I think most of car guys believe either F40 or F1 is the GOAT supercar so let's settle it

The ultima.

>>28482264 (OP)
The F1 is the ultimate no-compromise supercar. It's probably even easier to drive than the F40 because the driver doesn't have to concern themselves with turbo lag.

>>28482264 (OP)
The F40 and F50 are cool but they make less power and are heavier. There is a reason why the F1 is legendary.

>>28482264 (OP)
Both are ugly pieces of shit with poor ride quality and lackluster visibility. I would much rather something that made less than a quarter of the power of either just to have a seat with a view and a comfier ride.

>>28482439
F40 is special though. Despite its flaws and having less power than fastest 90's cars it has some laps faster than F50, F1, Diablo and XJ220. And I bet nobody who pushed F40 complains about lack of adrenaline rush.

>>28482264 (OP)
I'll take the one that doesn't need the fuel cell replaced every 5 years for $100k, thanks

>>28482264 (OP)
F40 never won Lemans

>>28482264 (OP)
Tbh if we're talking 80s-90s supercars, for me it's the Dauer 962LM, Schuppan 962CR, Koenig C62 and DP Motorsport DP962. Something about a road homologated Le Mans winner that hits different.

>>28482264 (OP)
F1, I might be a fucking boomer but I remember when it actually was cool and innovative that it was able to hit ~220-240mph and claim the title of "fastest production car" which it held basically until the Veyron came about.
Unlike those modern record-breaking top speed cars, the F1 actually had motorsport prowess behind it as well, being one of the last production-ish cars to win Le Mans.
I like the F40 too, it's not like I've ever driven either, but Gordon Murray (of McLaren F1 fame) severely criticized the F40, going so far as to call it's "wobbly" frame construction something out of the '50s. I can see the raw experience being seen as a positive nowadays, but back then with (what were perceived as) technologically-advanced cars like the 959 and XJ220 coming out it was at least reviewed as being somewhat antiquated for it's time.
Center seating, three seats, those neat trunks hidden in the rear quarters, hell, even the fact that it was one of, if not the first production car to ride on a fully carbon fiber chassis. The F1 was always meant to be the ultimate road car, and is still the fastest N/A production car in the world. That it went on to become a Le Mans winner was second to that.

>>28482520
>a road homologated Le Mans winner
That is the McLaren F1.

>>28482264 (OP)
F40 looks cooler, but in terms of being an actually usable road vehicle and not just a track missile for suicidal drivers, F1 wins so hard its not even a contest.

In terms of their racing variants. While the F1 was far more successful, something about the F40 being a 700 hp turbo lag monster is appealing to me.

>>28482404
Murray made the F1 entirely obsolete with the T50.

>>28482264 (OP)
I'd take an F1 over a F40 but 288GTO is extreme.

>>28482264 (OP)

>>28482264 (OP)
I like this one

>>28484278
Based.

>>28483334
Wake me up when a T.50 wins Lemans.

>>28482448
>lackluster visibility
Isn't the F1 basically a glass bubble all the way around from the inside? The only real blind spot is the pillar going up the middle of the rear, but since you're sitting in the middle of the car, it's directly behind where your seat headrest would be anyway and your head is naturally offset around it when looking over your shoulder. And while I have obviously never driven an F1, given the autistic attention to detail about luggage compartment sizes, automatic climate control, a 10-disc CD changer, and using the Honda NSX as a guideline, I'd be surprised if it actually had poor ride quality and not just 'a little stiffer than a road car but nowhere near a race car or a Ferrari built by fart-huffing Italians.'

>>28485631
That is a good point about the F1, however, don't the wheel arches also block some of the visibility?

>>28485648
Now thinking about it, that was a retarded question to ask, feel free to ignore it.

F50 was my dream car as a kid, so I'm going with that.

>>28485630
It's literally too lightweight to meet the regulations.

>>28482264 (OP)
Millenial trash

>>28482264 (OP)
I'd rather have a poster of the F40, but the F1 wins on paper quite thoroughly. Take from that what you will.

>>28485737
Moomers were too young for this. Enzo/SLR were our grail cars.

>>28483343
>>28485653
F50 is the GOAT modern Ferrari, but F1 is next level.

>>28484278
That is a true american supercar.
>well what about the ford g-
No! The dodge daytona and plymouth superbird are the only american supercars.
>but the corve-
Don't care what your barbie has under the hood it ain't got the true raw american feel.
>yeah but the vip-
Round like a roadster yet handles like jalopy it ain't a true patriots supercar I'm sorry.

>>28485888
>dodge guy shitting on another dodge
Mopards are truly a bizarre breed.

>>28485818
The F50 Revved Higher and was faster than Ferrari's own 333P. the F50 was next level and was way faster than the F1 both in road car form and in race form.

>>28485947
>and in race form
The F50 never raced so it loses by no contest.

>>28486200
>The Gordon Murray T.50 never raced, so it loses to the C8 by no contest

>>28482527
It's still the fastest naturally aspirated production car if memory serves, the Bugatti was quad turbo.

>>28486219
>>28482527
it wasn't production when it set went 240, so no.

>>28486222
trips confirm. it had modified gearing and raised revved limiter from the stock car. not production.

>>28483343
>>28485653
>>28485818
"Based." Parlance.

>>28486212
Problem? That's a mayonnaise-tier hot take.

>>28486234
kek c8s are so fuckin' pikachu godsdamn

>>28482564
Wrong way round, retard.

>>28486225
>it had modified gearing
No, it didn't. It just had the rev-limiter raised. Besides that, it had tape between the body panels and on-board telemetry. Otherwise, it was mechanically identical to most of the customer cars.

>>28486242
>stock cars are gear limited to 221 mph
>Gordon Murray said "with more gearing it could go faster"
it clearly had modified gearing, and you're coping with the "mechanically identical" shit.

>>28482264 (OP)
>most of car guys believe either F40 or F1 is the GOAT

>>28482264 (OP)
The F1 will always be my pick of the best supercar ever made. I would love to drive either of them though as they are both amazing.

>>28482527
I recognize that gif, Need for Speed 2. The outback course was the only one I could get the F1 to top speed on.

>>28485653
Looks like F40 but uglier

>>28485653
F40 looks similar but better

>>28486253
>>stock cars are gear limited to 221 mph
>>Gordon Murray said "with more gearing it could go faster
You didn't read the C&D article. It said that the car is still accelerating when it hit the rev-limiter. It also did NOT quote Murray about the top speed so your quotation marks are fake. The article only writes that that is what he said to the writer. While taller gearing is a way to increase the top speed, it's not the only way as we would see that raising the rev-limiter is what would allow the car to go faster.

Your entire argument is based on a deduction that's false. No document exists that explicitly states that XP5 had different gearing than the customer cars.

>>28485702
That is so not cool.

>>28486352
>taller gearing increases top speed
>Gordon Murray said the car could go faster with taller gearing (not without)
>but lets just believe he didn't touch that
kek, you are fucking coping. i bet you're the fag who also wrote all this
>>28482379
>If it's modified or straight up replaced, it's a modification. Especially if you have to change other things in the car to make it work.
>"b-but not when Mclaren does it!"
find me a customer Mclaren F1 that can reach 240.

>>28485944
They have the proclivities of niggers.