G. Murray vs. F40 & Veyron

I just read yet another article of Gordon Murray bashing Bugatti big time.
clearly this guy is jealous as Veyron has earned the title of the world's greatest car.
all his words are just self-serving.

how come he dares to compare his development with Veyron's
when he just outsourced the engine for his cars ?
he wishes Veyron would have never existed.
It must be the saddest day for him when he was invited to test drive it.

interesting how he used to bash the F40 .even before his F1 was introduced . ...now he has changed his discurss and starts to praise it.
because the true "challenger" has emerged.

FACTS
*he critizes Bugatti by claiming his car was their Target but he never admited his goal was the F40 in it's prime time

* if Mc Laren was that succesful, how come they didn't meet it's expectations of selling 300 units. ?

* the moment VEYRON sells more than a hundred cars it will be more succesful than F1 ever was

Veyron's enemies ALWAYS come with the argument of it's weight
it's time to understand Veyron's orientation is NOT the track.

now guys Let me know what you think.

 

I bet that if today the DOT and crash regulation were the same of the 90´s ( when the Mc Laren was made)the Vyron would weight as much ( with its 25 airbags.... ect..). As hard as all supercars manufacturers tryes today , we will not see again the weight figures of the supercars of the 80´s and 90´s. So it is not fair to blaim the vyron for it weight.

 

I think he can bash on it, his car is 15 years old and can probably keep up with they veyron and his car has no turbos.

 

But every comparison seems to include the F40... So who is the real champion?

 

LOL...! I recently took a rather cheap shot at Mr. Murray in my latest article... But it's lying, dead, on the editing room floor...

 

I agree 100% with Murray's assessment.

The Veyron is nothing but a gigantic motor with 4 turbos on it. It was designed around the motor, rather than designed as a complete package. They had numerous high speed stability issues with the car.

The F1, in it's day, had the most F1 technology packed into a road car ever. It is a fantastic package. Everything is designed to function together as a package, and it does so very well. I'd take an F1 over a Veyron in a heartbeat.

 

the only reason why McLaren stood this looong 15 years as the reference is:

* it was done AFTER the F40 (I have some 80's mag where Gordon is testing it)
* the 90's were not supercar friendly
* Ferrari failed to outdo both F1 & F40 with it's sad F50

* there's NO way a Big Mac can keep up with a VEYRON and that's a fact.
as a matter of fact NO CAR comes even close.
no matter how "LIGHT or UNHEAVY IS"

* that TURBO thing is a subject of another thread.

 

So Murray doesn't like the Bugatti, big deal!

I'm not particularly fond of the Veyron either, however, if I may suggest a couple of reasons (other than it being pure jealousy as suggested above), why Murray isn't keen on the Bugatti, they'd be:
1) Murray obviously has a very different interpretation of what constitutes a driver's car - the LCC Rocket and McLaren F1 were both extremely focussed lightweight cars (anyone who doesn't know what LCC stands for - look it up, it gives a strong hint as to Murray's focus!)
2) the Bugatti focuses on providing high speed luxury, Murray's cars were raw driving machines, nothing else (and fabulous they are for it too!)
3) Murray (probably unlike anyone on this board) has actually driven the cars, ok his opinion is most likely biased, but I sure hold the view that driving enjoyment is derived more from the handling of a vehicle than the speed it goes - hell, if I had the money, I honestly think I'd rather have a Lotus Elise and squander the rest on women, song and wine than buy a Veyron (although I'd also like a yacht - I'd definitely be more attractive stood on the deck of my own yacht... however I digress...)
4) the McLaren's poor sales were probably more a reflection of the basically dire world economy into which it was launched than it's capability. However, you could also level the argument that the fact that the F1 was a DRIVERS car, not a rich man's oversized, overtly flashy posing pouch (rather like a wheeled cod piece) that even a grandmother could drive such as the Veyron, is why the Veyron will sell far more units - lets face it, how many people will buy a Veyron because they genuinely want to drive it rather than let people know that they are rich enough to spend a million on a car...
5) in reference to the point on Murray subcontracting the engine development, I don't know how much his development budget was, but I'd be amazed if it was even 5% of what VW spent on the Veyron

Richard Meaden in last month's Evo also made very similar comments about the Bugatti - basically, it's too heavy and whilst phenominally fast is completely devoid of any soul which combined with the weight robs it of any real driving pleasure - unfortunately the article isn't on their website, so I can't post a link.

Back to the point about Murray, on which I have one further point:

It's his OPINION, not scientific fact! And like a**holes, everyone not only has an opinion, but is also convinced theirs doesn't stink. Seriously, I think some of you guys are taking this a bit too seriously - each to his own and all that.

Though if any of you ever manage to set up an F1, F40, Veyron group test, be sure to remember to send me my invite!!!

PS: Carbon, what was your pot-shot at Murray - your writing that you've posted around these parts usually rouses a smile and a giggle, so I'd love to know

 

I found the October issue of EVO to have a very good comparison test of four Supercars (Veryron/CGT/Enzo/Zhonda) plus back to back driving comparion of the Mclaren and the Veyron.

At one point in the comparison, it talks about the Veyron closing in on the Enzo, which is owned by Paul Bailey, who also owns the yellow CGT featured in EVO.

One other thing....my favourite cars of all time are the F40 and Enzo....all about performance...no stereos, no leather....just go fast stuff. The Veyron leaves me cold.....
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The two giants (Veyron and Mclaren) cannot be compared at all since they are two very different cars with 15 years between them, and a lot of new technic has been developed in those years! The Mclaren is a supersport car, or a race car for the road and the Veyron is a super luxury GT, and it was never developed nor built to overcome or to compete with the Mclaren in any way! The Veyron was built to show the World what Volkswagen was capable of in terms of build quality and modern day technology for a production car! No other car comes close to the standards set by the Veyron in those terms.....perhaps Maybach will have a paintjob similar in quality to the Veyron, but otherwise no!
Still it is mighty impressive that a super heavy and fully loaded Veyron will more than outdo the Mclaren (......and in pure accelleration and top speed also a modern Ferrari formula one car!!!) in all or most respects, while still being a comfortable luxury car!
Also worth noting is the fact that the Veyron engine was successfully bench tested continually for several months with a lot more than the 1001 HP of the final production car!

Anyway, I'd take one of each, including the F40!

 

In the real world 15 year old Mclarens are selling for almost twice as much as brand new Veyrons. I think the market has spoken.
I personallly would take a Mclaren if I could find one available. The Veyron is available to me but it is simply not of interest, for many of the reasons pointed out by Mr. Murray, not least of which is its obesity, and secondly it is really quite ugly. Come to think of it those reasons are universally applicable to just about anything.

 

The F1 rules......

I was lucky enough to hear Gordon speak at my school this last summer, it really puts many things in perspective to listen to him rather than read articles. The man is a genius, end of story.

Like Mr Dude before me said, he wasnt interested in making a leather couch break 200mph, he was looking for a light, nimble, Formular One type car (it's all in the name) last time I checked F1 cars arent very cushy and they're not turbo charged......another interesting thing is that BMW(as you well know they made the engine) races in F1...hmm.

Gordon also made his car happen with about 27 people.......not positive but would be willing to bet that the Veyron needed more than 27 egineers just to figure out how to keep it's ass on the road.

As we all know Bugatti made the huge mistake of designing the exterior 1st and throwing out speed figures long before they even knew if it was possible with that shape, not too wise, how long did it take them to figure it all out and get that beast on the road? Didn't they keep pushing the "release" date back?

I've been lucky enough to also see both cars, just by looking at them you know that they were intended for completely different things.

Last thing......I KNOW that if there were 300 McLaren F1's out there, they would have no problem whatsoever finding homes.

But lets not forget that like it was previously stated......these are all opinions, and the latter has been my own humble one.

 

as soon as they develop their non-gigantic OWN motor then we'll see ...

Finally people is realizing what a VEYRON is intended for.

supply & demand
so how much that would be?

as for Veyron's values just wait till production ceases and they become classics ...
15 years or so.

 

Actually, if the market has spoken, then it's pretty close to even. An F1 recently sold for $1.7 mil while a Veyrons going rate is $1.8.

 

I have had two cars offered to me at under $1.5. One from an east coast source and one from Europe, and I got the sense they were definitely willing to listen to offers.I believe they can be had for list which translates to around $1.4
Mclarens are simply not available. The ones you hear about are generally private sales that never reach the open market

 

I got the $1.7 figure from one that was available on the open market a couple months ago (Monterey auctions):

http://www.rmauctions.com/CarDetails.cfm?SaleCode=MO06&CarID=r352

The $1.8 figure is the current asking price for the only Veyron offered publically in NA. While that figure may end up coming down, I don't know, but either way its nowhere near half of what the going rate for F1s are.

 

+1, no comparision, see writeup in the new EVO Magazine.

 

Where is this article located? I'm interested in reading it too.

 

There is a McLaren F1 owner who recently test drove the Veyron. He's the guy with the F1 GTR that was on 5th Gear. Also with the Enzo. He said that the F1 and Veyron are pretty much opposite cars whereas the Enzo is more in the middle. He placed an order for the Veyron and will be selling the Enzo and keeping the F1.

I gotta agree with dongerdude. Bugatti spent a ton of money compared to McLaren. That Veyron better have had an in-house engine made.

 

I suppose it must be CAR magazine (I picked up the Mexican version)
*these BRITISH publishers are ALWAYS biased towards McLaren,Mini & Rolls Royce and lately Jaguar ... I wonder why...

in the Interview he quotes: even the last bolt and nut of his car was perfect.
there's nothing I'd change on a perfect car.

* about Money:
VW has stated that VEYRON's development has costed a fraction of the amount spent on Formula 1 teams by ohter manufacturers.

*speaking of F1 : if Gordon is that godlike magnificient designer and extroridinarie engineer
why doesn't he help McLaren on their F1 efforts?

more from Formula ONE
watch this F40 racing against a true F1 car
http://www.mojoflix.com/Video/Ferrari-F40-vs-Formula-One.html?38

 

This is not the same company anymore. The current Mclaren company in F1 is controlled by Daimler Chrysler and Murray is no longer employed there.

 

Correct, but he did help head the SLR project. What he should be doing is comparing the SLR to the Veyron as they are much more closely related than the F1 and Veyron.

 

Im quite surprized he would be selling the enzo for the veyron. I know the veyron is faster but the enzo is an all around far better supercar. The speed of the veyron is useless. I mean they say its not made for the tracks and the proof of that is in its lack of cornering g forces and its numb sterring characteristics but honestly like half of the speed it generates is useless on the street so what good is it? I honestly have driven in etremely fast cars on the streets and and have been scared to death by the speeds they can go but still was going no where near the veyrons speeds. On the road theres only so much you can do before without the risk of killing people and loosing your licents for good. Thats the reality of it. I would always take a better balanced fun to drive "chuckable" drivers car (like F430) over the overrated veyron. I think the veyron is ugly, bulky, stupid, useless and looks like and eater egg. Its an i have a small **** car. The enzo is pure exotic. Its not a one trick pony like the veyron. Wammy.
Sorry i know this was about McLaren and veyron

 

253 mph is overrated? and that's a limited speed too.

 

you odviously didnt really read my post and just picked that line out, maybe that line caught your eye. You missed my point entirely, its over rated as a street car because its claim to fame (253 mph top speed) is usless on the streets while its not supposed to be a track car at the same time. hmmm maybe im missing something about this car ?