GTP Cool Wall: 1974-1977 Lamborghini Countach LP400

[Ridox2JZGTE]

Sub Zero, also one of my favorite car in GT6, thank you Kaz for making it premium

 

[White & Nerdy]

His entire worldview is based around a vaguely defined idea of authority holding him back, defying the opinions of authority on GTP is the only way to strike back at the conspiracy.

I never said that.

It has more to do with how site administrators tend to carry and aura of having everything right, or at least of being able to ban anyone who accuses them of having it wrong. And in this case, no. Honestly, saying "supercar = auto SU" is right down there with some of the dumber things I've said, especially when the car in question is a Lamborghini. With just about any other brand I could at least see where you're coming from, but Lamborghinis, just no. The rapper stereotype could almost be called cool in this case, simply because it indicates new money, which is cooler than old. Rolls-Royces are for old money, Ferraris and to some degree Porsches are for people who might have qualified as new money a few decades ago but no longer do, and Lamborghinis are for people who haven't been rich for long enough to get snooty and over-sohpisticated.

Also, rappers didn't drive Lambos when this car was being built.

 

[Famine]

I never said that.

It has more to do with how site administrators tend to carry and aura of having everything right, or at least of being able to ban anyone who accuses them of having it wrong.

And in this case, no. Honestly, saying "supercar = auto SU" is right down there with some of the dumber things I've said, especially when the car in question is a Lamborghini.

No, it's nowhere near the dumber things that you've said, which rival some of the dumbest things ever expressed by hominids.

I've explained time and again why supercars are uncool. You don't have to agree - and to be honest I'm a little pleased that you don't.

 

[Joey D]

They don't have cologne, theme parks, or teddy bears. They're an honest and simple manufacturer of supercars.

Lamborghini does have all that though, in fact I can buy a bottle of their cologne for $20 and there are multiple different "scents" they offer.

Or if you prefer you can also buy a $1,400 Lamborghini bracelet that's handcrafted in Vietnam for maybe $.25.

Also, rappers didn't drive Lambos when this car was being built.

No, but drug dealers sure did and for some reason so did boxers.

 

[Famine]

No, but drug dealers sure did and for some reason so did boxers.

And Simon Le Bon.

 

[JMoney]

It's irrelevant. Merchandise does not affect a car's coolness. We vote on the car, not the crap you can get with it.

Part of the reason this car is so col is because Lamborghini was the company that built it. Just 11 years prior, Ferruccio started building sports cars, with the goal of building the ultimate GT to beat Ferrari and Maserati, the 350GT. Later came the Miura, which was the most incredible car the world had ever seen, but at the time it could have been a fluke by Lamborghini. But in 1974, proof came that the Miura was not a fluke. The Miura made Lamborghini legendary, the Countach made Lamborghini immortal. These supercars were not planned by Ferruccio when he founded Automobili Lamborghini, but they were still made. Today Lambo makes zero GT or even front-engine models, only supercars. There really aren't any other marques that have changed their image and remained successful.

Today, Lamborghini has kept to it's large-engine, naturally aspirated formula, and it still beats Ferrari.

THAT is why Lamborghini is cool.

 

[Famine]

Part of the reason this car is so col is because Lamborghini was the company that built it. Just 11 years prior, Ferruccio started building sports cars, with the goal of building the ultimate GT to beat Ferrari and Maserati, the 350GT. Later came the Miura, which was the most incredible car the world had ever seen, but at the time it could have been a fluke by Lamborghini. But in 1974, proof came that the Miura was not a fluke. The Miura made Lamborghini legendary, the Countach made Lamborghini immortal. These supercars were not planned by Ferruccio when he founded Automobili Lamborghini, but they were still made. Today Lambo makes zero GT or even front-engine models, only supercars. There really aren't any other marques that have changed their image and remained successful.

Today, Lamborghini has kept to it's large-engine, naturally aspirated formula, and it still beats Ferrari.

THAT is why Lamborghini is cool.

They haven't only built big, mid-engined supercars though. Even the most forgetful sausage will remember their Hummer-rivalling LM002 - which I suppose was at least underpinned by their decades of experience building tractors - but there's also the Espada, the Islero, the Jarama and, predating the Miura, the 400GT and 350GT, all front engined GTs and sportscars.

And while these were all V12s, Lamborghini has experimented with V8s (Jalpa) and currently also uses V10s (Gallardo, Huracan and Sesto Elemento).

Incidentally, that post will entirely fly out of the window next year...

 

[SlipZtrEm]

^ Unf, Fisker wagon

simply because it indicates new money, which is cooler than old.

Anybody else genuinely surprised to read that?

Saying "Supercar = Auto SU" isn't stupid, or wrong, for a multitude of reasons. First, it's an opinion - I recognize you have a hard time separating those from facts, but that's still reality. I voted this SZ of course - because to me, coolness is fickle and doesn't follow any rules, so while most supercars (especially newer ones) are certainly uncool, in my opinion, this still is. But I absolutely get @Famine's reasoning, and it's sound.

 

[Turtle]

From that angle the Urus really looks like a mess.

 

[White & Nerdy]

...how does that manage to be ugly and good-looking at the same time? The ride height and wheels say SUV, the styling says supercar...

 

[niky]

Well, considering super car and SUV are such nebulous definitions, anyway... no reason you can't make something that's both.

only supercars

While this has been answered, I'd like to note:

"Supercar" is such a nebulous word. Especially in a market where you can buy a Nissan GT-R that will out-accelerate a half-million dollar exotic on anything but the driest, cleanest drag strip, or a Corvette that will kick that same exotic's rear end on the racetrack.

Hence, the popularization of the term "exotic"... which refers to the overall package, speed, power, errh... exotic... looks, and exclusivity.

That exclusivity is the sticking point in how people define the coolness of an exotic brand like Lamborghini.

Brands like Porsche, Ferrari and Lamborghini no longer sell sports cars and super cars. That is to say, they do sell sports cars and super cars, but this is part of their larger, overarching business of selling a lifestyle.

This is why you have Porsche shoes, Ferrari laptops and Lamborghini bags. To show people you're rich enough to spend extra on something you really don't need.

And that is what the cars are like, also. There is no doubt they're a sensory treat. How can your car not feel sumptuous when a dozen workmen club a hundred baby seals to death for the leather in your cabin?

These cars are no longer purely driver's machines. They've come to represent an aspirational lifestyle as much as the Cadillac Escalades or the Bentley Continental GTs that grace rapper's driveways, only targetted directly at footballers and hedge fund managers. Today's supercars are the gold chains of the "mo' money" crowd... and not just by accident... but by design. These cars are actively made for and marketed specifically to the rich and status obssessed*

This is why it's hard to find anything cool about them.

*Oh, I know quite a few supercar owners who are pretty chill and laid back and low-key... but then you get to the new money and markets these manufacturers chase after...

 

[yabiggoose]

Personally, uncool.

I prefer the (oddly enough, tackier) QV

 

[Ken]

Seriously uncool. I never thought it was cool and I never will.

 

[JMoney]

Well, considering super car and SUV are such nebulous definitions, anyway... no reason you can't make something that's both.



While this has been answered, I'd like to note:

"Supercar" is such a nebulous word. Especially in a market where you can buy a Nissan GT-R that will out-accelerate a half-million dollar exotic on anything but the driest, cleanest drag strip, or a Corvette that will kick that same exotic's rear end on the racetrack.

Hence, the popularization of the term "exotic"... which refers to the overall package, speed, power, errh... exotic... looks, and exclusivity.

That exclusivity is the sticking point in how people define the coolness of an exotic brand like Lamborghini.

Brands like Porsche, Ferrari and Lamborghini no longer sell sports cars and super cars. That is to say, they do sell sports cars and super cars, but this is part of their larger, overarching business of selling a lifestyle.

This is why you have Porsche shoes, Ferrari laptops and Lamborghini bags. To show people you're rich enough to spend extra on something you really don't need.

And that is what the cars are like, also. There is no doubt they're a sensory treat. How can your car not feel sumptuous when a dozen workmen club a hundred baby seals to death for the leather in your cabin?

These cars are no longer purely driver's machines. They've come to represent an aspirational lifestyle as much as the Cadillac Escalades or the Bentley Continental GTs that grace rapper's driveways, only targetted directly at footballers and hedge fund managers. Today's supercars are the gold chains of the "mo' money" crowd... and not just by accident... but by design. These cars are actively made for and marketed specifically to the rich and status obssessed*

This is why it's hard to find anything cool about them.

*Oh, I know quite a few supercar owners who are pretty chill and laid back and low-key... but then you get to the new money and markets these manufacturers chase after...

You know exactly what I meant by "only supercars", but you took it out of context anyway. I think the "all supercars are uncool" view is fueled by envy more than anything. You feel the need to dislike the possesions of others just because you can't afford them. If you think that the only purpose companies like Lamborghini and Ferrari serve is to let the wealthy show off, then why is it that the majority of GTPlanet users voted this supercar sub-zero?

 

[Downhill Dino]

I think the "all supercars are uncool" view is fueled by envy more than anything. You feel the need to dislike the possesions of others just because you can't afford them.

Since I follow this thought process (all super cars are uncool), though I regrettably voted Cool I'll respond to this. Personally, even if I had the money, even if I had the money for a Veyron, I would not buy a super car. I envy nothing about them or their owners. There are so many other cars I'd rather have.

Status symbols are so lame.

 

[Tornado]

You know exactly what I meant by "only supercars", but you took it out of context anyway.

Because "what you meant" was "wrong" regardless of context.

That's a big front engined 4 seat GT car that debuted the same year as the Miura.

That was an even bigger front engined 4 seat GT car that replaced the above, and was sold well after the debut of the Countach.

That was mid engined, but was also a 4 seater no more a supercar than the Dino 308 from across town was.

That was a heavy duty military vehicle that Lamborghini started developing before they even started adding fender flares to the Countach.





You're chasing after an image of the company's history that doesn't actually exist. They may have "created" the concept of supercars as we know it today, but that was never their only focus. Ferruccio wanted to make better cars than Ferrari when he still ran the company. That means he wanted to make better cars in every market Ferrari was in. The people who followed him, up until Lee Iacocca's vanity purchase of the company in the late 80s, made whatever they thought might keep the lights on for another year. Today Lamborghini only makes mid engined supercars. The reason that is true (and it won't be true for long) is because now they have a constant source of outside funding that doesn't care too much about the raw profit so much as the prestige of having the brand. But when they were an independent/perpetually bankrupt company, it wasn't true in the slightest.

I think the "all supercars are uncool" view is fueled by envy more than anything. You feel the need to dislike the possesions of others just because you can't afford them.

I'm fairly certain Famine isn't one affected by his inability to be ostentatious.

If you think that the only purpose companies like Lamborghini and Ferrari serve is to let the wealthy show off, then why is it that the majority of GTPlanet users voted this supercar sub-zero?

 

[Famine]

I'm fairly certain Famine isn't one affected by his inability to be ostentatious.

Actually, I'm something of a showoff. My first lottery purchase would be a Ford RS200 Evo and in the five car garage there'd be an F40 and a '69 Camaro with a ducktail spoiler so high you could use it as a pantograph. And I love the Countach, particularly the obnoxiously winged QV5000.

Thing is, I know that when I do show off, just about everyone around me is thinking "What a total throbber." and my wife and eldest child think, and say, "Oh no, he's being a dick again." (feel free to ask either of them - they're both members here).

I'm fine with it though, because I'm having fun. But when everyone around you thinks you're being a helmet, you're not cool.


Supercars aren't automatically uncool because I hate them and I'm jealous of the owners - I might be a little jealous, but it's because I like them. Supercars are automatically uncool because Joe Q. Public hates them and is jealous of the owners. They are, in their own words, the 99%.

 

[Joey D]

Because "what you meant" was "wrong" regardless of context.

Just to add to your list, there's it also this lovely "not-supercar".

 

[OriginalCheezIt]

Actually, I'm something of a showoff. My first lottery purchase would be a Ford RS200 Evo and in the five car garage there'd be an F40 and a '69 Camaro with a ducktail spoiler so high you could use it as a pantograph. And I love the Countach, particularly the obnoxiously winged QV5000.

Thing is, I know that when I do show off, just about everyone around me is thinking "What a total throbber." and my wife and eldest child think, and say, "Oh no, he's being a dick again." (feel free to ask either of them - they're both members here).

I'm fine with it though, because I'm having fun. But when everyone around you thinks you're being a helmet, you're not cool.


Supercars aren't automatically uncool because I hate them and I'm jealous of the owners - I might be a little jealous, but it's because I like them. Supercars are automatically uncool because Joe Q. Public hates them and is jealous of the owners. They are, in their own words, the 99%.

Although I still disagree with the "SUBSC" sentiment, this may be the best reasoning I have seen for it. 👍

 

[niky]

You feel the need to dislike the possesions of others just because you can't afford them.

I can't afford a high-end bag... say... a Hermes. Well, I could, if I decided I didn't want to eat for... a while. I can appreciate that they're luxurious items... just as I can appreciate that there's a certain gravitas and luxurious feel to a Lamborghini (we just did a magazine shoot for a few dozen of them a few months ago).

But even if I could... I wouldn't. Because it's a daft amount of money for a silly bag.

But then, that's just me. I just got my first new smartphone in several years a few weeks ago. And only because it was very, very cheap. I don't see the point in spending hundreds of dollars on something I will only play games on. I'd rather spend that money on a laptop that will make me more money. And even with the smartphone, my daily phone is one I got for under $20. It can do calls. And text. And there's a game of some sort on it that looks like it was written for the NES. If your NES had no memory and a three inch screen.

My wife often berates me because I don't like to buy myself new clothes. I buy shoes, because I walk a lot, but I tend not to buy until my old ones are in tatters.

I just don't like spending money on frivolities. Well... that's not true. I mean, I do buy stuff like Playstations and TVs sometimes... but not very often. And laptops. For work.

Not Ferrari laptops, mind you. That would be silly.

-

I don't dislike exotics because I can't afford them. I think they're uncool because the whole point of an exotic is simply to be expensive and exclusive.

My lottery picks are pretty simple... a Caterham with a big shtonking engine... a 1970's 911 Carrera 2.7... and possibly a Miata or a MINI Roadster (if I can find a cherry one, now that they've cancelled it), so I have something fun to drive slow. And a Suzuki Jimny, or, if I feel like wasting some more money, a Defender or a Wrangler Rubicon. All three of which I rate more highly than the Cayenne. Which is a very nice car but just too ostentatious and shiny to ever take off road.

-

In the end, seriously... what's the point of a car that's so expensive you'd be terrified of getting it dirty?

 

[Wolfe]

The central flaw of @JMoney689's complaint, which is related to Famine's reply, is conflating an uncool vote with "disliking" anything.

That said, I'm like niky in that there are so many desirable cars I could afford with the money spent on just one supercar, whether it's one I like (there are several) or not. I'm not a member of the "SUBSC" club -- I voted Cool here -- but my scale of coolness simply isn't rigidly attached to speed or performance.

 

[Crash]

I'm not a huge fan of the Countach, but I recognize how striking it is, especially with the visually simple and clean early ones. Yes, later ones will turn more heads and seem crazier, but the later ones seemed to merely be crazy for the sake of being crazy and showy, and being showy isn't cool.

The early ones in comparison are just so refreshing. As this the one we're voting on, I vote cool.

 

[McLaren]

Lamborghini does have all that though, in fact I can buy a bottle of their cologne for $20 and there are multiple different "scents" they offer.

Or if you prefer you can also buy a $1,400 Lamborghini bracelet that's handcrafted in Vietnam for maybe $.25.

Just to shed some light, what you're seeing are products of Ferruccio's son, Tonino, using the family name & crest to sell overpriced products despite the fact he lost all stake in the company when his father sold his remaining stake.

It's why everything is branded with his name rather than just "Lamborghini" & the red Taurus logo. He basically just rides the brand's name because he's the son of its founder & does just enough to separate himself (legal & what not wise) with that unique advantage.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

His entire worldview is based around a vaguely defined idea of authority holding him back, defying the opinions of authority on GTP is the only way to strike back at the conspiracy.

I laughed at this quite hard because it's well written and probably true to some extent.