Talk:Production car speed record/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Bugatti Veyron Super Sport - listed and unlisted top speeds of this and other cars

The Bugatti Veyron Super Sports here listed top speed of 257.87 mph (415 km/h) is not the actual official record top speed of 267.857 mph (431.074 km/h). Not listing the official record top speed (only achievable by 5 cars with removed limiters) but the production cars regular top speed sadly causes a real and very fundamental problem in terms of accuracy of the list. The problem with the here listed value simply is, that there are other production cars like the Hennessy Venom which are faster than the listed value, but not quite as fast as the unlisted top speed with removed limiter. So the Veyron Super Sport only qualifies for current record holding place on the list by a top speed that is actually higher than the listed top speed. As understandable as it may be to list the cars regular top speed, it is completely inconsistent and misleading and actually inaccurate in terms of the basis for the cars ranking. The listed top speed is simply lower than that of the Hennesy Venom and other production cars. So listing this lower Top speed than the cars official record speed, would require the Venom or other cars to surpass and replace the Veyron Super Sport in this list with its top speed of 429 Km/h (which is just slightly slower than Veyrons record speed, but considerably faster than the here listed value and achieved without any modifications to the standard production car). Doing that on the other hand though meant to disregard the Veyrons official Guiness Book World Rekord.

So for this list to be consistent and to make any, the listed speed values should strictly all be the actual record top speeds the cars are ranked by.

I personally recommend to replace the Veyrons listed top speed with the Veyrons official World record speed, to resolve the issue. Other listed cars data should also be checked for discrepancies between the basis of their ranking and the listed speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:901:200:82B4:2424:F191:D5F3:BE8 (talk) 01:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

There are several issues, but they all come down to the number of cars made. Neither Hennessey nor Bugatti made enough of their particular high speed versions. Also the problem with Guiness is that it does not apply a consistent standard with the worlds fastest car. NealeFamily (talk) 01:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Ferrari Americas and Supeamericas

Those cars are excluded because 'some of them were made in less than 20 examples' and 'some of them are racing cars'. This might be true in case of Ferrari 340 America and Ferrari 375 America. Whilst Ferrari 342 America was not a race car but existed in only 6 examples. Still Ferrari 410 and 400 Superamericas were made in higher numbers. A whoping 35 units for 410 Superamerica that were very much the same but had 2 different body styles among their 3 series. But... Ferrari 400 America was made in even higher numbers. 47. Out of which a total of 32 were of the same body style 'coupé aerodynamico' by Brovarone. Some of them may had some alterations between 2 series, it was still a handbuilt car, but most of that era's cars, that contested with them, were. I understand that there are (probably) still no independent speed tests, but if they do exist i vote on counting Ferrari 400 Superamerica as a valid contender.YBSOne (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the problem with the 400s and 410s is the lack of road tests. They would quite likely have been amoung the fastest cars in their day, but they needed to prove it. If we can find some indenpendent tests then we are in business NealeFamily (talk) 21:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The thing with race cars was in those days, race cars can be driven on public roads and cars were not tested for exhaust noise. Donnie Park (talk) 07:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Countach - claimed AMS numbers wildly optimistic

Someone just added the 500S at 182 mph There is a ref to a dead tree AMS test. The only online ref I can find is car and driver, at 160 mph. So, can anyone provide a scan of the AMS test? Frankly if you plot engine hp vs top speed of the various countach models, 182 mph is just some made up fanboi number. Similarly the LP400 number in this article disagrees with the ref on the Countach page. Greglocock (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Here's the quote from C&D " Our driving was done in a six-Weber European-specification car rated at 368 hp at 7500 rpm; the U.S. version is said to have a torque curve at least as strong, but its power trails off above 6000 rpm to a peak of 348 hp. In any case, the Euro ver­sion maxed out at 150 mph—fast, but cer­tainly not out of the range of Boxers and good-running 930 Porsches. Unbolting the optional (at $5500) wing from the rear increased speed to 160 mph with only a very minor loss in directional stability. Not ordering the wing has to be the cheapest speed secret in the world." Greglocock (talk) 16:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The 293 km/h (182 mph) top speed for the LP500 S (AKA 5000 S https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Lamborghini_Countach#Countach_LP500_S) is shown here: http://www.tuningarchive.ru/scans/scansbig/0025s-03.jpg

AMS often repeats the results tested in later issues so more than one issue can be used as correct reference.

There is a comparison test with the 288 km/h (179 mph) LP400 in AMS 9/1978, but the first test of the car was in AMS 15/1975, the LP500 S was both in 15/1983 and 22/1984 and probably even more issues.Drachentötbär (talk) 22:46, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Puzzlicious to say the least. I'll have a look at the implicationsGreglocock (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Hennessy Venom

This car broke the record like 5 years ago or something, shouldn't it be here Aacfsftw (talk) 15:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Only 16 were built and the test was in one direction only. Greglocock (talk) 18:52, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Jaguar XJ220

Hey, what happened to the jaguar XJ 220? Was n't it the fastest car in the world for a time (briefly) before the F1? I've been silent for a while, but I don't think I could overlook this one. 14:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RacingPhreak (talk • contribs)

The Ruf was just as fast 5 years earlier. I would be happy to see proof fatcat was faster. Greglocock (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Guinness Book of Record of the time is a proof. Donnie Park (talk) 10:44, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

If Guinness states that it's faster than 342 km/h than it belongs to the list.

Guinness' first real set of "fastest production car" rules were created in 1993, when they brought in the two way run thing. The XJ220 was taken to 217.1mph by Martin Brundle at the Nardo ring in Italy in 1992 after disconnecting the catalytic converters and raising the rev limiter - much like Bugatti did recently. It's in the 1993 Guinness Book of Records at 217.1mph/349kmh, which I believe is replaced by the McLaren F1 for 1994. I don't have the 1992 or 1994 edition to hand, but I have them somewhere. 81.134.200.21 (talk) 12:37, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

GWR still listed the XJ220 as the fastest even through the 1990s, IIRC. Donnie Park (talk) 07:28, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, on http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/news/jaguar-xfr-schnellster-jaguar-aller-zeiten-1046116.html it states "Als schnellster Jaguar galt bisher der XJ220 mit dem 1992 aufgestellten Rekord von 349,4 km/h. Der britische Mittelmotorsportler holte sich damit auch den Titel als schnellstes Serienfahrzeug der Welt, bis diese Auszeichnung 1994 an den McLaren F1 ging." Google says this means "As the fastest Jaguar so far was the XJ220 established with the 1992 record of 349.4 km / h. The British agent Motorsportsman grabbing himself the title as the fastest production car in the world, to this award in 1994 went to the McLaren F1." 81.134.200.21 (talk) 12:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

I weakly remember that the Jaguar XJ220 was tested with 347 km/h by Auto, Motor und Sport but couldn't find the article anywhere. I could only find this website http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/fahrberichte/tunerversprechen-300-km-h-sind-pflicht-775801.html with this quote "In der zweiten Vollgasrunde verharrt das GPS-Messgerät bei 358 km/h. Damit überholt der Bimoto den Jaguar XJ 220, den mit 347 km/h schnellsten von auto motor und sport je gemessenen Sportwagen." which translates into: "In the second full speed round the GPS instrument remains at 358 km/h. Thereby the Bimoto overtakes the Jaguar XJ 220 , the with 347 km/h fastest ever recorded sports car by auto motor und sport." AMS is a reliable source and always does two-way runs so it would be okay for me to use the 347 km/h even without access to the original test from AMS issue 19/1994. http://www.histoquariat.de/Auto-Motor-und-Sport-/-AMS-/-19-1994 Your opinions ? Drachentötbär (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with AMS, looks fine to me. Greglocock (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Provided the Jag was stock it is ok. It would be useful to locate the original test. Unfortunately Auto Motor und Sport is not available in my part of the world NealeFamily (talk) 23:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the 349.1kmh test is the car was modified - disconnecting the catalytic converters and raising the rev limiter according to User:81.134.200.21 above. The Bugatti top speed in the list is the unmodified speed, which still meant it qualified as the fastest production car without modification. NealeFamily (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Which brings me to propose this: we should increase the minimum produced of 25 to 30 (the same requirement of GWR), plus regardless if it was sold as it was, the Ruf is still a modified 911 and as I said earlier, most people then acknowledged the F40, Diablo, EB110 and the XJ220 as the fastest car of the time. Donnie Park (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

You are conflating two questions. (1) was Xj220 the fastest at some point, according to our current rules, and (2) should the rules be changed. I suggest you separate the two questions, both have been discussed.Greglocock (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

OK Donnie Park then on what basis is RUF not a manufacturer, when it is recognized as one with its own WMI NealeFamily (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find the original XJ220 test but found 3 other websites quoting values from the test which treat the 347 km/h as factory claim so AMS most likely didn't test it. I found another candidate for 1992 however: French Sport Auto measured 351 km/h for the Bugatti EB 110 SS http://up.autotitre.com/9063478e23.jpg and EVO also states that it managed 351 km/h http://www.evo.co.uk/group-tests/14208/bugatti-eb110-meets-edonis-the-offspring . (I've even read someone quoting 355 km/h tested in Autobild Sportscars 03/2010 but I don't have access to it for verifying) Drachentötbär (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Post 1945 only?

