Quote: 'It has that "drama" to it that all these perverted car journalists and many of the rest of us look for in a supercar.'
If by 'drama' you mean so sexy you want to dry hump it's rump then I agree.

@ 125 MPH. Ferrari numbers as always a bit optimistic?

@ 125 MPH.

Manufacturers should not just release downforce numbers, but also CLA's. If they did confuse like that wouldn't happen. The McLaren makes far more downforce than the Enzo as its downforce number is achieved below 150 mph. The McLaren is making roughly two times as much downforce as the Enzo.

I don't understand the BOOM with the mclaren P1 download figures, mclaren say 600 Kg, but the ferrari enzo 2003 has a download of 775Kg@300kph and 558@top speed AND NOT NEED A HUGE REAR WING, the mclaren P1 is a disappoint.

Now on the term technological, I agree if that means that Ferrari/McLaren etc have more technologies in their cars, but that doesn't make them better cars. There are things that I at least could do without, though I respect both schools of thought.

I totally Agree. The best technological car doesn’t mean it is a better car. And the faster track car doesn’t mean it is the best car. Full respects for whatever school and carmaker. Coming back to the topic, it seems Mclaren is basing its product strategy on technical excellence and performance. The MP4-12C seems to be an excellent car but no as fast as promised (A ZR1 with MPSC ZP can match it on track) and with a certain lack of soul. Let’s wait for the P1. The Aerodynamics design seems to be awesome but I don’t think a potential customer will be attracted just only for its down force numbers or Nurburgring laptme.

You're right, Ferrari could make a road racer, but they choose not to, just as Saleen and Mosler chose to. That was the appeal of the latter, and that is why I like them.

Now on the term technological, I agree if that means that Ferrari/McLaren etc have more technologies in their cars, but that doesn't make them better cars. There are things that I at least could do without, though I respect both schools of thought.

what makes u think i'm not mondayblues ?

Conclusion. A Caterham could have the same level of performance of a Nissan GTR but the Nissan is by far the more technological car. 99% of the carmakers can create a Caterham, a very little percentage of them can design a Nissan GTR

@BR2
In my previous post I have fully explained what I mean. More if a car deliver more Hp/liter than another or uses LC or carbonceramics brake discs reducing unsprung weight , well this is technology and not same excuses for competitors.
Bring me any technical solution that is a prerogative of a Mosler or a Saleen in Chassis, Engine, brake system, suspension or electronic compartment. Just only one.
The Carrera GT have been recently overtaken in Hockenhaim by few cars wearing all Michelin Pilot Sport Cup. Give to the Carrera the same tires instead of the Pilot Sport N0 that was its standard equipment and there will be another 1-2 seconds gap (Gumpert excluded of course). The Mosler MT900GTR with the LS7 engine was not faster than the Carrera GT in Hockhenhaim. Do I am wrong ?

@E
The difference between a Saleen /Mosler and a Ferrari Enzo / Carrara GT is simple. Sure the Saleen/Mosler had almost the same level of performance but just because they were (well designed) racing cars for the street. The Enzo and the Carrera had still stigmatas of refined GT for ride height, comfort and driving pleasure. This means technology and Know-how. They deliver peak performances on the straight and on track still assuring all round usability. Over one thousand cars sold by Porsche and it had been the same for Ferrari if they did not limited to 399 the exemplars of the Enzo.
Do you think Ferrari or Porsche are not able to realize racing cars for road use ? Do you think ferrari cannot decide to homologate and sell few FXX to customers ? They simply don’t interest to sell road going version of the FXX to a few mad people eager to say they smoke everything (Saleen / Mosler included) they can encounter on the track or on the street at cost of driving all the time with a gumshield to avoid teeth damage …. Steve Saleen (or Mosler) did It because it was their product strategy, accepting that only few person want to drive a raw and stiff car with very little compromise. So the very low sales results for both.
Be sure on that. Give me the money and I would be one the mad owner of a Saleen S7.
Conclusion. A Caterham could have the same level of performance of a Nissan GTR but the Nissan is by far the more technological car. 99% of the carmakers can

(American Magazine Tests)

MotorTrend
Saleen S7 550 3.3 7.7 11.3@127.1
Enzo 3.4 6.6 11.0@133.9
MT900S(Photon) 3.1 7.1 11.0@128.0
MT900S(LS6) 3.5 7.8 11.5@123.9

Car&Driver
S7 550 3.3 7.6 11.6@127.0
Enzo 3.3 6.6 11.2@136.1
MT900SC 3.1 6.5 11.0@135.5

Road&Track
S7 550 3.3 8.6 11.8@120.0
Enzo 3.3 6.6 11.1@133.0

Those statse seem Prettttty damn close if you ask me(Except shite driver on R&T) and these are coming from cars with between 50-215Bhp LESS AND with 6-Speed Manuals and No LC, Albeit a bit lighter, but you get the drift, Again where is this average tech you speak of?

PS, Carrera GT is Not on the Top In Hockenheim, Its #4(Excluding RCs)

And this P1, given what they stated, i dont believe them in any sense of the way.

@Guest.

Usually when ppl say average, they mean lackluster, aka bad, and What is average about a Saleens or Moslers Technonolgy? Bigger displacement engine, in a lighter weight engine, with less cylinders, and will outlast an Enzo motor, and easier to repair and afford, and get either around the same or better Mpg, great chassis and excellent brakes, A Mosler uses a Corvette engine(Enuff said) and has an even better chassis and is a safer car(As Claimed)so whats average technology about that exactly?

