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

Under 20 seconds has been for the longest time an incredible time for a car to hit 150mph. The Enzo is still at the top of the chain, but I think the crazy idea is that the F430 gets as close to Enzo as the top of the line SLR Mclaren.

I do realize there is a difference in their times, but the F430 is pretty damn close to the SLR. Yes, the F430 is done on a downhill, but the independant test by R&T was as good if not better than anything C&D got for the Enzo at Fiorano.

 

great point!!!!

 

the enzo is a world faster than the 430..it has 180extra hpand slightly less weight....it would litterly blow the doors off the 430, the longer you go , the greater the gap would be....

 

A 30 year old + car is at the top of that chain. 0-200 in 11 sec. 917-30. I followed one of those up Charles' Driveway in the rain. He was on slicks. It was a sight to see. (That one had Audi's name painted on it as well followed by a hyphen and Porsche)

 

No, the "independant test by R&T" also occurred at Fiorano, and also took place downhill, one way per Ferrari guidelines.

Until there are actual owner cars in the States, not tested downhill on a short straight at Fiorano, and not using Ferrari factory provided cars that for all I know are possible ringers, the numbers don't tell us much.

 

Brutal.

 

I'm enjoying this as well.

Yes and no. It seems to me you're not taking into account inertia into your general calculation. That will effect how steep that curve is. A lightweight car like the GT will have an easier time hauling itself down from a higher speed than something that's heavier. Yes? The curve isn't going to be the same for all cars.

Good argument but very flawed as a number of variables (tire pressure, road friction coefficient...) weren't the same between the two test.

I thought that's what I was doing until I my post had been followed up with comments like these:

May I "gently" suggest you follow your own advice and check your own posting tone before bashing on someone who's simply defending his own opinion in the same manner as he's been attacked.

I'm still not convinced that this car is braking as well as others already on the market. And as it's a newer car and has even bigger, better, upgraded brakes over the 360 it should be not just doing as well as others currently on the market but should be doing much better. Agree? Or are you happy to throw down six digits and get the same braking performance as the guy in the two year old Z06?

And as far as 99% of the people reading this thread all are Ferrari fans, believe it or not as I am. If the car farted a big stinky green cloud out the tail pipes during every shift most of these individuals would just write it off to "the quirkiness" of an exotic car that "is just part of the owner experience." How do I know? Because I read several arguments to that effect to explain away the 355 header failures which were inexcusable for a six digit "super car." Many people on this board are paying a lot of money for these automobiles because they are the "best performance money can buy." If this is just bad numbers from a suspect test, as I said in the beginning (I believe those numbers are too high and the car is capable of and should have lower ones) then the test should be dissected and we should find out if these numbers are true or not.

 

I haven't read the C/D article, but just thought I'd point out, if the 70-0 braking test was done on the same downhill slope as the 0-60, then that will obviously increase the braking distance.

Lets wait until all the mags weigh in - C/D has been coming up with a lot of 'outlier' results of late.

 

Very good points
It's my fault I should have articulated better what I was trying to say.

Of course the Enzo will beat the F430. But I have a funny suspision that the F430 would hang-on to the bumper of an Enzo in real world driving conditons. Getting performance numbers on a track for a cars maxium capeabilites is one thing..but a cars true worth is how it will perform in the hands of the customer who bought it. As we all know..most guys that buy these cars, use them for transportation, and the odd drive on a twisty road at 50% of the cars ablities. Most drives don't have the skill..or the spare # of boxers to push the car to it's fullest..even on a track.

The guys that test these cars have no mercy for them..as they don't have to fix it..were as the owner has to foot the bill. The tester can be as careless as they want to get those numbers. Most people would be terrified if they ever saw how these guys get these numbers!!

Basicly my point being..that if I had bought an Enzo..and then 2 years later the F430 shows up with "claimed" numbers such as these..I would be more then a little steamed. 0-150mph is fun..but you'll be on the brakes before you hit 40mph in todays traffic. Seat of the pants acceleration is what makes a car fun...nimbleness makes a car fun..sound make a car fun...all this combined.and you have a ride to enjoy. The Enzo has all these things..but one..enjoyment. Can you hounestly enjoy a 3/4 of a million dollar car like you could REALLY enjoy the F430? I don't think so. But thats just me.

