Lamborghini Murcielago vs. Ford GT

[RichardJensen]

It's also like this: This is as much a TOMA survey as anything else, and most people struggle to recall that Acura even exists.

 

In fact, the reality that this is nothing more than a TOMA survey of CR readers suggests that it's about as useful as hip pockets on a shirt.

[TomServo92]

It's also like this: This is as much a TOMA survey as anything else, and most people struggle to recall that Acura even exists.

 

In fact, the reality that this is nothing more than a TOMA survey of CR readers suggests that it's about as useful as hip pockets on a shirt.

 

I think you're in the wrong thread.... :shades:

[RichardJensen]

You're right.

 

It's amazing how much pcsario's albatross posting methods can cloud things up, isn't it?

 

He's got nothing real to complain about, so he squawks the results of a TOMA survey and craps all over a thread on the GT.

[the_spaniard]

The Ford GT is one of the finest cars ever made. And the ride isn't really that harsh at all at speed, shockingly supple for a car with it's world beating capabilities.

 

The Gallardo looks like a disposable p.o.s. parked next to a FGT.

 

Well opinions will vary. I am a fan of both cars, but the Gallardo/Merc design is a flawless modern design compared to the GT. The GT has "classic" styling cues, but for overall appeal the Lambo does it much better.

 

Hardly a disposable POS. Inside, too, there is a world of difference.

 

That being said, both are my top favorites as far as styling, and possess something that any Corvette does not: unique, super-car styling. Hell I would take a GTR over any Vette any day, and I would take a Gallardo or a GT over all of them.

[Furious1Auto]

These people know damn well that the GT's competitor would be the Gallardo, not the Murcielago.

 

But of course, we should be happy that the GT beat a bigger and heavier car.

 

Like you said, a modded GT at that.

You know damn well, or at least should that the same V-12 and powertrain is used in every Lamborghini. I watched a documentary that gave a tour of the Lambo plant and they showed the design and development of the Murcielago. Same powertrain different skin.

 

So now then, Mr. high class explain how either of these supercar models could be beaten by a low end production pperfomance vehicle with a simple exhaust upgrade?

 

I personally don't believe that the Ford GT gets worse mileage. Lamborghini's engine isn't exactly a fuel-sipper. I bet you that if you drove both rather docilely, the Lamborghini would get horrible mileage compared to the GT.

 

No offense dude but if you can afford any of the three cars mention, Fuel mileage is not a concern for you. The only places they would even be close to considered a daily driver is on the southern cost line. Most who own them will keep them in their toy car garage for nice days.

 

Hey, PC, why ain't you ragging on Ford's Q1 performance? Or talking about how badly the Focus is doing? Or about how Ford's quality is in the toilet? Or about how many of their new cars are being recalled?

 

Why ain't you talking about anything going on =right now=?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh, right......

 

Because you're a troll.

 

 

Well opinions will vary. I am a fan of both cars, but the Gallardo/Merc design is a flawless modern design compared to the GT. The GT has "classic" styling cues, but for overall appeal the Lambo does it much better.

 

 

So much so that the were both tout the same drivetrain and we have Video of one of them being beat by a Ford.

 

That being said, both are my top favorites as far as styling, and possess something that any Corvette does not: unique, super-car styling. Hell I would take a GTR over any Vette any day, and I would take a Gallardo or a GT over all of them.

 

 

Don't elevate the Vette to the class of the GT, that's like comparing a stock Mustang GT to a Vette. They are not even close to being in the same class.

 

The closest t a Vette would be a Viper, and neither are considered supercars, just high output performance cars!

Edited April 27, 2008 by Furious1Auto

[TomServo92]

You know damn well, or at least should that the same V-12 and powertrain is used in every Lamborghini. I watched a documentary that gave a tour of the Lambo plant and they showed the design and development of the Murcielago. Same powertrain different skin.

 

I hate to tell you this but the Murcielago is powered by a 6.5L V12 and the Gallardo is powered by a 5.0L V10.

[Furious1Auto]

I hate to tell you this but the Murcielago is powered by a 6.5L V12 and the Gallardo is powered by a 5.0L V10.

 

I saw it on this episode of Rides on TLC channel. I looked on YouTube and Google video, but neither of these two sights existed when the show aired. The only way I could show you where I saw it is to buy the entire first season, find the excerpt, and load it to a video hosting sight.

 

In the Plant they explained every assembler had an engineering degree, and that approx 20 were built per year. They also said that the body style had only changed every 10 years in the past, and that the motor never changed. They said it was the what made a Lamborghini a Lamborghini. They also mentioned the fact it was a 12 cylinder engine, and discussed the History of Lamborghini starting from dissent over the Ferrari's design flaws!

 

I could be wrong, but Ford still built a $176,000 car that beat a $329,000 car, how embarrassing.

Edited April 27, 2008 by Furious1Auto

[TomServo92]

I saw it on this episode of Rides on TLC channel. I looked on YouTube and Google video, but neither of these two sights existed when the show aired. The only way I could show you where I saw it is to buy the entire first season, find the excerpt, and load it to a video hosting sight.

 

In the Plant they explained every assembler had an engineering degree, and that approx 20 were built per year. They also said that the body style had only changed every 10 years in the past, and that the motor never changed. They said it was the what made a Lamborghini a Lamborghini. They also mentioned the fact it was a 12 cylinder engine, and discussed the History of Lamborghini starting from dissent over the Ferrari's design flaws!

 

I could be wrong, but Ford still built a $176,000 car that beat a $329,000 car, how embarrassing.

 

I got my information here:

 

http://www.lamborghini.com/2006/lamboSitenormal.asp?lang=eng

 

:reading:

[Furious1Auto]

I got my information here:

 

http://www.lamborghini.com/2006/lamboSitenormal.asp?lang=eng

 

:reading:

Took me a moment to navigate, but you are correct. Looks like the production people at TLC cared more about creating an emotion then staying grounded in facts. I withdraw the argument.

 

Despite some misinformation, a Ford still beat a world recognized supercar. Now I want to see it race a Gallardo.

Edited April 27, 2008 by Furious1Auto

[Edstock]

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-79...=2&hl=en-CA

 

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-79...=2&hl=en-CA

Edited April 27, 2008 by Edstock

[White99GT]

Well opinions will vary. I am a fan of both cars, but the Gallardo/Merc design is a flawless modern design compared to the GT. The GT has "classic" styling cues, but for overall appeal the Lambo does it much better.

 

Obvisouly opinions differ. In my opinion, the Ford GT is a timeless design, it will look as great 20 years from now as it did in 2005. The Lambo on the other hand is a very dated, and will not age any better than the Countach or the Testarossa did. Which is to say not very well at all.

[Furious1Auto]

The Lambo on the other hand is a very dated, and will not age any better than the Countach or the Testarossa did. Which is to say not very well at all.

 

 

Not true, because of the limited production and peoples desire to own one in the future they would buy an 80's Countach today if they can afford it.

 

Just a shame you could buy a new GT for the cost of a used Lamborghini, and it's faster to boot!

[P71_CrownVic]

The GT lost BADLY in some Top Gear show aired a few months ago. Overall it was inferior.

 

Not to mention that Jeremy dumped his pile of a GT because it never wanted to start. So, he bought a Lambo.

[P71_CrownVic]

I could be wrong, but Ford still built a $176,000 car that beat a $329,000 car, how embarrassing.

 

Yeah...'Ford built'...with the steering from an Aston Martin Vanquish, Italian brakes, a couple of guys from Lotus did the suspension, and a British body...yep...'Ford built' alright.

[Furious1Auto]

Yeah top speed of 207 MPH and it was still taken by a Ford.

 

Top Gear Lamborghini Murciealgo VIDEO LINK!

 

Now the GT has a superchargered V-8 5.4, the same motor as a lame environment killing big pick-up truck. (the Ford Lightning)

 

Top Gear Ford GT VIDEO LINK!

 

 

What a hunk of junk, I'd never own a GT, it's better to pay more for less! :shades:

Edited April 27, 2008 by Furious1Auto

[Edstock]

Yeah...'Ford built'...with the steering from an Aston Martin Vanquish, Italian brakes, a couple of guys from Lotus did the suspension, and a British body...yep...'Ford built' alright.

yep...'Ford built' alright. Right in the USA!

 

You're such a stupid churl, LOL! You're going to have to do better, if you can, that is. :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:

[White99GT]

Not true, because of the limited production and peoples desire to own one in the future they would buy an 80's Countach today if they can afford it.

 

The 80's Countach (and Testarossa) haven't aged well at all, IMO. People will buy both thanks to the badges on the nose, but from a styling perspective I find both cars to be extremely dated. Both Ferrari and Lambo have designed gorgeous, timless cars but the Countach, Testarossa, Gallardo and Murcielago aren't them IMHO.

 

I think the Ford GT will look as good 30 years from now as it does to say. Not many cars have that quality.

 

IIRC, Jeremy Clarkson sold his Ford GT, then bought it back. Fickle guy.

[Furious1Auto]

The 80's Countach (and Testarossa) haven't aged well at all, IMO. People will buy both thanks to the badges on the nose, but from a styling perspective I find both cars to be extremely dated. Both Ferrari and Lambo have designed gorgeous, timless cars but the Countach, Testarossa, Gallardo and Murcielago aren't them IMHO.

 

I think the Ford GT will look as good 30 years from now as it does to say. Not many cars have that quality.

 

IIRC, Jeremy Clarkson sold his Ford GT, then bought it back. Fickle guy.

 

I did no dispute your take on the GT, The GT 40 was produced in the 60's and is nearly identical. It sold well upon it's release after nearly 40 years. My contention was with whether or not there will be a desire to pay what it costs to own one today.

 

The problem that we will face in the future is that, the market conditions that determine what people are buying today, will not be what sells the Fords of the future!

 

The reasons people (baby boomers) are whiling to pay a premium above MSRP today for a Shelby Mustang GT500, will not exist in relation to RWD V-8's in the future generations as they have found the security financially in the future.

 

In the 60's and 70's kids, teenagers could afford these cars. This meant many boomers had personal experiences with true American Muscle. Now the new "American Muscle" is out of the reach of the majority of the car market. Now in the future as the next financially secure generation matures, there will be a shift towards "Ricer power" FWD I-4 and 6 power. These will become the preferred models people are willing to shell out big dollars for once an alternative powertrain becomes standard.

 

This is what they will remember as powerful LINK!

 

The only question is if the Ecoboost can, and will be delivered as promised, will it be easy to modify, and will it deliver massive power with easy modification.

 

Will Ford take the market serious enough to offer real contenders to the segment? It is as easy as changing a turbo impeller to create more boost and changing the engine timing to determine whether or not a turbo charged car will be fuel efficient, or tear up the road!

 

What does Ford want, what will they make available, they could easily upload their own factory warranty covered timing info to a sight for people to load into their ECM Via a laptop or Flash memory card. Or they could ignore the market all together!

Edited April 27, 2008 by Furious1Auto

[P71_CrownVic]

yep...'Ford built' alright. Right in the USA!

Is that why Clarkson's pile never worked?

 

:hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:

Edited April 27, 2008 by P71_CrownVic

[White99GT]

Is that why Clarkson's pile never worked?

 

:hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:

 

I thoght Clarkson had problems with his alarm system?

[Edstock]

Clarkson is well capable of creating his own non-functional chaos.

 

At least the Ford GT doesn't catch fire like Lambos and Ferraris often do.

[Ford Jellymoulds]

At the end of the day diesels are still best in the world.

 

Peugeot 908 HDi FAP diesel beat & smash Audi R10 TDI diesels in the Le Mans Series yet again this weekend.

http://www.f1sa.com/index.php?option=com_c...&Itemid=156

 

 

Audi R10 TDI diesels smashes and beat all the best of the gasoline junk in the States in the American Le Man Series 2008.

http://www.americanlemans.com/Competition/...day-RaceResults

[8A4RE]

The GT40 might've been a race car, the Ford GT isn't, and trust me, all these cars deliver at the race track.

 

True race cars aren't street legal btw.

 

You must not be familiar with SCCA or NHRA Street legal sanctioned racing.

Edited May 2, 2008 by 8A4RE

[RichardJensen]

BTW, the more things change......

 

 

Ford won Le Mans in 66 with a souped up truck engine.

 

And now they're winning again.......

 

 

with a souped up truck engine.

 

Vive la Modulares!!!

[bb62]

BTW, the more things change......

 

 

Ford won Le Mans in 66 with a souped up truck engine.

 

And now they're winning again.......

 

 

with a souped up truck engine.

 

Vive la Modulares!!!

 

No the 427 was not a "souped up truck engine". The 390/428 was the engine that was truck based. The 427 had origins that were completely different and were focused primarily at high performance. Considering that the block, the heads, the lubrication system, the combustion chamber technology, the ignition system, were all different, it was essentially a ground up all new motor that at most shared bore centers with the older design for ease of manufacturing.

 

PS some other random comments:

1. I never liked the 66 GT40 design with was the basis for the newer Ford GT. It looks like a pig to me. OTOH, I loved the 67 Mark IV GT (which was all American designed - unlike the Mark II) which won LeMans with Gurney/Foyt at the wheel. THAT's the GT40 design that should have been used by Ford - probably the single greatest American car ever produced.

2. Unlike some here, I would prefer the new Z06 Corvette to either the Ford GT (or even the Lambo). Sure the Lambo might turn a few more heads than the Corvette, but it's the ultimate expression of the American sports car (where having a legacy of over 50 years does matter). Besides my 67 435HP coupe generally draws more interest than most Ferraris on the road anyway.

3. I tend to agree with the assessment that the Countach and the Testarossa look old today. They definately were not "classic designs". Old E-Types or Stingrays are far more beautiful cars (and quite a bit more valuable in the marketplace today to boot) and they are even older. Old doesn't necessarily mean dated, but the Countach and Testarossa are just that - dated.

4. As for the comments that the Corvette and the GT40 shouldn't be compared - BS. Ferrari went from the exotice mid engine design to a front engine design for their newest GTs (and their dimensions compared with the new Corvettes is very close). Does that make these Ferraris not exotics? Certainly not. The Ford GT also uses far less technology than even the Corvette. John Coletti's charge was to develop a halo car for Ford in as short a timeframe as possible using primarily off the shelf components. In that he succeeded remarkably (despite the huge quality problems early on). But the only difference between the GT and the Corvette from a cost perspective was the amortized volume available to the Corvette. The GT was always meant to be a small volume car (and with an associated high price).