Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Current Events' started by edesignuk, Aug 3, 2007.
1000BHP is for wimps. 1200BHP is where all the cool people are at, naturally.
I think SJ deserves one.
It won't push the top speed up more than a couple MPH, if even that. But it will be good for bragging rights I suppose.
At least now we know the kind of people who can still afford a Starbucks.
That is a very nice car
does anyone know who makes the tires? 250 mph rated tires with tread is an engineering marvel. Are they F1 tires?
I seem to remember them being Michelin, but I´m not sure.
I'd still prefer this:
The only modern Ferrari I like
Yeah, I don't think it's going any faster. The amount of power needed to increase top speed is exponential, i.e. it might take another 250 HP to go from 252 MPH to 260 MPH. Not to mention the aerodynamic and fuel consumption limitations. IIRC, even at 1000 HP, the Veyron would run out of fuel in about 10 minutes at full throttle.
I love the Veyron, the speed adjusting wing is so cool
I read somewhere that they aren't going to profit from this car, it's just to get their name back on the map
i think i need to watch the veyron episode of top gear again
Hah, nothing better than seeing Captain Slow drive a car that goes 250 MPH... Nice to know some of us here watch that show, too.
such junk.....the mclaren only has 650hp and it still does 240+.......this thing needs over 1200hp to do the same?
Yeah, I like the Top Gear episode where they say that at top speed, the tires will need to be replaced after 15 minutes; but that's okay, because it will run out of gas in 10.
So, a car that runs out of gas in 10 minutes (at 250 mph, that's about 40 miles per 26 gallon tank)... Compare to one that can be driven non-stop for 47 hours (1200 miles on one 12 gallon tank of gas.)
Clarkson said it costs about £5 million to produce and they sell it for £800,000, but if it came out of clarksons mouth it is not guaranteed to be true.
I'm only seeing 210 mph for the SLR which is quite a difference.
Should be the McClaren F1, the three seater where the driver sits in the middle of the car. sweet ride.
It has been a while, but i am pretty sure there were multiple reports on how the Bugatti was sold at a loss after the cost of the vehicle far exceeded the original expectations.
Both nice cars, it would be nice to have the money to own one... don't know if i would really want to own one... worry too much about damage etc. The door handles or something on the Bugatti are a few thousand £ alone.
Top Gear (YT) made me love that car. wicked.
I think he meant the McLaren F1 which was the fastest production car till the CCR & Veyron.
I guess they would be pretty expensive tyres though, do you think they do remoulds ?
such junk? first of all, it doesn't *need* 1200bhp, it was an exercise to prove it was possible to crank 1000bhp out of an engine not a huge amount bigger than a standard 8 litre V8. Secondly, it's a no expense spared, beautiful machine. The milled stalks on the steering column cost over $4000 each. The whole thing about it is luxury, which is more than can be said for the McLaren F1.
I'm still at a loss to understand why you think a car made specifically to prove points like the possibility of pushing 1000bhp out of an engine, running it to 400km/h and building the fastest car ever, is "such junk". Or did you think that when the F1 came out, and think it was junk because there was a previous car that could do 230mph?
if you can afford that car, then you can afford the tyres
Regarding the cost. I seem to recall Clarkson stating that each one cost ~£4m to produce (with R&D costs, materials, expertise and labour all taken in to account I assume), but sell for ~£850k.
So you see, they're actually a bargain
Actually, the Veyron needs just 1001hp to do it. And there are few things to note: As Clarkson himself said it, when you push Ferraris, McLarens and the like to their limit, they feel like they are about to disintegrate on the spot. The Veyron on the other hand feels like a BMW on a freeway: smooth and controlled. And whereas the McLaren is a hard-core sportcar, the Veyron is a luxury-car that just happens to have top-speed of 400+km/h. It's a luxury-car that completely spanks just about every sportscar out there. But that luxury comes at a price: The Veyron weights over 700kg more than the McLaren F1 does. And while the F1 needs 3.2 seconds to do 0-100km/h, the Veyron needs just 2.5 seconds.
I honestly can't think why anyone could call the Veyron a "junk". VW basically told Bugatti to build the best car possible, no expenses spared. And they did it. Calling it "junk" is ignorant in the extreme. Everyone who has criticized the car and then driven it have backtracked on their previous negative comments. Clarkson hated the Veyron. The he drove it, and declared it to be the greatest car ever made. Gordon Murray, the head-designer of McLaren F1 hated the Veyron, until he drove it. Then he said that "It's a huge achievement.". And this is the head-designer of Veyrons #1 competitor speaking!
Fact is that the Veyron is the greatest achievement in automotive engineering.
Not a huge amount bigger... it's got double the amount of cylinders for a start.
But it had already been proven... Koenig squeezed 1000bhp from Ferrari's 5 litre flat 12 from the Testarossa back in the '80's.
Throw enough turbos at something...
1001 HP out of 8 liters, 16 cylinders and 4 turbos, 60 liters of cooling water ? whopee doo
the Lancia S4 got 550 HP out of 1.8 liters, 4 cylinders, 1 turbo and 1 supercharger and needed 2.5 seconds for 0-100 km/h ... on gravel.. in 1985... by _italian_ engineers
The Veyron won't need as much engine work afterwards though.