765 v 675 just... wow
Discussion
When discussing how quick the 765 was yesterday, it was described as 'hard to believe' just how quick it is.
The 720 is already very quick and they were a bit curious as to how much quicker they could make it; this was answered when they were given a demo for real world driving rather than on a track, and it blew them away.
I have had a few McLarens, and at no point have I considered that the 675 was a slouch; however, the below clip has almost made me splutter my cornflakes over the breakfast table.
The important part to take in account is the 765 has a passenger.
https://youtu.be/JOZt8o6-Os0
The 720 is already very quick and they were a bit curious as to how much quicker they could make it; this was answered when they were given a demo for real world driving rather than on a track, and it blew them away.
I have had a few McLarens, and at no point have I considered that the 675 was a slouch; however, the below clip has almost made me splutter my cornflakes over the breakfast table.
The important part to take in account is the 765 has a passenger.
https://youtu.be/JOZt8o6-Os0
McLaren are an evolving Supercar manufacturer and with each incarnation they bring improvements.
The 720S was a massive step up in performance with the new 4.0 litre engine over the 650 and coupled with a better monocoque and aero etc it set a new benchmark.
The 675LT is a great car but based on the 650, the 765 on the 720, and the 720 is much faster than a 675 in most conditions
The 720S was a massive step up in performance with the new 4.0 litre engine over the 650 and coupled with a better monocoque and aero etc it set a new benchmark.
The 675LT is a great car but based on the 650, the 765 on the 720, and the 720 is much faster than a 675 in most conditions
Wheelspinning said:
It was the rolling comparison i was surprised at.
Standing starts are down to lots of variables and not a great indication.
A rolling start from just 50kph on a wet track and the race stated by a driver's hand signals has lots of variables too. Again the 675 is accelerating on the damp side of the track. Standing starts are down to lots of variables and not a great indication.
The recording doesn't show if they moved off evenly, how much wheelspin there was, and the first shot there is already a huge speed difference.
It's a really poor video to use as a comparison.
Rocketreid said:
McLaren are an evolving Supercar manufacturer and with each incarnation they bring improvements.
The 720S was a massive step up in performance with the new 4.0 litre engine over the 650 and coupled with a better monocoque and aero etc it set a new benchmark.
The 675LT is a great car but based on the 650, the 765 on the 720, and the 720 is much faster than a 675 in most conditions
To be fair, I wouldn't say 0.3 of a second on a quarter mile and 142mph opposed to 148mph is 'much faster' in most conditions; a bold statement unless you have driven both in 'most conditions'.The 720S was a massive step up in performance with the new 4.0 litre engine over the 650 and coupled with a better monocoque and aero etc it set a new benchmark.
The 675LT is a great car but based on the 650, the 765 on the 720, and the 720 is much faster than a 675 in most conditions
Every McLaren i have driven feels warp drive fast, from 540 through to GT.
As 12pack eludes, the difference in performance between his 650 spider compared to a 720 spider doesn't add up to a £100k delta 'upgrade'.
When the guys at McLaren tell me the 765 is a quantum leap and I see on a rolling start from 30mph to 120mph how the driver of the 675 can hardly see the 765 in the distance is staggering.
Still doesn't make me crave the upgrade; the LT is plenty fast enough for me!
Driver101 said:
Wheelspinning said:
It was the rolling comparison i was surprised at.
Standing starts are down to lots of variables and not a great indication.
A rolling start from just 50kph on a wet track and the race stated by a driver's hand signals has lots of variables too. Again the 675 is accelerating on the damp side of the track. Standing starts are down to lots of variables and not a great indication.
The recording doesn't show if they moved off evenly, how much wheelspin there was, and the first shot there is already a huge speed difference.
It's a really poor video to use as a comparison.
Overcast day, differences in road surface conditions and hand signals; the sort of thing that happens with pals.
If I wanted near 100% accurate, I would check out Brookes on Drag times on a matching surface, super sticky track with beams giving times to 1000ths.
If Brookes does indeed get round to a comparison of 765 and 675, I would think it would be the exact same difference in performance.
Thing is, I shall never be on a drag strip; I shall always be on a road with similar conditions as the comparison video.
Wheelspinning said:
Driver101 said:
Wheelspinning said:
It was the rolling comparison i was surprised at.
Standing starts are down to lots of variables and not a great indication.
A rolling start from just 50kph on a wet track and the race stated by a driver's hand signals has lots of variables too. Again the 675 is accelerating on the damp side of the track. Standing starts are down to lots of variables and not a great indication.
