© 2020 MOTORSPORT NETWORK. All rights reserved.
Sign up to receive latest updates for Lamborghini News, Threads, and Classifieds
Discussion in 'Lamborghini Supercars' started by Chadbourn Bolles, Jan 28, 2019.
A few years prior yes, but implementing similar technology (Bosch CIS K-Jetronic fuel injection).
Yup talk is cheap but a wonderful thing combined with cash and street smarts
Ah - the old "I can't back it up with real facts so I'll claim street smarts" trick. Let me guess - you when to the School of Hard Knocks?
Not relevant. The big 4 valve v
iow you are still claiming the US market had no innput what so ever on the decision to make the qv engine?
It is relevent because it was a very similar thing - slap CIS on an existing engine, lose power.
What is "factsbar" in English?
Yes - that's been stated several times. They designed the QV engine for DD, and only slapped FI on later when convinced to do so by the US importers. That's been stated clearly several times now.
Respect your opinion, but disagree.
Respect your opinion,but disagree
Would love to stay and beat my head against a brick wall, but I have a flat-earther coming over to celebrate my birthday and to discuss whether Bill Gates is using Intel or AMD microchips in his vaccines. Have a good evening
No worries (lol)have a good evening, i am sure you will get the flat earth dude put in his place.
No back-pedaling whatsoever, in fact any objective historian constantly moves forward by process of constantly updating their received wisdom as facts become corroborated, a far cry from the notion you practice in this forum wherein you appear to think opinions are the same as facts, meanwhile the percentages I posted above are correct.
That's not the reason the investment was made in the Quattrovalve engine, the path to the QV engine is explained above in my earlier posts in chronological order, and the reason for the USA DOT & EPA emissions Countach is also explained.
With enough cash and street smarts, you buy a Downdraft.
He isn't stating an opinion, he's stating a fact, there's a difference.
Got an anni carb car coming(once the travel restrictions ends) can not waith to compare
It is absolutely absurd to state the factory did not have the US market in their priorities mowing forward with their qv engine. The prod nmbrs clearly understates this fact., why this is such a no no to you is mind boggling. All you have to say is the US was a big financial part of their plan, although there would be modifications needed to the induction system to accommodate the stringent epa rules. Simple as that. No arguments needed, keep loving your dd while i love my fi.
There are no travelling restrictions whatsoever for cars or commercial shipping activity, we've shipped 5 cars in the last 2 months.
Many things seems absurd to some people about the decisions car factories, but in this case it's the difference between biased opinion (your stock-in-trade) and historical fact, again, your assertion that the QV engine was created to service the US market is pure fiction.
The production numbers don't underscore the reason for the QV engine's creation in any way, they are only a function of how many cars the factory could sell, and clearly they could sell more carbureted cars than Fuelies. 30-plus years later, it is the more prolifically produced Downdraft that is more valuable by 2 or 3 times, this tells you everything you need to know.
I understand your frustration but your creative opinion is not a no-no to me personally, it is simply your erroneous biased opinion about what transpired, a creative version of events which in fact never happend, and since we know what actually transpired, there is no reason for us to accept your attempt to rewrite history.
basically you are stating the decision makers /financial planners at Lamborghini,where not in the posession of a good old Map,or a current newspaper,to remind them there was 300 or so mil people across the pond,with a healthy economy,amd cash to burn, also,the factory effort to build a US car(wich actually started this tread,Micel Call will verifie)understates their mind and thought process on this subject. The US wanted Countaches,the qv would be the way to go,more cubes to offset the cats and emmision,such as MB in the early 70s created the v8 with US in mind.
reg the travel restrictions,its me going there, fully aware of goods/comersial , we ship boats all over,
No, I'm not stating that, what I am stating has already been posted very clearly above.
very confusing, you are saying they did have a map and a current newspaper? but choosed do ignore the US market? no?
You stated you've "got an Anniversary coming (once the travel restriction ends)".
So now you've changed your tune and it's not coming unless you go there?
Well, people are still traveling all over the world, you can go there in person and follow quarantine protocol, people do it every week, meanwhile, if you are planning on waiting till travel restrictions end, that might not be till early 2021, or, who knows when that will be?
Did you actually buy an Anniversary, or are just considering one?
So many questions.
As already stated, the USA DOT & EPA Countach was caused entirely by Joe Nastasi & Irv David's proposal, submitted after the QV engine was already in actual production.
Again, Nils Johnsen, you continue to embarrass yourself as a Countach owner and business person, because you have a shameful track record in this section of consistently attempting to rewrite history to reflect a false narrative to suit your agenda, but nobody takes you seriously because you've established a platform proliferated with dubious content. As can be seen, when you have nothing more to contribute that makes any sense, you resort to becoming like the child who's cried wolf so many times, in the end, nobody listens.
Happy to debate you if you have meaningful material though.
Not sure the objective comments are much different, but rather a subjective difference
I dont see it as any objective corrections but rather taking essentially the same facts we both come to different subjective conclusions. Its ok to come to different conclusions based upon whether mods made to the Countach and Mac F1 were nearly identical or very different. You place a lot of weight to the fact that one was done by the factory, and the other after import to the US. I understand and respect the difference (although we ultimately agree on the final conclusion of the fix), but I draw different conclusions and give different weight to the similarities and differences.
Having been close to a F1 imported in period, and the legal and practical logistics of the mod and import, as well as recently restoring one of the first "production" Countaches with DOT factory mods, I found the modifications and engineering bumper solution was nearly identical. The DOT bumpers used the same engineering of have a rumber bumper with metal backing plate which had metal extension tubes that past through the original and attached to the frame. The purchase of additional parts from the factory were required to revert this. (the lighting part was more extensive on the F1)
The differences of who did it is great but I find it driven merely by the practicalities of volume and initial value. With the F1 in very limited supply, in high demand, only 7 were to be imported in period by extremely wealthy customers. The fact this modification was outsourced and done stateside, the cars given new vin numbers, and not undertaken by the factory, was driven by numbers and logistics of how they got around the law. By contrast, Lamborghini was trying to build and import hundreds to target the US market. The volume dictated the modification was done in house and through the DOT North American certification and manual created was a result of the legal import designation. The fact that there was a legal distinction in "model" I dont see as being a Countach modified for the DOT as being a different model versus the a different way to characterize the same modifications to the existing design needed to import the cars.
As for the fact the differences you point out in when they were changed, again, price and relative cost. They were both undesireable. For the F1 the bumper revisions were changed immediately. With the Countach most not until now. Again, the reasons were purely a matter of relative value and practicality. The 7 F1s were rare and the relative cost insignificant compared to the cost of the car. The illegalites of immediately switching back the F1 was just a risk taken. For the Countach, a switch back would be a major relative cost in period, and thundreds of cars on the roads driving lots of illegal miles was not done. Now when the cars are being partially or competly restored after the law expired, it simply makes no sense not to revert them back to the original design.
Again, I understand that some place great significants in the two approaches taken to modifiy the cars to get them around the DOT laws. For some it makes a difference that the factory did it and the other was done by by US company stateside. For me (its ok to have different opinion) I find the Countach and F1 two amazing supercars that had to be modified terribly, against everyones will, to comply with a stupid law.
The important thing though is we all both agree that we are all better off with these models fixed without the dumb appendages.
As for all the FI guys bating Joe on the whos better, the FI or DD, please stop. If the cost were the same, very few in the market would prefer the FI. I have one of both and find some great advantages to the FI, but no car guy doesnt like the webbers. Its like saying you'd prefer your girl with a smaller bra size.
I think there's confusion in the FI models we're talking about. We're definitely discussing the latter QV ones made at the factory as FI, not the rare 7 that were converted stateside. You summed it up in your last paragraph.
You misunderstood, you may want to look at the previous quotes, we were discussing the similarities between the bumper conversion of the Mclaren F1 and the Countach. The last paragraph was off topic.
I think there is more than one discussion going on here. You are talking about the post-factory bumper mods, there's another discussion about the design and construction of the QV FI engine, and whether the US market drove the design of the QV which it didn't - the FI was an afterthought.
You mistook the referrence to 7 Mac F1s imported. I was talking about the DOT bumper mods regardless of who did it.
But Correct, The QV engine was designed separate. They were forced unwillingly to design the FI for emissions. They only would have replaced the carbs when FI tech produced more power. The FI was driven by a mod of the original QV engine design, set up to pass emissions. With so many other good things you can say about the F1, ease of use, cost, bang for buck, the other tangents are not needed. We are all tired of this back and forth.
As regards the McLaren F1, really, that car is an Apples to Oranges comparison with the Countach QV.
The reason is, there is only one version of the McLaren F1 as far as the McLaren factory is concerned, the Eu/ROW version. This is a fact, anyone can ask McLaren themselves and they will confirm this, as I did when I went to Woking in person in 2018. The DOT bumper mods done by the USA compliance agents to the 7 cars were cosmetic applications which were easily reversible.
On the other hand, there is no disputing that the Lamborghini made 2 separate variant of the QV, the Eu/ROW version, and the USA EPA & DOT compliant emissions version, in this case, the DOT bumper applications were built into the car affixed to the chassis as the car was manufactured, and are therefore not easily reversible without a complete restoration of the car's entire bodywork.
FWIW, at this point there is only one single Fuelie owner left, Nils Johnsen, who still drones on abut the Fuelie being somehow the same as the Downdraft. As opposed to a platform for opinions, this forum is supposed to be a resource for fact-based technical, restoration, historical & market information. However, it appears as if somewhere along the line he lost the ability to read, understand, assimilate corroborated information, allow it to shape his thought process, and increase his knowledge. The latter is what we are all here to do - learn. That said, I have it on good authority (buyers in the market who contact me after having read some of his posts) that he singularly does more to diminish the desirability of Fuelies than any other person extant. Bottom line, his approach affects the bottom line of the Fuelie.
Love the cup-size analogy, I may have to use that.
reg plattforms,ours are very different , you sell used cars,i do not, my comments are based on common mecanical sense. webers ate not superchargers, they are merely antiquateted fuel supply items.