Talk:List of fastest cars by acceleration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 LP640 2 are the times correct? 3 Top speed 4 0-100-0mph World Record 5 Missing Autos 6 Mixing concept cars, one-offs and production cars 7 Cars that are unacceptable for inclusion on this list 8 Page protection 9 Please, let's not start this again 10 Discussing the Hennessey 11 barabus tkr 12 Street Legal/Tuner/Concept 13 Ascari A10 14 Independent claims 15 LP640 16 S7 17 Hennessey 800TT 18 xjr15? 19 street legal/production car/one off 20 Ferrari FXX 21 Motor Trend quote 22 1991 GMC Syclone Pickup Truck

[edit] LP640

The LP640 has two entries, which contradicts the rules at the top of the article. 74.130.215.240 00:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] are the times correct?

The time for the first car on the list is 1.4. A car can't possibly go from 0 to 100 Km/h in 1.4 seconds. Also, the time for the second car is 1.85, but when you follow the link, the 0-100Kmh acceleration time for this car is closer to 3. Is there something I'm missing, or are the number plainly bogus? Jorge Peixoto 22:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you click on the numbered links (not the wikipedia links) next to the cars, you will be linked to the manufacturers page (for Hennessey) where they state 1.85 s. As for the Halltech, that seems to be a one-off car, with little information available, yet it seems to be in line with the Lingenfelter/Hennessey cars in how it is tuned. Maybe it's a typo, but until we can find some verification... User:Gunter

[edit] Top speed

Shouldn't the list include one for the top speeds as well? 71.250.17.62 19:13, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

It should be a seperate list. Gunter 19:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 0-100-0mph World Record

The Ultima GTR has recently blitzed the World Record for accelerating from 0mph to 100mph and back to 0mph (0-100-0) in a ratified time of 9.4 seconds. In the course of this, the car improved it's time of 2.7 seconds to 62mph in a time of 2.6 seconds. Table has been modified accordingly. What an acheivement!! Kiwichipster 04:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Autos

A lot of cars have not been shown. Many other Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Porsches, and Mercedes-Benz have surpassed quite a few of the cars on this list. Please revise.67.86.24.40 13:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Provide some info and i'll be glad to. Gunter 19:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Shucks. The Tesla Roadster hasn't qualified yet? --Dan 22:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mixing concept cars, one-offs and production cars

This is simply unacceptable. You can't possibly compare them as they are totally different beasts. First of all, the numbers for concept cars are most often theoretical. Numbers from tuners are notoriously inaccurate. --SpinyNorman 09:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

You can add a column stating the type of each car, but do not change the list format. The list shows any road-legal car, it does not matter if it is a concept, factory or tuned. Also each has a link either to the manufacturer or tester which shows the acceleration figure Gunter 11:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The current list format is wrong and completely unacceptable. I am changing it to more accurately reflect the real world - that is not "vandalism". I think you must not understand what a "concept car" really is. Most concept cars are dummies built for car shows to promote the company. Many aren't even capable of being driven on the road and none of them are street-legal. The reason is that they are prototypes built for promotional purposes and there is no reason for the manufacturer to have them certified for road use. Mentioning them as a matter of interest is one thing but they cannot reasonably be compared to production cars. As for tuner cars, listing the claims of the tuner is pointless as the figures they give are typically theoretical and few of them are independently verified. The idea that a Corvette (regardless of the torque of its engine) can accelerate from 0-60 in 1.4 seconds in street-legal tires is absurd - particularly when the car in question is a turbocharged, front-engine, rear-wheel-drive vehicle. That claim doesn't pass the laugh test. --SpinyNorman 16:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cars that are unacceptable for inclusion on this list

1. Any tuner vehicle (especially from Hennessey) whose performance hasn't been independently confirmed.

2. Any "concept car" or car that is not planned for production.

3. Any car that *is* planned for production but hasn't yet actually entered production and become available for sale to the public. And by "available for sale", I don't mean that the company is taking deposits, I mean that someone with a fat wallet can walk into a showroom somewhere and drive out in one of these cars.

--SpinyNorman 21:26, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

If a vendor posts a figure on their website, that is acceptable. A concept car is still a car, and thus belongs on the list. Any prototype car is still a car, and thus belongs on the list.

This is a list of the fastest "cars", not the fastest "production cars" or whatever subdivision you are trying to achieve, if that is what you want create a new article with the title "List of fastest production cars by acceleration" and stop vandalising this article. Gunter 22:28, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion is clear - this list is open to street-legal cars only. Concept cars, by definition aren't street legal. You don't seem to understand what a concept car is. If you did, you'd understand why they have no place on this list. Concept cars are never intended to be made street-legal. They have an entirely different set of design criteria and many of them don't even run. As for tuner cars, if there is independent verification of their performance, then they can be included. But the unverified claims of the manufacturer based on who-knows-what kind of special conditions for the "test" don't cut any ice. BTW, just because you don't agree with something, that doesn't make it vandalism. --SpinyNorman 03:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Which part of "Go make a seperate article" don't you understand? Gunter 10:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Which part of "this list is open to street-legal cars only" don't YOU understand? Do you understand what a concept car is? Were you aware that, for example, the Audi Avus was never roadworthy? Did you know that the car that everyone saw at the show had an engine that was carved out of wood? --SpinyNorman 21:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

As i said before, if you want to question an entry, bring it up here and we can discuss it. Do not bulk edit the article, that is not how things are done in wikipedia. If you want to create a new article containing only whatever limitation on cars you want, go ahead, but leave this list alone. Gunter 21:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I have brought it up here and you ignore it. You refuse to accept the criteria for inclusion on this page and insist on adding cars to the list that have never actually been built. --SpinyNorman 05:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

You have not mentioned individual entries, one by one. Once you do we can discuss them Gunter 12:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll start: The #1 Entry was the Halltech Corvette with 1.4 s, i removed that because i can only find one website which even mentions the car, not even then vendor mentions this car on their website.

Next, 1.85s 2006 Hennessey Dodge Viper SRT10 Venom 1000 Twin Turbo, the rule should be that if a vendor posts a figure on their website it is acceptable. If the figure would not be correct the vendor would be liable for false advertising. Gunter 13:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

---

Without independent conformation, the claimed of tuners like Hennessey aren't worth the paper on which they are printed. Hennessey in particular has a very dodgy reputation both in terms of the quality of the work they do and the veracity of their claims [1]. You are mistaken about the legal liability for internet posting. Show a single example of a vendor suffering legal penalties for inaccurate information posted on the internet. It doesn't happen. As a practical matter, vendors can say what they like on their websites and even if they get called on it, they can simply claim it is either a typo or a mistake made by their webmaster. Internet claims don't have the same weight as those in the mainstream press.

Next, the SVT Mustang. That doesn't belong here because it is not planned for production and, as such, is not street legal. There's not even any evidence that the performance claims have been verified by real-world testing - much less independently confirmed.

Lingenfelter's claims are more robust that Hennessey's, but they still don't make the cut here. The reprinted article in the link, had you taken the time to read it, states clearly that Motor Trend magazine wasn't able to get reliable acceleration stats because the car was constantly breaking traction (as if that should come as a surprise to anyone). That's the problem with these outrageous claims of acceleration from turbocharged, front-engine, rear-wheel-drive cars... Perhaps if you understood the engineering problems, you'd see why the issue is so problematic. Let me explain: The high weight of the Corvette is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it increases traction (which is necessary to convert the torque at the wheels into forward movement) but on the other hand it also increases the intertia that must be overcome in order to accelerate the car. However, the increase in traction doesn't compensate for the increase in inertia. In other words, they're fighting a losing battle. In addition, a turbocharged, pushrod V8 has pretty much exactly the opposite operational characteristics that you want for fast acceleration in a performance car. In a high-powered performance car, you want the peak power relative high up (in terms of revs). This operates as a sort of natural traction control so that, off the line, torque is relatively low. This reduces the tendency for wheelspin. However, as the car accelerates and as the revs climb, you want torque to increase in a fairly linear fashion - as the car's capacity to handle more torque also increases. A pushrod V8 (as used in the Corvette) has the characteristics of a truck engine - bags of torque at low revs. Ditto for the pushrod V10 as found in the Dodge Viper. This is great when you're carrying a big load or towing something heavy, but it sucks for performance cars - unless you like "burning rubber". Turbochargers make things worse by not only increasing low-down torque but destroying the linearity of delivery. As the turbos kick in at, say, 2500 rpm, there is a huge surge of power. It is one thing if you've strapped a turbo or two to a small-displacement engine whose power output is nowhere near the traction limit of the tires - as Japanese manufacturers like to do. Such an application gives a big "whack in the back" as the driver opens the throttle from a standing start. This is why teenaged "boy racers" love them - it exaggerates the power delivery. However, in a car like the Corvette whose engine already delivers more than enough torque to break traction from a standing start, the addition of turbocharging is disastrous for acceleration performance. This is why such a car cannot reliably accelerate as quickly as something like the Bugatti Veyron - with its sophisticated computerized traction control systems and (much more importantly) four-wheel drive. What even the most conservative and sober tuners do is they go out and run dozens (perhaps hundreds) of acceleration runs and then simply take the one fluke run in which they got a good, fast time. The odds of even a professional driver replicating those times is vanishingly small. Look at the facts, even the Veilside Skyline can only manage 0-60 times in the low 3-second range and it not only has a better power:weight ratio than the Corvette, but it also has four-wheel drive. In addition, it is running a smaller-displacement, overhead cam straight-six rather than the giant pushrod V8 in the Corvette. This gives the Skyline FAR better operating characteristics for this kind of application. The idea that ANY turbocharged Corvette or Viper in street tires could even come close to the Veilside Skyline is laughable.

The Caparo hasn't been built yet so it isn't yet street legal and no one has had the opportunity to independently evaluate the manufacturer's claims... If and when these things happen and the theoretical performance has been shown to be real, then the car can be added to the list. But not until then.

The Dauer Porsche... no independent confirmation. Until that happens, the acceleration figures are just unsupported fantasy.

The Chevy Camaro ZL1 Concept... Do you understand that concept cars are, by definition, not street-legal? In most cases, they don't even really exist in the forms talked about by the manufacturer. The Ford GT-90 is a perfect example. The one prototype they built was a cobbled-together "frankenstein monster" that was, according to British automotive journalist Jeremy Clarkson, horrible to drive even at 40mph. The performance claims were all theoretical, as the prototype was never going to be capable of testing them. In the case of the Camaro, the car was never built, so those claims could never be tested. How can a car that was never built be street-legal?

...do you want me to continue?

--SpinyNorman 18:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i want you to continue, but spare me the condecending arrogance. Just state your points. Re: Hennessey and Lingenfelter, i disagree, their figures are published and as such are valid. Otherwise you might as well question every vendor and magazine claim as suspect, since everyone strives for the best result under the best conditions. And in the case of magazines, don't call them independant, they can have a vendor bias depending on who is paying for the advertising that week.

The unsupported claims of Hennessey and Lingenfelter are worthless - particularly. That's true of any vendor and it is also why Ultima had independent auditors come in and verify their performance claims - they understood that no one would accept their unsupported word for such astonishing performance claims. However, the auditors came and verified Ultima's claims and established their validity. Hennessey and Lingenfelter can talk out of their ass all they like, but until they submit an actual vehicle to independent scrutiny, they're not worthy of being taken seriously. --SpinyNorman 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

The SVT Boss Mustang also stays, it doesn't have to be "production" to be a "car", and it was street-legal.

