Ferrari Compros, For Ken Henderson

Ken, feast your eyes on this:

 

Doubtful performance figures, again.

In January 2005, Road & Track magazine tested a F430 at Fiorano, Ferrari's home test track. It recorded some astonishing figures: 0-60 mph took 3.5 seconds, 0-100 mph took 8.1 seconds. That's 0.45 sec and 1.1 sec respectively quicker than the official claim. That arouse my suspicion immediately. You know, Ferrari's figures are usually optimistic rather than conservative, unlike Porsche. It is hardly believable after countless of tests Ferrari still quoted figures slower than the car's actual ability, especially on a test track Ferrari know so well. Moreover, from the power-to-weight ratio, it should not be that quick.    

In the same month, Car And Driver also tested the F430 at Fiorano. The figures are even slightly faster - 3.5 seconds and 7.9 seconds respectively. Car And Driver said their test car was not the same one as that tested by a "rival magazine" but the result was similar. It also revealed that both magazines tested the car at Fiorano's slightly downhill straight runway and not allowed to go in reverse direction. This may account for a few tenths for 0-100 mph, but cannot explain the big difference from the official figures.  

 

This is not the first time Ferrari's performance figures are under doubt. I remember Autocar once recorded a 360 Modena taking only 8.8 seconds to 100 mph, while other magazines found more than 10 seconds. The British magazine therefore suspected Ferrari provided a specially prepared test car. It might be chipped to squeeze out more power than the production car. It might not comply with emission and noise regulations.    

 

Now both C&D and R&T's tests were conducted in Fiorano on a car supplied by Ferrari's PR men and closely monitored by them, the suspicion is even stronger. The truth won't be revealed until magazines test a F430 picked directly from a dealer or an owner.

 

Allan,

 

The only doubt about the C/D and R & T tests of the F430 exists in your mind. While I'm sure there are others on this board that share your opinion about bogus Ferrari claims and ringer cars, that is not the case in the automotive industry as a whole. Through the mid 80s every Italian manufacturer had made outrageous performance and weight claims. That is not the case anymore, and one only has to look at the Ford SVT Cobra debacle a few years back, and the resulting black eye incurred by Ford, to see how counterproductive deceptive practices in these areas would be, especially in a car costing almost six times as much as the Mustang Cobra SVT.

 

Way back when, C/D tested a 380 hp Ferrari Testarossa and went 181 mph. This terminal velocity of 181 mph was exactly matched by Evo in its test of another car. A later test by Evo of the 512 TR had it going 0-60 in 4.8 on its way to a top speed of 195 mph. I mention this because you continue to impugn Ferrari's reputation with the performance of its cars, all the while offering only uninformed opinion and conjecture to support your position.

 

I went to my stack of various magazines to see what different testers in different cars in different parts of the world produced as test results in various F-Cars. You be the judge as to whether you think the results are bogus. As you know, in the back of every Evo magazine is a section called "The Knowledge" which is a compilation of various road tests by the magazine over the years. The numbers below are from the 11/03 edition. I am sure more recent numbers are available:

 

Evo Magazine--11/03

Enzo: 0-60 in 3.4; 0-100 in 6.6; top speed of 217 mph

575M Fiorano: 0-60 in 4.2; 0-100 in 9.6; top speed of 202 mph

 

 

Motor Trend--11/00

360 Modena: 0-60 in 3.92; 0-100-0 (1st place); [email protected] 1/4 mile

 

C/D--11/01

550 Maranello: 0-60 in 4.2; 0-100 in 9.8; 0-150 in 23.5; 12.7@115 in 1/4 mile

 

C/D--1/04

360 CS: 0-60 in 4.0; 0-100 in 9.5; 0-150 in 23.9; 12.4@ 115 in 1/4 mile; top speed of 176 mph (gear limited due to 4.44:1 final drive)

 

Top Gear--5/03

360 Modena: 0-60 in 4.8; 0-100 in 11.3; 12.3@108 in 1/4 mile. FWIW, this car was tested against a 6.0L V12 Aston DB7 GT which only went 0-60 in 5.4, one of the slower times recorded for this car as well.

 

R & T--11/03

Enzo: 0-100-0 in 11.7 (fastest time ever); 0-100 in 6.9; 100-0 in 275 feet

Murci: 0-100-0 in 14.2; 0-100 in 9.1

 

Motor Trend--8/04

Gallardo: 0-60 in 4.3; 0-100 in 9.6; 12.5@ 116.7 in 1/4 mile

 

R & T Sports & GT Cars 2004

Enzo: 0-60 in 3.3; 0-100 in 6.6; [email protected] in 1/4 mile

 

The above numbers are offered to show the general consistency of test results of various F-Cars by various magazines in varied conditions on different surfaces. With all of these variables, and I won't get into the differences involving testing protocols, I find the consistency quite remarkable. I doubt the Enzos tested above are any slower than one of the first Enzos tested that went 10.8@136 in the quarter, but I'm guessing the 10.8 Enzo was completely broken in and had lots of miles on it compared to others.

 

A few points in conclusion: Ferrari's acceleration claims, as with many European manufacturers is 0-100 kph or 62 mph while American magazines perform the 0-60 test, making for quicker times as a general rule. Ferrari's claimed top speed for the Enzo is 218 mph. Motor Trend tested a privately owned Enzo and went 211 mph. Evo went 217.5 and Top Gear went 221 mph. My guess is the more miles you put on these motors (same with Lambo), the better they run and the faster they go.

 

If a 360 Modena can go as quick as 3.92 in 0-60 with 275 lb-ft, certainly it would seem reasonable that a 430 with 68 lb-ft or more peak torque and a much flatter torque curve can go mid 3s in 0-60 tests. I mention torque because it is far more of a determining factor than horsepower in 0-60 contests. This is why the performance differential between the Modena and the Challenge Stradale is statistically negligible in 0-60 contests (they both have the same peak torque rating but the Modena has a flatter curve). 0-100 and 0-150 are another story altogether because the extra power of the CS does not make its presence known until higher in the power band. Also, note that the a 360 CS (noted above) is only 4/10s of a second slower to 150 mph than a 550 Maranello, 23.9 versus 23.5 for the Maranello, making the point about where the CS's extra power shows up even better.

 

I apologize to the thread starter for jacking this thread. I just felt I had to respond because, regardless of the topic, the replies are replete with statements about how Lambo performance figures are the TRUTH and those of the F-Car are always questionable (even though I started the discussion in this thread). As a Lambo guy, Ferrari's excellence hurts even more because I thought the awd drivetrains of the Murci and Gallardo would more than even the score in acceleration tests. Instead, in the case of the Murci, its numbers are generally inferior to its immediate predecessor, the Diablo 6.0. I'm out.

Ken, next time you decide to write a story, please check your sources before looking foolish. I dont have time to go through your entire post right now, but ill start at the top with EVO. I probobly have a collection of more than 5000 automotive magazines, so this can be fun.

 

Lets start with EVO. Read this section carefully.

 

Hmmm, for some reason cant upload pics? So ill spell it out for you. Take out your EVO magazine, and flip to the beggining of KNOWLEDGE. This is what it says WORD FOR WORD " 0-60 and 0-100 figures in BOLD are independently recorded, ALL OTHER PERFORMANCE FIGURES ARE MANUFACTURER"S CLAIMS" NOw flip your EVO magazine, to the SUPERCARS section, and look at FERRARI. NOtice that not one of the tests is in BOLD. ALL MANUFACTURER DATA. Scroll down and you will see the DIablo GT in BOLD. I have that test, they testes it in the rain, ill scan for you if youd like.

 

So now, please delete the first half of your story. Ill be back in a few to deal with the rest.

Ken, next time you decide to write a story, please check your sources before looking foolish. I dont have time to go through your entire post right now, but ill start at the top with EVO. I probobly have a collection of more than 5000 automotive magazines, so this can be fun.  

 

Lets start with EVO. Read this section carefully.

 

Hmmm, for some reason cant upload pics? So ill spell it out for you. Take out your EVO magazine, and flip to the beggining of KNOWLEDGE. This is what it says WORD FOR WORD " 0-60 and 0-100 figures in BOLD are independently recorded, ALL OTHER PERFORMANCE FIGURES ARE MANUFACTURER"S CLAIMS"  NOw flip your EVO magazine, to the SUPERCARS section, and look at FERRARI. NOtice that not one of the tests is in BOLD. ALL MANUFACTURER DATA. Scroll down and you will see the DIablo GT in BOLD. I have that test, they testes it in the rain, ill scan for you if youd like.  

 

So now, please delete the first half of your story. Ill be back in a few to deal with the rest.

 

No problem, Allan. I can do that. Too many magazines and not enought time to keep track. For the record, though, the numbers for the Enzo and 575M Fiorano are in bold. I'm sure you also noted the situation is similar for the Lambos tested and the one independent test is for Diablo GT. I can assure you, though, the rest are actual tests conducted by the magazines in question. I did not include any manufacturer's claims for those. Thanks for the heads-up.

I split the topic so as not to further hijack that thread. Havent had much time to go through my stuff, but heres a few tidbits i did find.

 

Since you seem to think that the we sway votes towards Lambos way, i will show you each and every test compro i have between the 2. I will also show you how Ferrari sways its automotive tests.

 

First and foremost, ask yourself why, as an F40,F50 or Enzo owner, you were stricktly forbidden to lend your car for ANY Nurburgring or Hockenheim tests. These seem to be the choosen EUROPEEN way of evaluating a cars performance. If you look at these, numbers you will notice that the Gallardo on regular tires, beat the 360CS on race compound tires by 4 seconds on the Nurburgring, and beat it on Hockenheim, by if i recall 2-3 seconds.

 

Anyways, more of that later.

 

First, you are correct. The 575 and Enzo are both in bold. I had picked up an earlier copy of EVo which did not include these cars. However, if you see the latest issue of EVo they test the 575 Fiorano, against the Murci, and the Vantage. Yes, they choose the Lambo.

 

Lets start with the Enzo. If you recall, way back when, the Enzo caused the same controversy as the 430. Ferrari would not allow the car to be tested by anyone, but themselves, again on Fiorano, which goes downhill.

So lets start by reffering to TOP Gear, magazine, June of 2003. According to the article, TOP GEAR was the first to be able to go officialy test the ENzo. By officialy test, Ferrari means, test on Fiorano, where again, it states that on the straight where testing is allowed, it is particularly short, allowing a top speed in the Enzo of only 124mph. Please relate this info with my other info pertaining to the 430, where i said the 430 cannot record 1/4 mile numbers on this straight, as it is not long enough. I think youll agree with me, that since in this test, the Enzo took 10.3 sec to hit 120mph, and the 430 should run about 12 sec at 120 something mph, there is obviously not enough room to do a 1/4 mile run. Anyways, back to the Enzo. In order to test the Enzo, they were not allowed to drive it. Only Mr Dario Benuzzi, chief Ferrari test driver could do so. Ferrari also provides ITS own test equipment, but did allow Top Gear to use its own also. Upon getting to the test, they were supposed to go out in a Red car, which supposedly Dario had just clicked off a 3.5 sec 0-60 run, along with 0-100 in 6.7 seconds. Well, unfortunatley this Enzo broke. They brought out another, yellow Enzo. Thsi article goes very indepth as to how methodical they are with exact tire presure, warming up the tires etc. Anyways, heres thelong and short.

Dario in yellow Enzo.

1st run 0-60=4.79

2nd run 0-60=4.66

3rd run 0-60=4.02

4th run 0-60=4.26

The author notes that in his opinion the launch in the 4.02 second run was about as good as it gets. Now lets see differences in testing equipment.

 

Ferraris testing equipment shows: Top Gear test Equipment

0-60=3.4 sec 4.02

0-110=7.9 9.6 sec

0-120=9.1 10.3

30-70 through the gears = 2.4 sec 2.8 sec

 

Little descrepancy wouldnt you say? Also, who do you think would be able to get the best numbers out of a car, a journalist, or the Chief Factory test driver with thousands of miles behind the wheel of the Enzo? In the picture, you can also clearly see the straightway goes downhill.

 

Best part about that article is when you turn the page, it has a page that includes a short article on the Murcielago, in which it says that on their First 0-60mph run in a Murcielago, they recorded a 0-60 time of 3.6 sec, making them suspect something was wrong with their test equipment. Then it says, " Fortunately there wasnt"

Next magazines i found. Lets title this, Ferrari performance goes in reverse.

Motor Trend-Nov 2000.

Top Speed shootout This is the article you are reffering to with 0-60 in 3.92 sec 0-60 time, and 12.25@ 113. Now i dont know if youve ever driven a 360 as i have, but i can tell you this, the ONLY way a 360 will under 4 sec to 60 is if you threw it off a cliff. The car ran 0-mile=32.6 sec @ 152.55 mph

 

Now lets compare this to Motor Trend May 1998 Top speed Shootout with Ferrari's 355. This car happened to run 0-mile in 32.6 sec, but at 154.1 mph. The 355 was also faster through the slalom. Btw, my other brand Loyalty, Lotus Esprit, was faster than both the 355 and 360, registering [email protected].

 

Now i just sold a 355. One with several mods, that couldnt beat a stock Plastic mess-06, while in this test, the 355 was faster than a Plastic mess-06.

Motor Trend June 2003

Top Speed shootout

 

Murcielago

0-60=3.51

0-100=8.41

1/[email protected]

0-100-0=12.71

0-mile [email protected]

 

Ferrari 575 Maranello

0-60-4.16

0-100-9.56

1/4=12.26@118

0-100-0 13.94

[email protected]

 

Top Speed, track limited Murci=193mph, 575=182mph.

Top Gear March 1999

Diablo Sv vs Ferrari 550

Slowest test ever of both cars inmo.

Ill just show 0-150.

 

Ferrari

0-150 mph=26.0 sec, Diablo 23.4sec. They choose the Diablo.

Road and Track Worlds Fastest cars August 1998

Ferrari 550 records 193.4 mph, 6mph slower than the 199 the factory claimed.

Road and Track, Sports and Gt cars

Ferrari Testarossa

0-60=5.3

0-100=11.9

1/4 13.3@107

 

Lambo Countach

0-60=4.7

0-100=10.8

1/4 =12.9@110

Evo magazine August 2000

Diablo vs 360vs550vs Zondac12(not c12S)vs 911Turbo vs Viper Gts

 

Diablo Choosen over all, narrowly over the c12S.

Autocar May 29th 1985

 

CounTach vs the Opposition

 

Lambo

0-60=4.9

0-100mph=10.6

0-150=25.1

0-170=44.7

1/4 13.0@113

 

Testarossa, Hit 180mph, but Countach obliterated it all the way to 178mph, starting by hitting 60 1 sec sooner.

Evo Car of the Year 2000

#1 911 Turbo

#2 Lambo Diablo

 

#8 Ferrari 360.

Few video's

 

Lamborghini Murcielago vs. Lamborghini Gallardo vs. Porsche 911 vs. Honda NSX-R vs. BMW M3 CSL vs. Ferrari 360 Modena on the Montegi racetrack.

 

http://www.norcalevo.net/video/motegibattle.wmv

 

 

Ferrari F50, Porsche GT2, Lamborghini Murcielago, Honda NSX-R, Gemballa GT500 and Porsche 911 Carerra shootout.

 

http://www.rsportscars.com/Acentral/video/...erCar_Race.mpeg

Insert pin drop noise "ding"

Allan you're obviously selecting magazine articles which favor lamborghinis. Choose 10 completely random articles which include both cars and I can certainly think of Ferrari's upper echelon of cars obliterating their tractor counterparts. Lamborghini had nothing in its 1987 stable to compete with the F40, it had nothing to compete with the F50 in 1995 (Don't bother claiming the 1995 VT or SE30 was remotely comparable), and in 2003 the Enzo demonstrated that Ferrari is techinically superior WHEN IT WANTS TO BE. I consider the mortal cars, ie 360 and 575M underperforming relative to their lamborghini counterparts only because they are completely outdated at this time.

 

The 550 was a GT not comparable to a mid engined Diablo moreso to the Aston Martin Crowd. The 360 had virtually no competition in 1999 in its price range other than a 911 Turbo which offered similar performance. The 430 is the first car which Ferrari has faced major competition in its V8 model lineup. Its not unlikely that if Ferrari invested the effort that the Gallardo counterpart will be the marginally worse performer.

MIT, first, please pull ones head out of ones ass. Next, please produce that proof of ownership you so adamently insisted on being able to provide for your factory five cobra.

 

I didnt selct anymagazine, i went through a stack of magazines, and presented what ever info was available in them. Thats why some of the magazines didnt even have any Lambo content in them. In the next few days i will provide more info. Your response here has given you your final seal of Official Idiot of L-power.

 

Where in any of this, did the F40, Enzo or F50 come into play? In 1987 did Lambo have anything to compete with the F40? No. They also didnt try to. The F40 was a limited production car, not worthy of street use, costing several times the price of a Countach. Ferraris answer to the Countach, its DIRECT competitor is the TR. 9-10 magazines picked the Countach to be superior to the TR. I myself owned BOTH. When the Diablo was introduced, its direct competitor was the 512TR, which was again owned by Lamborghini. Performance is night and day. Ferraris direct replacement for the TR was the 550. Ferraris answer the Diablo. The DIablo yet again smoked that, in every shape and form. In todays world, you can take a 1991 Diablo and outperform a 2004 575.

 

Having driven an F40, and an F50, i can tell you that if you honestly think that either of those fcars would outperform a good Diablo in accleration, you are mistaken. On a race track, maybe so, but since these are street cars.....

 

Lastly, having a conversation with Ken, has merit, as he is obviously a well educated and EXPERIENCED person. Having a conversation with a punk ass bitch that thinks going to MIT is something special, that plays with hot wheels cars, and think he knows everything is boring. Now, stfu.

Wow! Ding,ding no need for the eight count, lol. Shows over.

 

edit, Props for the kind words on Ken, he is a one of the greats in the Supra world. With over a decade on the Supra alone.

Allan you're obviously selecting magazine articles which favor lamborghinis.

 

Id like to know what magazine articles favor lamborghini. Everytime i read something like Car&Driver they always mention something horrible about lamborghini. but yet they offten give serious Kudos to cars like POS and the Saleen S7. Personaly i think they are Biaist towards Lamborghini.

This thread has much potential ! jry :tyson

Wow..2 forum Guru's going at it!! I love it!

Predictable allan response. Arguments go as follows:

1) Lamborghini's are the fastest cars because

A) I owned everything and have driven everything and it felt the fastest

Ferrari never produces a car which performs as well as in magazines

C) The really FAST Ferrari's aren't competitive

2) You don't know anything because

A) You don't own a Lamborghini

You've never driven one

C) You don't make as much money as I do

3) Resort to assclowning

A) You're not a forum 'guru'

You can't afford anything

C) My forum buddies back me up

 

Please, at least try a refreshing argument. The 56 month financing, the please produce results, prove it responses, all utterly predictable. I have yet to see your 70bhp claims from Lambo air filters and exhaust too.

Here's the title I 'never' had.

Chris=Gerald=Daddys car.

Allan=predictable