Talk:List of automotive superlatives/Archive 2

Archives
August 2004 to April 2005 April 2005 to May 2005 May 2005 to September 2005 September 2005 to July 2006

Ultima GTR

Ultima GTR [1] is listed under Performance as Quickest 0-60 mph sports car, but the problem is that it's a kit car (altough available as turnkey) and not a production model. // Liftarn

We're having a discussion about this and similar issues below, under Radical Motorsports SR3. You might want to weigh in there. I'm also planning to put this page on Wikipedia's Request for Comments to get some outside input. TomTheHand 16:14, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

It is incorrect to state that the Ultima is not a production car. It is produced in quantity by a commercial firm whose sole business is to offer this car (and other, similar models) for commercial sale to the public. How is this not a production car? The fact that the car is sold as a kit is irrelevant. The reason it is sold as a kit is to allow sale in North America where restrictive laws would otherwise prohibit the car's sale.

Ultimas are sold PRIMARILY as kit cars in England; stating that they are only sold as a kit to allow sale in North America is intentionally deceptive. Please stop making things up. TomTheHand 03:00, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

Even if it is true that Ultimas are sold "primarily" as kit-cars in England, it doesn't matter. They are available in turnkey form. Small-volume producers shouldn't be penalized simply for being small-volume producers. As for the reason they're available in kit-form only in the US, the fact is that they are available only in kit (or "rolling chassis") form in order to get past legal restrictions which would otherwise forbid their sale. Face it, Detroit doesn't like competition from upstarts. They have a long history of trying to crowd out the competition. John Delorean and Preston Tucker are two of the more familiar names. There are many more.--JonGwynne 05:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I can tell they require an SVA. Please check what the S in SVA stands for. // Liftarn

The "S" stands for "single" because each vehicle is evaluated singly. But that isn't relevant to this discussion since SVA approval may be issued for multiple vehicles of the same model.--JonGwynne 08:34, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would say it's very much relevant. Since they are approved as a single vehicle they are by definition not production cars. I think at least some Caterham Cars and Donkervoort models are type approved so low volume is no excuse. If it's sold as a kit and require an SVA it's a kit car and not a production car. // Liftarn

I bet you'd find that that the Caterham cars that are type-approved are that way because they're "grandfathered in" due to them being an evolution of the Lotus 7. I doubt Donkervoort has produced more than the 500 units required to demand type-approval. Though with their high-prices, I imagine getting type-approval wouldn't be a big deal - just as it isn't for cars like the Ferrari Enzo. On the less expensive side of things, TVR avoids the type-approval requirement by changing models before they hit the 500-unit limit (hence all their model permutations). In any case, the "single" is SVA is a red-herring. Just because the cars are evaluated singly doesn't mean they're produced singly. Thanks for playing though.

I think what Caterham did was to work their way trough the red tape (probably including crash tests). I don't think it had anything to do with their history. Anyway, cars can be mass produced even without being production road cars (for instance Formula 3000 cars use the same standard chassis). So by your reasoning you can take a Formula 3000 car, put it trough the SVA and call it a production road car? I don't think so. // Liftarn

I think you'll find you're wrong about the Caterham. Because it is based on the Lotus 7, which was in producton prior to type-approval requirements being implemented, it should be exempt - dunno if it is or not. Ditto for most Morgan cars. I haven't heard of either one of them being type-approved. And, you would have a hard time getting a Formula 3000 to pass SVA, I can tell by looking at pictures. And are they sold to the public either by the manufacurers or through dealers? Didn't think so... Thanks again for playing...  ;-> --JonGwynne 14:31, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It would probably be hard to get a F3000 car to pass the brittish SVA (it could perhaps be done using lots of styrofoam). It could probably pass the SVA in Sweden, you have to add lights, wheel arches and the sound and emissions would be a problem (it would probably look something like http://www.formula1street.com/ ). Looking at http://www.lola-group.com/ it seems you can buy it directly. // Liftarn

I don't know if pre-existing cars need to conform to new safety regulations, but since it's available as a road car in other European countries (eg Germany, France), the Caterham should conform to type-approval regulations in those countries. As for engines, the Caterham is certainly approved, as all MG Rover engines are certified Euro III, and the CSR uses a Euro IV Ford Duratec engine. The Ultima will obey Euro III regulations if it uses the LS1 engine, but not the LT1. --Pc13 15:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Ultima GTR that they built to set the records in question uses neither an LS1 nor an LT1. It uses a carbureted "640BHP 377ci Chevrolet V8 engine." It's based on a traditional Chevy small block, so it's closer to an LT1 than an LS1, but it uses aftermarket heads (and, of course, is bored and/or stroked). TomTheHand 15:25, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Nice. Now I did a Google search and I find out you have to buy that engine from American Speed (see for yourself in the Pistonheads forum). So which is it, is this particular engine available with the kit or do you have to buy it directly from the source? And carbureted engines can't be type-approved in the UK or anywhere else in the European Union. When Euro I was introduced in 1993, most manufacturers switched to EFI because nearly all carbs were incompatible with catalytic converters. --Pc13 16:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You can have Ultima build you a car and ask them to put that engine in for you, though I doubt they've build 20 such turnkey 640 hp cars. They would order the engine from American Speed, who would assemble it and ship it to them. Such a car could then possibly be made road legal in the UK through SVA. If you were going the kit path, Ultima would ship you their kit and recommend that you order the engine from American Speed, though you could drop in any small block Chevy. TomTheHand 19:33, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The relationship between Ultima and AmerSpeed is similar to the one that used to exist between TVR and TVR Power before they formally merged. Except, instead of being in the same country a few hundred miles apart, AmerSpeed is located in the US and Ultima is located in the UK. BTW, Amerspeed offer engines with EFI as well as carbs.--JonGwynne 23:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jon, was wondering if you could cite a source or anything that shows that more than 20 turnkey 640+ hp Ultimas have been built, and that some of them have been SVA-approved. Take your time, but if you're unable to provide a source eventually, I believe the entry should be removed. I'm unsure that the Ultima meets minimum production requirements. You might need to e-mail Ultima about it. I sent them an e-mail on the subject but I haven't received a response yet. TomTheHand 14:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't see why production figures for one version of the GTR on its own should be relevant. Surely the GTR line as a whole should be considered - not just one version of it. Seeing as how the GTR model has been in production for almost 20 years [2], I don't think there's any doubt they've made the required 20 vehicles.--JonGwynne 22:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you don't want to provide a source, I'll remove the car. If you want to hunt down the necessary information but just need some time, please let us know that you're looking. TomTheHand 03:30, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

It's been over a week, so I'm removing the Ultima GTR and replacing it with the previous winner. Please don't revert it without some evidence that it meets the criteria. TomTheHand 13:40, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

The car has been in production for nearly two decades, are you seriously trying to argue that they average less than one per year? I can't find any specific claims by the manufacturer as to production numbers but it simply isn't reasonable to disqualify it based on production numbers - I'm putting it back.--JonGwynne 04:24, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Are there 20 road-going Ultima GTRs with the 640hp engine? --Pc13 08:16, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Without specific claims from the manufacturer, there is no evidence that they have turned out and sold 20 road-going, turnkey, 640hp+ cars which are capable of setting the record in question. Without such evidence, the car does not belong on the list, and I'm removing it again. TomTheHand 13:11, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

That's a specious argument and a misinterpretation of the rules of inclusion. The rule simply states that "20 or more examples must have been made by the original vehicle manufacturer and offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition", the Ultima GTR has been in production for nearly 20 years. Again, while there is no specific claim by the manufacturer that they've sold 20 or more, they deserve the benefit of the doubt here. There is no basis to argue that the specific configuration that was used in the test (since many different versions of the GTR have been made) needs to have sold 20 versions. If Chevy made three examples of a high-end, street-legal Corvette that were sold by dealers to customers, it would be considered for this list because it was sold as a Corvette. --JonGwynne 14:17, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Ultima has produced more than 20 GTRs. There is reason to doubt that they have produced more than 20 turnkey GTRs capable of setting this record. If Chevy produced three ultra-high-performance Corvettes, they would NOT be eligible for the list. More than 20 examples of the car setting the record must have been produced. I'm reverting again. This is my third revert of the day, so I'm done reverting until tomorrow. TomTheHand 14:28, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Since you don't doubt that 20 GTRs have been produced, what's the problem? Most manufacturers produce different versions of most of their vehicles, there isn't just one Toyota Corrola, but the total number of Corollas made count for the purposes of inclusion here, why are you trying to change the rules for Ultima? The rule doesn't say that 20 examples of the actual record-setting car have to have been produced, just 20 examples of the model. You don't doubt that 20 GTRs have been made. We've used this interpretation of this rule before (e.g. Koenigsegg CCR, Bugatti EB110SS just to name two) so why is the Ultima a problem? BTW, I think you'll find that the Caterham isn't type-approved either, so why do fight for its inclusion? I'll suggest a compromise, we'll put the Caterham back as an honorable mention and you get to pick a car from a major manufacturer as a second HM.

You're again assuming that I have a problem with small manufacturers. I don't. If this record were for, say, most kit cars ever produced, all GTRs would count, but it's for fastest car, in which case only the GTRs which are the fastest can count. The type approval argument is irrelevant and a completely separate case; I don't fully approve of the Caterham if it's not type approved but the Ultima GTR has not been shown to meet the barest minimum requirements for inclusion on the list. If insufficient numbers of the Koenigsegg CCR have been produced, it doesn't meet the inclusion requirements either; cars such as the Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR Super Sport have been excluded because too few of the specific variant were produced. 31 Bugatti EB110SS's have been produced. Are you saying too few Koenigsegg CCR's were produced? If so, I'll go ahead and remove them. TomTheHand 15:57, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

It still needs to pass the SVA so it's not a production road car. It may be a production car, but without a type approval it's not a production road car. // Liftarn

I disagree. Lots of cars that you would certainly consider "production cars" aren't "type-approved". For example TVR, Noble and Marcos to just name a few. I think you'd get a lot of disagreement here if you wanted to disqualify all those marques and others.--JonGwynne 22:48, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There he goes again with the TVR. The TVR product line is exported to other european countries. There are homologation files for the Tuscan and the T400 in the FIA. The same goes for the old Marcos MantaRay, Mantis and Mantara (I doubt for the current TSO). And yes, we do need 20 of the 640 hp engines to be considered. That's why the Pagani Zonda got desqualified, there aren't 20 models with the 7.3L engine. Of course, seeing as the 640 hp engine is carburated, you could never get that thing to pass EU emissions tests. --Pc13 23:23, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote: Production Numbers

I do get tired of these arguments. Jon, why would we include a single special car as a record holder just because other cars with the same name were produced in volume? By this reasoning, we should include the Lancer Evo FQ400 just because millions of cars called "Lancer" have been produced. I can't imagine that this would make sense. Shall we give the Corvette a record based on the performance of the Le Mans cars? Give me a break. I fail to see where we discussed this topic in the past, but let's get it out. --SFoskett 16:06, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Vote: Does the "20 produced" rule refer to just the superlative version (as opposed to the model in general)?

• Yes - it would be ridiculous to hand out a record based on a single special example. --SFoskett 16:06, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Yes - 20 examples of the specific version must be produced to qualify for a record. If you can prove that 20 record-setting, turnkey GTRs have been produced and sold to the public for road use, so be it, but until then, it does not meet the "20 produced" requirement. TomTheHand 16:14, May 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Yes - 20 cars must be built (at the factory, not at home) of a single version. --Pc13 17:26, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Oh please... this is a completely invalid poll. The record-breaking GTR isn't a "one-off". It is one of the configurations that any GTR buyer can order off the menu of options available to the general public. In other words, it is a stock (albiet near top-of-the-line) GTR. By your argument, a 1.8 liter Miata is a different car from a 1.6 liter? Come on... no one seriously believes that. Re: your argument about the Lancer. I don't dispute that the FQ400 is a Lancer Evo, in fact I would argue the opposite - it is obviously a Lancer Evo and thank you for helping me make my point. It doesn't stop being an Evo because it is a different configuration or has a different powertrain from the majority of Evos. The reason the FQ400 is disputed is because it is arguably a tuner car - i.e. a car built by the original manufacturer and then modified after the fact by an independent company (in this case, the British distributors who are not wholly owned by Mitsubishi). The Le Mans Corvette example is another than proves my point. Since the Corvette configuration run at Le Mans was never sold to the public through standard outlets for Corvettes (as far as I know) then it doesn't qualify for inclusion here. It also would probably have difficulty being considered "street legal" but that is a separate issue. There is a track-only version of the Dodge Viper that makes considerably more power than the commercial version that is in the same category. Is the Le Mans Corvette a Corvette? If Chevy calls it a Corvette then it is a Corvette. If Dodge calls the track Viper a Viper then that's what it is. However, neither of them qualify for inclusion here because they can't be bought by the public for use on public roads. The record-breaking GTR on the other hand, is an absolutely stock GTR and since even Tom is willing to stipulate that Ultima has sold more than 20 GTRs in roughly 18 years, then I don't see what the problem is. --JonGwynne 20:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

You don't seem to get the point, do you. A 1.8L Miata is different than a 1.6L Miata. If Mazda created a 3L twin-turbo Miata with a limited production of ten cars, it would not be elligible here. Look further down to our conclusions about the Pagani Zonda. 15 cars with the 6.0L engine, 5 with the 7.0L engine, 14 with the 7.3L engine. Add them altogether, it's 34 road-legal Zondas. Still, none of the different versions had 20 cars built, so it was disqualified. Then you keep bringing up TVR and Caterham, but these cars are street-legal from the get-go. They're sold in Germany and France, where type approval is required. There are homologation files for these cars (I'm talking about the road-going versions, not the competition versions) in the FIA.

In a way it's an invalid poll because the GTR shouldn't have been included in the first place since it's not a road car. Yes, i know, you can jump trough hoops to get it road registered, but that's a moot point since there is no way to buy it road registered. If that wan't required you could include F3000 cars since it's possible to road register one. // Liftarn

It is built for road *and* track use. Full stop. --JonGwynne 20:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Since it's not available in road registered form it's not a road car. Period. // Liftarn

If Mazda calls it a Miata, then it is a Miata. The distinction about the Zonda is incorrect as well. if 34 Zondas were produced, then 34 were produced. The breakdown of the individual models is irrelevant. Some cars have lots of options available and they shouldn't be penalized for that. Yes, TVR and Caterham are sold outside Britain but they still get the low-volume exemption in order to be made road-legal. The current limit is 500 units IIRC. That's why TVR comes up with all these different variations for their cars, so they can stay under the 500 unit production limit. Now they have formally announced that only 500 units of each car will be made before it is retired. But the point is that if we're going to start down the slippery slope of differentiating cars based on tiny differences like bore/stroke of engine, then where does it end? If a company switched transmission vendors does that consitutute a new model? Is my Jaguar XJR with the 4.0 liter I-6 engine and GM transmission different from the ones with a 4.0 liter I-6 and a ZF box? Of course not. By the same tokem, a Pagani Zonda is a Pagani Zonda. Forget about the engine, the thing that matters is the whole car. Nobody has yet applied this distinction to the McLaren F1 LM that is listed. Only five of the LM variant were built. However, for the purposes of the test, all McLaren F1s should be considered for the purposes of homologation.--JonGwynne 22:35, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

"Tiny differences like bore/stroke"?!? How much more of a difference can you get when the point at hand is acceleration? This is about the most-relevant difference there is. The Ultima is out unless 20 examples of the record-holding one were produced and sold to the public as road-going cars. As is, sadly, the Zonda. --SFoskett 12:04, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying it doesn't make a difference to the acceleration, but I still don't see why you're creating artificial distinctions that serve no purposes that I can see other than disqualifying interesting cars from this list. Isn't that the whole point? Let's have a list that shows some achievements in automtoive design in context... To disqualify the Zonda because it was sold to the public as it went through the process of development seems to be to defeat the purpose of this board. We're getting bogged down in semantic quicksand here. Come on, a Pagani Zonda is a Pagani Zonda. If AMG upped the displacement of the engine they were supplying Pagani during the production run then so be it. It is still substantially the same car whether it has a 6.0 liter engine or a 7.3 liter engine. Obviously the performance characteristics are going to be different on the later cars but that shouldn't count against Pagani. --JonGwynne 18:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

You might be unfamiliar with the particular circumstances surrounding the Zonda. The record it qualified for was "largest V12," with the 7.3 L engine. However, fewer than 20 were built with the 7.3 L, so it did not qualify for the record. In the same way, a few Ultima GTRs have been built which can set the record in question, but because 20 have not been built to set the record in question, the Ultima does not qualify. TomTheHand 23:02, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I understand the situation and I still think it was wrong to excuse the Zonda. Like I said before, Pagani shouldn't be penalized because AMG has developed the engine during the time that Pagani was building Zondas. More than 20 Zondas have been made, so whether or not they all have the 7.3 liter engine doesn't make much difference. At the end of the day, this list is an excuse to mention exceptional and unusual achievements in the design and construction of cars, why throw up arbitrary roadblock to stifle the discussion of some of the most interesting? --JonGwynne 20:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest a slight modification to the "20" rule that should clear all this up and bring this list back into line with the original spirit... Let's exclude cars whose productions were limited by the manufacturer to less than 20 units. If the manufacturer says "I'm only going to build five of them no matter how many people want it" then it is out. If the manufacturer says "I'll build as many as people want to buy but I only sold five because the cars are weird/expensive/scary" then it should be allowed. I mean, the original reason for the quantity threshold was to exclude concept-cars and extremely limited specialty runs (e.g. the Sultan of Brunei's Ferrari station-wagons and suchlike), right? It shouldn't disqualify cars simply because the manufacturer couldn't make their sales-quota. --JonGwynne 18:12, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with this idea; if fewer than 20 of a car have been produced, it should not be considered a production vehicle no matter what the circumstances surrounding it. I believe that's perfectly in line with the spirit of the rule, and changing the rule to include something as difficult to substantiate as manufacturer intent destroys it. For any vehicle, I'm sure you could argue all day that if the Prince of Never Never Land arrived at the factory with a van full of cold, hard cash and asked for 20 cars, he'd probably get them. You've got to keep in mind the number we're talking about here: 20 is the barest possible minimum for a production car. TomTheHand 23:02, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I know you'd disagree with it Tom because you're doing everything in your power to keep the GTR out. Why is 20 the "barest possible minimum for a production car"? As far as I can tell, it is an entirely arbitrary number with no more relevance than 10 or 5. However, we agreed on it at one point and so it stuck. And the thing that really confuses me is that you seem to be arguing against your own point... you say that if some dude with a pisspot full of money paid to have 20 specials produced for him then it would qualify for this list because it hit the "magic number"? Yet, a car that a company produced with the hope of selling thousands but only sold 19 of them because that's how many people wanted one wouldn't qualify? That completely turns this list on its head. The point, as we've established is to talk about "automotive superlatives". To refuse to list things like the 7.3 liter Pagani Zonda because, even though more than 20 Zondas have been made, less than 20 have the 7.3 liter engine is to defeat the entire purpose of this list.--JonGwynne 20:37, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

The limit for rallying is obviously 2500 within a family of 25000 (for FIA GT and Le Mans, the limit is 25). What about using some simmilar rule, somthing like 5 within a family of 20. // Liftarn

Because the 2500 in a family of 25000 is used for mass-produced cars. The 25 for GT racing is relative to the version, not the family. The FIA set a minimum of 25 homologated vehicles to prevent one-off exotic special editions. Let's look at some examples: during the late 90s, both FIA and ACO rules were permissive enough to allow cars such as the BMW M3 GTR and McLaren F1 LM to race. The BMW was allowed to race on a dispensation that they build the car by the end of the year. They didn't, and ACO later banned the car. The Panoz GTR raced in the old GT1 class, alongside the Porsche 911 GT1 and the Mercedes CLK GTR, but once again it failed production requirements, and when it returned, it had to race as a prototype. The same could be applied to our situation: when we have cars such as the Laraki Fulgura, the Farboud GTS or the Bristol Fighter, who are available for sale, but fail to attract a number of customers, or cars such as the Hispano-Suiza HS21 or the Isotta-Fraschinni T8, which are presented to public, but only the show car is built, or even the TVR Tuscan Speed 12, of which two street-legal, in rolling conditions, prototypes were made, these cars cannot be considered standard road versions, because there aren't enough cars running around to be considered standard. And look at what Pagani did: They had a 6.0L engine, decide to increase to 7.0L, didn't like it, increased it again to 7.3L, people complained of lack of power, they increased power from 555 to 602hp. That's four variants for less than 40 cars made. --Pc13 09:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Jon, quit arguing, vote, and then follow the consensus. TomTheHand 22:53, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I don't vote in invalid polls.--JonGwynne 02:13, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• Yes - no dubt about it. // Liftarn

Radical Motorsport SR3

I'm not sure about the inclusion of the Radical Motorsport SR3 as the highest specific horsepower entry. I did some cruising around their web site and the SR3 can only be made street legal through the Single Vehicle Approval process (the process by which a kit car, imported car, etc can be brought in by the owner and individually inspected to be declared street legal). This doesn't really seem to count as a production car. TomTheHand 14:52, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

It's certainly notable and interesting, but I gotta agree. The very nature of a Single Vehicle Approval process means it's NOT a production road vehicle but rather a modified race car, which it is. Has anyone ever actually seen one of these on the road? How about two? I've seen two 360 Modenas together and dozens of S2000s. Maybe we need a definition for "production car" or "road car". --SFoskett 16:27, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

We've already been through this above. The Radical is a production car in the sense that it is produced for commercial sale from a set of blueprints by a manufacturing firm. The fact that it is certified for road use through the SVA process in Britain (and, as far as I can tell, sold the in US for track-use only) doesn't disqualify it. This car is specifically designed to be made road-legal for those who want to drive them to and from the track. Those who don't want to bother making it road-legal can buy it that way as well. Therefore, I am replacing the SR3 and making note of the upcoming SR9 which will make 525bhp from 3.0 liters (175bhp/liter) --JonGwynne 07:23, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Radical is not a production ROAD car. Yes, it is produced for commercial sale, but it is not produced for use on public roads. The fact that it must be made street legal by the owner through the SVA process, because it has not been type approved to British standards, disqualifies it. It is a race car, not a road car. It does not belong in the same company as the Honda S2000. TomTheHand 18:13, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I think you're nitpicking here. Every SR3 sold can be made road-legal if the owner requests - it is entirely at the purchaser's discretion. The fact that some of them aren't is irrelevant. It is a production car by every definition I can think of and it meets every requirement of this article, ergo it is included. It is no less a production road car than the Caterham vehicles that are (or were) also listed here. The use of the SVA process certainly doesn't disqualify it, neither does Radical's decision not to seek type approval - Nobles and TVR aren't type approved and I don't imagine you'll try to claim that they aren't production road cars. And to answer the question asked earlier here, I have seen them on public roads, they are rare but they are driven on ordinary roads. I agree that it isn't in the same category as the S2000, but it is still a production car.--JonGwynne 07:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In fact, I think your inclusion of the Ultima GTR on the list is highly inappropriate as well. It's a kit car, for goodness sake! Ultima will produce turnkey versions on special request for the UK only, but again, it's not a production road car and it must go through the SVA process to get registered. I'd like to revert your changes, but I'd like to get some sort of consensus on the matter first. TomTheHand 18:19, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

The Ultima is sold as a kit car only so it can bypass the protectionist legislation that would otherwise bar it from North American sale. Some companies (e.g. TVR) refuse to do this for marketing reasons and others (e.g. Noble) try to have it both ways and make a special "kit" exception for North American sale only. Surely Ultima shouldn't be penalized for being more flexible and allowing UK customers to buy the same kits they also sell in North America. The Ultima is available as a street-legal, factory-built vehicle for the UK market and that's all this article specifies... that cars "must be street-legal in their intended markets".--JonGwynne 07:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the Radical SR9 from the honorable mentions list, otherwise I'm going to start putting in cars like Porsche 962, Dallara F3 chassis, or even the Lola B02/00 here. These cars have or had standard production as well. The SR9 is strictly a racing car being developed for the LMP2 class in the Le Mans 24 Hours. The TVR is approved for road use, otherwise it couldn't be exported to other European countries. Same for the Ultima and the Caterham CSR. However, the Ultima shouldn't qualify because, being a kit car, it's not produced by the factory. And I'm still not entirely convinced about the Radical SR3, I need to see horsepower figures with the fuel injection management and catalytic converter installed. I doubt the 252 hp are retained that way. --Pc13 08:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know that the SR9 was a limited production car. I was under the impression that it was going to be just another car in Radical's line (though by far the most expensive). We'll see as and when it is released. If, when it does come out, they sell it for road use I'll put it back but we can leave it until then.--JonGwynne 20:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The above statement (about the Ultima) is absurd. Protectionist legislation indeed. Ultima is PRIMARILY a kit car manufacturer, and producing completed cars is a rarity for them. TVR is NOT primarily a kit car manufacturer, and I wasn't aware that they even still manufactured kits. I don't know enough about Noble to say anything about them, but I doubt that they only offer kits to make North Americans happy. The SVA process is unbelievably lenient. It requires no testing of, or information about, the crash safety of a vehicle. Its emissions testing measures only CO, HC, and air/fuel ratio, and then to lenient standards. Such vehicles should not be considered alongside cars such as the S2000, and I would support changing this page to exclude them. Hell, British military surplus tracked armored personnel carriers and tanks have been purchased by civilians and made road legal under British law; perhaps this wins for "heaviest passenger vehicle?" Some truly crazy stuff is possible when you're willing to allow anything that can be Single Vehicle Approved.

Yes, protectionist legislation. Try buying a car in Europe and bringing it to the US. Whether or not producing completed cars is a rarity for Ultima or not isn't really the point. It is available as a completed car if the customer requests it and it is street legal in its intended market and also export markets like North America. Ergo, it has qualified for consideration here. You're right, TVR don't manufacture kits anymore. They used to but stopped some time ago. Noble offers their car in kit form solely for use in the North American market in order to get past the legislation that would otherwise prohibit the sale of completed cars [[3]]. Saying the SVA process is "unbelievably lenient" is pretty judgemental. It wouldn't be unreasonable to conclude from this that you are biased against such vehicles.--JonGwynne 20:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would say that yes, I AM biased against vehicles that do not conform to safety standards and do not meet the emissions standards that normal cars in England are required to meet. They do not conform to the same rules as street vehicles. I don't consider it to be judgemental to call the SVA process lenient when it is much more lenient than the rules by which normal street cars in the UK must meet. They are made suitable for use on public roads on a case-by-case basis, and if Radical Motorsports tried to seek out type approval for their cars, they would be unable to acquire it. The Radical Motorsports SR3 can only be made street legal by the process by which amateur, home-built cars can be approved. I have no problem with the SVA process itself; I think it's very cool that such cars can be allowed limited use on the street. Similar legislation exists in America to make kit cars street legal. However, calling these cars production, street-legal automobiles on the same level as a Ferrari or a Honda is slipping them in through a loophole. As I said above, you can register a tank in England for use on public roads. That doesn't make it a production automobile.

I think you'll want to rephrase that first statement... either that or produce evidence to support your claim that vehicles like the SR3 or GTR "do not conform to safety standards". Incidentally, they do meet emissions standards since they have to have an MOT certification if they're registered for road use and part of the MOT certification includes emissions tests. You also say that "if Radical Motorsports tried to seek out type approval for their cars, they would be unable to acquire it". I invite you to produce evidence to support that claim as well. In the meantime, the fact remains that both the SR3 and the GTR are both commercial production vehicles which are street legal in their intended markets - as well as others. Because it is sold as a kit, the GTR is street-legal in North America as well. You can buy an entry-level model for about the price of a Dodge Viper.--JonGwynne 09:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

On the subject of protectionist legislation, try buying a car in the US and bringing it to the UK. You'll have to go through the Single Vehicle Approval process. As I said, the US has similar legislation, and with money and effort, a European car can be imported and registered here. TomTheHand 21:43, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

The only way to import and register European cars in the US is if they are LHD and if they are identical to models already for sale in the US. For example, you could import a BMW Z3 from Germany, but not a Z1. You couldn't even import a Z3 from Britain. As for cars not sold in the US - forget about it. I spoke to an importer about bringing in a TVR Tuscan and he just started to laugh. The only way to get one into the US is to have a non-US-Citizen bring it in under their name. You can import it for up to 12 months but then it has to be shipped out again. The only exception is if the car is available in kit-form. You can import is disassembled and then have it assembled in the US. Only then can it be registered as a kit car. TVR won't, for marketing reasons, sell their cars as kits, Noble offers their cars in kits for North American sale only.--JonGwynne 09:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I propose that we change this page to read that vehicles must be "type-approved as street legal in their intended markets." If this excludes vehicles such as the Caterham 7 as well as the SR3 and the Ultima, then so be it. Otherwise, we should split the categories in question in a fashion that puts a car such as the S2000, which passes emissions and safety standards around the world, on equal or higher ground than crazy racecars that can be slipped onto British roads through the Single Vehicle Approval process. There is very little that is admirable, from an engineering sense, in building a racecar, slapping headlights and a windshield wiper on it, and calling it the fastest street car in the world. TomTheHand 14:58, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

That's pretty vitriolic dude. If the British "nanny-state" deems them suitable for use on public roads, shouldn't that be good enough for you? But I agree with you on one point: all cars which are street-legal in their intended market should be on equal ground. That means the Honda S2000 should be compared against the SR3. And the idea that there is "nothing admirable" about Ultima's achievement just because they aren't a giant corporation like Chrysler or Honda is insulting.--JonGwynne 20:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The British "nanny-state" has not type-approved them as suitable for use on public roads. If they had, it'd be good enough for me. The SVA process, being undeniably more lenient than the process of type approval, should not allow these cars to compete on equal ground. Ultima has dropped a non-(or lightly-)emissions-controlled small-block Chevy into a tube frame chassis which meets virtually no safety legislation. No, I am not impressed.

You're nitpicking now. Type-approval isn't practical for small-volume manufacturers and I suspect you know that. It seems that what you're really saying is that you don't want small-volume manufacturers in business. I think the world is a better place with companies like TVR, Noble, Radical, Ultima, etc... You are free to disagree, but it doesn't change what these companies have accomplished.--JonGwynne 09:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A link to what the SVA process does and does not look at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_506874-02.hcsp#P68_5646

A link to information about the BET (Basic Emissions Test) which is performed on SVA cars: http://www.bobmckay.co.uk/emission.html#bets TomTheHand 21:43, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe we could have a vote. We could make a new section, each briefly sum up our case, have everyone vote, and change the page accordingly. TomTheHand 05:27, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

We've already decided this. We had this discussion ages ago and agreed that the SR3 is a production car by the definition of this page.--JonGwynne 09:24, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've had it with your implications that I have something against low-volume automobiles. I have a valid case: these cars do not meet full safety or emissions standards in their intended market and therefore I don't feel that they belong on a page of production street cars. The "discussion" you seem to be referring to was between you, SFoskett (who seems to disagree with you), and Pc13 (who eventually agreed). I hardly consider that extensive peer review. If you won't summarize your arguments below, I'll post this page to RFC without them. If a more extensive peer review feels that this page should include SVA cars, I'll be fine with that. You'll note that I'm not arguing whether these cars fit the definition of this page: I acknowledge that you've found yourself a loophole in the current definition. I'm saying that the definition of this page should be rewritten to exclude cars that don't conform to safety and emissions standards in their intended markets. TomTheHand 00:02, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

In the friendliest and least-confrontational manner possible... I didn't imply you had something against low-volume automobiles, I'm saying it flat out. The reason I'm saying it is because you have slagged them off at every oppotunity. You have described the Single-Vehicle Approval process as "unbelievably lenient", and implied that cars which use this process to get street-legal status are somehow substandard or unworthy of road use. You have described cars that use SVA approval as things that their makers "slap" together and said there is "very little that is admirable" about the engineering responsible for them. You've implied they're unsafe with your unsupported allegation that they wouldn't pass crash-testing even though these cars are basically rolling tube-steel safety-cages [4]. You have implied that low-volume cars aren't good enough to be "in the same company" as a mass-manufactured car. I believe I've demonstrated that you've have a clear and unreasonable prejudice (even animus) against low-volume manufacturers and their wares. So, with all respect, I move that you recuse yourself from further comment on them or editing of any categories in which they appear. Any seconds?--208.181.101.125 16:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am doing my best to withdraw myself from this topic by asking that you summarize your arguments below so that we can put this up to the rest of the Wikipedia community. I understand where you're coming from. I disagree with you. I believe the only way to work this out is to get some outside input. If your next round of comments don't include a summary of your arguments below, I'm posting this page to RFC without them. TomTheHand 16:36, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Guys, guys, guys! Let's all be friendly here! Smoke a joint or something and chill. We all love cars and we all have favorites. I do not have a problem with the SVA kit itself. As I said in my previous entry, I'd like to see horsepower figures for the SR3 with the kit installed. The kit includes a different fuel injection management (so the car can actually function at low revs, try using a racing-tuned engine in traffic) and a catalytic converter. Now, there's no way that engine will retain 252 bhp with those changes, and Radical Motorsport didn't divulge any numbers for a road-going version of the car. I'm not sure about the Ultima. The Radical rolls out of the factory (the SVA is added later), the Ultima is home-assembled. That doesn't count as automotive production to me. Tom does have a point about emissions control. Will the SVA kit make the Powertec engine obey Euro III emissions regulations? And if the Ultima GTR has an LT1 engine, as I suspect (the website doesn't say, but they claim the engine has 350ci (5733cc), and the LS1 has 345ci (5665cc)), it doesn't either. --Pc13 09:57, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This sounds like a problem. If the manufacturer hasn't released power and torque specs for a street-legal version of the engine, then who's to say what it is? Has any reputable magazine dyno tested it? I'd like to propose a solution: If we can get output numbers for a street legal car, then we include them (assuming they still take the crown). But whenever we include ANY questionable entry anywhere on the list, we make a point to also include more-familiar entries as "hono(u)rable mentions".

I'm still not convinced that the UK SVA process meets the assumptions of a list like this. I bet Jay Leno's Tank Car could pass and take about half the superlatives!

This is the first I've heard that the SVA "version" of the SR3 is a different car in any substantive way (apart from the add-ons required to make it street-legal. I'd like to see some reference to official Radical Motorsport documents which describe the differences because it seems to me that such a difference would pretty much entirely defeat the purpose of the vehicle. No one is going to buy an SR3 exclusively for road use. The whole point of a street-legal SR3 is that you can drive it to and from the track and take it for occasional "B-road blasts". No one in their right mind would buy or use one for the daily commute (or a Caterham or a Mitsubishi Evo or a Dodge Viper for that matter). These are street-legal track cars. Compromising the performance to make it street-legal makes no sense. And to address the other issue... whether or not Jay Leno's "Tank Car" would be able to pass SVA approval, it wouldn't qualify for this list as it is a one-off.--208.181.101.125 16:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I referred to no "SVA version". It's a kit consisting of (according to Radical), "Road Legal Lights, Fuel Injection Management , Hand Brake Calipers, Catalytic Converter etc". I'd say that the second and fourth items may impact power output. They normally do, wouldn't you say? Therefore, bring on the numbers for an SR3 equipped with the kit. I wonder what "etc" is... --SFoskett 17:04, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Not necessarily. I've talked to lots of Brits who "de-cat" their cars (oddly enough, it seems to be something that the Brits can get away with and still have their cars pass emissions. Dunno how they do it, but to judge by the "snap, crackle & pop" of the sportiers cars there when they're "on overrun", it isn't an unheard-of thing. Anyway, I haven't heard any talk of singificant power gains from the de-catted cars (they do it for the noise) so there doesn't seem to be a lot of reason to assume a drop when you "cat" one. I know that in the early-days of catalytic converters, the back-pressure was considerable and a lot of cars when newly fitted with cats acted like they were auditioning for the "banana in the tailpipe scene" in Beverly Hills Cop I. But with today's high-flow cats, I don't see any reason to automatically assume a drop in power. However, I agree that we should try to track down some numbers from a "streeted" SR3 to see what they have to say. But, having said that, because of the nature of the SVA, it wouldn't be impossible or, more to the point illegal to put the required indicators and bits of protective plastic on a "track spec" SR3 and get it to pass. As to your question about "etc.", I don't work for Radical so I don't know for sure, but I'd be willing to be that it consists of a bunch of little plastic "bit and bobs" that are used to cover up certain exposed pointy bits and areas that might snag a pensioner's brollie. One of the part of the SVA test is where the guy walks around the car with a tool that allows him to test for any sharp protruberances.--JonGwynne 02:27, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The list is supposed to be a fun way to learn about "the best" cars. It is GOOD to include odd/low-volume cars - it's educational! But if it was populated entirely by these entries then it wouldn't be so much fun, would it? A visitor should come by and say "wow, I didn't know that" not "what the heck are all these things?" --SFoskett 13:39, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

I agree 100%. That's why I think it is valuable to have "honorable mentions" - particularly when the winner is something relatively unknown.--208.181.101.125 16:12, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Three simple questions:

1) Can you walk into a Radical dealer, purchase a car, and drive away in it legally? In other words, does the company actually sell street-legal cars to the public? Or do you install the SVA kit (as Radical calls it) yourself after sale?

2) Has anyone ever done this? Have enough people done it to make it more than a one-off? Cars like the Panther Lazer and Ferrari 456 station wagon were produced by their manufacturer and two were sold to buyers, but they are certainly not production cars. In other words, how many Radical cars are registered and used on the street?

3) How much does the SVA kit affect performance? The mere fact that they have to use different fuel injection says that performance is impacted significantly. And cats do rob performance, especially in peaky engines. People who de-cat their cars for the pops are nuts...  :)

I would like to know these things. I'd also like the performance numbers still. --SFoskett 13:25, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

There are at least two V8 powered ESTfields. They are road registered and there are at least 78 ESTfield (at the end of 2003). They can also be bough key ready ("RaceTech can also part or fully assemble cars"). If this would be allowed it would bump the Dodge Viper down from "Most specific power (power to weight ratio)". If they fit an LSD and better tyres I guess the 0-100 times will improve too. // Liftarn

The Ferrari Enzo bumps the ESTfield. I'm trying to find out the TVR T440R's weight to find out if it bumps the Enzo. --Pc13 10:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The bog-standard fiberglass Tuscan S is around 1100kg so I'd expect the carbon-fiber T440R to be somewhat less. I've heard that it tips the scales at just over 1000kg but I wouldn't want to swear to it.

Good catch, but I was mainly trying to prove a point. Btw, could you find out what production road car that would be put in place of the Utima GTR? // Liftarn

Summary of Single Vehicle Approval dispute

I'd like to submit this page to Wikipedia Requests for Comments. Before I do so, I was thinking we could summarize both arguments. JonGwynne, when you get a chance, could you write up a summary of your arguments so I can submit the page?

Here are what I consider to be neutral links. Please add/remove as needed:

The Radical Motorsports SR3, which ignited the debate: http://www.radicalmotorsport.com/range/sr3/sr3.php

General information about the SVA: http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/groups/dft_roads/documents/page/dft_roads_506874.hcsp

Information about the sniffer test SVA cars go through: http://www.bobmckay.co.uk/emission.html

Here's my summary:

I don't think that vehicles which are not type approved in their intended markets, and which must go through (for example) the British Single Vehicle Approval process to be declared road legal, are appropriate for inclusion on this page. Such vehicles are not tested for crash safety and are lightly emissions controlled. Everything from race cars to tanks can be Single Vehicle Approved. Many vehicles that can pass Single Vehicle Approval could not possibly be type approved in the same market. Therefore, I believe the appropriate criterion for inclusion here should be type approval in their intended markets, not just the ability to be made street legal. The "rules" at the head of the page should be changed accordingly, and records set by vehicles which are not type approved should be replaced. TomTheHand 15:36, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

With all possible good-nature I completely disagree and submit that an RFC is a waste of time. The question is moot. The cars are street-legal in their intended market. That's what the category specifies and there is absolutely no reason to change it. There is no reason to create an artificial distinction between one group of street-legal cars and another. The issue of type-approval is, as far as I can tell, simply a backhanded way to get small-volume manufacturers excluded from this article en masse by someone who is openly and unapologetically antagonistic toward them. The very nature of small-volume production makes type-approval impractical or impossible. And to try to insinuate that non-type-approved cars are somehow less safe is an insult to the dedicated people who design and build them. I've personally driven both kinds of vehicles and if I got to pick which car I had to have an accident in, I'd pick a TVR any day of the week. They are much safer than most mass-produced cars in terms of occupant protection during a collision. --JonGwynne 23:45, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jon, TomTheHand is not unapologetically antagonistic to small-volume manufacturers. Perhaps you missed his comment on this topic above (look for "00:02, Apr 11, 2005"). I happen to agree with him that there is a difference between a low-volume manufacturer (check out my Panther Westwinds and Stutz articles!) and a kit car or racing car manufacturer. The former is definitely an automobile producer, and cars like the Panther Solo deserve to be listed here. Every Solo was intended for street use. The latter would, by their own admission, not want to be considered car producers. Consider Lotus Cars in their decided transition from kit cars to street cars.

Simply, they can't have it both ways. Either you are a street car producer and you make cars intended for the street or you're not. The fact that a single government (perversely, considering the government in question) allows single vehicles to be approved for street use does not make something a street car. In the USA it's easier. Anything with a Monroney sticker is a street car! Once again, as in the Honda NSX supercar argument, you have come out strongly on one side of the argument and seem to fail to even comprehend the arguments of others who hold different opinions. --SFoskett 13:51, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

To address your points. I think the "intent" of the manufacturer shouldn't be a consideration here not least because, absent a formal statement of intent from the manufacturer's duly-designated representative, how would we even know what it is? Surely a production-car is simply the opposite of a "one-off" - in other words, a vehicle that is built to a set of specifications defined by the builder and offered for commercial sale (as opposed to building them for friends as a favor) and which can be driven legally on public roads in one or more markets in which the manufacturer offers the car for sale. I don't agree at all that a manufacturer must choose between making "street cars" and/or "race cars" and/or "kit cars". There are companies that sell cars in only one of those categories, others who occupy two and still others that have all three. Jaguar, for example, makes both race-cars and street cars. You wouldn't force them to pick a single category. Caterhams have been on this list in the past and they are no more or less a kit/race/SVA manufacturer than Ultima. Also, Dodge makes a race-spec version of the Viper which wouldn't be able to be made street-legal even if anyone would want to try. Should Dodge be disqualified from one category or another? Why the double-standard for Ultima? I don't think anyone has stopped to consider the magnitude of their achievement. For not much more than the price of a Viper, someone can buy a car that will kick a McLaren F1's ass in a 0-100-0 run. That's something for them to be proud of and for us to list under superlatives, wouldn't you say?

Is an Ultima a low-volume car? Sure it is. Is it a kit car? They can certainly be purchased that way and in some markets that's the only way it can be purchased because the laws prevent them being sold in factory-completed form. But I don't see how they're not "production cars". They are produced from a fixed design by people whose job it is to build cars for commercial sale (i.e. professional auto-builders) and these cars are street-legal in their target market. So what's the problem?

Re: the NSX dispute. It isn't that I "fail to even comprehend" opposing arguments, it is that (in these two situations at least) I completely understand the arguments but simply disagree with them... "strongly" as you are right to point out.--JonGwynne 07:23, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with JonGwynne that things like intent shouldn't enter into this. We should develop logical rules for what should be included on this page, and we should adhere to them rigidly. According to a certain interpretation of the current rules, these cars are "production cars" in the sense that they are... well... produced. They are legal cars in the sense that they can go through a special, more lenient process in the UK to be driven on the street. The current rule set allows ANYTHING that had more than 20 examples built and which can be modified to pass the SVA process. I don't think that that's a solid or logical rule set and I don't believe it properly defines "street legal production car" according to the spirit of this list. I don't think it's a good idea to argue about the merits and intent of individual cars; I would prefer to modify the rules to better define a production car so that these arguments don't come up.

By the definition you describe, this list would suddenly get pretty boring. It would exclude nearly all small-volume manufacturers, not just Radical or Ultima. TVR and Noble aren't type-approved. I don't know what the rules are in Sweden, but I seem to remember reading that Koenigsegg used some sort of low-volume exemption to get their cars on the road in their home market. Ditto for Pagani. Now the Edonis finally looks like it is going to be hitting the street in full 720bhp spec (I smell a new entry for highest specific output for a forced-induction engine since they're closing in on 200bhp/liter) and I bet they're not type-approved either. Anyway, I disagree with your interpretation of the "spirit" of this list. As discussed above, the whole point of this list is to honor impressive achievements and examples of extreme-engineering in cars that are available for sale to the general public for use on public roads. Naturally, some of the entries on the list will be from obscure vendors but that is the entire point. If this list were nothing but "the usual suspects", it would be boring and pointless.--JonGwynne 16:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Incidentally, JonGwynne, SFoskett is correct about your inability to comprehend the arguments of people who disagree with you: rather than address my arguments, all you're capable of doing is launching ad hominem attacks and then stating that according to the definition of the page, these cars are allowed.

Why is it you automatically assume that because I don't agree with you that I must not understand your argument? Of course I understand it. You've made your point clearly and it isn't a difficult one to grasp. In any case, you're simply wrong. You want to exclude low-volume manufacturers because, as you have also stated quite clearly, you feel that their products are inferior, unsafe, poorly-built and generally unworthy of comparison to what you consider to be real cars. Is that the crux of your argument, or is it not? Ad-hominem attacks? Please. Look in the mirror first before you make that particular accusation. Perhaps I have been a bit too vigorous in my defense of small-volume cars and their manufacturers from your calumny, and if I have hurt your feelings I sincerely apologize. But do us all a favor and examine your own prejudices before you get too worked up.

