but does it have 4 turbo's?
and the W-16 motor is a pretty cool concept.
|
|
|
|
|
but does it have 4 turbo's?
and the W-16 motor is a pretty cool concept.
Not very efficient, poor design if you ask me!Originally Posted by TRDdave
There are certainly benefits to using more turbochargers with large-displacement engines. They spool better and hence the performance is more civilized and comfortable to drive.
hmmm, anything with 1001 horsepower is inefficient and impractical to begin with. Although without the turbos I think it would be less inefficient than it is in its current state.
Hell with that much displacement and a quad turbo setup you should be seeing well over 1000hp! The Aero is a v8 twin turbo and is pushing over 1100Hp, half the displacement and half the turbos yet over 100 more horses!
Actually it has four fifths the displacement.
This is true, power output could be better, although I think the Bugatti is a bit more civilized than the Aero. When James May from BBC's Top Gear drove it at 253 in Germany, he said that the car felt solid and that other than the world flying by you at an astronomical rate, you couldn't tell the car was doing 253. I've ridden in and driven my fair share of high performance autos, and I can definitely say that 155 in a Cobra, 170 in a C6 Z06, etc all felt like they were all on the edge.
How can you compare what is basically a glorified kit car and a butt ugly and horrendously overpriced one at that with a Bugatti Veyron?
http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=47&i=16487
http://www.pistonheads.com/doc.asp?c=47&i=16280
good car gets you from point A to point B. great car gets you into trouble.
They Veyron is a morbidly obese pinnacle of ugliness. Rather than getting a Veyron, you might as well just find the ugliest diesel SUV you can find, increase the turbo boost until it's generating a thousand horsepower, and you'll have a rough equivalent of the Veyron, except you'll have a lot more room and have saved about a million dollars.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks