RE: Ferrari 458 Vs McLaren 12C - The Verdict
Discussion
Streetrod said:
otolith said:
Mr Whippy said:
Ferrari have made McLaren look lazy with their engine, imo!
The McLaren engine is very much of its time. The Ferrari engine is a lovely anachronism - it's sad, but that's the direction all modern engines are taking. In a sense, that defines the difference in approaches, because the McLaren solution is the logical one rather than the emotional one. Still, an 8500rpm redline isn't bad for a blown V8.Probably fairer to say that an aluminium spaceframe looks lazy compared to a carbon tub.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjsFhxqPCd0
Leno clearly states at 2:50 or thereabouts (and the tacho shows with the "8" digit in red) that the redline shows at 7500rpm but that the car revs to 8500rpm (where presumably the rev limiter kicks in). Would this be a visual reminder that as the engine is cold (car is stationary/engine off in the video), not to extend the engine beyond this lower limit, maybe the car has a variable rev limiter also? On some of the (rendered?) interior shots of the car it does appear that the redline sits at 8.5K revs?
Edited by anniesdad on Tuesday 15th February 12:40
anniesdad said:
I'm not too great with this new-fangled quoting malarky but regarding the 8500rpm redline for the McL I found it interesting that watching this video last night;
Look at the date of that video. A long time ago and the car in that vid is an extremely early prototype. A lot has changed from that car to the one thats now been finalisedMr Whippy said:
The Ferrari engine is something you just have to be in awe of. When everyone else is whinging about emissions and needing turbos to get power yadda yadda, Ferrari prove everyone wrong and come out with a torquey monster of an engine that also revs like nothing else at the top end!
Ferrari have made McLaren look lazy with their engine, imo!
Dave
Hrmm. Torquey monster, eh?Ferrari have made McLaren look lazy with their engine, imo!
Dave
Forgive me, but the MP4/12C engine makes more torque at only 3000rpm than the F458 makes at 6000rpm, where the F458 peaks.
In fact, judging from the info below, the MP4/12C most likely (I've no graph) makes the same torque level as the F458's peak figure, but from only about 2500rpm or so.
If you had to call either of the cars a "torque monster", it wouldn't be the F458.
F458 engine:
570bhp @ 9000rpm
4.5 litre V8, 9000rpm revlimit. Normally Aspirated.
Peak torque 398lb/ft at 6000RPM. 80% of this torque (318lb/ft) available from 3250rpm
MP4/12C engine:
592bhp @ 7000rpm
3.8 litre v8, 8500rpm revlimit. Twin turbo.
Peak torque 443lb/ft at 3000-7000rpm. 80% of this torque (355lb/ft) available from 2000rpm
C
Edited by CraigyMc on Tuesday 15th February 13:36
cymtriks said:
The original Elise was reported as being 705Kg but apparently that cashed in special brakes and hubs, the former never appearing and the latter being dropped.
you are somewhat misguided here.Early (as in 1996/97 cars) were ~705Kg's.
As production went on, and they got into the 1,000's, parts were changed, notably the rear clam structure (heavier), the MMC Ali disks were replaced with steel, the engine cover went from Ali to GRP, the rear uprights went from Ali to steel, the list goes on...
over the years of the S1 Elise, the base cars went up to ~740kg's (from the original ~705).
Scuffers said:
you are somewhat misguided here.
Early (as in 1996/97 cars) were ~705Kg's.
As production went on, and they got into the 1,000's, parts were changed, notably the rear clam structure (heavier), the MMC Ali disks were replaced with steel, the engine cover went from Ali to GRP, the rear uprights went from Ali to steel, the list goes on...
over the years of the S1 Elise, the base cars went up to ~740kg's (from the original ~705).
Total agreement with Scuffers here. My '97 elise (MMC disks, avo alloys) weighed 730Kg on a weighbridge.Early (as in 1996/97 cars) were ~705Kg's.
As production went on, and they got into the 1,000's, parts were changed, notably the rear clam structure (heavier), the MMC Ali disks were replaced with steel, the engine cover went from Ali to GRP, the rear uprights went from Ali to steel, the list goes on...
over the years of the S1 Elise, the base cars went up to ~740kg's (from the original ~705).
otolith said:
Streetrod said:
If Ferrari were an independent company and not owned by Fiat they too would have gone the turbo route as there fleet wide emission levels would not have been good enough to meet the up and coming EU and US legislation regulations. Like Lamborghini they can hide their figures in the group average. McLaren do not have that luxury
Yes, that's a very fair point.Don't know exact production number for Ferrari, but would guess it was less than 10K.
E30M3SE said:
otolith said:
Streetrod said:
If Ferrari were an independent company and not owned by Fiat they too would have gone the turbo route as there fleet wide emission levels would not have been good enough to meet the up and coming EU and US legislation regulations. Like Lamborghini they can hide their figures in the group average. McLaren do not have that luxury
Yes, that's a very fair point.Don't know exact production number for Ferrari, but would guess it was less than 10K.
Bring back Subaru Impreza v Mitsubishi Evo. Sad those two makes no longer stir such passions as they did in the past.
It's very simple, keep the faster McLaren for oneself and give the 458 to the wife. The McLaren has a carbon tub as well, handy for all those bigger and better accidents we'll be getting into.
Andy
It's very simple, keep the faster McLaren for oneself and give the 458 to the wife. The McLaren has a carbon tub as well, handy for all those bigger and better accidents we'll be getting into.
Andy
Civpilot said:
So faster than anything this side of a Veyron, and 'not far off' the aural quality of the 458 whilst still returning reasonable mpg (which dispite the straws being grasped at is an impressive statistic for a supercar of this level of performance) and doesn't feel turbocharged?
Doesn't sound lazy to me in the slightest, in fact it sounds like a bloody amazing engine.
ps. Of coure, they could have just gone for the tired old super loud screaming noise that other manufacturers seem to love... that would have been lazy in my eyes
The numbers are impressive, but nothing about it stands out as massively impressive given the capacity and two turbochargers.Doesn't sound lazy to me in the slightest, in fact it sounds like a bloody amazing engine.
ps. Of coure, they could have just gone for the tired old super loud screaming noise that other manufacturers seem to love... that would have been lazy in my eyes
I can't count many engines that make 9000rpm with 4.5 litres and 8 cylinders, and 125bhp/litre+
However, there are plenty of engines that do what the McLaren engine are doing.
The Noble M600 seems quite similar in weight (lower actually), engine type, drive type etc, Chris Harris and Sutters have probably driven that too, yet clearly forgot that it was as fast as the 12C everywhere except maybe at really low engine speeds.
Yes, it's fast, yes it's probably fantastic still, but it's not THAT good engineering wise against the F458 is it...? It's just being hyped, and over-hyping cars beyond what they are actually capable of is just boring reading in magazines etc.
We had the same with the Nissan GTR, like it would munch any car anywhere anytime, wow, amazing. Yet suddenly it's totally ignored and the McLaren is now the fastest car anywhere, anytime...
Are journo's starting to run out of ways to talk about cars in isolation that make them useful when compared to others?
A group test in 6 months with it's peers will probably be more telling
Dave
Mr Whippy said:
The numbers are impressive, but nothing about it stands out as massively impressive given the capacity and two turbochargers.
I can't count many engines that make 9000rpm with 4.5 litres and 8 cylinders, and 125bhp/litre+
However, there are plenty of engines that do what the McLaren engine are doing.
The Noble M600 seems quite similar in weight (lower actually), engine type, drive type etc, Chris Harris and Sutters have probably driven that too, yet clearly forgot that it was as fast as the 12C everywhere except maybe at really low engine speeds.
Yes, it's fast, yes it's probably fantastic still, but it's not THAT good engineering wise against the F458 is it...? It's just being hyped, and over-hyping cars beyond what they are actually capable of is just boring reading in magazines etc.
We had the same with the Nissan GTR, like it would munch any car anywhere anytime, wow, amazing. Yet suddenly it's totally ignored and the McLaren is now the fastest car anywhere, anytime...
Are journo's starting to run out of ways to talk about cars in isolation that make them useful when compared to others?
A group test in 6 months with it's peers will probably be more telling
Dave
Seems to me that you are not really reading alot of the actual information on this car if you can make a statement that it is "not that good engineering wise". Seriously? It seems to me that engineering wise McLaren have seriously moved the game on... no anti-roll bars yet the car has ride comfort of an e-class and shocking turn in and speed ona track.I can't count many engines that make 9000rpm with 4.5 litres and 8 cylinders, and 125bhp/litre+
However, there are plenty of engines that do what the McLaren engine are doing.
The Noble M600 seems quite similar in weight (lower actually), engine type, drive type etc, Chris Harris and Sutters have probably driven that too, yet clearly forgot that it was as fast as the 12C everywhere except maybe at really low engine speeds.
Yes, it's fast, yes it's probably fantastic still, but it's not THAT good engineering wise against the F458 is it...? It's just being hyped, and over-hyping cars beyond what they are actually capable of is just boring reading in magazines etc.
We had the same with the Nissan GTR, like it would munch any car anywhere anytime, wow, amazing. Yet suddenly it's totally ignored and the McLaren is now the fastest car anywhere, anytime...
Are journo's starting to run out of ways to talk about cars in isolation that make them useful when compared to others?
A group test in 6 months with it's peers will probably be more telling
Dave
And you then go on to say that "and over-hyping cars beyond what they are actually capable of is just boring reading". Again, seriously? Although it bores you (unless you are reading about the 458 obviously) read the early reviews again. For example, and forgive me for requoting someone again, Chris Harris of evo is a pretty handy wheelman with pretty strong opinions on cars. I also find him very straight up and honest. One of his comments that sticks in the mind is
Chris Harris said:
What’s it like to drive?
Unlike any other sports car because it separates the roles of ride and roll-stiffness. On a straight, bumpy road, it’s more comfortable than a Merc E-Class, change direction and it’s sharper than a GT3. There are 3 chassis modes: comfort, sport and track, which bring increased roll-stiffness and more relaxed intervention from the ESP. The powertrain is remarkable in its strength and ease-of-use: the MP4 is noticeably quicker than a 458, doesn’t feel that turbocharged and makes a great noise. Crucially, you can separate the chassis functions from the powertrain (again, comfort, sport and track) so it’s possible to have sharp throttle response and faster gearshifts, with supple suspension. It is the most talented machine I have ever driven.
I love that closing line, it's a very deffinate statement from someone with loads of miles under his belt, both on the road and track in many machines that you and I will never get to drive.Unlike any other sports car because it separates the roles of ride and roll-stiffness. On a straight, bumpy road, it’s more comfortable than a Merc E-Class, change direction and it’s sharper than a GT3. There are 3 chassis modes: comfort, sport and track, which bring increased roll-stiffness and more relaxed intervention from the ESP. The powertrain is remarkable in its strength and ease-of-use: the MP4 is noticeably quicker than a 458, doesn’t feel that turbocharged and makes a great noise. Crucially, you can separate the chassis functions from the powertrain (again, comfort, sport and track) so it’s possible to have sharp throttle response and faster gearshifts, with supple suspension. It is the most talented machine I have ever driven.
Now coming from some of the newspaper jurno's I would take that review with a pinch of salt, a large one, but Harris has never come across to me as someone easily swayed by the marketing blurb and he does speak his mind quite happily. Is he really overhyping? Are you sure? How do you know? And did you accuse him of the same when he tested and loved the 458?
Sorry to say you do appear to be actually saying in every post on this thread is:-
LALALALALALALA Not listening the Ferrari is better LALALALALALALALA
We get it, you would prefer the 458, absolutely no problem with that... car's like this are a very personal choice, but dismissing the McLaren as 'lazy' and 'not THAT good engineering wise' is just plain silly talk
Civpilot said:
Seems to me that you are not really reading alot of the actual information on this car if you can make a statement that it is "not that good engineering wise". Seriously? It seems to me that engineering wise McLaren have seriously moved the game on... no anti-roll bars yet the car has ride comfort of an e-class and shocking turn in and speed ona track.
sorry to have to correct you, but it still has an anti-roll bar (or at least the one at Autosport had a rear ARB fitted)Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff