RE: Ford designer takes creative reins at McLaren
Sunday 12th April
Ford designer takes creative reins at McLaren
There is apparently no shortage of design work to be done in Woking - now McLaren says it has found the man to do it
According to reports elsewhere on the internet, McLaren is quietly riding the crest of a new and beautiful wave. Its merger with Forseven - allegedly a ‘luxury startup’ in its own right, though its website now redirects to a McLaren press release - resulted less in the mass exodus of senior staff (though of course its CEO had to go, among others) and more in an optimistic new era of investment and lineup diversification. And while its updated product strategy never materialised last year, we’re promised a deeper dive into what’s on the chopping board this summer.
Into this hive of activity (and to replace Tobias Sühlmann, the design boss who followed Michael Leiters to Porsche), steps Kemal Curic, formerly the Global Design Director for Performance Vehicles at Ford. If you’re inclined to think ‘what Performance Vehicles’ based on the conspicuous lack of grunt among so many Blue Oval EVs, rest assured that Curic has been at Ford sufficiently long for him to be credited with the exterior styling of the S550-gen Mustang - i.e. the one that finally covered itself in worldwide, right-hand-drive glory.
Moreover, he’ll have seen plenty of SUVs and Baja-grade pickups in his time, experience that ought to come in handy as McLaren seeks to go places it actively avoided before. As you might expect for someone assuming the title of Chief Design Officer, at McLaren his remit will include interiors, exteriors, CMF and digital design, and he will ultimately be responsible for the creative direction of the brand (presumably in conjunction with Alister Whelan, who was appointed as CCO just last year).
“McLaren is one of the most respected and aspirational brands in the world. I’m excited to be part of their journey to help shape the design vision of a company so deeply rooted in engineering excellence and racing heritage,” said Curic. “I look forward to working with the talented teams at McLaren to create the next generation of breathtaking, purpose-driven cars.”
Given that his appointment is said to have started this month, it will obviously take some time for his influence to be felt, meaning that any new product in the short term will be chiefly the work of his predecessor - though it remains to be seen quite how far along McLaren has got with the models it intends to launch prior to 2030. We’re told not to expect anything fully electric, based on unreceptive market conditions, which seems prudent even in the light of Ferrari forging ahead with its own battery-powered flagship.
At any rate, if McLaren is truly basking in the glow of an eight-figure CYVN investment, his in-tray ought to be bulging. His new employer notes the designer’s talent for ‘successfully evolving iconic cars whilst staying true to their heritage’ - a justifiable nod to the Mustang - but an ‘ability to balance innovation and brand authenticity’ will be at the root of his tenure in Surrey. McLaren’s capacity for innovation is hardly in question; its ability to remain true to itself as its range inevitably gets larger and heavier, remains to be seen.
Discussion
It’s interesting seeing the narrative around all the organisational change…sure….there weren’t many senior departures because the majority of the cuts came from the core engineering side of Forseven! Now that Al Whelan has gone from this design director role, I’m not sure anyone from Forseven apart from Mr Collins is really left! Really hope to see McLaren prosper as we need more success in the UK car industry. It is a real shame that the whole Forseven venture effectively died a death.
Seems a strange appointment to me.
Ford really only has several iterations of one super car in its back catalogue.
The pony cars really don’t count.
And are McLaren really talking about suvs? Fords back catalogue there isn’t stellar either.
Mind you the W1 is no looker either……hmmmmm…
I’ll just drool over the P1 and some of the F1 variants….
Ford really only has several iterations of one super car in its back catalogue.
The pony cars really don’t count.
And are McLaren really talking about suvs? Fords back catalogue there isn’t stellar either.
Mind you the W1 is no looker either……hmmmmm…
I’ll just drool over the P1 and some of the F1 variants….
So performance SUV's and a gopping 4*4 then. What has Ford built in the last 20 years stateside (global) of any interest. The GT which was a reworking of the Lola GT40.
No CEO leaves immediately without some unseen calamity. Shame UK PLc seems incapable of keeping hold and running its own automotive industry properly.
However if he ditches the contrived and ugly Logo lights, that would be a start. The MP4C is still the best looking of the modern McLarens
No CEO leaves immediately without some unseen calamity. Shame UK PLc seems incapable of keeping hold and running its own automotive industry properly.
However if he ditches the contrived and ugly Logo lights, that would be a start. The MP4C is still the best looking of the modern McLarens
It baffles me because they HAVE the link to Formula 1. They HAVE the link to F1 Road car. Still widely considered the best hypercar of all time. But it's like the revolving door of CEOs and designers and whoever else are still fixated on "turning it around" by doing everything except turn it around!
Nothing any of them have done in the last 15 years, make me want to buy a McLaren over a Ferrari or Porsche. And whilst I admire the P1. I dont want aspire to one in the same way I aspire to a Carrera GT for the same money (I would of course take an F1 over everything! ) They even race the bloody things in GT4 and GT3 and do pretty well, but it seems even that doesn't create demand big enough to make the company the success it ought to be
Someone cleverer than me needs to do some proper investigative work and find out how, if given unlimited resources, McLaren can make a success of themselves
Nothing any of them have done in the last 15 years, make me want to buy a McLaren over a Ferrari or Porsche. And whilst I admire the P1. I dont want aspire to one in the same way I aspire to a Carrera GT for the same money (I would of course take an F1 over everything! ) They even race the bloody things in GT4 and GT3 and do pretty well, but it seems even that doesn't create demand big enough to make the company the success it ought to be
Someone cleverer than me needs to do some proper investigative work and find out how, if given unlimited resources, McLaren can make a success of themselves
BunkMoreland said:
Someone cleverer than me needs to do some proper investigative work and find out how, if given unlimited resources, McLaren can make a success of themselves
It’s relatively straight forward really…..supercars sell purely on brand image. Less than 1% of owners will have the requisite ability to see beyond the ‘wow it’s quick’ or ‘it handles ‘so well’’. They’d struggle to really tell you subjectively how much better or worse it is compared to a Ferrari, and honestly it only marginally matters as people are not buying 296s or Purosangues because they’re good cars. They’re buying Purosangues because they love Ferrari and their Ferrari dealer promises them a Testarossa if they buy one. It’s even the same for the actual Ferrari Challenge race series. Ever wondered why there’s such a massive field spread and why there’s seemingly nobody you’ve heard of racing in it? Why it’s because if you want to be allowed to order an F80 you ‘have’ to have been a ‘Ferrari clienti’ (racing driver). And what do you know? For only €2m you can do a season in a 296 Challenge and that ‘counts’ :look: Last time I heard they were struggling to sell all the W1 allocations at McLaren.
So realistically, it doesn’t matter how well engineered or developed the next McLaren is, or how much better objectively or/and subjectively their potential new suv is than a Purosangue because almost nobody is actually buying the Ferrari because they want an SUV. They need to focus on making people want the brand, want the halo cars and want the whole ownership experience. Imagine if they’d come up with that F1 LM homage that Gordon Murray did recently. You’d have people fighting to buy Arturas to get the chance to own one.
RacerMike said:
It s relatively straight forward really ..supercars sell purely on brand image. Less than 1% of owners will have the requisite ability to see beyond the wow it s quick or it handles so well . They d struggle to really tell you subjectively how much better or worse it is compared to a Ferrari, and honestly it only marginally matters as people are not buying 296s or Purosangues because they re good cars. They re buying Purosangues because they love Ferrari and their Ferrari dealer promises them a Testarossa if they buy one.
It s even the same for the actual Ferrari Challenge race series. Ever wondered why there s such a massive field spread and why there s seemingly nobody you ve heard of racing in it? Why it s because if you want to be allowed to order an F80 you have to have been a Ferrari clienti (racing driver). And what do you know? For only 2m you can do a season in a 296 Challenge and that counts :look: Last time I heard they were struggling to sell all the W1 allocations at McLaren.
So realistically, it doesn t matter how well engineered or developed the next McLaren is, or how much better objectively or/and subjectively their potential new suv is than a Purosangue because almost nobody is actually buying the Ferrari because they want an SUV. They need to focus on making people want the brand, want the halo cars and want the whole ownership experience. Imagine if they d come up with that F1 LM homage that Gordon Murray did recently. You d have people fighting to buy Arturas to get the chance to own one.
All makes sense.It s even the same for the actual Ferrari Challenge race series. Ever wondered why there s such a massive field spread and why there s seemingly nobody you ve heard of racing in it? Why it s because if you want to be allowed to order an F80 you have to have been a Ferrari clienti (racing driver). And what do you know? For only 2m you can do a season in a 296 Challenge and that counts :look: Last time I heard they were struggling to sell all the W1 allocations at McLaren.
So realistically, it doesn t matter how well engineered or developed the next McLaren is, or how much better objectively or/and subjectively their potential new suv is than a Purosangue because almost nobody is actually buying the Ferrari because they want an SUV. They need to focus on making people want the brand, want the halo cars and want the whole ownership experience. Imagine if they d come up with that F1 LM homage that Gordon Murray did recently. You d have people fighting to buy Arturas to get the chance to own one.
So why arent they?
BunkMoreland said:
RacerMike said:
It s relatively straight forward really ..supercars sell purely on brand image. Less than 1% of owners will have the requisite ability to see beyond the wow it s quick or it handles so well . They d struggle to really tell you subjectively how much better or worse it is compared to a Ferrari, and honestly it only marginally matters as people are not buying 296s or Purosangues because they re good cars. They re buying Purosangues because they love Ferrari and their Ferrari dealer promises them a Testarossa if they buy one.
It s even the same for the actual Ferrari Challenge race series. Ever wondered why there s such a massive field spread and why there s seemingly nobody you ve heard of racing in it? Why it s because if you want to be allowed to order an F80 you have to have been a Ferrari clienti (racing driver). And what do you know? For only 2m you can do a season in a 296 Challenge and that counts :look: Last time I heard they were struggling to sell all the W1 allocations at McLaren.
So realistically, it doesn t matter how well engineered or developed the next McLaren is, or how much better objectively or/and subjectively their potential new suv is than a Purosangue because almost nobody is actually buying the Ferrari because they want an SUV. They need to focus on making people want the brand, want the halo cars and want the whole ownership experience. Imagine if they d come up with that F1 LM homage that Gordon Murray did recently. You d have people fighting to buy Arturas to get the chance to own one.
All makes sense.It s even the same for the actual Ferrari Challenge race series. Ever wondered why there s such a massive field spread and why there s seemingly nobody you ve heard of racing in it? Why it s because if you want to be allowed to order an F80 you have to have been a Ferrari clienti (racing driver). And what do you know? For only 2m you can do a season in a 296 Challenge and that counts :look: Last time I heard they were struggling to sell all the W1 allocations at McLaren.
So realistically, it doesn t matter how well engineered or developed the next McLaren is, or how much better objectively or/and subjectively their potential new suv is than a Purosangue because almost nobody is actually buying the Ferrari because they want an SUV. They need to focus on making people want the brand, want the halo cars and want the whole ownership experience. Imagine if they d come up with that F1 LM homage that Gordon Murray did recently. You d have people fighting to buy Arturas to get the chance to own one.
So why arent they?
Ferrari’s success comes from its unmatched combination of heritage, exclusivity, and brand control. Decades of Formula 1 history, limited production, and a carefully curated ownership experience create intense demand and allow Ferrari to command premium prices and industry-leading margins. Its brand extends beyond cars into a global luxury identity. McLaren, while technologically excellent, lacks the same depth of heritage and emotional resonance. Higher production relative to demand, less brand storytelling, and weaker global recognition mean its cars are judged more on performance alone, limiting pricing power and making the business less consistently profitable.
I’m not even sure if it’s as complex as all that-I think it’s just unfortunately a poorly thought out business model.
The mistakes began right at the very start and have continued ever since.
It’s a shame, another brand in this sector should always be welcomed but if you want an example of what not to do, McLaren have written the blueprint.
The mistakes began right at the very start and have continued ever since.
It’s a shame, another brand in this sector should always be welcomed but if you want an example of what not to do, McLaren have written the blueprint.
pycraft said:
BunkMoreland said:
RacerMike said:
It s relatively straight forward really ..supercars sell purely on brand image. Less than 1% of owners will have the requisite ability to see beyond the wow it s quick or it handles so well . They d struggle to really tell you subjectively how much better or worse it is compared to a Ferrari, and honestly it only marginally matters as people are not buying 296s or Purosangues because they re good cars. They re buying Purosangues because they love Ferrari and their Ferrari dealer promises them a Testarossa if they buy one.
It s even the same for the actual Ferrari Challenge race series. Ever wondered why there s such a massive field spread and why there s seemingly nobody you ve heard of racing in it? Why it s because if you want to be allowed to order an F80 you have to have been a Ferrari clienti (racing driver). And what do you know? For only 2m you can do a season in a 296 Challenge and that counts :look: Last time I heard they were struggling to sell all the W1 allocations at McLaren.
So realistically, it doesn t matter how well engineered or developed the next McLaren is, or how much better objectively or/and subjectively their potential new suv is than a Purosangue because almost nobody is actually buying the Ferrari because they want an SUV. They need to focus on making people want the brand, want the halo cars and want the whole ownership experience. Imagine if they d come up with that F1 LM homage that Gordon Murray did recently. You d have people fighting to buy Arturas to get the chance to own one.
All makes sense.It s even the same for the actual Ferrari Challenge race series. Ever wondered why there s such a massive field spread and why there s seemingly nobody you ve heard of racing in it? Why it s because if you want to be allowed to order an F80 you have to have been a Ferrari clienti (racing driver). And what do you know? For only 2m you can do a season in a 296 Challenge and that counts :look: Last time I heard they were struggling to sell all the W1 allocations at McLaren.
So realistically, it doesn t matter how well engineered or developed the next McLaren is, or how much better objectively or/and subjectively their potential new suv is than a Purosangue because almost nobody is actually buying the Ferrari because they want an SUV. They need to focus on making people want the brand, want the halo cars and want the whole ownership experience. Imagine if they d come up with that F1 LM homage that Gordon Murray did recently. You d have people fighting to buy Arturas to get the chance to own one.
So why arent they?
pycraft said:
BunkMoreland said:
RacerMike said:
It s relatively straight forward really ..supercars sell purely on brand image. Less than 1% of owners will have the requisite ability to see beyond the wow it s quick or it handles so well . They d struggle to really tell you subjectively how much better or worse it is compared to a Ferrari, and honestly it only marginally matters as people are not buying 296s or Purosangues because they re good cars. They re buying Purosangues because they love Ferrari and their Ferrari dealer promises them a Testarossa if they buy one.
It s even the same for the actual Ferrari Challenge race series. Ever wondered why there s such a massive field spread and why there s seemingly nobody you ve heard of racing in it? Why it s because if you want to be allowed to order an F80 you have to have been a Ferrari clienti (racing driver). And what do you know? For only 2m you can do a season in a 296 Challenge and that counts :look: Last time I heard they were struggling to sell all the W1 allocations at McLaren.
So realistically, it doesn t matter how well engineered or developed the next McLaren is, or how much better objectively or/and subjectively their potential new suv is than a Purosangue because almost nobody is actually buying the Ferrari because they want an SUV. They need to focus on making people want the brand, want the halo cars and want the whole ownership experience. Imagine if they d come up with that F1 LM homage that Gordon Murray did recently. You d have people fighting to buy Arturas to get the chance to own one.
All makes sense.It s even the same for the actual Ferrari Challenge race series. Ever wondered why there s such a massive field spread and why there s seemingly nobody you ve heard of racing in it? Why it s because if you want to be allowed to order an F80 you have to have been a Ferrari clienti (racing driver). And what do you know? For only 2m you can do a season in a 296 Challenge and that counts :look: Last time I heard they were struggling to sell all the W1 allocations at McLaren.
So realistically, it doesn t matter how well engineered or developed the next McLaren is, or how much better objectively or/and subjectively their potential new suv is than a Purosangue because almost nobody is actually buying the Ferrari because they want an SUV. They need to focus on making people want the brand, want the halo cars and want the whole ownership experience. Imagine if they d come up with that F1 LM homage that Gordon Murray did recently. You d have people fighting to buy Arturas to get the chance to own one.
So why arent they?
Make the used cars attractive propositions to buy with excellent support & ownership experience and new cars will sell.
Bispal said:
"Driving to Verbier" in their G Wagon though, not the Ferrari as they won't use them for fear of putting on miles. As a McLaren owner I can confirm many owners are amateur (or even pro) racing drivers. I don't think McLaren need to concentrate on the Ferrari 'type' of owners. They are mostly completely different to McLaren owners. What they need to do is embrace their heritage. They only appear interested in selling new cars. They need a Porsche philosophy. Prop up the used market with affordable parts and good availability. Support and run events that include ALL owners and they need to make you feel part of a family. This is 100% what McLaren are missing. They don't appear to care about their legacy cars or owners.
Make the used cars attractive propositions to buy with excellent support & ownership experience and new cars will sell.
Problem is though, with the greatest of respect, you guys aren't sustaining a viable business for McLaren, which is exactly why they need to change. I genuinely feel like at the moment there's too many people at McLaren automotive who are greenlighting and developing cars they want. I.e. they want a drivers car that's nerdy and puts performance ahead of image, but there simply aren't enough people out there who want that...especially when you're at the £200k plus price level.Make the used cars attractive propositions to buy with excellent support & ownership experience and new cars will sell.
McLaren don't seem to have released and sales numbers for last year, but in 2024 they sold around 3000 cars whilst Ferrari sold nearly 14,000! Ferrari are also the most pofitable car company per unit in the world....
I very much feel they're in the same trap as Ineos. They're making cars for a specific type of customer (basically that of the owner or senior directors) which simply isn't a viable model. Whilst I wouldn't suggest they go down the same route as Jaguar, it's the same problem....a few very vocal but loyal owners who never acutally bought the cars new in the first place, but can't cope with the idea of the target marketing not being them.
And personally....as an Amateur/Pro racing driver I'd take the 992 GT3 RS every day given that it's more reliable, better to drive on track and won't loose 90% of it's value in the first month.
rodericb said:
That makes sense too. There's no "swagger" to McLaren and it's all very technical. You'd expect the cakes in the cafeteria to be 3D printed and all very measured after countless hours in testing rigs. Which is great if you like that sort of thing but it's not something which appeals to the more base-level wants and urges of people. If Aston Martin was knocking the cars out I think they'd get a lot more oomph behind 'em.
Can't imagine they'd serve anything as fanciful as cakes. Some kind of synthesised protein paste, maybe. I've known a few people who worked at McLaren over the years (I worked at the Mechanical Engineering dept at the University of Surrey, 4 miles down the road for 20 years), and it sounded like a miserable place to work (the staff turnover was immense). Again, I think tht was down to the management of th time, and exceptional levers of control freakery.
culverp said:
So would this guy have had a say in the design of the new Capri? If so, I feel sorry for Mclaren 
I was scrolling down the comments to see if there was one stupid enough to imply that anybody with a Ford connection cannot be good for McLaren.It didn't take me long to find one such comment.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff