Talk:Lamborghini/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Needs a re-write

It's written like a biography and is full of sales pitches and irrelevant information, i.e the table listing the cars and their top speeds. I think I also saw the phrase 'pro-active marketing' used in there somewhere. It's biased and unencyclopedic. Fudge-o (talk) 08:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not remove previous discussions regarding the article without creating an archive. Previous discussions are relevant to the development of the article, and may show why the article is as it is and where, in your opinion, it went wrong. No signature (talk) 00:27, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Outside sources

This is a fansite, but contains information that can be used to expand the article: http://www.timpelen.com/ 08:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Not unless it points us to more reliable sources, it can't. No signature (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's some more stuff:

  • The essay itself can't be used, it cites Wiki, but the sources are interesting. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
  • A great book on the Miura, a good amount is available on google books.
  • A book about collecting Ferraris, offers an interesting little segment on the Ferrari vs. Lamborghini rivalry, I'm thinking out loud about whether or not it could ever constitute its own section or article, even.

Overseas operations

Why is this section constantly removed? Automovil Lamborghini de Latin America was set up by Jorge Antonio Fernandez Garcia in Buenos Aires, Argentina in 1994. It is officially licensed to produce two handbuilt variants of the Diablo called the Eros and the Coatl. They were first produced in 2001 and are available only in Latin America since 2003.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.213.220.227 (talk) 15:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Largely because the only source is this company's own very tacky website. Adding some more sources. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 16:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
What does tackiness of their website have to do with anything? All the legal paperwork is on the site for a reason. Otherwise doent you think Lamdo and all of its recent owners would have gone after it for copywrite violations? Having lived in Mexico and other parts of Central America, I can understand the companies desire to appear to be on the up and up.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
The tackiness of it might be irrelevant, but it is still not an independent source, which Wikipedia requires to establish notability. Otherwise, anybody could turn a Wikipedia article into an advertisement for their product. No signature (talk) 02:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Do you actually read the articles on Wikipedia? [1], does this help any?--Degen Earthfast (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
(because AniRaptor2001 thinks he owns Lamborghini and Wikipedia -- he's mistakenCHARLES400GT (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC))
In future, please place your statements at the bottom of the section instead of attaching them to other people's statements.
For the record, third party information about Lamborghini of Latin America has been found and the information about it has been included in the article. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Quote

Don't know where to put this right now

With the windows lowered, the beat of the four exhausts becomes like a cello backed by an exquisite string orchestra composed by the six combustions occurring on each turn of the crankshaft, the whisper of the chains driving the four crankshafts and the chatter of the 24 calves. This is music, and all of those who love automobiles must sit and listen a few moments before driving off...

Mel Nichols, Wheels April 1972[1]

Considering its extreme POV, might File 13 not be an appropriate place? No signature (talk) 10:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

hahaha. At this point, yes, perhaps... it originally fit nicely into a section that noted how Lamborghini was up-and-coming in that era, but now it's just a nice quote.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sources for the top speeds, please?

Editors keep changing the top speeds of the cars at will. Personally, I don't revert them because what was there before is just as unsourced as what replaces it and I don't know the truth.

Will someone please either find sources for the top speeds or remove them altogether?

No signature (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Lamborghini Blogs!

Well I have one blog and I would love to see Lamborghini blogging grow so post your blogs here! Edit the page to add your blog!

1. lambofan.wordpress.com

This is not what the talk page of the Lamborghini article is for. This page is for discussion of the improvement of the article. Listing blogs will not improve the article, especially since blogs are not considered to be reliable sources of information for Wikipedia articles. No signature (talk) 13:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism

The last forty revisions of this article have been vandalism and the reversion of vandalism. Should we seek some kind of edit protection for this article? No signature (talk) 20:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I too have noticed the high incidence of vandalism. I imagine the Lamborghini article is visited by young kids curious about fast cars on a daily basis, some of whom wish to leave a mark on it. There is probably some contribution by feverish Ferrari fans, as well. One-day protection will not suffice; this would need to be long-term. Since the subject matter of the article is rather obscure and full of myth--I had to do quite a bit of actual reading (not offline, but not on conventional websites) in order to get the facts about the company's history, for example--it might be best to leave its content to established editors. You have my support for any sort of proposal. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 20:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I would support protection as well. swaq 15:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Protection would be needed also Ferrari article, its continous vandalism like in this article.... Im not sure if Wikipedia allows permanent protection? --Typ932 T·C 16:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
WP:SEMI <-Wikipedia's policy for semi-protection.
From that:

Administrators may apply indefinite semi-protection to pages which are subject to heavy and persistent vandalism or violations of content policy (such as biographies of living persons, neutral point of view).

The method for determining the duration of semi-protection is given in the link. One of the criteria for indefinite semi-protection is that the article must have been semi-protected previously, which Lamborghini has: Lamborghini: Revision as of 16:57, 9 February 2009. They also say that vandalism must have restarted very shortly after the removal of semi-protecion. I don't know if the day after is fast enough, but the first edit after semi-protection expired was vandalism.
Do you suppose we could ask Mr. Symonds, who had semi-protected the article before, to do it again?
No signature (talk) 01:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Would you like to take care of it, Sam? I think protection for Ferrari and Lamborghini would be a good idea, as the most famous and visible supercar companies. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 01:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Result of protection request. No signature (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

...and, two days after unprotection, the plague seems to be beginning again. I hope I'm just being pessimistic and paranoid and that these two vandal attacks are not actually the start of a fresh onslaught. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:42, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comparing early Lamborghinis with contemporary Ferraris

"To that aim, the company's first models, the 350GT and 400GT, were clearly superior to the equivalent Ferrari offerings."

The source for this statement: http://www.400gt.com/articles/compare/wallace-compares.htm is a statement by Bob Wallace, the development engineer for Lamborghini at the time. Can his opinion be considered unbiased? If he had said otherwise, he would have admitted failure in his stated task.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to take it out for now, the lead certainly isn't the right place for that statement in any case.AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Bob Wallace is not merely expressing an opinion which could be biased. The original Lamborghini models deliberately confronted contemporary Ferrari models with their higher performance figures that are documented, and with specific engineering innovations that Wallace states and that are not in question. The source is an interview by a published automotive author who is able to assess Wallace's statements. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
In that case, clear and specific statements need to be made, not arrogant boasts like "the company's first models were clearly superior to equivalent Ferrari offerings" or "This [buliding cars that outperformed and outclassed contemporary Ferraris] was achieved with the introduction of the 350GT and 400GT". Such statements are not information, they are vague and vain boasts. As such, I have edited them to reflect more accurately and objectively what the stated sources say. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 01:06, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
SamBlob it is inappropriate to use the terms "arrogant boasts", "vague boasts" or "vain boasts" here. My understanding is that to say "Lamborghini gradually gained the impetus to create cars" misrepresents the explanation that Ferrucio Lamborghini himself has given in interview. F. Lamborghini complained to Ferrari about the inadequacy of the clutch in his Ferrari, felt snubbed by an offhand rejection he received and thereupon determined to build "a better Ferrari". I agree it fails WP:POV to state that he succeeded. That does not mean the text should hide the fact that Lamborghini models deliberately competed with Ferrari offerings, notably on performance and styling. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
  1. I call it as I see it. Statements like "clearly superior" and "This [outperforming and outclassing contemporary Ferraris] was achieved", made generally and without qualification, are arrogant, high-handed, and dismissive, and have no place in a Wikipedia article.
  2. I agree with this point and have edited that line to suit.
  3. I am not sure to what extent the statement "Ferruccio Lamborghini entered the automobile manufacturing business with the aim of producing a high-quality grand tourer that could outperform and outclass offerings from local rival Ferrari S.p.A." hides anything about deliberate competition with Ferrari. While it is true that a statement about the 350GT and the 400GT being direct competitors to production Ferraris should have been made, the statements that were made (the one quoted at the top of this section and the "This was accomplished..." one) really were not the statements that should have been made.
  4. I maintain that the opinion of a development engineer comparing products he developed for his employer with products from his employer's main competitor cannot be considered unbiased. The quantifiable aspects of the statement may be verified by a third party, and the assessment of the author might (or might not) be neutral and usable, but it would still be better to use the third party's assessment than to use the statement of a man whose reputation rests on the products of which he speaks.
Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
This summary can clarify the role of Bob Wallace as test driver for Lamborghini. One may equally well say that his reputation depends on his ability to find faults in the Lamborghini models. Obviously he did not claim them to be the last word in performance development because he took opportunities to make further improvements. We have to use available secondary sources and there is no reason to doubt Wallace's statements in a published interview that would have been routinely confirmed by the parties before publication. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree that the opinion of an employee of a company regarding his company's product's superiority to that of a competitor cannot be considered unbiased, regardless of his qualifications and experience. For example, what if President Obama said that the U.S. government is the best government in the world? His qualifications do not make this a factual statement, and his position as leader of that government makes his statement biased (many politicians actually have made claims like that before, and they cannot be included in an encyclopedia). Rodface (talk) 16:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
AniRaptor/Rodface makes a good point by taking as analogy a categorical ("best") statement. Even if we personally agree with the statement, a Wikipedia article is not the place to say so. What is notable is that that person put that statement on the record, in some context (maybe: "during Obama's comment on North Korea"). Similarly we cannot have the sentence below without saying who claimed it and how "surpassed" and "bested" were to be understood.

"Lamborghini surpassed Ferrari with his initial offerings, the 350GT and 400GT, which easily bested the equivalent Ferrari street cars."

Cuddlyable3 (talk) 13:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
<- removed indent. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Here we have a dilemma, as minute details should not be used in the lead section, and broad, unqualified statements of superiority should not be used anywhere. To qualify the statement would require going back to the minute details that should not be in the lead section.

I have made a compromise by including the early efforts as offering a high-quality alternative to racing-based Ferrari GTs. This is not only neutral and substantiated, it also summarizes what is said elsewhere in the article, which is what the lead section is supposed to do.

However, 173.171.234.39 insists on having his statements of chest-beating superiority placed at that point, despite the fact that the statements he makes are inherently POV and should not be in any Wikipedia article no matter how well-documented they are. As such, he keeps throwing us right back to square one.

What, therefore, is the solution to this problem?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Until we find one, I will continue to preserve an unbiased point of view within the article lead. I believe treatment of the 350/400GTs impact on the car world merits inclusion within the history section and in those cars' articles. Rodface (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Some observations:
  • The IP address 173.171.234.39 geolocates to St. Petersburg, Florida, a suburb of Tampa, Florida.
  • The user at that IP address, and the new user CHARLES400GT, continue to insist posting information that is hosted on the website www.400gt.com
  • Said website lists the administrator's e-mail address as: fredparoutaud@tampabay.rr.com
  • I should hope that this is not a case of someone trying to plug their point of view and content in Wikipedia, even if it's encyclopedic material
If we are dealing with a fellow enthusiast, I should hope that they are intelligent enough to know where to put their opinions of Lamborghini's inferiority or superiority to Ferrari (hint: not in Wikipedia). Rodface (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
if it's his POV then it's not encyclopedic material because encyclopedic material is supposed to have a formal tone and neutral POV. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Editing this article used to be a pleasant experience in learning about the relatively obscure history of Lamborghini. Now, despite having read through three books on the subject, and surfed through numerous websites, keeping the article in one piece is being made difficult because someone out there can't believe that we shouldn't be trumpeting the superiority of a 50-year-old car. What to do? Rodface (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

There's no "trumpeting" going on here folks. Proof is in the pudding, and the 350GT was an extremely advanced car when introduced, as noted in the various referenced articles. I have to ask, what further proof is needed?

For the first year of the company, there was no Miura -- there was only the 350GT. This is why I have continued to add the reference -- Ferruccio set out to build that car specifically. The Miura came later.CHARLES400GT (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, so it turns out in July 1964, when the first 350GT was sold, Ferrari was offering up the Lusso. So I think it's a fair comparison: 350Gt vs Lusso. I'll be back with the comparison... CHARLES400GT (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Please do that... at the Lamborghini 350GT article, where it would be relevant. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it's for the 350GT article -- I'll work on that. For example, this quote from Pete Lyons "Lamborghini's first production model was nonetheless the most technically advanced GT of its day. The 350 GT offered a quad cam, aluminum V 12 engine with individual carburetor barrels for each cylinder, an all synchromesh five speed gearbox, limited slip differential, all independent suspension and disc brakes on all four wheels."

Which put it way ahead of the Lusso, which was basically, mechanically, a 1950's design.CHARLES400GT (talk) 12:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

List spinoff

At present, when the list of production Lamborghinis is incorporated into the article, a message comes on the edit page that saya:

This page is 90 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size.

It is for this reason that I moved the table to List of Lamborghini automobiles and replaced the table in this article with a link to the list. After doing this, the page size drops to 71 KB 76 KB ( Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 20:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC) ), which is still larger than the 30 to 50 KB recommended by Wikipedia:Article size.

However, one particularly resilient editor is of the opinion that the table should not be replaced by a link to what is effectively the same table with the 350GTV prototype removed from it and keeps putting the bulky table back. As a result, I here ask that the Wikipedia guidelines be followed and that the table be allowed to be a separate entity accessed by a link.

I thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agee with this change, no idea why FredParoutaud is putting it back. --NeilN talkcontribs 20:57, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Veracity of source

Thoughts on the article transcribed on this web page? http://www.400gt.com/articles/compare/lamborghini-by-lamborghini.htm Rodface (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

When someone can find the actual article and give a comparison, I'll believe it. Until then, anything with no provenance with a line like "an engineer who worked days in the testing department of Alta Romeo [emphasis mine] while moonlighting for us" is rather suspect. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree. If real, this is an english translation of a French article, with Lamborghini's statements probably written in Italian. Scans of an old R&T article are available from this same site as well, I believe, and constitute much better evidence. Rodface (talk) 00:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"an engineer who worked days in the testing department of Alta Romeo -- oops, my bad. My transcription of an article printed in Jim Kaminski's Lamborghini newsletter. I have the original somewhere, but the typo is mine. I'll fix it, thanksCHARLES400GT (talk) 20:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Article scans would be an acceptable source, but a transcription is more difficult, especially when hosted on a third-party website. If you can provide these, it would be great. Rodface (talk) 21:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Lamborghini Aventador

>> The flagship V12-powered Murciélago coupé and roadster were discontinued at the end of 2010, with a successor expected in 2011. <<

I am new to wikipedia but can someone please change this the Aventador was anounced in the 2011 Geneva Auto Show And is the replacement of the Murcielago AutoMoose (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

China

>> The most important markets for Automobili Lamborghini's sports cars are the U.S. (41%), Germany (13%), Great Britain (9%), and Japan (8%). The company produces around 400 cars per year.[2] <<

That is old it was on the news that China will become Lamborghini biggest supplier in 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by AutoMoose (talkcontribs) 05:01, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

400GT vs 400GT 2+2

Ok folks...these are COMPLETELY different cars, so when you write:

>> The 400GT, like its predecessors, was well-received by the motoring press, with Road & Track calling it "the finest GT car we've ever driven."[19] Lamborghini sold 250 of the cars;[19] <<

That's not correct. Lamborghini sold maybe a dozen or so 400GTs... and 250 400GT 2+2s

I'll try to fix that. But I'm just pointing out that I really do believe that the "editors" of this page really don't know about the early cars. It's just sort of a spouting of popular numbers and models, with no real understanding of what was really happening back then. Then getting really upset when facts are introduced.CHARLES400GT (talk) 01:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

New discussions are started at the bottom of the page, thank you very much. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 02:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The numbers come from verifiable sources, they are not "popular numbers". If you have a source with more accurate numbers, introduce it, please. "Maybe a dozen or so... and 250 2+2s" is not acceptable. Rodface (talk) 04:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The numbers aren't even the problem here -- it's deeper than that. You have written that 250 400GTs were made. You are confusing 400GT with 400GT 2+2, which are --->entirely different models.<----- This is a huge problem throughout this entire article, a deep misunderstanding of the actual cars...
I'll try to help you with all this.CHARLES400GT (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I myself am trying to learn more about the confusing model range of the first few years. I will go through the article and make sure that they are each identified appropriately. Rodface (talk) 13:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Charles, do you know how to distinguish a 350GT from a 400GT interm from a 400GT 2+2? I know that there is a difference in the size of the rear window and the position of the gas cap. The headlights and grille are also different, but aren't consistent to each model. Rodface (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There are 2 "quick & dirty" ways to tell a 350GT or 400GT from a 400GT 2+2. The 350GT or 400GT are referred to as a "big-window cars" and the 400GT 2+2 as "small-window cars" -- this refers to the rear window. If that is not visible (in the photo) then the 2nd method is to note the space between the top of the front wheel arch and the fender crease above that. There is literally none with the 350GT or 400GT whereas there is roughly an inch or so with the 400GT 2+2, where the body-height was raised.

A 350GT to 400GT comparison or distinction is another matter -- they are pretty much identical to each other, because the cars were made at the same time from the same batch of Touring bodies. Some say you can tell a 400GT because it has no jacking holes on the side, but I'm not sure that is entirely accurate because nobody really knows which cars are genuine 400GTs -- to me, it's a mix.

Personally, I believe the "23 were 400GT Interims" quote is a myth, possibly started by Rob de la Rive Box. Nobody can identify these special "23" cars. If somebody could provide a list I would love to see it, because my guess is there would be other cars that belong on the list, and some cars on the list that do not belong there. At best, "it's a mess."

The "classic" 400GT is defined (and differentiated from the 350GT) as having a 4-liter engine, Lamborghini Transmission (350s had the ZF) and a Lamborghini differential (350s had the Salisbury). However, again you run into problems with these definitions as there are cars with a mixture of these features that could be defined as either modified 350GTs or 400GTs. If nothing else, there is no clear list of 350GTs vs 400GTs.

Although there is an excellent list of 400GT 2+2s here: http://www.400gt.com/misc/AutoDigest22h.jpg

And you will notice, even with that article, the term "400GT" is used incorrectly. This is not a complete listing of 400GT cars, this is a complete listing of 400GT 2+2 cars.CHARLES400GT (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Charles. I understand your misgivings regarding the number of Interims produced, but there is little we can do because the number is cited in numerous verifiable sources. We cannot include original research, no matter how exhaustive or correct it is. This is a downside of Wikipedia, but a necessary one.
Taking a look at these two categories on the Commons: 350 GT and 400 GT, would you agree that the red "350GT" is in fact a 400 GT 2+2, based on the wheel well/crease separation, and that all the photos in the 400 GT category are actually 400 GT 2+2s? Rodface (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The "23 interims" is not something I care much about, especially given the Wikipedia rules. Time will sort this out...maybe not in my lifetime :)
I'll look at the pix -- I changed the 350GT photo yesterday because the red car was a 400GT 2+2. (I think that's the one you're talking about, I'll go check)CHARLES400GT (talk) 16:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, this is a 400GT 2+2: Lamborghini_350_GT_with_truck_in_Tenerife.jpg -- clearly. I uploaded my photo of 350GT #102 at Pebble Beach yesterday and substituted it for the red "Tenerife" 400GT 2+2 photo on the 350GT page.CHARLES400GT (talk) 16:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
This car: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lamborghini_400GT_and_Miura.jpg on the 400GT page is most likely a 350GT, I know the car and the photo and I can check it out further. It is not a 400GT 2+2, note the lack of space above the front arch, but most importantly, note the jack holes in the side, clearly a 350GT feature.
Ah...here it is, 350GT leading the Columbus Parade in NYC: http://www.400gt.com/photos/350_columbus/350gt_columbus.htm
This page of photos needs to be changed from "400GT" to "400GT 2+2" -- different cars.
The last two photos are of Alf's 400GT 2+2 #1111 at the factory. http://www.400gt.com/articles/Alf/1111.html
Notice also the 2+2s can be slightly jacked up in the back to support the theoretical rear passangers.CHARLES400GT (talk) 16:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Excellent. I will make the necessary changes over at the Commons. I've also been provided this link by an enthusiast I got in touch with via e-mail, an attempt to come up with a definitive list of Interims: http://www.vintagelamborghini.com/vlgforum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=29634&sid=4fec04989d69d84d20052b0ef21af6bb&start=10 Rodface (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I invite anyone interested to check out the Lamborghini category at the Commons to make sure that all cars are in their appropriate places. I've added name change tags and those should hopefully kick in soon, and we can point the Wikipedia articles to the right pictures. In the meantime, can anyone say for sure what sort of 400 GT the car at the right is?
400GT.JPG
And one more thing; from what I've read, it appears that it's difficult if not impossible to tell a 350 GT from a 400 GT interim, at a glance. This could mean that many of the cars identified as 350 GTs in the Commons are mislabeled as such. Does the enthusiast community have a position on whether or not there's any point in trying to differentiate between them?

Yes, I run that group (vintagelamborghini) with Jack Riddell. That's my thread, and tho I know it's hopeless to identify exactly which are the true 400GT interims, I figure we might as well have all our discussions in one place.

I have an extensive private list I keep for all the 350GT/400GT/400GT 2+2 cars and I can sometimes confirm or negate claims. Still, I have no idea which are the "23 cars" everybody constantly cites. I don't believe the factory does either -- I've been to the factory. If you want an example of a "slam dunk" car here's one:

http://www.400gt.com/photos/roberts400gt/roberts400.htm

Notice the factory certificate (bottom of the page). That doesn't hurt...

That black car appears to be a 400GT 2+2. That's a tough one because of the photo angle. But -- more clues -- the 350 cars tended to have high-backed seats. Typically, the 350GTs had the single oval headlights, but there are many exceptions and also owner modifications that took place. The very early 350GTs (the first few) like #102 that I posted on the 350 wikipedia article, had the solid front bumper extending across the front and a mesh grill. Again, only a few early cars had those features.

Headlights changed according to US federalizing laws, which is why the four round ones snuck in...slowly. Some are set into the fender with no trim, but almost all the 400GT 2+2 cars have the 4-round headlights and headlight trim.

Lets get these cars right and give them their due credit! They are amazing vehicles, truly the first refined GT cars. They drive like a new Lexus -- years ahead of anything else at the time.CHARLES400GT (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thanks for your contributions, Charles; your enthusiasm for Lamborghini's cars is great, and I have great passion for them too. Let's just remember that in order to include statements like "first truly refined GT cars", we need to see a consensus among modern verifiable sources.
At this point, I'm not quite sure what to do. In order to include any of this, it needs to have been laid out in a book, or a magazine article somewhere. Do you have access to any such materials where it discusses the logic of the "big-window" vs. "small-window" cars, or where it specifically mentions that the factory didn't care for making sure that what went into the engine bay matched the label on the car? Rodface (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe a book is underway discussing the logic of "big-window" vs. "small-window" cars. You heard it here first :) -- I'm not aware of it in any existing books, but I certainly haven't read them all...far from it.

As for "first truly refined GT car" it's not important, and not needed. The point is -- and what is missed almost everywhere (because so few folks really know these cars) -- that Ferruccio bested Enzo with the 350GT. This is a very big deal. He bested him again with the Miura, but first with the 350GT.

There were a number of reasons why Ferrari was sticking to his "1950's" technology -- and this is very well documented. What is less-well known is how Ferruccio specifically targeted Ferrari to create a superior GT car. For a few years there Ferruccio led the GT race, a sore point in the Ferrari community, and why you don't see it publicized too much. Not very many people really know the early Lamborghini cars.

As for your question, maybe do nothing. I'll keep collecting sources and adding to the 350GT article, then move over to the 400GT article, etc. I have to be honest with you, I'm not that interested in what makes a great Wiki article, and following specific guidelines, though I do read Wikipedia a lot and think it is quite good.

I'll keep adding information and references, and the Wiki powers that be will do what they want with it...that's the point of Wikipedia, and I'm fine with that.CHARLES400GT (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear that there will be new sources to include. Indeed, I have complete faith in Ferruccio's ability to outdo Enzo, he seemed the right man to put Ferrari in its place. Certainly little is known about the early models; I've been a Lamborghini fan for as long as I can remember, but somehow had no idea up until a few years ago about anything that the company produced before the Countach!
My interest is in perfecting the coverage of Lamborghini cars on Wikipedia. Us Wikinerds wish to preserve the world's knowledge for posteriority; it is up to the enthusiasts to generate that knowledge. Allow us to take care of the technicalities ;) Rodface (talk) 01:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, there is of course no point in adding information without documentation. There is one problem, which I consider a nuisance ... some of this is not documented. So I will do my best to add what I can.

Again, to beat a dead horse, what is most important to reflect in the introduction to the main article(s) is that:

  1. "Ferruccio Lamborghini decided that there was something wrong with all the existing Grand Touring cars and these were the points upon which he would improve." Chris Harvey in http://www.lambocars.com/archive/bookshr/chris1t.htm
  2. "The 350 was the best car we ever built" Bob Wallace in http://www.hemmings.com/hsx/stories/2008/09/01/hmn_feature13.html

ie:

  • the 350GT was the car Ferruccio set out to build
  • it was the best car Lamborghini (under Ferruccio) ever built, for a number of reasons
  • it was the best GT car of its time, far exceeding the equivalent Ferrari road offerings, not to mention the others

So when it is left out of the introduction, and the Miura is included, which was, frankly, "Hot and noisy inside, it wasn't very comfortable and, in the beginning at least, was as far from perfect" Pete Lyons in http://www.lambocars.com/archive/bookshr/lyonst.htm

It just doesn't make any sense. The introduction is then reduced to the writing of some Miura fans, which is not the real, balanced, objective story of Ferruccio Lamborghini.

I love the Miura, I had one. It was rushed into production, not at all a refined car like the 350GT.

It set the world on fire -- but the 350GT was the car Ferruccio set out to build... And at that goal he succeeded.CHARLES400GT (talk) 13:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I have heard much about the Miura's uncomfortable driving experience. And of course it wasn't the car that Ferruccio wanted; he wanted to make a great GT, not the racing cars he so despised! It's clear that he managed to build that great GT, history remembers the Miura and the line of cars it spawned (all the way up to the modern Murcielago and Gallardo), rather than Ferruccio's beloved GT. It is indeed sad, and we need to make sure the GT aspect is well covered. So what does this mean for the intro? We include all cars that were either critically acclaimed or caused some sort of paradigm change, or we include none. It might be a better idea to remove all car models from the intro, and let the reader explore them below. It might not, we'll see. Rodface (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Ferrari wiki leaves them all out, the intro is just a few lines. Cars are added chronologically starting in the History subsection. I'm sure they have been through the same battle, but with far more editors. As Jay Leno says (owner of numerous Lamborghinis) "I don't own a Ferrari because I don't have a place to put all those Ferrari books."CHARLES400GT (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If you're referring to the Ferrari article, it's crap, and I honestly can't bring myself to give it the same treatment as the Lamborghini article. Rodface (talk) 15:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, referring to it, but didn't read it, just noted how they began. I believe you.

Here's another example of how the first Lamborghinis are confused on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin_Auto_Show

It was the GTV that debuted at the 1963 Turin Auto Show, yet this reference both states that it was the 350GT and displays a photo of a 350GT...even though the 350GT had not even yet been designed.CHARLES400GT (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, I'll fix that. Rodface (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I rewrote the 350GT wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamborghini_350GT

Let me know what you think. The GTV is mentioned throughout because the GTV and 350GT were developed largely in parallel -- so much of what was designed for the wild GTV was simply toned down for the 350GT. This where the 350GT and subsequent cars get their racing heritage, as it were.

Bizzarrini, Dallara, Stanzani, Wallace...all wanted to build a race car. The 350GT is a toned-down and sophisticated race car for the street.

It's important to understand that every Lamborghini had the same V-12, from 350GT to 400GT to Miura to Espada to Countach, etc. The exact same motor (3.5 liters for the 350GT, the rest 4.0 liters). Many of the parts are interchangeable. A friend of mine had pistons made for his 400GT and a friend's Countach lp400 at the same time, in the same batch, because the motors -- though 10 years apart -- used the exact same piston.

This engine was created by Bizzarrini and detuned for production by Dallara. So all the cars, from 350GT through lp400, are basically the same... save for body work, weight and engine layout.

Cheers,

FredCHARLES400GT (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Great content, I'll reformat it to match Wikipedia style. I'm aware of the engineering team's desire to build a car with more racing pedigree than what Ferruccio wanted, and that the V12 used today is largely the same engine that went into the 350. Rodface (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That new photo is of a 400GT -- my photos:

http://www.400gt.com/misc/DSCN006622.JPG

http://www.400gt.com/misc/DSCN006524.JPG

I know the car well, photos taken in Monterey in 2006

here is it at Bonhams before that:

http://www.400gt.com/articles/Brians/Brians.htm

RM had the wrong serial number listed, it's chassis 454, engine 445 (not chassis 445)

"There are nothing but mistakes when it comes to these cars" :)

CHARLES400GT (talk) 18:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

btw, I like that quote: "Reviewing the 400GT in its 2+2 form in 1967, Autocar magazine voted it "better than all the equivalent exotic and home-bred machinery in this glamorous corner of the fast-car market."

Yes!CHARLES400GT (talk) 18:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

>> "Enzo, Orsi and David Brown had better look to their laurels!" gushed Sports Car Graphic magazine, after testing one in 1966. In truth, none of them had a machine in production that could hold a candle to the young upstart from Sant'Agata. Bob Wallace, the man who really made it work, has said he considers the 350GT to be the best Lamborghini ever built. And quite right too. <<

Italian Legends, Nov 2009

CHARLES400GT (talk) 17:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised we're still having problems with the 350 quotes up front. Honestly, I think the vast majority of car nuts just don't have a clue.

Here's another quote from July 2010 Hemmings -- is this current enough?

"If you compare them (350GT) with the Ferrari of the period, it was always the more stylish, mechanically more sophisticated...and if you look at the road tests when the car was new, they always said the Lamborghini was the better car."

CHARLES400GT (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

A suggestion regarding the latest lead section impasse

If the widespread acclaim of the quality of the 350GT, 400GT, and 400GT 2+2 is established in the body of the article, with the about five or six citations that are claimed to be available, then the objection to the statement about these early Lamborghinis in the lead section just might be withdrawn... Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 22:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

happy to do that. From the latest Hemmings, July 2010, for example (one of dozens and dozens) -- of the 350GT: "If you compare them with the Ferrari of the period, it was always the more stylish, mechanically more sophisticated...and if you look at the road tests when the car was new, they always said the Lamborghini was the better car." This is just such common knowledge, that one would need "about five or six citations" just shows the complete ignorance if the folks editing this article. I can't say I'm shocked, but I can say I'd expect a bit better knowledge of the high-end 60s exotics, considering wikipedia is international. 173.171.234.39 (talk) 21:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Let's please not start calling names in here. Indeed, even as a Lamborghini fan I'm surprised that there's this much consensus regarding the superiority of Lamborghini's early offerings. Has Ferrari really managed to overshadow Lamborghini's early success in the modern era to the degree that it's been almost completely forgotten? Rodface (talk) 04:53, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please have valid information as in correct numbers of 400GT and 400GT 2+2 sold, a lot of us Lambo fans are wanting valid information that are up to date. As well, one of your referencing should be reconsidered because I see invalid information that you've gathered for this article. I believe it's your 12th point on your referencing that you should be looking at. Check out the link and the author who posted the image and named each Lambos for yourself. I'm pretty sure every lambo fans know which model is which. ~1AZNFlare~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1AzNFlare (talkcontribs) 02:22, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Article protection

Almost all the edits on this article are reverts, unnecessary changes, and vandalism. Can we protect this article with Pending Changes, or some other form of protection?Rodface (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

New discussions are to be started at the bottom of the page, as per WP:TOPPOST.
You can follow the procedure prescribed at WP:SILVERLOCK and try to get the article semi-protected again. That should give us a month or three of relative peace. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

The nationality of Lamborghini

To all editors insisting that Lamborghini is a German company: Lamborghini Automobili is an Italian company. It was an Italian company when it was owned by Indonesian companies, and it was an Italian company when it was owned by Chrysler. It has not ceased to be an Italian company now that it is owned by a German company, and it will still be Italian when Audi sells it to someone else. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 21:21, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

But do you know the old german saw: "Wer bezahlt, bestimmt die Musik". I think it can be translated with "He who pays the piper calls the tune" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.53.210.169 (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
German saws notwithstanding, the company is located in Italy, the company is registered in Italy, the company is Italian. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
The economically correct description is: Italian subsidiary company of a german corporate parent. Unfortunately no room for local patriotism. The Germans decide about Lamborghinis own scope of action. It is the same with Opel: The Germans decide......... as long as the Americans (GM) agree with the decisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.53.217.182 (talk) 19:46, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
@SamBlob: Deleting my opinion does not mean that your opinion is the right one!
Nor is this conversation doing anything to help the article. I will therefore not continue it. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
But at least it taught you some discussion culture. Homework for next lesson: Learn the meaning of "troll". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.192.2.7 (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Hmm... anonymous antagonist consistently making unhelpful remarks. Yep. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it is time for you to reconsider if it is helpful to call someone a troll who is not a troll. Just imagine someone really starts trolling around in your articles the next years?!
Do your worst, and see where it gets you. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
A invitation for trolls.......don't know how far that gets you?
No further than otherwise. Trolls are vermin, to be exterminated. The sooner the exercise begins, the better. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
That kind of phrases sound like phrases that were used in the third reich. It reveals your character significantly.
As has this entire thread revealed yours. Смерть Интернет тролли! Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
At least I did not go so low that I had to use Mr. Goebbels` language and his use of media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.192.39.50 (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
And maybe you should not delete opinions or comments in the "talk" section of wikipedia. That is what commonly is called censorship. And this is not and should never take place on wikipedia.


The talk page of articles is for content relevant to the article. Content relevant to me goes on my talk page. You, as a wandering nomad series of IPs, do not have a talk page, so I can't tell you there exactly where you can place your comments. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
But you deleted content related to the article. Call it to mind. If you can' t use the "view history section"!
Obviously you know what i mean. Someone who deletes that and calls this trolling (as you did in the title) is probably the best example for a troll by himself....and a master of censorship. Of course it was related to the article. You are not the person who decides what is pointless and unrelated. This is wikipedia and you are not the owner of that article since you typed the first letter of it. Of course someone can offer the opinion, that Lamborghini is a german company because it is the subsidiary of a subsidiary of a german company. This is a economical fact. You on the other hand only offer emotive facts.
Nope, I don't recall deleting anything related to the article. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

How are the time periods in the history section chosen?

I'm not sure I understand how the time periods in which the History section is subdivided are chosen. Today, the subsection 1998-present, which covers the period during which the company has been owned by VAG and administered by Audi, has been further subdivided into 1998-2007, 2008-2010, and 2011-present. Is there any particular reason for this?

I also don't understand the sectioning of the time the company started production to the time when Ferruccio Lamborghini sold controlling interest in the company in 1972. What is the significance of 1965-66, 1967-68, 1969-70, and 1971-72?

At least I understand 1973-77, which is between Ferruccio Lamborghini selling controlling interest and the company going bankrupt, 1978-86, from receivership through sale to Mimran to the end of Mimran's ownership, 1987-93, the period of Chrysler's ownership, and 1993-97, the period of ownership by Indonesian interests.

Could someone please explain the reason for the time periods under Ferruccio Lamborghini's control and under Audi's control? The time periods used to have captions explaining their significance. Why were these removed? Why should they not be replaced?

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 23:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Renamed the captions. Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

old SUV image replaced

right|60px

yeah, i replaced the image because the previous image had poor graphics. Jawadreventon (talk) 22:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: WikiProject Germany

"This project covers the creation and editing of articles related to the nation of Germany, its cities, counties, geography, transportation, culture, history and so on. It aims to expand Wikipedia's resources on Germany in a fair and accurate manner." – Scope of WikiProject Germany

Lamborghini's only relationship to Germany is that it is owned by a German company. It has nothing to do with Germany's cities, counties, geography, culture, or history. The only link it has to German transportation is that it is owned by a German automobile manufacturer and that some wealthy Germans might have bought some of them.

For this reason, I have removed the WikiProject Germany tag. If it is replaced, I will place tags for the Wikipedia:WikiProject Indonesia and Wikipedia:WikiProject United States, as these would be equally valid due to former ownership.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 16:52, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

SAME acquires Lamborghini Trattori in 1970, 1971, 1972 or 1973 - Take Your Pick

A BOT editor added a contradict tag because the article states that SAME purchased Lamborghini Trattori in 1972, then later states 1973. The unfortunate part of this is that the sources of both dates are SAME Deutz-Fahr official websites. A South African SDF dealer website claims 1971. The Lamborghini Trattori article on Wikipedia Italia claims LT was sold in 1970, but there isn't a single reference in the entire article. Ideally, someone has access to 1st tier media of the period and can research what was reported in newspapers and trade magazines that were covering the events as they happened. I'll look around for online resources from the UK and Italy. 174.21.26.107 (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1 Archive 2
  1. ^ Jolliffe, p. 39