Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Please note that it is not permitted to have referral links posted in your signature. Keep these links contained in the appropriate forum. Thank you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2055940817/signature-rules

Veyron is no longer the Daddy...this is.

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Vegeta
    Registered Users Posts: 11,393 ✭✭✭✭Vegeta


    javaboy wrote: »
    If another production car is outdoing the Veyron on top speed, the impact of that statement is reduced.

    I agree completely


  • Options
    #33
    tdc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 888 ✭✭✭tdc


    sorry but this cars been around for the last 2-3 years, why are you only posting about it now?


  • Options
    #34
    Biro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    Vegeta wrote: »
    Do they actually take you on a test drive at 253 on the open road if you buy a Veyron?
    If you read my earlier post, when you buy a Veyron you are allowed to take it onto their track with the 7 mile straight (or 9 miles or whatever) and take it up to 253mph. Or you are allowed to take one of their cars if you don't want to take yours. So every Veyron owner automatically has the opportunity to drive their car at 253mph. That to me holds far, far more weight than some top speed figure that I'll never get even near because of road limitations.
    And regardless of what anyone says, I'd far prefer to say "I drove my car here at 253mph" than say "My car can do 256mph".


  • Options
    #35
    Biro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    tdc wrote: »
    sorry but this cars been around for the last 2-3 years, why are you only posting about it now?

    Probably because it's only set the record recently. They claimed it'd do 275 for the last 2 years. Evidently they were wrong.
    Bugatti on the other hand claimed that their car would do 252mph, and it does 253mph! Which seems more meticulously engineered? :D


  • Options
    #36
    javaboy
    Registered Users Posts: 15,094 ✭✭✭✭javaboy


    Biro wrote: »
    No, they wouldn't be afraid to go fast. But if the car needed a closed highway to reach it's top speed, then what are the chances of someone going along, buying one and asking "sorry, does anyone mind if I close this highway here?".
    On the other hand, go along and buy a Veyron and be handed the keys and asked "would you like to drive your car at it's top speed?".
    What's the point in a top speed if you can't do it? You can in a Veyron. Where can you do it in the SSC? Therefore it's a tad pointless.
    Biro wrote: »
    If you read my earlier post, when you buy a Veyron you are allowed to take it onto their track with the 7 mile straight (or 9 miles or whatever) and take it up to 253mph. Or you are allowed to take one of their cars if you don't want to take yours. So every Veyron owner automatically has the opportunity to drive their car at 253mph. That to me holds far, far more weight than some top speed figure that I'll never get even near because of road limitations.
    And regardless of what anyone says, I'd far prefer to say "I drove my car here at 253mph" than say "My car can do 256mph".

    Ok I still don't see how this point makes the Veyron better than the SSC? Both cars need a closed highway. Just because Bugatti give you the use of one as part of the buying experience, it doesn't make it a better car.

    Besides, if you can afford to buy either car, you can probably afford to rent the use of an airstrip for the day.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Plug
    Registered Users Posts: 9,248 ✭✭✭Plug


    Vegeta wrote: »
    Would it be fair to say that the Veyron is, one of, if not the greatest examples of automotive engineering to date?

    So maybe people buy them to have one of the best cars (if not the best car) ever made rather than trying to buy the fastest?
    Spot on there. Remember when the veyron was shown to the public? The fastest cars at the time could hit about 210mph and had about 500-600bhp, this beast nearly doubled a new bench mark of horse power and added about 50mph on top of what most super cars could do.
    This car is the new bench mark now, when I see cars with about 600-700bhp I don't go wow any more. Also this car is an engineering marvel. Nothing comes close in my opinion.
    This will be the daddy for a long long time:)

    The SSC is a joke in my opinion. Anyone could have done what they did and better especially Bugatti!


  • Options
    #38
    Plug
    Registered Users Posts: 9,248 ✭✭✭Plug


    Saruman wrote: »
    Is there not a Veyron that can do closer to 300mph? Or is that one yet to be released?
    The Bugatti Veyron GT. It was leaked out to the internet a while ago. It's said to have about 1350bhp and go over 270mph. More of a stripped out car. It isn't official though.


