Juice it

The problem with your argument is you are trying to assume which car beats what based on how they ran other cars and what times the other cars should run. As we all know that doesn't mean anything and I have read millions of your posts laughing at people that used to do this on Fchat. I know you are an enthusiast and are fairly objective "unless it is a car you now own" and I as well like the G and the Murci (the LP is another story at that new price) but there have been too many videos and road tests that show the G as a mid 12 car and if you throw out the fastest test and the slowest test thats where it ends up. I am sure by the time you are done with it it probably will smoke a 65 but not in the form it is in now. As far as a Murci, no one will launch one from a dead stop but there is no way they will trap deep into the 120's. I don't know why you think its such a bad thing to be beat by a car with 604hp and 748ftpnds of tq.

Air Marshall Eldritch

You know what? I'm tired of this bullcrap. Take it to PM from now on. Meet up in person and swing your members until the bruises form bruises. But this discussion has run its course.

Grow up all of you. I feel like this argument is an extension of my 6 year old taking the puzzle pieces from the 9 year old, with similar results.

And if any of you feel the need to respond with a snide remark, you are gone. Is this clear?

Fast55

This thread should have been locked some time ago. Ben posts that his P car smoked a 65 and it degenerated into this. Perhaps a "my d*ck is bigger than yours" thread could be started so that the boys could battle in private? I'm surprised you tolerated it this long.

allanlambo

The Murci will trap easily in the 120's. As for the Benz if it really could win, Id say so. I dont care. But it wont. Having 604Hp and 748ftpnds would be impressive in a 3500lb car, but in a 4700lb car, not really that big of a deal.

SoCalCLK

You guys need to check with ClayJ and get his thoughts on the power and speed of these cars.

Improviz

Here's the dyno from rogerv's stock S65. It dyno'd 542 rwhp, bone stock. This translates to 660 crank.

Here's the timeslip for rogerv's run, bone stock, in his S65. 11.79 @ 120.55.

How does this stack up?

Road & Track's test of Gallardo: 12.3 @ 117

Road & Track's test of Murciélago: 12.0 @ 121

Road & Track's test of SL65: 12.0 @ 122.8


Motor Trend's test of Murciélago: 11.72 @ 122.52

Motor Trend's test of Gallardo: 13.08 @ 109.89

Motor Trend's test of CL65: 11.8 @ 120.9


Car & Driver's test of Murciélago: 12.6 sec @ 116 mph

Car & Driver's test of Gallardo: 12.4 sec @ 118

Car & Driver's test of SL65: 11.9 sec @ 123

Proof that SL65 accelerates same as S65:
SL65 AMG Test in ams 13/2004
0 - 100 km/h 3,9 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
0 - 100 km/h 4,3 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,1 s

SL65 AMG Supertest in sport auto 02/2005
0 - 100 km/h 4,3 s
0 - 200 km/h 13,1 s

Swedish Auto Motor und Sport's test of an S65 :
0 - 100 km/h 4,28
0 - 150 km/h 7,91
0 - 200 km/h 13,22

A final look at rogerv's stock S65 timeslip:

allanlambo

Not very well, since that was after he did the Renntech ECU and he is running on drag radials, not street tires.

Improviz

Wrong. After he added the Renntech ECU and drag radials, he ran an 11.2.

Here's the video of his 11.2 run:
http://www.treynor.com/S65-11.2.wmv

Further, he ran an 11.5 in his Renntech'd S600. That car dyno'd at 525 rwhp. This is 17 fewer rwhp than his S65 dyno'd when it was bone stock; it dyno'd 542 rwhp.

ChicagoX

Hey allanpedalcar:

Why don't you run my widdle E-class.....maybe, just maybe you'll finally beat a benz.

Nah.

Carl Lassiter

Allanpedalcar

Love it

FThornton666

When i become rich i will own both cars so thats my input for this thread. The Gallardo SE is a true beast of a car, i wouldnt mind running one through a canyon rev matching, heel and toeing the raw V10 snarling animal of an engine syphony echoing off the canyon walls waking everything from old people to dead dinosaurs. Then id have the SL with renntech just to cruise around PCH in and go Ferrari hunting.

ldangeli

Allan,

I would consider that an insult, I would complain to the moderators and ask to ban. Man, my opinion has changed about Improviz, he really is digressing into a child.

allanlambo

I am fairly objective when it comes to cars I own, and dont own. I have driven an Sl65, and it is fast, very fast, but not quite fast enough.

Judging my car by what i ran on 1 run, is pretty silly, as it is much harder to run a 6 speed, all wheel drive car down the strip, then it is to brake torque an automatic and hold on.

So much speculation, and yet, ive put up the challange, you have a 1,000s of members here, and no one in Az wants to run? I will speak to Joe, and I will see if we can set up a run with my Gallardo against his friends Sl65.

ultraseven

you do realize you have just fed him more material.

Juice it

I guess we will wait until you find out for yourself. Now get back and make me a Peanut Buster!!!

vincentGT2

Awesome humiliation Joe.

Improviz

A "child" being defined in the Dictionary of ldangeli as:

View results from: Dictionary of ldangeli:
child /chahyld/ -noun
1) anyone who disagrees with anything ldangeli says.

example: https://mbworld.org/forums/kill-stories/166677-killed-thread.html#post1799678

Similarly, an "idiot" is defined thusly:

View results from: Dictionary of ldangeli:
idiot /id-ee-uht/ -noun
1) anyone who provides more data than ldangeli in a debate.

2) anyone who proves ldangeli to be wrong.


Lastly, "insult" is defined as:
insult /in-suhlt/ -noun
1) anything not written by ldangeli which offends someone. (It is
impossible for anything written by ldangeli to insult anyone).

2) any factual data presented to ldangeli which ldangeli does not want to hear.

yeuchau

is few tenths of seconds really that important

ldangeli

Awe thanks. I love how you take the time to really think out your posts. I am very impressed. But no matter what you write, my opinion is my opinion and IMHO, you're still an.... Whoops, better not offend you.. Betty..

Moderators: How much more of this Bull**** will you allow? Seriously? This is what I mean by unbalanced bias. I guess I should expect it from this board.

GIMProviz - You still fail to read all of the posts and answer all questions, why is it that you are the authority when it comes to surfing the web and posting information? Why is it when other people post information contradictory to yours, it just has to be wrong and they are suddenly attacking you???? WHY WHY WHY???





SHUT YO" MOUTH FOOL.

benzmodz

Yes but can you outrun a modified Smart or an electric car ?

Improviz

Stop lying. I never claimed any facts you presented were insults. I claimed that insults you presented in response to my presenting facts and correcting outright factual errors of yours were insults.

As to the facts themselves, your claim that "my facts are true, all others are false" is ridiculous. I look at the preponderance of the evidence, simple as that. If all of the available evidence shows car "A" to be faster than car "B", then it's pretty cut and dried. If it's 50/50, it's not.

If the bulk of the tests showed the Gallardo to be faster, I would argue that it was faster. Period. They do not. Period. They show the opposite to be true.

In the debate that you lost and got so riled up about, the preponderance of the evidence shows something you don't want to admit, because this would involve admitting you were wrong, something which you seem to be absolutely, totally unable to do.

And so instead of presenting facts, you've carried on this rather odd little harrassment campaign of name-calling and personal attacks against me. Look at what you did above: you quoted a post of mine with no insults, only facts and corrections, which was not even made to you, and rather bizarrely claimed that it was "insulting".

How odd....the only conclusion one can draw is that you find the presentation of facts that disprove or contradict your arguments to be "insulting".

And so, in this case, just as in every other case, you start issuing a tirade of insults and rants.

Fine. I don't know how you think this is scoring you points, but whatever floats your boat.

So here's a chance for you to score some real points. I answered your question. Here's a question for you in return: I've laid out a plethora of road tests, videos of both cars at dragstrips, timeslips (which were, I remind you, provided by you ), and even the testimony of our own Ben Treynor and Rogerv, who you might happen to note owns *both* of the cars in question.

So answer the following question: how could one look at all of that and conclude that the preponderance of evidence shows the Gallardo to be faster?

Simple question. Feel free to answer it rather than issuing another tirade.

benzmodz

I would rather bite my elbows.

ClayJ

I don't post about my cars or upcoming supercars here on the forums anymore.

Individuals such as yourself, playing jackals and vandals with hackles, ended that behavior....

'Tis a shame for the rest of the membership, though....

You guys are on your own.

ChicagoX

(biting elbows)

ldangeli

WoRd.. whimper, whimper.

SLOOOOOOWLY REAAAAAAAAAD WHAAAAAAAAT I HAAAAAAAAAVE TOOOO SAAAAAAAAAAYY.

In my original post about 1000 years ago, I said "I couldn't or din't believe that the "S65" destroyed the Gallardo the way it did. You started ranting about the SL65 and all this other crap.

Do me a favor, give me a 4 page post on the history of MB and Lamborghini. Also I need a 4 page report on the history of your finanacial situation and how you have driven any other supercar other than a porsche. I am going to also need the history of every insult or hurtful thing you have said to everyone on this board or everything that has been said to you, in quotes, by title and author. Make sure you sight sources, wether they be internet or hard copy. Also, I want all this by the end of today.

Yo! Is this your ride??