Dont you Think That................................

Discussion in '1994 McLaren F1' started by FireBird175, Feb 10, 2003.

  1. Re:
    Dont you Think That................................

    Its a great car, dont get me wrong...But it has become out of date...Production stopped in the late 90s, letting many new Manufactures build up their automobiles to either match or beat this ultimate of ultimate cars...The two main examples of these new ultra-cars would be the Koeingsegg and the Bugatti 16.4. Both trumped the supercar market in both Europe and the rest of the world...Not only has Koeingsegg made a name for itself, it has done it on realitively old technology...and at a cheap price...However, matching the McLaren's arrogant nature would be the Bugatti...I cant think of a single car that has ever utilised so much technology, so much performance, and so much of a motor in a single combination that could come out that well...16 cylinders, quad-turbocharged for over 1000 HP? THAT IS INSANE!

    I cant wait to see the comparison between the McLaren and Bugatti very very soon...
  2. Re: Re:

    Here's your sign, buddy...

    One, working on the cooling of the engine is going to have a huge difference. Two, the engine block isn't completely finished right now. I forget what magazine says that they have the block up to 1200 ponies right now. Let's face it, 4 smaller turbos will not more than double the horsepower on this block. 550bhp was probably an unstressed engine too, designed to run at minimal work load. How's that for a concept? An engine block not at full tune... whoa... I have nothing to back this up but i'd put the NA capacity of this engine at 750-800hp. Their W12 block can pull more than 550, moron.
  3. Re: Dont you Think That................................

    What do you mean they have trumped the European Supercar Market...The Veyron is dogged with problems and tests of the Koenigsegg havent matched their claims...
  4. Re: Dont you Think That................................

    Yeah, let's not forget Bugatti's been having transmission problems out the ass coping with all that torque. The words "tooth salad" were mentioned...
  5. Re: Dont you Think That................................

    Only reason why Koenigsegg haven't matched their claims is because they haven't tested them... but yeah, from Clarkson's reactions to the vehicle in one of his tests, they probably won't hit those claims anyway. His reactions appear to portray the image that "this is a fast car - a very very fast car - but I've been in faster".
  6. Re: Dont you Think That................................

    Well, speaking from the American perspctive, I think the McLaren has lost some serious ground...The Koeingsegg and Bugatti obviously have their acomplishmets, however American car makers are making up ground quickly...Saleen's S7 would easily give the McLaren a run for its money, as well as the Mosler MT900 Photon and MT900R...To say that the Americans are behind is ludacris, we have proven ourseves over the past six or seven years.
  7. Re: Dont you Think That................................

    I don't think the Veyron is an ugly car, but please look at its not-very-aerodynamic shape! It definitely needs an extra large engine and 4 turboes to get it to 406 km/h!! It's fast indeed, but obviously Bugatti prefered to make the car look luxurious rather than just plain cool as the F1 does. The idea of puting such a huge engine and 4 turbochargers (that DEFINITELY give it about 45% of its power) looks as stupid as comparing a Viper and a 360 Modena, it looks like the amreican way to give a car more power: Don't care about engine size, weight and fuel consumption, just put a giant engine in a car to make it faster than the competition. McLaren definitely inspired other car builders to make their machines faster, but it can't be beaten.
    And about using carbon brakes in the F1, please investigate a bit more: When McLaren built the car, the brakes were as powerful as Formula 1 brakes before they were made of carbon fiber.
    Also, to the jerk who said that the F1 was a BMW project, please don't say such things: McLaren needed a powerful engine indeed, and part of the price of the F1 comes because the engine is almost a Formula 1 engine (instead of a hideous combination of Audi-Volkswagen W-16someting)...the engine is the most expensive part of a Formula 1 car, and so it is in the McLaren.
    One last thing: Remember that McLaren doesn't make engines, so it's stupid to say that it's timeless fame comes from BMW just because they built the engine.
    whaddaya think LaMagra?
  8. Re:

    i have read the same magazine as you did about the 1200bhp capability of the W16 (on the page before it they talk about the 2004 SRT-4 and ION Red Line). as you have said, the engine isnt finished yet, that means it still has to undergo changes to make it practical. dont let an a claimed 1200bhp impress you, a few tuned cars with a stock 400bhp engine can make upwards to 600bhp with the proper tuning without even upgrading the connecting rods. 50% more power or 200bhp more, that still a significant boost from the addition of a simple supercharger either way you look at it.

    by the way, the VW W12 engine doesnt pull more than 550bhp, more around 420bhp. and if you meant to say the W18 in a previous Bugatti concept, the engine makes 555bhp if you want to get anal about it. i dont think 5bhp is enough to make a difference...moron.
  9. Re: Dont you Think That................................

    most certainly not, this is as much a good car as a supra is a dyno queen,on paper you see certain stats that make you think its an awesome car, but in real life it not as great as you thought.

    the fact that this is supposed to be the greatest car ever, and the daurer 962lm was faster, and came out before this, and the 962 could handle, and it would beat the lm f1 as well as the standard f1. and if the 962 isnt comparable to the f1, is certainly is to the f1 lm, since there were such a limited production.

    the f50 of the same genre had nearly as much power, nearly as much acceleration, and way better handling and high speed stability, and it didnt need nitrogen cooling, and gold leaf to do it. teh f50 would go toe to toe on a track with this, and for half as much. the new enzo will spank this for half as much,

    cars have had this much power before, and they have been that light weight before, the only thing is that porsche and ferrari cars handle, it is well known that the f1 has very low cd so that it can have awesome top speed and acceleration. the fact that it pulled .86 gs on a US version which would be heavier and aid in the skid pad testing as it is a low speed handling test, indicates this cars poor handling, and since it doenst have lots o down force, the handling doesnt get better as it gets faster, like it would with any ferrari fcar, or any porsche of equal class.

    in its time it was a gimmick, nothing more, a machine made to make you think it was more than what it was, which is proven by someones thread about how no production f1 ever went 231mph. it might have had ridiculous acceleration, but in reality it wasnt any faster around a track than an f50, maybe not even that fast.

    my vote for influence on current cars, maybe influence one car, the bugatti veyron, but even that will be far better, and it wont cost 1.2million, and with awd, and 1000hp, it will do what they say it will, and with an engine that vw actualy makes, as apposed to borrowing one.
  10. Re: Re:

    do you remember that concept they had with the vw that looked like a lambo, it was called the nardo, and it had a 600hp w12, the w12 in the phaeton only makes 420, but the nardo makes 600, and they ran it at where else, nardo, so you know it works.
  11. Re: Dont you Think That................................

    1. whats so impressive that mclaren did, they borrowed a bmw engine, and hopped it up, then they used current racing technology, and put this huge ass motor in a small car. jeez i think that idea dates back to at least the hemi dart some 40 years ago.

    2. its fast nothing else, so what do you think the mclaren is, the same damn thing, it cant handle, it has no drag, and its not intended too, it has less handling purposely so that it can have the top end and acceleration. morgan has even admitted it before, and people who have driven it will agree.

    3. i agree that the buggatti is just a power monger, but you cant chastise it for that, thats all the f1 was, sure it had bling bling, so does the veyron, just in different ways. all the production bs is just that bs, they will fix it, and when they do they have a seriosly bad ass car.

    4. dont even compare the f1 motor to the veyron, there is a big difference in torque, and power curve, yeah the veyron is realy heavy, but the turbos and big motor give it a huge power curve. as far as pure muscle goes, there is no topping the veyron, even in power to weight. remember that mercedes does similar things with their amg models, and thought several marques have similar power, e500 will do 12.4 stock 1/4. huge torque goes along way.
  12. Re: Dont you Think That................................

    I love this car and u gotta respect how advanced it was for it's time. Progress has caught up with this ultimate exotic and now HPA Motorsports tunes VW GOLFS so that they are just as if not faster than a Mclaren F1 w/ a 0-60 in 3.2 and 1/4 mile in 11.49. (MotorTrend 1/04 issue is most common source) This isn't including other cars such as the Bugatti or Enzo which can match it. The days of the mclaren F1 being the quickest roadgoin car are gone but we should still remember it for how early and powerful it was.

    Plz try not 2 bite my head off if u disagree with me <A BORDER="0" HREF=""><IMG BORDER="0" SRC=""></A>
  13. Re: Dont you Think That................................

    Yo, this car is still from THIS time. Its only 6 years old.
  14. Re: Dont you Think That................................

    I don't care if the Veyron has 1000 or 1200 hp, I have 2 videos that prove the superiority of the McLaren (no LM or GTR but REGULAR versions!) One is a race of a F1 vs a Supra with 1000HP and the McLaren wins by a huge difference, and the second demonstrates that (against everyone has said before) the McLaren CAN do 391km/h (that's 244.375mph for you morons!!)
    I'm searching for those videos 'cause I can't remember where I downloaded them from so you can all get proof of the undeniable McLaren superiority.
    Obviously there have been faster cars (as the Dauer, which personally I don't like very much and many will agree with me) or better hanling ones (as Lotus Elise) but not better ones, because the F1 has the best balance of performance, braking, safety, acceleration (which was better than that of a Formula 1 when the McLaren started to sell), etc.
    Experts all over the world have described the McLaren as THE BEST CAR EVER MADE, so if you just don't like it it's OK, but don't compare it with an Enzo (just look at those ugly windows!!! or the "Formula 1 styled nose".... come on!! SLR did that first and better!!)
    Sure it costs over $1'000'000 but you can't expect it to be cheaper with an engine of that quality, or with a chasis made completelly of Carbon Fiber (not just parts of it, combined with honeycomb aluminum asi en the Enzo). I even bet the skidpad data you have is wrong 'cause the F1 was capable of holding itself against a ceiling with the LM or GTR aerodynamic package... I don't think that just the rear wing gives it that much control. It can be difficult to drive, but it's a supercar so it has to be that way, it's not for non-experts, and Ferraris are known to be harder to control under tough situations... even harder than a rear-engined 911
  15. Re: Dont you Think That................................

  16. Re: Dont you Think That................................

    the first one came out in 93, which means it was designed in the late 80s, this car is at least 10years old, having been designed in the 80s, this is a late 80s early 90s car, im going to list other cars from that time, f40, diablo, those old looking ones, 993 porsches, and those wedge shaped vettes.

    not realy old, but a little old, not new.
  17. Re: Dont you Think That................................

    1. the supra reguardless of PEAK hp, doesnt have as much AVERAGE hp as the vw, with an 8.0 and turbos, it will have huge power all over the place, so the 1000hp supra isnt the same as the 1000hp veyron.

    2. the supra has massive wheelspin with only 600-700hp, so the 1000hp version would have major hole shot and wheelspin problems, meaning that it cant put down full power. ive heard of guys who can spin tires on 700hp supras all the way into 3rd gear, which is up around 100mph.

    3. the veyron has awd and huge power meaning that it has a massive holeshot advantage over the mclaren, or supra. again no comparison.

    4. since when did you think you could ever compare a tuner car with a "production" car. we could talk 1000hp cars all day that would put the smack down on the mclaren, hell, lingenfelter has a 700hp sonoma with awd that puts the smack down on mclaren.

    5. an engine of that quality can be had for less than 100k in a bmw 7 series, thats where it came from. first you say its the best car ever made, then you say there are better cars, but you wont consider them because you dont like them. the 962 daurer is better in every measureable aspect, there is no refuting that. several other cars can be said to be better overall. the f1 is not the greatest car ever made, it was a gimick, a car designed to excel primarily in all the aspects that magazines test, 0-60/1/4, and it doesnt even do all of those well (skidpad, slalom) that way when everybody reads the magazines they can say the f1 is the best car cuz it has the best 0-60 or whatever. sorry dude, in its own time there were many cars that were just as good as the f1, and they cost a lot less, which is shown in the poor sales of the f1. theres a reason you dont hear about there being another f1, cuz the first one was a flop. learn the facts.

    7. lm aero package is a different scenario, it also slow the car down a lot.
  18. Re: Dont you Think That................................

    /while we are talking about THE GREATEST CAR EVER MADE, as one so cleverly put, i think we should do just that.

    the fastest ever production car was the 917 which was street legal in na form, and the fastest and most athletic car ever was the 917/30

    0-220mph in 13.5 sec, 0-60 in 2.1 sec, and the 1/4 in about 7.3 seconds, and that was in 1973 with a ohv flat 12 of 5.5liters with 2 turbos, and 14psi boost, 1200hp, 1900lbs, boost could be raised to18psi and give 1500hp, but for the american lemans series they kept it a t 14 to be on the sfe side. it was banned next year for being to freakishly fast.

    on a side note, top fuel cars in 1973 were around 7.3 seconds for the 1/4mi
  19. Re: Dont you Think That................................

    I think you just owned like, everyone....
  20. Re: Dont you Think That................................

    The idea was concieved late of '88. Went into development in '89. Project F1 was confirmed on 5th Decemver '89.
  21. Re: Dont you Think That................................

    1. Owning a Supra and knowing a lot about them. Though it is only a peak in HP when flooring it on a dyno, you'll hit 1000bhp for good time then drop not far. The only reason you call it 'peak' is because of Dyno numbers and that it peaks to 1000bhp and drops. This isn't because the engine suddenly starts producing less power, its because the driver lets off the throttle after he has floored it in whatever gear. They always let off straight away because of fear that the excess stress on the engine will blow it; they do this on every dyno run. If you see a car being kept at full throttle on a dyno then its very risky anyway, If you kept the throttle down hard on a 1000bhp Supra it would produce around 1000bhp constant.

    2. That depends very much on the cars set up, I’ve seen Supras with 800 odd and they don't spin 'em. Anyway anyone can spin tires if they want to...

    3.Yes its AWD and has huge power but weighing what it does, it would be taken not far afterwards, I’ve seen a McLaren beat a hugely powerful Skyline by quite some distance and the drive system of the Skyline is the best around, still.

    4. Yeh, why are we comparing it with tuned cars, so why are you comparing it to a Lingfelter? I'll do the same with a kit car.
    Oh yeh, I know of a 1500BHP Ultima that makes the Veyron look SILLY in every performance aspect there is.

    5. Oh Lord, and the 16/4 isn't a development of the W12 (it is btw.)? Anyway just because the engine in the 7 series is a V12 don't assume that it’s the one in the McLaren, they are VERY different in fact just about completely different apart from the face they both have 12 cylinders. When Gordon Murray told BMW what he wanted and BMW suggested the V12 of the 7 series Gordon said 'Too heavy' I want a maximum weight of around 250KG so BMW said 'We'll design a totally new engine'

    6.The Dauer is better in performance ranges, just and I can't stress it enough that you shouldn't compare the Dauer to the F1 the GT is closer to its car but still has all the refined qualities of the F1, the GT beats the Dauer, just.
    however, if we're comparing the Dauer to the F1 the is not the same breed of car its a practical, formula one based, ROAD ORIENTATED everyday car. The Dauer was designed primarily for the track. There weren't any cars at the time that were in the same category that were anywhere near it, tell me cars there were in '93 that had the same all round greatness, speed, practicality and refinement of the F1? The McLaren costs what it does (for the umpteenth time) is because of its incomparable refinement and research and development that made it so special at the time. Get YOUR facts right.

    7. Have no idea what your on about.

  22. Re: Dont you Think That................................

    The McLaren LM has performance very much like that, not too much lower.
    By the way, thats the fastest car ever, not the greatest, while the McLaren is. It dosen't have to be the best in any category (but it is in many) to be the best, it just has to be a stunning all rounder which the McLaren is.
  23. Re: Dont you Think That................................

    1)this car is overrated and overpopular due to video games, everyone automatically just assumes it's the best car there ever was and ever will be just cuase they played it on their Need For Speed Game.

    2)Who couldn't build a car this fast for three-million dollars or whatever they cost? Honestly
  24. Re: Dont you Think That................................

    To say the McLaren F1 engine came from the BMW 7 Series was the stupidest thing ever said in this forum, I definitely can't argue with somebody who knows nothing about the car we were originally talking about. The engine wasn't even BORROWED as someone said before, it was SPECIALLY BUILT for the McLaren!!!
    The Ultima can maybe handle (a little better), but that's because you can configure it in many different ways, changing suspensions, brakes, transmission, engine, etc. BUT you can't compare the Ultima with an F1 because the Ultima is merely a TEST CAR, made only to test different combinations of engines/transmissions, and now is being sold with a modified Corvette engine and a Porsche transmission (I'd rather have a BMW M5 engine or something more advanced)...The Ultima was designed to handle 1000hp or more, so it can be equipped properly to be faster than a Dauer.... By the way, the Ultima is older than the McLaren, and was built to test one specific engine, guess which one? A (not very well known, as we've just discovered) BMW engine, installed later in the McLaren!! and why isn't it better that an F1, because it wasn't intended to be a production car, so that means no comfort, only test driver equipment, and some years later they started to equip it with air conditioning or a stereo so it could be sold.
    You say the Dauer is the best all around, BUT it's just a street version of a racing Porsche!!! If I could take Ayrton Senna's Williams-Renault and make a street version out of it, then I will have the absolute supercar ever made just because it'll have the best performance in the world (and it was turbocharged so acceleration-given-just-by-power wouldn't be something to worry about) and also its aerodynamics are better than those of the Dauer.
    McLaren won LeMans on its very first attempt, and no car had done that before, but if you want another supercar then make a street version of the latestAudi LM racer and the Dauer will be surpassed (again)
    You can't compare the McLaren to another cars, that's the point. You can't come and say that the Enzo or the Dauer or the Veyron are comparable to the F1 because the McLaren is in another level. It redefined the making of sports cars, and it didn't come from any race car... It raced in LeMans AFTER being sold to the public.
    Saying it was only built to beat only some specific tests on magazines not only shows lack of knowledge about the topic, but also give us a question: If you don't trust the magazines where you read the stats that PROVE the McLaren as the best car ever made, then who do you trust to say the Dauer is the best one??
    Ok you say it's sales were lower... just tell me how many 1950's Porsche Speedsters or Mercedes 300 SL were sold at their beginning and how much do they cost now? They are classics now, and so will be the McLaren. It will be remembered forever as the best car made of a whole century. Sure, 399 Enzos were build... so what?? People at Ferrari have the WRONG idea you have to be an "automibile connoiseur" to sell you an Enzo, they did the same with the F40 and F50, and they'll make it again every 10 years, and their machines aren't that great. Many supercars can beat the Enzo, even more racing street vesions, and it can't be considered as a true McLaren competitor because it has NOTHING but its engine, aerodynamics and brakes, which can be beaten in separate or in a single category by many cars.
    Experts said (yeah yeah, the same stupid experts that write in top car magazines, right?) that the Enzo isn't better than the Carrera GT, its only faster: It was built around racing principles, which means: it sure has gears that shift as fast as in a Formula 1 (thanks to its racing clutch), or brakes as good as those of their F333 car, but racing parts give you something that McLaren never will: Really short life, so you have to go back to your dealer very often, every time the clutches break, or the brakes get screwed after a couple of months of abuse. I know, if you have $750'000 to buy an Enzo (not very cheap either: that can probably buy you an F333 and give you the same performance... in an open car with better looks!!), then you have enough money to buy ultra-expensive sets of gears, clutches, brake discs, calipers at least 3 times a year, and that is considering you won't use an Enzo as your daily car. Is that the point of buying a Supercar?
    At least, that didn't, and will never happen with a top quality McLaren....Ouch!!
  25. Re: Dont you Think That................................

    Dude, theres no way of getting around it the Ultima can be faster than a McLaren but its a kit car. They are very different things. The Ultima chassis can handle 1000bhp max most people build it at 700. It was indeed the car McLaren tested their transmission and suspension on. It doesn't have to be sold with a V8 its fully customizable and not just a test car. IT wasn't first made as as test car by Ultima, McLaren just used it as a test bed.
    If your bit on Dauer is about my post, re-read mine i'm saying the McLaren is a better car.

    I agree with much of your latter remarks though.


Share This Page