Making fewer car says nothing about how good the technology is, Ferraris has more money then both Saleen and Mosler put together, and has been around since the 50s and are more widely known, thas why they sell more cars then both, not because of limited technology, less money usually means less cars, that or you just want to maintain Exclusivity.

Bhp per liter means nothing,if a company wanted to do that, they would. if Saleen or any other manufaktur wanted to do a 2.0L V8 500Bhp engine, they could, its what they CHOSE to do, its not what you cant, A HUGELY Valid point in what most people do not understand.

And if your gonna say engine weight means nothing, then dont go calling there technology "Average" when a S7 TT engine puts out 100bhp more and with TwinTurbos from a 7.0L, and still weighs less then there best V12, you might as well call Ferrari "Average" then.
(And Recheck your data)
(American Magazine Tests)

MotorTrend
Saleen S7 550 3.3 7.7

@Piorun

"McLaren fails at understanding the idea of supercars today. "

They do? I dare say McLaren have a better idea of what should comprise a supercar than you.

"But seriously... who really need to be so fast? If being fast is the only thing that You need just buy a GT-R tune it, and safe the money."

What a load of crap. There's an entire industry built on nothing but performance - it's called Formula 1. The competition among the top names in this industry is what fuels the evolution of the technology we all take for granted, and the P1 is the absolute embodiment of this pursuit.

McLaren fails at understanding the idea of supercars today. They say it looks like it look beceause it was designed to do something - to be fast.
But seriously... who really need to be so fast? If being fast is the only thing that You need just buy a GT-R tune it, and safe the money.

Supercar is something more, its emotions and passion. The same problem is with MP4-12C great car, but not complete like SLS is for example.

So i belive it will be same story with the F70 vs P1 like with the 458 and MP4: Ferrari little slower and worse but overall better drive machine for humans.

Porsche 918, its not exactly their rival, beceause its also focused on fuel economy hard, lol like its matter in so much expensive car.

Why does "average technology" matter? The Saleen was more or less as fast as every other supercar, the later turbo versions certainly were. They also all handled well. That matters much more than the number of patents or innovations, at least from the driver's point of view.

I'd also say that hp itself is more important than hp/L, which is completely meaningless. Hp/weight is a very valid stat, and in that regard, the Saleen's V-8 was extremely good.

It does seem like the Enzo was faster in a straight than early Saleens, but again one was manual without LC and the early S7's lacked ABS. On a track, the LC becomes less important, though ABS and paddles are a big advantage for the Enzo.

Moslers have slightly more performance data than S7's, and in the corners, they met or beat the Enzo from what I recall. There was never a direct comparison though.

''Road&Track Tested 2 Saleen S7 550s, Car and Driver the same, and the 2003 S7 was damn near on par with an Enzo, same with a MT900, ''

@BR2
No Checking datas, difference in perfomance is huge about 4-5 car length in ¼ miles.
The difference in the 0-100mph-0 is even bigger.
R&T
¼ miles S7 11,8s@119,9 mph
(Enzo 11,1s@133mph)
0-100-0 mph
S7 14,3s (Enzo 11,7s)
C&D
¼ miles S7 11,6s@126mph
(Enzo 11,2s@136 mph)
MT
¼ miles S7 11,4@127mph
(Enzo 11,0s@133,9mph)
0-100-0 mph :
S7 12,4s (Enzo 11,0 s)

Unfortunately we don't have any laptime from saleen S7
I would like to remark that same Porsche Carrera GT lap time are still on the top of the Board. (See Balocco and Hockhenhaim)

''Since when is having a TT engine that weighs 440lbs and produces 750Bhp and 700lb ft of torque and will out almost anything "Bad Technology"? And they supposedly use Bad Technology because they make/sell less cars? lol''

@BR2
Average technologies (where I wrote bad ?) mean technologies that almost every sport carmakers are able to use to design and produce their cars. Make / sell few cars is an indicator of how good your car is unless you have limited production capacity.
Total Engine Power or torque output means nothing. First we are talking about aspirated version of the S7 but anyway 760 Hp from a 7000cc TT means 108 hp / liter. A Ferrari F40 had 163 hp/liter in 1987 so 15 years before.
Engine weight means nothing too, the Hp/Kg should be a better indicator.
And don’t get me wrong, because I love Mosler and Saleen and I still hope to see an S7 substitute sooner or later.

There is a difference between what you can do, and what you don't usually do. Car to rock is certainly possible, but not very common.

But that was just an example, my point as I've previous said, is that road cars lie on a spectrum. It's not the simple 2 sided division that people like to use, "real road car" vs "fake race car". No, they're all road cars, some more focused on the road, and some more focused on the track.

@E

You can compare the P1 to a Cayenne very easily. You could even compare it to a bus, or a rock

I have to draw the Line Somewhere, you simply just Cannot compare it like that, That is quite a ridiculous statement right there, im sorry but you cannot compare a Luxury Suv to a Performance SuperCar...or to a Rock for that matter..

@Guest

with average technology for chassis, engine and powertrain.

Since when is having a TT engine that weighs 440lbs and produces 750Bhp and 700lb ft of torque and will out almost anything "Bad Technology"?

Road&Track Tested 2 Saleen S7 550s, Car and Driver the same, and the 2003 S7 was damn near on par with an Enzo, same with a MT900, And they supposedly use Bad Technology because they make/sell less cars? lol