Acceleration: F40, F50, Enzo, CGT & Veyron

So, how about the 100-200 kph?

according to 60-130 mph would be faster the CGT... the HP vs MPH charts explain the Porsche winning always..
instead, not for Euro "KPH" tests... contrarily, here, in most tests, the EU F40 is much faster than the Porsche...

I agree : "When you go faster, the increased drag starts to cut in and that slows a car " BUT from 60 to 200 kph if not for
the torque, what is the point?
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Bill,

the 3-4 shift is not the point.

You can take a segment without gear shift, and the point is the same.
Take a look, from 60 km/h to 180 km/h or 100 km/h to 180 km/h with the same number of gear shift...so.
Take a look at 120-180 km/h both. Same ONE gear shift.

I've some others km/h tests of these cars both, and is easy to verify it.

 

We should do, a good Torque/Gearing chart and than put all by x./tonne.
Only after that I must explain the point.

BUT I have not time.

 

Sorry but I don't use GPS.

I explein it quickly. I'm referring about 175 kph (110 mph). We must had power/torque, gearing, weight difference, wheels/tire dimensions.
@ 175 kph the CGT is really 8000 rpm circa in 3rd gear.
@ 175 kph F40 is really (by gearing/tire dimension) really 6100 rpm in 3rd gear, too.

tires are:
CGT 2,26 mt
F40 2,09 mt

weight
CGT 1473 Kgs
F40 1254 Kgs

gearing in 3rd + final ratio
CGT 1.36 * 4.44
F40 1.23 * 3.63

How many HP are good for the F40, for the same results of CGT in the point? So.

CGT is 604 hp @ 8000 = 604*716.2/8000 = 54.0 KGm
54.0*1.36 * 4.44= 326 KGm
326 KGm/2.26*2.09 (tires)= 301 KGm
301 Kgs *1473/1254 (weight)= 256 KGm

256 KGm is the TQ good for the F40, for the same result of CGT at the same speed. (anyway approximately)

256/1.23/3.63 = 57.3 KGm of TQ
57.3*6100/716.2 = 488 HP

488 HP is the power @ 6100 rpm good for the F40,for the SAME result of CGT

We have seen 496 HP dynoed EU F40...

 

If you don't consider weight, how can....?
That's normal------ a CGT advantage
but not the point...

my point is what a F40 had for the same CGT point-result. That's 488 HP, when EU-spec are 500 hp able


I agree for GPS data are anyway accurately.

 

Thanks for verifying.

 

It would be great...... but I really don't know how fast is my car.

Anyway, 6.4 s is good for customer EU cars, because SportAuto tested a Switzerland customer car with the same result as Auto Motor und Sport test.

And, Nick Mason's car after 23.000 Kms could be quicker than that.

Why don't use the FL 5 data for your comparo. And for the others data we don't have a proportion between C&D results and FL results. With accurate mode.
Could be the only way...

 

Bill, another great thread, thanks for sharing your awesome collection and its data.

Cheers.

 

Weight is important. The heavier a car is, the more power it needs to achieve a certain fixed performance. This bring into the question of the validity of comparing the acceleration of cars in different weight classes, and from a completely different era. As we know, up to this point, with time, the cars have gotten heavier, with more power to compensate.

On the subject of feel, Autozine explains it better than the way I tried to do earlier on this thread:

"It's also worth noting that the sensation of acceleration or 'pull' has some interesting psychological aspects. For instance, cars that rapidly increase their rate of acceleration can feel very fast when they may in fact be slower than cars that are more on/off in their response. Turbocharged cars generally have this rush of acceleration that comes on in such a way, creating a more intense sensation".

That "intense sensation" is what does t for me. I have driven an F50 and an Enzo and whilst I agree the data says they are faster, but their acceleration wasn't as exhilarating as that of the F40.

What I get from this thread is that for a car launched 22 years ago, the F40 is still an amazing performance car almost a quarter century later.

 

Great points to consider, in the real world.

There is a significant difference from car-to-car, depending on whether one is running properly, is well-tuned or not, and whether all the aforementioned setup and conditions variables are equal. This is especially true of turbocharged cars and I have found that in both my ownership and testing of many other F40s the differences in performance output between them are starkly obvious in some cases, and you dont need a measuring device of any kind to determine same in those cases. Truth be told, if data being posted is being assumed as optimum, when it is in fact compromised by the aforementioned variables, then it is useless for arriving at any conclusions. I am 100% sure that because of real world situations some of the cars tested have in fact not been operating to peak performance, and some cars are 'quicker' (such as Masons) than others.

Thank you for pointing this out F40 Le Mans.

 

Yes. weight is very important. And just the kms/miles running distance of a car, could make a difference.
Here you are the graf comparo from the CGT you are shown for customers car (I think) and a customer car Switzerland F40 tested by SportAuto in 1990 (vs a Porsche 962), just as exactly the same performance af Auto Motor und Sport test.

What we are able to see?

Regardless the last gearshift af the F40, we are able to see that CGT was helped by a shorter gearing, so one compensates the other gears ratio, in real world.
F40 has a longer one. Anyway the Ferrari is running faster when its TQ operating to peak performance (wiht a longer gear) and it dies in high band compared to the Porsche.
The last gearshift is not the point, cause it run the 100 - 200 km/h in 6.4 secs.
What's the point now? anyway we are talking, the Ferrari is little quicker in this segment speed crescendo, behind the total gearing, of both cars.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The point is that some cars tested are Factory press cars, with thousands of miles on their odometer. Some others are customers car with engines like new. Some others more, are customers cars frequently used. So...
There could be little but important differences between them. We can only guess, but is simple verify that teh C&D CGT tested was a Factory press car, it was German registred and it was tested by some others magazines. Faster than other more fresh customers CGT.
Like is simple verify that the Mason's car was a fast car, for their 23.000 kms on the odo. More than a fresh engine car like the Switzerland car tested by SportAuto... and so on.

 

Very important. This shows that we are not talking simply about numbers, but also of knowledge of the variables that stand behind those numbers. Without knowing the specific variables as they apply to any given set of numbers, you cannot use those numbers for any absolute conclusion. Even though the effect of those variables is a very small difference, it is often enough for some to claim (sometimes erroneously) that one car is faster than another, because we are talking of fractions of a second.

 

Thank you for illustrating this.

 

Is easy to gamble on the fact that some Factory cars are faster, but whenever they are, they are faster. This is evident, factory cars having thousands of miles and "maybe" being produced with top-end engines tollerances are regularly faster then others sisters cars, but customers cars.

I am amazed as other cars, maybe customers cars (with thousands of miles on their odometer) that are quicker of other Factory cars. That's a proof, they are really faster

When I had seen the Mason's car a bit quicker than the C&D CGT in the 0-170 mph comparo, it was really for me a proof, one more.

FL tested his F40 years before, and, with a fresh engine and not the most accuate mode was slower than that day, as EVO was slower (with approx the same proportion) in their test with a 3/4000 miles CGT, owned by an English man for their long term test, compared to the Factory car figures. The F40 was faster then the CGT in both examples.

So, behind that, there is a truth. And now it's easier to compare between them
(All that for explain)

 

Yes, when data alone is king without regard to variable you've described we run the risk of being 'baffled by science'. Look at these varying results, and note they are ALL for Eu cars. care to explain?


Top speeds: 202.6 mph* / 199.4 mph**

Acceleration:

0-60 mph:
4.4 sec* / 4.4 sec** / 3.9 sec***
0-100 mph 8.0 sec* / 8.1 sec** / 7.8 sec***

* Tested by Quattroruote
** Tested by Auto Motor und Sport
*** Tested by Fast Lane

 

Normal variation to be expected taking into account:
Air temp & pressure affecting power output
Variation between different engines
Differing all up weights
Driver technique
Tyre temperature affecting grip plus the possibility of one set of tyres having been scrubbed in differently to another
Measuring error (unless specified +/-)