Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '1999 Lamborghini Diablo GT' started by Christianmc, Aug 9, 2002.
The GT and 6.0 are much faster than an F50!
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 didnÂt 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.
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.
You don't listen at all. Yes, Lamborghini SV-R's beat Porsches and Ferraris. Read the website I gave you, please. I'll give it to you again: http://www.teamlamborghini.com.au/
4 seconds is the fastest Diablo? I have said this more than twice. Motor trend test show an average of 3.4 second 0-60 times for the Diablo 6.0 (The regular Diablo 2WD from '98 does 0-60 in 4.0 seconds). The 6.0 has faster 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times than the F50. The GT even more. That is not debatable.
The 6.0 is faster than the SV, not slower. All you are doing is telling me that old Diablos can not beat F50's so the newer ones can't either. Not good reasoning. The 6.0 does have some understeer, but that is to be expected of 4WD cars. Fact is, it has surprisingly little for a AWD car. You are basing your arguments on Old Diablos.
In the Video which you keep reffering to, it is apperant that even the old, 510 hp SV beat the Porsche Turbo. That statement that the Dibalo can not keep up with a Porsche turbo is based in antiquity.
So the GT can not beat the Skylines? Whatever kind of Skylines they were using, you said before that neither could the Mclaren F1s, or Ferrari F50's, so I don't know what you are trying to prove.
Don't even mention the Murcielago before you see it in action.
All of these cars are super. they all have powerful engines, enormous accleration, and reach high speeds.
But people wonder, why would you buy a super sports cars(Lumberghine),knowing that there are many better, and faster(Ferrari F50, Maclaren..etc). To all who are concearned, it's not only a matter of performance, and out-performing other cars. Because there is more than enogh in every one of them, I Mean who is going to drive at 320 km/h on daily basis,and accelrate to 60 m/h in mere 5 or, less seconds. It's more about taste,lust, and more importantly the want of owning that specific car. One must consider the design, and the spirit of the car,not only it's performance.
To those who want adrenaline in there viens......Get an old car, and make it a hotrod..or buy a used supra and transform it to a moster that out performs other expensive brands for 1/2 the price.<!-- Signature -->
It's written "LAMBORGHINI" <!-- Signature -->
McLaren is how it is spelled, and it costs almost four times as much as the Lambo. As for the F50, that is very rare, and costs twice as much as the Lambo.
JJKK, I agree with your point. But that just made me hate Audi even more for scrapping the gorgeous design of the Canto and replacing it with the Murc. Yea, the Murc design, is nice to look at, with smooth-flowing lines. But it totally lacked the unique, aggressive and exotic look of the Diablo.
Now you mentioned that ppl don't buy cars merely for performance, they buy it for style as well. Now my question is, since the Murc is not the fastest and the best handling car, and now it lost it's unique styles that Diablos used to have, who the hell is going to buy the Murc unless they are stupid. You get what I am trying to say here?
And NO, Christianmc, 6.0 and GT is NOT faster than F50. GT and 6.0 are supercars, F50 is a legendary supercar. The differece lies in handling, characteristics, and overall driving experience. F50 is the closest feeling to driving an F1 car.
very right jjkk, you can also get over 1000BHP from a McLaren F1, but somehow, never ever tried. so it must be really enough of controlling (trying to control rather) over 600BHP. Its more than power, it must be driveable. Porsche does a very good job at making it driveable.<!-- Signature -->
Yes, the GT and 6.0 are faster than an F50. You may call them supercars and the F50 a "legendary supercar," but it won't change anything. 0-60 and 1/4 mile times for the 6.0 are faster than an F50's, and it handles plenty well.
You pointed out that you saw a video where a Diablo SV was beaten by an F50, F40, and Porsche GT2. Well, I checked into that video (Best Motoring), and that was an old SV, at the latest from '98 (which was virtually unchanged from '96). It would probably be a different story with the MY '99 SV (which underwent significant updates). Perhaps the F50 would have still won, but it would have been much closer.
The Diablo 6.0 is even more improved. You can argue about handeling, but fact is, the Diablo handels extraordinarily well. The Diablo GT (which is the car that should be compared to the F50) has very responsive handeling, and there is little doubt that it would beat an F50.
The F50 is an extraordinary car, but you speak of it as if it were unbeatable.
the handling of the Lambo is impecable as described by Tiff Needle, the test driver for Top Gear, and the Ferrari as was quoted as "producing no F1 experience", it is an incredible street car and is quite good on the track, but not only will the 6.0 beat it but the GT as well, and as for the F1, i believe that it was Mario Andretti that said this car was an extremely unstable car at high speed and should be limited to less or add a wing!!!! hence the LM and GTR versions, so what i am basically saying is that i have to agree with christianmc, lol
hey now, yes the 6.0 and the GT is faster than the F50 in that sense, accel and top speed, all on a straight road. But what Lambo always lacks is handling. And remember, the GT and 6.0 and Murc are brand new, F50 is almost 10 years old, but I think it still can't be beaten on the track. Keep in mind that the GT is a street-legal version of a race car, while the F50 is "stock". And also keep in mind that the F60 is coming out, which again is "slower" than Lambo and the McLaren F1. That's in terms of top speed, again, on a straight road. But what Ferrari is known for is downforce and handling. And yea, engine noise man. =)
The GT is 4 years younger than the F50, though, not 10 years. The GT is aslo a stock car, and infact, was built as a replacement for the SV. Its purpose is to be the RWD version of the Diablo VT. It is not the street version of the GTR, because the GT was built before the GTR was. The GTR is the racing version of the completely stock, only road going RWD car, the GT. The F50 is already RWD, so that is what it should be compared to. If you want to argue that the F50 should be compared to the SV and not the GT, then that is another matter, and the May '99 SV is the one for that.
I won't ask any more questions, but everyone knows for a fact that Lamborghini doesn't "lack handeling." I have never heard anyone who has tested The Diablo 6.0 or GT say that ever. Does the Diablo handel better than the F50? Maybe not. But the F50 just does not have enough of an advantage over the Diablo in handeling to make up for speed (they both have marvelous handeling). Mind you that the Lamborghini Diablo also has an incredible amount of downforce. I'm not exactly sure how they compare but I woudn't be at all surprised if the Diablo had more downforce than the F50.
All that is not much reason to choose which one you like best. Engine noise is! Lamborghini V12's are the best! (personal opinion, ofcourse)
hey christianmc thanx for the support, i think the Lambo engines sounds incredible, and the gt does have better handling, and it is slightly better than the 6.0, as for the f50, it was purposely made not as good as it could have been by ferrari because the f40 was enzo ferraris' last work and he had just died and they wanted the f50 not to be such a revolution as the f40 was, now that enzo has been dead a while they r pulling out all the stops to show everyone what they can do with the f60, and they did not enter the top speed battle like buggatti, so i think that shows alot of class, and as for the murcielago, it is such an advancement over the diablo, that it managed to lap the nurburgring a full minute faster than the GT, so the murc is a pretty good competitor for the f60!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! lol
The word Lamboroghini and the word good handling just doesn't link in my mind. I know you r a lambo fan and I am not saying that Lambo is not a good car. But the fact is that Lamboroghini's are known for it's bad handling. They are a pain in the ass to drive. Now the 6.0 changed all that (the hard to drive part), but it turned out to be a supercar, with super power and super speed, but super understeer. That means bad lap times on the track.
I believe that the GT is faster than the 6.0 and the Murc. And if you have to argue, then I think the GT would come the closest against a F50. Who's going to win, I don't know, but just say that I think the F50 is going to win.
hey davut read what i said, the murc was a full minute faster than the GT round the nurburgring, that means that it is faster than the GT duh, sorry but u didnt read it all didi u, if u read all the road tests they all say that the murc is a quantum leap for lamborghini in handling, it has incredible poise and telegraphs everything to the driver, better than the 360, which is very hard!!!!!!!!!! i have to say that this is a car not to be trifled with, it has been germanised by Audi, new clutch withh self assist piston to make the gearchange easier and a new steering, not to say that this is all Audi far from it they just made it better, better driving position etc. i think that this is the best lambo ever and it will be for a while!!!!!!!!!! lol<!-- Signature -->
You can say they have bad handeling if you want, but I have never heard that said by anyone who has ever driven one. I don't think you can say they are "hell to drive" because I'm pretty sure you've never driven one. Fact is fact, and the fact is that everyone who tested the Diablo 6.0 has said it understeers surprisingly LITTLE. That statement of yours is false. And with the Viscous Traction system, it has more grip and better acceleration than most every other supercar out there. Some of the improvements found in the 6.0 can also be found in the MAY '99 Diablo's, so it's not all new.
Lamborghini's V12 cars are larger than most Porsches and Ferraris, so yes, they are slightly less nimble, but not by much. The old SV-R (which uses the same engine as the regular SV, with only some minor adjustments) has raced against many more nimble Porsches and Ferrari's and won on all sorts of tracks. Handeling is not nearly as bad as you seem to think.
Paul Stroseck drives Lamborghini Diablo SV-R, and races often against porsches and Ferraris. Before you say that Lamborghini's have "bad" handeling, see what someone who actually drives them says, for a change: http://www.teamlamborghini.com.au/
The SV-R does not even have some of the updates of a MAY '99 SV, let alone a Diablo 6.0 or GT.
BTW, All Diablo's are supercars, not just the 6.0 and the GT. The 6.0 is just an improvement.
Lamboroghinis beats Porsche and Ferraris in races?? Man I want to see that. All I know is that the Diablo GTR couldn't even beat the Skylines, NSXs, and Supras in the JGTC championship.
Were you talking about some amateur series or something?
Never heard of Lambos are known for bad handling? I 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 worldÂs 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. DiabloÂs 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."
well remember that the cars you are talking about are built in limited numbers. if a person wanted one of these cars brand new they would be looking at a waiting list and that doesn't guarantee them a car. so by looking at Ferraris, Lambos, McLarens, Porsches you open yourself up to a better chance of getting one of these super cars. i mean, they only built 100 McLarens. You can't expect to get one, even if you did have the money.
I forgot to mention, the quotes you're using don't make sense. First of all, the Bugatti is arguably faster than the Diablo, but it cost twice as much. And don't get me started on the XJ220; its performance is still comparable to a Diablo's, and it cost over $800, 000. How are they going to talk about an old Diablo costing more than a 911 Turbo? (And only the very old Diablo is not as quick as a 911 Turbo).
Okay, even if I believe that the 6.0 can do 0-100 in a unbelievable 3.4 seconds (I mean look at how much it weights), you are merely talking about acceleration. Who cares, the F50 can do 3.4 as well. The McLaren can do it in 3.2.
But I have to say it again, handling is what wins you races. Lambos are just too damn heavy in its class. Even the GT is heavy, the AWD version are even more heavy.
I keep repeating myself now, but that's all I have to say, believe me or not, that's your choice. I know its hard to accept the truth when you are fans of it. But that's okay.
Car and driver did 0-60 time for a Diablo 6.0 in 4.3 seconds with a burnt-out clutch, which meant wheel spin was impossible for that broken clutch. They calculated that if it had a working clutch, they could do 0-60 in mid-3 seconds. Motor Trend proved them right by doing it in 3.4 seconds.
Here is a link:
I doubt an F50 could do 0-60 in 3.4 seconds; it's a RWD car and has less hp and torque.
Lamborghini's are slightly larger, and so they are a little less nimble, and that is all. You haven't given any proof that a GT has bad handeling, so if that is all you have to say, then it's not enough to convince anybody. Even your arguments about 6.0 doesn't hold water, because you have to ignore every one else who tests the car and says it has surprisingly little understeer. But I'm not going to continue trying to convince you. It's kind of a silly argument between people who've never driven the cars.
U are forgetting another great racing car that beats this thing .The C5 R vette kills all these cars except for the McLaren. and lambos have great handling along with the vette and the McLaren.<!-- Signature -->
C5R ARE god-dammned le mans cars! proving u are just another dumbass who compares any-old thing with these cars from totally different classes! - my dog knows more about cars than u