Talk:List of fastest production cars by acceleration/Archive 1

are the times correct?
The time for the first car on the list is 1.4. A car can't possibly go from 0 to 100 Km/h in 1.4 seconds. Also, the time for the second car is 1.85, but when you follow the link, the 0-100Kmh acceleration time for this car is closer to 3. Is there something I'm missing, or are the number plainly bogus? Jorge Peixoto 22:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you click on the numbered links (not the wikipedia links) next to the cars, you will be linked to the manufacturers page (for Hennessey) where they state 1.85 s. As for the Halltech, that seems to be a one-off car, with little information available, yet it seems to be in line with the Lingenfelter/Hennessey cars in how it is tuned. Maybe it's a typo, but until we can find some verification... User:Gunter

Top speed
Shouldn't the list include one for the top speeds as well? 71.250.17.62 19:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be a seperate list. Gunter 19:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

0-100-0mph World Record
The Ultima GTR has recently blitzed the World Record for accelerating from 0mph to 100mph and back to 0mph (0-100-0) in a ratified time of 9.4 seconds. In the course of this, the car improved it's time of 2.7 seconds to 62mph in a time of 2.6 seconds. Table has been modified accordingly. What an acheivement!! Kiwichipster 04:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Mixing concept cars, one-offs and production cars
This is simply unacceptable. You can't possibly compare them as they are totally different beasts. First of all, the numbers for concept cars are most often theoretical. Numbers from tuners are notoriously inaccurate. --SpinyNorman 09:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You can add a column stating the type of each car, but do not change the list format. The list shows any road-legal car, it does not matter if it is a concept, factory or tuned. Also each has a link either to the manufacturer or tester which shows the acceleration figure Gunter 11:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The current list format is wrong and completely unacceptable. I am changing it to more accurately reflect the real world - that is not "vandalism".  I think you must not understand what a "concept car" really is.  Most concept cars are dummies built for car shows to promote the company.  Many aren't even capable of being driven on the road and none of them are street-legal.  The reason is that they are prototypes built for promotional purposes and there is no reason for the manufacturer to have them certified for road use.  Mentioning them as a matter of interest is one thing but they cannot reasonably be compared to production cars.  As for tuner cars, listing the claims of the tuner is pointless as the figures they give are typically theoretical and few of them are independently verified.  The idea that a Corvette (regardless of the torque of its engine) can accelerate from 0-60 in 1.4 seconds in street-legal tires is absurd - particularly when the car in question is a turbocharged, front-engine, rear-wheel-drive vehicle.  That claim doesn't pass the laugh test.  --SpinyNorman 16:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Page protection
I see there's a revert war so I've protected the page for some time out. Please try to reach agreement on the talk page instead of reverting. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's not start this again
I've made it abundantly clear how the entries I removed don't meet either the criteria for inclusion in the article or wikipedia's own requirements for verifiability. The article specifically and explicitly states that the cars must be road-legal in their intended market. In addition, the claims must be independently verifiable as per wikipedia policy. So, that rules out ALL concept cars and those tuner cars whose performance hasn't been independently verified. If you have a problem with this then say so but don't just revert the page without talking about it first. --SpinyNorman 11:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to rediscuss the same problems again. You cannot bulk edit, you can bring up individual cars and we can discuss. You POV as to which manufacturers are admissible and which not is absurd. You should be banned from Wikipedia with your constant 3RR and other disruptive behaviour. Your talk page is full of complaints that you obviously do not understand. Gunter 18:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Look, the criteria for inclusion in this article is clear: the car has to be street legal.  As I have REPEATEDLY tried to explain to you, concept cars aren't street legal.  If you don't understand what a concept car is, you have no business editing this article.  And I have brought up the cars I have removed for discussion and you have, so far, provided no valid argument for why they should remain - thus I have deleted them and will continue to delete them until you can provide evidence that supports their inclusion.  --SpinyNorman 05:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You have not proven anything, you don't seem to understand how wikipedia works, items are discussed before they are edited en mass. You are just being disruptive and hostile. I have removed the Camaro Concept. You have yet to discuss any others. And as for your removal of reputable tuners claiming whatever they say is wrong, is laughable. Gunter 11:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * We have discussed things repeatedly and you have repeatedly failed to make your case for the inclusion of cars that violate both the criteria of the article (i.e. any concept car, since they are by definition not street legal) and the policies of wikipedia (i.e. the unverifiable claims of tuners). Cars whose inclusion cannot be supported are removed, it is as simple as that.  Your belligerence in repeatedly trying to restore cars in violation of policy and without supporting evidence for their inclusion is the only "hostile and disruptive" activity going on here.  You are invited to stop anytime you like.  --SpinyNorman 06:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, I removed the Brabus-tuned SLR and Lingenfelter Viper because there is no indepedent confirmation of their performance. Also the Lotus GT1 since there's no evidence it ever got past the prototype phase and, as such, isn't street legal.  I also removed the Aston Martin V8 Le Mans.  Awesome car though it certainly is, the idea that it could, at 4,300 lbs, lumber to 60mph in 3.8 seconds is laughable.  More realistic claims put the 0-60 time at around 5 seconds ...  awe-inspiring for a cars of its bulk to be sure but well outside consideration for inclusion here.  --SpinyNorman 06:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to remove an entry, you can bring each individual car up here for discussion, you do not just remove 50 cars from the list. Gunter 10:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The reasoning for concept cars and unverified claims for tuners are all the same for each, there is no point in discussing each case individually. The fact is that the cars I removed are not eligible for inclusion as per the criteria of this page and wikipedia policy in general.  Until and unless you can provide evidence that supports their inclusion, they cannot be included.  If you provide (a) evidence that the car in question is street-legal and (b) evidence that the acceleration times have been independently verified then the car in question can be added to the list.  But until you can do both of those things, they stay gone.  --SpinyNorman 19:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So now you're just reverting without any discussion at all? I've told you, if you can provide evidence to support the inclusion of a given car, then the car can be included.  If you can't provide such evidence, why are you bothering to include it?  --SpinyNorman 16:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, in my understanding of Wikipedia policy, primary references can only be used in an article about that subject. In the case of this article, that doesn't apply, so we should use secondary references. Addhoc 16:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Regarding Gunter's comment, could we start by discussing Hennessey. The source being used is a primary source and of course should be a reliable and reputable secondary source, such as for example, The Times newspaper used for the Veryon. Addhoc 19:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ABSOLUTELY! And thank you for your willingness to discuss this reasonably.  I have taken the liberty of creating a separate section below and copying your remark into it to keep things simpler.  (note to Gunter:  See how this is done?  Maybe you should stop violating wiki policy and stop vandalising the page.  If you did, you'd get farther than you are now.  If you insist on keeping up this behavior, I'm going to have to consider your actions to be "blanking" under the vandalism policy and that will free me up from the 3RR limitation.)

Discussing the Hennessey
Regarding Gunter's comment, could we start by discussing Hennessey. The source being used is a primary source and of course should be a reliable and reputable secondary source, such as for example, The Times newspaper used for the Veryon. Addhoc 19:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean the 1.85 second 0-60 claim? The problem I have with tuners in general (and Hennessey in particular) is that their claims are, to put it as politely as possible, inherently suspect.  Hennessey has a history of questionable business practices and claims.  In addition, the claim that a street-legal, turbcharged Viper can so substantially out-accelerate a Bugatti Veyron is, to put it again as politely as possible, EXTREMELY suspect.  So, given the history of unreliability of tuner claims and Hennessey claims in particular, combined with the questionable nature of the claim, I don't see how the car can be on this list without independent verification of the claim.  I agree with your interpretation of the wiki policy on the admissibility of evidence.  This article isn't about Hennessey, so using Hennessey as support for competitive claims simply isn't in keeping with wiki policy.  I would also like to ask your help in keeping Gunter at bay until we can settle this.  He simply isn't willing to listen to logic or reason.  It would help the article if we can keep his unsupported reverts from damaging the content.  I would prefer not to have to argue that his edits now qualify as vandalism.  Hopefully, between the two of us, we can keep things on the right track.  (SpinyNorman)

Yes, I agree, this a highly suspect claim that should be verified by a reliable and reputable source. However, I don't agree that Gunter is a vandal. Accordingly, would Gunter like to comment on my interpretation of policy? Addhoc 20:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you agree that the claim is both suspect and, according to wiki policy, must be independently verified before being accepted for this article. In fact, I would argue that even if the claim *is* verified, that the independent referee should be the source for the article rather than Hennessey.  I'm disappointed you don't feel that Gunter is engaging in vandalism, frankly, I'm a loss as to how else you could describe someone who arbitrarily wipes out edits by others that have been repeated discussed and supported.  Oh well.  I guess I can't win 'em all.  ;-)  --SpinyNorman 20:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm am so tired of having to go over the same arguments again and again, and now watch as a vandal trys to make me the guilty one. Norman is simply unable to follow wikipedia guidelines. If he wants to make a change to the list, bring the individual car up here for discussion, and if a CONSENSUS is reached (spiny doesn't know what that means) we will make a change. He continually butchers the entire list with generalizations, no matter what the consensus is. As for having supplied any evidence, he has not, he continualy raves on about how any vendor who posts a figure is suspect. Saying a vendor's figure is suspect because they obtain it under the most ideal conditions is absurd, since that is what every vendor would do. Yet in his ignorance assumes that there is such a thing as an independant review, show me an unbiased magazine that prints bad results for a vendor that is advertizing with them, if they did they would not be in business long. Also how can i vandalise my own article, i wrote practically the entire list, as such i have an unwritten obligation to keep vandalism out, since no one else is. I have no problem removing entries that are wrong, but lets discuss them first (spiny cannot comprehend this, as you see above i have been trying to explain this simple concept to him for 2 weeks non-stop!). As for policy, i feel if a vendor stakes their reputation on a statement we as an encyclopedic article are not here to give our POV is the vendor is lying, otherwise you might as well delete 50% of all wikipedia content. As i have offered norman, add an extra column and make comments like "unverified, concept, tuned, production" etc. The criteria for inclusion (which i wrote) is road-legal cars, so all tuners cars are road-legal, and as for the concepts and one-offs we can dicuss them individually, i don't have the time to discuss 50 cars at one as spiny would like, that is unrealistic. Gunter 00:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Gunter, on this page we should only be discussing this article in terms of existing WP policy. If you want to suggest changes to WP policy, then fine, but suggest those changes on the talk page of the appropriate policy. In this context, current policy indicates we should use secondary not primary sources. Accordingly, could I request, you don't attempt to reintroduce the information based on primary sources, until we have found a consensus? Addhoc 11:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (sigh) Let me try to explain this to you once again. You cannot include material here in violation of both wiki policy and the page's own criteria for inclusion and then sit back and expect people to not challenge your attempts to do so.  The fact remains that the majority of OEM vendors obtain independent confirmation of their claims (e.g. Bugatti, Ultima, etc, ad nauseum) but none of the tuners you have listed here do so.  Wiki policy forbids using biased claims like those of the vendors for comparison purposes such as this article.  That is not subject to question, it is black letter wiki pol

barabus tkr
I've removed it from the top of the list since, as far as I know, it hasn't been independently verified which is one of the main criteria for getting on this list. The car is also not in production yet so it doesn't qualify as being "available for sale to the public". In fact I'm surprised this got on the list in the first place, everybody knows they'll never achieve those figures.--Santahul 00:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Cars that are unacceptable for inclusion on this list
1. Any tuner vehicle (especially from Hennessey) whose performance hasn't been independently confirmed. 2. Any "concept car" or car that is not planned for production. 3. Any car that *is* planned for production but hasn't yet actually entered production and become available for sale to the public. And by "available for sale", I don't mean that the company is taking deposits, I mean that someone with a fat wallet can walk into a showroom somewhere and drive out in one of these cars. SpinyNorman 21:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If a vendor posts a figure on their website, that is acceptable. A concept car is still a car, and thus belongs on the list. Any prototype car is still a car, and thus belongs on the list.
 * This is a list of the fastest "cars", not the fastest "production cars" or whatever subdivision you are trying to achieve, if that is what you want create a new article with the title "List of fastest production cars by acceleration" and stop vandalising this article. Gunter 22:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The criteria for inclusion is clear - this list is open to street-legal cars only. Concept cars, by definition aren't street legal.  You don't seem to understand what a concept car is.  If you did, you'd understand why they have no place on this list.  Concept cars are never intended to be made street-legal.  They have an entirely different set of design criteria and many of them don't even run.  As for tuner cars, if there is independent verification of their performance, then they can be included.  But the unverified claims of the manufacturer based on who-knows-what kind of special conditions for the "test" don't cut any ice.  BTW, just because you don't agree with something, that doesn't make it vandalism.   --SpinyNorman 03:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Which part of "Go make a seperate article" don't you understand? Gunter 10:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Which part of "this list is open to street-legal cars only" don't YOU understand? Do you understand what a concept car is?  Were you aware that, for example, the Audi Avus was never roadworthy?  Did you know that the car that everyone saw at the show had an engine that was carved out of wood?  --SpinyNorman 21:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As i said before, if you want to question an entry, bring it up here and we can discuss it. Do not bulk edit the article, that is not how things are done in wikipedia. If you want to create a new article containing only whatever limitation on cars you want, go ahead, but leave this list alone. Gunter 21:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have brought it up here and you ignore it. You refuse to accept the criteria for inclusion on this page and insist on adding cars to the list that have never actually been built.  --SpinyNorman 05:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You have not mentioned individual entries, one by one. Once you do we can discuss them Gunter 12:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll start: The #1 Entry was the Halltech Corvette with 1.4 s, i removed that because i can only find one website which even mentions the car, not even then vendor mentions this car on their website. Next, 1.85s 2006 Hennessey Dodge Viper SRT10 Venom 1000 Twin Turbo, the rule should be that if a vendor posts a figure on their website it is acceptable. If the figure would not be correct the vendor would be liable for false advertising. Gunter 13:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Without independent conformation, the claimed of tuners like Hennessey aren't worth the paper on which they are printed. Hennessey in particular has a very dodgy reputation both in terms of the quality of the work they do and the veracity of their claims .  You are mistaken about the legal liability for internet posting.  Show a single example of a vendor suffering legal penalties for inaccurate information posted on the internet.  It doesn't happen.  As a practical matter, vendors can say what they like on their websites and even if they get called on it, they can simply claim it is either a typo or a mistake made by their webmaster.  Internet claims don't have the same weight as those in the mainstream press.


 * Next, the SVT Mustang. That doesn't belong here because it is not planned for production and, as such, is not street legal.  There's not even any evidence that the performance claims have been verified by real-world testing - much less independently confirmed.


 * Lingenfelter's claims are more robust that Hennessey's, but they still don't make the cut here. The reprinted article in the link, had you taken the time to read it, states clearly that Motor Trend magazine wasn't able to get reliable acceleration stats because the car was constantly breaking traction (as if that should come as a surprise to anyone).  That's the problem with these outrageous claims of acceleration from turbocharged, front-engine, rear-wheel-drive cars...  Perhaps if you understood the engineering problems, you'd see why the issue is so problematic.  Let me explain:  The high weight of the Corvette is a double-edged sword.  On one hand, it increases traction (which is necessary to convert the torque at the wheels into forward movement) but on the other hand it also increases the intertia that must be overcome in order to accelerate the car.  However, the increase in traction doesn't compensate for the increase in inertia.  In other words, they're fighting a losing battle.  In addition, a turbocharged, pushrod V8 has pretty much exactly the opposite operational characteristics that you want for fast acceleration in a performance car.  In a high-powered performance car, you want the peak power relative high up (in terms of revs).  This operates as a sort of natural traction control so that, off the line, torque is relatively low.  This reduces the tendency for wheelspin.  However, as the car accelerates and as the revs climb, you want torque to increase in a fairly linear fashion - as the car's capacity to handle more torque also increases.  A pushrod V8 (as used in the Corvette) has the characteristics of a truck engine - bags of torque at low revs.  Ditto for the pushrod V10 as found in the Dodge Viper.  This is great when you're carrying a big load or towing something heavy, but it sucks for performance cars - unless you like "burning rubber".  Turbochargers make things worse by not only increasing low-down torque but destroying the linearity of delivery.  As the turbos kick in at, say, 2500 rpm, there is a huge surge of power.  It is one thing if you've strapped a turbo or two to a small-displacement engine whose power output is nowhere near the traction limit of the tires - as Japanese manufacturers like to do.  Such an application gives a big "whack in the back" as the driver opens the throttle from a standing start.  This is why teenaged "boy racers" love them - it exaggerates the power delivery.  However, in a car like the Corvette whose engine already delivers more than enough torque to break traction from a standing start, the addition of turbocharging is disastrous for acceleration performance.  This is why such a car cannot reliably accelerate as quickly as something like the Bugatti Veyron - with its sophisticated computerized traction control systems and (much more importantly) four-wheel drive.  What even the most conservative and sober tuners do is they go out and run dozens (perhaps hundreds) of acceleration runs and then simply take the one fluke run in which they got a good, fast time.  The odds of even a professional driver replicating those times is vanishingly small.  Look at the facts, even the Veilside Skyline can only manage 0-60 times in the low 3-second range and it not only has a better power:weight ratio than the Corvette, but it also has four-wheel drive.  In addition, it is running a smaller-displacement, overhead cam straight-six rather than the giant pushrod V8 in the Corvette.  This gives the Skyline FAR better operating characteristics for this kind of application.  The idea that ANY turbocharged Corvette or Viper in street tires could even come close to the Veilside Skyline is laughable.


 * The Caparo hasn't been built yet so it isn't yet street legal and no one has had the opportunity to independently evaluate the manufacturer's claims... If and when these things happen and the theoretical performance has been shown to be real, then the car can be added to the list.  But not until then.


 * The Dauer Porsche... no independent confirmation.  Until that happens, the acceleration figures are just unsupported fantasy.


 * The Chevy Camaro ZL1 Concept... Do you understand that concept cars are, by definition, not street-legal?  In most cases, they don't even really exist in the forms talked about by the manufacturer.  The Ford GT-90 is a perfect example.  The one prototype they built was a cobbled-together "frankenstein monster" that was, according to British automotive journalist Jeremy Clarkson, horrible to drive even at 40mph.  The performance claims were all theoretical, as the prototype was never going to be capable of testing them.  In the case of the Camaro, the car was never built, so those claims could never be tested.  How can a car that was never built be street-legal?


 * ...do you want me to continue? SpinyNorman 18:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, i want you to continue, but spare me the condecending arrogance. Just state your points.

Re: Hennessey and Lingenfelter, i disagree, their figures are published and as such are valid. Otherwise you might as well question every vendor and magazine claim as suspect, since everyone strives for the best result under the best conditions. And in the case of magazines, don't call them independant, they can have a vendor bias depending on who is paying for the advertising that week.


 * The unsupported claims of Hennessey and Lingenfelter are worthless - particularly. That's true of any vendor and it is also why Ultima had independent auditors come in and verify their performance claims - they understood that no one would accept their unsupported word for such astonishing performance claims.  However, the auditors came and verified Ultima's claims and established their validity.  Hennessey and Lingenfelter can talk out of their ass all they like, but until they submit an actual vehicle to independent scrutiny, they're not worthy of being taken seriously.  --SpinyNorman 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The SVT Boss Mustang also stays, it doesn't have to be "production" to be a "car", and it was street-legal.
 * I don't think you really understand what it takes for a major manufacturer to get a car declared "street legal" in the US. It costs tens of millions of dollars and, therefore, is only undertaken for production vehicles.  Concept cars are, by definition, not street-legal.  I wonder how many more times I have to explain this to you before you get it.  I suppose you'll find that condescending but it is a legitimate question.  I have repeated tried to explain this to you and you have repeatedly either ignored the fact or failed to grasp it.  Which is it?  --SpinyNorman 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * the article quotes says they drove it to the track, implying street legality. Gunter 02:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It implies nothing of the sort. There's nothing in the link about them driving the car to the track.  Even if there was, there's nothing that implies the car jumped thorough the various DOT hoops to be certified for road use.  And the fact that there is only one of these vehicles is proof that it isn't street legal.  Part of the testing procedure includes the consumption of several donor vehicles for various crash tests.  In any case, it would be sheer foolishness for Ford to spend the money and engineering resources to get a car certified for road use that they have no intention of ever selling to anyone. --SpinyNorman 03:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The Caparo can go as it isn't out yet. The Camaro concept was built and was tested. Concept does not mean it cannot or was not street-legal.


 * Yes, actually, it DOES mean that it isn't street legal. There is no reason why a manufacturer would go to the effort and expense (considerable in both cases) of certifying a concept car for use on public roads.  Why?  Because concept cars won't be driven by the public on public roads.  Care to explain why the Big Three would spend tens of millions of dollars to certify a car that no one will ever drive on public roads?  I didn't think so.  Take an example like TVR.  They manufacture several hundred cars per year for sale in the UK and Europe.  The only reason they can do this is because, under British and European law, "low-volume" manufacturers (like TVR, Noble, Marcos, Ultima, etc. et al.) are entitled to special exemptions and expedited approval that is not available to major manufacturers.  They are not entitled to this special treatment in North America.  This is why the companies I mentioned (with two exceptions) do not sell cars in North America.  It simply wouldn't be profitable.  As for the two exceptions...  Noble gets around it by pretending to sell their cars as a "kit".  If someone wants to buy a Noble badly enough, they can contact the company who arrange to have a car without engine or transaxle shipped to the US where the buyer can arrange to purchase the drivetrain separately and have it installed.  Ultima actually does offer their vehicles in kit form.  --SpinyNorman 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Dauer is valid, it is a street-legal racing car, why would you doubt the figures.
 * That isn't the question. The question is why would you blindly accept unverified figures?
 * The Porsche 962 race cars has documented figures. Gunter 02:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Where? --SpinyNorman 03:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The GT-90 is also valid, it ran and acheived the acceleration listed.


 * ROTFLMAO! Why on earth would you think that?  Jeremy Clarkson, a respected British auto journalist is on record as saying that he was one of the few who was allowed to drive the prototype and that it was everything that those few prototypes actually capable of being driven usually are...  very pretty to look at and HORRIBLE to drive.  It wasn't capable of exceeding about 40mph and drove like an Escort that had been in a terrible accident.  When car companies build show cars, they're just that...  for show.  Typically, they contract the construction out to a small manufacturer who specializes in custom fabrication for the simple reason that the big manufacturers don't have the ability to make one-offs in a cost-effective manner.  In the case of the GT90, it was cobbled together from pieces out of the Ford parts bin that were bolted onto a custom fabricated steel-tube chassis able to take the body panels.  The engine block actually started life as two Ford V8s that had one pair of cylinders lopped off and were then electron-beam welded together to form a V12 block.  You would never do this in an actual manufacturing situation.  But then the rules are different for concept cars.  The prototype engine wasn't capable of anything remotely resembling the output claims made for it.  The output and performance claims were engineering targets.  In other words, they were a goal for the engineers who might be put on the project to reach if possible.  That's how cars are designed.  That's the reason the Bugatti Veyron took so long to be released.  The engineering targets were extremely ambitious and when they kept failing to be met, VAG made the decision to postpone release of the vehicle until the targets were met, rather than holding fast to the release date but with a compromized vehicle.  --SpinyNorman 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe you should correct the GT-90 Wikipedia page which says it ran, i checked elsewhere and like you said it never did. So it can go Gunter 02:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I will correct the page. They were also wrong about the origin of the engine.  --SpinyNorman 03:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to redefine 1. as shouldn't this list be for production cars as tuner cars are usually one-offs, as as result, I have now removed 1 tuner cars and 1 race cars from this list —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willirennen (talk • contribs) 22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

LP640
The LP640 has two entries, which contradicts the rules at the top of the article. 74.130.215.240 00:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Street Legal/Tuner/Concept
Just one more issue to consider: If a one-off tuner car can be considered on the list why not street legal Race cars like say Rod Saboury's various Corvette's running sub 7 second quarter mile times (probably <1 second 0-60 although I haven't found confirmation of this yet).

I guess my point is I feel this list should only include cars that have been licensed and driven on the street in some country around the world (doesn't have to be America). Any thoughts? Macutty 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

LP640
Did you delete the record??? there are two record but one of these 2006 others 2007.
 * No...  Λυδ α  cιτγ  00:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

S7
Isnt the saleen slr twin turbo the fastest car... this isnt correct
 * This isnt correct this list is not right. Forbes magazine comfirms that the saleen twin turbo is the fastest car, and on wikipedia there is no record times listed, therefore there is still a chance that I am correct, please look up your info.. the bugadi is not the fastest car! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.19.245 (talk • contribs)
 * The S7 has a claimed 0-60 time of 2.8s, so Forbes must be out of date.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  02:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hennessey 800TT
2.43 seconds - do we count this one?  Λυδ α  cιτγ  05:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

xjr15?
does the xjr15 qualify?0-60 in 3.1s 84.9.34.174 04:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently. Got a citation?  Λυδ α  cιτγ  04:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

street legal/production car/one off
this article should follow used by the fastest production car (top speed) there are so many home made dragsters, that the acceleration table would have 1000 tuned up drag racers, before it saw a real car, made by a real company. it should be production cars as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automotive_superlatives.

if someone wants a sep. table with a few notable non-production cars, and a few of the wild claims made by tuners etc, then thats would be a nice touch, but the main point of this article should conform to wikipedia's automotive superlatives.Sennen goroshi 05:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ferrari FXX
Ferrari FXX should be removed from the list. It is not street legal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.125.101 (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅  Λυδ α  cιτγ  03:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Motor Trend quote
A relevant quote from Motor Trend : Optimistic power claims from tuners make for splashy headlines, but what's really being delivered to the pavement is a whole different story.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  08:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Missing Car: Donkevoort
I have seen that the Donkevoort D8 270 was missing. It goes from 0 - 100 km/h in 3,8 seconds and a top speed of 260 km/h. This information is from a car catalogue made by the car magazine Carros. Carros has an online database but this car only is noted in the catalogue. Also you should be able to find something about this car on the site of Donkevoort and on the wikipedia page of Donkevoort there are also sources. I am not going to ad this in this article cause i first want to know what other people think about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.147.24.49 (talk) 11:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ariel Atom - different versions
The time for the Atom 2 300 is listed as 2.88 as a manufacturers claim however the original manufacturers claim was 2.9 and the 2.88 was measured by The Times. In addition, the top Atom 3 has a little more power and 0-60mph in 2.7 was claimed by the designer when he appeared on Fifth Gear. The Atom 3 500 is not yet available but has been suggested as 'significantly less than 2.5s'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.231.210.146 (talk) 19:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

missing cars
I want to note that this list is far from complete. I have done a lot of research on a lot of cars and there are defineately a ton of cars missing. Right off the bat I can tell that the Ferrari F-50, Isdera 112i, and Ford GT should be on the list. Also the qualifications for the cars are not specified. Does it only include production cars? I'm not sure that every car that is on the list now is really a production car. Or sould it even include drag racers? Heck, depeding on your defenition of a car and your qualifications for the cars that should be on this list; you could even include jet powered drag races. Those would blow away every car on the list. Anyhow this list isn't very accurate at all. Wikipedia is usually very accurate, but not when it comes to lists of this kind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.114.121 (talk) 01:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

lower top speeds?
I would be more interested in much lower speeds. Does anybody know if data is available for this, say from zero to 30km/h or 20 mph or 10m/s? --Theosch (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The times cannot be correct, for 1/4 Mile.
They are listed as being the same as the 60MPH times, also top fuel dragsters don't run a 1/4 mile in 2.4 seconds. --Indiana Don (talk) 21:45, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Porsche 911 Turbo
The time is supposed to be the fastest between the manufactures time and independent verifactions. The fastest time listed for the Porsche 911 Turbo is 3.2 seconds by independent verafaction, but the manufactures time of 3.4 seconds was used instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.212.209 (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

And the Porsche GT2 is missing too!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.146.202.178 (talk) 13:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Issues with the list
This list has changed a lot since I saw it several months ago, with notable cars missing. Where did the Ariel Atom and Saleen S7 go, for example? The Saleen is definitely a production car and the Atom is street legal at least in some of Europe.

Also, as another editor pointed out, the Porche 911 near the top does not properly show the fastest of the two times, and needs to be moved up the list.74.128.201.242 (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, the definition of "Production" is varied depending on the place or what guidebook you're checking, but that's not new. I note the times are based on tests at a specific location? If so, then it'd be on the constructors to ship over one of their cars if they'd specifically like it tested, and Saleen really doesn't seem to like to lend or sell much to Europe which is why it lacks testing in any of the general international benchmarks. The Atom? ...The exoskeleton chassis might flag it in some palaces. The US-produced version is just a kit car, which puts some of it into question. Not saying it shouldn't count (it's far more a "normal" production car than some of the others), but the technicalities should at least have been discussed on the talk page.
 * That Factory Five Racing GTM in the 1/4mi I'd say is extremely dubious since it's from a SRS. The website literally talks of it as an affordable bolt-on for power, so it's modified and not production. If you want to go that off-the-wall, someone find some data on the ~1000hp Gemballa (Carrera) GT kit-- actually that's technically production since Gemballa has status similar to how Saleen does in the US, but produce too few. ...Orr the Top Gear modified CCX perhaps. ...And where's the Ferrari FXX? Ok, rambling over. This obviously needs clean up and some kind of standard on what's considered "production". Europe has precise laws for that where the US, not-so-much-so. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

1986 Ford ES200 Evolution
I have added this car once before when the list was dramatically altered and many many cars were removed, and it appears it has been removed again. The car had 25 production models which were all street legal and was listed in the Guinness Book of World Records at 3.07 seconds. Not really sure what more independent verification would be needed then Guinness World Records. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rkrostin (talk • contribs) 20:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Caparo T1
the Caparo T1 is said to have a 0-60 time of 2.5 sec, with twice the horsepower per ton as a veyron i think it should go in between the Veyron and the Ultimate Aero —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.101.25.235 (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Why no rally cars?
Group B rally cars were production vehicles (200 had to be made - more than some cars proposed for this page) and most were available for sale to the public (e.g. Metro 6R4, Peugeot 205 T16, Ford RS200). I'd suggest only listing the performance times of the production version, not the works rally version of the vehicle which were often tuned to a much higher level than was sold to the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.150.246 (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Rally cars were not made 200 but homologation models, these have very often much lower power figures.... --Typ932 T&middot;C 20:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree, see section in first posting: "I'd suggest only listing the performance times of the production version, not the works rally version of the vehicle which were often tuned to a much higher level than was sold to the public." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.150.246 (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Bugatti Veyron
The Bugatti Veyron 16.4 somehow got dropped from the list, it should be put back. WikiLoverr (talk) 22:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC) The link for the Bugatti Veyron's 2.4 second time never said it could do 2.4 seconds although I've heard 2.46. Also the link is a Buggati site rather then independent verification. - Steven Mitchell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.8.250 (talk) 03:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

non street legal cars
should non street legal track cars like the FXX and the Zonda R be on this list? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.75.193.205 (talk) 00:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ferrari Enzo
The time listed of 3.14 is its 0-60mph time. Therefore, this is its 0-96.5kph time. It's 0-62mph (100kph) time is closer to the 3.4 second range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.63.191.17 (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Ultima GTR/Kit Cars
Ultima GTR is a kit car and so technically is not a production car. Lot of the Ultima GTRs were tuned by the owner with bigger superchargers etc. So the time is not accurate. The main question I guess is are kit cars allowed on the list AutoMoose (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Acceleration
This page would need separate table for 0-100 km/h and 0-60 mph, these are not comparable times -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 06:01, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Quarter mile time
I added this section by copying the 0-100km/h section as I think alot more people would want to know the quarter mile times of the fastest street legal cars over that of their 0-100km/h times. I prefer quarter mile times over 0-100km/h times always when I'm looking for fast cars. So can someone please delete all the copied times that I have not deleted and add in the quarter mile times instead, cheers. CartelCacique (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You need to find the quarter mile times before adding the table. Simply copying it and asking someone else to produce the information is going to work, it is very confusing for the reader to see this page in an incomplete state. --Leivick (talk) 17:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually quarter mile times are listed at Quarter mile. No reason to duplicate the info here as acceleration and quarter mile times are only partially related. --Leivick (talk) 17:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't have to, I am improving the article by adding in the Quarter mile section but I don't want to spend the arduous effort and time referencing and placing the times in the article which is why I am asking for help. Daniel instead of deleting something which you know is an improvement simply because it is easier to do so than filling in the table, why don't you instead fill the table in for everyone. Cheers, CartelCacique (talk) 19:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said, this is covered at Quarter mile. Acceleration and quarter mile times are not the same thing.  --Leivick (talk) 19:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes you said this but does not mean it is true. Dragstrip is the article so I don't know why you keep linking the redirect. And it does not cover it as effectively as this article would. Dragstrip just gives examples of not only cars to give a basic understanding of the article and concept. Please do not continue to revert my improvement just because you like 0-100km times. Cheers, CartelCacique (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I copied the list of times from dragstip. This is better than just duplicating the list of 0-60 times and hoping someone will improve it for us.  I still don't think it should be here, but at least it isn't as confusing as having two copies of the same list on one page and I am tired of revert warring with you. --Leivick (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I like this section however it needs updating, I believe the Lamborghini Aventador and SLS AMG would make appearances ahead of some of the other cars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.165.96 (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Nissan GT-R Reversion
Someone had posted the Nissan GT-R as doing a 9.1 second quarter mile citing a performance modification website. These naturally do not count, so I changed it back to the previous number of 11.2Fireemblem555 (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC) the 2013 gtr: Top speed: 321km/h (200mph) est.   0-60 mph time: 2.7 seconds 0-130 mph time: 8.89 seconds 1/4 mile time: 10.87 seconds @ 201km/h (125 mph) 30-0 mph: 26 ft. 60-0 mph: 106 ft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherwin090497 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

McLaren F1
Why McLaren F1 is not in the list? It is (was) production and street legal car. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.70.154 (talk) 01:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Independent claims
I think we should require independent claims for all cars. Saleen's claim, for example, of 2.8s for the Twin Turbo S7 seems unlikely considering that Car and Driver's test found 3.4s.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  20:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I shall implement this policy, unless someone objects.  Λυδ α  cιτγ  01:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. These manufacturer claims are largely for marketing. Laplacian 18:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree as well. I think these cars should only be ranked based on actual verified independent tests done by reputable groups. Manufacturers always "adjust" specs on cars. Horsepower sometimes can be significantly lower or higher. I have no doubt that many manufacturers use unreal world conditions when calculating some of their cars performance numbers.--70.151.53.66 (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The SSC Ultimate Aero only has a manufacturer claim listed as a reference, should it be removed until there is an independently verified time available? IJB TA (talk) 21:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit
''This page does not requite cars to be street legal. Only to be completely stock and not altered in any way.'' Then why not add Formula One racing cars? Production cars implies street legality. --Falcadore (talk) 02:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly, or TopFuel dragsters for that matter. IJB TA (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Audi Sport Quattro
The Audi Sport Quattro S1 with an acceleration of 0 to 100 km/h in 2.5sec. is missing. If you don`t believe it you can look it up on Wikipedia. Please add it
 * Ahh you are are wrong it says 3.1 seconds
 * eh, the whole article is off, for example an s8 but no r8? the r8 v10 does 3.5 according to the manifacturer where the s8 is stuck on 4.2 195.241.251.222 (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Then find a reference and add it in. --Falcadore (talk) 01:00, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed inclusion of 1968 Plymouth because of unreliable source .....
The source for this information was a forum. Unless there is a more credible source(s), than this listing doesn't deserve to be on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.113.3 (talk) 22:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Why does no one care about distance in time?
Like say feet in 10 seconds? It's measurable now with GPS. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

maxximus g-force production car?
I have serious doubts in this car being considered a production vehicle. I have not seen any reports or mention that the builders where considering making anymore and based upon the criteria of the list this car should be removed.
 * Agreed. Car and Driver {http://www.caranddriver.com/news/maxximus-g-force-first-and-last-glimpse-of-a-1600-hp-beast-car-news] says:
 * Other sources say the same. Perhaps someone can explain why it is a production car?  Until then, it should go. Spotstubes (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Other sources say the same. Perhaps someone can explain why it is a production car?  Until then, it should go. Spotstubes (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Updates to a few entries
I updated the reference source for the Nissan GT-R ( a 2014 test ), which included the 0-60 as well as the 1/4 mile time. As per the rules, the independent test determines the 'Time' column entry, which has been corrected and un-italicized. I did just notice that in the 0-60 table the car is referenced as the Nissan GT-R R35, while the R35 designation is not included in the 1/4 mile time entry. I'll fix that as well.

I added a reference for the Ariel Atom V8 time, and changed the time value to italics to represent a manufacturer claim, per the listed rules.

I updated the Aero TT with an actual reference for 2.78 0-60. It is possible the newer 2010 version is faster, but I could not find a real reference for that yet.

I updated the Murcielago with an external verified reference in the correct column. Previously it was listed in the manufacturers column even though that was an independent test.

I added a reference for the Caterham 0-60.

Also, I am debating removing the 'Remac Concept One'. While it does appear it *will* be a production car with a limited run (88 cars), it is not actually available yet. The first shipments are not supposed to happen until 2014. Doesn't this mean it does not qualify for the list until that time?

UPDATE: Someone added the Caparo T1, but the reference was the wiki page, and that page reference was just a manufacture claim. The table was also not correctly formatted. I change the table to the correct format, as well as add a real third party reference. I suspect there might be a better reference but I could not find one. If anyone has one, please edit away. HOWEVER remember to follow the rules: Reference Reference Reference.. and no virtual simulators! {[User:Sponaugle|Sponaugle]] (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Kit cars and references.
Kit cars (like the Ultima GTR) shouldn't be allowed on the list, they simply aren't production cars. Acceleration tests performed by individuals (like the Corvette runs on YouTube that keep showing up in the list) also shouldn't be allowed as there is no way to verify that the cars have not been modified. IJB TA (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The DUT Team (as well as they've done) should be excluded, since it's not a production car, it's a specialised car with a goal of 0-60 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.3.92.30 (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Is street legal part of the requirements? If so, please state it. Also remove Mustang Cobra Jet from #1
Hi, I'm new to this page, so forgive me if I'm misinterpreting the Talk page. But if one of the consensus requirements is that the cars need to be street legal in their intended market, then the Mustang Cobra Jet should be removed. The cited source says "there were only 50 2012 Mustang Cobra Jets produced and they are not street legal" Also, I'd suggest that whatever the criteria are for this page, they should be mentioned in the intro so the casual wiki reader knows about them. 108.192.134.103 (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Mustang Cobra Jet
Why isn't the Mustang Cobra Jet in this list? The only reason I can think of is that is not a street legal car, yet it is a production car that if you have the money, you can order from Ford and have it delivered to the nearest dealer. http://www.competitionplus.com/drag-racing/news/20775-adrl-supercar-racer-goes-zero-to-60-mph-in-152-seconds-in-a-production-car. 1.52 0-60 times. According to what I have read, it would qualify for the list, it is not a one off or prototype car, it is a special car, but it does come from Ford, and not from a tuner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.3.56.166 (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

According to the definition of production vehicle here on wikipedia, "The characteristics of a production vehicle or production car are mass-produced identical models, offered for sale to the public, and able to be legally driven on public roads." This car is not street legal due to its lack of airbags, lights, horn, etc. Pending further debate, I am removing it from the list.Underdog218 (talk) 03:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

No stock Corvette ZR1 passes the 1/4 mile in 11.2 seconds.
No stock Corvette ZR1 has ever done a 10.74 @ 133.21, an 11.2 @ 130.5, or an 11.3 @ 131. The best ever time and trap speed for the ZR1 was 11.4 and 129.3. All those high 10's, 11.2's, 11.3's, and other crazy times were done by the drivers of modifed ZR1s. Motor Trend told us that the ZR1 which did an 11.2 was not stock. The Ford GT ran the same time at a similar trap speed (131.2 mph) and was not stock, either. They (again, Motor Trend) told one of us that they were adding nitrous in both cars (40 shot in the ZR1, and 120 shot in the GT). End of Story. 174.141.208.107 (talk) 09:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

You're right. No one can pass the quarter mile in a stock ZR1 anywhere less than 11.4 seconds. Average ZR1 drivers usually run 11.7's, to the slowest of 12.1's. Altimgamr (talk) 05:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

A 100% stock ZR1 will never run a 10-second quarter mile, guaranteed! The ZR1 might run the quarter mile in 11.1 seconds, but no less than that. It is no Ferrari Enzo or Porsche Carrera GT. Altimgamr (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Dragtimes.com as a source
What do we think about using DragTimes.com as a source for independent 0-60 and quarter-mile times? It looks like it needs to be carefully policed, since the home page says, "Dragtimes is a database of 1/4 mile drag racing timeslips submitted by drag racing enthusiasts as well as testing done by DragTimes staff." I don't think we can consider enthusiast submissions to be authoritative. The "staff" tests might be more reputable, but do we consider them to be in the same class as the more established print and online media? It seems a bit dodgy when they wring out another 1/3 of a second in the 0-60 time of a car like the McLaren MP4-12C. Not inconceivable, though. Sacxpert (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No, DON'T DO IT!!!!! That is copyright violation!!!!!! They get sued and arrested. 166.137.208.45 (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source of information
1) Race gas cannot be used on public roads!!!! Anything above the recommended/required fuel octane means not stock. How about putting 91 octane in an 87-recommended/required car? Not stock! 10 second 1/4 mile in a stock Z06 or ZR1? Automatically not stock (unless they're all-wheel-drive)! High 10's in a stock GT-R? Maybe, but not in magazine tests. 12's in a stock '90s sports car made in Japan? I think I know the answer! 9's in a stock MP4-12C or Aventador? I highly doubt that!

2) None of you knew that dragstrips automatically modify tires. They do! So, in fact, use dragstrip, personal, or unofficial videos only for entertainment, not for educational purposes. --166.137.191.31 (talk) 02:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

And the BP (bull-poop) continues...
You should add a Motor Trend source to the Ford GT's 11.2 @ 131.2 mph thing when referring to Motor Trend. Fastestlaps.com or anything else doesn't cut it.

Also, I've found some highly-dubious sources, such as strange videos and enthusiasts sites. The article sure does need some valley house cleaning. --198.228.217.146 (talk) 06:33, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Production car definition
There is a discussion of the definition of a production car Talk:List of fastest production cars.

In particular, 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: The alternative definition from this List of fastest cars by acceleration is:
 * 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.''

''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) 20:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion
The debate concluded with:

The closest any reliable source comes to a number to determine what is a production car is the FIA and its rules date from 1968. Guinness seems to be inconsistant and as it doesn't publish its rules, we can't tell. All of us accept that the 20 number is arbitrary, but until someone posts a substantive argument to the contrary that we can agree on - the 20 car minimum rule remains. The reason for this decision is because there is no consensus to change the rule. NealeFamily (talk) 20:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * There are now two published sources, Motoramic (Alex Lloyd) and Road and Track magazine on 24 Febraury 2014 (Alex Nunez), which have Guinness stating in one 50 cars and the other 30 cars of identical style and specification are required to qualify as a production car. NealeFamily (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Caparo T1 - is it a production car
Is the T1 a production car and if so on what basis? NealeFamily (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but only in Europe. --166.137.208.25 (talk) 04:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the basis for assessing whether or not a car is production car in Europe - is there legislation or rules put out by the EU? NealeFamily (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

YouTube videos uploaded by customers
Are they reliable? I copied and pasted one on the article regarding the Corvette's 10.74, and I mentioned FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY. 166.137.208.15 (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Read WP:RELIABLE, WP:USERGENERATED in particular. A youTube video posted by a car owner (not by an official car testing organization or some other established expert in the field) cannot be considered a reliable source for the car's performance. We have no way of knowing if the car really was stock as claimed, or if the video was faked. I'm not saying that the car can't do what the video claims. I don't know. The source isn't good enough to put it in Wikipedia. If the stock car really can do as claimed you should be able to find reliable evidence to show it. Meters (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * He was talking about this video. Haha, yeah, you're right, the car was not stock. You should report that video as "spam", "stupid" or "liar". You might as well report it as copyright violation.
 * Or this! 198.228.217.149 (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I think it was running on a different fuel; such as race gas. 198.228.217.149 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * YouTube is a reliable source only for entertainment, not for educational purposes. 166.137.208.20 (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Corvette, GT-R — were they stock in these videos?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woOqqfGtqHo — Corvette ZR1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x1A6xC9M-74 — GT-R

I know I tend to only deal with manufacturer and magazine stuff for performance claims, but I'm talking self-published YouTube videos. Also, their times appear on DragTimes.com, a very reliable drag racing source. Ford Taurus (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, according to a secret book I have, these videos aren't considered reliable sources, and neither is dragtimes.com (dragtimes.ru, yes, but dragtimes.com is an enthusiast/expert site). On page 103, it says:

If you did not know, unreliable/untrustworthy sources may include: ''1. Forum sites / blog postings — we have no clue on how reliable a blog post can be. Also, anyone can post fake information inside a blog post. Anyone may also claim to be an expert anywhere inside a forum site. Anyone can vandalize a forum site. This is why forums and blogs are not considered reliable sources.''

''2. Enthusiast/expert sites — much like forum sites, these may not be considered reliable, either. Whether it's a site about cars, or a site about – well, anything for this matter – we have no way in considering most information inside those sites factual. Anyone in an enthusiast/expert site may claim that their backpack is worth – say, $45,000 – when, in reality, their backpack is only worth $150. In this case, do not use an enthusiast/expert site as a source. Doing so is like collecting information from your neighbor and putting it online without their permission – not very reliable!''

''3. YouTube videos — don't laugh, these kind of videos (especially the self-published ones) are pointless kind of sources. Teachers, librarians, and college professors will tell you that many students believe everything they watch on YouTube. Whether it's someone claiming that junk food is healthy, or that water is not good for you, not every video provides factual information – much like the two untrustworthy sources we discussed about. Whatever you do, do not use a self-published video as a source! These could, as well, be like movies, cartoons, video games and other fictional things. Any YouTube video may have information not known to be fictional or factual, claimed to be factual – but they are uploaded only for entertainment, not for educational purposes.''

4. Social networking or personal sites — please refer to #1 and #2.

''5. Calculators — sometimes they are used for cheating during math classes. Calculators are not as good as charts. Calculators also do not provide an excellent source of medium (between easy and hard) math. In fact, use a calculator only to calculate hard numbers, not to calculate those that are easy or in the middle. Calculators are reliable/trustworthy for kindergartners, but not for older students who know 100% about math.''

Reliable/trustworthy sources may include: 1. Wikipedia — this isn't surprising, but Wikipedia is an excellent source of information, despite the fact that anyone can edit and post hoax articles and other fake information

2. Magazines

3. Official tests

4. Your school principal

5. worldometers.info --166.137.191.44 (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * DragTimes.com is most definitely not a reliable source. You can add your own things directly onto it. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 21:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Luke, it's nice of you to assume good faith, but this is just one vandal having pretend conversations with himself - boring and pointless.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  22:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I wasn't assuming any kind of faith, but leaving a note for anyone who thought that this source was reliable. (also, why hasn't Ford Taurus been blocked as a vandalism-only and trolling-only account? Tis odd) Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 22:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I just don't have the energy to go through the blocking process, and he'll just be back the same day with another name anyhow. So whatever.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  23:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, yeah, I contacted the owners of these videos, and they claimed that the ZR1 and GT-R that did 10's in the quarter mile in those videos were not street legal. The ZR1 was running on race gas, and the GT-R had racing exhaust pipes. Ford Taurus (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, and they must have lost their license. 166.137.191.31 (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with all of you! It is illegal to drive on a suspended or revoked license. :) 98.207.236.113 (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Shelby CV525
its not even a production car, just a concept. didnt you read Intrigues comment 2601:9:4B00:4BE:F5F4:7DAA:5F23:66AD (talk) 22:02, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yahoo Answers is irrelevant on Wikipedia. Bahooka (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't feed the tolls. That was posted that to Yahoo at the same time as the above. He's talking ot himself. Meters (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reminder. You're right. Thanks. Bahooka (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * haven't u read the motor trend link n da fact that they require u to be "a staff member" to view the article lol 199.167.195.218 (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * if u were a yahoo answers staff member would u delete dat question n suspend the op ? 199.167.195.218 (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * they even have one here 199.167.195.218 (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The FQ400 Lancers are not production cars, either, so why are they still on the article? 2601:9:4B00:4BE:406E:6A06:8B1B:42A4 (talk) 19:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Motor Trend video
Hi, Will you explain to me on this video why this edit was reverted? Thanks! 166.137.208.32 (talk) 04:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that video got deleted due to account termination. 166.137.191.32 (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2014
Please add in the 2013 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500 for a 0-60 time of 3.5 seconds. It can be found here: http://www.zeroto60times.com/Shelby-Sports-Car-0-60-mph-Times.html

173.23.181.220 (talk) 21:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Not done. Please provide a better source. It's not clear that that webpage is a reliable source since they do not mention where they get the information or if the car was stock. Meters (talk) 23:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

✅Found a better source (Car and Driver) and added. Bahooka (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2014
Please add 2014 Mercedes-Benz CLS 63 AMG S-Model 0-60 time official 3.6 and confirmed 3.1.

Reference: http://fastestlaps.com/cars/mercedes_cls_63_amg_s-model.html http://www.zeroto60times.com/Mercedes-Benz-0-60-mph-Times.html

157.242.223.253 (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Acalycine (talk /contribs ) 02:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * It does not appear to be a reliable source. You may want to reconsider the edit. Bahooka (talk) 02:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Why was the 0-100 mph section removed?
It was removed for no reason. Many cars have been tested to 100 mph. Exaggerate (talk) 05:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I took it out when I removed your other material (that was dubious and not reliably sourced). If you can get consensus here to add the new section that's fine, but let's wait to see if you are a sock of Altimgamr first. See Sockpuppet investigations/Altimgamr Meters (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Volcom Malibu Hummer
This time the real Volcom — an official car company — uploaded a video about this car. They tested it and sprinted from zero-to-quarter-mile in 9.94 seconds at 149 mph. However, would you please be the one to add these times so that I don't violate the edit warring policy? Thank you very much! Exaggerate (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, youtube is not a reliable source. Why? Because people with nothing better to do create faked videos to use as sources for fake cars. "This time" it's real. Yeah, and I'm the lesbian space pope. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 15:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But it's a video uploaded by a car company as genuine as Ford and GM. Also, Volcom's official site is a Facebook page rather than their own site. From what I read, "YouTube and other video-sharing sites are generally not considered reliable sources because anyone can create or manipulate a video clip and upload without editorial oversight, just as with a self-published website. However, official channels of notable organisations, such as Monty Python's channel, may be acceptable as primary sources if their authenticity can be confirmed, or as a secondary source if they can be trace to a reliable publisher," therefore Volcom Cars is an "official channel of notable organisation". Exaggerate (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What notable organisation? - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 16:29, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Volcom Cars, Incorporation. Exaggerate (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Volcom Cars, Incorporation, joined Facebook July 1. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Another childish hoax. Thomas.W talk 17:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't create the video. I'm also not the owner of Volcom (or anything with the word "Volcom" for that matter). Exaggerate (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No of course you're not, since Volcom doesn't exist. But you're the one who created the "reference" (i.e. the FB page), as usual. Thomas.W talk 18:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't do that either. And I'm not some person named "Jason Haddad". And since when did Volcom (the car company, not the clothing company) become obsolete? Exaggerate (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia error
Request: POST http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration&action=submit, from 10.64.0.102 via cp1052 cp1052 ([10.64.32.104]:3128), Varnish XID 1548807258 Forwarded for: 76.254.19.111, 10.64.0.102 Error: 503, Service Unavailable at Sat, 02 Aug 2014 19:17:55 GMT 76.254.19.111 (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Two other errors... Request: POST http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration&action=submit, from 10.64.32.104 via cp1052 cp1052 ([10.64.32.104]:3128), Varnish XID 1548883851

Forwarded for: 76.254.19.111, 10.64.32.104 Error: 503, Service Unavailable at Sat, 02 Aug 2014 19:19:10 GMT Request: POST http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_fastest_production_cars_by_acceleration&action=submit, from 10.64.0.102 via cp1052 cp1052 ([10.64.32.104]:3128), Varnish XID 1549102180 Forwarded for: 76.254.19.111, 10.64.0.102 Error: 503, Service Unavailable at Sat, 02 Aug 2014 19:22:55 GMT 76.254.19.111 (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

0-60 mi/h requirement
The requirement should be changed to either 3.5, 4.0, or perhaps 3.75 seconds since 3.70 seems like an odd number in my opinion. 107.77.75.75 (talk) 17:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I recommend lowering to 3.0 seconds. It would still include 21 vehicles and be more notable. Bahooka (talk) 17:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What about lowering the quarter-mile time to 11.0-11.5 seconds? 107.77.75.75 (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that should go down to 11.0 seconds. There are way too many cars on this list. It is supposed to be just the "fastest production cars". Bahooka (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Are Car and Driver and Road and Track reliable sources?
I'm pretty sure they're allowed to be used per WP:RS. Why did someone revert my edits? Lol. That&#39;s carbage (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Because JasonHaddad/Altimgamr, you are evading a block and sneaking in your fake Shelby. Bahooka (talk) 00:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Missing Autos
A lot of cars have not been shown. Many other Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Porsches, and Mercedes-Benz have surpassed quite a few of the cars on this list. Please revise.67.86.24.40 13:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Provide some info and i'll be glad to. Gunter 19:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Shucks. The Tesla Roadster hasn't qualified yet? --Dan 22:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * ^On that note there are numerous EVs (Electric Vehicles) that qualify to be on the "fastest from 0 - 60" list. The Shelby SuperCars Aero EV went from 0-60 mph in 2.5s (Yes this is a production car).  Please take a look at the reference for more EVs that deserve a spot  68.84.77.239 (talk) 04:43, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

How come the 68 Hemi Dart and Barracuda are not in the list? They're known as the fastest production street car ever produced. You could buy them for a very reasonnable amount of money from a regular Dodge/Plymouth dealer, they produced hundred of them and right from the showroom, they were 10 seconds car. As a matter of fact, with minor modifications, they became 8.2 second car... Those were carburated, no-power-adder, 426 Street Hemis. I really don't understand why they don't qualify. François Côté — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.58.7.32 (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Those '68s weren't street legal, that's why. Exaggerate (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing Car: McLaren 12C in the quarter mile list. 10.6s by the manufacterer; 11.1s by Motor Trend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.26.181.180 (talk) 04:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Verified time should be preferred
Instead of using the faster of verified and manufacturer's time, we should acknowledge that verified times are more trustworthy by listing them when available, and manufacturer's time only when no verified time is available. Neon Merlin  22:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Accuracy of title
Since this list is about acceleration rather than speed, shouldn't it be List of quickest production cars by acceleration? --Falcadore (talk) 05:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that the title is increasingly inaccurate. Many of the cars on the list would be difficult to describe as production cars as well. However List of the fastest accelerating road cars might be plausible. NealeFamily (talk) 02:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Ultima cars are not technically kit cars
The ultima (including GTR coupe and Can-am roadster) can be purchased in two forms: one is as a crate of parts sans engine for assembly by the purchaser (and this is the form many hobbyists choose), the other is a turnkey factory assembled vehicle to a standardized spec with one of a couple of available factory engine options. The first, as a box of parts, isn't a "kit car" as I understand the definition, which includes a donor vehicle chassis plus/minus other bits (suspension, interior...). Every part on the ultimate is custom designed for the car, from chassis to suspension to interior. The drivetrain is debatable as you could use a donor engine from another wrecked vehicle, and some do, and the transaxle might be used, and most are. But there are plenty of virgin engine and transacle options as well so I don't see that being a huge issue. The second purchase option, turnkey factory assembled, every part designed and manufactured in house, seems no different from any other "production car" on this list. The only question may be how many have been purchased fully assembled by the factory. I don't know... more than a couple but likely not huge numbers. I saw mentioned in the most recent version of the article a minimum of three... I am certain that has long bmsince been surpassed.

Thus, neither purchase option of the ultima is a "kit car" and, especially the factory assembled option, would seem to be as much a production street legal car as any. Can anyone explain how this is not the case?

And the times from the factory have been verified, much more so than many entries on this list. Not to imagine ultima cars actually exist, and have for decades, something else lacking in a few of the entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.45.31.204 (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Kit car issues aside, the difficulty with the Ultima GTR is that they appear to be bespoke, with the drive (engine, gearbox, and diff) specifications being different depending on the purchaser. There is also no indication as to how many of a particular spec were made or which configuration was achieved what, or whether it was tested in a street legal form. NealeFamily (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Not all Ultimas are bespoke. That's the whole point when discussing the factory assembled purchase option. For example, the Ultima GTR 720 is built to the Ultima GTR 720 spec. Any GTR 720 purchased from the factory is built to the same spec, with the same parts and tune. All GTR 720 factory builds are street legal, thus any tested will obviously be in street legal form. The factory offers a few options such as with or without AC, suspension setup, some race worthy safety items etc. Every car on this list is offered with a variety of options, many bells and whistles, and none affecting straight line acceleration aside from actual engine and tune options, no different than a Mercedes 500 vs 600 vs AMG, which doesn't prevent their inclusion.

I'm still looking for a good reason for their exclusion. It can't be that it takes too much work to actually compile performance figures for the factory options, as they were once on this list and it took more effort to remove them than leave them. Must be on some misguided philosophical grounds that because some people modify their car (and this doesn't happen for every other make and model?) the whole line should be disqualified? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.248.65 (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I see from prior debates (around 2006-2007 - above on this talk page) the Ultima's were rejected as being a kit car. If you can establish from a reliable source that they meet this lists criteria then they should be ok. The criteria are:

Cars are eligible for these lists are usually production cars. Eligible cars need to be: Although not specifically stated in the above criteria, a car that is primarily sold as a kit, would not make this list - based on earlier debates above. NealeFamily (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * 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);
 * had 2 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); and
 * street-legal in their intended markets, and capable of passing any official tests or inspections required to be granted this status.
 * able to reach 0–100 km/h time or 0–60 mph (0–97 km/h) in 3.5 seconds or less for the first list, or cover quarter mile (402 m) from a standing start in 12 seconds or less for the second list

Vandalism
I can see Honda Civic on the top and this is probably not the first time it happens, so maybe this article should be locked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.187.1.251 (talk) 13:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I also saw a Chevy S10 on the quater mile list with an absurd time of like 10 seconds. This madness must stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.165.137.97 (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Formula One Car was added and is definately not a production car. Seems like vandalism to me, so I just took it out.--65.51.87.2 (talk) 21:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll enjoy seeing the Model X SUV on here, assuming that happens as it's touted to - perhaps it would even be reason to add a "Vehicle Class" or similar column(?) - sedan, coupe, roadster (I suppose those would be distinct from coupes?) SUV?! :-P - and if Tesla were to manage a minivan that could get going in under 3.5 - that would be something else entirely! I'd almost wager that some other company will probably beat them to it (who knows if anyone will bother though) Brettpeirce (talk) 13:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Tesla Roadster
Hello?? 2011 Tesla Roadster 0-60mph in 3.7 seconds. Add it and get up to speed please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.77.60 (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know what this list looked like in 2011 without looking at the history, but looking at it 4 years later, I clearly see a maximum 0-60 time of 3.5 seconds, so... that's... too... slow...? The new roadster, though, I would bet, will be in the top five, considering Tesla's 5-7 passenger sedan is in the top 15, it would be nearly shameful to make an updated sports car that can't outstrip most things on this list, wouldn't you think? Brettpeirce (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Missing Cadillac CTS-V
The list is missing 2009 Cadillac CTS-V Sedan 6-Speed that accelerates from 0 to 60 in 3.9sec. Some of the sources that I found not sure if reliable but please check http://www.automobile-catalog.com/car/2009/1200455/cadillac_cts-v.html http://0-60.reviews/cadillac-0-60/ Zatura1 (talk) 20:10, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's an official claim that Car & Driver mentioned, but could not achieve. Luke no 94  (tell Luke off here) 20:36, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I see a requirement for < 3.5sec 0 to 60 time for inclusion. 3.9 seconds is faster than oh so many cars on the road, but it's greater than 3.5sec... right? Brettpeirce (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Deleted the Charger Hellcat 1/4 mile time
You guys can put it back up, but don't refer to the Challenger Hellcat Manual (11.9 @ 124) page, especially when mislead as 11.0 @ 126....Not mad at anyone, just sayin'... :) 2607:FB90:40B:4177:0:14:9615:801 (talk) 07:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Who deleted the ZR1 time?
Last time I added the 3.16 0-62 time (and used Auto Bild as a source), but I saw a couple weeks later that it got deleted. What happened? 2607:FB90:2707:C1D6:0:4A:2C4F:F101 (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Couldn't find the change in all the changes, but if you have a time with a Reliable Source, just reinstate it. NealeFamily (talk) 00:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't delete the 10.4 time of the Z06
The Lamborghini Huracan did 10.4 @ 135 (in a magazine) with less power and similar weight and AWD (i.e., more drivetrain loss), so the 10.429 time of the Z06 seems to be true. Race gas isn't really a modification. If timeslips aren't reliable, we might as well exclude the videos. It doesn't say in the article rules that we cannot have drag rollout videos. I also included the 11.03 time of the Hellcat; I wonder if that will get removed, too... ._.

Sometimes even Car and Driver optimizes numbers, such as with the Audi S6 which is supposed to be a little slower than the supoosed 12.1 @ 115.

The 10.4 time of the Huracan sounds more of a scam than the 10.4 time of the Z06. The Z06 has a slightly higher power-to-weight ratio and has eight gears vs. seven for the Huracan. 2607:FB90:2704:E885:0:34:D9C4:1601 (talk) 00:06, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The time for the Z06 will only stand if you can quote a reliable source - see WP:RS if you are unsure what sources are considered reliable. If you need a hand finding one let me know. I am happy to help if I can NealeFamily (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, why does that matter? Magazines perform better than drag racers sometimes... Look at the Lambo Huracan (5.7 lb/hp) vs the Z06 (5.4 lb/hp), but the Hura is a little faster. It's not just one forum citing the time, but the entire video published on many, many other sources. 2607:FB90:270F:EEFC:0:4D:BEC7:E301 (talk) 02:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * By the way, the 11.1 time was foe the Z07 with so much downforce. Exclude the 10.429 time = exclude the 10.4 time for the Lambo as well. If Joe Castellano isn't a reliable source, then apparently neither is Car and Driver. Many, many sources confirm 10.429. Google "10.42 Z06." 2607:FB90:270F:EEFC:0:4D:BEC7:E301 (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

....And look, even a Corvette magazine confirms it ..... http://www.vettetv.com/stock-c7-z06s-continue-to-impress-with-sub-11-second-14-mile-passes/ 2607:FB90:270F:EEFC:0:4D:BEC7:E301 (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure if the website meets WP:RS. What you need is a reliable source citing Joe Castellano. The reason for this is that any blogger can make up whatever they like on the web, it then tends to get repeated ad nauseum on other sites. NealeFamily (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Missing Car: 2016 Cadillac CTS-V
The 2016 Cadillac CTS-V is missing, MotorTrend did 11.9 @120MPH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:44:4100:DC5E:651A:703C:CD20:40BC (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Ultima Evolution Link
In the 1/4 mile section, the Ultima Evolution does not have a clickable link to click on like every other car on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:44:4100:DC5E:651A:703C:CD20:40BC (talk) 14:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

McLaren 650S & McLaren 675LT
McLaren 650S & McLaren 675LT are not listed in the entire page. Both cars do 60 in under 3.5 seconds and 1/4 mile in under 12 seconds. Both are street legal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:44:4100:DC5E:3444:C699:3A6F:E6CA (talk) 14:24, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

New criteria for entries
Since I am seeing more entries for "mid-priced" ($100k+) so-called supercars indiscriminately listed and less of historical ones which I hoped to had seen more of, I'd say let's tighten this criteria even more. I revised it as highlighted in the italics, which was both set by the McLaren F1 in 1994, therefore the entries corresponding to those had to go.


 * able to reach 0–100 km/h time or 0–60 mph (0–97 km/h) in 3.2 seconds or less for the first list, or cover quarter mile (402 m) from a standing start in 11.2 seconds or less for the second list


 * I agree that the criteria needed to be tightened, but 3.2 is not comparable to 11.2 1/4. A 3.0 sec 0-60 requirement will make the 1/4 mile and 0-60 lists are similar in size.F-16 Viper (talk) 13:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, I suggest that we remove all kit cars from the list, they are much akin to customized cars or tuner demo cars, all are individually built. So what does anybody think. Donnie Park (talk) 11:08, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that kit-cars have no place on this list, even under existing rules. Also I would like the basic requirement reduced from 2 to 25 cars being required to bring it more into line with Guinness. NealeFamily (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree, if editors of the top speed version can strictly tighten their criteria, so should this. If not, should AfD strikes again, I'll be happy to tear this article down to the point of being purged out of existence like I've done with so many articles I nominated. Donnie Park (talk) 01:28, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

The rules as they stand:

Cars are eligible for these lists are usually production cars. Eligible cars need to be: street-legal in their intended markets, and capable of passing any official tests or inspections required to be granted this status.
 * 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);
 * had 2 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); and
 * able to reach 0–100 km/h time or 0–60 mph (0–97 km/h) in 3.5 seconds or less for the first list, or cover quarter mile (402 m) from a standing start in 12 seconds or less for the second list

The proposed changes:
 * rule 2 - replace 2 with 25 or more instances made
 * rule 2 - amend exclusion by adding "kit cars and" to make it read "kit cars and cars modified by professional tuners or individuals are not eligible"
 * rule 3 - replace 3.5 seconds with 3 seconds

The new rules would therefore be: street-legal in their intended markets, and capable of passing any official tests or inspections required to be granted this status.
 * 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);
 * had 25 or more instances made by the original vehicle manufacturer, and offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition (kit cars and cars modified by professional tuners or individuals are not eligible); and
 * able to reach 0–100 km/h time or 0–60 mph (0–97 km/h) in 3.0 seconds or less for the first list, or cover quarter mile (402 m) from a standing start in 12 seconds or less for the second list

These changes should allow for a general weeding of the list and brings it into line with both the other fastest production car and automotive superlative lists - NealeFamily (talk) 21:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest clarifying the criterion for acceptable tires. Where's the cutoff? Stock/comparable to stock/street legal but not specialty racing/street-legal including specialty racing/non street-legal Meters (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I take the view that whatever it comes out of the factory on for sale to the public - I deleted a couple of entries where non-standard tyres were fitted. NealeFamily (talk) 00:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no firm opinion on this (other than closer to the start of my list than the end) but I think whatever criterion is being used should be added to the article. Meters (talk) 00:11, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Changing the tyre to, say, a drag racing tyre would be a modification and not ex-factory. Therefore it would fail the current criteria. NealeFamily (talk) 00:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand that. What I'm saying is that it is not obvious from the current article that that there is such a strict restriction on the tires. Just add teh criterion being used to the article so there is no confusion for future additions to the article. Meters (talk) 00:44, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Can someone help clean up my edits for adding the NSX?
The Motor Trend Ignition video said that Acura claimed 3.0 seconds, but for some reason, it just messed up the page. Jdcomix (talk) 17:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I reclosed it which is because you removed the |} which is used to close the table. Also, can you supply the source of it rather than editors looking for it themselves. Because it was unsourced, I had no choice but to remove this, sorry. Donnie Park (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I took the liberties to add a source for you since it looked like your edit was in good faith. Next time though please add one when you make the edit. F-16 Viper (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Unexplained removal/addition of sources
Hey Steve Austin aka, could you explain the removal/addition of cited sources, since you removed them without an edit summary (used to explain why it's done). thanks. Donnie Park (talk) 14:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Why was the Ford GT result deleted?
It already does a 9.47-second quarter-mile at 170 mph. Ford announced it for the dealers. 2607:FB90:2705:FE1E:0:4D:A144:1C01 (talk) 22:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The GT should remain as long the statistics you give are independently verified (not simply Ford saying so) and the Ford GT meets the criteria below:
 * 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);
 * fitted with the original manufacturer supplied road tyres;
 * had 25 or more instances made by the original vehicle manufacturer, and offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition (kit cars and cars modified by either professional tuners or individuals are not eligible);
 * street-legal in their intended markets, and capable of passing any official tests or inspections required to be granted this status; and
 * able to reach 0–100 km/h time or 0–60 mph (0–97 km/h) in 3.0 seconds or less for the first list, or cover quarter mile (402 m) from a standing start in 11.2 seconds or less for the second list. NealeFamily (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Evidence seems to be an image the person modified in mspaint and uploaded to imgur. Not a very reliable source. 24.9.251.144 (talk) 01:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I second the two rationale above, if it broke the record, any manufacturer/brand would come out with a press release to state this fact which this does not appear to be as it look laughably cheaply done, especially this coming from Ford. It look the kind of thing a high school student can pull off plus I've yet to see an official announcement. Donnie Park (talk) 14:53, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is Yahoo talking about it, too, in French. https://fr.news.yahoo.com/la-ford-gt-sera-t-elle-la-voiture-la-plus-performante-du-monde--163814991.html 2607:FB90:421:E0DA:0:3:EC7E:C401 (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The French website article was published the 19th of January, the same time this page had the edit in question with the fake source. The editors clearly just viewed this page at the time and copied the 1/4 mile time listed. F-16 Viper (talk) 07:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Ferrari LaFerrari
The entries for LaFerrari in the article is questionable. The sources that implies its 0-62 mph in 2.4 seconds and 1/4 mile in 9.7 seconds are not really reliable in my opinion. It's the only source to state those figures. Also, the LaFerrari achieved those figures on a 1.4% decline from start to finish at the Fiorano test track. The NHRA only accepts a 1.0% decline. In my perspective, it should be taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.144.61.208 (talk) 18:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you give evidence of this 1.4% decline from start? I'm not saying I don't believe you, It would be nice to have proof before the time is removed, or a note added. F-16 Viper (talk) 04:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the source's video (in which the LaFerrari is tested in) states the 1.4% decline. Edit: Apparently, someone changed the source of the 1/4 mile time that I have provided. No wonder we are having this discussion. The source I have provided before is this: http://www.motortrend.com/news/ferrari-laferrari-first-test/ That source states the "1.4 percent downhill grade" and they also said the following: "Fiorano’s downhill front straight was the only place we were allowed to do acceleration runs, and we couldn’t run backward for a two-way average. The data shows the fastest quarter-mile run declining by 18.2 feet from start to finish, or 1.4 percent. For reference, the National Hot Rod Association allows a 1.0 percent maximum grade over the course of a quarter mile. It’s difficult to say how much of an advantage this gives the LaFerrari, but it helps enough that we’ll asterisk these results until we can test a car on level ground."
 * I see, considering the Road & Track source says that the test was in Italy it was almost certainly the Fiorano test track, which according to Motor Trend Ferrari only allows speed test descending the 1.4% grade. The Motor Trend source is better as well as it shows more data and information from the actual tests. If you want you can reinstate the 1.4% grade note, and change the source back to Motor Trend. F-16 Viper (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What would be the impact on the list if we required eitther:
 * 1. two-way run to validate the acceleration or
 * 2. either a two way run or the NHRA certified track
 * I think 0.1 second advantage could be the track and therefore a false claim by Ferrari NealeFamily (talk) 22:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a good idea but it would be difficult to get sources for it. I agree with you on the Ferrari. F-16 Viper (talk) 08:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We do need to be careful though that we don't run afoul of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. We're not supposed to intrepret data, just to report it; if the sources say there is a potential issue (like this one) then putting that in a footnote would be appropriate. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well the basic Wiki requirement is a reliable source for any claimed statement, so nothing on the list should be outside those parameters. The difficulty that both this list and the list of fastest production cars face was summed up in an earlier discussion there when a former industry worker said that the manufacturers usually ensured that the cars they used for these tests were optimally tuned. If Volkswagen are prepared to risk their credibility on something as serious as vehicle emission testing then I am sure that others would have little conscience when it comes to vehicle acceleration and speeds. In other words maybe we just let the reader decide - all we can do is note that the track was slightly downhill and quote the source. NealeFamily (talk) 08:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Can automobilemag.com be taken has a creditable source for information?
 * There were issues brought up with testing at the Ferrari headquarters which only let people test the car on a slight decline. The new source appeared to be an independent test done by automobile, but reading it again I see "Welcome to the Prancing Horse’s den, McLaren", which means the acceleration test was almost certainly done using the same 1.4% decline as per Ferrari's strict requirements. That being said, I'm going to switch it back to the Motor Trend source which states in the video of the road test that they adjusted for weather. F-16 Viper (talk) 08:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)