Go to Ultimatecarpage.com

  Ultimatecarpage.com  > Cars by brand  > Great Britain  > McLaren  > F1
Comments
Car search:
Quick Advanced 
Cars statistics: 6785 cars, 519 makes, 41186 images; Events statistics: 334 reports, 62219 images; Forum statistics: 94,818 members, 44,659 topics; more...


  McLaren F1
 

  Article Image gallery (185) Chassis (14) Specifications User Comments (23)  
Click here to open the McLaren F1 gallery   
Country of origin:Great Britain
Produced from:1993 - 1998
Numbers built:107 (65 road cars)
Designed by:Gordon Murray / Peter Stevens
Author:Wouter Melissen
Last updated:August 07, 2015
Download: All images

Add your comments on the McLaren F1

 Sorry Guys  
johnnyo032003
05-16-2011
This car is the best supercar ever made, hands down. No its not the fastest anymore, no it doesnt have cutting edge technology, no its not making 1000 bhp. The reason this car is the best supercar ever made is simple. When this car came out it held the top speed record for over 10 years. The Bugatti barely held it for a couple months, and since the SSC took the record from the Bugatti the record has bounced around quite a few times in the last year. The Mclaren F1 weighed about 1/3 to 1/2 of what most supercars of today weigh, and it had 3 seats, not 2. Its funny that the McLaren had all the carbon fiber body pieces which were so super rare back then, and cars that use carbon fiber today still cannot get as light as it is. No supercar of today is made without power steering abs or traction control, whether they can be disabled or not, they are still there. The Mclaren didnt have any of that crap. You had to be a good driver to drive a McLaren fast, but anyone can drive a Bugatti fast, several people who have driven it have said so.
 Just clearing stuff up ..  
:Exige:
03-21-2005
Ok, im gonna clear some stuff up here. The Mclaren F1 weights about as much as a Ford Focus .. just over a metric ton. This may sound a fair bit but for a supercar of its kinda it is ultra lightweight. Murrays main obsession was to keep weight down and in effect produced an ultra lightweight car even to todays standards. You have to remember that the engine contributes for a large amount of the weight so it is unrealistic to say that you can have a high output car weighing similar to a lightweight sportscar. Ive heard many comparisons between this and the Enzos cornering. The Enzo is designed for the track and therfore has less luxuries and sacrifices ride quality. Murray wanted a soft ride and the way to do that is to soften the suspension .. which means it cannot corner as well. But it is impossible to say that this car isnt fast around corners. The Mclaren is one of the most practical supercars ever made because its quite short and has some Lambo shaming visibility. And just as an end note .. the Mclaren F1 reached an official top speed of 240.1mph which is also on a video you can download to prove it. I can pretty much say this is a better car to own than the Koenigsegg CCR purely because it posesses luxury, same acceleration, only marginally slower top speed not to forget a soundtrack that doesnt compare to any other modern production car.
 Not perfect, but pretty close  
lithiumdeuterid
03-20-2005
The McLaren F1 is certainly a landmark car, and it's not perfect, but it's pretty close. The car's tendency to understeer means it cannot go around, say, a 270-degree turn as fast as some other cars (skidpad rating of 0.88 g). However, it makes up for the understeer with precise, non-power-assisted steering, and a responsive throttle. Few cars leave you as directly connected to the road as the McLaren F1. There's nothing between your hands and the road except the steering column and the wheels/tires. I imagine the steering feedback is wonderful to behold.

Then there are the numbers. The engine is just so efficient. How many normally-aspirated cars with engines this large make over 100 HP per liter of displacement? I can't think of any off the top of my head. Top speed of something inbetween 217 and 241 mph. Does it really matter what the top speed is? Ask yourself, "If I owned this car, would I ever reach its top speed?" If you answered this question honestly, you answered "no". Acceleration is far more important than top speed, and this car has it in spades. Zero-to-sixty mph in what, 3.2 seconds? There are a few (but only a few) cars that will beat this. And all of them except the Koenigsegg CCR (2595 lbs) have other flaws that make them less desirable. Even then, the McLaren F1 is the only car to offer a centered driver seating position. That alone makes it superb.

