Mclaren F1 Top Speed Record...Finally Broken!

I heard before that they were getting engine components from Ford. Is this true, which components, and to what extent is Ford's involvement?

 

I think this is about as fake as the Ligenfilter 427TT beating a F-18 Hornet.

But at least it wasnt the SSC Aero that didnt break the record. I can deal with the CCR because its not Corvette powered and its been longer than the other SSC.

 

The McLaren was BMW powered -- that didn't mitigate the significance of its record.

 

Why do you think this is fake?

As well, I thought that 9ff broke the record with some bs porsche a little while ago.

 

But the 9ff turbo was not a production car -- it was a tuned Porsche.

The K-segg CCR is a (limited) production car.

 

Could only be 10 years old. It came out in 1995 I believe.

 

Im just glad it wasnt the Chevy powered SSC Aero. Its bad that the owners of vettes cant shut up and know there role. Then we would have had to lisin to them talking about GM is better than the Ferrari at performance and crap like that.

 

SO i guess the 9ff took the street legal record and the Konigsegg the production car record. Although, both claim 388 km/hr

 

Truth hurts don't it pal??

 

I remember watching the top speed run (mclaren f1) and i remember specificly a guy saying "389km/k..... 390km/h...... 391km/h...... 391................ it will not go any faster then 391 km/h"
And here the CCR does 388....

 

I don't believe the numbers he was reading were confirmed by the other reading equipment.

 

The only way thats possible for a fighter Jet to lose to a car and thats if it doesnt use its afterburners. Plus the F/A-18 Hornet is one of slowest planes in the world because its a fighter bomber so it doesnt have short take off. I bet you put that vette against an F-15E Strike Eagle or F/A-22 Raptor it wouldnt stand much of a chance.

Also you cant race a car and jet because it would be very unfair to both partys. Its like comparing a duck to a pig. Pretty much they put the hornet in a postion to lose.

I think Ligenfeilter is full of **** and payed The pilot to lose the race.

 

I always remember, the 959 held the record until 91 when the XJ220 came out, and the XJ220 only held it for a month or 2 when it was knocked off by the Mclaren F1... 14 years, their about.

 

I think it completely matters what pt they were racing to. I mean 0-60 in 2.9 is nothing to sneeze at. Planes arent exactly known for their 0-to anything very quickly. After a certain point I'm sure the plane would catch up. Same with the Mclaren and every other car today. Most can take the Mclaren off the line, but sooner or later, even if its at 200 mph, it will catch up and pass them by.

Oh yea and Lingenfelter owns. I wish I had one.

 

ahhh alright.

 

Pantera you're ****ing ignorant. I'm not going to argue with you because you already know the facts, and that's all I'd be telling you. Get off the crack and recognize a Corvette as an established, AWESOMELY priced performance vehicle-- everyone else has.

BTW if you're going to say a Ferrari is better quality than a 'vette, why does a Ferrari need so many friggin' tune-ups, and why do they break so much? Vettes are easily more reliable.

That being said, I would MUCH MUCH MUCH rather have a 355 than any Corvette, ever, even the 427TT. But don't go around saying Corvettes are slow stupid pieces of crap when we all know that's not true.

 

First of all, I would just like to try and clarify some points in this topic so no more silliness is involved. The McLaren F1 did achieve 391 km/h at Ehra Lessien, the speed was confirmed by Datron timing gear as well as Volkswagen track timers. However it was the avergae speed of the runs at rev limiter, and when computed ended up being 386 km/h average.
The Lingenfelter did beat the F-18 down the runway, not surprising. The Lingenfelter vette is wheel driven, and has tremendous traction and initial grip which aids in it acceleration from a standing start. The F-18 has a high thrust to weight ratio, yet it is like pushing a sled on land until the turbofan has time to spool up and the plane gets moving. On the F-18 being one of the slowest planes in the world, thats just ridiculous. It can exceed mach 1.8 in level flight, while albeit it is not faster than f-16,15,22 provisionally, it is blooody fast, and it was not a SuperHornet.

 

good job koenigsegg and lingenfelter!
not mentioning any names (Pantera), but i think somebody has something against chevy ...

 

I've read the new Z06 traps at 128 in the 1/4, nothing to be ashamed of in my book.

http://www.z06vette.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76949

 

if Bugatti can get a their production going I bet this record will not stand long against a quad turbo V-16........what is their claimed top speed 251mph...or something...

 

First off, as someone who's raced a Daewoo in korea against an F-16 it's not a big deal to beat a fighter down the runway. I got smoked, but you could probably beat a fighter down the runway with a sportbike. I don't think the engineers at lockheed martin, put into consideration about the acceleration of the fighters from a dead stop.
By the way the F/A18 hornet is not built for speed aerodynamically. I've talked to test pilots and they said the F-18 gets squirly at around 1.5 mach. It's built for air combat, bombing, and is one hell of a workhorse. Speed isn't everything in an aircraft. All I'm saying is, it's really no big deal if an automobile beats an aircraft down the runway.
Also, the McLaren F1 is one hell of an automobile, and even some car beats it in top end, does it seat 3?