If the F40 was a n/a V12?

If the F40 was n/a V12, mainly it was not fast as it is. Turbocharged cars deliver the power in a different way. It is a question of torque.

I definitely dynoed my F40 this week. The result was 534 hp estimated at flywheel. My car is just fitted with Tubi exhaust. I was running with our Ron 95 gas, not the best for these engines.

 

- in 80's Formula1 was turbo...
- Ferrari wanted tons of hp but also lightweight
... f40-turbocharged was the only way...

 

Furthermore, I believe it has to do with packaging and weight... The 2.9 liter V8 is rather compact and lighter than a V12... So it makes more sense for a race-car like the F40 to use a turbo V8... If you remember Ferrari switched in F1 to V10 from V12 because V12 were heavy and had a higher fuel consumption...

 

The V12s were more powerful though and had an advantage at faster tracks.

A V12 F40? We have the F50 for that, a better car all in all.

 

BMW Tuning | Simpson Motorsport | Ferrari F40 V12

 

nice

 

The f50 is a better car (as long as your tub is sound), and is also valued higher.

The mass appeal of the f40 is due to its appearance which is far more aggressive. Engine, driving tractability, fuel consumption, sound etc don't make any difference when the looks are added in the mix.

 

This is because it was faster in Fiorano by 2 secs? Right?

 

No.
The F50 is "better" because it actually has brakes that work, has a flawless driving position, an excellent easy-to-use and satisfying gearbox, outstanding damping and body control, a totally bespoke engine found in the 333SP evolved from the 1990 F1 V12, superior build quality, an unbelievably uncompromised chassis layout which allows the driver to feel every movement and sensation of the driving experience (carbon tub, engine stressed member, rose jointed suspension) and probably, once fitted with obligatory sports exhaust, the very best engine/exhaust note that a road car has ever produced...
The fact that it's rarer, you can have an "open" configuration and that it's more bespoke (the F40 was an evolution of the 288, the F50 was an evolution of nothing really - certainly not the F40) make the F50 a different class.


It's better at almost everything (except perhaps straight line performance). Literally. It is THE drivers Ferrari and it's the best limited edition Ferrari they've ever made.
And even if it was 5 seconds slower a lap than an F40, I wouldn't care.

Just my 2cents.

 

The F40 is what it is because it came out in 1987 and was such a slap in the face in terms of performance and speed that people worshiped it for that alone. We are now used to fast cars. You can buy 4x4 that will accelerate as fast an F40 nowadays. But back then, the avg 0-60 was probably in the 10s where the F40 did it in 3.8. Nothing from regular manufacturers could touch it.

So if it had a v12 but offered the same speed and perf #, im sure it would have been as loved as it is now.

 

Because it actually goes and brakes when you want it to and doesn under/over-steer at will. Because it sounds gorgeous and lag isn't part of its vocabubulary. Because it is a newer and better car. As is the Enzo to the F50 and the LaFerrari to the Enzo.

 

Perfect summation. The F40 I adore, but The Dark Lord beautifully explains why the F50 is extremely special.

 

When driving F50 I immediately denote the engine that was only engaging in sound. A great sound but nothing else. I agree the fact that it is a more refined car as you said, chassis, brakes, suspensions and so on but during a driving experience the "heart" is very important and the feel of boost in the F40 with butterflies in the stomach repays you by a big part of its old failings. The F50 is not SO intoxicating during full accelerations, and not just about straight line numbers. With a n/a F40 no doubts, the F50 should be claimed as "better".

If the engine does not count anything but only steering wheel and gentle character, the Porsche 935 for this reason it would be one the most wrong racing car ever made based on a old back engine 911, is it? it is one of the most terrifying and engaging engine experience you can have in your life. Just to give you an idea, the engine remain the heart of a car.

 

The F50's engine is 5K and above. That's the beauty of it.

 

It's not the same thing..... every newer of these cars has all better characteristis than the previous, accelerations, top speed, handling and brakes. The early F40 was almost quick as the Enzo in straight line full acceleration. So till 2002. Still a point of reference when the F50 was around. Tell me wich other Ferrari was a reference in performance for more than 15 years before and later the F40's period of production? I'm not talking about nuts but years of development. Wich other previous Ferrari was showily quicker than the following one? Was mabe the 275 GTB quicker than the Daytona? Was maybe the 512BB quicker than the Testarossa? Or maybe the Enzo with LaFerrari? Nope, no one (Just a suspect with Daytona and early BBs). Then, was that never happened to a Lamborghini or a Porsche? Never (maybe the Diablo GT vs the early Murcielago but the 911GT1 was matched by the Carrera GT).

About point of reference, remember that over all the merits of handling performance that the F50 has, thanks to the push roads, the carbon tub etc, it was immediately outdate when the Enzo was developed just 7 years later. Not opinion, these are facts of history.

 

Lag is fun on the F40.

 

And 2 very valuable cents they are. You have perfectly summed up what's special about the F50. Add to that, the F50 is four times as rare as an F40.

 

At high RPM with the roof off, its a singularly unique automotive experience!

That alone ought to give F40 LeMans the butterflies in the stomach & intoxicating experience he is searching for

 

Dear MaxMcQueen,

I have noticed something which troubles me slightly.

I am somewhat perplexed and rather intrigued by the fact that not only do you have EXACTLY the same topic interests as F40 LeMans, you post in EXACTLY the same threads as he does, right on cue with uncanny timing as soon as he makes a post, as if to underscore every point he makes. And sometimes vice versa

It pains me to ask, but my curiosity has gotten the better of me so I must beg the question, are you his PR maven, good friends, close cousins, or in fact the same person??

Say it ain't so!

 

I thought it was learned. We are good friends. I'm often with him in his showroom or togheter him for friendship.

 

Actually the Enzo is vastly quicker, to the tune of approximately 70 metres at the standing kilometre (average difference of 0.8 s at a speed in excess of 280 kph): Ferrari F40 vs Ferrari Enzo [5061008]

The Enzo also remained the pinnacle of Ferrari's performance (at least in a straight line) for ten years. Rest assured that the LaFerrari will do the same, till its own replacement is unveiled!

The F50 may not have been quicker than the F40 in a straight line, but it was the more advanced car and is surely quicker around a circuit. It is also the nobler solution to the power question. Any tuner can turbocharge an engine and produce vast amounts of power. How many engine makers can produce a big sonorous 8500 RPM V12?

Finally, my original thesis was that the F50 was the superior driver's car, not neccessarily the faster of the two.

 

Actually, you are the first to know that conclusion take just for convenience.

 

I am not sure what this is supposed to mean...