Talk:Koenigsegg CCX
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Koenigsegg CCX was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | |||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
 |
Koenigsegg CCX has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion. | |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | |
Contents |
[edit] Koenigsegg Horsepower Ratings
Does anyone know if Koenigsegg is giving their power numbers in HP (SAE) or PS? They claim 806 hp on 91 octane, the highest available in the state of California, which would lead me to believe they are using SAE figures. OTOH, the fact that they are a Swedish outfit leads me to believe they are more than likely listing their power figures in PS. Anyone know the answer? I changed the kilowatt ratings to be SAE horsepower equivilant, if the Koenigsegg numbers are actually PS then the old numbers would be correct. - MrBigB
[edit] Ceramic Braking System
On this page: http://www.koenigsegg.com/thecars/ccx.asp?ccx=2 , front rotor size is listed as 382mm, yet on the specifications page: http://www.koenigsegg.com/thecars/ccx.asp?ccx=3 , the rotor size decreases to 380mm. Does anyone know which diameter is correct? --Aml_0000 05:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- I suspect the world will be safe with a 2mm deviation on brake rotors. 69.225.121.41 07:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Koenigsegg Wing Issues
Two issues surrounding the optional wing: One, I'm fairly certain that the wing produces a Top Speed of less than 242 mph, as listed under the Top Gear section--because that's the Top Speed without the wing (well, 245 according to most sources). I'm having trouble finding a citation for this, but I could swear the top speed with the wing was in the 230 MPH range. Maybe the author meant 224 mph?
Secondly, the quote from Lotta de Salvatore, the Swedish car editor, has some serious credibility issues. Aerodynamic aids like spoilers and wings start working at significantly less than 300 kph. If his claim were true, then nobody would use wings and spoilers at all--even Formula 1 cars spend most of their time at speeds less than this, and vehicles with retractable wings all deploy them at speeds less than 200 kph. I'm not an engineer, but I think this offers reasonable evidence that de Salvatore doesn't know what he's talking about. Suspension setup certainly may have helped, but the wing certainly did as well.--5th earth 22:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- I dunno, but it might have to do with that the wing in question sits low and is a rather small [1][2] compared to most race car wings (including the one on the Koenigsegg CCGT [3]). —Bromskloss 16:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge with CCXR
I think this should be merged with Koenigsegg CCXR and just have a section (on this article) about the CCXR. The only difference between the 2 is the engine and the CCX can be converted into a CCXR for the owners. CCXR would be made into a redirect to that section. Does anyone have any objections? James086Talk | Email 05:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- I never noticed they were separate. They should definitely be merged, as the CCXR is basically a variation of the CCX. I vote in favor of the merger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Grim Reaper (talk • contribs) 17:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
-
- I agree. The difference between the two is not significant enough for separate articles.~ Dusk Knight 06:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes from me also, you cannot buy a true CCXR, but a regular CCX is converted to use a different fuel. CCXR is a sub model of the CCX, like Mustang GT (V6, V8, convertible, hardtop) you don't make separate pages for these types of vehicle, but sub link them as models. Ace1875Talk | Email
Ok, it seems that there's a pretty clear consensus to merge. I think I'll just write up a section on the CCXR and redirect the CCXR article to CCX. That way I don't need to merge the histories. James086Talk | Email 08:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Good article
This article reads well and meets all of the GA criteria. Happy editing! Johnfos 02:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Good Article Review
This is just to inform all the Wikipedians concerned that I put this article up for Good Article Review. For details, please see the appropriate Good Article Review section - you can access it by clicking the link above. Kind regards, PrinceGloria 10:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
- It has now been delisted. See the review archive (linked from the article history) for suggested improvements. Geometry guy 21:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Top Gear
You should include something about how this car was tested (and crashed) by top gear, resulting in the manfacturers adding a spoiler to it, if it was this model--Jac16888 12:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC) see here for details--Jac16888 12:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
- I removed it with the info about reviews, however it was significant to the car so at some point I will add it back in (if someone hasn't already, I'm busy for the next few months so no big edits). James086Talk | Email 13:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Production numbers
The article could benefit from some info on production numbers and sales, including dates available to EU and US markets, export numbers, etc. Don't know how easy it is to obtain reliable figures, but it would help to expand and balance out the content. - Tomperc 12:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
- I looked for production numbers but the best I could find was that Koenigsegg had produced about 40 cars up until April 2006. That's CC8S, CCR and a bit of CCX so it's not really accurate. James086Talk | Email 13:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Minor point
Hi. Nice article. One little niggle that struck me: Grainger & Worrall are said to build F1 engines, but the reference actually says that they make castings for F1 cars. This isn't quite the same thing, they're a component supplier, and not necessarily for engines, rather than an engine builder themselves. Suggest "a company which supplies castings for Formula One cars". Cheers. 4u1e 10:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Wheelbase?
There must be an error in the article concerning the vehicle's wheelbase. This seems more like it: http://www.localchips.co.uk/cars/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4&Itemid=9 88.113.109.116 (talk) 15:52, 28 December 2007 (UTC) Fixed it 88.113.109.116 (talk) 13:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hi, the wheelbase is correct, look at this screenshot taken of the CAD drawing. δ²(Talk) 21:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Facts and Figures
Hi, can anyone shine any light on the origins of this statement:
It should be noted that the official specs for the CCX and CCXR (as well as the CCR) have been greatly understated by as much as 200 bhp. This also means that the acceleration can be as much as 0.5 seconds faster than stated. This has been done on purpose because of trade tariffs and marketing standards in different countries.
what is the basis of this? I cannot find any history if where this came from. Until a reference can be found for this infeasibly shaky information, I shall remove it. Any objections? δ²(Talk) 21:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
