Talk:List of automotive superlatives/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5
  1. August 2004 to April 2005
  2. April 2005 to May 2005
  3. May 2005 to September 2005
  4. September 2005 to July 2006

1966 Toronado most powerful FWD?

I have reservations about adding the Toronado as most powerful FWD vehicle. First, the quoted 385hp figure is gross, while the car it bumped had net value. Second, I remember from the hp discussion in the Horsepower discussion page, that gross power was cut by 20-25% when converted to net. Finally, Histomobile mentions 213hp, which I believe to be understated (my maths gave me 289-308hp). --Pc13 12:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I have similar reservations. I added a mention that the 385 hp figure was gross hp, but that's probably not good enough. Maybe we can give the Toronado an honorable mention and keep the previous winner. Incidentally, I think the new V8 Impalas and Monte Carlos may be available now; were these going to be the new winner? TomTheHand 13:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I had already added them. They were bumped by the Toronado. --Pc13 18:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
I still haven't had it confiremed, but it appears the 305 hp Saab 9-5 is indeed a production car. // Liftarn
Not according to the tech specs at the GM media site. The 305 hp Saab 9-5 is only listed in the Saab Performance website (a Hirsch subsidiary), it's not listed in any Saab website, the text in the Saab Performance site seems to indicate it's an aftermarket modification ("When Hirsch engineers are done with your engine"). Besides, the tech specs say the car pumps out 224 kW, while the Impala/Monte SS are good for 226 kW. The Saab's 305 hp are metric, and the Monte's 303 are SAE (which in metric would be 307). - Pc13 17:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
What about the 1970 Cadillac Eldorado? It had the 8.2L (500 cid) and FWD. The wiki page for it says it was rated SAE gross 400 hp/550 ft·lbf. 04:30, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


Honorable mention: 10.73 sec - 2004 Caterham 500 - (Note: the Caterham's status as a "production car" is disputed)

Why is their status in anyway disputed? They bought the rights to the Lotus 7 along with the tooling when Lotus stopped production and have been producing the car and developing it ever since. The 7 was a production car when Lotus made it and still is today. --LiamE 10:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The Caterham R500's engine does not obey Euro 3 emissions regulations, so it can't be homologated for road use by the factory. - Pc13 17:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Britain has (or at least had) somewhat more relaxed regulation for low volume manufacturers so that point is moot. The fact is it was sold in numbers - and sold legally. Whether it meets current regulation is irrelevant. You can't back date regulations to disqualify records. --LiamE 23:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Britain's relaxed "Single Vehicle Approval" registration is the reason the entry is disputed. It doesn't meet emissions or safety standards and so a good argument can be made that it doesn't belong on the list. We've compromised on the "disputed" tag. TomTheHand 03:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Euro 3 emissions regulations were introduced in 2001, and the R500 was introduced in 2003. The R400 obeys Euro 3 emissions, but not the R500. Both CSR versions obey Euro 4 regs, though. I'm still unsure if the CSR obeys crash-test regulations, as it has a different chassis than the Super7 (which doesn't). --Pc13 10:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
I certainly get where you are coming from. However as rule 2 is currently worded it should pass. Rule 2 should maybe read "standard tests and inspection" or similar. The Caterham passes A test but not necessarily a standard test. --LiamE 15:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that there is significant dispute on the subject. While I and some others feel that vehicles should pass all emissions and safety regulations in their home market to be included (and rule 2 should be phrased accordingly), some feel that if it is possible to get a vehicle on British roads according to more lenient "Single Vehicle Approval" regulation, it is a production car. The compromise is allowing them on the list with a "disputed" tag. TomTheHand 16:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

As already stated numerous times. If it has to pass an Single Vehicle Approval (emphasis added) it clearly isn't a production car. // Liftarn

And if more than 20 units are build commercially by people who are selling these cars at a profit to sustain their business, doesn't that make them a production car?-- 06:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
No. That alone would qualify every Dallara F3 car. The R500 is not homologated for the road by the factory. Only the R300 and R400 are. And the R400 existed for two years before being offered as a road car. --Pc13 22:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Fastest 0-100-0

"Sports car (2 seat) - 11.5 sec - McLaren F1 LM (Note: this is the best 0-100-0 time for an undisputed production car) "

Other than being pedantic and pointing out its a 3 seater and while its certainly was a production car I'm sorry to point out its not elidgible for this list. Only 5 LM models were ever made.

Saleen S7

Can anyone confirm that the S7 has a "production" of 20 cars per year and has met any nation's safety standards (independent of testing a Mustang, since that's considered a different car by both Saleen and Ford and the structural materials and other structural changes are significant)?

The Saleen S7 is homologated for racing in both the 24 Hours of Le Mans and the FIA GT Championship. In order to do that, those competitions require that a minimum of 25 cars are built as road cars for the period of one year. --Pc13 09:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

SSC Aero


Its featured in Forbes as having a top speed of 273 mph.


There appears to be various other superlatives on its site.

Has anyone heard of SSC ?

Not a production car, but I'm eager to see if it becomes one! TomTheHand 13:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
I have heard of the SSC and I have it on the pile of "things to write about" for my newspaper, but so far the car has yet to reach production status, and the top speed has to be verified. --Pc13 14:13, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
It appears that the 273 mph speed is just from wind tunnel testing... maybe that's the speed that the car lifts off. It runs out of gearing at 260. Also, the SSC Ultimate Aero model needs 104 octane! TomTheHand 14:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Dauer 962

The Dauer 962 is not illegible for inclusion in the automotive superlatives. #1 - Less than 20 road-going Dauers exist, the total number is 13. #2 - No Dauer was produced from scratch. All existing Dauers were modified from pre-existing Porsche 962 race cars. Pc13 12:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Largest W16

Is it worthwhile to have a "largest W16" entry on the list? It is, after all, the ONLY production W16. We could just as easily have entries for largest W12, W8, VR6, and VR5. On the other hand, the Veyron's W16 IS larger than the largest V16, and I think the VW W engines are closer to V's than anything else. TomTheHand 15:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

8-speed automatic

I just want to point out that while I agree the Lexus LS460 will be the first proper 8-speed gearbox, the JDM Nissan Skyline GT350 uses (since 2003) a CVT gearbox with eight pre-programmed gears for manual shift. In my opinion it shouldn't count because it's a CVT. I'm calling this to attention now should someone want to bring up in the future. Pc13 12:29, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, Pc13. Fake "gears" on a CVT shouldn't count. I like CVT technology, but while I understand that it can be unnerving to not hear the engine run through the rev range (just run to the torque peak and stay there), I think this whole recent business with introducing artificial "gears" is just silly. Features that provide the illusion of performance at the expense of performance just rub me the wrong way. TomTheHand 15:10, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Austins with transverse-mounted straight-6's

The 1959 Saab Monster.

I was surprised and skeptical about 93JC's addition of the Austin Kimberley and Tasman as the first vehicles with a transverse-mounted inline-6. I went looking for a source and found one straight from the horse's mouth, an advertisement from Austin talking about the power plant: [3]. Just in case anyone else is interested. TomTheHand 21:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The 1959 Saab Monster was not a production car so it's probably right. Honorable mention? // Liftarn


The first six-speed manual transmission is listed as 1986 Porsche 959, but what about cars with overdrive? If a car had four gears and overdrive on the two highest gears like the Triumph Spitfire (certainly not the first). 4 + 2 = 6. I have also read something about a russian car, possibly the Moskvitch 410/411 having six gears in the 1960s, but since they were SUVs (and may be a contestant for the title "First crossover SUV") it probably just was the standard three speed gearbox equipped with high and low gears. 3 * 2 = 6. // Liftarn

That's a rough one. Where does one draw the line? Is a Jeep Wrangler with a five-speed and low range a "ten speed"? TomTheHand 14:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Or what about the David? The article says it used a "belt and pulley transmission giving 16 speeds", but another source[4] says it's just 3+reverse. The picture of the dashboard seems to confirm this. // Liftarn

Argh. Interesting example. It seems to me that according to the article, the early Davids featured the belt and pulley transmission in question, which I envision as being kind of like bicycle gearing (the vehicle is referred to as a "cyclecar"). The later Davids were more conventional. Could we just say that the early ones were pre-war and don't count? ;-) TomTheHand 13:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Or was is used instead of a throttle? Anyway, I'm afraid even pre-war cars do count. // Liftarn

Sounds like we need some categorization. For example, the first car to have four gears and an overdrive on the two highest gears could receive mention, and the first car to have six gears would be mentioned as well. TomTheHand 18:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


We lack som record beating dimensions. Lowest, highest, widest and narrowest. The lowest is said to be a custom Mini at 24 inches (61 cm)[5], but it's not a production car. Jaguar Mark X was the widest. The BMW X5 is also said to be very wide, but we need numbers. The 1973 Cadillac Eldorado and Lotus Esprit also have been suggested. 1966 Jaguar Mark 10 4.2 was 6'4" wide (in metric?). Micro Car ME-2 at at 88 centimeters, (34.64 inches) perhaps. Except that it's not in production yet, but it would beat the 99 cm (39") Peel P50. The Sparrow P.T.M. is the narrowest currently in production. [6] // Liftarn

I was bold and added the Concept Centaur GT as lowest.[7] The Probe 15 from Adams Probe Motor Co. is lower at 29", but only two was made.[8] They are kit cars so I don't really think they qualify as production cars, but just to get things started. // Liftarn

The Ford E-Series seems to take the tallest category, and the Ford F-Series Super Duty is my vote for widest track so far. The F-Series SD duallie is 95.5 in (2426 mm) wide, too! The Ford GT40 is legendary as the lowest car, so I put it in. --SFoskett 21:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'll remove the Vector W8 since it's not lowest in any way. We still have no entry for narrowest track. It's probably the Peel P50, but we need numbers. // Liftarn


The first SUV is now listed as the 1935 Chevrolet Suburban, but back then it wasn't a SUV, but a station wagon. The first would probably be the 1942 Dodge Carryall (if it was sold to the public and not just the army).[9] As for crossover SUV my bet is on the 1957 Moskvitch 410 rather than the 1980 AMC Eagle. // Liftarn

I like the Moskvitch for crossover - it's identical in concept to the AMC Eagle and Subaru Outback. I like the 1948 VJ Jeepster as the first SUV since it was marketed exactly as current SUVs are - as an upscale, go-anywhere lifestyle vehicele, but it lacked four wheel drive. The Carryall sure looks more like an SUV than the Suburban. --SFoskett 21:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Do we have a clear definition of what a SUV is? Is 4WD necessary? // Liftarn
I don't think 4WD is necessary - lots of genuine SUVs lack it in some models, notably the architypal Ford Explorer and Jeep Grand Cherokee. The SUV article mentions four wheel drive frequently, but the focus is clearly on the combination of utility, off-roadability, and passenger space rather than this particular feature. I'd say a vehicle would need to be capable off-road, have a wagon-style body with a large payload capacity, and also have space for passengers to be an SUV. So the Suburban might indeed make the definition, as would the Carryall and Jeepster. --SFoskett 19:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

If it needs to be a station wagon, then the first XUV would be the Moskvitch 411 rather than the Moskvitch 410. The year would be the same. I have read and I found nothing about off-road capacity on the 1935 Chevrolet Suburban. According to it wasn't until the 1990s the Suburban became a SUV. // Liftarn


Worst sales needs some work. I removed the Mazda B-Series since it easily outsells LOTS of other cars in the US market, and is really popular worldwide. I like the average sales per year bit used for the Blackwood.

Maybe add a current lowest seller rank for the US market? My reading of the data for 2004 and 2005 suggests that, excluding cancelled, new, exotic, limited vehicles, the Hummer H1 at 374 in 2005 is worst. The Infiniti Q45 is compelling at 1,129 for 2005, as is the VW Phaeton at 820. --SFoskett 21:20, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Retractable hardtop

this article specifically states that Lancia had a power-folding hardtop in the 1930s. Automotive News is a respectable source, so I changed the list entry. Now, which Lancia would this be? --SFoskett 14:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

According to this site, it appears to be the 1934 Lancia Belna. Five cars were produced by the Pourtout coachbuilding company (Pourtout had a contract to build regular convertible Belnas as well), but it also built four examples of the Peugeot 301 Eclipse. However, the 1934 Peugeot 401 was the first car to feature a power-folding hardtop to be produced in any large capacity (78 cars). Therefore, I suggest the entries for "first coupe-convertible" and "first power-folding hardtop" should be merged, since they both have the same car. As an honorable mention, Ben B. Ellerbeck modified a Hudson in 1922, adding a retractable hardtop, but it was manually operated. --Pc13 19:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Year for Toyota Prius/Regenerative Braking

The article lists 1994 as being the year that regenerative braking was introduced on the Toyota Prius, but the car itself didn't go on sale in Japan until 1997. This page indicates a concept car that would lead to the Prius was designed in 1994, but it looks like it wouldn't be unveiled for another year. What is the criteria for listing the year of this accomplishment? I would think 1997, the year this technology was actually offered to consumers, is the appropriate year to list.

Looks good. I'll make the change. --SFoskett 20:53, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Volvo 850 Firsts

  • Under the Passive Restraint section, the BMW 7-series gets a mention for the "first head airbags" in 1998. Should Volvo's Side Impact Protection System get a mention in this section as the first side impact/side torso airbag (assuming it is the first)? The Volvo 850 Wikipedia article claims that this system was a "world first."
  • The Volvo 850 Wiki article indicates "the 850 held a US patent for its use of rear axle bushings that compress under load so as to create passive rear steering." This method of steering is substantially different from the active rear steering that the Chevy Silverado and Honda Prelude had (see the four wheel steering article), and receiving a patent would indicate that Volvo had developed a unique new technology. Adding the 850 to the list.
As a courtesy for other editors on Wikipedia, please sign your talk page and user talk page posts. By adding four tildes (~) at the end of your comments, your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added.
As for the technologies, I like both but not in place of anything currently there. Go ahead and make the additions. --SFoskett 20:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

"Best selling sports car"?

The consensus on Ford Mustang in Talk:Sports car looks to me like it is not a sports car, at least in the versions that have sold well.

I suggest that this superlative be dropped from the list, because the terms "best selling" and "sports car" are in conflict. Hundreds of cars might have this title, depending on whose definition of "sports car" is used. David R. Ingham 00:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and unilaterally deleted the entry. My neighbor just bought one, and she does not argue that it is a sports car. Even if some people do think styling makes a sports car, it does not make sense to list a superlative that is so vague.

To argue the specific case of the Mustang: Road and Track said that the editor of Motor trend had a (original) Mustang re-styled on the same theme in Italy. Their comment was that "One less visually oriented might have sent it to England to have its suspension re-designed."

The trouble with this superlative is that any car listed under that heading would bring up similar arguments. The only objective measure I can think of would be hight, but that does not always work either. (Thunderbird and Spatz are exceptions.) David R. Ingham 04:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

First 5-valve engine

I noticed this list jointly credits the Bugatti EB110 3.5 L V12, Mitsubishi Minica Dangan ZZ 0.7 L I4 and Toyota 4A-GE I4. Two probs with that:

  1. The Dangan ZZ, along with the rest of the Minica range, used an I3 (specifically the Mitsubishi 3G8x engine)
  2. The 3G83 15v engine was available from March 1990,[10] which seems to put the Mitsubishi a year ahead of its listed rivals.

So, I'm going to edit the page to give MMC sole credit, unless someone can cite a source to trump that. -- DeLarge 22:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh well - trumped it myself. Apparently, the previous version of the Dangan, with a 548 cc engine (the 3G81) was available with a DOHC 15v 3-cylinder (NA & turbo) from 1989.[11] They must have gotten a watchmaker to build that little powerplant... -- DeLarge 08:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"Layout" issue

We have five honorable mentions for four wheel steering and I can't think of any reason why anything but the Daimler-Benz offroad trucks deserve it. We don't use honorable mentions to point out second place, but rather to point out cars that would have won if circumstances had been slightly different... like if a certain car is considered street legal, or if a certain car had 20 units produced. If there are no objections, I'm going to make serious cuts on the "First four wheel steering" list. TomTheHand 13:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

How can you possibly discount the Mitsubishi Galant VR-4? Just because it was entered by an anonymous IP whose only other contribution was to put "see here" and a link to a DSM website's member profile on the idiot article?[12] Geez, Wikipedia's so strict nowadays...
Seriously, I might leave the Nissan Skyline and Honda Prelude in, at least as honourable mentions. There's a difference between Daimler Benz's trucks and off-roaders using 4ws for manouverability in wild terrain, and passenger cars using it for high-speed stability and powersliding. See here [13] for an external site supporting this POV. -- DeLarge 22:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
I can discount the Galant VR-4 and Prelude because they were not the first cars with four wheel steering. The Skyline was. Honorable mentions are not for second place. They are for vehicles that would win if the rules were a little different. For example, the Daimler-Benz trucks deserve an honorable mention because they pre-dated the Skyline but were not cars. For another example of a proper honorable mention, see most naturally aspirated horsepower, with the TVR Cerbera Speed 12 as an honorable mention because it was planned for production and would have been most powerful had it entered production. We don't list the Dodge Viper as an honorable mention. Also see most specific engine output, forced induction piston engine, which has several honorable mentions listed because they would win if the rules were a little different, not because they have almost as much power as the winner. One of the honorable mentions produces more power per liter but isn't a production car according to our rules. One produces less, but is more of a production car than the winner, for people who think the rules are too lenient.
Again, honorable mention is not for second place. This list would be horrible if we listed second, third, and fourth place for every entry. TomTheHand 02:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, ignoring the Galant et al, the reason I provided the above link is because it specifically said "[the] Skyline's system does not qualified for our definition of 4WS, because it simply steered the whole rear suspension mounting sub-frame by hydraulic" (sic). Grammar and spelling issues aside, I couldn't see exactly what their definition of 4ws was, but didn't want to dismiss the Prelude out of hand until I was sure our definition of 4ws differed from theirs.
Also, the site lists the specific make of the Mercedes 170VL, which would probably look a bit more encyclopedic than the current "Daimler Benz off-road trucks". -- DeLarge 07:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I'll look at the site above later and revise the list; if the Skyline didn't have true 4WS then I think we should note that and mention the first vehicle that did (Galant?) rather than just tagging with honorable mentions. TomTheHand 11:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing seems to have been done in the last two weeks, so I was bold and tidied this myself. I also moved 4ws from "suspension" to "other", and moved "active diffs" from "other" to "suspension" while I was at it. DeLarge 10:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Engine in production for the longest time?

