Was "Veyron poll" - Then "VAG/GM discussion" - Now "Veyron discussion again"

[Poverty]

As carried on from the F1 VS Veyron thread.

Just like to add that the veyron has posted no real ring time. Maybe in the summer.

Note: I at first didnt like the veyron. Everyone was hyping it up so I started to dislike it. Then the reviews came out and I saw it on TV. Completely changed my mind. I think its the dogs danglies now.

Watch these two short videos and im sure you'll change your mind too. On paper it might not seem all that with some of its figures but these videos reveal its capabilities.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8153669995635983380&q=veyron&pl=true

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=251SFZkyP-E&search=bugatti veyron

 

[Joey D]

Waste of money, for a million bucks you can buy so much more then just a car. Plus the thing isn't a techincal marvel when it can't even pull a outstanding time at the Ring.

Alla this thread...
https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showthread.php?t=74142&highlight=ring

7'40 - Bugatti 16/4 Veyron - 2005

But wait....
7'28 - Porsche Carrera GT - 2004
7'32 - Pagani Zonda F - 2005

Cheaper cars and they are faster.

 

[Kylehnat]

I don't like the thing, but I can't really think of any reason to call it pointless and/or a waste of money. Anyone who can afford it won't think twice about how much they spent on it. If I buy a $0.25 pack of gum, and it's the worst gum ever created, is it a waste of money? No, because I'll make that money back in 90 seconds of work. It's all relative, of course.

 

[Joey D]

I still look at it this way, you just spent a million (probably more) on a car that isn't nearly as quick as it and really is only made for top speed on an oval. So more or less you just bought a really expensive NASCAR in Bugatti clothing.

But really if you buy a Veyron you are going to keep it locked away and let it gain in value, in 20 years it will be sold at Barrett Jackson for a few million. So as a collectors car its awesome, but as a drivers car it's pointless since you'll hardly ever take it on the road and if you do it won't see more then 30 mph at you cruise through Beverly Hills

Look at cars like the Z06, Viper SRT-10, BMW M3, Porshce 911, etc. all of them are really fast sports cars and they are actualyl driven and raced by people who own them, however I'm willing to bet only 1 or 2 Veyrons ever see anything that's considered fast, and an even greater chance it will see something considered a race.

So in short...Veyron = collectors car

 

[Kylehnat]

Look at cars like the Z06, Viper SRT-10, BMW M3, Porshce 911, etc. all of them are really fast sports cars and they are actualyl driven and raced by people who own them

Huh? The vast vast majority of these cars will never see a track either.

 

[Joey D]

Lots of those cars will see the track, I go to open track days at Waterford Hill Raceway all the time and there are countless Corvette's there as well as M3's, 911's, and other sports cars.

While there are some people who will never take them to the track, however if you put into porportion more people will take a sports car to the track over someone with a supercar. I'm pretty much going to assume that no one outside a auto reviewer will take a Bugatti Veyron to a track.

 

[Tornado]

Not a practical car in any means, and I would take a good McLaren F1 or Saleen S7 TT (750 BHP version) over it any day, but remember, you used to be able to buy slower cars for more (the CLK-GTR springs to mind), and Volkswagen is also taking a loss on each one sold, so I don't exactly think it's a waste of money, and it is the greatest masterpiece of engineering since the EB110.

Waste of money, for a million bucks you can buy so much more then just a car. Plus the thing isn't a techincal marvel when it can't even pull a outstanding time at the Ring.

Anything under 8:00 is an outstanding time. And remember, none of those cars weigh over 4000 lbs. 1000BHP or not, that is alot of weight for a car like that, and the ring isn't exactly the best course to have alot of weight at, especially with all of those tight turns. Fast or not, and I don't want to argue about that, it is a masterpiece of engineering, especially when you think of all the time that went into the development of it just so it could have 1000 BHP. Pointless, yes. A waste of resources? Also yes. A waste of engineering talent? No.

 

[Joey D]

Anything under 8:00 is an outstanding time. And remember, none of those cars weigh over 4000 lbs. 1000BHP or not, that is alot of weight for a car like that, and the ring isn't exactly the best course to have alot of weight at, especially with all of those tight turns. Fast or not, and I don't want to argue about that, it is a masterpiece of engineering, especially when you think of all the time that went into the development of it just so it could have 1000 BHP. Pointless, yes. A waste of resources? Also yes. A waste of engineering talent? No.

Ok so the Veyron weighs in at 4162lbs. according to www.rsportscars.com, with 1001 hp that means you have 1hp per 4.16 lbs. and it has 923 lb. ft. of torque meaning 1 lb. ft. per 4.51 lbs.

Lets take something I know, the C6 Z06, at 3179lbs. is puts out 1hp per 6.36 lbs. Thus the Veryon should be worlds quicker even with the extra weight, but it's not. The Veryon may be pushing more weight, but it has a better power to weight ratio.

Also it's not a masterpiece of engineering. It's a big car with a bunch of stuff crammed in it and took entirely to long to develope. A masterpiece in engineering would be the S2000 making a ton of power from a N/A four cylinder, a 1300cc Hyabusa motorcylce making a ton of power and having hardly and power to weight ration, the Atom is another example. These are automotive engineering feats, not some big car with two W8's slapped together and a bunch of radiators.

 

[Tornado]

Ok so the Veyron weighs in at 4162lbs. according to www.rsportscars.com, with 1001 hp that means you have 1hp per 4.16 lbs. and it has 923 lb. ft. of torque meaning 1 lb. ft. per 4.51 lbs.
Lets take something I know, the C6 Z06, at 3179lbs. is puts out 1hp per 6.36 lbs. Thus the Veryon should be worlds quicker even with the extra weight, but it's not. The Veryon may be pushing more weight, but it has a better power to weight ratio.

You don't understand. You can have as much horsepower as you want. That's great. You can have the best power/weight ratio in the world for all I care. How does that effect handling at all? Honestly answer how power/weight ratio (which only effect acceleration) controls how the car handles. I want you to put an 5000 BHP engine in a tractor trailer and see what happens. Tell me if how much lateral G's it pulls, and how fast it can do the 'Ring.

Also it's not a masterpiece of engineering. It's a big car with a bunch of stuff crammed in it and took entirely to long to develope. A masterpiece in engineering would be the S2000 making a ton of power from a N/A four cylinder, a 1300cc Hyabusa motorcylce making a ton of power and having hardly and power to weight ration, the Atom is another example. These are automotive engineering feats, not some big car with two W8's slapped together and a bunch of radiators.

Let me ask you something: Was the EB110 an engineering feat? It had a 60 valve 3-litre V12 pushing out 500+ BHP. What about a Jaguar XJ220, or Cizeta V16T? They all made 100 BHP per liter. Now, let's put this into perspective: A car making 240 BHP out of 2 litres is more of an engineering feat than one making 1000? That's a pittance. You can get a Mitsubishi making 400 BHP out of 2 litres. A bike is more of an engineering feat than a car making 1000 BHP? Why, because it has a high top speed? And a glorified kit-car is more of an engineering feat than a car with 1000 BHP? I can't even fathom that one, and I've heard of dozens of cars that could destroy the Atom. Flat out kill it while costing less. I don't think you understand here. 1001 BHP. That is 700 more than most people will ever have. That is 711 more than your truck has. Can you even imagine that? I don't think your percieving the hurdles VW had to overcome to make this car. The car had Porsche 911-guage meltdowns of half-million dollar engines. To make that car run good enough and reliable enough for them to even conceive selling it is a feat in itself.

 

[Joey D]

You don't understand. You can have as much horsepower as you want. That's great. You can have the best power/weight ratio in the world for all I care. How does that effect handling at all? Honestly answer how power/weight ratio (which only effect acceleration) controls how the car handles. I want you to put an 5000 BHP engine in a tractor trailer and see what happens. Tell me if how much lateral G's it pulls, and how fast it can do the 'Ring.

But the Veyron is supposed to handle at least decently, if it doesn't it shouldn't be considered a supercar, hypercar, or whatever. And get rid of the Ring, put it on any road course, it should be faster just due to sheer power to weight ratio. And really shouldn't have these awesome engineers thought about all of this? Couldn't they've engineered an awesome suspension system to rival LMP cars?

et me ask you something: Was the EB110 an engineering feat? It had a 60 valve 3-litre V12 pushing out 500+ BHP.What about a Jaguar XJ220, or Cizeta V16T?

Couldn't honestly give you an answer since I'm not 100% sure what the EB110 is. I know nothing about the XJ220 other then it looks cool and the same goes of the V16T. I like to talk about things I have some clue on.

Now, let's put this into perspective: A car making 240 BHP out of 2 litres is more of an engineering feat than one making 1000? That's a pittance.

A S2000 is not only 30 grand, but is naturally asperated and can actually round a corner. Also it's a convertable.

You can get a Mitsubishi making 400 BHP out of 2 litres.

Forced induction adds loads of power, turbo a S2000 and see the results, I bet Honda could come close to 450hp with little problem. I don't like Honda's but I can respect their uncanny way of making thing sweet, cheap, reliable, and surprisingly effiecent.

A bike is more of an engineering feat than a car making 1000 BHP?

Try to design a bike to do 200 mph and still be stable, I would wager it would be a very hard task. You have to get the seat, bars, etc. in the right postion to get the rider in the right position. Remember you are working with 2 wheels here.

And a glorified kit-car is more of an engineering feat than a car with 1000 BHP? I can't even fathom that one, and I've heard of dozens of cars that could destroy the Atom.

What can kill an Atom? I believe on Top Gear (the only test I've actually seen) the thing slaughtered a ton of cars with more power then it. Making a road legal go-kart with that kind of cornering power take a serious amount of work.

1001 BHP. That is 700 more than most people will ever have. That is 711 more than your truck has. Can you even imagine that? I don't think your percieving the hurdles VW had to overcome to make this car. The car had Porsche 911-guage meltdowns of half-million dollar engines. To make that car run good enough and reliable enough for them to even conceive selling it is a feat in itself.

Big deal, it has 711 more horsepower then my truck. A Cobalt SS has 15 more horsepower and will walk my truck all day.

I can imagine a 1001hp, I've seen Vipers with more then that and they cost less. Hennessy? Think about that 1200hp Viper that probably runs 120,000 at the most.

And really taking two W8's, sticking them together, making it forced induction is no real feat. People slap twin turbos on Supra and get a 1000hp and they only have 6 cylinders to work with.

 

[Tornado]

But the Veyron is supposed to handle at least decently, if it doesn't it shouldn't be considered a supercar, hypercar, or whatever. And get rid of the Ring, put it on any road course, it should be faster just due to sheer power to weight ratio. And really shouldn't have these awesome engineers thought about all of this?

No it wouldn't be faster. If the track requires brakes (which, you know, many do), the sheer mass of the Veyron would put it behind. Hell, even Monza would probably be a problem. I honestly don't see why this matters, however, because you specifically said the 'Ring. Besides, they did think of the handling. But physics cannot be denied, nor can inertia, no matter how you tune the suspension.

Couldn't honestly give you an answer since I'm not 100% sure what the EB110 is. I know nothing about the XJ220 other then it looks cool and the same goes of the V16T. I like to talk about things I have some clue on.

Cizeta V16T. Bugatti EB110. Hell, for the sake of arguement, Porsche 959.

A S2000 is not only 30 grand, but is naturally asperated and can actually round a corner. Also it's a convertable.
Forced induction adds loads of power, turbo a S2000 and see the results, I bet Honda could come close to 450hp with little problem. I don't like Honda's but I can respect their uncanny way of making thing sweet, cheap, reliable, and surprisingly effiecent.

That's all well and good, but if you honestly think the Veyron should be able to make 1000 BHP NA, than you are a fool. It is simply not possible. Period.

Try to design a bike to do 200 mph and still be stable, I would wager it would be a very hard task. You have to get the seat, bars, etc. in the right postion to get the rider in the right position. Remember you are working with 2 wheels here.

So, basically, all they did was put a bigger motor in a superbike? Big deal.

What can kill an Atom? I believe on Top Gear (the only test I've actually seen) the thing slaughtered a ton of cars with more power then it. Making a road legal go-kart with that kind of cornering power take a serious amount of work.

I believe all you have to do is drop a 911 engine in a Beetle, mess with the rear suspension and add some rear tire. And besides which, the concept of lightweight=high performance has been done so many times that the Atom isn't anything special at all. I point you to any Lotus that is not the Esprit, and any TVR.

I can imagine a 1001hp, I've seen Vipers with more then that and they cost less. Hennessy? Think about that 1200hp Viper that probably runs 120,000 at the most.

But wait a minute, Vipers have even bigger engines than Veyrons, with cylincers the size of coffee cans. Lot's of air can get in them. It's easy as hell to get that much power out of Viper.

And really taking two W8's, sticking them together, making it forced induction is no real feat. People slap twin turbos on Supra and get a 1000hp and they only have 6 cylinders to work with.

Supra's (and, because I know you'll argue it sooner or later, Skylines) also have iron-block engines with a good amount of space left to be bored out of them, making them stronger structually twice-over.

 

[Wolfe]

Not a practical car in any means, and I would take a good McLaren F1 or Saleen S7 TT (750 BHP version) over it any day, but remember, you used to be able to buy slower cars for more (the CLK-GTR springs to mind), and Volkswagen is also taking a loss on each one sold, so I don't exactly think it's a waste of money, and it is the greatest masterpiece of engineering since the EB110.

Anything under 8:00 is an outstanding time. And remember, none of those cars weigh over 4000 lbs. 1000BHP or not, that is alot of weight for a car like that, and the ring isn't exactly the best course to have alot of weight at, especially with all of those tight turns. Fast or not, and I don't want to argue about that, it is a masterpiece of engineering, especially when you think of all the time that went into the development of it just so it could have 1000 BHP. Pointless, yes. A waste of resources? Also yes. A waste of engineering talent? No.

+1 👍

You already summed up what I would say.

Cizeta V16T. Bugatti EB110. Hell, for the sake of arguement, Porsche 959.

Jesus Christ, the 959 was much more complicated than it needed to be, and ended up being heavier and slower than it should have been, but it's one helluva technical marvel. I mean, c'mon -- a 6-clutch center differential!

I believe all you have to do is drop a 911 engine in a Beetle, mess with the rear suspension and add some rear tire. And besides which, the concept of lightweight=high performance has been done so many times that the Atom isn't anything special at all. I point you to any Lotus that is not the Esprit, and any TVR.

+1. I'd personally take a Caterham over an Atom, if only for the character and history.

Supra's (and, because I know you'll argue it sooner or later, Skylines) also have iron-block engines with a good amount of space left to be bored out of them, making them stronger structually twice-over.

Yup. Pretty much any iron-block engine (one that's designed well enough, anyway) can take tons of boost and make tons of power.

 

[Joey D]

No it wouldn't be faster. If the track requires brakes (which, you know, many do), the sheer mass of the Veyron would put it behind. Hell, even Monza would probably be a problem. I honestly don't see why this matters, however, because you specifically said the 'Ring. Besides, they did think of the handling. But physics cannot be denied, nor can inertia, no matter how you tune the suspension.

If it takes 1,800 feet to slow down from 253mph, it has sufficent brakes to stop the car from say 120 to gear up for a turn. But the reason I said the Ring is because people around these boards consider it the God of race tracks. So I was just saying this great car can't get around this God among tracks faster then cheaper cars.

You should design the car to handle the power. Also there is no need for all that weight, the interior of the Veyron is over done and overtly heavy. Look at the McLaren F1, or better yet a F40. They are true interiors for something deemed fast.

Cizeta V16T. Bugatti EB110. Hell, for the sake of arguement, Porsche 959.

I still don't know enough about the V16T or the EB110 to make a statement on them, however I will agree the 959 is an amazing car. But totally non related the EB110 is ugly as hell.

That's all well and good, but if you honestly think the Veyron should be able to make 1000 BHP NA, than you are a fool. It is simply not possible. Period.

It's easier to get power using forced induction then it is using n/a. You can get the GM 572 crate engine with 720hp naturally asperated and it's only about a liter bigger. A 16 cylinder quad turboed engine should be putting out a lot more power. It's an 8L W16, which is still a big ass engine.

So, basically, all they did was put a bigger motor in a superbike? Big deal.

Aerodynamics is more of the feat here then anything, it's much harder to keep a bike stable at 200 then it is a car. Hell if you can make a lot of cars do 200 mph and survive, but a bike it much harder. And the displacement really isn't the biggest thing about the bike since the Gixxer 1000 is just as fast if not faster.

I believe all you have to do is drop a 911 engine in a Beetle, mess with the rear suspension and add some rear tire. And besides which, the concept of lightweight=high performance has been done so many times that the Atom isn't anything special at all. I point you to any Lotus that is not the Esprit, and any TVR.

But it works does it not? Light weight high speed is a better use of engineering in my opinion...if it wasn't racecars would weigh a lot more then they already do.

But wait a minute, Vipers have even bigger engines than Veyrons, with cylincers the size of coffee cans. Lot's of air can get in them. It's easy as hell to get that much power out of Viper.

No it doesn't, the Viper had a 8.0L (SRT-10 has 8.3L) and the Veyron has 8.0L. Same size, different configuration. So you know what? The Veyron could have gotten a 1000hp out of a 8L V10 using half the turbos, saving hundreds of pounds, causing better handeling and higher top speed. I mean you said the weight is the demon in it's cornering, so why not just put a V10 in and save the weight that the extra turbo systems added.

Supra's (and, because I know you'll argue it sooner or later, Skylines) also have iron-block engines with a good amount of space left to be bored out of them, making them stronger structually twice-over.

You are still getting 1000hp from a I6. That's more impressive then 1000hp from two W8's fused together.

 

[Ghost C]

This poll sucks. It lacks the proper answer to the question at hand.























ZEE OH SIKS

 

[Wolfe]

I still don't know enough about the V16T or the EB110 to make a statement on them, however I will agree the 959 is an amazing car.

I don't want to put words in Toronado's mouth, but your admittance that the 959 is an amazing car is pretty much the whole point.

It was very, very expensive, but Porsche lost money on every car they sold anyway. It was hopelessly complicated, heavier than it should have been, and slower than it should have been, but everyone thought it was one of the greatest cars ever made.

The Veyron is basically the same story.

You are still getting 1000hp from a I6. That's more impressive then 1000hp from two W8's fused together.

This is very true, but I assure you that the I6's won't be nearly as reliable or trouble-free.

 

[Joey D]

I don't want to put words in Toronado's mouth, but your admittance that the 959 is an amazing car is pretty much the whole point.

It was very, very expensive, but Porsche lost money on every car they sold anyway. It was hopelessly complicated, heavier than it should have been, and slower than it should have been, but everyone thought it was one of the greatest cars ever made.

The Veyron is basically the same story.

Not really, the 959 wasn't a million dollar car if my memory serves me correctly...and it had the power to weight ratio and the cornering to back it up.

This is very true, but I assure you that the I6's won't be nearly as reliable or trouble-free.

You'll never drive a Veyron enought to have problems with it.

 

[Tornado]

You should design the car to handle the power. Also there is no need for all that weight, the interior of the Veyron is over done and overtly heavy. Look at the McLaren F1, or better yet a F40. They are true interiors for something deemed fast.

That's because both of those were basically homologation specials. The Veyron is a luxury car.

It's easier to get power using forced induction then it is using n/a. You can get the GM 572 crate engine with 720hp naturally asperated and it's only about a liter bigger. A 16 cylinder quad turboed engine should be putting out a lot more power. It's an 8L W16, which is still a big ass engine.

Thanks for proving my point. In addition, they only wanted 1001 BHP. They didn't want more. It sure as hell didn't need more. See two blurbs below for why taht doesn't matter.

But it works does it not? Light weight high speed is a better use of engineering in my opinion...if it wasn't racecars would weigh a lot more then they already do.

Again, thanks for proving yourself wrong.

No it doesn't, the Viper had a 8.0L (SRT-10 has 8.3L) and the Veyron has 8.0L. Same size, different configuration. So you know what? The Veyron could have gotten a 1000hp out of a 8L V10 using half the turbos, saving hundreds of pounds, causing better handeling and higher top speed. I mean you said the weight is the demon in it's cornering, so why not just put a V10 in and save the weight that the extra turbo systems added.

Because it was a damned status car for the company. A technoligical masterpiece. The fact that you don't get that astounds me. They could have easily just made a 2.0L with 1000BHP. They wanted a prestige car for the brand. 2.0L aren't as prestigous as W-16 cars.

You are still getting 1000hp from a I6. That's more impressive then 1000hp from two W8's fused together.

I don't know how to explain it any simpler, except this: they were having tons of trouble with cooling issues. In Skylines and Supras (unless you've sen some magic MR Supra or Skyline), the engine is in the front. If you honestly think it is as easy to cool a mid-engined car as it is a front-engined one, than I give up.

 

[YSSMAN]

Thinking about the Veyron for a moment... I'm not completely sure.

1) I could indeed think of better things to spend $1.25M on, but the Veyron in that case is nothing more than a status symbol. The previous record for price was held by the Mercedes-Benz GTR road car, which I belive surpassed $1.2M. The point is that Bugatti (or VAG) knew that they could charge $1.25M, but they are still losing money on the car.

2) The performance of the car is undenyable, and completely unnecessary... But thats why the car is so freaking awesome in so many people's minds. Would I want to have a car that could do that? Sure! Just so I could brag about it... Would I ever be able to do it? Probably not... The same can be said of any high-performance car, but this indeed takes it to extremes. The new "street-legal" F1 car that is supposed to debut in Monaco will perform similarly to the Veyron (not in top speed), and they will sell solely on that fact, but will everyone use it in that way? Never...

3) I think we have all lost track of the origional intent of the Veyron... The car was meant to baisicly restart the Bugatti brand, and re-install the brand as the top-performing luxury marque that it once was. The goals were set unreasonably high so that VW could prove to the world that such a car could be built, and that is why it took so long for the car to go intro production. Now, Bugatti is a household name, just because of what it can do. Do you think many "average" people knew who or what a McLaren was before the car became the fastest vehicle sold in the world? The same can be said of the 'Egg CCR...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

This always has been, and probably always will be a debate in the auto industry. Does anyone really NEED to be able to travel at 253MPH when in most countries, speed limits are set around 70MPH? Its all about proving to the people that one brand is better than another, and for the owner, that their car is better than everyone elses.

 

[JCE]

That's all well and good, but if you honestly think the Veyron should be able to make 1000 BHP NA, than you are a fool. It is simply not possible. Period.

I take issue with this comment actually, GM and Ford (EU and US) have proven that you can get 500bhp from a modern V8 with some simple N/A tuning--so double up the cynlinders to form an tuned NA W16 and you can get that 1000bhp number...and easily I might add...and frankly it still wouldn't be a feat. My problem with the Veyron is it's only 1001bhp (actually rated 987bhp: http://www.caranddriver.com/article.asp?section_id=19&article_id=10108&page_number=1)--and that's WITH 4 turbos. What the technological achievement that everyone seems to be neglecting is how the car WORKS being so heavy AND fast. Aerodynamics, brakes, tires, and etc are really where most of the R&D time was spent. THAT'S what impresses me, it's not about some silly arguement whether or not it's faster than a 1000bhp Supra or whether or not it's faster than a ZO6 around the 'ring. But I guess VW brought all this upon themself for hyping the damn car the way they did. I like most of you here (maybe all?) would NEVER buy this car even if I was a billionaire--I just think these petty arguements are frankly non-productive. Like it for what it is or don't. It's fairly simple if you think about it.

 

[Tornado]

I take issue with this comment actually, GM and Ford (EU and US) have proven that you can get 500bhp from a modern V8 with some simple N/A tuning--so double up the cynlinders to form an tuned NA W16 and you can get that 1000bhp number

Tell me a way to cool it and get air into it and I'll agree with you. Also, remember that the W8 engine on which the W-16 is based is an inferior engine to a normal V8 of similar size. Audi proved that.
Also, on an unrelated note, the U.S. version also has 1001 BHP. VW pushed the boost up such a smidgen that it still produced 1001 for the American car.

 

[STLbarcelona5]

Guys lets not kid ourselves. A 4000lb car is not a racecar.

At 1000hp, a 4000lb car is'nt a racecar. Just a really fast Grand Tourer.

 

[JCE]

Tell me a way to cool it and get air into it and I'll agree with you. Also, remember that the W8 engine on which the W-16 is based in an inferior engine to a normal V8.
Also, on an unrelated note, the U.S. version also has 1001 BHP. VW pushed the boost up such a smidgen that it still produced 1001 for the American car.

I'm not familiar enough with W8 engines to really make an informed rebuttle but I can tell you that if you can cool the Veyron the way it is then you can cool the new W18 LS12 GM motor. Oh and if you grafted 2 W8's together wouldn't you get a WW16? Or as I like to call it, "World War 16".

[/humor]

 

[YSSMAN]

...As a side note, GM slapped together two modified LS7s to make the V16 that was in the Cadillac Sixteen concept from a few years back. It can be done by Americans, we just don't see a reason for doing so when modifying a V8 can produce similar results for far less money.

 

[GT4_Rule]

...As a side note, GM slapped together two modified LS7s to make the V16 that was in the Cadillac Sixteen concept from a few years back. It can be done by Americans, we just don't see a reason for doing so when modifying a V8 can produce similar results for far less money.

And if Im right, the Cadillac Sixteen's engine produced around 1000hp without 4 turbochargers.

Tell me a way to cool it and get air into it and I'll agree with you. Also, remember that the W8 engine on which the W-16 is based is an inferior engine to a normal V8 of similar size. Audi proved that.

Why use W16? Its pointless. Cool name, just for show. How does W16 get air inside the cylinders and cool better than a NA V8? Why use W configuration if its inferior to V? If you want to save space, then dont get 16 cylinders - its a waste of aluminum. Make 2 V8s with that aluminum and youve just served the world a whole lot better.

 

[Kylehnat]

Why use W16?

Because it's funny watching mechanics trying to figure out the ignition sequence.

 

[GT4_Rule]

Because it's funny watching mechanics trying to figure out the ignition sequence.

Man you guys are hilarious. Makes me laugh every time. I have to quit being so serious!

 

[JCE]

And if Im right, the Cadillac Sixteen's engine produced around 1000hp without 4 turbochargers.

[/SIZE][/FONT]

Why use W16? Its pointless. Cool name, just for show. How does W16 get air inside the cylinders and cool better than a NA V8? Why use W configuration if its inferior to V? If you want to save space, then dont get 16 cylinders - its a waste of aluminum. Make 2 V8s with that aluminum and youve just served the world a whole lot better.

o_O I didn't say that...the quoting system broken?

 

[GT4_Rule]

o_O I didn't say that...the quoting system broken?

What do you mean?

 

[JCE]

What do you mean?

Allow me to illustrate:

 

[Wolfe]

Allow me to illustrate:

*z0MG, itz an IMG!!!1!!1*

It was probably just a simple oversight by GT4_Rule. That post has more than one quote, so he would have had to add one of them manually.