RE: McLaren GT | Driven
Discussion
900T-R said:
Can't help feeling that - for what it sets out to achieve - this car is compromised by its basic architecture. If you were to design a GT from a blank sheet of paper, you'd have the engine sitting between the front axle and the cabin and consequently a boot of useful dimensions (i.e. height) in the rear, every single time. Or am I being unduly conservative here?
ThisE65Ross said:
Kubevoid said:
Finally... McLaren have ditched their hideous 90s Hyundai swoopy styling nonsense. Ridiculous doors aside.
Sounds ideal if you want sloppy steering on a long trip, while not actually being able to pack for a long trip.
Shame this seems so confused. Maybe the name stands for Grand Tranny.
Yes, I'm sure the steering is so incredibly sloppy Sounds ideal if you want sloppy steering on a long trip, while not actually being able to pack for a long trip.
Shame this seems so confused. Maybe the name stands for Grand Tranny.
That aside, the storage for a GT looks crap. Not sure why this left the initial meeting. Aston have this market sewn up.
Kubevoid said:
E65Ross said:
Kubevoid said:
Finally... McLaren have ditched their hideous 90s Hyundai swoopy styling nonsense. Ridiculous doors aside.
Sounds ideal if you want sloppy steering on a long trip, while not actually being able to pack for a long trip.
Shame this seems so confused. Maybe the name stands for Grand Tranny.
Yes, I'm sure the steering is so incredibly sloppy Sounds ideal if you want sloppy steering on a long trip, while not actually being able to pack for a long trip.
Shame this seems so confused. Maybe the name stands for Grand Tranny.
Quite like it but McLaren seem to be stretching the architecture, tech and engines a bit like the Monty Python lunch menu....
Mid engined, rear drive, carbon tubbed V8 with turbos and a dual clutch automatic with varying levels of spice added.
Dont get me wrong, Mclarens are great but all the different versions and variants around the same stuff just seems like they are tryingt o build a whole menu around a small selection of ingredients.
Seems to be working out ok for them though.
Mid engined, rear drive, carbon tubbed V8 with turbos and a dual clutch automatic with varying levels of spice added.
Dont get me wrong, Mclarens are great but all the different versions and variants around the same stuff just seems like they are tryingt o build a whole menu around a small selection of ingredients.
Seems to be working out ok for them though.
Kubevoid said:
E65Ross said:
Kubevoid said:
Finally... McLaren have ditched their hideous 90s Hyundai swoopy styling nonsense. Ridiculous doors aside.
Sounds ideal if you want sloppy steering on a long trip, while not actually being able to pack for a long trip.
Shame this seems so confused. Maybe the name stands for Grand Tranny.
Yes, I'm sure the steering is so incredibly sloppy Sounds ideal if you want sloppy steering on a long trip, while not actually being able to pack for a long trip.
Shame this seems so confused. Maybe the name stands for Grand Tranny.
I guess it confirms the need to try these things for oneself.
J4CKO said:
Quite like it but McLaren seem to be stretching the architecture, tech and engines a bit like the Monty Python lunch menu....
Mid engined, rear drive, carbon tubbed V8 with turbos and a dual clutch automatic with varying levels of spice added.
Dont get me wrong, Mclarens are great but all the different versions and variants around the same stuff just seems like they are tryingt o build a whole menu around a small selection of ingredients.
Seems to be working out ok for them though.
If not for the unfortunate owners trying in vain to get a decent bid for their cars only after a few months use Mid engined, rear drive, carbon tubbed V8 with turbos and a dual clutch automatic with varying levels of spice added.
Dont get me wrong, Mclarens are great but all the different versions and variants around the same stuff just seems like they are tryingt o build a whole menu around a small selection of ingredients.
Seems to be working out ok for them though.
av185 said:
J4CKO said:
Quite like it but McLaren seem to be stretching the architecture, tech and engines a bit like the Monty Python lunch menu....
Mid engined, rear drive, carbon tubbed V8 with turbos and a dual clutch automatic with varying levels of spice added.
Dont get me wrong, Mclarens are great but all the different versions and variants around the same stuff just seems like they are tryingt o build a whole menu around a small selection of ingredients.
Seems to be working out ok for them though.
If not for the unfortunate owners trying in vain to get a decent bid for their cars only after a few months use Mid engined, rear drive, carbon tubbed V8 with turbos and a dual clutch automatic with varying levels of spice added.
Dont get me wrong, Mclarens are great but all the different versions and variants around the same stuff just seems like they are tryingt o build a whole menu around a small selection of ingredients.
Seems to be working out ok for them though.
One of my neighbours took a £90k haircut on an Aston Rapide after just 2 months.
This guy wasn't too happy at what Ferrari offered him for his 488 after 1500 miles use.
And Ferrari's are supposed to be better than most come resale...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtdcEnvGOd4
Interesting to see the comparisons to Bentley and Aston Martin when considering a McLaren GT. I think I'm in the camp of 'horses for courses' and would pick one from the stables of the two former, rather than the latter, for a focused cruiser/touring car.
If I had the funds I'd be happy to consider anything from all three marques, but I'd put a McLaren down for a low-mileage thrill ride, rather than a yomnp across Europe. Wouldn't it be nice to have the choice of both types of supercar for your garage?
Aston will take the fight to Ferrari and McLaren by going with the mid-engined Valhalla next. I wonder if McLaren could be brave enough to step out of the carbon tubbed mid-engine formula, to create a proper front engined GT car? I guess not, as they wouldn't have offered this half-hearted derivative of their core products otherwise. They profess to not going to production of an SUV, so maybe they will just tinker with the current formula (which they look very good at in the 720 and LT cars IMHO).
By the way Dan, your articles are normally very readable and informative. Did you not get your copy in on time and Nic Cackett did it for you and just put your name on the bottom?
If I had the funds I'd be happy to consider anything from all three marques, but I'd put a McLaren down for a low-mileage thrill ride, rather than a yomnp across Europe. Wouldn't it be nice to have the choice of both types of supercar for your garage?
Aston will take the fight to Ferrari and McLaren by going with the mid-engined Valhalla next. I wonder if McLaren could be brave enough to step out of the carbon tubbed mid-engine formula, to create a proper front engined GT car? I guess not, as they wouldn't have offered this half-hearted derivative of their core products otherwise. They profess to not going to production of an SUV, so maybe they will just tinker with the current formula (which they look very good at in the 720 and LT cars IMHO).
By the way Dan, your articles are normally very readable and informative. Did you not get your copy in on time and Nic Cackett did it for you and just put your name on the bottom?
J4CKO said:
Quite like it but McLaren seem to be stretching the architecture, tech and engines a bit like the Monty Python lunch menu....
Mid engined, rear drive, carbon tubbed V8 with turbos and a dual clutch automatic with varying levels of spice added.
Dont get me wrong, Mclarens are great but all the different versions and variants around the same stuff just seems like they are tryingt o build a whole menu around a small selection of ingredients.
Seems to be working out ok for them though.
Much like Aston before the AMG tie-up.Mid engined, rear drive, carbon tubbed V8 with turbos and a dual clutch automatic with varying levels of spice added.
Dont get me wrong, Mclarens are great but all the different versions and variants around the same stuff just seems like they are tryingt o build a whole menu around a small selection of ingredients.
Seems to be working out ok for them though.
Front engined, rear drive, Bonded Aluminium Chassis, N/A v12 and automated manual with varying levels of spice added (only exception being the v8 Vantage, but it applies to v12 Vantage, DB9, DBS, Virage, Vanquish, Rapide)
Rolls Royce
Front Engined, Rear Drive, 6.75 v12 Twin Turbo and automatic gearbox with varying degrees of spice
Parts and architecture sharing are inevitable if you want to make a profitable company. Look at how much VAG is in a Lambo, Bentley or Porsche. A lot of the models, especially the higher volume ones, share huge amounts of componentry. You can find the same basic engine in a Lambo Urus, Porsche Cayenne Turbo, Audi RS6, Porsche Panamera Turbo and Bentley Continental GT. Just with slight variations. In the same way that even though the DNA of the Mclaren engine is the same, it is actually quite different across the various different models in character and outputs etc.
A very apt example was earlier in the thread where someone mentioned how many variations Porsche makes just of the 911, but they are held above reproach for this apparently.
I think the problem for me is that the McLaren F1 was like nothing else at the time, unique architecture, unique engine, unique pretty much everything, That car casts a VERY long shadow and rightly or wrongly, I can't help but compare McLaren's recent output with that hallowed car.
I get that everyone does platform sharing but it just seems a little beneath McLaren somehow. I think they've diluted the brand a bit with too many cars based around the same basic formula and the depreciation stats would seem to back that theory up.
Get it right like the 911 and people will sing it's praises, there are waiting lists a mile long for Porsches GT cars, not bad for a car which has 20 different variations. Get it wrong and it starts to become more like Lotus's "special of the week" which is not really the image you want for a 6 figure supercar.
I don't think McLaren have managed their product line very well, you can still part share and produce lots of cars while still maintain an air of exclusivity, McLaren just make me think they are desperate to just shift as much metal as possible.
I get that everyone does platform sharing but it just seems a little beneath McLaren somehow. I think they've diluted the brand a bit with too many cars based around the same basic formula and the depreciation stats would seem to back that theory up.
Get it right like the 911 and people will sing it's praises, there are waiting lists a mile long for Porsches GT cars, not bad for a car which has 20 different variations. Get it wrong and it starts to become more like Lotus's "special of the week" which is not really the image you want for a 6 figure supercar.
I don't think McLaren have managed their product line very well, you can still part share and produce lots of cars while still maintain an air of exclusivity, McLaren just make me think they are desperate to just shift as much metal as possible.
Slightly odd article, in that the authors feelings about the car and it's steering/handling seem very different from other reviews...
Like many others, this feels too much like McLaren are trying to stretch their "range" too far with minimum investment. There are only so many ways you can slice and dice these things. It feels more like the Aston Martin approach to product development, with the Vantage, DB11 and DBS all being a little bit too similiar, unlike , say Ferrari and Lamborghini.
Not sure that long term, this is the way to go. Certainly not doing Aston any favours in the market
Like many others, this feels too much like McLaren are trying to stretch their "range" too far with minimum investment. There are only so many ways you can slice and dice these things. It feels more like the Aston Martin approach to product development, with the Vantage, DB11 and DBS all being a little bit too similiar, unlike , say Ferrari and Lamborghini.
Not sure that long term, this is the way to go. Certainly not doing Aston any favours in the market
McLaren's current set-up is similar to Bez-era Aston Martin - trying to spin-off too many model variants from the same (limited) chassis architecture.
Just had another look at Autocar's vid of the 720 S, which noted its duality - ie, how it's also comfortable, quiet, airy and an "everyday car". In other words, the 720S can be a useful grand tourer
So, who's going to buy a fugly and bloated 2-seat, mid-engined McLaren GT for c. £160k when a barely run-in 14-month-old, handsome, svelte and faster 2-seat, mid-engined McLaren 720 S can also be had for c. £160k (or less)?
Just had another look at Autocar's vid of the 720 S, which noted its duality - ie, how it's also comfortable, quiet, airy and an "everyday car". In other words, the 720S can be a useful grand tourer
So, who's going to buy a fugly and bloated 2-seat, mid-engined McLaren GT for c. £160k when a barely run-in 14-month-old, handsome, svelte and faster 2-seat, mid-engined McLaren 720 S can also be had for c. £160k (or less)?
BigChiefmuffinAgain said:
It feels more like the Aston Martin approach to product development, with the Vantage, DB11 and DBS all being a little bit too similiar, unlike , say Ferrari and Lamborghini.
Lamborghini only have 3 models in their line up. Before being bought by VAG, they had 1. The first expansion model was developed alongside the Audi R8 (Gallardo) and the second a development of the Cayenne, Bentayga, Q7, Touareg (Urus). Clearly both expensive and bespoke projects that started from completely clean sheets of paper.Ferrari have a huge amount of history to fall back on in terms of product - they have been making v8s and v12s for decades. Most of their cars are improvements on older models (the F8 is an improvement over the 488. The 812 an improvement over the F12. Portofino an improvement on the California. FF an improvement on the GTC4 Lusso) featuring evolutions of the previous version's powertrain. The big jump came when they introduced turbocharging in the California T and 488GTB. But still, a company with nearly 90 years of constant history should not be struggling to do this.
Senna aside, this is the first McLaren that I've not been wowed by in terms of its looks.
Its got a whiff of Aston about it somehow, which I guess makes sense as its a GT. Not that theres anything wrong with Astons of course...its just a step away from the usual sublime McLaren design.
Its got a whiff of Aston about it somehow, which I guess makes sense as its a GT. Not that theres anything wrong with Astons of course...its just a step away from the usual sublime McLaren design.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff