just curious how you like it?
But Ferrari had to strip a car down to bare panels held together by green glue in order come up with a car that barely beat it.
I dunno - never seen an F40 compete in (much less finish or WIN) Paris-Dakar. The 959 did that (ok... so it was called the 961 in that version). I'll take a 959 (sport or comfort) over an F40 any day.
I've only seen one, 2 years ago at the Radnor Hunt concours. It was such a stunning technologically advanced car for its time. There are like 5 in the US? regards ken Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
those cars pictured are all owned by a gentleman living in hickory nc. beyond the 959...the VERY important cars pictured are: 1) 934 rsr! 2) 74 911 turbo rsr !! 3) 917 /30 5.4 !!!! nice collection huh?
The 961 was the Le Mans version of the 959, not the rally edition. The rally edition was just called the Paris-Dakar editions. There is definately more then five in the US!
Who cares about a off road race? The F40 has much more competion history. Just look at all the GT's, LM's and GTE's that won races.
hahaha are you joking?? the paris-dakar rally is one intense rally, and the fact that a (strictly) road car was modified, and won the race??? very important
oh gawd....let's not turn this into a ferrari vs. porsche sports car racing history event...trust me that ferrari will not fare as well.
sadly can't find much about the F40 winning anything. It campaigned for years and was hopelessly outclassed in the end. You're not getting confused with the 333SP?
Look a little harder. It has many podiums in GT, LM and GTE configurations. The F1 came later when the F40 was almost 8 years old. However the F40 still out qualified them many times. The 959 only raced basically two times and it was HIGHLY modified in both forms. Not knocking it in anyway....
I have no idea how many people have driven both a 959 and an F40, but I have. There is no comparison. The 959 is a fast civilized car that easily could have been driven daily. The F40 is nearly a group C race car, made legal for the roads. The 959 was fast and comfortable. The F40 was faster, more exciting, and if you drive it at anything beyond 80% down right scary.
Yea, WAY more than 5... Not sure how many, but probably a dozen or more I would guess... I thought I had read that once the place in CA got the go to bring them in and convert them they had as many as 20 on site at ONCE! Indicating that they had more than that over the course of the time they were actively importing them... Not sure of the validity of any of that, but I do recall reading something along those lines. Best, James Austin, TX
Cheeeyaa, it only put a lot of race teams out 100's of millions this year, but hey it's just an off-road race and no one cares do they..
Well I would certainly hope so. One car is a real car. The other is held together by green glue. Go read the magazines of the time. Most of them had the same opinion.
I own the magazines of the time. None of them prefered the 959. Even a Porsche test driver who drove both said he'd take the F40. Don't get me wrong, I love the 959, but it just doesn't hold a candle to the F40. The F40 is an icon, the 959, not quite....
The 959 is an icon, but for different reasons. You also have to take into account that when new, the 959 was not imported into the US like the F40 was...for this reason alone the F40 got more exposure. The purpose of the two cars is totally different. The 959, dare I say, was the Veyron of the 80s. The technology was unprecedented, and the car did not sacrifice any creature comforts. As much as I love the F40, it is little more than a thinly disguised racecar with very little creature comforts compared to the 959. Different cars with different target audiences. But to say the 959 is not an icon is simply DEAD WRONG.
Yeah the 959 is a huge icon of its time. I remember it was my dad's dream car for years. . . one of the reasons he got a 993 Turbo when they arrived in the states. As Cajun said, the technology and engineering of the vehicle was phenomenal for its time (and really still today). As many folks will say, Porsche keeps in mind everyday usability with their cars come rain or snow or whatever. . . and nothing was sacrificed in order to save weight or bump up the raw numbers. The F40 was a *response* from Ferrari to combat the newly crowned king from Porsche. They "beat" it in the performance category, but they got rid of a whole lot to do it. You wouldn't go discounting the greatness of the Enzo because the "Ultima GTR" can beat it around a track, would you? The god of automotive design, Gordon Murray said in an article: "I was a bit put out that the only other car anywhere near the 1140-kg weight of the F1 was the Ferrari F40, which was, at the time, consistently held up by the press as a competitor for the F1. Unfair, I thought, when the F1 had room for three, a 6.0-liter engine, large luggage compartments, a CD stacker, air conditioning, carpets, even a toolkit!" I think the same type of argument would apply to the 959. This doesn't mean the F40 is an inferior car, just a different one. The fact that the F40 has better performance numbers has nothing to do with the greatness of the 959. Each car, in my mind, is the pinnacle of 1980's supercars in its own respect.
The 959 was a technology showcase in its era, pioneering many advances that found their way to Porsche's mainstream models years later. However, its mission was not the pursuit of pure driving pleasure or the achievement of ultimate performance. I think of the 959 as a 996TT 15 years ahead of its time. I don't think it can hold a candle up against the F40 in stimulating powerful emotions when driven hard. I think a GT3 would be more fun to drive and be quicker on the track to boot. Obiviously a modern such as a GT3 doesn't have the historical significance and rarity of the 959.
