Golf beats a Bugatti..!

James May got a Veyron upto 250MPH. This is a man who is not fuelled by adrenalin.

Could James May get that golf to 250MPH?

Even the guy admits things get hairy above 160.

The difference between a 160MPH car and a 250MPH car is quite vast.. about £939,950 vast :p
 
Firestar_3x said:
At a guess he's done some 0-60 an 1/4 mile runs with proper timings then taken the stock Bugatti timings and seen his is faster.
Click to expand...

Although in the video he says 2.6 seconds to 60, and the figures on the right state 2.36 seconds for the golf and 2.46 seconds for the Veyron, so is he being a plank and saying the wrong numbers on the video or in text?

And yes, he does say 1.8cc out of a normal Mk4 Golf...I thought they had 1850cc engines in the Mk4s. :p
 
manic_man said:
James May got a Veyron upto 250MPH. This is a man who is not fuelled by adrenalin.

Could James May get that golf to 250MPH?

Even the guy admits things get hairy above 160.

The difference between a 160MPH car and a 250MPH car is quite vast.. about £939,950 vast :p
Click to expand...

Correction, its about £4,939,950 per car vast....

InvaderGIR said:
Although in the video he says 2.6 seconds to 60, and the figures on the right state 2.36 seconds for the golf and 2.46 seconds for the Veyron, so is he being a plank and saying the wrong numbers on the video or in text?

And yes, he does say 1.8cc out of a normal Mk4 Golf...I thought they had 1850cc engines in the Mk4s. :p
Click to expand...

God knows didn't get round to watching the video, CBA.
 
Firestar_3x said:
Correction, its about £4,939,950 per car vast....
Click to expand...

Lol true, though I suppose if you wanted to be petty (which I don't.. but I am.. hmm) then you should also include the R&D costs etc of the engineering behind the stuff in the Golf too in that case.

700BHP from a 1.8T is pretty impressive, shows the basic design of the engine (though I know not a huge amount will be original) is very good. Not to mention all of the race spec suspension/running gear stuff it no doubt has.

Either way, a Mk1 Golf with a 700BHP engine != a Bugatti Veyron.

One is an impressive DIY transplant of existing technology, another is an even more impressive example of off the cuff, tenancious design by a car behemoth (the Veyron).

Typical Sun, still it made for a story we are talking about, so mission accomplished i guess.
 
Doesn't the Atom 300 still officially hold the record for fastest 0-60? You don't hear them banging on about a £50k Atom being quicker, why bother with a dog ugly Golf...winds me up.
 
Good old OcUK motors, I thought this was a forum for car enthusiasts?

What's with all the 'OMG Chav11!!!' comments'? This Golf is a million miles away from a filler'n'fibreglass McDonalds special Corsa. Ignore the sensationalist Veyron crap, those comparisons are something for the Sun reading morons to lap up. I really don't think he is in any way implying it's a 'better' car than the Veyron....

The fact is he has built a stonkingly quick 700bhp Golf, it's a hugely impressive figure to sqeeze from 1.8 litres, can't you so-called car enthusiasts appreciate that?

And what's with the 'LOL Ugly' comments? I really don't think he built it to win any beauty contests :rolleyes:

It's pretty ironic that had this guy been a member on these forums and posted a build log etc he'd be having a ton of smoke blown up his ass right now.....

LOL OcUK motors :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Jonnycoupe said:
Thats the build price, not its sale price to the customer.
Click to expand...

Yes but they make a loss per car come sales time don't they?

The golf was never sold at a loss to the original owner, he then got the thing for £50 and spent 60k making it a "Hypercar killer", my point is the Bugatti actually cost 5 million per car, not the 900k the customer buys it for, so inorder to get the Bugatti to do what it does its a 5 million investment not a 900k investment to build a car.

This means my overall point is its taken Bugatti 5 million to build a car that can actually do high speed for long periods of time with all that weight and still be almost as fast as a stripped out big engined golf, making the idea of a 60k golf vs a Bugatti even more stuipid.
 
A) I know what I'd rather have if cost were no object
B) I reckon the Veyron would still make it look stupid, and a 10th of a second? That's like it hugging its rear bumper.
 
Firestar_3x said:
Yes but they make a loss per car come sales time don't they?

The golf was never sold at a loss to the original owner, he then got the thing for £50 and spent 60k making it a "Hypercar killer", my point is the Bugatti actually cost 5 million per car, not the 900k the customer buys it for, so inorder to get the Bugatti to do what it does its a 5 million investment not a 900k investment to build a car.

This means my overall point is its taken Bugatti 5 million to build a car that can actually do high speed for long periods of time with all that weight and still be almost as fast as a stripped out big engined golf, making the idea of a 60k golf vs a Bugatti even more stuipid.
Click to expand...

No it cost 5million per car when considering R&D. Every car they sell this is reduced as the profit from the sale offsets R&D costs until at some point in a year or two they make an overall profit on the car.
 
There is NOTHING clever about making a small, cheap and light car go fast by the addition of BHP, people have been doing it for years creating giant killers that have on paper numbers quicker than something exotic and very expensive. They come from different postions and have some touch points but at the end of the day the Gloff is built to go quick in a straight line and pull quick 1/4 miles, the Veyron does that anyway but does a whole lot more. The billionaire buys it for a number of reasons and just happens to get something epically quick too. If statistics were the be all and end all he'd buy an F1 car.
 
I think I'd be a little more relaxed in the Bugatti. Doesn't the Sun irritatingly fuzz over details like the several grand spent on the Golf, the fact that the Golf carries minimal creature comforts and does '180mph', whereas the guy clearly states it was recorded at Bruntingthorpe to 174mph.

Tiresome little paper.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom