Talk:McLaren F1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Cars Portal This article is supported by Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of Automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This McLaren F1 picture is a selected picture at Portal:Cars.

Contents 1 Power output 2 Consistency with numbers 3 NOT world's fastest production car 4 Output is 627, Dauer 962 is not fastest production car 5 Turbochargers do not increase weight 6 modem socket 7 Gordon Murray's interview to Evo about philosophy behind the F1 and other supercars 8 Notable Owners Discussion 9 Racing car template 10 Huge POV in Record Claims 11 30k 12 Michael Schumacher owns F1? 13 Production numbers: 107 or 100 or 72? 14 Australian McLarens 15 Removal of owners list 16 Removal of opening section

[edit] Power output

Car and Driver has twice reported that the F1 produced 618 SAE net horsepower. This equates to 461 kW or 627 PS. Other sources have listed 627 hp, equating to 636 PS or 468 kW. I know that this discussion is not yet settled in Talk:List of automotive superlatives, but I wanted to note that these numbers were reported in a reputable source. --SFoskett 00:04, Jun 9, 2005 (UTC)

Auto Zeitung reports 461 kW as well in this archived article. I have an Automobil Revue catalog at home. Will have the page scanned ASAP. --Pc13 July 8, 2005 18:12 (UTC)

This picture shows 636PS: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v482/Peloton25/McLaren%20F1%20B/mclaren1527703c0rxs.jpg --Aml 0000 19:35, May 20, 2006

This pretty much seals it for me. Straight from the horses mouth, if you'll pardon the pun. Its 461 kW 627 PS or 618 hp. [1] --LiamE 23:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency with numbers

It is confusing to have the list of times for various speeds written with commas while every other number on the page uses decimal points.

[edit] NOT world's fastest production car

The Dauer 962 is a production car, and is faster than the F1. Numerous sources indicate as such, here's one for the record: [2]

This article is about the McLaren F1 not the Dauer. The Dauer is a modified Porsche and therefore not a production car in the generally understood sense. By all means link to the Dauer as a comparative vehicle but making the article more about the Dauer than the F1 is a bit silly.

It would also be handy if you read your own source. The article says that over 150 Porsche 962's were built and "more than a dozen" were modified by Dauer. It does not state that 150 were built by Dauer.

The Dauer 962 was used in GT1 class racing, which at the time required that a homologation run of 25 units be produced in road-legal form and sold to the public. The 962 was allowed to compete, so it must have met the regulation. The list of automotibe superlatives seen here gives the following defintion of a production vehicle:

1. 20 or more examples must have been made by the original vehicle manufacturer and offered for commercial sale to the public in new condition - cars modified by either professional tuners or individuals are not eligible

2. They must be street-legal in their intended markets and capable of passing any tests or inspections required to be granted this status

3. They must have been built for retail sale to consumers for their personal use on public roads - no commercial or industrial vehicles are eligible The 962s that were sold as race cars were built ONLY to be sold as road going cars, not to be entered in competition.

The 962 meets the above listed criteria and thus qualifies as a production car. Also, my source read as follows: "Nearly 150 were sold and because of such a large customer programme, every component was available off the shelf direct from Porsche" Apparently it's your reading comprehension that's in need of some work. You owe me an apology and you need to revert back to my edits!

I will not get into an edit war with you but I will correct you on a few points. Firstly you are confusing the argument here with that on the Automotive superlatives page where I notice your edits have been corrected by another user. I removed your edits from this page as they were factually incorrect. Another user removed your edits from that page as the car does not qualify according to the rules laid out. Firstly your source CLEARLY states that 150 or so 962's were made by PORCHE not by Dauer. You even quote it yourself while ignoring the Dauer production figures a few lines later in the same article. Apologoy? Read you own sources CAREFULLY before jumping to conclusions. I'm sorry to say that it seems like you read the article and only saw what you wanted to see. It clearly states that "more than a dozen" have been modified by Dauer - if we want to be precise the exact number is thirteen. 13. Ten plus three. Don't confuse existing GT1 homologation rules with those existing at the time of the 962's production. Dauer went racing with the first few 962's they modified as any homologation needed was done by PORSCHE who NEVER made a SINGLE road going 962. It qualified as a MODIFIED/PRIVATEER PORSCHE 962. Only after racing did they make any road cars. That the McLaren's performance figures even stand comparison to a modified race car bears witness to its pedigree. To sum up - Porsche made about 150 962's for track use. Dauer, along with other privateer teems raced some of them. Dauer went on to modify some for road use. Ergo the Dauer is a modified Porsche and not a production car. On the other hand we look at the F1. McLaren made the cars and you could drive it out of the showroom. They also happened to be fast enough to race. See the difference? By the way, welcome to Wikipedia and feel free to create an account for yourself. --LiamE 10:05, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Just to add clarification about GT1 homologation. At the time there was a loophole which permitted homologation with 1 car not 25. Porsche homologated the 962 using this loophole and later Dauer did the same homologating their Le Mans version of the 962, the 962 LM in the same way. Amazing what you can find at your source if you read it. Oh and quoting your own source, "Since then, the standard conversion has been continually updated and improved, more than a dozen having been completed so far. Each one is based on an original Porsche 962, the donor car being completely stripped and rebuilt." And to quote supercars.net "In total 13 Dauer conversions have been finished, and Dauer are still taking orders for more cars." Notice the use of "conversion" by both sources. Merry christmas. --LiamE 11:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Output is 627, Dauer 962 is not fastest production car

The output on the McLaren F1 is 627 horsepower. This is coming from many sources including the book Driving Ambition, written by Doug Nye with Ron Dennis (the other guy behind the creation of the F1) and the book is about the development of the vehicle and nothing else. The book is considered to be the equivelent of The Bible for McLaren F1 fans and is the definitive source for information on the vehicle. Car and Driver magazine have tested an Ameritech McLaren F1, Ameritech being a company which modifies F1s so they are more appropriate for road use in America, these modifications changing the performance of the vehicle slightly.

Also, the Dauer 962 can in no way qualify for the fastest production car for one reason - it is a modified vehicle. All Dauer 962s are modified versions of Porsche 962s, which are racing vehicles. They can make as many Dauer 962s as they want and it won't be a production vehicle. It's the same as someone modifying, say, a Porsche 911 to outrageous specifications and claiming it to be the world's fastest production car. The Dauer 962 may be the world's fastest street-legal vehicle but I doubt that as well. I will not deny the fact that it can go 251 mph however, this has been confirmed. The development of the Koenigsegg CCR and the production version of the Bugatti Veyron also makes claiming the Dauer 962 as the fastest pointless.

Here, here. I don't think the article benefits in any way at all from comparisons to modified cars and track cars like the Dauers and Rufs - and even they pale in comparsion to some street legal drag cars capable of 300mph or more. You may as well compare it to Thrust SSC. But alas my effort to try and remove them failed and people kept putting back that rubbish. On the question of power output is your source specific as to whether its imperial or metric hp? I always assumed it to be an imperial hp figure as its a Brit car company but as has been pointed out elsewhere the engine manufacturer is German and likely to quote in metric and there is no clarification available from a definitive source. --LiamE 15:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Turbochargers do not increase weight

The article stated that turbochargers increase weight. This is incorrect. For engines that produce identical power outputs and are used for the same tasks, the turbocharged engine will typically weigh significantly less, assuming comparably modern technologies. Also, the article went on to state as fact that turbochargers reduce reliability. Turbocharged engines can be and are made to the same reliability specfications as naturally-aspirated engines. Consider the turbocharged engines used in airplanes that certainly must meet high reliability requirements. Reliability is a function of engineering effort across the entire system. Using a turbo or supercharger is not a kiss of death, and to assert that turbocharged engines are inherently less reliable shows a non-neutral attitude towards supercharging technologies. One could just as easily say that, in order to keep development costs down, McLaren had to stick with a naturally-aspirated design. I find the argument that the naturally-aspirated engine is easier to control by the driver to be more persuasive. Actually, I think it's even more convincing to see this as a marketing choice influenced by the fact that turbocharging had been recently banned in actual Formula 1 racing.

I don't see where it says that turbochargers would increase weight. But yes a normally aspirated car has less things to go wrong and is in that sense going to be more reliable - if it aint there it can't break. The choice to go for a powerful noramlly aspirated car was one of driver control - particulary throttle response and ultimately control. --LiamE 00:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding a turbocharger to a car without any other drastic modifications will of course increase the weight. Of course, one could use a smaller engine in combination with the turbo system, reducing weight overall. The consequences are turbo lag (which GM absolutely detested on a road car), reduced reliability, noise, complexity, stronger (heavier) pistons, little low-end torque, and the simple fact that there are more things to break. Murray wished the F1 to be simply the best road car ever, and he would never be able to rest knowing his car had to rely on turbochargers for its power.

I agree that the issue of weight is complex. It could be argued that engines with forced induction have a superior power-to-weight ratio than those but it would be difficult to make such an argument without some clear evidence to support it and that evidence would be difficult to come by. I haven't seen any examples of engineer undertaking a specific test of this. That is, designing a normally-aspirated engine to produce a target output and then redesigning a turbocharged engine to meet the same target, installing them in a car with all the extra hardware necessary to make the turbocharged car work properly and then weighing both to see which was lighter. I think the more convincing argument is to look at applications where weight is key. Take small aircraft for example. How many of them use forced-induction? I believe you'll find that the majority of them use normally-aspirated engines. However, the argument that turbocharged engines are less reliable is much easier to make. Turbocharging an engine creates all sorts of reliability problems. Most of these problems have to do with heat and lubrication but there are also the mechanical issue that arise in any situation where complexity is added to a mechanism. You could argue that it is possible to build turbocharged engines to a certain reliability target, you know, x hours of trouble-free operation between service intervals or like that. But you can't argue that a turbocharged engine is as reliable as a normally-aspirated engine with the same output because it simply cannot be. --Curtis Bledsoe 15:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] modem socket

not worth mentioning the fact that the car has a modem socket, which when plugged in and connect, Mclaren can tell you whats wrong with the car anywhere in the world?

[edit] Gordon Murray's interview to Evo about philosophy behind the F1 and other supercars

Gordon Murray, designer of the world's fastest production car, the McLaren F1, is not happy. He's passionate, he's a purist, and he's a bit narked. Not because the Bugatti might finally overtake the F1's top speed, but because, if it does, the general perception will be that the F1 has finally been bettered. Here he talks to John Barker.

JB: The F1’s long reign as the world’s fastest car is under threat from a couple of supercars, but chiefly, the Bugatti Veyron, which it’s claimed will get to 252mph

GM: The most pointless exercise on the planet has got to be this four-wheel-drive 1000 horsepower Bugatti. I think it’s incredibly childish this thing people have about just one element – top speed or standing kilometre or 0-60. It’s about as narrow minded as you can get as a car designer to pick on one element. It’s like saying we’re going to beat the original Mini because we’re going to make a car 10mph faster on its top speed – but its two foot longer and 200 kilos heavier. That’s not car designing – that just reeks of a company who are paranoid. It’s time we stopped saying ‘let’s try and beat this or that’. It just happens to be the McLaren in a lot of cases because it’s still considered to be the quickest, the best, the lightest, the stiffest, the whatever. If somebody came along, including Ferrari, but particularly, Bugatti, and said, ‘We’ve driven the McLaren, we’ve seen what makes a good car and we’re going to take all those elements and move it on a step – the technology, the weight, the safety, the size, that packaging, the luggage space, the torque, the way it delivers power,’ I would be going, ‘good for you. We’ve had our 10 year reign, take the crown.’ I know it’s going to cost millions to develop the Veyron, a monster thing that you can never see out of, can’t park anywhere, four-week drive, four turbos, 1000 horsepower. It may go faster but it won’t touch the F1 in any of the other important areas/ that’s what’s pathetic about it. I think it’s about time companies stopped doing that. I wouldn’t do it, I wouldn’t belittle myself to do that.

JB: what if they’d gone after all those other criteria and given it 1000 horsepower and 4wd?

GM: Four-wheel drive will never give you the experience that the McLaren gives you. It’s probably much safer when it’s wet and slippery, and more people could drive the car near its limits, but that wasn’t the aim with the F1. It’s absolutely true that 90 percent of the people, 90 percent of the time won’t drive the car at 90 percent of it’s capability. So why start with 4wd and carry all that weight and inefficiency? Ultimately for making the car easier to drive and getting a bit more grip, you’re losing out on the ultimate driving experience. Just 4wd is enough to say they’re never going to get an F1/ If you’re trying to build a car that more people can drive, more people can handle the power, 4wd is probably one of the easiest ways, but with the F1 we didn’t set out saying ‘we’re going to make the quickest car and we’re going to make it really easy to drive, so that 90 percent of the population can drive it’. No way. It was almost the opposite, it was, like this is probably going to be the last real car, without ABS, power steering or power brakes, and you’re going to have to push a bit harder on the brakes and to park it’s not going to be that easy but it’s not going to have anything getting in the way of the driving. It will probably be the last one like it. It’s a shame. I’d so much rather see that money and effort – sorry no, not the money, they can probably afford it – all those engineers and all that effort go into some new direction of sports car, maybe ultra lightweight or ultra nimble or ultra safe or something else rather than just trying to build the fastest car in the world.

JB: If you were making the F1 today, what power output do you think it could make?

GM: The same, because I still think – and the experts seem to agree – that the F1’s V12 is still the best road going, production, lasts-for-100,000-miles-type of engine ever made.

JB: Would you give the F1 any more power if you could?

GM: No. To put that into perspective, we did all the sums and my target was 450lb ft of torque with 550bhp, which we thought was about enough for 200mph – enough for a road car. But what we wanted was 1000 kilos, 450lb ft and a really square torque band, not a peaky engine and that what Paul Rosche (BMW Motorsport engine designer) delivered – with 627bhp for free – and although we missed the weight target by about 100 kilos, that the combination that gives you the instant buzz when you bang the throttle open. All horsepower gives you is top speed. Horsepower on its own is absolutely nothing.

JB: Presumably working on the SLR you’ve come to embrace the supercharger as a different way of gaining performance?

GM: No. Given a totally open choice I’d always go for normal aspiration, for everything: weight, complexity, efficiency, drivability. Supercharging is much better than turbocharging for all the obvious reasons but also has its drawbacks. If you want 500 horsepower, net, you’ve got to make 700 because 200 goes to driving the supercharger, and then you’ve got to cool that power. The small throttle response problem you can get over with bypass valves and things. It’ll never be normally aspirated, but it’s certainly a hell of a lot better than turbocharging.

JB: Do you think the Enzo moves things on?

GM: I think the brakes, probably, although I do hear that those aren’t working yet. Carbon brakes were something I desperately wanted on the F1, but we just couldn’t make them work. We’ve got them on the SLR

JB: What’s the problem?

GM: Temperature. In the early days with carbon/carbon, the problems were trying to get them to work when they were wet and cold. They were great when you got them warm. What we’ve managed to do is take the Mercedes-Benz carbon/ceramic programme, combined with electronic hydraulic braking, brake by wire and then the problem just becomes high temperature, because all carbon has exactly the same problem. Keep them cool enough and they’ll last the life of the car, but when you get over the oxidation temperature they disappear incredibly quickly. We used carbon brakes in F1 six or seven years before anyone else and for a long time had the piss taken out of us when they caught fire, but then when we got them to work we had a long period before anyone caught up. It was amazing when we were doing the tests – you could brake and brake and brake, then you’d get over I think it was 850 degC and they’d disappear in two laps, and the same is true now, to a lesser extent.

JB: How do you stop the user from overhearing them, what sort of constraints can you put on them?

GM: None. You just develop the car so that under any circumstance you can not generate that temperature, and that’s been the hard work and that’s what Porsche and Ferrari, I don’t think, can have done yet.

JB: The SLR must be quite a different project for you, being the first car you’ve done that isn’t mid-engined or mid-seated.

GM: It’s certainly mid-engined, very mid-engined, much more so that the Ferrari 575 or Aston Martin Vanquish. In a funny way it’s a bigger challenge than the F1 because the F1 wasn’t aimed at a market. I’m not saying it was easy but it was easier because when you’re aiming for a market you’ve got definitive things to aim for, and in our case it’s the 575 Maranello. Ferrari takes more than two-thirds of that world market and in that price sector, it’s a pretty good motorcar. We’ve driven it a lot, along with the Vanquish. It’s a nice challenge, a better challenge in a way to actually aim for something. To bring it right back to the Bugatti story, what we’re doing is we’re taking, with the Mercedes marketing requirements, a much more overall, rounded look at everything – quality, weight, safety, stiffness, luggage capacity, air-conditioning performance. We really did try to aim much higher in all areas. I have to say, I’ve driven the car a few times now and… well, the proof will be in the pudding, we’ll see what people will thing, but I think we’ve moved the game forward for front-engined supercars. We are aiming to build something that is world-beating, not just in performance but in all the other areas, and with a Mercedes-Benz star on it a lot of them are prerequisites – quality, serviceability, all that stuff.

JB: with around 550bhp and rear drive, traction and stability control are surely must-haves. Has it been interesting?

GM: It’s been interesting from a vehicle dynamics point of view to see how unobtrusive we can make it. The car has to be a Mercedes-Benz; above all it has to be able to be driven by anyone who is going to buy a Mercedes-Benz, so it’s got to have that stuff, but we’ve worked really hard with Mercedes-Benz people to make it as unobtrusive as possible so that it doesn’t wreck the car.

JB: Since the F1, have there been any supercars that have impressed or interested you?

GM: The only one in recent years which has tried to stick to the F1 formula is the Zonda. That’s come close. I saw that bloke [Horacio Pagani] when he first showed it. He saw me going by, dragged me onto the stand and said ‘I was really inspired by the F1. Look – it hasn’t got power this, it hasn’t got electronic that, it’s got a carbon central bit’. He was so enthusiastic and I thought at the time ‘God, I hope he makes it, because he deserves to’. Styling’s very subjective. I probably wouldn’t have styled it like that, but in recent years it’s the only supercar that is closest to what I would call the pure formula, without having aids and 4wd and therefore getting too heavy with all that stuff on. OK, it’s not superlight, but it’s pretty light. And it’s normally aspirated. As soon as you say 4wd or turbocharging you’re not even on the starting blocks. The old supercars, the EB110 and the Jag 220, on the track, when you can keep the turbos flying, you think ‘ah, it’s OK’, but on the road it’s a disaster. The Bugatti, if you were in a queue of four cars and waiting for the gap, you had to leave it in first gear at 6000 revs, in case you wanted to pass, which is crazy.

JB: What about the Edonis and Koenigsegg?

GM: You almost can’t count cars like the Edonis and Koenigsegg. With the Zonda you have to take the car seriously – the quality’s not bad, he’s selling the cars, people are driving them and using them and liking them. When there are 50 Edonises driving around and people are saying ‘This is good’, I’ll consider it a proper motorcar.

JB: The Koenigsegg is aiming for 250mph, too.

GM: People never learn lesson one, which is ‘don’t shout your mouth off before you’ve built the car’. Before the 1989 world crash there was an article in Road & Track, ’24 supercars you can buy’ and I think the only ones that actually arrived were us, the Jag and the Bugatti – three out of 24. With the Koenigsegg they’re talking about a horsepower figure and top speed for which you need a Cd of about 0.17 or something. It doesn’t add up. You shouldn’t do that. We didn’t say anything about our motorcar – nobody knew it was going to be middle seat until the launch – we just shut up and built it and then let people drive it.

[edit] Notable Owners Discussion

I am glad someone removed Bill Gates from the notable owners list. Forbes.com states that he owns a convertible Porsche Carrera. Just because he is the richest man in the world, does not mean people should add his name under owners of the most expensive vehicle! Could someone add a citation as to confirm the other individuals as well such as Larry Ellison, Wyclef, and Elon Musk? Thank you!--Theelectricchild 00:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

i think you mean a Porsche Carrera GT (which is not convertible, its a roadster).. and you're making it sound like bill gates couldn't afford a mclaren f1.. (which he can, since he has about 50,000 million $)

I think you mean $50 billion

[edit] Racing car template

I've had a stab at a template for racing cars (see template:Racing car) to summarise the usual data. To be applicable to all racing cars it would be rather different to the road car based format used here (which is fine, by the way! I just think there's a need for something else as well, especially for single seaters) I've used the F1 templates as a starting point and applied it to the Brabham BT46 article. If anyone's got an interest in this, please have a look at the template and modify or suggest changes as appropriate. After a few people have had a go at it and we have something we're happy with we could start to use it more widely. Note that it's not meant to be specific to F1, by the way. Cheers. 4u1e 10:24, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Huge POV in Record Claims

Holy moly. Am I the only one who's smelling the hugely defensive tone in the record claims section? This is seriously POV. I don't know anything about this subject, so I'd rather not do any editing, but something needs to be done, here. --Matt S. 19:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 30k

I think it should mention that it costs 30,000 BRITISH POUNDS for mantainance (every 6000 miles) on a McLaren F1 LM.. this could go under price..

Wow, that's five quid per mile. --Curtis Bledsoe 15:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Schumacher owns F1?

Someone put up a claim that says Michael Schumacher own an F1, but he denies it. Can anyone validate this or find a source for this information? --g8or8de 12:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

He may well do - he is a very wealthy man who likes fast cars. He would never say on the record that he did own one even if it were true whilst being employed by Ferrari as their top driver and marketing pony. --LiamE 16:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

thats bullshit the FIA owns F1 (Racerboy 23:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Production numbers: 107 or 100 or 72?

This article claims 107 McL F1s were produced, however the official McLaren website clearly states only 72 were made (+28 Italic textraceItalic text cars = 100 in total) were produced - 65 for the public etc. What is the source of the 107 statistic?

• 64 McLaren F1s (chassis numbers 001 - 075, skipping a few along the way)[3]
• 5 McLaren F1 prototypes (chassis numbers XP1 - XP5)
• 5 McLaren F1 LMs (chassis numbers LM1 - LM5)[4]
• 1 McLaren F1 LM prototype (chassis number XPLM)
• 2 McLaren F1 GTs (chassis numbers 054 and 058)[5]
• 1 McLaren F1 GT prototype (chassis 056 XPGT)
• 9 McLaren F1 GTR '95s (chassis numbers 01R - 09R)[6]
• 9 McLaren F1 GTR '96s (chassis numbers 10R - 18R)[7]
• 10 McLaren F1 GTR '97s (chassis numbers 19R - 28R)[8]

That comes to a total of 106 McLaren F1s, with 71 being customer cars, 7 being prototypes, and 28 being racing cars. This list does not include the recently sold McLaren F1 #65 though. Therefore we do indeed get 72 total road cars (65 F1s + 5 LMs + 2 GTs = 72) and 100 "total" cars sold (72 road cars + 28 race cars = 100), plus the 7 unsold/destroyed prototypes. The359 10:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Also note that not all McLaren F1 LMs are painted orange. Only 3 of the 5 are, plus the prototype. The359 11:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australian McLarens

Two McLaren F1's thought to be in Australia: one is said to be part of the Lindsay Fox collection; the other - a silver, Victorian-registered car - was once (still?) owned by ex-Coca-Cola Australia Chairman, Dean Willis. It is this car that is said to have been badly damaged in a single-vehicle accident at West Head, Sydney after being taken for a test-drive by a once trusted BMW mechanic. The car was rebuilt and is still regularly spotted in Melbourne, Victoria. -- ChrisB 03:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removal of owners list

At the end of the week, due to numerous vandalism of other pages that had lists like that which has now been subsequently removed as a result, this famous owners' list will be removed. If anybody want to discuss or object, feel free. Willirennen 03:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

As the list is currently being reformatted as chassis list, the list can stay, though it will need any form of cleanup. Anything unverified will have to go. In the other hand, there is a good but not up to date chassis list and a more detailed one and this one if you are interested. Good luck with it! Willirennen 01:08, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been updating chassis list as following format:

1. 073 1998, sequence of car built, colour. McLaren Chassis number eg: SA9AB5AC4W1048073. Engine number eg: GTR LM 61121 6053 1648, Registration number, Owner, comment.

[edit] Removal of opening section

This seems a little too much like original research, and is also compromised by weasel words: The car remains as one of the most popular modern supercars, and is quickly securing a spot among the most famous cars ever made. I think the page and car speak for themselves, so have removed it. Bob talk 22:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)