McLaren Life banner
861 - 880 of 918 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,300 Posts
I really have no idea if it will or not..:but assuming equal tires...the GMA is roughly 1000lbs lighter with 150hp more. That’s a pretty big advantage. It would be pretty surprising if it didn’t keep up with a GT3 on track.
I hear what you are saying, but Porsche are really good at making cars that are greater than the sum of their parts, especially road cars driven on tracks. Effective downforce, weight distribution contributing to traction, braking - their stuff is good, no doubt helped by the huge amount of track testing that is done in their cars by factory racing drivers. Another big advantage that they have is that their entire 'GT' range has been undergoing incremental improvement for two decades now, continually honing and refining cars that were great to begin with.
Although not in its 'GT' series, who would have imagined that the 918, with its power and weight disadvantages, would be faster around the 'Ring than the P1 was? And yet indeed it was faster.
The T.50 and T.33 are intended to be driver's cars, not track-day specials. I have no idea how fast around a track they will be relative to a GT3, but I would not bet against the latter.
 

· Registered
2022 765LT Spider
Joined
·
751 Posts
I hear what you are saying, but Porsche are really good at making cars that are greater than the sum of their parts, especially road cars driven on tracks. Effective downforce, weight distribution contributing to traction, braking - their stuff is good, no doubt helped by the huge amount of track testing that is done in their cars by factory racing drivers. Another big advantage that they have is that their entire 'GT' range has been undergoing incremental improvement for two decades now, continually honing and refining cars that were great to begin with.
Although not in its 'GT' series, who would have imagined that the 918, with its power and weight disadvantages, would be faster around the 'Ring than the P1 was? And yet indeed it was faster.
The T.50 and T.33 are intended to be driver's cars, not track-day specials. I have no idea how fast around a track they will be relative to a GT3, but I would not bet against the latter.
Time will tell I guess. GM has been designing ‘serious’ cars for much of his life...and the last one he made might be the GOAT, so I have feeling this one will be very good as well.

I don’t put as much ‘stock’ into Porsche ring times. There’s some secret sauce they put into their cars at the ring. A 720s has never done a sub 7min lap that I’m aware of but a 991GT3RS and the 992GT3 have...Yet every track I’ve been to and have talked with my other track friends about the 720 is significantly quicker than a GT3RS. Not even close. A GT2RS is needed to keep up with a 720 and even that is tough.

So Porsche and ring times don’t seem to translate to other tracks. Again...I love Porsches so no disrespect because they are incredible...truly great...but their’s something different about their ring efforts.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,117 Posts
I think the success of a car is also related to the development of the entire target market. I can imagine that the T.50 is an excellent car. But this car meets a market that is massively more developed than it was when an F1 was launched. There are simply a lot of extremely good cars today. Finding the niche to place a ligthhouse car has become extremely difficult. I can imagine, with all due respect to Gordon Murray, that it will be difficult for the T.50, that it will be difficult to make it into the annals of absolute high-flyers.
Does this car still meet a spirit of time at all or is it not already over before it comes on the market? Sure a car with a few unique features. But downforce by a vacuum cleaner? Cool in theory or on the race track, but probably absolute ridiculous in public traffic (besides the fact that it simply doesn't look good). Although the screeching of the V12 engine is extremely annoying, I keep my fingers crossed for Gordon Murray, if only for his courage in tackling such a project. And if the sales figures remain small, the value retention is certainly already secured.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
First, I'd love to see a production T.50 strapped down to a good dyno or two. That should tell us if that engine is really belting out 654hp as claimed. Stop talking about the 'ram air' effect...everyone writes that off as a rounding error anyway. Good to know a little is there, but altitude & DA can easily mitigate that.

Love Bridster's post #854. It reminds me of the conversation I overheard but was not a part of. Guy had a 720 and just got a 992 Turbo S. Was asked which handled better and he flat out stated the Turbo S. Shocked everyone. Mechanical grip. Porsche knows how to engineer & tire those cars for both low speed and high speed handling.

I think mechanical grip is underrated and is being lost to all the arguments about high speed downforce and grip - in street cars at least.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,545 Posts
First, I'd love to see a production T.50 strapped down to a good dyno or two. That should tell us if that engine is really belting out 654hp as claimed. Stop talking about the 'ram air' effect...everyone writes that off as a rounding error anyway. Good to know a little is there, but altitude & DA can easily mitigate that.

Love Bridster's post #854. It reminds me of the conversation I overheard but was not a part of. Guy had a 720 and just got a 992 Turbo S. Was asked which handled better and he flat out stated the Turbo S. Shocked everyone. Mechanical grip. Porsche knows how to engineer & tire those cars for both low speed and high speed handling.

I think mechanical grip is underrated and is being lost to all the arguments about high speed downforce and grip - in street cars at least.
Handling is a different thing from mechanical grip.
 

· 2012 MP4-12C
Joined
·
10,331 Posts
First, I'd love to see a production T.50 strapped down to a good dyno or two. That should tell us if that engine is really belting out 654hp as claimed. Stop talking about the 'ram air' effect...everyone writes that off as a rounding error anyway. Good to know a little is there, but altitude & DA can easily mitigate that.

Love Bridster's post #854. It reminds me of the conversation I overheard but was not a part of. Guy had a 720 and just got a 992 Turbo S. Was asked which handled better and he flat out stated the Turbo S. Shocked everyone. Mechanical grip. Porsche knows how to engineer & tire those cars for both low speed and high speed handling.

I think mechanical grip is underrated and is being lost to all the arguments about high speed downforce and grip - in street cars at least.
This reminds me of several conversations on this forum with owners that had both 911 and a 720. They were both convinced that the 911 was faster. Until they tested the car. And were surprised that every time the McLaren was the faster car around the track when they actually measured. Because the seat of your pants “feeling“ is not something you can trust. Other manufacturers make you feel like you’re going fast when you’re going slow. McLarens make you feel like you’re going slow when you’re actually going fast.
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
4,300 Posts
Time will tell I guess. GM has been designing ‘serious’ cars for much of his life...and the last one he made might be the GOAT, so I have feeling this one will be very good as well.

I don’t put as much ‘stock’ into Porsche ring times. There’s some secret sauce they put into their cars at the ring. A 720s has never done a sub 7min lap that I’m aware of but a 991GT3RS and the 992GT3 have...Yet every track I’ve been to and have talked with my other track friends about the 720 is significantly quicker than a GT3RS. Not even close. A GT2RS is needed to keep up with a 720 and even that is tough.

So Porsche and ring times don’t seem to translate to other tracks. Again...I love Porsches so no disrespect because they are incredible...truly great...but their’s something different about their ring efforts.
'Secret sauce'? All I can tell you is that I used to race out of the same operation that would prepare the various Porsches for setting their reference 'Ring times, and used to race on the same team with the factory drivers who were setting those times. Yes, they would take care that the car was set up properly (which they always did for any car that came out of their shop), but there were no extra BHPs or special tyres or lowered chassis. Porsche are self-confident enough that they play it straight.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,428 Posts
First, I'd love to see a production T.50 strapped down to a good dyno or two. That should tell us if that engine is really belting out 654hp as claimed. Stop talking about the 'ram air' effect...everyone writes that off as a rounding error anyway. Good to know a little is there, but altitude & DA can easily mitigate that.

Love Bridster's post #854. It reminds me of the conversation I overheard but was not a part of. Guy had a 720 and just got a 992 Turbo S. Was asked which handled better and he flat out stated the Turbo S. Shocked everyone. Mechanical grip. Porsche knows how to engineer & tire those cars for both low speed and high speed handling.

I think mechanical grip is underrated and is being lost to all the arguments about high speed downforce and grip - in street cars at least.
What makes you think that Cosworth isn't delivering the power that they are supposed to? And yes, ram air is a thing, and not a rounding error, 20+ hp is noticeable. Power is stated at STP. And an engine dyno like the one Cosworth is using is way more accurate than a chassis dyno.

I also don't understand the post earlier about the market. This car is literally going against the grain of the hypercar market. There's nothing else like it.
 

· 2012 MP4-12C
Joined
·
10,331 Posts
What makes you think that Cosworth isn't delivering the power that they are supposed to? And yes, ram air is a thing, and not a rounding error, 20+ hp is noticeable. Power is stated at STP. And an engine dyno like the one Cosworth is using is way more accurate than a chassis dyno.

I also don't understand the post earlier about the market. This car is literally going against the grain of the hypercar market. There's nothing else like it.
Well there is the SCG004S. It’s not a v12 though, and not as polished, but also not as obscenely expensive. It is a 3 seater and manual though.

I look forward to a comparison of the new 3 seaters! Longtail, T50, and the SCG004S.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,117 Posts

I also don't understand the post earlier about the market. This car is literally going against the grain of the hypercar market. There's nothing else like it.
Now, strictly speaking, GM is trying to boil up again what no longer corresponds to the time. Such an approach has not that much to do with innovation. A swan song to the old times. And that for a horrendous amount of money marketing wise packed as a hyper car. Basically I like such an approach, whether this is enough for the big success can be critically questioned.
I don't know the order books, but this car may very well be a flop, which I hope it is not.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,278 Posts
Now, strictly speaking, GM is trying to boil up again what no longer corresponds to the time. Such an approach has not that much to do with innovation. A swan song to the old times. And that for a horrendous amount of money marketing wise packed as a hyper car. Basically I like such an approach, whether this is enough for the big success can be critically questioned.
I don't know the order books, but this car may very well be a flop, which I hope it is not.
the T50 is sold out, the T33 was sold out by the time they launched the car.
As to a swansong for the old time, more like a swansong against the Politically correct BS that politicians are pushing currently.
Buying an EV supercar/hypercar is a really bad environmental decision. If you take volvos study of the XC40 you will need 60-120k kms before an EV is break even vs an ICE. and that is a small battery in a XC40. so take the 200kwh batteries of the battista, evija, Neveras etc, i doubt a single one of them will do that much mileage during the batteries lifespan.
Porsche is working on synthetic fuel, F1 is going synthetic fuel in 2026.
in WEC and ELMS we are racing with 100% bio fuel, reducing carbon emissions by 65% already
.
so i wouldnt count out ICE engines just yet and look forward to celebrating these anachronistic swan songs for as long as i can ;)
 

· 2012 MP4-12C
Joined
·
10,331 Posts
Now, strictly speaking, GM is trying to boil up again what no longer corresponds to the time. Such an approach has not that much to do with innovation. A swan song to the old times. And that for a horrendous amount of money marketing wise packed as a hyper car. Basically I like such an approach, whether this is enough for the big success can be critically questioned.
I don't know the order books, but this car may very well be a flop, which I hope it is not.
Well here is Porsche’s competition. Basically a manual, rear wheel drive, Porsche 911 turbo s for $275k, with just 543hp.


I’d get a 720 over this all day, but that’s irrelevant. It will sell out for sure. Some of the pricing going on, I just don’t get, but apparently, I’m not the target demographic.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
215 Posts
What makes you think that Cosworth isn't delivering the power that they are supposed to? And yes, ram air is a thing, and not a rounding error, 20+ hp is noticeable. Power is stated at STP. And an engine dyno like the one Cosworth is using is way more accurate than a chassis dyno.

I also don't understand the post earlier about the market. This car is literally going against the grain of the hypercar market. There's nothing else like it.
Many cars, even ordinary daily beater cars benefit from a 'ram air' effect.

My statement was meant more as that I 'HOPE' they are telling the truth about the power numbers. And the weight numbers and so on and so on. Some manufacturers fudge the truth about a great many things and others are more conservative by under promising and over delivering. I simply hope it is the latter. That's A LOT of power out of a small NA engine...

Not sure what you meant regarding the 'market'... All I want is for the T.50 (and GM) to be a major success & to be what the Valkyrie and a few others were supposed to be, and I'll quote A West's post from above: "As to a swansong for the old time, more like a swansong against the Politically correct BS that politicians are pushing currently."
 

· Registered
Joined
·
526 Posts
Discussion Starter · #875 ·
We are at a time similar to watches. There are plenty of mechanical watches that are expensive and intricate but there is also the digital apple watch that does so many things. Does the apple watch replace the mechanical watch? In a sense it did. However, the mechanical watch has become less of a utilitarian piece and has become reserved for the hobbyist. This holds true for cars as well... We gentlemen are the quintessential auto hobbyist and thats why we still love mechanical ICE, and the manual transmission... Doesnt mean that its relevant to the times we are in as electric cars will in the next few generations become as efficient if not more efficient than ICE. This however, does not mean the ICE is going to die. It may play more of a hobby collection role for the auto enthusiast in the future. The ICE will live on but play a much smaller part in automotive world where Performance car brands will diversify to cater to the client that appreciate and will need/want both in their stable. I hope GMA succeeds as well. But, even they realize their future iterations will need to incorporate hybrid and even full electric to be able court to a wider audience. Small runs of these cars are great but their long game is still the same as all other car brands out there. As to their performance, just having a manual already gives the performance aspect away... its gonna deliver great fun but its not going to be world beating.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,428 Posts
Many cars, even ordinary daily beater cars benefit from a 'ram air' effect.

My statement was meant more as that I 'HOPE' they are telling the truth about the power numbers. And the weight numbers and so on and so on. Some manufacturers fudge the truth about a great many things and others are more conservative by under promising and over delivering. I simply hope it is the latter. That's A LOT of power out of a small NA engine...

Not sure what you meant regarding the 'market'... All I want is for the T.50 (and GM) to be a major success & to be what the Valkyrie and a few others were supposed to be, and I'll quote A West's post from above: "As to a swansong for the old time, more like a swansong against the Politically correct BS that politicians are pushing currently."
You realize that they are weight tracking every single nut and bolt on all the prototype car builds, right? And that no, most cars do not have airboxes designed to gain 20 hp from ram air effect. Locating the intake to the roof away from radiators/heat exchangers maximizes this effect, in addition to the intake geometry. How many naturally aspirated cars today have roof intakes? Maybe a handful

Yes, that is a lot of power for a "small" engine. That's why it revs to 12000 rpm...

I think you're not giving GM his due. He is fanatical about engineering details. Way beyond what McLaren is today
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,278 Posts
You realize that they are weight tracking every single nut and bolt on all the prototype car builds, right? And that no, most cars do not have airboxes designed to gain 20 hp from ram air effect. Locating the intake to the roof away from radiators/heat exchangers maximizes this effect, in addition to the intake geometry. How many naturally aspirated cars today have roof intakes? Maybe a handful

Yes, that is a lot of power for a "small" engine. That's why it revs to 12000 rpm...

I think you're not giving GM his due. He is fanatical about engineering details. Way beyond what McLaren is today
totally agree, but gearbox on F1 wasnt great, and neither were the brakes...
and i think Gordon has publicly said he doesnt care about laptimes or 0-60 that is not what the cars are for.
and i approve of that message
 

· Registered
Joined
·
2,428 Posts
totally agree, but gearbox on F1 wasnt great, and neither were the brakes...
and i think Gordon has publicly said he doesnt care about laptimes or 0-60 that is not what the cars are for.
and i approve of that message
Yes, although those are known weak points that Gordon wasn't satisfied with on the F1. Particularly I remember that the brakes had to be rated for repeated stops from top speed, requiring very specifically hard pads.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,117 Posts
… i think Gordon has publicly said he doesnt care about laptimes or 0-60 that is not what the cars are for.
and i approve of that message
Oh, then I'm right up front with my Maserati Granturismo: it's beautiful, it's loud as hell, it's a drunk, it's heavy as an elephant, and it doesn't give a damn about fast lap times. And the woke people in the left cities hate this car (and me)…
I‘m fully alligned with Gordon. 😉
 

· Registered
Joined
·
1,278 Posts
Oh, then I'm right up front with my Maserati Granturismo: it's beautiful, it's loud as hell, it's a drunk, it's heavy as an elephant, and it doesn't give a damn about fast lap times. And the woke people in the left cities hate this car (and me)…
I‘m fully alligned with Gordon. 😉
i liked my gransport even more. managed to set of car alarms in every garage i took it to... ;)
 
861 - 880 of 918 Posts
Top