Acceleration: F40, F50, Enzo, CGT & Veyron

Complimenti, il pargolo é sulla strada giusta! A Natale se ci sei ti passo a trovare!

 

Rolling roads are very tricky things. Only a bench dyno, equalised for normal conditions, can give accurate readings. I am sure you have been to Maranello and you have seen each and every engine dynoed before being mounted to a car. If it does not reach the claimed figures, the engine goes back to the machine shop!!!

 

Ok mi farà piacere!

Yes I'm aware of this. They must respect power tolerances by law. I think it is not a good idea to deliver cars closer to the lower power admitted when competitors deliver closer to the top end of the tolerance. This is what last magazine figures (accompanied by last dyno figures) are showing.

 

The german magazine AMUS seems to had definitely tested the Porsche 918 during a test impression compared the Carrera GT. The magazine shows amazing acceleration times: 0-100 kph 2"6 and 0-200 kph 7"2. UNBELIEVABLE!

 

wow. the latest developments should make it even quicker.

 

2013 Ferrari F12berlinetta - Road Tests - Road & Track

60-130 mph 8"3-8"4

The F12 seems to be really overreted.

 

It's true. The F12 was claimed 740 hp but it seems only 680 hp available.

 

R&T sais that it is the fastest RWD car they have ever testes. Also, by narrowing the window to a 70 mph spectre, one can not make valid remarks. Try the 60-160 mph time for size.

 

here is a new video of the F12
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIY72bMtVo4

 

Agreed, they're referring to the quarter-mile time. Nick Mason's F40 did 60-170 mph 18.5 seconds. My car should be slightly faster.

 

Disappointed to read the F12 is under delivering. Such a beautiful car deserves to have the full power it promises.

 

Hard to say it under-delivers. You'd never even notice something like this in real life. If it delivered, you'd be a whopping 82 feet close to the movie theater than you are now, but in reality you're 1000 ft behind where you expected because you're afraid to go more than 10-15 over the speed limit on this major road.

The F12 seems to do exactly what it was supposed to if you ask me -- a good looking, good sounding, newly designed front-engine model that continues the tradition of giving you way more performance than you actually use.

 

I havent driven one but the tests by US mags seem to be disappointing compared to Euro mags. Weight is up, acceleration is slower and laptime is not what one expect.

Sure it's fast enough to go to the movies but then so is a Mazda 3. If Ferrari says it has so many HP and weighs so many kgs, I would expect the press numbers to be close.

From memory they said the f12 is less than 1600kgs dry weight. One if the US mags measured it at more than 4000lbs or more than 1800kgs. Now the car is making less than 700hp on dynos..

It's disappointing if true.

 

Yes, but not a surprise from Ferrari really is it? (sadly).

 

Took me a second, but I found the video you're referring to where the car is dyno'ed (in case anyone else wants to check it): https://vimeo.com/77186704

Dynamometer test was conducted by Portland Speed Industries in Oregon, producing a result of 586 wheel horsepower. Assuming a 15 percent driveline loss, that works out to around 680 crank horses. A lot of modern cars have gotten that loss down to 10 percent or so (at least in the case of 2WD cars), in which case the F12 would be making about 651 horses at the engine.

In order for the crank horsepower to match the factory claim of 730 horsepower, the F12berlinetta in question would have to have a driveline loss of about 19.75 percent. That's ridiculously high for a modern 2WD car, so it seems difficult to believe. Which leaves us with four possibilities:

A.) The F12 in question wasn't making peak power during the test. Watch the video; the fan they're using to supply the engine with air doesn't look all that large. It's conceivable that the ECU realized it wasn't getting enough air and dialed back the power as a result. There are plenty of other reasons it might not be making enough power that day that we wouldn't be aware of: they may have filled it with a lower-octane fuel by accident, etc.

B.) The F12 in question was built with an underperforming engine. Hey, s*** happens. Maybe the guy in charge of checking the engines at Fiorano was hung over that day and missed that this engine wasn't quite up to snuff. Maybe he was in a bad mood and just didn't care. But just because this particular car was underperforming doesn't mean all F12s make less than claimed.

C.) Ferrari is building American-spec F12s with less-powerful engines than European ones. I'm sure someone more knowledgable than I on the subject could supply a reason why this might happen, or if there's any precedent for it.

D.) All F12berlinettas are actually producing less power than the factory claims, they've just supplied pumped-up ringers to the European press. It's possible that 680 hp is, in fact, the true crankshaft output of the F12's V12, and that Ferrari claimed more because they wanted to, say, one-up the Aventador. In that scenario, Ferrari HQ's press office (which, presumably, handles pretty much all of Europe) had some ringers whipped up for the European media; however, Ferrari North America wound up, for whatever reason, with customer-spec press cars.

What do you guys think?

 

What a duff statement. Ferraris in the past 10-15 years have been over-achieving if anything. I am referring to customer cars too!

A fellow member posted this earlies but noone seemed to take notice: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIY72bMtVo4]200mph drag race: Ferrari F12 Berlinetta vs Porsche 911 Turbo S vs Mercedes SLS Black Series - YouTube[/ame] That is one hell of a car!!!

PS: The US version might be heavier or something. Euro cars deliver the beans!!!

 

Great rebus but I'm inclined to think D.

Not exactly. Ferrari made mistakes claiming their supercars.

A.) The US F40 was early claimed to achive the goal, compensating in performance compared european cars, definitively failing. They spread the fact of powerful engines never confirmed by numbers.

B.) The F50 was a not reached goal in straight performence compared the fastest F40 specification. They produced a very handy engine but lacking in strength.

C.) The Enzo was overclaimed in torque. The 0-200 kph 9"5 and 0-1000m 19"6 was never confirmed because made by Benuzzi during a test session with the aid of their hell of factory mule car. Customer cars were slower because of conservative goals during the engine production (happened again with the F12?) and no need to query a physical engineer or open Ferrari's encyclopedias because it's easy to discover (we have several clues...).

Example? Richard Losee's Enzo was fast during R&T test because of the dragstrip ultra-grip surface and the use of their 1-ft roll-out practice. They achieved 11.1 on the 1/4 mile compared the 11 claimed but it's as it was within 11.3 and 11.5. Lest we forget!

Concerning the video, the F12 is definitely fast enough even with underperforming engines provided. Especially comparing it with 991 Turbo S and SLS BS.

 

I will leave that for Bill S to disprove.

 

He will not do it. He will agree. How the hell is difficult to get the high tolerance point for rebuilt engines or engines made for testing. Is it so hard?

 

Well, Realzeus, for the last time I will explain the point. A engine is composed of thousand of parts. These parts may not to be built exactly identical one with the other. Size may change, weight may change, parts connection may change and so on.
The engine built practice is a serious matter. A engine if produced with ever more perfect parts, with similar weights and dimensions being assembled with high care will be a better unit than an other. It will run better, faster and will produce higher torque and power. This does not make this high part selection or assembly practice during engine production even if engines are made by Ferrari factory, the reason why I'm saying this is because always factory are sending powerful engines to the press and secondly, engine rebuilt with higher care as Bill did do always come out as better unit than the mass production units. Bill will not disprove this, because this is what has happened. Hard to understand or difficult to get. Which is?

 

Secondly and I'm referring to the F12 engine now. A engine could be designed and then conservatively produced. A engine can be designed to achieve a goal then reduced to improuve reliability or something similar reason (pollution, driveability, consumption...). Why is that not possible? Every single running parts of the engine can be designed with a weight and then produced with different heaviness for example. A connecting road may be designed to weight 250g and then chosen to produce up to 260 before the tolerance, and so on. A crankshaft may be decided to produced even being not perfectly balanced. A engine may not be able to perform as factory claimed, easily if parts are heavier than designed and things such as different parameters come into play for production.

 

What should disprove Bill? That his Enzo was slower before the engine rebuild or that R&T magazine does not test cars on drag strips using roll-out?

 

haha

waiting for both