I don't think you really understand what it takes for a major manufacturer to get a car declared "street legal" in the US. It costs tens of millions of dollars and, therefore, is only undertaken for production vehicles. Concept cars are, by definition, not street-legal. I wonder how many more times I have to explain this to you before you get it. I suppose you'll find that condescending but it is a legitimate question. I have repeated tried to explain this to you and you have repeatedly either ignored the fact or failed to grasp it. Which is it? --SpinyNorman 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

the article quotes says they drove it to the track, implying street legality. Gunter 02:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It implies nothing of the sort. There's nothing in the link about them driving the car to the track. Even if there was, there's nothing that implies the car jumped thorough the various DOT hoops to be certified for road use. And the fact that there is only one of these vehicles is proof that it isn't street legal. Part of the testing procedure includes the consumption of several donor vehicles for various crash tests. In any case, it would be sheer foolishness for Ford to spend the money and engineering resources to get a car certified for road use that they have no intention of ever selling to anyone. --SpinyNorman 03:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The Caparo can go as it isn't out yet.

The Camaro concept was built and was tested. Concept does not mean it cannot or was not street-legal.

Yes, actually, it DOES mean that it isn't street legal. There is no reason why a manufacturer would go to the effort and expense (considerable in both cases) of certifying a concept car for use on public roads. Why? Because concept cars won't be driven by the public on public roads. Care to explain why the Big Three would spend tens of millions of dollars to certify a car that no one will ever drive on public roads? I didn't think so. Take an example like TVR. They manufacture several hundred cars per year for sale in the UK and Europe. The only reason they can do this is because, under British and European law, "low-volume" manufacturers (like TVR, Noble, Marcos, Ultima, etc. et al.) are entitled to special exemptions and expedited approval that is not available to major manufacturers. They are not entitled to this special treatment in North America. This is why the companies I mentioned (with two exceptions) do not sell cars in North America. It simply wouldn't be profitable. As for the two exceptions... Noble gets around it by pretending to sell their cars as a "kit". If someone wants to buy a Noble badly enough, they can contact the company who arrange to have a car without engine or transaxle shipped to the US where the buyer can arrange to purchase the drivetrain separately and have it installed. Ultima actually does offer their vehicles in kit form. --SpinyNorman 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Dauer is valid, it is a street-legal racing car, why would you doubt the figures.

That isn't the question. The question is why would you blindly accept unverified figures?

The Porsche 962 race cars has documented figures. Gunter 02:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Where? --SpinyNorman 03:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The GT-90 is also valid, it ran and acheived the acceleration listed.

ROTFLMAO! Why on earth would you think that? Jeremy Clarkson, a respected British auto journalist is on record as saying that he was one of the few who was allowed to drive the prototype and that it was everything that those few prototypes actually capable of being driven usually are... very pretty to look at and HORRIBLE to drive. It wasn't capable of exceeding about 40mph and drove like an Escort that had been in a terrible accident. When car companies build show cars, they're just that... for show. Typically, they contract the construction out to a small manufacturer who specializes in custom fabrication for the simple reason that the big manufacturers don't have the ability to make one-offs in a cost-effective manner. In the case of the GT90, it was cobbled together from pieces out of the Ford parts bin that were bolted onto a custom fabricated steel-tube chassis able to take the body panels. The engine block actually started life as two Ford V8s that had one pair of cylinders lopped off and were then electron-beam welded together to form a V12 block. You would never do this in an actual manufacturing situation. But then the rules are different for concept cars. The prototype engine wasn't capable of anything remotely resembling the output claims made for it. The output and performance claims were engineering targets. In other words, they were a goal for the engineers who might be put on the project to reach if possible. That's how cars are designed. That's the reason the Bugatti Veyron took so long to be released. The engineering targets were extremely ambitious and when they kept failing to be met, VAG made the decision to postpone release of the vehicle until the targets were met, rather than holding fast to the release date but with a compromized vehicle. --SpinyNorman 20:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe you should correct the GT-90 Wikipedia page which says it ran, i checked elsewhere and like you said it never did. So it can go Gunter 02:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I will correct the page. They were also wrong about the origin of the engine. --SpinyNorman 03:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to redefine 1. as shouldn't this list be for production cars as tuner cars are usually one-offs, as as result, I have now removed 1 tuner cars and 1 race cars from this list —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willirennen (talk • contribs) 22:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Page protection

I see there's a revert war so I've protected the page for some time out. Please try to reach agreement on the talk page instead of reverting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please, let's not start this again

I've made it abundantly clear how the entries I removed don't meet either the criteria for inclusion in the article or wikipedia's own requirements for verifiability. The article specifically and explicitly states that the cars must be road-legal in their intended market. In addition, the claims must be independently verifiable as per wikipedia policy. So, that rules out ALL concept cars and those tuner cars whose performance hasn't been independently verified. If you have a problem with this then say so but don't just revert the page without talking about it first. --SpinyNorman 11:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to rediscuss the same problems again. You cannot bulk edit, you can bring up individual cars and we can discuss. You POV as to which manufacturers are admissible and which not is absurd. You should be banned from Wikipedia with your constant 3RR and other disruptive behaviour. Your talk page is full of complaints that you obviously do not understand. Gunter 18:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Look, the criteria for inclusion in this article is clear: the car has to be street legal. As I have REPEATEDLY tried to explain to you, concept cars aren't street legal. If you don't understand what a concept car is, you have no business editing this article. And I have brought up the cars I have removed for discussion and you have, so far, provided no valid argument for why they should remain - thus I have deleted them and will continue to delete them until you can provide evidence that supports their inclusion. --SpinyNorman 05:47, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

You have not proven anything, you don't seem to understand how wikipedia works, items are discussed before they are edited en mass. You are just being disruptive and hostile. I have removed the Camaro Concept. You have yet to discuss any others. And as for your removal of reputable tuners claiming whatever they say is wrong, is laughable. Gunter 11:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

We have discussed things repeatedly and you have repeatedly failed to make your case for the inclusion of cars that violate both the criteria of the article (i.e. any concept car, since they are by definition not street legal) and the policies of wikipedia (i.e. the unverifiable claims of tuners). Cars whose inclusion cannot be supported are removed, it is as simple as that. Your belligerence in repeatedly trying to restore cars in violation of policy and without supporting evidence for their inclusion is the only "hostile and disruptive" activity going on here. You are invited to stop anytime you like. --SpinyNorman 06:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Also, I removed the Brabus-tuned SLR and Lingenfelter Viper because there is no indepedent confirmation of their performance. Also the Lotus GT1 since there's no evidence it ever got past the prototype phase and, as such, isn't street legal. I also removed the Aston Martin V8 Le Mans. Awesome car though it certainly is, the idea that it could, at 4,300 lbs, lumber to 60mph in 3.8 seconds is laughable. More realistic claims put the 0-60 time at around 5 seconds [2]... awe-inspiring for a cars of its bulk to be sure but well outside consideration for inclusion here. --SpinyNorman 06:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

If you want to remove an entry, you can bring each individual car up here for discussion, you do not just remove 50 cars from the list. Gunter 10:11, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The reasoning for concept cars and unverified claims for tuners are all the same for each, there is no point in discussing each case individually. The fact is that the cars I removed are not eligible for inclusion as per the criteria of this page and wikipedia policy in general. Until and unless you can provide evidence that supports their inclusion, they cannot be included. If you provide (a) evidence that the car in question is street-legal and (b) evidence that the acceleration times have been independently verified then the car in question can be added to the list. But until you can do both of those things, they stay gone. --SpinyNorman 19:56, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

So now you're just reverting without any discussion at all? I've told you, if you can provide evidence to support the inclusion of a given car, then the car can be included. If you can't provide such evidence, why are you bothering to include it? --SpinyNorman 16:02, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, in my understanding of Wikipedia policy, primary references can only be used in an article about that subject. In the case of this article, that doesn't apply, so we should use secondary references. Addhoc 16:40, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Gunter's comment, could we start by discussing Hennessey. The source being used is a primary source and of course should be a reliable and reputable secondary source, such as for example, The Times newspaper used for the Veryon. Addhoc 19:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY! And thank you for your willingness to discuss this reasonably. I have taken the liberty of creating a separate section below and copying your remark into it to keep things simpler. (note to Gunter: See how this is done? Maybe you should stop violating wiki policy and stop vandalising the page. If you did, you'd get farther than you are now. If you insist on keeping up this behavior, I'm going to have to consider your actions to be "blanking" under the vandalism policy and that will free me up from the 3RR limitation.)

[edit] Discussing the Hennessey

Regarding Gunter's comment, could we start by discussing Hennessey. The source being used is a primary source and of course should be a reliable and reputable secondary source, such as for example, The Times newspaper used for the Veryon. Addhoc 19:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean the 1.85 second 0-60 claim? The problem I have with tuners in general (and Hennessey in particular) is that their claims are, to put it as politely as possible, inherently suspect. Hennessey has a history of questionable business practices and claims. In addition, the claim that a street-legal, turbcharged Viper can so substantially out-accelerate a Bugatti Veyron is, to put it again as politely as possible, EXTREMELY suspect. So, given the history of unreliability of tuner claims and Hennessey claims in particular, combined with the questionable nature of the claim, I don't see how the car can be on this list without independent verification of the claim. I agree with your interpretation of the wiki policy on the admissibility of evidence. This article isn't about Hennessey, so using Hennessey as support for competitive claims simply isn't in keeping with wiki policy. I would also like to ask your help in keeping Gunter at bay until we can settle this. He simply isn't willing to listen to logic or reason. It would help the article if we can keep his unsupported reverts from damaging the content. I would prefer not to have to argue that his edits now qualify as vandalism. Hopefully, between the two of us, we can keep things on the right track. (SpinyNorman)

Yes, I agree, this a highly suspect claim that should be verified by a reliable and reputable source. However, I don't agree that Gunter is a vandal. Accordingly, would Gunter like to comment on my interpretation of policy? Addhoc 20:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree that the claim is both suspect and, according to wiki policy, must be independently verified before being accepted for this article. In fact, I would argue that even if the claim *is* verified, that the independent referee should be the source for the article rather than Hennessey. I'm disappointed you don't feel that Gunter is engaging in vandalism, frankly, I'm a loss as to how else you could describe someone who arbitrarily wipes out edits by others that have been repeated discussed and supported. Oh well. I guess I can't win 'em all.  ;-) --SpinyNorman 20:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm am so tired of having to go over the same arguments again and again, and now watch as a vandal trys to make me the guilty one.

Norman is simply unable to follow wikipedia guidelines. If he wants to make a change to the list, bring the individual car up here for discussion, and if a CONSENSUS is reached (spiny doesn't know what that means) we will make a change. He continually butchers the entire list with generalizations, no matter what the consensus is. As for having supplied any evidence, he has not, he continualy raves on about how any vendor who posts a figure is suspect. Saying a vendor's figure is suspect because they obtain it under the most ideal conditions is absurd, since that is what every vendor would do. Yet in his ignorance assumes that there is such a thing as an independant review, show me an unbiased magazine that prints bad results for a vendor that is advertizing with them, if they did they would not be in business long. Also how can i vandalise my own article, i wrote practically the entire list, as such i have an unwritten obligation to keep vandalism out, since no one else is. I have no problem removing entries that are wrong, but lets discuss them first (spiny cannot comprehend this, as you see above i have been trying to explain this simple concept to him for 2 weeks non-stop!). As for policy, i feel if a vendor stakes their reputation on a statement we as an encyclopedic article are not here to give our POV is the vendor is lying, otherwise you might as well delete 50% of all wikipedia content. As i have offered norman, add an extra column and make comments like "unverified, concept, tuned, production" etc. The criteria for inclusion (which i wrote) is road-legal cars, so all tuners cars are road-legal, and as for the concepts and one-offs we can dicuss them individually, i don't have the time to discuss 50 cars at one as spiny would like, that is unrealistic. Gunter 00:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Gunter, on this page we should only be discussing this article in terms of existing WP policy. If you want to suggest changes to WP policy, then fine, but suggest those changes on the talk page of the appropriate policy. In this context, current policy indicates we should use secondary not primary sources. Accordingly, could I request, you don't attempt to reintroduce the information based on primary sources, until we have found a consensus? Addhoc 11:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

(sigh) Let me try to explain this to you once again. You cannot include material here in violation of both wiki policy and the page's own criteria for inclusion and then sit back and expect people to not challenge your attempts to do so. The fact remains that the majority of OEM vendors obtain independent confirmation of their claims (e.g. Bugatti, Ultima, etc, ad nauseum) but none of the tuners you have listed here do so. Wiki policy forbids using biased claims like those of the vendors for comparison purposes such as this article. That is not subject to question, it is black letter wiki pol

[edit] barabus tkr

I've removed it from the top of the list since, as far as I know, it hasn't been independently verified which is one of the main criteria for getting on this list. The car is also not in production yet so it doesn't qualify as being "available for sale to the public". In fact I'm surprised this got on the list in the first place, everybody knows they'll never achieve those figures.--Santahul 00:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Street Legal/Tuner/Concept

Just one more issue to consider: If a one-off tuner car can be considered on the list why not street legal Race cars like say Rod Saboury's various Corvette's running sub 7 second quarter mile times (probably <1 second 0-60 although I haven't found confirmation of this yet).

I guess my point is I feel this list should only include cars that have been licensed and driven on the street in some country around the world (doesn't have to be America). Any thoughts? Macutty 23:06, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ascari A10

Don't think this one should be here....even the Ascari wesite says it's still in developement so how can we know actual speeds?

See here: http://www.ascari.net/subsecciones.php?idioma=2&&seccion=19&&subseccion=40

[edit] Independent claims

I think we should require independent claims for all cars. Saleen's claim, for example, of 2.8s for the Twin Turbo S7 seems unlikely considering that Car and Driver's test found 3.4s [3]. Λυδαcιτγ 20:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I shall implement this policy, unless someone objects. Λυδαcιτγ 01:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. These manufacturer claims are largely for marketing. Laplacian 18:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LP640

Did you delete the record??? there are two record but one of these 2006 others 2007.

No... Λυδαcιτγ 00:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] S7

Isnt the saleen slr twin turbo the fastest car... this isnt correct

This isnt correct this list is not right. Forbes magazine comfirms that the saleen twin turbo is the fastest car, and on wikipedia there is no record times listed, therefore there is still a chance that I am correct, please look up your info.. the bugadi is not the fastest car! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.211.19.245 (talk • contribs)

The S7 has a claimed 0-60 time of 2.8s, so Forbes must be out of date. Λυδαcιτγ 02:41, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hennessey 800TT

2.43 seconds - do we count this one? Λυδαcιτγ 05:34, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] xjr15?

does the xjr15 qualify?0-60 in 3.1s 84.9.34.174 04:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently. Got a citation? Λυδαcιτγ 04:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] street legal/production car/one off

this article should follow used by the fastest production car (top speed) there are so many home made dragsters, that the acceleration table would have 1000 tuned up drag racers, before it saw a real car, made by a real company.

it should be production cars as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_automotive_superlatives

if someone wants a sep. table with a few notable non-production cars, and a few of the wild claims made by tuners etc, then thats would be a nice touch, but the main point of this article should conform to wikipedia's automotive superlatives.Sennen goroshi 05:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ferrari FXX

Ferrari FXX should be removed from the list. It is not street legal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.0.125.101 (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Y Done Λυδαcιτγ 03:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Motor Trend quote

A relevant quote from Motor Trend ([4]):

Optimistic power claims from tuners make for splashy headlines, but what's really being delivered to the pavement is a whole different story.

Λυδαcιτγ 08:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1991 GMC Syclone Pickup Truck

With 0-60 in 4.6 seconds in 1991, only 3 cars from the list were faster than the GMC Syclone Pickup Truck. It should merit a mention. --Hiro DynoSlayer (talk) 05/8/2008 03:47 (EST)