The big (or should I say small) thing, though, is the weight. About 2513 lbs, I think. This car is going to feel a lot better to drive than the Veyron, weighing in at 4189 lbs. Add to that the fact that Gordon Murray did his best to minimize the moment of inertia of the vehicle (keeping the mass close to the center of mass), and you have a car that is going to respond quickly and precisely to whatever input you give it. This car just oozes immediacy; there are no delays anywhere, no turbo lag, no power steering, low weight, low moment of inertia. How many cars have all those things working for them?

If I had to choose a supercar as a daily driver, this would be the one.

Finally, I'd like to clarify some things:

1) Weight has nothing to do with top speed. Top speed only depends upon frontal surface area, drag coefficient, fluid density, and available power. Rolling friction plays a small part, but it's mostly air friction that limits your top speed.

2) Understeer in a rear-wheel-drive car can be eliminated by mashing down on the throttle. This doesn't help on the skidpad, but it would help in a sharp turn on a track.

3) The user "dylanMurray" claims to be Gordon Murray's son. This is obviously a farce. If that is actually Gordon Murray's son, he ought to be ashamed of himself as a parent (but never as an engineer).
 Just Unbeatable  
Mdbgt40
11-10-2004
The car is already 11 years old and still this car is one of the best supercars in the world. But this car has a challenge in performance like... the Enzo Ferrari, the Mercedes Benz' SLR Mclaren, the stunning Porsche 911 Carrera GT and..well.. a sale rival with the performance is almost the same, the TVR Typhoon. Their lap times are almost the same while testing them. The Mclaren deserves to be the best supercar in the world.
 Just a curiosity...  
Giallo Sporting
5-8-2004
I've been reading & hearing about Mclaren's customer care department & it's not the first time that I get informed that customers have requested more recent conveniences like sat nav & integrated mobile phones to be included in their F1. Now I'm just curious. Are these modifications limited only to this, or even to other areas of the car? For example, when the concept was being developed, the designer's idea was to include Formula 1- style carbon brakes. Due to the limitations of such brakes for road use not providing enough 'bite' & 'feel' at normal low temperatures, this idea had to abandoned. Thus the best possible steel disc brakes, for that time were developed. Now more recently, Ferrari have equipped the Enzo with carbon ceramic disc brakes. My question is, has something like this been performed on a Mclaren F1 at the request of a customer?
 Todays SUPERCARS!!!!!!!!!!  
jcsaleen
6-10-2003
The Mclaren f1 is by far one of the best road goin cars ever. The reason is simple its not just the acceleration and topspeed its the overall ability and DRIVIBILITY of the car. The Mclaren f1 gets the f1 because it accatualy handles like an F1 race car and Not like a GT. Another is that the Mclaren f1 has the acceleration and topspeed to go with it. There are cars theat go faster like the veyron and the dauer 962 le mans but they dont have the drivibilty of the f1 or the handeling of the f1. The Mclaren f1 cruises and handels shamelessly around chacains and street bend @ an astounding 140 mph with no sweat. For instance the probably what you didnt hear about the Bugatti Veyron the car has 1010 horse but many flaws including this on the test run to show all interested buyers for the car they had a demonstration at la guna seca race way around turn 4 which is a pretty easy turn the veyron was going 130 and totaly hurled off the track luckly the driver saved it from the wall. The ferrari enzo only had 2 major advantages over the f1. 1 the PUBLICITY 2. THE MOST IMPORTANT FOR SHOW THE DRIVER WHO PERSONALLY IS MY FAVORITE MICHAEL SCHUMACHER 5 TIME world champion. Im sure if schumacher hasnt already driven an f1 he likes it over the enzo the other thing is schumacher put all his spects for the best driver friendly car into the enzo. The other 2 great cars are beleive it or not the porsche carrera GT and the Mercedes Slr BY MCLAREN. All 3 cars the enzo, porsche and mercedes will most likely be competeing in a new series if they should happen to race in le mans because they are so supperior to the gts class. Most people say the enzo has better acceleration than the f1 the ferrari 0-60 in 3.4 the f1's is 3.3. However the are cars that will make the enzo look like a cupcake like the dauer 962 le mans or mercedea clk clr or even maybe the clk gtr. The dauer 962 le mans 0-60 in 2.6 seconds and has a topspeed of 250 mph but heres the best part it only has a flat six. However Mclaren also came out with an even better than the f1. Its called the f1 LM which stand for the le mans. the lm dosent have the topspeed but is even lighter and has a 0-60 time of 2.7 seconds!!! which will easily blow away the enzo in handling acceleration and topspeed. the enzos topspeed is only a 217mph the lms is 225. the 0-100 time by the lm is unrivaled by almost no car in its class even the veyron dosent have that accel from 0-100. The LMs 0-100 time is a blistering 5.8 seconds. Just so U kno people say ahh there no difference between 0-60 & 0-100 the truth is 0-100 puts about 3x more strain on the car then 0-60. Overall the lm is the best but at a way heftier price the f1 stock is 890,000 usd the LM's is a killer 1,250,000. I kno 1 that is for sale and they want 1,495,000 for an lm. But the truth is there are 5 LMs in the world those 5 lm's are converted f1 gtr s. the exact 5 that won le mans. They were converted to street use and called the LMs to be remembered for all time. the LM's beat the all the LMPs aka (le mans prototypes).There places were 1,,3,4,5 & 16. but the f1 is still more driver friendly. The overall verdict DAMN I WANT AN F1 OR AN LM! In all seriousness the f1 is the best rosd goin car out there! NO QUESTIONS ASKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 Simply the best!  
omyur
5-9-2003
"Well, it took Ferrari TEN years to design an ugly car to match the Macca! R&T did a 0-100-0 test a coulpe of years ago w/ various sports cars, in winch the Acura/Honda NSX had better times than cars w/ much more power, and it's still one of the most unloved sports cars in the world! the cost; well $4000 just for the gold sheets in the engine bay, made by 3M by special order; a titanium exhaust that cost more than ANY of BMW's own V12, seat rails coated with the most splipery materil known!!! a full 10 CD changer system + speakers wich weights just 8 Kilos! about the top speed, and Mario's claims of instability, well, Tiff made a test in a oval track, and felt the same!! when he stopped they saw the tyres had blisters on them!!! they've gone to the limit! and they had increase tyre pressure before to cope with the speed!from the XP5 to the first production car, over 1000 mods where made! the XP5 was used as a demonstrator car! opinions are subjective! Tiff loved the car, Jeremy didn't! who cares??!! it's a landmark, as the 300 SL Gullwing was in the fifties! the September issue of Classics and Sports Cars made an article about the car! it's a dream come true for Murray, and it's the work of passion! it was ENTIRELY DRAWN BY HAND! can you beat that mr. Ferrari Enzo! also speaking of design, it's a car that doesn't brag about itself... compact, lightweight, agile! there's no ESP,ABS or even a servo! feels like a car you're driving! an Enzo surelly feels like a car you're driven - by gearbox alone! any moron can do a top time for 0-60... because it's the electronics that do it! cars came a long way since 93... but my guess it's that it's a thing that was once in a lifetime experience! for me, I'm glad to been able to see it!"
 Sigh..here we go again....  
Supercharged
15-8-2003
"...the amount times ive seen comments from peeps like hammernhank and FerrariENZO...they all seem to go along the lines of..""the veyron/enzo is better than the F1 cos it has more power/0-60/speed"" C'mon guys stop gunning the F1, for ten years the F1 was the undisputed king of supercars, from 1993 to the turn of the millenium nothin even came remotely close. It took almost 10 frikkin years for the likes of ferrari and bugatti (sorry VW/audi) to catch up with gordan murreys creation!!! automotive technology has come along way since then, alot of advances hav been made,im not surpriced that the newer super cars are gettin bigger power outputs they got modern cutting-edge technology on their side,the fact that it took so long for the bigger car manufactures to make something worthy of surpassing the F1 shows you alot about the integrity of mclarens masterpiece. We are livin in a golden age of supercars (once upon a time you could count the number of super cars off the fingers on your hands!), its easy to forget the impact the F1 had on the motoring world,this car destoryed all that came before it and re-wote all the record books and has foreva cemented its place in history.This car is the standard to which all super cars are measured against, think about it wheneva a new super car comes out wot is it compared to?....be it the edonis or the koennesigg cc, the enzo or the saleen. The F1 is the motoring equvalent of Muhammad Ali, sure there are other boxers out there but who is still cosidered to be the greatest?....exactly! And besides, jus cos the enzo and veyron have better 0-60/speed/power, it doesnt mean they are better drivers cars, theres more to a car then jus the numbers and statistics! the ride and handling, the steering feel,the pedal response, are all jus as important. Dont get me wrong i aint got nothin against either the veyron or the enzo, but dont diss miss the F1 by comparing it to cars that are not of its generation, and by tryin to detract its acivements (i.e ""the top speed record was NOT done with a production F1 it was done with the XP5"") if the XP5 was considered production enuff for the guiness books of records then its good enough for me."
 No question  
Joslin
13-8-2003
As a german sports car fan, still believeing that the best sports cars are manufactured in Germany, I must admit it's the most interesting sports car build 'till now. It's not the top speed or the acceleration. It's because of the combination of hi tech features and the souvereignity of it's construction and design. The Idea of a three-seater with the driver in central position is genious! The proportions are unique no other super-car is so small. It only weights >1200 kg ready to race - again unique in this class! And it's general design is really beautiful and not aging 'till now! The only problems with the F1 are price and availability! Everyday the same question: How can I live without?!?
 """Mclaren Made The Dream Come True"""  
Motor Geek
28-5-2003
After many years of racing Mclaren is top of the line and will stay top of the line for many years ahead. Mclaren shouldn't be considered only a fast car with $$$$$ price tag. This car is 2,500 lbs of ultimate state of the art pure engineering which is composed from a combination of hi tech engineering from aerodynamics, hydralics .....and structural design for racing which makes this car very unique. This car is not only popular or known to car lovers and they are not the only one's who comment on this car. This car is very popular to many engineers in all industries for its design and hundreds of instituions and science magazines commented on this car for its power, design and its stability at very high speeds. For example, the motor of Mclaren is so powerful that produces so much heat that the company used 8 kg of gold (One of the best resistant material against heat) making the structure of some parts of the engine. Apparently, this keeps the power and efficiency to the maximum level no matter how much pressure you put on this car. I think that is one of the reasons this car is very expensive and Mclaren was capable to win the 24 hour Lemmans racing event several times for many year against the other giants!!! That's why the car became popular for many years and according to its heritage Mclaren is definitely a dream come true!!!!!
 lies  
silverpaw
22-5-2003
I'm not sure why there's so much misinformation and sheer lies around nor why people insist on besmirching the McLaren's records. The 240.1 MPH top speed was recorded on a 6 mile straight at a Volkswagen test facility. It was driven by Andy Wallace and conducted by Autocar, independant of McLaren. Aftermarket tuning and Corvettes in drag, such as the Callaway, are not production vehicles. When there are 100 identicle Callway 'vettes running around with type approval and EU emissions certification, then call them production, otherwise don't utter the name in the company of the Macca. If the Callway is a production car then so are the cars Bernd Rosemeyer drove back in the 1930's which were going 260-270 on public roads in Germany.
 The Ultimate Car bar none  
Frik
14-5-2003
I sometimes wonder why it is that people are so eager to knock the McLaren F1. The figures speak for themselves but people who speak purely in numbers are missing the point. True the Macca is currently the fastest production car (ask Guiness and don't forget the bugatti needs different tyres!). I have been lucky as a long time fan of the car to come into a resonable amount of contact with the car. Just sitting in the driver's is an experience. True, this is because getting in can be a minor challenge but the benifits of the driving position far outway this. The seat itself is the most comfortable I have sat in, despite the fact that the customer seats are custom made and the visibility is outstanding. Lets remember that none of the cars contempories could compete on this front. It is not that the car is the fastest or the quickest or the most practical car in the world, but that it is the best in all these areas. As far as the price goes, well it was priced at cost. The project broke even and that's all it was required to do. How can it be bad value for money when no profit was made on it? Most manufacturers would build a supercar as a loss leader to attract people to the brand. Mclaren did not need to do this. Gordon Murray was able to build his dream (road) car without any constraints and this is why it is so good. P.S. If the car was intended to race at LeMans from the start, why did GM say he would have built it with different suspension if that was the intention. P.P.S. The F40 is a cracking car but I can't help the feeling that with an 18 month gestation period in response to the 959 and panel gaps that you can fit your hand in, this was more by luck than judgement...
 MIss Con seption  
dylanMurray
30-4-2003
Over 10 years ago my father (GM) made a firm commitment to building NOT the fastest car! but the best performance car on the road. Its not about how fast the thing goes, its gotta be quick and fun to drive and its not too bad at that! but its about getting in the car and driving it, you sit in the center of what feels like a spaceship, you've got pretty good vision from there and all the controls easy to reach. I'm 6ft 4 and fit easily in the seats, although if I ate loads of pies it would be squeeze in a passenger seat. You can take quite allot of luggage for such a car and what's really good is sitting in the center you never get the sound offset with the stereo + the dash seems to echo the windscreen and cabin to really enhance the experience ( I believe there is a specially made carbon hole for the base speaker to give the right essence ), any way my point is my old man is about the love of driving, its about the whole experience, not just how fast it goes, turbo the car and its silly! might be a good thrill but say goodbye to the response you get out of the V12, for example if the throttle cable ever snapped and all you had was idle you've still got enough talk to pull off and cruse home in 6th on tick over. You can take it to a track and have allot of fun ( the better the driver the more you can get out the car, ) but you can also take it shopping or for a long journey, I would say I'm very lucky, it is silly the price of the car, but its worth the value for the effort that went to it, not just from one man but the whole company, every nut and bolt to every piece that goes into the car has very definite function, and is as efficient as possible. I read the road and track with Mario Amoretti Driving the car, that was a shame! I don't know whose car it was but it don't sound like it was left at factory settings. It doesn't have much down it not mint to be group c car but most drivers I've talked to love it! look at Tiff Nedell on the two top gear TV shows, he smiles allot and really is driving it by the teeth, and well maybe Mario feels a bit done in by the car as JJ Lehto seemed to have no trouble lapping consistently 10 seconds quicker then him at le mans in the wet with less down. The speed of the car in doubt! nope not in my humble opinion, very little was ever done other the raise the limiter, something allegedly a client also complained about, topping out on an auto barn before he sent it back to go even faster? and that was at 235mph. When the car was here testing to go and do the top speed run he was doing 218 before braking at the end of 2 miles, it was the only chance I've had to drive the Mac ( not the one being tested but the one we drove up in) and it was insane, it does what with you want, and so easily, squeeze the peddle and that engine just barks this wonderful growl. I'm pretty sure we got 205 with 2 passengers (when I was a passenger) before we started backing off ( earlier then the test driver , loony ) as you get a grass bank appearing at over a hundred meters a second, but so so much more fun is going on some twisty roads in france ! and thats what its all about )))))). I love that car, I am always ready to ask if can give me a lift to anywhere far away with lots of corners. Its not bad for a 10 year old design ! it'll be beeten for top speed, you need only to worry about drag and power, all I know is I havnt met anyone who has been in it from the people I know who havnt come back wanting more and grinning,.
 not the best  
FerrariENZO
26-2-2003
"first of all Regarding the 240 mph top speed record, that wasn't done with a production F1 from the regular production cycle. That was an engineering prototype, XP5. Nor was that car exactly stock, seeing how it was that the stock rev limiter was not observed. In the August 1998 issue of Road & Track magazine, the legendary Mario Andretti drove the F1, and gave a less than glowing review. Not only did he criticize the cars handling, but he was also only able to muster a radar confirmed 217 mph. His comments included ""I was really surprised at how aerodynamically unstable it was. Absolutely unstable....I never thought it was going to move around the way it did."" and ""the speedometer was really optimistic, indicating that I had hit 240 mph, when I was really only going 217"". no doubt this car has unbelieveable straight line performace numbers but it has a .88 skidpad... overrated"
 All-Time Number One  
jrengine47
10-1-2003
"Ever since I first laid eyes on the McLaren F1, I fell in love with the car. It's slick styling, it's powerful engine, it's incredible performance, and everything else makes the F1 the best sports car of all time. Granted, the other supercar makers are starting to come pretty close in surpassing the F1 for the ""Number One Car"" title, but it's taken them over ten years to get this far. The McLaren was the best right from the start, without any tweaking or any upgrades throughout its life. It started as the best, and in my mind it will continue to be the best. Also, if anybody says that the Bugatti 16/4 Veyron is close, might I remind you that it needs four turbochargers to achieve this. Try slapping those turbochargers on the McLaren, and see how powerful it'll become!"""
 Only me  
Propercarnut
29-12-2002
"Excuse me ""Motorhead"", but I would like to point out to you that you are incorrect. This vehicle's initial design briefing was to create the fastest road vehicle in history, and hopefully to remain true to such acclaim forever, as the suits in Brussels would probably ban production of any faster vehicles. Everybody knows that to build a fast car you need aerodynamics to be effective, lots of power, and hopefully lightweight. The aerodynamics are not debatable, they must be perfect, but the weight and power can be adjusted accordingly. For example, the V16 powered Bugattis and VW's were immensely powerful, but also very heavy. Not a problem though. However, to create a car that handles superbly, lightweight is the way to go. A heavier car will require larger tyre surface contact with the road to generate the same lateral G forces, ie to grip to the same degree. This increased contact area means the retarding forces of the tyres are increased, meaning still more power is required to obtain a certain speed. It also means that the suspension and wheel arch is not so flexible in design, as more space is required by the wheel. Another key element of this car is it's suspension. It uses a clever geometry design for sure, but it also has no rubber sections within it. When a car turns in, that momentary pause as it all squats and settles before it turns is where all the non-metal parts of the suspension (and tyres) all compress to the right degree so the car can turn. This car is already prepared to turn, so as you turn the wheel, it goes. Pretty much. The tyres are fairly low profile, so the tyre compression and roll isn't that much, reducing the time for turn in. It also means that when the tail comes out it's easier to correct, if you know what you're doing. Most cars drift a bit, and the steering input can be within quite a large range, and still no difference results. But with the F1, it goes where you point it, and if the tail comes out, it goes wherever the front wheels are headed. For racing use, this is GREAT, but on the road it's terrifying, as every time it slips around, you naturally react and correct it too much, as you're used to other cars, but this one will easily put you the other side of a hedge. This is why, particularly in England, we've had a few problems with people driving F1's, because only the SUPER rich can afford them, and of the super rich, only the morons will actually buy one, like the Sultain of Brunei. These morons (I apologise if you're a decent chap who owns one by the way) have NO idea of the technology beneath them, and so don't understand what happens and why. This is the basic reason why drivers such as Michael Schumacher and my favourite, Jean Alesi are so good at driving. They know why things happen, and exactly what's going on. Schumacher's good, but he's in a good car, making his job even easier. I love Alesi because for a few years he had hell in the Prost, which was, let's face it, a $hitty car, but he still managed to slip and slide his way around, until the engine blew up or someone took him out etc. I've seen him drive a Ferrari 355 around the Modena circuit in Italy, and it was devastating. He was absolutely all over the place, I don't think there was a fresh tyre left in the place after he left! But he's so stylish and controlled, and smooth, with every slide being perfectly calculated and monitored. Put him in a McLaren F1 round any track you like, and we'll see what it can do. And then, put him in any other car you can name (production, roadworthy ones of course) and I guarantee you that the F1 will be first across the finish line. In a straight dash to 60, 100, even 150, this car is almost impossible to beat, but through a series of corners, NOTHING grips, turns, or carries speed anything like the F1. It is amazing."""
 actually the real story is this...........  
motorhead
26-12-2002
Gordan murray came to Maclaren as their new cheif designer in 1990 and he and his team of 50 men set out to build a supercar for maclaren. they were not planning to built the fastest car but one which was light weight, fast, beautiful(not to me),fantastic handling and a car which could compete with the Jaguar XJ220. So his team started. Gordan Murray wanted the car to be as light as possible but he was not to happy when the car came out 16kilos heavier. The whole body was carbon fibre and everything else was titanium(tool kit etc etc)except the engine bay which was lined with pure gold(they claimed it was the best heat reflecter after ceremic)They turned to BMW for their engine(you all know that right) that is why the engine is so good. The car could actually go 388km/h because it was so light and had a fantastic BMW engine(no credit to maclaren there)and the acceleration was so god because of the sensational power to weight ratio. Then we talk about the interior. It is a rubbish shute if compared to the veyrons interior and the veyron needs such a powerful engine is because the car is heavy, it is a two seater, it has the latest gagets and gizmos(the f1 does not even have a radio)and basically lightness was what bugatti and VW was not looking for, they were looking for full comfort, an extreamly luxurious car and a damn fast car!!!!!
 The comments will run and run  
kudosdude
29-11-2002
"Cars like the McLaren will forever cause considerably different viewpoints, however I must agree with Ralliart77 and agree to disagree with lemansfan. While I feel he is correct in that the F40 was the best road-race car for the money...within a reaosnable budget, if I could afford a Macca, I would have an F40 as well. McLaren was a comparitively ""small"" factory and BMW was contracted to make the engine. As I recall McLaren Bought each engine from BMW. They may have had a partnership, but BMW made their money selling the engine TO McLaren. The first F40 was sold to a customer in 1987. The first McLaren, try 1993. Now my maths makes that 5 years. In my opinion this is a lot of ""Development"" time, be it by privateers or otherwise. Even if the F40 was not factory supported there are enough rich people willing to throw money with their own racers development. The fact that the factory eventually developed a LM variant is irrelevant, and their lack of participation in various racing series should not be an excuse to extoll the virtues of Ferrari? Personally I feel factory supported teams should not get a slamming over privateer teams. It is great to see the ""little"" guys as much as the big guys, competing on the same track. Often help IS shared, and personally I feel that, despite the last 3 years of Audi dominance, the LeMans experience has not been reduced. As regards BHP per litre, my apologies, it was late, what I meant (duh) was that using a smaller cylinder bore it is easier to get an efficient burn from the charge; also bigger engines are heavier which translates into more energy wasteage from pushing the internals around. Comparisons shouldn't really be made but if one compares superbike engines with supercar engines you will see what I mean. R1 = 1 litre (4 cylinders) & about 160 hp. New Enzo 6 litres 650 hp. That's about 108 hp per litre. Now I'm guessing, but I'd bet the Enzo's engine is much fussier. For those that don't know an R1 is also normally aspirated. As regards what kept LeMansFan 333sp (beautiful machine by the way) uncompetitive at Le Mans, It was the rule book. I will repeat my previous post when i say ""I always worry as regards to competition performance because rules are designed to try and level the playing field what with engine restrictors and the like"" Keep smiling."""
 still unrivalled  
ralliart77
23-11-2002
the latest issue of road and track features a comprehensive test between the mclaren F1, the porsche 959 and the ferrari F40. It also has an excerpt on an interview conducted with Gordon Murray, the person responsible for the F1. There is one statement he makes in the interview that made my day. When Mclaren introduced the F1 using limited resources and engineers, no one had predicted what impact it would have on the world. But when it was proven to be the best road going car he thought that ferrari would come up with something very soon and displace it. But to date Ferrari has not been able to catch up, and every super car since has been compared to this car. It is due to such small companies with big visions that we are assured that such cannonballs will always be produced which will eat into the heart and minds of every car enthusiast on the planet and give the corporate automobile industry a run for their money. I sincerely thank the likes of Gordan Murray and Christian von Koeniggsegg to keep the industry lively with their fabulous surprises. It leaves some hope that all is not yet lost!
 a fantastic car, but......  
LeMansFan
15-11-2002
...what else do you expect for a car that came out for sale for $1.2 million in 1994 dollars?? (which is over $1.6 million in today's dollars vs. the asking price of an F40 in 1987 for $275K and in today's dollars about $400K). It isn't too hard to build a car like the F1 for that kind of money. When are you people going to understand that the F1 was designed to win Le Mans, and public sale was only an afterthought(they were forced to homologate many cars for the GT1 class). So, in a sense, it isn't a true road production car with only about 50-100 examples. The F40 race versions were half the money, older technology and not factory supported, yet always had faster track times as races in 94-97 proved(a lot of gearbox and electrical trouble though). If we are talking about road-legal cars which are race-cars first (like the F1) then let's include the 1992 Porsche 962 road car (15 examples) which were only 2300lbs and an unmodified 700HP. Or maybe the Porsche GT1-98 which is an exact road version of the winning GT1 Le Mans car in 1998. Both of these cars would outperform the F1. Nevertheless, the F1 is the finest piece of craftsmanship quality ever- a jewel. But not a true production car. Check out my other messages on the F40, F50, 333 SP and the dubious Enzo.
 A legend  
ralliart77
14-10-2002
legends are made. The 1936 Dusenberg, the model T ford, the Ford GT40, the Detomaso Pantera, the Maybachs, all of them great cars, all of them totally different automobiles but similar in just one aspect. They have quenched mans hunger in the areas that mattered the most. Were they unrivaled? I would say no. But what they suceeded in doing were setting benchmarks that would dictate the industry standards forever. Can we include the mclaren F1 amongst this elite crowd? I think the world should be the judge to that. Through the nineties all supercars had one adversary to challenge--The mclaren F1. May it be the Ferrari F40 ,the CLK-GTR, the R8, even the Enzo and the bugatti veyron, their engineers had a role model to look up to and improve on. It's true that all these cars have improved upon and surpassed most of the standars set by the F1, but none of them have been able to cumulatively have such an impact on car enthusiasts across the world. For me and most of us around all of these would classify as just another supercar. Don't get me wrong though. I would not be so bold to label this car as practical everyday streetcar. Considering its ostentatious price tag just shy of a million dollars, i would rather label it as an exotic to be spoilt and pampered as need be. Most of the other supercars can be bought at half its price, but arriving at an event in one of these will do a whole lot of good for your image. As a matter of fact I heard that Enrique Iglesis arrived in one of these at a concert and the crowd went insane. In any case if I had three wishes, i would ask for health,wealth and a mclaren F1....
 Compare & Contrast . . .  
kudosdude
24-9-2002
"With every new supercar one is continually drawn to past benchmarks. This is the car that defined my youth. The hours>days>months spent reading the articles. The eyestrain from the torch and Duvet cover. The only magazines under my bed contained this beauty (too much information). It seems somehow sad that derogatory comaparisons are made between this car and every NEW supercar that comes out...and yet it is inevitable. Yes it is beaten by newer cars in various areas, but that is to be expected; this is, and always will be a supercar of a DIFFERENT breed. It is designed to be a ROAD car afterall. Something superior to an F355, not an F40 (a track day beast in all honesty). And yet look at the specs, to which is it closer? Read the performance one would say F40, read the interior specs, and think again. I am lucky enough to share the surname of the great man who conveived this amazing car, &, even now, every time I sign my name I envisage this glorious car. Granted I may never be able to afford one. But then that is why this is known as a dream car... I think you may not be surprised to know that Gordon Murray owns one of these, but you may be surprised at his every day transport...It's a Fiat 500, with a different engine. By the way - Why are there so few pictures of this amazing car on this site? It is called UltimateCarPage not AdequateCarPage afterall. (I know there is a wallpaper shot)"""
 Perfection  
Arcanjo
21-6-2002
Wow, almost a decade has past, and the Big Mac still amazes me. Its lines have not grown even a day old as it continues vivid, smooth and perfectly balanced. Indeed, this is the car that has come to end it all, the McLaren F1 is the ultimate supercar, no other car will ever dethrone it, no matter how fast it goes, no matter how expensive it`ll be. All hail the Mclaren F1, the ultimate supercar, exotic or whatever you may call it.

  Article Image gallery (185) Chassis (14) Specifications User Comments (23)