Talk:List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times/Archive 7

This page 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.

Others:

Archive 2014–17

This /Archive_2013 was created in March 2014, collecting topics
from the main talk-page, but some discussions might have
been overlooked. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a shame what some are trying to wikipedia. This is not a question of tastes but a question of facts! Times published by porsche have always been conservative and true. It's the manufacturer claim so you haven't got the right to contest it! If you think it's not correct so you must prove it! Wikipedia is based in facts so do it the correct way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.136.26.14 (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

This time is best left off the list until BsBsBs or another credible source gives justification for the entry with no on-board video or verifies the manufacturer claim with reference. Bs: Time-stamp on the GT2 edit: 02:00, 5 March 2013Philonetic (talk) 09:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I see know [no] reason why the GT2 RS time of 7:18 should not be entered. The vast majority of the times on this page have no corroborating video proof, including other manufacturer claims; to not allow Porsche's time screams of blatant hypocrisy and bias. This is a manufacturer we are talking about, and highly respected manufacturer who have been lapping the 'Ring before it became a "fashionable" thing for car companies to do, at that. If you really feel the need you could put something like "Manufacture Claim" or "No Video" next to the time, and not just of the Porsche, but all times without video. Wikipedia is supposed to be a site dealing with fact, not a place witch allows peoples personal opinions to affect what is recorded. Put the damn time up. FlyingPineapple (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by FlyingPineapple (talk • contribs) 16:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to add that German/EU law is not applicable internationally. Track location notwithstanding, for a vehicle to appear in the road legal production category it should be required to fall under all EU and North American (even Canadian) road legal standards. For a vehicle to be considered a "production" model it should by definition be "mass produced" and have at least 500 sales in the same year of the model used. The very definition of mass production stipulates that it "involves making many copies of products... using assembly line techniques to partially complete products" If entries are regulated in this manner then "kit" vehicles, decade long development platforms, and race-specific non-road worthy vehicles would be more easily categorized, and their category debated less often. This entire list needs to be refreshed and evaluated to some degree of formal regulation, including the removal of all half-sourced or incomplete entries. Philonetic (talk) 11:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I have rolled-back the front splitter edit. As noted above, short of an official declaration that modifications to the car were road legal or not, there is no reliable source for the claim of the non-legal front splitter, the car needs the benefit of the doubt, and the edit should be viewed as a

edit.

As far as road legality goes:

• NHTSA/FMVSS is not pertinent on the Ring. The Ring is in Germany and comes under German/EU law.
• Real production vehicles fall under the European Community Whole Vehicle Type Approval (ECWVTA) regulations
• European Community Small Series Type Approval (ECSSTA) is for very small series (limited registration ceiling 75)

It is debatable whether this list should insist on ECWVTA as the benchmark for "road legal", or if it also admits ECSSTA. Please find consensus. Both are "road legal," and whether a run of 75 is "production" is a matter of opinion.

One-offs that require an Individual Vehicle Approval should be excluded as a clear sign of "non-production" car. These IVAs are only legal in the country where they have been obtained. For instance, a kit car that has received an IVA in France cannot be registered in Germany without a German IVA (or "Einzelzulassung").

Cars that have ECWVTA or ECSSTA come with a Certificate of Conformity, which is accepted as proof of road legality by any EU country, regardless of the origin of the car. So equipped, you can buy the car anywhere in Europe and register it anywhere in Europe.

• To maintain conformity, most additions to the car must either be type approved (via ECE registration or similar), or inspected by a Technical Service (such as TÜV in Germany). They must be added to the vehicle papers. Compliance with this can only be checked by inspection of the car and the papers. Which would be Original Research ....

Come to think of it, a lot of entries on this list have no references. With all the recent edit warring, it has become very possible that nonsensical entries have infiltrated the list. Please find references to

. If they are not, they can and should be deleted.

Also, if any have gripes with entries, please discuss them first, or at least give a rationale for your edit on this talk page. Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

"It is debatable whether this list should insist on ECWVTA as the benchmark for "road legal"" Agreed 100%, but please keep this topic in "Road Legality" to maintain consolidation. "a lot of entries on this list have no references... they can and should be deleted" Agreed. Beginning June 1st 2013, all incomplete and unsourced entries will begin disappearing if not completed or reliably sourced. The few people that consistently moderate this page have neither the time nor inclination to research and fill in the details of every entry. Philonetic (talk) 11:43, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The following entry is false, it is a composed theoretical best time when compiling best times from each section, there is no video confirmation.

7:19.18 Nissan GT-R (2013) Toshio Suzuki 14 May 2012 Nissan conducted test with standard Dunlop run-flat tires. Video confirmed. Nissan GT-R 2013 Official Video (11/2012).[13]

Please remove.

Agreed. I went looking around and couldn't find a time that was any faster than what is listed already, so I've removed it. —Mrand ^{Talk • C} 20:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The following entry is nothing more than a manufacturer claim, no official time or video confirmation to be found. 7:18 Porsche 911 GT2 RS Timo Kluck April 2010 [12] [12] Manufacturer claim. Michelin Pilot Sport Cup Plus N2 tires. Quote from article: "Oh, and Porsche says this car will lap the Nürburgring Nordschleife in 7 minutes, 18 seconds" This does not justify a lap time. Removed.

I noticed from here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IdpsR-GjLg that the Genesis Coupe ran a time of 8:40 and not 8:28 as listed. Can anyone confirm? Truetimers489498 (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Done — The Hyundai Genesis Coupe 3.8L on TopGear Russia did indeed run a time of 8:43 with -15secs for yellow flags and traffic, formulating the incorrect 8:28 entry. As this stipulation is not applied to other entries the time will be corrected to the actual time of 8:43. Philonetic (talk) 09:54, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The lap time of genesis coupe 3.8L should be 8:28, since there is 15secs wasted due to the accident on the track. The speaker said it should be minus 15 secs from 8:40, which has to be 8:28. The website below has official time (8:28): http://circuitodenurburgring.com/en/tiempos/coche/110/hyundai-genesis-coupe-rs-3800-.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarkliu1982 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear editors:

1.) I have restored the inclusion criteria for "Production, street-legal vehicles". If you go through the discussion (and possibly the discussion archives,) you will see that these inclusion criteria have been here for a long time and had been accepted by a consensus of editors. The inclusion criteria were set up after a long and in-depth discussion. The inclusion criteria should only be changed after a likewise thorough discussion and consensus-building. A change may be unfair to past entries. Be advised that WP mandates unambiguous inclusion criteria for a list. The inclusion criteria do not need to be sourced, the list entries do. (For details, see discussion.) As Nurburgring lap times are not supervised by an independent sanctioning body, the current criteria represent the bare minimum of proof needed.

2.) The need for unambiguous inclusion criteria has been demonstrated by the recent edit war. Please add only bona-fide, confirmed, and properly sourced entries to this list. A desire to reach a certain lap time is not sufficient for an entry, the lap must be driven in that time. When denying new entries, please refer edit requests to the inclusion criteria. Some recent ones can easily solved by stating that the entry does not meet all criteria.

3.) As for tires, please note that in Germany, a car is not street legal if the tires are not homologated for that vehicle, and also if the tires do not have the minimum thread depth. Germany follows the EU recommendation of mandating a profile depth of 1.6 mm for the main profile. Entries of non-street legal cars should not be added to the list of "Production, street-legal vehicles."

Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen:

I have removed the entry for a 14 May 2012 alleged 7:19.18 lap by the Nissan GT-R. The inclusion criteria for Production, street-legal vehicles says that new entries require

• An official manufacturer’s statement for manufacturer-conducted tests.
• An on-board video
• A statement that OEM tires have been used.

There is no official manufacturer's statement. If you check Nissan's press releases you will find no announcement of a record. To be sure, I called Nissan's PR department in Yokohama and asked whether they know anything about a record, they did not.

The video referenced in the edit is not the required on-boad video. This video is a promotional video made for the 2013 launch of the updated GT-R. A new list entry requires a full on-board video, from start to finish. The referenced video uses short clips, along with video shot during a press conference. I was at that press conference and talked to CT-R Chief Engineer Kazutoshi Mizuno. At the press conference, Mizuno-san talked about the POSSIBILITY of the GT-R making a new record. He definitely did not claim a new one. He talked about 7:18 during INTERNAL TESTS (they do not qualify, unless officially claimed and documented) and said that he might even do better during an official attempt. This is documented in a TTAC story written after the press conference.

Mizuno was very much aware of the list at WP, and its requirements. He did not claim that the 7:18 should be on the list, but he also said that some entries do not belong:

"However, Mizuno-san is energetically opposed to using heavily modded cars for the track attack: “We use the same car the customer uses.” Stock GT-R , no roll cage, regular three point belt. According to Mizuno, cars like the Radical SR8, a perennial list leader, have no place on a list of record of street legal production cars. “A car that needs its engine rebuilt after a few hours is no production car,” says the former Nissan race director as he crosses his forearms before his chest, the Japanese sign for “NO.”

PLEASE put only bona fide entries on that list. It is hard enough to make sure that official manufacturer claims qualify, let's not enter records nobody claims. Internal test do not qualify, see Porsche 918 above in the comments ...

Also, please participate in the discussion before playing ping pong with edits.

Thank you. BsBsBs (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

PS: I guess I will have to amend "On-board video" to "An original, uncut on-board video, showing the lap and the timing from start to finish." BsBsBs (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

A video is here...

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1080223_2014-nissan-gt-r-preview — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoff.shauger (talk • contribs) 17:37, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion above; "Edit request on 10 December 2012 This edit request has been answered. Ring time for 2013 JDM / 2014 USDM Nissan GTR is 7:18.6 Source http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J36CEnanlMM See time code 1:38 Simonlok (talk) 19:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC) Not done Youtube is not considered a reliable source. Pol430 talk to me 23:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)"

I also have to agree with the statement from Mizuno-san and that race specified vehicles such as the SR8 should stand apart from daily driven production models, perhaps in a category of their own such as "production street-legal race spec"? Any new vehicle entry in the production category should include A/C, stereo, spare tire and jack. Spare tire and jack should not be required on-board for entry, only that they are equipped on the production model. Awaiting feedback. Philonetic (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Toyota Motorsport GmbH have a new EV lap record from October 2012, with an updated chassis EV P002. This is timed at 7:22.329 . Manufacturer claim: http://www.toyota-motorsport.com/en/latest-information-archive-en/275-ev-record-2012 Video proof: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZQV2G9W5vQ&feature=plcp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajeshkallur (talk • contribs)

Done — Bility (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

The 'Toyota EV P001' is already listed in the 'non-series/non-road legal' vehicles section, so just add the vehicle there as it is not a production vehicle that is in 'mass-production', see the section prior to the table for reference. --O-star1 (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

When adding new entries, please do not replace or remove older entries even if with the same year, model and driver. Every listed time is a record in its own right. Philonetic (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The entire article, talk section included, NEEDS to be cleaned of all completed edit requests, along with all irrelevance and concluded debate discussion. A new uncontested section should be included depicting all prior conclusions (i.e. October GTR attempt, etc) in consolidated form, with strict entry regulations located at the TOP of the article. Considering replacement; Any vehicle believed to be misplaced in category cannot be moved without consensus unless the previously mentioned information is missing from the vehicles description, in which case the entry should be deleted. Considering there has been no consensus on the matters of road legality or what constitutes a "production vehicle", I believe the main focus should be directed towards those two matters in the "talk" page, and a consensus should be reached before any major edits. All incomplete and un-sourced entries should begin disappearing if not completed or reliably sourced, such edits should be performed only by recognized editors of this article, always with a description of the edit and reasons for removal. Don't forget your signature or your edits will most likely be reverted by a recognized editor.

Until a consensus is reached on the subjects of road legality and what constitutes a production vehicle, then any such descriptions and the existence of such titled categories are irrelevant. NO ENTRIES should be judged concerning either of these matters until consensus is reached. Any arguments on such matters are wholly irrelevant until a standard is agreed upon. Please refer to the sections above. Philonetic (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

There IS a consensus for what a "Production, street-legal vehicle" is as far as this list is concerned. This consensus was reached after a long and often arduous discussion. The definition stood ever since. Being the product of a consensus, the definition is a bit convoluted, but this reflects the nature of the beast. I think most of us know what "Production, street-legal vehicle" really means: A car that can be bought in a store, a car that was made in large quantities, a car that is driven around the Ring unaltered, or at least so that it complies with local regulations - German regulations are quite strict when it comes to alterations. All this to set this category off from the purpose-built or heavily modified cars. The current definition describes such vehicle, albeit in a necessarily convoluted way. A more simpler definition has been abused in the past, and led to cars on the list that definitely not reflect its spirit. This has turned this list into a bit of a joke. If I would create a new list, I would require from each contestant that a TÜV (or equal) expert certifies that the car is a "production car" by virtue of at least an ECSSTA type approval, and not an Einzelzulassung or none, and that it is "street legal" according to STVZO (which, to a TÜV expert implies no illegal alterations, tires etc.) The same expert should also witness and certify the timing. This could be done at a minor expense compared to what the rest of the attempt costs.BsBsBs (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The talk section is a transcript of a discussion and definitely SHOULD NOT be altered or "cleaned up."BsBsBs (talk) 16:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to set that straight BsBsBs. "If I would create a new list, I would..." If there is any reason such a list shouldn't be included, it's beyond me. That sounds like something that would be appreciated by all. One thing not covered, should un-sourced entries be removed? Philonetic (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, what would be considered "made in large quantities"? 50, 500? For a vehicle to be considered "production", it should have an assembly line as well. Thoughts? Philonetic (talk) 21:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

A while ago, I talked to most involved auto manufacturers on this list, and asked them what their definition of a "Production, street-legal vehicle" is. (I did that as part of a story I wrote. It is no secret that I work as a journalist, covering automotive topics, which gives me direct access.) They all agreed on one thing: That it is a tough topic. "Street legal" was simple: Legal to be driven on a public road, as the Nuerburgring is. "Production" was harder to define. Some manufacturers, for instance Porsche, make bona-fide "production vehicles," but sell less than 100. The LFA sold a total of 500, and 75 of them had the Nurburgring package. Others, like Dodge (Viper), or Chevrolet (Camaro), or Nissan (GT-R) sell lots. So it's hard to come up with a number. That's where the ECSSTA small series type approval came from: It at least documents the INTENT to make a few. All manufacturers I talked to, and many voices in the media, feel strongly that purpose-built cars such as the Radical, or heavily modded cars, have no place on this list. A car that only has an Individual Type Approval (IVA) demonstrates and documents that it is not a "production" vehicle. It is patently unfair to the other cars on the list to admit the purpose-built one-offs. IVA approval has only the barest minimum of requirements, whereas true production cars must comply with stringent safety, emissions etc rules. The Radical with the UK IVA could not even be legally registered in Germany, where the Ring is. It can be driven on the road, if, and that's a big IF, if it complies with all tricky regulations.

As far as "street legal" goes, the devil is in the detail. German and EU regs are quite strict about what can be added or removed. For instance, an expired band-aid in the first aid kit can make a car not road legal. This might sound outrageous, but people received tickets for it. Unapproved tires, modded engines, body kits etc. definitely are the end of road legality. Non-standard tires can mean a few seconds, they also make the car illegal. Slicks? Sorry, no minimum profile depth, illegal. Some people, like Mizuno-san, the Chief Engineer of the GT-R, are very strict and won't even add a rollcage or a 5 point harness. Others are more cavalier. Many cars on this list allegedly were not "street legal" in the true sense.BsBsBs (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm missing the lap time from 4. August 2005 (7.15,63 Porsche GT2RS / Edo Competition, driver Patrick Simon, "Pirelli P Zero Corsa" tyres) between the two "Donkervoort D8 RS" (Michael Düchting, 7:18.1 and 7:14.89) entries. The nickname of that Porsche GT2RS tuned by EDO Competition is "Biene Maya" because of the yellow/black paintwork. [Source: Sport auto (Germany) and "Biene Maya"] --212.23.103.0 (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

 Not done The Edo Competition Porsche is not a production, street-legal vehicle. Philonetic (talk) 08:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The table says: "Production, street-legal vehicles" and the EDO Competition GT2 is a “street legal” car but not a production vehicle. It's still listed in german motorsports magazines in the "street legal" cars category. --46.115.114.241 (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

As BsBsBs recently covered, ""Production, street-legal vehicle" really means: A car that can be bought in a store, a car that was made in large quantities, a car that is driven around the Ring unaltered, or at least so that it complies with local regulations", the vehicle must comply to "production" standards as well. Philonetic (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

If i am not mistaken Octane magazine No.29 Nov 2005 only estimated Ford GT time of 7:41 how did that time even make it on the list with no proof, when 7:41 is a huge difference from Ford GT's best confirmed time of 7:52

The time doesn;t show up on nurburgringlaptimes.com/lap-times/lap-times-top-100/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.184.160.169 (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

time to remove it, no sources since 2008?

i think it's time to let go of the fairy tale

20 sites on the web now quote this false time from wiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by XXXVaporXXX (talk • contribs) 09:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

|- | | 7:40.6 | Ford GT | Markus Draper | | Octane Magazine^{[citation needed]}

Noone can prove this time, octane magazine said it was an estimate

XXXVaporXXX (talk) 09:04, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: You are already autoconfirmed and can make these changes yourself. Thanks,

) 02:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Ford GT 7:52.00 '04

AND Put the real time back up, what is this Fordfanboy fantasy land, you put up a simulated time and take down the real time that could be verified Ford GT ran 7:52 in real life, next we will be seeing gran turismo times being posted XXXVaporXXX (talk) 09:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: You are already autoconfirmed and can make these changes yourself. Thanks,

) 02:11, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Since there are many generations of the Porsche 911, can you add "996" to the end of this line:

7:56 Porsche 911 Turbo Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (06/2000)

Like this:

7:56 Porsche 911 Turbo 996 Horst von Saurma Sport Auto (06/2000)

See this page for confirmation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sport_auto_(Germany)

reliable source:

http://www.sportauto.de/supertest/brennende-eife-sucht-supertest-06-2000-porsche-911-turbo-996-1041257.html

--46.115.83.104 (talk) 00:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

71.19.177.226 (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done: please provide

) 17:11, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks. BsBsBs (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Just want to add this code, new time for alfa 4C | 8 min 04 s | Alfa Romeo 4C | | | topspeed.com (09/2012)^[1]. Guillaumestyle (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Done, merci. --Stfg (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Editors: According to Car&Driver "Production of the 918 Spyder starts on September 18, 2013." The date of the 6:57 run is given as September 4, 2013. This was before the stated start of production. The referenced source http://www.ausringers.com/2013/09/10/porsche-918-spyder-breaks-7-minute-barrier.html itself talks of "a pair of production-spec 918 Spyders," and of "a production-based car homologated for road use."

According to these sources, the vehicles were pre-production units. Production-spec, production-based, but not yet production. This list is for "Production, street-legal vehicles." It is doubtful whether this car is in the correct list.BsBsBs (talk) 15:29, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

My uncle's brother tested this car in Germany (at the Nordschleife), and it completed in under 7:20.000. Guess what? It completed in just 7:13.547 (100% stock)!

BTW, it was tested in normal condition and by a professional driver. :D

Source: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20131009204827AA9GHqb

Mrtacos2 (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

That's Answers. Anyone can post whatever they want on Answers. 119.252.27.68 (talk) 06:58, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Yahoo! Answers is not a reliable source. Also, don't worry, the guy who used to claim that fake personal time was full of cow. You do see how the question was deleted, because the Yahoo! Answers Team proved that he was a liar.

Video proven 7:37.47 done by Chevrolet (automaker conducted test).

Source: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qj1h75vA1Jw

I'm a fan of racing and accurate statistics and would like to see a disclaimer on this page to announce that the laptimes that are on this page are claims made by manufaturers and media outside the frame of any competition and rules and with minimal ways to be verified and should be considered a guideline not official results in a sanctioned event.

Nurburgring has become a publicity stunt, going as far as to talk about 'official Nurburgring lap times' in the media when referring to manufacturer times.It's surreal what happens and wikipedia should not be part of this campain of disinformation.A disclaimer or a section to state the obvious that there is nothin 'official' about these lap times would go a long way in educating the public until a real solution is found, if one can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olengher (talk • contribs) 21:22, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

From the Wiki article: A production vehicle is defined as "one that is put into mass production, as a model produced in large numbers and offered for sale to the public." Audi R8 E-Tron *not* a production vehicle, not on sale to the public anywhere in the world. Should *not* have included in table of production vehicles in mid 2012 in *anticipation* of being on sale at some ambiguous future date with no citation given for the ambiguous future date.

Citation 1: http://www.autoblog.com/2012/10/25/audi-r8-e-tron-program-on-hold-facing-cancellation/

Citation 2: http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1084434_audi-r8-e-tron-electric-supercar-wont-go-on-sale

Citation 3: http://jalopnik.com/the-record-breaking-electric-audi-r8-e-tron-is-reported-510160927

Citation 4: http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/audi-r8-e-tron-stillborn-greatness-motoramic-drives-141633004.html

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.40.204.26 (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2013‎

• Note to deciding editor: Please refer to the edit request on 29 June 2012 for related information regarding this edit request. Steel1943 (talk) 05:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Done Thanks,

) 03:06, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Duplicate mention of van modifications and draft vehicle in Ford Transit notes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.7.237.245 (talk) 01:20, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Two issues with the 2015 Nissan GT-R Nismo entry:

1. The official time is 7:08.679, not 7:08.69 as currently stated. Autoblog: "The official lap time is just seven minutes and 8.679 seconds..." (http://www.autoblog.com/2013/11/19/nissan-gt-r-nismo-nurburgring-lap-record-video/). Motor Trend: "The 7:08.679 Nurburgring car." (http://wot.motortrend.com/1311_2015_nissan_gtr_nismo_has_staggering_600_hp.html).

2. The right-most column in the entry simply states "Track Pack" & tire specification. However, Motor Trend reports a lot more changes were made to the GT-R that ran 7:08.679 on the ring. Many of these changes are not available for sale to the public, so does it even belong in the section of "production, street-legal vehicles" when you cannot buy the car as-is? Until Nissan or Nismo officially announces these changes are available for sale to the public, I would argue these changes made the 7:08.679 GT-R a non-series vehicle, and thus the entry should be moved down to the second table for "non-series/non-road-legal vehicles". At the very least, the right-most column needs to state these not-for-sale changes reported by Motor Trend.

Motor Trend: "The Nismo car you can buy next summer won’t circulate the ‘Ring quite this quickly. The so-called “Time Attack” car displayed in the camouflage has several additional upgrades. The engine is tuned differently with identical 600-hp and 481-lb-ft horsepower and torque peaks, but the curves are slightly fatter. The AWD system’s torque biasing program is tweaked slightly. The aerodynamics package also differs in a couple very meaningful ways that will likely erode that 0.27 Cd claimed for the mainstream model. The rear wing stands quite a bit taller; there’s an aero fence running along the rear edge of the hood, and the front fenders have little aero “whiskers.” Many of these upgrades will likely find their way into the Nismo Track edition (or whatever they call it), though it’s not clear whether the aero fence on the hood could pass pedestrian crash standards or whether the tweaked engine could be made clean enough to be legal." (http://wot.motortrend.com/1311_2015_nissan_gtr_nismo_has_staggering_600_hp.html). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.40.204.26 (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• There hardly is a new entry that is not disputed here and in the media. The list is led by two perennial targets of criticism. The "production" 918 Spyder rounded the Ring before production started. The Dodge Viper ACR allegedly had a street-illegal splitter. They (and sundry other doubtful entries) all are still on this list. Equipping contestants with special "Weissach," "Nurburg Ring", or "Track" packages also appears common practice. This contribution raises a valid point. However, as long as there is no independent verification that a car is in fact a production, street legal vehicle, we can't help but take the manufacturer's word for it.BsBsBs (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is the 7:08.679 GTR time in here?. The car is NOT a Production car. Why is this so difficult to understand?. The testing magazine even states that it is not a production car. C'mon people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.16.64.3 (talk) 08:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

BMW E60 M5 8:13. Said car was limited to 155MPH therefore restricting the top speed on the straights of the track.

A delimited yet still stock version of the vehicle was used and the track was completed in 7:52 by driver Hans-Joachim Stuck

http://www.m5board.com/vbulletin/e60-m5-e61-m5-touring-discussion/323410-e60-m5-laps-ring-7-52-a.html

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Also, please provide a

) 16:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

According to http://circuitodenurburgring.com/en/tiempos/coche/110/hyundai-genesis-coupe-rs-3800-.html genesis coupe's lap time is 8:28. It's because when the driver tests the car on the track there were cars on the same track,so it takes time to pass them. Also there is a crashing car on the track too. He has to slow dowm. Although the vidoe shows the final time is 8:43, the driver said he has to minus 15 seconds for the traffic and the accident on the track. So, he just takes 15 seconds away from the result. The final time should be 8:28. Clarkliu1982 (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Not done: We can't adjust the time to be what the driver says it might have been had things been different. We can only report on what reliable sources say it actually was. Thanks,

) 02:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)