What is the Nurburgring record for Enzo?

[numerouno]

Hey dudes :)
Recently read that Porsche Carrera GT has set a new production car record in Nurburgring, at 7min 32.44sec Does anyone know Enzo's time?

I really doubt that the Carrera could beat Enzo :?



Edited by SFDMALEX

[mindgam3]

I really doubt that the Carrera could beat Enzo :?

Why?

Ferrari wont let the enzo be officially timed around any circuit except fiorano

[tigerx]

the enzo did go to the nordschielefe but it got DNF cuz of engine problems ;)

[mindgam3]

the enzo did go to the nordschielefe but it got DNF cuz of engine problems ;)

"engine problems" or a slower lap time ;)

[SFDMALEX]

I dont think it takes a genius to figure out that CGT will lap there faster. It was build for around that track :wink:

[tforth]

When AMS tested the SLR, Enzo, CGT, Murcielago, AM GT, etc. around Nardo, they also reported road course times around a track that was nearby. As I remember it, the CGT came out ahead, by approx. 1s over the Enzo. I believe the Murcielago came in 3rd, only 0.5-1s slower than the Enzo. The CGT smoked the cars in braking from high speeds as well.

Steve Sutcliffe at Autocar has also stated that the CGT would be faster around a road course. The Enzo fast in a straight line though...

[tigerx]

pffffffft straight line speed isn't needed.

[numerouno]

I think Enzo's the current slalom record holder of production cars add that to its superior straight line performance => So strange that it was beaten by the CGT (Well maybe the CGT was tuned on the 'Ring but, how about Nardo?)

[komotar]

I've read a few times, that the Carrera GT is just a bit faster on track.
Better downforce.

[aks]

The CGT smoked the cars in braking from high speeds as well.


even better braking then the SLR?

[komotar]

far better.

I'll try to dig up the mag.

[Just_me]

Lambo Murcielago: 212 m(from 250km/hr to standstill)
Ferrari Enzo: 215 m
Porsche Carrera GT: 191 m
Mercedes SLR McLaren: 221 m

[numerouno]

Friggin amazin' :shock:

[cho_888]

that is a big difference! the CGT would be lighter too which would also work towards its advantage

[mindgam3]

I dont think it takes a genius to figure out that CGT will lap there faster. It was build for around that track :wink:

im sure considering that porsche have their own test track that more of their testing would have been done there :P

[tigerx]

^they do^ just like ferrari ;)

[Neutrino]

Blech even if the CGT is a hair fater than the Enzo I'm sure the Enzo on steroids aka MC12 can smoke the CGT to bring back the victory.

[bmagni]

Well maybe the CGT was tuned on the 'Ring but, how about Nardo?)


nardo is a high speed huuuuuge oval... not a normal track

[HoboPie]

The Carrera GT was pretty awesome in that test, but how the hell does a Murcielago outbrake an Enzo from high speed?

[numerouno]

Well maybe the CGT was tuned on the 'Ring but, how about Nardo?)


nardo is a high speed huuuuuge oval... not a normal track

Yeah, right Nardo's an oval, so straight line performance should've made Enzo the winner of that test :?:

[numerouno]

Well maybe the CGT was tuned on the 'Ring but, how about Nardo?)


nardo is a high speed huuuuuge oval... not a normal track

Yeah, right Nardo's an oval, so straight line performance should've made Enzo the winner of that test :?:

[dons5]

i personally think that on tracks like the autocar show test (the show that did the nardo test) and tracks like on top gear like tight lil stupid courses the cgt might win, but on a real circuit like most f1 circuits i think enzo would win,

[SFDMALEX]

:roll: everybody seems to forget that fact that it lapt nurburgring faster then the CGT. And so did the 360CS...in that case faster then the GT3.

[bmagni]

Well maybe the CGT was tuned on the 'Ring but, how about Nardo?)


nardo is a high speed huuuuuge oval... not a normal track

Yeah, right Nardo's an oval, so straight line performance should've made Enzo the winner of that test :?:

the enzo won in top speed doing 355 km/h if i remember well, the CGt did 334... this at nardo...

[numerouno]

i personally think that on tracks like the autocar show test (the show that did the nardo test) and tracks like on top gear like tight lil stupid courses the cgt might win, but on a real circuit like most f1 circuits i think enzo would win,
:roll: everybody seems to forget that fact that it lapt nurburgring faster then the CGT. And so did the 360CS...in that case faster then the GT3.

Thumbsup to you guys, I really wish a head on battle be arranged between the Kraut and the Tifosi on a real track and I'm damn sure the prancing horse will fry the kraut's ass ;)

[Just_me]

:roll: everybody seems to forget that fact that it lapt nurburgring faster then the CGT. And so did the 360CS...in that case faster then the GT3.

ehh what?

Challenge Stradale: 7.56 min
911 GT3 : 7.54 min
GT3 RS: 7.47 min

both GT3 versions are faster than Stradale. Since Enzo havent been tested so yes, CGT is faster than enzo too.

[nejcdolinsek]

Lambo Murcielago: 212 m(from 250km/hr to standstill)
Ferrari Enzo: 215 m
Porsche Carrera GT: 191 m
Mercedes SLR McLaren: 221 m

There's no way the murcielago could outbreak the enzo. Not only is it heavier, but it also doesn't have CC brakes. The numbers are a bit fishy...

The CGT could beat the Enzo around slower, more curvey tracks, because its a smaller car. But on "real" race tracks, which have more high speed corners, the Enzo would win. The nardo track is very curvey...

On the other hand, I don't think that times aroung the 'ring are of much use, because its just too long. I think there are very few drivers that are able to perfectly go round it.

[Just_me]

Lambo Murcielago: 212 m(from 250km/hr to standstill)
Ferrari Enzo: 215 m
Porsche Carrera GT: 191 m
Mercedes SLR McLaren: 221 m

The CGT could beat the Enzo around slower, more curvey tracks, because its a smaller car. But on "real" race tracks, which have more high speed corners, the Enzo would win. The nardo track is very curvey...

On the other hand, I don't think that times aroung the 'ring are of much use, because its just too long. I think there are very few drivers that are able to perfectly go round it.

speculations are fun, right? 8)
I believe CGt is faster than enzo on most of the tracks but just like you this only speculations.
Will we ever get an answer? Nope, I dont think so :D :(

More laptimes for you, this time on Hockenheim.

GT3: 1.13,2 min
GT3 RS: 1.11,8 min
CGT: 1.08,6 min
Stradale: 1.13 min

No times for Enzo but I think 1.08,6 min is hard to beat.

[komotar]

Maybe this will help just a bit.

I'm a huuuuge ferrari fan (I love everything except the f1 team),
but these times are a bit worrying:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v105/komotar/PICT0120.jpg

enzo only about 2-3 sec faster than the 360cs...

[nejcdolinsek]

Maybe this will help just a bit.

I'm a huuuuge ferrari fan (I love everything except the f1 team),
but these times are a bit worrying:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v105/komotar/PICT0120.jpg

enzo only about 2-3 sec faster than the 360cs...

Fiorano is a short track with many tight turns... the Enzo's power isn't fully used here...

[Neutrino]

"Just_Me" are those numbers done with the same driver facing the same weather conditions? Because if not they are almost meaningless.

Lets not forget that in the same day with the same driver the GT3 RS had an identical time with the 360CS on the Top Gear track

[sentra_dude]

:roll: everybody seems to forget that fact that it lapt nurburgring faster then the CGT. And so did the 360CS...in that case faster then the GT3.

What did the Enzo lap Nurburgring in?

From st-anger's thread, I think the CGT's best is 7:34 or 7:32...

360CS certainly didn't lap it faster than the CGT!

From the Sport Auto Supertest:
360CS: 7:56
911 GT3: 7:54

[astonmartinandy]

I still find it quite hard to belive that a GT3 laps faster than a 360CS... More power, lighter and stickier Pirelli's!

[sentra_dude]

I still find it quite hard to belive that a GT3 laps faster than a 360CS... More power, lighter and stickier Pirelli's!

Considering that Ferrari is very likely over-rating the 360CS's hp, and under-rating it's weight, the power to weight ratio difference probably isn't as big as you think...

Combine that with Porsche's experience at the Ring, and rear-engine layout giving very good grip out of corners, its not a shock. Who knows, the time for the 360CS might come down if it had more laps there.

[Just_me]

"Just_Me" are those numbers done with the same driver facing the same weather conditions? Because if not they are almost meaningless.

Lets not forget that in the same day with the same driver the GT3 RS had an identical time with the 360CS on the Top Gear track

yes they are, with horst von saurma from SportAuto

[tigerx]

um, lol ferrari enzo got DNF cause of engine problems on the nurburgring. i've told you that haven't i?

[Neutrino]

"Just_Me" are those numbers done with the same driver facing the same weather conditions? Because if not they are almost meaningless.

Lets not forget that in the same day with the same driver the GT3 RS had an identical time with the 360CS on the Top Gear track

yes they are, with horst von saurma from SportAuto


Well that takes out one variable but teh weather still remains. And that can affect a car tremendously. Hot and humid will murder the engine while overly cold weather will reduce the summer-tire traction.

If you look at that list again a GT3 posted in 8/99 a time of 8.03 and in 6/03 a 7.54. So unless porsche changed a bunch of stuff on the car since, that difference is most likelly atributed to weather conditions.

[SFDMALEX]

Lambo Murcielago: 212 m(from 250km/hr to standstill)
Ferrari Enzo: 215 m
Porsche Carrera GT: 191 m
Mercedes SLR McLaren: 221 m

The CGT could beat the Enzo around slower, more curvey tracks, because its a smaller car. But on "real" race tracks, which have more high speed corners, the Enzo would win. The nardo track is very curvey...

On the other hand, I don't think that times aroung the 'ring are of much use, because its just too long. I think there are very few drivers that are able to perfectly go round it.

speculations are fun, right? 8)
I believe CGt is faster than enzo on most of the tracks but just like you this only speculations.
Will we ever get an answer? Nope, I dont think so :D :(

More laptimes for you, this time on Hockenheim.

GT3: 1.13,2 min
GT3 RS: 1.11,8 min
CGT: 1.08,6 min
Stradale: 1.13 min

No times for Enzo but I think 1.08,6 min is hard to beat.

Hockenhm, thats the times I meant.

[SFDMALEX]

:roll: everybody seems to forget that fact that it lapt nurburgring faster then the CGT. And so did the 360CS...in that case faster then the GT3.

What did the Enzo lap Nurburgring in?

From st-anger's thread, I think the CGT's best is 7:34 or 7:32...

360CS certainly didn't lap it faster than the CGT!

From the Sport Auto Supertest:
360CS: 7:56
911 GT3: 7:54

Dont confuse nordschliefe and nurburgring :wink:

[sentra_dude]

:roll: everybody seems to forget that fact that it lapt nurburgring faster then the CGT. And so did the 360CS...in that case faster then the GT3.

What did the Enzo lap Nurburgring in?

From st-anger's thread, I think the CGT's best is 7:34 or 7:32...

360CS certainly didn't lap it faster than the CGT!

From the Sport Auto Supertest:
360CS: 7:56
911 GT3: 7:54

Dont confuse nordschliefe and nurburgring :wink:

lol, sorry...:lol:


um, lol ferrari enzo got DNF cause of engine problems on the nurburgring. i've told you that haven't i?

Umm, talking to me?

So...you're saying they've only made one try with the Enzo there? What is that crap?

[mindgam3]

:roll: everybody seems to forget that fact that it lapt nurburgring faster then the CGT. And so did the 360CS...in that case faster then the GT3.

What did the Enzo lap Nurburgring in?

From st-anger's thread, I think the CGT's best is 7:34 or 7:32...

360CS certainly didn't lap it faster than the CGT!

From the Sport Auto Supertest:
360CS: 7:56
911 GT3: 7:54

Dont confuse nordschliefe and nurburgring :wink:

lol, sorry...:lol:


um, lol ferrari enzo got DNF cause of engine problems on the nurburgring. i've told you that haven't i?

Umm, talking to me?

So...you're saying they've only made one try with the Enzo there? What is that crap?

well if they did make an outstandigly fast lap, surely they would have made a big deal about it and officially published it.....

Theres no reason why the CGT cant be faster than the Enzo around some tracks

[bmagni]

well if they did make an outstandigly fast lap, surely they would have made a big deal about it and officially published it.....

Theres no reason why the CGT cant be faster than the Enzo around some tracks


i totally agree with u... maybe the enzo is faster maybe the cgt is... maybe we wont ever get to know it officialy... but if one is faster than the other. it wont be by a great distance

[tigerx]

well if they manage a lap that's faster then the CGT then it woulda been a record now wouldn't it?

[noliebro]

does everybody here know that the FIA declared that the MC12 was not allowed to race, just said it cause it was mentioned earlier.

[Just_me]

"Just_Me" are those numbers done with the same driver facing the same weather conditions? Because if not they are almost meaningless.

Lets not forget that in the same day with the same driver the GT3 RS had an identical time with the 360CS on the Top Gear track

yes they are, with horst von saurma from SportAuto


Well that takes out one variable but teh weather still remains. And that can affect a car tremendously. Hot and humid will murder the engine while overly cold weather will reduce the summer-tire traction.

If you look at that list again a GT3 posted in 8/99 a time of 8.03 and in 6/03 a 7.54. So unless porsche changed a bunch of stuff on the car since, that difference is most likelly atributed to weather conditions.

of course several factors are involved. But how easy do you think it is to collect all this great cars and test them at the same day?
Anyway, its better to use the same driver than use John from Egypt and then compare the times with Madonna from the states.
I say, same driver is better than nothing when comparing.

Also, you cant compare with a GT3 from -99 with a GT3 from year 2003. Those two are not the same cars, the one from -99 is the last generation GT3. The old one only had 360hp , the new one got 381hp and handling is also improved compared to last generation GT3.

[Just_me]

New Ferrari F430 is 3 sec faster than 360 Modena on the testtrack

[dons5]

ok u cant look at these times, the only times i will look at is if there compared back to back and the driver does around 20 - 30 laps in each car then its a fai comparison, what if one knows the other car better or is more suited to it, or that car is more suited to that particular track, or the driver jus sucks in one car cause its harder to bring to the limit but its ultimate pace is faster though harder to reach. We need F1 drivers doing this cause jus the driver alone can be the differcne of 2 - 3 seconds on a regular track, on a huge track like nurbergring like more then 10 probably

[HoboPie]

The guy who does the Sport Auto tests is skilled enough, especially considering how well he knows the ring.

I still think they need more time in the car though. The Enzo is apparently a difficult car to get used to for example. It doesn't provide the best feedback and on top of that it goes at a pace quicker than pretty much any other road car they test there except the Carrera GT.

I think with only a couple laps the Carrera GT would definitely get a better time than the Enzo. If they were both taken out for say 15 laps I think the Enzo would begin to creep a lot closer.

[mindgam3]

does everybody here know that the FIA declared that the MC12 was not allowed to race, just said it cause it was mentioned earlier.

its taking part in the last 3 races of the FIA GT and has one its first two (i think). FIA are still considering it running next year last time i checked and it probably will

[HoboPie]

They came 2nd and 3rd in the first race, behind a Saleen S7R I think, but that might have been a ploy of some sort.

Then one of the MC12s won the second race.

[Max Power]

so nobody has tested 'the' track car on the best track.......make's u wonder who buys these Ferraris and for what better purpose than for its intended use.

[dons5]

on most circuits id bet one the enzo unless it was like some kinda super twisty mickey mouse circuit

[SFDMALEX]

Before you can make any assumptions you have to understand Porsche and Ferrari.

Porsche make smooth handling cars.

Ferrari make snappy cars.

Nordschliefe is a big long smooth circuit. Something that suits the CGT.

A track like Monaco is for the Enzo. Its twisty and short.


We can argue all we want. But the fact is that Enzo was never timed anywere officialy.

I think, although I admit Im biased towards Ferrari, I think that Enzo would lap Nordschleife faster. It would take 3x the practice but it would lap faster just because its a more agiel car in my view.

[bmagni]

Nordschliefe is a big long smooth circuit. Something that suits the CGT.

A track like Monaco is for the Enzo. Its twisty and short.


i think is all the way around... as we saw in the test of nardo. the cgt lapped better than the enzo in the short twisty circuit...

[SFDMALEX]

Nardo? I cant see how CGT can lap nardo faster.....cant.

[Max Power]

these are all fake #'s........I don't know what u ppl are smoking......a Lada 2109 is faster than any Enzo around Nurburgring

[sentra_dude]

Its complete bullshit that Ferrari is too afraid to time the Enzo at Nordschleife...



How so? Ferrari, NEVER, NEVER time their cars officialy at any track besides Fiorano. Its been that way for 50 years. :wink:


Hmmm....they should!

[numerouno]

Its complete bullshit that Ferrari is too afraid to time the Enzo at Nordschleife...

Yeah I agree with you Sentra, IMO the Enzo could lap around the longer 'Ring quicker than the CGT, 'cause it's straightline superiority would result in a better lap time.

[SFDMALEX]

these are all fake #'s........I don't know what u ppl are smoking......a Lada 2109 is faster than any Enzo around Nurburgring

I had a 2108 :D

[HoboPie]

The Enzo is more of handful at the limit. In the recent Motortrend test they said the Enzo had the raw ability to keep up with the CGT because the differences in their test stats were academic and could easily be reversed, but the Enzo was difficult to deal with once it started sliding.

The tester actually said that the Enzo's neutral handling was usually a bonus, but the Enzo was just too much.

So I'm guessing when someone finally got comfortable with the Enzo it could probably lap a little quicker on most tracks. Though, most people will never get to that point. So it is an even more useless argument than most based around insane supercars.

[bmagni]

Nardo? I cant see how CGT can lap nardo faster.....cant.


i wasnt talkin bout nardo, i was talkin bout the tv show wherethey tested the cars at nardo and then went to another track

[SnakeBitten]

I dont see why everyone is so against the CGT beating the Enzo...If yoiu look at the acceleration between the two its only until really high speed the Enzo exerts its power advantage...On any track not made up of multiple long straightaways, I fully believe a CGT can and would beat the Enzo...Its lighter and has more downforce.....

And for the guy saying the Murcilago cant outbrake the Enzo because it doesnt have carbon carbon brakes...Heres another one that will give you a heart attack....The Viper SRT10 also outbrakes the Enzo according to recent MT and C&D tests....It has set the production car stopping distance...Not bad for just comparatively normal brakes.....the Enzo is impressive but it aint unbeatable...

[HoboPie]

It really depends on the test, sometimes the Enzo hits 100mph nearly 1/2 a second quicker other times it's 1 tenth of a second.(Autocar 0-100-0 and motortrend)

The Enzo actually is a very tiny bit lighter than the Carrera GT so that isn't an advantage for the Carrera GT. More downforce is again doubtful. The figures released by both Ferrari and Porsche indicate the Enzo is running more.(no idea where to find that info currently)

I don't know if anyone said a Murcielago couldn't outbrake and Enzo because of Carbon brakes it is more a matter of weight and brake technology. Steel brakes have the exact same stopping power for a single run. Both can lock the tires so it has to do with the brake application technology.

Anyway, admittedly there are a few cars out there that can stick with the Enzo for braking. At least from slower speeds. The Murcielago from 60mph takes 122ft according to car and driver the Enzo took 109ft. But from 80mph the Lambo took 213ft the Enzo only took 188ft.(188ft is R&T record from the distance even after the CGT was tested)

C&D tested the Enzo at 151ft the CGT at 147ft and the Murcielago at 155ft from 70mph. How is a car that in other tests loses ground past this point(Murcielago) supposed to gain on the Enzo from higher speeds considering aerodynamics and greatest of all weight. It doesn't make sense that the CGT would pull away when it is so comparable and that the Murcielago would magically start braking better when it isn't so comparable.

edit: I've been searching tests. That is only test ever where a Murcielago beat the Enzo in braking from any distance and also the only test that indicated the CGT had any major advantage over the Enzo.

[mindgam3]

yeah i'd agree that the murci wouldnt be able to brake as well as either the CGT or Enzo. It has less powerful brakes and not as good aerodynamics and dynamics overall.

At the end of the day, in a real life situation say on a track day the faster car between the CGT and the Enzo would be the one with the better driver. Apart from ultimate top speed the differences between them are so minimal

[sentra_dude]

Maybe we will see some times from owners...that would be nice!

[espen]

Whats the big deal, the CGT is faster on regular tracks and Walther Wøhl spent weeks driving it at the Ring - whereas the Enzo has barely been to the Ring... do you seriously believe the Enzo will all of a sudden turn out to be superior at the one track the CGT will seriously excell at?

[Max Power]

MotorTrend put these two cars together....what became of it?
http://img24.exs.cx/img24/6185/200mphcars-02.jpg

[SnakeBitten]

MotorTrend put these two cars together....what became of it?
http://img24.exs.cx/img24/6185/200mphcars-02.jpg

The Enzo topped out at 211mph...the CGT at 201mph and the FGT at 200mph but still acceleratiing....I dont recall lap times if any but I would suspect the order would stay the same if laps were run...

[dons5]

the acceleration figures between the cgt and Enzo are soo similair until much highers speeds???? i think not, jus to 60mph the enzo does that in 3.1 - 3.3 and the quarter in 11 flat possibly under 11. Those times are better then even the Mac f1. Enzo is way more technologically advanced also its i think the only car ever tested that couldnt lap faster with tc off. And i heard from top gear the cgt is extremely hard on the limit the back end breaks away alot

[HoboPie]

In the motortrend they did a figure eight test which though nice is not a track test. The CGT beat the Enzo by about a second there, but then the Stradale got a better time than the Enzo and that isn't even a close comparison.

The Enzo in that test at least proved to be the hairer of the cars. It had the objective stats to stay with the CGT, but through the slalom and figure eight at least, it was too snappy. The Enzo was apparently too neutral handling with essentially no understeer. On a track a skilled driver can deal with that and even use it to his advantage, but with over 650 hp it was too much in the slalom.

[SnakeBitten]

the acceleration figures between the cgt and Enzo are soo similair until much highers speeds???? i think not, jus to 60mph the enzo does that in 3.1 - 3.3 and the quarter in 11 flat possibly under 11. Those times are better then even the Mac f1. Enzo is way more technologically advanced also its i think the only car ever tested that couldnt lap faster with tc off. And i heard from top gear the cgt is extremely hard on the limit the back end breaks away alot


You're not serious are you? Faster than the Mac F1? Blasphemy I tell ya. I do believe with todays tire tech the Mac F1 would be easily a 10 sec car...It traps the 1/4 at 138mph for godsakes...Mush faster then any current Hyperexotic....Enzo may beat it on a track because of better tech and tires etc but if you upgrade the Mc F1 with todays brakes and rubber I dont think it would be a contest...Im not even talking bout the LM jsut the reg Mac F1...

Also the acceleration numbers between the Enzo and CGT are close in the 1/4 mile...the Enzo is 11.0 at 133.9 mph to the CGT 11.1 at 133.4 mph....What more proof do you need that these two are virtually tied in the quarter mile acceleration...Its only till extreme speeds where the Enzo exerts it hp advantage over the CGT as I stated before...Put them both on a track with a few straightaways and you cant see that the Enzo could lose???Not many tracks have straightaways that will allow most cars to get up to 190-200 where the Enzo would have the advantage..Both comming off a corner onto a long straight will be dead even or who ever is in front will likely remain there till next corner imho....Its not like the Enzo is gonna be blasting by the CGT like its a Civic.....I think that depending on track layout either on can beat the other...I my mind they are virtually tied and it will come down to track and/or driver.....

[mindgam3]

the acceleration figures between the cgt and Enzo are soo similair until much highers speeds???? i think not, jus to 60mph the enzo does that in 3.1 - 3.3 and the quarter in 11 flat possibly under 11. Those times are better then even the Mac f1. Enzo is way more technologically advanced also its i think the only car ever tested that couldnt lap faster with tc off. And i heard from top gear the cgt is extremely hard on the limit the back end breaks away alot


You're not serious are you? Faster than the Mac F1? Blasphemy I tell ya. I do believe with todays tire tech the Mac F1 would be easily a 10 sec car...It traps the 1/4 at 138mph for godsakes...Mush faster then any current Hyperexotic....Enzo may beat it on a track because of better tech and tires etc but if you upgrade the Mc F1 with todays brakes and rubber I dont think it would be a contest...Im not even talking bout the LM jsut the reg Mac F1...

Also the acceleration numbers between the Enzo and CGT are close in the 1/4 mile...the Enzo is 11.0 at 133.9 mph to the CGT 11.1 at 133.4 mph....What more proof do you need that these two are virtually tied in the quarter mile acceleration...Its only till extreme speeds where the Enzo exerts it hp advantage over the CGT as I stated before...Put them both on a track with a few straightaways and you cant see that the Enzo could lose???Not many tracks have straightaways that will allow most cars to get up to 190-200 where the Enzo would have the advantage..Both comming off a corner onto a long straight will be dead even or who ever is in front will likely remain there till next corner imho....Its not like the Enzo is gonna be blasting by the CGT like its a Civic.....I think that depending on track layout either on can beat the other...I my mind they are virtually tied and it will come down to track and/or driver.....

agreed, which is what i said a few posts ago ;)

So your saying the CGT is not technologically advanced?? I would say they're almost even on that front, you tell me one more technologically advanced component on the enzo that there isnt an equal comparison for on the CGT.

[numerouno]

Does CGT have an integrated control sytem?
Enzo Control (was a first in the world): Fully integrated electronic control system - watching over everything from engine and gearbox to suspension, brakes and traction control, and even the adaptive aerodynamics (that generate high downforce with low drag)

(If it does, I've not heard of it)

[dons5]

Easy the tc in the cgt cant come close to the Enzo's, and according to both Motor trend and Road and Track the Enzo beats Mac F1 on 0-60 0-100 and quarter mile easily. Road and Track got the Enzo to 60 in 3.28 compared to 3.4 and quarter in 11.1 at 133 and 11.6 at 125 for mac.

"its quarter-mile time and speed pulverize the mighty McLaren F1's numbers of 11.6 sec. traveling at a mere 125 mph past the quarter-mile mark. Wow!"

And in Motortrend herta got the mid corner speeds as follows Ford gt 185mph cgt 186 and Enzo 195, 9 mph what a difference, and at the end of the straight it was Ford gt 200.1mph, cgt 201.5 geez only 1.4 mph difference between cgt and ford gt not good porsche not good. Enzo 211 thats a huuuge difference in racing. but its weird cause herta was saying the enzo was hard at the limit with the rear end coming away but the cgt had understeer, but in Road and Track during the Enzo's 73 mph slalom time they said the Enzo had mild understeer and that the rear stayed planted and on top gear they said the cgt was hard at its limit and the rear end snapped loose alot and tiff on 5th gear said the enzo was easier to bring to the limit then most supercars, i guess in the end it all depends on too many things like driver, tire condition/temp/pressure, road surface, altitude, air temp and too many things. Noone will never know whats faster until Schumi tests all of them in a row on the same day :mrgreen: :twisted: 8) ,

and by the way to all u mac F1 fans that think the mac f1 hits 240 mph, reality check it doesnt, it hits 231, the 240 was either

1. the lifted the rev limit to 7800 instead of i think 7500 ( i think they said this was done in 97)

or

2. an earlier version of the mac when not in production yet, it was not the same as the one that eventually went into production

i heard more stories about "2" but just today i read the one about the rev limiter

[dons5]

oh ya and in the end Ferrari dominates F1 the pinnacle of allll motorsports, where porsche dont even have the guts to come in, the closest they can do is being the sponsor for the Speed Channel "Track map guide" or whatever :lol:

[SFDMALEX]

oh ya and in the end Ferrari dominates F1 the pinnacle of allll motorsports, where porsche dont even have the guts to come in, the closest they can do is being the sponsor for the Speed Channel "Track map guide" or whatever :lol:

Watch it. :wink: Cheap shots are not necessary.

[SFDMALEX]

the acceleration figures between the cgt and Enzo are soo similair until much highers speeds???? i think not, jus to 60mph the enzo does that in 3.1 - 3.3 and the quarter in 11 flat possibly under 11. Those times are better then even the Mac f1. Enzo is way more technologically advanced also its i think the only car ever tested that couldnt lap faster with tc off. And i heard from top gear the cgt is extremely hard on the limit the back end breaks away alot


You're not serious are you? Faster than the Mac F1? Blasphemy I tell ya. I do believe with todays tire tech the Mac F1 would be easily a 10 sec car...It traps the 1/4 at 138mph for godsakes...Mush faster then any current Hyperexotic....Enzo may beat it on a track because of better tech and tires etc but if you upgrade the Mc F1 with todays brakes and rubber I dont think it would be a contest...Im not even talking bout the LM jsut the reg Mac F1...

Also the acceleration numbers between the Enzo and CGT are close in the 1/4 mile...the Enzo is 11.0 at 133.9 mph to the CGT 11.1 at 133.4 mph....What more proof do you need that these two are virtually tied in the quarter mile acceleration...Its only till extreme speeds where the Enzo exerts it hp advantage over the CGT as I stated before...Put them both on a track with a few straightaways and you cant see that the Enzo could lose???Not many tracks have straightaways that will allow most cars to get up to 190-200 where the Enzo would have the advantage..Both comming off a corner onto a long straight will be dead even or who ever is in front will likely remain there till next corner imho....Its not like the Enzo is gonna be blasting by the CGT like its a Civic.....I think that depending on track layout either on can beat the other...I my mind they are virtually tied and it will come down to track and/or driver.....

agreed, which is what i said a few posts ago ;)

So your saying the CGT is not technologically advanced?? I would say they're almost even on that front, you tell me one more technologically advanced component on the enzo that there isnt an equal comparison for on the CGT.

Well I think we can take this argument far. As far as mechanical technology I dont think we can talk about it unless we have some blue prints etc...

As far as electronics then I think its fair to say that Enzo wins. Enzo's TC alone is a big leap forward with settings for almost any condition. Were in the CGT I think there just is a big TC button.

Enzo has F1 paddle shift. As much as I hate it, its a huge leap forward from H pattern. So technology advantage for the enzo again.


But if you want to take into account CGTs electric windows then shit....I dont know man.........tough :lol:

[HoboPie]

I think what everyone is slowly starting think about is the fact that the Enzo and CGT are rather closely matched and that every test we look at comes to a different conclusion in both subjective and objective terms.

For example if we all remember the Autocar 0-100-0 the Enzo and CGT were tested in the same day. The Enzo did 10.8x the CGT an 11.6.

If we go my motortrends stats both cars would be a lot closer together in that test. I think conditions, drivers and most of all tires affect how each car does in each test. The Enzo in the motortrend test sounded like maybe its tires were a little bald. It was getting hairy at the limit when just about every other mag said that it was very chuckable and had understeer. That would likely be the rear wheels so it also explains the slightly lackluster acceleration compared the CGT.

If we look at the R&T test the CGT is obviously too far behind. The acceleration isn't in the same league, the handling was fairly close, but the brakes were terrible. A worn tire could easily have this effect.

Now we can't put down every discrepancy to tires or conditions because one car is usually a little better in some areas than another. I'd say the CGT has slightly better low speed grip, the Enzo has slightly better high speed grip(not super high speeds). The Enzo accelerates a little better at the beginning, but the faster they go the bigger the difference gets.(something like 10 seconds at 300kph) The Carrera GT has slightly better brakes and it shows a little more as they go higher(Like the Motortrend test, the nardo one was impossible).

So these attributes will help each car on different tracks and with different drivers. Even a single driver isn't unbiased due to dynamics bias. F1 drivers for example are constantly changing the way their car behaves. Two drivers can get almost identical track times in F1 with the same car, but almost entirely different setups in terms of brake bias, aerodynamics and oversteer/understeer tendency.

all done :shock:

[SnakeBitten]

Easy the tc in the cgt cant come close to the Enzo's, and according to both Motor trend and Road and Track the Enzo beats Mac F1 on 0-60 0-100 and quarter mile easily. Road and Track got the Enzo to 60 in 3.28 compared to 3.4 and quarter in 11.1 at 133 and 11.6 at 125 for mac.

"its quarter-mile time and speed pulverize the mighty McLaren F1's numbers of 11.6 sec. traveling at a mere 125 mph past the quarter-mile mark. Wow!"

And in Motortrend herta got the mid corner speeds as follows Ford gt 185mph cgt 186 and Enzo 195, 9 mph what a difference, and at the end of the straight it was Ford gt 200.1mph, cgt 201.5 geez only 1.4 mph difference between cgt and ford gt not good porsche not good. Enzo 211 thats a huuuge difference in racing. but its weird cause herta was saying the enzo was hard at the limit with the rear end coming away but the cgt had understeer, but in Road and Track during the Enzo's 73 mph slalom time they said the Enzo had mild understeer and that the rear stayed planted and on top gear they said the cgt was hard at its limit and the rear end snapped loose alot and tiff on 5th gear said the enzo was easier to bring to the limit then most supercars, i guess in the end it all depends on too many things like driver, tire condition/temp/pressure, road surface, altitude, air temp and too many things. Noone will never know whats faster until Schumi tests all of them in a row on the same day :mrgreen: :twisted: 8) ,

and by the way to all u mac F1 fans that think the mac f1 hits 240 mph, reality check it doesnt, it hits 231, the 240 was either

1. the lifted the rev limit to 7800 instead of i think 7500 ( i think they said this was done in 97)

or

2. an earlier version of the mac when not in production yet, it was not the same as the one that eventually went into production

i heard more stories about "2" but just today i read the one about the rev limiter

Hey Don5 please if and when you quote Mclaren F1 numbers please please dont quote the Ameritech F1 numbers that R&T tested....The Americanized F1's are far from the Euro[real] version...The amount of weight and detuning that was done to make it legal here castrated it....The Euro version has hit 138mph in the 1/4...I wish the website with the actual einfo was still up...Also the Great Dario did a head to head test of them on the Ferrari test track that was slightly down hill and he said the Enzo just cant beat the Mclaren....Guess what its pretty obvious this was the real Mclaren not the castrated American version that the Enzo would rape.....Oh and last I checked the Mclaren was clocked at 240...Isnt it in the Guiness world book of records for a reason?

Mindgam I never said which were more technological than the other...I dont know...I guess they are both close...I more care about the results on the track than who has more electronic gismos... :D

[mindgam3]

the acceleration figures between the cgt and Enzo are soo similair until much highers speeds???? i think not, jus to 60mph the enzo does that in 3.1 - 3.3 and the quarter in 11 flat possibly under 11. Those times are better then even the Mac f1. Enzo is way more technologically advanced also its i think the only car ever tested that couldnt lap faster with tc off. And i heard from top gear the cgt is extremely hard on the limit the back end breaks away alot


You're not serious are you? Faster than the Mac F1? Blasphemy I tell ya. I do believe with todays tire tech the Mac F1 would be easily a 10 sec car...It traps the 1/4 at 138mph for godsakes...Mush faster then any current Hyperexotic....Enzo may beat it on a track because of better tech and tires etc but if you upgrade the Mc F1 with todays brakes and rubber I dont think it would be a contest...Im not even talking bout the LM jsut the reg Mac F1...

Also the acceleration numbers between the Enzo and CGT are close in the 1/4 mile...the Enzo is 11.0 at 133.9 mph to the CGT 11.1 at 133.4 mph....What more proof do you need that these two are virtually tied in the quarter mile acceleration...Its only till extreme speeds where the Enzo exerts it hp advantage over the CGT as I stated before...Put them both on a track with a few straightaways and you cant see that the Enzo could lose???Not many tracks have straightaways that will allow most cars to get up to 190-200 where the Enzo would have the advantage..Both comming off a corner onto a long straight will be dead even or who ever is in front will likely remain there till next corner imho....Its not like the Enzo is gonna be blasting by the CGT like its a Civic.....I think that depending on track layout either on can beat the other...I my mind they are virtually tied and it will come down to track and/or driver.....

agreed, which is what i said a few posts ago ;)

So your saying the CGT is not technologically advanced?? I would say they're almost even on that front, you tell me one more technologically advanced component on the enzo that there isnt an equal comparison for on the CGT.

Well I think we can take this argument far. As far as mechanical technology I dont think we can talk about it unless we have some blue prints etc...

As far as electronics then I think its fair to say that Enzo wins. Enzo's TC alone is a big leap forward with settings for almost any condition. Were in the CGT I think there just is a big TC button.

Enzo has F1 paddle shift. As much as I hate it, its a huge leap forward from H pattern. So technology advantage for the enzo again.


But if you want to take into account CGTs electric windows then shit....I dont know man.........tough :lol:

The F1 paddle shift isnt the first on a production car though.

The carbon ceramic clutch in the CGT is, and is more reliable :P

The CGT also has a 4 mode traction control system

Both have carbon ceramic brakes, both make use of subtle movable spoilers both have high specific output engines and both have the latest carbon fibre chassis.....

[dons5]

like i said before the f1 that hit 240 was with the limiter raised to 7800, instead of 7500, and basically thats not stock cause a stock f1 doesnt do it u gotta change the limiter, and other stories were that it was a pre production version that did 240 which was faster then the regular 231 mph mac that was put into production. And how is the Formula 1 thing a cheap shot im just staking facts. Ferrari dont rely on commercials like porsche, Ferrari dont make over 50 000 vehicles a year like porsche and dip so low to make a boxter, well the top of the line boxter i kinda understand but the low model thats just pathetic, and worse then all these things combined to make an SUV just because your in it for the money and need more money!!!! come on!!! its more then just about numbers boys, its about emotion and what the company your supporting is about and what philosophies that company stands for!!

[SnakeBitten]

like i said before the f1 that hit 240 was with the limiter raised to 7800, instead of 7500, and basically thats not stock cause a stock f1 doesnt do it u gotta change the limiter, and other stories were that it was a pre production version that did 240 which was faster then the regular 231 mph mac that was put into production. And how is the Formula 1 thing a cheap shot im just staking facts. Ferrari dont rely on commercials like porsche, Ferrari dont make over 50 000 vehicles a year like porsche and dip so low to make a boxter, well the top of the line boxter i kinda understand but the low model thats just pathetic, and worse then all these things combined to make an SUV just because your in it for the money and need more money!!!! come on!!! its more then just about numbers boys, its about emotion and what the company your supporting is about and what philosophies that company stands for!!

So 300rpm increase made the Mclaren pick up almost 10mph at such ridiculously high speeds..........That sounds impossible...Not arguing with ya cause I know you are just relaying what you read but damn that sounds crazy....Im assuming the other part of your post is for someone else

[JoeHahn]

like i said before the f1 that hit 240 was with the limiter raised to 7800, instead of 7500, and basically thats not stock cause a stock f1 doesnt do it u gotta change the limiter, and other stories were that it was a pre production version that did 240 which was faster then the regular 231 mph mac that was put into production. And how is the Formula 1 thing a cheap shot im just staking facts. Ferrari dont rely on commercials like porsche, Ferrari dont make over 50 000 vehicles a year like porsche and dip so low to make a boxter, well the top of the line boxter i kinda understand but the low model thats just pathetic, and worse then all these things combined to make an SUV just because your in it for the money and need more money!!!! come on!!! its more then just about numbers boys, its about emotion and what the company your supporting is about and what philosophies that company stands for!!

I'm sorry to say but in the 'real' world Porsche annihilates Ferrari. When their production cars are tricked up and put on track the Ferrari simply cant compete (GT3RSR vs GT). The Porsche has had major wins with the RSR while the Ferrari is always second best. Also I dont see Ferrari winning 16 Le Mans while Porsche has entered F1 before and has won races. Just look at the dominating Mclaren of the 80's using the Porsche TAG Motor.

[HoboPie]

Where did you find info about the test by Dario?

I know Dario drove one of the cars at the Fiorano test and Autocar said the Enzo just couldn't quite make it(but did have a sidebar about further testing proving much quicker), but I don't think they got the cars to go head to head.

[SnakeBitten]

Where did you find info about the test by Dario?

I know Dario drove one of the cars at the Fiorano test and Autocar said the Enzo just couldn't quite make it(but did have a sidebar about further testing proving much quicker), but I don't think they got the cars to go head to head.

Well the site aint there no more....I had seen it about 6 months ago I think...But I googled and found this...I think the article I saw had these numbers in it as well as Dario saying that the Enzo just isnt as fast as the Mclaren F1.....Big diffeence between the 138mph recorded for the F1 in the 1/4 and 133mph for the Enzo....Again Im having trouble finding the article on the F1 doing 138mph but Im sure you guys know that already...Remember the real F1 is more than 600lbs lighter than the Enzo and only down on hp to the Enzo a bit...Not even going to get into what an F1 LM would do to an Enzo or CGT....

Heres a link to the Autocar article

http://www.ferrariownersclub.co.uk/happenings/2003/april/enzo.asp

[SnakeBitten]

Heres some educational reading for those that dont quite understand what the Mclaren is all about......


http://www.bmwworld.com/models/mclaren.htm


Its interesting that the 7800rpm that was quoted by Don5 just happens to be the redline for the F1 LM....Its top speed is slower than the regular Euro F1 because of the downforce...So its limited to 230mph because of the downforce...So the regular F1 tops out at 240mph....Ive heard that Mclaren will upgrade the car with current technology like brakes, tires, navigation, dvd etc for the original owners...Not sure if its true but for the money you pay thats the least they can do...It would be scary to see an F1 with modern brakes and tires vs the current crop of superexotics....They are still struggling to approach some of the Mclarens old numbers on decade + technology....

Some of you might think that wouldnt be right to upgrade the tires and brakes cause the car wouldnt be stock. ..But its like racing a vintage car like the Daytona coupe on bias ply tires and you on modern rubber...

[SFDMALEX]

The F1 paddle shift isnt the first on a production car though.
.....

So? CGT doesnt have it, Enzo does. Therefore more current techology in the Enzo. :D

[SFDMALEX]

So 300rpm increase made the Mclaren pick up almost 10mph at such ridiculously high speeds

Sure.

[tigerx]

but then the paddle shift isn't as good as a stick ;).

[SFDMALEX]

Depends what you mean by good. :wink:

[tigerx]

you dirty minded you.

[dons5]

yes 300 rpm is a huge difference, and second Mac F1 has larger engine and much more importantly the laws back then were soooo much less strict then nowadays for emissions and structural for like crashes, perfect example of this the F430 is about 60 -70 kg heavier then a 360 why? because of new safety laws that meant the car had to be much much more stronger then the Modena, now compare 2 year old lasw for the Enzo which actually meets all of the current regulations, to laws from 1993 or whatever it was huuuge difference, and also at 1 million american or whatever it was ( back then today it would cost even more) the Mac F1 still made barely if any profit at all, now the Enzo at 660 000 was makin huge profit i think they made about 20 - 30 million dollars on the 399 Enzo's, If Ferrari spent 1 Million dollars American ( or more because of inflation) on each car like the Mac was the Enzo would be just as light as the Mac despite the Electronics and all the much stricter safety and emissions and noise regulations, and an F1 LM lol thats so gay, do you see Ferrari making a better version of there Enzo, here lets lower our supercar even more and add some ricer wing in the back etc. No, theres the Enzo and thats it they dont add on too it as if its goin out of style like the Mac F1 did, 0.86 on the skidpad, Even a Firebird Trans Am does more then that

[dons5]

and Porsche in F1 give me a break, jus cause Maclaren won with Porsche engines doesnt mean the Porscha was the best engine. Perfect example look at BMW in F1 especially in the 01 season where Ferrari dominated despite the BMW's huuge advantage in power, and in FIA GT the 360 and Porschas are always close, and 550 575M and MC12 dominate GT class. ALMS sucks compared to FIA GT its like, F1 and Cart/IRL

[JoeHahn]

...and in FIA GT the 360 and Porschas are always close

You've got to be joking right?

[HoboPie]

In the ALMS the Porsche's rule, but isn't there usually one 360 that often stays with the Porsche's in FIA GT?

SnakeBitten, for me there is really no doubt that the Mclaren is quicker, but I think up until 175 it is rather insanely close. I say that because in the article where autocar gets the 3.5 to 60 and 6.6 100 they mention another Enzo on the same day was doing consistently better. 3.2 seconds to 60 and 6.5 to 100mph.

The R&T test which was completely independent matches those times and produced a better quarter mile. So it is likely it betters the 13.1 seconds to 150mph. There was actually one article a while back that claimed the Enzo did a 12.8 to 150. At the time I dismissed it, but I hadn't actually read the autocar article.

A french mag tested the Enzo and they got it to cover the standing km in 19.52 seconds. That is infact quicker than the Mclaren F1. Due to the Nardo tests I believe the Enzo would be about a second slower to 200mph and I'm not sure about past there.

It still makes think the Enzo is running a little more power than claimed. That much weight and significant drag can't be overcome by some 30 odd HP.

Oh, and the F1 LM was quick, but quite simply it was too much for the tires. I'm not sure what it would do with modern rubber, but to 60 and 100mph it was consistently slower than the standard F1, but that may have also been due to extra downforce.

Even so the Enzo beats the LM in a 0-100-0 test by .7 seconds. That is pretty insane.

[Just_me]

You guys are funny, comparing a enzo to a 10 year old car. I say mclaren is more impressive than enzo. Mclaren, 10 year old and still rules the world. :twisted:

and what happend to the laptimes with the enzo? Where is this thread going..

[numerouno]

...while Porsche has entered F1 before and has won races. Just look at the dominating Mclaren of the 80's using the Porsche TAG Motor.

Come on Joe! When have Porsche had a successful independent F1 team??? We're not talking about only supplying engines or otherwise Honda maybe considered more successful in F1 than Porsche!!

And in the GT, we gotta wait and see what happens with the Maserati MC12 in this year's series (as you know, Ferrari has left the less presitgous GT category to Maserati)

[Chingachgook]

I don't have read all the posts
But

The McLaren F1 is overrated. It's fast thank to the lover Cx, but being so narrow and having so little downforce at high speed is not very stable (a Zonda, with a POOR aerodynamic, at high speed is more stable, and this is said by Andy Wallace that set the speed record with the F1). The handling is not as good as CGT and Enzo,it's sure. Those car have over 10 years of technology more than Mecca, and according to the skid pad, the F1 can do only 0.86g of lat. acc. , the Enzo can reach 1.45g (seats supports have been re-engineered to cope with such high grip)
In acceleration the Enzo is slightly slower than the F1, and the CGT is in 3rd position. But at this levels I don't mind for a few /10 of difference, and acceleration is not what I care of, the rear thrills come from handling

Speacking of breaking there are a lot of things to consider. The surface and the tyres in primis. The grip is critical beacuse of the HUGE braking power so if the test aren't done in the same condition and in the same way, all is relative ( and this is applicated also for accel. test, consumption and so on :wink: )

So, the F1 is a great car, but on the track is faster the CGT, the Enzo and also the F50 was (tested by Alan Jones in Estoril). In straight way the F1 in faster, considering cornering speed is down.

Those are facts

[bmagni]

i see it as easy as this. lets go with some facts

first the enzo is a much better performer than the f1. ive seen many comparisons in which it accelerates faster than the f1...

as i can remember the mclaren that reached the 391km/h was specially made for that purpose.

the enzo for those who didnt know was initially aimed to go over 400km/h but it sacrified some other performance like handling... which its what the mclaren is... a really fast car that doesnt handle good... the enzo totally outhandles it...

if the f1 lm handles better than the enzo... i really dont know... its obiously cause of the rear wing... and if u can see the enzo has no rear wing.... one of the main purposes of making the enzo was that it shouldnt have a huge rear wing. it should follow a clean line...
so. IMO the enzo and the f1 are some of the best cars out there... though i still say the enzo is better than the f1.....

[mindgam3]

Agreed, i think its fairly amazing that a 10 year old car comes anywhere near in terms of performance than the enzo, plus it still has a load more over the enzo with regards to the top speed.

The McLaren was designed as a ROAD car, and for the road only in which case its probably the better car as compared to the enzo its tiny and can be threaded through b roads much more easily. On the track sure the enzo will be faster, and so it should be its 10 YEARS younger and has a big performance advantage of ceramic brakes and any new materials that have become available in the 10 YEARS since the macca arrived.

As for the enzo's F1 gearbox, sure the CGT doesent have one, but its not a first on a production car. Carbon Ceramic clutch on the CGT is.

As far as electronic engine managment goes, they run exactly the same bosch motronic control unit which controls the engine and basically the same functions. The CGT has one control unit for each bank of cylinders. As fas as i can find out the enzo only has one, probably has two but its not stated anywhere.

The traction control being more advanced is highly debatable but at the end of the day your not going to use it if your on track.

And the CGT manages to deliver basically the same package at half the price.

Im by no means saying either the Enzo, Macca or CGT are better or worse than the others but what I am saying is IMO although it is one amazing car, the Enzo isnt the king of supercars

[dons5]

like i said before the Enzo was tested as bein the only car ever that could not lap quicker with the tc fully off thats how advanced it is, it all comes from F1,

and exactly, Ferrari could of made the Enzo go way over 400 compared to Macs 370 or as some seem to think 390 on the stock version.

Common the Mac was built from the ground up as a "lets beat the top speed record car" u can tell by no rear wing but mostly by looking at its dimensions, its sooo small, its so skinny and its frontal area which is very important for drag is absolutely tiny! I saw a pic of it with a 355 side by side, i think it was only from the rear but it looked even smaller then the 355!!

Ok Ferrari dominates F1 where every millimetre and every millisecond count soo much, u think they couldnt have absolutely destroyed the Mac F1 if they wanted too?? do u think there is some secret about the Mac F1 which makes it so fast and Ferrari cant figure out what it is?? of course not Ferrari knows what to do and what they're doing

If Ferrari wanted to, do you not think they could build a car with less drag, less weight and more power then the Mac F1 obviosuly they can, but with Ferrari its not about numbers its about the whole driving experience and passion of that Prancing Horse badge

and one more thing the Mac F1 was around 1 Million U.S. to buy which if it was nowadays would probably be even more like 1.5 - 2 million, well if Ferrari actually spent 1.5 - 2 Million to make a supercar dont u think it would be just absolutely insane obviosuly, but then they would have to sell it for 3 Million, or keep it at the same price that it cost to produce, like the Maclaren did and then make no Profit jus like Maclaren did, the Enzo prob only actually costs 3 - 4 hundred thousand and then sold for 650 and dont forget about all these wayy more tougher laws which are makin it harder to lose weight and harder to get more power

[SnakeBitten]

If Ferrari spent 1 Million dollars American ( or more because of inflation) on each car like the Mac was the Enzo would be just as light as the Mac despite the Electronics and all the much stricter safety and emissions and noise regulations, and an F1 LM lol thats so gay, do you see Ferrari making a better version of there Enzo, here lets lower our supercar even more and add some ricer wing in the back etc. No, theres the Enzo and thats it they dont add on too it as if its goin out of style like the Mac F1 did, 0.86 on the skidpad, Even a Firebird Trans Am does more then that

The "IF" game can be played both ways...Do you really think that "IF" BMW made that engine now a days it wouldnt be able to come up with the same or more power and still be emmissions and noise legal???come on now....And do you not understand that "IF"Gordon Murray made the Mclaren now with todays technology instead of 10+ years ago it would be even more deadly??His philosophy of no compromise would ensure the Mclaren would be unquestioned as the best ever. Hey in most circles it is unquestioned as the GOAT...Even Tiff Needel said the F1 is the greatest of all time. I have the vid..And I believe he drove the Enzo before this video was shot...

As for the F1 LM being gay......Wow....You must have spent last night dodging lightening bolts :lol: That car was a celebration of the F1 dominance at Le Mans...It was effectively the road going version of the race car...I guess Porsche GT1, Dauer Porsche 962, Viper GT2 and all the other racecars that were made for the street are all gay....BTW Ferrari made better version of the 360 Modena, Marranello, F50, F40 etc so your statement doesnt hold water....The later mentioned cars were the big dogs and Ferrari tweaked em...Who is to say they wont do that with the Enzo in the future...

Also the Enzo doesnt need a wing for downforce but it has downforce aerobody work especially undercarriage....So it has an advantage over the standard F1...Thats why I mentioned the F1 LM...

HoboPie the R&T article was on the Ameritech F1...That is not the real Mclaren....Its heavier and down on power because of emissions and crash regulations...Ever seen it with those unsightly bumpers...Ugh. The fake F1 did 0-150 in 13.1 secs...Just imagine what the much lighter, more hp Euro version would do..If anyone quotes tests results from the States that aint the real Mc F1 numbers...You see what happens to Vipers when they go to Europe? They lose like 50hp and gain weight to meet Euro regs...Its much slower than our version...I wish I could find that site on the Mc F1 again..It would put this dispute to rest....

