Lamborghini Urraco: which version to choose
The Lamborghini Urraco was sold as 1 generation (1972–1981), Coupe only, in 4 versions: 2.0 MT, 2.5 MT, 3.5 MT, and 3.5 AT. There is no later generation to “wait for,” so the choice is entirely between these four cars. Every version is Gasoline, 8 cylinders, V-shaped, boost No, Carburetor, fuel 92, RWD, independent spring suspension front and rear, and Disc brakes front and rear.
The Lamborghini Urraco was sold as 1 generation (1972–1981), Coupe only, in 4 versions: 2.0 MT, 2.5 MT, 3.5 MT, and 3.5 AT. There is no later generation to “wait for,” so the choice is entirely between these four cars. Every version is Gasoline, 8 cylinders, V-shaped, boost No, Carburetor, fuel 92, RWD, independent spring suspension front and rear, and Disc brakes front and rear. Kerb weight, gross weight, 0–100, fuel use, tank, CO2, eco class, and wheels are not measured on any version, so they cannot decide the purchase. The real splits are power, torque, displacement, gearbox, top speed, and ground clearance.
Generations: what changed (and what did not)
1 generation (1972–1981), Coupe, 4 versions. One generation means no restyle cycle and no second-generation jump in power or drive. All four versions share the same production window. The step-up is not “newer car,” it is a larger Gasoline V-shaped 8 and, on the 3.5-litre pair, a different gearbox.
What the generation does not split: drive stays RWD; boost stays No; feed stays Carburetor; fuel stays 92. Ground clearance is the only chassis figure that splits: 2.0 MT sits at 152 mm; 2.5 MT, 3.5 MT, and 3.5 AT sit at 120 mm — 32 mm lower.
Engines and specs
| Version | hp (kW @ rpm) | Nm | cc | Fuel | Cyl. / layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 MT | 180 (132 @ 7500) | 176 | 1994 | Gasoline | 8 / V-shaped | No | Manual 4 | RWD |
| 2.5 MT | 217 (160 @ 7500) | 220 | 2463 | Gasoline | 8 / V-shaped | No | Manual 4 | RWD |
| 3.5 MT | 255 (188 @ 7000) | 220 | 3485 | Gasoline | 8 / V-shaped | No | Manual 5 | RWD |
| 3.5 AT | 255 (188 @ 7000) | 220 | 3485 | Gasoline | 8 / V-shaped | No | Automatic 3 | RWD |
Power per litre (hp ÷ litres from the table): 2.0 MT 90.3 hp/L (180 ÷ 1.994); 2.5 MT 88.1 hp/L (217 ÷ 2.463); 3.5 MT and 3.5 AT 73.2 hp/L (255 ÷ 3.485). The smallest engine is the densest; the 3.5-litre pair is the least dense.
Torque per litre: 2.0 MT 88.3 Nm/L (176 ÷ 1.994); 2.5 MT 89.3 Nm/L (220 ÷ 2.463); 3.5 MT / 3.5 AT 63.1 Nm/L (220 ÷ 3.485). 2.5 MT is the torque-density peak; the 3.5-litre cars add displacement without adding newton-metres.
Peak rpm: 2.0 MT and 2.5 MT make peak power at 7500; 3.5 MT and 3.5 AT at 7000 — 500 rpm lower.
Performance and economy
0–100 km/h: not measured on 2.0 MT, 2.5 MT, 3.5 MT, and 3.5 AT. Do not rank sprint from this catalogue.
Top speed (where measured): 2.0 MT 215 km/h; 2.5 MT 240 km/h (+25 vs 2.0 MT); 3.5 MT 260 km/h (+20 vs 2.5 MT, +45 vs 2.0 MT). 3.5 AT: top speed not measured — it cannot be claimed faster or slower than 3.5 MT from these figures.
City / highway / combined consumption: not measured on all four. MPG cannot decide the version. Tank, CO2, eco class: not measured.
Power steps: 2.5 MT is +37 hp and +28 kW vs 2.0 MT (+20.6% hp) for +469 cc. 3.5 MT is +38 hp and +28 kW vs 2.5 MT (+17.5% hp) for +1022 cc — almost the same extra horsepower as the first step, but more than twice the extra capacity. 3.5 MT vs 2.0 MT: +75 hp, +56 kW, +1491 cc (+41.7% hp).
Torque steps: 2.5 MT vs 2.0 MT is +44 Nm (+25.0%). 3.5 MT and 3.5 AT stay at 220 Nm — 0 Nm vs 2.5 MT. The extra 1022 cc on the 3.5-litre pair does not buy more peak torque in this data.
Dimensions and weight
Kerb weight: not measured (all four). Gross weight: not measured. Weight-per-horsepower cannot be calculated.
Ground clearance: 2.0 MT 152 mm; 2.5 MT 120 mm; 3.5 MT 120 mm; 3.5 AT 120 mm. If ride height is the filter, only 2.0 MT is the high car; the other three are identical at 120.
Tank: not measured. Wheels: not measured. Suspension and brakes do not split versions.
Which version to choose
Choose by the arithmetic, not by generation. There is 1 generation. The four names are the whole market.
2.0 MT — smallest engine, highest ride, densest power. 180 hp, 176 Nm, 1994 cc, Manual 4, top 215 km/h, clearance 152 mm. Best hp/L (90.3) and the only 152 mm car. You give up 37 hp, 44 Nm, and 25 km/h vs 2.5 MT, and 75 hp and 45 km/h vs 3.5 MT. Take 2.0 MT if the extra 32 mm of clearance matters more than the 25–45 km/h of extra top speed, or if you want the highest specific output.
2.5 MT — the torque step that does not cost a fifth gear. 217 hp, 220 Nm, 2463 cc, Manual 4, top 240 km/h, clearance 120 mm. Versus 2.0 MT: +37 hp, +44 Nm, +25 km/h, −32 mm clearance. Versus 3.5 MT: −38 hp, 0 Nm, −20 km/h, same 120 mm, still Manual 4 instead of 5. 2.5 MT is the only version that gains all of the catalogue’s extra torque (+44 Nm) without going to 3485 cc. Torque density is highest here (89.3 Nm/L). Take 2.5 MT if you want the torque of the 3.5-litre pair at 217 hp instead of 255, and you do not need a fifth ratio.
3.5 MT — most measured speed, extra ratio, same torque as 2.5 MT. 255 hp, 220 Nm, 3485 cc, Manual 5, top 260 km/h, clearance 120 mm. Versus 2.5 MT: +38 hp, 0 Nm, +20 km/h, +1 gear, same ride height. You pay 1022 cc for that 38 hp; specific output drops to 73.2 hp/L. Versus 2.0 MT: +75 hp, +44 Nm, +45 km/h, −32 mm, 5 speeds vs 4. Take 3.5 MT if 260 km/h and Manual 5 are the point; do not take it for more peak torque than 2.5 MT — the data give the same 220 Nm.
3.5 AT — same engine numbers as 3.5 MT, Automatic 3, speed not measured. 255 hp, 220 Nm, 3485 cc, Automatic 3, top speed not measured, clearance 120 mm. Engine, fuel, cylinders, layout, boost, drive, suspension, brakes, and clearance match 3.5 MT. The only measured mechanical split is gearbox: Automatic 3 vs Manual 5. You lose 2 ratios versus 3.5 MT and 1 ratio versus 2.0 MT / 2.5 MT. Because top speed is not measured, 3.5 AT cannot be ranked on vmax against 3.5 MT’s 260. Take 3.5 AT only if Automatic is the requirement; it is not a faster or stronger engine than 3.5 MT in this table.
Direct pairs
- 2.0 MT vs 2.5 MT: same Manual 4, same RWD, same 7500 rpm peak. 2.5 MT is +20.6% hp, +25.0% Nm, +11.6% top speed (240/215), −21.1% clearance (120/152). The first step is the only one that adds both power and torque.
- 2.5 MT vs 3.5 MT: same 220 Nm, same 120 mm. 3.5 MT is +17.5% hp, +8.3% top speed (260/240), +41.5% displacement (3485/2463), 5 vs 4 gears. Extra capacity is large relative to extra power.
- 3.5 MT vs 3.5 AT: identical 255 hp, 188 kW, 7000 rpm, 220 Nm, 3485 cc. Difference is Manual 5 vs Automatic 3, and 260 km/h vs not measured.
- 2.0 MT vs 3.5 MT: largest spread: +41.7% hp, +25.0% Nm, +20.9% top speed, +74.8% displacement, 5 vs 4, 120 vs 152 mm.
What “extra money” cannot be scored. Prices are not in the data. What extra displacement buys is in the data: 469 cc (2.0 MT → 2.5 MT) buys 37 hp and 44 Nm and 25 km/h; the next 1022 cc (2.5 MT → 3.5 MT) buys 38 hp, 0 Nm, 20 km/h, and a fifth Manual ratio. The automatic path (3.5 AT) buys Automatic 3 at the same 255 hp / 220 Nm, with vmax not measured.
Reliability / problems. No failure, service, or reliability figures are in the data. Do not infer durability from hp or cc.
Short rule. Want the highest ride and highest hp/L: 2.0 MT. Want the torque of the big cars without 3485 cc: 2.5 MT. Want the highest measured top speed and Manual 5: 3.5 MT. Need Automatic: 3.5 AT is the only one — same 255 hp as 3.5 MT, 3 speeds, top speed not measured.