Gordon Murray Gets It
Discussion
After watching Catchpole and Metcalfe interview with Gordon Murray something struck me. It just reiterated why the GT4 Spyder is so brilliant. Yes it’s no where near a T50. But listen to what Murray states are the key ingredients to a drivers car. Lightweight (ok Spyder doesn’t use the lightest weights possible otherwise the cost to buy would be astronomical but it’s way lighter than other cars - Audi R8 Spyder comes to mind), the GT4 Spyder is nimble, however, he includes NASP and manual 3 pedal as essential. Yes a F6 is not a v12 but he could have chosen any engine/motor turbo, SC, hybrid, electric. But he selected a NASP as best for engagement. And perhaps the most salient point, the selection of the manual gearbox. When everyone is putting in the latest fastest DCT computer box in these super cars, Hypercars, and sports cars, he goes with a 3 pedal in a car that costs over 2 million - same philosophy as his F1 car. I mean think about - a car on the cutting edge with the latest greatest materials and he opts for a manual box - it speaks volumes. And where is the engine - right behind the drivers head in the middle. Steering wheel simple yes a few buttons but wants rid of stalks - that is appealing to me as well . He then talks about what makes a drivers car. “Wanting to go right back out in again when you get home”. He doesn’t know or care about the cars performance numbers. Where have we heard that before. The Spyder makes me feel the same way
I think Porsche, with GT4 Spyder used the same formula. If it wasn’t 3 pedal, I wouldn’t be interested. Now I’ll never own a T50, but at least the Spyder has the ingredients for a brilliant recipe. Porsche gets it as well. While everyone is eliminating the manual, they continue to produce them. I love the ethos of the Gt4 Spyder. And I love the car and feel fortunate to be in the position to have acquired one. And I commend Murray for building such a machine - 12000 RPM redline - can’t even fathom it. Wow.
https://youtu.be/NT8PMXCMrsM
I think Porsche, with GT4 Spyder used the same formula. If it wasn’t 3 pedal, I wouldn’t be interested. Now I’ll never own a T50, but at least the Spyder has the ingredients for a brilliant recipe. Porsche gets it as well. While everyone is eliminating the manual, they continue to produce them. I love the ethos of the Gt4 Spyder. And I love the car and feel fortunate to be in the position to have acquired one. And I commend Murray for building such a machine - 12000 RPM redline - can’t even fathom it. Wow.
https://youtu.be/NT8PMXCMrsM
He gets it but not in the way you are imagining. Look at his personal car collection and there are lots of oddballs there. Not a single Porsche however - at least not that I know of and not according to a friend of mine who used to work for him.
Most of the cars in his collection focuses on light weight and/or innovative tech/design. Based on this, you can probably understand why he owns an Alpine A110 rather than say a Spyder or a GT4. Apparently he also bought the Alpine to study the suspension design for this project.
Most of the cars in his collection focuses on light weight and/or innovative tech/design. Based on this, you can probably understand why he owns an Alpine A110 rather than say a Spyder or a GT4. Apparently he also bought the Alpine to study the suspension design for this project.
As he noted, Alpine is his daily - where auto and perhaps turbo make sense. He spoke about Alpine lightness which translates to handling. For a weekend pleasure backroad car he chose these ingredients- NASP Manual ME and lightness. Exactly the way he imagined it. The Porsche has 3 of these. That is why I bought my second one - one of a very few car companies doing this. My post was about the ingredients he chose for this type of car. .He mentioned another analogue car that came close to his vision- the Porsche CGT. His criticism was weight. And what were these ingredients- NASP ME Manual. And values and demand has skyrocketed for CGT. If Porsche used the latest and greatest light weight material, shortened the gear ratios and dropped in their greatest NASP engine my reaction to it and T50 would be the same as OP. Wow!
Edited by gpgts on Wednesday 5th August 22:26
Thing is a GT4/Spyder of any variety is not that light really is it? Imagine how good it would be if it were 400 kilos lighter, as it is it's not far off 200 kilos heavier than the original 987 Spyder, it's a backward step.
In many ways a GT4/spyder type car at sub 1000 kilos is the car I'd love to see GM build, but it will never happen. Porsche could actually if it felt so inclined but wont.
Just think of 9,000 rpm 991 GT3 engine in 718 chassis at 1000 kilos, now that would be something to celebrate!
In many ways a GT4/spyder type car at sub 1000 kilos is the car I'd love to see GM build, but it will never happen. Porsche could actually if it felt so inclined but wont.
Just think of 9,000 rpm 991 GT3 engine in 718 chassis at 1000 kilos, now that would be something to celebrate!
The Chris Harris Collecting Cars interview/Podcast with him is excellent as well.
It’s such a shame that for the last 15 to 20 years we’ve had this 0-60/lap time obsessed marketing race which has been achieved through massive increases in horsepower despite big increases in weight of cars. Obviously weight reduction is how Porsche used to do it. Classic being the 964 RS where it’s barely any more powerful (10 bhp IIRC) than the Carrera 2 but obviously a lot lighter.
They’ve obviously just started on weight reduction as a marketing tool with the Weissach Pack on GT cars and the Carrera T....but we’re talking tiny %’s...nothing like the % weight reductions we saw with the 964 RS. Imagine the demand if they produced a GT3 that was 100 kg lighter than the C2S.
It’s such a shame that for the last 15 to 20 years we’ve had this 0-60/lap time obsessed marketing race which has been achieved through massive increases in horsepower despite big increases in weight of cars. Obviously weight reduction is how Porsche used to do it. Classic being the 964 RS where it’s barely any more powerful (10 bhp IIRC) than the Carrera 2 but obviously a lot lighter.
They’ve obviously just started on weight reduction as a marketing tool with the Weissach Pack on GT cars and the Carrera T....but we’re talking tiny %’s...nothing like the % weight reductions we saw with the 964 RS. Imagine the demand if they produced a GT3 that was 100 kg lighter than the C2S.
gpgts said:
As he noted, Alpine is his daily - where auto and perhaps turbo make sense. He spoke about Alpine lightness which translates to handling. For a weekend pleasure backroad car he chose these ingredients- NASP Manual ME and lightness. Exactly the way he imagined it. The Porsche has 3 of these. That is why I bought my second one - one of a very few car companies doing this. My post was about the ingredients he chose for this type of car. .He mentioned another analogue car that came close to his vision- the Porsche CGT. His criticism was weight. And what were these ingredients- NASP ME Manual. And values and demand has skyrocketed for CGT. If Porsche used the latest and greatest light weight material, shortened the gear ratios and dropped in their greatest NASP engine my reaction to it and T50 would be the same as OP. Wow!
Still stretching it a bit to say his ideal is the Spyder or GT4 though. I really can't see the connection and as mentioned above, recent Porsches aren't that light. Edited by gpgts on Wednesday 5th August 22:26
I think the reason the Alpine is his daily is because all his other cars are either open cockpit or old classics! He restored a green Alfa Zagato recently with Alfaholics and I'd take that every weekend above anything produced in the past 5years.
My take on it is his ideal isn't currently met by any manufacturer hence he's gone and built it himself.
Edited by Prestonese on Thursday 6th August 01:09
Prestonese said:
Still stretching it a bit to say his ideal is the Spyder or GT4 though. I really can't see the connection and as mentioned above, recent Porsches aren't that light.
Exactly. there's some quite curious (and I'm sorry to say rather delusional) wish fulfillment in some posters (here and on the other thread about the wonder car otherwise known as the 991.2 gt3 only in manual and right spec of course) trying to conflate their personal cars with the GM T50 just because it is normally aspirated and has a manual gearbox..... isaldiri said:
Exactly. there's some quite curious (and I'm sorry to say rather delusional) wish fulfillment in some posters (here and on the other thread about the wonder car otherwise known as the 991.2 gt3 only in manual and right spec of course) trying to conflate their personal cars with the GM T50 just because it is normally aspirated and has a manual gearbox.....
Not conflating anything. I said no where near the T50. It’s the recipe for Murray defining a drivers sports car. Almost every review I’ve seen on GT4 Spyder mentions manual, NASP, ME and praises the car for being a throwback drivers car. The fact is manufacturers moved away from some of these things. Let me know why the original NSX, is so so praised as are the Ferrari’s Lambo’s before DCT and Audi R8 Manual. The prices of these cars continue to climb Manufacturers moved heavily to turbo DCT and now electric. I was looking for a new car that checked the boxes Murray hi-lighted - ME NASP Manual and drop top as a bonus. . How many car companies can you list where I can buy a new one of these. After watching Catchpole and Metcalfe interview with Gordon Murray something struck me. It just reiterated why the Lotus Elise is so brilliant. Yes it’s no where near a T50. But listen to what Murray states are the key ingredients to a drivers car. Lightweight (ok Elise doesn’t use the lightest weights possible otherwise the cost to buy would be astronomical but it’s way lighter than other cars - Audi R8 Spider comes to mind), the Lotus Elise is nimble, however, he includes NASP and manual 3 pedal as essential. Yes a I4 is not a v12 but he could have chosen any engine/motor turbo, SC, hybrid, electric. But he selected a NASP as best for engagement. And perhaps the most salient point, the selection of the manual gearbox. When everyone is putting in the latest fastest DCT computer box in these super cars, Hypercars, and sports cars, he goes with a 3 pedal in a car that costs over 2 million - same philosophy as his F1 car. I mean think about - a car on the cutting edge with the latest greatest materials and he opts for a manual box - it speaks volumes. And where is the engine - right behind the drivers head in the middle. Steering wheel simple yes a few buttons but wants rid of stalks - that is appealing to me as well . He then talks about what makes a drivers car. “Wanting to go right back out in again when you get home”. He doesn’t know or care about the cars performance numbers. Where have we heard that before. The Elise makes me feel the same way
I think Lotus, with Elise used the same formula. If it wasn’t 3 pedal, I wouldn’t be interested. Now I’ll never own a T50, but at least the Elise has the ingredients for a brilliant recipe. Lotus gets it as well. While everyone is eliminating the manual, they continue to produce them. I love the ethos of the Lotus Elise. And I commend Murray for building such a machine - 12000 RPM redline - can’t even fathom it. Wow.
...is how I would have worded it. I mean, look at the car collection at the end of the video
I think Lotus, with Elise used the same formula. If it wasn’t 3 pedal, I wouldn’t be interested. Now I’ll never own a T50, but at least the Elise has the ingredients for a brilliant recipe. Lotus gets it as well. While everyone is eliminating the manual, they continue to produce them. I love the ethos of the Lotus Elise. And I commend Murray for building such a machine - 12000 RPM redline - can’t even fathom it. Wow.
...is how I would have worded it. I mean, look at the car collection at the end of the video
Edited by Oilchange on Thursday 6th August 03:09
gpgts said:
isaldiri said:
Exactly. there's some quite curious (and I'm sorry to say rather delusional) wish fulfillment in some posters (here and on the other thread about the wonder car otherwise known as the 991.2 gt3 only in manual and right spec of course) trying to conflate their personal cars with the GM T50 just because it is normally aspirated and has a manual gearbox.....
Not conflating anything. I said no where near the T50. It’s the recipe for Murray defining a drivers sports car. Almost every review I’ve seen on GT4 Spyder mentions manual, NASP, ME and praises the car for being a throwback drivers car. The fact is manufacturers moved away from some of these things. Let me know why the original NSX, is so so praised as are the Ferrari’s Lambo’s before DCT and Audi R8 Manual. The prices of these cars continue to climb Manufacturers moved heavily to turbo DCT and now electric. I was looking for a new car that checked the boxes Murray hi-lighted - ME NASP Manual and drop top as a bonus. . How many car companies can you list where I can buy a new one of these. See below:
https://www.topgear.com/car-news/secret-stash/man-...
He has a track record buying small lightweight cars. I don't think a modern Porsche fits that category if I'm being brutally honest - they are too big and not that light. I am also not surprised he said a LW, ME, NASP and manual car is his ideal as he's trying to sell a few of them! It's exactly the same thing which Porsche marketing does, except GM is not just removing a stereo, aircon and sticking in some fabric door pulls.
Edited by Prestonese on Thursday 6th August 07:26
why the 987.2 Spyder is king of cars today for a car 10 years old.
Has any one watched one of these vids where some one get in the T.50 ?
all the shots like magic they are sitting in it, looks impossible to get in ?
But yes driving means using limbs, but like I said in my T.50 vs GT3 thread, GM took out the hardest part of driving and had to give the car an autoblip down change.
Cayman R and 987.2 Spyders are still the most fun cars you can buy imo esp with a few mods.
And ofcourse the 991.2 GT3 has one of the best engines ever made.
Has any one watched one of these vids where some one get in the T.50 ?
all the shots like magic they are sitting in it, looks impossible to get in ?
But yes driving means using limbs, but like I said in my T.50 vs GT3 thread, GM took out the hardest part of driving and had to give the car an autoblip down change.
Cayman R and 987.2 Spyders are still the most fun cars you can buy imo esp with a few mods.
And ofcourse the 991.2 GT3 has one of the best engines ever made.
Edited by Porsche911R on Thursday 6th August 09:14
isaldiri said:
Exactly. there's some quite curious (and I'm sorry to say rather delusional) wish fulfillment in some posters (here and on the other thread about the wonder car otherwise known as the 991.2 gt3 only in manual and right spec of course) trying to conflate their personal cars with the GM T50 just because it is normally aspirated and has a manual gearbox.....
it is a wonder car in 2020, who else makes a 500PS, manual , NA 9K engine/car, you cannot buy one at any price.GT3 is already too fast as is for the road, so the T.50 will be totally impossible to get the best from it.
Hence why the 987.2 Spyder is still king, like I posted above. And why after 80 odd cars I still own it.
I am not that into the T.50 to be fair, time will tell if it will be the "best drivers car " ever not that it matters with a £2.8m price tag and 100 cars.
but it all seems a bit over the top to me for a road car when I already cannot drive the GT3 without doing 140mph !
To those who are suggesting that the 981 or the 911 variants are cheaper equivalents to the T.50 :
Yes i agree that there are similarities
BUT
The 981/911 are simply too heavy .
Please don't take this as Porsche-bashing : I have the last , or just about the last 981 Boxster S , brought into the UK , and I adore it ( and I bought my first Porsche in 1994 , so its a long-standing love and respect for the marque ) , but at 1350Kg + , you really feel the car's mass during every dynamic change , beit acceleration , braking , or a sideways direction change .
A light weight car just feels different - and usually in a good way .
This is what i wrote on another PH section , and I think that it remains a relevant response to some of the points brought up in this thread too :
For those of us with much ,much shallower pockets :
Lotus Elise R.
2010 => S3 variant .
Naturally aspirated
189 bhp @ 7800 rpm
133 lb ft @ 6800 rpm
Transient max revs of 8500 ( constant @ 8,000 )
860 Kg
3 pedals
Softly sprung
Narrow
Agile
Good outwards visibility
Just needs a 2bular exhaust , as the only non OEM mod
Real world UK driving bliss
( MX5 Series 1 not that dissimilar either ......... my apologies if I have offended anyone , and yes I know this is the Supercar Forum )
Yes i agree that there are similarities
BUT
The 981/911 are simply too heavy .
Please don't take this as Porsche-bashing : I have the last , or just about the last 981 Boxster S , brought into the UK , and I adore it ( and I bought my first Porsche in 1994 , so its a long-standing love and respect for the marque ) , but at 1350Kg + , you really feel the car's mass during every dynamic change , beit acceleration , braking , or a sideways direction change .
A light weight car just feels different - and usually in a good way .
This is what i wrote on another PH section , and I think that it remains a relevant response to some of the points brought up in this thread too :
For those of us with much ,much shallower pockets :
Lotus Elise R.
2010 => S3 variant .
Naturally aspirated
189 bhp @ 7800 rpm
133 lb ft @ 6800 rpm
Transient max revs of 8500 ( constant @ 8,000 )
860 Kg
3 pedals
Softly sprung
Narrow
Agile
Good outwards visibility
Just needs a 2bular exhaust , as the only non OEM mod
Real world UK driving bliss
( MX5 Series 1 not that dissimilar either ......... my apologies if I have offended anyone , and yes I know this is the Supercar Forum )
carspath said:
Lotus Elise R.
2010 => S3 variant .
Naturally aspirated
189 bhp @ 7800 rpm
133 lb ft @ 6800 rpm
Transient max revs of 8500 ( constant @ 8,000 )
860 Kg
3 pedals
Softly sprung
Oh god. I didn’t realise that the Elise R existed. I love the Toyota lump but always wanted an S3... oh crap, now I’m going to have to buy another car, aren’t I?2010 => S3 variant .
Naturally aspirated
189 bhp @ 7800 rpm
133 lb ft @ 6800 rpm
Transient max revs of 8500 ( constant @ 8,000 )
860 Kg
3 pedals
Softly sprung
hi Huffggfg :
yes the naturally aspirated , high revving 2ZZ engine was put into the Series 3 Elise bodyshell for a very short time - only about 10 months i think .
I test drove a N/A and a S/C series 3 at Bell and Colvill , and for me it was a no-brainer .
You have to work the N/A car , which is exactly the way it should be .
My only criticism was the engine/ exhaust noise , and a 2bular exhaust immediatel put it right .
Mine is in Chrome Orange .
Do try one i dont think that you will be disappointed .
The 981 S has different strengths .
yes the naturally aspirated , high revving 2ZZ engine was put into the Series 3 Elise bodyshell for a very short time - only about 10 months i think .
I test drove a N/A and a S/C series 3 at Bell and Colvill , and for me it was a no-brainer .
You have to work the N/A car , which is exactly the way it should be .
My only criticism was the engine/ exhaust noise , and a 2bular exhaust immediatel put it right .
Mine is in Chrome Orange .
Do try one i dont think that you will be disappointed .
The 981 S has different strengths .
Gassing Station | Boxster/Cayman | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff