Battle for Supercar Supremacy

[bdisco]

http://sci-mag.com/art1/art1p1.html

 

[absolutsnwbrdr]

nice article.

 

horrible website design.

[IwannaSportSedan]

McLaren FTW.

 

The rest of the cars are FANTASTIC, don't get me wrong.

 

But none of them are a gestalt-shift like the McLaren is. Supercars fall into two groups... Pre-BigMac and Post-BigMac.

 

The ways in which the other supercars best the McLaren, like the Veyron's power, and aerodynamics, etc, are all ways that the McLaren obliterated the competition in 1993. FIFTEEN Years ago.

 

Carbon fiber chassis, ceramic technology (clutches, which led to brakes), heat management, compact powerful engines, and all sorts of things are aspects where McLaren re-wrote the book, that these other newer cars are taking lessons from that book.

 

Good Lord, if McLaren, or any of these companies were to change the current game now the way the BigMac did then... what that would mean...

 

And Gordon Murray had some less than kind words to say about the Veyron, in an interview a while back. It may be insanely powerful, but it is MUCH heavier, where the F1's goal was always WEIGHT WEIGHT WEIGHT, and keeping it to an appropriate minimum, which is why it has no power steering, no ABS, and no Traction Control, to keep a light car pure.

 

The one thing I do wonder, is how the F1 would cope with new wheels and tires. Flow-forged 18" fronts, and 19" rears, with current super-car spec tires.... That would be a relatively easy thing to upgrade on a McLaren F1, perhaps along with ceramic brake discs to further reduce the unsprung weight (probably a bigger reduction than larger wheels would add)

 

A new McLaren "F2" that would change the game like the F1 did, with MORE light-weight materials, MORE modern tech (lighter, more compact components like lighting...) and an even MORE cutting edge engine. (which might be hard to do... That BMW V12 cost more to develop and manufacture, per unit than an 850CSi CAR.)

 

The Mercedes McLaren SLR is not that car, but perhaps has a few of those newer techniques. Mercedes out of the picture, and McLaren back to what it is capable of, might be able to do it again... If Gordon Murray were to somehow come back.

[05GT Guru]

How much does a mclaren cost? For under 500k dollars you could have any engine built, with any kind of carbon fiber body, with any kind of drive train, with any kind of suspension with any kind of brakes. Does the f1 cost more than 500k? The McClaren weighs what 2600lbs about, you can make almost any car weight that much with a carbo fiber body and lightweight frame, i have seen 2000 ls2 cars weighing only 2800lbs with full roll cage and driver. Dont get me wrong the McClaren is an amazing car but for the price you could have something 1 of a kind. That you put together yourself made for whatever you want.

[CTlegacy06]

I agree with the hope for a new F2! Something that would go back to the roots of a super car. A bare minimum track demon. Now adays Luxury and Super Car have to go hand in hand... The Veyron would be a better SPORTS car IF they took out all the luxury amenities making it lighter thus much faster! But someone with 1 million bux to blow couldn't appreciate a second of their life without their dear A/C.

[IwannaSportSedan]

How much does a mclaren cost? For under 500k dollars you could have any engine built, with any kind of carbon fiber body, with any kind of drive train, with any kind of suspension with any kind of brakes. Does the f1 cost more than 500k? The McClaren weighs what 2600lbs about, you can make almost any car weight that much with a carbo fiber body and lightweight frame, i have seen 2000 ls2 cars weighing only 2800lbs with full roll cage and driver. Dont get me wrong the McClaren is an amazing car but for the price you could have something 1 of a kind. That you put together yourself made for whatever you want.

 

ARE YOU FREAKIN' KIDDING ME???

 

McLaren F1 *IS* technology that didn't exist in one single place before it's design, and hasn't been completely replicated since.

 

McLaren CHANGED THE GAME in 1993. In 2003, and probably 2013, supercar builders are still working from the new rule-book the McLaren F1 re-wrote. Ferrari 288GTO/Evoluzione/F40, and Lamborghini Countach and Diablo are old-school compared to this, and roughly the same or immediately previous vintage.

 

Vector, and other tried-to-be builders didn't even come close to the craftsmanship and engineering in every ounce of the F1. Enzo and Murcielago, Veyron, Carrera GT, Zonda, Koeniggsegg, et al wouldn't exist as they do today, without the trail the F1 blazed.

 

Those cars may be faster, quicker, and have more amenities, but they owe at least some homage to the F1, and that is why the F1 wins.

 

A completely clean-sheet-designed carbon-fiber/kevlar weave over aluminum honeycomb composite chassis? half a million dollars? It would cost millions of dollars just to design and prototype something like that. This car was designed and built by people who design and build revolutionary F1 cars. What is an F1 Chassis R&D budget?

 

This car is not a carbon fiber body on a metal chassis structure. The whole safety cell and the vast majority of the chassis is CF composite, with composite subframe assemblies, and CF composite body panels over the subframes, and the doors. The central cell *is* the exposed body, from the center spine from the roof to the rear firewall, seat-back firewalls and luggage boxes, floor and integral sills, front bulkhead, dash, and door frames, all the way back up the a-pillars to the roof spine again. ALL ONE CF over Aluminum matrix COMPOSITE SAFETY CELL.

 

A test driver WALKED AWAY from a 180 mile crash that destroyed a test mule during development. That is better safety than most full race cars.

 

Lets take a look at the custom main component list:

A compact, ultra-lightweight 670hp BMW V12 with individual throttle bodies per cylinder, developed from BMW's motorsport and racing division that is made to mount lower in the chassis than just about any other engine, with an ultra-short dry-sump. Oh, and NO TRADITIONAL FLYWHEEL AT ALL.

 

an ultra-compact structural-component transaxle built to handle racing stresses, including the V12's power level, with a custom-developed twin-plate small-diameter carbon ceramic clutch that had never been seen before, just to get the engine low enough in the chassis, and handle the power without being too stiff to actually use.

 

no compromise suspension geometry that is built to handle at modest, all the way up to record-breaking top speed. ALL CUSTOM DESIGNED, not taken off of any shelf.

 

and GOLD FOIL HEAT INSULATION in the engine bay to protect a tightly packed chassis, driveline, and storage/electronics.

 

Inconel (VERY expensive alloy) exhaust system with four primary catalysts, and an inconel muffler that doubles as a rear crush-structure in an accident.

 

Full wind-tunnel testing and some of the most advanced aerodynamics ever seen on a street car, even advanced to the current day, stemming from Can-Am and F1, where McLaren was so good, that their cars caused rule changes because they were so much better than their competition.

 

The McLaren F1 was no kit car, and even with an astronomical $500K single-project budget, one guy building a car is never going to push the envelope the way the McLaren F1 did in 1993, when it was released.

 

And the McLaren F1 as a piece of unrivaled craftsmanship and design, as well as an automotive milestone, is worth every penny of it's ~$1Million asking price, IF you can find one of the ~300 units that were built, including LE MANS WINNING RACE CARS that were relatively lightly modified street cars, compared to some of the one-off prototypes that run in that class at Le Mans.

 

McLaren Picture Gallery, really worth checking out, not press-shots

 

http://www.mikesparr.com/wp-content/thumb-IMG_0054.JPGhttp://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop-380x418/P390-main-TECH_2w.jpghttp://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop-800x598/McLaren_F1_9__dw.jpghttp://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/jpg/f/P193_Largew.jpghttp://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/jpg/c/P262w.jpg

http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/jpg/9/all-sorts_Largew.jpg

 

And a lot of the newer supercars have a hard time looking better than this car. All of it's engineering, being a 15-year-old-design, and it is still breathtakingly gorgeous.

[panamajack]

IwannaSportSedan is my hero

[IwannaSportSedan]

do I really want an explanation of that statement?

 

But thanks for the complement.

[LuckyBob]

I agree with the hope for a new F2! Something that would go back to the roots of a super car. A bare minimum track demon. Now adays Luxury and Super Car have to go hand in hand... The Veyron would be a better SPORTS car IF they took out all the luxury amenities making it lighter thus much faster! But someone with 1 million bux to blow couldn't appreciate a second of their life without their dear A/C.

 

There's always the Ultima GTR or similar, which’ll spank a F1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_GTR. Then again, for me part of the allure of modern supercars (starting with the F1) is that, from an engineering standpoint, you don't have to sacrifice the "standard" amenities or even most of the reliability to obtain the performance.

[SunburnNYC]

There's always the Ultima GTR or similar, which’ll spank a F1 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_GTR. Then again, for me part of the allure of modern supercars (starting with the F1) is that, from an engineering standpoint, you don't have to sacrifice the "standard" amenities or even most of the reliability to obtain the performance.

 

I completely agree. I'd be really happy in a new AMG CLS 63

[bdisco]

That you put together yourself made for whatever you want.

 

http://www.factoryfive.com/table/ffrkits/GTM/images/may05/4604a.jpg

 

http://www.factoryfive.com/table/ffrkits/GTM/concept.html

 

Life insurance not included.

[IwannaSportSedan]

To compare the Factory Five car or Ultima GTR to the McLaren F1 is to completely MISS THE POINT.

 

Those two are fast simply by putting a VERY highly tuned 50-year-old engine design into a steel and fiberglass (with some CF thrown in perhaps) chassis with corvette suspension. They are a mix of spartan kit car and affordable race car. It is easy to be light with no interior to speak of, and no underbody, just a skin over a space-frame.

 

That is like comparing a paint-by-numbers copy of the Mona Lisa to the REAL DAMN THING.

 

One can be done by anyone, and might look similar to the other, which is an original genius masterwork that NOT everyone is capable of creating.

 

I mean, c'mon. Look at the picture of that factory five car, and then look back at the McLaren F1. Look at the panel fit, and surface development. No Comparison whatsoever.

[CTlegacy06]

Now adays most of the ultra sports cars are shipped to Dubai and the Middle East where Oil is obviously still affordable so I think that has skewed development toward luxury rather than pure sport. The only sports racing I've seen come out of the Middle East were those people that try to drift on long straight desert roads and end up wiping out into spectator crowds... They can't appreciate something like the F1.

[rao]

I have no interest in getting involved in this argument, but I must say that the engine in the McLaren was not super-advanced, by any measure.

[bdisco]

Preaching to the choir...

[IwannaSportSedan]

BMW's highest performance V-12 was made for the McLaren F1 sports car.

 

http://www.usautoparts.net/bmw/images/engine/mclaren.jpg

 

Model BMW S70/2

Type 6.1 liter, 48 valve V-12 with aluminum block and heads, 627 bhp

Bore and stroke 3.38 x 3.41 in (86 x 87 mm)

Displacement 370 cubic in, 6064 cc

Compression ratio 10.5:1

Engine control system Bosch Motronic with port fuel injection

Emissions controls 3-way catalytic converter feedback fuel-air-ratio control auxiliary air pump

Valve gear Chain-driven double overhead cams, 4 valves per cylinder, hydraulic lifters, variable intake timing

Power (SAE net) 618 bhp @ 7400 rpm

Torque (SAE net) 479 ft-lb @ 4000 rpm

Redline 7500 rpm

The McLaren F1 with the BMW S70 engine had a 0-60 mph time of 3.1 seconds and a top speed of 230-240 mph. The McLaren set the world speed record of 240.1 mph for the fastest production car in March 1998.

 

The engine for the McLaren F1 LM model produced 680 hp and 520 ft-lbs of torque! Issued in honor of the McLaren F1's that won the 1995 LeMans race, the LM's set a 0-100-0 mph world record for a production car by ripping through the tach in a gut wrenching 11.5 seconds while traveling a distance of only 828.4 feet!

 

It was pretty damn advanced for an engine and car designed in 1993.

[rao]

Just because it was BMW's highest performance engine at the time does not mean that it was the most technology's advanced in the market

[executor485]

I'll take any of them if someone was to give them to me...

But I think I'd love the Bugatti for the status/comfort... The McLaren for the absolute thrill and amazing design for its time... And the Enzo just because its a Ferarri... lol

The porsche, kossinegi, and zonda are all nice... But if I had my choice...

[IwannaSportSedan]

Just because it was BMW's highest performance engine at the time does not mean that it was the most technology's advanced in the market

 

What engine on the market in 1993-1998 was more advanced, exactly?

 

Ferrari and Lambo V12s were on par, but heavier, and not as free-revving.

 

Nothing had direct injection at that time.

[rao]

What is your definition of more advanced; more parts?

[IwannaSportSedan]

Higher and FASTER revving, lower chassis mounting for better Cg, better/lighter dry sump oiling system, lighter long block weight while being stiff enough to be a stressed member, variable intake geometry, while having the same or better level of power output of heavier V12s, and no problems with driveability or overheating in a midship location.

 

Or there is the little thing about being more than 100hp per liter out of more than 6 liters. The larger displacement an engine has, the less likely it is to make 100hp per liter. It is easier to get 200hp out of 2 liters than 600hp out of 6 liters, as in the rule of diminishing returns. Yet it does so. Especially all without a turbo's lag and heat, or supercharger drag, by Gordon Murray's demand.

 

How many other engines get that kind of power WITHOUT superchargers or turbochargers, especially at that engine-weight, and redline, with that light inertia response. The number is still fairly low.

 

This engine in this car WON Le Mans several times, against other prototype engines. Hardly a slouch.

 

Everyone loves the S2000 engine, with more than 100hp per liter out of 2 liters. McLaren/BMW did it earlier with 6 liters, and up to 680 horsepower, which is harder to do.

 

Do you think the E46 M3's 3.2 liter with 330hp would have been possible in a car at that price without BMW having done the R&D for McLaren first? For a guy with a BMW as an avatar, I figured you would be a little more well-versed with BMW's engines.

[rao]

It is a very nice motor; I am done with the debate because it is endless

 

For example, any old fashioned push rod v8 would have a lower Cg due to the reduction in mass in the cylinder heads

 

Enjoy the debate.

 

BTW, the F1 is one of my favorite cars of all time, FWIW.

[05GT Guru]

Im not saying the engine isnt advanced, but all this technolligy you listed has been around for a while, all they did was put it in 1 engine and make it bigger. Variable valve timing, v-tec honda had it for years, aluminum heads and block around for tons of years 4 overhead cams nothing new. Multiple intakes, hell nissan 300zx had that just not as many lol. I dont know much about the engine so im just goin off what you posted. All that technology was around they just put it to use. 600+hp naturally aspiried is good, chevy had a proto type car i cant remeber what kind. As for 600hp with 6.0liters, i have seen the 7.0liter ls7 make over 700hp N/A. Yes its a 7.0liter but it also has 4 less cylinders. The point is to make the most power efficently i dont really care what kind of technology you use to do it.

[IwannaSportSedan]

I'll bet the F1 V12 mounts in the chassis much lower. A pushrod V8's heads would be above the throttle-bodies on that V12, with the bottom of both engines on level ground.

 

keep in mind. THIS ENGINE AND CAR WERE PRODUCED IN 1993!!! Vtec was just barely getting started, and cars were just coming out with variable intake tracts. This car had variable intakes and twelve throttle bodies, all in that CF intake stack that drew air from the roof scoop. Pretty darn compact for a new, custom designed system.

 

The Small Block was not making the power THEN that it does now, certainly not naturally aspirated.

 

For reference.

1995-98 Lamborghini Diablo SV had a 5.7 liter V12 with 520 horsepower.

1993 Diablo SE-30 had less than 500 from the same displacement.

1993 Ferrari 512TR had a 4.9L Flat-twelve with 421hp.

1989 F40 had a 2.9 liter V8 with twin intercooled turbos, and 470hp.

1996 F50 had a F1 engine, a 4.75 Liter V12, and 520 horsepower (Only other car in this list with more than 100hp/liter without turbos, and still 100 less hp than the McLaren.)

 

For the small-block...

1993 40th Anniversary Corvette: ZR1's LT5 had 405hp, a 30hp gain over 1992's 375. The non ZR-1's LT1 was obviously much less at 300hp/370tq.

 

Those were the other state-of-the-art cars of the late 80s and early to mid 90s. McLaren left them ALL behind.

[05GT Guru]

Lol do you know how big 4 cam heads are, and how much more they weigh, even if they are aluminum when compared to a pusrod v8 with alum heads they still wiegh more. I have never seen a mclaren engine up close but i have seen 4.6liter v8 cobra engines and those heads are huge due to the 4 cam setup. My ls1 5.7liter v8 weighs close to what the 1.3 rotary engine out of a rx7 does, when people do those swaps they use the ls engine because they gain no weight but alot of potential.