Talk:Production car speed record/Archive 1

Cleaning up this article
I put this article up on AFD, but it appears that it's going to be kept, so I'd like to start up some discussion on what needs to be done to fix it. I see the following issues:


 * 1) Article name - needs to be more descriptive and more encyclopedic.
 * 2) Neutral point of view - this is not neutral: "Ferrari F40 was a legend since inception. Launched to celebrate Ferrari's 40th Anniversary, it was rough, spartan, basic, carrying an almost unbelievably bad finish, but man, was it fast! Pure adrenaline, pure pleasure, with a 201 mph (323 km/h) maximum speed."
 * 3) Sources - this article cites no sources for its figures.
 * 4) Standards for inclusion - I suggest we use the standards found on List of automotive superlatives to decide what counts as a production car and therefore what should be discussed in this article.

I think that this article is best suited to being converted into a list of fastest production cars through the years. TomTheHand 19:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The list on this article of the fastest cars is different to that of the "Fastest street-legal production car" box thingy at the bottom of the respective cars' articles. When you click through those you arrive at the Lambo Countach, which isn't in this list at all, and according to the Countach article there is no previous fastest car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.66.8.120 (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I believe it to make sense that this article be merged into, or simply entirely redirected to, List_of_automotive_superlatives as that article contains a much broader spectrum of information about other automobile records and this article is somewhat lacking in content and references as well as overall consistency and organization. The other article also already includes several notable past record-holders. Please leave any comments on this below with your belief as to the course of action that should be taken. Thank you. --Ctrlfreak13 01:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Dont merge.92.5.78.73 (talk) 19:59, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Huh
Both these statements are contradicting:

"The first production Ferrari was launched in 1948, using a shared engine from their V12 Grand Prix cars. The 410 Superamerica reached over 257 km/h (160 mph) in late 1948."

"1954 Mercedes-Benz 300SL 250 km/h (155 mph)"

Someone should fix them. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Objection
Maybe if this article was titled Fastest Streel Legal car the Uhlenhaut coupe would have a place here but taking in to consideration that mercedes only made 2(two) of them, that they were never sold to anyone they hardly seem to be production cars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.85.0.66 (talk • contribs) 12:00, February 9, 2008 (UTC)

Barabus TKR
When this record-breaking supercar car is coming up? 88.114.216.26 (talk) 16:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Now known as the Keating TKR - the car crashed in 2010 while attempting to set the record. Their web-site suggests a new model is being made for 2013, but unless they make more they seem to one-off's.

Lamborghini Diablo
Where is this car? In 1990 this babe broke the record. --190.25.6.109 (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * on the diablo page, it says it is. preceded by Ferrari F40, and succeeded by Bugatti EB110 24.222.93.190 (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. Popular car magazines of the time touted the Lamborghini Diablo as the fastest production car in the world when it was introduced in 1990. I read it in Road and Track, if I remember correctly. Fungicord (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Fungicord - check the discussion under the heading F40 vs Diablo below. Essentially independent test results for the F40 yeilded a higher top speed than the Diablo thus the Diablo misses out.NealeFamily (talk) 19:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What is mass produced production car?
Mercedes-Benz SSK Murphy Roadster between 31 and 35 examples were built with around half being factory-designated Rennwagens, or race cars. So only around 15 is made for street use. This table should have clear rules... --&mdash; Typ932 T  07:01, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

The single issue that arrised from this article is the ill defined nature of "production car." Road legal is simple enough depending on legal jurestiction but the requirments in terms of production volume are rather more moot: - Manufacturers who procure components & assemble cars only after orders are recieved, contrary to many common definitions of "mass production." - Very limited production runs - Factory "legalised" race cars (e.g. many Alfa Romeo pre-war offerings, some of which would count here)

Further to this defining a factory car seems equally tricky; comments above note companies such as (for example) RUF, who essentially produce cars which have a parent car from a major manufacturer as their development start point & repressent a collection of modified components (albeit with a few exceptions) thereof. While these can be purchased factory fresh they are still repressent a modification of a base product (intellectually & physically) from a major another manufacturer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.48.5 (talk) 16:17, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Reorganize
I propose that this article be cleaned up by being changed to 'Production Car Speed Records'. There is only one fastest car. This entry is about multiple records not a single car. Also, there should be a determination as to what counts as a production car so that a second list of 'Street Legal Car Speed Records' could be produced. For example, the Ruf CTR is not generally considered to have set a record for fastest production car- (Which at the time would I believe have been the Lamborghini Diablo) but it certainly would have qualified as fastest street legal car. The Ruf CTR, should not be on this list because it is a modified Porsche 911. OckRaz (talk) 18:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you are wrong. A Ruf is not a Porsche. Do a little research - it is based on a porsche chassis - this is where it ends. Ruf is its own make, and has its own badge - which is the identifying and technical characteristic of a unique auto manufacturer (versus aftermarket modifier). jeeperjake 23:00, 23, November 2008 (PST)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.48.105 (talk)

I would argue with this. According to this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruf_CTR, production began in 1987 and 29 were built from scratch, rest converted from customer cars. Converted cars can not be considered mass produced as they are not produced by definition. So it is left with 29 actually built. If this number is enough to classify into this table, then why not include 25 built Porshe 917? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.238.96.5 (talk) 07:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain this?
I see something missing in this table. For example, according to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_917 In 1969 Porsche 917 was displayed at the Geneva Motor Show. 25 were built and they were sold to general public for the price of DM 140,000. Also there is stated that at least two 917s were road-registered. So, this car was mass produced (comparing to some other models from this table like Monteverdi Hai 450). It is definitely road legal as it was actually registerd for road use. Why then it is not included? It had a top speed of over 254 mph (407 km/h), thus it has to be the fastest car starting from 1970 up until SSC Ultimate Aero TT. So why isn't it?


 * There is more to it than that. The 917 was built as a racer. They built 25 cars, brought one to Geneva and gave it a sticker price to nominally meet the CSI competition standards. The car was never speed-tested in a non-racing configuration. The only numbers come from race versions of the car. And while two cars were road-registered, the registrations were rather unusual. One was bought as a race car, raced once, sent back to the factory for one-off street modifications, registered in the US and driven in europe (Rossi's car). The other one was Joachim Grossmann who bought a wrecked 917 frame and other components for 20,000 D-marks rebuilt it into a street-legal car (examples: installing of turn signals, hand brake, Safety glass windows and some modifications to the exhaust system). A stock 917 isn't street legal and Porsche has never sold one as a production (non-race) car. Rossi's was sold as a race car originally. Grossmann bought pieces of a wreck which he rebuilt.

Similar question - Koenigsegg CC, I thought, beat the F1 before the Veyron came along. It says so in the article on it?? 86.151.207.213 (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Countach an Diablo.
First - Countach was faster than Miura so it has to be placed betwin Miura and Ferrari 288 GTO. Second - since the RUF CTR is removed, Diablo is a one that has to be placed betwin F40 and EB110. Is it correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.238.96.5 (talk) 07:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


 * 5000QV was the first Coutach to reach speeds higher than 171 mph (the Miura record). But it was introduced in 1985, later than 288 GTO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.183.236.73 (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

LP400 (1974) was achieving 192 mph. There was also several high power 5.0l engine versions of LP400 (produced in 1975) made for Walter Wolf. It is believed to achieve 196-201mph. Definitely Countach is missing from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.163.55.103 (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * got an objective source for the 192 number? No thought not. Re engined versions don't count. Greglocock (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Source missing
My problem with this list is that it lacks reliable source and I feel some of these are manufacturer claims, partically anything around the 1980s.

Well, heres one that isn't listed; some time ago, I seen a copy of Guinness Book of Records (presumably a '88 edition) which stated that the Lamborghini Countach 5000QV was the fastest production car. Donnie Park (talk) 19:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

standards
The article is contradictory as far as what the standards are for "fastest production car".

1) Recent winners are not "mass-produced". The current holder (Ultimate Aero TT) at best produced under ten cars and maybe even less than that of the model that was given the record.

2) The record-setting cars in the configuration where they won the record are absolutely not street-legal.

3) The record-setting cars are by every definition of the term "modified cars". They are not even close to whats being sold as the production car. They are typically at best a "limited edition" of one.

174.46.28.58 (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with some of your points:

1) The Ultimate Aero is being produced to 50 cars, and Mclaren produced 66. I can see where you got the idea for the SSC, it was originally started as a limited edition but has since become the standard car.

2) The previous four cars (McLaren F1, Koenigsegg, Buggatti and SSC) were all stock.

3) See number 2.

~Sandypineman~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandypineman (talk • contribs) 21:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Another problem is that this page is simply a supercar fan page. Nowhere is it considered that the Model T could have been the fastest car in the world at the time. In 1908 it could do 40mph. Was there another car that could go that fast? The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeantaud could do 39mph in the 1880s. Listing fast modern cars is fine, but in reality, if a car sets a land speed record of 125mph in the 1930s, it had to be faster than something that came before it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.120.20 (talk) 19:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Jaguar XJ220
This car does not belong on the list. It only beat the record in a modified non-street legal configuration (no emissions). 174.46.28.58 (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * With catalytic converters it reached 212.3 mph (341.7 km/h), which was a record anyway. With them removed, it reached 217.1 mph (349.4 km/h). It was done to achieve the ultimate goal of 220 mph, which stood for it's name XJ220. 217.1 mp/h on the oval Nardo Ring is roughly equivalent to 223 mph (359 km/h) on a straight road.93.183.236.73 (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Edits from this account
Hi! It seems my pesky 10-year-old brother has been abusing my account... please note that none of the nonconstructive edits from this account where actually done by me!--Vox Humana 8' 16:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion
This is just poorly sourced random list of fast cars, this is not list of any organization-approved topspeeds, thats why its missing fast cars as this is just random list from random years... see also discussion in WP:CARS Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles --Typ932 T&middot;C 21:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In general, I agree with the assessment that this article is rather poorly defined, poorly executed and poorly-sourced. What is your proposal to do about it?   N2e (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Scope of this article
Is it meant to document the progression of the land speed record, or is it meant to list the fastest production cars ever? We need to define that criterion first before this article can be cleaned up. If the former, about 80% of this list will be deleted since it is not properly referenced. If the latter then more recent cars will need to be added and we need to set a minimum speed (perhaps 200mph or 300km/h or similar) and we'll also have a big headache with different versions of the same basic car (e.g. the Lamborghini Gallardo which was released in MANY different variations). Zunaid 08:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I thought this was suppost to be a timeline of the fastest production car. Please don't remove useful information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.31.247.178 (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed that's what I thought it was supposed to be as well, and the current article does in fact reflect that. That's exactly why the current list is so short, these entries are the only few that explicitly reference a claim to be "the fastest car in the world" at the time they were produced. All the old entries on the list are simply fast cars (the references provide absolutely no further detail or evidence), hence have been removed. Zunaid 12:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)


 * For a long time when I was a small Mr Larrington the fastest car listed in Autocar's road test data was the Ferrari 365 GTB/4 (Daytona), which was clocked at a genuine 174 mph. In the seventies there were numerous claims from manufacturers that their product was the fastest but few held up to close scrutiny.

The article could be as ambiguous as the parameters of records, unless you define the terms precisely.
"Production" is not the same as "mass produced". There will be a sanctioning body specifying a minimum number of examples produced. "Fastest" to me means top speed, but that should be specified as many people mistake "quick" for "fast". "street legal" is often mentioned, but on whose streets? The Ariel Atom for instance is legal in the UK, not America. I know the scope of wiki is not to define all these or decide which to include or discard, but they all need to be taken into consideration. Batvette (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. As much as this list has been cut down only to the clearly referenced entries (i.e. only 4 items or so), it STILL suffers the problems you mention. Give it a couple of months and I'm sure it will be up for AfD again. Zunaid 19:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. Here's a factor that may explain why this is such a dodgey subject- can you imagine what legal liabilities await these manufacturers for even claiming their car is the fastest in the world?
 * Doesn't seem to worry Bugatti/VW much does it? Greglocock (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * People will buy one and by golly go out and validate their purchasing decision. Something I additionally found puzzling is I cannot for the life of me find what the speed record, at Bonneville or anywhere else, of a modified car in otherwise road legal equipment state. You know, a one off, anything but a "production" vehicle. For instance there's the guy in Europe with the Trans Am doing 252 mph. I saw a site with some banter claiming a class at Bonneville equates to street legal and has vehicles over 300, but no firm data. If I find it I will bring some links. If nothing else we'll probably just end up with the lede having to explain all that I wrote above (which you surely already knew) to head off unnecessary arguments. Batvette (talk) 11:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Random speed changes
There have been a couple of random alterations to the speeds of some of the cars listed here, without any reason why. I would recommend that any changes to speeds should refer to the references already included in the article, or supply good quality new references to support a change. Warren Whyte (talk) 15:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Ariel atom 500 v8
I guess Ariel Atom 500 v8 is the fastest car cos no one knows what is it top speed :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.95.130.41 (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

1957-1984 gap
This gap must be filled. There was a plenty of cars having top speed higher than 269 km/h stated for Ferrari 250 TR in this period of time. Miura P400S from 1968 has stated measured 276 km/h for example. Ferrari Dytona from 1968 was capable of 280 km/h. Ferrari 365 GT4 BB from 1973 as stated was capable of 303 km/h. And there was a Countach. All these were road legal, undoubtedly production cars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.183.236.73 (talk) 08:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. I have filled it in a bit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.183.236.73 (talk) 07:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Ferrari 250 TR
Can anyone confirm that the stated speed of 167 mph (269 km/h) was ever actually reached in any road legal version of the 250? In fact, I have a sort of proof that this was probably not possible. The most powerful version 250 GTO was tested by The Motor magazine in 1982 and only reached 147 mph with estimated top speed of 160 mph. So, unless there is a reference to any test that supports 167 mph version, this entry should be either corrected or removed, since even the estimated top speed of the GTO is lower than the previous entry in the table (and I'm not sure if that one is realistic as well). Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.183.236.73 (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Mercedes-Benz 300SL
The stated top speed is an estimated one. There's no records of this car ever reaching such speed. The highest recorded speed for Mercedes Benz 300SL is 150 mph set by John Fitch in 2005. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.183.236.73 (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Claimed/Estimated vs Recorded top speed.
I think we have a problem here. As you know, in many cases manufacturers claimed much higher top speeds that actually could be reached by the vehicle. For instance 300 km/h for Miura or 200 mph for Countach. Obviously, we must only rely on the recorded results of testing. But the problem is that most of the older sports cars were never properly tested for the top speed and there's no records of the actual top speed ever reached. I think we should not use the calimed top speed for these older cars even if it seems realistic because this would make the table inconsistent. For example, the claimed top speed of the 1964 Ferrari 500 Superfast is 174 mph which is more than recorded top speed for 1966 Miura P400. Any suggestions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.183.236.73 (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this should be based on actual recorded top speeds of UNMODIFIED (so far as we can tell) cars by reliable sources. Most press cars before 1980 were probably tuned to some extent to make them unrepresentative but there isn't much we can do about that. Greglocock (talk) 12:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed - if a guinness world record is not available, then an independent road test is the best option. Manufacturer's claims are not sufficient. Warren (talk) 16:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

What makes you so confident that cars tested after 1980 aren't tuned as well? What we must do, is only rely on verifiable sources to provide the figures. The web page currently linked to from the Miura speed is not a reliable published source, it just gives you the name of magazines that have recorded that speed. It doesn't even give the date of the test of the car in the magazine. A magazine will usually state whether the speed is claimed or 'as tested' and if a manufacturer claimed historically that their car could do 174 mph, I see no reason why that shouldn't be included in the list providing you state that it is the manufacturers claimed speed. I seem to recollect that even the XK120 'offically tested' to 120mph by The Motor wasn't the standard production version. Mighty Antar (talk) 17:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding Miura. I have no better source for P400. However, there is an indirect support to this statement. Slightly improved Miura P400S is known to reach "mean maximum speed of 172mph" as tested by Autocar. First hand source: http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/RoadTestsHistory/Lamborghini-Muira-P400-S/202085/. So the test results stated for P400 at 171 mph are highly realistic. However, if I'll find better source for the mentioned P400 test, I'll certainly update the reference.
 * Regarding manufacturers claimed speed. This can not be compared to the results of tests obviously. So, basically, we may need a separate table for proven records and for claimed records. These would contain quite different entries. For example, Ferrari 365 GT4 BB would set a record of 188 mph, as claimed by manufacturer, already in 1973.93.183.236.73 (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What makes you so confident that cars tested after 1980 aren't tuned as well? Because I've worked for 4 different car companies since 1980. The cars supplied to the press are checked to make sure that they are representative of design intent but are not souped up. I'm sure the occasional ringer gets supplied to the press, even now, but it is no longer the standard case, as it used to be.Greglocock (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum Ferrari in particular are famous for supplying two test cars, one for straight line work and the other to be driven around corners and photographed. This happened fairly recently. Perhaps they might be no difference between the two cars. Greglocock (talk) 08:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Production totals
May I ask before I remove these pointless facts, what is the point of production totals on this list as like listing MSRP, this does nothing to contribute the reason why that car is the fastest. Donnie Park (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a list of the production cars. Since the definition of the production car is rather blurry, it may be treated differently. To make more or less full picture of how much "production" cars are they, it is best to show the actual production numbers. Once again, if this was a list of absolute speed records, this would be unnecessary. This would also be unnecessary if we had a strict requirement on production numbers to these cars. But we don't. So let readers see and decide for themselves.93.183.236.73 (talk) 07:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, the number of units manufactured is worth having. MSRP is not relevant. Greglocock (talk) 09:58, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

F40 vs Diablo
We have a problem here. Ferrari F40 had claimed top speed of 201 mph. It was tested not once. Quattroruote magazine managed to reach over 202 mph. AFAIK, this is the highest speed test result reported for F40. Now the problem is that Lamborghini Diablo had claimed top speed of 202 mph, just 1 more than F40 and was supposed to beat it. But this is less than Quattroruote actually managed to get from F40. So the question is, should we remove Diablo from the list, or use claimed speed instead of actual for the F40? What do you think? 93.183.236.73 (talk) 07:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that the independent test of the Ferrari F40 should top the Diablo, unless there is something in the test report that indicates it was inaccurate or the car was in some way modified. I don't have access to the cited magazine to check. NealeFamily (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree, except that the Diablo was measured at 206 by Road and Track in their Sept 1991 issue (the same one in which they famously declared the Ruf "Yellowbird" the fastest car in the world. Top Gear allegedly corroborated 206 as the top speed of the Diablo. This is also credible given that Sandro Munari achieved 211 on the Nardo ring in a Diablo, although this was only in one direction and not supported by test gear... Jvshenderson (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at the Road & Track September 1991 issue, the "World's Fastests Cars" article, and the top speed for Diablo is explicitly stated at 202.2 MPH. Do I miss something? 93.183.236.66 (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * No you are probably right. I got the citation from the Lamborghini Diablo page here on wikipedia, where it states 207. I couldn't find an e copy of the article, so I took their word for it. I guess the Diablo page needs to be edited too... I know I've seen a test that said 206 - maybe it was top gear. I will try to track it down. Thanks for catching that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvshenderson (talk • contribs) 22:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

incorrect converted speed
something is wrong with converter, speed of Mercedes-Benz 300SL is 140 mph that is 225 km/h and not 230 as we see in this article  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.43.117.209 (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed now -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 17:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Autocar source
There is 3 cars with autocar citation, the autocar has no mention these are world fastests cars, they only say these are fastest they have tested, so these need sources they are fastest production cars in the world -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 06:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The sources provide a speed that is used in the table. The citation by the speed must prove the speed, not the fact that the car is actually fastest. Unless you have a source that provides both facts, you should not remove the one that provide at least one of them, explicitly stated in the table. If you think that this table looks more credible with no support for the numbers used, then I shall disagree.
 * Another problem is that for some of the cars you may never find a credible source explicitly stating that the car is the fastest in the world. Up until 80's this was very rarely claimed by reviewers. So, if, for example Grifo was in fact the production road car that reached the highest speed on testing, but the magazine that tested it had not stated that it is the fasted car in the world (simply because they had not tested all the cars in the world obviously), it must remain without a citation? Again, I disagree.
 * 93.183.236.73 (talk) 06:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * the problem is that where do you put the citation needed tag, but there was comment, which should be easy to read even for you. Unless there is no sources these should be removed. This is not list of fast cars, you can read more of this problem in this talk page, that why this page has been nominated for deletion already twice. At this state this isnt very encylopedic article, random fast cars put in table mode nothing more -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 07:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "the problem is that where do you put the citation needed tag, but there was comment, which should be easy to read even for you. Unless there is no sources these should be removed." - please translate this to English. I can not understand what are you trying to say here. Thank you.
 * I'm well aware of the conceptual problems associated with this particular subject. But unless this thread is entirely removed, it can only be as good as this. After all, we can not synthesize the kind of sources we would prefer (preferably a readily made complete table, right?), so we must provide the best we can get. We can't hang in between - with cars mentioned but no source provided whatsoever. Can we?
 * So I propose to leave the citations we have until someone provides a better ones. Agree?
 * 93.183.236.73 (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No remove inaccurate citations, and add citation needed tag, those curretn ones are not citations for needed this, we dont need citation for top speed we need citation that says : this was the fastest production car on that particular year . And after couple of weeks when no citation is offered, these can be removed altogether, did you understand now or should I spell it for you??-- >Typ932 T&middot;C 08:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "did you understand now or should I spell it for you" - no, your spelling is mostly acceptable. But you have to learn to build your sentences correctly.
 * You can not remove any of these entries without removing all the entries before them. This would break the consistency of the table. Let me explain. If you remove DB4, E-type and Grifo, the table will suggest that 300SL, with the top speed of 140 mph was the fastest production road car up until the Miura introduction. But this is known to be incorrect as we have a proof that there were a faster cars in the 1955-1966 period. And the currently present citations do prove this unambiguously.
 * So to avoid any confusion we'd have to start this table with 288GTO.93.183.236.73 (talk) 08:58, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
 * the Grifo needs better source, the current one doesn have proof that it was fastest car at that time "Autocar recorded 161 mph in its 1966 road test, which was the magazine’s fastest record until the arrival of Lamborghini Miura." "Although that was obviously overoptimistic, it should had no problem to reach 170-plus mph and able to challenge Ferrari Daytona as the world’s fastest car."  -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 08:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How about this: "The Grifo was considered the fastest production car one could buy in 1966." http://www.girlracer.co.uk/motorsport/michael-gulett/10868-iso-grifo-.html 93.183.236.73 (talk) 09:02, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Myabe this can be used, altough its not that exact either, cant find better one -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 10:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the user 93.183.236.73. The source does not need to explicitly state that the car in question was the fastest in the world. All it needs to do is establish the speed (and perhaps the launch date of the car or the date of the first delivery to a customer) and the car in question will implicitly surpass the previous car on the list, thereby becoming the fastest car in the world until another car has an higher top speed established at a later date.

This is especially true because, as other users have pointed out, there is no universal definition of a "production car" that we on wikipedia, or the various sources that DO happen to call a car "the fastest" agree upon. A source stating that "The Grifo was considered the fastest production car one could buy in 1966" is not meaningful because there could have been faster cars that preceeded it but were no longer for sale in 1966, and because it depends on the specific source's definition of "production car."

This is a very small issue to be arguing when there are more important issues at hand: for instance, what to do about cars that were probably the fastest but were never measured as such: for instance, the Ferrari 410 Superamerica (estimated to go 165 mph in 1959 by Road and Track, but never measured). Jvshenderson (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * this is just the problem, when you add random cars to the list, its missing more faster cars anyway, so keeping it as mentioned it has some more creditabily than adding some cars on the list, if you dont have source that says it was the most fastests car on the world at that year, it has no creditability. So why to add anything without proper source -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 17:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And there is measured cars with faster top speed than in this list, thats why this list is VERY unencyclopedic, and by adding more those it comes even more so. How you determine which is fastest car for example in 1959? if you dont have proper source claiming that? you would need to investigate all cars on that year, what month the speed was tested and so on. Finally this would be just a huge list of fast cars. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 17:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, actually it's an opposite for Diablo. The sources claiming that it was a worlds fastest car do exist. But they all state the top speed which is lower than the actually reached by F-40 earlier. Those sources make such conclusion based on the manufacturer claimed top speed of 201 mph for F-40. So, obviously, they are wrong. In other words, the fact that there's a source saying that some car is worlds fastest may be not enough. 93.183.236.66 (talk) 21:11, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I looked through some books I own and found sources for the Countach and the EB110. Peter Dron's book "Lamborghini Countach: The Complete Story" says on page 159: "The LP400...was very clean aerodynamically, and it was capable of almost 186 mph. That was back in 1974, and in that period there was nothing on the road that could get near it." Craig Cheetham's book "Ultimate Performance Cars" says on page 49: "1992 the EB110 becomes the world's fastest production car, rivaling the XJ220 with a speed of 212 mph." While he quotes Bugatti's claimed speed rather than the one measured by Auto Motor und Sport, 209 would have still made it the fastest in the world because it debuted in September 1991, a month ahead of the XJ220. A corroborating source can be found at http://www.fastestcarintheworld.org/bugatti-eb110.html With these sources, I feel that I have established both the tested top speed of the Countach LP400 and the EB110 GT, as well as the fact that they were the fastest in the world at their debut. I will add these sources to the official list. Jvshenderson (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh no! You mean Countach LP400 was faster than QV?! :D That IS rediculous. None of the cited sources provide results of test runs, only manufacturer claimed speed. First Countach to actually reach this speed was QV.
 * Regarding EB110. It is generally not regarded as the fastest car probably because record beating test runs of Jag were made about a year earlier than for EB110. But it does have a 1 month edge of introduction date. So it may fit here well I think. 93.183.236.66 (talk) 06:26, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, XJ220 was first presented in 1988 with orders taken since 1989. Sure it was not a production version. But the fact is that XJ220 actual sales started much earlier than EB110. So what was first? I don't know... 93.183.236.66 (talk) 08:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You are wrong when you say that these sources only quote Lamborghini's claimed top speed. If you look at the Ruoteclassiche article, you will find the top speed listed at 299.2 km/h, whereas Lamborghini claimed 300 km/h for the LP400. If they were simply quoting the manufacturer, it would be very unusual to give the added precision of an extra decimal rather than simply quoting 300. Also, the top speed figure is in the context of exhaustive acceleration testing, and there is no mention of the data being manufacturer claims. Finally, the speeds given for the Bora and 365 GT4 BB tested alongside the Countach differ from the manufacturer claims as well. According to http://www.autozine.org/Archive/Maserati/classic/Bora.html Maserati claimed 174 mph which is different from Ruoteclassiche's measured 271.2 km/h. According to http://www.autozine.org/Archive/Ferrari/classic/BB.html, the 365 BB had a claimed top speed of 188 mph which is very different from the 290.3 km/h that Ruoteclassiche measured. All of these reasons point to the fact that Ruoteclassiche actually did carry out a careful top speed test, and the LP400 happened to top out close to, but not exactly at, the claimed top speed. Now, this test was conducted in 2000 on three cars that were said to be (and looked) stock. It is possible that there was some tuning done on the Countach, resulting in the 299 km/h top speed - we will never know. And yes, it is quite plausible that the LP400 was as fast or faster than the QV because, while it was considerably down on power, it didn't have the splitter, wheel arches, or extra-wide tires of the QV and therefore had far less drag. Jvshenderson (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * No I am not wrong. Lamborghini claimed 186 mph. And 186 mph is 299.2 km/h. So yes, they probably quoted manufacturer. The conversion from mph to km/h explains the extra precision. There is no mention about it being a manufacturer claimed top speed, but there's no mention about how did they test it either. Or if they even tested it at all. I'm not going to discus cited Bora and BB statements, they could take them from anywhere. Check the tables in that article. The LP400 table has a top speed of 315 km/h and power of 385hp stated. Even Lamborghini had never claimed this high figures. Where did they take it from? We may guess, but that doesn't matter. What matters, is that this article is not a reliable source in any way. Especially if they tuned that Lambo.
 * Now if you want to analyze the credibility of such an achievement, I'll give you some clues. First of all, the actual power of the LP400 engine was about 350 hp. Yes, Lamborghini claimed 375 initially, but a bit later, as they put exactly same engine in LP400S, they got more realistic and officially stated 353hp. Now, QV had about 100hp more. But let's put it into perspective. I don't want to guess how much of the QV's Cx of 0.42 was added by the bodykit and wider tires, and was this all equal to 100hp. No. Let's rather look at all the other supercars out there. The first one that actually ever topped 300km/h was Ferrari 288GTO. It had much lower drag coefficient of about 0.36, arguably lower that LP400 with all it's sharp edges and huge airboxes. It also had similarly wide tires as LP400. It was also significantly lighter that LP400. Yet it needed as much as 400 hp to achieve it. If that's not enough, check any other supercar that is known to reach such speeds for sure. None of them was as bad aerodynamically as Countach, none of them was able to do this with much less than 400 hp (Testarossa needed 390hp to merely reach 181mph for example). So, not even getting into scentific or technical analysis it is pretty much clear that Countach LP400 was not able to reach 186 mph in normal conditions. Actually it's top speed was estimated at about 170 mph. This is more than any following Countach up until QV, because LP400 had better aerodynamics. But only 450 hp of QV were enough to get it going this fast. Also, the narrower tires and lifting force at high speeds made LP400 very unstable when going really fast. So that even reaching speeds at about 170mph, which it arguably could actually do, was way too dangerous. This may be a reason why no one ever tested it to it's actual top speed.
 * Anyway, unless there is an explicit source that describes test runs of production LP400, there's nothing to talk about. Besides, there are sources that, for example, state that Ferrari Daytona was clearly faster than Countach. So no way for it to get into this list. 93.183.236.66 (talk) 08:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, this article does not state that LP400 was a fastest car in the world. It only states that it was faster than Bora and BB. Neither of which where ever claimed to be the fastest car in the world either. Since the actual fastest car at the moment of LP400 introduction was still Ferrari Daytona, this particular article is not enough to make any conclusions. Formally. 93.183.236.66 (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The criteria to be on the list is: it is an unmodified production model (not a one off), it was tested at the claimed speed by an independent source (not the manufacturer), and its tested speed made it the faster than the previous car on the list. You would also need to cite the published test.


 * There has been discussion about cars being provided for such tests having been tuned for optimum performance and that was accepted as something that could not be reasonably avoided. Tests also need to be carefully checked to determine how the speed was determined, so a mention that a car was driven at a particular speed would be insufficient in my view. You would want to see some form of acceptable measurement being undertaken. I accept that over time the method and quality of measurement has changed, so what was acceptable for some of the earlier models may no longer be acceptable now. NealeFamily (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, some more about that article. Check the acceleration figures for LP400. It claims 5.0s to 100km/h and 11.5s to 160km/h. While actually, Motor magazine tested 5.6 and 13.1 in 1975 and then Road & Track got 6.8 and 13.3 in 1976. These magazines did actually tested acceleration and, as you see, it was much worse than claimed here. I don't know if those figures are fake or if they had actually tweaked their LP400, but that is most definitely not a performance of the production LP400. 93.183.236.66 (talk) 09:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * According to http://www.autozine.org/Archive/Lamborghini/classic/Countach.html which is a cited source for a couple of cars on this page, Lamborghini claimed 300 km/h (converted into 186 mph). This would make more sense than an Italian company making a performance claim in mph, because Italy uses the metric system... Also, there is some disagreement about what they actually claimed, as http://www.insideline.com/lamborghini/1975-lamborghini-countach-lp400-vs-1982-ferrari-512i-berlinetta-boxer.html (a division of Edmunds and very reputable source) says Lamborghini claimed 195 for the 1975 Countach LP400... Also, you're right that Ruoteclassiche never says it was the fastest in the world, but Peter Dron's book (which I quoted above) clearly shows the Authors opinion that the Countach was the fastest in the world in 1975. Regarding the 288 GTO, it rode on 225mm wide front tires and 265mm rears, while the LP400 had 205mm in front and back (much narrower). Finally, you mentioned the Countach and 288 GTO's weight when discussing top speed, which I think displays a lack of understanding of the related physics. Weight has a profound effect on acceleration and cornering performance, but none on top speed. The only two factors that affect top speed are power and coefficient of drag.
 * I'll grant you that Ruoteclassiche achieved much better acceleration than others, and the top speed is much faster than what most others estimate, meaning it is likely that the car was tuned in the intervening 25 years. However, I still think that the LP400 was at least as fast, if not faster than, the Daytona and Miura SV (even if it couldn't do 186, many people think it could at least do 175 - see http://www.evo.co.uk/features/features/238363/supercar_years_70s.html), however proving it is difficult. Therefore it will be on my own personal list, even if its not here on Wikipedia... Jvshenderson (talk) 17:02, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, according to Autozine, estimated top speed of LP400 is 170mph. I most certainly agree with this. Yes. Now about metric systems. Original claims were made in both systems as car was supposed to be sold in many countries. They could quote anyone as well as several sources could use anyone as well. Besides, originally, when Countach was just a prototype, the target top speed stated by Ferruccio was imperial 200mph.
 * Now about your understanding of physics. First of all, learn about rolling friction and it's dependence on the car weight. Then add the frontal area to your formula of top speed as you obviously missed it. Then we may proceed to stability and sub top speed acceleration questions. But actually no. I don't want to diss you in any way. That's why I was hinting on other supercars. It's really simple to understand that all supercars that actually reached this speed, had about 400hp or more. Countach had much less and had no other reason to compensate for the lack of those 50 horses. If you still believe that it was able to reach 186 mph with 350hp, that's fine, but it's way too fantastic to be published without very serious proof.
 * Peter Dron could believe whatever he wanted too. He never did any testing though. In fact, lots of people did believe that Countach was the fastest car. After all, spaceship can't be slow, can it? ;)
 * But yes, 175mph is more realistic. Unfortunately no one reached it. So we can't rate it. :( Actually there's similar story about Ferrari Superfast. It it could be easily the fastest car in the world considering it's power. But no one ever tested it's top speed. So we can't place it here. 93.183.236.66 (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, since you bring up frontal surface area (which I did account for, since it is a major determinant of coefficient of drag) how about the Ferrari 250 LM? This car was clocked between 174 and 177 mph on the Mulsanne straight at Le Mans, 1965, and that's with only 320 bhp. Based on my understanding of aerodynamics (I'm certainly not an expert) cars like the 250 LM and Countach that have a pointed front are much more aerodynamically slippery, but get significant front end lift because so much air is directed underneath the car. They could possibly hit higher speeds in ideal conditions, but a bump in the road or a gust of wind could also cause a tragedy. The 288 GTO is much more stable at speed thanks to its splitter, but this also increases the Cd and explains why it needed 25% more power than the 250 LM to go 6% faster (that and the Velocity Squared Law). But you're right, most of these cars were rigorously tested so we can't put them in the encyclopedia. Like I said, I keep my own list with estimated speeds that also includes the 250 GTO and 250 LM, which were mostly race cars but were technically road legal... And I also don't want this debate to get personal - I enjoy discussing these things, and if you don't you don't need to respond, since we're obviously not getting anywhere nearer to adding the Countach or Diablo to the list... Jvshenderson (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Frontal cross section area (not surface, surface area as a ratio to the cross section, is indeed included in the Cx) does not influence drag coefficient in any way whatsoever. The Cx of sphere, for example, is 0.47 regardless of its size and frontal area. Pointed front is not very useful until you get supersonic. The typical droplet-like shape, with rounded front and pointy end has drag coefficient of about 0.05 (almost 10 times less than pointy Countach). On practice, for example, look at Opel Omega A. It's nose doesn't look pointy at all. But it has Cx=0.28. Much less than Ferrari's 0.36, never mind Countach with 0.42. What is very important for the slow subsonic speeds, it's smooth transitions from one surface to another and, actually, smooth and long pointy ending as you can see, for example in Porsche 917 long tail, made for Mulsanne straight. Even original Coutache prototype shape, despite visully looking very aerodynamic, was actually very poor because of sharp transitions. It had too much sharp edges to sustain laminar flow even at low speeds. In first production version they had to add terrible airboxes, and several vents, that degraded it's poor aerodynamics even more. Of course, with S they added that ridiculous (but so cool!) bodykit to fit wider tires. It sure added some, but I'd guess not really much to the drag coefficient, considering how bad it already was. There's one thing Coutach had aerodynamically right - it was very low, which is good for the frontal area. But it was not enough to compensate for poor Cx. For example, comparing to wide and high Testarossa, LP400 had about 10% smaller frontal area. But even if we assume that it's drag coefficient was 0.39, which is probably too optimistic, it was resulting in roughly the same drag. But Testarossa needed 390 hp to merely get to 181 mph, and LP400 had only 350. No matter what, it just couldn't get any faster, never mind 186 mph.
 * I wouldn't even try to compare Countach to racing cars like 250LM. Again, that's why I proposed to compare with other supercars. Racers do have much better aerodynamics, are lighter with stiff suspension and in all possible ways are trimmed for the particular race track. In case of 250LM, it could be tuned for Mulsanne, but Countach could not. As long as it's an unmodified production car that is. Of course 250LM had much lower drag than any supercar, no doubts about it.
 * The 250LM, as well as any other road legal racers, can not go into this table. Why? Well, simply because in this case, Porsche 917 would be the only entry spanning from 1969 to 2005. ;) That would be one useless table really. :D
 * It seems you think I'm some sort of Lambo hater, but that is not the case. Actually I was not voting for removing Diablo from this table and it was not me who did it. And in my personal opinion, Countach is an all time king of true supercars. But that's just not what this list is all about. 93.183.236.66 (talk) 05:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have just made some rough calculations comparing Testarossa to LP400 and 250LM. With known engine powers and approximate frontal area (based on width*height), LP400 would need to have drag coefficient lower than 0.34 to be able to get to 186 mph. But if it was, more realistic, 0.40, the top speed would be about 170 mph. On the other hand, 250LM, with it's 320 hp, would only need to have Cx of about 0.36 to reach 177 mph. I suppose 250LM had actually much better Cx than that. So it actually could probably go even faster in perfect conditions and, perhaps, different gear ratios. So it all actually makes sense. 93.183.236.66 (talk) 06:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between the 250 LM and the 917. The 250 LM was legally certified for road use as it rolled out of the Ferrari factory and into customer hands. It just happened to be quite fast on the racetrack too, with minimal race-prepping required. This road legality was key to Ferrari's attempt to race it in the GT category. Therefore you could argue that it fits the definition of a production car, even all examples were used on the racetrack by their owners (and even though it had to race as a prototype because less than 100 were built). The 917, or the GT40 for instance, were designed as prototypes and sold as such and only later had a few examples modified for road legality, so I doubt anyone would classify them as "production cars". Jvshenderson (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The 250 LM was designed and built as a race car. The 917 and the Ford GT (and later GT40) were also designed and built as race cars but were built to meet different categories set out by the FIA (see Group 4 (racing). The definition of a production car is one of those subjective debates that makes a list like this almost impossible to control. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Porsche 917 was designed for Group 4 Sports Cars, not prototypes. They had to build 25 of them for homologation. And 250LM was designed for Group 3 Grand Touring Cars, except that Ferrari failed to build enough for homologation. Neither of these was designed for road use as main goal. They are pure racers with road legal capability added only because of homologation requirements. So no, there's no significant difference between two of them. If 250LM could be added here, 917 would have to be too. But this will never happen for the obvious reasons. 93.183.236.66 (talk) 20:51, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Based on those FIA categories the Bugatti and SSC would be classified as prototypes. NealeFamily (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just to add fuel to the fire, I've an article in an old edition of, IIRC, Performance Car in which a journo claimed to have hand-timed a contemporary Countach (circa 1990) at 190 mph between kilometre posts on the autostrada. F1 driver Pier-Luigi Martini was at the wheel. Mr Larrington (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That was not an LP400. 93.183.236.66 (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Upcoming contenders
Do we need "Upcoming contenders" section? It's all based on unsupported claims and the cars that, in most cases, do not even exist. What is the point in it? Is Wikipedia a good place for spreading rumors, propaganda and most importantly - free advertising and PR for commercial companies? 93.183.236.73 (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Check out the cars before you claim they don't exist! There are articles on all three of them in Wiki. My reason for also including them on this page is to give future editors of the list a sense of the direction development in this category is heading and vehicles that could achieve contention in the very near future. NealeFamily (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Of those three, only Koenigsegg exists. Neither record claiming Venom (with 1,200 bhp), nor top-spec Tuatara (1,350 hp) have been built yet. Moreover, neither of these cars is production, and we don't even know if they will ever be (in the record claiming specs). And this is the list of production cars. The point is, that it is very easy to claim anything, and many manufacturers do so. For example, Lamborghini was claiming 300 km/h for original Miura, which no Miura ever reached. For Countach they originally claimed 200 mph. And again - no Countach ever made it. Original claims for Ferrari 365 GT4 BB were also never met. And so on. Basically, those are pure rumors with not background whatsoever. It's like posting claims of one football team about their future successes. Now since this article is about production cars and their real world confirmed speed, such claims do not fit here well. Probably separate article could be created regarding the future models and concepts. But I think this section has to be removed from here. 93.183.236.73 (talk) 12:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I removed it because of what said above and this is a list not an article. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 18:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for expanding on your reasoning 93.186.236.73. I agree that manufacturers tend to make many unsubstantiated claims and that only verifiable ones should be in the main list. A seperate article as you suggest with possibly a "see also" from this page seems the best way forward because I think it could be useful and with regard to false claims, educative. NealeFamily (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Fastest cars 2011
I see someone is attempting to add a new list, the fastest 10 production cars of 2011. Quite why this had to be added in december is a bit beyond me. Anyway, the original list was quite interesting, this one strikes me as a desperate fanbois list of also-rans. But I would conceed that so long as they are genuine production cars then it could stay. Cars performance must be measured by qualified third party techs and reported in an RS. I think we should add a rider that the cars must be in standard trim, and currently for sale in that condition (ie once all 5 special unlimited cars are sold that model gets booted off the list). Greglocock (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Does Guinness Record trump Magazine test?
The Ford GT40 received the Guinness World Record in 1967 with a top speed of 167mph but Motor tested another car faster in this period. (See Forbes article for Ford reference)


 * Not necessarily so - for the case in point Motor magazine is a reputable source. Unless there is some inherent bias in its car test it would stand, regardless of Guinness. NealeFamily (talk) 07:52, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Production numbers in a column
I think it would be relevant to include the number of production cars of each mentioned that were produced in the spec that could have achieved the claimed speed. This might supply some context for the more ludicrous entries here. Greglocock (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree as it will give context. The current encumbant looks like they need to prove they have made 5 for instance - a one off is hardly a production car and five stretches the imagination. NealeFamily (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Porsche 959 Sport
The article on the Porsche 959 says that the sport version was for racing. If this is correct then it is not a road car and is therefore ineligible. I don't have sufficient information to confirm one way or the other, but other editors might like to review its inclusion. NealeFamily (talk) 06:47, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It might have been street legal, but was not produced enough according to the article. In USA it was never street legal, here is rough production http://www.959registry.org/  -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 08:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Also the article has no rules what is considered as "production" or streel legal, is 5 Bugattis production car? -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 08:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have some unease about calling a car a production model when you have only a handful built. I saw that the FIA used to classify anything less than 25 as a prototype. Maybe the same rule should apply here, although all the Bugatti supporters would probably argue the point. I think 5 lacks credibility. NealeFamily (talk) 09:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * All five 959 Sports were sold for road use. However, 959 is a record holder because if you read carefully, you'll notice that 959 Touring version of which 332 units were built, was also the fastest car in the world, being only 2 mph slower than 959 Sport. This is clarified in the comment. Same story with Veyron SS. There may be only 5 WRE built, but all 30 of SS are actually faster than Ultimate Aero TT. So no way for neither 959 nor Veyron SS to be removed from this list. 93.183.236.66 (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * They need to be fixed to right speed of that production model, not some special versions made just for top speed tests -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 14:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think so. First of all, 959 Sport was a striped down version of the 959 Touring. It was a customer decision which version to buy. Only 6 of them were built not because it was a limited production run but only because only 6 buyers decided to go for this version. So despite such a low number it is a production model with no doubts. Same is even more true for Veyron SS WRE, since it is the same Veyron SS with electronically limited speed. It is a part of the same production run of 30 so it's a production model. Well, at least more so than Koenigsegg or SSC. Isn't it?93.183.236.66 (talk) 14:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is just one minor problem of this silly article/list of top speeds. This is never gonna be real encyclopic article. After your claim that 5 car set is prodcution car, the next person says that 3 is enough and so ...there is reason this article is proposed for deletion two times -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 17:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, there's certainly some ambiguity, I agree. But these two cases are actually not that bad. As we say production vehicle, we assume there was a production run. This basically implies two things. Multiple examples of the same construction were built, using common building process and equipment, and they were available for purchase. The actual number produced is of some significance too, but it is not what defines production model. Well, obviously if only 3 or 5 were built, it can't be seriously considered a production run. But we can accept some differences among the units in the same production run. For example, every example of Koenigsegg is heavily customized as well as McLaren F1 was. The difference can be as high as it is between 959 Sport and Touring. So there's no reason to consider 959 Sport to be a separate model that was not a production car. It was built from the same parts on the same equipment by the same people and in the same time thus sharing the same production run. Which totaled in respectable 337 units. As the backup for this approach, we have a fact that all of the 337 built, were the fastest cars in the world. It's just that 6 of them were faster than the rest. As long as this is explained in the comments, I see no problem with it.
 * Even less ambiguity about Veyron SS. There are 30 of them built. That is an acceptable number for a decent production run. Every one of them is a fastest car in the world (for its time), but only 5 of them are not electronically limited and thus able to be faster than the rest. If pure SS, with 25 built is a production car, then to be able to assume that SS WRE is not a production car, you'd have to prove it was not a part of the same production run but a separate, custom built examples. But they were not. Again, difference is described in comments. So I see no serious problem here. 93.183.236.66 (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand your argument, but this whole question around what constitutes enough vehicles for to be classified a production car brings up some ambiguities. For instance the Bonneville Nationals "Production" Sport and GT class has a timed record of 268.298mph - so should we consider this? I hope not as it is most likely a heavily modified one off version of what might be a large production run, but without something more in the definition Typ932 is correct in questioning how many cars constitute enough to be a production car. The other question is, is the Veyron SS a modified car if the limiter is removed, as the word "removed" implies? Then with the 959, if only six Sports versions were made and that counts, then what happens if a manufacturer only made 6 cars? Would that be enough? If as you say every example of Koenigsegg is heavily customized as well as McLaren F1 was then how many were configured in such a way as to obtain the top speed? I know there is an acceptance that Guiness and other motoring magazines tests validify the claimed speed, but are these sufficient in themselves to validify the vehicle as a production car? NealeFamily (talk) 08:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, you don't get it. The "modified" car is one which construction was altered after it was sold by the original manufacturer. For example, RUF CTR is a modified car since Porsche had never sold them in this configuration. Also, the McLaren F1 with removed rev limiter is a modified car since McLaren had rev limiter on all produced F1's. Also, some of the modifications often mentioned are not even road legal. For example XJ220 with removed catalytic converter or EB110 with removed mirrors. Not only these were clearly modified, but they had violated homolgation requirements so can't be considered for this list. But the different variants of the same model, built by the manufacturer can not be considered to be a modified cars, since they are production models (made for sale and proposed to potential customers). Sometimes, however, manufactures can produce modified cars too. But this is usually obvious enough. For example, racing versions or special editions. They are not production models because they were specially built (or specially modified production version) for some particular purpose, usually not for sale, and these are not listed in the company catalogs as models available for sale. There me some really ambiguous cases here of course, but luckily, we have not encountered them here yet.
 * The top speed difference among produces examples is indeed very interesting thing. Think about it, 6 of the all 959 were about 2 mph faster then the rest. How bad is that? Well, for many cars here, we have results of the top speed runs provided by different sources (usually magazines). They do test exactly the same model, but results differ. Sometimes by much, much more than 2 mph. And you know that. We take the fastest one, right? But are all the other cars of the same model able to reach this speed? Or, perhaps, some if not all of them, can go even faster? We just don't know. And we are not allowed to guess of course. So what we basically can do is just to state the highest known achievement of any particular model, without any known modifications (alterations made after the car was sold by manufacturer). What this means? Basically it means that it is known for sure, that at least one of the production run was able to reach that speed. That's basically a meaning of the cited top speed in this table. It may be not the perfect approach, but we just don't have any better. Using manufacturers claims is impossible, making some technical analysis and producing scientifically correct estimation is not something we can do on wikipedia here, so that's basically it. The only, at least somewhat, objective data, is the results of top sped tests. So that's what we do.
 * Once again, if the car was produced in very small numbers, like 5 or 3, and especially if it was custom built, for special purpose, or such and was never sold or proposed to potential buyers, it is not a production model. Another example is a kit cars. They are not production models too. And so on. It's really not that difficult to tell in most cases.93.183.236.66 (talk) 08:56, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that in most of the cases there is a clear distinction between a production model and the modified ones, but once you get down to very low production numbers, regardless of the manufacturers intent, homolgation requirements usually include some minimum number produced.
 * Maybe this issue is outside of Wiki to resolve, as we are merely including what some reputable third party has decided is the world's fastest production car (in the most recent cases the Guiness Book of Records). Maybe we are in error when we try to interpret the data to greater level of detail as that is not our role? An interesting conundrum which might bear out Typ932's criticism. NealeFamily (talk) 10:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no universal homolagation requirements that I'm aware of. Besides, the bigger number produced is not necessary enough to consider the model a production road car. For example, we have about a dozen of Koenigsegg CCR produced. But we have no doubt it's a production road car. Anyone could buy one, and neither of them was purpose built, and all were built to be sold for road legal use. But then we have a Porsche 917, which was produced in larger number (25 in total) for homologation, and all of them were, theoretically, road legal. Except that in fact they were not. Even though the Porsche had officially announced that they sell the road versions, and even stated the price, none of them was ever built for sale. They all were built for racing and were used this way, with only two modified for road use later. In other words, they simply followed homologation requirements to allow these purely racing machines, qualify for racing. Some sort of cheating. ;) Anyway, there's no doubts about 917 not being a production car despite there was twice as much of them built as CCR's.
 * Well, Taking decisions from other sources would be perfect solution. But, unfortunately, there is no single source, that would provide enough data on the subject. And every separate source, that had tested and made a claim regarding some cars, may have their own definition of the production or road car, as well as what to consider a top speed. Since we are forced to gather data from different sources into a single table, we have to apply some common rules. And these have to be our rules, established for the table. I think so.93.183.236.66 (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit comment - Production Numbers

 * Edit reversion note for Porsche 959 Sport and Bugatti production numbers - only the Sport reached the claimed speed in a test. The majority which were Touring did not nor were intended to without modification. The same applies to the Bugatti. I am not saying that the could't but that they had to be modified after production to do so, therefore it would be incorrect to count the whole batch.NealeFamily (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Both 959 Touring and Veyron SS were the fastest production cars even without any modification. 959 Touring reached 195 mph, comfortably higher than previous record holder Ferrari 288 GTO at 188 mph. Also, Veron SS, with top speed limited to 258 mph is faster than 256 mph of the Ultimate Aero TT. And we know for sure that all 30 of Veyron SS are capable of this speed. So, all 375 Porsche 959 were the fastest production cars in the world. And 6 of them were about 2 mph faster then the rest. Also all 30 Veyron SS are the fastest production cars in the world. And 5 of them are 9 mph faster than the rest. And we are stating a number of the produced fastest cars. Also, to avoid any confusion, the the detailed explanation in the comments column is provided. Othervise, there's exactly only 1 of each car in this table, that reached record speed, since no one can guarantee that the rest of the production run were also capable of this. Right? ;) 93.183.236.88 (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I know I am being picky but the problem is, which came first, the 959 Touring or the Sport? If it was the Sport, then the Touring never was the fastest production car, and the same applies to the Veyron models. The principle, to my mind is, if the 959 Touring was another make of car to the 959 Sport (say a Ferrari vs a Porsche), then it would be excluded unless it was produced before the Sport. I think the same principle applies to variants within car models are considered. A 959 Sport and a 959 Touring are not the same car. That is why I think that to count them as the same for numbers produced is misleading. NealeFamily (talk) 05:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the reason of this confusion is that you are assuming them to be a different models, not the versions of the same model. Basically, Porsche 959 is ONE model, which had several versions. Same is even more true for Veyron SS, since the only relevant difference is in the software. Sure, one version is faster than another. And that would be a serious problem and required us to differentiate them in case if the slower one wuld not actually break the record. For example, if 25 of Veyron SS's were slower than Ultimate Aero TT. In that case we'd have to admit that only 5 of the Veyron SS deserve to be placed in this table and so the number of produced would be 5. But that is not the case. Now, on the other hand, as we all know, not all of the production run of any model were capable of the record speed set by the one of them. Also, not all produced are exactly identical (see all the versions of the E Type for example). For some models, there's no 2 identical pieces produced as all are heavily customised (like Koenigseggs or McLaren F1). But still they are the same model and we state the over number produced. Otherwise, as I said before, we'd have to type "1" for each car in this table. Which is ridiculous. But since there is a sort of ambiguity, we have a Comment column where it is explained. So no one can get confused about which exactly car set the actual record speed and how many of them were produced. Also stating the number of faster versions instead of the total one in the number column is not right because it would give the wrong impression that these cars were separate, purpose build chassis. Which is incorrect since in both cases they share a wast majority of all parts with the slower version and were build on the same production lines etc. As was stated for 959, Porsche were taking orders and any number of all produced could be equipped as Sport if there was more customers for it. But most people wanted more comfortable Touring, so why not? For example, those Koenigseggs that were ordered with the rear wing are known of not being able to reach the same top speed the the record breaking one. Yet we still state the total number produced.93.183.236.88 (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 93.183.236.88 said I think the reason of this confusion is that you are assuming them to be a different models, not the versions of the same model. No, I actually agree that they are different versions of the same model. Where I have difficulty is classifying all of a particular model, regardless of version, as the fastest in their day. In the case of the Koenigsegg the rear wing was more an optional accessory, not unlike the customised McLaren's in their various forms. I guess version vs option is a pretty fine line and true that optional extras and accessories would lead to further sub-categories, making filteing down to that level impractical. I agree that would result in the ridiculous. NealeFamily (talk) 09:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, versions or options makes no difference as long as they all belong to a single production model and these versions and options are also production (means you can buy or order one during production run or period of taking orders). And how we define what is a "model"? Easy, we should not even try to do this - the manufacturer does. If Porsche says 959 is a model that has 2 versions it means exactly this. Same true for Veyron SS. To prove them lying (which could be done by proving that, for example, 959 Sport was not a part of the same production run, instead being hand build in the laboratory or something, and only using body panels of the 959 Touring), we need really serious facts, which we do not have. So as long as we can't prove them lying, it stay true - 959 Sport and Touring is the same model, as well as all versions of Veyron SS. But, I think this is very important to mention here, there is a difference between the production versions and after market modification. For example, take the speed set by the XJ220 with catalytic converters removed. That was not a production version, Jaguar was not proposing it to buyers, especially since it would be not road legal. Same is true for the McLaren F1 with disabled rev limiter. Again, McLaren had not ever sold or marketed this "version". So it is not a part of the production model F1. But the wing on Koenigsegg (not truly an accessory as you can't easily remove and install it back) is an option for a production model. So both Koenigseggs with or without it are the same model cars, even though their top speed is quite different. etc., etc. Basically I think we should not play detectives here and try to figure out how much of the production run of 72000 e-types were capable of that top speed, right? It's agood thing that we know huw much of 959s were not capable of it, and same for Veyron SS. But I suppose, only thing we can do with this extra information is to simply mention it in comments as is done. Similarly as we have for some modified achievements. Especially since in these two cases, even the slower version was proven to be the fastest car in the world anyway. 93.183.236.88 (talk) 07:02, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Bentley 4½ Litre 1931 222kmh 137mph
http://www.brooklandsmuseum.com/index.php?/history/record-breaking-at-brooklands-1920-1939/

Shouldnt this be included ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.68.87 (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, because this table only includes road legal production models. Absolute land speed records don't go here. As you can see, we miss Blue Flame, Thrust2 and Thrust SSC for example. Your car is already present in the proper article: Land speed record 93.183.236.88 (talk) 07:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Aston Martin DB4 GT Zagato - Autocar Road Test
Does anyone have access to the 1962 article and does it have a valid independent test for the cars top speed of 153.5 mph? or any tests of the other DB4 models from that time.NealeFamily (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a DB4 (not Zagato) road test in the 13th October 1961 Autocar magazine (pages 584-587). They reached top speed of 140.6 mph (in two way run, measured with a precise speedometer). I don't seem to have a 1962 issue with Zagato test though (can't find it). I'll search other magazines. 93.183.236.88 (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the magazine article I am trying to track down is from 13 April 1962. NealeFamily (talk) 08:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Full copy of the road test of the Zagato found in Aston Martin by Peter Garnier. Published by The Hamlyn Publioshing House, London, 1982 ISBN 0 600 35023 1. Pages 87-91. NealeFamily (talk) 01:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Does it have explicitly stated that it's the fastest car in the world? I have added DB4 before, but Typ932 removed it because there was not reference saying this. The speed is not enough.93.183.236.88 (talk) 21:02, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That was the speed as tested and given in the independant test for an unmodified production model. I don't think that should be open to debate. Typ932 would need to put forward something faster surely. As an aside, there is a possible contender the 1957 Ferrari 410 Super America - I haven't found a road test for it yet and it might knock out the E-Type. Speeds over 150mph have been cited in some sources, but no test results. NealeFamily (talk) 03:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Quoting Typ932 (it's on this page): "we dont need citation for top speed we need citation that says : this was the fastest production car on that particular year". ;) I was also looking for large block Ferrari tests, but it seems no one ever tested neither 410 SuperAmerica nor 500 Superfast for a top speed. It's a shame, because they most certainly had a potential to beat anything on the road.93.183.236.88 (talk) 15:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I doubt Typ932's statement is definitive wiki policy, in fact it is nonsense, unless all the quoted articles use the same definition of production car, and can see into the future. Greglocock (talk) 04:48, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This whole list is nonsense, there is no rules for this list at all, there is no rules how the top speed is measured etc. 1st you should define what is production car, how many should have been made then list the rules in the beginning of the article or somewhere else. -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 14:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, good luck with it. :) Although there's another problem with Zagato. It was introduced before E-Type (in 1960). This would mean that E-Type was never a fastest car in the world. But there's a plenty of sources explicitly saying that E-Type was a fastest car in the world, and no source saying so for Zagato. Weird eh? ;) 93.183.236.88 (talk) 07:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, why isn't there a link to a source saying that the E-type was the fastest car in the world on the main page? 10:06, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Two quick links precisely stating that E-Type was the fastest production car in the world: http://www.autozine.org/Archive/Jaguar/classic/E.html, and http://e-type.classicsportscars.eu/ 93.183.236.88 (talk) 12:09, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but could we have reliable, published secondary sources rather than links to attractive but wholly unreferenced material from some random blokes webpage. The policy is "Articles may make an analytic or evaluative claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source." WP:PSTS. Mighty Antar (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Autocar magazine also made a similar statement. However, that is not my point here. My point is, that there's a plenty of statements like these for e-type and, so far, I have never encountered any source claiming Zagato, or any other DB4 for that matter, to be the fastest production car in the world. Including those who have actually tested them. Only if such sources are found we could compare the reliability of them all. As you understand, I don't propose to add these "quick links" to the article sources.93.183.236.88 (talk) 05:10, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just took a look at one of your links which says "it (E-Type) was still comfortably the fastest production car in the world and ran remarkably close to the exotic Ferraris and Aston Martins that cost several times its price." This seems to come down to the use of the term "production car" as the writer seems to exclude Ferrari and Aston Martin from the category by saying "came reasonably close to" - it implies that they were faster but not production cars. NealeFamily (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, the production status of some exotics may be questioned. And it's a problem since we don't have a definition of the production car. And apparently, different sources may apply quite different meaning to it. 93.183.236.88 (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Maserati 5000 GT
There is comment on a website that this car was timed at 278kmh (172mph) by Motor Racing magazine (a UK publication) February 1960. There is also mention of French journalist Bernard Cahier road testing it, but I don't know the date or publication. I don't have access to the Motor Racing magazine or article to confirm this. The original 1959 model was created for the Shah of Persia who wanted a car that could exceed 175mph. His particular model had a slightly more powerful engine to all but one of the later models, so this speed seems plausible. NealeFamily (talk) 03:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So the question is: was it a production model?93.183.236.88 (talk) 04:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 20 were made for various owners - some were bespoke NealeFamily (talk) 22:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Even 35, at least 22 with the same couch builder. Seems quite reasonable indeed.93.183.236.88 (talk) 06:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Production numbers
If the table specifies speed of Porsche 959 Sport and then says "The 197 mph (317 km/h) top speed was recorded by the 959 Sport of which 6 were ever made, the table cant say that there is 337 made of those, very clear. Either its 6 and or the name should be changed more general Porsche 959 and use then 337 , but not like its now -- >Typ932 T&middot;C 01:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ok, here we go again. If you are lazy enough to read my arguments posted here before, I' repeat it for you. It's very convenient for you that the number of faster versions is clearly stated for the Porsche 959 model and Veyron S model. So you can argue that only these were capable of the recorded speed. But, if your goal is to only count those cars that were able to reach the stated top speed, you have to fix this for all table entries. But this is impossible because in many cases no one can tell this. So instead of stating the number of the record beating samples, there must be some other number, that is attainable for all models, stated. And that number is a total production run of the model. This number is important to judge the size of production run, not the number of the record beating vehicles. As we are talking here about a production cars, they all do have a production run. And in many cases, the model has many versions that are still a part of the same production run. Take E-Type for example. A specific version was tested by the magazine. There were slower versions (open top) and later a faster ones, but they all are a part of the same production run and are a same model of the car, as named Jaguar E-Type. Same is true for Miura. We have stated the number of all versions build even though only the earliest and the slowest one, P400, was the fastest car in the world, since the rest were faster but introduced later and were bitten by Daytona. But they all are a part of the same production run. It's the same model, as it's called Miura. So the total number is what we need to judge the production run of the model. Same stands true for Porsche 959. The production run of this model was 337 units. All of them are the same model, called 959. So, again, entire production run must be stated. Same is true also for McLaren F1, which had lots of versions, must of them very customized, and no one really knows if all were capable of the theme top speed. We can only tell for sure, that the tested cars did. But still we state en entire production run number. And this is also true for Koenigsegg CCR, of which, at least some, for example, with the rear wing, were surely not able of this speed. Entire production run stated though. So we also have to state an entire production run of the Veyron SS, just to make a correct comparative judgement with the other models in the table. If we were stating the number of the cars that are proven to reach the record speed, it would contain "1" for every entry. But this column is added for other purpose. As I say, it is here to judge the size of the overall production run and thus a production status of the model. Do I make my self clear? Or do you have some questions?93.183.236.88 (talk) 06:09, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

But you are probably right about the name used. We should probably use a more general model name, not a specific version. This is better to be explained in the comment.93.183.236.88 (talk) 06:27, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly, there were not 30 Bugatti super big dick substitutes made, there were 5. Yes there is a problem with older cars and that could be noted in the article, but when you know the exact situation it seems daft to insist on less accuracy. For the earlier cars an asterisk and a note to the effect that not all of the cars produced were of the same spec that reached the speed, would be a good idea. Greglocock (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why the same is not a good idea for the rest of the cars in the table then?93.183.236.88 (talk) 10:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It is. I gave the Bugatti as what we in English call an example. If a particualr modified, but still production, version reached that speed, use the number of those manufactured. In the case of older vehicles, where the details are unknown, use the production run for the generic model and asterisk it. Greglocock (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


 * From the way you call it a "super big dick substitute", I assume that your position is not truly unbiased regarding this example. ;) What you propose would make this column ambiguous as we say in English. What was the reason of adding this column? Perhaps we shouldn't add it in the first place? But as far as I understand, it's there to help people quickly judge the status of the production car by comparison. Using numbers that can not be directly compared would make this column completely useless in my opinion. The numbers provided in the comments, as we've had before, would probably do the job better avoiding ambiguity. You see, the problem is that we don't really have a definition of what actually a "production car" is. Otherwise this column would be redundant. And I believe that the entire production run is the best suited number to qualify the production status of the model. The production run may also be not really clear in many cases. But for the "super big dick substitute" as well as 959 it's quite clear that it is the overall number produced as I have explained before. Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the "big dick" or some other model here. But it really makes this column all but ridiculous when I see 272 for the Ferrari 288 and next to it, only 6 for Porsche 959. The 959 was in no way less produced car than 288. And all 337 of them were faster than Ferrari 288. But the quick glance at the table gives the impression that 959 was something completely rare and exotic comparing to 288. And that's a complete nonsense because the production of both these models was very similar. Don't you agree? So in this case, the column completely fails it's role in the table and thus has no reason to be present at all. But if we use 337, it all starts to make perfect sense. Doesn't it? 93.183.236.88 (talk) 05:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It is just a car. I, personally, have little time for italian style supercars, they aren't much fun to drive, they are not particularly fun to design, and to my mind they haven't progressed much since the original Countach came out. So yes, I will usually be rude about them. Perhaps we need two columns, total production, and where known, the number of cars built by the OEM to the spec that would have more or less met the claimed speed. Greglocock (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I argued in the earlier comments under the Porsche 959 heading that only the numbers for the Sport should be counted. I think that the comments column is sufficient to capture the additional. This a point 93.183.236.88 and I disagree on. Their arguments are stated above. I still disagree, because only cars that had the spec to "more of less" meet the claimed speed should be counted otherwise the numbers become a nonsence. Having a second column would just confuse the issue. Maybe a change of title to the number column to something like "number built to this specification" or similar would surfice, with the full production numbers regardless of spec in the comments column as is now the case. NealeFamily (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The easiest case is the Bugatti. How many Bugatti Veyron EB16.4 Super Sport World Record Edition were made? 5. So why does the stupid table say 30? Either change the model designation to the one which 30 were made of, or change the number produced. As it is the table is nonsense. Time for another AfD? Greglocock (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case, I think we should simply remove this column as useless and return to the previous format where the production numbers were provided in comments. I think this would satisfy everyone. Agree? 93.183.236.88 (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)