Auto Pur 1/94
Ferrari F40 road test
0-100 kph 4.0s
0-200 kph 11.0s
Dyno test: 504 PS @ 7000 rpm
Ferrari F40 specs
Price in US | $471,375 |
Car type | Coupe |
Curb weight | 1099-1369 kg (2423-3018 lbs) |
Dimensions | 4.43 m (174 in) long, 1.99 m (78 in) wide, 1.13 m (44 in) high |
Wheelbase | 2.45 m (96 in) |
Introduced | 1987 |
Origin country | Italy |
Gas mileage | 32.0-8.6 l/100 km (7-27 mpg US / 9-33 mpg UK) |
CO2 emissions | 250 g/km |
Views | 131.1k |
Lap times
Performance
0 - 40 kph | 1.5 s |
0 - 50 kph | 2.0 s |
0 - 60 kph | 2.2 s |
0 - 70 kph | 3.0 s |
0 - 80 kph | 2.9 s |
0 - 100 kph | 4.0 s |
0 - 120 kph | 5.5 s |
0 - 140 kph | 6.5 s |
0 - 150 kph | 7.2 s |
0 - 160 kph | 8.0 s |
0 - 180 kph | 9.3 s |
0 - 200 kph | 10.4 s |
0 - 220 kph | 13.8 s |
0 - 240 kph | 16.4 s |
0 - 250 kph | 17.8 s |
0 - 260 kph | 20.1 s |
0 - 300 kph | 31.0 s |
100 m | 5.4 s @ 119.2 kph |
1000 m | 20.2 s @ 265.0 kph |
0 - 30 mph | 1.6 s |
0 - 40 mph | 2.2 s |
0 - 50 mph | 2.8 s |
0 - 60 mph | 3.8 s |
0 - 70 mph | 4.6 s |
0 - 80 mph | 5.4 s |
0 - 90 mph | 6.7 s |
0 - 100 mph | 7.7 s |
0 - 110 mph | 9.5 s |
0 - 120 mph | 11.0 s |
0 - 130 mph | 13.5 s |
0 - 140 mph | 15.6 s |
0 - 150 mph | 16.2 s |
0 - 160 mph | 21.3 s |
0 - 170 mph | 26.3 s |
Est. 1/8 mile | 8.4 s @ 102.5 mph |
1/4 mile | 11.7 s @ 126.5 mph |
Est. 1/2 mile | 19.0 s @ 159.1 mph |
Est. 1 mile | 29.7 s @ 184.5 mph |
Top speed | 327 kph (203 mph) |
0 - 100 mph - 0 | 13.8 s |
Est. max acceleration | 0.68 g (7 m/s²) |
Lateral acceleration | 1.01 g (10 m/s²) |
Powertrain specs
Engine type | twin turbo V8, 32 valves |
Displacement | 2.9 l (179 ci / 2936 cc) |
Power | 478 ps (471 bhp / 352 kw) @ 7000 rpm |
Torque | 575 Nm (424 lb-ft) @ 4000 rpm |
Power / liter | 163 ps (161 hp) |
Power / weight | 373 ps (367 bhp) / t |
Torque / weight | 448 Nm (331 lb-ft) / t |
Efficiency | 27 PS per l/100 km |
Transmission | 5 speed manual |
Layout | middle engine, rear wheel drive |
Braking distance
60 kph - 0 | 13 m (44 ft) |
100 kph - 0 | 37 m (122 ft) |
120 kph - 0 | 54 m (176 ft) |
140 kph - 0 | 73 m (240 ft) |
160 kph - 0 | 96 m (313 ft) |
180 kph - 0 | 120 m (394 ft) |
200 kph - 0 | 149 m (490 ft) |
60 mph - 0 | 36 m (119 ft) |
70 mph - 0 | 66 m (218 ft) |
Rolling acceleration
60 - 100 kph (4) | 6.3 s |
80 - 120 kph (5) | 8.5 s |
80 - 160 kph (5) | 16.1 s |
70 - 100 kph | 8.2 s |
70 - 120 kph | 12.6 s |
70 - 140 kph | 16.1 s |
Est. 100 - 140 kph | 2.2 s |
Est. 100 - 200 kph | 7.0 s |
Est. 200 - 300 kph | 19.6 s |
Interior noise
Noise @ idle | 65 dB |
Noise @ 100 kph | 81 dB |
Noise @ 130 kph | 84 dB |
Noise @ 160 kph | 90 dB |
Noise @ 180 kph | 92 dB |
Noise @ 50 mph | 82 dB |
Noise @ 70 mph | 84 dB |
F40 competition
Crispi74 2m ago
FastestLaps 2m ago
Added!
504 PS in 1987.... And that's from a restricted capacity engine and tuned for road use (semi-reasonable emissions, consumption, noise, idle speed etc).
Crispi74 1m ago @FastestLaps
504 PS from a car that ran a 100-200 kph in an improvable 7 seconds.
Crispi74 1m ago @Metatron
An interesting aspect of the F40 was the cooling of the turbocharged system.
Air temperature is one of the main points of the combustion so air boosted into engine need to the well cooled before to be breate. The revolutionary aspect which it was not fixed in the 288 GTO was that.
Infact during road test 288 GTO lost power when the car was launched during hot days. It wan't like that with the F40. Quattroruote Italian magazine tested a powerful F40 on a hot day in summer that doesnt lose power in comparison to F40s tested in way better conditions as the Cargraphic magazine did. If the cooling system hadn't work as it should we would have seen a drop in acceleration for overheating of the turbocharged system.
On the other side, I still have to understand on the right way if this brings a power improvement with speed crescendo, once in cool conditions. Some cooler condition tests made give the assumptions.
Crispi74 1m ago @Metatron
It's evident that during 288 GTO and Evoluzione development the aspect of the surface of radiant mass or fluid dynamic to the intercoolers was not treated at best. Having a system that keeps the inlet air temperature as low as possible on different ambient temperatures means engine power reserve.
Crispi74 1m ago @Crispi74
Because it is normal to say that an intercooler works better at speed, on that case need to take attention on cold air throught faster on the intercoolers means even more power. That's my question.
Crispi74 1m ago @Lambolover
That car doesn't run as fast as correctly. Mainly it run underboosted at 12 psi on full throttle runs and the boost needle of the gaude is tired to rise high. we can see on the video. at around min 13:00.
Crispi74 1m ago @Lambolover
https://ibb.co/y5w4nNg
Screenshot of the boost gauge running at 6000 rpm of the purple car.
https://ibb.co/JRjS2n4
Correct overboost running at 6000 rpm.
Lambolover 1m ago @Crispi74
Doesn't that mean it makes less power and therefore the same thing that happened to 288 GTO has also happened to it?
Crispi74 1m ago @Lambolover
Ah get it what you are meaning! NO these are two different things, the GTO I mean it make less power because the cooling of the turbocharged air was evidently undersized. But no other issue.
The problem that affect the F40 owned by this guy is an issues of engine cooling, that evidently it desn't able to can't make the fans work enough or meantime. Gauge wather temperature seems to high so it seems that something in the engine cooling system is struggling. That car was a Tipo USA specs made with catalyst system adjusted for those countries so compensating for temperatures can be an adventure for the cooling system explecially if It seems that something is not running correctly or in order. I often see underboosted Tipo USA F40s, I don't understand if it was a choice of the dealer assistant technicians or something. At fact that car was under powered and overheated on that circumstance.
Crispi74 1m ago @Crispi74
I add, if that guy was not enought qualified to get that a 80's car made for racing used asbestos-free brake pads and that noise comes from there, or unqualified to get that something was not right on cooling electrosystem of his car I think the car is not in the right hands!
Crispi74 1m ago @Crispi74
"I often see underboosted Tipo USA F40s, I don't understand if it was a choice of the dealer assistant technicians or something. "
As for example, the Tipo USA F40 tested in CARWOW video versus the Bugatti EB110 GT was also underboosted looking at the boost gauge.
I think that videos running underboosted turbocars make no sense expecially if driven by hamburger eaters that doesn't even know how launch and how gaershift a car.
Looking at the revs counter and the noise of the engine it's easy to get as under revs those gearshifts.
I'm the first to respect a 3M$ car, but please youtuber make videos how they need to been made, othervise is just misleading info or untrue.
Beaumont Coolidge 1m ago @Crispi74
Americans are too fat and turbo cars with high boost pressure is known to affect their IQ level, so the EPA decided to lower the boost pressure, in order to have a healthier life and not suffer a sudden heart attack.
In other words, their cars are slower and heavier + pig sized driver adds another big fat penalty and turns the whole formulae into a junk food cabin with cup holder and a tray with speakers and subwoofer.
Life in America is all about straight line acceleration, 0 to 60 and 1/4 mile run.
RickyAstle98 1m ago @Beaumont Coolidge
Youre too fat for this site, zero braincells, your life is all about skunking anything?
196ss 1m ago @Crispi74
Greetings, dear friend!
Nice to see you here again, glad you are continuing your research.
On the other side, I still have to understand on the right way if this brings a power improvement with speed crescendo, once in cool conditions. Some cooler condition tests made give the assumptions.
I think if you had the time and opportunity, you could pick, say, a dry hot day and a dry cold day, and take several consecutive acceleration measurements in 2nd and 3rd gear starting at low rpm. While fixing the cooling system temp before and after each run.
I think that would provide a ton of information to analyze. Still, there's no better way to confirm a theory than experiment)
Crispi74 1m ago @196ss
Hello 196ss,
that kind of experiments should been interesting to do. Firstly, I will try to find examples around the web. Anyway yes every different turbo car could be affected by these kind of temperature of cooling variable depend of their size of the system or how is efficent.
Crispi74 1m ago @196ss
I think if you had the time and opportunity, you could pick, say, a dry hot day and a dry cold day, and take several consecutive acceleration measurements in 2nd and 3rd gear starting at low rpm. While fixing the cooling system temp before and after each run.
I think that would provide a ton of information to analyze. Still, there's no better way to confirm a theory than experiment)<<
Mainly we can say that the difference between air/air and air/water intercoolers is precisely in the fact that the latter has the best heat exchange at low speeds to remain constant at higher speeds. The former, on the contrary, is not efficient at low speeds but it works at speed. So here, as the more air flow is, as the better heat exchange is.
Crispi74 1m ago @Crispi74
What I was saying is that till we are running on hot conditions it works limiting heat exchange damages, but at contrary, running on cold we can have heat exchange advantages.
Crispi74 1m ago
https://ibb.co/PWwNqJv
https://ibb.co/bRgppHN
https://ibb.co/hyZ9rsg
https://ibb.co/X2BsVb2
Here a very interesting article F40 vs Hamann published by Motor 1994
Crispi74 1m ago @Crispi74
Concerning Hamann car there are lots of details to treat. First of all is that article claims 1,5 bar of max boost but published pictures of the interior shows a boost gauge positioned close to the gearbox lever that reveal a boost addressed to 1,9 or just below 2 bar. I don't know if there was a peak of overboost or boost was setted only by the double wastagetes.
The magazine Tuning Special Cars from Japan explains that the peak was boosting up to more like 1,8. I wouldn't want that final power would be much grater than 620 PS claimed.
Than, with boost setted to 0,9 bar producing about 545 PS the car seems faster but not much faster than the standard catalysed version tested at the side. Sound as interesting detail because that almost justifies that the standard car seems again underestimated
wallenieswiftie 1m ago @Beaumont Coolidge
Imagine thinking straight-line performance was EXCLUSIVELY an American priority or vice versa. Are the Lotus Carlton and Mercedes C/E-Class V8 models a joke to you? What about the new Cadillac CT5-V Blackwing which is better on most tracks than the M5 CS, GT63S AMG, and Panamera Turbo S?
Crispi74 1m ago @Crispi74
Indicatively power will jump from 660 to 670 PS looking at that boost level.
I'm correcting myself, I'm more inclined to think the car deliver 620 PS but provided of transitory overboost.
That picture comes from Max Power magazine, the article said the car was tested at 0,9 bar but pictures seems overboosting close to 1,3 on the gauge.
Crispi74 1m ago @196ss
It would be interesting to recalculate the performance panel of the Hamann car. Lot of time ago I found a web document that claimed 0-100kph 3.8 and 0-200kph something like 8.2 for the car, weight was 1202 kgs but I'm unable to find it again. Maybe it isn't online anymore. To make the acceleration panel as more accurate as possible it need to know the torque curve that for sure, but looking at how overboost works as high as 1.9 bar, I'm not surprised if torque will jump well over 70 Kgm somewhere from 5000 to 6000 rpm.
A recent article of the car (I'm sure because of exactly the same VIN number) claimed 72 kgm @ 7000 rpm, and 720 PS @ 7500 rpm, but the car was recently completely restored, using obviously a more aggrassive setting of the engine and current parts.
Crispi74 3w ago @196ss
Unfortunately a Hamann power graph is unavailable to provide, consider that the power could be:
Max power by mags seems to be 622 PS @ 7800 rpm but also 620 PS @ 7100 rpm seems already available.
Torque could be no less than 700 NM somewhere from 5000 to 6000 rpm at least. Maybe 730 Nm at top.
The web article of the restoration claims also power was rated as much as 640 BHP at the racing period.
http://build-threads.com/build-threads/ferrari-f40-lm-restoration/
" ...Unusually this car ran twin KKKs with twin waste gates and produced about 640 BHP..."
Power could be there, maybe engine dynoed 622 PS as new and 640 BHP later as used, I think no more, but engine delivering more torque than the 68 kgm of the 288 GTO Evo.
Here the graph of the 663 PS Sportec F40 running 2 bar of boost. Also 789 Nm on top. The Hamann engine I think was a bit lower than that. As I provided period pictures of the boost gauge it was indicated peaking less than 2 bar. Ok are two different tuners, two different periods, but I think correlated results.
https://ibb.co/8rZVPR2
So, I'll leave your interpretation of curve. Do your best. We have a suspected 0-100 kph 3.8s and 0-200 kph 8.2s to confirm as is possible.
FastestLaps 3w ago @196ss
One can cry about how expensive classic cars have become, but obvious benefit of this price appreciation is that no expense is spared and even most abused and bruised examples of cars like F40 are fully revived and remanufactured down to every nut and bolt.
But who will revive today's cool cars that have so many proprietary electronics and software in them?
ih8Tesla 3w ago @FastestLaps
Wait till the EV fanboys takeover the streets and see them brag about their 1000 PS cars and how smooth and fast they can outrun anything ICE and shoots up smoke and flames.
koenigseggjesko 3w ago @FastestLaps
But you know what cars can't become expensive
FastestLaps 3w ago @ih8Tesla
Yet we still have booming mechanical watch industry....
And race horses.
koenigseggjesko 3w ago @FastestLaps
I have a new post coming up. here is some info about it on Youtube https://youtu.be/mkxer6pxQ6I?si=SBlZ9zzgQyMJl8tt.It will come in about 25minutes just reading through
koenigseggjesko 3w ago @FastestLaps
I have a question: how do you add different images in one post?
Crispi74 3w ago @196ss
I'll do a recalculation, but not in the next few days.
https://ibb.co/8rZVPR2
If you are intersted linked there is also the diagram of the stock F40 before to be tuned, result 506 PS and 646 NM. Similar figure to 504 PS of the car published in Auto Pur magazine.
Whe you did calculations your figures referred were:
One of the sources said 520 hp and 615 Nm..
Crispi74 3w ago @196ss
Auto Retro tested a couple of F40s during the years, one was 1989 model with straight exhaust, the second was a catted 1992 model fitted with the same exhaust + LM package,(yes front hood and rear wing like the F40 LM).
The article reported these results:
1989
0-100 4.6
Km 21.0
1992 (LM package)
0-100 4.7
Km 21.5
Yes, surely tested in different circumnstances but seems that rear wing might loose just a very few tenths for air drag because must consider that catalysts fitted cars are usually slower than the others.
On the photos of the article, the wing was logically doted of the second adjustable flap on top of the main wing, and it was setted as intended to be (I mean as it was not adjasted for the lower downforce) + it was provided of a nolder on top, so aerodinamically surely an air brake compared the standard wing.
196ss 3w ago @Crispi74
Here is the calculation of F40 acceleration with Sportec engine tune.
663PS@6660rpm, 789Nm@5260rpm
Aero and gear ratios – as standard F40. Weight – 1280 kg with the driver. Conditions – 18 deg C, 1013 mBar.
Pretty sure to achieve 200 in 8,2 Hamann car should have more power than this.
Crispi74 3w ago @196ss
We must consider the important thing of the turbocharged air temperature. The Hamann being slightly less powerful in real circumnstance could be faster on 100-200 kph because of the turbo were cold at the beghinning of the lanch. The same would be here with the Sportec car. This calculation is standardized on delivering the same power in every gear.
Crispi74 3w ago @196ss
In my idea when the Hamann was tested, it did 0-100 kph in 3.8, then it did 8.2 to 200 kph but the car was able to 300 kph in no less than 12 or 13s later, so 300 kph around 20 or 21s.
All of that translate in a time of 400m about 10.8s, 1000m in about 19s running around 290 kph.
Crispi74 3w ago @196ss
All of that translate in a time of 400m about 10.8s, 1000m in about 19s running around 290 kph.
The fact that the Hamann has a rear wing, in the photos seemed not so adjusted for high downforce when it wasn't used at Hockenheim, but wing profile was grater and provided of a nolder. Photos made at Hockenheim time attack the wing was adjusted for the fast lap so more inclined to produce downforce.
I don't know how much this detail eated on drag, normal adjustment but surely I'm more inclined to think a low 19s time (maybe 19.2~19.3) with a speed of about 285 kph.
196ss 3w ago @Crispi74
Not sure about that, higher drag at low speeds make very little difference, but after 250 kph it's influence should be a serious factor.
For example Cd (F40LM) = 0.63 (I suppose in high df settings), Cd (F40stock) = 0.34. This means that if we put LM aero on standard F40 top speed would be reduced by ~23%.
196ss 3w ago @Crispi74
Top speed is directly proportional to the cube root of power and inversely proportional to the cube root of drag coefficient.
Strictly speaking, rolling friction also has an influence, and I take this into account in my calculations. But, compared to airdrag, this influence is much smaller, so it can be neglected to a rough approximation.
Accordingly (the difference in frontal areas are not very much):
325/(cube root (0.63/0.34))=325/1.22825=265 kph
This value of 0.63 you gave me from the F40 LM book.
I assume these figures are for the max downforce configuration. I think on tracks like Monza or Nordschleife, a lower downforce configuration with a 0.4-0.45 drag coefficient would be more effective.
Another example is the last generation of Viper. The base model has Cd 0.369 and a top speed of 330 kph. Viper ACR has Cd=0.541.
So, the estimated top speed should be:
330/(cube root (0.541/0.369))=330/1.13603=290 kph
In reality it's even less because of gearing.
Crispi74 3w ago @196ss
Not sure about that, higher drag at low speeds make very little difference, but after 250 kph it's influence should be a serious factor.
I'm asking me how much could affect trap speed at the distance of the Km. As for example on one of these cars. Could be used the same formula of top speed, do you think that?
RacingLoverSRT 3w ago @Crispi74
I apologize - does anyone know or is there information on the Internet about how fast the F40 LM is in acceleration from 0-200 and 0-300, many thanks to everyone who answers!
Crispi74 3w ago @RacingLoverSRT
Unfortunately there is not any firm info also because of the variable of engine specs, gearing and drag on the F40 LM. Basically we can say that trap speed at Fiorano track test was 275 kph and it did over 300 kph exactly on the finish line at Monza.
Take count that these speeds achieved were very high even at nowadays comparisons.
196ss 3w ago @Crispi74
That's what happens if we play with the aerodynamics parameters in the calculation for the standard F40:
standard aero (Cd - 0.34, aero efficiency - 0.5) – 20.63 sec @ 266 kph, top speed 325 kph;
LM low downforce estimated (Cd - 0.40, aero efficiency - 0.7) – 21.03 sec @ 257 kph, top speed 309 kph;
LM medium downforce estimated (Cd - 0.50, aero efficiency - 1.1) – 21.71 sec @ 241kph, top speed 284 kph;
LM high downforce (Cd - 0.63, aero efficiency - 1.4) – 22.42 sec @ 226 kph, top speed 263 kph (4-th gear).
Crispi74 2w ago @RacingLoverSRT
Basically we can say that trap speed at Fiorano track test was 275 kph and it did over 300 kph exactly on the finish line at Monza.
I'm thinkng with the speed available at Fiorano and Monza, looking at how fast Sportec F40 was we can guess for an F40LM performance like the following:
0-100 3.1 (as claimed)
0-200 ~7.0
0-300 ~18.0
Sportec F40 should be over 260 kph at Fiorano on the main straight and close to 290 kph at the finish line at Monza.
Crispi74 6d ago @196ss
Can you show me all the acceleration data you found with the 506 PS baseline of the Sportec F40? I'm interested to look at some time partials.
Here you are imo an accurate diagram of a cat F40, so you have both real world examples of engine to do a right comparation:
https://ibb.co/fk4669f
196ss 2d ago @Crispi74
you could pick, say, a dry hot day and a dry cold day, and take several consecutive acceleration measurements in 2nd and 3rd gear starting at low rpm
I've done the part of the work.
I made 4 runs at 4th gear 80-200 kph. The car - 2013 Audi A6 3.0 biturbo, 1/3 tank, 98 octane, conditions - 1022 mBar, -13 deg C. 3 runs are done consecutively, the 4th one after 3-4 minutes. Cooling system temperature did not change.
1st - 22.93 sec
2nd - 22.14 sec
3rd - 22.38 sec
4th - 22.64 sec
Now just have to wait for the heat to take repeated measurements.
Crispi74 20h ago @196ss
The acceleration results of the dynoed F40s are helpful and very interesting thanks again but they raise many questions for me. I can't explain some things, the reason why as in the example AMS gets a worse 100-200 kph time when the engine expressed power is delivering closer to 550 hp at that moment. That dynoed car you calculated would be faster just using a diagram line of 506 PS. Maybe AMS was wheelspin too much in 2nd gear(?) but then It should be faster lanching 3rd and 4th gear, which it wasn't that much. Why happened that? Secondly I'm asking then, what was averaging the power of all those tests that come out below 260 kph at the end the km. CarGraphic for example did 255 kph at 1000m trap speed, its 0-280 kph was achieved in more than 30 secs. I'm sure its engine was closer to 478 claimed but It doesn't explained 0-280 kph varied by 7 secs and yet conditions were fine. Looking at calculated data it seems that CarGraphic was deliveling very less than 478 that I'm sure it wasn't. Your calculated catalysed 492 PS car was already much faster than what CarGraphic reached on top of its 4th and 5th gear acceleration times.
Third thing, the catalyst car you calculated in your datapanel seems very close to the car that was uncatted, it was far just 3 tenth and 1 kph at the end of the standing km. Honestly looking our tests or data I own it was more marked difference expecially on speed. I'm unable to explain me mainly because Euro cat stock F40s when they raced 1992 were just fast close to 270 kph at Monza and 256 kph at Mugello. Both speed much slower than some other uncatted cars were able to achieved looking at the distance accumulated on time. Your calculated accelerations versus distance will corfirm to us
that instead, easily that catalysed cars should been much faster than they actually were, even on straight when they raced. Try to help me on these detail to fix. On the other hand I'm the first to understand the fact that your matematical results are calculated based on fixed data provided, so well proportional data for sure. But that a catalysed F40 running 1000m close to 265 kph and much faster than some other uncatted cars for real it shock me quite a bit. Why on real world these kind of variations from these examples are grater? How does we can explain to us?
196ss 13h ago @Crispi74
Your questions are reasonable, and I may not be able to give an exhaustive answer on all of them, but I'll try to explain what I can.
Let me start with the fact that the difference in max power is only 2.8%, which isn't that much, the difference in test weight is also about 3%. Taking into account shorter gears it really turns out on some individual segments the thrust of the cat car is superior.
Serious advantage in torque on the 4-5k rpm range has little effect on the acceleration in a straight line, but can be very useful while cornering. It could be that the decat version could be noticeably quicker on the Monza and Mugello straights, as it makes a greater punch on corner exit.
Further, as for the AMuS car, I got 340 kW at the wheels in the 160-180 km/h section, which corresponds to revs of 6000-6800. The AMuS car run that section in 1.2 sec, the calculated 506 PS in 1.3.
As for the trap speed at the 1000m mark, we may still have something to discuss out here. In most tests, after 220 km/h the acceleration intensity is slightly reduced compared to the estimated calculated figures. This is probably due to a decrease in intercooler efficiency as a result of heavy engine use, as we have discussed in another thread. It is likely that both the 506PS and 492PS engines in the real world wouldn't have been able to retain juice until 4th and 5th gear and the trap speed could have been around 260km/h or maybe even lower.
However, we had seen that French test, and Ferrari factory claim apparently is a 1000m trap speed of 270km/h.
Still, even with all that, it seems that the cat and decat versions are too close in performance. Probably one of the explanations could be that the 506PS decat engine was rather mediocore, there were better ones, while the 492PS cat was probably one of the strongest examples.
Crispi74 8h ago @196ss
I colpletely agree all you are saying.
This is probably due to a decrease in intercooler efficiency as a result of heavy engine use, as we have discussed in another thread. It is likely that both the 506PS and 492PS engines in the real world wouldn't have been able to retain juice until 4th and 5th gear and the trap speed could have been around 260km/h or maybe even lower.
I want to add that maybe greater decrising performance due to the cooling is that catalyst cars were the problem to produce more heat than uncatted cars due to the catalysts on the engine bay. Cars provided with catalysts had a cooling duct to the wastegate valve to partially remedy the problem. It's evident that during heavy engine use in real world that fisical problem comes out more heavily.
Looking at CarGraphic car I have the suspect that higher times comes from the nature of the engine curves, like it was tharlt 4th gear works fine up to 240 kph with a greater power drop over 7000 rpm than other cars tested. In the test panel was said the 4th gear was lanched 262 kph and 240-260 kph elapsed time was very high. The article explain the car was tested at Yatabe as brand new and the engine needed to be complete the broken in.
Corvolet3 4m ago
https://youtu.be/SwmEgJ9Q0nI?si=CULzdFt7TNBv_6vT
Damn, link doesn't embed. Anyway carwow races the Ferrari F40 vs the Bugatti EB110
Crispi74 8m ago
It seems that Rosenbaum's F40 (Tipo USA) was able to run 3/4 of a mile with a terminal speed of 180 mph with an engine delivering up to 650 hp.
wallenieswiftie 1y ago
Check out these in-house estimations
0-60 mph: 3.43 sec (pre-shift) or 3.91 sec (post-shift)
0-100 mph: 7.38 sec-> 60-100 = 3.47 sec
Street 1/4-mile: 11.62 sec @ 130.00 mph
Top speed: 194 mph (theoretical maximum velocity: 205 mph)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ERFzdIin1zS36ZjmkjahNwjwJAVxwoPCgNV2zJzn2Jo/edit?usp=sharing
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ERFzdIin1zS36ZjmkjahNwjwJAVxwoPCgNV2zJzn2Jo/edit?usp=sharing
Crispi74 2y ago
ROMBO magazine 1/90
Match bike vs car
Yamaha FZR 1000 Ex Up vs Ferrari F40
Airport surface, 5 Cdeg, no wind
BIKE:
0-100 km/h 3s
0-200 km/h 8s
400 m 10.2 @ 220 km/h
1000 m 19.2 @ 258 km/h
CAR:
0-70 km/h 3s
0-160 km/h 8s
400 m 11.7 @ -
1000 m 20.2 @ 265 km/h
PS. Car driver, Nicola Larini, ex F1 & DTM driver.
hostboy 2y ago
@FastestLaps please remove the 19.9 1km time nonsense, while it's true that the F40 prototypes had roughly the same specs as the GTO Evoluzione (as pointed out by Thiago_Lins), those are far different from the regular customer-spec F40s which have slightly bigger wings and aren't straight piped
No '90s supercar besides the EB110 SS could even do low 20s, and even an F1 XP5 PROTOTYPE (which shouldn't even BE mentioned in the same breath as a customer production car) ran a barely better time at 19.6.
A customer F40 won't do any better than 20.9 to the first kilometer as pointed out by European mag tests. If an XJ220 can only manage 20.7, and an Enzo can only manage 20.1, and the EB110 SS can only do 19.8, then THE F40 ABSOLUTELY ISN'T DOING 19.9. It should be ONLY BARELY quicker than the F50.
hostboy 2y ago
hostboy 4y ago
Why would you want to compare a GT500 or a Hellcat to this spectacular twin-turbo track beast? Not even those beat icons like an F40 on the track.
Sheed 2y ago
.... But the Camaro ZL1 1LE does. ????????????????
First of all, the ZL1 of either version only barely beats the F40. Stop talking out of your ass. The ZLE has advanced racing tires and has 30+ years in technology over the F40.
Mike11 2y ago
Keep your Camaro and i'll keep the F40 ????????
^THIS^
hostboy 2y ago
Ferrari F40 (1987):
Claimed Power: 471 bhp / 478 PS / 352 kW
Actual Power (catalytic converter): 522 bhp / 530 PS / 389 kW
Actual Power (straight pipe): 638 bhp / 647 PS / 476 kW
Estimated Weight: 1378 kg with driver and fuel
Source of Estimations: TorqueStats *with several adjustments
Imperial acceleration figures (for U.S.):
▪ 0-30 mph: 1.625 s
▪ 0-60 mph: 3.100 s
▪ 0-100 mph: 6.515 s
▪ 0-150 mph: 16.277 s
▪ 0-200 mph: 47.506 s
▪ Top speed: 200.460 mph *average of both directions; limited by downforce
▪ 1/4 mile: 11.100 s @ 129.942 mph
▪ 1 mile: 27.503 s @ 183.584 mph
▪ 1' rollout: 0.370 s (4' rollout: 0.740 s)
Metric acceleration figures (for rest of the world):
▪ 0-100 km/h: 4.450 s
▪ 0-200 km/h: 11.500 s
▪ 0-300 km/h: 29.719 s
▪ Top speed: 333.333 km/h
▪ 0-380 m: 11.529 s @ 200.504 km/h
▪ 0-400 m: 11.797 s @ 205.165 km/h
▪ 0-1000 m: 21.033 s @ 270.446 km/h
hostboy 2y ago
0-30 mph: 2.3 sec
0-60 mph: 4.6 sec
0-90 mph: 7.7 sec
0-124 mph: 12.4 sec (200 km/h)
0-155 mph: 21.4 sec (250 km/h)
1/4-mile: 12.8 sec (approximately 126 mph / 203 km/h)
TypeF173 2y ago
Car and Driver Magazine test of Ferrari F40 0-170MPH. May or may not have been added before. Sure as hell has now! LOL! ;)
McLaren F1 3y ago
"In fact, the only source of excitement is light weight. There is no other magic to it. They make the steel space frame carry all the forces in the turns, and you can feel it. The chassis is bending on the track and it's wobbling. The interior starts rattling and screeching with speed, but other cars at this speed are stable and solid. It's such a big go-kart with a body. From the frame point of view, it's not even 60's technology. And in the end all the marketing is based on a Kevlar body glued together a quarter inch of rubber and glue. "
Gordon Murray about Ferrari F40
hostboy 3y ago
Estimated Acceleration Stats For Ferrari F40 (EU-spec without cats):
0-30 MPH: 1.4 sec
0-40 MPH: 1.9 sec
0-50 MPH: 2.4 sec
0-60 MPH: 3.0 sec (100 km/h: 3,2)
0-70 MPH: 3.9 sec
0-80 MPH: 4.8 sec
0-90 MPH: 5.8 sec
0-100 MPH: 7.0 sec
0-120 MPH: 10.1 sec (200 km/h: 10,8)
0-150 MPH: 16.7 sec (250 km/h: 18,4)
0-180 MPH: 30.2 sec (300 km/h: 36,1)
0-200 MPH: 58.8 sec
Top Speed: 202.4456 mph (322.5859 km/h)
3.0+7.0/(3.0+7.0)x12 = 11.4sec standing quartermile time at 128 mph.
Acceleration off the line: 9.33912 m/s2 = 0.95 G = 11.5" rollout time of 0.25s
11.40-0.25=11.15sec dragstrip quartermile time.
Engine speed @ maximum torque [rpm]
4000
Engine speed @ maximum power [rpm]
7750
Gear ratios [-] Gearbox
3.692,2.296,1.636,1.284,1.022
Differential
2.727
Wheel static radius [m]
0.333
Driveline efficiency [-]
1
Wheel (tire) friction coefficient [-]
1
Rear axle load coefficient [-]
1
Vehicle mass (curb) [kg]
1683
Driver mass [kg]
75
Aerodynamic drag coefficient [-]
0.34
Ambient air density [kg/m3]
1.202
Vehicle frontal area [m2]
1.82
Road slope [%]
0.00
Road load coefficient [-]
0.048
Engine speed points (full load) [rpm]
4000,7000
Engine static torque points (full load) [Nm]
577,479.5
Simulation time [s]
60
Corrected Displacement & Curb Weight/Downforce Estimates:
110 kPa (15.95 psi) = 179.18 ci, 7750 rpm, 84.48% VE Boost, 521.87 bhp -> equal to as 373.5ci atmospheric displacement with zero boost
https://racingcalcs.com/psi-boost-for-horsepower-target-calculator/
http://hpwizard.com/car-weight.html
Official curb weight = 1235 kg
HPWizard curb weight = 1683 kg
1683-1235 = 448 kg of DOWNFORCE (even a bit higher than Ferrari F50; however, Ferrari didn't list a downforce weight figure for the F40)
Link to simulator:
https://x-engineer.org/projects/vehicle-acceleration-performance-online-calculator/
Some also-European examples that came with catalytic converters are just a tick slower to 60mph (100km/h) and four ticks slower to 100mph (160km/h); but it's six ticks slower to 125mph (200km/h) and 1.1 seconds slower to 150mph (240km/h).
US-spec models are slightly worse: 0-60mph in 3.7s (100km/h in 3.9s), 0-100mph in 8.6s (200km/h in 13.1s), and 0-150mph in 19.9s (250km/h in 22.1s).
Use this for the US-market F40s:
Engine speed @ maximum torque [rpm]
4500
Engine speed @ maximum power [rpm]
7000
Gear ratios [-] Gearbox
2.77,1.71,1.23,0.96,0.77
Differential
3.627
Wheel static radius [m]
0.333
Driveline efficiency [-]
0.85
Wheel (tire) friction coefficient [-]
1
Rear axle load coefficient [-]
1
Vehicle mass (curb) [kg]
1798
Driver mass [kg]
75
Aerodynamic drag coefficient [-]
0.34
Ambient air density [kg/m3]
1.202
Vehicle frontal area [m2]
1.82
Road slope [%]
0.00
Road load coefficient [-]
0.011
Engine speed points (full load) [rpm]
4500,7000
Engine static torque points (full load) [Nm]
576,486
Simulation time [s]
60
Thiago_Lins 3y ago
FERRARI F40
Auto Motor und Sport (1989)
0-100 km/h 4.6 s
0-160 km/h 8.1 s
0-200 km/h 11.0 s
1 km 21.0 s
Auto (1991)
325.168 km/h
0-100 km/h 4.50 s
0-160 km/h 8.37 s
0-200 km/h 11.59 s
0-260 km/h 20.06 s
0-400 m. 11.97 s @ 203.7 km/h
0-1000 m. 20.80 s @ 263.5 km/h
Car and Driver (1991)
0-60 mph 4.2 s
0-100 mph 8.3 s
0-120 mph 11.0 s
0-150 mph 18.0 s
0-170 mph 23.6 s
Fast Lane (1989)
0-60 mph 3.9 s
0-100 mph 7.8 s
0-120 mph 10.2 s
0-150 mph 16.2 s
Quatro Rodas (1992)
0-100 km/h 4.81 s
0-160 km/h 8.79 s
0-200 km/h 13.06 s
0-1000 m. 21.83 s
Quattroruote (1989)
0-100 km/h 4.56 s
0-160 km/h 8.03 s
0-200 km/h 11.30 s
0-260 km/h 20.23 s
0-400 m. 11.92 s @ 201.8 km/h
0-1000 m. 20.98 s @ 263.6 km/h
Road and Track (1991)
0-60 mph 3.8 s
0-100 mph 8.0 s
1/4 Mile 11.8 s @ 124.5 mph
Corvolet3 3y ago
Price when new: 400.000 $
https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-advice/ferrari-f40-price-what-theyre-worth-now-74200