Talk:List of automotive superlatives/Archive 3

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

First 4x4

Here's a link on the subject of "first 4x4":

Four wheel drive is almost as old as automobiles are. I would be fine with including one of the vehicles on the above link but I'd also like to indepedently verify the info. TomTheHand 21:45, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Liftarn beat me to the punch :-) Thanks. However, the link for the Lohner-Porsche doesn't seem to mention 4WD. TomTheHand 13:44, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to edit again immediately, but this link: says that while a 4WD Lohner-Porsche was built in 1901, it seems to have been a one-off and the cars were in general 2WD. TomTheHand 13:46, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

This is why I love this place - I love being corrected and learning new things! I assumed the Jeep was NOT the first, but it certainly wasn't the Jensen FF either... So the Porsche is a one-off. How about the Spyker? How many were built? How about the Benz? --SFoskett 19:02, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Goodness, it's difficult to find information about these cars! TomTheHand 21:56, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

At I found (under About - Passion for Heritage - 1903) "Spyker introduced the 60/80 HP. It was an extremly advanced car: it was the first car with a six cyliner engine (Ah, another first!) as well as permanent four-wheel drive". is also interesting. But according to only one 4WD was made so it can't be included. There was "perhaps 40" Caldwell Vale [1] made, but it's a truck so that can't be included either. FWD (Four Wheel Drive Auto Co) started in 1911 obviously made 4WD, but that's also trucks... // Liftarn
I think we're going to have trouble dealing with the trucks/cars distinction here. The CJ-2 is, after all, a quarter-ton truck, and was a work vehicle before it was a recreational vehicle. I think barring a clear distinction, the first series-produced 4WD vehicle should be here, truck or not. TomTheHand 15:08, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
We should probably mention all of - the first 4x4 (even if non series production), the first series production 4x4 truck, and the first 4x4 car. I think the Jensen FF deserves a mention, because I can't think of an earlier car with full-time AWD, and it was certainly the one that introduced the idea that AWD might be something desirable for a performance vehicle, rather than just for off-roaders. —Morven 15:51, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
Beg to differ on the Jensen FF, the Spyker 60/80 HP was clearly made for racing. // Liftarn
Was more than a single one built? Were they sold to the public? Were they used on the road, or just in racing? It's hard to tell from the information available online. There are pictures of a museum specimen, but it might be a one-of-a-kind.
"The 4WD is thought to be the only one that Spyker made". It seems it was an one off made for racing. It did quite well too, especially in hillclimbs. // Liftarn
Was it a permanently engaged AWD system or just a get-out-of-trouble part-time one? —Morven 00:45, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
"Six cylinders, 8.7L, full time four wheel drive" so it was permanent 4WD. I see we use both 4WD and AWD and (possibly) mening different things. This probably needs to be cleared up. // Liftarn

Let's open discussion back up on this. Here's what I'm seeing:

First 4WD: 1901 Lohner-Porsche. The Lohner-Porsche started production in 1898, but the one-off 4WD version was built in 1901.

First mechanical 4WD: 1902 Jacobus Spyker, which was also a one-off.

First production 4WD truck: Perhaps 1910 Caldwell Vale trucks, perhaps 1911 Four Wheel Drive Auto Co. trucks? I feel iffy about where to draw the line about what trucks to include. After all, the CJ-2 was a truck, but I imagine we'd include it if it qualified for a record... so what's considered too "trucky" for this list?

I've been looking at this page [[2]] and it's pretty interesting. It seems that the first 4WD production car might be the Citroen 2CV Sahara, which featured 4WD and two engines(!) in 1958. There's plenty of information on these, and apparently 694 were built, so it could be our first 4WD car unless we find a better one. TomTheHand 12:55, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

We simply cannot mention every one off/experimental car in this list - that's more suited to the main four wheel drive article. I say we include both the 1910 and 1911 trucks, note the sahara as an oddball, and leave the FF in, since it's widely regarded as holding this record. Here's my proposed edit:
Thoughts? --SFoskett 18:41, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I definitely see what you're saying. However, if you're dropping some of the one-offs, I would feel more comfortable dropping the Jacobus Spyker and keeping the Lohner-Porsche. After all, they're both one-offs, and the Lohner-Porsche came first, even if it had a weird 4WD system. I would also personally prefer to give the 4WD car record to the Citroën 2CV Sahara, since it was a production car and it definitely came before the Jensen FF. I'd be happy to leave a mention of how the Sahara was an oddball two-engine design while the Jensen FF was the first conventional 4WD automobile. I also think we should standardize on either "all wheel drive" or "four wheel drive." TomTheHand 21:12, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

Vote: Radical Motorsports SR3

The Radical Motorsports SR3 listed on the page is not street legal; horsepower figures for a SR3 modified to pass SVA approval are not available. An SR3 with SVA kit features a catalytic converter and different engine management. These changes would reduce horsepower output. Should the SR3 remain on the list in spite of not meeting any standards of legality, or should it be bumped to Honorable Mention?s

It is an unwarranted assumption that addition of cats and the use of a different engine management system would substantially reduce reduce output. If you have evidence to support this claim then feel free to provide it. Incidentally, I just came acrosss an article in EVO magazine in which an street-legal (with number plates and everything) SR3 took on various other cars in a track "shootout" at Silverston's bike circuit and gave them a pasting. It was pretty impressive. It beat a Lambo Murcielago by 5.9 seconds, a Porsche 911 GT3 by 5.3 seconds and (surprising to me at least) a Suzuki GSX-R1000 motorcycle by 3.4 seconds. Alas, they didn't put the Radical on a rolling road. However, my point is that Radical themselves supplied the car (and the driver) and it was in their best interest to supply the one that would give the best showing. If the non-street-legal version had any sort of power advantage then surely that's the one they'd have used. --JonGwynne 15:59, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Jon, you're the one who submitted a race-prepared machine. Now go and find how much horsepower the SR3 has with the catalytic converter installed and with EFI instead of carburetors. --Pc13 17:07, 2005 Jun 4 (UTC)
Yet there is no evidence that the power outputs would be different. Catalytic converters tend to reduce power slightly - however, with modern, high-flow cats, the backpressure isn't significantly greater than the rest of the exhaust system. Also, EFI tends to increase efficiency and, therefore, power, when compared to carbs. Given that there is no signficant difference in acceleration between the street-legal SR3 and those prepared exlusively for track use, there is no reason to assume that there is a significant difference in power. --JonGwynne 00:59, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're the one that has prove you didn't submit a racing car. If you think the car would have more power with EFI, than you have nothing to lose. --Pc13 16:59, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
And I did prove it. If the power was singificantly lower in the street-legal version of the car, the performance would be significantly different... it isn't. --JonGwynne 18:46, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not really. Since the Powertec 1500 is based on the Hayabusa's 1300 engine, and the Hayabusa would have about 200 bhp if it were 1.5L, it would still be quite impressive, with 400 bhp/ton (instead of the normal 500), beating the Lambo's 350 and the GT3's 275 (both without the benefit of a 6-ft wide rear wing and having to cope with a higher gravity centre), while the GSX-R would not be able to negotiate Silverstone's tightest corners without significant speed reductions. --Pc13 22:58, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)
Ummm... the street legal version (replete with number plates) was the one used in the shootout and its performance didn't differ significantly from the track-only version. Ergo, it is reasonable to conclude that the power output isn't materially different between the two versions - especially considering the nature of the car. The combination of low weight, grippy tires, low torque and rear-mid engine placement means little (if any) power will be squandered on wheelspin. --JonGwynne 05:33, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Bump to HM - TomTheHand 00:45, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Bump to HM until figures with SVA kit are available. An e-mail sent to Radical Motorsport asking for figures with the SVA kit installed went unanswered. --Pc13 10:07, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
  • Bump to HM until performance figures for the production version are available and there is evidence that an adequate number of cars so-equipped have been produced, sold, and used on the road. --SFoskett 18:16, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
  • Bump to HM until street-legal performance figures available. —Morven 20:30, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Units of measurement

I mean no offense by this, but I'm unsure about the inclusion of units of measurement on the page. All of this information is redundant; it can be found in other articles if someone is interested in a particular unit of measurement. TomTheHand 12:34, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree - perhaps a link to engine displacement, horsepower, and torque would be sufficient? --SFoskett 18:17, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)
I know it can be found elsewhere, but not in this form and it might be handy to have it in an article that uses so many different units for measurement - especially given the recent confusion betwween brake horsepower and metric horsepower with regard to the McLaren F1. --JonGwynne 15:49, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I still feel that we can remove this section. This is a list of automotive superlatives, not a list of units of measurement. Perhaps a leading paragraph could include this information? I would be happy to write it. --SFoskett 23:55, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)
Like I said, it serves a valuable purpose (IMO) - it not only makes clear the relationships of the units (something that someone might not want to wade through the articles on the specific units in order to see) but it also makes clear the difference between hp, bhp and PS when talking about the power of an engine and in a page on superlatives, this it an important thing on which to have clarity. Wouldn't you agree? --JonGwynne 05:26, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I disagree; this is "List of automotive superlatives," not "Comparison of automotive units." If you'd like to write that article, fine, but if it's not an automotive superlative, it doesn't belong on this page. TomTheHand 12:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
It is part of the prelude - along with the discussion of the rules - to make the page more clear. --JonGwynne 14:41, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The rules are specific to this page. Information on horsepower, torque, and fuel economy are readily available in their respective articles, and with greater clarity and detail, if anyone has a specific interest or questions. TomTheHand 16:05, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
But not in this form - which is specifically formatted to facilitate and clarify comparisons... --JonGwynne 07:02, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Surely the best option is to link the terms bhp, kW and so on to pages explaining them. IMHO there is no reason at all to stray from SI units anyway. I propose changing all the units on the page to only SI units, with links to pages explaining them. -- 08:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I agree. If there are no objections I'm going to remove this redundant section. The only person who seemed to be for it was JonGwynne anyway, and he's been banned from Wikipedia :-/ I'm not comfortable with switching to all SI units, though; most Americans are more comfortable with horsepower and lb-ft than kilowatts and newtons. I'd prefer to continue to list both. TomTheHand 02:22, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


This "Least specific power" thing is just funny. Now we're down to 22.5 hp per liter - anyone want to go lower? I'd love to see a "worst power-to-weight" item, too... --SFoskett 18:39, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I'm having fun researching this, but I still feel a little iffy about it, for a few reasons. First is that we need to set a start date for it to be fair. I'm sure that even the Chevy 307 from 1973 beats what they were putting in cars in 1898. Second is the switch from gross to net horsepower in the early 1970's in the US. That pretty much screws everything from 1973 onward. Second, that gross-to-net change coincides with the addition of emissions controls. Essentially, the vehicles with lowest specific output WILL be from 1973, unless you allow very old vehicles. TomTheHand 18:56, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid you guys can't go any lower than that. I was going to trump Sfoskett's with a 190hp version of the GM 500 engine, but the Chevy 307 beats that. The worst European car I could find is the 1956 ZIS 110 (a Russian limousine) with 23.1 hp/L. --Pc13 19:25, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)
But the problem is the gross/net thing. If the ZIS 110 was rated according to gross horsepower, then it's actually worse than the Chevy 307, which is rated according to net horsepower. They're not really comparable and there isn't an accurate conversion factor between the two, though I've seen it estimated that net is about 80% of gross. TomTheHand 19:49, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)
Ford Model T... 20 HP from 2.9L = about 6.9HP/L. Beat that! I've never edited a wiki article (still have to register), so I thought I'd get feedback before I did. Peter.
The Model T is pre-WWII and so is outside the scope of the section. TomTheHand 00:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Forgot about the Post-WWII requirement. BUT... the 1.2L 25HP flat 4 (around 21 hp per liter) from the 1950 to 1956 VW Microbus beats the Chevy 307 in low output liter ( I've been searching for the exact displacement of this engine, but haven't found the info yet. Peter
Good find. That also goes a long way toward addressing my problem with gross vs. net horsepower. The VW has the lowest hp/L, AND it's rated in gross horsepower, so there's no unfair comparison going on like there is with the 1973 Chevy. TomTheHand 13:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The VW's engine displacement for the 25HP version is 1131 cc, by the way. --Pc13 19:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Ford RS200 Evolution

An anon added the Ford RS200 Evolution to the list yesterday as the fastest 0-60. I was thinking that we need to review this. I wasn't aware of this car before, and it seems pretty cool. However, Googling around, I'm finding wildly differing performance figures. There seems to be a lot of myth surrounding this vehicle, and there's a big problem with people presenting performance figures of modified cars as stock figures. On the other hand, 24 were produced, so if we can find solid performance data, I believe this car can qualify for certain records.

So far what I've found is that a total of 200 Ford RS200's were produced. Most were equipped with a 250 hp 1.8L turbocharged four cylinder. Rally versions ran higher boost and seem to have been available at up to 450 hp. The Evolution version, of which 24 were produced, had a 2.1L four cylinder, for which power figures vary pretty wildly. I've seen figures from 500+ to 700+ but 550 hp seems to be the correct figure.

This link is interesting: It's the result of 0-60 and 0-100 testing on a modified 600+ hp RS200 Evolution. It shows 0-60 speeds of 3.07 seconds. I've seen this figure here: as "fastest road test," not fastest production car, and the dates match up (1994) so I think the former link's test is what the latter link is referring to.

The impression that I get is that the RS200 Evolution, stock, put out 550 hp. This makes it our winner for highest specific output. However, a modified RS200, tuned to over 600 hp, only managed 0-60 in 3.07 seconds. A stock one would be somewhat slower. That makes the 1.8 second claim pretty dubious.

I'm eager to hear more information if you guys know anything. TomTheHand 14:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

The RS200 Evo is the competition version, not a road car. It has different levels of power because each owner tuned the car independently. --Pc13 11:22, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the RS200 Evo, though intended for competition, was completed too late (after Group B was cancelled) and all 24 cars were sold to the public. TomTheHand 12:41, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Check out this history piece in Pistonheads. The 2.1-second mark was, apparently, made by Stig Blomqvist in a race-prepared car, and isn't even canonic. --Pc13 13:54, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
Indeed, I don't think the Evo set any acceleration records, but I do think it may set one for specific power. Check out [this site], which tries to keep track of the 200 RS200's. It has information on the individuals who purchased the Evos, and sometimes information about when and where the car was registered. A couple went to racing teams, though I don't think they could have competed with them given the death of Group B rallying. However, it looks like most were sold to the public, and some still have fewer than ten miles on them! TomTheHand 15:35, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
Actually, Group B cars were used in the European Rallycross Championship up to and including 1992. Eurosport used to have a show called International Motorsports in the early to mid 90s, and I remember seeing Metro 6R4s in the Scottish Rally Championship as far as 1995. And Pat Doran is still using his RS200 in the British Rallycross Championship, isn't he? That site you mentioned has pics of three of the Evos (besides the 012 chassis), and they're all race-prepped (089, 145 and 182). --Pc13 22:19, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)
As you can see, I don't know a whole lot about the rally scene. Nevertheless, the site I gave shows that while some of the cars were used for various competitions, some were definitely purchased by private individuals. Chassis 70, 83, 84, and 106 at least are seen in photographs as street cars and their histories seem to indicate they were purchased as such. Other Evos have less information about their histories but appear to have been street cars. So what's the criteria here? More than 20 were definitely produced and they were definitely available to the public. Does it have to be shown that more than 20 were actually purchased by the public for road use, or are public availability and minimum production separate requirements? Beyond that, were these street legal? TomTheHand 16:22, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
Any opinions on this? 24 were built, they were available to the public, but some cars were purchased by racing teams, so less than 20 were actually sold to private individuals. TomTheHand 18:02, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

This is a good question. It reminds me of the Mosler MT900, of which 11 racing models have been sold, but it appears that no (or maybe one) street version was sold. Or the Mosler Intruder, where 4 were built but just one was sold. I'm inclined to say that 20 have to have been sold to private parties since the racing versions are often substantially different than the civvie ones in ways that affect performance. But I'm not sure. --SFoskett 18:49, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

I believe this is a different case from the MT900. In this case, as far as I can tell there isn't a distinction between the "racing" and "street" versions. The Evos were supposed to be race vehicles, but with the cancellation of the RS200 program they were sold to the public and to independent racing teams. Many were modified before or after delivery to the specifications of the owners, but I'm not sure if they were actually custom built automobiles or if 24 were built to the same (record-setting) spec, made available to the public and to any racing teams that wanted them, and then modified. TomTheHand 20:01, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
The situation is quite distinct from the Mosler. The RS200 Evo was caught in a transitional phase that allowed certain buyers to acquire them for purposes other than that originally intended by the manufacturer.
1 The Ford RS200 was originally produced to allow a quasi-prototype to enter rallying, as per Group B regulations.
2 The RS200 had a 1803 cc engine, which per the 1.4x correction factor for turbos, gave the car a nominal capacity of 2524 cc, which did not take full advantage of being in the 3.0 L weight class.
3 The Evo model was released two years after the base model, in the same year that Group B cars were banned. The timeline of the Evo's release was coincidental with the need for a more developed model in the WRC.
4 The Evo model had a capacity of 2137 cc, which puts it slightly below the 3.0 L limit with the 1.4x correction factor.
5 The Evo's engine was prepared by Brian Hart. Hart had considerable experience in the field of Ford-based racing engines, not in road-going cars.
6 Official power figures for the Evo range from 550 to 600 to 650 bhp, according to various sources. RPM was not divulged, neither were torque figures. That is consistent with racing engines officially released figures, as power estimates are usually conservative and vary from car to car and from race to race.
7 The number of Evos built is consistent with the number of homologation vehicles needed for Group A Evos - Grp.A: Base 5000, Evo 500 - Grp. B: Base 200, Evo 20. However, Evolution models need not have been built straight for road use - e.g. Volvo 240 Turbo with water injection.
8 Whether private individuals bought the car is irrelevant. Of the 20 cars, most of these would have been sold to private racers.
9 Whether cars have license plates is irrelevant. Rally cars are supposed to be able to move from stage to stage by their own means, i.e. they need to travel through public roads and require license plates, but are still race cars. --Pc13 21:06, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
But the fact remains that the cars were offered for sale to the public. According to Group B rules, they had to be homologated. The site has kept pretty good tabs on the cars sold. They are out there and street-legal. Far as I'm concerned, the car qualifies for inclusion here under the rules given. -- 05:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
As I said, "Evolution models need not have been built straight for road use". And they weren't. The RS200 Evo was built for use in rallying by privateer drivers. That's the only reason it has a license plate. "Official power figures for the Evo range from 550 to 600 to 650 bhp". This indicates different levels of preparation, which was not even done directly by Ford Motorsport, but at a later date by a garage. Not all Evos have 650 hp, and by not all having 650, that means that aren't enough of them with either power level, but always less than 20. --Pc13 09:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that all 20 of the cars required by homologation regs were prepared with 550 hp and them some were further modified by the buyers? Why not given them credit for having 550 hp then? -- 16:27, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Because the 550bhp is not an official Ford figure. It's obtained after tuning for race conditions. The road-going RS200 had a 1.8L engine with 250hp. The RS200 Evo had a 2.1L engine. The homologation process for the Evolution versions was different than for the regular racing versions. Likewise, no Audi Quattro S1 (Evo model of the Audi Quattro Sport) was ever sold as a road car, nor was the Peugeot 205 T16 E2. All were race cars. But they have license plates, because every rally car needs to have one to move in normal roads from stage to stage. --Pc13 18:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

But none of the Evos had less than 550 hp. Some of them had more. Some of them had a LOT more. I've read that some claimed over 700hp. But the safest way to judge them is by the minimum. The minimmum is 550 hp. Right? There were 20 sold to the public for on-road use because that was what Group B rules required. Right? So isnt that good enough for inclusion here?

Wrong. There were no road-going versions of the Group B Evos. Not for the RS200, not for the Quattro, not for the 205. Those were all built as competition versions. --Pc13 21:57, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Group B regulations required homologation and sale to the public for road use in order to prevent manufacturers from spending large amounts of money on a small number of cars solely for competition use. For this reason, 200 cars were built with 20 of them being the "evo" models as allowed by Group B regs.
No. There were about 220 cars built, and all of them were regular, with some of them being "hijacked" to turn into competition versions (the works cars were straight competition cars). The Evo cars were 20 extra cars built after the original production run. None of them were built as road versions - the Evo models didn't have a road version requirement. There are no official horsepower numbers for the Evos. The 550 bhp is not the base hp for every Evo, it was obtained after tuning. On an unrelated note, you've been "clarifying" the McLaren F1 HM entry. I've already explained on a previous discussion, the tech specs mention 461 kW in the 1995 and 1996 Automobil Revue Katalogs (ISBN 3-44-10444-3 and ISBN 3-444-10455-3), and 461 kW are 627 PS. --Pc13 11:46, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Ariel Atom

The Ariel Atom seems like it should break a couple of the records:

  • Most specific power (power to weight ratio): 657 bhp/metric ton (300 hp, 456 kg) (Source: -- This is the supercharged 300HP model
  • Quickest 0-60 mph: 2.9 seconds (Source: Top Gear 12/26/2004, BBC TV)

It is supposedly road-legal with indicators and lights (Top Gear, UK only?) and in production, but I don't have figures, so who-knows. (The Ariel (vehicle) article says 30/year, which is also a record for "Lowest-production Models," but there is no reference to where that number came from, so I'm even more skeptical on that.

-- Prometheus235 21:02, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That's a good point - it should at least get an HM --JonGwynne 14:38, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On a side note, why does it state that the Ariel may not be street-legal in the US? Is it of any relevance whatsoever? None of the other vehicles mentioned in that section are legal for use in the US anyway. -- 09:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

B. Engineering Edonis

Does anyone know if this car was actually produced, and in the requisite numbers? All I can find are news stories back from 2001 in which B. Engineering was saying they were planning to build 21 cars. The chassis were to be used for Bugatti EB110's but were bought up by B. Engineering upon Bugatti's bankruptcy. While it seems like a very cool and very impressive vehicle, it also sounds like yet another story of a company turning out a concept vehicle and then disappearing. TomTheHand 18:00, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

They look dead. Their web site hasn't been updated in three years from the looks of it, and their last press mention that I could find was 2003. Too bad... --SFoskett 18:47, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't necessarily go by the web site. There was a nice write-up on them in the April 2005 issue of Evo magazine which describes their development efforts to get to the 720bhp output promised from their original concept. They have a limited number of chassis' with which to work, so they're going to limit production to just 20 units. Like I said, I think it is good enough for an HM --JonGwynne 08:29, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I've checked out the article and it seems they're still building and refining their prototype(s). I say let them build a real car (perhaps even 20 of them, like the rules state) and then add it here. I'm surprised that the car was put on the list at all when all that was available was a four year old promise to produce 720 bhp out of 3.8 liters. TomTheHand 15:02, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Points brought up by

Just wanted to discuss points brought up by the user with IP Please check this link to see what I'm talking about.

To start off, welcome to the "List of automotive superlatives" page!

Now, on to addressing your specific concerns. First, in reference to most powerful engine, the supercharged Mercedes Benz engine is not eligible because... it's supercharged! :-) That particular category is for naturally aspirated engines. If we had a "more than 1000 units" requirement, I imagine the winner might be the Dodge Viper.

Second, in reference to vehicles not street legal in the US, we actually have significant debate going on on that very subject. What it boils down to so far is that as long as it's street legal in its intended market, it's ok for inclusion on the list. The place where the debate gets nasty is where we start to define "street legal." The UK, for example, allows "Single Vehicle Approval" to more lenient standards for low-volume vehicles. Are these vehicles fully street legal? We don't agree, so we mostly just yell at each other.

As for cars from the 1960's winning the 300-400 hp power to weight category, an important factor to keep in mind is that US vehicles before 1973 were measured according to gross, rather than net, horsepower. Net horsepower is generally ~20% less than gross horsepower, so modern cars are more powerful than they appear when compared to muscle cars.

And finally, on the subject of the Koenigsegg CCR, this page says they currently produce and sell 15 CCR's a year and plan to be up to producing 40 per year by the end of 2005.

Please post if you've got more detail you want to contribute on anything! I'm not trying to tell you you're wrong or anything, just trying to justify what we have on the page right now. Since every entry tends to be up for debate, we usually try to discuss on the talk page before making big changes. TomTheHand 03:03, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

First hatchback

Man oh man, check out the Aston Martin DB2/4. It had a hatchbackin 1953! Photos here. Anyone agree that this bumps the Austin A40 Farina? --SFoskett 12:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, that was unexpected. I would have said no if the car was a 2-seater, but like this... go for it! --Pc13 12:42, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
I just had to modify the hatchback listing. Not only did Aston produce the DB2/4 for 5 years, they even updated it and included a folding rear seatback on the 1958 Mark III! This is 7 years before the Renault 16... Aston takes the nod! For giggles, note that the new Aston Martin V8 Vantage is a hatchback - watch all the magazines claim that this is the first Aston with a hatch! Sports Car International already did! --SFoskett 21:34, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Get thee to a newsstand and grab a copy of the March 2006 issue of Sports Car International and look at the letters page. "I know him!" You can all say it! Hahaha! This list has made the press! -- 01:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

First GPS

1983 sounds a little early, Pc13. 1990 by Pioneer sounds a little more like it: -- Gabriel S. 2005-07-08

The German magazine Auto Bild published a two-page article about superlatives earlier this year. The first car to use GPS was the '83 Accord. --Pc13 July 9, 2005 09:08 (UTC)
According to this history of GPS: [[3]] on September 16, 1983, "Following the Soviet downing of Korean Air flight 007, President Reagan offers to make GPS available for use by civilian aircraft, free of charge, when the system becomes operational. This marks the beginning of the spread of GPS technology from military to civilian aircraft." The GPS constellation was nowhere near complete in 1983. It was years after that before civilian GPS systems became available to the public. TomTheHand July 9, 2005 14:41 (UTC)
Honda claims[4] to have launched the first navigation system in the 1990 Acura Legend. They started work in 1983, but it was an analog (non-GPS) system and wasn't offered for sale until 1990. --SFoskett 20:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
That article on Honda's website indicates they offered the first analog version for sale in 1981 as a dealer-installed accessory for the new Accord. The 1990 version for the Legend still used the gas gyro but featured digital maps. AKADriver 22:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Mazda Cosmo, 1990 "Cosmo also featured the worlds first GPS Satelite Navigation system" [5] followed by the Toyota Soarer which had GPS and a twin navigation CD-ROM drive in the boot [6]

Widest Track

Removed blatantly incorrect entry for 1961 Jaguar Mark X. It was incorrectly stated as 1953 mm. When the correct figures are found, they will be far from the widest. --Zaktoo 01:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Early records

Just wanting to throw a few things in here: The Bugatti Royale is listed even though 6 (or 7, depending on your source) were made. This is less than the 25 minimum decided on. Also, if it is eligible to stay for some reason, the chassis #41100 has a 14726cc straight 8 engine. Also, the biggest 6 cylinder pre-WWII engine I know of is a 21112cc (21 litre) Panhard et Levassor 50 CV from 1905. It is a straight 6. The biggest 4 is a 1912 Benz 82/200 with 21495cc from its 4 cylinders. --Zaktoo 23:58, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Go ahead and update the page! :-) And post sources here, if you wouldn't mind. TomTheHand 00:50, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, the Royale had just 6 produced. And just three were sold, all to hand-picked buyers. So it really ought not to qualify. But it is almost universally accepted as a special, notable automobile and is listed in about every car book. We have to include it, but I'm not sure about letting it take all the records. Maybe it just gets an honorable mention for anything it's eligible for? It'd probably take the "heaviest" category, too, as well as longest wheelbase... --SFoskett 14:22, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


Benz 82/200: DaimlerChrysler media archives

Panhard et Levassor: Illustrated Motor Cars of the World (specifics to follow)

-- 09:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

May I suggest a slight rule change? 20 cars was an awful lot back in the days of coach building and would discount virtually every pre war Ferrari and Aston to name but 2 manufacturers. I would suggest being much broader pre-1939, say perhaps 5 examples to qualify and anything other one offs pre 1914. Just an idea. --LiamE 15:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Specific Power

The term "specific power" means the power obtained per volume, not power-to-weight ratio, which is what is being listed currently. Also, there it makes no sense at all to mix both naturally-aspirated and forced-induction types. I move again for 2 lists - one for NA engines, and one for forced-induction. And please, let's get either the heading fixed, or the figures amended appropriately. --Zaktoo 00:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

The term "specific power" is broader than that. Before I came here, I had never heard it used to describe power-to-weight ratio of an entire automobile. However, "specific power" is commonly used to describe the ratio of power produced to ENGINE weight (so a light engine would have a high specific power). I am not quite sure if the usage on the page is appropriate, but it does seem to fit the definition of specific power. Anyway, BOTH definitions of specific power are listed (power to weight, and power to volume).
On the subject of the figures, to me it makes perfect sense to list both forced induction and naturally aspirated engines. I really don't understand your problem with it, but I would prefer that it remain this way. TomTheHand 00:47, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
We're in agreement then; I looked under "specific power", not "specific engine output". Mea culpa :/ I see both NA & forced induction are listed, which is also exactly what I was wanting to see... On the subject of "specific power" though, I have only seen it used in electrical context, not internal combustion engine context. "Specific power" or "specific output" or "specific power output" is only correctly used when giving power per volume. The correct term for what you describe is "power density". However, I can't find online or offline references to back these assertions up. -- 03:08, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
"Specific power," in the sense of power to weight ratios, is also used to describe rocket engines. I believe "power density" is synonymous when used in an electrical context. It is not often used to describe internal combustion engines, but I have heard it used that way before. On the other hand, I do consider its usage on this page to be strange, especially since it is describing the power to weight ratio for the entire vehicle, not for the power plant. I don't think it would be possible for us to make an accurate list of specific power (power to weight) for just the engines because accurate, complete, directly comparable information isn't available. I would favor changing it to simply "power to weight" like you suggest. TomTheHand 03:44, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Longest Wheelbase

Mercedes-Benz Pullmans (S 500 & S 600 Pullman from 2000 and 600 Pullman from 1964) are both longer than the Cadillac, at 4085mm and 3900 mm respectively. I'd be surprised if the 2000 model Pullmans were produced in quantities smaller than 25; the 1964 variants were comfortably past the 100 mark. --Zaktoo 00:23, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Tough one, and an interesting question. I would imagine that they are available for sale to private individuals, and unlike most limos, Mercedes-Benz purpose-builds these itself. They are not modified post-production by another firm. Looks good to me, but I hope the rest of the community weighs in on it. TomTheHand 00:56, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
The Pullman is exactly analogous to the Fleetwood "limousine" - it was produced by the company and readily available to private individuals. Many were purchased by companies, and many were purchased by individuals. Looks like we have a new record. --SFoskett 14:18, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


How is the Hummer considered an "automobile"? It's a truck if anything.

The Maybach 62 is the heaviest proper car I know of post WWII; it weighs 2855 kg. --Zaktoo 00:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It is a passenger vehicle, available to and marketed to the public, therefore it meets the requirements for the list. Frankly I wouldn't want to have to come up with a hard definition of "truck" anyway. TomTheHand 00:54, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
Thinking about it a little further, it would be a good idea to have a "heaviest sedan" entry as well. TomTheHand 03:45, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem with the Maybach listed as a heavy sedan or something. But the Hummer is definitely a passenger automobile, at least here in the USA! --SFoskett 14:19, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, according to the company's website the ZiL-41047 is listed as "Mass of the loaded car, kg: 3550, Complete mass, kg: 4110" (the ZiL-41041 sedan is lighter with only 3160 kg). It also bumps the 1971-1976 Cadillac Fleetwood Seventy-Five sedan for the longest wheelbase (the Cadillac is still the longest in total). The ZiL wheelbase of 3880 mm beats the Caddilac's 3848 mm. // Liftarn

Engine Capacities

Unfortunately, there seems to be quite a few errors in this section.

It was the prototype that had a V4. My mistake. Pc13
  • The Suzuki Fronte (at least in 1972; possibly other years) had a straight 3 cylinder petrol engine of 357cc, easily eclipsing the current superlative example.
Don't complain, replace it. Pc13
  • Smallest straight six that I know of: MG 1087cc (K3 Magnette, Magna). Also Amilcar C6 1094cc; and BMW 303 1182cc. The Alfa Romeo mentioned as the current superlative is pre-WWII in any event (as are the others that I mentioned). The smallest post-WWII straight 6 I know of is the Maserati A6-1500 of 1947 (1488cc). A Fiat 1500 of 1949 is 1493cc.
Actually, I once proposed the idea of moving the superlatives from post-WWII to post-WWI, but we never talked about it anymore. And don't complain, replace them. I was pretty sure that Alfa engine couldn't be the smallest, but I couldn't find anything else. Pc13
Don't complain, replace it. Pc13
  • Smallest V6: smart produced a limited run (I seem to recall that 10 were made) of 1300 cc V6 roadster-coupés. Also, between 1960 and 1966, DKW/Auto-Union had V6 two strokes of 1000cc-1600cc capacity. While not one particular model was produced in huge numbers, at least 100 such engines were made. At least 13 DKW F102 cars had the V6.
Smart roadster-coupe V6 was never produced in any capacity. And are you sure about the DKW being a V6? I can only find examples of it having a 4-stroke straight-3 (800-1200cc). Pc13
  • Smallest petrol V8: Suzuki made a prototype in 1997 with 1600cc V8. Also, Lamborghini, Fiat and Alfa Romeo all had production road car -litre V8s, the sizes were 1994cc, 1996cc and 1995cc respectively. Close enough for a mention too I think.
Prototypes don't count, although that one certainly merits a HM. That Lambo V8 might take the cake. Which model used it? And I'm trying to find info about a 1948cc TVR V8 from the early 80s, but can't find anything. Pc13
  • Largest petrol V8: The decidedly odd 1967 Mohs Ostentatienne Opera had an 8990cc V8. Not sure if it meets production requirements though.
I could only find this, but it's in polish. Can anyone who understands polish see if there's any mention to production figures? Pc13
  • I don't see the point of a special entry for "Smallest American V8". I vote to scrap that point. Ditto the one for "Largest small-block V8". It's a pretty arbitrary distinction IMHO.
Abstain. Pc13
Don't complain, replace it. Pc13
  • V12s: the smallest I know of is a 1.5 litre ferrari V12 in the 125 S of 1947. Not sure if it meets the criteria for inclusion here though. Possibly worth a mention.
It doesn't. I once though the 125S might have been a road car and added it, but it was a racing car only, so I replaced it with the 166S (which was actually Ferrari's first real road car). Pc13
  • The Mercedes engine that the Pagani Zonda uses was also used (in different tune) for the 1999 Mercedes-Benz SL 73 AMG.
Unlike other AMG models, the SL 73 AMG wasn't part of the Mercedes-Benz catalog and was considered an aftermarket special. If you could move the superlatives limit date to post-WWI instead of post-WWII, the 1930 Maybach Zeppelin would have the biggest V12, a 7977cc. Pc13
  • The 2003 Rolls-Royce 100EX concept also have a V16 engine, could also be worth a mention.
Prototype only, and not really. The Cadillac Sixteen prototype has a bigger engine. Pc13

--Zaktoo 23:22, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

All replies by Pc13 06:53, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
About "don't complain, replace it", I was under the impression that things are to be discussed before willy-nilly modifying what is there already. I'll fix the erroneous ones; the others I'd be happier seeing discussion around first... --Zaktoo 10:30, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Discussion is usually called for on performance vehicles. They tend to attract favorites, and are also plagued by small production volumes and strange homologation procedures which calls some cars into questioning. Usually, simply replacing them won't attract attention.
Histomobile confirms the Suzuki Fronte for smallest straight-3 and the Maserati A6G for smallest straight-6. If Allpar confirms the Hudson Hornet for largest straight-6, I'd strongly consider it, but Histomobile mentions the 5.0 L (5024 cc, not 5047) engine was a V8, and the straight-6 was 4.8 L.
Likewise, we'd need some sort of corroboration on the DKV's V6. Lamborghini's 2.0 L V8 might take the title for smallest V8 (just need to know in which car), until I find some info on that TVR engine (which I'm not sure was actually fitted to any road car). -- Pc13 14:55, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

First VVT and 4WS?

Does anyone know what were the first production cars to have electronically-controlled fuel injection, variable valve timing and four-wheel steering? Here's what I've got so far - I'm not sure if they're the firsts, though:

  • First production VVT: Honda B16A VTEC engine, available in certain 1989 CR-X, Civic and Integra models
  • First four-wheel steering: 1985 (R31) Nissan Skyline [7] [8] (sorry the references are in Japanese, but any of you can read the "1985" and "HICAS" (the name of Nissan's 4WS system) in them)

--Zilog Jones 20:56, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Mazda's 4WS waited until 1988, Honda was 1987, so I think the Nissan system is the earliest modern system. I'm sure 4WS was used on some vintage cars, however... --SFoskett 10:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Alfa Romeo had production VVT from 1980. --Zaktoo 14:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
Honda's VTEC was the first to vary lift, timing, and duration. Others varied one or more of those in different ways. Maybe the Alfa was the first, but I'd bet there was an earlier example... --SFoskett 14:50, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I thought I would be wrong about the first VVT engine. I remember seeing some car from the '50s or '60s with four-wheel steering, but I don't know if it went into production. HICAS is probably the first electronically-controlled 4WS to appear in a production car, however. --Zilog Jones 18:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
There's a bit on the history of variable valve timing right here on Wikipedia, actually... --SFoskett 21:10, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Smallest american V8

Putting aside the question of whether or not this is a meaningful sub-category, any particular reason why the Ford Taurus SHO 3.4L V8 shouldn't be listed here? My only guess is that it's because it was developed in a partnership with Yamaha. In my mind, though, it was an American company's engine, and in the days of globalization, that's good enough.

Nothing so sinister. We just forgot. Pc13 12:36, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

First American Hybrid

I don't see how the Honda Insight can be considered to be the first American hybrid, as it is, as far as I know, a Japanese car. Two Halves, who is confused

It is "the first mass-produced hybrid automobile sold in the United States". // Liftarn

Most powerful normally aspirated car

I very much doubt they have sold 20 of these bad boys yet but they are in production and you can buy them. And knowing the company it will be in production for a LONG time selling a few units each year. To the best of my knowledge Bristol are not given to overstatement. They currently quote 628/660bhp for the Fighter S. The higher figure is quoted as the power output 'at speed' as the engine performance is improved by ram effects. Link to their site here.

Should we wait till they have sold 20 to stick it in the list as they are VERY unlikely to quote any sales figures anyway?

I'm not so sure about this power output "at speed" stuff. Many high performance vehicles utilize a "ram air" effect but we don't attempt to use the power figures obtained at high speed. Using the Bristol Fighter S's "at speed" horsepower would be an apples to oranges comparison and wouldn't really belong on the list. TomTheHand 22:28, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
Indeed the 'at speed' figure is a touch iffy. But 628hp puts it right up there. Thats more than the F1 or the MC12 which is credited with being the most powerful car offered to the public. --LiamE 10:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
That's a very good point. I would like to try to verify production figures if at all possible, but it looks like the Fighter S could bump the F1 and MC12. The reason the F1 stuck around so long is that there was some debate as to whether there may have been a bhp/PS conversion mixup and its actual horsepower figure might have been 627 hp. The Fighter S's 628 hp would (barely) make this a moot point and bump both off the list. TomTheHand 20:16, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
Looks like its right up there on torque figures too. --LiamE 23:57, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Anyone have any ideas as to how we might verify production figures on the Fighter S model? Bristol's web site doesn't have a contact e-mail address, and I'm not calling London ;-) TomTheHand 18:32, 21 December 2005 (UTC)