The 'Veyron-rant' rant

[Joey D]

A gimmick on four wheels would be anything with Hemi emblazoned on it . A 1.7million dollar car is hardly a gimmick.

 

[Dave A]

Hate that car. Go buy a car that actually does have a purpose apart from being "The Fastest". I know get a DB9, a real car.....

The Veyron wasn't built just to be the fastest, just being the fastest wouldn't have been such hard work. It was built to be the fasttest, and to offer a high level of refinement, drivability, and be as reliable as an Audi.

But, I must admit it looks like you put a lot of work into this. But that can't change the opinion of people who already hate the car, sorry it didn't work. I mean I usually agree with TopGear but this is the only car that Top Gear have said is good that I disagree with.

You dissagree that the car is good? Because I think regardless of your liking or dissliking the car, the car is undeniably good. It's the only car in the world to achieve what it achieves. Nothing else goes that fast while being as usable and as refined.

I know that the performance is stunning, no doubt about that at all. But it is just a engineer's excercise, I personally can't see the point in a car that was just a engineer's excercise. I like cars that make you feel like it was built just for you.

No car was built just for you, I get what your trying to say, but don't you think cars like the Enzo were built as technical showpieces as well. The Porsche 959, the Jaguar XJ220 etc. The Veyron isn't the first, nor will it be the last, thats designed as a showpiece.

I also don't like the styling of the car but I am a very opinionated person on car designs.

That's all fair enough, I like it, it looks like nothing else.

The Veyron is cool in a way but I really don't like it, for the price you can have cooler things in my opinion. If I was to get a super car I'd get something like a Konigsegg which is far less recognizable to people. Plus it has cool doors.

Value is not something anyone should consider when buying a supercar. however, in the Veyrons case, it might be the best value for money supercar on sale. I'd expect Veyron's to be selling for more than their list price in the future. But regardless of that, you buy a car like this for the same reason you buy any stupidly expensive car, to show off and have a great car. It's just on the next level up from anything else.

What really gets me though is that you can buy a Hennessey Viper for $225,000 and it goes faster then the Veyron and has 1 less horsepower. It's still a stupidly big engine with a bunch of turbos fixed to it, but who cares you are getting something that is 7.5 times cheaper then the $1.7 million Veyron.

I doub t Hennesey will give you a warranty that offers the same conditions as you'd get with a European built VW Golf or Polo. Also, unless I'm mistake, the Hennesey Viper hasn't been tested, it's just theoretical. Like that theoretical 270mph supercar supposedly in production. It might be faster, but at the end of that day, it's just a modded Viper. It's just a few steps up from a modded Civic or Neon.

I know our discussions of the Veyron have been quite heated in the past, and nine times out of ten they don't really accomplish much by the time the thread is locked up. That being said, most of us usually agree that it is an automotive engineering accomplishment unlike anything mankind has ever seen before, and furthermore, may ever see again. The car was certainly a product of the successful '90s era when it comes to money and optimism, and only the 21st century pessimism has ever put it down.

Personally speaking, I like the car despite the fact that I've never seen one in person. The whole notion of a car that can perform that well is just incredible, and furthermore, just being the the presence of (much less owning) a nearly two million dollar vehicle is just outstanding.

I think the big question would likely be, if you had the money, would you buy one?

I'd probably say no.

Simply put, I can have more fun spending two million dollars on several cars instead of just one, and furthermore, although none of the cars will be able to do 253.3 MPH, I'd be happy enough knowing that I could just scratch at 200 MPH in most of my cars.

I'll take my Corvettes, Ferraris, Porsches, and TVRs. They all look good, perform well enough, and I can have quite a few before I reach that two million mark.

If I was rich enough to consider a Veyron, I'd already have my TVR's, Lotus' and Astons etc, I wouldn't buy a Veyron unless £1,000,000 was money I could earn annually and I already had plety saved up (ie, several million).

Honestly who really cares? You either like it or you don't. None of us will ever have the money to buy one.

Speak for yourself, someone on here might some day get that chance.

Is the car a mastery of engineering? No not at all, especially if some tuner garage can make a Viper go faster then the Veyron for 7.5 times less money.

With the reliability to boot, with the refinement, with the quality of parts. I'd say no to all of thoes. The Veyron is a mastery of engineering, because it was almost impossible to accomplish. They could have made a car that goes this fast and made compromises to the design and to the reliability and refinement, but that was never what the Veyron was about. It was about being so good at all these things.

Even if you could afford it what would you do with it? It's not something you'd take down to the corner store or even to the golf course (I can't imagine there is a ton of room in that thing).

I wouldn't trake it to the local Golf course, (any of the three). I don't play Golf, but I'd drive it regularly that's for sure.

You aren't going to race it because it's not made for that, you aren't going to really do anything with it except show your friends and go "ooooo look what I got".

Speak for yourself. Again.

I've seen one in person at a Concourse show in Rochester, MI and I personally didn't think much of it. It wasn't even the coolest thing that, the Spyker next to it was by far cooler looking and more impressive to me.

Oh I beleive you, and style wise Spykers will win pretty much every time, they are fascinating to look at. The Veyron is more impressive as a car, but the Spyker C8 and C12's beat it looks wise.

Well ... in terms of bang for your buck, the Veyron is nowhere near the top of the list. I adressed that in my article as well.

About that TT Viper: if I'm honest, I don't think it actually does that speed. Putting a lot of power into a car, setting up the gearbox properly and then calculating that it can theoretically go past 250mph doesn't prove that it wouldn't desintegrate on the way. I certainly wouldn't try, and I'd bet money that the one who does will die in the process.

Even if it does, how many top speed runs will it do before it needs an engine rebuild or something like that. there's no way the Henessey Viper is as reliable as the Veyron.

Why shouldn't you be able to use it? The only problem I see is that you'll have people all around you once you stop. But else, all I usually take with me is a backpack, which will supposedly be fine in the passenger seat.

Exactley.

I'm not questioning it's bang for the buck, I'm just saying if you want to say you have one of the fastest cars in the world you don't have to spend Veyron money to do so.

But if you want a car as good as the Veyron you do, what else offers what the Veyron offers in a single package. Nothing.

I don't see why it wouldn't, a normal Viper gets close if not over 200mph if I'm not mistaken, I don't see why adding another 400hp wouldn't put it over 250mph. I've never actually seen a TT Viper so I have no idea how well they are built, I'm going off the website.

Just giving a normal Viper 400 more bhp won't increase the cars top speed, it'll just get you there faster. You need a new gearbox, you also need to make sure the car is stable at theos speeds, that drag isn't too high. That the tyre's arn't over stressed. There's a hell of a lot of reasons why in the real world, a car won't be able to go 250+mph. Theotetically you can work it out on power, drag and rolling resistance, but there's more things that can go against you in pratice.

I see no use for it, I'm trying but I really can't. I highly doubt you can fit two golf bags and another person in the car (maybe you can?). Other then going to the country club I'm not 100% what rich people do with their time.

I think you can actually, behind the front seats. Besides that, you keep talking about going Golfing all the time. I'd never use one to go Golfing, I'd use it to go to Tesco's.

People, numerous people on these boards in fact, have told me the Veyron isn't a race car so it's not like you could take it and show off to your other rich friends at the track.

It wasn't built as a race car, however, it's perfectly capable of perfroaming on a track according to road tests and Gordon Murray. Just because it wasn't built as a race car (which is obvious really) that doesn't mean you can't track it.

I mean I guess you could take it to the casino or some ritzy hotel or something, but you couldn't really fit your overnight bag in it to well.

Unless your overnight bag is insanely large, why not?

Like I said I wasn't overly impressed with seeing it, it didn't have that "holy s*** it's a Veyron" feel I thought it would. Like I said I thought the Spyker was far cooler, although just to be fair, just as impractical.

I fdon't get that feeling looking at any car at a show, I get the "damn, that's a nice looking car", I only get the "oh my god that's a...." when I see one on the road and usually when I get the whole experience of seeing and hearing it.

I don't really know and I really shouldn't pretend to, I'm sure of the physics of the whole thing. I would assume the Viper TT is capable of doing it since the power to weight ratio seems about right, but I could very well be wrong.[/quotePower to weight has no effect on theoretical top speed, I'd assume it has a marginal effect on tyre stress.

You aren't rich though are you? I mean rich in the filthy and stinking sense. Rich people are different from everyone else, if you are the type of rich person to buy a Veyron you are going to want to show it off all you can because obliviously you are the type who needs flashy things. I can't think of anywhere I would take the thing to show it off except maybe a car show or a restaurant. Hardly worth it when you could easily get a 'cheaper' flashy car that will at least carry your golf clubs to the country club or your overnight bag to some $2000 a night hotel.

Golf clubs again. Besides which, why can't you carry Golf clubs in the Veyron, or an overnight bag, or a suitcase. You can.

I said I didn't hate the car, I hate it when people think it's the greatest car ever made. Big deal it goes fast, give me and unlimited budget, a ton of time, and a couple of egg heads and I bet I can crank something out that goes 1 mph faster. I tend to be more impressed with cars that are practical, yet fast, with low weight, small displacement, and are fun to drive. I know there is nothing like that but there are cars that are close.

I though Corvettes impressed you, they arn't low displacment. The Veyron is as practical as supercars can get, it's not low weight but then no luxury cars are. It's engine isn't mich bigger than the Z06's and it's steering is supposed to be very precise with handling to match. I'd say that you can have plenty of fun in a Veyron if you wanted to.

I read it and the cars you mentioned: F430, Corvette, Lambos, whatever can all be tracked, taken to the country club (I've seen more then one F430 at Oakland Hills Country Club), and still have the same wow factor (well maybe not the Vette). The only point I see to having a Veyron is to wave it in your friends face and be like I have something faster then your car, but I'm a huge tool because I bought a car wroth more then some GDP of some African countries...that's a joke for those of you who forgot what humour was .

Is buying a luxury mansion a bad thing, is buying a nice house with a lot o
of land for a couple of million (you don't even get that for that price here) something only the stupid do? Why does everything change when you want to spend on a car instead. If your rich enough to not be phased by the Veyron's price, why does it make you a wanker if you buy one? You might have bought one because your like that, but your a very shallow person if you have. I'd suspece most people have bought it because it's the complete package.

No, I'm not rich, and I a pretty sure I'll never be. However, if I become the person you describe there, I hope I'll never be, cause that sounds pretty pathetic. If I buy a car, I only care if I like it. And I surely won't show it around trying to impress others, cause I think it's pretty poor.

Ditto.

If the car is underpowered and to fat there is no way it would make it. I could try for a million years to get my Blazer up to 250mph but the power to weight is awful.

Again, power to weight is not the issue, it's power, drag and rolling resistance. Your Blazer will have a lot of drag, that will kill your speed. You'd need a lot more power that a Veyron to get it to thoes speeds. And you'd need better tyres than the Veyron as well, tyres so good you probably won't find any road legal ones. but it is theoretically possible. Just highly unlikely.

I'm not rich either, but my parents do have some rich friends (I consider living in 3 million dollar houses to be rich) and that is how they are like. Maybe it's just the people that I've seen but I somehow doubt it.

So are your pparents rich friends stupid because they could have bought perfectly acceptable places to live for less than a quarter of what they paid?

The sound was the biggest disappointment, a super car should just sound impressive.

Maybe, I don't think the sound of the Veyron is that impressive myself. But I think everything else is.

I think you would be white knuckled driving anything at 253mph. The Veyron isn't a smooth sailed at that speed, nothing is.

Yes it is, TopGear proved it when James May did a top speed run in Germany.

 

[Wolfe]

If I'm completely honest, the Interceptor, your article could use some trimming/editing and summarization, but it was well-put-together and for the most part I agree with its argument. +Rep. 👍

Personally speaking, I like the car despite the fact that I've never seen one in person. The whole notion of a car that can perform that well is just incredible, and furthermore, just being the the presence of (much less owning) a nearly two million dollar vehicle is just outstanding.

I think the big question would likely be, if you had the money, would you buy one?

I'd probably say no.

Simply put, I can have more fun spending two million dollars on several cars instead of just one, and furthermore, although none of the cars will be able to do 253.3 MPH, I'd be happy enough knowing that I could just scratch at 200 MPH in most of my cars.

I also absolutely agree with this. The Veyron is a neat car, but I'd sooner spend a fraction of $2 million on some older sportscars and save the rest.

Hennessey Viper...

Tuned Vipers have a history of problems with top-speed tests, at least the ones I read about in Road & Track. And even beyond the test track, Hennessey Vipers are hardly well-known for reliability.

I wouldn't trust a boosted Viper to get me to 250mph, much less keep me safe at that speed.

 

[JCE]

1000+bhp ... check
glorious noise ... check
is fast ... check
good reliability (presumably) ... check
looks great on the inside ... check
is comfortable to drive ... check
is a technological marvel ... check
is exclusive ... check

I don't see a problem here. Its a car, and if you don't like it fine. But is it useless? No, it is a car so you CAN use it if you choose to. It will seat 2 people and get from A to B VERY quickly and comfortably if needed. I really don't see the problem. And the 1000bhp mark was set a long time ago and that was the mark to reach. If it had more power maybe it wouldn't be as reliable? Or maybe they just wanted 1000bhp? Who's to say, and who cares. The car works for its purpose, I'd say leave it at that.

