Discussion
PinkHouse said:
Chris was spot on about the state of the market: 10 out of 16 cars for sale on AT have less than 100 miles and all under 1000. So the 750 is cheaper and faster - sounds like a no brainer. The GT3 RS seemed to break away progressively while the 750 seemed to snap quite quickly so the RS seems more balanced ans drivable
Lower downforce and another 200 turbocharged horsepower will tend to do that.Digga said:
Lower downforce and another 200 turbocharged horsepower will tend to do that.
Downforce would make a car break away more suddenly as a large part of that aero grip can and does disappear if the circumstances generating that downforce (ie airflow around the car with ride height/pitch/yaw etc changing) change and has little to nothing to do with whether a car is progressive on breakaway. Leaving aside that a mid engine car is always going to be more snappy and less predictable when it does finally go, Mclaren especially in the wet have always had a few issues on handling consistency and I'm reasonably convinced it's mainly given their use of brake steer alone to wholly act as a limited slipp diff. The calibration in the dry is very good and doesn't go wrong, in the wet however....... That said, a good friend who is an excellent driver says that's the same to a greater or lesser extent to almost all modern cars. He never trusted his 991 rs to the same degree when clowning around on a wet track as he would with his 7rs and he's was pretty certain it was down to the plethora of electronic gubbins and sensors doing their stuff irrespective of how much one was nominally switching off that stuff in the newer cars.
I know llandow very well,the mclaren will struggle there in the damp,and the 911 has the advantage of better traction to reduce the gap.
Quite frankly to pay nearly 400k for a rs with all that plastic against the maca is nuts,now if the rs was /is at rrp its a good value track hack against the maca.
Quite frankly to pay nearly 400k for a rs with all that plastic against the maca is nuts,now if the rs was /is at rrp its a good value track hack against the maca.
Davyt said:
I’d take the Mac every day, they are a true Supercar, as Chris says the Pork is just another 911 with a big spoiler fitted,, end of the day we’re all different, choose what suits you best,,
And yet were I choosing between the two, I would go (at list) for the GT3. I appreciate that in theory the McL is a cut above the Porsche, but the Porsche has the sum of all its heritage supported by what I perceive to be muti-tier race technology and an inexpensive long term maintenance option supported by the many very well qualified indies for a second opinion / solution should it ever be required.McL do have Thorny and a couple of others, but new models come around with great regularity and warranty / repair costs are truly eye-watering.
On the other hand P repair costs are going that way, GT cars including the 997 and 981 and 718 GT4's are a far more manageable cost proposition ...
Should a replacement carbon wing for a 991 GT3 really cost £5k ?? Compared to a steel wing if not repairable, at £1k max ?
ChrisW. said:
But was this a Corsa's v. Cup 2's test ??
It looked a little wetter for the McL .....
I notice that McL use five studs rather than the nuisance centre locks.
Was raining lightly when out in the Macca , but too little to really change much as the temps up , although the drops on the windshield on that car with 750 bhp would definitely make the right foot lighter It looked a little wetter for the McL .....
I notice that McL use five studs rather than the nuisance centre locks.
isaldiri said:
Downforce would make a car break away more suddenly as a large part of that aero grip can and does disappear if the circumstances generating that downforce (ie airflow around the car with ride height/pitch/yaw etc changing) change and has little to nothing to do with whether a car is progressive on breakaway. Leaving aside that a mid engine car is always going to be more snappy and less predictable when it does finally go, Mclaren especially in the wet have always had a few issues on handling consistency and I'm reasonably convinced it's mainly given their use of brake steer alone to wholly act as a limited slipp diff. The calibration in the dry is very good and doesn't go wrong, in the wet however.......
That said, a good friend who is an excellent driver says that's the same to a greater or lesser extent to almost all modern cars. He never trusted his 991 rs to the same degree when clowning around on a wet track as he would with his 7rs and he's was pretty certain it was down to the plethora of electronic gubbins and sensors doing their stuff irrespective of how much one was nominally switching off that stuff in the newer cars.
If the car is moving fast enough to get aero pushing down, it won’t break away fast.That said, a good friend who is an excellent driver says that's the same to a greater or lesser extent to almost all modern cars. He never trusted his 991 rs to the same degree when clowning around on a wet track as he would with his 7rs and he's was pretty certain it was down to the plethora of electronic gubbins and sensors doing their stuff irrespective of how much one was nominally switching off that stuff in the newer cars.
It’s quite an odd feeling. I’ve driven a 3 litre single seater with aero and was mostly baffled by it.
Digga said:
f the car is moving fast enough to get aero pushing down, it won’t break away fast.
It’s quite an odd feeling. I’ve driven a 3 litre single seater with aero and was mostly baffled by it.
I'm not sure I agree getting aero to work means that it won't break away fast tbh. Perhaps it's more that I'm a crap driver (very likely tbh) but essentially I'm going by blind trust in a car with significant aero as personally, i simply can't feel that grip, at least on the radicals I have driven. It's just not something I can even vaguely have a feel for unlike a car that is reliant on mechanical grip. It’s quite an odd feeling. I’ve driven a 3 litre single seater with aero and was mostly baffled by it.
And in any case, the balance of aero and mechanical grip on anything other than the very fastest corners on even a car like a 992rs is going to be massively in favour of mechanical grip. The 'downforce' isn't going to matter all that much in handling characteristics and not wrt to why or how a car may or may not be more progressive I'd think.
The logic is that as soon as a car becomes sideways the aero works less well.
If the lateral load is continuous and all other things are equal (speed and grip) ... once the car moves out of shape the down force starts to reduce and the slip cascades ... due to a compounding lack of grip ...
If the lateral load is continuous and all other things are equal (speed and grip) ... once the car moves out of shape the down force starts to reduce and the slip cascades ... due to a compounding lack of grip ...
Digga said:
isaldiri said:
Downforce would make a car break away more suddenly as a large part of that aero grip can and does disappear if the circumstances generating that downforce (ie airflow around the car with ride height/pitch/yaw etc changing) change and has little to nothing to do with whether a car is progressive on breakaway. Leaving aside that a mid engine car is always going to be more snappy and less predictable when it does finally go, Mclaren especially in the wet have always had a few issues on handling consistency and I'm reasonably convinced it's mainly given their use of brake steer alone to wholly act as a limited slipp diff. The calibration in the dry is very good and doesn't go wrong, in the wet however.......
That said, a good friend who is an excellent driver says that's the same to a greater or lesser extent to almost all modern cars. He never trusted his 991 rs to the same degree when clowning around on a wet track as he would with his 7rs and he's was pretty certain it was down to the plethora of electronic gubbins and sensors doing their stuff irrespective of how much one was nominally switching off that stuff in the newer cars.
If the car is moving fast enough to get aero pushing down, it won’t break away fast.That said, a good friend who is an excellent driver says that's the same to a greater or lesser extent to almost all modern cars. He never trusted his 991 rs to the same degree when clowning around on a wet track as he would with his 7rs and he's was pretty certain it was down to the plethora of electronic gubbins and sensors doing their stuff irrespective of how much one was nominally switching off that stuff in the newer cars.
It’s quite an odd feeling. I’ve driven a 3 litre single seater with aero and was mostly baffled by it.
How good really is the areo on the rs road car,alot of gimic going on i trust,You only need a good bump to reduce the areo,or bottom it out.If the rs generated real significant areo to the point you need a 5th damper,that would be different,but they dont have it.I have been overtaken by some lmp cars at high speeds and when they come by,my car moves alot and even worse when they pull straight back in front of you to steal the air that was going to be going over my car,but all this is at 160mph plus not llandow speeds.
The problem being most folk ( self included) aren’t eligible to buy one at list, if you are you must of , what is it? Bought 10+ cars from Porsche and have a “special” relationship with your local OPC sales manager, so it kind of blows any choice out the water,,
Also being a Mc owner the tales of eye-watering repair costs are generally not true, some cars suffer from certain little gremlins that also sometimes reappear , will be no different to most other Super cars, cost of servicing is also no different, probably less than some and probably no more than a BMW M car,,
ChrisW. said:
And yet were I choosing between the two, I would go (at list) for the GT3. I appreciate that in theory the McL is a cut above the Porsche, but the Porsche has the sum of all its heritage supported by what I perceive to be muti-tier race technology and an inexpensive long term maintenance option supported by the many very well qualified indies for a second opinion / solution should it ever be required.
McL do have Thorny and a couple of others, but new models come around with great regularity and warranty / repair costs are truly eye-watering.
On the other hand P repair costs are going that way, GT cars including the 997 and 981 and 718 GT4's are a far more manageable cost proposition ...
Should a replacement carbon wing for a 991 GT3 really cost £5k ?? Compared to a steel wing if not repairable, at £1k max ?
McL do have Thorny and a couple of others, but new models come around with great regularity and warranty / repair costs are truly eye-watering.
On the other hand P repair costs are going that way, GT cars including the 997 and 981 and 718 GT4's are a far more manageable cost proposition ...
Should a replacement carbon wing for a 991 GT3 really cost £5k ?? Compared to a steel wing if not repairable, at £1k max ?
Yes combination of Porsche price rises and "overs" make them not as viable and repair costs Body wise are mad ( £50 k for small frontal damage to mates car ) ......
Having raced F3 for a few years interesting, if car not set up very well , you may as well go home .....44 secs around Brands hatch with 168 bhp
Having raced F3 for a few years interesting, if car not set up very well , you may as well go home .....44 secs around Brands hatch with 168 bhp
Edited by hunter 66 on Monday 12th February 11:26
Edited by hunter 66 on Monday 12th February 13:57
Gassing Station | 911/Carrera GT | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff