Download the preview of next seasons top gear NOW!!!!

[Mr. Bernoulli]

Originally Posted by Cockrocket

i thought bugattis last supercar was awful. they needed 4 turbo chargers to get the same power as a naturaly aspirated v12 that the mclaren used. I mean a formula 1 engine which is v10 can easily create 1000bhp. Imagine the turbo lag on the veyron! Poor engineering, and now with VW at the helm, bugatti has gone full speed ahead to the most ridiculouse route to taking the mclarens claim of fastest production car!....ITS A SPICED UP BEETLE..NOTHING MORE!

A current n/a F1 engine designed to complete only 1000 miles that probably costs a few millions pounds can obviously develop a higher peak power output than a road car engine, even that of a supercar. So what?

Turbo anti-lag systems are rather more sophisticated than they were when the EB110 was developed, although it still would be an issue. I still know which engine would be better suited to the task though.

Don't be fooled by all the hype you read in the media.

[Thorst13]

The EB110 was a great car when it was released.
The Veyron will not be a great car when it's released!
Don't belive the hype about the Veyron I would say!

[Mr. Bernoulli]

What hype? All I seem to hear are comments like the above.

We know it was never going to compete with the F1 in anything other than headline figures (kerbweight not being one of them!).

They styled a pretty car (IMO), gave the engine a theoretical output but forgot that such an engine may produce quite a bit of heat. Unfortunately the marketing men got hold of the idea and decided to sell it (presumably to get early deposits) before they started engineering the car properly.

It's not boding well for Bugatti, that much is true. However, I prefer not to pass judgement before the actual product is delivered...

[Thorst13]

I will eat my own words if it prove to be a great supercar!
But I think this will be the European "Vector".

[Joey Stockholm]

I have read that the Carrera GT is faster than the F1 around a track, the track-test was in the magazine "Evo". But i guess that if you go to a track which has some longer straights the F1 would beat it.

[Joey Stockholm]

Originally Posted by Mr. Bernoulli

A current n/a F1 engine designed to complete only 1000 miles that probably costs a few millions pounds can obviously develop a higher peak power output than a road car engine, even that of a supercar. So what?

Turbo anti-lag systems are rather more sophisticated than they were when the EB110 was developed, although it still would be an issue. I still know which engine would be better suited to the task though.

Don't be fooled by all the hype you read in the media.

The EB110 didnt have "any" turbolag. Atleast not compared with other supercars of that time. The 4 chargers were very small and had a superb response.
I have driven one ( An SS ) and felt absolutely no lag, but I´m absolutely no expert and havnt tried any other car of that caliber to compare it with.

[Mclaren240!]

Hmm i thought that evo had come to the conclusion that the f1 was faster around the track? Are you talking about the Rowen Attkinson article am i going mad? I would live to know more about the jag that smoked the zonda being a big 220 fan was it "s" spec always thought the the jag might well be faster than the enzo i have herd that 542 is concervative and 580+ is a possability on a cold day anybody know anything about it sorry im not trying to go to far of topic. Joey Stockholm you are a lucky lucky guy care to tell us more?

I also rember reading in evo i think that the Zonda became unstable at serious speeds?