Jarama Registry

I do not question the results for each of the individual road tests for the production Jarama and the Modified Harrah Daytona.

In absence of evidence to the contrary they must be considered accurate.

The misrepresentation relates to the comparison table which compares the results from the production Jarama test with the results of the modified Daytona.

The misrepresentation relates specifically to the non disclosure that the results for the Daytona relate to a modified version.

I am concerned that you are playing games at the expense of the JARAMA's REPUTATION & this undermines your INTEGRITY as the self appointed ambassador for the model.

NOW is the time to cement the REPUTATION of the JARAMA once and for all and I Urge other MEMBERS to express their views, because the JARAMA and JARAMA owners deserve better than the under dog reputation attributed to the JARAMA by either innocent or foul misrepresentation.

 

DWR I DO NOT KNOW WHO YOU ARE - BUT YOU ARE REAL WORRY!

THE ROADTEST relating to the modified DAYTONA with 405HP clearly articulates the car being tested is a modified non standard production version built specifically for BILL HARRAH.

I DO NOT KNOW THE CHASSIS NUMBER OF THE SAID CAR BUT I CAN ASSURE IT DOES NOT MATTER BECAUSE THE R&T TEST ARTICULATES THE CAR BEING TESTED!

 

Can we just talk about Jaramas and stop with the testing stuff?

Let it go to "agree to disagree" because it all stemmed from a single comment that there is "no comparison". It's an opinion, so stop beating us over the head with statistical stuff from 40 years ago that could have been questionable in the first place.

Sheesh.

 

Taurean Bull: THANK YOU, you are a voice of common sense.

 

Well said, and a little less shouting would be good.

John

 

AutoArt, I didn't even read what you just wrote, please stop. Step back. You have already crossed a threshold where you point will not be taken no matter how hard you try.

 

Chad

You tell me that you didn't read my last post, yet you tell me to step back, that I have crossed the threshold where my point will be ignored.

You have made your decision to discount my submissions without reading them first. HA!

You either have extraordinary sensory perception or you are a disrespectful human being.

The negativity I have been confronted with on this forum so far seems to be based on arbitrary assumptions or distorted perceptions based on popular opinion rather than facts.

What is even more disturbing is that my submissions enhance the reputation of the Jarama . This is a JARAMA forum after all.

I now begin to understand why Jarama values are low - perhaps the "smart" people are a little more discerning than I in choosing who they associate with.

Perhaps I have discovered the "JARAMA SYNDROME" - a neurological disorder where the person affected has a negative reaction to circumstances that should otherwise be viewed as having a positive impact on their life!

Rather than tell me to step back why don't you tell DWR to retract his claim which is lacking in substance.

He is the one that started it all with his statement "NO Comparison" based on nothing more than an arbitrary basis.

He then continued the fiction in one of his posts by assuming that R&T was responsible for deriving the 405hp result from the 352 hp figure for the Daytona test Nov 1970. The Nov 1974 road test I have referred to in my posts displaces his claim as FALSE and reveals he is unreliable to pass judgement on a comparison between the Jarama & Daytona

The facts I have produced including reference to the Nov 1974 Road test of the production Daytona versus the Race Daytona suggest that DWR does not research the facts before making his claims and therefore his claim there is "No COMPARISON" should be considered unreliable.

Assumptions cannot be relied upon as a proper basis to make decisions nor claims that affect the reputation of the JARAMA.

All I have done is to set the Record Straight for the benefit of those who have a genuine interest in the JARAMA.

If you or anyone else on this forum persist to argue against the facts without logic and continue to unreasonably impair the reputation of the Jarama without justification, JARAMA values will continue to remain low because NO ONE IN THEIR RIGHT MIND will want to associate with a group of people who are inept!

 

Autoart, I think your problem is that you come across as petulant, trying to ram your views based on a couple of R&T articles down the throats of some very knowledgeable people.

I have been a subscriber to R&T for over 40 years on and off and they don't always get it right. I suggest you maybe expand your horizons and read the Car articles of the period - Blain and Nicols tended to be very honest when it came to these cars.

Dial it down a little and perhaps people will listen.

John

 

John, I don't really care if people listen its their choice but its not their choice to make arbitrary statements without reasonable grounds in support and damage the reputation of the JARAMA

R&T would not be publishing magazines for 40 years if their road test results were considered by the market as "inaccurate".

Obviously human error occurs from time to time but there is no reason to doubt the R&T tests for the production Daytona given, the correlation of the 3 tests I have referred to, including the Harrah modified Daytona, RACE Daytona and Production Daytona,

If the results of the R&T are inaccurate as alleged by some, then produce the contradictory tests. There were other magazines that road tested the cars the subject of this discussion - but to date none have been relied upon by my critics.

I cannot standby and let someone assume that the 405hp was derived from the 352hp figure & to attribute the test results of the Harrah modified Daytona to the production version and use that information to the detriment of the JARAMA when the 3 tests disclose that his assumption is FALSE!

Why don't you tell DWR to support his claims with facts instead.!

 

C'mon Olivier

There is no reason to doubt the R&T results for either the Jarama or the Daytona. The results tabled seem reasonable.

In fact you posted the R&T COMPARISON TABLE from the JARAMA test in your support of DWR's claim there is: NO COMPARISON between the Daytona & Jarama

You in fact relied on the R&T Comparison table as I relied on the R&T results for the production Daytona in support of my claim.

When you posted the said R&T Comparison Table from the Jarama test you presumed like everyone else for the last 40 years - that the comparison was made with the production Daytona.

In my response to your post I revealed that the results for the Daytona were derived from the NOV 1970 test of the Harrah modified Daytona

SO UNTIL THAT TIME YOU TOO RELIED on the R&T test results - except you did so in ERROR - because you PRESUMED the Daytona results related to the production version.

DWR also relied on the R&T results from the Nov 1970 test, attempting to justify the said results as representative of the production Daytona by speculating a Cock & Bull Story that the 405 HP recorded in the results table was actually a conversion of the 352 HP rating relating to the production Daytona.

The NOV 1974 Test of the Production Daytona V Race Daytona test results revealed that you were BOTH WRONG in your assumptions!

The basis for your claims was just that ASSUMPTIONS!

THEREAFTER YOU SOUGHT TO DEFEND YOUR PRIDE by alleging the very results you had previously relied upon in support of your claims were questionable or inaccurate!

In conclusion both you & DWR were ready to rely on the R&T results as valid but as soon as I made you realise that you had misconceived the results you did AN ABOUT FACE and alleged that the R&T test results were questionable.

This is the kind of behaviour that merits the description - "petulant" - because unlike me - you continue to persist without any formal grounds other than assumptions or speculation.

The road tests for the production Daytona were conducted by the one and the same magazine R&T, and the results correlate with the results produced for both the Harrah Hot Rod Daytona and The RACE version.

There is NO QUESTION That according to the R&T Road tests the JARAMA IS AS COMPETENT AS the PRODUCTION DAYTONA!

That's the END OF THE STORY!!

 

Okay Autoart, we can agree "That according to the R&T Road tests" in period the cars are comparable.
That does not translate in to equal or comparable value or desirability in today's world. The way you a vehemently promoting the Jarama (a car I love by the way) makes me think you be listing one or more for sale soon.

I do not drive any of my collector cars at 10/10ths or 9/10ths and probably not even 7/10ths in most cases, but that does not mean I do not enjoy driving them, showing them and talking about them.

As I may be in the market for a Jarama in the future, I, for one, and happy to have the prices remain reasonable if not low.

 

I read the first few and you are merely being belligerent so I ignored the last one. Yes, I made MY decision to ignore you. Others are likely doing the same.

What I have witnessed from you so far is exactly the same attitude that I have witnessed from a coworker of mine, so my discount of you is based on my personal experience with him, hence, my "perception" of you is based on something "arbitrary" backed up by the "fact" that you have been a thorn in the side of LOVERS and OWNERS of the Jarama.

It stemmed from an OWNERS opinion. Get your FACTS straight.

And you call me disrespectful? All I WAS doing was ignoring you, and you have outright insulted people.

Who are you to be the arbiter of a persons opinion? What kind of totalian dictator do you hope to be?

You have a very high opinion of yourself.

Tell an OWNER that his opinion of HIS cars is not valid?

Maybe he should just give them to you, the bench racer, since you so obviously have so much more appreciation for something that you have apparently, not put any of your money where your mouth is, whereas he has. Look in the mirror and look back at your own post, you have passed judgement on myself and others without citing "facts" it is rather, your opinion. I could argue all of the same nonsense you are, but like you, that would make me a hypocrite. I know I'm passing judgement, and I know it's an opinion, but I'm not attempting to put myself above you by saying that I am not doing those things.

All I wanted you to do was chill out. YOU ARE NOT BEING HEARD BY THE PEOPLE YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO REACH.

People that buy, and are interested in, vintage Lamborghinis tend not to be sheep which will blindly follow you when you try and beat them into submission.

I never said you have no valid points, I never even said you were wrong in arguing your point, but you JUST need to RELAX.

 

Honestly guys just stop.

The only thing being accomplished now is damage to everyone.

We're all car nuts.

 

More heat than light being generated here.
What a turn off.

 

Guys,

All I have done is to identify how the R&T Comparison Table used in the JARAMA test report led to the myth that the Daytona was superior to the Jarama when in fact the cars are similar in most respects

The myth turned into legend and for the past 44 years popular opinion has been based on the misconceived comparison data.

I brought my claim - the JARAMA is AS COMPETENT as the Daytona with reference to the R&T test results and articulated the misrepresentation in the said comparison table for everyone's benefit

SURELY I am entitled to speak the TRUTH!

The counter arguments were reliant on the same R&T tests, except that my opponents had misconceived the data.

Olivier in particular and everyone else for that matter was ENTITLED TO MAKE THE ERROR because the comparison table was misleading - It failed to disclose the Daytona results were derived from a modified version non production car

Following my disclosure that the Daytona results were derived from the Nov 1970 test - it would have been appropriate at that point of time for my opponents to accept the comparison did not compare apples with apples.

Instead my opponents denied to accept this fact & began to float red herrings. They began to challenge the validity of the test results -( without making reference to or identifying any specific errors) - the very same tests which they had seen fit to rely upon when it suited them to do so.

What is more outrageous is DWR attempted to mislead everyone by claiming the 405hp result was somehow derived from the 352hp rating applicable to the production Daytona in order to justify his claim.

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, surely I am entitled to express my observations.

My opponents had made an error and I was entitled to SET THE RECORD STRAIGHT for the benefit of everyone on this forum and for Jarama owners at large.

Like everyone on this forum I too have a reputation that I am entitled to preserve and NO ONE on this forum is entitled to tell me to back down against opponents who have not only sought to taint the reputation of the JARAMA with arbitrary claims but also attempted to discredit my reputation without reference to any evidence to the contrary or due justification.

I am certain I have now made my point and I do not intend to continue to repeat it again unless of course I am challenged by anyone without formal grounds or evidence to the contrary.

However I continue to invite other members to produce test results or formal data to exhaust all avenues as to whether or not the JARAMA is as competent as the Daytona in most respects.

At this point in time we have the R&T test results that support my claim. The results of each test seem reasonable except it should be qualified that the top end speed included in some tests was based on a mathematical calculation. For the purposes of most owners actual top speed is irrelevant in any case.

I don't really care if you choose to agree or not - the JARAMA is as COMPETENT AS THE DAYTONA according to the R&T Test results.

 

Yeah, it's obvious you didn't read or comprehend anything I said.

I'm out.

 

Gentleman back on topic.

 

Did it get driven much?

 

Hello Olivier

I hope we can put our differences aside and move on as friends - I did not mean any disrespect to you.

Debate is an important freedom of our Western Democracy

I do appreciate your contribution to this forum and I understand you mean well.

I was disappointed to discover that the Jarama test comparison table was misleading and that it may have been ill conceived to misrepresent the capabilities of a modified Daytona as those of the production model to the detriment of the Jarama - possibly as part of a conspiracy to commit commercial sabotage.

I felt - EVERYONE SHOULD BE MADE AWARE - in particular some Daytona owners, who share a degree of arrogance in the presence of anything Lamborghini.

I felt the fraud whether constructive or otherwise, may have contributed to Feruccio's financial woes - it certainly would have had a negative impact on sales of the JARAMA.

Ferruccio has given us the cars we enjoy and I was disturbed to learn of the misrepresentation and the unfair commercial advantage enjoyed by the Daytona at the expense of Ferruccio's treasured Jarama.

Hopefully you are ready to reconcile our differences as I am - as I would like to move on and seek your expertise and knowledge of the Lamborghini marque and in particular regarding the Jarama.

One of the Jaramas I own shares the same colour with #10380.

Do you know the name of the colour and how many were built in this hue?

Thanks

Mike