The recording doesn't show if they moved off evenly, how much wheelspin there was, and the first shot there is already a huge speed difference.
It's a really poor video to use as a comparison.
Overcast day, differences in road surface conditions and hand signals; the sort of thing that happens with pals.
If I wanted near 100% accurate, I would check out Brookes on Drag times on a matching surface, super sticky track with beams giving times to 1000ths.
If Brookes does indeed get round to a comparison of 765 and 675, I would think it would be the exact same difference in performance.
Thing is, I shall never be on a drag strip; I shall always be on a road with similar conditions as the comparison video.
When you're on a wet road, how often will you be accelerating to 150mph+ in a race with your pals?
The real world element is whoever reacts first, has the most grip, and is willing to keep their foot down to licence losing speeds wins the race.
There is little point in comparing two specific cars if you want to judge performance so loosely.
Do we know what tyres the two cars were on? I agree, the way the 765 got a huge jump right off the line seems either anomalous (if it's due to variation in conditions) or significant (tyres, suspension, launch control?) - either way, surely that can't just be the effect of an extra 90hp.
Driver101 said:
Wheelspinning said:
Driver101 said:
Wheelspinning said:
It was the rolling comparison i was surprised at.
Standing starts are down to lots of variables and not a great indication.
A rolling start from just 50kph on a wet track and the race stated by a driver's hand signals has lots of variables too. Again the 675 is accelerating on the damp side of the track. Standing starts are down to lots of variables and not a great indication.
The recording doesn't show if they moved off evenly, how much wheelspin there was, and the first shot there is already a huge speed difference.
It's a really poor video to use as a comparison.
Overcast day, differences in road surface conditions and hand signals; the sort of thing that happens with pals.
If I wanted near 100% accurate, I would check out Brookes on Drag times on a matching surface, super sticky track with beams giving times to 1000ths.
If Brookes does indeed get round to a comparison of 765 and 675, I would think it would be the exact same difference in performance.
Thing is, I shall never be on a drag strip; I shall always be on a road with similar conditions as the comparison video.
When you're on a wet road, how often will you be accelerating to 150mph+ in a race with your pals?
The real world element is whoever reacts first, has the most grip, and is willing to keep their foot down to licence losing speeds wins the race.
There is little point in comparing two specific cars if you want to judge performance so loosely.
Find someone else to try and argue with.
Wheelspinning said:
You know what; this is why posters like Dave don't post on here anymore.
Find someone else to try and argue with.
I'm not trying to argue. I was trying to discuss the video. It appears to be you contradicting yourself to create an argument out of nothing. Find someone else to try and argue with.
I really don't see what you're getting upset about?
Driver101 said:
I'm not trying to argue. I was trying to discuss the video. It appears to be you contradicting yourself to create an argument out of nothing.
I really don't see what you're getting upset about?
I said the standing starts has to many variables and not very accurate; at no point did i say that i didn't like variables or that i drive at 150mph on the road. You have changed what I have posted to try and create an argument, and now trying to antagonise by stating that I am upset.I really don't see what you're getting upset about?
I did however say I was more interested in the rolling start, real weather conditions and the sort of stuff you do with pals, albeit during managed events.
I also said if I want more accurate stuff, I shall look at drag times.
Is a easy going video clip, no times, usual road and weather conditions, hand signals etc.
Its not a be all and end all video, its light entertainment but, do continue on with your disection.
[quote=Wheelspinning]
To be fair, I wouldn't say 0.3 of a second on a quarter mile and 142mph opposed to 148mph is 'much faster' in most conditions; a bold statement unless you have driven both in 'most conditions'.
Every McLaren i have driven feels warp drive fast, from 540 through to GT.
As 12pack eludes, the difference in performance between his 650 spider compared to a 720 spider doesn't add up to a £100k delta 'upgrade'.
When the guys at McLaren tell me the 765 is a quantum leap and I see on a rolling start from 30mph to 120mph how the driver of the 675 can hardly see the 765 in the distance is staggering.
Still doesn't make me crave the upgrade; the LT is plenty fast enough for me!
Fair point and yes have driven both on track and 675LT also on road.
I don’t think the drag comparison diminishes anything that the 675LT is and for many folks is more than enough it’s just the 765LT and the 720s earlier has just raised the bar.
In the same way the Porsche 992 Turbo has over the 991.2 and presumably so will the GT3RS 992
To be fair, I wouldn't say 0.3 of a second on a quarter mile and 142mph opposed to 148mph is 'much faster' in most conditions; a bold statement unless you have driven both in 'most conditions'.
Every McLaren i have driven feels warp drive fast, from 540 through to GT.
As 12pack eludes, the difference in performance between his 650 spider compared to a 720 spider doesn't add up to a £100k delta 'upgrade'.
When the guys at McLaren tell me the 765 is a quantum leap and I see on a rolling start from 30mph to 120mph how the driver of the 675 can hardly see the 765 in the distance is staggering.
Still doesn't make me crave the upgrade; the LT is plenty fast enough for me!
Fair point and yes have driven both on track and 675LT also on road.
I don’t think the drag comparison diminishes anything that the 675LT is and for many folks is more than enough it’s just the 765LT and the 720s earlier has just raised the bar.
In the same way the Porsche 992 Turbo has over the 991.2 and presumably so will the GT3RS 992
Wheelspinning said:
Driver101 said:
I'm not trying to argue. I was trying to discuss the video. It appears to be you contradicting yourself to create an argument out of nothing.
I really don't see what you're getting upset about?
I said the standing starts has to many variables and not very accurate; at no point did i say that i didn't like variables or that i drive at 150mph on the road. You have changed what I have posted to try and create an argument, and now trying to antagonise by stating that I am upset.I really don't see what you're getting upset about?
I did however say I was more interested in the rolling start, real weather conditions and the sort of stuff you do with pals, albeit during managed events.
I also said if I want more accurate stuff, I shall look at drag times.
Is a easy going video clip, no times, usual road and weather conditions, hand signals etc.
Its not a be all and end all video, its light entertainment but, do continue on with your disection.
The video is pointless. It's one of the worst comparisons I've seen posted. Both times the fastest car started on the dry side and the slower car started on the wet with no traction. It didn't accelerate either time.
I'll leave you to it.
Mclarens are not just about straight line speed in any case, though they are bloody quick.
Besides, in the video posted by the OP it looks like the person driving the 675 didn’t know how to - which also applies to the Shmee videos.
FWIW, my 4 door family car (at our US home) blows away the 765 in a straight line, even on a sticky drag strip. But it is hardly the joy to drive that a Mac is.
9:40
https://youtu.be/dtYXssB2SS0
Besides, in the video posted by the OP it looks like the person driving the 675 didn’t know how to - which also applies to the Shmee videos.
FWIW, my 4 door family car (at our US home) blows away the 765 in a straight line, even on a sticky drag strip. But it is hardly the joy to drive that a Mac is.
9:40
https://youtu.be/dtYXssB2SS0
Edited by 12pack on Sunday 12th December 13:46
This drag strip stuff is irrelevant, does anyone in the UK buy a car on its quarter mile credentials or on its overall performance, feel good factor and ability to enjoy on B roads,
McLaren F1 0-60 3.3 seconds / 0-100 6.3 seconds
McLaren 540C 0-60 3.0 seconds / 0-100 5.8 seconds
Do you think an owner of a £20M F1 road car cares its a tad slower than a 540C?
Do you think anyone would take a 540C over an F1 even if they were equal value? (no disrespect to a 540C, cracking car, just making a point)
I think not.....
McLaren F1 0-60 3.3 seconds / 0-100 6.3 seconds
McLaren 540C 0-60 3.0 seconds / 0-100 5.8 seconds
Do you think an owner of a £20M F1 road car cares its a tad slower than a 540C?
Do you think anyone would take a 540C over an F1 even if they were equal value? (no disrespect to a 540C, cracking car, just making a point)
I think not.....
Quite a lot of misinformation flying around on this thread, fuelled I assume by 675LT preferers ( is that a word ).
The 765LT is a faster car in all areas in comparison to a 675LT, both on track and drag. Also a far better daily road car
Looks wise is personal of course and subjective.
It is however an improvement over the 675, in most areas as you would expect of a newer improved design.
A nice specced 675LT is still North of £200k whereas a 765LT is / was £280k and came as standard with a high spec.
The 765LT is a faster car in all areas in comparison to a 675LT, both on track and drag. Also a far better daily road car
Looks wise is personal of course and subjective.
It is however an improvement over the 675, in most areas as you would expect of a newer improved design.
A nice specced 675LT is still North of £200k whereas a 765LT is / was £280k and came as standard with a high spec.
Gassing Station | McLaren | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff