DailyTech - Koenigsegg CCXR Special Edition Crosses 1000 HP Barrier Using E85

Submit News

Science Koenigsegg CCXR Special Edition Crosses 1000 HP Barrier Using E85
Brandon Hill (Blog) - November 26, 2007 12:52 PM

53 comment(s) - last by numbnuts.. on Nov 28 at 2:46 AM

E85 gives the CCX Special Edition 1018 HP

Koenigsegg's outrageous CCX supercar should be no stranger to automotive enthusiasts around the world. The CCX is the successor to the equally outrageous CCR which made its first appearance at the 2004 Geneva Auto Show.

The mid-engine, $540,000 USD CCX weighs just 2,601 pounds and gets its power from a twin-turbocharged 4.7-liter 806 HP engine. The impressive power figures and relatively low weight allow the CCX to accelerate to 60 miles power hour in 3.2 seconds, blast through the 1/4 mile in 9.9 seconds and reach a top speed of around 245 MPH.

As if those numbers weren't impressive enough, Koenigsegg is out to make even more tongues wag with the introduction of the €1.5 million ($2.2 million USD) CCXR Special Edition.

The CCXR Special Edition makes its mark as an "environmentally friendly" supercar according to Koenigsegg. The vehicle uses E85 (85% ethanol, 15% gasoline) to produce a whopping 1018 HP @ 7,200 RPM and 780 lb-ft of torque @ 6,100 RPM.

The additional power over the "standard" CCX is achieved due to the cooling effect of ethanol in the combustion chamber and its higher octane rating (over 100 ROM). The compression ratio for the CCXR Special Edition is 8.2:1 while the twin Rotrex superchargers provide 1.5 bar of boost.

Koenigsegg claims that the additional power drops 0-60 times to 2.9 seconds while the top speed now climbs to over 248 MPH. Combined city/highway fuel economy for the 1000+ HP beast is said to be 10.7 MPG.

The use of biofuels like ethanol has been recently called into question due to the energy required to produce substantial quantities for consumption and its effect on the economy. There are also environmental concerns over ethanol production -- some studies have shown that E85 actually have a more harmful impact on air pollution than gasoline.

Despite these downsides, the political pressure to proceed with the production of E85 in the United States shows no signs of slowing down. And until it does, we can expect to see more companies like Koenigsegg taking advantage of the positive attributes of ethanol for automobiles.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Hot

By clovell on 11/26/2007 1:02:37 PM , Rating: 2

I don't think 10.7 mpg is bad for that kind of car - if that's what it really gets. All said, that thing looks sweet and the price point really isn't too bad, though I'm afraid of what they'd want for the special edition.

I had no idea that ethanol would actually cool things down. It makes sense; I've just never thought about it.

RE: Hot

By HaZaRd2K6 on 11/26/2007 1:16:42 PM , Rating: 2

Does it actually cool the engine or does it just run cooler than burning gasoline?

Parent

RE: Hot

By lazyinjin on 11/26/2007 1:29:26 PM , Rating: 2

Ethanol vaporizes into air better than gasoline; this process more efficiently cools the combustion chamber than gasoline alone.

Parent

RE: Hot

By TimTheEnchanter25 on 11/26/2007 1:31:02 PM , Rating: 3

It runs cooler because ethanol has less BTUs than gasoline. That's why your gas millage drops 20% on E-85. Also, most of the northern states have to drop back to E-70 in the winter or your car won't start.

Parent

RE: Hot

By Chernobyl68 on 11/26/2007 6:46:56 PM , Rating: 2

aren't "top fuel" dragsters burning alcohol, basically?

Parent

RE: Hot

By Calin on 11/27/2007 3:21:48 AM , Rating: 2

Methanol, not ethanol.
While ethanol is not toxic, methanol is (ingested, it can lead to permanent blinding. Luckily, the antidote to methanol is ethanol :D )
Methanol has an octane rating of around 150, so it allows plenty of compression (much more so than ethanol)

Parent

RE: Hot

By Suomynona on 11/26/2007 1:32:06 PM , Rating: 2

Neither, really. It cools the intake charge. The cooler the air is coming into the engine, the denser it is. The denser it is the more oxygen is in it. The more oxygen in it the more fuel you can burn. The more fuel you can burn the more power you make. I run alcohol injection on my STi for just this reason.

Parent

RE: Hot

By FITCamaro on 11/26/2007 3:57:37 PM , Rating: 4

Exactly. You want cool air because its more dense. More oxygen means more fuel and gives more power. You want as much heat as possible though in the combustion chamber itself though to fully burn all the fuel (this also helps with emissions). More heat = more power.

Thats why iron heads/blocks make more power than aluminum ones. Aluminum though makes up for the difference by being lighter and allowing you to run higher compression ratios since it can dissipate heat faster.

And you want to run as low an octane as possible in a motor. Not the highest you can find. Running 100 octane in an engine designed to run on 89 does nothing. In fact it can lower the horsepower and fuel economy.

Parent

RE: Hot

By theapparition on 11/27/2007 12:30:50 AM , Rating: 3

+1 for mentioning running the lowest octane grade in an engine (unless it requires premium).

Many people think that higher octane rated gas is somehow better, but in reality, high octane gas is just more reluctant to burn. Only in engines with higher compression ratios or forced induction (where knock becomes an issue) is premium necessary.

Parent

RE: Hot

By rninneman on 11/26/2007 1:33:00 PM , Rating: 2

The ethanol cools the intake charge by absorbing some of the heat. The air coming into a force induction motor is warmed by the compressor whether it be a turbo or super charger. This is why most forced induction motors have some sort of intercooler. When the ultimate performance is desired, race motors will be fitted with water, alcohol or even propane injection systems that are designed to further cool the incoming air and allow higher compression.

Parent

RE: Hot

By PlasmaBomb on 11/26/2007 6:13:41 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
a custom-built intercooler that lowers the charged intake air temperature from 150 C to 50 degrees C

Considering how hard the intercooler works on the standard CCR, the ethanol will help.

Parent

RE: Hot

By PlasmaBomb on 11/26/2007 6:15:21 PM , Rating: 2

Thanks to Bernard Breslaw for the link to Koenigsegg's official site :D

Parent

RE: Hot

By kristof007 on 11/26/2007 1:23:24 PM , Rating: 2

Don't quote me on this but I think the McClaren F1 on top gear have like maybe a third of that gas mileage. I think it was around 3 miles per gallon.

Either that car looks freakin' sweet!

Parent

RE: Hot

By Suomynona on 11/26/2007 1:38:38 PM , Rating: 2

The '97 was rated at 13 mpg, iirc.

Parent

RE: Hot

By DigitalFreak on 11/26/2007 1:25:27 PM , Rating: 2

Especially considering that you get less MPG when burning E85 vs pure gasoline.

Parent

RE: Hot

By Souka on 11/26/2007 1:51:52 PM , Rating: 1

That E85 isn't same as you get at the pump.... Octane of 100...jeez....that's tough stuff.

also, compression ratio isn't very high at 8.3:1...but those chargers must really provide a ton of boost...

My old Datsun 280Z ran 9:1 factory I think....can't remember, but fun car to drive! :)

Parent

RE: Hot

By TimTheEnchanter25 on 11/26/2007 2:28:11 PM , Rating: 3

quote:
That E85 isn't same as you get at the pump.... Octane of 100...jeez....that's tough stuff.

All E-85 is 100-105 Octane.

Parent

RE: Hot

By tjr508 on 11/26/2007 2:38:19 PM , Rating: 2

8.3 is pretty high considering air may enter the engine at up to 38 psia. Remember a n/a motor has air entering the engine around 13-14 psia after the pressure drop across the intake and such. With crazy boost like that, an engine designed for pump gas would be dropped even further (think low 7's).

It's also interesting to note that the biggest flaw in n/a "flex-fuel" cars is that they have to drop the compression down to ~9.5:1 to run on regular pump gas while e85 is optimal above 12:1 . Since [eff ~ r^(1/2)] the E85 effiency takes an additional hit for not being optimized for compression besides just the hit for not having the BTU/gal of gasoline.

I would love to see E85-only cars and trucks here in the midwest since it is available at around half the gas stations here at ~$2.00/gal.

Parent

RE: Hot

By mdogs444 on 11/26/07, Rating: 0

RE: Hot

By DerwenArtos12 on 11/26/2007 3:20:24 PM , Rating: 2

first of all you don't have to be rude, the post you replied to was not provocational at all. Second, if you actually read his post or knew anything about how e85 runs, if they built an e85 only engine they could up the compression ratio and more than likely completely negate the fuel efficiency loss and would definitely increase power output.

Parent

RE: Hot

By masher2

(blog) on 11/26/2007 3:29:43 PM , Rating: 2

> "if they built an e85 only engine they could up the compression ratio and more than likely completely negate the fuel efficiency loss "

Nowhere near. You can't get around basic physics...the energy content of E85 is substantially lower than normal gasoline. A higher compression ratio will increase the power output of the engine dramatically, but won't have a huge impact on efficiency.

Parent

RE: Hot

By mdogs444 on 11/26/2007 3:30:44 PM , Rating: 3

quote:
first of all you don't have to be rude, the post you replied to was not provocational at all.

You're right. I apologize. I was reading other posts and getting fed up with the remarks that some people think E85 is the best thing since sliced break. So im sorry for being rude.

quote:
if you actually read his post or knew anything about how e85 runs, if they built an e85 only engine they could up the compression ratio and more than likely completely negate the fuel efficiency loss and would definitely increase power output.

I do know how E85 runs - and one of the main reasons that it will not work as the sole fuel of the Midwest is the weather and how cold it gets. Sure, there's alot of "ifs" and "buts" that they COULD do to motors so that E85 performs better than it currently does, but the fact is that its an inferior fuel and its really not good for the motor. It doesn't burn as hot or as clean either. Im not referring to the cleanliness of the emissions, im talking about the burning temperature and how clean it burns inside of the motor. That is one of the sole reasons that the two of the most reliable automakers do NOT make E85 motors: Honda & Toyota. They have chosen the "hybrid" route becuase of how inferior the efficiency & performance is of E85. All in all, its really not worth the money in terms of efficiency loss and performance loss.

Parent

RE: Hot

By masher2

(blog) on 11/26/2007 3:51:55 PM , Rating: 2

And lets not forget that E85 is only "cheaper" due to the massive government subsidies being given to it. We pay those costs in the form of higher taxes, even though we don't see the bill at the pump.

Parent

RE: Hot

By aebiv on 11/26/2007 11:03:27 PM , Rating: 3

Plus, how it takes a lot more energy to produce ethanol, rather than gasoline... Further decreases E85s appeal.

Don't forget what it does to the meat industry in the United States either. With corn prices at nearly 3 times what they use to be, feeding cattle, pigs, and chickens has become very expensive for the American rancher/farmer.

Parent

RE: Hot

By TimTheEnchanter25 on 11/27/2007 9:41:08 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
Plus, how it takes a lot more energy to produce ethanol, rather than gasoline... Further decreases E85s appeal.

The really ironic thing about ethanol is that an average farmer uses around 300 gallons of gas / diesel to grow enough corn to make 120 gallons of ethanol. If farmers grow extra corn for ethanol, it is actually increasing our dependence on foreign oil.

Parent

RE: Hot

By TimTheEnchanter25 on 11/27/2007 9:35:20 AM , Rating: 2

Yeah, ethanol has a 51 cent per gallon subsidy. The ethanol companies conveniently keep the price of ethanol around 45 cents higher than the price of gas. So, the subsidy money goes directly into their pockets. For 2006, the subsidies totaled almost $3 billion of our tax dollars. And that isn't counting the other incentives the government pays them.

I still think that it is funny that when Congress forced the oil companies to switch from using MTBE to E-10, it created an ethanol shortage. The easy solution was to import ethanol from Brazil (sugar cane works a LOT better than corn). But, Congress decided that we couldn't replace our dependence on foreign oil with a dependence on foreign ethanol. So, they made a 50 cent per gallon tariff on imported ethanol. I guess the US ethanol companies need a dollar per gallon advantage to be competitive.

Parent

RE: Hot

By bhieb on 11/26/2007 1:27:21 PM , Rating: 4

Does look pretty sweet, but for that price I would rather have the Veryon. This looks too much like all the other super cars before it, with the Veryon you at least get something truely innovative and unique.

Parent

RE: Hot

By TimTheEnchanter25 on 11/26/2007 1:27:39 PM , Rating: 2

It says the special edition is $2.2 million. So, you pay an extra $1.66 million to go 0-60 .3 seconds faster, add 3mph to the top speed, and get 10.7 "enviromentally friendly" mpgs.

Parent

RE: Hot

By techfuzz on 11/26/2007 1:31:40 PM , Rating: 2

I imagine there are other additional special edition features like a carbon-fiber dash and Swedish leather shifter boot that bump up the price a little :)

Parent

RE: Hot

By clovell on 11/26/2007 2:04:24 PM , Rating: 3

For 2.2 mil, it'd better come with a Swedish supermodel - forget the leather shift boot.

Parent

RE: Hot

By xsilver on 11/26/2007 6:07:31 PM , Rating: 2

If you rock up with that car on sunset boulevard; Im sure some kind of supermodel would be stupid enough to jump in the passenger seat.
Don't mention the E85 or how big your manhood is, or the gig is up and she'll kick you out!

Parent

RE: Hot

By Screwballl on 11/26/2007 2:45:06 PM , Rating: 2

question, is that Imperial or US MPG?
10.7 Imperial = 8.9 US MPG
10.7 US = 12.85 Imperial MPG

either way its not great... now what is the MPG when using normal gas and not E10 or E85??? Typically 25-50% or better in low MPG vehicles.

It is nice that ethanol has a lower ignition point which allows the engine to run cooler but same question as above, what impact would using standard gasoline in it have?

Parent

RE: Hot

By mmcdonalataocdotgov on 11/26/2007 3:36:03 PM , Rating: 2

It cools the combustion chamber. Alcohol injection was used with superchargers in aircraft like the P-38 Lightning in WWII.

Anyway, this looks so much like the McLaren. Very nice, but worse than pick-ups and SUVs on the mileage. *snap* yeah, I said it.

Parent

RE: Hot

By lagomorpha on 11/26/2007 3:59:01 PM , Rating: 3

The mileage isn't to bad when you consider the average one will only see 10-20 miles in a year.

Parent

RE: Hot

By Calin on 11/27/2007 3:24:51 AM , Rating: 2

This would be a combined mpg. As for really pushing racetrack mpg, you can expect to use a gallon a minute.
Formula 1 race cars (which are in the same neighborhood power wise) ran a few years ago a race on 180 liters of fuel (50 gallons) for 300+km (200 miles). Now that fuel is no longer limited, I assume they use even more fuel

Parent

i'd just like to add...

By inperfectdarkness on 11/26/2007 2:01:20 PM , Rating: 2

ethanol has a MUCH higher octane rating than premium unleaded. the reason "flex fuel" vehicles show decreased mileage with e85 is because the vehicle is built with a compression ratio designed around pure gasoline. without additional compression, the benefits of e85 or even pure ethanol are lost.

this is similar to why putting premium in an engine built for regular will not net you any performance or mileage gains.

if you build an engine to run on solely e85, or better, pure ethanol--you'd be able to boost compression up to 12:1 or better.

RE: i'd just like to add...

By masher2

(blog) on 11/26/2007 2:11:41 PM , Rating: 2

Ethanol has a substantially lower energy content than does gasoline. While it is true you could design an all-ethanol engine to have a higher compression ratio, its MPG rating would still be considerably lower than that of gasoline.

Parent

RE: i'd just like to add...

By FITCamaro on 11/26/2007 4:02:18 PM , Rating: 2

It was actually kind of cool. American Chopper did an E85 bike. On the show they built the motor specifically for E85. And there they even said the motor requires about 3 times as much fuel as a gas bike.

Parent

RE: i'd just like to add...

By TimTheEnchanter25 on 11/26/2007 2:26:28 PM , Rating: 2

A gallon of E85 has an energy content of about 80,000 BTU, compared to gasoline's 124,800 BTU. So about 1.56 gal. of E85 takes you as far as 1 gal. of gas.

E-85 doesn't have that much higher octane rating than premium. It is around 100 -105 (depending on the octance of the gas mixed with it) compared to 92-93.

No matter how you design the engine, E-85 is still an inferior fuel. Most people would be much happier with increasing fuel economy than increasing octane.

Parent

RE: i'd just like to add...

By PlasmaBomb on 11/26/2007 6:05:37 PM , Rating: 2

It's from Europe and designed to run on 98 RON unleaded.

Parent

RE: i'd just like to add...

By inperfectdarkness on 11/26/2007 10:36:48 PM , Rating: 2

you're assuming all gasoline is equivelent. if there isn't an energy differential between 93 octane and 87 octane, then why does performance, mileage, etc all decrease if you DON'T use premium in a "premium only" engine?

i'm not going to sit here and b.s. you that e85 can get you better mpg than straight gas, but i will bet you that if you run e85 in an engine specifically designed for it (by which, i mean compression ratios, etc--not just stainless fuel lines and supporting mods) that it will approach a fuel economy very close to gasoline.

http://motorcitymuscle.blogspot.com/2007/01/e85-ro...

if you run 105 octane ANYTHING in a 14:1 compression engine, you're able to get equal power, with better economy, from a smaller displacement.

in an engine built around e100, you can concievably run 16:1 ratios. that's nearly double what you'll find on most cars. most people would be happy with increasing net power, rather than economy (just a hunch).

i guess the truth will remain to be seen until someone releases the first e85/e100 only vehicle with a 14:1 or higher ratio. you'll find 3.0L engines making 300 hp on naturally aspirated setups.

Parent

RE: i'd just like to add...

By theapparition on 11/27/2007 12:18:10 AM , Rating: 2

Close.

quote:
if there isn't an energy differential between 93 octane and 87 octane, then why does performance, mileage, etc all decrease if you DON'T use premium in a "premium only" engine?

There is a small difference in energy between octane grades of fuel, but not anywhere near enough to make a difference. For most engines, you should always run the lowest grade. Anything else is a waste of money and pollutants. Not a single gas engine will develope more power going from regular to premuim octane grades.
If you engine was designed for high compression ratios, going lower can certainly affect preformance since timing is usually retarded as the result of sensors picking up knock. But this has absolutely nothing to do with the energy content of the fuel, strictly pre-detonation from higher CR's.

But your right that the higher you get the compression ratio, the more efficient it becomes. I just don't know if it's feasable to increase the CR enough to offset the energy loss in E85.

Parent

RE: i'd just like to add...

By Cattman on 11/27/2007 12:30:43 AM , Rating: 2

Performance and mileage decreases when running low octane fuel in an engine designed for high octane not because of an "energy differential" but because of the combustion properties of the fuel. Running a low octane fuel in a high octane engine causes the fuel to ignite prematurely know as detonation. In a newer car the electronics (knock sensors)take over and adjust ignition timing to help protect the motor and in doing so reduce the engine efficiency and performance. Running a high octane Ethanol in a high compression cylinder will produce high power but not more efficiency. There is only so much potential energy in a given quantity/type of fuel. You can push more fuel pump in more air and squeeze it harder for a bigger bang but thats it. With modern computer controlled engines you can theoretically maximize efficiency for a specific fuel but a fuel with more potential energy will alway be more efficient measuring strictly quantity of fuel used to achieve X amout of power.

Parent

RE: i'd just like to add...

