Acceleration: F40, F50, Enzo, CGT & Veyron

Yeah because you were called out...I like you here though, you're like the court jester. Is you alter ego Pantera?

 

Wow, you really need to grow up. English obviously isn't his strong suit, so why point that out when it is not necessary at all? He tries to answer your question, which all others ignored and that is the reaction you have to him? Coming in here acting like this is just gonna get you put on everyones ignore list. If you want to be a part of this discussion start acting like an adult.

 

I must say the "biggest thing" is you need to send me the file I am getting depressed at having this so close to my fingertips and I don't have the .dbn file yet.

F40LM, I highly recommend the Race Logic line of velocity box's, the performance box is *bang for buck* unbeatable > if you wanted to read a thread on it here is one I started years ago when I was looking to upgrade and get more professional with what I was doing http://www.ausrotary.com/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=143457 (There is mountain of material there on it) first post PDF test is what you want showing its abilities, and there is tons more where I catalog various tests and upgrade my equipment also.

Bill would you *possibly* send me just an amended .dbn file just cutting a sample of the overall graph ? in 2nd gear 60-90mph will do (a couple of mph below and above is fine), just so I can overlay it to my RX7, I'll post up the comparison and show the rwhp of both cars too .

 

As I mentioned, you can "race" your car against the F40 using the Excel data. I'd be happy to do that for you if you post the Excel file for your 60 to 130 run (time, speed and height at 10 samples/sec).

We test on private property and my friend does not want the GPS coordinates (contained in the .dbn file) for his property sent out to anyone.

BTW, rwhp is irrelevant to this thread. We moved away from that years ago in favor of time vs speed and, in particular, 60 to 130 mph. Let's not go back to rwhp!

 

Since everyone gets excited in this thread I will put up my hand to disagree on the "power measure" relevance.

I use it all the time in my job, its an important factor and quantifier that most understand, tie it in with weight and aero dynamics and yes the G forces makes for interesting reading. Its just a quantifier for work in given time and thus is very important........... Especially in this Euro V's USA F40 debate.

Power as delivered on any typical day is thus important, lets face it. It is nothing more than a representation in a format that people "get" and ties in all the variables I mentioned AND its good to see what it makes to the ground If I could pump your data or in a while get F40LM's then I can see what it is actually making, and we can ascribe the difference in performance to Excess Weight for example I do these in gear acceleration and power derivations daily for customers with my high accuracy VBOX, but have also run analysis on the simple 10Hz data provided from Pbox users. The one thing about your data is you need to find a much better location to test where there is less than ~1% deviation in height along the whole run distance.

All of my files meet that criteria, its a must for consistency of comparisons and sharing data. though if you are running your own tests and always use exactly the same piece of road then it matters not, just means your only data is valid between like tests (if its out of this flatness specification)

 

Finally I tried some runs. But I don't have saved them because I have verified it with racechrono in a phone of my friend biker. My best 60-130 mph was 8 dead, I have 1/4 tank of 95 RON gas, as the same of your 91 unleaded (even here we have 100 RON), the day was good, bit hot. I think the car could be a bit quicker using better fuels, but surely not able of low 7 seconds, or only able if helped by a slightly down.

 

Friends, I have to ask only that, looking how BillS was able on the average of 7.3-7.6s in his CGT. Why our CGT tested here in Europe are considerably slower than the US cars? That is possible to be verified looking some CGT vs SLR videos and the Autocar test with 8.1 seconds compared on our 60-130 mph results.

 

Are you able to use the Racelogic PerformanceBox? That is the most accurate way to compare the cars over the Web. Then we can see your graphs with the GPS data and compare them in detail.

 

Mine was a slight downhill but comparable to the C&D test. I will look for some data with less of a downhill. Most Europe tests are in km/h and difficult to convert to mph.

 

Hi Bill S,
my runs were not probably very accurate than yours but I think the Euro F40s were able well 7.7-7.8s in the average when our fuels were with leaded or today with 100 RON gas.
I was able of 8 secs, the day was good, sunny, but approx 77-78°F..

My point, is now why Autocar did only 8.1s with the CGT... well comparable of how is regulary able in other european tests or videos..
http://www.streetfire.net/video/porsche-carrera-gt-vs-mclaren-slr-top-gear-clip_50662.htm
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/829401/porsche_carrera_gt_vs_slr_mclaren/

Autocar CGT data (mag shows 60-130 mph really 8.1s!!):
0-60 mph 3.7 s
0-130 mph 11.8 s
1/4 mile 11.6 @ 129 mph
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

its been public knowledge all along.....

 

Very interesting discussion.

I used to time my modified MKIV Supra Turbo with a G-Tech Pro and found it to be within a few tenths and a couple mph, making it a useful tool, although there are much better devices out there now. It was addictive, but in the interest of keeping my driver's license, I stopped doing such things.

I averaged about 7.0-7.2s from 60-130 mph with about 700 BHP and 3400 lbs curb weight, 1/4 mile trap speed was around 130 mph, not too shabby for 2004! Started in 2nd gear right at peak torque, like stepping on a land mine (80 mph max), then 3rd (115 mph) and finally 4th (150 mph).

I remember well when the F40 hit the streets, it was head and shoulders above everything except the 959. And it's still quite fast today.

 

It actually beat the 959 easily in every performance category....

 

I asked my friend biker, he said me my best time with my F40 was 60-130 mph 7.96 seconds but he doesn't saved it. We only know that run was achieved with 1/4 tank of 95 RON, the same of your 91 US unleaded.
I think the Euro F40, with non cats specification could be able of 60-130 mph in 7.7s range if we will run with higher octane gas as it is good for. Here even we have 98 or 100 RON like Vpower gas, the same octane as our old "red" gas.
That's really a good confirmation for me about the Euro Spec could be able of approximately the same performance in straight line as the Carrera GT looking how a private car should be able in the average of the runs and sometimes helped by downhill, or confirmed in 60-170 mph for the magazines.
That's even convincing how is faster than the US spec F40.

 

Just to point out, Quattroruote & Ruoteclassiche mags were tested the Euro F40 not exactly on the best day conditions. Temperature was hot (even 90°F), a lot of humidity, a lot of gas on the tank (even 2/3 or full of tank), Ruoteclassiche with low octane gas in 2002, the cars tested were 60-130 mph 8.3 seconds able both...
Think about better conditions, less or 1/4 of gas into the tank, what could been happened?

 

Will you be able to measure your car with the Racelogic PerformanceBox and post the 60-130 graph with the time, mph and height? That is the most accurate. Then we can better compare the cars. I'm not sure how the biker measurement was made and how accurate it is.

 

I don't want to buy something for only point out a run I'm (or we are) interested, without any parameter of condition. I had used racechrono with GPS as the same as Tom Tom GPS for mobile phone. Racechrono is a very accurate software with GPS data logger good for people who want to verify lap times or acceleration times with their bikes or race cars. And it is very famous here.

For better way, why you don't verify your CGT as the same conditions as Quattroruote or Ruoteclassiche has verified?

Quattroruote:
Temperature: approx 90°F
Humidity: approx 50%
barometric: apporx 1020 mbar
gas: 2/3 of tank

Then we will able to know how far is your CGT from 8.3 seconds of the F40 on that specific condition.

As you surely known, engines are sensitive to weather conditions. Engine power increases or decreases behind the weather conditions. DIN or SAE standard exist for that. If you verified your CGT on 70°F day with low humidity, high barometric pressure, your engine could be good for 620hp, you have not the same results on hot days with high humidity and low pressure when your engine coulb be 590 hp able.

Your 60-130 runs could be equivalent if verified exactly the same conditions of Ferrari tested by the mags.

How could be very accurate compared them if we not consider a point like that?
Your 60-130 mph is maybe made in a particular condition that could be very diffrent of mine or the magazine during the test..so...

Try your car the same mag condition.

 

http://www.supersprint.com/USPG00000fer14.asp
Take a look how the 599 GTB engine increases or decreases power behind the room conditions compared the SAE/EUR standard.
So, how can be possible compared very accurate two cars with graphs and GPS data without perfect weather condition parameters?
Compared them with Performance Box we have only approximate data between them, anyway, accurate but approximate, because little conditions differences are not exactly the same condition. Behind little conditions difference there could be considerable power differences and considerable times differences.
How can consider for "most accurate method" if you could be tested your car in favorable conditions than mine when, for example, I was tested my car...?

For most accurate method for comparing, is compared data you want as the same as the magazine test condition parameter we have.

So untill you don't try your CGT as the same as Quattroruote conditions, we don't really know if your car could be really considerable faster than the F40 tested by Quattroruote...or something other mags...

Your 60-130 mph 7.6s helped by little downhill with 73°F day and 1/4 tank should be normally faster than Quattroruote 8.3s seconds tested on 91°F day, 2/3 of tank + data system into the car, etc.........

 

Here in the USA super-bikes cannot keep up with F40s so the USA cars must be faster.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Sounds like a valid conclusion.

 

OK. I think many people would really like to see your 60-130 graphs on the Racelogic box. Otherwise we are not sure if there are other errors we don't know about.

I would not worry about the conditions too much. If you show 60-130 mph on a flat surface with the Racelogic, I think we can pretty much conclude that the Euro F40 is significantly faster than the US F40. Until then, I don't think we can make that conclusion.

 

Tested the RX7, got 7.45 seconds for 60mph-130mph.

 

Racechrono is known as "racehomo" here

it is NOT accurate at all. Its velocity and time is significantly out compared to proper instruments that can be classed as "certified accurate".

There are set standards for GPS devices when being used as analysis tools, the ones you have mentioned fit into the toy category only mate.

Carrying the title of "GPS" does not mean by default its accurate, there is allot more to it then scratching up a GARMIN GPS engine unit and fitting it to your motec system and claiming you have the ability to give proper measures like a company of Race Logic's caliber. I could go into intricate detail on it but rest assured if anyone could do it Ferrari of all companies with their resources would instead they get Race Logic to make bespoke units for them so they can conduct all of their vehicle testing and development to a proper scientific standard that can stand up to any proper professional independent analysis using accurate equipment (GPS non contact derived or other measurement principles).

I get similar claims all the time put to me about "I measured my car with my Gayphone app" or such similar rubbish, its beyond laughable honestly. For the very small monetary outlay (no problem if you own a Ferrari!) you can have a proven GPS device made by the company that dominates the world standard in vehicle measurement analysis and its proven to be accurate enough to the top level professional unit they themselves make read here > http://www.performancebox.co.uk/download/GTECHvPB_Test.pdf

I can back this up too as I actually own the top spec unit and have personally tested to to the entry level hobby domestic market version, for the money you would be mad to not have one, least then you can claim to have measured your car properly rather than guessed about how fast it was/is... there is no doubt when you use a race logic VBOX instrument

 

Especially not accurate when attached to a bike running alongside the car you're trying to measure

I'm hoping F40 LeMans is able to attach a PerformanceBox to his F40 and posts the 60-130 mph graph with time, speed and height. It's one of our few chances to record performance data for a Euro F40.

 

I never saw a comparison test with the PAG factory optional twin turbo set up with 570 hp, only tests of the sequential turbo cars.

I, for one, would be interested to see if an F40 could keep up with a factory TT 959.