ITT: overrated cars you like

ITT: overrated cars you like

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    You've never driven one, so what would you know?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I want to ride one one day

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        What's that got to do with the claim it's overrated? If the c**t has never driven one, what the frick would he know about it being overrated? This board is full of underage bus riding homosexuals regurgitating shit they read on here, some forum, or wikipedia and thinking it makes them an authority on something they have absolutely no real world experience with.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          idk, it's what I've heard
          I 've liked the car since playing NF2 SE on an old PC back in 2005, and as an adult I like it even more. the philosophy behind it is what attracts me, a pure driver's car with no compromises, one of my dreams is to ride one at least once (owning them seems like a money sink, I do want to own a poor's man Mclaren).

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >it's what I've heard
            From fricking who? More opinionated bench racers with no real world experience of what they're talking about? I would take the opinion of Rowan Atkinson, who smashed two of them to bits, over the opinions of someone who hasn't even seen one in the flesh and shoots his mouth off on the internet because when comparing numbers on his spreadsheet it doesn't match with X manufactured by Y that came out several years later.

            In fact, if you search "McLaren F1 overrated" you Reddit a hot Reddit take from two years ago comparing the F1 to a fricking Merc and Porsche that came several years later and were homologation specials for racing.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            you got me, I just assumed it was overrated

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          Children with no life experience often hold stupid opinions because they believe themselves to be a lot more intelligent and worldly than they actually are.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            what stupid opinion did I wrote?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >90s mclel
      God tier. Modern mclel is mids.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        frick off, zoom zoom fr

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Nosupercars

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      you won't have that opportunity don't worry homie

      >/n/o fun allowed

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    The '88 Sledgehammer Vette would frick this thing up in a straight line and on a track. Just saying.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Did that car ever see an actual track?

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Other than the oval it broke the record on, I don't think so. It's got 2k miles on the clock as of last year when it was up for auction.

        https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1988-chevrolet-corvette-31/

        It's a top speed straight line monster. But putting it up against a lower powered car, that was lighter, on an actual track, of the same period, it would likely get left behind. People forget Top Gun and Sledgehammer were both heavily modified versions of their production cars. The actual production Callaway C4 car didn't even crack 190mph.

        The RUF CTR Yellowbird is a car from the same period that actually made an official top speed run of 213mph (beating Porsche own 959 and Ferrari F40) which wasn't broken until the F1 appeared. And the F1 held that record for over 10 years until the Bugatti arrived on the scene.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >The actual production Callaway C4 car didn't even crack 190mph
          Keep telling yourselves that kek.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callaway_Cars#SledgeHammer_Corvette

            >In a Car and Driver test event known as “Gathering of Eagles” (1987), Callaway drove a specially-modified Callaway Twin Turbo Corvette (C4), known as the "Top Gun" project, to a top speed of 231 mph (372 km/h), winning the magazine's shootout. A production Callaway managed a best of 187.95 mph (302.48 km/h).[21]

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The modified version was the same as the production version except for the intercooler locations and a spicier tune. At the end if the day you're still getting cucked by a golf club hauler.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        when the mc-chicken f1 saw a track it lost to a nigsan with half the power.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          elaborate

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >F1 gets mentioned
      >Always a post about how this vaporware vette that isn't even a production car is so much faster
      Every single time lol.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        With a million dollar price tag at the time the F1 might as well be vaporware too.

        I fricked up your mom with my straight line at the track, if you can discern my announcement?

        I love how much the Sledgehammer causes butthurt even to this day. Euro's will never recover.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I fricked up your mom with my straight line at the track, if you can discern my announcement?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Modified cars don't count, isn't a production car. It's just a hairdressers car modded by a tuning company. Cope and seethe troony.

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Looks like it's from the early 2000s even though it's really from the early 90s. Looks sexy, especially in that color.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    I own one of pic related and I really do not know what the hype was about. Literally every youtuber car reviewer was gushing over this car. I know it doesn't mean much but it was the runner up in Motor Trend's 2019 driver's car of the year (lost to Porsche 911 Carrera S) Doug Demuro praised this car more than any other car he's reviewed (vid below, skip to 9:20)

    Yes, the engine is very special and yes the car handles great but it is very underpowered (526 horsepower). It is fun to drive but nothing about it really blows my mind. Maybe I can not truly appreciate the car as my previous cars were a G37 sport and 430 rwhp LS2 GTO. The GT350 is world's better than those but idk, just doesn't really love up to the hype.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      it's also ugly
      should have gotten a high-trim wally

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >very underpowered (526 horsepower)
      Confirmed bus rider.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You're most likely done homosexual toyota 86 fangirl incapable of handing anything over 300 horsepower

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt in this case. I’m guessing it’s the seat of the pants feel. The 5.2 voodoo is a high winding motor which lends itself to be gutless down low but screams up top. If he’s coming from an LS that makes all of the torque down low, the 350 probably feels sluggish in the same rev range. This is a trade off of a high revving racey engine. They sound cool, fun to rev out but are dogs for daily driving. Go read about the E92 M3s compared to the E92 335i on the Bimmer forums, loads of people calling the M3 slow in traffic.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    along with the 2014 shelby cobra

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >a Porsche but without the looks and the handling
      lol no thanks

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        The B5 RS4 was all Audi with the engine being touched by Cosworth. Only the RS2 was touched by Porsche.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >overrated
    haha wut? In what way does the f1 not live up to the hype?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >hyped as the greatest road car ever
      >slower than melaise era pushrods
      >slower around a track than Ice Cube's un-badged infinity
      >maintenance of a race car
      its shit, even their owners thought it was shit. the only reason people kept them is because of the investment they turned out to be. the car basically pays for itself. otherwise, it would be a huge money drain.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        You're moronic and a liar. The only point that might have some merit is the maintenance, which doesn't factor into the car being overrated or not.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >i-its not true!!
          you're already coping
          >something not living up to the hype, and that the owners actually complained about, and were debating whether or not to sell their cars over, is not a factor into something being overrated or not
          ok, moron.

          pic related does everything people THINK the F1 does, for far cheaper. it should be getting the praise of the 90s. it even held several world records from just a standing start on a small stretch of road.

          F1 needed a rolling start on the longest test track in the world and still got BTFO.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Ah so you're an idiot who doesn't understand anything about cars and just pulls shit out of their ass. I'm done here.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >if i plug my ears and go "LA LA LA I"M NOT LISTENIN" he can't shit on childhood hero

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >If I keep posting like I actually ever drove any of the cars being discussed maybe people will gobble up my bullshit. Forget that I'm being contrary to every piece of motoring press. And the journalists who have been loaned more supercars than I'll ever own cars. I know best.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            guy i just linked drove one. it has race car maintenance. and it actually is slower than melaise era pushrods, as well as a nissan around a track. no disputes on the Ultima GTR being better in every way either i presume.

            It came out in the late 90s. The same as the Porsche and Merc the other guy mentioned. The F1 was in develop in the late 80s and went to manufacturing in the early 90s. You are exactly the type of know nothing c**t that was being discussed earlier.

            >The F1 was in develop in the late 80s and went to manufacturing early 90s
            So was the Ultima. better car in every way despite this.

            Calling the ultima a supercar is being generous it's more like a glorified kit car.

            ironic, considering that's what Gordon Murray was paranoid his shitbox would be mistaken as, a kit car.

            Everyone knows the McLaren is expensive to maintain. Tell us something we don't know. If "it's cheaper and faster" is all that matters, frick off back to your Gran Turismo Skyline builds.

            >expensive to maintain
            that's not the problem. luxury cars are expensive to maintain, but they do not have to be maintain like a race car. he's clearly explaining the difference in the video, that you no doubt didn't watch.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Plenty of people have drove them. That's got frick all to do with your shit opinion on them consider you fricking haven't.

            You've never driven an Ultima. So shut your bus riding frick hole.

            The F1 was an early example of using F1 tech in a road car. Of course it's expensive to fricking maintain. It is also fundamentally a race car for the road. Get your head out of your ass.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >It is also fundamentally a race car for the road. Get your head out of your ass.
            Just like the Ultima but slower. For 1/30 of the price.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            it's a kit car

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus Christ you're a moron.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >wins lemans vs actual prototypes
            >akshually, shitrod cars are quicker
            bait so shit it doesn't deserve a (You)

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            even though pushrod cars have road le mans more, dumbass lmao.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >buy car
            >it doesn't come with an engine
            wtf, is this really a production car?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It's a kit car, anon.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            then it's not the same as the F1

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What's with this place and fricking production vehicles? Why do you like overpaying for slow bullshit?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            yea, its not shit and can actually do more than go fast in a straight line for one thing.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            What's with this place and fricking production vehicles? Why do you like overpaying for slow bullshit?

            F1 gimmick was "how puritan can you go using the best materials the market has to offer to make a road going sports car" it just happened to be really fast but that was not what Murray was aiming for

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            meant for

            What's with this place and fricking production vehicles? Why do you like overpaying for slow bullshit?

            yea, its not shit and can actually do more than go fast in a straight line for one thing.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >So was the Ultima.
            No it wasn't. It started development in late 97 at the latest. It was in development 14 months before it went on sale.... and it went on sale in 1999. The F1 is much older than it.

            >It is also fundamentally a race car for the road. Get your head out of your ass.
            Just like the Ultima but slower. For 1/30 of the price.

            The F1 is a carbon monocoque with F1 tech and a bespoke V12. It's nothing like the Ultima. The fact you only care about spreadsheet numbers and not the engineering that went into developing the cars shows that the other guy was right. You're a bus riding benchracer. You know what else is like the Ultima and mogs all supercars for a fraction of the price? A Westfield/Ctaerham/Seven. You know why I'm not comparing it to an Ultima? It's a stupid fricking comparison.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >It started development in late 97
            no it didn't, moron. Ultima has been developing kit cars since the mid 80s, and made his first street car that strongly resembled what we know now as the "GTR" in the early 90s. its the same age as the F1. cope harder.
            >It's nothing like the Ultima.
            I know, cause the Ultima is actually good at more than going fast in a straight line. no bullshit buzzwords like "F1 tech" and "Bespoke". all engineering.
            >The fact you only care about spreadsheet numbers
            The McDonald's F1 team are the ones who only care about spreadsheets. why do you think they spent so much money testing on the longest ovals in the world.
            >the engineering
            what engineering? it gets shit on in every way that requires engineering, like speed/cornering. so the Ultima is the better engineered vehicle. throwing carbon fiber on something and shoving a V12 into it is not engineering.

            it's a kit car

            the F1 is a glorified kit car. even Murray was insecure about people thinking it was one.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >the F1 is a glorified kit car
            why?
            >even Murray was insecure about people thinking it was one.
            Murray was more insecure that people would not drive his car, it's meant to be driven on the road and not the track. Fortunetly for him people enjoyed the car before it went up in price and rarity

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >no it didn't, moron.
            http://www.diseno-art.com/encyclopedia/vehicles/road/cars/Ultima_GTR.html
            >The road legal race car Ultima GTR went through fourteen months of research and development before being launched in 1999.
            You could have searched that and not looked like an idiot.

            >I know, cause the Ultima is actually good at more than going fast in a straight line. no bullshit buzzwords like "F1 tech" and "Bespoke". all engineering.
            >Implying the F1 isn't good at anything but straight line top speed.
            Fricking idiot.

            >what engineering?
            You absolute colossal fricking moron.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >a trim of a car that already existed in 1992 went through fourteen months of research and development
            lmao, you're so fricking dumb. this image i'm posting is from Ultima's own website. looks very much like the car we know as "Ultima GTR", and it existed in 92.
            >Implying the F1 isn't good at anything but straight line top speed.
            it isn't. it set zero track records anywhere, it got shat on by a skyline. the ultima GTR actually did set track records. it had no equals, let alone superiors.
            >absolute colossal fricking moron.
            yea, that sums up the Mcdonald's F1 engineering.

            >throwing carbon fiber on something and shoving a V12 into it is not engineering.
            This is how you know you're an underage homosexual with absolutely no fricking idea what you're talking about.

            No, the morons who don't know what they're talking about can only use buzzwords to describe why their car is great. "my civic has VTEC, bro. its an engineering marvel, unlike that GT40 and its pushrods".

            >moron
            That's rich.
            >I know, cause the Ultima is actually good at more than going fast in a straight line.
            Are you saying the F1 isn't capable of handling? Because that would be moronic. Especially considering you've never actually driven one and all the motoring press praised (and continue to praise) the F1s handling. So you're just being a contrarian for the sake of it at this point. And all the records that the Ultima GTR took, it did so at Bruntingthorpe Proving Ground. Which is just an old runway. So nothing but a straight line. It's never set a ring time. The records it did set, it did so in 2004, not in 1999 when it was released. Six years after F1 production ended. 16 years after F1 development started. It used a 6.2 litre V8 making similar horsepower and torque figures to the older F1 V12 and since it weighs around 400lbs less, it went quicker. Imagine that.
            >The McDonald's F1 team are the ones who only care about spreadsheets. why do you think they spent so much money testing on the longest ovals in the world.
            For the same reason all manufacturers do oval testing.
            >what engineering?
            wew lad.
            >it gets shit on in every way that requires engineering, like speed/cornering. so the Ultima is the better engineered vehicle.
            But it doesn't. The only one claiming otherwise is you. The only evidence to back up your claims is a video on Youtube about someone complaining about how expensive it is to keep an F1. Which is common knowledge.
            >throwing carbon fiber on something and shoving a V12 into it is not engineering.
            Imagine being this ignorant about what it takes to develop a carbon monocoque, for the road, in the late 80s/early 90s and a blueprinted and built V12 and claim it's not "engineering". The level of ignorance, arrogance, or combination of both is astounding.
            >the F1 is a glorified kit car.
            top kek. Meanwhile, you could actually buy the Ultima as a kit.

            >That's rich.
            Yea, it is. the dumbass above you is wrong, and posted some link talking about the same car under a different name. lets say Ultima did create a car in just 14 months that absolutely shat on the F1. don't you think that's embarrassing? let alone impossible to begin with. that's not enough time to even iron out the faults of any car, let alone create a world beating one.
            >Are you saying the F1 isn't capable of handling?
            got shit on by a skyline with half the power. when this happens to muscle cars, DA will usually claim its because they aren't good at doing anything but going in a straight line.
            >motoring press
            Yea, i don't care. the motoring press shat on Mosler, and his original car, the Consuliar GTP. we all know it handles better than every production car that existed at the time (and the F1), because he shat on everyone at the track regardless of what car had more "praise". ONLY being beaten by cars that had almost triple the horsepower. measurable results are what matter, not "praise". its not "my car is more popular" its "my car is objectively better, here's the measurable data showing how".

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >And all the records that the Ultima GTR took, it did so at Bruntingthorpe Proving Ground.
            its funny that an old airport runway is all it needed to obtain its record. no closed off-to everyone longest test track in the world full pit crew. just a casual drive to a destination, btfo everyone, and go home.
            >So nothing but a straight line.
            wrong again, moron. it destroyed EVERYTHING on the test gear test track, including a FXX Ferrari on slicks. did it all whilst being road legal too(it drove on the street too and from its destination, like all chads who are confident in their engineering). what has the street legal F1 beat on a track?
            >the records it did set, it did so in 2004
            yea, the air go so much thinner in 2004 compared to 1999, and we all know old cars get faster with age.
            >Six years after F1 production ended. 16 years after F1 development started.
            yea, i like how the Ultima can still slay shit long after its time, but the F1 got BTFO by melaise era pushrods that came before it.
            >all manufacturers do oval testing.
            all manufacturers didn't have access to the longest test track in the world. melaise era pushrods went faster on a much shorter test track, and the Ultima set its records on an even shorter runway. i like how people push that bullshit narrative that the F1 was "never intended to be fast", when they were spending all this damn money just on securing testing grounds so they could squeeze every ounce of performance out of it. Callaway and Ultima just drive to their destinations, BTFO everyone, and drove back home in the same car. Mcdonald's clearly cared and fully intended the F1 to be fast, and took every measure to ensure their car was shown under the best light possible. they were far more insecure about performance spreadsheets. the only ones even more insecure, is VAG and Ferrari themselves.
            >weighs around 400lbs less
            not my fault the F1 is pigfat.
            >But it doesn't
            it does, do you need me to post the performance records the Ultima set?

            >video on Youtube about someone complaining about how expensive it is to keep an F1
            ah, so you're yet ANOTHER moron who didn't even understand the video. he isn't even complaining about how expensive it is, he is complaining about HOW it needs to be maintained, (like a race car), and very clearly stats that it is a different ownership experience that merely owning an "expensive" car. this is not common knowledge, as everyone keeps confusing the two.
            >what it takes to develop a carbon monocoque, for the road
            other cars did this before the F1, they are not the pioneers. they learned from someone else.
            >blueprinted and built V12
            there are tons of "blueprinted and built V12s". this is not unique to the F1, nor were they the first. merely having these things isn't warranted of dick sucking. its what you do with them.

            >glorified homologation race car that can be driven on the road
            that's what the F1 is.
            >the F1 is a sport road car, it was never supposed to be a race car,
            Yea, it just happens to have race car parts and times out like one. the Dodge Demon was never intended to be a drag car, it just happens to have the fastest quarter mile time of any production car. its just that good bro. pay no mind to the skinny factory drag radials it comes with. intent, is all about what you say, not what you do.

            You really are a special kind of stupid.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >lmao, you're so fricking dumb. this image i'm posting is from Ultima's own website. looks very much like the car we know as "Ultima GTR", and it existed in 92.
            You're a fricking idiot. You're so fricking angry about being wrong you're using Ultimas own website histroy wrong. That is a MK3. It was already mentioned about by someone else that the MK3 and the GTR are not the same. The GTR was a ground up redesign. You're so fricking mad and so desperate to win an argument you're not paying attenting to anything you're bothering to read.
            >it isn't. it set zero track records anywhere, it got shat on by a skyline. the ultima GTR actually did set track records. it had no equals, let alone superiors.
            It set top gear test track records. Which means dick shit. It set absolutely nothing official around a track.
            >yea, that sums up the Mcdonald's F1 engineering.
            It's McLaren. Grow up.
            >No, the morons who don't know what they're talking about can only use buzzwords to describe why their car is great. "my civic has VTEC, bro. its an engineering marvel, unlike that GT40 and its pushrods".
            You have done nothing but throw out buzzwords and random statements to denigrate a car you have absolutely no experience with. It's blatantly obvious no have no fricking idea what you're talking about and that you're frantically googling shit in an effort to look like you know what you're talking about and picking and choosing things to win an online argument but not actually taking on board all the information.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Yea, it is. the dumbass above you is wrong, and posted some link talking about the same car under a different name. lets say Ultima did create a car in just 14 months that absolutely shat on the F1. don't you think that's embarrassing? let alone impossible to begin with. that's not enough time to even iron out the faults of any car, let alone create a world beating one.
            There's nothing "let's say" about it. If you bothered to read the Ultima history page instead of angrily googling for things that will reinforce your point and cherry picking the results, you would have seen the page on Ultimas own website stating development of the GTR began in 1998 and it was a ground up redesign of the Ultima Sport which was derived from the MK3. The picture of Harlow is with his road going MK3, which was a modified Lee Noble design. Not a Marlow, or Ultimta Sports design. The F40 was developed in a similar time scale. There's nothing "embarrasing" about it. Different cars are designeed over different time periods. You have no idea what goes into developing a car, clearly.
            >got shit on by a skyline with half the power. when this happens to muscle cars, DA will usually claim its because they aren't good at doing anything but going in a straight line.
            Show were it got shit on by a Skyline with half the power. If you're going to make claims, post the source.
            >Yea, i don't care.
            Whether you care or not is irrelevant. Hundreds, if not thousands of motoring journalists, who have driven more supercars than you will ever own actual shit heap cars, have driven the F1 and sang it's praises from the roof tops. You have not driven one. You clearly have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to the engineering and tech behind one. Your opinion on the matter, ultimately means shit all.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >the motoring press shat on Mosler, and his original car, the Consuliar GTP. we all know it handles better than every production car that existed at the time (and the F1), because he shat on everyone at the track regardless of what car had more "praise".
            Again. You're making claims and not posting anything to back up said claims.
            >ONLY being beaten by cars that had almost triple the horsepower.
            Kind of like how Ultima only beat the F1 in it's acceleration records because it was lighter and had more horsepower.
            >measurable results are what matter, not "praise". its not "my car is more popular" its "my car is objectively better, here's the measurable data showing how".
            Measurable results don't mean shit you bus riding homosexual. Neither does what car is more popular. What matters is the driving experience and that's it. You'll understand that when you finally get a driving license.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >moron actually doesn't know who Warren Mosler is
            this
            >"""no have no fricking idea what you're talking about"""
            is starting to sound like you. nice sentence btw.
            >Kind of like how Ultima only beat the F1 in it's acceleration records because it was better engineered?
            no? because the Ultima GTR actually corners better than the F1, its not just using raw power on the straights. which is why it could beat a FXX Ferrari track special that was on slicks.
            >Measurable results don't mean shit
            It did to McDonald's, and their F1. which is why they very carefully measured the results of their top speed, on the longest test track in the world. with a full pit crew and constant data monitoring and re-testing.
            >What matters is the driving experience
            which is subjective, and falls back on popularity as an argument.

            >its funny that an old airport runway is all it needed to obtain its record. no closed off-to everyone longest test track in the world full pit crew. just a casual drive to a destination, btfo everyone, and go home.
            It's funny how you go from talking about all that the F1 was good for was straight line speed, but it's acceptable when Ultima is using a runway to break records.
            >wrong again, moron. it destroyed EVERYTHING on the test gear test track, including a FXX Ferrari on slicks. did it all whilst being road legal too(it drove on the street too and from its destination, like all chads who are confident in their engineering). what has the street legal F1 beat on a track?
            It destroyed everything on the Top Gear test track. It didn't do shit where everyone else was. The Ring.
            >yea, the air go so much thinner in 2004 compared to 1999, and we all know old cars get faster with age.
            It was using the newly released 640 version in 2004.
            >yea, i like how the Ultima can still slay shit long after its time, but the F1 got BTFO by melaise era pushrods that came before it.
            It was using the latest American Speed motor.
            >all manufacturers didn't have access to the longest test track in the world.
            What are you talking about? All manufacturers have access to ovals and runways.
            >melaise era pushrods went faster on a much shorter test track, and the Ultima set its records on an even shorter runway.
            The Ultima set it's records on one of the longest runways in the UK. That's why it was used. Safety.
            >i like how people push that bullshit narrative that the F1 was "never intended to be fast", when they were spending all this damn money just on securing testing grounds so they could squeeze every ounce of performance out of it.
            Nobody is pushing that narrative. You're making up arguments in your head.

