Talk:Bugatti Veyron/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Second fastest now!

For crying outloud, can these Bugatti fanboys get along with the facts and stop reverting important edits? *NEWSFLASH* SSC Ultimate Aero's tests results were confirmed by Guinness World Records on Oct 9th 2007. SSC Ultimate Aero TT is now the fastest car on the planet with a speed of 411.707 kmh and ~1183 horse power. Bugatti is currently second fastest with ~408.4 kmh and 1001 horse power.

You're gonna need to cite it to say it... Gscshoyru 12:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Veyron fanboys are annoying, ignorant little things aren't they? 70.112.86.215 02:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

lol, finally thanks putting up the facts and keeping them there, some people are too in love with this car to listen to any right or reason! (Wiki332) —Preceding comment was added at 13:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

yes, Tomthehand was the worst, this fanboy was straight in denial and kept on changing the article despite indisputable facts. I blame him the most for doing his best at keeping Wikipedia inaccurate. It's unbelieveable that someone would purposely make Wikipedia factually incorrect, especially in light of being presented with evidence which was done despite not necessary to satisfy 1 volunteer editor, and he kept on rejecting the facts because he did not want to believe his beloved Bugatti Veyron was no longer the fastest street-legal car in the world. Can you believe that?! What's he going to do next? Because he supports Ferrari, he's going to change the results of the F1 Championship?! This guy is dangerous. He's like power-tripping because he's a volunteer or something, and that he somehow is this "lord" over Wiki and what are facts and real, and he alone sets the standard for burder of proof. It's absolutely disgusting and these uneducated, unintelligent vandals like Tomthehand need to be kicked off Wikipedia ASAP! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.73.56.163 (talk) 16:04, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Technically, the Veyron was never the fastest,a s it still doesn't have an "official" top speed. However, the source does say that Guinness regards it as the world's fastest production car. Good enough for me to feel that we should keep it part of the article. —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 00:32, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't get too smug, or you run the risk of sounding just like those you criticize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.189.14 (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

There were already faster cars than the Veyron and probably even the SSC. It doesn't count for anything until there is a production number of 300 or so in development. "PRODUCTION" is the jey word when describing the Veyron which is why its still top dog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.68.161.58 (talk) 02:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah actually there were a number of keywords that I forgot to mention while posting. Of course 'production' makes it important. Because there's the Thrust SSC with 750+ MPH :D and by 'Bugatti' I meant 'Bugatti Veyron 16.4'

I agree with the guy above me

As he said, There were cars faster than the Veryon before but they arent full production cars. Production is the key word.

Hey I didnt mean to change the Veyron wiki on anyone. I know alot about cars , And I am aware of the SSC Ultimate Aero TT, I do know it is the fastest car in the world. But being that only 25 Aero TT are ever going to be made, I dont think it can be called the "Fastest Full Production Car" Also the Veyron page says its the "second fastest, most powerful, and most expensive street-legal full production car" The SSC Aero is going to cost over $650,500 which makes the Veryon still the most expensive car.

It will now read " The Bugatti Veryon is the " Second fastest car in the world" But is the Fastest, most powerful, and most expensive street-legal full production car" I am also adding a small article about the Aero on the page.

If anyone has a problem with this, please let me know before you edit it, and we can work out what we both think it should say. Thanks Nate 687 01:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't really make sense. If the SSC Aero isn't a production car yet then how is the Veyron the second fastest production car in the world? The Veyron in't even close to being second fastest if we count non production race and tuner cars. So it should read fastest most powerful and most expensive street-legal production car. --Daniel J. Leivick 22:56, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you Daniel but this is what these guys think it should say.

This is the way I ended up editing it, as I said before if you have a problem with it let me know before you go and edit it. I think the way it is now is acceptable for everyone. Nate 687 01:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The Bugatti Veyron 16.4 is currently the second fastest, most powerful, street-legal car in the world. Though it still is the fastest, most powerful, most expensive street-legal full production car made. with in excess of 1001 horsepower, in either the metric or SAE scale (see below), with its top speed of 253 mph having been eclisped by the SSC Ultimate Aero TT, which posted the “Fastest Car” world record of 256.19 mph on September 13, 2007, as verified by Guinness World Records on October 9, 2007. [4]. The Bugatti Veyron reached full production in September 2005. The car is built by Volkswagen AG subsidiary Bugatti Automobiles SAS in its Molsheim (Alsace, France) factory and is sold under the French Bugatti marque. It is named after French racing driver Pierre Veyron, who won the 24 hours of Le Mans in 1939 while racing for the original Bugatti firm.

We seriously don't need all that cruft at the beginning of the lead section! Just put it in another paragraph, but keep the first one short and to the point. -- intgr [talk] 00:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I just cleaned up your edit to show the underlying message more clearer (got rid of a few run on sentences etc.) Hope you don't mind :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.178.225 (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah its fine with me now. I dont mind at all if you cleaned up what I already put.

I hope everyone can now agree with what the Bugatti Veyron wiki says. Nate 687 01:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't edit or change other people's comments. And can we all sign our comments and indent? I feel that this discussion can be laid to rest. There is no denying that the Veyron is officially the fast street legal production car in the world. —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 02:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

In conclusion we agree that it's pricier than and beats every other 'full production' car ;) And yeah I think we've come to a consensus over this.

Someone has changed the site again after a consensus was reached. If any change should be made, it should clarify that the Veyron is still the quickest car, with its' 0-100 kph and 0-150 kph times being considerably faster than the Aero. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.189.14 (talk) 16:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, just one question, where would the John Hennessey Twin Turbo Viper 1000 (1000 hp/1100 ft.-lb of torque approx.) come into this? In a Road and Track standing mile test (youtube "Viper vs. Veyron"), the Viper records a 0-200 mph time of 20.3 seconds and top speed of 220.9 MPH, whereas the Veyron records a 0-200 mph time of 24.2 seconds and top speed of 204.4 mph. Motor trend has given similar numbers, and the DuPont registry uses Hennessy's own numbers for listings, which are as follows:

Power:

1. 1000 hp @ 5000 rpm
2. 1100 lb-ft torque @ 3800 rpm

Performance:

1. 0-60 mph: 2.9 sec.
2. 0-100 mph: 5.8 sec.
3. 0-150 mph: 10.9 sec.
4. 0-200 mph: 19.6 sec.
5. Top Speed: 255 mph

I'm new to Wikipedia on the editing end of things, and I didn't want to go mucking around with an article that some people are very passionate about. I'd like to hear what people have to say first, then go from there. Thanks in advance for help! Mgraham1985 (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

5,000,000 pound supercar?

Where did this come from?

Each Veyron is being sold for £5,000,000 (net pay, without taxes), prices vary by exchange rates and local taxes (like value added taxes). As Bugatti, and therefore Volkswagen, are making such a loss, it has been likened by automotive journalist Jeremy Clarkson and his Top Gear programme team in their story on it to the Concorde, in that both were huge achievements, but the car will probably, like the plane before it, be discontinued after proving to be an economic failure.

I don't have much experience with wikipedia, but can someone fix this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.160.161 (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

fixed. the net pay for 1 veyron is 1.1 million €. period. anything else varies by current exchange rates and local taxes. also this whole top-gear-investigation about the production costs and the win/loss calculation needs to be sourced properly or deleted.--BSI 13:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Although it wasn't stated explicitly, I believe the £5m figure was reached by taking the entire cost to VW since taking over Bugatti and dividing it by the number of Veyrons that are to be produced. Since VW has written off the development costs of the car (allowing them to claim that Bugatti is now profitable. Ha!) it's a rather meaningless figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.1.35 (talk) 09:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

# ^ Cite error 8; No text given.

1. ^ Cite error 8; No text given.

Djcater 02:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Unneccesary?

"This speed and power was very close to the SSC Ultimate Aero TT, which claimed the “Fastest Production Car” world record with a top speed of 257.45 mph and an average speed of 256.19 mph on September 13 2007, later verified by Guinness World Records on October 9, 2007.[1] The Bugatti Veyron reached full production in September 2005.Even though Veyron might not be the fastest, it is still your "average" car compared to its design, speed(power), and price. "

Does this read strangely to anyone else? It kinda seems unnecessary to say that they came close to the Aero, I would think it would be easier just to mention in passing that the Aero was the car the beat it and then maybe link to the Aero article. I notice that nowhere in the CCR article does it say "The CCR was almost as fast as the Bugatti Veyron, the car the beat it."

Also the "Not your average car" part seems extremely unnecessary. The first sentence is "The Bugatti Veyron 16.4 was the fastest and most powerful street-legal production car in the world between October 2005 to September 2007." so I think it's safe to assume that they realize it isn't an average car.--Stealthsloth22 22:32, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

False lawsuit!

Keith Wood, a rabbit enthusiast from South Western Germany, has challenged Bugatti with the supposed use of rabbit hearts as a fuel additive. There is a 4.6 Million Euro lawsuit pending responses by Keith's father. Keith is extremely unorthadox and has resorted to recruiting an entire legal team which includes 3 minors and his eldest pet Rabbit. This Rabbit makes all the legal decisions for his counsel; the rabbit's language is deciphered by his eating habbits and eye contact.

This appears to be false. I have searched the internet for this, couldn't find anything. It was added yesterday at the middle of the night. I'm going to delete this, as it is most likely fraud. If someone finds evidence that it is true, they can add it back.

Dnlkk94 (talk) 05:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I would had purged it immediately as this is nothing but nonsense dressed as vandalism. Willirennen (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Just wanted to post here though, to let everyone know. Hopefully, whoever did this won't try it again. "Rabbit hearts as a fuel additive?" Psh. Dnlkk94 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

As much as I hate vandals ruining this beautiful sea of information... this one was pretty funny.99.225.178.225 (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Fanboys at it again

After much debate had above and even reaching a consensus, vandals have reverted all edits back to making the article state that Bugatti is the "Fastest and most powerful" street-legal production car, numerous times. For crying out loud... Wikipedia is not your thoughts' sandbox. It's a place to state facts. Stop ruining it because you're in love with the car. Grow UP!!! I also added a citation right in front of second most powerful and second fastest so that anyone in the dark can be enlightened to this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.178.225 (talk) 09:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I havent contributed to the Bugatti wiki since last time we all agreed that the wording of the start was ok with everyone. I do have to say though, the facts of the car are this.

It is the second fastest car in the world by top speed.

It is still the fastest accelerating 0-60 and 0-100 car.

It is still the most expensive production car in the world.

And it is still quite debatable about the SSC Ultimate Aero TT being a production or full production car.

Also as i've said before there are only going to be 25 Ultimate Aero TT ever going to be produced.

I'm not going to edit anything until somone comes to an agreement. But I do think it should say something about the Veyron still being the fastest 0-60, 0-100 and being the most expensive car made. Nate 687 (talk) 07:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There should be a notice that the Bugatti's speed statistics aren't "official." —Mr. Grim Reaper at 23:30, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

but they are (at least the top speed). The Guiness brewery isn't the only company to approve top speed records.--BSI (talk) 00:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Revisions to article

Someone keeps inserting the '987 horsepower' rating in the article. This is ancient andinaccurate, as clearly explained in the article as one keeps readin it. Please stop messing with the site! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.189.14 (talk) 14:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, to the knob that keeps revising this article, the 987 US horsepower rating was a preproduction number that has no application to the real numbers. The Chairman of Bugatti has stated, in many published articles, that the production engine has between 1006 and 1020 horsepower on the US scale and may be mich higher. The source you give for your numbers does not confirm what you think to be correct. Please stop changing the numbers to suit your own agenda. Do proper research! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.189.14 (talk) 21:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

read WP:V and WP:NOR. Then understand, that you need to cite sources for your claims. Currently there are sources in the article, that confirm the engine has a power rating of 736 kW / 1001 PS. Those numbers are directly from the official bugatti website, so I assume they are correct. Deleting sourced content (and the sources alike) and/or reintroducing deleted content without proper sources is considered vandalism. Please stop or you will be blocked from editing.--BSI (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You want sources for the changes that I made to the Veyron horsepower ratings, so I will give you sources. Look at AutoMotoPortal.com, under '10 Most Expensive Cars In The World'. The first car listed is the Veyron. You will see the folllowing, and I quote:

"According to Volkswagen, the final production engine produces between 1020 and 1040 metric horsepower (1006 to 1026 SAE net horsepower), so the car will be advertised as producing '1001 horsepower' in both the US and European markets."

