SSC releases teaser image of next Ultimate Aero

IceBone said:
Side profile looks exactly like a Gallardo. And those headlamps make it look like it's about to cry. Cause it knows it's already lost.
Click to expand...

Exactly like a Gallardo? You can't be serious right? The only thing this car remotely resembles is the Ferrari P4/5....which is hardly a bad thing.
 
MattD1zzl3 said:
Sorry i thought they were still using a LS6, my.... mistake?

Sources

Here: http://car-holic.blogspot.com/2009/10/fastest-car-in-world-ssc-ultimate-aero.html
SSC posesses a powerful engine (LS6, bumped to 6.3L ...
Here: http://cars.blogs.ca/2007/09/20/ssc-ultimate-aero-tt-the-fastest-car-in-the-world/
"Mounted midship is the LS6 engine found in the previous generation Chevrolet Corvette Z06"
Here: http://forums.f1weekly.com/showthread.php?tid=1112&pid=15497#pid15497
"Also, I am stoked that American iron (is SSC using the GM LS6 in this?)"

and...

Here: http://www.autocar.co.uk/CarReviews/FirstDrives/SSC-Ultimate-Aero-TT/226725/
The engine started life as a Corvette 5.7-litre LS6 small-block V8."

What, praytell, are they using? If not a 6.3 liter version of the C5 Z06 engine? Can you source your claim that only early prototypes used it? The entire internet seems to say otherwise.
Click to expand...


Eunos_Cosmo said:
Just because they don't order it from a Ford dealer does not mean it isn't a modular V8. The architecture is identical.
Click to expand...

In both cases, the company founders say the engines are of their own design. The last I checked, you won't find the word Chevy or GM on the SSC website when referring to the Ultimate Aero's engine. The previous model was stated to have a supercharged SBC.

I'm pretty sure Koenigsegg himself has said the engine in the CCX is a Cosworth design and completely different from the CCR, CC8S etc which used the Ford modular V8 architecture.

I'm only bringing this up at all because lots of people like to make it seem like the engines found in these two, million dollar supercars are somehow less specialized, and therefore "better", than the engines found in other million dollar supercars. Honestly, I'm surprised this hasn't turned into a Mustang vs. Veyron thread yet.
 
It looks like they've decided to use their own headlight design, good.

I'm trying to figure out what kind of ship they put the car on for those pics, the only thing I can figure it isn't American or Canadian.
 
bartboy9891 said:
I'm only bringing this up at all because lots of people like to make it seem like the engines found in these two, million dollar supercars are somehow less specialized, and therefore "better", than the engines found in other million dollar supercars. Honestly, I'm surprised this hasn't turned into a Mustang vs. Veyron thread yet.
Click to expand...

I don't know about "better", both have their pro's and con's. I like the idea of supercars using normal engines. Like the DeTomaso Pantera. It used a 351 cleveland Ford V8, which are a dime a dozen here in the states at least. You could blow up that motor and replace it for a few hundred bucks, if you wanted. I would much rather have a Pantera than a Countach. Blow up the motor in a Countach... and you'll be feeling the pain in your wallet to get it fixed. They'd probably write it off as a total loss.

The downside being when you pop the hood and everyone has already seen the motor in a dozen other Mustangs and various other Fords.
 
Breaking news; engines are tools that do jobs. Hammers are good on nails, screwdrivers are good on screws.
We'll bring you more on this as we get updates.
 
TomCat said:
I don't know about "better", both have their pro's and con's. I like the idea of supercars using normal engines. Like the DeTomaso Pantera. It used a 351 cleveland Ford V8, which are a dime a dozen here in the states at least. You could blow up that motor and replace it for a few hundred bucks, if you wanted. I would much rather have a Pantera than a Countach. Blow up the motor in a Countach... and you'll be feeling the pain in your wallet to get it fixed. They'd probably write it off as a total loss.

The downside being when you pop the hood and everyone has already seen the motor in a dozen other Mustangs and various other Fords.
Click to expand...

Maintenance is low on the list of reasons why most people buy one supercar over the other though. If you can drop several hundred grand on a car, you should be able to afford to keep it running as long as you aren't regularly driving it into trees.

As far as older vehicles go, apart from the Pantera which was produced in relatively high numbers for a long ass time, good condition models from Iso, Bizzarrini and Facel Vega are hardly cheap despite their less than exotic drivetrains.
 
bartboy9891 said:
Maintenance is low on the list of reasons why most people buy one supercar over the other though. If you can drop several hundred grand on a car, you should be able to afford to keep it running as long as you aren't regularly driving it into trees.

As far as older vehicles go, apart from the Pantera which was produced in relatively high numbers for a long ass time, good condition models from Iso, Bizzarrini and Facel Vega are hardly cheap despite their less than exotic drivetrains.
Click to expand...
I'll give you that, but no one in this thread is considering buying this car. That doesn't mean we can't have opinions. For me, I don't care about cosmetic things. If you crash the car, you crashed it. Insurance? But even if you don't crash the car, it will eventually need engine work. Same goes for other parts of the drivetrain, but I imagine the engine is the biggest. We've all seen the $10k supercar challenge on TopGear. Those exotic cars are a travesty when they get older. Using a rare complicated engine for the sole reason of using a rare complicated engine is not a good enough reason for me. Not when you can get the same result from a more bullet proof, tried and tested motor. :dunno:

I'm a realist. I know I can't afford any of these cars, but maybe in the distant future... but not if it's going to spend more time broken down and in the shop, than on the road being driven.
 
Last edited:
I think both of those use the same bottom end of a stock engine that has gone through a lot of "perfecting". The real trick to them is the heads, intakes and exhaust they use.
 
Eunos_Cosmo said:
Exactly like a Gallardo? You can't be serious right? The only thing this car remotely resembles is the Ferrari P4/5....which is hardly a bad thing.
Click to expand...

The Ferrari P4/5 is another car designed by Jason Castriota, so again, if it looks similar to some of his other designs I'm not sure why that would bother anyone.

jasonof2000 said:
It looks like they've decided to use their own headlight design, good.

I'm trying to figure out what kind of ship they put the car on for those pics, the only thing I can figure it isn't American or Canadian.
Click to expand...


Top Gear can solve that for you. Or, if you'd rather see it here: It's the HMS Dauntless, a British ship.


Top Gear Article about their upcoming magazine review of the car


:D
 
Last edited:
Interesting topic, this. So far I've read that European hypercars are rubbish because they have far too many specialty parts made by 90 year old Italians that won't be available in the future and because they have far too many off-the-shelf parts manufactured by OEMs.

Polly said:
Ah, the joy of internet arguments. I wonder if this one will end in general consensus. :think:
Click to expand...
I'm still a bit of a noob in these parts, but apparently Veyron vs. SSC Aero is Finalgear's own version of PC vs. Mac.
 
Last edited:
TomCat said:
I'll give you that, but no one in this thread is considering buying this car. That doesn't mean we can't have opinions. For me, I don't care about cosmetic things. If you crash the car, you crashed it. Insurance? But even if you don't crash the car, it will eventually need engine work. Same goes for other parts of the drivetrain, but I imagine the engine is the biggest. We've all seen the $10k supercar challenge on TopGear. Those exotic cars are a travesty when they get older. Using a rare complicated engine for the sole reason of using a rare complicated engine is not a good enough reason for me. Not when you can get the same result from a more bullet proof, tried and tested motor. :dunno:

I'm a realist. I know I can't afford any of these cars, but maybe in the distant future... but not if it's going to spend more time broken down and in the shop, than on the road being driven.
Click to expand...

That's a different discussion, I only brought this up to point out the engines in the SSC and CCX aren't just old Vette and Crown Vic engines. They are probably just as specialized as other million dollar exotics' engines are. Personally, if I were to spend a relatively large sum of money on a car, I'd feel ripped off if it shared major components with cars that are significantly cheaper. But that's more of an issue relating to rarity and exclusivity rather than function.
 
Silly render is silly. Anything other than a perfectly smooth surface and you'll be grinding that precious carbon fibre away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top