http://www.fantasycars.com/1/2001/Bugatti1001/bugatti1001.html
HOLY SHIT! That is friggin awesome. The W16- is that a 16 cylinder engine?
A worthy successor to the elegant and powerful Bugattis of the past, the Veyron 16?4 is powered by a 1001-horsepower, 8.0-litre engine with its 16 cylinders arranged in a ‘W’ and force-fed by a quartet of turbochargers. This newest Bugatti also uses all-wheel drive to reach a top speed of 406 km/h (252 mph) as claimed and guaranteed by its makers. Acceleration is also impressive: the Veyron is said to reach 290 km/h (180 mph) from a standing start in just 14 seconds!
(…)
The Veyron 16?4 is expected to sell for more than $1 million US. Only a few dozen cars will be produced each year and total production will be limited to 300, guaranteeing the limited number and exclusivity of the original Bugattis. </font color>
From: MSN
A True T-Worthy Car! =0)
I’d be more impressed if:
A) It wasn’t 3600 pounds.
B) It wasn’t turbocharged.
C) It was available.
DI
I agree that it’s a bit on the heavy side, and you’ve gotta’ have more respect for normally aspirated engines, but the sheer excess of it all does make a statement. Gotta’ love it. And, different though its styling is, I personally thing it’s absolutely gorgeous (and I did NOT like the last Bugatti – that EB110 thing).
OK, KnightRT, show me something better in the same class. =0)
The manufacturers need to make a forced induction, 16 cylinder engine just to get 1001 hp? What a piece of junk. Toyota as their 2jz-gte engine which is a 6 cylinder and has been known to output 1400+ hp on street legal cars (supra anyone?). I’m not impressed.
Macaijah, I’ve never heard of that. It’s normally aspirated? Does it use nitrous? Is it a production car or a race car of some kind? I know the mass-market Supra certainly produced nowhere near those HP numbers.
DanC, my vote for something better in the same class would be the McLaren F1 (which I think they stopped producing a few years ago), but it made 627 HP while weighing only 2,840 lbs (normally aspirated 6-liter V12). 0-60 in 3.4, top speed of 231, and I think it cost around $890,000.
http://members.fortunecity.com/carstats/mc%20laren%20f1%201997.htm
More recently, there is the Ferrari Enzo. 650 HP (normally aspirated 6-liter V12), weighs 3,230 lbs, 0-60 in 3.3, top speed of 218. Oh, and only $643,330. 
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article.asp?section_id=3&article_id=627&page_number=7&preview=
Thanks!
Found this good site: supercars
Interesting to see that the top speed record was done in 1938 (no typo, nineteen thirty eight) by Mercedes at 269.1 mph.
Site is well organized too.
Macaijah- dude, that is one seriously exagerated number according to everything i have ever read. if you could post a link to a source for that number, i would appreciate it. The best i have read about the supra is 100 horse per cylinder, which means 600 horse total. And the price of the modifications was anything but cheap, and some werent even legal… but if you have a link, please post it.
Macaijah, reason behind that is “warranty”.
You cant take a supra (or any other car) up to stratospheric hp levels without making a mess of the durability and driveability of the car.
That is why you have things like the subaru wrx-ti running “only” 300hp when it could easily be boosted up a few hundred more.
Take a look at your rice boy’s cars. Tell me how long they go without tearing the engine (or drivetrain) apart
due to something breaking or giving out. It’s not long.
For dollars to horsepower, I’d take a 2003 Cobra any day. 12.70 quarter mile from the factory. SSSSSSSSSSSSS
Antiliberal, WHO THE HELL is going to buy a 1001HP car or McLaren F1 to have a long lasting, dependable car? If I’m attempting to go over 600HP, I don’t care how long it lasts, I’ll buy another engine for the next rally. Scrub, you’d be better off getting an early 90s 5.0 Mustange and dropping your own turbo and intercooler in it; less than 10K for car, turbo and cooler, intake, exhaust and over 600HP. The thing is, HP isn’t all that matters. For $ to speed ratio for a quarter I’d take an old Beetle and a fuel injected 3.7 Porsche engine anyday. Mustangs have light rear ends with less than necessary downforce and have sucky drivetrains.
Dude 1400 hp street legal. Yeap shure sorry to say. Oh yeah work for Toyota thats more hp then most drag cars. 3600 pnds not that heavy for 1000hp remeber got to keep it on the street. don’t know how many here drag race but 800 hp small block 400 on a gutted mustand pulling the front tires off the ground it pretty cool, ok so getting carried away.sorry but its fun the weight also helps with handeling and cornering remeber street car not strip car. but I will still stick with my 70 Hemicuda or 66 GTO. sorry Scrub ford is junk dude sorry.
I saw the red one. I like this much better than the bike you posted before. This is cool. One prob though the price! 1.5 mil!! Too many stupid embelishments. Like diamonds in the dial gages. Ummmmmm not needed! I like the McLaren F1 better. Probably safer too for those speeds. But give me my Austin Martin Vantage Lemanns (the limited 350 production one they did a few years back). Sweet! 
Clintpatty, it makes no difference if you or me or anyone else (who most likely will never buy a car like that) thinks about the life expectancy, it only matters what 3 groups think.
Those 3 groups are the govt (emission regs, crash regs), the manufacturer (they dont want their top end car icons out there breaking down) and the buyer.
Govt for one requires a 100k+ mile warranty period on emission equipment along with some safety equipment. Sorry to say but any overboosted rice boymobile wont cut it in that category.
Anyway, everyone i’ve know who buys top end cars does care about durability. Reason is because they buy them for status symbols, they dont want them breaking down on the interstate or overheating in downtown traffic. Now i of course don’t know anyone who has a mclaren f1 (kinda hard to have stateside), but i do know several peeps with high end pasta rockets.
The amount of rich boys who buy those top end cars and ACTUALLY DRIVE/RACE them is staggeringly low. Yeah some of them putz around here and there from time to time, but very few seriously use the cars to their limits.
I’m with cuda, i prefer old muscle cars. Course if I was an absurdly rich man I would probably also own some pasta rockets. Insurance on those things alone can be a bitch though, so they require lots of coin.
I’ve gotten into this argument too many times. Sure, for the money you would spend on ANY new car, you could buy a 10 year old beater, spend money on a blower/turbo, intake, heads, etc, and have a 600 HP time bomb that runs a 10 second quarter mile…once. And good luck finding an early 90’s 5.0 liter that hasn’t been driven hard. If you do, you’d be lucky to find just the car for 10 grand without any parts. I’m talking about a new car that can be driven every day and blow the doors off almost any car on the road. Hell, I’ve seen honda civics stripped down to the frame with all the parts run in the 10’s. La dee frickin da. Look at it.
And by the way, for all you Ford haters, the old “Mustangs are only fast going straight” argument is no more. The 03 Cobras have independent rear suspension, just like the vettes. If you haven’t seen the 05, check it out. I will agree that over the past 5 years, Ford sucked with their Mustang bodies, but they brought back Eleanor and it’s a beautiful thing.
If you’re talking old school, the GTO and Hemi’s are badass, but what can you say about the 67 Shelby GT 500 or the 66 Cobra 427?
Again, 12.70 from the factory, under 40 grand. Bye bye camaro.
Under 40K give me an EVO or WRX STi stock and prove how good Mustangs are when not in a straight line.
Scrub, they dont make camaro’s anymore. Sorta sucks actually, i’ve always liked em.
As far as competition between you and clintpatty, it’s just a preference of taste. Clintpatty seems to prefer the rice boy look, and you like the classic musclecar proportions.
Yeah yeah the rice boys tend to handle better out of the box, but unless one of you is a top notch talented driver, i seriously doubt anyone here would be seeing one of those cars used at above 9/10ths of it’s ability.
Old musclecars (some of them) can be made to handle very damn well. Take a late 60’s stang or camaro. You can slap on some aftermarket control arms, add lots of spring/roll bar stiffness, good shocks, plus some nice tires and you have cars capable of pulling a tickle over 1.0g. And they are lightweight too when equipped with 'glass parts and gutted interiors.
It’s like comparing apples to oranges with ricers. Not the same thing at all.