Here's a questions that, if you can answer it, might help clarify matters... Why should a Caterham car which isn't type-approved, is sold as a kit in addition to as a turnkey vehicle and requires the SVA method to get registered for the road be appropriate for this list while the Ultima GTR or Radical SR3 isn't?--JonGwynne 16:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's an ad hominem argument: "You want to exclude low-volume manufacturers because, as you have also stated quite clearly, you feel that their products are inferior, unsafe, poorly-built and generally unworthy of comparison to what you consider to be real cars."

Do you deny that you've expressed these views? Or are you now retracting them? --JonGwynne 17:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do deny that I have expressed such views. You're twisting my words. I'll try to explain further. I don't consider the S2000's engine to be "superior" to that of the SR3; very obviously, the SR3's engine has a higher specific output. I consider the S2000's engine to be in a different class from the SR3's, in that passes full European emissions standards. I wouldn't compare the S2000 to a Formula 1 car, and in the same way, it's not comparable to the SR3, which is held to a lower standard of safety and emissions.

How is that I'm twisting the statement "There is very little that is admirable, from an engineering sense, in building a racecar, slapping headlights and a windshield wiper on it, and calling it the fastest street car in the world" or your insinuation (supplied entirely without supporting evidence) that "if Radical Motorsports tried to seek out type approval for their cars, they would be unable to acquire it". Or when you said that mass-produced cars should be considered to be on "higher ground than crazy racecars that can be slipped onto British roads through the Single Vehicle Approval process."

Also, just because something is held to a lower standard doesn't means to say that it is built to a lower standard. Do you assume that people who build cars certified for road-use by the SVA process are lazy or incompetent? Why would you assume that the SR3's engine couldn't pass euro emission standards? TVR's Speed-Six engine passed EU-4 emissions standards.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't think you're prejudiced again low-volume manuracturers but the open contempt with which you refer to them and their products pretty clearly indicates a bias. You're clearly implying that these cars are inferior to what you consider to be "proper" cars. Aren't you?--JonGwynne 20:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I began to respond to this again, but I've decided to stop. I'm absolutely tired of defending myself from your ad hominem attacks. I'm also aware that you are currently on probation for engaging in such attacks. If you continue to dismiss my valid arguments by accusing me of bias against low-volume manufacturers, I will ask that Wikipedia administrators examine this topic. I may make a final response here to defend my views later, and I will certainly address other issues, but this is the last time I'm willing to put up with an ad hominem attack. TomTheHand 21:14, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Honestly I wasn't trying to get on your nerves (and, for the record, the complaint against me on the other issue is the result of fabrications and misrepresentations but there was no point in appealing the decision because the judges weren't capable of being objective, so I dropped it). But, let me ask you a purely hypothetical question: If you were involved in a discussion with a person who was demonstrating a bias and they accused you of insulting them by pointing out that bias, what would you say? How would you respond? I am genuinely curious... --JonGwynne 23:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have been critical of the Ultima GTR, because I consider it to be simply a kit car. I'll hereby impart to you the secret formula for a fast 0-100-0 time: a light tube frame chassis, a big V8, and fat tires. This is not a great engineering breakthrough. If the Ultima did this without a dirty carbed small block stroker, and did it while meeting all production car crash standards, I would consider it appropriate for inclusion.

First question: what's wrong with a kit car? Why is a kit-car less of a car that one that is built by the factory? More to the point, why is a car that is available either way (as a kit or as a factory-built, turnkey) why should it be considered less of a car? Is there anything stopping Chevrolet from offering cars this way? Of course not. They simply choose not to. Ultima hasn't got the deep-pockets of Chevrolet so they have to use cunning to bring their vehicles to market. One of these techniques is to offer the car as a kit so they don't have to submit to the expensive bureaucratic frogwalk required to get cars approved for mass-sale.

Second item... Light weight and a tube-steel chassis isn't a secret. The problem isn't that people don't know this is a recipe for a great car, but that it isn't practical to mass-produce. To date, only small-volume manufacturers have figured out ways of making this design profitably. For example, TVR don't use any injection-molded plastic in their cars. Why? They can't afford to. They make their interiors out of wood, alloy, leather and other expensive materials. This may seem a contradiction but plastic interiors are only cost-effective for large-volume production. The up-front costs to create them are simply too high for a small-volume operation. But this is a good thing. It enables smaller operations to more easily create lightweight, high-performance cars with an expensive and luxurious feel to them. Lotus' work with aluminum-extrusion may make it more practical for mass-produced, lightweight cars, but they aren't quite "there" with it yet.

I do not feel that low-volume manufacturers universally produce products which are "unsafe, poorly-built and generally unworthy of comparison to what [I] consider to be real cars. I do feel that if a car does not meet production car emissions and safety standards, then it should not be compared to a production car; it's an entirely different class of vehicle. We don't include trucks on this page. We shouldn't include cars that aren't proven to meet full production vehicle standards. TomTheHand 19:28, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But that's just the point. You don't know that SVA cars don't meet the standards. All you know is that they haven't submitted to the test. Another hypothetical: you're the CTO for a company and you're hiring an IT manager. You have two candidates. One who has his MSCE and a Master's Degree in Computer Science from a local university but doesn't come across as someone who "knows his stuff" but rather someone who jumped through the hoops to get the degree and certification but, when put through some real-world testing, doesn't perform nearly as well as your second candidate... a guy who hasn't got his MCSE but rather an Associate Degree in Computer Science from a local community college but lives and breathes computers and can run rings around your MSCE. Who do you hire? I'd hire the second candidate. Paper certification doesn't mean as much as real-world performance. But that's just my opinion... --JonGwynne 23:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You're ignoring my argument because you'd rather attack me with your own idea of what I "want." My argument is that these cars are not certified to the standards of safety or emissions that regular production cars go through, and so it's inappropriate to compare them. I am not simply wrong, and it's patently absurd that you would say that; we're not arguing opinions here. What I'm saying is demonstrably true; see the official links above describing what the SVA process does and does not test. Make an argument that cars which are not tested to the same safety or emissions standards should be included. Quit accusing me of bias. Don't quote "examples" of my bias; they are equally irrelevant. I was trying to describe the implications of not testing cars for crash safety or full emissions, but you've taken it as my personal crusade in Lord Detroit's name.

I'm not "ignoring" your argument, I believe that it is wrong and I've explained why. Creating an artificial distinction between one group of cars that is legal to buy and drive on public roads and another one that is also legal to buy and drive on public roads is not appropriate for this list. I'll dismiss your bias against low-volume cars for a moment and concentrate on your argument. Your contention that some street-legal cars shouldn't be considered street-legal because of the method used to make them street-legal doesn't pass the laugh test. It is inherently flawed and while you're certainly entitled to make it, I'm equally entitled to point that out.--JonGwynne 17:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is not an artificial distinction. You're going back to your original argument that these cars fit the current definition of this page. I know they fit the current definition of this page. Some cars are held to a higher standard of safety than others and as a result cannot, for example, be as light or feature engines with the same performance. Cars which do not go through the same standard of testing are not comparable. TomTheHand 18:19, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe your argument follows: You're blaming certification requirements for production cars being overweight? Please explain the logic underlying that conclusion. The Mazda Miata, for example, is a very light car. Is there any reason they couldn't put a 300bhp engine in one? Of course not. They choose not to. Is it because Japanese companies are inherently conservative with regard to power outputs? Perhaps. Is it because they fear the legal liability and potential damage to their reputation if a bunch of idiots buy these cheap, powerful cars and then hurt themselves (or, worse, other people) by driving them irresponsible? Perhaps. But to argue that the regulations are the reason that mass-produced cars are underpowered and overweight (by my standards) is puzzling to me. You know what I think? I think it is precisely because these companies are large and profitable that they don't build exceptional cars as a general rule. Big companies have two things going against them: they do everything by committee and they have a different attitude toward the creation of their products. A big company like Honda isn't going to spend extra millions making a car better. There's no return on the investment. They're going to make it "good enough" and then kick back and rake in their profits. The S2000 is a great example of this. It is an excellent car. I used to own one. But with a little extra effort, it could have been an extraordinary car. If they'd sorted the handling/suspension, if they'd gotten more torque from the engine, if they'd made the interior a little nicer... on a scale of 1-10, it was a solid 8. On that level, they can be proud of it. But, when I look at it, I see the 10 it could have been.--JonGwynne 23:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If cars like the Caterham are also not held to full safety and emissions standards, then they also don't belong. I don't have a specific problem with Ultima or Radical; I have a problem with all of these cars. TomTheHand 16:34, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

You keep claiming that cars that don't seek type-approval couldn't get type approval. That's an unwarranted assumption. Do you have any evidence that any of these cars would fail crash tests if they were required to submit to them? I know that both TVR and Radical have crash-tested their cars in-house and found them to be at least as safe as production cars. Partly this is due to their light weight and partly to the nature of their costruction which isn't practical for large-scale production.--JonGwynne 17:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not saying that all cars which don't seek type approval couldn't get type approval. However, it is possible to build a car that will pass SVA but is too unsafe and/or too dirty to be type approved, and such a car doesn't belong here. I'm not saying that Manufacturer X produces such cars; I'm saying that under the current rules there is no proof that they do not, and so SVA approval is inappropriate as a criterion for inclusion.

I beg your pardon but you did say exactly that about the SR3 and that was my point. Yes, it is theoretically possible to build a car that passes SVA but wouldn't get type-approval. But even if that actually happened, it would still be irrelevant. Two reasons: First, there's nothing stopping major manufacturers from building vehicles that use the SVA process to get approved. Second, whatever the differences are between type-approval requirement and SVA requirements is beside the point. The fact is that SVA-certified cars are road-legal and that's all that matters. If you think the SVA requirements should be changed, then write your MP and get 'em changed. But as long as a commercially-produced, SVA-certified car is road-legal it should be considered for this list.--JonGwynne 20:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If a car has not passed crash testing, it has not passed crash testing, and the implication that anything that passes SVA would pass crash/emissions testing is specious at best. I'm not going to argue with you about the individual merits of particular cars. We can't fight about every car. The fact that you say a TVR is at least as safe as a production car is irrelevant to me. If government testing said the same thing, I'd change my tune.

There are some type-approved cars with pretty pathetic performance in the NCAP crash-tests. You may be sanguine about the ability of government tests to separate good cars from bad but I'm not. You don't want to start bandying lists of dangerously unsafe cars that had passed government tests for road-worthiness, do you?  ;-> --JonGwynne 20:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If we can come up with a black-and-white way to include all cars that meet full production car standards of safety and emissions, without resorting to POV, I'm all for that. Any ideas? TomTheHand 18:19, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

We'd already done that. The standards aren't for us to evaluate. If the cars meet the legal standard for road-worthiness in their target market, then that should be good enough for this list. Full stop. That includes SVA. You may not agree with it or like it, but if it is good enough for the British government, it should be good enough for this list. Right?--JonGwynne 20:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps after a little more discussion we can have a vote about what to do. TomTheHand 14:29, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, JonGwynne. I've listed the page on RFC. For people coming in from the RFC page, there is a lengthy discussion of this topic above, under Radical Motorsport SR3. TomTheHand 01:33, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

The problem is also that the runner-up is the Caterham (CSR and 500) and they are also kit cars (but I think they may have a stronger case since I have a recollection of that they are type approved (or was that Westfield?)). // Liftarn

Why not just add "type approved" to the requirements? That would give a clear requirement instead of a lot of debate over what "production" and "road use" really means. If it's a production car for street use they should be type approved. If you are required to use some legal loophole to get it on the street it can hardly be called a production road car. // Liftarn

I agree completely; this is the core of my proposal. Could everyone please come out in favor of or against this idea? TomTheHand 16:34, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

I would like a definition of "type approved" before deciding on the matter. If it excludes cars like the Noble, Koenigsegg, and McLaren I would be against it. Is this a UK term? --SFoskett 16:45, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I would have some difficult in defining "type approved." I'll see if I can figure something out. Essentially what I'm trying to communicate is that the car is legal to drive when purchased and does not require Single Vehicle Approval or similar processes in other countries; the SVA process is very lenient and I don't think it's appropriate to include everything from full race cars to tanks on this list.

I'd like to hear other possible solutions as well that would be more restrictive than SVA but would not exclude low-volume manufacturers who produce street cars. I think we need to come up with a black-and-white rule to govern this issue and prevent arguing about things like manufacturer's intent or roadgoing practicality. TomTheHand 16:55, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

We already have a black-and-white rule. The rule states that manufacturers must produce at least 20 units and they must be street-legal in their intended market. That's been good enough up to now and no one has given any valid reasons to change it. The alternative is to limit this list to "major manufacturer" like The Big Three, Fiat (who also owns Ferrari and Maserati), The Volkswagen/Audi Group (who own Lamborghini and Bugatti), Honda, Toyota, etc... and that would do a great disservice not only to the people scanning this list for information about the best of the best (or worst of the worst) but also to the thousands of dedicated men and women who work for low-volume car-manufacturers all over the world and who, I'm sure, would strongly resent the implication that their products were inherently inferior to mass-produced vehicles simply because they choose one bureaucratic hoop to jump through as opposed to another. BTW, I'm glad to see that SF is agreeing with me on one important point - that excluding non type-approved cars is absurd because it would eliminate manufacturers like TVR, Caterham, Morgan, Marcos, Westfield, McClaren, Koenigsegg, Pagani, etc... Sorry, Tom, unless you can come up with a clear definition that includes some non-type-approved cars and excludes others, then SF isn't going to back you up. But then he'd probably refuse to support such a rule because of the inherent double-standard. So, either way, I think you're going to have to let this one go.

Oh yeah, and you don't have to worry about tanks being included on the list. There aren't any military vehcles that could, even with SVA certification, get past the other restrictions on the list.--JonGwynne 17:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Here's a page of ex-British-military vehicles for sale, several of which are registered and are road legal in the UK: http://www.milweb.net/classifieds.php?type=1

A road legal Spartan APC: http://www.tanks4hire.co.uk/spartanarmouredmilitarytank.html

Given that far more than 20 examples of these vehicles were produced, and that they can be made road legal with minor modifications, they are valid for inclusion on the list. Perhaps you'd consider them "trucks," though... in which case, I'd bring up armored cars, also road legal with minor modification.

Cute, but you forgot one important thing: these vehicles were not sold the public. There is a difference between offering something for sale to the public and military-surplus "yard sales". That brings up a good point though. I'd have no objection to amending the qualification critera to require that candidate vehicles be offered for sale to the public in "new" condition. That should further close the category to military-surplus hardware which seems to be a concern for Tom. It would also exclude race-prepared "specials" that got limited homologation runs and which were, in some cases, sold on to members of the public after they had been raced. It would also exclude things like race-spec versions of cars (e.g. BMW M1, Lancia Delta Integrale) which a few people connived ways to buy and then converted them for road use.--JonGwynne 20:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

LeMans cars like the Porsche 962 had, in many cases, 20 examples produced, and could be (and were) made road legal and sold; I wouldn't want these included either.

It is difficult to come up with a definition that would exclude clearly absurd cases which can be made road legal but which would include low-volume street cars. Liftarn was mentioning emissions compliance, which I think is an important part; my other big deal is, of course, safety, which is difficult to judge when a manufacturer cannot submit cars for crash testing. Anyone have any ideas? TomTheHand 17:58, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Like I said above, why not exclude cars which weren't available "new" to the public?--JonGwynne 20:14, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New and street registered. i.e. you could (given availability et.c.) buy one and drive off in it. If you have to make it street legal yourself (for instance if a SVA is required) it doesn't qualify. // Liftarn

Type Approval

I found http://www.vca.gov.uk/vehicle/index.shtm that gives some information about what type approval is. "Within Europe, two systems of type approval have been in existence for over 20 years. One is based around EC Directives and provides for the approval of whole vehicles, vehicle systems, and separate components. The other is based around ECE (United Nations) Regulations and provides for approval of vehicle systems and separate components, but not whole vehicles.". There are several, one is European Whole Vehicle Type Approval (WVTA), TRIAS (Japan) and ADR (Australian Design Rules), SASO (Saudi Arabian Standard Organization) and PAI (Public authority for industry in Kuwait). For the purpose of this list I would say that it's sufficent that the automobile in question is type approved in it's domestic market (or anywhere else, but they probable get it approved locally first anyway). // Liftarn

Re: Small manufacturers and type approval. Obviously Ginetta is type approved. In their price list [5] it says "The above price includes number plates and 12 months road tax.". I have also read that a version of Ginetta G34 was made in Sweden using Volvo engines by a company called Gin1 in 1995 and that it was type approved. // Liftarn

Limited production Runs

What's everyone's feeling on cars whose production runs have been deliberately limited by the manufacturer? Let's take something like the Ford GT which isn't likely to appear on this list so as to avoid initial controversy. Ford has announced that they intend to restrict the number that are built. It might be argued that this creates a problem for the condition that we only mention cars that are "available to the public". A limited-production car might not be considered to be available in the sense that it isn't possible for any member of the public who wants one to go and buy one. If Ford only build 2,500 GTs, and 2,501 people want one, then the last person in line is going to be S.O.L.

I'm not sure I feel that they should be struck from the list entirely, but surely they deserve some notation to the effect that they aren't available to the general public in the same sense as regular cars and there should be a more traditional alternative - at least as an "honorable mention" for these cases.--JonGwynne 22:58, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I see where you're going with this, and the Maybach is another great example. I'm sure none of us want to eliminate cars like the Maybach and GT which are exceptional examples of companies making ridiculous cars. The GT is built by Saleen, for goodness sakes! So we have to figure out a way to include ALL "worthy and interesting" cars and not let the list be overrun by weirdos.

Let me say that the "rules" edit I made was NOT to settle THIS matter. Rather, I was trying to condense the other discussions that looked like we had reached concensus on. I think we all agreed that only new cars should be considered, and only those that were intended for consumer use. I don't yet have an answer to the SVA dispute.

But I'd like to propose one anyway!  :) How about this - "all vehicles must be sold in the listed specification in more than one of the major world automobile markets (US/Japan/UK/Germany/France/Italy/Spain/Australia/Canada/etc)". This would eliminate the 250-horse S2K (I think) as well as the super-Evo. It would also explicitly allow things like the 959, McLaren, etc that (I think) we all agree should be included. Sadly it would eliminate the Radical (for now) but would not (I think) eliminate the Ultima. Maybe a compromise? Thoughts? --SFoskett 02:47, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

No, limiting by geography isn't a good idea. Limited production runs should not be listed in the "Lowest-production models" category (as already stated), but other than that it would be OK if they reach more than 20 (why that number? 5000 is the limit for rallying) as required. It may not be easy to get one, but in theory you can buy one. // Liftarn

Actually, the limit for rallying is 2500 within a family of 25000. For FIA GT and Le Mans, it's 25. But is 2500 to be considered "limited production" for cars like the Ford Escort RS Cosworth or the Renault Clio Williams? Aren't 399 Ferrari Enzos enough to be considered "standard"? Maserati needed to build 25 MC12s, they built 50 instead. I don't agree with geographic separation either, how would one define what's a "major automobile market"? And the European Union (with the EFTA) share characteristics that makes most of the continent one whole unified market. --Pc13 11:30, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sort of iffy on both the geography idea and the limited production idea. In reference to geography, I really don't have a problem with a car only being sold in a single market... my problem is with cars which don't have to conform to full safety and emissions in their market (and I don't want to debate the semantics of this any more). I don't see limited availability as being a problem for an automotive superlative. In reference to limited production, if a limited production car set a record but a widely available car came very close, I would fully support adding an honorable mention for the widely available car. However, I wouldn't support disqualifying the limited production car (as long as there are enough examples produced). Many superlative cars will be, and should be, pretty hard to get your hands on. TomTheHand 16:40, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sort of ambivalent about the geography limitation. On one hand, I'm not sure it really eliminates anything - even the UK-built "super-Evo" because there's nothing to stop a Belgian buying one and bringing it home. A good example would be the Fiat Barchetta which lots of Brits have imported to England because they think it is swell - in spite of the fact that Fiat don't officially sell it there.--JonGwynne 00:31, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Proposed Rules Amendment

Proposal for Rule #4: In cases where different-powered versions of the same vehicle are offered in different markets, the stats for the vehicle available in the majority of the markets where it is sold shall be counted. How's that sound?

This is primarily to stop Honda pulling stunts like they did with the S2000. Yeah, I know that there was a 250bhp version available in Japan only but I'm going to argue that this shouldn't count for the purposes of this list. No one outside of Japan can buy that car. Everyone else gets 240bhp. --JonGwynne 04:09, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't support this. If a car is an official product, it doesn't matter if the power varies in different markets. The S2k gets 250 in Japan, and is clearly and unambiguously an official/full production/completely legal and approved car there. 125hp/L in a full-production car is impressive and deserves recognition, even if we don't get it in the UK or USA. I think there will be many examples of cars detuned for certain markets or super-tuned for others... I really think we need to come up with a list of markets for which this list applies - just because Zimbabwe allows a crazy car doesn't mean it makes the list, right? --SFoskett 05:08, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

One reason I'm suggesting is that specifically with regard to Japan, there is known to be a certain laxity with regard to how they measure horsepower. Remember the big stink when Mazda claimed a certain output for the RX-8 and then it turned out that a significant number of them were under the mark and the subsequent buybacks? That wouldn't have happened in Japan. Also, there are situations where certain companies (Nissan, Honda and Toyota) are known to actually underestimate power for various reasons. Ergo, I'm not sure that Japanese power quotes can be taken as seriously as, say, US quotes. Note that even Lotus who is usally pretty careful about making sure their cars deliver what they claim "on the tin", is including a disclaimer for their North American Elises something like power output may vary by up to 5%. Anyway, my point is that they may be claiming 250bhp in Japan because they know that they can get away with it in the home market but not overseas. I don't have any proof of this mind you, but that - combined with the slightly dodgy way the S2000's distribution was handled (the 250bhp version isn't even an option outside the home market) makes me wonder. Does anyone have any independently run dyno tests on the Japanses S2000 that would shed any more light? --JonGwynne 05:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I take your point. Any time a listing is seriously disputed, it can't be included without an asterisk or note. This doesn't need a special rule, though. FWIW, Mazda's performance problems (for the 2001 Miata at least not sure about the RX) were caused by US emissions equipment, and the cars (apparently) really did meet the earlier claims in other markets. --SFoskett 05:50, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Dunno about the Miata but the story I heard on the RX-8 was that the manufacturing process was apparently responsible. In other words, the prototype cars were OK, but somewhere in the translation to mass-production, a goodly number of ponies turned up missing. So Mazda, rather than risk a big hoo-hah, revised the power-specs down then offered to buy any cars back from customers who felt that they been short-changed and offered some concessions to owners who kept their cars as well I think. I don't mean to single out the Japanese, some British companies have been known to quote "optimistic" power outputs. The early E-type Jags were *way* down own power from the dealer demos. TVR's AJP-8 engine (particularly the 4.5 liter version) has also been known to let a few horses out of the pasture between prototype and production - in fact, there were even unsubstantiated allegations that the test-cars engines were stroked by several hundred ccs due to then-owner Peter Wheeler's decision to privately offer larger-displacement versions of the car to a handful of friends, or that the lads running the dyno were telling porkies... But I digress. My point is that there's no real reason to take Honda's word as gospel that they made 250bhp on the home sod given the realities of the business and we should go with the more generally accepted numbers they gave to everyone else.--JonGwynne 06:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Honda is no less trustworthy in the horsepower department than anyone else. Remember the Peugeot 306 S16 case, when PSA claimed the XU10J4 engine was good for 155hp and the dyno tested only 143hp? Hey, Dodge claimed 450hp for the Viper Mk.I, and we had to settle with 384hp for Europe. We have more potential buyers on this side, should we take the 384hp as the more significant value? What about the "underpowereds" like the Skyline GT-R (which was actually closer to 330hp than 280), or a few of the early TDI VWs, when the 110hp Golf TDI was actually closer to 125, and the 115hp version already had the 130 that VW took another year to officially claim? I remember the Japanese laxity to what you refer, Jon, I have with me a few Automobil Revue catalogs from the early 80s, when given horsepower was SAE gross, and a few 110hp engines were "detuned" to 75hp in Europe (such as the 1.6L that powered the Toyota Corona). But the JIS uses the same method of calculation power as the DIN, so I don't see any reason why the Japanese Honda S2000 should be disallowed. FWIW, the Corolla T Sport, in Japan, is 2hp below the European model (190 vs. 192hp, in US, 180hp), and the Evo.8 still has 280hp in Japan, while in Europe and the US the car had to be detuned (265/271, respectively). --Pc13 10:25, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think this could be adressed by a comment in the article. Many coutries have similar practices. For instance mopeds are limited to 45 kmh in France but I remember a time were Motobecanes (officially measured at 45 kmh) were faster that Honda even if the Japaneses had better technology. Ericd 12:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First modern monocoque?

What is the difference between a monocoque and a modern monocoque? For instance is the 1949 Saab 92 modern or not? // Liftarn

I don't understand I don't see any significative difference between a Citroën Traction Avant and a Ford Consul reguarding chassis... Ericd 11:52, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the Ford Consul, there's no doubt that the Citroën Traction Avant is an Unibody. I'm not certain the Lancia Lambda was one, I've seen many bodyworks versions of the Lambda and I believe it was build more like a Renault 4. Ericd 11:58, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I got the Consul reference from an automotive history book. They felt that it was truly modern in its load-bearing structures, including the roof and pillars. The Lambda wasn't modern enough since it had too many load-bearing panels and a vestigial frame molded into the floorpan. Their conclusions, not mine. I'm OK with the removal. --SFoskett 12:35, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

The Lambda had some kind of frame to allow different bodyworks but not the TA nor the Saab 92 or the Renault 4CV IMO. Renault made a step back with the R4 to allow different bodyworks on the R4 chassis, that allowed them to build the R6 and R5 later with high cost efficiency. However I've a TA "naked" and I can tell you that its made of steel panels with no tubes. Everything has a structural role. That explains why the TA Cabriolet is so rare and so expensive the car had to be reinforced everywhere with special parts. Ericd 12:53, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rules Change

The post World War II limitation is stupid as most of the innovations were introduced before. A post World War I limitation will be more relevant. I also suggest to have a superlative or a first for racing cars and another one for production cars. Ericd 12:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This sounds fair. I just wanted to not have to include the 12 L Bugatti as the largest straight-8! --SFoskett 13:14, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Well, we don't currently have a straight-8 category, and I can't recall ever having seen one mentioned in modern times. I think we could draw the line at WWI instead of WWII, as long as we mention the car must have been developed after WWI (so, of course, cars introduced in 1919 with outdated technology, i.e. really big engines, will be disqualified). I think that, as long as we try to introduce these on a case by case basis, we can decide/speculate/research when they were built. You see, I think I found a good candidate for the largest V12 - the Maybach DS8 Zeppelin from 1928. --Pc13 16:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(Gulp...) The Big Question...

I realize that this is potentially be a lot of hassle, but I'm thinking that we should consider creating some different "weight classes" for at least some of the categories (particularly power/performance). Let's let some of the more mainstream vehicles in on some of the "ooohs" and "aaahs", eh? Like maybe a sub-$30k category and a $30k-$100k category and then a >$100k category. Those numbers are just suggestions and I'm open to changing them and/or adding an extra rung or two if anyone really feels strongly about it. What's everyone think?--JonGwynne 05:48, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Price categories are probably a bad idea. I guess only the price as new would be relevant (a used SAAB 900 Turbo can be had for almost nothing (saw a price of 2000 SEK (300 USD) recently)), but prices can be different in different markets, not to mention the problem with prices over time (should we convert them to current value?). I've added the "power to weight" category that somehow evens the odds. Perhaps by body style could be relevant (sedan, convertible, hatchback et.c.). But then we would have other problems, what is the fastest brougham? Not to mention that the combi coupé category would be rather dull. // Liftarn

Safest car

A more practical category would be the question which car is the safest, but it's very hard to get a good answer. Mercedes-Benz E-Class is rated "safest car in the USA" [6] by IIHS, the Citroën C5 is rated Europe's safest car after getting a high score in EuroNCAP's crash testing [7] and Saab 9-5 and Saab 9-3 is rated safest in Folksam's report, 'How Safe is Your Car?' [8] and Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) [9]. // Liftarn

Vote: Honorable Mentions for disputed entries

Should any dispute about an entry automatically bump it down to Honorable Mention? Should there be a minimum consensus on a disputed entry to bump it to Honorable Mention? Or should disputes not affect a vehicle's status, as long as the vehicle seems to at least generally meet the rules posted at the top of the page?

Hope having three choices doesn't break any chance of achieving consensus here.

Vote:

• Consensus required - I don't think a car should be reduced to an Honorable Mention without, say, a majority vote. I don't like the idea that a single user or a minority can remove a vehicle's title if the majority seems to feel it meets the requirements. TomTheHand 21:45, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
• Consensus required - That's why we have the talk page. --Pc13 22:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
• Consensus required - We talk about it (forever). Also, as an ammendment, I'd propose that any new record holder automatically bumps the old record to HM rather than deleting it. --SFoskett 00:50, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I agree on former record holders being bumped to HMs; sounds fair and recognizes as many achievements as possible. I'd say we keep a max of two or so HMs for any one entry, so eventually older records are bumped off. TomTheHand 02:24, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

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 [10], 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 [11] "Colt Cars has only two shareholders, namely Colt Automotive Limited (CAL), substantially owned by [David] Blackburn, and Mitsubishi Corporation". So, at best Mitsubishi is only part-owner of Mitsubishi UK. This would seem to suggest that the FQ400 is going to have a hard time being considered an "original manufacturer vehicle" for the purposes of this list. I mean, it isn't like they're a wholly-owned subsidiary like AMG is of Daimler.

I propose a compromise: I'll wholeheartedly support the FQ if everyone else will get equally behind the Radical and Ultima and we can ditch this "disputed stats" disclaimer for them. Jeez, I'm starting to sound like some sort of policitian lurking in a smoke-filled back room making deals to get pork-barrel-legislation passed...

Who's in? --JonGwynne 04:01, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Not me... Colt is just the UK distributor for Mitsubishi. Look at the bottom of any page at mitsubishi-motors.co.uk. Mitsubishi USA used to be called Colt too. It's as much "the manufacturer" as Mazda of America is for Mazda in the US. Shall we disqualify the Mazdaspeed Miata just because it's built for a single market? The FQ400 is listed as a regular version of the Lancer Evolution on mitsubishi-motors.co.uk, so it sure looks like an official production car to me, albeit one with a limited production run. According to the official brochure, it's a 1997cc engine and produces 302.13kW or 151.3 kW (202.9 hp) per Litre with a cat and road-legal tuning. Impressive. --SFoskett 05:19, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but Mitsubishi doesn't wholly own the company that is doing the modification. That makes it an aftermarket tuner even if Mitsubishi does own a part of it. See what I'm saying? I mean, if Ford bought a share of Steve Saleen's company and gave him the right to sell Ford products to the public, he's still be an aftermarket tuner and Saleen-tuned Mustangs wouldn't be considered for this list, right? --JonGwynne 05:24, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Colt is not a tuner organization or specialty builder like Saleen. It is the only distributor of Mitsubishi cars in the UK. Would you suggest that no UK Mitsubishis are eligible since they are distributed by Colt? Of course not. I know what you're getting at - that Colt specifically designed and farmed out production of the FQ-400 on its own. But is this really any different than any other port- or dealer-installed option? There's no dispute that these cars exist, that they produce that much power, that they were available to the public (in the UK) as new from the official UK distributor of Mitsubishi products. They appear to be covered by the manufacturers warranty even. It's much more of a production car than a certain radical alternative I can think of... *grin* How about an asterisk or note? By the way, my local Ford dealer sells Saleen-tuned Mustangs as new with full Ford warranty coverage. And my local BMW dealer sells Dinan cars. Welcome to the rathole... --SFoskett 05:41, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't suggest that *all* UK Mitsubishis should be disqualified. Clearly, the cars that are manufactured by Mitsubishi and shipped to the UK for resale without separate modification would be eligible. The problem is that Mitsubishi doesn't manufacture or even warrantee the FQ400. A company that isn't owned by Mitsubishi takes the cars, modifies them and then offers them for sale to the public with their own warrantee. See what I mean?--JonGwynne 05:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's look at this a different way. Why is Colt less of a manufacturer than Radical? Since the FQ400 is a completely legal production car in the UK, why not include it? There are 100 of these things zooming around legally Britain's roads. I seriously doubt there are 100 SR3s on the roads there... It is a grey area. On that we both agree. If we include the FQ400, do we include the Saleen Mustangs? They're 50-state legal and carry official Saleen VINs, and are "type approved", including crash testing and emissions. Are the FQ400s type approved or SVA? --SFoskett 05:59, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Excellent question. Radical is more of a manufacturer because they build their cars from scratch with the exception of the drivetrain which they buy from other suppliers and then substantially modify in both operation and application (i.e. they take a motorcycle engine and adapt it for use in a four-wheel car after substantially increasing the power output). BTW, many other manufacturers buy both transmissions and even engines. But, any way you slice it, the FQ400 is a tuner car (like a Hennessey Viper or AMG Mercedes). The only question is whether the company that did the tuning is owned by the original manufacturer. In the case of AMG, the answer would be "yes" and we'd consider the car to be "manufactured by Mercedes". In the case of the Hennessey Viper, the answer would be no because Chrysler doesn't own Hennesey. In the case of the FQ400, it is pretty clearly "no" as well since Mitsubishi is only part-owner of the company called "Mitsubishi UK" who sells cars there.--JonGwynne 06:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So this isn't about the FQ400, it's about the Radical. Well, it's very simple. If the FQ400 is marketed by Mitsu UK and obeys Euro III emission regulations, it's in. If it's sold by Mitsu UK as a regular Evo.8 and then shipped to Colt for after-market modifications, and/or doesn't obey Euro III emissions regulations, it's out. The question isn't whether the tuning arm is owned by the brand or not. AMG Mercs are sold to the public after completion (or alteration), i.e. they're not modified after buying. By your reasoning, the Volvo C70 would be disqualified because it's completely made by Tom Walkinshaw Racing. Trading the FQ400 for the Radical doesn't win your argument.

The Ultima's record was achieved with a special version that doesn't obey emission regs in Europe or the US. I'd gladly welcome any records by a LS1 (or derivatives) powered Ultima. Radical has not provided any specs for a road-going version of the SR3, one which includes, per the SVA kit, a different fuel management and a catalyst. A similar situation happened with the Renault Clio V6 (another TWR product, by the way), which was capable of 285 hp in racing trim, but had to be detuned to 230 hp to be approved for road use.

To Sfoskett, the Saleen Mustang may be type-approved, but so are the Alpina BMWs, the Brabus Mercedes, the Abt VWs, and the Ruf Porsches. Would you like a 740 hp 996 Turbo here? They're still modified after purchase. --Pc13 09:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that Ruf does make their own cars, they have two programs, one where you ship your car to their facility in Texas (if you are in the US) or Germany (Rest of world) and then they are modified, however those cars are still Porsches with Ruf upgrades. Ruf has their own VIN and buys the bare chassis from Porsche and assembles everything themselves. If you look on their website it says "RUF Automobile GmbH is a producer of high-performance vehicles, specializing in manufacturing new RUF automobiles from the bare chassis, conversions to RUF specification and the performance enhancemet / refinement of Porsche cars." So while they may use many parts from Porsche, that doesn't mean that they don't also manufacture their own cars. So perhaps Ruf should be included for some of these. 69.248.230.161 04:43, 18 July 2006 (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 [12]), the C70 isn't really a Volvo. On the other hand, it could be argued that they're simply sub-contracting the construction of a model and since the deal was initiated by Volvo, then the car is still theirs even though they paid someone else to built it for them. Anyway, it doesn't matter because the C70 isn't up for any of these categories, is it?--JonGwynne 17:39, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

For my money, the FQ400 qualifies, and the Saleens & Dinans don't (not that they were part of this debate, just mentioned as an aside). Why? A few reasons. Mitsubishi UK [b]does[/b] offer a 3 year/36000 mile warranty. They commissioned the car. They sell the car. They spend their money advertising the car. BMW does not do that for Dinan, nor Ford for Saleen. From the Mitsubishi UK press release for the FQ400: "As befits its status as an official Mitsubishi Motors UK product, the FQ-400 has undergone extensive reliability testing and is supplied with a three years/36,000 mile manufacturer’s warranty." Can't get more conclusive than that IMHO. --Zaktoo 00:35, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Largest V12

Ericd has made an important point: only two Pagani Zondas were produced, so the car is ineligible for the Largest V12 honor (though an honorable mention might be nice). Ericd replaced the Zonda with the Mercedes CLR. I was under the impression that the CLR had a V8. The Mercedes CLK-GTR had a 6.9L V12, which might be the record holder (25 roadgoing versions were built). More recently, for 2002 two CLR-GTRs were equipped with the 7.3L V12 featured in the Pagani Zonda, but of course this doesn't qualify either.

This is not something I know a lot about, so I'd like to get some opinions on it first, but I'm thinking the CLR-GTR should be the largest V12, with the CLK-GTR Super Sport and the Pagani Zonda being mentioned. How's this sound? TomTheHand 21:02, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure if its the CLR or CLR-GTR or CLK-GTR and what's the exact engine capacity, I have to read some old magazines to verify. But the the Zonda doesn't qualify. The Mercedes (the cars that tooks off like planes in Le Mans) were mostly race cars but however Mercedes build a small serial (20 ?) of them for road use unlike his competitors (I will burn in hell forever if Toyota sold only one GT-One to customers !). Ericd 21:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The CLR was homologated as LM-GTP, so there were no minimum production requirements. Mercedes built 25 CLK-GTRs, and followed up with another 25 CLK-GTR Roadsters. I'll wade through the DaimlerChrysler press site to see if I can find the exact engine capacity. But the CLK-GTR may not be the biggest engine, as the Lister Storm had a 7.0L V12. Since the car had to be homologated for the FIA GT Championship, it's conceivable Laurence Pearce built at least 25 of those. --Pc13 00:12, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've verified the CLK-GTR was powered by a V12 while the CLR used a V8. The CLK-GTR V12 is 6898cc and the car was produced in 30 units (25 coupes + 5 roadsters). However the Lister Storm has a 6996cc but I don't know how many were build this should be at least 25 IMO to compete in FIA-GT championship. Ericd 17:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does that "30 units" figure refer to the number built and sold new for use on the street, or the overall production? I know this information is hard to find; I've had a lot of difficulty too. TomTheHand 17:54, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

This is the number built. Nearly all the coupés where used for racing, however the car was street legal. But I think it would be more useful to look for production figures of the Lister Storm that has a bigger engine. Ericd 18:58, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you guys sure about the Zonda production numbers? I was working on the Zonda article and there are a lot of 7.3 L models. There seemingly has to have been more than 2 produced. The company switched over to the 7.3L engine in 2002 and is said to have produced about 25 per year since then... Also, this engine was used in the AMG SL73 from 1995 or so. --SFoskett 21:18, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Autoweek reviewed 7.3L roadster number 8 in 2004 so presumably eight roadsters were built. this article has 6.0 and 7.0 production numbers, 5 and 15, respectively. --SFoskett 21:38, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

An answer. Car and Driver 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... --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... --SFoskett 18:01, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

Motor Trend reports in the January 2006 issue that "Sixty Zondas have now been sold". (Horrell, Paul (2006). "Space Craft". Motor Trend. 58 (1): 96–100. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)) Since the 7.3 is the only version produced since the R&T citation, I think this puts us over 25 for the big engine. I propose adding the Zonda's engine size the the list. Any other performance stats, though, should stay out since it's not entirely clear which models were built, and since each performed quite differently. --SFoskett 17:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops someone already put it there. Well, it belongs!  :) --SFoskett 17:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I found [13] (good source btw) and it mentions a 13.5 litre engine in the US Pierce-Arrow 6-66 Raceabout of 1912–18, the US Peerless 6-60 of 1912–14, and the Fageol of 1918. // Liftarn

I just noticed that the Mercedes CLR is still in the "largest V12" spot because this discussion sort of died :-) The CLR doesn't even have a V12! I'm going to add the CLK-GTR as a placeholder, and if anyone has an argument, feel free to replace it. Enough examples were definitely produced, and it's a big V12. If anyone finds production figures on roadgoing Lister Storms, go ahead and swap them. TomTheHand 16:19, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

The forum at the official Lister website has a mention that "in excess of 25 cars were delivered to various parts of the world". Since the car is a regular runner in the FIA GT Championship, then at least 25 cars had to have been built for road use in the European Union in order for FIA to grant the car homologation. In this case, 6996cc for the Jaguar XJS V12 is the record holder. --Pc13 17:34, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I just wanted to put a V12 in the "largest V12" spot as a placeholder ;-) TomTheHand 18:22, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Uh, oh - Supercars.net 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 a page about the Storm and found this troubling... --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 April 1999. Non-homologated cars can run in the FIA GT Championship in the G2 and G3 classes, but they are not eligible for points. --Pc13 20:10, 2005 Jun 13 (UTC)

What about the zonda C12S roadster edition which also features the 7.3 V12 Edition?? Pagani Built 40 unit already, both of Topgear And 5th gear tested the cars already and according to viki from 5th gear that they've sold 35 edition already while making the episode. EvolutioniuM

Are you sure about that? Was it in the magazine or the TV show? Can you provide references, please? -- Pc13 18:29, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

It was featured in 2004.11.14 Top Gear episode by Richard Hammond but he didnt mention how many Of the 40 Roadsters are made, but when viki from 5th Gear tested it in Italy she said that 35 of the 40 Roadsters are being delivered already, frankly I dont know the video release date but you can get both of the tests from racingflix by creating a free account there, here are the links

http://www.racingflix.com/getvideo.asp?v=403 http://www.racingflix.com/getvideo.asp?v=894

Btw Pagani doesnt make the 7.0L V12 edition anymore, all of their produced cars features the 7.3L V12 since 2002 including the Roadster and the new C12 F, and Zondas will be build in a biiger factory with a capable of producing 250 cars per year, 70 of these cars will be the first Zondas to officially be sold in the US EvolutioniuM 02:03, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Tuner cars

So what defines a tuner car as opposed to a small-volume car? In other words, is the Saleen S281 and cars like it a tuner car or a limited-production modified car? I mean, Saleen builds these things at a factory based on incomplete mustangs from Ford, they're 50-state certified, have Saleen VIN codes, and are purchased new with a warranty at regular auto dealers. They're not modifications of complete cars, let alone "non-new" cars like the majority of tuners. Compare Saleen with Roush (definitely a tuner) and you'll see quite a difference. Why is a Saleen any different from a Panoz? Or more specifically, why is the Saleen S281 any different from the Saleen S7? --SFoskett 13:43, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I am having some difficulty here. On the one hand, I could say the S7 is different from the S281 in that Saleen builds the chassis; in the same way Panoz can be separated from Saleen's tuner cars. On the other hand, I'm not sure why it matters and why we would try to exclude these cars. Many small car manufacturers don't build all of their cars: engines are often outsourced, and surely every small car manufacturer doesn't engineer things like brake calipers from scratch. Where do you draw the line between tuner and manufacturer? Argh! ;-) What matters most to me is compliance with the full range of safety and emissions laws; this is what makes a "real car" for me, and Saleen obviously manages this. I really don't know what to say here. TomTheHand 14:48, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

This is my problem. I don't really want to include the S281 since it looks like a tuner car. But with a Saleen VIN and full type approval in the USA, it really is a separate car from the Mustang. It's not a staged kit of bolt-ons like a Roush or something. Same goes for modern AMG, though that's less ambitious since it's owned by DCX. Panoz used an entire Mustang driveline and running gear under the Panoz AIV - it just didn't look like a Mustang. Se we take it case-by-case then. If a car seems like a real car (because of VIN, certification, type production, etc) then it counts. --SFoskett 15:14, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

I dunno... I mean, I'm perfectly willing to admit that A Saleen S7 is a "stand-along" car and I doubt anyone would argue the point. But I think cars like the S281 should still be considered "tuned Mustangs" because Saleen start with Mustang bits and then add their own. Some tuners take a full car, pull off the bits they don't like and substitue their own, in Saleen's case, he's got a cozy enough relationship with Ford that they send him partially-assembled Mustangs to save him the trouble (and his customers the expense) of doing it the other way. But that still makes it a tuned Mustang in my book. I mean, it is still more Mustang than Saleen, right? Compared to something that may use the drivetrain from a Mustang and yet be a completely different vehicle (e.g. Panoz or Marcos). I wouldn't worry that it gets a Saleen VIN, I think that's a red-herring. It gets a Saleen VIN because the car isn't completely assembled until it leaves Saleen, right?--JonGwynne 05:00, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The logo in the front says it's a Mustang. It's also clearly recognizable as a Mustang. I would say it's not an independent automobile. They do the same thing like companies that build limousines, hearses, ambulances et.c. They build on on existing model. a simmilar problem are factory tuned cars. For instance VAZ Lada sent new cars directly to a company in (then) Czechoslovakia (I don't remember the name) where they were tuned and outfitted with Momo steering wheels. SAAB does a simmilar co-operation with Hirsch Performance AG [14] (the 305 bhp 9-5 would be the most powerfull front wheel drive if this was allowed). // Liftarn

Yes, but since it is a tuner car, it isn't. So I'm removing it from the main article.--JonGwynne 08:20, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That depends. It looks like you can walk into a SAAB dealer (not in the USA) and get the 9-5 Aero Hirsch. Yesterday my girlfriend walked into a SAAB dealer to look for some power steering fluid and there she picked up an issue of "Saab News". It doesn't say it directly, but you can order your Aero with Hirsch details if you want. // Liftarn

You can apparently buy Saleen-tuned Mustangs from Ford dealers but they're still tuner cars. The rule for this list is that the car has to be built by the "original manufacturer" (in your case, Saab). There was an exception made (with which I didn't completely agree) that tuners who are wholly-owned by the original manufacturer are also included (e.g. AMG) does Hirsch qualify?--JonGwynne 18:05, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Probably not, they have some kind of co-operation, but they are probably no more than partially owned. Would it matter who fitted the extras? If the Hirsch extras were fitted by SAAB. I'll have to look into it better. // Liftarn

In order to be considered a factory car, the name Hirsch would have to be used as the sports model designation by the factory, eg AMG is used by Mercedes as the sports model designation (C 55 AMG, E 55 AMG) and Abarth by Fiat (Fiat Stilo Abarth). The Saab 9-5 Aero Hirsch isn't. --Pc13 09:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I haven't got al the facts yet, but it seems it's still called "Aero". The stuff I have doesn't give much info, just talks about "Aero plus more". I've tried the SAAB sites, but it doesn't seem to be available yet anyway. "Saab Automobile and Hirsch Performance of Switzerland are working together to develop a portfolio of sporty engine, chassis and styling enhancements, branded Saab Performance by Hirsch, which will allow Saab customers an exciting opportunity to individualize their cars. Enhancements include the addition of a 305-hp 9-5 Aero model." [15] // Liftarn

This sounds very similiar to the relationship between Ford and Saleen. Saleen's aren't eligible for consideration as "original manufacturer" vehicles and, unless Saab owns Hirsch, neither should the 305bhp Aero. And on a personal note... a 305bhp turbocharged, FWD car? That's pretty bizarre. I can't begin to imagine how the thing would be remotely drivable without massive interference from the traction-control system I assume it must using to keep the front wheels from going insane every time the driver puts their foot down. Sorry, but if there was any way for me to come up with a rule that disqualified powerful cars with unswitchable traction-control from any of the categories here, I'd be fiercely advocating it. It is simply bad design to create a powerful car and then fit it with full-time traction-control (or really any sort of traction-control in my opinion). I mean what's the point of building a powerful car and then giving the car veto power over the throttle? Traction-control is nothing but an electronic 'nanny' that says "You didn't really mean to put your foot down, I'm going to do what I think you meant to do, not what you asked to do."

A car with traction control doesn't even have a throttle pedal, but a "throttle request" pedal at the mercy of the computer. Sorry, but anyone who buys a powerful car and asks for traction-control should go buy a 1.6 liter Mazda Miata or something else that won't scare them (or cause them to hurt people) and leave real cars to real drivers [/rant].--JonGwynne 16:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The same can be said about ABS brakes, that they are just "brake request". Anyway, it seems the Aero Hirsch isn't available in shops yet so it shouldn't be added until then anyway. It may be bizzare with a 305bhp turbocharged, FWD car, but some find them driveable. There is even a Nordic Uhr tuned Saab 9-5 Areo taxi. The owner claims to have the fastest taxi in Sweden (there are other claims to the title, for instance one in a Subaru Impreza GT Turbo). I saw an interview with him and he was asked if that much power really was necessary in a taxi and if he had ever used it. He said he did use it one. He drove a woman in labour to the hospital and asked for fight of way and then stepped on it. [16] // Liftarn

I agree. In heavy cars, ABS is not only useful but often necessary. However, in performance cars (i.e. light-weight with big brakes) then ABS is unnecessary and to mandate it as some markets have done is unconscionable. I remember when I read that Lotus was being forced to fit ABS to the Elise, they did ultimately comply but they put a three second delay on the ABS so that experienced drivers could still use it to help drift the back end around corners. Think about that for a second... a car with an ABS system that doesn't kick in for three whole seconds... Wouldn't it have been easier and better for everyone to just allow Lotus to fit it with switchable ABS? --JonGwynne 16:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Update

I went into a SAAB store and asked about the 9-5 with Hirsch package and I received an interesting reply. The 305 hp 9-5 is not available as an aftermarket add-on, it has to be factory ordered. According to the person behind the counter it is not possible to upgrade an ordinary 9-5 Aero to Hirsch. I asked why it wasn't available as an option on the web, and according to him you had to talk to a salesperson to get it. It sounds a bit odd that you can't upgrade an existing car so I guess I'll have to call the sales department to find out more. // Liftarn

Cadillac superlatives

I just added a crap-load of superlatives claimed by various Cadillac fan web sites. I'm not sure if they're true, but some were interesting and should spark real investigation. Who had the first LED brake light? Trip computer? Dual-zone climate control? --SFoskett 19:26, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge, the Maserati 3200 had the first LED brakelights. --JonGwynne 03:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some good questions! I know (or think I know!) the following:

The '92 Cadillac Seville used LEDs for its third brake light, but not the regular brake lights. This was the first production LED use, at the very least in the U.S. The Maserati was probably first with an all-LED setup. See this.

The first trip computer I ever saw was in the '80 Lincoln Mark VI, Ford Thunderbird, and Mercury Cougar. It could do miles to empty, average miles per gallon, fuel remaining, and maybe a few other things I've forgotten. These were the first vehicles with all-digital instruments also.

They are preceeded by the Aston Martin Lagonda with its dodgy digital dash circa 1976. I think you'll find it had a trip comp too. --LiamE 15:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

IMHO, the first dual-zone climate control was in the '95 Buick Riviera--it was standard equipment. If it existed any earlier, I'd feel pretty sure it was in another Buick. I can't recall when the Park Avenue got it.

Other Caddy trivia:

1974 Fleetwood Talisman - first and only use of front and rear velour-covered consoles

1928 - first use of laminated safety glass (according to the 1978 Cadillac showroom brochure)

RivGuySC 03:33, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Units in power to weight, specific power categories

It's rather odd to be using a combination of imperial/customary US measurements (horsepower) and metric (kilograms or liters) in these. Shouldn't it be instead either hp/lb and hp/in³ or kW/kg and kW/liter? —Morven 20:36, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I think in the US, when talking about new cars, hp/L is used the majority of the time and hp/in&sup3 is sort of a throwback to earlier times (muscle car era, etc). I agree on unit consistency for power:weight ratios though. TomTheHand 22:37, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

In Europe (at least in Sweden) most people prefer using hp even if both usually are given so hp/kg is actually more used than kW/kg (or W/g). // Liftarn

With regards to the specific output of engines, I've only ever seen it expressed as bhp/liter. Also, with regard to the specific power of vehicles (i.e. power:weight ratio) I have seem several different ways of expressing it but by far the predominant seems to be bhp/ton (where a "ton" is a metric ton - i.e. 1000kg). --JonGwynne 23:15, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I've heard kW/L, but not from US sources. Of course I've heard hp/in^3, but it seems pretty out of date. In reference to power:weight, I've heard lbs/hp many times, which is really weight:power but which might be worth including. TomTheHand 23:53, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've seen lbs/hp in a few US magazines - seems to be an "Americanism" but it also seems to be a bit counter-intuitive in the sense that the lower the number, the better it is. I suspect that's why bhp/ton is popular... I don't have any problem with alternate measurements though... If you'll notice, I stuck mpg in parens in the mileage rating for the European car in addition to the L/100km rating they had. It may mean something to Europeans, but I think in terms of MPG and I suspect most other people do too. --JonGwynne 00:16, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to use MPG, it's worth noting that there is a difference between US MPG and Imperial MPG. --Zaktoo 01:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Mosler MT900 production

My edits got squashed by Pc13, I think accidently. I'm adding them here: TomTheHand 22:33, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

JonGwynne, can you post the link that shows production numbers for the MT900S? I missed it; all I saw was the "Locate a MT900" link which shows too few cars produced. TomTheHand 21:38, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

I see the performance figures you quoted are for the MT900 Photon, not the S; still, can you post a link showing production figures for the Photon? TomTheHand 21:52, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

According to Warren Mosler himself, in a message posted in the Moslerauto official forum, in January 2005, there were only two finished road cars, one Photon, and one MT900S. The Photon is a different version of the car, with reduced weight, so it's not the same model as the MT900S. The objective is to have 25 road-going MT900S by the end of the year, in order to achieve FIA homologation. --Pc13 22:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I tried to post the link, but they've gone and gotten clever on that web site and the link to the article doesn't seem to be able to be copied/pasted. When I do, it provides a link to "javascript:remoteLink('mosler_link','www.moslerauto.com/article_012604.html','2')" but the URL doesn't link to anything. Anyway, it is 8th from the top in the "News" section and is labelled "The Mosler MT 900 S • English • Deutsch". It says, "...For the moment 25 cars for Europe are manufactured. The goal is it to manufacture so many cars for Europe that the Homologation of the FIA is reached."

It is possible that they haven't finished building all the cars yet, but if they're in the process of building them, they should be eligible, wouldn't you say? --JonGwynne 23:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

The article you quoted seems to be in reference to the MT900S, which did not set the records in question. The article does not mention the Photon. TomTheHand 23:51, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

As near as I can tell, the MT900S and the MT900 Photon differ only in their transaxle, the former uses a Porsche unit and the latter a sequential unit from source whose name eludes me. Same engine, same body... --JonGwynne 00:25, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

That transaxle seems to be good for 200 lbs weight savings and 0.4 seconds shaved off the 0-60 time. Not buying it. One set the record in question, the other did not. Provide evidence that the record-setting car has enough examples produced and it's fine. TomTheHand 02:11, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

I'd say, at the very least, wait until they have actually produced 25 examples before even considering it. The exotic car market has too many examples of grandiose plans coming to nothing.

And I agree that records set by a one-off model don't count, when the differences make a notable change in the performance. —Morven 06:29, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

It isn't a one-off model. Please be careful when using this term, it has a specific meaning (i.e. a model which the manufacturer has deliberately limited to a single example). The Mosler MT900 is available in different configurations, more than 20 of them have been built according to the write-up in the German publication, ergo I think it meets the qualifications. --JonGwynne 03:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

There aren't 20 MT900s fully built yet, even counting the MT900R racing versions. There are only 2 built Photons, which is a different configuration from the standard MT900S, weighing 100 kg less than the MT900S, thanks to carbon seats, magnesium wheels and carbon fiber bodywork. This is not the same as adding heated seats, a CD player and extra cup holders. These are modifications with a direct effect in handling and performance. By the end of the year, Mosler hopes to have 25 MT900S's built, in order to homologate the car for GT racing. Not Photons, as carbon fiber bodywork is not allowed in GT racing. After that, Mosler will build the cars to order, so hopefully we'll see more Photons, but until then, this is hardly past prototype stage. --Pc13 13:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

You mean like when Lamborghini offered introduced carbon-fiber bodywork on the Diablo? Did that make it a different car? The article reports that the 25 have already been built, is the article wrong?--JonGwynne 16:00, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Diablo point. Can you summarize? --SFoskett 16:09, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

If the Lamborghini Diablo with carbon-fiber bodywork hit a particular record that the regular Diablo was incapable of meeting, there would need to be at least 20 examples built for the record to qualify for this list. You haven't presented any sort of evidence that 20 Photons have been built. The article may be mistaken, given that it seems to be contradicted by statements by Warren Mosler. Either way, the article does not mention the Photon at all, which is the variant that matters in this particular case. Jon, you might want to check the following link, which contains information about the page's policy on whether the "20 produced" rule applies to superlative versions or only to the car in general: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_automotive_superlatives#Vote:_Production_Numbers TomTheHand 16:12, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Looming shakeup

AutoWeek reports that the Bugatti Veyron 16.4 has been tested in production form at 248.5 mph (400 km/h)! And the car is still producing 1001 (metric) hp. So we have two new records on our hands as soon as 20 have been produced. Car and Driver went to the factory and production really is underway! --SFoskett 14:02, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

Awesome! I have to admit, I'm a Volkswagen guy, so seeing a VR6-derived engine become the most powerful production car engine ever is pretty exciting. I can't wait. TomTheHand 14:34, May 12, 2005 (UTC)

I have also seen a magazine having the new, more powerfull Saab 9-5 on the cover. It will probably be available in shops soon. Perhaps we will eb able to tell if it's a tuner car or not by then. // Liftarn

"To the public..."

Before the reversion pens come out, let's discuss this. Should cars like the Ferrari Enzo Ferrari not get a full place since some contend that they were not really generally available? I believe that Enzos were indeed sold by invitation only. Was the McLaren F1 available to the public? Can any of these super-exotics really be considered "available to the public"? I mean, if I had the cash, I could walk into any Ferrari dealer and order a Ferrari 612 Scaglietti, so that's definitely generally available. But what about the Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren or forthcoming Bugatti Veyron? PS, Jon, it would be nice to initiate discussion before making such an edit. --SFoskett 20:33, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

re the F1... I used to work with a guy who did some of the electrical engineering for the car as a subcontractor. He told me that anyone who walked into McLaren's office with a fat enough wallet could drive an F1 home. To me that's "available to the public". Cars that are sold by invitation only to a private group of individuals don't qualify. As far as I know, the only people who own Enzos outside the original group hand-picked by Ferrari are people who bought them second-hand. As soon as Bugatti sells the requisite number of Veyrons (assuming they are sold to anyone who wants one) then it should take its place on the list. Sorry about not opening the question first, but in my view, the Enzo clearly doesn't meet the qualifications for this list - there didn't seem to be anything to discuss since it wasn't sold to the general public. --JonGwynne 14:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, Jon is quite wrong about the Ferrari Enzo. Ferrari inquired a group of potential customers if they were interested in buying the car. They then built one unit less than the total number of orders (349). However, strong customer interest led Ferrari to accept 50 outside extra orders for the Enzo. So that makes it 50 cars available to the public. However, "not available for sale to the public" means something else, that the cars are to be used specifically for commercial purpose, eg a taxi is not available for a regular person to own, only a public transportation company. Jon is also wrong about the most powerful car right after the Enzo - the Maserati MC12 actually has 632 hp DIN (465 kW), while the McLaren F1 had 627 hp DIN (461 kW). --Pc13 20:33, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Given Pc13's description of the situation above, I believe the Enzo belongs on the list. I also agree that the "available to the public" clause is intended to restrict commercial vehicles rather than vehicles that have very limited availability. TomTheHand 21:41, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know enough to judge the situation, but I concur that if PC13's description is correct, then the additional 50 cars makes the Enzo acceptable on the list. I also agree that the "general public" rule was intended to exclude taxis and trucks, not invite-only vehicles. But I guess we'll handle it on a case-by-case basis. --SFoskett 19:04, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

A relevant quote: "Enzo owners are not the sort of people who have to worry too much about the practicality of their Ferraris, it must be said. All of them were previous owners of the marque who were invited to apply to own one (in a hope to keep down the speculative market that had risen quickly behind other limited edition Ferraris)." [17]. In other words, the Enzo was not sold to the public, but rather to an exclusive, private club made up of a handful of people hand-selected by Ferrari to apply for the honor of buying one. Some were turned down and those who were accepted were, according to some reports, required to sign a contract promising that they would not sell the car for at least a year. In other words, this was not a car that was sold to the public. Tom, if you're going to jump the gun and revert things without discussion, next time would you have the common courtesy to not wipe out other additions with your revert? --JonGwynne 05:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? You're honestly going to accuse me of jumping the gun, with your history of unilaterally bumping entries, of which this is an example? And "other additions?" Don't make it out like you made some enormous contribution that I maliciously reverted; consensus should have been sought before the Enzo was removed, and consensus seemed to be that the Enzo was fine, so I restored it. I didn't move your addition to an honorable mention because there's no reason to have a second place for every entry on the list. TomTheHand 11:24, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Here, let me help you out... When you make a mistake like wiping out other people's work, the correct response isn't belligerent defensiveness or belittling the contributions that you destroyed - it is simple contrition. Instead of copping a "'tude" and trying to rationalize your mistake, what you could have said was something along the lines of "Ooops, I didn't mean to wipe out other people's edits, I will be more careful in future". See the difference? --JonGwynne 16:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I did not wipe out other people's work! I reverted the edits you made, which you should have sought consensus for, and which wouldn't have been made if you had tried to seek consensus. I did not touch anything else. TomTheHand 16:21, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes you did wipe out other people's work. Here: [18] is what you did. And you've still failed to justify your reverts - why do you insist on making them? --JonGwynne 01:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Forget this. I'm reverting again. A simple couple of minutes has turned up numerous links that confirm what Pc13 has said: that the Enzo's production was increased from 349 cars to 399 because of customer demand. See [19], [20], [21], and try a little Googling. Also read above, where Pc13, Sfoskett, and I agree that the "to the public" clause is meant to restrict commercial vehicles not intended for private use. Consensus is that the Enzo belongs on the list; stop removing it. TomTheHand 15:01, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

If you'd bothered to actually read those links you'd posted, you'd have seen that none of them address the issue at hand. The question isn't whether or not Enzo production was increased. The question was whether the cars were sold to the public. They weren't. The additional 50 were sold in the same way as the previous 349. In other words, none of those articles you posted address PC13's unsupported claim that the extra 50 were available to anyone who strolled into a Ferrari dealer with the requiste financial resources. But at least you tried. --JonGwynne 16:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I'd also like to address the issue of "the rules". If a rule forbids something, the solution isn't to create a rationalization as to why something can slip past the rule in question, the solution is to change the rule so the rationalization isn't necessary. The question of whether or not something was sold to the general public is unambiguous. The Enzo simply does not qualify under the current rule set. If we want it in, we're going to have to change the rules. I'm not sure it shouldn't be here as well - but as the rule set currently stands, it is disqualified. This is a black & white issue. Trying to convince us that it is grey isn't the answer. --JonGwynne 16:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the Elegant-Lifestyle.com article does address the issue at hand. Here's a quote from Luca di Montezemolo: "Many collectors expressed dismay that they could not have the car, so that I was forced to say we would build 50 more, but that is all". These were people that were left out of the invitation, and the extra cars were built to accomodate their desire. If that is not public demand, I don't know what is. --Pc13 22:37, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't know what public demand is, but the fact remains that if a member of the public can't walk into a dealership or manufacturer's office off the street and buy one, then it isn't for sale to the public. Sale "by invitation only" doesn't constitute sale to the public. We're still waiting for a single piece of evidence that the Enzo was freely available to the public - and we'll be waiting a long time because it wasn't. --JonGwynne 01:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Jon, now you're just being argumentative for its own sake. I know exactly what public demand is, and it's what I wrote down. Luca di Montezemolo's words on the subject couldn't be more clear: "Many collectors expressed dismay that they could not have the car, so that I was forced to say we would build 50 more, but that is all". People that didn't get the car wanted it, so Ferrari built more. And on the subject of the most powerful car after the Enzo, you continued to ignore that the Maserati MC12 actually has 632 hp DIN (465 kW), while the McLaren F1 only had 627 hp DIN (461 kW).--Pc13 07:49, 2005 May 27 (UTC)

I got my original Maserati power figure from an article in Car & Driver magazine. After seeing your comments, I double-checked and they seemed to have gotten it wrong. According to supercars.net, the MC12 makes 623.6 bhp [22]. I'm prepared to accept that as the official figure. Incidentally, 623.6 bhp = 632.2 PS (i.e. "metric horsepower") - by that measurement, the F1 would have made 636 metric horsepower. As to the issue of the Enzo, you can dance all you like, but the fact remains that you or I couldn't (if we'd won the lottery) go into a Ferrari dealership and buy one - even if we'd done so before the production run was sold out. They were not sold to the public but to a private group selected by Ferrari. It is true that, as the result of demand, Ferrari built an additional 50 units but those cars were sold the same way as the first group. --JonGwynne 22:09, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong, Jon. The McLaren's 627 hp value has always been for metric horsepower - 627 PS. McLaren = 461 kW; Maserati = 465 kW. As for the Enzo, Ferrari built 50 extra units in response to public demand. Those 50 people had been left out. They wanted the car. They got it. Can't get more clear than that. --Pc13 07:36, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

I've got several independent sources that all list the McLaren's 627 horsepower as bhp (The Sept 2003 issue of Classic & Sports Car - with a special feature on the F1, the "Complete Book of Collectible Cars" (ISBN 0-7853-4313-X), "The Ultimate History of Fast Cars" (ISBN 0-75258-508-8) and the final nail in your argument's coffin is Supercars.net who lists the F1's output as 627.1 bhp and 476.6 kW). Using my own conversion utility (ESBUnitConv 4.5.1) I converted 476.6 kW to both brake horsepower (627.1) and metric horsepower (635.8). Any way you slice it, the Maserati isn't as powerful as the McLaren... close but not quite. Another point not working in your favor is that the F1 was built by a British company and all British carmakers use brake horsepower rather than metric - even when they're using engines built in Germany (as McLaren did with the F1). --JonGwynne 16:16, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and on the subject of the Enzo... You still haven't shown any evidence that Joe Blow could have, after winning the lottery, walked into a Ferrari dealership and said "I'll have an Enzo please" and driven away in one as the original owner. The indisuputable fact remains that every single Enzo was sold to people on a list of those invited to buy the car by Ferrari HQ. Part of the purchase was a trip to the factory in Modena where the owner would have the driver's seat custom-fit to their wealthy ass. I believe Ferrari also followed the practice common to the production of low-volume cars of creating a plaque with the purchaser's name and bolting it to the car somewhere. But my point is that the general public were never able to buy an Enzo. --JonGwynne 16:24, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Luca di Montezemolo's words, that I've mentioned above, are quite clear on the subject and are all the evidence I need that the car was made available to the public. Those 50 complainers were Joe Blow. The 1995 and 1996 editions of the Automobil Revue Katalog (ISBN 3-44-10444-3 and 3-444-10455-3, respectively) both mention 461 kW. The Katalog is a yearly publication available for purchase every Geneva Auto Show, and has been published since at least 1949. Please check what horsepower figures were given for german and italian models to see if they were converted to bhp or not. I don't consider supercars.net a reliable source. British manufacturers that conform to type-approval, such as McLaren, MG Rover, Bentley, Rolls-Royce, Caterham, Morgan and Lotus all have to use kW as official measurement, and the horsepower values are converted to PS. --Pc13 16:58, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)

Signiore Montezemolo's words do not address the issue at all. They are simply an explanation of why Ferrari went back on their promise to only produce 349 examples of the Enzo. This is a potentially serious issue for companies like Ferrari who produce limited numbers of certain models. Some buyers based their decision to purchase the vehicle on the manufacturer's promise to only build a certain number of cars. Witness the flack Porsche took for reneging on their promise to limit production of the 959. The idea that people came in off the street and asked Ferrari to build them an Enzo and that this induced Ferrari to build an extra 50 is laughable. The fact remains that all 399 cars were sold to private individuals who were vetted by Ferrari before being approved as buyers - not the same as being sold to the public. --JonGwynne 01:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record 400 were made not 399. Number 400 was presented to Pope John Paul II and subsequently auctioned for charity.

Of the 399 that were sold all were sold by invitation. None ever sat on a dealer's forecourt. The 399 that did buy them were of course members of the public but a fat wallet was never enough to buy one new unlike say the F1 which did indeed have a dealership in Park Lane for several years that you could walk into with a big fat cheque and buy one. Should the Enzo qualify? I'd come down on saying yes because it was sold to the public - its just that Ferrari were rather picky about who that public was. --LiamE 15:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

McLaren F1 power

re the McLaren power. The Automobil Revue website doesn't mention the F1 - at least not that I've been able to find. Your opinion of Supercars.net's reliability aside, you have yet to produce a single supporting document for your claim that the McLaren's 627 horses were PS rather than BHP. On the other hand, I have produced four (or three if you want to eliminate supercars.net). As to your claim that British manufacturers all use either kW or PS... I've just visited Lotus, Caterham and McLaren to pick three at random... Guess what? They all quote their cars' power in bhp. So even if you won't take supercars.net's word for the F1's output, I assume you'll take the word of McLaren Cars, Ltd. Now... are you still going to dispute the McLaren's 627 bhp output or insist that the Maserati is more powerful? Face it, you're as wrong about this as you are about the Enzo. --JonGwynne 01:25, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There's nothing to look for in the website. I told you the McLaren information is available in the 1995 and 1996 Katalogs. Read carefully please. I know the sites mention bhp. Here, have the press-release, and compare the PS values to those on the website. And here's the Bentley Continental GT press-release. Want me to show you a press-release from a german company using bhp when it should read PS? --Pc13 16:58, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Yes, actually, the relevant information can be found at McLaren's website [23] - 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: [24]. QED. --JonGwynne 18:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And where are the complete technical specs? Where does the McLaren website confirm with the correct value in kW?--Pc13 23:03, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

McLaren, like other British car companies, don't use kW as a measurement. As to the complete specs, since the car is no longer in production I wouldn't be surprised to see that they are no longer posted. --JonGwynne 19:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"kW" is only used once on the real McLaren Cars web site. Here, the accompanying "HP" number is definitely metric - 400 kW is 544 metric horsepower (PS), or 537 "regular" horsepower. So perhaps we can assume that McLaren routinely quotes metric hp. By this logic, the F1 produces 627 PS (618 hp/461 kW).

No, actually, we can't. McLaren is now working extensively with Mercedes (I even seem to recall hearing that Mercedes bought shares in McLaren's roadcar business) and can be expecetd to follow the leads of their corporate masters. --JonGwynne 19:43, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Jon, note that "bhp" refers merely to the measurement technique, not the units. It connotes net power versus gross power. The real discussion is hp (SAE) versus PS, not "bhp" vs PS. --SFoskett 01:41, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

The BMW World.com website gives the F1 618 hp (SAE). Granted, it's only an enthusiasts site, albeit a very complete one. I'll be out of office until Thursday (I'm going to the Saab 9-5 Sport Hatch media presentation), but after that I'll try to have the Automobil Revue Katalog pages scanned. --Pc13 08:03, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Has any source (other than that German discussion group thread) ever listed the F1's output as "636 horsepower"? If so, then this would clearly be metric horsepower, since it's higher than any other source. I have never seen this - it's always listed as either 627 hp or 618 hp. This fact alone lends credence to the contention that the true output of the F1 is 627 PS (618 hp/461 kW).

A Google search finds just five instances of "mclaren f1 636 hp", 217 for "mclaren f1 627 hp", and 7 for "mclaren f1 618 hp". But one of those sources was an excellent Car and Driver article which compares it to the Veyron near a discussion of metric horsepower. I am feeling more and more confident in the 461 kW as the true actual output. --SFoskett 15:42, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)

Here's a link to a physics textbook that lists the F1's output as 468 kW (a.k.a. 627 bhp/636 PS) [25] 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). --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 [26]
  • Car and Driver - May 2005 [27]
  • BMW World - [28]
  • Bimmer Forums - Engine FAQ [29]
• 627 hp
  • Motor Trend - April 2005 [30]
  • Road and Track - July 2003 [31]
  • Road and Track - December 2002 [32]
  • Supercars.net [33] (also lists output as 468 kW)
  • Autocar road test - [34]
  • Top Gear [35]

Still no definitive source. Car and Driver seems sure that it's 618, while the others say it's 627. --SFoskett 23:36, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

The error seems somewhat obvious, Car and Driver is incorrectly labeling metric horsepower (PS) units as standard horsepower (hp) units, while the others are using std. hp, because...

618 PS * 1.013869665424 (hp/PS) = 626.571453232032 hp

...round up and get 627 hp. The kW errors are probably due to incorrect conversions, e.g. PS * kW/hp = fangled kW. -- Prometheus235 20:42, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, obvious. But the other way around - 627 PS is 618 hp - PS are "smaller". And those few sources that list the power as 636 are assuming that 627 is regular and wanting to convert to PS. This I believe to be true. But still no proof. --SFoskett 01:36, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)

I'd go with that. Unfortunately, BMW's historical archives aren't working with my browser set-up. Anyone else want a stab at using them to find out definitively? http://www.historicalarchive.bmw.com/ I have the Autocar McLaren F1 book that was published at the time of the F1's release, and it further muddies the water by quoting the power as 627 bhp. Given that the power figures would have been given by BMW, I think it is safe to assume that they were in PS, however I too would like absolute proof thereof. --196.2.127.9 02:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No-one here has mentioned the Bugatti EB 100 SS. 31 were made, and it produced 650 PS as far as I can see. I need to dig up some corroboration on that - I can't find a definitive source online. --196.2.127.9 02:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The Bugatti EB110 SS was turbocharged, not naturally aspirated. TomTheHand 12:43, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

No arguments here on that score. Question is, why are we slapping such an arbitrary requirement on the list? I move for 3 lists - a combined absolute maximum output (both NA & forced induction), and one each for NA & forced induction. Either that or the combined list. It shouldn't matter *how* the engine gets its power, only that it does and is by some definition a production car, IMHO. --Zaktoo 23:45, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The most powerful forced induction engine will almost certainly be more powerful than the most powerful naturally aspirated engine; therefore they are both listed, and the distinction is made. It is not an arbitrary distinction, and your suggesting boils down to creating a third list, which is simply the forced induction list repeated over again. TomTheHand 00:36, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

"To the public" Vote

Let's clarify the "rules":

"Rule 1 - 20 or more examples must have been made by the original vehicle manufacturer and offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition - cars modified by either professional tuners or individuals are not eligible"

Should this rule include limited-production/invite only cars, provided that the other conditions hold true? If so, shall we modify this from "to the public" to "to private individuals" to clarify this situation? If not, shall we modify this from "to the public" to "to the public with no restrictions"? I will not vote on the issue. --SFoskett 20:20, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

• to private individuals - The discussion above is contradictory: If Ferrari sent out invitations to buy the Enzo, then built one fewer automobile than it received orders for, then built fifty more because so many people wanted them, then 49 Enzos were available to the "public," or people who were not invited the first time around. People who weren't invited apparently contacted Ferrari and said "Hey! We wanted Enzos too!" and Ferrari obliged them. Therefore someone is wrong up there. Either way, it's a moot point to me, because in my opinion this rule should read "to private individuals." TomTheHand 00:41, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

• I don't think there's anything to vote about. In my opinion, the Checker taxicab should have been kept in the superlative list anyway. "Homologated for road use" is the real issue.

• If we need to clarify, to private individuals should be what is meant. But yes, this is small potatoes - road use is what is truly important. I'd rather have kept the Checker too, since it is, by my definitions, a car. I'm just not sure how to specify a car in such a way that buses don't get in. —Morven 06:27, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)