By qwiksilver96 on 11/27/2007 1:27:56 AM , Rating: 2

Cattman hit the nail on the head. I took a stock '98 LS1 corvette motor, upgraded the heads, cam, etc to very high performance specs which changed the comp ratio to ~12.5:1. The size diff of the intake and exh valves was staggering. So was the extra power generated once it was tuned. I was still able to run 93 Octane fuel, but surely could have produced quite a bit more power had I taken the inititive to tune it for and supply it with 103 octane fuel. More fuel, higher compression = more power. Modern engines have some very impressively tuned programs driving them to eke out every possible ounce of power for a given fuel economy. It is amazing what can be done with these engines given the proper tuning/parts.

Frank

Parent

RE: i'd just like to add...

By TimTheEnchanter25 on 11/27/2007 10:21:25 AM , Rating: 2

quote:
i guess the truth will remain to be seen until someone releases the first e85/e100 only

I think it will be a very long time before you see a car company brave enough to make one. According to the DOE, there are only 1,287 stations selling E-85 in the US (90% are in the Midwest).

That is unlikely to dramatically change until there is a better distribution system for ethanol. For a number of reasons, it can't be transported over the pipeline system used for crude / gas. So, all ethanol is shipped by train and truck. Which doesn't make it very cheap to go very far from the ethanol plants, and they are all in the Midwest.

There is also the problem, that we can't grow enough corn. If every single ear of corn in the US was used for ethanol, it would only be enough for the entire Country to use E-03. Plus, a lot of stations aren't going to add E-85 even if it is available, because it is still too expensive.

How many people are going to buy a car that restricts which towns / states they can drive to?

Parent

2.2 million?

By ZimZum on 11/26/2007 2:40:08 PM , Rating: 2

For that Kind of money I can get a Bugatti Veyron (1001hp 0-60 2.4, 250mph top speed) and have enough left over for a Bentley to do the grocery shopping in.

RE: 2.2 million?

By FITCamaro on 11/26/2007 4:21:15 PM , Rating: 2

Or I can get the Blue Devil Vette when they're released, modify it a bit, buy a house, fully furnish it, buy a few other cars, and then still pocket over a million dollars.

Parent

RE: 2.2 million?

By theapparition on 11/27/2007 12:27:06 AM , Rating: 2

To be quite honest, I'm a little dissapointed in those numbers. 0-60 3.6sec for a 2600lb car? The Bugatti is certainly more impressive from a launch. This car is probably geared for midrange power, though, to tear up the track. The magazine specs get all the headlines, but in the end it's about who crosses the finish line first.

My 1000+rwhp '02 C5 Corvette is pushing 0-60 in ~2sec and 1/4 9.79. All for under 100k......warranty not included.
I'll save the extra 2.1 million for when something breaks. But this is a car for whom "if you have to ask the price, you can't afford it" is not in their vocabulary.

Parent

RE: 2.2 million?

By rdeegvainl on 11/27/2007 7:16:56 AM , Rating: 2

LOL,
with that kind of money, I would just get a new Taurus, pay off the mortgage, and become the boss of my own business ;)

Parent

Ford engine huh

By Bernard Breslaw on 11/26/2007 2:07:00 PM , Rating: 2

The CCR used a V8 Ford Engine.

For the CCX, Koenigsegg developed their own engine.

Note the CCX Specs on their page state this is a Koenigsegg Engine
http://www.koenigsegg.com/thecars/ccx.asp?ccx=3

And the CCR just says V8 aka the Ford engine.
http://www.koenigsegg.com/thecars/index.asp?submen...

I wonder if this special edition will smash the previous world record for a speeding ticket of 242mph (again by a Koenigsegg CC)

It's no Bugatti Veyron is it? Arguably the best car ever made...

By Lord Sear on 11/27/2007 6:01:38 AM , Rating: 2

a car that has £4,000 forged titantium indicator stalks - impressive ;)

Woah.

By Vim on 11/27/2007 10:19:33 AM , Rating: 2

That car RAPES .

Tamed racing driver

By numbnuts on 11/28/2007 2:46:08 AM , Rating: 2

Some say he successfully sued MPAA&RIAA for driving cars.. all we know he is called the Stig

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXjjpQwHDI4/RI

"Google fired a shot heard 'round the world, and now a second American company has answered the call to defend the rights of the Chinese people." -- Rep. Christopher H. Smith (R-N.J.)