McLaren W1 vs McLaren W1 vs Honda CR-V vs Chevrolet Silverado 1500
McLaren W1
$2,100,000
McLaren W1
$2,100,000
Honda CR-V
$37,899 – $38,650
Chevrolet Silverado 1500
$53,599 – $54,800
AI Comparison Summary
Comparing McLaren W1 vs McLaren W1 vs Honda CR-V vs Chevrolet Silverado 1500. Honda CR-V offers the strongest value on price. McLaren W1 leads on expert rating.
Category Winners
Overall Winner
McLaren W1
Best Value
Honda CR-V
Fuel Economy
Honda CR-V
Performance
McLaren W1
Visual Comparison
Category Radar
Price & Reviews
Model Year
Expert Rating
McLaren W1
$2,100,000
Rating: 5.0/10
McLaren W1
$2,100,000
Rating: 4.9/10
Honda CR-V
$37,899 – $38,650
Rating: 4.7/10
Chevrolet Silverado 1500
$53,599 – $54,800
Rating: 4.5/10
| Specification |
McLaren W1 |
McLaren W1 |
Honda CR-V |
Chevrolet Silverado 1500 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brand | McLaren | McLaren | Honda | Chevrolet |
| Model | W1 | W1 | CR-V | Silverado 1500 |
| Year | 2026 | 2026 | 2026 | 2026 |
| Type | — | — | Suv | — |
| Body Style | Two-Door Coupe | Coupe | Compact Crossover SUV | Full-Size Pickup Truck |
| Current Price | $2,100,000 | $2,100,000 | $37,899 – $38,650 | $53,599 – $54,800 |
| MSRP | $2,100,000 | $2,100,000 | $38,650 | $54,800 |
| Dealer Price | $2,100,000 | $2,100,000 | $37,299 | $52,499 |
| Engine | 4.0L Twin-Turbo V8 + E-Motor Hybrid | 4.0-liter MHP-8 V8 Twin-Turbo Hybrid | 1.5L Turbo Inline-4 | 5.3L EcoTec3 V8 |
| Horsepower | 1,258 hp | 1,258 hp | 190 hp | 355 hp |
| Torque | 988 lb-ft | 988 lb-ft | 179 lb-ft | 383 lb-ft |
| 0–60 mph | 2.6 seconds (0-60 mph) | 2.7 sec (0-60 mph) | Approx. 8.0 sec (0-60 mph) | Approx. 6.1 sec (0-60 mph) |
| Top Speed | 217 mph (electronically limited) | 217 mph (350 km/h) | Approx. 116 mph | Approx. 112 mph |
| Fuel Type | Hybrid / Gasoline | Gasoline / Electric Hybrid | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Mileage / MPG | N/A - Hypercar class | 21 mpg combined | 29 MPG combined | 18 MPG combined (EPA est., configuration dependent) |
| Range (EV) | 1.6 miles | 1.6 miles | N/A | N/A |
| Emissions | Low-emission hybrid profile | 310 g/km CO2 | Meets applicable U.S. federal and state standards | Meets applicable U.S. federal and state standards |
| Battery | 1.384 kWh | 1.384 kWh | N/A | N/A |
| Charging | Plug-in capable for rapid top-off | Plug-in hybrid charging capability | N/A | N/A |
| Expert Rating | 5.0/10 | 4.9/10 | 4.7/10 | 4.5/10 |
| Community Reviews | 0 | 0 | 1340 | 870 |
| Performance Score | 10.0 | 10.0 | 8.2 | 8.8 |
| Comfort Score | 7.8 | 7.5 | 9.2 | 8.6 |
| Safety Score | 9.2 | 9.0 | 9.4 | 8.9 |
| Fuel Economy Score | 4.5 | 6.0 | 9.0 | 7.9 |
| Technology Score | 9.8 | 9.8 | 8.8 | 9.0 |
| Value Score | 9.0 | 8.8 | 9.0 | 8.7 |
| Pros | Breathtaking 1,258 horsepower total output; Advanced Formula 1-derived active aerodynamics; Instantaneous torque respons... | Mind-blowing 1,258 horsepower output; Advanced active ground-effect aerodynamics with 1,000kg downforce; Lightning-fast... | Spacious and practical cabin design; Strong standard and available safety tech; Comfortable ride and quiet interior; Com... | Strong maximum towing capability; Broad engine and trim lineup; Useful trailer and bed technologies; Large infotainment... |
| Cons | Extremely limited production run and sold out allocation; Astronomical multi-million-dollar price tag; Minimal cargo spa... | Extremely limited production and multi-million dollar price tag; Minimal 1.6-mile all-electric driving range; Android Au... | Acceleration is adequate rather than sporty; Higher trims increase total cost quickly; No dedicated performance-oriented... | Ride quality can feel firm on rough surfaces; Fuel economy is average for the segment; Some advanced features locked to... |
