F40 Quicker Than F50

True or not, irrelevant. Not a drag car.

 

acceleration times and track times are not always in correlation. The F40 might have accelerated harder but the more advanced brakes and suspension of the F50 would make it greatly superior on track.

 

The F-50 is said to be around 3 secs faster around Fiorano..

 

I don't think a US F40 accelerates faster than a US F50. I remember magazine tests saying the F50 was faster.

I believe the October 1989 issue of Road and Track tested the US F40:

0-60: 4.5 seconds
0-100: 8.2 seconds
1/4-mile: 11.6 seconds

In my runs with a US F40, this seems about right.

 

My the F40 must have some serious pull past 60...

Road and Track rates the 599:

0-60 - 3.2 seconds
Quarter - 11.2 seconds

For the F40 to be down 1.3 seconds at 60 mph and then regain almost a full second on the 599 by the time of the quarter mile line is remarkable....




Although acceleration figures and quarter mile times are not the best to judge with, still makes me believe that the F40 has some serious grunt to it...

 

Not every evolution was "quicker or faster". Yes, the F40 is quicker. The F40 and F50, even though both super Ferraris are actually very different cars.

 

The F50 was Ferrari's first real attempt at F1 technology application in a road car. That was the point. Not straight line speeds.

 

That was the worst 0-60 time ever measured for an F40. Most 0-60 times were in the high 3's for the USA cars, I have 5 tests. There are three that are 3.8, one is 3.9 and one is 3.5. The 3.5 was a Euro car though.

 

"Officially" - Stock;
F40 0-60 = 4.4 & Top speed 201 mph
F50 0-60 = 3.7 & Top speed 202mph

Since it is inevitable, may as well mention further variations of F40...
LM
GT
GTE
Competizione
...all fast, quick, call them what you will, but none moreso than the...

One variation of F50 - there was supposed to be only 1 built... then Ferrari saw the potential.

F50 GT - 0-60 = 2.9 seconds and a 236mph Top Speed smoked even the 333SP around Fiorano.

So, homologation was order of the day as F50 GT was slated for GT1 endurance racing, which it would have dominated, but when BPR series was rebranded as FIA GT, Ferrari didn't waste time or money, and shifted focus back to F1, thus halting production at 3. The first went to Art Zifiropoulo, and the other 2 are secret garage queens, but at least they look really, really fast.

 

I've got about 20 odd magazines with F40 tests, some Euro some USA. Here are the best ones....Haven't found better F50 ones.


0-60 MPH time, 3.5 seconds (Auto Express)
1/4 mile time, 11.7 seconds (Road & Track)
1/4 mile speed, 126.5 MPH (Road & Track)
Top speed, 202.5 MPH (Quattroroute)

And the F40 LM will do 0-60 in 3.1 seconds and has a top speed of 229 mph!

 

Acceleration time from a standing start is only relevant once (assumming no rolling start). 0-60 has absolutely nothing to do with track capability. My experience with an F50 on the track is that it is extremely fragile with inadequate brakes. My experience with an F40 on the track is that it is extremely robust with inadequate brakes. For me at least, I would much prefer an F40 on the track.

If I was interested in 0-60, I guess I would have to learn about Vipers and Corvettes...

 

Might be worth learning about, anyhow ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08nxInpgTGc&feature=related

 

Id say this is faster than a f50.

They are both great cars, I have heard from both sides. F40 faster in straight line IMO and F50 is a little more advanced with their suspension, so its a tossup in my mind.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

That is not a real LM by the way....

 

Also, to gauge how quick the F40 is even stock...

Jas (RufMD) has run his F40 against his CGT and Scud, and the F40 has beat them both. Maybe he will chime in.

 

I know. I was just diggin up some old pictures.

Id go with the F40 any day. I like a a car in its rawest form.

 

Although 0-60 times may be interesting to compare, in the real world, it really doesn't matter. I don't know anyone that owns any of these cars, except perhaps a track version, that would drive it the way necessary to achieve such times. Revving to near red line and sidestepping the clutch can lead to a vast number of disastrous and expensive end results.
The different results Ryan pointed out are likely more to do with the driver than the car.

 

I'd have to hear the the story about this from Jas himself as I'd bet that my CGT and F50 are both quicker than my F40.

For all intent purposes the CGT is the modern day variation of the F50. Both cars - being naturally aspirated - have tremendous torque and instant throttle response. The "amenities" (if they can be called that) in the CGT make it smoother, quieter, etc. but the "punch" and twitchy nature of the car is very similar to what you experience in the F50 (albeit it being much louder, harder, etc.).

The F40 by comparison feels dated and somewhat like the old Porsche turbos (albeit much quicker) where there is substantial turbo lag and then a kick in the a** when the turbos spool up.

For obvious reasons the CGT and F50 will jump on the F40 easily from a stand still. The F40 will close the gap once the turbos spool up/kick in but by then the CGT and F50 - in my opinion - will hold whatever small lead they have and be able to maintain it. I don't think the F40 could catch either car from a standing start.

 

He wasn't the only person to mention this, but maybe he will chime in.

He has posted about running his F40 if I recall side by side with his F50, CGT and Scud on here a few times. If memory serves me correctly the F40 was right there with them all and in many cases pulled ahead of various cars....

 

That's been my experience as well. I've run with F40s several times, and I've found the F40 to be about the same as my 993 Ruf Turbo R. The CGT (and probably the F50 as well) are noticeably faster than the US F40.

BTW, if you race to 180+, the F40 may eventually catch the CGT and F40. That's because the F40 was designed for a lower Cd and frontal area (i.e., less drag) to reach 200 mph+ with less than 500 hp. It doesn't have the downforce and resulting stability of the CGT and F50, which need the extra HP to reach the same top speed.

Here's a photo from one of our many runs with F40s:
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Here's a great video from Suzuka...two pro drivers, 4 laps, F50 and F40, along with a 993 GT2 and Gt3.

At the end of 4 laps, the F50 only just shaded the F40, and both finished ahead of the 993 Gt2.

From the heel/toe shifting seen, both seemed to be accomplished drivers.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x15o7l_bmpsvol1_auto


As far as my own experience running the F40 against my CGT, the conditions were rolling 2nd gear pulls and the results up to 100-120mph were that the F40 was either equal or slightly ahead.

I suspect results maybe different from standing starts, but I have no interest in verifying that personally

From various figures I have seen, the 0-100 mph times for the F40 and CGT are roughly the same no ? Probably just driver dependant at that point.

Academic though, all of the cars mentioned are sensational performers