MCLAREN 720S OR 488

For those that don't have a look at the article, this paragraph is eye opening on the performance delta. And, I'm not a Ferrari hater - I have a 488GTB.

The 720S could give that Ferrari a head start of almost three seconds – allowing the 488 to have hit 60mph before the 720S had even moved – and still beat the Italian to 170mph. And then go on to hit 190mph within a standing mile, less than a second slower than a P1 would have, and also allow a little room for braking. ‘Fast’ hardly does the car justice.

 

agree...720 is a fast car...but the video reviews left me yawning over the lack of emotion from the car (sound).

Just depends what you want, no right/wrong answer.

I love the 720 design personally.

 

This has been quite extensively discussed in this other thread:
http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/458-italia-488/547156-ferrari-488-compared-mclaren-720s-29.html

Although I am pretty sure no definitive conclusion is soon to be reached...

 

You're a little late -

The performance comparisons stopped on the forum since that article came out.

 

I'd say a lot of people yawn over postings like this.

 

I have nothing against the 720S, or McLaren for that matter. The car is great looking and obviously fantastic, as are all their cars. That isn't the point to me. Ferrari means something wholly different. It's the greatest performance automotive marque in history. It has the greatest drama, history, lineage and pedigree - racing and road. Owning a Ferrari makes me part of the legacy. By owning a 488 GTB, I am part of that. My car shares the same badge as the 250 LM, the 250 GTO, the 275, the 6 supercars, and the countless other great cars in it's 70 year history. Add to that, the 488, and the other modern Ferrari's, are exceptional. Sure a McLaren, or a Porsche, or a Lamborghini, or whatever, may come along at any given time and be a little faster, or have a crazier design, etc. (and for some, that's what they want, which is fine). But, they aren't Ferrari's. They never will be.

 

And why is that?

 

I can fully agree, only Ferrari can offer such a glory history, it is like it is, a unique aura surrounds these cars.

But is it demanded too much if you want to see Ferrari on top of the podium in terms of technology leadership, in terms of performance capabilities?

A well-known German magazine published in the last issue their choice for the sports car of the year 2017: Ferrari GTB behind McLaren 570GT and Porsche 911.

Believe me, many Ferrari critical remarks in this thread are coming from true Ferrari enthusiasts. The impression is justified that currently some competitors are working more ambitious than Ferrari.

 

All good thoughts. I respect and understand this opinion, but some act like Ferrari is being left in the dust. The 488 is regarded by virtually every automotive source as a remarkable achievement, and it was heralded as the finest in its category. In the supercar class, I wouldn't take any modern car over a LaFerrari or Laferrari Aperta. As for the newest breed - the 812 Superfast is superb. With each new generation, any given car will have a slight performance or technology edge over another, but taken in totality (performance, design, technology, mystique, history, racing, aura, etc.), the other marques can't even touch Ferrari.

 

I'd say a lot of people yawn at your IG postings bashing fchat and it's users.

Not happy? Keep at mclife.

 

Not really. I yawned a bit after reading the pro-Mac tester report.

 

All good thoughts. I respect and understand this opinion, but some act like Ferrari is being left in the dust. The 488 is regarded by virtually every automotive source as a remarkable achievement, and it was heralded as the finest in its category. In the supercar class, I wouldn't take any modern car over a LaFerrari or Laferrari Aperta. As for the newest breed - the 812 Superfast is superb. With each new generation, any given car will have a slight performance or technology edge over another, but taken in totality (performance, design, technology, mystique, history, racing, aura, etc.), the other marques can't even touch Ferrari.


This thread isn't about "unicorn" versus "unicorn". I totally agree that the LeF is, in my worthless opinion, the finest sportscar ever produced as well as the benchmark for all others to attempt however this is about 488 vs 720S and when you compare "performance, design, technology" that's where the 720S shines, the rest you mentioned "aura, mystique, history, racing, etc" is ethereal stuff, it's fluff, it's ultimately irrelevant as the purchaser of either of these two choices are not purchasing the Laf, they're not buying a California Special, they're not buying an F1 car anymore than they are buying a Mondial, 348, or a MP4-12. Buying a Ford Festiva or minivan doesn't enter you into the GT40 club. Hopefully this is a wake-up call and Ferrari won't rest on their laurels because when when I'm purchasing a car I care about the car I'm buying not what they did in the past

 

I understand and respect your thoughts. I don't agree with them, but that's okay. I certainly don't consider those other things as fluff. I didn't just buy a car because its technology and speed. I bought into all of the things I mentioned. I would venture to guess that most are doing the same, whether they contemplate it as much as I do or not. Still, everyone is entitled to their own motives. There's certainly nothing wrong with yours.

 

Well said. Cars get leap-frogged all the time. But if you can drive something you're passionate about and gives you a great feeling you're winner no matter what. There's nothing wrong with legacy, passion and brand-love being part of what makes you love what you drive - if it were all down to nothing but raw performance numbers nearly everyone would be unhappy which clearly isn't the case

 

Haha that is so true.

Everyone was saying on the INTRANETs that the f12 was sold out with waiting lists and I walked into a dealer in a major EU capital and bought one with a 10% discount off of MSRP and received it 3months later. LOL!

 

Some ppl dabble in things they shouldn't. Beyond your means comes to mind. The finest things, whether its jets, boats, cars, are not meant for everybody. The good ****, is really ****ing good. But again it's not for everybody, esp those expecting to make a buck. Stick to flipping houses and MLM incentive programs.

 

Surprised this never gets mentioned but biggest difference between 2 is the doors. Thats a huge difference compared to performance, style, etc which are 99% similar.

 

If I may add -- the biggest differences are also:

-- carbon tub = lighter/more fun to drive. Braking, acceleration, steering, everything is better. Lightweight cars are simply more fun to drive.

-- safety - A totally under-rated feature. Let's face it 100MPH is nothing. let alone 150 and more. If **** hits the fan, I want to be in a full CF cage. Stronger than steel. In an aluminum frame 488, your legs will be part of the crash structure. Sorry to say that but it needs to be said. Ferrari puts CF tubs in their limited edition million dollar cars. McLaren do this in their everyday car.

-- Hydraulic suspension. Could go on and on about this. McLaren have THE best all around handling car under $1M period. Everyone makes big HP these days. It's the suspension that makes the difference. You don't see folks changing springs and lowering ride heights on their Macs like you see in f-world. We don't have to.

And yes, those doors get the looks

 

I think this is an ill-informed comment and simplifies the issue of safety far too much. The key to safety in a roadcar is predictable deformability. That does not come from carbon, or aluminium or even steel. You might be surprised to know that Morgan, who use wood in their chassis (I think it is ash) have an extremely effective material for the purposes of crash protection.

Instead, it comes from the right strength, in the right area, designed to deform in the right way, under a given loading. Remember, in an F1 car the driver is helmeted, uses a HANS device, has a six point belt, is subjected to huge-G decelerations during a crash and is extremely fit. The strength of a carbon F1 tub is far ahead of the tub in a McLaren and is a very different proposition, designed to do a very different job, therefore you cannot simply assume carbon > aluminium in a roadcar crash situation.

What carbon does do is afford the designer more flexibility to deliver a required safety level since it has a higher specific strength than aluminium or steel. As a general rule, the development budget and ability of a brand's designers is much more important than the materials used in terms of delivering real-world car safety. I read somewhere that the strength of the McLaren tub is not dissimilar to Ferrari's aluminium one. The real advantage is weight of materials needed to deliver a certain level of chassis stiffness for the purposes of performance and handling, and crashworthiness for the purposes of safety.

Weight is, of course, a highly valuable asset in terms of performance, and feel. However, it is not everything, as suggested by the rapturous reviews of the 812. It has certainly had a better reception than the 720. So there is more to building a great car than weight, even though I would be the first to admit weight is extremely important.

The McLaren suspension system is controversial. I have been a McLaren owner and I quite like the system. But it is one of the areas that leads people to conclude that McLarens can be sterile. I personally do prefer the Ferrari system, or more specifically the way Ferrari calibrate their software. Software development is something that Ferrari have a long history with and I believe are more advanced than McLaren simply because they have been at it longer (not because they somehow have better engineers, gifted as they are, I would assume McLaren engineers to be equally so). I think modern Ferrari suspensions have a really nice feeling about them. They enhance the feeling of connection I have with the road surface. The McLaren system is brilliant at raising the compromise bar that all cars have to contend with - soft suspension for comfort and grip v stiff suspension for body control. They provide superior body control for a given level of softness. The trade-off though, at least for some people, is a very different feeling. Some don't mind it, some do. It's absolutely fine to love it or hate it. As for the 'lowered' Ferraris, they are lowered for looks in the main. It is actually quite difficult to get a better overall result by altering tyres, shocks, springs etc. You can get a suspension to do a specific task much better but then there are trade-offs in other areas. The McLaren system is much more complicated to alter, hence fewer owners having done it. In the UK there are not many Ferrari owners who change suspension - I can't remember ever seeing an altered suspension Ferrari, except I have a friend with a Novitec N Largo, if that counts.

The point is, it doesn't mean Ferrari is 'left behind' in terms of technology. The 488 brings some brilliant new technology to the market that the 720 has not matched, and vice versa. The 720 is undeniably faster but on the road I doubt the feeling is quite as much as that 3s stat seems to suggest. It doesn't matter, while outright speed remains low on most people's understanding of what makes a great car, it will remain a feature of all new McLarens compared with the existing Ferrari. It is something they need to be able to deliver since they are the 'challenger', and something that is not too difficult to deliver either.

While I respect McLaren and would never think anyone who chooses one over a Ferrari has done a bad thing, I remain someone who has had ownership experience of both brands, but prefers Ferrari for many of the reasons listed in this thread. They are not in any way being left behind, in the same way as McLaren is in no way an inferior choice.

 

I'll give you that - the doors are beautiful.

I will say this, however, on the one hand, as a 488 GTB owner, would I love having butterfly doors? Of course. Still, I rather agree with why Ferrari reserves them for their supercars. I suppose this all started with the Countach (my childhood dream car), and Lamborghini also continues this philosophy today. If I owned a Enzo, or a LaFerrari, or a Aventador, or a Centenario, or a P1, etc., I would want that design element as a point of distinction from the rest of the line. It's an amazing feature, that is appropriately reserved for the most extreme exotics. In a way, McLaren dilutes it by offering it on all their cars. I suppose for them, it's a value proposition against its competitors.

 

Well said!

 

Interesting that you guys assume I consider lambo doors to be advantage. I do not. Much prefer 488 normal doors.

Ive always felt theyre slightly embarrassing and make owner seem like ****. I also prefer easy in and out of the ferrari aluminum chassis over the wider mac carbon sills.

But fact that mac has made 720 doors technical advantage with roof cut outs might change the perception though. Kudos to mac

 

hello few times ago I sold my 488 GTB, and buyed a 720S with racing configuration, I will recive it in august........

 

I recently saw a 720S in a Ferrari cavalcade. Yuk, it is f@$!ng ugly !!! And the engine noise is disappointing. I don't care if the Mclaren is faster, its poosie magnet factor is way way behind any Ferrari.

 

Entry level exotics aren't "poopsie magnets"...