RE: Audi R8 Spyder V10 Plus vs McLaren 570S Spider
Discussion
Uppercut said:
Well they are not solely a supercar manufacturer unlike McLaren, so it's not really a valid comparison.
Virtually the same engine and looks across the range are what kill McLaren for me. The 720s is a departure I will concede, but not an attractive departure.
All these these cars are blinding fast and handle fantastically. I'm not a professional driver. I don't do track days. So what a car looks like and sounds like is very important to me as on the road they are all extremely competent to the point of being identical.
It's what certain cars look like and sound like that sets them apart, and I'm happy to admit it plays a big part in my opinions and purchases.
Have you driven any of the cars in this area ?Virtually the same engine and looks across the range are what kill McLaren for me. The 720s is a departure I will concede, but not an attractive departure.
All these these cars are blinding fast and handle fantastically. I'm not a professional driver. I don't do track days. So what a car looks like and sounds like is very important to me as on the road they are all extremely competent to the point of being identical.
It's what certain cars look like and sound like that sets them apart, and I'm happy to admit it plays a big part in my opinions and purchases.
Your “virtually identical” point just doesn’t ring true. A 570s feels different to a 458 which in turn feels very different to a Huracan, a 911 Turbo S or an R8.
shrektus said:
Streetrod said:
Very few customers are likely to ever spec a 570s to that price
The R8 doesn't start at that price either.The RWD R8 is £112k on DTD (£6k off) https://www.drivethedeal.com/buy-a-new-car/AUDI/R8...
I suspect it's better specced than the base McLaren, which starts at £164k.
Not really the same price category.
The Audi R8 Plus is the one tested as that's the R8 with comparable performance to the 570s, that one starts at £144k. Excluding options that's £20k difference to the 570s. Options being optional and making the cars cosmetically different rather than dynamically better.
Oh and if you want to bring other cars into the mix, is the R8 plus worth £30k more than the RWD R8
Uppercut said:
Well they are not solely a supercar manufacturer unlike McLaren, so it's not really a valid comparison.
Virtually the same engine and looks across the range are what kill McLaren for me. The 720s is a departure I will concede, but not an attractive departure.
All these these cars are blinding fast and handle fantastically. I'm not a professional driver. I don't do track days. So what a car looks like and sounds like is very important to me as on the road they are all extremely competent to the point of being identical.
It's what certain cars look like and sound like that sets them apart, and I'm happy to admit it plays a big part in my opinions and purchases.
I wouldn't say all McLarens look the same but I get why people say it.... Ironically from a distance Audis look the same Virtually the same engine and looks across the range are what kill McLaren for me. The 720s is a departure I will concede, but not an attractive departure.
All these these cars are blinding fast and handle fantastically. I'm not a professional driver. I don't do track days. So what a car looks like and sounds like is very important to me as on the road they are all extremely competent to the point of being identical.
It's what certain cars look like and sound like that sets them apart, and I'm happy to admit it plays a big part in my opinions and purchases.
They R8 uses the same engine in 2 states of tune but yes McLaren use the same basic engine across the board. I'm guessing, as a relatively new company, developing a family/range of engines would be a costly business. Maybe more knowledgeable PHers here can expand on that?
Until the 718 having a flat 6 across the board in the Cayster/911 didn't bother anyone. How ironic that the flat 4 has upset a lot of folk.
So, why do McLaren get so much heat from certain quarters for having the same V8 in their range?
Ex Boy Racer said:
I seem to recall the journalists originally agreeing that the R8 (original V10) felt spookily light and weightless on GB roads - more so than any of its rivals. In fact a Ferrari engineer himself said that they need to learn how Audi stopped it feeling heavy.
Having had one myself, I agree - it floated along the road with a sharpness and liveliness that made mockery of its weight. Certainly drove better than my 458.
There seems to be an obsession with kerb weight without taking into account the drive. Kind of 'if it's heavy it's crap' philosophy. Surely the key point is how it feels to drive? Maybe the Mac is a nicer drive, and maybe that is due to weight, bit I'd warrant that's not the only reason. If that were the case, take away all of the chassis systems, active aerodynamics and other such things and surely you'd have a better car?
In fact, let's just stop testing cars at all and just rank them by kerb weight.
Just saying - let's stop being obsessive about one (important but not crucial) element of a car's statistics
While I agree weight isn't the be all end all, less of it is always a good thing all things being equal and at 200+kg it starts being pretty significant the weight difference and it starts being tough for a sports car to be good enough dynamically over another to overcome that kind of deficit.Having had one myself, I agree - it floated along the road with a sharpness and liveliness that made mockery of its weight. Certainly drove better than my 458.
There seems to be an obsession with kerb weight without taking into account the drive. Kind of 'if it's heavy it's crap' philosophy. Surely the key point is how it feels to drive? Maybe the Mac is a nicer drive, and maybe that is due to weight, bit I'd warrant that's not the only reason. If that were the case, take away all of the chassis systems, active aerodynamics and other such things and surely you'd have a better car?
In fact, let's just stop testing cars at all and just rank them by kerb weight.
Just saying - let's stop being obsessive about one (important but not crucial) element of a car's statistics
I have to disagree with you and whichever journalists per above that the old R8 v10 didn't feel heavy. That was the main criticism I had the one I had (well that and the horribly over servo'd brakes). Compared to the 430 before and the 12c that I swapped it for later, the weight difference was very obvious. The r8 was still a superb car and I never thought the magride on the road lost anything to the Mclaren's more fancy hrdraulic system but the extra weight of the car definitely showed.
Ex Boy Racer said:
I seem to recall the journalists originally agreeing that the R8 (original V10) felt spookily light and weightless on GB roads - more so than any of its rivals. In fact a Ferrari engineer himself said that they need to learn how Audi stopped it feeling heavy.
Having had one myself, I agree - it floated along the road with a sharpness and liveliness that made mockery of its weight. Certainly drove better than my 458.
There seems to be an obsession with kerb weight without taking into account the drive. Kind of 'if it's heavy it's crap' philosophy. Surely the key point is how it feels to drive? Maybe the Mac is a nicer drive, and maybe that is due to weight, bit I'd warrant that's not the only reason. If that were the case, take away all of the chassis systems, active aerodynamics and other such things and surely you'd have a better car?
In fact, let's just stop testing cars at all and just rank them by kerb weight.
Just saying - let's stop being obsessive about one (important but not crucial) element of a car's statistics
I've never driven an R8 so can't comment on how the weight difference feels, but handling is a very subjective thing so people are always going to have a different view on it.Having had one myself, I agree - it floated along the road with a sharpness and liveliness that made mockery of its weight. Certainly drove better than my 458.
There seems to be an obsession with kerb weight without taking into account the drive. Kind of 'if it's heavy it's crap' philosophy. Surely the key point is how it feels to drive? Maybe the Mac is a nicer drive, and maybe that is due to weight, bit I'd warrant that's not the only reason. If that were the case, take away all of the chassis systems, active aerodynamics and other such things and surely you'd have a better car?
In fact, let's just stop testing cars at all and just rank them by kerb weight.
Just saying - let's stop being obsessive about one (important but not crucial) element of a car's statistics
What isn't subjective is the performance against the clock. The lighter McLaren having an advantage over the slightly heavier R8 off the line despite being slightly down on pure grunt, an advantage McLaren uses well with headline grabbing 0-62 / 0-100 times.
HighwayStar said:
So, why do McLaren get so much heat from certain quarters for having the same V8 in their range?
Because Porsche ran 3 different sizes of n/a flat-6 (2.9, 3.4, 3.8, plus the limited-run 4.0) using shared architecture / ancillary components. Not virtually the same engine in different states of tune.And because Porsche aren't (really) selling into the supercar market, where the engine is of greater importance to most buyers than lower down the food chain.
Also because all the gen-1 Mclarens shared a basic 'cell', so they all looked broadly similar* - similar looks, same(ish) engine = slicing the whole 'new model' thing rather thinly. Lotus were doing the same for years, and were also getting flak for it.
I've passengered in a 650S and it's phenomenally quick and ergonomically excellent, and genuinely looks the part for a supercar With a sports exhaust you could also forgive the turbos (well, almost IMHO - I'm a rev-hound, but I'd struggle to criticise anything else).
But would you be happy buying a car that was undergoing rapid evolution and spawning new, cheaper, almost-as-capable models? (suspension aside, a 12C is arguably inferior to a 570S...yet cost rather more new and they're not separated by many years)
* OK, OK, Porsche isn't exactly guilt-free here!
RSK21 said:
Uppercut said:
Well they are not solely a supercar manufacturer unlike McLaren, so it's not really a valid comparison.
Virtually the same engine and looks across the range are what kill McLaren for me. The 720s is a departure I will concede, but not an attractive departure.
All these these cars are blinding fast and handle fantastically. I'm not a professional driver. I don't do track days. So what a car looks like and sounds like is very important to me as on the road they are all extremely competent to the point of being identical.
It's what certain cars look like and sound like that sets them apart, and I'm happy to admit it plays a big part in my opinions and purchases.
Have you driven any of the cars in this area ?Virtually the same engine and looks across the range are what kill McLaren for me. The 720s is a departure I will concede, but not an attractive departure.
All these these cars are blinding fast and handle fantastically. I'm not a professional driver. I don't do track days. So what a car looks like and sounds like is very important to me as on the road they are all extremely competent to the point of being identical.
It's what certain cars look like and sound like that sets them apart, and I'm happy to admit it plays a big part in my opinions and purchases.
Your “virtually identical” point just doesn’t ring true. A 570s feels different to a 458 which in turn feels very different to a Huracan, a 911 Turbo S or an R8.
You have misunderstood my other point.
I was saying their level of competence is virtually identical because they are all superbly built and engineered vehicles at this level. There are no bad cars at this price point
So for me what really differentiates them is their looks and engine noise. Hence I have stuck to normally aspirated engines in my last 3 (super)cars.
havoc said:
.......
But would you be happy buying a car that was undergoing rapid evolution and spawning new, cheaper, almost-as-capable models? (suspension aside, a 12C is arguably inferior to a 570S...yet cost rather more new and they're not separated by many years)
..........
Yes, I bought a 570s new and absolutely love it and I'm perfectly happy. But would you be happy buying a car that was undergoing rapid evolution and spawning new, cheaper, almost-as-capable models? (suspension aside, a 12C is arguably inferior to a 570S...yet cost rather more new and they're not separated by many years)
..........
I think the 'rapid evolution' as a negative is somewhat overplayed, the 3.8 litre 570 series cars being now 2 1/2 years old and with only 4 variants if you include this new spider. McLaren then have the new 4.0 litre 720s, which has just replaced the 12c/650s which had run since 2009, albeit a car which had evolved as the brand grew.
Uppercut said:
Yes, I am a driver and owner in this section of the market.
You have misunderstood my other point.
I was saying their level of competence is virtually identical because they are all superbly built and engineered vehicles at this level. There are no bad cars at this price point
So for me what really differentiates them is their looks and engine noise. Hence I have stuck to normally aspirated engines in my last 3 (super)cars.
Not the way they feel on the road ?You have misunderstood my other point.
I was saying their level of competence is virtually identical because they are all superbly built and engineered vehicles at this level. There are no bad cars at this price point
So for me what really differentiates them is their looks and engine noise. Hence I have stuck to normally aspirated engines in my last 3 (super)cars.
RSK21 said:
Uppercut said:
Yes, I am a driver and owner in this section of the market.
You have misunderstood my other point.
I was saying their level of competence is virtually identical because they are all superbly built and engineered vehicles at this level. There are no bad cars at this price point
So for me what really differentiates them is their looks and engine noise. Hence I have stuck to normally aspirated engines in my last 3 (super)cars.
Not the way they feel on the road ?You have misunderstood my other point.
I was saying their level of competence is virtually identical because they are all superbly built and engineered vehicles at this level. There are no bad cars at this price point
So for me what really differentiates them is their looks and engine noise. Hence I have stuck to normally aspirated engines in my last 3 (super)cars.
The looks and noise are more important to me. The large capacity normally aspirated V8's, V10's and V12's I've owned were all full of character from tick over to redline. I've also fitted aftermarket sports exhausts on them from Tubi and Larini etc to further enhance this.
I find turbo charged Porsches and McLarens dull in comparison, in both aesthetics and aurally.
Uppercut said:
They all feel very adept and confidence inspiring on the road.
The looks and noise are more important to me. The large capacity normally aspirated V8's, V10's and V12's I've owned were all full of character from tick over to redline. I've also fitted aftermarket sports exhausts on them from Tubi and Larini etc to further enhance this.
I find turbo charged Porsches and McLarens dull in comparison, in both aesthetics and aurally.
Each to their own and if we all liked the same things the world would be a much duller place.The looks and noise are more important to me. The large capacity normally aspirated V8's, V10's and V12's I've owned were all full of character from tick over to redline. I've also fitted aftermarket sports exhausts on them from Tubi and Larini etc to further enhance this.
I find turbo charged Porsches and McLarens dull in comparison, in both aesthetics and aurally.
To me the 570S was the optimum choice vs the Ferrari, Lamborghini and Porsche equivalents. Not better, but different in the areas that I valued. I guess that’s how most people choose a car and so one should be be surprised that there is choice and differing opinions.
On a more specific note, and for a wider audience, I do wonder if a lot of people criticise the Mac engine without having had any direct experience simply n cause it is turbocharged. Yes it will never sound like an n/a car but it can be made to make a great noise and it revs way begins what might one expect.
As for the single engine criticism again I get where that comes from but knowing it is a pretty special engine derived from an aborted LM car programme makes it pretty interesting in my eyes.
havoc said:
HighwayStar said:
So, why do McLaren get so much heat from certain quarters for having the same V8 in their range?
Because Porsche ran 3 different sizes of n/a flat-6 (2.9, 3.4, 3.8, plus the limited-run 4.0) using shared architecture / ancillary components. Not virtually the same engine in different states of tune.And because Porsche aren't (really) selling into the supercar market, where the engine is of greater importance to most buyers than lower down the food chain.
Also because all the gen-1 Mclarens shared a basic 'cell', so they all looked broadly similar* - similar looks, same(ish) engine = slicing the whole 'new model' thing rather thinly. Lotus were doing the same for years, and were also getting flak for it.
I've passengered in a 650S and it's phenomenally quick and ergonomically excellent, and genuinely looks the part for a supercar With a sports exhaust you could also forgive the turbos (well, almost IMHO - I'm a rev-hound, but I'd struggle to criticise anything else).
But would you be happy buying a car that was undergoing rapid evolution and spawning new, cheaper, almost-as-capable models? (suspension aside, a 12C is arguably inferior to a 570S...yet cost rather more new and they're not separated by many years)
* OK, OK, Porsche isn't exactly guilt-free here!
The McLaren engine does have changes to the internals from model to model rather that just different states of tune...
I think going forward, McLaren seem to be finding their feet... It was a brave thing to upgrade/update/redesign the 12C over they years but I they were learning as they went... Ferrari, Porsche, Lamborghini etc.. They've been at it for decades.
crimbo said:
Ive given up trying to read it, know clue who any of the people your comparing the cars to and think I need a thesaurus to work out what you were going on about.
You dont have to use all these fancy words to make it a good read, your just making less people want to read it! Some of us arent as well educated to understand what your trying to say.
i'm so glad you said that as i thought exactly the same thing, i was wondering if i'd gone through a process of "dumbening" (The Simpsons You dont have to use all these fancy words to make it a good read, your just making less people want to read it! Some of us arent as well educated to understand what your trying to say.
) and hadn't noticed! i mean what the actual ****?RSK21 said:
Uppercut said:
They all feel very adept and confidence inspiring on the road.
The looks and noise are more important to me. The large capacity normally aspirated V8's, V10's and V12's I've owned were all full of character from tick over to redline. I've also fitted aftermarket sports exhausts on them from Tubi and Larini etc to further enhance this.
I find turbo charged Porsches and McLarens dull in comparison, in both aesthetics and aurally.
Each to their own and if we all liked the same things the world would be a much duller place.The looks and noise are more important to me. The large capacity normally aspirated V8's, V10's and V12's I've owned were all full of character from tick over to redline. I've also fitted aftermarket sports exhausts on them from Tubi and Larini etc to further enhance this.
I find turbo charged Porsches and McLarens dull in comparison, in both aesthetics and aurally.
To me the 570S was the optimum choice vs the Ferrari, Lamborghini and Porsche equivalents. Not better, but different in the areas that I valued. I guess that’s how most people choose a car and so one should be be surprised that there is choice and differing opinions.
On a more specific note, and for a wider audience, I do wonder if a lot of people criticise the Mac engine without having had any direct experience simply n cause it is turbocharged. Yes it will never sound like an n/a car but it can be made to make a great noise and it revs way begins what might one expect.
As for the single engine criticism again I get where that comes from but knowing it is a pretty special engine derived from an aborted LM car programme makes it pretty interesting in my eyes.
>rant<
Its about time these manufacturers stopped taking the p with options prices. Thousands extra for a 'sports' exhaust on balls out sports cars? WTF?
So many of these high end sports cars sound pants and uncharismatic without such a huge cost option - from Porsche to Audi to McLaren. Seriously, when someone is pushing the boat out to buy a dream car the notion that an extra £4k so you can hear its fab engine is "nothing" is absurd - it will cost them sales for being bloody greedy. Sports exhaust have LESS metal and they don't give any 'discount' based on the std part actually being removed!
Bloody Dick Turpin Arfur Daleys the lot of them making mugs of people!!!! I refused a car based on the taking the p 'essential' options. Then think £245+VAT for 1 single rear USB slot for the kids! Comedians (Germans do have a sense of humour)!!!
>thank you<
Its about time these manufacturers stopped taking the p with options prices. Thousands extra for a 'sports' exhaust on balls out sports cars? WTF?
So many of these high end sports cars sound pants and uncharismatic without such a huge cost option - from Porsche to Audi to McLaren. Seriously, when someone is pushing the boat out to buy a dream car the notion that an extra £4k so you can hear its fab engine is "nothing" is absurd - it will cost them sales for being bloody greedy. Sports exhaust have LESS metal and they don't give any 'discount' based on the std part actually being removed!
Bloody Dick Turpin Arfur Daleys the lot of them making mugs of people!!!! I refused a car based on the taking the p 'essential' options. Then think £245+VAT for 1 single rear USB slot for the kids! Comedians (Germans do have a sense of humour)!!!
>thank you<
Edited by Ken Figenus on Friday 3rd November 19:21
On the subject of options, £5,000+ for sports seats on the McLaren?
I don't mean to sound crass but does the "basic" model not have seats? And, at even the "basic" price I would hope they're quite good ones!
I would love to see similar back-to-back test of the "no-extras" versions. It probably wouldn't make much difference to the conclusions but might, just barely, be in the realms of something more of us might be SO nearly able to afford!
I don't mean to sound crass but does the "basic" model not have seats? And, at even the "basic" price I would hope they're quite good ones!
I would love to see similar back-to-back test of the "no-extras" versions. It probably wouldn't make much difference to the conclusions but might, just barely, be in the realms of something more of us might be SO nearly able to afford!
ffhard said:
On the subject of options, £5,000+ for sports seats on the McLaren?
I don't mean to sound crass but does the "basic" model not have seats? And, at even the "basic" price I would hope they're quite good ones!
That £5k for the seats are the carbon fibre bucket seat option. The 'normal' seats are ok but the bucket seats make a real difference to the feel of any of the Mclaren cars and as long as you fit them, they are a must have imo.I don't mean to sound crass but does the "basic" model not have seats? And, at even the "basic" price I would hope they're quite good ones!
It is time for reports to reflect driving on public roads -we would all like to give these high performance cars a blast on the track but most of us just don't and if we did we would probably use someone else's..so lets have the everyday perspective as well as the technical and high speed "touchy feelie" view.Thanks.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff