Talk:List of automotive superlatives/Archive01

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Archive
Archives
  1. August 2004 to April 2005
  2. April 2005 to May 2005
  3. May 2005 to September 2005
  4. September 2005 to July 2006

Contents

Viper dispute

I'd like to know who updated the List of automotive superlatives with this information: Most powerful naturally-aspirated engine - ... (runner-up: 600 hp V10, 2004 Dodge Viper)

It's not true, for two reasons. After the 660 hp of the Ferrari Enzo, there's still the 655 hp of the Koenigsegg CC 8S, the 630 hp of the Maserati MC12, the 627 hp of the McLaren F1, the 626 hp of the Mercedes SLR, and the 612 hp of the Porsche Carrera GT and Mercedes S/CL/SL 65 AMG.

Second, the Dodge Viper never had 600 hp on road trim, the previous generation had a maximum of 460 hp from the Club Racing special, and the current generation has only 505 hp. --Pc13 17:25, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Oops, OK, no prob! Let's kill it then!--SFoskett 18:01, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)
The Koenigsegg and SLR are supercharged, AMGs are turbo. Looks like the TVR Speed 12 beats all with an NA 800hp V12, but only 2 were produced. The F50 GT was said to produce 750hp, five F1 LMs produced 680hp. The 400 Enzos clearly takes the prize for NA production car. 50 Maserati MC12s looks like second at 630. 50 F1s is third at 627. Carerra GT is fourth at 612hp.--SFoskett 18:17, Aug 13, 2004 (UTC)

Electric/hybrid dispute

The electric and hybrid car entries are wrong. I've found references (http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761580732/Electric_Car.html#endads, http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aacarselectrica.htm) to electric cars as far back as the early 1800s, and unequivocally by the late 1800s, and some sort of hybrid in the early 1900s. However I haven't found specific models and exact years. AndyChrist

Yes, these modern electrics were not the first. However, as written at the top, we are excluding all the odd electrics and hybrids and giant/tiny engines and such by just looking at post-WWII cars. This is typical in lists like this (outside WikiPedia) since so many odd beasts were created before the industry settled down. I'd be happy with ammending the title to "first modern hybrid car" or something and adding the oldies to the pre-war section. --SFoskett 13:32, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Sales

FYI, the VW Golf has sold 22 million as of December 20, 2002 in all its names and forms. It is arguably the best-selling VW, but nowhere near the Corolla (which always used that name). VW built 865,500 Golfs in 2001, though. Not bad... --SFoskett 14:32, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

The Isuzu VehiCROSS sold just 4153 in three years, but it was not really a mainstram vehicle - I don't think Isuzu would have produced thousands even if there were customers asking for them, unlike the X-90. --SFoskett 03:53, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

I would consider the VehiCross to have entered series production but you are right: it was always intended to be limited. Didn't they use some form of metal casting that would ensure a low run? Stombs 23:53, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Post-war only?

This page seems a little inconsistent about that post-war qualification under the 'Types' heading. —Morven 20:18, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

I changed "Types" to "Firsts" to include pre-war, since it's interesting that way. No rules, eh mate? --SFoskett 19:06, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Sizes

Largest I4 engine

the following are moved from my talk page:

I'm still trying to find out if the FIA required any road-going versions of the Ferrari 860 for it to race in sports car events (there was no GT class back then) although [Ferrari World.com] calls it a competition car. I don't think it did, though, so the Ferrari 125 is disqualified from being the smallest V12 as well.

Ferrari 860 was a sports car only indeed, same as the 125.

Still, bigger engines than the 2.8-liter GM have been seen frequently in the last 25 years: 3.4 L Toyota Land Cruiser 60, 3.2 L Mitsubishi Pajero/Montero Di-D, 3.2 L Nissan Pathfinder MkII, 3.1 L Isuzu Trooper, 3.0 L (OHV) Toyota Land Cruiser 60, 3.0 L (SOHC TDi and DOHC D-4D) Toyota Land Cruiser 70, 90 and 120, 3.0 L Isuzu Trooper and D-MAX, 3.0 L Nissan Patrol GR VDi and PickUp D22 VDi, 3.0 L Porsche 968.

I've noticed some automotive articles have too much of an American bias to them (I've edited the Mazda3, for example), especially when talking about cars that are European and Japanese in origin and available worldwide. I think knowledge of [Autoindex] and [Histomobile] should be recommended for all interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles. --Pc13 13:53, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Isn't that 4.6 L Mazda for heavy duty trucks? I think it would be best if heavy duty trucks had their own section, since their engines are much bigger than a regular car's. For example, in Europe, motorized vehicles with two or more axles and a gross weight over 3.5 metric tons (without trailer) are considered heavy duty. I don't know what the limit is in the US. It seems the 3.8 L Mercedes OM-314 used in the Brazilian Toyota Bandeirante (local Land Cruiser BJ40 variant) is a four-cylinder, so it might be the bigger one. I still need confirmation on that. In any case, both this and the 3.4 L Toyota 13B are Diesel. Biggest gas engine would then be the Porsche 968. --Pc13 18:20, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't sure WHAT used that Mazda engine - the Mazda Titan, maybe? Or the Mazda E-Series? But it sure is big! I think we'll need to mention non-diesel, since it makes quite a difference. Witness the Porsche 968 I4 or the GM Atlas. That tiny Mazda I4 was quite a find, by the way. I spotted a contemporary 1960s quote in a book saying it was the smallest I4 ever. --SFoskett 19:06, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)
The [Isuzu Turkey] website confirms, a 4.8 L [I4] used in the Isuzu N-Series/Mazda Titan is for medium duty trucks (NPR/NQR). However, a 4,334 cc engine (the 4HF1) is used in the light duty NKR-Wide. From what I can understand, these units replaced the previous model's 4.6 L (medium duty) and 4.0 L (light duty). So, for automobiles, I'd call the 4.3 L the record holder.
I'm thinking about separating Diesels and gasolines, but I'll do it tomorrow (new year celebrations and all). --Pc13 19:55, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A new "largest non-Diesel": The 3.2 L (3188 cc/194.5 in³) 1961 Pontiac Tempest 195! Anyone know what happened to this engine after '64? --SFoskett 14:54, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Production runs

