RE: 620hp McLaren GT officially unveiled
Discussion
Ray_Aber said:
I had high hopes for this. I'm disappointed. It's pleasant enough, but a bit bland. Biggest beef is that the leading edge of the bonnet/front is way too high. It's not an amphibious vehicle; a lower snout would have pleased me no end.
I have to agree. I've looked long and hard at the pictures here and on the Autocar article, and must conclude that this design is extraordinarily amateurish. There sre so many cumbersome areas as well as the 'boat snout'. I particularly dislike the area at the sides including the engine intake and window line. Very awkward. The only saving grace of the design is that it is aesthetically far superior to any current Ferrari.
That picture makes it look like a cut'n'shut job, like they had to somehow join two halves of different cars together, thought about it a lot, realised it was beyond their limited styling capabilities, and left it to the computers to do the job. Except they switched the computers off when they left the Woking office (you have to, it's a rule there, along with LOTS of other rules), not realising the computers also hadn't done their stuff.
Unfortunately, this was the result.
Unfortunately, this was the result.
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 16th May 20:53
rthomp25 said:
Yup I think it looks great... Think they should be having a bit more power tho.. especially as it would be minimal extra cost I'd have thought...maybe even just a different map?It's not like if it had 720 bhp it would take customers away from the 720 but might take some more of the speed hungry ones off the 812...
It's like it's a bit lost.. not as luxurious as the Bentley/Aston not as fast and exciting as the 812, maybe the best GT car on track but that doesn't make much sense ...
Edited by likesachange on Thursday 16th May 21:48
likesachange said:
rthomp25 said:
Yup I think it looks great... Think they should be having a bit more power tho.. especially as it would be minimal extra cost I'd have thought...maybe even just a different map?It's not like if it had 720 bhp it would take customers away from the 720 but might take some more of the speed hungry ones off the 812...
It's like it's a bit lost.. not as luxurious as the Bentley/Aston not as fast and exciting as the 812, maybe the best GT car on track but that doesn't make much sense ...
Edited by likesachange on Thursday 16th May 21:48
Design-wise it may be a tad unadventurous, but it does look proper lovely. And at-last a return to free-flowing shapes with no excessive spoilers, diffusers, strakes etc which is very much the current trend. It looks very classy unlike many others. Ferrari in particular take note. 812 is a mess by comparison.
Me & my mate are having a heated debate as to whether or not it is actually a "proper" GT. It isn't because it's not front-engined, hasn't got 4-seats / 2+2, is basically a supercar etc. Or it is because it's designed to rapidly cross Continents is supreme comfort & speed at the expense of handling & mad power ie) emphasis on comfort, space & practicality. Which is what a true GT is.
Or maybe McLaren have just invented a new niche.
Me & my mate are having a heated debate as to whether or not it is actually a "proper" GT. It isn't because it's not front-engined, hasn't got 4-seats / 2+2, is basically a supercar etc. Or it is because it's designed to rapidly cross Continents is supreme comfort & speed at the expense of handling & mad power ie) emphasis on comfort, space & practicality. Which is what a true GT is.
Or maybe McLaren have just invented a new niche.
E65Ross said:
I can't see why a GT has to have 4 seats. To me, the Chiron is pretty much the perfect GT.
Luxurious interior, plenty of power, quiet and refined. Why does engine position matter, providing there's ample space for you and luggage? 2 seater cars can definitely be GT cars IMO.
The Chirons 44 Litres isn't really enough for a GT Luxurious interior, plenty of power, quiet and refined. Why does engine position matter, providing there's ample space for you and luggage? 2 seater cars can definitely be GT cars IMO.
(Yes that is really ALL the "luggage" space on the Chiron and Veyron)
It's curious because McLaren Cars did have a good idea a few years back. 227 Litres and matching luggage.
Its almost like they don't even look in the back catalogue for ideas. Actually, it's like they are deliberately NOT looking at the past!
S1KRR said:
Its almost like they don't even look in the back catalogue for ideas. Actually, it's like they are deliberately NOT looking at the past!
Except for that 3 seater car they have coming, and the snorkels and the longtails and the Dihedral Doors. Apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
The Vambo said:
Except for that 3 seater car they have coming, and the snorkels and the longtails and the Dihedral Doors.
Apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
3 seats is only a recent thing. Speedtail And that's even less of a "GT" than this new car. And maybe I'm confused but what is the Speedtail for? Isn't that meant to be their long distance tourer?Apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
365P Berlinetta
Roof snorkels? Hardly have the monopoly on those
(NSXR GT)
Longtails. Calling a car LT doesn't make it a long tail! There's nothing much wrong with 675 and 600. But they are not, and never will be, a Longtail!
Dihedral doors - Straight off the Toyota Sera
But if you were going to make a car and market it as a GT. Why not look at the best GT car ever made? Especially given the same company did it in years ago. Even a Pagani has side panniers its such a good idea. Seeing as how they HAD to make a mid engined car. Why not utilise that space in addition to the other load areas?
Edited by S1KRR on Friday 17th May 23:22
S1KRR said:
The Vambo said:
Except for that 3 seater car they have coming, and the snorkels and the longtails and the Dihedral Doors.
Apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
3 seats is only a recent thing. Speedtail And that's even less of a "GT" than this new car. And maybe I'm confused but what is the Speedtail for? Isn't that meant to be their long distance tourer?Apart from that what have the Romans ever done for us?
Roof snorkels? Hardly have the monopoly on those
Longtails. Calling a car LT doesn't make it a long tail! There's nothing much wrong with 675 and 600. But they are not, and never will be, a Longtail!
Dihedral doors - Straight off the Toyota Sera
Even you must reread that post and think WTF am I talking about ManyMotors said:
McLaren makes some really, really quick vehicles. However, they are not very comfortable and I wonder if this may have that issue. As the GT is based on the same Monocell II structure, modified for cargo, I doubt they engineered more space for people larger than five foot nine inches. The comparative room inside a 911 is commodious. But good luck McLaren! Move that metal and try making money.....
Don't know of you have actually driven one for hours but my 570GT is way more comfortable on long journeys than the old F Type or even the Golf. Surprised me to be honest. And definitely over 5ft 9 inches. B17NNS said:
"Grand Touring will never be the same again. The new superlight McLaren GT defies convention. We’ve ripped up the rulebook."
Er, no you haven't. Another week, another McLaren 2 door mid engined, carbon tubbed V8 supercar. Who exactly are they trying to kid by saying they're thinking differently about the grand tourer? They're not thinking differently at all. They're just regurgitating the same car over and over again and changing the name.
Doesn't a GT need space for the many things that you're going to take with you when you go on your grand tour? They can get as many grovelling YouTubers as they like to put golf bags and skis in the back of the thing. Let's see them try with the 'light' bag that your Mrs has packed for the weekend away. And electric seats are a cost option. On a £163k grand tourer.
The McLaren GT - it's quite good for carrying garden slabs from B&Q (and depreciating).
It's not a GT. This is a GT
🤤🤤🤤Er, no you haven't. Another week, another McLaren 2 door mid engined, carbon tubbed V8 supercar. Who exactly are they trying to kid by saying they're thinking differently about the grand tourer? They're not thinking differently at all. They're just regurgitating the same car over and over again and changing the name.
Doesn't a GT need space for the many things that you're going to take with you when you go on your grand tour? They can get as many grovelling YouTubers as they like to put golf bags and skis in the back of the thing. Let's see them try with the 'light' bag that your Mrs has packed for the weekend away. And electric seats are a cost option. On a £163k grand tourer.
The McLaren GT - it's quite good for carrying garden slabs from B&Q (and depreciating).
It's not a GT. This is a GT
subirg said:
What a bizarre car. It’s a bitsa compilation as usual. Take a 720 chassis, make it uglier (whoever designs the noses on McLarens needs to be out of their misery pronto), put cheaper engine and suspension bits in, add metal garnish to exhaust tips and some nobs, and voila! Another ‘new’ McLaren! Any tuner could have generated this.
Still, it will probably be an awesome used car bargain in 2-3 years time...
"Any tuner" could re-engineer a composite chassis, develop a new engine, new infotainment system, etc.? Still, it will probably be an awesome used car bargain in 2-3 years time...
I'd love to meet the tuners you're using...
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff