(first posted 5/28/2015) I read all the comments here, and sometimes one will grab me and I just can’t let it go. About a week or so ago, at the 1974 Corvette post, Phil L. left the following comment: The only measure a Camry outperforms an early Countach in is braking. I will grant you that the numbers are much closer than most people would believe. But still, the Camry does not outperform it.
Is that true? And just how close are the numbers? A little digging yielded the answers.
zeroto60times.com is a good resource for these questions, as they list 0-60 and 1/4 mile times from numerous sources. here’s several for the earlier V12 Countachs;
1976 LP400 0-60: 6.6 sec. 1/4 mile: 14.1 sec.
1978 LP400S 0-60: 5.8 sec. 1/4 mile: 14.3 sec.
1979 LP 400S 0-60: 5.8 sec. 1/4 mile: 14.2 sec.
There’s also several of different generations of Camry V6 results there:
2012 Camry V6: 0-60: 5.8 sec. 1/4 mile: 14.2 sec.
2012 Camry V6: 0-60: 5.7 sec. 1/4 mile: 14.1 sec.
2015 Camry V6: 0-60: 5.8 sec. 1/4 mile: 14.3 sec.
The verdict? The average of the three times is as follows:
Countach: 0-60: 6.066 sec. 1/4 mile: 14.2 sec.
Camry V6: 0-60: 5.766 sec. 1/4 mile: 14.2 sec.
The Camry wins, by a hair. Not bad, for a car with such a frumpy image.
Top speed? well, that’s obviously a very different matter. Lamborghini claimed a top speed of 300kmh (186 mph) for the original LP400, because of the lack of wide tires and fender flares. Did anyone confirm it?
The Camry V6 tops out at some 135 mph, depending on how accurate the top speed limiter is. But it’s not going to challenge the Countach in that metric, regardless. it does have twice the number of cylinders, after all.
Hehehehehehehehehehe. Brilliant.
I hate you all. I’ll be in the bar, sulking and dreaming out loud about the old days.
http://www.loc.gov/wiseguide/sept10/images/jazz_B.jpg
+1
Paul has just dashed one of my childhood dreams. I had a Countach picture on my wall as a kid, right next to a ’71 Hemi Cuda picture.
Next I suppose Paul will dredge up the specs to show how badly a new Hellcat Challenger can spank a Hemi Cuda, and still return relatively good fuel economy when driven at sane speeds.
I’ll still take the ’71 ‘Cuda.
As much as I wouldn’t kick a new Challenger out of the garage, agreed. The look and sensation of the original will never be matched.
Great pic.
Unless you’re driving on a track, or speeding on a Western Interstate so badly that you’d be jailed for it if caught, top speed is irrelevant on cars sold to average people. What matters is how quick the car is — how fast it gets to speeds typical of daily driving.
That’s why British reviewers commend the Corvette as not being tiring to drive around town like other supercars, apart from its bulk.
Both of these have about 2 seconds (in both 0-60 and 1/4 mile times) over one of the best showroom dragsters of the 60s, the supercharged Stude Super Lark. Yes, the modern Camry V6 is an impressive piece of work.
The original widebody Camry was a rocket ship when released it was dumbed and slowed down considerably for world/US consumption, I guess wheelspin at 100 mph when accelerating isnt for everyone and nobody in the US wanted to go 145mph in a Toyota.
I am intrigued what model year was that?
1990 it only went on sale in one market NZ,
I thought the original wide body at least for the U.S.of A was the 1992-1996 Camry since it is larger than the previous generation.
Super Lark esp. as piloted by Ted Harbit.
It amuses me each time I read an auto review that dings a new car with 8-second 0-60 times for being slow.
That’s without getting into the ride, handling, braking and fuel economy of today’s cars vs. their lower-tech predecessors.
+1
8 seconds? I saw a recent C/D article on the Honda Accord Coupe that said they don’t consider a 0-60 time longer than 6.0 seconds fast anymore.
Statistics make for a lot of good debates. Comparing cars built almost forty years apart will produce interesting outcomes.
For its time, the Lamborghini outperformed anything Toyota was then producing, and it was really a hobby / lifestyle car for the wealthy that liked to show off. I’m sure some owners put them on tracks for an afternoon of entertainment, and the old Lambo would still be the more entertaining car in that environment, everything from its engine note to its top speed.
The Lambo is still light years ahead in one metric – attracting pretty women ?
Camrys do attract ♀ •buyers• (pretty or not). I always imagine the Solara being a divorcee’s car.
I think it was LJK Setright who complained memorably about the Countach having “all its aerodynamic laundry hanging out to dry.”
BTW, while our XV10 Camry Wagon wasn’t agile, to my amazement, it cornered like it was on rails. Don’t know if the newer ones are worse or better, it’s hard to stay on top of such things since we’re long-term car owners.
I once read an article about the happiness of owning a 70s supercar. They are expensive to keep, have a neither classic nor modern style, not so thrilling performance anymore and there will always be someone asking: “Is that a fiberglass replica?”
Dunno about the style part. Gandini pretty much redefined the cab-forward configuration used by the pre-war mid-rear engined Auto Union GP cars with the Countach. Lamborghini still use this today on their whole range, as does the same stable Audi and the McLarens going back to the amazing F1. Admittedly the ATS from the early 60s did it before, but who remembers that? And none of the aforementioned cars look anywhere near as good as a pre-bespoilered LP400. Its a modern classic. Not to everyone’s taste, but.
+1 on the original Countach. It was a masterpiece.
I would argue that modern cab-forward mid-engine supercar proportions were actually set by the Countach’s predecessor, the Miura.
I’d call that a mid cabin, same as a Dino and Carabo. Got to thinking about it some more, Ford Mk4 and Porsche 917 both had it as well, but one could also argue they were just extended tails. Been mulling a Countach post for a while and taking it for a test drive.
The Miura is more like “anti” cab forward.
It has a long nose, and the A pillar and windshield kinda sit a smidgen aft the front fender.
Now, the Countach… That has all the signs of cab forward.
If it were any more cab forward, it would be a Dodge Intrepid. 😛
Nothing a complete rewiring and engine swap can’t cure.
Thanks for looking into that further Paul, I guess it depends on what numbers you use and yours are probably the most accurate way to do that. I believe lateral grip also favors the Countach, but I can’t seem to find the numbers for it this morning.
While that all sounds very impressive for a lowly Camry, keep in mind the Countach is 41 years old. If you take a 1972 Impala 454 and compare it to exotic cars from 1931, I think you’d see a similar result. But it wouldn’t make me desire that Impala any more.
The Honda Accord V-6 also has similar stats. Just shows how impressive and technologically advanced these two cars are.
Have rented many, many Camrys and Accords over the years. After some annoying decontenting starting in 2000 or so, the recent generations of each are actually quite improved over the prior generation. Not only in performance, but the little luxury touches and conveniences.
Hmmm, I spent a LOT of time at drag strips in my youth in the ’70’s. The reality is that most of the muscle cars of the time were crude and dangerous machines. Their actual performance was nowhere near the present mythology. However, they were epic thrillers and a hell of a lot of fun.
There are many cars today which will outperform them by all measures, even though they have been made child safe, non-toxic and docile enough that your grandmother could drive one.
Heck, today some crew cab pickups can outperform a lot (but not all) of those vaunted musclecars…including economy.
There is no doubt we are once again in a performance era. I don’t see how it will last when the 2025 CAFE standards go into effect. Not even the Prius exceeds the 54.5 average that is mandated.
EVs and Plug In Hybrids. If 20% of your sales are 120mpg equivelent EVs you can still have plenty of 25-30mpg large vehicles.
The P85D and i8 offer a window of what the performance future holds.
Perhaps, but that’s a big “if” considering those sales today are just 0.6% of the market.
http://www.hybridcars.com/december-2014-dashboard/
Which one would you not hesitate to jump into for a 1500 mile, spur of the moment road trip?
This one!
+1, LOL
The American market front wing on that car is still every bit as absurd as the day they put it on to meet bumper standards.
Heh in hindsight I agree with you, but I must say I thought this was the ultimate looking Countach as a old car movie watching kid, and in defense it’s no more obnoxious or less purposeful the factory rear wing from what I understand.
Oh, but it is. It is spring loaded, which is to say that it deflects upon impact. Not such a bad thing at 5 miles per hour, but at high speeds that deflection generates lift, which isn’t such a good thing when you’re trying to steer the car.
Very few cars retained that wing, and for good reason. The guy who took his car for a top speed run with that on it could unintentionally find himself in command of a particularly uncontrollable aircraft only able to do backflips and noted for hard landings.
150 or 300 miles; yes. 1500 miles? Hmmm. I’m obviously getting old. I’m not even sure how well I’d fit in a Countach in the first place.
Surprisingly, they are fairly accommodating. I’m 6’2″ and fit fine. I sat in a Countach a few months ago and was comfortable. View out the rear is mail slot terrible, but contrary to legend, ingress and egress was not bad at all. Also sat in a Diablo and that is a whole other story. Headroom was manageable for me, but the steering wheel, center console, and pedal relationship was not. I couldn’t operate the brake and gas. One of the few cars I’ve ever sat in that I don’t think I could drive even a short distance.
I had that experience in a Midget. I’m a long legged 6’3″ and there was no way in Hades I could drive that car.
I drove a right-hand-drive 1968 Mini some years ago in Denver, Colorado. The guy who was selling me didn’t want to hand me keys to his Mini because he thought there’s no way on earth I could fit in Mini. Oh, I’m 6’8″ (or 205 cm) tall.
After prodding him for a while, he gave me the keys and was gobsmacked at how easily I could enter the Mini (my secret technique) and fit in the Mini so astoundingly well. I had at least three inches of headroom, a couple of inches of shoulder room, and plenty of legroom.
Good thing that this Mini in question had a steering wheel in lorry position (steering column going almost to the floor rather than through the dashboard/firewall).
Unfortunately, I later discovered that this car had been heavily damaged in a mishap and was sloppily patched up. Not worth the $10,000 asking price…
The Camry would be an utterly forgettable drive. The Countach would provide a cherished lifetime memory. I’d take the keys to the Countach 10 out of 10 times.
Without a doubt, the Camry. If it were 150 miles, again without doubt the Lambo.
At least the later years are safe, for now.
1982 Lamborghini Countach LP500S 0-60 mph 5.6 | Quarter mile 13.9
1986 Lamborghini Countach 5000S 0-60 mph 5.1 | Quarter mile 13.5
1986 Lamborghini Countach LP5000 QV 0-60 mph 5.1 | Quarter mile 13.5
That’s the bad boy, I recall the QV doing 0-60 mph in 4.9 sec according to Motor Road Test Annual 1987, only topped by the Audi Quattro Sport doing it in 4.8 sec.
This reminds me of the article on Another Site where they compared an Honda Odyssey with a Porsche 356 and Jag-u-ar XK-E: http://grassrootsmotorsports.com/articles/soccer-moms-revenge/
“Sure, cars are better now, if “better” is a measure of function—of how well an item fulfills its primary duty. But in becoming better, today’s cars have primarily focused on eliminating what makes the Porsche and Jag so exciting—that being the journey itself. Everything on the Honda is designed either to be a distraction from the actual journey—like the DVD, climate control and so on—or to distance the occupants as far as possible from the experience of the trip.
The Porsche and the Jag, on the other hand, are all about the experience of the trip, which is great, because if measured by any other standard, they simply fall short.”
It’s funny because if Porsche could have built a car that completely isolated its occupants from road and wind noise while providing exemplary performance and economy, they would have. The 356 was meant to be about covering ground quickly and efficiently in comfort, something that the minivan does better. That’s what decades of development and innovation will do for you. The E-type was meant to be a performance car rather than a toy too.
Well considering Oxcarts were what preceded the 356 a half century earlier, I’d say the 356 was an isolation chamber, and from that perspective the leap in technology was quite a bit more impressive fifty years ago to fifty years prior than now to fifty years ago where we figured out how to make something match a car with an 80 orsepower engine cooled by air. Ohh ahh.
Yes I’m totally sure Porsche would have made the 356 a minivan had they had the technology back then. I love revisionist history.
I didn’t say they’d build a minivan. The point was that the 356 coupe was as quiet and composed as Porsche could make it. It was as fast and as efficient as they could figure out for its price. It wasn’t engineered to create a connection with the driver like a first generation Miata. It was supposed to get wealthy Germans from point A to point B as quickly and comfortably as possible, while also having enough performance to attract US customers who were growing accustomed to power and luxury Europeans couldn’t even comprehend in the ’50s. ‘All about the experience’ only relates to how we look at them as artifacts today. It has nothing to do with their intended purpose.
Porsche was deeply involved in racing for a long long time, including the whole of the 356 era, every last one of their real roadcars benefited from track experience the same way Ferrari roadcars did(the old saying I believe was Porsche races to sell cars, Ferrari sells cars to race). These were sports cars in every sense of the word, were they a cut above the average British roadster at the time in refinement? Yes. But they were sports cars, not just quick transportation appliances, hence the reason Porsche only ever built 365 like cars until the 70s, where they still built sports cars albiet in a more conventional way. They were never intended to distract from the fact that you were driving the thing in the name of a-b isolated utility like a minivan does.
A couple of summers ago I spent a weekend driving a friend’s ’68 TR-250, and I couldn’t believe how fun it was to drive.
My 2013 Focus would probably outrun the Triumph in a drag race and through a slalom. The modern Ford four cylinder has redline that’s nearly double the I-6 in the Triumph.
But driving the roadster was a joyous experience in ways that can’t be quantified. Part of it was the thrill of open-air driving, but I’ve driven a lot of other convertibles, and they weren’t nearly as fun.
The heavy steering that communicated every pimple on the road, the low-revving but torquey engine, and the handling that, while being predictable, demanded your full attention on twisty roads — all of that combined to make every minute behind the wheel of the Triumph memorable.
So, yeah, we’re living in the Good Old Days in many ways now, but older cars do have charms of their own, and there are some things that are lost when you make cars better by sanding off all the rough edges.
I have to agree with you on that one. I went from an 1986 vw vanagon to a 1996 Toyota previa a few years back. I know the Toyota could out preform the vw in every way with power everything to boot but the vw felt faster and better in the turns and sounded a lot tougher too. Much more work to drive as you had to shift the gears. But I don’t miss the never ending snag list I enevitably had to deal with near weekly.
The real metric that counts is: How quick you can get the girls panties off. The one with the quickest time would have to be the Countach. As far as speed and top end, my little TC-3 has them both beat.
You own a TC-3? My dad had an 024, quirky lil cars.
You don’t get that annoying starter whine do you?
All mopars have starter whine. They use it in movies no matter what the make. I use one of those lightweight high torque ones to start the old 360 in my TC-3
A 360? Is your car a RWD conversion?
I’ve heard about your TC-3 in the comments section several times; I’d love to see an article about its making!
I was going to take photos during construction, but I forgot to. For a fun article on it, look up the April 2000 Mopar Action. The article is in there. It has been improved since then.
I also see about as many V6 Camrys as I do Countaches on a daily commute… By and large most Camrys are lowly puttering 4 cylinder LEs, with the V6 model being the flagship “see, we’re cool too!” model for dedicated Toyota people to show their coworkers the impressive statistics of what their car could do on the internet(while keeping the page scrolled just past the 4cyl stats). 😀
Plus no V6 can match the bellow of the Lamborghini V12, that sound alone is worth the potential embarrassment of a close straight line race.
Aw shucks; you popped my bubble. Here I was thinking that if I got a Camry everyone would think….”if that’s a V6, he drives a car that’s faster than a Countach!”
Well, everyone here would know that. Who else matters, really? 🙂
The V6 models of the Camry and Accord both strike me as the answer to a question very few were asking. Maybe it was different a few years ago, but when the 4cyl is pushing 200 HP, why bother with a V6? (That, plus the fact that Honda seems to have great difficulty making transmissions that will stand up to any significant amount of torque…)
This was prescient: The Accord has now traded its V-6 for a turbo four, the Hyundai Sonata and KIA K5 (nee Optima) have done the same, and while the Camry retains its 2GR-FE V-6 for the time being, I imagine that’s mostly because of its commonality with the Lexus ES. (The Acura TLX still has a V-6, but it’s now theoretically divorced from the Accord with a specialized platform.)
No Toyota ever made could match, the Countach, in sheer badassiness(is that an actual word? lol) or road presence.
Not worried about the 0-60… the sports cars of the 80’s were usually good for the norm 7.9 secs.
At 5.8, it was great back then, easily attained by likes of the Countach, Porsche 911, and Aston Martin Vantage… I loved that article, forgot the car mag, though. The Lamborghini was good for 180+ tops.
The Camry is still a wuss with a top speed of only 135?? What a joke.
The 1990 MR2 Turbo topped off at 140 back in the “140mph and Over Club shootout” back in 1995, via Motor Trend.
Reprogram the governor and the Camry V6 would beat the Countach in top speed too. Far lower drag will do that for you.
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/1983-lamborghini-countach-5000s-road-test-review
Top speed tested with the more powerful, Euro-spec engine was 150 mph. It was said that removing the rear wing would elevate top speed to 160 mph, not that they were able to test it. The Camry V6 without a limiter would probably reach close to 170 mph. Cars with similar power but far more weight and drag have to be governed to 155 mph in Europe. That the Camry was matching the Countach’s low speed acceleration, when drag isn’t even a factor, shows that it would walk away from the Lambo on the top end.
170mph in a 3500lb car wearing 215 tires with a 130mph speed rating. Have fun with that.
And I’m sure reprogramming the governor won’t effect the oh so important warranty…
Until 1978, the Countach came on 205/70VR15 tires in front and 215/70VR15 tires on the rear. The OEM tires on the 2015 Camry XSE V6 are 225/45VR18.
http://www.topspeed.com/cars/lamborghini/1973-1990-lamborghini-countach-ar603.html
As for weight, Lamborghini did claim light curb weights for the early Countach, but the lightest one actually weighed by an independent magazine wasn’t that much lighter than a Camry. Kind of like how their top speed claims went out the window when people were able to test the cars. Maybe chipping a Camry will affect the warranty, but it won’t make it as unreliable as a 40 year old Lambo.
Heh I love how we’re jumping all over the place to find the Countach’s faults.
It ended production on 345s out back, wore that size for the vast majority of production and are more common by a landslide, for the sake of argument I’m speaking with those in mind. Wide rear tires on a mid or rear engine car ensure high speed stability and strong grip out back so the back end doesn’t end up forward in a fast corner, you’re not going to have a fun time in the camry past 130mph is you even breath on the steering wheel with 225s all around(and since you use the smallest countach example, I’ll use the smallest V6 Camry example, which is 215, as per Toyota’s own website). And keep in mind crumple zones and the 10 standard airbags that make modern cars so safe today are designed and tested to be effective at speeds a quarter of what you’re talking about. The Countach may be old but I’d still trust being caged within it’s tubular space frame if it got squirrly at those speeds than the Camry by far.
What you have not taken into account is the downforce, gearing, spring rates, etc that are a heck of a lot different at 150+ MPH than they are at the 70-80 MPH the Camry is primarily designed for.
Maybe it could handle 170, I honestly don’t know. But I doubt it. Less so than I did before your posts, I’ll give you that.
If you read this thread and remember the comments on the ’74 Corvette that you participated in, you’d know this was a comparison with the early Countach. They didn’t have Pirelli P7s, but narrow, 70 series Michelin XWX tires. That’s reality. Stability was a mystery to Lamborghini when they built the Countach. Read some interviews from Bob Wallace about what it was like to drive the pre-Chrysler Lamborghinis at speed. You really seem to have more misconceptions than understanding at your disposal.
Well, if you have those interviews please post a link to them because I can’t find them. I did find this though on Edmunds.com as they were driving the second Countach produced:
“Lamborghini test-drivers Bob Wallace and Paolo Stanzani had also learned a lot while trying to improve the roadholding and high-speed stability of the Lamborghini Miura, and they applied their knowledge to the Countach. The result is responsive, pin-sharp steering, and this car grips the corners beautifully even on its relatively narrow Michelin radials.”
I suppose you’d have linked that article if they didn’t say that the Countach’s top speed was around 160 mph. I seriously doubt those guys took the Countach anywhere near even that terminal velocity.
It was the earliest model year road driven article on the Countach I could come up with. I did find a few others, as well as some talk on a forum from later versions. Nowhere could I find a claim saying the Countach was ill-behaved at high speed. So again, if you have something from Bob Wallace that says otherwise, I’d like to read it. I’m not being sarcastic, I’m genuinely interested.
You really seem to have more misconceptions than understanding at your disposal.
Ha! Says the person who assumes a Camry will be the paragon of stability at speeds Toyota themselves never even had the slightest intent or ambition to design or test the car for simply based on statistics and faith in technology. Attempting to condescend in this discussion is way out the window my friend 😉
Whether or not it would ever even achieve those speeds before suspension components designed for interstate speeds possibly start to buckle and bounce, and the cheapo sliding brake calipers warp and fade and rotors like a penny on a rail when you slam on them as you quickly realize the chassis starts convulsing, popping and shaking at 160, neither you or I know. What I do know is 375 horsepower is 107 more than 268 and horsepower very much matters when achieving top speed. I have a hunch, having driven a few ~300 horsepower cars into the 140 range the 268 horsepower Camry is going to start running out of breath right about where the stock limiter is.
Phil L, The Wallace interviews are buried in a car magazines l collected from the late ’70s to about the 2000. They’re in storage on the other coast or I’d at least take a stab at finding R&T and CandD indexes of Lamborghini tests to find something.
XR7Matt, that you think 1974 Lamborghini horses and 2015 Toyota horses are the same size says plenty. Even if they were same, the Toyota would still drive away from the Countach as speed increases. That’s because the force required to overcome drag is 1/2*airdensity*dragarea*speed^2. This means that as speed climbs, the 22% greater drag area of the Lamborghini’s impact on power requirement increases exponentially.
The Camry has a drag coefficient of .28 and a drag area of 6.83 square feet while a Countach(1974, the slipperiest year) has a CD of .42 and a drag area of 8.36 sq ft.
You have a hunch that a car with low drag and a suspiciously strong 268 hp engine is going to start running out of breath at 130 mph? This isn’t the place. Good luck.
CJ, you make a lot of interesting points, but below somebody claims the Countach has a 5 mph higher trap speed in the 1/4 mile which tells me it is the Countach walking away from the Camry at that speed.
Sure is hard to find numbers on the Countach for some reason. I suppose it was better to remain unknown. It was always more about the image anyway.
I do believe a V6 Camry will do 150+ ungoverned from the info I can find. Which is impressively fast for a family sedan, faster than my sport cars from the 80’s. 170? Gearing comes into play there just as much as aerodynamics. You can’t just look at HP/weight/drag ratios. You also need to take into account that a change in gearing is also going to affect acceleration. So if you got a Camry to do 170, would it still challenge the Countach at the 1/4 mile?
This all makes for fun discussion but none of it should be taken too seriously because there are too many unknowns.
The Camry reaches its governed top speed in 4th, 5th, and 6th gear, so eliminating the limiter wouldn’t affect 1/4 mile performance since the gearing is already there to hit whatever speed the car is capable of. With stock gearing, the hp peak of 6,200 rpm equates to about 179 mph in 5th and 210 mph in 6th. Needless to say, top speed will be reached in 5th, as 6th is probably too tall for the engine to pull at such speeds. I don’t know that it will reach 179 in 5th either, but it will be well into the fattest part of its power band and have a good chance of pulling past 160 mph.
Well, CJ, you make about as convincing of a case as possible without actually testing it. Unless somebody does, I guess I am out of excuses, at least as far as reaching that speed goes, if not how it would handle at that speed. Why do I feel like somebody peed in my cornflakes? 🙂
I assume in CJ’s scenario the Camry would be wearing speed-rated tires. And wide tires are of no particular benefit to high speed. Ever seen what the cars wear at Bonneville? Or what Ferarris and such wore back in the day at 170?
Wide tires are all about improved lateral grip, not directional stability. In fact, very wide tires used to be seen as having issues in making a car feel squirrellier at very high speed.That’s undoubtedly been solved, but it’s not in any way a requisite to high-speed stability.
And of course wide tires increase frontal area, making the car slower at high speed.
Staggered tires on a rear biased car quell oversteer and induce understeer, oversteer being something you definitely don’t want to happen at 100+ mph, Porsche used ever wider tires in the back of the 911s every time they got a major power bump in part because that car was so inherently squirrly. I’m never said they’re good for improving top speed, I say they’re there to make the car more stable at high/top speed in the event you need to turn brake or make a steering correction, hence the reason all current supercars still use steam roller tires . Bonneville is a totally different matter entirely since it’s a 100% straight line top speed at all costs event, there you need low drag and low rolling resistance, you mess up you have a treacherous few seconds on an open lake bed and either leave with a bruised ego or a busted up car to improve upon for the next event. Bonneville isn’t high end supercar territory.
Matt, we’re talking about tires on a FWD sedan, not a rear engined supercars. The Mercedes 500E (built by Porsche) topped out at 160, but only because of gearing. It rode on 225/55/R16s, front and rear. That car was as stable as a brick shithouse at speed. Curves too.
My point: super wide tires provide increased maximum lateral grip, but it’s erroneous to think a sedan with front weight bias needs super wide tires to keep from sudden oversteer. Good luck inducing oversteer in a Camry.
Here’s the real point: if a Camry had an engine and gearing to let it do 170, I’m convinced that there’s no reason it wouldn’t handle it just fine, with speed rated original sized tires.
Curb weight has very little direct effect on top speed, which is primarily a function of power, drag area, and gearing. I’m skeptical of the 170 mph figure as well, but I could see 150 something with no limiter and suitable gearing. I don’t have any frontal area figures for the current Camry, but comparing it to something like an E30 5-Series is probably reasonable; the Camry has a lower drag coefficient and is within 18 hp of an E30 540i.
Are you serious? Thanks, I needed a good laugh.
So, if you take off the governor, the Camry gains 45 more miles per hour? Uh, the Countach’s top speed is 182… You do know that, right?
When you take a governor off, usually you get an extra 10-15… I don’t think 40-50+.
Well, if that’s the case… I want to buy an 87 Yugo GVX. If I remove the governor, I may be able to break the Land Speed record.
When you take a governor off, usually you get an extra 10-15… I don’t think 40-50+.
No; You get exactly what the car is capable of depending on its hp, drag area, and gearing. That can vary dramatically. Some 200mph cars are governed to 155.
The Yugo GVX didn’t have one, BTW.
I highly doubt the Camry would go that fast. Very highly doubt it… Without ANY form of forced induction also?
Sorry, Pauly if you’re trying to sway my childhood fantasy away from the sexy as f*** Countach, towards the mundane appliance Camry, not working.
Paul, the Yugo comment was sarcasm. I never would own one of those junks… Lemme guess, you did?
Enlighten me.
Sorry, Pauly if you’re trying to sway my childhood fantasy away from the sexy as f*** Countach, towards the mundane appliance Camry, not working.
It’s amusing that you would even bring that up. Was the title of the post “Which car is sexier: the Countach or the Camry?”
I find it curious that so many commenters are focusing on that aspect; or that I might be trying to actually compare these cars. You quite miss my point.
Enlighten you? I’ve been trying, for some time now…. 🙂
Paul, me and you conflict on our views, sometime, no harm no foul, my friend.
Your article was a cool experiment, and good article. My issue is kind of more towards, okay the Camry V6 2015, may, have a faster 0-60mph time, fine… But now, it’s like “Oh, if we take the governor off, blah blah…
Like, Matt said, it’s like some are trying to pick the Countach’s faults.
It’s like if you have a K20 turbo built Honda Civic vs. a Hemi Superbird, and the Civic ends up being faster… So what?
The Civic may be a FAST Civic, it’ll never be eye candy like the Superbird is.
Paul, I like this forum and everyone’s points of debate. It keeps us on our game.
I know, you’ve been dragging me into the “Light of Right”, but Paul, … You can pull me there, but I’ll be debating ya all the way(sometimes) Lol 🙂
The ‘eye-candy’ Superbird was an unsalable flop in its day. Many of them had their wings and nose cones removed in efforts to finally shift them off of lots, which took years. While there were 1,920 built, demand was sated at about 1,000. Say what you want about the Civic, but I don’t think a Honda dealer has ever been left with half of their previous year’s allotment sitting on their lot when the following model year rolled around.
Your point? I’ll still take the Superbird.
The Superbird wasn’t made to be a volume seller, it was a special version of the Plymouth Road Runner, made to race in NASCAR, like the Ford Talladega, which also became a production car.
It had the aero appendages for race use only, NOT for fuel economy or ease of use for going thru a Dunkin Donuts drive-thru.
That’s why it was a ONE year only car, in 1970. Now, the Civic is a model of car, not a sport edition of a car. Honda would not do anything to hurt a useful passenger car’s aesthetics.
The Superbird and Charger Daytona, were designed for what they did, race, and they did it well… Just like the Civic, is designed for what it does well… Handle good and get great gas mileage, while providing a reliable platform.
I made MY opinion about my preference. So, why are you dissecting my comment, and making a debate about it?
You must be real fun at parties, you shot down most of these comments. Unreal.
I’ve said this last time it popped up but it’s very short sighted to call a homologation car of any caliber a flop, sales of that car were completely unimportant, drawing customers to Plymouth the brand was the goal by way of the winged cars dominating the ovals, which they did supurbly. The Porsche only ever made the 959 for homologation as well and no money was ever made from it’s sales either, but damned if it didn’t draw attention towards the brand, some of those poeople buying Porsches today probably had a picture of one on their wall.
Plus the CD isn’t far off of a Prius, so a car shaped by trial and error vs. cars shaped by a computer, I know which one I’d take…
I understand the point made, technology has made the most clandestine of blah cars comparable in one measure to a supercar designed 40 years ago. I think those of us “missing the point” are trying to emphasize that it is indeed just ONE measure.
A couple of image cars:
The Countach has an image of speed, style, performance . . . . . and an alternate image of coke-addled sleazeballs with too much money and too little brains. Sort of like the bad guy in Poison’s “Fallen Angel” video.
The Camry has an image of an owner who’s total knowledge of cars is his/her ability to read Consumer’s Reports.
Given the choice between the two, I’ll spend the rest of my life walking before I’ll ever own a Camry.
The Camry has an image of “follow what the media says” It is a boring looking car that says “grandma”
Hey, my grandma drives a camry (or at least the Chevy Prism variant of one!) It’s 13 years old and still going!
That would be a Corolla. Chevy didn’t have a platform twin of the Camry…
Why do I drive a Camry (a hybrid at that)? Fuel mileage is a big item, combined with comfortable room for passengers. Reliability is another big item, and this car has been completely dependable. Access is important. We often carry passengers who are quite a bit less than agile, whether through aging or through health problems. Four doors are a necessity. Inspiring to drive? That it isn’t. But it’s stable and handles decently, the seats are comfortable, wind noise is low, it’s really smooth on the highway, there’s plenty of real-world pickup, the A/C is great, and the sound system is great. We all make our trade-offs. As I and my other half get older, we appreciate smooth, competent, comfortable dependability more and more.
People that buy Camry’s have a painless ownership experience in a car with superior performance in areas like fuel economy, safety, and acceleration relative to said fuel economy; a stat CR has tracked. When they trade in, they realize some of the best resale value. Why is it that people that supposedly know so little about cars make such superior choices relative to people that believe the poofs at Car and Driver?
Making decisions based on CR rather than Car & Driver only results in a superior choice if you value the criteria CR uses to weight their opinion more so than the criteria Car & Driver uses. Which is superior is purely subjective.
Personally, I don’t really value either. I have listened to both and been disappointed each time. Now I buy what I like to drive and don’t worry about what some pinheads writing about soft touch materials or red and black circles based on unviewable data think.
+1
It’s funny, from the moment I started school at the age of 5 I heard every day don’t let peer pressure make decisions for you. Well it seems I’m the few who actually followed that advice into my adulthood, never picked up any drug/alcahol habits, never got talked into something I knew was stupid by friends, who really paid for it, and only buy and own things I truly like and want. As an adult I understand why people succumb now, because you will never, ever, experience more irritation, pain and frustration as you will bucking the prevailing wisdom, not by the consequences of your choices mind you! But because of the ridicule, condescension, secong guessing and ridiculous hypotheticals others will direct your way at your otherwise completely benign and flawless choices to convince you they and their sources of information are right. CR magazine as an acronym is better short for Characterless Rationalization
If you pay attention, CR heartily recommends certain sporting cars like the Miata & Mustang. They’re not just a bunch of Naderite killjoys.
Camry drivers have more the image of “my coworker in accounting reads consumer reports and recommends it, good enough for me!”.
So I looked up an old C/D test on the ’86 Jetta GL 5 speed gas engine (found an ’85, the same powertrain wise). 0-60 11.8 seconds. 1/4 mile 18.3 seconds. Top speed 101 MPH. 300k miles later I doubt it’s any faster. Explains why I can’t remember the last time I got a speeding ticket! Many years ago I took my old ’75 Rabbit to a dragstrip at a VW meet and was able to get a 17.1 second 1/4 mile run. Today 8-9 seconds to 60 is considered really slow. The ’04 Titan 2WD is about 7.1 0-60 and 15.5 1/4 mile. Top speed 114 MPH (electronically limited). Fast in ’04, now just so-so. We are in a golden age of engine power today.
Yup, I remember that my 85 GTI tested at about a 10 second 0-60 which was considered pretty respectable for the time. I got an indicated 114 out of mine for a top speed. Yes, I was young and stupid. But today, those numbers would be mind-bendingly slow. My Kia Sedona would bitch-slap a car like that.
My Kia Rio will do 0-60 in 8.2 seconds. That was Trans Am territory when I was a kid. I can’t see a need for any more power.
My TL will do 0-60 in 7 seconds.
When I read some kid writing in a buff book that 0-60 in 8 seconds is “glacially slow,” I have to wonder where he’s driving. It’s certainly fast enough for public roads.
My niece recently bought a 2004 Mazda6 2.3 4 cyl 4 speed auto (takata air bags – on the waiting list that could take years) which is somewhere around 8.5 0-60 and feels like a rocket ship on freeway on ramps compared to the Jetta. Not as quick as the Titan, but plenty of power.
Yeah, I read all the complaints in the forums about the “sluggish” 5.4 in my F150, which is good for about an 8 second 0-60 time. It’s a full size 4×4 pickup, for cripes sake, that with a $400 tuner can outrun my old ’84 Mustang GT. The new trucks would leave the Mustang in the dust.
Agreed. I just looked up my Sedona – new ones with the same powertrain are testing at 7.4-7.9 sec 0-60, and this is an engine that doesn’t really wake up until you hit 4k rpms in a van that weighs 4500 pounds. It’s fast enough to scare me.
My TL is also capable of scaring me. The car is much more capable than I.
You’re Kia Rio, that should be the car that scares you. Those cars were listed in the Top 12 deadliest Cars in a Crash. Look it up. 😉
Now, your TL, that car is very smooth and reliable. That one should make you smile. I drove one, a few years ago, awesome car.
“When I read some kid writing in a buff book that 0-60 in 8 seconds is “glacially slow,” I have to wonder where he’s driving.” You have to understand that these young’ens have no past experience to go by. We older folk (I’m 52) remember 165 hp Corvettes and 255 c.i V8 Mustangs that couldn’t get out of their own way.
One of my co workers has a newish V^ Camry and while its certainly a lot quicker than people realize (most new cars are) to say its a better performer than the Lambo is lazy.
1st off the gearing on the Camry is a much better match for its engine than the Lambo as its is geared with longer legs and a very different mission in mind.
2nd the lame tires of the way back have hurt its performance as well
3rd LOL@ using magazine 0-60 and 1/4 mile times as the end all be all of performance. The Toyota finishes @ 100mph (holy cow that’s good btw) the Lambo does it around 105 which is far from insignificant in the drag racing world.
I’m not a big fan of Lamborghini mind you. I’m more of a Maserati guy myself.
I think people don’t fully realize just how important gearing is to performance and mileage. If I were to somehow stick the 8spd automatic GM uses in the Corvette in my Electra it would drastically change the car.
turbo 400 ratios
1st 2.48
2nd 1.48
3rd 1.00
My Electra has a 2.78 final ratio
compared to a modern 8spd found in the Corvette
1st 4.56!
2nd 2.97!
3rd 2.08
4th 1.69
5th 1.27
6th 1.00
7th .85
8th .65
final ratio 2.73
For me… there is only one Lambo that can make my heart beat faster…
0-60 and quarter mile times are not a measure of how fast a car is traffic light wanking is not a measure iof anything really top speed hangling braking are the more relevant performance measurements and in those the Camry falls far short, When you can go 0-60 and turn hard left or right 90 degree corner without lifting off call me you actually have something worthwhile.
…”traffic light wanking”… Perfect !
What’s really funny is that BMW builds a midsized diesel sedan that does 0-62 mph in 5 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 13.3 seconds.
I have done a left turn with my ATS (no longer own it) with the engine nearly floored. The AWD kept the tires from spinning. Have not tried this with the CTS.
The V6 Camry is quicker than the V6 CTS (unless it is turbo charged). Skid pad numbers are not quite a good, but this probably depends on the CTS.
Kind of misses the point of why the Italians make cars.
Original post is depraved and posted by a sick minded person.
Some people don’t get it?
Camry isn’t that fast, we have that model at work and it is not that fast.
All Lamborghini were innovative and extreme in design , far beyond what the general public could understand . Ghandini produced one masterpiece after another . Haute couture, sorry folks.
The engine is an object of such beauty.
I notice some bitterness towards the Lambo’, strange that some people don’t see the creative process as important?
Surprised by a lot of the comments here. I thought the post was more of a look how far engineering has come in the last several decades. Performance that only a handful of cars could obtain during the Lambo’s time limited the experiment once to the very few. Now that sort of performance is mundane and attainable on mainstream family sedans. This is not a knock on the Lamborghini but a reminder that even with all the ways the alphabet soup of agencies has made it more difficult, companies continue to drive improvements in their products.
But take what I have to say with a grain of salt: I drive an accord v6
I wouldn’t call that kind of performance mundane. Common, but not mundane. Have you taken your Accord to its limits? They are way beyond the ability of most drivers.
It’s just hard to accept the fact that a common family sedan with a reputation for being the most dull and docile car in its class can match a car as exotic as the Countach. And to be fair nobody, except me evidently, uses any mid 70’s car as a measuring stick for performance and later models, the ones we had posters and school folders of, were greatly improved. But, I did make the claim of “early” Countach so I need to deal with Paul’s correction! 🙂
I once read an article that did a similar comparision between a Mk 1 Cortina GT & a Bugatti 35B. Many moons ago………..
As for the zero- 60 times, no one has factored in the traditional ‘Camry lag’
(the 1-2 seconds after everyone else, the typical Camry motorist notices the light has gone green)
Misleading
The performance stats quoted are NOT of the red Lambo that is shown next to the red Camry.
True, but the second picture is. The original still looked awesome IMO. Some people think it looks better without the tack-ons. I could go either way, probably because the tack-ons were there when I lusted over the Countach in the 80’s.
Actually, they could be. I looked into that yesterday, wanting to make the same point, but the wing and arch extensions came in with the LP400S in ’78, which is in fact one of the quoted stats. The styling didn’t appreciably change between the LP400S, LP500S, and 5000QV. The power did–a 5000QV would smoke any Camry–but they were very visually similar. It wasn’t until the final couple of years of production where the styling gained some changes. Someone would have to be much more of an expert than me to determine where the car in the lead photo falls in the 1978 to 1988 time frame.
Agree with Phil L on the styling–the original is probably a more brilliant piece of work, one of Gandini’s best designs. Must have looked absolutely otherworldly in 1974. But I grew up in the 80’s so the “wings n’ things” version is the one that I idolized as a child.
You may be right, I also thought those big tires and fender flares were an 80’s thing but when I search for a 1978 Countach that is one of the photos that comes up.
Kind of funny, back then I had no idea it originally came out before I was born and believed it went 200 MPH. I’d bet I’m not the only one here either. The world was a more interesting place before the internet.
That IS a LP400S, with the optional wing. The LP400S replaced the original LP400 in 1978, after only three years of production.
As you will not from my stats, I used a combination of LP400 and LP400S stats. FWIW, you can see that the LP400 was decidedly slower. To give it the benefit of the doubt I used both versions. The LP400/400S are considered “early” versions, before it went to a 5 L engine in 1982. (LP500S/500QV).
I just raced a 2015 V6 Camry SE with my 2013 LT Impala and beat it by a fender so the 5.8 second time (probably from C&D) listed seems on the fast side. I think 6-6.2 is more accurate a figure especially considering the new Camry is more loaded up and a bit heavier than before. Motor Trend got 6.1 on an XSE so that seems more realistic.
The fastest Camry V6 was the 2012 generation. I’ve even seen 5.7 listed for its 0-60. And I strongly suspect C&D’s testing equipment was better than yours, no offense.
Also, in real-world terms, less than half a second is not that significant. The test figures in magazines are often achieved without a lot of sympathy for the longevity of transmissions and tires (i.e., “You probably wouldn’t try this at home if you were depending on the car to get you to work on time Monday”). If you’re testing all cars the exact same way, small differences are more meaningful than if you’re a non-pro driving your own car on the street.
Some testers (I think including Car and Driver) allow a 1-foot rollout before the clock starts, which tends to produce lower 0-60 times. C/D also used to do a 5-60 test they called a street start, which sometimes made for revealing comparisons — old-school turbocharged cars would be much slower in that metric than in the 0-60s, indicating how much you had to abuse the drivetrain to get a good launch.
A good point of comparison when looking at test results from different testers or publications is the quarter mile trap speeds. Over the quarter mile (or 0-400 meters), a powerful car has more time to make up for a lazy launch; it’ll show up in the elapsed time, but not so much the trap speed. So, if you see multiple tests with substantially different 0-60 times but near-identical trap speeds, it’s not a question of testing accuracy/honesty (unless both magazines are testing the same car and it happens to be a ringer), but of either test methodology or launch technique.
I think Motor Trend does the same, which adds a tenth or two for the 0-60, which I completely disagree with; i.e. are we talking about zero or not? On the other hand I can understand it for the quarter mile time as it then becomes comparable to times measured with a standard drag strip setup. I agree the 1/4 mile terminal speed is a much more reliable figure, as are the intervals between higher speeds on acceleration run when launch and driving technique have less influence.
The little old lady from Pasadena,
(Go granny, go granny, go granny, go)
Has a pretty little flower bed of white gardenias
(Go granny, go granny, go granny, go)
But parked in a rickety old garage
Is a brand-new, shiny red, all-stock…Camry?!
My Maserati does 185
I lost my license, now I don’t drive
Comparing different era 0-60 and 1/4 mile times is problematic for a couple of additional reasons. First, from the 1960s to the 1990s, I believe most magazines used a 5th wheel and often a passenger in testing, which adds considerable weight to get off the line. Second, tire technology has improved tremendously, so that even the eco-tires of today have more grip than the performance tires from the early 80s and before. Put slippery old tech tires and 250 pounds of passenger and test equipment into a Camry and you would probably add 2+ seconds to the 0-60 time.
Definitely some new tires on the Lamborghini (in standard size) would take a few tenths off its times and see it ahead of the Camry.
Lamborghini power outputs and top speed claims were notoriously overstated from what I’ve read, it is also worth considering that its engine was only 4.0L back then too – not a lot larger than the Camry really.
Excellent article, Paul! I just bought a 2015 Toyota Camry XLE V6. It really is a very quick car. I was just wondering if you were familiar with the S mode, where you can manually shift the gears through 6 speeds. Would it operate the same way as a regular stick shift, where you change gears according to the rpms? (Shift before red lining,) The instruction manual isn’t clear, and I didn’t want to place any undo stress on the transmission by using the s mode incorrectly. So I have been just using the regular drive mode thus far. One article I read said, if the s mode is used, the car performs better 0 to 60.
Your thoughts appreciated.
The original LP 400 is still just stunning! I used to work at Bertone and see one of these, an original Miura amid all the show cars in their collection. What really always astonished me is how small the Countach is – those are 14” wheels on the early ones! Also how curvy the surfaces actually are – just a wonderful automotive sculpture that started a new era where it’s predecessor could be seen as the conclusion of the 60’s aesthetic.
The sound of a Lamborghini V12 is something quite different to that of its Modenese rivals – more aggressive and feral and combines in the Countach with gear whine to produce an unique, multilayered symphony.
Funnily enough, the Camry and Countach do have something in common- they both re-defined their respective markets…
So I think it just edges out the Camry.
No offense to Paul for his original post, but the comments are even better reading. And though my current mundane fleet is blindingly fast by 1970’s standards, I spent a bit of time last week in my friend’s dual-motor Tesla M3, both behind the wheel and as a passenger, and was re-educated as to what fast really is. All of this was between 6500 and 8000’ elevation. When that variable is thrown in, which at least in theory makes the Tesla quicker than at sea level (less aero drag due to lower air density) both the Lambo and the Camry must feel like slugs.
I drive a car that hits 60 from rest in just under 20 seconds on a good day and am constantly held up by vehicles with many hundreds of hosepower more…The fun comes from conserving momentum and using all screaming 50 Shetlands to their best effect!
My powerful modern IC and electric cars are great, but frustrating in most circumstances, but my 50 year old hooptie makes me concentrate and puts a smile on my face….
Let’s not even look into the fuel economy ratings of both cars …
Lambo is getting faster over the years….. at increasing value. Six years after this was written and they are worth even more.
Camry circa 2015 is a fairly high value car during the shortage of new cars but it’s never going to catch up to any desirable and rare boutique type of car.
I drove an 2003 Camry V-6. While the engine was sewing machine smooth, it handled like a 70’s Lincoln Town Car with worn out shocks. The only thing worse than it’s mushy handling was its marshmallow brake pedal which the dealer claimed was normal.
On the plus side it was relatively easy to work on and while it did nickel and dime me with minor repairs, there were no engine or transmission failures other than some oil leaks that appeared after 100k miles. The paint and interior held up well too. When timing belt changes and oil leak repairs cost more than the car was worth, it was time for it to go.
One taps visceral emotions of creative possibility.
One taps efficient usage of life’s treadmill.