Bugatti Veyron 16.4 vs Cadillac Sixteen
Pages :
[1]
2
Scott 02
01-19-2003, 09:28 PM
Not sure if anyone has started this tread but i been wanting to get some others opinions on the 2 cars since they are similar.
I think the both with 1000hp would make one good race.
I think the both with 1000hp would make one good race.
Jimster
01-20-2003, 02:41 AM
moved to car comparisions :)
Neutrino
01-20-2003, 04:06 AM
No question veyron. I'll take a bugatti over a caddilac anyday.
Deakins
01-20-2003, 04:14 AM
How are they similar?
The only similarity I can see, is that they both have 1000hp+ 16 sylinder engines.
On a racetrack, the Cadillac would downright get owned.
The only similarity I can see, is that they both have 1000hp+ 16 sylinder engines.
On a racetrack, the Cadillac would downright get owned.
Scott 02
01-20-2003, 07:20 AM
Probably right on that, I just thought it was neat to see cadillac come back with the V-16 engine. The original was in 1921 or something like that.
FYRHWK1
01-20-2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Deakins
How are they similar?
The only similarity I can see, is that they both have 1000hp+ 16 sylinder engines.
On a racetrack, the Cadillac would downright get owned.
prove this?
How are they similar?
The only similarity I can see, is that they both have 1000hp+ 16 sylinder engines.
On a racetrack, the Cadillac would downright get owned.
prove this?
Deakins
01-20-2003, 01:33 PM
You got to be shitting me?
Bugatti Veyron:
Size: Wheelbase 2,700 millimeters, overall length 4,466 mm, width is 1,998 mm, height 1,206 mm. 1240 kg
Power: 736 kW (1001 bhp) at 6000/min, 1,250 Newton-meters (922 lbs-ft of torque) at 2000-5500/min
Drivetrain: Sequential DCT seven-speed gearbox, permanent all-wheel drive
Cadillac Sixteen:
Size: Wheelbase 3556 millimeters, overall length 5,671 mm, width is 2,029 mm, height 1391 mm. 2270 kg
Power: 735 kW (1000 bhp) at n/a /min, 1355 Newton-meters (1000 lbs-ft of torque) at 4000 /min
Drivetrain: Four speed "slightly modified off the GM shelf" gearbox, rear wheel drive.
Bugatti Veyron:
Size: Wheelbase 2,700 millimeters, overall length 4,466 mm, width is 1,998 mm, height 1,206 mm. 1240 kg
Power: 736 kW (1001 bhp) at 6000/min, 1,250 Newton-meters (922 lbs-ft of torque) at 2000-5500/min
Drivetrain: Sequential DCT seven-speed gearbox, permanent all-wheel drive
Cadillac Sixteen:
Size: Wheelbase 3556 millimeters, overall length 5,671 mm, width is 2,029 mm, height 1391 mm. 2270 kg
Power: 735 kW (1000 bhp) at n/a /min, 1355 Newton-meters (1000 lbs-ft of torque) at 4000 /min
Drivetrain: Four speed "slightly modified off the GM shelf" gearbox, rear wheel drive.
SuPeRcAr_MaN
01-20-2003, 02:25 PM
I love the Caddie, but it would get it's ass handed to it by the Bugatti. :D
Scott 02
01-20-2003, 03:41 PM
it sure would, the cadillac weighs 5000lbs, i don't think the Bugatti weight is near that much.
Jimster
01-20-2003, 04:53 PM
The Cadillac just simply doesn't stand a chance against the Bugatti- it's all about the power:wieght ratio :D
FYRHWK1
01-20-2003, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by Deakins
You got to be shitting me?
Bugatti Veyron:
Size: Wheelbase 2,700 millimeters, overall length 4,466 mm, width is 1,998 mm, height 1,206 mm. 1240 kg
Power: 736 kW (1001 bhp) at 6000/min, 1,250 Newton-meters (922 lbs-ft of torque) at 2000-5500/min
Drivetrain: Sequential DCT seven-speed gearbox, permanent all-wheel drive
Cadillac Sixteen:
Size: Wheelbase 3556 millimeters, overall length 5,671 mm, width is 2,029 mm, height 1391 mm. 2270 kg
Power: 735 kW (1000 bhp) at n/a /min, 1355 Newton-meters (1000 lbs-ft of torque) at 4000 /min
Drivetrain: Four speed "slightly modified off the GM shelf" gearbox, rear wheel drive.
ok so the bugatti has AWD, meaning less power to the ground, a 7 speed which SHOULD help it around the track and a shorter wheelbase which CAN help its turn in, yet neither have been proven, so therefore my point still stands, prove it.
and that "slightly modified off the shelf" automatic is likely the best 4 speed in the world, the fact its relativly unmodified is proof of that. neither of these cars would perform well enough for their pricetag/technology regardless, they're image cars.
You got to be shitting me?
Bugatti Veyron:
Size: Wheelbase 2,700 millimeters, overall length 4,466 mm, width is 1,998 mm, height 1,206 mm. 1240 kg
Power: 736 kW (1001 bhp) at 6000/min, 1,250 Newton-meters (922 lbs-ft of torque) at 2000-5500/min
Drivetrain: Sequential DCT seven-speed gearbox, permanent all-wheel drive
Cadillac Sixteen:
Size: Wheelbase 3556 millimeters, overall length 5,671 mm, width is 2,029 mm, height 1391 mm. 2270 kg
Power: 735 kW (1000 bhp) at n/a /min, 1355 Newton-meters (1000 lbs-ft of torque) at 4000 /min
Drivetrain: Four speed "slightly modified off the GM shelf" gearbox, rear wheel drive.
ok so the bugatti has AWD, meaning less power to the ground, a 7 speed which SHOULD help it around the track and a shorter wheelbase which CAN help its turn in, yet neither have been proven, so therefore my point still stands, prove it.
and that "slightly modified off the shelf" automatic is likely the best 4 speed in the world, the fact its relativly unmodified is proof of that. neither of these cars would perform well enough for their pricetag/technology regardless, they're image cars.
SuPeRcAr_MaN
01-20-2003, 07:42 PM
Okay, this was a VERY uneven comparison... just because they are both V16 cars doesn't mean we should be comparing them in any way. They are in two completely different leagues.
Scott 02
01-20-2003, 09:18 PM
Yeah, Mainly wanting to compair motors were i think the Cadillac has the better motor b/c i has more torque and american made :D
Cant wait untill the 0-60mph test and top speed test comes out
Cant wait untill the 0-60mph test and top speed test comes out
Deakins
01-21-2003, 08:46 AM
Originally posted by FYRHWK1
ok so the bugatti has AWD, meaning less power to the ground, a 7 speed which SHOULD help it around the track and a shorter wheelbase which CAN help its turn in, yet neither have been proven, so therefore my point still stands, prove it.
I can't prove it, neither can you. If you refuse to look at the numbers presented, you might as well press here (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/member.php?s=&action=logout) and never come back. There is no chance in hell either one of us is presented the opertuneny to testdrive both cars at a track.
Yes, the Veyron wil probably have less power to the wheels, but how can you seriously think the Sixteen will successfully get more power to the ground and still keep up with the Veyron?
and that "slightly modified off the shelf" automatic is likely the best 4 speed in the world, the fact its relativly unmodified is proof of that.
Just because it's the only gearbox GM had that could handle the power, doesn't mean it's the best. They could have made a new one, and probably learned a thing or two, but that would cost money...
neither of these cars would perform well enough for their pricetag/technology regardless, they're image cars.
If you look at the Sixteen, I can see that, but if the Veyron is everything it looks to be, I don't agree.
ok so the bugatti has AWD, meaning less power to the ground, a 7 speed which SHOULD help it around the track and a shorter wheelbase which CAN help its turn in, yet neither have been proven, so therefore my point still stands, prove it.
I can't prove it, neither can you. If you refuse to look at the numbers presented, you might as well press here (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/member.php?s=&action=logout) and never come back. There is no chance in hell either one of us is presented the opertuneny to testdrive both cars at a track.
Yes, the Veyron wil probably have less power to the wheels, but how can you seriously think the Sixteen will successfully get more power to the ground and still keep up with the Veyron?
and that "slightly modified off the shelf" automatic is likely the best 4 speed in the world, the fact its relativly unmodified is proof of that.
Just because it's the only gearbox GM had that could handle the power, doesn't mean it's the best. They could have made a new one, and probably learned a thing or two, but that would cost money...
neither of these cars would perform well enough for their pricetag/technology regardless, they're image cars.
If you look at the Sixteen, I can see that, but if the Veyron is everything it looks to be, I don't agree.
FYRHWK1
01-21-2003, 10:37 AM
dont think the Sixteen is worth its tag? it costs 250K, the veyron is probably going to go for over a mil. what tech does it have? a 7 speed with a dual clutch? yawn, not impressive, not for 750K. the veyron also has a W engine, dynamically inferior to a V16, it requires very tight bores and thin rods to clear each other, it also requires a dual balancer to keep the NVH in check.
Should i go into the fact it runs 4 turbos and DOHC/4VPC and still produces less torque then a car thats 1/3-1/4 of its price, and is a LUXURY car? one running "old school" single cam, 2 VPC valvetrain? This car ALSO runs displacement on demand, mileage isnt a huge issue but hey, it gets more. And i suppose you weren't reading, that IS one of the best 4 speed automatics in the world, it wasnt an opinion. GM needs to learn very little about building automatics, BMW even seems to think so since the 5 speed auto in their 5 series is a GM part. . .
in fact, the Sixteen is MORE worth its money since it's priced equally with its segment and competition, the veyron is attempting to be another McLaren, with VAG backing it it didn't have a chance at that from the beginning.
Should i go into the fact it runs 4 turbos and DOHC/4VPC and still produces less torque then a car thats 1/3-1/4 of its price, and is a LUXURY car? one running "old school" single cam, 2 VPC valvetrain? This car ALSO runs displacement on demand, mileage isnt a huge issue but hey, it gets more. And i suppose you weren't reading, that IS one of the best 4 speed automatics in the world, it wasnt an opinion. GM needs to learn very little about building automatics, BMW even seems to think so since the 5 speed auto in their 5 series is a GM part. . .
in fact, the Sixteen is MORE worth its money since it's priced equally with its segment and competition, the veyron is attempting to be another McLaren, with VAG backing it it didn't have a chance at that from the beginning.
Scott 02
01-21-2003, 10:57 AM
The Veyron is taged at $850,000 when i looked. The Cadillac SixTeen is worth $250,000.
SuPeRcAr_MaN
01-21-2003, 02:08 PM
You get what you pay for...
Deakins
01-21-2003, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by FYRHWK1
dont think the Sixteen is worth its tag? it costs 250K, the veyron is probably going to go for over a mil. what tech does it have? a 7 speed with a dual clutch? yawn, not impressive, not for 750K.
When the Veyron was introduced, it was the first car with over 1000hp, the first car with a sequential seven-speed gearbox, the first road car with a dual clutch gearbox, the first car with such a impressiver sound system.
the veyron also has a W engine, dynamically inferior to a V16, it requires very tight bores and thin rods to clear each other, it also requires a dual balancer to keep the NVH in check.
That's the only thing you can come up with? Volkswagen has used the same princip in the VR6 for years, without any problems. You just choose to forget the size and weight benefits they have witch is a much larger issue here.
Should i go into the fact it runs 4 turbos and DOHC/4VPC and still produces less torque then a car thats 1/3-1/4 of its price, and is a LUXURY car? one running "old school" single cam, 2 VPC valvetrain?
Look at the numbers I gave you. The W16 produces 100nm less, but it reaches peak at 2200 rpm, and that with 60% of the displacement.
This car ALSO runs displacement on demand, mileage isnt a huge issue but hey, it gets more.
And this is a new thing? Nissan has used this for years.
And i suppose you weren't reading, that IS one of the best 4 speed automatics in the world, it wasnt an opinion. GM needs to learn very little about building automatics, BMW even seems to think so since the 5 speed auto in their 5 series is a GM part. . .
The 5 series is outdated, is the SMG made by GM?
in fact, the Sixteen is MORE worth its money since it's priced equally with its segment and competition, the veyron is attempting to be another McLaren, with VAG backing it it didn't have a chance at that from the beginning.
Show me where you read the Veyron is compeating with the F1. The F1 was a racecar for street use, this is a luxury cruiser.
dont think the Sixteen is worth its tag? it costs 250K, the veyron is probably going to go for over a mil. what tech does it have? a 7 speed with a dual clutch? yawn, not impressive, not for 750K.
When the Veyron was introduced, it was the first car with over 1000hp, the first car with a sequential seven-speed gearbox, the first road car with a dual clutch gearbox, the first car with such a impressiver sound system.
the veyron also has a W engine, dynamically inferior to a V16, it requires very tight bores and thin rods to clear each other, it also requires a dual balancer to keep the NVH in check.
That's the only thing you can come up with? Volkswagen has used the same princip in the VR6 for years, without any problems. You just choose to forget the size and weight benefits they have witch is a much larger issue here.
Should i go into the fact it runs 4 turbos and DOHC/4VPC and still produces less torque then a car thats 1/3-1/4 of its price, and is a LUXURY car? one running "old school" single cam, 2 VPC valvetrain?
Look at the numbers I gave you. The W16 produces 100nm less, but it reaches peak at 2200 rpm, and that with 60% of the displacement.
This car ALSO runs displacement on demand, mileage isnt a huge issue but hey, it gets more.
And this is a new thing? Nissan has used this for years.
And i suppose you weren't reading, that IS one of the best 4 speed automatics in the world, it wasnt an opinion. GM needs to learn very little about building automatics, BMW even seems to think so since the 5 speed auto in their 5 series is a GM part. . .
The 5 series is outdated, is the SMG made by GM?
in fact, the Sixteen is MORE worth its money since it's priced equally with its segment and competition, the veyron is attempting to be another McLaren, with VAG backing it it didn't have a chance at that from the beginning.
Show me where you read the Veyron is compeating with the F1. The F1 was a racecar for street use, this is a luxury cruiser.
FYRHWK1
01-21-2003, 03:55 PM
first car with 1000? only stock, we've been doing that over here in the US with half the cylinders and less displacement for years, nice for a stock car but in the whole scheme of things you don't get what you pay for. 7 speed? just 1 more gear on a 6 speed, why is it needed in a car with such a broad powerband? more isnt better, and adual clutch is unnecessary, the SMG system shifts more then fast enough and its worlds less complicated.
sound system? don't make me laugh.
only thing i can come up with? i wasn't coming "up" with anything it's fact, the VR6 isnt known for its power or reliability either, maybe its overly complicated valvetrain but is that really something to be proud of? VW was first to use its designe because they were the only ones who thought it was a good idea, they still are.
60% of the STATIC displacement, you forget turbos essentially increase displacement, at a little over 14.7 psig (to take into account inefficiency) the motor acts as if it were double the size of what it is stock. People seem to think having a large motor stock means you cant engineer but a turbo motor is just fine, ineducated people . . .
nissan with displacement on demand? show me.
outdated? sure, and if i hadn't said that the 5 series would be just fine, lame attempt to knock a good transmission. No, GM doesnt make the SMG, the point was GM is likely the worlds #1 worldwide when it comes to automatics, since the 60's they've built autos which can handle more power with less weight and parasitic loss then their competition.
Don't make me laugh, the veyron is an attempt by VAG to take the "fastest" supercar title from the Mclaren, and handling be damned. they want a big topspeed and comfortable ride, AWD, 4 turbos, 7 speed, its all BS to make the car SEEM technologically superior, even if it only performs in a straight line.
BTW, we've been building custom cars over here that are capable of faster times, and i can always have a custom interior made up for my car if i decide to, then all your veyron has is a Bugatti nameplate, congrats :rolleyes:
sound system? don't make me laugh.
only thing i can come up with? i wasn't coming "up" with anything it's fact, the VR6 isnt known for its power or reliability either, maybe its overly complicated valvetrain but is that really something to be proud of? VW was first to use its designe because they were the only ones who thought it was a good idea, they still are.
60% of the STATIC displacement, you forget turbos essentially increase displacement, at a little over 14.7 psig (to take into account inefficiency) the motor acts as if it were double the size of what it is stock. People seem to think having a large motor stock means you cant engineer but a turbo motor is just fine, ineducated people . . .
nissan with displacement on demand? show me.
outdated? sure, and if i hadn't said that the 5 series would be just fine, lame attempt to knock a good transmission. No, GM doesnt make the SMG, the point was GM is likely the worlds #1 worldwide when it comes to automatics, since the 60's they've built autos which can handle more power with less weight and parasitic loss then their competition.
Don't make me laugh, the veyron is an attempt by VAG to take the "fastest" supercar title from the Mclaren, and handling be damned. they want a big topspeed and comfortable ride, AWD, 4 turbos, 7 speed, its all BS to make the car SEEM technologically superior, even if it only performs in a straight line.
BTW, we've been building custom cars over here that are capable of faster times, and i can always have a custom interior made up for my car if i decide to, then all your veyron has is a Bugatti nameplate, congrats :rolleyes:
Jimster
01-21-2003, 09:24 PM
Originally posted by FYRHWK1
first car with 1000? only stock, we've been doing that over here in the US with half the cylinders and less displacement for years, nice for a stock car but in the whole scheme of things you don't get what you pay for. 7 speed? just 1 more gear on a 6 speed, why is it needed in a car with such a broad powerband? more isnt better, and adual clutch is unnecessary, the SMG system shifts more then fast enough and its worlds less complicated.
sound system? don't make me laugh.
only thing i can come up with? i wasn't coming "up" with anything it's fact, the VR6 isnt known for its power or reliability either, maybe its overly complicated valvetrain but is that really something to be proud of? VW was first to use its designe because they were the only ones who thought it was a good idea, they still are.
60% of the STATIC displacement, you forget turbos essentially increase displacement, at a little over 14.7 psig (to take into account inefficiency) the motor acts as if it were double the size of what it is stock. People seem to think having a large motor stock means you cant engineer but a turbo motor is just fine, ineducated people . . .
nissan with displacement on demand? show me.
outdated? sure, and if i hadn't said that the 5 series would be just fine, lame attempt to knock a good transmission. No, GM doesnt make the SMG, the point was GM is likely the worlds #1 worldwide when it comes to automatics, since the 60's they've built autos which can handle more power with less weight and parasitic loss then their competition.
Don't make me laugh, the veyron is an attempt by VAG to take the "fastest" supercar title from the Mclaren, and handling be damned. they want a big topspeed and comfortable ride, AWD, 4 turbos, 7 speed, its all BS to make the car SEEM technologically superior, even if it only performs in a straight line.
BTW, we've been building custom cars over here that are capable of faster times, and i can always have a custom interior made up for my car if i decide to, then all your veyron has is a Bugatti nameplate, congrats :rolleyes:
Firstly- DOD has been proven unreliable beore after Cadillac first tested it in the 80's on the 8-6-4. What makes you think it'll be any better this time aroud- you don't think GM actually spenty Money developing this thing do you??? :spit:
The VR6 powertrain is indeed very reliable- it is not uncommon to see 300k km examples still running on te smell of an ioly rag and they are capable of some serious power. There is an Mk3 VR6 Golf putting out 350 bhp @ the flywheel around here and trust me- that baby can fly.
I don't know of the top speed figures of the Veryon- but I'm guessing it is nudging the 400 km/h bracket- definitley a need for a 7th gear IMHO. Since there are no figures apart from engine specs released for wither cars (To the best of my Knowlege)- you don't know what you are on about - so be quiet
And don't get me started on your straight line BS- the Bugatti EB110 contained a similar set up to the Veryon (Just a V12 instead of a V16) and those who drove it loved it- so what makes you think it the Veryon won't be the same? And since no-one who doesn't work for Bugatti hasn't tested the car- I say shut up. And yes the Veryon IS technically superior- GM is just using stuff it found lying around the office- Bugatti is putting an effort into creating some very revolutionary technology. And Bugatti are putting an emphasis on luxury with Supercar speed- rather than making it the biggest an best.
first car with 1000? only stock, we've been doing that over here in the US with half the cylinders and less displacement for years, nice for a stock car but in the whole scheme of things you don't get what you pay for. 7 speed? just 1 more gear on a 6 speed, why is it needed in a car with such a broad powerband? more isnt better, and adual clutch is unnecessary, the SMG system shifts more then fast enough and its worlds less complicated.
sound system? don't make me laugh.
only thing i can come up with? i wasn't coming "up" with anything it's fact, the VR6 isnt known for its power or reliability either, maybe its overly complicated valvetrain but is that really something to be proud of? VW was first to use its designe because they were the only ones who thought it was a good idea, they still are.
60% of the STATIC displacement, you forget turbos essentially increase displacement, at a little over 14.7 psig (to take into account inefficiency) the motor acts as if it were double the size of what it is stock. People seem to think having a large motor stock means you cant engineer but a turbo motor is just fine, ineducated people . . .
nissan with displacement on demand? show me.
outdated? sure, and if i hadn't said that the 5 series would be just fine, lame attempt to knock a good transmission. No, GM doesnt make the SMG, the point was GM is likely the worlds #1 worldwide when it comes to automatics, since the 60's they've built autos which can handle more power with less weight and parasitic loss then their competition.
Don't make me laugh, the veyron is an attempt by VAG to take the "fastest" supercar title from the Mclaren, and handling be damned. they want a big topspeed and comfortable ride, AWD, 4 turbos, 7 speed, its all BS to make the car SEEM technologically superior, even if it only performs in a straight line.
BTW, we've been building custom cars over here that are capable of faster times, and i can always have a custom interior made up for my car if i decide to, then all your veyron has is a Bugatti nameplate, congrats :rolleyes:
Firstly- DOD has been proven unreliable beore after Cadillac first tested it in the 80's on the 8-6-4. What makes you think it'll be any better this time aroud- you don't think GM actually spenty Money developing this thing do you??? :spit:
The VR6 powertrain is indeed very reliable- it is not uncommon to see 300k km examples still running on te smell of an ioly rag and they are capable of some serious power. There is an Mk3 VR6 Golf putting out 350 bhp @ the flywheel around here and trust me- that baby can fly.
I don't know of the top speed figures of the Veryon- but I'm guessing it is nudging the 400 km/h bracket- definitley a need for a 7th gear IMHO. Since there are no figures apart from engine specs released for wither cars (To the best of my Knowlege)- you don't know what you are on about - so be quiet
And don't get me started on your straight line BS- the Bugatti EB110 contained a similar set up to the Veryon (Just a V12 instead of a V16) and those who drove it loved it- so what makes you think it the Veryon won't be the same? And since no-one who doesn't work for Bugatti hasn't tested the car- I say shut up. And yes the Veryon IS technically superior- GM is just using stuff it found lying around the office- Bugatti is putting an effort into creating some very revolutionary technology. And Bugatti are putting an emphasis on luxury with Supercar speed- rather than making it the biggest an best.
WakkaWu
01-21-2003, 09:49 PM
- you don't think GM actually spenty Money developing this thing do you???
GM has spent billions developing this car my friend.And last time GM attempted that was in the 80s.(8-6-4)Big deal.Pull yourself out of the past.That was then,this is now,25 years later.Most likely they have made it work.And what your all refusing to remember is that GM has not said jack crap about quarter mile,0-60 or top speeds.That means you don't know how fast the Sixteen is.With a top speed of 252 the Veyron is very quick,but how fast is the Sixteen?You don't know.Two very nice cars.But being a die hard Caddy fan,I'd rather have the Sixteen.The Sixteen also has more technology.Remember,speed isnt everything.
GM has spent billions developing this car my friend.And last time GM attempted that was in the 80s.(8-6-4)Big deal.Pull yourself out of the past.That was then,this is now,25 years later.Most likely they have made it work.And what your all refusing to remember is that GM has not said jack crap about quarter mile,0-60 or top speeds.That means you don't know how fast the Sixteen is.With a top speed of 252 the Veyron is very quick,but how fast is the Sixteen?You don't know.Two very nice cars.But being a die hard Caddy fan,I'd rather have the Sixteen.The Sixteen also has more technology.Remember,speed isnt everything.
Scott 02
01-21-2003, 10:00 PM
Right, How fast will the Sixteen go? I think it will get in the 220mph range easy. Im sure its geared high to do that since its a Cadillac.
Hey...i just posted my 100th of the day :D :eek: :cool: Had nothing else to do today since school was out. :p
Hey...i just posted my 100th of the day :D :eek: :cool: Had nothing else to do today since school was out. :p
WakkaWu
01-21-2003, 10:12 PM
Have no clue how fast,the speeds havent been released yet.
100th?damn!
100th?damn!
Neutrino
01-22-2003, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by Scott 02
Right, How fast will the Sixteen go? I think it will get in the 220mph range easy. Im sure its geared high to do that since its a Cadillac.
You forget the all important aerodinamics. At first look i doubt the caddy is capable of anything above 180mph.
Right, How fast will the Sixteen go? I think it will get in the 220mph range easy. Im sure its geared high to do that since its a Cadillac.
You forget the all important aerodinamics. At first look i doubt the caddy is capable of anything above 180mph.
Jimster
01-22-2003, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by WakkaWu
GM has spent billions developing this car my friend.And last time GM attempted that was in the 80s.(8-6-4)Big deal.Pull yourself out of the past.That was then,this is now,25 years later.Most likely they have made it work.And what your all refusing to remember is that GM has not said jack crap about quarter mile,0-60 or top speeds.That means you don't know how fast the Sixteen is.With a top speed of 252 the Veyron is very quick,but how fast is the Sixteen?You don't know.Two very nice cars.But being a die hard Caddy fan,I'd rather have the Sixteen.The Sixteen also has more technology.Remember,speed isnt everything.
The only technology the Sixteen has is DOD and a range of impressive materials. As already discussed the Veryon is far more technologically advanced. The 7 speed sequential gearbox, dual-clutch system, the W shaped arangement of cylinders, mated to a quad turbo set up (Bugatti are still the only ones I remember who have pulled this off stock)
GM has spent billions developing this car my friend.And last time GM attempted that was in the 80s.(8-6-4)Big deal.Pull yourself out of the past.That was then,this is now,25 years later.Most likely they have made it work.And what your all refusing to remember is that GM has not said jack crap about quarter mile,0-60 or top speeds.That means you don't know how fast the Sixteen is.With a top speed of 252 the Veyron is very quick,but how fast is the Sixteen?You don't know.Two very nice cars.But being a die hard Caddy fan,I'd rather have the Sixteen.The Sixteen also has more technology.Remember,speed isnt everything.
The only technology the Sixteen has is DOD and a range of impressive materials. As already discussed the Veryon is far more technologically advanced. The 7 speed sequential gearbox, dual-clutch system, the W shaped arangement of cylinders, mated to a quad turbo set up (Bugatti are still the only ones I remember who have pulled this off stock)
Deakins
01-22-2003, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by FYRHWK1
first car with 1000? only stock, we've been doing that over here in the US with half the cylinders and less displacement for years, nice for a stock car but in the whole scheme of things you don't get what you pay for.
And people in Japan have does it with six cylinders and even less displacement, what's your point? A 1000hp dragcar isn't all that impressive, but a 1000hp luxurious street leagal car is.
7 speed? just 1 more gear on a 6 speed, why is it needed in a car with such a broad powerband? more isnt better, and adual clutch is unnecessary, the SMG system shifts more then fast enough and its worlds less complicated.
sound system? don't make me laugh.
You fail to see the point here, what did Cadillac learn by using a gearbox thel allready had laying around? Nothing. VAG are allready used a similar gearbox in the Golf and the TT
only thing i can come up with? i wasn't coming "up" with anything it's fact, the VR6 isnt known for its power or reliability either, maybe its overly complicated valvetrain but is that really something to be proud of? VW was first to use its designe because they were the only ones who thought it was a good idea, they still are.
The VR6 known for its power or reliability? A stock block can handle well over 600 hp, and still fit in a Golf.
And to this date, they are the only company that offers a V6 engine in such small cars.
60% of the STATIC displacement, you forget turbos essentially increase displacement, at a little over 14.7 psig (to take into account inefficiency) the motor acts as if it were double the size of what it is stock. People seem to think having a large motor stock means you cant engineer but a turbo motor is just fine, ineducated people . . .
That wasn't my point, like I said, this engine has a flat torque curve, and more torque at low engine speeds.
Originally posted by FYRHWK1
nissan with displacement on demand? show me.
Look at the Nissan President.
outdated? sure, and if i hadn't said that the 5 series would be just fine, lame attempt to knock a good transmission. No, GM doesnt make the SMG, the point was GM is likely the worlds #1 worldwide when it comes to automatics, since the 60's they've built autos which can handle more power with less weight and parasitic loss then their competition.
The reason they are number one when it comes to making automatic transmissions, might have something to do with the fact that no one outside the US drives regular automatic cars.
Don't make me laugh, the veyron is an attempt by VAG to take the "fastest" supercar title from the Mclaren, and handling be damned. they want a big topspeed and comfortable ride, AWD, 4 turbos, 7 speed, its all BS to make the car SEEM technologically superior, even if it only performs in a straight line.
So the only part of a car than makes it technologically advanced is the chassis?
And what do you know for a fact that makes you beleave the Veyron won't be fast around a track?
BTW, we've been building custom cars over here that are capable of faster times, and i can always have a custom interior made up for my car if i decide to, then all your veyron has is a Bugatti nameplate, congrats :rolleyes:
Like you said: Prove it
I seriously doubt you have made or will ever make a street legal luxurious car, capable of over 400 km/h, that does 0-300 in 14 seconds and still driveble on the street.
first car with 1000? only stock, we've been doing that over here in the US with half the cylinders and less displacement for years, nice for a stock car but in the whole scheme of things you don't get what you pay for.
And people in Japan have does it with six cylinders and even less displacement, what's your point? A 1000hp dragcar isn't all that impressive, but a 1000hp luxurious street leagal car is.
7 speed? just 1 more gear on a 6 speed, why is it needed in a car with such a broad powerband? more isnt better, and adual clutch is unnecessary, the SMG system shifts more then fast enough and its worlds less complicated.
sound system? don't make me laugh.
You fail to see the point here, what did Cadillac learn by using a gearbox thel allready had laying around? Nothing. VAG are allready used a similar gearbox in the Golf and the TT
only thing i can come up with? i wasn't coming "up" with anything it's fact, the VR6 isnt known for its power or reliability either, maybe its overly complicated valvetrain but is that really something to be proud of? VW was first to use its designe because they were the only ones who thought it was a good idea, they still are.
The VR6 known for its power or reliability? A stock block can handle well over 600 hp, and still fit in a Golf.
And to this date, they are the only company that offers a V6 engine in such small cars.
60% of the STATIC displacement, you forget turbos essentially increase displacement, at a little over 14.7 psig (to take into account inefficiency) the motor acts as if it were double the size of what it is stock. People seem to think having a large motor stock means you cant engineer but a turbo motor is just fine, ineducated people . . .
That wasn't my point, like I said, this engine has a flat torque curve, and more torque at low engine speeds.
Originally posted by FYRHWK1
nissan with displacement on demand? show me.
Look at the Nissan President.
outdated? sure, and if i hadn't said that the 5 series would be just fine, lame attempt to knock a good transmission. No, GM doesnt make the SMG, the point was GM is likely the worlds #1 worldwide when it comes to automatics, since the 60's they've built autos which can handle more power with less weight and parasitic loss then their competition.
The reason they are number one when it comes to making automatic transmissions, might have something to do with the fact that no one outside the US drives regular automatic cars.
Don't make me laugh, the veyron is an attempt by VAG to take the "fastest" supercar title from the Mclaren, and handling be damned. they want a big topspeed and comfortable ride, AWD, 4 turbos, 7 speed, its all BS to make the car SEEM technologically superior, even if it only performs in a straight line.
So the only part of a car than makes it technologically advanced is the chassis?
And what do you know for a fact that makes you beleave the Veyron won't be fast around a track?
BTW, we've been building custom cars over here that are capable of faster times, and i can always have a custom interior made up for my car if i decide to, then all your veyron has is a Bugatti nameplate, congrats :rolleyes:
Like you said: Prove it
I seriously doubt you have made or will ever make a street legal luxurious car, capable of over 400 km/h, that does 0-300 in 14 seconds and still driveble on the street.
FYRHWK1
01-22-2003, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Jimster
Firstly- DOD has been proven unreliable beore after Cadillac first tested it in the 80's on the 8-6-4. What makes you think it'll be any better this time aroud- you don't think GM actually spenty Money developing this thing do you??? :spit:
The VR6 powertrain is indeed very reliable- it is not uncommon to see 300k km examples still running on te smell of an ioly rag and they are capable of some serious power. There is an Mk3 VR6 Golf putting out 350 bhp @ the flywheel around here and trust me- that baby can fly.
I don't know of the top speed figures of the Veryon- but I'm guessing it is nudging the 400 km/h bracket- definitley a need for a 7th gear IMHO. Since there are no figures apart from engine specs released for wither cars (To the best of my Knowlege)- you don't know what you are on about - so be quiet
And don't get me started on your straight line BS- the Bugatti EB110 contained a similar set up to the Veryon (Just a V12 instead of a V16) and those who drove it loved it- so what makes you think it the Veryon won't be the same? And since no-one who doesn't work for Bugatti hasn't tested the car- I say shut up. And yes the Veryon IS technically superior- GM is just using stuff it found lying around the office- Bugatti is putting an effort into creating some very revolutionary technology. And Bugatti are putting an emphasis on luxury with Supercar speed- rather than making it the biggest an best.
:thumbup:
DOD was unreliable due to the engine control at the time, if you're too ignorant to realize that computer technology has come a long way then dont talk to me, i'm not going to waste my time with someone who blatantly ignores the millions GM has spent updating the system, tell me buddy can you even explain how DOD works and WHY the 8-6-4 didnt? i'll give you time to look it up.
this entire post is hilarious. a 7th GEAR NEEDE FOR MORE TOPEND? what are you smoking? the need for more gear ratios is to keep a car in a very specific powerband because it cant perform as well outside that, you're telling me a 8-9L turbo W-16 has a narrow powerband? yous hould do some research on this before you post.
the VR6 is reliable? i'll believe those who've owned them over you, their reliability is not their selling point, and 350 bhp is not powerful nor does it tell me a damn thing about the engine. there are numberous 6 cylinder and i'm willing to bet on inline 4's being capable of that without a turbo, i DO hope this 350 bhp VR6 isn't turbocharged. . .
using overly complicated transmissions and an inferior engine arrangement doesnt make you technologically superior, maybe to people like you who are impressed by 1 extra gear or a dual clutch, but some of us arent impressed with pretty lights and VTEC. I'll take an SMG over that 7 speed any day, not only is it lighter its less complicated, thats why it's superior.
And there isn't a damn bit of revolutionary technology in this car, nobody needs a W engine nor is it a performance wonder, the suspension is nothing new nor is the transmission anything that could be useful outside of an $850K abomination.
You forget the all important aerodinamics. At first look i doubt the caddy is capable of anything above 180mph.
#1 even with a piss poor aerodynamic profile the car is well capable of speeds above that, #2 quote me where you got the Cd numbers that you're basing your decision on? What I see is this, the proper aerodynamic profile for a car would be 4 times as long as it is high, notice why many of the dedicated bonneville cars are so long and low.
Another thing that i see is that the car has a long flat profile leading up to the windshield and a fairly sharply raked windshield, and a cab that leads nearly to the rear of the car, it's not as effective as say Porsche's cab design in terms of aerodynamics but this IS a luxury car.
you're right, people in japan have done it, with the aid of turbos and race fuel, we have all motor cars doing that, i can link you to a 1200 hp turbo smallblock that runs on our piss poor pump gas, would you like to see it? i made a brash comment, 1000 HP isn't very impressive while a 1000 hp car with a good powerband is what truly matters, japan cant say they have the latter.
already used a similar gearbox? :hehehe: sure, lets see the similarities of this golf gearbox to the veyrons.
I looked for quite a while on the nissan pesident, noone ever said anything about the engine except it being a 4.4L V8, no mention of DOD or anything like it, like to prove your statement?
a V6 isn't needed in such a small car, and 600 hp isn't extremely impressive anymore, i'd like to SEE a VR6 making 600 hp regardless, i've never come across anything close.
show me the dyno proving it has a flatter curve? typically, not that this is law, but the higher you make your torque peak the longer your curve stays flat. this isn't always the case but with a near 14L V16 i'm betting it is, the W16 might have its torque peak at alower RPM but that doesnt mean it has a better powerband.
the fact that the veyron is a large car aimed at the touring/luxury market leads me to the decision that it's not going to be as fast around a track as it's "technology" and pricetage implies.
0-300 KMH in 14 seconds? lets see the veyron do that, as of now the Callaway Corvette has done 254 mph on pump gas and it was fully street legal, the body was also essentially stock, with only diffusers and some downforce aids added to the original design. There are cars driven on the street capable of reaching 160 MPH + in 1/4 of a mile, crossing that in as low as 8 seconds. And they didnt need a W16, 4 tubos or a dual clutched 7 speed to do it, either.
As to interior, any custom interior will always be more luxurious to THAT person because they had it done as they wanted, interior is a personal opinion, remember.
Firstly- DOD has been proven unreliable beore after Cadillac first tested it in the 80's on the 8-6-4. What makes you think it'll be any better this time aroud- you don't think GM actually spenty Money developing this thing do you??? :spit:
The VR6 powertrain is indeed very reliable- it is not uncommon to see 300k km examples still running on te smell of an ioly rag and they are capable of some serious power. There is an Mk3 VR6 Golf putting out 350 bhp @ the flywheel around here and trust me- that baby can fly.
I don't know of the top speed figures of the Veryon- but I'm guessing it is nudging the 400 km/h bracket- definitley a need for a 7th gear IMHO. Since there are no figures apart from engine specs released for wither cars (To the best of my Knowlege)- you don't know what you are on about - so be quiet
And don't get me started on your straight line BS- the Bugatti EB110 contained a similar set up to the Veryon (Just a V12 instead of a V16) and those who drove it loved it- so what makes you think it the Veryon won't be the same? And since no-one who doesn't work for Bugatti hasn't tested the car- I say shut up. And yes the Veryon IS technically superior- GM is just using stuff it found lying around the office- Bugatti is putting an effort into creating some very revolutionary technology. And Bugatti are putting an emphasis on luxury with Supercar speed- rather than making it the biggest an best.
:thumbup:
DOD was unreliable due to the engine control at the time, if you're too ignorant to realize that computer technology has come a long way then dont talk to me, i'm not going to waste my time with someone who blatantly ignores the millions GM has spent updating the system, tell me buddy can you even explain how DOD works and WHY the 8-6-4 didnt? i'll give you time to look it up.
this entire post is hilarious. a 7th GEAR NEEDE FOR MORE TOPEND? what are you smoking? the need for more gear ratios is to keep a car in a very specific powerband because it cant perform as well outside that, you're telling me a 8-9L turbo W-16 has a narrow powerband? yous hould do some research on this before you post.
the VR6 is reliable? i'll believe those who've owned them over you, their reliability is not their selling point, and 350 bhp is not powerful nor does it tell me a damn thing about the engine. there are numberous 6 cylinder and i'm willing to bet on inline 4's being capable of that without a turbo, i DO hope this 350 bhp VR6 isn't turbocharged. . .
using overly complicated transmissions and an inferior engine arrangement doesnt make you technologically superior, maybe to people like you who are impressed by 1 extra gear or a dual clutch, but some of us arent impressed with pretty lights and VTEC. I'll take an SMG over that 7 speed any day, not only is it lighter its less complicated, thats why it's superior.
And there isn't a damn bit of revolutionary technology in this car, nobody needs a W engine nor is it a performance wonder, the suspension is nothing new nor is the transmission anything that could be useful outside of an $850K abomination.
You forget the all important aerodinamics. At first look i doubt the caddy is capable of anything above 180mph.
#1 even with a piss poor aerodynamic profile the car is well capable of speeds above that, #2 quote me where you got the Cd numbers that you're basing your decision on? What I see is this, the proper aerodynamic profile for a car would be 4 times as long as it is high, notice why many of the dedicated bonneville cars are so long and low.
Another thing that i see is that the car has a long flat profile leading up to the windshield and a fairly sharply raked windshield, and a cab that leads nearly to the rear of the car, it's not as effective as say Porsche's cab design in terms of aerodynamics but this IS a luxury car.
you're right, people in japan have done it, with the aid of turbos and race fuel, we have all motor cars doing that, i can link you to a 1200 hp turbo smallblock that runs on our piss poor pump gas, would you like to see it? i made a brash comment, 1000 HP isn't very impressive while a 1000 hp car with a good powerband is what truly matters, japan cant say they have the latter.
already used a similar gearbox? :hehehe: sure, lets see the similarities of this golf gearbox to the veyrons.
I looked for quite a while on the nissan pesident, noone ever said anything about the engine except it being a 4.4L V8, no mention of DOD or anything like it, like to prove your statement?
a V6 isn't needed in such a small car, and 600 hp isn't extremely impressive anymore, i'd like to SEE a VR6 making 600 hp regardless, i've never come across anything close.
show me the dyno proving it has a flatter curve? typically, not that this is law, but the higher you make your torque peak the longer your curve stays flat. this isn't always the case but with a near 14L V16 i'm betting it is, the W16 might have its torque peak at alower RPM but that doesnt mean it has a better powerband.
the fact that the veyron is a large car aimed at the touring/luxury market leads me to the decision that it's not going to be as fast around a track as it's "technology" and pricetage implies.
0-300 KMH in 14 seconds? lets see the veyron do that, as of now the Callaway Corvette has done 254 mph on pump gas and it was fully street legal, the body was also essentially stock, with only diffusers and some downforce aids added to the original design. There are cars driven on the street capable of reaching 160 MPH + in 1/4 of a mile, crossing that in as low as 8 seconds. And they didnt need a W16, 4 tubos or a dual clutched 7 speed to do it, either.
As to interior, any custom interior will always be more luxurious to THAT person because they had it done as they wanted, interior is a personal opinion, remember.
Deakins
01-22-2003, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by FYRHWK1
already used a similar gearbox? :hehehe: sure, lets see the similarities of this golf gearbox to the veyrons.
Look at the Golf R32.
I looked for quite a while on the nissan pesident, noone ever said anything about the engine except it being a 4.4L V8, no mention of DOD or anything like it, like to prove your statement?
Well, look some more.
a V6 isn't needed in such a small car, and 600 hp isn't extremely impressive anymore, i'd like to SEE a VR6 making 600 hp regardless, i've never come across anything close.
Well, a V16 isn't needed in in the Sixteen either, but it's fun.
I'll upload it later, but here (http://www.eiptuning.com/vr6turbo/stage5vr6turbodyno.html) is a 520hp VR6.
show me the dyno proving it has a flatter curve? typically, not that this is law, but the higher you make your torque peak the longer your curve stays flat. this isn't always the case but with a near 14L V16 i'm betting it is, the W16 might have its torque peak at alower RPM but that doesnt mean it has a better powerband.
This, like all other VAG turbo engines, uses low presure turbos to get a flat torque curve
the fact that the veyron is a large car aimed at the touring/luxury market leads me to the decision that it's not going to be as fast around a track as it's "technology" and pricetage implies.
It's shorter, lower and lighter than a Z06 or a 360 Modena, if you acctually read what I said in the first place, you would know this.
0-300 KMH in 14 seconds? lets see the veyron do that, as of now the Callaway Corvette has done 254 mph on pump gas and it was fully street legal, the body was also essentially stock, with only diffusers and some downforce aids added to the original design. There are cars driven on the street capable of reaching 160 MPH + in 1/4 of a mile, crossing that in as low as 8 seconds. And they didnt need a W16, 4 tubos or a dual clutched 7 speed to do it, either.
That car costed $400k in 1988, around $500k today. That's a lot of money for a car that's only capable of going fast.
For €600k you can buy a MTM Audi TT that does over 370 km/h, but it's still just a modified TT.
already used a similar gearbox? :hehehe: sure, lets see the similarities of this golf gearbox to the veyrons.
Look at the Golf R32.
I looked for quite a while on the nissan pesident, noone ever said anything about the engine except it being a 4.4L V8, no mention of DOD or anything like it, like to prove your statement?
Well, look some more.
a V6 isn't needed in such a small car, and 600 hp isn't extremely impressive anymore, i'd like to SEE a VR6 making 600 hp regardless, i've never come across anything close.
Well, a V16 isn't needed in in the Sixteen either, but it's fun.
I'll upload it later, but here (http://www.eiptuning.com/vr6turbo/stage5vr6turbodyno.html) is a 520hp VR6.
show me the dyno proving it has a flatter curve? typically, not that this is law, but the higher you make your torque peak the longer your curve stays flat. this isn't always the case but with a near 14L V16 i'm betting it is, the W16 might have its torque peak at alower RPM but that doesnt mean it has a better powerband.
This, like all other VAG turbo engines, uses low presure turbos to get a flat torque curve
the fact that the veyron is a large car aimed at the touring/luxury market leads me to the decision that it's not going to be as fast around a track as it's "technology" and pricetage implies.
It's shorter, lower and lighter than a Z06 or a 360 Modena, if you acctually read what I said in the first place, you would know this.
0-300 KMH in 14 seconds? lets see the veyron do that, as of now the Callaway Corvette has done 254 mph on pump gas and it was fully street legal, the body was also essentially stock, with only diffusers and some downforce aids added to the original design. There are cars driven on the street capable of reaching 160 MPH + in 1/4 of a mile, crossing that in as low as 8 seconds. And they didnt need a W16, 4 tubos or a dual clutched 7 speed to do it, either.
That car costed $400k in 1988, around $500k today. That's a lot of money for a car that's only capable of going fast.
For €600k you can buy a MTM Audi TT that does over 370 km/h, but it's still just a modified TT.
FYRHWK1
01-22-2003, 02:48 PM
and what similarities coudl the R32 possibly have with the 7 speed dual clutched veyron box? its not an amazingly advanced tranny, its just a 7 speed with a second clutch integrated.
I still havent found anything on the president running DOD, i'm starting to think it doesnt exist.
not a bad motor, thats a peaky graph, but it's impressive for a small motor, i take it it's running on pump gas? and 80 hp is still a good bit away. . .
other VAG motors arent W16s, i'll wait for a dyno of both cars to make a decision.
2,720 lbs? where did you get that info by the way? thats fairly light for a car of its size, and the Z06s wheelbase is 2655.5 / 104.5 mm/in, 4565.6 / 179.7 overall length and 1211.5 / 47.7 high, the Z06 has a shorter wheelbase (not enough to matter) and a longer total length, much of that is for cargo space and crash safety, the corvette is a real car you realize.
who says the Sledgehammer can only go straight? the C4 corvettes on a set of good tires and a non stock alignment have pulled over 1G laterally, the only thing thats to their detriment was a somewhat heavy curb weight, they handled plenty well stock with room for improvement.
I still havent found anything on the president running DOD, i'm starting to think it doesnt exist.
not a bad motor, thats a peaky graph, but it's impressive for a small motor, i take it it's running on pump gas? and 80 hp is still a good bit away. . .
other VAG motors arent W16s, i'll wait for a dyno of both cars to make a decision.
2,720 lbs? where did you get that info by the way? thats fairly light for a car of its size, and the Z06s wheelbase is 2655.5 / 104.5 mm/in, 4565.6 / 179.7 overall length and 1211.5 / 47.7 high, the Z06 has a shorter wheelbase (not enough to matter) and a longer total length, much of that is for cargo space and crash safety, the corvette is a real car you realize.
who says the Sledgehammer can only go straight? the C4 corvettes on a set of good tires and a non stock alignment have pulled over 1G laterally, the only thing thats to their detriment was a somewhat heavy curb weight, they handled plenty well stock with room for improvement.
WakkaWu
01-22-2003, 04:35 PM
You forget the all important aerodinamics. At first look i doubt the caddy is capable of anything above 180mph.
Thats ones of the stupidest things I have heard.At first look,the Sixteen is very areodynamic.Very.I don't know the top speed but from what I have read,the Sixteen is a 200 plus mph car.With a car with 1000 HP areodynamics don't effect too much,though may I say again,the Sixteen has awsome areodynamics.
0-300 KMH in 14 seconds? lets see the veyron do that
FYRHWK1,thats not a opinion,its fact,the Veyron does do 0-300kmh in 14 seconds.
Thats ones of the stupidest things I have heard.At first look,the Sixteen is very areodynamic.Very.I don't know the top speed but from what I have read,the Sixteen is a 200 plus mph car.With a car with 1000 HP areodynamics don't effect too much,though may I say again,the Sixteen has awsome areodynamics.
0-300 KMH in 14 seconds? lets see the veyron do that
FYRHWK1,thats not a opinion,its fact,the Veyron does do 0-300kmh in 14 seconds.
flylwsi
01-22-2003, 04:38 PM
since you noted...
"who said the sledgehammer can only go straight"
when did you ever see something built by VAG that was designed to go straight?
awd isn't for cars that go straight. we all know that.
so why wouldn't the veryon handle well?
after seeing the 16, i'm not sure it could turn a wheel, let alone handle in a corner, while the veryon has been seen on track testing at ferrari challenge events...
and keep in mind that the veryon is real, and has been driven, while the 16 is a concept car.
and... since it's been noted...
turbos may "make up for displacement" but they aren't going to make up for the tq, and turbo'd cars of smaller displacement *than their n/a counterparts* tend to make less tq. but not that much.
the power of the car, for it's motor size, is pretty impressive. gm made it easy and built a massive motor. not hard to extract power out of that.
"who said the sledgehammer can only go straight"
when did you ever see something built by VAG that was designed to go straight?
awd isn't for cars that go straight. we all know that.
so why wouldn't the veryon handle well?
after seeing the 16, i'm not sure it could turn a wheel, let alone handle in a corner, while the veryon has been seen on track testing at ferrari challenge events...
and keep in mind that the veryon is real, and has been driven, while the 16 is a concept car.
and... since it's been noted...
turbos may "make up for displacement" but they aren't going to make up for the tq, and turbo'd cars of smaller displacement *than their n/a counterparts* tend to make less tq. but not that much.
the power of the car, for it's motor size, is pretty impressive. gm made it easy and built a massive motor. not hard to extract power out of that.
Neutrino
01-22-2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by WakkaWu
Thats ones of the stupidest things I have heard.At first look,the Sixteen is very areodynamic.Very.I don't know the top speed but from what I have read,the Sixteen is a 200 plus mph car.With a car with 1000 HP areodynamics don't effect too much,though may I say again,the Sixteen has awsome areodynamics.
Ok if you would actually stop and read again my post it says "at first look" which means its an opinion and it gives you no right to flame my post.Please learn how do respond in a civilised manner. I never claimed any numers because i cound not find any. And ask anyone even with 1000 hp aerodinamics are very important even at those high speeds. A mean why do you think trucks have huge problems getting over 110 mph with ~ 500 hp whyle a honda with 110 hp can do it aerodinamics.
And the only ignorant statement here is this "areodynamics don't effect too much" made by you how can you say this at speeds over 200mph.
And again my statement about how aerodynamic the caddy was was a guess so stop flaming. I made that guess by comparing its exterior looks with cars that do go over 200 mph like the F1 or the enzo and compared to those cars it just does not look as aerodynamic.
Thats ones of the stupidest things I have heard.At first look,the Sixteen is very areodynamic.Very.I don't know the top speed but from what I have read,the Sixteen is a 200 plus mph car.With a car with 1000 HP areodynamics don't effect too much,though may I say again,the Sixteen has awsome areodynamics.
Ok if you would actually stop and read again my post it says "at first look" which means its an opinion and it gives you no right to flame my post.Please learn how do respond in a civilised manner. I never claimed any numers because i cound not find any. And ask anyone even with 1000 hp aerodinamics are very important even at those high speeds. A mean why do you think trucks have huge problems getting over 110 mph with ~ 500 hp whyle a honda with 110 hp can do it aerodinamics.
And the only ignorant statement here is this "areodynamics don't effect too much" made by you how can you say this at speeds over 200mph.
And again my statement about how aerodynamic the caddy was was a guess so stop flaming. I made that guess by comparing its exterior looks with cars that do go over 200 mph like the F1 or the enzo and compared to those cars it just does not look as aerodynamic.
flylwsi
01-22-2003, 05:34 PM
much agreed... you could have a car with 100hp do over 200, you just need a long enough road and the right gearing.
which i doubt that a 4 spd auto is going to have, even with a v16. and i can't imagine a high enough redline in that motor to get that thing up to those speeds or beyond... without sacrificing the lowend speed and acceleration...
and look at how high it is off the ground. you really think that car will be stable at all over 140, let alone 200?
look at all the cars that break 200. they're sitting much lower to the ground to help aid their aerodynamics...
which i doubt that a 4 spd auto is going to have, even with a v16. and i can't imagine a high enough redline in that motor to get that thing up to those speeds or beyond... without sacrificing the lowend speed and acceleration...
and look at how high it is off the ground. you really think that car will be stable at all over 140, let alone 200?
look at all the cars that break 200. they're sitting much lower to the ground to help aid their aerodynamics...
WakkaWu
01-22-2003, 06:00 PM
and keep in mind that the veryon is real, and has been driven, while the 16 is a concept car.
There has been one Sixteen made as it has been driven.
Ok if you would actually stop and read again my post it says "at first look" which means its an opinion and it gives you no right to flame my post.Please learn how do respond in a civilised manner. I never claimed any numers because i cound not find any. And ask anyone even with 1000 hp aerodinamics are very important even at those high speeds. A mean why do you think trucks have huge problems getting over 110 mph with ~ 500 hp whyle a honda with 110 hp can do it aerodinamics.
Ok,I apolagize for flaming your post but even from first look,I think its common sense that it has great areodynamics."At first look i doubt the caddy is capable of anything above 180mph."That claiming numbers isnt it?Trucks have huge problem getting over 110 becuase they weigh soo much.
And the only ignorant statement here is this "areodynamics don't effect too much" made by you how can you say this at speeds over 200mph.
And you also left out the part with a car with 1000HP.And IF it didnt have areodynamics it probably wouldnt have trouble hitting the 200 mark or at least close to it.
much agreed... you could have a car with 100hp do over 200, you just need a long enough road and the right gearing.
All cars have a limit to there speed.A car with 100HP would not hit the 200 mark even with the right gearing and long enough road.Thats why all cars have a top speed.
which i doubt that a 4 spd auto is going to have, even with a v16. and i can't imagine a high enough redline in that motor to get that thing up to those speeds or beyond... without sacrificing the lowend speed and acceleration...
The Sixteen is a 6 speed automatic I believe.
and look at how high it is off the ground. you really think that car will be stable at all over 140, let alone 200?look at all the cars that break 200. they're sitting much lower to the ground to help aid their aerodynamics...
The Sixteen isnt high off the ground,its very low infact.The Sixteen is a 220 plus car,thats fact,not opinion,based on what I read.The Sixteen sits about 3 inches of the ground and because of how wide it is it hugs the road.
There has been one Sixteen made as it has been driven.
Ok if you would actually stop and read again my post it says "at first look" which means its an opinion and it gives you no right to flame my post.Please learn how do respond in a civilised manner. I never claimed any numers because i cound not find any. And ask anyone even with 1000 hp aerodinamics are very important even at those high speeds. A mean why do you think trucks have huge problems getting over 110 mph with ~ 500 hp whyle a honda with 110 hp can do it aerodinamics.
Ok,I apolagize for flaming your post but even from first look,I think its common sense that it has great areodynamics."At first look i doubt the caddy is capable of anything above 180mph."That claiming numbers isnt it?Trucks have huge problem getting over 110 becuase they weigh soo much.
And the only ignorant statement here is this "areodynamics don't effect too much" made by you how can you say this at speeds over 200mph.
And you also left out the part with a car with 1000HP.And IF it didnt have areodynamics it probably wouldnt have trouble hitting the 200 mark or at least close to it.
much agreed... you could have a car with 100hp do over 200, you just need a long enough road and the right gearing.
All cars have a limit to there speed.A car with 100HP would not hit the 200 mark even with the right gearing and long enough road.Thats why all cars have a top speed.
which i doubt that a 4 spd auto is going to have, even with a v16. and i can't imagine a high enough redline in that motor to get that thing up to those speeds or beyond... without sacrificing the lowend speed and acceleration...
The Sixteen is a 6 speed automatic I believe.
and look at how high it is off the ground. you really think that car will be stable at all over 140, let alone 200?look at all the cars that break 200. they're sitting much lower to the ground to help aid their aerodynamics...
The Sixteen isnt high off the ground,its very low infact.The Sixteen is a 220 plus car,thats fact,not opinion,based on what I read.The Sixteen sits about 3 inches of the ground and because of how wide it is it hugs the road.
FYRHWK1
01-22-2003, 06:05 PM
AWD isnt for cars that go around a track either, we all know this, I'd like to see you mention a dedicated racecar, or even a highly sucessful road car that runs AWD? even the 911's better version runs RWD. AWD in a highspeed turn will overload the front tires and cause understeer, it's not something that can be tuned out via suspension either.
Turbos make getting power from a motor EASIER, how could you possibly think making a larger engine is EASIER? especially when that larger NA motor runs a single cam and 2V heads compared to the DOHC 4V setup in the bugatti.
a 7 speed transmission doesn't mean you automatically have a higher topspeed then a 4 speed auto, as long as the rear wheels turn enough RPM with enough torque it could be a 2 speed, the rim size on a car like this could make up quite a bit in terms of its limitations on wheel RPM as well.
Also, you do realize that as RPM goes up AWD's inertial losses keep increasing? as the bugatti goes up in speed the system will start taking more and more power, and at these levels, a 25% loss at all is a LARGE amount. I'm not saying it wont have a high topspeed, it'll likely have a HIGHER topspeed then the Sixteen, and it should, the Sixteen costs less then 1/3rd of it and is a luxury car with just as much power. These 2 cars shouldn't be compared at all for that matter.
and 0-300 KMH in 14 seconds? i'll believe it when i see it.
Edit: and yes, the Sixteen is a running concept, it was also a last minute job so a 5 or 6 speed automatic is very likely to go into it when production starts, but as of now yes it's a 4 speed.
Turbos make getting power from a motor EASIER, how could you possibly think making a larger engine is EASIER? especially when that larger NA motor runs a single cam and 2V heads compared to the DOHC 4V setup in the bugatti.
a 7 speed transmission doesn't mean you automatically have a higher topspeed then a 4 speed auto, as long as the rear wheels turn enough RPM with enough torque it could be a 2 speed, the rim size on a car like this could make up quite a bit in terms of its limitations on wheel RPM as well.
Also, you do realize that as RPM goes up AWD's inertial losses keep increasing? as the bugatti goes up in speed the system will start taking more and more power, and at these levels, a 25% loss at all is a LARGE amount. I'm not saying it wont have a high topspeed, it'll likely have a HIGHER topspeed then the Sixteen, and it should, the Sixteen costs less then 1/3rd of it and is a luxury car with just as much power. These 2 cars shouldn't be compared at all for that matter.
and 0-300 KMH in 14 seconds? i'll believe it when i see it.
Edit: and yes, the Sixteen is a running concept, it was also a last minute job so a 5 or 6 speed automatic is very likely to go into it when production starts, but as of now yes it's a 4 speed.
flylwsi
01-22-2003, 06:13 PM
ok... a car that is built correctly even with 100hp can hit 200. it's not about the power. it's about gearing and overcoming the Cd. but that's besides the point.
the audi quattro system has been banned from most forms of racing, or we'd see more of it...
the speed gt series was won by michael galati.. driving an... s4. oh, wait, that's quattro awd.
the skyline was banned from alot of racing b/c of it's awd.
anything else?
a larger displacement motor is much easier to get power out of. the small block ford and chevy motors are great examples. it's a great design.
but it's still easier to get more power from more displacement.
the number of valves is a moot point. it depends on how much flow you can get from them.
back to gearing... if you want the lowend accel and the high end, the gearing in the trans has much more to do with it than the wheels.
the 7 speed will help to alleviate the problems that would be associated with a 2 spd trans as suggested... like the power glide for example...
i'm well aware that 7 gears doesn't mean higher top end, as most cars that have a 5 or 6 spd option usually have the same final drive, and closer gears in between. however... i'm pretty sure the extra gears in that car will help in the topspeed dept.
the audi quattro system has been banned from most forms of racing, or we'd see more of it...
the speed gt series was won by michael galati.. driving an... s4. oh, wait, that's quattro awd.
the skyline was banned from alot of racing b/c of it's awd.
anything else?
a larger displacement motor is much easier to get power out of. the small block ford and chevy motors are great examples. it's a great design.
but it's still easier to get more power from more displacement.
the number of valves is a moot point. it depends on how much flow you can get from them.
back to gearing... if you want the lowend accel and the high end, the gearing in the trans has much more to do with it than the wheels.
the 7 speed will help to alleviate the problems that would be associated with a 2 spd trans as suggested... like the power glide for example...
i'm well aware that 7 gears doesn't mean higher top end, as most cars that have a 5 or 6 spd option usually have the same final drive, and closer gears in between. however... i'm pretty sure the extra gears in that car will help in the topspeed dept.
flylwsi
01-22-2003, 06:13 PM
i'm well aware it's a running car. but you nailed it... concept.
the veryon is in testing for production, much different.
the veryon is in testing for production, much different.
SuPeRcAr_MaN
01-22-2003, 06:18 PM
I thought it was clear that these two cars are uncomparible. We can get a better look at the Veyron because it is so much closer to production than the Sixteen. If anyone wants to compare these cars for whatever reason, wait untill they are both in production or at least close to it. Then we can see both stats and prove that these cars are uncomparible, and we might find out some things that we didn't realize in ur judgements about these cars. Just let it go... for now.
FYRHWK1
01-22-2003, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by flylwsi
ok... a car that is built correctly even with 100hp can hit 200. it's not about the power. it's about gearing and overcoming the Cd. but that's besides the point.
the audi quattro system has been banned from most forms of racing, or we'd see more of it...
the speed gt series was won by michael galati.. driving an... s4. oh, wait, that's quattro awd.
the skyline was banned from alot of racing b/c of it's awd.
anything else?
a larger displacement motor is much easier to get power out of. the small block ford and chevy motors are great examples. it's a great design.
but it's still easier to get more power from more displacement.
the number of valves is a moot point. it depends on how much flow you can get from them.
back to gearing... if you want the lowend accel and the high end, the gearing in the trans has much more to do with it than the wheels.
the 7 speed will help to alleviate the problems that would be associated with a 2 spd trans as suggested... like the power glide for example...
i'm well aware that 7 gears doesn't mean higher top end, as most cars that have a 5 or 6 spd option usually have the same final drive, and closer gears in between. however... i'm pretty sure the extra gears in that car will help in the topspeed dept.
the quattro was banned? really now, and why is that? like i said AWD does not help you turn, those CARS may have been banned but it had little to do with the AWD.
the S4 won due to its driver and the fact the car is a well built one, it wasn't due to AWD.
name a few races the skyline was banned from? prove that the AWD system is why? I've heard alot of people tell me this but none have come up with any proof of it. And my point still stands, name a dedicated racecar thats run AWD over RWD? those street cars happen to compete well with AWD in their class, that doesnt mean its a better system then RWD or lemans and F1 would be running it.
the number of valves is moot, however 4V heads will almost always outflow 2V ones if designed properly, i know GM can design both very well and i'm hoping VAG can, they dont have a single pushrod engine that i've ever seen. the fact it runs turbos also aids this by essentially making it flow XXX CFM times 2 or 2, remember at 14.7 it's got twice the air being forced in.
a 7 speed would allow you to stay in a set powerband, a 2 speed would require a very short rearend ratio and a wide powerband, but you could essentially go just as fast if you could create a motor with that kind of powerband.
ok... a car that is built correctly even with 100hp can hit 200. it's not about the power. it's about gearing and overcoming the Cd. but that's besides the point.
the audi quattro system has been banned from most forms of racing, or we'd see more of it...
the speed gt series was won by michael galati.. driving an... s4. oh, wait, that's quattro awd.
the skyline was banned from alot of racing b/c of it's awd.
anything else?
a larger displacement motor is much easier to get power out of. the small block ford and chevy motors are great examples. it's a great design.
but it's still easier to get more power from more displacement.
the number of valves is a moot point. it depends on how much flow you can get from them.
back to gearing... if you want the lowend accel and the high end, the gearing in the trans has much more to do with it than the wheels.
the 7 speed will help to alleviate the problems that would be associated with a 2 spd trans as suggested... like the power glide for example...
i'm well aware that 7 gears doesn't mean higher top end, as most cars that have a 5 or 6 spd option usually have the same final drive, and closer gears in between. however... i'm pretty sure the extra gears in that car will help in the topspeed dept.
the quattro was banned? really now, and why is that? like i said AWD does not help you turn, those CARS may have been banned but it had little to do with the AWD.
the S4 won due to its driver and the fact the car is a well built one, it wasn't due to AWD.
name a few races the skyline was banned from? prove that the AWD system is why? I've heard alot of people tell me this but none have come up with any proof of it. And my point still stands, name a dedicated racecar thats run AWD over RWD? those street cars happen to compete well with AWD in their class, that doesnt mean its a better system then RWD or lemans and F1 would be running it.
the number of valves is moot, however 4V heads will almost always outflow 2V ones if designed properly, i know GM can design both very well and i'm hoping VAG can, they dont have a single pushrod engine that i've ever seen. the fact it runs turbos also aids this by essentially making it flow XXX CFM times 2 or 2, remember at 14.7 it's got twice the air being forced in.
a 7 speed would allow you to stay in a set powerband, a 2 speed would require a very short rearend ratio and a wide powerband, but you could essentially go just as fast if you could create a motor with that kind of powerband.
flylwsi
01-22-2003, 06:47 PM
did you never see the audi commercials talking about how quattro was banned b/c it was deemed to be too much of an advantage?
you asked about 4wd cars that were high end and winning. i gave you s4 of michael galati. now you dismiss it as being a good driver? having nothing to do with the car?
do you think an fwd a4 would do what he did? nope.
there have been multiple racing series that the quattro system was banned from specifically b/c of it's traction benefits.
you asked about 4wd cars that were high end and winning. i gave you s4 of michael galati. now you dismiss it as being a good driver? having nothing to do with the car?
do you think an fwd a4 would do what he did? nope.
there have been multiple racing series that the quattro system was banned from specifically b/c of it's traction benefits.
FYRHWK1
01-22-2003, 07:02 PM
haha, yes, the commercials, corporate BS based on how the quattro system was banned from RALLY RACING, theres a huge difference here. and no a FWD A4 wouldn't do it, but a RWD S4 would, it would likely perform BETTER. I didnt dismiss the car, it has obviously good handling and can produce plenty of power, but the AWD didn't make it win.
Neutrino
01-22-2003, 07:29 PM
Originally posted by WakkaWu
Ok,I apolagize for flaming your post but even from first look,I think its common sense that it has great areodynamics."At first look i doubt the caddy is capable of anything above 180mph."That claiming numbers isnt it?Trucks have huge problem getting over 110 becuase they weigh soo much.
Ok you are probably right that i should not have quoted numbers when it was just a guess its just that to me it does not seem as a car with a low drag coeficient. But i guess all this is now a guess so till we can get some hard numbers all this argument is useless.
But i still disagree with you on the reason truks cannot go to fast. I mean look a the new cobra it weights 3700 pounds which is in truck teritory but while still having the same power as some truks it can go over 150 mph because its much more aerodynamically correct. Ask people with trucks how bad if feels when they hit over 110.
Ok,I apolagize for flaming your post but even from first look,I think its common sense that it has great areodynamics."At first look i doubt the caddy is capable of anything above 180mph."That claiming numbers isnt it?Trucks have huge problem getting over 110 becuase they weigh soo much.
Ok you are probably right that i should not have quoted numbers when it was just a guess its just that to me it does not seem as a car with a low drag coeficient. But i guess all this is now a guess so till we can get some hard numbers all this argument is useless.
But i still disagree with you on the reason truks cannot go to fast. I mean look a the new cobra it weights 3700 pounds which is in truck teritory but while still having the same power as some truks it can go over 150 mph because its much more aerodynamically correct. Ask people with trucks how bad if feels when they hit over 110.
FYRHWK1
01-22-2003, 07:46 PM
Neutrino is right on, i believe i remember hearing from someone about a ferrari, to reach 200-220 mph a car with a .33 Cd would take something like 7-800 HP compared to one with a .28 or .29 Cd and ~500 HP.
Aerodynamic drag is a HUGE part of it, weight has literally zero bearing on your topspeed. Notice why bikes with so much power to weight can only do 180-220 in the most extreme cases, they have terrible drag numbers because of their aerodynamic profile.
Aerodynamic drag is a HUGE part of it, weight has literally zero bearing on your topspeed. Notice why bikes with so much power to weight can only do 180-220 in the most extreme cases, they have terrible drag numbers because of their aerodynamic profile.
flylwsi
01-22-2003, 08:35 PM
no. audi was not banned from rallying with quattro.
they were banned from multiple touring car series.
they were banned from multiple touring car series.
flylwsi
01-22-2003, 08:36 PM
and it was not bs. but nice try.
do you really think they would relay that information in such a public forum only to be proven wrong?
seriously.
do you really think they would relay that information in such a public forum only to be proven wrong?
seriously.
Moppie
01-22-2003, 09:10 PM
AWD has been banned from F1 because it made the cars to fast.
Rule changes were also made to pretty much every single touring car series in the world that gave AWD cars a huge weight penalty becasue they had proved to be to fast.
And of course how many 2wd WRC cars are there?
AWD offers an enourmous handling and traction advantage over 2WD. And you don't have to be particulary intelligent to see it.
And as was stated at the start of the thread, you can not compare the Veyron with 16, as the only thing the two cars have in common is the number of wheels at each corner, and the hp of each engine.
They are both in quite differnt class'es.
Rule changes were also made to pretty much every single touring car series in the world that gave AWD cars a huge weight penalty becasue they had proved to be to fast.
And of course how many 2wd WRC cars are there?
AWD offers an enourmous handling and traction advantage over 2WD. And you don't have to be particulary intelligent to see it.
And as was stated at the start of the thread, you can not compare the Veyron with 16, as the only thing the two cars have in common is the number of wheels at each corner, and the hp of each engine.
They are both in quite differnt class'es.
Scott 02
01-22-2003, 09:13 PM
Damn Quick!
Jimster
01-22-2003, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Moppie
AWD has been banned from F1 because it made the cars to fast.
Rule changes were also made to pretty much every single touring car series in the world that gave AWD cars a huge weight penalty becasue they had proved to be to fast.
And of course how many 2wd WRC cars are there?
AWD offers an enourmous handling and traction advantage over 2WD. And you don't have to be particulary intelligent to see it.
And as was stated at the start of the thread, you can not compare the Veyron with 16, as the only thing the two cars have in common is the number of wheels at each corner, and the hp of each engine.
They are both in quite differnt class'es.
yes they are very much designed for differenet purposes- The Bugatti continues thier theme of luxury supercars
Cadillac continues thier theme of luxury cars.
Given the choice between the two it is obvious what any sane man would take (Bugatti) however the Bugatti comes at a much higher cost- but if you can pay that kind of money for a car I bouby money would come nito the equation
AWD has been banned from F1 because it made the cars to fast.
Rule changes were also made to pretty much every single touring car series in the world that gave AWD cars a huge weight penalty becasue they had proved to be to fast.
And of course how many 2wd WRC cars are there?
AWD offers an enourmous handling and traction advantage over 2WD. And you don't have to be particulary intelligent to see it.
And as was stated at the start of the thread, you can not compare the Veyron with 16, as the only thing the two cars have in common is the number of wheels at each corner, and the hp of each engine.
They are both in quite differnt class'es.
yes they are very much designed for differenet purposes- The Bugatti continues thier theme of luxury supercars
Cadillac continues thier theme of luxury cars.
Given the choice between the two it is obvious what any sane man would take (Bugatti) however the Bugatti comes at a much higher cost- but if you can pay that kind of money for a car I bouby money would come nito the equation
FYRHWK1
01-23-2003, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by Moppie
AWD has been banned from F1 because it made the cars to fast.
Rule changes were also made to pretty much every single touring car series in the world that gave AWD cars a huge weight penalty becasue they had proved to be to fast.
And of course how many 2wd WRC cars are there?
AWD offers an enourmous handling and traction advantage over 2WD. And you don't have to be particulary intelligent to see it.
And as was stated at the start of the thread, you can not compare the Veyron with 16, as the only thing the two cars have in common is the number of wheels at each corner, and the hp of each engine.
They are both in quite differnt class'es.
Er, AWD offers zero handling benefit, the only time AWD comes into play is when you add power, you will not take turns any faster, you might exist a turn faster but because of the extra unsprung weight you would have given some of it up on the entry, slow in-fast out can apply but theres obviously other factors in there.
WRC cars do not equal handling, they may do so but rally racing is a very different form where traction is minimal and ctonrolling a slide is key.
you DO have to be somewhat intelligent to see that just turning the front wheels under power doesn't give you immense handling gains, the gains are with traction upon acceleration only.
and I'd like to see where F1 banned AWD? noone would even THINK of going to AWDD because it makes the cars heavier, it increases parasitic loss, it creates a TON of drag with an open front suspension and it adds complexity, ALL of those are things F1 teams avoid, AWD isn't even a desire in that case.
weight penalties with AWD cars? they're just heavier, perhaps you're confusing the 2. weight penalties are given to any car that does not follow the rules. And if i remember correctly, in europe, the land where this car is from, the RWD E30 M3 with RWD is the premire touring car. . .
and you still havent shown me anything stating that quattro was banned form anything but rally racing, prove your statements. and if deakins is still reading, i havent found a nissan president with any type of DOD yet. . .
Any sane man would chose the Bugatti? iw onder how such a closed minded person got to be a moderator . . .
AWD has been banned from F1 because it made the cars to fast.
Rule changes were also made to pretty much every single touring car series in the world that gave AWD cars a huge weight penalty becasue they had proved to be to fast.
And of course how many 2wd WRC cars are there?
AWD offers an enourmous handling and traction advantage over 2WD. And you don't have to be particulary intelligent to see it.
And as was stated at the start of the thread, you can not compare the Veyron with 16, as the only thing the two cars have in common is the number of wheels at each corner, and the hp of each engine.
They are both in quite differnt class'es.
Er, AWD offers zero handling benefit, the only time AWD comes into play is when you add power, you will not take turns any faster, you might exist a turn faster but because of the extra unsprung weight you would have given some of it up on the entry, slow in-fast out can apply but theres obviously other factors in there.
WRC cars do not equal handling, they may do so but rally racing is a very different form where traction is minimal and ctonrolling a slide is key.
you DO have to be somewhat intelligent to see that just turning the front wheels under power doesn't give you immense handling gains, the gains are with traction upon acceleration only.
and I'd like to see where F1 banned AWD? noone would even THINK of going to AWDD because it makes the cars heavier, it increases parasitic loss, it creates a TON of drag with an open front suspension and it adds complexity, ALL of those are things F1 teams avoid, AWD isn't even a desire in that case.
weight penalties with AWD cars? they're just heavier, perhaps you're confusing the 2. weight penalties are given to any car that does not follow the rules. And if i remember correctly, in europe, the land where this car is from, the RWD E30 M3 with RWD is the premire touring car. . .
and you still havent shown me anything stating that quattro was banned form anything but rally racing, prove your statements. and if deakins is still reading, i havent found a nissan president with any type of DOD yet. . .
Any sane man would chose the Bugatti? iw onder how such a closed minded person got to be a moderator . . .
Moppie
01-23-2003, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by Jimster
Given the choice between the two it is obvious what any sane man would take
Actualy I think it depends on what the sane man was looking for.
If I want to get from Auckland to Wellington in the lest time possible then clearly the Veyron is the faster car, but If I wanted to transverse the USA with out ever feeling a single bump in the road or having to think about what I was doing then the Cadi would be my choice. And on the long flat US highways probobly just as quick between citys as the Veyron.
Its just differnt strokes for differnt folks. :)
Given the choice between the two it is obvious what any sane man would take
Actualy I think it depends on what the sane man was looking for.
If I want to get from Auckland to Wellington in the lest time possible then clearly the Veyron is the faster car, but If I wanted to transverse the USA with out ever feeling a single bump in the road or having to think about what I was doing then the Cadi would be my choice. And on the long flat US highways probobly just as quick between citys as the Veyron.
Its just differnt strokes for differnt folks. :)
Jimster
01-23-2003, 01:18 AM
Originally posted by Moppie
Actualy I think it depends on what the sane man was looking for.
If I want to get from Auckland to Wellington in the lest time possible then clearly the Veyron is the faster car, but If I wanted to transverse the USA with out ever feeling a single bump in the road or having to think about what I was doing then the Cadi would be my choice. And on the long flat US highways probobly just as quick between citys as the Veyron.
Its just differnt strokes for differnt folks. :)
Agreed
Actualy I think it depends on what the sane man was looking for.
If I want to get from Auckland to Wellington in the lest time possible then clearly the Veyron is the faster car, but If I wanted to transverse the USA with out ever feeling a single bump in the road or having to think about what I was doing then the Cadi would be my choice. And on the long flat US highways probobly just as quick between citys as the Veyron.
Its just differnt strokes for differnt folks. :)
Agreed
Stefanel1
01-23-2003, 03:34 AM
The Veyron is a beautiful GT/Coupé and the Sixteen a beautiful Sedan. The bot have their interest but the Cadillac won't be old with this egine, althoug the Bugatti will be sold with its W16 1001hp/
Polygon
01-23-2003, 11:30 AM
I have a few things to say here.
Aerodynamics plays a HUGE roll. If you think otherwise you have no concept of physics. You go tell people setting land speed records that it doesn't and they will laugh your ass right off the salt flats.
Just because something looks aerodynamic does not mean it is. I have seen cars that don't that have zero drag and I have seen cars that look like they are that aren't at all. I wouldn't want to take either much over 150. They aren't built for that, they are for old grandpa to drive around in. Both are wastes of money to me and offer nothing new or extraordinary. 1000HP is nothing impressive to me. I can get that out of plenty of engines.
I would pick neither.
Aerodynamics plays a HUGE roll. If you think otherwise you have no concept of physics. You go tell people setting land speed records that it doesn't and they will laugh your ass right off the salt flats.
Just because something looks aerodynamic does not mean it is. I have seen cars that don't that have zero drag and I have seen cars that look like they are that aren't at all. I wouldn't want to take either much over 150. They aren't built for that, they are for old grandpa to drive around in. Both are wastes of money to me and offer nothing new or extraordinary. 1000HP is nothing impressive to me. I can get that out of plenty of engines.
I would pick neither.
Deakins
01-23-2003, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by FYRHWK1
and what similarities coudl the R32 possibly have with the 7 speed dual clutched veyron box? its not an amazingly advanced tranny, its just a 7 speed with a second clutch integrated.
http://www.vwvortex.com/news/11_02/11_28/index.shtml
I still havent found anything on the president running DOD, i'm starting to think it doesnt exist.
The President uses a system that shuts down a cylinder row if any iregularitys is detected, and I remember reading about a company that made a ecu program that would do that if the driver wanted.
not a bad motor, thats a peaky graph, but it's impressive for a small motor, i take it it's running on pump gas? and 80 hp is still a good bit away. . .
http://www.eiptuning.com/video/658vr6tdv.mpg
Like I said, they are reliable, the only problems they have is a weak stock headgasket and a crappy waterpump. And I own one.
2,720 lbs? where did you get that info by the way? thats fairly light for a car of its size
Like I said, the Veyron is not a big car, and I got the dimensions out of a brochure I picked up in Berlin.
who says the Sledgehammer can only go straight? the C4 corvettes on a set of good tires and a non stock alignment have pulled over 1G laterally, the only thing thats to their detriment was a somewhat heavy curb weight, they handled plenty well stock with room for improvement.
I didn't say that.
AWD isnt for cars that go around a track either, we all know this, I'd like to see you mention a dedicated racecar, or even a highly sucessful road car that runs AWD?
Audi got stuck with weight penaltys in 1997 in various touring series around the world, and quattro was finally banned from BTCC, GTCC (DTM), TOCA, ITCC, Belgian TCC in 1998. With the exeptions of ATCC, CECC and STCC.
You can argue all you won't but Audis motorsport history is probablt the best in the world, they have succeded in everything they have ever layed their hands on. Rally, Touringcars, Sportcars. The only purpose built racecar they have built since quattro was invented is the R8, and awd is not allowed in the LeMans race, but they still won, pretty much dominated it till they pulled out last year. Unlike Cadillac I might add.
and what similarities coudl the R32 possibly have with the 7 speed dual clutched veyron box? its not an amazingly advanced tranny, its just a 7 speed with a second clutch integrated.
http://www.vwvortex.com/news/11_02/11_28/index.shtml
I still havent found anything on the president running DOD, i'm starting to think it doesnt exist.
The President uses a system that shuts down a cylinder row if any iregularitys is detected, and I remember reading about a company that made a ecu program that would do that if the driver wanted.
not a bad motor, thats a peaky graph, but it's impressive for a small motor, i take it it's running on pump gas? and 80 hp is still a good bit away. . .
http://www.eiptuning.com/video/658vr6tdv.mpg
Like I said, they are reliable, the only problems they have is a weak stock headgasket and a crappy waterpump. And I own one.
2,720 lbs? where did you get that info by the way? thats fairly light for a car of its size
Like I said, the Veyron is not a big car, and I got the dimensions out of a brochure I picked up in Berlin.
who says the Sledgehammer can only go straight? the C4 corvettes on a set of good tires and a non stock alignment have pulled over 1G laterally, the only thing thats to their detriment was a somewhat heavy curb weight, they handled plenty well stock with room for improvement.
I didn't say that.
AWD isnt for cars that go around a track either, we all know this, I'd like to see you mention a dedicated racecar, or even a highly sucessful road car that runs AWD?
Audi got stuck with weight penaltys in 1997 in various touring series around the world, and quattro was finally banned from BTCC, GTCC (DTM), TOCA, ITCC, Belgian TCC in 1998. With the exeptions of ATCC, CECC and STCC.
You can argue all you won't but Audis motorsport history is probablt the best in the world, they have succeded in everything they have ever layed their hands on. Rally, Touringcars, Sportcars. The only purpose built racecar they have built since quattro was invented is the R8, and awd is not allowed in the LeMans race, but they still won, pretty much dominated it till they pulled out last year. Unlike Cadillac I might add.
flylwsi
01-23-2003, 01:04 PM
thanks for the clarification.
awd offers zero handling benefit?
have you driven a fast as hell car that has awd?
hmm...
you can plant your foot into and out of a corner, as well as not have to worry about braking as much b/c you have more traction when the weight transfers... i could go on...
skylines don't have awd for no reason. audi didn't make the s4 with quattro and the tt with quattro for no reason. it handles better.
especially when compared in that class... if you want to compare a vette to an s4, the s4 is still going to handle better... if left stock.
back to the speed gt series... where the awd s4 dominated the vettes, vipers, and all the other cars... hmm....
awd offers zero handling benefit?
have you driven a fast as hell car that has awd?
hmm...
you can plant your foot into and out of a corner, as well as not have to worry about braking as much b/c you have more traction when the weight transfers... i could go on...
skylines don't have awd for no reason. audi didn't make the s4 with quattro and the tt with quattro for no reason. it handles better.
especially when compared in that class... if you want to compare a vette to an s4, the s4 is still going to handle better... if left stock.
back to the speed gt series... where the awd s4 dominated the vettes, vipers, and all the other cars... hmm....
crayzayjay
01-23-2003, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by flylwsi
skylines don't have awd for no reason. audi didn't make the s4 with quattro and the tt with quattro for no reason. it handles better.
That statement is false. Please dont confuse handling with grip. The TT has AWD but doesnt handle as well as a RWD 3-series BMW. More grip, maybe. Better handling? No
skylines don't have awd for no reason. audi didn't make the s4 with quattro and the tt with quattro for no reason. it handles better.
That statement is false. Please dont confuse handling with grip. The TT has AWD but doesnt handle as well as a RWD 3-series BMW. More grip, maybe. Better handling? No
Chris
01-23-2003, 01:39 PM
Several good, and several not-so-good.
Essentially, the Cadillac is designed for pure luxury. The power is likely delivered in a slow manner. It will no doubt pull hard at any speed, with a minimum of fuss. Whereas the Bugatti should rev quite high, and provide gobs of mad horsepower at any rpm. It will also handle better, since it isnt overly concerned with comfort, as the Cadillac is.
As for gears, more is definately better in a vehicle going over 250mph. Because, each gear can take up from a higher RPM after you upshift, keeping the engine in a more powerful part of the rev range, providing better acceleration.
As for AWD, well, its good, and it isnt. Many race drivers say they prefer RWD. Personally, Im partial to it, as there is less understeer. But with lots of power, exciting a corner can be greatly aided by AWD. It all depends on the application. I feel the Veyron might benefit from AWD.
Besides, the Cadillac will be tuned to understeer anyway, to maintain a comfortable ride.
Essentially, the Cadillac is designed for pure luxury. The power is likely delivered in a slow manner. It will no doubt pull hard at any speed, with a minimum of fuss. Whereas the Bugatti should rev quite high, and provide gobs of mad horsepower at any rpm. It will also handle better, since it isnt overly concerned with comfort, as the Cadillac is.
As for gears, more is definately better in a vehicle going over 250mph. Because, each gear can take up from a higher RPM after you upshift, keeping the engine in a more powerful part of the rev range, providing better acceleration.
As for AWD, well, its good, and it isnt. Many race drivers say they prefer RWD. Personally, Im partial to it, as there is less understeer. But with lots of power, exciting a corner can be greatly aided by AWD. It all depends on the application. I feel the Veyron might benefit from AWD.
Besides, the Cadillac will be tuned to understeer anyway, to maintain a comfortable ride.
flylwsi
01-23-2003, 01:47 PM
please keep in mind the intended purpose of the two cars...
compare a 3 series, not an m, with the quattro tt, and i'm pretty sure the handling will be at least the same if not better...
more grip equals better handling. they go hand in hand-ling...
for example, if you upgrade the wheel/tire combo on your car, you'll get better grip, and better handling.
and my statement wasn't false.
on a road course... the awd skyline will outhandle the rwd, mainly b/c it has more grip. more grip means better handling... i'm sure i'm leaving something else out, but they're interrelated.
on the rwd/awd note... i'm aware that most drivers tend to want a well balanced rwd car... however, it's not a bad thing to have on the car.
galati's s4 is my example. i never said it was better, but did note that it is a great thing to have on a car that is designed for it.
compare a 3 series, not an m, with the quattro tt, and i'm pretty sure the handling will be at least the same if not better...
more grip equals better handling. they go hand in hand-ling...
for example, if you upgrade the wheel/tire combo on your car, you'll get better grip, and better handling.
and my statement wasn't false.
on a road course... the awd skyline will outhandle the rwd, mainly b/c it has more grip. more grip means better handling... i'm sure i'm leaving something else out, but they're interrelated.
on the rwd/awd note... i'm aware that most drivers tend to want a well balanced rwd car... however, it's not a bad thing to have on the car.
galati's s4 is my example. i never said it was better, but did note that it is a great thing to have on a car that is designed for it.
Deakins
01-23-2003, 01:57 PM
I wouldn't say grip equals good handling. Look at another Audi, the RS6, it's fast, no one can argue that, but I won't say it handles well.
crayzayjay
01-23-2003, 02:22 PM
I have nothing against AWD. Quite the opposite, im a big fan. Hell, my favourite car is a Lancia Integrale Evolution!!!
But, my good man, more grip does not mean better handling. Sometimes a little slip is what is needed. A 911 Carrera 4 has more grip than a 911 GT3. Which one handles better? The GT3, infinitely. Don't get me wrong the Carrera 4 is a blinding car, its AWD traction is fantastic, but in terms of pure handling it's not at the level of the GT3.
compare a 3 series, not an m, with the quattro tt, and i'm pretty sure the handling will be at least the same if not better...
Im not sure if youre saying the 3 has better handling or the TT. In either case, M or not, 3-series handles better than a TT. That's the way it is. The TT does have more grip though. But as we said, this doesnt equal better handling.
Deakins could not be more correct. The RS6 has more grip (and speed) than an M5. Does it handle as well? Not a chance in hell. Ditto S4 Vs M3.
But, my good man, more grip does not mean better handling. Sometimes a little slip is what is needed. A 911 Carrera 4 has more grip than a 911 GT3. Which one handles better? The GT3, infinitely. Don't get me wrong the Carrera 4 is a blinding car, its AWD traction is fantastic, but in terms of pure handling it's not at the level of the GT3.
compare a 3 series, not an m, with the quattro tt, and i'm pretty sure the handling will be at least the same if not better...
Im not sure if youre saying the 3 has better handling or the TT. In either case, M or not, 3-series handles better than a TT. That's the way it is. The TT does have more grip though. But as we said, this doesnt equal better handling.
Deakins could not be more correct. The RS6 has more grip (and speed) than an M5. Does it handle as well? Not a chance in hell. Ditto S4 Vs M3.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2024