Talk:Lamborghini Miura

Automobiles High‑importance

	Cars portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands Mid‑importance

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sources

Interesting stuff here: http://www.huskyclub.com/tavP400if.html AniRaptor2001 (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SVR

How about a bit on the Miura SVR as there isn't one yet, Nic Cage used to own the Shan of Persia's car —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willirennen (talk • contribs) 14:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the SV/J section...

...is it O.K. now? Respectfully, SamBlob 00:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Miura 2006.jpg

Image:Miura 2006.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

todo esto es una mamada, no sirve de nada, si, asi como lo estas viendo, todo esto es pura basura de mierda, no sirve para nada, no se como puede haber cosa tan pendeja en internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.150.54.226 (talk) 02:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 00:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aerodynamic Problems

It is widely notioned that a Miura experiences frontal lift at speeds as low as 80mph, as reported by many customers and journalists alike, including Jeremy Clarkson of Top Gear fame. I believe this should be mentioned in the article (it currently stands at 240kmph, almost 140mph). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.171.131 (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chassis #1

The bit about chassis #1 being found and to be restored probably doesn't belong under the "Styling" section, but I'm not sure exactly where to move it to... swa q 17:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I like it in the styling section personally. MaximusEditor (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Power

I've read an interview with Bob Wallace in which he states there was no significant difference in power between the versions. Incidentally, the orange Jarama pictured was another one of Wallace's "special projects", along with the Jota and "Urraco Bob". There's a couple of articles on its restoration in Supercar Classics magazine; if memory serves it had been abandoned behind a petrol station in the middle of the Saudi desert. Mr Larrington (talk) 15:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Claim of first viable road car with mid-engine layout?

The article states that the Miura was the "first viable road car sporting the [mid-engine] layout." This conflicts with a similar claim about the Lotus Europa, which was built in the same year with the same mid-engine layout. What is the correct way to handle this kind of issue on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLSwiki (talk • contribs) 16:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the Europa was released in December of '66 so the Miura probably takes the title. Neither claim is sourced, I wouldn't have a problem with removing both. --Daniel 16:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The correct way is to find reliable source which tells the release date for both. -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're going to need to define our criteria here. Do we go with the delivery date of the first vehicle by the manufacturer? The date the first production model rolled off the assembly line? I'll contact Lamborghini and Lotus to see if they can provide any insight.

The Miura was released first, the Europa was released in December of 66. I removed the statement from the Europa article, but was reverted because the Europa article said first "mass produced" vehicle. For which I guess the Miura with only 700 some units doesn't qualify. This is one of those case where, if you define the criteria tightly enough, you can call anything a first. Personally I think that as neither can be sourced they should both be removed. --Daniel 16:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've not heard back from VW/Lamborghini or Lotus yet. I'd be perfectly happy with both the Miura and Europa articles stating that these two vehicles were the first production sports cars with mid-engine configuration, and they were released at about the same time. - CLSWiki — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLSwiki (talk • contribs) 19:35, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We really shouldn't be awarding these titles based on our own research, I'm going to remove the claim from all the articles unless it can be sourced reliably. --Daniel 15:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that "my" research isn't a valid source. I contacted Lotus Cars and VW/Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. to ask them if they could provide a link (or a document that I could scan, then post to a web page) to documentation that they had on file about the production dates and commercial availability of these respective cars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLSwiki (talk • contribs) 15:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it looks like Zündapp produced almost as many of their mid-engine Janus microcars between 1957 and 1958 as Lotus made during the 1966-1975 production run of the Europa. I think we probably have to hand the title of first viable, affordable, and mass-produced mid-engine car to the Janus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CLSwiki (talk • contribs) 07:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Miura's claim depends really on how you consider the GT40. Neither were produced in volume, but does the Miura's somewhat larger volume make it the first "production" car?

As to the Europa, then the Miura was clearly first. However the Europa was also the first mass-production car, whilst the Miura would never count as mass-production. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is easily solved just add to Lotus article that Miura was first of all and Lotus was first mass produced, its not so hard to tell facts in both articles -->Typ932 ^T·C 17:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I qualified the Lotus Europa article for it being mass-production, then it was reverted as "untrue". Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Geneva '66

The article currently says: "none of the engineers had found time to check if the engine fit inside its compartment. Committed to showing the car, they decided to fill the engine bay with ballast [...]"
Now, shouldn't there be some crucial information in between those two sentences to the effect of "The body was too small for the engine, so the engine had to be removed from the chassis."??? --BjKa (talk) 13:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a related thought: If they had the engine separately in their hands anyways, why didn't they just put it on a stand next to the car? --BjKa (talk) 13:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The body was finished only a couple of days before the show. Putting the engine in for the first would have taken time that they didn't have - especially it it has to have exhaust pipes, fuel lines, radiator, etc. If it didn't fit then they would have to take it out again - taking more time. Much too risky. Better to just sandbag it for the show.

Putting the engine on its own stand would have been nice. Especially since the entire chassis was on display the year before. Stepho talk 13:58, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In "Lamborghini Supercars 50 Years: From the Groundbreaking Miura to Today's Hypercars," Stuart Codling writes, "Nuccio Bertone has subsequently gone on record to say that he drove the prototype to Geneva himself." In other words, the "missing engine" is a myth that probably grew out of the facts of the 350GT prototype's launch and folks getting the two Lamborghini cars confused.