text:
Talk:Sodium hexametaphosphate

Question
Would Minute Maid Lemonade with sodium hexametaphosphate create a urine sample that would test positive for Methamphetamines or amphetamines. Or is there any other ingredient in the product that would affect the results in drug testing.

 * I don't think I've ever heard that before, nor can I find anything online suggesting it. Where did you hear it? —Ben Brockert (42) UE News  03:17, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sodium hexametaphosphate
Is the product safe?: It doesn't seem that it wouldn't be. It's a mild irritant in its concentrated form, but there don't seem to be any overt hazards. It's used in some bottled drinks as a preservative.

Addseale2 (talk) 12:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Ingestion listed as questionable?
If this has applications as a food additive, why is there a question mark next to Ingestion? Or does that refer to the "pure" chemical and not the hybrid commercial one?

Is now in a tooth paste along with stannous (tin) fluoride from P & G.

Also found in Aquafina Flavor Splash beverages. Their website does not specifically address this compound (www.flavorsplash.com) nor do they on their question line (1-800-433-2652).

B.P. / M.P. Density incorrect?
The boiling point, melting point, and density seem to be deviating from MSDS's I've seen. Such as this one: MSDS Alberta CA

Toothpaste ingredient?
Does anybody know what sodium hexametaphosphate actually does as a "medicinal ingredient" at 13.0% w/w in toothpaste? 134.117.14.142 (talk) 19:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Causes Cancer?
I don't see anywhere, including official MSDS datasheets (http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/s3866.htm), where this causes cancer. I propose we remove the line about it unless the source can be verified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.104.60.6 (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, _all_ the [citation needed] health hazards, including allergies, chest pain, and cancer, should be immediately deleted unless they are either immediately referenced to a reliable source, such as MSDS datasheet or peer-reviewed public health literature. It is irresponsible of an encyclopedia to put such information out to the unsuspecting public unless it is verifiably, or at least arguably, true. Would the editor who inserted these health hazards please step in now? PBarak (talk) 03:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree
Without proper citation, the whole cancer thing can be ignored. Show proof if it is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.136.89 (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the unsourced allegations. --23:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Lofaro Jr. (talk • contribs)

Food additive...
Listing the foods that it may be added to is nice, but what is it's purpose? I'll try to find the info when I get a chance, but if someone already knows, it would be good information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.51.149.199 (talk) 05:39, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I just came here to ask the exact same question. The "what" is good. The "why" is needed, though. oknazevad (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sodium hexametaphosphate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080602175604/http://www.ohsah.bc.ca/index.php?section_id=393 to http://www.ohsah.bc.ca/index.php?section_id=393&

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:10, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

"misidentified"?
In the History section:

 * Hexametaphosphoric acid was named (but misidentified) in 1849 by the German chemist Theodor Fleitmann.

The "misidentified" claim seems unsourced, if you follow the links in the footnotes, and irrelevant. Also, what does it mean? I propose to remove it. Dynasteria (talk) 17:03, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sodium hexametaphosphate


text: File:Dungeness-ruins.jpg

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: File:Dungeness-ruins.jpg


text:
User:Soccer33187

Soccer33187 I am.

title: User:Soccer33187


text:
User talk:Capneb

Welcome!

Hello,, Welcome  to Wikipedia! '''I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at the Guide to layout, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.'''

Additional tips:
 * Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
 * If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
 * Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
 * You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
 * If your first language isn't English, try Contributing to articles outside your native language
 * Full details on Wikipedia style can be found in the Manual of Style.

Happy editing! This is a bit late, I'm afraid, so you'll probably know all the above — but better a late welcome than no wwelcome at all. Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Problem with your custom signature
You have a custom signature set in your account preferences. A change to Wikipedia's software has made your current custom signature incompatible with the software.

The problem: Your preferences are set to interpret your custom signature as wikitext. However, your current custom signature does not contain any wikitext.

The solutions: You can reset your signature to the default, or you can fix your signature.

 * Solution 1: Reset your signature to the default:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Remove anything in the text box.  (It might already be empty.)
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page. (The red "" button will reset all of your preference settings, not just the signature.)
 * Solution 2: Fix your custom signature:
 * Find the signature section in the first tab of Special:Preferences.
 * Uncheck the box (☑→☐) that says "Treat the above as wiki markup."
 * Click the blue "" button at the bottom of the page.

More information about custom signatures is available at Signatures. If you have followed these instructions and still want help, please leave a message at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. 19:04, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Unblock please
8.26.182.145 Capneb (talk) 14:30, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

title: User talk:Capneb


text:
User talk:Ttwaring

Welcome!

'''Hello,, Welcome  to Wikipedia! '''I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at the Guide to layout, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.'''

Additional tips:
 * Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:
 * If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
 * Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
 * You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
 * If your first language isn't English, try Contributing to articles outside your native language
 * Full details on Wikipedia style can be found in the Manual of Style.

Happy editing! Mel Etitis ( Μελ Ετητης ) 21:20, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Renamed London Underground stations
Thanks for spotting the grammatical mistakes, all 8 of them. I would have checked through the article properly once completed and would have spotted those mistakes anyway. Thanks for your help though. It saved me some time. Are you fairly new to Wikipedia? Please reply on my talk page. Greaterlondoner

typos are typos
re your recent edits at Che Guevara: the edit summary stated "fixed typos". a typo is a minor slip of the finger or brain, and few of those were fixed in your sweep. many small changes (not necessarily corrections) were made, some of which were opinionated calls that, according to wikipedia guidelines, should have been left in the style of the original contributors (e.g., spaces around emdashes). such changes can provoke conflict unnecessarily, simply over matters of taste; in effect, you're trying to enforce a style you're comfortable with, but you do so by removing something somebody else was equally comfortable with, with no clear winner. and the first emdash removal was questionable, in my opinion. in any case, i encourage you to leave accurate edit summaries, whatever you decide to change. SaltyPig 00:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. I will avoid changing that kind of thing in the future. I counted four style changes, four typos fixed (one of which fixed a link) and one other fixed link.Ttwaring 12:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi there! I'd like to express my thanks for reverting vandalism to my user page yesterday, so thanks! ;-) Happy editing. SoLando (Talk) 09:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Suffragan Bishops Act 1534
Hi. I left it as bare Perth because I'm not at all sure that Perth, Scotland is what's meant: why would the C of E have a bishop in Scotland? And why would it be the only town in Scotland listed? I looked around for other copies of the list (there's one in Tracts for the Times) and either this entry was emended to Penrith, which is a reasonable guess except that Penrith already appears in the list, or Pereth, which doesn't seem to be the name of anything anywhere. Very mysterious. The Wednesday Island 01:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Eden Montana hoaxes
Thanks! All the sock accounts are now blocked and the anon IP has a final warning. NawlinWiki 15:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

 * Got this last batch too, and protected Eden Montana-Caceda. Thanks, NawlinWiki 14:14, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

 * And the latest ones. Blocked the new username and the anon IP User:121.209.209.244.  Thanks again, NawlinWiki (talk) 21:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

EmmaButton
I'm not exactly sure what it is you are asking me to do. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay. WP:SSP would be the place to go, methinks. I'm completely clueless when it comes to sockhunting, so that's pretty much all the direction I can give you. Sorry. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What words mean in Spanish
I really don't give a **** what it means because I like your translations of Spanish language or any other language stuff, anyhow, right? Ericthebrainiac (talk) 19:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Brother
Thanks, bro. Ericthebrainiac (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Islas Canarias = Canary Islands
The link from the Spanish article that links to the English articles regards the denomination of the place from different (language-related) perspectives. However, the name in Spanish makes mention of neither posession or of islands. If the telescope was named Gran Telescopio de las Islas Canarias, then the correct translation would be "Great Telescope of the Canary Islands." However, such is not the case. The term "Canarias" in Spanish is directly translated as "Canaries" in English. If you can find an English source (Newspaper would probably be easiest and most reliable) that supports a specific terminology in English, feel free to edit the article and reference your changes. However, if you cannot find such source, a direct-to-English translation remains the best option rather than attempting to distort the Spanish meaning in order to make it "sound good" in English.--$%MarshalN20%$ (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 01:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

glassdoor.com
I'm not sure what you're getting at. There may be many reasons why a site would no longer display content--fear of litigation, for instance. HuffPo and Reuters are reliable sources, so a lack of continued display by primary source seems no issue. Fleetham (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for help
Hi, I don't know if you're someone I should be appealing to, but I have a problem with the Lanix page. User:Foxxygrandpa added a section on 3d TVs that is not supported by the citations provided. All of the cites are in Spanish and if you look at a translated example here, which purports to support the claim that Lanix is working in cooperation with the National Autonomous University of Mexico, you'll see it makes no mention of Lanix. None of the citations do. I've tried to talk to Foxxygrandpa on his user page but he just ignores me. I tried to delete his edits, but he just reverts them. Please help Fleetham (talk) 17:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry!
Thanks for catching my mistake. And I've kept the Canada bit in but added some explanation. I will provide better edit summaries and actually check sources before reverting in the future. Fleetham (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Plumpy'nut
I was really more concerned with the edit's mention that you could eat "a packet" at home. I think it's something like a 2 month regimen to cure malnutrition. Someone has edited for POV since my last edit and removed the word "tasty" from the lead. Do you think the page continues to be ad-like or can we now take down that top tag? Fleetham (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

lvl 3
In regards to your recent revert: while I don't disagree that the issue has been discussed at length, I believe the outcome of that discussion was my well couched assertion that the material did not contravene Wikipedia policy to which you did not reply. No consensus has been reached on keeping the material off the page, and I encourage you to go back and review my arguments. Fleetham (talk) 18:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!
Thanks! I was actually drinking a cup of tea when I opened this page :-) - Ttwaring (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

 * well that was from me, you know --  Ð ℬig  XЯaɣ   01:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Warning IP vandal
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Silvrous ''Talk  15:20, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Improving TV pages
Thank you for your recent comments, I understand you points about the quotations being accurate, ( trying to type and keep track of what is being written is sometime a bit of a mishmash)  I will be double checking over this coming week any new quotations I have added to this and few other pages.--Crazyseiko (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! - Ttwaring (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry~
Hi, thank you for pointing out my mistake in editting level 3 communications. I am not a robot, so I wasn't mechanically putting in stuff without reading it, and I can make mistake, too. Generally speaking, I would read the sentence I put in, but I'm sorry that yesterday I was accidently doing something else while adding the sentence, maybe that's why I neglected where it conflicts. I would treat it more seriously in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lvzhpchristina (talk • contribs) 00:13, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Tynemouth
Hello, I'm Ajguy94. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!

 * Not constructive?! You had just a link to a page and I gave you a better link, and some text around it. I also gave you some editing advice on producing links on your talk page! By the way, remember to sign your contributions to talk pages.  Ttwaring (talk) 04:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

the world is small
Hi Twaring, first, you've edited alongside Fleetham, and then Santillana del Mar...which I know (some). I am curious: what is it about, that it's on your user page? You don't have to answer, of course. Happy Holidays anyway.--Wuerzele (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

 * It's just somewhere I've been, while learning Spanish, and I remembered the story about being the "villa de las tres mentiras, puesto que ni es santa, ni llana, ni tiene mar". I'm not sure I've ever edited the Wikipedia page, though. I have edited Adamari López, the other link on the page. Watching her act in telenovelas has also improved my Spanish. Ttwaring (talk) 15:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:00, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey there.
sorry about that edit error I made, have reverted that contribution I made, and fixed up bad sentence. thanks for letting me know. Best Regards. Hot Pork Pie (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I need help
I wanna update Chris benoit and Nancy Benoit page but it keeps deleting how do I add citations and evidence thank u ThePegusasKid1 (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

CopyRight
This is false information plus it was taken away from me so that's copyright. I'm the owner of all these sayings. So yes I can remove it. JohnnyDab31353 (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Apology
I'm am sorry for my disruptive editing, I will reframe from my immature actions. Thank you for confronting me on this allagation. Mikey bear (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi I'm am responding to your post
Hi how are you. I am responding to your post about "black triangle UFO". Yes I did post it and it's not an error. I'm sorry that I didn't provide reasonable explanation. I did post it. So if you want you can revert it. Thank you and have a great day. Chinathedog (talk) 00:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment moved
Thanks for that - Ttwaring - please take a look at my Instagram - cross_your_fingers - and let me know - if your going to unremove it. Many Thanks. Kimi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cross your fngers (talk • contribs) 17:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like NationStates
Hey! Based on your edits to NationStates, I thought maybe you would be interested that I started a series of userboxes for the game. Feel free to add any or add your own!- 🐦Do☭torWho42 ( ⭐ ) 06:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

TT=Turing Test?
Does TT mean Turing Test?PhDMarkWilliamSchae1960 (talk) 19:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

 * What's Become of Waring - Ttwaring (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

G.S episodes
What? Those are how the episodes go, someone has to write down which episode is which so everyone knows plus they weren't copied I did type my own words in them. --174.44.116.157 (talk) 09:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

 * If you search for "Junior becomes jealous of George's friendship with a mouse and runs away from home" which appears in your edit then it appears as copyright material. Ttwaring (talk) 13:09, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Noted. --174.44.116.157 (talk) 20:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for all you do
Your splendid work reinforces the massive grip of tyranny, cruelty, malignantly obvious chaotic evil and the iron will required to rule, administrate and bodyguard this Wikipedia and perhaps Palestine afterwards

Never in all of my life has my purpose been so clearly defined:

"Reason for change unclear."

The omission of a magic word of finality only highlights the pithy complaints parroted by all fanclubs 100.12.241.197 (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

 * Does Verizon have some kind of "Incoherent Friends and Family" plan? Ttwaring (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm flattered by this perhaps general purpose flattery
 * But it still lands
 * Whatever Verizon didn't have before for all customers and clients, it will now
 * 8D 100.12.241.197 (talk) 19:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Who are you and why you touch my edits ?
Who are you and why you touch my edits ? don't you know fun ? 2601:18C:8283:4B40:1968:9D37:E6A2:9DDF (talk) 20:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Forbes list of the most valuable football clubs
for the football club teams value page and i found the source to inter miami's true value so here it is https://www.forbes.com/sites/justinbirnbaum/2024/02/02/major-league-soccers-most-valuable-teams-2024/?sh=3b72b0363347 2601:589:4984:3C00:29B1:2545:ABCD:A63D (talk) 21:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

 * Thanks for looking. The problem is that the section you updated is a worldwide top 20, as of 2023. Just knowing the value of MLS clubs in 2024 doesn't help you update the table. We would need a new 2024 article from Forbes with the worldwide top 20. Ttwaring (talk) 21:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ttwaring


text:
Italian Canadians

Italian Canadians (italocanadesi) are Canadian-born citizens who are fully or partially of Italian descent, whose ancestors were Italians who migrated to Canada as part of Italian diaspora, or Italian-born people in Canada. According to the 2021 Census of Canada, 1,546,390 Canadians (4.3% of the total population) claimed full or partial Italian ancestry. They comprise a subgroup of Southern European Canadians which is a further subgroup of European Canadians. The census enumerates the entire Canadian population, which consists of Canadian citizens (by birth and by naturalization), landed immigrants and non-permanent residents and their families living with them in Canada. Residing mainly in central urban industrial metropolitan areas, Italian Canadians are the seventh largest self-identified ethnic group in Canada behind French, English, Irish, Scottish, German and Chinese Canadians.

Italian immigration to Canada started as early as the mid 19th century. A substantial influx of Italian immigration to Canada began in the early 20th century, primarily from rural southern Italy, with immigrants primarily settling in Toronto and Montreal. During the interwar period after World War I, new immigration laws in the 1920s limited Italian immigration. During World War II, approximately 600 to 700 Italian Canadian men were interned between 1940 and 1943 as potentially dangerous enemy aliens with alleged fascist connections.

A second wave of immigration occurred after the World War II, and between the early 1950s and the mid-1960s, approximately 20,000 to 30,000 Italians immigrated to Canada each year, many of the men working in the construction industry upon settling. Pier 21 in Halifax, Nova Scotia was an influential port of Italian immigration between 1928 until it ceased operations in 1971, where 471,940 individuals came to Canada from Italy, making them the third largest ethnic group to immigrate to Canada during that time period. In the late 1960s, the Italian economy experienced a period of growth and recovery, removing one of the primary incentives for emigration. The importance of the family unit of Italian Canadians has provided a central role in the adaptation of newer socioeconomic realities. In 2010, the Government of Ontario proclaimed the month of June as Italian Heritage Month, and in 2017, the Government of Canada also declared the month of June as Italian Heritage Month across Canada.

History

The first explorer to coastal North America was the Venetian John Cabot (Giovanni Caboto), making landfall in Cape Bonavista, Newfoundland and Labrador, in 1497. His voyage to Canada and other parts of the Americas was followed by his son Sebastian Cabot (Sebastiano Caboto) and Giovanni da Verrazzano. Immediately after the unification of Italy, the young nation experienced the phenomenon of emigration on a massive scale. While until that time the migratory destinations had been mostly European, starting in the second half of the 19th century transatlantic emigration to the Americas emerged, in the direction of lands that became typical destinations for Italians. The first Canadian census enumerating the population was not conducted until 1871. At this time, there were only 1,035 people of Italian origin that lived in Canada. A number of Italians were imported, often as "soldiers of fortune" and "men of letters", to work as navvies in the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway. In 1904, 3,144 of the 8,576 seasonal Canadian Pacific Railway workforce were Italian men. Italian workers in that period, as described by Lucy di Pietro, a manager of the Association for the Memory of Italo-Canadian Immigrants, were seen "as transients and judged, according to the stereotype, as warm-blooded people with violent and criminal dispositions." Italians were among the immigrants considered "undesirable," as expressed in Canada's first law concerning immigration, dating back to 1869. This law provided for certain categories of foreigners deemed more "desirable," precisely, for reasons of cultural affinity or stereotypes related to labor industriousness, favoring workers from Great Britain or Northern European countries. Italians were usually referred to by the nickname navvies, short for navigator, a term coined in England to refer to laborers and which from 1830 onwards was applied in a derogatory sense to those who worked on tunnel or railway construction in uncomfortable conditions.

A substantial influx of Italian immigration to Canada began in the early 20th century when over 60,000 Italians moved to Canada between 1900 and 1913. These were largely peasants from southern Italy and agrarian parts of the northeast (Veneto and Friuli). In 1905, the Royal Commission appointed to Inquire into the Immigration of Italian Labourers to Montreal and alleged Fraudulent Practices of Employment Agencies was launched into deceptive tactics used by padroni, labour brokers that recruited Italian workers for Canadian employers. These numbers were dwarfed in comparison to those of the United States, however, where about four million Italians immigrated between 1880 and 1920. Italian Canadians primarily immigrated to Toronto and Montreal. In Toronto, the Italian population increased from 4,900 in 1911, to 9,000 in 1921, constituting almost two percent of Toronto's population. Italians in Toronto and in Montreal soon established ethnic enclaves, especially Little Italies in Toronto and in Montreal. Smaller communities also arose in Vancouver, Hamilton, Niagara Falls, Guelph, Windsor, Thunder Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Ottawa and Sherbrooke. Many also settled in mining communities in British Columbia (Trail), Alberta (Crowsnest Pass), Cape Breton Island (Inverness), and Northern Ontario (Sault Ste. Marie and Fort William).

This migration was largely halted after World War I, new immigration laws in the 1920s, and the Great Depression limited Italian immigration. Approximately 40,000 Italians came to Canada during the interwar period, predominantly from southern Italy where an economic depression and overpopulation had left many families in poverty. During World War II, Italian Canadians were regarded with suspicion and faced a great deal of discrimination. As part of the War Measures Act, 31,000 Italian Canadians were labelled as "enemy aliens" with alleged fascist connections, and between 1940 and 1943, approximately 600 to 700 of these Italian Canadian men were arrested and sent to internment camps, such as Camp Petawawa—in what was the period of Italian Canadian internment. While many Italian-Canadians had initially supported fascism and Benito Mussolini's regime for its role in enhancing Italy's presence on the world stage, most Italians in Canada did not harbour any ill will against Canada and few remained committed followers of the fascist ideology. In 1990, former prime minister Brian Mulroney apologized for the war internment of Italian Canadians to a Toronto meeting of the National Congress of Italian Canadians. In May 2009, Massimo Pacetti introduced bill C-302, an "Act to recognize the injustice that was done to persons of Italian origin through their "enemy alien" designation and internment during the Second World War, and to provide for restitution and promote education on Italian Canadian history [worth $2.5 million]", which was passed by the House of Commons on April 28, 2010; Canada Post was also to issue a commemorative postage stamp commemorating the internment of Italian Canadian citizens, however, Bill C-302 did not pass through the necessary stages to become law. In 2021, prime minister Justin Trudeau formally apologized for the war internment of Italian Canadians, in the House of Commons.

A second wave occurred after World War II when Italians, especially from the more southern regions, Lazio, Abruzzo, Molise, Apulia, Campania, Calabria, and Sicily regions, left the war-impoverished country for opportunities in a young and growing country. A small number of Istrian Italians and Dalmatian Italians also immigrated to Canada during the Istrian-Dalmatian exodus, leaving their homelands, which were lost to Italy and annexed to Yugoslavia after the Treaty of Peace with Italy, 1947. Between the early 1950s and the mid-1960s, approximately 20,000 to 30,000 Italians immigrated to Canada each year, surpassing those who went to the United States during the same period. Between 1946 and 1967, more than 90 percent of Italian immigrants took advantage of the sponsorship system whereby they were admitted into Canada if sponsored by relatives residing in Canada that would assume the financial responsibility for them during their settlement period. In 1948, relations between Canada and Italy were formalized through the opening of a Canadian embassy in Rome and an immigration office. In the late 1960s, the Italian economy experienced a period of growth and recovery, removing one of the primary incentives for emigration. In 1967, the sponsorship system was restricted, instead basing immigrant selection on labour-market considerations, also decreasing the influx of Italian immigration. 90 percent of the Italians who immigrated to Canada after World War II remained in Canada, and decades after that period, the community still had fluency in the Italian language. There has been an overall decline in the use of the Italian language in Canada since 2001.

Pier 21 in Halifax, Nova Scotia was an influential port of Italian immigration between 1928 until it ceased operations in 1971, where 471,940 individuals came to Canada from Italy, making them the third largest ethnic group to immigrate to Canada during that time period.

The rapid growth of the metropolitan areas that had attracted Italian immigrants, created a strong demand for construction work, and by the 1960s, more than 15,000 Italian men worked in Toronto's construction industry, representing one third of all construction workers in the city at that time. Others started small businesses such as barber shops, grocery stores and bakeries that created Italian ethnic enclaves. Italian women who entered the workforce often worked in the garment and clothing industry. The importance of the family unit of Italian Canadians has provided a central role in the adaptation of newer socioeconomic realities. A mid-1960s study conducted in Montreal found that two in three Canadian-born Italians had their nearest relative living in the same building as them or within a five-minute walking distance, and that more than half of those sampled had chosen to buy a house in a given area due to familiarity and because relatives and other Italian Canadians lived in the vicinity. 75 percent of Italians that immigrated after World War II were employed in low-income occupations, but by the mid-1980s, the children of immigrants had achieved a level of higher education comparable to the national average. By the 1980s, 86 percent of Italian Canadians owned a home, compared to 70 percent of the general population.

Canada thus began a multicultural policy that resulted in a strengthening of the identity of the different ethnic groups. Among them, the Italian one experienced a strong socio-cultural transformation due to multiple factors. As the mistrust caused by the fascist period ceased, Italians were able to improve their living conditions, with an increase in the social mobility of young Italian-Canadians. The second generation, better educated, began to abandon the manual jobs traditionally performed by their parents in favor of jobs for which a good level of education was necessary. Many of these young people began to speak English as their first language, moving away from the customs of their parents in a process of constructing their own specific Italian-Canadian identity, different from the category of "Italian citizens residing in Canada" or "population of Italian origin." Thus, a new identity profile was born that originated from the fusion of two cultures to become something else and evolve in its own way.

In 2010, the Government of Ontario passed Bill 103 with royal assent proclaiming the month of June as Italian Heritage Month. On May 17, 2017, the Minister of Canadian Heritage Mélanie Joly passed a unanimous motion, Motion 64, in the House of Commons to recognize the month of June as Italian Heritage Month across Canada — a time to recognize, celebrate and raise awareness of the Italian community in Canada, one of the largest outside of Italy.

In 2019, Canada received the 11th highest number of Italian emigrants, and among non-European countries was the fourth highest after Brazil, the United States and Australia. Compared to the past, the skills of migrants have changed as today there are many researchers, skilled workers and entrepreneurs. In 2018, more than half of the Italian citizens who moved abroad (53 percent) had medium-high educational qualifications: 33,000 high school graduates and 29,000 college graduates. Highly qualified people are in demand in Canada in areas that are lacking in the territory, particularly in information and communication technologies.

Ethnicity
As of the 2021 census, 1,546,390 Canadian residents stated they had Italian ancestry, comprising 4.3 percent of Canada's population, marking a 2.6 percent decrease from the 1,587,970 population of the 2016 census. From the 1,587,970, 671,510 were single ethnic origin responses, while the remaining 874,880 were multiple ethnic origin responses. The majority live in Ontario, over 900,000, (seven percent of the population), while over 300,000 live in Quebec (four percent of the population) — constituting for almost 80 percent of the national population.

Language and immigration
As of 2021, of the 1,546,390 Italian Canadians, 204,070 are Italian born immigrants, with 319,505 claiming Italian as their mother tongue. There has been an overall decline in the use of the Italian language since 2001.

Alberta

 * Little Italy, Edmonton

Greater Montreal area

 * LaSalle, Quebec
 * Laval, Quebec
 * Little Italy, Montreal
 * Montréal-Nord
 * Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, Montreal (Saint-Raymond)
 * Rivière-des-Prairies, Montreal
 * Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel
 * Saint-Léonard, Quebec
 * Saint-Michel, Montreal
 * Via Italia

Ottawa

 * Little Italy, Ottawa
 * St. Anthony of Padua (Ottawa)

Hamilton

 * James St. North
 * Stoney Creek

Greater Toronto Area

 * Little Italy, Toronto
 * Palmerston-Little Italy, Toronto
 * Corso Italia – St. Clair Avenue West
 * Corso Italia-Davenport, Toronto
 * Maple Leaf, Toronto
 * Downsview, Toronto
 * Woodbridge, Vaughan
 * Nobleton, King
 * Bolton, Caledon

Windsor, Ontario

 * Via Italia, Erie St.

British Columbia

 * Burnaby, British Columbia
 * Little Italy, Vancouver
 * Trail, British Columbia

Manitoba

 * Little Italy, Winnipeg

title: Italian Canadians


text:
Talk:Roy Thinnes

Untitled
The article needs encyclopedic and NPOV language. RickK 21:22, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Roy Thinnes


text:
Talk:List of automotive superlatives/Archive 1

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)

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 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. 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 ( and ) 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.". 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 .  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. // 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 ) 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)


text:
Hotels in London

This article describes the hotels in London, England.

History
Before the 19th century, there were few, if any, large hotels in London. British country landowners often lived in London for part of the year but they usually rented a house, if the family did not have their own townhouse. The numbers of business and foreign visitors were very small by modern standards, before the Industrial Revolution. The accommodation available to them included gentlemen's club accommodations, lodging houses and coaching inns. Lodging houses were more like private homes with rooms to let than commercial hotels and were often run by widows. Coaching inns served passengers from the stage coaches which were the main means of long-distance passenger transport before railways began to develop in the 1830s. The last surviving galleried coaching inn in London is The George Inn, which now belongs to the National Trust. A few hotels of a more modern variety began to be built in the early 19th century. For example, Mivart's, the precursor of Claridge's, opened its doors in 1812 but, up to the mid-19th century, London hotels were generally small. In his travel book North America (1862), the novelist Anthony Trollope remarked on how much larger American hotels were than British ones. But, by this time, the railways had already begun to bring far more short-term visitors to London, and the railway companies themselves took the lead in accommodating them by building a series of "railway hotels" near to their London termini. These buildings were seen as status symbols by the railway companies, the largest businesses in the country at the time, and some of them were very grand. They included:

 * The Great Western Hotel at Paddington (now the Hilton London Paddington and the first of Britain's railway hotels, built in 1854)
 * The Midland Grand Hotel at St. Pancras (closed from 1935 to 2011; now the St. Pancras Renaissance London Hotel.)
 * The Great Northern Hotel at King's Cross (recently restored as a boutique hotel)
 * The Great Eastern Hotel at Liverpool Street (now the Andaz London Liverpool Street)
 * The Charing Cross Hotel at Charing Cross station
 * The Great Central Hotel at Marylebone (now The Landmark London)
 * The Grosvenor House Hotel at Victoria

Many other large hotels were built in London in the Victorian period. The Westminster Palace Hotel (1858), named after its neighbour the Palace of Westminster, i.e. Parliament, was the location of many political meetings. The Langham Hotel was the largest in the city when it opened in 1865. The Savoy, perhaps London's most famous hotel, opened in 1889, the first London hotel with en-suite bathrooms to every room. Nine years later Claridge's was rebuilt in its current form. Another famous hotel, the Ritz, based on its even more celebrated namesake in Paris, opened in 1906.

The upper end of the London hotel business continued to flourish between the two World Wars, boosted by the fact that many landowning families could no longer afford to maintain a London house and therefore began to stay at hotels instead, and by an increasing number of foreign visitors, especially Americans. Famous hotels which opened their doors in this era include the Grosvenor House Hotel and The Dorchester.

The rate of hotel construction in London was fairly low in the quarter-century after World War II and the famous old names retained their dominance of the top end of the market. The most notable hotel of this era was probably the London Hilton, a controversial concrete tower overlooking Hyde Park. Advances in air travel increased the number of overseas visitors to London from 1.6 million in 1963 to 6 million in 1974. In order to provide hotels to meet the extra demand a Hotel Development Incentive Scheme was introduced and a building boom ensued. This led to overcapacity in the London hotel market from the late 1970s to the mid-1980s. Construction then picked up again, but it was soon curtailed by the recession of the early 1990s and the reduction in international travel caused by the 1991 Gulf War.

The 1980s saw London (along with New York) start the trend of smaller boutique-style hotels. In the mid-1990s, many new hotels were opened, including different types from country-house-style hotels in Victorian houses to ultra-trendy minimalist premises. At this time, some of London's grandest early-20th-century office buildings were converted into hotels because their layouts, with long corridors and numerous separate offices, were incompatible with the preference for open-plan working, but their listed status made it hard to get permission to demolish them. This period also saw the opening of the first five-star hotel in London south of the River Thames, the Marriott County Hall Hotel, and the first two in East London, the Four Seasons Canary Wharf and the Marriott West India Quay, which is also close to the Canary Wharf development. For many years, there were no hotels at all in the City of London, even though the financial firms of the city were one of the London hotel sector's most lucrative sources of custom. However, in recent years, over a thousand hotel rooms have opened in the city. Budget hotel chains such as Travel Inn and Travelodge have also been expanding rapidly in London, since the mid-1990s.

One of the most expensive hotels in London is The Lanesborough. Originally a private address (Lanesborough House), in 1733 it was converted into St George's Hospital, and began life as a hotel in 1991.

Hotels in modern London
There is no official registry of hotel rooms in London, but the estimated number of hotel rooms in Greater London in 2010 was put at 123,000. According to figures produced in support of London's 2012 Olympic bid, there were more than 70,000 three to five-star hotel rooms within 10 kilometres of Central London in 2003. The main growth was a huge rise in the number of rooms within the City of London, while Kensington and Chelsea actually had a small fall. This is comparing figures since 1981. The main concentration of luxury hotels is in the West End, especially in Mayfair and Soho. London's five star hotels are quite small on average by international standards. The largest, Grosvenor House Hotel, has only 494 rooms, and eighteen of them have fifty or fewer. The range is very wide, including:

 * Traditional purpose-built grand hotels such as the Ritz, the Savoy, and the Dorchester
 * Recent conversions of grand late 19th- and early 20th-century office buildings into hotels such as One Aldwych and the Renaissance Chancery Court
 * Townhouse hotels
 * Modern purpose-built chain hotels

List of five-star hotels in London
There are no official bodies that rate hotels. The most widely accepted bodies are the AA (in the past the RAC too) and the English Tourist Board. The ETB has recently changed its criteria to match that of the AA, to provide consistency. Many hotels remain self-rated.

Other notable hotels

 * One of the more unusual hotels is the Sunborn London, a floating hotel by the Excel center in East London and constructed specifically as a stationary floating hotel (it has no engine). The original yacht was sold to the Lagos government and has now been replaced with a larger yacht at the same berth.
 * The 3-star 1,630-bedroom Royal National Hotel in Bloomsbury is the largest hotel in the United Kingdom by the number of rooms, with 1,271.
 * The Hilton London Metropole Hotel in Paddington is the largest 4-star hotel in London and the United Kingdom. It has 1,058 bedrooms and extensive conference facilities.
 * The Guoman Tower Hotel (formerly Thistle) near Tower Bridge is one of the largest hotels in London, with over 800 bedrooms, and is regarded by some as one of the ugliest - it was twice voted the second ugliest building in London, in a 2005 Time Out poll, and in a 2006 BBC poll - and most insensitively located brutalist buildings in the city. However, others find its location by St Katharine Docks and the Tower of London quite relaxing and scenic.
 * The Regent Palace Hotel, which was located on the northern side of Piccadilly Circus, closed in December 2006. Notable as having been Europe's largest hotel in terms of room numbers (1028) when it opened on May 16, 1915.
 * World's largest floating hotel will arrive in London in 2012.

Events
After the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot London hotels showed a drop in average room rate growth and occupancy growth. However, this was not as steep as might have been expected since figures were compared to the previous year's figures which were themselves affected by the July 7th London bombings of 2005. It is thought without those circumstances the real drop would have been something in the region of 20-30%. Strangely while figures showed a drop in bookings some major chains such as Intercontinental reported strong demand for hotel rooms in London as passengers became stranded in London unable to get a flight.

In November 2006, several hotels were subject to checks for radiation after former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned with Polonium-210. Most seriously affected was the Millennium Mayfair where seven members of staff were found to be contaminated with low-level radiation.

November 2006 was also the month Dhiren Barot was sentenced by a British court to serve at least 40 years in prison for planning to cause explosions in London Hotels amongst a list of targets which also included the New York Stock Exchange and the World Bank.

January 2007 saw the first use anywhere in the world of Cryonite technology to kill bed bugs (freezes pests using a patented carbon dioxide snow) at a top London Hotel (unnamed).

In February 2010, a murder took place in the Landmark Hotel, one of the most expensive hotels in London.

November 2014, a gas explosion caused 14 injuries at the luxury Hyatt Regency Churchill Hotel

Facts
In March 2007 Westminster council released reports saying some of London's best known hotels had been considered a “serious danger to health” by environmental inspectors in previous years. The hotels were the Savoy, the Halkin, the Langham and the Dorchester. The Langham received confirmation from Westminster Council that "everything was in good order" in May 2006, and the Dorchester disinfected their air conditioning system in response to legionella bacteria found in bedrooms.

In March 2011, London Hotels were the 8th most expensive in the world.

In February 2015 London was said to be the most expensive city in Europe for hotel rooms judged by advertised rates.

title: Hotels in London