Talk:Production car speed record/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Top 10 fastest production cars (As of 2012)

I think this new section has to be removed. Any thoughts? 93.183.236.88 (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Why? It has the advantage of being referenced, the criteria are better established. The fact that it is a much more boring list than the other one is probably not a valid reason to kill it. Greglocock (talk) 05:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

First of all, because most of the stated performance figures are claimed, not results of actual testing. The rest being not a result of testing unmodified street legal cars. Secondly, because some of the mentioned models are obviously not production. For example, 9ff GT9-R, which is an aftermarket mod, similar to Ruf CTR, which have been removed from this article long ago as not being a production model. Finally, because it's not complete. I can't see neither Veyron EB 16.4, nor Koenigsegg CCR here for example. And on top of it all, it simply provides wrong data. For example, production XJ220 had never reached 217 mph and production McLaren F1 never got to 240 mph. These are result of modified examples. All in all, there's basically not a single record in this table that has a proper reference (none of them point to the results of testing), and most of them are simply invalid. I have nothing against a list of fastest cars in this format, but it has to be completely reworked from the scratch. Also, you've had quite an opposite opinion about a similar list added here some time ago. Read section "Fastest cars 2011". No? 93.183.236.88 (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Good, those are valid points, kill it. Greglocock (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

It has same problems as the original list there still no explanation what is production car, this list has lots of tuning company cars. Its also against the intro "This is a progressive history". This article will never be encyclopedic, it cant be made such, this more or less "fanboy" stuff. It gathers all the time lots of editors, which makes it impossible to maintain and without rules even more. Should be deleted alltogether IMO -->Typ932 ^T·C 06:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, we get it. So far as I'm concerned the best way of treating your point which you've made about 5 zillion times before is that if you think there is a speed recorded there for a non production car then discuss it here. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if the modern low volume Countach clones got knocked out, but if they are type approved and some have been sold then I for one would argue that they are production cars. Greglocock (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Another New column

I can see value in, and difficulties with, an additional column showing the engine power for the variant that achieved the top speed shewn. Greglocock (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Pegaso Z-102 Supercharged

This entry has no quotation and it conflicts with following Mercedes 300SL. Perhaps we should remove it, if no sources can confirm that at least 20 of them were capable of reaching claimed top speed? 93.183.236.88 (talk) 04:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Where does the 'at least 20' requirement come from? Why is it not being applied elsewhere? Greglocock (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Basically from my head. If we make a selection, we must define it somehow. So that's what I done. And it IS applied to all current entries. Check for yourself. ;) 93.183.236.88 (talk) 05:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Missed that, well at least it's consistent, but scarcely policy. Hmm, good luck researching the production number of each engine variant for a 60 year old car that was built in handfuls each year, to order. Greglocock (talk) 05:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, well, the older model is the harder it is to figure out. As earlier mentioned, big block Ferraris that had obviously most powerful engines on the road in their time, but apparently, were never properly tested, are ignored. Probably as well as some others. Basically this means that the table contains not what actually was a fastest car, but only fastest among the cars with confirmed top speed. Starting from 70s this effectively means all cars, but not before, I'm afraid. 93.183.236.88 (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The citation for the Pegaso top speed is not explicitly stating that the unmodified version was used. Especially since the "nearly production" XK120 broke their record. We don't really know how much, comparing to the production model, the "supercharged Pegaso" was actually supercharged. Also, the quoted web page does not have any sources stated so this information is not really reliable. I think we need a better citation than an unconfirmed mentioning on the blog of the fan of this car manufacturer. 93.183.236.88 (talk) 06:07, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Is Canadian Driver an RS? Greglocock (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

What is "RS"? The source was not a Canadian Driver but "pegaso-spain.blogspot.com". Canadian Driver never tested Pegaso so that's not a proper source for its top speed. It is unknown (not specified) whether unmodified production vehicle reached the speed mentioned in that article. 93.183.236.88 (talk) 13:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

You don't know what an RS is and yet you are removing refs from an article? Please read up on this WP:RS. Canadian Driver was a magazine. The blog article was a reprint of it. Reprints are acceptable as sources. Greglocock (talk) 01:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Canadian Driver is not a reliable source. But that article does not provide relevant information on the subject. 93.183.236.121 (talk) 08:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

The 20 car requirement

Somebody decided that to qualify a minimum of 20 cars should have been produced to the same spec as the one that set the speed shown. That is of course an arbitrary number, and in the case of some cars is impossible to reach, and in many more, impossible to verify. If one were to pick a number then the FIA has occasionally set required production numbers, and it is usually far greater than 20. But I think that is misleading, the requirement should be, not how many were made, or bought, but whether they were merely available as a homologated model from the OEM. If you could walk into the dealership and tick the box for the relvant options that is good enough, in my opinion. Greglocock (talk) 04:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem with your approach is that in this case, the only record holder from 1969 till 2005, would be Porshce 917. It was street legal, anyone could buy it for 140,000 DM, and in fact two of them were eventually privately owned and registered.

As to the possibility of verifying the number of produced cars, I can tell you, there's a much worse problem with verification of the actual top speed of the older models. Take a Ferrari Superfast for example. So the older part of this table contains somewhat verifiable models only. But since 60-ies, the results a pretty reliable, both for top speed tests and number produced. 93.183.236.88 (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

The same 20 is limit here List of automotive superlatives -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

As the List of automotive superlatives references to this article, both should use the same criteria for consistency. NealeFamily (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

XK120

Is there a contemporaneous WP:RS that supports the car's inclusion here? I can't find one. The Motor's article (which the XK's entry cites) says only that it was the fastest car tested by the magazine. Porter (p.12) ties the "fastest production car in the world" claim to the "splendid publicity stunt" of the Jabbeke runs laid on for the press. In fact it's the Jabbeke stunt that is routinely (and erroneously, given the car's special preparation) cited in support of the claim; not the road test article. Writegeist (talk) 17:02, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

So far I have not came across the better source regarding XK120. Inclusion of the older models in this table is always a subject to discuss. There are numerous problems involved. We may not have access to all publications from those times, but more importantly, there were much less top speed tests back then. So, unfortunately, not all cars were ever properly tested. Basically, we keep only those that were tested. From this point of view, XK120 may be removed if we find any other production model that was tested to higher speed and/or explicitly stated as fastest production car in the source. Also, The Motor magazine could not claim a car to be fastest in the world simply because they had not tested all the cars in the world. 93.183.236.121 (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Right. The cite does not support the claim. Furthermore, the particular car tested by The Motor (as noted in the comments section) was not a production car at all. It was the first prototype, which differed from the production models in several respects -- not least, it was factory-modified for racing. (The waters may be muddied by the fact that, along with two other modified XKs, it had participated in the 1949 Production Car Race at Silverstone; but the fact remains that it was a race-prepared prototype of a production car, and not one of the actual production cars.)

A prototype modified for racing has no place in an encyclopedia article on the world's fastest production cars. It has been removed before, by another user, and I shall remove it again now. Writegeist (talk) 17:30, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if we have no results for the production version, it most certainly has to be removed. Agree. 93.183.236.121 (talk) 10:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I see the Jag has crept back in with a 133mph claim - the 1949 test was not a production model - should it be reverted? NealeFamily (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC) It was unreferenced before. I felt it had to be included when I discovered that quote in The Guinness book. I think it sums up very succinctly the scientific nature of this entire list.Mighty Antar (talk) 22:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent work. It stays. Greglocock (talk) 00:08, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

So Mighty Antar, are you and Greglocock suggesting that because you don't like the list you intend to sabotage it? or am I being a bit mean ... ? NealeFamily (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

No, Mighty Antar has found a ref that satisfies the pathetic requirements of this page and wiki which adds a perfectly sensible vehicle to this list. That is a constructive edit. This is a stupid and arbitrary list, not because the concept is necessarily bad, but because there is no definition of a production car that is unchallengeable, and because the chances of any pre 1980 (to be generous) vehicle that was offered up for testing representing 'production' performance is approximately zero. Greglocock (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Greglocock, I appreciate that you don't like the pathetic requirements of this page and you view it as stupid, however that is your opinion. Those of us who think there is some benefit in providing information that is consistent with the Automobile Superlatives. data. Mighty Antar the original 1949 entry was referenced and found to be described as a modified pre-production version. This road test that Guiness is relying on is not a production model. At best it is a prototype.

As to the arguments about what constitutes a production model - this has been debated at length previously on this talk page and the position at the start of the article represents the position reached. If you do not agree then you can refer it to the community to see if greater consensus can be reached. NealeFamily (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

We have a statement in a reliable source that seems to make the XK120 a valid member of this list(unlike many others here). If you don't like it, great, all you need is a reliable source that says that either a different car was the fastest production car up til that date, or one that says the guineess book of records is wrong to say so. The actual speed and the state of the car that was used is, strictly speaking irrelevant, since the statement "in 1949, the XK120 was then the fastest production car in the world" is the important one, EVEN IF it is based on an artificially inflated test speed. The reason is wp:verifiability. Please read it before responding. Greglocock (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I accept that Guiness is generally a reliable source, however in this instance the 133mph figure was not achieved by a standard production car, as a read of the article in Motor magazine shows. If you accept this figure then it would be reasonable to claim that Bugatti is not the worlds fastest production car by using the USFRA (Utah Salt Flats Racing Association) records. A Pontiac Firebird ran a 297.663mph in 2006. And they are also a reliable source. NealeFamily (talk) 23:26, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

So you didn't read up on verifiability, or if you did, choose to ignore it. Fair enough. End of conversation. Greglocock (talk) 04:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I am a little perplexed. Yes, I did read verifiability and no I didn't choose to ignore it. What I am unsure about is, what is your point? Are you saying the Guiness are considered right unless another source specifically states that Guiness are wrong, regardless of the source they are relying on stating that the car was modified? NealeFamily (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Guinness book is most certainly a verifiable source, but the particular quotation taken from it may not necessary be relevant to the subject. If Guinness definition of the production car differs from the one used for this list, then we can't use it. That's simple. Since we have a strict definition of what is a "production car", we should use it to make a selection of the entries to this table. Based on this rule we have already dismissed one Guinness claim - Bugatti Veyron Super Sport World Record Edition. Guinness says it's the fastest production car in the world, yet it is not a production car by the definition used for this list. So we have to do the same with XK120 if there is a reliable source that confirms that Guinness record holder does not match the production car requirements for this list. 93.183.236.121 (talk) 09:34, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes silly old Guinness in 1994 didn't use their crystal ball to use a definition created 25 years later by a bunch of anoraks. Since, presumably, nobody before 2010 has used our definition of production car, then presumably all prior refs are invalid. Excellent work there. Greglocock (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

No, Guinness is not silly. You are. We are not forcing anyone to accept our definition. We ONLY use it for OUR table here created. We do the list, we do the rules for the selection. Get it? Guinness is free to make their own list with whatever definitions they prefer. As well as anyone else on the planet. I thought it's obvious, but... 93.183.236.121 (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Deindent- ok, attempt to build consensus, sourcing problems apart, who thinks that the XK120 was (a) a production car and (b) probably, on balance the fastest production car up until then? If not, what other contenders are there? Model T? Greglocock (talk) 22:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Greglocock, I had earlier suggested to you that we could put the issue to the Wiki community for discussion. You don't like the list at all from what I gather, but vandalism and name calling are not a helpful response. My suggestion, as before, is to put the list forward for discussion to see if there is a consensus of opinion or not as to what constitutes a production car. I am happy for your model T and other cars to be included but can you cite a reference for the independent test the determined its speed. NealeFamily (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

What name calling? (Oh dear, anorak? ah, well what shall we use instead, how about anal-obsessive if you want to use grown up lingo?) what is not helpful about building a consensus? There is NO requirement to add cites when adding content for the first time, as wiki policies make quite clear. Not every statement needs to be reffed, until it is challenged, with a cn tag. I put the earlier cars in as placeholders, I don't imagine they are the fastest necessarily, but they give us something to build on. If you want to discuss this elsewhere, fine, pick a forum, but 5 bucks says it'll get bounced straight back here as it is a content issue. Greglocock (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I have posted the issue of what should be considered a production car on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles as you and I are not resolving the issue which is about what should or should not be on this list. I might take you up on the 5 bucks, but then you could win and I'd be ... . NealeFamily (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Difference between mass production cars and handbuilt chassis/body cars

Up until 1960 there was a reasonable percentage of fast cars built in the coachwork tradition, whereby the manufacturer assembled a chassis and powertrain, and then the customer or other party selected a builder for the bodywork and interior. As such, these cars hardly conform to the mass production ideal. So, do coachbuilt cars count as production cars? Greglocock (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The short answer must be yes. A production car is a term that is defined only by the numbers of the same model and specification produced either by a law, regulation, or in the case of this list mutual agreement. It does not cover how they were constructed, so arguably a coach builder could construct production cars. Although when the term was first used, in about 1917, it centered around the idea of vehicles on a production line such as the Model T. Since that time its use has become blurred. NealeFamily (talk) 06:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

So for example the Pegaso qualifies as a production car even though the engine, body and interior could all be almost arbitrarily varied by the builders? Does the Mercedes S class roadster count as a production car? Greglocock (talk) 08:14, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I guess that the key wording was same specification. Are you referring to the Z-102? NealeFamily (talk) 10:29, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes Z102, as an example, but almost any prewar high performance machine as well. Greglocock (talk) 10:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

The problem would then centre around the 20 car "same spec" requirement of this list and an independent road test - I don't think Pegaso met either. The earlier debate about that the Pegaso sets out the requirements. NealeFamily (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

McLaren vs. Koenigsegg

I think it looks rather strange that the Koenigsegg broke the record of 391 km/h with a speed of 388 km/h. The McLaren may have reached a higher speed after the Koenigsegg broke the record, but the actual record that was broken, according to the article cited in the report of the Koenigsegg record, was 386.7 km/h.

I thought so. Why isn't this listed? 173.252.38.81 (talk) 23:43, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

That was Koenigsegg CCR. Unless we have a prove that no less than 20 of them were actually built, it can not be placed in this list.IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Need for cites, removal of old cars

Exactly where is it specified that all entries on this list need cites, and exactly when did it become the custom on wiki to remove uncited statements rather than add cn tags? I'm not quite sure what purpose removing the placeholder cars there had, (ie model A model T, merc ss) as they merely provide entries on the graph of speed vs time. others can quickly build on them. If I do not receive a satisfactory answer to both questions i shall reinstate them. Greglocock (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:WHYCITE covers the cite topic, but I guess you would know that. You are correct about a cn tag being the normal response to an uncited statement. But, I do wonder why you are bothering adding cars when you have been quite clear about disagreeing with the list in principle NealeFamily (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Because if it exists it might as well be less crap than more crap. A more complete list that I disagree with, is more useful than a less complete list that I disagree with. Since nobody else seems to interested in adding old cars I thought I'd kick it off. By and large I'll leave the fanbois to argue over exactly which unremarkable Countach clone wears the crown for the modern stuff. Greglocock (talk) 11:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good idea and I support your intent. But adding "placeholders" does not add to the value of this list. The good sources of the relevant information is the only thing that can make this topic "less crap". So I'm adding cn to your "placeholders" now, and as you wont provide any sources, they will be removed soon afterwards. 93.183.236.121 (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll add cites for speeds. But that of course is NOT the point of placeholders. The idea is that with them in we have some idea of the lower bound of a speed vs year graph, and it can be fleshed out. So thanks for wasting my time. Greglocock (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No. It can't work this way. The cites should somehow prove the claim that those cars were actually fastest in the world, not that they had whatever maximum speed. 95.81.8.51 (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Why? Show me the wiki policy that says it must be that way. Think about it logically. The first production car in the world (say, the Mercedes Velocipede) must by definition be the fastest production car in the world at the time, yet nobody would bother recording that fact since it is redundant. Greglocock (talk) 00:59, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

But of course the first production car was a fastest one. And there's no reason not to add it here. But for the three models in question it's not that clear at all. How can you say that in 1908 Ford T with it's known top speed was actually the fastest? And Ford A? Even less probable. But I support your idea with a graph. Good job! I'll see if I can clarify anything about those prehistoric records. ;) 130.185.55.29 (talk) 18:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

That's why they are placeholders. People can now look up the maximum speed of production cars around those dates and quickly decide whether they are faster or slower than the placeholders. FWIW I strongly suspect the Merc S class was probably the fastest sort-of-production car when it was introduced, but as discussed elsewhere, I'm not really convinced that coachbuilt cars count, once mass production was invented. I only stuck the Fords in as I knew they weren't terribly slow, and they are definitely production cars, not because I necessarily expect them to be the fastest. Glad you like the graph, I think it is quite surprising. Greglocock (talk) 01:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a question. How many unreferenced lines in sand placeholders can we allow in this table? 37.19.227.147 (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I have a question, why don't people who know of faster early production cars prefer to delete the ones that are there rather than improving the encyclopedia? As you can see I have managed to get rid of one placeholder so far. There is a wiki guideline - there is no time limit, so if it takes a while to flesh out the list that is no big deal. Of the ones on the list i would like to get rid of the model T as i doubt it was the fastest, and the merc S as it doesn't really seem to be a production car. But I would rather replace them than eliminate them. Greglocock (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

