RE: McLaren upgrades MP4-12C to 625hp
Discussion
NotNormal said:
rohrl said:
MP4/12C is a stupid name for a car as well.
I simply don't understand all this talk of people moaning about the name. Lets face it, 458 and 599 etc are just a couple of numbers cobbled together and Ferrari aside BMW E30 M3 for example is again just a bundle of letters and numbers when you see on paper. Neither IMO are any different to MP4 12C so why the beef with the McLaren? 
MP4/12C is obviously to appeal to the McLaren F1 nerds with cash who will think they're getting an F1 car, but it just looks like AD205 or similar to me; sterile, functional, without any excitement. At least the "F1" said "You're getting a racing car".
Also, why did they just steal the nomenclature off an old race car? Some thing like MP4 R8 would have been a bit more meaningful...
M.
Edited by marcosgt on Thursday 7th June 13:22
E38Ross said:
marcosgt said:
Some thing like MP4 R8 would have been a bit more meaningful...
how so? 12 refers to their in-house performance levels, C stands for carbon. why would R8 be more meaningful?
how so? 12 refers to their in-house performance levels, C stands for carbon. why would R8 be more meaningful?
MP4/12C just means stuff to McLaren unless they explain it and that's like explaining a joke...
And even though you HAVE explained it, I don't know where 12 is on their in-house performance scale. One above 11 I presume!
And, now I think again, someone else said the C stood for something else, so...
M.
Edited by marcosgt on Thursday 7th June 13:38
ArosaMike said:
dmitsi said:
markcoznottz said:
You are just reiterating what iv already said. If mclaren have kept the same turbos/coolers then they have increased Boost pressure to get a bigger number agreed?. With one eye on intake temps, turbo temps granted but that goes without saying. What ' hardware limits ' are you talking about, and who do you work for?.
I work for Ricardo.....
dmitsi said:
markcoznottz said:
You are just reiterating what iv already said. If mclaren have kept the same turbos/coolers then they have increased Boost pressure to get a bigger number agreed?. With one eye on intake temps, turbo temps granted but that goes without saying. What ' hardware limits ' are you talking about, and who do you work for?.
I work for Ricardo. I don't agree, because it's not the case, I wasn't reiterating what you'd said. I was responding to your flippant remark about letting you know about fueling spark etc. Hardware limits are turbine temp limits, boost limits, Chargecooler limits. the list is endless. All I tried to explain was that it's not as simple as just increasing boost to deliver this power upgrade. I've avoided even commenting on this car on here for over three years, but felt obliged to explain it's a bit more work to achieve this power. This is all I have to say on the matter, I'm confident I know what I'm talking about.
marcosgt said:
And even though you HAVE explained it, I don't know where 12 is on their in-house performance scale. One above 11 I presume!
Don't even start on Zogs 
This is the Ronmobile. McLaren Project 4 dash whatever. He gets a lot of stick, but I for one would love a car overseen by him. It's the OCD mobile, a living embodiment of his "if I see one exposed screw I'll kill you all" passion.
markcoznottz said:
Another informative post from you there. How many modified turbo engines have you assembled?
You're aware that Ricardo developed the engine for the MP4/12C I take it? This is what I was referring to.So you're having an argument about how the engine in the McLaren is mapped with someone who is quite likely to be one of the people who maps it. This would be akin to having an argument about how to drive with Michael Schumacher....
ArosaMike said:
markcoznottz said:
Another informative post from you there. How many modified turbo engines have you assembled?
You're aware that Ricardo developed the engine for the MP4/12C I take it? This is what I was referring to.So you're having an argument about how the engine in the McLaren is mapped with someone who is quite likely to be one of the people who maps it. This would be akin to having an argument about how to drive with Michael Schumacher....
markcoznottz said:
But people like yourself bring nothing, absolutely nothing, to these threads. You have no technical input, these are why these threads ago awry. I know a couple of people who work at Ricardo and I have watched the project with interest. You my friend are out of your depth.
Not particularly. How does my comment offer any less then you vehemently arguing with someone who works at Ricardo about how wrong he is about getting more power from a turbo charged engine. In fact that was the whole basis of my 'owned' statement....the fact you were trying to play the intellectual high ground on someone that turned out to work for the very company doing the engine maps and development.I've not once questioned your knoweledge. I've not looked at your profile, but I would take a guess from your posts that you probably have spent some time tuning an engine.....but my question to you is, is this in the tuning world or the production engineering/oem world? When developing an engine for the mass market and government regulations, it's not just simply a matter of 'turning the boost up'. A whole host of other work needs to happen to 'turn the boost up'. Most noticebaly, lifing of components, re-calculation of all the heat loss models and a great deal of verification in situ during cold and hot climate testing. You also have to re-run all the emissions tests and durability tests.
May I also suggest next time you don't send pseudo threatening emails to people saying:
markcoznotts said:
You have turbo envy.i notice you got sent with your tail between your legs for trolling about evo/ inpreza's not long ago. It would be better if you didn't contribute to threads in which you have no technical knowledge, I can't for the life of me think why you would, if only to troll.
I can assure you that I do have plenty of knoweledge on the development and mapping of engines as well as plenty of other aspects of oem development and testing processes.Thanks. Now let's get back to discussing the McLaren...although frankly, I've said my piece on here so far.
ArosaMike said:
markcoznottz said:
But people like yourself bring nothing, absolutely nothing, to these threads. You have no technical input, these are why these threads ago awry. I know a couple of people who work at Ricardo and I have watched the project with interest. You my friend are out of your depth.
Not particularly. How does my comment offer any less then you vehemently arguing with someone who works at Ricardo about how wrong he is about getting more power from a turbo charged engine. In fact that was the whole basis of my 'owned' statement....the fact you were trying to play the intellectual high ground on someone that turned out to work for the very company doing the engine maps and development.I've not once questioned your knoweledge. I've not looked at your profile, but I would take a guess from your posts that you probably have spent some time tuning an engine.....but my question to you is, is this in the tuning world or the production engineering/oem world? When developing an engine for the mass market and government regulations, it's not just simply a matter of 'turning the boost up'. A whole host of other work needs to happen to 'turn the boost up'. Most noticebaly, lifing of components, re-calculation of all the heat loss models and a great deal of verification in situ during cold and hot climate testing. You also have to re-run all the emissions tests and durability tests.
May I also suggest next time you don't send pseudo threatening emails to people saying:
markcoznotts said:
You have turbo envy.i notice you got sent with your tail between your legs for trolling about evo/ inpreza's not long ago. It would be better if you didn't contribute to threads in which you have no technical knowledge, I can't for the life of me think why you would, if only to troll.
I can assure you that I do have plenty of knoweledge on the development and mapping of engines as well as plenty of other aspects of oem development and testing processes.Thanks. Now let's get back to discussing the McLaren...although frankly, I've said my piece on here so far.
markcoznottz said:
There is always some contrary fool on these threads, I said the power increase had come from a boost increase, noone not even a guy who purports to work for Ricardo has confirmed or denied this . Where do you think the extra Mumbai has come from then wise ass?
So now I'm a wise ass? One post ago you were saying I was out of my depth!The whole origin of this discussion originates from you commenting that:
markcoznottz said:
It's very easy comparatively speaking, one of the advantages of a turbo installation. Much more difficult for fer/lam to significantly increase the bhp of thier engines, but na engines tend to sound better.
Which the way I read it suggests that it's easy to do. All that dmitsi and ultimately myself were tying to point out were that it's not actually that simple.Rather jumping down the throat of everyone who tries to defend an aspect of the McLaren, perhaps just ask and listen. If you'd read any of my previous posts, you'd have actually seen I'm not a fan of the car at all, but I feel in this instance, regarding the development of engine mapping, people were unfairly making the task seem simple when it's not!
markcoznottz said:
There is always some contrary fool on these threads, I said the power increase had come from a boost increase, noone not even a guy who purports to work for Ricardo has confirmed or denied this . Where do you think the extra Mumbai has come from then wise ass?
whilst you said that, and the chap who works for ricardo has not denied it, you merely brushed it aside as "anyone can do that easily and very cheaply" with total disregard for any mechanical implications that may have, and the cost in making sure things run well with the extra boost. that's what his gripe with you was about. he never said you were wrong as such, but the way you said it was done was rather crude.
ArosaMike said:
markcoznottz said:
There is always some contrary fool on these threads, I said the power increase had come from a boost increase, noone not even a guy who purports to work for Ricardo has confirmed or denied this . Where do you think the extra Mumbai has come from then wise ass?
So now I'm a wise ass? One post ago you were saying I was out of my depth!The whole origin of this discussion originates from you commenting that:
markcoznottz said:
It's very easy comparatively speaking, one of the advantages of a turbo installation. Much more difficult for fer/lam to significantly increase the bhp of thier engines, but na engines tend to sound better.
Which the way I read it suggests that it's easy to do. All that dmitsi and ultimately myself were tying to point out were that it's not actually that simple.Rather jumping down the throat of everyone who tries to defend an aspect of the McLaren, perhaps just ask and listen. If you'd read any of my previous posts, you'd have actually seen I'm not a fan of the car at all, but I feel in this instance, regarding the development of engine mapping, people were unfairly making the task seem simple when it's not!
markcoznottz said:
I said its 'comparatively' easy to increase horsepower on a turbo engine as opposed to an na engine, FACT. anyone who works in engine development would know that. It's very hard in a na engine that's already running high revs/ compression ratio. The use of the phrase 'turn the boost up' is tongue in cheek it doesn't imply the necessary durability and component testing wouldn't have been done. In any case I'd be the first to listen and learn from a Ricardo employee in fact we need more people like him on PH and less like you. You say you know a lot about engines but you still point blank refuse to answer my question about how mclaren has achieved a power hike since the car was introduced. Any ideas you would like to put forward? Im 'asking and listening' now.
I think, actually, you said "turning the boost up" would take "5 mins in their tea break", and that they aren't really doing the customer a favour. Gridl0k said:
Hamilton bought a Zonda...
..drives a McLaren for work and no doubt got a free 12C. Jammy git.I wasn't a fan of the 12C at all but after a visit to the dealer (who knew painfully little), I really like it. It looks so much better in person, although it's clearly not meant to be a flash car. Something subtle to zip through the traffic relatively unnoticed if required and give devastating performance when asked. It's not meant to be a Ferrari, Lamborghini or Aston so makes sense for what it is.
The problems they'd had must have been annoying for the early buyers, but I think the big talk followed by the constant delays have been the cause of any anger. Non-owners shouldn't really be getting upset about it as it really doesn't affect them in any way. Bar the issues, which I am sure they will resolve and learn from, it is a fantastic car and one they should be proud of.
Keep in mind this is just the small one. Wait until the daddy of the range arrives..
SSBB said:
markcoznottz said:
I said its 'comparatively' easy to increase horsepower on a turbo engine as opposed to an na engine, FACT. anyone who works in engine development would know that. It's very hard in a na engine that's already running high revs/ compression ratio. The use of the phrase 'turn the boost up' is tongue in cheek it doesn't imply the necessary durability and component testing wouldn't have been done. In any case I'd be the first to listen and learn from a Ricardo employee in fact we need more people like him on PH and less like you. You say you know a lot about engines but you still point blank refuse to answer my question about how mclaren has achieved a power hike since the car was introduced. Any ideas you would like to put forward? Im 'asking and listening' now.
I think, actually, you said "turning the boost up" would take "5 mins in their tea break", and that they aren't really doing the customer a favour. SSBB said:
markcoznottz said:
I said its 'comparatively' easy to increase horsepower on a turbo engine as opposed to an na engine, FACT. anyone who works in engine development would know that. It's very hard in a na engine that's already running high revs/ compression ratio. The use of the phrase 'turn the boost up' is tongue in cheek it doesn't imply the necessary durability and component testing wouldn't have been done. In any case I'd be the first to listen and learn from a Ricardo employee in fact we need more people like him on PH and less like you. You say you know a lot about engines but you still point blank refuse to answer my question about how mclaren has achieved a power hike since the car was introduced. Any ideas you would like to put forward? Im 'asking and listening' now.
I think, actually, you said "turning the boost up" would take "5 mins in their tea break", and that they aren't really doing the customer a favour. Edited by daveevans on Friday 8th June 13:25
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff