Ferrari LaFerrari vs Mclaren P1 vs Porsche 918

As long as they're wearing the same Nikes, should be a fair race?

 

Eheh unless we are talking about Porsche, customer cars are always faster and better

 

I'm 41 and it is about 30 years I'm dedicating studying these things. I can garantee you that the world of road test is changed a bit looking at the press car choice but in good part it is always as before.

 

I don't know if you are disagreeing or agreeing with me, but I think we are actually in agreement?

I was referring to customer cars, not press cars. Press cars being a bit juiced is a bad thing. Have seen countless R&T and C&D articles with Ferraris putting down great times, and then seeing the customer cars getting beaten by numerically "inferior" cars.

Of course, the other thing some people miss is that the press (at least here) tend to include some adjustments for roll-out. For 0-60 times this is material. Also, 0-60mph vs. 0-100kph can be meaningful too, particularly depending on how the car is geared.

My 911 is quoted by Porsche as 4.4 secs 0-100kph. Press has achieved sub 4 secs. My own unscientific tests with GPS show 4 secs flat, with a mostly stock car. Turbos are even more amusing, because Porsche will quote performance for new models that are literally 0.5 secs worse than the outgoing model (tested) results. Then the mags go out and run their tests, and always achieve substantially better numbers. It is almost too far in the other direction, where Porsche numbers will be almost ignored (or perhaps viewed as the absolute worst case scenario).

Some of that is also the rollout vs. non-rollout measurement difference.

Maybe Porsche tests their cars uphill, with two drivers and a bag of sand in the frunk?

As an aside, does anyone think the mags themselves try to show better numbers because it gets more views / sells more copy? Anyone have direct experience?

 

I'll try to explaying my point of view (I'm Italian and I will try to find right words).
Mainly, when I'm referring to these things I always looking at times take on rolling start. So segments of acceleration. I'm not so interested on standing start times bacause too many variables we must consider with this, and skimming it, rolling start times are better to consider the performance of the engine itself. Standing start procedure are always difficult to define cause of the driver procedure, track conditions, system procedure, magazine procedure... and so on.
Sometimes official time can be contraditory. Sometimes not. Your 911 example is only bound to the fact that your result is better than the official one but worse to the press tested ones. I'm not interested on this. My question is: your Porsche 911 is really fast as the press car tested? and only looking at the rolling acceleration times you will be able to confirm the point (also considering conditions).

Hope not forget anything other.

 

For an Italian you explained that really well! Good work.

 

All valid points. Then again other customer LFs have proven to be quicker than said car. Also, turbocharged cars may be better at higher altitude, but they are worse off when the weather gets hot. So, you win some, you lose some...

 

Beg to differ mate. Many customer Ferraris have posted times as good as the press cars. Some even better...

 

That's because most Greeks are not from Sparta. Sparta is a rather small town nowadays.

 

Not sure. Pay attention to these points. Usually customers use tricks testing their cars with different procedure than mags like very low fuel into the tank or compare numbers made with particulary favourable conditions....or better conditions than the ones during the press car tested. I saw single driver numbers compared to driver plus passenger numbers made by press too. People compare very low fuel tank and just driver to full tank and driver plus passenger many times. Had confirmed that so many times.
There are so many acceleration times on websites or forums but then it need to know really how they are made. We are talking of so tight difference in some cases that different procedure or conditions can distort the result.

 

I think we are splitting hairs now. LOL!

 

It need talking of tenths. A passenger means usually half a second from 60 to 130 for example. About the same testing opposite fuel quantity into the tank. Otherwise we are talking bad.
It is not rare that customers are faster with Vbox numbers than magazines numbers expecially when compared to magazines that use full weight procedures here in Europe. This does not means to have a car faster than a press car.

Or use time segments over 130 mph

 

Seriously. I doubt me or anyone on here can tell a real difference between a car that does sub 10 in the quarter mile with one that does mid tens as far as acceleration is concerned. As long as the gears are whipping through and the engine is blaring, it feels fast. These super cars are about a feeling, the numbers explain some of that feeling but intangibles are really important as well. We get too caught up in the numbers.

 

What is really bad to see in the video is a LF that did a slow 150-186 time with all the battery lights on the right way.

 

Many here argue that the 918 is the quickest
but look at the lap times on tests copared with the LaF
SCD: 0.11s, Hyper5 0.02s, Harris 0.27s

It is almost technically a draw!

 

Differences are too tight. Drivers surely did not have the time to get familiar with the cars. Sessions were surely too short to get the best out of the cars. Results are much bound to the first approach than the limit.

I'm not exclusively a LF fan, I'm more a fan of the truth, but with these tight results we can not really conclude something good. This today situation is completely different than the one at Mireval circuit with Schummy at the wheel about 20 years ago. At that time lap times varied by full seconds, performance were wider between cars.

How is possible today conclude something with less than 3 tenths differences testing these high performance cars just few laps?

 

I know that besides all Spartans are broke. But the Trojans, that's a whole another story, they are everywhere, quite successful and i'm sure you have some in your computer too

 

about LaFe unfortunally we don't have a real 0-300:
videos on youtube are cute and can give us a "magnitude order" , but they are not scientific. Bruntingthorpe has a bad surface, which distorts performances well beyond the start, considering the enormous powers.
Testing at Fiorano are limited, at best, @ 150 mph, and the track is not perfectly flat, although, as happened with the Enzo, there was a lots of screams about "tricks", then R&T with a customer unit took over identical performances.....
But honestly, about Lafe and its speeds on tracks, I do not see much difference between the official LaFe and the two customer units. In all cases, on straights is a bit 'faster than the 918, and the hotlaps (918 vs LaFe) are always very close.
question: none's noticed how the official P1 was incredibly fast on the track, about hotlap (the only victory with "Corsa", when it always struggled with the TrofeoR) and incredibly high topspeed too?
the official P1 (Portimao) seems so powerful and with a very good setup, but strangely none refuse it. I only can read about the "famous Ferrari press-cars" ...
:\

 

HAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I'm going to brief here, but, sorry Realzeus..... NO THEY HAVEN'T.
And in fact they rarely do. My own ownership experiences don't bear out your assertion. I know of legal cases of Ferrari's being returned under "EU LEMON LAW" for not producing the quoted BHP/ TOP SPEED/ and acceleration.

And many years ago being shown how a press 360CS was very, very different to the end production cars, I'll keep a very large dose of skepticism handy...

Ferrari are getting better at not giving BS, but they're not Porsche just yet on that front.

 

..everytime the same story :\
F40 offical Quattroruote: 0-100 4.5s; 0-200; 11.3s 0-260 20s.
F40 stock Auto: 0-100 4.5; 0-200 11.6s; 0-260 20s.
Enzo official AmuS (Nardò) 1/4 mile 11.4 @ 212 Kph
Enzo stock R&T: 1/4 mile 11.1s @ 214 Kph
458 Speciale official vs stock (Autocar) "But, despite being in less-than-perfect running order, the second Speciale replicated the performance of the first on maximum in-gear acceleration on every 20mph increment between 30- and 90mph in fourth gear to within a tenth of a second. So there you have it. Ferrari isn’t afraid of track comparisons. Ferrari doesn’t supply bent press cars. And Ferrari certainly doesn’t need to send the cavalry along when we test their new models in future – because even when they don’t, we end up with near-enough identical results. End of"
Ferrarri SOMETIMES cheats? ok. Ferrari cheats EVERYTIME, forever and ever? no. "Sometimes" doesn't menas "every f***ing single time".
...now find me a ***stock*** murcielago Lp640 can replicate these numbers: 1 km 20.01s @ 269.5 kph (Quattroruote), as fast as a Murcielago lp670 Sv, despite the weight...
please stop writitng about "official Ferrari 100% cheating, other mnfs 0.00% cheat", because is not true
p.s.
don't forget, muricboy, how Lamborghini is Italian, but into the VW's world..

 

Agree. All manufacturers use care and attention to all details for their press cars. ALL. It need to look at the road test around the world. There are so many different test published not Ferrari that are so visible out of range.

 

I find it very weird that it is the first time the P1 beats everything on Corsas, let alone on the R's.

Maybe because Harris says he knows they're stock there's no way they can't... you know cause Harris is god.

 

God? try to change Harris with M.Basseng, S Bert or W Kaufmann, I'm pretty sure they'd cut at least a second.....

 

I believe that the Portimao track suits the P1's strength the best of any track it has run on so far. Specifically, the long, high speed right hander leading into the final straight is where I imagine the P1 really pulled away. It would be interesting to see trap times on various parts of the track to see if my guess is correct.

 

Could be, someone posted the g's each car created and the P1 had a 0.1 and 0.2 advantage. Don't think we'll get the trap times, we'll have to wait to TG's test, but that will be more BS I guess, nothing as good as Harris'.