RE: SSC To Hit Back At Bugatti's 268mph Veyron

[Twincam16]

dwilkie said:

Twincam16 said:

And yet have you ever so much as read a road test of one?

No, didn't think so.

Like this one? http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/FirstDrives/SS...

Hmmm. With the exception of the brakes that's exactly what I expect a supercar to be. Many others (in particular the Zonda) seem over-engineered. It seems we've only been talking about panel gaps since Audi started blathering on about them a few years ago, and as for luxury, it's a supercar, so I don't expect luxury.

OK, so the brakes need work (sounds like they were working on a different system anyway), but other than that, the SSC seems more ballsy than the Veyron, the choice of someone who wants a supercar they can fear as much as enjoy - and that, to me, is part of the supercar appeal. Once you get to a stage when just anyone could drive one (and just anyone does, and smashes it into a lamp-post making the national news, Mr. Naseem Hamed.), they aren't quite as 'super' any more, somehow.

Yes, the Veyron is an impressive piece of engineering, but the thought of wreaking havoc behind the wheel in one doesn't thrill me in the way that the thought of this does.

[CraigyMc]

Twincam16 said:

It always makes me laugh whenever SSC turns up on this site.

So much bile, so much cobblers, so much hate and rage.

And yet have you ever so much as read a road test of one?

No, didn't think so.

I have. Here are some random thoughts for you to rip apart:

We can sort out your last point fairly quickly. Clicky... or Clicky...

Oddly, I can't see a review of it on car and driver, the US's defacto standard magazine. Plenty of stuff on the Veyron, mind.

I suppose, oddly, the Ultimate Aero does come under some criticism. Most of the posters on here are UK based; as a country we typically tend to favour the underdog. WIth that in mind, I suppose the Aero should get plaudits rather than hate, but there are things about the Aero that are somewhat annoying.

1. People compare the SSC with the Veyron because of the top speed aspect. It's not really fair: the Veyron is a GT, the SSC isn't. I wonder what the Aero's performance would be like if it had equivalent kit to the Bug.
2. The level of pain/money VAG went through to engineer the bug is astonishing - bespoke engine, bespoke transmission, bespoke tyres. Bespoke everything, pretty much. The pain was in getting things right, while not compromising on the car's main mission of being a rich person's comfy GT. Comparing this with the Shelby model of producing an aero shell, chucking a nelson engine in and to hell with everything else, is not the same game.
3. How do you suppose the two cars would compare if used daily? VAG put the bug through the same durability testing as everything else - it's a VAG product. How about the SSC?
4. I'm not 12, so I don't see top speed as being everything.

In order to change this, I recon the SSC folk should put the car on the Nurburgring and post a time, in order to ascertain if it's a one trick pony or not. Handling isn't the same as grip, and a skidpan/slalom number isn't the same as "sorted".

I'm interested in many of the opinions on PH, because at least a few PHers have cars in this class (well - which purport to be anyway, arguments aside). There are a few McLaren-F1 owning folk on here, for example.
Mr Bridger, Flemke et al - would you buy this car?

By the way, something that's always bothered me is that Jarod Shelby has bugger all to do with Carroll Shelby. It's an unfortunate coincidence that these guys share a surname, and just like Equity would have forced them to if they were actors, I'd rather he used a different brand for his business.

C

[scubadude]

Frimley111R said:

I wonder if they could the first to 300mph? That's seal a place in the history books.

Seeing as the Veyron already does 270mph near as, the best hope for 300mph is a last of the line, super addition of the Veyron, can't be beyond VW's budget to put the record out of privateer hands reach with 10 superchargers, Nitros, rockets and warp drive :-)

I dislike much of this willy waving but no one is close to the Veyron it terms of being an actually usable car, I'd wager my Mum could drive a Veyron to Tesco's, doubt the same can be said for the pretenders.

[Dagnut]

dwilkie said:

Twincam16 said:

And yet have you ever so much as read a road test of one?

No, didn't think so.

Like this one? http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/FirstDrives/SS...

Jay leno reviewed one for his web based car show

[Twincam16]

Dagnut said:

dwilkie said:

Twincam16 said:

And yet have you ever so much as read a road test of one?

No, didn't think so.

Like this one? http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/FirstDrives/SS...

Jay leno reviewed one for his web based car show

And seemed to like it. Yes, I've seen that. Didn't know Autocar had tested one.

[hairykrishna]

CraigyMc said:

I suppose, oddly, the Ultimate Aero does come under some criticism. Most of the posters on here are UK based; as a country we typically tend to favour the underdog. WIth that in mind, I suppose the Aero should get plaudits rather than hate, but there are things about the Aero that are somewhat annoying.

1. People compare the SSC with the Veyron because of the top speed aspect. It's not really fair: the Veyron is a GT, the SSC isn't. I wonder what the Aero's performance would be like if it had equivalent kit to the Bug.
2. The level of pain/money VAG went through to engineer the bug is astonishing - bespoke engine, bespoke transmission, bespoke tyres. Bespoke everything, pretty much. The pain was in getting things right, while not compromising on the car's main mission of being a rich person's comfy GT. Comparing this with the Shelby model of producing an aero shell, chucking a nelson engine in and to hell with everything else, is not the same game.
3. How do you suppose the two cars would compare if used daily? VAG put the bug through the same durability testing as everything else - it's a VAG product. How about the SSC?
4. I'm not 12, so I don't see top speed as being everything.

In order to change this, I recon the SSC folk should put the car on the Nurburgring and post a time, in order to ascertain if it's a one trick pony or not. Handling isn't the same as grip, and a skidpan/slalom number isn't the same as "sorted".

I'm not arguing that the SSC is as sorted as a Veyron but I'd take issue with a few points. The Veyron has a small fuel tank and no luggage space, actually zero. This makes it a rubbish GT car. It also needs a £20k+ service every few thousand miles. The fact that the SSC beat the speed record, even though it's fairly low tech, illustrates that a lot of the 'it's impossibly hard to go this fast' 'look at all the bespoke engineering we had to do to get there' stuff is marketing fluff.

[Twincam16]

hairykrishna said:

CraigyMc said:

I suppose, oddly, the Ultimate Aero does come under some criticism. Most of the posters on here are UK based; as a country we typically tend to favour the underdog. WIth that in mind, I suppose the Aero should get plaudits rather than hate, but there are things about the Aero that are somewhat annoying.

1. People compare the SSC with the Veyron because of the top speed aspect. It's not really fair: the Veyron is a GT, the SSC isn't. I wonder what the Aero's performance would be like if it had equivalent kit to the Bug.
2. The level of pain/money VAG went through to engineer the bug is astonishing - bespoke engine, bespoke transmission, bespoke tyres. Bespoke everything, pretty much. The pain was in getting things right, while not compromising on the car's main mission of being a rich person's comfy GT. Comparing this with the Shelby model of producing an aero shell, chucking a nelson engine in and to hell with everything else, is not the same game.
3. How do you suppose the two cars would compare if used daily? VAG put the bug through the same durability testing as everything else - it's a VAG product. How about the SSC?
4. I'm not 12, so I don't see top speed as being everything.

In order to change this, I recon the SSC folk should put the car on the Nurburgring and post a time, in order to ascertain if it's a one trick pony or not. Handling isn't the same as grip, and a skidpan/slalom number isn't the same as "sorted".

I'm not arguing that the SSC is as sorted as a Veyron but I'd take issue with a few points. The Veyron has a small fuel tank and no luggage space, actually zero. This makes it a rubbish GT car. It also needs a £20k+ service every few thousand miles. The fact that the SSC beat the speed record, even though it's fairly low tech, illustrates that a lot of the 'it's impossibly hard to go this fast' 'look at all the bespoke engineering we had to do to get there' stuff is marketing fluff.

I don't think it's 'marketing fluff' on Bugatti's part, but I do think that there's something strangely 'tame' about some supercars these days. I was at bedroom-wall-poster age when the de facto fastest car in the world was the Ferrari F40, and every last bit of it was lightened, aerodynamically-honed, and straight from the track. Anything that didn't contribute to it going fast was removed and suddenly it made the decade's other supercars (Testarossa, Countach etc) with their heavily-padded leather interiors and electric windows suddenly look like soft options for people whose heart wasn't really in it.

When I look at all the chrome, leather and electronic safety aids in the Veyron, the thought strikes me that, despite being apparently designed to be the fastest car in the world, it wasn't approached with the same singularity of purpose that the F40 was.

It left me thinking what it would've been like had it been engineered like the F40. The SSC provides the answer. That's why I like it.

[rudecherub]

I'm sure that the most impressive thing about the Veyron is not it's headline speed, but it's usability.

But, the emperor also has no clothes. Let me elucidate. It's all very well to be usable in as much as any half competent driver can get into it and go very fast, but I feel that is half the story.

The other half is the running costs. I know this is a bit like the old RRoyce adage about if you worry about that you can't afford it, but just reading the eye watering costs associated with the car, servicing, replacing the tyres and wheels etc, I start to wonder.

It is said an owner chooses to fly to his car by private jet, the car is transported to where he wants to drive it, because this arrangement is cheaper than just driving the bug to say the South of France.



[link]http://www.autocar.co.uk/blogs/stillatthewheel/archive/2010/01/14/the-price-of-veyron-ownsership.aspx[/link]

So back to economics 101 I'm asking myself if it costs up to $300k [link]http://fourpastfour.com/2010/02/26/what-costs-more-private-jet-or-bugatti-veyron-grand-sport/[/link] to run a Veyron, what else could I imagine doing with that money. How many other interesting drives could I get in my fantasy garage?.

I could be quoting the late late L.J.K. Setright who I remember listed the cars he could buy instead of Mclaren F1 as I recall there were 2 NSX in his picks. But IMO the F1 was and is still a different proposition to the Bug

But for me the Bug takes this question to another level, okay so it's the mostious car in the world, but six figure purchase price new, tumbling to real world auction price of under 500K is very sobering.

I'm not saying that there aren't people rich enough to take this kind of hit, I recall the guy who runs a private 747 who got into a spat with a London Casino where he'd gambled £40.8 Million, losing £10.5million in the process.

Time will tell as to whether the Bug can be run on a budget in the same way the simple Mclaren F1 can - I know from Pistonheads forums an owner is bravely going to try.

I don't think the question Bug vs SSC works here as well as it does in America, the nature of our narrow roads and crowded Island poses different questions for me at least.

In America, with the wide open roads I think Jay Leno is right in his review linked up thread, but in Blighty I'm sure Autocar is right.

I admire the engineering in a bug, but I also admire the engineering that went into Donald Campbell's Blue Bird, but I wouldn't choose it to drive around the countryside in.

[Dagnut]

hairykrishna said:

CraigyMc said:

I suppose, oddly, the Ultimate Aero does come under some criticism. Most of the posters on here are UK based; as a country we typically tend to favour the underdog. WIth that in mind, I suppose the Aero should get plaudits rather than hate, but there are things about the Aero that are somewhat annoying.

1. People compare the SSC with the Veyron because of the top speed aspect. It's not really fair: the Veyron is a GT, the SSC isn't. I wonder what the Aero's performance would be like if it had equivalent kit to the Bug.
2. The level of pain/money VAG went through to engineer the bug is astonishing - bespoke engine, bespoke transmission, bespoke tyres. Bespoke everything, pretty much. The pain was in getting things right, while not compromising on the car's main mission of being a rich person's comfy GT. Comparing this with the Shelby model of producing an aero shell, chucking a nelson engine in and to hell with everything else, is not the same game.
3. How do you suppose the two cars would compare if used daily? VAG put the bug through the same durability testing as everything else - it's a VAG product. How about the SSC?
4. I'm not 12, so I don't see top speed as being everything.

In order to change this, I recon the SSC folk should put the car on the Nurburgring and post a time, in order to ascertain if it's a one trick pony or not. Handling isn't the same as grip, and a skidpan/slalom number isn't the same as "sorted".

I'm not arguing that the SSC is as sorted as a Veyron but I'd take issue with a few points. The Veyron has a small fuel tank and no luggage space, actually zero. This makes it a rubbish GT car. It also needs a £20k+ service every few thousand miles. The fact that the SSC beat the speed record, even though it's fairly low tech, illustrates that a lot of the 'it's impossibly hard to go this fast' 'look at all the bespoke engineering we had to do to get there' stuff is marketing fluff.

