UCP Awards 2009: Car of the Decade [Preliminary Voting 1]

[Kitdy]

Ok first off, I needed to make some model clarifications in which I chose models that fit in the correct time. The Tuscan apparently started production in 1999 so I chose the Tuscan S. I hope this pisses no one off. I also consolidated the nominations for the new MINI into the R53 Cooper S. If you are angry, well that's too bad I suppose, cmcpokey wins.

There are three voting threads, the first two with 11 cars, and third with 10. The cars are arranged alphabetically. I don't see a problem with voting in each thread, if someone does see a problem with this, it's probably gonna be hard to stop people from voting in more than one thread anyways.

The winner of each of the three voting threads will go to the final voting thread and then we will vote on the winner.

Also, this thread had been deleted- it has been reformed. I made a boo boo. Thanks for the kind words aisab!

[Roentgen]

I believe Top Gear is right on this.

[LeonOfTheDead]

Not sure if dividing the cars alphabetically was suitable if then the winner of each thread is going to be selected. It would be better to pick the three cars which received most votes, regardless of which thread they belong to.

[Kitdy]

Not sure if dividing the cars alphabetically was suitable if then the winner of each thread is going to be selected. It would be better to pick the three cars which received most votes, regardless of which thread they belong to.

I disagree, because not everyone may vote in each poll.

This is how it's going down unless someone presents me with astounding evidence why it shouldn't happen this way.

[wwgkd]

I would say the top 2 or three from each thread would be best. If you're doing a run off you do have the room so there's no reason not too and it does give more of a fair vote I think.

[aiasib]

I agree with wwgkd, 8 or 10 cars in the final 'heat' might not be a bad idea.

How about we vote on how we should vote! hahaha kidding kidding

[Kitdy]

I think that's giving a car that's already been eliminated an unfair chance. Ideally, there would only be one poll and people would chose the car they liked most. If you do a runoff, things are compromised as in the second round people may not vote for the car they most like as it's not there. If you start adding more than 1 car from each run off, even less deserving cars get more of a chance - people make compromises and a car that shouldn't be in the final in the first place and would have no chance of winning in one grand poll could end up winning and I think that's bullshit which is why I want to do it my way - it minimizes people compromising their decisions.

EDIT: I have made a huge error. I missed one car for car of the decade and it was a pretty important one. badda nominated the Ferrari Enzo. Now my initial idea is that this car woulda probably had a lot of votes and I am thinking of forwarding it to the final vote if enough of you think that this car is deserving of that. I figure a bunch of dudes woulda voted for it anyways. We could just have a poll asking if the Enzo should make the finals or not or something I dunno.

I apologize, I shoulda scrutinized harder and/or gotten one of you guys to double check the nominations.

What do you think should be done?

[NicFromLA]

From an engineering standpoint the Veyron is truly incredible. But frankly the 430 Scuderia is more fun and better looking.

[wwgkd]

From an engineering standpoint the Veyron is truly incredible. But frankly the 430 Scuderia is more fun and better looking.

I would disagree with that. For that money 1,000hp isn't that impressive. Engineering means designing things well, and the engine is overly complex and heavy. The body is high drag with very little or no downforce unless you have a giant wing rise out of the back, which prevents it from reaching it's top speed and defeating the whole point of the car. The thing weighs more than a fullsize pickup. Where did all this brilliant engineering and money come into play?

[Ferrer]

I would disagree with that. For that money 1,000hp isn't that impressive. Engineering means designing things well, and the engine is overly complex and heavy. The body is high drag with very little or no downforce unless you have a giant wing rise out of the back, which prevents it from reaching it's top speed and defeating the whole point of the car. The thing weighs more than a fullsize pickup. Where did all this brilliant engineering and money come into play?
In the comfy, reliable and useable 400km/h performance.

I think it deserves a place in the final.

[csl177]

In the comfy, reliable and useable 400km/h performance.

Naturally. Forget what it costs. Where is 400km/h useable again? :rolleyes:

[henk4]

Naturally. Forget what it costs. Where is 400km/h useable again? :rolleyes:

just wondering, did you have the pleasure to drive the 4-door C6?

[aiasib]

What do you think should be done?


Indeed, I think you should put the Enzo in the final, as a sort of wildcard. I think we can agree that it deserves to be in the final, heck it might even win.

[Kitdy]

Naturally. Forget what it costs. Where is 400km/h useable again? :rolleyes:

Ferrer isn't really one you want to pick a fight with over this. He does not like the Veyron at all, yet he appreciates how it sort of typified the decade.

It is the ultimate be all and end all for the horseopwer/speed wars - fine, there may be cars that are faster than it now and faster than it in the future, but the Veyron is something special - a technological dream.

Ferrer at least wasn't voting as a fanboy.

[Ferrer]

Naturally. Forget what it costs. Where is 400km/h useable again? :rolleyes:
Nowhere. But it is not the point.

As kitdy said, I don't like the car. I'd never have one. And I think that in the real world it's pointless and that you're going to have a lot more fun in a Mazda MX-5.

But, what the Veyron did was redefine what was thought of being possible. It pushed the outside of the envelope. It made everything else before it look like it was from the 1950s. The amount of engineering put into it makes it a masterpiece.

The Veyron made the automobile move forwards.

For that alone it deserves a place in the final.

[henk4]

Nowhere. But it is not the point.

As kitdy said, I don't like the car. I'd never have one. And I think that in the real world it's pointless and that you're going to have a lot more fun in a Mazda MX-5.

But, what the Veyron did was redefine what was thought of being possible. It pushed the outside of the envelope. It made everything else before it look like it was from the 1950s. The amount of engineering put into it makes it a masterpiece.

The Veyron made the automobile move forwards.

For that alone it deserves a place in the final.

I think a lot of what you say is applicable to for instance the Citroen DS. On top of that, that car had one overwhelming advantage. It was practical. It is not so difficult to go outside the envelope, but to turn that into something useful is what makes such a car masterpiece.

