F430 Scud Vs. F40

the Scud numbers are identical to the Enzos...same track time around the Ferrari track, and the 0-60 times is similar.

Therefore, its faster in all respects than the F40.

But one you have to drive it fast, the other drives fast for you. Different cars.

 

I'm pretty sure that the F430 was faster than the F40, so it's obvious that the Scud will be faster.

I might be wrong though.

 

Yeah, your wrong, the F40 is quicker and faster the the F430.

 

I think half of the fun is having to "drive" the F40 though.

The Scud is quite a machine though....I still think the F40 will have more top speed. I can't remember reading anything about the Scud topping 200.

Also we need to remember speed in gears is very important, and not usually covered. A member on here (RufMD) who owns both a F40 and a CGT has said many times that his F40 is quicker then his CGT!

 

The Scud is 2975 lbs with 347 lbs torque. That = 8.57 lbs per foot torque.
The F40 is 2717 lbs with 424 lbs torque (stock, and easily increased BTW). That = 6.4 lbs per foot torque.

In theory (and in a straight line) the F40 should walk away from the scud and the scud would never be able to catch it. On a track however, the electronics of the scud will allow the driver to get on the gas sooner and harder, resulting in faster lap times. The scud takes less skill to master.

 

The Scud may be a missile round the track (Yeh, I know Scud missile) but the F40 is a darn good performer.
Per UCP I see 3.5s 0-60mph for the F40, and the Scud also 3.5. -Tie
Per UCP top speeds are almost identical-Tie
Per UCP the Scud is 300 lbs. heavier than the F40-F40 win
Per many sources the Scud is a lot cheaper than the F40-Scud win
Technologically, the Scud has the advantage-Scud win
I think most of us can agree the F40 looks better

Personally, I would buy the F40 if I had the money

 

Keep in mind, forced induction power is a lot different than normally N/A power.

Generally with a turbocharged motor, you have more force on the piston at a better rotational angle relative to the rod/crank during the intake stroke, which translates into much better torque. In other words, during the intake stroke, a normal N/A motor robs power from rest of the crankshaft in order to produce a vacuum, while in a turbocharged motor, the air/fuel mixture comes in under pressure, which provides additional force against the piston - and more importantly, more force on the piston when the crank journal and rod are at a much more attractive leverage angle for producing rotational torque on the crank shaft.

Short answer is the F40 is a very powerful platform. Myself, I would always opt for a turbocharged car over a N/A car if possible. Even if the F430 Scuderia was a bit faster, just turn the boost up a couple of pounds on the F40 and throw on a Tubi Then look out! Larger intercoolers? Oh my...

Ray

 

I think he was refering to the F430Scud and not the base model F430. .

But who cares? F40 is still the greatest.

 

if your looking to purchase either one, i think its quite obvious, f40 would be a hell of a car to own, however dependability......well thats obvious as well. however i do agree, the scud is a faster car, from what i have seen.

 

Supposedly, the F430 pulled a slightly better lap time around Fiorano than the F40:

Ferrari F430 1'28.50
Ferrari F40 1'29.60

Even though the F40 has such a stellar reputation, you do have to remember that the F430 actually has more horsepower than the F40 (483 vs. 471), a more responsive transmission than the F40, and fifteen more years of technology than the F40. Looking purely at the on-paper numbers, it's no surprise the F430 is comparable to or even slightly faster than the F40.

 

F40 for me anyday!!!

 

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Um6GCzKQudg

the f430 scud is so beautiful.

 

The problem w the F40 is not the power

its those god awful stock brakes that are just terrifying, I installed F50 brakes on mine & now the car actually stops

F430 also has an advantage in handling w newer shocks, stickier tires etc

 

So if the playing field were more balanced, say that both the Scuderia and the F40 had comparable tires and brakes, and both cars were at the track together on the same day....it would be a good fight. The F40 is incredible for a car made at least 15 years ago....we must keep that in mind when doing this comparison. A brand new car with the latest technology against a 15+ year old car with no electronic aids of any kind. I would give a weeks pay to see these two on the track slugging it out

 

It's amazing how it was made 15 years ago and only now theres a car that can compared only now..

 

Unveiled in 1987... actually 21 years ago.

 

with both cars as orginallyl configured, the scud will smoke the f40 on any track....too much technology, much better brakes, suspension, handling, traction devices, e diff, f1 tranny, etc etc, etc...............

 

This simply isn't accurate. Many cars made since the F40 have been able to compare to it and best it. Its 'fastest road car ever' title was almost immediately beaten upon its release, and by 1995 (just three years after the F40's cancellation) even Ferrari had beaten it both in top speed and track prowess, with its followup supercar, the F50.

The remarkable thing is not that a car now compares to the F40 after twenty years, but that such a relatively common car does so. To think that in 1987, this was all Enzo knew about making cars, and now the F430 provides similar performance in a 'base' Ferrari.

 

Not only in performance.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Agreed and even by just installing a simple boost controller the F40 would 'walk' the F430. IMO there is NO question that I would purchase an F40 before an F430, they are not in the same league as far as I'm concerned.

 

Its no big deal, but the hp of the stock U.S. spec F40 I think it is 478bhp.

 

Sorry for my ignorance, but what is UCP?

 

Yeah, I gotta ask as well, what is "UCP"?

 

Actually do a little research, the F40 is known to be VERY reliable.