McLaren boss says Veyron is "junk"

[t.]

So no offence but I think saying SSC followed McLaren in anyway is completely insulting to Gordon Murray and the McLaren F1 team who created an absolute masterpiece from scratch and not just some kitcar reject lookalike with a ton of power. :cool:

 

None taken.

 

I wasn't trying to imply that SSC went about things like McLaren, only that they built the car for speed and speed alone. Unlike the Veyron which is more than just speed. Anyway I probably worded it badly as normal. :)

[Who]

On a slightly related note, isn't the fastest car the Porsche 9FF thing now?

 

Aaaaanyway, yeah, the F1 was/is a legend, not least because it was such a good car all round that it was used for serious motor racing for years to follow (like the XJ220 that was before it).

 

The F1 itself, as a name was a code name if I remember it correctly, they made it to be 49 Steps better than the F50 (or maybe 39 more than the F40)

[CLR-GTR]

The guy himself brings out a 13-in-a-dozen sportscar for the Gallardo/F430 class, he never build a car capable of 407km/h, and he calls Bugatti's achievement junk.

 

Let him build a car, capable of doing 407 at least, with a good looking exterior, an interior at least as luxurious as the Veyron's one, AND making it drivable for everybody. Thén let him speak again.

 

@Who: dunno. Barabus still has to show their TKR can reach way over 400km/h, the 9ff can reach over 400, but the SSC Ultimate or something is also very fast.

 

I lost overview, so I'll be focussing on the first car to reach 500km/h :p

[BobbyV]

Why u guys always referring McLaren to be 10 years old? I believe we should compare Veyron with new MP4-12C, right? And it will be painfully slow, 320km/h.

 

Anyway, I think comparing McLaren with Veyron is totally pointless. McLaren is an F1 car dressed in a carbon fibre skirt. It's half of tone lighter, therefore doesn't need all this power Veyron does. Old F1 is even lighter and much faster but it's max speed is 390km/h without a limiter iirc.

Veyron is a proper super performance grand tour car, it's heavy but that price must be paid if u want to cruise thousands of kilometres comfortably. In McLaren u can't. Ur kidneys would fall off after few hundreds of km.

U just can't compare an rather bold track car with a luxury long distance car.

[Eudemon]

Bobby there was a Doctor* who used his McLaren F1 to travel cross country from his homes in London to Switzerland often so I wouldn't say it's a horrible car to drive long distance.

 

*This was an article in car magazine back in the mid 90's.

[CLR-GTR]

It required headphones to actually be able to hear the passenger (hear, understand is a second thing xD)... Says a lot to me. I'd want it as a trackcar, but not as every-day vehicle. I also think it'll behave too agressive for that.

[RRacer]

I agree, the Veyron is a piece of junk. But it has truly won that topgear race. But the mclaren would be faster in a ¼ mile drag race.

[Eudemon]

It required headphones to actually be able to hear the passenger (hear, understand is a second thing xD)... Says a lot to me. I'd want it as a trackcar, but not as every-day vehicle. I also think it'll behave too agressive for that.

The roadcar didn't, you're getting your info from car shows showing converted racecars for the road. ;)

[CLR-GTR]

That could be. It was in an episode of Fifth gear where they tested which was the better allday supercar, the Enzo or an F1. I don't know what F1 they used, I think the LM or GTR, I dunno.

[Eudemon]

It was a GTR converted to LM spec for the road. Still had to keep all the racecars starter, ignition and of course lack of sound proofing.

[gingervette]

I agree, the Veyron is a piece of junk. But it has truly won that topgear race. But the mclaren would be faster in a ¼ mile drag race.

 

No, it wouldn't. The Veyron would leave the McLaren behind. The Veyron has something like 350 more hp, AWD, and like 4 turbos. The McLaren wouldn't stand a chance actually. But the McLaren certainly does handle better and is significantly lighter so it would probably win around most road courses.

 

And it's not exactly junk. It's one of the best automlbiles in teh world in terms of quality and luxury. You can think it's ugly, or pointless, or useless, or whatever. But it is certainly not junk lol

[iLLGT3]

I agree, the Veyron is a piece of junk. But it has truly won that topgear race. But the mclaren would be faster in a ¼ mile drag race.

 

It's junk??

 

Can you afford one? Have you ridden in one?? Cos those would completely change your perception.

 

So no, you have no right to be making assumptions like that.

[BobbyV]

Maybe Mr. Ron Dennis hasn't been ridden in Veyron either? Because if he had he would've never said such a commercial nonsense....

[Camel]

He is entitled to his own opinion about it though isn't he? As is everybody here.

[gingervette]

He is entitled to his own opinion about it though isn't he? As is everybody here.

 

Well yes, he is entitled to an opinion. And I'm sure he has one.

 

I think that rfact that he simply doesn't like it is what he was trying to explain. And that is fine. I do believe that there may be more people who don't like they Veyron than there are people who do.

 

Junk is not a good word. Junk is an expression, yes. But, when you say a car as solid as the Veyron is junk, then you run into trouble. Other places that would be just fine. But here, every single member has at least some sort of interest in cars. So we know that the Veyron is certainly not junk, but is often disliked.

[BobbyV]

Ever heard of 'The Fox and the Grapes' fable?

That's what it is. I can't have it, so it must be ugly, pointless, poor handling....

Bugattis have never been pretty cars, they always been what Veyron is now. High performance luxury car. Not a racing car (well they were, long time ago :D), not a beauty car.

It's really like a Concorde. Super fast and luxurious. And like Concorde, it will never have a sequel model....