RE: Bugatti Veyron (price) crash

[clubsportguy]

Well Pistonheads has reached and all time low recycling an advert from somewhere else !!! No more Carpools posts please. We need more articles on the latest cars !!

[soad]

The Danimal said:

When Clio V6 Renault Sport just isn't enough.

[k-ink]

Amirhussain said:

Silent1 said:

Malachimon said:

Still don't know why you'd spend over 500k on a car that in my eye is ugly. 100k gets you a well sorted E type that's much prettier

it's good we're all different then isn't it!

Am I the only one who doesn't understand the hype over the looks of the E type. not calling it ugly, but not pretty either.

The E type has very odd proportions. Nowhere near the best looking Jag.

[marcosgt]

k-ink said:

Amirhussain said:

Silent1 said:

Malachimon said:

Still don't know why you'd spend over 500k on a car that in my eye is ugly. 100k gets you a well sorted E type that's much prettier

it's good we're all different then isn't it!

Am I the only one who doesn't understand the hype over the looks of the E type. not calling it ugly, but not pretty either.

The E type has very odd proportions. Nowhere near the best looking Jag.

I think it's hard to imagine the impact of the E-Type when it was launched.

Firstly, it looked futuristic - Look what else was on sale in 1962.

Secondly, look at how much it cost! Don't tell me the 250 GTO was prettier, ya-di-ya - The E-Type was a tiny fraction of the price (In fact, relatively, a fraction of the price of a Modern F-Type, let alone a Laugherrari).

Thirdly - Get your eyes tested! Sure the later V12s are like a latter day Kate Bush, but the original (in both cases) was simply stunning.

M

[11110111]

This this is appropriate here:

http://www.worldcarfans.com/114082780212/bugatti-v...

awaits repost reports..

[k-ink]

The E type is a truly daft bonnet with a reasonable car bolted on the other end.

This is a properly proportioned and vastly better looking Jaguar:

[robinessex]

Back on subject. Could stuff the engine into an Ultima. How fast do you think it'd go then?

[daytona365]

Why not just get a brand new Ferrari ? On the other hand I'd bet a good mechanic could sort it out for Waaay less than 500k. Maybe less than 50k.

Edited by daytona365 on Monday 22 September 14:39

[daytona365]

'Back on subject. Could stuff the engine into an Ultima. How fast do you think it'd go then?'.........Or a Mk1 Escort ?

[torchy6]

Send it to that guy in New zealand who built the 250 GTO, he'd fix it up no problem

[RoverP6B]

robinessex said:

Back on subject. Could stuff the engine into an Ultima. How fast do you think it'd go then?

Considering the engine alone is about the size of an Ultima...

What I don't get is how Bugatti, with an 8-litre quad-turbo W16 with a hundred radiators, made ONLY 1000PS (987bhp)? Or 1200PS in the Supersports? Honestly, you can get that with a decent twin-screw supercharger (or twin turbos) on an LS3, which is about half the size of that W16 in most dimensions... I mean, I'd be expecting more like 1600bhp from the Bug!

[dvs_dave]

1000+ hp LS3's are wonderfully smooth, tractable, reliable and great when tootling around town. They're also great at being able to put out that sort of power for extended periods without problems.

You could have saved Bugatti a packet.

[RoverP6B]

dvs_dave said:

1000+ hp LS3's are wonderfully smooth, tractable, reliable and great when tootling around town. They're also great at being able to put out that sort of power for extended periods without problems.

You could have saved Bugatti a packet.

They're certainly reliable, engines don't come more robust than the LSs. Very durable too. With a reasonable amount of boost on them, they can be pretty civilised as well.

Now, I wasn't suggesting that Bugatti should just have used an LS (would GM have sold them?), just expressing surprise that such an enormous and hideously complex engine as that W16 makes as little power as it does.

[Lowtimer]

GM will sell an LS to anyone. In the tiny volumes required by VW they could have just bought them privately as crate engines via employees. But of course the whole point of the Veyron was to be VW's supreme tech demonstrator so the whole purpose of the exercise would have been void if they hadn't used their own engine.

[RoverP6B]

Lowtimer said:

GM will sell an LS to anyone. In the tiny volumes required by VW they could have just bought them privately as crate engines via employees. But of course the whole point of the Veyron was to be VW's supreme tech demonstrator so the whole purpose of the exercise would have been void if they hadn't used their own engine.

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting they should. I just thought that, having put in that much engine and that much cooling, 1000PS looks rather conservative. Hell, there are Mitsubishi Evos around pushing not far shy of that (albeit, of course, at the expense of durability and refinement!).

[Lowtimer]

Yes, in terms of the number of moving parts required I imagine the Bugatti engine has around 4x or 5x what a 1000 bhp LS would have.

[demus24]

RoverP6B said:

robinessex said:

Back on subject. Could stuff the engine into an Ultima. How fast do you think it'd go then?

Considering the engine alone is about the size of an Ultima...

What I don't get is how Bugatti, with an 8-litre quad-turbo W16 with a hundred radiators, made ONLY 1000PS (987bhp)? Or 1200PS in the Supersports? Honestly, you can get that with a decent twin-screw supercharger (or twin turbos) on an LS3, which is about half the size of that W16 in most dimensions... I mean, I'd be expecting more like 1600bhp from the Bug!

There was a documentary about that on national geographical channel and apparently the veryons engine actually produces 3000bhp but because of the heat, they had to detune it.

[405dogvan]

once again a weirdo wrong-thread reply - sorry!

[dvs_dave]

RoverP6B said:

They're certainly reliable, engines don't come more robust than the LSs. Very durable too. With a reasonable amount of boost on them, they can be pretty civilised as well.

Now, I wasn't suggesting that Bugatti should just have used an LS (would GM have sold them?), just expressing surprise that such an enormous and hideously complex engine as that W16 makes as little power as it does.

You completely miss the point.

They are not anywhere near as reliable, usable, or have acceptable power delivery characteristics when tuned to 1000+ hp.

Getting 1000+ hp out of an engine is easy. Turbo F1 engines back in the 80s were pushing out over 1500hp and were only 1.5L V6's.

The clever and immensely difficult bit is making an engine with a 1000+ hp as usable and reliable day to day as that in a Golf GTI.

Do you not think the best of VW's engineers knew what they're doing vs those of a shadetree LS tuner?

[RoverP6B]

I haven't heard a lot of complaints about the Veyron-beating, LS-powered SSC Ultimate Aero and Hennessey Venom GT, both pushing well north of a thousand (not far shy of 1300 in fact).