Anyone want to have a stab at the shortest production run, not counting one-offs or prototypes? I know the Maserati Quattroporte II did 13 in the mid-1970s but I am sure there were models that had three or six. Stombs 00:26, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sure there were lots of 2- or 3-off cars - look at the various Ferrari 250s. Maybe a losing battle, but worth a note, I guess. Maybe a "list of super-low production cars"? I'd love to have more entries on the "worst-selling models" list. The hard part is differentiating between limited-production and full-production models. Did Maserati intend to make more QPIIs? --SFoskett 02:46, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
I'd really like to see that, too—there really isn't a good way to differentiate between limited-run and low-selling cars, though. The only real way to determine what was a flop and what wasn't is to know what the manufacturers (or whoever) intended; this information is usually completely contradictory or, occasionally, fully inconsistent (e.g., manufacturer, designer, and public don't meet eye-to-eye). Success is incredibly subjective.
It seems the right way to handle this is to start out with a discussion based solely on production numbers, and expand it from there if we can. --Milkmandan 04:04, 2005 Jan 2 (UTC)
Take the Lincoln Blackwood. Ford certainly intended to make more than 3500 of them. Same for the Suzuki X-90. These are definitely flops. But I agree about the others, especially exotics. Enzo Ferrari would have preferred to make no road cars. Does this make every Ferrari the most successful car of all time? *grin* --SFoskett 19:30, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)
Maserati did intend to make more Quattroporte IIs, but the fuel crisis and Citroën running out of money (leading to the Peugeot takeover) intervened. Super-low production cars could work—I agree there's no easy way to separate flops from low runs. Maybe we have sub-entries to cover each one of the possibilities we list here? Stombs 23:56, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
There was the Lagonda saloon, based on the Aston Martin V8, with a production run of seven in 1974, again killed by the fuel crisis (and the list price of £14,000 in 1974 pounds). An eighth chassis and superstructure exist, apparently, which was news to me.[1] Those are Bugatti Royale-type numbers, though the Royale was only ever meant to be limited, and I would argue the Panther Six falls into that category, too. Stombs 14:34, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

First hatchback

The Renault 16 is currently listed but surely it was the Farina-designed Austin A40? I'm going to make a change but if there are problems, please let me know or feel free to modify. Stombs 08:13, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

True, the A40 is the first hatchback. The R16 was only the first to open the boot and window in the same panel, but separate boot and window openings counts as hatchback (such as the current Citroën C2). I think it's good to find out about these, because sometimes automotive brands claim to be the first when discovering some new technologies and formats, and we have no way of checking. --Pc13 12:37, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Thanks, Pc13—also I recall one of the "flounder-inspired" Honda Civics had this arrangement, too. Stombs 13:05, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
FYI, I have a 1960 issue of Road & Track that comments on the innovative new A40 "wagon". They couldn't figure out what to call it, but were convinced of its brilliance! Cool! They also talk about the "sun-roof" (their quotes) on the Renault Dauphane (I think) as a new idea! Fun stuff! --SFoskett 17:08, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
Definitely way cool—you must have a great archive! Mine only goes back solidly to the 1970s. I did find out a bit more about the A40 and apparently Innocenti did a "conventional" hatch called the Combinata the following year (Classic and Sportscar, Dec. 2004, I think—didn't buy it but read it and thought: I must add that!). Stombs 14:45, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

First coupé convertible

I've changed this to the Peugeot 401 D Eclipse of 1934. There were also the Ford Skyliners of the 1950s, I imagine. Stombs 08:20, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

First crossover

This one might be fun: would the AMC Eagle qualify? I get a bit irritated when Subaru claimed to have invented the niche in its advertising. Stombs 07:15, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

It is interesting that when the Eagle bowed, Subaru was a maker of odd front wheel drive cars like the Subaru G. --SFoskett 00:16, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
True, and the Rex 660 Swingback! :) BTW thanks for starting this great page! Stombs 10:16, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)


So-called "safety" features

I don't mean to be a pain about this, but I have a serious issue with calling things like ABS, traction-control, airbags, stability-control, etc. "safety" equipment/features or whatever. In my view at least, it is an example of framing. The implication seems to be that any vehicle which lacks any of these things is unsafe and that adding these features automatically makes the car safe or even just "safer". Convincing arguments can be (and have been) made that ABS/stability-control, for example, encourages the design of progressively more unsafe vehicles, promotes their sale and encourages unsafe driving practices. Airbags have limited value in improving safety when seat belts are worn and can actually increase danger to occupants - especially in convertibles in rollover accidents (think about it, do you really want to be forced into an upright position in your seat as you're rolling over in a convertible?). Traction-control is probably the least problematic of the bunch, but I always switch mine off when I'm driving in the rain. My car (supercharged Jaguar) is more predictable to drive in slippery conditions with the TC off - even with the massive torque the engine puts out. Thanks for letting me rant. --JonGwynne 18:10, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

No sweat - I wanted to break up the long list and just lumped them together. I like your new categories enough so I won't complain. (Just got back from the UK and Iceland!) --SFoskett 18:41, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

Multivalve engines

Is it true that the 1964 Honda S600 had a 4-valve engine? I have a 1965 issue of Road & Track with a review of the car, and they don't mention this novel feature. Neither does the original S600 brochure. Perhaps someone confused DOHC with multivalve? If it's not the S600 that was first, which car was it? The next looks like the 1972 Jensen Healey. --SFoskett 03:59, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

The Honda S600 and S800 have a DOHC but 2-valve per cylinder only. Ericd 22:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I've never seen one of the Honda convertibles but I used to own a Jensen Healey. The Lotus 907 engine they used definitely has 16 valves.
Earlier than most people would expect. The first car to feature four valves per cylinder was the 1914 Bugatti Type 13! And in 1922, the Bugatti Type 30 was the first with three valves per cylinder. --Pc13 11:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It was the Peugeot that won Indianapolis in 1908 (not quite sure of the date). However not a production car. I'm not sure if the Bugatti 13 was a production car or a racing car ?
Ericd 22:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The Type 13 was not really a production car. But the Bugatti Type 51 was. Same deal for the Type 30 - it used the Type 29 engine but wasn't a production car really. But the Bugatti Type 35 was a production car (nearly 150 made). --SFoskett 23:41, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

I think that Ballot may have produced a 4-valve before the Bugatti 51. BTW was the Ferrari 166 Inter produced at more than 20 examples. 20 examples qualify the Porsche 917, 956 (probaly) and 962 as production I think this made one of them the fastest production car ever built (I mean top speed). Ericd 19:22, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've verified the Bugatti 51 was the 4-valve evolution of the 3-valve 35 a Grand Prix car (more or less a formula 1) however it was a popular car among gentlemen-drivers and I'm quite sure the production exceeded 20 ex. Ericd 20:52, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Dunno what to tell you dude... My encylopedia of automobile collectables doesn't even list the 51 (though it lists semi="specials" like the Type-55, of which only 35 were made. We both know the model existed but as to whether 20 or more were made, I wouldn't bet the farm on it.--JonGwynne 23:31, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The official Bugatti site doesn't list production numbers for the Type 51 - I got the numbers from ... somewhere else... *grin* here and here (same article) it says that there were 40 Type 51s. motorbase also says 40.
Note that it's not just production numbers - we're limiting ourselves to street-legal "road cars". Although there wasn't much of a distinction back in the 1920s, I hope we can all agree what was a road car and what was a race car. I'm not sure if the Type 51 qualifies... Even the Type 35 (340 produced!) looks more like a race car than a road car...
BTW, this is the source of the "multivalve S600" rumor. --SFoskett 00:48, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
The 35 and 51 (same car except the engine) where Grand Prix car but also street legal. At that time many drivers just drove they race car by normal roads to the race track. I believe 40 examples of type 51 is a good estimate.
Ericd 09:34, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yow! I just found out that Toyota produced a 20-valve (5vpc) version of their 4A-G engine in 1992! This has got to be the earliest full-production 5-valve engine. Even if Bugatti did beat them to it, this is way-notable... I'm seeking more information now. --SFoskett 14:53, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)


Power/production discussions

--- A couple of points:

  • I'm adding an "honorable mention" for the TVR Speed-12 engine since it was such an unprecedented engineering accomplishment - the fact that it never went into production for arbitrary reasons (the owner of the company felt the level of power was unsafe since he did not want to violate the company policy of not fitting their cars with traction-control) shouldn't be held against it. My feeling is that 940bhp from a 7.7 liter normally-aspirated V12 engine running on premium-unleaded gasoline is a stunning achievement. I hope that is OK with everyone.
  • I'm replacing the Radical SR3 in the highest specific-horsepower category because the car is street-legal in Britain.
  • I'm making a second category for the rotary engine.
  • I am replacing the Bricklin with the Aston Martin DB2. The DB1's production falls under the (IMHO) arbitrary limit of 20 vehicles. The DB2 production however ran to over 400 units and should surely be sufficient.
  • I am replacing the Suzuki SUV with the Lambo. They produced enough vehicles to qualify and they were available for sale to the general public (in addition to being produced to special order including, most notoriously for Muammar al-Qaddafi of Libya).

--JonGwynne 20:48, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC) ---

I see that your edits whomped some by User:Pc13. I'll try to merge it all together. BTW, I'd like to preserve "honorable mentions" since they can be fun/interesting too. I'm not sure about the Radical engine - I really wouldn't call it a production engine. What uses it? I never even heard of it before Wikipedia, which is not in itself a disqualifier :). Maybe include it AND the (certainly notable) Honda S2000 engine? --SFoskett 21:30, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
Ooops! Didn't mean to whomp anything (except the stuff I explicitly mentioned above). Sorry PC!! And thanks SF for merging them back in! To answer your question, the Radical engine is a production engine by any criteria I can think of. It is a low-volume production engine certainly, but that shouldn't exclude it in my opinion. I am told that Radicals are sold all over the world (including the US - though, to the best of my knowledge, they aren't street-legal in the US). They are street-legal in the UK and since they're a UK firm, I think that should be good enough. I have no beef with the S2000 getting an "honorable mention" if only because it is more widely known (though still a limited-production car (Honda hand-builds the engines on the same line as the NSX engines, or so I'm told) - even more so now that Honda have apparently discontinued the 2.0L engine for North America and replaced it with a stroked 2.2L version (with lower redline) whose specific output has dropped to 109bhp/liter. The original spec car is now, IIRC, available only in Japan and Europe). On a personal note, I used to own an S2000 and I understand fully why they did it. The original was a great technical achievenment but a flawed gem in terms of actual mundane use. The car was simply too heavy for the torque the engine produced. They ended up have to gear the rear-end absurdly high in order to maintain acceptable acceleration and the result was a car that could only do 18mph/1000rpm in 6th gear. Try driving it for an hour continuously at freeway speeds (80mph =4,400rpm)... not nice. Hmmm, maybe I should visit the S2000 page and offer an opposing viewpoint for what I am sure is a total love-in for the car.  ;-> --JonGwynne 00:46, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)
OK, I merged everything in. I put back in all the other interesting cars under "Others". I decided to leave the Radical - it sure looks impressive, and as long as it is an actual production engine, I have no problem mentioning it. Especially since I left the Honda link in, too. This page is the "most fun" for me on Wikipedia - I've learned all sorts of stuff from it! --SFoskett 01:14, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)
The Radical SR3 uses an enlarged Suzuki Hayabusa powerplant. The thing is I have yet to see a picture of a Radical with a license plate. Even their website only features racing photographs. I've seen road-going versions of the Westfield XTR2 and the Ariel Atom (two similar cars that are street-legal in the UK) but not a Radical. On a sidenote, I hope Radical can make a 1.7 L version of the Hayabusa engine, because then they could merge into a 3.4 L V8 that could be used in the LMP2 category at the 24 Hours of Le Mans. --Pc13 15:17, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
The SR3 engine does begin life as a Hayabusa block and many other stock components are used as well. However, there are significant modifications made to the engine - to the point where I think it can be distinguished from the original and properly referred to as a separate engine. Or were you objecting because the Hayabusa is a motorcycle enging? You could easily argue that the S2000's engine, like its predecessor in the S600/800 cars of the 60s has more in common with a motorcycle engine than any automobile engine. In fact, some of Honda's sales literature I've seen says this. As far as mods to other people's engines, Noble makes similarly extensive modifications to the Ford engine they use in their cars. To answer your other question, Radicals can indeed be made street-legal (through the Single-Vehicle Approval (SVA) process used for most low-volume cars) in the UK. Hence the discussion of the "SVA Kit" on Radical's website. I doubt a lot of people actually do this (apart from having the option to drive the car to and from the track) as it isn't the most practical road-car, though there are doubtlessly some wacky Brits who take the thing hooning around B-roads.--JonGwynne 17:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
It isn't about the bike engine. The early Hondas and Suzukis (360s and 600s) actually did have bike engines, as does the Westfield 7 replica. It really was the fact that I had never seen a Radical road-going car. But if the SVA homologation is available, then there really isn't any problem. --Pc13 18:32, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
As to further increasing displacement, I wouldn't hold my breath. I think they've stroked it about as far as they can go and I wouldn't want to bet that there is much room for boring the engine out. There is talk of a future 3.0 liter V-8 version of their PowerTec variant but they're still working on the 2.6 liter version. Personally, I hope they'll expand it to a 2.0 liter I-6 and thence to a 4.0 liter V-12. It will run smoother and should deliver more specific power than the V-8 version.--JonGwynne 17:25, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hey PC, I think they said no tuner cars so doesn't that exclude the AMG Merc? What do you think? --JonGwynne 23:43, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

AMG is currently owned by DaimlerChrysler, and AMG-branded cars are part of the Mercedes-Benz catalog, so you can walk into a Merc stand and order one. The AMG designation is applied to sporty versions, equivalent to BMW's M, Mitsubishi's Evolution or Honda's Type-R.
If this was 1991, AMG would not count. But since it's a wholly-owned part of the DC empire now, it has to count. I'm still not sure about the Radical cars. Does the availability of a conversion kit make it "good enough" for this list? At least I would ALWAYS include a runner-up when mentioning questionable vehicles like the Radical or LM002... --SFoskett 12:38, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
Point taken re: AMG. I'd forgotten that they were bought by D/C. I still personally consider them to be tuners whether D/C owns them outright or not. They still have their own shops, their own employees, etc. They're just "in-house" tuners with a bigger budget plus more/better access to Mercedes engineers and their deveopment data. Their purpose is still to take "stock" Mercedes engines and sprinkle their magic dust on them in order to make them better than "stock". But I won't argue the point.  ;-> --JonGwynne 20:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Re: Radical. I'm not sure I'd classify the SVA option as a "conversion kit". Basically it is the lights, horn, signals, etc. that a car needs in order to be street-legal but it doesn't need on a track. To me, it makes perfect sense to sell a car like that car in this way. Some people won't be driving them on public roads and so prefer to save the weight and cost of this extra stuff they'll never need or use. Those who do want to drive it on public roads can pay the extra money for the gubbins and everyone is happy. Fundamentally, it is still the same car and engine, right?--JonGwynne 20:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Re: LM002. What's questionable about it? Lamborghini isn't the only performance-car company to sell an SUV. BMW does it, so does Porsche... even Maserati has one on the drawing-board. More than 20 were made, they were sold through Lamborghini dealers. "Mad Mo" placed a special order for 100 to be sent to Libya but then he's always been a car nut. It is exactly the sort of thing he'd do. Did any of you see the prototype of the car that he wanted to build a while back as the only car designed and built on the African continent? It was pretty kooky. Libyan Car--JonGwynne 20:28, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Like Jon, I would count the LM002, but agree with SFoskett re. AMG; JMO. I believe Lamborghini had intended to produce more LM002s but it didn't work out, but in that time even Sylvester Stallone had been reported as wanting one (a contemporary headline called it the 'Rambo Lambo' down here). As for AMG, I'm with SFoskett on this: once upon a time, AMG, being outside Mercedes-Benz, was an after-market tuning company. Ever since Mercedes-Benz bought it, they aren't after-market any more, but their cars are right there at the point of sale (i.e. they would appear on new car price lists). Stombs 14:56, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

Largest Straight-6

I noticed that the largest diesel straight-6 is listed as a 4.2 L diesel found in the Ford F250. Is there a reason the 5.9 L Cummings Turbodiesel found in the Dodge Ram does not have this title? If not, I'll go ahead and make the change. TomTheHand 21:30, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

'cause no one knew about it? Nice catch! That's Cummins, BTW, not Cummings. But you're right, so you can make the change! --SFoskett 00:21, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Ugh, some part of my brain totally knew it's Cummins, not Cummings ;-) I need to pay more attention. I'll make the edit! Thanks. TomTheHand 06:00, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Made the update, but I wasn't able to find much info about the engine's name. The 1988 engine is obviously not listed on Cummins' web site any more ;-) Couldn't find it anywhere else either. The current 5.9 L Cummins Turbodiesel in Rams is substantially different from the 1988 one. TomTheHand 06:15, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Tom. I believe the Cummins engine shouldn't be allowed because it's only for medium/heavy duty Rams. Once, Sfoskett had submitted a 4.6 L straight-4, but I found out it was only available in the previous generation Isuzu N-Series/Mazda Titan in MD/HD trucks (current model has a 4.8nbsp;L). What Mazda offers for light trucks (under the 3.5 tons gross weight European limit for automobiles, in USA the limit is around 3.9 tons, I believe) is a 4.3 L. I believe MD/HD trucks should be disallowed because truck engines are usually larger than those found in automobiles. --Pc13 01:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Cummins engine is available in the Dodge Ram 2500 and 3500, both light duty trucks. The 2500 is a 3/4 ton truck, equivalent to a Ford F-250 (which is, in fact, the vehicle previously listed with the largest straight-six), while the 3500 is a one-ton version. These vehicles are readily available to consumers and are not medium- or heavy-duty trucks. TomTheHand 05:18, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid you're mistaken. The Cummins-powered Ram 2500 and 3500 have a GVWR of 9000 and 11500 lb respectively. The press-release on the DaimlerChrysler media website calls them heavy-duty trucks. --Pc13 14:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There's heavy-duty, and then there's heavy-duty ;-) When DiamlerChrysler refers to the Ram as a heavy-duty truck, they mean that it is tough and capable. Heavy duty trucks have a GVWR of over 26,001 lbs. On the other hand, you are correct that a 9000 lb GVWR barely bumps the 2500 into the medium-duty range. The threshold for a medium duty truck is 8500 lbs. However, I think the Dodge Ram only received this bump in GVWR in 2003 with the introduction of the Cummins Turbodiesel "600". I'll try to verify this. If it only received the bump in 2003, then it is certainly deserving of the award for 1989.

Note that here is what is usually thought of as a medium-duty truck: http://www.gmc.com/mediumduty/index.jsp

And following is a list of entries on the list which are in the same class as the diesel Dodge Ram 2500 and which would probably need to be replaced:

Largest V8 engine (Diesel) - 7.3 L (7275 cc/444 in³) - 1997 Ford F250 Powerstroke

Heaviest passenger vehicle - 3900 kg (8600 lb) GVWR - 2003 Hummer H2

Highest total horsepower, Diesel - 325 hp (239 kW) - Ford Powerstroke, 2004 Ford Excursion

Highest total torque, Diesel - 2004 Ford Excursion (Powerstroke), 759 Nm (560 lb/ft)

