Home | Wiki | Live Chat | Dev Stream | YouTube | Archived Forums | Contact

Weird, Bad and Ugly Cars


#508

PWAAAAA HAAAA HAAA HA HA HA HA! Reliable BMW Diesel XD


#509

Sorry for the delay. Kind of doubt that I should even continue, as this argument has gone long enough… but I’ll make it quick.

If the Veyron is so amazing and has excellent high-speed handling, and is the most stable production car in the world at high speed… don’t you think it would set better lap times? Don’t you think that if was indeed so aerodynamically perfect that it could corner at speeds significantly higher than other cars, it would perform better?
Don’t you think that the most expensive, powerful, and supposedly well engineered car in the world should be able to do well in any area but top speed, braking, and prestige? It’s a gloried rocket-sled, and I’ll never see it as anything else.

No, it really doesn’t interest me; because of the WHY?! factor. I don’t see that W16 as anything but a statement that VW has the funds to blow on an eccentric project. I see nothing impressive in that engine but the fact that it somehow got past their economics department. According to what I’ve read… a simple oil change costs upwards of $20,000usd.
So much bullshit in a design… and all for what? It produces just 125hp/L. I could understand such specialized measures and complexities for an F1 engine that produces well over 333hp/L N/A… but not this thing. I’m sure it’s a tame and smooth running powerplant; no doubts there… but it is still so painfully unnecessary to my eyes that I can’t help but cringe at it.


Weird, Bad, and Ugly = This


#510

In this case no, because it’s a bus weighed down by a heap of stuff extraneous to track performance.

It’s also worth noting that the Veyron was an overdone benchmark of engineering released in 2005, a time when frankly not much on the “this is fucking bonkers” was happening since the 90s and it did present a number of firsts: 1000bhp in a production car, Top speed of 400km/h+ stock etc. Those numbers by themselves may not impress much by themselves but for the fact that they were technically firsts in the production car World that was getting slightly cold feet after the Carrera GT. Not that the date matters that much given what it is (I.e. hardly comparable to any of its contemporaries), but just keeping that in mind when comparing it to cars from 2012 etc.

I personally feel that the Veyron is overblown for the money that goes into it and found myself generally underwhelmed, because I have little interest in Prestige or comfort. But I guess the market is what it is and people were willing to work out and salivate over it.


#511

Well, the Veyron was a technical exercise. a car that existed because it could.

i dislike it because it seems so sterile. like it looks flashy and all, but there is little wow factor in it’s looks.

also it has a W engine, thats not a W engine.

and it’s the car that everyone seems to want, despite knowing bugger all about it.


#512

Let’s put it this way, if I could afford one and I actually wanted to buy a supercar then with some real wow factor, I probably would have gone with a Zonda.


#513

Koenigsegg CCXR with 1018PS twin supercharged ford mod v8 and 400km/h over here or a… Noble


#514

You wanted me to stop reading right after this, didn’t you? Well mission failed, although it is an extraordinarily stupid statement. You seem to have never driven a car at high speeds and on a track and do not know that being concentrated on one thing takes away from the other.

You tend to think that the 0.36 Cd (poor figure by the way) comes from the amount of wings and spoilers to provide downforce, not from vents to provide cooling. Also if you think a Cd of 0.36 is “aerodynamic perfection” then you’re sadly mistaken. Cd has nothing to do with aerodynamic perfection, as with everything in a car’s setup perfection is in ballance.

It’s neither of the three things you listed. Also the SS laps Dunsfold faster than Ascari A10, Gumpert Apollo, Koenigsegg CCX and … you can use google to find out what it’s faster than if you’re really interested. Ones mentioned are pretty much track cars, apart from Koenigsegg which is still undecided if it wants to be something in particular.

Sigh… and here I was, just a few posts ago, stating that somebody might actually think “I wonder what is he on about, I should GOOGLE”, and here you are proving me completely wrong.

FINE, I shall explain to you how a Veyron was created. (I thought EVERYBODY in the car community was following the car ever since it was a concept, but it turns out everybody just thought “we should not pay attention”. All this was in magazines, how the hell did you miss it).

In any case

In the year 1998 VAG bought rights to Bugatti, Bentley and a few others. To revive the interest to the brands they created a number of concepts. For Bentley and Bugatti they used a similar chassis and produced Chiron, Veyron and
Hunaudieres (That one is a Bentley). At the car show (I do not recall which exactly) as Veyron was demonstrated for the first time a lot of buzz surrounded the return of Bugatti, so naturally Mr. Piech in his usual fashion started making promises (Diesel Estoque is his promise aswell, thankfully that never happened). So when the press asked for details, he made the widest claims he could at that moment. 2.5 seconds 0-100 (Quickest car in the world), 400 kph (Fastest car in the world), 1000hp (Most powerful car in the world) and he pointed at the concept and said - THIS IS IT. Now note, the car was a rolling chassis with no engine in it, more so the engineering department had nothing to do with it, it was a designers’ baby.

It was only AFTER that, that Ferdinand Piech told the engineering department what he had promised. So here you are, imagine if you will, an engineer who is given a shell of a car and the things it must do once you’re done with it, most of them to be “first ever to do so”, and what you have is a car shaped a tad better than a brick. More so, the car must not only be able to do it more than once, it must do it day in and day out, stay on warranty for FOUR YEARS. Go ahead, tell me that it’s a “piece of cake”. Then tell me that you’d slot in anothe engine into it, considering it barely has room for 4 cylinders in a row in the back of it, so you’re stuck with an audi 4 liter v8 or a w12 which would not exist for 2 more years (In it’s concept form) after you’ve started. And then figure out the fact that no matter how you look at it you need a LOT of displacement for the engine to be reliable at that power output for such a long time.

The only real reason for

Is because you have no idea what you are talking about.


#515

Both require racing talent to be driven.


#516

can not agree more, CAMS/ANDRA licensed here lol…I would still take a Noble but since they are coming down in prices and lets be honest anything above 300km/h is a death wish…I cant wait to move to Europe next year dude


#517

This explains an awful lot. I started following that car sometime down the line in its development, (2003) so didn’t know exactly what the deal was, but do remember looking at an article and thinking “they want that to do 400?” :joy:


#518

Okay now I’m just done with this thread. You’re twisting what I’m saying to go against whatever your logic may be.

Did I not call the Veyron a rocket sled that can’t do anything but top speed? Why do you think I don’t realize that it can’t compete with other cars? That was my whole point.

No, I do not think 0.36cd is aerodynamic perfection; I’m not stupid. I called it that as satire to the people who think the Veyron is God’s car. The one and only reason I keep mentioning the Veyron’s 0.36cd is my point that any car with 1,000hp and 0.36cd will go just as fast as a Veyron. Stop adding other shit to it.

The whole story about the Veyron’s inception just made it infinitely more stupid to me. Way to go engineers for saving their idiot overlord’s fat mouth… but that doesn’t stop me from shaking my head at the stupidity of the whole situation and car that it spawned.

I’m done, and I’m gone.


#519

> still using HP/L as an argument

Go back to the youtube comments sections. I thought you were more intelligent.


#520

If even the diesels are bad, then that explains a lot. I got the chance to listen to a friend of my mom’s, who’s a BMW dealer, I heard him say the following to someone else: “I know I sell these things, but as a friend, I’m advising you, do NOT buy these.”


#521


#522

i mean, this is actually SO close to a good looking car, buuuuuuut…


#523

Thank you


#524

Forget the GTR or the Veyron, now this is genuinely a car to admire.

£95k
1020hp from a supercharged LS V8
950kg

so much want


#525

its a fucking death trap. an awesome death trap, but still a death trap.


#526

@Squidhead It’s rather hard to not just give up when what I said a post ago is being used as counter-point to my own statement a post later. That means that you’re just looking for a conflict that isn’t there, or you’re mis-reading what I’m saying. Maybe I worded it unclearly… everything’s a possibility… but something went seriously awry.

Do not make the mistake that I’m saying the Veyron’s engine isn’t capable of more than 125hp/L. I am NOT saying that it is primitive, or inefficient. The one and only reason I brought up that it makes 125hp/L is to state that it is well within the scope of traditional engine technology and state of tune. It is, as I mentioned, not a special race engine that produces over 300hp/L, and so I do not think it is warranted or justifiable that the Veyron’s engine requires such specialized and obscenely expensive measures for an oil change. Apparently you feel that my (reasonable) opinion on that matter makes me a retard.


Behold! The Weber Sportscars Faster One; a genuinely ugly car with a genuinely ugly name.


#527

The rear looks like a Toyota GT86 decided to try all the drugs they could. The front is a mustache that grew faster than you remembered.