Quattroruote Club 4 Secondi 2011: this will be a fight !!!

[Mr.Ree]

even so, every preproductions-units seems different.
this units seems ok. no mention about "what's wrong"

A bad workman blames his tools.

 

[DeDe]

... I don't know
p.s.
does it visible for all, or just logged?

Don't know. GT2 and GT2 RS also works with LC.

 

[Guibo]

@ Guibo
what does the F50? just unleashing yet another brawl.
I saw a lot of testing of C & D with low top-speeds
however, "just" 194mph prove manipulations? perfect: GT-R MY09... "just" 191mph (307 Kph)

Right, but was that a press GT-R? We have already seen C&D get a Nissan-supplied press GT-R that was slower than M3s in a straight line.

With regard to the F50, 3 points:
1) Just about every F50 owner that C&D contacted, who agreed initially to submit their car for testing, later either
-- refused to return calls to C&D, or
-- said "Ferrari does not think it is a good idea"
(ie, strong evidence of Ferrari manipulation of media of result via processes and not just vehicles, long before Chris Harris)
2) The one "stock" customer car they could find to test happened to be able to run 140 rpm past redline
3) Despite going 140 rpm past max engine speed, this customer F50 was still 8 mph down on what what the factory F50 can do.

The important thing here is not so much the rpm vs speed differential between customer and factory cars, though that itself is an interesting aspect. The point is that the only "stock" customer F50 that C&D was able to test "just happen" to reach further into the red zone. C&D said, to the effect, that this is not normally permissable in their testing standard, but since it was a customer car they were willing to overlook it. And if I'm not mistaken, the Scuderia that was tested against the ZR1 in French Sport Auto was also a customer car.
Not trying to start a brawl. You guys opened it up with "media manipulations." If my facts are wrong, show me how. And if you want to talk about GT-R, notice that Evo, Drivers Republic, and Car magazine have all tested customer GT-Rs with no interference or threat of withholding test cars by Nissan. Drivers Republic even noted the customer GT-R they drove felt faster than the car Nissan provided for testing. Randy Pobst said the same thing when he subsequently tested a customer's GT-R after driving Nissan's press GT-R in Motor Trend.

 

[Mafalda]

Right, but was that a press GT-R? We have already seen C&D get a Nissan-supplied press GT-R that was slower than M3s in a straight line.

With regard to the F50, 3 points:
1) Just about every F50 owner that C&D contacted, who agreed initially to submit their car for testing, later either
-- refused to return calls to C&D, or
-- said "Ferrari does not think it is a good idea"
(ie, strong evidence of Ferrari manipulation of media of result via processes and not just vehicles, long before Chris Harris)
2) The one "stock" customer car they could find to test happened to be able to run 140 rpm past redline
3) Despite going 140 rpm past max engine speed, this customer F50 was still 8 mph down on what what the factory F50 can do.

The important thing here is not so much the rpm vs speed differential between customer and factory cars, though that itself is an interesting aspect. The point is that the only "stock" customer F50 that C&D was able to test "just happen" to reach further into the red zone. C&D said, to the effect, that this is not normally permissable in their testing standard, but since it was a customer car they were willing to overlook it. And if I'm not mistaken, the Scuderia that was tested against the ZR1 in French Sport Auto was also a customer car.
Not trying to start a brawl. You guys opened it up with "media manipulations." If my facts are wrong, show me how. And if you want to talk about GT-R, notice that Evo, Drivers Republic, and Car magazine have all tested customer GT-Rs with no interference or threat of withholding test cars by Nissan. Drivers Republic even noted the customer GT-R they drove felt faster than the car Nissan provided for testing. Randy Pobst said the same thing when he subsequently tested a customer's GT-R after driving Nissan's press GT-R in Motor Trend.

F50:
the 310 Kph are just one of the many strangeness of C&D about top speed​​
GTR: 307 Kph
Gallardo SL 530ps: 305 Kph
Murci 580ps: 330 Kph... in 5th and 6th too!
I'd countinue...
if the F50 really were limited to 310Kph, the internet would be full of videos about F50s blocked by the limiter, and many customers have filed a lawsuit against Ferrari....
p.s.
QR tested tested the F50 @ 326.5 Kph @ 8,450rpm

refuse:
deny the car involves manipulation?
ok: Auto required, the ZR1 more than a year ago, first promised and then denied : manipulation?
6 years ago, MB, Pagani, Saleen first promised and then denied their supercar about "Club 4s 2005" (Enzo, CGT and Murci e-gear). Scared about manipulations?
how many official-tests there are about:
CLK GTR
Reventon
GT1
959
Zondas
Bugatti
....all manipulations?
about McLaren F1? just one, 386 Kph, because the lim rev was removed. Can a customer-F1 go to 386 Kph? no, for sure.
Autocar's F1-supertest was a manipulation? Y/N

concluding, you're doing just demagogy, you are ever more desperate
bye

 

[Guibo]

F50:
the 310 Kph are just one of the many strangeness of C&D about top speed​​
GTR: 307 Kph
Gallardo SL 530ps: 305 Kph
Murci 580ps: 330 Kph... in 5th and 6th too!
I'd countinue...
if the F50 really were limited to 310Kph, the internet would be full of videos about F50s blocked by the limiter, and many customers have filed a lawsuit against Ferrari....
p.s.
QR tested tested the F50 @ 326.5 Kph @ 8,450rpm

refuse:
deny the car involves manipulation?
ok: Auto required, the ZR1 more than a year ago, first promised and then denied : manipulation?
6 years ago, MB, Pagani, Saleen first promised and then denied their supercar about "Club 4s 2005" (Enzo, CGT and Murci e-gear). Scared about manipulations?
how many official-tests there are about:
CLK GTR
Reventon
GT1
959
Zondas
Bugatti
....all manipulations?
about McLaren F1? just one, 386 Kph, because the lim rev was removed. Can a customer-F1 go to 386 Kph? no, for sure.
Autocar's F1-supertest was a manipulation? Y/N

concluding, you're doing just demagogy, you are ever more desperate
bye

Was that QR-tested F50 a customer car or the factory's? We would have to know more about engine rpm in those other cars to claim "strangeness." We would also need customer car data to compare. Post up the Murcielago test; I don't recall seeing it.

You are wrong about lawsuits. Of the few F50 owners in existence, how many actually care about the performance numbers? Do you have any Youtube vids of anyone even showing what the top speed is, nevermind caring about it?
For certain other mass-market Ferraris, open to a wider array of customers, yes, they have sued for lack of performance. Remember what this was about?

About ZR1 not being in test, that is not necessarily media manipulation. Last year they were undergoing changes for revisions for the new car (different aero, different tires). There are only a couple or so European demo ZR1s running around anyway, so timing could be an issue. It's not a widely bought car in Europe. I don't recall any ZR1 customer being told not to participate in a test. Nor for any of those other cars. Could you cite sources?
Quite possibly, yes, Autocar's F1 test was manipulated. I am open to that possibility. It wasn't a customer car, though a customer car in Japan tested by Best Motoring, I think, recorded very similar acceleration numbers. We would have to know more, but we would also have to hear of customers being told by McLaren not to submit their cars. We'd also have to see evidence of different wheel sizes being used to solve incurable handling imbalances. Do you have such evidences? Y/N

 

[F40 LeMans]

The F50 tested by QR was a factory car. SA tested a customer car. The 100-200 km/h was approx the same. The SA article said 325 Km/h for the German registred F50. I really not understand how SA test the top speed, but, also said 321 Km/h for the switzerland customer F40 that was 324 claimed and able 6.4s in 100-200 km/h.
At that period the F50's performance were really a problem compared the F40 for the Ferrari. The car was really balanced, but was slower than the old car.
It was really a flop due to the atmospheric engine and its lower torque. I don't think the top speed verified by QR vs C&D means behind to be manipulation. We would see better acceleration as primary goal, really the disadvantage of the F50.

 

[F40 LeMans]

We know that blueprinting is not cheating. But I want to say that high blueprinting is not the best thing to do. In respect to us that we have to compare and evaluate a lot of external considerations. We have a lot of test with high blueprint and mnfs seems to serch every day higher engines for testing. This is not just Ferrari practice testing with single blueprinted engines.
We know that the factory Enzo is able of 60-130 mph in 7 seconds behind C&D was said in the test, and the factory Carrera GT was a bit slower with 7.3s. We also know that the Ford GT able of 7.5s in 60-131.2 mph during the Motor Trend comparo. And other Lambos and Porsches examples are possible...

Enzo 60-130 mph 7s (C&D)
CGT 60-130 mph 7.3s (C&D)
FGT 60-131.2 mph 7.5s (MT)

We are sure that these performance are able for customer cars? I have some Vbox tests of cutomer cars and figures are regulary lower than these. A customer Enzo was tested by a owner on 400' above the sea level and it was showing something like 7.8 seconds for the 60-130 mph data. The same was for the Carrera GT owned by the same person. So, down 8 s both. The same as a customer F40 with no cats can do.
At this point, how is possible to think the MT data for a customer Ford GT if customer Enzo and CGT are regulary slower?
Some other things we have to consider talking about blueprinted engines. I think high blueprinting a single unit is much more close to cheating that a blueprinted engine production (like the F40's case). Also, we have seen a lot of cars oscillating performance. Is that the good thing to do, too?
I DON'T WANT TO COME BACK with the GT-R (including mules, press cars or something other) but dynos tested in US and Italian showed the power close to claimed also with Vpower gas, while a lot of French and some Japan tests said the contrary with no doubts. How is high the blueprint engine process production for the GT-R?
Regarding the Ford GT I have read a lot about its engine. Some Ford technicals confessed for 625 hp engines while just 550 hp was claimed for the Ford GT. But what is so funny is that there are a lot of much slower Ford GT tested. German mags were tested some slower Ford GTs. Much slower. Were 625 or 550 hp engines these?
Ok, there are also Enzos and CGTs much slower, but the factory cars tested during the UK tests are much similar a customer car can do, and customer cars are slower, but just how a blueprint engine process can do.
To be close to the factory car is a thing, to be much slower is an other. And yes, I said it's the same talking the 360 Modena case, but I repeat high blueprint is not only a Ferrari pratice.
I think that they should not ever do.

I think also magazines should have more attention what they are testing or just WRITING. An example. Not make sense to publish a fast time for the 0-170 mph for a Zonda S, if customer Enzo Vbox tested is regulay slower and customer Zondas are about 3 seconds slower.

Otherwise this is bread for discussions.

 

[Guibo]

Without knowing the SA customer F50 rpm at max speed, we can't make any judgement as it relates to the customer F50 in C&D. All we know is C&D's customer car reached 194 mph @ 8640 rpm while the factory's car went 8 mph faster with around 200 fewer revs.

Ford GT claims 550 hp and 500 lb-ft. Yet Kenne Bell's stock customer car recorded 545 hp and 496 lb-ft at the wheels.



Kenne Bell is located in California where 91 octane is about as good as it gets. The 625 hp claimed by the Ford engineer sounds like an optimized air/fuel mixture running ~20 degrees of advanced timing; the stock GT can run over 20 degrees of total timing. A stock production private car recorded 620 hp on Accufab's engine dyno in California with a similar setup at the stock 6500 rpm redline. So that is not such a wide spread between stock production vs a development engine. Problem with superchargers is they seem very sensitive to heatsoak. Ford published a white paper at the time of the GT's release talking about how much effort went into developing the cooling system. We've seen even the same Euro press GT recording a wide range of times likely because of this; same with the CTS-V that was in the same test. Subsequent tests showed more normalized results consistent with a cooler-running engine.
Stock customer Ford GTs have run ~175 mph in the standing mile. This is not far off from what a press 458, with compliment of 5 attending Ferrari engineers, has done in US test.

 

[F40 LeMans]

What I really don't get for the Ford GT is how really is capable to do. Here it seems to be a good car, but it is not a car with absolute performance. And this seems to be really the point due to the weight. The GT is not a very light car.
The GT is really what AMS Hera Leissen test or SA supertest did for us. Anything else. Was not randomly that Auto mag tested a customer GT in Balocco showing not extreme top speeds in the straights. For example, the customer CGT was much faster.

As you said, 175 mph, 281 km/h at the end of the mile is not a absolute fast speed.

 

[Guibo]

Post up the Balocco lap result for the GT. Times on the straights can be for a variety of reasons: the balance in the preceding corner, grip of the tires (Goodyear F1's are crap), how good the brakes are (better brakes mean you can do it later and maintain a high speed on the straight longer), downforce, etc.

175 mph at the end of a mile might not be an absolute fast speed, but it's close to what the Ferrari with 5 engineers could do. Then we should expect a 0-300 kph not too far off from each other. Yet the factory 458's best is faster than the factory GT's best.

 

[F40 LeMans]

Here you are all the Balocco's data

I really don't verified how a customer FGT should be fast compared the customer 458, but
I think A customer 458 could be well able to break the 260 Km/h at the end of 1000 mt. The factory's car was high 260.
QR was 257 km/h on their test with the FGT press car. Here a customer FGT was much slower than a customer Scuderia by 8 km/h on the fastest Balocco's straight.

IMHO a customer 458 should be regulary faster than the same FGT.

Then we should expect a 0-300 kph not too far off from each other. Yet the factory 458's best is faster than the factory GT's best.

Motor Trend said 7.5s in the 60-131 mph for their FGT.
Evo said 60-130 mph 7.8s for the factory's 458 tested at Bedford.
I think they are both fast factory cars. The 0-300 test seems to be fast for the 458 while the 60-130 for the GT... it depend

Anyway are both "misleading" example to understand how are fast these two customer cars. And it depend only by the level of engine's blueprinting. These, like some other, aren't good to compare with some other customer cars. Like few years ago when we talked for our FGT, CGT and F40 comparo. But, also on the wide world comparo, yesterday with customer Enzo, and GT2RS; M600; etc example today.

PS. here the customer Zonda S, Enzo and CGT Vbox data.

 

[DeDe]

A little OFF...

... I just got the hungarian version of this comparo, they also published a few flexibility time:

70-200 km/h (6th gear):
17,04 s - Aventador
18,78 s - MP4-12C
19,31 s - 599 GTO
20,43 s - GT3 RS 4.0

 

[Guibo]

Here you are all the Balocco's data

I really don't verified how a customer FGT should be fast compared the customer 458, but
I think A customer 458 could be well able to break the 260 Km/h at the end of 1000 mt. The factory's car was high 260.
QR was 257 km/h on their test with the FGT press car. Here a customer FGT was much slower than a customer Scuderia by 8 km/h on the fastest Balocco's straight.

IMHO a customer 458 should be regulary faster than the same FGT.

Motor Trend said 7.5s in the 60-131 mph for their FGT.
Evo said 60-130 mph 7.8s for the factory's 458 tested at Bedford.
PS. here the customer Zonda S, Enzo and CGT Vbox data.

Could you post up the whole article? Even the track lap portion is missing a lot of data. We can see the FGT already has slower minimum (cornering speeds). As I've said, a faster car in a pure straight race will not always record the highest peak speed on a track. For example, in Evo test between the E90 M3 and C63, the MB was 0.6s faster in 60-130, but recorded a 1.9 mph slower peak speed at Bedford. Same for same-day test in Sport Auto between the WRX STi and 335i: BMW faster in 100-180 kph by 0.6s, yet slower peak at Hockenheim by 3 kph. In that instance, the Subaru was only 1 kph faster in the lead-up corner.
I wouldn't put too much emphasis on MT's 1/4 mile trap times. They use rollout and adjust data for temperature. When you look at the speeds from the oval, the Ford GT is clearly slower than the Enzo during the top speed runs. I became more wary of 1/4 mile traps (and problems of corrections for forced-induction cars vs naturally aspirated cars) with the C&D GT-R test. Evo's tests are uncorrected and include a passenger.
BTW, John Hennessey's Ford GT hit 185 mph in the standing mile. (His tuned cars are regularly way over 200 mph in the mile.)

 

[F40 LeMans]

Could you post up the whole article? Even the track lap portion is missing a lot of data. We can see the FGT already has slower minimum (cornering speeds). As I've said, a faster car in a pure straight race will not always record the highest peak speed on a track. For example, in Evo test between the E90 M3 and C63, the MB was 0.6s faster in 60-130, but recorded a 1.9 mph slower peak speed at Bedford. Same for same-day test in Sport Auto between the WRX STi and 335i: BMW faster in 100-180 kph by 0.6s, yet slower peak at Hockenheim by 3 kph. In that instance, the Subaru was only 1 kph faster in the lead-up corner.
I wouldn't put too much emphasis on MT's 1/4 mile trap times. They use rollout and adjust data for temperature. When you look at the speeds from the oval, the Ford GT is clearly slower than the Enzo during the top speed runs. I became more wary of 1/4 mile traps (and problems of corrections for forced-induction cars vs naturally aspirated cars) with the C&D GT-R test. Evo's tests are uncorrected and include a passenger.
BTW, John Hennessey's Ford GT hit 185 mph in the standing mile. (His tuned cars are regularly way over 200 mph in the mile.)

Sorry Guibo, I can't scan you the article for the moment. I think I have this mag in my house at the sea. I have understood what are you saying about acceleration and peak speeds after the corners. I know that. But infact my primary point is not the 269 km/h achieved at Balocco, even if it is comprensibile it is well behind the fastest cars, but the average of the data we have. The GT is not a absolute fast car. It perform similar to the 1st Murci. I was forgetting that Evo tested with 2 persons inside the cabin. Is always so. Yet it is something that I value. At the fact that car was absolutely too much fast. I think the data we have by Autocar are much more similar how the car (customer 458) can do.

 

[FromageFrais]

I think some magazines are just freakishly slow and others fast. I sometimes wonder whether they use different timing gear and even different weighing scales.

 

[Mafalda]

... I just got the hungarian version of this comparo, they also published a few flexibility time:

70-200 km/h (6th gear):
17,04 s - Aventador
18,78 s - MP4-12C
19,31 s - 599 GTO
20,43 s - GT3 RS 4.0

...more infos?

 

[DeDe]

...more infos?

5th gear (70-200 km/h):
14,28 s - 599 GTO
14,87 s - GT3 RS 4.0

7th gear (70-200 km/h):
21,61 s - Aventador

Drive (70-200 km/h):
8,92 s - MP4-12C

 

[F40 LeMans]

I think also magazines should have more attention what they are testing or just WRITING.

At this point I still remember the EB110 GT press car sent to magazines around the world. The silver EB was tested in March 1993 by Sport Auto, the French magazine and the car was able 21.2s in the standing 0-1000m (AMS was 21.3 with a blue press car). After months the car was tested by Gente Motori in Italy, it was exactly the same silver car, with the same registration. It was able of 19.9s in the 0-1km or something over 1.3 better than the Frech test. We know that the EB110 GT was omologated in 20.7s in Nardò tests, while 19.6 for the SS version. Only when I read in R&T that several GT were fitted with "SS overtones, expecially for powerplant" was clear for me that Bugatti sent to the press what it preferred expecially looking the same car able 21.2 and then 19.9.

 

[Mafalda]

reprints by AMuS
auto motor und sport - Heft 01/2012 - AUTO MOTOR UND SPORT

for german users: please post infos

 

[DeDe]

reprints by AMuS
auto motor und sport - Heft 01/2012 - AUTO MOTOR UND SPORT

for german users: please post infos

They did the same last year: different pictures, different text and even more less data...