Talk:List of fastest production cars by acceleration/Archive 2

Ascari A10
Don't think this one should be here....even the Ascari wesite says it's still in developement so how can we know actual speeds?

See here: http://www.ascari.net/subsecciones.php?idioma=2&&seccion=19&&subseccion=40


 * This reply's timestamp should confirm that this thread is no longer active and is due for the automatic archiving. (This talk page's threads which lack timestamps cannot archive automatically.) Altanner1991 (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

1991 GMC Syclone Pickup Truck
With 0-60 in 4.6 seconds in 1991, only 3 cars from the list were faster than the GMC Syclone Pickup Truck. It should merit a mention. --Hiro DynoSlayer (talk) 05/8/2008 03:47 (EST)


 * This reply's timestamp should confirm that this thread is no longer active and is due for the automatic archiving. (This talk page's threads which lack timestamps cannot archive automatically.) Altanner1991 (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Missing Cars
Mercedes-Benz has a version of the SLR McLaren, the 722, wich has an accaleration of 0-100 in 3,6 sec. The Spyker C12 Spyder goes from 0-100 in 3,9 sec and so it should be included too. The TVR 350C 3.6 goes from 0-100 in 3,9 sec. I have these numbers from the Carros catalogue and so it should be possible to look these numbers up in their database and on some other sites like the official manufacter sites.


 * This reply's timestamp should confirm that this thread is no longer active and is due for the automatic archiving. (This talk page's threads which lack timestamps cannot archive automatically.) Altanner1991 (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Title change
There is no such thing as Fastest car by acceleration, it is a contradiction of terms. The correct term should be "The quickest car", which is Acceleration in a Period of Time, Or "Ranked by Acceleration" showing the ranking system is the value of acceleration. 209.233.5.226 (talk)JAG


 * Your suggestion is valid, thank you. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Ariel Atom - eternally unverified
Are there any instrumented road tests available anywhere for the Ariel Atom? Nothing I've ever found online came anywhere near the 2.3 seconds claimed...but I'm not sure any of them were done on the V8.

Should this car be removed from the list? The claims appear vaporous.


 * This reply's timestamp should confirm that this thread is no longer active and is due for the automatic archiving. (This talk page's threads which lack timestamps cannot archive automatically.) Altanner1991 (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

== 2014 Porsche 911 Turbo S Times from Car and Driver (March 2015 ) reports 60 mph in 2.5 seconds and the quarter mile in 10.6 seconds @ 130 mph ==

HELP!!! - I am not proficient at updating the main page but new info on the 2014 Porsche 911 Turbo S tested by Car and Driver March 2015 are as follows: 0-60 mph - 2.5 Seconds 0-100 mph - 6.2 Seconds 1/4 Mile - 10.6 Seconds @ 130 mph


 * Thank you for posting that. The car was updated. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup!
For what it's worth, this reader / occasional contributor is happy to see this list cleaned up to reflect actual production cars and verified results only, as above. There were far too many garbage entries about people's "pets" a couple of months ago. Thanks to those who put in the care and effort!


 * Your comments are much appreciated, thank you Altanner1991 (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

"Production"
This list is titled list of fastest PRODUCTION cars by acceleration, yet more than half of the list is made up of cars with non production cars, like 2007 cars that are no longer being made. What's up with that? It should just be the latest 2 year cars, like 2015 and 2016. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:44:4200:1AB8:81CA:6086:CA1F:DAD1 (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that a car is no longer produced does not exclude it from a list of production cars if it was originally a production car and meets the lists rules. The car would be excluded if this was a list of current production cars. Hope this helps. NealeFamily (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Latest edit.
For the latest it seems some of things times were rearranged incorrectly. The Mercedes AMG GT time for example should be further up the than the Challenger list due to its higher trap speed 127 vs 125. Other than that I kept your edits. F-16 Viper (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes I see what you mean, the sorting can be an issue. Cars which pass their quarter mile tie at a higher speed can be considered by some to be a deficiency, not an advantage. The higher speed can signify, for example, that a car had initially maintained a lower acceleration before going faster in the final portion. Others may focus on the higher later acceleration (such as 40-100mph) or more likely in this case, the car's ability to accelerate in a steeper curve as being more favorable. A solution to avoid this debate is to have cars then by their year, with older cars sorting the tie more objectively. Since it has not been a big issue the page should continue without specifying such things. If edits from contributors repeatedly cause issues then adding further notes to the page may be considered. Altanner1991 (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For 1/4 mile times a higher trap speed is always better, so it should remain higher on the list. Swingcar (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I did had to revert the last change because it is a new topic here in talk, higher speeds at quarter mile do not demonstrate prowess. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I would suggest we add a note that specifically states that higher trap speed should yield a higher spot on the list. I'm going to have to agree with swingcar on this one because traditionally trap speed indicates a better 1/4 mile time. In fact some racing bodies look higher upon trap speed than the ET. This will also help set a good standard for where a certain time belongs on the list. F-16 Viper (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am proposing the following note: If multiple vehicle share the same elapsed time, the vehicle with the higher trap speed goes higher on the list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swingcar (talk • contribs) 03:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, that will work good. F-16 Viper (talk) 04:04, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done. Has been successfull added to the page. Swingcar (talk) 04:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hopefully consensus less necessary with further edits: Two notes have an improper leading space, the GT3's "Naturally aspirated" should not be capitalized, quarter mile notes should not finish with periods since they are not complete sentences, Corvette quarter mile note as "Z07 package, 8-speed automatic" would be more consistent with its note in the 0-60mph table, and there is question over the last note's "no source given if equal to independently verified time": sources should always be given! I would like to be the one who gets to apply these edits... (please) Altanner1991 (talk) 23:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think the capitalization changes are all that important but as long as it's consistent those stated edits are fine. Keep the note for the Corvette though, it's important to note that it uses the 8 speed auto and Z07 package as the time is a little slower with the manual and w/o the Z06 package. Swingcar (talk) 23:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Although don't delete the entries that don't have a manufacturers time. Verified independent time is more important, so if they have a verified time that is cited it's fine. Swingcar (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Swingcar, thanks for adding your input, I agree with those points. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I am also okay with the listed formatting changes, as well as the required citation as it fits Wikipedias policy of no original research. F-16 Viper (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorting suggestion
I think when there is a tie, cars with independent sources should be ranked higher than those with only a manufacturer's claim, even if they are newer. Specifically, for example, the Bugatti Veyron Super Sport should be moved down at least two spaces in the 0-60 ranking and one space in the quarter-mile ranking. I made this edit yesterday and it appears someone has reversed it. To be fair, I did not explain my edit, so instead of changing it again with no discussion, I will propose it here for consideration.
 * Manufacturer times are by-and-large more conservative (slower) than those reported by journalists. Speaking only statistically, the assumption to make regarding cars having only the manufacturer's time is that they would rank higher, possibly making Bugatti first on both lists, were there other times made available. In this case the Bugatti and Noble cars are among the least widely produced or reported, respectively. Altanner1991 (talk) 07:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Moot point now anyway as someone has found and inserted an independent result (Road&Track) for the Super Sport.  On your other point, I'd say if even Car & Driver (and I don't see an independent test figure from them in their link) hasn't beat the manufacturer time then the manufacturer time wasn't conservative, although I agree certain manufacturers (especially Porsche) do make conservative claims.  On a final note, we should beware the Car&Driver times for any car - some are instrumented and some are indicated in the magazine as "C/D Est" (estimate).  Estimates should probably not be considered independent times;  a few cars (including at least one of my own pets) would probably get bumped down the list if this was taken into consideration. Anyway, the list is looking good!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.61.250 (talk) 20:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes C/D estimates are not usually preferred although if those are the best sourced times available they might be added while waiting for newer publications. Interestingly a few articles had for whatever reason used that title after reporting the numbers being tested by them for that new model, perhaps in error or maybe in consideration of the variance from their test data. Altanner1991 (talk) 02:50, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Veyron Super Sport Versus LaFerrari 1/4 mile time
It appears the trap speed for the LaFerrari's 1/4 mile run has been removed. It is cited here as 149.1 mph: http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/news/a25423/ferrari-laferrari-performance-test-numbers-0-60-quarter-mile/

I suggest it be restored, and the LaFerrari be moved to first place above the Veyron, whose 9.7 second run is a manufacturer's claim and has no trap speed indicated unless someone can find a verified time and trap speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.61.250 (talk) 15:00, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes the data had been removed and is now restored. Altanner1991 (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Carrera GT 1/4 mile time
I think the Carrera GT should be restored on the 1/4 mile list, as it is shown here to do the 1/4 mile in 11.2 seconds @132 mph, which fits the (arbitrary?) criteria listed at the top of the article. The 0-60 of 3.5 does not. Source: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/porsche-carrera-gt-road-test — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.61.250 (talk) 12:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of Tesla
It needs to be reiterated here, some of the requirements of this article: "Because of the inconsistencies with the various definitions of production cars, dubious claims by manufacturers and self interest groups, and inconsistent or changing application of the definitions this list has a defined set of requirements. For further explanation of how these were arrived at see the above links." It is premature to place the newest Tesla upgrades here, _yet_. These are only "expected" times from a manufacturer press release. There has been no verified timing of this, either from Tesla themselves or a third party. Achromatic (talk) 20:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
 * And someone's blog predicting what the Tesla's time will be with a particular modification is not a reliable source. Meters (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I've asked for protection of the article because of the continued addition of predicted times for the Tesla based on a blog report of what effect an upcoming software change is expected to have. Until we have a reliable source showing what the actual performance of the car is this should not go in the article. Meters (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

60 miles/hour vs 100 km/hour ?
The article has a table with the time to get from zero to 100 km/h or 60 mph, with entries including 2.5 seconds, i.e. a mean acceleration of around 1 g. At an acceleration of 1 g it takes around 0.1 second to accelerate from 60 miles/hour to 100 km/hour. Since the timings in the table are listed with an accuracy of 0.1 second or in some cases a much higher accuracy, these numbers only make sense if it is also indicated if each timing is to reach 60 miles/hour or 100 km/hour. Lklundin (talk) 13:57, 7 February 2017 (UTC) PS. There is a similar, but much lesser issue in the 1/4 mile or 400 m table, at a trap speed of e.g. 200 km/h the difference between the two distances amounts to about 4 ms.
 * The time difference between 400 m and 1/4 mile time at 200 km/h is actually about 42 ms. Drachentötbär (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * True, thanks for correcting my error. Lklundin (talk) 22:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * While the quarter mile is deemed significant (in the USA), no one cares about the time to reach 400 m. (Outside the USA fast cars are sometimes instead listed with both their time to 100 km/h and their time to 200 km/h.)
 * I would say to separate any 0-100 km/h values in the 0-60 mph table into a separate table (which may be short at first, but the 0-100 km/h timing is significant outside the USA and thus notable), and to drop the 'or 400 metre' from the 1/4 mile table. The time to 200 km/h is mostly just noted along with the time to 100 km/h, so we could do the same here, when the number is reported. Lklundin (talk) 08:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Can someone add This time?

 * McLaren F1
 * 400m 10.8s
 * https://www.germancarforum.com/attachments/image-jpg.375962/

The test was done by Car Graphic Magazine(will add the video of the test if I can find it) Abc12345 10:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Just the brief video of the test here. The test was conducted in 1995. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=QloUxtXob8c Skip to around 1:50

Note:Performance figures are only stated in the magazine. Abc12345 10:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Issue with this article
Out of honesty, I preferred this "list" when it was about the fastest production cars by acceleration, now this "article" is simply another original research article tailored for teenage bedroom wall dreamers. My biggest criticism with this article is that "today" is far too subjective for an article, from what do you mean as "today" and when did the "today" era began - to me, all these were a progression since the beginning of the motorcar. This article reminds me of the former supercar article. Also, the McLaren F1 wasn't deliberately "Limited to 100 produced", they were discontinued after 106 cars after selling a fraction of their original goal right when the global recession was still in effect. Donnie Park (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * The title change needs to be reverted. This is not encyclopedic by any measure. As far as I can tell there was no discussion for this move. It looks like the article move was done by some kind of cut and paste because all the talk page comments are gone. Not sure of the best approach to revert or request that be done. Bahooka (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Personally I do support reverting it as Wikipedia does not need another WP:OR article but I think this article is at best WP:AFD as there is nothing encyclopedic left in this article. Donnie Park (talk) 21:52, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I personally am a little concerned with these self-made, prone to original research, pretty arbitrary and difficult to validate lists, I have made clear I'm against them in some past discussions. I know Wikipedia consensus is paramount but, in my opinion, at some point is necessary to define if the project will still describe itself as an "encyclopedia" or will become something else. Having said that, if the list is kept I agree it should be reverted to the prior title and content. At least that gives a relatively clear-cut criteria for inclusion. Regards. --Urbanoc (talk) 00:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Many cars had been lacking verified data, others were lacking the manufacturer's claims. All of those gaps are now thoroughly completed. Three 2017 models are added to ready the new year's publishing now due.
 * Data sources unreliable were removed, only credible journalism was used such as the major car journals which perform rigorous testing, Car and Driver, Motor Trend, Road and Track (in that order of frequency). Few other journals were used and only needed for certain cars which were there also using instrumentation and so were also reliable sources.
 * All speed data in the first two tables are now complete (a total of 52 referenced citations from reliable sources regarding each element of speed data).
 * Data entered on top speed and rarest cars is already thoroughly complete -- preliminarily using what's available on each car's article page so that sources can be less of a problem.
 * All 56 references are properly formatted in the same way, all rechecked April-May 2016, to include name of the author, date of the article, title, website, date retrieved; each title is directly from the source's html page code.
 * Note is made on cars which are included on one table but not another (whether because of incomplete data or ineligible data), to avoid thinking that the car had been omitted in error.
 * A compilation of this kind is not available anywhere else on the Internet.
 * Altanner1991 (talk) 03:33, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a contentious series of edit and a contentious move. There has been no discussion of whether this list article should be changed to what Altanner1991 thinks it should be, and there is clearly no consensus that the move should be made. Restoring the move to Today's fastest cars is a contentious move against talk page consensus. Meters (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I personally disagreed with it but had not been aware of any serious changes to it until yesterday when I realized the title was changed. When I saw this, my thought was this has become the bastard child of the pre-2008 Supercar article. I originally removed the WP:OR top speed and rarity part as I feel they have no business to be on this list (should be elsewhere and there already a list for the former) but self-reverted it because I have decided it is at best a WP:AFD candidate as nothing here is sourced except for performance data. Also I believe there was an edit-warring between and, am I correct there? Donnie Park (talk) 10:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Viper ended up with a CU block, the other a 3RR block. Note that an unblock was requested but rejected with the the comment by User:Ohnoitsjamie "Next time, use the talk page. If you continue to edit war after the expiration of this block, your next block will be for a longer duration." The wholesale hijacking of the article without discussion and the repeated move against consensus need to be undone and discussed. Meters (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As an occasional contributor (anonymous, but always using the same IP) I have to say that I think Altanner1991 has overall done a rather good job of cleaning up this list, but I agree that he seems to "edit war" with other contributors and isn't as consistent with his own rules as he could be. Again, I think he has really improved the article compared to what it was a year ago (filled with vaporous claims about people's pet kit-cars and such). But it appears that he has taken this page as belonging only to him (bad) and has done a good job of making rather strict criteria for inclusion (good), but only loosely applying those same criteria to his own pets (bad).  Although I think Altanner1991 is a great contributor here and really appreciate all the cleanup he's done, he shouldn't be allowed to control every single aspect of the page, especially given his apparent bias toward one manufacturer.  (I say "apparent", because obviously I could be misunderstanding his edits and the motivation behind them.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.61.250 (talk) 00:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've reverted to the original article title, as the "today's fastest cars" is decidedly unencyclopedic and silly. Do not change the title unless there is a consensus to do so. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

--- Anything referring to acceleration should be "quickness" or "quickest". "Fastest" refers to speed. Thus the title, matching the article text as is now, could be Quickest production cars. Or, Quickest and Fastest production cars, if y'all would like to keep both kinds of tables in the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.196.72.15 (talk) 15:20, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Article title needs tightening - is this a list of fast cars (max top speed), or rapid acceleration? Does a car with high speed but low acceleration fit the list better than a slow car with high acceleration? IdreamofJeanie (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2017
Remove Tesla Roadster from the list, it is not a production vehicle as only a prototype has been made and production wont begin until atleast 2020. 216.163.247.1 (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Removed by User:DeFacto Meters (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Tesla Roadster Prototype
Should the Tesla Roadster Prototype be listed here already? The car hasn't even been released yet, only teased as part of another release. It's official that the car won't be released until 2020 at earliest, so having it here is questionable. The model year is listed as 2017 as well, when that is definitely incorrect. Tesla CEO has noted that the specs could change in the future. Also, the info on the range and battery in the notes are irrelevant to the speed or acceleration of the car. Should they be removed? GMY0da (talk) 07:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah I think it should certainly not be listed with the other cars that can already be bought. We might create a second list of announced cars, though. Bonomont (talk) 13:47, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * +1 Can't see any other car on the list that is not (or was) available for purchase and is in customer hands. I think it is better to keep it that way or it will get flooded with prototypes that might never make it to production--Andig88 (talk) 19:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Definitely not. Prototype and pre-production cars may differ significantly from the actual production cars sold to customers. Announced cars that don't even have a physical prototype are just wishful thinking. Needs to be an actual car straight off the production line that can be bought by a customer.  Stepho  talk 22:18, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

New Tesla Roadster
So when are we getting the 1.9 time in for the new Tesla Roadster? Is it when it is produced and on the street, in higher numbers than it is now, or how many units produced for it to get on the list? :) 77.241.131.23


 * You mean the prototype Roadster that isn't in production yet? It cannot be considered until it is actually in production. The production vehicle may differ significantly from the prototype (eg, battery size, motor power, weight, gearing).  Stepho  talk 23:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Future cars on the list
It would be great if the list included only current production cars as the description of the list states. What is the point of adding cars of 2018 with stated claims? Please remove all future cars from the list.


 * List needs to be updated to include Tesla Roadster which is scheduled for production in 2020. Base model prototype goes 0-60 in 1.9 seconds, quarter mile in 8.8 seconds and has a top speed 250+ mph.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.174.130 (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * This is a list of actual cars, with actual recorded times. How do you record the time of a future car?  Stepho  talk 22:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Car manufacturers claimed performance statistics should not be kept from readers so long as it's clear said statistics have yet to be proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.146.174.130 (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Manufacturer's self-proclaimed figures are dubious at best. Self-proclaimed figures for a car that is not yet in production is a work of fiction. I could claim that I plan to release a car next year that will do 0-400 km/h in 1 second. I may or may not get the financial backing for it (because I'm a nobody who has never made a car before) but the claim is there.  Stepho  talk 22:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The Rimac Concept 1 appears to satisfy the requirements to be included on the list and currently listed with a 0-60 time of 2.4 seconds. I believe previously 100 cars needed to have been produced to qualify and the 88 that were produced fell short of that number.JCO11163 (talk) 02:48, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2017
Request the following corrections for the following cars (thank you for taking out your time to look at this recommended input.

Tesla Model S Under Noted Specs. Recommend the following change for clarity since you do not know which time is rollout- Change as follows “All electric with 5 (+2) seats, 2.28 sec time includes rollout”.

The Footnote 14 (Dodge Demon can actually do 0-60 mph in 2.1 seconds) should be added as a footnote to the Independent time column of the Tesla as it discusses the Tesla  2.28 second 0-60 time as rollout. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fleischje (talk • contribs) 19:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Ford GT
The 2017 Ford GT was put onto both tables using sourcing that appear to be created by someone and added in:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/Pryf57lQzyGtEu9eNUyejVP-nie6qtZ7ITLFx4Nn_TKNf7Y91j1if69j4e_aachBIZYx14BbgHFmy8Q=w1600-h786-rw-no

https://imgur.com/gallery/ET9Lj

I spent time going over as many links as I could find of Ford GT reviews, and most are introductory "first drive" reviews where the car has not been put through actual testing. Many of the articles referenced Car and Driver's estimated "2.9 second" 0-60 time. But this is, again, an estimate, and cannot be included. The "imgur" link is titled "October 2016 Edition Of Motor Trend: 0-200MPH & Top Speed Test", but upon checking the October 2016 issue of Motor Trend, that issue is testing 136 models of trucks and SUV's, and has no such "Top Speed Test". As such I have removed the GT from both lists. I have no doubt the car will be back on the list within the next year as more testing is done by valid automotive publications, but until such time it is not proper to include them in the list.

As always, corrections to my information are welcome. If someone is able to validate and provide actual proper sources for the above links, that are from actual sourced websites, please do update. Thank you.RTShadow (talk) 23:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Dodge Demon
The 2.3 sec time in the time and independent time columns should be replaced by 2.1sec as per the discussions within footnote 14. Add footnote 14 to the independent time column as the footnote. There is another article stating 2.0 sec for 0-60 sec from Hot Rod Magazine when rollout is used but I think the general consensus from auto magazines and FCA (Fiat Chrysler America) is 2.1 sec – so this is what I would go with. Anyways If you want to read the Hot rod article on the 2.0 sec 0-60 it is at http://www.hotrod.com/articles/2018-dodge-challenger-srt-demon-runs-9s-makes-840-hp/

Another suggestion after reading the ""Rollout vs. true 0-60" discussion above is to just remove rollout under the Noted Specs column as the car magazines use rollout as a part of their 0-60 independent tests.

Thanks Erik Fleischje (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌. You've got one source here and, if I'm reading it correctly, it doesn't verify all the changes you're requesting. All of this would need to be reliably sourced since they'd be pretty substantial changes.  City O f  Silver  16:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Here are two more articles to support the 2.1 seconds discussion Here are some more articles to back up the 2.1 sec http://fcauthority.com/2017/04/the-dodge-demon-can-actually-do-0-60-mph-in-2-1s/ http://www.carbuzz.com/news/2017/4/22/The-Dodge-Demon-Will-Hit-0-60-MPH-In-2-1-Seconds-In-These-Circumstances-7738855 what else are you looking for? Please let me know and I will see what I can find. Thanks fleischje


 * Currently there are no videos or actual verifiable magazine reviews that have the Demon doing 0-60 in 2.1 second. The 2.3 is verifiable, however, there is another issue with the Demon.  While the 0-60 time of 2.3 seconds is valid, and verifiable, per the rules of the page, "If an independent time becomes available, that time will be listed over the manufacturer's time regardless if the latter is quicker."  This brings up a bit of a conundrum.  The Demon is capable of hitting a 2.3 second quarter mile, perhaps even faster, but it is very difficult to launch the car, and requires quite a bit of practice and skill.  As of now, no publication has been able to duplicate the feat.  This isn't because the car is not capable of doing so, but more because of the difficulty in learning the process.  The only review I've found that lists a 0-60 time, is:


 * http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/first-drives/a10324196/2018-dodge-challenger-srt-demon-first-drive/


 * In that article, the tester uses the term "botched" to describe his best time of 0-60 in 3.3 seconds. Another issue of note, the reviewer took this time from the car's internal software app, which isn't the same as using typical reviewer testing procedures (external testing equipment, NHRA validated quarter mile times).  For these reasons, I don't feel the Demon should be removed from the list.  As I stated, the car is very well likely capable of doing the 2.3, maybe even a 2.1, who knows what the limit is, but it takes a LOT of skill.  I am interested in seeing the more detailed reviews from Autoweek, Car and Driver, Edmunds, etc, that we are going to see over the next year.  If they use rollout and get a documented time of 2.1s, then by all means, enter that time in.  For now however, it is merely speculation, as Dodge quite plainly states they consider 0-60 to be ZERO to 60, and they are not qualifying the time with rollout to be included. RTShadow (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Not even the 2.3 seconds to 60 mph are verifiable. There are only sources repeating the factory claim by FCA without saying they do so. No independent source has seen this time being measured at any location at any time.
 * The quartermile time is highly dubious too, we only know the NHRA devices measured it, but no independent observers watched it, they could have used slicks, tuned the engine or even have a similar car drive along and call it Dodge Demon, a car whose production didn't start before late the next year.
 * As an argument to insert it here it was said that it was verified by Guinness, yes, Guinness were there but they only got a certificate for the "Longest wheelie from a standing start in a production car", not for the quartermile run. And even this Dodge Demon entry has been removed from their webside, the "Longest wheelie from a standing start in a production car" is now empty without a record holder, not even there it's a production car anymore.
 * This side should list independent test times for comparison but instead we are part of viral marketing campaign, comparing apples with oranges, punishing those who play fair with open cards and rewarding those who don't. So if Dodge really had a production car last year we could assume they would have cars production enough by now to allow full independent testing, but the magazines were forbidden to use their own testing equipment, not even the drag strip timers were allowed to be turned on, only the app inside the car was allowed to be used. Fiat-Chrysler will keep on preventing independent tests like they've already done successfully with other supercars, their campaign lives from comparing apples with oranges, if the magazines test the Demon like the other cars on the list independently at standard street conditions and it won't be that fast, apples will be compared with apples and the valuable PR will be gone. http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/430782-longest-wheelie-from-a-standing-start-in-a-production-car    Drachentötbär (talk) 04:13, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Fiat-Chrysler will keep on preventing independent tests like they've already done successfully with other supercars" To what vehicle do you refer?  The only true "supercar" in the Fiat-Chrysler lineup is the Viper.  The Viper's 0-60 and quarter mile track times have been verified many times by many different independent sources.  The Viper's time on the ring was independently tested by private owners, the 7:01.3 lap time was verified by Road and Track, who was there during the testing.  That Nurburgring session did not even have Fiat-Chrysler involved with the testing, or any type of factory support.  That run was done with two dealer supplied Vipers, on poor track conditions, also verified by in car cameras, and can be watched here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-Qb7W0OD4M.  If your beef has to do with starting-ending points on the 'ring itself, that has nothing to do with Fiat-Chrysler, there is no standard set, be it bridgeway to gantry, or whatever point the manufacturer chooses.  The Dodge Viper run was done on the distance generally used for these runs.  It is surprising you don't have more of a beef with Porsche and the odd distance they chose to run the 918 at.  You have a major issue with the manufacturer's time on the Demon, that they haven't allowed people to run it yet.  The car hasn't even been on sale for 6 months yet.  Many manufacturers have the same sort of restrictions on what they allow journalists to do with the car.  Look at the Ford GT for instance.


 * The bottom line of this article (and the ring times article for that matter) is this: There will always be debate and contention about the times/distances/speeds because there isn't really a way to ever get a universally accepted homogeneous testing setup for this sort of comparison.  To do so you would need the same track, the same driver, the same tires, the same weather, the same gas, the list goes on and on.  These should be set up for general comparison more for fun bragging rights than for people to get offended by .1 seconds in 0-60, or half a second on the ring.  There will never be a way to make everyone satisfied with the results, so people honestly should just sit back and be glad that people are doing the work to put the information here.RTShadow (talk) 23:18, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I wasn't referring to the Viper, I was referring to the LaFerrari and other cars of this brand which was owned by Fiat. https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/ferrari-laferrari-hypercar-tested-review  https://jalopnik.com/5760248/how-ferrari-spins Talking about the Viper or Nurburgring here is pointless. I don't know what Ford did, fact is, FCA actively hindered independent measuring.


 * "You have a major issue with the manufacturer's time" - I have a major issue with what you call "manufacturer's time" here being treated like an independent time.


 * We only have a print-out from a NHRA measuring device one year before production start, no independent observers who can confirm that everything (as far they can see) was correct. It's up to the manufacturers to make it verifiable by filming or inviting independent witnesses but FCA didn't.


 * They don't even say that a certain buy-able configuration will be exactly like the 9.65 seconds pre-production car. They just say it was the "Dodge Demon", if you look at the options you'll see that the production cars they call so differ quite a lot from each other as might the 9.65 seconds version differ from anything you can buy and still be called "Dodge Demon".


 * So, the 9,65 seconds which you call "manufacturer's time" here should be treated as unverified. Drachentötbär (talk) 04:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * As compromise I suggest leaving the time there but making clear that it was measured pre-production and no independently tested as most other times were and replacing it as soon as an independent test gets available.Drachentötbär (talk) 14:02, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * You need to let this go. 1) "Pre-production" is your opinion and nothing more, there is nothing that supports this notion. The last time you did this you were warned to supply documentation of source before making that change, you just did it again. 2) The heading had clear instructions about what constitutes manufacturer times versus independent verifiable reviewer times.  In this case both times were verified by the NHRA.  The Demon has been out a very short amount of time by comparison to almost every other car on the list, as I stated above, within the next year, everyone will know more about the times and performance of the Demon.


 * Personal opinions have no place here, original research is bad enough, you aren't even doing that, you are speculating. Unless you find a valid (valid being important here) documented source, you shouldn't be making these changes.RTShadow (talk) 10:35, 30 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) The facts are well-known, what exactly do you doubt ? The car drove on the drag strip in 2016 http://www.caraganza.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/DG018_175CLdr0if8ght27im5medj6kdbe2ff.jpg, "pre-" has the meaning "before" https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pre?q=pre- , production started in September 2017 https://www.allpar.com/news/2017/09/demon-production-begins-at-brampton-assembly-38439 , I don't think a car from the production run drove back in time to be driven in 2016.  2) Don't know what you're referring to, in the first table there's no independent source claiming to have measured the 0-60 mph acceleration time, only sources repeating the manufacturer. In the second table there's no extra column to distinguish between manufacturer and independent tests so we have to make clear what is what in the text (when comparing apples with oranges make at least clear you do so), I hope you're right that we'll get independent number tests soon. Drachentötbär (talk) 20:32, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Rollout vs true "0-60"
There were both intended vandalism issues and unintended deletion of data issues on the article, I believe I have fixed it all. One thing needs to be addressed however, and that is the issue with stating "rollout" on one car and not on other vehicles. For those who do not know, "rollout" is a different method of measurement in which the stopwatch is not started until the car has rolled 1 foot, this can amount to anywhere from a 10th of a second for the fastest cars on the list, to half a second for slower sports cars (mind you, still quick cars though). Carmakers themselves as a rule do not use rollouts. Car and Driver, Road and Track, Motortrend, Autoweek, they've all been known to use rollouts. Why is this an issue here? Well, many of the times listed, if you go research them, are in fact using a rollout time. This is why the wiki article itself has a section up top that states some may or may not include rollout. That being said, there is no reason to go into the page itself and put "this was done with a rollout" (or without) beside the vehicle in question. That's covered by the explanation at the top of the chart. If you wish to get further into this, Motor Authority explains that, not only is the Demon's 2.1s 0-60 time done with a rollout, so is the Tesla Model SP100D's blistering 2.28 time. If you compare both cars rollout to rollout time, and no-rollout times, the Demon is slightly faster in both categories. Please feel free to discuss this here rather than have this continue into an edit war. Also I believe I have fixed all the issues on the page, but if I missed something please make the repair. I agree with the post above about "Future cars", they do NOT belong on this list, manufacturer's "best guess" about a cars time is not valid. RTShadow (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * So that we can compare apples with apples, we should mark each entry, eg with 'R' (rollout), 'S' (standing start) or blank (unknown). It is not valid to compare one time with another if they don't represent the same type of event.  Stepho  talk 22:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Agreed, problem is, the use of rollout is often times not listed, because magazine reviews generally don't go that far into the "how we do this" specifications, the only reason it was listed for the Demon and the Tesla I believe is due to the almost unbelievable time in which both vehicles do the 0-60 times. So often times they'll use rollout but never state it.RTShadow (talk) 16:03, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yep, hence my suggestion of 'R' (rollout), 'S' (standing start) or blank (unknown) .  Stepho  talk 00:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Second vote for adding a "R", "S" mark to identify known 1' rollout times vs. manufacturer's claimed standing times. Skiendog (talk) 17:33, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't think there is an independent 0-60 time for the Demon, the NHRA doesn't measure 0-60 times. The NHRA homepage has articles which mention the 1/4 mile time and the wheel lift but don't mention the 0-60 times. Drachentötbär (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

By 0–100 km/h time or 0–60 mph (0–97 km/h) (3.0 seconds or less)
This list should be made for 0-100 km/h or 0-60 mph only or thell somehow in table is it -100 km/h or 60 mph., because manufacturers dont tell their figures for both. Now this list is total mess, and you cant see really which is fastest car -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 19:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)


 * This list isnt still fixed, its kinda pointless to have list messed with 0-60 mph and 0-62 mph times -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 19:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)


 * But then we would have 2 separate tables, one for the American market and one for the rest of the world and you would still not be able to compare them easily. At least with the combined table you can tell which cars are close to each other, ie around 2.3 or around 3.0 . Since the difference is only a few percent and the times themselves can vary by a few percent due to air temperature, driver style, fuel quality, etc, then the times are still roughly comparable. But you're right that we should at least mark each entry as being 60 mph,97 km/h or 62 mph, 100 km/h.  Stepho  talk 22:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * If you must then use only 0 to 60 mph or 0 to 62 mph times, for most cars its possbile to find times for both speeds, now this table is useless,  times are not comparable in anyway. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 15:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Cant believe we still have this list, which gives wrong impression because its messed with different times, this isnt vry encylopedic article because that. This should definelty splitted to 0-60 mph and 0-100 km times or made list sortable to those times or mention which time is in table field. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 05:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Tesla Model S
Request that the Tesla Model S P100D w/Ludicrous+ Update & 10.44s time be removed from the 1/4 mile as this is a modified car (weight reduced by removing seats and other gear) running on non-factory tyres and thus I believe does not meet the eligibility criteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuzTheCat (talk • contribs) 00:10, 9 June 2019 (UTC)


 * ✅ Agreed, only as-sold in factory condition are allowed on this list of production cars.  Stepho  talk 00:45, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure that this is done yet. Instead, the two minor edits that I did on the entry for the Factory specced Raven Model S were reverted. The comment was about removing the entry for the other Model S whose times were done in the Tesla Racing Channel by removing the Frunk. I rewatched some of the TRC videos, and not sure if the seats were removed at this stage, or in later videos. Might need to verify this.


 * Probably I did it wrong. Feel free to undo my revert and then do the proper remove.  Stepho  talk 11:22, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Aspark Owl 1.9 seconds.
What about the Aspark Owl?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspark_Owl

The OWL can accelerate from 0-97 km/h (60 mph) in 1.69 seconds, 0-100 km/h (62 mph) in 1.921 seconds, 0-299 km/h (186 mph) in 10.6 seconds and can attain a top speed of 400 km/h (249 mph). The OWL's acceleration times make it the fastest accelerating production car in the world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7H6uhtbwx1k

https://www.topgear.com/car-news/dubai-motor-show/2012bhp-aspark-owl-most-powerful-production-hypercar — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.123.9.117 (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


 * They seem to have built one or two, not production yet. Toasted Meter (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

This page's lists was mixed and confusing
This lists are mixed and confusing. Because of 1-foot rollout and standing start accerelation times. Is we can make this as two lists. (as one for rollouts and one for standing starts) Muffyogsan (talk) 18:28, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think that's a good idea, as long as we note if a time includes rollout I am fine with it. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Rollout is industry standard and used for almost any 0-60 mph time, usually not even mentioned in the tests. So we should assume that all 0-60 times are rollout times, unless proven otherwise. It's totally misleading if only a few selected times are marked as rollout times, giving the false impression that the other cars are faster. If you have clear proof that a time is without rollout mark it as being without rollout.
 * 0-100 kph times are normally without rollout, so a second column with "real" 0-100 kph times might be worth adding.

How you saying all times are claimed with rollout. Any proof? Muffyogsan (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Read and try to understand my post again. Road & Track already wrote years ago that one-foot rollout is used in testing for all major car magazines, including themselves, but you added their testing times as non-rollout times and others can be mislead too, especially since test results are often retold repeatedly with decreasing accuracy. Rollout is the rule, not the exception.Drachentötbär (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Car and Driver also tests with rollout. Toasted Meter (talk) 00:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. I can understand what are you talking about. Motor Trend also doing rollouts. My question is why did you removed my previous (Added without rollout times for Huracán Performante and Taycan Turbo S) edites. And some magazines are not testing vehicles with rollout. And please type the link that saying every magazines testing with rollout. Muffyogsan (talk) 12:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * You have trouble with the Straw man. Neither did I write what you put into my mouth nor did the references you gave show what you edited. Neither the Huracán Performante and Taycan Turbo S claims you edited were sourced.
 * Links about rollout: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a30085446/acceleration-testing-procedure-change-rollout/  https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/videos/a32681/how-tesla-got-to-60-2-28-seconds/?fbclid=IwAR13PzEd3__UvWD_5kXQw9r43ud8Aoo3Psl1i_YghMXrJCwuCtGr36lfk-s
 * According to Road&Track all major car magazines use one-foot rollout, as well as NHRA and dragstrips, Car and Driver calls it industry standard. Autocar is the only magazine I know which tests 0-60 mph times without rollout and even there we have to check if they repost times from other sources, just like Car&Driver took the the McLaren F1 times from Autocar.
 * If we write a car can do 0-60 in 3 seconds without rollout although the car an only reach this time with rollout we are spreading false information, if it's the other way around it's just understatement. Drachentötbär (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I've added a list for times with standing start. Feel free to add more cars and other improvements. Since rollout and the additional mph take about 0.3-0.4 seconds we could allow 3.1-3.3 for this list. Drachentötbär (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

We need to add standing start times for 0-60 mph list too. And in 0-100 km/h list, some times don't have reliable sources or references to prove the time. So please remove them or add reliable sources or references for it with correct time Muffyogsan (talk) 10:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Which references are you referring to ?   Auto (periodico), Auto Bild, Auto Motor und Sport, Sport auto, Autozeitung and Quattroruote are well established automobile magazines. Drachentötbär (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah! But how can we cleared that them claimed that accerelation time in that car. Don't have any website or video that claimed it? Muffyogsan (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Did Autocar measure 0-100 km/h in 2.6 seconds for the 2015 Nissan GT-R NISMO ?
The "0-62mph 2.6sec" was not measured by Autocar. They didn't road test the car, it was only a first drive review where the manufacturer time was listed among the other technical specifications. Autocar measures 0-60 mph but not 0-62 mph when testing so the time wasn't measured by them and should be removed. Drachentötbär (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Please stop arguing for this. I can't say same thing again and again. Nissan didn't claimed any official time for GT-R NISMO to say 2.6 sec is the manufacturer time. No matter it is a road test or test drive. If they tested it to 0-62 mph no discussion about it. They claimed 2.6 sec time for GT-R NISMO. Please try to understand. Thank you! Muffyogsan (talk) 05:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Please stop adding incorrect data to this site. You added incorrect 0-100 km/h times from UK sites for the GT-R Nismo, the GT-R, McLaren P1 and Honda NSX. 0-100 km/h in 2.8 seconds were official McLaren factory numbers as well as the NSX time, Nissan reportedly had claimed 0-100 km/h in 2.7 seconds for the standard GT-R and 2.6 for the stronger Nismo is not far away. Stop picking mentioned factory numbers out of context and pretending that they were measured by the magazines. It's absurd to assume that UK magazines publish self-measured 0-100 km/h but not 0-60 mph times. Your exceptional claim that the magazines totally acted out of character needs exceptional sources which you don't deliver. In none of your links the magazines claimed to have measured the numbers themselves.Drachentötbär (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop edit war. There was no discussion on this. I'm saying again, Nissan didn't mentioned any 0-100 km/h time for GT-R NISMO. Autocar is is UK car magazine. This page also have numbers of Autocar's. I' m adding this numbers because they tested and claimed as 2.6 seconds. So no reason to remove this edit. And how can you tell 2.6 sec is a manufacturer time? Is you have any reference to provr it. And stop doing vandalism. If you not, sorry to say I'll report this. Thank you! Muffyogsan (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

And I'm kindly requesting to undo the possible vandalism did by Drachentötbär. Muffyogsan (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll agree with Muffyogsan. I saw the Autocar's article and there was don't have any performance figures that given by manufacturer. There was possibly mentioned that they were claimed 2.6 seconds by a test from 0-100 km/h. And I can see editor Drachentötbär is ignoring this for edits for no reason. I don't know why. Please stop this. There was no problem with the 2.6 second 0-100 km/h time. Heated Hater (talk) 18:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Heated Hater, are you associated with Muffyogsan? This seems like a very odd first edit for an unconnected editor. Toasted Meter (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh Hi! Yeah this is my first edit but I did lot of edits before as a anonymous. And I saw here this guys are fighting for a no reason and I don't know why. I think I did correct right? Heated Hater (talk) 05:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not sure I believe you, but I will assume good faith. Anyways, I do not see any reason for Autocar to deviate from its testing methodology, in reviews they usually publish 0-60 times, as a British publication that makes sense. I can absolutely see them asking a Nissan PR contact how fast it gets to 100 kmh and getting 2.6 as an answer, but that does not make it an independent time. They also never claim that they achieved 2.6, it's next to the top speed which I am very sure they did not test. Toasted Meter (talk) 09:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Anyone cannot surely say that they were asked it from the Nissan PR contact. Autocar doing the both 0-60 mph 0-100 km/h times for some vehicles. And in website (two times) and video they didn't mentioned anything about a manufacturer claim. If it was a manufacturer time why they didn't mentioned anything in the article and video? Nissan also didn't claimed any performance figures for GT-R NISMO (I can remember you send me link that saying Nissan don't doing straight line performance figures anymore). So that's very clear. I think 2.6 second is a tested time for sure. And it doesn't have manufacturer performance figures it there. Heated Hater (talk) 09:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Heated Hater, it's ridiculously obvious that you and Muffyogsan are the same person, sockpuppetry is not allowed, please stop before you are blocked. Toasted Meter (talk) 11:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

What? excuse me! What are you talking about? I don't who is that? Please do not mention me in your fights and discussions. Muffyogsan (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "I can remember you send me link that saying Nissan don't doing straight line performance figures anymore" from Heated Hater talking about something I replyed to Muffyogsan with, in the first person. If Muffyogsan is not in control of Heated Hater it would be a very odd string of coincidences that they would pop into this discussion agreeing with Muffyogsan as a first edit, make the same error of not indenting and mess up the perspective when talking about something I sent to Muffyogsan.


 * Without a checkuser I can't be sure but I have my suspicions, however I am not going to let those suspicions get in the way of writing the article. Toasted Meter (talk) 12:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

What about the other supercars & hypercars?
This page not includes the other fastest cars. Such as koenigsegg's, Rimac's, Hennessey's. Why? Muffyogsan (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
 * A combination of reasons, either it does not meet the production car definition of this page (Rimac and Hennessey) or they just aren't that impressive so no one bothered to add them (the fastest Koenigsegg time I can find is 0-100 km/h in 2.8 sec), Koenigsegg does not seem to target very fast 0-100 times so you don't see that as a headline. No reason you can't add them. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

But today I saw a article that test by car and driver, koenigsegg agera one: 1 did the 0-60 mph time in 2.5 seconds and the quarter mile time in 9.0 seconds. Can we add them? Here the link.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15108166/2015-koenigsegg-one1-first-drive-review/ Muffyogsan (talk) 04:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Zenvo vehicles also need to be added to the list Muffyogsan (talk) 10:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Has Zenvo ever made a car that fits this list's production car definition? Toasted Meter (talk) 14:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah ST1 did 0-100 km/h in 3.0 sec. And another special edition(i can't remember the name) doing it 2.8 seconds. What about the agera one:1 Muffyogsan (talk) 14:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * They only made 15 (maybe less) ST1s and only 7 One:1s existToasted Meter (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Lot of false performance figures added.
I visited the pages that given references for every cars in 0-100 km/h list. But some car's reference's don't have a 0-100 km/h times. And some are can not found. Please check them again. Muffyogsan (talk) 10:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Which figures are you talking about ?
 * For example the Veyron reference says "Genau 2,84 Sekunden zeigt das Messgerät bei 100 km/h an."(The measuring device shows exactly 2.84 seconds at 100 km/h) and the time is also confirmed in the picture gallery belonging to the article "... absolviert die Bugatti-Rakete den SPORTSCARS-Sprinttest in 2,84 Sekunden."(... the Bugatti rocket completes the SPORTSCARS sprint test in 2.84 seconds.)Drachentötbär (talk) 13:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I missed that later part, interesting that the numbers are so close. I checked the other ones and did not see any that don't have the stated time. Toasted Meter (talk) 14:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Nope. 991.2 and 991 turbo s, 991 gt2 rs, mclaren 720s and 488 pista. There's don't have performance figures. Is there was? Muffyogsan (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * For all those cars there are reliable sources with the acceleration figures. Drachentötbär (talk) 19:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Sure? Muffyogsan (talk) 03:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I looked and all the ones that are online seem to be good, the magazine ones can't be easily verified, it might be possible to verify it without having the magazines but I did not try. Anyways, a source not being readily available does not make it invalid, we assume that the editor who added them was acting in good faith. If you can find them and they don't support the claims then we will have something that needs fixing. Toasted Meter (talk) 16:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Autocar's 0-100 km/h time for Nissan GT-R NISMO is need to be in this page or not?
I don't see anything in this performance figure. Because there don't anything mentioned in video and article (two times - second picture and specifications table) that manufacturer claimed performance figures. So the references are surely clear. And Nissan didn't claimed any 0-100 km/h for the car. They only claimed for GT-R as 2.7 seconds. Do I think there was no problem with the performance figure. Thank you! Muffyogsan (talk) 11:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * They make no claim of the origin of the time, there is no reason to assume it's tested and some good reasons to think it's not. Toasted Meter (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

As same as there is no reason to assume it's manufacturer claimed. There was no reason to Autocar to paint the GT-R NISMO can hit the 0-100 km/h in 2.6 seconds. Autocar is one of the World's most leading car magazines. So if they were mentioned a performance figure that is a independent time held by a independent car magazine. And can you tell what are the good reasons to think it's not? Muffyogsan (talk) 12:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It using a unit inconsistent with most/almost all of their times in other reviews. Just because Autocar printed a number does not mean they tested the car and recorded it, same with the top speeds. Wikipedia is not based on guessing at things not stated in reliable sources, Autocar does not say or even imply they tested it so we can't guess they did. Toasted Meter (talk) 12:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Why we need to guess it? We don't need to guess it. Because (I'm saying again) there don't have anything about a manufacturer claim. If it a manufacturer claim they were mention it in the article. So I'm not guessing at things not stated in reliable sources. I think you doing it (because there don't have a manufacturer time described but you saying it's a manufacturer time). And please don't let me say the same thing again and again. Thank you for replying.Muffyogsan (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

You guys can not remove the previous edits without proving them are manufacturer times. So you need to prove them. Not guessing. Nissan didn't claimed 0-100 km/h manufacturer time for normal GT-R too. They claimed only 0-60 mph. So you can't say them are manufacturer times. Thank you! Muffyogsan (talk) 06:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * WP:BURDEN "The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article." it does not say that it's a tested time, and others have challenged it as using units that are inconstant with how Autocar testing is performed. Unless you can find them saying that they got the time through their own testing it should be removed. You might want to get in contact with Autocar and see if they can provide some more clarity. Toasted Meter (talk) 12:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I can't clearly understand what are you talking about. Can you please clearly say your comment. Muffyogsan (talk) 12:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * As Autocar does not say how they obtained the time we would be assuming they tested it, we can't do that. Toasted Meter (talk) 01:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Then how they claimed that the can can achieve it 2.6 seconds. Muffyogsan (talk) 03:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

If it is a guessed time or manufacturer time they surely saying it was a estimated time or it's given by the manufacturer. Then why they were didn't do that? Muffyogsan (talk) 03:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * They don't say what it's, you want to assume that it was tested. I don't know where it came from, so I can't. Toasted Meter (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we can because that's not manufacturer. It's published by a independent car magazine. That's a independent source. They published it because it claimed by test. I think it's better understand for you. Ok, what about others. Why removed other times. Muffyogsan (talk) 10:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you see Autocar saying they tested the acceleration? No because they did not say that, how many times do I have to say it?

Who's massage was this? I can't see a name Muffyogsan (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to sign it. Toasted Meter (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I saw and article of top gear's (Dutch). They tested the 2018 GT-R NISMO. They achieved the 0-100 km/h time of 2.6 seconds. I can't add the link. I don't know what's the problem. I'll add the text. Can we add it to the list?

https://topgear.nl › autotests › ni... Nissan GT-R Nismo (2018) - test en specificaties - TopGear Muffyogsan (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This one ? It looks quite good, no oddness with units and the video suggests they did a proper test. Toasted Meter (talk) 17:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree. In the video there's no testing equipment visible in- or outside the car, no acceleration times are shown anywhere. In the article it's never mentioned that they measured anything. The translated text says "Because with that 600 hp, the GT-R sprints to 100 km/h in 2.6 seconds. A Chiron does that in 2.5 seconds." They definitely didn't measure the Chiron. Top Gear is an entertainment show, you almost never find acceleration times measured by them, even in their magazine.Drachentötbär (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Mr. Drachentötbär it's performance figure test you can see it as "autotest" and "test en specificaties" so please don't start fights again for no reason. Muffyogsan (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "autotest" is not "acceleration test" and "specificaties" is a list of factory data. There are many "autotests" on this website but I haven't seen any where 0-100 km/h was measured by the testers. The video wasn't released with the article, it's an older video with a different car from the one shown in the article pictures. The article originated from an older UK top gear test with leftover pictures from the wet Silverstone circuit, showroom pictures, PR, jokes and prices in Euro added. In the original test no acceleration was measured, the translated and retold test doesn't yield an measured 0-100 time either.Drachentötbär (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't have any useful point of your discussion. "autotest" means performance test. Acceleration is also revelent for the performance test. Not only specifications. There was described test and specificationsl as "test en specificaties" so it's clear as tested. UK top gear's (you described)article don't have any 0-100 km/h time. Video is need to be older because firstly they testing and after that they claiming the time and preparing for the release. And videos and images not matter for a performance figure (there no videos on your edit's reference too). Finally top gear uk didn't did the test. The test was did by top gear Netherland. So no problem of this time. And I said to stop this none useful arguments. I hope you understand and please do not start arguments again about this performance figure for no reason. Thank you! Muffyogsan (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * They list a 0-100 time for every car they test but don't measure themselves. The 0-100 number in the article is treated as part of technical specification (officially or inofficially) by the manufacturer like horsepower, top speed or the Chiron acceleration time they didn't measure either.
 * It's an exceptional claim that the same car for which Autovisie measured 0-100 in 3.2 seconds was measured 0-100 in 2.6 seconds. As "proof" you have an article/video, supposedly belonging together although not a single picture of the car in the video is in the article (but many old ones of another car). Neither in the video nor in the article anyone claims to have measured acceleration times. Drachentötbär (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey. It is a performance figure test. You also can see it in the article. How can you say this time not measure by themselves. They tested the time and just mentioned it on technical specifications. So that's not going to be w manufacturer claim. Chiron's was a manufacturer time. They mentioned it to just say it's close to Chiron's speed that's all.

Autovisie's video and top gear's videos are not same. Please check it. They are different cars and different weather conditions. What are you talking about? (Check it)

Picture not important for a performance figure. Adding pictures was selected by them for some reason. And that's not going to change the time. And they no need to say that they tested the time on everywhere. If it is a auto test and they saying they achieved the 0-100 km/h in 2.6 seconds that's clear. Please stop this. Final warning Muffyogsan (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop sending false articles and videos to divate others. This time was added because it's claimed by independent source and it's a independently tested time. It was added after a possible discussion. So you don't have a point to prove it's not. Don't waste your time for useless arguments. Please search new performance figures for other cars ton add to the list. Muffyogsan (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The car in the Top Gear NL video is the same as the one measured 0-100 in 3.2 seconds in the Autovisie supertest, the number plate is the same. Measuring 0-100 in 2.6 seconds for the same test car would be very extraordinary. In the article the time is mentioned, but they didn't say they achieved or measured it. It's not a performance figure test since no figures were measured. The Chiron's 2.5 seconds 0-100 time is written in the article and can be found in in several "Specificaties" sections, yet we both agree that the time wasn't measured, for the Nismo time we should apply the same standards. It's very unlikely that TopGearNL measured the time.
 * As per WP:PROVEIT you have to prove the correctness of your claim that the 2.6 seconds were independently measured. Your source should verify it directly but it doesn't. Your claim cannot be logically concluded from it either. Drachentötbär (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm saying again, videos and images were doesn't matter for a performance figure. We are not adding performance figures by seeing videos or images. They saying they achieved the time. It is a "autotest". And other articles too, they not saying "we hit the time". They only saying car sprinting the time and just typing as "supertest" or something in the article's heading. So this also just like that. The Chiron's time is not is specifications. And they mentioned in article to show there time was very close to Chiron's. I already proved it on discussion. So it's clear. I think now you only need to prove it that it'll not a independent time. And how many times I need to tell same thing? Muffyogsan (talk) 00:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

And it's very clear as a test. Because in specifications they added there claims as 0-100 km/h time, Consumption and luggage space. So they were not issued by manufacturer. They claimed by the test. Muffyogsan (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Specifications are usually what the manufacturer specifies. I think Drachentötbär is right that it does not verify it directly, you might want to contact them and ask if the time was tested. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:11, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey I visited every article that you added to 0-100 km/h list and them also not saying that they achived it. They only claiming "the car can do" or "car sprinting". And some were don't have an 0-100 km/h time. Now what? Is you going to remove them? or prove them as per WP:PROVEIT. Muffyogsan (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Make a list of the ones you think are lacking and why. Toasted Meter (talk) 06:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Ok I'll only add the cars that not exist there 0-100 km/h performance figures in given reference

Bugatti Veyron Super Sport Porsche 911 GT2 RS (991) Porsche 911 Turbo S (991)

Some references don't have links. So I didn't visit them. I just hope it'll be better. Muffyogsan (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The Veyron article is an acceleration and braking test where the measured values are displayed in the slideshow. The GT2 RS number is in a table with the heading "Messwerte" (measured values), the 911 Turbo S number is in a table with measured acceleration values as the Nissan GT-R number shows, in the text they state that Nissan claims 2,7 but needs 3,1.Drachentötbär (talk) 11:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

We need to new 0-100 km/h times for the new list.
We missed some vehicles that doing 0-100 km/h under 3.0 seconds. So we need to add more vehicles to the list. I'm kindly requesting for the editors to search that vehicle performance figures and add to the list after doing a discussion. Thank you! Muffyogsan (talk) 10:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I saw an article describes 2017 Nissan GT-R's performance test of TopGear Netherland's. They saying they achieved the 0-100 km/h in 2.8 seconds. Can we add it?

Here is the link https://topgear.nl/autotests/nissan-gt-r-black-edition/ Muffyogsan (talk) 12:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * They don't say they measured the time so we can only guess the origin of this number, it could be an estimation. It cannot be verified so it doesn't belong into the table. Drachentötbär (talk) 23:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

And these too. Honda NSX's https://topgear.nl/autotests/lamborghini-huracan-performante-honda-nsx-mclaren-570s-spider/ Muffyogsan (talk) 01:16, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Other vehicle's reference also don't anything measured about they achieved. They only saying "car can go" and saying it's a supertest in articles heading Muffyogsan (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't think any of the 2.6 times I have seen meet the rules, however I think 3.0 is not the fastest independent time, AutoBild seems to have got a 2.8 through proper testing. Toasted Meter (talk) 14:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The AutoBild Nismo article is a "Fahrbericht" (driving report), such articles are about driving impressions. Testing procedures aren't applied to the car, so it's very unlikely they measured the acceleration. It's like the Autocar "first drive" articles which don't do number testing either.
 * It says "test, 0-100" just above the tite. Toasted Meter (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't remember reading any "Fahrbericht" where numbers were measured. "0-100 Test" would imply that they measured 0-100, but with the comma between it's like "Test and 0-100". It's not so clear any more, they might just have tested the driving and proclaimed the official factory number. In a newspaper article from the same publishing house (dated 4 days later, sharing a picture) they write below a picture "...In nur 2,8 Sekunden stürmt er auf Tempo 100 Quelle: Nissan" (In just 2.8 seconds he rushes to 100 km/h Source: Nissan). Drachentötbär (talk) 21:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

Then 2.6 seconds is not a Nissan claimed performance figure. Muffyogsan (talk) 06:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

And in there instagram page. In there every GT-R NISMO posts, the car same to the other car in video (by number plate). Muffyogsan (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

And visit there "autotest" page too. They described as ,Here you can read the car tests of TopGear Netherlands. We test the latest cars of all brands such as Volkswagen, BMW , Skoda , Hyundai , Mercedes , Audi , Kia , Nissan , Toyota , Tesla and almost everything and every brand you can think of". So it is a probably a tested time. Muffyogsan (talk) 06:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Test is not a well defined term, it can mean driving impressions or a comprehensive test of performance. Drachentötbär, could you ask AutoBild if they do test 0-100 times in Fahrberichts and if it was tested in this case? No clue if they would get back to you but it might provide some insight.

But If Nissan saying the 2.8 seconds is the Nissan's time, 2.6 seconds is probably need to be tested time. Muffyogsan (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nissan told 2.8 seconds for the 2018 version in 2018. From this you cannot conclude which time they did or didn't tell Top Gear for another version years before.Drachentötbär (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

They did the test by a 2018 model year GT-R NISMO. Watch the page. And 2017 facelifted GT-R NISMO is same fast as the 2018 and the 2019 GT-R NISMOs. And with other cars tests, there's 0-100 km/h times also different with there manufacturer times. So it's proving they not describing manufacturer performance figures for there autotest article So it's clear as a tested time. So Re-add them. Muffyogsan (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

And visit there social media pages too. In February 2018 posts. Probably possible to see the same GT-R NISMO photos and videos. So it's very clear that they tested it. Muffyogsan (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Please add the links to the social media pages you mentioned and show precisely where they indicate that they did acceleration number measuring.Drachentötbär (talk) 01:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

This is the link text mentioning they did the test by 2018 model year GT-R NISMO- https://topgear.nl › autotests › ni... Web results Nissan GT-R Nismo (2018) - test en specificaties - TopGear

This is the autotest for Tesla model s p90d and a 0-100 km/h time by 3.0 seconds- https://topgear.nl › autotests › te... Tesla Model S P90D Ludicrous (2016) - test en specificaties - TopGear

There available autotests for other cars too. I added only this for a exapmle. Checkout them then you can understand. Muffyogsan (talk) 03:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is the Instagram posts.(first one is the photo on website)

https://www.instagram.com/p/BfnoFONFNZ2/?igshid=1fu3aiauy90l0

https://www.instagram.com/p/BcSCTlClGmP/?igshid=1037hxgn7c0e9

https://www.instagram.com/p/BcMuN4fFaFk/?igshid=1gb0h4a5805yd

https://www.instagram.com/p/BcKf0vel6rT/?igshid=19ta1e0v53y33

It is the same car that describes in the article's video. Muffyogsan (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is more autotests did to other cars. And there's performance figures also different with manufacturer times.

https://topgear.nl › autotests › a... Web results Porsche Taycan Turbo S - Autotest en Specificaties TopGear

https://topgear.nl › autotests › la... Web results Lamborghini Aventador SV Roadster (2016) - test - TopGear

There's lot of independently tested times for several vehicles. This tests proving again TopGear Netherlands not describing manufacturer times for there autotest articles. So we can add there performance figures. If you agreed for this please tell it without keeping silence. Muffyogsan (talk) 11:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The topgear.nl links don't work. On the linked instagramm pages there's no trace of number measuring, neither in pictures nor texts. This is an indication against them measuring numbers, not for it.Drachentötbär (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Magazine's don't describing there results on social media. I added them to prove that the car was personally owning by topgear Netherlands and they used to do testing and they tested it before autovisie did. Because in social media they posted the car in November and early early December. I'll add the links again.

This for prove that they tested a 2018 model year GT-R NISMO - https://topgear.nl/autotests/nissan-gt-r-nismo-test-2018/

And this was to prove that they were not describing manufacturer 0-100 km/h times for there autotest articles. https://topgear.nl/autotests/autotest-porsche-taycan-turbo-s/ https://topgear.nl/autotests/lamborghini-aventador-sv-roadster-2016/ https://topgear.nl/autotests/tesla-model-s-p90d-ludicrous-2016/

Visit them this time is a probably and independently tested time. Muffyogsan (talk) 15:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Here is Autotest Porsche 911 GT2 RS too. https://topgear.nl/autotests/porsche-911-gt2-rs-2010/ There was lot of tests available for lot of vehicles. I'm waiting for everyone's replays. Muffyogsan (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I checked, every single time in the articles you linked lines up exactly with manufacturers claimed times for the same cars. I don't see any reason to think they actually tested any of them, they didn't say they did. Toasted Meter (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

See the Porsche 911 GT2 RS time. It's saying "It is literally shocking and the numbers confirm this: 100 km / h appears on the screen after only 3.5 seconds". If they didn't tested then how displaying 3.5 seconds on the screen. And it's proving may be manufacturer times sometimes can be same with the tested time.

And that's not the manufacturer times for tesla manufacturer time was 2.8 seconds. For porsche taycan it's 2.6 seconds.

And if Nissan says their time was 2.8 seconds. Then why we need to discuss for a 2.6 second time. Think about it. Muffyogsan (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

And in social media too we can see they spending on road with same GT-R NISMO at the same time. Please try to understand. Muffyogsan (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It just happens to be the same as the manufacturer time, for the Taycan it's 2.8 , 2.9 for the Lamborghini and for the Tesla it's 3.0 . This would be a somewhat unlikely coincidence. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

That's what I'm talking about. You can see 911 is a tested time. So sometimes tested times also can be same with the independent performance times. And for taycan they saying after the time, "We drove both cars". For Lamborghini too. And the Tesla's manufacturer time don't have a p90d and dealers times can not to be a manufacturer time. And chek out the social media too. We can see they testing them on same time. Ok leave them. What about the GT-R? It's same model year manufacturer time is 2.8 seconds. It's proving 2.6 seconds is a tested time. And we can see they testing the car by videos and images (article's video and social media). These all prove it as a tested time. Muffyogsan (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * No clue what you are talking about, TopGear.nl says 3.5 and so does Porsche, Tesla has no dealers and that page says that a P90D with ludicrous mode will do 0-100 in 3.0. Just because they have driven the car does not mean they tested acceleration. Toasted Meter (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Then how did they get 2.6 seconds of a 0-100 km/h time in a car that it's manufacturer saying 2.8 seconds? Muffyogsan (talk) 13:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)


 * There is no officially published time by Nissan, one PR guy could be a bit more optimistic. The problem here is that they don't say they tested it, and the numbers they have published seem to line up with those published by manufacturers, we have no reason to think they tested it and some reasons to think they did not. Toasted Meter (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You know what, you guys were sons of some bitches of think. And I don't need this fucking wikipedia anymore. When you two left from editing that day this thing calls as Wikipedia. So now this is a bitchespedia. I'm waiting to laugh for your fucking replys. Good night. Muffyogsan (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

(see this column's notes)
What the heck does this mean? Which row(s) of the notes column does it reference? Why not just leave it blank? --Vossanova o&lt; 17:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, I see that the column title has a footnote, but I still don't see the point in referencing it in every row that has no additional notes. --Vossanova o&lt; 17:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Drachentötbär (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well the cars which are most typical shouldn't necessarily seem to have "nothing", in other words there are still useful specs there but it would be too repetitive/bulky to list everything each time Altanner1991 (talk) 20:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Jay Leno's Bugatti Chiron Road Test
Jay Leno quoted that he did a 0-60 mph time in 2.5 seconds in that Bugatti Chiron. On the video, they Showing they were launching the car. Watch the video and decide. Heated Hater (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

And actually video doesn't showing the whole test drive. But Full test showed in a CNBC TV show or something. And there was a different video too. And it's showing different footages. I can't add the links I don't know why. I hope you guys can search it on YouTube. Heated Hater (talk) 05:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a vBox? A car's onboard speed display can overread or lag the real speed significantly, we also don't know if the ground was flat-ish or if there was significant wind. Toasted Meter (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm not pretty sure. But you know Jay Leno is a professionally doing supercar reviews. So he knows how to do a test in a speed vehicle. He said he did a 2.5 second of 0-60 time in that Chiron. So may be he will used the correct methods for it. Heated Hater (talk) 14:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)


 * "So may be he will used the correct methods for it" is not reliable. Toasted Meter (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey check out the 2018, February 1st episode of Jay Leno's Garage. Hey using the Vbox system for his 0-60 mph time of 2.5 seconds and it's reliable. But it's not available on internet. You need buy it personally to watch. Can we add it to the list? Heated Hater (talk) 08:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

About no reason rivisions.
Now what your problem? Don't do an edit without understanding. Now discribe the problem. Heated Hater (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the only available article from it. Published after one month of the test. (This is just a review)- https://revistaautoesporte.globo.com/Analises/noticia/2015/03/nissan-gt-r-o-monstro-camarada.html

And this is the track test (did before accerelation test) and only showing the manufacturer time of 2.8 seconds.- https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-om-lge&sxsrf=ALeKk03INmRag-AwAgh34GncCOFwo_yZKg%3A1594875548443&ei=nN4PX8PAGoHb9QPVwoW4DA&q=aceleramos+o+nissan+gtr&oq=aceleramos+o+nissan+gtr&gs_lcp=ChNtb2JpbGUtZ3dzLXdpei1zZXJwEAMyBAgjECcyBAgjECcyBAgjECc6BAgAEEc6BAgeEApQrEdYtvgBYI-BAmgBcAF4AIAB8AOIAcwNkgEJMC41LjAuMS4xmAEAoAEB&sclient=mobile-gws-wiz-serp# Heated Hater (talk) 05:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)