Re: Lamborghini Urus: how and why
Discussion
Dagnut said:
I not sure about all this "real lambo" talk do people forget this?
And Hammonds recent nonsense review of the Aventador " it doesn't want to kill you there for it's not a real lambo"
fact is times change if they had known how to make the aventador 10 years ago they would of done it...and If they had of known how to make the LM002 of any use at all, they would of been selling Jeeps from the 80's.... so mostly you're all talking out or you're arses
We're all aware of the LM002. I think we're just disappointed that its successor as-such is yet another spinoff of the VW Toureg platform.And Hammonds recent nonsense review of the Aventador " it doesn't want to kill you there for it's not a real lambo"
fact is times change if they had known how to make the aventador 10 years ago they would of done it...and If they had of known how to make the LM002 of any use at all, they would of been selling Jeeps from the 80's.... so mostly you're all talking out or you're arses
Dagnut said:
Twincam16 said:
We're all aware of the LM002. I think we're just disappointed that its successor as-such is yet another spinoff of the VW Toureg platform.
So it will be based on a platform that works..what exactly were people expecting?
Twincam16 said:
Dagnut said:
Twincam16 said:
We're all aware of the LM002. I think we're just disappointed that its successor as-such is yet another spinoff of the VW Toureg platform.
So it will be based on a platform that works..what exactly were people expecting?LuS1fer said:
pscl227 said:
Introducing the only current Lamborghini that should be sold to go off-road:
It must have left the thread from earlier and come back in again then...That black Countach is my favourite car of all time. It had nothing to do with VAG. The end.
Look at BMW. They understand Rolls-Royce in a way that VAG really don't understand Bentley. Both are equally profitable, but Rolls-Royce has the image of bespoke haute couture for the upper classes that it's almost impossible to 'blingify', and its image is actually better than it was in the Eighties and Nineties. By comparison, Bentley turns out ugly barges for footballers (although the GTV8 is a nice car, I'll admit).
Look at Ferrari. OK, I know Ferrari has always been the thoroughbred to Lamborghini's upstart, but Fiat knows its boundaries with Ferrari, and knows that if it wants a Ferrari-engined saloon it had better be a Maserati Quattroporte. It can innovate, yes, but with cars that are genuinely in keeping with Ferrari's ethos, like the FF and the California. By comparison, under VAG Lamborghini has gone from a crucible of radical design with no notion of a 'corporate look', to a completely predictable company that has lost the capacity to surprise and amaze. Also, it seems to me the R8 V10 and Gallardo share an awful lot. Too much, in fact.
Then there are the other VAG misuses. Lower-end Audis are heavily VW-based and sold entirely on an image of technical innovation from further up the range that they don't actually have. Porsche was all about the benefits of racing improving the breed, which to an extent it still is, but it pulled out of Le Mans in order to rework a Toerag SUV thus cutting off that perma-halo effect.
My point is, was it really worth watering down all these companies on shared platforms for the sake of making a few quid here and there, especially when you consider that comparable rivals have done just as well if not better without having to resort to this kind of dilution? Because what we're headed towards is a future where you could have a handful of cars all available under a dozen names, their uniqueness little more than a few body panels and a blitzkrieg marketing operation.
Another firm did that. It was quite successful with it for about twenty years, then all it took was a major recession swinging a wrecking ball into its quality control and suddenly it couldn't justify quite so many mechanically-identical cars with differenti identities, so the sudden brand attrition took dozens of long-establishes names with it.
That was British Leyland. It was successful for a while too. VAG seem to be playing exactly the same game. This obsession with using the Toureg platform is similar to the idea BL had with 'Large Car Plant Number One', which would have seen a shared-platform saloon with a Rover V8 and Triumph, Jaguar and Rover identities.
It was only Jim Randle's insistence in pushing through Project XJ40, ensuring it couldn't take a Rover V8, that secured Jaguar's future, otherwise BL would have eventually pulled the plug.
And had that happened Jaguar's history would have ended with the XJ6 S3. No XJR, no XK8, no XF, no XK, no F-Type. Dead.
How long will it be before similar things happen at VAG? Seat's already suffered a wobble, due at least in part to the fact that there's hardly any difference between one of their cars and a VW.
Twincam16 said:
I think VAG is the problem. It's the way they run things.
Look at BMW. They understand Rolls-Royce in a way that VAG really don't understand Bentley. Both are equally profitable, but Rolls-Royce has the image of bespoke haute couture for the upper classes that it's almost impossible to 'blingify', and its image is actually better than it was in the Eighties and Nineties. By comparison, Bentley turns out ugly barges for footballers (although the GTV8 is a nice car, I'll admit).
Look at Ferrari. OK, I know Ferrari has always been the thoroughbred to Lamborghini's upstart, but Fiat knows its boundaries with Ferrari, and knows that if it wants a Ferrari-engined saloon it had better be a Maserati Quattroporte. It can innovate, yes, but with cars that are genuinely in keeping with Ferrari's ethos, like the FF and the California. By comparison, under VAG Lamborghini has gone from a crucible of radical design with no notion of a 'corporate look', to a completely predictable company that has lost the capacity to surprise and amaze. Also, it seems to me the R8 V10 and Gallardo share an awful lot. Too much, in fact.
Then there are the other VAG misuses. Lower-end Audis are heavily VW-based and sold entirely on an image of technical innovation from further up the range that they don't actually have. Porsche was all about the benefits of racing improving the breed, which to an extent it still is, but it pulled out of Le Mans in order to rework a Toerag SUV thus cutting off that perma-halo effect.
My point is, was it really worth watering down all these companies on shared platforms for the sake of making a few quid here and there, especially when you consider that comparable rivals have done just as well if not better without having to resort to this kind of dilution? Because what we're headed towards is a future where you could have a handful of cars all available under a dozen names, their uniqueness little more than a few body panels and a blitzkrieg marketing operation.
Another firm did that. It was quite successful with it for about twenty years, then all it took was a major recession swinging a wrecking ball into its quality control and suddenly it couldn't justify quite so many mechanically-identical cars with differenti identities, so the sudden brand attrition took dozens of long-establishes names with it.
That was British Leyland. It was successful for a while too. VAG seem to be playing exactly the same game. This obsession with using the Toureg platform is similar to the idea BL had with 'Large Car Plant Number One', which would have seen a shared-platform saloon with a Rover V8 and Triumph, Jaguar and Rover identities.
It was only Jim Randle's insistence in pushing through Project XJ40, ensuring it couldn't take a Rover V8, that secured Jaguar's future, otherwise BL would have eventually pulled the plug.
And had that happened Jaguar's history would have ended with the XJ6 S3. No XJR, no XK8, no XF, no XK, no F-Type. Dead.
How long will it be before similar things happen at VAG? Seat's already suffered a wobble, due at least in part to the fact that there's hardly any difference between one of their cars and a VW.
Nice post, I almost forgot we where at Pistonheads for a while.Look at BMW. They understand Rolls-Royce in a way that VAG really don't understand Bentley. Both are equally profitable, but Rolls-Royce has the image of bespoke haute couture for the upper classes that it's almost impossible to 'blingify', and its image is actually better than it was in the Eighties and Nineties. By comparison, Bentley turns out ugly barges for footballers (although the GTV8 is a nice car, I'll admit).
Look at Ferrari. OK, I know Ferrari has always been the thoroughbred to Lamborghini's upstart, but Fiat knows its boundaries with Ferrari, and knows that if it wants a Ferrari-engined saloon it had better be a Maserati Quattroporte. It can innovate, yes, but with cars that are genuinely in keeping with Ferrari's ethos, like the FF and the California. By comparison, under VAG Lamborghini has gone from a crucible of radical design with no notion of a 'corporate look', to a completely predictable company that has lost the capacity to surprise and amaze. Also, it seems to me the R8 V10 and Gallardo share an awful lot. Too much, in fact.
Then there are the other VAG misuses. Lower-end Audis are heavily VW-based and sold entirely on an image of technical innovation from further up the range that they don't actually have. Porsche was all about the benefits of racing improving the breed, which to an extent it still is, but it pulled out of Le Mans in order to rework a Toerag SUV thus cutting off that perma-halo effect.
My point is, was it really worth watering down all these companies on shared platforms for the sake of making a few quid here and there, especially when you consider that comparable rivals have done just as well if not better without having to resort to this kind of dilution? Because what we're headed towards is a future where you could have a handful of cars all available under a dozen names, their uniqueness little more than a few body panels and a blitzkrieg marketing operation.
Another firm did that. It was quite successful with it for about twenty years, then all it took was a major recession swinging a wrecking ball into its quality control and suddenly it couldn't justify quite so many mechanically-identical cars with differenti identities, so the sudden brand attrition took dozens of long-establishes names with it.
That was British Leyland. It was successful for a while too. VAG seem to be playing exactly the same game. This obsession with using the Toureg platform is similar to the idea BL had with 'Large Car Plant Number One', which would have seen a shared-platform saloon with a Rover V8 and Triumph, Jaguar and Rover identities.
It was only Jim Randle's insistence in pushing through Project XJ40, ensuring it couldn't take a Rover V8, that secured Jaguar's future, otherwise BL would have eventually pulled the plug.
And had that happened Jaguar's history would have ended with the XJ6 S3. No XJR, no XK8, no XF, no XK, no F-Type. Dead.
How long will it be before similar things happen at VAG? Seat's already suffered a wobble, due at least in part to the fact that there's hardly any difference between one of their cars and a VW.
See, what you guys see here with VAG we also do for a few years (15 of them) with sofas... yes sofas, we sell a lot of look a like sofas under a huge number of different brands but at the end the difference is only at the stitches...
I share your opinion that VAG is loosing its value, I would never buy a Golf, instead I would pick up a Skoda Octavia, cheaper bigger and nicer look inside, but at an essence the same car. But before anyone comment on my Audi A4, I only bought it because it has quattro. And I think that quattro is the only thing that has a value in that brand, all the 2 wheel drive rebadged Golfs and Passats are no better than their little brother Skoda.
I do think however that VAG is not going to loose its market share because of their innovative marketing campaign and the fact that most people end up buying a VW because is the same as an Audi but cheaper and also they don't loose their Audi customers because they want the exclusivity that the brand offers. It can look like watering down the brands, Audi using Lambo engine, Bentley with Audi engine, Audi with Bentley engine, but the truth is most of people buy these brands because of the brand only, independent of their origin. As an example look at Armani, they also produce in china the AJ brand and people still pour millions in their top brand as well as to their lower brand under the illusion of exclusivity.
We can go on and on here but the fact is we can find examples of parts sharing in all sectors of economy and I am pretty sure that all big brands of electronics do the same, white goods have more than one brand also, so do the food manufactures... just google and you will see that inevitably we live in the world under the illusion of freedom to choose.
It is all part of the Matrix... LOL
I've read all 7 pages of this thread, some of it is just so laughable, rediculous. The Urus is wrong, won't sell, big intakes up front left and right are all wrong. Next they're building the wrong car, should be an entry level baby Lambo blah blah. Oh and Lamborghini doesn't need to make money because VW makes huge profits. Unbelieveble, they're not running a charity. Everything has to make a profit. Look at Lotus in the niche they occupy, they're struggling making relatively cheap sports car whilst trying to grab a bigger piece of the pie for their future.
Lamborghini's management no what they are doing. They could've built the Estoque, wouldn't cost anymore to build than the Urus but... They can charge more for the SUV. Like executive cars, big saloons, S Class/7 series... their sales are on the slide... Luxury SUV sales are rising... It's where the money is. It's that simple.
Re the Urus looks, modern day big engined/high powered cars potentially need lots of cooling. Radiators live behind those intakes. Blame that on the Mclaren F1. They introduced it and Ferrari, Porsche, Lamborghini, Noble, you name them, followed suite.
Generally manufactures know what they are doing... When Audi announced they were building a supercar people said it wouldn't sell, the badge wasn't strong enough... Well we know what happened there. Lamborghini owners don't do 15000 miles/yr in their cars... The daily driver is something else. Most have an SUV in their stable... The Urus, like it or not, will sell to Lambo owners and people who want a more edgy performance orientated 4x4. Forget the seats and wheels, anyone who understands concept cars knows that come showroom time they will be more practicle items in place.
Lamborghini's management no what they are doing. They could've built the Estoque, wouldn't cost anymore to build than the Urus but... They can charge more for the SUV. Like executive cars, big saloons, S Class/7 series... their sales are on the slide... Luxury SUV sales are rising... It's where the money is. It's that simple.
Re the Urus looks, modern day big engined/high powered cars potentially need lots of cooling. Radiators live behind those intakes. Blame that on the Mclaren F1. They introduced it and Ferrari, Porsche, Lamborghini, Noble, you name them, followed suite.
Generally manufactures know what they are doing... When Audi announced they were building a supercar people said it wouldn't sell, the badge wasn't strong enough... Well we know what happened there. Lamborghini owners don't do 15000 miles/yr in their cars... The daily driver is something else. Most have an SUV in their stable... The Urus, like it or not, will sell to Lambo owners and people who want a more edgy performance orientated 4x4. Forget the seats and wheels, anyone who understands concept cars knows that come showroom time they will be more practicle items in place.
housen said:
its all about the bling
just think if u rock up anywhere with a lambo 4x4 ull look pretty cool to the average man
i like it
im the average man
Precisely! I agree but most will say it's pointless and a waste of money but...just think if u rock up anywhere with a lambo 4x4 ull look pretty cool to the average man
i like it
im the average man
I'll put it this way, say I win the lottery, I'm going to buy a nice 4 bed gaff with a tripple garage, an M4 (the next M3), a Gallardo and a Boxster... And guess what, that lot is pretty pointless and waist of money. Justifying any car above say £30k, maybe a lil less would in reality, be pretty difficult in the what you NEED and what you just WANT stakes.
housen said:
its all about the bling
just think if u rock up anywhere with a lambo 4x4 ull look pretty cool to the average man
i like it
im the average man
I'm really not sure you are. Most people find a supercar to be the ultimate statement in performance, honed for the job in hand and a merit for success whether the performance is used or not. Like a racehorse.just think if u rock up anywhere with a lambo 4x4 ull look pretty cool to the average man
i like it
im the average man
I think most would regard this as vulgar save perhaps a few slappers outside the nightclubs of an evening but then they'd be impressed by anything that wasn't a taxi. More like a gymkhana pony with a Red Rum sign on it.
LuS1fer said:
I'm really not sure you are. Most people find a supercar to be the ultimate statement in performance, honed for the job in hand and a merit for success whether the performance is used or not. Like a racehorse.
I think most would regard this as vulgar save perhaps a few slappers outside the nightclubs of an evening but then they'd be impressed by anything that wasn't a taxi. More like a gymkhana pony with a Red Rum sign on it.
Well said. I think most would regard this as vulgar save perhaps a few slappers outside the nightclubs of an evening but then they'd be impressed by anything that wasn't a taxi. More like a gymkhana pony with a Red Rum sign on it.
HighwayStar said:
I've read all 7 pages of this thread, some of it is just so laughable, rediculous. The Urus is wrong, won't sell, big intakes up front left and right are all wrong. Next they're building the wrong car, should be an entry level baby Lambo blah blah. Oh and Lamborghini doesn't need to make money because VW makes huge profits. Unbelieveble, they're not running a charity. Everything has to make a profit. Look at Lotus in the niche they occupy, they're struggling making relatively cheap sports car whilst trying to grab a bigger piece of the pie for their future.
Lamborghini's management no what they are doing. They could've built the Estoque, wouldn't cost anymore to build than the Urus but... They can charge more for the SUV. Like executive cars, big saloons, S Class/7 series... their sales are on the slide... Luxury SUV sales are rising... It's where the money is. It's that simple.
Re the Urus looks, modern day big engined/high powered cars potentially need lots of cooling. Radiators live behind those intakes. Blame that on the Mclaren F1. They introduced it and Ferrari, Porsche, Lamborghini, Noble, you name them, followed suite.
Generally manufactures know what they are doing... When Audi announced they were building a supercar people said it wouldn't sell, the badge wasn't strong enough... Well we know what happened there. Lamborghini owners don't do 15000 miles/yr in their cars... The daily driver is something else. Most have an SUV in their stable... The Urus, like it or not, will sell to Lambo owners and people who want a more edgy performance orientated 4x4. Forget the seats and wheels, anyone who understands concept cars knows that come showroom time they will be more practicle items in place.
Right on some levels, wrong on all the important points. Of course Lamborghini, and everyone else, want to make money. Of course they will go for the market segments where the money-making opportunity is the highest, ie. expensive SUVs. So what? Does that mean they should not do so while being consistent with their brand image? Guess what that is? Radical, sleek, screaming designs with a lot of performance, something that turns heads at 1000 yards. Something whose arrival at any spot is an event by itself. Even the door opening of a Lamborghini is pretty special, compared to an ordinary car's. What everyone is wondering is why they couldn't carry all these elements forward into their interpretation of what a Lamborghini SUV should be. This is a bulbous, bizarre, ugly, Japanese-looking piece of crap with no drama or sense of occasion, or any design elements that convey the Lamborghini ethos of speed, power, style, radically wind-cheating surfaces and sharp edges. There's nothing super-SUV about it. Which is disappointing, since it is coming from Lamborghini, a supercar brand.Lamborghini's management no what they are doing. They could've built the Estoque, wouldn't cost anymore to build than the Urus but... They can charge more for the SUV. Like executive cars, big saloons, S Class/7 series... their sales are on the slide... Luxury SUV sales are rising... It's where the money is. It's that simple.
Re the Urus looks, modern day big engined/high powered cars potentially need lots of cooling. Radiators live behind those intakes. Blame that on the Mclaren F1. They introduced it and Ferrari, Porsche, Lamborghini, Noble, you name them, followed suite.
Generally manufactures know what they are doing... When Audi announced they were building a supercar people said it wouldn't sell, the badge wasn't strong enough... Well we know what happened there. Lamborghini owners don't do 15000 miles/yr in their cars... The daily driver is something else. Most have an SUV in their stable... The Urus, like it or not, will sell to Lambo owners and people who want a more edgy performance orientated 4x4. Forget the seats and wheels, anyone who understands concept cars knows that come showroom time they will be more practicle items in place.
just me said:
Right on some levels, wrong on all the important points. Of course Lamborghini, and everyone else, want to make money. Of course they will go for the market segments where the money-making opportunity is the highest, ie. expensive SUVs. So what? Does that mean they should not do so while being consistent with their brand image? Guess what that is? Radical, sleek, screaming designs with a lot of performance, something that turns heads at 1000 yards. Something whose arrival at any spot is an event by itself. Even the door opening of a Lamborghini is pretty special, compared to an ordinary car's. What everyone is wondering is why they couldn't carry all these elements forward into their interpretation of what a Lamborghini SUV should be. This is a bulbous, bizarre, ugly, Japanese-looking piece of crap with no drama or sense of occasion, or any design elements that convey the Lamborghini ethos of speed, power, style, radically wind-cheating surfaces and sharp edges. There's nothing super-SUV about it. Which is disappointing, since it is coming from Lamborghini, a supercar brand.
Lol. OMG!!! Ok, I get what you are saying but the game has moved on. The is very good competition at all levels of the high performance supercar market. The Countach, Diablo and the original Murcielago were classic Lambo beasts but were never really as good as they looked. Heavy steering and clutches, poor seating and driving/pedal position. Today's Lamborghinis still have that look about them but they but in a more restrained, sophisticated technical way. Proper driving positions with cabins in which things actually work. The Gallardo and Aventador look like nothing else but Lamborghinis, the later sold out for 2 yrs. Clearly the right car and in demand. Why does everything have to have scissor doors and look crazy. It was only ever the range topper that had those elements. The Miura, Espada, Urraco, Urraco Silhouette and Jalpa were all pretty distinctive Lambos but none had mad crazy looks or scissor doors. All production cars, look for yourself!If you think the Urus looks Japanese that's your opinion, you're entitled to it. It will turn heads like no other SUV on the market, it's roof line is lower than the Cayenne. They are looking to sell 3000 per year, wouldn't happen if they were completely OTT. You want it mad, with scissor doors... hmmm, so the owner is going to worry about driving into mult-sorry car parks, his own garage of car port. When he raises the door, is it going to hit the car park or garage ceiling!!! You have to think these things through.
Lambo will have no trouble selling Urus's (no matter how negative you are) and the still make distinctive supercars so what's the problem?
I always smile when I see a Cayenne Turbo squat down and launch itself into gravity-defying acceleration - this will be the same with 600bhp on tap; accompanied by an even sweeter engine note no doubt.
I think it's great, it will sell like hotcakes in the usual arenas and those numbers will no doubt ensure we keep a thriving Lamborghini creating more PH-like beautiful madness such as the Aventador.
I think it's great, it will sell like hotcakes in the usual arenas and those numbers will no doubt ensure we keep a thriving Lamborghini creating more PH-like beautiful madness such as the Aventador.
LuS1fer said:
housen said:
its all about the bling
just think if u rock up anywhere with a lambo 4x4 ull look pretty cool to the average man
i like it
im the average man
I'm really not sure you are. Most people find a supercar to be the ultimate statement in performance, honed for the job in hand and a merit for success whether the performance is used or not. Like a racehorse.just think if u rock up anywhere with a lambo 4x4 ull look pretty cool to the average man
i like it
im the average man
I think most would regard this as vulgar save perhaps a few slappers outside the nightclubs of an evening but then they'd be impressed by anything that wasn't a taxi. More like a gymkhana pony with a Red Rum sign on it.
id buy one as i also think its a big fck u to the evoque drivers trying to give it the bigun in their trendy 4x4s ....this lambo will be rare expensive and look fing mean !
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff