Veyron unplugged

Discussion in 'European Cars' started by Ace of kings, Jun 1, 2007.

  1. i dont know if this has been posted bfore but i wanna get ur views on this. its an article from

    Enough is not enough

    Zero to 60mph in 2.5 seconds, 100 in 5.5 seconds, a top speed of 253mph and 1,000bhp apparently isn’t enough. So says French supercar outfit and VW subsidiary Bugatti. That’s right, Bugatti is working on an even more powerful version of the already ludicrously rapid Veyron hypercar. The result is reportedly a 1,232bhp quad-turbo behemoth capable of 272mph. In the words of the late, great Graham Chapman, stop that, it’s silly…

    The story of this comically quick Veyron comes courtesy of the UK’s Autocar magazine. However, Autocar hasn’t divulged whether this information has come from official Bugatti sources or when such a beast might appear. In the meantime, higher than expected demand for the plain vanilla 1,000bhp Veyron has encouraged Bugatti to bolt another £70,000 onto the car’s list price. You now need £700,770 to join the Veyron’s exclusive 253mph club.

  2. Bah. I'd be WAY more interested in a version that had 800hp but weighed 500 lbs. less.
  3. Exactly
  4. thats not happening though
  5. One can wish though.
  6. 1 thing i certainly would like is for it to look a bit better
  7. i think the veyron is the best hypercar around, although the ssc is meant to be faster, its not as clever as the veyron, the ssc is just a "down-tuned" dragster. for instence: it took the man who desighned the gearbox took ten years to get it right, as its desighned to last ect.
  8. "took ten years"............sorry meant 5
  9. how did they figure that an extra 232bhp would be enough for another 18mph? im no engineer but i dont think it would
  10. But the actual Veyron already develops those 1200-ish bhp... in real power! Only the so-cal GT that would be possible...
  11. Can no one use a #$%#ing spell-check program before posting anything?

    Mofos get with the programme! Its called the English language.

    PA/GB/Blown excluded
  12. lol, yeah ok.
  13. This thread makes my eyes hurt so much.
  14. Why the fcuk wouldnt they just get rid of the rich-#%[email protected] interior, shave off some pounds, then add all this more power.
  15. Yet it is still several leagues behind the CCX
  16. doesn't the engine actually produce 2000 bhp but 1000 is used just for cooling it? anyways, the weight helps a lot in stability. im not an engineer yet, but with stiffer suspension more mass is needed to keep it on the road without puting on too much downforce and leaveing it topped out at 230. with more suspension run they could have had even 500 hp to get the same acceleration to 120 but after that aerodynamics and stability are thrown out the window. idk that's how i look at it and that's what ive learned from my cars.
  17. in reality, if they DO lighten it, most the weight saved would be from all its "luxurious" interior and the power could still be kept

    those 10 radiators are also probly none too light... maybe if they fixed the wing and got rid of that actuating motor and radiator it would shed some pounds as well
  18. so 0-60 in what, -0.6 seconds?
  19. what stupid f*****s why not just start off with somthing light[er] than spend seven years trying to over come the weight issue only to be overtaken by the bristol fighter t and the koniegsegg ccxr in terms of power and speed
  20. wasnt this posted last year sometime?
  21. A veyron thread is like a magnet for noobs
  22. YES

Share This Page