Talk:Production car speed record/Archive 3

Page protected/20 car limit - new discussion
I've protected this page while this edit war is onging. Looking briefly at this war, if I may take this opportunity to comment, a lot of the problems that occur happen because of the definitions used on this page (eg 20 cars to be classed as production), which seem to be at odds with the current standard used by the Guiness Book etc. Now, it's right that we stick to the definition that we have, but what is not clear is why that definition is set as it is. It seems to be an arbitrary number that's been defined (possibly via consensus), rather than taken from a Reliable Source. If that could be established, it would be easier I think to explain why a car does or doesn't fit. There's no reason that criteria can't change over time (ie what's a 'production' car in 1912 can be different to 2012). Just a thought. Ged UK  11:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the 20 cars limit was defined by consensus. Editors were not able to come up with more acceptable definition of the production car. However, this definition is not a problem here. We all agree with it. The problem is whether we have to wait while this number of cars is actually completed or can we accept declared manufacturer plans to build sufficient number, unless until they finish production not fulfilling it (in which case it would removed from the list).IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As much as I would like the Hennessy to be the fastest on the list, based on the fact that is was tested in the same state that is was produced, the Hennessey does not belong at the top of this list as far as current criteria that was gained by consensus is concerned. Hennessey need to produce 20 cars to be on the list. The Veyron only deserves to have the 257mph speed shown and not the 267mph speed. I am however in favour of the criteria being changed to allow smaller production runs to qualify for the list. One offs? no, 5 cars - most certainly.

Sennen Goroshi ! (talk) 16:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have proposed a different definition of production car not entirely based on the production number here in this talk. It sounded like this: "The production car is the model that was built in numbers not less than 2 to the same specification, was originally developed and built by the original manufacturer and was not based on the racing model nor predated by the racing version of it." The idea behind it was to allow generally accepted record vehicles in this list (Koenigsegg and SSC) but to effectively dismiss what is not generally accepted to be a production car (Porsche 917, RUF CTR, Dauer 926 etc.). Perhaps it's time to discuss it again? After all, the 21st century part of this list doesn't really reflect general opinion about the subject. After all, even Bugatti developed Veyron SS to beat Aero TT. But it's not here, making a bit ridiculous situation where Veyron SS is beating Veyron. What do you think?IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Several things here. 1: as we all agree Hennessy have not built 20 cars, intending to is not a sufficient reason, otherwise any manufacturer who intends to do something could end up on the list only to be removed at some later stage because what they intended did not occur. A point in mind would be the Ultimate Aero TT, which while it was intended to make quite a number more than 20 of each model, barely reached 20 for all models combined. 2: the definition of a production car used in this list ties back to the List of automotive superlatives. Because this list is about an automotive superlative any discussion about changing the definition should be discussed in that context. 3: to be valid any statement of fact in the list needs to be backed up by a reliable source. A manufacturer's statement is not necessarily a reliable source, especially when it comes to speed claims - eg Jaguar XK120 - or numbers produced - eg Aston Martin DB4 Zagato - which had 23 chassis's but on further research it was found in reliable sources that only 19 cars were actually produced. We do not need to rely solely on manufacturers statements about the number of vehicles produced.
 * Having looked at definitions of production cars for some time now, I consider there is no perfect definition, but the current one for these lists is a good as any. Therefore I do not support change. NealeFamily (talk) 20:03, 8 April 2013 (UTC)


 * 1. This is the reason why the definition may need a change. As I have pointed out previously, most of the record setting cars of the recent decade are not produced in high numbers and their production is very slow so we may have to wait way too long to figure out if the car meets our definition. Aero is a good example. It was present in this list for a long time. We all accepted manufacturers claim up until we found reliable proof (btw, that proof was again a manufacturer claim! We have not found a reliable independent proof for the actual production number as you know) that it was not true. Neither we were waiting for Bugatti to build 20 Super Sports, did we? Do we even checked for the actual Veyron SS production number in independent sources or do we just believe in Manufacturers claim here? Sure, Hennessey may never do it (I wouldn't be surprised really), but we can not make decision based on our beliefs. And I agree, this all doesn't look good if anyone can declare anything and we can't be sure it's true unless we wait forever. So this probably means that current definition is not quite acceptable. 2. Exactly! The consensus on 20 cars limit was made before many of the generally accepted records were set. It was before Koenigsegg CCR, Aero TT and Veyron SSWRE. This definition was acceptable for all previous cars. But times change, and it may be just not adequate for the recent decade. As I have argued before, we have missed 2 of the generally accepted record setting cars and we have a third with the wrong top speed (ask anyone, all will say that Veyron SS topped at 268 not 258). This list looks very synthetic now with these cars missing and bizarre top speed listed for the third one. No wonder we have so many similar edits from people who just don't get how this list is made up. The question is, does this list in present form match expectations of most people? Is our selection in anyway relevant for anyone? Think about it. The old part of this list is ok. The most recent one goes against general opinion. And if this list turns into an abstract synthetic exercise, do we even need it to be present here? These things bothered me when I proposed alternative definition, even though I have previously rejects similar proposals myself. After all, what's more important, to blindly stick to the 10 years old definition, or to make an article useful for as many people as possible? And I don't think we have to move to superlatives list with this discussion. I'm not even sure we must have the same definition. The fastest accelerating production cars list does use different definition after all. Besides, the superlatives list in fact doesn't match this definition anyway - there are still Aeros on that list. 3. No, the production number of 19 Zagatos was actually taken from the official Aston Martin website. Check it out, I was posting a link. The previously used 23 was taken from some other, unreliable source. And again we encounter a problem with production numbers here. As we all know, and had been discussing and researching it many times here, it is rather hard to find out a true production number. Especially when we mean the cars made to exactly same specification. In most cases we can only rely on manufacturer declarations. This number is not a top speed, it is not that easy to be figured out buy independent sources. But this number is just as important as a top speed for our selection. So again, it's another reason to consider this rule unacceptable as it relies heavily on the figure, that in most cases can not be independently checked.
 * We all have agreed that there's no perfect definition. But some definitions may be not acceptable, or become not acceptable with time. I think we have enough proofs that current definition is getting outdated. Think about it. I can freely go and buy Venom or Koenigsegg at any time. Yet we consider them not to be a production car. Sure few of them will be ever sold, but that's because record setting speeds are getting ever higher and cars are getting more expensive, so less of them can be successfully sold. But if I can buy one, and you can buy just exactly the same one, both new, and then someone else can do the same, can't we consider it a production model?IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * IP-93.183.236.121 - just to clarify something first, are you suggesting that this list runs with a different parameter to the List of automotive superlatives or are you suggesting both lists change? If it is the former, then we have three different definitions running in Wiki which I think is a bit pointless and if it is the latter then maybe we should engage with those on both the List of automotive superlatives and the List of fastest production cars by acceleration to try to find some overall common ground. Your thoughts? NealeFamily (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I am suggesting that this particular definition is not acceptable for this particular list anymore. I was not analyzing if it is still acceptable for the List of automotive superlatives as I'm not an active editor of that list. So I suggest we need a new definition here, but I don't know if this change is necessary for other lists. I understand your concern about multiple definitions. But, first of all, we have a precedent - editors of the List of fastest production cars by acceleration don't find this to be a problem and keep the definition that meets their goals (presumably by consensus). Also, before I have adapted the definition from the List of automotive superlatives to this list, we had different definition too (actually, we had none). I would really like to have a formal, official definition that would suit all. Perhaps we could really come up with something like this, though it should be probably discussed in Production car and then accepted in all lists, and I doubt we could come to any agreement in foreseeable future. But this list is already suffering badly, in my opinion. So we should probably do something as soon as possible without postponing this change by waiting for adoption of universal definition. So I suggest we come up with acceptable definition for this list first. As to the other lists, we can propose our new definition for them, but that would be up to editors of those lists whether to adopt it. On the other hand, I don't think anyone form the List of automotive superlatives have ever suggest to use their definition on this list. I brought it here just to put the end to some conflicts we've had here. Same is true for other lists. So it seems that no one ever really tried to introduce an universal definition for these lists. We surely can, and probably should try to do so, but that would be another task. Now as we are discussing this List of fastest production cars, we should find an acceptable solution for it to be as relevant as possible. I believe so.IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Related pages
To assist those of you participating in the discussion, here are some helpful links
 * Talk:List of fastest production cars/Archive 2
 * Talk:List of fastest production cars/Archive 2
 * Talk:List of automotive superlatives/Archive 2 - origin of the 20 car limit
 * Mass production - definition
 * Production car - definitions
 * List of automotive superlatives - list that uses the same definition as List of fastest production cars
 * List of fastest production cars by acceleration - uses a different definition
 * List of fastest production motorcycles - another definition
 * List of vehicle speed records - assorted speed records
 * Vehicular metrics - description of terms

and a related links


 * Blog site discussion - just so we know we are not alone with this problem
 * Guinness - trying to sort out the definition of a production car

NealeFamily (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Production car - question to consider - number of cars required to qualify
The current definition used by this list is from the List of automotive superlatives:


 * In order to keep the entries relevant, the list (except for the firsts section) is limited to automobiles built after World War II, and lists superlatives for earlier vehicles separately. The list is also limited to production road cars that:
 * are constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, and to transport people on public roads (no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible);
 * have had 20 or more instances made by the original vehicle manufacturer, and offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition (cars modified by either professional tuners or individuals are not eligible);
 * are street-legal in their intended markets, and capable of passing any official tests or inspections required to be granted this status.

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


 * This list includes full production cars only; concept, modified, very limited-production, and race cars of any kind are not considered. If an independent time becomes available, that time will be listed over the manufacturer's time regardless if the latter is quicker.

The question being considered: NealeFamily (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Is the restriction of have had 20 or more instances made currently being used by this list appropriate
 * If not, what changes should be made to the definition

Discussion
Any decision is inherently arbitrary, the usual wiki response is to find a definition in a reliable source. The fun starts when a different point of view is expressed in a different Reliable Source. I'd actually like to use the definition for mass production car. The key phrase in C20's definition is "Great quantity" Greglocock (talk) 23:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Another possibility may be to accept whatever Guinness Book of Records uses. I have searched the web, but can't find its definition. If they originally accepted the Veyron World Record Edition with only 5 models, then it must be pretty liberal, probably more like IP-93's 2 or more. There seem to be quite a wide range of possibilities. No hint of mass production with numbers though NealeFamily (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Tada, this blog says Guinness says 50 per year http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/guinness-strips-bugatti-veyron-super-sport-of-its-world-speed-record/ . I'd be very happy with that but seems a bit tough on koennigsegg. Greglocock (talk) 02:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Nah, that's not true apparently. That blog is apparently not a reliable source since it is self contradictory: "To qualify for the record, carmakers must build at least 50 examples of a contender per year. Hennessey hasn’t even built 10 Venom GTs. So what is the fastest production car in the world, according to Guinness? It’s the car the Veyron SS beat in 2010, the 1,287 hp SSC Ultimate Aero.". Yeah, right...IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 12:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Unless Guinness are using something like 50 with that particular body/chassis? NealeFamily (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? SSC had built 15 Aeros of all sorts, and that took them quite a few years. 50 was not even claimed by Jerod from the beginning. Especially per year. When SSC set the Guinness record, all sources were quoting Jerod claiming he's gonna build 24-25 of them in total. So Guinness could not even be fooled by wild claims. So 50 per year can not be a Guinness definition. Actually, I have a feeling that they don't have a strict definition at all. It seems they just accept any commercially available vehicle as a production model. Note that they are now disqualifying Veyron SSWRE not because to few of them were built but because the car they tested was prototype that was not commercially available. Which also hints that Bugatti lies saying that the commercially available Veyron SSWRE was exactly the same as the record setting prototype. Or have they newer built those 5 WRE's? IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 07:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that 20 or more instances has truly become obsolete. I think as a group we must consider an alternative number given that the performance car manufacturers of old (Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche, McLaren, etc.) that used to seek the title of fastest production car and were able to "mass produce" have given up the desire to seek those speeds in favour of other driving experiences. The notoriety of holding the title has become the goal of boutique performance car manufacturers in an attempt to focus light on their small companies and sell their cars. However, the financial crisis has meant that the capital available to these car manufacturers has now become a sell first build later arrangement meaning the production numbers are very low in most cases (Bugatti being the exception) because the price is extreme and demand is low as a result (SSC as an example falling short of their proposed production run of Ultimate Aeros). Despite the boutique nature of these car manufacturers some have been able to build some extreme record holding cars (Koenigsegg, SSC, maybe Hennessey) according to Guinness and other reputable independent measuring bodies. The other aspect I think we need to remember is that in the current climate people who can afford these types of cars want the exclusivity that comes along with it meaning they want to share having the "world's fastest production car" with as few other people as possible and some are willing to pay for the right (Lamborghini Aventador J as an example of exclusivity bought). I think we as a group need to also redefine our requirements of numbers produced to meet the times. As an aside I think the Bugatti Veyron SS record of 268 mph should stand. Software that limits the top speed of these cars is not a mechanical impediment and can easily be switched. I don't consider this on par with what was done to both the Jag XJ220 and McLaren F1 to mechanically increase their top speeds by adding or removing parts. My 2 cents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.238.111 (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Software or hardware, it doesn't make any difference here. If manufacturer places a limiter of some sort, that means that production car is intentionally limited for whatever reason. Surely, altering software seems a bit "not material", but you'd lose warranty the same as making any hardware alterations. And you still have to do something with your car. You can't just take a production car to that top speed using only driver controls. Besides, in modern world, you can easily alter engine power altogether without touching hardware, yet this is apparently a modification. However, Veyron SSWRE was arguably built in 5 samples so it would qualify as a production car by my definition and the 268 mph record would be listed.IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

To be honest I don't regard these handbuilt thingies really meet the true definition of a mass production car, which would mean using mass production techniques of assembly, such as an assembly line, and stations for each worker. To give some idea, the Lotus esprit is assembled in a large workshop, and is pushed by hand from station to station. Production was around 1000 pa when I was there. I did not say that I thought that blog was definitive but it does offer a hint as to Guinness' methodology, unfortunately the GWR website seems to be just about the worst designed I have ever seen and prevents me from researching there. Greglocock (talk) 07:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But we don't say "mass production". We say "production". I completely agree that these (as well as most other entries in this table) are not mass produced. And for the mass production we indeed have a some sort of definition. The problem is, what is a "production car". Literally. Another problem is that there is already a common opinion about some of the models as being the fastest production cars. For example, F40, F1, Miura, Veyron etc. Some of them are important enough to make a definition already. So, in my opinion, we should make a definition that would suit those commonly accepted models. The rest may be added if matching this definition. For this century, we probably have to include CCR, Aero TT and both Veyrons. These are so widely accepted that we should also should accept them for a fact. Guinness or not (neither Veyron nor CCR were registered by Guinness btw), we should not try to prove some other opinion, especilly if it would be only supported here, on this talk. IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That approach degenerates into a list of "fast cars we like". I actually see little that is really wrong with the current definition, my inclination would be to make it more rigorous, but if anybody suggested using a definition that is found in a WP:RS it would be hard to argue against that. I suggest that if the current consensed defintion is no longer a consensus then we should either find an RS, or delete the article. I am happy to accept 20 cars, or a more rigorous version. Greglocock (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, technically speaking, thus list is already a list of "fast cars WE like". Emphasis on "we". Because rest of the world, like to think about CCR and UATT as of production cars. Guinness does. Most people do. Editors of this article don't. How many of us here left? 3? We do the list WE like to see. How useful is this list for WP? We could make a list of red cars with most spikes in their wheels if we come to 3 people consensus about it. The problem is not that the definition is wrong. There are no wrong or right definitions if we invent them. The problem is that list built on current definition is completely synthetic and does not provide any information supported by any other sources in the world. That's what I'm talking about here. Removing this list would not be a solution really. The subject is very popular. But we have to make it as close to what is generally accepted to be true as possible, instead of blindly making up a list, no one take seriously (apart of 3 editors or so). IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * In motor racing/rallying both FIA and SCCA specify the number of vehicles that must be produced before they are considered production cars. SCCA rules state Cars submitted for new classification in the Production Category must be series produced in quantities of no less than 3000 within a twelve month period which is in line with Greg's view. FIA's former Group C class required only 25 - but the name suggests they were prototypes vs production cars. I can't find any racing/rallying rules with a lesser number than 25, so 20 is already quite low. I think I'd want an RS to go lower. CCR, Aero and the like are getting into the individual hand built categories of the older Ferrari America and Maserati 5000 series cars - not a production car to my mind.NealeFamily (talk) 01:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We can't use those definitions if they don't match what is generally accepted to be true. I bet most people would consider Ferarri Americas and Maseratti 5000 to be production cars. As well as Koenigseggs and SSC's. Even Guinness does. Even Bugatti do (since they developed SS to beat the record of SSC). Do you really like to have this list in present form? Do you find it a useful to tell people that everyone is wrong and neither CCR nor UATT were the fastest production cars and current record holder is doing 258 mph? Isn't is a sort of disinformation? Aren't we stating our personal opinions for a fact? I'm concerned. I don't feel comfortable with it. Really. You know well how many time e have reverted editors trying to add back CCR, SSC, and changing Veyron SS top speed. They were all more numerous than 3 of us here. Perhaps their consensus would quite different? Think about it. IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I guess the main thing I agree with you on here is there are only 3 of us in the discussion and that does not really count as a consensus. I am going to highlight this discussion on several talk pages to see if the wider community has an opinion. NealeFamily (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not an editor on this page, but I would like to see a complete list of the cars produced (as apposed to modified) that have been verified to have held the title of fastest production car through time, including Koenigsegg, SSC and the Veyron SS. As 5 veyron's were made which do the record speed why don't we start with that number and go from there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.238.111 (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Conclusion
Guinness have now disqualified the Veyron and according to a report are reviewing their criteria for what constitutes a production car. See http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/04/bugatti-veyron-world-record/. They have not reinstated the SSC or Koenigsegg either. I suspect that they are facing the same problem we have - what constitutes a Production car. I hope their panel of experts can come up with a definition not to dissimilar to the old FIA one for production Sports Cars, which would then serve as WP:RS for this and the other related lists. NealeFamily (talk) 20:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Good, let's wait and see what Guinness comes up with and use that. Then we'll have an RS for the definition. Greglocock (talk) 04:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If we are all agreed - we wait for Guinness to determine what the definition will be and once known use that. NealeFamily (talk) 05:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That makes no sense. When Guinness, being a WP:RS says that SSC Ultimate Aero TT is the "Fastest production car", we ignore it because it doesn't meet our consensus. But now we have to wait for the same Guinness to accept their definition? That is not consistent. What if Guinness produce definition that would not match the past entries? What if they would not disclose their definition at all (as they never did with previous one apparently)? We have more things to keep with than Guinness here. However, I agree that if Guinness disqualify SSC and Veyron SS, we could keep our current definition here.IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 05:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The logic is that despite an extensive search neither us nor our predecessors have been able to come up with a WP:RS for the definition of a production car. The closest was the FIA's now defunct definition. According to the article Guinness have gathered an expert group to determine a definition, which is more than anyone else has done to date. As all the arguments over the 20 car definition show, the current has been a matter of opinion between us. To my mind that seems to place the definition we are using as original research, which is not what Wiki is about. NealeFamily (talk) 20:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you being deliberately obtuse? Of course a different definition will produce a different list. That is the whole point. We don't know what Guinness' current criterion is so we can't use it, and they've announced they are going to look at it properly. That will give us an RS for a criterion. Greglocock (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wait, what you guys say is trivial but not applicable to our situation. If Guinness is a RS, why do we disagree when they say SSCUATT is a fastest production car in the world? If our definition is an original research (btw, most of this table is and will still be even if we use any other definition), and RS provides an entry that contradicts our definition, then we have to change the definition, not reject an RS. Don't we? If we remove that car from the list, that can only mean that Guinness is not a RS anymore. And if Guinness is not a RS, we can not use their definition either. But if they are RS, we should add Aero TT back to this list. That is a formal logic, you can't argue with it.IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 16:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Protection extended
I've extended protection for another 10 days. It seems that you're very close to consensus, but that some of that will depend on Guinness, and it's not clear when that might occur, and additionally, settling solely on the Guinness definition simply means that our list becomes the same as theirs, which might not be what we're aiming for. Further discussion will probably help. Are there several reliable sources that define a production car (not for this record necessarily), and could you take an average/median of those for your definition? Ged UK  11:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, Guinness only lists cars that were tested by Guinness officials. If we follow their definition, we could probably add some more cars that were tested by some other independent organizations (like car magazines). So our list would be closer to reality.IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 16:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Guinness Bugatti Veyron decision
Guiness has decided that removing the limiter on Bugatti is not a modification and therefore the record stands. See http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2013/4/guinness-world-records-statement-fastest-production-car-48092/. So where to now? NealeFamily (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Rats. We've been through all this before, and that looked like a circuit breaker. Since in effect we are now back to where we were before this round of bingo-bango with the Veyron, I guess we carry on at 20 cars sold to a given spec. Greglocock (talk) 01:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I've sent an email to Guinness to see if they will reveal their secret formula - here's hoping.NealeFamily (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Surprise... Not... He who pays gets the crown. Seriously though, now as we accept Guinness to be RS, we have to bring back Aero TT to this list. We have to state 268 mph for Veyron SS and, to be consistent, we have to bring back the Koenigsegg CCR since it is not worse than Aero in any way. We don't need to know Guinness' formula for this, we already know these cars match it. Right?IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, let's wait and see if Guinness will reveal their definition. If they won't then we are back where we were. Greglocock (talk) 19:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * IP-93 what we have been trying to achieve is to find something outside of Wiki that sets the definition of what a production car is. Guinness have responded to my query about the rules that govern the production car speed record in most circumstances you must submit an application through our website www.guinnessworldrecords.com in order to receive the guidelines and rules from the records management team. Unless someone has a set of these rules I have no idea what they are and I am not in a position to apply for the world record attempt. There have been a series of comments on variety of blog sites that state that Guinness uses a 50 car per annum threshold in a fairly flexible way, but who knows if that is true as none looked particularly reliable.
 * So where does this leave us? At the moment we have no WP:RS to determine what the definition of a production car is. The only global authority on this kind of record at the moment is either Guinness tests or, as has been cited in this article from time to time, various car magazine tests.
 * I am inclined to consider Greg's we carry on at 20 cars sold as the most practical way forward, otherwise this list drops into a meaningless fanboy one to my mind with obscure, virtually one off, models becoming the norm. NealeFamily (talk) 20:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * "The only global authority on this kind of record at the moment is either Guinness", yet "I am inclined to consider Greg's we carry on at 20 cars sold". Isn't it a bit of an oxymoron? If we stick to current definition then we dismiss Guinness. Don't we? Is our 20 cars definition taken from more reliable source than Guinness claims as to the Aero TT being the fastest car and Veyron SS top speed being 268 mph? Just answer simple question - what is more acceptable for WP, our original research or reliable source like Guinness? Also, do not forget that 20 cars definition was agreed some 10 years ago. At that time, it was not in a conflict with Guinness. There was no Aero TT or Veyron SS back then. But is not acceptable any more as it conflicts with RS. Since we don't have a definition from RS and the one we use here conflicts with RS, the only way forward is to create new definition that would comply with all records stated in sources. There's no other way.IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * As an alternative I quite like the page-locker's idea of summarising the various RS definitions (primarily from motorsports) and trying to pull an average out of that. It'll be a big number, more of the order of hundreds. You've already done the hard yards there finding the links, all we need is a summary.Greglocock (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you understand how this list would like then? Are you sure you're not trying to sabotage this list? Do you want it to be populated with Ford Focus, Volkswagen Golf and the likes? We surely could have such ridiculously useless list here, but not instead of this one. IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 17:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

