Talk:Koenigsegg CCX/Archive 1

Koenigsegg Horsepower Ratings
Does anyone know if Koenigsegg is giving their power numbers in HP (SAE) or PS? They claim 806 hp on 91 octane, the highest available in the state of California, which would lead me to believe they are using SAE figures. OTOH, the fact that they are a Swedish outfit leads me to believe they are more than likely listing their power figures in PS. Anyone know the answer? I changed the kilowatt ratings to be SAE horsepower equivilant, if the Koenigsegg numbers are actually PS then the old numbers would be correct. - MrBigB

They use PS, only American and British carmakers use hp. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.224.69.91 (talk) 21:36, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ceramic Braking System
On this page: http://www.koenigsegg.com/thecars/ccx.asp?ccx=2, front rotor size is listed as 382mm, yet on the specifications page: http://www.koenigsegg.com/thecars/ccx.asp?ccx=3 , the rotor size decreases to 380mm. Does anyone know which diameter is correct? --Aml_0000 05:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I suspect the world will be safe with a 2mm deviation on brake rotors. 69.225.121.41 07:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Koenigsegg Wing Issues
Two issues surrounding the optional wing: One, I'm fairly certain that the wing produces a Top Speed of less than 242 mph, as listed under the Top Gear section--because that's the Top Speed without the wing (well, 245 according to most sources). I'm having trouble finding a citation for this, but I could swear the top speed with the wing was in the 230 MPH range. Maybe the author meant 224 mph?

Secondly, the quote from Lotta de Salvatore, the Swedish car editor, has some serious credibility issues. Aerodynamic aids like spoilers and wings start working at significantly less than 300 kph. If his claim were true, then nobody would use wings and spoilers at all--even Formula 1 cars spend most of their time at speeds less than this, and vehicles with retractable wings all deploy them at speeds less than 200 kph. I'm not an engineer, but I think this offers reasonable evidence that de Salvatore doesn't know what he's talking about. Suspension setup certainly may have helped, but the wing certainly did as well.--5th earth 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I dunno, but it might have to do with that the wing in question sits low and is a rather small compared to most race car wings (including the one on the Koenigsegg CCGT ). —Bromskloss 16:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge with CCXR
I think this should be merged with Koenigsegg CCXR and just have a section (on this article) about the CCXR. The only difference between the 2 is the engine and the CCX can be converted into a CCXR for the owners. CCXR would be made into a redirect to that section. Does anyone have any objections? James086 Talk &#124; Email 05:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I never noticed they were separate. They should definitely be merged, as the CCXR is basically a variation of the CCX. I vote in favor of the merger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs) 17:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The difference between the two is not significant enough for separate articles. ~ Dusk Knight  06:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes from me also, you cannot buy a true CCXR, but a regular CCX is converted to use a different fuel. CCXR is a sub model of the CCX, like Mustang GT (V6, V8, convertible, hardtop) you don't make separate pages for these types of vehicle, but sub link them as models. Ace1875 Talk &#124; Email

Ok, it seems that there's a pretty clear consensus to merge. I think I'll just write up a section on the CCXR and redirect the CCXR article to CCX. That way I don't need to merge the histories. James086 Talk &#124; Email 08:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I never got to see these as separate articles but I would have said that they should remain separate due to significant differences in performance injection and fuel type as the small section included with the CCX is hardly adequate for such a significant car, most car junolists will also consider this a very significant car due to the fact that even such a small company can take the time to produce something more environmentally and the fact that the CCXR is the first Homologated car to reach more than 1000 bhp (the Veyron was never homologated) - PAPO

Favour merge. Seems logical to merge. Umbertoumm (talk) 15:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Good article
This article reads well and meets all of the GA criteria. Happy editing! Johnfos 02:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review
This is just to inform all the Wikipedians concerned that I put this article up for Good Article Review. For details, please see the appropriate Good Article Review section - you can access it by clicking the link above. Kind regards, PrinceGloria 10:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It has now been delisted. See the review archive (linked from the article history) for suggested improvements. Geometry guy 21:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Top Gear
You should include something about how this car was tested (and crashed) by top gear, resulting in the manfacturers adding a spoiler to it, if it was this model--Jac16888 12:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC) see here for details--Jac16888 12:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed it with the info about reviews, however it was significant to the car so at some point I will add it back in (if someone hasn't already, I'm busy for the next few months so no big edits). James086 Talk &#124;  Email 13:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Production numbers
The article could benefit from some info on production numbers and sales, including dates available to EU and US markets, export numbers, etc. Don't know how easy it is to obtain reliable figures, but it would help to expand and balance out the content. - Tomperc 12:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I looked for production numbers but the best I could find was that Koenigsegg had produced about 40 cars up until April 2006. That's CC8S, CCR and a bit of CCX so it's not really accurate. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 13:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor point
Hi. Nice article. One little niggle that struck me: Grainger & Worrall are said to build F1 engines, but the reference actually says that they make castings for F1 cars. This isn't quite the same thing, they're a component supplier, and not necessarily for engines, rather than an engine builder themselves. Suggest "a company which supplies castings for Formula One cars". Cheers. 4u1e 10:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I did little research and it seems they produce drivetrain components including F1 gearboxes so I added that to the article.  James086 Talk &#124;  Email 13:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Wheelbase?
There must be an error in the article concerning the vehicle's wheelbase. This seems more like it: http://www.localchips.co.uk/cars/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4&Itemid=9 88.113.109.116 (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Fixed it 88.113.109.116 (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, the wheelbase is correct, look at this screenshot taken of the CAD drawing.  δ ² ( Talk ) 21:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Facts and Figures
Hi, can anyone shine any light on the origins of this statement: ''It should be noted that the official specs for the CCX and CCXR (as well as the CCR) have been greatly understated by as much as 200 bhp. This also means that the acceleration can be as much as 0.5 seconds faster than stated. This has been done on purpose because of trade tariffs and marketing standards in different countries.'' what is the basis of this? I cannot find any history if where this came from. Until a reference can be found for this infeasibly shaky information, I shall remove it. Any objections?  δ ² ( Talk ) 21:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I was speaking to the Australian distributor for Koenigsegg and he told me almost exactly that, and he wasn't trying to sell to me because I was under 18 at the time, and it makes sense because the CCR only has 1 supercharger but the CCX has 2 so how can they have the same amount of horsepower(therefore the CCXR would have more power again), in short: CCR 806 bhp & 0-100 kph in 2.9s, CCX 1000 bhp, 0-100 kph in 2.7s and the CCXR 1200bhp and 0-100 kph in 2.5s - PAPO —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.133.204.4 (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Engine "facts"?
The Ford Modular "facts" are a bit scewed towards the "hell yeah, it's Ford engine! Go USA!" bias. There needs to be proper research on this since from all I've read pins the Ford-bit down to a (in Italy) tuned Ford Modular >engine block CCS8< with little or no remains in the technically very different CCX engine. The article as it stand puts to much emphasis on that engine blocks/Ford Modular heritage and gives the impression that the CCX is actually a Ford engine in disguise.

At the very least we should get a factual quote on how and why the engine is based on the Ford modular imho.

Jim78 83.255.167.41 (talk) 18:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

EDIT.

These are the specific quotes:

"While previous Koenigsegg models were powered by a Ford Modular V8 engine sourced from the U.S.,"

Factually incorrect.

"the engine of the CCX was designed by Koenigsegg based on the Ford Modular architecture"

Assumptious.

If anything it should read: "While previous models was based on the Ford Modular architecture the engine of the CCX is designed entirely in-house by Koenigsegg"

Please check and correct someone.

Jim78 83.255.167.41 (talk) 18:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd go with "the engine of the CCX was developed in-house by Koenigseggs own engineers based on the Ford Modular architecture" (and the CCR engine is also built in house but the one in the CC8S is basically just a Ford Modular V8, for some reason most people seem to think the CC8S and CCR are the same thing) - PAPO

The CC8S used a Ford Modular engine block but it's clearly not a Ford engine - IT is based on the Ford Modular architecture - and anyone with eyes can take a look at the CC8S engine and confirm it. The CCR and CCX boasts an engine on the other hand, which is built entirely in-house and have completely different specs than the CC8S engine, yet the article still says:

"While previous Koenigsegg models (note: the CCR too?) were powered by Ford Modular V8 engines sourced from the U.S., the engine of the CCX was thoroughly re-engineered by Koenigsegg themselves and is assembled at the Koenigsegg factory, though it is still based on the Ford Modular architecture."

... suggesting 1) the CCR has a different engine and 2) that it's "based on Ford Modular architecture" (whatever that is or means).

I could easily debunk all of this if I knew how to work Wikipedia but I don't, and as it stands this is probably one of the most factually incorrect and bias articles on wikipedia - as far as super cars are concerned at least. Just by looking at the source (13) for this "Ford Modular architecture" we also find interesting "facts" like the "fact" that it reaches "an amazing top speed of 417 km/h". Quoting the same source one could effectively state that the car indeed is proven to be the fastest car in the world...

One quick example to high light how POOR this article is:

"The CCR engine delivers 806 Hp at 7000 rpm and 920 (550 ft-lb) Nm of torque at 5,400 rpm. It is a state-of-the-art Quad Cam semi-stressed V8 construction with a 4.7 litre displacement and 32 valves. The CCR is boosted to its extreme power output by a unique Bi-compressor Supercharging system, which employs twin centrifugal compressors to enable a 1.4 bar maximum boost pressure at 5000 RPM. This system significantly increases power and torque across a broad rev band, and it also includes the revolutionary Koenigsegg RBC-System (Response Boost Control) (pat. pend), which completely obliterates on-off throttling lag time.

Another novel and vital part of the CCR engine is the minimum drag Koenigsegg DFCC-system (Dynamic Flow Catalytic Converter), nicknamed the “Rocket Cat”, which ensures minimal exhaust back pressure despite allowing for a highly efficient filtering of emission gases. This technological feat cannot be overstated; no competitor has come close of creating an engine configuration with a power output of as much as 806 Hp, yet still keep exhaust gas emissions below certifiable levels.

KOENIGSEGG BI-COMPRESSOR SUPERCHARGING SYSTEM

The Bi-compressor Centrifugal Supercharging System features twin parallel mounted Rotrex compressors, which cooperate in generating the 1.4 bar boost pressure needed to create the colossal 806 Hp output. The innovative Danish Rotrex compressor represents the next generation of centrifugal superchargers; they exhibit a higher energy-efficiency level than any other, they are operational at higher RPM levels and also feature a new and completely silent ball bearing planetary drive system.

Due to its 80% energy-efficiency, the amount of energy consumed by the compressor is returned with both a quicker and greater build-up of air pressure. The general difference when compared to alternative supercharging systems is about 10 % in efficiency, however the increase in the low end of the rev band is even greater, putting the boost pressure of the Rotrex compressor above that of any screw compressor in the RPM range of interest to performance driving. Also the very high RPM capability (120 000 RPM) of the Rotrex turbine itself allows for an extremely high maximum air pressure very early in the rev band (1.4 bar at 5000 RPM), in all creating a spread of power and torque across the rev band unmatched by any competitor.

Koenigsegg’s engineers choose to equip the CCR with a dual set of specially adopted smaller Rotrex compressors, for several good reasons. First and foremost; a smaller compressor is operational at a broader RPM range, bringing greater boost pressure at both low and high revs. This is due to complex aerodynamics around the turbine; at low RPM a greater boost is obtained since fewer pockets of air is allowed to slip through unpacked by the rotor blades. At the high rev end the smaller diameter of the rotor blades brings down the speed at which the tips of the blades collides with the air, a speed that cannot be allowed to reach near speed of sound, at which efficient compression is no longer possible.

Using twin parallel Rotrex compressors means a doubling of these small size benefits; double the effect of low rev pressure, double the quantity of air that is propelled into the intercooler at any given point during acceleration, and also a far greater maximum boost pressure. The loss of energy suffered by pulling an extra compressor is minimal, amounting to less than 1.5 % of the total kinetic energy.

Though equal in size and weight to traditional turbo chargers, the twin Rotrex compressor lay-out, combined with the innovative Koenigsegg Response Boost Control (RBC) system, creates a model for supercharging with equal efficiency to any exhaust driven turbo configuration, and that with absolutely zero throttling lag time.

KOENIGSEGG RESPONSE BOOST CONTROL SYSTEM

Koenigsegg has developed the revolutionary RBC-system (Response Boost Control) to further increase the efficiency and drivability of the CCR engine. The RBC-system, which is currently being patented, aims to not only reduce, but completely eliminate response lag time at on-off throttling at any RPM or gear. In doing so, the RBC-system actually increases the energy-efficiency of the engine, and also optimizes the function of the supercharging system.

The Koenigsegg RBC-system replaces the traditional by-pass valve with an extra throttle, mounted before the compressors. This throttle is operated by an automatic vacuum sensor, which shuts it immediately at off throttling, thus effectively hindering a dangerous build-up of overpressure between the compressor and the main throttle.

The by-pass valve is a necessary component in all other supercharged engines. It releases compressed air back into the air intake at off-throttling to prevent damage to the intake system due to extreme overpressure, and to avoid excessive drag on the crankshaft i.e. extra energy/fuel consumption. Yet the conventional by-pass solution has several disadvantages; the released air takes with it a lot of energy that is lost to the engine, and while decompressing in the intake, this hot air heats up the fresh air, reducing the efficiency of the compressor and intercooler. More importantly to the drivability of the car, the common by-pass method induces unavoidably a certain lag in the response time at throttling. This lag is equivalent to the time it takes to rebuild the lost boost pressure at every gear shift or braking.

The RBC-system provides an equally simple and ingenious solution to this problem; the vacuum controlled extra throttle conserves a batch of pressurized air to feed the engine, giving it an initial boost at on throttling. Also it creates a low-pressure zone before the compressors, which allows the turbines to spin more freely with minimal resistance. In total this system ensures that at no point in any on-off throttling sequence, the engine is without a supply of charged air, therefore no lag time will be experienced by the driver.

In order to control both the maximum boost pressure and the amount of accumulated pressure at off throttling, the RBC-system is highly adjustable. A simple device ensures that the automatic vacuum throttle can be set to open at different times relative the main throttle. Also the total amount of intake air can be altered, so that the maximum boost pressure is reached early in the rev band, and that a constant maximum pressure is maintained while the engine is revving up.

THE DYNAMIC FLOW CATALYTIC CONVERTER SYSTEM

Regulations on emission levels in most countries have made it necessary to equip cars with highly efficient catalytic converters. Naturally, an engine with a greater power output will produce more exhaust fumes, which requires larger and better catalytic converters. In the most extreme supercars this is a huge problem, since these very large cats obstruct the flow of exhausts, creating a lot of unwanted back pressure. The cost in horsepower output is enormous. This is one major reason why it is such a challenge to build a street-legal car with more than 700 Hp.

The 806 Hp CCR engine is supplemented with an advanced exhaust system, which incorporates a brilliant solution to the back pressure problem; the Koenigsegg DFCC-system (Dynamic Flow Catalytic Converter). It brings down the back pressure in the manifolds from 1.2 to 0.3 bar at full power, making the gases pass through the exhaust with minimal loss of energy. Other advantages with this system are; improved emission cleaning, a built-in pre muffling capability saving weight and space, and also a built-in heat screen that keeps down engine bay temperature.

The Koenigsegg DFCC-system, nicknamed the “Rocket Cat”, consists of a cylindrical box that contains both the pre-cat and the main cat. A merge collector streamlines the exhaust from the manifold before shooting it into the “Rocket Cat” box. A precisely measured pipe guides the fumes towards the pre-cat, which therefore is activated quicker at start-up. The pre-cat is mounted so that it is surrounded by air, which allows excess fumes to spill over and bypass the pre-cat at high flow rates. This way, when the engine runs at higher revs, most exhaust gases will flow only through the main cat, ensuring that the obstructing pre-cat is used as little as possible, and is not damaged at high RPM and output. This result in very low back pressure compared to traditional systems.

Additionally, the dynamic flow within the “Rocket Cat” box serves to pulverize the sound waves from the engine, in effect acting as a pre-muffler that makes possible a smaller and lighter main muffler. The heat screen effect is due to the insulating layer of air that surrounds the pre-cat, which makes sure that the heat stays within the pipe. This facilitates both better catalytic effect in the main cat and a lower engine bay temperature.

THE CCR ENGINE: GENERAL SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

The all aluminium 4.7L Koenigsegg V8 is built to cope with extreme stress during racing conditions; the CCR engine is equipped with dry sump lubrication, stainless valves, forged oil cooled pistons and connecting rods, complemented by bespoke camshafts designs and an exceptionally strong forged crankshaft manufactured by Gerlach Werke in Germany, known for their high quality and outstanding performance.

The CCR air intake system incorporates twin Rotrex centrifugal superchargers equipped with the Koenigsegg patented Response Boost Control system, coupled to a custom-built intercooler that lowers the charged intake air temperature from 150 C to 50 degrees C. This system enables a 1.4 bar maximum boost pressure and a compression ratio of 8.6:1.

A specially manufactured dry-sump engine lubrication system enables a low frame position, and subsequently a very low centre of gravity. A Koenigsegg engineered unique oil spray device provides efficient cooling for the pistons, thus adding to the durability and efficiency of the engine. The twin pump return fuel system with its large bore extruded aluminium rails ensures efficient and fail safe supply of fuel to the engine. The CCR engine's fuel supply system is designed to feed the engine up to well above 1000 hp.

Direct coil on-plug ignition and a fully compliant OBD II computer system guarantees an effective and stable combustion, making the engine reliable and low on emission levels. Upon request a distance monitoring uplink can be installed, which is a great tool for maintenance and service.

The CCR exhaust system is made of stainless steel and incorporates equal length tube headers and dual merged collectors. The Koenigsegg DFCC catalytic converter system effectively assist the engine in reducing emissions to certifiable levels, while at the same time support the high power output level. This exhaust system is designed for minimize exhaust drag beyond that of any comparable engine set-up.

The CCR engine is made of super lightweight materials, e.g. aerospace specified aluminium alloy, titanium and carbonfibre. The engines are equipped with carbonfibre valve, timing and front covers, which reduce overall weight by about 12 kg. Additionally, all parts of the highly efficient induction type air intake system are made of carbonfibre. It is a complex series of ducts and tanks, organically shaped to maximize the flow of air into the engine. The total weight of the Koenigsegg CCR engine is as low as 215 Kg."

http://torque0nm.blogspot.com/2005/04/technical-data-koenigg-segg-ccr.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.255.163.246 (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you realize what constitutes an engine architecture? Architectural hard points, like cylinder head bolt patterns, cylinder bore spacing, engine block deck height (though even this can vary within he same engine family), main and rod journal diameters and widths, etc.


 * The CC8 used Ford Modular engines sourced from the US. FACT.   VTEngines from MI and Downs Ford supplied engines to Koenigsegg for the CC8.  The CCX engine, despite Koenigsegg finding an independent source for block casting, still uses the Ford Modular architectural hard points.  Do you understand that catalytic converters and ancillary items such as intake manifolds and superchargers do not in any way alter the CCX engine's architectural roots?  Koenigsegg's use of the same basic Ford Modular engine architecture, despite their use of non-Ford suppliers and in-house assembly, is sufficiently referenced.


 * Ford itself used outside suppliers for engine block and crankshafts for the 96-98 Cobra, and then brought block casting in house in '99. This doesn't change the fact that both are Modular engines, and the same logic applies to Koenigsegg.  It's the engine architecture that matters, and Koenigsegg is still using the same basic engine architecture they have since the CC8 despite differences in supplier and point of final assembly.  TheBalance (talk) 16:05, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

CCGT/CCX Merge?
Agree: So, someone else has tagged this article for merging. I just had a look at the article for CCGT and it certainly seems small enough to merge into a separate section in this article. Many thanks,  δ ² ( Talk ) 08:56, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Disagree: It's not even the same car. They are obviously similar but merging this would be like merging a RUF-designed sport Porsche with the original, really. 80.216.48.180 (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree: We don't merge Ferrari F50 and Ferrari F50 GT. Similarly, these are distinct cars which deserve separate articles. I am going to remove the tags now since they have been up for about half a year with little discussion and no action. swa q  21:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Disagree:"" the CCGT is based on the CCX but they are different cars the body work as actually closer to the CCR but drastically modified the huge wing which is not available on any of the production models and more importantly, the superchargers have been removed and compensated for with a larger "5L" engine as opposed to a 4.7L so yeh it was bad enough that the CCXR was merged not this too —Preceding unsigned comment added by PAPO-1990 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Name
how do you pronounce the name —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.34.56.146 (talk) 05:35, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

after watching a video of Christian Von Koenigsegg at the geniva motor show, it's Ker-Ning-Seg -PAPO-1990 —Preceding unsigned comment added by PAPO-1990 (talk • contribs) 13:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Should prefer metric over US Imperial measurements
You can tell this article was written by an American (or maybe a Brit?) -

E.g.: "The CCX can accelerate from 0–62 mph (100 km/h) in 3.2 seconds and from 0–124 mph (200 km/h) in 9.8 seconds" "...in achieving a record 0-186-0 mph (0-300–0 km/h)..." etc.

Wouldn't it make more sense to put imperial measurements in the brackets (as a secondary), given that the car was clearly tested in metric? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.49.173.174 (talk) 07:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes should use the original data, as as an European car should be used metric stuff see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Automobiles/Conventions#Units --Typ932 T&middot;C 08:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Clean up.. of sorts
I've been working in reorganizing the article and paraphrasing some of it, I want to show it to you for opinions. Click here Mike.BRZ (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm going to implement it, if someone doesn't like it or feels it needs more content, tell me here. Mike.BRZ (talk) 16:21, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

GTA V
This may not be a necessary change, but shouldn't we mention that it was portrayed in GTA V and GTA Online as the Entity XF? --MatthewDaigneau (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2015 (UTC)