Post 1945 only is ridiculous. There was the 1902 Mercedes 35 hp/40hp driven by William K Vanderbilt II on May 3 1902 between Ablis and Chartres with 111,8 km/h. The Mercedes Simplex 60hp did 120kph shortly after. Superchargers were used in Bugatti and Duesenberg after WWI. The Type 43 was noted at the time as the world's first 100 mph (161 km/h) production car — in fact, it could hit 110 mph (177 km/h) when most fast cars could only reach 70 mph (113 km/h). The 1928-32 Mercedes SSK had a top speed of up to 120 miles per hour (190 km/h), making it the fastest car of its day., SS_Cars_Ltd#SS_100 with 100mph in 1938.

I sort of agree, in that the prewar cars were vastly more interesting than the countach clones we've seen since the 80s. However, the numbers were obtained by dubious means, the cars were modified from stock, and who knows which way the wind was blowing? Look in the talk archives for long winded discussion of this and many other decisions. Greglocock (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

We should drop the dubious 1945 and 1947 entries and start with the 1949 Jaguar XK120 entry instead which really set a new record (124+ mph (200+ km/h)) instead of "post 1945 only"). The list is misleading in its current state, looking at it I thought such speeds weren't reached before 1945. The 1945 entry only lists a manufacturer's top speed claim and the speed in the comments applies to another model. The 1947 entry contradicts its linked Wikipedia site which doesn't know this model or any whose production started in 1947. Information about the time before 1945 would be interesting, depending on how many reliable sources like books are available, maybe in an extra table or a text section, it's at least as relevant as the "Controversies" section. Drachentötbär (talk) 20:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This whole list is ridiculous because its missing a lots of cars, this lists just some random cars from random years with claimed speed- >Typ932 ^T·C 19:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Ruf CTR from 1987 fulfills all current list requirements

1.) Constructed principally for retail sale to consumers, for their personal use, and to transport people on public roads

2.) 29 were made and offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition (see its wiki article for example)

3.) They were street-legal

4.) Road tests with a two-way run were made (for example 211 mph in Road&Track July 1987)

Since the current list rules are fulfilled the car should be added.

79.248.191.180 (talk) 01:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

See the definition for this list, especially "having had 20 or more instances made by the original vehicle manufacturer, " Porsche isn't Ruf. But I am open to persuasion.Greglocock (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

A bit further digging - the two way run averaged 210.7mph [1]. I think it can be accepted.NealeFamily (talk) 23:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

The 29 CRTs weren't built by Porsche, they were built by Ruf. Ruf bought components from Porsche and other sources, combined them with own technology and made the cars. 87.164.102.190 (talk) 17:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree that it might match the requirements, but need someone to check that the test version was a stock version and not modified for the test run. I don't have access to the 1987 article. NealeFamily (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I found a scan of the article here: http://porschecarshistory.com/world-s-fastest-car-1987-road-track-mag/ 87.164.102.190 (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks that's great. How much of a manufacturer is RUF, it sounds like they take a full vehicle and bolt some bits on? That isn't much different to Hennessy is it? What does it say on the VIN plate, porsche or RUF?Greglocock (talk) 03:37, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

RUF made 29 genuine CTR’s with RUF Vins, the tested car is one of them. 93.216.228.87 (talk) 15:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Found the 1988 Nardo test, where the Ruf did 342 km/h: http://porschecarshistory.com/porsche-959-vs-ferrari-f40-vs-amg-6-0-vs-ruf-ctr-automotorsport-25-1988-deutsch/ 93.216.228.87 (talk) 16:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

RUF make cars, they have their own VIN as a manufacturer, not a tuner. I have no idea if they had that status all the way back in 1987, but until something says they didn't, the CTR should remain on the list in place of the F40. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

This is why I think it should not be included. At that time, nearly every books and magazines out there cited the F40 as the fastest car, they also cited the Jaguar XJ220 in 1993, but nothing and nothing on the CTR, why? Its just like the Koenig Competition, another modified sportscar and yet they claimed to modify over 50 Testarossas. Also Guinness World Record cited the XJ220 as well, they also cited the Countach 5000QV in place of the F40; IIRC at the local library, if not go find a library that has a copy of the book dated in around 1994-96 (the F1 was ignored by them). Regarding buying "parts and components from Porsche", it still makes it a Porsche or do we call it a badge engineered Porsche. So therefore I am going to be bold out there and remove your entry. Donnie Park (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Since your bold action caused a side which didn't even follow its own stated rules (Ruf qualifies), I reverted it. We should start a discussion first and get to an agreement before changing this side fundamentally.Drachentötbär (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure this car satisfies the list requirements. It seems, according to Herr Ruf, that only 28 were built, not 29 - he considers the #1 car as a prototype. 22 of the car tested were made and offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition. Six more were custom built as "lightweight" versions, with aluminium and fibreglass bodies instead of the standard steel and these were not offered for general sale. One of the "lightweight" CTRs was sold in the US five years ago, and a good deal of detail about how custom the build was is on the original eBay listing. Robmoss2k (talk) 14:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The car at ebay had a Porsche VIN and wasn't an original CTR. It's not the only ad where people falsely used the name Yellowbird hoping to get more money for their car. Drachentötbär (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

McLaren F1 top speed - need new reference ?

The more I dig into it, the more I think that AMS didn't top speed test the car themselves but were referencing to Autocar numbers. I've only found a small fraction of the test https://img3.picload.org/image/rrlirppg/amsmclarenf1.jpg which shows the acceleration and top speed numbers. (Reasons: are the 0-322 km/h time mentioned which is the 0-200 mph time from Autocar, top speed number is multiple of 10, never seen the number anywhere else in AMS, in later articles online they use the 386 km/h tested at Ehra-Lessien as top speed and in a 2002 article they wrote that 347 km/h was the fastest sports car speed the magazine had measured before.)

The problem is, we don't have anything better:

The 231 mph from Nardo which was there before definitely doesn't qualify (company internal test with an early prototype with different engine and handling with the top speed calculated from the data-recording inside the car).

Autocar exclusively tested the car in 1994; didn't get a top speed and wrote the because of "tire growth" the rev limiter would be hit far above 230 mph. Car and Driver later in a test (performance numbers "courtesy of autocar") wrote that the top speed is at rev-limited at 221 mph. AMS did a compromise with the top speed of 230 mph.

In my opinion the enormous "tire growth" claim by autocar is unrealistic, the magazine biased in their close cooperation with McLaren. The Car and Driver top speed seems realistic. If we assume the Ehra-Lessien 240 mph were made at 8100 rpm, it would have met 7500 at about 222 mph. The Ameritech F1 was capped at 217,7 mph at the same 7500 rpm limit.

Some of the options we have:

1) Leave it as is 2) Take the lower top speed from C&D 3) remove the car from the list 4) ...

Autocar test: https://web.archive.org/web/20071114030711/http://www.mclarenautomotive.com/news/Autocar_December_F1.pdf http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/mclaren/f1-1992-1998

Car and driver: http://media.caranddriver.com/files/mclaren-f1-road-test-review-car-and-driver1994-mclaren-f1-archived-road-test.pdf http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/mclaren-f1-supercar-road-test-review Drachentötbär (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

I think we need to check the Auto, Motor und Sport article of 12/1994 to be sure, before making a change. I don't have access to that magazine. The question is then, what speed has been confirmed for the stock version, From reading your comments it appears that there is no test to confirm its top speed. If this is so then it does not qualify at all for the list. NealeFamily (talk) 23:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Found the AMS article. It's not explicitly stated but I'm quite sure now it's just another report of the same exclusive test and the top speed was estimated. Autocar Journalist Andrew Frankel was named as co-author. Drachentötbär (talk) 14:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Based on that then the Car and Driver test would be the most reliable. NealeFamily (talk) 03:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

It's a more realistic guess but it's still an estimation. I'll change it for now so it's correct until a decision is made. A Japanese source https://www.germancarforum.com/attachments/image-jpg.375962/ says 335 km/h but I can't read Japanese so I don't know if they really tested it. Drachentötbär (talk) 00:06, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Drachentötbär. I think it would be reasonable to accept this speed based on the tests with the limiter removed. I think that a test with the limiter on may be unlikely because of the test with it removed. NealeFamily (talk) 07:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The problem is, we currently don't follow our own rules by accepting an estimated speed for this car so we loose credibility. If we keep this estimation we need at least a short explanation why we do so in the List rules section.Drachentötbär (talk) 23:26, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes Ithink that is a reasonable suggestion as it looks like several manufacturers are doing this so that they can claim to have the fastest production car. Maybe a suggestion is that where a car has demonstrated that it can attain certain speed with a limiter switched off, then we accept the speed at which the limiter is set as being the top speed or something along those lines. NealeFamily (talk) 04:36, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Veyron speed limiter

I think the reasoning behind including the Veyron at 267 mph rather than 257 is poor, and leads to attempted justification for the Agera of allowing cars that are NOT capable of the record top speed to count towards the production total. This can be solved in one elegant stroke by reducing the claimed top speed for the Veyron to 257 and adding a note that removing the speed limiter gives an extra 10 mph. Then we don't have to put up with any nonsense about less powerful engines counting towards the production totals. Waddayerreckon? Greglocock (talk) 22:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the Veyron is justified at the full 267 mph. Most of the cases we discuss are because the production car needs something extra or better to make the record speed. For the Veyron it is the removal of an artificial restriction. Of course we should have a note that most productions cars have that speed limiter.  Stepho  talk  23:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can understand the McLaren F1 does not get to use the record run with its rev limiter raised - but the Veyron Super Sport does. This seems very inconsistent. Can anyone explain why they are treated different? Secondly, the removed Veyron Super Sport speed limiter is a software change - so is the 1MW engine upgrade in the Agera RS. -Why is one software upgrade judged differently than the other? The Agera RS upgrade actually was a choosable customer option, while the Super Sport software upgrade was not. So why is the latter more acceptable, when logically it should be the other way around? Please explain. Sagenode (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2017

New column- engine HP

In view of the rather odd Countach result above, I was just wondering if the addition of an engine hp column would work. It's an easy number to lie about, for earlier cars, but once it got properly defined it became more useful (tho i would say that DIN power measurements were still fudgeable to the ingenious mind) Greglocock (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

We should definitely do it, I suggest an engine column with official HP/kW/PS in the first line and cc and cylinder in the second but other designs work well too.Drachentötbär (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Agera RS

An enthusiastic editor added the following to the top of the lede. It needs cites and production numbers

Koeniggsegg Agera RS just did a new world record for production cars! A Koenigsegg Agera RS driven by Koenigsegg factory driver, Niklas Lilja, has completed high speed runs in Pahrump, NV, today. 4th November 2017.

The average speed achieved, measuring runs in both directions, was 444.6 km/h (277.9 mph). This is a new world record for a production vehicle. All data recorded and verified on site by Racelogic.

Cheers

Greg Locock

The language is over the top but for once the claim seems to be true. http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a13301712/koenigsegg-agera-rs-speed-record/ They are still waiting for official confirmation.  Stepho  talk  22:10, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Trouble is, the list requires a minimum of 25 units. Koenigsegg planned to build 25, which it claims it sold and built. BUT, there's two engine options, a pure 98 octane option with 1160hp and a E85 compatible "Megawatt package". Not sure how this affects production figures. Alguemimportante (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Good point. I would think that the 25 units would have to be to the same mechanical specification (ignoring such differences as trim, colour, fluffy dice, 8-track) as the record breaking car. It gets hard when Guinness lists a car that we reject (not clear if this will be true for the Agera yet). With the number of exceptions growing, we might have add a section for popular claims not included on this list (eg Hennessey Venom GT for one direction and possibly the Agera for number of units built).  Stepho  talk  01:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I can't see how different engine alternatives would change the production numbers. Take Volvo XC90 as an example, with 5 different engines alternatives and different equipment packages on top of that you can get close to hundred combination. But in the end all is reported as one model, this is confirmed when you look at the first section on the VIN numbers.Morkul (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

What if you bought a Volvo XC90 because somebody told you the XC90 could do 0-100 km/h in 7.3 seconds? Except the diesel version you bought does it in 11.8 seconds. Unhappy! Or somebody told you it could do 10.5 L/100 km but the V8 version you bought does 19.9 l/100 km. Engine makes a huge difference. So does weight and aerodynamics. If these differ then the car is not capable of reaching the world record speed. And if it is not capable of reaching that speed then it's not the same thing.  Stepho  talk  11:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Every single car out there have different option, including engine and still is the same model. When buying a new car the engine options is one of the first thing a seller asked you about so if you as a buyer miss that information you shouldn't buy new cars. If this was so strange as you say why do all cars have different engine options without the manufacturer are sued? I know why, because it general practise. But perhaps more important is that FIA and Guinness book of records don't count engine options as a separate models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morkul (talk • contribs) 14:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Cars with different engines are handled as different cars in this list, especially if the horsepower output differs, else we would have to change the list a lot like adding the Countach LP5000s because of how fast a factory tuned customer car was and other examples.

The Koenigsegg RS doesn't belong on this site because of WP:NOTNEWS. Koenigsegg wrote an unconfirmed short message and we sell it as fact here. The entries should be removed until the speed is officially confirmed and we know that there are 25 cars with the same power output. Drachentötbär (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Even Guinness book of record allow factory tuned cars, that why Bugatti Veyron got their record approved. So as I wrote above I fail to see why this list, that follows other Guinness guidelines would not follow this one.

I do however agree about the Koenigsegg Agera RS production numbers, until they are confirmed it should be removed.Morkul (talk) 02:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

While there is a question mark over its elibilty for this list, I have shifted it to the Production car speed record#Difficulties with claims section.  Stepho  talk  20:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Full disclosure - I work for Koenigsegg Automotive.

I was there in Nevada when we broke the record with the RS. If you're waiting for Guinness to verify this record, then don't hold your breath. We're not asking them to. If Guinness recognises this record, it's because they decided to. Guinness is a brand. A marketing exercise. They charge more than we can afford to come out and observe the things we'd do regardless of whether they were there or not. We measure our performance using industry-standard measurement techniques. In this instance, it was Racelogic and we had the guy from Racelogic come out to fit the device and confirm the data that was captured. We had our own device from AiM in the car, too, in order to provide a second source if the Racelogic system didn't work. It wasn't needed. And the readings from the AiM system matched the readings from Racelogic. If you need external citations, Jonothan Klein from Automobile Magazine was also present during the runs. His stories from that magazine are first-hand. He was a witness. In fact, there were about 200 witnesses there that day, including me.

With regards to production numbers, 25 Agera RSs have been sold and the last one is on the production line right now. In addition, there are three special edition RSs called 'Agera Final'. One of those has already been produced (shown at the Geneva Motor Show 2016) and the other two are in production at the moment. Your reasoning that a different engine option means it's a different car is incorrect. These are all Agera RSs and the engine is fundamentally the same whether its the Megawatt package or not. The customer makes the choice as to which RS engine they want but ask them what car they're buying and they'll tell you it's an Agera RS.

By your reasoning, a car with a suspension option is a different car. Have you checked all the cars on your list to see how many customers ordered cars with suspension upgrades? Or aero packages? Because if you think these elements don't contribute to a car's ability to reach top speed, then you're incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.4.107.250 (talk) 18:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

It's only wikipedia. What's the top speed with the lesser engine package fitted? I'm somewhat sympathetic to your reasoning, but I'll wait and see what others think. I'd usually improve the top speed by eliminating the wings, probably not what your customers want to hear when they spend up big for an aero package. Greglocock (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

"It's only wikipedia" - OK, but isn't this supposed to be the people's encyclopedia? Shouldn't it reflect the reality of (in this instance) the work that's been done by a company to achieve a record if that record is run according to accepted standards? This is supposed to be a resource that records credible claims without the involvement of money changing hands for a marketing fee. To us, that's important. Wikipedia may be more important as a central record than you think.

Here are our claims on the Agera RS and its eligibility:

(1) The Agera RS has been crash tested, emissions tested and tested every other way in order to become a fully homologated production car that is available for sale, worldwide, with a Koenigsegg VIN. We have the homologation documentation to prove it. Homologation with a manufacturer's VIN should be the ultimate determinant of whether something is a production car, not some arbitrary number that has its origins in racing (FIA) rather than public availability. The artificial number of 25 cars gears this list towards large manufacturers that can subsidise the production of fast cars with sales of smaller cars and SUV's. It penalises small manufacturers that innovate and dedicate their entire existence towards pushing the performance envelope and building the best performing cars in the world.

(2) Regardless of the irrelevancy of that number, the fact remains that the Agera RS is being sold in a volume of 25 units, with three additional RS's called the 'Final' edition. The last of those is on the production line right now.

(3) The Megawatt engine choice is available to all customers and all cars can be retrofitted with the Megawatt engine at any time. The choice belongs to the customer at the time of the order and can be altered at any time the customer wishes. All of those 25+3 cars are Agera RS's. They don't have a different model name, number or VIN.

(4) The exclusion of a car based on an option (in our case) but without noting the options available or chosen on other models in the list is a case of inconsistent treatment. I am not calling their place on this list into question at all by asking this, but... Do you think the Veyron SS had no options availiable? Were all of the Ruf cars you cite built exactly the same? Would any variations, however small, aid performance? It's never been looked at, I'll bet. You're looking at it with regard to us because we were transparent enough to tell you about it. Now we're being penalised for that.

(5) The record runs were conducted using industry-standard measurement techniques, with third party witnesses involved in the measurement of data and telling the story of what happened that day. Everything we have ever stated publicly with regard to performance is measured using industry-standard measurement techniques. We have a well-deserved reputation for being the most transparent company in the market when it comes to talking about landmark events and activities, either good or bad (for reference, see our post on the crash at the Nurburgring). We put our hands up when we make an error, but we also think we have earned our place at the production car table through some very hard work over a lot of years. ~~Steven Wade (Koenigsegg Automotive AB)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.31.164.79 (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

With regard to the Megawatt engine being an option, let me quote opinions on this page under the heading Options - How we should treat them

- "If a model has an option that increases top speed, do we require a source stating that at least 20 models must have that option fitted? that would seem silly." - SpaceCowboy

- "I think you raise a good point so I have highlighted the question. If we accept the various options, then they must comply with the minimum number and then finding a reliable source could become much more challenging. Are models with different options treated differently under the VIN system (No, that's what option codes are for)? Also are the options fitted during production or post production? (1MW in the Agera is factory fitted)" - NealeFamily, with insertions in parentheses by me.

- "My thoughts on the whole process are: If an option is available on a certain model, then we should only consider the amount of models sold, with the possibility of having that option. If a specific version is made available, then we have to consider the amounts of that actual version sold. ie. the Porsche 911 (991) Carrera S was available with the factory option of a powerkit, that increase power, and models with that powerkit fitted saw a top speed increase from 188mph to 191mph. We should consider the top speed of the 911 (991) Carrera S as 191mph, because the option was available to all purchasers of the model. That way of dealing with suitability for this list, would make the suitability of certain cars less ambiguous and therefore easier for us editors. If something has been roadtested with a certain speed, and it has factory fitted and street legal options, then I think it's fine." - SpaceCowboy, again.

- "the rule would be if the option was fitted at manufacturing then it counts and the number of cars is based on the number produced the could have the option rather than actually have it?" - NealeFamily, again

- There is some dissent from Dennis Bratland, who says "Versions, options, modes or sub-models that don't strictly meet all the criteria should be listed elsewhere. On another table, or another list with looser criteria, so that cars in that group are ranked against others that are just as free to ignore regulations" but it should be noted, again, that the Agera RS is fully homologated and road legal. It doesn't ignore regulations.

- "I think if you can tick the box when you order the car it should count." - GregLocock

According to the majority opinion on your own discussion page, the availability of an option doesn't stop a model being a model. It doesn't create a new class of model or a new designation. The 1MW engine is a *factory* option that's available to all customers at the time of their order, and can be retrofitted to all Agera RS models if a customer wishes. It has the same 5 litre V8 twin-turbo configuration, the same block, pistons, exhaust, etc. ~~Steven Wade (Koenigsegg Automotive AB)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 11:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Steven. I should mention a couple of things before I get into the main point. First, I think the Agera RS is awesome and fully deserving of its claim. I would love to own one but sadly it's out of my reach. Secondly, Wikipedia tries to strike a balance between flexibility (at the risk of changing with the wind) and strictly following our own rules (at the risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater). When things seem wrong then discussions can often either confirm the rules or find the new balance.

There is no doubt in my mind that the RS is the fastest production car. I've even said so in the Koenigsegg and Koenigsegg Agera articles. However, this article defined production as meaning 25 units being made by the manufacturer. An arbitrary count but how else do get production cars while weeding out the tuner cars and manufacture one-off specials. I've seen so many racing categories where the rules for production sedan cars were twisted like pretzels. Eg minimum weight of the 6 cylinder taxi stripper version but maximum engine capacity of the V8 version, making 25 race cars but counting taxis for the require homologation count. Since the big boy racing organisations can't get it right then we probably can't either. So we just choose some reasonable rules and try to stick with them. When the rules stop working then we'll adjust them.

Same model/VIN doesn't mean much. I can point to plenty of other cars on the road where 6 cylinder taxis share the same model and VIN as the hairy chested GT models. It just means they are related. If we use counting as one of the criteria then we should only count versions that are substantially the same as the actual record breaking car. No fair claiming the version with 10% less power is the same as the record breaker. However, this discussion may remove counting as a criteria. We'll see where the discussion leads.

We really want to strip out the one-off specials. Even when from the manufacturer they are not representative of what a customer can buy and put on the road. The RS is not in this category but by removing the count we might let one-off specials in. How do we keep the specials out while allowing true production models?

Some of the cars currently in the list do not fulfil our own rules. That's the downside of volunteer editors. Once we work out our rules from this discussion then we will do some housecleaning - either removing cars or doing better research.  Stepho  talk  23:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Stepho. I'm encouraged by your belief that the Agera RS is a worthy addition to the list, although it's a bit frustrating to know that that hasn't happened (yet)

I disagree with your notion that the VIN is irrelevant. The question of a proper manufacturer VIN, when combined with other questions, is very valuable. One important element of being a 'production car' is that it's produced by a manufacturer for sale to the public. That requires homologation and a VIN. A tuner can't produce a VIN, for example. Or if they can, then they've moved on to being a manufacturer (e.g. RUF). The VIN is one form of proof that the seller of the vehicle is the manufacturer of the vehicle (or their authorised representative). The work that we have to do in order to homologate a car for sale in a certain region is mind boggling. In the USA, for example, we have to do exactly the same crash tests, emissions tests, etc to sell a handful of cars as what Ford has to do to sell boatloads of Focuses (Focii??).

VIN aside, however..... If you're looking to remove the arbitrary count number - which I personally think would be a good idea as it penalises genuine small manufacturers - then I'd suggest the following... Is the car sold by the manufacturer (or their authorised dealers) to end users as a road legal vehicle and in the same state of trim used for the record attempt?

Such criteria eliminates the tuners. One-offs? I'd be interested to know how this list would substantially change if a manufacturer was proven to have gone to the trouble of homologating a vehicle to be road legal and available for sale on a one-off basis. I don't think there would be many. The money involved in producing such a vehicle and homolgating it for sale is huge.

My end game, however, is to persuade you all that the Agera RS genuinely belongs on this list. It IS homologated for sale, it IS sold by Koenigsegg and our authorised dealers as a road-legal vehicle in the state of trim used for the record run and it DOES have a Koenigsegg VIN. It is/was not specially tuned. We don't do dealer options. Everything is factory fitted. It is not a one-off. The discussion about options, above, indicates the contradictory thoughts and opinions among editors here but the prevailing thought seemed to be that if it's available on the standard options list, it counts. With 25 vehicles made (+3 in the 'Final' series) it also satisfies your volume requirement.

Thanks for your input. I just hope we can progress the discussion quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 12:11, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Steven, at http://www.koenigsegg.com/koenigsegg-agera-rs-achieves-multiple-production-car-world-speed-records/ the top speed is listed as '446.97 km/h (277.87 mph)'. The metric conversion doesn't quite add up. Should it be 446.97 km/h (277.73 mph) or 447.19 km/h (277.87 mph) ? Can you ask somebody at the company to correct it. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  20:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

447.19 is correct. The number out of the Racelogic datalogger was the mph number. The conversion error is mine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 11:44, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

959

In the worlds fastest car 1987 article linked above the Porsche 959 comfort version (called deluxe version there) was also tested, it made 197 mph so its top speed should be upgraded from 195 to 197 mph.

The text in the 959 comments column needs an upgrade, not all but 6 were comfort versions, among the 959s built were also 29 performance-enhanced sport versions with 515 HP for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_GDnf6KoKZk 79.248.172.76 (talk) 01:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

youtube is not a reliable source also only road not race or tuner versions are allowed NealeFamily (talk) 23:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

On the wikipage other sources are used, the 959s are no racing cars and Porsche is no tuner. Please address things directly instead of indirectly so it's less unclear what you want to say. If you really think the vid is fake: http://www.porsche.com/germany/aboutporsche/pressreleases/germany/?pool=germany&id=361844 93.216.246.242 (talk) 20:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Take a look at Talk:List of fastest production cars/Archive 1#Porsche 959 Sport which outlines much of the debate around the two respective models and why the lower speed version was chosen. Hopefully this clarifies the reason for the lower speed. As to the use of You Tube or the Porsche website - take a look at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The object is to try to reduce or eliminate bias as much as possible.

One of the difficulties with this type of list is the lack of a single definition for a Production car. After much debate the current set of rules included a 20 car minimum, although there is argument for raising it to a higher number. NealeFamily (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The 959 "Sportversion" is not a stripped down version with extra tuning, is the normal version with standard equipment. The "Komfortversion" is the "Sportversion" with supplementary equipment added. http://porschecarshistory.com/wp-content/old/959/02/07.jpg It's the same car (most magazines didn't make a difference either), the little difference in Top Speed is only because of the second mirror increasing the drag. Therefore the speed measured with the "Sportversion" should be accepted into the top speed column. This will also save us the discussion if 20 of them were built, the old claim on this site that all but 6 were comfort versions has been proven wrong. (The 515 hp version shouldn't be accepted however since it wasn't built in 1986 and we have the Ruf CTR as faster car since 1987.) Drachentötbär (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Any chance of an article in English? It's hard to understand if they should be treated as different trim levels or different versions. Porsche make it hard with all their different versions, packages, etc... Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

As with Spacecowboy, I don't know German. If the Sportversion was sold in its final form then it probably counts as there seem to be enough made. Others may wish to comment. NealeFamily (talk) 07:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Options - how should we treat them

It makes me wonder what is an option, what is a version and how we should deal with relevant cars. I was under the impression that AMG offered to remove the speed limiter (at least the first stage of the speed limited) on certain models. Porsche offer sports packs increasing power and their chrono plus thing, certainly increases some aspects of performance. If a model has an option that increases top speed, do we require a source stating that at least 20 models must have that option fitted? that would seem silly. In the same way the Nurburgring times are sometimes based on cars with factory option tires. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you raise a good point so I have highlighted the question. If we accept the various options, then they must comply with the minimum number and then finding a reliable source could become much more challenging. Are models with different options treated differently under the VIN system? Also are the options fitted during production or post production? NealeFamily (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

haha, it's becoming more complex. We have to consider factory options VS dealer options as well. My thoughts on the whole process are: If an option is available on a certain model, then we should only consider the amount of models sold, with the possibility of having that option. If a specific version is made available, then we have to consider the amounts of that actual version sold. ie. the Porsche 911 (991) Carrera S was available with the factory option of a powerkit, that increase power, and models with that powerkit fitted saw a top speed increase from 188mph to 191mph. We should consider the top speed of the 911 (991) Carrera S as 191mph, because the option was available to all purchasers of the model. That way of dealing with suitability for this list, would make the suitability of certain cars less ambiguous and therefore easier for us editors. If something has been roadtested with a certain speed, and it has factory fitted and street legal options, then I think it's fine. Perhaps having a source to say it's an official option, rather than a case of "if you pay us, we will build you anything" would be best.

Dealer options should be viewed as modifications, I can't remember the dealer but there was a UK mk1 RX7 dealer option that involved fitting a turbo, this is no different from any other post production modification and should be dealt with in the same way.

Having said all that, we have a very limited number of cars that we have to deal with, and perhaps with good editor cooperation, we can deal with all proposed entries on the list individually, gaining consensus via discussion and ensuring that we follow the spirit of the production car criteria, in addition to specific rules. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Never a dull moment. So let me see - the rule would be if the option was fitted at manufacturing then it counts and the number of cars is based on the number produced the could have the option rather than actually have it? NealeFamily (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

That's what I feel would be good. Not based on any logic, just it feels fair. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Just to see if our thinking is ok I would like to see what User:Greglocock and User:Dennis Bratland think of the idea as they frequently patrol this article.and have strong automotive backgrounds NealeFamily (talk) 07:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I would interpret the number produced narrowly -- the actual numbers that go that fast, not counting other versions that don't. And only configurations that are themselves street legal. If a car were to disable emissions controls at the push of a button to go faster (a selectable mode something like that in the Volkswagen emissions scandal), we should only consider the mode that is street legal. Many exhausts have a neck restrictor that can be easily removed, exceeding noise rules but letting the exhaust flow more freely, and Ducatis often come with a track-only exhaust.

Versions, options, modes or sub-models that don't strictly meet all the criteria should be listed elsewhere. On another table, or another list with looser criteria, so that cars in that group are ranked against others that are just as free to ignore regulations. There should be some FIA classes for "lightly modified" or "slightly less than street legal" cars, similar to the FIM 1000 P-P, where you basically take off a bike's lights and mirrors, change the pipe and tune the ECU, simple DIY mods rather than re-engineering, building a real racer. The importance of leaning on a FIA/FIM class is that it isn't a criteria made up by us editors, but one that we can say was devised independently by reliable sources. We should look hard for such list criteria, and if we can't find them, then rely on rules something like List of films considered the worst, where each entry has a high-quality expert source saying it belongs on the list. So each non-qualifying car would have been nominated as "world's fastest" by somebody reliable, not just us. Otherwise we'll end up ticking off all the reasons why the Ford Pinto isn't on the list.

By the way, the guidelines MOS:NOTED and MOS:SELFREF says we shouldn't be directly addressing reader, instructing them to go read the talk page to understand our editorial reasoning, or referring to our articles/talk pages in the article. It's helpful now because I like inviting more input here, but eventually we should remove links to the talk page from the article body, and rephrase the "Cars excluded from the list together with basic reason" table so that it is defined by its own criteria, rather than existing as a byproduct of our editing decision-making process. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I think if you can tick the box when you order the car it should count. There is a problem with dealer fit options vs factory fit. I know nothing about how VINs are generated. Sorry not much help, I've never really got involved with that side of production.Greglocock (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Dennis I took a look at the FIA's rules. Series production cars fall under Category 1.

Category 1

Cars of which the production of a certain number of identical examples (see definition of this word hereinafter) within a certain period of time has been verified at the request of the manufacturer, and which are destined for normal sale to the public (see this expression). Cars must be sold in accordance with the homologation form.

