Koenigsegg Unveils Its First Four-Seater, the 1,700hp Gemera

16,984
United States
Florida
GranTurismo0517
RandomCarGuy17
Oh yeah, I saw that car announced on facebook. I think it's pretty neat.
The styling reminds me of the Porsche Taycan and a bit of the Mclaren GT. Overall, I like the design.
 
7,837
United Kingdom
Wreckage, Turn 1
PrecisionXCIV
The front seems to be inspired by the current Mercedes-AMG corporate face. Like @GrimBrother1 said it is highly comparable to the Project One. But where this car is really eye opening is with the engineering. Extracting 600hp from 3 cylinders is extraordinary! :eek:
 

Famine

GTP Editor, GTPEDIA Author
Administrator
79,685
United Kingdom
Rule 12
GTP_Famine
And ignoring the EV part, it's an MF.
It can run in petrol (or alcohol) only, and it would be a mid-engined, front-wheel drive car if it did.

This whole thing is mad. MAD.
 
1,041
Colombia
Colombia
Strange thing come from Koenigsegg but it's amazing, something different and impressive.

All of the family with the cat and dog 400 km/h.
 

AudiMan2011

Scottish
Contributing Writer
12,899
Scotland
GTPlanet
Street-King-07
Quattro Saltire
Koenigsegg just continues to amaze with such crazy machines and innovative powertrain ideas. Utterly mad.
 
377
United Kingdom
London
fatkidgoblin
fatkidgoblin
The McLaren Speedtail seemed out in front on it's own in the mega/hyper GT car segment, and now the Gemera comes out of the blue and rewrites the whole rulebook with it's approach. Incredible.
 
2,217
Peru
Lima
gohan_girabyt3
gohan_girabyt3
The back end looks so Porsche-ish :lol::lol:, still, this is beyond mad... :gtpflag:
Gemera_exterior_21_high-e1583248481501-800x451.jpg
 

JohnBM01

JohnMarineDesigns
Premium
25,407
United States
Houston, Texas, USA
JMarine25
This Koenigsegg looks a good bit funky... but I actually like it! It seems like a much sportier Porsche Panamera or Aston Martin Rapide. Who wouldn't want to bring along three or four extra people in a Koenigsegg rocketship? Again- I dig this car.
 
2,204
France
France
zeptrans
Power here behind you, power here front your feet, power her under seats, power h... Power everywhere...

Evitate to open windows during accelerations with grandma at the back seats, Picasso result at the rear window.
 
4,088
United States
Utah
Although I'm not into hypercars, I really like Christian Von Koenigsegg. He's a really cool car guy and I have immense admiration of his passion and his outstanding creations. But this thing is just too much. The true beauty of cars is often in their simplicity.
 

LeGeNd-1

Premium
7,065
Australia
Australia
GTP_LeGeNd-1
*Insert why is Gamora jokes*

In all seriousness though, this is why I love K'segg. CvK and his team never ceases to amaze with their engineering innovations and out of the box thinking. This is what the McLaren Speedtail should've been. But nope, they're too busy sticking aero kits on their base model cars, adding extra 50 hp and calling it a "special edition".

I wonder how much more efficient we can make the good ol' ICE. Combine Freevalve with Mazda's HCCI, throw in F1's MGU-H and MGU-K. Could we perhaps see 75-80% efficiency (F1 engines are at 50% IIRC). That would make ICE's viable for a few more years while we wait for battery energy density to improve (or a new tech altogether).
 
496
TBR 427
*Insert why is Gamora jokes*
I wonder how much more efficient we can make the good ol' ICE. Combine Freevalve with Mazda's HCCI, throw in F1's MGU-H and MGU-K. Could we perhaps see 75-80% efficiency (F1 engines are at 50% IIRC). That would make ICE's viable for a few more years while we wait for battery energy density to improve (or a new tech altogether).

Probably not tooooo much more, at least without a change in philosophy.

Here's the paradox - the more efficient you want the engine to be, the slower you make it rev. hp/L only really matters if you've got a capacity limit (like in motorsport, F1 is set at 1.8L max) or some sort of size limit (where capacity somewhat correlates to physical unit size). And opposite to heavy industry, in motorsport and production they often run to limited displacement capacity, size, material/shipping cost and weight and the aim of targeting N power. Combine that with decades of 'small fast engines = better' marketing mindset and admittedly poor performance from large engines over a long time period, and you've got a recipe for nobody doing the right thing.

Think of it this way, you're a manufacturer and you could do 2 things:
A) 2.0L engine, 400hp, 8,000 rpm redline, 35% thermal efficiency, between-5-to-7-speed manual, 150kg.
B) 12.0L engine, 380hp, only revs between 1,000 and 1,400rpm, 50% thermal efficiency, needs a 10-speed box, 250kg.

If anyone wants to give marketing that second one a go, I'm all ears.
And no cheating by marketing it to firms with accountants, aim it at Normal People.

Because I sure as hell can't make a huge slow moving engine sound sexy to some random person on the street.



The real interesting thing is that GTSport soooort of illustrates how people do the math in the 'real world'. From memory: 'Fuel setting 2' generates 2% less power, but uses 6% less fuel. About a 4.25% improvement in thermal efficiency in converting fuel into power. 'Fuel setting 3' is about another 4% more efficient than 2.
So why doesn't everyone run on lower fuel settings? Because if you look at fuel as 'potential lap time per unit burned' and compare that to 'potential lap time per unit refilled at a pit stop per second' it works out in many (NOT ALL, or even most, but many) cases that the fuel stop is basically an instant compared to the mountain of time you lose saving fuel.