Vintagevista wrote:
It will be going 3-8 MPH with the rest of the Chevy's and Honda's on the 405 freeway like the rest of us.

just because it can go that fast - doesn't mean it will.

(I live for the perverse pleasure of inching my old S-10 alongside some supercar on an LA freeway and passing them - *because my line is inching along faster than theirs*)

I was on the 405 once. It was about 4PM and I couldn't believe how wide the highway is and was *still* bumper to bumper.

One of the widest highways here in NJ is the NJ turnpike north of exit 6 or so where it splits into truck and car lanes. If memory serves, there are 2 truck lanes and 3 for cars in both directions. In other words, the 405 is almost as wide as the entire turnpike and it still gets crowded. Impressive to say the least.  When the 405 isn't crowded, though, drives will attempt flying low.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I find it interesting that there is a 'limited edition' version. The regular one is 1.6 million - that's already pretty limited. Unless you live in LA or Dubai, you're never going to have another one pull up next to you at a stop light.

Limited edition doesn't mean very much when selling 100 of them would be a good run.

I get that it includes stock, but from a marketing standpoint, that's like offering free gifts, or bonus incentives.

And if you purchase the GT model, you become part owner in the company.  Seems odd.

I think it's a little ambitious to say you're going to build an 8 cylinder motor that will put out 2000 HP when Bugatti can only get just under 1200 from a 16 cylinder motor with FOUR turbo chargers on it.

I'll say it again... vaporware.  Any company can make any claim it wants.  But how ridiculous is this claim?  Besides, 0-60 in 2.8 really isn't THAT impressive when a few versions of the Ariel Atom can do it in 2.5 or less.  And that car is about 100K and something I can actually buy.

2000HP from a V8.   Ridiculous.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
2000HP from a V8.   Ridiculous.

I have heard of Indy cars getting 900 HP from a turbocharged V6. It all depends on what kind of hysterics they go through in the turbocharging. More boost = more power. Head gaskets and other things might suffer a little bit, but if you can afford the car, you can afford the head gaskets and the down time while it's being fixed.

2000 does seem a "little" high (with sarcasm) but nothing shocks me anymore.

Good Egg Productions wrote:

And if you purchase the GT model, you become part owner in the company.  Seems odd.

I think it's a little ambitious to say you're going to build an 8 cylinder motor that will put out 2000 HP when Bugatti can only get just under 1200 from a 16 cylinder motor with FOUR turbo chargers on it.

I'll say it again... vaporware.  Any company can make any claim it wants.  But how ridiculous is this claim?  Besides, 0-60 in 2.8 really isn't THAT impressive when a few versions of the Ariel Atom can do it in 2.5 or less.  And that car is about 100K and something I can actually buy.

2000HP from a V8.   Ridiculous.

The Atom weighs nothing. It's literally so light that having a fat driver would measurably affect its performance. 300 hp does a lot when the car weighs that little.

It's the same reason why old 911s are still faster than your average modern sedan; it may have half the HP, but the modern car is a lot bigger, and airbags, A/C, and sound absorbing material add a couple hundred pounds easy, even after replacing half of the body panels with plastic.

Take out A/C and airbags, and remove the body panels, and that thing would outrun my Taurus even with a 100 HP V4.

Lovely Day Media wrote:

I have heard of Indy cars getting 900 HP from a turbocharged V6. It all depends on what kind of hysterics they go through in the turbocharging. More boost = more power. Head gaskets and other things might suffer a little bit, but if you can afford the car, you can afford the head gaskets and the down time while it's being fixed.

2000 does seem a "little" high (with sarcasm) but nothing shocks me anymore.

Ok, fine.  900 HP from a V6.  How do you suppose you get to 2000HP with a V8??  There exists a Nissan GTR where the tuner has been able to squeak 1350HP out of it, but that's not exactly an all the time sort of car.

It's CLEARLY possible to get thousands of HP out of an 8 cylinder car.  Pretty much every drag strip car puts out HP in the thousands with engines that have 8 pistons.  But that's special built, special purpose, and designed to pretty much self destruct every time it runs full out for 5-7 seconds.  Designing a motor that is actually for driving, AND have that much horsepower is a mutually exclusive scenario.  NASCAR vehicles, designed to go 500 miles at a time, only have 725HP.

SO, to be clear.  If this vehicle ever sees a test track, it will have at best, 1400 HP, and likely not even that.  There's just a point where too much horsepower will disintegrate all the other parts that make a vehicle move.  The Veyron was an engineering masterpiece and almost ever part in it had to be specially designed from simulation testing and rapid prototyping to make that car work.

2000HP in a production car V8 is ridiculous, and not likely possible until we figure out new materials engineering.

Zack Zoll wrote:

The Atom weighs nothing. It's literally so light that having a fat driver would measurably affect its performance. 300 hp does a lot when the car weighs that little.

It's the same reason why old 911s are still faster than your average modern sedan; it may have half the HP, but the modern car is a lot bigger, and airbags, A/C, and sound absorbing material add a couple hundred pounds easy, even after replacing half of the body panels with plastic.

Take out A/C and airbags, and remove the body panels, and that thing would outrun my Taurus even with a 100 HP V4.

I agree completely.  It's a power to weight ratio equation.  An M1 Abrams tank engine puts out 1500HP, but it also weighs 60 tons. 

Mazda did the unimaginable with their MX-5 redesign for 2016.  They made it have LESS HP than the older model but shaved 150-200 pounds off of it.  Extremely difficult to do with added safety requirements and the push for more and more comfort and tech options in modern cars.

Good Egg Productions wrote:

I agree completely.  It's a power to weight ratio equation.  An M1 Abrams tank engine puts out 1500HP, but it also weighs 60 tons. 

Mazda did the unimaginable with their MX-5 redesign for 2016.  They made it have LESS HP than the older model but shaved 150-200 pounds off of it.  Extremely difficult to do with added safety requirements and the push for more and more comfort and tech options in modern cars.

My brother-in-law told me about a car he had back in the 60's, a Griffin.  It had a high performance 289 V8 with 300 hp, but in a 1500 lb car, it was a tornado strapped to the back of a roller skate!  When he would (street) race it, he wouldn't start off the line.  They would get going about 50, side by side, and then go from there.  He was afraid that the spoke wheels wouldn't take a full throttle take off from a dead stop.

Zack Zoll wrote:
Take out A/C and airbags, and remove the body panels, and that thing would outrun my Taurus even with a 100 HP V4.

The last V4 powered car I know about was a Saab. There have been a few V4 powered motorcycles (I had one) but no cars. Every car I know of that had a 4 cylinder engine had them inline, not in a V configuration.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
2000HP in a production car V8 is ridiculous, and not likely possible until we figure out new materials engineering.

We agree. 900 HP out of anything is a LOT different from 2000. It may be possible, but is definitely not likely on the street, anyway.

Tony From Syracuse wrote:
what I don't like about alot of cars made here in america....is their design doesnt have cool factor. they just look functional.boring.
.

It's the Protestant utilitarian ethical values of the dominant culture.

--------------
I take my statement ^   back. Pics below.

Tony From Syracuse wrote:
what I don't like about alot of cars made here in america....is their design doesnt have cool factor. they just look functional.boring.
there are a couple exceptions such as the dodge charger.

I know... So boring.


looks almost exactly like a Ferarri F12Berlinetta


Looks a lot like a Ferarri 599.


Looks like every Lambo in the last 7 years.


Looks like the offspring of a Koenigsegg and a Lotus.

You see, the "cool" factor is available in America.  You just have to be willing to pay for it.  A Toyota Corolla is pretty boring, too.  Design comes at a cost premium.

Tony From Syracuse wrote:
Yes those look awesome. but I never see those anywhere. maybe because I live in upstate,ny. its all ford escorts and malibu's and soccer mom vans as far as what I see.lol

I;ve always loved this car from the Tom Cruise minority report movie
https://www.google.com/search?q=minorit … Z8PMNtM%3A

That's my point, Tony.

You don't see a lot of the Enzos or Aventadors in Frosolone, Italy.  But go to Beverly Hills on a Saturday night.  Or South Beach Miami on a weekend.  You'll see all kinds of these exotics, both foreign and domestic.  Ferrari and McLaren are specialty designers.  Like Hennessey here in America.    Alfa Romeo makes cars that look a lot like Toyotas.  Some Volkswagens look like they might have been made in 2015 or in 2005 or in 1995.  And there are British cars that look like they would put grandma to sleep with their styling. 

So it's not really fair to compare general American automakers styling with exotic styling of exotic auto manufacturers.  It's not the same thing.

Tony From Syracuse wrote:
what I don't like about alot of cars made here in america....is their design doesnt have cool factor. they just look functional.boring.
there are a couple exceptions such as the dodge charger.

The Ford Fusion is one of the best-selling cars in America, and it was designed by the guy that did the last few Aston Martins. He did the 2015 Mustang too.

Those are only two exceptions. But they are two REALLY BIG exceptions.

'American cars' aren't boring. They were until 2009 or so. And GM is still mostly boring.

Lovely Day Media wrote:
The last V4 powered car I know about was a Saab. There have been a few V4 powered motorcycles (I had one) but no cars. Every car I know of that had a 4 cylinder engine had them inline, not in a V configuration.

Yes, the Saab is the only V4 production motor I know of, but there are plenty of boxer fours, you may have
heard of Subaru and VW/Porsche pancake motors.

Good Egg Productions wrote:
Ok, fine.  900 HP from a V6.  How do you suppose you get to 2000HP with a V8??  There exists a Nissan GTR where the tuner has been able to squeak 1350HP out of it, but that's not exactly an all the time sort of car.

It's CLEARLY possible to get thousands of HP out of an 8 cylinder car.  Pretty much every drag strip car puts out HP in the thousands with engines that have 8 pistons.  But that's special built, special purpose, and designed to pretty much self destruct every time it runs full out for 5-7 seconds.  Designing a motor that is actually for driving, AND have that much horsepower is a mutually exclusive scenario.  NASCAR vehicles, designed to go 500 miles at a time, only have 725HP.

SO, to be clear.  If this vehicle ever sees a test track, it will have at best, 1400 HP, and likely not even that.  There's just a point where too much horsepower will disintegrate all the other parts that make a vehicle move.  The Veyron was an engineering masterpiece and almost ever part in it had to be specially designed from simulation testing and rapid prototyping to make that car work.

2000HP in a production car V8 is ridiculous, and not likely possible until we figure out new materials engineering.

2000hp is impossible from a standard V8 right now. Each piston can only fire as fast as the explosive reaction of the fuel will allow - regardless of computer control, you still have a hard limit on how fast it can rev and still be ready for the next ignition cycle.

But it's possible that this engine is much larger than  is standard, and each piston has much higher displacement. The engine wouldn't rev any faster, and it would consume more fuel, but each reaction would propel the car forward a little more than in a regular V8.

It's possible, and it would explain why the 0-60 time is so much lower than you would expect for a car with a 'small engine' and that level of power. But considering the amount of engineering effort, they'd probably just use a V16. That would be a lot easier than developing and entirely new engine just for this one car. Ferrari and those guys can afford to do that, but startups usually try to use existing parts where possible.

So yeah, they could totally get 2000hp from this engine. But they probably won't.

Bobby C wrote:
Guess some adults haven't heard of those places around the world called RACETRACKS where super/hyper cars can be and  are driven and/or raced.....

If you can afford a car like that, you can afford to take it out to Utah's Bonneville Salt Flats, too.

Orca Bay Images wrote:

If you can afford a car like that, you can afford to take it out to Utah's Bonneville Salt Flats, too.

I know not everybody thinks this way, but to me the whole point of having gobs of money is to make life easier and more enjoyable.

Why would I want to rent a trailer and have it hauled out there(because I'm not putting cross-country miles on it), when I could fly first-class, rent the fastest car they have for a few days, and then fly home and let somebody else deal with storage and maintenance?

Zack Zoll wrote:

The Ford Fusion is one of the best-selling cars in America, and it was designed by the guy that did the last few Aston Martins. He did the 2015 Mustang too.

Those are only two exceptions. But they are two REALLY BIG exceptions.

'American cars' aren't boring. They were until 2009 or so. And GM is still mostly boring.

I have only owned german cars since the early 1990s.
I have rented a few Ford Fusions when traveling on vacation have been very impressed.

Zack Zoll wrote:

I know not everybody thinks this way, but to me the whole point of having gobs of money is to make life easier and more enjoyable.

Why would I want to rent a trailer and have it hauled out there(because I'm not putting cross-country miles on it), when I could fly first-class, rent the fastest car they have for a few days, and then fly home and let somebody else deal with storage and maintenance?

Someone who has gobs of money to afford supercars,  wouldn't be concerned about expenses such as renting a trailer, storage and maintenance. And in most likelihood, they would want to drive/ try out / race their particular cars instead of a rental.
The main reason rich people buy these cars is to haul them around and race them in tracks; not to use as a daily commute.

Bobby C wrote:

Someone who has gobs of money to afford supercars,  wouldn't be concerned about expenses such as renting a trailer, storage and maintenance. And in most likelihood, they would want to drive/ try out / race their particular cars instead of a rental.
The main reason rich people buy these cars is to haul them around and race them in tracks; not to use as a daily commute.

Perhaps.

One of my rich friends has a lowly Volkswagen station wagon for driving. He also owns a small, fast airplane - 2 seater that he uses to fly out to the islands where he has a splendid boat to doodle about in.

I like that idea better too and I'm not even rich.

Motordrive Photography wrote:
Yes, the Saab is the only V4 production motor I know of, but there are plenty of boxer fours, you may have
heard of Subaru and VW/Porsche pancake motors.

I'm wrong again ... I'm sure it won't be the last time, either.

AG Photo wrote:
I'm also curious as to how the car would theoretically produce that much power, yet have a top speed of "only" 250 mph.

Maybe for the same reason that a Rolex costs $25,000, but tells the same time as a $12 watch from Walmart.

What I mean, is that it's absolutely possible to build a 12 liter motor that will produce 2000 horsepower.  I never denied that it was possible.  But it's simply not practical or usable in a sports car.  So 2000 horsepower in a sports car is like a 41 megapixel cell phone camera.  It's just a number.

2000 horsepower from a motor that can only create 500 ft-lbs of torque, and weighs 6000 pounds because of all the reinforcement materials needed and ultra heavy duty linkage to transfer 2000 hp toward the wheels.

But I'll stand by my original assessment that this vehicle will never see a test track with 2000HP under the hood.



However, that begs an interesting question.  What ever happened to the "future" where we were supposed to get vehicles with four motors, one at each wheel, producing a combined 800hp??  Is that still going to happen?

Bobby C wrote:

Someone who has gobs of money to afford supercars,  wouldn't be concerned about expenses such as renting a trailer, storage and maintenance. And in most likelihood, they would want to drive/ try out / race their particular cars instead of a rental.
The main reason rich people buy these cars is to haul them around and race them in tracks; not to use as a daily commute.

Oh, I wasn't considering the COST of travel or maintenance at all. I was speaking of the inconvenience.

Assuming you pay someone to take care of all the planning for you, you're still dependant on other people's schedules. Even if you pay a premium for priority servicing, if a part needs replacing it still takes however long it takes to get it an install it.

If you rent, there's almost no planning. "Hey, maybe we should go to Bonneville this weekend. Can we get airline tickets? Awesome, let's go."

And you never, ever have to worry about having a problem with the car you brought there and ruining your fun. If it doesn't work, and you didn't break it yourself, you just get a new car.

Seems a lot more leisurely to me. But as a guy that works for a living, being immune to any sort of worry is a hell of a lot more attractive than owning more stuff.