- Oct 9, 1999
- 72,647
- 27
- 91
Damn, but these cars aren't really meant to be used for long periods without maintenance I remember reading about the ex ferrari race cars you can buy and they run for something stupid like a couple hundred miles then need a full overhaulThe McLaren's clutch has to be replaced every 3k miles? Ouch! I didn't know that
Originally posted by: Skoorb
Cool I needs to read thisDamn, but these cars aren't really meant to be used for long periods without maintenance I remember reading about the ex ferrari race cars you can buy and they run for something stupid like a couple hundred miles then need a full overhaulThe McLaren's clutch has to be replaced every 3k miles? Ouch! I didn't know that
Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
More proof, that even 10 years later, the BMW-powered McLaren F1 is still king!
Originally posted by: KokomoGST
Well, considering back when the F1 was originally intro'ed it stickered for much more than the GT does currently... even in comparison to the other supercars out there, it seems like very little differentiates all of the top cars in actuality.
But with to care and attention paid to custom cars by today's aftermarket, there are shops now that can built trueblue supercar slayers even with F1s and GTs floating around. If you want to play a numbers game... you really wouldn't be looking at the F1 and GT really.
Personally, I LOVE the screaming soprano tone of the Porsche V10... Bean may think it's dull... but I think it's intoxicating! No doubt I'd still have one in my garage if I had that kind of $$. It's the "glow" of owning a very special supercar I guess... though I think the Koenigsegg CCR is just that much more brutal than an F1 and more a true offspring of the F1 concept.
Originally posted by: JYDog
If I had a million to put down on a F1, a few things would give me reservations about it in terms of performance. Its notorious(atleast in some press I've seen) for understeering wildly. Also, for such a car, its got stability issues in the coners(relative to others cars of its class). The MF1 have seen alot of accidental crashes(on course track) due to these problems. No doubt the F1 is a legend, but its got areas it needs working on(the EVO read points to this also). The Carrera GT just has fewer ssues. Its probably much more accurate and stable handler by nature of its layout(wider track base vs. a narrowish track on F1) and its amenities(ABS, traction-stability controls).
Originally posted by: Buttzilla
Originally posted by: JYDog
If I had a million to put down on a F1, a few things would give me reservations about it in terms of performance. Its notorious(atleast in some press I've seen) for understeering wildly. Also, for such a car, its got stability issues in the coners(relative to others cars of its class). The MF1 have seen alot of accidental crashes(on course track) due to these problems. No doubt the F1 is a legend, but its got areas it needs working on(the EVO read points to this also). The Carrera GT just has fewer ssues. Its probably much more accurate and stable handler by nature of its layout(wider track base vs. a narrowish track on F1) and its amenities(ABS, traction-stability controls).
i dont know if you read the article or not but Mr. Bean wrote it clearly. the GT is made to make money. it performs better on the road and the F1, better on the track.
atleast for Porsche, CGT serves as a "halo" car for some usefulness.