• Group N Production Cars

At least 2500 identical units must have been produced in 12 consecutive months and homologated by the FIA in Touring Cars(Group A). (Appendix J Article 254 2016)

• Group A Touring Cars

At least 2500 identical examples of these cars must have been manufactured in 12 consecutive months. (Appendix J Article 255 2016)

• Group R Touring Cars or Large Scale Series Production Cars

• Group E‐I Free Formula Racing Cars

Up until 1990 in FIA puplicaton Appendix J 1990 (Art 251-256) page 189 there was also

Group B sports cars – at least 200 must have been built in the last 12 months

(Appendix J 1990 (Art 251-256) page 189

I am not sure if we want to go this low, or alternatively we could go with Guinness' stated 50 as being a minimum number, which would put it out of range of a number of spurious claims and be an almost reliable source. The FIA definition (other than numbers) would generally match the lists current requirements NealeFamily (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

The next question is, is it hard to find complete lists of cars in these classes? And for how many years has this class existed in the same form? The one we'd most like to have is one that's been around a long time, and is easy to find the data for, especially published, objective top speed tests. Then creating and maintaining the list becomes a fairly mechanical task, with little need for editorial negotiation or creative thought. A list like that should be last longer than us, and remain in the same form no matter who comes along to maintain it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

FIA rules evolved over time - Group B started with a 25 car requirement, but changed in the end to 200 cars. Now there is no Group B and Groups N and A require the cars to have 4 seats as a minimum. I do think we need to hook on to some outside parameters based on outside sources and think that the overall definition for Category 1 cars fits, but the numbers are more difficult to pin down. As in past discussion anywhere between the old FIA 25 car requirement or the 50 car Guinness requirement would be reasonable. At the most the 200 car requirement for Group B would also fit. The most recent known requirement is Guinness' and we reliable sources for there numbers. It's Guinness' application of its rules that seems questionable NealeFamily (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Although it seems highly immoral to tailor criteria to favor certain content (ie. what car makes the list), how any changes regarding production numbers affect our list, (and how they are perceived by readers) should be considered. If our criteria changed, and that resulted in the Veyron SS not being listed as the fastest car (and not having various Hennessey/Koenigsegg/SSC models on there), would the article lose some credibility? We have to stop carefully, as our job should not be making some academic criteria for a list, our job should be making a damn fine article, on what is already a very interesting topic. One (possibly insane) consideration is to list any car that claims to be a production model and list the proven top speed. We could explain other organization's criteria for production cars, and give the details for production numbers (and anything else relevant) in the existing table, and let the readers digest this information and come to their own conclusions. I personally view the Hennessey Venom as a modified Elise, that is not a production model, but various Koenigsegg models as legitimate production models, that is the conclusion I would come to, with a "free for all" list. I would view the Ruf CTR as a modified 911, and the F40 as the legit top speed record holder for that era. More than anything else, a "free for all" would allow a lot more space for truly interesting content. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 08:46, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Which ever way you look at it there will always need to be a definition for the lists content. Having slept on it my conclusion is as FIA no longer defines production sports cars (Group B's) and the only organisation that still does is Guinness then their definition would take the definition out of the range of guidelines MOS:NOTED and MOS:SELFREF. The one problem I have with their definition is that apart from the number of cars, we don't know why they allowed the Veyron World Record Edition to retain its title when removing the limiter on the other versions would constitute a modification. Maybe some nice person at Bugatti or Guinness could enlighten us.

Anyway - if we did accept this then the only change in criteria is a 50 car requirement with the rest remaining the same, as far as I can tell. That would result in RUF being replaced on the list.

Just a footnote FIA Category II includes Group CN Production Sports Cars, but the Category is defined as Cars built as single examples and destined solely for competition. So is outside the Series Production Cars used in this list NealeFamily (talk) 23:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I have a similar issue with Guinness criteria. Their rules seem to be highly flexible, subjective and ambiguous. I see no logical reason as to why the they Veyron SS World Edition was disqualified and then reinstated. Also, although their site has no content for the production car 0-300km/h record, from what I remember they did at one time award it to Hennessey. I have huge doubts as to the credibility of Guinness as a reliable source, in regards to classifying a production car, they seem to operate on whims (and possibly lobbying from Bugatti?) Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:15, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Guinness seem entirely susceptible to all sorts of pressure, often commercial. I was involved with a dispute on another world record http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2015/10/microsoft-lab-sets-new-record-for-the-worlds-quietest-place-399444 which quite frankly ignored good experimental technique, and seemed to be designed to publicise the owner of the facility and the people making the measurement. Specifically with the fastest car record they seem to blow in the wind. Now, the wiki answer is that they are a reliable source. But that's rubbish, they don't stick to their own ruules if it means more publicity. Greglocock (talk) 06:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok if Guinness is an unreliable source then the next step back is FIA's Category 1 Group B from 1990 - that requires 200 cars made within a 12 month period, but it looks like their definition includes the idea that if you produce a particular model with a whole lot of different sub-types the sum total of all the sub-types makes up the 200. I am not sure if my interpretation is correct so I am open to correction. FIA also allow a range of specified modifications. The problem we would have is, as the FIA are no longer assessing which cars qualify, we would still need to interpret their rules to determine which cars qualify. Darn - I feel like there is hole in my bucket dear Liza. NealeFamily (talk) 08:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

This makes Guinness reinstating the Veyron SS WRE look even worse... https://www.yahoo.com/autos/bp/265-7-mph-hennessey-venom-gt-claims-fastest-195530561.html "All five World Record Editions built were sold with its restrictor in place." and Guinness were fully aware. Which makes the WRE seem like something they specially modified for the record, and then removed the modification in order to sell it. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 09:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Except I think we've consensed that suppressing electronic speed limiters is OK? If not where did we end up? Devils advocate argument - JimBob modifies 30 fast cars, gets new VIN plates for them. Therefore he's a manufacturer. JimBob reprograms the ECU to remove the speed limiter from his prototype (one of the 30) and sets a good two way max speed record. Then he installs the original ECU and sells the car. Is he a contender for this list? Greglocock (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

The way I see it, if it was street legal when it hit the record speed, and if removing the speed limiter is an option available at the time of purchase, then yes. I'm not sure how easy it would be get a new VIN. I was under the impression that the Hennessey Venom had a Lotus VIN and had to be registered as a Lotus. I'm guessing that to get your own name on a VIN, that you would have to go through type approval. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

So to conclude: A factory fitted option that complies with regulations and is offered to all customers at the time of the purchase of the vehichle does not exclude the factory optioned cars from the total model car count.Sagenode (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Also the removal of the speed limit on Veyron Super Sport is not an option from Bugatti so this car should not be allowed on the list.Sagenode (talk) 08:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

VIN numbers - here are the rules for them in the European Union

Types of vehicles concerned

This Regulation applies to vehicles of category M, N and O, namely:

•motor vehicles designed and built for the carriage of passengers and having at least four wheels; •motor vehicles intended and built for the transportation of goods and having at least four wheels; •trailers (including semi-trailers). Requirements for the manufacturer’s statutory plate

Each vehicle must be fitted with a statutory plate that shall consist (at the manufacturer’s discretion) either of:

•a rectangular sheet of metal; •or a rectangular self-adhesive label. The manufacturer’s statutory plate must contain certain items of information, including:

•the manufacturer’s company name; •the vehicle type-approval number; •the vehicle identification number; •the technically admissible laden masses. Requirements for the vehicle identification number (VIN)

The manufacturer must affix a VIN on each vehicle and ensure its traceability for 30 years. The VIN consists of:

•the world manufacturer identifier (WMI); •the vehicle descriptor (VDS); •the vehicle indicator section (VIS). It must be affixed in an accessible position and be visible. It must be stamped so as not to disappear under normal conditions of use of the vehicle.

Provisions concerning EC type-approval

The vehicle manufacturer must submit an application for EC type-approval to the competent authority. The application must contain certain items of information, in particular:

•the brand and type of vehicle; •the position and method of attachment of the manufacturer’s statutory plate; •the location of the VIN.

If the competent authority deems that the vehicles complies with all requirements concerning the manufacturer’s statutory plate and the vehicle identification number of motor vehicles, it shall grant EC type-approval and issue a type-approval number pursuant to Directive 2007/46/EC.

