Talk:List of automotive superlatives/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Most powerful FF car

The Autodelta Alfa Romeo 147 GTA, at 328 hp, is the most powerful front-wheel drive car in the world. We should be agreed on that. I'd be interested to know the criterion for production car that this model fails, since my change to this article was reverted yesterday. 129.22.160.218 20:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

It fails criterion #2 at the top of the article: "cars modified by either professional tuners or individuals are not eligible." Autodelta falls under the professional tuner category. Here's an excerpt from the Autodelta article: "Since the group's original demise, the Autodelta name had come to be used by independent British Alfa Romeo tuner Jano Djelalian in 1987 and continues today." VectorD 02:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The distinction between tuners and tuning divisions of automakers is rather small. For example AMG products are always considered Mercedes and thus original. Brabus, which is independent, does so much unique work with Mercedes cars after they receive them that within Germany they are considered an automaker of their own right. So, if it should ever be unclear, which tuning companies are eligible and which ones aren't? Chaparral2J (talk) 10:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that the 1970 Cadillac Eldorado with a 400 HP 8.2 liter V8 is the most powerful FF car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Indigo iMac (talk • contribs) 15:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Smallest V8 Engine

I would like to dispute your entry for the Ferrari. The Mazda MX3 had a 1.8 litre V8 engine in it, in Europe at least. I'm not an authority on them but I would suspect this applies to most of the regions they were sold in. Thanks.

I don't think that that's correct (the MX-3 did have a 1.8 L V6, though), but if you can provide a source, feel free to make the change. TomTheHand 00:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The Mazda MX3 had a 1845 cc V6 engine, not V8. Bore and stroke were 75 mm and 69.6 mm. I have an Automobile Revue yearbook that mentions the TVR S3 was once available with a 1948 cc V8 engine (smaller than the Ferrari), but I can't find any proof that engine was actually used in a production vehicle. --Pc13 12:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

First transverse

We now has the first transverse engine as the 1949 SAAB 92, but in Transverse engine it says the 1931 DKW Front. I haven't manage to find any source to back it up, but it's not unlikley as the SAAB 92 was designed to be "a modern DKW". // Liftarn

Hybrid vehicles

On http://www.aircaraccess.com/pics01.htm there is a mention of a hybrid car. It gives very little details, but it seems to be from sometimes in the early 20th century/late 19th century thus beating Toyota Prius with about 100 years. Does anyone know more? // Liftarn

I think there were a handful of gas-electric hybrids made in that time frame, such as the Woods Dual Power (http://www.petersen.org/default.cfm?docid=1043). The main section of this article is for post-WWII cars, though there is a pre-war section where it could be mentioned. DoktorRocket 04:50, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It says "except for the Firsts section" so it should go in there. // Liftarn

Belgian Auto-Mixte (there is a book in the French language about this brand) was the first "modern" hybrid car, as it used the same kind of techniques; regenerating energy from braking, petrol engine kicking in when extra power was needed etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 159.134.94.21 (talk • contribs) 15:31, November 8, 2006.

According to this page, the Lohner-Porsche beat the Auto-Mixte (and the Woods Dual Power) to the punch using an almost identical system. --DeLarge 16:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The Lohner-Porsche sounds like it may have had electric transmisson rather than a hybrid drive. // Liftarn

Technically speaking, that still makes it a "series hybrid" ... and it had a bank of "accumulators" (i.e. batteries, or capacitors, depending who you ask/what language you speak) charged off the combustion engine that then powered the electric motors. Though it may have been constructed to solve different problems than modern-day hybrids (limited engine speed range and durability, poor engine power for efficient standing starts (could charge up the accumulators at a standstill then rapidly near-drain them to get going), lack of decent geared transmission technology, etc, vs fuel/energy economy and noise/emissions), the technical concept behind it and the execution of such still hold. It looks like quite a piece of work in fact - hub motors, over 80% drivetrain efficiency, beautifully simple arrangement, etc, and 105 years old! 82.46.180.56 (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Some possible corrections...

1. "Best-selling American Sedan - Ford Taurus (more than 7,000,000 sold in 4.5 generations sold between 1986 and 2006)". Do we really need market-specific superlatives? For example, with a bestselling American sedan present, could be disallow an editor adding in what the bestselling sedan in The Philippines was, or the bestselling pick-up in South Africa? There's also the small matter of the Chevrolet Impala possibly outselling it, if I could find sales figures for the sedan body style of the Chevy...
2. Honorable mentions for "Lowest selling vehiles". I don't see any reason for inclusion for these:

• "Sports car - avg. 79 per month, Bricklin SV-1 (2,857 sold in 3 years)"
• "SUV - avg. 200 per month, Suzuki X-90 (7,205 sold in 3 years)"

I'm going to be bold and delete every one of these entries, unless there's an objection. --DeLarge 16:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. --DeLarge 19:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

A new reference is needed for the Veyron's 0-100-0 time, the current external link is dead. Meio 18:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Power Ratings?

Are all these power ratings to the wheels or to the crankshaft? --Russoc4 19:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

To the crankshaft. Manufacturers generally do not rate power to the wheels. TomTheHand 19:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks. --Russoc4 00:04, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

First directional headlamps

1928 Willys-Knight 70A Touring. Notice the directional headlight.

For the heading "First directional headlamps" we have an mention of the 1948 Tucker Torpedo, but it wasn't first (Tatra had it in the 1930s) and it didn't have directional headlamps on the production models. So why mention it? // Liftarn

I found this (pictured) 1928 Willys-Knight 70A Touring that obviously have a directional headlamp (zoom the pictre and you shuld see the mechanism). They sold well so the number of manufactured shouldn't be a problem. However this is a bit OR and I don't know when they started using the system. // Liftarn

common rail

where is the first common rail car? metin emre

--86.111.231.50 13:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC) First common rail car was Alfa Romeo 156, then Mercedes-Benz E320 CDI appears.

First all-aluminum body

It is now listed as the 1961 Lagonda Rapide, but what about the Land Rover? Ok, they use an aluminium-magnesium alloy rather then pure aluminium, but still... // Liftarn

The Riley Kestrel preceded this by several decades - 1932. I have changed it accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.186.108.9 (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Most powerful Diesel

Looks like the 2007 Audi Q7 will demolish the most powerful Diesel record... They're saying 500 hp, which is probably 500 PS, but that's still WAY more powerful than any other Diesel! --SFoskett 15:23, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

And the torquiest as well, at 1000 Nm. However, it won't go on sale just yet. Sales will begin early 2008 only. --Pc13 07:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Drag coefficient

What's the lowest drag coefficient for a production car? General Motors EV1 has a low value (0.195), but they weren't sold to the public so is it Tatra T77 (0.212)? It seems odd nobody have made a more streamlined car since 1935. // Liftarn

Just out of curiosity, what's the source of the Tatra T77's drag factor? And I mean who measured it, not where was it published. The reason I'm asking is that 0.212 seems extraordinarily low. The old Audi 100 made a big fuss in the early 80s when they got to 0.30 using flush windows and so forth (they even had a sticker on the rear side windows), and the even slippier Opel Calibra was only about 0.28 or thereabouts. The Tatra, while streamlined, doesn't seem like it would be such an order of magnitude better than today's cars, and I'm wondering if they had a different way of calculating drag factor back then. --DeLarge 17:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've googled a bit and added a few sources. It is etraordinary low, but the T77 was from the start designed to be aerodynamic and they did extensive wind tunnel testing. T77 had thing like a flat underside and door handles inset in the body rather than hanging out. Allt o make it as streamlined as possible. Also keep in mind that it's easier to get a low drag with a smaller surface area. It may also help that the T77 was air cooled so it didn't have to force the air trough a radiator. So I think the value is reasonable. The Audi 100 has a quite reasonable drag coefficient. It's for instcane significantly lower than the Ferrari F40. The GM Calibra is at 0.26, so it's quite aerodynamic. // Liftarn

Just a note: though low surface area reduces drag, I don't think it has anything to do with drag coefficient, which is determined by shape. I am equally skeptical about the T77's drag coefficient. It just doesn't look far more aerodynamic than more modern cars designed for minimum drag coefficient. It may not have to push air through a radiator, but it's still got to push it through the engine's cooling fins. I agree with DeLarge; I would very much like to know who measured a drag coefficient of 0.212, not just a list of places that repeat the figure. TomTheHand 15:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Drag coefficient is the ratio of the drag of the object in question compared to the drag of a flat plate of notionally zero thickness, with the same frontal area. King Hildebrand 11:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The drag coefficient is more properly defined by pulling it out of the following formula... $\mathbf {F} _{d}={1 \over 2}\rho \mathbf {v} ^{2}C_{d}A$ as seen in drag equation. (kevinthenerd, a mechanical engineering student.)

It's probably in the details. For instance notice the inset door handles. It also has a flat underside (most modern cars don't). Also most modern cars also has at least some focus on creating downforce and thus increases the drag. The T77 was designed to be aerodynamic and they also used a wind tunnel to design it so it's not impossible. Other old cars have acheived impressive figures such as the Saab 92 (0.30 in 1947 despite the flat windscreen) and Rumpler Tropfenwagen (0.28 in 1921). It did have to get the air over the cooling fins, but the engine was in the rear so that may be easier. // Liftarn

Also, given the era and the experimental nature of the time, it probably sacrificed some quotient (maybe a lot) of practicality, handling, economics etc in order to achieve that incredible Cd figure and distinctive profile... plus it may have a large surface area even so :) Modern cars that do similar generally have to compromise on e.g. interior room or affordability, but we're getting better at it. I seem to remember coming across a couple webpages of enthusiast owners who had modified a Honda Civic VX and Geo Metro XFi respectively to be very streamlined (and therefore even more efficient than the original thrifty versions). Neither were particularly minor conversions, though the Civic did at least retain the interior room (unlike the Metro which became a 2-seater), having what amounted to a major and somewhat retro, Tatra/Citroen DS-esque bodykit added, noticably increasing the weight and length (and lowering the ground clearance because of underbody boarding, side skirts, mini spoilers behind the wheels etc)... but it still reached 60 faster (once wind resistance became more important than pushing the weight up to speed) and had a top speed so increased from stock (with no engine or gearbox modifications) that the owner had not yet discovered its terminal velocity. And remember, this was modifying FROM a reasonably modern car that was supposed to be a fuel miser... 82.46.180.56 (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Don't underestimate how much the skinny tyres of the day effected the cd. There would be a large saving right there compared to any modern car. --LiamE 13:27, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

All good points. I'm not as skeptical any more. Thanks, guys! TomTheHand 13:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but under what heading should it be placed? // Liftarn

Holden Maloo fastest pickup?

I'm a little iffy on the Holden Maloo being listed as the fastest pickup truck. It's not a truck; it's a "ute", or a car with a pickup bed, similar to the El Camino. Does anyone else have a similar issue? Does an open trunk area make a car into a pickup truck? TomTheHand 15:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I see your dispute, and kind of agree with it; you're maybe thinking that it should be limited to crude old things with a separate chassis? Unfortunately... "The Chevrolet El Camino [is] a car-based small pickup truck..." , and "A pickup truck or pick-up is a light motor vehicle with an open-top rear cargo area", both of which suggest that the Maloo qualifies.

Personally, I'd call it a pickup, but not a pickup truck, but that's just me... --DeLarge 17:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, those are good points. Would anyone be opposed to an honorable mention to the Dodge for fastest body-on-frame pickup? I'm not a Dodge fan by any means, but to me an open-top cargo area does not turn a car into a truck. TomTheHand 15:15, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the usual usage in the UK is that a pickup is pretty much based around a car design with a conversion to an open cargo deck, usually with intrusive wheel arches. The vehicle with a separate chassis and a load deck above the wheels is a dropside. The sides are usually removable to turn it into a flatbed. --King Hildebrand 11:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

First electric park brake

Wasn't there a Saab from the 1960s with an electric park brake? I'm a bit dubious about the first one being on a Lincoln in 2003. - Richardcavell 05:04, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the Lincoln may have been proceeded by quite a few. IIRC the outgoing 7-series (E65/E66) had one in 2002 and some Phaeton's seem to have had it as well although that might only be in line with the Passat from 2005. 83.231.210.146 (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

# First aerodynamic design - 1921 Rumpler Tropfenwagen

I'd like to suggest something earlier, what about the 1914 Alfa Romeo Castagna?

http://shl.stanford.edu/Bucky/dymaxion/cars.htm

Thanks for your consideration,

bs

That was justa prototype. The Rumpler Tropfenwagen was a production vehicle. // Liftarn

Cleanup help on Fast cars

Hey guys,

I was hoping to recruit some of you to come have a look at the article Fast cars. I was thinking we could possibly turn it into a list showing the cars that have held the "fastest production car" title through the years. I figured it might be a topic of interest to all of you, so if anyone is interested, could you come give your opinions on Talk:Fast cars on the direction we'd like the article to take? TomTheHand 19:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Horizontally-opposed engines

There's apparently no mention of the horizontally-opposed configuration in this article. Are they considered as a 180° V-layout, and therefore not entitled to their own section? VW beetles and Citroen 2CVs (see above) ran on HO engines, and I doubt if they were alone. I'm not arguing particularly for their inclusion separately but it might be worth mentioning them as a subset of Vs. King Hildebrand 11:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, flat engines are not the same as 180° Vs, and if we're gonna have 'superlatives' for seemingly every engine variation then horizontally opposed engines should be listed too. We'll leave it up to you then KH, remember to look up Porsche and Subaru as they still use flat engines. Meio 18:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I put in a section on HO twins, because I know a bit about Citroens, having driven Ami, Dyane and 2CV in the past (and now own a Berlingo!). I'm no expert on the subject, so I'm afraid I'll decline your kind invitation to venture into Porsche and Subaru territory!

BTW, please enlighten my benighted ignorance and explain what is the difference between HO and 180° V. (Sorry, that wasn't meant to sound sarcastic - I really want to know!) Thanks. --King Hildebrand 14:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

According to the article on flat flat engines pistons across from each other on HO engines do each stroke at the same time, while on a 180° engine one is two strokes behind the other. Does that make sense? Zephyrus67 17:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Odd, those two definitions just sound like two boxers with different cylinder timings to me... would one of them share a conrod when the other doesn't, anything as concrete as that? As a boxer still needs seperate ones (in order for each opposed pair to move in or out at the same time, for balance), as would any alternative timing other than the complete opposite (which would allow the shared component) and would even be a valid way of doing a "180 V" anyhow, that's the only way I can see of making a firm seperation between them. Also, whoops, I missed this on the way down the list earlier - added to the bottom of this talk page is my own contender for smallest flat-4, the Steyr 50 ("The Austrian Beetle", though it wasn't quite as such, as it predated the VW), noticably smaller than the Ami or even the preproduction Beetles (985cc), at all of 978cc. Strangely, not particularly small for a 4-pot engine, just smallest yet found for this config for whatever reason. 82.46.180.56 (talk) 21:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The difference between a horizontaly opposed (boxer) engine and a V180º is that in the V180 two rods are in the same crakshaft journal, and thus when piston #1 is in TDC the piston sharing journal is in BDC. In a HO every rod has its own journal resulting that when #1 is in TDC the next is TDC also, then BDC, then BDC... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1913boxer (talk • contribs) 20:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Trucks

I understand that this article is about road cars, with goods and industrial vehicles excluded. Yet there is an honourable mention for a Mercedes truck under four-wheel steering. If this one is allowed, then the power and torque of truck engines deserve honourable mentions throughout. I think, for consistency, the Merc should be ruled out. --King Hildebrand 11:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Similarly - Largest V12 engine - 11,508 cc (702 cu in) - 1960 to 1965 GMC Twin-Six "702" for commercial trucks. List seems inconsistent, and I thought that this kind of 'Guiness Book of Records'-type list was discouraged on WKP. If there has been a discussion of the basis for this article, can anyone point me to it, please? Centrepull (talk) 15:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Biggest I4...

Actually, I know that 3.6 liter can't be the biggest straigth four ever because my cousin owns a Hino truck equipped with a 4.6 liter straight four diesel and Hino also produced 4.0 liter I4. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.82.198.101 (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

That's true, truck engines typically are large, but this article is pretty much intended for passenger cars only. The 3rd criteria says that commercial or industrial vehicles are ineligible. VectorD 01:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Toyota Mega Cruiser (similar to an H1 Hummer has an I4 slightly larger than 4.0 liters, and I believe it as sold to the public http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Mega_Cruiser —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.215.68.59 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

That looks like a good contender. However, the wiki article says it was only sold to the police and firefighters. I haven't been able to find much from external sources other than to say a few were sold to Australian mining companies it seems. If it could be confirmed as actually being sold to the general public for personal use, then it looks pretty good. VectorD 10:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Production periods

Any room for a superlative for models that have been in continuous production for the longest (and the shortest)?Meio 18:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

GT40 is not a production car.

why is it included in the lowest height. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.21.2.5 (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Wasn't the Mk III a production road car? // Liftarn

The list

Is this list for car models, brands or part suppliers?. lots of missing model information, so its impossible or very hard to verify those details, some reference or source should be mentioned..--Typ932 13:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Straight-8's

What about Straight 8's? There were plenty of post-war straight-8's made in production cars. Ayengar 20:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Country specifics

Now we have both "First American V6" and "First Japanese V6 engine" and soon we will have "Fist Swedish V6", "First French V6", "First Egyptian V6" and so on for every engine type. It will soon get silly. Can't we just nip in the bud? // Liftarn

These should be removed..., the whole page needs overhauling, lots of errors, when ever possible should exact car model and year be mentioned, if its whole model range that should be mentioned (makes verifying lot easier), maybe 1-3 honorable mentions per case. And the intoruduction should tell if this page is for Car models, Car Brands or part suppliers otherwise there is all kind of stuff, ... ...--Typ932 15:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No. Honorable mentions are not for second places, they're for one-offs, low volume cars, prototypes, unused projects and special editions. We use them only when warranted. --Pc13 18:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I didnt mean that there should be second places, but there should be clear rules, 20 or more examples produced BRAND and MODEL , not Hella or Goodyear ;) Honorable mention - 1985 Lancia Delta S4 (Homologation special, only 200 road cars produced for Group B regulations) this is clearly over 20 produced road legal model, why its honorable ? or what about Straight-8 Honorable mention - 1920 Duesenberg? where is the model? or First overhead cam engine - 1898 Wilkinson, no info no source link nothing....just some thoughs to make this article better... --Typ932 21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you're right, I hadn't noticed some of these (the list is very long nowadays)! There's no point in having the Group B homologation specials as honorable only. As for the 1920 Duesenberg with 8 cylinders... I imagine it was available on both the Model A and the Model J. I don't know, pre-WWII cars are not my forte. And these cars are the ones that need proper sourcing, that's for sure. As for technologies, agreed, of course, it's the use in a car that makes them important. --Pc13 21:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

My guess is that the four group B cars are honorable mention under the "first MR AWD" category because it was unclear which one came first. Seems like it would make more sense to either dig up some data on which one was the first to release 20 road going samples, or to declare it a four-way tie for first. Either way is preferable to bumping them to honorable mention and giving the prize to a car that was released years later. --DoktorRocket 21:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Original Research

As far as I can tell this page is complete original research, unless there are sources for these items saying they are the biggest smallest etc. they should probably be deleted, especially as some appear to be contentious. --Daniel J. Leivick 23:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

While there were a finite number of vehicles released for public use, the list is quite lengthy. Would anyone be willing to help me compile a spreadsheet with the relevant data for every single consumer vehicle ever made? We could split our efforts to various manufacturers or countries or eras, and we could tackle this daunting task through distributed efforts. User:kevinthenerd

That is not going to solve the original research problem. Secondary sources indicating the superlative nature of each vehicle will, unfortunately no one seems inclined to provide them. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Kevin! I think you are a trifle overambitious with that one! How many lifetimes do you have to spare? You are right to call for help, but I'm afraid I can't volunteer. Mine is just a passing general and superficial interest. But I'd love to see the results. Good luck! --King Hildebrand 14:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Daniel's point still doesn't seem to have been addresed. This article NEEDS direct, inline citations to other sources that state that "x is the xxxest production car ever built". If this is not done then the list contravenes WP:OR and ought to be deleted. Pyrope 02:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Honourable mention

Why is this even included?　This could, potentially, be extended to include any car an editor wants it to. A list of cars by power seems sketchy enough for a wikipedia article to me, this just seems silly though. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a car magazine... -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 07:30, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Well in some cases the car that actually holds the record is disputed by certain wikipedians, so it makes sense to have honourable mentions, for example The Ultima GTR is the world record holder for 0-60 , 0-100-0, and a whole host of other performance superlatives, but the factory have not stated how many they have made (I have even emailed them, but they state that the record is self evident and any google search will find them in an instant so why should they bother publishing up to date production figures - which might be complex for them - so that a bunch of tossers on wikipedia can be 'satisfied' that the GTR is a production car [paraphrased :)]) so we cannot be sure they have made more than 20 GTR720s, so it does not fit within the rules of the list. Other examples of cars that blatantly do not fit, but are included because someone really likes that model and cannot bear to see it excluded (Sledgehammer for example) should indeed be removed IMO. Meio 04:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Split this page / cleanup

This page needs some serious cleanup. This brings up the possibility of making "firsts" a separate article. "Superlatives" and "Firsts" really don't belong together. Zephyrus67 18:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Bore to stroke

I'd like to see superlatives for the most oversquare and most undersquare motors. An undersquare engine has a long stroke for its bore, and an oversquare engine has a big bore for its stroke. Race engines are typically very oversquare for horsepower, but cheaper street cars are typically undersquare for cost, efficiency, and torque. kevinthenerd

'N synchro?

The article says it was first available on the '29 Cad. It was also available on the '29 Lasalle, according to G. N. Georgano, Cars: Early and Vintage, 1886-1930. (London: Grange-Universal, 1985). Did Cad debut first? Trekphiler 13:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Not so fantastic 4

If the idea is to list production cars, shouldn't "First 4-valve engine - 1913 Peugeot Grand Prix" be replaced? Victor von Doom 14:45, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Mercedes CLK GTR horsepower

What is the source for the 775 hp figure for the Mercedes CLK GTR? Zephyrus67 13:50, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Are there accurate production numbers for some of these exotic models?

For example The SSC Ultimate Aero TT is the superlative model of the SSC Aero which according to the page here on wikipedia will be limited to a total of 25 cars for all variants. Will there then be at least 20 of these be built up to Ultimate Aero TT specification, leaving only 5 of other specifications? Maybe the numbers on the SSC Aero page are wrong. According to the rules here the Ultimate Aero TT should be bumped until confirmation that at least 20 have been built can be made. Meio (talk) 19:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

First automobile manufacturer

How can Mercedes-Benz be the first automobile manufacturer? There was no such thing as a Mercedes Benz until 1926 when Daimler and Benz merged. The Benz company was indeed founded in 1871, but surely a car manufacturer is only a car manufacturer when it manufacturers cars? something Benz did not do until 1885! By the same logic you could say that Land-Rover should hold this accolade given that its antecendent companies, Rover and Starley were making bicycles in 1869. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.179.248 (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Largest bore and stroke

This article should have the largest bore and stroke. What are the numbers? The biggest bore I can think of is 4.30in, the Cadillac 472 and 500 engines. The longest stroke I can think of is the Vortec 8100 with a 4.37" stroke. 99.240.243.25 (talk) 16:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Many brass era cars will beat both. The '21 Napier, for instance, was 4×5″ bore/stroke; the Stearns 45 5½×5⅜, the '15 Austin (later the Highway King) stroke was 6", to name just 3. Trekphiler (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah there were certainly some odd engines back in the day. A 13L Bugatti inline-4 is going to have a pretty big bore and stroke! What about postwar cars? 99.240.243.25 (talk) 22:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Higher diesel rpm

I would like to know which is the car with the fastest-turning diesel engine. The fastest I know is the Mercedes Benz OM-604 which is cutting injection at 5300rpm. Does anyone knows any higher? 1913boxer (talk

First Standard seat belt

I am sure that the Volvo Amazon, which came out in 1956, was the first car to have seat belts as standard equipment. The Volvo Amazon was also the first car to have three point seat belts as well. Indigo iMac (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

question to answer

what is the longest wheelbase for a american production vehicle. what year and model

Longest commercial vehicle update

The longest vehicle is actually the Mercedes Sprinter Jumbo, which is 7.3 metres long Davez621 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:48, 5 November 2008 (UTC).

Oh! My head!

I started to work on corrections (*Cough*Subaru 360*cough*) and then walked away. Wayyyy too many categories. Largest W16? - Richfife (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Prod

I'm neutral on it. I don't like the article, but it's kind of inevitable. - Richfife (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to see if something can be made of the article, but my edits shouldn't be interpreted as an endorsement of its existence. - Richfife (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I proposed the prod, and I was one of the main contributors during the article's infancy, but right now, I feel a deletion is inescapable. I admit most of the stuff I added counted as OR, because I actively searched for items that trumped existing ones, but I didn't try finding a source claiming they were the first, or smallest, or largest. The "rule" for 20 examples (which was used mainly for the engine categories) was not by me, though, although I enforced it. --Pc13 (talk) 19:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

First air conditioning?

"First air conditioning - 1938 Studebaker Commander"

I had always heard it was the 1939 Packard. All the cross-referencing I've done corroborates this. What source cites the 1938 Studebaker Commander? Rael007 (talk) 17:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)Rael007

If you have a reference for it and the existing entry doesn't, don't hesitate to change it. This page is a "My uncle knew a guy that met a guy in a bar once who's brother in law worked with a guy who said he once saw a Foo with Fee attached to it" disaster area. - Richfife (talk)

Correction / Question re: Most torque & Performance

The article says most torque for a petrol engine is the Veyron at 1250 Nm, however in the article for the SSC Ultimate Aero TT it is mentioned that it has 1,483 Nm. Also, the list mentions a 0-60mph performance of 2.3 seconds for the Ultima GTR while the article for the car itself mentions only 2.6 seconds. I think the Veyron should be placed here with a time of 2.46 according to http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/FirstDrives/Bugatti-Veyron-8.0-W16/217427/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.71.152.62 (talk) 18:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)