458 Italia vs McLaren MP4 Blighty - The UK press decides

Now we're getting somewhere

You believe EVO times for all the cars. EVO is your car bible, your guiding light.

In the most recent EVO issue, i think they compare the track times of the 458 to the 12C (I honestly haven't seen it). What are they?

And if you suspect that the 458 was a ringer, whereas the 12C was not: why did EVO not suspect the same thing, and cry foul? Why continue to believe a magazine that must therefore be hiding the "facts" ????

 

B/c they never do? B/c they want sell papers to fanboys like yourself who will believe anything.

 

Well said. This post wins the 'panties in a wad over nothing' award.

 

And yet, you BELIEVE their lap times for ALL the cars they test?

You REALLY don't see the contradiction here, in your religious-like faith in EVO ???

You have JUST stated that you believe their lap times for ALL the cars. The very next thing, you're defending how they NEVER cry foul, because all they want to do is sell print.

Really ??? REALLY ???? This is the very essence of one of the many arguments mounting against you.

 

Is it so hard to understand? Lap times are easy to record and double-check. What goes into cars is not. Is your comprehension improving?

 

dude, you need help. Seriously. Before you do waste money on a decision that will never satisfy you, please seek some professional help.

i'm out

 

Wow, so your comprehension did improve. Keep up the good work .

 

Your contradiction is that you're looking to the magazines for lap times to guide your buying decision, yet you won't believe any test where the 458 wins. It's going to be problematic really, isn't it...

So desperate are you for THE TRUTH and your tenths that your only option is to buy both cars, track and time them yourself and dispose the car that turns out to be the toy. And make sure Ferrari doesn't get wind of what you're up to or they might supply your dealer with a ringer.

 

Well I think we were hoping for a new defence from the Mac boys but sadly the same old tired one was wheeled out.

 

Once again, truth, honor, and REASON have triumphed over the evil McPolice.

The hambugler may still be at large but FChat is every ready to do it's duty!

 

I've just heard from European journalist friend that Mclaren have delayed the Sport Auto test of the MP4 12C until the Autumn after the less than glowing EVO review. Apparently they want to recalibrate certain things on their car. It will be interesting to see if this is true

 

If Ferrari did this, I think our friends in the Mac Police would yell.... CHEAT!!!

But for Mac, it's just "getting out the car's true potential". LOL!

 

I'm sure you know the old adage about winning internet message board arguments

And besides, I hardly think this is unique to McLaren fans. I remember when Evo put the GT3 RS over the 458 for Car of the Year -- several people on this very forum accused Evo of being partial to Porsche, that there was a falling out between Evo and Ferrari, that the review must be discredited, etc. I could dig up those posts, but can't really be bothered.

 

Another bit of info I got from him -

"My friend that is working for one German car manufacturer was on the Ring during MP4-12C test runs. He told me that sector times were god but, not sensational and for sure not faster than R8 GT or 997.2 GT3 RS. His conclusion was that McLaren is using "leak" marketing as much as possible to create huge demand for its new toy."

 

Well, if Ferrari sold me the ringer that does all those times and weighs in at 1469 at the list price of 458, I would be all over it. That would be a great car.

By the way, yes, I used to take Ferrari times on faith, (you can search through the forum archives and see for yourself). The original Bedford time looked a bit too good to be true (compared to, say AMS times), but I was just impressed and did not question it. After Harris' expose, though, I started looking closer, and some times look clearly out of whack. Before, i would rationalize it away with driver/conditions/tires variation even if it did not really fit. Now, i don't trust any ferrari times, unless done by a mag with a crystal clear reputation such as AMS.

 

This is very interesting. The times the mags leaked early on did look a little bit too good to be true.

 

I am sorry, but the amount of, pardon the expression, dumb fanboyism on this forum is pretty overwhelming. Wouldn't you want to know the true potential of your car? Wouldn't you prefer the mfr to be upfront about the weight of your car? Can you understand that I am car fan, not a Ferrari, not a McLaren fan? Can this concept register at all? Or is it simply too hard?

 

Come on... you know it's all in fun!

 

This is What I mean.
It has been written that a 458 cannot be faster in Bedford in comparison to the Gumpert Apollo S and so the press car used was clearly a ‘tweaked’ 458.
I suggest comparing lap time in very different periods are useless.
The Gumpert was tested in 2008 when new configuration was just finished and the track was not fast as today. The evidence come from Carrera GT lap time, tested in same period. The Carrera GT (best Porsche ever with more than 75 international patents) is by far superior to a 997 Turbo S on a track.
You remark is interesting (Bedford is a short track with short accelerations) but it could explain only a reduced gap. In fact a GT3 RS tested in 2010 (as the turbo S) lapped 1,5 s faster than a Turbo S, and GT3 had no PDK or AWD and had lower acceleration in comparison to Turbo S
So that’s the point my friend :
If earlier Porsche match Carrera GT Bedfrod lap time is the tecnology progress (AWD, PDK Tires), if a 458 do the same with a Gumpert, it was a ‘ringer’ …
No polemic from my side.
Just we have to analyze facts well before accusing people.
About Evo Curb Weight I have posted explanation (#236) making an error only 11 kilos (and not 21) of difference between first EVO test.
I add this information :front 235/35 ZR20 pilot supersport tires are 0,5 kg lighter than PS2, the rear 295/35ZR20 (I have no data) but I can estimate about 0,75 kg so an overall 2,5 Kg of (unsprung) mass reduction.

Cheers

 

Great post. Its so good to see someone cut through the BS "opinion" and guesswork and state real positions and back it up with data.

 

Well, GT3 RS consistently laps many tracks faster than the turbo. Bedford is no outlier. On top of that, if the great gain of 3 secs would be only against Gumpert, you can always try and explain it by many unique factors (hard, though it is), BUT Italia also gains 3 secs against GT2 RS. The relative gain of RS2 versus Gumpert is around .5 sec between Hockenheim and Bedford. Well, within the realm of possibility, and quite possibly explained by all the factors you mention. However, .5 sec is one thing, 3 secs is very different. This is a large gap to start with.

As to weight, Ferrari quotes 3042 lbs as dry weight for US cars, R&T weighed pretty much the lightest configuration at 3490 lbs. 450 lbs of fluids? No way.

 

All this defensiveness from the Mac apologists to try to perpetuate the Ron-speak fueled perception of technological advantage because of a glorified carbon floor pan. They seem to conveniently forget that the rest of the car - and the majority of the structure - is aluminum, just like the 458, the 430 and 360.

As for perpetuating the myth of technological superiority and carbon pioneering, they needed to recruit an Italian, and ex-Ferrari to boot, to do their chassis!

 

In a word, it is too hard.