WMI numbers are allocated by SAE International. NealeFamily (talk) 22:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

For me cars with different engines are different cars, hp define a car. I'd accept all other modifications which keep the cars recognizable as long as the cars stay street-legal and can be driven outside the speed test this way on public roads. Drachentötbär (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

For me, that would be an entirely different list. I wanna see something that you can buy from an official dealer. For example - this looks kinda stock. Take the stickers off and not many would notice it... [[2]] Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think the list would change much, two top speeds would change because of accepting the rev limiter. Most top speed runs change so much that they loose street-legality or alter the engine.

The linked car had an engine modification, so I wouldn't accept it. I'd accept its interior lightweight modifications since weight is important for acceleration but doesn't really matter for top speed, in the Road & Track contest they did successful top speed runs with a journalist on board. I see no big aerodynamic outside modification, only the tires are different which I'd accept.

"accept all other modifications which keep the cars recognizable" might be too tolerant, but it's hard to find a precise definition. There are often slight unremarkable changes during a production run and some little things like changing wheel rim and tires or adjusting ride height can be done easily (and are often done by buyers), affect little and are often not even mentioned in tests, it's impossible to proof that the tested car is exactly like the other production cars, so some tolerance will help. Demanding street-legality will disallow major changes.Drachentötbär (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Drachentötbär if you're interested, why not make a "fastest street legal non production car" list? It's an idea that I've been toying with, it could have all of the tuner cars, limited production models like Koenigsegg, modified by owner cars, and street legal racers. If it's street legal, and has a reliable source for top speed, it would be ok. 06:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Spacecowboy420 (talk)

If you decide to make such a page I can help searching the web for information.

Why would you put Koenigsegg on a "fastest street legal "non" production car" list when they are fully homologated production cars sold through a world wide dealer network, series produced and design for road use compliance in most markets?! That would not make sense at all and I think all Koenigsegg car owner would disagree, as most of them went in to their local Koenigsegg dealers and bought their Koenigsegg production cars homologated and ready for road use with registration. Putting Koenigsegg on a "non production car" list would be the same as knowingly twist the truth and make it look like Koenigsegg car owners did not buy what they actually bought. The curators of this list need to wake up and smell the coffe that the present rules are unfair, illogical, directly wrong and therefore needs to be updated. If nothing else, just to treat Koenigsegg and its car owners fairly and to give the general public a reasonable ideas what is actually going on - isnt this what wikipedia is about?! A production Agera RS presently holds the fastest production car spot in the world according to 3rd party measurements and this claim is not only accepted by hundred of the worlds largest automotive publication and most influential journalists and experts - they manifest it! - just google it! Not to including the Agera RS on this list, makes the curators/controllers of this list look incompetent and this list in itself becomes irrelevant and "cought in its own bubble" Sagenode (talk) 09:18, 15 November 2017

image out of date.

In regards to the Veyron SS World Record Edition, not being classed as a production car for the purposes of the Wikipedia list, this image is no longer accurate. It shows a top speed in excess of 260mph (I'm guessing 268), so I have removed it until such time as it can be remade showing the 258mph top speed of the "production model" 06:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)Spacecowboy420 (talk)

This diagram should be updated to include the Agera RS. If someone is used to working with this diagram - please update. Thank you.Sagenode (talk) 14:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Definition of the minimum requirements for being production car

Obviously here, there are many people who has strong or biased opinion towards Hennessey, and even call Hennessey Venom GT a kit-car? Just because it is from "Tuner House"? Stop being so aggressive like this, because here is the discussion not war, you can go to anywhere else to unleash your biased hatred to any car or anyone you want. The minimum requirement of being qualified to be "Production Car" is suggested by Guinness in 2014, because this institution created "World Fastest Production Car" title, so any hyper car who wants to pass the requirements of Guinness have to meet the rules of these 1. Record vehicle has to be made 30 units or more. 2. Top speed run must be done with standard engine specification. 3. Top speed run must be done in Two directions, the average number of maximum speed will be taken as Official Top Speed verified by Guinness. Both Venom GT and Agera RS can't meet these requirements, and both runs are solo runs, aren't they? So, both top speed runs were not done by third party, so now, the "World Fastest Production Car" title holder is still Bugatti Veyron Super Sport, any problem with that? Savitar Shinoh (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Obviously you have not read the the entire talk thread on this list. First of all Guinness is a beer company that only proclaim - Guinness(beer) World Records. Guinness is not the authority on World Records - They are only Guinness Worlds Records. To put it into context. Budweiser could any day start Buweisers World Records and set up their rules, comities, fees, promotions etc and this would be the same thing. The FIA is considered a far more serious "record keeper/scrutineer" than Guinness. Still the FIA does not have an "exclusive" on world records. Boil it down and world records are in "the eye of the beholder". What is different today compared to past times, is that now there are very good tools to measure speed etc from very reliable sources, for example like Racelogic and others, That use trustworthy methods of measuring for example speed. This equipment is also approved by Guinness for speed records. OF course a record becomes more trustworthy if an independet third party conducted the meaurement and datalogging etc. Even more so if there are several independant parties, like with the Agera RS runs - both Stalker Radar and Racelogic measured the speed independantly. Furthermore to make a speed pass in both direction of the same stretch of road, takes out other question marks, such as road angle/condition - wind influences etc. Finally the specification of the vehichle, depending on the record type is important to establish. So, to boil it down - A record is only as good as its data, independancy and transparancy. Guinness or not is completely irrelevant as described above. Furthermore Guinness definition of a production car seems to vary a lot and to be completely inconsistent. Furthermore Guinness seems to change opinion if a powerful company ask them to change their opinion. Furthermore how "neutral" do you think this beer company is, when they ask the record takers for money in order to promote thier records. I think it is time to consider Guinness record holding abilities as obsolete, until they change their behaviour. Instead we should focus on how the "records" are performed and if they can be considered credible from 3rd party point of view and the status of the actual vehicle tested. Sagenode (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Given the above, please stop edit war:ing the list according to how you interpret the Guinness "rule book": it is irrelevant for this list. So therefore also please stop changing the 25 car limit to 30 on the list as this goes directly against all consensus on this list and will only result in escalation.Sagenode (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

For the record, my reverts of the article that restored the 30 cars definition was in error and was unintentional. I thought I was reverting back to the 25 car version. My apologies for my error.

In the past I would have been in favour of following Guinness - if it works for a large company like them then it should also work for us. However, there are 2 points against following them.

1. Wikipedia has no compunction to follow any external organisation except for the laws of wherever the WP servers are hosted (United States, I think). Just because Guinness chose some rules doesn't mean that we also have to follow them. It's convenient if WP agrees with Guinness but it's not strictly required. The rules for WP are set by a consensus of WP editors, not Guinness.
2. I found out recently that Guinness accepts some records only if they receive payment. Which means some manufacturers can actually perform a feat that obeys all Guinness 's rules, is witnessed by a suitable independent body but still not count as a world record unless they pay. That makes Guinness inherently untrustworthy.

Again, apologies for my misguided reverts. Please let's continue the discussion.  Stepho  talk  09:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Latest backwards and forward on main list discussion

The last few days there have ben a lot of backwards and forwards on the main list. There was a contributor - Savitar Shinoh - who threw in 30 cars minimum and that only Guinness rules apply, which goes against the views and consensus of all discussions I have managed to find in the talk section. In the meantime I posted comments in 4 or 5 threads that still remains unaswered in the talk section several days ago. Given that no one has bothered to adress/answer my ideas/comments/questions in the talk section, I can only see them as accepted points of views by the contributors active on this talk page - as I have to assume someone would otherwise give input or questions them. Furthermore I truly believe my point of view corrulates much better with the "rules" of this list than the ones Savitar Shinoh promotes by "spamming" Guinness and 30 cars ever other minute, which is the version Stepho-wrs keeps reverting back to. Given this I will keep on reverting back to my edit until something potentially more apropriate comes a long. Hope the discussion continues. I believe Stepho-wrs who is reverting back, several time, to Savitar Shinohs edit because he is not fully reading it and therefore by misstake removes my input and keep 30 cars and Guinness rules instead. At the same time Stepho-wrs keeps asking me to dish it out in the talk section, but still he leaves my comments/arguments unanswered there. It is a mystery to me.Sagenode (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that it appears that user:Stepho-wrs is not aware of what he is reverting, and I have previously pointed this out to him on his talk page. I have now done so a second time, pointed out that you have indeed attempted to discuss his edits on the talk page without any response from him, and left an informal edit warring warning. Do not continue to revert him. Meters (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there is no reason Wikipedia should be using Guiness World Records' definition of what a production car i to determine article content. Meters (talk) 01:50, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Apologies, I thought I was reverting back to the original - unfortunately I was actually unintentionally reverting back to the wrong one.

