Allanlambo - The Gallardo is a serious runner

You're correct they were detuned. Ever drive one? I have. It handled quite well.

 

1,3,4,5,13

Greg A

 

Mako
The math is correct except for the fact that the Ford GT has much more than 500HP at the crank. The chief engineer, whom I know told me it has more than 500HP at the rear wheels.
Any time you want to find out how fast these cars can go tell me what track you want to meet at. I'm available.

 

Mako
I'm neither pro or con I like F cars as well.
This motor can make 700HP easily. It can run all day at 600hp. They haven't deceided yet where they'll set it but it will be at least as fast as the C&D test and will prob. be faster.

 

BINGO!!!

I don't think Ford has ever stated where the 500hp is measured. If they measured it at the wheels, it would in fact have over 575 flywheel horsepower assuming a conservative 15% driveline loss.

-- Michael

 

$139,995.

 

In regards to the F1 there were tests done by Gordon Murray at Paul Ricard back in the 90's where the F1 (street car) accelerated faster from 100 - 170 than a 1989 McLaren F1 car. Martin Brundle was in the F1 race car and Gordon's chief test driver was in the F1 street car.

Enzo...smenzo!!!! The F1 is still the best built, fastest street car in the world. It was designed over 10 years ago. If Gordon designed another one with the same guidelines (cost no object) it would destroy all the F1 wanna-be's (Enzo, Carrera GT, Konigsegg, and that utterly stupid Bugatti that looks like a squashed turtle).

In the end all the bullsh*t stops on the race track and the F1 is the only street car to have ever won LeMans overall except for the original Ford GT40.

Regards,

Jon P. Kofod
www.flatoutracing.net

 

XJ220, 0-150mph in 12.8-13.1 seconds
XJ220, 0-200mph in 28.0 seconds (or slightly under)

Just a hair under the McLaren F1. So what was purpose built to be the fastest street car? The F1. What was built out of a pipe dream by a touring car company and 1/4 of the price (now)? Uh huh

Which one will I own one day? Uh huh

Sunny

 

Sunny,

I know you are a Jaguar fan. We can split hairs here but the F1 was quicker to 60, 100, and 200 (even if it's less than .03 seconds) and in the 1/4 mile trap speed. And it beat the final iteration of the XJ220 in top speed by 20 miles per hour (218 vs. 240.01).

And let's be totally honest here, the XJ220 never won LeMans overall. Two XJ220's did actually compete at LeMans in 1993 but one finished 15th overall and the other one blew up after 5 laps.

Why do you think they couldn't give the XJ220's away? You can pick them up today at less than 200K while F1's still sell for over a million $$$'s.

Lastly the 231 top speed figure everyone quotes is the old number.

In April 1998, McLaren took its 5-year old F1 to Germany's Ehra-Leissen test track, after 3 runs, it set a new top speed record as 240.1mph (386.7kph) two-way average. That F1 is identical to any production F1, with the same side mirrors, same tyres, standard tyre pressure, same suspensions setting.... the only difference is - the 7500rpm rev limiter was disabled.

After two runs, racing driver Andy Wallace tried seriously in the final run. The V12 rev to 7800rpm while oil temperature was still acceptable, two-way run was performed for eliminating the effect by wind and the average speed is calculated to be 240.1 mph. A new record was set !

And consider that the Jaguar needed two turbochargers to reach its performance numbers and the engine was a TWR Jaguar XJR-10 IMSA sprint-race prototype race derived unit while the McLaren used a normally aspirated engine out of a production BMW.

On paper the cars are close in the real word they aren't.

Regards,

Jon

 

Hmmm, I do not think that comment is accurate. I understand that BMW designed that engine for the McLaren F1. They did not just pick one of their production engines.

Also they did a huge amount of work to make it fuel efficient, etc. for Le Mans, ie. reducing internal oil pumping efforts, etc. so it is a very clever engine and far beyond a normal production engine.

The Ford GT40 and the McLaren F1 are the only cars that rule the supercar world IMO as like you stated they have the REAL performance to actually win on the track. Anybody can punch out numbers, but it takes a real performance car to do that reliably for 24 hours.

The only other cars that can be considered close to up there are the Ferrari F40 and the Jaguar xj220 (rather have the xj215 (I think that is the name) which has an engine with soul) because they also have proved themselves on the race track ... admittedly not as reliably ... all other cars are theoretical w@nking toys, except ofcourse for almost any Porsche.

Anyway back to the original topic ... the Lambo does appear to be fast, lets hope somebody gives it the respect it (probably) deserves and competes seriously in some respectable race series. The Lambo's racing in Australia appear to be competitive if way too heavy (which shows the lack of racing background IMO).

Again why build these cars unless the goal is to win on the track ... and for that reason I am a little disappointed that Ford did not execute the same plan that they did in 1965, ie. build a Le Mans winning race car, and then sell a few street versions. I have always respected Ford because racing appears to be in their blood unlike GM who will only race in these pathetic 2 of 3 make everything is supposed to be even race series ... Interestingly I asked my 11 year old step son what he thought of the the new Ford GT and he loves it , amazing how a basically 60's look still has it

Pete

 

Pete,

Paul Rosche did start with a clean slate of paper on the engine but much of it's design came from the 5.1-5.4 liter 12 cylinder 750 engine. Technically it wasn't a production engine per say but unlike the Jag the many components of the F1 engine was first designed as a street engine (7 series) while to my knowledge the Jag engine was first dessigned to run in their Group C cars and then reworked to be a street car engine.

The F40 is one of my favorite Ferraris, right up there with the 333Sp but it had little success in racing. It proved to be very fast at times, often setting pole at places like Paul Recard and Monza agains the F1's but they always broke. They led many races in the 95 BPR series but finished way behind the F1's in the points. At LeMans they never finished.

In regards to the oiling issue there was also the gearbox which had issues.

That being said they are cars that were raced and should be lumped in with the XJ220 and F1 as well as the all time great F40GT's.

The rest as you stated are just paper queens. they look like LeMans race cars but only on paper.

Some may jump in here and point to Vern Schuppman's street 962 that won LeMans but that was clear cheater car. It was a 962 race car converted to a street car and then re-converted to a LeMans GTS spec car.

We all could debate the supercar issue until the cows come home like a bunch of college kids on the thousands of message boards but the bottom line is that only the F1 (which one it one the first try) and the GT40 won LeMans overall.

Quite an amazing feat.

 

Yes hahaha, we do not want to waste Rob's disk quota do we . Thanks for the info though, always good to learn ...

Pete

 

0-150 in 12.8 seconds! Geesh, I wonder how fast the Space Shuttle is going at 12.8 seconds.

 

Jon,

I guess you forgot about the Porsche 911 GT1-98. It won overall in, surprise, 1998 and it is a "street" car.

Greg A

 

Mako99 is right, the clk-gtr (roadcar) at one point was doing 0-100in an insane 5.7 seconds...wow...

 

if the mclaren f1 had any maladies, it was that it had too much power. murray made it clear that he wanted to build the ultimate ROAD car, not race car; therefore, inherant in that process, is the need for compromise. the f1 doesn't handle poorly, per se, but the massive chunks of torque found anywhere in the powerband can rip the rubber off the wheel up into 4 and 5th gear -- that's a stupid amount of power.
the competition cars had to be detuned, and weren't actually ideal race cars for the reasons stated above. needless to say, the domination of the f1's at lemans was yet another testament to beauty in engineering, and the level of development involved; it's funny to think that a car sold with a luggage set, had such racing prowess.
i believe if porsche would have followed through with the CGT le mans project, it would have had a very successful return to le mans as the CGT is based of the established GT1 platform.


hey jon: you get your raing setup worked out in the race car? i ran in the rain at laguna last week and had a handful of offs -- how's the development going?

 

Telfon,

The 98 GT1 doesn't share one body panel with the street GT1. the entire body on the 98 LeMans winning GT1 is made of carbon kevlar unlike the street GT1. McLaren used the production bodied F1 with a few carbon pieces (wing/splitter and such).

As for the CLK, you might have a valid point there but I have never seen one, they weren't street legal in the US (or no one converted one) and they were designed as a race car first then done as a street car to homologate the car.

I guess my point is that the F1 was the only car that was designed as a road car from the start. Murray had no intention of racing the car and turned down numberous requests from Ray Belm and James Weaver. It took them 3 to 4 years to convince Murray to let them race it.

The Porsche and Merc were designed as race cars first and then revised and dumbed down to meet street legal status.

It's a lot harder to make a street car into a LeMans winning race than the other way around.

Hubert,

I haven't been to a track or touched a race car in one month. I am a little burned out from last season. With the arrival of our third child in June I basically crammed an entire season's worth of track events and races into 2 1/2 months.

I plan to get back into it around mid-March with some testing and then race season starts in full swing around April with Honda Challenge and SCCA Nationals.

I will be contacting you in February as I need some advice on a couple of items that need to be upgraded on the Grand Am Cup car (ECU, headers, and some other things).

When are you doing Skip Barber Race School ?

Regards,

Jon

 

Side by side the XJ220 goes a lot faster than the F40. Wait for the blowers hit and your going 20mph+ faster every second or something ridiculous. Watch the top gear video with the F40.

I'm sure in a track it would be lost in the hay after turn 2, but, lets look at who designed this car in the first place. It has many faults, not first of which, being badged a Jaguar. Its heavier, longer, wider, and 10mm taller than the F1. It only seats two. However in a straight line, what I responded to in the first place, you have to give it the respect it deserves. Everyone can't be wrong.

In the real world, it gets chewed up by many on the track, but its literally a point and shoot car. Don't turn, you don't need to.

Regarding power to weight... gearing has nothing to do with it, does it?

That's what we're talking about here, right now. Acceleration. Your such a prat

Jon, no doubt in my mind why you can't give them away. They're not reliable and most people don't drive them so they break even easier. I'm pretty sure I could do just fine in one with some brake and cooling upgrades, something my mechanic has already done. Their LeMans runs needed factory support. They did win their class though. It has potential, but eh, like the concept itself, it was out of style before it was fully realized

Sunny