theres more, oh so much more
I must confess the F50 will age well and its time in the sun will come. Ugly and F50 dont belong on the same page. Joe www.joesackey.com
I've learned that everything is always for sale. It's just the price that gets in the way most of the time
Whatever, man - read the title of the thread - "Why does the F40 seem so much more desired than the F50?" We all like certain cars for certain reasons - but I think the answers to the question have been covered, and one does not have to own one (and probably shouldn't) to have a valid opinion on this. You're right - blob of goo might have been the wrong thing to say - in the flesh the F50's more like "large pile of melted bubble gum" (insert little winking smiley face).
Dear Comrades, It was envisaged that the F-40 would have a market for four hundred units - at most. This was to be ultimately exceeded by almost three times that number. No doubt Ferrari could clearly see that there was a market for such cars. Therefore, and on the back of the F-40's runaway success, they made the F50, then the Enzo and will no doubt continue to make cars to fill this niche. However, the original car, that was made as celabratory model to mark Ferrari's fortieth year will always remain at the pinnacle of desire for not only the Ferrari aficianado's, but almost the whole world of motor car enthusiasts. With kind regards, 512 Tea Are
The F50's approach was pioneering, but also provided a lot of vibrations throughout the car. Hence, Ferrari and other manufacturers have since used rear subframes to the carbon tub for the engine and gearbox.
further fuel for the fire....simply phenomenal sounds all the way around...the F50 sounds just about perfect. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPhPTE0MIwM Courtesy of TonyH, England
Nice shot, and it really shows just how different the GTO Evo and F40 actually are. But us F40 fans owe much to those very few "mules"!
They're not really very different at all, except that the GTO Evoluziones with the Tipo 114CK engine are much much quicker!
F-40 was developed as a no compromise race car for the street. F-50 was F-1 technology down graded for the road. F-40 wins in my heart, but then again you can go top off with the F-50. Both are winners, F-40 just a little more so.
Actually a good case can be made for the F40 being made when Ferrari realized they left a massive bunch of money on the table with the 288GTO. "No compromise" certainly not. Its essentially the same chassis as was in a dino. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan, but the F40 still has an element of the "kings new clothes" about it to me, its an icon because its an icon. At least the F50 was more "engineered". A brand new engine, the attempt to do a no compromise chassis - flawed perhaps but at least a plan they stuck to. The F40 was somewhat more cynical. Perhaps the that's why enzo values are so nuts, because it really was "the best they could do".
I don't think that is really the case. The superiority of the F50 needs to be explained, whereas the F40 is self-explanatory, since it is the first and definitive late-80's hypercar. And it were the late eighties when technology made such a car possible and the political correctness of today's world that wants to keep these cars on a leash, wasn't around yet.