Ferrari F-40 Specs

First, you should not be afraid of doing a search on this forum.

You can also look here: Ferrari NA Click on the 360 and a new window will open. Click on "past models" and select "1987 F40". You'll find most of the information you're looking for there.

Greg A

 

That's another site for my reference!! Thanks.

 

Its interesting that the FNA site lists its 0-60 as 4.5s.
That's some serious turbo-lag getting off the line;
especially considering they also list 11.7 in the 1/4.
(The 360 Modena is listed at 4.5s and 12.6s, respectively.)

Is 4.5s 0-60 correct for the F40?
I thought the number was more like 3.7s.
Or was that just the original marketing number?

 

I thought it was 3.7 too. I have also heard the F40 is a tad quicker than the F50 from 0-60 and in the 1/4 mile. Can anyone verify this?

 

The F40 is quicker in 1/4 miles and the F50 is faster from 0-60 mph.

 

From February, 1991 Car and Driver (and I've driven this exact car, and verified with data acq. too):

From Zero to (mph: sec.):
30 1.8
40 2.5
50 3.6
60 4.2
70 4.9
80 5.7
90 7.2
100 8.3
110 9.5
120 11.0
130 13.5
140 15.6
150 18.0
160 21.3
170 26.3
Top gear acceleration, 30-50 mph: 12.1 sec.
top gear acceleration, 50-70 mph: 12.2 sec.

Standing 1/4 mi: 12.1 sec @ 122 mph
Top speed, averaged two way: 197 mph
*Note that top speed one way was 202 and change, tested at Ft. Stockton, TX.

MSRP $399,150.00, including guzzler tax, plus $4150 freight.

Best regards,

Rob Schermerhorn


Ps, as a post story note on this car, it's now quite faster after I modded it over the years, and currently in Wayne Obrey's Motion Products shop in Neenah, WI.

 

VERY interesting... do you also have actual (measured) weight of that car??

 

Stop the presses!! This must be a typo! A moped isn't this slow.

Greg A

 

It is when turbo lag is involved

 

I cannot believe that turbo lag would cause the car to take the same amount of time to go from 30-50 that it does to go from 0-122.

And that it takes even longer to go from 50-70 than it does to go from 0-122.

Greg A

 

Those are in top gear... in the 1/4 mile it is never in top gear... or even in second highest gear. Those are measuring how long it takes to pass if you're too damned lazy to downshift.

 

Brian,

I understand how 1/4mi acceleration works and that the rolling speed measurements illustrate an engine's flexibility in a particular gear. I only compared the 1/4mi time to its 30-50 & 50-70 times in top gear b/c they are almost identical.

I am frankly quite surprised that the F40 is that slow in top gear. The Ruf 3400 Boxster (310hp & 262lbs.-ft.)will go from 50-75 in 7 sec. in 5th gear(it is a 6 speed). I know it isn't a direct comparison, but I am dumbfounded that the F40 would be 5 sec. slower in top gear than the Ruf car is in 5th. The F40 develops at least 168hp and 200+lbs-ft. more torque than the Ruf.

And yes, I know that the F40 has 2 turbos and it suffers from turbo lag and from this data it evidently has an extremely high fifth gear, but, given all of that, I am still dumbfounded by the lack of flexibility in 5th gear.

Now I wonder how the GTO in 5th compares to the F40 from 30-50 & 50-70. Does it have equally slow times?

The F40 is one of my favorite Ferraris, I never would've guessed it accelerated so poorly in 5th at those speeds. You truly do learn something new every day...

Greg A

 

Brian,

3016 lb. with a bit of fuel, no driver.

In 1998, during a major modification, I managed to remove just about 200 lb from this car, this included Lexan windscreen and side windows, as well as interior pieces and A/C.

As for top gear acceleration, yes, that's time spent off-boost and on. Off boost, it's probably only 200 HP and 200 ft-lb. Drive one, just get it rolling, no smokey burn-out. Then full-throttle...moderate acceleration at first, then.....BAM, head smacks the headrest when the power comes on at 3500 rpm. One learns in driving an F40, keep your head back before accelerating. (Nice heavily padded headrest, too.)

FWIW, take a look at top gear acceleration for a C5 Corvette, with it's super tall sixth gear, it's also slow as you're down below the torque plateau.


Rob

Ohh, and lateral acceleration: 1.01g on full tread PZeros.

 

Ahhh, that explains! That's waayyyy heavier than the marketing numbers for an F40. Is that peculiar to this F40? to all US F40's? or generally true of all F40's?

That's roughly the weight of a US model Challenge Stradale... which would explain why its performance numbers were so similar.

 

Since we are on that subject, here is the numbers on my LM, : 2635 lbs
Take care,
Player Roland
F40LM

 

I can't imagine even trying to accelerate from 50mph in 5th gear in an F40. Let alone from 30mph. At 50mph, that is less than 2000rpm. Even the owners manual states for best fuel economy not to shift into 5th gear until 58mph. I usually don't use 5th gear until about 70mph.

From what I have felt, I would guess the 50-150mph time would be less in 4th gear than the 50-70mph time in 5th.

2980lbs dry is about right for a US F40.

Rick

 

Thank you for all of the replies, guys. I will have to see if I can get a ride in my friend's F40 so I can experience it for myself.

Rob,

Is the F40 you modified still street legal w/a Lexan windscreen?

Thanks!

Greg A

 

Interestingly, I took my F40 with full fuel to be weighed. 1230kg without driver. That's 2711lbs. Certainly more than the marketed weight, but EXACTLY what my ferrari handbook said. I don't know where the rest of you guys are getting your figures!! This was a pre cat Euro car...maybe that's a difference? Yes...it was totally stock!

 

This one in particular is "streetable", but intended only for the track. No catalysts, c-c clutch, huge turbos, lower drop gear, no a/c, no headliner, Penske dampers, revised spring rates, dual element carbon wing, steering wheel tilted and extended, etc.

3000 lb is right for US F40's. Most of the weight difference is crash stucture both front and rear (black trim on rear between the bonnet and lower valence weights an astounding 35 lb!), plus knee bar, adjustable seats, belt mouse and side window glass. Note also that the Kevlar/carbon skin is heavy with thick gell coat too. Weight can be saved here. Ferrari learned alot between F40 and F50. The F50 and Enzo carbon work is absolutely gorgeous.

Rob

 

Yes, exactly.

 

In CAR magazine of july '88 they raced the 959 against the F40 at Fiorano, the track was wet from rain earlier that morning by the way. The F40 was quicker and faster than the 959. The 959 could hit 60 in 3.7 sec. and 125mph in 12.8, the F40 was just as fast to 60 but 12.0 seconds to hit 125mph, just .8 faster to 125mph. The F40 was faster at the Fiorano track, this doesn't say anything new but its a memory of when this two cars were the top supercars.

 

and the f40 was 7 seconds a lap faster too, from memory.