And you gripe about the power numbers and promptly talk about the new 3-series coupe with it's "glorious" power from its 6cyl twin turbo engine producing barely 300bhp. Newsflash, the Japanese have produced more power from their 6cyl twin turbo engines for well over a decade--and don't give me that 276bhp crap either as we all know that was a joke. Hell, my 3000GT VR4 produced the same power as that BMW--and it was a 1993 model. And bringing in the twin turbo Viper is blasphemy, honestly who would want that POS over a Veyron, S7, Carrera GT, Enzo, Zonda, or Koenigsegg? Have you DRIVEN a Viper? I have, both generations, and they are completely rubbish to drive. And why do I say they're rubbish? That brings me to point #2. There needs to be a certain level of comfort in a "driver's car" in my opinion. Do I want a Rolls Royce interior in my Ford GT? No. But I need to be able to sit in the car and have things like legroom, headroom, shoulder room, arm movment room, air con, some sort of CD player, and seats that aren't hard as a rock. The Veyron accomplishes the balance between cruiser and bruiser. To me the perfect modern supercar/hypercar needs to have SOME level of comfort. Take the DB9, that to me is the PERFECT supercar. Comfy when you want it for cruising--then you put your foot down and turn the wheel and it can tear your face off.

Do I think the Veyron is crap? No. Do I think its pointless? No. Do I think its a waste of money? It depends on what YOU consider value for money, for me I'd say yes. Would I buy one if I was worth 10's of millions of dollars? Yes, and the reason why is mainly because of being exclusive and knowing that you can 99.9% of the time annihilate ANY car on the road.

 

[Wolfe]

Slow down, there, JCE3000GT -- did you read the whole thing? The Interceptor presented often-cited arguments against the Veyron, and then attempted to refute them. He likes the car.

And you gripe about the power numbers and promptly talk about the new 3-series coupe with it's "glorious" power from its 6cyl twin turbo engine producing barely 300bhp. Newsflash, the Japanese have produced more power from their 6cyl twin turbo engines for well over a decade--and don't give me that 276bhp crap either as we all know that was a joke. Hell, my 3000GT VR4 produced the same power as that BMW--and it was a 1993 model.

Missed the point entirely, I'm afraid. What he was saying is that the 335i is an example of how turbocharging isn't always used to produce big power numbers, and that "mild" turbocharging can still improve output while maintaining smooth power delivery, as well as better efficiency and reliability -- thus defending Volkswagen's choice to "only" turbocharge the Veyron to 1001hp, despite its relatively large engine.


P.S. -- The 335i has been proven to develop more than 300hp at the flywheel through independent dyno testing. Not "barely" 300. But I'm only pointing that out because I'm a BMW fanboy.

 

[Dead_Poetic]

Absolute power and power to weight ratio are no factors in this, it is aerodynamics and the rigidity of the body panels that counts.[/qoute]



My own thoughts on the Veyron will be along later, but first I must correct the physics side of the debate.

Absolute power is a factor in this (power to weight is not).

Provided a cars gearing will allow it do do the required speed, V-max is determined by BHP (so absolute power), frontal area, drag co-efficient and rolling resistance (however once you get going the final one is a minor point at Veyron speeds - much more important in world land speed attempts).

All power to weight will do is determine how long it will take you to do X mph and how long a piece of straight road you need. Structural rigidity and Lift/downforce levels will determine if you die in the attempt.


Regards

Scaff

I understand your point, Scaff, but if a car crashes or has its panels torn off before it reaches 250 mph+, due to not enough structural integrity and or downforce, then it can not reach those speeds. So, wouldnt you say that these factors would determine whether or not a car could go that fast?

Anyway, I feel that the Veyron is a truly ground breaking piece of automotive machinery. As Dave A said, whether or not you like the car, anyone should be able to admit that it is an amazing car. It is an extremely refined automobile. It saves its practicality by the fact that you dont even use all 1001 horsepower until you turn that special key on the floor. Still doesnt help the fact that it doesnt have a trunk though.

Awesome read though, Interceptor!

 

[Joey D]

I think many of you have to unrealistic expectations on what people would actually do with the car.

 

[Kylehnat]

the Japanese have produced more power from their 6cyl twin turbo engines for well over a decade

...rendering them utterly useless below 4000 RPM.

My indifference (leaning slightly towards dislike) to the Veyron stems from the fact that it lacks an identity/personality. It looks good on paper: it's the most powerful, most luxurious, most expensive supercar out there, and looks like nothing else on the road. But therein lies the problem: it was designed to be the most powerful, most luxurious, most expensive supercar out there. What was the motivation for the car? Where was the passion? What makes this car a Bugatti? The answers to these questions are: arrogance, nowhere, and nothing.

This car is what a computer would spit out if you input "1000 hp", "$1,000,000", and "cruise control". It could be badged an Audi, Volkswagen or Lamborghini, and no one would think anything of it. Put a FIAT badge on the 599, and you'd be burned at the stake. That's the key piece missing from the Veyron's identity.

 

[the Interceptor]

Oh boy, this is going to be a long post.

I think you would be white knuckled driving anything at 253mph. The Veyron isn't a smooth sailed at that speed, nothing is.

It is. Watch the video where James May of Top Gear takes it to 253 mph.

Absolute power is a factor in this (power to weight is not).

Of course it is, my statement was taken out of context a bit. I was solely referring to the TT Viper, which definitely is not down on absolute power, and, so I suppose, geared towards speeds beyond 250 mph. What I was trying to say is that too little power isn't your concern with doing that speed in this very car. It's taking off and/or ripping away the bonnet and fenders you have to worry about.

+Rep for ranting better than me. It makes great sense, and I hate Veyrons too.

It might be a bold request, but can you please read the first post again? I do not hate the Veyron. That's also why the thread is called "the 'Veyron-rant' rant", because I am ranting about the constant rantings about this car, such as ...

They look fat, ugly, and weights as much as an apartment complex.

My bad,I shouldn't have said "hate." I don't nessesarily hate the Veyron, but I don't like it for majority of the facts that you have stated in your first post.

I also am going to take the "gimmick on 4 wheels" part back, n00bish comment

That sounds much more reasonable.

The Veyron wasn't built just to be the fastest, just being the fastest wouldn't have been such hard work. It was built to be the fasttest, and to offer a high level of refinement, drivability, and be as reliable as an Audi.

You dissagree that the car is good? Because I think regardless of your liking or dissliking the car, the car is undeniably good. It's the only car in the world to achieve what it achieves. Nothing else goes that fast while being as usable and as refined.

Well said, and also the reason why the Hennesseys and Lingenfelters are no real match. They may (at least in theory) archieve the same or a higher top speed. But reducing the Veyron to its top speed is just wrong. I adressed that with the "the car is more than just figures"-thing in my essay as well.

Slow down, there, JCE3000GT -- did you read the whole thing? The Interceptor presented often-cited arguments against the Veyron, and then attempted to refute them. He likes the car.

And you gripe about the power numbers and promptly talk about the new 3-series coupe with it's "glorious" power from its 6cyl twin turbo engine producing barely 300bhp. Newsflash, the Japanese have produced more power from their 6cyl twin turbo engines for well over a decade--and don't give me that 276bhp crap either as we all know that was a joke. Hell, my 3000GT VR4 produced the same power as that BMW--and it was a 1993 model.

Missed the point entirely, I'm afraid. What he was saying is that the 335i is an example of how turbocharging isn't always used to produce big power numbers, and that "mild" turbocharging can still improve output while maintaining smooth power delivery, as well as better efficiency and reliability -- thus defending Volkswagen's choice to "only" turbocharge the Veyron to 1001hp, despite its relatively large engine.

Exactly what I would have said, thank you. Again, I can only ask you, JCE3000GT, to read post #1 again slowly and completely.

Anyway, I feel that the Veyron is a truly ground breaking piece of automotive machinery. As Dave A said, whether or not you like the car, anyone should be able to admit that it is an amazing car. It is an extremely refined automobile. It saves its practicality by the fact that you dont even use all 1001 horsepower until you turn that special key on the floor. Still doesnt help the fact that it doesnt have a trunk though.

Exactly the point I'm trying to get across, thank you. It seems like some people don't want to see that though, which is just sad.

I think many of you have to unrealistic expectations on what people would actually do with the car.

To be honest, I think it is you thinking that we'd all turn into idiots and start to play golf. If I ask myself if I could use the car, I base this judgement on what I do every day with my car. What I don't do is think that I'd become some spoiled rich idiot that has nothing better to do than show his newest car to some friends. Based on that, what's the point of any expensive car? You just need a Ferrari replica with a Fiero underneath for that.

 

[Joey D]

I've seen the video and I'm telling you, you are going to be white knuckled at 253mph. Sure it might be the most stable car you can buy at that speed, but it's still going to scare the living daylights out of you.

 

[Speedster502]

The Veyron wasn't built just to be the fastest, just being the fastest wouldn't have been such hard work. It was built to be the fasttest, and to offer a high level of refinement, drivability, and be as reliable as an Audi.

You dissagree that the car is good? Because I think regardless of your liking or dissliking the car, the car is undeniably good. It's the only car in the world to achieve what it achieves. Nothing else goes that fast while being as usable and as refined.

No car was built just for you, I get what your trying to say, but don't you think cars like the Enzo were built as technical showpieces as well. The Porsche 959, the Jaguar XJ220 etc. The Veyron isn't the first, nor will it be the last, thats designed as a showpiece.

That's all fair enough, I like it, it looks like nothing else.

Oh god now I am going to go into one of these moods again......

Look...erm...how can I put this? I just don't like the car. Lets take an example: A Kia Rio, I know no-one that likes this car, but for what it is and how much it costs it is brilliant. But do you know any one that likes one? Apart from owners?

Thats what I am like with the Veryon, it may well be technically perfect but that doesn't mean that I have to like it. For all you know a Veryon could have run over someone that I know, you just don't know.

At one point of my life I did start to like the Veryon because of Top Gear (Veryon race from Italy to London), I started to see the real purpose of this car, it sounded like it actually had a soul. I started to love it, it moved up my cool wall very quickly that night. Few months later I start talking about a certain Veyron that happens to have crashed, I may have had a go at the car. Then people were basically shouting at me because of my own opinion.

It's not the cars fault sometimes that I don't like it, it's the people who think that you have to like it.

EDIT: Just realised I spelt Veyron wrong through all of that, Doh!

 

[the Interceptor]

I've seen the video and I'm telling you, you are going to be white knuckled at 253mph. Sure it might be the most stable car you can buy at that speed, but it's still going to scare the living daylights out of you.

I'm pretty sure I'd be extremely nervous as well. But at the same time, I can't think of any car I'd rather be in in terms of feeling safer, doing 253 mph.

It's not the cars fault sometimes that I don't like it, it's the people who think that you have to like it.

I do understand you. I have the same problem with M. Schumacher. Everybody supposes that I have to like him, cause I am german. But I don't, there even where periods where I really really hated him. But if people ask me why, it's kind of hard to explain. I think you have similar problems with the Veyron.

All in all, I must say I'm a bit shuffeled by the reactions on my essay. I know its kind of long, but if you are interested in the subject (otherwise you wouldn't come to this thread I suppose), I do not understand why you wouldn't read the whole of the article. Additionally, some just bring up their classical anti-Veyron arguments again, the very arguments which I adressed in the essay. It seems those people completely ignored that though. On the other hand, what did I expect?

 

[Joey D]

Just because we don't agree with your essay doesn't mean we didn't read it.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

I'll shut up the moment I see such a thing do 253+ mph (or get other kind of proof, whatever it may be), but until then, this is just a bold claim many have made, but noone has proven yet.

doubt you ever will you a viper do 253+mph

hennessy himself chickened out when it reached 218mph,they claim 250ish due to the gearing.

 

[Danny]

doubt you ever will you a viper do 253+mph

Off topic slightly, but it took me a few minutes to work this out.

 

[Holdenhsvgtsr]

Off topic slightly, but it took me a few minutes to work this out.

i was in a rush when i typed that

 

[JCE]

Slow down, there, JCE3000GT -- did you read the whole thing? The Interceptor presented often-cited arguments against the Veyron, and then attempted to refute them. He likes the car.

Ok, I see what you're talking about. I was half asleep after a 12-hour workday when I read that. My oppologies to Interceptor if I came off half-cocked towards him. I'll direct my post to the Veyron haters then.

Missed the point entirely, I'm afraid. What he was saying is that the 335i is an example of how turbocharging isn't always used to produce big power numbers, and that "mild" turbocharging can still improve output while maintaining smooth power delivery, as well as better efficiency and reliability -- thus defending Volkswagen's choice to "only" turbocharge the Veyron to 1001hp, despite its relatively large engine.

I still think the 3-series coupe is a waste. They put turbos on it, it should develop a minimum of 400bhp...a MINIMUM. This is BMW, they are known for squeezing out high power from engines.

So why does Wiki and everyone else rate the 3-series coupe @ 300bhp?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_3_Series#E90

P.S. -- The 335i has been proven to develop more than 300hp at the flywheel through independent dyno testing. Not "barely" 300. But I'm only pointing that out because I'm a BMW fanboy.

I said barely because I gave it the benefit of the doubt by having slightly more than 300bhp like everyone lists. Seriously, as smooth as it may be (and I know it is) 300bhp isn't all that much these days.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bmw+335i+coupe&btnG=Google+Search

...rendering them utterly useless below 4000 RPM.

Wrong. The GT-R Skyline and GTO Twin Turbo (aka 3000GT VR4) were most certainly NOT useless below 4000RPM.

This car is what a computer would spit out if you input "1000 hp", "$1,000,000", and "cruise control". It could be badged an Audi, Volkswagen or Lamborghini, and no one would think anything of it. Put a FIAT badge on the 599, and you'd be burned at the stake. That's the key piece missing from the Veyron's identity.

This car is a Bugatti, it has a huge engine and 4 turbos. The displacement may be more than double that of the EB110--granted the EB110 has 2 less cylinders--but the point is it follows directly in its footsteps as far as I'm concerned. If it were badged as a Lamborghini it wouldn't have four turbos. If it were badged as a VeeDub or Audi it wouldn't have four turbos AND it would be nannified to death with driver aids.

*edit*
Oh and I'd like to know who gave the -rep "No one cares" on my first post so I can recipricate it. My post was legitimate and addressed the points of the topic, if you don't care about my post you could of just chosed to ignore it.

 

[the Interceptor]

Ok, I see what you're talking about. I was half asleep after a 12-hour workday when I read that. My oppologies to Interceptor if I came off half-cocked towards him. I'll direct my post to the Veyron haters then.

no problem mate!

I still think the 3-series coupe is a waste. They put turbos on it, it should develop a minimum of 400bhp...a MINIMUM. This is BMW, they are known for squeezing out high power from engines.

I explained some time ago in another thread why the 335i came out the way it is:

https://www.gtplanet.net/forum/showpost.php?p=2231833&postcount=104

In short, and also explained in my essay, they basically use a couple of turbos to imitate a bigger engine. Therefor, this machine has little to nothing to do with a conventional turbo, and for the same reason, it is not meant to generate that much horsepower.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[TheCracker]

the Interceptor - I really have little love for the Veyron, but i found almost nothing in your points i could argue against +rep for that (if i didn't have to spread it around a bit first)

Having had a good look at one last summer, i would agree that it certainly is fairly luxuriously fitted out - but i have to point out, the cockpit is still, like most mid-engined cars, a cramped place to be sat in. All the Bentley rivaling ambiance can't make up for the distinct sense of claustaphobia that it must give. A well spec'd C-class Merc would be a much more pleasant enviroment to spend your time in.

For me a supercar shouldn't do everything well. it should'nt be a great all-rounder. It should'nt flatter the most inept of drivers and it should'nt deliver it's occupants at their destination relaxed and refreshed. For me, a supercar should be raw and invigerating. It should scare the **** out of you not pamper you. Driving a Veyron is probably like crossing the atlantic a private jet. Driving a supercar should be like crossing the atlantic riding on the back of a killer whale.

The Veyron has no soul. It has a faux heritage. It's a big Audi TT - not the spirtual ancestor of a Type 35 or a Royale. Bugatti stopped making cars at the outbrake of WW2.

 

[Speedster502]

^
I totally agree with you just said, infact I couldn't have put it any better myself. I gave you plus rep for that, not because you hate the Veyron but for bringing up a very good point. That no-one can answer unless someone owns a Veyron and then tells us it scares the beejeepers out of them every time they put there foot down.

 

[Joey D]

Add another agreement with TheCracker's post! +rep as well!

 

[Danoff]

For me a supercar shouldn't do everything well. it should'nt be a great all-rounder. It should'nt flatter the most inept of drivers and it should'nt deliver it's occupants at their destination relaxed and refreshed. For me, a supercar should be raw and invigerating. It should scare the **** out of you not pamper you. Driving a Veyron is probably like crossing the atlantic a private jet. Driving a supercar should be like crossing the atlantic riding on the back of a killer whale.

...and where does this commandment about what supercars should be come from? I always figured a supercar was about performance - not really about making you uncomfortable.

I think the big question would likely be, if you had the money, would you buy one?

No way. There are so many cars I wouldn't buy if I had the money. I don't think it's useful at all to use that to consider whether the car is worthy of respect. The McLaren SLR comes to mind. I hate the way that car looks. I'd never buy one, but you won't see me trashing it on any internet forums, it's an amazing car to be sure. Similarly with the ferrari enzo - and many other ferraris that I happen to find repulsive or over priced for the performance. I can still appreciate their technical capabilities without wanting to buy one personally.

 

[TheCracker]

^
I totally agree with you just said, infact I couldn't have put it any better myself. I gave you plus rep for that, not because you hate the Veyron but for bringing up a very good point. That no-one can answer unless someone owns a Veyron and then tells us it scares the beejeepers out of them every time they put there foot down.

Thanks.

I don't hate the Veyron, i'm just indifferent to it. A car fan shouldn't feel indifferent to a supercar.

I'm sure a Veyron feels otherworldly quick. But from what i've read it's a slightly detached feeling. I like my thrills to be gritty and real.

 

[TopHat]

On the question: "Would you buy one if you had the money?"


Yes, I would. Only after I had all the other cars I've ever wanted, yes. Only because alot of people I know would see a 69 GTO Judge go by and say " Holy ****!", because alot of them don't know how special the Veyron is.

 

[Mark T]

Any car that can go from 0-60mph in under three seconds and has a top speed of 250+mph is going to scare the average driver. Most people have commented that it doesn't feel like a supercar, which in a strange way is a good thing. Bugatti have managed to create a supercar that is reliable and comfortable compared to most others. That's where the biggest achievement is. It's outstanding to think it's that comfortable and can still beat a Mclaren F1 to 200 mph even when the F1 has a rolling 100mph headstart.

Some people have questioned the point of making the car. Well, I suppose it's a way of moving forward, pushing the boundaries, and if you look at the engineering behind it, there are alot of unique things about the Veyron.

 

[TheCracker]

...and where does this commandment about what supercars should be come from? I always figured a supercar was about performance - not really about making you uncomfortable.

:
:
v

For me a supercar shouldn't do everything well....

 

[the Interceptor]

the Interceptor - I really have little love for the Veyron, but i found almost nothing in your points i could argue against +rep for that (if i didn't have to spread it around a bit first)

This is the exact point I was trying to get across with my article, and others have stated a similar opinion. You don't have to like this car, as long as you accept that it is a superb car in the technical sense of way. I do understand (and at least partly share) that it might be a too "dull" experience for a supercar, if you're more out of the McLaren F1 corner. That's down to taste, which is unique and no background for discussion. And I must admit you put your point well.

 

[Joey D]

But I can't appreciate it in a technical sort of way because it's so expensive. I could build a car that ran on water, but if no one could afford it then it's a waste of technology. VAG could have easily put the R&D money into something that would benefit the great car buying public. This is what I truly dislike about the car...it's so out of reach for a majority of the world's population.

 

[the Interceptor]

But I can't appreciate it in a technical sort of way because it's so expensive.

But costs have nothing to do with technology. The space shuttle is hugely expensive as well, but technically, it is an astonishing piece of kit, isn't it?

I could build a car that ran on water, but if no one could afford it then it's a waste of technology.

Not really. With everything you invent, you learn something. And you can advance the things you learned and integrate them into future things you'll build, probably archieving the same thing for much less money.

VAG could have easily put the R&D money into something that would benefit the great car buying public. This is what I truly dislike about the car...it's so out of reach for a majority of the world's population.

It is. But thinking like a company, you can build whatever you like for whatever it costs, if you make a profit. Granted, the Veyron doesn't, which is down to the way it was made. Still, only because so few people can afford it, I don't see why it is bad in a technical sense of way. And there's so much money wasted for idiotic things all around the world every day, like celebrity X getting its own personal chefs flown in to prepare dinner for one day. Therefor, I think that Veyron money was well spent.

 

[Danoff]

But I can't appreciate it in a technical sort of way because it's so expensive. I could build a car that ran on water, but if no one could afford it then it's a waste of technology. VAG could have easily put the R&D money into something that would benefit the great car buying public. This is what I truly dislike about the car...it's so out of reach for a majority of the world's population.

So then you probably hate formula 1 cars with a passion.

For me a supercar shouldn't do everything well....

:
:
v

...and where does this commandment about what supercars should be come from?