Supercar makers will push to 1.5 megawatts or 2000+ horsepower to beat new Tesla Roadster

The Koenigsegg Agera RS currently is one of the fastest cars in the world after it reached speeds of 278 mph. The Koenigsegg One:1, named for its equal power-to-weight ratio, also packs 1,341 horsepower, or the equivalent of one megawatt of power.

The new Tesla Roadster will be able to accelerate from 0-60mph in 1.9 seconds.

Koenigsegg will respond by pushing to over 1.5 megawatts of power or 2000+ horsepower.

Koenigsegg is looking at combining direct drive, with the hybridization they have in a different format with freevalve engine technology, in a peculiar layout.

They are about talking 0-250 mph in 14 seconds. They are pushing the combustion engine into the wall to try to make it more power dense than an EV for as long as possible.

They could boost their already high compression ratio for their turbo V8 – 9.5 to 1 with 1.6 bar of boost. If they drop that to 8.8 to 1, they could boost to 2.2 bar, which is another 600bhp. This would give a hypercar with over 2,000 horsepower.

Koenigsegg is also looking at electric power supercars.

The Koenigsegg Regera has an internal combustion engine combined with an electric drive system that the carmaker calls Direct Drive. The system includes three electric motors that produce 700 horsepower and provide torque vectoring and regenerative braking capability. It has a twin-turbo 5.0-liter V-8 in the car. Total power output is 1,500 hp.

58 thoughts on “Supercar makers will push to 1.5 megawatts or 2000+ horsepower to beat new Tesla Roadster”

  1. That’s exactly my point. If you are going to boil down vehicle performance to a set of numbers, the ones that I find most useful are ones that you’ll never find any magazine/video/review going on about. And someone living in a different situation to me (even me a couple of decades ago when I lived elsewhere) would want a completely different combination of measures. And lastly, you were really sailing close to the wind making comments on a thread this old. This vuukle thing means that one can’t just click on the link to get to the correct place any more. If I hadn’t been comparing my vehicle’s performance numbers on the other screen at the time I probably wouldn’t have bothered. (It’s not 1500 kW. More like 203 W. Though with a 480 W peak.)

    Reply
  2. That’s exactly my point. If you are going to boil down vehicle performance to a set of numbers the ones that I find most useful are ones that you’ll never find any magazine/video/review going on about.And someone living in a different situation to me (even me a couple of decades ago when I lived elsewhere) would want a completely different combination of measures.And lastly you were really sailing close to the wind making comments on a thread this old. This vuukle thing means that one can’t just click on the link to get to the correct place any more.If I hadn’t been comparing my vehicle’s performance numbers on the other screen at the time I probably wouldn’t have bothered. (It’s not 1500 kW. More like 203 W. Though with a 480 W peak.)

    Reply
  3. Yeah, well gmail also thinks that Vuukle is spamming… (Vuukle also makes you redefine the meaning of “old”. 🙂 ) ” (It’s not 1500 kW. More like 203 W. Though with a 480 W peak.)” Is it an electric bike or something with 480W peak power?

    Reply
  4. Yeah well gmail also thinks that Vuukle is spamming… (Vuukle also makes you redefine the meaning of old””. 🙂 )”””” (It’s not 1500 kW. More like 203 W. Though with a 480 W peak.)””””Is it an electric bike or something with 480W peak power?”””

    Reply
  5. They have the tech to make electric hybrids the right way ergo have the (range -extender) have the capacity to fully charge the battery and allow the use of dual control they keep coming with one or the other. Combine it and make it right come on yall.

    Reply
  6. They have the tech to make electric hybrids the right way ergo have the (range -extender) have the capacity to fully charge the battery and allow the use of dual control they keep coming with one or the other. Combine it and make it right come on yall.

    Reply
  7. They have the tech to make electric hybrids the right way ergo have the (range -extender) have the capacity to fully charge the battery and allow the use of dual control they keep coming with one or the other. Combine it and make it right come on yall.

    Reply
  8. They have the tech to make electric hybrids the right way ergo have the (range -extender) have the capacity to fully charge the battery and allow the use of dual control they keep coming with one or the other. Combine it and make it right come on yall.

    Reply
  9. They have the tech to make electric hybrids the right way ergo have the (range -extender) have the capacity to fully charge the battery and allow the use of dual control they keep coming with one or the other. Combine it and make it right come on yall.

    Reply
  10. Yeah, well gmail also thinks that Vuukle is spamming… (Vuukle also makes you redefine the meaning of “old”. 🙂 ) ” (It’s not 1500 kW. More like 203 W. Though with a 480 W peak.)” Is it an electric bike or something with 480W peak power?

    Reply
  11. Yeah well gmail also thinks that Vuukle is spamming… (Vuukle also makes you redefine the meaning of old””. 🙂 )”””” (It’s not 1500 kW. More like 203 W. Though with a 480 W peak.)””””Is it an electric bike or something with 480W peak power?”””

    Reply
  12. That’s exactly my point. If you are going to boil down vehicle performance to a set of numbers, the ones that I find most useful are ones that you’ll never find any magazine/video/review going on about. And someone living in a different situation to me (even me a couple of decades ago when I lived elsewhere) would want a completely different combination of measures. And lastly, you were really sailing close to the wind making comments on a thread this old. This vuukle thing means that one can’t just click on the link to get to the correct place any more. If I hadn’t been comparing my vehicle’s performance numbers on the other screen at the time I probably wouldn’t have bothered. (It’s not 1500 kW. More like 203 W. Though with a 480 W peak.)

    Reply
  13. That’s exactly my point. If you are going to boil down vehicle performance to a set of numbers the ones that I find most useful are ones that you’ll never find any magazine/video/review going on about.And someone living in a different situation to me (even me a couple of decades ago when I lived elsewhere) would want a completely different combination of measures.And lastly you were really sailing close to the wind making comments on a thread this old. This vuukle thing means that one can’t just click on the link to get to the correct place any more.If I hadn’t been comparing my vehicle’s performance numbers on the other screen at the time I probably wouldn’t have bothered. (It’s not 1500 kW. More like 203 W. Though with a 480 W peak.)

    Reply
  14. Yeah, well gmail also thinks that Vuukle is spamming… (Vuukle also makes you redefine the meaning of “old”. 🙂 )

    ” (It’s not 1500 kW. More like 203 W. Though with a 480 W peak.)”

    Is it an electric bike or something with 480W peak power?

    Reply
  15. That’s exactly my point. If you are going to boil down vehicle performance to a set of numbers, the ones that I find most useful are ones that you’ll never find any magazine/video/review going on about.
    And someone living in a different situation to me (even me a couple of decades ago when I lived elsewhere) would want a completely different combination of measures.

    And lastly, you were really sailing close to the wind making comments on a thread this old. This vuukle thing means that one can’t just click on the link to get to the correct place any more.
    If I hadn’t been comparing my vehicle’s performance numbers on the other screen at the time I probably wouldn’t have bothered. (It’s not 1500 kW. More like 203 W. Though with a 480 W peak.)

    Reply
  16. I agree that the performance car market is heavily biased towards simple numbers. And even that is a very limited selection of simple numbers. 0-100 kph Standing 400m (Seriously, this was first used in the 1630s!) Top speed Lap time of the Nurburgring race track. (This is a new one, and an improvement (probably) on the previous 3) A somewhat bittersweet example is the old SAAB turbo cars. According to SAAB fans and the company claims, the performance models were faster than say a BMW M3 or maybe even a Porsche 911, when measured the way that they thought was important (say point-to-point over snowy swedish back roads, or 80-130 acceleration on a highway) but these figures never appeared in standard car magazine or TV comparisons. Whereas the Germans were faster on simple tests like 0-100 kph Standing 400m Top speed Lap time of the Nurburgring race track. So everyone bought BMWs, and SAAB went bankrupt. My own personal opinion is that, for a car that is mostly driven in the city (where I live) the REAL important figures are 0-60 kph. Slalom around a round about 60-100 acceleration. With all measurements done on wet roads, and the worst out of 10 being the figure reported. It’s useless to have a car that is blindingly fast under perfect conditions if you can’t rely on it being able to always get those numbers (ie. catch that gap in the traffic) even if the road is a bit slippery or something.

    Reply
  17. I agree that the performance car market is heavily biased towards simple numbers. And even that is a very limited selection of simple numbers.0-100 kphStanding 400m (Seriously this was first used in the 1630s!)Top speedLap time of the Nurburgring race track. (This is a new one and an improvement (probably) on the previous 3)A somewhat bittersweet example is the old SAAB turbo cars. According to SAAB fans and the company claims the performance models were faster than say a BMW M3 or maybe even a Porsche 911 when measured the way that they thought was important (say point-to-point over snowy swedish back roads or 80-130 acceleration on a highway) but these figures never appeared in standard car magazine or TV comparisons.Whereas the Germans were faster on simple tests like 0-100 kphStanding 400m Top speedLap time of the Nurburgring race track. So everyone bought BMWs and SAAB went bankrupt.My own personal opinion is that for a car that is mostly driven in the city (where I live) the REAL important figures are0-60 kph. Slalom around a round about60-100 acceleration.With all measurements done on wet roads and the worst out of 10 being the figure reported. It’s useless to have a car that is blindingly fast under perfect conditions if you can’t rely on it being able to always get those numbers (ie. catch that gap in the traffic) even if the road is a bit slippery or something.

    Reply
  18. > There are no numbers for maneuverability Steering g-force it can sustain without loosing traction, stable turning radius as a function of speed (can be derived from that g-force number), amount of under- and over-steering, etc. I’d say in their world, all of those things, including power, acceleration, top speed, etc, are all under the umbrella of “performance”.

    Reply
  19. > There are no numbers for maneuverabilitySteering g-force it can sustain without loosing traction stable turning radius as a function of speed (can be derived from that g-force number) amount of under- and over-steering etc.I’d say in their world all of those things including power acceleration top speed etc are all under the umbrella of performance””.”””

    Reply
  20. They’re also rather useless for acceleration. (I don’t think there are room for series turbine-hybrid cars in a world where solid oxide fuel cells exist.)

    Reply
  21. They’re also rather useless for acceleration.(I don’t think there are room for series turbine-hybrid cars in a world where solid oxide fuel cells exist.)

    Reply
  22. Those things don’t matter to them. Power and acceleration does. Also most importantly the magnificent, heavenly, awesome noise pollution that ICE cars do.

    Reply
  23. Those things don’t matter to them. Power and acceleration does.Also most importantly the magnificent heavenly awesome noise pollution that ICE cars do.

    Reply
  24. Weight an maneuverability is a measure of performance. You mean power and acceleration. These are pretty numbers that sell well for snobs. There are no numbers for maneuverability…

    Reply
  25. Weight an maneuverability is a measure of performance. You mean power and acceleration.These are pretty numbers that sell well for snobs. There are no numbers for maneuverability…

    Reply
  26. I agree that the performance car market is heavily biased towards simple numbers. And even that is a very limited selection of simple numbers.
    0-100 kph
    Standing 400m (Seriously, this was first used in the 1630s!)
    Top speed
    Lap time of the Nurburgring race track. (This is a new one, and an improvement (probably) on the previous 3)

    A somewhat bittersweet example is the old SAAB turbo cars. According to SAAB fans and the company claims, the performance models were faster than say a BMW M3 or maybe even a Porsche 911, when measured the way that they thought was important (say point-to-point over snowy swedish back roads, or 80-130 acceleration on a highway) but these figures never appeared in standard car magazine or TV comparisons.
    Whereas the Germans were faster on simple tests like
    0-100 kph
    Standing 400m
    Top speed
    Lap time of the Nurburgring race track.

    So everyone bought BMWs, and SAAB went bankrupt.

    My own personal opinion is that, for a car that is mostly driven in the city (where I live) the REAL important figures are
    0-60 kph.
    Slalom around a round about
    60-100 acceleration.
    With all measurements done on wet roads, and the worst out of 10 being the figure reported. It’s useless to have a car that is blindingly fast under perfect conditions if you can’t rely on it being able to always get those numbers (ie. catch that gap in the traffic) even if the road is a bit slippery or something.

    Reply
  27. Wrong manufacturer. These guys are all about performance, whatever shape it may come in. Light weight and maneuverability do come with the territory, but low cost is not in their lexicon.

    Reply
  28. Wrong manufacturer. These guys are all about performance whatever shape it may come in. Light weight and maneuverability do come with the territory but low cost is not in their lexicon.

    Reply
  29. Just one of a long, long stream of fantastic Jaguar concept cars that were promised for production… but never actually happened. It’s kind of shocking that the F-type ever made it to the showrooms.

    Reply
  30. Just one of a long long stream of fantastic Jaguar concept cars that were promised for production… but never actually happened.It’s kind of shocking that the F-type ever made it to the showrooms.

    Reply
  31. > There are no numbers for maneuverability

    Steering g-force it can sustain without loosing traction, stable turning radius as a function of speed (can be derived from that g-force number), amount of under- and over-steering, etc.

    I’d say in their world, all of those things, including power, acceleration, top speed, etc, are all under the umbrella of “performance”.

    Reply
  32. They’re also rather useless for acceleration.
    (I don’t think there are room for series turbine-hybrid cars in a world where solid oxide fuel cells exist.)

    Reply
  33. Those things don’t matter to them. Power and acceleration does.
    Also most importantly the magnificent, heavenly, awesome noise pollution that ICE cars do.

    Reply
  34. Weight an maneuverability is a measure of performance. You mean power and acceleration.
    These are pretty numbers that sell well for snobs. There are no numbers for maneuverability…

    Reply
  35. Trying to beat electric cars in terms of sheer grunt is a bad move. And the “solution” appears to be highly hybrid cars which are just electric cars with a different type of electricity source. They should concentrate on where EVs are weakest. Light weight, maneuverability and low cost.

    Reply
  36. Trying to beat electric cars in terms of sheer grunt is a bad move. And the solution”” appears to be highly hybrid cars which are just electric cars with a different type of electricity source.They should concentrate on where EVs are weakest. Light weight”””” maneuverability and low cost.”””

    Reply
  37. Aviation is not “done with” reciprocating engines. They still use piston engines in all sorts of aircraft. They are, however, done with them once the power required gets above a few hundred kW. The reason they never took off* in automotive use is that piston engines are much, much better for when you are only using a small fraction of peak power, which is where cars spend their lives, but planes do not. Going to a series hybrid electric solves this problem, and so turbine cars are on the agenda again. *Pun, as is always the case, intended.

    Reply
  38. Aviation is not done with”” reciprocating engines. They still use piston engines in all sorts of aircraft.They are”” however done with them once the power required gets above a few hundred kW.The reason they never took off* in automotive use is that piston engines are much much better for when you are only using a small fraction of peak power which is where cars spend their lives but planes do not.Going to a series hybrid electric solves this problem and so turbine cars are on the agenda again.*Pun as is always the case”” intended.”””

    Reply
  39. Wrong manufacturer. These guys are all about performance, whatever shape it may come in. Light weight and maneuverability do come with the territory, but low cost is not in their lexicon.

    Reply
  40. Just put a turbine in there and be done with it. The aviation industry was done with reciprocating engines in the fifties. If you need that much power, there is already a reliable solution.

    Reply
  41. Just put a turbine in there and be done with it.The aviation industry was done with reciprocating engines in the fifties. If you need that much power there is already a reliable solution.

    Reply
  42. Just one of a long, long stream of fantastic Jaguar concept cars that were promised for production… but never actually happened.

    It’s kind of shocking that the F-type ever made it to the showrooms.

    Reply
  43. Trying to beat electric cars in terms of sheer grunt is a bad move. And the “solution” appears to be highly hybrid cars which are just electric cars with a different type of electricity source.

    They should concentrate on where EVs are weakest. Light weight, maneuverability and low cost.

    Reply
  44. Aviation is not “done with” reciprocating engines. They still use piston engines in all sorts of aircraft.
    They are, however, done with them once the power required gets above a few hundred kW.

    The reason they never took off* in automotive use is that piston engines are much, much better for when you are only using a small fraction of peak power, which is where cars spend their lives, but planes do not.

    Going to a series hybrid electric solves this problem, and so turbine cars are on the agenda again.

    *Pun, as is always the case, intended.

    Reply
  45. Just put a turbine in there and be done with it.
    The aviation industry was done with reciprocating engines in the fifties. If you need that much power, there is already a reliable solution.

    Reply

Leave a Comment