Same here,

 

smart man.........

 

I would rather have a CGT than the Lambo. And for the money maybe a GT3 and a Gallardo.

 

Don't mind a LP640, but not in that yucky green..

 

 

Inmo, the Lp640 is showing slower numbers because it is an Egear. A 6 speed will be noticeably faster.

 

What happened to the 3.3 sec 0-60 lambo claimed when the car was announced? i find it dissapointing that it only did 3.8 0-60. IIRC the 0-120 numbers are slower as well. Dont get me wrong, its a great car and i like the styling better than the reg murci, but with all the hype about it i dont see a CGT/enzo competing car. granted the weight is 3700 lbs, i would have thought it would have been a little faster.

 

Zo6 < 997tt < LP640 < Carrera GT< Ford GT

 

If the Turbo was a tiptronic, it would show better numbers as well.

 

did anyobody else notice that the Lambo was a full ONE SECOND faster than the turbo around the track? that's what the "handling" stat was about right? laptime around their test track?

for a big heavy car with an ageing platform, that says A LOT!

i too am disappointed with the straight line figures of the Lambo... but one second faster around a track (and sounds like a small-ish track too) is nothing to sneeze at...

 

I have no doubt that the Lambo can and will post faster times. What does make me laugh are the conclusions you come to from reading the stats, such as that the 997TT was catching the Lambo, and that it would be even at 240Kmh. It really shows you dont have much knowledge in terms of true performance, as the slight decrease in time could easily be explained by the Murcielago having to shift right before the 200Kmh mark, while the 997TT was still in gear. There are a host of variables which would explain it. One thing that I would bet money on, is that the faster they go, the MORE space the Murcielago would put between it and the 997TT.

 

You know what i find funny? that fact that almost everytime i write something that doesnt give absolute praise to a lambo, you infer things i didnt write. my knowledge is quite good about true performance and im guessing that you have been around cars longer than me because you are prob older than me giving you more experience around them than me. how old are you by the way? are there things that could have factored in to the .2 sec gain, absolutely, and im sure there is, whether its a shift change, gearing in the gear the cars were in, etc etc etc. i know that, but did u ever think to ask me to further explain what i meant? did you think that as most of us often do, we FORGET to write a few sentences, or words that would clarify our point(s) a little better? i know there are a myriad of things that could have happened at that point in the test. thats why i said id like to see a 240 km time to see what was really going on, if the turbo was starting to pull or not. maybe when another test comes out well see.
you say the lp640 was slower because of egear, but the turbo was slower because of the manual, and id like to see each variation of each car same conditions, same day, same driver and see who comes out on top and by how much.

 

allanlambo and PorscheC4 ,

Let's not get out of the subject here guys. These is all mutual thoughts. We are all here to enjoy our time, get more knowledge and know other car enthusiasts around the globe.


hesperus, A Normal aspirated (NA) engined car in most cases would beat a Turbocharged car around a tight track imo. I would love to see how a 997 GT3 would compare on a track with the LP640.

 

I would like to see the GT3 around the track also.

 

hmm... i actually don't see why that would be so... i mean, the "in most cases" part. there's obviously a lot that goes into a lap time-- weight, traction, gearing, power, torque, etc etc.

i was just surprised because the Lambo is a heavy car, with not the best driving position for a small, tight track (i'm making a possibly wrong assumption here that the track used in the test was small, given the relatively short lap times), and a properly sorted turbocharged car will frequently have more usable low-end grunt-- i.e., torque-- to pull it out of tight, slow corners. the 997 Turbo as we know, has a very good slug of torque from low in the rev range.

anyway, i don't know enough about the test conditions to say for sure. what track does autobild test at by the way? i mean, at least for this particular comparison?

any guesses as to the LP640's 'Ring time? the regular Murcie is pretty damn fast over there!