Re: Diablo GT vs. Mclaren F1

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

  1. No chance of F50 beating the GT?

    I know, the GT looks good on paper, but have you even seen it in action? It's handling is pretty bad relatively.

    I think in a drag race, the GT might be able to beat the F50, but on a track....um.....I would say very little chance. And remember, if you really want to compare, you should compare the Diablo GT to the F50GTR, which is a lot faster than the F50.

    I would also want to make a note that the F50 is WAY faster than the Diablo SV, I have a video called "Best Motoring (Japanese)", and they featured a race between the F50, F40, Porsche GT2, GT3, Diablo SV, etc, Diablo came in 4th out of the 8, beaten by F50, F40 and GT2
     
  2. ahhhhh. the question now beckons on us all, what about the sucessor to all of these cars, obviously the slr wont even come into it, sorry, but the F60 and the Murcielago? to win or not to win that is the question? who do u think?????????
     
  3. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from Davut</i>
    <b>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.</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
     
  4. you guys interpreted some facts there wrong

    First off, the McLaren F1 (standard) needs 6.3 or 6.6 to 100mph (depends on stats), 3.2 - 3.4 to 60mph

    the McLaren F1 LM needs 2.7 to 60mph and under 6 to 100mph
    the McLaren F1 GTR (race version, street-illegal) needs 2.1 (2.2 another stat) to 60mph, and 4.2 to 100mph on slicks. Yes, 4,2 seconds.
    (i know race car acceleration is a bit unclear cause of transmission and other setup things)
    About the GT i dont know.

    The F1 has .86g, the F1 LM has .94g, and the F1 GTR has around full 2g on slicks

    And, the F1 LM is not a GTR. Its something else, the LM is an upgraded standard McLaren, but, what most people dont know, there are 2 street legal real GTRs (but not on slicks), those should still need under 2.7 to 60mph. GeForce, i assume 1.2g, but just my own estimation here

    The F1 LM should win against a DiabloGT or F50 on a track, but not the standard F1. And the GTR race version? Should beat all by FAR, look it won 95 LeMans and 97 the Car-class (i call a class win a real win).

    And yes, im a McLaren fan, although i would never call any other car a shitcar, look, in every construction of a supercar dozends of experianced ingenieurs, race drivers and mechanics where involved.<!-- Signature -->
     
  5. Any one who says that any car is better that the Maclaren F1 need to have their head examined. I beleive that it is the best car ever made and no car will ever beat it!
     
  6. I'm sorry but u r wrong the Maclaren F1 do 0-100 mph in 6.3 seconds<!-- Signature -->
     
  7. im sorry dave gtr but ur quote that the mclaren f1 gtr does 0-100 in 4.3 secsis, well to put it mildly, slightly off, formula 1 cars need 3.8 secs on slicks to do a 0-100 run, and they have a power to weight ratio of 1300bhp per ton, the F1 cars are designed to accelerate quickly, and the Mclaren F1 GTR doesnt even come close to F1 cars in power to weight or gearing, so i think that u r slightly off there, and as for it pulling 2gs on slicks, formula palmer Audis dont even pull 2 g's, and they r single seater race cars that weigh 200kg and have 300bhp, i also think that u could be off there as well, if u can show me some proff of these claims then i may be proved wrong, lol
     
  8. Sorry, the standard F1 has a 1/4 mile time 0f 11.5 seconds (car and driver tested). How can it do 0-100 in 6.6 seconds?

    Yes, I have seen the Diablo GT in handeling, and it looks very responsive. If you want to compare the F50 GTR, then compare it to the Diablo GTR, not the road going GT.

    I knew that an F50 would beat a Diablo SV (was it the MAY '99 SV?). It's known that the F40 is also faster than the F50 in a strait line, though not in the curves, and that the GT2 is Porsche's top of the line revolutionary road going racer.

    The Diablo 6.0 would beat them all. The Diablo GT even more. The 6.0 liter engine was a big improvement over the last year's. Their handeling is not sloppy at all; the only complaint is a slight understeering for the 6.0, which is non-existent in the GT. The GT, in all probability, would beat an F50. (That shouldn't be surprising; the GT is 4 years newer)
     
  9. Hmmm I have to comment that despite performance figures.. when it comes to saying which car is the best out of any supercar it still always comes down to personal taste and opinion, which basically eliminates any one car from being the best. This is because no one car is going to be liked by everyone... it's simple, EVERYONE has their own idea of what's cool and what's not and everyone is free to make their own decisions. This is why it angers me when people rant on about how the Mclaren F1 is the best, bla bla bla.
    To be honest, I don't like the styling much and I personally think the Lamborghini Diablo GTR is the coolest looking supercar ever made. But that's my opinion and I'm not going to try to ram that down anyone else's throat so perhaps that wombat guy and any others preparing to make similar comments should consider the implications of what I have just said and rethink their post.

    btw, check my signature :p<!-- Signature -->
     
  10. yeah, and i think the McLaren F1 has the coolest styling ever. my opinion, i neednt discuss about this.

    Lets come to the facts, the F1 needs 6.3 not 7.7 to 100mph, and not 11.5 but 11.0 on quartermile. Check the Toyota-Supra vs McLaren F1 video, and i say it can be done faster.
    and at a 6.3 on 100, a 11.0 on quartermile is possible, also look at the gear switching times. And it looks normal in my own drawn diagramme of the performance curve.

    Yeah, i cant really believe the 4.2 to 100mph of the McLaren too, but the 2g side-force is sure. RACECAR, GT1! It won against the prototypes on LM'95, so it might have around the same side-g forces by the way. So the fact of 2g is believable in my FOV (field of view) here.

    Back to the 4.2 to 100, well, a formula-1 car has an extremly long 1st grear (150kph), the F1 GTR goes 80kph in first, then 130 in second, and 170 in third. Gear switch times very low cause of fast-switching gearboxes. Then, a Formula1 car is stronger, but the F1 GTR HAS TWICE THE TORQUE, and with a half so long first gear, it HAS THE QUAD TORQUE of a Formula1 Car. So i stay saying 100 in 4.2 is possible.

    And then one again, well i saw the 2.2 to 60mph in a magazine, are magazines lying now or what? And in NFS4 it needs 2.1, and NFS4 stays a quite relyable source (i know Ford GT-90 topspeed i know i know, but anyway relyable enough).<!-- Signature -->
     
  11. excuse me dave GTR, i have to straighten this out, the average formula 1 car produces 690lb ft of torque, so as the Mclaren having more torque u r off, and u r off on the 0-100, there is no way that is possible, just do the math, the Mclaren is an incredible car, it was and still is, but ur claims, way off, sorry, lol
     
  12. I have never heard a stat as low as 6.3 seconds for a Mclaren. 6.6 seconds is THE lowest I have ever heard, and that would most definately be attributed to the GTR or LM, not the standard F1. 7.7 seconds sounds much more reasonable; just compare the weight, torque and power of a Diablo GT to the Mclaren. A 0-100 mph time of mid-7 seconds for the F1 sounds very accurate.

    A Car and Driver recorded their fastest quarter mile time for a standard F1 at 11.5 seconds, which is in accord with the F1's other stats. Where you heard 11.0 seconds, I don't know, but Car and Driver's times sound more reasonable.
     
  13. Obviously Christianmc is a super Lambo fan here, saying that even the 6.0 can beat cars like F50, F40, and Porsche GT2.

    Okay, give me some proof plz.

    Lambo is known for it's super fast straight line speed (but of course not as fast as the McLaren F1). But it's also known for it's bad handling you know that? Or did u just not want to admit it?

    F50 and F40 are both legendary supercars, not just any supercar. They might not have the fastest acceleration or top speed, but their handling is simply unmatched. Porsche is known for it's handling, they are considered the best handling cars on earth. But even the best Porsche, the GT2, can't compete with the F50 and the F40, and I have proof, I have the video myself. Now ask anyone how can a Lambo beat the F50 on the track. Not even the GT.

    Now about the McLaren. I know it's fast, it's the fastest....on a straight road. On the track, racing with F50, I don't know who's going to win, but McLaren will have a tough fight. Now the McLaren LM is the street legal version of the GT car, so u can't compare that with the "stock" F50. The other stats about the McLaren is a bit too exagerated I think, it's not possible to accel that fast on a car that has that power to weight ratio.

    But hey, I think both F50 and the McLaren F1 can beat and Lamboroghini, spare maybe the GTR race car, but then that's a race car. The Diablo GTRs competing in the Japanese GT (JGTC) can't even beat the jap race cars like NSX, Supra, and SKylines, not even the McLaren GTRs can beat them.
     
  14. Oh, BTW, the 6.0 would rip apart cars like the Porsche GT2 (for speed) and F40 (for handeling), both great cars in themselves. The F40, if you didn't realize, is not exactly known for its handeling.

    If you want to argue about the F50, that is fine. My money would be on the 6.0, however, and alot of people who have driven them would agree. Some may disagree, but they each have their advantages.
     
  15. Oh, BTW, the 6.0 would rip apart cars like the Porsche GT2 (for speed) and F40 (for handeling), both great cars in themselves. The F40, if you didn't realize, is not exactly known for its handeling.

    If you want to argue about the F50, that is fine. My money would be on the 6.0, however, and alot of people who have driven them would agree. Some may disagree, but they each have their advantages.
     
  16. Did I know that Lamborghini's have bad handeling? No I did not. They could have fooled me. They certainly fooled all the people who tested the 6.0, who for some reason all say it has exelent handeling. Have you ever read any test reviews of the Diablo 6.0, or seen it in action, for that matter? I have heard many comparisons of the 6.0 to the F50 by Car and Driver, Road and Track, and various other reviewers. The Diablo GT is lighter, lower, is RWD, and has more power and torque. I can't see how a Diablo GT could not beat an F50. Is there any reason why you think it can't, other than that the F50 is supposed to be a "legendary supercar" (which I do not doubt)? You are refering to a video that features an old SV (not even the MAY '99 SV), which is very different from the GT and 6.0.

    And for your information, I don't put to much importance on top speed, and that does not at all judge how fast a car really is. I am not just a biased Lamborghini fan, because I also love Ferrari's. It is just clear to me that a GT would beat an F50. Not so clear, maybe, is the 6.0, but I still think it's likely
     
  17. Oh, BTW, the 6.0 would rip apart cars like the Porsche GT2 and F40, both great cars in themselves. The F40, if you didn't realize, is not exactly known for its handling.

    If you want to argue about the F50, that is fine. My money would be on the 6.0, however, and a lot of people who have driven them would agree. Some may disagree, but they each have their advantages.
     
  18. christianmc is a good man, i place all of the importance on the handling of a car, that is why i like cars like the Lotus Elise and the TVR speed 12, which would by far rip apart a mclaren f1, any version, but i am getting side tracked, i love the f50, it is one of my favourite cars, but it could never test the GT, it is four years old and the GT is just phenominal, the f50 was an incredible car for its time i will admit to that, when it came out there was nothing that could beat it!!!!!!!!! nothing, but the diablo evolved and just turned out to be better, alot better, sorry, the same goes for the F1
    lol
     
  19. hey the i am talking about the bmw v10, u also have to take into account the v angle and the fact that the BMW engine spools to 20,000rpm, that is 2000 more than what u estimate, and the f1 engine is alot different than a regualar car engine!!!!!!!!!, it is the future of car engines, by the way how didi u figure out that the engine had 247lb ft????? that is wierd, any way f1 cars r pretty incredible machines, and the fact that u said those figures boggles my imagination, any way, hope 2 hear from u later!!!! lol
     
  20. Formula1 Cars live from their POWER @ very high rpms and not from the torque. Its just a 3 litre engine, you just cannot get so much torque out of it, so the ing.'s try to raise the rpm to gain power.

    Okay, lets say 850BHP@20.000rpm, that results in ..*calculating* 302Nm/233ft-lb

    i cant imagine how F1 cars should have such a torque..<!-- Signature -->
     
  21. The Diablo GT is lighter, lower, etc than the Murc and the 6.0. But not so with the F50. And yea, the GT is RWD, so is the F50. You guys said Lambo has evolved and is faster than the F50 and McLaren F1? I really can't believe that unless you show me some proof.

    The 6.0 handles much better than the older Diablos, that's for sure, because Diablos are known for it's bad handling. By that, I don't mean they suck, but just that they are so damn hard to drive. The 6.0 improved all that, but the result is a supercar with super power and speed, but is super understeering. Which means slower lap times then the well balanced F50. At I am not sure if any one has compared the Diablo with the McLaren.
     
  22. Hmm. I don't think anyone said a Diablo GT is faster than a Mclaren. It's pretty close, though, judging from the (much debated) 1/4 mile times: 11.6 seconds for GT compared to 11.5 seconds for F1. The Ferrari has very good handeling, I don't doubt, but stop saying that the GT has bad handeling. Lamborghinis don't have bad hendeling. Less nimble is perhaps a word you could use because Lamborghini's are slightly larger, that's all. The difference is not as big as you would have people believe. The MAY '99 Diablo's have some of the updates as the 6.0. Even the older Diablo's do not handel badly. No, the 6.0 does not "horribly understeer." No one who has driven it ever said that. Understeer for the 6.0 is very slight for a AWD car. RWD Diablo's (SV, GT, etc) are very unforgiving cars, because they are very responsive and you will have to be on your gaurd. If you can't handel it, you shouldn't be driving it. In that sense, they can be "hell to drive" but not for an experienced driver, who will know that can be used to his/her advantage. Even still, AWD Diablo's don't understeer that much, but they are more forgiving. It can be a little hard to drive if you are a weakling, but I have never, ever, heard anyone who has driven them say it has bad handeling. In fact, you couldn't tell whether the people who tested the Diablo 6.0 were complaining about it or not. It didn't affect their performance much.

    The F1 is very fast. The F50 has very good handeling. The GT is naturally a mix of those two. I would think the GT would have a good chance of beating both of them in alot of tracks, Because Lamborghini is all about balance, despite what you claim. I think I've given you plenty of proof. All you've said is that Diablo's are known for their bad handeling (even though that isn't true), and that an F50 can beat an old SV. I should be asking for proof.
     
  23. Nonono, you got it all wrong man.

    Diablo/Lambo is all about balance??? WHere did you get THAT from man?
    THey are all about raw power and nothing else.

    What proof? I have them, it's on a VCD, should I send it to you or something?

    I can give u this quote tho, it's from the most recent edition of Road and Track Magazine, testing the Murc:
    "0-60 times are in the mid-3-second range, with a quarter-mile time likely in the high 11s, so only a handful of gyper-exotics like the Ferrari F50 and McLaren F1 accelerate more fiercely."

    I know that only proves about acceleration, which is not exactly what we are arguing about. But other wise, I am certain that Lambo is known for bad handling.
     
  24. explain to me this davut, if Lambo is known for its bad handling then why did the murc just lap the nurburgring a full minute faster than the coveted Diablo GT?????? dont know???? because lambo has made leap in its technology, and that was the result, lol<!-- Signature -->
     
  25. Um, the GT is the street version of the Diablo GT2, I just confirmed that on Autozine, so I think the Murc is a minute faster than some other Diablo, not the GT. Murc has big improvement in handling, I know that, but compared with other supercars, it still can't be considered good. You guys don't believe Lambos are known for bad handling, I've just found some quotes here:

    "Straight-line performance was never a problem to the Diablo, The V12 was always the jewel of the crown. Powerful, sharp throttle response aside, it impressed most with its thundering roar, a roar that resonant your heart beat in sync with rising rev. The problem of Diablo was actually handling. Its philosophy of "big and powerful supercar" was almost old-fashion since its launch. It was too heavy, too wide, too bulky to handle. Although its supercar tires produced massive grip while its extra track aided cornering stability, it never felt as agile as a smaller supercar, or even a Porsche 911 Turbo. Poor visibility front and rear also limited driving confidence. Unless on smooth and wide racing track, the Diablo could hardly keep up with a 911 Turbo which cost less than half ! even on racing track, its brakes were not big enough to handle its weight effectively."

    And here's the sad story of how the Diablo died:

    "Because of the emergence of many super-expensive supercars in the early 90s, such as Bugatti EB110, Jaguar XJ220, McLaren F1 and Ferrari F50, the Diablo was almost forgotten. Being slower, heavier, cheaper and less exclusive, the Diablo failed to recapture the fame of Countach which was regarded the world’s top supercar for many years. Admittedly, Diablo was the only product of Lamborghini so that it must be relatively cheap to build in order to sell 300 to 400 cars annually, in contrast to the aforementioned one-off exclusive. This relegated it to the "second division" supercar club whose members left only the last breed of boxer Ferrari, that was, 512TR / F512M. Undoubtedly, the Lamborghini was always rated as the best one of its kind. Since the death of F512M, the Diablo became the only mid-engined production supercar in the world. Then people could only compare it with the front-engined GTs such as 550 Maranello and Aston Vantage. Diablo’s production dropped gradually despite of a revision every 1 or 2 years. Perhaps people became more concern about drivability and comfort, perhaps the old Diablo could no longer get people excited, it had to retire in 2001."


     

Share This Page