Jalopnik 
Enter your username and password.
-
posts about #mclarensupercar more → 
McLaren MP4-12C: In Detail
1997 McLaren F1 Auctions for $4 Million
Detroit, 11:22 AM
Fri Dec 11
28 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Ray Wert | | AIM
Road Test Editor:
Wes Siler |
Weekend Editor:
Murilee Martin |
Associate Editor - Houston:
Associate Editor - Detroit:
Editor-at-Large:
Contributors:
John Krewson |
| posts about #mclarensupercar more → |
McLaren MP4-12C: In Detail |
1997 McLaren F1 Auctions for $4 Million |
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
For the price range they are quoting, it's an F430 and co. competitor. Basing the comparison purely on performance, lets throw out front engined cars. With the pedigree of the McLaren name, it is going to compete directly with the big boys.
LP560:
552HP @ 8000RPM & 398lb-ft at @6500RPM
3,460lbs
F430:
483HP @ 8500RPM & 343lb-ft @ 5250RPM
3,200lbs
I'll be surprised if this weighs more that 2,500lbs. It is going to trounce the competition.
09/09/09
09/09/09
McLaren renamed the P11 the MP4-12C because it is more difficult to say and that's the trend in supercars now.
F1 inspires the concept, 21st centry demands drive execution, and the '90s drive the styling.
It is the first in a range, so voice your disappointment now so we know what to fix on the next one.
We built our own before, the F1, and then built cars for Mercedes, the SLR McLaren. Now we're going to try to build our own again. Next, we'll build cars for Mercedes.
A revolutionary carbon fibre chassis is used. Carbon fibre has never been used in chassis before. Carbon fiber has.
The car is expected to cost between 125,000 and 175,000 GBP.
The engine will produce about 600 hp and 600 Nm of torques from a 3.8L V8. We point out our hp/CO2 ratio so Greenpeace won't hate us. A 7-speed manumatic with dual clutches and Pre-Cog will be used. I saw Minority Report and now I'm a little scared the car will be as bad as the movie.
We then use "bespoke" as much as possible because that's cool.
A lot of weight was cut. This gives us room for model bloat in the future.
Finally, we repeat ourselves without providing any more useful information. Performance figures and 'Ring time are still being made up.
09/10/09
Now, McLaren, was saying that little so hard? I mean, it gives you a lot more room for PR bloat in the future.
09/09/09
Hmmm....lightweight monocell, relatively svelte 3.8L motor. I am very interested in the curb weight figure, much more so than any performance figures.
09/09/09
If I were leading the project, I'd have made the monocell 13 times more rigid/safe/lightweight/awesome for the same price as the one in the F1. F*** affordability.
09/09/09
The F1 was a V-12, million dollar, unique seating, pioneering hypercar that was the fastest in the world for a decade.
This, well, can't even surpass the F1 in any of the aspects of price, power, acceleration, speed or innovation.
This is merely a Ferrari competitor from McLaren, not a Ferrari destroyer.
09/09/09
Bold claim there, especially since we have no idea what the performance figures are and nobody's reviewed it.
Considering this car appears to be designed as a lighter vehicle, has 95% of the power of the F1, trumps it on price, and innovates on build process, part count, suspension, transmission, and I suspect durability and maintenance, as an engineer I respect this effort much more than being lazy and throwing cost out the window.
So it's not as sexy, big deal. If it can perform it could look like the Mosler Consulier. Okay, well, maybe not that bad.
09/09/09
09/09/09
Still want an F1, however.
09/09/09
Also, 600 HP McLaren + telephone connectivity = wreckedexotics.com photo waiting to happen
09/09/09
09/09/09
I, like Ben, did nerd out somewhat from the appreciation of the engineering involved, but otherwise....meh.
At some point, I ceased giving a damn about what car could go the fastest, stopped caring about making my car go as fast as it could, and got bored of driving as fast as I could at all times (Also, speeding tickets suck).
Instead, I like to focus a little more on the whole package. It doesn't need to be the quickest thing on wheels, it just needs to be able to get up to traffic merging speed with a little sense of alacrity. It doesn't need to be the fastest thing on wheels, it just needs to be able cruise comfortably at 75mph. I'm not looking for super luxury, just comfort. I also like a modicum of practicality. Not minivan practicality, but a little something for when I have to go get groceries. I prefer to have things that are comparatively simple enough that I can buy a Chilton's manual and fix it myself, provided that I have the tools.
Also, flashy is bad. Really bad. As in really expensive ticket really bad.
This car does not meet any of the above criteria. It is a complete and total exercise in excessiveness. I'll grant that it is no where near as obnoxious as that Bugatti monstrosity, however. But even so, this, like all modern Ferraris, Lamborghinis, etc. also lack one key thing that makes them totally unattractive to me: a lack of real, honest-to-god purpose in life. While they are theoretically existentialist little creations, in practice, they are Viagra substitutes. See SLR Douche.
A car must have purpose in it's existence for it to be worthwhile. As much as we love to mock and insult the Toyota Camry, even it has it's purpose: affordable, useful, and reliable transportation for non-car people (i.e., the majority of the population). A car must have purpose.
Failing that, it must be timelessly, twitterpatingly, knock-your-socks-off gorgeous, like a Ferrari 275 or an Aston Martin DBS.
This thing...just kind of misses.
It's a great example of how one can do everything almost perfectly, and still lose.
09/09/09
It does have a purpose, and that is to be the fastest machine around the track.
Mid-engined cars are not meant to be gorgeous, they are meant to be fast. There is nothing so pretty as the flowing lines of a front engined car, but if your design objective is to be fastest at the track, you have to sacrifice beauty. Lambos are ugly, Ferraris are striking but not beautiful, and this is no different.
Think of this car more as an Atom 500 with a body. It will kick the crap out of the overweight competition at the same price point.
09/09/09
Not everything's purpose is immediately obvious, or even tangible for that matter, and isn't that kind of the point of this entire web community?
I by no means am fawning over this car, but if it doesn't move you in some way...you may be on the wrong website.
09/09/09
This may be a McSupercar, from the drive-thru window, but don't knock it because it is fast and you don't see that as a legit purpose.
So I have to ask, what are you doing here?
09/09/09
09/09/09
I was just expecting a "just joking" at the end.
09/09/09
@pauljones: I have found your perfect car...
09/09/09
@jbownsabmw- Koopas Beware: Mid engine cars are not gorgeous?!
09/09/09
Pretty Harsh. I wanted to disagree with you but the more I read on, the more I agreed.
I had the argument run through my head that the purpose for any of these cars is to be on the track.... But then I started thinking. You are right again. I have been to track days and watched these super cars fail. I have heard countless tales of Ford GT's and Murcielago's spinning off the track. There are far better track cars for far less money.
Most of these cars are phallic. If the lines fail then the car of this nature fails.
62' 250 GTO? or DB4?
Well I guess this is evolution?
Hmmm. Well this kinda strips the fun. But I guess I am still excited about it?
Good argument.
09/09/09
@ThreeLitre: I must be pretty boring?
Well, thank you.
I actually, honestly, take no offense to that whatsoever. In fact, I find it quite amusing when someone calls me boring without having the slightest clue as to my background. To me, if someone calls me boring, it simply indicates that they are a little behind me on the life experience curve, as it seems that they have known so little in life as to lack an appreciation for diversity in life, as well as the fact that there are other things in life than cars. As shocking an epiphany as that might be, it is nevertheless true.
Also, if you'll mind your reading comprehension and look a little more closely, you'll note that I did show an appreciation of the car from an engineering standpoint. I also did not indicate that I lusted after a Camry, but rather that I give the Camry due credit for having a focused purpose, sticking to that purpose over two decades, and continually doing an exemplary job of fulfilling its purpose. It is a simple acknowledgment, not an indication of desire.
If you cannot take the necessary moment to ensure that you comprehend the post that you are reading and thusly reply somewhat intelligently to it, you may be on the wrong site.
@Jodark: Being a starred commenter has less to do with parroting the words "speed" and "hoonage" and more to do with making an attempt to contribute either intelligently or humorously.
09/09/09
The tone of your post was one of indignation toward anything that did not have immediately-obvious practicality, and it shone through brightly. This is a $200,000 mid-engine supercar. It might not haul your groceries like a Volvo wagon, but it'll haul other things.
Finally, I don't know where you get off thinking you are so intelligent by stating that anyone who calls you boring is therefore obviously "a little behind me on the life experience curve...[and] have known so little in life as to lack an appreciation for diversity in life."
I no longer think you are just boring. I think you are pompous.
Is my tone coming through clearly?
09/09/09
It just doesn't strike me as being interesting.
It's just another me-too super car in a field of dozens of similar cars with similar performance an similar looks. An untrained eye would never be able to distinguish this from a Noble M600, Saleen S7, Mosler MT900, and all the other cars in the endless super car field.
When it gets to that point, new entries into the field are about as exciting as seeing a new Camry competitor. Nobody really cares, and it won't be driving dynamics that determine sales leader, but rather the price.
Similarly, it really won't be the performance the determines the best-selling super car. It will be the "exclusivity" (read: highest price) that will determine the most successful of the bunch. And as it happens, they are all so similar in looks in and performance, that if you've seen one, you've seen them all; just like a "special-edition" Mustang.
Now, on the other hand, if they were to go nuts and bring us something that we don't see everyday, I might be a little more enthusiastic for the sheer novelty of it.
09/09/09
09/09/09
The Caymen is a decent looking car, but it doesn't make my heart skip a beat like an Aston or a Maserati.
I love the Caymen, but I doubt there are many people who have it as their only car.
Every mid-engined car, even the Caymen, sacrifices practicality for performance.
I'm going to finish with this:
Unlike some of the other responses you received I am not questioning your sanity or your place at Jalopnik. You are undoubtedly one of the best commenters here and I understand your point. I simply disagree.
09/09/09
In order to demonstrate how ridiculous your initial assertion was, I made an equally ridiculous assertion.
Now gauge what your reaction to that was, and see if you can't gain a little insight as to what my reaction might have been.
We both could have chosen our words a little more carefully.
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
09/09/09
GVW?
HP?
Drivetrain?
09/09/09
You are, sir, bang-on in your analysis. Supercars, in my experience, fail to deliver as much excitement in 30%tile driving scenarios as "regular" cars.
For example, when I'm at work, and have to head into town to licence a car, and I have two of our demonstrators to choose from, do I go for a Smart or the SLK 55 AMG?
Smart every time.
Supercar:- Fun above 8/10ths only.
Being able to reach a cars limits at low velocites is at least equally rewarding.
09/09/09
HP...550 @ 6500 rpm
Valvetrain....Double-overhead camshaft w/4 valves per cylinder.
Torque....500 lb.-ft. @ 3750 rpm.
09/09/09
09/09/09
I really like this McLaren...it's smiling at me.
09/09/09
09/09/09
This car is gonna keep me up at night thinking of ways to get $300,000.
I have a spare kidney, and DCT means I only need one foot...
09/09/09
And yes, this is also very reminiscent of the Ferrari 458 form.