"The e-gear system works well enough when you're pulling away swiftly, but throw in an armful of steering lock or the need to creep off the line, and it gets horribly jerky and inconsistent. On full lock the diffs seem to tie themselves in knots, too, so any getaway is a farce of kangarooing and nasty graunches from the transmission."

"Initially it (the steering) feels spot-on in terms of weight and feel, but somewhere around six-tenths it all goes a bit vague. On fast sweepers that you can attack with total conviction in the Porsche, the Gallardo creates and element of doubt. The grip is there but it's a leap of faith."

"And the Gallardo has to give best to the Turbo in two critical areas. Steering feel is one, communication through the brake pedal is the other. Combined, these two faults amount to a significant problem for the Lambo on very tight, bumpy, and unsighted roads. Conversely, the Porsche grows in stature as the road becomes more challenging; shrugging off surface changes, murdering braking areas and firing out of corners with all four tyres ripping chunks out of the tarmac...I'd expected the Turbo to feel anesthetised and aloof, but from the gently wirthing steering wheel to the deliciously malleable handling balance, it's the 911 that feels more organic."

{{{ This isn't the first review I've read which in no uncertain terms suggests Audi has turned a piece of junk (Lambo) into a nice, fast, but numb automobile - typical of all road Audis }}}

"Everyday supercars? A resounding 'yes' in the case of the Porsche, but it's stretching the point a bit with the Gallardo, particularly if you opt for the e-gear paddleshift gearbox that makes town driving close to unbearable."

 

This quote is awesome!!!

 

I drove a Gallardo w/Egear for about 1/2 hour. I was much more impressed with it than I was with the 996 TT drive. I think stock for stock the Lambo is better.

BUT I am still going to get my Porsche TT Cab. I'll have both soon enough and I will be able to give a better comparison then.

 

however at the end of the magazine article they said: "King of the all-weather supercars? I'll give you a clue: it's made in Italy"

 

Not only that, they also tested the Lambo is a downpour for 0-60, etc. They said that the Gallardo accomplished times that the Porsche could not in those conditions. So, the numbers favor the Porsche, but, they felt that the Gallardo was hampered and suggested the Lambo would have beat the Turbos numbers had conditions been more favorable. I personally do not like the Lambo all that much, but, it deserves respect.

Lou

 

Please some fool with a Boxster posts a few quotes out of a magazine that he picked out himself and left out the ones he didnt like. They said the Gallardo accomplished acceleration times in the wet, that the Porsche could not achieve in the dry.

Take a look at Car magazine, which the cover says" New World Order" in which the Gallardo puts the smack down on the Porsche and 360 Cs.

German mag Auto Zeitung just tested the Gallardo against a New Viper Srt 10 and Ferrari 575M in which it laid waste to both.

 

Considering EVO gave the Gallardo e-gear a top 5/5 a few editions away I think I'd like to read the full article before jumping to conclusions.

 

Here is the full article. I can recommend you to read it before jumping to conclusions:

EVO - Gallardo vs. 996Turbo

 

Ben,

I didn't know you had a Boxster....

 

Anyone remember the AutoCar test between the 996tt x-50, Pagani Zonda and Murcielago where the Porsche spanked the Murci in every acceleration category?

 

Why dont we rephrase this a little bit. Why doesnt some fool with old, dated lambos, post a few quotes regarding how much money they have and how much they know about all the NEW lambos.

 

"I didn't know you had a Boxster.... "

I don't anymore. I ran out of money and had to trade down to a 98 Lambo, a 97 Ferrari, and a 2000 Lotus.

 

How funny is this board? The only place where someone would get ripped for owning those cars.

Or having a car that isn't newer than 2001. haha

 

Gallardo times are in the wet and the Porsche times are in the dry.

Both cars get 5/5 by EVO.

 

The article seems to me to be a disconnect. It praises the turbo but the downside is that it is clinical. The lambo has issues with the steering and braking but it is thrillling. The numbers favor the turbo (it is not the x50) but the lambo was wet. And the conclusion at the end that favors the lambo? This does not seem to be the logical conclusion from the body of the article. Either this is a new technique in journalism with which I am not familiar, or the arguement was not logically made but rather felt. Maybe I am too clinical.