[Ferrer]

I agree partly with you. The DS is another of those cars which pushed the outside of the envelope. It was possibly an even more groundbreaking car the Veyron. I personally think it is one of the greatest cars ever made, perhaps the greatest.

However, the DS wasn't perfect. The engine was an acknowledged achilles point of the DS throughout its entire life, and it was never solved. The Veyron is the exact opposite, all is geared towards performance but it's an useable, reliable and accessible performance. And that's the crucial difference.

Everyone can build a fast car, just give it a big engine. But the Veyron isn't just a fast car. This is why is oculd possibly be the car of the decade.

[wwgkd]

The Veyron has a rough ride and is godawful loud, even by sports and super car standards. They added a nav system, but so what? Not really digging it. Plus, they made a huge deal out of the top speed and a bunch of reporters started spouting of the fact that it was a record holder for fastest car in the world. But before they ever went out and actually got it certified with a record run, a little company in Washington state had already beaten them. Did not get anywhere near the press but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Sure the SSC has lower production numbers, but so does the F1. If you're voting for it because you feel it personifies a decade of excess, flamboyance and media hype I could see where you're coming from. But by that token the Hummer H2 should also be up for voting. To me the Veyron personifies everything that is wrong with cars today and I can't see voting for it as the COTD.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

The SSC was, and still is, vaporware, essentially.'

The Veyron is a fantastic engineering achievement to achieve and aim that some people are fairly "meh" about achieving.

And thats achieving ridiculous high speeds with safety, ease and repeatability.

[wwgkd]

The SSC was, and still is, vaporware, essentially.'

The Veyron is a fantastic engineering achievement to achieve and aim that some people are fairly "meh" about achieving.

And thats achieving ridiculous high speeds with safety, ease and repeatability.

How do you figure that? There's not a lot of them on the road, certainly and there never will be. But again the same thing goes for the F1. I agree that the veryon repeatable reaches ridiculously high speeds, but so does the SSC. Furthermore the only place the veyron has reached those speeds in on that one specially made track. The SSC did it on a road that I have driven on, and was certified. That actually means more to me, especially the fact that the record run was undertaken in windy conditions (which are really the norm for that area.)

[IBrake4Rainbows]

The SSC is a tempremental thing that requires tuning reguarly.

I reckon the Veyron needs service as well, but you're buying into a whole deal - the after sales support, etc.

I get the SSC might technically be quicker, but it's a brute force thing, the Veyron is comparitively more exciting technically.

[henk4]

I agree partly with you. The DS is another of those cars which pushed the outside of the envelope. It was possibly an even more groundbreaking car the Veyron. I personally think it is one of the greatest cars ever made, perhaps the greatest.

However, the DS wasn't perfect. The engine was an acknowledged achilles point of the DS throughout its entire life, and it was never solved. The Veyron is the exact opposite, all is geared towards performance but it's an useable, reliable and accessible performance. And that's the crucial difference.

Everyone can build a fast car, just give it a big engine. But the Veyron isn't just a fast car. This is why is oculd possibly be the car of the decade.

I think the performance of the Veyron came at the expense of the weight of the car. If it had been a proper case of engineering (as you call it), they could have taken out at least 300 kg. (compare that to a McLaren F1). A two-tonne two seater sportscar does shift the goalposts for me. (and as far as the DS is concerned, it was not only groundbreaking, it was also affordable)

Weight was obviously a Piech obsession, creating the 908 bergspider with a 6 liter fuel tank with gravity driven fuel supply on one end, and the overweight Veyron and Phaeton (why more than 300 kg over the A8 Quattro) on the other.

[Ferrer]

Phaeton weights more than the Audi because it isn't made of aluminium.

I'm not trying to defend the Veyron as a car, and nor do I think it is perfect. But in my opinion denying that it was an imense engineering achievement is denying the truth. As IB4R says it's not the performance in itself, the SSC does it, but the way it achieves it. Comfortably, reliably, accesible and repeatable.

That's the Veyron's achievement in my opinion.

[henk4]

Phaeton weights more than the Audi because it isn't made of aluminium.

I'm not trying to defend the Veyron as a car, and nor do I think it is perfect. But in my opinion denying that it was an imense engineering achievement is denying the truth. As IB4R says it's not the performance in itself, the SSC does it, but the way it achieves it. Comfortably, reliably, accesible and repeatable.

That's the Veyron's achievement in my opinion.

the alu body alone does not bring 300 kg....
About repeatability: Have you come across figures for tyre and brake (pad) use of the Veyron, when constantly using its performance? (I don't want to make jokes about its fuel consumption, where a full tank offered 12 minutes of top speed ride)

[IBrake4Rainbows]

The tyres, if you repeat the 400kp/h performance, are replaced every what, 2,000km?

Pretty reasonable if you consider the speed they work to.

Brake Pads - I thought it was ceramic? so fade is fairly minimal.

I get the Veyron hate - it's too heavy, it's too impractical, what it achieves it does so without gravitas or excitement.

But for Car of the Decade, you're seriously going to overlook it, because it's fat?

If anything thats a perfect representation of the 2000's.

[Ferrer]

the alu body alone does not bring 300 kg....
The A8 has a aluminum body and chasis. Altough some of the weight difference could also be due to the overengineering in some Phaeton parts.

By the way, I don't think the Veyron a representation of the noughties. That's the Hummer as was nominated. The Veyron would be a worthy car in any decade. And yes it does have high running costs, but I doubt any of its theorical rivals is exactly cheap to run.

[henk4]

The A8 has a aluminum body and chasis.
that's called a unitary body....(since the Lancia Lambda:))

[Ferrer]

that's called a unitary body....(since the Lancia Lambda:))
Actually, doesn't the A8 have a spaceframe?

[Dino Scuderia]

Actually, doesn't the A8 have a spaceframe?

Yes it is.

[henk4]

this link shows a better view of the "spaceframe"'

Alcoa: AATS: Designers and Manufacturers of the Audi A8 Aluminum Spaceframe (http://www.alcoa.com/aats/en/info_page/audi.asp)

whereby apparently the platform does not look like one piece, as in the other sketch.

a real spaceframe looks like this

[wwgkd]

The SSC is a tempremental thing that requires tuning reguarly.

I reckon the Veyron needs service as well, but you're buying into a whole deal - the after sales support, etc.

I get the SSC might technically be quicker, but it's a brute force thing, the Veyron is comparitively more exciting technically.

Where did you hear that it needs regular tuning? Not arguing, just not something I had heard. I can see how many people would assume that, but there's a lot of assumptions about the SSC which turn out not to be true (for instance that it's aerodynamics produce massive lift or that the handling is horrible.)

I would actually consider the veyron the brute force approach. More cylinders, more displacement, more turbos, more driven wheels, more weight, more force required. It achieves it's top speed by throwing massive power at it, not through efficient design. The SSC reaches higher speeds by being more effecient aerodynamically, which I would consider a good thing.


The A8 has a aluminum body and chasis. Altough some of the weight difference could also be due to the overengineering in some Phaeton parts.

By the way, I don't think the Veyron a representation of the noughties. That's the Hummer as was nominated. The Veyron would be a worthy car in any decade. And yes it does have high running costs, but I doubt any of its theorical rivals is exactly cheap to run.

Not cheap, but the veyron takes things to extremes. In the veyron if you get a flat you have to send the entire wheel to france to get a new tire fitted (extra lengths required not because of it's performance but because you're achieving that performance on something which weighs over 4,000lbs.) The SSC uses Michelin Pilot Sport PS2s. The SSC runs on 91 octane (using (R+M)/2 method of measuring) fuel which is easily available from the pump anywhere.
The veyron requires custom everything, much of which isn't because of it's speed but because of it's weight.

I'm still not getting how the veyron is so comfortable, yes it has some luxury features, but so does the SSC and everyone who's ever driven a veyron remarks on how loud the it is and how rough it rides. The only time one has ever reached it's top speeds was on that one groomed track rather than on public streets like the SSC, so yes the veyron has done it repeatedly but I believe that the edge there would go to the SSC.

I think the SSC doesn't get the respect of the veyron because everyone "knows" that to really reach those speeds you need fancy lowering suspension and trick wings and it can't possibly be the result of a small anonymous car company. Beyond the razzle dazzle and the name (which is not related to anything anyways) I don't believe the veyron is a better car than the SSC, or Koenigseg.

I don't think any of them deserve to be the COTD, but the veryon less so that the others. Everyone talks about how it set the bar so high that it can never be passed, yet it was passed before it was ever set, and for a fraction of the cost. For that much money I expect a lot more than what the veyron presents.

Yes, it's a minor miracle that the thing even works, but lets give it the Rube Goldberg design award then, not COTD.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Where did you hear that it needs regular tuning? Not arguing, just not something I had heard. I can see how many people would assume that, but there's a lot of assumptions about the SSC which turn out not to be true (for instance that it's aerodynamics produce massive lift or that the handling is horrible.)

I would actually consider the veyron the brute force approach. More cylinders, more displacement, more turbos, more driven wheels, more weight, more force required. It achieves it's top speed by throwing massive power at it, not through efficient design. The SSC reaches higher speeds by being more effecient aerodynamically, which I would consider a good thing.

The SSC is a tuner car, essentially. It's not a completely clean sheet design.

And because of that, one could rightly presume there would be a lot of room for tinkering and requirement for maintenance upkeep.

The SSC might be more efficient in terms of aerodynamics, But I feel as though the "more" approach you see applied to the Veyron is with purpose - it's a sure footed thing by all accounts that get's it's job done without too much fuss.

That and it's a car you could theoretically use daily - it's small enough to navigate around town, and relatively comfortable. I guess not things generally considered when outright speed is the main goal.

It's very much two different approaches to the design of each car. the SSC is a what you could consider a backyard operation compared to the big budget challenge Bugatti has behind it. It's also considerably safer (having been crash tested etc) and available globally, something the SSC is not, to my understanding.

So the SSC, when measured against the criteria of outright speed, is indeed victorious. However, the Veyron is a better all rounder, and a remarkable acheivement for a car of it's capability. Sure, there are compromises, but it does a lot of things right.

[NSXType-R]

Not to be annoying, but I too am a bit of a backer of the SSC Aero. Yes it's a small start up company, yes it uses old Focus headlamps, but Pagani had to start somewhere too.

And not to say that Jay Leno is the absolute automotive authority, his video of the SSC Aero was pretty good.

I wouldn't want to own a SSC Aero, but it is a roadworthy car. The Moslers I don't like too much, they're not really roadworthy.

That doesn't mean I like the Veyron any much more though.

Just because it's a small company doesn't mean the owner doesn't take it any less seriously. Again, take a look at Pagani.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

No one's doubting their commitment, but a Comparison to Pagani is a little bit of a stretch.

Pagani had been working on his chassis set up for nearly 15 years before the Zonda was released, and used F1 technology and test drivers to come up with something that, all things considered, was not the first run car you expected.

SSC, by comparison, have had a shorter lead in time and come up with some success, but, and perhaps this is a little bit of snobbery, but the last tenth of polish just isn't there. Those sorts of compromises (the Focus Headlights, for instance) aren't made in a Zonda.

Or, Indeed, a Veyron.

[Ferrer]

The SSC is a tuner car, essentially. It's not a completely clean sheet design.

And because of that, one could rightly presume there would be a lot of room for tinkering and requirement for maintenance upkeep.

The SSC might be more efficient in terms of aerodynamics, But I feel as though the "more" approach you see applied to the Veyron is with purpose - it's a sure footed thing by all accounts that get's it's job done without too much fuss.

That and it's a car you could theoretically use daily - it's small enough to navigate around town, and relatively comfortable. I guess not things generally considered when outright speed is the main goal.

It's very much two different approaches to the design of each car. the SSC is a what you could consider a backyard operation compared to the big budget challenge Bugatti has behind it. It's also considerably safer (having been crash tested etc) and available globally, something the SSC is not, to my understanding.

So the SSC, when measured against the criteria of outright speed, is indeed victorious. However, the Veyron is a better all rounder, and a remarkable acheivement for a car of it's capability. Sure, there are compromises, but it does a lot of things right.
This.

In a way, a Veyron isn't a supercar. It's an über-GT.

[henk4]

This.

In a way, a Veyron isn't a supercar. It's an über-GT.

It is what Ferdinand Piech wanted his dick to look like. (maybe also performance-wise)

[Ferrer]

Yes. And it's a Corrado on steroids and it's useless and it's an afront to a name like Bugatti and so on and so forth.

But that doesn't change the fact that, like others, it's quite a car, this.

[wwgkd]

The SSC is a tuner car, essentially. It's not a completely clean sheet design.

And because of that, one could rightly presume there would be a lot of room for tinkering and requirement for maintenance upkeep.

The SSC might be more efficient in terms of aerodynamics, But I feel as though the "more" approach you see applied to the Veyron is with purpose - it's a sure footed thing by all accounts that get's it's job done without too much fuss.

That and it's a car you could theoretically use daily - it's small enough to navigate around town, and relatively comfortable. I guess not things generally considered when outright speed is the main goal.

It's very much two different approaches to the design of each car. the SSC is a what you could consider a backyard operation compared to the big budget challenge Bugatti has behind it. It's also considerably safer (having been crash tested etc) and available globally, something the SSC is not, to my understanding.

So the SSC, when measured against the criteria of outright speed, is indeed victorious. However, the Veyron is a better all rounder, and a remarkable acheivement for a car of it's capability. Sure, there are compromises, but it does a lot of things right.

What does it share? Headlights? Lots of manufacturers (lamborghini for one)are sharing bits and pieces, people don't say they're not cars because of that. Do you respect the Koenigsegg that much less for using a ford based engine? If the headlights work well, why not use them? They'd be cheaper and easier to replace when they burn out.

I understand the skepticism of the design, but you're assuming that because it's a small american manufacturer it's going to need more maintinance and upkeep. I've never heard that to be true, though, and don't want to jump to conclusions just because the company is what it is.

I've actually read a couple of tests that said the Veyron in top speed mode (the whole point of the car) didn't track very well, and that little cross breezes induced a bit of drifting. Never heard anything similar about the SSC. Despite the fact that everyone assumes that any body which reaches those speeds without a wing rising out of the back will generate lift (such as they vetyron which was not originally designed for those speeds) the SSC does generate downforce and actually has a phenominal suspension setup which allows it to handle very well. Which is part of my problem with assumptions in such matters.

I don't see how a Veyron would be easier to drive around town than the SSC. There's not a ton of size difference, and they both have similar clearance, so if you're willing to drive a veyron somewhere, why would the SSC pose a problem? It also comes with a nav system, if you require that sort of thing in your super car.

Since the SSC is not being sold as a kit car, it does have to meet the same crash saftey and emissions standards as any other car on the road in the US.

The Veyron is a remarkable achievment. But the SSC does everything the Veyron can do, albiet with less flash, for a fraction of the price. Which makes it just as, if not more, remarkable. The only problems I see with the SSC come down to snob appeal, which it doesn't have. I'm not sure that any car built in the US will have that appeal, to be honest. The Saleen S7 had similar problems, bit it too is a very remarkable super car.

I'm not saying the SSC is my favorite supercar, but it does ddeserve more respect than it gets. And certainly the Veyron is not the greatest supercar ever or even of the decade just because it's more useable than an racecar (just about everything is) and has the second highest top speed.

[csl177]

It is what Ferdinand Piech wanted his dick to look like. (maybe also performance-wise)

Perhaps the most concise single sentence ever written about the Veyron. Pure lulz, but likely with some truth.

There is no question the Bugatti is impressive, but why on earth would this poll also include the pedestrian Panda?
Not a bad car, but these lists of such disparate autos are silly. The groupings within these preliminary polls are seriously flawed.

Group supercars together, Bugatti with Zonda, SSC, Enzo, et. al.

Ditto 300C, C6, etc. Each within a distinct class... THEN throw the winners into COTD, COTY.

And if this audience is so clueless of the criteria (other than thinking the "coolest" car should prevail) well, there's a microcosm psychographic portrait of UCP users. Not a bad thing, just perhaps dissappointing for some of us. If it really is just another popularity contest, no prelim polling was needed.

[LTSmash]

Ranked by price; high to low in USD. Conversions were made for GBP and EUR (I know it's not the best way to calculate price given the current FX market but the numbers are pretty close). I was going to model one by car type (supercar, sedan, etc) also but I didn't so here you go.***

EDIT: Also, take into account that some of the numbers may be off. I did not look specifically for 09 prices but original MSRP; even that may be off... I'm not getting paid to do this shit so you get half-assed research. ;)


Bugatti Veyron ___ 1700000
Pagani Zonda F ___ 740000
Lamborghini Murcialago ___ 400000
Ferrari 430 Scuderia ___ 280000
Alfa Romeo 8C ___ 230000
Lamborghini LP560-4 ___ 200000 25000 GBP
Aston Martin DB9 ___ 190000
Tesla Roadster ___ 130000
Maserati Quattroporte ___ 120000
Porsche GT3 (997) ___ 105000
VW Phaeton ___ 94000 10000 GBP
Nissan GTR (R35) ___ 80000
Noble M12 ___ 76000
Corvette (C6) 74000 40000 GBP
Hummer H2 ___ 63000 28360 EUR
TVR Tuscan S ___ 61000
Citroen C6 ___ 46000
BMW 3 Series (E90-E92) ___ 40000
Cadillac CTS (5th Generation) ___ 39000 50000 GBP
Alfa Romeo 159 ___ 38000
Lotus Elise (Series 2) ___ 38000
Chrysler 300 ___ 29000
VW Golf Gti (MkV) ___ 26000
Toyota Prius (2nd Generation) ___ 23000
Honda FCX Clarity ___ 21000
Mini Cooper (R53) ___ 21000
Toyot a Camry (7th Generation) ___ 21000 17000 GBP
Mazda MX-5 (3rd Generation) ___ 19000
Toyota IQ ___ 15000
Fiat Panda (100 hp) ___ 11000 30000 GBP
Tata Nano ___ 2500


EDIT: EDIT: Boredom struck, you get one by type. "Super Car" is anything with two doors and track worthy, which is why the Lotus and Veyron are in the same grouping; these can be grouped by price above. "Sedan" is anything that is daily driver friendly. "Sport Sedan" is a sedan but sporty. "SUV" is the Hummer.... Whether it's a literal sedan or super car is not the point (I didn't want to make a hundred variables for "4-door hybrid" and "2-door sports car low price," etc.); they can be compared by similar category and purpose.

Citroen C6 ___ Sedan
VW Golf Gti (MkV)___ Sedan
Toyota Prius (2nd Generation)___ Sedan
Honda FCX Clarity___ Sedan
Mini Cooper (R53)___ Sedan
Toyota Camery (7th Generation)___ Sedan
Toyota IQ___ Sedan
Fiat Panda (100 hp)___ Sedan
Tata Nano ___Sedan

Maserati Quattroporte ___Sport Sedan
VW Phaeton___ Sport Sedan
BMW 3 Series (E90-E92)___ Sport Sedan
Caddilac CTS (5th Generation) ___Sport Sedan
Chrysler 300___ Sport Sedan
Alfa Romeo 159___ Sport Sedan

Bugatti Veyron___ Super Car
Pagani Zonda F___ Super Car
Lamborghini Murcialago ___Super Car
Ferrari 430 Scuderia ___Super Car
Alfa Romeo 8C ___Super Car
Lambroghini LP560-4___ Super Car
Aston Martin DB9 ___Super Car
Tesla Roadster ___Super Car
Porsche GT3 (997) ___Super Car
Nissan GTR (R35) ___Super Car
Noble M12 ___Super Car
Corvette (C6) ___Super Car
TVR Tuscan S___ Super Car
Lotus Elise (Series 2)___ Super Car
Mazda MX-5 (3rd Generation) ___Super Car

Hummer H2___ SUV

[IBrake4Rainbows]

What does it share? Headlights? Lots of manufacturers (lamborghini for one)are sharing bits and pieces, people don't say they're not cars because of that. Do you respect the Koenigsegg that much less for using a ford based engine? If the headlights work well, why not use them? They'd be cheaper and easier to replace when they burn out.

The Bits you touch in a Koenigsegg - and the bits you view - are at least bespoke.

And it doesn't look like a kit car.


I understand the skepticism of the design, but you're assuming that because it's a small american manufacturer it's going to need more maintinance and upkeep. I've never heard that to be true, though, and don't want to jump to conclusions just because the company is what it is.


It's not a stretch to imagine a vehicle that has not had the millions of dollars spent on it's R&D as a Veyron to have a few issues with durability, is it?


I've actually read a couple of tests that said the Veyron in top speed mode (the whole point of the car) didn't track very well, and that little cross breezes induced a bit of drifting. Never heard anything similar about the SSC. Despite the fact that everyone assumes that any body which reaches those speeds without a wing rising out of the back will generate lift (such as they vetyron which was not originally designed for those speeds) the SSC does generate downforce and actually has a phenominal suspension setup which allows it to handle very well. Which is part of my problem with assumptions in such matters.


And I've seen a few tests which says the Veyron is in fact ridiculously calm at maximum attack - or at least relatively to the manic nature of a McLaren F1 (or SSC).

It's a fairly subjective thing to argue either way.


I don't see how a Veyron would be easier to drive around town than the SSC. There's not a ton of size difference, and they both have similar clearance, so if you're willing to drive a veyron somewhere, why would the SSC pose a problem? It also comes with a nav system, if you require that sort of thing in your super car.


I've seen dimensions of a Veyron, are there some Dimension comparisons available for the SSC to compare?

Is the suspension on the SSC adjustable?


Since the SSC is not being sold as a kit car, it does have to meet the same crash saftey and emissions standards as any other car on the road in the US.

But does it? aren't there limitations to that in terms of what is classed as a safe vehicle? Are computer simulations acceptable for a small scale operation such as this?


The Veyron is a remarkable achievment. But the SSC does everything the Veyron can do, albiet with less flash, for a fraction of the price.

I don't think it matches the prestige, at all.

Regardless of the price, the impression left is that your buying the Skoda instead of purchasing the Audi, no pun intended.


Which makes it just as, if not more, remarkable. The only problems I see with the SSC come down to snob appeal, which it doesn't have. I'm not sure that any car built in the US will have that appeal, to be honest. The Saleen S7 had similar problems, bit it too is a very remarkable super car.


With some remarkable issues - as all supercars of it's type have. That extra 10% that you pay the extra $400,000 for might just be worthwhile.


I'm not saying the SSC is my favorite supercar, but it does ddeserve more respect than it gets. And certainly the Veyron is not the greatest supercar ever or even of the decade just because it's more useable than an racecar (just about everything is) and has the second highest top speed.

The SSC is a capable car, no doubt.

But I rate the Veyron over it simply because it's a more capable car over most fields of comparison. While the SSC is quicker, the Veyron does it with greater distinction.

Snobbery? maybe, but if you can't be a snob when you pay $1 million for a car, when can you?

[Ferrer]

There is no question the Bugatti is impressive, but why on earth would this poll also include the pedestrian Panda?
Why not? A worthy car is a worth car, regardless of pricetag or purpose.

And if this audience is so clueless of the criteria (other than thinking the "coolest" car should prevail) well, there's a microcosm psychographic portrait of UCP users. Not a bad thing, just perhaps dissappointing for some of us. If it really is just another popularity contest, no prelim polling was needed.
That's indeed a problem. But as you point out, more a problem of the voters than the groupings itselves.

EDIT And please LT, edit your post include the 159 as a sports saloon.

[LTSmash]

EDIT And please LT, edit your post include the 159 as a sports saloon.

Done.

[Ferrer]

Thanks. :)

[henk4]

There is no question the Bugatti is impressive, but why on earth would this poll also include the pedestrian Panda?


Perhaps because the pedestrian 100 HP is sort of what the first mini cooper was...

[wwgkd]

The Bits you touch in a Koenigsegg - and the bits you view - are at least bespoke.

And it doesn't look like a kit car.


I can understand that. So does it bother you when somewhat lesser cars (lambo, audi, etc.) share bits, like the nav system? I personally care more about how a part works than where it comes from, so the fact the Zonda, Koenigsegg, and even the F1 used borrowed parts doesn't bother me.

I won't argue the looks of the SSC, though. It's really not that impressive styling wise. However the Veyron may look impressive, I think it's butt fugly. It's impressive in the same way that a working bulldog is.



It's not a stretch to imagine a vehicle that has not had the millions of dollars spent on it's R&D as a Veyron to have a few issues with durability, is it?

And I've seen a few tests which says the Veyron is in fact ridiculously calm at maximum attack - or at least relatively to the manic nature of a McLaren F1 (or SSC).

It's a fairly subjective thing to argue either way.


You could imagine that. But the same thing could be said of a car making 1,000hp with a complex 16 cylinder engine, 4 turbos and 11 radiators. Quite a few people have made ridiculous power out of the Corvette engines, so I'm not so inclined to question it's reliability unless I hear something to the contrary, same as with the veyron.

I've only seen top speed runs at Ehra-Lessein where everyone comented on how stable it was. When people made high speed runs in "top speed mode" other places was where I saw the comments about tracking. Thus I mentioned wind and a less than perfect track (for instance NASCAR ovals are often almost as rough as streets.)



I've seen dimensions of a Veyron, are there some Dimension comparisons available for the SSC to compare?

Is the suspension on the SSC adjustable?


Dimensions for the SSC (which also manages to weigh 1,400lbs less.)
Length 4,475.5 millimetres (176.20 in)
Width 2,095.5 millimetres (82.50 in)
Height 1,092.2 millimetres (43.00 in)

So .5 inches longer, 3.8 inches wider, and 2.6 inches shorter in height than the veyron. Not a huge difference aside from weight.

Are you reffering to adjustable shocks? I haven't heard but I imagine you could order it with anything you wanted.



But does it? aren't there limitations to that in terms of what is classed as a safe vehicle? Are computer simulations acceptable for a small scale operation such as this?


No, it's the same testing as anything else sold as a new (non-kit) vehicle. And we do have annoyingly strict crash and emissions standards.



I don't think it matches the prestige, at all.

Regardless of the price, the impression left is that your buying the Skoda instead of purchasing the Audi, no pun intended.


It doesn't. The (bought) name of Bugatti backed by VW money is always going to have more prestige than a little american company. Same goes for Koenigsegg and Pagani. They just sound more exotic and faster. But I think the ZR1 has shown that a car without a lot of prestige can still be a good car. Often on these forums I hear complaints about paying for the name, not the performance, why doesn't that apply (in part at least) here?

If I'd bought an Audi and got beat at the one thing I was trying to do well by a Skoda, I'd feel pretty damn embarassed. If I was driving the Skoda that beat the Audi, I'd feel pretty smug.



With some remarkable issues - as all supercars of it's type have. That extra 10% that you pay the extra $400,000 for might just be worthwhile.


It's not just $400,000 for 10% though. It's 4 times as much, another $1,500,000 for the image.



The SSC is a capable car, no doubt.

But I rate the Veyron over it simply because it's a more capable car over most fields of comparison. While the SSC is quicker, the Veyron does it with greater distinction.

Snobbery? maybe, but if you can't be a snob when you pay $1 million for a car, when can you?

The veyron is sold as "the fastest car in the world" on their website, by thier salesmen, and by their owners. They don't say "most prestigous car in the world," they don't say that it makes a great city car, they say fastest. They say most powerful. It's not. It's remarkable that the thing runs despite all the complexity, but it's not the one thing they claim it to be.

When can you be a snob? When you buy the actual fastest car in the world for 1/4 the price.

[Kitdy]

Veyron wins this poll, I will be setting up the finals shortly.

[Ferrer]

...

...
Also, can I point out, the Veyron was the first to do it. And that's got to count for something.

[wwgkd]

Also, can I point out, the Veyron was the first to do it. And that's got to count for something.

The Veyron came out a little earlier. The McLaren F1 was a lot earlier, and a much better super car, IMO.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I can understand that. So does it bother you when somewhat lesser cars (lambo, audi, etc.) share bits, like the nav system? I personally care more about how a part works than where it comes from, so the fact the Zonda, Koenigsegg, and even the F1 used borrowed parts doesn't bother me.

I'm a bit of a believer that if you are paying that much for a car, then you should expect at least some form of bespoke accoutremont.

I guess thats how they justify the price of the SSC though.


I won't argue the looks of the SSC, though. It's really not that impressive styling wise. However the Veyron may look impressive, I think it's butt fugly. It's impressive in the same way that a working bulldog is.

I think the Veyron has actually aged quite well, and is certainly well contained for size, if not weight.


You could imagine that. But the same thing could be said of a car making 1,000hp with a complex 16 cylinder engine, 4 turbos and 11 radiators. Quite a few people have made ridiculous power out of the Corvette engines, so I'm not so inclined to question it's reliability unless I hear something to the contrary, same as with the veyron.

4 Turbos and 11 radiators are complex in plumbing, but the W16 is fairly stable and well engineered. Thats why you pay for the development costs - so that the complexity is countered by reliability.

The SSC is a simpler package, certainly. But it's still a car that is tuned to an extreme level of usability and reliability.


I've only seen top speed runs at Ehra-Lessein where everyone comented on how stable it was. When people made high speed runs in "top speed mode" other places was where I saw the comments about tracking. Thus I mentioned wind and a less than perfect track (for instance NASCAR ovals are often almost as rough as streets.)


A NASCAR oval might not be the best place to make a high speed run.

