Mumtalakat to take over McLaren

[EK993]

Streetbeat said:

Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche are well established, how was their first decade in production??

Exactly this, everyone is comparing McLaren to brands that have been established for decades, and wondering why they don't have a dozen engine, drivetrain and vehicle type configurations available.

I have beem a McLaren owner for 5 years now (Originally a 570S and now a 600LT). The cars using essentially the same engine (which it basically does) is not a negative consideration for me, the Ricardo V8 is a great engine. It wouldn't stop me wanting a Senna or P1.

Besides, within brands (Ferrari, Lambo etc) owners are fairly divided V8 Ferrari owners don't typically desire the V12 models, and Lambo V12 owners don't aspire to own a V10. I doubt the fact that Lambo produces a V10 as an option in a different model plays any part in the decision making process for an Aventador buyer.

Put it another way, if McLaren offered a V12, V8 and a V6, would all these people saying "all the same engine" suddenly aspire to owing a 750S? What difference would it make? I can see the case of something like a Jaguar F Type where in exactly the same body style you can get a 4 pot turbo or a supercharged V8 - but in the case of McLaren, all models have a screaming twin turbo V8 with incredible performance characteristics.

I honestly don't get it.

[Soleith]

Streetbeat said:

Did you also assume they were sh*t to drive too????

Im afraid you are the perfect example of the Mclaren troll, never owned one, clearly no knowledge of them but happy to tell everyone why you dont want one, regurgitating "stuff" youve read on the internet or assumed. If you actually spent a little of your wasted ramblings doing some proper research, talking to long standing owners, dare i say even drive one you "might" actually have some constructive cristiscm or at the very least a valued opinion.

In the broader term to said people, if you are more concerned with pub bragging rights over engine configuration and the noise it makes or are too concerned about protecting your hard earned without a bit of depreciation stick to the familiar, but if you actually want a car that has in very a brief time made the competiton have to pull its socks up (Ferrari still not caught up with the 720s 7 years later) perhaps Mclaren is the car for you, irrespective of the "brand".

Ferrari, Lamborghini, Porsche are well established, how was their first decade in production??

I've driven them so didn't need to assume. They're simply not for me, which is why I tend to buy Ferrari's rather than McLaren's. Don't think that makes me a troll, just means I have a different opinion to people that prefer them to Ferrari's etc. My cars generally depreciate so it's not about that, but the total package is important to me, that includes sound and yes, i prefer a naturally aspirated v12 to a tt v8. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[Streetbeat]

As i said, if you presumed the engine was an amg lump, it shows your interest or lack of, i doubt driving any was going to make any difference, whether that was in reality or not. We all like a na v12, but there is so so much more to a car than the engine pushing it.

[Soleith]

Streetbeat said:

As i said, if you presumed the engine was an amg lump, it shows your interest or lack of, i doubt driving any was going to make any difference, whether that was in reality or not. We all like a na v12, but there is so so much more to a car than the engine pushing it.

Not really, it shows my lack of understanding of who manufactured the engine but doesn't change that they basically use the same engine across the range which feels cheap.

My personal preference is generally for FR GT cars which is why McLaren's are not for me, same reason I didn't buy a 488, f8. I'd like a mid engine at some point but would likely go for something more comfortable than both the McLaren or Ferrari options along the lines of an MC20 for example.

I think you just need to accept that different people's buying criteria differs from yours.

[CLK-GTR]

Streetbeat said:

As i said, if you presumed the engine was an amg lump, it shows your interest or lack of, i doubt driving any was going to make any difference, whether that was in reality or not. We all like a na v12, but there is so so much more to a car than the engine pushing it.

I disagree quite heavily with that. As old Enzo allegedly said you pay for the engine and the rest of the car is free. The engine is the soul of any sports car and very often defines the character of the car.

[AL001]

I would put McLaren a level above Ferrari/Lamborghini on most driving metrics, based on my actual ownership experience of all brands versus what i read on the internet and know nothing about.

It's actually a good thing that many people are quite ignorant about McLaren, makes buying one used or new a fairly simple process and the dealerships smaller/personal.

[Forester1965]

Also keeps them losing money. They won't be around much longer unless they sort themselves out.

[SydneyBridge]

Hate to say it but they needed/need an SUV moneymaker like Porsche Cayenne and Lambo Urus, to make money for the good stuff.

[ex-devonpaul]

Soleith said:

Not really, it shows my lack of understanding of who manufactured the engine but doesn't change that they basically use the same engine across the range which feels cheap.

Same basic engine, but refinements and developments.

Rather like Ferrari's 1947 launched Colombo V12, which they were still using in the 412 in the late 1980s

[Forester1965]

How many Ferraris used the 250 engine?

[Soleith]

More than I'd buy!

Edit, but if memory serves they also produced v8s and even a V6 in that period! More than McLaren!

[CLK-GTR]

ex-devonpaul said:

Same basic engine, but refinements and developments.

Rather like Ferrari's 1947 launched Colombo V12, which they were still using in the 412 in the late 1980s

Win a few Grand Prix and Le Mans races with it and McLaren can use that V8 in whatever they want

[supersport]

CLK-GTR said:

Streetbeat said:

As i said, if you presumed the engine was an amg lump, it shows your interest or lack of, i doubt driving any was going to make any difference, whether that was in reality or not. We all like a na v12, but there is so so much more to a car than the engine pushing it.

I disagree quite heavily with that. As old Enzo allegedly said you pay for the engine and the rest of the car is free. The engine is the soul of any sports car and very often defines the character of the car.

I would be interested to know where you decided to put your money.

As much as I like old Enzo I disagree. A car is more than just the engine. Without wanting to get all soppy about it, it’s about how it makes you feel.

That’s more than the engine, it’s about how it drives where how it feels is as important. It’s also about how it looks and what that evokes.

It’s also about the history, which is why Porsche and Ferrari are so great.

McLaren are new to the road car business, yet there is plenty of motorsport heritage to get interested in, all be it in a narrow field.

[davek_964]

Different people like different things. Some like McLaren, some don't - and for sure, McLaren have made some mistakes in their business model.

What's different about McLaren - on PH and many other car forums - is the apparent need for people who don't like McLaren, and have no interest in buying one - to tell everybody what's wrong with them.

I've had a couple of 911s in the past. It made me realise I'm not a great fan of Porsche - but I haven't felt the need to post on 911 posts to highlight why I think they're overrated.
I had an Evora for a week - before I drove it, I fully expected to be buying one soon after that week. For various reasons, I hated it - yet I've never joined a Lotus / Evora thread to point out how st I think they are.

That is why McLaren owners get a bit defensive on here - and why many I know left PH a long time ago. Look through some Ferrari and Lambo threads - can you find many posts from non-owners pointing out why they're crap, and why they bought something else? But look through a few McLaren threads (not just here) and you'd struggle to find one where there isn't at least one non-owner telling you what a pile of crap they are.

I don't post much on the supercar section anymore for that reason - and I imagine I'll regret this post, because I have better things to do than feed the anti-McLaren brigade.
If you don't like them - fine, don't buy one, and I'm sure you'll have a party if they go down the toilet. But FFS - give it a rest.

[CLK-GTR]

supersport said:

I would be interested to know where you decided to put your money.

As much as I like old Enzo I disagree. A car is more than just the engine. Without wanting to get all soppy about it, it’s about how it makes you feel.

That’s more than the engine, it’s about how it drives where how it feels is as important. It’s also about how it looks and what that evokes.

It’s also about the history, which is why Porsche and Ferrari are so great.

McLaren are new to the road car business, yet there is plenty of motorsport heritage to get interested in, all be it in a narrow field.

Well, I've got a 2 year old so i just bought an RS6 Performance. 2 seaters are out of the picture for the time being. Still a car defined by its engine but in a slightly different way. Later this year I'll be looking to add a 599 or F12 and the main reason is the engine, i love the Ferrari V12 and I've never owned one.

I have no problem with McLaren putting the V8 in the entry or mid level cars but it feels cheap when the GT and high end stuff also gets it. I find it a bit soulless and thats why im not considering one alongside the Ferraris. They needed to develop something else. The most famous McLaren of them all would not have been half the car without that BMW V12.

[r o n n i e]

CLK-GTR said:

supersport said:

I would be interested to know where you decided to put your money.

As much as I like old Enzo I disagree. A car is more than just the engine. Without wanting to get all soppy about it, it’s about how it makes you feel.

That’s more than the engine, it’s about how it drives where how it feels is as important. It’s also about how it looks and what that evokes.

It’s also about the history, which is why Porsche and Ferrari are so great.

McLaren are new to the road car business, yet there is plenty of motorsport heritage to get interested in, all be it in a narrow field.

Well, I've got a 2 year old so i just bought an RS6 Performance. 2 seaters are out of the picture for the time being. Still a car defined by its engine but in a slightly different way. Later this year I'll be looking to add a 599 or F12 and the main reason is the engine, i love the Ferrari V12 and I've never owned one.

I have no problem with McLaren putting the V8 in the entry or mid level cars but it feels cheap when the GT and high end stuff also gets it. I find it a bit soulless and thats why im not considering one alongside the Ferraris. They needed to develop something else. The most famous McLaren of them all would not have been half the car without that BMW V12.

This will be my last post on this thread as sadly predicted it’s been derailed by pretenders who read some info on the net and regurgitate it thinking it’ll make them sound knowledgeable, but in reality is like a badly trained hallucinating AI bot.

We have one that can’t tell the difference between Aston Martin and McLaren giving pearls of wisdom.

And this troll has “no problem with McLaren putting the V8 in the entry or mid level cars but it feels cheap when the GT and high end stuff also gets it”, which makes no sense as the GT is an entry level model.

This really is a case of do not pass go, go straight to doing more homework as knowledge is severely deluded and experience is clearly missing.

[Hammersia]

davek_964 said:

Different people like different things. Some like McLaren, some don't - and for sure, McLaren have made some mistakes in their business model.

What's different about McLaren - on PH and many other car forums - is the apparent need for people who don't like McLaren, and have no interest in buying one - to tell everybody what's wrong with them.

I've had a couple of 911s in the past. It made me realise I'm not a great fan of Porsche - but I haven't felt the need to post on 911 posts to highlight why I think they're overrated.
I had an Evora for a week - before I drove it, I fully expected to be buying one soon after that week. For various reasons, I hated it - yet I've never joined a Lotus / Evora thread to point out how st I think they are.

That is why McLaren owners get a bit defensive on here - and why many I know left PH a long time ago. Look through some Ferrari and Lambo threads - can you find many posts from non-owners pointing out why they're crap, and why they bought something else? But look through a few McLaren threads (not just here) and you'd struggle to find one where there isn't at least one non-owner telling you what a pile of crap they are.

I don't post much on the supercar section anymore for that reason - and I imagine I'll regret this post, because I have better things to do than feed the anti-McLaren brigade.
If you don't like them - fine, don't buy one, and I'm sure you'll have a party if they go down the toilet. But FFS - give it a rest.

All accepted as perfectly reasonable, at least by me -

I'm not one of those who criticise McLaren, I've worked as a very minor supplier to them. I want them to succeed, in many ways they are a good British Engineering story. And they've carved a niche a lot more successfully and consistently than Lotus (who, er, never paid their suppliers).

However I can totally see why they get some comment, when you have respected professional journalists uncovering what can only be described as horror stories particularly on the customer service side, a recent MD or two refusing to engage with customers, and essentially unfinished cars being released for sale (MP4-12C and Artura).

[ChrisW.]

davek_964 said:

Different people like different things. Some like McLaren, some don't - and for sure, McLaren have made some mistakes in their business model.

What's different about McLaren - on PH and many other car forums - is the apparent need for people who don't like McLaren, and have no interest in buying one - to tell everybody what's wrong with them.

I've had a couple of 911s in the past. It made me realise I'm not a great fan of Porsche - but I haven't felt the need to post on 911 posts to highlight why I think they're overrated.
I had an Evora for a week - before I drove it, I fully expected to be buying one soon after that week. For various reasons, I hated it - yet I've never joined a Lotus / Evora thread to point out how st I think they are.

That is why McLaren owners get a bit defensive on here - and why many I know left PH a long time ago. Look through some Ferrari and Lambo threads - can you find many posts from non-owners pointing out why they're crap, and why they bought something else? But look through a few McLaren threads (not just here) and you'd struggle to find one where there isn't at least one non-owner telling you what a pile of crap they are.

I don't post much on the supercar section anymore for that reason - and I imagine I'll regret this post, because I have better things to do than feed the anti-McLaren brigade.
If you don't like them - fine, don't buy one, and I'm sure you'll have a party if they go down the toilet. But FFS - give it a rest.

I agree with a lot in what has been said here ... but sometimes the complaints are by those who really want the problems that they see with McLaren to be sorted. I am a past owner of an MP4-12C ... I found the dealers great but McLaren would not support an expensive gearbox issue and moreover would not allow anybody else to look at the gearbox or for Gratziano to supply parts. So when you say that McLaren have had their problems it's a whitewash of just how long it took them to exercise some humanity and allow problems to be resolved in the most cost-effective way.

Now this is changing, Thorney Motorsport and others have resurrected the MP4-12C and 650S market, making them a very credible ownership experience. And Porsche are becoming guilty of similar silly-ness and are kept out of trouble by the many specialist dealers who can and do ... for the brand and their customers.

It takes time for this to wash through and I would really love McLaren to make sales numbers to match the competence of their cars ...

[12pack]

CLK-GTR said:

I disagree quite heavily with that. As old Enzo allegedly said you pay for the engine and the rest of the car is free. The engine is the soul of any sports car and very often defines the character of the car.

Utter nonsense. May have been true in Enzo’s day when they didn’t know how to build the rest of the car. Today it’s a statement by the pretenders who can’t actually drive.

[CLK-GTR]

r o n n i e said:

This will be my last post on this thread as sadly predicted it’s been derailed by pretenders who read some info on the net and regurgitate it thinking it’ll make them sound knowledgeable, but in reality is like a badly trained hallucinating AI bot.

We have one that can’t tell the difference between Aston Martin and McLaren giving pearls of wisdom.

And this troll has “no problem with McLaren putting the V8 in the entry or mid level cars but it feels cheap when the GT and high end stuff also gets it”, which makes no sense as the GT is an entry level model.

This really is a case of do not pass go, go straight to doing more homework as knowledge is severely deluded and experience is clearly missing.

And mine. If this thread is indicative of the Mclaren ownership circle I'm glad to be looking elsewhere.