This car is finally debuting at SEMA this Fall.

All CF bits.

750hp Chevy engine (meh.)

same-same. Apart from turning the blandness up from 0 to 8, is this any different to a 1970s Lamborghini Pudenda in any significant fashion? That's 35 years of me-too isms (admittedly in that time the cars have improved, well, duh). Yer average kitcar has more originality than these tiresome toys.

Is that the Quebec-built car?

Sorry if I'm not getting your point...okay clearly I'm not. I get that it's not tickling your fancy, but I'm missing the why. The presence of a Chevy engine says "kit-car" or "amatuer" to me, I suppose because I equate "Chevy Small Block" with "cheap" and not "exclusive supercar" and that, in my own mind, imbues the entire product with the same "cheap" patina. I look at the car and think "hmm - interesting" and then see the "Chevy engine" and think "oh ".

Despite opening that can of worms I don't mean to imply the Chevy engine is unable or incapable, it just lacks that aura of exclusivity. It has no snob appeal In fact, it might even have that reverse-snob attached to it: "we beat your gazillion dollar car with a veritable sledgehammer and our injinou....our intelehjah...our hillbilly smarts!".
I'm sick - cold meds are kicking into full gear. I may disagree with all of this tomorrow.

I have 3 cars on my unobtainable day-dream list: The Zonda for it's sheer audaciousness, over-the-top interior and that absolutely stellar, unsurpassed exhaust music at full chat; the Gumpert Apollo for it's Up-Yours! ugliness, dedicated to go rather than show, there's something very appealing about that; the Koenigsegg CCX - just because. I haven't selected anything I could drive to work everyday or run to the grocery store in but then I guess that's the great thing about day-dream cars - you don't actually have to live with them.

The choice of engine is sensible, it's the whole concept that makes me shrug. It was done 35 years ago. and again and again and again and again. What makes this one special?

+1

A $400,000 Supercar that uses a Chev* motor? Gimme a break, what does the other 380,000 pay for?

*cost factor

When is a $400k car about being sensible? Isn't the whole idea of a supercar about being over-the-top, completely bonkers and outrageous? In my mind a supercar should excite my inner-child and appease my engineer, not the other way around.

Okay - so if you've got a clean-sheet how would you design a supercar? Or maybe your point I'm missing is that the supercar concept has been done-to-death? That the whole concept of a supercar is passé?

The Supercar concept to me is simple - it's either got to have mystique that can only come with heritage as has a Ferrari or or it to something obscenely well or amazingly unique, so obscene/unique that it's automatically a legend.

Panther 6 wheeler is an example (please take into account this is a 1977 car). http://www.mypanther.de/videos/Web_Video_P...b_Panther6.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_6

Heritage? Well now that's a bit of a handicap now isn't it? You're saying you've either got to be an established marque, or do something the established Marques are unwilling to do. Right?

Pagani did a good job of producing an almost instant legendary supercar... however, they did it with a combination of unique design, a car that actually drives well even in the corners, and construction and production details that are absolute top class and more likely to be found at a swiss watchmaker.. while keeping a right dose of latin flair.. I have been to that factory and it is stunning..

Uh-huh...

"Or maybe your point I'm missing is that the supercar concept has been done-to-death? That the whole concept of a supercar is passé?"

Exactly. The two seater mid engined fat bottomed shape has been done and redone, without to my mind much improving on the stance of the original Countach, a more exciting car to look at than these curvy new ones. The F1 was a good go at doing it a bit differently, since he had different design objectives, the others are interchangeable.

I think it is a bit odd to criticise the engine, I'm not sure I'd really want an engine that was developed by a few blokes with no resources. What other crate engines are around that have a more exclusive aura? It's not as if anyone criticises them for using bog standard transmissions.

The counterpoint is that only a certain sort of person is going to spend half a million on a car, and they apparently want things that look like these. So perhaps I am in danger of telling people what sort of car they /should/ spend their money on, which is mistake #1 in the automotive game. They'll buy what they want, at the price they are prepared to pay.

ahh now herein lies the problem to me, I saw your post and thought "who the hell is Pagani" and had to Wiki it. I have heard of the Zonda but don't know a lot about it - when I first heard the name Zonda and saw the first pictures I truly thought it was one of those small Japanese supercar makers and maybe a modified NSX hence the Zonda tag coming from Honda origin.

Canuck, not sure how old you are but I assure you the Panther made an impact at the time and you couldn't pick up a magazine without a big spiel on it and many newspapers too. Pirelli dropped out of the deal to make 205/13's for the company - this was 1977 remember and this was also what killed the Tyrell 6 wheeler.

Anyway, enough of this you will just have to wait until next year or so for my take on a unique supercar - one big difference is you will be able to afford it.

Now see - if I can afford on my 5-figure salary, then it's not a supercar. It might perform like a supercar, out-perform even but, and I say this carefully because perhaps I am wrong, you can not build a supercar on a budget. A fast car - yes, a good-looking car - perhaps (eye of the beer-holder and all that), a performer - yes. But - a true supercar? No. By it's very definition a supercar is out-of-economic-range of the masses (me - today at least). Take the Nissan GTR - supercar performance, whizzy-ish technology, human price - not a supercar. It also lacks the requisite bonkers appearance. And...if you build a car that looks bonkers, goes like hell, scares children and the feeble and can be hand on a budget - only children will buy it. The same kids that are rockin' the stretch in their 15-year old JDM imports with smashed-up airdams and smoking turbos.

I'm torn between the Zondas and the Koenigseggs for eye-candy factor. The Swedish machine reminds me very much of the hero-car body from the short-lived Viper television series that predated the GTS coupes, and I like that it was built by a kid (okay, he was 22) who said **** it - I'm gonna chase my dreams and build a supercar company. That has huge appeal. That's the kind of man I want to be (as opposed to the responsible wage-earning family-income stream).

A more exclusive engine? Well...Mercedes supplies that beautiful-sounding V12 in the Zonda. Maybe VW would sell you their W16. Speaking of which - if I could only have one out-of-reach car - that would be the one - the Bugatti. It's not the quickest, it's not the nimblest, it's not the fastest and it's by no means the best looking, but it is the most engineered, most refined and really the best all-round performer of the lot. It doesn't crush the competition at any one thing, but it does everything they do quite well and in theory, it was designed to be used in the real world.

There is one really special thing about Pagani Zonda... and that is it's creator...
I mean, you will not find Luca Di Montezemolo mounting licence plates on Ferrari's before they are sent off to a car show, will you?


The guy reminds me of Gordon Murray, obsession about every detail..

Strange.

hmm, if you're thinking "I haven't heard of that model" and venturing off to google images to search for it, I suggest you think twice or at least wait until you get home

If I was shopping around I would probably be interested in something more like this actually..

http://www.superformance.com/corvette.aspx

A lameass pun based on the colloquial synonym of countach throughout southern europe, and obvious to a Pom.

Do you think? Name one car universally considered a supercar that is also considered inexpensive.

Supercars are too easy. Just give away interior and cargo space, NVH, ride, emissions, fuel economy, reliability, and service life... in exchange for performance potential that can rarely if ever be realized by the user. What a supercar really is: a big old piece of jewelry. Except they aren't particularly attractive as such -- the build quality and detail engineering/design aren't the ultimate that can be done. Those are the things that excite me anymore. Performance stats, meh.

I would like to see a supercar built as the greatest expression of automotive art -- and if performance is sacrificed for aesthetics that's perfectly ok with me, since the performance is meaningless anyway. This would be a new and different direction for a genre which, as Mr. Locock keenly points out, has become tiresome and cliched.

I don't have to, it's you who surmises that they HAVE to be expensive, not me - I just consider them to be a monumental rip-off. If I was stinking rich I might indulge in Ferrari, possibly a classic though (BB512 if you must know) but thats because of the esteem it's held in and it would be an ego thing as much as the drive. Those other cardboard cutout shitboxes are a dime a dozen as Greg says.





I quite envy your job and can look at Hot Rod creative art all day long.

Heres a starting point - http://www.chipfoose.com/

On the contrary, that's why I asked you to name a single car that would be considered a supercar by the general automotive populace and considered inexpensive. It's not my definition of a supercar, it's the accepted one. Budget supercar - a contradiction in terms by the very definition of what a supercar is. The supercar has become, as I think Greg pointed out, a formula - both aesthetically and practically.

When I think of supercar performance on a budget, I think Ariel Atom, Super-7 and related variants, perhaps on the high side of things the Ultima "component" cars (but they're DIY not production). Those are still pretty big budgets in my mind though - they're not cheap.

Oh...I forgot about the beautiful Porsche 962 street variant - I'd like one of those too please.

While not the prettiest, isn't that precisely what the Veyron is? An engineering exercise in excellence? Didn't it take years to develop the gearbox specifically because they were addressing 20 years of use and not 500 miles around a track? Granted - heat exchangers take up a lot of space and it's not exactly cavernous. I would expect any...anything that generates immense power figures to consume an equal amount of fuel and I've always assumed, perhaps incorrectly, that these vehicles meet the same emission standards as set out for anything else.

At the end of the day, I've never been close enough to any of the cars that I've mentioned to know whether their build quality is shit or not. Perhaps they're nothing more than $500,000 cubic zirconias on a 14k band with solder blobs and tooling marks. I find that view remarkably pessimistic and devoid of the "stuff of dreams". Maybe a lifetime in the industry makes one a cynic (not unlike my own view of aftermarket "choppers"). KiKiturbo has been up close and personal with the Zonda - is it a cut-rate engineering example? Are the door gaps not straight? Does the A/C have a mind of it's own? Will it rattle your teeth out?

The thing is these cars are great when you're a pre-teen and you see them in Road & Track or have a poster on your wall, but when you see it in person as an adult you do think "err...what's the point exactly".

But I should qualify my position by pointing out I work for a magazine publisher that makes several car magazines. Racing, sportscar, and consumer car mags, so we get just about everything in the car park, and you rarely even blink when you get the new <whatever> parked out front because it looks the same as the last one. The Maserati Quatroporte in extremely dark blue was very nice though, but it wasn't as ostentatacious as everything else.

A Porsche is a fairly inexpensive supercar, unfortunately their appeal is their undoing, ie the unchanged design. While BMW's have manged to de-YUPPY themselves in my eye, the Porsche is still the stereotypical idiot's car.

I do like the reborn Fiat 500, because it's not too serious and is about as much car as you can get away with in a large European city.

(I shoud also point out a long time ago I raced single-seaters at the regional/amateur level, so it's next to impossible for a road car to grab my attention and reckon you'd be better off buying a house than a supercar)

The Veyron's engineering may be perfectly fine, but to my eye it's not particularly aesthetic or artistically appealing. Maybe I can describe what I mean by example: how about a bundle-of-snakes exhaust system for no reason other than it looks so frickin' cool? Or a wiring harness deliberately left conduit-less because it's so beautifuly crafted? Or how about a host of bare metal finishes in an engine compartment, from aluminum to titanium to copper? I guess what I am talking about is capturing the beautiful detail of race and road cars from the brass age to the '60s, but in contemporary design language. Rolling art for gearheads. The Bugatti Veyron is a great achievement, I suppose, but it doesn't at all capture the experience of looking over, say, a Bugatti T35. In that regard it's closer to a Lexus.

Agreed. It seems that this thread has slipped seamlessly into the Bower Bird thread...

Some very good points indeed raised here, and I do agree that unless you're a teenager and/or need to show off your wealth supercars may well be irrelevant. Something else; the cars and bikes that I usually enjoy the most are the ones that I can drive or ride close to their limits of performance. Vehicles with much more performance than I can utilise effectively (and to be honest, the bar's not set very high at all) seem more frustrating than fun. I could almost certainly go faster in a car with a fraction of the power and cost of a Veyron, and have more fun doing it. And if it was built in a such a way that exposed the art and beauty of its engineering as McGuire mentioned that's even better still.
Is it just me being an old fart or is there something sterile and unappealing about most modern performance cars?

...not really, the Classic-Pudenda-Wingback is irreproachable, if you like that sort of thing...

So lets make a list of what an accepted "Supercar" is....

2 seater classic wedged shape with fat ass (preferably with gull wing doors).

Preferably 48 cylinders, but anyway the more the better.

Named such as Urethra Maximus

'Effin expensive


Ok I see these 4 as pre requisites apparently and according to you and your ilk so where does that leave a Mitsubishi Lancer FQ 400 at 50,000 Pounds Sterling for example that can whip the ass off most cars that fall into the above "Supercar" category?

Its a 4 door sedan

Its got 4 cylinders

It's got one of those dicky Japanese names

It's cheap, relative

A valet at the Windsor would probably politely tell you to "move along please Sir"

100% agreement.

I am not really into aesthetics, as an engineer function is the important bit. What exactly is the function of a supercar? Not looked at them much but do they not tend to bee too big for normal roads, too heavy and not very practical?
Does any of the modern stuff come near to a Mclaren F1 never mind move the bar?

No because they are all cowards and I include the McLaren in that. I'm sure the Comparo T3 would nail the McLaren as the Comparo is a little more risque.

No need to be exaggerated-the cars already are, but let's looks at what you've laid out.
2 seater: Hmmm hard to find that unreasonable - plenty of road-going vehicles have are only 2 seaters and I seem to recall the lots of wailing and gnashing of teeth here over the BMW and Audi big-power estate cars. In fact, I believe it was you who chastised me for even thinking about sported driving with occupants. So yes, 2 seats sounds very responsible.

Classic wedge shape: I can't really argue it. Low in front, high in back, varying degrees of executional success but very formulaic. Why do you think that is? No really-I don't know why, I'm not an engineer or an aero smartie-pants. My pure guess is that it's an effective shape used to achieve the top speeds they all chase. The only non- wedge shaped $400,000 cars I'm aware of don't consider top speed a priority. But like I said, that's only a guess.

Gullwing doors: Nothing sexier than an old gullwing Mercedes. Actually that’s not true, but it does rank up there as one of the more beautiful cars ever produced in my mind. Koenigsegg – no gullwings though they are amusing (but hardly like a T-Bird with doors that slide right underneath now are they). I’m sitting here trying to think how the doors on the Zonda and the Gumpert open and I honestly don’t know. I assume the Gumpert’s shape makes a Group-C derived door almost mandatory (just Google confirmed). Googling also shows one Zonda with the door open – a boring and traditional door at that.


There’s that exaggerating again. 12 is a nice number. 12 sound beautiful. 12 cylinders have a history of working quite well to produce ample thrust. Of course so do ten, and eight. Looking out into the parking lot I will admit I don’t see any 12-cylinder engined cars….oh wait – there’s an old Jag sedan at the printer’s next door – it’s got a 12 cylinder engine. There’s at least 2 v-10 engines across the road in Dodge trucks and a plethora of V-8s. You seem to have piston envy of some rather common and boring engines.


Let’s see…Koenigsegg – founder’s last name, Ferrari – founder’s last name, Porsche – founder’s last name, McLaren…hmmm – there seems to be a pattern here. Well, maybe that’s the wrong car ‘eh? Perhaps the Gumpert is what you meant. Yes indeed, that must be it. Nothing but nothing evokes a sense of power and speed like the audible noise produced when you say “Gumpert” out loud. Small children giggle and snicker, men look at you confused and women out-right ignore you.


Yes. Yes I do believe that to be correct. If you’re producing a car capable (and whether it’s relevant or not, the supercars in question are indeed all capable) of sustained travel at barely sub-200mph speeds with occasional forays into the 200+ realm then I would expect that to cost money. If it’s trimmed in leather of the colour I spec’d with a hand-laid carbon fibre body covered in clear-coat – I expect that to cost money too. As a manufacturing guy, if it comes with model or even brand-specific uprights and control arms – I know those things cost money to forge, especially when you’re talking 40 sets and not 40,000. I expect a supercar to be made of parts and pieces that are purpose-built for that car, not pulled off someone’s shelves (‘cause I can pull parts from shelves).



See now, you make me think you don’t like me when you use phrases like “you and your ilk”. No need to be so…mean you pinko commie lover.

Google says that’s an Evo. Top Gear says the FQ400 went around their track in 1.24.8, a full second faster than the Gallardo, faster than a ‘Vette, a CLS-55, the BMW M cars, the Viper, all sorts of Porsches. But we’re not talking about BMWs or Mercedes or Chevrolet. Yeah – you got the Gallardo and the Gallardo Spyder, but that’s it in your fat-ass supercar lineage. The Gumpert was more than 7 seconds faster. The Koenigsegg, the Pagani, The Bugatti, the Enzo, the Lambo LP670, hell, the Ariel Atom and the Nissan GT-R – all faster, some much, much faster. Is the Evo quick? Yup. Impressive? Yup. Would I buy one? Yup, especially now that they’ve finally made it to Canadian shores. Does it kick ass on the supercar category? Uhm…no. With the exception of the occasional superdog, it’s not what I’d call close – at least according to Top Gear which is the only list of car tests comprehensive enough to include all these cars on the same track. Not purely scientific as I’m sure McGuire would point out, but all things considered, you’re pretty hard pressed to ignore a 7 second spread when there’s 33 other cars in there.

I guess what I’m saying is, you can build a cheap fast car, but it’ll never be a supercar. The fastest “cheap” car is the Caterham R500 and it’s every bit as fast as all of my favourites. At 37,000 GBP it’s cheap as chips really. Arguably more useless than the rest of the supercars what with it’s lack of windshield, doors, top, luggage space...I bet it doesn't have child seat anchors either

All that because you decided to exaggerate.

I like the phrase Greg used elsewhere - that's an under-constrained question (okay, he said problem, but whatever). Come near to a McLaren how? Faster? Yes, the Bugatti Veyron is faster. More power - yes - several supercars have more power, more expensive? Again I think the Veyron for sure but even the Jag 2200 or whatever that thing was, was more money it seems to me. 3 seats? Erm...nope. Purity of Execution. I'm going to say no with one exception - the Gumpert. Stuff for going fast-check, stuff for stopping fast-check, stuff for getting there in comfort...err...well...

I have no idea why Cheapie thinks Murray chickened out - the F1 is still considered the primary benchmark and it was the target to beat with the Veyron project (among other targets like 250mph, and <theoretically> 1001 hp).

I read an article by Clarkson some time ago that said owning a supercar, any supercar was really a bust - hard on your nerves, hard on your wallet, not very rewarding. I suspect he's right. It's a little like growing up to find out your favourite supermodel doesn't shave or own a toothbrush and can't find her own country on a map.

Didn't top Gear do a drag betweeen the F1 and the Veyron? F1 held it up to quite a high speed. F1 is designed as a whole, compact and light but seats three in the available space. It is just very clever.

My criteria:

. Under 2,200 lbs

. One seat - most passengers whine anyway.

. Mid engine layout

. Adjustable aero

. Pre-set adjustable suspension

. 500 - 600 hp not inlcuding Kinetic energy recovery

. 300 - 400 lb ft torque

. 6 speed tranny is enough I should think - paddles of course!

. 25 - 30 mpg

. Driver training...how many more Ferraris do we have to see split in half...I think most of those drivers were a little pickled.

. Cost, whatever it takes

Reaching the target weight should require the incorporation of some exotic construction materials. Adjustable aero/suspension go together. Hp and torque figures should round out a controllable power output.

Exaggeration is a tool to get response.

I'm surprised with your candid wit (well half anyway) that your sucked in to the top speed thing. I have been fast on many a Superbike and besides being scary as all **** making 3 lanes on a freeway look 2 feet wide at 170 - 180mph, it's absolutely pointless.

The 7 second spread is pointless on real roads such as the Targa Tasmania has proven year after year with the worlds best cars and drivers competing on real road tyres.

The F1 is a copout as the ultimate roadcar because it has limits in its design to enable it to go road racing and the rules it must therefore meet.

Oh and I drove around for a few weeks with a loaned Maserati Merak many years ago and that was a more practical Supercar than others I have driven and that was a pain in the ass - visibility problems mostly and the ankle space, well lack of it in most of them next to the front wheel arch pisses me off especially if they have offset pedals to clear it.

Thats almost an oxymoron.

I'm not really the target market for these manufacturers - I'm a little light in the wallet for them and as history has shown I'm entirely too immature to own such a vehicle anyway. The fastest I've piloted 4 wheels was an indicated 260km/h, being egged on to go faster by the young owner of the 550 Maranello. The Dubai traffic and a small measure WTF am I doing prevented any further attempts given it was only 8pm and we were on the Sheik Zayed highway, still in Dubai. First and last time behind the wheel of a Ferrari. I got out ofthe car thinking a million different things but the one that caught me most off-guard was the "I wouldn't pay tha price to drive that car because there's nowhere to do that sanely. I don't own a sportbike for that same reason. When I handed the keys back to the owner and asked him to drive while I sat in the foolish-seat, we saw an indicated 280km/h in Dubai traffic (and numerous bump-and-hold with the rev limiter). There's little doubt in my mind why traffic accidents are the #1 cause of death for them.

Incidentally, the young owner of the 550 promised to bring his AWD Lambo next time so I could see how different they are to drive and if they ever delivered it, his on-order Bugatti he'd been waiting for years to arrive. He was 22.

Come to think of it, the sportbike scene is the perfect analogy to a cheap supercar concept. Squids who can't wring all the performance out of 100cc bikes bragging about how the model they just bought is faster than eeryone else's by .02 seconds in the quarter, or 5 mph faster in top speed. Yet, phoney as it all is, each year a new crop of staggering performance is dropped into showrooms to be snapped up like hotcakes 'cause no one wants to be on last year's slower and less powerful model.

Not so phoney in Ozstralia, quite a number of those Guys are deadly serious, pun intended, nothing in an Oz bike shop to see half a dozen rear slicks fitted up on a Friday arvo or Saturday morning for Guys heading into the local hills Sunday morning and enough arms, legs and bodies laying around to show for it.

I was under the impression that the F1 was designed solely as a road car, and Gordon Murray was reluctant to give in to the chorus of demands for a racing version. The Porsche that eventually made the F1 redundant, and in my view ruined a fascinating series, was designed as a racer, using the barest minimum of road car parts.

I know...I meant three factory pre-set positions...like hard medium and soft. I for one do not posses the knowledge to tinker with suspension and aero...I have a tuff enough time with suspension. Can you imagine how many asprin i would have to take?

...top speed for road going fare in excess of say 200 mph is a bit ludicrous...mid range baby, mid range! I also don't understand the fuss over the Veyron...doesn't it weigh in around 4,000 lbs? C'mon!

The dual clutch tranmission was designed by Ricardo, the four wheel drive is supplied by Haldex and the engine is based on VW's VR6 engine (with a specific output typical of a production turbo engine); not too unlike a VW Golf in that perspective. Bugatti spent over 200 million euro of Volkswagen Group's money on the Veyron, and they will never get that money back, although they have got a lot of publicity for that money. Spending 200 million euro on a supercar is really a lot, but compared to a typical road car it's not much. As a comparison, Koenigsegg have spend about a tenth of that, 20 million euro on their car. Like Bugatti they have not managed to make any money from their car. So I wouldn't say that the design of a supercar is underconstrained. It may be teenage dreams but the financial situation is difficult at best.

These cars are also type approved, so they fulfill the same standard as any other car. Although, I suspect that is not the case with many cars of this type.

Pagani use an AMG engines while Koenigsegg use an engine based on Fords modular V8 (although it use bespoke castings and parts). Gumpert uses an Audi engine if I remember correctly.



A stunt in the name of good television. In reality the McLaren F1 doesn't have a chance against the Veyron in any speed interval. From standstill no rear wheel driven road legal car can beat it.



I would say that most of these supercars are quite small. It's easy to be fooled by pictures when it comes to the size of these cars. In terms of weight they are generally lighter than most other cars but of course not extremly lightweight.

In terms of performance modern supercars are better than the McLaren F1.



F1 was a road car not designed for competition while the Porsches, Mercedes and Toyotas that followed were designed to be used as racecars and were quite innovative in going around the word of the regulation.

Just looked up the size of the Veyron, it is quite large and it weighs nearly two tons!
The F1 is about the size of a BMW 1 series but lighter and seats three father than four, I see that as being clever design.
The Veyron is a fair bit bigger, it is so wide that you would have problems hustling it a bit on the kind of roads around where I am from. However to make a two seat car weigh nearly two tons is absurd. Where is the "cleverness" in it's design?
As far as streight line performance is concerned, where on the road could you stretch either car really?
Did Top gear time either round their test track?

Well an example is in my own creation, just last week I finished the front lower control arm covers that offer downforce direct onto the arms providing about 50/50 split DF to the wheels and chassis. The rules of racing prevent this and so one must provide DF to the chassis only. But mine really is a road car not to fit into any class.

The F1 has limited DF and I propose thats because spoilers would do exactly that - spoil the sleek lines of the car which of course the racing F1 cars have fitted as well as substantial bodywork modifications.

Not in a breathe am I suggesting my car is better than the F1, what I am saying is I haven't limited myself either (albeit on a minor scale) as the F1 appears to have by asthetics and a view to enter racing even if it has a surface denial by the creator.

My summary of the F1 is that it may be the best 'box' out there but it's still a box.

This constant reference to "cleverness" and "engineering excellence" is interesting. Several others here have mentioned that (sort of paraphrasing here) "simpler = better engineering" but it appears to be lost. I have to say that it is far easier, from an engineering perspective, to design a complicated widget to do a job than it is to design a simple widget for the same task. The comments about "Chevy engine = pedestrian" is also interesting, countless dollars have been spent on developing those engines - seems to be a bit of a subjective judgement, no?

Regarding the Veyron, gordmac do you have any data that breaks down the mass for each component of the vehicle? Do you have an understanding of the requirements to which the car was designed, and can specify the difference between the Veyron and the McLaren F1? It might give some insight into the reason for the mass of the car.

I think you have a point dosco; judge a thing based upon the program set forth. However, I too am shocked by the Veyron's weight and size. I have seen a few TV programs highlighting this car's technical prowess as well as its straightline speed. But it would be very interesting to see how this thing goes down the Ring for example.

If I were judging this car I might fault the program and not the car itself. If the program goal was indeed marketing there is no debate to my way of thinking...chest pounding and bragging rights born from within corporate philosophy is hard to argue with.

Still, a super car to me must have one seat and weigh in just over one ton...there is an argument for this type of daily transpertation as well; I drive about 65,000 miles per year and I have never had a passenger with me in over ten years.

I don't recall the McLaren F1 being tested on the Top Gear track, or rather if it's on the time board but the Veyron is. At last check it was 5th fastest around the track behind the Gumpert, the Koenigsegg, the Zonda and the aforementioned R500.

Chevrolet = pedestrian because: I can find a smallblock GM anywhere, for relative pennies. The particular engine in question, while agreeably highly-refined, still suffers from it's relative sameness to te engines that reside in a billion other vehicles. I didn't mean to imply ever that it couldn't get the job done, only that it was unexciting in doing it (to me-obviously other opinions differ and it is only that, an opinion).

Apparently VW have said that the Veyron cost them about 5 million GBP each to develop and build. The thing was never about making a profit, but about meeting a combination of performance and drivability targets.

advice for regular sole travelers