# Bugatti reclaims top speed record from SSC Ultimate Aero



## mark_m5 (Sep 16, 2006)

http://www.topgear.com/uk/car-news/...ook&utm_medium=Facebook&utm_campaign=Facebook

This week on Top Gear, Bugatti unveiled the Veyron Super Sports edition...

Top speed 267 mph... Average.



> The Bugatti Veyron SuperSport has set a new production car land speed record, hitting 267mph at VW's Ehra-Lessien proving ground. 267mph. Well, 267.91mph to be precise, or 431.072km/h, thrashing the 256.23mph set by the SSC Ultimate Aero in Nevada in 2007.
> You don't need us to tell you this, but that is obscenely, absurdly fast. To set the production speed record is impressive. To smash it by 11mph is astonishing.
> 
> Then again, the Veyron SuperSport is an astonishing car. Effectively the final iteration of the Veyron, it shares the same 8.0-litre, 16-cylinder engine, but with larger turbos and bigger intercoolers to push power to 1,183bhp, a jump of 196bhp. Torque increases from 921lb ft to 1106lb ft.
> ...


----------



## pilotman (Feb 2, 2006)

stupid.

The Bugatti is $1.6 million dollars, nearly $700,000 more expensive then its competitor.

Its impressive, but then again, its really not.

If they continue to throw enough money and resources at it, then can keep squeezing incremental speed gains out, 5mph here, etc.

Couldn't all this money and R&D be used for something more productive?

VW (owner of Bugatti) should spend more time making their cars more reliable instead of cocking around with stupid stuff like this.

Audi/VW blows.


----------



## mark_m5 (Sep 16, 2006)

I heard their unit cost to build the Veyron is actually $6 million. It's strictly an ego thing, absolutely.

...But it's a technological tour-de-force. In engineering terms, solving the problems that need to be solved for the extreme cases often lead to technological discoveries that benefit the mass market.

It's like the "space race" for the automotive world.


----------



## pilotman (Feb 2, 2006)

I understand, and agree to a point, i.e. trickle down technology.

But seriously, VW should focus more on reliability, it has nice designs...


----------



## mtbscott (Jul 16, 2003)

I think the Veyron is the best example of ultimate excess ever built into a production car, and it deserves its accolades just for that. There may have been a few other pretenders to the crown since its inception, but I think of those as "kit cars" compared to the Bugatti's all inclusive design. New cars on the horizon, like the Porsche hybrid supercar will eventually surpass it, but its place in automotive history is assured.


----------



## vinrock (Oct 26, 2010)

pilotman said:


> VW should focus more on reliability...


You sure about that? According to the Consumer Report's 2010 manufacturer survey VW scored higher than all three of the major German luxury brands which seems to indicate that they _are_ focusing on reliability.



> ...Audi, BMW, and Mercedes-Benz are among the worst automakers overall in terms of reliability.
> 
> BMW had a bad year, with five of its 11 models scoring below average. While the BMW M3 topped the sporty cars category, the 1-, 3-, and 5-Series models with the 3.0-liter turbocharged (N54) engine had high problem rates related to the fuel system, among other gripes.


The streets have not seen a technological masterpiece such as the Veyron ever since the McLaren F1 was introduced 18 years ago. It would be a dull world if people put off crazy ideas like this and only cared about 'being more productive'.


----------



## 1985mb (Apr 2, 2008)

pilotman said:


> If they continue to throw enough money and resources at it, then can keep squeezing incremental speed gains out, 5mph here, etc.


Yeah that pretty much sums up the entire history of motorsport. Bloody fools



> Couldn't all this money and R&D be used for something more productive?


Yeah it's such a shame Mercedes wasted so much money on the 300SL Gullwing. Or Ferrari on the GTO. Porsche on the 959. McLaren on the F1.

Or BMW on the M1, M3 or M5.


----------



## mark_m5 (Sep 16, 2006)

1985mb said:


> Yeah it's such a shame Mercedes wasted so much money on the 300SL Gullwing. Or Ferrari on the GTO. Porsche on the 959. McLaren on the F1.
> 
> Or BMW on the M1, M3 *or M5*.


Cough. Sputter. "Blasphemy!!!!!"

Exsqueeze me... My M5 drives like a dream, handles like a race car, is reliable and comfortable and awesome; and it's perfectly economical for a car that has 400hp and does 0-60 in 4.7 seconds and can stop from 60-0 in 109 ft without aftermarket Stoptechs or Brembos or R-comp tires.

There is no car that's better than the M5 when you take all it's characteristics into consideration.

Audi RS4 is the closest contender but comes up short.
MBZ costs more and is as reliable as a Citroen 2CV.
Porsche is a hideous monster when you add 2 doors and make a Panamera ... and costs a ton more. There's one to complain about.
Lexus and Infinity are tin cans with sloppy handling.
Cadillac CTS-V is ... well, yuck. Monster on the track, but - looks like crap.

I could go on.


----------



## e36fan7500 (Oct 28, 2010)

Holy crap...


----------



## mark_m5 (Sep 16, 2006)

Ok, the Bugatti is better than the M5, but costs $1.6 million more. So like I said, "taking everything into account"


----------



## Tangent (Jan 18, 2004)

Funny enough, I just read in the current issue of Top Gear magazine that SSC was already getting ready to unveil the Ultimate Aero II that'll reclaim the top speed title for them...


----------



## mark_m5 (Sep 16, 2006)

Tangent said:


> Funny enough, I just read in the current issue of Top Gear magazine that SSC was already getting ready to unveil the Ultimate Aero II that'll reclaim the top speed title for them...


----------



## sno_duc (Sep 3, 2008)

One thing that has always confused me.
This aircraft has a top speed of 242 ktas (278 mph) powered by one 550 ci twin turbo engine producing 280 hp, seats 4, and gets 16 mpg.
http://www.mooney.com/acclaim-type-s/specifications-performance-3.html
Why do autos require so much more horse power to achieve the same speed??


----------



## vinrock (Oct 26, 2010)

sno_duc said:


> Why do autos require so much more horse power to achieve the same speed??


Aerodynamic drag, rolling resistance and the fact that airplanes have enough room to hit that speed without needing to accelerate like a lunatic.


----------



## The HACK (Dec 19, 2001)

sno_duc said:


> One thing that has always confused me.
> This aircraft has a top speed of 242 ktas (278 mph) powered by one 550 ci twin turbo engine producing 280 hp, seats 4, and gets 16 mpg.
> http://www.mooney.com/acclaim-type-s/specifications-performance-3.html
> Why do autos require so much more horse power to achieve the same speed??


Airplanes create "lift" while cars must combat it. For every pound of down-force required to keep a car on the ground at 2XXmph it'll take 10 more HP to overcome it. :dunno:


----------



## mark_m5 (Sep 16, 2006)

*Forget the Veyron*

Hennessy is releasing the Venom GT
http://www.venomgt.com/

Debut in 3 days at the SEMA show in Vegas, but I may see it tomorrow... 



> *2011 Hennessey Venom GT Specifications*
> 
> *Performance*
> 
> ...


----------



## cwsqbm (Aug 4, 2004)

sno_duc said:


> One thing that has always confused me.
> This aircraft has a top speed of 242 ktas (278 mph) powered by one 550 ci twin turbo engine producing 280 hp, seats 4, and gets 16 mpg.
> http://www.mooney.com/acclaim-type-s/specifications-performance-3.html
> Why do autos require so much more horse power to achieve the same speed??


The answer is simple - altitude. A plane needs to be high attitudes, where the air is much thinning, to be able to go fast. That's why that particular Mooney has a turbocharger - so it can make power at 25,000ft. Near sea level, its top speed would be much much less - probably about 170ktas. The other reason that planes fly high is range - with less air resistance, they get much better mileage (although that 16mpg wouldn't be at 242ktas - probably closer to 200ktas at 25,000 - better being wearing an O2 mask, as that plane isn't pressurized.)

Even fighter planes suffer from this - plenty of figher jets can go way beyond Mach 2 at altitude, but the speed record at sea level is about Mach 1.3.

Back on topic, all these other "production cars" - SSC, Hennessy, whatever, are closer to kit cars when compared to the engineering that went into the Veyron. Anybody with enough money can make a car go over 260mph - a stock bodied 3rd-generation Firebird broke 300mph years ago, on low traction salt, with a little help from a turbo'd big block Chevy, while a Ford GT with about 2000 hp hit recently went almost 270mph in a standing mile on a runway. Duplicating either would cost far less than a Veyron, but aren't production cars with Veyron-level civility and refinement.


----------



## vinrock (Oct 26, 2010)

Of interesting note with regard to the SSC Aero; Just recently I was watching or reading something, I can't remember, about the top speed rivalry between them and the Bugatti. The Bugatti engineer had some questions about an actual production Aero - is there a single one known to have been delivered? Bugatti claims to be unable to track down a single Aero owner and that when they tried purchasing an example, they were denied.

Oh and the other fast cars - don't forget about the Callaway Sledgehammer from 1988. Driven from Old Lyme, CT to the TRC center in Ohio under it's own power and hitting a maximum speed of 254mph on a banked oval with 'only' 898hp & 772lb-ft.


----------



## TXSTYLE (Aug 29, 2006)

*Something else not being discussed here... The Bugatti is straight "opulence" inside where it's passengers are pampered like a Rolls Royce and shielded from deafening sound by isolation. And no need to try and feverishly try and shift gears... Just plant right foot and buh-bye. Simply Magnificent.*


----------



## TXSTYLE (Aug 29, 2006)

NICE read and Video here: http://www.worldcarfans.com/110072727589/top-gear-bugatti-veyron-super-sport-top-speed-run-and


----------

