slower than the older version???

Discussion in '2002 Koenigsegg CC 8S' started by sesos23, Nov 25, 2002.

  1. so why did they finnaly reduce a lil bit of speed from the 2000 version? more downforce maybe? what do u guys think? the older on had a bit more top speed and a 0.2 more 0-60 acceleration..
     
  2. Re: slower than the older version???

    They dont yet now realy how fast the CC can go they have don one test to this point and that test hade to be stop, it started to rain, they did not put the pedal to the floor, they whantet to control that the temperatur in water and oil so it didn't get to hot.

    the top speed was for this test 365 km/h then it began to rain to mutch !!

    there gona do more tests =)
     
  3. Re: slower than the older version???

    all I have to say is that they better do more tests soon...I want to know sa'more specs...

    thumbs up
     
  4. Re: slower than the older version???

    IMO, the CC (2000) was a prototypical experiment. It did hit production, but don't think anything was a sure thing with it. The CC 8S is more refined, and sophisticated.
     
  5. Re: slower than the older version???

    He's right
     
  6. Re: slower than the older version???

    i dont care if its slower, it probably is the same... Its a beatiful car, fast as the mclaren,
     
  7. Re: slower than the older version???

    The speed difference isnt worth the attention. Its probably just modificatios to the body that create a slightly higher cd. either way, this is one bad ass car, 1.15g!!!! wholly crap! mclaren? do those still exist?! this is sick, 100% bad ass and fast as hell too. and those looks are stunning, imagine how it would look in person. This is one of my favorite cars, XJ220 STWR and Dauer 962 le mans are the only 2 that come close. this really an amazing car, and for a fourth the price of a mclaren. wow, amazing
     
  8. Re: slower than the older version???

    it is faster though. they just weren't done tuning it up. It tops out at more than 250 now.
     
  9. I think it's faster now, it just doesn't make any sense to go sl

    I just don't think that the 2002 body style is as good as the 2000, they shouldn't have taken away the spoiler.
     
  10. Re: slower than the older version???

    Very True
     
  11. Re: slower than the older version???

    It's up there, isnt it?
    I personally dont think they're the same
     
  12. Re: slower than the older version???

    You have a point, fractions in price are what count sometimes
     
  13. Re: I think it's faster now, it just doesn't make any sense to g

    Depends on how you look at it though. The 2000 has some better corners, where the 2002 has other better corners. Maybe the 2002 would look good, maybe better with a spoiler, better yet, a wing.
    Either way, it looks good without it.
     
  14. Re: slower than the older version???

    Like the guy said, it was a prototype, but..
    The reason why it's slower is because the difference between prototypes, and production versions is, that the prototypes can be wilder. The proto porbably didn't have catalitic converters, as well as an A/C, and lets not forget all the front, side, and rear crash protection, so all that probably added to the car being sower when it finally hit the street
     
  15. Re: slower than the older version???

    The difference is the fact that this hasn't been tested by a real tester yet, only by Koenigsegg and manufacturer's tests are characteristically slow.
     

Share This Page