In the acceleration test the 296 is faster than the sf90

A well known guy with over a million followers did a test of the 296 to the sf90 and after 7 accelerations from standstill in each vehicle he was very surprised that the 296 was faster in almost every situation!!! when the sf90 was faster only from the standstill acceleration.
Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I wouldn't doubt these results. When i test drove the 296... it was mind blowing fast. Traction management is exceptional.

 

Sorry, doesn't corroborate with other tests: https://zeperfs.com/en/duel7937-10022.htm

 

Look at the guy's Instagram page. He uploaded videos. You can't argue with what you see in the video

 

There are many parameters when making such tests - an obvious one is, when the cars are changing gears ? if both are in "auto", they may change in a way that's more efficient on one of the cars (and I guess it also depends on the selected modes); if not, it's up to the driver to change at the optimum time and there's no guarantee he's as close to perfection on both cars.
Specially, when in "auto" mode, cars could have different strategies - for instance, when one does a 100-200 as part of a continuous acceleration from a standing start, the result may be different from a 100-200 starting at a constant 100.

 

Not going to dispute the data but not sure how his 296 is trapping nearly 150 mph in the 1/4 mile. I watched the videos on instagram. Kind of strange.

 

I believe either C&D or Motor Trend went 9.9 @ 148 in the 1/4 with their test car.

 

not interested in computer/phone based video, bum in seat is my guide. Driven both in AF form, the SF90 is quicker but the standout was 0-200 km/h in 6.2s, 296 GTB 6.9s..

 

That 100-200 graph looks a little wonky. I’ve done a lot of 100-200 runs and most were between 4.5 and 4.7. The best I got was 4.48. Here are a few:

Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

One can make a video showing whatever they want to show. It's not even necessarily skewed on purpose. Even a small road gradient can make a difference and skew the results. That's why recorded numbers, by professionals, on standardised tests (most large publications are ISO certified), with well prepared vehicles, matter the most.

 

Were you running CT off like he was? Same octane fuel?

 

I tried CT off/Race, manual/auto, from 0/60/80kmph. Not that big of a difference, I can vouch for the consistency of this car.

Fuel is 95 RON.

 

95 RON is equivalent to 91 Octane in the US. If he was running 93 octane (98 RON), that could potentially account for the difference in power/times.

 

I agree with you, just checked 1/4 trapspeed of the to vids…
Sf90 9.70 sec, 232kmh, 23 degress
296 grb, 10,13 sec, 240kmh. 19 degress

Very unlikely, not accurate messering. Satelite error, lots of unknowm here



Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I have no scientific data but I do own both cars and the SF90 feels faster, not by much but faster.

 

I think we can all agree that they are both crazy quick and fast. Hell, even the 430 felt crazy fast to me. But the SF90 is quicker than the 296, Ferrari built them like that.

It would be really nice if you were to write a comparison between the two, dear sir.

 

Go check the full Autocar roadtest then, plenty of telemetry there.
Teaser...

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

The sf90 feels faster mainly because its engine is less linear compared to the 296. The guy who tested both vehicles said that too

 

Just read it. They also ran 10.2 @ 147 in the 1/4 mile. I believe this car is faster than anyone expected it would be.

 

The car's are trapping 145+ consistently. That's really moving. 175 mph in the standing half mile is also really quick and I've seen that posted for a 296. My 765 has trapped 178 mph in the standing half mile so there isn't much difference in them at all, really.

 

both are stupidly fast but not fast enough for the future!

 

296GTB and 765LT basically even. but former may be more reliably so given the smoothness of the battery power. handling i predict will truly shock people. it think its quicker than the 765 on track. we'll see.

i drove an assetto GTB for a while. it truly feels shockingly like an awd car with the grip and balance it has. any fellow R8 or huracan owners are welcome to chime in here at any time.

 

So I drove my 765 to test drive the 296. To me, the 765 felt more laggy but more violent in pace. I wouldn't be surprised if they're basically the same on track, the 765LT is a freaking handlful.

 

296 is reportedly more than a handful and a nightmare to drive without traction control according to Chris Harris, I think with the electronics on then the 286 would be faster in the hands of an average driver, very close with a pro in both

 

One test amongst many. You can see the average numbers of all test on zeperfs.