Acceleration: F40, F50, Enzo, CGT & Veyron

Sometimes people want to know just how fast is a car.
And yes, it would be great to identify really the type/spec of the cars and their condition tested, looking how many pages we are talking to conclude something.
Anyway Road&Track tested the Euro F40 with cats, and all we know. All other Euro test are done, at that period, with just not the effort as a very fast car want.

 

For who want to know how the GT40 MkII was fast in 1966, 60-129 mph 7"8

http://www.gt40spf.com/gt40-specifications.aspx


An other fast car like the old no-cats Ruf CTR Yellow Bird in 1987, 60-128 mph 7"8

http://www.roadandtrack.com/content/...Check_data.pdf

 

Lambo Brochure shows slow times for F40

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?p=139711244&posted=1#post139711244

 

Here's the fastest Euro F40 (no cats) racing an Enzo, CGT and US F40 for 17.3 seconds from a stop. The Enzo is going 160 mph.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

So the CGT 0-160 is about 2 car lenghts behind the Enzo? That is closer than I would have thought. Cool info.

 

The Euro F40 is the only one with two passengers. A higher 0-30 mph seems to be honest for a 20 years car.

 

Porsche results were the C&D data? These are data of a car from the factory, I mean..
I remember.. The car was red with german plate..

I'm sure that the Enzo was the C&D car, Evo mag was in Fiorano that day with the Enzo with two passenger
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/03q3/ferrari_enzo-road_test/prancing_horse_perfection_page_2
Those Tricky Numbers

The Enzo's major straight-line numbers—0 to 60 mph in a flabbergasting 3.3 seconds, a quarter-mile of 11.2 at 136 mph—aren't as ironclad as we'd like. The acceleration runs on Fiorano's straightaway were slightly downhill and too short to get a true quarter-mile, so our 1320-foot time is a mathematical plot from the last solid data point at 120 mph and 954 feet.

Nor did we apply our usual equalizing corrections for temperature, humidity, and barometric pressure, figuring they would only make wobbly numbers more uncertain. So, our numbers reflect what that Enzo did on that day at that track, with no warranties expressed or implied.

Euro F40 from FastLane, was the Nick Mason's car with two passengers.. the US F40 was the C&D car I think...

This chart is not so proper, cars from the factory compared to customer cars, cars tested with two passengers and tested with the driver only... try your chart with UK results, they are all made with customer cars and two passengers, they are without any kind of tricky numbers.

 

I think this "race" is pretty accurate. I used C&D data for the lower speeds (black) and my own GPS data on a very flat surface for the higher speeds (green) with just the driver.

I did this because the C&D Enzo numbers were too fast and the C&D CGT numbers were not available at higher speeds. Also, I cannot get the same 0-100 times as the magazines because they are better at launching the cars from a stop.

My own 60-130 results for the Enzo, US F40 and CGT match the C&D results to within 0.5 seconds.

If you have the FASTEST UK data for the CGT and Enzo please post and we can compare those also.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Also do you have the FASTEST UK data for the Euro F40 with cats?

 

How are to be considered pretty accurate, if they are made with only the driver?
I repeat, here in Europe, we have tests with two passengers only. If you compare them both, you are not proper.
I repeat again, try your chart with my Enzo data tested in Fiorano the day for press tests by Evo and the Carrera GT tested by Evo with 911 Turbo and the Mitsu. Is was the yellow one and posted by F40LM days ago.

 

That depends on what you mean by accurate. The US data is accurate for 1 driver. And my own data with my own US F40, Enzo and CGT matches the C&D data (except for the Enzo which was faster in the C&D test). So that's why I think it is accurate for 1 driver.

Is the Evo data the FASTEST 2-passenger data for the Enzo and CGT that was published? I want to be sure we use the fastest UK 2-passenger data for the cars since that's what we did for the non-cat Euro F40.

Also, do you have the fastest UK 2-passenger data for the F40 with cats?

 

For accurate, first of all, with the same method I mean...

It was written down the data for the Enzo Evo test, and in the mag/web pics for the Carrera GT Evo test: driver + journalist or two passengers!

I have not other test of F40 with cats.

 

OK, thanks! Can you tell me where I can see the:

1. Fastest Enzo test with 2 passengers to 130 mph or more?
2. Fastest CGT text with 2 passengers to 130 mph or more?

I can then race the fastest F40, CGT and Enzo with 2-passengers and see how they compare.

 

I agree all your points.

Here you are all the tests with two passengers you want:

1. Enzo test by Evo, car from the Factory the day at Fiorano, slight downhill, two passengers
2. CGT test by Autocar, car from the factory, two passengers
3. CGT test by Evo (with 911T and Mitsi Evo), car from a customer, Bruntingthorpe, two passengers
4. F40 test by FastLane, car from a customer, Millbrook, two passengers

As you can see, for the Enzo we have a top of 0-120 only (so we can compare to 120 only), but the car was a factory car, and the Fiorano straight was a slight downhill. Driver and journalist as you car read in the notes.
60-120 mph 6.18s

Autocar tested one of the three factory CGT press cars (red, black and grey car), sent for the press in every part of the world. This is the black sister of the red one tested by C&D, these cars are fast looking the other customer CGT.
60-120 mph 6.5s
60-130 mph 8.1s

Evo tested a yellow CGT, this is a customer one, was tested in flat straight like the Bruntingthopre one. Two passengers.
60-120 mph 6.9s
60-130 mph 8.5s

FastLane tested the Mason's car, was a customer car and it was tested in Millbrook proving ground. Two passengers.
This car was tested 4 years later by the same mag and was even more faster with only the driver.
60-120 mph 6.3s
60-130 mph 8.3s

If we spoke about tests made with 2 passengers we must only compare with test made in exactly the same method.
Don't joke, try your chart you want, but not esclude the customer CGT in the comparo. I know you want to metion the factory car only because they are faster. I know you
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Enjoy

60-150 mph

Mecca F1 9.6s
Enzo 9.6s (1 driver)
911 GT1 12.3s
Zonda S 12.3s
XJ220 13.8s
Murcièlago 16.3s
EB110 GT 18.7s
F40 (no-cats) 12.3s
F40 USA 13.8s (1 driver)
CGT Autocar 12.1s
CGT Evo 13.5s
996 GT2 16.0s
Zonda S (TopGear mag) 13.0s
Murcièlago (TopGear mag) 15.9s
996 Turbo S (TopGear mag) 16.4s
F50 USA 14.5s (1 driver)
Diablo GT 15.8s
Diablo SV 17.3s
Murcièlago LP670 SV 12.2s
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

F40 LeMans, thanks so much for your summary of the Euro tests! See below for an updated summary of what we have so far.

There are still some questions to answer:

1. Why are the US CGT tests so much faster than the Euro CGT tests? This large difference is not explained by 2 passengers, as can be seen by the Enzo tests.

2. How fast is a Euro F40 with cats? We need tests in mph to really answer that.

3. Why is the FastLane F40 so fast? Is that normal for a no cat Euro F40, or was this particular car running higher boost?
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I think we must answer the 1. question only, the last two questions we have already answered 3 o 4 times.

1. You have already answered you with your own GPS data logger. Your 60-130 mph on flat surface was 7.7s with low gas into the tank. Your own CGT with only you for driver. Your car should be able of the same Euro 60-130 times with a passenger. I think some factory cars sent in USA for the press seems so special. And sometimes, factory cars could be so special.

Then, why some factory US CGT data are so close to the US Enzo data? It's so possible that from 30 to 120 the factory CGT should be so close to the fastest Enzo for 0.2s?

Our 30-120 mph difference from EVO or Autocar is much more possible to be. The Enzo of EVO kill the CGT of AutoCar for a 0.6s and thay are really two honest factory cars. And that is the really difference that should be when a lot of HP are in difference of engines power. The factory Enzo of Evo kill the customer CGTof the same mag for 1.1 second.

How can possible to believe to the CGT US data?

 

Can you remind me which Euro F40 tests were with cats and 2 passengers and in mph?

If none are in mph, I can translate from kph. I just need to know which were 2 passengers with cats.

 

F40LM please tell me you have a Race Logic box and are or have tested your F40 now I am keenly awaiting the file [email protected]

Good to see this thread is still going lol.

 

Here some other tests

60-130 mph
Zonda S (Autocar) 8"2
Zonda S (TopGear) 8"7
Diablo GT (Autocar) 9"6
Koenigsegg CC8S (Autocar) 9"2
Koenigsegg CCX (Evo) 7"9
599 GTB (Evo) 8"4

US R&T test of Koenigsegg CC8S shown 60-130 mph 8"4 and Autocar test shown 9"2

no other

Data from Auto magazine in your (mph) chart are fast as FastLane from 130 to 160 mph. This car was not running higher boost.

 

I forgot we do have a Euro F40 with cats from R&T magazine in September 1991. I added it to the chart. The standing km was 20.9 seconds.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

with driver only.

 

Yes, I believe that's correct.

 

Ok.
At that point I want to say something about absolute HP. Higher HP figures are always bound to the weight of the car. Sometimes lower HP figures are competitive for the torque of these engines able are.
You remember the RS Koenig 935 in R&T World Fastest Cars in 1987?
Well, that car in 1987 was able of 60-133.5 mph in 7.6s with only 520 bhp. The Enzo was 7.8s able on the same data.
This time is better than any Carrera GT time we have, but the point was not the absolute HP of the RS Koenig 935 as we can known today, but still an other time a point about the torque.
So, I mean HP/weight ratio is important, but TQ/gearing ratio to the weight is important too. And sometimes much more important. That is really the very intricate point about a lower HP car sometimes could be fast as or faster than an other more powerful car.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Actually, you can forget about TQ and just use HP (power) vs rpm or vehicle speed. That's because:

HP = (TQ x RPM) /5,252

If you include HP vs vehicle speed (assuming shifts at redline) you also include gearing.

Here's the CGT vs F40. As you can see, the CGT generates more HP at all speeds. The CGT should be MUCH faster than the F40 60-130, and it is... except when you compare the slowest CGT you found and the fastest F40!

Remember, my US CGT is much faster than my US F40. The Euro F40s may be faster. But we're waiting for your data to really prove that to us!
Image Unavailable, Please Login