See also msn.cars.com, where the writer of the article is being driven around by the official Bugatti driver. That article states that the VW has 'quietly leaked' that the Veyron has 1050 horsepower, or "1035 to you and me." The article is Amercian. Also, a perusal of the articles about the Veyron will mage it clear that Bugatti will 'officially' list the car at 1001 horsepower, and they do. That doesn't alter the facts that they have released to the media.. I trust this meets with your satisfaction, Please amend the article accordingly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.189.14 (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

as you might notice, the sentence you cited from automotoportal.com was obviousliy copied from Wikipedia. So how should this work as a proof? Bugatti officialy lists the car at 736 kW. Now you can do the maths and convert it to your prefered horsepower unit (SAE or PS or whatever you want).--BSI (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What about the article where Henri from Bugatti was driving the vehicle? That is the other article to which I referred. Do you think he made the info up? You only reponded to 1/2 of my comments. I am sure that someone at Bugatti could confirm the information they are releasing to the public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.189.14 (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't respond, because you didn't post a link. And I don't think the information from the bugatti website needs further confirmation. Btw please stop starting new sections everytime you edit the talk page.--BSI (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

With respect to your assumption that the sentence in the automotoportal.com aricle was 'copied from Wikipedia' you are wrong. The wikipedia article about the Veyron was revised by me after reading the automotoportal.com article. So, that and the msn.com articles are the source. It has already been pointed out that Bugatti is deliberately under-estimating the power of the car on their website, which is a maketing decision they have made. That does not alter the actual horsepower of the vehicle as confirmed by Bugatti. Please restore the article to the way it was. There is an old Hungarian proverb: When 2 people say you are drunk, lie down! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.189.14 (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

so what does it mean? are you drunk? you're lying down? Or am I getting you wrong? --BSI (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I wish to support BSI in the debate with this boorish and ill-mannered editor (207.61.189.14), who cannot even be bothered to post in the appropriate place or sign his comments. To him I say, proof, verifiable, reliable proof; this is what the article requires and what you're unable to come up with. When you do, if by any chance it differs from the current content, we'll be happy to add it to the article. In the meantime, I suggest you abstain from insulting good-faith editors. ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I put forward 2 sources and also corrected a mistake made by the person who revised the article and used old, inaccurate information that flies in the face of Bugattis' open pronouncements to the media about the true horsepower of the Veyron, despite the 'official' numbers. VW is known in the industry for underrating the horsepower of their engines across their entire product line. This is nothing new. The response I got was one incorrect statement about who quoted who, and no other response to the merits of the sources quoted. Do you have some reliable, cogent evidence that the statements in the articles are incorrect? If so, please put it forward and spare me the ad hominem attacks, which do nothing to advance your position. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.189.14 (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Picture of the keys

In the article there is a picture of the keys. But in a wallpaper I saw these other keys in the Veyron, and they are much more modern looking and more stylish and there're actually in the keyhole in the production Veyron. Whereas the keys in the picture on here look kind of dated and very worn, so maybe they're the keys from the old EB110 or one of the old Bugatti concepts or from the original Veyron concept?

The picture of the key http://www.dieselstation.com/wallpapers/albums/Bugatti/Veyron/Bugatti-Veyron-065.jpg

The gallery it's from http://www.dieselstation.com/news/automotive/bugatti-veyron.html

--Dustin ॐ 20:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. What do you suggest? ↔ Dennywuh (talk) 21:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I know the Veyron has a special key to unlock top speed, is it possible that one of these keys in the ignition and the other is the top speed key. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 21:07, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

That's true. As the caption says, "ignition keys," and in this other picture, it it obvious that it is inserted into the "Top Speed" keyhole. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 23:05, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

the key shown on dieselstation.com is the speed key - as can be seen on bugatti.com. The key shown in the article is the actual ignition key - as can be seen in the Veyron configurator on bugatti.com.--79.212.254.145 (talk) 14:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I am under the impression that the ignition and speed keys are indeed one and the same. To set it into top speed mode, you start the car, open the drivers door, insert the ignition key into the speed keyhole, turn it from handling mode to speed mode, do the pre drive checks (though strictly speaking your advised to do these before driving any car) then start and drive it.

no you're absolutely wrong. they are two different keys.--91.10.217.202 (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Performance Section

It is badly worded and makes a few fake claims, so I am going to have a whack at editing it, someone else should check my edits however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.52.152 (talk) 11:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Would someone mind reverting it back to normal, I have no idea what this peice of crap pc has done to it, but when I posted my edit it posted something different to the text that was in the edit box, so I used the revert function and it has reverted it to a different version than the version I chose. Fucking peice of crap (yes that refers both to me and this pos pc).

It wont let me revert (it says it will revert it but changes nothing), so I copied and pasted the text from a correct version, and that, while improving it, still isnt working properly (for what ever reason its not showing headings?! The preview function is useless as it showed the edit coming up the way I intended for christs sake —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.207.52.152 (talk) 12:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hennessy Viper and SSC Aero

The Hennessy Viper is not a production car, Hennessy is a tuner. The Aero and Hennessy cannot even touch the Veyron's acceleration and deceleration numbers. Not even close. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.116.238.69 (talk) 04:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Number to be produced

Does anyone have a reliable source that proves that Bugatti plans to produce 300 Veyrons? —Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs • email), 23:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

popular culture

I think it's worth mentioning that the first video game to license the Veyron was Need for Speed Pro Street (via the energizer lithium pack). Before that, Volkswagen wouldn't license it to anyone.

Also, does anyone know why Volkswagen originally didn't want to license the Veyron (at least that's what they say on the Forza 2 forums every time someone asks for it as DLC)? They pretty much gave the developers of Beetle Adventure Racing for the N64 free reign with the (then) new beetle and that was a flagship model as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.104.40 (talk) 05:23, 16 July, 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a video game appearance is notable unless it has some sort of significant impact on the vehicle. I'm certain no one will be buying a Veyron because they saw it in a video game. swaq 21:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this the right word?

There is a quote from a Mexican magazine that's translated to English. It uses the word "stucked" ("it stucked in about 850 CV"). I don't know Spanish, can someone check what it should be? --Theeldest (talk) 19:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

If you offer the original word and its context, or a link to it, may be... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.86.163.88 (talk) 09:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

movement energy

just thought that you all would like to know the at maximum moving velocity the kinetic energy of the vehicle is approximately 13M joules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.92.49 (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

0-100-0 Speed... Units of measurement?

Can someone please check this statistic then include its unit of measurement (I assume its miles). Also, just a reminder to maintain good faith and treat each other with respect when making edits to wikipedia articles and discussions. 203.45.1.54 (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Knowing that the Ultima GTR, with a similar power-to-weight ratio does 0-100-0 mph in ~9 seconds, it sounds reasonable that you're right and the units are miles per hour. Probably worth adding those units in, as "0-100" means 0-100kph to those in predominantly-metric countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk) 00:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

specs

Bugatti Veyron is too short (only 4462mm) and too heavy (around 1888kg). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Jerermy Clarkson

Jeremy Clarkson drove Bugatti Veyron illegal. Jeremy Clarkson was 6'5. Can't tall drivers drive Bugatti Veyron? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 (talk) 04:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Fuel consumption to size

In the USA, Lamborghini Murcielago gets poorer milage than Bugatti Veyron, because the Murcielago is available in mountainous area (Idaho, Utah, Colorado, etc.) but the Veyron is not available in mountainous area. Bugatti Veyron is too small and it has too much fuel consumption. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.210.152.57 (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Crashes.

As the car is one of the most expensive and exclusive cars about, would it be apropriate to list the known crashes for this car? 2 have been crashed in the UK to my knowledge and I believe the first UK crash was the very first Veyron Crash. I a similar vein, does any one know of anyone in particula that owns one?(Morcus (talk) 01:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC))

Good idea but not encyclopedic.  A M M A R  01:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Simon Cowell owns one [1] and another - unless its had a paint job [2] 86.147.161.8 (talk) 12:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be notable until some celebrity totals one. However, there has been a notable crash already. [3][4] The irony is in the link, but the video would make some car enthusiasts go into a corner and mutter to themselves for a while. --Hourick (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Conan O'Brien's use of the vehicle

I'm not a regular editor of this page so I thought I'd leave this info here in case someone wants to add it to the article.

Conan O'Brien, to spite NBC, featured a Buggati Veyron on his show at the reported price of 1.5 million US dollars (an expensive Rolling Stones song was playing in the back ground to add to the price).

Ref: http://jalopnik.com/5453417/conan-obriens-15-million-bugatti-veyron-mouse

OlYeller^Talktome 19:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, it's pretty significant.

The skit was epic, though. This opinion from a guy who doesn't like Conan. LOL. --Hourick (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Though it was recent, I think if we can find actual significance to this that is citable, such as a reputable news source saying that this is the straw that broke the camel's back for NBC then I'd say include it. And OlYeller21, anyone can add to articles so if you find these sources feel free. I would take a look at WP:EVENT and then you can test it against these criteria to see if it passes the notability test. However I can tell you right now that the source you gavve from jalopnik would probably not be considered a verifiable enough reference. [User:Valley2city|Valley]]2city^‽ 06:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Owners

"Becky Kelly - expensive Prostitute" is this verifiable? "Ranjit bagha - stole it" this does not seem to make sense, and be verifiable. Stole what? From Who?

I don’t think either of the listings are encyclopedic or responsible without clarification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.156.194.53 (talk) 16:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Specifications

Nobody, and I mean NOBODY, measures engine displacement in gallons so I removed the unit conversion code. The exact cc/cubic inch conversion is included later in the paragraph so removal of the English units completely seemed best.Es330td (talk) 15:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Nationality

The first Country mentioned in this article with regards to the cars origins is Germany, Yet it is a French car with a German parent company and it would surely make more sense to put it the other way around. Opel Articles don't start by mentioning GM and America.(90.219.214.188 (talk) 07:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC))

Good point, I will have a look at it. Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I see you changed it already yourself :) Belgian man (talk) 20:56, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Trim variants

A model in a new color hardly warrants a new subheading, so I've re-org'd this area, and trimmed some breathless puffery (honoring the marque's precious heritage, refined volumes and surfaces and newly-developed Gaucho leather just don't belong in an encyclopedia, imho). Snori (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Targa *replaces* std model?

Has the Sport targa model replaced the original? Iff so, it deserves its own section.Snori (talk) 20:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Hammond

He actually drove it twice on Top Gear. First in series 10 episode 3 against a Eurofighter Typhoon manned by an RAF pilot in RAF Coningsby in Lincolnshire, in a two mile horizontal vs. vertical race. Can someone reword that and put it in the article. VEO15 (talk) 08:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

never achieved fastest production car record

it should be noted that the veyron never achieved the record of highest top speed for a production car because it has never ever made back to back runs in the opposite direction to account for wind speed and/or ground slope. on the other hand, the koenigsegg CC[insert correct letter] and SSC ultimate aero TT have, which is why the koenigsegg was recognized by guiness even though the veyron has a higher rated top speed(this isn't a "bash" of the car, i love the car, but i believe it should be noted in the article). Ry Trapp0 (talk) 04:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The SSC Ultimate Aero still has to be tested under credible conditions. Until then, many people will continue to find the Bugatti Veyron the fastest production car in the world. When the day comes that Shelby Supercars loans of those cars to a reputable motor TV show, allowing everyone to see the Aero reach the claimed speed, measured by a GPS tachometer, then it will be the fastest. A Guinness World Record certificate isn't proof. Their "rules" are also not credible to the eyes of many motor experts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.244.183.8 (talk) 13:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

i'm assuming that this is the person that also added the oppinionated bullshit to the article("...many people...") too, correct? i'm gonna assume that your a veyron fanboy simply because of the ignorance of your comment here. as i stated before, the veyron has NEVER made a back to back top speed run within an hour of each, as required by ALL CREDIBLE TOP SPEED/TIMING ORGANIZATIONS, including both the FIA and the SCTA. however you can claim that the veyron record still stands because it completed its SINGLE runs with GPS, yet claim that the ultimate aeros record is "questionable" because of certain peoples OPINIONS is outright ignorance. and, all of this is ignoring the fact that the ONLY organization that claims the veyrons top speed to be 'official' is the German government, who is obviously not credible in any way, shape, or form, to make such a claim.

it would be much appreciated if you(or anyone) could provide ANY sources(such as these "many motor experts" that you claim have the right to approve or nullify a record) to support these moronic claims.Ry Trapp0 (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

HERE is a link to the SSC Ultimate Aero TT top speed run video, including the telemetry gathered by the Dewetron GPS data aquisition system, which can be confirmed HERE. furthermore, this is the SAME GPS data aquisition system that was used by Top Gear on James May's Bugatti Veyron top speed run, as confirmed HERE.

might i suggest that you do some actual research before you make such frivolous claims/assumptions.Ry Trapp0 (talk) 09:13, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least with the new record they did make two runs in opposite directions, so we can lay this issue to rest. -- Toothswung (talk) 16:52, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The numbers don't match up

It says that the car goes from 0-150mph in 9.8 seconds, then a few lines later it says the car reaches a speed of 143mph in 10.2 seconds in the quarter mile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.190.127.174 (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The article actually states that the 1/4 mile time is obviously faster than what that one source states. The times are from different sources, so there will be inconsistencies (altitude and weather heavily affect this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theeldest (talk • contribs) 19:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Most likely you'll find the 0-150mph times were recorded by repeated attempts with a proper test-driver employed by Bugatti, on an optimal track. The quarter-mile times were most likely recorded in a few passes by a motoring journalist on the nearest drag-strip or runway. After the Bugatti PR guy told him "DON'T BREAK THE £1,000,000 CAR!!!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.107.183.201 (talk) 00:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I wrote to Bugatti SAS regarding this issue, and according to them, the correct 1/4 mile time is 9.8 seconds. I also have Bugatti veyron's brochure which says 9.8 seconds to 1/4 mile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rizwan.17 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Power quoted - horsepower!

After a fair bit of back and forthing, I have proof that the 'hp' figure is PS (metric horsepower) and NOT bhp - it's on the power dial in the dash, see pic: http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-2006/2006-Bugatti-Veyron-Targa-Florio-Gauges-1600x1200.jpg I'm now going to revert to metric in the article. Bertcocaine (talk) 21:27, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The dial going up to 1001 ps does not mean that the engine puts out 1001 ps, only that that dial is calibrated in ps, and its faceplate has a mark at 1,001 ps. The first footnote explains that the engine itself puts out over 1,001 bhp. The multitude of sources giving the Super Sports 1,200 metric hp and 1,200 bhp bears out that they did the same thing this time. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 21:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If we use the linked picture as a source, than the Veyrons top speed is 280 mph. —MJBurrage^(T•C)

the dial matches exactly the official stats. Speedo comment is irrelevant methinks.. do you have any definitive sources that prove it's bhp? (other that sources that contradict each other depending on their target market?) Why is bhp assumed to be correct when the company is German? They never use bhp (unless you have one that does, and not an English conversion or assumption?) Bertcocaine (talk) 21:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The very first footnote quotes a Bugatti engineer on this exact matter. They make sure the engines have more power than claimed in either ps or bhp. Therefore using the a ps based value is further from the actual output than using a bhp based value. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 21:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The power gauge going to 1001 ps is no more relevant than the same dashes speed gauge going to 280 mph. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 21:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, thanks for not simply reverting - I'm interested to hear what other editors think?

Is it co-incidence it's an exact match? I suspect fudging on the basis of not wanting to disappoint anyone, but there should be two accurate sources (if we can find them) - the manual for the car (which must be accurate under law in the EU) and there must be an official note somewhere in the EU (such as a government info source) which will likely be in kW. Although, would it be better to remove all the conversions, and replace with something about the fact that the hp is in dispute, and engineers have stated that all cars will exceed both (as either is not the actual anyway)? Bertcocaine (talk) 22:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A claim like horsepower, is only legally false if the actual value is lower than the claim. The Original Veyron engines actually put out 1,020 to 1,040 PS (750 to 765 kW). (Veyron development boss quoted in Car & Driver) That is enough for Bugatti to make a valid 1,001 PS (736 kW) claim in countries that use metric horsepower, and at the same time make a 1,001 bhp (746 kW) claim in countries that use brake horsepower.

The Veyron Super Sport claims 1,200 horsepower worldwide. (There are many sources that say 1,200 PS (883 kW) and many that say 1,200 bhp (895 kW)) So the Super Sport engine must output at least 1200 bhp to legally meet all claims.

In both cases the bhp figures—being larger than the PS figures—are therefore closer to the actual power output, and should be used in the article.

Having said that we could give the power in kW first as:

• 750 kW (1,020 PS; 1,010 bhp) Original Veyron per its development boss in Car & Driver.
• 895 kW (1,217 PS; 1,200 bhp) Super Sport per Bugatti's worldwide claims of 1200 unspecified (and therefore legally bhp in North America) horsepower.

—MJBurrage^(T•C) 12:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thinking further, the text should probably say "at least 1,001 horsepower" and "at least 1,200 horsepower" with out specifying type of horsepower or kW. Then the tables could use 746 kW; 1,010 PS (1,001 bhp) and 895 kW; 1,220 PS (1,200 bhp) per Bugatti's official claims. and lastly the section on the engine itself could discuss the quotes in Car & Driver.

We should use official factory figures not at least if the factory doesnt say so, despite magazine or other claims, these could be expressed in article though with proper sources. -->Typ932 ^T·C 16:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

My thought exactly, but as MJ has pointed highlighted finding consistent sources is difficult - I've put two suggestions above but as I don't know anyone who knows a Veyron owner seeing the manual might be tricky.. I'll try and find EU info somewhere, but the manufacturer keeps fudging the issues, all their official releases state 'hp' which could mean either, and the head engineer is on record as explaining that not only is it being given different units in different markets, but the actual output covers both anyway! So, the 'official factory figure' is unclear, and all other sources (official or otherwise) either assume or fudge the issue further..

MJ, in response to your suggestion, nice idea but wouldn't it look wrong and suggest that PS always equals bhp to those without knowledge of one or the other? I'd be more in favour of sticking with the generic horsepower as you suggest without conversions and then a note about the inconsistency in markets and explaination (which could cite the first ref). What do you think? Bertcocaine (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I am definitely getting behind them fudging - Bugatti's website shows a nice little graph of hp and torque, and the scale converts the generic hp in kW - showing 536hp = 400kW, which would make hp=bhp! See their page http://www.bugatti.com/en/veyron-16.4/technology/acceleration.html Bertcocaine (talk) 18:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarification and Cleanup required August 2010

I have added a confusing template as this article needs general cleanup. It currently switches between talking about the original 2005 Veyron and the latest Super Sport version without distinction, and some stats quoted are not clear as to which they might apply. There are also a few other format and naming discrepancies, such as the names of the two sounds in the first section, neither model is mentioned anywhere near. The sources and figures quoted for various speeds and others such as fuel economy come from a variety of sources - having spent some time sorting some of these into the original kph figures for speed (with assistance, see below) I'm running out of patience as the top ones then get changed. Some of the sources are not the best, as they quote several figures and some editors (myself included first time round) have been checking these and removing decimals, etc, etc. I've just corrected some parts when 'Super Sports' was used.. I could dig and find more but I have to go out and don't have time at the moment.. Can anyone assist?

I'm thinking a general cleanup of all these little things, and possibly a re-write to the change the style and tone may be required, as several sections seem to be quoting the press or other non-neutral viewpoints without clear reference - I'm undecided about that but would welcome some opinions. I've also inserted this at the top of this discussion page (not my normal practice) due to the large number of sections and the repeat of titles such as 'inconsistency' to avoid any further confusion. Bertcocaine (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

We can add the acceleration stats to the list - the 1/4 mile time keeps being changed, and although someone added a ref (removed during vandalism cleanup) google indicates that this is another area where the sources all contradict - since Bugatti don't quote these in imperial. I'm getting to the point of taking a day off work just to research and clear up all these issues! Might go and test drive one (yeah right) just to see the manual.. Bertcocaine (talk) 14:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

And another - a number of reverts and edits over acceleration times in the performance table - comments only added in the summary notes and briefly in an old section above (numbers don't match up). Replies indicate source is personally held letter and brochure? Brochure is probably a valid source but not the letter. Is anyone reading this? Plenty of IP editing to various stats going on (and fair bit of vandalism) yet few editors seem to do anything but revert the vandalism.. Comments please!! Bertcocaine (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Errors of Kinematics

Drag is square law but the power needed to overcome it is a cube law and I have seen it stated in physics books but I have never understood the proof. It is also true if you apply it to road cars. Pick a car where the manufacturer fits a large ranges of engines - maybe BMW 5 series. For example a 520d with 177bhp will do 140mph and a de-restricted M5 with 500bhp has been recorded at 205mph. Now if we take the difference in power as a ratio 500/177 = 2.824 and take the cube root you get 1.41 and mutliply this by the 520d speed (140mph) you get 198mph which is close to the 205mph I have seen. Apply a square law and you get a top speed of 235mph which is clearly incorrect. ==== —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.16.207 (talk) 21:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems counterintuitive at first. But think of it as the engine having to overcome two independent sources of work: 1) Doubling the vehicle velocity under a constant load (on the dyno in a lab for example) alone would require twice as much power, since while the force (= engine torque) is fixed by the dyno setting, the velocity has doubled, and so thus the rate of work (which equals power) must double as well. 2) The familiar square-law air resistance term, for which a doubling in air velocity quadruples the drag force applied to the vehicle. So now if we combine these two terms, we get the factor of two increase from the velocity change alone, in addition to the factor of four increase from the increase in air drag. This product equals the factor of eight increase discussed earlier. An interesting consequence of this is the difference in engine workload between driving a car at 200mph on a still day vs. driving at 100mph into a 100mph headwind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.55.200.20 (talk) 13:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Inaccuracies

Many of the number in this article do not add-up, also are wrong figures and edits to external quotations, clearly inappropriate, There is no reference to either the ssc aero or koenigsegg CCXR, both of which have beaten the veyron in terms of speed and power. Article clearly needs expert attention —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor sponge (talk • contribs) 15:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Which numbers do not add up? Which figures are wrong? What quotations have been edited? Do you have reliable sources to show how these should be corrected? The SSC Aero is mentioned in the second sentence. If the CCXR is mentioned it will need a reference. swaq 15:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

0–240 km/h (0.0–149.1 mph) 8.6 seconds VS standing quarter-mile (402 m) 10.2 seconds at 230 km/h (142.9 mph).

I'm not the person writing the numbers do not add up, but these numbers do not add up... Of course these numbers will not have been from one source, so nobody knows who drove the car the quarter mile. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.28.169.139 (talk) 10:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

The air intake is given as 45 000 000 L/min. This corresponds to about 750 cubic metres or about 900kg every second. At a speed of 360 km/hr, a duct with an area of 7.5 m^2 would be needed to achieve such a high intake; this compares with its cross-sectional area of only about 2 m^2. Also, it is not clear what the intake is to — cooling system, engine? An 8 litre engine turning at 10 000rpm would consume 40 000 L/min (or a bit more depending on how much the air is compressed before entering the cylinders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.69.34 (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I believe it stated the air consumption as 45,000 l/min. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.55.200.20 (talk) 14:01, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Super Sport world record speed and general statistics

The Specifications and Performance section referred to a top speed of 253mph - this is wrong, and the article to which it referred only mentioned 268mph. I'm not sure where the decimal places are coming from - they may well be correct, but the opening sentence to the article referred to the same source, and the second paragraph in Specifications and Performance has no citations at all (I've marked this in the article). Does anyone have any sources for these figures?

I've changed the source for both the opening sentence and the start of that section to a different one, which refers to the K/PH since the car will most likely (from the Top Gear show) have had a K/PH reading which was converted - I'm not sure what devices the record keepers would have used, although this could have been in both (I doubt MPH only since the international standards are metric).

Reading the article further there are quite a few stats without refs - for example, the dimensions of the vehicle in the same section. Does anyone have any sources for this info? Bertcocaine (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The original source (linked in the article) gives the offical numbers of: First run (427.933 km/h), second run (434.211 km/h), average (431.072 km/h). Between other articles rounding of numbers, and converting them to mph, and then editors here converting them back to km/h, we ended up with a hodge podge of rounding errors. Should be fixed now (at least for top speed). —MJBurrage^(T•C) 23:27, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Which source is that? I've read quite a few of them and they are all either in mph or whole numbers. There is one in German linked to List of fastest production cars which has the kph - I think the discrepancies are exactly as you say, but we should have sources in the original (i.e. non converted) and the convert here. The citation needed section I added only has kph at the moment without conversion. Bertcocaine (talk) 00:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Both: #2 DieselStation (431, 072 km/h) and #4 TopSpeed (434, 211 km/h) give three decimal places. So does sub5zero (431.072km/H) which is not used in the article. Many more to be found if you Google Veyron "431.072" OR "431,072" OR "431, 072". —MJBurrage^(T•C) 01:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I should have scrolled down further! That's what comes of editing late at night while tired.. Thanks for the correction, and apologies for any confusing edits! I've now added the refs to a couple more places further down that section, replaced the quoted top speed limitation with kph and added conversions to the other parts of that section. Bertcocaine (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of significant digits

I don't think we should be reporting the top speeds to 6 significant digits for a number of reasons. In no particular order:

• Stylistically, for the lede, we should be trying to convey the most important facts to the reader in as clear a way as possible. Saying that the car goes 427 km/h does that. Adding in the extra three digits, 427.933 km/h adds verbosity without conveying any real meaning to the reader. If we were to include the digits after the decimal point at all, they should be in some infobox or further down in the article in a section that talks in detail about performance measurements.

• I am not at all convinced that the experimental conditions under which these measurements were performed justify the use of this many significant digits. Measuring things to 1 part per million is not something done lightly. From what I can read in the topspeed.com reference, they used a GPS-tachometer. I can't find any reliable reference which tells me what a GPS-techometer is. I'm assuming it's something like [5], which has lots of hype, but shows no precision specification. Bluntly, I just don't believe the instrument can do 1 ppm speed measurements, nor do I believe the experimental setup was controlled enough to justify that level of precision, no matter what instrument they used.

• Finally, from Template:Convert/list of units, it looks like our conversion template uses a factor of 0.44704 to convert from m/s to mph. That's only 5 significant digits. Even if the raw km/h data were accurate to 6 digits (which I don't accept), the conversion to mph can't be more than 5 simply because of the way we do the math.

In short, from an engineering / metrology point of view, there is simply no justification that I can see for reporting 6 significant figures, regardless of the fact that the original cited reference does so. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Roy, you make some interesting points.

For the first, I'm not sure I agree - While as you say the most important facts are conveyed more cleanly with no decimals, your the first person (that I've noticed) who has objected to this on grounds other than the source not showing it. It may not be key given the current second place (world record wise) but it may become so - for example, timing is done to this level in Formula 1, and so to the casual reader I suspect that three decimal places does not seem verbose. While your comment about the purpose of the intro is valid, consistency is a major problem with this article and I think it's best to keep consistent. I'm also curious about the record, presumably that's recorded to the 'official' level. (in quote because of next points!)

The engineering points your made I lack the knowledge to offer opinion - I don't know what your field of expertise is, but your tone and diction on the subject suggest at least a fair working knowledge? If so I'm happy to bow to your knowledge as mine is lacking in that particular area. I can fix car engines but i couldn't make one.

The maths I'm not sure about - it's late as I type this and while I normally have a good head for maths I'm not going to calculate if you're correct casually and risk being shown up! I may well revisit and think this through at a later date.

In conclusion, I'm thinking the official record and consistency are important, but I'd like to hear more from you, and see if others would like to offer opinion on your points. Thanks for not reverting the edits in the meantime, much appreciated. Between vandalism and IP editing this article is patchy enough around the stats and I still haven't had time to research more thoroughly (anything to offer on the horsepower debate below?). Thanks. Bertcocaine (talk) 00:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to read what I wrote. I'll address just the "qualification" issue. My formal training is in engineering. One of the skills you are taught in engineering school is proper use of significant digits. On an exam, if you gave your answer to more significant digits than were justified by the given data, your answer would be marked incorrect! 17.5 and 17.50 mean different things; that latter implies four significant digits of precision, while the former only implies three.

With modern electronic measuring devices, 3 or 4 digits of precision is easy and commonplace, with commodity tools you might buy at Radio Shack or Home Depot. 5 digits gets a bit harder. Once you get to 6 digits, you're probably into the realm of measurements that can only be made in a laboratory under carefully controlled conditions. If you want me to believe a measurement presented with 6 digits, you have to tell me how that measurement was done. I want to know what instruments were used, how you compensated for temperature, how the device was calibrated, etc. If you don't give me some insight into those things, I'm just not buying the 6 digits.

One of the cited references (the article at topspeed.com), says:

The GPS-tachometer stops at 427, 933 km/h. Now the same procedure from the opposite direction. This time the car reaches 434, 211 km/h. As average top speed the representatives of the “TÜV”and Guinness generate a value of 431, 072 km/h (268 mph). This even hit Bugatti’s engineering team by surprise.'

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to accept that you can average two readings which differ by 2% 1.5% and come up with a figure which is accurate to 6 digits. It just doesn't pass the sniff test. We insist on Reliable Sources. Usually, the bar for declaring a source reliable is something like, a well-known, established, periodical in the field, with no ties to the subject. I'll agree that topspeed.com probably meets that. But, we need to look further. If the methodology they are employing doesn't pass muster, we can accept most of the article as reliable, and yet reject those parts (i.e. the use of excessive numbers of significant digits) which are bogus (or at least suspect). -- RoySmith (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, both with your points about 6 digit accuracy, and about keeping things simple in the lede. I'd suggest we have to give up the fight in the main body - if the reference has xxx.xxx then we have to report xxx.xxx or clueless literal-minded editors will continually "correct" the figure. However, I suggest for the lede we could get away with the following:

...with a top speed of just over 431 km/h (268 mph).The original version has a top speed of just over 408 km/h (254 mph).

I'll leave this suggestion for you guys to implement if you agree. Snori (talk) 05:15, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the just over language helps any. The only data we have to evaluate is two measurements, which differ by about 1.5%, which implies a precision of not quite 3 significant digits (although, drawing any useful conclusions about precision from just these two measurements is iffy to begin with). Your just over wording implies a precision better than 3 digits. I know it's tempting to use language like this, but the hard data don't justify it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

References

Super Sport horsepower

Based on the sources listed below, I believe something I suspected is true. Namely that the SS actually has over 1,200 bhp, but for marketing purposes is "rated" at 1,200 local horsepower for the target market. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 04:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

• 1200bhp Bugatti Veyron Super Sport unveiled. Creates a new land speed record!
• 267.81 mph // Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Super Sport // 1200BHP
• ames tells us more about his record run in the Veyron SS
• Bugatti Veyron 1200 BHP

Is the “Mansory Linea Vincerò” section relevant?

I’m a little confused as to why the Mansory Linea Vincerò is listed under “Special editions.” Isn’t it a third-party modified car (as per “German car tuner”) rather than a factory-made edition? If I’m not mistaken, then I wouldn’t think it’s appropriate to have it mentioned, or at the least, not to its own section. On top of that, the section doesn’t sound like it was written in an encyclopedic way. —Mr Grim Reaper 22:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would indeed not mention the Mansory version, as Mansory is simply a German tuner (tunes Bentley as well...) Greetings, Belgian man (talk) 15:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Ooooh no, you mustn't call him a "tuner". According to the most recent issue of CAR magazine he really hates it. Mr Larrington (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of acceleration speed

I removed the section "accelerates from 0–60 in 2.4 seconds and " as it does not have units for the 0-60 part. Please find the units and add them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozkidzez91 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

With all the vandalism in the past two weeks, I suggest that the article be protected to some extent to prevent further vandalism. I wanted to see what anyone else had to say about protecting the article. Md2 943 (talk) 04:58, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. We are averaging well under one vandal edit per day and this article is watched by a bunch of people, it hardly ever lasts very long. You could take it to requests for protection if you disagree. --Leivick (talk) 08:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

most expensive car?

I read this article because I recall reading that this car was or is the most expensive car in the world, which isn't mentioned here. Is this, in fact, the world's heftiest purcase price for a street-legal car? - Alan 24.184.184.177 (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is the most expensive street-legal production car in the world. --Ctrlfreak13 (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

you go buddy drop a clutch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.72.122.94 (talk) 06:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How is this the most expensive car...i ean respectfully there is the ccx agera which is way more expensive. 94.200.176.6 (talk) 29 May 2011

Tyres

What tyres does it use to go at 407km/h?

Tyres are one of the most important parts of a car. In Formula 1 tyres are one of the most talked about things, along with engines and drivers.

Can somebody find out what tyres it uses and put that info in the specifications of this page? Tri400 (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe they're specially-made Bridgestone tires. —Mr. Grim Reaper at 04:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

They are actually Michelin - they use the Michelin PAX run-flat system, and the tyres are the Pilot Sport PS2 tread patern. HTH. 78.32.143.113 (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You miss spelled Tires.--Brainiack16 (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

They misspelled tires. And they used the British English spellingRacerx11 (talk) 04:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you mean they DIDN'T misspell tyres. British/Australian/American English have different spellings, your way isn't the only right way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ozkidzez91 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I know. But what I meant was to point out in the comment above mine by Brainiack16 that he misspelled the word "misspelled". So I was loosely quoting the incorrect statement above and at the same time correcting his own spelling mistake. I thought it was clear that I knew "Tyres" wasn't misspelled. I did point out that they used the British spelling. Sorry it was so confusing. Racerx11 (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2011 (UTC)