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

[G.T]

I don't think it's a pointless car, from an engineer's point of view anyway. It is an amazing technical materpeice to them, and showed everyone what engineers can do to a road car.

But for someone to buy the car, it's more pointless. It's so expensive, so, like me, you'd be driving the car so carefully, but then some people are so rich they could probably buy 10 Veyrons. You can't use the full power of the car or normal roads, full stop. Not here anyway, maybe in Germany with their unrestricted autobahans, but with our tightly busy and small windy roads, the car will never be seen at full potential unless you go to a track. Even then you'd be pretty brave to floor the thing. Then there is driving it every day. The car is HUGE and the turning circle is pretty useless, so it will be a pain in traffic and to park, and because it's so expensive, just parking it for while you'll get some idiot that will damage or scratch the paintwork. It will be expensive to repair. But if you could afford to buy a Veryon in the first place, you could afford to repair it anyway. Ok, all of this could happen to a normal supercar couldn't it? But it's a Veryon it and stands out so much more, so I think all of these things that could happen are enhanced two fold.

 

[Sting]

Interesting question, engineering achievement or waste of money.

Well, even though I don't like the car and much prefer the Zonda F, there is no denying that it is an achievement in engineering by the fact that it is now the fastest car (even though I swear the Henessey Viper TT1000 is 2mph faster). VW set out on a mission to see if it was possible to create such a 'hypercar' and just by the proof that they have created one shouts that it is an achievment.

However, on the other hand it is also a waste of money, not just to the owner, but also to VW. VW are making a HUGE loss on that car each time they sell one. VW would have been wise if they just made the one Veyron. As for the owners waste of money, just what is the point of owning a Veyron?? Speed limits across the road will never let it go it's full potencial, unless an owner takes it to a track.

So the thread title is in my opinion, both valid for the Veyron.

 

[Andrew R]

In my opinion it's not the most attractive car, nor is it the most purposeful, it's definately not the most practicle of cars but it definately is something special.

 

[Poverty]

...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.

Yeah but it wouldnt be driveable for everyday use. Well it would be it wouldnt be pleasand at all and the amount og gauges they have in 1000hp plus cars is mad.


And VAG has gotten over 1000hp from its RS6 engine, but its not driveable. They even got 1000hp out of the audi 2.2 engine some odd 20 years ago, but ditched that program because it wasnt driveable.


Also bugatti will make back the money they make on the veyron simply by the publicity and new technology thay perfected using that car that will end up in VAG road cars. Its a win win situation for both VAG and the consumer.

 

[Leonidae]

instead of doing fanboy arguments, why don't you check the facts from Bugatti's homepage? it's all explained in there. and wikipedia/HowStuffWorks is your friend too.

imo, you guys should pay attention to these..

Bugatti's DSG 'box

engine facts it has 10 coolers, btw..

aerodynamics

there you go.. and yes, IMO, it's a marvelous masterpiece of engineering.

and because Cadillac 16's engine is 13l V16, it's long, not compact, thus making the car about as easy to handle as a greyhound. and being an RWD, there's not hope of traction on slightly moist surfaces without TCS..

 

[Poverty]

lol they love the caddilac 16 when its this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WfQQMPO7-2o

Everything they dont like about the veyron this cadillac does worse.

 

[Jay]

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

Yes but that would make a 14Litre 16 cylinder car, not 8 litres like the Veyron.

I also find it funny that people think just because it has 4 turbo's 1000hp is weak, Sure it could have used one turbo to do the job, or 16, who cares.

Why did Nissan choose two turbo's on the GTR and even the next GTR?....... yeah but..... but it could have used one...........Seriously who cares. They have their reasons, the outcome for the Veyron is still the power number they wanted.

 

[F1GTR]

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

The F1 wasn't an homologation special. It was first designed as a road car, but owners wanted to race them. The only mechanical difference between the road-going F1 and the GTR is the gearbox and and the engine on the GTR is actually restricted.

The Veyron is an engineering masterpiece. The point was to show what VW could do.

 

[Leonidae]

Why did Nissan choose two turbo's on the GTR and even the next GTR?....... yeah but..... but it could have used one...........Seriously who cares. They have their reasons, the outcome for the Veyron is still the power number they wanted.

the reason is..: Torque of 923lbs/ft(1250Nm) at 2200-5500 RPM's.. yes, a flat torque curve. something that is quite difficult to achieve with single turbo configuration.

 

[Jay]

the reason is..: Torque of 923lbs/ft(1250Nm) at 2200-5500 RPM's.. yes, a flat torque curve. something that is quite difficult to achieve with single turbo configuration.

So they're using the four turbo's sequentially for anti lag and low end torque reasons, I didn't know what configuration they are without researching the Veyron so thats why I just said "they have their reasons".

 

[Dave A]

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.

Talking about the Veyron's ring time is pointless, even in that thread of mine with the ring times listed I mention that that's the only recorded time of the Veyron, it wasn't recorded by VW, it was recorded by somone watching the car going round and timing it privately. VW were not attempting a fast lap when that was done, they were testing the cars cooling setup. Can the Veyron beat a Carrerra GT, possibly, very possibly infact at the Ring. I'm hopinh opGear get's a chance to power lap one.

As for the Veyron being pointless, it's not, it's a technical milestone. It uses power so much more effectively than anything else and so far and at the same time proved higher levels of luxury and refinement than anything in it's class. Also none have been reported to have broke down, unlike the McLaren F1 when that lauchned, the Koenigsegg CC and CCR, the Ferrar Enzo and the Porsche Carrera GT, all of which had reports of them braking down in the few months after they started being delivered.

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

Nice assumption, do you know any Veyron owners that have told you this or are you doing exactley what you didn't want anyone else to be doing in the SUV thread?

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.

If you took into account the number of Corvette and 911 owners out there and compared that to the number that go to the track you'll probably find it's no more than the number of 306 owners, percentage wise.

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.

No that's simple design, if the Veyron was being built as a pure track car I'm sure it'd have no roof, sterio system and would have half of the interior ripped out and would look a hell of a lot different. How is a cheap, low parts kit car a technical masterpiece?

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?

It does handle well, very well, at least according to every review I've read of it barring Gordon Murray's "it's good but my McLaren F1 was better" self advertisement. And no, why would you put any suspension on a road car that even remotely is setup like an LMP car's? It's a road car that's going to be driven on rougher surfaces than LeMans and it's got to last a hell of a lot longer than the suspension kit on an LMP has.

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

What does that have to do with this topic, so what if the S2000 is natuirally aspirated and is a convertible, does that make it a technical masterpiece? I like the S2000, it's a good drivers car and it's designed well, but no it's not even comparable.

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.

And, the Veyron could have had a hell of a lot more power than it does have, but it wasn't needed.

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.

Yeah, at any respective speed a bike takes more work to keep stable than a car, but most of the stability comes from the riders body shape, raising or lowering the handlebars isn't a technical marvel.

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.

So it should, that's what it's been designed for. Andno it deosn't, you see road legal gokart type car's being built in shed's all the time and they cost pennies to build, hell you can buy a DIY manual on how to build one for less than £400. Loads of hard work for me sure, but I'd have a harder time building my own Ford Fiesta.

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 is it a: as reliable as the Veyron and b: as fast, the answer is probably no, and no.

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.

Show me a reliable 1000bhp Supra. The nuber of cylinders is nothing here, I've seen 1500bhp cars with 2.0 inline 4's. You can get shed loads of power from any engine, it's doing it so the engine is smooth, usable and relaible that counts, what good is a Veyron for Bugatti's image if they need a full engine re-build after every 1000 miles.

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.

So your saying minimilsm is design marvel and innovation and features arn't, o-kay. Also the Veyron was never designed as a track machine, it was designed more as a GT than a supercar, it has all of the GT character traits. As you said before, you don't see many Supercars being taken to track day's, you do see them on the street's so what's better for cruising the street's, a minimalist carbon fibre dash with nothing else, or a luxury interior with a top notch sound system and plenty to keep you comfy. The fact that it smokes the Ferrari F40 on a track is just a by product of what Bugatti did.

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.

First off, yes forced induction canproduce more power, secondly the 4 turbo's arn't that huge in the Veyron, just because a car has 4 turbo's doesn't mean it's not being efficient if it's producing less power than something else with 2. Thirdly, yes it could produce more power, but that wouldn't do anything positive for the car, the top speed wouldn't be any higher, but you'd probably have a harder time getting the car off the line ( which it does incredibly well. Most journalists were accelerating off the line like stink with absolutely no wheelspin), increase the tyre wear and decrease the engine, clutch and gearbox lifespans.

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.

For track use, you keep talking about track use, in the words of VAG, the Veyron is not being built with the track in mind. For road use it does a hell of a lot better than anything else, and it's still at the very, very, least, up there with faster supercars on a track, regardless.

 

[Joey D]

Nice assumption, do you know any Veyron owners that have told you this or are you doing exactley what you didn't want anyone else to be doing in the SUV thread?

I've seen exactly 0 Veyrons on the road, exactly 0 Veyrons at a show, and exactly 0 pictures of Veyrons on the road. But if you had million dollar car would you take it on the road? Doubtful. Someone might scratch it. Plus on the Barette Jackson car auction the announcer made a comment saying that in 20 years we will be seeing Veyrons going for millions because they are a collectos car. Hence where I got the 20 years from.

If you took into account the number of Corvette and 911 owners out there and compared that to the number that go to the track you'll probably find it's no more than the number of 306 owners, percentage wise.

306? Peugot?

But it's still more then supercar owners I would think. I've never seen a supercar out side of Le Mans on a race track.

No that's simple design, if the Veyron was being built as a pure track car I'm sure it'd have no roof, sterio system and would have half of the interior ripped out and would look a hell of a lot different. How is a cheap, low parts kit car a technical masterpiece?

How is an over built one? But a cheap low parts car is better because it's cheaper and has less parts with results.

It does handle well, very well, at least according to every review I've read of it barring Gordon Murray's "it's good but my McLaren F1 was better" self advertisement. And no, why would you put any suspension on a road car that even remotely is setup like an LMP car's? It's a road car that's going to be driven on rougher surfaces than LeMans and it's got to last a hell of a lot longer than the suspension kit on an LMP has.

I'm just saying if its such a masterpeice then why doesn't it have the suspension to keep the weight under control and throw down lap times like a 1000 hp car should?

What does that have to do with this topic, so what if the S2000 is natuirally aspirated and is a convertible, does that make it a technical masterpiece? I like the S2000, it's a good drivers car and it's designed well, but no it's not even comparable.

To answer the question, it's a small N/A engine making a lot of horsepower and it corners very well dispite being a convertable. It's also fairly inexpensive and reliable. Hence better engineering then taking two W8's, fusing them together, and putting them in a big car.

And, the Veyron could have had a hell of a lot more power than it does have, but it wasn't needed.

It doesn't need a 1000hp, so what is your point on this?

 

[Dave A]

I've seen exactly 0 Veyrons on the road, exactly 0 Veyrons at a show, and exactly 0 pictures of Veyrons on the road. But if you had million dollar car would you take it on the road? Doubtful. Someone might scratch it. Plus on the Barette Jackson car auction the announcer made a comment saying that in 20 years we will be seeing Veyrons going for millions because they are a collectos car. Hence where I got the 20 years from.

Still a very wild assumption and it also has nothing to do with weather or not the Veyron is a technical marvel or not.

306? Peugot?

Yes, like mine.

But it's still more then supercar owners I would think. I've never seen a supercar out side of Le Mans on a race track.

I see plenty on the street's, you only have to go down Deansgate on a weekend night to see Ferrari's, Lamborghini's, I've seen a Spyker down there. People do driver their £100k+ car's on the roads.

How is an over built one? But a cheap low parts car is better because it's cheaper and has less parts with results.

It's not overbuilt, it's built to achieve exactley what it achieves, if it was lighter I think a lot less people would be complaining about the Veyron, but they're missing the point. It was never intended to rival the Enzo, even though it probably does on a track, it was built as a super GT.

I'm just saying if its such a masterpeice then why doesn't it have the suspension to keep the weight under control and throw down lap times like a 1000 hp car should?

It does, it handles great, accordning to, as I said, all the reviews of it, it feels very light and agile on windy country roads which are among the most challenging for a car to deal with.

To answer the question, it's a small N/A engine making a lot of horsepower and it corners very well dispite being a convertable. It's also fairly inexpensive and reliable. Hence better engineering then taking two W8's, fusing them together, and putting them in a big car.

But how is that a technical marvel, what technical boudaries is that pushing?

It doesn't need a 1000hp, so what is your point on this?

It wouldn't go as fast as it does if it didn't, so yes, it need's 1000bhp.

 

[iceburns288]

What the HECK is goin on in here?!? This argument is ridiculous! Comparing a modified car to a stock car is NEVER acceptable... it's just stupid. You could make a Supra make 660hp and strip it and have some sickly fast car, sure, faster than an Enzo (except for top speed). But why do you think Ferrari still managed to sell 400 Enzos? All 400 of those guys (except the Pope) could have bought Supras, Mustangs, whatevers, and made them faster than an Enzo. They bought Enzos because Enzos are special cars. There's something about them that makes them worth that extra 550k.

The same applies for the Veyron; nothing, NOTHING before it has produced 1000hp in an engine built to last thousands of miles. This alone is an engineering feat. It has a transmission that faces 950lb-ft of torque every day and does not tear to pieces, another feat.

BX, if you'd like think about it like this: Bugatti made a car with a quad-turbocharged W16, a zillion coolers/radiators, AWD, and a full luxurious interior and it STILL weighs less than an SL65!

 

[Joey D]

Still a very wild assumption and it also has nothing to do with weather or not the Veyron is a technical marvel or not.

Do you think someone who owns a Duesenberg takes their car out on the road? Other then in a trailer to a Concourse? Probably not. Rare cars typically don't see the road for a good reason, if you crash it, you are screwed. I know one place in all of Michigan that will even sell you a Bugatti if you so desire...it's in Troy and it's called Suburban Bugatti. It's attached on with a bunch of other dealerships. So where would one even think about going to fix it?

But it does have to do with being a technical marvel, because if it never sees the light of day, it's useless.

I see plenty on the street's, you only have to go down Deansgate on a weekend night to see Ferrari's, Lamborghini's, I've seen a Spyker down there. People do driver their £100k+ car's on the roads.

I would wager a Lambo is cheaper in Europe then it is in America because you don't have to ship it over on a boat. I see Ferrari's on occansion, like 1 or 2 a month from April to September. But they aren't common. However I was referring to supercars on a track doing what they a supposed to do, you will still see more Vette's, Viper's, 911's, and M3's doing that.

It's not overbuilt, it's built to achieve exactley what it achieves, if it was lighter I think a lot less people would be complaining about the Veyron, but they're missing the point. It was never intended to rival the Enzo, even though it probably does on a track, it was built as a super GT.

16 cylinder, 8.0L engine is not over built? Are you kidding me? Hennessy does a 1000hp or more with two less turbos, 6 less cylinders, a lot less weight, and the same displacement.

And I'm pretty sure the Veyron was built because VAG said they could, not for any other reason. Which is pointless. Let's make a big car that won't be faster then a turboed Viper and sell it for 900,000 thousand more. Doesn't make sense to me.

It does, it handles great, accordning to, as I said, all the reviews of it, it feels very light and agile on windy country roads which are among the most challenging for a car to deal with.

Then why are people saying it won't hold up on a road course? To many conflicting things here.

But how is that a technical marvel, what technical boudaries is that pushing?

A little engine making lots of horsepower with no forced induction and still being reliable is pretty good in my opinion. Anyone can use forced induction or a big displacement to get power. The S2000 has half the displace of my truck and still has 50 more horsepower. Now I call that some worth commending, and you forget, I do not like Honda in any way shape or form.

It wouldn't go as fast as it does if it didn't, so yes, it need's 1000bhp.

Excuse the language, but if the car wasn't such a fat ass it wouldn't be a problem now would it?

**sorry that came out as a little harsh, it's not directed at you l4s, more of a general statement about the car. I don't want to turn this into a personal flame war.

What the HECK is goin on in here?!? This argument is ridiculous! Comparing a modified car to a stock car is NEVER acceptable... it's just stupid. You could make a Supra make 660hp and strip it and have some sickly fast car, sure, faster than an Enzo (except for top speed). But why do you think Ferrari still managed to sell 400 Enzos? All 400 of those guys (except the Pope) could have bought Supras, Mustangs, whatevers, and made them faster than an Enzo. They bought Enzos because Enzos are special cars. There's something about them that makes them worth that extra 550k.

The same applies for the Veyron; nothing, NOTHING before it has produced 1000hp in an engine built to last thousands of miles. This alone is an engineering feat. It has a transmission that faces 950lb-ft of torque every day and does not tear to pieces, another feat.

BX, if you'd like think about it like this: Bugatti made a car with a quad-turbocharged W16, a zillion coolers/radiators, AWD, and a full luxurious interior and it STILL weighs less than an SL65!

If a Veyron sees a thousand miles I'll be impressed, all except the Top Gear one will pretty much be driven very seldomly. And I doubt the thing is overly reliable, we are taking about a lot of force on something which means lots of stress, which results in breakage.

 

[Dave A]

But it does have to do with being a technical marvel, because if it never sees the light of day, it's useless.

No it doesn't, if I create a self powered engine that requires no fule to run and can produce any level of power you request I've created a technical marvel regardless of if it get's used or not.

I would wager a Lambo is cheaper in Europe then it is in America because you don't have to ship it over on a boat. I see Ferrari's on occansion, like 1 or 2 a month from April to September. But they aren't common. However I was referring to supercars on a track doing what they a supposed to do, you will still see more Vette's, Viper's, 911's, and M3's doing that.

I was referring to supercar's on the road, I know you don't see as many on the track, but this still doesn't relate to it being a technical marel or not.

16 cylinder, 8.0L engine is not over built? Are you kidding me? Hennessy does a 1000hp or more with two less turbos, 6 less cylinders, a lot less weight, and the same displacement.

No, it's not overbuilt, I would put money on none of thoes engines being half as reliable as the W16, and like I said before, the number of turbo's is irrelevent.

And I'm pretty sure the Veyron was built because VAG said they could, not for any other reason. Which is pointless. Let's make a big car that won't be faster then a turboed Viper and sell it for 900,000 thousand more. Doesn't make sense to me.

It was built to see if they could, it was built to be a technical marvel, and exercise in pushing the borders, it did just that. Price, isn't an issue, affordability isn't a technical marvel.

Then why are people saying it won't hold up on a road course? To many conflicting things here.

Who's saying that, that's driven one? Of all the people who reviewed the car, probably the most signiifcant mention in this regard is from Gordon Murray, considering the rest of his review, he actually praised the Veyron's track capability more than anything else about the car.

Anyone can use forced induction or a big displacement to get power.

Yep, but they can't make the engine reliable, as I wen't into before.

The S2000 has half the displace of my truck and still has 50 more horsepower. Now I call that some worth commending, and you forget, I do not like Honda in any way shape or form.

I don't like the Smart car, but I still praise it for it's crash saftey, so what.

Excuse the language, but if the car wasn't such a fat ass it wouldn't be a problem now would it?

But if it was striped out, it wou;dn't be the car they wanted it to be. Your complaining about something that's not a flaw in the design here, it's a feaure of the car, the luxury is a feature of the car.

If a Veyron sees a thousand miles I'll be impressed, all except the Top Gear one will pretty much be driven very seldomly. And I doubt the thing is overly reliable, we are taking about a lot of force on something which means lots of stress, which results in breakage.

Which if it doesn't result in breakage, means it's a technical achievement, and sio far, no breakage. Apparently, not even the 80k mile final test car's broke down.

Don't worry, I like our car debates, I'd never take them personally .

 

[Poverty]

I dont think blazing knows enough about the car to understand why its such an achievenment. The average person doesnt know either unless they read the entire story behind it.

Even my friends little 7yr old brother knows its special and hes grown up being surronded with 1000hp skylines and supras. He also knows it would be a ***** to drive and that the veyron isnt.

 

[Joey D]

No it doesn't, if I create a self powered engine that requires no fule to run and can produce any level of power you request I've created a technical marvel regardless of if it get's used or not.

That would be used though, I think in order to be marvel, it must be used. The Millenium bridge is a engineering masterpeice but if no one ever drove on it, it would just be another cool thing to look at in London. Hardly a good use of resources and knowledge.

I was referring to supercar's on the road, I know you don't see as many on the track, but this still doesn't relate to it being a technical marel or not.

You build something for a reason, I believe this is what is going on in the SUV thread. Supercars are built to go fast, but not many people do. You should use the vehicle for the given purpose, but if you don't then there is a problem. Once again SUV thread.

