Ferrari Enzo 1000 m

Image of Ferrari Enzo

2002 Ferrari Enzo will complete 1000 m in 19.6 seconds.

Vehicle Ferrari Enzo
Power / weight 660 ps / 1446 kg
Time 19.60 s
Trap speed 278.0 kph (172.7 mph)
FL estimate 20.8 s @ 279.0 kph
Submitted 13 years ago by anonymous
Views 1.4k


Audi R8 V10 Plus19.5-0.1
McLaren F119.5-0.1
Bimota YB10 Dieci19.6-0.0
Ferrari 458 Speciale19.6-0.0
Ferrari Enzo19.6 s
Ferrari 458 Italia19.6+0.0
Aventador SVJ19.6+0.0
McLaren 540C19.7+0.1
Maserati MC2019.7+0.1
Pagani Zonda Cinque279+1.0
Aventador LP700-4279+0.9
Ferrari 488 GTB278+0.3
Aventador LP750-4 SV278+0.1
Ferrari Enzo278 kph
Aventador S278-0.4
Aventador LP750-4 SV277-0.6
Aventador SVJ277-0.9
Huracán Performante277-1.0
User avatar
User avatar

TypeF173  1y ago

Quote>"ACCELERATION 0-1000 M 19.60sec."

The above figure is a manufacturer claim. Which is fine, it's Ferrari afterall. But it's not really admissible when making comparison tests.

I am aware of it's real time, which I'm looking to verify shortly.


User avatar

hostboy  1y ago

It's 20.1, posted in the same AMuS test that reported 11.4 for 400m.

User avatar

TypeF173  1y ago @hostboy

I see. Thank You. It's just difficult to compare cars when the quickest times are listed for multiple test for different cars. I had NO idea that the EB110 hit 19.80 to 1km? Frustratingly there's no trap speed. So which is quicker? EB0110 SS or Enzo. Well based on what I've seen the it's the EB110 SS as it beat it at the 1/4 mile mark too, from memory.

I can find no proper tests for it! :(

User avatar

hostboy  1y ago @TypeF173

The EB110 SS did 11.0 to 19.8 (Sport Auto), versus the Enzo which did 11.4 to 20.1. The 400-1000m gap between them is only 0.1sec. This implies that the Bugatti has a lower trap speed, either at the 400m mark or at the 1000m mark... maybe both.

I'd rather compare EB110 SS to F50. In real-world performance, that Ferrari is what the EB110 SS is closer to. Even the F512 M can beat an EB110 GT on several occasions, and that car rivals the LAMBORGHINI DIABLO which is far from a hypercar.

The US-spec EB110 (using the same motor as the SS model) produced a 12.5/119.5mph quartermile result, which equates to approximately 22.3 for the standing kilometer (by then it should trap 160 mph). Remember, the EB110 GT did 12.8/115 and 22.9/150.

Road & Track admitted to poor shifting skills in the EB110 SS, so at a 160mph finishing kilometer speed it should match the Jaguar XJ220. It's definitely faster than Jaguar XJ220 as well, judging by the poor quartermile trap speed. 120 to 160 is better than 125 to 160.

This was ONE of the VERY RARE moments when Road & Track DID NOT account for a 1-foot rollout... which they usually do, but judging by the poor 0-30 result of 2.2sec, in this case no rollout was accounted for their EB110. Even a naturally aspirated V6 or V8, 300hp upper-midsize sedan does 2.1 with rollout — I'm talking cars like the Chevy Impala and Toyota Camry.

User avatar

TypeF173  1y ago @hostboy

0.1 seconds is victory! ;)

The F50 took over 21 seconds. Way over, again from memory. The Lamborghini Diablo I'm still chasing. Specifically the SE30. It's very rapid.

As for timings back then apparently and completely unbeknownst to me, Top Gear Magazine tested the CC8S and their timings are all over the place when you benchmark them against Autocars!