After seeing a TT Gallardo do 245mph in 1 mile I agree with this...no special aerodynamic mods or wind tunnel testing.

[hairykrishna]

Twincam16 said:

It left me thinking what it would've been like had it been engineered like the F40. The SSC provides the answer. That's why I like it.

I think you've put your finger on why I find the Veyron disappointing. Shelby made a faster car with a small budget. How fast would the bug have been if they'd thrown 400 odd million at making a fast car rather than one that's user friendly?

[rudecherub]

hairykrishna said:

Twincam16 said:

It left me thinking what it would've been like had it been engineered like the F40. The SSC provides the answer. That's why I like it.

I think you've put your finger on why I find the Veyron disappointing. Shelby made a faster car with a small budget. How fast would the bug have been if they'd thrown 400 odd million at making a fast car rather than one that's user friendly?

• This mornings mad thought* Just take a Jag xj220 and give that a 1000hp plus transplant - there are still some delivery mileage examples - and see what happens.

[CraigyMc]

rudecherub said:

hairykrishna said:

Twincam16 said:

It left me thinking what it would've been like had it been engineered like the F40. The SSC provides the answer. That's why I like it.

I think you've put your finger on why I find the Veyron disappointing. Shelby made a faster car with a small budget. How fast would the bug have been if they'd thrown 400 odd million at making a fast car rather than one that's user friendly?

• This mornings mad thought* Just take a Jag xj220 and give that a 1000hp plus transplant - there are still some delivery mileage examples - and see what happens.

Or shove a Nelson engine into the back of an Ultima. Same sort of idea.

If you just want to go 300mph, why not use a dragster?

[Twincam16]

CraigyMc said:

rudecherub said:

hairykrishna said:

Twincam16 said:

It left me thinking what it would've been like had it been engineered like the F40. The SSC provides the answer. That's why I like it.

I think you've put your finger on why I find the Veyron disappointing. Shelby made a faster car with a small budget. How fast would the bug have been if they'd thrown 400 odd million at making a fast car rather than one that's user friendly?

• This mornings mad thought* Just take a Jag xj220 and give that a 1000hp plus transplant - there are still some delivery mileage examples - and see what happens.

Or shove a Nelson engine into the back of an Ultima. Same sort of idea.

If you just want to go 300mph, why not use a dragster?

I think that's part of the SSC's appeal. You can't drive the average proper dragster (ie, something with a parachute) on the road, so SSC took this American tradition and turned it into a supercar.

I see the SSC as a very American take on the hypercar and can fully accept it as that.

[hairykrishna]

Everyone seems to think that the SSC is a straight line special. I don't see why. It doesn't seem to be built like a dragster - I don't see any reason why it won't handle well.

[Twincam16]

hairykrishna said:

Everyone seems to think that the SSC is a straight line special. I don't see why. It doesn't seem to be built like a dragster - I don't see any reason why it won't handle well.

I think it's because a generation of drivers have been brought up being nannied by safety aids, expecting to be able to ham-fistedly hurl any car round impossible bends as though it has Hot Wheels levels of grip. Put them in anything that has to be driven with care and precision like, well, any supercar built before around 2000, and it'll be described as a fearsome, deadly monster, even though contemporary press reports will probably say it's fine, but you just need to watch your right foot in the wet like any sensible driver would.

[rudecherub]

CraigyMc said:

rudecherub said:

hairykrishna said:

Twincam16 said:

It left me thinking what it would've been like had it been engineered like the F40. The SSC provides the answer. That's why I like it.

I think you've put your finger on why I find the Veyron disappointing. Shelby made a faster car with a small budget. How fast would the bug have been if they'd thrown 400 odd million at making a fast car rather than one that's user friendly?

• This mornings mad thought* Just take a Jag xj220 and give that a 1000hp plus transplant - there are still some delivery mileage examples - and see what happens.

Or shove a Nelson engine into the back of an Ultima. Same sort of idea.

If you just want to go 300mph, why not use a dragster?

True - same sort of idea, but if the aim was budget bugatti headline numbers then the XJ 220 is a better place to start, as it was pretty comfortable and well developed to 200 mph speeds.

