Acceleration: F40, F50, Enzo, CGT & Veyron

Hows finding a station that sells w/out 10% Ethanol? There aren't many in Michigan outside of Marina's, and drag strips.

 

Ok.
Rememebr that if you want to compare with US test (C/D 7.3s), you "must added" the weight of the full tank at your 7.7s run, then, if you want to compare with UK test you must added the weight of the 2nd passenger but you can use full tank of 93 AKI gas.

 

GT Purely Porsche magazine

http://www.motorworld.net/forum/showthread.php?t=36872

Carrera GT test
Customer car (UK plates)
1 driver only
4 runs

60-130 mph 8"08

 

Very intersting to know this.

A customer CGT tested full weight is about 8.1s with "just the driver". Nick Mason's F40 was 8.3s with two people. It's just enough to be sure and confirm (2nd FL test) after 25 pages we are talking that Mason's car should be able to go ahead with just the driver too. This is the 2nd of the only two customer CGT tests that the Ferrari has beaten.

This data is about 60-130 half second quicker than the UK CGT tested by Evo with two people.

Sometimes just pointing out with few tests or factory car tests we are not sure to center really the point. Here two private CGTs are beaten by a private euro F40. And now, you all can continue to belive than CGT should be a lot faster than the Euro no cats F40.

 

I agree with this logic: you really need multiple tests to begin to form a conclusion.

 

...Yes I know, after all, a good verify about the cars we are talking about (engines are within or without the tolerance?) it is good practice. Verify who had sent the cars to the mags (factory or private cars?). Just multiple tests are able to begin to form a conclusion.

I have read just some people here were saying that 500 bhp cars are impossible to be fast as 600+ bhp cars for the huge difference of power, sent me some interesting Vbox graphics, but looking just a pair of C&D data (or testing cars with low gas into the tank is not a good method to conclude), expecially without pointing out any other scientific considerations about weight, gearing or engine curves (max Torque and Power). These rules are important like the engine to conclude.

And yes, Nick Mason's car was fast for blueprinted engine (I know just now this english world ), but this sense is just any time a customer car was built with engine in top tolerance of production, just within this tolerance. No any other strange point I have read, about FastLane magazine could be a crazy mag I have read or more boost behind that data. Just a no cats engine well built with care, no about well-tuned engines like sometimes other magazine tests are showing with other cars, Ferrari included.

How can think about to buy a car, being me a customer, fast as a factory car?
Behind a factory car, there are some other points to be very fast. Often, factory cars are "mules" with a lot of miles, good for testing engine reliability compared to the high power unit and are well run in. Are built for testing gearbox and they are often with the last control experimental setting for the gearbox. Just looking the CGT and the 458 Italia examples, but the cronology of mag tests reminds us many other cases.

And about old '90 years catalytic engines? you really think that the 1st method of building catalytic engines was the best approach of it?
I think today the engines are build in the very best configuration for to be powerful and fast within in the legislation, but at that days, it was just a compromise.

 

http://vaillant-935.de/file_download/4/sportauto_1977.pdf

Since the old times, the Porsche 934 Gr.4 was almost fast as the first type of Kremer 935 from 100 km/h to 200 km/h. 934 engines were 150 hp less powerful than 935 engines.

 

Hi, we are still waiting your data with two people and a full tank of gas.

 

http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/original/application/f402b130222e6f98ef15ba1165617301.pdf

Ferrari 458 by C/D:

60-125 mph 8.2 secs

60-140 mph 11.7 secs

 

Have you seen this one?
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Yes I have this article.

 

This is 1988 and I believe that's a 'factory proto' with the well-known MO.856 plate on it...

 

Yes and it was from 100 to 200 km/h in 6.4 seconds. But, some customers european no cats F40s seems to be fast as this car (you are saying for factory proto) looking other our mags tests.

This is an example: the Swiss customer F40 tested by SportAuto in 1990 (with the 962) and it was a no cats F40.

50 to 100 kmh 2.3 secs
50 to 200 kmh 8.7 secs

So, 100 to 200 km/h 6.4 like the factory F40 tested by AMS in Nardo 1988 test.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Joe here the complete SportAuto article.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

2nd part
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Note:

At the fact, we cannot say that factory proto F40s were absolutely faster than production/customer cars looking the worldwide tests of the Ferrari, but I think we can say that factory CGTs were faster than production/customer cars looking how we are reading since today.

German F40s tested by AMS and Sport Auto during '80-'90 years were fast exactly the same, and these cars came from the factory or from customers.
CGTs tested by C/D, R&T, and the European mags like Autocar, GT Purely Porsche or Evo are just "enough" to verify that factory CGTs were absolutely faster than customer cars, and the latter fast as the no cats F40 tested (no cats and same test method). Indeed, some factory CGTs tested by German mags were fast as cars tested like customer F40s...


Note 2:

Today I think that factory cars sent to the press sometimes are voluntarily out of production telerance, but at the time of the F40, factory cars were within the production or just top end production tolerance.
This is why we have a huge difference 60-130 mph from factory and customer CGTs tested in US and UK with just the driver and not considerable difference from 100 to 200 km/h in German tests of the Ferrari. Not the case for US F40s being with cats and 250 lbs more..

 

That makes sense.

Thanks for the article though...

 

Me too, expecially when you will be able to confirm me a 7.3 seconds (like C/D) on your own car with 4/4 gas into your tank or just explain me really how your graph RACEs were so accurate comparing factory cars and customer cars together.

I'm not an engineer (you are said you are) I'm a passionate owner, but I think it's just enough to say that your CGT vs F40 RACESs and SUMMARYs data were not really so accurate to conclude the Euro F40 is surely a lot slower, expecially about customer cars both.

This is why I don't want to buy a PerformanceBox. I don't care about it. I have just bought a lot of worldwide magazines and they are just enough to look further than you with your PerformanceBox.

 

You collect magazines with F40 articles too??! I probably have every one on the F40 written in English!

The reason I collected them over the years is that articles from the original period are a great source of independent verification of specification (& performance) and so in future generations if the cars need to be restored the magazines will be invaluable as a reference!

 

I love them too.
Probably I have over 1000 road tests in my Supercars magazine articles collection and about 20 "data panel" of worldwide performance for the F40.

 

I think this is the most exciting data panel for the Euro F40 with an astonishing standing 1000 m 19.9 seconds with car weight of just 1202 kg.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Impressive!

 

A lot of performance data are important to answer personal questions about power engine output behind the build production or climate conditions difference expecially for supercherged engines.
Comes to my mind the 3.4L twin turbo Ruf of the CTR that it's really a great example for explain what happens about turbo engines.
The CTR n.01 was the first Yellowbird and it was dynoed 469 hp just few days before the World Fastest Cars 1988 and it was the engine good for the factory specification data. This car was tested newly by Roar&Track for a recent standing mile comparo and it was able of 28.6 seconds with a terminal speed of 185.8 mph. It is a fast time considering a 20 years old car. The car shown about 100.000 kms on the odo, but Mr. Alois Ruf said that the car was well conserved and the engine still perfect.
On the other way in 2004 Autocar tested the last YellowBird, chassis n. 29, the engine was used equally as the other car. But this car, even being declared as the same as the other it was so fast, it was faster than the car tested by R&T.
Standing mile time 27.7 seconds and terminal speed 189.1 mph.
About 1 second difference on the standing mile with exactly the same engine declared by the factory, but really with huge differences in engine curves due to the twin turbo build factors and build settings.
This is why sometimes there could been some huge differences in power output or time performance behind exactly the same supercharged engine build for the production.
It's not surprising me with 21s declared by the factory, the slowest F40 tested was high 21 second on the standing km (0-1000m) and the fastest was 19.9s behind this logic.