1999 sv or 2001 vt?

cmon guys only 3!? :disappoin

well, being the older bumper and engine the SVs at a slight disadvantage (well to some people)
But maybe a better comparison would be VT 6.0 vs VT 6.0 w/ RWD conversion

would say 6.0 GT, but that car is so sexy, that it'd be no contest :D

Lets look at the specs:


SV

General Information:

Price: $238,700
Miles Per Gallon: --/-- mpg
Curb Weight: 3366 lbs
Layout: Mid-Engine/RWD
Transmission: 5-Speed Manual

Engine:

Type: V12
Displacement: 5707 cc
Horsepower: 530 bhp @ 7100 rpm
Torque: 445 lb-ft @ 5500 rpm
Redline: ---- rpm

Performance:

0-60 mph: 3.8 sec
0-100 mph: 9.2 sec
Quarter Mile: 12.0 sec @ 118 mph
Skidpad: .93g
Top Speed: 200 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph: --- ft
Slalom Speed: --.- mph


VT

General Information:

Price: $---,---
Miles Per Gallon: --/-- mpg
Curb Weight: 3582 lbs
Layout: Mid-Engine/AWD
Transmission: 5-Speed Manual
Engine:

Type: V12
Displacement: 5707 cc
Horsepower: 530 bhp @ 7100 rpm
Torque: 445 lb-ft @ 5500 rpm
Redline: ---- rpm

Performance:

0-60 mph: 3.9 sec
0-100 mph: 9.4 sec
Quarter Mile: 12.1 sec @ 117 mph
Skidpad: .96g
Top Speed: 200 mph
Braking, 60-0 mph: 124 ft
Slalom Speed: 67.1 mph



Their 1/4 mile times are practically equal and as far as speed goes they are identical.The VT is an AWD so it'll pretty much give you better handling in most terrain and on a track. I wasn't able to find the exact price for the VT but I know for a fact it is cheaper then the SV when used. So it all comes down to what you want in the car. But IMO if i had the money and these two cars were placed infront of me I would take the VT. AWD handling, cheaper price and just the tiny bit faster on the track or drag strip. As far as looks go, they both have that sexy diablo look to them so in the looks department they're the same to me, not to mention the VT is newer. :)

He's comparing to the 6.0 VT not the 5.7.

2001 Diablo 6.0 VT
4WD with Viscous Traction
Configuration V12
Curb Weight 1625 kg / 3583 lbs
Valvetrain DOHC 4 Valves / Cyl Length 4470 mm / 176.0 in
Displacement 5992 cc / 365.7 cu in
Width 2040 mm / 80.3 in
Height 1105 mm / 43.5 in
Power 410.1 kw / 550 bhp @ 7100 rpm
Torque 620 nm / 457.3 ft lbs @ 5500 rpm


Top Speed 329.9 kph / 205.0 mph
0 - 60 mph 3.95 seconds
0 - 100 mph 8.9 seconds
0 - ¼ mile 11.9 seconds
Lateral Acceleration 0.99g
EPA City/Hwy 11 / 17 mpg


Joe

He's comparing to the 6.0 VT not the 5.7.



ah i see. sorry, didnt see the year on the poll.

the VT is awesome, i want a roadster

I would go for the 2001 vt, mainly baecause of the viscous traction, what it loses in smoothness of gear changes, it makes up in the handling department in tricky road/track cnditions

yeah i wouldn't mind the 6.0 VT, or the millenium roadster :D

He's comparing to the 6.0 VT not the 5.7.

2001 Diablo 6.0 VT
4WD with Viscous Traction
Configuration V12
Curb Weight 1625 kg / 3583 lbs
Valvetrain DOHC 4 Valves / Cyl Length 4470 mm / 176.0 in
Displacement 5992 cc / 365.7 cu in
Width 2040 mm / 80.3 in
Height 1105 mm / 43.5 in
Power 410.1 kw / 550 bhp @ 7100 rpm
Torque 620 nm / 457.3 ft lbs @ 5500 rpm


Top Speed 329.9 kph / 205.0 mph
0 - 60 mph 3.95 seconds
0 - 100 mph 8.9 seconds
0 - ¼ mile 11.9 seconds
Lateral Acceleration 0.99g
EPA City/Hwy 11 / 17 mpg


Joe
i thought the 0-60 on that is 3.6 seconds

lol actually it is...3.6 seconds

to tell you the truth, the '96-98 SV vs. 5.7L VT the Diablo SV would just simply kill. One of the reasons of why its my favorite car :iceslolan :naughty:

but if you want to do comparisons then compare the '99 VT vs. the '99 SV. There was no 6.0 SV b/c of retarded Audi cancelling all rear-wheel drive projects :flipa: after '00

roadster like whoa :)

roadster wasnt a choice...? what are you talking about man? it was only 2001 vt 6.0 and 1999 sv

I would go for the SV. I simply loves that car...
I have promised myselfes not to buy a Lamborghini untill Im 30 yers old. Im 21, and if I had a Lambo, I would`nt manage to keep the speed limit. No point having a Lambo without drivers license. And I think I am more mature when Im 30, than I am now. I will probably afford a SV in a couple of years, but as I said, no mather how much I want one now... I`m not ready for one! Sad, but true.... :)

ok is it just me that thinks people need to see past AWD = better handling? its just not true. in fact, in most cases RWD handles better. AWD is better for traction, also that catching the car when u slide it or drift is easier. watch the top gear lambo diablo test driver video. u dont have 2 listen 2 what they say, its usually just talkin a lot of useless shit, but it shows what AWD on a diablo lets u do. thats why i voted for the VT.... if i was completely serious about pure performance and lap times, id go with the SV because RWD and lighter.

but i think the AWD might come in on top end handling like 200mph handling a little or no?

stability..... but fundamentally rwd is better the thing is that u would need the perfect driver to get the most out of it thats why awd is good

Although I think that driver skill should be able to cope with RWD supercars, if the option of AWD is available, then id go for that. It would make the car a little more useable and practical, as aposed to weekends of good weather. This is true of the 911. I chose to have a Turbo, over the GT2, for the AWD. I have a merc now, and if it came with AWD, id buy that version too.

well thats pretty much what i said, a normal person will be faster and probably have more fun in an awd supercar, but a gun driver can extract more performance from an RWD

Thats true, SV would own circuit timings, and since its lighter It should be able to hit around the same top speed. As I said before, if you really wanna do a SV vs. VT comparison do the '99 SV against the '99 VT. Both same year, same specs, except for RWD and 4wd. But for me I love the SV, so no matter what I would back it more