GMA GMA T.33

[A.P.]

Really nice looking and that V12 is just a bliss. Hope the Aventador's replacement will use something similar.

 

[hoffmeister_fan]

"The world's faster paddle shift gearchange" has me worried. Proper calibration for responsive shifts and low-speed engagement is more important than being the outright fastest. The Aventador's clunky transmission comes to mind.

Gordon Murray's T.33 Supercar Revealed with 607-HP V-12 and a Manual

This less expensive and more accessible version of the T.50 has a naturally aspirated 4.0-liter V-12 that revs to over 11,000 rpm.

www.caranddriver.com

Buyers will be able to choose between manual or automated gearboxes built by British specialist Xtrac. They deliver power to the rear axle through a limited-slip differential. The six-speed manual is closely related to the one offered in the T.50, while the paddle-shift transmission uses Xtrac’s Instantaneous Gearchange System which uses a ratchet mechanism between hubs that can select and engage two gears simultaneously, allowing completely seamless shifting. At 172 pounds, the automatic actually weighs 9 pounds less than the manual gearbox. Both transmissions will be available with an optional overdrive sixth gear to improve high-speed cruising refinement.

Murray confirms that early demand has been almost entirely for the stick-shift. “I may well have shot myself in the foot,” he says, “because we’ve pre-sold half the cars already and so far we’ve only had two people order a paddle shift. I’ve committed myself to millions of pounds in development spend and I could end up with 97 manuals and three autos.”

 

[hoffmeister_fan]

From an aesthetic perspective, the front air intake leaves a lot to be desired. It seams to be a GMA trait thus far.

 

[klier]

Jesus what a good looking car. My Gosh with that engine?

TImeless design that lacks needless mass. Surprised that the steering wheel has four spokes.

That's extra mass! Such an oversight. But that's part of why it's a GT my friend

 

[hoffmeister_fan]

Jesus what a good looking car. My Gosh with that engine?



That's extra mass! Such an oversight. But that's part of why it's a GT my friend

LOL, initially when I mentioned "mass," I was referring to visual mass that is endemic in modern cars due to more features and "fortification" of the body in case of impact but that works too! Regarding the steering wheel spokes, I thought a 4-spoke looks so odd on a car these days, especially on an all-out sports car like the T.33, but it also works in what you said about superfluous mass. Sir Gordon is starting to lose his footing when it comes to weight-reduction.

 

[hoffmeister_fan]

This and the T.50 surprise me that there are no side intakes and only the roof snorkel is sufficient enough to supply the engine with enough air.

 

[Soup]

This and the T.50 surprise me that there are no side intakes and only the roof snorkel is sufficient enough to supply the engine with enough air.

 

[Bridster]

It's interesting that people seem to like the looks of the T.33 more than the T.50. There is even a poll under Car&Driver article about the car and it's 63/37% in favor of the T.33 versus the T.50.

I am of the opposite opinion, however. I think that the T.33 kinda makes the T.50 look better in comparison. The biggest issue for me is that the wheelbase is way too long. It's 35mm longer than on the T.50, but it should be more like 35mm shorter, if not more. The front also looks way more like the 612 Scaglietti - which I am not a huge fan of. I wouldn't say the car is ugly or anything, but it's a bit of a wasted opportunity in my opinion. There are some aspects that are great. I love the rear end, the rear glass house and the protruding air scoop attached to the engine. If they just made the wheelbase shorter and changed the front a bit, it could have been a bomb. As it is now, it's proportionally a bit awkward.

Engineering wise there are really no big surprises. That they made the seamless change sequential work on the street is cool, although how well it really works at slow speeds in traffic and how durable it is, is still to be seen. Overall, although it's basically just a worse T.50 - and it kinda makes the T.50 look even more otherwordly with respect to weight and some other engineering aspects - there is still no other car that even comes close to the specs (NA V12 with 11k redline, manual, 1090kg), so there is very little to criticize there. I was wondering at one point if this car wouldn't make the T.50 a bit awkward - because I am sure there were some T.50 buyers who got it despite not liking the central driving position or the fan, simply because the rest of the car was so great - but I don't think that really happened. There is still a clear divide between this and the T.50 and the T.50 owners are probably not feeling too bad right now. All the same, if you like the looks of the T.33 more, then it's an amazing proposition.

 

[duesy]

It's interesting that people seem to like the looks of the T.33 more than the T.50. There is even a poll under Car&Driver article about the car and it's 63/37% in favor of the T.33 versus the T.50.

I am of the opposite opinion, however. I think that the T.33 kinda makes the T.50 look better in comparison. The biggest issue for me is that the wheelbase is way too long. It's 35mm longer than on the T.50, but it should be more like 35mm shorter, if not more. The front also looks way more like the 612 Scaglietti - which I am not a huge fan of. I wouldn't say the car is ugly or anything, but it's a bit of a wasted opportunity in my opinion. There are some aspects that are great. I love the rear end, the rear glass house and the protruding air scoop attached to the engine. If they just made the wheelbase shorter and changed the front a bit, it could have been a bomb. As it is now, it's proportionally a bit awkward.

Engineering wise there are really no big surprises. That they made the seamless change sequential work on the street is cool, although how well it really works at slow speeds in traffic and how durable it is, is still to be seen. Overall, although it's basically just a worse T.50 - and it kinda makes the T.50 look even more otherwordly with respect to weight and some other engineering aspects - there is still no other car that even comes close to the specs (NA V12 with 11k redline, manual, 1090kg), so there is very little to criticize there. I was wondering at one point if this car wouldn't make the T.50 a bit awkward - because I am sure there were some T.50 buyers who got it despite not liking the central driving position or the fan, simply because the rest of the car was so great - but I don't think that really happened. There is still a clear divide between this and the T.50 and the T.50 owners are probably not feeling too bad right now. All the same, if you like the looks of the T.33 more, then it's an amazing proposition.

I agree. Though, I must add that in the philosophy of art, there are two general concepts for appreciating a work of art. First, as a work of beauty, which has its roots in Platonic philosophy. Second is the more modern aesthetic of the sublime work of art, which thrills more and pleases less. My understanding is that GM had the former aesthetic mind for T.33; a classic (Italian) beauty. Whereas the "spaceship" look of T.50 is more sublime (as is AM's Valkyrie).

 

[Centurion]

It's interesting that people seem to like the looks of the T.33 more than the T.50.

The T.33 is beautiful and emotive because it has Italian influences unlike cars like the MC20, Emira and Artura which are aesthetically pleasing but look generic.

 

[klier]

It's interesting that people seem to like the looks of the T.33 more than the T.50. There is even a poll under Car&Driver article about the car and it's 63/37% in favor of the T.33 versus the T.50.

That would probably be similar here. And I agree, the T.33 looks far better. The T.50 its a technical masterpiece but literally butt ugly.

The T.33 is beautiful and emotive because it has Italian influences unlike cars like the MC20, Emira and Artura which are aesthetically pleasing but look generic.

The MC20 IS Italian Not just some influences or even lack of that as you claim. And it's beautiful. This generic thing is becoming a meme at this point.....

 

[SKY]

Woah! Love this!

 

[mihc]

The T.33 is beautiful and emotive because it has Italian influences unlike cars like the MC20, Emira and Artura which are aesthetically pleasing but look generic.

For 7 times bigger price it better be... MC20, Artura look rather nice and especially Emira. Considering what it's price is.

 

[hoffmeister_fan]

GMA cars fascinate me in how space is utilized.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[martinbo]

I was watching the live Gordon and Dario launch video with my wife and, within the first moments of its reveal, I said “wow, that’s pretty retro” only for Gordon to instantly state - as if in direct response - “It’s not retro…” I laughed and thought I was cool. My wife rolled her eyes to let me know that I wasn’t.

When someone says that something’s not retro as an opening statement and then goes on to cite all kinds of classic inspirations then there actually has to be an element of truth to it being retro? That said, I think it’s definitely pretty and so completely unlike any other mid-engined design out there. But Prof, this is retro 101…

The T.33 is beautiful and emotive because it has Italian influences unlike cars like the MC20, Emira and Artura which are aesthetically pleasing but look generic.

I don’t find the MC20 to be generic at all. I think it’s a great design - both subtle and dramatic in equal measure - because it’s well differentiated from the other mid-engined cars out there. I’m betting it’s going to look gorgeous in the metal. For me there’s only one thing wrong (ok, make that two things) with the MC20 - its price and that it’s too close to that of the 296 GTB. When you’ve got that amount of ammo, I challenge you to walk past that Ferrari showroom, desperately trying to congratulate yourself on how much of it you’re saving by going for the MC20.

As for T.33 (and T.50 for that matter) I sincerely hope the drive lives up to the price and hype. Sadly, I’ll never know for myself.

 

[bmwz4coupe]

Has it been oficially said if the 1090 kg weight is real kerb (w/ full tank) or have they again choosen not to say too much about this… ?

 

[Moctecus]

Gordon told Harry Metcalfe, the weight is with all liquids on board but fuel, and that this is the way he always weighs cars. He says using the same way of measuring, his Alpine A110 is 1105 kg.

 

[klier]

I don’t find the MC20 to be generic at all. I think it’s a great design - both subtle and dramatic in equal measure

Fully agreed. It's a gorgeous true Italian design. The generic meme has got to go.

Gordon told Harry Metcalfe, the weight is with all liquids on board but fuel, and that this is the way he always weighs cars. He says using the same way of measuring, his Alpine A110 is 1105 kg.

Harry has his own scale too, and he often shows the actual weight of a car in his own garage before testing it. Which is brilliant.

 

[J.E]

1.3 million for a piece of crap that has zero comfort features and it's a death trap. Gordon Murray has got to be f#cking kidding.

 

[klier]

As for T.33 (and T.50 for that matter) I sincerely hope the drive lives up to the price and hype. Sadly, I’ll never know for myself.

There is absolutely no way ever a one million + costing car will live up to it's price. It's impossible in the same way it's impossible to make a pig grow wings.

IMO

That said, the car is amazing beyond measure. Price though......batshit insane, ridiculous and crazy.

1.3 million for a piece of crap that has zero comfort features and it's a death trap. Gordon Murray has got to be f#cking kidding.

There will be more people able to buy it than he will be able to make, so.........I really don't think he is making a joke lol.