Lamborghini LM002...what was wrong?!

[ahmedgiyab]

http://www.lamborghiniclub.nl/beelden/lm002.jpg
http://www.d-tajms.czweb.org/offroad/image/lm002-3.jpg
http://www.lamborghinistuff.com/media/lamborghini+lm+002+lm+002+sales+sheet.jpg
http://www.autospecs.tripod.com/pics/lamborghini_lm002_04.jpg

I heard it had one of the highest fuel consumption...and it had the same

engine as the Diablo?! But what was really wrong with it?! :roll:

[SPEEDKILLAR]

Everything.


Check out the rims :lol:

[ahmedgiyab]

It had the sizes as the Hummer...maybe the consumption was really too much, but it

shouldn't be a surprise...Its a Lambo SUV...

Otherwise it could be a nice member for some collectors! :wink:

[MIHALS]

Length 4900 mm / 196 in
Height 1850 mm / 74 in
Width 2000 mm / 80 in
Weight 2700 kgs / 5940 lbs
Front Track
Rear Track ? mm / ? in
? mm / ? in
Engine V12
Powertrain Layout Front mounted / 4WD
Power 444 bhp @ 6800 rpm
Torque ? Nm @ ? rpm
Gear Type 5 speed manual
Tire Sizes(Front)
Tire Sizes(Rear) 345/60VR15
345/60VR15
Top Speed 126 mph / 210 kph
0 - 60 mph 8.5 seconds

http://www.autospecs.tripod.com/pics/lamborghini_lm002_01.jpg
http://lamborghini.r2.ru/automobili/img/LM%20002/lm002_02.jpg
http://lamborghini.r2.ru/automobili/img/LM%20002/lm002_04.jpg

[possessed_beaver]

see the very eugonomical location for the gear leaver, aparantley it costs an absalute fuckload to fill!

[ae86_16v]

It is ugly. On another note, right here in San Francisco, British Motors on Van Ness always have on parked in their show room. Even though their display models changes quite frequently it seems that the LM002 always stays.

[saadie]

IMO .... LM002 looke better then H2.... and prolly the fuel consumptions is less then the H2 ...... its simply better then H2 :!:

[Vansquish]

it had the engine from the countach, not the diablo...the diablo wasn't in production when the LM002 came out.

[yg60m]

Why do you think something was wrong with it ? I saw one in Paris, it was astounding ! And the sound is those of a V12 really !!

[PATo355]

Nothing is wrong with it , its absolutely gorgeous , maybe the best suv of all times , right up in the list with the cayenne and the Hummer

[SPEEDKILLAR]

Nothing is wrong with it , its absolutely gorgeous , maybe the best suv of all times , right up in the list with the cayenne and the Hummer

Wtf, you guys are serious, look how it looks, its probably not a real off-roader, IT SUCKS.

[666fast]

its probably not a real off-roader


Wasn't it was designed for the military? If so, it is probably a pretty good off roader. The only problem was it's price.

[he7lius]

A dog shed with wheels. :D :D

[SPEEDKILLAR]

its probably not a real off-roader


Wasn't it was designed for the military? If so, it is probably a pretty good off roader. The only problem was it's price.

I'll phrase that differently, its probably not a decent off roader, and I don't think its only the price, how much does this thing wastes fuel, probably not such a good thing for the military. The Hummer is a diesel, remember.

[Vansquish]

quite the contrary...it guzzles premium, had a huge price, but was as capable as a Hummer off road. It is excellent on the rough stuff..and with that engine...I'd take it any day over a Hummer.

[hemi_fan]

my fav. lambo i must say... call me crazy! But i really like this truck, purely because of its impracticality.

[FerrariFerrari]

quite the contrary...it guzzles premium, had a huge price, but was as capable as a Hummer off road. It is excellent on the rough stuff..and with that engine...I'd take it any day over a Hummer.
I agree with everything that you said, but unless my memory
serves me wrong wasn't the Countach engine actually horrible
in the reliability department(not a good thing for the military :| ).
As far as price goes it was $134,500 in 1990 or about $187,409
in todays dollars, ouch, remember that at about that same time
the Hummer was selling for only about $40,000.

As far as what was wrong with it, aside from the afore mentioned
engine, the control were way to heavy for even a very fit soldier
to handle. And as Jeramy Clarkson once said, if you did have the
strength to handle it you were probably to big to fit in it. :lol: But
incidently some armies did still use it, albeit quite quite conservatively.
The Saudi army purchased 40 LM002s. The military version was
was stripped out quite a bit.

There are rumours that Lamborghini is designing a new SUV based
on the Porsche Cayenne/VW Tourag platform, that should be interesting.

[Tomerville]

Those are so ugly, and there are a few for sale all the time in the DuPont registery
So un-aerodynamic!

[CMonakar]

http://www.carclassic.com/images8/DJ15/DJ15-1.jpg

All SUVs are ugly. If the most intimidating looking one wins, this is it! GET OUT OF MY WAY.

[CMonakar]

http://www.carclassic.com/images8/DJ15/L-DJ15-3.jpg

[Vansquish]

Even if the engine was unreliable...it sounded great and (for a massive SUV at any rate) it went like stink, in addition to the fact that it has that evocative name emblazoned on it.


Lamborghini

[RC45]

In fact you could consider them to have been too far ahead of theirown time for their own good.

Today an oppulant luxury SUV is the norm - back then there was probably only Range Rover and the G-Wagon....

Even the Benz G-Wagon was more work horse than luxury shopping cart... ;)

[Vansquish]

Exactly.

[SamuraiGti]

You don't like it. I'll keep it for me, i don't mind eheh

[FerrariFerrari]

Even if the engine was unreliable...it sounded great and (for a massive SUV at any rate) it went like stink, in addition to the fact that it has that evocative name emblazoned on it.
It doesn't matter if it had a great sound, went fast, or
was a Lamborghini, those things are nice but they can't
make up for poor reliability. This is especially true of a
vehicle that was intended for use in the army where
reliability and capability is everything.

[Vansquish]

The fact that it was INTENDED for use in the military doesn't really have any implications for the vehicle as a whole. Lamborghini was notorious in its earlier years for having terrible reliability problems, if they were to have produced the LM002 for military service, I'm quite sure they would've worked on that particular aspect of it. However, since it was shunted off into the public instead of seeing military service, Lamborghini didn't really have to deal with the reliability issue as fervently as civilian usage is much less harsh than that of the military, and it is much easier to conduct repairs on the streets of LA than somewhere in some remote region of the world.

However, I'm also quite sure that if the LM002 had seen serious military service, as Lamborghini had intended it to, it would have been much more dependable by the time it reached production on a military scale.

[szumszer]

as good as H1, way better than H2, and probably comparable to G wagen in terms of off road capability, truly an awesome off road vehicle, but was probably too expansive for its time, if lamborghini came out with a new version now with a 560 hp V12, it would be as quick as cayenne ... oh and its a beast, watch clarkson top 100 cars, its there alright

[a007apl]

"Lamborghini LM002...what was wrong?!"
NOTHING
http://www.jabbasworld.net/photopost/data/501/602lm08_450_38273_1_.jpg
http://www.jabbasworld.net/photopost/data/501/602lm09_450_38275_1_.jpg
http://www.jabbasworld.net/photopost/data/501/602lm06_450_38283_1_.jpg
http://www.jabbasworld.net/photopost/data/501/602lm05_450_38277_1_.jpg
http://www.jabbasworld.net/photopost/data/501/602lm03_450_38279_1_.jpg
http://www.jabbasworld.net/photopost/data/501/602lm04_450_38281_1_.jpg
http://www.jabbasworld.net/photopost/data/501/602lm01_450_38271_1_.jpg
http://www.jabbasworld.net/photopost/data/501/602lm02_450_38266_1_.jpg
:wink:

[FerrariFerrari]

The fact that it was INTENDED for use in the military doesn't really have any implications for the vehicle as a whole. Lamborghini was notorious in its earlier years for having terrible reliability problems, if they were to have produced the LM002 for military service, I'm quite sure they would've worked on that particular aspect of it. However, since it was shunted off into the public instead of seeing military service, Lamborghini didn't really have to deal with the reliability issue as fervently as civilian usage is much less harsh than that of the military, and it is much easier to conduct repairs on the streets of LA than somewhere in some remote region of the world.

