Discussion
Gregor-lun1d said:
Thanks for the swift replies.
The name foot soldier seems reminiscent of an old ID on a Scottish lotus forum - not the same chap by any chance?
Yes, it is the same chap...The name foot soldier seems reminiscent of an old ID on a Scottish lotus forum - not the same chap by any chance?
Had an Exige 350 Sport for a few months this year, but wasn't getting enough use to keep it, and I have no space for it now.
Was 4th Lotus - will get another one I'm sure
I think I saw your GT on George Street last week Footsoldier. Looked lovely, first one I have seen in real life. Often see some nice cars along from my work, 918, Countach I take it these are yours also. Always brighten up my lunchtime stroll. Great that most are used all year round.
Sometimes see a late Evo as well and wondered if this was yours too.
Sometimes see a late Evo as well and wondered if this was yours too.
PaulJC84 said:
I think I saw your GT on George Street last week Footsoldier. Looked lovely, first one I have seen in real life. Often see some nice cars along from my work, 918, Countach I take it these are yours also. Always brighten up my lunchtime stroll. Great that most are used all year round.
Sometimes see a late Evo as well and wondered if this was yours too.
Could be....thanks! Sometimes see a late Evo as well and wondered if this was yours too.
f1ten said:
Lovely foot soldier !
I'm going to drive an s but surely there is nothing much different to the gt?
They're extremely similar but the 570GT has a slightly different mission than the 570S. The GT is a bit softer, a bit quieter, a bit more luxurious (all the beautiful leather work behind the seats and the gorgeous panoramic roof), and bit slower. But just bits. What it lacks in hard edge it makes up for by having a more luxurious and more spacious-feeling cabin. But they're both amazingly great cars. I'm going to drive an s but surely there is nothing much different to the gt?
On the 570S Autocar just said, in a comparison to Acura NSX, that "the 570S is, without a shadow of a doubt, the best car of it's kind" but I think that applies equally to the 570GT.
See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UZFbVi4paU
This is what I posted on comparison thread....
footsoldier said:
Well, I made the choice, and GT arrived last week.
Low key colour (blade sliver), Standard exhaust, no exterior carbon, will use most days.
Amazing difference in personality when you turn the dial from normal to track. (Although I doubt mine will go on one, despite visiting Silverstone paddock in photo below)
Compared to competitors, it really is more of a GT. I have the GT pack, and the sound system is really good, and with the quieter exhaust it can be appreciated. One of the best I've heard.
Seats are comfortable and access is easy with lower sills. The slightly slower steering, noise quietening tyres, and softer springs make it much more relaxing to drive on long journeys than similar cars. I did 6hrs straight last week with no issues.
It's a mistake to think the GT is a softer S (like Evo did). It's for a different purpose and you (PH...) should buy the one which suits the intended use. If you see the de-tuning as a compromise, and you want to be on track or using it mainly for adrenaline blasts then go for the S. If you want a road car with theatre and comfort, go for the GT. (Although, as said, the GT is certainly not lacking in excitement when in track mode).
I agree that engine sound is still not the best, but that's another good reason to go for the quieter version, IMO. I drove an early 12C and it gave me a headache!
Mine is currently with the Heathrow valet parking team - hope they're not appreciating it too much...
Low key colour (blade sliver), Standard exhaust, no exterior carbon, will use most days.
Amazing difference in personality when you turn the dial from normal to track. (Although I doubt mine will go on one, despite visiting Silverstone paddock in photo below)
Compared to competitors, it really is more of a GT. I have the GT pack, and the sound system is really good, and with the quieter exhaust it can be appreciated. One of the best I've heard.
Seats are comfortable and access is easy with lower sills. The slightly slower steering, noise quietening tyres, and softer springs make it much more relaxing to drive on long journeys than similar cars. I did 6hrs straight last week with no issues.
It's a mistake to think the GT is a softer S (like Evo did). It's for a different purpose and you (PH...) should buy the one which suits the intended use. If you see the de-tuning as a compromise, and you want to be on track or using it mainly for adrenaline blasts then go for the S. If you want a road car with theatre and comfort, go for the GT. (Although, as said, the GT is certainly not lacking in excitement when in track mode).
I agree that engine sound is still not the best, but that's another good reason to go for the quieter version, IMO. I drove an early 12C and it gave me a headache!
Mine is currently with the Heathrow valet parking team - hope they're not appreciating it too much...
I don't know what it is about the GT but it is such a good looking car. The S not so much. I love the interior with its pano roof too. I reckon it is about the best car McLaren currently make since it seems far ahead of its competition. In fact, what is its competition? Maybe 991TT but not really; the GT is a supercar, even if they say it isn't, the TT is 4wd and 2+2.
The only GT I've seen in the flesh was in Monaco, parked out side the dealer at the time of the GP. It was painted in a blue/green colour and it was arresting. Couldn't take my eyes off it. I have no clear idea why it works so much better than the S.
I think it has to do with the way the rear hatch links the roof to the back in one straight swoop, contrasting with the rise of the rear three quarter panel and the length and volume in the rear being perfectly proportioned. Your car looks great, congrats!
The only GT I've seen in the flesh was in Monaco, parked out side the dealer at the time of the GP. It was painted in a blue/green colour and it was arresting. Couldn't take my eyes off it. I have no clear idea why it works so much better than the S.
I think it has to do with the way the rear hatch links the roof to the back in one straight swoop, contrasting with the rise of the rear three quarter panel and the length and volume in the rear being perfectly proportioned. Your car looks great, congrats!
Edited by LukeyLikey on Thursday 20th October 09:03
Edited by LukeyLikey on Thursday 20th October 09:04
Must admit the more I look at the GT the more I like the look of it over the S.
The C pillar is critical to the flow of the car and on the GT it looks great.
I've always felt the S is a bit too fussy in its design with far too many cues for the sake of it.
A bit like a school kid designing a car and adding rocket launchers here there and everywhere. Now I know some of its aero but even so the flying buttresses, curved rear window, rear deck lid, exhausts and rear bumper on the S is too much for me to take in and disturbs the flow and cohesiveness of the design.
I prefer the drive of the S as I prefer sports cars more so than GT cruisers but I prefer the looks of the GT.
Any chance of a 570 GTS LT
The C pillar is critical to the flow of the car and on the GT it looks great.
I've always felt the S is a bit too fussy in its design with far too many cues for the sake of it.
A bit like a school kid designing a car and adding rocket launchers here there and everywhere. Now I know some of its aero but even so the flying buttresses, curved rear window, rear deck lid, exhausts and rear bumper on the S is too much for me to take in and disturbs the flow and cohesiveness of the design.
I prefer the drive of the S as I prefer sports cars more so than GT cruisers but I prefer the looks of the GT.
Any chance of a 570 GTS LT
footsoldier said:
This is what I posted on comparison thread....
Really pleased that you're happy with your GT footsoldier. Mine is due week 50 so mid December all being well. I've chosen the sports exhaust option and do wonder if i've made a mistake, in that it will be too noisy and spoil my enjoyment of the car. The cars i test drove didn't have the sports exhaust, so basic schoolboy error on my part! C'est la vie!footsoldier said:
Well, I made the choice, and GT arrived last week.
Low key colour (blade sliver), Standard exhaust, no exterior carbon, will use most days.
Amazing difference in personality when you turn the dial from normal to track. (Although I doubt mine will go on one, despite visiting Silverstone paddock in photo below)
Compared to competitors, it really is more of a GT. I have the GT pack, and the sound system is really good, and with the quieter exhaust it can be appreciated. One of the best I've heard.
Seats are comfortable and access is easy with lower sills. The slightly slower steering, noise quietening tyres, and softer springs make it much more relaxing to drive on long journeys than similar cars. I did 6hrs straight last week with no issues.
It's a mistake to think the GT is a softer S (like Evo did). It's for a different purpose and you (PH...) should buy the one which suits the intended use. If you see the de-tuning as a compromise, and you want to be on track or using it mainly for adrenaline blasts then go for the S. If you want a road car with theatre and comfort, go for the GT. (Although, as said, the GT is certainly not lacking in excitement when in track mode).
I agree that engine sound is still not the best, but that's another good reason to go for the quieter version, IMO. I drove an early 12C and it gave me a headache!
Mine is currently with the Heathrow valet parking team - hope they're not appreciating it too much...
Low key colour (blade sliver), Standard exhaust, no exterior carbon, will use most days.
Amazing difference in personality when you turn the dial from normal to track. (Although I doubt mine will go on one, despite visiting Silverstone paddock in photo below)
Compared to competitors, it really is more of a GT. I have the GT pack, and the sound system is really good, and with the quieter exhaust it can be appreciated. One of the best I've heard.
Seats are comfortable and access is easy with lower sills. The slightly slower steering, noise quietening tyres, and softer springs make it much more relaxing to drive on long journeys than similar cars. I did 6hrs straight last week with no issues.
It's a mistake to think the GT is a softer S (like Evo did). It's for a different purpose and you (PH...) should buy the one which suits the intended use. If you see the de-tuning as a compromise, and you want to be on track or using it mainly for adrenaline blasts then go for the S. If you want a road car with theatre and comfort, go for the GT. (Although, as said, the GT is certainly not lacking in excitement when in track mode).
I agree that engine sound is still not the best, but that's another good reason to go for the quieter version, IMO. I drove an early 12C and it gave me a headache!
Mine is currently with the Heathrow valet parking team - hope they're not appreciating it too much...
i do agree with Rambo Lambo that the design of the GT is far better than the S. The rear of the S from the window back is messy IMO but the GT just flows.
I thought I liked the GT better than the S until I saw one up close. Perhaps it's a matter of colours or just personal taste but a GT in all black was a let down for me. While the lines of the GT are undeniably cleaner I would think that's why they make it look a bit dull in a dated sense, compared with the lines of the S. That's too much of a "classic supercar" look for a 2016 car IMO. Looks like they flanked the rear end of an S with that of a 360 Modena. There is a "boxy" feel to it that does not necessarily work, at least not on the full black car I got to see.
From a functional point of view I really don't see any owner using the rear hatch much. By the time I would be thinking about loading the hatch area with some bag I may be worried about scratching the bodywork while lifting and placing said bag into the hatch. By the time I will close the hatch my (soft) bag may be large enough for the hatch to not even close, and even if I get to close it I imagine the central rear view visbility to be more than poor. Last but not least, the hatch opens opposite side of the driver's position, which does not make much sense. When parking anywhere with little room around the car the driver may want to make use of as little space as available to load or unload the hatch, meaning a driver should be able to get in or out of the car and proceed with the access to the hatch on the same side as the driver's door. If we park along some offside wall where only the driver's door may be opened then how are we going to get easy access to the luggage stored in the hatch if it opens on the side of the parking wall? Probably a detail as I don't see most owners bother with this, but if the GT claims to be easier to live with then I would see this feature as a significant ergonomic mistake. In fact each owner should be able to spec which side the hatch should open since the opening side varies between LHD and RHD cars.
Also curious how long the leathered luggage area over the engine will hold up against the heat generated by the engine. I imagine they loaded the engine cover with thermal isolation and sound deadening. How much more work to get access to the engine during a service, when only 2 bolts and a few minutes on the S are needed to remove it?
I have not had the chance to drive either so take all this for what it's worth, but the S remains the better choice for me. Without a doubt I'd have either in a hearbeat
From a functional point of view I really don't see any owner using the rear hatch much. By the time I would be thinking about loading the hatch area with some bag I may be worried about scratching the bodywork while lifting and placing said bag into the hatch. By the time I will close the hatch my (soft) bag may be large enough for the hatch to not even close, and even if I get to close it I imagine the central rear view visbility to be more than poor. Last but not least, the hatch opens opposite side of the driver's position, which does not make much sense. When parking anywhere with little room around the car the driver may want to make use of as little space as available to load or unload the hatch, meaning a driver should be able to get in or out of the car and proceed with the access to the hatch on the same side as the driver's door. If we park along some offside wall where only the driver's door may be opened then how are we going to get easy access to the luggage stored in the hatch if it opens on the side of the parking wall? Probably a detail as I don't see most owners bother with this, but if the GT claims to be easier to live with then I would see this feature as a significant ergonomic mistake. In fact each owner should be able to spec which side the hatch should open since the opening side varies between LHD and RHD cars.
Also curious how long the leathered luggage area over the engine will hold up against the heat generated by the engine. I imagine they loaded the engine cover with thermal isolation and sound deadening. How much more work to get access to the engine during a service, when only 2 bolts and a few minutes on the S are needed to remove it?
I have not had the chance to drive either so take all this for what it's worth, but the S remains the better choice for me. Without a doubt I'd have either in a hearbeat
Edited by Thom on Thursday 20th October 10:45
funboxster said:
Really pleased that you're happy with your GT footsoldier. Mine is due week 50 so mid December all being well. I've chosen the sports exhaust option and do wonder if i've made a mistake, in that it will be too noisy and spoil my enjoyment of the car. The cars i test drove didn't have the sports exhaust, so basic schoolboy error on my part! C'est la vie!
i do agree with Rambo Lambo that the design of the GT is far better than the S. The rear of the S from the window back is messy IMO but the GT just flows.
The "sports exhaust" on the GT is exactly the same as the standard exhaust on the S, so shouldn't be be too loud. The standard GT exhaust is just a bit quieter, (and cheaper!). I'm sure you'll be fine.i do agree with Rambo Lambo that the design of the GT is far better than the S. The rear of the S from the window back is messy IMO but the GT just flows.
L
Normally in cars like that you have to put everything in the front trunk. I'm guessing if you put in large luggage bags that don't fit between the retainer bars from the inside, you'll have to use the hatch, but that's going to be a pretty rare occasion. I've got some fitted luggage coming next week courtesy of dealer, so will see how that works.
I liked the S when I first saw it, but agree they are colour sensitive, and personal taste. GT differences helped me justify buying one - I can use it for long journeys and weekends away and it's very easy and relaxing if you want it to be.
Not convinced the rear treatment makes it looks dated in comparison... ;-)
Thom said:
I thought I liked the GT better than the S until I saw one up close. Perhaps it's a matter of colours or just personal taste but a GT in all black was a let down for me. While the lines of the GT are undeniably cleaner I would think that's why they make it look a bit dull in a dated sense, compared with the lines of the S. That's too much of a "classic supercar" look for a 2016 car IMO. Looks like they flanked the rear end of an S with that of a 360 Modena. There is a "boxy" feel to it that does not necessarily work, at least not on the full black car I got to see.
From a functional point of view I really don't see any owner using the rear hatch much. By the time I would be thinking about loading the hatch area with some bag I may be worried about scratching the bodywork while lifting and placing said bag into the hatch. By the time I will close the hatch my (soft) bag may be large enough for the hatch to not even close, and even if I get to close it I imagine the central rear view visbility to be more than poor. Last but not least, the hatch opens opposite side of the driver's position, which does not make much sense. When parking anywhere with little room around the car the driver may want to make use of as little space as available to load or unload the hatch, meaning a driver should be able to get in or out of the car and proceed with the access to the hatch on the same side as the driver's door. If we park along some offside wall where only the driver's door may be opened then how are we going to get easy access to the luggage stored in the hatch if it opens on the side of the parking wall? Probably a detail as I don't see most owners bother with this, but if the GT claims to be easier to live with then I would see this feature as a significant ergonomic mistake. In fact each owner should be able to spec which side the hatch should open since the opening side varies between LHD and RHD cars.
Also curious how long the leathered luggage area over the engine will hold up against the heat generated by the engine. I imagine they loaded the engine cover with thermal isolation and sound deadening. How much more work to get access to the engine during a service, when only 2 bolts and a few minutes on the S are needed to remove it?
I have not had the chance to drive either so take all this for what it's worth, but the S remains the better choice for me. Without a doubt I'd have either in a hearbeat
The luggage space is actually pretty useful, even without opening the hatch. (Which I've not used yet). Just being able to throw a gym bag, or kids schoolbag or similar behind the seat when you get in makes a lot more space. It stays in place behind a couple of bars which stop it coming forward.From a functional point of view I really don't see any owner using the rear hatch much. By the time I would be thinking about loading the hatch area with some bag I may be worried about scratching the bodywork while lifting and placing said bag into the hatch. By the time I will close the hatch my (soft) bag may be large enough for the hatch to not even close, and even if I get to close it I imagine the central rear view visbility to be more than poor. Last but not least, the hatch opens opposite side of the driver's position, which does not make much sense. When parking anywhere with little room around the car the driver may want to make use of as little space as available to load or unload the hatch, meaning a driver should be able to get in or out of the car and proceed with the access to the hatch on the same side as the driver's door. If we park along some offside wall where only the driver's door may be opened then how are we going to get easy access to the luggage stored in the hatch if it opens on the side of the parking wall? Probably a detail as I don't see most owners bother with this, but if the GT claims to be easier to live with then I would see this feature as a significant ergonomic mistake. In fact each owner should be able to spec which side the hatch should open since the opening side varies between LHD and RHD cars.
Also curious how long the leathered luggage area over the engine will hold up against the heat generated by the engine. I imagine they loaded the engine cover with thermal isolation and sound deadening. How much more work to get access to the engine during a service, when only 2 bolts and a few minutes on the S are needed to remove it?
I have not had the chance to drive either so take all this for what it's worth, but the S remains the better choice for me. Without a doubt I'd have either in a hearbeat
Edited by Thom on Thursday 20th October 10:45
Normally in cars like that you have to put everything in the front trunk. I'm guessing if you put in large luggage bags that don't fit between the retainer bars from the inside, you'll have to use the hatch, but that's going to be a pretty rare occasion. I've got some fitted luggage coming next week courtesy of dealer, so will see how that works.
I liked the S when I first saw it, but agree they are colour sensitive, and personal taste. GT differences helped me justify buying one - I can use it for long journeys and weekends away and it's very easy and relaxing if you want it to be.
Not convinced the rear treatment makes it looks dated in comparison... ;-)
Edited by footsoldier on Thursday 20th October 16:00
Well, it seems to me the S already has, just behind the seats, a fairly usable storage volume that more or less ends where the hatch on the GT begins. As you suggest, we can certainly throw a (soft) bag in there without necessarily having a hatch at the back to get access, making the hatch more or less redundant.
The car still looks great, wish you a lot of fun!
The car still looks great, wish you a lot of fun!
Modernity is one thing, and the 570 GT looks thoroughly modern to my eyes. But proportions and flow are about beauty - and they are timeless concepts. What looked beautiful to our eyes in terms of proportion 50 years ago is the same today. We automatically know when, for instance, a building, that could be 100 years old, has the right proportions, or when someone's face attracts us. There is supposedly a science behind it; we like symmetry and balance for example and assimilate that with people we usually think look good. No idea what happened to mine
Some designs are timeless and others do not age well. In general, the more dramatic a design, the worse it will age.
Maybe it's just me but each time I look at a mid-engined super car I get the feeling I am seeing something I have already been seeing for as long as the concept has developed since the 60s, with a few exceptions (Miura, F40 and... 570S). Mid-engined Ferraris in particular always look awesome when they come out but the next model always makes the previous one look dated. German brands such as Porsche and Audi with the R8 usually work better the long term image of their sometimes wide car ranges while Ferrari are all about the instantaneous visual impact and blunt, juvenile pleasure of playing with a short-term toy, even when their most recent offerings seem to be properly usable and durable owner's cars. Some kind of junior model such as a modern Dino may help give the brand a better image, though perhaps less profitable.
(Audi-designed Lamborghinis now stand in an odd position of trying to blend the best of both worlds but if the industrial, heavily-processed German way of engineering cars has resulted in creating amazing tarmac-eating tools, the somewhat romantic latin image has suffered quite a bit... Please fire whoever has designed modern Lamborghini interiors, for instance).
I believe McLaren may fill a position about halfway in between, with "reasonably dramatic-looking" cars and a relatively polished-up image of quality that they better maintain as more and as quickly as they can, developing a consistent after-sale service and a German-like build quality foibles-free. At the moment they are probably mostly surfing on their Formula 1 image to shift as many cars as they can but things may go pear-shaped rather quickly if they cannot back up their sales with a proper after-sale servicing, and short-sighted bean counters may always favour fundings the development of new models if current ones sell like hot cakes instead of developing a long term strategy and retain the softened-up design of their cars that from my engineering point of view suggests a long-term brand/industrial strategy though the initial business model may have been shaped slightly differently.
Are McLaren going to handle their Automotive venture as a Formula 1 grand prix race or a 24 hr endurance race? Let's see how it goes and congratulations to all the buyers supporting the brand so far
Maybe it's just me but each time I look at a mid-engined super car I get the feeling I am seeing something I have already been seeing for as long as the concept has developed since the 60s, with a few exceptions (Miura, F40 and... 570S
). Mid-engined Ferraris in particular always look awesome when they come out but the next model always makes the previous one look dated. German brands such as Porsche and Audi with the R8 usually work better the long term image of their sometimes wide car ranges while Ferrari are all about the instantaneous visual impact and blunt, juvenile pleasure of playing with a short-term toy, even when their most recent offerings seem to be properly usable and durable owner's cars. Some kind of junior model such as a modern Dino may help give the brand a better image, though perhaps less profitable.(Audi-designed Lamborghinis now stand in an odd position of trying to blend the best of both worlds but if the industrial, heavily-processed German way of engineering cars has resulted in creating amazing tarmac-eating tools, the somewhat romantic latin image has suffered quite a bit... Please fire whoever has designed modern Lamborghini interiors, for instance).
I believe McLaren may fill a position about halfway in between, with "reasonably dramatic-looking" cars and a relatively polished-up image of quality that they better maintain as more and as quickly as they can, developing a consistent after-sale service and a German-like build quality foibles-free. At the moment they are probably mostly surfing on their Formula 1 image to shift as many cars as they can but things may go pear-shaped rather quickly if they cannot back up their sales with a proper after-sale servicing, and short-sighted bean counters may always favour fundings the development of new models if current ones sell like hot cakes instead of developing a long term strategy and retain the softened-up design of their cars that from my engineering point of view suggests a long-term brand/industrial strategy though the initial business model may have been shaped slightly differently.
Are McLaren going to handle their Automotive venture as a Formula 1 grand prix race or a 24 hr endurance race? Let's see how it goes and congratulations to all the buyers supporting the brand so far
Edited by Thom on Monday 24th October 10:44
Another recent 570 GT owner. Been driving it for about a month. A great, fun car. Stonking fast while still fairly comfortable. But no where near a GT like the DB9 it replaced.
With real world roads being what they are, I am more than happy to have a suspension set up designed to deal with the crap condition.
Not too many cars, GT's or otherwise that can crack 200 mph while still being completely drivable on a daily basis.
With real world roads being what they are, I am more than happy to have a suspension set up designed to deal with the crap condition.
Not too many cars, GT's or otherwise that can crack 200 mph while still being completely drivable on a daily basis.
johnnyreggae said:
Whilst the difference is not noticeable on the road (unless you get a width restrictor) its worth remembering that the 12C will fit a standard garage door but the GT won't
GT is 2mm wider than a 12C/650S so fits easily with the mirrors folded. McLaren quoted width of 2095mm is with the mirrors out That's not what Ascot told me: they said the tub was wider which is why it is shown in the brochure as 2095 mm mirrors folded as opposed to the 12C 2093 mm mirrors out
The internet also has a 1915 mm figure and a 82.4 inch without mirrors
Can anyone else clarify ?
The internet also has a 1915 mm figure and a 82.4 inch without mirrors
Can anyone else clarify ?
Edited by johnnyreggae on Wednesday 4th January 08:35
johnnyreggae said:
That's not what Ascot told me: they said the tub was wider which is why it is shown in the brochure as 2095 mm mirrors folded as opposed to the 12C 2093 mm mirrors out
The internet also has a 1915 mm figure and a 82.4 inch without mirrors
Can anyone else clarify ?
Pity Ascot don't know their own product. At 2095mm folded, it would be way wider than an Aventador (2030mm) !The internet also has a 1915 mm figure and a 82.4 inch without mirrors
Can anyone else clarify ?
Edited by johnnyreggae on Wednesday 4th January 08:35
Gassing Station | McLaren | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff