Talk:Saleen S7

message: "The Saleen S7 is the fastest production car in the world"
Fastest production car in the world? I believe this is wrong, the bugatti veyron has a proven top speed of 353mph (electronically limited).  Should this be changed?
no it should not be changed because the Saleen S7R only tops a speed of 250. Also they were already saying that the S7 Twin Turbo was hitting speeds of 260.The Bugatti should be placed the worlds fastest car because if it beating the McLaren F1 and for that fact it would be placed 3rd on the list. 
SALEEN S7 550hp
0–60 mph 4.8 sec
0-100 mph 10.1 sec
standing quarter mile 11.7 sec
SALEEN S7 Twin Turbo 750hp 
0-60 mph 3.8 sec
0-100 mph 7.9 sec
0-200 mph 32 sec
Quarter mile 18.5 sec
Top speed 241 mph
SALEEN S7R Twin Turbo Competition Package 1,000hp 
Well you get the point 
--
I can't find solid answers for two questions regarding this car and was hoping someone else would know.
*1. When was the car actually put into production. As far as I can tell, it was sold to the public starting in 2002 (and this is what the article reflects), but others say the car was unveiled in 2000. Any idea on a solid timeframe here for the sake of clarity?
*2. On the Saleen website, it only lists one Saleen S7 being sold to the public, and this is the Twin Turbo version, however, some people still refer to the "regular" S7 and the "turbo" S7. As far as I know, Saleen is only currently producing the turbo version as far as retail sales go. Again, and solid info about this?
- JogCon 06:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fastest Production Car in the World 

message: There should be some distinction made of the current turbo model and the first Saleen S7. A little history on the car would be great.
Unshortness 14:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  non-turbo model info / history needed. 

message: The article seems to give 2 different times - 3.3 and 2.8, elsewhere I have seen 2.7 claimed for this car. Have any of these been independently tested and the time verified? To be honest I think the sub 3 second claims are highly dubious as there are several cars around with similar power, weight and grip, none of which manage sub 3 second 0-60 sprints. We need to find an independent test with digital equipment and then aim to remove the inconsistencies. --LiamE 04:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. 2.8 seconds is a pretty dubious claim for a RWD car, considering this translates to a mean acceleration of 0.98g. Basically you would need 100% of the car's weight over the driven wheels and picture perfect clutch modulation from start to finish to make that happen. So unless the S7 nearly does wheel-stands on street tires, this figure is not plausible. Without sticky tires and/or glue on the road surface a RWD car won't do that. Bal00 14:15, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: someone added additioanl numbers for the turbo that are just Saleen's claimed numbers (supercars.net does not write their own reviews and in fact the bootom of the pagre reads: "Story by Saleen Inc, edited by Supercars.net". As well the numbers listed for the non-turbo version are listed as "estimates" when these were actual numbers C&D observed during their testing. Macutty (talk) 16:53, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  0-60 Time 

message: The S7 supposedally has enough downforce that it can drive on the ceiling of a windtunnel. Would this      be (if it is true) worthy of trivia? TVRJomar 23:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Most supercars (& every F1 car) can generate enough downforce to drive on the ceiling of a windtunnel at high velocities, this factoid is often used in marketing or pop-science puff pieces. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The article correctly states 'theoretically', meaning it is possible for a car with enough downforce to drive upside down but the problem is that there's virtually no place on earth that allows a car to actually do this. 81.246.93.2 (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Downforce 

message: The wide spacing should be corrected, as it makes the page difficult to read. Dragon 280 12:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am currently rewriting the article, which should eliminate any empty space or poor design.—Mr Grim Reaper (Talk | contribs), 00:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've shortened the techical data in the info boxes that caused the white space, and removed the second info box. There's no need to list all these numbers and their references. -- Matthead discuß!     O       16:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poor page design 

message: Should the this article be split into separate articles for the S7 Twin-Turbo and the S7R? —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 00:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split up the article 

message: I will remove the trivia section, once more. Please do not add it back, as non of the information is of any significance, while other information is already included in the main articles. If someone insists on adding a trivia section, please write it as a proper article and not as a list. —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 18:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In regards to WP:TRIV, trivia lists should be avoided. I have integrated the fact of being able to drive up side down into the main article. Other information is isolated and really isn't worth including into the article. That information may in integrated into more appropriate articles. It's common sense. If you can give a good reason to keep this trivia section, please tell us. —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 22:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: Can the Saleen S7 be considered as a limited production car? —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 19:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Limited production 

message: The lede says this cr wa s"designed and initially built in the UK by Automotive and Motorsport engineering company Ray Mallock Ltd.[" the infobox claim some other random fake news. Greglocock (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Designed by? 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The disagreement I have is with this sentence: "It was the first fully proprietary car produced by Saleen and became America's sixth mid-engine production sports car coming after the Pontiac Fiero, Consulier GTP, Mosler Raptor, Vector W8, and M12."  
If we include ultra-limited production cars like the Mosler and Vector, then we must also include street-legal production homologation specials. As part of the Ford GT40 race program, a street-legal version of the GT40 race car was produced and sold in limited volume. Although there is disagreement over the naming used, it was either the GT40 MKI or MKIII.  See the attached references:
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a15348548/set-mouth-to-water-this-ford-gt40-road-car-is-heading-to-auction/
https://www.supercars.net/blog/1966-ford-gt40-mark-iii/
This car was produced by an American car company, and is a mid-engine, street-legal car. As such, the sentence above needs altered to include reference to it- or it could be edited to remove it entirely, as it's unnecessary for the purposes of discussing the Saleen S7. 
72.86.134.230 (talk) 01:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction lists this as the 6th American mid-engine production car.  This is incorrect and/or needs greater specifying.