New Supercar beats Bugatti

[Jay42]

I don't know why everyone's so obsessed about 0-60 times. Seems to me that rolling 5-60 times would be more useful since you get rid of a few outside factors. Hardly ever see them though.

 

[MacBoobsPro]

I don't know why everyone's so obsessed about 0-60 times. Seems to me that rolling 5-60 times would be more useful since you get rid of a few outside factors. Hardly ever see them though.

ITs so you know who you can smoke off the line if they pull up along side you at the lights and make them look like ****s in front of their mates.

Its great!

I drive an Escort Si thats been dechipped (upgrade) so has the performance of a GTi. Its funny to see peoples faces when you waste them as they expected a much slower car. Im not a **** when it comes to driving, I am very considerate. But when you get some snot nosed kid with his Von Dutch cap perched on his head like his forehead must be 12inches tall and hes driving a 1.2 Vauxhall Corsa and he thinks he can beat me hes got another thinkg coming.

Its so funny!

 

[Lord Blackadder]

There are a lot of performance numbers that are more important than 0-60...braking numbers, for instance, are not discussed nearly as much as they should be, as well as lateral grip.

Power/weight ratios are ultimately more important than specific outputs or simple power/torque figures...

But hearing that the Veyron can hit 62mph in 2.5 seconds is still impressive as hell - especially when you remember that it weighs two tons!

 

[840quadra]

Why that design, and why that engine ?

There comes a point when power of this kind is beyond ridiculous. I am a VWAG man through and through, but I still don't even like their Veyron for the reason of it being so ridiculous in price, how poor it is with fuel economy, and how it is actually costing VWAG $8,000,000 in losses for each Veyron being sold!

Now, give me a Supercar with a V10 or V12 TDI that can get mid to high 20's in MPG, and outrun a Murcielago, then we can talk .

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I go through phases on sportscars that I like; but the ones that usually impress me the most are the silliest ones (like the Bugatti or McLaren) or the most minimalist (Elise, original M3, F40).

The Veyron is less of a car in my mind than a low-rate production technology demonstrator and marketing tool for VW and Audi; of course, it only makes sense that way if it spawns usable technology...but they have to blow their money somewhere since they aren't in Formula One, right?

 

[Redneck1089]

Last time I checked, 500>300. The Tomahawk has a theoretical top speed of nearly 400MPH, even without a fairing or windscreen. I bet its 0-60 is only limited by the traction (or lack thereof). I mean, the Viper has a hard enough time, with wider tires and more weight.

Keyword: theoretical. I'm talking about a 300 HP Suzuki Hayabusa beating the crap out of this car. But hey, why not turbo charge the Busa to 500 HP. The McCoy's did it with their custom built Hayabusa, and unlike the Tomahawk, it's very driveable.

Everyone is so impressed with that stupid Tomahawk's 0-60 times when the fact is the majority of sport bikes can match it. Not taking anything away from this car--it's 0-60 times are hella impressive for a car.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Keyword: theoretical. I'm talking about a 300 HP Suzuki Hayabusa beating the crap out of this car. But hey, why not turbo charge the Busa to 500 HP. The McCoy's did it with their custom built Hayabusa, and unlike the Tomahawk, it's very driveable.

Just like the Fighter T, that custom Suzuki has far more power than it could ever possibly need.

I always thought the Tomahawk was pretty silly myself.

 

[840quadra]

The Veyron is less of a car in my mind than a low-rate production technology demonstrator and marketing tool for VW and Audi; of course, it only makes sense that way if it spawns usable technology...but they have to blow their money somewhere since they aren't in Formula One, right?

Good points indeed.

I guess I can see that as being a good thing. F1 is a great testing ground, but I hold LeMans to a high ground as well, especially when it comes to real world testing for engine components that will see production!

I wish they did make cars like the Nuvolari Quattro (first car with the current Audi taillight design (and actually came before the Honda Acura copycats)), Avantissimo, and an R8 with more of the LeMans Quattro concept technology in it. All of those cars showcased features that are either recently in production, or currently still in development for that automaker.

 

[andypress]

Sadly, people still( especially Honda fans, no offense guys ) brag about HP/litre. While it is impressive that Honda can get 237 HP out of a 2.2 liter N/A I4 in the S2000; we shouldn't decide if it is or isn't a good engine based on HP/Litre.

BMW managed that one back in the mid 80's...2 Litre 4 cyl engine producing 200hp; n/a.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

...not to mention that Lotus got some impressive specific outputs from carburated, naturally aspirated four cylinders in the 60s and 70s.

I'd like to see the Bristol Fighter on Top Gear, but I doubt that Bristol would allow Clarkson & Co. within a mile of one of their cars...maybe James May - he's the kind of person that would buy a Bristol.

 

[Sweetfeld28]

If I ever become a multi-millionaire, as the Italians would say, con brio ....a Ferrari, is a Ferrari, is a Ferrari.

Ditto.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

Ferraris are very, very nice drives generally (mostly anyways), but a bit vulgar. They stink a bit too much of Magnum PI and the Sultan of Brunei. As for looks, the 456 was far superior to the 612 IMHO.

I'd take a Ford GT over a 430.

I love the 599 actually, but for the money I could get a DB9 and a Z06 'Vette...

..and the 612...well, if I needed four seats I'd rather go all the way and get a real four-door like the Bentley Continental, or maybe a Quattroporte for transport with $100k+ left over for something (V8 Vantage, 911 Turbo etc.) when I want to look sporty.

The Enzo...assuming I could buy one, I'd take a hard look at a Zonda or CCX first. But that would be a tough choice.

...But I have weird taste. For instance, I think the Lamborghini Espada was a really cool car.

 

[pseudobrit]

The trick, says Bristol, is all in the drag. A rear wake diffuser gives the Fighter T a drag coefficient of just 0.27 compared to the Bugatti Veyron's 0.39. Which means that the Fighter T is as slippery as a greased eel, and doesn't need much in the way of downforce-inducing gubbins.

All of which is enough to propel the Fighter T from 0-60 in less than 3.5 seconds, and on to an electronically limited maximum speed of 225mph. Bristol says that if it removed the limiter, the Fighter would still be accelerating past 270.

Of course, without those "downforce-inducing gubbins" anything over 225 would take the car airborne if it hit a ripple in the pavement. Come to think of it, I'd not be surprised if it gets a little floaty at 200. There's a reason the Veyron produces massive drag: it needs downforce. It changes its shape and aerodynamic profile depending on the speed at which it's travelling, producing something like its own gravitational field to hold itself down even while it tries to spin off the planet at 252+ mph.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I was thinking the same thing when I read that - just because a car can hit a insane speed doesn't mean it's controllable at that speed.

I'll bet the Veyron is more composed at 250 than the McLaren F1 is a 240, and the Fighter is probably scarier still - unless you're on the Bonneville salt flats forget it.