Talk:SSC Ultimate Aero

message: Needs updating it say will will be in 2006 and attempt again in May in Germany which failed at 240 MPH Uber555 03:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

message: It says that "SSC claims that the car can accelerate from 0-180 mph in 2.5 secs." and then citation needed. That's 6 times faster than the McClaren F1 and I seriously doubt that that information is correct. Maybe the author of that bit meant 180 kph, not mph.
Afunyun (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dat acceleration? 

message: Please read the entire article you referenced for 'world's fastest production car' before you post the SSC as such next time, even in the article it states "The data, collected by Dewetron's world-renowned GPS tracking system, will be verified by Guinness before the Ultimate Aero is officially crowned the "World's Fastest Production Car."" Therefore I have removed the reference, for now.  There are also questions about whether or not the SSC Aero qualifies as a "production car" based on claims that the car is A) not street legal, and B) has few if any units sold.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RTShadow (talk • contribs) 23:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The SSC Aero Has NOT Been Verified As World's Fastest Production Cars 

message: It is oct. 11, and Guinness has made it official. It is the fastest. In regards to that, I think the article needs a bit of cleaning, especially in the 'Speed Attempt' section.
So much for my Bugatti fanboyism :)
For the sake of fairness, keep in mind that Veyron does go as fast as 407.6 kmph, not 378 kmph as stated in the article. I have just witnessed this with my eyes. Also, how reliable are data produced by the car manufacturer? Isn't it supposed to be INDEPENDENT testing? 
As of "Bugatti fanboyism", the cars are incomperable. Speed record version of Aero is nothing but a stripped production version, aimed at one and only goal - prove American muscle once again. I have not seen them stripping anything off Veyron to go for 407 kmph. All the luxury was stil there. Oranges and apples, oranges and apples.76.104.253.138 (talk) 01:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The SSC Ultimate Aero is not proven to have achived such speed. That is still to be seen by everyone. The Guinness World Record certificate does no make it true. What would make it true is a test under credible scrutiny, with reputable experts, caught on a camera for everyone to see. Everyone say the F1... Everyone saw the CCR... Everyone saw the Veyron... But noone has seen the SSC Ultimate Aero reach the claimed top speed. Until then, it's bullshit.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.180.184 (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless there is any proof that the verification process is done improperly, the involve parties are assumed innocent and verified record stays. Do you seriously think Guinness judges would turn a blind eye on someone rigging the land speed record tests? - Jacob Poon (talk) 22:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's official! SSC Aero is the fastest! 

message: Shouldn't this article be in US Standard units with the metric units in parentheses as the car is American made? --134.173.56.209 (talk) 08:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should be. I've done this for the 2006 car section, but it takes a lot of time.  Feel free to help!  I've cited a wayback  cached source for most of the information in that section, which isn't reeeeeally what I would like to do, but the current SSC homepage does only cover the 2007 car. TNC (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Uh, no. If it's designed/built/produced in the US, it's a US product. - BilCat (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The SSC Ultimate Aero is an American-built.. everything else in the article like spelling and dates are US. SI units would be out of place as primary unit. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: By now, this is fairly outdated, but...competitions for the fastest production car isn't a US-centric thing. It's a world-wide competition. Not to mention the fact that the US is pretty much the last hold-out of Imperial measurements in the world...85.229.60.8 (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

text: *Not true - the UK still uses miles and feet/inches, even if we have mostly dropped the yard measurement. Wikipedia standards are for things to follow their national spellings and formatting. Wherever a source is present, I updated the numbers to reflect that source. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units 

message: I think SI should be primary as this not US-specific topic (although the vehicle was produced in the US). It has world significance because of its record and that's why SI should be primary. SkyBonTalk/Contributions 14:06, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, no. If it's designed/built/produced in the US, it's a US product. - BilCat (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The SSC Ultimate Aero is an American-built.. everything else in the article like spelling and dates are US. SI units would be out of place as primary unit. MilborneOne (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: By now, this is fairly outdated, but...competitions for the fastest production car isn't a US-centric thing. It's a world-wide competition. Not to mention the fact that the US is pretty much the last hold-out of Imperial measurements in the world...85.229.60.8 (talk) 22:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

text: *Not true - the UK still uses miles and feet/inches, even if we have mostly dropped the yard measurement. Wikipedia standards are for things to follow their national spellings and formatting. Wherever a source is present, I updated the numbers to reflect that source. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Units - discussion 2 

message: I don't know much about cars but it seems to me that '6.2-litre (387.4 cu. in.)' and '6.35-litre (387.2 cu. in.)' are conflicting values. As 6.35 litres is greater than 6.2 litres, the cu. in. values should represent that. However, the second cu. in. value is lower than the first. Any explanation/thoughts? PookeyMaster (talk) 09:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's entirely up to them: we shouldn't be quoting the figures if the only source is biased (nor just quote car magazines that, for their part, are just repeating the figures Shelby gives them).  You're right, some of those numbers are patent nonsense.  Also, the conflict PookeyMaster notes regarding the displacement is real,, and we should address it in some way.  If anyone cares about this car, how about trying to find a reputable source for engine size, in cu. in. or liters? atakdoug (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflicting Values 

message: The only place in this article that it is mentioned that the car is street legal, is in the category box thingy at the bottom.
Is the car street legal? Is this verified? MSNBC thinks it is, but I'm not convinced.
   Yes, it is.  I just took a picture of one today outside of Microsoft's Studio-A building in Redmond, WA and it had WA State license plat # 0792 A  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.136.105 (talk) 06:32, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Street Legality 

message: Someone re-add them. They are useful pieces of information. Malamockq (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why were the fuel efficiency stats removed? 

message: "The first run clocked 257.41 mph (414.26 km/h) and the return trip 254.88 mph (410.19 km/h), with the average beating the Bugatti Veyron's speed by 235 mph (378.2 km/h). The results of this test, verified by Guinness World Records on October 9, 2007, gave the SSC Ultimate Aero the title of world's fastest production car."
Not sure what that's supposed to say but it's wrong.  98.223.170.167 (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Guinness World Records are not a credible entity. The car still hasn't been tested under a credible scrutiny.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.244.181.133 (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speed Record 

message: Large sections of this article are copied verbatim fromt eh companies website. Unless there is some justification for this this article is a copyright violation and should be put up for deletion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.183.146 (talk) 01:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright????? 

message: That's silly. Not only is it obviously mid engined just by looking at it, but it's also clearly listed as such on SSC's own page here:
http://www.shelbysupercars.com/car-specs.php
Don't see why something that obvious needs a citation, but it is verifiable if necessary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.168.220.112 (talk) 06:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mid-engine is not verified? 

message: The Weber F1 only claims to be faster than the Ultimate Aero.  This fact has not been officially recorded.  The status should remain incumbent until such time that it is officially not.  If we go by claimed top speed, then the Aero should be fastest with an estimated top speed of 434 km/h.  As far as I'm concerned, the only supercar to ever reach its estimated top speed is the Bugatti Veyron, and that car costs the company 2 million pounds.  Anybody?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinfulparade (talk • contribs) 08:19, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No longer incumbent?  Not verified! 

message: Somebody needs to stop people from posting the Weber F1 as being the fastest street-legal car in the world.  This fact has not been verified.  And where did the 2009 specs go??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinfulparade (talk • contribs) 07:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The SSC Ultimate Aero has also not been verfied to be the fastest production car in the world. A Guinness World Record certificate is not a credible evidence as are not Guinnes rules.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.244.183.8 (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Weber F1 

message: Shouldn't we put images in this article? The other super fast cars (McLaren F1, Bugatti Veyron, etc.) have pictures of them. Why not this? It wastes time to look at this then google the images, so we might as well put some here. FstrthnU (talk) 02:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images? 

message: Let's think about it, shall we? After we saw the VW guys, cracking their heads over and over again with the Veyron, for years going back to square one, how can a car like the SSC Ultimate Aero, with a 1990's design, with almost 1200 bhp on two wheels alone, on a road instead of a race track, could achieve such a speed?
I mean, look at the McLaren F1... When the guy reached 375 kph, the car almost seemed to desintegrate! The driver thought that he should stop the car... The McLaren F1 doesn't even have 700 bhp!! And the CCR?? It's scary when your reach the 390 kph!!
Either the Volkswagen guys in Germany didn't find the best engineers (because they were working in the USA!!), or all this about the SSC Ultimate Aero is just a publicity stunt for a small car manufacturer...
Which is it? Still waiting for the answer, because there's something about this that doesn't seem right...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.243.119.111 (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubts 

message: What on earth is that all about?Mr Larrington (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox

message: the page says this car has a 10 liters three turbo W18 engine... it's obviously a silly joke: it's a car, not a lorry. AFAIK in the real world the car has a 6.2 liters twin turbo V8
:Silly joke is a polite term - it's usually called vandalism. I can see you've corrected it, thanks - perhaps you might like to consider creating an account and becoming a regular editor? Bertcocaine (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: W18???

message: Someone has added article regarding SSC Aero II whose name is not yet officially unveiled. Also, the article is total copy and paste from topgear website with future references like it will rev to 9000rpm etc. This article should be rephrased in present sentence with the claims of company rather then complete copy and paste.
:I've inserted a cleanup template for that section - although reading your comment about it being copied, I'm wondering if that's enough.. So presumably the source is just quoted at length, rather than just headlined? Poor Grammar on the part of the BBC methinks! Bertcocaine (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, just looked at the source and it's not copied at all! And so backs up very little of the info, and most certainly not the name as you say. Did you mean 'present tense' above? Bertcocaine (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Article About SSC Aero II

message: An image used in this article, , has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons by Adrignola for the following reason: Missing essential information such as license, permission or source
;What should I do?
	A different bot should have (or will soon) remove the image code from the article text (check if this has been done correctly). If you think the image deletion was in error please raise the issue at Commons. You could also try to search for new images to replace the old one.
This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotification (talk) 20:01, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Ssc-ultimate-aero.jpg Deleted

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on SSC Aero. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100103092154/http://shelbysupercars.com/press/Press%20Release%2010-09-2007.pdf to http://www.shelbysupercars.com/press/Press%20Release%2010-09-2007.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:21, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified