Acceleration: F40, F50, Enzo, CGT & Veyron

With comparable HP, the lighter F40 trapped 6-7 mph higher than the 959 in the 1/4 mile, a huge gap. Another 120 HP would be enough to at least make up that gap, but then if we're talking upgrades, there was a factory F40 package worth 678 HP.

 

I was refering to stock vs stock. Not any rare "factory" upgrades. If that is the case we could always toss on the LM turbochargers and parts and go ape sh*t. ;-)

 

Good point with the trap speed. That "factory" upgrade was actually done by Michelloto who built the F40 GT/LM/GTE for the factory. I have heard they built a road going F40 with all the LM upgrades, and on high boost it would crank out about 900 horsepower.

 

Mobile phone, GPS and the software was into my car,... not attached to a bike running alongside the car!

"My friend biker" was only a friend with a fast bike who lend me his measurement system that day...

 

I know that Racechrono is sure not the best we have for measurement system.. and it's not accurate than a much expensive systems, but the time (or distance) I have achieved could be indicative as my car able. Discrepancy could be infinitesimal on 8 seconds time or not over two tenths.

Even I know that Perormance Box is accurate, but if my run was only 8.1 "corrected" I think very indicative how the Euro cars are able with 1/4 tank over higher octane gas.
Anyway I think conditions are important on the accuracy of the results on the comparo. if I will try my car on July, temperature will be too hot for spring days in comparo.

 

http://www.racechrono.com/manual/?page_id=19
How accurate are the performance test times?

In addition to slight inaccuracy due to receiver’s refresh rate, a standing start estimation can be half a second too late, due to “static navigation” feature in most GPS devices. This means your test results might be too fast if your receiver has static navigation.
""Tests with flying start work much better, for example the 80-120 km/h test.""

So, it could be inaccurate on standing starts "even" for 1/2 second but with flying start work much better...
a 60-130 mph 8 secs verified time should be close.. not 8.5 as corrected

anyway no problem

 

Everyone, now is the time to start dropping hints to loved ones about suitable birthday/early Christmas, or just a random gift! (Race logic performance box).

"If you love me* hahahaha

 

Ok, thanks. But you are never said that for Quattroruote and its 8.3s with hot temperature.

 

Quattroruote test.

If AUTO you say 8.5s on your chart, was behind a 100-200 km/h of 9.5s.
Quattroruote 100-200 km/h was 9.28s with hot conditions. 91-92°F, 2/3 of gas into tank . That seems 8.3s on its 60-130 mph.

In better condition, this car was be good for going WELL DOWN 8 secs as you are saying (only now after 26 pages).

The CGT times are from 7.3 (C&D) to 8.4s (EVO) in the tests at the vary of conditions, your car was 7.6s in the average (helped by downhill). Your US F40 was 8.6s.

Now? we are arguing about a pair of tenths vs th CGT? and not over 0.6-0.8 sec vs the US F40?

 

BTW here is the first test of mason's car in 1989, 60-130 mph 8.3s (same as Quattroruote) with 0-170 mph 25.0s and how it improve in 1993 with 170 mph 22.3s and higher mileage on the tacho-

still you don't consider possible going down 8 seconds for EU cars?
these, quattroruote and fast lane are two example of possible down 8s in the 60-130 mph measurement. It improve something like .8 secs in the 60-160 mph...
and Mason's car was able of the same as other F40s tested initially.. Mason's car wasn't something special
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Here the synopsis of our 60 - 130 mph magazine measurement:

Porsche CGT 60-130 mph
Performance box 7.6s
Car&Driver 7.3s
Autocar 8.1s
Evo 8.5s

F40 US & Euro 60-130 mph
Performance Box 8.6s
Car&Driver 9.3s
Auto 8.5s
FastLane 8.3s (as Quattroruote)
FastLane 7.8s *estimed


""Now we must conclude something about all our results.
The Porsche is very fast, but its performance discrepancies are over 1 sec on the average of 7.9s in the 60-130 mph we have. F40s are over 8 secs in the average, but US cars are slower because far from down 8s. EUro cars are able of, sometimes well achieving the average of the Porsche, sometimes being faster the Porsche! US magazines results benefit the Porsche, but Europeans magazine not""

That's all, since my first page.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

EVO

XJ220 vs LP640
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

It wasn't an aftermarket upgrade, but a factory option... AKA OEM stock. The option was available on both normal and sport models

 

Great! Enzo is lovely! I owned one a pair of years ago, for only few months, but I have only drived the CarreraGT. I still like the F40 much more than the Porsche. Probably the TT reaction.. no electronics, better sensations..
I prefere own historic cars at the moment, the F40 is new in historic world now.
Congrats for your collection, I think is the better for who like fast/modern cars. I council you a yellow Diablo GT (short gears ratio) on the side of your F40.
For veryfast car I owned a tuned 930 Turbo with a really special engine! The gearbox was not very fast, but the engine was amazing!

 

First of all.. HI EVERYBODY! I'm New here! Nice to meet you!
I have a lot of mags in my room and i Love Supercars!


You forget that C&D had tested Carrera GT in 60-130 mph 7.3 with only the driver.
Today the US measurament are like that!

Looking at the old mag Fast Lane i have, the F40 was tested 60-130 mph 8.3 with 2 PERSONS inside!!! (Like often English tests are)

;-)

 

Very interesting if correct Max, thanks for pointing that out.

 

Yes, I had not seen this important particular in the 1st Fast Lane test. And yes, the cars was tested with driver and passenger looking the pics. Sounds good for the Ferrari in the comparo.

Mason's car was Euro F40 with no cats. Was the 1989, the first test.

 

Just looking the pics, two persons inside the cars in UK tests
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login