  • Options
    #39
    tdc
    Closed Accounts Posts: 888 ✭✭✭tdc


    Plug wrote: »
    Spot on there. Remember when the veyron was shown to the public? The fastest cars at the time could hit about 210mph and had about 500-600bhp, this beast nearly doubled a new bench mark of horse power and added about 50mph on top of what most super cars could do.
    McLaren F1, 240mph+......??
    Plug wrote: »
    This car is the new bench mark now, when I see cars with about 600-700bhp I don't go wow any more. Also this car is an engineering marvel. Nothing comes close in my opinion.
    Cant say Im the same. If I see an Enzo or Zonda I will go wow. My mate has seen a Veyron and Enzo and said the Ferrari is much more impressive in the flesh. Yes, Veyron is more powerfu, faster but it looks a bit meh
    Plug wrote: »
    The SSC is a joke in my opinion. Anyone could have done what they did and better especially Bugatti!

    Agree, seriously have any SSC's sold? If so I would bet no more than 5.


  • Options
    #40
    Plug
    Registered Users Posts: 9,248 ✭✭✭Plug


    tdc wrote: »
    McLaren F1, 240mph+......??
    Well ok I should have said most I suppose.
    Cant say Im the same. If I see an Enzo or Zonda I will go wow. My mate has seen a Veyron and Enzo and said the Ferrari is much more impressive in the flesh. Yes, Veyron is more powerful, faster but it looks a bit meh
    Its just when I compare other cars to the veyron I can't say wow anymore.


  • Options
    #41
    Biro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    javaboy wrote: »
    Ok I still don't see how this point makes the Veyron better than the SSC? Both cars need a closed highway. Just because Bugatti give you the use of one as part of the buying experience, it doesn't make it a better car.

    Besides, if you can afford to buy either car, you can probably afford to rent the use of an airstrip for the day.

    It doesn't make it any better of a car, but it does make it a better buy! :D
    And an airstrip isn't enough to get either one to their top speed.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    javaboy
    Registered Users Posts: 15,094 ✭✭✭✭javaboy


    And an airstrip isn't enough to get either one to their top speed.

    No you're right. An airstrip is nowhere near long enough. :o You get my point anyway.


  • Options
    #43
    Graham_B18C
    Registered Users Posts: 8,620 ✭✭✭Graham_B18C


    Biro wrote: »
    If you read my earlier post, when you buy a Veyron you are allowed to take it onto their track with the 7 mile straight (or 9 miles or whatever) and take it up to 253mph. Or you are allowed to take one of their cars if you don't want to take yours. So every Veyron owner automatically has the opportunity to drive their car at 253mph. That to me holds far, far more weight than some top speed figure that I'll never get even near because of road limitations.
    And regardless of what anyone says, I'd far prefer to say "I drove my car here at 253mph" than say "My car can do 256mph".

    You never said they give you use of a track.

    Why are some people saying that the whole point of the Veyron isn't only the speed, it's luxury and image. But when someone said that a WRC car would beat em on a back road, the reply was 'this discussion is about the two top speed cars'? If you car say that the Veyron' interior is better than the SSC's then why can't someone say a WRC would be better handling?!

    And fair enough you could make a 1000bhp r34, but it certainly wouldn't hit over 250 mph.

    Don't get me wrong, I love the Veyron but is everyone just going to dismiss anything that tries to knock it off it's throne?


  • Options
    #44
    Biro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    Grahamo999 wrote: »
    You never said they give you use of a track.

    Why are some people saying that the whole point of the Veyron isn't only the speed, it's luxury and image. But when someone said that a WRC car would beat em on a back road, the reply was 'this discussion is about the two top speed cars'? If you car say that the Veyron' interior is better than the SSC's then why can't someone say a WRC would be better handling?!

    And fair enough you could make a 1000bhp r34, but it certainly wouldn't hit over 250 mph.

    Don't get me wrong, I love the Veyron but is everyone just going to dismiss anything that tries to knock it off it's throne?

    The point of the Veyron is the speed WHILE having luxury, not having luxury on the side. I don't get the rest of your point to be honest, not sure what you're getting at.
    Not dismissing anything that tries to knock it off it's throne, more of dismissing half-assed efforts. From a top speed point of view you're right. The SSC has it. It just seems like a hollow victory is all. Look at the McLaren F1. It was an awesome car in every respect. Complete and fast. The Veyron is superior to it in all the areas that made the McLaren great, that's what made it such a fantastic achievement. Then the SSC comes along with only top speed in it's cards. Kind of like "throw a monster engine that we can make somewhat reliable enough to give a warranty with, same with transmission, and whatever else you're having and that'll do - just make it faster".


  • Options
    #45
    Mr.David
    Registered Users Posts: 1,703 ✭✭✭Mr.David


    tdc wrote: »
    My mate has seen a Veyron and Enzo and said the Ferrari is much more impressive in the flesh. Yes, Veyron is more powerfu, faster but it looks a bit meh

    I have seen both and agree that the Enzo is much more impressive visually. Its because the Bugatti is so big and rounded in shape. But as a feat of engineering, the Veyron is in a league of its own. I mean come on, 4 turbochargers, 16 yes 16 radiators!!

    Have seen pretty much every super car at this stage (Mclaren F1 included) and reckon that the most beautiful is probably the Alfa 8c competizione. Its absolutely stunning, in pearl coloured paint. Mind you the Carrera GT looks the biz too (much better than in the pics!).......


  • Options
    #46
    Ferris
    Registered Users Posts: 2,287 ✭✭✭Ferris


    tdc wrote: »
    McLaren F1, 240mph+......??

    Great car but to put it into perspective, you can let an F1 get to 120mph and the Bugatti will get to 200mph first. Also the McLaren is meant to be pretty uncontrolable at 240mph wheras the Bugatti is stable and safe.


  • Options
    #47
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,084 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    Biro wrote: »
    Look at the McLaren F1. It was an awesome car in every respect. Complete and fast. The Veyron is superior to it in all the areas that made the McLaren great, that's what made it such a fantastic achievement.

    The F1 and Veyron are very different cars, equally special in their own way.

    You almost certainly won't see a Veyron raced, whereas the F1 GTR was.

    The Veyron was/is largely a corporate ego project. That's not a criticism, but the development costs were extraordinary, and so it's not likely that anyone will bother trying to build a true competitor any time soon (I'd say at least for the next decade).


  • Options
    #48
    Mr.David
    Registered Users Posts: 1,703 ✭✭✭Mr.David


    Lumen wrote: »
    but the development costs were extraordinary


    Indeed. As far as I know, Bugatti loses about £4million on every Veyron it produces. Insane!!


  • Options
    #49
    pburns
    Registered Users Posts: 2,423 ✭✭✭pburns


    They're all a waste of space IMO (with the possible exception of the McLaren which was built to be the best, top trump figures being a secondary consideration).

    As for the Veyron - pfft - VAG would be better off concentrating on providing great cars for the masses (you know...volks wagens...) Specs to match the cheaper Far eastern rivals please and no more ancient tractor engines in supposedly premium models. No wonder Porsche is gobbling them up:rolleyes:...

    I realise this view won't be shared by the impressionable 12-25 year old demographic who who read these boards and are brainwashed by Clarkson and co (who I love by the way but take with a pinch of salt). C'est la vie I guess...


  • Options
    #50
    Lumen
    Registered Users Posts: 31,084 ✭✭✭✭Lumen


    pburns wrote: »
    They're all a waste of space IMO (with the possible exception of the McLaren which was built to be the best, top trump figures being a secondary consideration).

    Performance cars are a product designed to be bought and enjoyed. The only "waste of space" is a car that doesn't get driven.

    In any case, Porsche probably made enough from the hedge funds in the last few days to finance the next Veyron. Continuing with the rear-engined RWD theme, but dropping all the stability control systems, they could call it the "Porsche Hedgetrimmer".


  • Options
    #51
    Biro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    Lumen wrote: »
    The F1 and Veyron are very different cars, equally special in their own way.

    You almost certainly won't see a Veyron raced, whereas the F1 GTR was.

    The Veyron was/is largely a corporate ego project. That's not a criticism, but the development costs were extraordinary, and so it's not likely that anyone will bother trying to build a true competitor any time soon (I'd say at least for the next decade).

    At the same time though, Gordon Murray was given a blank cheque for the McLaren F1 too.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    T-Maxx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,148 ✭✭✭T-Maxx


    pburns wrote: »
    They're all a waste of space IMO (with the possible exception of the McLaren which was built to be the best, top trump figures being a secondary consideration).

    As for the Veyron - pfft - VAG would be better off concentrating on providing great cars for the masses (you know...volks wagens...) Specs to match the cheaper Far eastern rivals please and no more ancient tractor engines in supposedly premium models. No wonder Porsche is gobbling them up:rolleyes:...

    I realise this view won't be shared by the impressionable 12-25 year old demographic who who read these boards and are brainwashed by Clarkson and co (who I love by the way but take with a pinch of salt). C'est la vie I guess...

    "Each to his own" as they say...


Advertisement