RZR XP900 Turbo vs Lamborghini Diablo (high res)
Uploader Comments (raceprovenmotors)
All Comments (17)
-
i bet a stock 450 dirt bike would beat a lambo... the formula for going fast is hp:weight.. 500 lbs doing 0-60 in 3 seconds is not going to feel the same as doing it with 3k lbs. lamborghini gunna have a major power band compared to the rzr
-
how come you cant hear the lambo it has a 6 litre v12.... something's up
-
the rzr was hitting the limiter at the end
-
If it were my company's turbo kit I'd have the Lambo sandbag it too...
-
@picas24 i'd have to agree with your stats, but on the flip side, the 900 is a lot more efficient when it comes to actually hooking up (on asphalt that is). The Lambo was lighting up the tires a lil too much for a good start and the 900 was hitting the rev limiter way too quick probably due to lighter stock(i'm assuming) weights in the primary clutch. put in a good driver for the lambo and a good clutch for the 900 and then we'll see whats up. pretty impressive needless to say though
-
@Renegade2651 true
-
@picas24 hey man dont forget that the rzr is way lighter
-
Idk the Lamborghini Diablo dose 0 to 60 in like 3.6 sec and the rzr was top out a 73 mph and that took from 0:09 to 0:17 thats 8 sec, when the Lamborghini Diablo can be a 100 mph in 8.8 sec.... not nock n down the rzr900.... but that guy in the lambo most have not been try too hard.. i have a rzr900 ther fun would like to see that guy in the lambo jump it 6 feet and see what happends
-
Holy shit....
there was no sandbagging involved.. Had the driver had more seat time in the lambo, a better launch or prepped track, averaged the best of 10 runs, etc yeh ok maybe you would times similar times to those listed on the back pages of Car and Driver Magazine. Fact remains there was no hollywood editing here.. Are we claiming it is faster then a diablo? NO.. but we did race, both gave it 100% and these were the results. 1st and only race.
raceprovenmotors 4 months ago