Corrected simulator results:
Increased driveline efficiency to 1
Increased road load coefficient to 0.064
Decreased torque at 8200rpm (by a very slight bit from 565 Nm) to 563.7613 Nm to match the 353.1688km/h top speed of the previous simulation
Reverted driveline efficiency to 0.85
Increased static friction to 1.171
Decreased ambient air density to 0.959
Increased road slope to 0.008%
Increased torque at 8200rpm (by a very slight bit from 563.7613 Nm) to 563.7673 Nm
The good news: 0-100 in 3"65, 0-200 in 9"00, 0-300 in 23"01, and a flat-out vmax figure of 353.2753km/h (219.5151mph)!
I'll admit that the 0-300 time is pushing it, but if we compare with AMuS' Enzo (that had two people in it instead of one), that particular car was only 1.8sec slower in real life than in the simulator where no passenger is present.
What will happen if I add an extra 775kg to the car (as in downforce)? That's basically the same as fitting an 850kg driver into the 1365kg car, or a 75kg driver into a 2140kg car.
0-200 will be 12"58 and 0-300 will be 39"82. But that doesn't make any sense since that will result in a barely 322km/h top speed.
Ferrari's claims for 0-400m (11-flat) and top speed (350km/h) are optimistic, I'll admit. If we average these out, the 0-200 two-way average should come out as 10"79, and a positive three-way average for 0-300 should be 27"21 (see note).
Note: (23.01+((23.01+39.82)/2))/2 = 27.21sec
As for top speed: (321.9577+353.2753)/2 = 337.6165 km/h average (similar to Motor Trend result and Car & Driver estimate)
As for curb weight: 1365kg is optimistic. (2140+1365)/2 = 1752.5; (1752.5+1365)/2 = 1558.75kg for US-spec cars; (1558.75+1365)/2 = 1461.875kg for Euro-spec cars. Ferrari wasn't lying about the curb weight (the dry weight is 1255kg); however, they typically rely on what some people call a "dry curb weight," which basically is the curb weight with an empty gas tank, no coolants and no other essentials.
Regarding the 0-100km/h and quartermile times: (9/10.79)*3.65 should enter the Enzo to its first century in just 3.05sec, but since we know that it won't do that, let's assume instead we took it on a dragstrip and the driver selected the quickest mode possible for optimistic shifting times and points; (3.05+3.65)/2 = 3.35sec to 100km/h!
That's right: the Enzo's claimed 0-100km/h time is WITHOUT a rollout. However, the 0-400m figure of 11-flat is WITH a rollout. This is verifiable by using this metric: (3.65+9.3)/2 = 6.50 to 160km/h or 6.55 to 100mph. 3.65*.95 = 3.45 to 60mph (all figures rounded to nearest 0.05s).
3.45+6.55/(3.45+6.55)*12 = 11.30 sec quartermile time. That means the Enzo relies on a 0.30sec rollout for quartermile. 11.30 - 0.30 = 3.15 to 60, 6.25 to 100, and 11.00 in the quartermile. But Ferrari claimed 400m, not quartermile; so we add an extra 0.05s to be a little bit more scientific. 3.20, 6.30, and 11.05 in the quartermile. Those are pretty much identical results to the McLaren F1 (except the F1 was stated to do the quarter in 11.1).
The Enzo is not a moderately powerful AWD sports car, so 3.15 divided by 3.35 shows a sign that the car likely had too much traction; 3.20 by 3.35 however makes more sense because it was a strongly powerful REAR-wheel-drive hypercar-of-its-day (still a supercar by today's performance standards).
If ambient air density is reverted to the default, that 9-flat becomes a 9.15 (200km/h); 23.01 becomes 26.94 (to 300km/h); 329.0960 is the new 353.2753km/h.