motor

hemi_fan · 04-04-2004, 09:29 PM

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

FerrariFerrari · 04-04-2004, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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 · 04-04-2004, 11:06 PM

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

CMonakar · 04-05-2004, 12:41 AM

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

CMonakar · 04-05-2004, 12:42 AM

Vansquish · 04-05-2004, 01:38 AM

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 · 04-05-2004, 03:21 AM

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 · 04-05-2004, 04:48 AM

Exactly.

SamuraiGti · 04-05-2004, 07:16 PM

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

FerrariFerrari · 04-05-2004, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 04-06-2004, 04:31 PM

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 · 04-06-2004, 04:47 PM

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 · 04-07-2004, 12:48 PM

"Lamborghini LM002...what was wrong?!"
NOTHING

FerrariFerrari · 04-07-2004, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

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.

StanAE86 · 04-07-2004, 06:06 PM

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.