Gordon Murray new super car
961 - 980 of 997 Posts
Joined
·
10,467 Posts
Less than 2200lbs. I think the glass roof option will be under 2250.
Joined
·
232 Posts
Fully fueled? I hope so... I thought it was 2,174 Lbs dry.
Joined
·
10,467 Posts
Perhaps I misunderstood, I thought the 2174 was curb weight. In which case, ug. Way heavier than I thought! I would think it might be just around 2500lbs then, but man will I be disappointed if that is the case. Still really good, but the 2174 curb weight would be truly amazing.
The Gordon Murray Automotive T.50 Is the 654-HP, 2174-Pound Successor to the F1
Nearly 30 years after creating the McLaren F1, Gordon Murray is building another supercar.
www.roadandtrack.com
"And a final curb weight of just 2174 pounds without fuel."
Ug. I dont even understand what the hell that means. Other articles list final curb weight as that 2174.
So if they're bastardized curb weight not including fuel but does it include all other liquids? Who knows but assuming it did, it would put it around 2300 with fuel topped off.
I really loathe these bs weight games. Curb should be standardized to everything topped the F off.
I don't have any insider info on whether they hit the weight target or not (and would be very interested to hear), but yeah, I guess my old post at least does explain what they include in that weight and what not
. If they did hit it, then fully fueled you are looking at 2306lb.The reason GMA are using "fluids but no fuel" weight, is because, in Gordon's words, there are big differences between fuel tank sizes - and since the T.50 has a relatively large one at 80L - he probably feels that would unfairly make the car seem heavier than it is. Either way, he mentioned this right in the first batch of interviews at the release, so it's not like he's tried to pull one on us.
Looks like an actual customer is driving it
.It's interesting that we get another type of a prototype. We have XPs, VPs and then we had Pre-Production Prototypes - PPs... But now we get another - Pre-Series Prototypes - PSs! I guess they just couldn't say no to some people who came late - and to some extra money
. They said they would never increase the original production run of 100 - and they didn't - but then they built 27 prototypes .Either way, the car is probably very, very close to the final production spec. The panel gaps and panel fitments are much nicer and we now also get the rear suspension aero covers fitted. Additionally, the car gained a pair of new radiators to both sides of the muffler.
Joined
·
232 Posts
I couldn't agree more.
Joined
·
232 Posts
Yep - 2,306 Lbs assuming every other fluid is topped off. Oil, coolant, washer fluid, etc... Since each 'Litre' of Petrol weighs 0.75 KG - that comes out to 1,046 KG or 2,306 Lbs.I don't have any insider info on whether they hit the weight target or not (and would be very interested to hear), but yeah, I guess my old post at least does explain what they include in that weight and what not
The reason GMA are using "fluids but no fuel" weight, is because, in Gordon's words, there are big differences between fuel tank sizes - and since the T.50 has a relatively large one at 80L - he probably feels that would unfairly make the car seem heavier than it is. Either way, he mentioned this right in the first batch of interviews at the release, so it's not like he's tried to pull one on us.
Hopefully that will be the case.
Joined
·
2,467 Posts
So if it had triple the size of the fuel tank (like fuel bladders in the luggage area just got kicks of an idea) for super duper GT duties, it should be fully fueled?
I think the best way to do it is fueled for a specified range. That way, a car's actual efficiency plays a role. A car with 8 mpg would in the real world have more fuel weight than a car with 25 mpg
Joined
·
232 Posts
Do you ever fill your tank up halfway just to save a little weight?
The average passenger car's fuel tank averages between 10 to 18 gallons depending on your source. So...not much difference there.
Range & efficiency is a whole other bag of worms...
Any truth to a new version of T33 to be shown next month?
https://www.thesupercarblog.com/ex...ld-reveal-new-version-of-gma-t-33-next-month/
https://www.thesupercarblog.com/ex...ld-reveal-new-version-of-gma-t-33-next-month/
Joined
·
6,204 Posts
I rarely fill mine completely for this very reason. Even on the road it's noticeable.
Joined
·
2,467 Posts
Yes, actually. I frequently fill my car to 1/4 tank based on expected driving for the week/weeks. Usually 4-5 gallons in my tank.
You go to a Costco gas station and see SUV's ahead of you? It's annoying AF because their tanks are absolutely massive to get any kind of range. Meanwhile, T.50 actually gets pretty good mileage in comparison to other V12 supercars. Just for instance, it has over double the mileage of a Ferrari F12. So it can go twice as far on the same amount of fuel. But the F12 has only a 3 gallon bigger tank. So why should the T.50 weight be "penalized" because it is more efficient?
In the science field, we can this normalization. And if driving use is your parameter, it should be normalized to range.
Or do you think the T.50 and large capacity vehicles weight should be further increased to include the maximum number of passengers
Joined
·
232 Posts
Yes, actually. I frequently fill my car to 1/4 tank based on expected driving for the week/weeks. Usually 4-5 gallons in my tank.
Sounds like a massive waste of time to put only about a 1/4 tank of gas in your car at a time in order to save a negligible amount of weight. Especially after waiting all that time in line at Costco... I'm sure that'll give you about 0.01 more G 's in lateral and longitutal forces. To each their own I guess.
You go to a Costco gas station and see SUV's ahead of you? It's annoying AF because their tanks are absolutely massive to get any kind of range. Meanwhile, T.50 actually gets pretty good mileage in comparison to other V12 supercars. Just for instance, it has over double the mileage of a Ferrari F12. So it can go twice as far on the same amount of fuel. But the F12 has only a 3 gallon bigger tank. So why should the T.50 weight be "penalized" because it is more efficient?
I commend GMA for giving the T.50 a 80 liter (~21 gallon) fuel tank. Sounds like they could've easily gotten away with a smaller tank, but chose not to.
In the science field, we can this normalization. And if driving use is your parameter, it should be normalized to range.
Or do you think the T.50 and large capacity vehicles weight should be further increased to include the maximum number of passengers
No, and I come from a mindset that when I produce a product, I under promise and over deliver. If it were my car I was producing - I'd say: This is the maximum possible weight it can be, and this is the minimum power, mileage & efficiency you can expect. That way, your customer, the market and history will show (in most cases) that you exceeded expectations.
Joined
·
2,467 Posts
Nah, not a massive waste of time. Usually 4-5 gallons is two weeks for me. And I know the times when Costco isn't busy (Sundays in UT, no line). I grocery shop twice a month anyways so it's a planned stop. An extra minute in a day twice a month does not make a difference to me.
I get better wear on the tires and lower rolling resistance as well as that 0.01 extra G. Plus finer integration over time of the price at the pump.
So if this was the car that you're producing, you would fuel it all the way and have 650 pounds of people in it, right? Then we can say the weight of the car is 3000 pounds and then massively overdeliver. Or why don't you do it like aircraft? Put a maximum vehicle weight, like 5000 pounds before the suspension can't appropriately function. Overly conservative values are nonsensical. GMA's weight statement is perfectly logical. You don't need to exceed or be below expectation because the weight of the vehicle is exact, and you get to decide how much fuel you want in it for whatever activity you're going to do (drag strip, daily usage, cross country GT, track, etc). If it would make you happy, I'm sure GMA could just list the car as 3800 pounds like an Aventador. Underpromise and overdeliver, right?
If you're trying to compare different vehicles and one car has a 13 gallon tank, and another has a 21 gallon tank, and the weight of the fuel is the difference maker, which is the lighter car? I'd say the one that could do combined cycle 200 miles of range and whatever weight that car happens to be at with that amount of fuel. This way, you can directly compare vehicles of different classes too (which is what you would want as a governing body for standardization).
I get better wear on the tires and lower rolling resistance as well as that 0.01 extra G. Plus finer integration over time of the price at the pump.
So if this was the car that you're producing, you would fuel it all the way and have 650 pounds of people in it, right? Then we can say the weight of the car is 3000 pounds and then massively overdeliver. Or why don't you do it like aircraft? Put a maximum vehicle weight, like 5000 pounds before the suspension can't appropriately function. Overly conservative values are nonsensical. GMA's weight statement is perfectly logical. You don't need to exceed or be below expectation because the weight of the vehicle is exact, and you get to decide how much fuel you want in it for whatever activity you're going to do (drag strip, daily usage, cross country GT, track, etc). If it would make you happy, I'm sure GMA could just list the car as 3800 pounds like an Aventador. Underpromise and overdeliver, right?
If you're trying to compare different vehicles and one car has a 13 gallon tank, and another has a 21 gallon tank, and the weight of the fuel is the difference maker, which is the lighter car? I'd say the one that could do combined cycle 200 miles of range and whatever weight that car happens to be at with that amount of fuel. This way, you can directly compare vehicles of different classes too (which is what you would want as a governing body for standardization).
Joined
·
232 Posts
Why are you interjecting GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT into this conversation? We are talking CURB weight:
Curb weight is the weight of the vehicle including a full tank of fuel and all standard equipment. It does not include the weight of any passengers, cargo, or optional equipment. Curb weight is considered the closest weight to the actual weight of the vehicle.
curb weight definition motor vehicle - Bing
Joined
·
6,204 Posts
Holy crap, I just now realized there's a difference in the spelling! <smacks head>
961 - 980 of 997 Posts
