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

[the Interceptor]

1. Yes you are correct
2. Absolutely
3. You nailed it!

a. Not everyone but a goodly chunk of people
b. Same as above. Look at the computer example.
c. If the Veyron pushes a boundry I expect to see cars with its technology as soon as 2007 model year.

Good to see I got you right so far.

If I designed an engine that ran on water, polluted 0%, and could run without ever needing repair...and sold it for a 100 billlion dollars to everyone who wanted one, it would be so expensive no one could buy it. If no one/or hardly anyone can afford it, it's not a big use to people.

True, but this is a perfect example for the point I am trying to make. Why is that invention worth nothing, just because it is that expensive? Of course, it would be great if it would be very cheap, but let's forget the price. You have invented something. In which way is the brilliance of the invention itself affected by the price?

Something that revolutionizes the auto industry is what I want and something I respect.

I think we've found our "problem" here. You don't respect the Veyron, because is not what you want the car industry to invent. Okay, if you were in charge, you'd do something totally different. But can't you also accept a great invention as itself, and not compare it to what you'd have done?

A high horsepowered, gasoline buring car with luxery isn't revolutionary at all. Now a car that is high horsepower, running on hydrogen (or other fuel) and is luxery I can totally respect. Companies should be thinking about switching over fuels, making better use of said fuel, better safety, more idiot proofing cars, etc. The world doesn't need a 1000hp car that cost a million bucks, and really does zero good to anyone.
Now create me a 5 passenger sedan that runs on something else, gets mileage on that something else, is cheap to buy, and is somewhat stylish...and I will call that an engineering marvel.

Yes, it seems we finally got to the core. Here you stated what you'd accept as a great invention. And everything that is different, or pretty much the opposite just like the Veyron, automatically isn't one. In my eyes, that way of seeing things is a tad too common.
A creation is a creation and stays a creation. No matter if you like it or not, you can and should still give credit to the work. Dividing new cars in economical = good and uneconomical = bad is not really a valid way in judging engineering brilliance, is it?

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[Joey D]

True, but this is a perfect example for the point I am trying to make. Why is that invention worth nothing, just because it is that expensive? Of course, it would be great if it would be very cheap, but let's forget the price. You have invented something. In which way is the brilliance of the invention itself affected by the price?

Once again if no one can obtain it then your efforts were wasted.

I think we've found our "problem" here. You don't respect the Veyron, because is not what you want the car industry to invent. Okay, if you were in charge, you'd do something totally different. But can't you also accept a great invention as itself, and not compare it to what you'd have done?

I don't really care what they come out with, but I would like to see the auto industry make cars for the average man that decrease my need to pay a boat load of cash to drive it around. Fuel should be the auto industries main concern right now because God knows its not getting any cheaper to run cars.

A creation is a creation and stays a creation. No matter if you like it or not, you can and should still give credit to the work. Dividing new cars in economical = good and uneconomical = bad is not really a valid way in judging engineering brilliance, is it?

Do I respect what work they did? Yes, but I also respect a stupid looking custom car in the same respect. But as long as it isn't aftermarket I think its stupid for car companies to make thing uneconomical and should be working to fix that, I know nothing will ever be 100% economical but work towards that goal, GM did it with the new trucks and the Vette (it gets upwards of 20mpg). Economy is where it's at now a days.

Is the Veyron a good invention? Not at all. If there is no need for something, why bother wasting resources and time on it?

 

[Dave A]

Then I should see them by the end of the decade...thats more then enough time. Plus wasn't the Veyron in development for a really long time? They should have had this technology for a while now.

Yes the Veyron was in development for a while, but you only have the technology, after development, you have to remember that things like electric seats first appeared in 1950, it was years before they started to appear in any notable number of cars. Same with electric windows, central locking etc. Sure, the end of the decade may see many aspects of the Veyron's development appearing in other car's, things such as lighter gearboxes, better cooling and speed altered aerodynamics on a lager scale that a raising rear spoiler.

But its not good to anyone if it's not affordable and accessable...like I said people thought the computer was a joke until the early 90's when people could actually afford to buy them and put them in their homes.

Good for everyone or not, it's still a technical achievement, I don't see what that has to do with it. A self repairing zero fuel consumption engine that costs £100million per engine is a technical achievment, won't benefit anyone, but the fact you created that technology is an achievemnt, and like all technology, the costs of producing it come down over time.

The Z06 is questionable, the only reason I think it's so good is because of the price and performance you get. But there isn't anything ground breaking on the car. The S2000 is impressive because of all that power from a small n/a engine and is probably more reliable then any sports car out there because we all know Honda's run forever.

Questionable, by your definition it's a flat no. Same with the S2000, power per litre is a nothing figure, the fact it's relaible is good, but so are plenty of other car's, hardly revolutionary.

None of us know if its reliable or easy to drive, I'm willing to beat I'd have a hard time driving it and I'm just an average guy.

Everyone's revie I've read say it's amazingly easy to drive, all the road tests I've seen on TV say the same, I'd guess it is. As for if it's relaible or not, we don't know for sure at the moment, but the fact VAG offer the warranty they do suggest that they're confident it is. But the fact that we don't know means that any line of argument where your basing an idea that it's not an achievement because of this is speculative and thus, invalid.

That's true, we don't need them, never said we did.To say the world needs sports cars is rediculious.

So what car's are technical achievements, if the Veyron isn't, neither is the Z06, S2000, Civic, Clio and so on, what car's are technical achievemnts?

Once again if no one can obtain it then your efforts were wasted.

Which has absolutely no bearing on weather or not, what you created is technical wonder, if you create a teleportation device, it's a technical wonder, if no one ever uses it, the teleportation device is still ther, it was still created and it's still an amazing creation.

I don't really care what they come out with, but I would like to see the auto industry make cars for the average man that decrease my need to pay a boat load of cash to drive it around. Fuel should be the auto industries main concern right now because God knows its not getting any cheaper to run cars.

So the FIAT Punto diesel is a technical masterpiece but the Veyron isn't. I'm still drawing myself further away from your line of thought here. Just because of economic status, a technical achievent is still a technical achievent, what your talking of is something like a new bus that can carry more people, use less fuel and not be any bigger that curernt busses, sure that'd be an achievemnt too, but it still doesn't stop something opposite from being one.

Do I respect what work they did? Yes, but I also respect a stupid looking custom car in the same respect. But as long as it isn't aftermarket I think its stupid for car companies to make thing uneconomical and should be working to fix that, I know nothing will ever be 100% economical but work towards that goal, GM did it with the new trucks and the Vette (it gets upwards of 20mpg). Economy is where it's at now a days.

So why mention the Vette in a positive light, so what if it get's upwards of 20mpg, economy is where it's at, 20mpg is pretty poor and no-one should be even contemplating putting big V8's in car's, guess they should have kileld the Vette off then.

Is the Veyron a good invention? Not at all. If there is no need for something, why bother wasting resources and time on it?

Theres no need for my house to have a large back garden, do I want it, am I gratefull for it, ofcourse. It's not about need, at the core of it, not many car purchases are, they're about luxury, the television was a great invention, do we need it no, did we need it when it came out no. Have we found different uses for TV technlogy over time, yes, can they benefit us, some can, do we need them?

 

[Tornado]

Once again if no one can obtain it then your efforts were wasted.

However, people can and have been obtaining Veyrons.

I don't really care what they come out with, but I would like to see the auto industry make cars for the average man that decrease my need to pay a boat load of cash to drive it around. Fuel should be the auto industries main concern right now because God knows its not getting any cheaper to run cars.

I hope you realise that anyone that buys these problably owns all the fuel or doesn't care how much it costs, right?

A high horsepowered, gasoline buring car with luxery isn't revolutionary at all. Now a car that is high horsepower, running on hydrogen (or other fuel) and is luxery I can totally respect.

You do realize, however, that there is no fuel more economical than petrol, except diesel, right? The only way it would be more economical is if it was a diesel.
​

 

[Poverty]

Urban Racer is where I found the picture of it, but if you go to the Hot Rod site you'll find the write up on it. Yes it's pointless. More then two turbos on anything is pointless.

But if you wanna read the Hot Rod write up on it...
http://www.hotrod.com/featuredvehicles/113_0411_turbo/index3.html

The veyron has showed us otherwise, 4 turbos are not pointless.

My family is wealthy and we don't have a spare million laying around to spend on some stupid car.

Your not really wealthy then. Your well off. My family could have a ferrari 430 if we wanted to, but we dont. Most families could have cars worth 100+ grand cars but we spend the money on other things.


There are a about 80,000 millionaires in the world and something like 500 billionaires. Plenty of people that could afford the veyron.

Blazing you really need to open your eyes and stop thinking that michigan and america is the world. There is a whole lot more out there with countries whose people are better off than they are in the UK and US.

 

[the Interceptor]

Good for everyone or not, it's still a technical achievement, I don't see what that has to do with it. A self repairing zero fuel consumption engine that costs £100million per engine is a technical achievment, won't benefit anyone, but the fact you created that technology is an achievemnt, and like all technology, the costs of producing it come down over time.

That is my point exactly! 👍

 

[Dave A]

The main factor in this debate is perspective, point of view. Blazin sees a technological achievement as creating something to satisfy a need that is also available to the majority first then capability. I see it as something that has a certain capability first, then the need and availability second.

 

[Poverty]

and will listen to hear his side.

Could this be the problem? Your not listening or dont want to listen and therefore keep coming out with the same old ramblings which we have explained to you a countless number of times now.

A diamon in the dash is a waste of diamond. Gold taps in hotels are waste of gold. I seriously think that the world needs a "no-waste-of-precious-materials" agreement. Gold toilet, what a P.O.S.! A bra made out of whole assortment of precioius gems? Total waste. 16 cylinders? Waste of aluminum. The Veyron should have stayed as a concept like the Sixteen. It shouldnt have been made.

If that is the case GM factories should have been disbanded and disolved a long time ago. And when is it ok to use gold or diamonds?

The original question was: is the Bugatti Veyron an engineering archievement or not? You say no, because:

1. building it was a stupid idea in the first place
2. it's so expensive that virtually noone will be able to afford it
3. getting the same speed and power could have been done much cheaper and easier

1. Why?
2. tens of thousands of people can afford it, not that VAG wanted every tom dick and harry to buy it though, they would loose too much money.
3. VAG boss knew that from the beggining. Thats why he didnt say make me a 1000hp 252mph car.

c. If the Veyron pushes a boundry I expect to see cars with its technology as soon as 2007 model year.

GM doesnt even use technology thats been around for decades, and you expect VAG to magically slap all new technology they have learnt into their cars a year later? VAG will slowly introduce technology instead of sticking it all in at once as its good business sense. BT has the capabilikties to give me 1gb internet but only increases the speed slowly over the years to maximise profits and alow time to develop the next step one so, theyre technological advancement doesnt stall, at which point rival companies would have created their own version of that technology.

GM did it with the new trucks and the Vette (it gets upwards of 20mpg).

Is that meant to be good or impressive?

Economy is where it's at now a days.

True. But in short not with GM.

Is the Veyron a good invention? Not at all. If there is no need for something, why bother wasting resources and time on it?

Lets scrap F1, along with all oher types of racing and take away nasa's funding then shall we.



You know its funny that the guy who was so dead certain that the z06 was developed "alongside" and benifeted so much from the C6R, cant see that the veyron will be very benificial. Just look at mercedes benz, the pioneers of the motor car, they pushed the boundaries all the time and hardly anyone could afford it. Was that a waste on MB half?

 

[Leonidae]

just how stubborn can person be.. okies, following is purely sarcasm..

*ignites rant-o-matic*

I assume that it would be allright if Bugatti would be part of GM, and would have tinfoil body, plastic interior with cheap rolex copy, no power windows or other goodies, and legendary 427 pushrod V8 made of superglue and papermass with two electric hairdryers motors on it and pushing 50 000bhp and 125 000 nm torque, and for fuel it could use pensioners wee.
and let's scrap the continuously adapting suspension and replace it with cast iron leaf springs.
and who needs active aerodynamics? let's put a shelf from wal-mart on the back.
permanent 4wd? bah. rwd without LSD is just as good.
and who needs most advanced 7-speed manumatic when we can use 2 speed automaticfrom mid-50's that is usually applied on dragsters and overly powered Vipers that can be used only on salt lakes.
run flat tyres that can take accelerations and decelerations from 0-250-0 repeatedly? hah. solid rubberwheels on cast iron rims do just fine.

*disengages rant-o-matic*

that felt good.