No, it's not overbuilt, I would put money on none of thoes engines being half as reliable as the W16, and like I said before, the number of turbo's is irrelevent.

I'm just pointing out they could have achieved the same results using a smaller engine. I'm sure a W8 would have yeilded the same results and impressed the hell out of even me. And they could have use less displacement, but they chose not to and it made the car fat.

It was built to see if they could, it was built to be a technical marvel, and exercise in pushing the borders, it did just that. Price, isn't an issue, affordability isn't a technical marvel.

Meh I sorta agree but I sorta don't. If you can make something amazing that is cheap at the same time I'm more impressed. Anyone can do anything if you take away price. With unlimited money you'd see my Blazer with a 1000hp. You still have to consider cost in everything since the world runs on money.

Who's saying that, that's driven one? Of all the people who reviewed the car, probably the most signiifcant mention in this regard is from Gordon Murray, considering the rest of his review, he actually praised the Veyron's track capability more than anything else about the car.

I don't know, it's in this thread somewhere. But if it's so good on the track why does something like the CCR beat it with less horsepower and it being cheaper. Also with cooler doors (sorry I had to add that).

Yep, but they can't make the engine reliable, as I wen't into before.

The S2000 is reliable, it's a Honda...Honda's will run forever. But other examples I know of are the Hot Rodder with there n/a big engines that will run them all year long with no problems on an ancient carbed out motor. But since more of us know the S2000, I used that instead.

But if it was striped out, it wouldn't be the car they wanted it to be. Your complaining about something that's not a flaw in the design here, it's a feaure of the car, the luxury is a feature of the car.

Luxery and supercar is kind of an oxymoron. Luxery = weight, weight = bad. The car is fat, which is a design flaw in my opinion, and the luxery is the cause of this fatness.

Which if it doesn't result in breakage, means it's a technical achievement, and sio far, no breakage. Apparently, not even the 80k mile final test car's broke down.

Which surprises me because it's still a VW, but then again I'm used to the Mexican built VW piles of junk we get in America that break down all the time. I'm guessing Europe is much different.

Don't worry, I like our car debates, I'd never take them personally

You are actually worth discussing and debating with because you are not only level headed, you don't feel the need to piss me off. You do frustrate me because you are so knowledgeable though .

I dont think blazing knows enough about the car to understand why its such an achievenment. The average person doesnt know either unless they read the entire story behind it.

I've done my fair share of reading on the car, there is even an article on howstuffworks.com that I read. Trust me, I wouldn't jump into something with out knowing at least a little bit.

Even my friends little 7yr old brother knows its special and hes grown up being surronded with 1000hp skylines and supras. He also knows it would be a ***** to drive and that the veyron isnt.

But thanks for the personal attacks, guess what I'm smarter then a 7 year old. You really need to drop personal attacks a focus on what's at hand.

 

[Poverty]

how stuff works has alot of factual errors, and doesnt have the full proper story of the cars development.

 

[Joey D]

how stuff works has alot of factual errors, and doesnt have the full proper story of the cars development.

But Car and Driver does, they had quite the story in there a few months back. And if I'm reading the wrong stuff why don't you show me what to read as apposed to just telling me I'm wrong?

 

[Poverty]

Would you say the concorde was a engineering achivement when it first came out?

 

[humbo]

I'd like to point out a tidbit about the weight issue. The initial concept of the car was purely based on the horsepower and the top speed. In order to achieve 250+mph it pretty much has to weigh that much because they couldn't rely on downforce alone at that speed. And that certainly isn't a problem with some light weight go kart thing whose acceleration would have hit a brick wall long before then.

 

[Joey D]

Would you say the concorde was a engineering achivement when it first came out?

I assume you mean the jet, because the car was a rebadged Intrepid. But I would wager so since it was the first supersonic passenger airliner if I'm not mistaken. It was a new concept and guess what...people used it! The Veyron is not a new concept and people won't really use them. But it's silly to compare a car to a plane.

How ever after the crash they were all grounded making them useless now. So nothing more can be said about them.

I'd like to point out a tidbit about the weight issue. The initial concept of the car was purely based on the horsepower and the top speed. In order to achieve 250+mph it pretty much has to weigh that much because they couldn't rely on downforce alone at that speed. And that certainly isn't a problem with some light weight go kart thing whose acceleration would have hit a brick wall long before then.

Hold on, F1 cars, LM's cars, etc. car do that kind of speed and they way about a quater of the Veyron.

 

[Poverty]

And theyre not road legal. Blazing I give up with you. Im sure if It had a ZEE OH SIKS badge on it you wouldnt never stop talking about it.

 

[Joey D]

And theyre not road legal. Blazing I give up with you. Im sure if It had a ZEE OH SIKS badge on it you wouldnt never stop talking about it.

What? ITS A FRIGGEN PLANE! Planes are meant to fly.

And while I like the Z06, I believe I have made mention of the Viper more in this thread...a car that I don't really like but shows that with a set of turbos its better.

 

[Poverty]

What? ITS A FRIGGEN PLANE! Planes are meant to fly.

And while I like the Z06, I believe I have made mention of the Viper more in this thread...a car that I don't really like but shows that with a set of turbos its better.

Blazing are you dumb? Its simple math really. VAG already makes 650bhp NA, and are one of the most powerful and profitable car manufacturers in the world. Do you really think VW had to use 4 turbos to make 1000hp? They did it for a very good reason, world class engineers decided on it, do you really think that you know better than them?

 

[Joey D]

Blazing are you dumb? Its simple math really. VAG already makes 650bhp NA, and are one of the most powerful and profitable car manufacturers in the world. Do you really think VW had to use 4 turbos to make 1000hp? They did it for a very good reason, world class engineers decided on it, do you really think that you know better than them?

No I'm not dumb and I'd apperciate you laying off the personal attacks, that violates forum rules. I'm trying to be civil here. Also I'm not the one complaining about planes not be road legal.

VAG is not one of the most powerful manufacturers in the world, I believe that's Toyota. Japan is better then Europe when it comes to cars and better then America all though I hate to admit it. When you can buy a Japanese car for cheaper, and it's better...you know they are doing something right.

If Bugatti didn't need 4 turbos, why use them? Simple as that, if there is no need then there is no reason to have it. It adds weight and more things to break.

I'm not an engineer but I know they stick to the KISS principal, and over doing a car is not keeping to the KISS pricipal.

 

[Poverty]

Germmans dont use KISS :LOL: They say go veet your guut feeelingz.

They could have had near enough a 1000hp NA engine but the torque curve wouldnt have been nice and neitehr would reliability. Simple as that really. I mean the question you asked is self explanatory. Why didnt they go with a NA setup. Ask yourself that now blazing.

And VAG is one of the most powerful companies in the world. I didnt say they were the most I said one of. There is no denying that and if they continue theyre current groth trend they might soon start to worry Toyota.

As for the japanese making the best cars you cant really comment as you guys dont get skodas or seats. Japanese cars dont really sell too well in europe.

 

[Pebb]

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.

Porsche Carrera GT & Pagani Zonda F weigh less last time I remember.

 

[Joey D]

Germmans dont use KISS :LOL: They say go veet your guut feeelingz.

Some how I doubt that since pretty much every engineer uses it.

They could have had near enough a 1000hp NA engine but the torque curve wouldnt have been nice and neitehr would reliability. Simple as that really. I mean the question you asked is self explanatory. Why didnt they go with a NA setup. Ask yourself that now blazing.

If VAG is so powerful and great shouldn't they have been able to do just that? I mean if they didn't care about costs or anything, does it not make sense that they would just be able to do it? According to you they are one of the most powerful companies in the world (which they aren't), they should be able to do wonderful things.

And VAG is one of the most powerful companies in the world. I didnt say they were the most I said one of. There is no denying that and if they continue theyre current groth trend they might soon start to worry Toyota.

Europe has a small population, the far east has a huge population...therefore more people will buy Japanese and Korean cars. Also I've been to England, German, the Nertherlands, and Switzerland and I saw quite a few Honda's and Toyotas while I was there. Toyota has nothing to worry about, they will be on top for a long long long time because they make some of the best products in the world.

As for the japanese making the best cars you cant really comment as you guys dont get skodas or seats. Japanese cars dont really sell too well in europe.

And thank God for that. I mean Skoda is a Czech car right? And Seats are Spanish right? Just what I want a Skoda, a car built by former Soviets.

Porsche Carrera GT & Pagani Zonda F weigh less last time I remember.

Yup, never said they didn't.