Engineering quality, debate
Discussion
Now I would like this topic to open some debate and not just deteriorate into a slanging match between various factions, which seems to be common on this forum. The following is just my view and thats what the forum is for, i would like to know what other peoples opinions are on this subject.
I have been looking at buying a Murcielago for a while as they are getting pretty cheap these days. To this end i have been to look at a few dotted around the country and have to say that having seen them before in real life they are a true sight to behold, from a styling point of view, a wonderful creation, and then there is the noise. Now these 2 factors are more than enough to sway me into buying one an some point very soon….BUT and it’s a mighty but…..
The level of design and engineering once you scrape away the looks and noise is apocalyptically bad! Its not bad in a sense that the car in dangerous, its bad it that no effort whatsoever has gone into making these cars an engineering jewel, or anything like. Now this has nothing to do with Audi or Audi influence or clear lack of it, but from an engineering point of view these cars are 60’s racing technology at the very best. Steel tube chassis with bonded on composite panels. In the engine bay the welding of the steel tubes was evident and that was poor, most push bikes are neater than this. I have to say that while i knew the cars layout and material usage before seeing it, the execution was very dissapointing.
Granted one of my favourite supercars the F40 uses the same technology, but that car only weighs around 1200kgs. The big lambo is 1800kgs. I know it’s a v12 with 4wd, but engine and gearbox should only weigh 200kgs more than a v8 twin turbo 2wd assembly. Where is the other 400kgs? Ok its got far superior interior, but how much does some leather and electric window motors weigh?
I have to say looking at the Murcielago up close was a let down, its as if nobody tried at all during its design to optimise the performance of any of the parts. It’s a pity because if this car was 300kgs lighter it could be untouchable. The weight of the thing really holds it back and it is an easy thing to fix with a little time and effort, espcially if your starting with a car this heavy. I have worked in sportscar racing for 10 years and when designing a car for 24 hour races we need to really think about reliability and weight together, its a comprmise but simple things can be done to optimise various areas of the car, lambo have simply not bothered.
The Gallardo has now become a much more interesting prospect, aluminium chassis and suspension (70’s race technology!). still heavy but a good 400kgs lighter, that will make a huge difference. A pity I personally do not like the styling as much. So the other alternative is a Murcielgao and angle grinder!
I have to say I hope with the murcielago replacement lambo tries a little harder.
I have been looking at buying a Murcielago for a while as they are getting pretty cheap these days. To this end i have been to look at a few dotted around the country and have to say that having seen them before in real life they are a true sight to behold, from a styling point of view, a wonderful creation, and then there is the noise. Now these 2 factors are more than enough to sway me into buying one an some point very soon….BUT and it’s a mighty but…..
The level of design and engineering once you scrape away the looks and noise is apocalyptically bad! Its not bad in a sense that the car in dangerous, its bad it that no effort whatsoever has gone into making these cars an engineering jewel, or anything like. Now this has nothing to do with Audi or Audi influence or clear lack of it, but from an engineering point of view these cars are 60’s racing technology at the very best. Steel tube chassis with bonded on composite panels. In the engine bay the welding of the steel tubes was evident and that was poor, most push bikes are neater than this. I have to say that while i knew the cars layout and material usage before seeing it, the execution was very dissapointing.
Granted one of my favourite supercars the F40 uses the same technology, but that car only weighs around 1200kgs. The big lambo is 1800kgs. I know it’s a v12 with 4wd, but engine and gearbox should only weigh 200kgs more than a v8 twin turbo 2wd assembly. Where is the other 400kgs? Ok its got far superior interior, but how much does some leather and electric window motors weigh?
I have to say looking at the Murcielago up close was a let down, its as if nobody tried at all during its design to optimise the performance of any of the parts. It’s a pity because if this car was 300kgs lighter it could be untouchable. The weight of the thing really holds it back and it is an easy thing to fix with a little time and effort, espcially if your starting with a car this heavy. I have worked in sportscar racing for 10 years and when designing a car for 24 hour races we need to really think about reliability and weight together, its a comprmise but simple things can be done to optimise various areas of the car, lambo have simply not bothered.
The Gallardo has now become a much more interesting prospect, aluminium chassis and suspension (70’s race technology!). still heavy but a good 400kgs lighter, that will make a huge difference. A pity I personally do not like the styling as much. So the other alternative is a Murcielgao and angle grinder!
I have to say I hope with the murcielago replacement lambo tries a little harder.
Yep! I totally agree. (with the O/P)
...but who cares?!
I don't mean that in an offensive way - it's simply not what I bought my Lambo for.
I noticed when I really started to spend some time with the Diablo that they really did seem to have a more 'American' approach to the problem...
Having come from a Lotus driving background, there the mentality was completely different and they always sought to 'cleverise'
the solution and "add lightweight"
Look at what Lotus are achieving with their VVA architectrure technology - it's something else. It's SO versatile, light and solid that they have to engineer "sh|t bits" to be the crumple zones and other areas to add softness to the car as it's easy to end up TOO torsionally stiff!
I guess it all comes down to what you want a Lambo for?
Do you want to think about it being a feat of engineering mastery?
Or do you want it to be big, loud, outrageous, gorgeous, sexual, iconic, aspirationl, fast, etc etc etc etc etc
YES it *could be* even faster still if it was lighter but who cares?!
Most people on this planet never even get to SEE one, let alone be in one, drive one or even OWN one!
I know why *I* wanted my car and it ticks almost every last box but more than makes up for it in other ways and then some
HTH!
...but who cares?!
I don't mean that in an offensive way - it's simply not what I bought my Lambo for.
I noticed when I really started to spend some time with the Diablo that they really did seem to have a more 'American' approach to the problem...
- Need to crack a bigger nut?
- Get a bigger hammer!
Having come from a Lotus driving background, there the mentality was completely different and they always sought to 'cleverise'
the solution and "add lightweight"Look at what Lotus are achieving with their VVA architectrure technology - it's something else. It's SO versatile, light and solid that they have to engineer "sh|t bits" to be the crumple zones and other areas to add softness to the car as it's easy to end up TOO torsionally stiff!
I guess it all comes down to what you want a Lambo for?
Do you want to think about it being a feat of engineering mastery?
Or do you want it to be big, loud, outrageous, gorgeous, sexual, iconic, aspirationl, fast, etc etc etc etc etc
YES it *could be* even faster still if it was lighter but who cares?!
Most people on this planet never even get to SEE one, let alone be in one, drive one or even OWN one!
I know why *I* wanted my car and it ticks almost every last box but more than makes up for it in other ways and then some
HTH!
Edited by evil_dr_fish on Thursday 12th February 17:11
Lamborghini up until the fairly recent Audi relationship has always worked with a distinct lack of cash for R&D. The products tended to be an evolution of past products, so a lot of design was bound to be behind the cutting edge. Take the v12 as an example, I believe the current engine has its roots based in the '70s and has been expanded and refined through the years. I am sure that the engineering has followed suit.
Part of the attraction to me of Lamborghini is their old school ways (at least up to the entrance of the Gallardo).Power over refinement,as if watching a rhinoceros run past a gazelle.
The finish on my Diablo is probably that of a glorified kit car; but it all works and I have no problem with it. Granted it takes more upkeep than most and has its "Italianisms" but that is part of its charm.
I am sure you are right in what you say about chassis design etc, you seem to know your onions; but I believe for bang per buck plus mucho added style you will find it hard to beat it !!
Part of the attraction to me of Lamborghini is their old school ways (at least up to the entrance of the Gallardo).Power over refinement,as if watching a rhinoceros run past a gazelle.
The finish on my Diablo is probably that of a glorified kit car; but it all works and I have no problem with it. Granted it takes more upkeep than most and has its "Italianisms" but that is part of its charm.
I am sure you are right in what you say about chassis design etc, you seem to know your onions; but I believe for bang per buck plus mucho added style you will find it hard to beat it !!
calsonic_blue said:
Now I would like this topic to open some debate and not just deteriorate into a slanging match between various factions,
PS...W4|\|KER!
You should buy a Porsche - they're mathematically engineered!
* > > > JOKE < < < *
Edited by evil_dr_fish on Thursday 12th February 16:51
Calsonic Blue,
I surprised you're surprised about lamborghini quality.
From 1963 to maybe around 1980, I think lamborghini made a small effort to save a bit of mass in their cars, and they also had great engineers there. The LP400 was originally quite light, but morphed into the obese 5000S, QV and anniversary which were all heavier than a house. Admittingly during the 80's they had no money to optimise any component and opted to play it safe which required no effort on their part.
However during the 90's they had a bit more money but to be honest no amount of lack of money could be an excuse for the abomination called the Diablo chassis. I remember when TWR (who were doing something with the jag 220) bought a Diablo and dismantled it to see what they had done. They fell about laughing at the workmanship and effort that had gone into the design of the thing. The same thing happened at mclaren before the F1
There is no excuse for a chassis that is so flexible that if you park half on the road and kerb and open the door, the door won't shut properly again. The farce of the roadster roof that didn't fit one day before launch begars belief. They then ran into the factory and cut a bit of each A-pillar to ensure the roof fitted, and merely put some s
t bits of rubber with a bull on the top. There is no excuse for this, probably we should blame Ceccarani as he made all the decisions.
There is certainly no excuse for the Murcielago to weigh that much. In fact I could personally go to the factory and within a couple week save 300kgs of it, no problem.
The fact that lamborghinis are so heavy now is because they are lazy and don't have the talent anymore. This is because Ferrari poached all the good engineers in 1997 and left the chod behind.
If you want a well built supercar get a Porsche, however if you want a great looking, great sounding supercar, get a Lamborghini, but for Christs sake don't look underneath it or weigh it.
I surprised you're surprised about lamborghini quality.
From 1963 to maybe around 1980, I think lamborghini made a small effort to save a bit of mass in their cars, and they also had great engineers there. The LP400 was originally quite light, but morphed into the obese 5000S, QV and anniversary which were all heavier than a house. Admittingly during the 80's they had no money to optimise any component and opted to play it safe which required no effort on their part.
However during the 90's they had a bit more money but to be honest no amount of lack of money could be an excuse for the abomination called the Diablo chassis. I remember when TWR (who were doing something with the jag 220) bought a Diablo and dismantled it to see what they had done. They fell about laughing at the workmanship and effort that had gone into the design of the thing. The same thing happened at mclaren before the F1
There is no excuse for a chassis that is so flexible that if you park half on the road and kerb and open the door, the door won't shut properly again. The farce of the roadster roof that didn't fit one day before launch begars belief. They then ran into the factory and cut a bit of each A-pillar to ensure the roof fitted, and merely put some s
t bits of rubber with a bull on the top. There is no excuse for this, probably we should blame Ceccarani as he made all the decisions.There is certainly no excuse for the Murcielago to weigh that much. In fact I could personally go to the factory and within a couple week save 300kgs of it, no problem.
The fact that lamborghinis are so heavy now is because they are lazy and don't have the talent anymore. This is because Ferrari poached all the good engineers in 1997 and left the chod behind.
If you want a well built supercar get a Porsche, however if you want a great looking, great sounding supercar, get a Lamborghini, but for Christs sake don't look underneath it or weigh it.
It has to be said that in a modern, GTR35, Evo, Imprezza, ZR1 world, that things like the Murci and Diablo (etc) make absolutely NO sense and are a ridiculous extravagance / un-necessity / outrage!
Yet SOOO many of us still all want them!
...So I'm guessing that what they're actually selling is 'something else'
Yet SOOO many of us still all want them!
...So I'm guessing that what they're actually selling is 'something else'
Edited by evil_dr_fish on Thursday 12th February 17:30
It actually this "5h1tness" of engineering quality which tends to give these Italian cars that transparent, involving, thrilling feel. Put too much "quality" in and you have something extremely capable and dull (911 Turbo).
At lot of people here are going to think this blasphemous but IMO the F40 is a total con job - wonderfully exciting to drive because it's woeful (can't stop, doesn't handle, on-off power, doesn't grip, made of cardboard,). That's why I love the F50 - it's just as exciting actually but it's got a real quality and cutting edge feel which the F40 doesn't have. In fact it's the best I ever experienced in a Ferrari - the F50 which was cutting edge and totally mad. (a fabulous underrated car because no-ones really driven it).
As another poster has already mentioned, the best I've ever seen cutting edge engineering and quality delivering a thrilling, involving result in ANY car is in the Porsche Carrera GT.
I have to say that much of the engineering progress of Ferrari in recent years has killed driver involvment (compare 355 to 430 and you'll see what I mean). I'll tell you now the biggest difference between the 430 and 430 Scuderia **performance** is actually software....
As regards your Murcielago, drive an LP640. It's another step up and much better IMO. I think it's got the right blend of plain archaic technology (it's chassis/weight) and cutting edge (I cant believe they've got that V12 to rev upto 8000rpm).
At lot of people here are going to think this blasphemous but IMO the F40 is a total con job - wonderfully exciting to drive because it's woeful (can't stop, doesn't handle, on-off power, doesn't grip, made of cardboard,). That's why I love the F50 - it's just as exciting actually but it's got a real quality and cutting edge feel which the F40 doesn't have. In fact it's the best I ever experienced in a Ferrari - the F50 which was cutting edge and totally mad. (a fabulous underrated car because no-ones really driven it).
As another poster has already mentioned, the best I've ever seen cutting edge engineering and quality delivering a thrilling, involving result in ANY car is in the Porsche Carrera GT.
I have to say that much of the engineering progress of Ferrari in recent years has killed driver involvment (compare 355 to 430 and you'll see what I mean). I'll tell you now the biggest difference between the 430 and 430 Scuderia **performance** is actually software....
As regards your Murcielago, drive an LP640. It's another step up and much better IMO. I think it's got the right blend of plain archaic technology (it's chassis/weight) and cutting edge (I cant believe they've got that V12 to rev upto 8000rpm).
diablo_pete said:
17511 said:
...., but for Christs sake don't look underneath it or weigh it.
LoL Wonder what the new Murci SV will weight?
Of course power to weight is (and has always been) an important factor (more so for racing - but I'd imagine this will continue to be prioritised to achieve CO2 emissions, reduce fuel consumption, handling etc.). But with Lamborghini's - I think the power to drivers skill ratio is a more important ratio.
With regards to the engineering standards/quality - I guess that the Murci replacement will be newer technology and will probably mean the end of the tubular frame - I would guess that they will be going down the carbon fibre monocoque root? So progress is great - but it's also the end of an era in what to me is one of the most illustrious marques in the world.
Is a Lamborghini the best engineered product on the planet? I don't think so - but is it desirable? Absolutely. Is is so bad? I don't think so.
Anjum
Gassing Station | Supercar General | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff