) - 3.2 L (3188 cc/194.5 in³) - 1961 Pontiac Tempest ''Pontiac V8 engine#195'' *** Others: 3.0 L (2990 cc/182 in³) - Porsche 968 ** Largest I4 engine (Diesel) - 4.3 L (4334 cc/278 in³) - Isuzu NKR ''Isuzu 4HF1 engine'' * V4 ** Smallest V4 engine - 0.9 L (903 cc/55 in³) - 1939 Lancia Ardea ''Lancia V4 engine'' ** Largest V4 engine - 2.6 L (2568 cc/157 in³) - 1930 Lancia Lancia Lambda ''Lancia V4 engine'' * Straight-5 ** Smallest I5 engine (petrol) - 1.9 L (1921 cc/117 in³) - 1981 Audi 100 1.9 E ** Smallest I5 engine (Diesel) - 2.0 L (1986 cc/121 in³) - 1978 Audi 100 2.0 D ** Largest I5 engine (petrol) - 3.5 L (3464 cc/211 in³) - 2004 General Motors ''GM Atlas engine#L52'' ** Largest I5 engine (Diesel) - 3.5 L (3469 cc/212 in³) - 1990 Toyota Land Cruiser ''Toyota PZ engine'' Diesel * Straight-6 ** Smallest I6 engine (petrol) - 1.5 L (1500 cc/91 in³) - 1927 Alfa Romeo 1500 ''Alfa Romeo 6C'' ** Smallest I6 engine (Diesel) - 2.4 L (2383 cc/145 in³) - 1979 Volvo 240 ''Volvo D24 engine'' ** Largest I6 engine (petrol) - 4.9 L (4917 cc/300 in³) - 1965 Ford ''Ford Straight-6 engine#300'' ** Largest I6 engine (Diesel) - 5.9 L (5883 cc/359 in³) - 1989 Dodge Ram ''Cummins Cummins B Series engine'' * V6 ** Smallest V6 engine (petrol) - 1.6 L (1597 cc/97 in³) - 1992 Mitsubishi Lancer ''Mitsubishi 6A10 engine'' *** Others: 1.8 L (1845 cc/113 in³) - 1992 Mazda MX-3 ''Mazda K engine#K8'' ** Smallest V6 engine (Diesel) - 2.5 L (2497 cc) - 1996 Audi 2.5 TDi (in multiple cars) ** Largest V6 engine (petrol) - 4.3 L (4300 cc/262 in³) - 1985 General Motors ''GM Vortec engine#4300'' ** Largest V6 engine (Diesel) - 4.3 L (4304 cc/262 in³) - 1982 General Motors ''LT6'' * V8 ** Smallest V8 engine (petrol) - 2.0 L (1990 cc/121 in³) - 1975 Ferrari GT4#208 GT4 *** Others: ATS/BRM/Coventry Climax and Ferrari Formula One 1.5 L V8 engines ''(none of them used into a road car)'' ** Smallest V8 engine (Diesel) - 3.3 L (3328 cc/203 in³) - 2000 Audi A8 ''3.3 TDI'' ** Largest V8 engine (petrol) - 8.1 L (8194 cc/500 in³) - 1970 Cadillac Eldorado ''Cadillac V8 engine#1963'' ** Largest V8 engine (Diesel) - 7.3 L (7275 cc/444 in³) - 1997 Ford F-Series ''Ford Power Stroke engine'' ** Smallest American V8 engine - 3.5 L (3532 cc/215 in³) - 1961 Buick Special ''Buick V8 engine#215'' ** Largest small-block V8 engine - 6.7 L (6689 cc/408 in³) - Ford 335 engine#400 * V10 ** Smallest V10 engine - 4.9 L (4921 cc/301 in³) - Volkswagen Touareg V10 TDI *** Others: 4.0 L - 1992 Yamaha OX99 ''(never produced)'' ** Largest V10 engine - 8.3 L (8277 cc/505 in³) - 2003 Dodge Viper * V12 ** Smallest V12 engine - 2.0 L (1995 cc/122 in³) - 1948 Ferrari 166 ''Ferrari Colombo engine'' ** Largest V12 engine - 7.0 L (6996c cc/427 in³)- 1998 Lister Cars *** Honorable mention: 7.3 L (7291 cc/445 in³) - 2003 Pagani Pagani Zonda C12S used an Aufrecht Melcher Grossaspach-tuned version of that same Mercedes-Benz engine but only 17 examples have been built. * V16 :''Note:'' The 6.0 L (366 in³) V16 in the 1995 Cizeta-Moroder V16T is the only post-war V16 production engine. A 13.6 L V16 was used in the General Motors concept car Cadillac Sixteen. ==Dimensions== ===Overall=== * Shortest (3 wheels) - 1340 mm (52.8 in) - 1962 Peel P50 * Shortest (4 wheels) - 2286 mm (90 in) - 1956 Isetta * Longest - 6,426 mm (253 in) - 1975 Cadillac Fleetwood ** Honorable mention - 6852 mm (269.8 in) - Checker Aerocar ''(Not a consumer vehicle)'' * Lowest * Highest ===Wheelbase=== * Shortest wheelbase - 1500 mm (59.1 in) - 1956 Isetta ** Others: *** 1800 mm (70.9 in) - 2003 Suzuki Twin *** 1812 mm (81.3 in) - 1998 Smart_(automobile) * Longest wheelbase - 151.5 in (3848 mm) - 1971-1976 Cadillac Fleetwood sedan ** Honorable mention - 4800 mm (189 in) - Checker Aerocar (''Not a consumer vehicle'') ===Track=== * Widest track - 1943 mm (76.5 in) - 1961 Jaguar Mark X ===Weight=== * Lightest passenger vehicle (3 wheels) - 59 kg (132 lb) DIN - 1962 Peel P50 * Lightest passenger vehicle (4 wheels) - 350 kg (770 lb) DIN - 1956 Isetta ** Others: *** 370 kg (816 lb) DIN - 1992 LCC Rocket * Heaviest passenger vehicle - 3428 kg (7558 lb) curb weight - 2006 Hummer H1 Alpha ===Other=== * Largest disc brake - 406 mm (16 in) - 2004 Bentley Continental GT ==Power== ===Most power=== *Petrol/gasoline - (naturally-aspirated) - 650 hp (485 kW) - 2003 Ferrari Enzo V12 (Note: the Enzo's status is disputed since the car was not available for sale to the public but to a private group of individuals selected by Ferrari) ** Honorable mention: 627 hp (6.1 liter V12)- McLaren F1 (Note: this is the most powerful undisputed car on the list though it is not currently in production) ** Honorable mention: 624 hp - 2004 Maserati MC12 (note: Maserati and Ferrari are now owned by Fiat the MC12 uses a detuned version of the same V12 engine in the Ferrari Enzo and is the most powerful, publically-offered car currently in production) ** Honorable mention: The TVR Cerbera Speed 12 prototype produced an estimated 940 bhp (701 kW) (the central shaft of TVR's dynomometer snapped before they could complete the test) but the car never entered production ** Front-wheel drive: 300 hp SAE (223 kW) - 2002 Cadillac Seville and Cadillac Eldorado *Petrol/Gasoline - (forced-induction) - 806 hp SAE (601 kW) - 2004 Koenigsegg CCR supercharged V8 *Diesel - 325 hp SAE (242 kW) - Ford Ford Power Stroke engine, 2004 Ford Excursion ===Most torque=== *Petrol (naturally-aspirated) - 2003 Dodge Viper SRT-10 - 712 Nm (525 ft·lbf) - 8.3 liter (505 in³) V10 engine. *Petrol (forced-induction) - 2003 Mercedes CL ''65 AMG'' - 1000 Nm (736 ft·lbf) - 6.0 liter (366 in³) turbocharged V12 engine. *Diesel - 2005 Dodge Ram (Cummins 610 Turbodiesel), 826 Nm (610 ft·lbf) ===Most specific power (power to weight ratio)=== * 100–200 hp — 288.75 hp/ton (7.6 lb/hp) — Lotus 340R, 190 hp (142 kW) and 658 kg (1451 lb) * 200–300 hp — 266 hp/ton (8.5 lb/hp) — 1994 TVR Griffith 4.3 liter 280 hp (209 kW) and 1080 kg (2381 lb) * 300–400 hp — 381 hp/ton (5.8 lb/hp) — 2003 TVR Tuscan S 400 hp (298 kW) and 1050 kg (2315 lb) * 500+ hp — 620 bhp/ton (3.2 lb/hp) — 2004 Koenigsegg CCR supercharged V8 806 hp (468 kW) and 1180 kg (2513 lb) ===Most specific engine output (power per unit volume)=== *Naturally-aspirated rotary engine - 191.1 hp (140.5 kW)/liter - Mazda_RX-8 ''Mazda Wankel engine#Renesis'' (250 hp (184 kW) Japanese Industrial Standard 1.3 L) *Forced-induction rotary engine - 214.1 hp (157.4 kW)/liter - 2003 Mazda_RX-7 Type R Bathurst'' Mazda Wankel engine#13B'' (280 hp (206 kW) Japanese Industrial Standard 1.3 L) *Petrol/Gasoline (naturally-aspirated) piston engine - 125 hp (92 kW)/liter - 2000 Honda S2000 ''Honda F20C engine'' (250 hp (184 kW) JIS 2.0 L I4) :''Note:'' The 250 bhp (186 kW) version was available in Japan only. For the rest of the world, the engine produced 240 bhp. Also, the 2.0 L engine is no longer available in North America, it has been replaced by a 240 hp (109 hp/L) 2.2 L ''Honda F20C engine'' :* Honorable mention: 168 hp (125.3 kW)/liter - 2002 Radical Motorsport ''SR3'' (252 hp (184 kW) 1.5 L I4) - (''Note:'' The Radical's status as a production car is disputed, and numbers refer to the competition version, there is no official data for the road version) *Petrol/Gasoline (forced-induction) piston engine - 202.9 hp (151.3 kW) per liter (302.13 kW (405.2 hp), 1997cc turbo ''Mitsubishi 4G6x engine'' I4) - 2005 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution (''UK-only, classification is disputed as the car is not manufactured by Mitsubishi but rather the UK distributor'') ** Honorable mention: 191.48 bhp/liter (720 bhp 3,760 cc V12 twin-turbo) - B Engineering Edonis **Honorable mention: 171.4 hp (126 kW)/liter (600 hp (441 kW) DIN 3.5L V12 quad-turbo) - Bugatti EB110 ''Super Sport'' *Diesel (naturally-aspirated) - 45.4 hp (33.4 kW)/litre (136 hp (100 kW) DIN 3.0 L I6) - 1995 Mercedes-Benz E-Class *Diesel (forced-induction) - 91 hp (67.5 kW)/litre (272 hp (200 kW) DIN 3.0 L I6 twin-turbo) - 2005 BMW 5-Series ===Most specific torque (torque per unit volume)=== *Petrol (naturally-aspirated) - 114 Nm (84 ft.lbf)/litre (370 Nm (273 ft.lbf)) - 2003 BMW M3 ''CSL'' *Petrol (forced-induction) - 206.6 Nm (152.2 ft.lbf)/litre (412 Nm (304 ft.lbf)) - 2004 Subaru Impreza ''WRX STi'' (japanese market) ** Honorable mention: 233.6 Nm (172.1 ft.lbf)/litre - 700 Nm/516&ft.lbf Dauer 962, road-going Porsche 962 replica *Diesel - 187.1 Nm (138 ft.lbf)/litre (560 Nm (413 ft.lbf)) - 2005 BMW 5-Series ===Least specific engine output (power per unit volume)=== * Petrol - 22.5 hp (16.8 kW)/litre (115 hp (85.8 kW) 5.1 L V8) - 1973 Chevrolet Small-Block engine * Diesel - 18.4 hp (13.7 kW)/litre (105 hp (78.3 kW) 5.7 L V8) - 1980 Oldsmobile V8 engine#LF9 ==Performance== * Highest USA EPA mileage - 61/66 mpg - 2005 Honda Insight 5-speed * Highest not EPA rated mileage - 67/67 mpg - 1955–64 Messerschmitt KR200 4-speed (reverse by running engine backward) * Lowest EU average fuel consumption - 2.99 L/100 km (78.6 mpg (US)) - 2002 VW Lupo 1.2 TDI 5-speed * Quickest 0-60 mph: ** 3.2 s - 2001 Koenigsegg CCR ***Honorable mention - 3.1 sec - 2004 Caterham Cars - (''Note:'' the Caterham's status as a "production car" is disputed) ***Honorable mention - 2.8 seconds - 2005 Ultima GTR [http://www.ultimasports.co.uk/newrecord.html] - (''Note:'' production numbers for GTR are not available and the GTR's status as a "production car" is disputed) ** Sports car (4 seat) - 3.8 s - 2000 TVR Cerbera (4.5 liter version) ** 4-door car - 3.5 s - 2005 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution 2.0 L (''Note:'' the FQ400's status as a "production car" is disputed) ** Pickup truck - 4.9 s - 2004 Dodge Ram ''SRT-10'' * Quickest 0-100-0 mph: **Sports car (2 seat) - 11.5 sec - McLaren F1 LM (''Note:'' this is the best 0-100-0 time for an undisputed production car) ***Honorable mention: 9.8 seconds - 2005 Ultima GTR [http://www.ultimasports.co.uk/newrecord.html] - (''Note:'' production numbers for GTR are not available and the GTR's status as a "production car" is disputed) ***Honorable mention: 10.73 sec - 2004 Caterham 500 - (''Note:'' the Caterham's status as a "production car" is disputed) * Highest top speed: ** Sports car - 390 km/h (242.4 mph) - Koenigsegg CCR ** 4-door car - 282 km/h (175 mph) - 1989 General Motors Omega ** Pickup truck - 249 km/h (154.6 mph) - 2004 Dodge Ram SRT-10 ==Sales== :''See also List of bestselling vehicle nameplates'' * Best-selling models: ** Best-selling car nameplate - Toyota Corolla ''(more than 27,000,000 sold in nine generations since 1966)'' ** Best-selling vehicle nameplate - Ford F-Series ''(more than 29,000,000 sold since 1948)'' ** Best-selling single model - Volkswagen Beetle ''(more than 21,000,000 of the same basic design sold worldwide between 1947 and 2003)'' ** Best-selling sports car - Ford Mustang ''(more than 7,800,000 of five generations sold between 1964 and 2004)'' ** Best-selling 2-seat car - Mazda Miata ''(more than 700,000 of two generations sold between 1989 and 2004)'' ** Best single-year sales - over 912,000 - 2004 Ford F-Series ''(23 years in a row as the top-selling single vehicle, 28 years as the best-selling truck in the USA)'' * Lowest-production models: ''(excluding limited-production vehicles)'' ** Pickup truck - avg. 223 per month, Lincoln Blackwood ''(3,356 sold in 15 months)'' ** Sports car - avg. 6 per month, Toyota 2000GT ''(337 sold in 5 years)'' *** Honorable mention: avg. 79 per month, Bricklin SV-1 ''(2,857 sold in 3 years)'' ** SUV - avg. 4 per month, Lamborghini LM002 ''(301 sold in 6 years)'' *** Honorable mention: avg. 200 per month, Suzuki X-90 ''(7,205 sold in 3 years)'' * Marques and manufacturers: ** World's top-selling manufacturer, 2004 - General Motors, followed by Toyota and Ford Motor Company ** United States top-selling marque, 2004 - Tie, Ford and Chevrolet ''(each has a valid claim depending on which models are included)'' ==Firsts== Full-production vehicles are listed here. Many were preceded by racing-only cars. * First automobile manufacturer - Panhard (1889) (followed by Peugeot in 1891) * First standardized automobile - Benz Velo (1894) * First mass-produced automobile - Oldsmobile Curved Dash (1901) ===Engine types=== * V4 ** First V4 - 1922 Lancia Lambda *** Honorable mention - 1903 Marmon ''(few produced)'' * Straight-6 ** First 6-cylinder - 1903 Napier * V6 ** First V6 - 1950 Lancia Aurelia *** Honorable mention - 1904 Marmon ''(few produced)'' ** First American V6 - 1962 Buick Special * Straight-8 ** First I8 - 1919 Isotta-Fraschini *** Honorable mention - 1920 Duesenberg * V8 ** First V8 - 1910 De Dion-Bouton *** Honorable mention - 1904 Marmon ''(few produced)'' ** First mass-produced V8 - 1914 Cadillac ** First mass-produced monobloc V8 - 1932 Ford Model B ** First OHV V8 - 1949 Oldsmobile V8 engine/Cadillac V8 engine#1949 * V10 ** First V10 - 1992 Dodge Viper ** First V10 sedan - 2004 Volkswagen Phaeton * V12 ** First V12 - 1916 Packard "Double-Six" *W12 ** First W12 - 2002 Volkswagen Phaeton (5998cc W12 engine - four banks of three cylinders) *V16 ** First V16 - 1930 Cadillac V-16 *** Honorable mention - 1931 Marmon and 1932 Peerless *W16 **The Bugatti Veyron is expected to be the first production car from a major manufacturer to use a W16 engine, however, several smaller firms have either developed prototyped or produced small numbers of cars - including the Jimenez Novia which used a 4.1 liter W16 based on four I4 Yamaha motorcycle engines. *W18 **No production cars yet are known to use a W-18 configuration, however Bugatti has experimented with both three-bank and four-bank designed for various concept cars. ===Engine technologies=== * First carburettor - 1896 Daimler * First overhead cam engine - 1898 Wilkinson Motor Car Company * First variable displacement engine - 1905 Sturtevant 38/45 six ** Honorable mention - 1917 Enger Motor Car Twin-Unit Twelve * First DOHC engine - 1925 Alfa Romeo Alfa Romeo 6C ''(Peugeot had a DOHC multivalve Grand Prix car in 1913)'' * Multi-valve engines ** First 3-valve engine - 1924 Bugatti Bugatti Type 35 ''(Bugatti Type 18 had a 3-valve in 1912, but only 6 or 7 were made. Type 35 used the engine from the 1922 Bugatti Type 29 racing car.)'' ** First 4-valve engine - 1931 Bugatti Bugatti Type 51 DOHC *** Honorable mentions - An SOHC 4-valve engine appeared in 1910's Bugatti Type 13 racing car, while a 4-valve straight-4 was also developed by Bugatti in 1914. The Linthwaite-Hussey Motor Company of Los Angeles manufactured and advertized a four-valve straight-4 engine in 1916. ** First 5-valve engine - 1991 ''tie'' Bugatti EB110 3.5 L V12 and Toyota ''Toyota A engine#20 Valve 4A-GE'' I4 ** First 3-valve Diesel - 1989 Citroën Citroën XM ** First 4-valve Diesel - 1994 Mercedes-Benz Mercedes-Benz E-Class ** First multi-valve turbocharged engine - 1984 Saab Automobile Saab 900 ''Saab H engine#B204'' * First carburetor air filter - 1915 Packard Twin Six ** Honorable mention - 1922 Rickenbacker had a modern dry element * First crankcase ventilation - 1926 Cadillac V8 engine * First automatic choke - 1932 Oldsmobile * First four-barrel carburetor - 1941 Buick * Fuel injection ** First FI engine - 1910 Adams Farwell Diesel ** First non-Diesel FI engine - 1952 Gutbrod Gutbrod Superior *** Honorable mention - 1955 Mercedes-Benz 300SL ** First electronic fuel injection - 1968 Bosch D-Jetronic - Volkswagen VW Type 3/VW Type 4 * First turbocharged car - 1962 Oldsmobile Cutlass ''Oldsmobile V8 engine#Turbo Jetfire'' and Chevrolet Corvair ''Chevrolet Corvair engine'' * First variable-nozzle turbocharger - 1989 Shelby CSX * First point ignition - 1910 Cadillac/Delco * First electronic ignition - 1960 General Motors Delco * First flat-engine - 1905 Knox (automobile) * First Oversquare engine - 1906 Premier (automobile) * First monobloc engine with removable cylinder head - 1908 Ford Model T * First counterbalanced crankshaft - 1908 Mercer Type 35 * First V8 crankshaft - 1923 Cadillac V8 engine * First gas turbine car - 1950 Rover (car) JET 1 ''(Experimental only; no gas turbine car ever reached real production)'' * Wankel engines ** First Wankel engine - 1964 NSU Motorenwerke AG Spider ** First 2-rotor Wankel engine - 1965 Mazda Cosmo ''(60 preproduction examples were produced and registered)'' *** Honorable mention - 1966 NSU RO80 ''(Preceded the production Cosmo by one year)'' ** First 3-rotor Wankel engine - 1991 Mazda Cosmo *** Honorable mentions - 1969 Mercedes-Benz C111 and 1970 Felix Wankel-refitted Mercedes-Benz 300SL ''(Not production cars)'' * First Miller cycle engine - 1996 Mazda Millenia * First Atkinson cycle engine - 2004 Toyota Prius * First modern hybrid car - 1997 Toyota Prius (Japan) ===Body=== * First production closed-body car - 1910 Cadillac * First monocoque - 1924 Lancia Lambda ** Honorable mentions - 1917 Ruler Four ''(few produced)'', 1934 Citroën Traction Avant * First coupe convertible - 1934 Peugeot 401 D Eclipse * First fiberglass body - 1953 Chevrolet Corvette and Kaiser Darrin * First MPV - 1956 Fiat 600 * First convertible - 1957 Ford Skyliner * First hatchback - 1958 Austin A40 Farina ''(first conventional hatchback hinged from top of the rear door was Austin A40 Farina-based Austin A40 Farina#Innocenti of 1962)'' * First fiberglass monocoque - 1959 Lotus Elite * First crossover SUV – 1980 AMC Eagle * First Graphite-reinforced_plastic monocoque - 1991 McLaren F1 ===Transmission=== * First synchronized transmission - 1929 Cadillac (automobile) * First overdrive - 1934 Chrysler Airflow * First automatic transmission - 1938 Oldsmobile/Cadillac "Hydra-Matic" ''(1934 REO was a pair of self-shifting manuals)'' * First torque converter automatic - 1948 Buick "Dynaflow" * First modern cone synchromesh transmission - 1952 Porsche Porsche 356 * First five-speed gearbox - 1953 Ferrari 212 * First limited slip differential - 1956 Studebaker * First continuously variable transmission - 1958 DAF 600 "A-Type" * First six-speed gearbox - 1986 Porsche 959 ** Honorable mention: 1986 Honda Civic Wagon 4WD * First seven-speed gearbox - 2003 Mercedes-Benz Mercedes-Benz 7G-TRONIC ===Layout=== * First RR layout car - 1896 Hertel (automobile) * First front wheel drive - 1929 Cord Automobile L29 ** Honorable mention - 1900 Pennington Car Company and 1928 Alvis Cars ''(did not sell more than 150 units)'' ** Honorable mention - 1934 Citroën Traction Avant * First transverse front wheel drive - 1949 Saab 92 ** Honorable mention - 1959 Mini ** First transverse front wheel drive Straight-5 - 1993 Volvo 850 ** First transverse front wheel drive V8 - 1985 Cadillac DeVille * First four wheel drive vehicle - 1898 Lohner-Porsche [http://leo.worldonline.es/jaumepor/angles/porsches/loh_porsche.htm] ** Honorable mention - First mechanical 4WD 1902 Jacobus Spyker * First all wheel drive car - 1966 Jensen FF ''(Bugatti created an AWD racer, the Bugatti Type 53, in 1932)'' * First FR layout transaxle - 1950 Lancia Aurelia ''(the 1914 Stutz Bearcat featured a primitive transaxle)'' * First MR layout car - 1957 Zündapp Janus (or possibly the 1923 Benz Drop-Shaped racer) * First MR layout all wheel drive car - 1990 Panther Solo ===Suspension=== * First torsion bar suspension - 1921 Leyland Motors * First front independent suspension - 1924 Lancia Lambda * First hydraulic shock absorbers - 1933 Hudson (automobile) (Monroe) * First coil spring/shock absorber suspension - 1934 Cadillac, Chrysler, and Hudson (automobile) * First MacPherson strut suspension - 1950 Ford Consul * First Chapman strut suspension - 1958 Lotus Elite * First air suspension (vehicle) - 1958 Cadillac Brougham ** Honorable mentions - 1909 Cowley and 1933 Stout-Scarab (Firestone) * First electronically-controlled suspension - 1985 Nissan Maxima (Japan-market model) ===Brakes=== * First power brakes - 1919 Hispano-Suiza Hispano-Suiza H6 (mechanically assisted) ** Honorable mention - 1921 Duesenberg Model A * First vacuum-assist power brakes - 1928 Pierce-Arrow * First standard disc brakes - 1956 Triumph TR3, Girling (car) ''(Jaguar (car) pioneered disc brakes at 24 Hours of Le Mans in 1953)'' * First antilock braking system - 1966 Jensen FF (Dunlop Maxaret system, previously used in aviation) ** First electrical antilock braking system - 1969 Lincoln Continental Mark III *** Honorable mention - 1970 Cadillac (automobile) (rear only) ** First electronic antilock braking system - 1986 Lincoln Mark VII/Lincoln Continental and Chevrolet Corvette * First emergency brake#Electric parking brake - 2003 Lincoln LS * First diagonally split, dual brake circuits - 1962 Saab 95/Saab 96 * First asbestos-free brake pads - 1983 Saab Automobile ===Driver-aids=== * First standard rear-view mirror - 1912 Marmon * First power steering - 1951 Imperial (automobile) * First cruise control - 1957 Imperial (automobile) ** Honorable mention - Peerless had a centrifugal governor speed control system in the 1910s * First GPS navigation system - 1983 Honda Accord * First traction control - 1987 Bosch Mercedes-Benz S-Class/BMW 7-Series * First dynamic stability control system - 1996 Bosch/BMW ** Honorable mention - 1997 Cadillac * First night vision - 2000 Cadillac DeVille ===Passive-restraint=== * First airbags - 1974 General Motors vehicles * First head airbags - 1998 BMW 7-Series ===Tires=== * First use of pneumatic tires - 1895 Peugeot L'Eclair (Michelin) * First standard pneumatic tires - 1896 Bollee Voiturette * First radial-ply tires - 1949 Michelin "X" ''(patented in 1946) * First self-repairing tires - 1950 Goodyear ===headlight/electrical=== * First electrical lighting - 1898 Columbia (automobile) electric * First standard lights - 1904 "Prest-O-Lite" acetylene * First standard electrical lights - 1908 Peerless * First integrated electrical and lighting system - 1912 Cadillac (automobile) Delco * First "dipping" headlights - 1915 Guide Lamp Company * First dual-beam headlight - 1924 Bilux * First swivel headlights - 1936 Tatra (car) Tatra T77 * First fog lights - 1938 Cadillac (automobile) * First electric windows - 1938 Buick Y * First rear window defogger - 1948 Cadillac (automobile) * First combination key and ignition switch - 1949 Chrysler * First auto-dimming headlights - 1952 Cadillac (automobile) ''Autronic Eye'' * First Alternating current alternator - 1960 Plymouth Valiant * First auto-on/off headlights - 1964 Cadillac (automobile) ''Twilight Sentinel'' * First halogen headlights - 1965 Hella * First sealed battery (electricity) - 1971 Pontiac "Freedom Battery" * First modern U.S.-market car with sealed beam headlights - 1984 Lincoln Mark VII * First multiplexed wiring - 1987 Cadillac Allanté * First alternating current High-intensity discharge lamp lights - 1991 BMW E32 * First direct current High-intensity discharge lamp lights - 1997 Lincoln Mark VIII * First neon lights - 1997 Lincoln Mark VIII * First all-light-emitting diode tail lights - 1998 Maserati 3200 GT ===Other=== * First tilt-away steering wheel - 1912 Peerless * First dash-mounted fuel tank gauge - 1914 Studebaker * First original-equipment radio - 1923 Springfield (automobile) * First windshield defroster - 1928 Studebaker * First air conditioning - 1938 Studebaker Commander ''(1939 Packard and 1941 Cadillac (automobile) were next)'' * First windshield washer - 1937 Studebaker * First Fibre reinforced plastic wheels - 1989 Shelby CSX * First differential (mechanics)#Active differential - 1997 Honda Prelude ''SH'' - ''(The 2005 Ferrari F430 and Acura RL feature the first fully-integrated electronic differentials)'' * First split folding rear seats - 1961 Renault 4 (''Fiat patented the system in 1978'') * First tilt/telescope steering wheel - 1965 Cadillac (automobile) * First heated seats - 1966 Cadillac (automobile) ** Honorable mention - 1972 Saab 99 * First automatic climate control - 1964 Cadillac (automobile) * First digital climate control - 1975 Rolls-Royce Camargue * First ventilated seats - 1997 Saab 9-5 ===American types=== * First standardized American automobile - Duryea Motor Wagon (1896) * First American electric car - Detroit Electric (1907) * First American hybrid car - Honda Insight * First American hybrid car SUV - Ford Escape Hybrid ==Pre-War== * Best-selling pre-war vehicle - Ford Model-T ''(15,000,000 sold between 1908 and 1928)'' * Least-expensive full-featured automobile - 1927 Ford Model-T ''($300 is about $3200 in inflation-adjusted 2004 dollars)'' * Largest vehicle - Bugatti Royale - 21 ft (6.4 m) long, 180 in (4.57 m) or 170 in (4.32 m) wheelbase depending on model * Largest pre-war I4 - 12.9 L (12867 cc/785 in³) - 1903 Bugatti Bugatti Type 5 * Largest pre-war I6 - 13.5 L (13518 cc/824.8 in³) - 1914 Peerless and Pierce-Arrow ''(tie)'' * Largest pre-war I8 - 12.8 L (12763 cc/778 in³) - 1929 Bugatti Royale ==See also== * [http://www.classicautoprints.com/history.html Classic Auto Prints' Automobile History Timeline] Automobiles
List of automotive superlatives
:''See also Talk:List of automotive superlatives/Archive'' ---- 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 [http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk/company/history.asp], 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 [http://www.madderthanmost.com/carnews13154.htm] "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? --User: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 [http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk 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 [http://www.mitsubishi-cars.co.uk/evolution/key_features.asp?strCar1=QD5 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. --User: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? --User: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... --User: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?--User: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? --User: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.--User: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. --User: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 [http://www.drive.com.au/editorial/article.aspx?id=1301&vf=1]), 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?--User:JonGwynne 17:39, 10 May 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? User: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 !). User: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. --User: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. User: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. User: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. User:Ericd 18:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) Are you guys ''sure'' about the Zonda production numbers? I was working on Pagani Zonda 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. --User:Sfoskett 21:18, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC) ::[http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=101088 Autoweek reviewed 7.3L roadster number 8 in 2004] so presumably eight roadsters were built. [http://www.autoweek.com/article.cms?articleId=5696 this article] has 6.0 and 7.0 production numbers, 5 and 15, respectively. --User:Sfoskett 21:38, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC) :::An answer. Car and Driver [http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=29&article_id=9049&page_number=1 reports] that 14 7.3 L C12S cars have been built as of February 2005. It's not 20, but it's not 2 either... --User:Sfoskett 04:23, Apr 20, 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... --User:Sfoskett 18:01, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC) I found [http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=43473] (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. // User: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. User:TomTheHand 16:19, May 6, 2005 (UTC) : The forum at the [http://www.listercars.co.uk/cgi-bin/forum/index.cgi?board=news;action=display;num=1057846064 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. --User: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 ;-) User:TomTheHand 18:22, May 6, 2005 (UTC) ::: Uh, oh - Supercars.net [http://www.supercars.net/cars/1007.html reports] that just three road Storms were built. And Lister now uses all Chevy V8 engines. Perhaps those 25 cars are V8 LMP or GT models, not the original V12 Storm? I just wrote up Lister Storm about the Storm and found this troubling... --User:Sfoskett 18:49, Jun 13, 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 [http://www.fia.com/sport/Homologations/Europe/countries/great_britain.html 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. --User:Pc13 20:10, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC) == Tuner cars == So what defines a tuner car as opposed to a small-volume car? In other words, is the [http://www.saleen.com/s281_main.htm 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 [http://www.roushperf.com/# 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? --User: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. User: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. --User: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?--User: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 [http://www.saab-performance.com/] (the 305 bhp 9-5 would be the most powerfull front wheel drive if this was allowed). // User:Liftarn ::Yes, but since it is a tuner car, it isn't. So I'm removing it from the main article.--User: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. // User: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?--User: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. // User: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. --User: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." [http://www.saabnet.com/tsn/press/020319.html] // User: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].--User: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. [http://www.shellkonto.nu/carmania/members/taxi103_e.htm] // User: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? --User:JonGwynne 16:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC) == 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? --User:Sfoskett 19:26, May 6, 2005 (UTC) :To the best of my knowledge, the Maserati 3200 had the first LED brakelights. --User:JonGwynne 03:02, 2 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? User: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. User: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). // User: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). --User: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. User: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. --User:JonGwynne 00:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC) == Mosler MT900 production == My edits got squashed by Pc13, I think accidently. I'm adding them here: User: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. User: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? User:TomTheHand 21:52, May 9, 2005 (UTC) According to Warren Mosler himself, in a [http://www.moslerauto.com/wwwboard/messages/4979.shtml 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. --User: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? --User: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. User: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... --User: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. User: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. User: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. --User: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. --User: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?--User:JonGwynne 16:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC) I'm not familiar with the Diablo point. Can you summarize? --User: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 User: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! --User: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. User: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. // User: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. --User: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. --User: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). --User: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. User: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. --User: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)." [http://www.verdictoncars.com/jsp/vocmain.jsp?lnk=701&featureid=3&pageid=9]. 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? --User: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. User: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? --User: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. User:TomTheHand 16:21, May 25, 2005 (UTC) :::::::::Yes you did wipe out other people's work. Here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_automotive_superlatives&diff=14197727&oldid=14181936] is what you did. And you've still failed to justify your reverts - why do you insist on making them? --User: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 [http://www.pininfarina.it/eng/press/geneva2003/e_f_enzo.html], [http://www.elegant-lifestyle.com/Ferrari-Enzo-Ferrari.htm], [http://www.italiaspeed.com/news_2002_18.html], 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. User: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. --User: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. --User: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. --User: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. --User: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).--User: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 [http://www.supercars.net/cars/2004@$Maserati@$MC12x.html]. 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. --User: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. --User: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). --User: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. --User: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 [http://www.automobilrevue.ch/ 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. --User: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. --User:JonGwynne 01:25, 5 Jun 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 [http://www.lotuscars.com/lotus.html Lotus], [http://www.caterham.co.uk/showroom/index.htm Caterham] and [http://www.mclarencars.com/content/sections/mainfr/cars.htm 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. --User: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 [http://media.mg-rover.com/rover/mshows_press_packs/model_packs/2004/25/en/25presspack.doc press-release], and compare the PS values to those on the website. And [http://www.bentleymedia.com/en/html/news/cars/469.html 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? --User:Pc13 16:58, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC) :::Yes, actually, the relevant information can be found at McLaren's website [http://www.mclarencars.com/content/sections/mainfr/cars.htm] - 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: [http://www.speedheads.de/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2964]. QED. --User: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?--User: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. --User:JonGwynne 19:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC) "kW" is only used [http://www.mclarencars.com/content/sections/press/slr99.htm 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. --User: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. --User:Sfoskett 01:41, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC) : The [http://www.bmwworld.com/engines/12cyl.htm 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. --User: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 [http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=9402&page_number=3 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. --User:Sfoskett 15:42, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC) :::Here's a link to a physics textbook that lists the F1's output as 468 kW (a.k.a. 627 bhp/636 PS) [http://hypertextbook.com/physics/mechanics/power/] and lists McLaren's web site as a reference to the figure (though they don't say where on the site they found the info). --User:JonGwynne 16:45, 9 Jun 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 ** Car and Driver - July 2003 [http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=6734&page_number=2] ** Car and Driver - May 2005 [http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=9402&page_number=3] ** BMW World - [http://www.bmwworld.com/engines/12cyl.htm] ** Bimmer Forums - Engine FAQ [http://www.bimmerforums.com/engine_faq/] * 627 hp ** Motor Trend - April 2005 [http://motortrend.com/future/spied/112_0504_bugatti/index1.html] ** Road and Track - July 2003 [http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=627&page_number=7] ** Road and Track - December 2002 [http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?print_page=y§ion_id=31&article_id=392&page_number=1&preview=] ** Supercars.net [http://www.supercars.net/cars/1177.html] (also lists output as 468 kW) ** Autocar road test - [http://www.classicandsportscar.com/Roadtest_Summary.asp?RT=204160&linkMake=135&linkModel=25270&linkEdition=44261] ** Top Gear [http://www.topgear.com/jsp/individualRoadTest.jsp?carType=used&mCode=ZC&rCode=YY&mDesc=Mclaren&rDesc=F1&roadTestNumber=01.html] Still no definitive source. Car and Driver seems sure that it's 618, while the others say it's 627. --User: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'' * Horsepower#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. -- User: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. --User:Sfoskett 01:36, Jun 18, 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. --User: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." User: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. User: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. User: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. User: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. User: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? --User:Sfoskett 19:02, May 24, 2005 (UTC) Goodness, it's difficult to find information about these cars! User: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 [http://www.4wdonline.com/ClassicTrucks/CaldwellVale.html] 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... // User: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. User: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. User:Morven 15:51, May 25, 2005 (UTC) ::::Beg to differ on the Jensen FF, the Spyker Spyker 60/80 HP was clearly made for racing. // User:Liftarn :::::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. // User:Liftarn :::::Was it a permanently engaged AWD system or just a get-out-of-trouble part-time one? User: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. // User: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 http://www.4wdonline.com/A/History.html 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. User: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 Auto * First all wheel drive car - 1966 Jensen FF ** Honorable mention - 1902 Jacobus Spyker ''(One produced)'' ** Honorable mention - 1932 Bugatti Type 53 ''(Three produced)'' ** Honorable mention - 1958 Citroën 2CV ''(Dual-engine all wheel drive)'' :Thoughts? --User: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." User: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. --User: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. --User: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. --User: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. --User: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. --User: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. --User: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. --User:JonGwynne 05:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC) * Bump to HM - User: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. --User: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. --User:Sfoskett 18:16, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC) * Bump to HM until street-legal performance figures available. User: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. User:TomTheHand 12:34, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC) :I agree - perhaps a link to engine displacement, horsepower, and torque would be sufficient? --User: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. --User: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. --User: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? --User: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. User: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. --User: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. User:TomTheHand 16:05, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC) :::::::: But not in this form - which is specifically formatted to facilitate and clarify comparisons... --User:JonGwynne 07:02, 18 Jun 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... --User: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. User: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. --User: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. User: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. User: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. --User: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. User:TomTheHand 12:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC) ::: Check out this history piece in [http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=103&i=7138 Pistonheads]. The 2.1-second mark was, apparently, made by Stig Blomqvist in a race-prepared car, and isn't even canonic. --User: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 http://www.rs200.org/ 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! User: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). --User: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? User:TomTheHand 16:22, Jun 17, 2005 (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. -- User:Prometheus235 21:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) :That's a good point - it should at least get an HM --User:JonGwynne 14:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
L
LA | LB | LC | LD | LE | LF | LG | LH | LI | LJ | LK | LM | LN | LO | LP | LR | LS | LT | LU | LW | LX | LY | LZ |Words begining with List_of_automotive_superlatives:
List_of_automotive_superlatives
List_of_automotive_superlatives
List_of_automotive_superlatives/Archive
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