            >It's funny how you go from talking about all that the F1 was good for was straight line speed, but it's acceptable when Ultima is using a runway to break records.
            Because it proved it could shit on everyone on a track too? something the F1 never could, which is what's actually funny. the casual drive to the airport runway is just icing on the cake.
            >It destroyed everything
            >It didn't do shit where everyone else was
            so no other cars were on the Top Gear test track? ok, moron. that's still one more track than the F1 ever beat anything on, which is zero.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >something the F1 never could,
            Except LeMans. Gormless fricking c**t.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >race cars on slicks in an ENDURANCE race that's not a time attack
            moron

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >waaaaaah F1 never won on a track
            >F1 wins LeMans
            >waaaaaah that doesn't count because I said so
            Jesus Christ. What's worse is that you're shitting all over the F1 for being expensive to maintain and a b***h and then saying it "only" managed to win a fricking endurance race. The size of the balls on you to call anyone a moron is hilarious.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            We are talking about lap times. so an endurance race is not relevant because the fastest car isn't what wins to begin with. you are such a stupid Black person. no wonder you ALSO don't get the point the guy is making between maintenance cost and maintenance type in the video.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The fastest lap the year McLaren won Le Mans was a Peugeot 4 cylinder. That means it's better than the Ultima.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            No, that just means Mclaren makes shit race cars on top of road cars. the Ultima GTR doesn't need slicks to turn.

            >you're also a fricking moron because the ultima is a street legal vehicle, and you're talking about race cars on slicks.
            You're missing the point. For all your bullshit about the McLaren being expensive and tempermental, it won a fricking endurance race. That's the fricking point you dozy c**t. Get your fricking head out of your ass.

            That has nothing to do with anything the guy said in the video. why are you even in this thread chiming in if you weren't a part of the argument, and clearly don't give a shit about what is being discussed? can't you go be a drooling moron somewhere else? your "point" isn't debunking shit.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You really are an idiot.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >No, that just means Mclaren makes shit race cars on top of road cars. the Ultima GTR doesn't need slicks to turn.
            Yet it won that event. Make up your mind. Does winning Le Mans not count for anything now? You'd have to be a special kind of stupid to think that.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >yet it won the event that's not based on being the fastest
            so its not relevant to anything we're talking about? great, dumbass.
            >Make up your mind
            i did, at the very beginning of the fricking argument. we were talking about road cars, and how the F1 beat none of them. endurance races are not time attacks, so its a complete non sequitur.
            >Does irrelevant shit not related to what we've discussed not count for anything?
            No. might as well have brought up how many hairs are on Gordon Murray's ballsack.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Nobody gives a shit about the c**t if your VinWiki video except you. And I'm chiming in because you really are fricking stupid. As for being a drooling moron. That's rich coming from a guy that's had just about every point he's made debunked and yet still comes back arguing the toss about irrelevant shit.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >nobody gives a shit about evidence but you
            clearly
            >And I'm chiming in because you really are fricking stupid
            no, you're chiming in because you're a butthurt moron, and don't even know what we were talking about.
            >That's rich coming from a guy that's had just about every point he's made debunked
            No one debunked shit. just stupid fricks who can't even follow a conversation saying they've won.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >you're a butthurt moron
            says a guy that's carried on an argument across days. top kek.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >can't you go be a drooling moron somewhere else?
            You are nowhere near as intelligent as you think you are and your weak google-fu and inability to properly understand what you are reading means your arguments are pathetic and shit. You just look like a salty little prick who is mad that people think you're fricking stupid for your stupid fricking opinions. Well guess what, if it walks like a moron, talks like a moron and acts like a moron... it's a moron. And you're the short bus riding, safety helmet sporting, diaper wearing, window licking highest quality moron this board has ever seen. If moronation was automotive engineering excellence, you would be a Bugatti Veyron.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            gibberish shit post.
            >inb4 "hahaha that's rich NO U!"

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            But I thought the F1 was expensive to maintain and was fragile and lol shit engineering. But it managed to win the worlds most prestigious endurance race, on an actual circuit?

            Never mind though. The Ultima holds the Top Gear test track record. That's all that matters.

            He's a stupid fricking American kid. Nobody over the age of 18 could possibly be this stupid and if they are, God help the USA.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            you're also a fricking moron because the ultima is a street legal vehicle, and you're talking about race cars on slicks.

            [...]
            He's a stupid fricking American kid. Nobody over the age of 18 could possibly be this stupid and if they are, God help the USA.

            you're fricking stupid, and don't even know what we're talking about.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >you're also a fricking moron because the ultima is a street legal vehicle, and you're talking about race cars on slicks.
            You're missing the point. For all your bullshit about the McLaren being expensive and tempermental, it won a fricking endurance race. That's the fricking point you dozy c**t. Get your fricking head out of your ass.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            But I thought the F1 was expensive to maintain and was fragile and lol shit engineering. But it managed to win the worlds most prestigious endurance race, on an actual circuit?

            Never mind though. The Ultima holds the Top Gear test track record. That's all that matters.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >so no other cars were on the Top Gear test track?
            The top gear test track is about as much of an authority on a cars capability as your opinions on cars in general. There was no official time keeping done. The cars involved in setting times all differed from road cars to race cars. Your point is fricking stupid and you're an idiot.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >throwing carbon fiber on something and shoving a V12 into it is not engineering.
            This is how you know you're an underage homosexual with absolutely no fricking idea what you're talking about.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >moron
            That's rich.
            >I know, cause the Ultima is actually good at more than going fast in a straight line.
            Are you saying the F1 isn't capable of handling? Because that would be moronic. Especially considering you've never actually driven one and all the motoring press praised (and continue to praise) the F1s handling. So you're just being a contrarian for the sake of it at this point. And all the records that the Ultima GTR took, it did so at Bruntingthorpe Proving Ground. Which is just an old runway. So nothing but a straight line. It's never set a ring time. The records it did set, it did so in 2004, not in 1999 when it was released. Six years after F1 production ended. 16 years after F1 development started. It used a 6.2 litre V8 making similar horsepower and torque figures to the older F1 V12 and since it weighs around 400lbs less, it went quicker. Imagine that.
            >The McDonald's F1 team are the ones who only care about spreadsheets. why do you think they spent so much money testing on the longest ovals in the world.
            For the same reason all manufacturers do oval testing.
            >what engineering?
            wew lad.
            >it gets shit on in every way that requires engineering, like speed/cornering. so the Ultima is the better engineered vehicle.
            But it doesn't. The only one claiming otherwise is you. The only evidence to back up your claims is a video on Youtube about someone complaining about how expensive it is to keep an F1. Which is common knowledge.
            >throwing carbon fiber on something and shoving a V12 into it is not engineering.
            Imagine being this ignorant about what it takes to develop a carbon monocoque, for the road, in the late 80s/early 90s and a blueprinted and built V12 and claim it's not "engineering". The level of ignorance, arrogance, or combination of both is astounding.
            >the F1 is a glorified kit car.
            top kek. Meanwhile, you could actually buy the Ultima as a kit.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            The Ultima sounds like a glorified homologation race car that can be driven on the road
            the F1 is a sport road car, it was never supposed to be a race car, it just did happen to work well on the track that won lemans

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >video on Youtube about someone complaining about how expensive it is to keep an F1
            ah, so you're yet ANOTHER moron who didn't even understand the video. he isn't even complaining about how expensive it is, he is complaining about HOW it needs to be maintained, (like a race car), and very clearly stats that it is a different ownership experience that merely owning an "expensive" car. this is not common knowledge, as everyone keeps confusing the two.
            >what it takes to develop a carbon monocoque, for the road
            other cars did this before the F1, they are not the pioneers. they learned from someone else.
            >blueprinted and built V12
            there are tons of "blueprinted and built V12s". this is not unique to the F1, nor were they the first. merely having these things isn't warranted of dick sucking. its what you do with them.

