Slow F430 in the new C&D.
07-10-2005, 07:52 PM
#12
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: las vegas
Posts: 3,361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by MDXLuvr,Jul 10 2005, 03:10 PM
Measured curb weight, no driver
4,480lbs - SL65 AMG
Your thoughts?
WTF!!!!
dude, thats almost as much as a WWII tank weighs. youve got to be kidding me. dude, i thought audi took the cake, with its triple walled construction, weighing well into the 2 ton range for some of its wannabe fast cars. but this is rediculous.
my .02
07-10-2005, 09:23 PM
#13
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: www
Posts: 1,376
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It doesn't make any difference. The vast majority of F-car owners care not a whit about the actual performance capabilities, mostly the exhaust note and exterior design. The sacred technology of low-end Ferrari engines and chassis design is, when you get down to it, nothing special. An absurdly gas-guzzling flat plane crankshaft engine, Tubi exhaust, and the name. And it's not so crazy that people would pay so much extra for those things, just that they are really in denial about it...
Still we're talking about fractions of a second in most of those times, well within the margin of error between professional human drivers at varying times and at varying levels of skill. I mean the cars could have all been tested on the same day by the same group of drivers, but I'm sure that fatigue, tire wear, and track temperature could account for some of the differences. Even if the numbers show that the GT is probably faster on average, it's quite absurd to call any modern Ferrari 'slow'.
Still we're talking about fractions of a second in most of those times, well within the margin of error between professional human drivers at varying times and at varying levels of skill. I mean the cars could have all been tested on the same day by the same group of drivers, but I'm sure that fatigue, tire wear, and track temperature could account for some of the differences. Even if the numbers show that the GT is probably faster on average, it's quite absurd to call any modern Ferrari 'slow'.
07-10-2005, 10:28 PM
#14
Registered User
What sucks is that they mentioned that US bound F430's won't have launch control. Apparently the Italians think americans are too dumb to use or something. In a land where 0-60, & 1/4 mile times are far more important than top speed this would be one of the more important features I figure they would definitely want to put on here.
As for people wondering why the Ford GT finished behind the Gallardo & Ferrari because they judged the cars more than just raw speed. In seeing the Ford GT at the autoshow, I was underwhelmed. Souped up Ford. Interior is cheesy, exterior is nice, but they still skimped (typical Ford). On a $150,000 car the rims looked cheap & they didn't even have stainless stell exhaust (looked like a Mustang exhaust). Before anybody accuses me of being anti-american I saw the C6 Z06 at that same show & it impressed me far more than the Ford GT. If you look at the scoring, if the Porsche Turbo S had come in as a coupe it probably would have beaten the Ford GT for 3rd place (weight would have taken off 200 lbs., and handling would have been better).
As for people wondering why the Ford GT finished behind the Gallardo & Ferrari because they judged the cars more than just raw speed. In seeing the Ford GT at the autoshow, I was underwhelmed. Souped up Ford. Interior is cheesy, exterior is nice, but they still skimped (typical Ford). On a $150,000 car the rims looked cheap & they didn't even have stainless stell exhaust (looked like a Mustang exhaust). Before anybody accuses me of being anti-american I saw the C6 Z06 at that same show & it impressed me far more than the Ford GT. If you look at the scoring, if the Porsche Turbo S had come in as a coupe it probably would have beaten the Ford GT for 3rd place (weight would have taken off 200 lbs., and handling would have been better).
07-10-2005, 11:37 PM
#16
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Madison, WI
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was mentioned the Lamborghini did not really do any test runs due to clutch failure. They just used figures from the past.
Looking at how they all trap over 116, they should be 11 sec cars. April 05 Automobile magazine got a 11.85 at some drag strip with SL65. January Road & Track got F430 to do 0-60 in 3.5 sec, 1/4 in 11.7sec. I think CAR magazine also pulled off a 3.5 0-60. Both magazines using paddle shifters just like they did in C&D. The F430 R&T used did have sports seats and carbon-ceramic brakes for some weight reduction though.
It seems like Ferrari overrates their V8 models' top speed figures. I remember reading in a magazine that a 360 was redline limited @ 173mph. Someone also posted a thread about how some german businessman was trying to sue Ferrari for his CS not reaching the claimed top speed.
If I had the money, I would take the F430 over the rest too. Top speed won't matter unless I live in Germany and I prefer the sound and the looks of the F430, even with stripes and the rest of the vinyls removed from the GT. I don't care if GT is a little faster in straight and on track. It's not like I'm a racer or anything. However if it is GT40, it would be a different story...
I don't think they planned on using the Turbo S Cabrio at first place, it was just offered by the dealer which they took. They should have used a GT2.
Did they really make such comment about the GT's rims? They are BBS just like F430's, though F430 uses CH and GT uses RK I think. The stock 6 spoke rims do look cheap but the RK look so sexy on the GT.
Looking at how they all trap over 116, they should be 11 sec cars. April 05 Automobile magazine got a 11.85 at some drag strip with SL65. January Road & Track got F430 to do 0-60 in 3.5 sec, 1/4 in 11.7sec. I think CAR magazine also pulled off a 3.5 0-60. Both magazines using paddle shifters just like they did in C&D. The F430 R&T used did have sports seats and carbon-ceramic brakes for some weight reduction though.
It seems like Ferrari overrates their V8 models' top speed figures. I remember reading in a magazine that a 360 was redline limited @ 173mph. Someone also posted a thread about how some german businessman was trying to sue Ferrari for his CS not reaching the claimed top speed.
If I had the money, I would take the F430 over the rest too. Top speed won't matter unless I live in Germany and I prefer the sound and the looks of the F430, even with stripes and the rest of the vinyls removed from the GT. I don't care if GT is a little faster in straight and on track. It's not like I'm a racer or anything. However if it is GT40, it would be a different story...
I don't think they planned on using the Turbo S Cabrio at first place, it was just offered by the dealer which they took. They should have used a GT2.
Did they really make such comment about the GT's rims? They are BBS just like F430's, though F430 uses CH and GT uses RK I think. The stock 6 spoke rims do look cheap but the RK look so sexy on the GT.
07-11-2005, 05:17 AM
#18
3380 lbs for the F430? Man, they're getting pretty heavy. What happened to near-3000 lb sports cars? Ugh.
07-11-2005, 05:56 AM
#19
Originally Posted by S2020,Jul 10 2005, 09:03 PM
b/c "the feel" of the car is more important than the actual performance......
I'd take my money elsewhere, if I had any. 