Talk:Vector W8

Bonneville test

Any source to this? or is it like the Koenigsegg "240mph on the highway" myth? Mike.BRZ (talk) 04:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it's just a superstition. U1Quattro (talk) 16:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Reliability?

numerous reputable sources tie this car exclusively to its un-reliability. Is there a reason none of this is mentioned in the article? 108.172.114.141 (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As a former Vector employee and owner of car 015 I can tell you there never have been reliability concerns with the car. Ask actual owners (there are only 17 of us) we all know eachother, and no one has an issue with the cars reliability. And this is being said after the car is 22 years old. They all are still running and on the road. My total maintainance over 15 years of ownership have resulted in 2 batteries replaced, one set of belts, one airbag contact and routine oil changes, transmission flushes, rear differential gear oil changes and radiator flushes.

Other than that my 22 year old car still looks and runs like new. Find another car on planet earth with that kind of reliability. Then go looking for another supercar that has that kind of track record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.133.66.146 (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I read the original Road & Track magazine test of the car in the early 90's. This car was en engineering masterpiece. Even with the pushrod engine which I distinctly remember was an Oldsmobile, not a Chevrolet as the wiki article states. I've tried to confirm that but most internet articles call it a "GM Engine" (that could mean anything, Buick, Chev, Olds etc). Anyway. I found this to back up the reliability claim from the auto editors of consumer guide. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/1978-1998-vector4.htm "Nobody could deny the strength of the Vector design. Nearly everyone who has had the chance to drive one described it as over-designed. The military-grade specifications were well beyond those of other cars on the road. Where more affluent automakers could afford to crash test a number of cars until a design is found to be sufficiently strong. Vector used one car for front and rear crash testing. The Ralph Maloof-designed front and rear booms worked perfectly Had the electrical equipment not been disconnected for the test, the car could have been driven away from the crashes." 1.178.167.118 (talk) 04:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

How often did you drive the car? I've seen 015 for sale on the Internet with 662 miles on the odometer. That isn't enough to justify that the car is great for normal usability. U1Quattro (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Engine

I remember reading in Road & track magazine all those years ago that the Vector had an Oldsmobile 350 cuber, not a Chevrolet. I wish I had not of thrown out those old issues, but alas they are gone so I can't go back to those old magazines and verify that. 1.178.99.23 (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sentence "Everything on the W8 was designed to last the life of the owner"

This statement is just promotional and nothing more. While viewing the forum from which this statement was taken from, it was seen that the critique, the owner of a W8 and a former employee of Vector criticised every other car by saying "A Ferrari needs a $7,500 service every 7,500 miles" and other statements like that. This is unjustifiable when he himself didn't drove the W8 for even 1,000 miles. It is obvious that the car would need $2,000 for servicing and maintenance when it is not driven much and mostly kept at idle like the owner claimed himself. U1Quattro (talk) 07:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Should be W-8?

The emblem on the side of the car says "Vector W-8" with a dash. Should the page title match? Unknowntouncertain (talk) 20:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't remember it being called "Vector W-8" by the automotive press or the company. U¹ _quattro TALK 09:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)