Agreed! This is a sweet looking car! I like!

 

Weight has a big effect on how a car performs. The Veyron weighs so much it doesn't handle that well. In order to make it handle decently the suspension has to be set stiff. Reliability: I don't think you are going to have a problem with either car. They are both going to have great quality. The Veyron will have better traction in the rain, AWD. But I also wouldn't drive my $million+ car in the rain.

The Veyron IS way over expensive. The SSC UA would go 250+ everyday too. I have done a lot of research into the engineering of the two cars. The SSC is made to last. If the Veyron was so much better engineered it would be lighter, faster, more powerful, more fuel efficient, better handling, etc. But it isn't. The Veyron is expensive because they wanted to be outrageously different. They wanted to make a lot of it artwork perfect, not make a superior car. Making every nut and bolt perfect is expensive, but doesn't make the car "better".

I would prefer a car that drives and performs better, and that is what the SSC does... for half the price.

 

These are interesting comments. I'd like to address some of the points you make.

But first I will say that to me, once you lose the silly winglets, the Tuatara is a good looking, progressive, unique design. And on paper at least it should give the new speed record a good shake (unless Koenigsegg raises the bar sometime soon). And any company that can build a two-seat road car that can go nearly 260 mph on a public road deserves some accord. But until a Tuatara makes some runs in anger, we won't really know whether it's faster than a Veyron, will we?

You say that Bugatti built the Veyron to be outrageously different. I believe that what makes the Veyron special is how it does what it does with so little fanfare, asking so little of its driver. And it really isn't a "look at me" piece. Yes, the details are exquisite. But a non-carfan probably wouldn't notice it if one drove past them. So I don't think the Veyron's "outrageousness", or lack thereof (in my eyes), necessarily equates to expense.

Besides, can we say with any certainty how much the Tuatara will actually sell for when it does eventually go on sale? After all, car companies, especially new ones, have been known to miss price targets. Or are you basing this on what the Ultimate Aero went for versus today's Veyron? What was that price again? Because I've never seen even a photo of a window sticker on an Ultimate Aero.

Consider that there really aren't any secrets in business anymore. The only ways to sell something cheaper are either to reduce content, reduce quality, reduce service, or some combination of the three. It is common knowledge that Bugatti loses money on every Veyron they sell. Some say they have nearly five million into each one. Were they not insulated within the Volkswagen empire, how much would the Veyron have to sell for in order to turn a profit? Four million? Five million? So for the sake of argument let's say, that even if it were to sell at one million dollars, the Tuatara will be, at best, one fourth the price of a what a Veyron should sell for.

How do you account for the difference? Forget for a moment that the Tuatara and the Veyron take two different approaches to the idea of exclusive, high speed travel. In this day and age a 1200hp, 250+ mph car is going to cost around the same balkpark, no matter who builds it. Surely local labor rates will vary, but not enough to make that much difference. Perhaps lower overhead? Certainly SSC's facilities are much less impressive than Bugatti's. But a 75% savings? Is Wal-Mart simply charging less for their clothes than Nordstrom is? Or are the clothes at Wal-Mart cheaper clothes?

I would love for you to share with me your sources of the research you say you've done on the SSC. Because I've done some research myself and have found SSC to be a bit of an enigma. I can watch videos and read articles with plenty of pictures about the development and construction of the Veyron, and the plant in which it is built. Not so much of SSC or the Ultimate Aero, besides a few speed runs and some wind tunnel pictures. So your arguments that it is built to last, and as you imply more so than the Veyron, are difficult to authenticate.

And how exactly do you know that the Veyron isn't more efficient than the Ultimate Aero? The EPA rates the 2011 Veyron at 8/15 mpg, which is dismal, yes. But what's the EPA rating of the Ultimate Aero again? Hmmm...

Keep in mind that constructing a 1000hp engine isn't really all that difficult anymore. Lots of people are doing it. My engine guy could do it if I asked him to. I also have a fairly reputable chassis builder in my town, and I know a good interior guy nearby and a place that will make custom carbon pieces. It's not so hard to imagine, were I properly funded, that I could build my own limited run of 1000hp cars, using only local sources. So it's not magic.

But there's a lot more to bringing a car to market these days than just putting an engine in a chassis and wrapping a body around it. Ask yourself, Why did the Veryon cost so much more to develop than the SSC?

Think about it.

 

Okay... Where to begin. I'll start with the bottom and work my way up.

(1) It cost so much more to develop than the UA because it had to. The veyron's shape is not aerodynamic. They had to engineer this ridiculous spoiler, suspension and other parts to change small amounts every few milliseconds to keep the thing stable at high speeds. The veyron also developed the first double clutch tranny, that among many industry firsts is why it costs so much. FYI, in terms of development, I know the UA did more high speed testing than the veyron did (200+ mph) because I was at the unveiling of the Tuatara in Seattle.

(2) Unlikely, but if you really believe you could by all means do it. I know I sure as hell could not. Many of the new boutique hypercar manufacturers' owners/founders (SSC, Koenigsegg, Pagani, etc.) are extreme car lovers, engineers, and have the drive to really get it done. There is a reason so many of these car manufacturers like Zenvo and others claiming 1000+hp 250mph+ but never actually see production or the road.

(3) Obviously they don't all cost the same, it depends on materials used, factory, staff, marketing, profit margins, R&D and those costs are broken up and factored into each car. The veyron costs so much more because it is absolutely ridiculous. I believe, someone please correct me if I'm wrong, the indicator stocks on the veyron are made out of a single piece of milled magnesium and cost $4,000 a piece. Why not save 90% and use aluminum? A quad turbo W16, the development of that and cost alone is unbelievable, or you could just do what SSC and Koenigsegg do which is boost the hell out of a TT V8. Veyron has some crazy advanced AWD system, aka more development costs, more costs in production because of more materials used, SSC and Koenigsegg, RWD. That's just a few.

(4) No secrets in business? What is Coca Cola's secret formula? Didn't think so. Is it really common knowledge? I swear it was this forum, could have been another, we discussed if bugatti actually takes a loss on each veyron. I'll summarize what I remember. Bugatti only intended to make 50 so they spread the losses of R&D, factory, etc over 50 cars. Turns out they sell 300 plus 38 SS and hopefully 150 GS for a total of 488 veyrons. Almost 10X the original amount they were thinking. As for if they cost $5 mill then basing your next argument on that. Well that's what you've heard, I've heard a lot but I am not going to take rumors as fact. I can almost guarantee you, but I can't because I can't see bugatti's financial records, that bugatti does not take a loss on each veyron they sell. They most certainly don't cost $5mill. I'm sure someone on teamspeed would be more knowledgeable than me in the category of veyron cost. And the exuberant factory is yet another cost that must be factored into each veyron. Keep it simple, RWD, TT V8, simple factory like Koenigsegg and SSC and it costs a lot less to do what bugatti has done.

I'm not ripping the veyron. it's a great car, a fantastic, once in a lifetime, out of this world groundbreaking car, but I really think some of the things you said are just totally wrong and not fair to SSC.

 

FerrariWF, you make some pretty fair and valid points in your responses to #1, #2 and #3. I might ask that you clarify the explanation that as a result of having been at the unveiling of the Tuatara, you have definitive knowledge of how much high speed testing the Ultimate Aero did versus the Veyron. But no matter.

As far as #4, I am not talking trade secrets of a particular brand. What I mean when I talk of secrets in business is that the people at SSC haven't figured out any secret way to do a particular thing, that is cheaper than all those who have attempted to do the same thing before them.

Also, the people at Bugatti have expressly stated that they lose money on the Veyron. They viewed the Veyron as a cost of reestablishing Bugatti as a brand, a brand that is intended to sit at the very peak of the industry. They knew it wouldn't be cheap. The whole point of the Galibier is to amortize some of the development costs of the Veyron across some additional product. Many businesses lose money the first few years. That's why so many fail in the first few years; they aren't properly funded to make it through to profitability. Bugatti is exceptionally well funded by Volkswagen, which is why they have made it this far, despite what they've spent.

I have no problem with the Veyron, or the Ultimate Aero for that matter, taken for what it is. Both may very well be priced appropriately. But in fairness to Bugatti, there is a fundamental difference between the two.

 

Lol yeah I was just joking around about the first part of #4. What you said for the no secrets thing I actually agree with. And last I heard bugatti did say they were loosing money but that was many years ago before they decided to make so many (If anyone reading this knows anymore please contribute because I would like to know if they are still losing money). I agree that both are very different cars that go about very similar performance.

For more on 1. The veyron's shape is less aerodynamic than the UA or Tutatara. A car is supposed to have a sharp, angular rear end so that the wind breaks off cleanly and less drag is created. The Tuatara's shape allowed it to have less R&D because it is so aerodynamic. The veyron is round so when wind breaks off the back it isn't done cleanly so there is a vortex created which causes drag and instability. The veyron was engineered around the shape. Someone higher ups wanted the shape we have today. The engineers had to work tirelessly on the spoiler and suspension to make a car that shouldn't be stable at speeds close to 250mph be stable at beyond 250mph (Those damn Germans can do anything). This spoiler is expensive and heavy but necessary for the veyron.

2. I completely know what you are saying. There are people that can build the engines, do the carbon work, build the chassis, design engine software, make a sexy body etc. But to put it all together, to make it work, to market it, bring it to production and constantly update and perfect it takes a crazy amount of work, which is why few succeed.

3/4. The veyron uses unbelievably expensive materials and was groundbreaking in so many categories that all those costs make it the 1.5mill+ it costs for the 'regular' coupe alone. They basically jammed 2 TTV8s into one holy marvel of engineering. Everything they did they did to be the most spectacular and ridiculous. Both cars accomplish what they wanted to. The veyron is much more luxurious than the UA was and it showed with the weight, something like ~1,300lb difference between the two. Neither is necessarily better, just different.
The money making thing is something I will do some more research on and get back on but last I read they were making money on each.

If I made any mistakes someone please tell me.

 

They produced 43 SS and that number is inside of the 300 chassis for the coupe. 150 for the GS. Total of 450 chassis for both coupe and roadster.

 

Didn't know that. Thanks.

 

Here's a shot I took in Monterey this year, altered to show a bunch of likely paint colors. The first image is my original - all are clickable.







>8^)
ER

 

[QUOTE=Peloton25;1077840]Here's a shot I took in Monterey this year, altered to show a bunch of likely paint colors. The first image is my original - all are clickable.







>8^)
ER[/QUOTE
]