Nice article, Bugatti was substantially faster than the F40. 0-60mph in 3.25 Sec F40-4.5 0-100 in 8 sec f40- 8.7 Couldnt pick between the 2, said they were both great! Auto Italia July 1997 Image Unavailable, Please Login
I suppose it depends on your definition of faster, doesn't it. F40 60-100 4.1sec Bug 60-100 4.75. Since you only take off ONCE in a race, i'd have to say the F40 is MUCH faster, actually. Even if you're not racing on a track, from any rolling start the F40's gonna eat it. This standing start timing stuff is such bull.
well said...some insecure people get there kicks trying to put down ferraris on ferrari web sites.....i wont mention any names but his intials are....
I had a great chat with Derek Hill, Phil's kid and a driver at the Daytona 24 Hours race in a Bugatti EB 110 racecar. He mentioned the Bug was really undeveloped and underfunded (they went broke shortly after the race) and heavy. They were midpack until the rain came. Derek said they could then pass anyone anywhere on the track. When the track dried, then they slipped back. Just a thought, I've been in F-40s and an EB 110 SS. Apples and oranges. The Bug was a GT cruiser and the Ferrari a cafe racer. Tom S.
Evo magazine did a feature a few months ago about a fast convoy from the UK to Spa with an F40, F50 Enzo and a modded EB110 which had well over 700bhp. Even on the autoroutes the Enzo couldnt keep up.
why even on the autoroutes ? Just on the autoroutes..and just because it had 7OOhp+...On any b road or track the Bug wouldnt stand a chance..
Allan, please tell me you're kidding. They quote 0-60 and 0-100, so it's pretty easy to work out what the 60-100 time is....and the F40 is significantly faster. You would therefore surmize that from a rolling start, and from pretty well any speed apart from a dead stop, the F40 is the faster car. It's quite obvious, really.
From the figures you gave it does seem that the F40 never fully recovered from a poor start. All of which figures as I would fully expect an F40 to be much more difficult to get off the line cleanly than a larger capacity, 4wd car. I also onder if these are the best acceleration time an F40 has ever registered, as the 60 time in particular seems quite tardy. I do sometimes wonder why you don't invest in a top fuel dragster or a road legal equivalent, Allan. Your performance criteria seem largely skewed to acceleration runs. Nothing wrong with that, but as with any specific task, you design cars specifically to suit.
I said even on the autoroutes because the Enzo isnt exactly lacking in the speed department but the Bug just pulled away from it. I would fully expect the Enzo to reverse the situation on twistier roads but then that wasnt really what the EB110 was built for. More of a super fast GT.
Mag racing and wanking is one thing but in the real world these aren't really comparable. The F40 is a real car. The Bug is a poorly sorted kit car that wasn't too usefull. The Bug, which I drove several times in and around Monte Carlo sputtered in traffic, had very poor AC, defrosting, and the fit and finish was kit car like. The F40 while not the proper tool for around town is much more on the mark at speed. In addition the US version of the Bug was even less drivable. Dauer has basically remanufactured the Bug and those may be better but for a million I'd buy a Maser/Enzo.
You beat me to it.. performance figures are great but on the roads, not on the track... I still have to give extra points for looks.