a Veyron coming here again?

RobAMerc

LIGHTNING wrote: »

A AMG isnt in the same league as a Veyron, I just find it slightly annoying the way people dismiss it by saying ah sure its just a big engine thats about it. The Veyron was designed as a techincal exercise by VW and its a magnificent piece of automotive design. Anybody who says otherwise is an idiot, you can hate the idea or the look but its a technically brilliant.

In the same way I could just say ah sure its a F1 car is just a V8 engine with a carbon fibre shell and some slicks attached.

I never said it was in the same league - what I said was that in the real world you could get across Europe in an S63 just as quick and as comfortably - no one here thinks they are comparable. My point was what's so technically brilliant about a car that uses brute force to make it really fast in a straight line ? The McLaren F1 and F40 used smaller engines and lots of brilliant design to make them incredibly agile and quick around a track - a sign of true dynamic ability. Corvette have been building cars for years with a huge engine that cannot go round bends and we have ridiculed them. ( I'm not saying a Veyron can't go round a bend ).

your F1 comment really isn't correct as F1 cars are technologically brilliant - it could be true of a Dragster or something ( of which I admit I know nothing )

shogunpower

i think the veyron has a 16.4 w16 quad turbo engine, yet it only achieves 1001bhp, pretty poor out put in my book considering some manufacturers could probably get that out of an engine have the size and half the cylinders and half the turbos.

pajo1981

shogunpower wrote: »

i think the veyron has a 16.4 w16 quad turbo engine, yet it only achieves 1001bhp, pretty poor out put in my book considering some manufacturers could probably get that out of an engine have the size and half the cylinders and half the turbos.

VAG could have achieved a higher specific output, no doubt, and used a smaller block- but that would have altered the character of the car.

The veyron is about effortless power delivery.

Be careful guys. The very rich are known to hang on every word of these boards and we wouldn't want to offend anybody.

JJJJNR

Oh yeah im sure subaru would be able to get 2500bhp out of it. Lets call it the veyron

Seperate

RobAMerc wrote: »

I never said it was in the same league - what I said was that in the real world you could get across Europe in an S63 just as quick and as comfortably - no one here thinks they are comparable. My point was what's so technically brilliant about a car that uses brute force to make it really fast in a straight line ? The McLaren F1 and F40 used smaller engines and lots of brilliant design to make them incredibly agile and quick around a track - a sign of true dynamic ability. Corvette have been building cars for years with a huge engine that cannot go round bends and we have ridiculed them. ( I'm not saying a Veyron can't go round a bend ).

your F1 comment really isn't correct as F1 cars are technologically brilliant - it could be true of a Dragster or something ( of which I admit I know nothing )

You're missing the point of the Veyron completely. They built it to show they could, not to compete around a track against the likes of the F1 or F40. Almost everything about the car is (or was at the time) a feat of engineering. It consumes more air per minute at top speed then your or I can breathe in 4 days. It can go from 250MPH to 0MPH in less then 10 seconds. It can get back up to 150mph in less then 10 seconds.

And it's probably one of the most comfortable places to sit. You could drive it everyday if you wanted to and trusted your surroundings enough - obviously if you could cover the running costs.

shogunpower wrote: »

i think the veyron has a 16.4 w16 quad turbo engine, yet it only achieves 1001bhp, pretty poor out put in my book considering some manufacturers could probably get that out of an engine have the size and half the cylinders and half the turbos.

They could have got the 1001bhp from less, but they wanted an outrageous top speed. That, and it cruises at 140mph at only 2400RPM.

Tea 1000

shogunpower wrote: »

i think the veyron has a 16.4 w16 quad turbo engine, yet it only achieves 1001bhp, pretty poor out put in my book considering some manufacturers could probably get that out of an engine have the size and half the cylinders and half the turbos.

It's an 8 litre. And comments like that prove that you just don't get engines or the design brief of the Bugatti.

Tea 1000

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Well considering a couple of people on here are getting 15mpg combined in RX8`s I think 11.7mpg from a 1000hp Supercar isnt too bad.

Exactly! People keep harping that it will consume it's full tank of petrol in 12 minutes at top speed.
But if you think of it, that's remarkable... that's 50 miles from a full tank at speeds that some turbo prop aircraft would bearly exceed.
Bsides, if you took an Evo 6 and drove it at it's max speed, I reckon you wouldn't get near 50 miles out of it! Considering you can bearly get 200 miles out of it when driving it tamely.

Anan1

IMO the real problem with the Veyron is that its trump card, outright speed, can easily be beaten by other modes of transport. If I had lots of money and wanted to get from A to B quickly then i'd fly, if I wanted to drive in comfort then i'd use a large, spacious, saloon car. If I wanted to drive for the sheer pleasure of it then i'd drive a car whose abilities did non so comprehensively outweigh mine that the time between sliding and dying was imperceptible to me. The Veyron is a tremendous technical achievement, and maybe that is its point.

RobAMerc

shogunpower wrote: »

i think the veyron has a 16.4 w16 quad turbo engine, yet it only achieves 1001bhp, pretty poor out put in my book considering some manufacturers could probably get that out of an engine have the size and half the cylinders and half the turbos.

In fairness - while I have yet to be convinced of its technological brilliance this is a bit silly really - A smaller engined car with 1001 bhp would be undriveable - the fact they use such a huge engine and quad turbos was I presume so that the car would be effortlessly fast and usable.

The real fact is I just don't get the Veyron - to me making a car as light as possible with razor sharp handling and a sublime engine while remaining comfortable and useable is the ultimate in technological achievement - that's why I'm firmly in the McLaren f1 ( Murray ) - old Lotus ( ideology ) with Chapman and even Nobel camp.

To those that do get it (and there are many) - I concede, the numbers associated with it are astonishing.

vectra

He could have saved an absolute fortune and bought an R35 GTR...Beat the Veyron as well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMUf_FWyzhw

stealthyspeeder

vectra wrote: »

He could have saved an absolute fortune and bought an R35 GTR...Beat the Veyron as well

If ever a post and a sig clashed....

staker

Nice legs at 25 seconds in:p

Plug

vectra wrote: »

He could have saved an absolute fortune and bought an R35 GTR...Beat the Veyron as well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NMUf_FWyzhw

Modified to the balls, now lets modify the Veyron and see what happens:cool:

vectra

Plug wrote: »

Modified to the balls, now lets modify the Veyron and see what happens:cool:

LOL
Is there room for modification on the veyron??
if so
How many more million??
200k and the Skyline beats its ass off :pac:

qz

Neither are a patch on a VRS. Specially white ones.

Plug

vectra wrote: »

LOL
Is there room for modification on the veyron??
if so
How many more million??
200k and the Skyline beats its ass off :pac:

Of course there is, didn't they out bigger turbos on the SS?
The idea of modification is that you can over come these type of problems and make something better. If they put man on the moon back in 1969 they can surely make a Veyron go 300mph and give 2000+ HP:P

vectra

Plug wrote: »

Of course there is, didn't they out bigger turbos on the SS?
The idea of modification is that you can over come these type of problems and make something better. If they put man on the moon back in 1969 they can surely make a Veyron go 300mph and give 2000+ HP:P

Yes, I know.
BUT
@ what cost.
Give me a few of those R35's any day over a Veyron.

vectra

qz wrote: »

Neither are a patch on a VRS. Specially white ones.

Dont be silly..
Everyone knows RED cars are faster

Gary ITR

vectra wrote: »

Everyone knows RED cars are faster

Exactly

opinion guy

Can you nitro a veyron ???



:P

unkel

vectra wrote: »

He could have saved an absolute fortune and bought an R35 GTR...Beat the Veyron as well

Sigh. I'd like to see that Nissan (or any road legal Nissan for that matter) no matter how modified, drive at over 430 km/h. Oh wait, they can't :eek:

rabbitinlights

Fake... any GT-R that did that to a Veyron would be all over the worlds motoring press in a flash....

dharn

absolutely, it made it look like the veryon was stationary

vectra

unkel wrote: »

Sigh. I'd like to see that Nissan (or any road legal Nissan for that matter) no matter how modified, drive at over 430 km/h. Oh wait, they can't :eek:

Oh wait again...No car can on our roads

Tea 1000

vectra wrote: »

Yes, I know.
BUT
@ what cost.
Give me a few of those R35's any day over a Veyron.

And you'd need a few, given that the stock GTR's can't do more than 2 flat out standing starts on it's gearbox, I'd expect a modified one to last a lot less.
If I were in the market for a quick car, I'd buy a GTR. If I were in the market for a Veyron, I'd laugh at you with your 3 or 4 GTR's thinking you were better!

Tea 1000

vectra wrote: »

Oh wait again...No car can on our roads

But you can at the Veyron test track when you collect your new car!

vectra

Tea 1000 wrote: »

And you'd need a few, given that the stock GTR's can't do more than 2 flat out standing starts on it's gearbox, I'd expect a modified one to last a lot less.
If I were in the market for a quick car, I'd buy a GTR. If I were in the market for a Veyron, I'd laugh at you with your 3 or 4 GTR's thinking you were better!

I would still buy R35's than that pig ugly Veyron and laugh at you after spending 1.5 million on a car that looks like an Armadillo Eats tyres off at an alarming rate ( 50 miles per set when driven hard?) and guzzles petrol like it is going out of fashion

Tea 1000 wrote: »

But you can at the Veyron test track when you collect your new car!

And take it back to the track each time you want to have a run on it??
Track days are available for any car

Tea 1000

vectra wrote: »

I would still buy R35's than that pig ugly Veyron and laugh at you after spending 1.5 million on a car that looks like an Armadillo Eats tyres off at an alarming rate ( 50 miles per set when driven hard?) and guzzles petrol like it is going out of fashion

I'd see you your laugh (in my rear view mirror) and raise you a "where the f**k did he go?"

vectra wrote: »

And take it back to the track each time you want to have a run on it??
Track days are available for any car

Track days with that long a straight?
Two questions people ask when you have a fast car:
What can she do? and What did you take her to?
A Veyron owner can actually answer 268mph to both questions! GTR owner? 185-ish... and what, 120 on a track?
The Veyron rocks! It doesn't need your approval!

unkel

vectra wrote: »

Oh wait again...No car can on our roads

Why not? Very few countries where you'd only get a €80 fine and 2 penalty points for doing 430km/h

vectra

unkel wrote: »

Why not? Very few countries where you'd only get a €80 fine and 2 penalty points for doing 430km/h

LOL
I dont think you would get off that light @ 430 :pac:

opinion guy

vectra wrote: »

LOL
I dont think you would get off that light @ 430 :pac:

Why not....its not like the cops could catch you :P


...unless the cops have a Veyron we don't know about....

kona

Tea 1000 wrote: »

And you'd need a few, given that the stock GTR's can't do more than 2 flat out standing starts on it's gearbox, I'd expect a modified one to last a lot less.

I find that very very very hard to believe! If it was that powerful and they were that cheap, that the steel used in the gears, they would have designed a clutch to prevent this.

Tea 1000

kona wrote: »

I find that very very very hard to believe! If it was that powerful and they were that cheap, that the steel used in the gears, they would have designed a clutch to prevent this.

I'm skeptical myself, but google it... there were many claims made to Nissan in the US after Nissan stated that the warranty won't cover any more than a tiny number of flat-out standing starts.

Plug

Anyone remember the crap Nissan were at with the Nurburgring lap times. Google 'Nissan cheated';)

molequidgallus

Good man Roars, he deserves it :cool:

molequidgallus

LIGHTNING wrote: »

I have seen it posted on a American Nissan forum a few times. I wouldnt touch a GTR with a barge pole (not that I could ever afford one!)

Still think the R34 is the business. Not keen at all on r35.

kona

According to wiki, the car is programmed to allow a MAX 4 consecutive hard starts, after which it needs to be driven 1.5 miles to reset the command.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_GT-R under the performance heading. There does seem to be confusion about it.

Its a Borg Warner designed gear box and TBH if it cannot handle 600Nm of torque and 500bhp, then they are in the wrong game, there are far more stressful applications out there.

Also all the jizzing over the Veyron, the Skyline gets 480BHP from a engine half the Capacity, half the turbos and just over a 3rd of the cylinders and half the turbos(altho I suspect the veyron uses 2 small turbos and 2 big ones to eliminate lag , so this isnt really a big deal).
The revised model for next year gets 530 BHP and 600Nm Torque.
Then its cheaper to run and maintain, plus cheaper to buy and probably faster around a track. I understand the design brief for the Veyron, but TBH how often will you use the cars potential? How long a road do you need? The car is a great feat of engineering true, but its also a poor( i dont mean to use such a harsh word, its not poor but I cant think of another word!) feat at the same time, Engineering isnt about a pissing contest, its about designing products that work and are cost effective, the Veyron is on a different planet costwise.

The veyron reminds me of Pubtalk BHP figures, "ooooh my car has 200BHP" yea but at 3,000 RPM it has 60 BHP, which is the power band you will be in 70% of the time, so your car probably has put out a full 200BHP for maybe 2mins in 2 years.

Absurdum

comparing a car that costs ~€100k to one that costs at least fifteen times that is retarded

kona

Absurdum wrote: »

comparing a car that costs ~€100k to one that costs at least fifteen times that is retarded

and making a car, selling it for 1.5million and still making a huge loss on each unit isnt?

The fact the 100K car can be compared says it all, you wouldnt compare a punto with a Ferrari F40 would you? and the punto wouldnt beat it off the line, no matter what modifications.

PrettyBoy

kona wrote: »

The fact the 100K car can be compared says it all, you wouldnt compare a punto with a Ferrari F40 would you? and the punto wouldnt beat it off the line, no matter what modifications.

Veyron v GTR is not the same as F40 v Punto.

It's about comparing expensive performance cars with relatively affordable performance cars. F40 v NSX or something would have made more sense, no?

Tea 1000

kona wrote: »

According to wiki, the car is programmed to allow a MAX 4 consecutive hard starts, after which it needs to be driven 1.5 miles to reset the command.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_GT-R under the performance heading. There does seem to be confusion about it.

Its a Borg Warner designed gear box and TBH if it cannot handle 600Nm of torque and 500bhp, then they are in the wrong game, there are far more stressful applications out there.

Also all the jizzing over the Veyron, the Skyline gets 480BHP from a engine half the Capacity, half the turbos and just over a 3rd of the cylinders and half the turbos(altho I suspect the veyron uses 2 small turbos and 2 big ones to eliminate lag , so this isnt really a big deal).
The revised model for next year gets 530 BHP and 600Nm Torque.
Then its cheaper to run and maintain, plus cheaper to buy and probably faster around a track. I understand the design brief for the Veyron, but TBH how often will you use the cars potential? How long a road do you need? The car is a great feat of engineering true, but its also a poor( i dont mean to use such a harsh word, its not poor but I cant think of another word!) feat at the same time, Engineering isnt about a pissing contest, its about designing products that work and are cost effective, the Veyron is on a different planet costwise.

The veyron reminds me of Pubtalk BHP figures, "ooooh my car has 200BHP" yea but at 3,000 RPM it has 60 BHP, which is the power band you will be in 70% of the time, so your car probably has put out a full 200BHP for maybe 2mins in 2 years.

The Veyron is quicker around a track than the GTR, but that's besides the point. Engineering is sometimes about pissing contests to be fair. Worlds tallest building? Biggest ship? Fastest plane? All that sort of thing.
Sometimes Engineering is about being the most applicable for a given set of criteria. Sometimes it isn't.
Saying you can't use the Veyron's power all the time? You can't with the GTR either... so go get a Focus RS.... but then that's too quick... may as well stick with a go-kart.
Different design briefs lead to different results. Sameyness and no aspirations leads to Nissan Tiida's.

kona

Tea 1000 wrote: »

The Veyron is quicker around a track than the GTR, but that's besides the point. Engineering is sometimes about pissing contests to be fair. Worlds tallest building? Biggest ship? Fastest plane? All that sort of thing.
Sometimes Engineering is about being the most applicable for a given set of criteria. Sometimes it isn't.
Saying you can't use the Veyron's power all the time? You can't with the GTR either... so go get a Focus RS.... but then that's too quick... may as well stick with a go-kart.
Different design briefs lead to different results. Sameyness and no aspirations leads to Nissan Tiida's.

Engineering isnt about pissing contests, its used by governments as tools to produce things that are pissing contests. Look at the biggest pissing contest of them all the cold war, Engineers didnt set out the goals, it was the politicians and leaders. It was at a time when money was no object, these days you have to question having a pissing contest with what seemed themselves.

You cant use a lawnmowers power all the time, however, your never ever going to use the full 1001 BHP in a veyron, you are far more likely to use it in a GTR. I have no idea how a veyron behaves, and neither does anybody here so its just speculation, but I dont think it was the smartest of things when you consider the bigger picture, its costs are vulgar, and anybody who spends 1.5 million on a car needs their brains examined.
Its far harder to engineer something like the Focus RS you mentioned or Lotus cars, which have limited budgets and where the bottom line matters, at the end of the day wed all love companies to develop crazy cars, but nobody will buy them.
Nissan Tiidas are sacks of **** from a performance and driving viewpoint, from the viewpoint of the A-B motorist those types of cars are unreal. To engineer something that you can guarantee to last 100,000 miles is fantastic.
Every product you can argue for and against.

What new technologies did the Veyron develop? After all the pissing contests of the cold war, it developed some technology that we take for granted 30 years later, so in a way the cost of the space programmes and building the biggest was worth it.

The veyron is neither the fastest machine nor the fastest land vehicle, so what exactley was the point?

Right lads were gunna design a car that will cost 1.5 million so only a few rich people can experience, were going to make a loss too, but its ok, its figures will piss all over the competition.

They certainly blew their design brief out of the water! but I honestley cannot see the point of a 1001BHP car. Even when Top Gear was showing it, clarksons enthusiasm to me it was like the enthusiasm of a sales guy on QVC selling potato peelers. very meh I dont really care, plus for 1.5 million the car looks crap.

kona

PrettyBoy wrote: »

Veyron v GTR is not the same as F40 v Punto.

It's about comparing expensive performance cars with relatively affordable performance cars. F40 v NSX or something would have made more sense, no?

Exactley the Veyron is so stupidly expensive I was comparing a car 15 times less expensive than a F40, a regular car is around this mark.

How about you add up your BHP per Euro cost of the cars. There is nothing appealing about owning a veyron other than to say to some lads over a 3k bottle of wine that you drive one, but its at home because if you were to actually drive the thing it will cost you the guts of 50k a year.

The car is rediculous.

how many of the most rare, exotic cars could you get for 1.5 million?

Tea 1000

kona wrote: »

What new technologies did the Veyron develop?

Dual-clutch semi-auto gearbox was designed for it. VAG products use this design since in their excellent DSG!
I'd buy a Veyron if I had the means. If that makes me nuts, then so be it!

kona

Tea 1000 wrote: »

Dual-clutch semi-auto gearbox was designed for it. VAG products use this design since in their excellent DSG!
I'd buy a Veyron if I had the means. If that makes me nuts, then so be it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_clutch_transmission#Volkswagen_Group

According to wiki, the Idea is from the 1930s and the development and use was by Porsche at first.

Perhaps they developed a new idea on them, as Ricardo are a well known company for engineering development.

unkel

kona wrote: »

and making a car, selling it for 1.5million and still making a huge loss on each unit isnt?

It was the price Ferry was willing to pay for eternal fame & respect

PrettyBoy

kona wrote: »

Exactley the Veyron is so stupidly expensive I was comparing a car 15 times less expensive than a F40, a regular car is around this mark.

How about you add up your BHP per Euro cost of the cars. There is nothing appealing about owning a veyron other than to say to some lads over a 3k bottle of wine that you drive one, but its at home because if you were to actually drive the thing it will cost you the guts of 50k a year.

The car is rediculous.

how many of the most rare, exotic cars could you get for 1.5 million?

How is it ridiculous? The car was purpose built to be the fastest vehicle in the world and it achieved it. Twice.

The cost is huge but irrelevant to most buyers. If you can afford to buy a Veyron, chances are the costs to run it are nothing to you. Most Veyron owners probably have a net worth of $100 Million +. They can buy a Veyron and have enough left over for any Enzo, Zonda, Koenigsegg they want.

You clearly can't understand the appeal of a car like the Veyron so stop bitching about it.

kona

LIGHTNING wrote: »

Did you say its harder to design a Focus RS than a Veyron? Because that crazy talk! Not everything in Engineering is a revolution sometimes its just gradual changes that improve small amounts. I still class the Veyron as a tour de force in engineering terms, I think its a car that people will be talking about for a long time.

No, obviously theres alot more to design and build in a veyron than a Focus RS. BUT the focus RS will be expected to perform like it should, and cover more miles in less time than a veyron would in say 5 Years. Also is expected to have less servicing, cost much less, and is expected to make a bottom line profit for Ford.

WHen you have budgets and a limited parts bin to source from, more expectations other than stats, it gets alot trickier. Dont get me wrong, getting 1,000 BHP from a production engine is a serious achievement, i just really dont see the point of the Veyron all things considered, unless Im missing some unbelievable technology they have developed that will cause big leaps in automotive design. In that case Id consider it worth it and less about the car and more about what they wanted to achieve and push forward.

kona

PrettyBoy wrote: »

How is it ridiculous? The car was purpose built to be the fastest vehicle in the world and it achieved it. Twice.

No its not. thats what Im saying.

PrettyBoy wrote: »

The cost is huge but irrelevant to most buyers. If you can afford to buy a Veyron, chances are the costs to run it are nothing to you. Most Veyron owners probably have a net worth of $100 Million +. They can buy a Veyron and have enough left over for any Enzo, Zonda, Koenigsegg they want.

Net worth of 100million? fair play but how much of that is tied up? Very few people have that sort of cash lying around, its tied up in assets, and rarely do they get what they are worth.
But yes spending 1.5% of your wealth on a car would be less than ordinary joes invest into a new toyota or the likes

PrettyBoy wrote: »

You clearly can't understand the appeal of a car like the Veyron so stop bitching about it.

Tell me what it appeals to you? Sorry for having a opinion about a car on your bedroom wall.

Paparazzo

The price shouldn't really be an argument against a Veyron. To me, spending 50k on a new BMW is ridiculous but can understand that if you have the money that its not an issue. It's all relative