Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'LamborghiniChat.com' started by joe sackey, Aug 21, 2007.
That's pushing it.
All I've ever asserted and all I'm interested in demonstrating conclusively.
If anyone thought Walter Wolf's Countachs were for show and not go, here is race-car driver Stanislao Sterzel pushing 1120202 hard in the track.
1120202 & Sterzel in recent times
I'd call Discovery channel to shoot the first Countach-only illegal drag event. Come on, haha.
Btw, Koenigsegg uses Valvoline VR-1 as the only recommended factory oil.
It is Eugene Carrie. He was dropped as the Lamborghini distributor in July 1994. This related news article makes for interesting reading!
Very interesting, and thank you for sharing, I've always had him listed as Carrier even in some Lamborghini material, I will make the correction.
Along similar lines here is a letter from Ferruccio himself terminating USA dealer Jake Kaplan.
No need to involve them, this is a project for a private film production company and a major classic car magazine simultaneously covering the event at a motorsports or testing venue where there are no speed restrictions, all perfectly legal.
excellent pic joe! thanks for sharing...
here is another grainy one i scanned. article says he gave this S to his son for a jeep grand cherokee to drive on the ranch...
Excellent image, thanks for posting it.
This is the follow-up Wolf Countach, 1121002, the prototype production LP400S, in it's distinctive Wolf Racing dark blue-and-gold livery, same as were on his F1 cars.
The helicopter behind the Countach is also in the same livery, Wolf gave it to Ferrari F1 ace Gilles Villeneuve, who can be seen in it arriving @ Monza in 1982, below.
This begs the question, why would Wolf give Gilles Villeneuve a helicopter?
Villeneuve and Wolf were friends, and the former drove the latter's Wolf Dallara WD1 Can-Am race car - see below.
This is the Can Am car that Gianpaolo Dallara built for Wolf, so Countach LP400S fans will note this with interest because of the Wolf - Dallara association.
Dallara is responsible for Wolf's Countachs, 1120148, 1120202 and 1121002.
Also, incidentally, it is Dallara who introduced Wolf to Frank Williams, who got Wolf into F1.
Anyway, therein lies the Countach link, so we are not entirely off-topic!
F1 ace Gilles Villeneuve in the Wolf Dallara WD1 Can-Am race car
Last one - Villeneuve drifting the Wolf Dallara.
Apologies for the off-topic, back to Countachs.
Great pictures, my absolute favorit racing series of all time. My next door neighbor, Tom Anderson was part of Bruce Mc Laren team for many years(late 60 s 70 s) then ran /owned Anderson /Adrian Fernandes indy team for years.anyway,also the fact they basicly ran "boat engines,"with exeption ,of cuorse Porsche flat air cooled 12 s,wich in combo with the oil situation,and the fact they outclassed everybody, ended the whole sircus.
And,thanks for posting,
here is another... im not sure were i saved this from.
i like the test mule look of the 2nd and 3rd wolf cars
villeneuve possibly catching a lift from walter? i cant recall which 82 Italian GP gilles got his radio equipment stolen from his personal helicopter, monza or imola?
dallara, frank williams and parks all worked for detomaso short lived defunct F1 team in 70 or so...
Monza 1982? Certainly not for the Monza GP as he died before, during practice in Zolder.
They were essentially Mulettas.
That's not Wally beside him, not sure who it is though.
I never mentioned "GP", this was likely testing there for Ferrari or the tire company, that said the photographer has captioned the image "Monza 1982".
Yes, but your readers should know that this photo was not made during Monza GP 1982 and you certainly agree.
Me too, very nice photo!
Some excellent Gilles Villeneuve info. Now for a real challenge to the Countach historians. Does anyone have a photo of Gilles driving a Countach?
Well ok. So lets go back to QVs.
The images in the above post are being misrepresented as being DD vs FI and so are the part #s. The 1st image is from a 2 valve car - specifically a 5000S. The 2nd image is from a 4 valve car - likely a QV - but could easily be an LM or 25th. Given the part #, its from a 25th.
The first clue here would have been Chad's posts re pistons:
A second clue is the referenced "high dome" piston having cutouts for only 2 (cross sectional) valves.
So let me be very clear - I'm saying that there is no difference with the pistons between a QV DD and a QV FI and the parts books back me up. If you have a pic of a real 4 valve QV piston with what you describe as a "high dome", I'd love to see it. Maybe then we can move back to the other 4 valve differences.
It's not possible, the QV/25th needs a dished piston to compensate the small combustion chamber. So even a flat top would likely lead to ridiculous compression ratios (14:1 and etc), no need to speak about domed pistons.
P.S. That's all for good. A small combustion chamber allows narrower valve angle, better port angles and shorter flame travel (which is very very important factor, allows to burn fuel quicker). You only have 90 degrees of rotation to produce a power stroke, after 90 degrees you can open the exhaust valve.
Mick, how can you claim that I misinterpret the parts of my engines? Have you ever had such an engine on your bench or do you base your claim on information you found somewhere on the web ?
The factory QV DD pistons have a higher dome than the factory QV FI pistons. In fact the producer was simply machining the DD piston "dome" to reduce the compression. The pistons on Chads picure have the shape of FI pistons.
The 5000S pistons are completely different. I overhaul currently two 5000S engines, two QV engines (FI and DD) and three 3.9L engines (LP400, Espada and Jarama).
Why so much FI insecurity??
It is what it is, the DD is a special engine in automotive history. Deal with it guys.
Left you can see a 3.9l 2V aftermarket piston (for my Espada).
Right you can see a 5000S 2V piston.
NOS DD piston
QV FI piston.
That is a pic of piston 001420828 that is 9:3:1 and is found in some 25ths. Since I can't prove something doesn't exist, do you have a pic of this piston style in an open and previously untouched QV block?
Found in FI blocks.....
Give it up. They have vastly different hardware between the two.
Probably a good idea - done. Cheers!
Here is a couple of things to factor inn, point 2 in compression in a typical us 500 hp v8,without touching the induction or timing,in general ,gains aprox 1/2% in hp. This means aprox 2,2 hp give or take in the qv case, removing 15 grams from each piston,(180 grams in the qv) equals aprox hp gain ,3 hp, i o w, the lighter pistons gains more,than the added compression, but,here is the best part,lighter recicropating weight also makes for a much quicker and more responsive engine,and saves load on bearings. All in all,perhaps Lamborghini had a plan with this, or put it this way,a dd with fi pistons ,would actually have more hp based on avg rules.
Those are some interesting points, thanks for sharing. As a general rule compression follows the law of diminishing returns. After a certain point the gains you recieve will be relatively smaller in proportion to what you saw previously.
The jump from 8:1 - 10.1 will be ok (even then you need supporting adjustments). But .2 at a already relatively high compression like in the CT won't be a huge difference. Small enough in fact that weight could play more of a difference like you said.
That being said the timing on the DD is a little more aggressive.
Timing is easy.
Interesting part is this. My car has 2 owners manuals Us And row. The US tec spec says comp ratio 9,5 +/-,2. - 1. . Could this poss mean they had a bunch of pistons laying around? Lets use them all, intetesting to get some real facts from real owners) not important beeing it will give at the most 2,5 hp. Poss a loss if
You reside in Denver or Kloster. (Altitude) good snd meaningful Countach discussion. To quote my good buddy. Sackey.
Thanks for Posting Dani, I saw both Pistons at my mechanic's workshop, since he had at the same time a DD and FI engine to restore, huge differences, also behaviour was quite different, btw. both equipped with a MSD 7-AL-2. Like day and night as my mechanic discribed.
Isn't this the one you got from me?
BTW, I have also an original Diablo and F1 Piston, guess what, they are almost identical, but almost identical is not same...
It's already the right time to post some pics!
Not really, but whatever makes you happy.
I don't but if you have one please post it.
Mick, no comment.
Dani your observations speak for themselves.
Coupled with the Downdraft's cams and 44DCNF Webers, different worlds.
Night and day? The lighter pistons makes for a more rew happy engine,more so,in fact,than the ,2 in compression ratio difference, factor inn a 35 hp handicap in emission,and 200lbs in added muffler and bumper garb ,yet only,2 sec slower to 60 mph, looking at these nmbrs, shure seems like Lamborghini put more thoughts inn to the fi than the dd.
I bet some Fuelie owners wish you would stop drawing attention to the Downdraft's obvious performance superiority with your comments, all of which are opinions, none of which are proven or independently corroborated.
It's basic knowledge that the Fuelie was in fact a production afterthought, a compromise of the original Countach carburetor concept purely in response to a Federal transportation authority emissions mandate. Accordingly, basically, the Fuelie is an EPA Countach by virtue of reinventing the wheel and strangling its performance, and there is no reason for its existence other than to satisfy the US government. Ask everyone @ Nuova Automobili Lamborghini SPA from the CEO to the Chief Engineer to the Chief tester and you find that as sports car manufacturers, the compromised Countach Fuelie was not a variant they consider their best work, and the car's significantly inferior performance was exactly the reason they FIA Homologated the Downdraft instead. FWIW none of the aforementioned points are opinions, and all of them are independently corroborated.
Good one. only reason for its existence? I was always under the impression Lamborghini s whole reason for existence was to make a profit, a bussines.as in a company wich intentions are to make money, also,did not The Mimrans develope the qv head in order to compete with the Testarossa,Porsche turbo, and their likes, or no? IOW the qv was needed for$$$$$$ money reasons,all variants. I Do not think The cost of the Four valve cylinder head was done just in order to satisfy somebodys dream, they needed a better product. Profits dd,fi all in the same category, and on a budget,reason why they kept the old cyl block,with added spacers.
The US market was probably a major reason for the QV heads existence, Lamborghini needed this market bad, but with the old 2 valve head,in combination with EPA, and other restrictions, the Countach was not living up to its looks, a slightly modified Corvette(perhaps even stock) would beat it at the stoplight, Make no mistake about it, the FI,was as big part of the QV developement,from the get go,as the DD, The carburated model was launced first simply becuase there where carburators readily available,and the car was late to the party,it was needed to beat the Testarossa.
And the Homologation, really? You honestly think that was even part of the profit plan for Lamborghini as a company? Do you really think Chrysler gave even the smallest crap to the Homologation, probably did not even know, anything can be submitted for homologation,its cool they did it, but why,is another question.
joe im agreeing with most of your views here, however there are many cases why cars are homologated for racing purposes. porsche homologated the rally weapon SC-RS in 83-84 not because it was spec'ed out solely with highest output motor. it reverted to the old 3.0 motor rather than the new 3.2 since the former qualified as a "evo" model which you only had to build 20 or so extra examples. there are many other examples of an oems reasoning to homologate a particular spec car. The ability to produce a certain number of cars within a timeframe is a struggle even with porsche with a well know quantity like a G-body 911.
you dont have to go very far from modena area to see all the high profile failed attempts at homologation for racing. from the LM, Gr 4 bora, early stratos they had to run as prototypes though the intent was street gt cars due to failed homologation. Sant'agata first attempt was a dismal failure with the E26 or BMW M1 in which lamborghini was delayed in the delivery. lamborghini only built 5 or 6 examples out of 400 making the M1 ineligible before everyone moved on to gr5 and gr4 became defunct. eventually it ran in a bernie circus called "procar" series.
its makes sense that they chose the DD since it was the first 4v built for the road and the market was more predictable and stable than usa. performance wise dcnf's are better than CIS but im not sure if there were any cars still running with webers on a international level in the 2nd half of the 80's.
CIS leaves a lot to be desired, its issues for hindering performance are well know (well with the exception of this crowd.. ) since for a decade and a half it the predominated injection used. But you race what u can homologate.... with the porsche 934 and 308 GrB, it has proven you can win with CIS too.
I have never understood why these 2 variants are referred to as Fuelie and carbed when in fact that is only one of the differences between the two. As a number of people have suggested there are many differences and some have even stated "completely different cars". To me they have always been, emissions/DOT compliant and non-compliant cars. It's common sense that any non-compliant vehicle will perform better than a compliant vehicle, so for anyone that believes otherwise I feel they are misinformed. I don't agree that the Fuelie was a production afterthought but instead a production necessity. They wanted the US market but more important the factory knew what was coming down the road with compliance to emissions and safety standards. I would say the company was evolving with the FI Countach and in fact it was the beginning of the end for carbed cars as they had become obsolete by that time. I also don't agree that Fuel injection is a compromise of the original Countach as I do not feel that FI was a realistic option for the original car, but there are many other changes along the way that you could argue are a compromise of the original concept. I think there are a couple of points most would agree on, the non-compliant cars look much better and fuel injection is a better way to deliver fuel to a combustion motor, there's a reason Lamborghini has not produced a production car with carbs in decades. I appreciate them both for what they are and I don't feel one is better than the other, just different. The end of a great era and the beginning of another.
As always, lots of opinons and guesses, yet few facts.
You really do make this stuff up as you go along
Did you ever ask Patrick Mimran what his agenda was?
I did, personally, not through an intermediary.
He authorized publication of his viewpoint in the July 2017 edition of Classic & Sportscar magazine, and his thoughts on this specific matter are printed on page 119.
What part of "We weren't bothered about outperforming the Testarossa" as stated by Nuova Automobili Lamborghini SpA's CEO himself do you not understand?
I like your take on the Homologation perspective, but really, all I seek to underscore is what you have already stated about CIS.
I agree with a lot of what you say, your logical presentation of your thoughts helps.
That said, again, much of what I am asserting is what you have have said as in "It's common sense that any non-compliant vehicle will perform better than a compliant vehicle, so for anyone that believes otherwise I feel they are misinformed".
Really,not bothered by outpeforming your biggest competitor?,not to mention the att the TR got when released, yup, call it my opinion, i am ok with that,
I am made to understand that this is a very original LP400, if so, much respect to the car's connections the past 40-plus years for not modifying the car, one of few LP400 in Japan that has remained original.