Even though you represent a different view point, I very much appreciate the depth and purpose of your statements. Very well written as well... ever send an application to the auto mags?
I know they haven't posted weights, but I just don't like the people calling this an also-ran.
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.
The ePRS (US Patent No. c11077983) reduced the press release to this:
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.
"The design of the standard cast alloy wheels (19" front, 20" rear) was driven by McLaren's light weight objectives: the light weight styling was agreed in concept, then the wheel was tuned using Finite Element Analysis to take a further 4 kg out of the wheels."
Hmmm....lightweight monocell, relatively svelte 3.8L motor. I am very interested in the curb weight figure, much more so than any performance figures.
"To put it all in perspective, the MP4-12C's monocell is 13 times less expensive to build than the one in the McLaren F1."
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.
@Mobius: "This, well, can't even surpass the F1 in any of the aspects of price, power, acceleration, speed or innovation."
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.
Well, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go check my pulse, as this just isn't doing anything for me.
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.
@pauljones: How are you going to attack the practicality of a mid-engined supercar? Everyone knows it has no practical applications to your every day life. If you have this car, you drive a s550 to your banking job on a regular basis and pull out the McLaren for track days.
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.
@pauljones: you must be pretty boring in real life if you take everything that serious. Cars like this can also inspire us to improve the ho-hum appliance you seem to lust after so badly.
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.
@pauljones: This car's purpose is speed. While it accomplishes it in a different way than others, the fact that you are a starred commentor yet can't clearly see that "Speed" and "Hoonage" is a legitimate purpose for these cars.
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.
@pauljones: Ha! You're very good at this "trolling" stuff. Not only did you get 100-word responses, they were also filled with passionate anger!No, but really, you're entitled to your own opinion and all that crap.
@pauljones:
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?
@jbownsabmw- Koopas Beware: I can attack the practicality of a mid-engined car all I want; the fact is that there have been, and currently are, vastly more practical mid-engined cars in production. The Cayman is the shining example of that. It is a mid-engined, hands-down sports car, yet, oddly enough, has an unusually large amount of luggage space, and even more oddly, is not purposed as being the fastest car around the track. I would also argue that it is an attractive little car.
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.
@pauljones: I did see you compliment its engineering, but if you don't think that there is such a thing called 'tone' to writing...
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.
@FBJ: :::::::::: Once in a while, even I like to have a little fun with the commentariat. I admit to embellishing it just a little, but at the same time, it does still reflect my general feelings towards the car.
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.
@pauljones: The Caymen makes an adequate grocery getter, but it doesn't have a lot of storage space. You could fit an overhead suitcase in the rear cargo area, and that is impressive, but you would live a lonely life if it was your only car. You can't take a friend on a trip, you cant go golfing, and you probably can't even pick up a box from Ikea. I can do all of these things in my 135i, which has nearly the same dimensions as the Caymen.
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.
@Neener: I will concede this one example. It is, however, the only one that qualifies in my most humble opinion, so save your google fingers trying to find others. Hearty clicky for you.
@pauljones: While I do like the lines, I have an aversion to these supecars specifically for those reasons. I suppose there was a day when slamming my manual (in my Pinto and TC-3) into the next gear and dropping the clutch was the thing to do. It should be expected we get a bit more utilitarian as we age. This is not to say I don't appreciate a nice sports car; they just don't do it for me. Pretty, fast, capable at high speeds; they are not suitable for most to drive on city streets, are out of reach for most, and mostly because they all really look the same. When someone comes out with a new and revolutionary shape that, to everyones' surprise, is more aerodynamic and efficient, I'll be the first to congratulate them. Otherwise, I'm yawning too.
@pauljones: Is there a box I can tick here to subscribe to your newsletter?
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.
The syling is smooth with some clear F1 lineage. It also carries impressive numbers for an "entry level" McLaren.I understand that electronic control can outperfom even the best of us, but I can't be the only Jalop that laments the lack of a third pedal.Sometimes it's less about raw numbers, and more about how the car feels to drive, and there is something so pure about disengaging the driveline with your left foot while selecting the next cog with a lever on the console.Save the clutch pedals!
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
Aside from the fact you can get a Suzuki Reno in the same color, at first glance this new McLaren presses all the right buttons for me.
It's not as nice-looking as an Evora or Ascari, but it does work.
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...