In the acceleration test the 296 is faster than the sf90

An other Sf90, quicker than the above mentioend 296gtb stats
sf90 100-200kmh in 4.22sec
sf90 200-250kmh in 3.71sec

 

That’s the same guy the first post of this thread references. He owns both an SF90 and a 296 and says his 296 is faster than his SF-90 from 200-300.

 

Yes exactly and proofs he is wrong on that, according to the stats in de Video.
All a bit fishy to me, anyway…

 

i got a ticket in an A8 loaner a few years ago. i was going 125mph. i was chilling. truly felt like 80. cars can be so smooth they hide speed. the 765 is made raw. that's its point. Ferrari made the 296 to be as fast but refined too. best of both worlds.

 

I like the rawness. It’s a rush.

 

Not really if you think about it, because the video posted above was done on a different day, different conditions. The OP mentions that they ran several runs back to back, what appears to be the same day. There is a difference in temperature and DA, maybe it got cooler by the time the 296 made its run, but the DA had a delta of 173 which would not make that big of a difference. It doesn't mean it was the best run for either car ever, it just means on the same day the 296 was faster from a roll. This seems to be consistent with what others are finding, I'm seeing 147 to 150 quarter mile trap speeds out of the 296, whereas the SF90 has typically run 146 to 148. I think the SF90 is capable of a 150 hero run, but I also think the 296 is capable of 151 to 152 with the right tires, it's just traction limited at this point. The SF-90 will always have the launch advantage, but it weighs nearly 300lb less than the SF90, and it also appears to be a more efficient and simpler design. The 765LT has a 200 horsepower disadvantage to the SF90 but look at how close it is, being much lighter. I bet the 296 is sandbagging the horsepower numbers as well. It felt pretty close to the 765 when I drove it.

 

The recorded numbers don't lie people, but fee; free to believe a random person on the internet... https://zeperfs.com/en/duel7937-10022.htm

 

I really enjoy zeperf as a website. I agree that no one person, no matter how impartial he or she wants to be can give a definitive answer to all questions. However, zeperf is an average of car magazine tests and estimates from zeperf. Do you really trust averages ? I know I don't. If one car did 0 to 100km/h in 2 seconds and another car in another test did it in 3 seconds, the car in question we all be having will do it in 2.5 seconds all the time every time? Certainly not... I personnally look forward to have more testimonials from "random" but real people on the internet than car magazine numbers. Both are untertaining to watch and read but I have a bias toward real world experiences.
As a side note, zeperf quotes 900nM for the 296... where did that come from? I never got this officially from Ferrari. Did you? I look forward to get real dyno numbers from various random internet enthusiasts...
Cheers.
And I look forward to getting mine in three months!

 

Yes. Science is all about averages.

 

Everything you said. Plus, there are not really enough recorded performance results out there for the 296 to begin with. Based on the numbers, not a lot of SF90 tests either. I'd trust an unbiased owner who has both cars and is able to give same day, same condition results over a couple magazine averages taken in different unknown DA conditions. The Dragy gives us the DA right there.

 

The website you linked only shows “claimed” times. Estimates.

So yeah, a guy who owns both cars using a legitimate GPS acceleration tool to measure their performance in the same location, on the same roads, using the same fuel, is definitely who I’ll believe over that website.

 

You are gravely mistaken, sir. The site I quoted is an aggregator of officially timed runs, conducted by respected magazines, with professional test drivers, most being accredited with the ISO standard. Estimates you say? That's laughable!!!

 

There aren’t enough tests of either car by magazines to make a definitive statement from zeperfs and especially for the 296.

 

On another note, I’ve seen Zeus consistently do this. An owner will post his data from his actual cars and he will post zeperfs and tell the owner he’s wrong. That what he’s experiencing in reality isn’t right and what Zeus reads on the internet (and only there) is real.

 

I have no clue what you are referring to...
So you think that it is correct to say that after two tests where the 296 would have recorded a 2,5 seconds once and then a 3,5 seconds to get from 0 to 100 km/h, the car can be reliably established as 3,0 second car? For every 296 coming out of the factory? That is so wrong. Mathematically correct. But so completely wrong in reality. I drove my 488 GTB around the track in Magny-Cours along with someone driving a Pista (same day day, same track session, same tyres, same...). On average my lap times where 2 or 3 seconds quicker than my friend driving the Pista. Would you then conclude as confidently that the 488 GTB is faster car than the 488 Pista? I know that Ferrari would be looking at you funny should you say such a thing (averages are the only truth that trumps all other possibilities)
I hope you are not a scientist... I did many years in medical schools, I worked in labs. Never, ever I heard that science is all about averages. Seriously interested to learn something more about that statement...
I am really intrigued by numbers I read. Especially those from the factory. Even more when the factory is Ferrari. Or car magazines. Or youtubers. As someone said it, I would be much more trusting of someone who owns and tested both the sf90 and the 296 than various car magazines combined.
I drove the 296. I owned a 488. Sold the latter to buy the former.
While waiting to receive it I truly enjoy this forum and all the data that is being shared by owners of the 296.
Cheers.

 

Sorry I saw your message only after I sent mine replying to Zeus... felt compelled to reply to Zeus as I wanted to be constructive. Will not do that anymore...
Thank you for pointing this out

 

many serious people here, but there are prolific posters who don’t contribute much in terms of real world experience.

 

While I hold Master's degree, I would not call myself a scientist. Then again, while in pursuit of the aforementioned degree, I had come to realise that there are things called outliers and statistical noise. Statistics 101, really. When 5 tests say one thing and another test says otherwise, well guess which one is the erroneous one... People doing home science is the funniest thing ever!

 

It's embarassing really, an absolute joke.

 

The joke is on the one who disregards the facts.

 

You are the one disregarding the facts. You are the one telling OWNERS of the cars that their experiences (you have none) with the cars and the data they collect means nothing.

Funnily enough, in another thread, you compared the SF90 AF against the Senna on the track with Autocar posted lap times to "prove" your point. It's all good when it goes in the same direction as your sick agenda... Guess what... the 296 (without AF pkg) matched the sf90 AF laptime on that same track.

 

Owning something doesn't mean anything. I happen to own several buildings. I know nothing about house building though! My mechanic knows everything about supercars. He drives an Audi. Try telling him he is not qualified to service your Ferrari...
Would you be so kind as to share the laptimes of the 296 vs the SF90 on said track? Just out of curiocity.

 

Sure... it's on their full roadtest (8 pages)... you can find some of it online if you dig enough.



Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Okay, thanks. It makes sense though, as it is a very short and slow track.