RE: McLaren MP4-12C, Now With Added 'Phwoarr'

[fuchsiasteve]

JonRB said:

You appear to be in your late 30's / early 40's yet you have the abrasive 'debating' (sic) style of a teenager.

I'm sorry if my style of writing offends. There now do you feel better.

Back to topic I think the GTR version is more towards the mark. Front end is more aggresive for sure and the lowered side skirts and rear wing really improve the look.

Mclaren need this sort of styling to let the other manufacturers know the racing heritage behind them.

Also why do people want a useable everyday supercar?? Just seems a bit odd as where could you park one and use as a daily driver? Supercars are surely more for drives not everyday commuting to work or to go shopping in?

[El Guapo]

toppstuff said:

There are plenty of people who do not want the traditional supercar image. There are plenty of people who want a stealthier, quieter car without the "image baggage" of a traditional supercar. This is subjective too, but clearly it is a view not understood by the motoring press when they get given a car for 48 hours and the chance to rag it around a track. It is a point of view that the press should pay more respect to.

Spot on. McLaren should have stuck to their guns, built the car they wanted to build and ignored the EVO ballcocks. Deliberately making the cockpit noisier is just pandering to the Max Power crowd; I hope the noise pipe is an option that can be un-ticked.

[JonRB]

El Guapo said:

toppstuff said:

There are plenty of people who do not want the traditional supercar image. There are plenty of people who want a stealthier, quieter car without the "image baggage" of a traditional supercar. This is subjective too, but clearly it is a view not understood by the motoring press when they get given a car for 48 hours and the chance to rag it around a track. It is a point of view that the press should pay more respect to.

Spot on. McLaren should have stuck to their guns, built the car they wanted to build and ignored the EVO ballcocks. Deliberately making the cockpit noisier is just pandering to the Max Power crowd; I hope the noise pipe is an option that can be un-ticked.

Indeed. Without wishing to re-open the can of worms that was the Bristol Cars thread, one of the things I liked about the Fighter is that it was so stealth that nobody would have a clue just how expensive it was, which in these days of the Politics of Envy is a good thing. If anything the McLaren is too flash and falls between two stools - not understated enough to satisfy the 'understated' crowd and not flash enough for the 'look at me' crowd.
Of course the 458 panders to the latter and Ferrari always have done.

[356Speedster]

El Guapo said:

toppstuff said:

There are plenty of people who do not want the traditional supercar image. There are plenty of people who want a stealthier, quieter car without the "image baggage" of a traditional supercar. This is subjective too, but clearly it is a view not understood by the motoring press when they get given a car for 48 hours and the chance to rag it around a track. It is a point of view that the press should pay more respect to.

Spot on. McLaren should have stuck to their guns, built the car they wanted to build and ignored the EVO ballcocks. Deliberately making the cockpit noisier is just pandering to the Max Power crowd; I hope the noise pipe is an option that can be un-ticked.

I think the issue is that McLaren themselves compared the car to the established competition, therefore, people expected a certain type of car. If they were pitching it differently, they shouldn't have drawn the parallels that the entire motoring press are now measuring them on, or done the update package.

It's been an interesting evolutionary life for the car and they've not even delivered one to a paying customer yet. Still, all PR is good PR, so they're probably glad we're all talking about it

[JonRB]

356Speedster said:

I think the issue is that McLaren themselves compared the car to the established competition, therefore, people expected a certain type of car. If they were pitching it differently, they shouldn't have drawn the parallels that the entire motoring press are now measuring them on, or done the update package.

That's a fair point.

[Alfa numeric]

El Guapo said:

Spot on. McLaren should have stuck to their guns, built the car they wanted to build and ignored the EVO ballcocks. Deliberately making the cockpit noisier is just pandering to the Max Power crowd; I hope the noise pipe is an option that can be un-ticked.

From what I've read in both EVO and Autocar it's only noisier when in sports mode, so no need to untick the box.

[y2blade]

don logan said:

Still no pulse!

how far did you drive it?

[anonymous-user]

it seems fashionable on PH to knock both the looks and ability of the baby mac, but then this is the same website that complains about every new 911. i think the mp4 looks incredible, inside and out conversely the italia looks stunning from the rear and a fvcking mess from the front and inside. spine tingling sound track? i dont think, so try tinny, loud and annoying. the mp4 designed by engineers for engineers... i wonder just how many engineers are on the full order books and who, precisely, designed the brilliant italia if not engineers ffs. im not sure why so many self professed car enthusiasts can't celebrate the fact that there is now another real alternative to the prancing donkey and the 911gt's

as for the airbrake clown... 0.7g at 120mph, perhaps you can get some 'geek' who passed gcse physics to explain it to you

oh one last thing for everyone who slags of 'evo' et.al. just try being exiled abroad with only 'road and track' and 'car and driver' for company...

Edited by fbrs on Wednesday 20th July 15:47

[PhillipM]

Whilst if I had the money I probably would gravitate towards the noise of that N/A engine singing in the back of the Ferrari, from the interior pictures it seems it wouldn't be long before I was heading over to McLaren with my hard earned despite the supposed lack of flair....

[KaraK]

Obviously it goes without saying that were I to find myself in the position to buy a £200k car then I would have to test various vehicles including the MP4-12C and the 458. But if you were to make me choose now, without chance to drive either then it would be the McLaren.

Don't get me wrong - I like the 458, I like the way it looks and the way its reported to drive sounds like it would push plenty of fun buttons in my head. Sure the interior looks gash and amateurish compared to the McLaren but I could live with it I think. In spite of all that however the McLaren just hits that note with me, it seems to "Speak softly and carrry a big stick" somehow. I like the McLaren ethos that they seem to be out to make the car the best they possibly can and actually seem to listen to feedback and take it on board. Looks wise the Ferrari would be the one to snap my head around if it passed the other way but the McLaren is the one that would have me drooling in the car park.

[Daisy Duke]

LuS1fer said:

The GT3 version looks, if anything, like a badly penned character from Disney's "Cars".

I think the Mclaren badge is more the issue here and those who would defend it to the death. If this had a Farboud badge or Ginetta or whatever, I doubt this debate would be so intense but IMHO this car, in the looks department, could well wear such a badge.

I can see where you're coming from with this as I have to admit my opinion of the car wasn't helped when a friend said that it looked like an Evora. Now I like the Lotus, but I wasn't about to spent ₤200k on something that would be confused with one. Actually I think bas2rez may be on to something re the front of the car, although it's actually the back I have more of a problem with as it looks just a bit too Japanese.

As an aside, what exactly does the McLaren badge stand for, as I too think this may be part of the problem? Initially I had thought that it stood for quiet (yet passionate) efficiency as opposed to the Italian brand's blend of passion and flair (with a touch of chaos). However McLaren themselves seemed to want to play up Ron's OCD tendencies, I presume to give the impression that attention to detail was all important. To me (and I wasn't the only one) this just came across as a bit weird - personally I couldn't give a toss if the factory dimensions were dictated by the size of the tiles used, I wanted them to concentrate on producing a spectacular car. It wasn't that it was important per se, it was the fact that they thought it was that I found unsettling. Unfortunately this, combined with the fact that all the workers looked like automatons and appeared to be scared if you dared to try to interact with them, gave the impression of a rather sterile environment. It was hard to imagine anyone with a sense of fun working there and hence anything 'sexy' being produced by them. I doubt anyone really thinks they should try to be another Ferrari (they're not Italian for a start) but IMO McLaren need to lighten up and show that they actually do have a personality (a sense of fun might be pushing it though ). If they continue as they are they'll always be associated with capable but clinical products and forever at a disadvantage to Ferrari on the 'soul' front.

[KaraK]

Daisy Duke said:

If they continue as they are they'll always be associated with capable but clinical products and forever at a disadvantage to Ferrari on the 'soul' front.

I find it interesting that BMW get consistently raved about for their precision and exacting nature and it's effect on their cars yet somehow when McLaren do it it's considered a bad thing?

I appreciate that I'm almost certainly in the minority here but I'd prefer "clinical" to "soul" when it comes to dropping 200k on car. "Soul" just sounds to me like an excuse for it to brake down alot.

[fuchsiasteve]

Daisy Duke said:

my opinion of the car wasn't helped when a friend said that it looked like an Evora.

Soo true. I felt exactly the same when I first clapped eyes on it. Styling very similar to the Evora. The Mac needed to be different.

[E21_Ross]

KaraK said:

Daisy Duke said:

If they continue as they are they'll always be associated with capable but clinical products and forever at a disadvantage to Ferrari on the 'soul' front.

I find it interesting that BMW get consistently raved about for their precision and exacting nature and it's effect on their cars yet somehow when McLaren do it it's considered a bad thing?

I appreciate that I'm almost certainly in the minority here but I'd prefer "clinical" to "soul" when it comes to dropping 200k on car. "Soul" just sounds to me like an excuse for it to brake down alot.

I agree.

[marcosgt]

E21_Ross said:

KaraK said:

Daisy Duke said:

If they continue as they are they'll always be associated with capable but clinical products and forever at a disadvantage to Ferrari on the 'soul' front.

I find it interesting that BMW get consistently raved about for their precision and exacting nature and it's effect on their cars yet somehow when McLaren do it it's considered a bad thing?

I appreciate that I'm almost certainly in the minority here but I'd prefer "clinical" to "soul" when it comes to dropping 200k on car. "Soul" just sounds to me like an excuse for it to brake down alot.

I agree.

Are either of you in a position to 'drop 200K on a car'?

I don't usually advance this view, but it's easy to say anything when it's academic. Personally if I WAS (and I'm not) in a position to spend 1/5 Million pounds on a car, I'd expect it to be F'ing awesome in EVERY respect!!!!

M

[E21_Ross]

marcosgt said:

Are either of you in a position to 'drop 200K on a car'?

I don't usually advance this view, but it's easy to say anything when it's academic. Personally if I WAS (and I'm not) in a position to spend 1/5 Million pounds on a car, I'd expect it to be F'ing awesome in EVERY respect!!!!

M

Id also like it to be pretty comfortable and not set fire on hot days

[Verde]

Great to see a company move quickly to respond to input. Unlike some giant companies considering input for the next model year. Or so
But, in the context of recent discussions about the Noble M600 looking like a 10 year old kit car, this new McLaren continues to strike me as a remarkably homely attempt. No doubt a great machine. I have near-infinite respect for these folks. But judged by appearance, it's just a homely kit car. Too bad. I wonder if it will affect it's long-term value. As other cars, over time, exceed it's performance characteristics, what is the reason for sustained value for such a machine?

[sone]

E21_Ross said:

KaraK said:

Daisy Duke said:

If they continue as they are they'll always be associated with capable but clinical products and forever at a disadvantage to Ferrari on the 'soul' front.

I find it interesting that BMW get consistently raved about for their precision and exacting nature and it's effect on their cars yet somehow when McLaren do it it's considered a bad thing?

I appreciate that I'm almost certainly in the minority here but I'd prefer "clinical" to "soul" when it comes to dropping 200k on car. "Soul" just sounds to me like an excuse for it to brake down alot.

I agree.

I feel BMW are raved about as a repmobile or functional capble daily hack where as we are talking about supercars and being sensible doesn't count!. I know exactly what you mean tho and a better comparison is probably Porsche, I love them, had a few but have recently gone from GT3 to 430 for no other reason than the Porker lacked "soul" even tho it was a better car in many ways.
Just my humble.

[Dagnut]

This is a car for the future. They were never going to wade into battle with anything but the most technically proficient car they could produce.
The main criticisms seem to be the
1. styling - Was anyone expecting it to be anything other than efficient and functional? As some refereed to earlier it will age better than the 458...any it's always subjective.

2. Sound - this was always going to be hampered by FI, but with Co2 regs and an uncertain future in this area would Mclaren develop a screaming N/A only to find 2 years down the line stricter EU regs meant it was obsolete, Ferrari could well be FI in a couple of years across their range.

3. Electronics - The main criticism seems to be you can't slide the car or turn the traction completely off..you have to remember they need scope for a more hardcore model to freshen the range up mid life.

Do these things explain the lack of soul or is it the fact that people are singing arias and hugging each other at maranello that gives its car SOUL

[356Speedster]

KaraK said:

I find it interesting that BMW get consistently raved about for their precision and exacting nature and it's effect on their cars yet somehow when McLaren do it it's considered a bad thing?

I appreciate that I'm almost certainly in the minority here but I'd prefer "clinical" to "soul" when it comes to dropping 200k on car. "Soul" just sounds to me like an excuse for it to brake down alot.

For me soul stops a car from being an object and gives it a personality. Something that talks to you, a character you have to learn. Soul doesn't mean fragility, at all. I've had plenty of cars with soul and thankfully none of them have been unreliable!

The problem with defining soul, is it means something different to everyone.

I feel that BMW and Audi fundamentally lack soul, but in my mind, that can be forgiven in a more run-of-the-mill car. A meer tool if you will.

When it comes to having a car in the garage for the weekend, I want my 3rd car to have soul, passion and excitement. However much it costs, for me, it needs to tick the boxes ruled by the heart, not the head. Styling is the first part of that, noise is another. Feel is also a highly important factor. Where this really becomes important, however, is in the money being spent.... the more I'm spending, the more I want the car to fulfill these criteria. All subjective, of course