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

I have enjoyed reading this thread.

As a FCar fan for almost 30 years I was never taken by the F40 looks and I love the look of the F50.

They are both amazing cars and I would love to ride in either one.

I saw my first F50 in England whilst taking my daugther to a fish and chips shop 4-5 years ago and a guy pulled up in an F50 and we left behind him and I loved the engine sound.

 

haha damn..

 

I own an F40, but I have always thought that the F50 is underrated.
Let's face it, any Ferrari super car is great, and we are comparing
superlatives.

I think that some of the reasons, in addition to those already mentioned,
why many seem to regard the F40 more highly than the F50,
is that when it was first released, it's performance was so far ahead
of anything else (except maybe a Porsche 959 could match it), it was the
first production supercar (defined as capable of exceeding 200 mph), and
it was actively raced. I have a theory that the Ferrari models that were
raced in numbers, are more likely to become collectable and desirable later.

As far as I know, F50's were not actively raced, and when it was released,
it's performance was not a quantum leap above the F40.

I still prefer to own my F40, but I regard the F50 as a great and desirable car.

 

Actually that I think was part of the problem, in most cases the performance was BELOW the F40.

 

In what areas is the F50's performance below the F40?

 

1+

Amen to that!

 

I just love when totally uninformed people post absolute BS and pass it off as the truth. When you make idiotic statements like this you should be prepared to back them up.
I appreciate that the F40 is your dream car, as per your profile but obviously you have never driven either car and certainly not both in order to be able to make a qualified statement like the one you did.
Please spare the community your "facts". In this particular case you are dead wrong.

 

As far as I understand, it is pretty much without question that the F50 from an objective point of view, is lightyears ahead of the F40. I think much can be said of the F40 and in many ways it is actually quite flawed. Yet I still believe the F40 is an icon and the F50 is ´just´ another supercar.

 

As a certain Le Mans-winning Englishman once said: "Its hot, noisy, cramped and dangerously fast with poor brakes. I WANT ONE!"

Joe
www.joesackey.com

 

Yes, the F40 DOES have better performance in some cases as I stated, and has been stated on here many times before. I have many records of 0-60 times, 1/4 miles times and 1/4 mile trap speeds. On average the F40 is QUICKER. Sorry to disapoint your over-inflated ego.

 

It seems that comparing 0-60 times, 1/4 mile times, trap speeds, etc., is sort of like splitting hairs when it comes to these two cars. They're so close that on any given day in any given condition either one would trump the other and then fall behind the next go-round. I understand the significance they play in illustrating a car's performance potential, but they state nothing about a car's design philosophy and execution. This is where the F50 made an improvement over the F40, and, dare I say it, this is the only place where that improvement cannot be disputed because of where it derived it's technology and the launchpad it provided for it's predecessors.

 

Where do you get the idea that I have the over inflated ego. You believing you know something that is patently false is a sign of an overinflated ego.
I'd love to see your "many records", but all you have is straight line sprint numbers. I'll bet there are some Supras and Evos out there that will smoke any production Ferrari in a straight line quarter mile or 0-60 sprint. Perhaps you are unaware that driving involves turning and braking as well.

The F50 is clearly light years ahead technologically and it performs better, with no fuss. It has a much wider torque band, significantly enhanced brakes, much more power, an engine derived from an F1 car, 12 normally aspirated cylinders versus 8 blown cylinders, real racing suspension, wider tires, a six speed transmission, an all Carbon Fiber body and simply is easier to drive faster.
That doesn't take anything away from the iconic status of the F40 but to say it outperforms the F50 is pure BS.
In my case if I wish to determine which car is a better performer, I go to my garage and drive them both.

 

+1
IMHO, the only number that matters is the lap time as it is the true indicator of how the car performs across the range of all the key performance attributes. In terms of lap times, the F50 out performs the F40 consistently.

 

fwiw, sites like fastestlaps.com show F40 laptimes faster than the F50, http://www.fastestlaps.com/index.php?page_id=compare&car1=4571bf8c098af&car2=1

of course laptimes are highly subjective, they indicate is what is possible, but not the maximum possible. The F50 was never consistently driven in anger so I wonder how much data is available to work with.

I've driven both cars and seat-of-the-pants response was the F40 'felt' faster, however I realize that is mostly due to the explosive nature of the turbo boost. I loved the low end grunt and smooth torque of the F50. Both cars are extremely impressive. Sort of like asking a question with 2 right answers, which is better Bordeaux or Burgundy?

Alex I would love to be in your shoes, having both cars to choose from is a rare treat.

 

I have a supplement booklet on the F50 that was published in CAR magazine back when the F50 was released. It is quite comprehensive and has interviews from many of the people who were involved in the design and production of the F50. One of these interviews is with Dario Benuzzi who indicated that the F50 has much the same performance as the F40 in a straight line; but is something like 3 seconds a lap faster around Fiorano because of the factors that you mention above.

When I bought my F50, there were also 2 F40's for sale at the same dealer. Funnily enough, which one was faster in a straight line played no part in the decision process...........

Decide which you prefer and write the cheque, who cares about "popular opinion" ?

 

The question is, "Why does the F40 SEEM so much more desired than the F50?"

And I think that we have answered that: Most people prefer the looks of the F40. It also SEEMS more raw and brutal.

As for performance, there are considerable variables that might affect lap times, 0-60 times, etc.

I've seen contradictory reports about which car is "faster."

You have every right to prefer the F50. But please spare US your sarcasm, personal attacks, and hostility. You have the car you want; isn't that enough without having to get all defensive? Do you really think anyone would change their opinion because of your rant?

 

RIGHT!

 

I am sorry but sites like fastestlaps are interesting but not relevant. For Ferrari lap times, the only times that really count are the ones posted by Dario Benuzzi. Dario has driven all of them, to the limit, and therefore provides a consist base to measure all the different models against each other.

On the other topic, the correct answer is Bordeaux.

 

Some direct quotes from the CAR magazine Dario Benuzzi article on the F50:

"To understand the true character of the F50, says Dario Benuzzi, fixing you with his level brown eyes, you have to use all the power and get it cornering near the limit- and that takes a pretty good driver. But when you do it, you feel the responses of a formula 1 car and hear the music. It's closer to a single seater than any road car we've ever built"

"The best performance indicator, the test chief maintains, is his own best Fiorano lap time of 1 minute 28.00 which compares with 1:31.5 for the F40 in it's prime and is the best yet for a road going Ferrari. Benuzzi reckons it would fall to around 1:23.o if the car were on slicks but otherwise unmodified. The times are especially good because Fiorano is tight and the F50 is a big, wide car."

"The F50 delivers instant engine response, says Dario Benuzzi, wheras unless the F40 engine was working right in the boost band, you had to wait for the power. Fast response to the throttle he explains, allows quick drivers to do more with a good cars chassis. The F40 was slower revving too..............with only five gears, and by necessity a higher overall gearing, the F40's ratios had to be much wider spaced, a disadvantage on any race track and especially a tight one. This Benuzzi reckons is most of the reason for for the difference in lap times."

Interesting!

 

The article also talks about superiority in brakes, suspension design and chassis rigidity amongst other things. Too much typing!

 

To your points:
I don't prefer the F50 over the F40. I am on record several times saying if I were to keep only one car it would always be the F40.
Personal "attacks" in this case are no attack at all but simply pointing out a blatant inaccuracy. There is nothing personal about it, except that there is a segment of posters on Fchat who post unsubstantiated opinion as fact and I point that out, because when you hear BS you should call it out..
Sarcasm is a point of view and an effective manner to get a point across.
It is not a rant, simply an opinion.
Do I intend to change anyone's opinion of anything? Not at all. Do I care what anyone else thinks? Not at all. Do I care about the facts? Absolutely positively yes!
So, in your case please spare me the personal comment. If you have something meaningful to say about the issues being discussed, go right ahead, but you succeeded in doing the very thing you were advocating against.

 

This seems so obvious that it is a waste of your time to write it. The F40 is agricultural compared with the F50. The cars are from different eras. This does not diminish the F40 in any way. Facts are facts... I still love my F40 but I recognise it for what it is

 

Yep the F40 'planted the seed's" of destiny!

 

It seems to me that the "drivers car" F40 is has less technology, a basic suspension, average gearbox, average brakes... from the era when less was more.

I love it

Joe
www.joesackey.com