Bugatti is best car that Europe has ever produced and it probably will remain as such for a long time.. no modded Viper or 'vette will never come near it, because that car is what it is from the factory. and it actually isn't THAT expensive. 1.3 millions? you need to win once in lottery, almost like everyone who has bought a supercar. and it isn't selling? then what happened to those three that were for sale at saudi arabia? stolen? no, they were sold on instant. just like Enzos. they're rare and wanted, and bugatti is even more so, since there's only 300 of them. and if you want expensive, try to find USED Enzo that costs less than new Carrera GT.

 

[Vasco]

Blazin just proved himself wrong with his computer analogy anyway...The computer when first made was a technological achievement! A technological achievement DOES NOT NEED TO BE AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE when made!

 

[GT4_Rule]

Off-topic but out of interest...

What wouldn't class as a waste of diamonds/gold/aluminium to you? What uses of these items do you approve of?

Umm...good question.

A good use of diamond would be:
- surgery knives, they at least save people instead of sitting on dashes.
- high-speed cutting blade, they serve the world instead of sitting on dashes.

A good use of gold would be:
- making sculptures out of it, it serves as a beautiful addition to museums.
- trading on market, it helps the economy.
- using gold for scientific research, such as properties of atoms (If Im correct nucleus' were discovered this way by Rutherford.)

A good use of aluminum would be:
- building a ladder, it helps the community instead of sitting in garage as an unused engine 362 days a year.
- making a frame or chassis out of it for affordable cars.
- making other building materials, etc. or building like a plane, taps, computer cases, etc.

Thats what I consider "good" use of materials. I know there are some that will disagree.

 

[Joey D]

Blazin just proved himself wrong with his computer analogy anyway...The computer when first made was a technological achievement! A technological achievement DOES NOT NEED TO BE AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE when made!

No I didn't, more people then not said the computer was a bad idea, and it could have gone either way. I don't think the Veyron is good, some might, some might not, but frankly I'm bored with this discussion...can we start something new?

And I've never seen such a bunch of close minded people in my entire life, I respect that all of you like the Veryon but you can't respect the fact I do not...sounds a bit strange to me.

 

[Famine]

A good use of diamond would be:
- surgery knives, they at least save people instead of sitting on dashes.
- high-speed cutting blade, they serve the world instead of sitting on dashes.

I've never come across a diamond scalpel before. What use does a high-speed cutting blade give to me in my everyday life?

A good use of gold would be:
- making sculptures out of it, it serves as a beautiful addition to museums.
- trading on market, it helps the economy.
- using gold for scientific research, such as properties of atoms (If Im correct nucleus' were discovered this way by Rutherford.)

How is a sculpture useful? Is a car not a sculpture? How does trading in gold between a few individuals help an economy - besides which, it isn't being used at all? Why do we need gold to research the properties of atoms when, 80 years down the line, we have scanning electron microscopes?

A good use of aluminum would be:
- building a ladder, it helps the community instead of sitting in garage as an unused engine 362 days a year.
- making a frame or chassis out of it for affordable cars.
- making other building materials, etc. or building like a plane, taps, computer cases, etc.

My ladder sits in my garage, unused, 362 days a year. How do cars, planes (aluminium planes?), taps (aluminium taps?) and computer cases help the 1/3 of the population that don't have access to them or use for them?

Why is a gold statue or a 737 any more viable use of materials than a wedding ring or Bugatti Veyron?

 

[Joey D]

I've never come across a diamond scalpel before. What use does a high-speed cutting blade give to me in my everyday life?

I have a few diamond shapining stones for my knives, but lots of my saws have diamond bladed in them so they keep their sharpness longer. But I can't say I've ever heard of a diamond bladed scalpel, but they probably exsist.

 

[YSSMAN]

I still don't see why this thread has lasted for 15 pages...

BX belives what he belives, can no one respect his opinion? He is completely correct when he says the car is utterly wastefull (and no one can dispute that), and he is also right when he says the car doesnt do a whole lot to move the industry forward.

On the opposite side of the token, you other folks are right when you say it was built to prove a point, that VAG is alive and well, and can indeed build the most ultimate car of our time. It was indeed an engineering marvel, using parts allready available, and it has pushed the development of the DSG forward...

I myself both like the car and hate it, but thats just my opinion. Sure I'd love to have one, but I'd never buy one... But thats just my opinion, I suggest we all respect eachothers opinions, and thus discuss this matter respectfully.

 

[Joey D]

Thanks YSSMAN, you are exactly right on everything.

 

[GT4_Rule]

My uncles a doctor (as well as two of my aunt's) and they use diamond plated surgery knifes.

The car isnt a sculpture, its a vehicle. Gold trading between individuals wont help the economy; how about large companies that trade gold (if there is such thing)

Aluminum taps, 747s, and ladders help the whole world not just 1/3 because, there is such thing called foreign aid n stuff, which collects donations and fundraisers and performs projects for poor countries, which includes laying water pipes, carrying aid by helis and military planes, and helping construction by using a ladder.

Btw I dont remember mentioning a wedding ring. Its a bonding between the two, and its something of an emotional value.

747s, ladders, taps, diamond-plated tools, gold statues are all better than the Veyron because, in my opinion, they serve the society better than a million-dollar hypercar sitting in the garage. At least with a gold statue or sculpture, the general public can enjoy it, give that they go to the museum. Veyron, uh, no. Its someone's property and obviously someone from the streets cant go into the garage, sit in it, and enjoy the finely-crafted interior.

 

[Jay]

We replicate diamonds now anyway, so use them for tools and blades while using the natural diamonds for showing off.

Gold would be better used in electronics than some sculpture.

 

[the Interceptor]

BX belives what he belives, can no one respect his opinion? He is completely correct when he says the car is utterly wastefull (and no one can dispute that), and he is also right when he says the car doesnt do a whole lot to move the industry forward.

On the opposite side of the token, you other folks are right when you say it was built to prove a point, that VAG is alive and well, and can indeed build the most ultimate car of our time. It was indeed an engineering marvel, using parts allready available, and it has pushed the development of the DSG forward...

This is a good summary of the facts, but it also contains one vital information. Like I said, I'm perfectly okay with BX having his opinion on things. But I don't understand how he can use it as an argument against engineering brilliance, cause I see no connection there.

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[Poverty]

Blazin is just being childish. His whole argument is based on wheter he likes it or not, he knows perfectly well that most other manufacturers woldnt have had the resources to pull this car off, and that speaks enough for itself.

Also on another site which specifically caters to fans of german cars many hate the car, but still see that it was a extremly difficult achievement and therefore give it kudos.

And I've never seen such a bunch of close minded people in my entire life,

We are close minded? To you if its not in Michigan it doesnt exist.

BX belives what he belives, can no one respect his opinion? He is completely correct when he says the car is utterly wastefull (and no one can dispute that)

I can dispute. The veyron was a project that at the same time was also research. Is research wasteful?

It was indeed an engineering marvel, using parts allready available,

Parts that were available, but techniques to use the parts that wernt.

 

[YSSMAN]

Ok Poverty, you can pick things apart, whatever.

-When I said the car was wasteful, I was refering to the outrageous ammounts of money it costs to buy, and operate the vehicle, and the outrageous ammounts of fuel it consumes just to sit at idle. It's like a top fuel dragster, only not running on alchol. I think the claim was less than 10MPG overall (I can't recall for sure). Funny how that when Europeans do it, it is okay, but if it had a GM or Ford badge on the hood, it would just be another gas-guzzling American car...

As far as research done with the car, I really don't see what the benefits have been so far. Better tire compounds? Better aerodynamics? Or just proving that a modern car company can build a sixteen cylinder engine and apply it to a roadworthy vehicle?

-About the parts: I'm confused as to why the different tecniques matter. You build a monster engine in a computer (using baisic structures from the W8), strap on four small turbochargers (nothing new there), match it up with a highly modified version of the AWD system in the Touraeg, and hire out the development of the 7-speed DSG... So when GM builds the LS7 using baisic parts from an engine that dates back to the 1950s, modifies the AWD system that have had since the '60s, and later modifies the 4L60E to the 6L80E, is it not the same baisic ideas?

I'm not here to completely discredit the Veyron, but I don't want to see you guys acting like children just because BX has a different opinion of the car. Some people like it, some people don't... It is as simple as that.

Me? I don't care. It was cool seeing the concept make it to production, but if I had millions of dollars to go spend on a new car, that would probably be the last $1M+ car I would check out.

 

[Dave A]

-When I said the car was wasteful, I was refering to the outrageous ammounts of money it costs to buy, and operate the vehicle, and the outrageous ammounts of fuel it consumes just to sit at idle.

You can apply that to anything that's not a nessesity in life though, the Veyron is a luxury for thoes that can afford it. How hard is it to understand that. Regarding fuel consumption and article by Jerremy Clarsckson said that it used less fuel than his Ford GT, yes it's bad but it's not on another world.

It's like a top fuel dragster, only not running on alchol. I think the claim was less than 10MPG overall (I can't recall for sure).

The claim was that in normal use it typically betters 12mpg, it was rated at fueleconomy.gov as being able to do 15mpg on a highway, it's combined figure rests between 10-12mpg from most sources.

Funny how that when Europeans do it, it is okay, but if it had a GM or Ford badge on the hood, it would just be another gas-guzzling American car...

Way to generalise, not good for a serious argument, I know people do it but that doesn't mean it's right, a stubborn person might argue that the same could be said from you right now, when it's American it not meant to be efficient people that can afford the car can afford the fuel, it's not a helathy line of debate imo. The fuel economy of the Veyron is better than anything I've seen with over 700bhp, let a lone 1000.

As far as research done with the car, I really don't see what the benefits have been so far.

That's beacuse the car has virtually just come out, theres a reason all the motoring press and bnig companies got excited over this car when it finally worked, theres a reason why it's being praised so much.

Better tire compounds? Better aerodynamics? Or just proving that a modern car company can build a sixteen cylinder engine and apply it to a roadworthy vehicle?

All of the above, the Veyron feature's cutting edge aerodynamics, probably the most high tech road tyre's in the world. Look into the car more and you'll see where the money went.

-About the parts: I'm confused as to why the different tecniques matter.

First of all, not all the parts in the Veyron were around before it, infact most wern't, most of the engine wasn't, only the blocks, the gearbox and clutch were both studied and developed for the car, the chassis is all new, not much in the car was around before the car was in development.

You build a monster engine in a computer (using baisic structures from the W8), strap on four small turbochargers (nothing new there), match it up with a highly modified version of the AWD system in the Touraeg, and hire out the development of the 7-speed DSG.

The four small turbo's arn't a nw concept, but it's a better one than two big one's. The AWD system is very different to that found on the Tourareg, they are based on the same design principal but the Veyron's is much more heavy duty and was puropse built for the Veyron, the gearbox was again purpose built, it has to handle that much power, weigh so little and be reliable.

So when GM builds the LS7 using baisic parts from an engine that dates back to the 1950s, modifies the AWD system that have had since the '60s, and later modifies the 4L60E to the 6L80E, is it not the same baisic ideas?

Yes but on a much lesser scale, theres no boundaries being pushed in any Chevy I know of, there were no technicalities to be sorted because the car was pushing the laws of physics to the extreme.

I'm not here to completely discredit the Veyron, but I don't want to see you guys acting like children just because BX has a different opinion of the car. Some people like it, some people don't... It is as simple as that.

I perfect accept that, but that's no reason to not discuss his reasons for not liking it and ours for liking it, it also never stopped Blazin attempting to show me the light regarding the C6 Z06 after page after page of me telling him I just wasn't as keen on it as other car's, put it this way, I have a lot more respect for the Z06 after that, rather long debate me and Blazin had. Also I don't see how liking a vehicle has anything to do with weather or not it's an achievement, since that's what this thread was all about. I don't like a lot of car's, tbh I'm not totally cookoo about the McLaren F1, but I think it's a great achievemnt. Do I respect Blazin's opinion, ofcourse, does that mean I should never debate it, I don't think so.

Me? I don't care. It was cool seeing the concept make it to production, but if I had millions of dollars to go spend on a new car, that would probably be the last $1M+ car I would check out.

If you don't mind me asking, why?

 

[Joey D]

Blazin is just being childish. His whole argument is based on wheter he likes it or not, he knows perfectly well that most other manufacturers woldnt have had the resources to pull this car off, and that speaks enough for itself.

Once again I grow tried of your personal attacks on me. I'm not being childish, I merely have a different opinion on something then you do, welcome to the real world where hardly anyone agrees on anything.

Way to generalise, not good for a serious argument, I know people do it but that doesn't mean it's right, a stubborn person might argue that the same could be said from you right now, when it's American it not meant to be efficient people that can afford the car can afford the fuel, it's not a helathy line of debate imo. The fuel economy of the Veyron is better than anything I've seen with over 700bhp, let a lone 1000.

Except with my experience, and I'm sure many others on this forum, they get that idea. I've heard several times just because it's American, it's crap.

Yes but on a much lesser scale, theres no boundaries being pushed in any Chevy I know of, there were no technicalities to be sorted because the car was pushing the laws of physics to the extreme.

So hybrid full sized SUV's and trucks that can still tow a ton of weight isn't pushing a boundry? E85 fuel technology isn't pushing a boundry? GM also is working with biodisel quite heavily as well as natural gas and even hydrogen fuel cells. This stuff seems like it would benefit the world more then a car that can do 250 mph. It's no secert that we are going to have to quit using gasoline at some point in the next 20 years, so automotive companies should be trying to capitilze on that right now.

GM pushes boundries in engineering, it's just that they dont' build things that go fast for the most part and they build things more affordable.

I perfect accept that, but that's no reason to not discuss his reasons for not liking it and ours for liking it, also I don't see how liking a vehicle has anything to do with weather or not it's an achievement, since that's what this thread was all about. I don't like a lot of car's, tbh I'm not totally cookoo about the McLaren F1, but I think it's a great achievemnt.

It's fine to discuss it, but calling me "dumb", "an idiot". or "clueless" on the matter is not.

 

[Tornado]

So hybrid full sized SUV's and trucks that can still tow a ton of weight isn't pushing a boundry? E85 fuel technology isn't pushing a boundry? GM also is working with biodisel quite heavily as well as natural gas and even hydrogen fuel cells. This stuff seems like it would benefit the world more then a car that can do 250 mph. It's no secert that we are going to have to quit using gasoline at some point in the next 20 years, so automotive companies should be trying to capitilze on that right now.

Actually, putting development money into any currect alternative fuel other than biodiesel or similar fuels (not including natural gas) is more of a waste of money than the Veyron ever will be, so bringing up the alternative fuel card does nothing. Besides which, using either biodiesel or natural gas isn't pushing any boundary either, since quite a few companies can convert your car to run on it.
​

 

[JCE]

live4speed on post #303 hit the nail right on it's head. He's pretty much right on the money with each of those rebuttles. To me the speed is awsome yes, but the technological advancement in the other aspects of the Veyron is what's important. Tires, transmission (a DSG derivative no less), cooling, aerodnamics, and so on--that's what will come from the Veyron in the future. Admit it people, if all of this tehnology benefits "normal" cars then would the price be too much? VAG isn't out to make money on the Veyron they were out to gain on the technology front--which they've succeeded whether anyone believes it or not. It will take a little while before the technology trickles down to other VAG models but it will happen, and it will be a good thing. So it's obvious some people are closed minded, or refusing to "agree to disagree". The thread is probably going to continue until it's locked. Hell I just said basically the same thing as one of my previous posts...I am seeing a pattern here.

I voted "Not sure" at the start of this thread--can I change my vote to "A masterpiece of engineering" somehow?

 

[Dave A]

Except with my experience, and I'm sure many others on this forum, they get that idea. I've heard several times just because it's American, it's crap.

It goes both way's, I've spent age's in debate's listening to American's saying how all out car's fall apart etc. Sure I don't like it, but it doesn't make me start saying American car's can't turn. Most of the time it depends how many Americans or Europeans there are in the debate, whichever has the most usually is the one giving it out, unfortunately there's no way of stopping fool's using the internet, but you shouldn't let it get to you.

So hybrid full sized SUV's and trucks that can still tow a ton of weight isn't pushing a boundry? E85 fuel technology isn't pushing a boundry?GM also is working with biodisel quite heavily as well as natural gas and even hydrogen fuel cells.

I'd call that an achievemnt, but a different kind of achievemnt, the Veyron is pushing the law's of physics in performance and durability, it's something that everyone thought shouldn't be able to do it, but they found a way.

This stuff seems like it would benefit the world more then a car that can do 250 mph.

And my stance on this is, so what. The Veyron's a luxury, not something to change the economy. Gold taps are a luxury, a big house is a luxury, silk bed sheet's are a luxury. You don't need them and they don't help the world, but it's nice to have them.

It's no secert that we are going to have to quit using gasoline at some point in the next 20 years, so automotive companies should be trying to capitilze on that right now.

Yes, I agree, but not 100% of the time, shouldn't GM have not bothered with the C6 then and just put all that extra money into an alternaive fuel project, you can apply that to every new car actually since we don't need new car's, theres enough car's on the planet to last for a long time, we could just spend every penny on alternative fuel research, it's do the most good in the long run.

GM pushes boundries in engineering, it's just that they dont' build things that go fast for the most part and they build things more affordable.

Which is good, but that's never been under question.

It's fine to discuss it, but calling me "dumb", "an idiot". or "clueless" on the matter is not.

I agree totally.

 

[the Interceptor]

I'm not here to completely discredit the Veyron, but I don't want to see you guys acting like children just because BX has a different opinion of the car. Some people like it, some people don't... It is as simple as that.

True, but not the original question. Sure you can hate the Veyron, but that does not necessarily mean you can't give credit to its developers, which was the original question: do you, or don't you?

Regards
the Interceptor

 

[JCE]

Actually, putting development money into any currect alternative fuel other than biodiesel or similar fuels (not including natural gas) is more of a waste of money than the Veyron ever will be, so bringing up the alternative fuel card does nothing. Besides which, using either biodiesel or natural gas isn't pushing any boundary either, since quite a few companies can convert your car to run on it.
​

Offtopic: I agree with most of this except for the fact that Ethanol is where fuel is going. We've already got a 10% mandated Ethanol injection in our Petrol around here (which isn't enough but is a start) which yes makes the price go up and yes you lose about 1-2mpg--BUT it burns much cleaner an should help the air. I'm not an enviormentalist at all but Ethanol would be a renewable resource that in the end could be cheaper than Petrol. I would prefer to drive a fully Ethanol car if Ethanol filling stations were locally--you get almost the same performance as Petrol but it's cleaner and you won't be making any oil companies any richer. Europe and North America are getting gouged up the ying yang by the oil companies and it's about time we start thinking about REAL alternative means to run cars. Hybrids are still a long ways away for any real difference...and biodiesel can't that all that practical. Natural Gas just like Petrol will run out eventually--switching from one non-renewable resource to another is not helping the big picture.

[/offtopic]

Sorry, I had to get my 2 cents in.

 

[Poverty]

Good post interceptor. I think some people emotions are clouding theyre judgement.

As for the veyron being expenisve in this day and age 700k isnt even all that expenisve. You can just about buy a half decent house with that. There are plenty of studio flats that cost alot more than that. Plus only 300 veyrons are being made so theyre value will rise.

Hybrids dont have a long term future. They are nothing but a short term solution which isnt all that good. Audi has been playing about with hybrids for 20 years now and they havent even got a hybrid on sale because its not all that good. All the big german manufacturers are teaming up with the japanse to make fuel cell cars.

GM pushes boundries in engineering

Evidence? VAG pushed boundries with the veyron and R10 racecar. Mercedes pushed boundries with the maybach exlero and new s-class. BMW with their stunning M5/M6 engine and porsche are pushing boundries 24/7. Ferrari are also pushing boundries all the time aswell.

I also know that the japanese along with the big 3 german companies are spending billions on fuel cell technology.

There are companies that push the boundries and then release superior and advanced products, and those companies that copy the advanced technologyand introduce into their own cars 5/6 years later down the line at a reduced price, and often quality.

 

[Wolfe]

Funny how that when Europeans do it, it is okay, but if it had a GM or Ford badge on the hood, it would just be another gas-guzzling American car...

Huh? What? There's a difference between a hyper-expensive exclusive ultra-GT car, and some sedan or kinda-sporty coupe that two or three of your neighbors own. One is much more common, and makes much more of an impact on the environment.

Last time I checked, no one was ragging on the Ford GT for getting poor gas mileage (And if someone did, they'd be idiots). The Ford GT, as well as the Veyron, are supercars, not something that Joe or Jane America would be likely to drive.

I'm not trying to claim that American cars are or are not gas-guzzlers, here...I just think you're being too defensive.

Except with my experience, and I'm sure many others on this forum, they get that idea. I've heard several times just because it's American, it's crap.

I'm sure I've heard just as many times that just because it's a BMW, it's overrated, overpriced, ugly (these days), and driven by nothing but asshole yuppies. Others will say that just because a car is Japanese, it's weak, slow, very overrated, and good for nothing but getting good gas mileage.

Both you and YSSMAN are being a bit too defensive of american cars, here. Every section of the automotive world has its critics, whether they're justified or not. I know you're both intelligent guys -- instead of whining, either disprove the negative claims or ignore them altogether. It'll do you much more good.