Talk:Production car speed record

minimum of 20 cars to qualify is outdated.

There is no valid reason for cars by Koenigsegg and SSC not being on this list, apart from an outdated rule that doesn't take into account the current state of the automotive industry.

Of course one off cars should not be here, they should be legitimate roadcars, available for sale, manufactured by a recognized company. But 20? It serves no point to exclude some very well made and legitimate supercars from this list, just because someone who doesn't know what they are doing, thought that 20 is a nice number.

I suggest that this article is made to match the fastest cars by acceleration article and use the same criteria. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:49, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Why is it outdated? What event or development happened that made it outdated? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The origins of the 20 car limit is at Talk:List of fastest production cars/Archive 3#Page protected/20 car limit - new discussion. There you will find the reasoning behind the rule and the decision made:

Decision

The closest any reliable source comes to a number is the FIA and its rules date from 1968. Guinness seems to be inconsistant and as it doesn't publish its rules, we can't tell. All of us accept that the 20 number is arbitrary, but until someone posts a substantive argument to the contrary that we can agree on - the 20 car minimum rule remains. The reason for this decision is because there is no consensus to change the rule.

You will need to come up with significant reasons, citing reliable sources, for a change to a level that is lower than 20. There is in fact better reason to raise the limit - namely Guiness, with reliable sources citing 50 cars, or the 1968 FIA 25 car rules - for more detail see Production car.

As for the List of fastest production cars by acceleration - it has deteriorated into a fanboy article with a range of one-off or non-production cars being represented. NealeFamily (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The main reason is that I see Koenigsegg and similar manufacturers as highly reputable and it seems a shame not to have them on the list. With the current situation, the list is going to consist purely of VAG/Ferrari/Porsche, which doesn't seem to be very representative of the supercar industry. I do agree that one off cars should not be here, neither should modified cars or tuner cars - RUF belong in the list, Hennessy do not. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

If they were included then you are no longer dealing with Production car's. Also many of these cars like RUF and Koenigsegg, are so individually tailored as to make them one off's. Then your next problem is to find a valid road test. NealeFamily (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm starting to agree with you, it's going to end up with cars being included just because people like that car. I think Koenigsegg are awesome and Hennessey are a glorified tuning company, but that's purely my opinion and slipping into the territory of fanboys. The only other solution that I can think of is to have the "cars that didn't make it" list that is on this talk page, on the main article. I'm not sure if that is a good idea, or has been suggested before. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

We have an excellent list of cars that didn't make it, above. Personally I think koenigsegg gets short shrift from our rules, but given the agony of establishing rules, I'd actually prefer BIGNUM to smaller. I am despondent at the lack of cars between 1900 and 1950ish, they were fun and interesting. Que sera sera Greglocock (talk) 09:36, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the further we go into history, the more difficult it will be to get reliable sources for top speeds. I have serious doubts about the XK120's top speed, Jaguar were rather devious about specs on test cars, kinda like Ferrari nowadays. But there does seem to be something missing without a lot of the classics. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we should come to a consensus about the Hennessey before 20 examples are sold. Looking through the archives some people have mentioned that it is based on the Exige, raising the question about whether a production car can use a chassis designed for another car by another company. According to the dedicated Venom GT Wikipedia page, "For road use, the car is registered as a Lotus Exige (modified) and is not a series production car." Hennessey has never been registered as an automobile manufacturer, and the Venom GT has not passed any of the crash and environmental testing that new production cars are subject to. This is in contrast to Saab and Tesla which were mentioned as other car makers building on other companies' chassis. IMO a car can't be considered a production car if it is not recognized as such by any government, and it shouldn't be on the list even if they sell 20+ cars.

P.S. Maybe this should be a new talk thread, but I couldn't figure out how to do that. Feel free to start a new thread about the Venom GT and move this there.

P.P.S. For the record, I am in favor of changing the required production number to 10, in order to include the CCR and SSC UA TT. That is the number I use for my own list of fastest production cars (using estimated or plausible speeds rather than verified tests). Jvshenderson (talk) 17:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This list should not even consider cars that are not 100% street legal, passing all safety, noise, and emissions rules. Mere hobbyists are capable of building really fast cars as long as they don't have to make them conform to any rules. The only media that pay much attention to these obscure cars are fanboy blogs and magazines. Mainstream media only take notice when someone builds a real production, street legal car that sets a new speed record. I'd raise the minimum to 1,000 units, at least.

That doesn't mean there is no place for low-volume, non-street legal records on Wikipedia. The articles Wheel-driven land speed record or Land-speed record can and should be expanded to include more FIA or SCTA categories/classes where Koenigsegg or SSC or whatever can be listed and given an appropriate amount of recognition. We don't have to limit ourselves to the top unlimited or "outright world record" class. We can included classes for vintage only, internal combustion only, and so forth. From what I've seen they have a class for just about everything you can imagine. The point is to compare apples to apples. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:43, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

There are several challenges with your suggestion. Countries have different rules when if comes to safety, noise, and emissions. There are moves through the United Nations to address these differences - see UNECE vehicle regulations. Also if you moved the minimum to 1,000 units then there would be very few cars that would qualify. Personally I would prefer an increase in the minimum numbers to at least the 1968 FIA sports car level of 25 cars. This is less than Guiness, but could be cited as a reliable source on which the minimum number is based. I realise that it is tough on Koenigsegg and the like, but I think counting them as production cars with such minimal numbers is pushing it.

Greg, I did take a look at trying to take the list back before 1945 and found that sorting out production cars from race cars (see the incomplete Bentley debate on this talk page) and one off's became almost insurmountable. There was also a lack of reliable test data. NealeFamily (talk) 22:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, if 1,000 is too high then 200. It should be a short list, not a everybody-gets-a-prize roll call. Making a street legal car in volume that can reach 250 mph or more is a huge accomplishment and it shouldn't be diluted with dinky outfits that cut corners. Cars that are only "street legal" [sic] in Yemen or Kazakhstan or something should be described as such; cars that are street legal in the US and EU should be given due credit for an amazing engineering feat.

And it bears repeating that there are ways to recognize cars and bikes that don't meet the criteria. There are lots of FIA and FIM classes that meet our verifiability and neutrality rules that allow us to include them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

What are/were the requirements when SSC held the Guinness record? They didn't keep it, of course - but it was awarded to them according to SSC's media section. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 05:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the earler discussion about the SSC being in Guiness

Earlier, IP-93, you said: Yes, 25 seems realistic if they accept claimed total production number. However, I would accept claimed production number only until production run is over. If manufacturer fails to build sufficient number, then it must be disqualified and removed. If Guinness really uses this approach, they would probably disqualified Aero TT already since it is not being built any more and apparently way less than 25 were ever produced. BTW, the claimed production number of 25 Aeros may be an indirect proof of this version. They may have had to claim exactly this much to fulfill Guinness requirement. Anyway, since we know Guinness was reconsidering Veyron SS record lately, they could do the same with Aero, since now its actual production run is known. But they don't So, perhaps, their definition is a bit different. Or they don't care. Or Jerod paid enough. Or whatever... :-\ IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

My view is once Guinness had published the Aero TT as the fastest, it was superceded reasonably quickly by the Veyron. Guinness probably had no interest in correcting it. NealeFamily (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Since then we established Guiness are using a 50 car minimum -see Production car article for reliable source. NealeFamily (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion we shouldn't do the same as the Guinness Book of Records. Else we could simply copy the book entries year for year and our list would be worthless. Guinness often changes its rules and offers exceptions, just read Wikipedia article about "Production vehicle" where some say at least 50 and others at least 30. Looks a bit to me as if Guinness first decides which car they want and bends the rules accordingly. Important for the credibility of this site is setting clear rules and not changing them. The 20 car minimum rule is here since over 3 years (Personally I'd have chosen a lower number), changing this fundamental rule will cost credibility.Drachentötbär (talk) 01:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

My thought is to move the minimum number to 25, thereby matching the FIA rule for sports cars which coverted a significant portion of this list. There would be no change to the vehicles currently on the list as all exceeded that number (I will need to change the AC Cobra number, but that is only a minor edit). It would also give a plausible source to base the number on rather than just our own conjecture. NealeFamily (talk) 01:17, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. But then I would say that. `Greglocock (talk) 05:00, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ruf CTR from 1987 fulfills all current list requirements

1.) Constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, and to transport people on public roads

2.) 29 were made and offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition (see its wiki article for example)

3.) They were street-legal

4.) Road tests with a two-way run were made (for example 211 mph in Road&Track July 1987)

Since the current list rules are fulfilled the car should be added.

79.248.191.180 (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

See the definition for this list, especially "having had 20 or more instances made by the original vehicle manufacturer, " Porsche isn't Ruf. But I am open to persuasion.Greglocock (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

A bit further digging - the two way run averaged 210.7mph [1]. I think it can be accepted.NealeFamily (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The 29 CRTs weren't built by Porsche, they were built by Ruf. Ruf bought components from Porsche and other sources, combined them with own technology and made the cars. 87.164.102.190 (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that it might match the requirements, but need someone to check that the test version was a stock version and not modified for the test run. I don't have access to the 1987 article. NealeFamily (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I found a scan of the article here: http://porschecarshistory.com/world-s-fastest-car-1987-road-track-mag/ 87.164.102.190 (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks that's great. How much of a manufacturer is RUF, it sounds like they take a full vehicle and bolt some bits on? That isn't much different to Hennessy is it? What does it say on the VIN plate, porsche or RUF?Greglocock (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

RUF made 29 genuine CTR’s with RUF Vins, the tested car is one of them. 93.216.228.87 (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Found the 1988 Nardo test, where the Ruf did 342 km/h: http://porschecarshistory.com/porsche-959-vs-ferrari-f40-vs-amg-6-0-vs-ruf-ctr-automotorsport-25-1988-deutsch/ 93.216.228.87 (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

RUF make cars, they have their own VIN as a manufacturer, not a tuner. I have no idea if they had that status all the way back in 1987, but until something says they didn't, the CTR should remain on the list in place of the F40. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This is why I think it should not be included. At that time, nearly every books and magazines out there cited the F40 as the fastest car, they also cited the Jaguar XJ220 in 1993, but nothing and nothing on the CTR, why? Its just like the Koenig Competition, another modified sportscar and yet they claimed to modify over 50 Testarossas. Also Guinness World Record cited the XJ220 as well, they also cited the Countach 5000QV in place of the F40; IIRC at the local library, if not go find a library that has a copy of the book dated in around 1994-96 (the F1 was ignored by them). Regarding buying "parts and components from Porsche", it still makes it a Porsche or do we call it a badge engineered Porsche. So therefore I am going to be bold out there and remove your entry. Donnie Park (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Since your bold action caused a side which didn't even follow its own stated rules (Ruf qualifies), I reverted it. We should start a discussion first and get to an agreement before changing this side fundamentally.Drachentötbär (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure this car satisfies the list requirements. It seems, according to Herr Ruf, that only 28 were built, not 29 - he considers the #1 car as a prototype. 22 of the car tested were made and offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition. Six more were custom built as "lightweight" versions, with aluminium and fibreglass bodies instead of the standard steel and these were not offered for general sale. One of the "lightweight" CTRs was sold in the US five years ago, and a good deal of detail about how custom the build was is on the original eBay listing. Robmoss2k (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The car at ebay had a Porsche VIN and wasn't an original CTR. It's not the only ad where people falsely used the name Yellowbird hoping to get more money for their car. Drachentötbär (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

959

In the worlds fastest car 1987 article linked above the Porsche 959 comfort version (called deluxe version there) was also tested, it made 197 mph so its top speed should be upgraded from 195 to 197 mph.

The text in the 959 comments column needs an upgrade, not all but 6 were comfort versions, among the 959s built were also 29 performance-enhanced sport versions with 515 HP for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GDnf6KoKZk 79.248.172.76 (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

youtube is not a reliable source also only road not race or tuner versions are allowed NealeFamily (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

On the wikipage other sources are used, the 959s are no racing cars and Porsche is no tuner. Please address things directly instead of indirectly so it's less unclear what you want to say. If you really think the vid is fake: http://www.porsche.com/germany/aboutporsche/pressreleases/germany/?pool=germany&id=361844 93.216.246.242 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at Talk:List of fastest production cars/Archive 1#Porsche 959 Sport which outlines much of the debate around the two respective models and why the lower speed version was chosen. Hopefully this clarifies the reason for the lower speed. As to the use of You Tube or the Porsche website - take a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The object is to try to reduce or eliminate bias as much as possible.

One of the difficulties with this type of list is the lack of a single definition for a Production car. After much debate the current set of rules included a 20 car minimum, although there is argument for raising it to a higher number. NealeFamily (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The 959 "Sportversion" is not a stripped down version with extra tuning, is the normal version with standard equipment. The "Komfortversion" is the "Sportversion" with supplementary equipment added. http://porschecarshistory.com/wp-content/old/959/02/07.jpg It's the same car (most magazines didn't make a difference either), the little difference in Top Speed is only because of the second mirror increasing the drag. Therefore the speed measured with the "Sportversion" should be accepted into the top speed column. This will also save us the discussion if 20 of them were built, the old claim on this site that all but 6 were comfort versions has been proven wrong. (The 515 hp version shouldn't be accepted however since it wasn't built in 1986 and we have the Ruf CTR as faster car since 1987.) Drachentötbär (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Any chance of an article in English? It's hard to understand if they should be treated as different trim levels or different versions. Porsche make it hard with all their different versions, packages, etc... Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

As with Spacecowboy, I don't know German. If the Sportversion was sold in its final form then it probably counts as there seem to be enough made. Others may wish to comment. NealeFamily (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Options - how should we treat them

It makes me wonder what is an option, what is a version and how we should deal with relevant cars. I was under the impression that AMG offered to remove the speed limiter (at least the first stage of the speed limited) on certain models. Porsche offer sports packs increasing power and their chrono plus thing, certainly increases some aspects of performance. If a model has an option that increases top speed, do we require a source stating that at least 20 models must have that option fitted? that would seem silly. In the same way the Nurburgring times are sometimes based on cars with factory option tires. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you raise a good point so I have highlighted the question. If we accept the various options, then they must comply with the minimum number and then finding a reliable source could become much more challenging. Are models with different options treated differently under the VIN system? Also are the options fitted during production or post production? NealeFamily (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

haha, it's becoming more complex. We have to consider factory options VS dealer options as well. My thoughts on the whole process are: If an option is available on a certain model, then we should only consider the amount of models sold, with the possibility of having that option. If a specific version is made available, then we have to consider the amounts of that actual version sold. ie. the Porsche 911 (991) Carrera S was available with the factory option of a powerkit, that increase power, and models with that powerkit fitted saw a top speed increase from 188mph to 191mph. We should consider the top speed of the 911 (991) Carrera S as 191mph, because the option was available to all purchasers of the model. That way of dealing with suitability for this list, would make the suitability of certain cars less ambiguous and therefore easier for us editors. If something has been roadtested with a certain speed, and it has factory fitted and street legal options, then I think it's fine. Perhaps having a source to say it's an official option, rather than a case of "if you pay us, we will build you anything" would be best.

Dealer options should be viewed as modifications, I can't remember the dealer but there was a UK mk1 RX7 dealer option that involved fitting a turbo, this is no different from any other post production modification and should be dealt with in the same way.

Having said all that, we have a very limited number of cars that we have to deal with, and perhaps with good editor cooperation, we can deal with all proposed entries on the list individually, gaining consensus via discussion and ensuring that we follow the spirit of the production car criteria, in addition to specific rules. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Never a dull moment. So let me see - the rule would be if the option was fitted at manufacturing then it counts and the number of cars is based on the number produced the could have the option rather than actually have it? NealeFamily (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That's what I feel would be good. Not based on any logic, just it feels fair. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to see if our thinking is ok I would like to see what User:Greglocock and User:Dennis Bratland think of the idea as they frequently patrol this article.and have strong automotive backgrounds NealeFamily (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I would interpret the number produced narrowly -- the actual numbers that go that fast, not counting other versions that don't. And only configurations that are themselves street legal. If a car were to disable emissions controls at the push of a button to go faster (a selectable mode something like that in the Volkswagen emissions scandal), we should only consider the mode that is street legal. Many exhausts have a neck restrictor that can be easily removed, exceeding noise rules but letting the exhaust flow more freely, and Ducatis often come with a track-only exhaust.

Versions, options, modes or sub-models that don't strictly meet all the criteria should be listed elsewhere. On another table, or another list with looser criteria, so that cars in that group are ranked against others that are just as free to ignore regulations. There should be some FIA classes for "lightly modified" or "slightly less than street legal" cars, similar to the FIM 1000 P-P, where you basically take off a bike's lights and mirrors, change the pipe and tune the ECU, simple DIY mods rather than re-engineering, building a real racer. The importance of leaning on a FIA/FIM class is that it isn't a criteria made up by us editors, but one that we can say was devised independently by reliable sources. We should look hard for such list criteria, and if we can't find them, then rely on rules something like List of films considered the worst, where each entry has a high-quality expert source saying it belongs on the list. So each non-qualifying car would have been nominated as "world's fastest" by somebody reliable, not just us. Otherwise we'll end up ticking off all the reasons why the Ford Pinto isn't on the list.

By the way, the guidelines MOS:NOTED and MOS:SELFREF says we shouldn't be directly addressing reader, instructing them to go read the talk page to understand our editorial reasoning, or referring to our articles/talk pages in the article. It's helpful now because I like inviting more input here, but eventually we should remove links to the talk page from the article body, and rephrase the "Cars excluded from the list together with basic reason" table so that it is defined by its own criteria, rather than existing as a byproduct of our editing decision-making process. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think if you can tick the box when you order the car it should count. There is a problem with dealer fit options vs factory fit. I know nothing about how VINs are generated. Sorry not much help, I've never really got involved with that side of production.Greglocock (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis I took a look at the FIA's rules. Series production cars fall under Category 1.

Category 1

Cars of which the production of a certain number of identical examples (see definition of this word hereinafter) within a certain period of time has been verified at the request of the manufacturer, and which are destined for normal sale to the public (see this expression). Cars must be sold in accordance with the homologation form.

• Group N Production Cars

At least 2500 identical units must have been produced in 12 consecutive months and homologated by the FIA in Touring Cars(Group A). (Appendix J Article 254 2016)

• Group A Touring Cars

At least 2500 identical examples of these cars must have been manufactured in 12 consecutive months. (Appendix J Article 255 2016)

• Group R Touring Cars or Large Scale Series Production Cars

• Group E‐I Free Formula Racing Cars

Up until 1990 in FIA puplicaton Appendix J 1990 (Art 251-256) page 189 there was also

Group B sports cars – at least 200 must have been built in the last 12 months

(Appendix J 1990 (Art 251-256) page 189

I am not sure if we want to go this low, or alternatively we could go with Guinness' stated 50 as being a minimum number, which would put it out of range of a number of spurious claims and be an almost reliable source. The FIA definition (other than numbers) would generally match the lists current requirements NealeFamily (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The next question is, is it hard to find complete lists of cars in these classes? And for how many years has this class existed in the same form? The one we'd most like to have is one that's been around a long time, and is easy to find the data for, especially published, objective top speed tests. Then creating and maintaining the list becomes a fairly mechanical task, with little need for editorial negotiation or creative thought. A list like that should be last longer than us, and remain in the same form no matter who comes along to maintain it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

FIA rules evolved over time - Group B started with a 25 car requirement, but changed in the end to 200 cars. Now there is no Group B and Groups N and A require the cars to have 4 seats as a minimum. I do think we need to hook on to some outside parameters based on outside sources and think that the overall definition for Category 1 cars fits, but the numbers are more difficult to pin down. As in past discussion anywhere between the old FIA 25 car requirement or the 50 car Guinness requirement would be reasonable. At the most the 200 car requirement for Group B would also fit. The most recent known requirement is Guinness' and we reliable sources for there numbers. It's Guinness' application of its rules that seems questionable NealeFamily (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Although it seems highly immoral to tailor criteria to favor certain content (ie. what car makes the list), how any changes regarding production numbers affect our list, (and how they are perceived by readers) should be considered. If our criteria changed, and that resulted in the Veyron SS not being listed as the fastest car (and not having various Hennessey/Koenigsegg/SSC models on there), would the article lose some credibility? We have to stop carefully, as our job should not be making some academic criteria for a list, our job should be making a damn fine article, on what is already a very interesting topic. One (possibly insane) consideration is to list any car that claims to be a production model and list the proven top speed. We could explain other organization's criteria for production cars, and give the details for production numbers (and anything else relevant) in the existing table, and let the readers digest this information and come to their own conclusions. I personally view the Hennessey Venom as a modified Elise, that is not a production model, but various Koenigsegg models as legitimate production models, that is the conclusion I would come to, with a "free for all" list. I would view the Ruf CTR as a modified 911, and the F40 as the legit top speed record holder for that era. More than anything else, a "free for all" would allow a lot more space for truly interesting content. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Which ever way you look at it there will always need to be a definition for the lists content. Having slept on it my conclusion is as FIA no longer defines production sports cars (Group B's) and the only organisation that still does is Guinness then their definition would take the definition out of the range of guidelines MOS:NOTED and MOS:SELFREF. The one problem I have with their definition is that apart from the number of cars, we don't know why they allowed the Veyron World Record Edition to retain its title when removing the limiter on the other versions would constitute a modification. Maybe some nice person at Bugatti or Guinness could enlighten us.

Anyway - if we did accept this then the only change in criteria is a 50 car requirement with the rest remaining the same, as far as I can tell. That would result in RUF being replaced on the list.

Just a footnote FIA Category II includes Group CN Production Sports Cars, but the Category is defined as Cars built as single examples and destined solely for competition. So is outside the Series Production Cars used in this list NealeFamily (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I have a similar issue with Guinness criteria. Their rules seem to be highly flexible, subjective and ambiguous. I see no logical reason as to why the they Veyron SS World Edition was disqualified and then reinstated. Also, although their site has no content for the production car 0-300km/h record, from what I remember they did at one time award it to Hennessey. I have huge doubts as to the credibility of Guinness as a reliable source, in regards to classifying a production car, they seem to operate on whims (and possibly lobbying from Bugatti?) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Guinness seem entirely susceptible to all sorts of pressure, often commercial. I was involved with a dispute on another world record http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2015/10/microsoft-lab-sets-new-record-for-the-worlds-quietest-place-399444 which quite frankly ignored good experimental technique, and seemed to be designed to publicise the owner of the facility and the people making the measurement. Specifically with the fastest car record they seem to blow in the wind. Now, the wiki answer is that they are a reliable source. But that's rubbish, they don't stick to their own ruules if it means more publicity. Greglocock (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok if Guinness is an unreliable source then the next step back is FIA's Category 1 Group B from 1990 - that requires 200 cars made within a 12 month period, but it looks like their definition includes the idea that if you produce a particular model with a whole lot of different sub-types the sum total of all the sub-types makes up the 200. I am not sure if my interpretation is correct so I am open to correction. FIA also allow a range of specified modifications. The problem we would have is, as the FIA are no longer assessing which cars qualify, we would still need to interpret their rules to determine which cars qualify. Darn - I feel like there is hole in my bucket dear Liza. NealeFamily (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This makes Guinness reinstating the Veyron SS WRE look even worse... https://www.yahoo.com/autos/bp/265-7-mph-hennessey-venom-gt-claims-fastest-195530561.html "All five World Record Editions built were sold with its restrictor in place." and Guinness were fully aware. Which makes the WRE seem like something they specially modified for the record, and then removed the modification in order to sell it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Except I think we've consensed that suppressing electronic speed limiters is OK? If not where did we end up? Devils advocate argument - JimBob modifies 30 fast cars, gets new VIN plates for them. Therefore he's a manufacturer. JimBob reprograms the ECU to remove the speed limiter from his prototype (one of the 30) and sets a good two way max speed record. Then he installs the original ECU and sells the car. Is he a contender for this list? Greglocock (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The way I see it, if it was street legal when it hit the record speed, and if removing the speed limiter is an option available at the time of purchase, then yes. I'm not sure how easy it would be get a new VIN. I was under the impression that the Hennessey Venom had a Lotus VIN and had to be registered as a Lotus. I'm guessing that to get your own name on a VIN, that you would have to go through type approval. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

VIN numbers - here are the rules for them in the European Union

Types of vehicles concerned

This Regulation applies to vehicles of category M, N and O, namely:

•motor vehicles designed and built for the carriage of passengers and having at least four wheels; •motor vehicles intended and built for the transportation of goods and having at least four wheels; •trailers (including semi-trailers). Requirements for the manufacturer’s statutory plate

Each vehicle must be fitted with a statutory plate that shall consist (at the manufacturer’s discretion) either of:

•a rectangular sheet of metal; •or a rectangular self-adhesive label. The manufacturer’s statutory plate must contain certain items of information, including:

•the manufacturer’s company name; •the vehicle type-approval number; •the vehicle identification number; •the technically admissible laden masses. Requirements for the vehicle identification number (VIN)

The manufacturer must affix a VIN on each vehicle and ensure its traceability for 30 years. The VIN consists of:

•the world manufacturer identifier (WMI); •the vehicle descriptor (VDS); •the vehicle indicator section (VIS). It must be affixed in an accessible position and be visible. It must be stamped so as not to disappear under normal conditions of use of the vehicle.

Provisions concerning EC type-approval

The vehicle manufacturer must submit an application for EC type-approval to the competent authority. The application must contain certain items of information, in particular:

•the brand and type of vehicle; •the position and method of attachment of the manufacturer’s statutory plate; •the location of the VIN.

If the competent authority deems that the vehicles complies with all requirements concerning the manufacturer’s statutory plate and the vehicle identification number of motor vehicles, it shall grant EC type-approval and issue a type-approval number pursuant to Directive 2007/46/EC.

WMI numbers are allocated by SAE International. NealeFamily (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

For me cars with different engines are different cars, hp define a car. I'd accept all other modifications which keep the cars recognizable as long as the cars stay street-legal and can be driven outside the speed test this way on public roads. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

For me, that would be an entirely different list. I wanna see something that you can buy from an official dealer. For example - this looks kinda stock. Take the stickers off and not many would notice it... [[2]] Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the list would change much, two top speeds would change because of accepting the rev limiter. Most top speed runs change so much that they loose street-legality or alter the engine.

The linked car had an engine modification, so I wouldn't accept it. I'd accept its interior lightweight modifications since weight is important for acceleration but doesn't really matter for top speed, in the Road & Track contest they did successful top speed runs with a journalist on board. I see no big aerodynamic outside modification, only the tires are different which I'd accept.

"accept all other modifications which keep the cars recognizable" might be too tolerant, but it's hard to find a precise definition. There are often slight unremarkable changes during a production run and some little things like changing wheel rim and tires or adjusting ride height can be done easily (and are often done by buyers), affect little and are often not even mentioned in tests, it's impossible to proof that the tested car is exactly like the other production cars, so some tolerance will help. Demanding street-legality will disallow major changes.Drachentötbär (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Drachentötbär if you're interested, why not make a "fastest street legal non production car" list? It's an idea that I've been toying with, it could have all of the tuner cars, limited production models like Koenigsegg, modified by owner cars, and street legal racers. If it's street legal, and has a reliable source for top speed, it would be ok. 06:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Spacecowboy420 (talk)

If you decide to make such a page I can help searching the web for information.

image out of date.

In regards to the Veyron SS World Record Edition, not being classed as a production car for the purposes of the Wikipedia list, this image is no longer accurate. It shows a top speed in excess of 260mph (I'm guessing 268), so I have removed it until such time as it can be remade showing the 258mph top speed of the "production model" 06:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Spacecowboy420 (talk)

Ferrari Americas and Supeamericas

Those cars are excluded because 'some of them were made in less than 20 examples' and 'some of them are racing cars'. This might be true in case of Ferrari 340 America and Ferrari 375 America. Whilst Ferrari 342 America was not a race car but existed in only 6 examples. Still Ferrari 410 and 400 Superamericas were made in higher numbers. A whoping 35 units for 410 Superamerica that were very much the same but had 2 different body styles among their 3 series. But... Ferrari 400 America was made in even higher numbers. 47. Out of which a total of 32 were of the same body style 'coupé aerodynamico' by Brovarone. Some of them may had some alterations between 2 series, it was still a handbuilt car, but most of that era's cars, that contested with them, were. I understand that there are (probably) still no independent speed tests, but if they do exist i vote on counting Ferrari 400 Superamerica as a valid contender.YBSOne (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the problem with the 400s and 410s is the lack of road tests. They would quite likely have been amoung the fastest cars in their day, but they needed to prove it. If we can find some indenpendent tests then we are in business NealeFamily (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The thing with race cars was in those days, race cars can be driven on public roads and cars were not tested for exhaust noise. Donnie Park (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Jaguar XJ220

Hey, what happened to the jaguar XJ 220? Was n't it the fastest car in the world for a time (briefly) before the F1? I've been silent for a while, but I don't think I could overlook this one. 14:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RacingPhreak (talk • contribs)

The Ruf was just as fast 5 years earlier. I would be happy to see proof fatcat was faster. Greglocock (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Guinness Book of Record of the time is a proof. Donnie Park (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

If Guinness states that it's faster than 342 km/h than it belongs to the list.

Guinness' first real set of "fastest production car" rules were created in 1993, when they brought in the two way run thing. The XJ220 was taken to 217.1mph by Martin Brundle at the Nardo ring in Italy in 1992 after disconnecting the catalytic converters and raising the rev limiter - much like Bugatti did recently. It's in the 1993 Guinness Book of Records at 217.1mph/349kmh, which I believe is replaced by the McLaren F1 for 1994. I don't have the 1992 or 1994 edition to hand, but I have them somewhere. 81.134.200.21 (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

GWR still listed the XJ220 as the fastest even through the 1990s, IIRC. Donnie Park (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, on http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/news/jaguar-xfr-schnellster-jaguar-aller-zeiten-1046116.html it states "Als schnellster Jaguar galt bisher der XJ220 mit dem 1992 aufgestellten Rekord von 349,4 km/h. Der britische Mittelmotorsportler holte sich damit auch den Titel als schnellstes Serienfahrzeug der Welt, bis diese Auszeichnung 1994 an den McLaren F1 ging." Google says this means "As the fastest Jaguar so far was the XJ220 established with the 1992 record of 349.4 km / h. The British agent Motorsportsman grabbing himself the title as the fastest production car in the world, to this award in 1994 went to the McLaren F1." 81.134.200.21 (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I weakly remember that the Jaguar XJ220 was tested with 347 km/h by Auto, Motor und Sport but couldn't find the article anywhere. I could only find this website http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/fahrberichte/tunerversprechen-300-km-h-sind-pflicht-775801.html with this quote "In der zweiten Vollgasrunde verharrt das GPS-Messgerät bei 358 km/h. Damit überholt der Bimoto den Jaguar XJ 220, den mit 347 km/h schnellsten von auto motor und sport je gemessenen Sportwagen." which translates into: "In the second full speed round the GPS instrument remains at 358 km/h. Thereby the Bimoto overtakes the Jaguar XJ 220 , the with 347 km/h fastest ever recorded sports car by auto motor und sport." AMS is a reliable source and always does two-way runs so it would be okay for me to use the 347 km/h even without access to the original test from AMS issue 19/1994. http://www.histoquariat.de/Auto-Motor-und-Sport-/-AMS-/-19-1994 Your opinions ? Drachentötbär (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with AMS, looks fine to me. Greglocock (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Provided the Jag was stock it is ok. It would be useful to locate the original test. Unfortunately Auto Motor und Sport is not available in my part of the world NealeFamily (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the 349.1kmh test is the car was modified - disconnecting the catalytic converters and raising the rev limiter according to User:81.134.200.21 above. The Bugatti top speed in the list is the unmodified speed, which still meant it qualified as the fastest production car without modification. NealeFamily (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Which brings me to propose this: we should increase the minimum produced of 25 to 30 (the same requirement of GWR), plus regardless if it was sold as it was, the Ruf is still a modified 911 and as I said earlier, most people then acknowledged the F40, Diablo, EB110 and the XJ220 as the fastest car of the time. Donnie Park (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You are conflating two questions. (1) was Xj220 the fastest at some point, according to our current rules, and (2) should the rules be changed. I suggest you separate the two questions, both have been discussed.Greglocock (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

OK Donnie Park then on what basis is RUF not a manufacturer, when it is recognized as one with its own WMI NealeFamily (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find the original XJ220 test but found 3 other websites quoting values from the test which treat the 347 km/h as factory claim so AMS most likely didn't test it. I found another candidate for 1992 however: French Sport Auto measured 351 km/h for the Bugatti EB 110 SS http://up.autotitre.com/9063478e23.jpg and EVO also states that it managed 351 km/h http://www.evo.co.uk/group-tests/14208/bugatti-eb110-meets-edonis-the-offspring . (I've even read someone quoting 355 km/h tested in Autobild Sportscars 03/2010 but I don't have access to it for verifying) Drachentötbär (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Countach - claimed AMS numbers wildly optimistic

Someone just added the 500S at 182 mph There is a ref to a dead tree AMS test. The only online ref I can find is car and driver, at 160 mph. So, can anyone provide a scan of the AMS test? Frankly if you plot engine hp vs top speed of the various countach models, 182 mph is just some made up fanboi number. Similarly the LP400 number in this article disagrees with the ref on the Countach page. Greglocock (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's the quote from C&D " Our driving was done in a six-Weber European-specification car rated at 368 hp at 7500 rpm; the U.S. version is said to have a torque curve at least as strong, but its power trails off above 6000 rpm to a peak of 348 hp. In any case, the Euro ver­sion maxed out at 150 mph—fast, but cer­tainly not out of the range of Boxers and good-running 930 Porsches. Unbolting the optional (at $5500) wing from the rear increased speed to 160 mph with only a very minor loss in directional stability. Not ordering the wing has to be the cheapest speed secret in the world." Greglocock (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The 293 km/h (182 mph) top speed for the LP500 S (AKA 5000 S https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_Countach#Countach_LP500_S) is shown here: http://www.tuningarchive.ru/scans/scansbig/0025s-03.jpg

AMS often repeats the results tested in later issues so more than one issue can be used as correct reference.

There is a comparison test with the 288 km/h (179 mph) LP400 in AMS 9/1978, but the first test of the car was in AMS 15/1975, the LP500 S was both in 15/1983 and 22/1984 and probably even more issues.Drachentötbär (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Puzzlicious to say the least. I'll have a look at the implicationsGreglocock (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

New column- engine HP

In view of the rather odd Countach result above, I was just wondering if the addition of an engine hp column would work. It's an easy number to lie about, for earlier cars, but once it got properly defined it became more useful (tho i would say that DIN power measurements were still fudgeable to the ingenious mind) Greglocock (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

We should definitely do it, I suggest an engine column with official HP/kW/PS in the first line and cc and cylinder in the second but other designs work well too.Drachentötbär (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

McLaren F1 top speed - need new reference ?

The more I dig into it, the more I think that AMS didn't top speed test the car themselves but were referencing to Autocar numbers. I've only found a small fraction of the test https://img3.picload.org/image/rrlirppg/amsmclarenf1.jpg which shows the acceleration and top speed numbers. (Reasons: are the 0-322 km/h time mentioned which is the 0-200 mph time from Autocar, top speed number is multiple of 10, never seen the number anywhere else in AMS, in later articles online they use the 386 km/h tested at Ehra-Lessien as top speed and in a 2002 article they wrote that 347 km/h was the fastest sports car speed the magazine had measured before.)

The problem is, we don't have anything better:

The 231 mph from Nardo which was there before definitely doesn't qualify (company internal test with an early prototype with different engine and handling with the top speed calculated from the data-recording inside the car).

Autocar exclusively tested the car in 1994; didn't get a top speed and wrote the because of "tire growth" the rev limiter would be hit far above 230 mph. Car and Driver later in a test (performance numbers "courtesy of autocar") wrote that the top speed is at rev-limited at 221 mph. AMS did a compromise with the top speed of 230 mph.

In my opinion the enormous "tire growth" claim by autocar is unrealistic, the magazine biased in their close cooperation with McLaren. The Car and Driver top speed seems realistic. If we assume the Ehra-Lessien 240 mph were made at 8100 rpm, it would have met 7500 at about 222 mph. The Ameritech F1 was capped at 217,7 mph at the same 7500 rpm limit.

Some of the options we have:

1) Leave it as is 2) Take the lower top speed from C&D 3) remove the car from the list 4) ...

Autocar test: https://web.archive.org/web/20071114030711/http://www.mclarenautomotive.com/news/Autocar_December_F1.pdf http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/mclaren/f1-1992-1998

Car and driver: http://media.caranddriver.com/files/mclaren-f1-road-test-review-car-and-driver1994-mclaren-f1-archived-road-test.pdf http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/mclaren-f1-supercar-road-test-review Drachentötbär (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to check the Auto, Motor und Sport article of 12/1994 to be sure, before making a change. I don't have access to that magazine. The question is then, what speed has been confirmed for the stock version, From reading your comments it appears that there is no test to confirm its top speed. If this is so then it does not qualify at all for the list. NealeFamily (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Found the AMS article. It's not explicitly stated but I'm quite sure now it's just another report of the same exclusive test and the top speed was estimated. Autocar Journalist Andrew Frankel was named as co-author. Drachentötbär (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Based on that then the Car and Driver test would be the most reliable. NealeFamily (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a more realistic guess but it's still an estimation. I'll change it for now so it's correct until a decision is made. A Japanese source https://www.germancarforum.com/attachments/image-jpg.375962/ says 335 km/h but I can't read Japanese so I don't know if they really tested it. Drachentötbär (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Drachentötbär. I think it would be reasonable to accept this speed based on the tests with the limiter removed. I think that a test with the limiter on may be unlikely because of the test with it removed. NealeFamily (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, we currently don't follow our own rules by accepting an estimated speed for this car so we loose credibility. If we keep this estimation we need at least a short explanation why we do so in the List rules section.Drachentötbär (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes Ithink that is a reasonable suggestion as it looks like several manufacturers are doing this so that they can claim to have the fastest production car. Maybe a suggestion is that where a car has demonstrated that it can attain certain speed with a limiter switched off, then we accept the speed at which the limiter is set as being the top speed or something along those lines. NealeFamily (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Post 1945 only?

Post 1945 only is ridiculous. There was the 1902 Mercedes 35 hp/40hp driven by William K Vanderbilt II on May 3 1902 between Ablis and Chartres with 111,8 km/h. The Mercedes Simplex 60hp did 120kph shortly after. Superchargers were used in Bugatti and Duesenberg after WWI. The Type 43 was noted at the time as the world's first 100 mph (161 km/h) production car — in fact, it could hit 110 mph (177 km/h) when most fast cars could only reach 70 mph (113 km/h). The 1928-32 Mercedes SSK had a top speed of up to 120 miles per hour (190 km/h), making it the fastest car of its day., SS_Cars_Ltd#SS_100 with 100mph in 1938.

I sort of agree, in that the prewar cars were vastly more interesting than the countach clones we've seen since the 80s. However, the numbers were obtained by dubious means, the cars were modified from stock, and who knows which way the wind was blowing? Look in the talk archives for long winded discussion of this and many other decisions. Greglocock (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

We should drop the dubious 1945 and 1947 entries and start with the 1949 Jaguar XK120 entry instead which really set a new record (124+ mph (200+ km/h)) instead of "post 1945 only"). The list is misleading in its current state, looking at it I thought such speeds weren't reached before 1945. The 1945 entry only lists a manufacturer's top speed claim and the speed in the comments applies to another model. The 1947 entry contradicts its linked Wikipedia site which doesn't know this model or any whose production started in 1947. Information about the time before 1945 would be interesting, depending on how many reliable sources like books are available, maybe in an extra table or a text section, it's at least as relevant as the "Controversies" section. Drachentötbär (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This whole list is ridiculous because its missing a lots of cars, this lists just some random cars from random years with claimed speed- >Typ932 ^T·C 19:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hennessy Venom

This car broke the record like 5 years ago or something, shouldn't it be here Aacfsftw (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Only 16 were built and the test was in one direction only. Greglocock (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Notes for editors

• Discussion and determination on the 20 car limit
• The most recent review of the 20 car limit

Cars excluded from the list together with basic reason

Make and model	Year	Claimed top speed	Number built	Reason
Alfa Romeo 6C 2500 Super Sport	1946–1951	106 mph (171 km/h)	Unknown	No road test
Allard J1 and K1	1946–1948	92 mph (148 km/h) to 93 mph (150 km/h) with one source claiming over 100 mph (161 km/h)	151 K1's	No road test
Aston Martin DB4 GT Zagato	1960	153.5 mph (247 km/h)	19	excluded because of number built
Barabus TKR	2006	270.0 mph (435 km/h)	unknown	crashed on record attempt – no record set
Bugatti Chiron	2017	275 mph (443 km/h)	70 (500 planned)	excluded because of no road test (260 mph) and removal of speed limiter (275 mph)
Bugatti Veyron 16.4 World Record Edition	2010	267.557 mph (431 km/h)	5	excluded because of number built – see discussion on this articles talk page. Out of the initial production run of 30 there were 5, named the Super Sport World Record Edition, which had the electronic limiter turned off, and were capable of 267.857 mph (431.074 km/h), although Guinness World Records later re-verified the official land speed record.
Dauer 962 Le Mans	1994	251.4 mph (404.6 km/h)	13	not enough built
Delahaye 135	1946–1954	100 mph (161 km/h)	unknown	no road test, numbers unknown, coachbuilt
Ferrari 340, 342, and 375 America, and 400 and 410 Superamerica	1950–1959	159.69 mph (257 km/h)	varies depending on model – almost all custom made	less than 20 made for any model and many were racing cars
Ferrari 250 GTO	1962–1964	158 mph (254 km/h)	>20	no independent road test and each car tends to be customised
Ferrari 500 Superfast	1964–1966	171 mph (275 km/h)	23 Mk 1's, 12 Mk 2's, 1 custom made	excluded because of no independent road test
Hennessey Venom GT	2010	265.7 mph (428 km/h)(2013) 270.49 mph (435 km/h)(2014)	16	excluded because of number built and single direction top speed test run
Hennessey Venom F5	2016	290 mph (467 km/h) proposed	30 to be built	unconfirmed numbers and no road test
Koenigsegg Agera (models R and One:1)	2011–2014	273 mph (439 km/h) to 280 mph (451 km/h) depending on model	less than 20 for any model	excluded because of numbers built and/or unverified top speed
Koenigsegg Agera RS	2017	277 mph (446 km/h)	25 proposed	excluded because not enough built at present and unresolved issue with 2 engine options. Will need 25 with the same engine option as the speed record model
Koenigsegg CCR	2004	242 mph (389 km/h)	14	excluded because of numbers built
Lamborghini Countach 5000QV	1985	185 mph (298 km/h)		speed record already higher
Lamborghini Muira P400S	1969	172 mph (277 km/h)	338	this model was introduced after the Ferrari Daytona
Maserati 5000 GT	1959–1965	172.4 mph (277 km/h) claimed – more an estimate than a true measure	34 but with different bodies	no independent test
Monteverdi Hai 450	1970	180 mph (290 km/h) claimed	only 2 proto-types built, the SS and GTS	no production version
Ruf CTR2	1995	217 mph (350 km/h)	31	16 of the 31 CTR2s were normal, while 15 were CTR2 "Sport". Top speed test missing.
Pegaso Z-102 BS 2.8 Supercharged	1953	151 mph (243 km/h)	<20	less than 20 built
Shelby SuperCars SSC (all models including TT, Ultimate Aero, and Tuatara's)	2004–2014	236 mph (380 km/h)to 276 mph (444 km/h) depending on model	less than 20 for each model	excluded because of numbers built
Studebaker Avanti R2	1962–1963	158 mph (254 km/h)	unknown for version tested	data on speed tests and configuration of the car tested unknown at this stage
Studebaker Avanti R3	1962–1963	171.1 mph (275 km/h)	6	insufficient made
Talbot Lago T26 Record and Grand Sport	1946–1954	105 mph (169 km/h) (Record) and 124 mph (200 km/h) (Grand Sport)	less than 20 for either model	excluded because of numbers built and lack of independent road test
Vector W8	1990–1993	242 mph (389 km/h) for prototype	17 production models	excluded because of number built and no verified top speed for production model

Many of these cars have been debated on this articles talk pages. Should more detailed reasoning be required refer to the relevant discussion or raise the issue on the talk page.

Agera RS

An enthusiastic editor added the following to the top of the lede. It needs cites and production numbers

Koeniggsegg Agera RS just did a new world record for production cars! A Koenigsegg Agera RS driven by Koenigsegg factory driver, Niklas Lilja, has completed high speed runs in Pahrump, NV, today. 4th November 2017.

The average speed achieved, measuring runs in both directions, was 444.6 km/h (277.9 mph). This is a new world record for a production vehicle. All data recorded and verified on site by Racelogic.

Cheers

Greg Locock

The language is over the top but for once the claim seems to be true. http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a13301712/koenigsegg-agera-rs-speed-record/ They are still waiting for official confirmation.  Stepho  talk  22:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Trouble is, the list requires a minimum of 25 units. Koenigsegg planned to build 25, which it claims it sold and built. BUT, there's two engine options, a pure 98 octane option with 1160hp and a E85 compatible "Megawatt package". Not sure how this affects production figures. Alguemimportante (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I would think that the 25 units would have to be to the same mechanical specification (ignoring such differences as trim, colour, fluffy dice, 8-track) as the record breaking car. It gets hard when Guinness lists a car that we reject (not clear if this will be true for the Agera yet). With the number of exceptions growing, we might have add a section for popular claims not included on this list (eg Hennessey Venom GT for one direction and possibly the Agera for number of units built).  Stepho  talk  01:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't see how different engine alternatives would change the production numbers. Take Volvo XC90 as an example, with 5 different engines alternatives and different equipment packages on top of that you can get close to hundred combination. But in the end all is reported as one model, this is confirmed when you look at the first section on the VIN numbers.Morkul (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What if you bought a Volvo XC90 because somebody told you the XC90 could do 0-100 km/h in 7.3 seconds? Except the diesel version you bought does it in 11.8 seconds. Unhappy! Or somebody told you it could do 10.5 L/100 km but the V8 version you bought does 19.9 l/100 km. Engine makes a huge difference. So does weight and aerodynamics. If these differ then the car is not capable of reaching the world record speed. And if it is not capable of reaching that speed then it's not the same thing.  Stepho  talk  11:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Every single car out there have different option, including engine and still is the same model. When buying a new car the engine options is one of the first thing a seller asked you about so if you as a buyer miss that information you shouldn't buy new cars. If this was so strange as you say why do all cars have different engine options without the manufacturer are sued? I know why, because it general practise. But perhaps more important is that FIA and Guinness book of records don't count engine options as a separate models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morkul (talk • contribs) 14:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Cars with different engines are handled as different cars in this list, especially if the horsepower output differs, else we would have to change the list a lot like adding the Countach LP5000s because of how fast a factory tuned customer car was and other examples.

The Koenigsegg RS doesn't belong on this site because of WP:NOTNEWS. Koenigsegg wrote an unconfirmed short message and we sell it as fact here. The entries should be removed until the speed is officially confirmed and we know that there are 25 cars with the same power output. Drachentötbär (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Even Guinness book of record allow factory tuned cars, that why Bugatti Veyron got their record approved. So as I wrote above I fail to see why this list, that follows other Guinness guidelines would not follow this one.

I do however agree about the Koenigsegg Agera RS production numbers, until they are confirmed it should be removed.Morkul (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

While there is a question mark over its elibilty for this list, I have shifted it to the Production car speed record#Difficulties with claims section.  Stepho  talk  20:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Full disclosure - I work for Koenigsegg Automotive.

I was there in Nevada when we broke the record with the RS. If you're waiting for Guinness to verify this record, then don't hold your breath. We're not asking them to. If Guinness recognises this record, it's because they decided to. Guinness is a brand. A marketing exercise. They charge more than we can afford to come out and observe the things we'd do regardless of whether they were there or not. We measure our performance using industry-standard measurement techniques. In this instance, it was Racelogic and we had the guy from Racelogic come out to fit the device and confirm the data that was captured. We had our own device from AiM in the car, too, in order to provide a second source if the Racelogic system didn't work. It wasn't needed. And the readings from the AiM system matched the readings from Racelogic. If you need external citations, Jonothan Klein from Automobile Magazine was also present during the runs. His stories from that magazine are first-hand. He was a witness. In fact, there were about 200 witnesses there that day, including me.

With regards to production numbers, 25 Agera RSs have been sold and the last one is on the production line right now. In addition, there are three special edition RSs called 'Agera Final'. One of those has already been produced (shown at the Geneva Motor Show 2016) and the other two are in production at the moment. Your reasoning that a different engine option means it's a different car is incorrect. These are all Agera RSs and the engine is fundamentally the same whether its the Megawatt package or not. The customer makes the choice as to which RS engine they want but ask them what car they're buying and they'll tell you it's an Agera RS.

By your reasoning, a car with a suspension option is a different car. Have you checked all the cars on your list to see how many customers ordered cars with suspension upgrades? Or aero packages? Because if you think these elements don't contribute to a car's ability to reach top speed, then you're incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.4.107.250 (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It's only wikipedia. What's the top speed with the lesser engine package fitted? I'm somewhat sympathetic to your reasoning, but I'll wait and see what others think. I'd usually improve the top speed by eliminating the wings, probably not what your customers want to hear when they spend up big for an aero package. Greglocock (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

"It's only wikipedia" - OK, but isn't this supposed to be the people's encyclopedia? Shouldn't it reflect the reality of (in this instance) the work that's been done by a company to achieve a record if that record is run according to accepted standards? This is supposed to be a resource that records credible claims without the involvement of money changing hands for a marketing fee. To us, that's important. Wikipedia may be more important as a central record than you think.

Here are our claims on the Agera RS and its eligibility:

(1) The Agera RS has been crash tested, emissions tested and tested every other way in order to become a fully homologated production car that is available for sale, worldwide, with a Koenigsegg VIN. We have the homologation documentation to prove it. Homologation with a manufacturer's VIN should be the ultimate determinant of whether something is a production car, not some arbitrary number that has its origins in racing (FIA) rather than public availability. The artificial number of 25 cars gears this list towards large manufacturers that can subsidise the production of fast cars with sales of smaller cars and SUV's. It penalises small manufacturers that innovate and dedicate their entire existence towards pushing the performance envelope and building the best performing cars in the world.

(2) Regardless of the irrelevancy of that number, the fact remains that the Agera RS is being sold in a volume of 25 units, with three additional RS's called the 'Final' edition. The last of those is on the production line right now.

(3) The Megawatt engine choice is available to all customers and all cars can be retrofitted with the Megawatt engine at any time. The choice belongs to the customer at the time of the order and can be altered at any time the customer wishes. All of those 25+3 cars are Agera RS's. They don't have a different model name, number or VIN.

(4) The exclusion of a car based on an option (in our case) but without noting the options available or chosen on other models in the list is a case of inconsistent treatment. I am not calling their place on this list into question at all by asking this, but... Do you think the Veyron SS had no options availiable? Were all of the Ruf cars you cite built exactly the same? Would any variations, however small, aid performance? It's never been looked at, I'll bet. You're looking at it with regard to us because we were transparent enough to tell you about it. Now we're being penalised for that.

(5) The record runs were conducted using industry-standard measurement techniques, with third party witnesses involved in the measurement of data and telling the story of what happened that day. Everything we have ever stated publicly with regard to performance is measured using industry-standard measurement techniques. We have a well-deserved reputation for being the most transparent company in the market when it comes to talking about landmark events and activities, either good or bad (for reference, see our post on the crash at the Nurburgring). We put our hands up when we make an error, but we also think we have earned our place at the production car table through some very hard work over a lot of years. ~~Steven Wade (Koenigsegg Automotive AB)~~

Veyron speed limiter

I think the reasoning behind including the Veyron at 267 mph rather than 257 is poor, and leads to attempted justification for the Agera of allowing cars that are NOT capable of the record top speed to count towards the production total. This can be solved in one elegant stroke by reducing the claimed top speed for the Veyron to 257 and adding a note that removing the speed limiter gives an extra 10 mph. Then we don't have to put up with any nonsense about less powerful engines counting towards the production totals. Waddayerreckon? Greglocock (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the Veyron is justified at the full 267 mph. Most of the cases we discuss are because the production car needs something extra or better to make the record speed. For the Veyron it is the removal of an artificial restriction. Of course we should have a note that most productions cars have that speed limiter.  Stepho  talk  23:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)