is it true that the Koenigsegg CC can go almost 390 kph ??

[espen]

Well, given the 1.0 bar boost, I'd say the engine makes a little above half of the 655hp off boost. However since a supercharger comsumes a lot of power at higher boost setting like this, I assume even the Ks highly efficient Lusholm carger will steal somewhere in the order of 80-100hp. (Witness how a very similar IHI charger on the SL55AMG consumes 90hp at peak rpm, delivering 1.0 bar boost to a similar size engine! IHI = licence manifactured Lysholm.)

So i guess that leaves us with somewhere around 350 to 400hp. In theory, you'd have to increase boost to 1.7 to 2.0 bars in order to achieve 800hp. Imagine what this engine would do with a pair of efficient turbochargers..!

[Vansquish]

Lag like crazy probably Actually, it would be a much easier prospect to extract that kind of power with a set of Turbos I imagine. Quite a bit less in terms of driven mechanical loss.

[espen]

Yes, and you'd get rid of the whole boost vs. revs problem. A turbo will produce as much boost as there is exhaust available to do, wether its 1000rpm or 7000rpm. Most superchargers are only efficient at mid to high rpm, which means boost will continue to grow through the revs and peak at max engine revs. At lower revs boost will be weaker. Which is why supercharged engines give you not the cliched massive low down urge, but in stead a strong mid range (peak torque often in the 4000-4500 area on a 7000 redline due to the exponential increase of boost) and power that keeps building to a late peak.

Turbos on the other hand usually produce astounding levels of torque at low revs, since if theres exhaust there will be boost. Ths will give you a strong bottom end, a massive mid and often, a less inspiring top since boost usually willl be falling. Sizing a turbo is a science, and by sacrificing small size for top end, you could take power to another level of course.

Having had and workd on several turbo and supercharged cars, one of which even having gone from one charger (G60) to another (Lysholm) and then turbo, I'd say for the same peak boost, a turbo car would easily outrun the Lysholm car, and the G60 would'nt even see which way it went. Turbos rule, on a properly sized turbo lag is not bad, and at the boost levels where turbos start showing serious lag, cargers simply cant cope.

[®™▪▪Å�чÑ�ίÂ]

No matter wat, hell even if koegnigsegg get their carz do over 400kmh
the Mclaren F1 will still be the best production car. 1 person asked me y the mclaren f1 costs 1,000,000 dollars compared to the enzo 4 less than 700,000 dollars, he could only com up with the fact that the mclaren f1 has an engine bay that is lined with 24karat gold, thats tru but think the mclaren f1 is a really unique and rare car, i mean only 75 road cars, and if u think about yes it does cost alot more than the enzo but McLaren didnt make a penny's worth of profit, they made a car that was a bargain, how much u wanna bet if ferrari made that car(which im glad they dint) it would cost over 1.1million coz thaey want to make profit

[oscargarza88]

Originally Posted by ®™▪▪�ч�ί¢ąĽ No matter wat, hell even if koegnigsegg get their carz do over 400kmh the Mclaren F1 but McLaren didnt make a penny's worth of profit, they made a car that was a bargain, how much u wanna bet if ferrari made that car(which im glad they dint) it would cost over 1.1million coz thaey want to make profit

i truly dnt belive that, i mena they had to make some profit! maybe a little but some!

[dylan99]

It is not true McLaren was aiming to sell 350 F1 then they would have break even or made a profit but they only sold 65 cars so they didn't made profit it's as simple as that.

[BADMIHAI]

Originally Posted by espen Yes, and you'd get rid of the whole boost vs. revs problem. A turbo will produce as much boost as there is exhaust available to do, wether its 1000rpm or 7000rpm. Most superchargers are only efficient at mid to high rpm, which means boost will continue to grow through the revs and peak at max engine revs. At lower revs boost will be weaker. Which is why supercharged engines give you not the cliched massive low down urge, but in stead a strong mid range (peak torque often in the 4000-4500 area on a 7000 redline due to the exponential increase of boost) and power that keeps building to a late peak. Turbos on the other hand usually produce astounding levels of torque at low revs, since if theres exhaust there will be boost. Ths will give you a strong bottom end, a massive mid and often, a less inspiring top since boost usually willl be falling. Sizing a turbo is a science, and by sacrificing small size for top end, you could take power to another level of course.

I'm sure there is a reason they chose to supercharge the engine, rather than using turbos. Turbo lag would be one of them. Remember, this is not a dragster. Immediate throttle response is necessary.

Also, I tend to disagree with you on the turbos making lots of power in the low-rev range. Most turbos don't even start spooling up until 2500 rpm, while a supercharger is always spinning with the engine. From my knowledge, turbocharged cars have better power in the peak rpm range, compared to supercharged cars.

[XTwinTurboVR4X]

All I can say is the Koenigsegg is just awesome. Its certainly not as awe inspiring as the McLaren F1, said to be the best car in the world, which I would agree with. The Koenigsegg is the new age McLaren, not as classic, but as of yet, far more rare.

[espen]

Originally Posted by BADMIHAI I'm sure there is a reason they chose to supercharge the engine, rather than using turbos. Turbo lag would be one of them. Remember, this is not a dragster. Immediate throttle response is necessary. Also, I tend to disagree with you on the turbos making lots of power in the low-rev range. Most turbos don't even start spooling up until 2500 rpm, while a supercharger is always spinning with the engine. From my knowledge, turbocharged cars have better power in the peak rpm range, compared to supercharged cars.

Yes, of course Koenigsegg are no fools and have most likely tried both configurations and concluded that they are willing to sacrifice power for throttle responce and predictability. Given the massive power and rwd, thats probably a very good desicion.

But if you look at racing, the last time a supercharged car won an int'l event of some size was in 1952. Every major class allowing boost of some kind has been dominated by turbocharged engines since the early 80s. Even today, turbos are banned in many drag racing classes because they are so much superior. Lysholm ("twin screw") superchargers have been tried in Top Fuel as well, and since the team in question went from also-ran to frontrunner overnight, Top Fuel rules now state precisely which superchargers are allowed, Lysholm not being one of those.

If we were to compare turbos vs supercharging, perhaps the SL55AMG and SL600 could be a good example of the different capabilities. There was a comparo in Sport Auto a while back. These cars are same weight within 40kgs, identical bodyshell, slight AMG alterations to aerodynamics, same tires and so on. If theres going to be a comparison, this is as god as its likely to get.

SL55 AMG - V8 with IHI/Lysholm, 5.5 litre 478hp, 700Nm at 2500 rpm
SL60 - 5.5 litre V12 biturbo, 500hp, 800Nm at 1800 rpm

Results indicate that both cars post very similar acc times untill around 150kph, where SL600 begins to pull out a lead. For acc between speeds, the SL600 easily outruns the AMG. Despite boost pressures in the 1.0 bar range, turbo lag is barely mentioned in the article - they write "barely a hint of lag was percieved".

Then of course there is the topic of V8 vs V12. In theory, the comparison is predisposed since the V8 should produce a stronger bottom end (longer stroke) while the V12 makes more power (valve area) - in practice the turbo V12 crushes the V8 in the bottom end, and goes om to produce more power and faster acc times. Incidentially, the article states the Lysholm comsumes 90hp at peak revs/boost :shock:

[ported_head]

i didn't know that, is that why turbos are preferred more to superchargers. i knew there was something strange when i hardly saw a supercharged cararound. the only one i have been is a Vortec supercharged Camaro. Why do superchargers consume so much power at peak revs/boost? doesn't that actually nullify the point of installing a supercharger on a car?

as far as the Koenigsegg goes, i haven't heard anything offical so i am going to hold my comment on that. doesn't the koenigsegg use a Ford V8? compare that to the Mclaren F1's BMW V12. even if the Koenigsegg does break the record, which i think it probably will, it's still the Mclaren F1 for me.

[espen]

Compressing air is hard work! Ever try pumping up a bike tire? An engine somsumes huge volumes of air and the supercharger needs all this energy from the engine all the time. Compressiing the air is as much work in a turbo, but the turbo takes the energy from exhaust heat which otherwise goes to waste.

Only 1/3 og the energy a gas engine produces actually reaches the output shaft - in a supercharged engine the power for the charger comes from these 1/3 while in a turbo engine it comes from the other 2/3.

Of course the turbos cost power too - they restrict exhaust flow, and require the engine to run richer at wot to keep temps down - but most of the time theyre just idling along not doing much while the charger huffs and puffs