Why does the F40 seem so much more desired than the F50?

Okay so he was 99% wrong. The F40 chassis while related in design, is VERY different from its predeseors. Just because it is still a tube frame does not mean it is the same.
That's like saying the F50 and Enzo tubs are the same. Same idea yes, but different in design. Tube frames are very poplular for many reasons. So you will see them in many sports cars....

 

It is a tube frame chassis, but it uses custom eliptical cross-section tubing, rather than circular cross-section tubing, and so very different. Although similar in appearance to a 308 or 328, there is no part of the 288 GTO that is common to the 308/328.

It is not CF, but actually Kevlar, which was the most advanced composite available at the time. These Kevlar sections were used all over the 288 GTO to provide the necessary strengthening and rigidity in key areas, which at the time was a giant leap forward.

It is very easy to get complacent about CF now when most supercars have a significant CF component, but at the time F1 cars had only just moved away from tubular chassis........

 

As an owner of both, I recent asked by a friend to put together a short article comparing the two. It is attached in 3 pdf files due to size limitations on the individual uploads.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Good stuff, Boxer. Always nice to hear owners share their experiences. Do you have any more pics of the cars? Particularly the F50...As your article said, seeing one in the flesh is so rare. I have yet to experience it.

 

+1

pics would be fantastic

 

Very well written, well done. I couldn't add anything to that

 

I don't disagree, but my essential point was, that the 288GTO made the leap forward in adding composites to a tube frame, and the F40 could be argued to be a somewhat cynical exercise of presentation versus the much more dramatic engineering of the F50. I prefer the GTO hugely over the F40 as its one of my two favorite looking cars ever and its a complete blast to drive, plus I can drive it pretty much anywhere without attracting anything like the attention of the F40.

Its worth remembering that the market valuations of the car value the F50 higher than either the GTO and F40.

Its tough to tell whether F40>288 or 288>F40 in value terms. My long term pick is that 288GTO>F40. Having been in the market around all three, GTOs and F50s hardly ever come up for sale, but there have been a lot of F40s sold in the last 12 months.

 

I'll echo that!

To me, the F-40 is raw, extreme, and stunningly beautiful.

It came out on the 40th anniversary of the company, and its name was derived from that. The F-50 came too soon afterwards, isn't nearly as extreme in its styling, and lacks the "racecar for the road" ambience.

I think the timing of its introduction was off. People were still too excited about the F40 to be told so soon that there's another baby in the family.

Furthermore, I don't like the F-50 styling. It seems like a rounded off, refined version of the F-40. (That's being polite; I actually think it resembles the Batmobile!)

Just my opinion.

 

The GTO's 'incognito' feature is very appealing!

Joe
www.joesackey.com

 

+1.

Joe
www.joesackey.com

 

I would go with the F50. A v12 and the top comes off. I had one for a few years and it was terrific. I never liked the f40 at all.

 

I think Pininfarina did a wonderful job styling the F-40, I also think the Power Puff girls did a horrible job styling the F-50.

 

Have you driven an F50 ?

 

Here are a several more pictures.

There are quite a few more posted on the website listed on the bottom of the page in the article.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

WOW great pics; absolutley nothing better than a Ferrari V12 without a roof

 

You're kidding of course... aren't you? Racecar for the road is exactly what an F50 is. You've obviously never driven one. Probably never been a passenger in one either. It is absolutely stunning dynamically. It has huge amounts of torque, massive acceleration and an engine sound that is pure racecar. Real brakes as well!
The real test is back to back drives in the F40 and F50. There is no doubt which one is the race car and which one is the tuned road car
Your points regarding styling are a personal preference but the performance and feel of the car is real
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The better looking F50 is the F50GT(the 3 that were made for homologation). It has the high race wing and a more pleasing design to the rear. Plus, it was probably wind tunnel tested and deemed more aero efficient.
Ed

 

That first pic is great. Really shows (IMO!) how much more aggressive the F40 looks!

 

I'm quite sure the road car was wind tunnel tested as well... That wing, body contour, and flat undertray aren't there for no reason. I would agree somewhat with you, but I would say that the GT just looks more like a racecar. The road car is cleaner, the racecar, meaner. As it should be.

 

Great shots.
Thanks for sharing

Could someone please comment on the difference in engine sound (stock, no aftermarket exhausts)?

Thanks!

 

The problem is that 99% of the population will never see an F50 in the flesh, and 99.9999999999% will never drive or ride in one. So as far as the two becoming more desirable in the aggregate, it has to go by styling which means perception. Looking at the two, it is easy to see why most humans would say that the F40 is the raw race car while the F50 is tamed road car. Reality or not, that is the perception of the general population of car enthusiasts and the world.

I have ridden in both, driven neither. The F40 I rode on the track with a guy who leveraged his life to get the car of his dreams, the F50 I rode on the street with a guy with more money than enthusiasm for cars who seemed to have bought it to make the garage look good. Guess which ride seemed like more of a race car under the circumstances?

Except for the very few of you out there lucky enough to have the means to indulge in this debate directly, it really is a style more than substance issue for the majority of us. Luckly both cars have style and substance in extreme.

 

Technically with a world population of 6 billion, 0.0000000001% * 6bn = 0.01 of a person. I think this may not be accurate, where did you get your number?

 

Hillary Clinton's campaign office....
opps, wrong place for politics....

 

Very nicely said.
Supply and Demand, the market decide the values.

F50 at 935,000.00 and 695,000.00 (WELL USE)
http://www.sportscarcompany.com/ferrari.aspx?_makef=Ferrari&_model=F50

F40 at 449,000.00
http://www.sportscarcompany.com/ferrari.aspx?_makef=Ferrari&_model=F40&_page=

 

Take a look at this video from another thread (thanks to tonyh) and tell me if the F50 lacks any ambiance whatsoever

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPhPTE0MIwM

Its only time I ever thought the F40 was slow