Hey- I just finished a conversation with a guy who thinks that OLD Lambo's are slut cars. Now before you attack me... I love the old Lambo designs. It is very interesting that this viewpoint was voiced, given that I read the same opinion in the Robb Report not long ago. Personally, I think that the Countach and the Diablo have timeless lines. The two things that keep me going for Ferrari as opposed to Lamborghini is: 1. Repair/Maintenance cost 2. Interior look The scissor doors are out of this world. Every red-blooded man's dream. Slutty? I don't think so wanks. Nick
Like Ive posted before, I think the Lambos are for flash and Ferraris are for people that just want a track car for the road. (although a Lambo could be used for the same as well, just a lambo is so flashy with the puke green colors and scissor doors.)
I think that Lambos of the 60´s and 70´s were masterpieces of car design. I don´t like modern Lamborghinis because they are just "remakes" of the old classic ones. Nuccio Bertone, we miss you!
How can ferrari's be track cars...they make spiders, barchetta's, 2+2's and GT's...oh and the stradale and enzo...I would say to generalize, the lambo is the more performance oriented car with time cutting AWD, bigger engines, etc.
Maybe it was just a fluke but the Muira SV has to be one of the most beautiful cars ever made. Even though the Countach has a certain raw appeal I can't help visualizing gold chains and chest toupes' when I look at one. DJ
This is a stupid thread that has been beaten to death before. This is like all Ferrari's are purchased for track use ? Have you ever been to a Ferrari meet and seen all the old men ? The 60's race on Sunday and drive on Monday are over. (unfortunately) And yes I like Ferrari's. I need to find some gold chains.
Listen, this is a stupid thread. These are not mutually exclusive cars. The fact that I have a Ferrari now doesn't mean that I won't have a Lamborghini next, or that Ferrari is this and Lamborghini is that. They each make great cars. Do I love every Ferrari ever made? No. Do I love every Lamborghini ever made? No. Do I love many of the cars from each factory? Absolutely. I am sure that I will own a Lamborghini some day. To say that they are any less car than a Ferrari is BS. BTW, I have a secret that I have been keeping from you all now since I joined Fchat - I have a gold chain and chest hair. Hey, if Testaroja can admit that he married his 17 year old cousin I figure that I can at least admit that.
Well i look at it this way. For a good time, id much rather be with a young hot slut than with some tight assed prim and proper virgin. Score 1 for Lambo. Street car for streetcar, Lambos are just as good a track car as any comparable street Fcar, maybe even better. As for leaning towards Ferrari due to maintenence costs, youd be very suprised. Fcars guys constantly complain about Lambo clutches costing 5k, but yet a 360 clutch costs the same. Lambos dont need to have their timing belts changed, fcars do, every five years. Oh almost forgot to add, about the gold chains and toupees. Last Fcar meet i was at, i wish i could of taken pics. It was at the unveiling of the NEw Scottsdale Lotus dealer. You should of seen the fcar owners, with their shirts unbottoned down to their navels, chest hair, gold chains and toupees. One guy in particular stood out, for he had his 50+ year old wife with him, in a leather mini skirt, wearing clear plastic heels(like only strippers at the clubs wear) with more silicone than Anna Nicole. Her hair matched his and looked like straw from being bleached so often. Whats up with Fcar owners pulling their pants up to their chest?
"Street car for streetcar, Lambos are just as good a track car as any comparable street Fcar, maybe even better." This sounds like someone who has rarely been to a racetrack. Ask any racer this question. When I told my friend Eric van der Poele (former F1 driver for Lamborghini) that I was purchasing lamborghinis, his comment was "they are at their best when looking at them." There are exceptions, but by and large, most Lamborghinis are big, heavy and underbraked. Fact is most lamborghini's are very good track cars. (Not to say they are not fun, just not suitable). They were just not designed with this in mind. Yes they are wonderfully fun street cars, but with very few exceptions (re:Gallardo), they shouldnt go near the track for long. Enjoy the highway drive: take one of the Lamborghinis, cut fast laps at the track, take a Ferrari. The best quote I've heard was from David Letterman (I think). He said something to the effect of "the Ferrari is the debutante that you can't wait to introduce to mother, the Lamborghini is the hot slut that you keep on the side" Good thing you can have more that one at the same time. Yippy. I'll take some of both.
I guess you didn't see the Top Gear track test of the Murcielago last year. Fastest production car tested on their track to date.
That would shock me. Anyone that describes a Lambo in general as ideal track car simply has no experience with Lambos, or on the track. As for this Top Gear magazne article that is brought up to dismiss this statement. Let me say that I'd also be curious to see how many laps they did and what type of track it was. The murci is HUGE, and bulky. This is a BIG car. Fast in a straight line. You bet. Fast on some winding country road. Absolutely. Fast on a track lap after lap? I cannot imagine its brakes lasting more than a few hot laps. And no, one fast lap does NOT make a good track car. To my knowledge Top Gear does not own a track. So what track are you refering to? Take any road cousre I've been to and I cannot imagine a Murci, faster around it than an F40. I'd take one on in a second in my 355 with R compound rubber at my home track. Faster around any track than an F50? Faster around most tracks than a sport Elise? Your telling me that Top Gear tested it faster around any track than a Radical SR3? You've got to be joking.
Top Gear does their track testing at Lotus's Hethell facility. They use a good driver, "the Stig" (old and new) as to keep the results as consistent as possible. While a Murcielago may have more mass than other cars, it has other advantages going for it. Such as 580hp being planted through all 4 wheels. Remember, mass is but one physical property that affects the dynamics of a car.
John The F 40 and F 50 are really special purpose built vehicles. You are not comparing apples to apples here. I find it amusing to compare a "very" expensive exclusive car with a very expensive regular production vehicle. I suppose you could also compare those two to the R-GT or other special built Diablo ? The Murcielago and Diablo are a supercar / GT. You can compare these type of cars to other Ferrari equivalents in this class: TR 512 TR / M No = of Murcielago in current 4RE line up. None of these types of cars belongs on a track. Lots of fun to drive though.
If paying for passion means your car is a slut, then im all for it! Wide rear, and slender curves! Bring it on!!!
Who said that Lambo is an "ideal track car"? I believe that the statement was that the Lambo's are on par with Ferrari's in terms of track performance. Hell, if I wanted a track car, I wouldn't buy a Ferrari OR a Lambo. I'd be buying a Z06 and doing some mods to it. Does that make the Ferrari or Lambo any less of a car? I don't think so. But the Z06 with very few mods will b*tch-slap just about any Ferrari or Lambo around the track. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the Murcie is the fastest production car around the Top Gear test track. I don't know if that includes the Radical SR3, but it does include the Zonda and the Koenigsegg. Besides, the Radical hardly could be considered a production car, so let's be realistic here. Good luck with your 355 against a Murcie. Have you ever driven a Murcie? If not, better save your words. Honestly, I think you must be joking because I don't know of a track that a 355 would have a prayer against a Murcie.
Why should I "save my words" or comments that this fact, if true, would shock me. I have not driven a Murci. Ive been on the track with one while driving a 328 (the murci had a inexperienced driver, and was extremely slow, so the fact that I lapped twice in a 30 minute session really ment nothing) But I think I am justifiably surprised that the Murci would be the fastest production car ever around any test track, because its very big and wieghs alot. From what I do know these facts cause me surpirse. I've driven many Lamborghinis-nearly everything leading up to the Murci, including the later Diablos, and I currently own two lamborghinis. I am shocked that the Murci is the fastest production car around a particular road course. 99 car guys out of 100 when given a big heavy car with a lot of power will be much slower around a track than the same 99 guys driving a light nimble car with less horsepower. The reasons for this are obvious to anyone who has been on a racetrack. Could a semi-pro driver drive a Murci faster around a track in one lap than any other car. This surprises me, I'd be curious at the list of cars that this is compared to, but fine. But, would I have any fear whatsoever about entering a run group with a Murci in my 355 with good tires? No. My point is a big heavy car with a ton of horsepower is 1) hard to drive fast around a track, 2) prone to loose its brakes quickly and overheat its tires. Lets take two contemporaries that I own to explain what I mean: For example I have a 1986 455 hp carb'ed countach 5000QV. If I put a non-pro driver in that car and let them do a lap. And then put that same person into the seat of my 1988 Honda CRX si, ITA car, with 115 hp (only significant mods are suspension, tires). That person would be faster in the CRX. Why? Because the countach is much heavy, worse brakes, and is more difficult to get the power to the ground quicker, and harder on you when you loose grip. You pay dearly for every mistake in the heavier higher horspower car. The same principle with the same (non-pro driver) in a 2004 Muirci vs. a 2004 Elise sport. I assume, and I think it is probably a good assumption, that the muirci would simply be much harder than say an Elise, to drive fast, and will loose its ablilty to be consistently driven fast on a track to do brakes and tires.
Your Countach vs crx arguement is also subject to the track you are on. So maybe yes, on a very tight slow course, the crx may win. But on any track with any kind of a straight, the Countach would blow its doors off. The Murcielago is substantially faster than any tested ferrari on both the nurburgring and Hockenheim tracks. so is the Gallardo. The Gallardo just posted a Nurburgring time which was faster on street tires than a 360 CS on race tires. The Murcielago posted a time nine seconds faster than the gallardo.
I understand your thinking and your logic, but again, do not pass judgement until you actually drive the Murci. You may doubt and be shocked at the fact that the Murcielago is the fastest production car around the Top Gear track, but I have a video to prove it. If you would like to PM me your email address, I'll email it to you.
i can also see where you'd discount the car as not being very "nimble," I used to think the same. its hard for me to throw judgement out on this because i havent been in much to compare with it, other than a handful of corvettes, anywhere from stock Zo6 to 120k lingenfelter 427 packages. other than that, the only lamborghini/ferrari/60k+ exotic ive ever been in was on a trip to california, and it was a green/black murcie... heavy/hard to drive? not hardly. the man i rode with ran the car hard but never had to put much effort into it, the car felt like it would have absolutely no problem with corners, in any shape or form. to be honest, it felt like a friggin go-cart with 500+ horse. very very planted to the ground and responsive as hell. just my .02
Ellen What test are you referrring to where the Murci was 9 secs faster than the Gallardo? The no's I have seen show them the same at Hockenheim and within 2 seconds at Nuerburgring.
Dont forget to look at these F40 and F50 times: http://www.car-videos.com/performance/track.asp?track=7