On the other hand, a place like Nardo might be a better test for both cars. Certainly both had home field advantage.



Dimensions for the SSC (which also manages to weigh 1,400lbs less.)
Length 4,475.5 millimetres (176.20 in)
Width 2,095.5 millimetres (82.50 in)
Height 1,092.2 millimetres (43.00 in)

I guess thats what 4 turbos and 11 radiators weigh :)


So .5 inches longer, 3.8 inches wider, and 2.6 inches shorter in height than the veyron. Not a huge difference aside from weight.

Certainly smaller than I thought. Except for the width. Which raises questions about the frontal area of the car - which may restrict it's top speed. which could be countered by it's shorter height.


Are you reffering to adjustable shocks? I haven't heard but I imagine you could order it with anything you wanted.

Air Adjustible suspension in particular, but if it's orderable, or changeable on the fly, that could be good.


No, it's the same testing as anything else sold as a new (non-kit) vehicle. And we do have annoyingly strict crash and emissions standards.

So they sacrificed one for a crash test then? interesting. Do we have sales figures available that would make this worthwhile?



It doesn't. The (bought) name of Bugatti backed by VW money is always going to have more prestige than a little american company. Same goes for Koenigsegg and Pagani. They just sound more exotic and faster. But I think the ZR1 has shown that a car without a lot of prestige can still be a good car. Often on these forums I hear complaints about paying for the name, not the performance, why doesn't that apply (in part at least) here?


Because we're not talking about the lower echelons where good value is a considered aspect of the equation. We're talking about the highest ranges of automotive excess and prestige. There is nothing worse for the owner of these cars to have a car sneered upon as a lower rent version, when you can buy the real thing.

thats not to say the SSC is not the real thing - it plainly has the numbers. But the impression is there.



If I'd bought an Audi and got beat at the one thing I was trying to do well by a Skoda, I'd feel pretty damn embarassed. If I was driving the Skoda that beat the Audi, I'd feel pretty smug.

But what gets the girl?

Hey baby, I drive the lesser brand but i'm more capable?

And the Veyron might have been built to be the fastest, but it was also to be the most technological, the most expensive, the best hypercar ever.

And it's only not the fastest.


It's not just $400,000 for 10% though. It's 4 times as much, another $1,500,000 for the image.

What money when you've got $1,500,000 to spend on a car?


The veyron is sold as "the fastest car in the world" on their website, by thier salesmen, and by their owners. They don't say "most prestigous car in the world," they don't say that it makes a great city car, they say fastest. They say most powerful. It's not. It's remarkable that the thing runs despite all the complexity, but it's not the one thing they claim it to be.


So you've spoken to a dealer and understand their sales strategy?

It's claimed to be many things - the argument it's been built to be just one is fairly ridiculous.


When can you be a snob? When you buy the actual fastest car in the world for 1/4 the price.

Because it's not about buying the fastest car. It's about buying the best hypercar ever, with the broadest range of capability.

And the Veyron is that.

[wwgkd]

A NASCAR oval might not be the best place to make a high speed run.

On the other hand, a place like Nardo might be a better test for both cars. Certainly both had home field advantage.


That's what I would like to see. Both cars tested at the same track. Would solve many of the arguments. I think you'd have to get a privately owned car, though, as I doubt Bugatti would allow one of the press fleet cars to be tested like that. They've been pretty picky in the past about such comparisons.



I guess thats what 4 turbos and 11 radiators weigh :)


haha



Certainly smaller than I thought. Except for the width. Which raises questions about the frontal area of the car - which may restrict it's top speed. which could be countered by it's shorter height.


For some reason people assume that because it's american it's overweight, enormous and can't turn... ;)

To be honest the first time I saw a Veyron I was surprised at the size. I had assumed from the weight that it would be roughly the size of a pickup.



So they sacrificed one for a crash test then? interesting. Do we have sales figures available that would make this worthwhile?


Not a clue on sales figures. I do know that there's one being driven around the Tri Cities area by a guy who owns a vineyard in the Yakima wine country, but that's the only one I know of personally.



But what gets the girl?

Hey baby, I drive the lesser brand but i'm more capable?


It's been my experience that women who get into a car because it's the fastest quickly get out when it gets passed. That's why picking up women in a Rolls has it's advantages. Clearly shows money, but no one expects you to be fast, or to have to race to show it.



And the Veyron might have been built to be the fastest, but it was also to be the most technological, the most expensive, the best hypercar ever.

And it's only not the fastest.


It is clearly the most expensive and most technological, but expense for the sake of expense and technology for the sake of technology are both fails in my book. And best is always subjective.



So you've spoken to a dealer and understand their sales strategy?

It's claimed to be many things - the argument it's been built to be just one is fairly ridiculous.

Because it's not about buying the fastest car. It's about buying the best hypercar ever, with the broadest range of capability.

And the Veyron is that.

If I wanted the broadest range of capability I wouldn't go for one of these cars in the running for the top speed race. I would go for more downforce, with a top speed nearer 200mph (which is quite hard to reach on most tracks anyways) and fewer compromises to comfort and handling in the pursuit of top speed.

It all depends on priorities and personal preferences. The veyron completely wiffs on mine, but it clearly catches yours. Since the veyron has won this poll and will undoubtedly win the final, I will concede. :)

[IBrake4Rainbows]

That's what I would like to see. Both cars tested at the same track. Would solve many of the arguments. I think you'd have to get a privately owned car, though, as I doubt Bugatti would allow one of the press fleet cars to be tested like that. They've been pretty picky in the past about such comparisons.

As would any manufacturer be picky about dishing out a million dollar car to be shown up by an upstart.

They probably view it as a tuner car and as an unfit comparo.


For some reason people assume that because it's american it's overweight, enormous and can't turn... ;)

There are cars that ride and handle from the US. I've even seen one with my own eyes.



To be honest the first time I saw a Veyron I was surprised at the size. I had assumed from the weight that it would be roughly the size of a pickup.


Are we talking Hilux or F-350?


Not a clue on sales figures. I do know that there's one being driven around the Tri Cities area by a guy who owns a vineyard in the Yakima wine country, but that's the only one I know of personally.

I'd be interested to see them, actually.


It's been my experience that women who get into a car because it's the fastest quickly get out when it gets passed. That's why picking up women in a Rolls has it's advantages. Clearly shows money, but no one expects you to be fast, or to have to race to show it.

But by that logic when the Rolls is passed by the suitably equipped Maybach the Girl gets out.

Those sorts of girls you don't want to impress anyway - they only want your money :p


It is clearly the most expensive and most technological, but expense for the sake of expense and technology for the sake of technology are both fails in my book. And best is always subjective.

Quite. But thats the Piech way, It must be the "best" at all costs.

And must be the most complicated way of doing it.



If I wanted the broadest range of capability I wouldn't go for one of these cars in the running for the top speed race. I would go for more downforce, with a top speed nearer 200mph (which is quite hard to reach on most tracks anyways) and fewer compromises to comfort and handling in the pursuit of top speed.

I concur - there are others that do some of the compromises better.

But none crack 252mp/h.


It all depends on priorities and personal preferences. The veyron completely wiffs on mine, but it clearly catches yours. Since the veyron has won this poll and will undoubtedly win the final, I will concede. :)

I don't think it's undoubted. The GT-R makes a strong case as a better all rounder.

I just think the Veyron is by far the car of the decade. Never let the facts get in the way of a quick supercar :D

[wwgkd]

They probably view it as a tuner car and as an unfit comparo.


Yes, but they view everything as an unfit comparo. Read an article recently that compared it to an F1 and they were still reluctant to let it be tested. If an F1 isn't suitable company then nothing is. Probably something to do with Top Gear shennanigans.

What I don't get is why RUF gets more respect as a manufacturer than SSC, despite the fact that they're quite obviously tuners.



Are we talking Hilux or F-350?


Well it weighs more than a, all steel base F-150 so that's roughly what I was picturing. Just lower.



I'd be interested to see them, actually.


Me too. If you can find them, go ahead and post them.



But by that logic when the Rolls is passed by the suitably equipped Maybach the Girl gets out.

Those sorts of girls you don't want to impress anyway - they only want your money :p


Well, the Rolls isn't sold as being fast, just expensive and luxurious.

When you look like me, you can't be too picky. ;) Ever seen Office Space?
"What would you do with a million dollars?"
"Two chicks at once."
"Not all women are attracted to money, you know."
"The kind of women that would double up on me are."



Quite. But thats the Piech way, It must be the "best" at all costs.

And must be the most complicated way of doing it.


A fine french way of doing it. If a cheap little camera will do, design an incredibly expensive moving nose for your plane instead. If a wooden stick is the best you can get, design a carbo-titanium stick that costs $30,000 and does the same job. Some call it good engineering, my engineering teachers always called it stoopid.



I concur - there are others that do some of the compromises better.

But none crack 252mp/h.


Which is in itself a compromise. I'm still kind of meh on the whole concept of a top speed that can only be reached on one specially made track in the entire world. If you could reach 252 at say, Sebring, then I'd be much more into it.



I don't think it's undoubted. The GT-R makes a strong case as a better all rounder.

I just think the Veyron is by far the car of the decade. Never let the facts get in the way of a quick supercar :D

Hehe. And that's what it comes down to.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Yes, but they view everything as an unfit comparo. Read an article recently that compared it to an F1 and they were still reluctant to let it be tested. If an F1 isn't suitable company then nothing is. Probably something to do with Top Gear shennanigans.

That might be a good point - They're just sick of lending them out and getting them back with wrecked tyres and a bruised ego :p


What I don't get is why RUF gets more respect as a manufacturer than SSC, despite the fact that they're quite obviously tuners.



Who have been making cars for nearly 30 years.

I agree, but I've never actually seen an RUF test. Bear in mind it may also be that a lot of the magazines who perpetuate the myth of the SSC being lesser are based in europe and do not have ready access to the car.


Well it weighs more than a, all steel base F-150 so that's roughly what I was picturing. Just lower.


Oh well, fair enough.

I saw a squashed Audi TT in profile.


Me too. If you can find them, go ahead and post them.


Will Do.


Well, the Rolls isn't sold as being fast, just expensive and luxurious.

Luxury is an excess of all things. Speed inclusive.


When you look like me, you can't be too picky. ;) Ever seen Office Space?
"What would you do with a million dollars?"
"Two chicks at once."
"Not all women are attracted to money, you know."
"The kind of women that would double up on me are."

Gold Diggers. Like hookers, but Smarter.


A fine french way of doing it. If a cheap little camera will do, design an incredibly expensive moving nose for your plane instead. If a wooden stick is the best you can get, design a carbo-titanium stick that costs $30,000 and does the same job. Some call it good engineering, my engineering teachers always called it stoopid.

Isn't there some lovely story about how NASA spent millions of dollars inventing a pen that doesn't leak in space, and the Russians used a Pencil instead?


Which is in itself a compromise. I'm still kind of meh on the whole concept of a top speed that can only be reached on one specially made track in the entire world. If you could reach 252 at say, Sebring, then I'd be much more into it.

If that sort of speed was accessible to the general public, god help us all.


Hehe. And that's what it comes down to.

Facts are boring. Feelings are interesting.

At least that what girls keep telling me.

[wwgkd]

Gold Diggers. Like hookers, but Smarter.


My grandpa always said "There's two kinds of women. The kind you pay for and the kind you don't. The kind you pay for is cheaper."



Isn't there some lovely story about how NASA spent millions of dollars inventing a pen that doesn't leak in space, and the Russians used a Pencil instead?


Well, yes. That would be another of the examples that our professors use. However, as one kid pointed out the russians aren't selling ridiculously expensive "Space pencils" and a lot of companies here are making money off of "Space pens." So I suppose that one did even out somewhat.



Facts are boring. Feelings are interesting.

At least that what girls keep telling me.

This is why engineers need charts to understand women.