And the answer is WP:NOR. Iterating by replacing slower "placeholders" with faster "placeholders" is most certainly a process of original research which can never produce a RELIABLE result unless this result is actually properly referenced. Isn't it? I only add entries that have been claimed to be the fastest production car or that have a reference that clearly prove this (following our requirements etc.). I surely could replace the Austin 7 with something faster, but I don't know if it was actually FASTEST. And I'm not willing to intentionally add WRONG information to WP. Hope I make my point clear. IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 06:48, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

While the ideal may be to find the fastest production car and put that in, I think Greglocock's approach is the most practical and collaborative way in which to improve the list of older cars. I am intrigued the Model T is still surviving on the list, but if you can't find anything faster then it must remain. The problem you will find is that in the early days "world land speed records" were the focus, not how fast your Bugaterrari run about went. So there are very few statements that a particular car was the fastest. Trying to find the speed of early model's is quite difficult NealeFamily (talk) 07:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Model T is still there because I don't want to replace one "placeholder" with another one that has no proper prove of being the fastest car. Take Darracq Coupé Chauffeur for example. As you correctly say, there's not enough information about those prehistoric machines to even make an original research. Basically, the only thing we can surely state is that it is UNKNOWN which model was the fastest production car in those years. Unless we find some reliable source that is. Which I was and still am trying to do. Also look at our strict requirements for modern contenders. We ignore manufacturer claims and require results of independent testing. Yet we are happy to accept any claims and anecdotal references to the top speed of old cars. Can we do this? What is the point? I think if we know that we don't know something, we should clearly state it, instead of posting some wild guesses. IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

So we get a lower bound on the top speed vs time graph, that will hopefully approach the true value as more information is added. That is a realistic and sensible approach. Whether this counts as synthesis, I'd disagree obviously, on the other hand wp:calc says that consensus (not unanimity) is required as to whether an arithemtical operation is acceptable. '>' is fairly fundamental to the existence of this list. Greglocock (talk) 23:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

That may be a sensible approach for a discussion board, but not here. Once again, no original research is allowed. And your way of approaching a true value is exactly this. Whatever result you get, if it's not supported by sources, it shouldn't be here. Now to the most important thing. Let me remind you that this article is a "List of fastest production cars", and not a "graph of car speed history" or whatever. While I welcome that graph, it's not the main subject of this article, just a nice addition. So figuring out the true value of the speed vs time IS NOT the goal of this article. Since I don't believe that you don't understand this trivial thing, I assume that you troll this atricle and are trying to sabotage this, already controversial, subject with ridiculous edits. IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source for the Darracq, then add it - over time as Greglocock suggests, the accuracy of the list will improve to till it reaches the best know point. I see no harm in that, after all even for the more recent cars the Aston Martin Zagato didn't get added until very recently - knocking out the E-type.NealeFamily (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

There is NO reliable source neither for Darracq, nor for Ford T nor for any other prehistoric model. So none of them can be added neither now nor with time. Unless we actually find a source that is. But as long as we have none, they should not be present here. What Greglocock suggests is an original research and not allowed here. This is absolutely different than was with Aston and E-Type. Bot were supported by sources. But in this case, one source was proven wrong with the other, more reliable quote. With Ford T and Darracq (and others) we have no reliable sources at all. These are nothing more than a wild guesses of Greg or me. They can't stay here. IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

The placeholders are worthless; either the information is present or the entries are only misleading people not savvy enough to realise that in a list of speed records, several aren't records at all. Like placing a mouse on a list of the largest mammals because people here haven't figured out what those animals were just yet. Never fear; it's just "temporary" and "for comparison!" 97.71.73.46 (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

IPs editing this article

There is no problem with IPs editing this article, but other editors should be aware that many of the IPs editing this article are all associated with one physical address, according to whois. If the editor(s) concerned doesn't like that sort of information being disclosed then he is welcome to create an account as he will then be untraceable in the external world, and identifiable on wiki. Greglocock (talk) 02:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I have no problems with disclosing my IP, but as it sometimes change, it brings some chaos to the conversation. Sorry about that. I have created an account to avoid it. Thank you. IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 06:39, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Early production cars

Up until now I have been adding early production cars to the list, but since they are not explicitly described as "world's fastest" in an RS they are being challenged. here's the data. If we build consensus that it can be included and then improved great. if not, not. Greglocock (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Great! Now we can do our little research here. ;) If you don't mind, I'll add chnages directly to this table. Ok? IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 07:34, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Year	Make and model	Top Speed of production car	Number built
1901	Mercedes 35 hp	53.5 mph (86 km/h)^[1]	36
1902	Mercedes Simplex	111.8 km/h (69 mph)	?
1906	Rolls-Royce Silver Ghost	78.2 mph (126 km/h)^[2]	7874
1919	Hispano-Suiza H6B	85 mph (137 km/h)
1921	Bentley 3 Litre Speed Model	90 mph (145 km/h)	513
1924	Hispano-Suiza H6C	110 mph (177 km/h)
1926	Bentley Speed Six	125 mph (201 km/h)^[3]	182
1929	Blower Bentley	130 mph (209 km/h)^[4]	55

The 1929 Blower Bentley that achieved 137.96mph was the racing version and not the production one - it should be excluded.The website for the Bentley Speed Six does not specify which version's speed was being used. It also had a racing version. The top speed for road versions of the Bentley's were 3 litre - 80mph, Speed Six - 84mph, and 4.5 litre 92mph according to The Complete Catolgue of British Cars by David Culshaw and Peter Horrobin, 1974 edition. The Hispano-Suiza's cited also appear to be the racing version. NealeFamily (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Good! But why don't you edit the table according to your findings? IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 08:21, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

But let's discuss. Bentley 3 litre top speed was indeed 80mph and 1088 of them were build. However, the speed of the Bentley 3 Litre Speed Model, of which 513 were built, was 90 mph. Knowing this, it is hard to believe that Speed Six was slower than that. Also, 84mph would be rather slow for 200 hp machine. Now, 4.5 litre was obviously slower than Blower Bentley placed here. So, actually, I don't think we should edit these. Do we? IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 08:28, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

More thoughts about Blower Bentley. The "racing version". First of all, was it street legal? Yes it was. Second, was it produced in numbers not less than 20? Yes, 55 exact copies of the same car that ran at 137.96mph were built. So what do we have here if not a street legal production car? Whether it was initially conceived for races or not, is not a part of the definition we use in this article. IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 08:41, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that Hispano speeds (taken from the table here) are for the racers. Racing versions of these models are known to be much faster (for example, for racing version of H6B, WP has following quote: "Woolf Barnato piloted a Boulogne to eight international records, including a 92 mph (148 km/h) average over 300 mi (480 km), at Brooklands in 1924."). IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

First, I prefer to reach consensus before editing the list, and to give others a chance to respond as it takes time and effort to research. I appreciate your efforts. Second, I'll deal with one car to start with, the Blower Bentley. If you take a look at the article on it you will find that there was only one specially modified version that achieved the speed given and that was a racing version. The other, more common version of Blower Bentley did not. NealeFamily (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, new speed with the reference added. IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 11:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Was there an independent road test that established the Blower Bentley's top speed? It would be good to find one if it exists.NealeFamily (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have not found such tests unfortunately. But honestly, even if there was one, it would probably be of little use. Why? Because Blowers were built with several, quite different bodies. And since this affected weight and aerodynamics in different ways, I can hardly believe that all 55 of them would have the same top speed. But that is actually a wider problem since most of the prehistoric models only shared a common chassis, featuring numerous bodies. And not even prehistoric. Same is true for early Ferraris for example, as they were manufacturing only chassis, relaying on coachbuilders to make bodies for their cars. IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

So is this good enough to put in the article? It seems a shame to let it rot here? Greglocock (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I think so, but maybe with a split table. Pre WW2 and post WW2 (or something like that) with the standard of proof for the speed being the best available data for pre WW2 and an independent source for post WW2? (or am I being a bit to anorak'ish) NealeFamily (talk) 06:24, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I see some problems with it. Obviously, it's not up to standards of the rest of the table. No independent tests etc. Also, the two last entries of this table are faster than XK120. So... IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 07:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Questioning the 20 car limit

I am new to wikipedia, how to post and write content. Given this I hope for understanding if I happen to make a misstake or two.

I would like to raise questions regarding the 20 car production limit set on the list of the worlds fastest production cars and associated lists. I consider myself well informed to what makes a car a production car or not. There is no general consensus or international reuglation that there must be a series of 20 cars of the same specification to become a production car, and this method of categorizing truly miss out on some vital point of what makes a car a production car or not. For example the two most known institutions for production car speed records - The Guinness Book of Records and the FIA does not share the minimum 20 car limit view.

I assume the notion of: "minimum 20 cars production run in order to be considered a production car model", comes from previous FIA regulations for certain racing car classes. However this has nothing to do with what a production car really is, and this FIA regulation is actually no longer in effect, as far as I am aware. Actually, I believe FIA changed this type of regulation from 20 cars in total to 350 cars yearly production runs in order to be eligble for this type of racing. Therefore if the 20 car limit in the fastest production car list came from FIA regulations, then I guess the limit should now be changed to a minimum production series of 350 cars per year, following this logic. Thereby excluding most of the cars on the list.

However, following the FIA´s varying racing regulations, is not what I believe to be correct for the selection of cars for this list as it misses many important factors. Instead the critera should focus on what actually make a car a production car. There are many more nuanced and relevant factors than a certain production number. I would like to bring up a few suggestion to what the criterias could or should be from my perspective. There are quite many aspects to consider and actually I do no believe all has to be fullfilled in order for a car to be considered a production car, as long as most of them are accounted for.

What I would propose is a tick off list. A certain amount of tick offs has to be in place in order for a car to be considered a production car. Below you will find a suggestion to such a list:

Cars newer than 1980: 1. Was/is the car model produced by a registered company? 2. Has the car model been produced in multiple entitites? 3. Can/could the car model be registered for road use in more than one country? 4. Was the car model officially sold to customers in more than one country? 5. Did/do the car model come with a user manual? 6. Did/do the car model have EPA or CARB approval? 7. Did/do the car model comply with NHTSA regulation at the time of production/sale? 8. Did/Do the car model come with a EU COC(Conformity of Production) document? 9. Was the car model ever crash tested by an independent test facility? 10.Did the car model pass emission testing in any country?

My suggestion is that at least 7 of the 10 points above has to be ticked with a yes, in order for a car to be considered a production car model.

Cars older than 1980: 1. Was/is the car model produced by a registered company? 2. Has the car model been produced in multiple entitites? 3. Can/could the car model be registered for road use in more than one country? 4. Was the car model officially sold to customers in more than one country? 5. Did/do the car model come with a user manual? 6. Was the car model ever crash tested? 7. Did the car model pass any emission testing in any country?

My suggestion is that at least 4 of the 7 points above has to be ticked with a yes, in order for a car to be considered a production car model.

Given the above I would propose that the critera for what is a production car model is changed.

posted by: Speed Racer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speed Racer (talk • contribs) 10:05, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Speed Racer! Just before we get into deeper discussion, let me point that following your proposed definition of the production car we would have only one entry in the table, spanning from 1969 to 2005 or so. It would be Porsche 917.

Also, it's not hard to find some after 1980 models, produced in thousands, that do not match your criteria of production car. Mostly those built in countries like China, Russia, India, etc. for domestic use.

The number of 20 was not directly taken from FIA if I get it right. It's an arbitrary number, that was subjectively good enough for a consensus among discussing parties. We could change it to anything else, but we would have to come to agreement, which was already made before with the number of 20.

Unfortunately, the objective definition of the production car does not exist.

IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi IP-93.xxx, I agree the criteras I suggest can be discussed and optimized. However I do not understand why only one car between 1969-2005 would qualify according to yourself. I think there is a missunderstanding here. As I wrote only 7 of the 10 criterias would have to be meet on the cars after 1980 and before 1980 there is simplified shorter list. For example, If we take the cars produced after 1980, that is presently on the fastest production car list, as it is now, all these cars would still qualify(as they all tick at least 7 "boxes"): Ferrari 288 GTO, Porsche 959, Ferrari F40, Bugatti EB 110 GT, Jaguar XJ220, Mclaren F1, Bugatti Veyron, Bugatti Veyron Super Sport and perhaps The Ultimate Aero, which is the only car I am unsure about in regards to some of the points. When it comes to older cars than 1980 I am sure most of the cars on the list presently would be able to tick 4 of the 7 points below:

As written above only 4 points needed to pass.

Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speed Racer (talk • contribs) 14:10, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

>why only one car between 1969-2005 would qualify

Because it was faster than anything on this list up until Veyron.

>all these cars would still qualify(as they all tick at least 7 "boxes")

Yes. But so would, for example, the RUF CTR, which was discussed upon and agreed to not be a production car (concept cars or modified cars don't go here, remember?).

>As written above only 4 points needed to pass.

Yes. And so the Porsche 917, generally agreed not to be a production road car, would pass as well.

Speed Racer, you are going a dead end road. The subjective number of 20 is highly controversial point here and was very hard to be accepted. But it's just ONE figure. One subjective number. That's it. Now you propose what? To replace it with your system that contains NUMEROUS highly subjective and arguably pointless points? It would never be agreed. Really.

IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 14:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, the whole debate on the parameters for the Production car number came from the List of automotive superlatives. Agreement would need to cover that field as well. I see little point in relitigating the issue. IP-93 is correct in saying it would just become bogged in pointless arguement, as it has in the past. Take a read back through the earlier discussions on this issue on both articles talk pages to get an idea of what we are on about. Essentially whatever system is/was arrived at for these lists will be a compromise of some sort and someone somewhere will not be happy with it, especially if thier favourite misses out. NealeFamily (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, the 20 car limit is not ideal but it is at least manageable. Alternatives that require some in depth research would eliminate many older and more interesting possibilities because of the difficulty of research. Also, stuff that nobody else can check easily isn't much help. Greglocock (talk) 23:56, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Just for the sake of reference. Most of the 20 car argument sat at the bottom of Talk:List of automotive superlatives/Archive 2#Ultima GTR and dates from 2005. The rule itsself was inserted in the List of automotive superlatives on 14 August 2004 by User:Sfoskett. I did post a question about its origin on Sfoskett's talk page, but Sfoskett has been inactive since February 2011. NealeFamily (talk) 01:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The 20 car rule is to blunt. Now, two resent and important production cars that the Guinness Book of World Records have approved and deemed to be the fastest PRODUCTION cars in the world, are not on this list. At least one of them had: A complete COC document(Conformity of Production). A production line approved by the Idiada Test Institute(accredited EU institute for car homolegation) that complied with the EU regulation for conformity of production. Full and approved crash tests for Europe and Asia (Frontal and side impact including airbags test). Full emission compliance (for EU and Asia). Several pre-production prototypes tested for years and built prior to production start. Complete instruction book came with the car. Cars delivered to several countries and markets, world wide. Several authorized, and on actual model, educated service stations located on several markets globally, in order to service this model. Cars delivered in both left hand and right hand drive. Cars built by a public company, employing over 40 people at the time of production. Tell me - how can this not be considered a production car by this wiki list, just because production of this specific model was shy of 20 cars? I dare to say that this lists present system for determing the factors of which car is worthy of the list, is altering important automotive history in a way that is unfair to its readers and it is bending reality. Speed Racer (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem, as stated earlier, is what constitutes a production car. Your proposal would, if I understand IP-93's comments correctly, eliminate everything from 1969 to 2005 and I believe some other highly modified vehicles would get rid of the rest. Guiness are very loose in their definition and yours, with all due respect, is so complex as to be almost impossible to confirm. Is the rule perfect? No. Do I think your alternative is better? No. NealeFamily (talk) 19:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you talking about Koenigsegg CCR?

It's funny you mention Guinness. Do you know that Bugatti Veyron was never a fastest production car in the world following Guinness? So who is really altering important automotive history? Guinness book is not an automotive history and it does not make one. It's just one of the numerous sources of information. And it's not always right.IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 13:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm reviving this subject again. I was thinking more about it and was talking with some people (call it my personal research) as to the opinions of which models are most commonly considered to be the fastest production cars. And the result doesn't match this list well. For most people, it's Veyron SSRE that is the fastest car currently, not Veyron SS. And, apparently, Ultimate Aero TT was the one before. With our definition of the production car, we make a nice list, that is of no interest to anyone on this planet except, maybe, for those who made an agreement on the current definition that we use. But than again, at the time the agreement was reached for the 20 cars limit, there was no Veyron or Aero yet. Even Koenigsegg had not made it's record run. And this derived definition matched well the previous history of the cars that are generally accepted to be the fastest production models. But since it now fails to represent what majority thinks, perhaps it's really time to change the definition? In other words, Speed Racer is probably right - we have a valid, but pretty synthetic list that does not represent general opinion.
So let's assume that current definition is outdated. We have to come up with the new one, that would match all the models of past and present, that were generally accepted to be the fastest ones. I'm pretty sure, that was the way of thinking of those, who came up with the 20 cars definition many years ago, as it matched it very well back then. So I made some thoughts in this direction.
Apparently, we can't use a production number as a deciding criterion. We'd have to go very low to include CCR and UATT. And going this low would enable some obscure models to spoil the table (like 917 or Dauer 962 or RUF CTR etc.). So instead of the number we have to apply some other rules to exclude them. These rules must be simple, unambiguous and easily applicable to any car. First let's think of what we have to exclude?
1. Prototypes. These are always made in exactly 1 sample to the same specification. Yes, some models had multiple prototypes, but they were all different. I can't recall any prototype to be made in two, identical copies. So the production of at least 2 of the cars to exactly same specification would probably exclude all prototypes.
2. Racer conversions. Like Porsche 917, Dauer and many others. We could state that the car should be developed from the ground for the road use and not as a modification of the model initially developed for racing. That may be a bit ambiguous as, for example, Ferrari 288 and Porsche 959 both evolved from the originally racing model developments. But if we say that there should be no racing version that predates the road model, it may solve all the ambiguity. Neither 288 nor 959 were predated by the racing versions. While 917, Dauer and even XJR-15 were. So these all are effectively excluded with no impact on all currently present entries. As none of them was predated by the racing version.
3. Modified cars. Apparently, with 2 cars requirement, lots of these can jump in. But we already have a rule to exclude them. Basically, the model should be developed and made from the scratch by the manufacturer. No RUF's can go here as all of them are made by tweaking the chassis bought from Porsche or taken directly from the customer. So these stay out safely.
And that's probably it. So here's the definition based on these thoughts of mine.
The production car is the model that was built in numbers not less than 2 to the same specification, was originally developed and built by the original manufacturer and was not based on the racing model nor predated by the racing version of it.
What do you think? Have I missed some loopholes for the "wrong" cars to sneak in? Is it generally acceptable? Can we improve it?
IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 09:33, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I can see a problem with the no-racing version first because a racing version may lead to a significant number of production cars ie the old pre-war Bentley's (although it is more likely the other way around now) and would firms such as AMG, for instance, be considered a car modifier or a manufacturer. Then what about other manufacturers own performance companies such as Holden's HSV NealeFamily (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I see your point about racing version predating production model. I don't really care about prewar models (who said Bentley should be here?), but you may be right about some homologation models. For example, one that comes to my mind is Lancia Stratos. Apparently a production car, but the racing version (in Group5 prototypes) was actually raced before the production run started. Ferrari 288 is lucky though, as there were no racing version of this homologation model. Ok, so we can set the production limit for the models that were predated by the racing version. And that would be not 20. I'd say 400 or something typical for homologation and a good enough excuse for a really production car. After all, this rule is here to exclude all the racing conversions, like Porsche 917 (of which 25 were made for homologation) or road versions of Ford GT40. And Dauer 926 (capable of over 400km/h in early 90-s). What do you think?

As to the firms like AMG or HSV - we don't judge firms, only car models. However, take AMG for example. Since it is just a division of the Mercedes Benz, all their development belongs to Mercedes. So if we have a Mercedes model modified by AMG, it's the same as any other original manufacturer modification of their production model. But if AMG buys chassis from, say, Porsche, modifies it and sells, that is not a production model anymore. Also this is true for development cooperation. For example, Mercedes SLR McLaren, Opel Omega Lotus etc. I see no problems with it. If you do, please give me an example of such a controversial car model.IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Ultimate Aero TT production number

I think the only mentioning of the production run of this model on public was 24, and it was before they actually started to build them. So it was a plan to build that much. This was mentioned in many sources back at the day it broke the record. For example http://web.archive.org/web/20080207072646/http://news.windingroad.com/auto-news/ssc-ultimate-aero-tt-supercar-up-for-bids-on-ebay/ . The question is, can we trust it? On one hand, it's only a plan. On the other, we do trust all other manufacturers, since most of the production numbers we have nowhere else to take from, except for them. So it seems to me, that unless we have some strong facts that can put manufacturers claim in question, we should accept it. What do you think? IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC) Another mentioning of plans to build 25 of them: http://www.supercars.net/cars/3621.html IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 06:36, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not about trust or not. It was a plan as stated. So far it seems clear less has has been built. So what does this mean? I Speed Racer 08:57, 23 October 2012 (GMT)

Why is it clear? Can you provide any references to support this claim of yours? The production run of 30 Veyron SS's was also a plan as stated. Wasn't it? So if Bugatti says we'll make 30 of them, we have no doubts. But if Jerod Shelby says we'll make 25 of them, suddenly this claim seems clear to not be fulfilled. I'm not convinced.IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The reason I questioned it in the first place is that very few superkitcars sell in any appreciable number except as ex-demo or sponsorship or demonstrator deals. that ref won't do, intentiions are not actionsGreglocock (talk) 07:25, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, you have your subjective reasons to doubt it. Sincerely speaking, I have doubts too. It's a small manufacturer and we could compare it to Koenigsegg who struggles to sell this number of cars. But the only information about the number of TT's built is the original Jerod's claim of 25. That's it. Yes it is an intention and yes it's from manufacturer. But so far it is the most reliable source we have. I can't find any other information as to the number of actually produced cars. I can't even find a reliable source that would seriously question this claim.IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Two thoughts - could we work out how many have been registered for road use globally or at least till we get 20+? Our govt keeps a record of all makes registered, but I doubt if any made it this far south. Or alternatively could we tag the entry with 25 based on manufacturers claim? NealeFamily (talk) 08:07, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

One more thought to the pot. It is not clear whether they were planing to build 25 Ultimate Aero's or Ultimate Aero TT's. Furthermore, there no such distinction on the SSC website. They simply call them all Ultimate Aero. But it is known that prior to TT it had less powerful engine and apparently, was not capable of the TT record top speed. So if there was actually a 25 cars production run, how many of them were TT's?IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 08:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a question that will need an answer. They'll need at least 20 TT's to cross the line.NealeFamily (talk) 08:27, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yep. IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Had a troll through Google - the article on the TT says that they planed a limited run of only 25 cars with a distinctive number plate matching chassis numbers to protect its collector value so I guess, the chassis number would be the proof. The highest number I have found on the webb for a TT is 004. NealeFamily (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Unofficial Ultimate Aero Registry: http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/gtboard-com-general-sportscars/162416-unofficial-ssc-registry.html Speed Racer (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on the unofficial register there are less than 20 cars. There is no evidence showing more. To my mind the Ultimate Aero TT does not qualify at this stage. NealeFamily (talk) 22:21, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok guys. I think we have it. Here's the link: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/08/driving-the-ssc-ultimate-aero-worlds-second-fastest-car/1#.UId7fsXMh8E According to it, Jerod confesses that he had actually built 15 cars in total before Tuatara. And that includes all Aeros, not TT's and even not Ultimates. That's the reference we were looking for. I have removed it from the list.IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Bugatti Veyron top speed

For editors who keep changing the Bugatti's top speed. Please read the introductory paragraphs which outline the parameters for inclusion in the list. While they are not perfect and have been debated at length in these talk pages they are the best a collection of editors have been able to come up with in order to try to keep the list reasonably meaningful. By all means feel free to reopen the debate, but have a read of the comments of those who have gone before you first. NealeFamily (talk) 10:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Even though most Veyron SS' were sold with a (removable) rev limiter, there are 5 to prove the other 25 can hit that speed. The so called "World Record Edition" is nothing more than a paint job. Originally Bugatti sold all 30 with the speed limiter. That was deactivated on all five WRE cars, but you can (that is, if you own one) ask Bugatti do deactivate it on others. There are no mechanical differences between those 30 models, just a little piece of software. The verified record should stand.

Muira

I'm fairly sure I remember Autocar magazine maxing a Muira at 172 mph. Am I hallucinating again? Mr Larrington (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Autocar indeed reached 172 mph. But that was Miura P400S, not P400. And P400S was introduced in 1969, later than the Ferrary Daytona, which was faster. So only P400, with confirmed speed of 171mph, was holding record before the introduction of Daytona.IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 08:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

1950's

Just a note for reference.

There a number of cars made during the 1950's that could have higher top speeds than those on the list. These include the Ferrari America series, Maserati 5000, and Pegaso Z-102. The reasons they are not included are either less than 20 produced of the particular model/version, no independent road tests, or road tests of racing/modified versions only. NealeFamily (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Maserati 5000 GT

I have recently stumbled upon this article about Maserati 5000 GT: http://www.maserati-indy.co.uk/alfieri70.htm
It mentions following:

Whilst being given a test drive on the 'Autostrada del Sole' by Maserati test driver, Guerino Bertocchi, Hans Tanner, the noted motoring author, timed one kilometre at 168 mph and another at 172.4 mph

I'm not sure if this source is enough to accept at least the lowest figure (168 mph) as objective. I think it is (we have not much better references for some other old cars after all), but still I want some opinions on talk before adding it to the table.
34 of them were produced, 22 with the same coach and engine, so it is easily a production car.
If accepted, it will beat DB4 and Iso Grifo since the production version was available in 1960.
What do you think? IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

From the Maserati 5000 GT article - there were a total of 31 units. 21 of which were produced by Carrozzeria Allemano. The 5000 GT's produced from 1960 onwards had a modified engine, but how many cars were produced with the modified engine is not stated.

The questions that need to be addressed are - was the Allemano designed car the one tested, did they produce 20 or more cars with the modified engine and was this the model tested, and what was the nature of the road test. From earlier research I recall that there was mention of a road test which consisted of the cars passenger timing the car between two road mile or km signs on either a stop watch or his watch to arrive at the speed.

From the webpage you cite, Allemano appears to have made all 21 cars after the engine changed, so that just leaves the road test, although I do note the page also states that no two cars are exactly the same. NealeFamily (talk) 10:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

They are not the same in the same sense as there's no two exactly the same McLaren F1's. All are heavily customized. However, this only affects weight a little bit, so is not important for top speed.

From other sources it seems that they had tested the second car. So it had the old, more powerful engine, unlike the production model. So we can't use those figures. IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

There looks like there may be two road tests: Hans Tanner's in a car powered by the racing engine and in 1962 Bernard Cahier - the reference givien is Road Test/1-62: 5-Liter Maserati GT, Sports Car Graphic magazine of January 1962. I don't have access to this magazine, but hopefully someone can check it out. Hopefully they did a speed test. NealeFamily (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I have no access to that magazine unfortunately. However, one of them is sold on e-bay (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/1962-SPORTS-CAR-GRAPHIC-Jan-PAXTON-Supercharger-DEVIN-Porsche-RS-61-Jaguar-MK-X-/380498463347). It's description says that they took Maserati to 152 mph. Also, there's a low-res scan of the page from the magazine. The pictured car is a one-off Ghia bodied version. It's not a production version but it has the same engine and chassis so, most likely, is just as fast. Since cars with second engine were built since 1960, it means that we could put Maserati 5000 GT just before DB4 in the table. What do you think? IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Correction: Aston Martin DB4 GT reached 152 mph to and was introduced in 1959, so this road test of Maserati doesn't make it a fastest car. IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Removing: Aston Martin DB4 GT Zagato

According to Aston Martin website (http://www.astonmartin.com/heritage/past-models/db4gt), thee were only 19 DB4 Zagato's produced. Also, according to other sources, most of them were racers (not street legal).
Removing? IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I had read that there were 23 in one publication - but if you add 19 made plus 4 reserved chassis numbers you get 23 - so I think it doesn't quite make the cut. Also your statement that most of the 19 completed were racing cars further reduces the total.

Need to check out the E-type which was replaced by this as well. NealeFamily (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

I have checked out the E-type - doesn't beat the Aston and its road test car was a slightly modified version. See Jaguar E-type article.NealeFamily (talk) 19:50, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Automatic archiving bad?

I think it's going too far. There were some quite interesting and useful discussions here that are now archived and, virtually absent for most visitors. We've had a nice table of pre-WWII cars for example. Also discussions about production car definition are all gone now. Now people wondering why is it 20 cars can't easily find out all the history of this requirement. Perhaps someone could stop that bot from annihilating this talk? And maybe resurrecting some of the most important sections from the archive would be a good idea too? IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 06:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hennessey Venom GT

The Hennessey Venom GT is NOT the fastest production car. The Veyron SS can hit 431 km/h on a 2-way average (required for certification). The Venom GT hit 427.6 km/h on a one-way run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.93.147 (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Please read entire article before making such conclusions. Production Veyron SS is limited to 258 mph. World record edition of Veyron SS reached 268, but only 5 of them were ever expected to be built. We need at least 20 built to put vehicle in this list. I'm not sure about number of Venom runs, but I know for sure that original Veyron (not SS) was clocked at single direction run and we accept the speed it set for this list. IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 15:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

There are no more than 10 (possibly less) Venom GTs built. The run was not verified by any independent organization. It was a single run, as opposed to the mandatory two-way run. The car did its run without catalytic converters and therefore it was not road legal. The Venom GT in ineligible for this list. Please stop trying to add it to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.93.147 (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Two way run is NOT mandatory for THIS list. Venom is scheduled to be built no more than 10 per year and 29 overall. Do you suggest we wait 3 years before it will be allowed for this list? As to the catalytic converters, please provide reference. Thank you. IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Two way run is mandatory to discard possible wind interference. 2. You can't know for sure Hennessey is actually building 29 examples until they are built. Those cars are built by demand and according to Hennessey himself, only a third of them were sold since 2011. That's 9 or 10 cars. And you can't be sure about the engine under each bonnet, as there are 3 options available. 3. It won't be included until it officially beats the Veyron SS' 431 km/h. Also refer to point number 2. 4. Just check out Hennessey's photos. If you still think this car deserves to be on the list, you can put it. And I will remove it again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.93.147 (talk) 03:25, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Veyron top speed of 408 km/h was reached in ONE WAY RUN! It is present in this list. So it is NOT MANDATORY to have two way runs. It is, of course, preferable, but not mandatory. Besides, there's little doubt Venom could actually reach this, or even higher speeds. In this case the limitation was a runway length. So it's quite safe to assume that even this one-way run is sufficient to prove it's capability to reach this speed. 2. Yes, we can't know for sure how many will they build. But neither can we wait 3 years, or the actual end of production before placing it on this list. It is planned to be built in sufficient numbers, so it may stay here as long as reality proves it's wrong. Then we would remove it as we did with Ultimate Aero TT. Untill it's production is not over, it is still in production, there's a chance it will meet the declared intentions and, eventually, a requirements for this list. 3. There's no such thing as "official" record for a production car. Forget about it. There are only rules that we come up with, for this table selection. Some cars meet them, others don't. That's why Weyron SS is listed here with 258, not 268 mph. That's why we have no "official" (if you count Guinness for official) record beating Koenigsegg and Aero TT. Please read again the beginning of this article. It explains what it is and how selection is done. If not enough, look through archives of this talk. We have had really lengthy debates about how this should work, about what actually is a fastest production car and why Guinness is not an official source, etc. We've been through this, no need to start it all over again. 4. I have checked Hennessey's photos. However, I have not found any clues how the car of this outlook can not be placed on this list. What's wrong with it? Have I missed something important?

You should really provide a source that proves the removal of catalytic converters. If this is true, I shall remove it myself. The rest of your arguments is just invalid. So will you? Thanks. IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 08:12, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

1. The original Veyron's top speed WAS a two-way average. It's written on Bugatti's website and was confirmed by TÜV officials.

2. The Ultimate Aero TT was originally included because Guinness certified it as the fastest production car. It was removed because, just like you pointed out, it was proved they weren't built in sufficient numbers to be considered a production car. The same happens with the Venom. It's a built by demand car, put together after John Henneseey gets his money, unlike all other cars currently on the list.

3. By official, I mean verified by an independent organization. Guinness, despite no longer accepted here as a valid record source (Because of cars like the Koenigsegg CCR and the Ultimate Aero TT) is an independent organization. Hennessey's run wasn't verified by any organization. Hennessey called Guinness when they set the acceleration records. Why didn't he call them this time? They used the accepted Racelogic Vbox3 to measure speed, but you can't count Racelogic staff as an independent organization. Their job was simply to make sure their GPS tracker works. Without anyone there to prove the car was fully road legal when it attempted the run, Hennessey's claims are completely void. Nice video though.

Just like any car fanatic, I really want to see the limits of this car. Until then, it can't be on this list.

And please stop editing the Veyron's top speed. Even though most were sold with a (removable) rev limiter, there are 5 to prove the other 25 can hit that speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.230.136 (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

1. Where exactly?

2. We removed Aero AFTER it's production was ended. It's not built any more so we are now sure that currently built number is a grand total for this model. Venom is still in production so we can only accept the number declared by manufacturer. The same was true for Veyron SS - it was added before Bugatti have actually built 20 of them. In other words, manufacturer is assumed to tell truth about production numbers unless it's proved wrong.

3. There is no independent organization that follows our requirements for this list. Racelogic is an independent organization that verified the speed of whatever Hennessey used to run that track. Same as German officials done with Veyron. Or all the magazines with most of the other entries in this list. They all allow possibility for manufacturer cheating. More or less. Even Guinness. Just recall what was the record setting speed of XJ220...

4. "Removable" limiter doesn't count. See the similar story with McLaren F1. This have been discussed and decision was made. You can bring it up again if you wish, but your personal opinion can not override it.

5. Once again - can you provide a source of your claim that Venom was run without catalytic converters? This would put an end to this debate.IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about how can I simplify this even more for you to understand, but because I'm actually a nice person, I will try.

1. Next to the original Veyron's top speed there's a reference. Read it.

2. Ok, I guess you're right at this point. However, Hennessey's position as a car manufacturer is yet to be cleared. I want to hear more people on the subject.

3. Racelogic is NOT an inspecting organization. It's a GPS tracking devices manufacturer. Their equipment is internationally certified as a reliable speedometer. But while their results are accepted, they can't valid a certain car as road legal. During their speed record attempts, Koenigsegg, Bugatti, SSC North America and Hennessey all used Racelogic Vboxes. However, except for Hennessey's latest attempt, there was another organization in charge to make sure all cars were road legal at the time. Don't mix it up. On the subject of Jaguar, what they did was try for a speed record in a car without a rev-limiter (which I, and yes, that's a personal opinion, consider normal) AND with its catalytic converters disconnected, and this last point is what nullified the attempt.

4. McLaren's attempt is a case of its own. The record-attempting car was an experimental prototype, one of five made, mechanically different from the sold version. It's true that it hit 372 in Nardò with a rev limiter and that it recorded a two-way average of 386 km/h (including a one-way top speed of 391) at Ehra-Lessien with the rev limiter off. But as I said before, it was a different case. Whether we should valid the results of a (at the time) 5-year-old experimental prototype, it's a different story.

5. About the catalytic converters on the Venom, it was an opinion I and others shared online when examining photos of its engine bay. You can ignore that if you wish.

The point is, unless a record attempt is verified by an independent organization (be it Guinness, TÜV, DoT, even the FIA) AND the car is proven road-legal, any results from that attempt are not acceptable.

You have the right to have a different opinion, but don't let your own beliefs impair your judgment. I want to hear other people's opinion on this. I will however, keep removing any information I see as incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.196.230.136 (talk) 18:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a good thing you are a nice person. But it would be a bad thing if it happened that you are a Veyron fanboy.

1. Have you read it? Where exactly do they say about a consecutive, opposite direction runs? Where are the speeds from both of them? Let me remind you that I'm not questioning Veyrons top speed, but if you insist on "official independent organization" verification, you'd probably have to provide some other source than a manufacturer's website. Especially since manufacturer's page does not provide any references to those mysterious "inspection officials". Again, it's your requirement, not mine.

2. Agree.

3. You don't get it. For many of record runs used in this table, no organization was checking if the car is road legal, and especially, no one was testing if it is really the exactly same car people can buy from a production run. Not even Guinness go this far. So the only thing that matters is: 1-independent proof of reached speed (which we have a Venom); 2-no proofs that used car was not what they say. So unless you have a proof that record setting Venom was modified, the result is quite acceptable. Especially since it is quite realistic.

4. Exactly! You can't have perfect results from perfect independent testing. If you apply such strict requirement to Venom, you'd have to do the same with all the other cars in this list. As the result, most of them would be disqualified. This is an old problem and a reason why this list was nominated for deletion several times. But since it is so important, we have to make some compromises. Really, you should read archives of this talk.

5. Yes, opinion is not a valid source. But if you find a proof, it would be great.

6. The point is that in many cases from this table, there was none of the listed organizations involved in testing. And the car was not properly checked for modifications. We have an independent source that confirmed the speed. Basically that's already a great luck. There are several historically fastest cars that don't have even such proofs (and are not on this list therefore).

7. If you want to hear others opinion, read the archives of this talk. Most of my arguments are not my opinion, but the result of previous debates and made agreements. On the other hand, your opinion is just that - your opinion.IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a Veyron fanboy. Far from it. But you sure sound like a Hennessey PR.

1. I've said many times that the original Veyron run was verified by these guys http://www.tuv.com/global/en/index.html. You won't find the document there, but you may ask for it.

2. Great, we can drop out that point.

3. It seems to me that you're the one who doesn't get it. If by "many record runs used in this table" you mean those belonging to old cars, those are on the list simply for a historical review. Do you really think the Benz Velo was the fastest vehicle until 1949?? Of course you don't, but that's the point. In the old days car manufacturers didn't test cars the same way we do now. They would lend a car to their faithful test driver, he would drive it on the public road, and then report his findings to the engineers. Magazines would test these vehicles under the same conditions. The top speed car reviewers could hit was then accepted as possible. But now we live in an age where the quest for valid results is more important than ever. Call it evolution. But let me take your arguments on that. You say we have no proofs that the used car was not what they say. So by that you automatically assume the car IS what they say? That's not how logic works, and you will never win an argument trying to prove facts like that. That's basic.

4. Of course you can't have perfect results!! What you can have is ACCURATE results. And by accurate I mean that it follows current standards. The Veyron made it to this list because all acquired data vas verified by an independent organization (I can't stop stress this issue) AND because it was proven to be a production car. The Koenigsegg CCR and the SSC Ultimate Aero TT are not on this list because, although independently verified, they don't count as a production car. The Venom GT was NOT independently verified. The Hennessey Venom GT is NOT an exception. If I wanted to be strict, based on all previous discussions, this list would have only one car: The original Veyron.

5. We can drop that as well.

6. Refer to points number 3 and 4.

7. I did. But as you know, this is an open thread, and more people may join in. 87.196.230.136 (talk) 20:52, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'm editing this list long enough not to be associated with any company. Especially Hennessy.

1. Can you provide a source that explicitly says there were two consecutive opposite direction runs and states speed for both?

3. Logic says that if John Hennessey claims the win over Veyron because record setting Veyron was a modified car, unlike the tested Venom, then the tested Venom is not modified. Surely he can lie. As well as any manufacturer that have provided a car for Guinness or any other tester. Your quest for perfection is futile. Besides, logic also says that if the car has more power, is lighter and, arguably, has lower drag, it is most likely, faster.

4. I guess you are right. Venom result is not it's actual top speed. Apparently, it's actual top speed is higher, as this result was limited by the runway length. But, unfortunately, until the higher speed is recorded, we can only accept this one. Actually, there's a similar problem with Veyron SS, if you want to be so strict and perfectly correct. You see, the actual production Veyron, was never put into test. No independent tester have ever reached 258 mph in the production car. We only assume this is possible because the preproduction car topped at 268mph, and we believe Bugatti when they say that the only difference in the production car is a speed limiter. But what if they lie? What if it has detuned engine? You want such level of perfection where we don't trust any word of manufacturer? Then we have to remove Veyron SS. And Veyron. And McLaren F1... Only "historic" cars would stay since you generously allow them not to confirm to your standards.

7. Read again then. You have missed things you are arguing against.IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 21:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I said that to prove that it is useless to point fingers at each other like little kids.

1. No, I can't. As I said, you can try to ask TÜV personnel for the certified document.

3. Where did I say I was in a quest for perfection? If asking for actual evidence is a quest for perfection, then, and only then, you can call myself as a perfeccionist. All we have is a video, by Hennessey themselves, of a car reaching 265,7 miles per hour. The video is obviously legit, otherwise Racelogic would be in trouble, but you need to be SURE the car is fully street legal for that result to be accepted. The word from the man who built is not, and will never be enough proof.

4. Refer to point number 3. Of course the Venom is fast, it is extremely fast. But for the record, it MUST be verified. Can't this simple idea enter your mind?

I nearly choked when I read this. "Cars I generously allow not to confirm to my standards?" That never crossed my mind. What I said is that standards change. In the old days standards were different from today's. What you're trying to do is applying old standards to a brand new car, ignoring the ones being applied today. And that I cannot allow.

7. Can you kindly point out what I missed? You're an old editor, after all. 87.196.230.136 (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, right. You are happy with deletion of all record setting cars in the past 10 years, for any reason there is, yet simultaneously you argue that Veyron SS should be listed with 268 mph. Double standards or fanboyism, call it what you want, but that's the way you behave.

1. I don't need it. As I said before, I don't question Veyron's speed. It's you who demand solid confirmation form independent "officials". So do you have for a Veyron? Or are you believe in what Bugatti say? Double standards?

3. We have to be sure that is was not only street legal, but also that it was made to the same specification as the production version. If this is not met, the result is invalid. But the problem is that we can not be really sure in ost of the cases listed in this table. How can you be sure that the record setting Veyron was EXACTLY the same as production model? And surely we know that Veyron SS was not. Yet how can we be sure that production SS differs only by speed limiter? Thre's no way we can be sure about it. As I said before, ad as you have missed reading this talk archives, this list can not be 100% objective.

4. It is verified. Independent organisation had confirmed the top speed reached. Also, considering the rate of acceleration at the top speed was not close to zero, it's actual speed is higher, and achieved result was limited by the length of the track. That easily compensates for possible wind.

5. There are no "old" or "new" standards. Basically, there are no standards. There's no standard definition of production car. There's not even e definition of the street legal car. There's no standard settings for top speed test (weather conditions, track surface, track length etc.). Two way runs are a common practice since beginning of 20th century for obvious reasons. And, of course, if we have such result, it must be considered more precise and used instead of single runs. However, we have no requirement that we only accept such results for this list. Besides, even two way runs don't really guarantee a perfect result, wind can change. And we take no account for weather condition. Yet it is known that Bugatti actually selected the best weather conditions for their record runs. Was it cheating? Can Veyron repeat it's record on average day? We can't be sure. Yet we accept it.

7. The reasons why this thread was nominated for removal. And consensus made for it to stay. It is accepted that this list can not be absolutely objective, because this is impossible. However it is accepted to stay because it is so important (remove it, and someone will create it soon after, but it will be very subjective, so we try to at least to maintain it as objective as possible).IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Do you actually believe in the things you write?? Where did I say I'm happy with the removal of most cars from the list? Stop putting words in what I write, please. Supporting one manufacturer's bid wih certified evidence of what they did does not make me a fanboy. Supporting one manufacturer WITHOUT that evidence is what makes you a fanboy. Does that ring a bell in your head?

1. If you don't care for the cerfiying document, why did you insist on bringing it forward? That doesn't make any sense.

3. There's more evidence coming from Bugatti than from Hennessey. You can't put Hennessey in the same boat as Bugatti. I've provided the facts to support those claims. If you're rejecting them, you're not being objective AT ALL.

4. Please cite the source for that claim. I won't accept the answers Hennessey or Racelogic, for reasons already exposed.

5. If all those standards don't exist, why are some cars allowed to the list and some not? Of course there are standards. Some, as you pointed out, are more important than others. In my way of thinking, each new record needs more evidence than the previous, because it's trying to topple the one which occupied the spot before. That's common in academic research. That's why I can't support a record claim providing LESS evidence than the previous.

7. I know exactly why this article was nominated for removal and why it was kept. That doesn't mean the need for evidence was lessened. That just meant people accepted the limited evidence from older records because there was no other way to prove them. That other way exists today.

If you can't accept these facts, you're not being objective. Not 100%, not 50%. Not at all. And If you can't be objective, you are not entitled to keep this discussion. I will accept other people's opinions. I will no longer listen to yours. Have a good day. 87.196.230.136 (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

If you have different requirements to different manufacturers, you are at the very least not objective. I have exactly same requirements to every car on this list. You don't. That's probably your understanding of being "objective".

1. Where's your logic now? You demand confirmed two way run from others, you should do the same for Veyron. So do you have a proof that there was a proper two way run on Veyron testing?

3. Ah "you can't put them on the same boat"! So much for objective approach... No, you have not provided any facts about Veyron that are in any way more reliable than Hennessey's claims. You don't know if there was a two way run, you don't know if they were testing production vehicle. Unless you believe manufacturer which is strictly prohibited.

4. Racelogic of course. If you don't accept it, and you are objective, you should also not accept Veyron records, for reasons already exposed.

5. Because there are selection rules for this table. Cars that meet them are put on the list. Your "standards" are not part of these rules. They are clearly stated at the beginning of the article.

7. Well, it's really naive to believe that we can have unlimited evidence and especially that we can prove anything "now". That other way does not exist. Unless you build your own 10 miles straight and run all the tests in the same conditions. In fact, nothing had changed for the last 50 years or so. Some random independent source confirms some top speed that they had measured one way or another. That's all we can count on. Rarely, we can have several sources for the same model (actually this was more common in the past when it was much easier to reach the top speed), then we can select the most reliable one based on the known test conditions. If there's only one source, there's not much to select from.

I accept facts. But not your opinion that contradicts them.IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you please clarify something for me as I am a little confused about the validity of the Venom being a true production car? Hennessey is a car tuning company as evident on their website http://www.hennesseyperformance.com/ and it is no secret that the Venom is hardly a car they have built from scratch rather they have bastardised (pardon my french) a Lotus Exige chassis and heavily modified it by various means (lengthened wheel base, 7 litre engine, etc.) for their purposes of creating the Venom. Every other car on the list as far as I can tell is manufactured from scratch (perhaps utilising some parts from within the companies own car stock parts) by "Car Manufacturers" not "Car Tuners." By including the Venom are we opening a can of worms by now having to go back through history and consider other automobiles produced by Car Tuners (RUF Yellowbird as an example) if they meet the minimum of 20 cars produced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.90.110 (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

RUF was neither changing wheel base, nor car body. It was also using original car's engine, only modifying it. Initially, RUF CTR was not even sold to customers, you had to bring your Porsche to them and they modified it. Later they were buying complete cars from Porsche and sold them already modified. I doubt Hennessey would agree to convert your Exige to Venom if you bring it to them. They have built a new car using parts originally developed for other cars. Lotus is famous for selling their splendid and hugely successful Elise chassis to numerous car manufacturers (is Tesla a true production car?). Hennessey is not exception here. However, I agree to discuss this subject more.IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 18:00, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

RUF has been certified in Germany as a Car manufacturer. Does Hennessey have the same distinction? The differences between tuner and manufacturer have become blurred in these cases particularly given that lotus sells their chassis to others. It does say in the first paragraph of this page that a production car is neither a concept or modified car. Perhaps some guidelines about the latter need to be made clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.90.110 (talk) 22:42, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

I think we have discussed what modified cars are some time before. There's no definition of this term. However, in some cases it's quite obvious, like in case with RUF CTR - if they take already built and sold car and alter it's construction for money, that is obviously a modification. And that's how RUF made CTR's. In some other cases it may be less obvious. It also seems quite obvious in case of Venom. It uses chassis and some parts from Exige, but they build it with very different engine, transmission, and the overall construction is different to accommodate it. They do not take existing Exiges to modify them. They only buy some components that they use in their car. Building cars on existing chassis can not be considered a modification. SAAB's were built on Opel chassis, were they modified cars? Already mentioned Tesla Roadster is built on Elise chassis. Is it a modified car? No, of course not. So the Venom is quite obviously not a modified car as well.IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 12:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you guys or girls cut your edit war!!! Yes I am shouting - The Hennessey is likely to qualify if the produce 20 of the same model. To date they have only stated that they intend to. When they do then they may qualify.

As to the significance of whether or not a tuners vehicles qualify. Provided they verifiably (reliable source required) produce 20 road worthy versions with the same basic specifications, and they have an independent road test then they may well qualify. I think the definition for the list is reasonably clear, but happy to continue the discussion. NealeFamily (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Can we actually wait while they built 20 cars? Wouldn't this approach turn this list into retrospective historical reference? Hennessey says they plan to build no more than 10 cars per year. So if they actually build 20 of them, it may take not less than 2 or 3 years. On the other hand, if you want to, you can buy one right now, don't you? Doesn't this mean that the car is actually in production? It seems to be even more freely available that, say, Enzo during it's production run. Also, Veyron SS was added to this list before Bugatti made 20 of them. Declaration of manufacturer intent was sufficient. And I think, it should be sufficient as long as we can't debunk it. Same was with Aero. Only because it's production was ended, and we figured out that they have built too few of them, it was removed. Before that, it was present in this list based only on manufacturers claim. Partly because there's no other source of the production numbers in many cases, is it? Actually, do we really have a proof that Bugatti already made at least 20 Super Sprots? I don't think anyone ever doubted in numbers provided by manufacturer in this case.

I think we should accept production number intents at least for current record holders simply to avoid lagging behind, skipping positions and simply making this list permanently obsolete. If we wait for Hennessey to build 20 Venoms (assuming they ever will), it's record may be broken before we add it to this list. Consider this.IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

OK I generally don't allow myself to get drawn into these edit wars, but can someone please tell me why 1) the Hennessey Venom has been reintroduced to the list and 2) why the Bugatti Veyron SS still has its top speed listed as 258 mph when Guinness themselves have retracted their previous stance of that model being modified having it reclaim the #1 position with 268 mph? Can we not make some progression here? I would like to see something near the original list posted a few years ago. Lets just have the history of fastest cars with a couple of extra columns showing number of cars in the production run and also the manufacturers claimed top speed along any verified numbers from independent resources such as automobile magazines, Guinness, etc. Give everyone the info and let them make up their own minds as to which makes and models belong, similar to the fastest cars by acceleration page, and be done with this SAGA!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.177.64 (talk) 10:37, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

beacuase (1) an editor thinks the hennessy satisfies the criterion for this list (20 production cars sold (it obviously doesn't)) or doesn't care, (2) the version of the german car that meets the criterion of this list hit 258. Guinness use another criterion which they are unwilling to reveal to us. Your proposal would lead to this being a list of 'fast cars we like', which would get speedily deleted. Greglocock (talk) 02:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I would dispute your last comment of the list being fast cars that we like. Most manufacturers haven't claimed to make the fastest production car and those that have would at least have some sort of credibility and/or an independent assessment as I mentioned. The fastest cars by acceleration list doesn't appear to be a "list of cars they like" in fact it is exactly what it is meant to be, a list of cars by acceleration (maunfacturer claimed or otherwise). I admire the editor's ambition in make this list accurate, but what good is it if there are glaringly obvious omissions that most, including Guinness consider historical holders of the title in question. By having those cars omitted essentially makes this list pointless. If a consensus is reached then from my perspective this list will be the authority people turn to if their interests lie with this topic and we can dispense with the rest of the bogus rubbish floating around on the net.