One more thing...Remeber that EVO mag that did the Ferrari Supercar test? Well in that artical they stated the Enzo had a hard time keeping up to the 288 GTO in real world driving conditons..such as roads with bumps..this reason alone makes the Enzo are car I would more then likely enjoy the least compaired to the other current Ferrari and Lambo offerings..why? Because it's not really a street car..it a track car..were as the F430 is a little of both. On the track I don't even think I could enjoy the Enzo..Way to scared to damage all the expensive body work..and even more afraid of having to do a 100k brake job afterwards...nope I'll stick with the base model thanks..even though brakes on that car are probably 60k with rotors..awell such is life in the land of Ferrari...take it hard and be happy about it.

 

Where are you getting your info? The Enzo they drove was in the U.S.
I think they may even mention the track they did take it to and there is no mention of Fiorano in that article.

 

Sorry, I thought you were referring to an upcomming issue of Road and Track on the F430 next month, not the older Enzo piece.

 

Yeah, just read my post. It was kind of twisty.

 

Wrong guy, sorry, but frankly there's nothing else to do until the car comes out Jeff. And apparantly most here agree as they're participating in the thread in a positive way.

You may be satisfied with your 328, that's great for you, but the rest of us seek out and attain the latest and greatest.

For instance: If I woke up in your body I'd put a "For Sale" sign on your car before I wiped the sleep from my eyes, yet to you it's a bonafide treasure. That unique differance in opinion is what makes the world go round. Sure would be boring if we all thought alike.

And despite your false nonchalance, I don't think you'd turn down a chance to test drive one would you? So there must be some interest there...

 

And the follow up question is, has this income pie grow so much in ten years that everyone will sell enough cars to make money? The NSX, brilliant as it was, never sold well.
Add to that the indirect competition from Bently and Aston, which evidently are selling well.
It will be interesting to see in the next five years.


Forza,


Cavallini

 

If you went to a Ferrari dealer now and asked to get on 430 list, they'd either tell you no can do or that it will be 3+ years before you get one. "The list" was over 2 years before picture of the car had even been released. I think Ferrari will be just fine.

 

60mph = 26.82 m/s

v = a*t + vi (initial velocity [vi] is 0)

a1=7.66 m/s^2
a2=6.71 m/s^2

x = (1/2)a*t^2 + vi*t + xi (initial velocity and position [xi] are 0)

x1= 46.94 m
x2= 53.64 m

The difference is 6.70m, which is 21.98 feet. That's over a car length and I'm really not surprised.


Oh yea, I also agree with the statement about the SL600 time from C/D. Since I saw that (and their S600 time), I don't believe any times they produce. I don't believe the F430 will make that published time either unless you use slicks.

Edit: My final positions (x) for the cars are based on constant acceleration, which isn't the case in reality for these cars.

 

I'm very high up on the list (#2 or 3) for an F430. Some friends of mine just returned from Vienna where they visited a Ferrari dealership and saw an F430 on the showroom floor. One told me he thought it was beautiful, I haven't heard comments from the others.

Evo just tested the 430 at Ferrari's press day, and they tend to push the cars. They loved it, but mentioned a 4.1 second 0-60 time, not 3.5.

In any event, having seen only pictures so far (but dozens, from every angle), and as an owner of a 360 spider and a 360 Challenge car, it is my opinion that the F430 is not as pretty a car as the 360. It is also not available in a traditional manual shift. Paddles only. Who makes a real "sporting" car with no option for a real shifter? I've used the paddles in the 360CH. Big deal. Total involvement with a car capable of this type of performance should include a driver mastering heel and toe downshifting. If you want a computer to drive your car buy an X-Box.

As far as the styling, I think the nose droops from a side view, and looks overly long. The air intakes on the rear quarter panels are too upright, and look disjointed, rather than flowing with the body contours as on a 360. And the rear, viewed from the side looks like it is a different car welded onto the rest of the body. I particularly do not like the "Enzo" style lights sticking out from the back. I think the 360 body is much more cohesive and svelte. It has some drama about it, but they've ruined the clean lines of its predecessor.

It also seems they still have not learned their lesson about downforce (or the lack of it) from the 360. Yes, the 430 has over 480 bhp and is super quick, but what will you do with it in the USA? You can be a Saturday/Sunday town cruiser in which case you don't need half of the available horsepower. You can be an illegal street racer in which case you are endangering yourself and everyone around you, or you can take the car to a track in which case I suggest bolting a wing to the rear before you leave home. The much-touted wind tunnel downforce development of the 360 resulted in 12 of the 15 360Challenge cars spinning out during the first Challenge race in '99. These were experienced racers. From personal experience, driving a 360CH with a bit over 400 bhp at the limit was a daunting proposition, and I've done a lot of it. An extra 80-90 bhp would be really scary. Now they are telling us that the F430 also generates great downforce due to its underbody design, diffusers, blah blah blah. I can't believe Ferari expects anyone to utilize the full potential of this car without real rear downforce. You don't see any of the pros racing 360 GTC or NGT cars without massive rear wings. There is a very good reason for this.

So: you can cruise around town at 30-40 mph and look very cool to your neighbors (and use about 50 of the available 480 bhp), you can do a legal 65-75 on the highway (and if you keep it in second gear you may actually get it up to the 8000 RPM where all the power is), but if you really want to use the performance you paid for, on a track, you better make sure you take a lot of drifting classes before going into a decreasing radius turn at speed. Even EVO magazine commented on how easy it was to get the tail out, and their test drivers are pros.

While it's packed with electronic babysitters and other technical wizardry, I'm not sure the F430 is a step forward to a more involving drive. Seems to be getting away from the direct driver/machine interaction that has always been a Ferrari hallmark. JMHO.

 

Ok, so I'm getting really old. These figures are a little odd. How many of us drive our cars flat out to the limit? All the time? After a point, that limit is for the track only. I drive my modena fast, above 140 MPH on Sundays, in good weather. I feel something at that level. I do not drag race "Ricers" from stop lights. If you do that, you do not understand the marque. I am sorry for that, and for you. You should buy a Mustang. How much more of this do you want? What you want is performance throughout the power range. You want connection with the drivetrain. You want to feel the road. You want your wife, who is reading the Sunday paper to look over an say, "Dear, have you seen "Blondie." "No, dear, I have to keep my eyes on the road." Try to live it and stop worrying about tenths of a second. Good sex was never about speed, was it? Cheers.

 

In every thread ..the F1 is still king ? My ass ! Enzo beat it 0-100-0 , posted same times to -60 . Better g's . Better Braking # .

What kind of King is that ?

 

Power/weight ratio on the F430 is much closer to the 360CS than it is to the F50 or F40, isn't it? Wonder what it is that allows the F430 to run neck and neck with the F50.


Regarding the Ford GT...it would appear that C&D's test car wasn't the only ringer. Autocar did 3.5 with their GT, and 0-100 in 7.8; as with all of their tests, that was done two-up with a full tank.
Here's Popular Mechanics getting a 3.43 to 60:
http://popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars_trucks/2004/5/acceleration_nation_2/print.phtml

Actual hp numbers...who knows? If we are to trust Ford about SVT Cobra figures, we must believe that they produce 390 hp at the crank. Pretty hard to believe when so many customer cars are putting 370-380 to the rear wheels.

http://www.mustangweekly.com/2004/march/news/n03-6-3rd.asp
Regarding hp and durability, these make for interesting reading:
http://carmemories.com/lists/shelbymustang/msg06739.html
http://www.hotrod.com/techarticles/engine/113_0311_gt/index3.html
Also of note is that the GT used for European press testing has passed through the hands of the Telegraph, TopGear, Evo, CAR (twice), and Autocar. Not once has there ever been an issue about durability. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of its rear tires, which arrived pretty much shot for the recent PCOTY comparo.

If MT's GT was a different car from C&D's, then we know the C&D test wasn't a fluke. In that same-day same driver test, in the quarter mile, the Ford was .2 second and 2.7 mph slower than the Enzo, despite a 27% worse (on paper anyway) power/wt ratio. It was also .4 second and 3 mph faster than the C&D Ford GT test. So the C&D test is really about average for GT tests since Ford uprated the GT's power from 500 to 550. (Both figures apparently pulled from their ass.) Only the 0-60 stands out, that this is as much a function of available grip as anything else. Not only is the GT quick in this regard, but more so the SL600 (already mentioned), as well as the Subaru WRX (non-STi) that did 5.4 and the Forester (!) that did 5.3.


With the GT's 1/4 mile and trap speed from that PM article in mind, and the info regarding its hp numbers, it's pretty impressive that the F430 duplicates those figures with considerably less hp...

 

A prettier one.

 

Of course not. The F430 with cast iron brakes will do 60-0 or 70-0 in about the same distance as with the updraded brakes or any other race brake you could put on the car. The primary purpose of the upgraded brakes is to provide repeatability under hard braking conditions. In other words, consistent braking power even after heavy use...no fade. Additionaly they reduce unsprung weight a significant amount.

 

Not even . Its a kit car !