the first mp4-12c drive reviews have just hit the automotive press (and reiterating a lot of what I said they'd say... teehee... oh the old thread can't be responded to, it was idle for 90 days... but you can find it if you care)

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-video/mclaren-mp4-12c-driven-jenson-button-video/
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evocarreviews/263737/new_mclaren_mp412c_review.html
http://www.pistonheads.com/news/default.asp?storyId=23182

2/15/2011 9:10:57 PM

Wait what happened to your boycott of coverage on cars that cost too much for your purchasing power?

2/15/2011 9:27:48 PM

want

2/15/2011 9:53:20 PM

I dont know if any person that is even remotely a car guy didn't wonder how much better will this thing be then the ferraris, Who according to some journalists rig their press cars for better numbers.

2/15/2011 10:13:02 PM

It's claimed to be the best handling sports car ever. And just by the numbers alone it beats the Ferrari in every category. Not to mention it looks better.

Win win!

2/15/2011 10:45:03 PM

numbers are static. Put it on a dynamic track and show/prove to me what you say is true.

2/15/2011 11:00:26 PM

Read the reviews listed and you'll agree. Also, its apparently the fastest car to 120 mph short of a Veyron according to Autoblog.

2/16/2011 12:11:19 AM

Ahmet... Go read what I said in the old thread. Nothing inconsistent with the anti-millionaires cars sentiment. I wanted the mclaren to be a sort of high precision noble m400 by spearheading a campaign for low mass over outright performance, not a mclaren f1 for a third the cost because of diminishing cost of tech over 15-20 years.

2/16/2011 1:57:25 AM

^^ many low volume supercars will beat it to 120 mph other than the Veyron. Ascari, Noble, Ariel Atom V8, etc. And I am sure a car with 800+ hp weighing almost the same SHOULD be quicker (Koeniggsegg). heck, the latest 997 turbo should kill it if it can do 0-60 in 2.8 seconds (2.7?) and the mclaren takes 3 seconds. that gap should only widen at higher speeds, esp considering the porsche is awd.

2/16/2011 5:41:42 AM

^huh? After the intial launch and up to 30-40 mph AWD is nothing but a disadvantage in acceleration thanks to the extra weight. Definitely not an advantage.

2/16/2011 8:35:17 AM

Quote :

"that gap should only widen at higher speeds, esp considering the porsche is awd"

wat

2/16/2011 8:55:47 AM

I strongly suspect, while the difference is academic, that the mp4-12c is the real-world quicker car than the 911 turbo. both are able to crack off 10.9 second quarter miles, but the mclaren is supposed to run 134 mph trap speed in the qtr while the 911 turbo managed it at only 126 mph according to motor trend...(not that mt is anyone special.. just the first one I saw with time and mph for the qtr.)...

It's interesting that so much is made of the mclaren having brake-steer... doesn't seem all that ground-breaking when so many other manufacturers who have marketed it as "torque vectoring" or "brake-differential" to justify not fitting an LSD. But that is the case here too, although Mclaren certainly is going to get enough money for their cars to not need to avoid fitting an LSD.The lack of anti-roll bars is cool, I guess it must be able to tailor hydraulic damping rates based on roll-sensing accelerometers ... is there a deflection-related spring-force-like function to the system which can be made stiffer at each wheel ? I'm not sure how purely varying damping constant would allow for roll-mitigation otherwise, since damping is velocity-reactive, not displacement....

It is nifty that this car can pull off these numbers without awd and without nearly as much power as some of its competitors... It does really show that manufacturer r&d might really does allow for significant ability to offset less advantageous outright numbers and shows how modest koenigsegg's and pagani's abilities really are...

still...for me there's no getting past the fact the driver is on the left side instead of in the middle, and while it looks great it isn't really all that special to look at, and that it really just amounts to a numbers-embarassment machine for ferrari, and that it doesn't offer a manual...

someone made a good point in the honda thread about how many of us bought a new honda of any kind, let alone a sports car. What is it about enthusiasts that makes us such cheapskates that way? I adore porsche boxsters and caymans, and yet I'm not thinking about how I might be able to live off of campbell's soup and saltines for a few years and turn off my cable to buy a new one. Instead I'm thinking about how much I like even the earliest '98 with the 2.5L and barely 200 hp enough to pay $4k-$5k over the trade-in of our miata to get one with 120k miles. Did the guy who bought it new feel that way? What is it about people who love to really thrash a car and seek the envelope makes them such cheapskates? Is it the prospect of the ridiculously higher risk of loss in breaking a new car?

2/16/2011 10:08:58 AM

it seems like the people on here who could feasibly drop ~$50k on a car are smart enough to realize that their money would go a lot further on a model that is a few years old rather than a brand new whatever. it also seems like your average garage poster would rather spend say $14k on an OK e46 m3 than they would on a pristine 330i. it's all about bang for your buck. furthermore, most guys on here are competent DIYers.

also the new mclaren is sick. it almost seems too good which might be why it seems so impersonal to reviewers.

2/16/2011 10:48:23 AM

Quote :

"still...for me there's no getting past the fact the driver is on the left side instead of in the middle, and while it looks great it isn't really all that special to look at, and that it really just amounts to a numbers-embarassment machine for ferrari, and that it doesn't offer a manual..."

Not sure if it's enough of a difference to you, but notice that McLaren intentionally made the center consol as narrow as possible so that both passengers could sit as far inboard as possible. That helps visibility and center of gravity. Also, Ferrari doesn't offer a manual anymore...and I'm sure Lamborghini is just around the corner

As far as being cheapsakes, its moreso that we're being smart. We all love higher performing vehicles but unfortunately they usually cost a significant amount of money out of the box. So buying used is really the only option.

2/16/2011 10:53:37 AM

Pretty cool

http://www.evo.co.uk/features/features/260185/mclaren_mp412c_review_countdown_mclaren_f1_v_mp412c.html

McLaren F1 v MP4-12C

How different is McLaren's road-car philosophy today compared with two decades ago? John Simister compares the F1 with the company's new supercar to find out

2/16/2011 12:31:22 PM

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703584804576144413370548144.html?KEYWORDS=mclaren

Article from Wall Stree Journal entitled "The Best Sports Car, and Why to Skip It"

2/20/2011 12:40:20 PM

Too many words and trying to sound literary and gain an audience by saying an awesome car sucks...
I really hate the press.

That article is a journalist who felt shunned and diminished by a CEO and decided to write that despite the awesomeness of the car... he thinks its soul-less in comparison to a Ferrari.

2/20/2011 2:00:19 PM

I mean it's the same thing the guy from evo said. I think they're both right. It's the same reason people choose a GT3 over a Turbo more or less.

2/20/2011 8:14:09 PM

Quote :

"Also, its apparently the fastest car to 120 mph short of a Veyron according to Autoblog."

The McLaren takes what, 8.5 to 9 seconds for 0-120 mph? A new contender has entered the arena:

[Veron, 0-124 mph = 7.3 seconds]

Koenigsegg Agera R, 0-125 mph in 7.5 seconds

And it looks much much better and unique-r than this McLaren. Performance on a track, it is anybody's guess.

Extremely HAWT!
http://www.autoblog.com/photos/koenigsegg-agera-r/full/

3/2/2011 1:35:22 PM