Anyone have any ideas? I was cleaning up some POV fluff in the Mitsubishi Sirius engine article where as user claimed that the 4G63 2.0 L "surely must be one of the longest production engines ever" because it's been in production from "1987 to 2006". OK, that's nonsense (aside from everything else, production of the 4G63 started in 1980), but it got me wondering at what is (or was) the engine with the longest lifespan?

Of course, we'd also need to lay down parameters for what qualifies as a single engine - same problems as when comparing the Toyota Corolla nameplate with the VW Beetle, I guess. Bore/stroke and engine code remaining the same - is that enough? Or should the criteria be more/less strict?

I really have no idea what the answer is, so I'm hoping someone's going to read this and get me an answer - Google's been no help so far... DeLarge 10:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My guess is Ford Kent engine. Introduced in 1959 and still in production (used in Ford Ka). That's 47 years so far, the Ford model T engine was only made for 33 years. // Liftarn
How about that air-cooled VW Beetle engine? It outlasted the Beetle... --SFoskett 21:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
With a production run from 1938 to 2003 it is a good candidate. // Liftarn 18:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
The Ford Model T engine was produced from 1908 to 1941, a good long run of 33 years and much longer than the car. This with the same displacement and design and interchangeable parts! The Chevrolet Small-Block engine was introduced in 1954 and a variant is still produced today (the GM LS engine) but so much has changed I can't say it's the same engine. The Ferrari Dino engine was made from 1962 through 2004 but many changes were made... The Beetle engine was produced from 1938 through 2006 - 68 years is longer than anything else I can think of and we don't even have a page for it. It was pretty much unchanged in basic design, but there were different displacements and parts over the years. --SFoskett 15:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The GM LS engine was a clean sheet design and introduced in 1997 so it haven't been produced for many years. The gen 1 of the Chevrolet Small-Block engine had a run from 1955 to 2003 so it may beat the Kent engine, but since the Kent is still in production it will pass next year. // Liftarn 21:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Cute. I just noticed that the Ford Model T engine was produced for exactly 12,000 days. This is 32 years and 311 days. And an 177 in³ engine produced in 1941 could be placed in a 1908 Tin Lizzie with no modifications. This gets my vote! --SFoskett 16:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
The Renault 1.1 L Cleon is a good candidate. Ericd 17:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Wasn't that introduced in 1962? Then it still don't beat the Ford Kent engine. // Liftarn 21:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Best I can suggest is the 1947 BMC B-Series engine, specifically the 1500 used in the Indian Hindustan Ambassador. As far as I can tell, they didn't do anything to it from its introduction in 1958 until 1993 when an Isuzu 1.8L version came out. And from the Hindustan Motors website, a bi-fuel version may still be available (same bore/stroke/capacity, at least). The 1500 engine itself debuted in an MGA in 1953, so that'd be 59 years for the B-series as a whole, 53 years for the 1500, and 40 years if we're really strict and all mods/redesigns are disallowed. Looks like it's this or the Beetle's air-cooled engine to me so far... -- DeLarge 17:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I tend toward feeling that engine family would be the way to go, and the Beetle engine, with its various bore/stroke combinations, should be considered one engine. TomTheHand 18:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like we're suggesting two awards:

  1. Longest-produced single engine — goes to the B-Series 1500 or Model T engine
  2. Longest-produced engine family — goes to the Beetle engine

I'd still like to include the Model T engine since it was specifically kept nearly identical all those years... But of course it wasn't shipped in a vehicle for the last dozen years or so... Thoughts? --SFoskett 19:58, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Jaguar DOHC straight six? 1949 to 1992 - 43 years...