Acceleration: F40, F50, Enzo, CGT & Veyron

Not necessarily a bonus of power comes from higher boost, there are many reasons for which some units are better than others, in addition to those listed above, there are also different choices of engine build up processes by the factory.

 

I've just noticed that this early F40 was almost as fast or faster than the Carrera GT tested by C&D...It would be nice a picture of the car. Thanks guy. Below an other early fast F40.

This point does explain that F40s are not all equally fast.

 

Since 1987 Ferrari produced by different manufacturing processes +1300 2.9L TT engine units...

 

This is absolutely true. I have driven in excess of 20 different F40s, some my own, and the F40 strikes me as being a car where not all were created equally - optimum state of tune is rare and this accounts for significant performance variances.

 

Joe,

Nick Mason's F40. F40 NPG registred, do you remeber the chassis number?

 

Car Graphic, #77271, 100 - 280 kph 25.8 secs, average 0.197g

Cars&Carconversion, #77289, 100 - 310 kph 29.5 secs, average 0.201g

#77289 seems to be much faster than #77271, being both early cars.

 

Sorry, I don't have it unfortunately, but its an early car.

 

Thanks anyway.

Very interesting. That's a huge difference for similar produced period.

 

Talking about engine power we have to specify some distinctions. The Power correction factor we use.
There are SAE, DIN and ECE standards.
The older SAE J607 standard considers that the engine was run on a 60°F day with 0% humidity and a barometric pressure of 29.92 in-Hg, the newer SAE J1349 standard of 77°F (25°C) day with 0% humidity and a barometric pressure of 29.234 in-Hg. ECE standard is the same as the SAE J1349, but does not use mechanical efficiency in the calculations. The DIN standard corrects to 68°F (20° C) day with 0% humidity and a barometric pressure of 29.92 in-Hg (101.3 KPa).
In early '90s, when F40 was produced, Ferrari use the two different correction factors for deliver the engines. DIN for europeans and the old SAE J607 that was different than current SAE J1349 used for US engines.
Perhaps some our older power inconsistencies could be due to different unit of measurement.
When R&T spoke about 515 hp for USA specifications, this not exclude they were talking about the older SAE correction, so it does means a lower figure referring to the modern correction.
My figures were still referred to different units of measurement and probably higher than modern SAE standard conversion.
This point does explain in part why F40s are not all equally fast.
So, if US cars has really 515 hp corrected by older SAE standard as R&T said, it means to give off lower figures compared to our italian modern 500+ horses due to the correction.

 

I agree.

 

ZFFGJ34B000078122

 

Even C/D and R/T obtained different test results due to opposite conditions, the 'worst' result come from 'better' conditions. This is not a case, it is synonyms of difference in power output between their engines.. Look at the data, Dick Engel's car was much faster.

 

^Indeed it's not correct to compare own car to a single magazine road test. Weather conditions may affect the performance of the engine and it's not so simple to try conclusions.
As you has already said C&D tested the car in winter during a cool day on sea level while R&T tested on warm day at almost 1000 ft of altitude. The fact that the car tested in worst condition was faster means that his engine was created with higher properties. This engine variances affected also US cars.

 

Finally I decided to buy a Performance Box. Here one of my 60-130 mph in my Euro F40 with no cats. Note that I was running with RON 95 gas plus additive, not ideal gas for very fast runs for non cats cars as VPower gas is. Temperature was 76 degrees.



60-100 mph 3.5 seconds
60-130 mph 7.9 secodns

I also thought I could 130 mph in 3rd gear, shortening that result by few tenths.

 

To 130 mph, for the gearshift I found benefit shifting the 3rd closer to the limiter but I think I could have done around 7.6s to 130 mph without shifting in 4th.

Note the 60-120 mph 5.8 seconds with 3rd in shift! This is the reason why this F40 specification was side by side fast even compared with moderns. I did "60-128 mph" in 7.2 seconds before shifting in 4th!!



In future I will try with better gas me too, and maybe better conditions, today weather was good but far from ideal for turbocharged engines.

 

It would be interesting to know the "distance" after 7.3 seconds in your Enzo during the 60-130 mph 7"7 run (with 2-3 and 3-4 gearshift) BEFORE the engine rebuilt.



Data you posted shows 1071 ft after 7.3 seconds in the Enzo. I was 1071 ft after 7.33 seconds. It sounds they were very close as I suppose. That's agreed with my experience in this way.

I really don't know what the hell Realzeus saw with his own eyes...

 

Let's face, your last results are unusually fast for magazine published Enzos and my result can match with one of the fastest Enzo ever published. This does explain to how tolerance level was rebuild your engine.

No need to use an exact meter between these facts. Variability between engines is frequent. To emphasize, you are currently posting a very fast run with the 3rd in gear that does not reflect correctly the in gear acceleration sequence, but no problems for that. I also was not running with ideal gas with RON 95, owners manual claims required RON 98-100 and the air was too warmer for ideal. My run was taken with the average of the only my first best attempt. Enough to provide a result as fast as the figures published by C/D in their factory Enzo taken on the distance.

My result prove that, maybe, my run was not fast as your best in your Enzo, but this does not explain that my run was not fast as the Enzos.

(Then, my run could be translate in 100-200 kph 6"5, that is very close to the best 6"4 made by factory F40s. If my result is close to the your (within 35 feet), why the F40 results made by factory cars should be much slower? Just to understand this point...)

To reset, this thread started to say that the non cat Euro F40 would have to be far away to the Carrera GT, with no difference within specs. I let myself to point out.

 

This calls for a drag race.

 

No need a race from standstill.

 

Here the C&D Enzo vs our friend's F40 after 7.9 seconds when starting from 60 mph:
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Interesting! Thanks for posting this.

 

I understand your calculations, can you show me the result after 7.8 seconds in comparison with the R&T Enzo? I was 1155 ft...

 

The R&T Enzo is around 3 ft ahead:
Image Unavailable, Please Login