This is the best supercar currently being made and one of the best of all time. Even if you don't like the styling you can't argue with the performance, it'll beat any production car around a track.

---- Specifications ----
Engine: 7.3 liter AMG V12
Weight: 2712 lbs
Aspiration: natural
Torque: 561 lb-ft @ 4000 rpm
HP: 602 hp @ 6150 rpm
HP/Weight: 4.5 lbs per hp
HP/Liter: 82.4 hp per liter
0-124 mph: 9.8 seconds
0-62 mph: 3.6 seconds
Top Speed: over 214 mph

Here are some good video's:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7767442844475196952&q=Zonda+F
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1143312657812574457&q=Zonda+F

2/7/2006 12:32:17 PM

slower than sl65 stock non-amg

2/7/2006 12:40:02 PM

too gangster for me...and slower than a vette in a straight line (Z06

2/7/2006 12:42:40 PM

i doubt that, sl65 is a heavy ass car.

2/7/2006 12:43:33 PM

Quote :

"slower than sl65 stock non-amg"

im pretty sure you are retarded

2/7/2006 12:46:42 PM

SL65 traps around 120 in the 1/4, and runs it in ~11.5.

The zonda 0-124 mph: 9.8 seconds.

2/7/2006 12:57:07 PM

its nothing special in pgr3

2/7/2006 1:05:18 PM

Dunno about teh Zonda F. The Zonda is my favorite car, of all time, ever. I will own one, one day.

But there are faster track production cars, unfortunately.

2/7/2006 1:23:33 PM

Quote :

"slower than sl65 stock non-amg"

You made yourself look pretty stupid right there. The SL65 is an AMG model.
Its called the SL65 AMG. Kinda like the SL55 AMG. There is no SL65. There is an SL600.

nicely done.

And I'm willing to bet a Saleen S7 Turbo can hang.

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 1:27 PM. Reason : yeah]

2/7/2006 1:26:37 PM

^^^^im pretty sure i dont give a fuck what you think i am. i think you are a cock gobbler. make any difference?

^^^you are right, but i meant 0-60 time which is still THE category everyone stares at when it comes to supercars. at least in europe, where 1/4 miles is not so popular. heavy-ass it certainly is.

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 1:28 PM. Reason : ff]

2/7/2006 1:27:33 PM

^^ya sl600 i meant to say. same shit pretty much. those 100 extra hp dont do anything to numbers anyway.

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 1:35 PM. Reason : adsf]

2/7/2006 1:35:33 PM

no danger of me liking the styling

2/7/2006 1:40:11 PM

when you gear a car to go over 200 i guess you have to lose a little on the 0-60

2/7/2006 2:16:13 PM

Quote :

"^^^^im pretty sure i dont give a fuck what you think i am. i think you are a cock gobbler. make any difference? ^^^you are right, but i meant 0-60 time which is still THE category everyone stares at when it comes to supercars. at least in europe, where 1/4 miles is not so popular. heavy-ass it certainly is. [Edited on February 7, 2006 at 1:28 PM. Reason : ff]"

wow you did it again. No one looks at 0-60 with super cars who knows dick. they look at the 0-100 or the 0-124 in this case. when it comes to super cars having the best 0-60 dosnt mean shit on a course.

2/7/2006 2:25:47 PM

As far as supercar looks go, I think the Zondas are pretty good. No protruding angles, overstated lines, or unsightly bulges. Everything flows together very well.

The interior is ugly as hell, though. That gauge cluster looks like a nightmare.

2/7/2006 2:32:58 PM

ummm and in europe it would be 0-62 anyway (100 kilometers)

not to mention that top gear said all the sl65 amg accelerated like shit cause of traction control or lack of traction.

anyway i bet the maseratti version of the enzo, the enzo, and the saleen s7 are right there with it.
the thing i like about it best is the view out of one... you can actually see over the dash. i'd still rather have an s7, or a modded gt or the mazzersnotty.

2/7/2006 2:33:57 PM

is that an air intake right between the back tires?

2/7/2006 2:34:23 PM

My first post, its a damn nice one too!

McLaren F1:

The car incorporates many world firsts for a road car: a fully carbon fibre monocoque structure, fully active fan-assisted ground effect aerodynamics, a central driving position with two offset rear passenger seats.

Engine Type V12
Engine Size 6064 cc
Horsepower 627 bhp
Torque 649 Nm (479 lb.ft)
Max. Speed 356 km/h (222 mph)
0-60 mph 3.1 sec
0-100 mph 6.3 sec
1/4 mile 11.1 sec @ 138 mph
Weight 1138 kg (2500 lb)
top speed 230 mph +

That's all done in 1993. Oh, and with 1.2 less liters it still makes more horsepower than the 2005 Benz!



[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 2:45 PM. Reason : Add image & top speed]

2/7/2006 2:38:31 PM

^it also costs 2.5 times as much money, and it didnt live as long as the Zonda currently has.

2/7/2006 2:44:41 PM

Quote :

"No one looks at 0-60 with super cars who knows dick"

since ages 0-60mph has been the traditional category everyone looks at...WHEN it comes to supercars.

look at as to admire, not as to be deciding factor on the track.

just like first time you heard about veyron you heard about the fact it goes 252mph and 2.5 sec 0-60mph. it doesnt mean shit since no one will drive it 252 on public roads, but it is what you notice.

SLR has fucking wipers that are operational at 200mph. will you drive 200mph in rain? no.

2/7/2006 2:46:38 PM

If the first thing you looked at was 0-60 and 0-124 times then I have no respect for your opinion. You should be looking at 602 hp and 2712 lbs and that right there will tell you that it goes really really fast in a straight line but can also corner well, and in a supercar that's what's important. There are a lot of cars out there that can beat a Zonda F in a 1/4 drag race, but very few that can beat it around a track. And what many of you seem to overlook is that Pagani built this car to be one of the fastest track cars of all time, not one of the fastest drag racers. So chill with the acceleration comparisons b/c the true enthusiast wouldn't give a flying fuck about which cars can beat this one to 60 mph.

^^^I also happen to be a bigger fan of the BMW powered McLaren F1. I love that engine and I love that car, but the MB engine does have it beat in torque.

^^what do you mean it costs 2.5 times more and lasts longer?

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 3:02 PM. Reason : ]

2/7/2006 2:52:33 PM

^^ okay i cant argue with someone who speaks foreign English. glad to know we have a new super car expert on the board. everyone keep looking at those 0-60s!!!! We all know how important they are on the track!

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 2:53 PM. Reason : added another arrow]

2/7/2006 2:53:24 PM

no it's not foreign English whatever English that is. you are just continuosly failing to comprehend the context. we are NOT talking about evos, stis, m3, zo6s, type-rs or any other sub 60k car an average enthusiast will drive at VIR, autox or any other track. we are talking about supercars made in limited numbers, that will most likely end up sitting in some sultan's 30-acre garage. just lie mclaren, nobody ever gave two shits what its skidpad numbers were, people noticed how fucking fast it was to 60mph or 230 or whatever.

it is an exotic car first, then track car.

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 3:13 PM. Reason : g]

2/7/2006 3:07:12 PM

Quote :

"You should be looking at 602 hp and 2712 lbs and that right there will tell you that it goes really really fast in a straight line but can also corner well"

Quote :

"it'll beat any production car around a track. "

koenigsegg CCR
806bhp
678 btq (ft-lb)
2600#
1.3g skidpad
1/4 mile - 9 sec @ 146

pretty sure that would take it...

2/7/2006 3:13:47 PM

btw the zonda will spank the McLaren around the track. That car was an absolute nightmare to handle from what I have seen and read. And it cost a LOT more than a Zonda C12S (dunno about the F), and they only made them from what 91-95? The Zonda has been around now for the better part of ten years I believe.

2/7/2006 3:24:03 PM

^^i know very little about the koenigsegg, so perhaps my statement was a bit bold, but you get the point.

^I agree, the Zonda F would beat the McLaren around a track. And (although opinions vary) the McLaren's handling may be a little twitchy (sp?), that is b/c it was built to be the ultimate road car, and that's exactly what it is. It's a fairly civilized supercar built for the road that happens to be really fast around a track. The Zonda F is a supercar built for the track that happens to be road legal. As far as price goes, McLaren made no profit on their million dollar car b/c they put that much effort into research and design. The Zonda F costs around $700k, so it's not much cheaper. Furthermore, McLaren is a Formula One race team that has been around for many years and agreed to allow Gordon Murray to build a limited run production car. That is why the McLaren F1 was only built for just a few years.


[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 3:45 PM. Reason : ]

2/7/2006 3:32:31 PM

Quote :

"no it's not foreign English whatever English that is. you are just continuosly failing to comprehend the context. we are NOT talking about evos, stis, m3, zo6s, type-rs or any other sub 60k car an average enthusiast will drive at VIR, autox or any other track. we are talking about supercars made in limited numbers, that will most likely end up sitting in some sultan's 30-acre garage. just lie mclaren, nobody ever gave two shits what its skidpad numbers were, people noticed how fucking fast it was to 60mph or 230 or whatever. it is an exotic car first, then track car. [Edited on February 7, 2006 at 3:13 PM. Reason : g]"

you have proved your uselessness enough in this thread, please exit the thread.

^ and ^^ the koenigsegg, although a remarkable car, I believe is just shy of this cars performance. It would be hard choice between the two though, I think the koenigsegg looks a bit better.

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 4:09 PM. Reason : .]

2/7/2006 4:07:50 PM

to those that are claiming the mclaren f1 is still the fastest thing out there: welcome to years ago

and the mclaren doesnt have near the luxury and design the zonda has

2/7/2006 4:16:39 PM

^^weren't you the dude that bought that automatic 5-series bimmer from ebay or some shit?

please enlighten us more.

2/7/2006 4:25:03 PM

^ i traded my m3 with many problems to a guy who wanted it for a 540 5 speed auto with dinan sw m5 sways, cash and springs dick wad. so i couldnt afford a fucking 6 speed (which sell for much more) go suck a chubby. if you have anymore questions about my cars why dont you try the pm message system.



[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 4:30 PM. Reason : dr pepper rules]

2/7/2006 4:29:00 PM

I do believe the Koenigsegg CCR would give that Zonda F a run for it's money. I would be perfectly happy in either car though. I have an evo article of the Koenigsegg, in which they did a 0-160mph run in heavy rain (The track is soaked in the photos). The driver said that they could not use full throttle until 4th gear during this run, and even then they were getting wheelspin (At 138mph). It still managed the following times:

0-60: 4.8
0-100: 8.3
0-120: 10.6
0-160: 18.1

1/4 mile: 12.3@132

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 4:35 PM. Reason : ]

2/7/2006 4:34:42 PM

The cool thing is the ccr has a ford based motor so if you break a rod you can have it rebuild by anyone who knows anything about building mustang shortblocks even though there is alot of carbon in that motor its still basically a 4.6 dohc.

I'd do sex w/ it.

2/7/2006 4:36:07 PM

no, i prefer to annoy you right here. you brought shit onto yourself by needlessly calling me out, without me saying a damn word to you.

2/7/2006 4:39:52 PM

I dont know if I could choose between the two. If i had a gun to my head I would take the zonda. I just wish the interior wasnt so crazy

2/7/2006 4:40:39 PM

i'd take the ccr
those doors win

2/7/2006 4:44:41 PM

i really like how the cabin seems so open. looks like your visibility would be great for a super car.

2/7/2006 4:48:28 PM

on the zonda is that an air intake under the car between the rear wheels?

2/7/2006 4:50:30 PM

Quote :

"to those that are claiming the mclaren f1 is still the fastest thing out there: welcome to years ago and the mclaren doesnt have near the luxury and design the zonda has"

Nobody said it was still the fastest thing out there, I just said I liked it. And yes it does have "near the luxury and design of the Zonda", in fact one could argue that it has more of both. The Zonda just has the benefit of newer technology that allow it to be faster (plus, like i said earlier, the Zonda was designed for the track more than the McLaren was).

^Pagani taylor each Zonda to the customer's specs. and I've heard that they'll do pretty much anything you ask them as far as personalizing the car. So i'm pretty sure it's possible to get that interior toned down a bit if you so desire.

2/7/2006 4:52:56 PM

looks like it feeds into the intake manifolds?

2/7/2006 4:53:23 PM

the mclaren f1 has a luxury interior? have you ever seen a picture?

2/7/2006 4:55:26 PM

The original Zonda C12S is faster on the track than the CCR. The Zonda F is considerably faster.

The F1 is faster on the track than the CCS and would probably give the Zonda F a run for it's money.

Quote :

"I agree, the Zonda F would beat the McLaren around a track. And (although opinions vary) the McLaren's handling may be a little twitchy (sp?), that is b/c it was built to be the ultimate road car, and that's exactly what it is. It's a fairly civilized supercar built for the road that happens to be really fast around a track. The Zonda F is a supercar built for the track that happens to be road legal. "

You got this completely backwards. The Zonda is a luxury supercar. The McLaren had NOTHING. No radio, no comforts, no power anything. It was built to be a track monster. The Zonda is a comfortable car that can beat up the track (although it's still loud as shit apparently).

The McLaren was a break-even technology showcase (much like the Veyron), and it ended up running buyers in the 1.3-1.5 million range to get one in the US. Versus about 550-650 for a C12S, and apparently about 750 for a Zonda F. That's a retarded price gap.

^^Nope. Check the power laps on top gear. Or the specs that matter. Skidpad on the CCR is a 1.3g, 1.4 on the Zonda F (C12S was .98).

Zonda brakes better as well (it should considering it's lighter and has better brake tech in it).

2/7/2006 4:55:49 PM

Quote :

"Nobody said it was still the fastest thing out there, I just said I liked it. And yes it does have "near the luxury and design of the Zonda", in fact one could argue that it has more of both. The Zonda just has the benefit of newer technology that allow it to be faster (plus, like i said earlier, the Zonda was designed for the track more than the McLaren was)."

Wrong wrong wrong. You have apparently never seen the interiors of either car. And the McLaren was designed for the track much much more than the Zonda is. Although that point is arguable with the F.

2/7/2006 4:57:05 PM

Quote :

"looks like it feeds into the intake manifolds?"

yeah thats what i thought it looked like
which seems like a crazy place to put it, watch out for puddles

and noen you are using both ccs and ccr, you know the difference right?
(also the veyron is nowhere near break even)

2/7/2006 5:00:41 PM

Ooops typos on my end, I have been using the numbers from the CCR, not the CCS. Sorry bout dat.

And I am fully aware of the cost nightmare that the Veyron is, I was posing the analogy of the reasons both it and the Mclaren F1 were built, not the cost associations.

2/7/2006 5:06:47 PM

^^^I have actually seen, touched and taken pictures of the McLaren F1. I have not seen a Zonda in person. The McLaren is not as plush as the Zonda but it has a much nicer cd player, plus it has room for luggage and a titanium tool kit. Futhermore, the McLaren was designed to be the ultimate road car and that's exactly what it is. I don't know what Pagani's design philosophy was but I can assure you the Zonda F is not as civilized around town as the McLaren is.

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 5:14 PM. Reason : ]

2/7/2006 5:06:48 PM

ahahahaha

2/7/2006 5:12:16 PM

^^ im going to have to disagree......
i dont know why yet but just throwing that out there about it being more civiilized.

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 5:22 PM. Reason : gum drops]

2/7/2006 5:21:35 PM

The fact is no one here has ever driven either of them, so nobody can say for sure. The reason I argue that the McLaren is more civilized is b/c of its softer suspesion setting, which is evident in the videos online, and would allow it to soak up more of the harsh bumps found around town. Both cars are driven by German V12's but the Zonda's is much torquier (sp?). As for the feel of the steering, tranny, etc.. like i said before, we haven't driven the cars so we don't know.

[Edited on February 7, 2006 at 5:30 PM. Reason : ]

2/7/2006 5:30:36 PM

^ I would have aggreed with you but after watching videos of both I just dont see either of them being more civilized then the other. didnt both guys comment in the videos you posted that the zonda was easy to drive? once again i have never driven either.

2/7/2006 5:32:12 PM

ive seen the f1 on shows with the people talking about how much of a beast it was to drive (and maintain)
the zonda got much better comments on top gear

2/7/2006 5:37:41 PM