MP4-12C driven
Discussion
Well I've driven it now, on a combination of motorways, city streets, and clear windy Swiss country roads.
For a start, it's very, very quick, and absolutely burying the throttle with all the settings on "track" will see it break traction nicely
The way it puts on speed is a bit unnerving, the acceleration is so smooth and seamless, and I found myself frequently glancing at the speedo and asking "how much???!!!". Corners don't seem to phase it either, you can carry ridiculous speeds through them and the steering weights up very nicely and gives you the sense of balancing the whole car very accurately and delicately on the steering boss.
There is a deep and powerful rumbling note from the exhaust/induction, which is much more notable standing outside the car than sitting in it.
The ride is very supple and it soaks up surface irregularities and keeps the car poised through areas of changing road camber at speed.
For me, there is a big "however". It is simply too easy to drive very, very quickly, and the soundtrack is pretty uninspiring (the car I tried had the sports exhaust). The "pre-cog" style paddle shifters, which in effect require you to give the paddles a really positive tug, took some getting used to and I prefer the delicate snick type of paddle.
There's a track event coming up, and the car does have such a broad spread of abilities that it might be unfair to judge it without including the track, but I'm sure I've read that McL promote the 12C as an everyday useable supercar.
So I'm glad to have driven it, and confirmed it did nothing really for me in current form. Perhaps the GTR version next year will make the car more difficult to drive and more characterful. I hope so.
Anyway, here are a few pics:
For a start, it's very, very quick, and absolutely burying the throttle with all the settings on "track" will see it break traction nicely
The way it puts on speed is a bit unnerving, the acceleration is so smooth and seamless, and I found myself frequently glancing at the speedo and asking "how much???!!!". Corners don't seem to phase it either, you can carry ridiculous speeds through them and the steering weights up very nicely and gives you the sense of balancing the whole car very accurately and delicately on the steering boss.
There is a deep and powerful rumbling note from the exhaust/induction, which is much more notable standing outside the car than sitting in it.
The ride is very supple and it soaks up surface irregularities and keeps the car poised through areas of changing road camber at speed.
For me, there is a big "however". It is simply too easy to drive very, very quickly, and the soundtrack is pretty uninspiring (the car I tried had the sports exhaust). The "pre-cog" style paddle shifters, which in effect require you to give the paddles a really positive tug, took some getting used to and I prefer the delicate snick type of paddle.
There's a track event coming up, and the car does have such a broad spread of abilities that it might be unfair to judge it without including the track, but I'm sure I've read that McL promote the 12C as an everyday useable supercar.
So I'm glad to have driven it, and confirmed it did nothing really for me in current form. Perhaps the GTR version next year will make the car more difficult to drive and more characterful. I hope so.
Anyway, here are a few pics:
Mini1275 said:
Wait, you want it to be more difficult to drive?.
How is being easy to drive a bad thing?.
Obviously I haven't driven it so can't comment, it just seems a little strange to me
.
Same thoughts here. How is being easy to drive a bad thing?.
Obviously I haven't driven it so can't comment, it just seems a little strange to me
.For years press critique cars for being to harsh, twitchy, dodgy power delivery, hard work etc. A car comes along that seems to have all these points well and truly sorted and people don't evidently want these rectified after all.
NotNormal said:
Mini1275 said:
Wait, you want it to be more difficult to drive?.
How is being easy to drive a bad thing?.
Obviously I haven't driven it so can't comment, it just seems a little strange to me.
Same thoughts here. How is being easy to drive a bad thing?.
Obviously I haven't driven it so can't comment, it just seems a little strange to me
.For years press critique cars for being to harsh, twitchy, dodgy power delivery, hard work etc. A car comes along that seems to have all these points well and truly sorted and people don't evidently want these rectified after all.
mikearwas said:
Andrew how did the feel of acceleration compare to your 599GTO? By that I mean which car felt more savage in a straight line?
Mike, the acceleration didn't feel savage at all - it was very smooth and relentless, to the extent that I was surprised on many occasions just how quickly we were going. The GTO *feels* and certainly sounds more savage but I'd guess there's not actually a lot in it if one were to look at the figures in the real world
Mini1275 said:
Wait, you want it to be more difficult to drive?.
How is being easy to drive a bad thing?.
A perfect car that is easy will last all of a few weeks. A flawed one that requires wielding, asks the driver questions, calls him more into the equation and forever eludes him from 100% perfect harmony, willl endure for a lifetime. How is being easy to drive a bad thing?.
I thought everyone knew this though ..... ? Or is PH now just a gathering point for ex audi TT owners ?
AndrewD said:
Mike, the acceleration didn't feel savage at all - it was very smooth and relentless, to the extent that I was surprised on many occasions just how quickly we were going. The GTO *feels* and certainly sounds more savage but I'd guess there's not actually a lot in it if one were to look at the figures in the real world
Thanks for that mate. To be perfectly honest it doesn't really seem a patch on your car in terms of actually 'being' a supercar. However i suppose the 458 is its true competitor. Do you have one of those as well? If so same question. It always interests me to get behind the numbers and hear an opinion from an indepedent source so thankyou for your rightup!NotNormal said:
Same thoughts here.
For years press critique cars for being to harsh, twitchy, dodgy power delivery, hard work etc. A car comes along that seems to have all these points well and truly sorted and people don't evidently want these rectified after all.
Want to make something clear here straight away - am not having a pop at the OP, and totally respect his opinions on the cars he owns and drives. I'm also an enthusiast who's never driven any of the vehicles in question on this forum, so don't listen to me unless you care what a Renault Megane coupe owner thinks!For years press critique cars for being to harsh, twitchy, dodgy power delivery, hard work etc. A car comes along that seems to have all these points well and truly sorted and people don't evidently want these rectified after all.
Having said all that, I'm always baffled when a car is criticised for being 'too easy to drive'. Why is this a bad thing? By common consensus, something like a Mclaren F1 near the limit is pretty much out of control, yet this is apparently considered a good thing as the car 'demands respect' etc. As far as I can tell, the 458 is as easy to drive as the MP4-12C, but the Ferrari seems 'better' because it sounds and looks nicer (both very objective criteria in the real world). But has anyone ever criticised the 458 for being too easy to drive? I was totally baffled recently when Richard Hammond stated that the Aventador was too clinical and easy to drive - a car that ticks every box for visual and aural drama as far as I'm concerned!
Years ago Evo did a brilliant feature in Europe with the Veyron, Enzo, Zonda and Carrera GT. Obviously the Veyron wasted everything else in terms of sheer speed, but even though it was also surprisingly good as a driver's car, it was ultimately damned with faint praise because it was (to paraphrase very loosely from memory) as easy to drive as a flappy-paddle equipped Golf! So, the Enzo pilot who was concentrating hard at the ragged edge and whose mirrors were full of Veyron, was still enjoying a purer experience than the Bugatti driver who was effortlessly monstering him without even breaking sweat!
Like I said, I just don't get it. Have we gone rose-tinted for an age when cars were 'better' because clutches were heavy, steering agricultural, visibility non-existent, and vehicles were magnetically attracted to walls and hedgerows unless driven by those with the oversteering ability of Gilles Villeneuve?! It seems to come down to a weird sort of logic whereby if a 'supercar' is usable everyday, then it isn't truly a supercar - and the Mclaren can be lumped in with the R8, 911 Turbo etc. In other words, they're excellent but clinical and therefore not special enough to be considered great. Could we therefore say that the MP4-12C is a modern day Honda nsx? That car used to be considered as good as, if not better than, the equivalent Ferrari, yet the name and heritage of the Ferrari still tipped the balance in terms of desirability.
coyft said:
I just don't get it, the systems in the Mclaren deliver a "too easy to drive experience", on the other the Ferrari's systems deliver "one of the great automotive experiences".
I think the reality is both cars are very easy to drive quickly, but the GTO fools you into thinking you're doing more of the work.
Have you driven both cars or just surmising?I think the reality is both cars are very easy to drive quickly, but the GTO fools you into thinking you're doing more of the work.
Edited by coyft on Sunday 21st August 13:32
It's not just about systems. The basic architecture of the cars is very different. I'd hope Chris Harris, and to a lesser extent me, are experienced enough to realise if we're being "fooled"
being too easy to drive = boring
assuming you have more than one car, what the point in your mac/ferrari/lambo feeling like a merc or bmw etc. i have never driven a german car that has felt alive even sls merc. like another post on here with someone looking to upgrade from his maser spyder (which is a pretty "average" car technically) there isnt much out there that feels raw/fun and a bit of a challenge
its like in planes the airbus vs boeing argument. Boeing still make pilots fly the plane to an extent and there is more feel. airbus is totally fly by wire and computer overrides. Now neither of these are designed for fun but my point is we are at the stage where computers are controlling systems and the cars abilities are so high that under normal circumstances they are just not working hard enough or givig enough feedback to give you any buzz. i was told my california is more fun than a 458 for this reason (not sure myself and i would still prefer a 458) but ultimately you want something with a smile/x factor from the feel of the controls to the noise and experience.
assuming you have more than one car, what the point in your mac/ferrari/lambo feeling like a merc or bmw etc. i have never driven a german car that has felt alive even sls merc. like another post on here with someone looking to upgrade from his maser spyder (which is a pretty "average" car technically) there isnt much out there that feels raw/fun and a bit of a challenge
its like in planes the airbus vs boeing argument. Boeing still make pilots fly the plane to an extent and there is more feel. airbus is totally fly by wire and computer overrides. Now neither of these are designed for fun but my point is we are at the stage where computers are controlling systems and the cars abilities are so high that under normal circumstances they are just not working hard enough or givig enough feedback to give you any buzz. i was told my california is more fun than a 458 for this reason (not sure myself and i would still prefer a 458) but ultimately you want something with a smile/x factor from the feel of the controls to the noise and experience.
BelfastBoy said:
Want to make something clear here straight away - am not having a pop at the OP, and totally respect his opinions on the cars he owns and drives. I'm also an enthusiast who's never driven any of the vehicles in question on this forum, so don't listen to me unless you care what a Renault Megane coupe owner thinks!
Having said all that, I'm always baffled when a car is criticised for being 'too easy to drive'. Why is this a bad thing? By common consensus, something like a Mclaren F1 near the limit is pretty much out of control, yet this is apparently considered a good thing as the car 'demands respect' etc. As far as I can tell, the 458 is as easy to drive as the MP4-12C, but the Ferrari seems 'better' because it sounds and looks nicer (both very objective criteria in the real world). But has anyone ever criticised the 458 for being too easy to drive? I was totally baffled recently when Richard Hammond stated that the Aventador was too clinical and easy to drive - a car that ticks every box for visual and aural drama as far as I'm concerned!
Years ago Evo did a brilliant feature in Europe with the Veyron, Enzo, Zonda and Carrera GT. Obviously the Veyron wasted everything else in terms of sheer speed, but even though it was also surprisingly good as a driver's car, it was ultimately damned with faint praise because it was (to paraphrase very loosely from memory) as easy to drive as a flappy-paddle equipped Golf! So, the Enzo pilot who was concentrating hard at the ragged edge and whose mirrors were full of Veyron, was still enjoying a purer experience than the Bugatti driver who was effortlessly monstering him without even breaking sweat!
Like I said, I just don't get it. Have we gone rose-tinted for an age when cars were 'better' because clutches were heavy, steering agricultural, visibility non-existent, and vehicles were magnetically attracted to walls and hedgerows unless driven by those with the oversteering ability of Gilles Villeneuve?! It seems to come down to a weird sort of logic whereby if a 'supercar' is usable everyday, then it isn't truly a supercar - and the Mclaren can be lumped in with the R8, 911 Turbo etc. In other words, they're excellent but clinical and therefore not special enough to be considered great. Could we therefore say that the MP4-12C is a modern day Honda nsx? That car used to be considered as good as, if not better than, the equivalent Ferrari, yet the name and heritage of the Ferrari still tipped the balance in terms of desirability.
Did you skip my post ? It explains all. Not sure what sort of a driver you are and your level of experience but most people get to a point where ultra competent cars that do it all for you and remove your skill levels from the proceedings are unrewarding and a bit shallow after a while. And you are wrong, lots of people have criticised the 458 for being too competent and most people ive spoken with prefer the scuderia. Why do you think so many people still hoon around in 40 year old porsches with crappy semi trailing arms at the rear and with a stromg propensity to throw you off into hedges. Look at the driver orientated jounos like Meaden et al. and see how they own cars like the 964rs ... Hard as nails, pig-mannered and recalcitrant but oh so rewarding. A proper drivers car should only give out whats put in.Having said all that, I'm always baffled when a car is criticised for being 'too easy to drive'. Why is this a bad thing? By common consensus, something like a Mclaren F1 near the limit is pretty much out of control, yet this is apparently considered a good thing as the car 'demands respect' etc. As far as I can tell, the 458 is as easy to drive as the MP4-12C, but the Ferrari seems 'better' because it sounds and looks nicer (both very objective criteria in the real world). But has anyone ever criticised the 458 for being too easy to drive? I was totally baffled recently when Richard Hammond stated that the Aventador was too clinical and easy to drive - a car that ticks every box for visual and aural drama as far as I'm concerned!
Years ago Evo did a brilliant feature in Europe with the Veyron, Enzo, Zonda and Carrera GT. Obviously the Veyron wasted everything else in terms of sheer speed, but even though it was also surprisingly good as a driver's car, it was ultimately damned with faint praise because it was (to paraphrase very loosely from memory) as easy to drive as a flappy-paddle equipped Golf! So, the Enzo pilot who was concentrating hard at the ragged edge and whose mirrors were full of Veyron, was still enjoying a purer experience than the Bugatti driver who was effortlessly monstering him without even breaking sweat!
Like I said, I just don't get it. Have we gone rose-tinted for an age when cars were 'better' because clutches were heavy, steering agricultural, visibility non-existent, and vehicles were magnetically attracted to walls and hedgerows unless driven by those with the oversteering ability of Gilles Villeneuve?! It seems to come down to a weird sort of logic whereby if a 'supercar' is usable everyday, then it isn't truly a supercar - and the Mclaren can be lumped in with the R8, 911 Turbo etc. In other words, they're excellent but clinical and therefore not special enough to be considered great. Could we therefore say that the MP4-12C is a modern day Honda nsx? That car used to be considered as good as, if not better than, the equivalent Ferrari, yet the name and heritage of the Ferrari still tipped the balance in terms of desirability.
jackal said:
Did you skip my post ? It explains all. Not sure what sort of a driver you are and your level of experience but most people get to a point where ultra competent cars that do it all for you and remove your skill levels from the proceedings are unrewarding and a bit shallow after a while. And you are wrong, lots of people have criticised the 458 for being too competent and most people ive spoken with prefer the scuderia. Why do you think so many people still hoon around in 40 year old porsches with crappy semi trailing arms at the rear and with a stromg propensity to throw you off into hedges. Look at the driver orientated jounos like Meaden et al. and see how they own cars like the 964rs ... Hard as nails, pig-mannered and recalcitrant but oh so rewarding. A proper drivers car should only give out whats put in.
I read your earlier post but really appreciate the clarification. Personally, I'd respectfully disagree, but that's just me. (Given my circumstances, I'm a dreamer who won't get the chance to drive any supercar unless my numbers come up sometime!) Here's a scenario though: Mclaren F1 and MP4-12C in the real world, on one of those twisty turny roads so beloved of journalists and enthusiasts. In the hands of most of us, I'm sure the MP4-12C would be faster, it's ease of use making it inspire more confidence, and it's more modern engineering and technology helping it round the corners and staying on the road. Which driver would be having the most fun though? This is where we'll probably disagree. Why does the experience have to be tainted if driver aids are involved? Does that make the MP4-12C less fun to drive? The F1 driver could well be terrified by unpredictable oversteer, heavy steering, a lack of brake feel, and a car that bites without warning. Yes, the F1 is up there as an ultimate pure driver's car, but I'm going to be honest here - the car's sheer value would be intimidating enough, but it was never intended to be an easy car to drive. How many of us would ever be good enough drivers to fully appreciate such a car? There has to be a fine line between 'rewarding' and 'frustrating'. Many armchair enthusiasts would still laud the F1 for the purity and lack of driver aids, but in the real world, the vast majority of normal drivers will have more fun in the car that inspires confidence straight away. If that makes me sound naive or missing the point, so be it. My personal perspective is that, if a car is 'easy to drive', this shouldn't have to be a bad thing in terms of having fun. Jackal - I'm sure you'll disagree but hopefully I've managed to explain my own thoughts a bit better.Gassing Station | Supercar General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff