Jaguar XJ220 vs Ferrari F50 vs Lamborghini Diablo

[RS6]

So, which is the best and why. The Jag is mine.

[kinan.f]

The Diablo is the bull to go with I think.It just looks gorgeous,feels the right thing to drive......
I just like it more than the other two.

[Kudosdude]

I'd go with the Jaguar; It's the only supercar my other half actually likes. Quite an accolade I'm sure

[rt/10]

I think the f50 is the best of all three (it has a formula 1 engine)
And a great acceleration.
And I love it too.

[JJ72]

I think the f50 is the best of all three (it has a formula 1 engine)
And a great acceleration.
And I love it too.

a V12 formula 1 engine?

[jameswithington]

a V12 formula 1 engine?

Believe it or not the F50 did use a formula 1 engine (kind of!). It was an extensively reworked and more civilised version of the 600bhp 3.5 litre V12 they used in the 1989 F1 car raced by Mansell and Berger (fairly unsuccesfully it must be said). Obviously it was increased to 4.7 litre, probably adding extra piston rings to help conform with emmisions regulations or something like that, and they scrapped the pneumatic valve actuation and went with standard camshafts and springs. It revs to 'only' 8500 rpm as opposed to the F1 car's 14000 rpm but kept the engine's basic character, ie fairly civilised in low revs but absolutely brutal in the top end.

Answering the thread's original question, I'd go for the F50. Not the best looking Ferrari supercar by any means but it is reportedly sensational in every other area.

[eyebrows]

how can you guys choose, i love all these cars the f50 with its traditional ferrari style the lamborghini's raw sports car look and performance and the xj220 with it drop dead sexy looks. if i had the mony they would all be in my garage

[Ferrari F50]

Believe it or not the F50 did use a formula 1 engine (kind of!). It was an extensively reworked and more civilised version of the 600bhp 3.5 litre V12 they used in the 1989 F1 car raced by Mansell and Berger (fairly unsuccesfully it must be said). Obviously it was increased to 4.7 litre, probably adding extra piston rings to help conform with emmisions regulations or something like that, and they scrapped the pneumatic valve actuation and went with standard camshafts and springs. It revs to 'only' 8500 rpm as opposed to the F1 car's 14000 rpm but kept the engine's basic character, ie fairly civilised in low revs but absolutely brutal in the top end.

Answering the thread's original question, I'd go for the F50. Not the best looking Ferrari supercar by any means but it is reportedly sensational in every other area.

The F50 is based on Alain Prost's 1990 Ferrari 641/2, but its engine has a bit more similarities with a 1992 F1 engine. The engine displacement was increased to gain more torque and make it more suitable for the street. The 8500rpm redline has much to do with noise regulations. The F50s engine can run reliably at a continuous 9000rpm. (The not-much-different engine of the F50 GT1 revs to 10500rpm.) It uses a butterfly mechanism to control inlet air- when its closed, low-end torque is improved. When the revs increase, it opens to optimize output higher in the rev band.

[fpv_gtho]

It uses a butterfly mechanism to control inlet air- when its closed, low-end torque is improved. When the revs increase, it opens to optimize output higher in the rev band.

that descriptioin reminds me of the inlet tract on, of all things, a Falcon straight 6

[motormaniac]

not fair to compare these cars

[Dyablo, smoky]

not fair to compare these cars

hello

[F1_Master]

I've heard before McLaren, the XJ220 held the record for thw world's fastest supercar. Then the F1 came and knocked it out. The XJ220 is very underestimated. Seems you British know what you're doing when it comes to high speeds.

I'll try and look up the reason as to why 220 is in the name.

[Coventrysucks]

I'll try and look up the reason as to why 220 is in the name.

220mph isn't it?

Never quite went that fast though.

I'd take the engine out of the Ferrari and stick it in the Jaguar. Or maybe just get better turbos to get rid of the lag.

[Luciferous]

220mph isn't it?

Never quite went that fast though.

I'd take the engine out of the Ferrari and stick it in the Jaguar. Or maybe just get better turbos to get rid of the lag.

The XJ220 hit 339kph, but when they took the cats out they got another 10kph outta her. Would that make it 220?

[Luciferous]

I've heard before McLaren, the XJ220 held the record for thw world's fastest supercar. Then the F1 came and knocked it out. The XJ220 is very underestimated.

I'd say the XJ220 would be the most underestimated of all the supercars. By the way, the Jag held the title for about a month or two. Still on looks, the Jag whomps the Macca in that department, pity not where it counts, though.

Why is the XJ220 so often forgotten? The way I see it, Jag was on a downhill slide that just kept going when the XJ220 was built, leaving the car with the nasty current brand image rather than the one it rightfully deserves. Even now, Jaguar seems to be the whipping boy of the British brands owned by Ford. How is it that Aston Martin and Land Rover/Range Rover can receive all the attention and Jaguar can be such an obvious compromise?

I was just wondering how do the lights on the XJ220 work? They seem to slide into the bodywork, getting rid of the problem of the hideous looks of seeing flip lights in use.