© 2019 MOTORSPORT NETWORK. All rights reserved.
Sign up to receive latest updates for Ferrari News, Threads, and Classifieds
Discussion in '288GTO/F40/F50/Enzo/LaFerrari' started by kizdan, Jan 16, 2004.
Enzo or McLaren F1?
Good poll! Probably can be had second hand for the same price...
In re: the discussion about Lamborghini and why it can't approach the Ferrari mystique, the interesting thing about McLaren is that they did it! The McLaren arguably has more allure - probably due to its rarity and the fact that every automotive journalist let near one absolutely loved it, but the fact is that the stop-dead-in-your-tracks and turning your head to look at the passing car factor is off the CHARTS with the McLaren, not that I've ever even seen one on the road. I think it's got the most mystique out of any car made in the past decade or so.
Thus, it gets my vote
Never was a fan of the Mclaren. Esp when the asking price back then was of 2 Ferrari F50...when you have unlimited budget ( since every F1 lost money but Ron didnt care about it ) the task is easier...
I would also pick a CGT, F40 or F50 over the F1.
Don't agree one bit !!! The F1 is the ultimate supercar. Won LeMans, was clocked at over 240 mph in stock form, did 0-60 in 6 seconds and 0-200 in 28 seconds.
This at a time when the F50 could barely reach 200 and took 9 seconds more to reach the 200 mark.
The Enzo will never be raced, never be competitive against the F1 in a true race, and will never hit 240 mph.
The F1 accelerated faster from 0-150 than Senna's 89 McLaren F1 car.
No contest the F1 would devour an Enzo.
Imagine what a current designed F1 would be like today. Even if it was only marginally better than the old and marginally faster it would still destroy the Enzo.
Jon P. Kofod
Id take the McLaren, its rarer, looks better (IMO) and seats 3.
Enzo all the way... For myself
The Mclaren to myself is just a hodge podge of parts thrown together. For it to be a true super car in my book it has to be designed and built by the same company. not go out and slap a BMW motor into the thing.
For twice the price i would expect the F1 to be faster. Eventhough , without the LM kit, the regular F1 couldnt shake an F50 on regular roads or track. F40 GTE's proved several time faster back in 1995/96 during the BPR champ and that was a car developped by private funding with no factory support.
On a track i dont see how an F1 would beat an Enzo since it couldnt beat an F40/F50.
I totally agree.
I second that... all of that!
The McLaren F1 is the ultimate supercar of all time!!!
The only negatives to the car is the initial price tag and the associated maintenance price tag... because they mean I'll never own one... and probably never even get to drive one. But there is no car I'd more want to have if all cars were free.
brilliant idea! This poll will be IMO highly discussed.
Yes, I`m in love with my Ferrari and each Ferrari; but the MC Laren F1 is just the ultimative road legal driving machine! Thats why I must vote (for the first time not Ferrari) for the MC LAREN!
well I read road and track a time ago and they compared the enzo with the new saleen s7 and the mclaren f1, they said the enzo performed better. I don't now if its true because everywhere you see different things, sometime you see 0 to 60mph in 3.6 and somewhere else in 3.3 .
Is that because they drove it faster??? I don't know!
Anyway they said the Enzo performed better, don't know if its true but someday we will find out.
I would chose the enzo offcourse because a real ferrari fan would to.
First off the LM and GTE cars have never been street legal anywhere in the world and second they are boosted version of the street car. The street f40 makes 478 (some say 500) hp and the LM and GTE make in the neighborhood of 720-760 hp with the addition of larger turbo chargers and other internal plumbing.
Second, what good is a fast supercar or racecar that can't finish the job. The F40's in the BPR series hardly ever finished a race. They were hard to drive (half the races they spun off the track) and totally unreliable. The only race where they had pole against the F1's was at Monza and both those cars were gone by the first pit stop.
And don't forget the F1 had to run the 95 season in BPR with restricted output of only 600 hp which was way down on the F40's.
You are comparing a slightly modified street car with a completely rebuilt race car.
And as to your private funding remark, they started with a well developed factory Ferrari. McLaren at the time was a small independant race car builder not a mass produced exotic car builder with a parent company the size of FIAT.
Can you please show me a test where the F1 was beat by an F40 or a F50. I have nearly every magazine test between the cars (there were very few as McLaren didn't want their car photographed with other cars) and have never seen such a result. In 0-60, 0-100, standing mile, 0-200 and top speed, not to mention lateral skid pad tests the F1 destroys the cars you mention.
And the "for twice the price" arguement gets a bit old. At three times the price of a ZO6 the 360 get's beat in most tests. Does that mean that Ferrari owners should trade their cars in for GM products??
We are talking about the best Supercar regardless of price. If price is factored in then I'll put the new UK Radical SR3 Turbo which is street legal in Europe and laps the Ring in 7:13 against your F50 which costs 15 times more and wouldn't stand a chance at any track.
Not trying to start an arguement just a F1 lunatic speaking.
The McLaren that went 240.1 MPH was not stock.
It had the cats and mufflers removed and was actually a prototype, the fifth one. It was sold to the public, but I still think of the F1 as a 231 MPH car.
Id take the McLaren over the Enzo, but not by much. The McLaren seats 3, looks just a bit better (both are stunning) and if i get tired of it, I can sell it and buy an Enzo and a Murci with the $$.
And the Mclaren did 0-60 in 3.3 in euro form, and in US spec id did it in 3.4 seconds. 0-100 was in the 6 second range, it depends on the car as a lot of the 100 had slieghtly differnet specs.
Plus, if youre relly easy on it you can get over 22mpg on the highway (supposedly), something that the Enzo couldnt match.
Plus, IMO to make the Enzo go fast you have to be a skilled and brave driver, which I am not, and the McLaren is more suited to "beginners," but not by much.
Jon - You obviously have more track experience than I do and I have not driven either car. Sat in an F1 once though . However, given that their performance #'s seem quite close (0-60, 0-100, 0-150 etc.) and top speed is not really a consideration on the track, I am curious as to why you think a stock F1 will destroy an Enzo. Especially given that the Enzo's handling #'s are far superior (lateral) and its brakes are far superior. I would guess that the cars in their stock form - Enzo would be quicker around a track. Same goes for the Carrera GT - I was interested to see peope "definitively" say that a CGT would be faster. Of course we are all speculating but the facts dont support eother car being faster than an Enzo.
Now if you upgrade the brakes on an F1 to todays technology and improved the handling a little (both not too difficult), then thats a different story.
I do however think that the F1 is the most dominant car relative to what was around and is still talked about 10 years on as the best. Now that's a feat.
Now lets not compare race versions or Lm versions as that's not a far fight - stock street cars is what we should be talking about.
Very good point and very true. People always throw the price issue when their car is not doing well in a comprison test.
My 2003 R6 can do 0-60mph, 0-150mph and the 1/4 mile faster then any Ferrari for a mere $10,000 CAD, does that mean you guys should run out and trade in your 355, 360, F40, F50 or Enzo for a motorcycle? I think NOT!
Or for that matter you can get any of the Japanese sports cars (Supra, RX7, 300ZX or 3000GT-VR4) from the mid-90s modify them to 7, 8 or 900HP for a fraction of the price of an Enzo or McLaren F1.
So let's leave price out of this discussion.
With all that said I picked the Enzo. I love Ferraris.
This is false. Not sure what you mean by Prototype as the car used to hit 240 was five years old. This is totally contradicted by what was reported in British magazine "CAR" read an excerpt below:
"In April 1998, McLaren took its 5-year old F1 to Germany's Ehra-Leissen test track, after 3 runs, it set a new top speed record as 240.1mph (386.7kph) two-way average. That F1 is identical to any production F1, with the same side mirrors, same tyres, standard tyre pressure, same suspensions setting.... the only difference is - the 7500rpm rev limiter was disabled.
After two runs, racing driver Andy Wallace tried seriously in the final run. The V12 rev to 7800rpm while oil temperature was still acceptable, two-way run was performed for eliminating the effect by wind and the average speed is calculated to be 240.1 mph. A new record was set !"
Also the test results were independantly measured by the folks at the track and a certiciate was presented to McLaren that they had set the world record for top speed for a street legal car which was then forwarded to the Guinness Book of World Records.
Where did you get this information? It's not accurate to my knowledge.
I was comparing the F40 GTE to the F1 GTR, both are race cars.So i dont get why you say that the GTE and LM were never road legal ? The GTR isnt either..
The F40 GTE or the Pilot LM did win more than just one race im sure of that. And they did score more than one Pole as well..My point is that the F1 is a great car but i dont think its the best since an F40 developped by privateers ( The LM project started with the French ferrari importer and the GTE was funded by Luciano Dellanoce ) could beat it several times.Back at that time Ferrari was struggling so i dont think they had tons of $$ to developp a GT car ( which they didnt )..Fiat dont inject $$ into Ferrari as far as i know..
I think Car magazine tested both the F1 and the F50 at Estoril and the F50 was 2 sec faster. Then BM tested the 3 cars ( with a new F50 that couldnt revv to more than 7000 RPM ) , the F40 lapped Tsukuba 0.9s faster than the F1.
Then Sport Auto tested both an F50 and an F1 in japan and said the F1 had troubles shaking the F50 on mountain roads.
I dont think the Twice the price argument gets old..1M$ is a lot of money for everybody.
And as far as i know the Radical is just road legal in the UK..not in Europe.But thats a track focused car..I dont see myself doing a 600 miles trip in one..
Surely your 0-60 time is off...
Can you tell me when an F40 or F50 won Le Mans overall? The F1 did in '95. Best ever result for a first-time entrant.
The F40 never won a race in 95 when the McLarens won all but one race. In 94 a F40 LM (F1 was not in the series) won a race and again in 96 when the lead F1 was taken out with two laps to go by the F40 GTE. But a look at the stats showed that the F1 was beaten only once in 20 some races by an F40 (GTE) Stats are here: http://www.wspr-racing.com/wspr/results/bpr/nf_bpr_home.html
I am talking about a street legal F1 vs. a street legal F50 or F40. I don't think the poll was mean to include the race cars. yes the F40 LM and GTE were faster at many circuits in racing.
If the poll included race cars we could throw in all manner of things like 962's, F1 cars, 917's and the like.
I think the poll was asking about streetable supercars.
If you can provide me with a source of these tests (magazine and year) I'd love to see them but until I read it somewhere other than car forum it's meaningless and not valid.
To my knowledge only one magazine was ever able to get permission to test the McLaren against the other supercars. The early cars even had clauses in the sale agreement about owners handing the cars out to magazines. It had something to do with voiding the warranty and at least one owner took this to court in the UK but lost I believe.
Oh, well this all makes for a good car debate.
Sorry that's the 0-100 time (actually 6.3 by Autocar test).
Best time was 3.2 to 60.
Hodge podge of parts? You're kidding, right? That car was painstakingly designed and constructed to exceed the highest standards at the time. McLaren would not have needed to apply for patents if they had been using off the shelf components and techniques.
McLaren are not engine manufacturers, and they most certainly did a lot more than simply "slap" an engine into their chassis. The motor they received from BMW is one of the finest motors ever created. How is that a bad thing?
I really like the sit in the center of the Mclaren F1. At Wide World of cars at a tech event a yellow Mclaren F1 was there and Wyclef Jean lives in my town and I had a chance to see his. They are nice but I have had the great opportunity to spend a good deal of time in an Enzo at Classic Coach in Elizabeth. Frank has/had 2 of them while I was there on several occasions trying to get a friend to buy a 360, never panned out. If it is my money, I would have to go with the Enzo!
Okay, my turn.
I have driven both and spent three days in the McLaren F1.
The McLaren was so easy to drive and drive well that it absolutely amazed me. Getting into the middle seat took a little getting used to and driving from the middle makes you be especially careful when making left hand turns. The car can be driven very civilly but when the accelerator goes down roar of 627hp is absolutely astounding. The car gets amazing traction for the power it has and only one time did I get it sideways. I did not take it up to its potential (not enough room) but I did get it to 175 mph and it was pulling just as hard there as it pulled at 80 mph. Tested it at 0-60mph 3.4 sec. 0-100 6.1 sec.
Fit and finish was unquestionable and the full carbon fiber body was absolutely gorgeous from any angle. Looking into the engine compartment, the exhaust system was beautiful and produces such a wonderful sound that it will leave a smile on your face for years after driving it.
The Enzo is a wonderful, exotic supercar. It does all things quite well and too is something to look at in person. But, for some reason did not give me the thrill of the McLaren. Thrills me, absolutely, but just not in the same way the McLaren did.
If I had to choose one, it would be the McLaren.
In addition....name me one Ferrari in modern times that won LeMans with a street derived engine.
The F1, hands down. IMO, the Enzo is one helluva supercar. But the Enzo is just *the supercar*. With under 100 built, you've got the exclusivity. With a BMW 12 in the back, you've got the reliability, even with over 600 hp.
If you haven't seen the Top Gear video with Tiff's review, go check it out: http://www.racingflix.com/getvideo.asp?v=250&p=6 It's just over 9 minutes, and I get goosebumps watching it every time.