RE: 911 Turbo S Cabriolet vs. McLaren 600LT Spider
Discussion
One is a sports car the other if for people who like the idea of a sports car but want a fast open top Golf.
Porsche have really outdone themselves on the looks front again. It looks enormous. That arse.
The interior, compared to the McLaren is a mess but all importantly, has it still got the divorce seats?
The Porschar, soon to be cluttering up parking spots in Chelsea.
McLaren every time, it even looks the part with some excellent details.
Porsche have really outdone themselves on the looks front again. It looks enormous. That arse.
The interior, compared to the McLaren is a mess but all importantly, has it still got the divorce seats?
The Porschar, soon to be cluttering up parking spots in Chelsea.
McLaren every time, it even looks the part with some excellent details.
i take the porsche over the mclaren ay time mclaren has no history on street cars too new to the street game its 4 liter flat plane crank engine may reve faster than anything due to that and that its a nissan race engine from the 90s based on mclaren dont even makes its own engines too expencive too for its time on the streets the company based its prices inthe rich racing history that brusemclaren gave it on its time so if its a race engine homologated for the street osvery light dast and high reving flat plane crank tjat is a bit easier with turbos it vibrates much more giving of course that racing feel but very brittle engine again great for race cars problematic els where thats why the porsche earns my heart even its alitte slower in straight line so porsche any time
BVB said:
Which MK of the MP4-12C is this one?
It's not, it's a model below the super series.It's the same, except for the different carbon tub, heavily modified engine, totally different suspension set up (it's more "traditional" on this car), different body panels, wheels, brakes, interior etc. But yeah, apart from those minor things, it's the same.
RonaldMcDonaldAteMyCat said:
Absolutely. I can't get my head around the obsession with cosmetic carbon bits and paying huge amounts to fit them. They don't do anything functional or improve other than the cosmetic (and even then that's in the eye of the beholder).
Probably because some people like the aesthetics of them, and some people like the way their car looks. To some people the additional cost isn't too much of an issue, and those people spec the carbon bits. I can't say I'm a huge fan of them, but I think it's fairly easy to understand them. You even said beauty is in the eye of the beholder, yet can't get your head around it because you don't like the look or the cost.....? TyrannosauRoss Lex said:
Probably because some people like the aesthetics of them, and some people like the way their car looks. To some people the additional cost isn't too much of an issue, and those people spec the carbon bits. I can't say I'm a huge fan of them, but I think it's fairly easy to understand them. You even said beauty is in the eye of the beholder, yet can't get your head around it because you don't like the look or the cost.....?
I can't get MY head around it. Would I add 10% to the cost of my car on cosmetic bits? Nope. Will others? Of course!If you want a "drivers car" and feel the tickle of excitement along your spine when you open the garage door, then the 600LT every-time. However, you can track the TT, drive to South of France, and commute daily, back-to-back, without worrying about reliability. The TT will depreciate far more slowly than the Mac. I'd warrant the TThas the edge on safety and daily running costs, its probably cheaper to insure as well.
Bottom line, the 600LT is a great car, but if you make decisions with your head you would choose the TT between these two.
Bottom line, the 600LT is a great car, but if you make decisions with your head you would choose the TT between these two.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff