The Czinger 21C might be the wildest car we drive all year 29%

By Bradley Iger0%

7/6/2026, 4:00:14 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Confirmation Bias, and Framing Effect, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 17.9% saturation with 228 hits. Analysis detected 1,877 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,275 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.1% and a BS Rank of 29% (15,713 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 71.80% of the article peer group.

The temptation with a car like the Czinger 21C is to treat it as a collection of extreme specifications, and to be fair, it’s certainly not lacking in that department. 
At its most basic level, the carbon-fiber-bodied 21C is a hybrid hypercar built around a bespoke 2.88-liter twin-turbocharged flat-plane crank V8 that revs to a searing 11,000 rpm. 
This power plant is matched up with a three-motor electric system—one electric motor drives each front wheel while a third serves as a crank-driven starter-generator. 
Combined output is rated at 1,250 hp (932 kW) and 691 lb-ft (937 Nm) of torque. 
A seven-speed automated manual transaxle handles gear changes, chosen in part for its low mass and ability to tolerate high torque loads without the packaging penalties of a dual-clutch system. 
Tipping the scales at under 3,700 lbs (1,678 kg) with fluids, the 21C Vmax is capable of hitting 60 mph (97 km/h) from rest in 1.92 seconds on its way to an 8.6 second quarter mile and a 253 mph (378 km/h) top speed, while the road course-focused 21C High Downforce model recently secured lap records at no less than five different California racetracks during a thousand-mile (1,600 km) road trip. 
Both its performance and its $2,350,000 price tag put the Czinger 21C in league with the likes of the Koenigsegg Jesko and Aston Martin Valkyrie. 
But focusing on these figures overlooks what might be the 21C’s most interesting aspect—not what it can do, but how it does it. 
Flipping the script 
Czinger Vehicles was founded in 2019 by the father-and-son team of Kevin and Lukas Czinger as an extension of parent company Divergent Technologies, a Los Angeles-based engineering firm that specializes in generative design software, large-scale metal additive manufacturing, and reconfigurable automated assembly systems. 
Divergent’s patented technologies have been leveraged by defense and aerospace organizations, including Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and the US Department of Defense, as well as high-end automakers like Bugatti and McLaren. 
To understand what makes this fledgling automaker’s hypercar different from virtually every other high-performance machine on the road, consider how conventional automotive engineering works. 
Traditionally, a vehicle begins as a set of performance targets and packaging constraints. 
Engineers then develop components that satisfy those requirements within the limitations of established manufacturing processes. 
Those processes—casting, forging, stamping, and machining—impose constraints of their own, particularly around geometry. 
Complex shapes tend to be costly or impossible to produce using these methods, and mass reduction is typically achieved through iterative refinement rather than holistic optimization. 
With the 21C, Divergent’s generative software and additive manufacturing capabilities are used to effectively reverse the order of operations. 
The process begins with software-driven optimization that defines the structure of a component based on parameters such as load requirements, stiffness targets, crash performance, and packaging constraints. 
The software iterates through millions of potential geometries, converging on solutions that distribute material only where it is structurally necessary. 
Czinger has designed an even more extreme brake setup but uses this more conventional setup for the 21C. 
This approach is used to produce everything from the 21C’s suspension components to its gearbox case, as well as multi-piece assemblies bonded together using proprietary adhesives. 
The company says the current generation of printers can produce about a kilogram of printed metal parts per hour, which translates to about two days for something as large and complex as the 21C’s rear subframe. 
With production capped at 80 units in total, final assembly of each 21C is performed largely by hand at Czinger’s Area 21 facility in Torrance, California. 
But Czinger Vehicles’ brand communications head Max Morice noted during a tour of the site that the company intends to move into higher-volume segments further down the road. 
And thanks to the lack of traditional tooling requirements, that transition should be fairly seamless. 
“The goal is for this manufacturing process to be the way everything is built,” Morice said. 
“It’s vehicle-agnostic, so you can build a Czinger, you can build parts for an Aston Martin, a Bugatti, and so on, all in the same space with zero turnover time. 
It’s really the golden goose of manufacturing.” 
Battery packs waiting to be installed. 
This is what the bare tub looks like. 
Czinger developed its own in-house V8. 
Czinger has designed an even more extreme brake setup but uses this more conventional setup for the 21C. 
Behind the wheel 
My seat time in the 21C Vmax included a mix of city and highway miles, along with a run through the canyon roads of eastern Orange County that cut through the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains. 
Before any of that, though, there was the small matter of figuring out how to get into the car. 
Entry is less “hop in” and more “controlled descent into the cockpit.” 
Like most mid-engine designs, the 21C has substantial door sills to clear, but they’re more pronounced here due not only to the car’s central seating layout but also the fact that a 2.2-kWh battery pack is housed within each of those sills. 
The dihedral doors help by opening up a wide access point, but the process still involves sitting on the sill with your legs outside the car, spinning around on your butt, and swinging your legs in, then ducking your head while yelling “Yee-haw!” 
as you drop yourself into the seat. 
Even around town, the car communicates its purpose-built nature through a layer of mechanical and electrical hums and whirs that are more in line with a competition-derived machine than a conventional road car. 
The 21C can be motivated purely by electricity at this pace, but the V8 is active from the moment the car is started. 
Four drive modes are available: Street, Sport, Track, and Track+. 
As you would expect, Track+ is the most extreme calibration, increasing suspension stiffness to levels that Czinger says are comparable to GT3 race cars and lowering ride height via hydraulic spring perches by 25 mm. 
It is, by design, a setting intended for closed-course use, so the drive was conducted primarily in the other three modes. 
Various configurations of 21C are available. 
In a straight line, the 21C Vmax feels every bit as fast as its official figures suggest, and with relatively low mass and wide Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2 tires, it turns in with immediacy but without feeling darty, a characteristic that makes the car intuitive and predictable when pushed. 
The motorsport vibes are further bolstered by Track mode’s properly heavy steering and the brake system’s tuning. 
Much like a typical race car setup, the pedal has a bit of initial travel before quickly firming up, with braking force then governed mainly by pressure—a calibration that prioritizes precision over ease of use. 
But aside from the virtually non-existent rear visibility and my tendency to unconsciously favor the left side of the lane due to the car’s central seating position, the 21C is remarkably easy to acclimate to. 
And that accessibility matters because it reduces the time required to reach the point where the car’s capabilities begin to feel exploitable rather than theoretical. 
Yes, I guess you would print a car, then. 
The Czinger 21C is simultaneously a hypercar in the traditional sense, capable of extraordinary performance and priced accordingly, and a test case for a manufacturing philosophy that challenges assumptions about how vehicles are designed and produced. 
The lap times and speed figures may be what draw attention, but they are not what ultimately define this car. 
The 21C’s real significance lies in the technologies that created it and the possibilities that those technologies represent for everything that could come next. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.5%Bradley Iger: 3.4%Ars Technica: 2.8%Confirmation Bias9.5%This article: 1.3%Bradley Iger: 1.7%Ars Technica: 1.2%Anchoring Bias1.3%This article: 3.8%Bradley Iger: 1.0%Ars Technica: 2.4%Availability Heuristic3.8%This article: 6.0%Bradley Iger: 1.5%Ars Technica: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic6.0%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Bradley Iger: 2.1%Ars Technica: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias3.2%This article: 9.5%Bradley Iger: 5.2%Ars Technica: 3.4%Framing Effect9.5%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.0%Bradley Iger: 0.7%Ars Technica: 0.5%Status Quo Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.2%Bradley Iger: 5.1%Ars Technica: 4.2%Optimism Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 6.2%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Bradley Iger: 0.7%Ars Technica: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 10.2%Bradley Iger: 4.3%Ars Technica: 2.0%Halo Effect10.2%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.6%Bradley Iger: 1.4%Ars Technica: 1.0%Recency Bias5.6%This article: 2.7%Bradley Iger: 0.7%Ars Technica: 0.3%Primacy Effect2.7%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.3%Bradley Iger: 3.7%Ars Technica: 4.1%Appeal to Authority7.3%This article: 3.8%Bradley Iger: 1.4%Ars Technica: 1.1%False Dilemma3.8%This article: 1.2%Bradley Iger: 0.3%Ars Technica: 0.7%Slippery Slope1.2%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.9%Bradley Iger: 2.7%Ars Technica: 3.8%Hasty Generalization3.9%This article: 5.7%Bradley Iger: 1.4%Ars Technica: 0.2%Red Herring5.7%This article: 2.0%Bradley Iger: 0.5%Ars Technica: 0.6%Bandwagon2.0%This article: 7.8%Bradley Iger: 2.4%Ars Technica: 2.7%Appeal to Emotion7.8%This article: 6.3%Bradley Iger: 1.6%Ars Technica: 0.6%Begging the Question6.3%This article: 3.8%Bradley Iger: 1.0%Ars Technica: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.8%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.8%Bradley Iger: 0.7%Ars Technica: 0.5%Burden of Proof2.8%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 17.9%Bradley Iger: 4.5%Ars Technica: 1.5%Anecdotal17.9%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.0%Bradley Iger: 0.3%Ars Technica: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.0%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.7%Bradley Iger: 0.2%Ars Technica: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.7%This article: 2.8%Bradley Iger: 0.7%Ars Technica: 0.1%Special Pleading2.8%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.2%Bradley Iger: 0.5%Ars Technica: 1.5%Unattributed Quote2.2%This article: 1.3%Bradley Iger: 0.3%Ars Technica: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection1.3%This article: 7.5%Bradley Iger: 9.6%Ars Technica: 4.5%Biased Writer Voice7.5%This article: 0.5%Bradley Iger: 0.1%Ars Technica: 1.0%Indoctrination0.5%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bradley Iger: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Bradley Iger: 0.9%Ars Technica: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.9%

1275 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker6.4%attributed speech1,194writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 71 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageMax Morice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageMax Morice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageMax Morice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageMax Morice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Max Morice

100%flagged-word coverage
81 attributed words100% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +45.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Max Morice: 45.7%45.7%Unattributed Quote+34.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Max Morice: 34.6%34.6%Quote-first Misdirection+19.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Max Morice: 19.8%19.8%Indoctrination+8.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Max Morice: 8.6%8.6%Biased Writer Voice-8.0 ptsWriter: 8.0%Max Morice: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.