Anyone feel sorry for McLaren? What could they do different?
Discussion
R500POP said:
ZeeTacoe said:
All this stuff about the Mclaren destroying the 458, hasn't it only beaten the 458 at one track , with the Mclaren chief test driver at wheel(probably) , at the Mclaren test track on a totally different day to the one on which the 458 ran?
If they'd been run at fiorano with dario benuzzi at the wheel you lot would cry foul.
Not really, the Mac would probably be quicker........If they'd been run at fiorano with dario benuzzi at the wheel you lot would cry foul.
andyclax1 said:
R500POP said:
ZeeTacoe said:
All this stuff about the Mclaren destroying the 458, hasn't it only beaten the 458 at one track , with the Mclaren chief test driver at wheel(probably) , at the Mclaren test track on a totally different day to the one on which the 458 ran?
If they'd been run at fiorano with dario benuzzi at the wheel you lot would cry foul.
Not really, the Mac would probably be quicker........If they'd been run at fiorano with dario benuzzi at the wheel you lot would cry foul.
Wait for the inevitable ring lap time......
R500POP said:
andyclax1 said:
R500POP said:
ZeeTacoe said:
All this stuff about the Mclaren destroying the 458, hasn't it only beaten the 458 at one track , with the Mclaren chief test driver at wheel(probably) , at the Mclaren test track on a totally different day to the one on which the 458 ran?
If they'd been run at fiorano with dario benuzzi at the wheel you lot would cry foul.
Not really, the Mac would probably be quicker........If they'd been run at fiorano with dario benuzzi at the wheel you lot would cry foul.
Wait for the inevitable ring lap time......
varsas said:
Except Evo. And Car...and Fifth Gear. The McLaren also recorded a slower wet time the the Ferrari at Autocar's track.
What reviews have you read that say it's faster in every situation?
I've not read Car or watched Fifth Gear in a while (a man has to have some standards) but Evo's conclusion was (as I read it standing in ASDA!!) that it was a quicker car but less 'involving' (and all the other words they make up to try to tell us things they can't actually quantify)???What reviews have you read that say it's faster in every situation?
Sutcliffes original pieces for Autocar pretty much said the same thing as I remember - it's quicker in every measurable way but not as 'involving' - and the raw stats say it SHOULD be faster (more powerful, more torque, less weight and a tonne of tech even Ferrari aren't using yet).
Those crying foul of the TG times should note that the 458 was just 1 tenth behind an Enzo - are we suggesting both of those cars were driven slowly or what?
There's so many factors - tyre choice, tyre wear, weather etc. that it's not useful to compare cars not run side-by-side/on comparable rubber etc. - but 3 seconds is an AGE around a short track like that so unless you're assuming they're lying...
Note: from the last Stig's bio - he doesn't know the times he's setting, it's all kept secret until the show - they just let him run until he says he can't get it any faster/they run out of time/weather/tyres or whatever and the director keeps the stopwatch to himself, so it's possible they just make-up times - only the guy with the watch would know...
johnpeat said:
Those crying foul of the TG times should note that the 458 was just 1 tenth behind an Enzo - are we suggesting both of those cars were driven slowly or what?
The 430 Scuderia was quicker around Fiorano than the Enzo (thats progress). Don't think anyones suggesting the 430 Scud is faster than a 458 
Just goes to show how different tracks can play to the strengths of particular cars.Fittster said:
What's the point of a bland supercar? Even a bland 2 seater will attract attention, so the you may as well have something interesting going on. That doesn't mean huge skirts and spoilers, the Porsche 928 was a great design but it's not considered 'in your face' by car enthusiasts.
It's not as if dull but competent sportscars have a great economic track record. You can start a thread on here about the NSX. People will say how great it is but no one actually bought them.
I bought an NSX. It isn't remotely dull, or bland, in my opinion. You see how that works? ITS SUBJECTIVE.It's not as if dull but competent sportscars have a great economic track record. You can start a thread on here about the NSX. People will say how great it is but no one actually bought them.
I think if they had given it a totally outrageous name then they'd have had a much better start. At the end of the day the Ferrari is a 458 Italy. If we used the same naming convention on the McLaren it would be Mclaren 412 Britain which wouldn't be very good.
However, if they had have called it something like McLaren Panther/ Cheetah/ Eagle/ Hawk/ Bombadier/ Sniper/ Cutlass/ Broadsword/ Rapier/ Dagger/ or Norbert, it would have sounded better than 'MP4-12C'.
I personally favour McLaren Rapier. That sounds cool.
However, if they had have called it something like McLaren Panther/ Cheetah/ Eagle/ Hawk/ Bombadier/ Sniper/ Cutlass/ Broadsword/ Rapier/ Dagger/ or Norbert, it would have sounded better than 'MP4-12C'.
I personally favour McLaren Rapier. That sounds cool.
g3org3y said:
What could McLaren do differently for their next car? Will they do anything different or is this simply McLaren being Mclaren and nothing will change?
Opinions welcome.
Simple. They should have made it look awesome. People will forgive a supercar anything if it looks like a starfighter from a distant galaxy. Witness Lamborghinis of ancient times. Fast? Yes. But ruubbish and unreliable. But achingly desirable for their looks and the sheer theatre they provided at kerbside.Opinions welcome.
And provide a spyder version. Which they won't, being McLaren.
I mean, why is anyone surprised? The MacLaren F1 is a motoring legend, awesome, an incredible achievement. But no-one (least of all Gordon Murray himself) really ever called it "fun" with a big grin on their face. And owners seemed to be car nerds, rather than people who would load a supermodel into the passenger seat and a kilo of Columbia's finest into the glovebox before breaking the speed limit all the way back to the yacht.
Will be same with the new one. Bought by accountants, not playboys. Shame.
Frik said:
Fittster said:
It's not as if dull but competent sportscars have a great economic track record. You can start a thread on here about the NSX. People will say how great it is but no one actually bought them.
Yeah, Porsche gave up pretty quickly with that 911 Turbo too, didn't they?Frik said:
That's not the point I was making. The 996 and 997 are perceived to be dull (not that they necessarily are) but have sold bloody well. They're a bit cheaper than the McLaren but the point is that cars just like this can and do sell.
Oh, completely - I think the MacLaren will do fine, sales-wise. And with a resale value much better than the Ferrari's in years to come, I expect.Doesn't mean I'd hoon it down the street coked off my face, whilst clutching a handgun and a wasted stripper. I'd be afraid that Ron Dennis would materialise through the satnav and give me detention or something.
Alfa numeric said:
300bhp/ton said:
Forgetting all this...
I can't be the only one who thought the Macca looked fab in that yellow colour on TG?
I thought it looked pretty good too. I must admit it's looks are growing on me but it still looks plain-jane next to the 458 and Gallardo. Those rear lights look rather 80's too.I can't be the only one who thought the Macca looked fab in that yellow colour on TG?
If you want plain and comfortable and anonymous then buy a Bentley - the clinical plain jane approach just doesn't seem to fit with a flagship supercar. I love the 458 but understand the "knob" image and am not really a fan of the Gallardo but the Aventador is what a supercar should be and the image of the 458 is as much to do with it being a Ferrari rather than the car itself and I'll bet if it had a McLaren badge, most would be over the moon with it's capabilities.
scampbird said:
Fittster said:
What's the point of a bland supercar? Even a bland 2 seater will attract attention, so the you may as well have something interesting going on. That doesn't mean huge skirts and spoilers, the Porsche 928 was a great design but it's not considered 'in your face' by car enthusiasts.
It's not as if dull but competent sportscars have a great economic track record. You can start a thread on here about the NSX. People will say how great it is but no one actually bought them.
I bought an NSX. It isn't remotely dull, or bland, in my opinion. You see how that works? ITS SUBJECTIVE.It's not as if dull but competent sportscars have a great economic track record. You can start a thread on here about the NSX. People will say how great it is but no one actually bought them.
coyft said:
The old ones were a nightmare. I had an '89 turbo LE. Lights were pathetic, demister didn't work, clutch was really heavy. Swapped it for the NSX, everything worked perfectly, I'd guess you'd class it as dull in comparison to the 911. I'd class it as better designed and engineered.
Actually, I'd hate a 1980s 911 Turbo. For me, the late mid 90's 993 is the one I'd have. Still a little bit naughty, but doesn't break.I drove a 997S not so long ago. Stupidly, rapidly mind alteringly quick. But only fun when going at those speeds. So for 90% of the time, boring.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff