Flemke - Is this your McLaren? (Vol 5)

[Sway]

vincegail said:

This month's EVO and Top Gear on their Facebook page both drive a Senna, both with numberplate Y1 OOV, albeit the Senna in EVO is red, and the one driven by Top Gear is blue? Why and how is that?

EVO is absolutely smitten by the Senna, haven't watched the Top Gear clip yet, but expect similar findings.

They're manufacturer pre-production/press fleet cars - the manufacturers are allowed registrations that can be transferred at will, as they are certifying their suitability to be on the road, and maintain sufficient records.

[flemke]

Dr Gitlin said:

flemke said:

Yes, but as with most things, the value of any "special" car is captive to the overall market. The XJ220 was sort of doomed when they made the short-sighted decision to go from a V12 to a turbo 6,

I don't know that "short-sighted" is entirely fair; if they'd kept the V12 (and AWD) the car would have been even bigger than it ended up being.

Would it have been? Need it have been?
When they were in the early stages of the F1 project, McLaren had access to a friend's XJ220, which they scrutinised carefully. Gordon said (I think this was in the book) that he couldn't believe how much wasted space there was within the bodywork. Put it this way: the F1 has a NA V12, and yet the Jag with its V6 is 8 inches wider.

Recently Adrian Newey, to my surprise, said that in choosing what sort of engine to put in the Valkyrie, in terms of weight it was a toss-up between a NA V12 and a turbo V6. He said that the extra weight of the turbos, intercoolers and plumbing negated the weight advantage of the smaller block whilst creating extra cooling requirements. If there had been a practical advantage to the turbo V6, they would have gone with it.

[F1GTRUeno]

Dr Gitlin said:

flemke said:

Yes, but as with most things, the value of any "special" car is captive to the overall market. The XJ220 was sort of doomed when they made the short-sighted decision to go from a V12 to a turbo 6,

I don't know that "short-sighted" is entirely fair; if they'd kept the V12 (and AWD) the car would have been even bigger than it ended up being.

And nowhere near as fast.

The move to the turbo 6 was the single best thing to happen to the XJ220.

Vastly underrated car all because people wanted to be able to say they owned a V12 and spat their dummies out when they couldn't.

[DannyScene]

trackdemon said:

Road drive around the North Coast 500 in this months EVO, they seem suitably impressed with it's road abilities....

I was lucky enough to see the red Senna evo were testing while doing the NC500 myself

Lovely slightly misty morning on the A832 miles from the nearest village, we were wild camping down by a river heard something been driven quite briskly, ran up the bank to the road just in time to see it drive by

It looked absolutely magnificent, I don't know if it was the setting of the misty pine forrest or that it was the last thing I expected to see somewhere that remote but from that moment on I've found a new appreciation for the 'styling'

Photos really do it no justice in my opinion

[thegreenhell]

flemke said:

Dr Gitlin said:

flemke said:

Yes, but as with most things, the value of any "special" car is captive to the overall market. The XJ220 was sort of doomed when they made the short-sighted decision to go from a V12 to a turbo 6,

I don't know that "short-sighted" is entirely fair; if they'd kept the V12 (and AWD) the car would have been even bigger than it ended up being.

Would it have been? Need it have been?
When they were in the early stages of the F1 project, McLaren had access to a friend's XJ220, which they scrutinised carefully. Gordon said (I think this was in the book) that he couldn't believe how much wasted space there was within the bodywork. Put it this way: the F1 has a NA V12, and yet the Jag with its V6 is 8 inches wider.

Recently Adrian Newey, to my surprise, said that in choosing what sort of engine to put in the Valkyrie, in terms of weight it was a toss-up between a NA V12 and a turbo V6. He said that the extra weight of the turbos, intercoolers and plumbing negated the weight advantage of the smaller block whilst creating extra cooling requirements. If there had been a practical advantage to the turbo V6, they would have gone with it.

At least one XJ220 has been retrofitted with a V12 by Don Law Racing.

