Motor Trend - Fastest Ferrari

Thanks!

Here's the link:
https://www.motortrend.com/features/fastest-ferrari/#google_vignette

 

A lot of fun to read, thanks!

 

Since the 296 AF achieves the quarter mile in the same time as the SF90 AF, but runs faster when crossing the line, it means the SF90 has a faster start (maybe helped by the 4WD) but then the 296 catches up. After the quarter mile, if both cars would go on, the 296 would overtake the SF90, but I wonder whether the 296 would then be caught up again by the more powerful SF90.

 

There are many other sources where the SF90 is the quicker car. This seems like an anomaly.

 

Interestingly, that's around 240 kph (approximately the speed at which it crosses the quarter mile) that the 296 seems to have the upper hand in acceleration.
Zeperfs (which compiles data from different tests) has still the SF90 first at 240 kph (9.7s vs 10.2s) but that's the smallest difference: 220 kph is reached in 8.8s for the 296 and 7.5s for the SF90 - which means 220kph to 240kph takes 1.4s for the 296 and 2.2s for the SF90.
The SF90 then pulls away though, since it reaches 300kph in 16.4s vs 18.4s for the 296.
Zeperfs has also only a relatively small advantage for the SF90 on the standing start 400m (which is approximately a quarter mile): 9.6s for the SF90 and 10s for the 296.
The 220 to 240 advantage for the 296 could be due to the gear ratios between these speeds.

 

The result is an anomaly, not the publication itself. When 9 publications (random number) have timed the SF90 as the quicker one, then the results of the 10th (in this case MotorTrend) which state otherwise, are an anomaly.

Here is an aggregator of tests collected from various magazines. It basically takes the results from all publications and calculates the mean numbers for every car. So, you have 10 car magazines, take the results, aggregate them and put them against the aggregated results of another car. This is the most fair and scientifically correct method, as there can be some outliers. Now, see what happens when you do that: https://zeperfs.com/en/duel7937-10022.htm

Thus yes, the MotorTrend test was an outlier-anomaly.

 

MT, C&D, near same results. Multiple Euro tests as well matching the result no rollout.

 

The mean time by 11 different magazines for the 0-400 metres dash (not quite the 1/4 mile then) for the 296 was 10'', whereas for the SF90 was 9.6''. I posted the link above.

 

No one disputes that. Even more awesome for the SF90 though.

 

The 0-200 and 0-300 times on zeperfs for the SF90 are the average of…wait for it….1 test.

I actually believe it’s quicker than the 296. Feels that ways anyway. But if you look at the tests done on the cars and remove that one QR test for the SF90, it’s basically neck and neck per the published tests.

 

Perhaps I am missing something, but I don't see the number of values (tests) for every speed increment. Could you kindly guide me through that?

 

Only test published for these times for the SF90. Hence it is the totality of the Zeperfs values.

Autocar road test, much slower. But not quoted in zeperfs because its MPH. MotorTrend quoted 2.1 to 60, but factor in rollout that’s 2.4 to 100 kph. They also quoted 7.0 to 125, or 7.2 without rollout.
Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Excellent article, thanks.

 

Heavier too!

 

And the tests quoted above are for the 296 GTB, for the 296 GTS zeperfs has a 400m value of 9.9s (logically it should be the same as for the GTB, but values vary from test to test... )
I do not know how many tests have been performed for each 296 GTB and GTS, but I know the test for the French Sport Auto was with a GTS (AF).

In the numbers, the 296 is indeed very close to the SF90 (except probably for very high speeds, where power makes the difference).
From my short driving experiences, the SF90 feels significantly faster, but I wonder whether it's mostly due to the fact that (for me) it's less natural than the 296 (on my short test drives on track, I felt the SF90 was more difficult to understand, while the 296 could be driven like a 488, just a lot faster).

 

As I have shown they are not neck and neck. Unless you think that a 0.4'' difference in the 400 metres is neck and neck. Let us agree that they both are diabolically quick.

 

Nothing like that at all, I love all Ferraris (and cars in general). It is just that 0.4'' is a significant (not huge) margin when we are talking about 1/4 mile times. Please don't get hung on prices, there is this thing called "the Law of Diminishing Returns", I am sure you are familiar with it. If we break down the performance of any car compared to its price, the best value would be something like a Fiesta ST...