# Why is the Bugatti Veyron sooooooo' heavy!



## HighlanderNorth (Sep 16, 2012)

**Warning: Frustration which leads to ranting....

This is one of those phenomenons that I will never understand. From the dawn of the first ever automobile, there were 2 guys somewhere who pulled up alongside one another and decided to see who could get from point A to point B the fastest. Shortly afterwards, someone decided to try and make his early automobile faster, and from then on, there has always been one simple, non-debatable philosophy that goes hand in hand with automobile performance and speed. In order to go faster, you need A. More power B. Less weight...........So people began modifying their engines, transmissions, etc., and at the same time always trying to find ways to save weight or to remove non-essential parts. 

Now fast forward to today, and as has been the case for many decades, the ultimate expression of street legal speed and performance is the supercar. These cars, more than any others must rely on the "more power, less weight" philosophy, and they always have...........Til now!

If you look at supercars such as the Pagani Zonda(now discontinued) or the newer Pagani Huayra(pron. Why-rah), or the awesome Koenigsegg CCX, Ascari A10, the ugly Gumpert Apollo, etc., you see cars that weigh between 2400-3,000lbs. The heavier supercars like the new Lamborghini Aventador weighs 3400lbs, which is heavy compared to the others. But for this price point, and for the amount of money spent to build these cars, there is no excuse to use anything less than the most expensive and lightest materials for construction.

But then there's the Bugatti Veyron...... It weighs 4,400 lbs!!!!! To give you some perspective on how much 4,400 lbs really is, a 1965 Chevy Impala with a V-8 weighs 4,000lbs..... Its all steel, is the size of a tuna barge, and was one of the largest cars of the largest car era in American history! **ON a side note, Its ironic that we are talking about the size and weight of large cars, because the original Bugatti company back about 80 years ago built the wonderful Bugatti Royale which is probably the largest production car ever built, or close to it.


So, how exactly do you want or need to build a supercar that weighs 400lbs more than a 1965 Impala? Did they decide to forgo carbon fiber bodies and magnesium frames, and build them from tungsten carbide instead? Well, since they are soooo expensive and they allegedly lose money on them even though a Veyron SS costs like 2.5 million US dollars, maybe they used platinum for body panels. Its one of the heaviest elements, and its really expensive. Thats would explain both the ridiculous cost and the ridiculous weight at once!

Now, the excuse for such an extremely heavy supercar cannot be that they need that much weight to deal with the high speeds, because the Koenigsegg CCX is about the same size, was run officially only 10mph slower top speed, and is supposedly capable of 260-270 mph right now, and it weighs nearly a full ton less! (1,700 lbs). Actually the Veyron _IS_ a full ton heavier than the Gumpert Apollo!

How can you possibly squeeze an extra 1,700lbs into a car thats roughly the same size as a car that weighs 1,700 less? Whats wrong with this picture?

Nonetheless, since they have also managed to squeeze a big 16cyl engine that pushes over 1,100 hp into it, they have managed to make it the fastest production car by a hair, and its fast on a flat, curvy road course as well, so they have created something special, but how much better could it have been without all the unnecessary weight?(and it is unnecessary!)

Oh yeah, and for the same price as a Veyron SS, you can buy 4 Koenigsegg CCX's! Also, for 1/4th price, Koenigsegg _STILL_ makes money on their supercar, so whats wrong with that picture?:ironic:


----------



## herosemblem (Sep 16, 2012)

Huge wheels. Huge tires. Big brakes discs and calipers. 10+ radiators maybe? Read: heavy!
Still tho, it might not add up. Oh well, tis fast!


----------



## mvyrmnd (Sep 16, 2012)

The Veyron is the ultimate expression of the automobile. The most luxurious, the fastest, the most expensive.

It's a compromise of many factors. It's "easy" to build a stripped out car that goes 400kph. It's another ball game altogether to build a luxury car that can do the same.


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Sep 16, 2012)

*Re: Why is the Bugatti Veyron sooooooo heavy!*



herosemblem said:


> Huge wheels. Huge tires. Big brakes discs and calipers. 10+ radiators maybe? Read: heavy!
> Still tho, it might not add up. Oh well, tis fast!




It might even be 12 radiators actually!


----------



## nbp (Sep 16, 2012)

It's all-wheel drive which adds a lot of weight and I imagine the whole drivetrain must be built super heavy duty to deal with the horsepower and torque the car produces in its huge heavy engine. 

I am sure there are some good articles on the web about this car that would answer your question better than the folks on a flashlight forum.


----------



## idleprocess (Sep 16, 2012)

Fastest car I've ever driven was a friend's 1990 300ZX twin turbo. A good deal of work had been done to that car: some custom suspension, aftermarket boost controller, and the turbos were non-stock as well. I believe it may have put around 400HP to the ground. Lighting up the tires on the highway wasn't a challenge in any gear. It could also spin the tires from a stop in 3rd and sometimes 4th gear.

It by no means stuck to corners and high-speed/high-performance turns were a bit dangerous to the amateur. It also _seemed_ heavy.

Given that it had the largest wheels & tires that one could practically use on it and that it predated (widely-available from the OEM) traction/stability control by more than 10 years, one thing that could have made it a bit more ... _predictable_ ... would be a bit more mass. Would probably hurt performance in some other areas, but would also improve grip.

You've probably watched F1 cars go though a corner and noticed that there are _two_ speed envelopes they can take any one corner within - the lower (non-competitive) speed where mass-limited traction can maintain grip and the higher speed where the aerodynamics provide sufficient downforce to increase grip and they can bounce through the corner.

Given that the Veyron makes its famous 1000HP using a W16 engine and has many exotic features to make it somewhat safe for anyone with the money to operate it full out, it very likely weighs in so heavy for good reason other than inept design. Crash survivability may also play a role in its seemingly heavy mass.


----------



## orbital (Sep 16, 2012)

+



Veyron has _*Junk in the trunk*_



*..*ridiculous car anyway :thumbsdow


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Sep 16, 2012)

idleprocess said:


> Fastest car I've ever driven was a friend's 1990 300ZX twin turbo. A good deal of work had been done to that car: some custom suspension, aftermarket boost controller, and the turbos were non-stock as well. I believe it may have put around 400HP to the ground. Lighting up the tires on the highway wasn't a challenge in any gear. It could also spin the tires from a stop in 3rd and sometimes 4th gear.
> 
> It by no means stuck to corners and high-speed/high-performance turns were a bit dangerous to the amateur. It also _seemed_ heavy.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I didnt think ineptitude was the reason for its extra heavy weight, I am just questioning the actual need for that much weight considering that pretty much every other supercar is light weight, and several are capable of about the same performance or close. If the Veyron was 100mph faster and could finish a twisty road course in 30 seconds less time, then the huge difference in performance would probably justify the almost opposite weight philosophy, but these cars are all pretty close for the most part. Look at the Top gear test results of all the cars I listed.

I guess its just a different philosophy than, well, all other performance philosophies. But it seems to work, so....

BTW: Imagine how fast the not yet officially tested/documented Keonigsegg CCXR must be with its 1000+ horsepower, while weighing only 2700lbs!


----------



## StarHalo (Sep 16, 2012)

Fun fact: If you drained all the fluids from every part of a Veryon, you would end up with 400 lbs of liquids. That's pretty much how it goes with a marine-use sized engine.

The Koenigsegg would be a good point of comparison because it's also an overpriced car that can't handle - except it drives only the rear wheels. All wheel drive would have been too safe, apparently..

The Aventador is actually 4000 lbs, and two inches wider than a Chevy Suburban; but 0-120 mph in under 9 seconds..

And funny you should mention the Gumpert, as that's the car I'd prefer if I had that kind of money to burn; it takes all the attention Bugatti put into luxury and straight line speed and instead puts it into creating a completely balanced car (and the several-times-more-expensive Veyron can't keep up on the track as a result.)


----------



## jamesmtl514 (Sep 16, 2012)

I'm on my phone, so my post will be short and sweet.

You need to understand the physics behind speed. How much power you need to develop in order to go faster. The faster you want to go, the more power you need, the more power you need, the more engine (+ all that goes with it cooling...) You need to go bigger and thus heavier. 

Sure they could have placed that ridiculous engine in a tube frame car and called it a day, Bugatti is synonymous with opulence, they needed to add weight for divert comfort and amenities.

I strongly suggest watching a YouTube video on this car, and compare it to the other cars listed and the philosophies behind them.

Good night,
James


----------



## RBR (Sep 17, 2012)

.....


----------



## 127.0.0.1 (Sep 17, 2012)

because it is a luxury sofa on wheels, not a bare-bones pelvis-rattling sportscar

you want *comfort, silence,* and speed, you are gonna add weight.

the Bugatti is an all-day touring supercar. 

the others have you begging to get out of them after 1 or 2 hours


----------



## orbital (Sep 17, 2012)

^ No way!!
It's nothing more than the ultimate bragging right _ 'accessory'_ on the road
for the ever-soft trustfunder.


*Get an Audi S6 for fast comfort.*


----------



## jabe1 (Sep 17, 2012)

Safety, comfort, and quiet. I wonder if you could hold a conversation with a passenger, at speed, in the other cars.


----------



## ElectronGuru (Sep 17, 2012)

Not sure I understand the confusion. The concern is that BV doesn't make a good production car. But the BV is not a production car. The price/cost ratio tells the story. 

This isn't a car, its a demonstration vehicle (literally). The only reason it was even put up for sale is so it could be called a production car. VW wanted to show what could be done, what it (the company) can do.


----------



## jtr1962 (Sep 17, 2012)

ElectronGuru said:


> This isn't a car, its a demonstration vehicle (literally). The only reason it was even put up for sale is so it could be called a production car. VW wanted to show what could be done, would it (the company) can do.


Yep, that says it in a nutshell. If you think about, there is zero practical point in designing a luxury car which is quiet and comfortable and stable at 250 mph. There are exactly zero roads in the world where one can safely and legally cruise at that speed. Even designing the same thing for 125 mph makes little sense outside of Germany. A design speed of 100 mph and no more power than is needed to run at that speed is more than sufficient for normal transportation purposes. The only production ground vehicles which need to be quiet and comfortable and stable at speeds well in excess of 100 mph are high-speed passenger trains. Here of course you're talking hundreds of tons and well over 10,000 HP.

I would think of the Veyron the same way I might think of any other piece of equipment which is gross overkill for its basic purpose. It's a take your pick-(luxury, status symbol, engineering marvel). Nothing wrong with owning it if you can afford it, but it's not going to get you any faster from point A to point B on public roads than any other vehicle. In fact, in NYC I might handily beat a Veyron on my Airborne. In much the same way, in many cases the high-end flashlights which many on this site own will be functionally no better than a $15 model from DX or KD. Unlike the Veyron, however, there may be cases where the extra features of a high-end flashlight may actually be useful in the real world. There's no real-world driving situation which requires you to reach 250 mph, or to accelerate to 100 mph in under 10 seconds.

That being said, I'll bet using exotic materials like carbon fiber to reduce weight, plus a much more aerodynamic outer shell, VW could have made a car with similar acceleration, top speed, comfort, and quiet with less than half the weight and less than half the power. Then again, that would have required investing many millions in tooling, R&D, etc. for what would by definition be a vehicle of very limited sales potential. It boils down to not what VW could have done here if cost was no object, but what they could have done within the constraints of their budget. That meant more or less using conventional materials and design. Make a shell, make it stable at speed, add enough power, beef up the body as needed to handle the extra power, repeat until you're at 250 mph. I'm actually surprised the thing isn't closer to 10,000 pounds.


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Sep 22, 2012)

jamesmtl514 said:


> I'm on my phone, so my post will be short and sweet.
> 
> You need to understand the physics behind speed. How much power you need to develop in order to go faster. The faster you want to go, the more power you need, the more power you need, the more engine (+ all that goes with it cooling...) You need to go bigger and thus heavier.
> 
> ...




Weight is one of the biggest factors in performance, as important as power. Less weight more power has always been the key to speed. The only reason the Veyron needs as big an engine as it has is because of its excessive weight! Maybe talk to ANYONE who knows ANYTHING about performance cars if you dont yet understand that fact....

As far as wanting to get out of any of the other cars on the list, or the Veyron for that matter...... I wouldnt want to get out of any of them, ever!


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Sep 22, 2012)

StarHalo said:


> Fun fact: If you drained all the fluids from every part of a Veryon, you would end up with 400 lbs of liquids. That's pretty much how it goes with a marine-use sized engine.
> 
> The Koenigsegg would be a good point of comparison because it's also an overpriced car that can't handle - except it drives only the rear wheels. All wheel drive would have been too safe, apparently..
> 
> ...





The Koenigsegg CCX cant handle?? Really? Here's the track test results including all the cars I mentioned plus many others. This is the Top Gear top 20 results on the same super-twisty flat track, with the same professional racing driver at the wheels: The Ariel Atom V8 really shouldnt count cause its not really even a "car" per se. Its really a go cart! But among the others, the koenigsegg is only .5 seconds slower than the Gumpert and only .8 seconds slower than the Veryron Super Sport at 1:17.6 seconds vs. 1:16.8 seconds. In other words, the CCX is one of the best handling supercars(or cars) of all time... Its actually .5 seconds FASTER than the regular Veyron.

*The Power Board*



1:15.1 – Ariel Atom 500 
1:16.2 – McLaren MP4-12C 
1:16.5 – Lamborghini Aventador 
1:16.8 – Bugatti Veyron Super Sport 
1:17.1 – Gumpert Apollo S 
1:17.3 – Ascari A10 
1:17.6 – Koenigsegg CCX (with Top Gear Wing) 
1:17.7 – Noble M600 (cold) 
1:17.8 – Nissan GT-R (2012) 
1:17.8 – Pagani Zonda Roadster F 
1:17.9 – Caterham Seven Superlight R500 (cold) 
1:18.3 – Bugatti Veyron 16.4 
1:18.4 – Pagani Zonda F 
1:18.9 – Maserati MC12 
1:19.0 – Lamborghini Murciélago LP670-4 SuperVeloce 
1:19.0 – Enzo Ferrari 
1:19.1 – Ferrari 458 Italia 
1:19.5 – Lamborghini Gallardo LP560-4 
1:19.5 – Porsche 997 GT2 
1:19.5 – Ariel Atom 2 300


----------



## StarHalo (Sep 22, 2012)

HighlanderNorth said:


> the koenigsegg is only .5 seconds slower than the Gumpert and only .8 seconds slower than the Veryron Super Sport



Right, but you're forgetting why they had to add the wing - The Stig was unable to keep the CCX on the track without it. The other cars didn't leave the track, and didn't need a wing added.


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Sep 22, 2012)

StarHalo said:


> Right, but you're forgetting why they had to add the wing - The Stig was unable to keep the CCX on the track without it. The other cars didn't leave the track, and didn't need a wing added.



The Veyron most certainly has a wing! It automatically retracts. So did many/most of the others, so adding a wing to a car that truly needs it isnt unusual.

However, I did see a Mazda from like 1999 with this HUGE wing on the back of it today, and I dont think it needed it!


----------



## jamesmtl514 (Sep 23, 2012)

Another late night reply...

Veyron is heavy because it produces that much power. To acheive stopped records you need to produce exponentially more power for every extra mph you're going after. That requires a bigger engine, which in turn requires more cooling, which adds weight requires more power. It's a vicious cycle. 

The problem is compounded in the Veyron because it's not a barebones race car. So more luxury, more weight, bigger engine, more weight... Fastest production car in the world. (for at least a brief period of time)


----------



## jtr1962 (Sep 23, 2012)

jamesmtl514 said:


> The problem is compounded in the Veyron because it's not a barebones race car. So more luxury, more weight, bigger engine, more weight... Fastest production car in the world. (for at least a brief period of time)


Besides that, the barndoor aerodynamics don't help much.


----------



## Monocrom (Sep 23, 2012)

With regard to carbon fiber bodies . . . I once saw a carbon fiber racing sailboat literally break apart in the water. 

If I'm in the world's fastest Production car, Yes; I want the body made from something much stronger than carbon fiber. I'm sorry, but I do.


----------



## nakamoomin (Sep 23, 2012)

Sorry dude. Not much out there that is stronger than CF. It is important to lay it down correctly, though. And it has some dramatic failure modes. 
Lay it down correctly though, and it will be stronger, stiffer and lighter than any steel or aluminium..


----------



## jamie.91 (Sep 23, 2012)

1000hp isn't as hard to achieve as the veyron makes it sound, for instance in the world of tuning there are many 1000hp motors of much smaller size such as time attack Evo's, skylines and the such, BUT... The veyron makes 1000hp as well as being refined, such as running on standard fuel, lower service intervals, less drama, safer and so on.

I'd say its to prove the company's engineering skills, I'm guessing that after a 100,000 miles the others may show signs of wear and tear and may start to "feel" a little tired, whereas the veyron would out last the lot of them in terms of mileage an actual use, at a guess.

Obviously all this quality comes at a price, which is in the form of weight!

On the other hand, to stand out from the rest this car had to be different, none of the others on paper can boast about 10 radiators and the people impressed by these figures have no interest in cars, engines or engineering at all, all they understand is how many zero's follow in there bank account and the things they buy.

My two cents


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Sep 23, 2012)

Monocrom said:


> With regard to carbon fiber bodies . . . I once saw a carbon fiber racing sailboat literally break apart in the water.
> 
> If I'm in the world's fastest Production car, Yes; I want the body made from something much stronger than carbon fiber. I'm sorry, but I do.





^^Yeah, Me too!!

I watched 2 different races, one a bicycle road race and the other a downhill mountain bike race, and both racers were using carbon fiber frames, and in both cases, the frame literally just broke and split in half while they were pedaling hard! The guy on the road bike was hurt because the jagged edge of the broken frame kinda stabbed him!

I'd rather have a magnesium or aluminum frame.


----------



## jtr1962 (Sep 23, 2012)

That's exactly the reason why I bought a titanium bike last year instead of carbon fiber. Just go to bustedcarbon.com to see all the scary failure modes of carbon frames. That said, for items much larger than bike frames, I think it's possible to engineer a very safe, very strong part of carbon fiber. It's the emphasis on size/weight which results in problems rather than the material itself.


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Sep 23, 2012)

jamie.91 said:


> 1000hp isn't as hard to achieve as the veyron makes it sound, for instance in the world of tuning there are many 1000hp motors of much smaller size such as time attack Evo's, skylines and the such, BUT... The veyron makes 1000hp as well as being refined, such as running on standard fuel, lower service intervals, less drama, safer and so on.
> 
> I'd say its to prove the company's engineering skills, I'm guessing that after a 100,000 miles the others may show signs of wear and tear and may start to "feel" a little tired, whereas the veyron would out last the lot of them in terms of mileage an actual use, at a guess.
> 
> ...




Actually, the Koenigsegg's engine is just their copy of the Ford modular V-8, and only a 4.7 liter version of it! In the CCXR, the same engine runs on E-100 or e-85 bio-fuel, and has 1064 horsepower! With only 4.7 liters of engine..
Thats kinda one of the secret reasons I like the Koenisegg CCR and the newer CCX, is because the CCR actually ran on a Ford modular v-8 of 4.6 -4.7 liters that was modified and supercharged, but now they have designed their own engine, but its still based on the Ford Modular V-8, which is a 4 valve, overhead cam engine and will probably outlast the engine in the Veyron, and be a whole heck of a lot cheaper to maintain!

I have a copy of Hot Rod or car Craft from last year, and they did an article where they decided to see how tough the newer generation of GM/Chevy small block V-8's are, so they got a STOCK, USED 4.8 liter Chevy LS series V-8, and all they did to modify it was to add 2 turbochargers a new intake system for the turbos and cam, but they left the engine structurally bone stock with the stock pistons, rings, bearing, etc, even though it was used, and came out of a truck, from a salvage yard, and they hooked it up to a dyno and gradually added more boost from the turbos, til they got it up to OVER 1,200 horsepower! They ran 60 dyno pulls, most over 1,000 horsepower on a stock block 4.8 liter V-8, and the idea was to see how far they could push it til it blew it up. Well, lets just say they ran out of dyno time before they ever got to that point, so it was still running great after 60 runs, most over 1,000 HP....

Whats even crazier, is that the 4.8L version of the Chevy/GM LS engine is the smallest version of them all! They get much larger than that! 

Moral of the 2 stories: Ford Modular 4.7 liter v-8 copy=1064 HP. 4.8L Chevy LS V-8 = 1,200HP

You certainly dont need a huge, unbelievably expensive and complex 16 cylinder engine with 12 radiators to run over 1000hp!


----------



## jamie.91 (Sep 23, 2012)

When talking about outlasting and less regular servicing I was referring to the smaller engine time attack Evo's and such


----------



## Monocrom (Sep 23, 2012)

nakamoomin said:


> Sorry dude. Not much out there that is stronger than CF. It is important to lay it down correctly, though. And it has some dramatic failure modes.
> Lay it down correctly though, and it will be stronger, stiffer and lighter than any steel or aluminium..



That's the thing though, steel is far more forgiving if not laid down to absolute perfection.

As for lightweight needs, I definitely prefer titanium over C.F.


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Sep 23, 2012)

jamie.91 said:


> When talking about outlasting and less regular servicing I was referring to the smaller engine time attack Evo's and such





I've been trying to explain that fact to my brother, who doesnt know a lot about cars, but thinks the Evo is the best thing since sex! What he also doesnt realize is that the 400hp version of the Evo he sees on TV isnt even sold or shipped to America to begin with! We cant even get the 340 or 330hp versions. We get the 270hp version.

But I agree that an engine of only 2 liters(2,000 CC's) pushing 400hp is going to be stressed(200hp per Liter, or 3.3hp per cubic inch), just like 1060hp on a 4.7l V-8 is inevitably is going to be hard on that engine(3.6hp per cu in). It used to be if you got 1hp per cu in you were accomplishing something. Like a Ford 351 with 351hp, thats respectable, but yet not too stressful on the engine. Even 1.5 - 2hp per cu in. is great, but unless the engine is tough, you might want to NOT miss gears when you shift and keep the RPM's under your red line!

But the fact that those American V-8's can produce that much power without blowing up soon after, shows that with more conservative horsepower gains like 2hp per cu in, you can expect it to last a long time if treated well!


----------



## 2000xlt (Sep 23, 2012)

I forget where i heard this but "if you were to put the Veyron in a race flat out with the Mclaren and give the McLaren a headstart to 120mph the Bugatti will beat it to 200MPH" It was Jeremy Clarkson who said that


HighlanderNorth said:


> **Warning: Frustration which leads to ranting....
> 
> This is one of those phenomenons that I will never understand. From the dawn of the first ever automobile, there were 2 guys somewhere who pulled up alongside one another and decided to see who could get from point A to point B the fastest. Shortly afterwards, someone decided to try and make his early automobile faster, and from then on, there has always been one simple, non-debatable philosophy that goes hand in hand with automobile performance and speed. In order to go faster, you need A. More power B. Less weight...........So people began modifying their engines, transmissions, etc., and at the same time always trying to find ways to save weight or to remove non-essential parts.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2000xlt (Sep 23, 2012)

Even if his stats on the 2 vehicles were supposedly wrong,,,the almost 3000 hp at the crank is crazy..One guy on another forum was at a test facility where they had a dyno at the crank ad the Bugatti hit 2920!! I can't find Legit stats on that, but on the second had why would you make that up?..


----------



## StarHalo (Sep 23, 2012)

2000xlt said:


> I forget where i heard this but "if you were to put the Veyron in a race flat out with the Mclaren and give the McLaren a headstart to 120mph the Bugatti will beat it to 200MPH" It was Jeremy Clarkson who said that



Entirely believable, since the insane horsepower cars do their most impressive acceleration at post-freeway speeds; the part I still have trouble understanding is how the McLaren beats the Bugatti off the line for the first thousand feet or so, you would think all-wheel-drive would make the Veyron unbeatable..


----------



## Monocrom (Sep 24, 2012)

Right off the line, AWD is actually a hinderance to performance. Down the road a bit, it's no longer an issue.


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Sep 24, 2012)

Monocrom said:


> Right off the line, AWD is actually a hinderance to performance. Down the road a bit, it's no longer an issue.






Thats probably correct, unless the rear wheel drive car its racing against cant get traction! I had a roommate who's parents had bought a BEAUTIFUL 1969 SS396 Camaro back in the mid 80's, with 37,000 original miles on it, which was bright yellow with black racing stripes going over the top of the rear facing hood scoop, to the rear spoiler and back, and a Muncie 4 speed with the closest gear ratios I've ever seen! There almost wasnt any difference between 1st and 2nd it seemed! As soon as you shifted into 2nd, you were shifting into 3rd! Plus it had at least a 3:73 rear ratio, so it was strictly set up for acceleration.

Anyway, It was now 1991, and Howie's parents never drove it even out of the development, and kept it covered in their climate controlled garage all the time, only starting it up a few times a year. But then they went out of town, and Howie goes over, disconnects the speedometer, and brings it back to our apartment for the weekend. We already had a '64 Chevy II with a 375hp 350, now we had a SS Camaro with 375hp(stock).

So we took it out, and we'd have lines of people who would walk over and talk to us about it everywhere we went. Then we cruised main street which was a HUGE cruise spot back through the 80's and 90's, and there were LOTS of hot rods and Mustang GT's etc, and we had people asking us to race, so we go to this closed road with a 3/4 mile straight line, and we raced this Mustang GT that we shouldve easily beaten, but this Camaro got NO traction at all with its Goodyear Eagle GT's, even though it had a posi rear, so it would just smoke the tires in 1st, 2nd and barely get traction in 3rd. We got beaten so badly as a result that we decided to stop before being embarrassed any further! We never had those problems with the '64 Chevy II, unless we wanted to light 'em up. The Chevy II had an auto without the super-close ratio transmission, but with a nice valve body with a hard shift kit. But it got great traction when you needed it to.


----------



## Chicago X (Sep 24, 2012)

Monocrom said:


> Right off the line, AWD is actually a hinderance to performance. Down the road a bit, it's no longer an issue.



This is incorrect, and it's actually the opposite in a street car. Things are a bit different with dedicated drag cars.

It's the inertia of the heavier car that causes its fractionally slower start, in the case of the Bugatti. 

I tune Euro cars for a living, and have over 20 years experience at the dragstrip and road courses. It is surprisingly easy to make 1000 HP out of a modern engine design, much harder to do so with a warranty. 

My daily driver makes more than 600 RWHP and RWTQ on the notoriously low-reading AWD Mustang dyno. For the one-second gain in the quarter mile that the Veyron achieves over my car, it takes _half-again_ more power. 

My car does have massaging seats, however.


----------



## mvyrmnd (Sep 24, 2012)

Chicago X said:


> This is incorrect, and it's actually the opposite in a street car. Things are a bit different with dedicated drag cars.
> 
> It's the inertia of the heavier car that causes its fractionally slower start, in the case of the Bugatti.
> 
> ...



S65?


----------



## Chicago X (Sep 25, 2012)

mvyrmnd said:


> S65?



Heavily modded E55.

That was a good guess.


----------



## mvyrmnd (Sep 25, 2012)

I was going on the seats and the HP 

I spent a weekend once with a S63. Good times.


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Sep 25, 2012)

Chicago X said:


> Heavily modded E55.
> 
> That was a good guess.



Is that an AMG?


----------



## mvyrmnd (Sep 25, 2012)

HighlanderNorth said:


> Is that an AMG?



Yes.


----------



## 2000xlt (Sep 26, 2012)

I'd love to use one of those cars,,even for a few hours,,even the c63AMG would be nice,,maybe a "black" edition


mvyrmnd said:


> I was going on the seats and the HP
> 
> I spent a weekend once with a S63. Good times.


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Sep 29, 2012)

2000xlt said:


> I'd love to use one of those cars,,even for a few hours,,even the c63AMG would be nice,,maybe a "black" edition



That would be nice, but I can think of many other less expensive cars I'd rather drive. A Cadillac CTS-V, a Corvette ZR-1, a new Mustang Boss 302, or better yet a Shelby Super Snake or GT500, a new Camaro ZL-1, or if I was looking at Euro cars, I would choose a 911 GT3, or just about any 911 for that matter. But if Sport Saloon was the only option I'd choose the Panamera(with its slightly ugly rear end). Or for a little more money, an Aston Martin V-8 or better yet V-12 Vantage.


----------



## 2000xlt (Oct 3, 2012)

yeah Cadillac CTS-V, would be cool


----------



## Lite_me (Oct 5, 2012)




----------



## meilock (Oct 10, 2012)

I'll choose Bugatti Veyron, but Pagani Huayra is the best for me. A few years ago, there was a viral video of a male crashing a Bugatti Veyron into the lake. The man in question, Andy House, is currently being sued over the incident. He made some suspicious claims in his insurance paperwork and his insurance firm is not entertained.


----------



## Monocrom (Oct 10, 2012)

meilock said:


> I'll choose Bugatti Veyron, but Pagani Huayra is the best for me. A few years ago, there was a viral video of a male crashing a Bugatti Veyron into the lake. The man in question, Andy House, is currently being sued over the incident. He made some suspicious claims in his insurance paperwork and his insurance firm is not entertained.



You insure a $1 million vehicle for $2 million, and then get caught on tape running it into a lake without any application of the brakes . . . Yeah, you're not getting a free $1 million for that stunt. He should be tossed in jail for intentionally destroying such a great work of Art.


----------



## Chicago X (Oct 10, 2012)

HighlanderNorth said:


> That would be nice, but I can think of many other less expensive cars I'd rather drive. A Cadillac CTS-V, a Corvette ZR-1, a new Mustang Boss 302, or better yet a Shelby Super Snake or GT500, a new Camaro ZL-1, or if I was looking at Euro cars, I would choose a 911 GT3, or just about any 911 for that matter. But if Sport Saloon was the only option I'd choose the Panamera(with its slightly ugly rear end). Or for a little more money, an Aston Martin V-8 or better yet V-12 Vantage.



Slightly ugly ? :sick2:

The Astons are both GT cars, not saloons/sedans. The 911 is a pure sports car, also not even close to the same class.

The super-Vette is nowhere near as balanced as the C63 Black, or even its own stablemate, the Z06, and is also a sports car.

The overweight ZL-1, and to a lesser extent the Super Snake, are souped-up 25K coupes at heart. With the Snake approaching the C63 AMG in cost, which would you rather own ?

If you are looking for a four-door driver's car, the CTS-V is probably the closest thing on your list to the bogey AMG. I really like the wagon version. :twothumbs

No mention of the M5 ? I would take the new V8TT version over any non-AMG car you listed.


----------



## AnAppleSnail (Oct 10, 2012)

Monocrom said:


> That's the thing though, steel is far more forgiving if not laid down to absolute perfection.
> 
> As for lightweight needs, I definitely prefer titanium over C.F.



I've had a bit of experience with composites, and let me tell you - 'unforgiving' isn't the half of it! In theory, all the aircraft landing gear struts in the world can be replaced with carbon-fiber versions of half the weight and increased strength. In practice, it's difficult to design and construct composites. Why?

Voids. Like reinforced concrete, carbon-fiber (parts, laminates, sheets, layers) get their main strength in tension. In compression, the only strength is the epoxy resin. If you've ever applied a flat fiberglas sheet onto foam or wood, you know what a pain it is to get all of the glass wetted with epoxy. In multilayered, or especially three-dimensional applications, avoiding voids becomes very tricky. More so than with metals processing, the exact processing conditions have much more impact on the final part's properties. And since the compressive strength of most composites lies in a fairly brittle (High breaking strength, low bend-to-break) epoxy resin, the results of a failure are spectacular.


----------



## HighlanderNorth (Oct 11, 2012)

Chicago X said:


> Slightly ugly ? :sick2:
> 
> The Astons are both GT cars, not saloons/sedans. The 911 is a pure sports car, also not even close to the same class.
> 
> ...



I wasnt saying that I was listing cars from the same class, otherwise the Corvette wouldnt be there either. As far as the Shelby Mustangs, from what I've read, they are modified for performance in many ways, not just the engine and trans. Not only that, but in recent years the Mustang has become a better handling car than it was just a few years ago, which has been documented by the normally uber-picky US auto magazines. But I can buy a $40,000 Camaro SS and for the extra money it would cost me to buy an AMG Mercedes, I can get that Camaro(or Mustang for that matter) to go 'round the Nurburgring faster than the Mercedes. But if I was picking only sport Saloons, I'd love to have a Mercedes, which would be easier to find parts for, and easier to find a competent, experienced mechanic to work on it(because I sure as heck wouldnt want to risk it!) vs. an Aston Martin DBS or whatever. If I had the money for a DBS though, I'd spend that money to get that same engine in the V-12 Vantage....Not a sedan/saloon, and it surely wont be as roomy, but it would be a LOT of fun!

ON Top Gear US, they tested the wagon version of the CTS-V, and it ran around their twisty race course as fast as the other versions did, which is impressive.


----------



## MichaelW (Oct 14, 2012)

The problem with the Veyron isn't weight, but the fact it was styled first, engineered second. The weight was only about 10% over target.

You need substantial chassis strength/rigidity so that an open top derivative can be made.
You need ultrastrong wheels, + runflat system [Michelin PAX], + very strong brake calipers.
You need a big gas tank, made of steel.
W16 (or 2x VR8 engines, if you like) + big 7 speed double clutch, + substantial Haldex PTO system
Hydraulics for chassis attitude control, and moveable aerodynamic element (rear wing/airbrake)
and all the luxury you can fit.


----------

