RE: McLaren MP4-12C, Now With Added 'Phwoarr'
Discussion
good post 356speedster. however, there are also a lot of electrics working their magic on the 458 too, and most other cars in this bracket. mclaren confirmed long ago they will be making a more hardcore version of the 12C too, that should be interesting 
don't see how you can say it doesn't appeal to the petrolheads though. not every petrolhead wants exactly the same thing as the next.... and mclaren clearly have nailed their target, as they've sold 3 years of build slots.
don't see how you can say it doesn't appeal to the petrolheads though. not every petrolhead wants exactly the same thing as the next.... and mclaren clearly have nailed their target, as they've sold 3 years of build slots.
356Speedster said:
Wow, what a thorny comments thread! My own thoughts go like this:
It's great to see that McLaren have responded to the criticisms that the car has attracted, but they had to. They themselves said the car would beat the oposition and it didn't. Any manufacturer wants to beat the rest, but rarely react when they fall short.
Like 99% of the people on here, I've not driven one and while I'd like to from a pure petrolhead perspective, I'm pretty sure it won't be for me. Like many posters on here, I feel that the way McLaren have approached the market, ignores what many drivers want: passion, excitement, flamboyance, engagement.... all the things that make owning a supercar a true experience.
If I had the money, I'd try one, but I doubt I'd buy one over the more viceral, cars out there. At 200K (don't forget the options), there's a lot of choice out there and the 12C doesn't look anywhere near exciting enough. It's a clean looking car, but it looks too bland (compared to just about all it's rivals) and is very similar in design to cars that have gone before it.
Technology in cars is a tricky area to balance too. For example, Brake Steer systems have been around for a while and are usually implemented where either a mechanical solution (LSD, et al) couldn't be found, or would be too labourious / costly to implement. Use of electrics is often the engineering "quick win", at the expense of driver feel.
I'm not a Ferrari fan, but from the cars I've been in (360, 430), I can't help feeling that they "get" petrolheads and cater for their desires better. The need to be part of the process, to work with the car for reward.
Hat's off to McLaren for making a car that can lap Dunsfold very, very quickly, but like the Nissan GTR, I can't help thinking it's a triumph of technology of driver skill / involvement.
None of this matter tho'. When I look at the car, look at the way it's been designed & engineered, look at McLaren's business model, I can't help thinking that, they don't care. Not in a bad way, just that they grabbed the headlines with some laptimes and really just want to sell a boat load of cars to people who have 200K and want a nice, fast car, but aren't bothered about the flamboyance, theatre and attention that supercars normally come with.
I think McLaren have a target audience some way off that of Ferrari, for example. Maybe they are trying to be the Clark Kent of the supercar world. Or maybe the volume selling 12C is meant to be the bread & butter, to pay for the real extravagant supercar, that's still in development and will make a Reventon look like Fiesta?
I'm with FuchsciaSteve, LuS1fer and evo magazine on this one. The car appears to dial out the insane streak that supercars have and appeal to many petrolheads. I want my fun car to be just that, fun. I want to feel that I was part of a great B-road romp, that the car "spoke" to me both through the noises it made and the feedback through the controls. I don't want to rely on computers and gadgets, to do the job for me. I don't want a car because of a lap time or a badge, I want a car because it gives me goosebumps and plugs right into my senses.
In short, I'm clearly not a McLaren target customer, I think many petrolheads aren't either and maybe that doesn't bother them one bit.
+1 LOLIt's great to see that McLaren have responded to the criticisms that the car has attracted, but they had to. They themselves said the car would beat the oposition and it didn't. Any manufacturer wants to beat the rest, but rarely react when they fall short.
Like 99% of the people on here, I've not driven one and while I'd like to from a pure petrolhead perspective, I'm pretty sure it won't be for me. Like many posters on here, I feel that the way McLaren have approached the market, ignores what many drivers want: passion, excitement, flamboyance, engagement.... all the things that make owning a supercar a true experience.
If I had the money, I'd try one, but I doubt I'd buy one over the more viceral, cars out there. At 200K (don't forget the options), there's a lot of choice out there and the 12C doesn't look anywhere near exciting enough. It's a clean looking car, but it looks too bland (compared to just about all it's rivals) and is very similar in design to cars that have gone before it.
Technology in cars is a tricky area to balance too. For example, Brake Steer systems have been around for a while and are usually implemented where either a mechanical solution (LSD, et al) couldn't be found, or would be too labourious / costly to implement. Use of electrics is often the engineering "quick win", at the expense of driver feel.
I'm not a Ferrari fan, but from the cars I've been in (360, 430), I can't help feeling that they "get" petrolheads and cater for their desires better. The need to be part of the process, to work with the car for reward.
Hat's off to McLaren for making a car that can lap Dunsfold very, very quickly, but like the Nissan GTR, I can't help thinking it's a triumph of technology of driver skill / involvement.
None of this matter tho'. When I look at the car, look at the way it's been designed & engineered, look at McLaren's business model, I can't help thinking that, they don't care. Not in a bad way, just that they grabbed the headlines with some laptimes and really just want to sell a boat load of cars to people who have 200K and want a nice, fast car, but aren't bothered about the flamboyance, theatre and attention that supercars normally come with.
I think McLaren have a target audience some way off that of Ferrari, for example. Maybe they are trying to be the Clark Kent of the supercar world. Or maybe the volume selling 12C is meant to be the bread & butter, to pay for the real extravagant supercar, that's still in development and will make a Reventon look like Fiesta?
I'm with FuchsciaSteve, LuS1fer and evo magazine on this one. The car appears to dial out the insane streak that supercars have and appeal to many petrolheads. I want my fun car to be just that, fun. I want to feel that I was part of a great B-road romp, that the car "spoke" to me both through the noises it made and the feedback through the controls. I don't want to rely on computers and gadgets, to do the job for me. I don't want a car because of a lap time or a badge, I want a car because it gives me goosebumps and plugs right into my senses.
In short, I'm clearly not a McLaren target customer, I think many petrolheads aren't either and maybe that doesn't bother them one bit.
I'm glad I'm not going insane here. The Mclaren looks okay on its own but I thought it looked like a bad 458 copy when I saw it next to the Fez in Evo or how the ferrari looked in its design phase before the engineers sorted all the lines out and sculped the final touches.
I know this is all subjective to what floats the individuals boat but to me this is history repeating itself (355 v NSX).
Ferrari's make gorgeous cars made from chocolate (take the initial batch of 458's bursting into flames) whereas the likes of mclaren/honda build engineering masterpeices which will last but without the same level of desire/passion and excitement that the italians manage.
The air brake I know is an aid but how is it ferrari and the other supercar manufacturers can make cars without this ugly garnish? Probably down to weight and aerodynamics/under body aero etc all derived from F1. It really isn't necessary if the car is designed properly in the first place.
Hang fire I just heard something clip clopping over my bridge. Back in a tick.........
Desire is a very personal thing though and entirely subjective.
Personally, in the entirely subjective desire stakes, I wouldn't have a Ferrari because it's a Ferrari but I can't think of a car I want more than the Mclaren because it is a Mclaren (F1 in all variations aside, obviously).
Granted I may be alone in that viewpoint but one cannot objectively compare two cars, as the magazines have done, on the basis of something as absurd as 'emotion'.
You may as well compare them on their squidginess or smell.
Personally, in the entirely subjective desire stakes, I wouldn't have a Ferrari because it's a Ferrari but I can't think of a car I want more than the Mclaren because it is a Mclaren (F1 in all variations aside, obviously).
Granted I may be alone in that viewpoint but one cannot objectively compare two cars, as the magazines have done, on the basis of something as absurd as 'emotion'.
You may as well compare them on their squidginess or smell.
356Speedster said:
In short, I'm clearly not a McLaren target customer, I think many petrolheads aren't either and maybe that doesn't bother them one bit.
Whilst I think that you are right that McLaren are not targeting the car at all petrolheads, I think their target audience will all be petrolheads (if that makes sense).The thing is, McLaren are building a car that they want to sell to real customers who are actually going to use them. This may have resulted in a different car to that which they may have made if they just wanted to make a Ferrari clone but I think we can all appreciate that the ethos of the company was always going to lead to McLaren taking their own path. Whether that has resulted in a car which appeals to a bunch of online enthusiasts most of whom will never sit in one, let alone drive it, is slightly irrelevant.
When it comes to laying out your own £200k and buying a car that you are going to drive and own, it would be interesting to know how peoples' priorities change. I think my car makes quite a nice noise but when the exhaust blew the other month and it started making a lot more noise, I didn't think this was a good thing, I felt like a bit of a t
t. So if your intention is to use your car reguarly, maybe even daily, then perhaps a car which lacks some of the visual and aural drama (or show-offishness) of a V8 Ferrari might be a positive rather than a negative.So providing McLaren can sell what they make (and it looks like there is every chance of that happening) and the customers are satisfied, then I guess it is mission accomplished, regardless of what the press say. Having said that, I'm sure Ron wasn't too chuffed with the headlines from the initial reviews.
Edited by lauda on Wednesday 20th July 10:04
E21_Ross said:
good post 356speedster. however, there are also a lot of electrics working their magic on the 458 too, and most other cars in this bracket. mclaren confirmed long ago they will be making a more hardcore version of the 12C too, that should be interesting
don't see how you can say it doesn't appeal to the petrolheads though. not every petrolhead wants exactly the same thing as the next.... and mclaren clearly have nailed their target, as they've sold 3 years of build slots.
Morning! Electrics in cars are OTT these days, that's why my last car was an Atom and my current one is an Ultima!don't see how you can say it doesn't appeal to the petrolheads though. not every petrolhead wants exactly the same thing as the next.... and mclaren clearly have nailed their target, as they've sold 3 years of build slots.
Everyone has different criteria for a car, but the heart appeal has to be there and I think that's what McLaren are missing, to truly make the car great. Give it some character and it'd be a ture game changer
356Speedster said:
I'm with FuchsciaSteve, LuS1fer and evo magazine on this one. The car appears to dial out the insane streak that supercars have and appeal to many petrolheads. I want my fun car to be just that, fun. I want to feel that I was part of a great B-road romp, that the car "spoke" to me both through the noises it made and the feedback through the controls. I don't want to rely on computers and gadgets, to do the job for me. I don't want a car because of a lap time or a badge, I want a car because it gives me goosebumps and plugs right into my senses.
Good post but where is the 'insane streak' in a 458? The 'baby Ferrari' has matured into a civilised car that can be used everyday (in theory) with a slew of electronics and a lot of faith set in the e-diff.I totally appreciate if the MP4 isn't everyone's cup of tea - if the money was in my hand (which it isn't, like 99% of respondents!) I wouldn't consider either* - but they are equals in terms of technology. The whole passion/choice thing between the two IMO comes down to looks, noise and how people perceive the brand in terms of an ownership proposition. In which case the choice is obviously purely subjective and not worth arguing over or declaring one 'better'.
- If I wanted a 'sensible'/'everyday' supercar it would be an R8 V10 as I think it blends driver focus and usability the most cohesively.
356Speedster said:
A very sensible post
Totally agree. McLaren have set out to produce a supercar for the masses - something that's all things to all people and that can be used everyday yet be blindingly quick around the track. And, in this, I think they have succeeded. However in doing so they seem to have lost that 'X' factor which makes a car (or any product) highly desirable, a must have. I'm not sure how you define 'it' or how you go about ensuring your product has 'it' as it's such an nebulous thing, encompassing all sorts of factors such as looks and people's preconceived perceptions ie badge snobbery. I just think in this case, they concentrated too much on objective values (speed, lateral G etc) rather than subjective values, probably because they are so much easier to quantify. Ultimately for me the car just isn't 'sexy' so when I imagined walking into my garage, I just couldn't picture me picking the McLaren to drive, as it simply wasn't special enough. I'm sure they'll sell shedloads of them though, particularly to those whose only car it'll be. Although if I was planning on using it everyday, I'd still have a concern about the amount of brake wear.They certainly will have been hurt by the comments in the press as their whole focus was beating Ferrari (something which always struck me as a bit blinkered). Hence their recent hiring of Jamie to "understand how journalists think". Unfortunately, partly because of this, and the fact that in response to initial comments from potential customers their attitude was 'we know what we're doing', I believe that the changes are more to do with the press coverage than customer feedback. So in summary, it's good that they are now addressing those criticisms - it's just a pity that they had to get a kicking in the press first before they listened.
fuchsiasteve said:
Oh yes its the antithesis all right.
Ferrari = beautifully styled Mclaren = bland as fook
Hell the Maclaren even makes the NSX look exciting. The Macca is a truely faceless car.
Sure it may be well made, faster etc etc but who cares when it looks and reportly drives the way it does. It seems clear from the road testers that you get out of the fezza buzzing over the "whole" experience where the macca is a wee bit clinical and lacking in certain areas.
I'd liken the macca to a drab looking bird that is great in the sack. By contrast the Ferrari is Latin beauty that ticks all the boxes.
I remember the very first pics of the mclaren and thinking it was crap then. The exhausts particularly offend looking way too big and ill proportioned on the rear.
Now this airbrake business. Sorry but I don't buy into this bks. Does a proper racing car need an "air brake"? No planes do though and lardy heavy fast cars like the veyron and mclaren slr & mp4 12c. Just an unnecessary gimmick. Like the silly tea tray on the back of the standard carreras. GAY!
Something tells me, that no matter what, you won't ever like this car. Ferrari = beautifully styled Mclaren = bland as fook
Hell the Maclaren even makes the NSX look exciting. The Macca is a truely faceless car.
Sure it may be well made, faster etc etc but who cares when it looks and reportly drives the way it does. It seems clear from the road testers that you get out of the fezza buzzing over the "whole" experience where the macca is a wee bit clinical and lacking in certain areas.
I'd liken the macca to a drab looking bird that is great in the sack. By contrast the Ferrari is Latin beauty that ticks all the boxes.
I remember the very first pics of the mclaren and thinking it was crap then. The exhausts particularly offend looking way too big and ill proportioned on the rear.
Now this airbrake business. Sorry but I don't buy into this b
ks. Does a proper racing car need an "air brake"? No planes do though and lardy heavy fast cars like the veyron and mclaren slr & mp4 12c. Just an unnecessary gimmick. Like the silly tea tray on the back of the standard carreras. GAY!Edited by fuchsiasteve on Wednesday 20th July 07:51
Edited by fuchsiasteve on Wednesday 20th July 07:52
fuchsiasteve said:
The air brake I know is an aid but how is it ferrari and the other supercar manufacturers can make cars without this....
I am with you on this one. It feels like a slightly unecessary add-on. I'm sure it works, but at speeds that you're not allowed to do on the roads and then only when you're in an emergency stop situation. I'd expect the 12C's brakes to be more than good enough on their own.Plotloss said:
Desire is a very personal thing though and entirely subjective.
Personally, in the entirely subjective desire stakes, I wouldn't have a Ferrari because it's a Ferrari but I can't think of a car I want more than the Mclaren because it is a Mclaren (F1 in all variations aside, obviously).
Granted I may be alone in that viewpoint but one cannot objectively compare two cars, as the magazines have done, on the basis of something as absurd as 'emotion'.
You may as well compare them on their squidginess or smell.
I completly agree that any comparison outside facts & figures on paper are subject, but that's what sets one car apart from the next. Visuals (inside or out) are the best example of this, because it's the things that drives the all important first impression - and that sticks with you.Personally, in the entirely subjective desire stakes, I wouldn't have a Ferrari because it's a Ferrari but I can't think of a car I want more than the Mclaren because it is a Mclaren (F1 in all variations aside, obviously).
Granted I may be alone in that viewpoint but one cannot objectively compare two cars, as the magazines have done, on the basis of something as absurd as 'emotion'.
You may as well compare them on their squidginess or smell.
I do disagree with the emotion comment though. Any mildly interesting car (from hot hatches upwards), should in my opinion, have an emotional connection to really engage with the driver, otherwise, it's just an object. Now, if a buyer is only interested in an object, to go from A-to-B, then that's their choice. The existance of websites like this and magazines like evo suggest to me that there's a massive percentage of petrolheads who do want this type of connection with their cars. Whether Ron & co are actually bothered by this, or just want to sell cars to people with money, in order to fund other areas of the business, is another matter.
I definately think McLaren are pitching the car as a more user friendly machine, the same way Porsche did with the 911 turbo and if you look at feedback, comments on both cars are quite similar. There's obviously nothing wrong with that and if it provides McLaren the funds to build the next F1, then that's great.
While we're all a patriotic bunch, we need to remain objective. evo have covered the car's development a lot over the last few years and it's clear to see they wanted it to be a world changer. The fact that it left them (and many other journalists) a bit cold, definately seems to be a shock and dissapointment to them and the media as a whole.
There's no bandwagons being jumped on, no one wants to bag-out another British company, instead people have given an honest opinion based on more than just numbers. To see McLaren respond to this (so quickly), is great to see and a clear acknowledgement that they got it a bit wrong. I'd put good money on the revised car getting some slightly different reviews in the next 6mths....
Oh and if you do want one, last week the local dealership in Brum told my F430 owning mate that the list is 18mths, not 3yrs
TVRWannabee said:
I've just added an expression to my armoury.
There have always been Ferrari women - great to look at, but you wouldn't want to own one.
Now I have added McLaren women - also great to look at (IMO) but, do you know, I would.
Should probably get a train back to 1974 where that expression could be appreciated.There have always been Ferrari women - great to look at, but you wouldn't want to own one.
Now I have added McLaren women - also great to look at (IMO) but, do you know, I would.
JonRB said:
Use Psychology said:
this is a truly stupid comment.
at high speeds an air brake will aid massively in slowing the car down... and it's relatively easy to implement and very effective. why wouldn't you put one on a car that can easily do 150 mph plus?
You can also use it to control the centre of downforce as well, as an aid to stability. Both the McLaren F1 and the McLaren-Mercedes SLR had one and used it for that purpose (in addition to pure retardation), so it's not really a huge surprise that the McLaren MP4-12C has one too. at high speeds an air brake will aid massively in slowing the car down... and it's relatively easy to implement and very effective. why wouldn't you put one on a car that can easily do 150 mph plus?
That might be a nice thing to have.
Dave
Personally reckon when all the hoohaa of McLaren vs Ferrari dies down, we'll see the McLaren is more aligned with the likes of the Porsche 911 TurboS or R8 V10, where the car is incredibly fast, easy to drive but lacks what people refer to as "soul" vs the likes of the Ferrari. Different markets, for different buyers, albeit with deep pockets
Dave
Dave
stew-S160 said:
Something tells me, that no matter what, you won't ever like this car.
Wrong!!! You couldn't be further from the mark. I hope the re-hashed car is tonnes better and gets a glowing write up by the journo and hacks. Course I'd love it to be a roaring success with it being british built but the car as it stands (and as others have mentioned) doesn't have the sexy styling/appeal or noise of the ferrari. As we've all said whether you want a supercar to be sexy or not is subjective (apparently). To me as a young lad growing up with the Athena Countach and Ferrari 308 posters a supercar has to look special, sound special and go like stink (thats what a supercar is all about FFS). To me the mclaren just isn't (at present). I just hope they do the GTR model rawed up with some tasty additions to make it look and sound "special". Maybe the best is yet to come and old slap head has the ace up his sleave still (prays to god!)The lifting the garage door reference to me is spot on. Its got to make you feel like that kid again hankering to get near/have a go in the thing. The 458 has this.
I can understand some of the comments that the styling is not "exciting" enough. However, as I have looked at more pictures of the MP4-12C, I have grown to like the look of it.
Having seen pictures of the GT3 version, I think that looks fantastic:
Compare this to the standard MP4-12C:
I think for me, it's the front grille that spoils the look, it looks a bit too much like a cheesy grin, and this appears much smoother on the GT3. The re-designed side-skirt looks better too. I am trying to identify which other styling changes have made the difference.
If the general view is that the GT3 version looks good, then it would not take much to improve things on the road-going model, surely?
Having seen pictures of the GT3 version, I think that looks fantastic:
Compare this to the standard MP4-12C:
I think for me, it's the front grille that spoils the look, it looks a bit too much like a cheesy grin, and this appears much smoother on the GT3. The re-designed side-skirt looks better too. I am trying to identify which other styling changes have made the difference.
If the general view is that the GT3 version looks good, then it would not take much to improve things on the road-going model, surely?
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 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.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff