CCR vs. s7 Twin Turbo

Discussion in '2004 Koenigsegg CCR' started by canasn, Feb 1, 2006.

  1. CCR definitly.
  2. "At 165 MPH, the downforce created by the 70 plus ducts throughout the tubular steel spaceframe body, equal the 2750 LBS of the S7.

    Although, The 1997 McLaren F1 LM, does it at 100 plus miles per hour."

    I'm not too sure where that came from, but I remember reading it in a magazine when the S7 was first introduced...
  3. And you havent driven an S7 TT either.
  4. Yeah, the S7 could beat various European supercars. Just because they came from a certain continent doesn't give it any special advantages. And the fact that you'd say so questions the credibility of every single American automaker and those who design the products they release. Masses of power is definately something the S7 has over just about any other car, but however softly spoken, that much horsepower and especially that much torque is not something alot of cars want to f*** with, and you know it. And for the record, Saleens in general have superb handeling, especially the S7. The downforce literally causes it to stick to the road, it's basically roller coaster, railed to the ground.

    I would hesitate to say a Murcielago could be an S7 around a track, atleast for the TT version. And can you personally testify for everyone outside of the US, that they have not heard of the S7? Really, can you? No you can't so shut up. Just like we have auto shows with Euro cars here in the states, there are auto shows over there with prestiged American cars as well. By the way, the S7 was NEVER meant to be JUST a drag car, it's just another thing it happens to be good at. Saleen didn't put hundreds of thousands of dollars into a car so it can run the quarter mile half a second faster than some other car.

    The Saleen S7's looks are outdated? Relative to what? If you are comparing the S7 to the CCR then you better make a better comparison because both cars are essentially targeted towards the same look, an arrow. By the way, the Enzo you speak so highly off, as much as it is a good car, is not much faster that the Ford GT which has about 100 horsepower less. And when I mean not that much faster, consider this. In an offical, published, head to head test by Motortrend, the Ford GT ran the 0-100mph in only .4 seconds less than the Enzo. Now, using your logic, since the S7 has 200 more HP than the GT and comes from the same continent, and uses the same crappy engineering, we can expect this S7 hunk of crap to...i dunno...kick the s**t out of the Enzo, and the CCR? Am I right? Yeah, on top of the fact the S7TT would rock the CCRs world, you also look like an idiot.

    Nexton the list. OHV may be an older technology but it's still used by the Corvette, and despite its "outdatedness" still manages to produce huge amount of power, larger amounts of low end torque, and still somehow manages to get phenominal gas mileage compared to other, equally powered cars. Yup, it definately seems like another idea to shelf.

    You say the Enzo, Carrera GT, etc. are masterpieces of engineering, yet the S7 is not. Why not? Did you know the S7 underwent some of the most intensive aerodynamics testing for any car, ever? Have you even looked into any car other than a European supercar?

    Finally, why does it bother you that Americans enjoy racing the quarter mile even though others don't? You must lose sleep at night thinking about stop-light races or something, I'm sorry.
  5. Yeah, they need some kind of variable air effects because it gets to a point where the car is fighting itself.
  6. Well in that case, there could only be one supercar at a time if the requirement was that the car was the pinnicle of technology and engineering. Might want to rethink that theory buddy. Also, define poor technology. Poor technology in my book, is something that has been improved upon by another device of similar purpose, in every aspect of its performance, funtionality, and praticality. (I thought that up right now, I swear). But obviously this OHV engine in particular has BOTH advantages and disadvantages in comparison to other engines used in competing cars. So calling it poor technology would be an inaccurate statement now wouldn't it?
  7. Well, the S7 posted 10.5 (Motor Trend), with a trap speed at 143 mph. It has achieved 205 mph in the standing mile with a head wind... (Saleen expected 210 mph). It has also achieved 0-100 mph in 5.8 seconds (Motor Trend), but they use a correction factor that slows it down to 6.0 seconds. Car and Driver said it's steering makes a Porsche Boxster feel slow. Not to mention all the downforce this thing makes - it will hold a tremendous amount of speed through the corners. Braking distances are great, but nothing special. Especially without ABS. The S7 has proven itself.

    The CCR should theoritically be able to accelerate faster then a Bugatti Veyron, yet the best time recorded so far is a 0-124 of 9.6 seconds which is about as fast as an Enzo. Probably too much wheelspin down low, it definately has top end though being able to reach 240+ mph. It fully adjustable suspension should help it make up for it's lack of downforce. A spoiler is offered as an optoin. Braking should be better then that of the S7 with it's lower weight and carbon/ceramic rotors; on the other hand, Jeremy Clarkson said it was very unstable under hard braking.

    In the end, their both good cars that offer performance that would embarrass most cars othe road assuming you didn't run into a Bugatti Veyron. One thing to consider is that the CCR costs about $200,000 thousand more than an S7TT.
  8. I like the Saleen better.
  9. yah well ur saleem88 so u would
    the koenigseeg beats the saleem and everythin else on the planet
    i like the s7 but its nowere near the ccr
  10. I just thought I would throw out there that the CCR is powered by a Ford Engine.

Share This Page