does anybody else think the Quad Turbo W16 is underachieving?

Discussion in '2002 Bugatti 16/4 Veyron Preproduction' started by 1 Evolution VIII, Mar 28, 2003.

  1. Re: does anybody else think the Quad Turbo W16 is underachievin

    The engine in the Veyron is one of the most technically advanced engines in a road car, to say it's under acheiving with 1001Bhp is stupid, yeah you could fit bigger turbo's and get more power relatively easily but that would create turbo lag which the four small turbo's that are being used don't create, alsothis car has an 8 liter engine which is a large capacity but the engine is very light and for anyone who wants to go down the Bhp/liter route this is a hell of alot better than most other cars also, SRT-10 has 500Bhp from it's 8.2 liter engine this has 1001Bhp from a slightly smaller engine, and for other people who say yeah but it's got quad turbos in it, they are smal turbo's that don't run on a high boost so there's no lag.
     
  2. Re: does anybody else think the Quad Turbo W16 is underachievin

    yeah i know, just saying i'm not the only one
     
  3. Re: does anybody else think the Quad Turbo W16 is underachievin

    How? add another turbo? Increase capacity?
     
  4. Re: does anybody else think the Quad Turbo W16 is underachievin

    I think this car could get more power from it

    Compare it to an S2000, which has a 2.0 Liter 4 Cylinder pumping 250 hp out.

    This is the same amount of "hp per liter" as the veyron. 4 S2000 engines are the equilavent of the veyron in displacement and horsepower.

    2.0 Liters times 4 = 8.0 (Same as 1 veyron engine)
    250 HP times 4 = 1000 hp (same as veyron)

    The S2000 doesn't have forced induction so by that alone I conclude that the veyron should be able to get more hp.

    I wonder how it would perform without the 4 turbos installed

    Of course, you shouldn't need any extra hp, unless your very greedy <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
     
  5. Re: does anybody else think the Quad Turbo W16 is underachievin

    1 thing that this and the S2000 have in common is VVT (Various Valve Technology) a.k.a V-TEC. I surpose what else you could do is make it quad-cam instead of twin-cam. This would give it a little extra grunt, but hey, who needs it when ya've already got a thousand horsies?
     
  6. Re: does anybody else think the Quad Turbo W16 is underachievin

    You could, just replace the turbo's with bigger ones, it could bugger up the car but it would be more powerful, obviousely you could give it more power without buggering it up but why would you, you don't buy 987Bhp car and say umm I think it could do with a bit more power, and no one who will buy one would be stupid enough to mod one anyway, you don't pay this much for a car only to make it's value drop like a dead bird.
     
  7. Re: does anybody else think the Quad Turbo W16 is underachievin

    exactly right. Thats what I was saying. If you've already got 987hp, you wont need anymore. Where you gonna use it?
     
  8. Re: does anybody else think the Quad Turbo W16 is underachievin

    I wanna see 987hp w/o 4 Turbos.

    Anyone stupid enough to put NOS in this Million dollar ride should die burning in it.

    Anybody see the pics in Automobile magazine of the near destruction of this car?

    There is only one working version and the Bugatti engineer almost crashed it in turn 2. It was at Laguna Seca. Its on page 26 at the bottom left. Good pictures to go along with it too. A few inches was in between 1.1 Million dollars and a few bucks worth of scrap metal.
     
  9. #59 Monkey, Oct 1, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: does anybody else think the Quad Turbo W16 is underachievin

    Well, without resorting to forced induction, you have to resort to high revs to get high hp/L which sacrifices low-end torque. Let's stick with the S2000 in your example:

    153 lb-ft from 2 liters = 76.5 lb-ft/L

    So the 8-liter Veyron engine would "only" make 612 lb-ft.... a far cry from the 922 lb-ft it produces now. Also, the current S2000 has 240 hp, not 250 hp.

    http://autos.msn.com/vip/engines.aspx?modelid=10611&src=vip

    It's also good to remember that with smaller engines you have what's referred to as economies of scale. Smaller engines mean smaller parts mean far less power to move those parts at high rpm and far less stress on components at high rpm.
     
  10. #60 DrMike, Oct 1, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  11. Re: does anybody else think the Quad Turbo W16 is underachievin

    No, an intake would add at least 50 hp yo!

















    PS: that was sarcastic in case anyone couldn't tell...
     
  12. Re: does anybody else think the Quad Turbo W16 is underachievin

    I really dont think that it would be that much less without the four turbochargers.

    When you get to such a high power level, it gets harder and harder to put out more and more power, so every little setting and adjustment, every modification has to be perfect. All the angles, tourque-settings, stroke settings etc, have been set up to match with the engine running with 4 turbos, if you took off the turbos, you would just have to find another way to get the same 1001 hp. 4 turbos is just one way. They could take years setting the car up perfectly to get just the right settings and shit, but that would take a long long time, and isnt very production-efficient, also, it would be very hard to keep them settings exactly like that when a car goes so fast and is so powerful.

    Now I know there are other factors in this discussion, but you guys have already mentioned them, this is just another one of my ideas.<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/tongue.gif"></A>
     
  13. Re: does anybody else think the Quad Turbo W16 is underachievin

    umm, tru but what about torque???

    the bugatti makes 1250nm or 922ft lbs
    the s2000 only makes 207.4nm or 153ft lbs

    207.4 times 4 equals 829.2

    get where im going?
     
  14. Re: does anybody else think the Quad Turbo W16 is underachievin

    Beat you to it. Check the previous page. <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
     

Share This Page