However, I'm also quite sure that if the LM002 had seen serious military service, as Lamborghini had intended it to, it would have been much more dependable by the time it reached production on a military scale.
Perhaps so, but it was undoubtedly still designed as a serious
offroader and as such it should have had good reliability. Maybe
you don't go offroading in quite as remote a place as the military
sometimes has to fight in, but believe me you can get yourself into
some pretty remote places and it's no cakewalk getting out of them
if you have an engine that just doesn't want to start. :wink: And
even if you don't plan on going offroading it can still be mighty nice
to have a reliable vehical that you can count on. In fact reliability
is one of the biggest things you look at when buying a new car, it's
right up there with safety. :wink:

[StanAE86]

Aside from the motor being not terribly reliable and the cost of one, I think it was ahead of its time. If Lambo could put one out under $100k with a reliable motor, I think it would sell in today's market where everyone wants something brutish looking.

[Tomerville]

That piece has monsterous tires!

[saadie]

yups A007APL is ryt ..... nothing's wrong ......

maybe its not sold much bcuz .... lemme put it this way ... can ya ever expect a suv from ferrari ... NO ?? .... thats what iam talkin about ......

[HeilSvenska]

What was wrong eh? Look at Porsche Cayenne and tell me there is nothing wrong.




I mean LM002 is a beaut, but it has no business being a Lambo.
as long as it's not a Murcielago and Gallardo...and a lambo, everything is welcome

[StanAE86]

I read that the tires have a lip all the way around both sides, to keep sand, etc. underneath the tire for traction...Pirelli Scorpion?

[McLarenF1God]

During the deisgn and concept phase it was always called the 'Cheetah' and was capable of very extreme off road conditions despite what any of you say (Google search it or something). When the US military asked for companies to build a new off road multi-use vehicle it came down to AM General and Lamborghini. The US eventually chose AM Generals hummer quite simply because of the cheaper price. The LM002 was much too expensive for obvious reasons and seemed unecessarily too 'equipped' for what the US military had in mind. Lamborghini wouldn;t let the LM002 go to waste so they put it into production for the public to buy, where 'public' means rich-guy-that-likes-to-pretend-he-is-an-off-roading-master. I do know that it was very off-road worthy...although I'm not sure how long it would last before something went wrong. Like someone above me said, it could have easily been equal to or superior to Hummer.

H2 blows.

[a007apl]

yups A007APL is ryt ..... nothing's wrong ......

maybe its not sold much bcuz .... lemme put it this way ... can ya ever expect a suv from ferrari ... NO ?? .... thats what iam talkin about ......
:roll:

[saadie]

i mean ..... would ya ever buy a 4X4 mady by koenigsegg .... u simply wont ....
they maybe the worlds fastest supercar maker .. but still a 4X4 from a new born company wouldont be my option .... the point is .... Lambo was a new company to come on the road when they made the LM002 .....

[FerrariFerrari]

i mean ..... would ya ever buy a 4X4 mady by koenigsegg .... u simply wont ....
they maybe the worlds fastest supercar maker .. but still a 4X4 from a new born company wouldont be my option .... the point is .... Lambo was a new company to come on the road when they made the LM002 .....
What's the difference between getting a 4x4 from a new
born company and getting a supercar from a newborn
company? :?

And as far as it cheapening or otherwise distorting the
image of a supercar manufacturer to produce an SUV,
I think many of you have forgotten that Lamborghini
has been and still does produce tractors, for something
like 40 years now. Has that distorted it's reputation as
a supercar manufacturer? :? I have nothing wrong with
Lamborghini producing an SUV I just have something,
actually really only one thing, wrong with the SUV that
they did make. :wink:

[saadie]

I just have something,
actually really only one thing, wrong with the SUV that
they did make.

:?: :?: :?:

Lambo was a new company to come on the road when they made the LM002 .....

as ya can see .. i said " to come on the road "
they've been makin tractors even before that ....
:wink:
lambos tractors are supertractors .. lol

[FerrariFerrari]

I just have something,
actually really only one thing, wrong with the SUV that
they did make.

:?: :?: :?:
The reliability of the engine, if that's what you meant. :wink:


as ya can see .. i said " to come on the road "
they've been makin tractors even before that ....
I am not sure what your point is there. :?

lambos tractors are supertractors .. lol
Hehehe, actually from what I understand they are just
normal tractors at normal prices, :wink: but I've heard
they are good tractors and there is something cool
about a vehical with the Lamborghini name on it. :wink:

[saadie]

What's the difference between getting a 4x4 from a new
born company and getting a supercar from a newborn
company? :?

people preffer to use vehicles tht are known, driven, used and bought by ppl they know ... and how many countries 'at tht time ' had lambo delerships ... very few ...
so repairs and all would aslo be a big problem ...


welll yah ... any thing wid a lambo sign on it is kewl .... 8)
lambo is also in some sorta speedboat sport thingy .... 8)

[spitfire6000]

Length 4900 mm / 196 in
Height 1850 mm / 74 in
Width 2000 mm / 80 in
Weight 2700 kgs / 5940 lbs
Front Track
Rear Track ? mm / ? in
? mm / ? in
Engine V12
Powertrain Layout Front mounted / 4WD
Power 444 bhp @ 6800 rpm
Torque ? Nm @ ? rpm
Gear Type 5 speed manual
Tire Sizes(Front)
Tire Sizes(Rear) 345/60VR15
345/60VR15
Top Speed 126 mph / 210 kph
0 - 60 mph 8.5 seconds


Ill tell you exactly wats wrong with this car...
It has 444bhp and probably around the same torque...
Its 0-60 is 8.5 seconds

A porsche cayenne turbo has 450hp and around the same torque...
Its 0-60 is 5.5 seconds
It weighs over 2 tons

A BMW X5 3.0i has 225hp and around the same torque...
Its 0-60 is...wat a coincidence...8.5 seconds
It weighs over 2 tons

Basically, this lamborghini V12 monster has the pathetic aceleration of a weak, heavy, bmw 6 cylinder suv. The porsche cayenne turbo, a modern suv/sports car has pretty much the same hp as the cayenne, from a v8 nonetheless, and it produces acceleration times that are 3 seconds faster!

THATS wats wrong with this car, despite the fact that it is absurdly ugly.

Honestly, i would love for lambo to make a modern suv that can trash the cayenne turbo. American buyers would eat it up before it is even on the market.

[Vansquish]

The Cayenne is butt ugly compared even to the LM002, and it weighs quite a bit more, so the acceleration numbers aren't that surprising.

[spitfire6000]

The Cayenne is butt ugly compared even to the LM002, and it weighs quite a bit more, so the acceleration numbers aren't that surprising.

Are u saying that the cayenne is uglier that this pieice of metal that looks like it has wheels from an elementary school bus?

The cayenne weighs: 5,192 lbs
The LM002 weighs: 5,940 lbs

Yes there is a difference in weight, but not enough to make a 3 SECOND difference in acceleration

Definately not ugly:
http://www3.us.porsche.com/english/usa/cayenne/cayenneturbo/experience/desktop/bilder/icon7_800x600.jpg

[FerrariFerrari]

The LM002 is gear for good off roading abillity not exceleration,
that's why it doesn't excelerate as fast as the Cayenne. :wink: