My friend asked Dario Bennuzi, in an email, the following question. "I have asked him since he helped the development of the F40 and even the F40 LM, what was he's true feelings on the car, and how come the 360 CS being heavier and less powerfull could lap Fiorano almost 2 second faster. " He answered: carissimo, sono 2 vetture molto diverse di epoche diverse,dificile il confronto tuttavia, chissà se la challenge stradale arriverà ad avere la stessa popolarità della f40.. con questo la mia risposta è già data. L'f40 riassume in se un concentrato di emozione e fascino che è imparagonabile fin ora con le Ferrari GT prodotte. la differenza di prestazione si spiega con l'evoluzione innegabile dei i materiali/studi progettuali e dinamici svolti, senza dimenticare che una volta il tracciato di Fiorano era diverso! terrò in cosiderazione dell'invito fatto,davvero grazie. Dario Benuzzi Or, roughly: "that the feelings of the F40 do not compare to the feeling of the 360 CS. The F40 is a combination of strong emotions and charm not even comparable to any other GT Ferrari has made. About the 2 seconds faster he says that the track of Fiorano has changed in size and in shape in the last years, so the lap times are not really comparable"
Does it mean that older Fiorano times were taken before they added the Schumacher variant at the end of the pit straight ? Beside the track changes, a fair comparison would have to be run on comparable tires. Braking aside, I can't understand why a CS would be faster, or even as fast. 53hp deficit, much less torque, 200kgs heavier, why would anyone expect a CS to be faster than an F40 ?
The bhp/weight ratio matters, but not as much as the rate of rise on the torque graph. If torque rises too quickly, it is far easier to break the car loose and not get the power to the ground to propel you forward or in the direction you are going. Further, you are losing speed until the tyres hook up again. If torque rises too gradually, then you are losing time waiting for the power to get to the ground. By the time of the 360, Ferrari has had longer to tinker with that sweet spot in the middle. And the bph/weight ratio being less agressive actually helps with this aspect. All that said, I'd much, much rather have an F40. It is far more exciting and challenging to tame a wild(er) horse.
Oh..And the fact that one was built in the late eight's and the other was built in 2004..big difference in tire tech and engine tech. Aswell chassis design over all engineeing is far more advanced. But the F40 is still king in my books..track times be damnd.
That's actually answered in the response. Aside from saying that the layout of the track has changed, something not mentioned in the translation is that the CS's better technical performance comes as a result of advanced build materials and the benefit of evoloved studies on car design. I doubt there's a harder working wind tunnel than the one in Maranello, and none of that was available when the F40 was made.
The F40 design is over 10+ years old vs the 360 when it came out. I can guarantee a F40 with modern turbos and a few mods would be hitting almost 600+ hp and add new tires and shock technology it would destroy a CS on the track even with all of its driver aids for the types that need them. The F40 was designed when Enzo was still alive and was the top of the line limited production car, the 360 is the largest volume Ferrari ever produced and is a entry level car, even though it has the CS mods its still basically a 360, no comparision with the exclusivity and legendary status of a F40.
Curious that Benuzzio's answer seems to emphasize emotion and charm, and then he minimizes the importance of a technical point--track size--and yet people comment and speculate on technical issues.
Actually, I'd say the rough translation seems to emphasize emotion and charm. The raw Italian response is pretty balanced between the two.
