RE: Ferrari 458 Vs McLaren 12C - The Verdict
Discussion
squirrelz said:
I'm surprised no-one's pointed out the big problem with the McLaren when you're trying to chat up the fit young mums on the nursery run:
"what car are you driving then?"
"oh, I've got one of them new McLarens"
"Right. I've got one of their buggys" .....
Maclaren versus McLaren, not that anyone cares."what car are you driving then?"
"oh, I've got one of them new McLarens"
"Right. I've got one of their buggys" .....
Civpilot said:
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.
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
It was all in response to someone saying the F458 wasn't very technically excellent.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
I'd say it was rather excellent too, alongside the 12C... indeed the F458 engine appears more technically challenging to get right than hte 12C engine, mainly because everyone is falling back to turbocharging these days for performance cars (those renowned for good NA motors, ie, BMW who did the old F1 engine, and all their M engines)
For Ferrari to stick a finger up and make a stunning NA motor is technically impressive imo. More than making a turbo V8 with 600bhp.
As for journo's, yep, all handy wheel people. But a little bit of knowledge is dangerous.
The 12C uses hydraulics to control roll, so wheel independent movement across an axle is very good. However, the F458 also uses a concept that is very similar, using very very weak arb's vs other contemporary super sports cars.
The ride and roll stiffness are tied heavily to wheel rate. They are not seperated at all on the 12C as Harris suggests... but saying it makes it sound clever and makes us all go "wow" at the 12C tech...
It's probably not THAT much better than the F458 at having been able to get away with much less arb and so allow better independence of wheels on rougher surfaces, thus improving ride.
I'd imagine the 12C just uses some damper hydraulics a bit like an RS6 did, in concept, to level out the cornering. Roll stiffness will still be provided by the main springs as per any other car... just without ARB's reducing ride quality (as per F458 to a large extent, as mentioned)
I 'get' both cars. I've read plenty about them both. They are both very special. People hyping the 12C so much is just wrong. They just word what they have done a bit more specially and people are buying into it like everyone else is thick.
Ie, Ford with their Revoknuckle on the RS, also known as a split KPI axis that Renault had been doing for years before... but it didn't stop Ford hyping it up like something amazing and new that only they knew how to do!
Lets not forget Mr Harris told us all to left foot brake in our mk1 Focus RS to get better turn-in and exit speeds on public roads. He is a handy steer, but he still does say some wrong things
He is, ultimately, just another human who has to say things to do his job, and when he's already said a GT3 RS is the best thing ever, it gets hard to say the new GTR is the best thing ever, and convey HOW much better it is than the GT3 RS... now the 12C is SOO much better again.
But is it all just mere percentage points?
I'm awaiting a group test of 12C vs F458 vs facelift GTR vs GT2 RS on a mix of UK roads... before I'll get any feeling of how the 12C actually is next to rivals, rather than isolated amazement (which is perfectly understandable, but not exactly reliable)
Dave
Edited by Mr Whippy on Tuesday 15th February 16:56
Mr Whippy said:
It was all in response to someone saying the F458 wasn't very technically excellent.
Which was a complete distortion of what I actually said which was;otolith said:
Or, perhaps, the people who prioritise engineering excellence over "character" now have a British option - PH is a diversity of opinion.
Which I said specifically in response to this:Kong said:
Not that im saying there is anything wrong with being patriotic, quite the opposite in fact. I'm happy that Britain finally has a supercar we can be genuinely proud of. This after the recent resurgence of Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston Martin, i think the future is looking bright.
That said i prefer to be consistant in my views, there is a certain irony to the PH reaction for this car. For years cars like the 911 Turbo, GTR, R8 etc have, despite their technical brilliance, been knocked on here for being too clinical, perhaps too able and lacking in character. These are the arguments used by people who would prefer a TVR, Jag, Aston, Exige etc.
But for the first time it seems that argument has been turned on its head and its the Ferrari which exudes the virtues we so covet, moreso than the British car. Not that i am saying the Mclaren is boring, not even close (not least because like 99% of people on here i havent driven one). But there is a faint smell of hypocrisy.
i.e. "PH" is not being "hypocritical" in favouring the option which is "too clinical, perhaps too able and lacking in character" because "PH" is a plurality of opinions, not a unified view.That said i prefer to be consistant in my views, there is a certain irony to the PH reaction for this car. For years cars like the 911 Turbo, GTR, R8 etc have, despite their technical brilliance, been knocked on here for being too clinical, perhaps too able and lacking in character. These are the arguments used by people who would prefer a TVR, Jag, Aston, Exige etc.
But for the first time it seems that argument has been turned on its head and its the Ferrari which exudes the virtues we so covet, moreso than the British car. Not that i am saying the Mclaren is boring, not even close (not least because like 99% of people on here i havent driven one). But there is a faint smell of hypocrisy.
In other words, I didn't say anything about the Ferrari, I said something about Pistonheads.
I'd imagine the 12C just uses some damper hydraulics a bit like an RS6 did, in concept, to level out the cornering. Roll stiffness will still be provided by the main springs as per any other car... just without ARB's reducing ride quality (as per F458 to a large extent, as mentioned)
As i understand it from talking to McLaren, the springs visible under the arches are there only to stop the car collapsing on its guts if the hydraulics zero-pressure. The roll stiffness when driving is actually provided by the hydraulics. That's the whole point: that you can alter not just the rate of roll via the damping, as on other cars, but the actual amount of roll by altering the pressure in the system. Not something you could do with conventional springs
Chris Chilton said:
As i understand it from talking to McLaren, the springs visible under the arches are there only to stop the car collapsing on its guts if the hydraulics zero-pressure. The roll stiffness when driving is actually provided by the hydraulics. That's the whole point: that you can alter not just the rate of roll via the damping, as on other cars, but the actual amount of roll by altering the pressure in the system. Not something you could do with conventional springs
they are not that weedy (the front springs)
and the rear ARB
Mr Whippy said:
The ride and roll stiffness are tied heavily to wheel rate. They are not seperated at all on the 12C as Harris suggests... but saying it makes it sound clever and makes us all go "wow" at the 12C tech...
It's probably not THAT much better than the F458 at having been able to get away with much less arb and so allow better independence of wheels on rougher surfaces, thus improving ride.
I'd imagine the 12C just uses some damper hydraulics a bit like an RS6 did, in concept, to level out the cornering. Roll stiffness will still be provided by the main springs as per any other car... just without ARB's reducing ride quality (as per F458 to a large extent, as mentioned)
My understanding is that McLaren is using a cut-down version of the Creuat suspension which in its full form allows one to choose an independent spring/damper rate for each of the four modes heave, roll, pitch, and diagonal twist. In the full system (and in McLaren's cut-down 2-mode version) one can simultaneously have high rates for roll but low (soft) rates for heave. The high roll rate bestows flat cornering while the soft heave rate gives good contact on irregular surfaces - without the compromise necessary in normal suspensions - like the 458's.It's probably not THAT much better than the F458 at having been able to get away with much less arb and so allow better independence of wheels on rougher surfaces, thus improving ride.
I'd imagine the 12C just uses some damper hydraulics a bit like an RS6 did, in concept, to level out the cornering. Roll stiffness will still be provided by the main springs as per any other car... just without ARB's reducing ride quality (as per F458 to a large extent, as mentioned)
Edited by boxerTen on Tuesday 15th February 21:34
Rich_W said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrburgring_lap_...
7m18 - Porsche Claim
7m24 - Independent test by German magazine
Yup
pah, still over a minute slower than a Porsche almost 20 years ago.... 7m18 - Porsche Claim
7m24 - Independent test by German magazine
Yup
Rich_W said:
CraigyMc said:
Faster... in a straight line. Maybe.
Round corners?
C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%BCrburgring_lap_timesRound corners?
C
7m18 - Porsche Claim
7m24 - Independent test by SportAuto magazine
Yup
p.s 7m32.9 for the F458
Has anyone even pedalled an MP4/12C round the ring to set a comparable time yet?
C
TheRoadWarrior said:
otolith said:
Not uncommon now for tachometers to instrument lower rev limits on a cold engine. The RX-8 R3 does it, I think various BMWs do it, seems the kind of thing the McLaren would have.
Yup, Clio200 does this too.andyps said:
TheRoadWarrior said:
otolith said:
Not uncommon now for tachometers to instrument lower rev limits on a cold engine. The RX-8 R3 does it, I think various BMWs do it, seems the kind of thing the McLaren would have.
Yup, Clio200 does this too.CraigyMc said:
Yup what? The GT2 RS is clearly an excellent car in isolation - but as this is a comparison between that and the new McLaren, we will need to wait to see what the MP4/12C is like.
Has anyone even pedalled an MP4/12C round the ring to set a comparable time yet?
C
You can't have it both ways! "12C is great, but any car that might be better cannot be considered as 12C hasn't actually proven itself yet"Has anyone even pedalled an MP4/12C round the ring to set a comparable time yet?
C
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff