enough horsepower

Agree, I love my 360 very much and I'm not shy to open it up on the HWY. This car is very light and 400HP are plenty. However, I don't mind adding a supercharger in the future.

 

I agree that horsepower to weight ratio is key. The new lotus with the 195hp toyota celica motor will be plenty fast.

However, that said, there is something orgasmic about 500 Hp V10 Bmw m5. Do I need it? No. Would I love to have it? Absolutely.

 

400 is enough. As they've done with the CS, I would prefer Ferrari to continue a weight war as opposed to joining the HP war. More light cars!

 

My observation is that the 360 feels faster than it really is. The next gen car needs 500hp. Of course, no amount of horsepower is ever "enough".

 

Seppy raises a great point. I agree. At what point does it become silly in terms of H.P.? For me at least, it will take me some time to discover the car's true capability anyway. What's the point of Ferrari ownership for most of us? I read comments in this Board about quarter mile times and drag racing but that seems to miss the whole point of the Ferrari experience. Hell, if I want to drag race, I'll borrow my friend's pro street Camaro which develops some un Godly amount of horsepower and runs 8 second -- or some crazy time like that -- in the quarter mile.

But I do get a kick out of cars like Jimmy's 540 which is kind of a wolf in sheep's clothing or my CL55 which regularly blows the doors off of Corvettes. But I did not buy my Ferrari for that and my Ferrari is the last car I would sell if it came down to choosing.

 

I disagree. Even on the street. When I find myself stuck behind someone on a 2 lane road and I change down and feel 500hp pushing my 2200lb MK-IV into the future I feel all is right with the world.

 

Somewhere around 100 HP per 1000 pounds you get enough power to smoke the tires throughout 1st gear. Somewhere around 125 HP per 1000 pounds you get enough power to smoke the tires through the first 2 gears. Somewhere around 150 HP per 1000 pounds you get enough power to smoke the tires through the first 3 gears.

At some point, you have enough power to induce power on throttle oversteer at any sensible street velocity. Above this power level, lawsuits from greiving relatives will hold the power level in check.

Take the thing to the track, and put 1000 laps on the car. It will probably run better, and you will definitely be a better driver.

 

There is no such thing as "too much horsepower"!

 

At what point does HP stay the same, while the overall weight of the car drops by using modern materials and construction techniques?
Most modern, or any car for that matter will gain substantial performance by going on a diet.
Rather than trying to squeeze the last drop of performance from an engine,
and possibly shorting it's life-span.
How about backing off the tune enough to make the engine last 200k miles
before a major service, and pick-up the performance numbers by making the body/chassis out of light weight materials.

 

P already does that. The engine in my wife's TT Cayenne makes 450hp. It has 20K oil change 100K engine service.

 

Horsepower is not the answer if you can't get to TO THE GROUND. Give me handling, braking THEN horsepower. Ferrari know how to build RELIABLE engines that deliver SEAT OF THE PANTS power. More horsepower is not the real issue, less weight give you more power but also less weight gives you less handling. BALANCE is the key. The mid 60's Ferrari's were so well balanced considering that the tires they rode on were not computer designed like todays rubber. Back then we relied on our senses to judge the power we had. Today's modern engines are so well designed for THROTTLE response that gives you that Ferrari WAIL that is music to our ears. When we were racing cars we developed the handling and braking first then put more horsepower into the car. First the driver has to be able to DRIVE the car without crashing it due to poor handling. Then once he can drive it, give him the power to pass and then keep it ahead of the competition. You only have to cross the finish line to win. Ferrari is heading in the right direction with the new 360 series cars. I would sure like to see the replacement for the 360CS!!!

 

I disagree. While Iwould prefer to have a 400 hp 2200 lb car to a 500 hp 3100 lb car, I think that if weights are going to say where they are, the 360 (or replacement) can do with another 85 hp. It's not enough to make the car overpowered but it's just enough to make it thrilling.

I am sure that many, many Gallardo owners like what 500hp does for them.

 

I think Karen Carpenter would disagree!

 

I agree with the weight reduction issues raised, but one consideration is safety. Sure, a race car can weigh 2000 pounds. But a street car needs to meet a variety of crash safety standards, and unless you radically reduce the physical dimensions of a car (say a 360), how are you going to lighten it without substantially compromising safety or structural integrity? I suppose the use of ultra high tech materials could shave some pounds off, but it would skyrocket the price and likely not save much weight.

The Lotus Elise is a really lightweight car, but have you ever stood next to one or been inside one? It's ridiculously small. I don't know whether I would want to drive a car (like the 360) that had the dimensions of the Elise. I would be interested in owning an Elise for track racing, but I'd much rather drive a car of the dimensions of the 360 on the street. I can see shaving a few hundred pounds off the current weight, but you still need to inject the car with a good horsepower increase.

 

It's true that the Gallardo has an extra hundred horsepower (25% increase over a 360) but this is partially offset by a 15% increase in weight.

 

We all talked, argued, ... about horse power and weight. But what about torque?

Sometime I'm dreaming like if I was having a bit more of torque. This to avoid shifting the gear knob ... for only a few hundred meters.

What's your impression about that?

Regards,
Christophe.

 

Go drive a Maserati Coupe then tell me if you're worried about torque. If the new car has as much torque as the Maser engine does, even with the expected increase in hp, that will be plenty for me. That Maserati tears off the line like an untamed beast. If the new car has a derivative of that engine that has at least that level of torque, I won't complain about lack of torque.

 

What gives those race cars the ability to hit walls at speeds 3X-5X (9X-25X the energy) of what passenger cars are designed to hit and allow passenger survival? Hint--its Not Weight.

The price of Carbon Fiber (as used in a structural sense) has dropped from unobtainum levels 20 years ago to expensive (3X glass fiber) 10 years ago to only a little more than fiberglass today (1.25X). The expense in using CF today is the manual labor to construct the chassis, bag it in plastic, vaccum the bag, and stick the whole thing in a autoclave for several hours. This is opposed to machines that stamp out sheet metal at 1 piece per couple of seconds.

Imagine a Miata, now take the miata engine out and install a F348 engine (hint it actually does fit!). Now you have a miata with guts and still hover in the just over 2000 pound catagory. Take the Miata chassis and render in Carbon Fiber so that it is as stiff as the current 360, put on suspension gear that can take a 300 HP 250 lb-ft motor, and go to town.

 

A race car does not meet road crash safety standards. No sense comparing them. Road cars require crumple zones to soften the crash, race cars do not. Two different animals.

If your costs are true about CF, why are there no cars below $300K using CF body panels?

Like I said, I wouldn't drive a car the size of the Elise, or the Miata.

 

But just how big does a sports car need to be?

2 occupants and enough space for a map, pen and note pad in the cockpit. Perhaps a mobile phone too for emergencies. Maybe 3 people if you're feeling really flush.

Soft bags for a week's worth of clothes max for a tour. Even that might be stretching it a bit (after all, if you can afford to buy and run a supercar, you can afford hotel laundry bills!).

Beyond that, it needs to stick like sh*t to a blanket, go like the clappers and look and sound drop dead gorgeous.

If you want something that will take golf clubs, more luggage, more passengers etc, buy a Quattroporte.

Once cars start to get bigger, you can use them less and less on real roads at full tilt (not as much of a consideration in the US granted, but as I've said on other posts, you don't buy these cars because they're like Buicks/Cadillacs/Chevys etc).

One of the key triumphs of the Macca F1 was its size. You could use it properly. Even the 355, on the other hand, is too wide to use safely on public roads most of the time.

I'm not necessarily saying that the Elise/Miata size is perfect. But these cars do not NEED to be much bigger.

As for race cars not meeting road crash "standards", I think that says more about the general stupidity of road crash regulations than it does about anything else.

I have this pet theory that we only need such "standards" because the whole driving experience has become so cocooned from the environment in which the car is placed, so "I'm invincible" that people do not concentrate enough.

I often wonder if making cars *less* ostensibly "safe" would cause people to drive more carefully and within their own limits...

In becoming "safer" and more "comfortable", cars are generally becoming heavier. And so they need more "safety" aids and the circle spirals...

Bragging rights in a bar do not make good cars, and someone needs to make a stand against this folly. Which does not, by the way, mean that we should cease making cars quicker. We should just go about it in a more intelligent and informed way, rather than reducing everything in life to the lowest common denominator.

 

Right, road cars have to withstand 30 MPH bumps without incurring more than $xxx damage. Race cars have to withstand 200 MPH sideways crashes (CART IRL), being flipped upside down and scraping down the road for 1/4 mile or so, contain fire supression equiptment, and still allow the driver to exit the vehicle in 5 seconds of comming to a stop.

Which one is really safer when encountering other cars of its same weight? Then which one is safer in off-road-excursions?

However, if you really want safety in an automobile, put in roll cages, 5-point harnesses, and make everyone wear Nomex and SA helmets. At this point you can dispense with the 30 MPH bumpers, crumple zones (75%) and still end up with safer cars. However, the passenger public would not allow such safety to be mandated........

Did I mention the woman last week who was reading a book, talking on her cell phone, brushing her hair while driving in rush hour traffic?

There is a recent scientific study that shows that safer cars allow people to drive more agressively/risky. This coorborates yourthought.