Re: Diablo GT vs. Mclaren F1

Discussion in '1999 Lamborghini Diablo GT' started by Dave-GTR, Aug 9, 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. 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
     
  3. 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?????????
     
  4. <!-- 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 -->
     
  5. 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
     
  6. 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.
     
  7. 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.
     
  8. 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.
     
  9. 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.
     
  10. 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
     
  11. 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.
     
  12. 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
     
  13. 690lb ft of torque? you are off there FOR 100% SURE!!!
    lemmie use my own CarCalculator (someone programmed it for me anyway)
    (members.tripod.de/dvedesigns ->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 -->
     
  14. 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
     
  15. 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.
     
  16. the bmw v10 puts out 910bhp calculate, hey tell me how u do that please? lol<!-- Signature -->
     
  17. 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.
     
  18. 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.
     
  19. 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 -->
     
  20. 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."


     
  21. 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.

     
  22. 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.
     
  23. 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="http://www.supercars.net/servlets/cMsg/html/emoticons/smile.gif"><!-- Signature -->
     
  24. 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 -->
     
  25. 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.
     

Share This Page