Talk:List of automotive superlatives/Archive 6

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.

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

First fiberglass monocoque

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

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

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

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

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

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

Electric cars

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

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

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

Redlines

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

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

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

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

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

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

Smallest V10 honorable mention.

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

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

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

What style

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

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

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

Smallest V4

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

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

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

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

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

Album version?

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

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

Smallest flat-4?

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

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

Least Expensive car

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

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

A note about BMW 2.0 twin turbo Diesel power output

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

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

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

Tallest Car

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

First Air conditioned Car

I question the listing of '1938 Studebaker Commander' under this heading. There is no mention of 'air conditioning' in the linked article nor of Studebaker in the Auto Air Conditioning Wiki. AS a member of the Studebaker Drivers Club,I know of no production air conditioned cars in the Thirties, however there might have been some prototype activity in that direction, considering Raymond Loewy was retained at that time. The citation should be "1939 Packard" in terms of production, or 1930 Cadillac, but that was a custom installation for a Huston Millionaire.

Rod Barclay, Argyle, TX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.38.245 (talk) 06:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

first car with a 18 cylinder engine ?

if there are any. i know only the Bugatti EB118 and the Bugatti EB218 , but they are concept car. 82.60.180.188 (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Smallest turbocharged and smallest supercharged engine ?

i think the smallest turbocharged engine it's the TwinAir 875 cc used in the Fiat 500. what about the smallest supercharged ? 82.60.180.188 (talk) 15:53, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it is the smallest currently produced but without much searching I can point to the Suzuki F6A engine in the likes of the Autozam AZ-1 with is 657cc and turbo'd. -Oosh (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Most powerful n/a engine

Pagani Zonda 760RS is a one-off version, so the entry don't follow the "20 produced in the superlative version" rule. As Far as i know the Aston Martin One-77 is the most powerful natural aspired engined car produced in more than 20 pieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.38.250.240 (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Most specific engine output (power per unit displacement)

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

Most specific power (power to weight ratio)

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

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

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

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

Ariel Atom V8 (25 produced), 3 litre engine, 500 bhp, that's 166,7 bhp per litre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.80.37.212 (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Further bit. Power-to-weight ratios for Diesels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.196.29.86 (talk) 12:46, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Changed the car for "Petrol/Gasoline (forced-induction) piston engine" back to the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution FQ-400, from the SSC Aero. SSC Aero has a 387.2 cu in engine(387.2 (cu in) = 6.34507118 liters) and claims 1287hp, 1287 / 6.34507118 = 202.834604. So the SSC Aero has about 202.8hp per liter. The Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution FQ-400 has a 1997cc engine (1997cc = 1.997 liters) and claims 405.2hp, 405.2 / 1.99700 = 202.904357. So the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution FQ-400 has about 202.9hp per liter. All of these numbers come from the official Wikipedia pages and can be confirmed elsewhere. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSC_Ultimate_Aero_TT and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Sirius_engine#4G63 72.199.145.171 (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

User 212.118.143.38 tried to change the above comment to say that the FQ-400 was a dealer fitted kit rather than a factory model. Stepho talk 22:01, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

SSC Aero for removal

Unfortunately, we have to remove all the entries with SSC Aero (all versions) from this list. Despite original claims to build 25 of them, in fact, Jerod Shelby stated that he only made 15 cars before Tuatara. Quote "Shelby calls the new design bold, futuristic and cutting edge and says the previous 15 Shelby cars were all a prelude to this model.". Link: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/08/driving-the-ssc-ultimate-aero-worlds-second-fastest-car/1#.UId7fsXMh8E
What do you think?IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 05:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Completely agree, especially as the (arbitrary) rules of this page state "Production numbers - The "20 produced" rule refers to the superlative version, not just the named model in general." which means that if they only made 15 Aeros, that amounts to less than 2 per version. Even if it were the Ultimate Aero series of Aeros it's still only around 2 or 3 per version. As such the SSC Aero does not qualify. Does anyone know what it replaced in the list?Meio (talk) 15:01, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Fuel economy

Sorry, I know my comment may be rather useless this way, but... the data included in the section Fuel Economy is simply false. There's more than 40 different cars with over 70 MPG, check for instance http://carfueldata.direct.gov.uk/search-by-fuel-economy.aspx. I don't have the time or energy to make the edition, but this section is worse than nothing this way.Csdani84 (talk) 21:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This section was rendered useless by editing the list based on the numbers of the EPA. If you restrict the source to the EPA I don't see a point of having the list. The section should use the numbers given by the car makers and maybe have a note if the actual mileage differs drastically from the given. The most economical diesels are the Audi A2 1.2 3L TDI and VW Lupo 3L TDI with 3L/100km or 78,1mpg. The most economical gasoline is the VW Polo V bluemotion with 3,3L/100km or 71,3mpg. Those informations can be obtained from their respective article here. As for the other cars, I'm not certain, but I think the Tesla Roadster is the most economical all-electric car. For the electric and hybrid cars there should also be a different unit than MPG, MPGe or L/100km or at least a link to the article of MPGe. SkySilver (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add that you would need to have different classes for fuel economy. One for each drivecycle. The NEDC and the FTP-75 being the two most used ones, for Europe and the US respectively. Though of course this will be changed in time when the world adopts the World Light Test Procedure...hopefully. Though when that happens the fuel economy figures are likely to drop due to the transient behaviour of the cycle, and increasing emission legislation which has reduces fuel economy further. So you'd probably have to list at least 3 drive cycles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.22.66.54 (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

removing Hennessey Venom GT

i think the Hennessey Venom GT should be removed from the list since, according to their official website [[4]], The Hennessey Venom GT design is based on the Lotus Elise / Exige. The Venom GT is created from a base Lotus Elise / Exige and utilizes components including but not limited to the roof, doors, side glass, windscreen, dash, cockpit, floorpan, HVAC system, wiper and head lamps. Hennessey Performance and the Venom GT are not associated with Lotus Cars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.58.218.192 (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

20 car limit in the definition

There is a discussion on the 20 car limit at Talk:List of fastest production cars#Page protected/20 car limit - new discussion.

The question being considered:

Is the restriction of have had 20 or more instances made currently being used by this list appropriate
If not, what changes should be made to the definition

The list currently uses the same definition as the list of automotive superlatives:

In order to keep the entries relevant, the list (except for the firsts section) is limited to automobiles built after World War II, and lists superlatives for earlier vehicles separately. The list is also limited to production road cars that:

are constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, and to transport people on public roads (no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible);
have had 20 or more instances made by the original vehicle manufacturer, and offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition (cars modified by either professional tuners or individuals are not eligible);
are street-legal in their intended markets, and capable of passing any official tests or inspections required to be granted this status.

An alternative definition from the List of fastest cars by acceleration is:

This list includes full production cars only; concept, modified, very limited-production, and race cars of any kind are not considered. If an independent time becomes available, that time will be listed over the manufacturer's time regardless if the latter is quicker. NealeFamily (talk) 20:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

To many cars "sui generis". Rule proposal

To many entries in the list are occupied by cars "sui generis" wich aren't really representative of the automotive industry: The peel P50 alone take 6 entries, the Ariel atom 3 and the Caparo T1 2. Those are really to much of their own league to be representative of the car industry just as example: The Highest N/A specific power is taken by the Caparo T1 with 159.3 hp/liter when the best in the "real car" car industry is around 125hp/liter: Honda S2000, Ferrari 458, Porsche 911 RS 4.0. I think that the article must highlight the best that is attained by the real representatives of the car industry and not by car novelties like a barely stret legal race car.

So I'm proposing to add this rule to wich cars must comply to be eligibles for an entry:

"Automobiles which has at least one door on each side and a minimum of two seats situated one on each side of the longitudinal centre line of the car; these two seats must be crossed by the same transversal plane. This car must be able to be used perfectly legally on the open road."

This way we can cut off, single seaters and car with tandem seats and set free a dozen of positions for models more depictive of the car industry.

37.117.239.222 (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC) Will 37.117.239.222 (talk) 13:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Always a bit tricky to decide which cars to include and which to block. If you block tandem seaters then you block cars such as the German bubble cars (eg Messerschmitt KR200). I'd stick to the road-legal part (to cut off race cars) but otherwise leave the doors and seats free. Afterall, this article is about the extremes of motoring, not the average. Stepho talk 07:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Specific Torque Units

The converted values for specific torque (lbf.ft/L) mix systems of units. I played around with the {{Convert}} template but, short of adding Nm/L and lbf.ft/in^3 to the template, there doesn't seem to be a way to do a proper conversion of this particular combination of units. I propose to hand convert (using sMath) the units directly from Nm/L to lbf.ft/in^3. Does anyone object?--Tedd (talk) 18:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Multi-valve?

I know not from whence came the notion that the Dolly Sprint had the first production 4-valve engine, since the Multi-valve article seems to suggest that this honour fell to the 1917 Stutz T-head I4. The 1921 Bentley 3-litre was also a 16V four, with SOHC, a trait shared with all W.O. Bentley engines until they became badge-engineered Rollers. Am I missing something blindingly obvious? Mr Larrington (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

ariel atom listed as "race car"

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

I'd second that; I've seen at least three Atoms on the road in places as far apart as Battle Mountain NV and the M11 in Essex. Mr Larrington (talk) 01:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

First Four Wheel Drive Car

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

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

The first Lohner-Porsche was shown to the public in 1900, but it was never commercially viable, even according to the Dr. Ing. himself. Variations on the theme were produced until 1915 but I aten't been able to find any numbers. Mr Larrington (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Where did the engine capacity superlatives go?

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

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

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

The Bug had the 848cc Reliant engine. Mr Larrington (talk) 02:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)