FAIR and interactive data graphics from a scientific knowledge graph

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Automobiles Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Brands This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I'm quite sure that the width of the car is wrong. It currently reads 89.17 inches, which is massive; that's the size of some lorrys! According to the Autoblog article (cited as a source) the Aventador is 1.1 inches narrower than the Murcielago, whcih would put it at 79.9 inches wide (based on the Mercielago figure on it's WIkipedia page). In the absence of any other sources I think it should should be changed, but thought I better ask first. If nobody objects I'll change in the 24 hours.
Thanks, Miles. 144.32.126.11 (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick check of the Aventador's website (which I should have prehaps done before initally posting) suggests that 89.17 inches is the width including wing mirrors, and that 79.9 inches is without wing mirrors. Which figure is the preferred one? The Porsche 997 article quotes width without mirrors, but I couldn't tell for the Ferrari 458 Italia or Ferrari 599 GTB Fiorano.
Thanks, Miles. 144.32.126.11 (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just quote both 89.17(W Mirrors)/79.9(Without) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.109.207 (talk) 19:53, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like the best thing to do, although it would be better to achevie parity with other Wikipedia articles. I'll change to '89.17(W Mirrors)/79.9(Without)' for the moment, and see what subsequent sources state as they come out.
Thanks, Miles. 144.32.126.12 (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...the new engine is Lamborghini's second in-house engine, replacing the first generation Bizzarrini-designed V-12 that was in use since 1963.

This was attributed to an Autoblog article, but I have read through the article twice and have not seen any statement backing this up.

Furthermore, was the design of the V8 engine, as used in the Urraco, the Silhouette, and the Jalpa, outsourced like the original V-12, or in-house like the Gallardo? If the latter, then the Aventador engine would be the third in-house engine, not the second.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 11:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information about the V12 is absolutely true, SamBlob. The V12 the company used until the appearance of Aventador, is the exact same Bizzarini design. It was first introduced on 350GT and kept on going for over 40 years - all the way to Reventon. It grew almost twice in displacement and almost four times in power. If you need proof, look up the TopGear Magazine article about Murcielago LP 670-4 SuperVeloce.

The V8 engine was a Dallara design. But by then Dallara already had his own factory, which technically makes it outsourcing.

BUT!!! Actually, it's even funnier than you said. Technically, neither Bizzarini nor Dallara were Lamborghini's employees. Which means both of those engines were outsoursed. So, again, technically, the Aventador engine is the FIRST in-house engine design for Lamborhini.

So, now we have three possible answers. Version one - Bizzarini's V12 and Dallara's V8 make the Aventador's engine the third. Version two - because neither of them worked at Lamborghini, it makes Aventador the first in-house design. Version three - because the new V12 was designed by Audi, Lamborghini has never produced an in-house engine. Nomad (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

l didn't know what was going come @SamBlob

@ 2601:204:EF00:85E0:E199:671F:2793:D683 (talk) 03:34, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This car is described as built "using a lightweight carbon fibre monocoque". I presume that should be built "using a lightweight carbon fibre monocoque body". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Monocoque" can be used both as a noun (as it is in this article) or as an adjective as you suggest. Neither usage is incorrect, no need to change the article. --Daniel 01:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But is either 'correct' usage of the term actually the correct description for the construction of the Aventador? It is a carbon fibre 'cockpit' (passenger cell) with aluminium subframes on the front and back. Since the subframes bear the weight and stresses of the suspension and drivetrain, surely this makes it not a full carbon-fibre monocoque chassis? In fact, in the Wikipedia monocoque article it claims "The term is also used to indicate a form of vehicle construction in which the skin provides the main structural support, although this is rare and is usually confused with either semi-monocoque or a unibody" and goes on to include an image of the Aventador with the caption "Unibody as used for the supercar Lamborghini Aventador LP700-4", linking back to this very article. There is very little stress carried by the Aventador's 'skin'.Weasley one (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the final answer but I'd like to note that the two subframes are both attached to the central tub. Whenever one wheel is pushed up or down then the diagonally opposite wheel is also affected - with the forces going through the central tub. Which means that the tub is in fact part of the chassis and holds a significant portion of the forces involved. Also, if you removed the carbon fibre tub and replaced it with sheet metal of the same gauge as a typically family sedan, I doubt the tub would survive for long when the car is driven, er, enthusiastically.  Stepho  talk  10:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This reference shows the Aventador in third place, but the time is quicker than the second place Veyron. Something is wrong with the reference. Should we remove the information or consider the Aventador in second place? Is there another reference that is consistent? 72Dino (talk) 22:03, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot 72Dino. We should go by the reference which would suggest second place. What is strange is that the time from the McLaren MP4-12C is missing on the link, I remember seeing that on Top Gear and, at the time, it was second which should put the LA into third. However we go by reliable sources so I suppose we should list the Aventador as second. Zarcadia (talk) 22:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely a youtube video of the actual power lap and the subsequent placement on the board could be used to show that the Aventador is, in fact, in third place. This one, for example :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7saRa9-X40&safety_mode=true&persist_safety_mode=1&safe=active [Jeremy] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.29.95.10 (talk) 13:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't the Aventador called "Jota" before in development stadium? (Example: http://www.leftlanenews.com/lamborghini-jota.html ) --Daondo (talk) 00:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nope, the jota name was nothing but internet talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.224.190.87 (talk) 18:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the engine block alumnium? I'm assuming it is but the article says nothing on it.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. See here. Bjmullan (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone know what happened to the sound file that was linked from below the details box on the right? If it's gone for good, perhaps it's a good idea to remove the sound box altogether Methode (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:13, 26 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Does anyone here actually think the Aventador is just a sports car, rather than a supercar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.91.58.31 (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's an agreement (or rule, I don't remember) here in wikipedia of not using supercar to describe a cars class due to the amount of subjective baggage that it carries, there's not really an agreement of what constitutes a supercar. Mike.BRZ (talk) 00:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. See WP:WPAC. There is (or was) a discussion at that talk page. Editors wanting to use the term supercar should go there to achieve a consensus for change. Until then, we go by the agreed upon convention of not using the term supercar. 72Dino (talk) 04:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the Reventon in the related section of the infobox? I know that it can be said to be a design preview of the Aventador but they share nothing, the Reventon was just an LP640 with new body panels. Mike.BRZ (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some people don't understand the difference between related development and predecessor. Nicely caught. Removed. Nomad (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the user that's insisting on adding this; how is it relevant for the Aventador article to have information about what the tuner RENM Performances is doing with it? more so in an unrelated section of the article (Engine), shouldn't we put information about the tunes by Mansory, DMC, Prindiville, Wheelsandmore too? Mike.BRZ (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with adding this content about what some tuner is doing with the Aventador. The company itself does not appear to be notable and including this information may be considered promotional. 72Dino (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:LatestAutos has added a couple of sentences about the spotting of an Aventador J along with a citation from a blog. This seems like trivia to me that should not be included as it does not appear to add anything to the article. Rather than revert again, I'd be interested in some discussion on why it should stay. Here is the diff of where the reference was added. Thanks, 72Dino (talk) 22:51, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It really doesn't seem notable enough for it to stay, neither is the addition of Mansory tuning the car, additions like that have been reverted before. Mike.BRZ (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay, because it is the first time it has been spotted on the streets. Just look at the Bugatti Veyron article, and scroll down to the L'or Blanc. It says it was spotted outside a hotel in Paris. It looks like it has been there for some time, and no one has reverted it. About the Mansory, I also think that should stay because Mansory is a well-known tuner compared to the likes of Wheelsandmore, Prindiville, etc. Also, I don't know why you think "this information may be considered promotional" as I have no relations with Mansory at all. I'm new here, so go easy on me. I'm not a vandal. LatestAutos (talk) 10:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LatestAutos, a couple of items to help you out as you are new (we've all been there.) An encyclopedia generally does not include news such as a car being spotted somewhere, even a one-off like this one. It shouldn't be in the Bugatti Veyron article either, but that does not justify its inclusion here (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.) And when content is considered promotional, it's not necessarily because the editor has a relation, or WP:COI, with the article subject. Sometimes it just makes the article sound like an advertisement. So, there is not a concern that you are affiliated with Lamborghini. Hope these links, and the ones I just added to your user talk page, help. 72Dino (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed today that an IP user removed the bit about the Mansory Carbonado. I've made this talk page section so we can choose whether to keep it or delete it.

First of all, I'm the person who added it, so I don't think my opinion counts that much...but I think it should stay, because it is a unique version of the car, and it doesn't count as trivia. About it not being a factory version...well, it isn't, but why get rid of it? It's just some useful information about a "special Variant" of the Aventador. It's probably going to be an unanimous delete, but that's my opinion anyway. --LatestAutos→  •  Talk plz? 18:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is not a "special variant" is a tuner and tuned versions of supercars are dime a dozen, why would this speficic tune, that does not come like that from any factory and is not even that extensive deserves to be listed here while the rest of the bunch aren't? In the wikipedia articles of other sports cars only factory offical variants are listed, I don't see why that should change here. Mike.BRZ (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This page is about the production model, not the myriad tuner variants. Unless reliable sources say the tuned variant had a real world impact on the production vehicle, such as the manufacturer choosing to adopt some of the changes from the tuned version or something, then there is no reason to mention it. --Daniel 00:31, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there are 3 tuner "variants" already. I will remove them tomorrow if a someone can't give a good reason for them to stay. Mike.BRZ (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This might be years late as I never used the talk page until recently. I would not had brought this up until recently after I created the Koenig Specials article, which you could say like some media do, the Mansory of the 80s and was one of the first tuners to modify Ferraris.

This editor said it should be included "because it is a unique version of the car", well so was the Koenig Competition, a modified Testarossa. Based on what I researched, can you imagine the response Ferruccio Lamborghini got had he being still alive to see a Mansory modified Lamborghini, would it be the same Enzo Ferrari had after he learnt of the Koenigs; famously ordered lawyers to force them to remove all badges because it is "no longer a Ferrari" and threaten publishers with lawsuits if the badge and the car mingled together in magazines. If anybody else want's to think of why aftermarket tuner variant should be included, I would like to point them out to the story of Koenig and Enzo Ferrari together. Donnie Park (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

pls add aventador roadster Jawadreventon (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism seems to have picked up recently on this page. Should we think about getting someone to semi-protect it?--RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 21:15, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I really thnik LB Veneno deserves its own page. It has nothing to do with the Aventador!!! -- 189.54.207.148 (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It originally did have its own teeny-weeny page but it was universally decided to put it here because the page was so small and it shares so much with the Aventador. Over 15 days nobody voted against the move and small pages are always in danger of being deleted. Original discussion is at Talk:Lamborghini_Veneno.  Stepho  talk  23:23, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Stepho-wrs: - you should request the new article to be deleted then.Onel5969 (talk) 23:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.  Stepho  talk  23:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Veneno has its own page now. If that is a point of disagreement, then the Lamborghini Reventón page should also be deleted. U1Quattro (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article says this about the name: "However, the name of the bull or mentions of his courageous fighting can only be found in the manufacturer's promotional materials or sources directly referring to them."

I've actually found sources in Spanish having nothing to do with Lamborghini that mention this bull. For example, entry 377 from 2006 in the "Bull Encyclopedia" is about Aventador [1] It states that the bull indeed fought in Zaragoza in October, 1993, and won a prize for his bravery. So it seems to me that the insinuation that the company made up the story should be amended. Albrajen (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed that unsourced edit. Just because someone can't find a reference using Google doesn't mean that it doesn't exist (as noted above). Bahooka (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add your new reference to the article. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  03:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per Lamborghini.com, the Aventador uses a dry double-plate clutch, not a single clutch as the article states. Footnote #16, already cited in the current article as "proof" of the single-clutch, actually validates that it is a dual-clutch when it references two rails and the gears that are selectable on each.

I'm updating the article since I posted this for evaluation almost one month ago.

http://www.lamborghini.com/en/models/aventador-lp720-4-50-anniversario/technical-specifications/ http://www.oerlikon.com/graziano/en/media/press-releases-detail/?udtx_id=8206

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.167.90.130 (talk) 19:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How do we treat this http://tieba.baidu.com/p/3527316362 ? (Note: online translation works reasonably well). It's only a user page, which is not normally sufficient for a reference. It's also possible that the two supposed prototypes are really one car that was modified slightly over time.  Stepho  talk  03:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched around for this, and although I must admit I watch the show, there doesn't seem to be evidence of this being an actual car. Where are the sources?156.34.208.217 (talk) 17:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources since it with 99.999% certainty is a hoax, added on 15 September by IP 180.191.114.97 (geolocating to the Philippines, where many hoaxes originate...). Other similar hoaxes, named for other TV characters/shows etc, have also been made by other IPs on other articles. Thomas.W ^talk 22:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Original Lamborghini video --> https://youtube.com/watch?v=hTIkgyGN9eo

Get your facts straight. And I don't even know who the hell Altimagayer is. 2607:FB90:2C35:FDF7:0:25:543E:5B01 (talk) 00:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody could have made that video and posted it on YouTube. Where does it get its information from. Is it truth or fiction? Who really made it? (Note, any names mentioned within it or on the YouTube posting can be complete lies.) It is also opposite to all other evidence. Therefore, it cannot be trusted as a reliable source and Wikipedia must ignore it.  Stepho  talk  01:00, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, YouTube is not considered a valid source of information here at Wikipedia. So it should be you who should get your facts straight. U1Quattro (talk) 15:50, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Aventador LP700-4 and LP700-4 are replaced by the Aventador S and Aventador S roadster. The proof exists on the company's website as these models are not offered there. Furthermore, the production of the Veneno has ended in 2014 and the Centenario in 2017 respectively. These limited edition specials are not being produced anymore. Any modifications to their production years should accompany a valid source. U1Quattro (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last time the Veneno was considered to be split off to its own article, it was decided to keep it here. See Talk:Lamborghini Veneno. Therefore, it would have been prudent to put it up for discussion before doing it as a fait accompli. If it is decide to keep it split, then the old section should at least retain a single paragraph with a {{main}} link to the new article.  Stepho  talk  20:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is not appropriate as the Lamborghini Reventón has its own page when it is based on the similar principle as the Veneno. The Veneno and Aventador are different cars just like Alpina cars and BMW M cars. I saw the discussion, the article made before did not have that much content to be classified as a good article. Further, {{main}} is not necessary in this case, linking the articles through the "related" section of the infobox is more appropriate. U1Quattro (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Separate articles were created for the Lamborghini Veneno and the Lamborghini Centenarió because:

U1Quattro (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Should we change the main photo to "SVJ" now? KiL92 (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why? WP:CARPIX says "The image selected for an article's top (lead) infobox does not need to show any particular version or generation of the vehicle, such as the latest, the last, the first, the best-selling, or any other."  Stepho  talk  13:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've read this. But what about current photo? So, "Aventador S" is considering as the face-lifted "LP 700-4", not the special version or latest(at the time of the update), am I right? Ok, then I will not upload the photo anyway. KiL92 (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the photo is representative of the Aventador family, then any member of the family is okay - whether it is an S, SVJ or other. If it is just because you feel the latest model is somehow more worthy by virtue of being the latest then you have misunderstood the purpose of the photo. However, if your photo is better quality than the existing photo or somehow represents the Aventador family better than the current photo then feel free to upload the new photo.  Stepho  talk  22:40, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I was about to ask the same question,as to whether the main pic should not be changed to the SVJ? Because I've got quite a few in Nero Aldebaran. BryanSwarvorski21 (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone thought of making an Aventador SVJ page? And also anyone mind adding it's price to it's small section. I'm just quite clueless about editing these articles. BryanSwarvorski21 (talk) 18:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would not be a good idea to split, this page is not that long. Toasted Meter (talk) 18:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. And what about adding their base prices? He svj coupe and roadster and the svj63 coupe and roadster? BryanSwarvorski21 (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prices should usually be avoided as they vary over time and by region. Toasted Meter (talk) 08:51, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Will there be any posted soon? BryanSwarvorski21 (talk) 06:36, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. How soon can you provide them?  Stepho  talk  09:46, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting that I could get provide them...more as to who could and how soon BryanSwarvorski21 (talk) 06:37, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was being a bit sarcastic. We're all volunteers. Which means we do things when we feel like it and possibly not at all. Which means that some things can take ages. Some kind souls will go out of their way but its kind of hit and miss. Me personally, I have no access to the cars, so I stick mostly to formatting the article rather than sourcing pics.  Stepho  talk  10:19, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, current don't have access as well BryanSwarvorski21 (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources in the entire article stating that the Aventador has ended production, and yet at least twice in the article it states that it ended production in 2022. Anyone have a source for this? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:12, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Citation 46 from Car and Driver. It includes the brief restart to replace the cars destroyed in the ship sinking and the actual discontinuation of production. Bahooka (talk) 14:21, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. Thank you. I'll probably include something that says that the Ultimae edition was meant to be a sort of send-off to the car if I can word it in a way that isn't crufty and not all that important. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 14:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

please make page for mansory Carbonado Apertos 2406:3003:2000:A57:B9BE:4D48:1C07:C918 (talk) 11:22, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia works by people contributing what they know. If you know something about this car then please feel free to click on the read link and create the page. Attempt it, then ask if you need help. As for me, I know nothing about that car but I can help you format the article nicely after you have entered some facts and references.  Stepho  talk  11:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Thank you 2406:3003:2000:A57:B9BE:4D48:1C07:C918 (talk) 12:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Top speed 236mph acceleration 2.6sec

Power output 1250hp weight1600kg 2406:3003:2000:A57:B9BE:4D48:1C07:C918 (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can? Lamborghini revuelto (talk) 12:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Its just another heavily modified car by an automotive tuner which is not classed as a manufacturer. So why should a separate page be made for it?

Hmm, I should have researched a bit more before giving my response above. I had assumed that it was another variant made by Lamborghini. But it is really a tuner car by the independent company Mansory. See https://www.carscoops.com/2017/05/mansory-carbonado-apertos-is-one-wicked/ and https://www.mansory.com/car/carbonado-apertos#1 . We don't do tuner cars because the list of variants becomes endless.  Stepho  talk  22:02, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove template warning it has enough citations now. 64.189.18.53 (talk) 10:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: the main tag is not about the amount of citations. M.Bitton (talk) 11:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]