Enzo to 200mph

I think you may be disappointed...

 

It doesn't look too bright.

Ferrari Enzo ACCELERATION (Seconds) by Car and Driver
Zero to 30 mph: 1.5
40 mph: 2.0
50 mph: 2.7
60 mph: 3.3
70 mph: 3.8
80 mph: 5.0
90 mph: 5.8
100 mph: 6.6
110 mph: 8.0
120 mph: 9.2
130 mph: 10.3
Top-gear acceleration, 30–50 mph*: 3.9
50–70 mph: 5.8
*note, the enzo's times were also recorded on a downhill gradient
*In 5th gear; F1 gearbox won’t accept 6th at 30 mph.
Standing 1/4-mile 11.2 sec @ 136 mph
Top speed (redline limited, mfr’s est): 209 mph

McLaren F1 ACCELERATION (Seconds) by Autocar
40 mph: 1.8
60 mph: 3.2
80 mph: 4.5
100 mph: 6.3
120 mph: 9.2
140 mph: 11.2
160 mph: 14.6
180 mph: 20.3
200 mph: 28.0
Top-gear acceleration, 30–50 mph*: 3.0
50–70 mph: 3.7

 

The R&T test recorded equal or better times so the whole downhill thing isn't an issue. The Enzo at Fiorano got to 150mph in 13.1 seconds, but that was actually the autocar test that was on a car that not only produced times worse than C&D or R&T, but apparently had a bad clutch because another car on the same day was reaching the same speeds 2 to 3 tenths quicker.

In another test the Enzo hit 186mph in 26.6 seconds I believe. Again the acceleration compared to other tests at lower speeds wasn't particularly good, but we don't really have any tests to compare it to so that is the only info we have right now.

There was one French test where the Enzo did the standing Kilometre in 19.52 seconds which is quicker than the Mclaren, but the Mclaren might stretch its legs about 175 mph.(Trap speed through the 1km for the F1)

 

I think it is obvious that the reason the McLaren is so much faster is the designers chose to go with a low downforce package. I would suspect that the Enzo is much more stable at 210 mph than the McLaren is.

When Ferrari released the Enzo, Montezemolo made the announcement and said Ferrari had made a conscious decision not to go for an ultimate top speed, but instead to have a car that is extremely stable at the still-outrageous speeds it can reach.

No doubt the McLaren is quicker/faster on the top end due to aero, and potentially quicker on the lower end due to lighter weight.

 

I agree, but it seems they are neck and neck on the lowerend and I would guess the F1 is only a second or two quicker to 200mph.

 

Do we actually care? Ok, the McLaren F1 maby quicker... But it will never be a Ferrari.

 

Have to agree with you on that !

 

Yeah, and the Mclaren was made to break all records, and for nothing else. Ferrari never aimed to do that. So why compare it It was not their target to beat the F1.

Besides, the F1 is ugly next to an Enzo.

 

I disagree. I think the F1 is super classy and sleek. The Enzo is beautiful too, but it looks odd from certain angles.

 

If Ferrari wanted to break the F1 record, it's all too easy...but it's not Ferrari's policy to do that, as what they want is record time lapping the track and not just straight line speed.

 

Right. Is that why Ferrari is racing the Enzo as a Maserati?

Greg A

 

Maserati needs a car for racing, Ferrari has Formula 1. Maserati was in trouble, and this car is their life safer.

 

They never need to be.Anytime you make a car that can go 10 years w/o being challenged, you're on to something pretty good. Don't get me wrong I love Ferrari, but when someone hears "Mclaren F1" they need to take notice. If they were to return with "it's not a ferrari" they should be smacked.

And for the guy who said the Enzo was probably more stable than the F1 at 210: how do you define stable?

Isn't there a video of the Mclaren cruising at close to top speed and all seemed pretty under control?

And I personally think it was Ferrari taking the safe way out in "not going to try for the top speed" because well, we can look at all these other companies TRYING and it doesn't seem to be working out to well. [I haven't heard of any 3rd party verifying Koenigseggs claims of 242, so I won't say it's been done just yet. But I hope they did, I love that swedish mobile ] Ferrari wouldn't have been able to live with themselves if they said they would beat the Mclaren and fall short. I think thats it for now.

 

Well I think Ferrari is concentrating all their effort in F1 instead of GT racing or LM etc !

Look at the aborted F50GT car which only 3 were made and that was a car that the FIA did not want Ferrari to enter in competition as others will boycott the race as they knew this car would eat them for breakfast !

Imagine Ferrari excels in F1 and LM + GT racing etc all factory backed, who would want to take part in future races ?

As a result being given the hint and excuse to concentrate their effort in F1 did Ferrari abandoned the F50GT race project !

 

Oh did u guys also know that Ferrari is also toying with a Ferrari Enzo GT prototype just like the F50 GT ?

Maybe they are refocusing their racing commitments ???

 

"And I personally think it was Ferrari taking the safe way out in "not going to try for the top speed" because well, we can look at all these other companies TRYING and it doesn't seem to be working out to well. [I haven't heard of any 3rd party verifying Koenigseggs claims of 242, so I won't say it's been done just yet. But I hope they did, I love that swedish mobile ] Ferrari wouldn't have been able to live with themselves if they said they would beat the Mclaren and fall short. I think thats it for now."

First of all,Ferrari said right from the beginning that they were not going to get roped into the "top speed war".Insiders did say that one of there aims was to out accelerate the Mac however,wich some magazines have acheived ie Road&Track and some have not(not that I take magazines all that seriously). Ferrari wanted to make the best supercar in the world,that means the best all round package ie brakes,handling,good topspeed,acceleration,downforce(This creates drag wich lowers top speed,if you didn't know) etc.In this regard the Enzo blows the Mac away,it can stick with it neck and neck down the straight,outbreak the Mac into the first corner and carry tons more corner speed through the corner and from there on its only going to put some serious distance into the Mac,so in that regard Ferrari did do what they set out to do.If you want to say "yes but the Macs 10 years old" well the F40's are even older and beat the Macs a few times in races.A F40 in the hands of Berger did a 1.31.5 around Fiorano an Enzo 1'22"30,dont know what an F40Lm can do but I doubt a 1'22"30.

Where do all these "other" companys say "We are 'Trying' to go out and run 400km/h,just to beat the Mac"?

The track is where supercars really count,not the road.I presume you like the Lambo Murcie?Give me a call when you get yours,so you can drive me around all day long at 338km/h.....lol

The thing I find so funny is,all these people quoting magazine figures and what the magazines have to say about the Enzo,Carrera GT ,Lambo's etc.So here's something for you,when Ferrari allowed all the journos(the so called experts) and VIP's to test the Enzo at Fiorano,you had Dario Benuzzi sustaining 1.3G where ever possible and the best outsider a measly 0.85G.!!!
I rather listen to guys like Brian Stradale or Roland Linder about cars than stupid journos,at least these guys live with them and drive the **** out of them.

 

Well said my friend....and the fact is Ferraris are meant to be driven hard to feel what separates them apart with other marques !

End of the day, if Ferrari really wanted to hit pver 400 km/h , they can do it easily, having the best aerodynamic facility as well as already mentioned by them that the Enzo's chassis is capable of handling that speed in the first place...but I think they are more concerned with the main issue of handling which they have already achieved superbly ala CCM brakes !

 

Wow...I am trying extremely hard not to just blow up on you...ok I won't, but you still have made me very angry with that post.

The McLaren was not made to break records, 10 years later people still don't understand that. The primary aim of the car was to be the best driver's car in the world. Gordon Murray can say it better than me:

That is the purpose of the McLaren F1...not to chase records...

We can go on and on about which is better (the McLaren F1 is obviously better, but hey )...but please do not make the common mistake of believing the McLaren F1 was built only for top speed or only for pure acceleration. The McLaren was the vision of one person, and it was about making the most driver-involving car ever. The fact that the McLaren absolutely smashed all records was just a benefit of the extreme dedication to light weight and the technical & engineering expertise of the McLaren team.

I don't see how ugly and McLaren F1 can occupy the same sentence...especially in comparison to the rather forced design of the Enzo...

To everyone who thinks the McLaren is just some half-conceived car that only deserves mention for its top speed...you need to read Driving Ambition.

I really hope your post was tongue-in-cheek.

 

To be honest, the Enzo looks like a whacked-out Honda...don't kid yourself.

 

Design wise in my experience by looking at both the Enzo and F1, I have noticed that the 10 year old F1s good looks instantly grabs you and makes you say "wow" while the Enzo is like a beautiful abstract painting, it takes a while for it to grow on you before you truely appreciate its beauty.

 

Both cars look questionable beside a 1960's Ford GT40 Mk1.

- The Ford is arguably better looking than both.
- The Ford has a brilliant racing record ... the McLaren has a fairly good one too, but not the same scale.
- The Ford MkI can do over 200 mph with a SMALLER motor than both monster engined much moderner cars. The MkII had the 7 litre animal, the MkI only a 302ci.
- The Ford is rarer.
- The Ford (from what I have read) makes a great and reliable road car ... could be serviced by your local Ford dealer (just about).

Put carbon brakes on a GT40 and watch out Enzo.

Pete

 

Appearance is purely opinionated; there's no question that, ten years later, the McLaren F1 is better than the NNO at many, if not all facets of their purposes... Still, of the few people that actually own McLarens and NNOs, how many of them are achieving the speeds these cars claim and how many of them are achieving them in such a way that a second here and a second there makes a difference...?

 

NNO,

Are you feeling alright?

That is the most sensible, level headed, subjective post I have ever read of yours regarding the awesome Enzo car, and I 100% agree. 1 of each would be a good solution though ...

Pete

 

LOL, yeah, one of each would drive someone nuts - which one do they drive...? If it were up to me, i'd just take the NNO - but we know that already, don't we...?


The NNOs flawlessly, perfectly gorgeous beauty hasn't clouded my judgment on where the NNO stands - i know it's not the best car out there - i just think it's the most beautiful, stunning & perfect car out there...