As the Top Gear's pics and some leaks on instagram the chiron looks weird (the rear is bad) and it is over-expensive (not suprised), so i just wanted to hear your toughts.
From the Top gear site; "Whereas the Veyron Super Sport produced a piffling 1183bhp and 1106lb ft of torque, the Chiron develops 1479bhp and 1180lb ft. Oh, and at a constant top speed the Veyron could drain its 100-litre fuel tank in 12 minutes, the Chiron can do it in 9."
İf we think wisely the vision gt was a gt3 modified chiron. And the fake chiron photoshops that rendered from vision gt actually look like the actual chiron.
i think its nice but its definetly different than the Veyron. i need to get used to it. the interior is great tho
If we went with hybrid we would have added additional weight. We would have experienced package constraints, too, because this car doesn’t have any areas where you can put additional stuff, so the styling would need to change,” Wolfgang Durheimer, Bugatti’s CEO explained. “We will dramatically raise the bar in terms of top speed, we will dramatically increase the power by 25 per cent, the aerodynamics are better, the road holding is better. We didn’t need a hybrid.” Whereas the Veyron Super Sport produced a piffling 1183bhp and 1106lb ft of torque, the Chiron develops 1479bhp and 1180lb ft. Oh, and at a constant top speed the Veyron could drain its 100-litre fuel tank in 12 minutes, the Chiron can do it in 9. Then there’s the top speed, which Bugatti has limited to 261mph - a token 3mph more than the Veyron Super Sport. Clearly this is a game of very senior numbers, so here’s some more. It will accelerate from 0-62mph in less than 2.5 seconds, 0-124mph in less than 6.5 and 0-186mph in under 13.6. Take a moment to let that last one sink in. That’s 2.9 seconds faster than a P1 and a second quicker than the Veyron Super Sport, bearing in mind that at 186mph a second equals a lot of fresh air - 83m of it to be precise. Then there’s the top speed, which Bugatti has limited to 261mph - a token 3mph more than the Veyron Super Sport. The specially-developed, wider Michelins can take more, Bugatti says, and will be used for a Chiron’s record-setting attempt, which is expected to surpass 270mph, but the limiter is a “safety measure for road-travel”. Euro NCAP will be delighted. Key to the engine’s swollen power reserves are four larger turbos that work in tandem to deliver maximum torque from 2000 to 6000rpm – that’s across 70 per cent of the engine’s full operating range. The two-stage system only calls on two turbos up to 3800rpm, to improve throttle response, and all four beyond that. A new titanium exhaust system helps out by reducing back pressure compared to the Veyron and houses two enormous catalytic converters – each six times the size of one you’ll find in a Mondeo. There are six exit pipes in total – four sticking out the back and two pointing downwards to create a blown diffuser – a downforce-boosting technology proven by, then subsequently banned in F1. Top gear. ↑ --- Post updated --- According to specs car looks decent
jesus christ what a cow. 4400 pounds? this is an audi luxery car with a bigger price tag. if you would take this over an agera R, your probably a bitch who wont ever go above 130 anyway. koenigsegg: for people with money AND an appreciation for bleeding edge engineering.
Well, it looks better than than the Veyron forr sure, but other than that it's pretty much the same car. If I wanted a 2.2 ton supercar with extreme luxury I'd take the Brabus Rocket 900, which has space for 4, is super-luxurious, costs "only" half a million, looks even better and actually has like 45% more torque for way less fuel drain. Btw, the Rocket 900 is RWD, so I can imagine it can do mean drifts/powerslides if you can control it.
I like it, nice to see a hypercar with lots of weight and power, and the interior looks amazing. I prefer the front of the veyron though.
lol. im salty about not owning an Agera R. that is a drivers supercar. the chiron could not be easier to hate on. I'd rather drive the one in my garage even if it has a third of the power.
Looks okay for a supercar. In true Bugatti fashion it's heavy, hilariously overpowered and comes with an anus destroying top speed while still delivering some refinement and luxury.
I don't like it all that much; it's better than the Veyron, though. I'm rather dissappointed that the top speed isn't higher (Jalopnik said it is limited to 261 mph). That speed was already beaten by the Veyron SS. However, I guess Bugatti could come out with a Chiron SS that gets around 280 mph. [EDIT] That was 261 in road mode. When it's not limited, it should reach a much higher speed. I should have read that better, sorry. I'd take any of the newer Koenigseggs instead. They are nearly as fast, if not faster (the One:1 has an estimated top speed of 278 mph. Koenigsegg has never been wrong in their claims in the past, so I have no reason to doubt them now), and handle much better. Nevertheless, both the Veyron and Chiron are great feats of engineering. Of course they have plenty of annoying fanboys, but most self-proclaimed 'car guys' go too far the opposite way, and say that it's a piece of junk.
The Veyron was easy to drive for what it was. I just hope the Chiron is like that. --- Post updated --- Well, the Veyron was 4740 pounds if I remember correctly. And the Veyron/Chiron and Agera are very different. The Bugattis give you a car that pulls speeding tickets out of thin air, looks ok IMO and isn't a pickle to drive. The Agera is a very expensive road-legal track weapon with some luxury and a lot of power. Fun, better round a track in the hands of a driving god, but not easy to control.
Personally i'm not a fan of hyper cars, i can't find the point of a car that can do 300mph when the speed limit is more than half of that. they don't have that much use other than on a track or on some sort of stage,but as a car you can live with they are probably impractical but then that's why they are called super cars and I understand that some people like them.
