Image of Jaguar XJ220

Jaguar XJ220 specs

Car type Coupe
Curb weight 1470-1555 kg (3241-3428 lbs)
Introduced 1992
Origin country United Kingdom
Gas mileage 31.0-16.5 l/100 km (8-14 mpg US / 9-17 mpg UK)
Views 79.1k

Acceleration (mph)

0 - 30 mph1.9 s
0 - 40 mph2.5 s
0 - 50 mph3.0 s
0 - 60 mph3.6 s
0 - 70 mph4.6 s
0 - 80 mph5.5 s
0 - 90 mph6.5 s
0 - 100 mph7.3 s
0 - 110 mph9.3 s
0 - 120 mph10.8 s
0 - 130 mph12.6 s
0 - 140 mph14.9 s
0 - 150 mph17.4 s
Est. 1/8 mile8.4 s @ 101.3 mph
1/4 mile11.7 s @ 125.0 mph
Est. 1/2 mile19.4 s @ 152.9 mph
Est. 1 mile31.4 s @ 175.8 mph

Acceleration (kph)

0 - 80 kph3.1 s
0 - 100 kph3.8 s
0 - 120 kph5.2 s
0 - 160 kph8.2 s
0 - 180 kph9.9 s
0 - 200 kph12.0 s
1000 m20.6 s
60 - 100 kph (4)5.9 s
60 - 100 kph (5)10.0 s
80 - 120 kph (4)4.2 s
80 - 120 kph (5)7.0 s
Est. 100 - 200 kph7.8 s
Jaguar XJ220 acceleration graph

General performance

Top speed349 kph (217 mph)
0 - 100 mph - 015.1 s
Est. max acceleration0.71 g (7 m/s²)
Est. emissions429 g/km
100 kph - 036 m (119 ft)

Powertrain specs

Engine type 3.5 V6 Twin-Turbocharged
Displacement 3.5 l (214 ci)
Power 549 ps (542 bhp / 404 kw) @ 7000 rpm
Torque 641 Nm (473 lb-ft) @ 4500 rpm
Power / liter 157 ps (155 hp)
Power / weight 363 ps (358 bhp) / t
Torque / weight 424 Nm (313 lb-ft) / t
Efficiency 23 PS per l/100 km
Transmission 5
Layout middle engine, rear wheel drive

More 0-60 and 1/4 mile times

User avatar
User avatar

Corvolet3  2m ago

Ah yes, the Jaguar XM220


User avatar

benedekpuskas  2m ago

@FastestLaps

Could you remove the picture of BMW XM please, lol


User avatar

Paul  3m ago

Ugliest dashboard on a supercar, reminds you of the countach boxy dashboard

32f3453a8176.jpg?550x800m


User avatar

Whatever  3m ago

Tiff tests XJ220, Espirit and their racing versions around Silverstone South Circuit. He mentions Racing version of Jaguar is about 12s faster than road version. Wonder if it is possible to extract laptimes from this video.(if there are no segments skipped or something).
https://youtu.be/HpMuck3q9F4


User avatar

Fiesta ST  3m ago

  • 1990/1991 Engine: 6.2 L Jaguar V12
  • 1992-1994 Engine: 3.5 L twin-turbocharged Jaguar V6

The Jaguar XJ220 Development Mule Was a Ford Van

😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂 😂

7b5d7011defc.jpg?550x800m


User avatar

Corvolet3  3m ago

 

 

User avatar

TypeF173  3m ago

Devastatingly beautiful car. Although I Love the Mclaren F1 she's not like the Jaguar XJ220! You can buy them now for £400K. Unbelievable!


User avatar

Corvolet3  3m ago @TypeF173

It's a shame we didn't receive any acceleration stats. I mean I can see why, this YouTube channel is dedicated to SELLING cars, but it's still a shame.

I have some estimates, like 0-250 in 19.3 seconds and 0-300 in 33.0 seconds but I don't know if that isn't too slow.


User avatar

Crispi74   3m ago @Corvolet3

I need to Vboxed it. In my opinion it will do a better chrono to 300.


User avatar

196ss  3m ago @Crispi74

Would be nice too look at it.


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @196ss

I had the Vbox stopped from long, I don't know if it still works. Anyway honestly I have a bit fear to run over 300 kph so easily with these things (LOL) but 100-200 kph is much more operable.


User avatar

196ss  3m ago @Crispi74

That's understandable)

 


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @196ss

It would be interesting to check if Autocar's XJ220 was really delivering 580 hp the day at Millbrook as engineers were saying in the article.
Which kind of simulator you are using? Is it easy to find highly accurate results? I'm impressed by the accurancy of ingear results for the F40, and more impressed than accurany on full acceleration including gearshifts.
It could be more fun to use as dyno simulator for road test or Vboxed cars than other, for may interest.


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @196ss

I also have a present, these are mine, hope link works

bd7199e8293a.jpg?550x800m


User avatar

196ss  3m ago @Crispi74

I don't use any software for my calculations. I do them all manually in Excel.
The way I do it, I've already described in detail below.


User avatar

196ss  3m ago @Crispi74

@Crispi74

Since I wasn’t able to find the power/torque curve for XJ220, I’ve made estimated one.
Could you look at it? In your opinion, how credible is it?

bradenton-motorsports-park-2.jpg?550x800


User avatar

196ss  3m ago @Crispi74

@Crispi74
Please consider the calculation and give your thoughts on it

bradenton-motorsports-park-3.jpg?550x800


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @196ss

Let me check it later.


User avatar

Corvolet3  3m ago @196ss

Hey, those are pretty good 👍


User avatar

TypeF173  3m ago @Corvolet3

Those are incredibly impressive!


User avatar

Corvolet3  3m ago @TypeF173

Yea but I think 10.9 seconds are a little too fast 0-200. That's almost Bugatti EB110 SS league.


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @196ss

"@Crispi74

Since I wasn’t able to find the power/torque curve for XJ220, I’ve made estimated one.
Could you look at it? In your opinion, how credible is it?"

To me this diagram is underrated as the official is. Autocar said the engines where disigned to deliver 542 HP under 4 Cdeg temperature. Engineers were saying to be much more closer to 580 HP at 18 degrees it was tested the day at Milbrook


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @Crispi74

DESIGNED TO DELIVER 542 HP UNDER 40 Cdeg

Sorry


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @196ss

"@Crispi74
Please consider the calculation and give your thoughts on it"

These data are to me, too much closer one to the other, it can't be possible a range within 2 seconds to 300 kph for such a difference in temperature.

Here you can find article of the XJ220 tested by Autocar.
https://www.jagsupercars.com/press

Have fun!


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @Crispi74

Another point, I found an article where il was tested an XJ220.
0-100 3.9
0-200 12.0
0-300 29.6 or somenthing similar figure.
It was treated on an est europen website page, but unfortunatley I'm unable to find it again.

Second point. The magazine Autocar tested one XJ220 on the standing mile compared it a the side of an F40.
The article explain that the F40 was more feroucious eating first four gears but at the trap speed on 1 mile, with the 5th putted in, the Ferrari reached 286 kph instead of 290 kph of the Jaguar.


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @Corvolet3

Pay attention on the Bugattis, they are very different on weight and power that officially claimed. At the fact SS was slightly lighter than the GT. Some SS had powerful engines than other SS produced. I think it's difficult to fix it


User avatar

Crispi74   3m ago @196ss

f9a815727588.jpg?550x800m

Here you are the official power/torque diagram, but to me this doesnt works


User avatar

FastestLaps  3m ago @Crispi74

FYI, for images to work, you just need to copy-paste image URL (starts with "http" and ends with ".jpeg") without any BBCode.


User avatar

Crispi74   3m ago @Crispi74

"Another point, I found an article where il was tested an XJ220.
0-100 3.9
0-200 12.0
0-300 29.6 or somenthing similar figure"

Just to help to get the right proportion, if AMS did 31.4 to 300 kph for the F40, I think we can take as good the 29.6 for the XJ220 being anyway the latter slower to 200 kph.

Taking that time a point of start, if it was. The range under conditions in my experience will more addressed to be from 27 to 33 seconds, from the colder to the warmer.
Please, take example like just a proportion more than effective data.


User avatar

Crispi74   3m ago @FastestLaps

"FYI, for images to work, you just need to copy-paste image URL (starts with "http" and ends with ".jpeg") without any BBCode"

Thanks, I'm always confused using these links, hope to learn one day.


User avatar

196ss  3m ago @Crispi74

"To me this diagram is underrated as the official is. Autocar said the engines where disigned to deliver 542 HP under 4 Cdeg temperature. Engineers were saying to be much more closer to 580 HP at 18 degrees it was tested the day at Milbrook"

Yeah, I pretty much agree with that. Judging by the fact that several Jaguars tested accelerated to 341-342 km/h and my calculated one with 542 hp goes no faster than 335, in reality it has more power than claimed.
And 580hp is a good guess actually. I'll experiment with the power.
Thanks for the power diagram!

"These data are to me, too much closer one to the other, it can't be possible a range within 2 seconds to 300 kph for such a difference in temperature."

Hmm, I don't think I've made any mistake here. In the calculation, I assumed a power change of ~3% for every 10° change in power. However, as the temperature goes down, the air density increases and the air resistance increases respectively.
According to the calculation, the most noticeable improvement in acceleration occurs up to 260-280 km/h, beyond that everything more or less evens out due to increased airdrag. A difference of 6 seconds just because of temperature seems unlikely to me, but there are many other variables such as: altitude, atmospheric pressure, humidity, not to mention the technical condition of the engine, the amount of fuel in the tank, etc. If you take all that into account, the variation in time between 0-300 can be as much as 10 seconds.
The best result would happen at the high altitude at cold dry weather.

"Another point, I found an article where il was tested an XJ220.
0-100 3.9
0-200 12.0
0-300 29.6"

200-300 in 17.6 doesn't adds up with 100-200 in 8.1 for me.
There is probably some kind of a mistake here. Or maybe it could be a result of an early shifting to the 4th gear just before 200?

Interestingly enough, Autocar magazine also says that the engine revs up to 7600rpm and 60mph is achieved in 1st gear.
However, in the Car magazine article on the Nardo run, Martin Brundle complains that he hit the limiter at 7,400.
I get 60mph in second as 7400 is not enough to get to 60mph in first.


User avatar

196ss  3m ago @Corvolet3

0-200 for 10.9 to some extent doesn't count, as it is calculated under non-standard conditions.


User avatar

M Powwaa  3m ago

C´mom guys! XJ220 and Viper GTS faster than F50 ?
Look Castle Combre lap times, F50 is 3,5 secs faster than Viper GTS (381ps) in 1 lap!
In this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZgtxB_fj4k
F40 do 12 secs at 1/4 mile and Viper 12,6 secs.
In this another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXazkmqZVrg
F50 do 11,1 secs, F40 11,2 secs and Diablo SV 12,1 secs.
XJ220 had more top speed than Ferraris and Lambo but Schumacher at Mireval do 2,1 secs lower time in F40 against Jaguar. Finally my ranking of 90s supercars by peformance on track:
1- Mclaren F1: Fast as Ferrari Enzo and Nissan GT-R at Estoril and Bedford
2- Ferrari F50 and F40: F50 is faster than F40 at 1/4 mile and Fiorano, in Best Motoring F40 had best laptimes at Suzuka (cut the chicane) and Tsukuba (make various laptimes between 1:03 and 1:06) and F50 barely attack the kerbs.
4- Porsche 993 911 GT2: Incredibly fast with only 430ps.
5- Jaguar XJ220: Amazing Ring time (prototype without restrictions)
6- Porsche 993 911 Turbo: Suzuka laptime is a tuned version but is a bit faster than a F355
7- Ferrari F355 - I can´t put Modena in this ranking because is a 2000 model.
8- Honda NSX-R - Fast than Lambo in Thruxton and Ring but slower on Hockenhein and Suzuka.
9- Lambo Diablo SV: Not fast at short tracks.
10- Dodge Viper GTS: same time than Lambo in Hockenhein and only 1 sec. slower on Ring.
Not enough data for Bugattis, Dauer, Jaguar XJR-15R, Lister Storm, Corvette C4 ZR1 and etc...


User avatar

M Powwaa  3m ago @M Powwaa

I recalculated, the Viper is apparently faster than the Diablo and I forgot about the Ferrari 550 Maranello! If you remember more we can update the ranking!


User avatar

196ss  3m ago @M Powwaa

Standard McLaren F1 was slower on tracks than F40, F50 and XJ220. Even Murray himself admitted that.
Estoril time was in different layout and Bedford time was settled by non stock car.
However F1LM supposedly would be faster.

Also 993 GT2 won't be faster on tracks than XJ220.
Porsche test drivers had driven it around Nordschleife a lot and were never able break under 8. Their fastest time was 8:02-8:04 or something...


User avatar

FastestLaps  3m ago @196ss

F50 should be faster on track than F1 and wouldn't surprise many. But XJ220 always seemed to me like a car that is designed for top speed. A bit like McLaren Speedtail. Is it any good on track?


User avatar

FastestLaps  3m ago @196ss

Maybe I am judging XJ220 too much by how it looks (low, long, without very large/tall wing).


User avatar

196ss  3m ago @FastestLaps

XJ220 produced fair amount of downforce by its underbody and small rear wing.
Unlike Speedtail it had not very impressive Cd as 0.36
In some way XJ220 was a road version of XJR10 racecar.


User avatar

FastestLaps  3m ago @196ss

If it had average Cd and lots of downforce, how could it reach such high speeds?

Looks are deceiving but damn it looks topspeedy. Even the long rear overhang/tail hints at low Cd (less turbulence).


User avatar

196ss  3m ago @FastestLaps

More power than claimed probably and relatively small frontal area as 1.98 m2 (by today's standards).


User avatar

Crispi74   3m ago @196ss

"Autocar said the engines where disigned to deliver 542 HP under 4 Cdeg temperature. Engineers were saying to be much more closer to 580 HP at 18 degrees it was tested the day at Milbrook"

I think you have to adjust these points, a 580 hp car cannot dit the 0-300 kph within 1 second to itself that is producing 542. Thery are saying variations of 40 to 18 degrees. Sure the difference is wider because of the other obvious variables affect. On the other hand I'm not sure how just temperature itself affect, I have not any diagram of that. But the example of the GT2RS is the more right way addressed to go head. Both tests very same car, and the variable of underpressured air was denied due turbocharged compansating.

"200-300 in 17.6 doesn't adds up with 100-200 in 8.1 for me"

I know that some engines were strong, one I found was dynoed 606 hp. Unknown condition behind that data.


User avatar

M Powwaa  3m ago @196ss

Yeah, we had F1 LM streel legal but no laptimes. See Mclaren F1 laptime at Tsubuka, is incredible fast. But i don´t think XJ220 is faster than a GT2 on track overall, maybe on Ring in stock conditions.


User avatar

Cocobe  3m ago @M Powwaa

The LM was street legal, but not a production car anymore is it? Pretty sure it wasn't street legal for many countries, and in a sense a modified car.


User avatar

Whatever1  3m ago @M Powwaa

Suzuka has a faster chicane now btw. And a bit different 130r(lower entry radius and larger exit radius than 130m). Anyways F40's best lap wasn't when it cut that chicane.

Just added 1 cuz cannot use older name anymore.


User avatar

Crispi74   3m ago @196ss

I think you need to start calculated temperature with a mixture of pressure, if no, we are (I'm) not able to look at the proportions.
Try starting with adding 1013 mbar on high increascing it gradually at the lowering of temperature. As I tought 300 kph from 35 to 33 starting from 35 degrees to 5 it seems to close, but I can be wrong if other variables arent calculate.... let me look at some example on paper tested.


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @Crispi74

Before to try to find an axample on paper. I want to propose a question, you calculations addressed me on:

"For comparison, the F40 280-300 km/h acceleration calculation with different power outputs:
520hp - 6,1 sec
580hp - 4,6 sec"

This does means 1.5 seconds with an output of 60 hp variation in power (11.5%) delivered on just 280 to 300 kph accelerations.

Then, you said on jour last panel for the XJ220:
35 Cdeg: 280-300 kph 7.7s
5 Cdeg: 280-300 kph 7.4s

That's seems inconguent to me, becuse according on 3% of variable in power every 10 Cdeg, this does means around a 9% of variable that surely doesn't produce just 3 tenths on that segment.

You are calculating variations of 1.9s in 0-300 kph for 9% of power in the Jaguar panel when the F40 did just 1.6s in the last 280-300 for an 11.5%!

Am I wrong on something?


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @Crispi74

For the guy that dislike instead to remain anonimous I would like he put something logical on the table, because if we talk about power variations need to be clear that power that affects performance is the same that as output from the encreased engine delivering as is gained or losed by variations on wheather.


User avatar

T3Garrett  3m ago @Crispi74

Dislike is from a clueless hater called TypeF173.


User avatar

FDRotary  3m ago @Crispi74

Who disliked ? I can think of two idiots, Rick Astley or TypeF173.

They are children in pampers, they cry over everything including facts.


User avatar

FastestLaps  3m ago @Whatever1

You cannot use older name because one clown created a user account with name "Whatever".


User avatar

196ss  3m ago @Crispi74

"That's seems inconguent to me, becuse according on 3% of variable in power every 10 Cdeg, this does means around a 9% of variable that surely doesn't produce just 3 tenths on that segment.
You are calculating variations of 1.9s in 0-300 kph for 9% of power in the Jaguar panel when the F40 did just 1.6s in the last 280-300 for an 11.5%!"

I've already mentioned about this above.
I will try to explain it in more detail.

At 35 degrees Celsius, the motive force on the wheels generated by the engine at 300 km/h is 3979 N.
At this temperature the density of air is 1.1455 g/cm3.
The air resistance force, which is directly proportional to density, is 2796 N. The rolling resistance force is 134 N.
The resultant force is:
3979-2796-134=1049 N
And this force creates an acceleration of 0.57 m/s2.

At 5 degrees and 300 km/h:
Engine force - 4333 N (i.e. 8.9% more)
Air density - 1.2691 (i.e. 10.8% higher)
Air resistance - 3098 N (also 10.8% higher)
Rolling resistance - 136 N
Resulting force:
4333-3098-136=1099 N
It creates an acceleration of 0.59 m/s2.
Not that much more.
Is that clear?

At lower speeds, the effect of increased airdrag is less noticeable.
Therefore, top speed runs are best done in hot weather and best acceleration runs in cold.


User avatar

Cocobe  3m ago @196ss

"At lower speeds, the effect of increased airdrag is less noticeable.
Therefore, top speed runs are best done in hot weather and best acceleration runs in cold."

Only if the engine can cope with the warmer air intake. Some of the older turbo engines get early detonation in the cylinders from the warmer air, causing a large loss in power.

The most ideal is cooler air, at higher altitude. you lose minimal power in turbo engines but can cut thru air so much better.

Acceleration-wise, yes, cooler air is always better. Track performance usually cooler is better too, because production tires normally overheat too easily, downforce also works better in cooler denser air.


User avatar

196ss  3m ago @Crispi74

And one more thing.
When you compare real test results, you have to keep in mind that different publications have slightly different measurement procedures, and this, along with differences in conditions, also contributes.
For example, AMUS tends to measure acceleration with a full tank and a passenger, so their acceleration figures are usually worse than those of Autobild and Autozeitung.
In the same Sport Auto and Autobuild tests you cited as an example, along with the GT2RS, the LP570SL was also tested.
And the acceleration variations of 100-300 km/h were:
GT2RS - 17.3 sec --> 18.8 sec (8.7%)
LP570SL - 18.6 sec --> 22.6 sec (21.5%)
And it wouldn't make any sense if the difference was only due to temperature changes, since as we know this factor has a stronger effect on turbo cars.
I'm aware that different Gallardo cars were used in the test - DY-169TS and DY-164TS. But still.
There are a lot of variables.


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @196ss

Here I don't follow you well anymore, I partially get due to the fact that but I'm not confident with your data but maybe we are divering on our own thinking. Sorry I will try to understand later, maybe it's my limit here, I will look at.


User avatar

FastestLaps  3m ago @Cocobe

The most ideal is cooler air, at higher altitude. you lose minimal power in turbo engines but can cut thru air so much better.

I know all cycling distance records are set at velodromes specifically built at very high altitude. Air drag / density is the only limiting factor, especially when we are talking ~ 0.6 horsepower that human "bio engine" can sustain (for hour record).

Interestingly, even a bio engine (lungs and muscles) loses power at altitude but the reduction in aero drag more than makes up for it.


User avatar

FastestLaps  3m ago @Cocobe

Modern turbo cars should be practically immune to altitude changes. That's why turbochargers are so great on piston aircraft. Only downside (and its not a small one) is extra maintenance burden and corresponding theoretical loss of reliability. On aero engine maintenance is nightmare. Expensive nightmare.


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @196ss

"And it wouldn't make any sense if the difference was only due to temperature changes, since as we know this factor has a stronger effect on turbo cars.
I'm aware that different Gallardo cars were used in the test - DY-169TS and DY-164TS. But still.
There are a lot of variables."

Sure, I may agree.


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @FastestLaps

Yes guys but making a step behind?


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @196ss

"At 35 degrees Celsius, the motive force on the wheels generated by the engine at 300 km/h is 3979 N.
At this temperature the density of air is 1.1455 g/cm3.
The air resistance force, which is directly proportional to density, is 2796 N. The rolling resistance force is 134 N.
The resultant force is:
3979-2796-134=1049 N
And this force creates an acceleration of 0.57 m/s2.

At 5 degrees and 300 km/h:
Engine force - 4333 N (i.e. 8.9% more)
Air density - 1.2691 (i.e. 10.8% higher)
Air resistance - 3098 N (also 10.8% higher)
Rolling resistance - 136 N
Resulting force:
4333-3098-136=1099 N
It creates an acceleration of 0.59 m/s2.
Not that much more.
Is that clear?"

SO LET ME UNDERSTAND, here you are saying me that at lower temperature there are some other negative/opposite forces? Am I understood wrong?


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @Crispi74

Ok you are saying me that while the engine is producing more total torque to the asphalt thruogh the gearobox on lower temperature, a the same time air density, air resistance, rolling, etc, are producing an amount of negative forces that eat the magior partial of the encreased power going progressively down on temperature.


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @Crispi74

"For example, AMUS tends to measure acceleration with a full tank and a passenger, so their acceleration figures are usually worse than those of Autobild and Autotzeitung.
For example, in the same Sport Auto and Autobuild tests you cited as an example, along with the GT2RS, the LP570SL was also tested."

Yes for sure, so how we can conlcude the point, my examples were unproperly corrected to say that lower temperature helps to encrease power delivering and do better acceleration numbers.

Your answer is yes, but not much more.


User avatar

FastestLaps  3m ago @Crispi74

Yes guys but making a step behind?

I almost managed to derail this into conversation about aero engines 😂


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @FastestLaps

"I almost managed to derail this into conversation about aero engines"

196ss considerations seem to me well founded on this point, but it seems like we are missing a tile to finish the puzzle.


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @FastestLaps

The tile is missing seems to me that untill the engine is not producing more enough torque to compensate negative forces, performance will going down.
An N/A engine incresed surely less torque related to temperature variations than Turbos, but I have yet to see a performance loss under lower temperature.


User avatar

196ss  3m ago @Crispi74

"Ok you are saying me that while the engine is producing more total torque to the asphalt thruogh the gearobox on lower temperature, a the same time air density, air resistance, rolling, etc, are producing an amount of negative forces that eat the magior partial of the encreased power going progressively down on temperature."

Yes, it is.
Resistance figures are quite easy to calculate. It's power that's more difficult to do.
Ideally, it would be nice to sistemize all the variables, indicate the limits and the impact on the final result for each one.


User avatar

Cocobe  3m ago @FastestLaps

"I know all cycling distance records are set at velodromes specifically built at very high altitude. Air drag / density is the only limiting factor, especially when we are talking ~ 0.6 horsepower that human "bio engine" can sustain (for hour record)."

That's a very good point. Skating records are as well. But humans have the ability to compensate thru altitude training to increase the ability to absorb oxygen, then using that increased hemoglobin to race in thinner air.

There is a saying that, humans usually breathe too quickly anyways. We aren't limited by how much oxygen we breathe in, as much as how quickly we can absorb it and transfer it around the body.


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @196ss

"Yes, it is.
Resistance figures are quite easy to calculate. It's power that's more difficult to do.
Ideally, it would be nice to sistemize all the variables, indicate the limits and the impact on the final result for each one."

Yes but this does explain to me that untill the engine is not producing more enough torque to compensate negative forces, performance will going down. I want to be sure of this point, N/A engines they would all suffer.


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @Crispi74

At 5 degrees and 300 km/h:
Engine force - 4158 N (i.e. 4.5% more)
Air density - 1.2691 (i.e. 10.8% higher)
Air resistance - 3098 N (also 10.8% higher)
Rolling resistance - 136 N
Resulting force:
4158-3098-136=924 N
It creates an acceleration of 0.496 m/s2.

Explain to me well, if the Jaguar had been provided N/A engine according to a variable of 1.5% every 10 Cdeg, the acceleration created will be 0.496 m/s2?

So it will be slower at 5 Cdeg than it was at 35 Cdeg?


User avatar

196ss  3m ago @Crispi74

Yes, it seems to be the case.
But, we have to realise that with increasing speed, engine pulling force decreases linear proportional to speed, and the airdrag increases proportional to the square of the speed. So, at 260km/h and 5 degrees the car will accelerate harder than at 35, and accordingly the 200-300 time will be faster at 5 degrees.

260km/h 5 degrees:
Engine - 4158×300/260=4798
Drag - 3098×(260^2)/(300^2)=2327
(Let's drop rolling resistance for now, as it has very little effect)
4798-2327=2471 N
260 km/h 35 degrees:
Engine - 3979×300/260=4421
Drag - 2796×(260^2)/(300^2)=2100
4421-2100=2321 N
That is, the effect of increased resistance of denser cooler air would be experienced after reaching, let's say, 80% of the top speed.


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @196ss

Ok, I'm following. So the result at that point is changing aspect, the total amount of torque is about 6.5% higher at 5 degrees than the situation tested at 35 degrees. But anyway lower than without looking at negative forces.
Traduced in elapsed time, what's the real conditions of that range looking at a 0-300 kph time with that data, purified after all?


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @Crispi74

And it's anyway lower than the condition to look at a turbochared situation.
Turbocharged situation must have a greater advantage.


User avatar

196ss  3m ago @Crispi74

Sorry, but it looks like I made an arithmetical error in my previous post.
Honestly, it's hard to figure it out on the fingers like that.
I'll do a corrected calculation for the XJ220, and some NA car in comparison at 5 and 35 degrees.
I'll post it here as soon as it's ready.


User avatar

Crispi74   3m ago @196ss

1b07ad7eb968.jpg?550x800m


User avatar

Crispi74   3m ago @M Powwaa

"F50 do 11,1 secs, F40 11,2 secs and Diablo SV 12,1 secs."

Not sure is an F50 could menage 11.1 stock, it's too slow to produce that number.

"Ferrari F50 and F40: F50 is faster than F40 at 1/4 mile and Fiorano, in Best Motoring F40 had best laptimes at Suzuka (cut the chicane) and Tsukuba (make various laptimes between 1:03 and 1:06) and F50 barely attack the kerbs."

On track Fiorano Goodyear tires make its job on tricky corners on the F50. A very good job when take it comparioson.

The XJ220 is like a sister group C car, it seems effective on track, I remember when it race our GT championschip here in my country at the side of the F40s with great results. The only championschip were it was possible to look at two XJ220s in comparison to some F40s so close to stock form.
I retain the Jaguar aerodinamically well done, with an amazing underbody that done its magnificent work. No other at the period with that detail.


User avatar

Crispi74   3m ago @196ss

"More power than claimed probably and relatively small frontal area as 1.98 m2 (by today's standards)."

When I tried to find on that detail, power was always inclined to be 580~606 hp.


User avatar

Crispi74   3m ago @M Powwaa

"Yeah, we had F1 LM streel legal but no laptimes. See Mclaren F1 laptime at Tsubuka, is incredible fast. But i don´t think XJ220 is faster than a GT2 on track overall, maybe on Ring in stock conditions."

We need to consider tires and effort looking at track times. Very often we do the mistake to compare track times from different era, lap times made with technically different tires and the practice to deal with the track.
I would like to look at an XJ220 at Nring today with faster road tires and addressed effort to the time attack.


User avatar

Crispi74   3m ago @196ss

"Sorry, but it looks like I made an arithmetical error in my previous post.
Honestly, it's hard to figure it out on the fingers like that.
I'll do a corrected calculation for the XJ220, and some NA car in comparison at 5 and 35 degrees.
I'll post it here as soon as it's ready."

I would was problably making to much sense at the variations of temperature being not so confident on calculations as you are.
I just looking at numbers on road tests with the most careful check at the air ambient variation that the article claims. So yes, many other little variables as quantity on fuel on tanks, practice to start with passenger, mileage on engines, etc, are variations to affect results, usually not so many data on condintions are available on articles, so unknown variations are possible, but reward me for the commitment to look at, even with no calculations practiced ;-)


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @196ss

"Standard McLaren F1 was slower on tracks than F40, F50 and XJ220. Even Murray himself admitted that.
Estoril time was in different layout and Bedford time was settled by non stock car.
However F1LM supposedly would be faster.

Also 993 GT2 won't be faster on tracks than XJ220.
Porsche test drivers had driven it around Nordschleife a lot and were never able break under 8. Their fastest time was 8:02-8:04 or something..."

Yes agree.

"F50 should be faster on track than F1 and wouldn't surprise many. But XJ220 always seemed to me like a car that is designed for top speed. A bit like McLaren Speedtail. Is it any good on track?"

@FastestLaps

When the XJ220N raced our own GT championship 1993 I was under the paddock frequently, bacause I still was already passionate. When they raced in Mugello the qualyfing time were 2.01 for the Jaguar and the best F40 lapped 1.59. Sure they were NGT cars not properly setted up for road use but behind this does explain that the F40 need to really well adjusted with Michelotto suspensions to attack the Mugello track as 2 seconds faster than the Jag. This is due to the fact that the english car has nothing missing to be fast as the Mugello track characteristics is.


User avatar

Crispi74   3m ago @196ss

:Also 993 GT2 won't be faster on tracks than XJ220.
Porsche test drivers had driven it around Nordschleife a lot and were never able break under 8. Their fastest time was 8:02-8:04 or something..."

That point is very strange, the 993GT2 I would have thought it was able to go under 8 minutes on the Nordschleife, the potential is high, I always tought it was a question of trim not focused for ups and downs.


User avatar

Corvolet3  3m ago @Crispi74

Perhaps it was the mix of the chassis and tires that didn't allow it to perform any better 🤔 what I do know is the 996 GT3 managed to go below but only with the help of Walter Röhrl. Perhaps better tires and a driver like him would have done the trick, no one will know.


User avatar

Crispi74   3m ago @Corvolet3

Anyway if I recal the lap was 20.8 kms at that time, it wasn't the 20.6 used later.


User avatar

196ss  3m ago @Crispi74

bradenton-motorsports-park-4.jpg?550x800


User avatar

Crispi74   3m ago @196ss

Thanks a lot, so all the other wider variations are because of the other variables.


User avatar

196ss  3m ago @Crispi74

"I just looking at numbers on road tests with the most careful check at the air ambient variation that the article claims. So yes, many other little variables as quantity on fuel on tanks, practice to start with passenger, mileage on engines, etc, are variations to affect results, usually not so many data on condintions are available on articles, so unknown variations are possible, but reward me for the commitment to look at, even with no calculations practiced ;-)"

Yes, your desire to get to the heart of things is very commendable. I'm, too, always try to assess the variables before saying "bullshit this, bullshit that...".
As for comparing the capabilities of cars in a straight line or on a track, you can only reliably judge by tests on the same day under equal conditions with the same driver.
Unfortunately, even then it sometimes happens that testers are biased or incompetent and a particular test has to be discarded.


User avatar

196ss  3m ago @M Powwaa

"F50 do 11,1 secs, F40 11,2 secs and Diablo SV 12,1 secs."

F50 which done 11.1 in the Best Motoring video had tuned exhaust.
11.2 for stock F40 is also unrealistic


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @196ss

Let's say that a wider point of wiew is the better way to look at and conclude with just more confirmed situations. This is my way to look at but I'm not sure to be clear writing on this point. Am I?


User avatar

196ss  3m ago @Crispi74

Yes, I think you articulated it perfectly


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @196ss

You can't immagine how this way helps. I'm sure you know.
Some hard points to conclude becaming conclusions, obviously need a sense behind.
It need to find the sense, sometimes...it need to be able to understand where and if could be the way to find the sense.


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @Crispi74

Just for example on the XP5 record run. When I found that the 70.000 kms Bmw engine was checked inside and then everything put in, it occurred to me that just working on changing elastic bands on pistons from a well broken-in engine, they surely find extra compression, that in addition to sligtly adjusted aggressive setting on variable valve timing, they found an extra powered engine unit, just saying that the engine works fine. Just making it working within their legal and ideal limits from a well broken-in and checked unit....and that could be it.


User avatar

Whatever1  3m ago @196ss

"F50 which done 11.1 in the Best Motoring video had tuned exhaust.
11.2 for stock F40 is also unrealistic"
Wait, weren't same cars used for Suzuka Super Battle? If so could they be considered stock?


User avatar

196ss  3m ago @Whatever1

Here is Fastestlaps explanation of this from a comment 4 years ago:

"I am aware of this video. That recording of 400 m pull with Tubi exhaust proves that F50 is the best sounding road car in human history.
But some ppl here were unhappy about having this time published because allegedly Tubi exhaust makes it not stock.
Despite this, I have published all F50 laptimes by BM, which were with the same Tubi setup. My position is that F50 such a rare jewel that we can be a bit more lenient with the mods. It's better to have some data than no data for this classic.
The Tubi exhaust definitely has much less effect than modern track-focused semi slick tyres, which would be perfectly "legal" fitted to classic car, as per FL ToS."


User avatar

196ss  3m ago @Crispi74

Without any calculations just by your experience, how much power should 1100 kg car have to achieve 200-300 in 10,6?


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @Whatever1

"Wait, weren't same cars used for Suzuka Super Battle? If so could they be considered stock?"

They were both provided of TUBI exhauths, an F50 that sounds so high means that flow and the exhauts were increased and insonorised. Not to mention in the case if it was decatted (and with high probably remapped).

Anyway the pratice of these BM tests were to timed cars on distance beetween two laser photocells, so the time need to be considered with a on rolling start instead really from 0. The extended extra time that need at the car to cut the laser from zero.


User avatar

Crispi74  3m ago @196ss

"Without any calculations just by your experience, how much power should 1100 kg car have to achieve 200-300 in 10,6?"
They can be used high octane also, anyway I would like to leave words to the calculations.
Anyway the book "Driving Ambition" said that Wallace put the 6th gear at 321 kph. I would not that revving 8300 rpms there was a gain in time with higher gearshift than made it a 290.


User avatar

Crispi74   3m ago @Crispi74

Infact gearshift into 6th in the more accurated video seems to be more like it was made at 301 or 302.


User avatar

Whatever1  2m ago @196ss

Sure, but still doesn't change the fact that it wasn't stock. Besides Suzuka has a long straight to make use of extra power.

Anyways that can somewhat explain why they were faster than Carrera GT there. But then again circuit was a little faster in 2003 compared to 2000.

As for data thing, pretty sure Gan San also lapped 2:29.xx for F50.


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @Whatever1

Untill we haven't any confirmation on works made behind that F50, I will go cautious to say the car need to be at fact stock.


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @196ss

"Without any calculations just by your experience, how much power should 1100 kg car have to achieve 200-300 in 10,6?"

Believe me, I don't want to say you a figure. I just want to say that a car like was pwerful the Cargraphic F1 being tested just 3000 kms, it can will be even faster one day the engine was well broken-in.

Adding to the fact that Andy putted the 6th gear so later on the XP5 to achive 300 kph quickly, in my idea we are not SO FAR from the agreement on both facts.

Please take the example with due to sense.


User avatar

Whatever1  2m ago @Crispi74

Agreed there.


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @196ss

"Without any calculations just by your experience, how much power should 1100 kg car have to achieve 200-300 in 10,6?"

Our own friendly argument remember me a fun thing, when Gordon Murray grumbled on the fact that the F40GTE was delivering 700 HP for HIM at Monza in 1995, when the limit permitted for GT1 cars was to 650.
Michelotto engineers were just answering that their engine were perfectly restricted using official fuels as the regulation imposed, so not necessary is important to know how it singulary deliver, (ie our are turbocharged engines we are helped these days in Monza or something..).


User avatar

Corvolet3  2m ago @196ss

680-720 PS is my guess


User avatar

Crispi74   2m ago @Corvolet3

Producing or dynoed?


User avatar

Corvolet3  2m ago @Crispi74

Producing. I don't wanna be the guy who takes one metric and applies it on everything, since these situations can always be different. Faster and slower


User avatar

196ss  2m ago @Crispi74

"Anyway the pratice of these BM tests were to timed cars on distance beetween two laser photocells, so the time need to be considered with a on rolling start instead really from 0. The extended extra time that need at the car to cut the laser from zero."

Well, it does explain to me how BM 400 m times are usually 0.2-0.3 seconds faster than it should have been.
Thank you!


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @Corvolet3

One video is saying on the XP5:

0-200 kph 7.9 s
0-300 kph 18.5 s

The other video is saying looking at a screenshot:

0-200 kph 8.2 s
0-240 kph 11.7 s
0-300 kph 18.5 s
0-301 kph 18.7 s
0-302 kph 19.4 s

CG F1 test said:

0-200 kph 8.8 s
0-240 kph 12.2 s
0-300 kpn 20.3 s (with a gearshift made around 288 kph)

At that point we can say that CG F1could have done 200 to 302 kph in 11.8 seconds or less than 12.

XP5 seemed to be able of 200 to 302 kph within 11.2-11.5 secs.

That is just looking at the videos.


User avatar

M Powwaa  2m ago @Cocobe

I agree


User avatar

Crispi74   2m ago @Crispi74

@196ss

Why don't you try to simulate two o three situations of power level with or without inclouding the gearshift at 290.

Adding like 6 tenths for the shift time, that it seems it was looking at videos


User avatar

M Powwaa  2m ago @196ss

That´s info is for compare F40 and F50 versus Viper. Yes is aftermarket exhaust could make 5% more power i guess,but the fact is que Ferrari F40 is faster than a Viper GTS on 1/4 mile.


User avatar

M Powwaa  2m ago @Whatever1

"Anyways that can somewhat explain why they were faster than Carrera GT there. But then again circuit was a little faster in 2003 compared to 2000."
The Carrera GT was not pushed to its limit


User avatar

Whatever1  2m ago @M Powwaa

Gan San did say it was a little soft for that track iirc, when video was up that is. And it did receive same critic as it received when it was tested at Nurburgring. Anyways it is amazing how some hot hatches can beat it at Suzuka(configuration is same from 2003-Present).

Not pushed to limit thing can be used for multiple cars here. Typically people only accept that argument if it is their favorite, else they criticize that argument from what I have seen.


User avatar

FastestLaps  2m ago @Whatever1

Do you think Gan San push it to the limit when he did the lap at Suzuka? I don't think so. It was his first attempt with that car with any kind of fast lap.


User avatar

196ss  2m ago @Crispi74

Yep, McLaren F1 is definitely next in line.
However, will have to wait a little, there is a lot of work to be done in the next few days and flights every day.


User avatar

Crispi74   2m ago @196ss

89cf3e52bf1c.jpg?550x800m

Here the LM vs F1 in gaer acceleration panel.

If this help. I'm not sure to find LM's drag.


User avatar

Whatever1  2m ago @196ss

It would be speculative tbh.


User avatar

196ss  2m ago @Crispi74

I'm a bit confused, does the rear wing activate ONLY when braking?

Although the F1’s pop-up rear spoiler was not intended to be an air brake — it is there to prevent forward migration of the aerodynamic centre of pressure when the car pitches under braking, increasing braking stability and allowing greater braking force to be applied at the back wheels — it actually raises the car’s drag coefficient from 0.32 to 0.39. Activation of the spoiler is controlled by brake line pressure, with a threshold speed of 40mph.
When the spoiler is raised, air pressure is developed at its base which is exploited to force cooling air to the rear brakes. Ducts at either end of the spoiler, which are uncovered when it deploys, convey the airflow down to the rear discs.

http://www.audiosignal.co.uk/McLarenF1.html


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @196ss

Yes I always known that, I also know the the system it was choosed to be disatcivated later, I don't recall where I read that some cars had disactivaed it or it was a choose to disactivated for all the F1 production. Not sure on this.

I'm trying to find aero data for the LM/GTR...I thought I found somewhere


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @Crispi74

It would be good to find aero data for the LM/GTR, at that point we can extrapolate how that engine works on a stock F1 bodywork, am I wrong?


User avatar

Crispi74   2m ago @Crispi74

https://www.racedepartment.com/threads/which-is-faster-than-what-ordering-different-racing-series.111899/page-2

The 1995 GTR had about a 0.65 CDa (CDa=coefficient of drag..)


User avatar

196ss  2m ago @Crispi74

This equals Cx about 0,35-0,36
Seems to low. Probably without wing?

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/aerodatabasemclarengtr97.html

997 lbs at 200 mph for GTR. This means CDa=0,92 or Cx around 0,46-0,48. That's for high downforce settings however.


User avatar

196ss  2m ago @Crispi74

eeb7d96f7538.jpg?550x800m

So F1 road car downforce around 200 lbs at 230 mph.


User avatar

Whatever1  2m ago @196ss

I think it says fan generates enough downforce to leave a net downforce of 200lbs by cancelling out lift of 500-600lbs.

Which would need about 700-800lbs before lift values are taken into account.

There is also a statement on Autocar Mclaren F1 Book(which can be found on issuu, page 29) , where they said GM targetted to get around 160lbs at 149mph. So is it designed in such a way that net downforce remains the same at different speeds?


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @196ss

How about these bullshits, talking about reading around, just for curiosity:

By the way GTE cars are faster in straight line than 1995 version which only reached 281km/h at LM.

None of your facts are anywhere close to correct...especially in your last paragraph. The 1995 car did 381 kph (237 mph) in qualifying....That's 52 mph faster than current GTEs....

By the way 381km/h by F1 GTR 1995 at mulsanne straight is impossible(even C11 Group C managed that speed).

About the 1995 speeds, even if the 381 number isn't correct, the 281 number is equally nonsensical.

And regarding 281km/h at Le Mans,it was raining during the race so logically it will reach lower topspeed at straight.<<

That's fun how people is thinking being not informed on facts. The 281 kph made by the fastest F1GTR on race, wasn't because it was raining or because made that low speed on Hunaudeires straight. This is just because the trap speed was taken on first portion of straight from Mulsanne to Indianapolis corner. LOL
The F1GTRs top speed on Hunaudieres were around 330 kph. The Harrods car drived by Andy Wallace trapped speed from 326 to 336 kph during the race.
This is to know how people is flying around!

This equals Cx about 0,35-0,36
Seems to low. Probably without wing?<<

Couldn't be due to lowest downforce with wing?


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @196ss

"997 lbs at 200 mph for GTR. This means CDa=0,92 or Cx around 0,46-0,48. That's for high downforce settings however."

The GTR1997 was lowered and elongated, but I think it has visibly wider portions of wings and nolders to produce more downforce instead the earlier versions.


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @196ss

"This equals Cx about 0,35-0,36
Seems to low. Probably without wing?

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/aerodatabasemclarengtr97.html

997 lbs at 200 mph for GTR. This means CDa=0,92 or Cx around 0,46-0,48. That's for high downforce settings however."

If these data are right, this does means why the F1 GTR was very fast on straight in comparison to the competition. It seems to keep contained figures of drag even provided with parts addresed to downforce.

I'm in you, I would try to simulate something with the data we found at Cx 0.36, just because I think it was presumibly the setting choosed for the LM road legal car. Not sure on this point, but if the road car was 0.32 and you said me that the Hamann (remember?) was 0.38 looking at a wider wing fitted and some other details.. we can been within to meet, am I wrong?
The GTR1997 was higher for sure.


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @Crispi74

The F50 was stock:

Cx 0.375
CxS 0.72
Frontal area 1.93 m2

Looking at the F1 LM are of course two different cars, the LM has a wider biplane wing but it has the rear window that the F50 has not. Not sure if Cx 0.36 and CDa 0.65 was too low, but it was surely lower than the GTR97.

Tell me the your.


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @Crispi74

https://www.racedepartment.com/threads/which-is-faster-than-what-ordering-different-racing-series.111899/page-2

F1GTR (year unknown)
Low downforce @ 320 kph
600 lbs; Cx 0.34
High downforce @ 320 kph
1500 lbs

F1GTR 1997
High downforce @ 320 kph
2193 lbs; Cx 0.46-0.48

The F1LM is the road version of the GTR talking on aero, I think you (196ss) have to be focused there.


User avatar

196ss  2m ago @Crispi74

In my old records, found that the claimed downforce of the F1 LM was 550kg at 160mph.
However, cannot found confirmation on the web, and this value seems too high for the Cx=0.36.
Could it be that the LM also has an adjustable rear wing angle like the GTR?
In that case the drag and downforce options are possible.

Another question different sources indicate different peak power for LM. I've seen 668, 680 and 690 PS. Can you please tell me in your source of LM acceleration on gears what power and torque values are given?

About bullshite they write on the forums. I've encountered in several places that the GTR supposedly accelerated to 381km/h at the Mulsanne.
Where does that come from? It's strange that people believe this nonsense.


User avatar

196ss  2m ago @Crispi74

For example F50 you've mentioned had Cx=0.372 and created 440 kg of downforce at 325 kph according to Ferrari.


User avatar

196ss  2m ago @Crispi74

I was confused by this phrase:
"Although the F1’s pop-up rear spoiler was not intended to be an air brake"

I remember reading somewhere, or there was some video, that the road McLaren F1 had a special button which activated 2 fans and rear spoiler, and it helped when cornering.
Maybe I misunderstood something...


User avatar

196ss  2m ago @Whatever1

Perhaps, but I find it hard to imagine that 2 fans like that could generate 360kg of thrust.
At the very least, for this to work effectively, the car should have some sort of side skirts and lower clearance.


User avatar

Whatever1  2m ago @196ss

This book mentions it has driver turnable high downforce more. On page 76.
https://issuu.com/themagazineshop/docs/mclaren_f1

And 160lbs at 149mph downforce target for road car, at 29.


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @196ss

Yes, the LM has the adjustable wing like the GTR. So it can be setted in differend wing positions.

The article is saying 680 BHP, but remember, I'm not sure on difference on the 5 LMs produced. They were made in the winter 95-96 in combination of the higher compression solution for the GTR engine. So, 668, 680, 690 there could be variants on power.

381 seems it cames from imagination of someone that had disclosed that figure just becsuse 281 seemed to be too low for the Hunaudières straight. Too low? Why dont put a 3 at the place of the 2 figure. Lol


User avatar

Crispi74   2m ago @Whatever1

I own that book for real.


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @196ss

"In my old records, found that the claimed downforce of the F1 LM was 550kg at 160mph.
However, cannot found confirmation on the web, and this value seems too high for the Cx=0.36."

If the GTR produced 1500 lbs @ 320 kph in high downforce configuration, this does not means something like Cx 0.42, am I wrong?


User avatar

Crispi74   2m ago @196ss

"I was confused by this phrase:
"Although the F1’s pop-up rear spoiler was not intended to be an air brake"

I remember reading somewhere, or there was some video, that the road McLaren F1 had a special button which activated 2 fans and rear spoiler, and it helped when cornering.
Maybe I misunderstood something..."

Infact it was not intended to be an air brake but at fact it was.
They were addressed to balanced the car and find a system to add cooling brakes during braking, but all that was traduced in air braking.
Now, I dont recall where I read they deleted the system, when and reasons.


User avatar

Crispi74   2m ago @Crispi74

a7f1fec0d299.jpg?550x800m

Thumb down because GTR1997 was very aerodinamically identical the early verions? Lol


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @Crispi74

ec6a4e777732.jpg?550x800m

Here is comprensible that thumb down is out from a troll, because also a cild knows that the F1GTR was fast on straight due to its low drag configurations, downforce and power.


User avatar

FastestLaps  2m ago @Crispi74

You worry far to much about thumbs down counts... Seriously


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @196ss

"In my old records, found that the claimed downforce of the F1 LM was 550kg at 160mph"

This does seems higher than the GTR, I'm not sure how realistic this could be.


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @FastestLaps

Absolutely not, but it seems that someone I pointout details at the beghining here, is having fun on this way also on objective points of wiews. This sounds as immature. We are here to talk and report impressions, experience, etc, if someone is putting his own ideas on table sounds good, but this is just for trolling I have no more fun.


User avatar

196ss  2m ago @ Crispi74

@Crispi, Whatever
Thank you guys for your help in accumulating initial data!
One more question, does the book (the link doesn't work for me unfortunately) state how much power were the fans producing? Did Andy Wallace use them during the record run?
Also, are the rear wing angles for the low and high downforce positions on the GTR known?


User avatar

Crispi74   2m ago @196ss

Honestly I have never found so much about those fans, how much those works and when/if they were really used.

Unfortunately I dont own the angles position, converning pictures you can find GTR with different wing positions during races, also the presence/absence of a nolder (the 96 car has really different wing options also).
Concerning the LM, runs were done with LM XP1 the very first car, that to me addressed at 668 bhp engine unit if this point make sense. Concerning wing, the car seems to have wing with nolder on picture published on articles, but not sure the presence of it in the 0-100-0 run. The biplane seems to be angled on top for high downforce, but to be accurate need to find closer pictures to confirm angle and nolder presence in that circumnstance.


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @Crispi74

a09ebf0aa45c.jpg?550x800m


User avatar

Whatever1  2m ago @Crispi74

It could just be that F1 LM has adjustable downforce for the wing. 225mph topspeed is for low downforce configuration. Since it has most parts the same as F1 GTR, except for Brakes. I would assume it has same downforce as 95 spec. Which produces half the downforce produced by 96 spec as stated in scans and links you provided.


User avatar

Whatever1  2m ago @ Whatever1

So we are probably talking about around 75-200kg downforce at 149mph depending on configuration.


User avatar

Whatever1  2m ago @196ss

I don't think it answers those questions. But presumably would he not use setup which is optimal for speed run for setting that record?


User avatar

Crispi74   2m ago @ Whatever1

Surely.


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @196ss

I was double checked the calculations. I noticed there is something strange in the proportions anyway. The proportions I means is that difference in added power at the same temperature, and difference in power due the temperature.
If we take the example of the Jaguar taking the 9% of variable in the circumnstance, calculations reports that product will be around 6.5% really down on the asphalt, due to forces subctracted, but a 6.5 still is.
The segment of acceleration of 280-300 kph varied for 5.9s to 6.2s (it's a 5.0%). And untill here no problems.
When we talked just about power as variable, the F40 you said me that from 580 hp to 630 hp (ie. 8.6% in power) the time varied was to 4.6s to 3.9s (that is a 18% of wider difference).
My question is, when we talk about deducted power, it is just power.
The wrong part that I means is that if Jaguar varied for 5.0% on the time for 6.5% on power, the Ferrari example is adding propotionally just a 2.4%.
Tell me if something I wrong.


User avatar

M Powwaa  2m ago @Whatever1

@Whatever1
See again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UeJ2b6Qhzw
Skip to 16:56
The battle had 3 laps, F40 did your fastest lap in lap 3 (final lap).


User avatar

M Powwaa  2m ago @Whatever1

"
Whatever1 6d ago @M Powwaa

Gan San did say it was a little soft for that track iirc, when video was up that is. And it did receive same critic as it received when it was tested at Nurburgring. Anyways it is amazing how some hot hatches can beat it at Suzuka(configuration is same from 2003-Present).

Not pushed to limit thing can be used for multiple cars here. Typically people only accept that argument if it is their favorite, else they criticize that argument from what I have seen."

You again...
First at all, CGT isn´t my favorite car.
It´s obviou Carrera GT is faster than F40/F50.
Finally the video of laptime in Suzuka:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4ggDhHGJlw


User avatar

FastestLaps  2m ago @M Powwaa

That particular F50 with Tubi exhaust and what not versus stock Carrera GT, both on modern tyres - it could be a match. CGT would more than likely beat it on a fast GP track but at Tsukuba - I don't know...


User avatar

196ss  2m ago @Crispi74

@Crispi74

If I understand the question correctly, in one scenario the power is simply increased, but in the other, due to the changes in conditions, the airdrag is increased in parallel with the increase in power.
That is the difference.

PS: calculations for the different versions of the McLaren F1 are still in work. But it won't be long now.
There are still some raw data to double-check.


User avatar

Whatever1  2m ago @M Powwaa

I was just talking about general arguments on forums, rather than it being an individual thing. Typically fans of a brand try to make their brand's car seem faster than it is, while trying to make other cars look slower than they are.

Unfortunately it doesn't contain time attack lap and subs. Older video which is now deleted had both.

Again, F40 and F50 weren't likely stock. Power from exhaust can compensate for lack of acceleration F50 has, compared to Carrera GT. Suzuka has long straights on some sections. How fast would you say Carrera GT lap Tsukuba circuit btw?

Gan San may or may not have pushed it to the limits, but without asking him it is speculative at best. Not a real argument.


User avatar

Whatever1  2m ago @M Powwaa

You might be right about F40. But current chicane of Suzuka is just as tight as shortcut he took.


User avatar

196ss  2m ago @Crispi74

@Crispi74

So, I finally present for your judgement the acceleration calculations for the various McLaren F1 models. I apologise for the delay, it was quite a busy time last week. And the calculations themselves took a while.

bradenton-motorsports-park-8.jpg?550x800

Also, you might be curious to see a comparison of the calculated acceleration in gears with the tested data you've provided.

bradenton-motorsports-park-9.jpg?550x800


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @196ss

Thanks a lot!

In the first panel you are write as it was the XP5, but it was the XP4 with a brokenn-in 607 PS engine that made the test.

Anyway, what's your conclusion about power on cars (focused on the XP5) and calcutaion accuracy?


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @196ss

My conclusion is the following:

The XP4 seems to be slower than the data published on the panel you made. It was tested in early May, so temperature was lower as to be like 25 degrees there in England. Ok no other data on weather conditions but the car trapped 285 kph on the 1000 meters for real. Your data indicate better numbers. The car was 15000 miles so maybe engine seemed was already losting something (?).

The Cargraphic car if it is made with correct power curve data, seems to be fast as a production car should do on that condition, isn't it?
The car was tested on 1022 mbar of ambient air pressure so I'm quite on that said (quite!).

The XP5 for the top speed record run, it seems to me that we are trying to meet the point, it seems to be closer to be "producing" a 690 PS, but it was also tested on 31 March in Germany, I'm quite sure we were not talking of so high on temperature. I'm adressed to think that the engine was increased on power produced. They would have been idiot in Mclaren to switch an engine to an LM engine when officially they claimed just of a own unit check. I don't rule out they found a way to run powerful engine, as already explained just with an accurate engine rebuilding!

Let me know if something sounds wrong on that said.


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @196ss

Concerning the GTRs, data you posted aren't so much closer to numbers I already found on 24h LM books. I found speeds of around 280 kph on the straight taken about one km far from the Mulsanne corner and around 300 kph about 400 meters later.


User avatar

196ss  2m ago @Crispi74

I agree the engine swap looks pointless. All I meant was that the engine could possibly have been modified to a performance similar to F1 LM.
So Autocar/Motor were testing the XP4, not the XP5? I just now noticed that they have a photo of two McLarens in the article: in addition to the black XP5, they also have a dark blue one, presumably the XP4.
As for my opinion on the calculated figures, I think they are a bit faster than they should be.
A possible reason could be the curb weight. I used 1138kg for the F1 and 1062kg for the LM in the calculations, however I have not found any confirmation for these figures. It may just be the manufacturer's data, which is more of a dry weight reference.
Curious as to which car C/D was testing? Their article uses the same pics of the XP5 as the Autocar, but the curb weight is listed as 1170kg, and a top speed of 221mph on the red line.

https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a15142653/mclaren-f1-supercar-road-test-review/

Another thing is that judging by the in gear accelerations F1 LM top gear ratio should be shorter than 0.93


User avatar

196ss  2m ago @Whatever1

"I think it says fan generates enough downforce to leave a net downforce of 200lbs by cancelling out lift of 500-600lbs.
Which would need about 700-800lbs before lift values are taken into account."

In one interview Gordon Murray said that the downforce created by the fans is about 5% of the total downforce of the car.
So, assuming 800lbs, you get a maximum of 18kg, i.e. no more than 9kg each.
This seems logical since the claimed thrust of the GMA T.50 fan is 15kg, and it looks considerably bigger.


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @196ss

The McLaren used the Autocar test as main test. Many other test around were just reprinted tests. Yes, the XP4 was the car they used for testing with Correvit system. The XP4 was born dark gray and then refurbished in blue metallic just before to be delivered to the new owner. It was fitted with the last engine prototype delivering new 607 PS. No info on swithced engine later. The car was 15000 miles when they tested. One of the test that seemed to be made really with the XP5 back then was the one made by Autozeitung with the car 2000 kms on the odo.
Concerning weight I always tought 1138 kgs would be considered as dry weight. I recall that early GTRs were weighed 1120-1140 kg dry at the BPR racing period so would not have been possible 1138 curb weight. Ameritech was 1270 kgs, without US parts, so I think it will be more accurate as curb weight figure.


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @196ss

"All I meant was that the engine could possibly have been modified to a performance similar to F1 LM."

This point has all the characteristics to deceive. Just my opinion. Mainly we are not sure the conditions they tested for the top speed record run, the only proof is the date, 31 March 1998 in high Germany. I'm the first to say that they rebuilt the engine looking at to perform with no uncertainty, but one thing is to say an engine blueprinted instead to say tune the engine out of original specs. I'm more adressed to think the made the right way to find the best performance out of the engine using their own XP5 engine with 77.000 kms on the shoulders. As said, there was the way. I had a friend in US on Fchat that rebuilt his Ferrari Enzo's engine. He found a shorter 60-130 mph after the accurate rebuilt.


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @Crispi74

Just to be more accurate. The XP5 was the 1st car to been provided of the definitive engine. That engine was dynoed 627 PS so they claims that figure as the power for the production. BUT, we cannnot know for real how margin there was behind thet engine for sure. Maybe yes, maybe not. Some engines would be able to deliver more that 627 PS with the same specs later., so we cannot exclude an engine closer to 660 after the rebuilt. This kind of engine is surely able to produce good numbers under favourable conditions!


User avatar

Crispi74   2m ago @196ss

Not for last the GTR 1997 LT, the fastest hit 317 kph, the slowest just 308 on the segment of straight that was 1400 meters far from the Mulsanne corner.
The car were said to been 604 PS restricted that year.
The problem on your calculations is that seemed to been able to 300 kph after ~1500 meters and 320 kph after ~2950 meters on your panel on low downforce setting.
The 1997 car was the quicker between the GTRs being not the powerful but the lightest.


User avatar

196ss  2m ago @Crispi74

Changed the curb weight to 1250 kg for F1 and 1200 kg for LM. Also changed temperature to 18 deg:

bradenton-motorsports-park-10.jpg?550x80


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @196ss

Data calculated you are posting are really close to be right ones now.
I always thought the XP4 was little more powerful than it was new when tested, evidently mileage alrealy affect performance at 15000 miles.

Concerning the XP5, I just verified the weather archive in the Celle climate station at 40 kms far from Ehra Leissen in 1998. Temperature was 18 Cdeg and pressure was 1015 mbar during the day. https://en.tutiempo.net/climate/03-1998/ws-103430.html

So yes you are right, it seems they were in the region of 690 PS from your panel! But my question is now: how they did it so powerful as it seemed?

This is because the F1LM engine was not just a tuned road engine or something luckly borned.
It was made by a process of made a racing engine drivable on road. They started for the GTR engine, then they decatted the exausts system fitting stright trought exhausts when they fitted air restirctors they were forced to Ecu mapped and later provided higher compression pistons of 1 point. This is could be one reason why they claimed varible power figures for the LMs.

From here to deliver the LM engine for road they deleted the air restrictions and they remapped for road use with soundproofed racing exhausts.

Starting from a road engine unit this is impossible without doing tricks!


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @196ss

b8c09f0c5f3d.jpg?550x800m

Here you are some details during the top speed record runs. The 386 kph seemd to be made with mirrors fitted, the 391 kph run was presumibly done without mirrors fitted looking ate the official video. Also a transparent front film was used to lower drag.

aa584e7cec90.jpg?550x800m

Here you are pictures of the exhausts during official images of the video and book. Catalytic converters seemed to be fitted at their place, exhaust semmed to be far from to be a LM exhaust, looking at the rear image when the car was parcked at Hera Leissen seemed to be as the original one. Video said that Wallace found no anomalies from the dashboard.


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @Crispi74

9dbba8d67ae2.jpg?550x800m

Here you are another picture where you can find the lack of mirrors and the presence of transparent film applied to lower drag. This image was taken as soon as Wallace parcked the car after the 391 kph run.

I think this is the reason why the found such an extra acceleration and extra top speed.


User avatar

196ss  2m ago @Crispi74

Curious details.
Well, I personally think the record car had at least 700hp.
Here's a comparison:
Calculated 300-350 kph - 13.3 seconds (11.8 in the video)
Calculated 300-360 kph - 17.9 seconds (15.2 on the video).
They may have gutted it, of course, but there's not really much you can remove from F1.
Unfortunately I'm not really good at engine making, so it's hard to say HOW the power has been increased. Perhaps they improved the intake port design to increase airflow and supplement that with more aggressive camshafts that increase power by allowing the engine to rev to a higher RPM. Also, I think all road engines are slightly detuned to increase durability, and I think factory engineers always have ways of adding 10-15% power without a major engine rebuild even if it's NA.
And you made fair assumption that some sort of special fuel probably had been used.
As for the removed mirrors and film, I don't think it had that much of an effect. I think about 2-3 km/h increase at most. Could be wrong though.


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @196ss

You must excuse me if I still have conserved my own doubts. Expecially on aerodynamic effects on the latest details and on power of XP5. Even in relation with the XP3, its weaker engine being lower powered that the XP4 and what it did at Nardò, looking at how this track cut out on top speed. In that specific condition the XP3 did a 371 kph. Are you sure that needed to added a 19-21% (580PS +19-21%= 690-702 PS) in power to reached the extra 20 kph (at fact less than 20) at Ehra Leissen? If you are sure, I don't deny it but your calculations are saying that 16.1 kph from 370.7 to 386.8 kph need a 13.6% increased on power from XP4 to XP5 with LM engine. I confirm that I do not use calculations. Anyway don't worry about me. Thanks.


User avatar

196ss  2m ago @Crispi74

That's fine. Everyone has an opinion, and I don't pretend that mine is the only right one.
However, I do believe in the forces of nature and the laws of physics, and I don't believe in magic. And so far it hasn't let me down.
As for the test in Nardo, there are a lot of questions. Nardo is a ring, i.e. if the car accelerates to 370 km/h there, should it accelerate to 380-390 km/h in Ehra-Lessien? With 580 hp?
It is claimed that the test was done at +40 deg. That would probably make it easier as the air density is only 1.127 at that temperature, but still something doesn't add up here.
The Koenigsegg CCR had a claimed CDa=0.542 and over 800hp. With these specs, it was able to accelerate to 388 km/h in Nardo. As you know the change in power is proportional to the change in speed in the cube. We can calculate how much power would be needed for the CCR to accelerate to 371 km/h:
806*(371x371x371)/(388x388x388)=705hp
Taking into account possible tricks like no mirrors, film, etc. it could be 650-680 hp. But 580 is hard to believe.


User avatar

Crispi74   2m ago @196ss

"That's fine. Everyone has an opinion, and I don't pretend that mine is the only right one."

Yes sure. It's not a problem between us.
I was just saying that what was the sense to use trick claiming already at the second engine delivered from Bmw. Saying that engine was 535 PS at 7000 rpm and 580 PS on top, when at fact 650-680 PS?
Then to use that same version to trick not just at the definitive unit, the 627 PS engine, the 4th unit, but for all the production. Because if they tricked at the beghinning means they always triecked.


User avatar

196ss  2m ago @Crispi74

Dunno. Probably their dyno stand wasn't accurate enough.


User avatar

Crispi74   2m ago @196ss

That does not stand, because it would be that sometimes their dyno was reading right like on the XP4 case, like on production cars case or LMs cases, but sometimes was not reading correctly like on the XP3, and the XP5 6 years later behind the conclusion choosed from you.
This does said to us that in 1992 Bmw produced a so strong engine tio make a step behind immediately, also, when Autocapital said XP3 was to 0-160 kph in 7 seconds able. A 650-680 hp XP3 would be faster than 160 in 7 seconds as your scenario would said. This seems to me all paradoxical and hard to be closed.


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @196ss

Just for comparison on data archived:
XP1 hit 170 mph on the Hangar Straight at Silverstone.
The XP2 hit the same 170 mph.
XP3 hit 173 mph before to brake at the Stowe.
Looking at the XP4, unfortunately there are no data, but it seemed there were the space to reach no more than 175 mph from Becketts to the Stowe.


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @Crispi74

106005286388.jpg?550x800m

a6c1c6e42666.jpg?550x800m

f955d0424a42.jpg?550x800m


User avatar

TypeF173  2m ago @Crispi74

 

I think you may like this. Or maybe not! But still that's your choice.🙂


User avatar

Crispi74   2m ago @TypeF173

Yes thanks, I love all these Scars. But also I love rebuilt their history on a correctly way.
Nothing to idolatrate, everything to value. In the right or worst way. I consider calculation a right way to think, but need to be double checked. Just good when you have nothing of sure. That's my opionion.

Here you are concerning F1 prototype weights:
7b55ed61ffdc.jpg?550x800m

XP1 was weighed 1003 kg dry, XP4 was 1067 kg dry.

I thought there were weights like 1018 kg or in the middle between XP1 and XP4 to been adressed to XP2 and XP3.

I will come back on hp engines data of protos soon.


User avatar

Crispi74   2m ago @Crispi74

That's what happened looking at the delivered engine power claimed by period documents:

882020b809b3.jpg?550x800m

The unit on XP1 comes directly from Edwards test mule, power was claimed to be 550 hp.

Later XP1 was crashed in Namibia, not sure if the engine was recovered to be fitted in XP2, also the crash test car.

9b66b04efc74.jpg?550x800m

Here the power claimed for the XP3 prototype.

24e22b961a8d.jpg?550x800m

Here the XP4 before to be refurbished in blue color.

b8201947836e.jpg?550x800m

Here what official document claimed for the engine unit fitted in the XP5 prototype.

So I can accept other opinion than mine, calculations are accepted, but need to make sense. This was how they officialy claimed on early engines delivered by BMW.


User avatar

196ss  2m ago @Crispi74

Thank you for the info. That's very interesting!
I need some time to digest it.


User avatar

Crispi74  2m ago @196ss

I don't have to teach you anything. With all that package of info you will be able to close so many answers, starting from the difference in acceleration from XP1 to XP3. The latter was just few miles faster long the Hangar straight than the XP1 fitted with a 550 PS early engine. A 650/680 PS engine should be faster than 173 mph on that straight at Silverstone. This is why a 580 PS engine was the only way to think about XP3 unit fitted.
The other point is that Mclaren had not the possibility to switch their engines for the Nardò speed test made the 8 May 1993, there wasn't the opportunity, just few engines were delivered at the beghinning, XP4 607 PS unit was already married into the car while XP5 627 PS unit was just dynoed at BMW. Just 4 or 5 engines were produced and those were.
The same concerning weights, early prototypes were very ligthweight cars, the XP5 was the closest to the production model, so heavier that the XP4 car.
Not for last, the top speed and power of the XP5 later the rebuilt check for the top speed run in 1998. When they did 231 mph with the XP3, they were sure to be able to reach 237 mph behind their calculations with the last engine that BMW dynoed but still not ready to be tested on road, XP5 was completed in later of September.
When they tested in 1998, the car was well checked fitted with a renewed and blueprinted engine, approccing the top speed without mirrors and a film fitted on front of the car. Looking at how mirrors affect drag, ie chaning positions Cx dropped from 0.34 to 0.32, testing without these parts they made 243 mph.


User avatar

Crispi74   2m ago @Crispi74

Another point out was the question from XP4 and XP5 performance at the beghinning.
Mclaren choosed to test XP4 for officialnAutocar test instead XP5 I thought due to the fact that the older was quicker for the broken-in engine.
The XP4 made with a engine underpowered by 20 PS than the XP5, but it was running 15000 miles instead 2000 kms when they tested ther other prototype car. Even the XP4 was lighter than the last. During tested XP4 did 0-300 kph in 22.4 seconds instead 23.0 of the XP5. Not sure if that really stand correctly in the right way but that was.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @Crispi74

What does 1.11.35,1.8.20,1.7.93 indicate on those Silverstone tests written notes?


User avatar

Crispi74   1m ago @Whatever1

I think lap times during session testing, I dont't know the real track configuration. Maybe the south section. This notes are published on Driving Ambition book, and they were written by Murray.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @Crispi74

Well it definitely cannot be for GP circuit. It has to be either North loop or South circuit of Silverstone from 90s. Are there such notes for other tracks available in that book? Maybe we can find something useful there.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @Whatever1

*by North loop I mean national Circuit. Anyways configuration for that is different as well at Luffield corner.
https://www.racingcircuits.info/europe/united-kingdom/silverstone.html


User avatar

Crispi74   1m ago @Whatever1

The configuration was one that included the Hangar straight. So the south section I think.
I will double checked soon if there were other lap times on the book, even I recall not.


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @Whatever1

Unfortunately no other referement from the book. No referement to other cars of the period. Anyway it's largely clear that the F1 was not made to make fast corners, that was the way choosen by Murray to build a car able to read the asphalt in the best way but at the same time, sacrificing stiffness. In the same direction was the wheels/tires size, directing the choice to higher tire shoulder than the available on market.
That was the reason why the F1 produces lower corner forces than the Ferraris of the period looking at data provided from just few magazines on their articles, but traction is a strong point. Someone here was intended to prove something concerning speed corners provided from an article made at the Nurburgring on the Nordschleife making the mistale that those data were taken from an odometer with its error of precision and reference to human eye. The latter means to addressed to incorrect speed corners numbers if not well referred to the apex point.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @Crispi74

Well that's it then.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @Crispi74

Anyways if it was South circuit, 550 Maranello did 1:21 on 1997 configuration, which is slightly different than the one F1 used. Main difference being at Abbey corner. But can F1 be that much faster than Maranello?

Other than those I had only seen a video top gear F1 XP4 Goodwood being timed by someone. When Tiff drove it, Tsukuba runs etc.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @Whatever1

Ignore P1 and other modern cars laptime in South circuit page btw, it is done on modern International Circuit. Which seems a bit slower than Old South circuit.


User avatar

196ss  1m ago @Whatever1

There is no way that F1 can run the South circuit in 1:08. Also, the title says: Siverstone (GP circuit). I think there was talking about times on a certain segment.


User avatar

196ss  1m ago @Crispi74

According to calculation results, the McLaren F1 to reach a top speed of 231 mph with 580 hp at 40 deg Celsius needs a CDa of no higher than 0.552.
That means Cx of no more than 0.308. Whether this reduction is possible by removing the mirrors and using film I don't know. It could be perhaps.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @196ss

Layout was faster when F1 was tested ig.


User avatar

196ss  1m ago @Whatever1

Well, the only difference between 91-95 and 97-2009 configuration is changed Abbey corner, and it shouldn't make such a big difference in laptimes.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @196ss

How did you conclude that? Maybe your reasons can help me see your point of view better. P1s lap is done on an entirely different circuit layout. (If it is due to it being too close to P1 for example).


User avatar

196ss  1m ago @Whatever1

1991-1993

47461e643e7d.png?550x800m

1997-2009

6ea43126146f.png?550x800m

Wasn't talking about P1, it's lap was on different layout. You are right.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @196ss

Ok, how did you conclude F1's lap time is impossible? Can you find laptimes for other cars in that layout which should be faster than F1 but isn't or is dangerously close?


User avatar

196ss  1m ago @Whatever1

I would put it this way:
If the F1 prototype is able to 1:08 at the 91-93 layout, then the Autocar test driver who laped 1:22 on the 550M was absolutley incompetent.

Why don't you create an account?


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @196ss

How do you think F1 compares to 550M around a track? Anyways, lap times between factory driver and a journalist are usually pretty different.

For example, I remember seeing Tiff Needell lap Fiorano with Enzo at 1:29, but best time is 1:24.90.(Though correct me if I got it wrong). Jonathan Palmer was factory driver back then iirc.

It's just that I don't really think I have much to contribute here than is already here. Other than some occasional comments. Plus my interests change quickly.


User avatar

Crispi74   1m ago @196ss

"That means Cx of no more than 0.308. Whether this reduction is possible by removing the mirrors and using film I don't know. It could be perhaps."

Pictures were published with mirrors and without film for the attempt, but who knows they really used that practice, it could be.


User avatar

Crispi74   1m ago @196ss

Agree. There is a reason why the XP2 did 1.08 for sure, maybe they used a south loop version without Vale segment?


User avatar

Crispi74   1m ago @Crispi74

752ff2d6202e.jpg?550x800m

When Autocar did the comparo, the Vale chicane was made 45 mph with the 550 Maranello and Stowe was tighter than using the track layout without those triky corners.


User avatar

Crispi74   1m ago @196ss

"According to calculation results, the McLaren F1 to reach a top speed of 231 mph with 580 hp at 40 deg Celsius needs a CDa of no higher than 0.552."

Sometimes need to think also that an engine increase power later it was dynoed at the beghining of its life.
Surely the XP3 engine was 580 hp new and maybe in the 600 hp region when tested at Nardò and later the running-in was completed. So CDa could be closer to the official than that.


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @Crispi74

https://ibb.co/Vt1T77m

In 1993 it was still available the faster straight from Stowe to Club corner because old segments were still not already deleted.
Running the fast straight the XP3 was faster on the Hangar straight thatn the Maranello, it had a larger Stowe corner to run across an it had just to brake for the Club in that way.


User avatar

196ss  1m ago @Crispi74

@Crispi, Whatever

Yes, in case the old straight segment between Stowe and Club corners was used, the time looks possible in principle.
However, Murray is writing the 1993 GP Circuit himself, so it's still hard to make definite conclusions here.


User avatar

196ss  1m ago @Crispi74

"Surely the XP3 engine was 580 hp new and maybe in the 600 hp region when tested at Nardò and later the running-in was completed. So CDa could be closer to the official than that"

It is possible, besides if the engine has 607 PS at 20 degrees Celsius, it is about 580 at 40.
However, also should keep in mind that the Nardo is not an Ehra-Lessien, where you can get 99% of the possible top speed. My understanding is that the 231 mph was rpm limited, so the drag limited top speed for this prototype would have been somewhat higher.


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @196ss

Agree on both points. It could be that Murray wrote GP Circuit just to semplify the note.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @196ss

If any one of you know Murray(or people involved in F1's creation) in person or a friend of Crispy who had F1 once(maybe through him, if he has to meet Murray someday for buying his new cars) , maybe ask him about those tests he did with F1, which can include lap times as well, layout of Silverstone used, time they got on Mireval, Nurburgring(since Autocar F1 book mentions F1 being tested there). And more Importantly about tires they used during the test. Was it road car tires, slick tires etc?

I would just say I don't know about legitimacy of those times. Was it Silverstone South Circuit? Were the tires same as one's on road going car or were they slicks?

Anyways I am curious how do you think F1 compares to 550M around a track? Would it be slower than that as well ,for example?


User avatar

196ss  1m ago @Whatever1

Well, I have no such connections, unfortunately.
However, testing on the track, does not always mean trying to set the fastest lap. Therefore, the results may not be particularly impressive.
As for the comparison with the 550M, I think on the same configuration under the conditions where the Ferrari showed 1:22, the McLaren F1 time should be in the 1:17-1:19 range.
Your estimate?


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @196ss

Crispy did mention he knew a guy who owned F1 iirc. So I was wondering if he had some contacts with Murray.

Probably in 1:16-18 range. Though I could be wrong. Need real test to confirm.


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @Whatever1

I knew two people that owned the F1. One was an old friend of my father he was a collector but he doesnt owned it anymore. The other was Kidston that I'm sure he know very well Murray. When I will have the opportunity I will try to ask him.

Another question on the XJ220. I found an Autocar article that shows a Jaguar that reached 203 mph at Brutingthorpe (at 1.7 mile trap speed) where the Mclaren F1 XP5 did 211 mph or so. This is just to note that some XJs were very fast cars on fast speed. What do you think about its power, I'm sure we are here over 600 hp.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @Crispi74

Also ask him to ask Murray about Nurburgring,Silverstone(one we are discussing about, whether it had used full South Circuit Or one with Shortcut) and Mireval(if he reveals it, we can have data to compare it with likes of XJ220, F40 etc) laps with configuration used for those tracks. Since those mentioned in Autocar and Motor F1 book, although no times. This could hopefully shut up people who overrate it, since it would be word from the man himself and now he isn't politically obligated to hype up F1 himself.

Yes I agree that it was over 600hp. I have seen some F1 videos around Brungringtrope, they did reach more than 200mph. Though not sure if I can get laptime for configuration Tiff used to test XJ220.


User avatar

196ss  1m ago @Crispi74

I'm confused a bit.
Isn't Autocar tested XP4?


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @196ss

Autocar at fact tested the XP4 from 0 to 160 mph at Millbrook. The day next they tested XP5 from 160 to 200 mph, at Brungtingthorpe and they published the combination of both runs. Making the run untill 200 timed, they reached 211 at the end of the straight.


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @Crispi74

Anyway there are pictures of the blue XP4 with the correvit applied, Murray and Palmer there presents, the background is still Bruntingthorpe.


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @Crispi74

f5113507adc1.jpg?550x800m

Not sure it was really Bruntingthorpe, I leave the choice to you, sure a car was the blue XP4 pictured with Correvit.

Here the link of the story.
https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/features/autocars-exclusive-mclaren-f1-road-test-30-years


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @Crispi74

6f9de383dd87.jpg?550x800m

Here you are on the left, the segment of the Autocar test where they claimed that XP4 for their figures and XP5 to drove and photographed.

On the right, the test made times later with the XJ220 and their point out for the 211 with the Mclaren.


User avatar

196ss  1m ago @Crispi74

It's all a little confusing for me. The article says that the XP5 was used for a photoshoot and the speed measurements were made on the XP4. However it really looks like the front right wing is black in this photo:

bradenton-motorsports-park-11.jpg?550x80


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @196ss

Infact, the 211 run was made with the dark green (you've said black) F1 XP5.


User avatar

196ss  1m ago @Crispi74

Ok, thanks for the clarification!


User avatar

196ss  1m ago @Crispi74

According to my calculations trap speed of 607 hp XP4 at 1.7 mile should be 216 mph, 627 hp even more, for XJ220 - 200 mph flat.


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @196ss

Thanks, that is a question I will ask you.
XJ220, what is the power for 200 mph?


User avatar

Crispi74   1m ago @196ss

As far as I undestood they made 211 with slightly less space than 1.7 mile with the F1.


User avatar

196ss  1m ago @Crispi74

At 20 deg it's 585 PS (estimated consdering 549 PS at 40 deg).


User avatar

Crispi74   1m ago @196ss

Thanks.

What's your calculations for the 627 hp F1 car, on 1.7 mile?


User avatar

196ss  1m ago @Crispi74

219.8 mph
For 211 mph trap speed 2090 m (1.3 mile) is enough.

If we are talking about XP5 which was used for 1998 top speed record, it's trap speed at 1.7 mile should be around 225 mph.


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @196ss

203250a8a77f.jpg?550x800m

The F1 stopped with a good 200 yards left. That's was with two persons onboard.

If we are talking about Bruntingthorpe, the F40 was in the low 190 mph region startiong from 0. The 198 mph was the best I archived for an F40 on rolling start.

bacef02eafb5.jpg?550x800m


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @Crispi74

I can add that, where that XJ220 was able to 203 mph on rolling start, that F40 wasn't able to do better than 198. That is how power means on top speed runs!


User avatar

196ss  1m ago @Crispi74

Right. The advantage of the F40 is its low weight, but as you approach top speeds, the value of this parameter comes to a 0.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @196ss

Btw how much faster do you think F1 LM would be compared to F1 around Silverstone South Circuit?


User avatar

196ss  1m ago @Whatever1

My guess that LM would have 8-10% faster average speed compared to the base F1


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @Whatever1

The F1GTRs lapped 1.41 in 1995 BPR at the Nring GP. The UK Ferrari Challenge lapped 1.50 with the F40s and F50s both with slicks, but we know that the F1 was slower that these. I think about a douzine of seconds every 2 minutes per lap from the F1LM and F1 road car are plausible for sure.


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @196ss

What do you think about the 203 mph Jag, 600, 610 or 620 PS?


User avatar

196ss  1m ago @Crispi74

To reach 203.1 mph trap speed at 1.7 mile XJ220 needs 617 PS (609 hp) according to calculation.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @Crispi74

Yeah, F1 definitely won't beat them especially if they are on slicks during those races.

Anyways what do you all think of this video for F1? Is time in this video accurate?
https://youtu.be/URIzYquArAE


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @Whatever1

Yes it seems so, 1'24"36.


User avatar

196ss  1m ago @Whatever1

Apparently that was XP4 again.
I honestly have my doubts about this lap time. The videotape does not look like a coherent timeline. Some fragments are probably missing.
If you are interested in the capabilities of F1 on the track I suggest you carefully study the test at Estoril.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/69432036@N04/8369948013/in/album-72157632497173608/

As far as I know, this is the only F1 test on the track, for which there is some kind of telemetry.

813f9287af39.png?550x800m

866f12a301bc.png?550x800m

I've studied the lap times of the race cars, the difference in lap times between the 1993 configuration and the modern one is about 6%. That is, in the modern configuration, the F1 time should be about 2:03. Although, for some reason they tested it with two passengers, so without that ballast, we can assume a 2:00-2:01 laptime.
The section between the apexes of the "Lamy" and "Orelha" corners has remained unchanged since then and F1 passes it in 46.2 seconds.
In this video, you can see that the Civic Type R passes this section in about 47 seconds. That said, the "Lamy" turn is now kinda narrower, so the exit speed of the F1 in current configuration would be slightly lower.

 


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @196ss

A 1:58 lap with Chicane on estoril is around 2:06 on Estoril without that chicane(Oreha curve has been restored now so both configurations are usable) . According to an on board Video I have seen. Though I am not sure about First section, which while slower now is a bit shorter.

Goodwood video seems coherent to me. Cannot find missing segments tbh.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @Whatever1

For first part opposite.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @196ss

How much time would passengers add per lap?


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @Whatever1

I will share Estoril Videos here. If that helps.

 

 


User avatar

196ss  1m ago @Whatever1

"Goodwood video seems coherent to me. Cannot find missing segments tbh."

Periodically the driver and gearbox are shown and where he is going isn't clear at all.


User avatar

Whatever 1  1m ago @196ss

Yeah, but he seems to be talking real time rather than a narrator kind of talking(when it was timed) . Seems unlikely imo.

Anyways, someone can ask him on Twitter(if they have an account), whether TG skipped some segments in the interval where it was timed. Back when they shot it.

With that said, Goodwood lap times by Autocar seems a bit too slow. Nissan GT-R being like 5s slower than LFA? Seems dubious.


User avatar

196ss  1m ago @Whatever 1

Agree on that Autocar laptimes part, but F1 slower than LFA on just 1.7 seconds also doesn't look correct.


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @196ss

Guys I'm losting, what's your conclusion on F1's Goodwood lap time of 1.24. It is slow or fast time?

F1 Estoril lap time I always considered nothing of something partucular fast, looking at the track configuration.


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @Crispi74

Ford GT40s on recently historic revival are regularily running Goodwood track in 1.22, all of that behind 289 specs and Dunlop racing tires.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @Crispi74

For a 90s car, I suppose it is impressive. But then again, as for comparison with modern cars, good laptimes are hard to find(since database seems to be consisting mostly of non pro driver lap times and as I mentioned Autocar laps are slow) , LFA was tested with a passenger on board iirc. I think F1 would be fast at power circuits like Goodwood, not so fast at circuits like Tsukuba compared to it's competitors at the time. It still holds record for Millbrook or MIRA circuit if I am right.

I think it would be about 2 min lap time if we take into consideration percentage gap for 2 configurations, with video I posted. If we assume first section time remains same. Though I am not sure how much time would Passengers add to the car.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @Crispi74

GT40s lap slower than 430 Scuderia on Spa (which is around 2:40 iirc) around 2:42 or 46 lap time iirc. Perhaps that can be used for prediction on other circuits.


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @Whatever1

All of that said, explain to us that on every way we look the F1 seems to find handicap speed on corners and under braking. Engine we are sure it had.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @Crispi74

Braking was good compared to other cars in 90s, though obviously it is bad now. In comparison F50 took around 176ft to stop from 70-0, F1 took 162ft, F1 LM took about 156ft iirc(according to distance figure you shared) when Andy Wallace did 0-100-0mph test.

Handling wise I would say it was average back then. We had F40 and F50 which cornered better than F1 but also Diablo which seem to be worse than F1.

Anyways I will wait for Murray thing before I finalise my judgement on F1. More data better judgement we can make.

Right now my stance for it's track performance is, it is fast on Power circuits(compared to 90s cars) like Monza, Goodwood, Le Mans or any large Oval Circuits.

Slower than F40, F50 on technical tracks like Tsukuba, Estoril maybe Nurburgring.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @196ss

Since you said, F1 would do 2:00 at current Estoril setup. Would you say that F1 LM would be about 1:48-1:50 based on 8-10% faster thing you said? 48 seems a bit too fast imo.


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @Whatever1

Mainly I agree on your are saying, just to point out the F50 braking was better than US magazines forun on their tests. The average was 1,14 g on force braking from 200 kph to 0, distance was 138 meters.

In my opinion the F1 was fast on power circuits as you are saying, yes it has a lot of acceleration, but it need to make attention on segments of these fast tracks made of corners also.
This is just to say for example that in Monza (a track I really knows here) corners like Curva Grande, Lesmo corners, Ascari and Parabolica are important corners to cross throught for speed into their straights. I'm not saying it will be slow but I advice to not to be too sure on how the F1 will do with no other setting addressed on rigidity and downforce starting from the road car.


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @Whatever1

"Since you said, F1 would do 2:00 at current Estoril setup. Would you say that F1 LM would be about 1:48-1:50 based on 8-10% faster thing you said? 48 seems a bit too fast imo."

I think it will be a bit slower than 2 minutes flat on current Estoril setup, imo.


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @Whatever1

"This is just to say for example that in Monza (a track I really knows here) corners like Curva Grande, Lesmo corners, Ascari and Parabolica are important corners to cross throught for speed into their straights."

I would like to point out here. Looking at my two cars I own, the Jaguar XJ220 was a little slower that the F40s during racing at Monza for a lap, but the Jaguar was a very hard deal for the Ferrari running throught Curva grande, both Lesmos and Parabolica corners because of the greater underbody effect of the Jaguar. Yes the Ferrari was lighter, but running fast laps stability is another important element on fast tracks. Stability means operate on better direction trought the steering wheel and not for last, working on full opened throtte time.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @Crispi74

Well it ultimately depends on whether F40 or F50 can overcome F1s accelaration on corners. On that department gap is really huge. Need more lap times(from legitimate sources) to make up my mind on that.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @Crispi74

Which car accelarates faster F40 or XJ220?


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @Whatever1

It depend from car to car. Mainly, except for wheelspin, on first 4 gears the F40 accelerate faster, and then the XJ220 is faster in top gear.

I just correlate the Monza example just to evidence that being the F40 little bit quicker on straight acceleration numbers it found hard deal with the XJ220 with its downforce and longher wheelbase, when on tracks, acceletarion comes from fast corners or acceleration segments are not properly straight.


User avatar

196ss  1m ago @Whatever1

"Since you said, F1 would do 2:00 at current Estoril setup. Would you say that F1 LM would be about 1:48-1:50 based on 8-10% faster thing you said? 48 seems a bit too fast imo."

Well, I was talking about Silverstone south circuit then. However, considering 991.2 GT3RS can lap it in 1:45 I believe something in 1:50 range is possible for LM.


User avatar

196ss  1m ago @Whatever1

"How much time would passengers add per lap?"

One of race instructors told me that a passenger adds about a second on 2 min laptime. He was usually driving 991 GT3 or Performante.
F1 is lighter and it carried two passengers, that's why my estimation was 2-3 seconds difference.


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @Whatever1

Concerning Goodwood lap time made by Tiff Needell fo the F1 I'm not very convinced to be absolute fast for a 90s supercar. Mainly it depends on how Tiff pushed hard on the car also, but that 1.24.36 comes from a car that roll a lot on corners even when bracking. I'm not a porfessional driver but I know that on track this is not the right attitude to attack the track for a fastest time especially in the intent to made corners as fast as possible. I'm not saying the F1 was not well done or well balanced but when an historic racing car like a Ford GT40 MK1, running on historic racing tires, was droven fine by Tom Kristensen in 1.22 per lap, this does not so many space to say that Tiff and the F1 were made a good deal that day at Goodwood, if the track layout was the same as nowadays.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @Crispi74

Well this is the data we have for Goodwood circuit here.
https://fastestlaps.com/tracks/goodwood

I was merely speculating based on these. And trying to fit F1 from data we have so far regarding track tests. I could be wrong.

As for circuit layout, refer this.
https://www.racingcircuits.info/europe/united-kingdom/goodwood.html


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @Whatever1

I cannot be convinced too much by the list of these times at Goodwood, a Lamborghini Aventador SVJ was droven 1.19 with a passenger and overtaking cars during the lap.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @Crispi74

Would you say 90s supercar would be faster than GT40 around a track? I highly doubt it also.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @Crispi74

I found more laptimes for Goodwood here.
https://www.lapmeta.com/en/track/variation/411
MP4 did a 1:21 lap time, video can be found if you click time.


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @Whatever1

"Would you say 90s supercar would be faster than GT40 around a track? I highly doubt it also."

I honestly doubts that a GT40 MK1 would be faster than 90s cars like F40, F50 or GT1 on fast circuit like Monza or Mugello, even the latters just on road tires.


User avatar

Lambolover  1m ago @Whatever1

What is "mod"?


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @Whatever1

Look at data results on web and documents, these are just two examples on F40s lap times compared to GT40s MK1 on the same track:

Monza - Gran Criterium Supercar GT 1992 (older circuit layout)
Ferrari F40 - Rory Parasiliti - Qualifying time 1'58"55 on road tires
Monza - Peterauto 2019
Ford GT40 MK1 - Michel Lecourt _ Qualifying time 1'59"520 on historic racing tires

Mugello - QR Magazine test 1992
Ferrari F40 - lap time 2'09"8 on road tires
Mugello - Peterauto 2014
Ford GT40 MK1 - Christian Dumolin - Qualifiying time 2'12"915 on historic racing tires.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @Crispi74

Monza was a bit faster in 90s. Making adjustments for modern layout F40 is slower than GT40 there. But I am curious what specifications were used for F40 during Monza test? There are other laptimes for GT40 where it was only like 3s slower than 430 Scuderia on Spa.

Mugello is a high downforce circuit.
@lambolover it means car is modified I guess.


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @Whatever1

The F40 I was referring was a catalyzed F40 owned by Rory Pasariliti, simply nothing of special from F40s on engine power. The first race at Monza 1992 was made with Pirelli PZero road tires, cars on stock specs. Lap time 1.58.55 on the old circuit layout. In my opinion a well driven uncatted F40 will do better than Parasiliti's car in Monza.

To be accurate the lap in Monza for the GT40 I was referring, it was taking a GT40 with 4.9L (302) engine specs, so in my opinion to say F40 slower than a GT40 especially for 4.7L (289) on the same layout is just a guess.

In my opinion a well driven F40 will do 1.22 with regularity at Goodwood circuit.


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @Whatever1

"Monza was a bit faster in 90s. Making adjustments for modern layout F40 is slower than GT40 there."

I know very well this point, also a catalyzed F40 I was taken in count. Early uncatted cars were faster on track than later cars, starting from Fiorano track.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @Crispi74

I think we also need to separate factory driver and magazine times. Personally I don't see much evidence for 1:22 time for F40 so far. Doubt it could be in the same league as LFA(which was also tested by Lexus German).

Note that everything we are doing from this point is speculation. Actual data may prove us wrong(if it happens for example say, F40 did lap 1:22, that would prove my theory wrong and I need to rework it to account for it. Rather than trying to fit things with what we think is cars capability, then we would just reject data based on that.)

Or maybe we have been underestimating Ferrari F cars if those Tsukuba times you shared before were legit on stock cars.


User avatar

Crispi74  1m ago @Whatever1

We are here to talk, I don't have to convince anyone. I prefer to close here.


User avatar

Whatever1  1m ago @Crispi74

Sure, upto you. XD


User avatar

Crispi74  3w ago @Whatever1

59345f2ec6f9.jpg?550x800m

Here a lap of Goodwood with an F40. Two persons on board. The article cames traslated from an Italian article. "To me" average seems high! Top speed seems to be the same as Tiff reached on the Mclaren's odometer.


User avatar

196ss  3w ago @Crispi74

Any laptimes mentioned?


User avatar

Crispi74  3w ago @196ss

Unfortunately there isn't! To me these speeds mentioned addressed to an average of around 165 kph, with a passenger. May I have something wrong on the average, but I'm close.


User avatar

Crispi74  3w ago @Crispi74

Here a lap of a Shelby Cobra. Lap time 1.26. Average 161.6 kph.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhsGzD3vNX8

Here speed registred on the same points:

8875f7a1666b.jpg?550x800m


User avatar

Whatever1  3w ago @Crispi74

Either way, you can find more GT40 laptimes here.
http://peterautoracing.alkamelsystems.com/?season=12_2022
Around Estoril GT40 lapped a 1:49.xx in qualifying, best Spa time I have seen is 2:40.xxx, Mugello 2:09.xxx. So with that said, I think GT40 can hold it's own against a lot of modern supercars as well(around some tracks, entry level cars that is) , let alone supercars from 90s. Are you sure F40 was on road tires when it lapped Mugello in 2:09?

Group C cars seem surprisingly slower compared to their past laptimes though(roughly on GT3 car level now). Dunno why.


User avatar

Crispi74  3w ago @Whatever1

"Are you sure F40 was on road tires when it lapped Mugello in 2:09?"

Yes sure, because with slicks they lapped 2.04 at Mugello, racing stock specs in 1992.
Mainly catalyzed cars.


User avatar

Crispi74  3w ago @Crispi74

In the Quattroruote comparo 1992, between Ferrari 348, F40 and F1 F92A at Mugello, both road cars were tested stock specs with road tires.

Time:
2:09.8 - F40
2:23 - 348TB

During racing Rory Parasiliti did the best lap in qualifying 2:04.676 on slicks tires. (I remember anyway that during races times were done litte faster, best lap Luca Sartori 2:04.410).

Concering Goodwood I hope to had provided enough docs.That's all!


User avatar

Crispi74  3w ago @Crispi74

"So with that said, I think GT40 can hold it's own against a lot of modern supercars as well(around some tracks, entry level cars that is) , let alone supercars from 90s."

Just to be sure, don't confuse GT40s on specs, there were produced MK1, MK2 and MK4 for racins. The early cars or MK1 were provided of smaller engines than MK2, that usually raced the 7 liter unit. Even aerodinamically were improved. Talking about GT40s without going into specifics is not easy to argue with.


User avatar

196ss  3w ago @Crispi74

Well, if 1:21 for the F40 and 1:24 for the F1 is indeed realistic, then the laptimes of modern supercars such as 1:22 for LFA and 12C, 1:17 for GT3 RS look far from the maximum capabilities of the cars. Even Ollie Webb's 1:15 record already looks not so impressive.
One of the people I know actually has experience driving a Lexus LFA at Goodwood. It was a short session of just a few laps as part of the car presentation. His best lap was 1:27, but according to him with more time and no traffic, he could very well have done 1:24-1:25. That said, he's not a pro, although he has pretty decent experience driving supercars on tracks.
He also noted that a very good laptime at Goodwood could only be achieved by someone who isn't afraid of crashing the car.
The circuit is quite fast and has no modern safety zones, so even a small misstep can lead to a serious accident.


User avatar

Crispi74  3w ago @Whatever1

"...let alone supercars from 90s. Are you sure F40 was on road tires when it lapped Mugello in 2:09?"

I think you need to revised something here because starting from Monza, Goodwood or Mugello is clairly visible you are underestimating being it lapped with road tires.
Even is clairly visible you are generalizing too much saying as 90s supercars or GT40s on specs. They are many different cars and they are not performing the same... it is not easy follow you generalizing in that way.
On track an F40 on straight, corner, braking is not a heavy Diablo, or a GT40 Mk1 on historic racing tires is not an Mk2 racing on slicks... and so on. This is because of difference on specs... as example F40 lapped till 1.58 at Mugello, running on NGT specs with slicks tires. That is almost 12 seconds lower than a road car.


User avatar

Crispi74  3w ago @196ss

Agree.

Just to inform you, if you look at Goodwood top speed both F1 and F40 were approx the same.
In my opinion this is because, surely a faster speed running out from Lavant by the Ferrari, but mainly because it was overboosting long in 4th gear!


User avatar

196ss  3w ago @Crispi74

Another reason could be later braking point, because F40 will also have a noticeably higher cornering speed in the next turn.


User avatar

Whatever1  3w ago @Crispi74

Is 1965 GT40 Mk1? Year is also mentioned in lap times. At Estoril it did 1:49, as I said. Year could be different for other times I mentioned though, just check it with the source.

Would it be possible for F40 to be within 23s of a modern GT3 car, for a 2 min lap? Or within 3s of a 991 GT3?


User avatar

Crispi74   3w ago @Whatever1

Modern historic cars on racing are sometimes evoluted on many aspects than in the past, so is difficult to get the right condition of spec we are talking...need to be careful.
Today there are Mk1s faster than back then.

Let me understand better this last question.


User avatar

Crispi74  3w ago @196ss

Unfortunately we doesn't know speed corners of the F1 there..

That's fun! We own lap time of the F1 but nothing to know on track speed. Opposite on the F40, we know track speed but who knows that lap time.


User avatar

Crispi74  3w ago @Whatever1

"Group C cars seem surprisingly slower compared to their past laptimes though(roughly on GT3 car level now). Dunno why"

I think a question of reliability, I noticed the same on historic F1s


User avatar

Crispi74   3w ago @Whatever1

If I researched fine this is the Gt40 Mk1 today is doing 1.49 at Estoril. It is chassis P1078.

baff7490d0df.jpg?550x800m

aeb62b5eabb1.jpg?550x800m

Today this car is upgrated compared the period, it is running fatter tires, an engine delivering 485 hp today (it was a power for a 7l unit back then), it started the carrer with a 289 cid delivering less than 400 for sure and who knows what else if upgrated on chassis, suspensions, brakes. Upgrating historic cars running modern regulations sometimes means drive an historic car made today, so different standards on performance. Sometimes historics are detuned on some aspects for safery as already said for gr C or F1 cars. This is because I said this point misleading concerning the true potential of a car on track in comparioson with other period or other era cars.


User avatar

Crispi74   3w ago @Crispi74

https://racecarsdirect.com/Advert/Details/122406/1968-ford-gt40-mk1---chassis-p1088

This is P1088 the GT40 that raced Monza in 1.59. It was a lower upgrated car running a 302 cid within period specs, but provided with a 5 gears transmission. Anyway I mean considered slower than P1078 car and closer to original specs.

https://racecarsdirect.com/Advert/Details/95991/1965-ford-gt40-mk1

This is P1027 the GT40 that did about 2.13 at Mugello (and slower than the F40 with 2.09). The restoration was to the exact original specifications using original components and parts. The end result was one of the finest and most correct GT-40's in the world. This means also the car is today the slowest of the three cars on track.

This is just to say be careful on compare GT40 with more modern era supercars because it need to know what kind of car we are comparing.


User avatar

Whatever1  3w ago @Crispi74

Then it would be better to stick with car which isn't that much variable for Goodwood comparison as well, because you know GT40 which lapped 1:22 could have had several changes as well(if chassis info can be found, along with video, race series etc) . Otherwise discussion could be futile in knowing right answer or going in the right direction towards that imo.


User avatar

Whatever1  3w ago @Crispi74

At Mugello GT3 cars in around 1:45.xxx pace. 2:09 would put F40 within 24s range of a GT3 car. Also 991 GT3 lapped around 2:06 in Mugello. So would F40 not be too close to them if it was indeed a stock car?


User avatar

196ss  3w ago @Whatever1

2:06 GT3 laptime isn't representative, it should be capable of ~1:57


User avatar

Whatever1  3w ago @196ss

Though I have some concerns about 1:57 time. I found a video where GT3 RS lapped 1:59, driver said his PB is around 1:57. So I guess I agree with 2:06 not being representative of GT3. Considering lap time differences on other tracks, I would put it around 2:00.


User avatar

Switar  3w ago @Whatever1

Yes, in that video driver says that best lap was 1.57. The same driver with the same stock car lapped Monza in 1.55


User avatar

Whatever1  3w ago @Switar

Yeah, it is the same driver. XD

Anyways if me not fully agreeing with some estimates hurt someone, as it is when someone has strong opinions on any topic or think they are the only one correct. I am sorry. I do understand that you could have put a lot of work into your estimate.

But personally I believe theories should be made to fit the laptimes we observe not the other way around.

Unless evidence for newer faster laptime occurs or some evidence suggests car was tampered with(like owner statement for example), I try to take laptime as it is. Would rather not interpret new information to confirm my biases(even though I could be unknowingly).

Just see my disagreement more as trying to understand your estimates, rather than look at it the other way.


User avatar

Crispi74  3w ago @Whatever1

Sam Hancock raced his GT40 Mk1 prepared within period specs. Tom Kristensen lapped 1.22 with it at Goodwood.

https://www.ultimatecarpage.com/chassis/681/Ford-GT40--AM-Lightweight--AM-GT-2.html

The first two (AM GT-1 and AM GT-2) were completed with the standard '289' engine.

The current owner acquired the car in 2009 and immediately handed it to Paul Lanzante for a complete restoration to its original condition.


User avatar

Crispi74   3w ago @Whatever1

"At Mugello GT3 cars in around 1:45.xxx pace. 2:09 would put F40 within 24s range of a GT3 car. Also 991 GT3 lapped around 2:06 in Mugello. So would F40 not be too close to them if it was indeed a stock car?"

348TB lapped 2.23 at Mugello partially on damp segments. Do you think the F40 was slightly faster by just few seconds? This is a news for me.

Yes I confirm 2.09 for it on stock specs.


User avatar

Crispi74  3w ago @Whatever1

Recapping. Comparing much modern supercars (in that case an F40) to a GT40 we need to know which Fords we are taking in comparison. I was taking cars within the period specs when it seemed to me that you were hindering my theses. I'm sorry if I tell you but the incredulous attitude you hold up is annoying. Your points on aswering even made groping in the dark made the same result. If I take considartion on some GT40s this is because these were cars I could take count. Taking you a GT40 lapping 1.49 on Estoril was just the proof that you were just trying to conclude something in the dark to confute me. The same point on Monza or Mugello lap times. The 1.59 or the 2.13 were made by cars as close or within period specs. You was trying to conclude because older track layout here. I think you have to resign yourself to the fact tha F40s (being them self variable on specs) were fast as or faster than MK1 within period specs. What does the Estoril GT40 P1078 have to do with it? And not for last, a 348TB couldn't be so close to its faster sister of the period too.
All of that to say that 1.24 was the F1 an absolute fast lap time for a 90s cars at Goodwood? Well no.


User avatar

Whatever1  3w ago @Crispi74

Well that proves what I thought. So I will wrap it up here. XD

Anyways, I would just answer your last question, actually nope, I was more interested in evidence you could bring along for Goodwood thing. If something is a bit shakey form a conclusion on, I would rather not use it. Doesn't necessarily mean I am trying to confute you tbh.


User avatar

196ss  3w ago @Whatever1

@Whatever
Here you can see cornering speeds at Muggello for the F40 and compare it with the videos:

bradenton-motorsports-park-12.jpg?550x80

@Crispi74
Do you know who was behind the wheel?
Michele Alboreto was mentioned in the article, but my knowledge of the languages doesn't allow to understand whether he drove the F40 on the track or just shared his impressions of the car?


User avatar

Whatever1  3w ago @196ss

I can agree with F40 time after seeing better 991 GT3 RS time.


User avatar

Crispi74   3w ago @196ss

Yes I have the article in German that was published with the drivers of all the three cars. I need a couple days.


User avatar

Crispi74   3w ago @Whatever1

"Well that proves what I thought. So I will wrap it up here. XD"

What do you thought?


User avatar

Crispi74  3w ago @196ss

https://fb.watch/gUVPZFWqJr/

If that was the video, the car wasn't stock.
The car was provided of some Porsche Motorsport components and some other modifications. It was written in the paragraph.


User avatar

196ss  3w ago @Crispi74

Sorry, but I don't understand that.
Your link doesn't work for me, and I wasn't referring to any video.


User avatar

Whatever1  3w ago @Crispi74

I was talking about this video.
https://youtu.be/Ts0xLJXhHF8


User avatar

Whatever1  3w ago @196ss

I think he quoted you instead of me by mistake.


User avatar

196ss  3w ago @Crispi74

"That's fun! We own lap time of the F1 but nothing to know on track speed. Opposite on the F40, we know track speed but who knows that lap time."

bradenton-motorsports-park-13.jpg?550x80

Of course, this is a very crude approximation. But, this is roughly how hotlaps of F40 and F1 XP-4 at Goodwood could look like. To estimate the acceleration and deceleration on the straights, I've took measured Quattroroute figures for the F40, and Autocar/Motor for the XP4.
Also, roughly estimated (based on the Tsukuba video as well as the R&T skidpad lateral acceleration test) that the F40 is about 7% faster in the corners.


User avatar

Crispi74  3w ago @196ss

"Do you know who was behind the wheel?"

The drivers were Andrea Montermini for the F1, and Gianpaolo Guidetti for the road cars.


User avatar

Crispi74  3w ago @196ss

Your example is approximate but it does make sense. I think there will be space for the Jaguar between them both.
When they tested Mireval F40 did 1.28, the Jaguar 1.30.
When they raced Mugello on NGT cars, the F40s closer to road cars lapped 2:00.5, the XJ220 lapped 2:01.5.


User avatar

Crispi74  3w ago @196ss

Coming back on the main car of the topic, yes the XJ220 is the heavier of the three, maybe it's the slowest, but it has a better aerodynamic development than the other two. Or better, the car is more addressed to produce downforce on road configuration thanthe other two. This is not an help on low speed corners but it helps a lot when speed corners comes to be higher. High speed stability hepls to be fast on main segment of the track especially on track with close to layouts as Goodwood is. Look at the data above: To be particularily fast on fast corners give you more advantage than produce much faster straight speed before brakes, on a lap time.
I'm not sure waht would happen on the XJ220 on slow speed corners but results that Schumacher did, adreesed me to think that XJ220 could be an hard deal for the slower catalytic F40 versions, on a track.


User avatar

196ss  3w ago @Crispi74

I agree with you. Goodwood should be a "suitable" track for the XJ220, as should Spa for example. A track with fast corners and altitude gradients. Also a lot depends on the tires I think.
It seems to me that Jaguar's Bridgestone Expedia is somewhat grippier on the track than Pirelli P Zero which F40 was equiped from the factory.
US mags tested F40 had Goodyear tires. I've no idea how good they were compared to Pirelli however.

"The drivers were Andrea Montermini for the F1, and Gianpaolo Guidetti for the road cars."

Thank you!
If I'm not mistaken, Guidetti was a test driver for Ferrari at the time. If that's the case, then that Mugello laptimes should be considered as a factory rather than magazine laptimes, what do you think?


User avatar

Crispi74  3w ago @196ss

I'm not a very expert on tires, this is my limit. I think Pirelli Pzeros are the better tires for F40. I tried Michelin MXX on it in past, but I was not very adressed to fit them for a second time. I have Bridgestone Expedia on the Jaguar XJ220 and Michelin Pilot Sport on the Diablo. I have good opinions on these last fitted on my cars.

Gianpaolo Guidetti was a Ferrari test driver. I know some period test drivers from Ferrari, I think the fastest was Dario Benuzzi. Concerning this lap time I think it was more a combination of case from the magazine test, more than an official lap time, I'm not sure how Guidetti pushed both cars into their very limit anyway... maybe yes or maybe close, maybe it's a question of car?. I'm just sure that private drivers lapped 2:04.x on slicks Pzeros.


User avatar

Crispi74  3w ago @Crispi74

Let me try to explain better this last point. Guidetti was a test driver yes. But period test drivers I thought had different functions, some of these were addressed to rack up mileage more than develop or test cars. As example Dario Benuzzi was involved in development of road cars, but also F1 or F40 LM development so I imagine that he cound had more F40 on hands than other behind him.

Let me talk about the car. Concerning the car as said the examplary is important to try a conclusion. The lap time in 2:09.8 was made by? which kind of F40? From the articles is difficult to understand. The car seems to be an early car but the period of the test was reffered to catalyzed cars in production.
Let me talk about lap times, early cars especially lighter cars as the lexan windows were, were said to be as fast as 1:27 at Fiorano. Just later the Ferrari claimed 1:29.6 when they start to deliver F40s proived with cats.
I don't know how those more than 2 seconds comes from, evidently there were wide difference on corners and straight performance between both versions, I think is bealivable.
If that difference waa true, and I'm sure there are difference in performance. Surely the difference on specs are not a indifferent detail when we talk about Mugello regarding lap times. Also look at the top speed. The 262 kph detected were fast speed, but doesn't seemes to be made by the fastest F40 we had in mind.


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @196ss

Putting in the Bugatti EB110SS n the comparo the deal cames to be harder.
Yes this is because the SS was not a car addressed to just one performance line.
I read many here around but SS on built performance one car different to the other. This is because all the over 30 units produced had so many difference between them on engine delivery and spec of construction. Some are powerful, some are havier, variations are like the F40s or even more.
Just to give you an example: at the beghinning it seemed was tested a very light example, the earlier SS comes from a GT chassis producing 600 hp and able to run 0-1000 m in 18.8 seconds. That car was used for omologation test and did 19.6 secs behind regislations. Later seemed that SS was able to run times between 19.8 to 20.2 on the standing km. Sportauto tested the car 1734 kgs as far as just 60 kgs lighter than the GTs. Auto Italia tested another SS example running 0-60 3.25; 0-100 8.0 in comparison to an F40 provided with cats, running 4.5 and 8.7.
A video is showing the XJ220 (chassis 004) that was faster on a drag race with EB110SS (chassis 39025 "America" car). Just to frame.


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @Crispi74

The comparo comes to be even harder when looking at handling...


User avatar

196ss  2w ago @Crispi74

Yes, the EB110 is a piece product and probably every one of them, whether GT or SS, was different in some way.
For example, we know that: Schumacher's SS had an interior like the GT, the GT that R&T tested had an engine from the SS, the GT from the Cargraphic test was 180 kg lighter than GT from the AMUS test, and the Autocar figures surprised that it was even slower than the Diablo, etc.
The situation with the 33 Stradale is similar in this regard. Each of the 18 cars was individually made, some were closer to race car spec, others differed more. And there is no way to judge the performance of all cars basing on the performance of the one tested.
But, a standing km in 18.8 is something very out of the ordinary. Apparently this proto had little to do with a road car. Even for a Dauer 110S it seems unattainable.
I remember the racing EB110 prepared for Le Mans had a weight of about 1280 kg and a power about 650 hp. Maybe this one could do 18.8 km.


User avatar

196ss  2w ago @Crispi74

As for the handling of the EB110, I somewhere had a comparative graph of the cornering speed of the GT and SS with the factory test driver at the wheel. I'll try to find it and post it here.


User avatar

196ss  2w ago @Crispi74

The gist of it is, the minimum cornering speed in the apex is about the same, but SS entry speed is noticeably higher, also SS faster accelerates in the corner exit.
In that very Autobuild test, which we have already recalled more than once, the laptime of the EB110GT isn't given, but it is mentioned that it was faster than the Diablo, but slower than the Jaguar. In this case we probably can assume that SS could have outperformed XJ220, but F40 unlikely.


User avatar

TypeF173  2w ago @196ss

What did all you guys decide that the Jaguar XJ220 could do 0-300km/h? Calculated or verified? I'm at 42 seconds or was from memory!🙂


User avatar

196ss  2w ago @TypeF173

My guess would be something in a range 30-33 seconds.
Should be close to Ford GT mkI


User avatar

TypeF173  2w ago @196ss

I'll look into it again! Maybe that was 322km/h! LOL!


User avatar

196ss  2w ago @TypeF173

XJ220 which achieved 203.1 mph on 1.7 mile stretch probably was able to achieve 300 in under 30 seconds.

40fd416b70ba.jpg?550x800m


User avatar

TypeF173  2w ago @196ss

Where did you get that? What is it? I've never seen that before! Wow!



User avatar

TypeF173  2w ago @196ss

Thank You!


User avatar

Crispi74   2w ago @196ss

Agree on everything you said. Please try to find the graph of both Bugattis.

I know for sure that engines were strong as 670 or 680 on some SS.

I remember a video where Loris Bichocchi, Bugatti test drivers said they tested 7.44 the SS at Nring. I dont know which layout was if 20.6 or 20.8 kms. There is an AMS article somewhere. Jaguar I'm sure 7.46 on 20.8 kms layout.


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @196ss

Concering the 18.8 on the standing, I agree on that said. Early SS prototypes were very curious cars, they claimed very low weights and just 600 hp. I'm sure the weight was low but engines were strongher than claimed (this happened for GT engine prototypes also).


User avatar

Crispi74   2w ago @196ss

I dont believe so much LM was so fast. It was restricted to 600 hp and it lapped in qualifying just 4:16.
Maybe IMSA car was more powerful than LM car. Btw I think that chrono comes from an early mule that was fitted with a strong 670 or 680 hp engine.


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @196ss

Anyway a Bugatti book of that period claimed that EB110GT test mule did:

0-100 3"5
0-200 10"6
0-1 Km 20"2

This is because early test mule car GT006 (or Factory C7 car) was a lighter GT car for testing. The C7 was also used for omologation test in Nardò, it did:

0-100 3"46
0-400m 11"4 @ 200.4 kph
0-1 km 20"7 @ 259.7 kph
Ballasted to 1850 kgs


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @Crispi74

Omitting the question of the EB110LM, if you want more ifno, I own data at regards.

Here you are the screenshot where Loris Bicocchi claims that they made 7.44 at the Nring:

c8d5d25b570f.jpg?550x800m

Here the screenshot where Alastair Macqueen thake the chrono of the total lap of thir XJ220:

d0cd7531baec.jpg?550x800m

Unfortunately no info un the circuit layout taken by the Bugatti. In my opinion thay indicated a lap time to the full 20.8 kms lap. In that case it does explain to us that they achieved a time 2 secs faster than John Nielsen at the wheel of the Jaguar.
Honestly I'm not very sure on that result because Nring should be a suitable track for the XJ220 but I could be wrong. I don't know about the car which Bugatti used to test the Nring. I can say that SS on client configuration was heavier that the XJ220 by far, so the main difference with the GT was just 60 kgs and different sunspensions setting. Behind that I think an SS sould be slower than the Jaguar there but I don't have so may cards to play here.


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @Crispi74

Here you are data of the EB110 LM:

367aa933bba5.jpg?550x800m

The car was not fast enough to be able of 18.8 secs on the standing km in my opinion, it did 4:16.9 in LeMans 1994 Qualifying and reached just 308 kph on the Hunaudieres straight, that's slower that the 550 PS F40 Strandell on the lap, and sligthly faster on top speed.

e32f58182078.jpg?550x800m


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @Crispi74

Here you are the very early SS prototype made by GT chassis that Bugatti claimed 18.8 secs for the standing km. The car was the one that later will been omologated 19.61 fitted with ballast.

69b31ee3df88.jpg?550x800m

In my opinion to reach these results needed much more than the 600 PS claimed at the beghinning (over a light body).


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @Crispi74

19178a38b3cc.jpg?550x800m

Here you are data of the Dauer, claimed to be powerful and ligher than the Bugatti, enough to be able of 1 tenth less in the standing km than the SS during homologation.

In my opinion to reach 18.8 with the very early SS prototype needed really 1418 kg dry and more than 645 PS cliamed later for the Dauer.


User avatar

TypeF173  2w ago @Crispi74

Dauer? That's a blast from the past.🙂


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @Crispi74

I don't know about the car which Bugatti used to test the Nring. I can say that SS on client configuration was heavier that the XJ220 by far, so the main difference with the GT was just 60 kgs and different sunspensions setting. Behind that I think an SS sould be slower than the Jaguar there but I don't have so may cards to play here<

Indeed, this could be a main point for the Nring fast lap for the SS. I think they reached it because of a question on muscles more than a question of veicle dynamics into specific.

Open to talk about.


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @Crispi74

Here the very early EB110 GT when it was claimed to be able to 20.2 secs on the standing km:

8d66faa519ac.jpg?550x800m

Here the homologation test in Nardo:

6dc295ff10e2.jpg?550x800m

Here Cargraphic test:

83e4377c1f56.jpg?550x800m


User avatar

196ss  2w ago @Crispi74

Very interesting information you have shared, thank you very much!
However, I always thought that the 7:44 time at the Ring belonged to one of the first prototypes - chassis № A4. At least it was the one that was intensively tested at the Ring. Are you sure that Bicocchi was talking about the SS?


User avatar

196ss  2w ago @Crispi74

Here is the graph:

bradenton-motorsports-park-14.jpg?550x80

May be wrong, but I think that the section on the graph where SS and GT have about the same speeds characterises the marginal traction properties of the tyres. And tyres were the same on the GT and SS.


User avatar

Crispi74   2w ago @196ss

No, not sure. Let me know your idea.


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @196ss

Very interesting! Let me understand, the graph explain speed during bracking, speed corner and speed during coming out of the corner?


User avatar

Crispi74   2w ago @196ss

http://yo.spc.free.fr/Bugatti%20register/110_proto/39003.htm

You are saying this car? Ah ok!
No, I'm not sure but AMS reported a session at Nring with an early SS.
Not sure if Bicocchi referred to that session, I'm just guessing. I'm not sure if A4 with an alluminium chassis would do that 7:44. What do you think?


User avatar

196ss  2w ago @Crispi74

As for the LM, the specs you cited say 600bhp in the 6200-7200rpm range, which means the peak power is definitely higher than 600. 71.5 mkg of torque is equivalent to 701Nm, and 700Nm at 6000rpm would also be about 600hp.
I saw somewhere that the EB110 LM motor produced around 650hp in qualifying mode and your spec sheet confirms this to some extent.
308km/h at Le Mans certainly isn't that impressive, but as the Bugatti had all-wheel drive, it would probably be faster than the F1 GTR and F40LM in a standing kilometre.
That's just my guess, though. It's quite likely that it still wouldn't have been able to run km in 18.8.


User avatar

196ss  2w ago @Crispi74

"Very interesting! Let me understand, the graph explain speed during bracking, speed corner and speed during coming out of the corner?"

Yes it is


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @196ss

I always tought that specs I cited means that power curve was flat due to the restrictors. Even other documents seemed to say the same, but I also sow a 650 hp somewhere.
Article said that final ratio was shortned also.
308 kph on top speed at LeMans are not convincing.


User avatar

196ss  2w ago @Crispi74

"Not sure if Bicocchi referred to that session, I'm just guessing. I'm not sure if A4 with an alluminium chassis would do that 7:44. What do you think?"

Yes, A4 had an aluminium chassis which was defined as not rigid enough. But the car was light and was made to exlore handling characteristics in extreem modes, so it should be fast.
At least as far as I know, the Nurburgring wasn't used to test subsequent C cars with carbon monocoque. They were tested at Monza and Nardo, weren't they?


User avatar

196ss  2w ago @Crispi74

"I always tought that specs I cited means that power curve was flat due to the restrictors."

May be so, probably it was 650 unrestricted


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @196ss

"At least as far as I know, the Nurburgring wasn't used to test subsequent C cars with carbon monocoque. They were tested at Monza and Nardo, weren't they?"

I made the mistake to don't buy that AMS article. It sould be interesting to know what said in an argument as our now.


User avatar

Crispi74   2w ago @196ss

ad86933c4a20.jpg?550x800m


User avatar

196ss  2w ago @Crispi74

Do you have a scan of the article?
There is another laptime that generally could be journo test:

https://fastestlaps.com/tests/guaugb34a4rc

Unfortunately there is no reference. So maybe it's just someone's imagination...


User avatar

Crispi74   2w ago @196ss

Unfortunately I have no scans of this article.
Yes the 8:01 there is no reference.
It sould be good to close that point with more details.


User avatar

Crispi74   2w ago @Crispi74

http://yo.spc.free.fr/Bugatti%20register/110_proto/39008.htm

Summer 1992 : the Bugatti team was running with GT 008 on the Nurburgring track (Germany) for testing, with Jean Philippe Vittecoq as driver.

GT 008, is C9, the early SS prototype.


User avatar

196ss  2w ago @Crispi74

Interesting, didn't know about that.
Did I understand correctly that it was the very same car which achieved 18.8 at km in early stages of developing?


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @196ss

"May be wrong, but I think that the section on the graph where SS and GT have about the same speeds characterises the marginal traction properties of the tyres. And tyres were the same on the GT and SS."

I dont know if you have noticed how fast were the two Bugattis on the graph. They accelerated 120 to 160 kph in such a tight distance. They were both prototypes, imho.


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @196ss

"Interesting, didn't know about that.
Did I understand correctly that it was the very same car which achieved 18.8 at km in early stages of developing?"

Yes, GT008 or C9, which do you prefere, was an early SS prototype. It comes from a chassis dedicated to be a GT, but it was choosed to built as lighter as the SS car was indicated to be. Racing interior and some other details. That car was fitted with a very early "pushed EB110 engine" (they claimed to be rated at 600 hp). It was not a definitive SS, it has removable bonnets, a pair of Nacas in the rear windows and a one off fixed rear wing. The car was later the main car for the homologation test in Nardo for acceleration figures of the SS even being ballasted. I was not so clear how much light was the car, and indeed how much was really powerfurl. The car was intensively used for testing, from the presentation since to be renumbered as SS 008.
In my idea the car made very light, (maybe a 1418 kg at dry car?)and obviously much powerful, more than they claimed I think. Attacking the Nring with an example like that it was easier to made good chronos that other SS made later and closer to definitive specs, in my opinion.
But, I'm open to think that it wasn't the car that made 7:44 if something proved that was A4 that made the chrono...


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @Crispi74

http://yo.spc.free.fr/Bugatti%20register/110_proto/39003.htm

As for the A4. I know they intensively tested at the Nring also, I know that car was anyway a light car but early engines were said to be quote 550 hp (and weakers). I'm not sure is a Gandini car with alluminium chassis, that need to wean, was able to be faster at the Nring than the early SS proto. It need something that help us.


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @Crispi74

Anyway, absurdly, if it was 7:44 from a car that weight 1418 kgs at dry and able to close 1 km in 18.8 secs, this does explain to us that basically and structurally the EB110 was not as the same level of the XJ220 concerning on veicle dynamic. I think there are possible enough elements to think this. A very tricky car to push.


User avatar

196ss  2w ago @Crispi74

"I dont know if you have noticed how fast were the two Bugattis on the graph. They accelerated 120 to 160 kph in such a tight distance. They were both prototypes, imho."

Unfortunately, there is no more information about the cars and the track where the measurements were made. I thought perhaps it was some kind of a banked corner?
In the CG text EB110 accelerates 120-160 on 3rd gear in 2.9. That should be about 110m. If you extend the line on the graph, the GT has something like that.
The SS gets about 90m, i.e. ~2.4 seconds. That's certainly kinda fast, probably really some kind of lightweight version.


User avatar

Crispi74   2w ago @196ss

"In the CG text EB110 accelerates 120-160 on 3rd gear in 2.9. That should be about 110m. If you extend the line on the graph, the GT has something like that."

There is maybe a gearshift between 120 to 160 kph, in the graph.


User avatar

196ss  2w ago @Crispi74

That's true.


User avatar

196ss  2w ago @Crispi74

You're right. On paper, the C9 car looks to be the fastest on the track of all. High power, lightweight and a big rearwing moved to the center should make it very fast on the track. If 7:44 was the maximum it could do, the customer car could hardly show anything close to that.
The Sport Auto cover shows this exact specimen with 9 holes behind the side window. Very curious, of course, what they wrote about it.


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @196ss

Exactly!
Just my idea now, is maybe 8:01 a lap time that maybe could be for some else EB110 GT? This is because Bugatti book claimed a 8:15 but that time was written during a period that the Bugatti was during the development, it was a very early declaration, even Vittecoq said that they need do a lot of work around the car. More, 8:01 seems to married fine with their diffrence for a lap at Mireval. What do you think about?
I'm honest, I don't know with certenty how would be able a great F40 around the track, because the XJ220 sounds good on that track. Not sure if Ferrari will be ahead or behind..


User avatar

Cocobe  2w ago @Crispi74

Gosh, I thought those 1994 qualifying times to be a bit slow... (I know they had just added the chicanes in 1990). Pole position was 3:51... was it in the wet? no, cuz the fastest lap of the whole race was 3:52. Yet, today's ~500hp GTE cars will lap under 3:50. Kind of crazy how much aero dynamics and tire tech has come. Today's 1200kg, 500hp cars are faster than the 600+hp 1000kg GT1 cars of the early 1990s.


User avatar

Cocobe  2w ago @196ss

The C9 was so fast, it closed the whole class of racing.


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @Cocobe

GT1 cars in 1994 were not as fast as GT1 cars in 1995. As example, the F40 GT1 Strandell lapped 4:07 at LeMans 1994 qualifying, while the F40 GTE 1995 did the best lap in 3:55 due to the fact that some of these GT1s the year before were just at the beginning the development or just less tuned for racing.


User avatar

196ss  2w ago @Cocobe

I think you mean Sauber-Mercedes C9?
The conversation is about something different...


User avatar

196ss  2w ago @Crispi74

Probably 8:01 for SS and 8:15 for GT?

Do you know any laptime for road going EB110?


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @196ss

Eh! Could that be, but I dont know. I hope for the SS that sould be faster than 8:01.

I know just the lap times you already know for the EB110s. Nothing of more, unfortunately.


User avatar

Crispi74   2w ago @196ss

Anyway, thinking again, you didn't say nonsense for that 8:01.....


User avatar

Cocobe  2w ago @196ss

yeah that's what I was thinking... lol


User avatar

196ss  2w ago @Crispi74

So, thanks to our friend from Germany, Corvolet3, we now have a full scan of the mentioned article:

cc6526974f2e.jpg?550x800m

612469ce54a8.jpg?550x800m

7f43b480cd4c.jpg?550x800m


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @196ss

Wow wow wow! 8:01!

Thanks guys.


User avatar

Crispi74   2w ago @196ss

So, the car is SS 08, basically C9 after to be refurbished in a true Supersport model.


User avatar

196ss  2w ago @Crispi74

"I'm honest, I don't know with certenty how would be able a great F40 around the track, because the XJ220 sounds good on that track. Not sure if Ferrari will be ahead or behind.."

It always seemed to me that the Nordschleife is not the best measure of a car's abilities on the track. The track is too complicated technically, too much depends on the skills of the pilot, the weather conditions, the presence or absence of traffic. Also the result can vary, as many XJ220s and F40s had significant differences from others.
But still, in the most general case, I think the F40 would be faster than the XJ220. Although the difference wouldn't be much.

Why would you guess though? You have both of them!
Theoretically you could take them to the Ring, hire a professional pilot and see what happens?
I understand that it would be a costly event, but in this age of YouTube pay-per-view subsidies, it might even pay for itself. And here at Fastestlaps, I think a lot of people would be interested in participating in something like this financially. I personally wouldn't spare some amount.
You could run them on authentic tires, and then also try them on modern semislicks like the Trofeo R (if the right sizes are available). That would be very curious, since some commenters here believe that the F40 on modern rubber can blow many modern supercars on the track.


User avatar

196ss  2w ago @Crispi74

To hell with the Nürburgring, though! If you could do a similar event even at any nearby local track, we might well get enough GPS data on the fast corners, slow patches and braking sections from which we could well make some judgments about what could happen at the Nordschleife.
The only important thing is to find right pilot, who could push to the limit classic cars without any electronical assists.


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @196ss

It would be incredible! Also to invite friends and acquaintances with their supercars. The problem today is for everyone the problem of jealousy for our own veichle, with the fact that some have reached very high prices. Anyone would not want to take risks now, yust think I'm annoyed by every single stone mark on the nose of my cars!! But that would be a nice event!!

Coming back to C9 or SS 08, looking at pictures and data for magazines I own, I noticed some details of this car; as soon as the car was refurbished, it change aspect, rear bonnet is changed with a haevier one with traditional window, also the wing became the definitive one with double support, but the most interesting thing it change performance data: this car was imemdiately claimed as 3"35 and 19"5 respectively on 0-100 kph and standing start km. Almost as if one could maliciously think of an engine replacement during the refurbishement. I'm not sure the sense of that point, but immediately that 18.8 disapper forever! The end of the car comes later, it seemed it was dismanteled and remains that till the factory bankrupt.


User avatar

Crispi74   2w ago @Crispi74

One more doubt on the engine replacement. A car that did 18.8 on 1000m should able to close 290 kph or so.
A car like that should be reached 320 kph or something closer at the Nring straight (Dottingher Hohe), and not just as 300 kph like the article claims.


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @Crispi74

b48a9e612d85.jpg?550x800m

Here you are the curious detail of the same car during the two years it was published on the press. Evidently the very early engine was pushed by the factory to test their limits, check everything under stressed or something close to that idea.....


User avatar

196ss  2w ago @Crispi74

Could you please post a better photo. It's impossible to read anything on this one.

"The problem today is for everyone the problem of jealousy for our own veichle, with the fact that some have reached very high prices. Anyone would not want to take risks now, yust think I'm annoyed by every single stone mark on the nose of my cars!! But that would be a nice event!!"

Of course, some damage is possible, but you can try to minimize it. There are some protective films and compounds, car insurance, etc.
The main thing is to decide for yourself whether it is worth it or not. It is clear that now these cars are more likely an investment tool, but nevertheless it's a little bit offensive that such perfect engineering creations (for their time of course) spend the rest of their lives staying in conditioned garages, but not used for their direct purpose.
Also we all live once, and don't know how much time left, so it is necessary to use available opportunities.


User avatar

Crispi74  2w ago @196ss

885fa52c81e2.jpg?550x800m

8e9618d19cc9.jpg?550x800m


User avatar

196ss  2w ago @Crispi74

Please excuse me, I may not have made myself clear. I would like to read the text part of the article. I like details, you know...
As for your thoughts on engine replacement - I would probably rather disagree with you, although everything can be of course. It's more likely that the C9 was slowed down because of the extra weight and aero elements.
Also, 300 km/h on a Dottinger is pretty decent in my opinion. Dottinger Hohe is about 2.8 km long along with Tiergarten, but the road is narrow and bumpy. Accelerating there is not the same as accelerating on a wide airfield runway of the same length.
It's very plausible however that engine was merely detuned for better reliability after early testings.


User avatar

Crispi74   1w ago @196ss

Don't worry are just ideas. For certenty we can be sure on just is visible or confirmed.
Anyway Bugatti used the practice to switch their engines frequently, example C7 engine will be fit in SS 06 later or SS 04 was repleced later with engine 042. Also GT025 had a replaced engine or pushed with a strongher spec and who knows how many other cases. So it could happened.
I will try to do better pics, give me a bit of time.


User avatar

Crispi74   1w ago @196ss

F1 XP5 was claimed to hit 200 mph at Nring, I thought C9 shouldn't have been far with early performance. Just that.


User avatar

Crispi74   1w ago @Crispi74

"It's very plausible however that engine was merely detuned for better reliability after early testings."

Also, could be.


User avatar

Crispi74  1w ago @196ss

AUTO IN 6-7/1992

4f5aaed406e5.jpg?550x800m

59138b4539e0.jpg?550x800m

fca27faf8c85.jpg?550x800m


User avatar

Crispi74  1w ago @Crispi74

AUTO HEBDO 8 Décembre 1993

e4d58e132b88.jpg?550x800m

dd51bccbbd75.jpg?550x800m

73942e18e3b3.jpg?550x800m


User avatar

Crispi74  1w ago @Crispi74

Here just few examples of replaced engines used in Bugatti just to remark my honesty ;-)

http://yo.spc.free.fr/Bugatti%20register/110_proto/SS39004.htm
Summer 1993 : SS39004 was completely refurbished as a street legal car and was sold to Sokichi Shikiba in Japan. The car was fitted with the engine N°42, that suggested it was not the original one, but rather a replacement engine.

http://yo.spc.free.fr/Bugatti%20register/110_proto/SS39006.htm
The exceptional feature of the prototype SS39006 is its engine, the n°026 (built in april 1992), previously fitted in the prototype C7 (GT39006), the engine of the speed world record in 1992 (342,7 km/h).


User avatar

Crispi74   1w ago @Crispi74

d45210a719f9.jpg?550x800m

Here the 200 mph top speed figures for the F1 where I'm based. Of course are tacho figures that may been affect by error.


User avatar

Crispi74  1w ago @196ss

Look at here what I found!

http://yo.spc.free.fr/Bugatti%20register/Racing/EB110_racing.htm

The Bugatti team is back at Le Castellet from 05th to 07th February 1994, still with the prototype S8, equipped with a new engine block, the N ° 027.

So C9 or SS08 engine seemed to be replaced from n. 022 to n. 027.


User avatar

TypeF173  1w ago @Crispi74

Crispi74 +plus 196SS I found out about this~

https://www.facebook.com/EB110Registry/

I haven't had the chance to look at anything, but I thought that it maybe of some use!


User avatar

Crispi74  1w ago @Crispi74

On January 31st, 1994, an endurance test was set up by Bugatti and Synergie at the Castellet circuit (France), with the S8 prototype driven by Jean Philippe Vittecocq, the factory tester. The Synergie staff realizes that the EB110 is an excessively complex car technologically and that its definition out of standard (compact, 4 turbos, 4 wheel drive ... etc) will not facilitate its transformation and its exploitation in race (no simple access to mechanical devices in case of intervention for example). The car is badly battered and shows a very good balance, but its standard components suffer and its engine block (No. 022) will finally collapse.

No, my mistake, engine n. 022 collapsed in 31-1-94 still fit in it.


User avatar

Crispi74  1w ago @TypeF173

Register and facebook page was made by the same person.


User avatar

TypeF173  1w ago @Crispi74

Like I said I haven't had the chance to look, my primary concern would be the contents, however.


User avatar

Crispi74  1w ago @TypeF173

Thank you for your help, is anyway difficult to rebuilt history, I was checking these pages from long but still every detail is still difficult to make them in mind.


User avatar

TypeF173  1w ago @Crispi74

It is difficult, I mean were talking just under 30 years ago when some of these cars came out. The Bugatti EB110 was 1991 circa the Supersport later.

But you might not know but when I first joined FL my name here was "ChironSS" actually. I'm massively into the Bugatti Chiron.

But if I can help out here and there absolutely will. There is no BRAND like Bugatti. I am planning more content as I've been away for far too long, some might say on fruitless pursuits LOL!


User avatar

Crispi74  1w ago @TypeF173

Yes. It is complicated because some cars were refurbished, some engines switched, some specs changed and some chassis weres stored. I found particularily interesting the fact that engine n. 026, the engine that C7 was provided for testing at Nardo, was later fitted in a SS prototype replacing engine n.009 (used for consumption test). This does expalin to us the way at beginning they mouve, we don't know how it was enough for them to use a good GT engine on an SS or to use an SS engine to make a GT works fine. Imo.


User avatar

TypeF173  1w ago @Crispi74

To be honest I never knew that kind of stuff was going on? I'll keep reading it's really interesting stuff your uncovering!


User avatar

Crispi74  1w ago @TypeF173

There were a lot of these things from all the factories, not just for Bugatti. I love to try to find these things reaserching and reasoning. Thanks to all of you giving your opinions, sometimes looking at these things with more than one mind we can find things unable to think being alone. On the case of my last aspect, suold be fun to understand better how they were mouving into engines switched, for example when they repalced C7 engine into SS06, it was enough for Bugatti to use the car with it or they worked on upgrading on the spec? This kind of answer are very fun to me, because are the heart of the research on how they worked, because sometimes very early cars were completed with just available parts! For the same reason what sense would it have the switch from SS engine 009 to GT engine 026? To know more on prototypes or early development cars, on how they were adressed to do on their life, their chenges, and so on.
I'm really a passionate of these cars over that owner of some. I pass a lot of free time researching things for these kind of Supercars... let me try to find something fun.


User avatar

Crispi74  1w ago @Crispi74

On the same side was the question of C9 (or SS08) engine. I think our firend 196ss was right! The car was bord with engine n.022 and then replaced with n.027 in early 1994. The very remarcable fun thing is that the car seems it wasn't always as fast as the same performance, like it was poushed hard at the beginning to be detuned later berfore the engine collapse. The car was claimed very fast, then it raced the homologation and immediately seems became slower. Even here help us to understand on how they worked on they early tests, developments and so on.


User avatar

Crispi74  1w ago @Crispi74

I forgot. This does explain onother aspect, esplecially for a car like EB110 produced in just very low numbers. Over the fact that these kind of cars were variable even on production, these very early car, prototypes, mules, call them on which name you want, they were one off cars were you can find unexpectedly fast or slow cars depends on how they were assembled or completed or adressed.


User avatar

196ss  1w ago @Crispi74

Thank you very much!
I'll be sure to read it when I have some free time. Although French texts are kinda hard for me.

I think you're aware of that forum, there are much interesting info here:

https://www.autotitre.com/forum/Bugatti/EB110/Bugatti-EB110-Magazine-articles-scans-108001p1.htm


User avatar

Crispi74  1w ago @196ss

For translate articles download pages on your smartphone and try with google translator as images.

Yes I know very well those pages ;-)

Changing argument, are you experinced on performance for Koenig Specials cars? if yes, come on at Koenig Ferrari 328 section!


User avatar

hostboy  9m ago

Shaggy • 10y ago

"Amazing car, 542 horsepower will only get a new car to about 190 MPH, and it takes about 700 horsepower to get a new supercar to 215 MPH, the Jaguar XJ220 has the aerodynamics of a fighter jet, and it's light, 3,234 LBS."

This is because the XJ220 was underrated and not actually making only 550 horsepower. The top-speed record car was stated to make 50 hp more, but the XJ220 actually makes 650-700.


User avatar

hostboy  9m ago

Jaguar XJ220 (1992):
Claimed Power: 542 bhp / 550 PS / 404 kW
Actual Power: 697 bhp / 707 PS / 520 kW
Estimated Weight: 1578 kg with driver and fuel
Source of Estimations: TorqueStats *with several adjustments
Imperial acceleration figures (for U.S.):
▪ 0-30 mph: 1.636 s
▪ 0-60 mph: 3.083 s
▪ 0-100 mph: 6.700 s
▪ 0-150 mph: 15.075 s
▪ 0-200 mph: 32.244 s
▪ Top speed: 216.880 mph *average of both directions
▪ 1/4 mile: 11.320 s @ 129.983 mph
▪ 1 mile: 27.015 s @ 189.106 mph
▪ 1' rollout: 0.293 s
Metric acceleration figures (for rest of the world):
▪ 0-100 km/h: 4.091 s
▪ 0-200 km/h: 10.335 s
▪ 0-300 km/h: 26.109 s
▪ Top speed: 367.489 km/h
▪ 0-380 m: 11.302 s @ 209.147 km/h
▪ 0-400 m: 11.569 s @ 211.603 km/h
▪ 0-1000 m: 20.210 s @ 279.678 km/h


User avatar

TypeF173  9m ago

Quote>"The XJ220 scores goals which the Ferrari doesn't even aim at."

https://ibb.co/zmNsMsW


User avatar

TypeF173  10m ago

Top-Speed Testing the Bugatti EB 110 S, Jaguar XJ220, Ruf 911 BTR, and Ferrari 456 GT

https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/a32980278/top-speed-testing-the-bugatti-eb-110-s-jaguar-xj220-ruf-911-btr-and-ferrari-456-gt/


User avatar

Anonymous  10m ago

Post content redacted by Advanced BS Detector (ABSD)™



User avatar

TypeF173  1y ago

So, to get too the very bottom of all these metrics and numbers I absolutely had to get them from Source. So I did. I acquired a copy of Autocar and Motor from June 1993.

I couldn't find any quailty scans anywhere. So I was left with little or next to no choice.

Anyway front page plus acceleration scans> https://postimg.cc/gallery/LmgQCCj

She's an old lady now but when I first saw those figures I was completely blown away!

Hopefully this is a demonstration on how far I'm willing to go to get the information that's required.

:)


User avatar

TypeF173  1y ago

https://www.evo.co.uk/lamborghini/murcielago/14159/lamborghini-murcielago-lp640-v-jaguar-xj220

Jaguar
0-30 1.9
0-40 2.5
0-50 3.0
0-60 3.6
0-70 4.6
0-80 5.5
0-90 6.5
0-100 7.9
0-110 9.3
0-120 10.8
0-130 12.6
0-140 14.9
0-150 17.4
1/4 mile secs 11.7
1/4 mile mph 125
Top speed mph 213

So I found some very rare metrics here. Evo Magazine.

The Lamborghini are within the link. Please always check.


User avatar

TypeF173  1y ago

https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-culture/g4257/a-fix-of-nurburgring-times-from-british-cars-photos/

Quote>"It could never keep up with the Ferrari F40 in terms of reputation, but the XJ220 did hold the production car lap record at the 'Ring for an impressive eight years between 1992 and 2000."

What the ACTUAL F? I had absolutely NO idea! I remember the lap but wasn't aware it was an actual productions lap record for EIGHT YEARS! Oo


User avatar

TypeF173  1y ago

https://silodrome.com/mg-metro-6r4/

The Rare MG Metro 6R4 – Britain's Hairy-Chested Group B Challenger

Quote>"The engine that was developed for the MG Metro 6R4 is fascinating, it essentially started out as the Buick 215 cu. in. V8 first released in 1961 before later becoming the Rover V8 which was then vastly modified into a DOHC V6 for the 6R4, this engine would then (in further modified form) end up powering the Jaguar XJ220 supercar released in 1992."

The engine has it's GENESIS in another engine from the United States of America! The World famous Rover V8 prior.

The 6R4 unit was naturally aspirated. Then later twin turbocharged. I bet you didn't know that! Ha!


User avatar

TypeF173  1y ago

https://www.goodwood.com/grr/event-coverage/festival-of-speed/2015/6/cars-that-rock-fos-2015-jaguar-xj220-v12/

Quote>"Unfortunately, by the time the car went into production a number of engineering revisions had been made. The V12 engine was gone, in its place coming a twin-turbo V6 borrowed from the MG Metro 6R4 rally car."

So engine first, Jaguar were downsizing TWENTY SEVEN years ago and more! So I chuckle when I read about it now as if it's something new.

Now most people will know the V12 (unfortunately) was dropped. If I recall it was emmissions related back then and it due to making quoted power reliably.

So the V6 was in. Not many people know that the engine came from the MG Metro 6R4 rally car!

LOL! But it gets a little more complicated...


User avatar

TypeF173  1y ago

So the Jaguar journey begins. Where to start? Well, with the XJ220 ofcourse! E type aside probably their most famous car of all time!


User avatar

TypeF173  1y ago

I LOVED this car so very long ago. Dark blue paintwork with grey leather interior! ;)


User avatar

British Cars Suck  2y ago

This post has received too much negative feedback and is hidden. Click here to show it anyway.


User avatar

196ss  2y ago

Le Moniteur Automobile № 1073, 26.01.1995:
0-100 kph - 5,0 sec
0-160 kph - 8,8 sec
400 m - 12,4 sec
1000 m - 22,0 sec

Auto, Motor und Sport 19/1994:
Curb weight - 1555 kg
0-100 kph - 4,0 sec
0-120 kph - 5,2 sec
0-160 kph - 8,2 sec
0-180 kph - 9,9 sec
0-200 kph - 12,2 sec


User avatar

196ss  2y ago

 

 


User avatar

hostboy  2y ago

With that kind of top speed the estimated 0-300km/h time should be way better than 40 seconds.


User avatar

Inline 6 rules  4y ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Production_car_speed_record#Cars_excluded_from_the_list

Tested by Road & Track, speed record already higher. The 217.1 mph Guinness World Records speed was measured by Jaguar one-way without independent control with a car modified for about 50 extra hp, the 212.3 mph claims were also factory measured without independent control


User avatar

Inline 6 rules  4y ago

What do you think the true top speed of this car?

During testing at the Nardò Ring in Italy, one XJ220 had its catalytic converters removed and its rev limit increased to 7,900 rpm; these modifications increased the car's power output by 50 bhp (51 PS; 37 kW) and the car was then driven by 1990 Le Mans Winner Martin Brundle to a top speed of 217.1 mph (349 km/h). Owing to the circular nature of the track, some (including the British car magazines Top Gear and Autocar) say a speed of 217 mph (349 km/h) is equivalent to 223 mph (359 km/h) on a straight, level road. However, on other tracks it performed differently; when top speed was tested on a straight level road by Road & Track it only reached 210.5 mph (339 km/h), it was slower than the Bugatti EB 110 at the same event and the Ruf CTR tested there in 1987

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_XJ220#Engine

The initial high speed runs, with the car configured in standard trim (catalytic converters connected, lower rev-limit of 7,400 rpm) achieved a maximum recorded speed of 212.3 mph (341.7 km/h), the same speed as previously reached at Fort Stockton during testing.[c] Brundle reported that the car was hitting the rev limiter during the run.[5]

The rev limiter was increased to 7,900 rpm and the catalytic converters were removed in favour of installing straight-through exhaust pipes for a second series of runs, and it was this attempt which resulted in the maximum recorded speed of 217.1 mph (349.4 km/h).[d]. It was estimated that the removal of the catalytic converters, which were not mandated in Europe at the time, increased the power output by around 50 bhp (37 kW; 51 PS)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_XJ220#Guinness_World_Record


User avatar

XJ220  4y ago

Anglesley Coastal 1:13.883 Driver Tiff, source 5th gear video.


User avatar

your moms step brother  5y ago

This post has received too much negative feedback and is hidden. Click here to show it anyway.


User avatar

Fangio Man  10y ago

It would be great if the C-X75 reach production.

I hope it will not flop like the XJ220 did...


User avatar

Mental  10y ago

Oh, Jaguar, PLEASE!


User avatar

Mental  10y ago

The exterior of the C-X75 is Fantastic! It surely looks more beautiful and stunning than LaFerrari and P1, IMO. This prototype is just gorgeous with all its details that its predecessors were famous for.

However, I don't like the fact it's another hybrid hypercar.. mlehh... But I really cannot complain on numbers it performs. Because its 4-cylinder engine (yes, yes!, four-cylinder!) that produces.. 502 bhp at 10000 rpm! That's just brainless! And that sound, it sounds like a pro-race-car! Other power power comes from two electric motors to the each axle, so it's AWD. As total, combined 850 hp plus, 1000 Nm... Here you go, a plug-in hybrid, a relative to the Prius that defeats everything.

So performance: 220 mph top speed (just like XJ220 (the name is obvious) did, without any electrics); 0-62 - under 3 sec; 0-100 - under 6 sec. And for a car that weighs 1700 kg, that's very agile. This is a wildcat with a smart electric brain.

Of course, I wish to see this C-X75 with a twin-turbo V6, or even a big growling V12, without any hybrids, and be RWD... But I realize, the current prototype is just a technical prodigy.

Aaaah.. just such a shame this Jaguar is nothing more than a prototype... Be it hybrid, or not, I really wish C-X75 hit the production, and be a top competitor to the LaFerrari, P1 and 918... That's would be a glorious fourth of 2013...

Photo of Jaguar XJ220