Talk:List of automotive superlatives

Archives
August 2004 to April 2005 April 2005 to May 2005 May 2005 to September 2005 September 2005 to July 2006 2007 to 2009

Rules

The following questions have been resolved by a public vote and discussion.

Honorable mentions for disputed entries - A consensus is required before a dispute about an entry bumps it down to honorable mention status.

Production numbers - The "20 produced" rule refers to the superlative version, not just the named model in general.

First fiberglass monocoque

Currently it's listed as being the 1959 Lotus Elite, but I wonder if it may be the 1956 Berkeley T60. It depends if they were actual monocoque (it may be body-on-frame with a fibreglass frame). They were made in fibreglass with aluminium bulkheads and steel sections for the engine support. According to http://www.microcarmuseum.com/tour/berkeley-t60.html they had a "box-shaped substructure and suspension and engine compartment reinforced with aluminum, forming a fiberglass monocoque structure". // Liftarn

No objections? Alright then. Lotus Elite gets bumped. // Liftarn

Well... according to this link [1], the Elite used fiberglass "for the entire load-bearing structure of the car". According to this link [2], the Elite "featured an all-fiberglass, monocoque chassis". According to the wikipedia article, it did use a steel subframe for the engine and front suspension. I realise this is subjective, but it sounds to me like the Elite was a little farther along in this area than the Berkeley. Perhaps you would reconsider the bump. Maybe a good compromise would be to switch the cars and give the Berkeley an honorable mention? --SpinyNorman 08:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Your first source is just an older version of the Wikipedia article (compare [3] and Lotus Elite). The Berk did have fibreglass chassis so it's first. I found some pictures at http://www.coldplugs.com/berkstoday01.htm that shows how it looks. The Elite chassis is more advanced and it's also a larger car, but the Berk was first. // Liftarn

In that case I'll change it from Berkeley T60 (1959 3-wheeler) to the Berkeley SA322 (1956 4 wheels)Meio 18:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes the Berkely SA322 definitely gets the honors. I have rewritten the Berkely page and refered to that fact there before realising it was also a topic here!Glachlan (talk) 14:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Two-cylinder engines

Citroen used horizontally opposed two-cylinder engines in its 2CV and derivatives. I believe they started at 435 cc in the 2CV, appeared in a very popular 602 cc version in the later 2CV, Dyane and Ami, and there may have been a late model with about 800 cc before the whole lot disappeared in the 80's. I think these are worth a mention!--King Hildebrand 11:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just checked the 2CV article here, which gives detail of the initial 375 cc engine, and the final 652 cc one. Just for the record, and to start the ball rolling, I'll enter these as smallest and largest two-cylinder engines in the main article. Please feel free to supersede these with better info! King Hildebrand 12:52, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The Brazilian car Gurgel BR-800 and its derivatives (Supermini and Motomachine) had a watercooled 798 cc 2-cylinder boxer engine . Fiat also announced a 0.9 L inline-2 turbocharged engine for the new 500, but it isn't in production yet.187.59.249.214 (talk) 19:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to forget the 2 cylinder 2 stroke engine from DKW which was also used in the Saab 92 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.57.0.250 (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

If motorcycles are allowed as "automotive" devices (rather than "automobile" which notably ISNT the article title), there must surely be some high production Harley Davidson models and/or similar ones from rival marques with decidedly larger V-twins than 800 or even 900cc, given you can get "big singles" that exceed the half-litre mark. After all, if we're going to have the Aprilia R125's rotax engine... On that note it's a pity that limited-run prototypes aren't permitted, as VW did come up with a high specific-output (47hp/L) 850cc turbodiesel twin in the early 1980s, and actually built some working models but never brought it to market thanks to the oil crisis petering out. That would have hit a good number of categories here I'd wager!

Also ... correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the Saab/DKW 2-stroke engine a small, extremely fizzy V6? (And I think one of theirs might qualify for the contentious "smallest V8" category)... OTOH, we have the old smokey 2-stroke Trabant... what cylinder/cc was that? 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Electric cars

IMO this article should list most powerful & fastest electric cars also. - G3, 13:08, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

As it has to be reasonable volume, production passenger cars, the list could be a little embarrassing thus far. Hybrids are almost certainly out (as the performance comes mainly from the ICE), and I'm not even sure the EV1 would count (the best so far, until the Tesla FINALLY enters production), as it was only available on lease and was reclaimed from customers when GM decided to revoke such - therefore it was only really a "rental" car, rather than one you could buy. Therefore something awful like the Reva / GWiz would be the title holder, or maybe the less embarrassing but still performance-marginal Th!nk City. 65mph, 120 miles between lengthy charge-ups, woo. Maybe leave it a couple years... the best statistic to use might be "first electric car" which would be not too much later than the first ICE one :) 82.46.180.56 (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Same-contributor edit, 2 years later: Hmm, maybe we could get the Tesla Roadster in at last, if they've actually managed to deliver 100 vehicles to customers yet. But other than that, progress has been disappointing. Heaven forfend someone embarrass Mitsubishi by including the i-MIEV... OK, it's got a good standing claim to be the first properly targeted and marketed post-WW2 "consumer" electric vehicle, but the stats are embarrassing. Over £20,000 purchase price (fuel cost savings would take more than 10 years to pay back even at european tariffs), 80mph top speed (ok, not bad, but a 1-litre scrapper could still pwn it), and as far as independent testers have found, a sub-40 mile range between lengthy charges. Oh dear. If something can't complete the Bertha Benz trail in the same time the 19th century Motorwagen managed, do we want it on the list? And where's it's competition, still? 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Redlines

Anyone want to include a section on highest redlines for each engine configuration? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.21.2.5 (talk) 23:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

I think creating such a section would be difficult. If by redline you mean the bit of red marked on the tachometer, then I think a comparison wouldn't be all that helpful. Manufacturers these days seem to arbitrarily mark the redline anywhere they like, and it could be above or below the actual point the engine stops revving (some cars don't even have a redline!).

But I'm assuming you're referring to the engine cut-out point, which may be a better indication of an engine's capabilities. However, this also poses problems. Old style engines don't necessarily have a set cut-out as such so they can theoretically rev forever until they run out of air or just self-destruct.

I suppose it's possible to make a section using a hybrid of both redlines and cut-outs but I'm not sure how successful that'll be. Perhaps it might be workable. VectorD 08:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Weeeell, why not seperate sections for "highest rev limiter" (which is easiest to check, at least by someone who has access to a candidate car), and "highest manufacturer recommended maximum safe engine speed" (obviously needing a snappier title) which would be the place at which the physical "red line" is at / red zone starts, or even the rpm the user manual recommends you do not exceed other than momentarily/emergencies, in order to "avoid engine damage". (In the case of my two most recent cars - 6500 limiter and 6000rpm redline/recommendation, and 6000 for both). 82.46.180.56 (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative and more easily checked idea: highest and lowest claimed maximum power (and torque?) rpms (with categories at least for petrol/diesel, car/bike (or bike engined sportcars), and maybe for NA/blown and single/multivalve or even cam/head tech?). These are more widely published, checkable on a dynamometer, and not readily worked around by mr or mrs O.R. troll by fitting a modified ECU chip / meddling with the governor. Plus the power rpms are often not that far away from the limiter or "redline". My own experiences are along the lines of 5200 power, 6000 redline, 6500 limiter and 5000/5750/6000 (older, 8v engine designs), 5750/????/6750ish (newer 16v with no redline marked on tacho and a somewhat fuzzy limiter also that moves around according to oil temperature) and 8500/9000/10500 (small, conservatively tuned motorcycle using rather old tech). Yer average turbodiesel - or a very low tune petrol - might be something like 4000/4500/4750. Torque seems to sit around 2000-3500 for 8v petrol, 3000-5000 for 16v, and 1500-3000 diesel (the only bike figure I have is 7000, no idea if it's typical). Major deviations from these norms would be notable. EG the "Iron Duke" engine with peak torque around 1900rpm and peak power somewhere in the mid 3000s vs recent Honda car engines that have peak power close on 10,000rpm and torque not very far from it, or Sportsbike engines that spin in the stratosphere beyond 15000 77.102.101.220 (talk) 22:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Smallest V10 honorable mention.

I added Connaught Type-D GT with a 2.0L V10 in the smallest engines category as a honorable mention since the vehicle is awaiting production currently. It was deleted. Any reason for it?

Here are the specs http://www.connaughtmotorco.com/performance_gt.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.44.168.185 (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

Probably because it's something that hasn't actually been made? We could add all kinds of honourable-mention specs on that basis. The spirit of the thing is for stuff that is very close-run to the actual winner or a very notable rival, or just misses the criteria (e.g. only 18 were made instead of 20, or it was an engine originally intended for car use but for some reason was only ever specced by buyers in its truck guise). 77.102.101.220 (talk) 23:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Fastest estate/stationwagon car

I Removed the MG Rover ZT-T 765 Bonneville from the fastest estate car. This was NOT a production car. To the best of my ability, I've found the fastest estate car to be the current model Dodge Magnum SRT8 clicking in at 173 MPH. There may be some obscure European car which is faster so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the Magnum in it's production is indeed faster than the production MG ZT. Here is a gallery of the ZT-T Bonneville specially modified to make the record breaking run: Click

SSChicken 19:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

What, there isn't a single Merc, BMW, Saab, Audi or Volvo that can match up to it? They've certainly made some lunatic estates in their time. Blame it on the 155mph limiter, I suppose, but some of the top end, most fire breathing ones can have it taken off as an option... maybe just not enough people buy them? Would the Porsche Cayennes / Panameras count? Aston Martin shooting brakes? Jags? 77.102.101.220 (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked and the Saab 9-5 Aero SportCombi have a top speed of a mere 245 km/h, the 9-3 does a bit better, but not much. // Liftarn (talk)

Unimog U5000

The 2002 Unimog U5000 is now listed ins eral placed, but does it fullfill the requements to be included? // Liftarn

Well... it sort of fulfills the 3 conditions set at the top of the article, though I would consider an Unimog to be an industrial vehicle (failing point 3). I think the scope of the article should be limited to, as the automobile article states: a passenger vehicle constructed principally for the transport of people rather than goods. I honestly don’t think an Unimog is build with that purpose. --Van helsing 12:15, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That's your opinion, many Unimogs of that type are purchased as expedition vehicles or for transporting crew and equipment to remote sites. I could post a link to the brochures and specs, but we're all web enabled adults here. Maybe you're suggesting we disclude anything with substantial cargo capacity such as any other pickup. Meio 13:28, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it’s just my opinion; I’m suggesting that we include vehicles with the primary purpose of transporting people, not excluding everything capable of doing something else. And even that’s not a good description, as far as I can see we can still include a bus under current article scope conditions. --Van helsing 15:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the real issue here is the definition of 'commercial', I have interpreted the relevant condition as 'available for purchase by private individuals' and 'Likely to be used by private individuals as a means of transportation'. If you feel that the U5000 is too extreme, remember that this is a superlatives page. I have also noticed that at 14,500lbs the International CXT is the heaviest vehicle on this list by far. Meio 21:10, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I really think that the unimog is not a passanger car. Of couse it can carry people (also a bus can) but it is not car in any way. If we allow the unimog we have allow a lot of trucks.

Remember that if you get rid of the U5000 then there is a very strong argument for also removing the F350, H1 and CXT. Maybe all pickup trucks should indeed be removed.Meio (talk) 17:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggest removing U5000 altogether. If it qualifies, so would a great number of body-on-frame vehicles available for consumers, like passenger vans and light trucks. U5000 has height of 2740 mm (90 in) and has 4,8 litre I4 engine, which would qualify it in additional categories. Also, condition 1) in article states, that vehicles on this list must be "constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, and to transport people on public roads". U5000 clearly fails this, as it is primarily an off-road vehicle aimed for construction, utility and rescue purposes, thus counting as industrial vehicle. At the very best, it could be given honorary mention, but I motion it be removed altogether. --213.216.255.63 (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, then the F350 Superduty has to go too, as does the designed primarily for military applications Hummer H1.Meio (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My own tuppen'orth: It's a truck. It's described as such in the opening paragraph of it's own wikipedia page, it's made by Mercedes' truck division, it looks like a truck, drives like a truck (good at hauling heavy loads, but has a 55mph top speed, 8 speed gearbox, and is useless at both acceleration and hills) and probably quacks like a truck. It's a truck! Just because some barmy people buy them and try to drive them like cars doesn't change what it actually is, just as cutting a flatbed into which you toss heavy bits of hardware and bags of cement, into the back end of a small car, without changing any other parts of the superstructure doesn't really make it a pickup, much as you might try to use it as such until the rear stub axles buckle and the bodywork follows suit. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 23:09, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't matter. There are lots of vehicles which are on this list which are described by their manufacturers as trucks. Because some people seem to think that a Ford Superduty is a family runabout makes it a candidate for this list as they are a then a market and make the vehicle conform to the, quite arbitrary, rules. It's a silly list full of silly vehicles, but if it exists and there are rules then they have to be applied evenly. Hence if the Mog goes (and I'm not saying it shouldn't) then the Superduty has to go as does the H1, and then we have to start looking at all other pickups, estates and vans.Meio (talk) 21:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

What style

I also notice, there's no mention of the first sedan delivery. Harley Earl 13:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What would that be? Morris Oxford Van, 1913? Meio 12:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

By this do we mean the classic "breadvan" aka "car-derived van" (as described by the [DVLA]/[DSA])? It might be quite difficult to tell, as in a lot of cases all you're doing is altering a small part of the production of a hatchback-type car such that it doesn't receive rear seats (or the fittings for them), and either the rear window holes are never cut out, or metal panels are provided to fit in place of the glass. In older models, pre hatchback development, it's a slightly different coachbuilt body on top of pretty much the same frame (with stronger springs), ie full length roof and actual "doors" in the back. Are we bothering with this kind of minutae of bodywork design, particularly as in this case it's for commercial rather than domestic/personal use? 77.102.101.220 (talk) 23:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Smallest V4

Changed it to the 500cc Honda V4 found in the Magna and Interceptor.129.173.188.67 (talk) 21:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. It's automotive, not for motorcycles. --Pc13 (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Automotive =/= 4-wheeled automobiles. And there are other motorcycle superlatives included already. Not to mention that motorcycle engines have regularly found themselves crossed over into light automobiles, a practice that continues to this day (such as putting Suzuki Hayabusa motors into Westfield roadsters). Japan in particular has lots of precedent for that, and several of their large players got their start producing machines that did just that.

I think, in fact, Honda did make some small cars in the 60s with 500cc, 4-pot engines? (Like the rev-mental, crazy-compact S500 convertible). There'll be egg on your face if it turns out they were V4s... It wouldn't be difficult for them to do that. In fact the capacity and it's power output (40-ish BHP) speaks to me of a development from my own single-cylinder, 125cc, 10.5hp Honda bike... double up to a V-twin, then put two of them next to each other, maybe introduce water cooling or at least a crank-powered fan: bam, a small, lightweight, half litre engine with sufficient torque to move a minimally-constructed chic auto (when properly geared for it), and enough power to punt along at 75+ mph on the flat, which would be plenty enough for the mid 60s. The only problem: mandatory 2000-mile oil changes and valve clearance checks.

Besides, if bike-like vehicles are excluded, what do we make of the Benz Motorwagen, which holds the position as the first genuine auto? It's a trike, on wire-spoked wheels, with a single cylinder engine, "gearless" belt transmission, and open cockpit. Sounds more like a motorcycle-type machine than a car, really! 77.102.101.220 (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Album version?

I see 1st in-car radio, but not 1st in-car record player, which was an option in some T-birds in the '50s & '60s. Trekphiler (talk) 12:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I think now we might just be getting silly :D --- however, first in-car tape player (either 8-track, compact cassette, or both) could be a notable first, along with first CD player, seeing as both have survived as incredibly popular options you may even see in vehicles purchased in the last 10 years, whereas the record player was a bit of a non-starter fad. I wonder even how many were installed... 77.102.101.220 (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Smallest flat-4?

I know I would be on shaky footing proposing the VW Kubelwagen as having the smallest 4-pot boxer (at 985cc), as it was a military vehicle (and therefore, not "bought" originally) despite it a/ having a big production run, b/ being for purpose of transporting people and c/ being on sale since (2nd hand...)... and although some of the engines made it to production beetles (kommanderwagens etc), there probably weren't enough. <-- much of my info nicked from the Beetle article as I was sure I remembered it having a sub-1.0L engine, in contrast to the Ami However, regardless of that, I can pip the Ami just with info from an article linked from the VW Bug one... the Steyr 50. 978cc engine (977.5) as standard, with a storming 22 horsepower, proper private-owner passenger car with a reasonable production run, and even an external website reference to "verify" such. Does it qualify? (I altogether wouldn't be surprised if there were even smaller flat 4s than that) 82.46.180.56 (talk) 20:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't the Kubel engine also the one used in the first Beetles? They went up to 1100, then 1200 and 1300 quite quickly after that, but I could swear the first generation had sub-litres (all you needed, even in the late 30s, to maintain the fuhrer's vaunted 100km/h cruise). 77.102.101.220 (talk) 23:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Least Expensive car

The list shows the Tata Nano as the least expensive car, but the Nano is not yet in production, hence the price is an "illustration" rather than a reality. 842U (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Now in production and in showrooms, so never mind... However that's just the least expensive, in India, for that level of power and equipment. There's likely others through history that have beaten it quite comprehensively by dint of being a magnitude more basic and slow. EG The Peel P50, or (prewar) the Briggs & Stratton Flyer. I wonder even if the latter years of the Model T would count? 77.102.101.220 (talk) 23:32, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

A note about BMW 2.0 twin turbo Diesel power output

This engine, listed as highest specific power for a forced induction engine, does not produce 204ps as stated. The car (123d) has 204ps but this is not all from the diesel engine. The efficient dynamics package is a low level hybrid system so there is an electric motor which provides power when needed. There seem to be no specs on how much the electric motor provides but looking at the difference across other models in the BMW range when they introduced it, 13-14ps, although with the new 7-series they have also claimed 20ps. So the engine is not 204ps, but perhaps 190ps, you just can't tell. Alpina also offer a tweaked version. 83.231.210.146 (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

EfficientDynamics is an energy recovery system. It does not generate power. --Pc13 (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

^ This. Even as of 18 months later I am not aware of any production BMW that is actually a hybrid; IE there is any onboard system that contributes motive power other than the ICE. The ED pack can make the engine APPEAR more powerful by taking the alternator (and other directly engine-driven systems like the AC) offline when required, but that's still all power being developed by the engine - merely sapped by the auxiliary add-ons continuously in a more conventional design. In fact if we have the thing up on the bench for testing, these items are likely discounted anyway, along with the power steering pump... (unless that's been deleted in favour of an electric system?) 77.102.101.220 (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

New Most Powerful Naturally Aspirated Car

The new lp640sv is said to have around 670bhp when it comes out —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.27.233 (talk) 13:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The McLaren F1 LM's engine is still more powerful at 680hp, and you must realize that the actual measurement for the LP670-4 is 670PS, not bhp. The actual HP rating for it is 661hp. IXetsuei (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is there no mention of the 2006 Weineck 780 cui Cobra? It's naturally aspirated putting out 1100 bhp and 1299 ft/lbs of torque according to this source[4]. It has a 780 cui (12.8 liter) V8. Wouldn't this be the most powerful naturally aspirated production car? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.55.62.145 (talk) 07:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The new record-holder should be the Aston-Martin One-77.

Most specific engine output (power per unit displacement)

The Caparo T1 is listed many times on this list... such as

Most specific power (power to weight ratio)

   * 1045 hp/metric ton (1.91 lb/hp) - 2007 Caparo T1 V8 engine 575 hp (429 kW) and 470 kg (1036 lb)

when I do the calculations, it has a specific output of 164.29 hp/liter. from 3.5 liters (naturally aspirated) The currently listed car is 142.3 hp/litre - 1994 JDM Suzuki Cultus Suzuka edition R13B (138 kW (188 PS/185 hp) 1.3 L I4) - furthermore, it is marked "citation needed" and I can't find anywhere that actually states that engine was used in that car. The wiki page for the car states that the cultus used b family engines and not r family engines so I am beginning to doubt whether this is correct anyway. Can someone please confirm this and change it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.248.177.227 (talk) 18:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

The BMW S42 engine, a racing variant of the M42 engine, produced up to 315 bhp from 1.999 ltr, which is approximately 157.6 bhp/ltr, more than the currently listed engine, although slightly less than the V8 above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.5.136 (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, is this only for cars? the 2010 BMW S1000rr has been confirmed to produce 197hp from a naturally aspirated 1000cc inline 4. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdubs (talk • contribs) 19:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Another bit to add/change if applicable. Chevrolet is claiming 765 lb-ft of torque in the 2011 Duramax diesel, which is more than the Audi V12 diesel listed. Technically it isn't in production yet, but I still think it should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.211.157.107 (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but what's the displacement and/or weight? The ratio is what we're looking for here. If they need anything more than about 5 litres to achieve that figure, it's not noteworthy. And that's still torque, not power. If you've misplaced your request in the wrong section, then I think I can open up this month's copy of Top Gear and find some high-premium vehicles with figures to match that - high 700s lbft just isn't notable any more. (Could be that they've switched to Newton-metres on the quiet, though?) 77.102.101.220 (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Further bit. Power-to-weight ratios for Diesels.

Where did the engine capacity superlatives go?

On 7 Mar 2009 richfife deleted a huge amount of info about the largest and smallest engine sizes. His comment was it was being moved elsewhere. Well I have searched and cannot find it. Can someone show me where it all went? Where should it go? ---- danallen46 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danallen46 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The smallest 100+ production is definitely NOT the Berkeley SA322 as currently listed. Several are smaller, eg the Isetta 236cc which also sold many more examples. I'm sure there are many moreGlachlan (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hell, that's the point I was coming here to make. It doesn't even qualify as an honourable mention as Peel almost certainly sold more than 100 of their P50s (enough to justify having a whole re-designed second generation), and if they didn't there's a whole flotilla of French "microcar" manufacturers who make good money producing 50 and 125cc "license-free" 2-seaters year-on-year, and they're definitely not just quads with windshields... the official designation may be a quadricycle but the 125s would give an old Fiat 500 a run on performance, interior space and safety and blow it away on general spec. There'll be plenty of bubble cars in that range and between 125 and 236cc as well (175 is a figure coming to mind for some reason)... an Isetta with a decently tuned 236 should be quite nippy! What did the Bond Bug have? I forget... 77.102.101.220 (talk) 23:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

First Four Wheel Drive Car

Arguably the first four wheel drive car would be the Spyker 60HP build in 1903. This car is also mentioned as the first car with brakes on all four wheels and as having the first six cylinder in the world but this needs verification

Porsche made a hybrid with 4 hub motors connected to an ICE motor-generator in place of the then dodgy conventional transmission and possibly not-even-invented front wheel drive around then, but I can't remember the exact year. I'd definitely call for trustworthy citations on the Spyker as 4WD requires some kind of front-wheel-drive system, and AFAIK that didn't arise as a working concern until the coming of the Citroen Traction Avant more than a decade later.

Well, the Dutch article on the Spyker 60 H.P. mentions that it has also been produced as a production car, yet production was ended due to high costs. The fact that the Jensen FF has been written down as the first 4WD production car seems pathetic, there have been much more earlier 4WD cars than the Jensen. 77.102.101.220 (talk) 23:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Tallest Car

There is no way the Rolls Royce Phantom is the "tallest car". Even a humble Nissan Cube is taller. I have done a brief search and the current Alphard minivan was the tallest I could find, so I put that, but there may be another that I didn't think of. If anyone thinks there should be a separate category for minivans, go ahead and make it, but we would be on shaky ground, because these days it's becoming increasingly hard to define where the "normal cars" end and the "minivan" segment begins.El monty (talk) 15:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Highest specific engine output (power/unit displacement)

Under Petrol/Gasoline (naturally-aspirated) piston engine .Why is the Proton Satria Neo S2000 listed? 1 There is no page for this car. 2 From what i can ascertain its also not a production car nor is it street legal.

Shortest cars

I would like to note that the smart fortwo is not the shortest production car. I can think of at least one example shorter, and that would be the ford gt at 44.3 inches. 4038 were produced, 3596 sold. I would not be surprised if there are shorter production cars, and there should definitely be shorter limited production cars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.124.148 (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Shortest refers to length, not height. The Ford GT is 44.3 inches high. The Ford GT40 is even lower. But neither are short cars.  Stepho  (talk) 23:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

ariel atom listed as "race car"

The Atom can be used as a race car, of course, but it is street legal. I think the article should be changed to reflect that it is the lightest current production car (the Lotus Elise is another example of a very capable race car that is most definitely a production car; the Subaru WRX STI and Mitsubishi Evo are less extreme examples of "race cars" that are production vehicles, but I'm indicating there's a spectrum here, and the Atom is definitely a production car). I'll go ahead and be proactive if nobody objects. ... aa:talk 03:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Cars before is World War II,

I thnk the list should allow these cars to be listed , there is now already many cars before WW2. -->Typ932 ^T·C 06:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)