All Gordon Murray ever does is compare supercars to the F1...it's really getting old at this point.
I can appreciate what he's saying, especially because it's Gordon Murray, but I think the point of the Veyron is to be a fighterjet and a luxury Learjet at the same time. It's supposed to be ultra-civilized on the streets.
Thought I'd share.
1975 Honda CB400F Super Sport
1986 BMW 535i
1984 BMW 745i turbo - FOR SALE
2002 Passat 1.8t
1990 Saab 9000 turbo
Give me a break. His supercar test is flawed; not everything fits into a little box of perfections, and not every car is designed to fulfill the same purpose. As a matter of fact, I'm a believer that sometimes, it's the imperfections that make a car. Yes, it has turbo lag. Surprise surprise. Don't like it? Well, it's not a car for you. To say that the Veyron is not a sports car? Go pick some flowers. I hate people who try to bring out the ****tiest things in the best creations.
The Veyron is a curious artifact. I don't respect the demands that were placed on its development, but it's pretty amazing that the engineers managed to satisfy both Doktor Peach's insane bull**** and make the thing go 250mph without killing anybody.
The Cooking Animal is my side project: a blog for horngry food geeks. Check it out!
I don't recall Bugatti ever saying that the Veyron was supposed to be a sports car. I always assumed it was just a really fast GT, sort of a Bentley Continental with two seats and a huge motor. Looking at it from the wrong perspective, as I believe Murray has, is bound to lead to disappointments. This guy is stuck in the past. He seems extremely averse to using modern technology.
Last edited by venom600; 07-29-2012 at 01:59 PM.
How the f*ck much turbo lag can an 8-litre 16-cylinder engine have? It's not like it's spinning up a single giant turbo, rather it has four smaller turbos.
Methinks Murray is a tad jaded... From what I've heard, the original spec F1 wasn't exactly all things to all men, either. Reports of relatively horrible understeer seemed pretty common, for example. There's a reason why the high-downforce kit was retrofitted to so many F1s after the fact.
I guess my thinking (however flawed it may be) is that the W16 engine would react similarly because each turbo feeds 2.0l and four cylinders of the 8l W16 while making about the same power as the 2.0T in the Golf R. I'm almost certain that I'm wrong, but that was my thought process.
Now go get your shinebox
Just thinking out loud here
Just because you bought an expensive, fast, flashy car does not mean you can drive it well.
Last edited by nickthaskater; 07-29-2012 at 03:15 PM.
The McLaren F1 is still the ultimate super car. While apes like Jermey Clarkson hate it because they can't drive it well, you have those like Tiff Needell who have no trouble driving the car at the limit. I still think the engineering feats in the McLaren are much more impressive than the Veyron.
0-60 mph: 2.5 seconds (Car and Driver)
0-60 mph: 2.6 seconds (Road & Track)
5-60 mph: 3.2 seconds (Car and Driver)
0-60 mph: 3.2 seconds (Car and Driver)
0-60 mph: 3.4 seconds (Road & Track)
The F1's peak torque of 479 lb-ft doesn't come until 4,000 RPM, with "only" ~280 lb-ft at 1,500 RPM. The Veyron's peak torque of 922 lb-ft comes in at 2,200 RPM.
Last edited by nickthaskater; 07-29-2012 at 04:02 PM.
Remember take hold of your time here
Give some meanings to the means to your end
And 5-60 will always be slower. The Mercedes-McLaren SLR is supercharged (read: no lag) and it is 2-tenths slower from 5-60 than from 0-60 (3.8 and 3.6 seconds respectively).
Carrera GT? 0-60 in 3.5 seconds, but 5-60 in 3.8 seconds.
The Veyron is far from an anomaly.
Here's a cherry example for you:
0-60: 3.6 seconds
5-60: 4.3 seconds