Bugatti to Reveal All-New V16 Hypercar on June 20

I suppose we can use the word marvel because it was impressive but it wasn't a pioneer in my opinion, or particularly innovative. The tires actually might be the most impressive part of the car. Otherwise, the package was simply various conventional technologies packed tightly and made reliable.
Former head of technical development Gregor Gries fondly remembers that “no one really believed there could be a vehicle for the road that boasted 1,000 ps [986 imperial horsepower]. We had to engage in basic development for every component,” he recalls. “Every vehicle part had to be constructed anew and tested, even the engine test bench. We felt like Ettore Bugatti back in the day. He too always developed his own tools.”
It would also weigh a little more than 400 kilograms (882 pounds), including the turbochargers. Then head of engine development Karl-Heinz Neumann was tasked with designing this behemoth. “Back then, there was no literature or empirical data for production engines with more than 12 cylinders or for production vehicles that could go faster than 350 km/h [217 mph],” relates Neumann. “One thing proved to be a particular headache.”

I suppose from your earlier post, the simple fact it had an engine & transmission was enough for you to start yawning at, but there's been enough media & articles from journalists & engineers that basically classify your opinion as uninformed.
I'm not sure we know how reliable honestly because the maintenance schedule is intense and even the highest mileage car is well below what a Corolla achieves with mere oil changes. I've never seen a video of one not working, I'll say that.
Because that's not a completely exaggerative statement that applies to any sports car over 6-figures.

Just say you're ignorant about the car.
 
Last edited:
Just say you're ignorant about the car.
New tools are developed and new data is gathered literally every time a car company comes up with a new car. Bugatti just happened to decide to develop a car that did things nobody actually needed it to do. And when it comes to focusing on abilities that nobody needs, it can't claim to have introduced any sort of pioneering technology or even provide unprecedented subjective satisfaction. It's fast and has air conditioning.

regera-main.jpg


That right there is an example of a novel solution to a common problem.
 
Last edited:
I remember people literally laughing at Bugatti when they said they’d make a car with 1000hp that goes over 250mph. To claim it was no big deal is revisionism at its finest.
 
I think you're rather underselling fitting a V16 between the passenger compartment and the rear wheels, but placing the gearbox behind the axle I guess is pretty obvious and necessary.

I never realized the F1 had a transverse gearbox, but when you see the cutaway, it's apparent how little space there is for a gearbox back there:
cutaway_1600.jpg


You can also see how the pedal box is basically at the front axle centerline. The center seat configuration was 100% necessary to achieve the exterior dimensions of the car.
I'd be interested to see the gearbox unit itself. Audi and Subaru pack the differential centerline very close to the rear of the engine, in the former's case with the ring gear actually overlapping--of course they manage that because it resembles a FR4 configuration more than a conventional transaxle.
 
Bugatti just happened to decide to develop a car that did things nobody actually needed it to do.
So because it wasn't beneficial to society's car market, that means it's not a pioneer or technical marvel. That's a good way to move the goal post although ironic by posting a Koenigsegg; everyone can agree all supercars are the epitome of doing "things nobody actually needed it to do".

My point stands. You're just uninformed.
 
Last edited:
When I was born in 2000, the McLaren F1 was the fastest car in the world. 6 years later, the Veyron shifted the goalposts into a whole new dimension, combining style, refinement and speed like nothing else before it. The McLaren was fast but spartan, despite the "extra" practicality of 3 seats. It extracted the absolute maximum from an establish engine type, and used the best materials for the chassis to be as solid as possible. The Veyron also used the best materials, but it wasn't limited to the basic skeleton - it extended to the interior, creating a luxurious environment for driver comfort. However, when you wanted to, you could let rip with the insane quad-turbo W16 and put down a gargantuan 1000 HP with 4WD traction. Nothing came close. The W16 was voyage into the unknown for VW and the fact that they successfully pulled it off marked an historic moment in automotive history. The Chiron's impact hasn't been as significant, for it was an evolution of the Veyron and not a totally new machine. As we know, doubts very much lingered about what would come next - an EV? A hybrid with a smaller engine and turbocharging? Another car with the quad-turbo W16? The future was uncertain, but little by little, more details emerged and after the engine configuration was revealed - an 8.3 V16 - we knew we were going to see something special. We then saw the gauge cluster, a few teasers and a logo featuring the main character lines. The excitement level was high because it was clear that VW hadn't just gone for a quick cash grab. Then the car is revealed to the world, with styling that's daring but still classy without a heap of protruding aerodynamic aids. After watching Mate Rimac go through all the insane technology solutions, I was totally floored. Holy ****, this car is totally ridiculous in every way possible. Huge power, 3 electric motors, a 25 kWH battery, machined wishbones from Czinger, a gauge cluster made by a watch company and 2 massive Venturi tunnels that force engine to sit on a slight downward angle. Absolute madness.
 
The only reason Lamborghinis and Bugattis ever put the transmission in front was because of mechanical AWD but the traditional method has always been putting the transmission behind the engine and often behind the axle entirely depending on the length of the car. With modern hybrid drives, Lambo and Bugat have been able to remove the front driveshaft and go back to a traditional layout. This car's rear is a bit longer, especially the lower half and diffuser, but they still may have done what McLaren did and make the transmission transverse.
This isn't true, at least not for Lamborghini. Front facing gearbox + AWD was a matter of utilizing the obvious opportunity with the Diablo and later cars, but the Countach did it originally because there was no other way it was gonna fit.

114_857418239.jpg


The rear overhang at the axis line of the drivetrain is probably even less than the F1.

I also just want to point out the absurdity that there are Tourbillon watches that are twice as expensive, or more, than the Bugatti Tourbillon. So...good value?

Capture.JPG


 
Last edited:
I also just want to point out the absurdity that there are Tourbillon watches that are twice as expensive, or more, than the Bugatti Tourbillon. So...good value?

View attachment 1366939

Maybe if we're "lucky", in a few years, Bugatti will announce a 1 one-off Tourbillon that has been made with a matching Tourbillon watch. Will only set the buyer back $10,000,000+.
Confused Good Question GIF by Choice Hotels
 
That’s about the speed of a top fuel dragster.
The Chiron tops out about 490 kph. I guess 300 horsepower more will push the new tumbler past that and closer to that 550 kph.
The Chiron would need approximately 600 more bhp to go from 490 to 550 km/h. Aerodynamic drag is proportional to v^2 while wheel torque is proportional to 1/v, so the relationship between power and top speed is essentially a cubic function:
P = c*v^3, where c is a constant.
 
Yeah that one.

So the Veyron was named after a racing driver
The Chiron was named after a racing driver
And this one is named after...a watch movement?

Am I the only one that thinks that's kinda dumb?
Bugatti probably just ran out of French automotive people with French-sounding names in their repository so they had to go for the next French-rooted word which ends with “-on”.



I like the car. Looks exotic. Interior looks even better, especially with that steering wheel-column-instrument cluster design. Looks real funky and reminds me of French car aesthetics of old, circa 1970s.

Not so much about the width, though. Boi looks reeeeally thicc. Probably not gonna be very maneuverable on narrower streets, but that’s not a concern for a peasant like me.

I think I’m gonna like it more than the Chiron.
 
I suppose we can use the word marvel because it was impressive but it wasn't a pioneer in my opinion, or particularly innovative. The tires actually might be the most impressive part of the car. Otherwise, the package was simply various conventional technologies packed tightly and made reliable. I'm not sure we know how reliable honestly because the maintenance schedule is intense and even the highest mileage car is well below what a Corolla achieves with mere oil changes. I've never seen a video of one not working, I'll say that.

The debut presentation also mentioned the aero work. The car has probably gained more speed from drag reduction and profile changes than 300 extra powers. At those speeds, huge power increases are needed to go even a little bit faster so the easiest thing is to refine the aero.
For sure. I was already factoring in aero. I wouldn't expect Bugatti's latest car to be less efficient.
 
The engine sounds better that's for sure.
Yes, but only if the real car sounds like what we’re hearing now. The Chiron (and Veyron) sounded pretty humdrum, and I would really dig it if the Tourbillon makes a more shrieking sound.
 
Yes, but only if the real car sounds like what we’re hearing now. The Chiron (and Veyron) sounded pretty humdrum, and I would really dig it if the Tourbillon makes a more shrieking sound.
That is more than likely how it will sound. Catchpole's video compares the 3 Cosworth built engines between Aston Martin, Gordan Murray, & Bugatti, and the Bugatti does not have that loud pitch of the others. In fact, it has the toned down grunt Bugatti's W16 made.

I would imagine this is a purposely made decision given the intended use of the Bugatti & its clientele versus that of the Valkyrie & the T.50.
 
Last edited:
Bit of a visual letdown from the carbon fiber intake plenum(s). Same shape but in brushed metal with polished or otherwise contrasting metal nameplate.

Edit: I think it's the weave that spoils it. Any weave would, but that it's consistent across the top and not mirrored is a particular bummer.

Bugattis-new-v16-engine.png
 
Last edited:
The mechanical dashboard with the exposed gearing is a work of art. Probably one of the best things about it alongside that engine.
 
This isn't true, at least not for Lamborghini. Front facing gearbox + AWD was a matter of utilizing the obvious opportunity with the Diablo and later cars, but the Countach did it originally because there was no other way it was gonna fit.

View attachment 1366932

The rear overhang at the axis line of the drivetrain is probably even less than the F1.
Hense why the Countach is even more compact than the short McLaren by 6 inches.
 
The one downside to this Bugatti lineage is that the cars keep getting uglier. Mode badass looking but uglier.

I really wish they would've produced sedans. They could've been so elegant. Using this engine in a sedan would be incredible as well.
 
I don't think I have much to contribute to the discussion as to what the new car achieves as a marketable product (I don't really like the name), but I'm certainly behind Cosworth's view that the world is a better place for having this new V16 engine in it!

I too thought it sounded exactly like the BRM V16, so I surmised that unlike the Valkyrie and T50 etc. Cosworth had refrained from reinventing the (fly)wheel in this engine. I was bolstered in this opinion by seeing "sensible" 4-into-1 exhaust groupings. But the comment about it not being two straight eights stuck together, nor two V8s put end-to-end, had me second guessing - especially with the 90° V angle.



Then you see the pistons moving in the bare block and, well, it's not so clear-cut.

Luckily the cylinder numbering gives it away: cylinders are numbered up one bank, then the next.
We can see cylinders 9 to 14 in the shot - this is the second bank, numbered 9 to 16 (15 and 16 obviously not in shot). Cylinder 12 reaches top dead centre first, then it's cylinder 13, followed by cylinder 11 and 14 seems sure to follow (with 9 well into its ascent).

This puts cylinders 11 and 12 two intervals apart, 13 and 14 also. Whilst the middle pair, 12 and 13 are separated by a single interval
I would immediately guess the intervals are 45° and 90°, the obvious choice in the absence of cylinder pairs reaching TDC together in the same bank (necessary for even-firing four stroke engines with an even number of cylinders).

The crankshaft shot confirms this, although it can be hard to tell due to the focus / depth-of-field. The first shot shows one end, the "up-left-right-down" crossplane layout is clear to see. Then the very next throw is set at some smaller angle, again presumably 45° for even firing given the 90° bank angle. The second half (second crank pic) is otherwise configured "down-right-left-up" (mirrored, if not for the offset).


So the crankshaft is, in fact, configured as two crossplane V8s placed end-to-end and offset by 45°.

This is similar to some one-off V16s made previously, which must be incredibly vindicating for their creators! But it is not quite like the BRM engine, whose 135° bank angle provides the 45° interval needed for a four-stroke 16. That has a simple mirrored crossplane crankshaft, no offset between halves, just like an Italian straight eight.

Thankfully, the way the exhausts are grouped allows for sufficient separation of the 45° intervals in each bank, so aurally it retains more of its crossplane character, unlike the outgoing W16 (which was more like two V8s interleaved anyway). In fact the exhaust groupings are very similar to the BRM's if you ignore the left / right separation, as you might when stood exactly behind it.


Just like the Valkyrie and GMA engines, the induction note will be unique, but hopefully less lumpy than either of those engines - the crossplane V8 character should come out in spades, still, if it isn't overly silenced.

EDIT: I'm referring to the Top Gear video, screenshots taken from there:
 

Attachments

  • Bugatti Cosworth V16 1.png
    Bugatti Cosworth V16 1.png
    242.8 KB · Views: 1
  • Bugatti Cosworth V16 2.png
    Bugatti Cosworth V16 2.png
    273.4 KB · Views: 1
  • Bugatti Cosworth V16 3.png
    Bugatti Cosworth V16 3.png
    267.7 KB · Views: 1
Last edited:
It could be worse, it could be named after whirlpools, which is what a tourbillon is usually refered to in French. The Bugatti Whirlpool.
"Whirlwind" is a closer translation I think

The one downside to this Bugatti lineage is that the cars keep getting uglier. Mode badass looking but uglier.

I really wish they would've produced sedans. They could've been so elegant. Using this engine in a sedan would be incredible as well.
Ugly?? Your eyes must be painted on...
 
Ugly?? Your eyes must be painted on...
Hideous.

The first one looked like a guinea pig, the second one looked like an angry guinea pig, and this new one looks like a cross between a Mclaren and a maniacal guinea pig. The front fascia in particular is not pretty at all, it's gaudy and over-styled.
 
Hideous.

The first one looked like a guinea pig, the second one looked like an angry guinea pig, and this new one looks like a cross between a Mclaren and a maniacal guinea pig. The front fascia in particular is not pretty at all, it's gaudy and over-styled.
Just goes to show, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'll admit I wasn't a huge fan of the Veyron styling, loved the front of the the Chiron but the rear took some time to gel.

The Tourbillon is just stunning though. Defintely an evolution but by far their most covesive design.
 
Last edited:

Latest Posts

Back