Re: Diablo GT vs. Mclaren F1

Discussion in '1999 Lamborghini Diablo GT' started by Christianmc, Aug 10, 2002.

  1. The F50 is a great car, but there is no chance that a Ferrari F50 could beat a Diablo GT. Handeling is probably equal, I grant you that, but the GT is much faster. So is the Diablo 6.0.
  2. 690lb ft of torque? you are off there FOR 100% SURE!!!
    lemmie use my own CarCalculator (someone programmed it for me anyway)
    ( ->downloads)
    690 lb ft of torque is 936 Nm!!!
    How the HELL do you want to get 936 Nm out of a 3.0 Litre V10? I plain dont understand. I think rather CARTS have this torque!!

    K, then lets come to the power output of the torque
    lets say, with rpm it falls down to 850Nm from 936, and at the power peak @ 18.000 RPM, that results in, 2147 BHP.
    Sorry negative.
    I its like that: 800BHP @ 18.000 rpm -> 336 Nm / 247lb-ft

    Then, TopGear and Need-For-Speed2 (EA game) say 6.3 to 100mph for the standard F1
    SuperSportWagen - SuperCars , this one homepage, give 5.0 for the LM<!-- Signature -->
  3. the bmw v10 puts out 910bhp calculate, hey tell me how u do that please? lol<!-- Signature -->
  4. Uh, those aren't race results. That was from the second qualifying session (9/8/01). Results below (9/9/01). The Viper has won 3 FIA GT titles in a row. This year's was the toughest, as Chrysler pulled much support to focus on the 24 Hours of Le Mans LMP cars instead. In the Viper's heyday ('99), it was nearly unbeatable:

    "24 Hours of Le Mans
    GTS Class 1st place (Beretta/Wendlinger/Dominique Dupuy)
    Also: Viper also placed first in GTS in 1998.

    American Le Mans Series
    Mosport (Canada) 1st place (Olivier Beretta/David Donohue)
    Sears Point (Calif.) 1st place (Beretta/Donohue)
    Portland (Ore.) 1st place (Beretta/Donohue)
    Petit Le Mans (Road Atlanta) 1st place (Beretta/Karl Wendlinger)
    Laguna Seca (Calif.) 1st place (Beretta /Wendlinger)
    Las Vegas 1st place (Wendlinger/Tommy Archer)
    GTS Team Championship 1st place (Dodge Viper Team ORECA)
    Drivers Championship 1st place (Beretta)

    FIA GT Series
    Monza (Italy) 1st place (Beretta/Wendlinger)*
    Silverstone (England) 1st place (Beretta /Wendlinger)
    Hockenheim (Germany) 1st place (Jean-Philippe Belloc/Dominique Dupuy)*
    Hungaroring (Hungary) 1st place (Belloc/Dupuy)
    Zolder (Belgium) 1st place (Beretta/Wendlinger)
    Oschersleben (Germany) 1st place (Beretta/Wendlinger)
    Donington Park (England) 1st place (Beretta/Wendlinger)
    Homestead (Fla.) 1st place (Paul Belmondo/Emmanuel Clerico)**
    Watkins Glen (NY) 1st place (Belloc/Donohue)
    Zhuhai (China) 1st place (Beretta/Wendlinger)
    Team Championship 1st place (Chrysler Viper Team ORECA
    Drivers Championship 1st place (Beretta and Wendlinger - tie)"

    The remarks about the Murcielago posting a lap time a full minute below the GT at Nurburgring cannot be accurate. That kind of improvement is impossible. Witness that the 996 Turbo is only 16 seconds faster than the 993 Turbo with 430 hp. And the ABS-equipped GT is only 4 seconds faster than the standard SV, which is heavier, has less power, and lacks ABS control (later SV's had ABS, but none yet tested at Nurburgring). A full minute off the GT's time? Very unlikely.

    Now, the McLaren F1 also lacks ABS and R&T stats reflect its mediocre (for a top-level supercar) braking performance. This is where something like a GT and in particular the 911 GT2 may close in on its pace. The GT2 in particular, as its rearward weight bias offers supreme acceleration out of the turns as well as braking (ABS-controlled and aided by fade-free and light ceramic brakes). Indeed, at a track like Nurburgring where it has been fine-tuned, it is hard to beat, stock vs stock. Is this enough to overcome the McLaren F1's awesome acceleration? Perhaps, as Nurburgring is about chassis setup and braking as it is about acceleration.

    Regarding R&T stats, they sometimes test at higher elevations than normal (like over 1000', in the case of the Viper and GT2 tests). And sometimes they test in hot conditions; witness the F1 constantly overheating during their testing, and even late in the evening. The F1 has clocked an 11.1-sec quarter mile in Autocar (UK). 0-100 was 6.3, 0-130 in 10.4, 0-150 in 12.8 and 0-200 in 28.0 seconds. Absolutely phenomenal, and it can be found in "Driving Ambition".

    1.2g? Not on a 200-ft skidpad. In a banked corner? Most likely. Consider that a 911 GT1 RACE car on full racing slicks "only" managed 1.07g on a skidpad.
  6. A puntualization ´bout McLaren: I´ve seen McLaren at 391 kph. Wanna see it? I think it´s at Kazaa ready to download.
  7. it does not have a stripped out interior, it has full leather, 6 disc cd player and a sub, with climate control, and power everything, so in fact it is not a stripped out interior, it is actually quite luxurious, have u ever been in one, no and i have, and i can tell u it aint stripped out in there, it is actually quite comfy!! peace<!-- Signature -->
  8. And all the different versions of the Diablo that followed didn't seem to correct any of the negative things of the previous. All Lambo did was add more and more power, higher and higher top speed, faster and faster acceleration, but same handling. And when then intoduced the AWD versions, things got even worse. They are easier to drive than before, but are even heavier and super understeering

    "Like the GT, the 6.0 VT got wider tracks front and rear. In particular, there was 60 mm added to the front to improve turn-in response as well as stability. However, it didn’t steer as sharp as the lightweight SV, especially the viscous-coupling 4-wheel drive introducing quite an amount of understeer approaching the limit. In terms of performance, it was also slower than the SV, blamed to nearly 200 kg of extra weight it carried."

    So out of all Lambos, the GT is the fastest, the Murc is the second, and the SV is the third, and all the others behind that.

    But even with the GT, the second lightest Diablo (after SE30) is at 1525kg tested by Car and Driver, is way to heavy compared to the 1230kg F50 and the less than 1200kg McLaren F1. And it has 0-60 time of 4 seconds (which is fastest in Diablo), and 0-100mph in 8 seconds.
    The F50 has 3.6 and 8.0 respectively, and the McLaren is even faster. So with the ultimate handling of the F50, no Lamboroghini yet can beat it. (Above stats tested by either Car and Driver or Road and Track)

    Maybe when the Murc GT comes out, it can change all that. But then there will the the F60.

  9. And if you say that the Murc is really faster than the GT, and that Murc is the fastest Lambo, fine, but it's still not going to beat the F50.

    Think about it logically, Murc has 68hp over F50, but it's some 300kg heavier. And Murc is AWD while F50 is MR. Plus F50's structure is much stiffer than any other car, cuz it's suspension is bolt onto the engine and the transimission, like those you see on GT1 cars and F1 cars. Considering all that in mind, how can it be possible to say that any Lambo is faster than the F50. Well, unless you believe there's some magic behind Lamboroghinis.
  10. the f50 is good but it is no murc, the murc has a lap time round the nurburgring well into the mid sevens believe the f50 managed only high sevens and the diablo GT was mid eights, well aint that a *****, so it seems that not only is it faster than the diablo GT but also the F50, lol <IMG SRC=""><!-- Signature -->
  11. Its all about that the manufacteurs dont make the cars for a comparsion on the track. A slight tuning of anyone of them, and they are 1st on the track. You really cant compare cars like that.
    You can tune the McLaren F1 to something lilke the F1 LM, give the F50 more power, or lighten the Diablo/change supsension a bit. By that, anyone of them would be first on the track.

    If car companys dont head for the same goal, you cant compare their products.
    Its like comparing a Diesel- with a Gas engine, and then say that the Gas engine is better rev'ing and has more rpm/power, but going in the end for loaded truck-racing. :)<!-- Signature -->
  12. diablo gt is almost a track ready car its handeling schools the regular f1's however the gtr and lm are on par with it and kick its ass in the speed department. though the cost a #$%# load more.
  13. Yes, the GT is based on the GT2, I knew that. I said the GT is not based on the GTR, because it was built before it. However, what you have to realize is, it doesn't matter, The GT is still the replacement for the SV; if they wanted to base it on the GT2, that was their decision. The GT is still the RWD version of the Diablo.

    And please, you know as well as I do that road and Track has not even tested the Murcielago, so when they say the F50 and Mclaren F1 are the only ones who could beat it, it means nothing. Remember also that Road and Track uses a different system of acceleration (something to do with the timing of the clutch), and they consistenty put out slower 0-60 times than companies like Car and Driver and Motor Trend. When they say mid-3__0-60 times, expect Car and Driver to say low-3s.

    Did they F50 really lap the nurburgring in the high 7s? If it did, then I might have to pay it a little more respect. It's no Murcielago, but that is still good. However, I heard that the 8 minute barrier had not yet ben broken by the Mclaren F1 or the F50, so I'm still not totally convinced.

    And I don't know what the point of saying that Diablo GTR's and GT's have lost races, as if the F50 hasn't. The GTR is an extremely competetive car, and so is the GT. The video that you keep reffering to has an old SV, so stop bringing it up. I don't expect an Old SV to beat a Ferrari F50, F40 (which is even faster than the F50), or a Porsche GT2. I do expect it to beat cars like the 911 Turbo and GT3, which it did, apperantly. Nothing surprises me about those results. Mail it to me? Yes, I'd like that. It looks like an interesting race, but whatever.
  14. Diablo GT vs. Mclaren F1

    I said somewhere else that the Mclaren F1 can go 100 mph in 6.6 seconds (Car and Driver). Well, that is the GTR version of the Mclaren; that should be compared with the GTR version of the DIablo (for which I have no clue what its 0-100 time is).

    Anyways, the regular Mclaren, which should be compared with this car (the GT), does 0-100 in 7.7 seconds. That is nly 0.3 seconds faster than the DIablo GT. So the Mclaren has a slight edge over the Diablo in acceleration, and probably in top speed, too (although that is not certain). However, the Diablo GT has considerably better handeling, and is MUCH more aerodynamically stable at high speeds. It would be a pretty tough competition.

    Oh, and for your information, the Murcielago has more torque than both of them, is much more aerodynamically stable than both, and more power than the GT. <IMG SRC="">
  15. You made some correct points. McLaren F1, although it's the fastest production car in terms of top speed, it doesn't have very good handling. It's simple, in order to have good handling at high speed, you need downforce, but in order to have a very high top speed, you don't want downforce because drag is a by-product of downforce. It is clear that McLaren has gone the top-speed way. They just wanted to make the world's fastest car, but not the world's best performance car. That's why the Ferrari F50, although is slower than the McLaren F1 in speed, it can pretty much beat the F1 on any circuit. (Circuit excludes Nascar type oval tracks).

    Now the Diablo GT, although not an F50 beater, might be able to put up a good fight with the McLaren on the track, but it has it's own problems, which is weight. So, I don't know which is better.
  16. You both have an excellent point. And i get really annoyed when all the mclaren lovers (who only like it because it has really high top speed) cant seem to refrain themselves from posting stuff about the stupid F1 in every car forum. Example: "this car sucks, a mclaren F1 would own this car!!" all those dudes need to grow up and learn about real cars.
  17. ya i like the f1 but mclaren now not only has a car that doesnt handle that well but its not even the fastest production car anymore. although i would still choose it over the diablo.
  18. Yes, I think there is a lot of stereotypes going around that the Mclaren F1 is unsurpassable, which isn't true. It's still one of the best, though.

    Hey, I just want everyobody to note: The Diablo 6.0 is faster than the F50 in acceleration (0-60 and 1/4 mile time) and top speed, and better traction, too, obviously. So if the 6.0 can beat the F50, the GT would even moreso. So I would definately call the GT an F50 beater. They are like 4 years apart, though, so it doesn't matter that much.
  19. Allow me to argue for the sake of McLaren lovers:
    1) The McLaren revolutionized supercar design, with its three seat layout and unbelievable looks
    2) The F1 was the first supercar to make extensive use of carbon fiber, a miraculous substance.
    3) The F1 utilizes a cool systemthat adds downforce WITHOUT THE USE OF ANY SPOILERS. As proven, this is not the most effective way to add downforce, even though this system was good enough to be banned from racing when McLaren put it in the car and won (i forget which race car it was)
    4) The McLaren is one of the safest cars in the world, being the first and only car (for a while, i think) to be abe to drive away from the 30mph crash testing
    5) Try comparing the Lambo GT against the F1 LM. I am not going to argue this one, because all of you know the outcome of that race (or the race between the LM and any other road-going car)
    6) Without the production of the McLaren, almost all of the modern supercars would not have been half as good, as almost all supercar manufacturers learned a lot from the McLaren.

    Beat that.
  20. oops, forgot something:
    also remember that the McLaren design started in 1989! that's two years b4 the original diablo came out
  21. No one denies that the Mclaren is an awsome car, especially for its time. So is the Bugatti EB110. In a strait line race, the regular Mclaren would beat this Diablo, but not so when you're dealing with curves. The DIablo has an edge over it there. But that is to be expected, because, as you say, it is much older!

    The LM is virtually the same as a GTR. So the best comparison for that would be the Diablo GTR. Again, I can't say anything for certain (because I don't know exactly how fast the GTR is), but I would suspect it would be a similar case as a regular GT vs. a regular Mclaren.
  22. Yes, again, no one CAN say that McLaren F1 is not one of the best and fastest cars. It certainly has a super light weight construction, and a super high top speed.

    But I like F50 more. It has more unique and agressive styling. It handles and sounds like nothing else on earth (the closest thing to driving an F1 car in fact). McLaren might beat the F50 in accel and top speed, but F50 would win any race because handling is what counts the most in racing. Again, not to say that McLaren is not good, just that F50 is known for it's handling, and McLaren is known for it's top speed and accel.

    But let's get back on topic. This is a Lamboroghini forum. Just want to say that 6.0 and GT are both great cars, of course GT is better than 6.0 because it's lighter and faster and it's RWD. But F50 and McLaren F1 are both better than the 6.0 and the GT. GT and 6.0 are supercars, F50 and McLaren are legendary supercars.
  23. This is a good comparison... but I believe the McLaren still has the edge in most aspects...<!-- Signature -->
  24. personally, being a Bimmer lover, I gotta do with the McLaren (it runs a S70/2 60 Degree BMW V12)... The ONLY problem with the McLaren is it's lateral acceleration (at .86g)... this is the ONLY and I repeat ONLY drawback to thins vehicle in this comparison...<!-- Signature -->
  25. i agree that the bmw engine is good, and for the sake of arguement the gtr and lm can turn, however the f50 put a carbonfiber car into "production" before the f1 and ferrari has been playing with carbonfiber, kevlar and other composits since it's deadly b's of the early 80's around a track it would be an interesting race between a gt and an f50

Share This Page