Gt4 vs. Merak vs. Urraco on Top Gear

Apologies in advance if this is a repost, but check out these videos (4 parts):

http://www.bbcamerica.com/shows/topgear/video.jsp?bclid=31560299001&bctid=30100961001

http://www.bbcamerica.com/shows/topgear/video.jsp?bclid=31560299001&bctid=30101864001

http://www.bbcamerica.com/shows/topgear/video.jsp?bclid=31560299001&bctid=30097948001

http://www.bbcamerica.com/shows/topgear/video.jsp?bclid=31560299001&bctid=30101863001

Cheers - DM

 

thanks for posting.

I would take the urraco, the merak, and the gt4 in that order.

 

what a waste of time. i usually love the show but why did they choose to test those worn out unloved dogs. it would have been nice if they were well preserved or restored examples

they are each nice driving cars and all very distinctive looking.

pcb

 

"Yes, you can buy a super car for less than 10,000 pounds ($US16,000), but for the love of God, don't..." There's some truth in that

 

I have watched this a couple of times. It is great to the GT4 represented - even though it developed a bit of a misfire and catastrophic electronic failure.

Clarkson was a bit unfair with the Fiat comments. The Urraco is pretty sexy too.

Hammond actually kept the Dino and gave it the loved it deserved. He was then set up to crash into it on another show. It looks like a genuine prank and he gets pretty upset.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8En7Qooyx0

Spencer

 

Jesus... I would have decked the host, had I been Hammond there.

I fell in love with that GT4 just watching TopGear - imagine how Hammond, who restored it, felt.

What a bunch of *******s.

 

The main guy keeps making fun of it not being a Ferrari and that somebody supposedly put a Ferrari badge instead of the Dino badge in the front.... which is not only ignorant but also quite annoying, wouldn't one expect that a guy who calls himself a expert in sportscars matters would know that all GT4's had Ferrari badges in the front starting in 76?
More like a bunch of teenagers being silly than experts having fun.

Helmut

 

Every car mag did the same comparison back then and Ferrari won hands down there also. Too bad they didn't let stig drive the cars around the track!!

The Gt4 is not only a real ferrari but one of the best Ferrari's ever made, but you would have to live with one to know that.

 

try comparing it to a P300 urraco rather than a P250

car classics oct 92 uk and auto retro (france) mag will give you a vastly different answer

 

These cars were never going to make it that was the point of the show to make fun. The cars were made to break down. Pointless really.

 

Not to belabor the obvious, but I found the track time comparisons between the various old Italian cars and the current-day econobox to be very enlightening!

Which, the more that I think about it, is more of a testimony as to the handling progress that cars (in general) have made over the past 30 years than it is a condemnation of the ability of the older cars ... but of course, that's not how it was presented ...

Cheers - DM

 

Not that a modern econobox shouldn't do well against cars such as these, but I doubt that the comparison as done is particularly relevant to how these cars in new condition would compare to a modern econobox. Though I don't see them blowing away a new car on the track, I can't help but think they'd do better in pristine shape rather than the old, tired and abused shape they were in for this comparison. I don't think you can read too much into it for that reason.

 

Old repost, but classic.

Obviously the whole thing was set up to be entertaining and not an objective road test of the cars. The Top Gear guys always set themselves up to arguing about their cars -- their Audi TT/Alfa Brera/Mazda RX8 segment on another episode follows a similar formula. And I was watching a rerun this weekend where the Ferrari F430, Pagani Zonda and Ford GT are compared on a drive through France -- same unscientific banter. But pretty fun to watch, which is the point.

(I mean, come on, an "epic" road trip to a lap dancing club in Slough... lol.)

FWIW, one of our FOC members in San Diego had a Urraco, and he said it wasn't all that quick and drove like a truck. And his was a pristine, restored one. He kept it maybe a year or two. I have a soft spot for old Italian cars, but these certainly weren't the best.

 

gary pettersons P250?

 

Checking the main UK supercar breakers a few months ago there is the urraco - being broken

Good result Jeremy

 

There was a proper group test of a GT4 vs Merak vs Urraco with an Esprit Turbo SIII and a 928 S4 thrown in for good measure in the December edition of Classic Cars magazine.

The rankings were:
1st 308 GT4
2nd Maserati Merak SS
3rd Lamborghini Urraco

 

I`m also pretty shure I was offerd a corner to have my ss repaird with but wasn`t needed in the end. Lovely car the merak, had a very touring/bespoke feel to it and was very simular to my old Rolls Royce silver shadow 2 in some ways.
My wife loved the merak, hated the Rolls and hates the 308 even more.....

 

From a pure automotive journalism point of view, this was a great and very entertaining angle -- one which they have taken time and time again. Essentially, it's not "which car was better when new?", rather "what do you get for your money NOW?"

They've done it with Alfas, Porsches, American cars...

It is a very important issue, because there are plenty of road tests from decades ago to establish the as-new performance of each. What lacks is -- if you had ten grand (pounds or dollars or sheckles), what can you get for your money, and how does that compare to other options.

In this sense, the Top Gear methodology works quite well. For ten grand and with a limited search timeline, you're going to get tired cars hiding problems. The problems were quite representative of what you'd see for each model -- including a botched engine rebuld on the Citro-erati. (Botched rebuilds are a fact of life with any classic.)

Still my favorite Top Gear comparisons have been the cross-desert challenge where they leave Hammond in a river and the British Leyland comparo where the Rover SD1 keeps losing doors.

 

I would see that from a different angle; you don't know if that engine rebuild was botched or not, all we know is that there was a problem which caused the engine to fail. Now we all know that such a problem could be minor like a faulty thermostat or some seal that causes a leak etc. as simple as a bad watercap not holding pressure and so on. If such a problem is ignored and you run such an engine hot for a certain period of time then it won't matter how pristine the engine rebuild was, the engine is gonna be toast no matter what. So the only thing they are proving is that if you buy a car like that for 10 Grand you have to use your brain before you drive it. The only guy who sort of showed that alertness was the guy in the GT4, the other two should be working office jobs.

Helmut

 

Helmut,
I understand your point and it is very valid. The angle Top Gear takes is somewhat extreme, but it is unfortunately more representative of many new classic owners than you'd expect. You would be surprised how many stories I've heard from people new to classic vehicle ownership about buying a car and simply starting to drive it and the first big issue comes within the first week or two. Sometimes it is the fault of a previous owner or mechanic, other times it is a minor problem (like a rad cap or lack of oil) that the new owner simply overlooks.

My favorite is a "concours restoration" of a 1930s Lincoln V12 that almost immediately failed to stop under its own power. Upon inspection by the new owner's mechanic, he realized the restoration didn't include replacing what appeared to be 60-year old brake shoes worn down to the rivets. Essentially, the car was rigged to have a few stops before failing. (And yes, I saw them with my own two eyes.)

 

its just a show... do you really think any of it is remotely real or not staged? im surprised since your from LA LA land.

the show great entertaiment ..nothing more

 

No sane owner would let those guys near his/her car... I suppose some people find their desctructive antics entertaining, but the information value is unfortunately zero.

Gabriel

 

There's also a good article about that trio in Auto Italia, issue 149 (2008).

Gabriel

 

Originally Posted by Helmut
I would see that from a different angle; you don't know if that engine rebuild was botched or not, all we know is that there was a problem which caused the engine to fail. Now we all know that such a problem could be minor like a faulty thermostat or some seal that causes a leak etc. as simple as a bad watercap not holding pressure and so on. If such a problem is ignored and you run such an engine hot for a certain period of time then it won't matter how pristine the engine rebuild was, the engine is gonna be toast no matter what. So the only thing they are proving is that if you buy a car like that for 10 Grand you have to use your brain before you drive it. The only guy who sort of showed that alertness was the guy in the GT4, the other two should be working office jobs.

Helmut

I think Helmut's observation is very astute. The basic point being that if you're a goof, and don't pay attention to your car, then a very simple flaw can be it's undoing - his example of a faulty thermostat is right on point.

It may be just a show but there are plenty of guys driving ferraris who are less caring and knowledgable about cars than the guys on Top Gear. You think those kind of breakdowns on the show only happen in LA LA land? You haven't spent much time in a ferrari service facility.

 

Well, perhaps "those guys on Top Gear" don't know that much about cars after all then? Or, whatever they once knew (when less affluent...) has been lost somewhere on their path to fame?

Gabriel