[flemke]

F1GTRUeno said:

Dr Gitlin said:

flemke said:

Yes, but as with most things, the value of any "special" car is captive to the overall market. The XJ220 was sort of doomed when they made the short-sighted decision to go from a V12 to a turbo 6,

I don't know that "short-sighted" is entirely fair; if they'd kept the V12 (and AWD) the car would have been even bigger than it ended up being.

And nowhere near as fast.

The move to the turbo 6 was the single best thing to happen to the XJ220.

Vastly underrated car all because people wanted to be able to say they owned a V12 and spat their dummies out when they couldn't.

Using that logic, wouldn't the F1 have been better if it had a turbo V6?

[F1GTRUeno]

flemke said:

F1GTRUeno said:

Dr Gitlin said:

flemke said:

Yes, but as with most things, the value of any "special" car is captive to the overall market. The XJ220 was sort of doomed when they made the short-sighted decision to go from a V12 to a turbo 6,

I don't know that "short-sighted" is entirely fair; if they'd kept the V12 (and AWD) the car would have been even bigger than it ended up being.

And nowhere near as fast.

The move to the turbo 6 was the single best thing to happen to the XJ220.

Vastly underrated car all because people wanted to be able to say they owned a V12 and spat their dummies out when they couldn't.

Using that logic, wouldn't the F1 have been better if it had a turbo V6?

No because that's not using any logic.

Given BMW purposely designed the V12 in the F1 specifically to as near as they could get, Murray's requirements it was fine, as you well know.

The Jag V12 proposed for the XJ220 was a boat anchor. 4WD added to the mix would've made it more of an unwieldy monster than it is now.

[Olivera]

F1GTRUeno said:

The Jag V12 proposed for the XJ220 was a boat anchor.

What was proposed for the XJ220 was a TWR 4 valve per cylinder Jag V12, very similar to what won LeMans in the XJR-9. This could have easily have made 600bhp+. Boat anchor it certainly aint.

It's interesting to note that in an XJ220 video and article at the Nurburgring quite a few years ago, Chris Harris stated that, comparing the standard car to a standard McLaren F1, the XJ220 was of the two significantly better at track work.

[flemke]

F1GTRUeno said:

flemke said:

F1GTRUeno said:

Dr Gitlin said:

flemke said:

Yes, but as with most things, the value of any "special" car is captive to the overall market. The XJ220 was sort of doomed when they made the short-sighted decision to go from a V12 to a turbo 6,

I don't know that "short-sighted" is entirely fair; if they'd kept the V12 (and AWD) the car would have been even bigger than it ended up being.

And nowhere near as fast.

The move to the turbo 6 was the single best thing to happen to the XJ220.

Vastly underrated car all because people wanted to be able to say they owned a V12 and spat their dummies out when they couldn't.

Using that logic, wouldn't the F1 have been better if it had a turbo V6?

No because that's not using any logic.

Given BMW purposely designed the V12 in the F1 specifically to as near as they could get, Murray's requirements it was fine, as you well know.

The Jag V12 proposed for the XJ220 was a boat anchor. 4WD added to the mix would've made it more of an unwieldy monster than it is now.

Oh, okay. I think we crossed our wires. I thought the Dr's comment was generic - "if they'd kept the V12 concept", and presumed that the V12 of the concept would have been tolerable.
I guess you and he are saying that the particular V12 they had in mind (specifically of which, having zero interest in the XJ220, I have no idea) was crap, and therefore the car would have been worse with a crap engine (of any configuration) than it was with the turbo V6. I'd have to agree to that!

[flemke]

Olivera said:

F1GTRUeno said:

The Jag V12 proposed for the XJ220 was a boat anchor.

What was proposed for the XJ220 was a TWR 4 valve per cylinder Jag V12, very similar to what won LeMans in the XJR-9. This could have easily have made 600bhp+. Boat anchor it certainly aint.

It's interesting to note that in an XJ220 video and article at the Nurburgring quite a few years ago, Chris Harris stated that, comparing the standard car to a standard McLaren F1, the XJ220 was of the two significantly better at track work.

Important to remember that Gordon was clear from the beginning - he was designing a "GT" road car - not a racing car. Something as basic as the F1's narrow track and bodywork, which are great for using the car on the road, compromise its effectiveness on track. In contrast, I have seen barges narrower than the XJ220.

[Swampy1982]

flemke said:

Olivera said:

F1GTRUeno said:

The Jag V12 proposed for the XJ220 was a boat anchor.

What was proposed for the XJ220 was a TWR 4 valve per cylinder Jag V12, very similar to what won LeMans in the XJR-9. This could have easily have made 600bhp+. Boat anchor it certainly aint.

It's interesting to note that in an XJ220 video and article at the Nurburgring quite a few years ago, Chris Harris stated that, comparing the standard car to a standard McLaren F1, the XJ220 was of the two significantly better at track work.

Important to remember that Gordon was clear from the beginning - he was designing a "GT" road car - not a racing car. Something as basic as the F1's narrow track and bodywork, which are great for using the car on the road, compromise its effectiveness on track. In contrast, I have seen barges narrower than the XJ220.

Have you ever been out in an xj220? Was it any fun?

[Krikkit]

Mike Moreton's book on the 220, and the reasons behind the change from V12 to V6 between concept and production, were very interesting.

It's a lot less of a cop-out than most people think. Retrospectively it was a PR disaster, but they made it for sound engineering reasons.

[E65Ross]

It does look good though, doesn't it.

[thegreenhell]

Here's the XJ220 that's been fitted with an IMSA-spec, 48-valve V12, just like the original prototype:

http://hooniverse.com/2015/07/07/v12-xj220-the-big...

[Rich_W]

thegreenhell said:

Here's the XJ220 that's been fitted with an IMSA-spec, 48-valve V12, just like the original prototype:

http://hooniverse.com/2015/07/07/v12-xj220-the-big...

Nice!

There's a nice LM version in Japan converted to road legal!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrhlBWEZ8As

[flemke]

Swampy1982 said:

flemke said:

Olivera said:

F1GTRUeno said:

The Jag V12 proposed for the XJ220 was a boat anchor.

What was proposed for the XJ220 was a TWR 4 valve per cylinder Jag V12, very similar to what won LeMans in the XJR-9. This could have easily have made 600bhp+. Boat anchor it certainly aint.

It's interesting to note that in an XJ220 video and article at the Nurburgring quite a few years ago, Chris Harris stated that, comparing the standard car to a standard McLaren F1, the XJ220 was of the two significantly better at track work.

Important to remember that Gordon was clear from the beginning - he was designing a "GT" road car - not a racing car. Something as basic as the F1's narrow track and bodywork, which are great for using the car on the road, compromise its effectiveness on track. In contrast, I have seen barges narrower than the XJ220.

Have you ever been out in an xj220? Was it any fun?

No experience whatever. The car never interested me, and I don't think I know anyone who owns one.

[flemke]

Krikkit said:

Mike Moreton's book on the 220, and the reasons behind the change from V12 to V6 between concept and production, were very interesting.

It's a lot less of a cop-out than most people think. Retrospectively it was a PR disaster, but they made it for sound engineering reasons.

Were the reasons purely driven by engineering considerations, or was the financial element a factor?

[DuckAvenger]

https://youtu.be/nwVQfrstsA8

Nothing to do with Flemke. Just Häkkinen driving McLaren GTR

[Rich_W]

DuckAvenger said:

https://youtu.be/nwVQfrstsA8

Nothing to do with Flemke. Just Häkkinen driving McLaren GTR

Gearbox seems a bit sticky!

Sounds glorious! But vid needs more flybys

[PAUL500]

Mclaren seem to be hawking it around quite a bit these days. When Ron was there he would not even allow the bugs to be removed from the day it won the 24 hrs.