FIA
International Sporting Code 1969 – Appendix J
 * Category A: recognised production cars (minimum production in 12 consecutive months)
 * - Group 1: series production touring cars	5000
 * - Group 2: touring cars			       1000
 * - Group 3: grand touring cars			500
 * - Group 4: sports cars				25

Guiness

 * Unconfirmed (based on blogs)			50
 * FALSE! Neither Aero TT nor Veyron SS were built in such numbers. They were not even planned or claimed to be built in such numbers. Yet both are certified Guinness record holders. So this is NOT the definition Guinness use. Or am I missing something? IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 17:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Looking back on the records, 25 Aero TT's were going to be made. Guinness seems to take the manufacturers proposed number into account, much as you were suggesting in an earlier discussion. With regard to the Veyron Guinness's logic seems to be that because a Veyron with the limiter disabled can do the claimed speed, all Veyron SS's can potentially do it, giving a total of about 30 cars. This would seem to indicate they are working in the realm of 25 or more. The numbers don't contradict the FIA Sports Car category on that basis.NealeFamily (talk) 04:21, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * How can 25 or 30 be enough to satisfy 50 cars requirement? IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 06:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I should have made it more clear in my response to your 19 April comment - after further research on 20 April, the evidence seems to point to 25 cars, not 50 as stated in the blogs. That in turn is consistent with the 1969 FIA's production sports car definition.NealeFamily (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, 25 seems realistic if they accept claimed total production number. However, I would accept claimed production number only until production run is over. If manufacturer fails to build sufficient number, then it must be disqualified and removed. If Guinness really uses this approach, they would probably disqualified Aero TT already since it is not being built any more and apparently way less than 25 were ever produced. BTW, the claimed production number of 25 Aeros may be an indirect proof of this version. They may have had to claim exactly this much to fulfill Guinness requirement. Anyway, since we know Guinness was reconsidering Veyron SS record lately, they could do the same with Aero, since now its actual production run is known. But they don't So, perhaps, their definition is a bit different. Or they don't care. Or Jerod paid enough. Or whatever... :-\ IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Legislation
Legislation in various countries, EU and Oceania, describe vehicles made in batches of less than 500 as low volume vehicles requiring a different compliance system. The US House of Representatives was looking in 2011 at 1000 as low volume vs mass produced. NealeFamily (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This is useless for us. Obviously, most of the cars that go into this list are low volume production models. Very few of them, even in the past, were built in mass production numbers. IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 06:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion continues
Feel free to add to the list above NealeFamily (talk) 04:46, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This list is not a list of the fastest cars in any of the racing categories. Is it? So I'm not convinced that we can use them. All those categories are synthetic. The governing body artificially creates them for organisational purposes. They are not created, and were never used by anyone to classify the fastest production cars.IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree the FIA categories are one's used for racing. What I was trying to do was provide a list of all the different rules relating to a number to qualify as a production car. So far all I have found is the FIA rule, and an allusion to one relating to Guinness. If you have found any others please add them above. From that I was hoping we could find some way towards reaching a consensus based on these, given there is nothing showing up in any WP:RS to date.NealeFamily (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand your intent very well. What I'm trying to say though, is that I doubt we can come up with anything useful this way. Think about it, what RS do we have at all that talk about fastest production cars? FIA does not give such information. However, we have plenty of sources stating that this or that model was a fastest production car. Guinness is among them. For example, we know from numerous sources that McLaren F1 was a fastest production car in the world before CCR took it's crown. Don't we? There are tons of sources for this. Same is true for many others. It is also true for Aero TT. So no matter what definition we create, it must include those cars that are known to be fastest production cars from existing reliable sources. Don't you agree? No matter what definition we make, we'll never conflict with FIA because FIA does not say what fastest production cars are. Yet we may conflict with Guinness and the likes. And we are not allowed to in my opinion. So once again, we have to base our definition on known record setting cars. I see no other way to make it, really. IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 06:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * FIA provide several definitions for "production car", which is one thing we need for this list to make sense. Choosing from the resulting set of cars that meet an agreed criterion and are the fastest at any calendar date is the self imposed purpose of this list. It is not a requirement that the RS defining "production car" should also list fastest production cars.Greglocock (talk) 11:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * My take is, firstly if you remove the number of cars required from the lists definition then you could call anything a production car, even the one off's. Secondly, you end up with potentially three different definitions of a production car in the superlative lists on Wiki, which to my mind is the main reason not to change.
 * I would not support a change without also having the List of automotive superlatives change their definition because this list is directly related to it. NealeFamily (talk) 20:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Lets assume that FIA is an RS that provides a definition of a production car (sort of). Ok, fine. Then we have a Guinness that is a RS that provides some of the fastest production cars in the world. Some of them don't match the FIA's definition. And FIA does not provide a definition to use for a fastest production car. So which RS is more suitable to use for a fastest production cars list? The one that provides information regarding fastest production cars, or the one that doesn't? If FIA conflicts with Guinness in this question, I'd take Guinness. Don't you?


 * Now, I'm not suggesting removing number. Have you read my definition proposal and explanation why and how it works? Even in initial form that I have proposed, it would easily disqualify all the one-offs. The real one-offs that is. If you want, I can re-post the explanation again and we can discuss it.


 * I agree that have three different definitions is bad. But we do have 2 already, and no one bothers to reduce them to one. Besides, the editors of superlatives list apparently don't bother to follow their own definition. Look at it, it still contains Aeros and some more obscure cars. A would not comment on fastest accelerating list either. All I want at the moment, is to make THIS list as good as possible. And for a previously explained reasons, neither definition is acceptable. So we have to introduce the one that would be acceptable for THIS list. That's it. It's better this way than having one definition that would result in three meaningless lists. Isn't it?


 * The list of superlatives can be based on any imaginable definition really. Because there's basically no RS that provides information on most of that list entries. On the other hand, there are numerous sources that provide information about fastest production cars. So we are restricted to not conflict with them as much as possible. And we can not use any synthetic definition we like. Don't you understand?IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 07:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Earlier, IP-93, you said: ''Yes, 25 seems realistic if they accept claimed total production number. However, I would accept claimed production number only until production run is over. If manufacturer fails to build sufficient number, then it must be disqualified and removed. If Guinness really uses this approach, they would probably disqualified Aero TT already since it is not being built any more and apparently way less than 25 were ever produced. BTW, the claimed production number of 25 Aeros may be an indirect proof of this version. They may have had to claim exactly this much to fulfill Guinness requirement. Anyway, since we know Guinness was reconsidering Veyron SS record lately, they could do the same with Aero, since now its actual production run is known. But they don't So, perhaps, their definition is a bit different. Or they don't care. Or Jerod paid enough. Or whatever... :-\ IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 07:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)'' I'd like to bring this into the discussion here.
 * My view is once Guinness had published the Aero TT as the fastest, it was superceded reasonably quickly by the Veyron. Guinness probably had no interest in correcting it.
 * I realise that the FIA 25 rule is more a guideline in what we are trying to establish, but coupled with Guinness probably using the same number, I think it would be reasonable to settle on 25 as the minimum. At least we can point to some logic to the number vs the very arbitrary 20. NealeFamily (talk) 20:07, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But the problem is not in what number is correct. The problem is do we include Aero TT, CCR, and Veyron SSWRE? There is no right or wrong number here. No matter which one we chose, we do it only to adjust our list to what we consider correct, based on existing RS. And Guinness, being a RS, says that Aero TT was a fastest production car in the world. Now what do we have to dismiss this claim of RS? Do we have any other RS that says something different? No. There's no RS saying that there was any faster production car before Veyron SS. Now that's what bothers me. Really. I don't know how and why Guinness considered Aero TT to be a production car. And I don't know why they still do (even when they put Veyron SS to doubt!!!). But they do. That's all we know. So if we can't get their definition, or if their definition would contradict other RS, we have to derive our own that would match all the RS as good as possible. Or, alternatively, we can go ahead without the definition, simply listing models provided by available sources.


 * And why are you so inclined to base the definition on some specific number? Thinking philosophically, it doesn't really make any sense. I mean, what is the difference between 19 and 20 built? On practice - none. Yet, following our definition, first one is not production, second is. That is not logical at all. If we really want some solid definition, it shouldn't rely on some irrational and synthetic assumption. Don't you agree? So I propose a different approach, that would use some other ways of disqualifying non-production cars, not solely based on their number. After all, some widely accepted low volume production cars were made in lower numbers than some racers. So the production number would not help here. I found that the only number that actually make a difference is 2. There is huge difference between 1 and 2 built to the same specification. Not so for any higher numbers. What do you think?IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 05:39, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Assuming we agree to 2 in place of 20, then they would still need to satisfy the two other existing clauses. Where I think 2 would become unhinged is with are constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, and to transport people on public roads (no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible). How, if you only make two, would you envisage they would satisfy this. NealeFamily (talk) 09:40, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see the problem. Apparently, none of the cars we have here in question was built for commercial or industrial use, they all were built for sale to consumers, and were sold to them, and obviously, being road legal, they were conceived to transport people on public roads (they can't really transport much more than 2 people anyway). So what's the problem?IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Because by definition production car excludes one or two offs. Road legal one or two offs exist. We aren't interested in them. To be honest you seem to be arguing from an assumtpion about which modern cars should be on the list, so it will degenerate into a list of 'fast cars we like'. Personally I would have no compunction about excising every car that was not made on an assembly line. Greglocock (talk) 23:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Wow! 1. There's no definition of production car! If there was one, we wouldn't have this discussion. 2. Who told you what "we" are interested in? Talk for yourself please. Besides, I thought you don't want to have a list of "cars we like"... 3. To be honest, you don't read my messages at all. Because I have repeated many times that I indeed believe that we have to base the definition on models that are known to be fastest production cars. 4. It IS a list of "cars we like" with our present definition. Because it conflicts with such reliable sources as Guinness for example. I propose to have a list of cars that are known to be fastest production cars in the world, based on RS, not on our 3 men consensus about which abstract number is the best. Not based on any RS or other objective reasons (or can you explain objective difference between 19 and 20?). 5. What is assembly line in your opinion? Koenigseggs are built on assembly line of some sort. Most others are too. Not sure about Aero though. IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Just a comment on point 4 - if we change the 20 car definition, it will still be just a three person consensus, and conflict with the earlier consensus who started it. Where is your evidence that 2 cars constitute a production car. I can't find any source that comes close to supporting that number.NealeFamily (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, the definition will always be just a consensus. But with better definition, the list would include more record setting cars which are backed up by RS. In other words, the list of "cars we like" would have less conflicts with existing reliable sources on this subject. With my proposed definition, it would have zero conflicts at least on the 21st century part. IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 08:58, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But more in C20th? NealeFamily (talk) 09:48, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
 * No, of course not! I said ZERO CONFLICTS in 21st century, not "less conflicts". With my definition, all the RS supported cars that we already have in this table would still stay here. Some of our original research results may change, but that is not important. After all, deriving this definition, it was my goal to preserve and add as many RS supported cars as possible. Check for yourself if you have any doubts. And let me know if I have missed something. I'd be happy to collectively derive acceptable definition. And I don't insist on the one I proposed. If we can come up with better one, I'll support it. But it must match available sources even better.IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 16:30, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok, since no one else really care and I'm the only active editor left, I guess I'll have to make a one man consensus about the new definition...IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not that I don't care, it's just that I have been trying to locate GBR's covering the C21st to see what cars they included when and what they may have used as a number. I still have not found all the editions. So far it looks like they relied on manufacturers statements that they were going to produce x number of models.


 * Also I am of the view that there should be more than the two of us to reach a consensus about changing the 20 car rule, given its past history.NealeFamily (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok. I give up on this entire subject. Apparently there is nothing I can do to make this list at least sane. But who cares? It is probably not the only Wikipedia article that has nothing to do with reality whatsoever. There are 2 guys not willing to accept RS, dozens of other editors input and opinion. So who am I to criticize? Apparently no one. I may repeat the same simple logical truth for a tenth time, that would not change anything. Well, whatever. Good luck at disgracing Wikipedia. You are on the right way! (All said is only my humble opinion and doesn't require neither RS nor consensus to be stated)IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2013 (UTC)


 * You are not the only editor left with an opinion, but your attempt to browbeat everyone else into including your pet cars has merely stopped me posting, not disagreeing.  Greglocock (talk) 02:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I think 20 should be reduced. I just don't think that number is relevant anymore given the business shift by manufacturers making these cars (demand and supply as opposed to supply and demand) as well as buyer/owner driven exclusivity, and this market being taken over by boutique car makers who don't have the capacity to make many of their models. I think we need to also consider (as they have on the fastest by acceleration page) maybe as a separate section cars in production with manufacturers claimed top speed and projected numbers built. Is there anything to say the list can't have 2 sections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.187.121 (talk) 05:57, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Decision
The closest any reliable source comes to a number is the FIA and its rules date from 1968. Guinness seems to be inconsistant and as it doesn't publish its rules, we can't tell. All of us accept that the 20 number is arbitrary, but until someone posts a substantive argument to the contrary that we can agree on - the 20 car minimum rule remains. The reason for this decision is because there is no consensus to change the rule.NealeFamily (talk) 20:09, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Guinness strips Veyron SS of fastest title.
http://www.driving.co.uk/news/bugatti/veyron/10413

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sennen goroshi (talk • contribs) 18:04, 6 April 2013‎ (UTC)

Edit request on 27 June 2013 - New Record
“While a Veyron Super Sport did run 267.8 mph, Bugatti speed-limits its production vehicles to 258 mph,” said company founder and president, John Hennessey. “Thus, at 265.7 mph the Venom GT is the fastest hypercar available to the public.”
 * February 2013
 * Hennessey® Venom GT®
 * 265.7 mph
 * 29
 * SEALY, Texas – Hennessey Performance today announced that on February 9, 2013 its street-legal Venom GT accelerated to 265.7 mph (427.6 km/h) during testing, establishing the exotic supercar as the world’s fastest hypercar vehicle available for public purchase. The top speed run was accomplished over a distance of two miles using a full-production Venom GT. All testing was validated by (2) VBOX 3i GPS-based data logging systems and VBOX officials were on hand to certify the numbers.

Jaminroe (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Jaminroe, while that may be true Hennessey have not produced and sold 20 cars, which is a requirement of this list. Taken a look back through the talk section here. Both the Venom and the 20 car limit are discussed at length. NealeFamily (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

2007 SSC speed record - where is it?
Neo1973 (talk) 18:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Why has the 2007 Guinness verified record for SSC been omitted from this list?


 * See Talk:List of fastest production cars/Archive 2 for the reasons. Essentially they never made 20 cars, which is the minimum for this list. NealeFamily (talk) 23:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

What most normal people consider a production car.
Produced stock, ie. not custom made. You have production cars, and you have custom cars, if someone called in and said "hey I like this car but i want 50 inch rims, monster truck suspenion and a 123 liter v8 with a chair attached to it", that is a custom car. If someone calls a company and says "hey i want to buy your car that you are currently offering in a stock configuration", that is a production car. Its not something thats undefined unless you have no common sense. Aside from that this list is still fairly inaccurate, for example the lamborghini diablo isnt even in the footnote despite having a 1mph greater top speed than the ferrari, and a 5 mph greater top speed if you use the same magazine that this article quotes the speed of the ferrari from. Also there have been more than the required number of aeros ordered as quoted by the manufacturer as well.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.233.215.96 (talk) 15 September 2013‎


 * You would think so, but take a look back on the last achieved version of this page for a fairly major discussion about what a production car is or is not. Also, take a look at the Production car article. NealeFamily (talk) 09:23, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Contradiction in the article
Reading through the archived talk pages, there has been much discussion as to the definition of a production car etc. However, slightly unrelated to this is the obvious dichotomy between stating that the Veyron Super Sport is "is ineligible for this list" while including it on the list using the same speeds that preceded this comment (Speeds set by the unlimited car). Either the speed of the record in the table needs to be changed, or the ineligibility bit from the introduction needs to be removed. Iberichard (talk) 06:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Unfortuantely this article is frequently attacked by drongoes, enthusiasts and others who do not bother with Talk pages, and in this case the table had been left in a slightly vandalised form. thanks for pointing that out. Greglocock (talk) 09:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Deactivating a speed limiter (modification or not)
The Bugatti Veyron recently lost its status as the Guiness Book of Records world's fastest production car on the grounds that:


 * It has come to the attention of Guinness World Records that there was an oversight in its adjudication of the ‘Fastest production car’ which was set in 2010 by the Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Super Sport. As the car’s speed limiter was deactivated, this modification was against the official guidelines. Consequently, the vehicle’s record set at 431.072 km/h is no longer valid. As we are now reviewing this category with expert external consultants there is no current record holder.

The expert consultants eventually decided that deactivating the speed limiter did not constitute a modification. The article that states this ({url=http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/265-7-mph-hennessey-venom-gt-claims-fastest-195530561.html}) also says:


 * According to Guinness, to qualify as a production car one must build “at least 50 mechanically identical vehicles, and these vehicles must be on sale to the general public.

Should we accept the Guinness decision that as:
 * all their cars can have the speed limiter deactivated and
 * an expert panel holds it not to be a modification? NealeFamily (talk) 03:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Haven't you ignored their definition of a production car as well? I can live with deactivating speed limiters if it means we get an RS definition of a minimum production run (frankly I'm not too bothered what the exact number is, and would tend towards more than fewer). Greglocock (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2013 (UTC)


 * You are correct in noting that I ignored the 50 car requirement at this stage. My primary reason for doing so, is to settle what constitutes a modification first. My other reason for raising this is the possibility that the new McLaren, which also has a limiter, may have an attempt at the record without their limiter. NealeFamily (talk) 00:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)


 * OK. In my opinion the speed limter is not an integral part of the mechanical design, or the engine performance, of the car and so long as it can be removed at the request of the customer then its removal is acceptable for a max speed claim. But physical mods to the car or uprating of the engine are not acceptable. Greglocock (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Guinness - 50 cars required to make the production car threshhold
A range of sources on the internet state that


 * According to Guinness, to qualify as a production car one must build “at least 50 mechanically identical vehicles, and these vehicles must be on sale to the general public.

As Guinness are considered a reliable source should the 50 car requirement be incorporated into this list and replace the 20 car requirement?


 * Obviously I'd say yes, but we need an RS that says it, not a blog that reports an RS. And I am exceedingly worried that they also waive the rule on a case by case basis. Greglocock (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll check and see if any meet the criteria in WP:NEWSBLOG. NealeFamily (talk) 22:34, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The blog was written under the Motoramic banner by Alex Lloyd who is Editor-at-Large for Motoramic. He is a former IndyCar driver and "Rookie of the Year" in 2010. Editorial control of Motoramic falls under G.E. Anderson, Editorial Director of Yahoo! Autos, Homes, Shopping, and Travel and Justin Hyde, Managing Editor of Motoramic. Hyde was a features editor at Jalopnik. I think it would be safe to assume that Motoramic is closer to a news source than a blog due to editorial control and thus can be considered a reliable source. NealeFamily (talk) 23:07, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Update There are now two published sources, Motoramic (Alex Lloyd) and Road and Track magazine on 24 Febraury 2014 (Alex Nunez), which have Guinness stating in one 50 cars and the other 30 cars of identical style and specification are required to qualify as a production car. NealeFamily (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Shelby SSC Ultimate Aero
The 2013 Shelby SSC Ultimate Aero isn't listed on here but their website said it was tested at 257.41 mph and projected to go 273 mph. Its on their website http://www.sscnorthamerica.com/ultimate-aero.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.50.132 (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * And when they've built 20 production cars that are faster than Veyron then it'll go on the list. Until then it won't. Greglocock (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't understand your point,. The previous commentor was right. The SSC should be on the list between the two Veyrons. It beat the original Veyron's speed record and there were 24 built. Ock Raz   talk  19:28, 19 November 2013 (UTC)


 * According to shelby they've built 10. Where did you get 24? Greglocock (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)


 * , I got it right here (wikipedia) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSC_Aero#2007_-_SSC_Ultimate_Aero_TT "Only 24 Ultimate Aero TTs were produced from 2006-2007." If you assume that the specs for '08 and '09 vers. represent at least one care each, then that's a total of 26. That's not counting the 5 Aero XT's. BTW, are you aware of any sources confirming that twenty 16.4 Super Sports have been built yet? All I know for certain is that they've accepted orders for 30, but orders aren't cars. Ock Raz  talk  20:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The wiki pg lacked a source, but it's probably this IMO: http://www.botb.com/botb_recommends/fastest_production_cars/sscultimate.aspx Ock Raz   talk  20:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Well, fewer than 15 - this is from the archive "Ok guys. I think we have it. Here's the link: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/driveon/post/2010/08/driving-the-ssc-ultimate-aero-worlds-second-fastest-car/1#.UId7fsXMh8E According to it, Jerod confesses that he had actually built 15 cars in total before Tuatara. And that includes all Aeros, not TT's and even not Ultimates. That's the reference we were looking for. I have removed it from the list.IP-93.183.236.121 (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)"

Why isn't the Lamborghini Countach on this list?
The article on the Countach says that 158 LP400 models were built, and goes on to mention a 309 kmph top speed. That's faster than the previous record holder on this list. Shouldn't the Countach be included? 158.130.154.126 (talk) 01:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The only reliable source I can find says 240 kph for an unmodified 5000S. That is way short of 309 Greglocock (talk) 02:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Road and Track tested the LP400 and in there February 1976 publication stated that it reached 168mph. They considered the car would go faster, but as Greglocock says there are no test results beyond this speed. NealeFamily (talk) 03:55, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Koenigsegg CCR
The factory website says (a) it is bloody fast and (b) only 14 were built. Sadly b means it doesn't qualify for this list. Greglocock (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hennessey Venom GT - number of cars built
I can't find any evidence that Hennessey actually built 29 cars. According to the references, only 11 were delivered, with 29 "planned for production". Is it acceptable on this list? Alguemimportante (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You are correct - the Hennessey doesn't make the grade yet. NealeFamily (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
 * For the sake of those who keep editing it - see Talk:List of fastest production cars/Archive 3 and Talk:List of fastest production cars/Archive 2


 * In addition the test run in 2014 was in one direction only - Guinness require both directions plus only 11 cars have been made/sold in the past 4 years - see Newspaper article NealeFamily (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

1990 Guinness Book of Records
The 1990 edition of Guinness Book of Records has the Lamborghini Diablo listed as the fastest in 1990, with a top speed of 202. This should be on the list. The numbers I have for the Ferrari are only 201.4 mph (324 km/h)

2/27/2014 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.23.114.117 (talk) 10:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that - take a look at Talk:List of fastest production cars/Archive 1 which sets out the reason for its exclusion. NealeFamily (talk) 23:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced info
I've noticed that under the Hennessy Venom GT section there is some misplaced info, under the # of cars made it tells about the Bugatti Veyron Super Sports record. Also comments and the # of cars made are needed in the Hennessy Venom GT section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JBoy338 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Broken Table
the tabled under fastest production vehicles is broken, can someone fix this? 108.38.33.22 (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Vector W8 - should the proto-types be counted
I feel like it is straining a gnat by adding proto-types to get past the 20 car built requirement. Should they be included in the count? Can the Road and Track article be checked to see if they ran the W8 at the claimed speed or was it a proto-type. NealeFamily (talk) 03:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

-- Add the fact that not all versions are identical. The list requires 20 IDENTICAL cars of ONE model. Not multiple models. That is like adding all SSC Aero models together and adding it on the list. I say get rid of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.238.211.39 (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

If they were all capable of reaching that speed, or at least exceeding the speed of the previous contender, then I think that would make it a more difficult decision. Is there any info like that? Greglocock (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * The Vector W8 article states Just 19 W8s were produced (17 customer cars and two pre-production cars, the prototype W2, and the two prototypes Avtech AWX3 and AWX3R, each with a mock up of a 7.0 liter DOHC TT engine). A total of 22 automobiles were produced by Vector Aeromotive over the life of the company.


 * From that I conclude that you get 20 W8's, only if you include the W2 prototype and the 2 pre-production cars. The 2 Avtech's don't count. The rules for inclusion in this list require that all 20 cars were offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition. At least one of the pre-production cars was used for crash testing and not sold to the public. Thus only a the maximum only 19 were made for sale.


 * I think it should be excluded from the list. NealeFamily (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a reasonable case to me, bit tough to fall short by 1!. Greglocock (talk) 02:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed that is tough, but the W8 was fairly marginal with each model an upgrade on the previous one, if the article is anything to go by. Also I suspect that the true count is more likely 17 cars because including prototypes and pre-production cars is a bit dodgy. NealeFamily (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Even if the prototypes were counted, do we have any magazine tests verifying that it could actually do the claimed 218? The book Ultimate Performance Cars by Craig Cheetham estimates that they topped out at 195... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvshenderson (talk • contribs) 17:25, 8 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The Vector articles states Road & Track magazine published tests of the W8 in its March 1991 and August 1992 issues so these might give you something about its top speed. Unfortunately I don't have access to either magazine so can't confirm what the top speed as tested was or how the speed was derived at. NealeFamily (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Koenigsegg Agera
The most recent entry at the bottom of the top-speed table, the 273 mph entry for the Koenigsegg Agera R, suffers from multiple problems: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.181.30.121 (talk) 09:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * There is no citation for the source of this measurement
 * The 280 mph top speed is associated with a different model, the Koenigsegg Agera One:1
 * That model was reported by Top Gear here, but not tested by them
 * The date given in the table for the top-speed test is in the future, which suggests not Top Gear, but another BBC programme.


 * The Agera has been removed from the list for those reasons - NealeFamily (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you :)  — 50.181.30.121 (talk) 09:17, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Just a note for the future Forbes states that Only six examples of the Koenigsegg One:1 will be built which means it will fail to qualify as the worlds fastest production car. NealeFamily (talk) 01:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

This was suppose to be a talk of the world's fastest production cars. The article forgot the Studabaker Avanti that set a great speed record in 1963 of 193 mph with it's special Loewry design, an supercharged engine. The Lark was fast too. It appeared to me that everyone needs to be foreign product. Psychologist believe that the person feels that the grass is greener on the other side. There are a few special auto plants that do produce other types of luxury performance cars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbredfaze (talk • contribs) 14:26, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * According to this, the production car achieved 168 mph and only a modified (i.e. non production version) reached 196 mph.  Velella  Velella Talk 15:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2014
I'm not sure how this one works as it's protected, but there's one car missing on the list. The SSC Ultimate Aero which broke the record in 2007 reaching 257.44 mph (414.31 km/h). This was verified by the Guinness World Records on October 9 2007. The verifiable link is from Wikipedia itself, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SSC_Aero#Speed_record

190.155.116.157 (talk) 11:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Mz7 (talk) 00:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Please undo this edit as the Ultimate Aero does not qualify for this list - please refer to the piro discussions on the talk page. They did not make 20 cars in any of its various versions. NealeFamily (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Edit-undo.svg Undone: This request has been undone. Thank you . I didn't see the 20-car minimum requirement. Mz7 (talk) 22:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Cars excluded from the list together with basic reason
All of these cars have been debated on this and earlier talk pages. Should more detailed reasoning be required refer to the relevant discussion. NealeFamily (talk) 03:56, 21 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason why the above table can't be added to the list in a second section? It's clear that lots of readers expect to see these cars on this list, and the 20 car limit isn't exactly a universal constant. Records (or claimed records) set by cars with less than 20 examples, or that only went one way, and so on, are still verifiable facts. The only difference is that one meets the arbitrary criteria and the other doesn't. So what harm is there in saying, here's the rest... the Vector W8 (allegedly) went 242, 17 were produced. The important thing is to not misrepresent anything, so the distinction between an independent test and a manufacturer's unverified speed claim is unmistakable. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it could be possible with an expansion to the reasoning, a tidy up of the top speeds to include how they were derived, and references. I'd like to see what others think first. It might be a deterrent to the 101 fanboy edits we face. NealeFamily (talk) 09:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Studebaker Avanti R2 - location and date of road test wanted
I found the following quote from a 1962 Australian Sports Car World publication, Worlds Fastest Sports Cars number 3 at []

"The Avanti comes in two basic models – the R1 which has a carbeurated V8 engine – and the R2 which uses the same engine boosted by a Paxton centrifugal supercharger. Official bhp and torque figures have not been released for either version, but judging from the car's performance it would be near 220 and 280 bhp. This takes the Avanti into the ranks of the world's fastest sportscars. With a 3.73 to 1 rear axle ratio and four-speed manual transmission, the R2 will accelerate from 0 to 60 mph in 6.3 seconds and from 0 to 100 mph in 16.5 seconds. The standing quarter mile can be covered in less than 16 seconds. During special tests from a standing start along a 2.25 mile straight, an R2 Avanti, fitted with a 3.31 to 1 axle ratio, touched 171.1 mph. Only 60.8 seconds were required to cover the entire distance. The Avanti averaged 133.3 mph for the distance."

Can anyone verify if the car that achieved the 171.1 mph was a production version, and when and where the test was carried out.NealeFamily (talk) 03:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * One source I found made it sound like the test in question was on an R3, rather than R2 car. It also states that only 9 R3s were produced: []

"'the result was a power-plant that could propel the Avanti to a top speed of 171.10 miles per hour, which it achieved on a clocked-run at the Nevada desert. Further fine tuning of the engine, chassis, and body gave the engine the name 'R3'. Though it had captured the title of 'fastest production car in America' it failed to generate sales. The styling of the vehicle was too much for buyers to bare. In total, only nine examples of the Avant R3 were ever ordered.'" Jvshenderson (talk) 17:51, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Bentley 4½ Litre
The Bentley 4½ Litre supercharged model, built from 1929, has a top speed in excess of 120mph, and has been verifed in brooklands at in excess of 130mph. Over 50 cars were built ad sold.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bentley_4%C2%BD_Litre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooklands — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14.201.68.87 (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The Bentley is not included on the list because it was built before WW2, apart from the Brooklyn car being in modified form.NealeFamily (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Is post-WWII production a list criterion? I don't see it listed. The Benz Velo is 1984. I thought the only reason for the gap was lack of sources. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The post-WW2 is in the first paragraph along with the reason for the Velo. NealeFamily (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh, I missed it. OK. So apparently at some point in the talk history it was decided that everything before WWII was unreliable? That seems arbitrary. Why not apply the standard for WP:V that we apply to everything else on Wikipedia? If there's a source from 1908 that meets the criteria, good enough. If not, then leave it out. Using that standard on List of fastest production motorcycles results in an article that's no less reliable than any other WP article. It's hard to believe that every single road test before an arbitrary date was flawed. Or any more flawed than tests after WWII. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

The logic behind sticking to the post-war cars was twofold: primaily to be consistent with the List of automotive superlatives and but also because independent testing and test equipment improved.

For example taking the Bentley that started this discussion; its speed of over 130mph at Brooklyn's was achieved in a modified car (Bentley's own advertisements of the time say that the engine and car were specially tuned. They did not claim that you could purchase this model from the showroom floor). Also, as Bentley used a number of coachmakers, with a variey of different body styles, they might possibly be excluded for failing to reach quota.

In the archives for this page there is more discussion about the post-war date and pre-war cars. NealeFamily (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I've discussed this at Talk:Motorcycle testing and measurement. Consumer Reports has complained about specially prepared test cars, and Kevin Ash exposed BMW giving reporters motorcycles with different power maps than they sell to the public, to spike the reviews in their favor.I'm all for rejecting tests based on evidence that the car was not a true production model, but the same shenanigans happen in 2014 that happened before WWII. We must vet the sources carefully in all cases. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I suspect, but don't particularly worry, that virtually all press cars would have been carefully prepared, tuned, and modified, before being given to the 'gentlemen' of the press, right up until 1970, and probably up until 1990 in most cases. I certainly used to predrive press cars and send them back for rework up til 1985, and even now they get a bit more than a clean and tire pressures. Greglocock (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Just musing, I wonder if the Bugatti Veyron test was valid, given its association with Volkswagon NealeFamily (talk) 01:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

removing limiters
Considering the strict criteria required to appear on the list, I'm curious as to why the McLaren F1 and the Veyron SS have times listed based on removing the rev limiter on one and the speed limiter on the other. The way the XJ220 is listed is perfect, the speed achieved in total standard spec is listed, with the higher speed achieved when the catalytic converter was removed given in notes. Granted removing a catalytic converter is more extreme than removing a limiter, but it's still an example of spec available to the public and modified spec, irrespective of if the modifications are performed by the manufacturer or a third party. The fact that only five Veyrons were available as world record editions, seems to support the fact that the top speed should be based on the version that was available for 20+ models.

The speeds for the McLaren F1 and Veyron SS should be changed to reflect a strict standard spec. ie. 231mph and 257mph Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you are right, unfortunately Guinness have gone down the path of allowing limiters to be defeated. If this is a user selectable option then that is fine by me, but if the actual purchaser has no way of accessing it in the vehicle as supplied then frankly it is a bit of a fraud. Greglocock (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I view any option (even hidden options) to be production standard. I have the same opinion regarding trick components available from the dealer/factory, especially tires. I can't remember if it was AMG or Audi that gave a pay option to remove (stage one of) their speed limiters, which seems fine. The only modifications I would consider being suitable for a top speed run are fire extinguishers, seats and harness. I wouldn't even say a cage is ok for a legit top speed run, if it isn't a factory option. Does anyone care if I modify the article to reflect the factory spec speeds of the McLaren and Veyron SS? Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:12, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that the McLaren should be at the speed with the limiter on, but the Veyron was available on the market with the limiter turned off. NealeFamily (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought that while that there was (at least?) 30 Veyron SS produced, the version that hit 267mph was the Veyron supersport world record edition and was limited to 5 examples. Quote from Bugatti press release "The result is a car with a uniquely high performance of 1,200-hp (882 kW) offering experienced drivers a whole new dimension of excitement, with a maximum torque of 1,500 Newton metres and a limited top speed of 415 km/h" and "The first five Super Sports to come off the production line will constitute a special series of their own, with the same configuration as the landspeed record car." it seems that the record breaking car was a limited edition of five, of a limited edition of (at least) 30. - the 30+ were limited to 415, while the 5 did not have any speed restriction in place. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:58, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that Guiness, a reliable source, have accepted the Veyron - their requirement is 50 to make it a production car, which means they accepted it on the basis that they deemed turning off the limiter was not a modification in this instance. I guess the question is how easy is it to turn of the limiter in a Veyron. Is it simply a switch or do you replace the engine management module? NealeFamily (talk) 22:56, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I am having doubts about the reliability of Guinness as a source in this case. As a source of actual test data, I trust them - but in regards to certain criteria (modifications/numbers made) they seem to be highly flexible and open to pressure from outside sources. As a guess, I would imagine removing the speed limiter would involve a modified/different version of the ECU, but that is pure guesswork on my part. I assume it's a pretty easy process, working on the same principles as the top speed mode that requires the special key. But this is all OR. All I can base my edits on are the sources that talk about the five examples of the Veyron SS World Record Edition, being the only ones that can hit 267mph. Because of that, I'm seeing no reason for the top speed quoted to be 267 mph, as per this articles criteria for production cars. I do however see no hurry to remove that speed, I would be very happy to get clarification as to the actual speed delimiting process and see how that affects the car's suitability for this list before making any edits. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:29, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The more I read and think about it the more I am inclined to agree with you. If you mod the Veyron by removing the limiter you run the risk of having the tyres disintegrate according to various sources. Also the mod requires a post production change to the limiter, thus making it a modification in every sence of the word. NealeFamily (talk) 21:30, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed the Veyron SS top speed. Ranking remains the same. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:00, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Fastest non-production, but street legal cars.
Is there an article? To me, it's a hard one because you have very limited production cars (Veyron SS World Record Edition/Koenigsegg spring to mind) which are legitimate models from a major manufacturer, you also have cars which by their nature are built to order, such as anything by Ultima (who I assume you could throw a lot of money at, and they would build you a 1500bhp monster, and you have modified one-off cars such as Red Victor 2 and then all of the twin turbo Lamborghinis/Vipers etc from people like Hennessy.

If there is/was an article, should these cars all be thrown in together? Initially, I thought that maybe one class for cars with no modifications post sale, but a lot of the high end cars (McLaren/Pagani) are given official updates and modifications from the factory. All mods to be performed by the company on the VIN would also not work very well, because it would exclude all the tuners with the exception of companies such as RUF or similar German tuners.

What do people think of a new article, to complement this one, with the top speeds of anything street legal? Is there any article already out there that I have missed? Has this been created and deleted in the past?

It might take some pressure off this article, by giving a legitimate place for all the cars that don't meet the criteria for this article Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Search for Category:Vehicle modification which might have something. I would imagine it would be extremely difficult to monitor given the problem with WP:FANSITE's to name one, also may breach WP:NOT unless carefully treated NealeFamily (talk) 10:47, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you're probably right, it would end up being an out of control list, without much actual content. It might be worth it, if there was some actual content beyond the mph claims, but it would be a pain. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)