Re: Would a McLaren F1 beat this on the track?

Discussion in '2002 Koenigsegg CC 8S' started by HooPoo, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. Its imposible to say if it would beet the mclaren, i think it depends on the driver becouse both cars are kinda have the same specs
     
  2. i think this car would spank the McLaren F1<!-- Signature -->
     
  3. First of all, why are all you people talking about porshes? This is supposed to be weather the Mclaren would beat this car on the track. Porshe has nothing to do with this topic. Second, I think that the Mclaren Would win. Why? because it was made for the track. not only that but also if it were under F1 regultions the koenigsegg CC wouldn't be aloud to have a supercharger. I think that the Koenigsegg would win any wearelse besides a track. I would take a koenigsegg over a Mclaren but a would be h hard choice.
     
  4. I have to inject my wisdom where i can, I can't here, your all bent on seeing the demise on what is possibly the most memorable supercar in recent years. I argee that when this koenigsegg hits the street and builds a mobb of followers much like the masses that love the only car Car and Driver drove into a wall at 150 miles per hour, and then drove home at 80 mph, it may surpass the F1. Enough about wisdom, I say it's time something rivaled the F1, I mean it was made like 6 years ago, shit and everything is still compared to it. This hsould some up what I'm sayin, god save the queen, cuz im #$%#in the princess




    Well that settles it then. The Mc would win because at 125mph going into a turn the Mc pushes the K.(I'll never be able to spell that) off the track and into a wall. The bruised Mc finishes the race and the driver of the K.-if he's still alive- kick the Mc driver's ass after the race. See, K. gets it's ass kicked on the track and the Mc driver gets his kicked off the track.

    It's an idea anyhow.
     
  5. Would a McLaren F1 beat this on the track?

    Would a McLaren F1 beat this on the track? I am trying to start an intelligent topic here, so if you want to just swear and insult peoples tastes, please go elsewhere. But if you want to civily discuss the topic, then please do. Thank you.
     
  6. I've done my research and I know for a fact that this out-handles the F1. The lateral acceleration on this baby is 1.15g!!! <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif"><IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif"><IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif"><!-- Signature -->
     
  7. How can u be so dum i huvet and believe this car can beat mC laren around the track? ROFLMAO.....

    BTW ferrari f50 beats this one around track<!-- Signature -->
     
  8. This car would whoop the McLaren's ass.
    It is faster to 60 mph and it has a higher topspeed.
    386.2 kph isn't right, it should be 395 kph.<!-- Signature -->
     
  9. This car's stats may prove more impresive, but they are still so close that you just instantly determine which would win on a track. Top speed really wont be a factor unless there is some track capable of holding 240 mph cars (not counting huge testing rings). The Mc also has proved its reliability. It looks like this car is well built, but shit can happen. The biggest factor in the match would be the driver. If I was in this and Schumacher was driving the Mc, in addition to having fun, I would lose. To compare two cars this close just requires a lot of speculation on all the variables. But, it is fun to try.

    I personally prefer the Mc because I have been a fan of it for years.
     
  10. I think it would because it bones out, but by thr looks i think i would rather have the McLAren F1.
    PORSCHE FO LIFE
     
  11. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from 91 MR2 Turbo</i>
    <b>I dont know why I am benefitting this thread with a post, but here it is anyway...

    Gentlemen, and Women,

    There are not many circumstances in which you would be driving 240 MPH in everyday life. There are circumstances, however, in which you would be going fast by normal standards and doing nothing else but cornering. I like speed as much as the next guy, but lets be serious, people speed to get somewhere quickly. People go around corners fast because its fun. Have you ever noticed how even someone in a minivan will take a curve on a highway at 80 MPH? Wonder why they risk tipping a VAN? Well, its fun. Thats all there is to it.

    Point: there is more to a great car that speed. Who needs speed over 200? Hell, who needs speed over 150? Most people will never drive that fast. Unless you intend on racing it, why does it matter?

    The point of it is that handling and drive manarisms should be looked at first. Namely, who would want either a McLaren F1 or one of these in the first place? Why you might ask? Well, cus you can't see out of the back of them. Stupid designs on otherwise brilliant cars. Don't get me wrong, I would love to own/drive one of them, but not all the time. In the end, once the novelty wore off, it would just be a pain. Imagine driving a supercar in traffic with idiots all around you, and not being able to see behind you. That would suck.

    If you ask me, the Carrera GT is a great idea. It should be fast as all hell, and is quite powerful. If those meattie tires and Porsche engineering can come up with the handling they should, that car would be loads of fun to drive. Plus, you can see behind you Really people, speed is not the end all be all or sports car criteria.

    Roads have curves, use em!

    Sincerely yours,
    A fellow car nut.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Sorry to say but the Carrera GT is also a monster of supercar which would also "be a pain to drive during traffic". So what's your point? And your point about "roads having curves" and speed not the being the most important thing: Well the CC has a lateral acceleration of 1.15g thus making it one of the best handling cars on the twisties.<IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif"><!-- Signature -->
     
  12. Both are beautiful machines and as most people have been saying it would probly depend on the driver. But i still think that the Mclaren might have a little advantage of this car.<!-- Signature -->
     
  13. ok Snitzu666 this car has 3.4 sec on 0-60mph Mclaren F1 has 3.2, Mclaren F1 LM has 3.0 hummm isnt that faster. Mclaren F1 would win b/c its was designed to have a lot of grip. Plus the F1 weighs less which helps, and its been proven that a V12 performs better than a V8 on the track (V10 being the best)
     

  14. it is almost impossible to say. to get the right answer, you would proabably have to actually take them out to a track. there is more to racing than speed.

    <!-- Signature -->
     
  15. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from firestarter</i>
    <b>ok Snitzu666 this car has 3.4 sec on 0-60mph Mclaren F1 has 3.2, Mclaren F1 LM has 3.0 hummm isnt that faster. Mclaren F1 would win b/c its was designed to have a lot of grip. Plus the F1 weighs less which helps, and its been proven that a V12 performs better than a V8 on the track (V10 being the best)</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    if the 0-60 is a mere .2 seconds apart, you cannot accuratly judge which car is faster. the fact is, a .2 second difference is most likely all driver, not the car. even if it was the same driver in both runs, even he wouldn't be capable of driving the cars exactly the same. it is next to impossible to tell which of these cars is faster based on these stats, they are just too close.<!-- Signature -->
     
  16. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from firestarter</i>
    <b>ok Snitzu666 this car has 3.4 sec on 0-60mph Mclaren F1 has 3.2, Mclaren F1 LM has 3.0 hummm isnt that faster. Mclaren F1 would win b/c its was designed to have a lot of grip. Plus the F1 weighs less which helps, and its been proven that a V12 performs better than a V8 on the track (V10 being the best)</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    The 0-60 time listed for the CC on sc.net is wrong! The true time is 3.2 seconds as listed by Koenigsegg's website. Plus the CC has a bilateral acceleration of 1.15g which gives a lot of downforce allowing superb cornering. The McLaren has a bilateral acceleration of 0.86g, therefore in CC will handle better on the track. But as everybody else said, there are to many factors to consider so lets just wait for an official one on one match. <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif"><!-- Signature -->
     
  17. yes i have to say it would although i think the F1 is slightly quicker
     

  18. LOL

    OMG how many irritating idiots there are here OMFG! small children not knowing what they talk about OMFG!

    First of all both 627 mclaren and CC k have same acc up to 60 mph both do 3.2 seconds....
    Second of all i didnt know u are so stupid some of u to believe that only aceleration is most important of all HAHAHAHAA!!!!!!!!that proves u never really raced or at least have buddies who race.....or tryed different cars and bla bla.........

    Ok im not comparing McLaren and CC now but.......

    Example> 2 cars same weight....Car nr one acc is 3.0 sec up to 60 the seconds cars acc up to 60 is 4.5 sec....

    Suspension and technology and brakes etc etc is muc h better in car 2....4.5 sec car that is....


    do u all get my point lol

    OMG noobs omg
    Which u think would win around Silverstone?<!-- Signature -->
     
  19. i think that last sentance was the only one you spelled correctly.
    just kidding>

    anyway i think the koenigsegg would win the race but who knows.


    one thing you dont know and would really help in determining who would win without an actuall race occuring would be the 80-100 100-160 200-250 times and stuff like that. cos then you would really see which one accelerates faster (not from a stand still) which would only occur once in a race.

    whats ya thoughts on this<!-- Signature -->
     
  20. The only real test is to grab Alan McNish and put him in both of these cars to do a couple laps around say...Silverstone, nurburg and suzuka

    BTW, I didnt pick Shumacher(sp) coz I reckon McNish has more experience driving GT cars..(le mans, Toyata GT1)

    BTW shouldnt we really use a Mac F1 LM version in this comparision since this isnt a standard KC?<!-- Signature -->
     
  21. If that 10 second quarter mile, which would probably be close to 140 mph, is anything close to being accurate the Mclaren doesn't stand a chance, the Mclaren only runs mid 11s at 125mph......0-60 doesn't tell much just how good the car can come out of the hole, so don't bother arguing about that. And as far as saying it can beat it on the "track"....what kind of a track....ovals, a roadcourse what? The 1.15 g's this car produces would annialate a non LM version of the mclaren at 0.87 g under pretty much any situation. As far as saying a v12 is a better can on a track......what? A supercharged vehicle has a linear power curve just like a NA motor, no turbo lag surprise around the corners, so whats wrong with that....sure they use v10's in f1....but you forgot one thing...this is not an F1 motor......Please people argue about something if you know what your talking about, people make the most ridiculous comments on this form.<!-- Signature -->
     

  22. well sweishboy i bet you think nyou know your stuff dont ya.
    shut up and go eat your chunky soup retard.<!-- Signature -->
     
  23. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from FerrariKing</i>
    <b>i think that last sentance was the only one you spelled correctly.
    just kidding>

    anyway i think the koenigsegg would win the race but who knows.


    one thing you dont know and would really help in determining who would win without an actuall race occuring would be the 80-100 100-160 200-250 times and stuff like that. cos then you would really see which one accelerates faster (not from a stand still) which would only occur once in a race.

    whats ya thoughts on this</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Your right! <IMG SRC="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif"> Too bad that many people do not put an emphasis on speeds past 100 mph. In a race track cars can go far beyond the 100 mph mark and I think that this fact should truly be considered as a deciding factor in choosing superiority.<!-- Signature -->
     
  24. As much as I love the F1, I think it would get a beatin on a non oval track.
    k bye.
     
  25. I dont know why I am benefitting this thread with a post, but here it is anyway...

    Gentlemen, and Women,

    There are not many circumstances in which you would be driving 240 MPH in everyday life. There are circumstances, however, in which you would be going fast by normal standards and doing nothing else but cornering. I like speed as much as the next guy, but lets be serious, people speed to get somewhere quickly. People go around corners fast because its fun. Have you ever noticed how even someone in a minivan will take a curve on a highway at 80 MPH? Wonder why they risk tipping a VAN? Well, its fun. Thats all there is to it.

    Point: there is more to a great car that speed. Who needs speed over 200? Hell, who needs speed over 150? Most people will never drive that fast. Unless you intend on racing it, why does it matter?

    The point of it is that handling and drive manarisms should be looked at first. Namely, who would want either a McLaren F1 or one of these in the first place? Why you might ask? Well, cus you can't see out of the back of them. Stupid designs on otherwise brilliant cars. Don't get me wrong, I would love to own/drive one of them, but not all the time. In the end, once the novelty wore off, it would just be a pain. Imagine driving a supercar in traffic with idiots all around you, and not being able to see behind you. That would suck.

    If you ask me, the Carrera GT is a great idea. It should be fast as all hell, and is quite powerful. If those meattie tires and Porsche engineering can come up with the handling they should, that car would be loads of fun to drive. Plus, you can see behind you Really people, speed is not the end all be all or sports car criteria.

    Roads have curves, use em!

    Sincerely yours,
    A fellow car nut.<!-- Signature -->
     

Share This Page