0-60 in 3.5, 11.7@123 mph, 70-0 147ft WOW!

I dunno that they can get 650 hp out of that motor and have it run long (though they might be able to cook the boost short term for a C&D test car). Not only that, given it's a blown motor, the power curve is smaller and stops at 6500. On top of that, it weighs 3350 lbs! As well, I don't think 650 hp would remotely square with their 13 city/21 highway claims. The Enzo and CGT are producing similar power pulling less weight while claiming like 10/15. 650 hp doesn't square with all the facts we know - but doesn't negate the possibility of a "ringer" being sent to C&D.

 

I guess that this is the point. We are taking here about fractions of second, without data on environmental conditions, not even knowing where the performance has been achieved.

But the main point is that we have professional pilots behind the wheel. Unlike very few of us (Napolis is a good example) they are able to drive the car up to the real limit of performances.
So why worry? Numbers are indicative and just tell you what you can expect, not what you will be able to achieve.
And, by the given unmbers, what you can expect is such a car that your limits will be mett far sooner than hers!!.
Ciao
Eugenio

 

Unless they supplied a ringer car to C&D. That's the point Mr Payne is trying to make.

Gary

 

Dan
I don't know about 0-60 but I've been clocked 0-100 in just under 8 seconds in mine.

Tom
Porquoi?
You payed 660K You can flip it today for 900K. It's a great car and if you want to go faster you can fire up your McLaren F1. Why would you be pissed?

 

Dan -

Nice to see you back!

650 lbs of flab? This from someone who is buying an Aston? Seriously, the Carrera, the Enzo, the CGT, all over 3000 lbs. It's pretty hard to build a "real car" (as opposed to an Elise) under 3000 lbs. And if you do, your market is going to be very small.

Gary

 

phong, that 3.3 number was not reproduced by any other ford gt test...also, the gt has 550 hp as opposed to 483hp...67hp is big difference....3.8 to 3.9 seem to be in order....but then again, who cares!!!! the 430 is going to be bloody fast and a blast to drive for those lucky enough to get the chance....

 

Ferrari also states "officially" the 550 does 0-60 in 4.2 second i have not seen any magazine ever replicate that number the 550 was more 4.6sec car.

 

here is the article

http://bimmer.roadfly.org/bmw/forums/e46m3/5979923-1.html

 

Well considering the price of the F430 comparied to the Enzo..you (supposadly) get almost the same performace for almost 1/2 a million less. The Enzo is supposed to be the king..and obviously to get one you have to pay a king's ransome. Yes you could flip the Enzo and make a good chunck on it..but I was more compairing the performance aspect of the 2 cars not the financial one. Yes the Enzo is a great machine..but I'm begining to wonder how much over the top it really is. It seems that more cars are getting to Enzo performance levels for a ton less money..But the Mclaren F1 is still king..wierd.

 

Gary: nice ot hear from you too. Will you be at breakfast Sunday?

As for the weight - I realize that with all of the government induced safety standards, etc. it's nigh on impossible to build cars like the F40. I can appreciate that. But, that doesn't mean that the car *should* be that heavy.

I fully realize that the problem with modern cars is weight. Look at the 550 - i love the car, but it's a damn pig. Same with the Aston. Why do you think I pine for the F40 and cars like it.

By the way, driving an Elise - I have not had that much fun in a car in a LONG LONG TIME. Short of an F40, and I'm not kidding. For production cars, that one is definetly the greatest bang-for-buck bar none.

--Dan

 

The extra 10mph is not going to add on an extra 40 FEET! Wake up and look at the math! An extra 30mph (90-0), ok then you have an argument. But, that's not the case here. There is a lot more that goes into getting a car to stop quickly than ABS, BIG BRAKES and HUGE CONTACT patch. Suspension triangulation for anti-dive has as much if not more influence on stopping than those components alone or some combined. The bigger hammer approach you're arguing doesn't always work.

Also suspension triangulation for anti-squat has a lot to do with acceleration. Designing a car is all about compensating. The triangulation at the rear for the suspension pick up points for the best cornering does not always work for the best acceleration. Back at the front the same thing applies for cornering and anti-dive.

I suggest you read:

Competition Car Suspension: Design, Construction, Tuning By, Allan Staniforth
Engineer to Win By, Carroll Smith
Tune to Win By, Carroll Smith

I also suggest you put some time in at a SCCA shop that runs in a one make formula. You'll learn a lot more there about what goes into making a car faster than the others than if you just spend your time reading magazines.

 

It must be geared alittle lower, cause the SRT-10's trap about 123 124mph as well, but, I know these are mag results but supposidly posted a 3.9 0-60.

 

Is everyone else enjoying this guy's wails of "wake up and look at the math!" and the like on this topic as much as I am?

As I said before, the increase in stopping distances is logrithmic, or exponential in its growth rate versus the linear climb in MPH speed. To see it in black and white, and to apparantly calm you down as you're very passionate about this, lol, just go pick up any Car and Driver magazine, and note the 70-0 braking distance measurements for all of your favorite cars.

Now go pick up a Road and Track magazine, and note the 60-0 AND 80-0 braking distance measurement for the same cars. Are you beginning to see where this is going?

Here are a few examples, to make it even simpler than I, and others, have already made it for you:

Lamborghini Murcielago Braking Distances
60MPH to 0MPH - 122 feet (Road and Track)
70MPH to 0MPH - 155 feet (Car and Driver)
80MPH to 0MPH - 213 feet (Road and Track)

Chevrolet Corvette C5
60MPH to 0MPH - 134 feet (Road and Track)
70MPH to 0MPH - 165 feet (Car and Driver)
80MPH to 0MPH - 214 feet (Road and Track)

In the future, when talking about subjects where several others are gently trying to help you see the light despite all the attitude, you might want to tone down the crazy outbursts and rants. Just a tip. And you're welcome for the example.

The F430's 70MPH to 0MPH of 147 feet bodes very well for the car's braking potential as compared to other cars already on the market. As was apparant to 99% of the people who are reading this thread.

 

I guess someone's been told - LOL!

 

Or in the tradition of one of the best episodes of South Park ever:

He got served!

Back to the F430: One thing that's nice when new models get introduced in this entry-level supercar sector is that it spurs the major media, from EVO, to the US mags, to TV shows like TopGear, to hold comparisons between models versus just singular reviews.

It's going to be fun over the next year seeing the F430 go up against everything from the C6 Z06 to the Ford GT to the Gallardo to the 997 TT, and so on. The competition for dollars in this sector is amazing, it wasn't that long ago where you had a choice between a 911, a 348, the NSX, and not much else, lol.

 

Planning on it.

I agree, my brother just got his. Blast and a half. For about an hour. Lovely on the track, PITA to and from, and the rest of the time. But it is great bang for buck.

Gary

 

From MSN REVIEW> "The electronic differential - universally referred to internally as E-Diff - can transmit up to 100 per cent of the torque to either wheel, as driving conditions demand."

 

All I have to say is CD reeks of BS ever since they posted a 3.5 to 60 in a 600SL.

 

I would agree with you, but 0-60MPH has been an obsolete metric of performance measurement to me for years now. I don't even look at it. But you're right the 600SL time was insane. Keep in mind that Car and Driver, unlike Road and Track, DOES use mathmatically adjusted figures in each and every one of their tests to compensate for weather conditions. They don't just print the numbers recorded if they're a mile up in Denver, or on a 105-degree Death Vallery circuit. They let the computer spit out what the figures WOULD be in a standard 72-degree F environment at sea level. Very important tidbit that not many people know.

But aside from that, I measure three things when I'm trying to figure out how "fast" a car is in my mind that I haven't driven yet:

0-100MPH
Quarter Mile SPEED in MPH (not the time elapsed which is a function of traction, I'm talking about the mph at the trap).
0-150MPH

And not in that order.

I can say to myself "Ok, I've driven a Murcie up to 150MPH and beyond, I know what it feels like." That allows me to then take the Murcie's 19.xx second time to 150MPH and compare it to new models in terms of just how fast these new cars really are.

Can I tell the differance between a 3.5 second car and a 4.0 second car to 60MPH? No. But I sure as hell can feel the differance between a 19.xx second Murcie and a 22.xx second Viper or 575M to 150MPH. It's all the differance in the world.

That's why I disregard arguments about 0-60 between these cars, it just has little relevance to me in terms of really trying to put myself into the driver's seat of a car that hasn't been released yet.

 

EXACTELY !!

 

never, .5 sec 0-60 is a HUGE difference which you would definitely notice.

 

I have, and didn't. Trust me, you don't notice gaps like that from standing starts. From a roll? Yes. From a standing start clutch drop? No. Becuase it's simply a function of traction more than overt HP.

Here's a hint: Two cars start at precisely the same time, and race from 0 to 60MPH. One car does it in 3.5 seconds. The other 4.0 seconds.

How far ahead in distance, or car-lengths, or feet, or whatever physical indication you'd like to use, do you think the 3.5 second car is versus the 4.0 second car?

Take your time. The answer may surprise you.

 

I can see how'd you make this leap Tom, but like the Car and Driver hack's words, it's a flawed argument. Here's why.

The Enzo can do 0-150MPH at around the 14 second mark. Possibly a 10th quicker.

The F430, if I take the Car and Driver numbers at face value and totally remove the fact that they tested the car downhill, one way, lol, extrapolates out to a 17.5 to 18.5 second 150MPH run.

Four to five full seconds of differance to get to 150MPH is god knows how many car-lengths, but it's a ton. Over 20 for sure, that's how much space you're covering at that speed.

The Enzo, like the McLaren F1, is in another universe in terms of performance to the F430 unless you're a stoplight-drag racer and you "let off the gas at 60mph after the light turns green" lol. (I know you're not Tom but I'm using it as an example.)