Lots of 675LTs for sale..
Discussion
nutbehinddawheel said:
subirg said:
What bizarre logic. Yes, mclaren let some owners down by making a spider, but they also offered those buyers to chance to have one. That's essentially giving all coupe owners a massive discount off the spider by cashing in on their coupes at a significant profit and then promptly walking straight into a spider that will no doubt generate a huge investment return, and far more than the coupe ever would. How is that treating customers badly?
Agreed .Far from feeling conned misled ,675customers already clambering for the P14 ,due next year I believe
A lie is a lie. Why do people have difficulty understanding that it's not right to lie to customers?
Every single defence of McLaren posted here has taken the form of 'ok they lied but.........' And we go round and round in circles. There is no 'but' there is no defence. It is a fact.
Now, if you don't care that's something else. Some people do care, they held McLaren up to a higher standard and were let down. If you don't care, or if you're a spyder owner and are happy, that is neither here nor there, good for you.
Don't people find this irksome debate tiring now? Can't they see a lie was made, it annoyed some people (rightfully so, as no one who hands over a big wedge of cash should be lied to by the person asking for the money), the end?
Every single defence of McLaren posted here has taken the form of 'ok they lied but.........' And we go round and round in circles. There is no 'but' there is no defence. It is a fact.
Now, if you don't care that's something else. Some people do care, they held McLaren up to a higher standard and were let down. If you don't care, or if you're a spyder owner and are happy, that is neither here nor there, good for you.
Don't people find this irksome debate tiring now? Can't they see a lie was made, it annoyed some people (rightfully so, as no one who hands over a big wedge of cash should be lied to by the person asking for the money), the end?
70proof said:
looks cool, but god am I looking forward to a time when manufacturers paint entire cars again - yes I get it is made of carbon, just paint the bloody thing 70proof said:
25 units...I'd be annoyed if I bought a 675
WCZ said:
70proof said:
25 units...I'd be annoyed if I bought a 675
flemke said:
WCZ said:
70proof said:
25 units...I'd be annoyed if I bought a 675
MDL111 said:
flemke said:
WCZ said:
70proof said:
25 units...I'd be annoyed if I bought a 675
flemke said:
Not all coupe buyers would have preferred a spider.
Perhaps but a LOT of people were pretty disappointed that they didn't offer the car in a Spider. Since the first 12C Spider the coupe and the spider have been pretty interchangeable. Most people acknowledge that there's very, very little different in performance and handling between the two. Often when asked for a car for a magazine challenge McLaren delivered a Spider because (a) that's what they happened to have available and (b) they didn't feel (which most owners will agree) that being a McLaren (i.e. carbon tub) spider diminished the dynamics of the car in any measurable way. flemke said:
Indeed I think you will find that the majority of coupe buyers would not have rather had a spider, for the simple reason that the ethos of the 675LT coupe is as a lightweight, purposeful driver's car, which is not the same thing as a cabriolet designed for a wind-in-your-hair frolic to the country club or hours spent circling Harrods.
I think you're just plain wrong about this. The 675LT Spider is still a "lightweight, purposeful driver's car". I suspect the majority of McLaren 650S cars sold now are Spiders for the reasons I've listed above and the fact that McLaren spider are not "cabriolet[s] designed for a wind-in-your-hair frolic to the country club or hours spent circling Harrods" but rather are pretty much on par performance and handling-wise with their coupe brethren. These aren't race cars so the tiny little weight penalty for the spider version isn't going to be a do-or-die difference for drivers when they take them on track. One might choose the coupe because they live somewhere that a convertible isn't valuable to them, they might the extra interior storage space, they might like the look of the coupe better, or they might want a race harness installed but I doubt there are very many buyers who forego the coupe because of the tiny fractions of performance they lose to the weight difference of the spider. flemke said:
Because of the promise to make no more than 500 cars, McLaren were able to charge coupe buyers a premium over what they could have charged if the promise had been to make no more than 1040 cars, which is what it turned out to be.
I disagree. I think the 675LT coupe was an excellent value. I think McLaren underpriced the car in the first place. It is absolutely stunning to drive and the best supercar money can buy for under $1,000,000. Based on the reviews of the car they could have easily charged more and still sold all of them. MarkNC said:
flemke said:
Not all coupe buyers would have preferred a spider.
Perhaps but a LOT of people were pretty disappointed that they didn't offer the car in a Spider. Since the first 12C Spider the coupe and the spider have been pretty interchangeable. Most people acknowledge that there's very, very little different in performance and handling between the two. Often when asked for a car for a magazine challenge McLaren delivered a Spider because (a) that's what they happened to have available and (b) they didn't feel (which most owners will agree) that being a McLaren (i.e. carbon tub) spider diminished the dynamics of the car in any measurable way. flemke said:
Indeed I think you will find that the majority of coupe buyers would not have rather had a spider, for the simple reason that the ethos of the 675LT coupe is as a lightweight, purposeful driver's car, which is not the same thing as a cabriolet designed for a wind-in-your-hair frolic to the country club or hours spent circling Harrods.
I think you're just plain wrong about this. The 675LT Spider is still a "lightweight, purposeful driver's car". I suspect the majority of McLaren 650S cars sold now are Spiders for the reasons I've listed above and the fact that McLaren spider are not "cabriolet[s] designed for a wind-in-your-hair frolic to the country club or hours spent circling Harrods" but rather are pretty much on par performance and handling-wise with their coupe brethren. These aren't race cars so the tiny little weight penalty for the spider version isn't going to be a do-or-die difference for drivers when they take them on track. One might choose the coupe because they live somewhere that a convertible isn't valuable to them, they might the extra interior storage space, they might like the look of the coupe better, or they might want a race harness installed but I doubt there are very many buyers who forego the coupe because of the tiny fractions of performance they lose to the weight difference of the spider. flemke said:
Because of the promise to make no more than 500 cars, McLaren were able to charge coupe buyers a premium over what they could have charged if the promise had been to make no more than 1040 cars, which is what it turned out to be.
I disagree. I think the 675LT coupe was an excellent value. I think McLaren underpriced the car in the first place. It is absolutely stunning to drive and the best supercar money can buy for under $1,000,000. Based on the reviews of the car they could have easily charged more and still sold all of them. I have no doubt that Porsche could quite profitably sell loads of GT3RS spiders if they were to build them, but there is a reason why they don't.
Wrt whether McLaren could have charged more for the car, I do think you are employing 20/20 hindsight here. I have no doubt that, if McLaren had thought at the time that they could have charged more, they would have charged more. McLaren Automotive have not, so far, shown a particular desire to make charitable contributions to people who do not need them.
The fact is that McLaren Automotive themselves made a big deal out of "only 500", "only coupe". They did not do that merely to share with everyone their expectations - they did that specifically in order to improve their marketing potential and pricing power.
I don't mind that McLaren made a spider. I want the company to be successful, and if some misguided (
) people prefer spiders, good for them. My objection is that McLaren made certain promises, for certain reasons that were in their own interests, and then they broke their promises. Having done that, they did absolutely nothing even to apologise to the people whose interests they had harmed. No matter how good the 675LT coupe/spider/rebuilt-prototype/maxi-carbon might be, this affair was not McLaren's finest hour.flemke said:
A fairly crucial difference is that a 675LT is called that because it has a Long Tail. This new car has a standard short tail, same as the 650S.
Does the 688 really not have the same rear quarter panels of the 675 with a fixed wing? Hard to tell from the render for me if it's the couple of cm longer that the 675 but all the rear panels look to be the same as a 675 than the movable wing rather than a 650.
flemke said:
My comment about the wind-in-your-hair frolic to the country club and circling Harrods in a 675LT spider was slightly tongue-in-cheek, but in general I think the very point of a spider/cabriolet/convertible is to have a wind-in-your-hair frolic to somewhere, and that is slightly different from the objective of a purposeful driver's car. Why else would you add 40kgs to the weight of a car and raise its CoG? By doing so you are compromising the driving experience whilst emphasising the passenger experience ("passenger" experience including the wind in the hair of the driver).
The 675LT Spider is still a "purposeful driver's car". The carbon tub provides the same rigidity as the coupe and the weight difference, and change to CoG is completely marginal. The performance numbers are, for all intents and purposes, identical to the coupe. Drive the two cars on road or track while looking straight forward and I'll doubt you'd feel any significant difference between the coupe and the spider in performance and handling. I've been in a spider and it sure felt the same as the coupe to me. flemke said:
I have no doubt that Porsche could quite profitably sell loads of GT3RS spiders if they were to build them, but there is a reason why they don't.
Because, unlike the McLaren, a 911 spider is severely compromised by the removal of it's roof. They don't make the 911 with a carbon fiber tub so the roof structure is an integral part of it's torsional rigidity. When you remove the roof of a 911 you need to add significant stiffening just to make it a decent road car. That is NOT the case with a McLaren. Second the configuration of the 911, in particular the back seat area, makes it a pretty compromised car aerodynamically in spider form. A spider McLaren (when open) is more of a targa-style opening compared the big open bathtub shape of the convertible 911 which makes it very aerodynamically compromised. You already knew all this right? This is truly a silly argument against the spider and surely I didn't need to explain this to you. It's clear you have some gripe against McLaren.
flemke said:
Wrt whether McLaren could have charged more for the car, I do think you are employing 20/20 hindsight here. I have no doubt that, if McLaren had thought at the time that they could have charged more, they would have charged more.
Yes, I am absolutely using 20/20 hindsight here. I think they priced the car long before they knew how well it would turn out and how great the demand for it would be. I think they were very conservative on the pricing of the car and owners got more than they bargained for. isaldiri said:
flemke said:
A fairly crucial difference is that a 675LT is called that because it has a Long Tail. This new car has a standard short tail, same as the 650S.
Does the 688 really not have the same rear quarter panels of the 675 with a fixed wing? Hard to tell from the render for me if it's the couple of cm longer that the 675 but all the rear panels look to be the same as a 675 than the movable wing rather than a 650.
MarkNC said:
The 675LT Spider is still a "purposeful driver's car". The carbon tub provides the same rigidity as the coupe and the weight difference, and change to CoG is completely marginal. The performance numbers are, for all intents and purposes, identical to the coupe. Drive the two cars on road or track while looking straight forward and I'll doubt you'd feel any significant difference between the coupe and the spider in performance and handling. I've been in a spider and it sure felt the same as the coupe to me....
Because, unlike the McLaren, a 911 spider is severely compromised by the removal of it's roof. They don't make the 911 with a carbon fiber tub so the roof structure is an integral part of it's torsional rigidity. When you remove the roof of a 911 you need to add significant stiffening just to make it a decent road car. That is NOT the case with a McLaren. Second the configuration of the 911, in particular the back seat area, makes it a pretty compromised car aerodynamically in spider form. A spider McLaren (when open) is more of a targa-style opening compared the big open bathtub shape of the convertible 911 which makes it very aerodynamically compromised.
You already knew all this right? This is truly a silly argument against the spider and surely I didn't need to explain this to you. It's clear you have some gripe against McLaren.
I have the same gripe as many other people do; no need to reiterate it here.Because, unlike the McLaren, a 911 spider is severely compromised by the removal of it's roof. They don't make the 911 with a carbon fiber tub so the roof structure is an integral part of it's torsional rigidity. When you remove the roof of a 911 you need to add significant stiffening just to make it a decent road car. That is NOT the case with a McLaren. Second the configuration of the 911, in particular the back seat area, makes it a pretty compromised car aerodynamically in spider form. A spider McLaren (when open) is more of a targa-style opening compared the big open bathtub shape of the convertible 911 which makes it very aerodynamically compromised.
You already knew all this right? This is truly a silly argument against the spider and surely I didn't need to explain this to you. It's clear you have some gripe against McLaren.
Mark, you can say that there is not much difference in car purity and performance between the coupe and the spider, and we could debate how much is "not much" in this case, but one cannot say that there is no difference.
Whether that difference justifies the spider depends both on how much of a difference in purity and performance one thinks it is and equally on how much value the spider factor adds to the enjoyment of a track-biased car. You, I think, would say that the spider factor adds meaningfully to the enjoyment, whereas I would say that it adds nothing.
MarkNC said:
Yes, I am absolutely using 20/20 hindsight here. I think they priced the car long before they knew how well it would turn out and how great the demand for it would be. I think they were very conservative on the pricing of the car and owners got more than they bargained for.
You must bear in mind that the coupe buyers took a risk as to how good a car the 675 would be. It's not like they got something for nothing.I'd like to join the spider/coupe track car debate, the other argument has become a tad monotonous now I'm afraid. Surely the only reason coupes became better track cars was because as has been alluded to and mentioned, is the greater weight and lack of rigidity still, of a convertible version of a coupe.
However, surely the original ethos of a 'racing' motor vehicle was to sit in/on a car and go as fast as possible and the evolution of the coupe was simply to provide a roof to protect from the elements, possibly to and from the track?
And thus now we have 'protection required' dictating the different options that come into play with the weight gain and lack of rigidity; and due to the carbon tub only the slight weight gain being the price a Maclaren owner has to pay between the two versions of the car.
I would therefore be daring enough to suggest that the most effective and desirable car to drive fast round a track would be one open to the elements where the driver can better see/feel/hear the surroundings and the performance of his own steed. The lack of any roof at all would also make the car lighter still.
The folding roof option, and even more so the coupe, simply panders to the softies who want a bit of protection from the precipitation that may or may not spoil their hair
I therefore suggest the better and purer track car will be the spider
However, surely the original ethos of a 'racing' motor vehicle was to sit in/on a car and go as fast as possible and the evolution of the coupe was simply to provide a roof to protect from the elements, possibly to and from the track?
And thus now we have 'protection required' dictating the different options that come into play with the weight gain and lack of rigidity; and due to the carbon tub only the slight weight gain being the price a Maclaren owner has to pay between the two versions of the car.
I would therefore be daring enough to suggest that the most effective and desirable car to drive fast round a track would be one open to the elements where the driver can better see/feel/hear the surroundings and the performance of his own steed. The lack of any roof at all would also make the car lighter still.
The folding roof option, and even more so the coupe, simply panders to the softies who want a bit of protection from the precipitation that may or may not spoil their hair
I therefore suggest the better and purer track car will be the spider
Gassing Station | McLaren | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff