Improviz

OK, so look at trap speed. He hit 113, and so far that's not in S65 territory either, and again: he is modded. This debate is about a stock Gallardo vs a stock S65.

But even given that, with as much smack as he talked, I'd very much like to see allenlambo posting trap speeds in S65 territory.

And it is very simple: instead of coming in here and taking cheap shots at anyone who disagrees with him, why doesn't he simply take it to a strip, run it, film it, and post the results here?

As I said before: in the amount of time he's spent here talking smack, he could have made dozens of 1/4 mile runs. Sheesh...

allanlambo

Everyone who saw my car run, agreed it was a car that would run in the 120's. Prior to taking it to the track, I have only driven the car one day. It is brand new, not even broken in yet, I wasnt about to do 5k rpm clutch drops. Also, keep in mind, that the Benz when they run, are on drag radials, on street tires, they would run slower. As for my car being modded, yes, I made 8rwhp over stock, I compared my car to a stock Egear SE, and that car also, would have no problem with a stock S65.

It is funny for me to hear you say " ENOUGH TALK" as that is ALL you do is talk. You yourself cannot come up with ANYTHING yourself, but must use magazine data, or bullcrap like dragtimes.

If you know about dragracing, youd know that with a good all wheel launch my car should be capable of ATLEAST 1.8 shorttime. They say every .1 seconds off your shorttime is .2 seconds in the 1/4. 6tenths= 1.2 seconds, Putting me in the 11's.

Improviz

If so, it would be the first instance of any Gallardo I've seen trapping out of the teens.

So please, hurry up and get the video posted, eh?

Yeah...right. Here's a stock Egear Gallardo trapping at 116:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...01553009276335

Ah, I see....and what hard data is it you've produced for the S65, allen??

Not a stitch, that's what. Nothing. Zip. Nada. People who live in glass houses....

Yes, I produced magazine data. You know why? Because it is scientifically recorded test data for the car we're discussing. As I said before: if you have anything, any shred of evidence to show that the times these mags recorded in the Gallardos were inaccurate, then by all means, produce it.

Your response was silence. And there's a reason for this: the data is valid, allen. Call it names, call me names, call the magazines names, but the data is valid. And it shows the Gallardo to be a low-to-mid 12 car. I mean, seriously, do you think anyone takes this seriously? As if somehow, when a magazine takes a car and runs it through acceleration tests, it is not valid, because...because why, exactly? For some reason, you keep refusing to answer that question.

Why should magazine data not be considered in a discussion about a car's acceleration capabilities, allen?

Why do you continually refuse to answer this question? I would think that if you want people to ignore what they say, you might be able to give the people some reason for doing it....so why?

Answer the question.

But magazine tests aren't all I produced, and you know it. Gustav of the M5 board has video, allen; remember those? I posted them too, and as is typical when you see anything that disproves your argument, you simply cast aspersions on them as well.

Unfortunately, they are still out there:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...12851356759450

Two runs, and the best the Gallardo can do is to win one...and the M5 is a mid-12 second car.

And I also produced this video, of an S65 running an M5:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtRdCt4mXV4

OK, so Lambo ties M5, S65 thrashes M5....pop quiz: which is faster?

Maybe so, but I have yet to see it, and what I do see is an Egear, which you claim would hang with a high-11 S65, running mid 12's at 116.

And what honestly pisses me off about this is that you seem to think that I have some sort of hard on for Gallardos or something...I do not. The Gallardo is one of my all-time favorite rides, and it is a great performer. But I don't see any data to show that it'll hang with an S65 in a straightline run.

allanlambo

Another 5 page post of Nothing!

As I said, I could run a 15 sec 1/4 mile and Ill still have no problem with am S65. Im looking for one to run, and as soon as i find it, you ll have your proof.

Now on your side, please post some hard factual data that you actually own all these magazines you race with. Im starting not to believe you, I think you rent them at the Library.

Improviz

It's becoming obvious that you really aren't concerned with any facts, or fact-based discussion, that's for sure.

Yes, that's true...I mean, just look at how slow the S600, which has 100 less horsepower than the S65 and weighs about the same, is in comparison to a Gallardo:

In June 2006, Car & Driver conducted road tests of two cars.

One: a Lambo Gallardo convertible. It is rated at 512 horsepower, and weighed 3,820 pounds. It ran:
0-60: 4.6
0-100: 9.6
1/4: 12.8 @ 116

Same issue: they tested a brand-new S600, the same bodystyle as the S65 AMG in the video that started this whole debate. It is rated at 510 horsepower, and weighed 5035 pounds. It ran:
0-60: 4.2
0-100: 9.7
1/4: 12.6 @ 115

Yeah, I can see that....add the 100 more horsepower on top of that the S65 has, and I'm sure that any ol' 15 second car could take it.

Wow....that's quite an effective counterargument.

allanlambo

What about the magazine that tested the G Spider at 3.8 sec to 60mph? and 12.0 int he 1/4? Did you forget that one? Go back to the Library!

Here is another magazine for you to archive:
http://www.autobild.de/heftarchiv/vo...LJ5nOXig%3D%3D

Improviz

And which magazine was that?

Oh, and are you now a "magazine racer", given that you're quoting mags now?

This is in the list of tests I already posted. It is the fastest Euro Gallardo test I've seen, and yet by 200 km/h the S65 is already ahead of even this one.

And the problem here is this: there are far more tests wherein the Gallardo has ested in the mid-12 range. Far more. So, we have this single 0-100 km/h test of yours, and then we have the following eight or so tests which show it to be far lower. And (more on this in a moment) even the test you are quoting shows the Gallardo is slower than the S65 as speeds increase.

Here is a compilation of all the tests I've found so far (I think):

Gallardo SE test in sport auto 11/2005
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,3 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,5 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,9 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,9 s
0 - 200 km/h 14,4 s

2006 Gallardo SE test at edmunds.com:
0 - 30 (sec): 1.8
0 - 45 (sec): 2.8
0 - 60 (sec): 4.1
0 - 75 (sec): 5.9
1/4 Mile (sec @ mph): 12.1@117mph

Lambo Gallardo Test in sport auto 07/2005
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,4 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,0 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,8 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,9 s
0 - 180 km/h 12,0 s
0 - 200 km/h 15,4 s

Test in Auto Zeitung 08/2005
Gewicht 1580 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,2 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,2 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,6 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,0 s
0 - 160 km/h 8,5 s
0 - 180 km/h 11,1 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,3 s

Test in sport auto 06/2006
Gewicht 1748 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,4 s
0 - 120 km/h 6,3 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,9 s
0 - 160 km/h 9,6 s
0 - 180 km/h 13,0 s
0 - 200 km/h 15,5 s

Motor Trend's road test of a Gallardo:
0-60: 4.7 seconds
0-100: 11.0 seconds
1/4: 13.08 @ 109.89

Five time slips from Gallardo owners posted at drag times.com:
1) 12.300 @ 117.400
2) 12.400 @ 118.000
3) 12.500 @ 116.700
4) 12.610 @ 111.210
5) 12.810 @ 116.020

Road & Track's test of the Gallardo:
0-60: 4.0
0-100: 9.1
1/4 mile: 12.3 @ 117.4 mph

Autobild tests the Gallardo SE:
0-100 km/h 4,2 s
0-130 km/h 6,6 s
0-160 km/h 8,9 s
0-200 km/h 13,6 s
Viertelmeile (1/4 mile)
0-402,34 m 12,4 s

EVO's test of the Gallardo, alongside an M5; both of these cars have been tested in the US in the 12.3 range, and this test, while slow for both cars, corroborates that the two accelerate roughly equally:


And then there were the videos:
Lambo Gallardo vs. BMW M5: two races, one tie, one win for the Gallardo by 1 length:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...12851356759450

BMW M5 vs. S65: S65 easily pulls the M5 by multiple lengths:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtRdCt4mXV4

Again: if the Gallardo matches an M5 in one race and barely pulls it by a length in the next in one video, while an S65 pulls an M5 by multiple lengths in another video, then which car is the fastest of the three?

So there you go: that's what I've got for the Gallardo.

Nine tests, from magazines in Europe and the US, plus five timeslips from actual owners, and three videos. If you've got more, please produce it, but the available evidence clearly shows this to be a low-mid 12 second car. And from a roll, the 0-200 km/h times are what shows which car will be the fastest, because 200 (124 mph) is up top, which is where the rolling run race will end up. And in this, the Gallardo was tested at: 14.4s, 15.4 s, 13.3 s, 15.5 s, 15.5 and 13.6 s. even if we ignore all of the other available tests and use only the absolute fastest of these, your test, the one that shows 4.0 0-100 km/h and 13.3 0-200 km/h, it still does not match the time the S65 got.

Early on, I was forced to use the SL65 data because I could not find S65 data. I maintained that the S65 was about the same as the SL65, for which you ridiculed me, insulted me, and made obscene comments about me.

Well, guess what: I found a test for the S65; more on that in a moment. But first, here are the tests for the SL65:

Here are the tests I produced for the SL65 from Euro mags:
SL65 AMG Test in ams 13/2004
Gewicht 2057 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,0 s
0 - 100 km/h 3,9 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,1 s
0 - 130 km/h 5,9 s
0 - 140 km/h 6,6 s
0 - 160 km/h 8,2 s
0 - 180 km/h 10,1 s
0 - 200 km/h 12,6 s
400 m, stehender Start 11,9 s (400m ~= 1/4 mile)

SL65 AMG Test in sport auto 09/2004
Gewicht 2049 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,3 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,6 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,1 s
0 - 160 km/h 8,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 10,5 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,1 s

SL65 AMG Supertest in sport auto 02/2005
Gewicht 2049 kg
0 - 80 km/h 3,3 s
0 - 100 km/h 4,3 s
0 - 120 km/h 5,6 s
0 - 130 km/h - s
0 - 140 km/h 7,1 s
0 - 160 km/h 8,8 s
0 - 180 km/h 10,5 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,1 s

And last, but not least, Swedish Auto Motor und Sport's test of an S65 :
http://www.automotorsport.se/biltest...6/041606c.html
S65
AMG
50 km/h 1,93
100 km/h 4,28
150 km/h 7,91
200 km/h 13,22

In other words, just as I was arguing, it has roughly the same acceleration as the SL65.

And it is still faster than even the fastest of the Gallardos, and is plenty faster than the bulk of them. And both American mags that tested the SL65 ran in the 11.8-11.9 range, so if they ever tested an S65, it would be right in there.

And these are from a dead stop, where the Lambo's AWD traction gives it a *HUGE* advantage. These times are gotten by dropping the Lambo's clutch at 5,000 rpm, while the S/SL65 numbers are w/traction control ON, and running the gas

Furthermore, in my previous post I provided the following for an *S600*, which weighs the same as, yet has 100 fewer horsepower than, an S65 from Car & Driver:
0-60: 4.2
0-100: 9.7
1/4: 12.6 @ 115

So what's it going to do with 100 more horsepower, allen? Run a 12.5??? Get real. You like rules of thumb in the 1/4 like the 0.1 60'/0.2 1/4 time? Fine. I'm sure you know that each 10 horsepower you gain picks you up 0.1, right? So if you take a car that runs a 12.6 and give it 100 more horsepower, what will it run? That's a full second. 10/10ths.

Oh, and then we have the post by rogerv, who owns both a Gallardo *and* an S65, and, unlike you, has actually run both cars:
https://mbworld.org/forums/showpost....1&postcount=35
And Ben Treynor, who has witnessed an S65 at a strip, writes:
So what do we have? We have your own test showing the Gallardo faster to 100 km/h but slower to 200 km/h. What does this indicate about a rolling-start race where the Lambo won't have its slingshot AWD launch?

We have multiple other tests of Gallardos, none of which match the 0-200 km/h time for an S65, and most of which are significantly slower.

We have a test of an S600, with 100 fewer horsepower than an S65, running the same time as most of the Gallardos we see.

We have timeslips.

We have videos.

We have the testimony of owners, including a guy who owns both cars.

This is a pretty vast collection of evidence, and none of it, not one test, timeslip, or video, shows a Gallardo faster in a high-speed run, even from a dead stop where the Lambo's AWD gives it a huge launch advantage.

So there is the evidence. There is the data. All on the table.

What I would dearly love to see now is some sort of fact-based, insult-and-rant-free, discussion from you on the actual evidence. But I won't get it.

However, I'll take a shot...I invite you to answer the following question:

If one is to examine all of the evidence for both cars as presented above, how could one come to the logical conclusion that the Gallardo is the faster of the two cars in a rolling-start race (*or* in a 1/4 mile race if you prefer)?

Just one simple question. Because I don't see it.

allanlambo

Lmfao. I love watching you write these essays on cars you have never even sat in, let alone driven.

Motor Trend, June of 2006, is the article on the Spider. Time to go back to the Library!

Some more questions, why did you leave out the Sport Auto test from DEc 2003? You know the one where an early 04 Gallardo, which I will destroy, ran 0-200Kmh in 13.0 sec flat?

Where is your Autocar article where the Gallardo ran 11.7 in the 1/4?

Please go back to writing another 30page essay, as I revell in the fact that you cant sleep at nights thinking about this.

L8Apex

This thread sucks! Except for the video from renntt. THX.

As far as the kill is concerned, humiliating someone (assuming they really cared about beating you) in a 5000lb 4 door sedan with a modified Pcar is rather ridiculous. Hell, I will run a F-18 in my 55 just to hear and see it go. The same goes for lambos, mclarens, CGT etc. I know I don't have a chance in hell against most of those cars, but I do it anyway. No bruised ego or humiliation, I just get a kick out of seeing how fast they are (in person). I must say, it is rather fun giving a few of them a run for their money from a dig. Win or loose I always show my appreciation for the other car and it's driver (unless they are a complete *****). I would assume most enthusiast would act the same way.

BTW, it would be nice if Improviz & allanlambo started their own "kill" thread and killed their little debate.

Improviz

I just love watching you haul out this tired old rag each and every time I pin you down with facts. Not only does it make you look petty and small, it also shows your callous disregard for the truth, as you could not possibly know what i have, or have not, sat in, driven, or anything else about me.

Oh, and have you ever run an S65, allen? Do you own one? Didn't think so.

Unfortunately, you're wrong. The test I quoted was of a Lambo hardtop, not a spyder, and it is from 2004, not 2006. Read it. So who is it who needs to go back to the library?

Wow, you commented on exactly one of the data points I presented. Care to address the others?

You might start with this one: if an S600 with 500 horsepower runs a 12.6 @ 115, what would we expect an S65 with 100 more horsepower to run?

Nope, no more one-way street stuff. You haven't answered mine, and I'm not wasting time answering yours if you're not going to give me the courtesy. You want answers, try giving me some.

As to what your car will, and will not shred: I posted tests for both Gallardos and Gallardo SEs, and your allegation that the SE will "shred" the older one isn't supported by any road test I've yet seen.

As to this Autocar test: haven't seen it. Got a copy? Of course, there are still all of those other li'l nasty tests, timeslips, videos, and owner testimonies you keep trying to ignore, but unfortunately they're still there; look up.

Btw, when are you going to post that video of you trapping 120+? So far we have learned from someone else, not you of course, that you trapped at a whopping 113 in your car at the strip. Is a video of this magical 7 mph pickup forthcoming?

Juice it

I have seen video of Allans car running some other Lambos and while it is probably one of the faster G's out there high revs or not the 65 has 740 ft pnds of tq that is all useable on the highway or from a roll. I personally think the Benz would win and the fact that you told him his car would have no problem with an SL65 is a bit strange as well because I know you have experience with these cars. The trap speed on his one and only run wasn't even in the same league and I understand it was somewhat botched but he still ran a low 13 so it wasn't entirely a bad run. Even if you mess up the launch on a 65 you would still trap at least at 120. I think it clear that the G can't run a 1/4 mile race from a stop and the only way to measure what it does on a roll is on the street somewhere. I guess we will wait til the day his G meets up with a Benz on the highway and someone actually gets it on film.

Exodus

Dude, the Murcielago would have a hard time stepping to the 65 series.

Improviz is on here because he's an enthusiast and an owner of a Mercedes-Benz. Attacking one's credibility because of their financial status is a bit lame and shows you are getting desperate for ammo.

Just my opinion here...

allanlambo

Rob ferretti ran his 04 Gallardo Egear at the track, with a 2.8 shorttime, he ran a 13.0 @118mph.

My mph can be simply explained by letting off before the timing lights.

As for a Murcielago having a hard time with an Sl65, thats cool, cause I was smoking Murcis left and right a week ago.

vader

Well...I read thru this whole thing and besides the childish insults...this was the stupidest thing I have ever read from someone who actually drives a fast car. Could,would and should = squat.

Exodus

Smoking Murcielagos? How, by running those blistering-- Mustang Cobra equivalent-- 13-second 1/4 mile times?

Dude, at first I was giving you credit because I thought Improviz was being a bit harsh-- but snap back to reality man. Saying a Gallardo can smoke a Murcielago makes about as much sense a saying an F430 can smoke an Enzo.

You are one confused individual...

Exodus

lmao @ 113.

E55s would tear you up, nevermind the 65s...

allanlambo

Yeah, and then you woke up.

allanlambo

I have video racing a Murcielago several times, and I beat him badly. He is also a good friend of mine. I believe I added the link here before.

Also, I owned a Murcielago, and yes, the Gallardo SE is FASTER.

VIP ONE

thats funny man

zumbalak

Put up the video so we can also see the G beating the M.

Whahahahahaha

Living in the Narnia world?

Juice it

I saw the videos of the runs with the other G SE and Murcis and I wouldn't say your G blew any away. It was faster than the other SE and outran a Murci roadster by a bit. I personally know that 06 G's run with the much heavier Murci so that was no surprise but Murcis are a tad slower than most people think and an SL65 would take a Murci just as easy as a G. Instead of this internet racing, take your car back to your track and get some real numbers. I don't understand why you ran one bad run and then quit. Aren't you curious what the car will do. Most Lambo owners don't care about 1/4 mile times because they are scared to launch but god knows anyone that has read your posts over the years knows you are all about the 1/4 times. Go back and run it again.

allanlambo

The tad bit that I beat the Murci by was 3-4 car lengths at 130mph. For all the magazine racers out there, Murcis are 121-124mph cars, stock Sl65 arent going anywhere on them.

Why I only ran once was due to the fact that we got to the track at 9:30, and the first time we ran was 12:30. I wasnt about to wait a couple more hours to run again, and again, not to mention I wasnt going to do 5K rpm clutch drops in a brand new car. Keep in mind, my car isnt even broken in yet.

So, so far what I do have is several people who went with me to the track, who I ran against, who own these cars, and modified ones who are telling you that my car can, and will beat a stock Sl65, or a stock Gt2, while I have a bunch of magazine racers with $10K 01 Clk Amgs telling me I cant.

As you can see, I do tell it like it is, because Juice It, we both know you are on both boards, and If i wanted to hide something, I would of never posted on my board. When and if I do find someone to race, everyone will be the first to know. Ive put the word out on the Scottsdale boards, and we will see what happens.

Also, as for the Murcielago, I can give you an idea of how hard it pulls. I raced my Lotus Esprit against a Camaro that ran consistant 11.8@119mph. We ran several times from 30mph on, and I beat him by a hair each time to 140mph. I then ran this same race with TurboAlex's Ferrari F430 F1, who beat me by several cars (4-5 to be exact). We then took my Murcielago (bone stock 2002) and raced it against Alex's 430F1, same race, and my Murci beat him by a few cars. Again for the magainze racers, all Diablo 6.0's whether they were tested by Car and Driver, Road and Track or Motor Trend, ran 11.8-12.2 @ over 120mph, as high as 122. We raced Alex's 6.0 which is modified, and dynoed over 30rwhp more than stock against my stock Murci, same race 30-140mph, and my Murci pulled him by atleast 2 cars. The Murcielago, no matter how you slice it, is deep into the 120's.

Improviz

Lol, there you go making yourself look petty and desparate again. Keep it up; it's always nice to seen one's opponent destroying their own credibility.

We also have video of a Gallardo running an M5 twice, barely winning one race, tying the other, as well as a road test by EVO magazine comparing the Gallardo to the M5, where both were within one tenth of each other.

Are you saying that M5's are as fast as Murcielagos? If so, then how do you explain the other video of the S65 thrashing the M5? Shall we then conclude since that the S65 is faster than the Murci-tying M5, the S65 is also faster than the Murci?

And how do you explain the fact that all of these car magazines, all over the world, aren't beating the pants off the S65 times? Are all of these magazines fraudulent?

We also have rogerv, who owns both a Gallardo and an S65 (which you do not) and who has run both cars (which you have not), saying that the S65 is faster. Are you saying rogerv is a liar? Are you also saying Ben Treynor is a liar? Are the other Gallardo owners posting mid 12's all liars?

Are you saying the video posted of rogerv running a 12.4 @ 116 in his Gallardo is fraudulent?

Improviz

Ah, I see....so all of these magazines of whom you speak so derisively (except, of course, when *you* want to cite them) somehow managed to get the Murcielago "deep into the 120s (I guess 120-122 is "deep into the 120s)....and yet for some reason, these same magazines, all of whom tested the Gallardo, were unable to get the Gallardo even *to* the 120s, let alone "deep into" the 120s.

And yet you say the Gallardo is just as fast.

How do you explain this discrepency? Did all of the magazines' collective drivers suddenly fall asleep when they tested the Gallardos (and only the Gallardos)?

Improviz

Ah, I see, it all makes sense now: so, you went to the track at 9:30, and then after taking the trouble to go the track and after waiting patiently for three hours, you ran your first 1/4 mile run in your car, which you presumably ran to see how fast it would go.

And then, suddenly, in the middle of the run, a little devil appeared on your shoulder and said "Hey, allen: I know you really want to know what this thing will do, but I think you should fuggeddabout it, and I want you let off the gas before you get to the end of the 1/4 mile!! You know you want to...do it!! DO IT!!!"

And of course, you happily complied. Because that, after all, is why you went to the track, waited for 3 hours, and ran your car down the 1/4 mile track: to NOT find out how fast it is!!



That's funny....best "dog ate my homework" story I've seen since apk1013 was pestering us!! Keep 'em coming, allen!!