Veyron - Super Fast?
- Thread starter Deathclown66
- 239 comments
- 9,437 views
- 89,306
- Rule 12
- GTP_Famine
Which raises the question, Famine: Is your car worth two halves of squat?
One fo my cars is... a Clio...
Oddly, my Mazda is worth about £500 more than it was 3 years ago, and the Clio is worth about £6,000 less than it was 3 years ago. They're both worth about the same now. I wouldn't waste my money on a Tracker for either of them (especially not as they're both parked in locations where they're covered by CCTV all the time). The Blob had Trackers on his RB5 and WR1 Imprezas, but Imprezas are so fundamentally nickable and the cops can't catch them. I think the Atom and my dad's S-Type R are both Trackered.
- 165
Scaff, the numbers we called hogwash were L4S's numbers, which are VW's claimed numbers, being much better than the numbers you post here.
0-60: 2.5
0-100-0: 9.3
Neither of these has been reached, and these are just some of the "estimated" numbers L4S mistakenly took as fact.
Well, I can't disagree with the unbiased part, however, just because you like something more does not mean you can't step back and fairly size it up against something else.Scaff
I've never said the Saleen was a faster car, or that it can out-accelerate the Veyron, though it has (so far) in tests I've seen, beaten it by .2 from 60-140mph.
I will also say that any claim of the Veyron reaching 200mph in less than 20 seconds is crap, I'd say 22, most likely, and that's based on my knowledge of what a couple of similar power vehicles run, and that the Veyron has no specific advantage.
It does not have a great cd. it does not have greater power. it does weigh over half a ton more. it does have an awd trans, and is not a true manual, therefore likely loses more power in drivetrain. it does have less power than a Viper that takes 21.3 seconds to reach 200mph. It does not have a better drag racing powerband. (average % of maximum power throughout the 0-200 run)
So, after all that, why on earth would I believe this car, with no marginal advantages, and some very notable disadvantages, run between 1-3 seconds faster to 200? That's not biased, that's logical, and very rational.
I could be wrong, but you seem to feel the same way, at least, I hope so, as you seem a reasonable man, that prefers fact, whenever possible.
Scaff
Moderator
- 29,903
- He/Him
- ScaffUK
Not a problem at all, I just wanted every one to be aware of independent figures for the Veyron.
The Autocar figures are certainly that, and as they use a Racelogic V-box to figure the cars they are damn accurate as well. As with any figures they will always be susceptible to changes in the running environment, but they are more trust worthy in my opinion than any Manufacturers claim.
Oh I certainly prefer fact to speculation, not that I have a problem with speculation, as long as its not presented as fact.
To be totally honest this is an interesting discussion (hence the reason we are all here), but without independent figures for all the cars produced together (same track, same conditions, same driver, etc) its possible to argue until the cows come home.
👍
Scaff
- 30,062
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
In the test you posted you only posted the Veyron's acceleration upto 100mph, and even in that test, it did not hit 100mph as fast as it did in Autocar's test. However from 60 to 100mph in the test you posted both take 3 seconds dead. 60mph to 100mph in autocars test took just 2.7 seconds. At the end of the day, that is faster than the S7 TT to 100mph and I've not seen any figures where the S7 TT is quicker above thoes speeds, if you have then post them but you only posted figures upto 100mph. you can argue that the 1/4 mile times MT recorded are the same, but then I would argue that autocar's acceleration to 100mph is faster than motortrends times. As it tstands as far as I'm concerned the Veyron is 0.7 seconds faster to 100mph than the S7 TT and there's no reason for me to assume that the S7 TT suddnely pulls that back and more. What I can say, and I'm suer that you'll agree on, is that it would be nice for more tests for both cars. Btw, if you have any deatiled information on the powerbands of the Veyron, S7 TT and Hennessey Viper post them up.
- 5,178
- Worcester, MA
- skip0110
There are plenty of Hennessey Viper dynos sheets here:
http://www.hennesseyperformance.com/hennesseyperformance/Dyno.php?cart=phDZHCAd
Including a 1123 RWHP run.
the Interceptor
Premium
- 4,191
- BEL / GER
- theInterceptor77
Here's the video I mentioned earlier (hope it works):
If it doesn't work for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5UaFtuGUiI
The driver gives out several speed marks in kph. If you look at the time code, you'll see that he sets off at 0:03 and says "210" (kph, equals 131 mph) at 0:11, which makes it a 0 to 131 mph time of 8 seconds. Of course this is not hightly scientifical, but a nice demonstation of the cars acceleration abilities.
Regards
the Interceptor
If it doesn't work for you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5UaFtuGUiI
The driver gives out several speed marks in kph. If you look at the time code, you'll see that he sets off at 0:03 and says "210" (kph, equals 131 mph) at 0:11, which makes it a 0 to 131 mph time of 8 seconds. Of course this is not hightly scientifical, but a nice demonstation of the cars acceleration abilities.
Regards
the Interceptor
Poverty
(Banned)
- 3,567
lol this kid calls the veyron a fan boy car when his whole argument is based around his fanboyism of the saleen.
Quite frankly for what the saleen was designed for it isnt the fastest or the best.
The veyron however is one of a kind, no one else has attempted to make a car similier to the veyron. The closest thing to it is the Merc McLaren SLR.
Quite frankly for what the saleen was designed for it isnt the fastest or the best.
The veyron however is one of a kind, no one else has attempted to make a car similier to the veyron. The closest thing to it is the Merc McLaren SLR.
- 5,178
- Worcester, MA
- skip0110
I don't thing one side of this argument can criticize the other for fanboyism, because as far I can see there isn't enough documented evidence for either side.
My personal opinion on the Veyron is that it is over designed. There are several places on the car where VW could have achieved the same thing with much simpler technology, but they choose the complicated way (which seems to be the typical German approach to these things).
One example is the transmission. The same result could have been obtained with 1950s technology which is proven, simple stacked planetray gearsets and clutch packs with a variable stall converter/pump.
Another is the engine itself. VW stuck to the W design despite its complexity and difficulty eqaulizing combustion temps and cylinder breathing just because it is something developed by VW, although it's featues are not useful in this application.
- 5,178
- Worcester, MA
- skip0110
I am sure there was no goal at the outset of the project that said something like "smooth gearshift, under 10 ms". You have to consider all aspects of performance...it is possible that a slushbox that shifts 20x slower could achieve the same performace because it weighs less, has lower inertia, runs cooler, fits in a smaller space, etc...
- 1,165
and if one would flap fast ernough with the arms one could fly...
i don't think a DSG 'box is considerably more ineconomic than a normal one.
i can understand some of your other criticism and even though i am not a big fan of twin clutch gearboxes i think for this car its the perfect choice.
as for the engine, a W16 uses less space and weighs less than a V16, so even though its more complicates, it does fulfill a purpose.
i don't think a DSG 'box is considerably more ineconomic than a normal one.
i can understand some of your other criticism and even though i am not a big fan of twin clutch gearboxes i think for this car its the perfect choice.
as for the engine, a W16 uses less space and weighs less than a V16, so even though its more complicates, it does fulfill a purpose.
the Interceptor
Premium
- 4,191
- BEL / GER
- theInterceptor77
A major advantage of the DSG is that it doesn't stop pulling when shifting, while behaving like a manual transmission when in gear. It combines the advantages of both worlds, and in a high performance vehicle considerably improves acceleration times, cause you don't lose any time at the gearchange. The DSG technology is the reason the new Porsche Turbo accelerates faster with the (DSG) automatic gearbox than the manual one.
And about the W engine technology: There's that one car from Chrysler I think (forgive me if I'm wrong on this) with a V 16. Have you seen how long that engine actually is? You could never fit that one into the Veyron.
Now, I'm not saying that there's no "showing off" going on by VW with the Bugatti, but still, a lot of the technology inside does have its purpose.
Regards
the Interceptor
And about the W engine technology: There's that one car from Chrysler I think (forgive me if I'm wrong on this) with a V 16. Have you seen how long that engine actually is? You could never fit that one into the Veyron.
Now, I'm not saying that there's no "showing off" going on by VW with the Bugatti, but still, a lot of the technology inside does have its purpose.
Regards
the Interceptor
- 1,795
I'd buy the Saleen, and use the leftover money to get myself a nice house in the desert somewhere.
the Interceptor
Premium
- 4,191
- BEL / GER
- theInterceptor77
True, there are temperature issues with the W enignes due to the narrow space between the cylinders. Still, I have serious doubts you could mount a V16 sideways in a car that's supposed to fit on a street. And I don't know about the weight, but I think a V16 is not on the light side either.
- 41,075
Well, it was done before. And the engine wasn't really that much smaller.
I'm currently looking for an engine to compare to the Bugatti's.
I'm currently looking for an engine to compare to the Bugatti's.
the Interceptor
Premium
- 4,191
- BEL / GER
- theInterceptor77
Okay, I didn't know the engine of the Cizeta was mounted sideways. The car is awfully broad though. Still, the Veyron is only three inches narrower, so that's a draw.
EDIT: I just read that they had to extract the power of the Cizetas engine in the middle (!!!) of it, cause getting it from one of the ends (as you usually do) would have made the car even wider. It seems life was not easy for them either.
I think a considerable part of the reason to use a W16 and a quad turbo is prestige. If the only goal was to reach 1001 hp, it could have been archieved easier. Still, if you have the money, what impresses you more? A "classic V12 twin turbo" or a "newly developed quad-turbo W16"?
On the other hand, power delivery (including driveability), smoothness and reliability were big issues, so taking this engine was not only showing what can be done I guess.
Regards
the Interceptor
EDIT: I just read that they had to extract the power of the Cizetas engine in the middle (!!!) of it, cause getting it from one of the ends (as you usually do) would have made the car even wider. It seems life was not easy for them either.
I think a considerable part of the reason to use a W16 and a quad turbo is prestige. If the only goal was to reach 1001 hp, it could have been archieved easier. Still, if you have the money, what impresses you more? A "classic V12 twin turbo" or a "newly developed quad-turbo W16"?
On the other hand, power delivery (including driveability), smoothness and reliability were big issues, so taking this engine was not only showing what can be done I guess.
Regards
the Interceptor
- 30,062
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
I agree with what your reason for the possible thinking behind the engine choice, it makes sense. It's the first ever W16 engine, they chose that configuration because it's something you can't get anywhere else, also it's a very smooth and constand power delivery and becuse of the number of cylinder and capacity of the engine it's far less stressed than an 8 or 12 clyinder engine would be. It was originally going to be an 18 cylinder engine, but that idea got canned.
Amen to that.
- 1,579
I have doubts about Saleen's claims, too, but not because of the masses of downforce. You can still build a car with impressive levels of downforce without increasing drag. Most modern supercars use all sorts of "ground effect" aerodynamics rather than wings & spoilers. Case in point: Enzo. Very smooth on top (relatively speaking), but it still offers staggering downforce at high speed, and the overall Cd is still quite low (0.34).
dubbed
There's quite a few cars that have custom-molded seats, and it's not because they're not road legal. It's more a matter of customer service. Case in point: McLaren F1.
Edit: late to the party again, I guess.
- 165
I'll assume this is directed towards me.
If you can quote me stating the Saleen to be quicker from 0-100, please do so now, otherwise, please don't imply that I've stated it anymore.
What I said was, the Saleen, according to C&D's test of it, in March 06 Issue, out-accelerated the Veyron (from 2006 nov. issue) between 60-140.
I higlighted part of your staement. When, and where, has anybody said that the Saleen, or any other car mentioned ran the same 1/4mi time?
If the Veyron runs a 5.5 (.02 quicker then motortrend), 0-100 time as autocar tested it, than that simply puts the Veyron and Saleen in a dead heat from 60-140, rather than the Saleen beating it by .02
If you would like to know why I pick such an odd acceleration spot as 60-140, it's because 140 is the highest number I have evidence of the Veyron being time recorded to.
Please take time to read my posts more carefully, as it would save multiple redundant postings of identical statments.
And if you are unsure of any of the numbers I have been quoting, they are all listed in one giant post, on page 3 or 4, it won't take you more than 2 minutes to find.
I recall specifically refraining from calling people "kids" earlier, so as not to be an ass, despite being, I believe, older than you and possible some other in here, and lo and behold, some "kid", determines me a fanboy because I prefer a different car than he, even though it's not the wide-eyed kids dream car.....huh, odd.Poverty
But since you bring it up yet again, what is designed for the same thing as the Saleen, and is better?
I'll assume you have acceleration, top speed, handling, & braking numbers for both, along with, multiple road course times.....I'll be snickering in advance for when you have squat to base your mispresented speculation on.
- 30,062
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
First of all I never said or claimed that you said that. Nice of you to twist a comment for the sake of argument.
You did, in post 69.
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2460690&postcount=69
Likewise.
You didn't post any numbers for the Veyron above 100mph in either post 1 or post 69.
- 41,075
Yes, Poverty. Let's not allow personal bias and fanboyism to get in the way of this fact-based discussion that just happens to involve VAG.
Such as?Poverty
On the contrary: The Veyron is only one of a kind if you view it as a front for new technology in automobiles (which it isn't). If you view it as simply a more excessive version of any other hypercar you will find that there were companies making startingly similar cars over 10 years before the Veyron was officially announced, and in one case over 20 years before the first Veyron was sold, not to mention your already mentioned example of the SLR.Poverty
- 165
You implied it very strongly, by posting that the Veyron is faster from 0-100, as though I said otherwise. So if you didn't mean that, you should either not take offense, or you should take some time to phrase things a little more in context.live4speed
Well, it seems I did, that was however, a typo, and I apologize for the confusion.L4S
The Buggati ran a 10.4@139.9mph
Yes I did, in fact, you just provided a link to it. It was a typo, but I posted a 0-139.9mph mark. it's 10.4 seconds. .5 quicker than the Saleen reaches 140.0, down .2 from it's 0-60 advantage of .7 seconds.L4S
as for any numbers faster than that, I don't recall anyone being able to post any numbers for the Veyron. (beyond speculation based on VAG claims)
I'll say it again, the Veyron is an amazing machine, but it is much more of a showboat than car-god. And it has dissapointed me, so far, in performance.
the Interceptor
Premium
- 4,191
- BEL / GER
- theInterceptor77
What kind of performance did you expect then?
- 30,062
- Cuddington, Cheshire
- JDA1982
I was talking about the 0-100mph times because I hadn't thought about using the 1/4 mile time to see how long it took to hit 140mph, so I didn't think I had a time to base talking about 140mph on, at no point did I mean to imply that you said the S7 TT was faster in that range, I think you just read it from the wrong angle because it makes sense to me.
- 165
VAG claims.
The Saleen outgunning it from 60-140 makes sense to you? or 60-100? Going by the motor trend test of the Veyron, tha Saleen beats it by .2 from 60-100, and 100-140 is a dead heat... according to the autocar test, it's simply a dead heat from 60-100 or 60-140.L4S
Do I think this should be possible? Not really, I guess it makes sense given the Saleen's pwr/wt advantage, but with a perfect powerband and 7-speed super transmission, I simply expected the Veyron to have more grunt in the mid-range area.
And I also don't think, given the Saleen's optimal gearing from 100-200mph, that the Veyron could suddenly pull 3-4 seconds out of the hat from 140-200, that does not make sense to me.
In case it's been forgotten, the Saleen took 23.4 seconds to reach 200, so anything less than 22-flat would be a miracle for the Veyron, let alone a sub-20-flat, which would prove it massivly faster than cars with more power, and can best it marginally in the 60-150 range. (Hennessey Viper, which ran a 21.3 0-200)
Here are some fun numbers, 9/05 issue of Road & Track, which tested car from XKR racecars to stock RUF's, and an F-18 Hornet, along the Hennessey & S7 TT.
MV Augusta Tamburini 1000 (bike)
0-60: 3.1 0-100: 5.7 100-150: 6.4 (top speed, 174)
Saleen S7 TT
0-60: 3.4 0-100: 6.3 100-150: 5.7 100-200: 17.1 0-200: 23.4
Hennessey Viper TT (1100HP)
0-60: 3.6 0-100: 6.8 100-150: 4.7 100-200: 14.5 0-200: 21.3
Jaguar XKR Trans-Am Racecar (630HP - 2500LB)
0-60: 4.1 0-100: 7.4 100-150: 7.4 (top speed, w/o wing - 180.5)
RUF CTR Yellowbird
0-60: 4.0 0-100: 7.6 100-150: 9.3 ( top speed, 185.8)
Oh almost forgot
F-18 Hornet
1/4MI: 11.9 @ 154
1/2MI: 16.7 @ 218
3/4MI: 20.4 @ 267
1 Mile: 23.6 @ 318
