McLaren F1 vs. Koenigsegg CC

[hermunn123]

well i guess you could argue the best supercar would also have the highest top speed, but it just depends on the person. on their top speed run all they did was remove the rev limiter so they didnt do any special gearing for that run.

[V12]

I'd take the CC. It's lighter, it has more hp and more torque, and it looks better IMO. The only thing is that its not been tested yet. The acceleration is said to be slightly faster than by the Mac and the top speed about the same ( CC estimated 390 kmh, Mac 391 kmh ). The CC is also newer and fresher and more exclusiv IMO. The only really exclusiv feature about the Mac Is the middle postioned steering wheel. But still I go with the CC.

[hermunn123]

hey chief did you even read the whole post?? the CC has been tested by Car and Driver. the F1 is faster in everything. the CC won in ugliness though. CD said the top speed would be around 225, nowhere near the F1's 240 mph. the CC tips the scales at 2800 lbs, while the F1 is only 2508 lbs. so your statement about the CC being lighter is wrong. researching never hurt anyone. you want to talk about exclusitivity? there were 64 F1's made! now there are less because of crappy drivers who wrecked them. the only thing the F1 has is the central driving position? wrong. it's got Le Mans, many records, and if you knew anything about the car, you would realize how much better it is than the CC.

[V12]

I'm not come here to argue with you about this. The CC weighs 1100 kg and the Mac 1132 kg. I read the article from cd from the net and there was nothing about the top speed being 225 mph. Here is some more info about the CC http://www.supercars.net/cars/2000@$Koenigsegg@$CCa.html . And looks are subjective. If you dont like the CC I dont care, for me it looks better. The CC is fresher than the Mac and more exclusiv IMO. You can have the CC as coupe and roadster since it has a removable hardtop, thats nice too. The Mac was created to be a road car so lets take it as one, there is no reason to include the Longtail into this since it had a totally different areo packet than the normal F1. For me the CC is the better one, it's got the power the looks and the speed.

[hermunn123]

i'm not here to argue either. sorry if i came off as being argumentative(sp?). go and find the november 2001 issue of car and driver and read that. in the article(in the magazine) C/D says top speed 225 mph(est). again to find specs on the CC, don't go to supercars.net or pretty much any other website cuz they have terrible information. looks are subjective, i was just giving my opinion. yes, the F1 was created as a road car. did i say anything about the Longtail? i said it won Le Mans, but thats not the longtail. i was talking about its history and prestige when i metioned that, not the Longtail. as of now, Koenigsegg has no prestige or racing history. thats another why i like the F1. the F1 has the speed though.

[Shaitan]

[TatII]

why does the CC look like a bar of ivory soap with wheels? in my opinion, the best lookin super cars ever, is either the tommy kaira ZZII, Lambourghini diablo GT 6.0, or countache, or the Zonda C12.

[300zxMaster1]

If you think about it the Mclaren F1 was made a long time ago and the Saleen s7 was not....So if a new car cant beat it then what can. The Mclaren F1 will stay the flagship of the company unlike other cars which will be replaced. Some will say that the Koenigsegg or Bugatti go faster..They do but the Mclaren F1 to date is still the fastest naturally aspirated car in the world which is good for a car that is more than 15 years old unlike the newer Bugatti with a four turbos and almost 400 horsepower more and the Mclaren F1 still accelerates to 100 mph faster... It doesnt lack in efficency. The Mclaren is rated at 22mpg at the best and 11mpg at the worst.. Which is not bad when the Lamborghini Murcielago gets 4mpg.