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

[Grobbo]

I've always wondered whether they could've got a Veyron to go just as fast with a lighter, less complex V motor - maybe a V8, V10 or V12?

It seems the W format created quite a bit of extra hassle with regards to cooling and whatnot, plus it must weigh heaps.

So what do you reckon, learned fellow forum dweller, do you think they could've reliably got roughly 1100 HP and 1250nm of torque from a lighter V motor?

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

Me personally, hmmm, I think I woulda tried a quad turbo V10 of 6 litre capacity - no specifc reason just taking the middle ground I guess...

[ST]

This video should tell you why there is no alternative to the W16:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tGcMy...eature=related

[Full Noise]

Originally Posted by Grobbo

I've always wondered whether they could've got a Veyron to go just as fast with a lighter, less complex V motor - maybe a V8, V10 or V12?

It seems the W format created quite a bit of extra hassle with regards to cooling and whatnot, plus it must weigh heaps.

So what do you reckon, learned fellow forum dweller, do you think they could've reliably got roughly 1100 HP and 1250nm of torque from a lighter V motor?

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

Me personally, hmmm, I think I woulda tried a quad turbo V10 of 6 litre capacity - no specifc reason just taking the middle ground I guess...

Are you serious?

The Veyron is an engineering masterpiece that we may never see the likes of again. They didn’t just push the envelope when they designed it, they ripped it up.

The thought that went into this car to make it do what it does should not be taken lightly. They obviously went with the W16 configuration because it best suited what the car was set out to do from the earliest design stage.

[buggo]

I'm sure the engineers considered every possible solution to this, and the w16 reined superior to any other config for what they were after. I beleive they even developed a W18 engine yet the w16 was still better.
Maybe the boost to make a v8 or v10 would have been to high to produce the same numbers while being reliable. IDK, I'm not an engineer. However I'm sure all avenues were addressede when designing the car, from p/w, performance, packaging, everything.

[Mad_Aussie]

Originally Posted by Grobbo

I've always wondered whether they could've got a Veyron to go just as fast with a lighter, less complex V motor - maybe a V8, V10 or V12?

It seems the W format created quite a bit of extra hassle with regards to cooling and whatnot, plus it must weigh heaps.

So what do you reckon, learned fellow forum dweller, do you think they could've reliably got roughly 1100 HP and 1250nm of torque from a lighter V motor?

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

Me personally, hmmm, I think I woulda tried a quad turbo V10 of 6 litre capacity - no specifc reason just taking the middle ground I guess...

LLLLLLOL

[Scott]

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.

[platinumXR]

L20b.

[buggo]

Originally Posted by platinumXR

L20b.

The Veyron series 2.0. Economy version at it's finest haha

[data_mine]

Originally Posted by Grobbo

So what do you reckon, learned fellow forum dweller, do you think they could've reliably got roughly 1100 HP and 1250nm of torque from a lighter V motor?

Pfffttt. don't need no stinking hairdryers. The Weineck Cobra beats those figures from a n/a V8.
http://www.webwombat.com.au/motoring...bra-780cui.htm

It's got the 1100hp, but obliterates the torque figure with 1760NM.

[GTP owner]

I voted something else.
A 500cube keith black hemi with blower running nitro - something like a top fueller motor.....
Or perhaps a typhoon jet motor...
Or maybe a hybrid diesel e85 chev motor with a massive cam...

Seriously, don't you thing they did not canvass other ideas? The amount of time, money and expertise spent on that thing was phenomenal, so I hardly think a bunch of keyboard jockeys are likely to have some superior option at their fingertips.

[Revolver]

No offence but VW have a reason they chose the V16. Their designers spend years researching to find the best combo for power/reliability/functionality. These are some of the top engineers in the world. I don't think there is a better solution. Just leave that decision to them.

[Peuty]

Originally Posted by Blue Beast II

No offence but VW have a reason they chose the V16.

That'd a W16 cobber.

I'd have put an LS1 into it.

[Auturbo6]

The V10 out of the Audi-Lamborghini, running two Garrett GT40's with 1.2 compressor housings. Would increase capacity by stroking bottom end, spooling turbo's more quickly and increasing mid-range torque mark-ably.

[Grobbo]

Maybe because I was living in the cynical UK back when it was launched, but the press at the time did hint at the W being more about marketing than being the best option from an enginnering perspective.

I tend to agree. Hence I've always wondered what could've been better. Perhaps I should've explained that in my initial post...

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by data_mine

Pfffttt. don't need no stinking hairdryers. The Weineck Cobra beats those figures from a n/a V8.
http://www.webwombat.com.au/motoring...bra-780cui.htm

It's got the 1100hp, but obliterates the torque figure with 1760NM.

Thank you for reminding me of that mad mad vehicle.

I wonder how much that V8 weighs tho - probably less than the W16 and maybe even more frugal?

[Cam]

Originally Posted by Peuty

I'd have put an LS1 into it.

LS1... pffft...

I'd put in an SR20DET at each end, one to power the front wheels and one to power the back..

[Iggypoppin']

i thought they went with the W16....just to prove they could?

[geckoGT]

Or maybe the choice of a W16 had a lot to do with space in the engine bay. To use a V8 means the bore sizes have to be large or the stroke long, one makes the engine longer and the other makes it more difficult to rev. A V12 has many of the same problems. A V16 is getting way to long in the block and therefore requires a long engine bay to accommodate it, leading to an increase in wheel base.

As for the cobra replica with the 12.9L, sure it may have better dyno figures but I am sure a veyron will whip it on any challenging mountain pass or on the Nurburgring, you can't accuse the veyron of being a dyno queen, the cobra replica may be a different story. I notice on the article about it they talk of acceleration but nothing of lap times or even turning corners.

I am not sure how we can question the value of the W16 when it is the king of production cars at the moment and I would suggest it will be for some time yet.

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by Iggypoppin'

i thought they went with the W16....just to prove they could?

Exackery - the veyron was all about marketing - a no expense spared exercise to put VW on ze map. They lost a fortune on each one sold but they didn't care because it was mission accomplished - depsite running way over time and budget.

And I bet anyone two fiddy that the instructions came from Ferdinand Piech himself that it had to have a unique-to-VW engine.

The w configuration, the 15 degree angle, the shared head for each bank - it all reeks of VW (think W8, VR6 etc) and also helped cement the Veyrons uniqueness forever - no one would ever build anything like it again - why the hell would they - it's not the best design for such an engine by a long shot - and I bet the constraints of having to use such a configuration is no doubt one of the reasons the Veyron was such a PITA to develop.

[Revolver]

Originally Posted by Peuty

That'd a W16 cobber.

I'd have put an LS1 into it.

Yes absolutely. Just made a complete goose of myself by having a blonde moment.

Plus the girlfriend was distracting me ;-)

[chevypower]

In the Ford world, (to make a new GT) I would take the new 6.2, bore/stroke it to 7.5L, make the block out of CGI. Put DOHC on it, I would use that EcoBoost/Bobcat technology. I'd be very surprised if that alone couldn't get it to 1100HP.

Now, if I was allowed to use electric power, I would totally change my story. In that case I would use a regular EcoBoost V6 motor as a generator, and have at least a 100kw electric motor powering each wheel. This of course would give me 400kw of electric power (again, minimum), which is equivalent in performance to 1200kw of power from a regular internal combustion engine. But I would also get great fuel economy.

[buggo]

Originally Posted by chevypower

In the Ford world, (to make a new GT) I would take the new 6.2, bore/stroke it to 7.5L, make the block out of CGI. Put DOHC on it, I would use that EcoBoost/Bobcat technology. I'd be very surprised if that alone couldn't get it to 1100HP.

Now, if I was allowed to use electric power, I would totally change my story. In that case I would use a regular EcoBoost V6 motor as a generator, and have at least a 100kw electric motor powering each wheel. This of course would give me 400kw of electric power (again, minimum), which is equivalent in performance to 1200kw of power from a regular internal combustion engine. But I would also get great fuel economy.

Not to mention maximum torque from 0 rpm through to cut out supposedly. It's sad to say but I can see the next big 'engineering exercise' in a decade odd will be full electric, have huge range until flat, be ultra fast in both straights and corners, and be a role model for every other car to follow in the same drivetrain tracks from there on in.

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by chevypower

In the Ford world, (to make a new GT) I would take the new 6.2, bore/stroke it to 7.5L, make the block out of CGI. Put DOHC on it, I would use that EcoBoost/Bobcat technology. I'd be very surprised if that alone couldn't get it to 1100HP.

Now, if I was allowed to use electric power, I would totally change my story. In that case I would use a regular EcoBoost V6 motor as a generator, and have at least a 100kw electric motor powering each wheel. This of course would give me 400kw of electric power (again, minimum), which is equivalent in performance to 1200kw of power from a regular internal combustion engine. But I would also get great fuel economy.

What a lot of people forget is that the 1000hp figure is not the whole story. It actually makes around 2,000hp, but it takes up to 1,000 to actually keep it cool, run all of the pumps and ancillaries, and make it all day long at maximum power. So these engines touted as possible alternatives will turn to junk when asked to do everything this w16 does.
These engines meet emissions regs, have a warranty, will do 100,000km, and are driveable from idle. Sure a stroked factory style block may make a peak of 1200kw with dohc and twin turbos, but how long will it actually last? Will it do it meeting emissions? Will it do reasonable fuel economy?What are the emissions like? How will it cope running the 12 or so radiators and cooling systems? What about running it on dodgy fuel?....The list goes on. Watch the videos on the Veyron being built and you start to get an idea of the huge complexity and difficulty in achieving what they did.

[DBourne]

Originally Posted by Iggypoppin'

i thought they went with the W16....just to prove they could?

Exactly! I think people are forgetting that the Veryon was the worlds biggest "check out how big my cawk is" car in the world.

It's done just because people said it couldn't..

That and I know when I'm travelling 407+KM/H I like to be able to listen to my favourite CD in a nice comfy leather chair with the aircon on just right

[duaned]

Originally Posted by SgtBourne

That and I know when I'm travelling 407+KM/H I like to be able to listen to my favourite CD in a nice comfy leather chair with the aircon on just right

I think the owner of this one had the same idea!

[70caprigt3k]

I'd use a pratt and whitney R-4360-51 radial piston engine, w16 caynt hayte!

[grandpa_spec_F6]

Originally Posted by Cam

LS1... pffft...

I'd put in an SR20DET at each end, one to power the front wheels and one to power the back..

Come on now that's weak, RB26TT at each wheel!

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Or maybe the choice of a W16 had a lot to do with space in the engine bay. To use a V8 means the bore sizes have to be large or the stroke long, one makes the engine longer and the other makes it more difficult to rev. A V12 has many of the same problems. A V16 is getting way to long in the block and therefore requires a long engine bay to accommodate it, leading to an increase in wheel base.

As for the cobra replica with the 12.9L, sure it may have better dyno figures but I am sure a veyron will whip it on any challenging mountain pass or on the Nurburgring, you can't accuse the veyron of being a dyno queen, the cobra replica may be a different story. I notice on the article about it they talk of acceleration but nothing of lap times or even turning corners.

I am not sure how we can question the value of the W16 when it is the king of production cars at the moment and I would suggest it will be for some time yet.

The Veyron uses two 'VR8' motors stuck together in a V, if you ignore the 15 degree angle, it is basically a V16, albeit with the cylinders of each bank kinda 'overlapping' to squish 'em all in. That probably makes no sense but what I'm saying is it must be at least as long as a V10, perhaps even a V12.

And I don't think it's much of a revver...

I think it's fair to question the value of the W16 when the 9ff and the Aero tt came out and made similar power and speed figures with half the turbos and half (or less than half) the cylinders...

Not saying those cars are better, but they do highlight my point quite nicely... :-)

There's not many Jouno's who rate the Veyron at the top of thier list of mega cars... Too heavy!

[Grobbo]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

What a lot of people forget is that the 1000hp figure is not the whole story. It actually makes around 2,000hp, but it takes up to 1,000 to actually keep it cool, run all of the pumps and ancillaries, and make it all day long at maximum power. So these engines touted as possible alternatives will turn to junk when asked to do everything this w16 does.
These engines meet emissions regs, have a warranty, will do 100,000km, and are driveable from idle. Sure a stroked factory style block may make a peak of 1200kw with dohc and twin turbos, but how long will it actually last? Will it do it meeting emissions? Will it do reasonable fuel economy?What are the emissions like? How will it cope running the 12 or so radiators and cooling systems? What about running it on dodgy fuel?....The list goes on. Watch the videos on the Veyron being built and you start to get an idea of the huge complexity and difficulty in achieving what they did.

That's the same as any engine I don't see your point - they all have to run ancilleries and keep cool. A more simple V motor would be much easier to keep cool than the W - especially with hanging turbo's off the side.
Just because the W's design makes it suck a lot of power just to cool itself does not somehow make it a better engine!

Mmmm I did say it was have to be relatively lowly stressed and reliable. I'm pretty sure with the ammount of cash they threw at it, VW would've been able to make a 6 litre TT V10 just as reliable.

[mrbaxr6t]

veyron hating going on what the heck is this forum coming to, they quite literally build the fastest straight line car in the world and in consequence others will be pushing their tech because "those guys did it why cant we" the veyron may not be a very good turner or as several have said "is too heavy" but you can't deny it does what it does and it does it better than anybody else, I also believe they would have exhausted any and all options before they did or chose anything (failure looks terrible on the resume)