Ferrari LaFerrari vs Mclaren P1 vs Porsche 918

But can't they calibrate more accurately to the drivetrain losses?

Once you have that figure, the dyno should be extremely accurate. It is the assumption between the engine and the ground that matters.

Then again, in some ways the real "power application" is what the dyno is showing at the wheel (unadjusted), and that is what "really" matters for performance.

 

These dynos use the same "logarithmic calculations" in both ways, it found the power at the wheels before, then it is able with the same sensibility to "feel" the losses. It is like an upload and download of forces. Then it sum both forces for the result. If the system is really well done both forces are accurate in the same way....obviously there is also the correction for weather that affect the result.

During that mag verification this dyno was out of range compared to the engine dyno by less than 1% both at the flywheel.

 

Do dynos need to be remapped for electric motors? Reasons I'm asking is because electric motors are more efficient without transmission and less moving parts. Therefore electric motors quoted at 300 hp would make more at the wheels than a combustion engine making 300 crank hp?

 

I dont think need to be remapped. SportAuto France recently dynoed a 918 without problems excluding the fact that the higher figure was out after several runs with the battery not completely charged. Result 835 hp.

 

Why not mention both readings mate?

I think that some people here dispute the notion that Ferrari quotes unrealistic numbers. Supermafy and I are two of them.

 

Interesting discussion on accuracy of quoted hp figures.

Generally, Ferrari quotes hp with an error range of +/- 1 or 2%. Most Ferraris measure as quoted or slightly below. Newer Ferraris generally measure as quoted.

Porsche quotes hp as minimum. Most measure slightly higher than quoted.

From my direct experience, I can say the following:

F360 has about 380 PS versus quoted 400.
F430 has about 480 PS versus quoted 490.
911 GT3 RS (2016 model) has about 520 PS instead of the quoted 500.
Porsche CGT on average is about 640 PS vs quoted 612.
Porsche 918 is about 930 PS instead of quoted 887 PS.

With that said, lets not forget that the Nissan GTR has the best numbers per $ of any new car, not Porsche or Ferrari.

But while numbers are interesting, they don't matter a whole lot to most people. Most modern sports cars are too fast anyway. What matters the most are the sensations of the car felt when looking at the car, hearing it, and driving it.

That is what makes Ferraris so special compared to any other car manufacturer. Btw, that is the same reason the Porsche CGT is so special - it is alive with sensations.

 

nothing to add!!!

 

Guys, figures on dyno are important but aren't all. Since press cars are faster than customer cars, dynos has relative importance!

Take this opportunity to say a story about Porsche 996 Turbo. When W.Rorhl tested both cars, 996TT and GT3 on the Nurburgring track, he said that GT3 was little bit faster during a lap time after long sessions. He did a best of 7.56 seconds with the GT3 compared 8 minutes of the TT. He tried to be faster with the TT in vain.

When SportAuto tested their 996TT on the Supertest with Horst Von Saurma at the wheel, he was able to go faster than W.Rorhl. He did 7.56s the exactly time that Rorhl was able with the GT3 in just few laps. But, how was that possible??

Simple. The reason was the powerful 996TT choosed for the Supertest. It would be normal if there were no unfavorable conditions published. This is just an example.....

If press cars are more powerful than customer cars no matter the dynos.

 

Sure. Nissan was the best numbers for $ but RECORD NRING TIMES were/are just advertising (!) because those times seemed to be not repeatable. Nissan mules tested for record have something suspected in their thelemetry or videos. Many top speed were suspected. For what I can say you the 1st record was the only one with no bases of manipulations. Then. The mule tested by C&D was manipulated by engineers that messed with the software. That was the C&D editor that explained in their video....

Nissan has extensive power varibile, but during record times they seems to have exposed too much in the high side.

I agree that dynos does not help Ferrari, but if we open eyes as I said, all the manufacures have actions to complain. Im Italian so I dont know if my words are perfect, but when your car is not capable to "repeat" what factory is claiming, IMHO is not just a problem of dyno figures!

 

It would make sense why. Test cars are more powerful, tested to higher tolerances, then if they hold up the customer cars can be brought up to test car spec. It would make no sense for a test car to be less powerful than a customer car. As long as the manufacturer is continually updating customers cars, ala with the Big Three (although 918 is only car I've seen detail on updates) then you should want the test cars to continue to push the boundaries.

 

and that's why I think big time car comparisons should have a dyno component. to see which manufacturer cheats the most

 

To me the problem is the repeatability...in general. I buy a Ferrari, a Porsche, a Nissan, claimed times (acc times, lap times) MUST be repeatable. at the end, YOU FACTORY is saying me that my car is able to do that specific time. And here many many factory are failing on a way.

Ferrari produce engines with usually less power than claimed but maybe Fiorano lap times are repeatable for the production. Porsche produce engines with power in line to the claimed figures but in the case of Nring the 996TT was unable to go down 8 minutes (i/e Porsche was sending to press a car that was particularily faster than a production one that day). With Nissan we have to be lucky for engine power, but Nring times are anyway hard to get (too long discussion).

Ferrari claimed a standing km time for the Enzo like Lamborghini did with the Diablo: Both impossible times for production cars! Both cars NEVER did times close to the claimed by the factory... Carrera GT was the car that was ABLE to beat the time that Ferrari claimed for the Enzo (Ahah!ridiculous). The other times it was slower as it must be.
Nissan obteined "corrected" acceleration times pubished by C&D with the '08 GTR exactly the same times as these last 550 hp GTRs (should be 80 hp of difference, instead first and last are fast as the same. lol).
The Aventador LP700-4 published on SportAuto was almost as fast as the SV tested later. I said almost, because it was faster, being tested in the same SV conditions. My question was: Aventador LP700-4 or "LP750-4" was the one tested earlier?

At the end they all cheat for something....is funny, but that is..

I forgot my last of the Huracan. Magazines are testing the Huracan in these last pariods. According to dynos as here someone are pointing out. Which kind of dyno we are talking is my question. Two Huracans were tested by two different magazines, one was the German AutoBild Sportcars and the other magazine was the French Sport Auto. Both the same acceleration numbers. Ok, that's good. Dyno numbers? 631 and 602 horsepower. Ahaha.

What's the truth?

 

from AB Sueprcars
http://www.germancarforum.com/threads/autobild-sportscars-issue-12-2015-supertest.54525/#post-770128
2017 the "true" F70 "laferrarina"??

 

Ferrari F40 non-cat Euro - 520bhp!

 

I totally agree. But all CGT's have outperformed quoted by a LONG way so this was no surprise.
The owner had an Enzo too and said the CGT "felt" just as quick if.

 

That's great! I always suspected at that figure.

 

I raced my Enzo and CGT. Both are very close up to 120 mph or so. Then Enzo keeps pulling ahead. When I was 190 mph in Enzo, CGT was around 2 football field lengths behind.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj5b7eGKUfk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceO2bBTnJOQ

 

Honestly I'm a little bit surprised of that figure. My question is, are you sure the weather correction was applied to the raw figure?
My question in this, because during the road test the CGT was always confirmed to be slower that the Enzo from 0 to 300 kph by almost 8 seconds. The 667 bhp verified are completely the opposite situation, a CGT that could fast as the Enzo, never happened in road test excluded by a single particular test one affected somewhere by a manipulation (my guess it was catless).

The video posted by Bill, is showing exactly what I'm saying. The CGT was slower than the Ferrari over 120 mph. There are surely tolerances between cars but 667 hp would exclude that difference.

 

The superior aero of the Enzo fars outweighs the HP difference. Lots of factors to consider. The math is not easy.

 

Wouldn't be surprised to see a 918 and Enzo be "surprisingly" close over 120.

 

Right , cgt has quite high drag : claimed Cx 0.392, tested 0.378.
...it's not easy build a spider with a beautiful body and a good aero too
After 200 kph the Enzo is much more faster, cause also v12 vs v10 and more torque at very top end rev

 

All Ferrari engines are dynoed before being installed in the car. They have to at least match the claimed figures. Otherwise they are sent back to assembly. Sure, some are a bit more powerful, but they all live up to the advertised figures.

 

These manufactures use the same formula. They all dyno engines before being installed in the car. They all use the same % of tolerance in the production. This is a rule in production (you can find the rules in the EuLex information website at the voice "engine production"). An engine can be delivered also if figures are "lower" than claimed ones if numbers are still within that % of tolerance. In these last decades Ferrari engine figures are claimed with Vpower gasoline, so they are 100% powerful only with 100 RON gasoline.
This is in part the reason why Ferrari figures can be lower than claimed if dyno procedure is different than factory use. There are lots of Ferrari's Maha dynos that are showing numbers in the low side of the tolerance, but this could be not to be considered a problem cause of their procedure they usually do in the production. I don't know if you are looking at dyno figures on magazines but the fastest F12 tested was dynoed at 747 hp, just 7 hp more than claimed being it a very fast press car.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/dedethecollector/15179797379/in/album-72157646658097722/
The F430 dynoed at Supersprint produce lower figures than cliamed. 473 hp.
http://www.supersprint.com/public/img/30854.jpg
The same situation for the 360 modena. 385 hp.
http://www.supersprint.com/ww-it/ferrari-360-modena-coupe--spider-99--04.aspx
Or the F355. 338 hp.
http://www.supersprint.com/ww-it/ferrari-355-berlinetta-coupe--spider-94--99.aspx
But that situation can be the same with Lamborghinis or Porsches. 682 hp and 469 hp.
http://www.supersprint.com/ww-it/lamborghini-aventador-lp-700-4-v12-2011-.aspx
http://www.supersprint.com/ww-it/porsche-997-turbo-gt2-36-530-hp-08-.aspx
there are situations where Ferrari engines produce figures on the higher side of the tolerance. 631 hp.
http://www.supersprint.com/ww-it/ferrari-599-gtb-v12-fiorano--06-.aspx

So. To me, problems are still if customer cars are fast as press numbers. And very often, they are not.

An onwer, is just an owner every car is owning. Do you think a Aventador owner should be happy to see his car 682 hp dynoed on Maha dyno after looking that the press cars tested in these last years are fast as the last SV specification being it dynoed closer to 750 hp?

Aventador tested by Sportauto (claimed as 700 hp)
0-100 kph 3.0s
0-300 kph 23.9s

Aventador SV (power checked at 749.8 hp)
0-100 kph 2.9s
0-300 kph 24.1s

 

Very true. My experience concurs with yours Bill. The Enzo and CGT are about equal to ~120 mph and the Enzo is faster beyond that speed. The difference is all aero.

Due to the fact that their cars are driven at high speed regularly on their public roads, German manufacturers, including Porsche, are very conservative with high speed stability and generally run more high speed downforce (and therefore drag) than Ferrari or McLaren.

For example, the Bugatti Veyron will only run in low drag and low downforce mode with a special key and only if the steering is held straight ahead.

Similarly, the Porsche 918 automatically switches to high downforce and high drag mode above 80 mph. This means a Cd of 0.43 versus 0.35 in low drag mode. As with the Porsche CGT compared to its peers, the 918's high speed acceleration above 120 mph is slower than the LaFerrari or the P1 because Porsche favors stability over high speed acceleration.

Unlike the CGT vs its peers, the 918's superior torque (944 lb ft) and traction is such that if launched together with its peers - the 918 will still be ahead of the LaFerrari or the P1 at 186 mph.



P.S.: This is not 100pct certain, but I am told one of the upcoming updates to the 918 will allow it to remain in low drag mode at high speed.

P.P.S: With all that said, I still want a LaFerrari - nothing looks or sounds as sexy as that car!

 

918 can already run 0-300 in 18 seconds dead in good conditions. It doesn't lose too much until about 175 from what owners have told me after the current crop of updates. I'm sure they'll continue to improve it because they're Porsche but damn, it's already so epic already just think about if they knock another second or so off that 0-300 time.