Chris you sold the boat! Sweeet! Tom told me he had the capristo exhaust put on the 430. Did you do it? He is very happy with it. He thinks its sounds like an f1 car. I have yet to hear it. P.S. Why not skip the f40 and live true to your name?
Of course I have the utmost respect for Keith Bluemel, but from the first 50 the following were built with glass wind up windows: 77181,77238,77271,77534,77576,77732,77833,77920,78036,78122,78202,78462, & 78509. That's 13 of the 1st 50 and there are still a few "blanks". I forget precisely where I amassed this fountain of useless information but it was long ago during my 10 years of service as part of the team importing Ferraris into Hong Kong. Another difference in production was a change of gear ratio with the inception of the Cat equipped cars. Fun subject !!
Well,the LM's and GTE's are other cars in my eye and they also have a lot of modification's. But regarding the "regular" F40's ,the disc brakes where modificated and this involve the internal design of the ventilation ducts and the fixing points to the flange. Of course this was connected with a new part number.. and this started in the production around serial number 80733... regards ivo
Hi Joe, this is interesting and is/was new for me ... Could you explain me more about that ? Why a different gear ratio for the US car ? Because of the US engine (F120A/40 ) ? thanks ivo
Ivo, The differences between the USA F40 gear ratios and those of the rest-of-the-world cars are cataloged in my pist # 588/page 30 of the USA F40 thread. I encourage you to review that thread. The difference in ratios for the USA cars was clearly to suit the USA engine F120A/40 as you have correctly surmised. Joe www.joesackey.com
Dear Comrade joe sackey, Having examined the aforementioned post it does beg the question why Ferrari would make such a change that is so infinitesimal that it could hardly be discernable. It would cost a substantial sum to make such a change and why would they do so? Also my mirrors do not appear to fold as the US F-40 does. With kind regards, 512 Tea Are
As I pointed out to Ivo, Im sure the different gear ratios were deemed neccesary by the engineers to suit the USA car's slightly different engine. Joe www.joesackey.com
Dear Comrade joe sackey, I have received your e-mail and the booklet will be in the post tomorrow. With kind regards, 512 Tea Are
To help offset the added weight of the US spec cars.... A small gear ratio change is not a big thing at all....
Thank you Joe . I read the post in the other thread and we could now really say it was because of the "different"engine spec. until soon ivo
I own a 1992 Eurospec F40 with catalytic converters, standard exhaust system, and lifting suspension. I have driven various F40's including a 1989 non cat Eurospec car. To me, the non cat 1989 car I drove had slightly more power (not that any F40 is short on power). Some one who I regard as knowledgeable has told me that the catalytic converters can suck as much as 50 horses, and suggested replacing them with a made up plain exhaust pipe. The oxygen sensor can still be thread mounted in the pipe, and the engine will function normally, I was told. Does anyone know for sure about this, or has anyone done the mod? How much back extra pressure would the catalytic converters cause?
My car is 1989 non cat Eurospec car. I know that catalytic converters can suck as much as 13 horses at the factory engine dynamometer (anyway I'm not so sure if data is really correct, but 50 hp are too much). But, surely it lost power on the complete power band. I think you can recourse to the suggestion, I saw cars with the work done.
This is true, and according to factory records a total of 106 cars were supplied with this option. Best regards Caley
Though never officially admitted, the cat cars had a slightly increased boost preassure, so the power is supposed to be equal. Each engine has a dyno sheet from the factory prooving these adjustments, and this adds an interesting tuning opportunity for cat car owners by replacing the cats with test pipes. Although it is not easy to notice on the road since all F40s are extremely powerful. I have had with and without cat and it is nothing you really would notice in a blind test. Best regards Caley
At the facts, I don't agree for 4 points: 1st - of all, at the wheel, you are unable to verify the amount of power. 2nd - the boost gauge work at the same boost level, around 1,15 bar on both versions (till the max in overboost phase on both versions). 3rd - the "owner manual" say "standing km" 21"6 v 20"9. And no-cat spec for faster. 4th - during the magazine test sessions, the cars fitted with catalytic converters were regulary slower. Expecially from the 2nd to the 4th gear. Looking this and reading magazines saying about 13 hp of difference, I think we can assume no-cat version had "slightly" more power. Looking the acceleration numbers claimed is also allowed by the factory.
I totally agree with you that you will not notice anything behind the wheel, and this is also what I said about the blind test. I have had a very early car from 1988 and a later cat version from 1990 and they feel just the same on a normal road. The boost gauge is not a very easy thing to read as it flickers during different loads, and the increase from the factory is not very much so this is not the instrument to measure this. And the owner manuals state as you say, but I was referring just to the engine power. There are many ways to affect acceleration and the US cars have a lower final ratio to balance the slightly higher weight if I remember correctly from the different manuals. Tests can also be different between different cars due to the fact that they are all individually built. My comment was about the power output and I have got this verified from a friend at the factory who also supplied me with dyno data for my cars from the factory archives. The cat car from 1990 was adjusted to 474 Bhp to be close enough to the 478 stated. According to my source this will most likely be a bit higher by 5-10 Bhp after running in, and yet some 15-20 Bhp more without the cats. Had they not increased the boost preassure the cat cars would have been much less powerful than the early ones so this is how they did it. Best regards Caley
Also power is +/- 5 hp depending to the car. http://mbworld.org/forums/attachments/off-topic/101024d1174670634-sweet-rasp-f40-dyno-f40-3.4l-tuned.jpg Here a test of US F40 on a Dynojet 248: 388 WHP - 374 WTQ http://members.rennlist.com/951_racerx/ScottGomes2.8vsFerrariF40.jpg Here a test of US F40 on Dynojet 248: 393 WHP - 384 WTQ Both engines fitted with cats. Both SAE corrected dyons. Exactly the same dyno.
does that seem a low result to only me?? there can't be 70+ hp lost on drivetrain alone in an F40 IMO....i've never seen that much loss of any car i've dyno'd or seen dyno'd
It depends also to the dyno. Different dynos, different numbers. I don't think 70+ hp lost for the F40 are so much as you suppose. For example. The 458 Italia was around 450 whp on Dynojet. Something about 550 hp flywheel of 570 claimed. So, about 100 hp lost on drivetrain, and 22%. http://www.dragtimes.com/blog/ferrari-458-italia-on-the-dyno F430s are around 400 whp of 490 claimed at flywheel. http://www.dragtimes.com/2006-Ferrari-F430-Dyno-Results-Graphs-11110.html To me 380-390 whp on Dynojet dynos are great numbers for stock US F40s.
we do see different results per dyno, i.e. dynojet vs mustang dynojet being an inertia type, and often attributed to give a more optimistic (shall we say) reading 10+% higher compared directly (i.e. same car) against a mustang dyno ...truthfully on a dynojet 'should' have shown better numbes on a sorted F40 IMO drivetrain loss is a widely debated subject, but even 25% loss is considered high (471 hp - 380 = 91 hp) even of my own cars, on both dynojet and mustang dynos, i've never seen more then 10-15% loss however, there are a number of other variables that come into play too, operator, temp, software settings, etc.
How do you know your 10-15% loss on your own car, if I may ask? is it calculated by the dyno or is it your estimate compared to the claimed? Also because modern Dynojet has the negative spin down test which showed the % of drivetrain loss (a lot of dynos are able to calculate losses here in Europe); the 458 tested at Fabspeed Motorsport was 22% loss. Losses on modern drivetrain are lower than older cars for sure. So, drivetrain loss is no longer a guess.
I know, we see that reading the numerous threads talking about dynos, expecially on US forums. But, guessing losses is like walking in the dark. Nor is it possible to estimate for high loss or low loss when we have no basis and we must resort to guessing. Take a look at the 458 tested. We would imagined lower loss due to the modern drivetrain for that car, while it passed the 20% of loss. Older cars may been closer to 30% or excess. Guessing numbers we will estimate misleading crank figures. The most recent opportunity to know the power at crank is much more effective even if related to a software calculation. The only one thing to guess at the moment about the F40 is that the two US cars tested on the Dynojet 248 dyno, and SAE corrected, could been currently estimated at crank to be closer or little in access to 500 hp considering the 458's drivetrain, much more modern unit, able to suck as 99 hp, or 22% loss.
i have observed both bench and chassi dyno results of same engines for a few cars of my own, and several others......a local rod shop result shows new vettes worked on didn't have powertrain loss differences of more then 15%, so yes, 25% is high sense this thread isn't about the endless dyno powertrain loss debate, i'll conclude with the simpe observation, that 91hp loss from drivetrain for an F40 seems high IMO
