If you built the Veyron, what engine configuration would you use?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Grobbo

OK this makes a lot of sense - do you reckon they were his only two requirements? I think he may have also demanded it was 4WD. Who knows what else.... It was certainly a bit of an ego project.

I'd love to know what else they tried...

Thanks for voting!

It certainly was an ego project, every attempt at producing the worlds fastest production car is an ego project, most buyers of the result never get it up to the limit.

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I think you will find one of the design criteria was definitely AWD which puts a lot of pressure on them to have a compact engine package to allow room for transaxles, transfer cases etc.

Yes a V10 of similar design to the BMW M5 motor may have fitted in the area that was allocated to engine bay in the veyron and yes it may be simpler than the W16 design (not that the BMW is a simple design by any stretch of the imagination). The problem is the M5 V10 is 5L and produces 373 kw and 500 nm, which is 510 kw and 1000 nm less than the W16. Yes the M5 is NA and you could increase these figures by bolting on 2 or 4 turbos, but to get an increase in power of nearly 250% and an increase in torque of 300%, it would have to run some serious boost pressures which will have a detrimental effect on reliability. Also having a lower capacity engine relying more on boost pressure from turbos is more likely to have a peak torque curve that comes in later in the rev range than a large capacity motor running lower boost pressures. So the other option would be to increase the capacity of the V10 to that of the W16 at 8L. Lets just say we do not want to increase the stroke too much as we do not want a truck motor with long strokes and slow to rev (think of the boss motor here, it has often been criticised for its undersquare dimensions). The BMW M5 motor has a bore/stroke of 91.94/75.13 mm, very oversquare and one of the reasons it revs to 8000 rpm but also a reason it does not produce max power until 7750 rpm. Now to produce a V10 that is 75% larger in capacity to 8L and keep the present motors bore/stroke ratio you will end up with a 160 mm bore and 131 mm stroke. I think you will find there is no where near enough meat between cylinder to take a 5L V10 bore out to 160 mm (even if you could touch the bores together which you can't it would end up 80 cm long which is already longer than a W16). Just for the sake of argument, lets just say BMW have managed to fit all five cylinders per bank on the 5L V12 in the same space that VW have fitted 8 and thus have ended up with a motor length of 71 cm as well (I doubt it, I think you will find the M5 motor is longer but I can not find figures). To increase the engine capacity to 8L without increasing the length of the stroke too much you have to increase the size of the bores so lets say we increase the stoke by 25% (now 93 mm) and the bore by 50% (now 137 mm). To increase the bore size by that figure of 50% and keep the same cylinder wall thicknesses you will of course have to increase the overall length of the motor by at least the same amount to accommodate it. Motor length is now 106 cm long (35 cm longer than the W16). Suddenly your V10 requires the length of engine bay that a dodge viper has, not very conducive to mid engine, AWD and reasonable weight distribution.

The end result, which I am sure I have clearly demonstrated is that to achieve the same power levels from a motor that does not have to run small capacity and large boost, either requires a lot of cylinders or very large cylinders. Simple logic tells us that more cylinders can equate to big capacity with smaller cylinder sizes than fewer cylinders can. By doubling the rows of cylinders (2 rows per bank rather than 1) you can increase the number of cylinders without a proportional increase in overall dimensions of the motor. That is exactly what VW has done.

I have to wonder if smaller capacity or fewer cylinders (V10 or V12) running boost could achieve the same result, why was it not done ages ago?

Yes very sound logic there I agree - 8 litres and 16 cylinders is a hell of a lot of engine to fit into such a relatively a small space, there is really no other way you could match that capacity or cylinder count without using an unusual format like they did.

So I guess it just comes down to whether Mr Armchair Engineer out there - if given an infinite budget - reckons they could build a lower capacity, higher boost engine that could last 100,000+km and produce enough torque down low etc to match the W16...

Plenty of 1000hp engines out there would fit, but would they last? I dunno, maybe I'll buy a 9ff, run it for 100,000k and update this thread in a couple of years...

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by Grobbo

So I guess it just comes down to whether Mr Armchair Engineer out there - if given an infinite budget - reckons they could build a lower capacity, higher boost engine that could last 100,000+km and produce enough torque down low etc to match the W16...

Well for $1million, that's not far off an "infinate" budget. Not only do I think other people could match it, I think they could beat it. Sorry, but I don't think the Veyron is that impressive. If it was $200,000, i would think otherwise. Money aside, I would rather have a Ferrari California or Jaguar C-X75. Plus the Veyron is made to be well suited to the guy that likes to brag about his 10 radiators, 16 cylinders and 4 turbos.

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Well for $1million, that's not far off an "infinate" budget. Not only do I think other people could match it, I think they could beat it. Sorry, but I don't think the Veyron is that impressive. If it was $200,000, i would think otherwise. Money aside, I would rather have a Ferrari California or Jaguar C-X75. Plus the Veyron is made to be well suited to the guy that likes to brag about his 10 radiators, 16 cylinders and 4 turbos.

A mill doesn't go far these days - look at Coyote/Miami - the engine and car were already there, they just had to add a blower and they spent 40 mill...

Besides, $1million is just the rrp. VW makes a loss on each one sold at that price too so god knows how much each one actually costs them. The R&D on the thing was obviously huge too so I think 'infinite' is a lot more realistic than a puny million - ha ha.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Well for $1million, that's not far off an "infinate" budget. Not only do I think other people could match it, I think they could beat it. Sorry, but I don't think the Veyron is that impressive. If it was $200,000, i would think otherwise. Money aside, I would rather have a Ferrari California or Jaguar C-X75. Plus the Veyron is made to be well suited to the guy that likes to brag about his 10 radiators, 16 cylinders and 4 turbos.

The tyres are $30,000 a set and if I remember correctly just the indicator combination switch (a very nice billet aluminium) is around $10,000 to replace. The car is sold at a massive loss per unit, something to the tune of $1.5m per unit. There are 304 Veyrons, sold at $1m each that will total $304m, considering Ford spent $40m putting a blower onto a pre existing engine, $304m is a drop in the ocean compared to the expenditure that went into the Veyron. The value for VW comes form the publicity, reputation and the flow down of technology to other models as a result of the development that went into the Veyron, something like Honda spending millions on F1 racing. A good example of this is the motor that is being considered for applications such as future Bentley's. It is not only the entire engine that will be used, but some of the smaller components are a direct result of problem solving putting this engineering feat into production.

I am sorry but I do not understand anyone that can say it is only impressive if they could do this vehicle at $200k per unit. If the veyron should cost $200k per unit, why the hell are we spending $60k for a F6? To keep it relative we should be picking up a F6 for $10k.

Lets face it, just about every buyer of hypercars only does so because they like to brag about its top speed, number of cylinders, number of turbos and any other unique doodad that their car has fitted. The whole market is about bigger, better, faster and bragging rights down at the country club.

[TheZHLANE]

probably put a nasa rocket onto it or some ****

[MethodX]

Originally Posted by flappist

Top 10 reasons why some AFF members would hate Veyron

1) It is not Ford
2) It has the same number of letters in its name as Holden
3) It is not a V8
4) It does not run on LPG, CNG, E85 or pixie dust
5) It is quicker than both FPV GT and TE50 T3
6) It does not have stripes, decals or a bonnet bulge
7) It has not won at Bathurst
8) It is not RWD
9) It does not have provision to tow a 2 tonne trailer up hill faster than a (insert other hated model here)
.
.
.
10) They cannot afford the left hand front wheel nut off one even on 1000 days interest free........

its an accomplishment.

But its ugly.
Its not a real Buggati.
Its a plastic German one, made by Germans

[CFOUR]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

If I remember correctly just the indicator combination switch (a very nice billet aluminum) is around $10,000 to replace.

Magnisium actually.

[XR6_661]

RB30 of course.

[Crazy Dazz]

I dislike the whole concept of the Veyron. It just seems “wrong” somehow.

A lot of it, including the engine, seemed to be mostly about the Germans proving that “they could.”

I realise that new supercars are never meant to be affordable to the hoi-polloi, but even so the Veyron just feels like it’s breaking some unwritten rules? Especially if you believe the rumours that even with the pricetag, VW is actually losing millions on each car.

Personally, I am far more impressed with vehicles like the Nobel, that can challenge supercars at a fraction of their cost and without the backing of billion dollar R&D.

[Ben73]

I'd say a W24. 2 V12s!!!!

Or maybe just a 4cylinder with a fart can and VTech. That **** is fast and sound superb.

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by Crazy Dazz

I dislike the whole concept of the Veyron. It just seems “wrong” somehow.

A lot of it, including the engine, seemed to be mostly about the Germans proving that “they could.”

I realise that new supercars are never meant to be affordable to the hoi-polloi, but even so the Veyron just feels like it’s breaking some unwritten rules? Especially if you believe the rumours that even with the pricetag, VW is actually losing millions on each car.

Personally, I am far more impressed with vehicles like the Nobel, that can challenge supercars at a fraction of their cost and without the backing of billion dollar R&D.

Ahh yes, the Noble sounds more like my thing - and it's a V8 with twin turbs and a better power to weight than the Veyron:

Article here: http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evoc...oble_m600.html

[Grobbo]

Having watched and read a lot about the Koenigsegg Agera R and the Hennessey Venom GT lately it reminded me of this thread.... ....and how many people mocked the notion of getting big reliable HP out of a simple TT V8....
These two cars are now quicker than a Veyron, using blocks based on humble Ford and GM origins... See, a TT V8 is all you need! :-)

The Hennessey is much more to my taste than a Veyron - nice and light and relatively simple (in comparison)

Go the Ford GT gearbox too - apparently good for over 2000hp out of the box!

[XR6T0Y]

Two 335's strapped together with two superchargers and two turbo's........

[buggo]

3.8 out of a VN with a cop chip and a Chev badge

[stevanford]

Originally Posted by Grobbo

Having watched and read a lot about the Koenigsegg Agera R and the Hennessey Venom GT lately it reminded me of this thread.... ....and how many people mocked the notion of getting big reliable HP out of a simple TT V8....
These two cars are now quicker than a Veyron, using blocks based on humble Ford and GM origins... See, a TT V8 is all you need! :-)

The Hennessey is much more to my taste than a Veyron - nice and light and relatively simple (in comparison)

Go the Ford GT gearbox too - apparently good for over 2000hp out of the box!

1. Koenigsegg no longer use Ford based blocks in their cars.
2. Koenigsegg use E85 fuel to make 1140hp. When using regular fuel, it makes less than 1000hp. Veyron and the Veyron supersport make 1001hp and 1200hp respectively on regular fuel.
3. While Hennessey has made the power (credit to him), read up on experiences his previous customers have had. I don't want one after reading those stories.

Also have to remember that the first production Veyron was sold 8 years ago now. Imagine these cars with DI and if they were tuned for E85.

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by stevanford

1. Koenigsegg no longer use Ford based blocks in their cars.
2. Koenigsegg use E85 fuel to make 1140hp. When using regular fuel, it makes less than 1000hp. Veyron and the Veyron supersport make 1001hp and 1200hp respectively on regular fuel.
3. While Hennessey has made the power (credit to him), read up on experiences his previous customers have had. I don't want one after reading those stories.

Also have to remember that the first production Veyron was sold 8 years ago now. Imagine these cars with DI and if they were tuned for E85.

Fair points all. But then imagine if VAG just used a simple TT V8 with DI and E85... :-)

I still tend to agree with the UK press at the time, the W was more about marketing. VAG themselves have now dropped it in most models, and replaced it with... A TT V8!

No surprise of course that the new TTV8 makes the Bentley much lighter and fuel efficient, better to drive, sound better etc etc...

[SSD-85]

Linky

/end thread.

[BadMax]

Four Eco-Boost's running e85...

[malazn mafia]

Tuned GT-R would mince the thing despite having 10 less cylinders (I think this has already been done). So two GTR motors should do nicely to power a Veyron

[2011G6E]

The reason for the engine is simple: you are producing 1000 horsepower, and reliably for long periods, not just over a quarter mile or quick sprint.

There is also the nasty fact of air pressure as speed increases. The horsepower and torque needed to push the air aside as you approach 400kph is simply staggering, and as your speed increases, the power needed rises exponentially.

And yes, it was mainly done "to prove they could"...they lose money on every car they build, but so what? I would bet Ford Australia doesn't sell enough GT Falcons like the R SPec to cover costs...they subsidise them with the "cheap stuff" they sell by the hundred.
Good on VW for having the balls to do it.

[Rev28K]

One of the questions is what are VW going to do for a follow up. Rumours of a lighter, cheaper, smaller capacity sub-Veyron have gone quiet. And the front engined sedan/hatch haven't been seen in public for a while.

There is an expensive production facility going to waste in Molsheim. The super-economy XL1 looks technically interesting and there is the rumoured Audi LM replica has to be made somewhere.

p.s. The 80's EB 110 SS used a 3.5 litre quad turbo V12 to produce 600bhp & 216mph. Tweaked versions weighed 1480kg, 860bhp & maybe 230mph.

[data_mine]

EB110 SS was '92

[arronm]

Saturn 5 rocket.

Probably only one though, dont want to drop the clutch and end up on the moon.

[gassed250]

Originally Posted by Grobbo

The key point I guess is 'reliably' it would have to be up to VW's high standards, so relatively lowly stressed.

you cant put VW and high standards in the same sentence it just wont work

VW has one of the worst quality control problems amongst manufactures

[flappist]

Originally Posted by gassed250

you cant put VW and high standards in the same sentence it just wont work

VW has one of the worst quality control problems amongst manufactures

Really?

So is this sage statement based on wikipedia, another internet forum, facebook or your personal experiences with current era VW vehicles?

[gassed250]

J.D. Power quality study

[Revolver]

And everything published on the internet is infallible.

[gassed250]

Originally Posted by Revolver 45

And everything published on the internet is infallible.

like all information, what you take from it is purely up to you !

[flappist]

Originally Posted by gassed250

J.D. Power quality study

image

image

Didn't see holden there?
No holdens on a list a reliable cars?
How could this be, they are always in the top 5 sellers.

You have a web study by one group on one market in one year.

If there was a web forum for Sigma drivers and at one time one of them showed themselves to be naive and narrow minded would that mean that all Sigma drivers were, all the time?