Talk:Supercar

untitled
Since the vast majority of the links to this page are expecting Supercar (car classification), I propose moving that content here and moving the current content to Supercar (disambiguation). Thoughts? --SFoskett 21:20, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * Cleaned up all the links to the Supercar page that referred to the TV show and moved the auto article to the front. There is Supercar (disambiguation), which is the former Supercar, but I tried to sum it all up in a sentence, so I didn't link to it.   Also went and moved the Talk page, not sure if I'm supposed to though, I haven't deleted a word or removed any meaning, so I think it's fine.  -- Prometheus235 23:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This talk was originally on the car classification page Prometheus235 23:40, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moved Talk (from Talk:Supercar (car classification))
Those disgustingly rich people are quite picky, aren't they?

How much of this is actually true? It seems like much of it is opinion as there is no such thing as an actual set of rules for what a supercar is. Plus, much of the writing is very unencyclopediactic (a supercar must be so fast it is suicidal?). I'm putting a bunch of tags on it so hopefully someone who knows more about cars will fix it. maybe i can get my brother to help me. Bonus Onus 23:29, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite
This article badly needed a rewrite, which I have now done. I have attempted to keep the intent of the original writer while removing the POV quality of the writing. Please discuss and comment so we can remove those warnings at the top... --SFoskett 19:15, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)


 * i must say that the original article was better. i'm reverting it. this is a subjective definition. the person who wrote the original article obviously knew what they were talking about. why change it?--Alhutch 02:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * here's the thing. the article that you guys put out had no teeth. there was really nothing to it. the other article was beautifully written. it had plenty of characteristics. it had style and grace. the new one was just no good.--Alhutch 02:47, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to say the person who wrote the original article didn't really know what they were talking about. It was a strict interpretation of something that no one really agrees on. For example, who says that there can be only one supercar per company? (btw that is not what "super" means in latin, it means "above", which just refers to the high performance of these cars) I didnt read the rewrite yet but i suspect anything is better than the old version. -Bonus Onus 03:35, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, i read the rewrite, and i dont particularly like it, but i still think its better. Hopefully we can build on it a bit and improve it, so i recommend going back to the rewrite. Bonus Onus 03:40, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ahutch - the original was POV, poorly written, and just plain wrong. I strongly object to the revert and request that you re-revert it and edit it if you feel it needs work.  As it stands, it is just plain opinionated junk.  --SFoskett 13:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

the question is, who really knows what the qualificiations for a supercar are? there's no textbook about it. how do we know the truth?--Alhutch 18:38, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * That's why I attempted to write an article calling out the general qualifications without being POV and opinionated like the current article. This is an encyclopedia, and the current text simply cannot stand.  --SFoskett 19:30, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Agree with User:Sfoskett- His rewrite was very good, IMHO. The article as first (largely) written, besides being POV and unencyclopaedic, is flat-out ugly and hard to read because it's poorly formatted.  The previous article also seems to set up too many rigid definitions, some of which conflict.  They need to be vague and open, but still give the reader an idea about what a supercar is.  I'm reverting it because it's trash as it stands.  Prometheus235 20:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

there's a show on the history channel called automaniac. its hosted by bill goldberg. tomorrow's (wednesday the 15th) program is about supercars conveniently enough. its at 10:00 US Eastern time. i plan to watch. maybe this will give us some answers.--Alhutch 23:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Über-wagen
- The first supercar was the Mercedes 300SL Gullwing, that one probably introduced the concept. 300SL was a crazy car, ten year old WWII fighter aircraft technology transplanted onto 4 wheels.

- I still think there one be only one supercar model manufactured per brand any given time.

- Currently there is big buzz and grinding of teeth about the latest BMW M5/M6 models. These 510bhp V10 cars are said to be beating Ferrari F430 and Porsche 911 bi-turbo badly, even though the BMW is almost twice as big and heavy and it cost less than half. Because the performance gap is cosing, it is pretty obvious that only the most outrageous cars can still be considered worthy of the supercar title. What is so super about your F430 when it gets passed by an almost bus-sized sedan? You truly need a Murcie or an Enzo or a Saleem or a CCR to get rid of the M5/M6.

- It is a shame that NSX gets even mentioned. There is some reason why Japan is the largest collector of vintage Ferraris (originality I mean).

Units
In the USA, "pounds per horsepower" is much more common than "horsepower per ton". I have included both, and kW/kg just for good measure... --SFoskett 20:26, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Mclaren F1 XP5
The Mclaren F1 XP is not a standard Mclaren F1 as it has no rev limiter and was thus able to reach its true top speed at 7800 RPM, with the rev limiter in place the maximum speed possible to obtain will be siginficantly lower as it will be held back when it reaches 7500 RPM. The Mclaren F1 has maximum BHP at 7400 RPM, i wonder if its 0-60 MPH times, 0-100 MPH and other times are also recorded with no rev limiter in place, i imagine one would want to shift gears a bit higher than 7500 RPM when trying to set records, any thoughts on this?
 * I'm pretty sure the acceleration times are done with no rev limiter, but I can't remember where I read it, so I can't confirm it. I will look out for the source. James086 02:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hypercar should not be linked to supercar.
A super car in the antithesis of a hypercar. The disambiguation link is wrong. See: The Hypercar concept What is a hypercar?

Skome 23:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

According to www.hypercar.com, the term 'Hypercar' is a registered trademark. I think it's a neologism and it should simply be deleted from Wikipedia as non-notable. SteveBaker 04:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hypercar shouldnt be completely deleted, however I agree that it shouldnt be linked to supercar. On a side note, so shouldnt ultracar, IMHO. I personally have never heard the term ultracar, whát's next? Megacar? OmikronWeapon 11:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, look at the latest episode of Top Gear, the premier television program on all things related to these types of cars. If they are going to separate a supercar from a hypercar, so should Wikipedia. 68.103.207.65 16:22, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Useless Sentance?
"However, Mercedes-Benz 300SL had cornering problems." This sentance just seems entirely out of place, as no comparison is made to any other car, no specific information is given, no reason is apparent as to why it realtes to the topic at hand at all! At the very least, it deserves to be expanded upon.


 * I agree - it's gone. We'd need more specific details as to what those problems were - and a reference too. SteveBaker 12:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if your right, but the word is "Sentence" not "Sentance". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.105.188.195 (talk) 14:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Much like the difference between "your" and "you're"... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.23.80.228 (talk) 20:16, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Price Tag?
Many cars that fall into this category have a huge price tag. I'm sure that it's not neccessary for them to cost that much but they do so that only the "elite" can afford them. Like Ferrari selecting people to buy the Enzo and FXX, it's not neccessary but it keeps them exclusive. Anyway, what I'm trying to suggest is a section under "Other Criteria" that mentions something about price.James086 23:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the price is really an inherent part of a supercar. The Ariel Atom, which certainly rivals supercars on the tracks, only costs around $50,000. The extreme prices tend to just be a natural result of the development and manufacturing costs of such vehicles, not a deliberate decision by the companies--carbon fiber and 800 HP isn't cheap. The Bugatti Veyron, despite costing about $1.3 million to buy, actually costs Bugatti around $5 million to make--it's a loss leader, strictly a means of gaining recognition. As for invitation-only purchasing, it's simply advertising. If "just anyone" could buy an Enzo, it wouldn't be as desirable--it's like limited-edition art prints.--71.146.92.118 07:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think price is important. Track performance is a meaningless arbiter - in fact the only 'supercar' I have driven (Countach) was pretty horrible to drive on the track, I could have beaten it in a decent go-kart. Greglocock 02:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem here is that 'Supercar' is a vague term - we have to strive to be encyclopeadic - so rather than arguing about whether we think price matters, we should be looking for definitions in car magazines, books, etc that we can reference as facts. Personally, I'd put the Ariel Atom into the supercar class because it's performance and zero-compromise styling put it there.  But then there are certainly other supercars who are there mainly for price reasons.  We need documented, referenceable definitions here. SteveBaker 02:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As a rebuttal, can i point out that the Ariel Atom is not road worthy in most jurisdictions. It is just a track car. High speed performance is poor. It can't reach 300km/h in a reasonable amount of time, if ever. Same as most go-karts. And, most importantly, styling is outright ugly and non existant. Its just functional. 218.111.23.58 14:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Atom is street-legal in UK - and they say that if you purchase one in the USA they will do whatever is necessary to make it street-legal in any state you purchase it from. In some states it has to be sold as a kit-car.  Besides, there are MANY truely undeniable supercars that are not street-legal in some countries - so we can't disqualify the Atom on those grounds without disqualifying a bunch of other cars.  You say the styling is ugly - but that's in the eye of the beholder.  I happen to think it's beautiful.  I see style in functionality as well as in large areas of shiney paint.  That is therefore a matter of opinion and you can't exclude it from the class just because YOU don't like it.  I think the Bugatti is ugly as sin - but it's still a supercar. The 0-300kph time.  Well, 300kph is 186.4 mph.  I believe the Atom's top speed is 150mph - so yeah - it won't reach 300kph anytime soon.  But who made up the list of performance criteria?  The term 'supercar' is incredibly vague.  The Atom will out accellerate a good number of undeniably 'super' cars - it's lap time on most tracks annihilates most supercars - and (to pick another arbitary metric) its 0-100-0 time is the best of any car on the planet.  I'm not saying that we should necessarily call it a Supercar - but since there is no firm definition of the term, we can't say it isn't either.  SteveBaker 17:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What are undeniable supercars ? M5s, 911s ? What its 0-100-0 ? Have a look at Ultima GTR. Is the Ultima a supercar ? What about Radical Motorsport ? 218.111.20.185 15:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Supercar vs. Exotic car
At present "Exotic car" redirects to "Supercar", so we typically have both these external links named on a car manufacturer's page, though they link to the same description. But these cars are not the same! A Supercar, if that term means anything, is characterised by performance, style and price. An Exotic Car is characterised by rarity. (Some exotic cars have mediocre performance, are ugly and/or were not originally expensive.)


 * I agree. We need to break the redirect. The problem is that writing a good article about exotics is even harder than keeping this one under control.  It's a very vague and subjective term.  I took my 1963 Mini to a garage here in Texas to get a state safety inspection and the guy said "Sorry - we don't do exotics" - so if a 1963 Mini with a top speed of 70mph and an original price of 455 pounds (under $1000!) counts as 'exotic' then for sure 'Exotic' is not the same thing as 'Supercar'. SteveBaker 22:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * OmikronWeapon agrees. exoticness itself has very little to do with performance.
 * OmikronWeapon 11:37, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * As I see it, an exotic car is a car where the central appeal is cutting-edge styling. Rarity is important. High performance is incidental, but not central. The prototypic 'exotic' is the Lamborghini Diablo. It's too heavy and ponderous to have true 'supercar' performance, but people buy it because it looks wild.


 * A supercar has performance beyond its peers, rarity, price, and styling, in that order of importance. A McLaren F1 is the prototypic supercar. The appeal is that it's an astoundingly good drive; the styling is comparatively modest.


 * Lots of cars fall into both categories, though. The Ferrari F40, Jaguar XJ220, and the like. But I agree, the distinction is important.
 * Dave Indech 01:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Dauer 962
RusRayden, the Dauer 962 is not a production car and you should not be bumping production cars off this article in order to include it. Dauer buys used Porsche race cars, strips them, and remanufactures them as road-legal. That isn't a production car. In addition, I'd like to see a source for around 50 produced; I'm under the impression that well under 20 were converted. The Porsche GT1 and the Maserati MC12 were actually manufactured for road use, so you cannot group them together with the Dauer. You cannot group the Ferrari FXX with any of the above cars, either; it is strictly a track car and cannot be used on the road. TomTheHand 13:38, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. But don't dellete Dauer from supercar list because it's a supercar (production or not) and this is article about supercars.Rayden 00:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I am going have to talk as I am not taking any **** for this as usual, lets clarify this, on the Performance criteria section, a supercar usually refers to particular models of factory-built, street-legal sports cars.


 * Therefore the Dauer is a racecar turned into road car and to me a supercar is all this engineering stuff this and that put in regardless to competition regulations, for example McLaren F1, Bugatti Veyron, Ferrari Enzo as none of these were ever built for racing in mind


 * As for the Dauers, converting them is now less likely as the historic scene have made them desirable again and plenty of people want to use them for this type of usage. As to call the Dauer a supercar, its just like Ferrari getting out an old 250TR turn it into a road car and pass them off as a supercar (even for a 1950s racecar before the term was penned), if that is the case, the Ford GT40 will also have to be removed from the list as they were all were never originally intended for road use except MkIII and what about the Jaguar XKSS, thats an converted D-Type


 * So what I am going to do is create a subsection on the list for race homlogation cars that are seen as supercars, so in that case I support deleting the mention that the Dauer is a supercar. Willirennen 01:15, 17 December 2006 (utc)


 * The Maserati MC12 is a road car (manufactured for road use) that was designed for homologation. It is sold as a road legal car, but (from what I've picked up) the Dauer 962 is a race car that has been modified from a race car (but not sold by the manufacturer that way). If my assumptions are correct then I don't think it should be counted as a supercar. James086Talk 03:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Country of origin
I'm somewhat less than enthusiastic about this table with countries of origin. There are many entries that I'd argue. For example, what makes the McLaren F1 English and the McLaren SLR German? McLaren builds the SLRs in England. Both use German engines. The Bugatti Veyron is French. What exactly is our criteria for "country of origin"? TomTheHand 02:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it presents some problems, the GT40 is an example: UK or US. I think that for the most part it is a matter of were the car was designed. A lot of Chevys are made in Mexico but I wouldn't call them Mexican cars. It certainly is a matter to discuss. Daniel J. Leivick 02:59, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think "where it's designed" is a particularly difficult one because there could certainly be a joint design team and a lot of wiki-arguing over who really did the designing. "Where it's assembled" would be very easy but I think it's much less useful. TomTheHand 03:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops, didn't think the country of origin column would be that controversial although I must admit I had to scratch my head a little for the very example mentioned here. In the end I settled on the marques' country. I think in the worst cases (like Bugatti), two lines could be shown with details in brackets e.g. France (marque), England (manufacture)... or whatever the case may be. What do you guys think? Deon Steyn 06:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I like having the country of origin with the flags. It is interesting to see where many super cars originate from and provides a nice asthetic.  It would be great if we could keep it, but I also understand the problems it presents.  I would like to stand by my initial suggestion of design origin.  Most super cars are designed with small teams working in one place, of course many components may be designed else where but their selection and integration usually occurs in the same place.  Some examples may not fit this mold but then the double line solution seems to work well.Daniel J. Leivick 01:22, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Caparo
Super or not ? KIV ?

218.208.251.96 18:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC) Most definately. It is a production car.

User:SGJ91 4:57 PM PST February 10, 2008

Supercars or not?
Are this group of homologated race cars Supercars or not? (quote fom Dauer discussing) So what I am going to do is create a subsection on the list for race homlogation cars that are seen as supercars, so in that case I support deleting the mention that the Dauer is a supercar. Willirennen 01:15, 17 December 2006 (utc) Rayden 06:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the other editor meant for this list to be added to List of supercars instead of this page, to keep this page as short and lean as possible (as far as the lists go)? Deon Steyn 06:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

While these cars are indeed production cars, there status as a super car remains questionable. The edit war that is going on right now is not productive. We need to discuss whether these cars deserve inclusion. My opinion is that a second page should be created titled Supersport cars or some such. I already am planning on making a super sedan/saloon page. Daniel J. Leivick 02:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

what about the SSC Aero?--RA64 03:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's make clear one thing about the Veyron.
Bugatti's father was born in Italy, but married a French wife, had French children, lived in France, spoke French, established his company in France. Nowadays Bugatti's Headquarters are still in France, the factory too. It has been bought by Volkswagen? Nissan is still Japanese and Dacia still Romanian after having beeing bought by Renault, aren't they? Isn't Seat a Spanish marque, even belonging to Volkswagen? Yes it is! Lamborghini is property of VW, so is Bentley, but they still are respectively Italian and English. It is thus clear that Bugatti is a French maker. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.157.252.6 (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Bugatti's company failed fifty years ago. In 1987, an Italian bought the name and founded an entirely new company called Bugatti Automobili SpA.  That company failed, and Volkswagen bought the name, founding another entirely new company called Bugatti Automobiles SAS.  Lamborghini and Nissan didn't completely die as companies for a couple of decades before having their names bought up; they've been active car manufacturers and had their entire manufacturing business purchased.
 * I would rather remove all of the countries of origin, honestly; I said above that I was afraid this kind of junk would happen. TomTheHand 13:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, according to the law, a company's country of origin depends on where it is registered and where are the headquarters. Bugatti is registered in France, and the head quarters are in France, simple isn't it?


 * I didn't realize I was dealing with a lawyer! Sorry!  Bugatti Automobili SpA was founded in Italy by Italians, so according to your criteria it is an Italian car.  Quit changing it.  And yes, Bugatti Automobiles SAS was founded in France by Germans to produce German-engineered automobiles.  I... don't quite understand how that makes it French.  VAG produces cars in Mexico and sells them under Volkswagen; that doesn't make them Mexican cars.  I support removing the stupid "country of origin" column, because it results in silliness like the Veyron being a French car.  Maybe we can replace it with something like year of introduction, or horsepower, or something else that's actually useful. TomTheHand 19:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't get mad man, just breathe! Bugatti is a maker which was founded in France, registered in France, and the Veyron is made in France, that's it. May you want it or not, Bugatti, the company, is known as a French company, that's all I can tell you. Quit changing it yourself! Though I agree about removing the "country of origin" because it brings no interesting piece of information.


 * Just to be really picky and pedantic, when Ettore Bugatti first set up shop in Molsheim, it was part of Germany. Mr Larrington (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If anyone needs the deleted list of supercars
There is the only place I can find one. But it may also disappear some day. --Mato Rei 06:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

And if you guys agree, I suggest that the list merge with this page, just like the Muscle car page. --Mato Rei 11:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Supercar picture gallery
Whose idea was it to put the pictures of BMW Z8 and Ford GT as examples of supercars, when looking at the cars that are similar to them rather than cars that genuinely are, they are more like large sized sports cars as they belonged to the disputed supercar section of that page that no longer exist. Thats why I supported the deletion of that lists when that term gets abused a lot even by the motoring press as that I have already taken these two pictures out of this page. Willirennen 17:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. Personally I think of the Ford GT as a supercar but not the BMW Z8. Everyone has their own opinion. You can't determine which sources are reliable because they all have different opinions. It would be possible to have List of cars Automobile Magazine refers to as supercars but thats no good to anyone. Also shouldn't the picture gallery be at the bottom if at all? James086 Talk  22:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Units (again)
Can we have bhp/tonne figures back please? To a non-American, kg/kw or lb/hp is far from intuitive - power-to-weight is almost universally measured as just that (rather than weight/power) over here.

As an example, the Caterham R400 has a power-to-weight ratio of 400bhp/tonne, hence the name. Personally I think this way makes more sense, since acceleration is roughly proportional to power-to-weight, rather than inversely proportional to weight-to-power.

Thanks.

How about the Bristol Fighter T - 1000hp? Matt

Why I added NSX to the list
I added the Honda NSX here is why: Despite the NSX's current age, it still has a strong base of fans and supporters. Honda and many car enthusiasts describe the NSX as a supercar based on its styling, body type, drivetrain layout, packaging, and most especially in the area of car handling. Few others have disagreed... John Doe or Jane Doe 14:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ...NSX is a supercar according to fans and supporters as much as illustrator Shin Yoshikawa calls the Toyota 2000GT a supercar for the subtitle of his book which so many people disagree. In another words several months after an afd of the controversial list, I take some lots are trying to recreate that list into this page. I take you lot have not read what I said above or I will repeat this again, supercar is a term that have been commonly abused by the motoring press who go and even call a 350Z a supercar. To point out 2 things, I am removing it as people bicker over what is and what isn't and we have already got a gallery and a category, therefore we don't need a list. Willirennen 23:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The Acura NSX is a Supercar, as it boastes better handling (taken in Skidpad measurment) than most Ferrari's and Lamborghini"s, which are held to be the epitome of supercar marques, and it has a mid-engine design, which is only found on the rarest of non-supercar vehicles, such as the Pontiac Fiero or Toyota MR2. I define Supercars (excluding the NSX) as any street-legal production vehicle which exceeds the NSX in any two of three catagories, Acceleration; (0-60/0-62 and 1/4 mile) Top Speed; and Handling; (skipad and slalom)  Thus the Dodge Challenger SRT8 (it is faster in acceleration and top speed) is a supercar, although most would call it a musclecar, and the 2005 Subaru Impreza WRX STI (it is faster than the NSX in acceleration and it has better handling) Other vehicles, such as the Dodge Viper ACR exceed the specifications of the NSX in all ways, and are also counted as Supercars.  In other words, the defining specs of Supercars are any two of the following:


 * 0-60 in less than 5.5 seconds
 * a top speed (electronically or power or gearing limited, is does not matter) of at least 165 mph
 * and a maximum of at least 0.99 g.s on the Skidpad.


 * This does not change unless you are talking about supercars from before the 1980's. Other items which are high on the supercar list include styling, price, rarity, and horsepower.  Some People state that the NSX could not be a supercar, as it only makes 275 hp.  This, however, is rather unintelligent, as many cars which have even less horsepower, such as the Lotus Exige S240, can beat any stock Corvette in a Drag race, thus proving that the important statement is how well the car in question uses the power it has.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.144.84 (talk) 23:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You are reviving a discussion that is over two years old. This article does not even have a list of supercars anymore.  In addition, per much discussion on WP:CAR, we no longer classify vehicles as supercars, as it is too subjective.  swa  q  15:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

List of Generally Accepted Supercars
Personally, I am sick to death of writing and telling everybody this, but I have removed the list for the reason as I prefer people to read the article and decide for themselves what is and what isn't a supercar. As people's views differ to each other, that list is going to do nothing but create pointless arguments like that standalone list which has now been deleted a while ago. Willirennen 23:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
 * One thing that we could do to resolve the problem but still have a list of sorts is to have supercar manufacturers listed. Not the actual cars, just who makes them would be a much smaller list and readers could then explore the cars themselves. I can put this mostly together if you want. Zach4636 11:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Gallery of super car examples
The gallery of super car examples has become far too long. Its no better than the list of supercars that was so heavily fought over and removed from this page long long ago. Hell, this gallery even contains pictures of cars that haven't even been released yet. Recommend it for clean up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.39.255.153 (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that the gallery is too long. Perhaps there should only be a few notable cars on it. Zach4636 23:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I also agree, I think we should have supercars that costs over US$500,000 when new and have been sold to the public, this will exclude one-offs and concept cars, plus anything that was built before the term was invented (pre 1966 or pre-Miura). Any suggestions are welcome. Willirennen (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Major edit
I have removed a large amount of material from the page, not because it is uninteresting or I want to upset people, but because it is constitutes original research. Please read the policy on No original research before reverting the changes. Mighty Antar (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I support this edit to the fullest. If anyone has any objections please discuss them here rather than just reverting. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not agree that we should remove most of the page! I understand where you are coming from, Mighty Antar; but I still do not see why the vast majority of the page should be removed. I wholeheartedly support removing a few sections (such as the gallery) and shortening the rest of the article by taking out some of the redundant facts, but it does not make sense to take out valid information. Zach4636 (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have only removed material that was unreferenced - see the first of Five pillars. If the material is valid, it should not be difficult to find sources to validate it. Mighty Antar (talk) 14:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously done to get other wiki editors upset, it is as close to if not vandalism and page blanking in my opinion. Please show specifically what is OR instead of deleting the whole page.75.8.98.85 (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion, I refer you back to No original research, if you read it you will understand "specifically what is OR". Mighty Antar (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mighty Antar, let's look at it this way: "supercar" is not a precisely defined concept by nature. Which cars are supercars, and because of which criteria, is largely a matter of community consensus. Nobody has the monopoly on what a "supercar" is and what it precisely constitutes. Basically we only have opinions (car magazines etc.) of variable weight. Considered from that angle, a Wikipedia page about "supercars" that addresses these factors is maybe one of the best ways to fairly present the arguments and come to a reasonable consensus. As long as the article clearly indicates the lack of absolute authority, the fuzzyness of the criteria etc, I personally don't see how it would seriously violate the philosophy of Wikipedia. But that was the message you sent by almost completely blanking the page. Some of the information you removed was sourced, and most of the other could be verified by following Wikipedia links. We're not talking about a genocide or some other highly sensitive and controversial subject, here! I think it was over the top. JH-man (talk) 15:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The delete also struck me as rather... radical. Sure, one can't argue much against the fact that the information wasn't as extensively sourced as some, and that there was a relative lack of generally agreed upon hard facts. But this has more to do with the subject "supercar" itself. It's pretty obvious that an article about, say, an important historical figure or about a scientific subject or whatever needs to be very carefully referenced and shouldn't tolerate ambiguity. But IMO there's clearly a grey area when it comes to subjects, and "supercar" is one of the articles that fit in such grey area.


 * The introduction of the article makes it pretty clear that the term "supercar" is rather fuzzy by nature. As such, it's reasonable to expect from the reader to understand that the information does not necessarilly represent a universal, hard consensus, because it doesn't exist! If you delete everything that doesn't live up to this status, you end up with an article that only contains the word "supercar" itself, lol.


 * So I don't think it's unreasonable to be a bit more tolerant, and accept that an article like this serves more as a means to get a "general idea", and some sort of hub to other articles about high performance cars.


 * But that's just me... JH-man (talk) 12:36, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, it was not that the "information wasn't as extensively sourced as some", its that in the way the information related to this page, it wasn't sourced at all. There are plenty of places to debate tolerance and meaning on the net, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so no matter how vague the term, we need to be precise. Here is a list of what what Wikipedia is not. Mighty Antar (talk) 15:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I went over the entire what Wikipedia is not page and honestly could not find anything that sounded like it applied to the article as it was. Could you be more specific? JH-man (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The term 'supercar' (and worse 'hypercar', 'ultracar', etc) is horribly vague. We can't base lists of cars and specific attributes on something this vague.  It's like the word "powerful" or "fast" - you can't encyclopedically describe a car as 'fast' or 'powerful' - and for the same reason, you shouldn't describe it as 'a supercar'.  It's fine to report that such-and-such car reviewer said that it's a supercar.  That someone said that is a fact that can be verified - although it may still not be notable and therefore not worth mentioning.  But the statement that the car is a supercar can only ever be the opinion of some set of people and therefore doesn't belong here.  SteveBaker (talk) 15:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Steve, you are absolutely right. But then I wonder why the article even exists in the first place? "Supercar" is impossible to define precisely, so by that reasoning it doesn't deserve an article. (I don't think a list of references of which reputable magazine stuck the label "supercar" to which car type, makes much sense as an article) Let's then be consequent and get rid of it entirely. Yet, the word is routinely used and most people do have some idea of what it is supposed to mean. So my guess is that the article will be recreated by someone within a week, and a couple of weeks later it will look surprisingly similar to what we ended up with until a couple of days ago.


 * I personally really don't feel this particular subject deserves this kind of strict and literal interpretation of the guidelines. It sorta makes the article become irrelevant? JH-man (talk) 16:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. There is no reason to delete the article because the term is impossible to define precisely.  If a term is difficult to define then we discuss that fact with sources in the article, which is exactly what Antar's version does.   I don't see why this subject shouldn't adhere to core policies. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The way it is now, it's not an article about "supercars", but an article about the origin of the term "supercar" and about the difficulty to define the term "supercar". As it is now, the first is about as irrelevant as could be; a term from the 1920's has absolutely no connection anymore with the more modern meaning. The letters of the word are the same and in the same position, and that's about it. It deserves a dictionary item at most. The second has a notability close to ZERO because it's all pretty irrelevant opinion with no reasonable authority to refer to. It's Captain Obvious.


 * When people look for a "supercars" article, they expect to get a general idea of what we're talking about. An overview of which cars have been widely considered "supercars" throughout time, with their general properties. A sense of the evolution of their performance, price etc. There is a category "supercars" that seems to be happily tolerated together with the term "supercar" in the various articles of each of those cars, so what in the world is then the problem with grouping some of that information in the "supercar" article??? It would make the article at least somewhat useful. JH-man (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think we need this article. This is a term that is commonly used - but poorly defined.  As a member of the general public, I might very well be curious as to the meaning and history of the term - and come to Wikipedia to find out.   If there were no article about it at all - I'd be really surprised and frustrated.   So the article needs to exist.  What it needs to do is to say that the term IS vague and ill-defined.  It absolutely should not attempt to provide a definition when none truly exists.  So saying (as the old article did) that cars must have such-and-such performance or costs such-and-such amount is doing our readership a horrible injustice too - it implies that there is a standard, when there is not.  I like the article the way it is now.  It explains that the term has no definite meaning, it gives a single photo of something that it pretty much generally known as a supercar and gives us the history of the term.  That's enough.


 * As for Category:Supercars - it is most definitely not "happily tolerated". As a matter of fact, there have been a series of discussions about it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles right now which will probably result in the deletion of that category sometime soon.  You can't place things into a category if the category is not well defined.  There are precise definitions for terms like "Mid-sized car" - and we have articles that explain what those terms mean, categories into which cars can be placed and examples of each kind in Car classification.  We can do that because there is a precise definition - and there is no room for debate about whether a car is or is not "Mid-sized" - if it's interior volume is between	110 and 119.9 cubic feet - then it's Mid-sized (by law in the USA - see Vehicle size class).  No argument, no debate - period.  But we have long and acrimonious debates about whether a particular car is or is not a supercar all the time! Take a look at Nissan GT-R - that article had to be page-protected to prevent edit-warring on the question of whether it's a supercar or not!  That happens because there is no hard-and-fast rule we can apply to that car to say whether it is or is not a supercar.


 * Appeals to authoritative sources doesn't work either. As this very article points out - the Range Rover has been called a supercar by a reputable source...A RANGE ROVER for chrissakes!  You're going to say (as I would) "Of course the Range Rover isn't a supercar...duh!"...but if the standard we are going to use for our Category:Supercars is "It's a supercar if some journalist says so." - then you can't keep the Range Rover out...you really can't because to do so "because it's obvious" then results in arguments about the Nissan GT-R of precisely the kind we're having right now!


 * We can't even use the dictionary definition (another "reputable source") because it says that supercars have to be mid-engined - and many cars that we'd certainly apply the term to (the Ford Shelby GR-1 for example) are not mid-engined.   The truth is that supercars TEND to be mid-engined because that appears to be the optimum design for the performance and 'look' that people expect from a sportscar that costs half a million dollars.   The dictionary also says "expensive, fast or powerful" - which means that a Rolls-Royce Camargue gets the label "supercar" because it's expensive and powerful (it has a 6.7 liter V8) - but I don't think that's a car that I'd call "supercar" either.


 * The bottom line is that there is nothing out there that we can use to nail the term down well enough to be encyclopeadic. Hence our best option for this article is to do what we do here right now: Say "this is a vague term" and do our best to explain how it's commonly used.  For individual cars, we are on VERY slippery ground.  We can only really state exactly how fast, powerful and expensive they are - and leave it up to our readers to decide whether they want to use the term or not.  If we don't - then the Nissan GT-R fiasco will spread.  That means that Category:Supercars has to be deleted - and for exactly the same reason that List of Supercars and Category:Classic vehicles had to go.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 14:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, fair enough. Personally I would be inclined to be somewhat less strict for a subject like this, provide more information, and just make sure that the fuzzyness and lack of general agreement is understood. After all, this is hardly the kind of information which your life depends on... But if the consensus is more towards being strict, and if this is pulled through towards removing the "supercar" category and claiming "supercar" status on individual model articles, then so be it. It's not going to be easy to maintain that, though. :)  JH-man (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that we don't have to be strict - if we were being strict then we'd say "Wikipedia is not a Dictionary" - and stick the article into WP:AfD per that guideline. What we DO have to do (if we aren't going to be strict) is to be sure that we aren't giving the impression of being strict to our readership.  If we say "Supercars have to be able to go more than 200mph" then we are saying something very precise about a term that is (in truth) nowhere near that precise.  We must avoid giving the impression that we have a definition for this word - because we don't.  So what we need to do is to explain that the term doesn't have a definition, explain how and where the word came about, give a small number examples of cars that have notably been given this moniker (the Lambo Miura is a clear example of that) - and leave it at that.  This doesn't have to be a long, comprehensive article and it absolutely must not become a 'list of supercars' - because that way lies WP:AfD.  A few paragraphs saying what I just said, plus a photo or two - and we're done. SteveBaker (talk) 12:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

A proposal
It appears that a lot of editors think there's a way to include a lot more material than is now on the page while remaining encyclopedic. Others believe otherwise, in other words, that no supercar page could list and describe various characteristics of and examples of supercars. I propose the following:


 * (1) Agree that discussion of particular supercars can be included if good sources say the car is a supercar.
 * (2) More controversially, agree that discussion of particular supercars can be included if they clearly (not to the extent of doing OR) meet the (!) accepted definition of supercar.
 * (3) Agree that next time someone wants to delete big chunks of stuff as OR - a problem that's likely to arise again on this page – he will comment it out, rather than delete it, so it's easier for other editors to go back and source the deleted material.

Suggestion (1) shouldn't be too tough to agree to, though it won't be unanimous. Note that I don't hold it to say that just because a source says a Range Rover is a supercar, we have to include it: I know the standard is verifiability rather than truth, but that doesn't mean we have to be stupid about it. I admit that (2) is going to be contentious, but it's important because a lot of editors here want to do it; let's try to establish consensus. We'd need to settle on a working definition, of course. (3) isn't formally part of Wikipedia policy, but seems to make good sense and may help us avoid unhappiness. Can we discuss it in these terms? (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You have come up with the perfect solution, and I hope that we can all work together to resolve the problems that were there before. Zach4636 14:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think it's a terrible proposal. I specifically object to (1).  I disagree that "lot of editors think there's a way to include a lot more material than is now on the page" - looking back up this discussion, and (significantly) in Wikiproject:Automobiles - I see a lot of agreement that this article needed to be sharply reigned in...and beyond that, all I see is a heck of a lot of arguments about whether specific cars are or are not supercars...WHICH ENTIRELY BACKS UP THAT POINT!


 * I don't want to see ANY discussion of specific cars in the article - except in the sense that they may be a part of the history of how this term has come to exist. At most (at the VERY most) I'd accept mentioning perhaps three of the most notable (and least controversial) examples in a short prose section (one or two paragraphs at most) as examples of how the term is commonly used.  As soon as you start mentioning specific cars in any numbers you start running into the business of "if that car then why not the Nissan GT-R?" and then you have no grounds not to open the flood gates and you'll be back with "list of supercars" all over again.


 * Only by limiting the numbers of examples sharply - and picking only the most uncontroversial and well-referenced of all - and discussing how the TERM is applied (not discussing anything much about the cars themselves) - will we avoid listcruft and related arguments coming back again. I have no objections to discussing some of the things that make cars tend to be called supercars - but only in the most general terms - and only when backed up with solid references.  As for (2)...which part of THERE IS NO ACCEPTED DEFINITION OF SUPERCAR did you fail to understand?!  If there is no "accepted definition" then you can't say that a car does or does not "clearly meet" that definition...and we're back in listcruftland again.


 * And (3)...OMG! I can't believe you're actually suggesting that! It is indeed not part of Wiki-policy - nor is it even common practice.  There are REALLY good reasons for that!  This practice confuses subsequent editing because the simple addition or removal of a couple of comment characters can result in a massive amount of text reappearing or disappearing without it being at all obvious from the 'diffs'.  I would describe commenting stuff out as abusive editing...borderline vandalism!  People who patrol articles such as this one rely heavily on diffs that reflect the actual changes - and commenting stuff out makes their lives impossible because the visible effect on the page may be dramatic when the appearance in the diff is tiny.  So don't do it.  We have "history" and that preserves all the old versions in their original state - that's all we need.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, this has gone way too far. If everyone cannot swallow their own interests and try to work this out, then I think that the article should be deleted. If we fail to reach a consensus, that is what I think we should do. As it stands now, there is hardly any information at all on the page. This lack of information is entirely unacceptable, and unless someone is able to present a really good case for why it should stay like this, I am going to add more in.


 * Zach4636 (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * We can all cool our jets. First the chances of this article being deleted are exactly zero.  Articles don't get deleted because of content disputes or because they "lack information".  Second there is no need for all this negotiation.  Antar shortened the article by removing a lot of original research and POV.  That doesn't mean the article has to stay this short.  If anyone wants to add any sourced encyclopedic content then by all means do add it.  We should be discussing individual changes here on the talk page rather than nebulous proposals.  --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Steve, I think the invective's a little excessive.
 * Re (1), OK, you disagree. But then you you say you might accept a very few of the least controversial examples.  Frankly I like that idea.
 * Re (2), I was trying to be ironic with my "(!)" with the accepted definition. There's no need for shouting.  Essentially, I was proposing what you indicate you might grudgingly accept under (1).  But your objection is noted.
 * Re (3): I think "OMG" is a bit much. I actually took the idea from a discussion I saw regarding FACs, wherein this was suggested, by someone who knew the issues well, for pieces of a FAC that were not sufficiently well sourced for a feature article but were likely to get such sources eventually.  I grant that this is a very different situation, but I was trying to come up with something to help cool the temperature here; please don't yell at me for that.  Also, your the argument that changing only a few characters is a big deal doesn't wash; that's true of lots of tags we put in and with which we as a community have no problem.  Anyway, your disagreement and reasons therefor are now available for all to see.
 * Please, everyone: I was actually trying to help by establishing a framework for discussion. I don't expect immediate (or maybe ever) agreement on (1) and (2); with (3), I hadn't thought it through completely, but thought it might help.  Anyway, have fun, y'all. atakdoug  21:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Restored old template, please let the editors know what you're reverting in the edit summary instead of blanking/deleting the whole page
Mighty Ant, revert exactly what you claim as original reseach, but do not delete or blank the whole page.75.3.252.34 (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Does anyone else see the problem with Mighty Ant deleting 90 percent of the page before discussing the content? Let us know before you delete, it's not o.k. to delete then discuss.75.3.252.34 (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Suggest you stop reverting and do what I've suggested several times and read the policy at WP:OR then you may understand what is meant by original reseach and why I am deleting some material from this page. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Mighty Ant please stop reverting, you must show what is original research, the entire article is not original research. This is a warning.75.3.252.34 (talk) 19:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The sections Antar is deleting have a lot of problems. One is that they give unencyclopedic examples, naming specific vehicles as supercars.  The consensus at WP:CAR was to avoid labeling specific vehicles in such a way.  Additionally, they imply, incorrectly and without a source that there is some sort of performance threshold that must be met in order for a vehicle to be classified as a supercar, this is original research.  The article correctly states that supercar is a label applied by enthusiasts and journalist subjectively we don't want to say that and then say "here are some examples of supercars".  What we could say is; "here is a list of vehicles that have been called supercars by reputable sources." This might be useful to show what a wide range of vehicles get this label rather than using our own personal definition of supercar to list examples. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Every page has problems, but it doesn't mean you can blank the page. Look at all the discussion that has progressed in the talk page before deletion, are the comments and progress made towards the page irrelevant? If you can cite each and every sentence as original research, that is fine, but that is not true75.3.252.34 (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have gone through and made a number of edits in order to work towards a compromise. Please do not revert them al, but listen to my reasoning for each and discuss where you disagree. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to go on record to say that Daniel's edits are all valid per his edit summaries as far as I can tell.


 * But Daniel doesn't go far enough. The sections "Performance criteria" and "Other criteria" are on very shakey ground.  My feeling is that all of that is original research.  I can't recall seeing those criteria stated ANYWHERE in books, magazines or on TV shows. These are statements that came right out of one or other of our editor's heads...and that is OR and OR isn't allowed.  They are also full of weasel-words.  The word "criterion" means: A standard or test by which individual things or people may be compared and judged. (per Wiktionary) - you simply can't have words like:


 * Some vehicles referred to as supercars have...
 * Most supercars have...
 * A supercar is usually...
 * A popular benchmark is.,.
 * Supercars are often...
 * Supercars do not necessarily...


 * Those are not "criteria" - those are vague, unsourced hand-wavings - they are the opinion of someone here - they are not industry standard definitions as the article implies. I actually disagree quite strongly with some of them - the term "supercar" has been applied to many front-engined cars. As for statements like "The brakes must not only stop cars quickly, but also resist brake fade," - I've NEVER heard a reviewer say "If only the WibbleMeister 2000GT didn't have terrible brake-fade problems. I'd have called it a supercar."
 * This so-called list of criteria is nothing more than someone's personal wish-list for a nice car. It's not something that belongs anywhere near an encyclopedia.


 * Hence I'm deleting both sections per Wikipedia policy WP:V and WP:NOR. Those who believe that these sections are NOT OR should be able to easily prove it by finding their references and citing them.  SteveBaker (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Empty Section headings.
There seems to be something of a revert war going on about a bunch of section headings with no text inside them.

I understand that the person who put them in believes that they are a good structure around which to fit more information - and they may be right about that.

But I have to agree with the people who are removing those headings. Remember that the "current version" of the article is what the general public sees when they come here. It shouldn't be messed up at ANY time (including, but not limited to, empty section headings). If you want to work on some new sections, make yourself a sandbox and do it there - cut/paste your finished sections into the article when you are done. Leaving the article in a messy state while you are working on it is unnecessarily ugly. If you merely want the section headings to inspire other people to fill them in then put them HERE on the discussion page - not into the main article.

Hence, please do not put the empty section headings back in again until there is some decent text inside.

Thanks! SteveBaker (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I completely agree, empty section headings definitely violate WP:MOS. We don't even know for certain whether we will have sections with these titles at any point.  I'm not really sure if all of them are even appropriate, but couldn't say until they have content.  On the other hand we could comment out the section titles so they would be visible during editing, but not during normal page viewing.  That is a compromise that would work for me. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 07:32, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't like that idea - commenting things out instead of deleting them confuses the edit history because large amounts of things can change but the edit history may only show a couple of comment delimiters have come or gone and it's really hard to see what ACTUALLY changed without reading the entiire article.  But if it will stop the edit warring, then I suppose it's a reasonable thing to try.  The main thing is that our readership shouldn't see them until/unless there is content in them.  If the anon user uncomments them - then we should go back to simply deleting them again and since that would most definitely be abusive editing, maybe we'd then consider getting an admin in to deal with this person. SteveBaker (talk) 12:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oops Daniel. Looks like we had an edit conflict :-) I just removed the section headings outright per WP:MOS, as they can always be reinserted by viewing the page history. I also removed one spam link per WP:EL.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I wish the IP would spend time creating quality content for the article rather than warring over the presence of blank section titles. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, it seems as if our old friend is back. I'll add the various IPs to the list of socks.   Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Requested temporary page protection.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleted Items
I've added back the deleted items because I don't see anything outrageously wrong with it. If editors will give some time I can find sources for most of the info if that was the objection (taken from above comments). 206.125.176.3 (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There is not a way this will ever happen, why, too many people squabbling. This is the reason why the old infamous supercar list is now buried and will never be be allowed back. Willirennen (talk) 21:12, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * There are serious problems with the material you added. It is entirely orginal research and advances the idea that there is some kind of defined threshold that a vehicle must meet to be a supercar.  If you want you are welcome to rewrite some of the sections using sources to discuss what criteria magazines and writers point to in defining supercars for themselves. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Bugatti Veyron
Jeremy Clarkson,James May and Richard Hammond have all driven the Bugatti Veyron Jeremy raced James May and Richard Hammond in a private plane James May maxed it in the Nürburgring and Richard Hammond raced a euro fighter plane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.21.24 (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite to the past
I have rewritten the article and kept as much of the original as possible. I have attempted to write from a NPOV. Rather then describe what constitutes a supercar I have instead describe the various tests that are utilized in establishing performance criteria and then given the upper 10% of what production cars are currently capable of. This approach helps readers establish what they consider a supercar based on what the top vehicles can currently accomplish. It's not perfect but I think its a good start. 206.125.176.3 (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

It really amazes me how little people read an encyclopedia. I've had to revert the article twice now since the rewrite because editors don't even read the articles, don't bother posting any rationales, or whatever other reason. I'm close to the 3 revert rule just because people are reverting irresponsibly. 206.125.176.3 (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I've done it now. Three reverts within a few hours and no one has even bothered coming to this page to discuss anything. All of the reverts done by other editors made the same assumption that it was an earlier revision without even reading the new material; AMAZING that this is really going on. 206.125.176.3 (talk) 20:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Do I personally have to tell you this, this has been discussed to death and I am getting sick of telling this to everybody the same bloody thing. To tell you all this, a page protection will be much better. Willirennen (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I wanted to through my two cents in. While I certianly appriciate IP 206's attempt at expanding the article, I have to agree with the other editors that this material is not appropriate or needed.  An encyclopedic treatment of the term Supercar should include information on the meaning and usage of the subjective term, not information on the comperative performance of possible supercars.  Honestly what gets labeled a supercar by some source or another covers such a wide range that discussing comperative peformance is pointless, what is a supercar one year may not be the next and isn't directly correlated with performance. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The revised article did not include information regarding the meaning or usage of the term supercar, and instead contained needless information on performance variations and comparisons. I'm echoing Daniel's comments pretty much here. seicer  &#x007C;  talk  &#x007C;  contribs  02:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion Daniel but if you read the rewritten article it says exactly that with respect to the term changing and being dynamic. I have to disagree with your statement about the term no be correlated with performance. The very term supercar overflows with performance insinuations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.243.185 (talk) 02:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Here is the deal, throwing up a bunch of performance stats for so called supercars does not give the reader a better idea as to what the term means, it is in fact largely original research and takes up a lot of space without saying much of anything. If the article is going to be expanded it should be to illustrate the terms history and meaning not someones opinion as to how it is often applied.  The word supercar according to defitions supplied by dictionaries and reliable sources means roughly an "expensive, rare and high performance vehicle."  While peformance is part of the defintion it is hardly the last word, plenty of vehicles offer similar peformance but are rarely refered to as supercars (racecars, tuned cars and in some cases cheap high performance vehicles like the Evo or STi).  To some up, consensus is clearly against a long "performance criteria" section so unless there is a compeling arguement put forth I think the topic should be dropped. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Article protection
Following a request at WP:RFPP, I have fully protected this article for a period of two weeks. During these two weeks, all parties concerned should make every effort to reach an agreement on this page as to how the article should be treated on the expiry of the protection. If concencus is reached beforehand, get in touch with me or make another request at WP:RFPP to have the protection lifted. If edit warring continues when the protection expires, I will personally re-protect it (assuming another sysop doesn't get there first). I needn't tell anyone that this kind of warring is petty, and shouldn't be occuring. Finally, as stated in a number of places, my protection of this page does not imply that I endorse the current version - pages are protected in whatever state they are in, without reverting. Talk Islander 22:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

All of our opinions are all very nice but no one has yet come up with anything substantial: meaning no wiki policies were broken & none of the information was really disputed. All I've heard are opinions on what an article should say by one or two editors. The whole lot of you are pathetic. No one wants to even discuss a new approach and leave the same old lame article up. BTW I've gone to WP:Car where presumably this whole matter has been discussed to Death and found nothing about supercar discussions there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.243.185 (talk) 02:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * well if you want to keep that attitude, the supercar article will propably be protected for the next decade. Here are some of the older supercar discussions, that you weren't able to find:


 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_11
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles/Archive_11.--79.212.242.16 (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So what will the resolution be to the disputes here? This article has been protected from editing until that protection expires within a fortnight. What happens then? I propose that the articel as it stands should remain. It is well balanced, states fact, and makes reference to the term's subjectiveness. δ ² ( Talk to me! ) 15:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I Don't Understand What All The Fuss Is About?
Hi, I seemed to have joined in this at a rather contentious time. There seems to be a lot of people on here with a lot of opinions and as a result, no progress. There seems to be a lot of discussion over this and far too much for anyone to properly navigate to take into account everyone's views. I have joined this debate because the term supercar was removed from classifying the Koenigsegg CCX, and replaced by sportscar. My response to that editor is almost the same as my view here: ...surely supercar is as important [an automotive category] as "luxury", "family", "sports" and such like?... and the definition of a sports car might include attributes such as: ..the high purchase cost, the high manufacture cost, the exotic/non-mass produced materials, the exclusivity, the raw performance, the aesthetics, the badge... So just for the record, why is there opposition to the word supercar being used to classify cars and why should this article be deleted as a result? Many thanks,  δ ² ( Talk to me! ) 16:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * no one ever said, this article should be deleted. Or did I get you wrong and you want this article to be deleted?--79.212.203.191 (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You were right the first time: I want the article to stay and a definition decided upon. It seems however, that in the past some or all of this article has been deleted, as discussed here and here.  δ ² ( Talk to me! ) 20:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is there is no set dictionary definition of a supercar, it is a word that gets tossed around a lot in the automotive press and applied to a lot of different vehicles. We cannot decide on some specific definition because there is none and anything we come up with is simply our opinion.  The deletion discussions you point to where for the supercar category which was removed because it was a vague subjective classification.  The article itself was shortened some time ago, removing unsourced original research that pointed to some kind of a threshold that cars could meet in order to be classified as supercars. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I want the article to stay and a definition/category decided upon. I was actually referring to the supercar category and article, the former having already been deleted. Instead of questioning the "word" supercar above, I meant to say category of supercar. I just don't understand why it's been deleted and why this article is also in so much contention?  δ ² ( Talk to me! ) 21:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * edit: I tried to post this before you Daniel, but you beat me lol. my point is that just because it can't clearly be defined doesn't make it grounds for deletion. specifically references to supercars! Like the title of my questions states, why cant it be decided? just lets start with a set of criteria, and then go from there. E.g. the attributes i suggested above. Also, I want to the Koenigsegg CCX to retain its category of supercar, but currently can't fully justify my argument it if others have deleted it!  δ ² ( Talk to me! ) 21:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that is not how Wikipedia works, we don't get to make up our own set of criteria for a vague term who's application is wholly subjective, that is why we stopped using the term in the first place. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Pardon? what is subjective about the term supercar? thats what I'm trying to get at. δ ² ( Talk to me! ) 22:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * to answer your question with another question: what is objective about the term supercar?--79.212.203.191 (talk) 22:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Supercar is a subjective term it is not like "estate car" or "coupe" which have clear definitions, the best definitions from reliable sources are something along the lines of "a term used to describe fast and expensive vehicles" it application varies from source to source and what is fast and expensive to you is might not be to me. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 00:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, this article seems to shed some light on the issue too. I just find it hard to believe that in this day and age no one can come up with a definition.  δ ² ( Talk to me! ) 00:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * wait a minute - who decides on the terms "family car" or "sports utility vehicle" - aren't these questionable as well? δ ² ( Talk to me! ) 00:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well in general those terms do not carry the POV baggage that supercar does, also their definitions are more specific and often corroborated by government classification systems. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, well then how is the Koenigsegg CCX to be classified? it is more than just a sports car, its a prestige one at that?  δ ² ( Talk to me! ) 02:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sports car is a fine general class, it has a specific meaning that the CCX clearly fits. To be more specific you could say, "The CCX is mid-engined sports car" or some such if the article doesn't say that already.  We have to be careful with classification because it is pretty subjective, the most general, least arguable classes should be used.  There isn't any reason to try and create some special class for high end sports cars.  The reader can look the article, see the CCX's price, performance and looks and make their own decisions about what kind of subjective titles it deserves. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My point (if now obsolete) is that the CCX and others like it, are performance machines beyond the norm of sports cars in general, à la a BMW z4 vs the CCX. does that not make sense? δ ² ( Talk to me! ) 14:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

One side of the issue here is that fanboys of particular cars really want to have them the status "supercar" assigned. I would agree that that is not a legitimate reason for the existence of the category. On the other hand there are those people, like me, without strong feelings towards which car is or isn't a "supercar", but who regret that the loss of the category is in some way an inconvenience. The concept IS fuzzy, but on the other hand it is also clear that cars like the Porsche 959, Ferrari F40, McLaren F1, Bugatti Veyron etc. have something important in common, and are different from a "stock" Porsche 911 Turbo. And that people probably expect to be able to see them grouped together somehow in an encyclopaedia.

I'm sure this has come up before, but wouldn't it be possible to have a category for this, with a name that is less "official" than "supercar"? Something that is and sounds more fuzzy by nature. "Dreamcars"? It just feels like there SHOULD be a place in Wikipedia for an article that would contain something like the picturegallery that once was in the "supercar" article. 212.153.56.10 (talk) 08:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But where do you draw the line? Maybe someone else thinks the 911 Turbo is a supercar.  Wikipedia can't decide where the cutoff should be, see: No original research.  "Dreamcars" sounds even more subjective to me.  We have halo vehicle, but I don't think that would generally be considered a class of car since a halo vehicle wouldn't necessarily have to be a high performance sports car.  swa  q  14:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with the view above from 212.153.56.10, stating that certain cars are worthy of a separate description. the halo car concept sounds similar to having a prestige car in a range, and in answer to your question, swaq, about how the line is drawn, I ask how cars are currently classified? where are the lines drawn for them and then how can that be extrapolated to the term supercar? If the answer is, "cars are classified by government", then we go by that, and then it does not contravene the No original research. If, however, other terms have been similarly coined by journalists, enthusiasts, manufacturers etc, then wikipedia can can publish a general consensus. δ ² ( Talk to me! ) 14:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The question is: do we absolutely NEED to draw a clear line, as long as we point out that there isn't one? Check out Ring Species[], and you'll find out that even the term "biological species" is ultimately fuzzy, and strictly speaking just a categorization that exists to create a workable framework for biology. I just think having a number of cars with "supercar"/"dreamcar" potential actually grouped together in some way, would be a worthwhile service. Something that Wikipedia users expect to find here. As long as it is made sufficiently clear that the categorization is highly subjective, what is the problem, really? Just a way to loosely group things together. JH-man (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is so much controversy around what is and isn't a supercar. Sources can be found calling most any modern high performance vehicle a "supercar."  So if some fan boy wants to come along and put the Mitsubishi Evo into the supercar category, there really isn't anything we can do to stop them, the category would then become "modern fast cars and a couple of SUVs" and be more or less useless.  As far as I can tell other encyclopaedias never refer to any vehicles as supercars.  Britanica and Encarta both call high end Lamborghinis etc. sports cars which is a more encyclopaedic less sensational way to phrase it.  I do understand where you folks are coming from though and think this warrants further discussion. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 17:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The biggest issue seems to be the actual name of the category. It needs to be informative and adequately cover what could be placed under it (and what shouldn't), yet it also needs to be clear that it is subjective to a large degree, not authoritative and not exhaustive. It needs to reflect that the grouping serves more as a "service" towards the user of the encyclopaedia (a convenient place to browse high performance prestigious dreamcars) than anything else.


 * "Notable performance cars" or "Notable prestige cars", or something along those lines?


 * Sure it will be fuzzy around the edges. But that is unavoidable and goes for ALL issues of notability. Where does a "football player" begin or stop to be notable enough to be included with his own article, for instance? Does he have to have national caps? Does he have to have played a certain number of matches in first division, second division? We don't know the exact boundaries of the category, but that doesn't keep us from creating the category as a navigation assistance. And in the case of supercars-or-whatever-we-should-name-it, it doesn't even impact upon whether the articles themselves exist. JH-man (talk) 10:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)


 * thanks for that point Daniel, and also thanks for pointing out how other encyclopaedias refer to the category. Just a couple of questions: does WP match/try to match the standard set by Britannica? and second,regarding the evo's, why can't evo's etc be stopped from entering the category? they simply AREN'T in the same the same league as those generally accepted as super cars, eg CCX, Veyron, Enzo, Carerra GT...(lol some may disagree with my quick list, i know!) Some cars/manufacturers/owners/fanboys may well try to match performance in terms of modifications, but that doesn't necessarily allow them entry, especially if they are non-standard production modifications. using the evo example, it is a 4 door sporty saloon. yes, it is a sports car, but it is more closely (for obvious reasons) a road-going rally car, not a supercar. From this, I think it would be quite easy to define cars allowable into the category and not, regardless of whether it makes it onto WP.  δ ² ( Talk to me! ) 15:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Why aren't evo's in the same league? Who says non-standard mods are not allowed? Without anything to back it up, these rules are your rules and nobody elses, and a perfect example of why the use of supercar outside of the supercar article should be avoided at all costs. Much better would be some sort of comparative, sortable table listing (for example) all the road cars that are fitted with Pirelli P Zeros as standard equipment. Providing the tabulated results are referenced, I don't see any problem other than what individual parameter should be defined. Mighty Antar (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That really is the problem, you say the evo isn't in the same league, but that is just your opinion. Plenty of people would argue with you and provide sources to back up there position (whether they be sources calling it a "supercar" or sources showing it to be faster in some contest then so called supercars) and becuase supercar is such a vague word they would be successful.  Changing the name of the cat would make it even more vague, "dream car" sorry, but give me a break, my dream car is a Lada Niva can I put it in the category.  I do have what I think is a reasonable compromise.  A category:Halo vehicles, would be quite clearly defined, though perhaps just as large as a category: supercar.  What is and isn't a halo model is much less detable than what is and isn't a supercar. As for the Britannica issue, I brought it up in an effort to show how little meaning the word supercar has, if it was a objective desriptor, Britannica would use it. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I have the answer: a supercar is any production car that can exceed 200 mph in unmodified form. How many cars can do that? No many? Ergo, a supercar. Wow that was easy. :)
 * Interesting Links:

http://askmaximus.blogspot.com/2007/06/supercar-brief-explanation.html

http://news.carjunky.com/how_stuff_works/what-is-a-supercar-cde917.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.156.243.185 (talk) 09:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Easy if you call it a database of production cars that can exceed 200 mph in unmodified form (assuming solid references are provided). Contentious if you call it a database of supercars.Mighty Antar (talk) 10:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You can't just say a supercar is a car that can do 200 mph in unmodified form. First of all, that is original research, which is not allowed.  Second, that definition does not scale well with time.  Pretty much any car before 1987 would not be considered a supercar by that definition.  Also, in the future we will most likely have more and more cars reaching 200 mph, no longer making it exclusive.  This is a very poor metric.  swa  q  15:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, let's just NOT have a supercar article because:


 * A. We can't agree on a definition (Even though the automotive industry has a pretty good working definition; see links above, good show 141.156.243.185).
 * B. It would be opinion (Hate to break it to you but ultimately everything is opinion see Phenomenological reality
 * C. It would be "ORIGINAL RESEARCH" (As we have been reminded of time after time. So what if there isn't any good research that has been done on a topic?  Is it taboo to include it in Wiki; unless someone else has done the reseach?)
 * D. The definition changes through time (Duh, what doesn't?)
 * E. It's POV. (See "B" above)
 * F. It's too hard. (So what, lots of things are hard; doesn't mean we just quit)

Bottom line is the rewrite furthered the article by:


 * 1. Using the most accepted definition and being as generic as possible.
 * 2. Attempting to illustrate the performance metrics used and listing the cars that perform at the highest echelons of those categories.
 * 3. Iterating various times that the term changes as technology changes.
 * 4. Acknowledges that the term is subjective and difficult and that all people do not agree. (As can be seen within these discussions).

Honestly IMHO the rewritten article although not perfect is way better then the article as it exists now; which doesn't say much. There is no reason that other NON-Performance criteria can be added at a later time as editors see fit 206.125.176.3 (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I really think you are misunderstanding. You list a number of arguements (and counter arguements) for deleting this article, but no one (to my knowledge) has suggested not having a supercar article. As for your suggestions for rewriting, I think we already have acomplised #1 as the article presents a clear definition as to what the word means in the first couple sentences, and more or less covers #3 and #4 in the following paragraphs.  There really isn't any reason to illustrate peformance metrics unless they are sourced directly from an article as that would be orginal research and to answer your question from part C, if there isn't any good research on a topic from reliable sources Wikipedia does not use original research in its place... period.  I am all for article expansion if it is sourced quality content.  Even though the article is short in its current form, it tells the reader exactly what a supercar is without much editorializing or fluff and that's an acomplishment. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 17:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a database of production cars that can exceed 200 mph in unmodified form (assuming solid references are provided) is far better than an endless discussion on how we can pad out what is already a perfectly acceptable article with unverified speculation and fluff. The bloggs linked to are unreferenced bloggs. The automotive industry, media etc has NO AGREED DEFINITION or ACCEPTED DEFINITION about what a supercar is. In fact it has little agreement on any kind of categorization for its products other than that advertising needs a constant supply of constructed superlatives like supercar which defy precise definition to extend the envelope of driving experience beyond that of sitting in a queue of traffic. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with a database of 200mph+ vehicles, as long as it isn't on this page. Exceeding 200 has little to do with being a supercar. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * All of the performance information is NOT original research (Come on how many of these editors have access to all of these expensive cars? The sources can easily be added.  Daniel, I still don't understand your opinion that the term supercar is not related to any performance metrics.  What gives?  The term's existence is based on the how these cars outperform all of its cotemporaries.

As for the article as it is, it leaves much to be desired and seems to be just as ambiguous; here is some commentary:

COMMENT: Defined by who? What is expensive? What is Fast? What is powerful?
 * Supercar is a term generally used for a high-end sports car, COMMENT: What's a high end sports car. This is not defined.
 * whose performance is highly superior to that of its contemporaries. COMMENT: What is highly superior and to what.
 * It has been defined specifically as "a very expensive, fast or powerful car with a centrally located engine"[1],
 * and stated in more general terms: "it must be very fast, with sporting handling to match," "it should be sleek and eye-catching" and its price should be "one in a rarified atmosphere of its own. COMMENT: What is "very expensive"?  What is fast & powerful?  What is very fast?  What is sporting handling?
 * "[2] but the proper application of the term is subjective and disputed, especially among enthusiasts. The use of the term can be dependent on the era: a vehicle that may have been considered a supercar at one time may not retain its superiority indefinitely.[citation needed]. COMMENT: Agree the term is subjective and disputed.  Agree on era dependency.  Agree citation needed (But would not delete statement as other editors do).
 * The term supercar may refer to factory-built, street-legal sports cars. COMMENT: This is an "ok" general statement but a bit too general and vague;
 * [3] Some supercars include some of the features required for race cars, like the roll cage, [4] while other supercars are in general race cars with only the minimum legal required modifications made (e.g. meeting emission regulations, legal tyres, limited exhaust note) to be street legal. COMMENT: These statement are horrific and need serious rewriting.

Again the rewritten version is much better; although I agree that citations need to be included which I don't think would be much of a problem. 206.125.176.3 (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I will try and make my point as clear as possible. Supercar is a subjective term anyone can apply it to anything they want and not really be wrong.  It is very much like the term superstar whose article handles the topic very well.  Adding peformance stats to this page would be like adding box office gross and compensation figures to the superstar page in an attempt to show some objective criteria for being a superstar.  I think you misunderstand when people call the figures you wish to add original research.  Of course no one is accusing you of measuring these figures yourself, but adding them in an attempt to advance some sort of criteria or comparison as to what is or isn't a supercar is a violation of WP:SYN unless some reliable source has made these same comparisons to advance the same point.  As for your specific concerns about the article wording: Your first points are baseless, you ask for defitions to subjective terms like fast or expensive, which is impossible, the article defines this subjective term in further subjective terms which is the only way possible.  If there was an objective definition it would not be a subjective term.  As for your last point, that section of the article is poorly writen, feel free to rewrite it or remove it, I don't think it adds much. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've found an interesting viewpoint, in an article about a new proposed event at Goodwood Festival of Speed.  δ ² ( Talk to me! ) 23:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * New? Porposed? That part have been running since 2000. Donnie Park (talk) 10:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Plagarized Page
In looking for source material for definitions of supercars per our discussion above I came across: http://www.freearticlesarchive.com/article/How_To_Define_a_Supercar_/63119/0/ The earlier version of the article prior to my changes extracted verbatim paragraphs from this article which constitutes plagarism. 206.125.176.3 (talk) 18:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not see the plagiarism. Could you point me to the section in that page that was plagiarized?  Also, if it is plagiarized then it should just be rewritten in different words, not completely replaced.  Thanks.  swa  q  18:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Going by the date shown on the freearticlesarchive article and this revision of the wikipedia article [] which pre-dates it, the freearticlesarchive is the "source" that is actually doing the plagarising. Perfectly acceptable under Copyrights, but 206.125.176.3 seems to have confused which material is plagarized to justify him removing material from the current Wikipedia article. Mighty Antar (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A list
Create a list of cars who is classified as "Supercar"! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DIEXEL (talk • contribs) 16:44, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No.
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 11
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 11
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 12
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 13
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles/Archive 17
 * Articles for deletion/List of supercars
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 11
 * Categories for discussion/Log/2008 March 22
 * swa q  17:14, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"The term has been applied to many cars, to the extent that it is virtually meaningless. One egregious example is a derivative of the"
I don't understand how the title of the cited article can be considered egregious or virtually meaningless. The usage here simply implies that the car is an affordable high performance model - most people couldn't afford a real supercar. Regardless of which, the wiki article already states that "the proper application of the term is subjective and disputed, especially among enthusiasts." but simply because there is no agreed objective definition, the term is still a very long way from being meaningless. Mighty Antar (talk) 15:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

LJK Setright DID NOT 'coin' the term "Supercar" when he test drove the Lamborghini Miura
I am the author of "Horsepower War: Our Way of Life." My book is cited in the "Supercar" Wikipedia page. I made a blog post responding to the Wikipedia definition at this link

http://elvisceralappeal.blogspot.com/2011_10_01_archive.html

The following are some of the relevant sections in which I believe I have proven, with original source material, that the oft repeated line about L.J.K. Setright 'coining' the term is in fact totally spurious.

[begin blog excerpt]

Here is my email to Great Britain’s CAR magazine...

Hello Ms. Harrison,

Thanks for responding. Let me clarify a few facts in hopes that we can find the issue of CAR wherein the term ‘super car’ is coined. The subject line of my email was taken from a Wikipedia definition of super car. Since we know anyone can tinker around with Wikipedia, here’s the part of the Wiki definition I’m talking about (in bold):

'''The phrase supercar did not become popular until much later and is said to have had its revival originated with British motor journalist L. J. K. Setright writing about the Lamborghini Miura in CAR in the mid-1960s. The magazine was originally launched in 1962 as Small Car and Mini Owner, and claims to have "coined the phrase".[8]''' (End of Wiki quote)

I see in the CAR web page which is footnote (8) in the Wikipedia article, no mention is made specifically of LJK Setright actually ‘coining’ the word supercar. Instead the magazine itself is given credit. Here it is cut and pasted in bold:

'''The magazine has a history of innovation. We invented the group test, pioneered the drive story and coined the phrase 'supercar' – and all three remain staples of CAR. The magazine is also renowned for its photography, writing and design: in 2007, CAR won two top design awards and one of our writers recently won the UK's Journalist of the Year gong from the Guild of Motoring Writers. From LJK Setright to Gavin Green and Georg Kacher, ours are some of the world's most respected automotive journalists. '''

So the Wikipedia ‘assumption’ seems to be: Setright saw/drove/reported upon the Lamborghini Miura, and called it a ‘supercar’ at that time. As you can see, this is not specifically what the CAR website claims. In any case I ordered a Brooklands Books reprint of Lamborghini Miura road tests and this is what I found.

In the January 1967 CAR article “Riding the Wild One,” LJK Setright’s name doesn’t appear, but it could have been written by him, judging by the style. This article is actually not a road test, but a ‘ride along’ with New Zealand born Lamborghini tech Bob Wallace. No where does the word or phrase ‘super car’ appear. Also noteworthy with respect to Wikipedia, this first ride along story was published not in the ‘mid sixties’ but at the beginning at least of the ‘late sixties.’ Not a surprise considering that the Miura only debuted in March ’66 and the 1966 total production amounted to just two cars.

Then in the December 1967 issue of CAR, LJK Setright’s name appears prominently on the first page of a two part saga called “1000 miles in the Miura.” “LJK Setright gets to grips with the most exotic of ‘em all.” The story recounts a trip from the Lamborghini factory back to the UK where Setright shares the chore of driving a Miura (that had been purchased by a Briton) with a Lamborghini sales representative. The events unfold in September of ’67, again very much in the ‘late sixties.’ There are plenty of words in this two part story, the second of which is printed in the January 1968 issue of CAR, but the words ‘super car’ aren’t among them.

It’s clear that the Wikipedia article on the word supercar is in error. The CAR website does not make the same specific claim as Wikipedia, though it does insist that CAR magazine ‘coined the term.’

So I’m now even more curious. If supercar was not coined by LJK Setright, and perhaps not even to describe the Lamborghini Miura, then when and where did CAR magazine ‘coin’ the term super car?

Cheers,

Robert Harless

Some final points for part one of this multi-part blog on the Supercar kerfluffle: I read the rest of the articles sourced from CAR magazine in the Brooklands road test reprint series “Lamborghini 1964-1970” and never saw the word “Supercar” mentioned once, by anyone from CAR. Even as late as November ’70, in a road test contrasting the Miura with a Ferrari Dino, the Miura is referred to as a “GT car” or “sports car” but never "Supercar."

That’s not to say the word “Supercar” can’t be found in the Brooklands Lamborghini road tests. The word appears in a Car and Driver March 1966 review of the first Lamborghini, the conventional front engine 350GT. C&D said “It (350GT) runs the quarter (mile) like one of our (my bold) Super Cars."

In this case the meaning of “Super Cars” (C&D tended to turn Car Life’s coinage of the word Supercar into a phrase “Super Car”) is easy to discern, since in the very same issue of Car and Driver there was special report called “6 Super Cars!” all of which were in the Car Life mold: Pontiac GTO, Buick Skylark GS, Oldsmobile 442, Chevelle SS396, Ford Fairlane GTA and Mercury Cyclone GT.

[end blog excerpt]

I will explain the references to CAR LIFE magazine (which I will prove 'coined' the term supercar) in another talk section.

But the most important point that must be taken from this post is that all references to the L.J.K. Setright 'coining' the word/phrase supercar/super car must be removed from the Wikipedia definition. It is simply a canard.

RobertHarless (talk) 17:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

The May '65 issue of the U.S.'s "CAR LIFE" first 'coined'  "Supercar" - NOT U.K.'s "CAR"
I am Robert Harless, author of the book "Horsepower War: Our Way of Life," which is a footnoted several times in the Wikipedia definition of "Supercar."

The following is an excerpt from my blog where I prove that the U.S. car magazine "CAR LIFE" and NOT the U.K. magazine "CAR" was the first to define and 'coin' the word "Supercar." Please note that I'm refraining from inserting scans of magazine pages in this entry in deference to Wikipedia, which construes 'fair use' of these materials very narrowly.

http://elvisceralappeal.blogspot.com/2011_10_01_archive.html

[Begin blog excerpt]

The word Supercar actually doesn’t occur within the text of the GTO road test in The May 1965 CAR LIFE issue, but a systematic definition is spelled out on this page. This piece of evidence – the scan above – is a ‘smoking gun’ because it clearly settles the ‘dispute,’ perhaps not about which cars are indeed super, but about which magazine gets to claim the coinage for the word “Supercar.” This article clearly, yet subtly defines the word Supercar for the first time. According to Joe Oldham, writing in the May '74 issue of the American magazine CARS - not to be confused with the UK's CAR - this is the first time the word was used and defined as such.

Later CAR LIFE articles make direct reference to the issue when discussing subsequent Supercars and whether they deserved to be listed in that exclusive club.

In case you just can't read the text in the above scan from May ’65 CAR LIFE.

Quote: “The ultimate expression of this trend toward the personally specified vehicle is what we call the “Supercar.” It has a big engine with great gobs of horsepower and torque. It has a modest sized chassis of reasonably light weight. It has an axle ratio that lets the engine perform and it has a transmission (in most cases) that can provide optimum engine operating conditions. Many of the Supercars are options atop options; they are packages of options which supplant and complement the original options.”

So the supercar is defined here mostly in terms of it being a 'special car' - one with very rare factory options like sintered metallic brake linings or a hard riding suspension that 99 out of 100 cars don't have.

You can hopefully make out the list of 'Supercars' which includes the 327cid/350hp Chevelle, 427 Ford and 396 Chevrolet. None of these three cars had a 'package' option (GTO, GTX, GTA, R/T or the like) at the time. In fact the whole idea as Car Life has it, is that you would have to special order all the stuff you want anyway. The idea of the supercar is not to have a 'compromise' that will fly off dealer lots but something that only one out of 100 people want. The article says that since the US car market is so big and expansive, it still makes sense for makers to appeal to this rare one percent of buyers. You can also see the oft repeated assertion of 1960's US car magazines: That a buyer could conceivably special order a car with a combination of obscure options so that no other car is exactly like his.

[End excerpt]

Here's the link to another of my blog posts on the intersection of "supercar" and "musclecar" from which I have excerpted the following passage.

http://elvisceralappeal.blogspot.com/2011_11_01_archive.html

[Begin excerpt]

In the previous edition of Elvisceral Appeal, I traced the history and provenance of the word ‘supercar’ and promised to do the same for the word ‘musclecar’ next time. That time has come!

The May '65 issue of CAR LIFE magazine is credited by Joe Oldham in the the May '74 issue of "CARS" (not to be confused with the British "CAR") as being the first time that big engine, light weight cars were referred to as "Supercars." Roger Huntington wrote the road test article of the '65 Pontiac GTO in that very issue, and is surely deserving of a large measure of credit for 'coining' the term supercar. So I was struck with serendipity when I found this very early reference to ‘musclecar’ in a March '66 CAR CRAFT article also by Huntington, who wrote for a long list of magazines. Here we already have proof that the word supercar preceded the term 'muscle car,' as Huntington calls the word/phrase "The latest tag line for anything small with a big engine." Here we have the closest person to the original supercar ‘coinage’ telling us about the new ‘tag line.’

In any case, here we already see conclusive evidence that both "muscle car" and "super car" preceded the use of the term super car in the sense of "Lamborghini" or exotic car as it is mostly used today.

In the spirit of “retrodiction” (see my inaugural blog post “Wishful Retrodiction”) we might naively look back from the year 2011 and ‘reason’ that maybe muscle car was coined as a substitute for super car because LJK Setright co-opted the term. For background on the LJK Setright ‘supercar canard’ see my previous blog entry “American Supercar Provenance or UK CAR magazine Supercar Canard." Link

The canard has become a cut and paste, drag and drop hoax. Its light-speed race around the web has been turbo-charged by a demonstrably false assertion in the Wikipedia entry for “supercar.”

The ‘supercar’ definition in Wikipedia claims that LJK Setright of Britain's “CAR” magazine “coined the term supercar” after first driving the Lamborghini in “the mid sixties.” Even the highly respected, authoritative Hemmings Motor News has an online article http://www.hemmings.com/hsx/stories/2008/01/01/hmn_feature1.html claiming that it was in this “1000 miles in the Miura” story that Setright coined the term “in 1966.” The timeline seemed highly suspect, so I decided to buy a Brooklands Books reprint of the road test “1000 miles in the Mirua” where Setright first ‘gets to grips’ with the car.

I’ve read it over many times.

He doesn't use the word supercar.

Huntington would have written a March ’66 article probably in January of ’66. But in any case, no one even saw a complete Lamborghini Miura in the flesh before the March 10th 1966 debut at the Geneva auto show. Besides, the first time Setright drove the Miura was in September of 1967 (the story was published in the Dec ’67 and Jan ’68 issues of CAR). This timeline is decidedly not in ‘the mid sixties’ or ‘1966.’ So even if Setright had written the word ‘supercar’ in [late] ’67 (HE DIDN’T) it would still have been more than a year and a half after Huntington wrote [about the] musclecar [and over two and a half years after] and supercar.

So super car and muscle car (not used generically, but as terms of distinction) are indisputably of American coinage, and they are inextricably linked. I originally thought there might be an interesting shade of nuance in meaning between them within the American context (an upcoming post will address various distinctions between words like sports car and pony car) but my efforts proved to be futile. For our purposes here in divining their origins in common usage, Supercar = Musclecar.

One other crucial factor I think must be recognized regarding supercar and musclecar: It's not good enough if one car is called 'super' or 'muscle' and considered a class of one or 'sui generis.'

That's why the Lamborghini Miura/ LJK Setright claim (we now know the claim to be spurious but one made by UK's CAR) doesn't make much sense - how could there only be one super car in the world? If there's only one why not just call it "Lamborghini"? I think the term only has meaning if, when it was 'coined,' there was an identifiable group of cars that met the criteria. That's why the May '65 CAR LIFE, in systematically defining 'super car' should ultimately be credited with delineating what we now call 'muscle car.'

[End excerpt]

Fellow Wikipedians: The origin of the term is quite indisputably rooted in the attempt to define a "Pontiac GTO type" car. I understand the use of 'supercar' is has shifted over time - and even now U.S. production cars like top of the line versions of the Chevrolet Corvette and Camaro have re-claimed the word - but Wikipedia should remove references to LJK Setright and the Lamborghini Miura as the historical origin for term supercar.

RobertHarless (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Since the first use is 1920, I think squabbling over some 1960s priority is a bit lame. No doubt you think different. Greglocock (talk) 11:08, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Fastest.
The Hennessey Venom GT had a single direction test run at 435 km/h with no representatives from Guinness World Records. Thus it is not officially the fastest.  Stepho  talk 22:53, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Definition from German Wiki
START

Supercar differ in many ways from everyday or sports cars.

Typical characteristics:

high acceleration values ​​(hence weight savings at the expense of comfort) high top speed (so streamlined form) high longitudinal and lateral dynamics Use of modern technologies very to extremely high purchase price very to extremely high maintenance costs Production in small quantities (micro and small series) Generally, one can compare two generations later, one or many properties of super sports car with those of standard sports cars. For example, the high speed of the Porsche, 959, 20 years later achieved by a production car, the Porsche 997 Turbo. A Ferrari F40 was exceeded in the final speed 15 years later the Ferrari 599 GTB.

Very much are the maintenance and insurance costs. For example, does a "great service repair" of a McLaren F1 50,000 euros.

Is supercars in common is that they want the show in its time technically feasible; For example, the 16-cylinder engine in the Bugatti Veyron 16.4 brings the car to a top speed of over 400 km / h. In addition to several major car companies are active in this segment also a handful of small manufacturers such as Gumpert, Koenigsegg and Pagani. The vehicles are usually made by hand and not on an assembly line. The number of cars produced per year is usually around a hundred pieces.''

END

That's OR, POV, uncited and wishy washy (unquantified and subjective). Their list of cars is perhaps rather better.

Greglocock (talk) 03:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Supercar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110622052538/http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50242443/50242443se176?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=supercar&first=1&max_to_show=10&hilite=50242443se176 to http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry/50242443/50242443se176?single=1&query_type=word&queryword=supercar&first=1&max_to_show=10&hilite=50242443se176

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

HyperCar Merge
Beginning merge from hyper car to supercar per WP:Articles for deletion/Hyper Car. I am a new user, so would be grateful for help from Afd closer User:Winged Blades of Godric or anyone else. Thanks. GreyGreenWhy (talk) 20:12, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, User:Ecks Dey, just wondering why it is better to have 2 layers of heading (other categories-> hypercar) than one (hypercar)? Also, could you help at all with the search for reliable sources? I just realised I should have pinged you as the AfD nominator when I merged, so sorry for not doing that. Thanks for the additional content, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 21:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Reply from Ecks Dey - Yeah, that's my bad. Totally crossed my mind when I was editing. That unnecessary edit is gone now, replaced it with just "Hypercar". Anyway, not having to ping me is fine, it's human error anyways, we ain't perfect. Cheers. Ecks Dey (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Supercar scare
Just to show how the terminology changes, in the 1970s we had the Supercar scare in Australia. This controversy involved what we now call muscle cars, ie family passenger cars with upgraded engines (and brakes and suspension, but nobody listened to that part). It took us about 15 years to recover from that.  Stepho  talk 23:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring
To Mean as custard@undefined, BevinKacon@undefined and Greglocock@undefined. Please read WP:BRD and WP:EDITWAR, then discuss your differences here. The article can be changed after the discussion.  Stepho  talk 10:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm not edit warring. Stop being so pompous. AFAIK the other two are messing about with photos. Care factor:zero. Greglocock (talk) 11:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hypercar section
HI User:Greglocock, would it be acceptable to you to restore the hypercar section with the text:

"A hypercar is a more advanced version of a supercar, such as the  Porsche 918 Spyder, Ferrari LaFerrari, or the McLaren P1."

A good source could be, but I can find some more if you feel it is needed.

I would like to keep this section to implement the results of the hypercar AfD and maintain the disambiguation link from Hypercar. Thanks, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC) GreyGreenWhy (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't love Top Gear as an RS but that's the nature of the beast. Good find, yes I think that's fine. Greglocock (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks User:Greglocock, I have gone ahead and added it back. The only more reliable source I could find was this from Sky, but it just uses the term without explaining it. Anyway, thanks again, GreyGreenWhy (talk) 15:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You removed my edit and you are wrong about your reasoning
The following was placed on my talk page. I have moved it here so that others can be involved in the discussion.  Stepho  talk 22:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * On the supercar wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercar), i gave information as to from where and when the term "hypercar" originated. You removed my edit wrongfully. When you mentionned that it is referenced in 1993 and 2005, that is wrong. The term is used today to describe those old cars as hypercars, but when the cars first came out, the term hypercar did not exist yet, hence the Mclaren f1 and bugatti veyron were not called hypercars before the 2010's decade. As for you saying that a wiki not a valid source, I cannot find a valid source anywhere on the internet. The "need for speed fandom wiki" is the best I could find. Here is a youtube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvNOr969Pus&t=31s) video in which at the 0:31 mark you can see the 5 tiers of cars which were in the game. The hyper tier contained all of the cars which are known are hypercars today (bugatti, f1, koenignsegg...). I cannot find a source for this but I can assure you that what I am saying is true because I have the game myself and I can see it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.119.78.59 (talk) 02:36, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not denying that the game used the term. It's the claim of being first that I am refuting. Wiki's are not reliable sources. The editor of the other wiki can be any random person putting up any random "fact" and there is no way to know how credible it is - or isn't. Even Wikipedia itself is not allowed as a reference. See WP:RELIABLE and WP:VERIFIABLE.  Stepho  talk 22:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)