Sagenode, I have not intended to ignore you but was too busy trying to revert the edits of multiple people on contentious issues on this and other pages. My limited time was thus wasted and I could not contribute to every aspect of a complex discussion.

Can we all agree to leave the article in its original state while we discuss potential solutions.  Stepho  talk  09:28, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Great that the missunderstanding is gone. There is of course no "original version" to go back to - just earlier versions. Since you were the only one who reverted back (by misstake) the a "wrong" version and the present hopefully makes more sense to the general opinion on this list and reflects "reality" better than what you ask to revert back to - I truly hope we can keep it as is for now. Or at least discuss the various topics before any further changes are made, as the present version seems to resonate much better with general consensus and the reality for that matter - due to the following reasons: 1. The numbers produced of the Agera RS is actually 30 - please see info at list. Thus covering any kind of volume required. 2. So far 11 Agera RS has the 1MW option out of the 30 cars. 3. The 1MW option is also available as a factory software upgrade to all existing Agera RS, while the accepted software speed delimiter of the Veyron Super Sport is not, nor does it seem to be fitted to any customer cars whatsoever. This should put the amount of 11 customer 1MV Agera RS in very good light compared to the Super Sport. That the Veryon Supers Sport is still allowed on the list (given the limiter manipulation) does not make sense to me, but it surely gives the Agera RS 1MW factory software option a "cart blanche". So given all the above, please see my point of view that it makes more sense to keep list as it is for now, rather than reverting back to a state that surely reflects reality in a less "fair" way - clearly.Sagenode (talk) 16:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, under the current rules it is still not clear whether the Agera RS is allowed or disallowed. 25 units of the Agera were made but does the rule of 25 units count all RS's ever made (regardless of what speed they can make) or only those that are capable of reaching that speed? The rule is unclear, which is what the above few sections are discussing. As the article stands now, we have an entry in the 'Difficulties with claims' that says the RS made a bidirection run, makes no points about not being allowed and yet the RS is not in the list for unspecified reasons. This is the inconsistency I was trying to avoid. Which way to make it consistent (exclude it with explicit reasons, include it or to clarify/change the rules) is the subject of the above few sections.  Stepho  talk  20:44, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Stepho-wrs - first you need to ask yourself is the Veyron Super Sport allowed on the list, as it had a software change that increased the speed - seemingly only on the car they used for the test. Does this make the production car/run of the Veyron Super Sport eligible for this list or not? If the answer/consensus is yes, which I personally would find strange, then for sure the Agera RS is eligble for the list - right? As the Agera RS has a software change as an option that are already on 11 customers cars and given the record soon on many more... This means the Veyron more than fully justifies the Agera RS. If the answer is no - to me the Agera RS anyway belong on the list, as optioned cars are allowed to be counted in the total production run according to consensus on this list. Given these two conclusion, I do not see why the Agera RS inclusion or not on the list needs to be discussed at all, since which ever direction we turn, given previous consensus, we should allow it. However the Super Sport is a different matter, which should be discussed first. - Makes sense?Sagenode (talk) 12:12, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

If I may, let me put a final nail in the coffin of references to Guinness as a yardstick for this page. I've been researching this a fair bit over the last 24 hours. A lot of people like to reference supposed Guinness record-holders and supposed Guinness 'rules' for what is a production car. Let me tell you, no such rules exist today and believe it or not, there is no Guinness record holder for the Production Car Speed Record today either. Don't believe me? Create an account at Guinness (anyone can do it, and it's free of cost), log in so that you can see their full database of records and search for 'Production Car'. It'll bring up all the records related to Production Cars and when you click on the appropriate record it will tell you "there is no current holder for this record" (or words to that effect).

Guinness is a marketing and publishing organisation. They work with paying companies to create records, which are usually invented to give some extra spice to product launches. The Jaguar F-Pace's "Largest Loop-the-loop" is one such an example. There's even a case study on Guinness' site that you can read as to how they came up with it.

We have four Guinness certificates on the wall at Koenigsegg's showroom and yet if you do a search for Koenigsegg on Guinness' page it returns ZERO results. Again, don't take my word for it, try it for yourself. That's because Guinness is not a record-keeping organisation. Their business case most likely relies on records 'expiring' and companies paying to retain them or set new ones (a guess) but either way, a company's ability to continue marketing using the Guinness name relies on paying a licence fee (not a guess - we were quoted a five-figure fee (GBP) for the use of their name for one month).

If Guinness say something happened, then it happened. I'm not suggesting for a minute that they're liars and I know they create stringent criteria for some of the records that people attempt under the Guinness name. What I am suggesting, however, is that there are other perfectly valid ways of setting, and therefore acknowledging, a record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 20:11, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

References

What is a production car really?

The arbitrary 20 or 25 cars production run as a denominator for a production car is completely arbitrary and irrelevant and seemingly "invented" by persons active here. It is completely irrelevant that the FIA once had a rule that dictated - in order to be allowed to race, at least 25 road cars had first to be produced. This FIA ruled later changed to several hundred cars and then was totally removed. To use this as a criteria for what a production car is today, is arbitrary, irrelevant and takes away what a production car really is and what goes into it. In order to acheive series production car status in todays world in any market of significance a production car has to pass crash testing and emission testing. Features like closed loop lambda control, catalyc converters, OBD and closed crankcase ventilation, together with interior and exterior features in order to reach a (COC) Certificate of Conformity status for the EU and the US has even more stringent requirements. The series production and homologation regulation from for example the EU, clearly separate a production car from any other type of vehichle. In no market is a production car defined by the amounts of cars produced. Instead they are qualified for what they are, how they are built and under which regulation. Given this the criteria of 20 or 25 cars as a minimum number should be excluded as a criteria to make the list. Instead proof of production car status should be mandatory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagenode (talk • contribs) 17:07, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This would destroy this list. I'm far more interested in the historical line than the latest overgrown kit car with a nice engine. How would you establish what a production car is from the 1950s? Or as I would prefer, 1930s? Greglocock (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

-Why would it destroy the list? On the contrary it would makes the list reasonable, trustworthy and accountable. That you personally have a bigger interest in vintage cars rather than modern cars is not a viable/resonable argument to keep the list in its present disfunctional and missleading state. When it comes to establish if a vintage car is a production car or not, seems to require a reasonable, not to large effort. If they were series produced and followed regulations for road registration for series produced cars in their era - they should be considered production cars. If they did not - then they were not production cars. It is of course sometimes difficult to know which, since it was a long time ago. Especially the state of the tested car - was it tuned? was it original? how was the speed measured? If there are uncertainties, I guess the uncertain cars should be put on the excluded list, just like the more modern cars. I dont see why they should be treated any different. Having said that, I believe many of the vintage cars should go on the excluded list... Sagenode (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2017

In the general understanding of what a "production car" is and what not the numbers built play the main role, just check the wiki site or do a web search. Barely anyone cares if the cars fulfill bureaucratic time- and country-specific laws. I wouldn't mind using 10,15 or 20 (like it was most of the time) as minimum number. I agree that having new car after the old Veyron would benefit this list and think that the Agera RS deserves to be more on this list than the McLaren F1 for example (independent high speed tests like the one offered by R&T avoided and used a modified prototype which clearly had far more HP than when it was exclusively tested by Autocar for the Guinness entry) but credibility would suffer a lot if we change the rules according to the cars instead of checking if they fulfill the requirements.Drachentötbär (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

"Barely anyone cares if the cars fulfill bureaucratic time- and country-specific laws" - couldn't be further from the truth. The ability for a manufacturer to gain a VIN identity and the ability for a car to pass homologation requirements in the markets it is sold in should absolutely be key to the definition of a production car. You can't sell in a country unless you comply with that country's laws. A vehicle having a valid VIN plate defines it as a car that's been produced by the manufacturer claiming the record (rules out tuners) and the fact that it is complied for a market means that it's a production car, not a one-off created purely to do special things like break records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenWade (talk • contribs) 20:26, 22 November 2017 (UTC)