Additionally, as I said, the engine that the Cummins 5.9L replaced was a 4.2L six in a Ford F250. The Ford F250 is in the same market class as the Ram 2500, and so even if its GVWR doesn't exceed 8500 lbs with that engine, it exceeds it with optional larger engines. It seems like a violation of the spirit of the law. TomTheHand 15:15, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I'm having a lot of trouble finding GVWR information for older Dodge Rams. Nevertheless, I believe it's wrong to classify Dodge Rams as medium duty trucks because they have a carrying capacity a few hundred pounds out of the light duty segment. This class of vehicles is sold as, and is considered by the manufacturers to be, light duty trucks. See above for an example of a medium duty truck. TomTheHand 15:37, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

I have a friend who drives one of these back and forth to work (ugh!) so I'd classify it as a passenger vehicle de facto. It's not like a Topkick or Mazda Titan, and they're REALLY common in some parts of the country (Texas) as passenger vehicles. I would definitely give the nod to the Cummins. I've got some more info on the engine (dimensions, construction) so maybe I'll put together a page like I did for the DMAX engines. I've been meaning to do the Powerstrokes too, if I didn't already... I've been working on Lancia articles lately - talk about a contrast with this topic! --SFoskett 15:56, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
It's called the Cummins 600 engine. I've started an article about it. AutoWeek has an article which explicitly says that the Cummins is not intended just for work-truck use, talking about DCX trying to keep Cummins from supplying the same engine to Ford. --SFoskett 16:29, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
The "600" refers to the torque (in lb-ft). 2003 Rams received the 600, while current Dodge Rams actually receive the Cummins 610. Not sure when the upgrade was made. I believe the engine family in general is referred to as the Cummins "B series." I think that's what was originally put into the 1989 Ram, and I think the current engines are the most recent evolutions of the B series. TomTheHand 16:42, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
Right you are. The article is now at Cummins B Series engine. --SFoskett 18:35, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Future developments I'm excited about

There are some vehicles hopefully coming out in the near future I'm pretty excited about. The Bugatti Veyron is supposed to finally be entering production this year with the first examples being delivered in the fall. That'll change highest horsepower and highest top speed for sure, with the possibility of other changes.

Also, the new Chevrolet Corvette Z06 is due out soon. It will feature a 7.0 L small block, which will take the displacement record in that category.

The new BMW M5 hit the streets recently. It's electronically limited to 155 mph, but can do 205 without the limiter... does anyone think we should update "highest top speed" for this, or does the electronic limit take out of the running?

That's a close call... On one hand, the argument might be that as the car is delivered from the dealership, it is only capable of 155mph and that disconnecting the limiter would constitute "aftermarket modification/tuning". On the other hand, one could also argue that the top speed of the car is the top speed of the car regardless of "safety features" fitted to protect the buyers from their own stupidity. I'm sort of on the fence but leaning towards calling 155mph the top speed of the car. Unfortunately, that leaves cars like the Lotus Carlton at a potentially unfair advantage because it was never fitted with a limiter.--JonGwynne 20:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also, I added the 2005 Mitsubishi Lancer VIII FQ400 as the fastest 0-60 for a four seat car. This car may be classified as a tuner car, but I believe it should be considered production... it is, after all, tuned by Mitsubishi UK, and seems just as valid as an AMG car. Anyone have strong opinions against it?

I think that is really pushing the envelope but until and unless I can articulate any reasonable objections, I'm going to defer to you. BTW, is the car fitted with a limiter? If so, I might ask that the limited top speed be entered as the official figure - probably 155mph since that seems to be the European standard for such things.--JonGwynne 20:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't notice this until just now. The Evo FQ400 is listed as the fastest 0-60 time for a four seat car, not the highest top speed. You're probably right about a 155 mph limiter though. TomTheHand 16:47, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)
I think I may have found an obstacle for the FQ400. According to a magazine article I read on it, it isn't actually manufactured by Mitsibishi Motors but it is one of their 300+hp high-end cars that is further tuned and highly modified from factory-spec by their UK distributor. This is complicated by the fact that they are apparently offering a warranty for it which is more or less similar to the factory's (though, presumably through the distributor). Can anyone confirm or deny this? The car is an impressive achievement certainly but it may leave it out of the running for inclusion. What does everyone think? If it is bumped, I believe it should certainly get an "honorable mention". It is awfully cool.
As it's tuned and sold by Mitsubishi UK, in my opinion it's alright, but I can certainly understand the criticism; anyone else feel it needs to get bumped? To me it seems equivalent to an AMG. TomTheHand 19:47, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
Excellent point. I think the next question to ask is "Is Mitsubishi UK owned by Mitsubishi Corp. or are they independently owned/operated by someone else?" I think if the former is true, they can be considered to be the Mitsubishi equivalent of AMG. If not, then I think they'd have to be considered independent tuners in spite of their franchise to sell the cars in Britain. Anyone disagree?--JonGwynne 23:10, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with you. I think it's fairly safe to say that Mitsubishi Motors UK is a part of Mitsubishi Motors, though, and it would have to be proved otherwise. I did a little surfing around their web site just now and they pretty much seem to be Mitsubishi's branch in the UK. Still, I certainly agree that if it's shown that Mitsubishi UK is independent or is owned by a different company, the FQ400 would be disqualified as an independently tuned car. TomTheHand 23:22, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone else anticipating the list changing soon? TomTheHand 08:12, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

The Veyron will definitely take some records - I originally put it in, but we removed it when it was clear it was not in production. Anyone know how they expanded the Small Block to 7 liters? C&D says it was stroked, but I'm skeptical... The limiter kills the M5 - it's unmodded cars all the way. As for the Mitsu, if you can buy it new from a dealer for use on the roads, I call it a production car. If we include homologation cars like the Lancia 037, we gotta include the Evos. We live in exciting times. Who would have thought we'd see a number of 1000+hp cars in our lifetime? --SFoskett 16:01, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Chevy did indeed bore and stroke the Gen IV small block to achieve 7 liters. This is based on what had been done several years before to create the C5R engine. The block has the same exterior dimensions as the Gen III/IV small block, but a larger bore and greater stroke. Indeed, for years you've been able to purchase a C5R block (large bore) and interchange it with a stock LS1 block (tons of work, new pistons, etc, etc of course). It's also possible to bore out the stock Gen III/IV block and press in new cylinder liners to match the bore size of the C5R/LS7 block.

Hope that's not too confusing. In summary, yes, it's a small block with the same dimensions as previous Gen III/IV blocks but larger bore and stroke. TomTheHand 19:32, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

Another superlative is looming. The 2006 Chevrolet Impala SS (with the LS4 engine) will become the most-powerful front wheel drive car ever built when it is released. It's got 303 hp, just three more than the Eldo ETC/Seville STS. --SFoskett 17:12, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)


Heaviest passenger vehicle

I'm not so sure about the Hummer H2 as the heaviest passenger vehicle. Its GVWR is listed. Is the intention here to list the passenger vehicle with the greatest capacity, or the greatest curb weight? I would imagine the Hummer H1, among others, would beat the H2 in both categories. If anyone can give me insight as to the intent of this entry, I'll try to look up the vehicle that belongs here. TomTheHand 18:56, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

I've done some thinking about this. I think that "Heaviest passenger vehicle" should list the vehicle with the highest curb weight. I think pickup trucks should be included in this running; how does one draw the line between an SUV like the Hummer H2, the Hummer H2 SUT with a pickup truck bed, and a full pickup truck? However, I don't think that a pickup truck will be the "winner" in this category. Still have to do some research into this.

The problem with this is that manufacturers are not, as far as I know, required to list the curb weight of trucks. They list the GVWR instead, which is the maximum weight for the vehicle carrying a full payload. I'll try to find the curb weight of the Hummer H1, which I think will be the highest, and replace the H2's current listing. TomTheHand 15:00, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)


Most powerful FWD

Please stop putting the 230 hp Saab 9-3 Viggen on the page as an honorable mention for most powerful FWD. Here are a few more powerful FWDs:

1. Anything with a Northstar engine. The currently listed winners had special edition 300 hp Northstars, but 275 hp Northstars were found in the Cadillac Seville, Deville, and Eldorado and the Pontiac Bonneville. A smaller 250 hp version was found in the Oldsmobile Aurora.

2. Any of the various GM vehicles with their supercharged, 240 hp V6. This includes the Monte Carlo, the Impala, and Pontiac Bonnevilles before they put in the Northstar V8.

3. Anything with Honda's 240-255 hp V6. This includes the Accord and the Odyssey.

4. Many, many premium/large Japanese cars, including the Acura TL, with a 275 hp V6, and the Toyota Avalon, with a 280 hp V6.

5. Any of a number of Volvos, like the C70, with a 242 hp inline-5.

There you have it. Leave the Viggen off the list. TomTheHand 11:47, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, add it then instead or just deleting. It makes you look lika a vandal. Btw, what about Trollspeed's 760 hp 9-3? There are also aftermarket modified 9-3 with 800+ hp as well as Trollspeed's 700+ hp 900. // Liftarn
We DID add the Northstars in place of your original additions, and you kept reverting your Saab back into the list. Don't accuse us of vandalism. In reference to your modded 9-3's, the third paragraph on the page is "We'll also limit the list to production road cars. More than 20 examples must have been made by the original vehicle manufacturer (no tuner cars), and they must be street-legal in their intended markets." Incidentally, 800 hp is not some kind of record among unlimited aftermarket modified cars. TomTheHand 12:24, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

I checked ([2] and [3]) and nothing was added, just deleted. The TVR Cerbera Speed 12 prototype is (as is says) a prototype and not a production road car. // Liftarn

Check http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_automotive_superlatives&diff=11920499&oldid=11920242 to see where "Most Powerful FWD" was merged with "Most Power" and the 275 hp Northstar was put in place of the engines you listed. In the next modification, Sfoskett replaced my entry with the special 300 hp Northstar. I think an entry for Most Powerful FWD is a good idea, but I felt it was better off merged with Most Power, and your entries were not the most powerful, so they were replaced. Honorable Mentions are usually reserved for "This would be first, if only the rules were a little different." For example, the Enzo Ferrari is the most powerful NA automobile, and the TVR Cerbera Speed 12 is an honorable mention because it almost but didn't quite enter production, but was considerably more powerful than the Enzo Ferrari. The 230 hp Saab engine is, and I mean no serious offense, unexceptional. TomTheHand 13:19, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. When I googled those were the results I found. Thanks for the clearification on the "Honorable Mentions". I thought it was for runner ups. // Liftarn

Runner ups would work in fairly unusual cases, I think, but I wouldn't want to have a second place for every entry :-)TomTheHand 14:25, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)


First power brakes

We've been trying to stick to just passenger vehicles, so I'd prefer to replace "1920 Mack Trucks" with the first passenger vehicle application, or add the first passenger vehicle application as well. However, I don't know the first passenger vehicle to feature power brakes ;-) Anyone have any ideas? TomTheHand 15:40, Apr 8, 2005 (UTC)

I googled a bit and only found a reference to that a professor John Hrones "helped develop the first power brakes for Chrysler in the 1950s.". [4] have some interesting stuff, but not power brakes. // Liftarn
Allpar doesn't claim the first power brakes. Apparently, Pierce-Arrow's Series 36 of 1927 had power brakes [5]. Also, I found a claim that the Hispano-Suiza H6 of the 1920s (introduced in 1919) had 4-wheel power brakes. Since the Classic Car Club of America considers power brakes a factor in determining if a 1925-1948 car is a classic, I'd say they were widely available in this time period. Packard was apparently the first American company with power brakes in 1952, though Duesenberg was the first with four-wheel hydraulic brakes in 1920. So we have lots of dates. I'd lean towards the H-S H6 of 1919. --SFoskett 18:08, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd probably go with the H-S as well. The only other competition these marques had in terms of cutting-edge engineering was Marmon but I think they concentrated on engines. I can't find any references to their cars having power brakes prior to 1925. Their V16 engine was a hell of a thing though.  ;-) --JonGwynne 23:53, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First swivel headlights

Another issue here. The first swivel headlights is reported to be the 1948 Tucker '48, but didn't Tatra use a turning centre headlight on some of the pre-war models, like Tatra T87? // Liftarn

I checked and indeed the 1936 Tatra T77 had a centre headlight that turned. [6] // Liftarn

Checker Aerocar?

I fail to find any real references for the super-long wheelbase Checker Aerocar. What I DO find indicates that it's a commercial limousine model. I think this doesn't belong. What else had a really long wheelbase? --SFoskett 21:19, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

It looks like it was also called Aerobus. I googled a bit and found some info about it. http://aerobus.homestead.com/ looks like a good site. For pictures look [here]. // Liftarn
So it was a factory-built limousine intended for commercial (airline) use. I don't think that meets all the agreed elements for our production car rule... Shall we explicitly exclude limousines just as we exclude cargo trucks/lorries? --SFoskett 15:33, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Tricky... Since it was built at the factory and not at an aftermarket coachworks it's the question on how many was built. Judging by how much info there is about them it's probably well over 20. I would say we could either a) create a limousine subcat or b) have it as notable with a mention that it's a limousine. // Liftarn
It meets the production number test, and WAS a factory vehicle (unlike, say, a Cadillac or Hummer limo). But since it was never intended for consumer use, does it really count? I imagine there are some superlative airport runway pusher cars out there, but these wouldn't be included. I think, sadly, the Checker is either out or demoted to a note. --SFoskett 01:51, Apr 17, 2005 (UTC)
Do you really think so? There seem to be a several pictures of cars belonging to individuals at the sites listed above. I'm not sure it shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt here - though I would suggest having a nice "honorable mention" for whatever category it is in.--JonGwynne 00:13, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rule number three - The Aerobus was not intended for sale to individuals. The fact that some own one now is immaterial. It's clearly a limousine and was clearly (judging by the name) intended for a specific market that was not consumers. Either it's demoted to a mention or removed entirely, right? --SFoskett 03:22, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well, if you want to move it to "HM" then I won't kick up a fuss. I was just playing "devil's advocate" (like that's unusual for me <vbg>) and suggesting that if it was available for commercial sale then we might not want to give it the boot even if only a few private sales were made. Still, I take your point.--JonGwynne 03:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I think we should honorable-mention it; while it really belongs in the same category as buses and other commercial passenger carrying vehicles, it was a car. —Morven

Wheelbase

I've been doing some checking of likely long-wheelbase suspects. The longest-wheelbase Rolls-Royce is the 1994+ Rolls-Royce Touring Limousine at 3772 mm (148.5 in), next is the 1968-1991 Phantom VI at 3683 mm (145 in), next is the new Phantom at 3570 mm (140.55 in). The new LWB Phantom will be at 3820 mm (150.4 in). The Maybach 62 is about 150.7 in (3827.8 mm). The Stutz Royale was apparently longer but only three were made. The Mercedes-Benz W116 is nowhere close. Looks like that Caddy is it for now. --SFoskett 20:38, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)


Front wheel drive

BTW the Citroën Traction Avant is certainly not the first First front wheel drive car I heard of Spyker or Tracta. Ericd 12:20, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Traction Avant is widely lauded as the first production front wheel drive car, or rather the car that put front wheel drive on the map. I would hesitate to remove it entirely! --SFoskett 12:39, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)
I've forgotten the Cords and probably the Sizaire-Naudins, but it's true that the TA was not only a production model it was really mass-produced. I'm an admirer of André Citroën and I can tell you that he was a master in marketing ! Ericd 12:56, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The 1929 Cord L29 seems to be a good candidate 4400 units produced is not a huge score but sufficient to qualify it as production model IMO. Ericd 13:05, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)