From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I'll have to check references, but I believe there were examples of bugatti type numbers that referred to engines, not chassis and drivetrain.


I had not heard of Bugatti referred to as a German company before. Molsheim was part of France during all years of production, and Ettore demonstrated his allegiances by twice escaping from the area ahead of German forces. Do you have a source for this German tie? --SFoskett 14:10, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

If it's because of the country racing colours, they were not set in stone in the early days of motor racing. So it's quite possible to have french Bugattis running in white, at no time was Ettore Bugatti based in Germany. --Pc13 14:45, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I also read that Ettore sided with the allies in both wars. However, the facory was founded before WW I. Alsace was part of Germany from the Franco-Prussion War to World War I. So Bugattis were originally German and built by German workers. One can speculate that he might have chosen Germany because it was so technically advanced, though he must have greatly regretted it later. I gave the book back to my brother, but here is a link that says the Molsheim factory was founded in 1909. "Molsheim" even sounds German, as Alsace is a natively German speaking area. Maybe, besides nationalistic reasons to forget, there might not be any cars surviving from the German period. --David R. Ingham 22:04, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes, there are surviving early cars. I found a reference on the official Bugatti site to the fact that the factory was considered to be in Germany in 1910. I didn't know this, but I feel that the matter is settled and that you are correct. --SFoskett 13:46, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Buggati was a German brand and Mr. Ettore Bugatti had worked at Deutz in Cologne

It is funny, because I've heard people argue the cars are French, Italian, and German. Maybe Italian is the most fair considering the man was Italian and just happened to setup his manufacturing operation in Molsheim, whose ever flag it was under before and whoever it is under now, means little actually. Will the Germans lay claim to Bugatti because they simply ruled that town? Will the French lay claim to Bugatti because they ended up with the city after the War? I guess we'd have to ask Bugatti what he felt the "nationality" of his cars were, but somehow I think he'd care less than the French and Germans on here apparently do. :) 07:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I REALLY, REALLY think it should say that bugatti is an Italian car manufacturer based in france.. Lets say Italy is conquered and ruled by france for 12 years, and after that italy wins its independence, but Milan for example is considered part of france now.. no matter what the map or french say, milan will still be an italian city, its people are italian, they will live like italians, act like italians, eat like italians and so on.. Bugatti is ITALIAN!

If it was Italian they would have been red and not blue. it's like saying chevrolet is a french car. Gzuckier 15:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Milan is a part of france??? what are you saying????!

German first, then French, now later Italian, now French again[edit]

Bugatti was German at first, then in its days of glory in the Grand Prix races between the world wars, it was French, because Alsace where the factory was located was given over from Germany to France following the First World War, the marque did not survive the Second World War, but when it was revived decades later, the new plant was built in Italy. Therefor, now Bugatti is an Italian car, but when displaying lists of Grand Prix Motor Racing of the 1930s and 1920s, it ought to be represented by a French flag. John Anderson 21:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

the "new" plant in Italy was new 20 years ago. Nearly 10 years ago Bugatti was bought by Volkswagen (German), they built their new (and current) prodution plant in Molsheim (French). So whatever Bugatti is, it is not Italian (anymore).-- 23:07, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
OK then, anyway, it was not Italian in the 1920's and 1930's. I thought they still operated the plant in Italy too, but obviously I was wrong. John Anderson 01:57, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

My great-uncle worked for Buggati. Based on the conversations I had with my grandmother (who immigrated from Alsace-Lorraine prior to WWII), she (and therefore her family members) spoke German and French but always considered themselves French; in addition, the patents that I am aware of that were issued to Ettore Bugatti were issued in France. He most certainly would NOT have considered the marque to be a German one at any time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lherrou (talkcontribs) 13:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I dunno why there is such a ridiculous resistance to accuracy. It is a FACT that the Automobile was founded in a place that was part of Germany. Maybe it is desputable to say "German automobile" but that doesn't mean the birthplace country's name should be banned from the intro - doing that is beyond ridiculous and absurd! Loginnigol (talk) 08:59, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Advanced materials in Bugatti[edit]

Due to some research after magnesium I found the following about Bugatti. Maybe it is interesting for this article? I didn't know where to insert this in this article, so I put it here, hoping someone else likes to insert it in an "advanced materials" section. Magnesium was used in vehicles since 1921. Often it was found as mass production magnesium parts in the engine part, but sometimes also elsewhere. "Even in the car body extruded u- and angle profiles were often used to build frames which were then covered with Mg sheets. Examples are German bus trailers and a prototype of Bugatti (Type 57C Atlantic) both build in 1928". (citation of Automotive Applications of Magnesium and its Alloys, by C. Blawert, N. Hort, K.U. Kainer, in Trans. Indian Inst. Met., vol 57, no. 4, august 2004, pp. 397-408. Since using magnesium for car body applications receives nowadays a lot of interest, among others due to CAFE-regulations, it might be interesting that Bugatti did something like it already in the late 20s. Bye, SietskeEN 10:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

A fast marque?[edit]

Surely if anything they should be a marque associated with fast cars, unless we are trying to say the bugatti brand is in some way speedy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 09:38, August 20, 2007 (UTC)

Project Lydia[edit]

Project Lydia was scrapped a long time ago and will not be produced. Can I delete this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Failed... continued into 1960s[edit]

The intro doesn't make sense or is at least confusing. If the brand failed with the onset of WWII it can't have struggled into the 1960s. Can someone fix this? Prego. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:47, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Bad writing[edit]

This is the lede for your second paragraph:

"The original company is legendary for producing some of the most exclusive cars in the world as well as some of the fastest."

Exactly what is an exclusive car? Perhaps a car that only permits certain people to drive it. There are other problems with this sentence, but they are too convoluted to diagram here. I suggest a re-write like this: "The original Bugatti company was legendary for producing some of the most expensive and powerful cars in the world." You have researched the year the company was founded. Use it to better effect, like this: "From 1909 to 1963, the legendary Bugatti company produced some of the most expensive and powerful cars in the world."

Cars are not fast or slow, they can't move without human control. Races are fast. Timed performances are fast, but a racing car is described in terms of its engine power, and then indications can be given about its potential speed. Writing about how fast a car is makes this article read like it was written by a child.

The entire article needs re-written, but please consider starting here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

I think you make a good point. You're always welcome to fix writing that needs tweaking. I suspect exclusive also refers to a limited production of stylish cars. There are other companies that make expensive and powerful cars. Bugatti is known for its niche of exclusive cars, available only to those with the money and desire from something unusual. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

More Bad Writing[edit]

"Possibly the greatest achievement to be seen from Bugatti" WOOOOOOW A BLUE ONE! This needs to be removed or rewritten. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

merging proposal of Bugatti articles[edit]

Im not sure if its a good idea to merge these articles, because they have only a common name. We should check how other similar cases have been made here, any similar reborn car brands? --Typ932 T·C 07:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Maybach has only has one article. Ch Th Jo (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that the articles should not be merged as they describe two entirely different entities. However, I think that all the detail relating to the Volkswagen era should be removed from this article, as it overlaps with the other article, and the current Bugatti has nothing to do the the originally founded company.Myredroom (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should merge the articles because it's too confusing like this. It will be easier to browse. Everything will be easier if the articles are merged. Thumbs up from me (Wiki id2 (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC))
I disagree. Two completely different companies, one merely purchased, over fifty years after the original icon was created, the right to call the Veyron a Bugatti, the only thing the two companies share is the word Bugatti. It don't even see it as remotely confusing, the correctly written hatnote at the top of the page should make it perfectly clear which is which. --Falcadore (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - having a different article for the historic Bugatti and for the current French subsidiary of Volkswagen AG seems a good idea to me. I don't think it is confusing. Hektor (talk) 10:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
Why do you support Bugatti Automobili SpA as a part of the current article but feel Bugatti SAS should be excluded? If you write a third article for Bugatti Automobili SpA, shouldn't you/we also author a bunch of separate articles for the ownership under Hispano-Suiza, Snemca and Messier? Ch Th Jo (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
I dont see it as good idea, for the reasons told above, its like giving old merit to totally new company, which only uses Bugatti name to gain something. --Typ932 T·C 12:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
Support Merger - Whatever happens, we need to apply the logic fully, not partially as we have in the discussion so far. There is a third entity, Bugatti_Automobili_SpA which is mentioned in this article. Currently the term 'Bugatti_Automobili_SpA' is a re-direct to this article. Why does Bugatti Automobili SpA not have it's own article? Additionally, If you don't support merging because of the current ownership, then there should be separate articles for each owner throughout history, giving us SIX articles total. That's not wrong or bad - it is a possible solution - but arguing in favor of one article about Bugatti and Bugatti Automobili SpA (and the other owners) but having a second article solely about Bugatti SAS is kind of kooky. If you don't support merger because VW owns the current incarnation of the company, then shouldn't all the information about ownership by Hispano-Suiza, Snemca and Messier also be purged from this article? Maybach, like Bugatti, ceased to be, was later revived and has only one article in Wikipedia. I don't think three or six separate articles about the Bugatti brand is very friendly to readers who know nothing or very little and want to learn more. I'd like it to be as easy as possible to learn about any subject in Wikipedia, including the whole history of Bugatti, including all three incarnations that manufactured cars and the other owners that didn't manufacture Bugatti cars and I don't think creating -six- articles, one for each owner, supports ease of use; in my opinion, if the article is titled simply "Bugatti" then it really needs to be a comprehensive overview of the entire -brand- including all ownership eras - Bugatti, Hispano-Suiza, Snemca, Messier, SpA and SAS. (Another way to look at it - There's already a large amount of information about SAS and the Veyron in this article, so we aren't really "merging" the articles, we'd just be expanding the existing SAS section in this article, then eliminating the SAS article, making it a re-direct to Bugatti.) Ch Th Jo (talk) 06:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
"Why does Bugatti Automobili SpA not have it's own article?" because nobody has made such article, Im really against the merge, because these are really different cars, not comparable for instance Jaguar which has been made continously only ownership has changed, Bugatti is just brand that was bought afterwards. --Typ932 T·C 15:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

UMMM didn't Bugatti make Aero-engines and um Aircraft????????????????[edit]

Yes of course they did, the mere fact that his aircraft and engines were just as iconic as his cars counts for nothing of course.!!!!!!!!!!!! When will you car types open your eyes?????????????????Petebutt (talk) 03:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Bugatti made only a handful of aero engines and they weren't a success. The U-16 is notable as being an unusal layout, and the others are notable as Bugatti products. Otherwise they're just yet more engines at a time when every engineering manufacturer seemed to be having a go at them (three engine makers on my street alone!).
AFAIK, Bugatti never completed an aircraft. The 100P was built as a prototype, but never flown, this was either due to the WW2 occupation (although the Germans adopted French tanks and aircraft engines readily enough, they largely ignored the aircraft), or else it was due to the aerodynamics and structure of the thing having been worked out on aesthetic grounds rather than theory and no-one was fool enough to try it...
There is a very interesting article waiting on the construction techniques of balsa-filled plywood monocoques for aircraft: the de Havilland Mosquito, the German Moskito, the 100P and the post war jet the de Havilland Vampire. I've even heard that technology from Louis Vuitton on how to make trunks for lightweight luggage had an influence in this, with Free French ex-pats during WW2, that would certainly involve the 100P.
As always, the answer here is WP:SOFIXIT. Coverage is allocated on the basis of individual editors bothering to create articles. If you think it's worth doing and you're in a position to do it (skill, references, time) then please do so and I look forward to reading it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
Well, a mention of the 100P had already been added to the article. I added a bit on the engines, and paragraphed it all. Certainly Bugatti's importance for the history of aviation is limited, but it might be less limited than we realise today. I hope to get more info on Mr. De Longe who seems to be a crucial link between Maestro Ettore and the world of aviation. Oh and also: the 100P was NOT designed to aestetic criteria, it was designed to be fast, its prime goals was to beat the Germans in an air race. Then again, aviators always say that "if it looks OK, it will fly OK" ... Jan olieslagers (talk) 22:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Justin Roeder?[edit]

Founder Justin Roeder was born in Milan, Italy, and the automobile company that bears his name was founded in 1909.

This "Justin Roeder" is mentioned in many previous versions of this page, but I can see no other references on the web to anyone of this name who has anything to do with Bugatti. Also, surely, it is Ettore Bugatti's name that the automobile company bears?

I would be bold and change it to Ettore Bugatti, but the history of edits that keep the Justin Roeder name in the article make me wonder if I am missing something. Vandalism, or something else?. Traced it back to an edit on 2010-02-12 and it does appear to be vandalism - changing it back to Ettore Bugatti. --nonky 21:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nonky (talkcontribs)

Merger into Bugatti Automobiles[edit]

I believe that the article Bugatti should be merged into Bugatti Automobiles. I do believe that Bugatti should have a redirect to Bugatti Automobiles founding in 1909 and then add the information to it, it just makes it all simpler. The name Bugatti, along with Bugatti Automobili SpA should redirect to Bugatti Automobiles, as Automobiles refer to cars. (Wiki id2)

I Agree Dgn1234 (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I am also in favor of merging both articles, i.e. Bugatti into Bugatti Automobiles. After all, 'Bugatti Automobiles SAS' owns the copyright of all kinds of intellectual properties regarding the old Bugattis, including logos, brand name, historical model names, history etc.

Like it or not, it is not our job in WP neither to make a statement over the fate of an historical brand such as Bugatti, nor to judge on the fact that the brand is now owned by the Volkswagen Group, as you can easily make it clear in their own website , they actually own the rights for the Bugaatti's more than 100 years of history. ( (talk) 10:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC))

I think that the article is fine as it is; the major period of Bugatti car production was indeed the early (mostly) pre-war years; a large variety of vehicles were produced over a long period. The two later iterations of Bugatti's car-making history are adequately introduced at the end, these two later episodes were very, very different from the first...essentially producing only one, very expensive 'supercar'. Hence I think that it is appropriate to keep the articles separate. Jjcarder (talk) 10:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I think as Bugatti (current) owns the rights to the old production the articals should be merged. (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

It should be merged, so it isn't confusing. Wikicars, also has evreything on Bugatti. -- (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Should not be merged, its fine now -->Typ932 T·C 12:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I dont agree, they are two different companies, eventhough the current Bugatti owns all the rights of the former. I understand the possibility of confusion since they both bare the same names. I think adding "SAS" to the current company would be the best solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Reject Lotus is a perfect example of many companies with a name and history which is linked should not be merged. There are reasons to merge and reasons not to, the right disambigautions notes, or even a disambig page slotted in at Bugatti can easily make for a useable page. Also, Bugatti did not only make cars, they have a history of aviation manufacturing as well, which is outside the scope of either Bugatti or Bugatti Automobiles. If Bugatti was to be sent anywhere it should redirect to the disambiguation page, however that is not my preferred option. I am personally against the merger for a number of reasons, not least of which a tide of Veyron inspired WP:RECENTISM edits would quickly squash historic Bugattis story and policing a merged article would become a nightmare. Essentially, Bugatti is already a merged article. Like Wikipedia suggests if one component, in this instance Bugatti Automobiles, grows beyond the size of the original article it can be split into its own article. There is more than sufficient reason for Bugatti Automobiles to maintain its own article. If this was taken to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles‎ (where this probably should be discussed actually) I don't think you would find a lot of support. It does strike me though after attempts last year to merge everything into Bugatti failed to find popular supposrt, argueing the opposite to merge everything into Bugatti Automobiles is a bit disengenious. --Falcadore (talk) 23:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Numbers built[edit]

In a line I just deleted from the article it said that 7900 Bugattis were built 1909-1947 of which 2000 survived, but I remember having read in a book sometime (not in my possession anymore) that about 8000 were made and that 4000 survived. I can find no definitive number, so I decided to leave it out (and to move the figure of 8000 to the lead). Mark in wiki (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2014[edit]

a bugattti is the fastest car in the world suckers but you can't have it in the united states FACKERS

Semi-protected edit request on 24 March 2014[edit]

a bugattti is the fastest car in the world suckers — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


I reverted the edits that changed the sentence "Today, the name is owned by [..] Volkswagen" into "Today, its successor Bugatti Automobiles is still based in Molsheim but is now owned by [..] Volkswagen".

To me the word "successor" is ambiguous; in what way did they succeed the original company? In a legal sense, in its public image? I feel it might be more accurate to call the firm Messier-Bugatti-Dowty the successor. And according to Bugatti Automobiles the only connection with the old firm was that Volkswagen bought the right to produce cars under the trade name.

Further, I feel that "still based in Molsheim" is a confusing phrase, because it might imply that Bugattis have been built there more or less continuously from 1945 until 1989, which is incorrect. Cars with the name Bugatti have also been built in for instance Campogalliano. Mark in wiki (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)


Bugatti was the first company to design the Veyron. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:33, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 November 2016[edit]

I want to fix a grammar error. RonanHi (talk) 18:32, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done This is not the right page to request additional user rights.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ". - Arjayay (talk) 19:34, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bugatti. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)


es:wiktionary:buga says that the Spanish jargon term buga, "car", comes from Bugatti. If somebody can get reliable references (hard to find with jargon), it should be added in the article. --Error (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2017[edit]

It's written 'was French' it is still a French manufacturer, even if it belongs to the VW group as well as Bentley, they both joined the VW group in 1998. Why this error, just for French bashing? (talk) 13:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the historic car marque that was French and existed from 1909 until 1963. For the later company that is currently owned by Volkswagen, see Bugatti Automobiles. Mark in wiki (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok, Thank you, that's a bit confusing, anyway - EEC — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:32, 31 January 2017

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2017[edit]

It should says is instead of was as the company still exists as part of Volkswagen (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

This article is about the historic car marque that is defunct since 1963. Mark in wiki (talk) 16:58, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Additionally, the opening paragraph mentions Volkswagen. RudolfRed (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 March 2017[edit]

Could somebody add the Start date and age template from "| foundation = {Start date|1909}" to "| foundation = {Start date and age|1909}"? (talk) 02:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
Done DRAGON BOOSTER 08:20, 31 March 2017 (UTC)