McLaren Life banner

Koenigsegg Jesko. McLaren could learn a few things.

11K views 67 replies 13 participants last post by  PieGuy 
#1 ·
The incredible Jesko, once again, shows what a small manufacturing operation can accomplish. Instead of depending on other companies to build their engines and transmissions like McLaren does, they've once again built a phenomenal powerplant and a marvel of a transmission, in-house. Like Ferrari, Mercedes, Bugatti, AM, Koenigsegg. Why can't McLaren manage to do the same?

Look at this engineering spectacle:https://www.koenigsegg.com/car/jesko/
 
#2 ·
Not sure if this was posted already 'Koenigsegg's Affordable Supercar' ….
Interesting electronic valves no traditional camshaft but rather its main functions are performed by electronically-controlled valve actuators, called 'freevalve' technology.
----------------------
carbuzz.com
Koenigsegg's Affordable Supercar Could Have A Small V8
FEB 18 BY JAY TRAUGOTT RUMOR
We're talking less than three liters.

There’s been big news coming out of Sweden over the past few weeks involving Koenigsegg. The hypercar company signed a $320 million strategic partnership with National Electric Vehicle Sweden AB (NEVS) that will see the formation of a new joint venture that will result in a production increase, among other things. Christian von Koenigsegg's ultimate goal is to rival Ferrari.
We’re also only a couple of weeks away from the debut of an all-new Koenigsegg, the successor to the world speed record holding Agera RS, at Geneva. Only a single teaser drawing of its rear end has been released so far, and Koenigsegg has remained tight-lipped on all other details. And if that wasn't enough, a more affordable Koenigsegg supercar is supposedly on its way.
Building on the last point, a Twitter user going by the name ‘AutoPap’ posted on February 13 (which has since been deleted) a few interesting details about that vehicle, which could arrive as soon as 2020.
This person claims to have seen a new Koenigsegg model powered by a V-shaped "figure eight” 2.9-liter hybrid V8 producing upwards of 1,050 hp. This engine reportedly does not have a traditional camshaft but rather its main functions are performed by electronically-controlled valve actuators, called 'freevalve' technology. Here’s the wording of the now removed tweet: "This is a 2.9 liter V8 1050 hp hybrid engine. Aluminum and carbon body with carbon fiber wheels. It's stunning.”
A lightweight aluminum and carbon fiber body and wheels hardly come as a surprise, assuming this claim is factual. We already knew Koenigsegg's upcoming new and less expensive supercar will adopt some pretty advanced technologies but we didn't know the engine's displacement. If the above information is correct, we do now.

Not only will this be the first vehicle Koenigsegg will build in collaboration with NEVS, but it will also provide the company with another gateway into the world's most lucrative car market: China. Chinese-owned NEVS already has a wide distribution network in the country along with a production plant, though we’d be surprised to see any Koenigsegg built outside of Sweden. An "affordable" new supercar would also be a direct rival to the just announced Ferrari hybrid V8, itself more powerful than the 488 Pista.
We reached out to Koenigsegg seeking some confirmation and spokesman said he couldn't comment on the matter.
https://carbuzz.com/news/koenigsegg-s-affordable-supercar-could-have-a-small-v8
 

Attachments

#4 ·
It might be a mild stretch, but McLarens could all be considered to be assembled kit cars, with engine and transmission from other suppliers. Sort of an extreme Superformance variant. They should offer rollers or, perhaps, a buyer-selected engine and transmission. Could envision an optional aluminum block Chevy unit installed, easy to maintain and way less expensive than the Ricardo engines. (Insert some psychopathic emoji.)
 
#7 ·
Maybe Mclaren is smart enough to know its putting its resources better to the aero and cf chassis tech of a car when transmissions and high rated engines are readily available on the market. Ferrari/Porsche/Mercedes and about all others have yet to prove that they can build a cf chassis in an affordable supercar and not a multi million hypercar...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mikeyb
#14 ·
Not quiet true:

Alfa uses cf plates which are glued together - its not a monocoque like in the 720s but only a chassis where aluminum/Steel sheets have been replaced by carbon plates - much simpler construction

BMW does not used cf but aluminum for the chassis - they only use cf of the body which does not support weight

see pics here:
 

Attachments

#8 ·
In the Koenigsegg equation, something has to give. In light of their production volumes, either their technology is not all that innovative, their development and testing is quite limited, or they are being subsidised from the outside. We have a pretty good idea of what it costs to develop cars that are capable of Koenigsegg speeds: developing the Veryron supposedly cost VAG close to $1b, and even the Speedtail (which in a number of respects is a derivative of existing McLaren models) cost a big portion of the total revenue that McLaren will generate from selling the 106 cars. I'm not criticising Koenigsegg, just observing that the likelihood that in 2019 a small company can figure out what medium-size and large, far more experienced car manufacturers can't figure out, or can't equal for the same unit cost, is not great.
 
#20 · (Edited)
People are making a big assumption that McLaren is not aware of what Koenigsegg etc is doing or can't do it. It's entirely possible that McLaren could very easily do what Koenigsegg is doing and knows exactly what they're doing, but has their reasons for not doing it, likely simple economics.

Consider that McLaren produces cars that run the gamut of $1M+ to $200K, and they need to be able to apply their R&D/technology to all models. Let's see Koenigsegg release a $200K car using the transmission and engine from the Jesko. My guess is that it can't be done, whereas McLaren will use variations of the 4L and transmission in the 720S, Senna, Speedtail, and probably the next sport series.

Ferrari does produce their own engines, but it's not a coincidence that the Portofino/Cali T, 488, and Lusso T all had a 3.9999999L engine...

Koenigsegg is able to sell cars for millions and doesn't have to think about how they could somehow make it work in a $200K car. It's likely that nothing Koenigsegg creates can every be used in mainstream, high volume exotics. I mean, does even Koenigsegg sell a 7 year extended warranty? Probably not...
 
#21 ·
People are making a big assumption that McLaren is not aware of what Koenigsegg etc is doing or can't do it. It's entirely possible that McLaren could very easily do what Koenigsegg is doing, but has their reasons for not doing it.

Consider that McLaren produces cars that run the gamut of $1M+ to $200K, and they need to be able to apply their R&D/technology to all models. Let's see Koenigsegg release a $200K car using the transmission and engine from the Jesko. My guess is that it can't be done, whereas McLaren will use variations of the 4L and transmission in the 720S, Senna, Speedtail, and probably the next sport series.

Ferrari does produce their own engines, but it's not a coincidence that the Portofino/Cali T, 488, and Lusso T all had a 3.9999999L engine...

Koenigsegg is able to sell cars for millions and doesn't have to think about how they could somehow make it work in a $200K car.
And McLaren has a car that will sell for over 3 million. And, as mentioned, McLaren sells over 3,400 cars a year, and Koenigsegg sells about 25 cars. McLaren's annual revenue is over 1 billion dollars. The math says they could do it if they wished.
 
#26 ·
Seems like a make buy decision to me — depends on what performance you need. If available buy if not make
-----------------------

The block
Koenigsegg engines have to cope with more cylinder pressure than any other production engine in the world, which is why we need an extremely strong, but still extremely light, engine block.
Our engine block is a bespoke item that is cast for us in aluminium at a specialist foundry in the UK, Grainger and Worrall. The same foundry also casts engine blocks for other supercar manufacturers and the motorsport industry. The block is specially designed for maximum strength and stiffness and it features oversized cooling channels to circulate cooling fluids quickly and efficiently.

Our block is cast in the same foundry that does G&W’s Formula 1 engine castings and is made according to the same principles. The raw casting is then brought to Sweden, where we fine-machine the tolerances, do the cylinder bores, install cylinder linings, bore the crank journals and hone the block.


The Head

The cylinder heads are also cast externally and then brought back to Sweden where they are machined, CNC ported and fitted with valve guides and seats. The porting is based on hand-porting first designed and refined by our engine builder, Mats, which has since been automated and adapted to every Agera engine he’s built. The compression ratio has been raised over time from 8.1:1 to 9.3:1 and we now have a higher ignition angle, giving us increased responsiveness through a wider range.

Our valves are stainless steel. We install beryllium copper valve seats and valve guides, which are usually only used in extreme racing applications. The valve seat’s two primary purposes are to close against the valve itself (hundreds of times per minute) and to transfer heat from a valve that has just been present during a controlled explosion. Beryllium copper is very hard-wearing and it’s also a great heat conductor, making it the perfect choice.

https://www.koenigsegg.com/build128-the-koenigsegg-engine/
 
#37 ·
I think (THINK) the last car I saw being made using any types of bonding was the Lexus LFA, and that car is not just bonded it has various manufacturing process involved in production.

With how 'easy' it is to do these days, it would probably cost more in the long term to use bonding vs RTM or the like.
 
#40 ·
The 918 would have had the same given its carbon fibre monocoque is built along very very similar lines to the carrera gt (down to the same wheelbase/Similar subframe mounting points), just with considerably higher grade and therefore lighter cf. The cgt like the LFA utilised various forms of cf to make the monocoque, RTM for the relatively simple central tunnel section, prepreg for the more complex shapes and to form up the rest of the monocoque.
 
#47 ·
Just pointing out something else here along with what @New Britain said, they are doing what they historically have done, build chassis use an 'independant' engine, correct me if im wrong of course, but hasnt this been McLarens way since almost the get go?
Quite so. McLaren have never made their own engines. Among others they have run Serenissima, Cosworth, Chevy, BRM, Offenhauser, Porsche, Honda, Peugeot, Mercedes, BMW and Renault. The closest they came might have been "Nicholson-McLaren", but those were just DFVs that employee John Nicholson modified; after he went out on his own McLaren gave him permission to use their name on his engines.
 
#56 ·
Im not a chassis engineer so I cant answer that with any real relevance.

By this logic we can also ask why they make certain parts of aircraft from composites vs sticking to the same stuff as always.

I think mainly the tooling and flexibility of design plays a big role. You are dealing with a material that is much easier to make complex structures from vs alu/HSS.

Not very long ago we could be saying why use Alu vs Steel. There was a whole thing in that industry which made steel producers start researching steel alloys. Carbon is slow. pretty hard to beat the stamping press for production numbers. If you think CF production is cheap, what you think the true cost of stamped robotic frames would be...

We should all be paying nothing for our super cars, and our day to day cars should be considered disposable :D
 
#57 ·
Im not a chassis engineer so I cant answer that with any real relevance.

By this logic we can also ask why they make certain parts of aircraft from composites vs sticking to the same stuff as always.

I think mainly the tooling and flexibility of design plays a big role. You are dealing with a material that is much easier to make complex structures from vs alu/HSS.

Not very long ago we could be saying why use Alu vs Steel. There was a whole thing in that industry which made steel producers start researching steel alloys. Carbon is slow. pretty hard to beat the stamping press for production numbers. If you think CF production is cheap, what you think the true cost of stamped robotic frames would be...
I don't think cf is cheap, and 10k is quiet a sum for one part if you consider that a car like the 720s (220k Euro at the dealer before VAT) cannot cost more than 35-40% of that as the sum of its parts and direct production cost. That makes about 85-100k (rest is overhead/marketing research design and what Mclaren and the dealer earns) so 10k is a 1/10 of it which seems to be in relation ... However that same relation would make the Alfa part a 2500 EUR one and the I3 part a 1300-1500 EUR one ... otherwise these cars would be more expensive to produce than what they can bring in money wise ... so either cf is not so expensive or there is a difference between a 1500-2500 EUR part and the used technology to a 10k one or Mclarens stories about its technology and the supremacy of the 720s to other similar cars must be a hoax ...
 
#58 ·
Just adding, I think we are only just beginning to witness the use of carbon fiber. In the early 90s it was considered so exotic it was left to fringe industry. Look how rapidly its become used in large industry now.

I think we will see a big push towards CF, its far more interesting from a flexibility and sustainability stand point than metals will ever be. I think its still early days but I bet carbon will slowly become the choice, especially once someone smart makes a way for it to be mass produced and ease of utilization.
 
#63 ·
Most composite structures as complicated as a monocoque go thru multiple curing cycles and layups, and even bonding together different cured structures with glue. As long as it's been engineered correctly, I don't see the problem.

I think BMW's process is the only one you could honestly say is "carbon panels glued together" (and the negative connotations that brings). They do automatic layup and then compression moulding of different panels and then they bond them together.

As to why Ferrari, Lambo, Porsche etc dont go carbon, why should they. Why would they throw out all their tooling if its good enough to sell their cars. Bonding aluminum is also not nearly as labour intensive or time consuming as hand lay up of hundreds of carbon fiber sheets with multiple cures in the autoclave.

A bit more back on topic, isn't Koenigsigg's engine just a heavily souped up LS?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top