http://www.autoweek.com/article/20110213/CARNEWS/110219943
Does anyone have the specs of the 458 to compare? It does not seem that the Mclaren no(a) is a game changer?
It's definitely a game changer, as expected after a year of development (which actually had to be added after the 458 was released). To be honest I believe the 458 has a lot of weight to lose while the Macca doesn't. The lightweight version will be the actual rival.
that weight is w/ all the low weight options checked. I cant believe CCB isnt standard at this level.
Those are some impressive numbers, and I'm sure it will be competitive against the 458. However how much more horepower can be extracted from the mp4? It only has a 3.6 liter and it's already turboed, twin turbo the 4.5 liter 9000 rpm redline v8 in the 458 and you'll easily have a 900 hp animal that will eat just about anything and look sexier than hell at the same time.
the MC is a 3.8L running >22lbs of boost. Thats a lot and brings into question about long term reliability
Many don't want it for the absurd upkeep cost. In McLaren's case, with the use of aluminum, they've gotten the steel brakes in at less weight than the CCBs. So, with the steel setup you get to: A) Save money at purchase time B) Save money over the long haul (replacement pads and rotors) C) Track the car frequently (see B) D) Save unsprung weight Personally, if CCB's were standard, I'd pay to have the steel's option.
As long as heat is managed properly .. it really doesn't. This isn't 20 year-old technology. The old problem with Turbos and reliability is the quickly varying quantities of air being pulled and/or pushed into the cylinders at any given time. You can be full throttle at 5K RPM under 22 PSI of boost, or you can be at 2% throttle cruising down the highway at 5K RPM under atmospheric pressure .... what you need is a system that can provide the correct fuel flow to accommodate that air at any and every point in time. Today's modern fuel-management systems, MAF/TPS sensors, and emissions systems are able to properly handle almost any situation. This is why you see today so many turbo-charged Gallardos, Ferraris, Vipers, Porsches, etc in the aftermarket today ... the reliability is there and the risk/reward ratio has fallen to acceptable levels. Hell, GM had it down pretty well in the 80s and 90s (Grand National, GNX). A shooting buddy of mine has a GN running 36PSI of boost that he drives almost daily. Car gets sideways at the drop of a hat but engine problems have never been an issue he's had to deal with - the car is properly tuned. Transmission issues on the other hand ....
Exactly. And McLaren is marketing it the right way with this option. CCB's are hip and exotic. I would go for the steel. That is really a very light weight and quite an achievement. The 458 is bordering on piggish for a two-seater. I wouldn't doubt the long term reliability will be very good, and that these cars will be less expensive to maintain than F cars.
Few thoughts... -Wow on the performance numbers, it stomps the 458 into mush in a big way! And the 599. And neck and neck (maybe a bit faster than) the Enzo too. -Why does anyone even mention 0-60 anymore? It's as relevant to performance as what the speedo goes up to. -Engine life is arguable a function of piston acceleration, so the twin turbos shouldn't have a huge effect, considering most people probably won't put more than a few thousands miles a year on these cars anyway.
Did I read this right? They must have meant 911 Turbo? If stock Panamera Turbo's are running 0-60 in under 3.5 seconds I'll eat my shoe.
I was on the list for the Mclaren years ago. With my son in college and business slow I had to get off recently. This is the only new car that has any excitement for me. Mclaren once again shattering the boundry this time in an "affordable" sports car. They were hoping to market to those who appreciate the car for its virtues not its status. I think in this economy they will have to adjust. Everyone gets a reality check.