            >glorified homologation race car that can be driven on the road
            that's what the F1 is.
            >the F1 is a sport road car, it was never supposed to be a race car,
            Yea, it just happens to have race car parts and times out like one. the Dodge Demon was never intended to be a drag car, it just happens to have the fastest quarter mile time of any production car. its just that good bro. pay no mind to the skinny factory drag radials it comes with. intent, is all about what you say, not what you do.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >that's what the F1 is.
            The F1 is and was made to be a road car from day one, they used the latest technology from race cars so the car can be light and responsive so the man & machine connection is 100%. It was not meant to do lap times nor to win lemans (When they were choosing an engine for the car they wanted an underpowered Honda V10, but Honda refused so they had to go for another one, BMW ended up agreeing with them)
            The Ultima is a performance car meant for the track, that just so happens to be a road car

            ?t=632

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            murray always wanted a v12 due to it being smoother in running and power delivery and having more power outright. that's also why the t50 has a v12. the v10 was an idea thrown around because honda was using v10s in mclarens at that point in time, they would later swich to v12 too. but honda didn't want to make such an engine so they went with a bigger bmw v12. the t50 is basically what the f1 always should have been

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I like that car
            buuut the back looks weird, out of place. Also what's up with Murray and fans?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Also what's up with Murray and fans?
            F1 tech.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brabham_BT46

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >The F1 is and was made to be a road car from day one
            >they used the latest technology from race cars
            so that would make it a race car for the road.
            >the dodge demon was never intended to be a drag car
            >they just used drag racing technology
            >we just happen to have the fastest quarter mile of any production car
            >we're just that good, bro

            >lmao, you're so fricking dumb. this image i'm posting is from Ultima's own website. looks very much like the car we know as "Ultima GTR", and it existed in 92.
            You're a fricking idiot. You're so fricking angry about being wrong you're using Ultimas own website histroy wrong. That is a MK3. It was already mentioned about by someone else that the MK3 and the GTR are not the same. The GTR was a ground up redesign. You're so fricking mad and so desperate to win an argument you're not paying attenting to anything you're bothering to read.
            >it isn't. it set zero track records anywhere, it got shat on by a skyline. the ultima GTR actually did set track records. it had no equals, let alone superiors.
            It set top gear test track records. Which means dick shit. It set absolutely nothing official around a track.
            >yea, that sums up the Mcdonald's F1 engineering.
            It's McLaren. Grow up.
            >No, the morons who don't know what they're talking about can only use buzzwords to describe why their car is great. "my civic has VTEC, bro. its an engineering marvel, unlike that GT40 and its pushrods".
            You have done nothing but throw out buzzwords and random statements to denigrate a car you have absolutely no experience with. It's blatantly obvious no have no fricking idea what you're talking about and that you're frantically googling shit in an effort to look like you know what you're talking about and picking and choosing things to win an online argument but not actually taking on board all the information.

            >The GTR was a ground up redesign.
            No it isn't, it doesn't say that anywhere, not even in his link, moron. the Ultima GTR is a refinement of what already existed.
            >the track t-times don't count!!!!
            top jij, the weakest shit thing you could've possibly responded with. the F1 has ZERO track records, and got beat by a skyline.
            >You have done nothing but throw out buzzwords and random statements to denigrate a car
            No, i've actually thrown out measurable results. the top speed of Melaise era pushrods, the Ultima GTR's performance. etc.
            >development of the GTR began in 1998
            yes, this doesn't mean they made a completely new car. the C6 began development long after the C5, yet, the C6 isn't a ground up design. its a more refined C5.
            >and it was a ground up
            Nope, don't see that anywhere. you're adding words where they don't exist.
            >The picture of Harlow is with his road going MK3
            a car that looks almost identical to the Ultima GTR. its almost like they didn't actually make a completely new car or something.
            >The F40 was developed in a similar time scale
            the F40 wasn't made by one team of people, and many of its mechanical parts were already developed from the canned rally program. they already had something before development even began.
            >Show were it got shit on by a Skyline with half the power
            look up tsukuba lap times. pretty easy shit to find.
            >millions of people believe in god, therefore he exists!
            not how that works, moron. no measurable results = no evidence.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >moron actually doesn't know who Warren Mosler is
            this
            >"""no have no fricking idea what you're talking about"""
            is starting to sound like you. nice sentence btw.
            >Kind of like how Ultima only beat the F1 in it's acceleration records because it was better engineered?
            no? because the Ultima GTR actually corners better than the F1, its not just using raw power on the straights. which is why it could beat a FXX Ferrari track special that was on slicks.
            >Measurable results don't mean shit
            It did to McDonald's, and their F1. which is why they very carefully measured the results of their top speed, on the longest test track in the world. with a full pit crew and constant data monitoring and re-testing.
            >What matters is the driving experience
            which is subjective, and falls back on popularity as an argument.
            [...]
            >It's funny how you go from talking about all that the F1 was good for was straight line speed, but it's acceptable when Ultima is using a runway to break records.
            Because it proved it could shit on everyone on a track too? something the F1 never could, which is what's actually funny. the casual drive to the airport runway is just icing on the cake.
            >It destroyed everything
            >It didn't do shit where everyone else was
            so no other cars were on the Top Gear test track? ok, moron. that's still one more track than the F1 ever beat anything on, which is zero.

            >It was using the newly released 640
            it was using a trim of the same car? no wait, its another ground up design done in a few months by a few dudes with a soda can.
            >It was using the latest American Speed motor.
            it was using the latest pushrods? is that some great advantage?
            >All manufacturers have access to ovals and runways.
            all manufacturers have access to the longest ovals in the world? i don't think so.
            >one of the longest runways in the UK
            which might as well be the length of your dad's micro wiener in comparison to the longest oval in the world. the Ultima is still at a major disadvantage on distance.
            >Nobody is pushing that narrative.
            these cum slurpers are right here[...]
            >DUDE! IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO DO THIS! IT JUST HAPPENS TO HAVE EVERYTHING THAT WOULD SUGGEST IT WAS!!!
            [...]
            >You can do that in all Supercars.
            the ultima GTR is still faster than every super car on the top gear test track to date. you very clearly can't do that if they're all still slower.
            >No one gives a shit about the Sledgehammer
            more appeal to popularity
            >Why wouldn't they intend for it to be fast and light?
            ask the cum drinkers in this very thread who seem to think just that.
            They're interested in spreadsheets because >they're engineers wanting to build the best car they can.
            and they failed to do that, because they got b***h slapped in all directions.
            >do you need me to post the performance records the Ultima set?
            >No.
            Good. stay BTFO, then.

            Why are you still posting nonsense?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >>the dodge demon was never intended to be a drag car
            Im pretty sure the advertise says it's a performance road car
            >so that would make it a race car for the road.
            It's a ROAD car first that used the latest race car technology so it could achieve the most perfect analog car that's the philosophy Murray wanted. A car like the F40-F50 were better track cars for example but terrible on the road, even if they were road cars. the F1 still needed modifications to be fast on the road that's how the GTR cars were made. If you want to compare a car like the Ultima compare it to the GTR instead

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >still needed modifications to be fast on the road
            on the track"

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >ah, so you're yet ANOTHER moron who didn't even understand the video. he isn't even complaining about how expensive it is, he is complaining about HOW it needs to be maintained, (like a race car), and very clearly stats that it is a different ownership experience that merely owning an "expensive" car. this is not common knowledge, as everyone keeps confusing the two.
            It is common knowledge. It's been common knowledge for decades. That c**t is not the first one to own an F1, nor been hit with a bill for one. Some of us are old enough to remember life before Youtube when cars and their owners featured in magazines and read all about these things.
            >other cars did this before the F1, they are not the pioneers. they learned from someone else.
            No they didn't. The XJR-15 was two years ahead of the F1. The F40 still used some aluminium in it's chassis.
            >there are tons of "blueprinted and built V12s". this is not unique to the F1, nor were they the first. merely having these things isn't warranted of dick sucking. its what you do with them.
            Not when the F1 was been developed you stupid c**t. Especially not for fricking road use. Saying "there are tons" like the F1 was designed yesterday and not in the late 80s is absolutely fricking moronic. The only places you were getting highly strung V12 dry sump engines, was racing. Jaguars V12 made 450hp in the XJR-15, while the race engine was making 750hp in the XJR-9. The F1 was 620hp out of a BMW engine that had only been brought into production a year before development started on the F1.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >The XJR-15 was two years ahead of the F1
            so they had two whole years to learn from the pioneers. what's the matter? there's also the F50, and Bugatti EB. the F1 pioneered nothing.
            >Not when the F1 was been developed
            there were blue printed V12s decades BEFORE the F1 was made, for the street.
            >The only places you were getting highly strung V12 dry sump engines, was racing.
            Nope, EB Bugatti existed, the Italians were also still producing V12s, and we all know how not high strung they are.
            >Jaguars V12 made 450hp in the XJR-15
            this was due to emissions, not whether or not the engine is "high strung" enough. it was also originally brought to production in the 70s.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >there were blue printed V12s decades BEFORE the F1 was made, for the street.
            List them.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >Nope, EB Bugatti existed, the Italians were also still producing V12s, and we all know how not high strung they are.
            I don't think you know what highly strung means. A turbo with a compression ratio of 8:1 is not as highly strung as an NA with a compression ratio of 11:1

            >it was also originally brought to production in the 70s.
            Oh... so now the age of when technology was implemented matters when you want to win an argument? Daft fricking c**t.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >this was due to emissions, not whether or not the engine is "high strung" enough. it was also originally brought to production in the 70s.
            It was due to Jaguar being unable to pass emissions. Something that McLaren could do. Maybe Jaguar should have tried harder?

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >so they had two whole years to learn from the pioneers. what's the matter? there's also the F50, and Bugatti EB. the F1 pioneered nothing.
            Stop being a disingenuous c**t. Murray had already been using carbon fibre in F1 you stupid bastard. The F50 came out after the F1 was in production for 3 years and the cost of the EB110 bakrupted Bugatti.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >the Dodge Demon was never intended to be a drag car, it just happens to have the fastest quarter mile time of any production car.
            This is simply incorrect. The Demon was sold with a crate of parts specifically for drag racing (it was an optional extra that cost a dollar). It was the first roadcar to use a transbrake and the tires it comes with are drag tires with enough tread on them as to be street legal. It was all about drag racing. And it never held the production car record. The Demon's quarter mile time of 10.7 is bested by a Veyron from 2006 which did 10.1. It's record was also beaten by a McLaren. And a Tesla. In raw numbers, because number measurements are all that matters apparently, the Bugatti, McLaren and the Tesla are better cars than the Demon based on quarter mile times and nothing else.

            >And all the records that the Ultima GTR took, it did so at Bruntingthorpe Proving Ground.
            its funny that an old airport runway is all it needed to obtain its record. no closed off-to everyone longest test track in the world full pit crew. just a casual drive to a destination, btfo everyone, and go home.
            >So nothing but a straight line.
            wrong again, moron. it destroyed EVERYTHING on the test gear test track, including a FXX Ferrari on slicks. did it all whilst being road legal too(it drove on the street too and from its destination, like all chads who are confident in their engineering). what has the street legal F1 beat on a track?
            >the records it did set, it did so in 2004
            yea, the air go so much thinner in 2004 compared to 1999, and we all know old cars get faster with age.
            >Six years after F1 production ended. 16 years after F1 development started.
            yea, i like how the Ultima can still slay shit long after its time, but the F1 got BTFO by melaise era pushrods that came before it.
            >all manufacturers do oval testing.
            all manufacturers didn't have access to the longest test track in the world. melaise era pushrods went faster on a much shorter test track, and the Ultima set its records on an even shorter runway. i like how people push that bullshit narrative that the F1 was "never intended to be fast", when they were spending all this damn money just on securing testing grounds so they could squeeze every ounce of performance out of it. Callaway and Ultima just drive to their destinations, BTFO everyone, and drove back home in the same car. Mcdonald's clearly cared and fully intended the F1 to be fast, and took every measure to ensure their car was shown under the best light possible. they were far more insecure about performance spreadsheets. the only ones even more insecure, is VAG and Ferrari themselves.
            >weighs around 400lbs less
            not my fault the F1 is pigfat.
            >But it doesn't
            it does, do you need me to post the performance records the Ultima set?

            >but the F1 got BTFO by melaise era pushrods that came before it.
            This is simply incorrect. The Ultima GTR used a GM small block from American Speed. Someone posted the link above to the engines. The Gen III LS small block was a clean sheet design started in the late 90s. By the time the LS7 came about, it was onto Gen IV. The engines used by Ultima have no relationship to the engines from the Malaise era. Except that there was also a big block 454 dubbed the LS7 in the 70s. Maybe that's why you're confused? But I doubt it. I'm thinking everyone else is right and it's more likely you don't know what you're talking about.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You are the dumbest motherfricker on this board. Benchracers should be gassed.
            At least the tesla shills are entertaining.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Congratulations. You're comparing two different generation supercars you fricking weapon. You are exactly who

            >it's what I've heard
            From fricking who? More opinionated bench racers with no real world experience of what they're talking about? I would take the opinion of Rowan Atkinson, who smashed two of them to bits, over the opinions of someone who hasn't even seen one in the flesh and shoots his mouth off on the internet because when comparing numbers on his spreadsheet it doesn't match with X manufactured by Y that came out several years later.

            In fact, if you search "McLaren F1 overrated" you Reddit a hot Reddit take from two years ago comparing the F1 to a fricking Merc and Porsche that came several years later and were homologation specials for racing.

            is talking about. You've absolutely no fricking experience of any of them and yet you're sitting there talking like you're an authority on them and have owned and operated either. You're not even old enough to post on DA, let alone hold a driving license.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >You're comparing two different generation supercars you fricking weapon
            The Ultima GTR came out in the mid 90s like the F1. they are the same generation.

            here's an owner with direct experience from McDonald's themselves talking about it.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            It came out in the late 90s. The same as the Porsche and Merc the other guy mentioned. The F1 was in develop in the late 80s and went to manufacturing in the early 90s. You are exactly the type of know nothing c**t that was being discussed earlier.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Everyone knows the McLaren is expensive to maintain. Tell us something we don't know. If "it's cheaper and faster" is all that matters, frick off back to your Gran Turismo Skyline builds.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Calling the ultima a supercar is being generous it's more like a glorified kit car.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Is this a poor's man Mclaren? I might be interested if it is

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            the McLaren was a great road car and unintentionally a great race car
            the Ultima was a ghastly road car and a very good race car

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >It was using the newly released 640
            it was using a trim of the same car? no wait, its another ground up design done in a few months by a few dudes with a soda can.
            >It was using the latest American Speed motor.
            it was using the latest pushrods? is that some great advantage?
            >All manufacturers have access to ovals and runways.
            all manufacturers have access to the longest ovals in the world? i don't think so.
            >one of the longest runways in the UK
            which might as well be the length of your dad's micro wiener in comparison to the longest oval in the world. the Ultima is still at a major disadvantage on distance.
            >Nobody is pushing that narrative.
            these cum slurpers are right here

            >the F1 is a glorified kit car
            why?
            >even Murray was insecure about people thinking it was one.
            Murray was more insecure that people would not drive his car, it's meant to be driven on the road and not the track. Fortunetly for him people enjoyed the car before it went up in price and rarity

            >DUDE! IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO DO THIS! IT JUST HAPPENS TO HAVE EVERYTHING THAT WOULD SUGGEST IT WAS!!!

            >Callaway and Ultima just drive to their destinations, BTFO everyone, and drove back home in the same car.
            Funny. You can do that in all Supercars. I know why you're so salty now. No one gives a shit about the Sledgehammer and you mad.
            >Mcdonald's clearly cared and fully intended the F1 to be fast, and took every measure to ensure their car was shown under the best light possible.
            Why wouldn't they intend for it to be fast and light?
            >they were far more insecure about performance spreadsheets. the only ones even more insecure, is VAG and Ferrari themselves.
            They're interested in spreadsheets because they're engineers wanting to build the best car they can. You, and posters like you, are interested in spreadsheets because you're interested in winning an argument.
            >not my fault the F1 is pigfat.
            Grow up.
            >it does, do you need me to post the performance records the Ultima set?
            No. We're all capable of reading the wiki page for the car like you.

            >You can do that in all Supercars.
            the ultima GTR is still faster than every super car on the top gear test track to date. you very clearly can't do that if they're all still slower.
            >No one gives a shit about the Sledgehammer
            more appeal to popularity
            >Why wouldn't they intend for it to be fast and light?
            ask the cum drinkers in this very thread who seem to think just that.
            They're interested in spreadsheets because >they're engineers wanting to build the best car they can.
            and they failed to do that, because they got b***h slapped in all directions.
            >do you need me to post the performance records the Ultima set?
            >No.
            Good. stay BTFO, then.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        than melaise era pushrods
        nothing can be slower than the immovable object

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Zoomers

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    NA1 NSX Type S
    964 Carrera RS
    Ferrari F40

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Man I'd love to have a 964 hardtop. Ditch the original powertrain, outsource an H6 from a subaru, do ITBs, aggressive cams, the works. Frick purism.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Frick purism.
        no!

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    So is the F1 still the only road car to outright win lemans

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      there were road variants of the GT40, and well as the 935 that won.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        the road gt40's were junk and the porsche was so far removed from the road version to be unrecognizable.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      it can sneak past the California Air Resources Board, not sure how many "road" cars can manage that

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Last I heard it's still the fastest NA car ever put into production. I am biased since this was a bedroom poster for me, I still think it's one of the best looking cars ever made.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >fastest NA car
      smartest moron. irrelevant category that no one cares about.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        If it was so moronic the record wouldn't still stand, yet here we are.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          >durr if i were da moron, i wouldn't be smartest moron

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Nice argument.

  11. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    overrated as frick.

    it's supposedly a damn good driver's car, and it's supposedly damn fun, but it's been in so many reviews and so many articles/videos/etc that it is wayyyyy overhyped at this point. but i would love to own one some day just so i can take it down the road every few days to run some easy errands and drive past schools while they're loading the buses to give the kids a thrill

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      you won't have that opportunity don't worry homie

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Yep, the P1 was a massive step backwards.
      >no 3 seat layout
      >shit storage space compared to the F1
      >no manual
      >ugly and weird looking
      >nowhere near as practical, rock hard suspension
      >meme hybrid system that isn't needed
      >boring muffled sounding turbo V8
      Many years from now, those shitboxes won't be worth anything, but cars like the F1 and T.50 will be.

  12. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    1/3

    Saying the F1 is over rated is as stupid as saying the Ultima GTR is "just a kit car". The original MK1, 2 and 3 Ultimas were kit cars. Using mostly Renault parts, including a PRV V6. Ted Marlow was the first customer and bought a MK2 with a Ford V6. Eventually he ended up fitting a small block (Formula 5000 motor) in his racecar and dominated, so everyone followed suit and Ultimas with V8s were eventually banned from their class for winning 5 years in a row. He then bought a MK3 for road use and completely re-engineered it to put a small block and porsche transaxle in it. No more Renault. Then decided "frick it" and bought the rights and whatever else from Lee Noble (yes, of Noble Automotive) and started Ultima Sports where they developed the Ultima Sport from his personal MK3. The GTR was a ground up re-design started in 1998. Pretty much sharing nothing in common with the original Ultimas.

    McLaren bought two Ultimas and modified them to be test mules for development of the F1. They were called "The Heavenly Twins" and were chassis number 12 and 13. The last two MK3 Ultimas sold. One had a V8 and the prospective gearbox, so they could test the kind of torque through the gearbox the BMW V12 would produce. It also featured the central driving position and brakes. The other one had the BMW V12 crammed into it. McLaren bought a third Ultima back in 2007 for the development of their new supercars. They've sold other cars to other manufacturers. Aston Martin have bought cars. And Gordon Murray Automotive bought one for the development of the T50.

    If the F1 and McLarens are "shit" and "over rated", then that can partly be blamed on the development cars. But they're not shit, or over rated. The F1 is an engineering marvel of it's time using high tech materials when it was new on road cars. There were few other cars using similar tech at the time and two of those were the F40 and the XJR-15 (the first road car built entirely using carbon and kevlar).

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      2/3

      The F40 used their already existing 2.9 litre 288 GTO turbo engine with a bit more va-va-voom. Jaguar used their 6 litre V12. McLaren went to Honda, but ended up with BMW. The tech used in the engine saw 620hp naturally aspirated. While Jaguar was getting 450hp out of 6 litres naturally aspirated. If Jaguar had put the V12 from the XJR-9, with all that racing tech and engineering in the road car... holy shit. Fun fact: The guy that designed the body of the XJR-15 also co-designed the F1.

      The records Ultima claimed it did so on a runway. A straight line. That says frick all about it's competence at handling. In the same way the F1 holding a top speed record says frick all about it's competence at handling. The first GTR to claim the records was the 640, already more powerful than an F1 and weighing less. By 2006 when they broke their own record for a third time, they were using the 720, which made over 720hp. However, the 0-60 acceleration time of 2.6 is a questionable record, since the Bugatti EB which appeared in 2005 does it in 2.4 or 2.5. While weighing as much as a beached whale by comparison.

      But again, the numbers mean frick all other than as a dick swinging contest and advertising/promotional fodder. And breaking your own records when no one else is playing, is like Americans cheering their team for winning a world series in a sport only their country plays. Everyone else was at the 'Ring in 2004 and later. Something Ultima never completed because they got rained out, but for whatever reason never went back to attempt again.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      2/3

      The F40 used their already existing 2.9 litre 288 GTO turbo engine with a bit more va-va-voom. Jaguar used their 6 litre V12. McLaren went to Honda, but ended up with BMW. The tech used in the engine saw 620hp naturally aspirated. While Jaguar was getting 450hp out of 6 litres naturally aspirated. If Jaguar had put the V12 from the XJR-9, with all that racing tech and engineering in the road car... holy shit. Fun fact: The guy that designed the body of the XJR-15 also co-designed the F1.

      The records Ultima claimed it did so on a runway. A straight line. That says frick all about it's competence at handling. In the same way the F1 holding a top speed record says frick all about it's competence at handling. The first GTR to claim the records was the 640, already more powerful than an F1 and weighing less. By 2006 when they broke their own record for a third time, they were using the 720, which made over 720hp. However, the 0-60 acceleration time of 2.6 is a questionable record, since the Bugatti EB which appeared in 2005 does it in 2.4 or 2.5. While weighing as much as a beached whale by comparison.

      But again, the numbers mean frick all other than as a dick swinging contest and advertising/promotional fodder. And breaking your own records when no one else is playing, is like Americans cheering their team for winning a world series in a sport only their country plays. Everyone else was at the 'Ring in 2004 and later. Something Ultima never completed because they got rained out, but for whatever reason never went back to attempt again.

      3/3

      The complaint that the F1 is expensive is fricking stupid. Of course it is. So was every other supercar of the time built using similar technology. And they're all expensive as shit to maintain. Carbon fibre. Kevlar. Titanium. Magnesium. Gold. That ain't cheap. Another fun fact. Ultima produced two carbon fibre prototype bodies over the years and ultimately decided not to go ahead with them because it would ultimately put the cost of the cars through the roof. What keeps the Ultima production costs low in comparison to other supercars is manufacturing. It's a metal space frame. With off the shelf parts. American Speed provide the engines. Wanna buy one for your car? Here: https://amerspeed.com/wp-content/uploads/Ultima-Engines-List.pdf without using off the shelf parts, you'd be looking at a much more expensive car.

      Arguing for or against a supercar is like grown ass men arguing about superheros and getting pissy someone isn't impressed by their favourite superhero and the stats on how tough they are. Meanwhile normal people sit looking at two vehicles, designed and implemented in two very different ways, at two different ends of the price spectrum, that are special and exciting in their own ways and appreciating them for what they are.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        >Arguing for or against a supercar is like grown ass men arguing about superheros and getting pissy someone isn't impressed by their favourite superhero and the stats on how tough they are. Meanwhile normal people sit looking at two vehicles, designed and implemented in two very different ways, at two different ends of the price spectrum, that are special and exciting in their own ways and appreciating them for what they are.
        Stop being a grown up. We have children on here determined to make sure everyone knows their opinions on things they have absolutely no real world experience of and they're going to throw benchracing statistic at you for days at a time whether you like it or not.

  13. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >And all the records that the Ultima GTR took, it did so at Bruntingthorpe Proving Ground.
    its funny that an old airport runway is all it needed to obtain its record. no closed off-to everyone longest test track in the world full pit crew. just a casual drive to a destination, btfo everyone, and go home.
    >So nothing but a straight line.
    wrong again, moron. it destroyed EVERYTHING on the test gear test track, including a FXX Ferrari on slicks. did it all whilst being road legal too(it drove on the street too and from its destination, like all chads who are confident in their engineering). what has the street legal F1 beat on a track?
    >the records it did set, it did so in 2004
    yea, the air go so much thinner in 2004 compared to 1999, and we all know old cars get faster with age.
    >Six years after F1 production ended. 16 years after F1 development started.
    yea, i like how the Ultima can still slay shit long after its time, but the F1 got BTFO by melaise era pushrods that came before it.
    >all manufacturers do oval testing.
    all manufacturers didn't have access to the longest test track in the world. melaise era pushrods went faster on a much shorter test track, and the Ultima set its records on an even shorter runway. i like how people push that bullshit narrative that the F1 was "never intended to be fast", when they were spending all this damn money just on securing testing grounds so they could squeeze every ounce of performance out of it. Callaway and Ultima just drive to their destinations, BTFO everyone, and drove back home in the same car. Mcdonald's clearly cared and fully intended the F1 to be fast, and took every measure to ensure their car was shown under the best light possible. they were far more insecure about performance spreadsheets. the only ones even more insecure, is VAG and Ferrari themselves.
    >weighs around 400lbs less
    not my fault the F1 is pigfat.
    >But it doesn't
    it does, do you need me to post the performance records the Ultima set?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >its funny that an old airport runway is all it needed to obtain its record. no closed off-to everyone longest test track in the world full pit crew. just a casual drive to a destination, btfo everyone, and go home.
      It's funny how you go from talking about all that the F1 was good for was straight line speed, but it's acceptable when Ultima is using a runway to break records.
      >wrong again, moron. it destroyed EVERYTHING on the test gear test track, including a FXX Ferrari on slicks. did it all whilst being road legal too(it drove on the street too and from its destination, like all chads who are confident in their engineering). what has the street legal F1 beat on a track?
      It destroyed everything on the Top Gear test track. It didn't do shit where everyone else was. The Ring.
      >yea, the air go so much thinner in 2004 compared to 1999, and we all know old cars get faster with age.
      It was using the newly released 640 version in 2004.
      >yea, i like how the Ultima can still slay shit long after its time, but the F1 got BTFO by melaise era pushrods that came before it.
      It was using the latest American Speed motor.
      >all manufacturers didn't have access to the longest test track in the world.
      What are you talking about? All manufacturers have access to ovals and runways.
      >melaise era pushrods went faster on a much shorter test track, and the Ultima set its records on an even shorter runway.
      The Ultima set it's records on one of the longest runways in the UK. That's why it was used. Safety.
      >i like how people push that bullshit narrative that the F1 was "never intended to be fast", when they were spending all this damn money just on securing testing grounds so they could squeeze every ounce of performance out of it.
      Nobody is pushing that narrative. You're making up arguments in your head.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >Callaway and Ultima just drive to their destinations, BTFO everyone, and drove back home in the same car.
      Funny. You can do that in all Supercars. I know why you're so salty now. No one gives a shit about the Sledgehammer and you mad.
      >Mcdonald's clearly cared and fully intended the F1 to be fast, and took every measure to ensure their car was shown under the best light possible.
      Why wouldn't they intend for it to be fast and light?
      >they were far more insecure about performance spreadsheets. the only ones even more insecure, is VAG and Ferrari themselves.
      They're interested in spreadsheets because they're engineers wanting to build the best car they can. You, and posters like you, are interested in spreadsheets because you're interested in winning an argument.
      >not my fault the F1 is pigfat.
      Grow up.
      >it does, do you need me to post the performance records the Ultima set?
      No. We're all capable of reading the wiki page for the car like you.

  14. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    >urggghh!!! u-ur dumb!!!!!!
    is this all McChicken Cuck1 fangirls have as a response ?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >is this all McChicken Cuck1 fangirls have as a response ?

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Cope more ESL turd worlder poorgay

  15. 1 year ago
    Anonymous
  16. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Old muscle cars.
    >Yeah they aren't that fast compared to modern shit
    >Yeah they can't corner
    >Yeah they don't put out a lot of power relative to their engine capacity
    But they're just so much fricking fun.
    They are more than the sum of their parts.
    I never understood the appeal of a G-wagon either until I drove an old 500hp G55...
    Muscle cars are the same, they're just fun and benchracers will never understand.

  17. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    friendly reminder

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *