this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Discussion in '2000 Hennessey Viper Venom 800TT' started by FireBird175, Jan 24, 2003.

  1. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Skid pad means very little to the way a car will handle. Also whether or not you like the looks of a car is an opinion, so trying to say a car is better based on looks is rather insane. The gold is indeed used to help with heat disipation from the engine bay. Plus, why can you not compare a more expensive car to a less expensive car? Is that not fair? Finally, how the hell do you call the McLaren F1 plain? What the hell is the 800 tt then? If the McLaren is plain then the 800 tt must be boring based on what you consider plain.
     
  2. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    OK so now, all of a sudden, skidpad figures means very little!?

    You're still in this forum comparing a million dollar, rare as hell, mid-engine car with a 150k front-engine car, and you don't see why that isn't a fair comparison!!???? what the f**k...
     
  3. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Yes, there is a huge price difference between the cars, but if you look at the performace numbers i know i posted on this thread, you'll see that the 150k car has close, of rivalry, numbers compared to the millon dollar car.

    Now usually in a comparison, that would be it. In every thread i do comparisons i post the two cars performance #'s, and when ppl look at them, they determine the better car.

    But then there's BMWM3GTR200, who argue's VERY DIFFERNET points then what i've seen in ANY car comparison.
    I mean look at the "800tt not the best" thread, he's making VERY DIFFERENT arguements to prove a model t, or volvo wagon is better than an 800tt!! LOL
     
  4. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Since when did I say skid pad matters? I have never said that skid pad matters, in fact I have repeated many times that skid pad, 0-60, 0-100 and many other performance numbers like that mean very little about tha capabilities of a car on the race track. I have also stated many times that skid pad does not tell you how well a car handles, plus I have given examples to show that skid pad means nothing. The worst of all of those numbers though is the 0-60 times, especialy when people look at it to see if one car would win on a race track versus another car. 0-60 means nothing for track performance, the only acceleration numbers that matter for on track performance and daily driving realy, i.e. overtaking and what not, is in gear acceleration.

    Why is it unfair to compare a million dollar car to a 150k dollar car? Why is it unfair to compare a mid-engine car to a front-engine car? Come on, the price of a car does not tell you if it is better than another car or not, and the engine location does not do that either. Whil mid engine cars do get better handling than front engine cars for the most part, it is not because of the location. Rather the reason for this is that the weight distribution of the car is closer to 50/50 usually in mid engine cars. While there are other aspects of the mid-engine cars that makes them better handling than front-engine, the difference is to small to realy say it gives it an advantage. Remember that there are 50/50 front engine cars out there, i.e. BMW in general, so the mid-engine car realy does not have an advantage.
     
  5. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Weight distribution is important, but does not tell the whole story. A car with a mass that is evenly distributed *and* has its mass concentrated can have a lower polar moment of inertia. It is quicker to rotate into a turn, and once induced into a spin, it can be quicker to recover. This no doubt is where the F1 will have the advantage, to speak nothing of the lower overall weight.

    You can compare a much more expensive car to much cheaper car. You can compare a VW Beetle to a McLaren F1. You can do that. But ultimately, what point are you trying to make? It's apples to oranges.
    When you compare similarly priced cars with similar intentions in mind (ie, high performance sports/supercars), then you have an even playing field. You are much more likely to arrive at some defensible conclusion as to which car is indeed "better", if that's something you're looking for. In the end, I doubt you will find it. In this case, it is even harder, as we're talking about a stock factory car vs. one that has been tuned by the aftermarket.
     
  6. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Like I have said, there is more to a car's performance then just 0-60 and 0-100. There are things like comfort, reliability, the stereo syatem, anything that has to perform a task on the car should be considered. Now don't come back and say your usula, here are the numbers thing, or well lets look at the screws used then because while that could be looked at, it is a very small point.

    Also usually in comparisons that I have been involved in people look at more than 0-60 and that crap. The only people that I know who only care about 0-60 and that crap are the usualy uninformed, immature person that likes only one car, and only talks about one car, and they usully pick the fastest, or one of the fastest 0-60 cars as their favorites.

    Once again, why is the 800 tt a better car than the Model T? Look at what the Model T has done for the automotive industry. Not only that, but the damn thing litterly could be driven just about anywhere, and it was so mechanically simple most people could fix it themselves if it ever broke down.

    What the #$%# is wrong with you and saying every damn time that it is a Volvo Wagon? There are many more cars in the 240 line than just wagons. There are sedans, coupes, and what not, plus many different engine choices. Seeing how you never adjust anything, I will adjust, I will now only argue that the 240 Wagons are better than the 800 tt.
     
  7. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    "Also usually in comparisons that I have been involved in people look at more than 0-60 and that crap. The only people that I know who only care about 0-60 and that crap are the usualy uninformed, immature person that likes only one car, and only talks about one car, and they usully pick the fastest, or one of the fastest 0-60 cars as their favorites."


    I thought we had that argument and why i posted this:

    Now in a comparison:

    Mclaren F1

    0-100: 6.3 sec.
    1/4 mile: 11.1 @ 138

    800tt (street tires):
    (est.) 0-100: 6.6
    1/4 mile: 10.71 @ 137.6

    like i've been saying:

    "The 800tt would win a drag race, and COULD (if you notice in all my post, i never say the 800tt CAN beat a Mclaren on a track) or might have a chance at beating it, but it would be a close race."



    "Once again, why is the 800 tt a better car than the Model T? Look at what the Model T has done for the automotive industry. Not only that, but the damn thing litterly could be driven just about anywhere, and it was so mechanically simple most people could fix it themselves if it ever broke down.

    What the #$%# is wrong with you and saying every damn time that it is a Volvo Wagon? There are many more cars in the 240 line than just wagons. There are sedans, coupes, and what not, plus many different engine choices. Seeing how you never adjust anything, I will adjust, I will now only argue that the 240 Wagons are better than the 800 tt."


    I won't say anything about those points in this thread, but in the "800tt not the best" thread. i'd like to keep the arguments seperate,

    IMO, no point in arguing the same thing in 2 threads. <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>
     
  8. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Are we slow? What the hell are you posting numbers for in response to me just saying that they do not matter? You didn't prove me wrong, all you did was say some crap about thinking we had that arguememnt and then posted the numbers that actually show the McLaren to be faster. What the hell is wrong with you, do you not want to prove the 800 tt better or something? Plus why are you saying we had that arguement already when you are the one that was talking about it. You were trying to imply I believe that the 800 tt was a better performing car than the McLaren in the area of 0-60, 0-100, 1/4 mile, and so forth. The thing is, the McLaren GTR has already beaten 800+ hp cars, it has already beaten 650+ hp racing Vipers, and the McLaren GTR has less power than the regular version. Plus the McLaren GTR can be driven on public roads still, can the damn Viper's do that, more than likely not. So lets see hear when the McLaren's suspension is tuned for racing, but has power taken away, yet still public road capable, it beats Vipers that are faster than the 800 tt, so it has already shown that it is faster than the 800 tt. so do you still want to talk about how fast the damn cars are? If you want to say the 800 tt is better than the McLaren it must be better than the McLaren in more than one area.

    Just read the damn, "this car is not the best" forum. I say everything there.
     
  9. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    First of all: There is no such thing as "the best car" or this car is better than the other because of this and that. Different strokes for different folks.

    You are getting lost in your own arguments.

    You argue that weight distribution is not related to engine location and then at the same time you say that weight distribution is closer to 50/50 in mid engine cars - and why do think that is?

    Go ahead and compare The McLaren F1 to cars like CLK GTR or Dauer 962 because they are all about same price, mid-engine and similar design (roughly) but don't compare it with a tuned Viper!

    And price DOES matter for several reasons because unless you're a multi millionaire you'll be looking for best bang for the buck when buying a car.
     
  10. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    agreed.
     
  11. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Quote from Swedelbrock:

    "First of all: There is no such thing as "the best car" or this car is better than the other because of this and that. Different strokes for different folks.

    You are getting lost in your own arguments.

    You argue that weight distribution is not related to engine location and then at the same time you say that weight distribution is closer to 50/50 in mid engine cars - and why do think that is?

    Go ahead and compare The McLaren F1 to cars like CLK GTR or Dauer 962 because they are all about same price, mid-engine and similar design (roughly) but don't compare it with a tuned Viper!

    And price DOES matter for several reasons because unless you're a multi millionaire you'll be looking for best bang for the buck when buying a car."



    There is no such thing as the best car, I agree on that. There are cars that are better than others though. There is a reason that when people try and think of the best car of all time they come up with a list of 20 or so cars that are all capable of taking the title. The McLaren is on that short list for just about everyone, the 800 tt rarely is on that list for anyone.

    Yes, I am mixing my points somewhat with my arguements, that is what happens when I only get 10 minutes to give a post. If you feel I was trying to say that weight distribution is not related to engine location you are right. It realy has nothing to do with location. There are front engine cars that have 50/50, and I am not sure if there are rear engine cars out there with 50/50, and if not then there should be, hmm maybe I should design one sometime. Back to realality, the thing is though, it is flat out easier to make a mid engine car 50/50 than a front engine car or a rear engine car. That is what I was trying to get at, weight distribution realy doesn't have anything to do with the engnine location other than how easy it is to make the car 50/50.

    Once again, I did not start this thread, I found it looking for threads on the McLaren F1. I think it is dumb to compare two cars that are so different, but when I see people comparing the two I still must get in on the action, especially when they are completely destroying what a best car comparison should be. When I started posting in this thread they were comparing the McLaren F1 to the 800 tt to see which is the better CAR, not SUPERCAR. There is a difference between the two. When you compare two supercars, you look at a very limited number of factors that are closely related to performance in the way of speed, how quick you get there plus overall top speed, plus handling and braking and so forth. Also often how the car does on the track is compared when looking at two supercars. When you compare the two as cars, not supercars, you must look at performance overall. This includes more than speed, it includes luxury, build quality, how well of a daily driver it is, and many many other things.

    Price does not matter for how good of a car it is. Price is more related to the number of cars built, the amount of work that goes in to making the car, and so forth. If Hennesy was to design and build the 800 tt, not take a Viper and tune it, they would be in the million dollar range more than likely. Why? It is very expensive to design and build your own car rather than just tuning someone elses car. Bang for the buck is a huge factor though when choosing which one you would buy, not which one is better. If I had 150,000 dollars I would be looking for the biggest bang, which would probably include me getting a BMW e30 M3 or a Volvo 240 Turbo Wagon, doing some major work to it, and presto I would have one hell of a sleeper that would destroy anything it came across. That is what the principle behind the 800 tt, take a car, tune it, and presto you have a faster car, Hennesy just does this on a large scale for people that have more money than know how.
     
  12. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Alrighty then.
    I'm not gonna argue this anymore.
    It's pointless.
    You feel for one car, I feel for the other, simple as that.
    I still think that you can't compare a tuned Viper with a McLaren F1 and I still think that the reason for that are so obvious that I'm surprised someone actually started this thread in the first place.

    So final words from me on this topic:

    If someone told me I could choose between a Viper 800TT or a McLaren F1, but I was not allowed to sell the car, then I would take the Viper without hesitation.

    Have a nice day and get your Volvo specs straight <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>
     
  13. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Oh please, shut up will you!
    Any stock Viper will smoke the DB7 or the Vanquish at one third of the price they cost...Perfection of a McLaren? Well, don't you think you should expect a little quality for a million dollars!?
     
  14. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    What is wrong with the McLaren's quality? It has the most reliable engine, has some of the best fit and finish ever, and so forth.

    Also, I am not sure if you were talking about the 240 Turbo, of the Turbo Intercooler? The reason for this is that I have found 155 hp as the rating for the 240 Turbo, and I have yet to find a damn 240 Tubo Intercooler rating, but since Volvo did use the same engines in different models, a 740 Turbo Intercooler should have the same power figures then. Also, what year are you looking at? They stopped sending the 240 Turbo's to the US after 1985, and I believe there were some engine revisions made to the engine after 85. Do not quote me on that though, I tend to space off when my brother, a huge Volvo fan, starts talking about stuff like that. He collects old Volvo broschures though, so I will have him search through them for a 240 Turbo Intercooler broschure, and I will see what the numbers are. I hate having wrong numbers very much, so if you can give me a source to your numbers, then I will be very appreciative.

    Also, the stock Viper would not smoke the DB7 or the Vanquish. The Viper GTS(Euro spec) does 0-60 in 4.5 sec, that is the same as the Vanquish, and only .4 sec. quicker than the DB7. That is not a smoking. Once again, I am using Evo Magazine as my source for those times.
     
  15. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    And why are you using the Viper out of Evo magazine?! That one has only 378 horses. Do you live in Europe? Was there ever a time you could even buy a Viper with that amount of hp in the States? Hell, even in the later days of the Viper in Europe, they had 415-450 hp versions.

    DB7 vs. 450 hp (US-spec) Viper below. And there are about 6-7 road tests with the Viper hitting 60 in 3.9-4.1 seconds. By 100 mph, the Viper is long gone, and it will still beat a V12 Vanquish to 150 mph by about 2 whole seconds.
     
  16. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Ok, we will use Car Magazine. Chrslyer Viper 8.0 GTS V10, 0-60 in 4.5, BHP-399, LB FT-453. If you would like we can go with Evo Magazines Viper GTS-R numbers of, 0-60 in 4.0 sec., 460 hp, and 500 FT LB. It does not matter to me. I would still take a Vanquish over a Viper anyday of the week. The Vanquish is better made, more reliable, better handling, and way better lookin in my opinion. So why are we talking about these two cars again in the McLaren F1 thread?

    Time for a topic change,...,Go Cubbies!<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/amazed.gif"></A>
     
  17. #92 SwedeLBROCK, Apr 8, 2003
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Well, I guess I gonna have to discuss this a little more then....

    First of all, I never said that the McLaren had poor quality, because I wouldn't know anything about that, but I do know that BMW makes some damn fine quality engines. I do think that the McLaren F1 is a very sensitive car and unlike the Viper it is made to go fast all the time because otherwise it will overheat due to lack of wind (air) cooling when driven in slower speeds.
    What I meant was that either way a McLaren is a reliable car or not, you should expect top notch quality from a million dollar car, don't you think?

    And about the Volvos. I can't verify any figures on the U.S. sold Volvos, all I know is that the Volvo 240 turbo that came out in 1980 in Sweden had 155 hp. The 760 Turbo Intercooler which came in 1983 had 173 hp and used a refined version of the B23 found in 240 turbo, so in a way it would be the "same" engine. The 1987 Volvo 740 Turbo Intercooler had 185 hp without catalysator (156 hp with).
    I used to have a 1988 740 Turbo Intercooler and it made 0-60 in 8.4 seconds which I believe is very good for a heavy car like that, BUT you could never achieve those numbers in a stock 240 Turbo, that also verifies my power figures.

    My source is www.volvocars.se and from own knowledge.

    When I said stock Viper I'm talking about a brand new one like the -03 SRT-10 with 500 ponies. And yes, that car could SMOKE any stock DB7 or Vanquish and it only costs like half as much.
     
  18. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Let me correct you:

    You don't know if the Vanquish is better made or more realiable than a Viper because you don't own either cars and they haven't been around long enough so we're gonna let the future tell us that.

    What you should know (but obviously don't) is that the Viper (unlike the Vanquish) is known for its superior handling so I think that was a very stupid argument you made there. I don't have to prove this to you do I?
    You also know that the Viper is a lot cheaper than the Vanquish.

    You're right about one thing though: It IS time for a topic change.
     
  19. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    The Viper is not known for its's superior handling. Listen to what the raccar drivers have to say about the handling, then come up with an opinion on it's handling, seeing how you have never driven one probably. Also, we do know that Aston Martin makes very well engineered cars. We also know that they have spent a lot of time working on reliablility, so we can assume that they will be reliable cars, and if wrong all well.
     
  20. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Look at Viper slalom times and skidpad figures. Look at Viper times around the nurnbergring. Are there any stock DB7's or Vanquish under 8.40???? Don't think so...
    I've listened to NON-BIASED racecar drivers and they say that the Viper is amazing on the track, its tremendous torque let's you stay in higher gears out of corners etc etc.

    The 2003 Viper SRT-10 has got 500hp the Vanquish got 460hp, The Viper got 500 lb/ft Torque, The Vanquish got 400 lb/ft torque.
    Viper 0-60 in 3.9 sec
    Vanquish 0-60 in 5.0 sec
    etc

    Yes, I have test driven a 1999 Viper GTS from a Dodge dealer and I get to drive my friend's 1994 Chrysler Viper RT/10 every now and then.

    Aston Martin's are very nice cars and have always been, but let's face it, when it comes to handling and performance, the 2003 Viper SRT-10 will beat any 2003 Aston Martin.

    And if you wanna talk reliability, well then, I know I've seen plenty of old very high milage Dodges, Chevys, Volkswagens, Mercedes and Volvos here in Sweden but never an Aston Martin and I'm pretty sure that a pushrod V10 will be far more reliable than the DOHC V12 found in the Vanquish.

     
  21. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Actually, SwedelBROCK, the V12 Vanquish has lapped the Nurburgring in 8:17. However, that is 7 seconds slower than the Euro-spec Viper that was tested there. That car was rated at 411 DIN PS, and lacked the ABS brakes found on later Viper GTS's. I suspect a '00-'02 Viper w/450-460 horses and ABS brakes should lap in just under 8 minutes, with an SRT-10 not being to far off that mark. In any case, both would be well ahead of the Vanquish. This would refute the notion that the Viper handles badly.



     
  22. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    OK, thanks for the info. Was that really a stock Vanquish going around the ring at 8.17? Who was driving it?
     
  23. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Horst von Saurma. He's the test driver for Sport Auto Magazine, which does the standardized testing for stock production vehicles (and a few modified ones) there.
    The Vanquish was stock.
     
  24. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Are we slow? First off, the Vanquish factory 0-60 time is 4.5 sec., not a hard number to find. Do some research next time. Next, are you saying that a push rod is more reliable than a OHC? That is not the smartest thing I have heard today, but not he dumbest either. An OHC engine actually is more reliable, it has less moving parts than a push rod. The most reliable engine, according to J.D Power at least, is the BMW M Power V12 in the McLaren F1. So I do not see how you can jump to the conclusion that a push rod V10 is more reliable than a DOHC V12. Do not come back with examples of push rod engines with very good reliablilty though, there are other parts that will break on the engine. Also, I probably already know all of the cars you are going to say.

    Great, some racecar drivers said it is a good car on the track, of course it is a good car on the track, did you realy need to prove that? I have heard praise from racecar drivers for the Viper's on track ability also. I have heard many more negative comments about it's handling though, including slow reaction, and not enough feedback. I have also heard from several of the Le Mans drivers that the Viper has no room for error when it comes to braking for the turn, turning in, and accelerating out of the turn due to it's laggy handling. The Viper does have amazing road holding power though, but that is not everything. Also, slalmon trap speeds do not show how well a car handles realy, it is a mix of acceleration and handling. So if a car has massive acceleration, but crap handling it can still post good speeds in the slalom. I so wish they would show a mid slalom speed, that would realy tell us things about how the car handles.

    I do not know that much about the Viper's reliablity, but from what I have heard about the build quality I am going to assume it is not top notch. Then you have the Vanquish. It has some of the best build quality, and more than likely over engineered.

    So lets see what we have. The Viper is quicker, we have to weit for some test times to see for sure, and it has more power. Handling is up in the air. The rest is the Vanquish, more reliable probably(Need to wait and see), better build quality, better engineered, more stylish IMO, and if they met side by side at a stop light neither one would smoke the other one, there is a big difference between test driver, and the average Joe driving these cars. If it was two average Joes driving, my money would be on the Vanquish, easier to drive fast than the Viper, but it would be close as long as the Viper driver doesn't spin the wheels for longer than the .5 sec. advantage it has.
     
  25. Re: this v.s mclaren f-1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    I would take the 800tt over the F1 anyday. For one thing, in my opinion, it looks better. Another, its American made. This Viper shows that we can make somethin that can keep up with all other European exotic cars. Plus, its a heck of a lot cheaper than the F1, with just as much speed.
     

Share This Page