I think the 'problem' if any with the SCC's credibility is the look and finish. The Jag hasn't that problem.

There is already the Maximus g-force which is an Ultima. What I don't know is how stable that would be at the max?

Drag racing gives some great power numbers, but I was thinking more along the lines of a car with Supercar cache and as admirable as the Drag scene is I was thinking of something with - to borrow from Clarkson, more knicker elastic snapping appeal,

[off_again]

Twincam16 said:

And yet have you ever so much as read a road test of one?

No, didn't think so.

Autocar review said:

You could argue that around £335k is a ludicrous sum of money for a left-hand-drive car with no heritage, dated appearance, build quality on a par with a 1980s TVR and all the luxury of a small Malaysian hatchback.

Mmmmm, worth every penny then? Maybe Autocar has an axe to grind? Maybe, but it doesnt make for comfortable reading for the SSC and is aiming at a market that has got to be limited to around 5 people worldwide. At least the Bug (and other mega-Merc's etc) have a market that is proven and useful.

Dont see the point, nor do I expect it to actually sell in any reasonable number. Exactly how many cars has the SSC sold? I really don't know. Anyone?

[Rawwr]

SSC Ultimate Aero? Hmm. Maybe they could work on a package to give it a name that sounded less like a seven-year old thought of it?

</subjective>

[CraigyMc]

hairykrishna said:

I'm not arguing that the SSC is as sorted as a Veyron but I'd take issue with a few points.

1. The Veyron has a small fuel tank
2. no luggage space, actually zero.

This makes it a rubbish GT car.

1. It also needs a £20k+ service every few thousand miles.

The fact that the SSC beat the speed record, even though it's fairly low tech, illustrates that a lot of the 'it's impossibly hard to go this fast' 'look at all the bespoke engineering we had to do to get there' stuff is marketing fluff.

The Veyron has a 100L fuel tank. How big would you need it to be? The touring range is of course dependant on how it is driven, but you're talking about 200+ miles if sticking anywhere near the speed limit in every condition except derestricted roads.

I take your point about the lack of luggage capacity - but really, the way this car is going to be driven, it doesn't really need any. The sort of people who have the moolah to drop on a Veyron very likely own more than one pair of socks, and can arrange for some at each end of the journey if required. I suppose I was wrong to call it a GT, but I think you'd basically use it the same sort of way.

According to Autocar, the servicing cost for a veyron is about £13K, not £20K+. I'd argue that the servicing cost just makes it an expensive car, not a crap GT. Given the bespoke nature of the engineering, I'm not surprised - it's not that dissimilar to a McLaren F1.

As for the marketing fluff - I don't think that Bugatti ever stated they couldn't build a car with a twin-turbo V8 and a manual gearbox. They didn't, because that wouldn't lead to the halo model to top all halo models, which I think is much more the point of the Veyron than the top speed.

This also does 300mph but somehow isn't as interesting -

[Twincam16]

off_again said:

Twincam16 said:

And yet have you ever so much as read a road test of one?

No, didn't think so.

Autocar review said:

You could argue that around £335k is a ludicrous sum of money for a left-hand-drive car with no heritage, dated appearance, build quality on a par with a 1980s TVR and all the luxury of a small Malaysian hatchback.

Mmmmm, worth every penny then? Maybe Autocar has an axe to grind? Maybe, but it doesnt make for comfortable reading for the SSC and is aiming at a market that has got to be limited to around 5 people worldwide. At least the Bug (and other mega-Merc's etc) have a market that is proven and useful.

Dont see the point, nor do I expect it to actually sell in any reasonable number. Exactly how many cars has the SSC sold? I really don't know. Anyone?

You see, I don't get all agitated about sales figures like some people on this site. I don't care how many they sell, I'm just glad it exists.

It's like Bristol. I have never, ever understood quite why people actually get angry because they exist. They're a particular kind of car that no-one else makes and they build precisely as many as they are going to sell at a price their owners are willing to pay for them. As a result they've never gone bust, stumbled from half-arsed owner to half-arsed owner, built a model that went completely against their ethos, tarnished their image with a cheap volume-seller or descended into badge-engineering. Fair play to them and don't change a thing!