Re: Better than the Carrera GT

Discussion in '2002 Lamborghini Murciélago' started by FLY BY, Aug 10, 2002.

  1. I don't think you really made a point, we all knew about the retractable hardtop but when a car has a retractable roof it needs to be built to handle the road while the top is down.
    Besides the specs of a Murcielago is better than the Carrera GT anyway so I don't even know why this is being disputed.

    And read up, the built numerous engines for Lotus teams. Lambo even built engines for boat racers. Trust me I wouldn't post a rumour.
     
  2. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from gsolinas</i>
    <b>I don't think you really made a point, we all knew about the retractable hardtop but when a car has a retractable roof it needs to be built to handle the road while the top is down.
    Besides the specs of a Murcielago is better than the Carrera GT anyway so I don't even know why this is being disputed.

    And read up, the built numerous engines for Lotus teams. Lambo even built engines for boat racers. Trust me I wouldn't post a rumour.
    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Exactly Lambo never built a Lotus race car. They did supply engine to a suffering Lotus F1. And how many times in 1990 did those lambo engines cause the Lotus team not to finish. That deal lasted a year so i do not see it as a huge thing.
     
  3. The point is they made them, and the problema had more to do with the car than the engines. But Lamborghini's goal isn't to build racers anyway, rather to build good exotic cars...and this is a classic example.
     
  4. NO WAY,LAMBO IS RENOWN FOR VERY HEAVY GEAR SHIFT AND CLUTCH,
    VERY BAD IN NEGOTIATING TIGHT CORNERS.

    On the track in Nurbergring,The 360 modena can out run the diablo 6.0
    The Porsche gt2 can easily outrun this car on the track,not to say the
    carrera gt which has 100+horse and 190kg lighter.

    I think the car which can outrun c gt on the track is the Enzo(F60).


     
  5. I won't argue with you on the fact that the Ferraris have produced better cars than Lamborghini in the past and I wouldn't doubt the F60 outdoing the Murcielago but the Murcielago has been credited for handling better than the other Lambos. And in the defense of the Diablos you chose the 6.0 VT which was never considered the best. The Diablo GT would crush the GT2 and the Carrera GT as well. I do however like all those cars and don't want to trash anything but it's fair to say when Lambo wants to produce the best car thay can. <!-- Signature -->
     
  6. Eh, where can I find any lap time of 4WD Diablos at the Nurburgring? VT or 6.0? I do not think they have been tested there. The 360 Modena laps the nurburgring the same time as the Diablo SV (not sure if it was the long, medium or short version). In nurburgring the Diablo does not usually show its best time; other places any Diablo is way ahead of the 360 Modena.

    The Diablo GT does not lap the nurburgring faster than the Porsche GT2; it is not the best track for Lamborghini's. In some other tracks, however, the Diablo GT would be ahead of the GT2.
     
  7. I'm sure it would but we were comparing this to the Carrera GT anyway.<!-- Signature -->
     
  8. DIABLO GT CAN't beat the c gt,may be it can compare with the gt2
    because it has faster accerleration,but it can't be compare with
    the cgt,cgt has 550hp,60kgm torque and is 200kg lighter than the
    dgt and i don't think that the d gt can do 0-200 kmh in 10s.

     
  9. Where can I find test of the Carera GT that does 0-200 kmh in 10.0 seconds?

    0-200 kmh for these cars:

    Diablo GT: 11.8 seconds
    Murcielago: 11.4 seconds, but in fact is not faster than GT; it is only because of 4WD that it is better time.
    Porsche GT2: 12.4 seconds
    '99 Diablo SV short ratio: 12.4 seconds
    Ferrari F50: 11.7/12.4 for closed and open top version.
    Ferrari F40: 11.4 seconds

    How can Carrera GT make 10.0 seconds for 0-200 kmh?
     
  10. The GT2 would get blown away by this car and the Carrera GT would put up a better fight but certainly not win...look at the numbers.<!-- Signature -->
     
  11. What numbers? How many actual road tests can you show me that have actually tested the Carrera GT? I'll answer that for you: none. The only significant numbers you can compare at this point are the cars' power to weight ratios (the Carrera GT's being *much* higher than the Lamborghini's), and centers of mass (again, the Carrera GT's being much lower than the Murcielago's).

    Oh, and by the way, 4WD cars are notorious for their, if you will, "poor" cornering when compared to rear-wheel drive cars. Why else do you think all true race cars are rear-wheel drive? Sure, some traction is lost, but the gains in cornering speed more than make up for what may be a shaky start for the rear-wheel drive car. Case in point: The Porsche 911 Turbo: 4WD; a great car for driving in any condition, but loses its edge against a Corvette Z06 in *dry* weather. The Porsche 911 GT2 is meant to be the ultimate derivation of the 996, and as such, has had its 4WD system removed, replaced by a rear-wheel drive system. This not only improves short-track handling and cornering, but saves hundreds of pounds in weight. The Carrera GT, being a mid-engined car, will have near 50-50 weight distribution, and rear-wheel drive.

    To Jackamo: There's nothing wrong or biased about the Nurburgring. There's a reason it is the standard by which all European cars are measured. Just because it happens to be in Germany doesn't mean that if a German car logs a faster time on it than a Lamborghini, it doesn't matter (I'm paraphrasing you from another thread). On the contrary, it matters very much. It proves that as a functional car that can be raced in almost any weather and track condition, a Porsche is hard to beat. Some cars have an advantage on longer tracks, while others have the advantage on shorter tracks. It depends on where you want to race the car in question. Lamborghini has obviously proven itself to be a top contender in the touring niche of the race world. It leaves a little more to be desired for short track performance.

    L8R<!-- Signature -->
     

  12. I say Nurburgring times are not so important because if you look at Diablo GT's (medium ratio) time it is 8,04s by Sport Auto, and Porsche GT3's time 8,03s also by Sport Auto. Is Porsche GT3 faster than Diablo GT? No, because I have seen the '96 Diablo SV beat the Porsche GT3 and '96 993 Turbo on a track (see Best Motoring, Japaneese). 96 SV has 510 hp vs. Diablo GT 575 hp.

    I do not say that it is not fair. It is fair, and for Porsche too. But I say that all cars like F50, 996 GT2, Zonda, etc., will have lap time under 8,00 min at Nurburgring. F40 and Diablo GT would have lap times stlightly over 8,00 min at Nurburgring, but are faster, and in many other tracks they come out ahead. Many tracks for instance F40 is faster than F50. So only because F50 would have better lap time than F40 at nurburgring does not mean it will in other places.

    But this is I think is not correct:

    You: Lamborghini has obviously proven itself to be a top contender in the touring niche of the race world. It leaves a little more to be desired for short track performance.


    Most tracks are shorter, and that is where Diablo's and F40's would have better lap times; They very good acceleration and also have good handeling. F50, GT2, and Zonda have much more downforce, but this only makea a difference over 120 kmh:

    at 300 kmh:

    F40: 155 kg of downforce
    Diablo GT: 145 kg of downforce
    F50: 300kg of downforce

    GT2 and Zonda are similar to F50. On shorter tracks this does not affect performance as much as on longer tracks (like Nurburgring). Diablo and F40 would have better lap times on shorter tracks.
     
  13. Good point(s). However, "faster" is a relative term. If, on a given track, car A consistently runs a faster time than car B, then car A is, by definition, faster than car B, *on that particular track*. Therefore, a car's "speed" is a funtion of the purpose for which it was designed, i.e. every car has its strong and weak points, which agrees with the points you made. However, I would not go so far as to call the F40 "faster" than the F50. Where is it faster? On what type of track? See what I'm trying to say? But kudos to you for knowing the difference.

    L8R<!-- Signature -->
     
  14. I don’t think that Nurburgring should be the standard. I don’t think the times or official testers are biased but the track caters to the German cars (short track). On a different track the outcome may be different. I think it is safe to say that different tracks cater to different cars. But I will say that on the average road the Murcielago would top the Carrera GT based on very similar 0-60s (I think the Murcielago has a slight edge), and the top speed advantage of the bull. I love both cars though.
     
  15. Not considerring downforce, F40 is the fastest, F50 has the best handeling, Diablo GT is equilibrium of the two. On shorter tracks they are all very close; sometimes F40, sometimes Diablo GT, and sometimes F50 wins, depending on if the track has many curves or many straits. On this forum there is "Oliver Peck" and "F40 LeMans" who drive these cars and they will tell you the same thing.

    But on the longer tracks where you reach speeds above 120 kmh more often, this is where F50 has the advantage. If you look at the Zonda C12-S, it has even more downforce than F50: at 300 kmh, Zonda has 500 kg of downforce compared to F50 310 kg! But those are both good compared to F40 (155 kg or downforce) and Diablo GT (140 kg of downforce).
     
  16. dude, i agree with u that the murcielago is bettet than the carrera GT because the lambo has more horsepower and it has 3 international records. i have a 1998 toyota supra twin turbo. i was goin to get some stuff for my mom, i stopped at a red light, and i saw this porsche pull up next to me. i had my top down and he had his to. i dont know what kind of a porsche he had, but it sounded good. i think it was a 911 turbo. i burnt him by like 4 seconds to a point which we agreed that we will race till. i am pretty sure that the lambo will beat it.
     
  17. my brother, u dont know who u r talkin to. my supra is a 6 speed manual. i put the ab flug supra pic there because that is one of the kind of supra i like. i have a bomex body kit on my supra. i just put 22's on it with chromes about 2 days ago. so u should think twice before u think that i dont know nothin. and another thing, i still think that the murcielago can beat it(porsche). gasolias was saying that he has seen both of them up close at the detroit auto show. he was sayin that the lambo's stats were better....
    so listen to me buddy. everyone except a few(u and some other ppl) believe that the lambo will kick prosche's ass. the lambo has outperformed almost every porsche ever made. and another thing, lambo's r exotic cars, they r not made for racing.......

    i would put up a pic of my supra, but i dont have it in Jpeg format. i am formatting it, and after that, u can see what kind of a supra i have. i am putting it up anyways.

    peace my brother.
     
  18. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from TylerDurden</i>
    <b>Said supraraz: first of all, the lambo might be heavier, but i am pretty sure that it can kick it's ass......and second, u shud shut the #$%# up if u dont know no shit. i paid 5,000 $ extra for a 98 supra, and mine is'nt stock..... it has almost 500 horsepower now.... and u tellin me that i am lyin?? check ur shit and then talk 2 me.......


    I stand corrected; the last model year for the Supra was 1998.

    So, you place a picture of the ABFlug Supra under your post and I'm supposed to believe that it's your car, even though emblazoned at the top right corner of the picture is "Supercars.net"? Come on. Someone who has the pride of owning a tuned Supra would give an exact power figure. You simply state that "... it has almost 500 horsepower now". That doesn't mean much to me. What did you do to the engine to boost its output like that? What kind of transmission are you running to handle that kind of power? A stock tranny certainly won't take "almost 500 horsepower". What are you running in the 1/4 mile? How much did you pay for the Supra, and how much for the mods? You say that you "...paid 5,000 $ extra...". Extra over what?

    Yes, I am telling you that you are lying, because, from experience (not posting, but reading, mind you, in these forums for a long time before I joined) I've seen that brash, hot-headed youngsters like yourself tend to shoot their mouths off a little too much as soon as they join this site.

    Finally, what is it that makes you "...pretty sure that it [the Lambo] can kick [the Carrera GT's] ass"? Provide me with some information on how the Carrera GT performs on a track, and then I'll start taking you seriously. Wait a minute, I just remembered! There *isn't* any performance info on the Carrera GT!

    Believe me, I know enough "shit" to be able to conduct mature discussions about cars on this site. Maybe not enough to completely overpower you with outstanding references like Guibo or rthompson do, but enough to know I have nothing more to say to you.

    L8R</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -

    i just dont even want to talk 2 u now....... it's pl like u who make me fukin sick
    peace my brother
     
  19. Tyler Durden. You keep mentioning that the Carrera GT has no performance available but I think what you are trying to say is that it hasn't been officially tested yet. That might be true. Official info is still up in the air but I did see it at the 2001 Detroit Auto show when it was still considered a Concept. The specs were pretty close to what is posted here. Actually these might be better (supercars.net). The Murcielago stats were better in 2002 when I went back. You have to consider two things.
    1) That was 2001 and they might have improved on their performance between now and then. I don't doubt that.
    2) They are however factory claims which are almost always higher then what the performance actually gets tested at upon production.

    We'll know for sure once the Carrera GT gets tested but unless it breaks the records already set by the Murcielago I won't be convinced of its superiority. I love both, but I'd put my money on the Murcielago. Don't let that upset you. It's just that the Lambo has proven itself while the Carrera GT still has to and according at least to the factory claims probably won't surpass the Murcielago. I will also point out as a side note that this isn't the fastest Lambo ever made. So even if the Carrera GT did somehow outperform the Murcielago the comparisons would drag on.
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  20. Damn, let's hope GSolinas isn't the AntiChrist, these idiotic children believe every word he says! I mean, he could say, "Bin Laden can beat up Mike Tyson, I seen them both up close" And half this site would place their bets on Bin Laden! What is this world coming to?<!-- Signature -->
     
  21. quote from the dude:
    Damn, let's hope GSolinas isn't the AntiChrist, these idiotic children believe every word he says! I mean, he could say, "Bin Laden can beat up Mike Tyson, I seen them both up close" And half this site would place their bets on Bin Laden! What is this world coming to?

    #$%# off kid. u dont know no shit to talk 2 us like that
    fukin shit man..
    u a #%$ u motha fuka.....
    dont fuk wit us
    *****.......
     
  22. Whether or not the Murcielago can outperform the Carrera GT is inconsequential. Lamborghini's were never supposed to beat other supercars around a track. Haven't you noticed that Lamborghini stays out of auto racing? Owning a Lamborghini is not about performance. Owning a Lamborghini has NEVER been about performance. Owning a Lamborghini is about making a statement. About making heads turn. It was designed to go fast, and it does a pretty damn good job. It was designed to be a toy. An expensive toy, but it’s a car that was designed solely to entertain. Lamborghini's have never been a driver’s car. The Miura, Countach, and even the Diablo were not very comfortable to drive. You could barely fit inside the Countach, and the pedals, seat, and steering wheel didn't line up with each other in the Diablo, making it somewhat awkward. There are many cars that can outperform a Lamborghini. But none have the same presence. Anyone who's been to a car show and seen a Lamborghini can tell you that the car stands out more than any other car at the show. And about the Carrera GT. I'll finish with a question, but its one that will answer this Carrera GT vs. Murcielago competition:

    Would you rather have a Porsche over a Lamborghini?
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  23. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from TheCarGods</i>
    <b>Whether or not the Murcielago can outperform the Carrera GT is inconsequential. Lamborghini's were never supposed to beat other supercars around a track. Haven't you noticed that Lamborghini stays out of auto racing? Owning a Lamborghini is not about performance. Owning a Lamborghini has NEVER been about performance. Owning a Lamborghini is about making a statement. About making heads turn. It was designed to go fast, and it does a pretty damn good job. It was designed to be a toy. An expensive toy, but it’s a car that was designed solely to entertain. Lamborghini's have never been a driver’s car. The Miura, Countach, and even the Diablo were not very comfortable to drive. You could barely fit inside the Countach, and the pedals, seat, and steering wheel didn't line up with each other in the Diablo, making it somewhat awkward. There are many cars that can outperform a Lamborghini. But none have the same presence. Anyone who's been to a car show and seen a Lamborghini can tell you that the car stands out more than any other car at the show. And about the Carrera GT. I'll finish with a question, but its one that will answer this Carrera GT vs. Murcielago competition:

    Would you rather have a Porsche over a Lamborghini?
    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    One of the most reasonable and realistic posts I've read in a while. Thanks. However, being a function over form person, I myself would prefer a Porsche. That's just me, though.

    To supraraz: Awww, did I give you a boo-boo? My apologies.

    L8R<!-- Signature -->
     
  24. Wow did this get out of hand. Look I like both cars and neither are my favourite. I’m coming from the perspective of what facts are available to us. I saw both cars at the 2001(Carrera gt) and 2002(Murcielago) Auto Shows in Detroit. The specs were better on the Murcielago. I do think it’s possible that the Carrera GT has been improved since then (since it was still a concept), that is why the specs here are slightly better than I remember but it is still not as powerful as the Murcielago. And keep in mind, since the Carrera GT hasn’t been tested officially yet so what we’re reading are factory claims. Tests rarely reflect what the factory claimed in the first place so we should probably not expect the Carrera GT to be more powerful than the Murcielago since even the factory claims aren’t as good as the Lambo’s test results. Will the Carrera GT beat it on the Nurburgring short track? Probably, that is where Porsches shine. But send the two down to Nardo and the results will almost undoubtedly favour the Lambo. The fact is the Murcielago has already proven herself by setting three international records. The Carrera GT still has to, and I don’t mean to upset her fans but according to Porsche’s figures…it more than likely will not.

    Thecargods, Lamborghini stays out of racing like shit. The SVR and GTR are both in racing circuits and doing fine. I wouldn’t doubt the Murcielago entering competitions as well. How could you say Lamborghini is not about performance? That’s crazy. I’ll let you in on something:
    (All road legal cars I am well aware that many non-production or modified cars out did some of these)
    -1971 Lamborghini Miura SV-Fastest car in the world-290kph/180mph
    -1982-1983 Lamborghini Countach LP5000-Fastest car in the world-300kph/186.4mph
    -1998-2000 Lamborghini Diablo GT-Fastest car in the world 340kph/211mph
    -1998 Lamborghini Diablo Gemballa Roadster VT-unofficially the fastest road legal car in the world 255mph/410kph

    I don’t think a make with this much to say doesn’t bother with performance.
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  25. #50 Christianmc, Aug 10, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    However, you are again digging yourself into a hole by making statements that you fail to back up. The only thing that you have provided that even remotely resembles fact is heresy from gsolinas. The Lambo (which one?) has outperformed every Porsche ever made? What about the 911 GT1? The Dauer-Porsche 962 LM? The 2002 996 GT2 and 1998 993 GT2-R? The 911 GT3 RS? The 959? I could go on. Certainly there are some tracks on which the Murcielago would turn in better times than the latter Porsches that I listed, but pit the Murc against the 959 or 959 S, and the race is over before it even begins. Remember what the 959 did to the F40 on anything but a completely dry track? It left it breathing exhaust fumes. I suggest you do a little research before making those silly claims of yours.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Porsche 959 faster around a track than the F40?

    Porsche 959 has a good 4WD system and has a very good start:

    0-60 mph: 3.6s
    1/4 mile: 11.9s
    0-125 mph: 13.3s

    But compare to F40:

    0-60 mph: 3.9s
    1/4 mile: 11.8s
    0-125s: 11.4s

    959 is not nearly as fast as F40, despite that it has 4WD traction. In fact, 1993 Diablo VT (492 hp) is faster than 959 beyond 100 mph! Read the comparison of the race 959 and F40:

    http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/lancia/58/959/959_9.htm

    959 is can not compete against F40 and Murcielago.
     

Share This Page