Ferrari LaFerrari vs Mclaren P1 vs Porsche 918

i usually take this poke skiing
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

l just got back to these post and I just wanted to acknowledge what a funny sob you are. From one cult member to the other of course. Keep up the good fight. Going to dinner.

 

Absolutely stunning mate!

 

getting every penny's worth out of an amazing car.

 

who the heck routinely lives above 165mph? and correct, it loses the benefit of the front e-motor because it is decoupled, thus acceleration at super high speeds are squarely on the ICE and rear emotor, where the total system power is less than LaF and P1. Porsche clearly thinks it is an acceptable tradeoff. in real world, I think it inconsequential.

 

you are wrong.tes, for MAXIMUM ability, a track is of course the right place, but the accessibility of a HUGE amount of performance is greater in one car over the other. even in bad weather, you can still drive one car and you wouldn't even think about it in the other.

 

yep

 

thank you for your input, I'm getting tired

 

Here you are - sorry my MS Paint skills aren't up to par but you get the idea!

Seriously, how much more fun to drive does thing look now?

I realize this could be the lamest idea ever but I'm still in love with it for now as this is exactly what I envisioned the first time I heard the phrase "clutchless manual"
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

because Porsche deemed it acceptable that it 'loses' the HP from the front e-motor when into hyper speeds. Clearly they did not build the 918 with hyper speed acceleration being a priority. 0-100 important? yes, 0-150, probably, 0-186+...errrr...important perhaps on GTBoards internet racing? 918 designed to have power/torque on tap within most important window to them. What they gave most attention to was instant torque, razor sharp throttle response. they accomplished this via super light, super low inertia high revving NA motor and attached e-motor, instead of the unavoidable characteristics of a turbo'd engine though the inherent higher torque and hp will allow better acceleration when into hyper speeds--150mph all the way to 'where the heck can I access this speed' 200+. short of it, yes I think the super high speed figures are noteworthy, but there's a good reason behind the tradeoff in the Porsche: full sharp throttle response and instant torque within 80% of its envelope while giving up super high speed rush. and you are right, they are all wicked. the top three in my 21st century dream garage.

 

Awesome pic!

 

since when did anyone start talking about the real world and these cars in the same sentence???

why not limit the speed altogether? hell, who the hell needs to go over the speed limit anyhow?

and just because porsche thinks its a good trade-off, do i have to agree?

or said another way, they ran out of engineering talent and decided that this was best for you. so lame. typical porsche.

 

Porsche ran out of engineering talent? I've heard it all now. Your posts are getting more and more idiotic by the hour, you're just trying to get a rise out of a few people.

 

Plenty of discussion on how the LaFerrari's overhang will cope with real roads, speed bumps, driveways, etc., not to mention where the front licence plate should go

 

this may be very true. i am sleptical of hybrid tech. but judging from the early drive reviews of p1, it isnt a worry.

 

On the internet, it is hard to tell a poster's age. But, I am finding that the more adamant posters who are unable to relate any real world experience in a car--well they are young. And I have confirmed this with some regularity on this site. They have courage that comes with keyboard anonymity, and resort to outlandish statements with no basis in experience.

They read some R&T article, or better still--they divine "true insider knowledge" by reading a more sophisticated magazine like "Top Gear" and suddenly . . . presto . . . they are world class drivers who have driven the P1 and the 918 on the knife-edge around tracks; and they often exceed 165 mph on public roads in the US. And then they wake up and realize they are sitting at their keyboard, and so they get mad and try to bully those who seek honest dialogue and reasonble discussion.

Anyone who knows . . . knows that it is a game of Russian Roulette to try to find a stretch of open road and exceed 165. Even in Montana. Even in Utah. Too many variables and zero room for error. Oh, I have done a few times--when I was young and stupid.

I am tired of coming here and listening to someone describe a million dollar engineering marvel such as the 918 as being anything other than one of the most incredible cars ever produced. No, I have not yet driven the 918. But I have driven some pretty spectacular cars--I have owned some pretty spectaculr cars, some of them have been Ferraris. And, my experience tells me that if I am ever able to get behind the wheel of a 918, I will be astonished.

And, I am likely to be astonished with the P1 and the LaF.

So, I will not be counted with those who blow-off the 918 as a gimmick. At the same time, don't insult my intelligence with a sub 7 time from the P1 unless and until they prove up the time. I still believe that they combined all the best sector times to make their claim--which is why they are not publishing a time.

 

yeah porsche, the guys with the engine behind the rear axle for 40 years. they're good.

 

i just did 149 mph tonight in my FF in 25 degree weather on a salt covered highway....the faster you go, the younger you'll stay buddy.....

165mph in normal weather is not really that fast in these missiles they produce nowadays.

 

Some of the best driver's cars ever produced have been Porsche's with engines behind the rear axle. They're not good - they're great.

 

It's always nice to read a sensible, intelligent post in this thread every now and again. Make's a nice change from the drivel that Lone Wolf posts.

 

If you consider physics . . . this is irresponsible.

Read what you said . . . 149 MPH at night in 25* weather on a salt-covered highway.

That is 218 feet per second--70 yards a second. The road is cold, which means the rubber will not grip as well and the brakes are cold; the road has salt (and likely moisture), which further reduces grip. It is night, which means that sight is limited. And you are traveling 70 yards a second??

A squirrel could run out; you could hit a small pothole, or a small rock and have a blowout. A deer or something else could run in front. A block of ice could fall from a tree or overhead cable onto your car. Heck an acorn in the windscreen at 149 could shatter the windscreen.

The physics of that situation are a crap shoot. And your odds of living are quite low, if something as simple as a rock hits your windscreen. Heaven forbid you run up on a car that has lost its rear lights, or a pedestrian stranded by the bad weather.

OK, I am over 50. But I have driven over 200 MPH and understand the responsibility that comes with the power to do so.

 

Thanks. I was getting very frustrated at the knee jerk comments. Time to use the brain a little.

 

Look I am not trying to act like a punk I am not a teenager either but I do enjoy the speed
And honestly given my experience I don't find it a problem at all to drive at those speeds
But your post really does sound like my father always talking about what could happen

 

Yeah and I spent many many years driving and racing them

 

Silly Germans. 40 years, hundreds of racing titles, millions of customers--and they still can't see how terrible their engineering is.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk