[Kain]

Check out this beast

w16 engine with 4 turbo's producing 1001 hp and 923 ft/lbs. wish i could have one! 8)

 

[ComposiMo]

Whats even more impressive, is the top speed......

Quoted, 253mph :shock:

 

[rex2nr]

the Top Gear episode claims that its been limited at 253 :shock:

 

[Krix]

it better have a flux capacitor and travel time at $1.7 million

other than that its pretty sweet, but am I the only that doesnt like the big grille?

 

[Charles]

And beautiful to boot.

 

[jfrolang]

yeah it's really really fast, but I think its ugly, and I'd still rather have a Koenigsegg CCR for one quarter the price.

 

[bobski]

Interesting from a performance standpoint, but the exterior design is just too much. The front fenders and center grille are too big and the two lumps over the engine (intakes?) interrupt the lines of the car. Personally, if I were paying over $100K (let alone approaching $2M) for a car, I wouldn't settle for an engine with a redline under 10 grand - It should scream like an F-1. All these supercars with 6,500 rpm redlines just make me think that they didn't bother to engineer the motor properly... Just threw more displacement at it. If I wanted an 8 liter motor, I'd buy a semi truck.
Oh... and "Fuel Economy EPA city/highway mpg (l/100 km): n.a." ^_^

 

[GSRCRXsi]

that car is an engineering marvel. watch the top gear vid about it, you will understand. at full throttle the car will use 25 gallons of gas in 12 seconds. it will stop from 250-0 in 10 seconds, in which the rear spoiler rotates to 70 degrees and acts as an air brake. the engine consumes 10,000 gallons of air every minute. and hell you dont even go into 7th gear til 215 mph. that car was more difficult to build then an F-1 car. i dont think anything that runs on gasoline will ever be made that rivals this car.

and bob, those air ducts draw air into the engine's 13 radiators, yes it has 13 radiators.

 

[bobski]

It looks more like an advertising marvel to me.

those air ducts draw air into the engine's 13 radiators, yes it has 13 radiators.

Doesn't that illustrate my point? The engine wastes so much energy in the form of heat that it needs that rediculous amount of cooling capacity to avoid destroying itself.

i dont think anything that runs on gasoline will ever be made that rivals this car.

Here's something... 1695 HP and a top speed of nearly 440 Mph. The machine guns are nice too.

 

[dohcrxl]

I would never pay someone 1.7 mil just so I could kill myself. Same reasoning to why I can't ever own a crotch rocket.

 

[Stavros]

its like a fat guy with rocket boots.

sure he runs real fast, but he eats the entire all-you-can-eat buffet between sprints.

anyone that wants to consume that much of a natural resource to go from point A to point B in their status symbol should get a forced lobotomy.

 

[GSRCRXsi]

if your worried about fuel economy buy an electic car. if you can afford a 2 million dollar car, you can afford the gas. and bob, you know what i meant, talking production cars here, not airplanes lol. and the 13 radiators arent all for the engine. if i remmeber correctly, 3 for the engine, 2 for axle fluid, 2 for diff fluid, 2 for trans fluid, 1 to cool the hydraulic fluid operating the wing, and a few more for other things, i cant find the top gear vid to be sure. the car IS a production car, and designed to last a long time. in the top gear vid they described the troubles of building such a car, and i believe the guy who worked on the design was a builder of F-1 cars, and still had a hel of a time making it work

he said something like

this car is WAY faste then any F1 car, and it has WAY more power then any F1 car, and unlike an F1 car, which is designed to last a race or 2, this one has to last 10-20 years

hell the car is even a bargain. it costs bugatti $5M to build the car and they are selling it for $2M. hell of a deal if you ask me.

 

[bobski]

Oh, well in that case, my 'rex has 8 radiators - Two for coolant, one for transmission fluid, one for refridgerant and one on each brake rotor/drum.
$2M is not a bargain unless you're Bill Gates. Take a look at the Ariel Atom... That's a bargain. It undoubtedly handles better as well.

 

[GSRCRXsi]

ill give you 2. as thats all that affect the drivetrain/engine. but again your tranny must be auto to cool the tranny fluid. the brakes arent radiators, more like a heat sink then a radiator.

and yes the ariel atom IS a bargain, but its not street legal. and sure it handles better, its like 3000lbs lighter, but im sure it would still get its ass handed to it by the veyron on a road course. the atom is more of a toy, then a car, like a go-kart.

 

[bobski]

Actually, the Atom is street legal as I understand it. Obviously not in the US - it's got to have a windshield and explosives in it for that.
You said the Veyron was on Top Gear... Did they send it around the track? The Atom's 9 minute clip of Top Gear is available on Ariel's website. On the road course, it placed between the Ferrari Enzo and Porsche Carrera GT - somewhere around 1:19.5.

 

[GSRCRXsi]

the only segment i saw was where they tested the bugatti, was the race from italy to london. they didnt put it on their track.

and yea its not street legal here, whats legal in europe is irrelevant. hell, the radical is street legal there, it basically IS a go-kart.

 

[Stavros]

if your worried about fuel economy buy an electic car. if you can afford a 2 million dollar car, you can afford the gas.

im not talking about fuel economy. im talking about the need to consume. why would someone, even a RICH someone, feel they would NEED to consume that much more fuel than the average peasant on the street? just because? that makes me sick. sorry if i am the only one that feels this way but it just seems like a ridiculous waste, all to show every how huge your bank account is.

i guess owning a massive yacht isnt any better though.

comment positively or negatively, i just find it appalling and i wont add to this thread anymore cuz i could see it turning into an argument.

even after i say all that, i find it is still a pretty amazing car.

 

[GSRCRXsi]

well you want certain things, and those certain things have costs. you want to go 250 mph, and be the fastest thing on the road (or just about anywhere) its gonna use fuel. faster = more power, more power = more energy, and energy comes from the fuel. you are correct on the boats as well. since they move through an even denser medium, they require even more fuel then a car would.

and sometimes, its not SOLEY about showing off your bank account, but rather the true love for speed, and cars. i consider myself a car enthusiast, and having a heavy math/science/engineering background (mechanical and aerospace engineering major) i fully appreciate cars such as this and all the great challenges hat had to be overcome to create something like this. sure its expensive, but thats the price you pay for something like that. hell they cant even make it any cheaper if they could, and if they did, the car wouldnt be safe, or wouldnt perform as well. hell they are already LOSING over 2 mil per car just by making it, and that proves the point that its not about the money.

one thing i do think is neat, is the horespower guage on the car. was funny in the top gear clip, jeremy clarkson was saying, "im cruising at about 100mph using 50 hp, only 950 to go"

 

[rex2nr]

I wonder how much horsepower it is using at 253?

I do see Starvos' point about the amount of fuel needed. To empty your tank in around 10 seconds, that is just wasteful. I don't care how much you love speed and going fast, but its ridiculous when we are dealing with a resource that is so quickly being depleted.

 

[bobski]

they are already LOSING over 2 mil per car just by making it, and that proves the point that its not about the money.

Right... It's about the advertising. By creating a car of such excess, it tosses the company into the spotlight for however brief a time. The automotive media coos and drools over it, turning the magazines and TV shows into better advertisements than money alone can buy. The absurdly high price tag means they don't have to make very many of them, potentially losing alot of money in the process. The net loss on developing and constructing the car is covered by the advertising gains.