[dons5]

umm Ferrari doesnt tweak and make different versions of F40 F50 and Enzo what are you talking about,

and why do you and some other people think the Mac F1 is the greatest car ever?? just because its top speed and acceleration are so fast because thats all it was made to do from the start with barely any regard for grip, handling, dynamics etc and especially price? like they even used i think it was 24 karot gold for better heat dissipation, u think Ferrari couldnt of done that if they wanted to,

and u dont think for 1 tiny tiny millisecond that if Ferrari made a 6.1 litre engine for F50 and a proper closed car it wouldnt absolutely rape the Mac? common even in its standard form with such a tiny engine and not a proper roof it beats the Mac on many if not most proper racing circuits, i bet it can still take on some supercars to this day ( i saw it kill a merci and gemballa porsche on that asian show thats really popular, but then again there results many times are really messed up cant trust them)

so in the End the Mac F1 in a way did win, it won in the game called "Lets Build a Car for Top Speed and Accel Who Cares about Price and all other Forms of Vehicle Dynamics", well good job Mac u did it u won too bad noone else to this day played such a stupid game, except Veyron if it ever comes out and to a certain extent Koenigsegg

[Just_me]

Guys, let us have this discussion when Enzo is 10 years old like Mclaren. You guys should compare Mclaren F1 to Ferrari F40 instead, both of them are old cars.

This thread btw started with laptime for Enzo on the ring. The car havent been tested there, therefore CGT faster than Enzo on the ring. End of discussion :wink:

[numerouno]

.... The car havent been tested there, therefore CGT faster than Enzo on the ring. End of discussion :wink:

Let's wait until Enzo is tested on the Ring officially, hence you can't conclude anything about CGT being faster or slower based on above ;)

[mindgam3]

like i said before the Enzo was tested as bein the only car ever that could not lap quicker with the tc fully off thats how advanced it is, it all comes from F1,
[quote]

That was one test and says more about the driver than the car. Im sure they didnt set the fastest nordschleife lap in the CGT with traction control on.....

The CGT uses F1 technology too, just because porsche isnt in F1 doesent mean it can make use of its technology.

[quote]
and exactly, Ferrari could of made the Enzo go way over 400 compared to Macs 370 or as some seem to think 390 on the stock version.


If the could have done without compromising the enzo then they would have done. Bottom line is, it wont go as fast....


Common the Mac was built from the ground up as a "lets beat the top speed record car" u can tell by no rear wing but mostly by looking at its dimensions, its sooo small, its so skinny and its frontal area which is very important for drag is absolutely tiny! I saw a pic of it with a 355 side by side, i think it was only from the rear but it looked even smaller then the 355!!
?

Firstly, it wasn't designed primarily to be the fastest production car ever, it was designed to be the best road car ever, the top speed was just a bi product.

Its so small becuse it was designed for the road.... The enzo doesent have a rear wing either, at least not fixed, it has a movable one like the macca F1.


Ok Ferrari dominates F1 where every millimetre and every millisecond count soo much, u think they couldnt have absolutely destroyed the Mac F1 if they wanted too?? do u think there is some secret about the Mac F1 which makes it so fast and Ferrari cant figure out what it is?? of course not Ferrari knows what to do and what they're doing


If they could've beaten the F1's top speed without compromising on other factors then they would have.....

BMW make just as good engines as ferrari, and their F1 engine is debatably the most powerful in F1

McLaren Group, not just F1 have some of the best aerodynamicists in the world. Ferrari's are not neccesarily any "better" although this is a subjective area


If Ferrari wanted to, do you not think they could build a car with less drag, less weight and more power then the Mac F1 obviosuly they can, but with Ferrari its not about numbers its about the whole driving experience and passion of that Prancing Horse badge


If this if that, fact is they didnt. The enzo is meant to be a track biased thoroughbred and that it is. The F1 was designed for the road....

You dont think McLaren have passion and driving the McLaren isnt an experience???


and one more thing the Mac F1 was around 1 Million U.S. to buy which if it was nowadays would probably be even more like 1.5 - 2 million, well if Ferrari actually spent 1.5 - 2 Million to make a supercar dont u think it would be just absolutely insane obviosuly, but then they would have to sell it for 3 Million, or keep it at the same price that it cost to produce, like the Maclaren did and then make no Profit jus like Maclaren did, the Enzo prob only actually costs 3 - 4 hundred thousand and then sold for 650 and dont forget about all these wayy more tougher laws which are makin it harder to lose weight and harder to get more power

If this if that, probably this probably that, where are your facts?

The enzo is faster on track, the F1 is a better road car, performance in a straight line is fairly similar. The F1 has the highest top speed of any production car.

The McLaren is a 10 YEAR OLD CAR, and the fact that you're comparing the enzo to it in the first place says something.

Lets see if in 10 years the enzo can still hold its head against newer supercars. To be honest, i think not.

[bmagni]

Lets see if in 10 years the enzo can still hold its head against newer supercars. To be honest, i think not


we just have to wait and see... the only reason to compare the enzo with the mclaren f1 is the top speed, not anything else. its the only thing that makes it suitable for comparisson. if it wasnt for the top speed the f1 would be long forgotten by now... i know it isnt. but its not the great car many people think it is just for the top speed...

[mindgam3]

Lets see if in 10 years the enzo can still hold its head against newer supercars. To be honest, i think not


we just have to wait and see... the only reason to compare the enzo with the mclaren f1 is the top speed, not anything else. its the only thing that makes it suitable for comparisson. if it wasnt for the top speed the f1 would be long forgotten by now... i know it isnt. but its not the great car many people think it is just for the top speed...

yeah we'll just have to wait and see ;)

Although i doubt it would have been forgotten if it didnt have the top speed. I mean look at the F50 - doesent have the top speed, but still is quite a car ;)

[dons5]

bmagni Finally someone who knows what hes talking about, thats soooo true, everyone knows if the Mac F1 never had world top speed record do you think it would of ever been as popular as it is now??? not even close!!!!! thats the only thing that made it so famous everyone knows it, the worlds fastest supercar (in a straight line) thats all the Mac has goin for it

and lets compare the Enzo when its 10 yeas old? well we do that with the F50 and according to certain tests it still laps faster then a Murcielago and crazy modified gemballa porsche

And i can almost garantee u the tc on the cgt is not even close to Enzo's it prob is really really good but not compared to the Enzo, but i could be wrong i aint no Ferrari/Porsche engineer/race car driver, yet :)

[mindgam3]

bmagni Finally someone who knows what hes talking about, thats soooo true, everyone knows if the Mac F1 never had world top speed record do you think it would of ever been as popular as it is now??? not even close!!!!! thats the only thing that made it so famous everyone knows it, the worlds fastest supercar (in a straight line) thats all the Mac has goin for it

and lets compare the Enzo when its 10 yeas old? well we do that with the F50 and according to certain tests it still laps faster then a Murcielago and crazy modified gemballa porsche

And i can almost garantee u the tc on the cgt is not even close to Enzo's it prob is really really good but not compared to the Enzo, but i could be wrong i aint no Ferrari/Porsche engineer/race car driver, yet :)

Bullshit if the McLaren wasnt the fasest car in the world it wouldnt be known. Any self confessed petrolhead would know what an amazing uncompromised road car it is. It was never developed with 240mph in mind, it was designed to be a complete drivers car, for the road thats why the drivers seat is in the middle and there are no servos for the brakes, gear change or steering, all is directly connected. They could've put a semi automatic in it, and they did consider this even way back then it would've been the first in a production car but they decieded to go for a manual because thats what a drivers car should have. IMO it IS the ultimate drivers car and nothings gonna beat it for a long long time.

And as you said your no ferrari/porsches engineer (yet?) so i dont think anyone but the people who designed it will know. And even then they dont know how sophisticated the oppositions are....

[SnakeBitten]

umm Ferrari doesnt tweak and make different versions of F40 F50 and Enzo what are you talking about,

and why do you and some other people think the Mac F1 is the greatest car ever?? just because its top speed and acceleration are so fast because thats all it was made to do from the start with barely any regard for grip, handling, dynamics etc and especially price? like they even used i think it was 24 karot gold for better heat dissipation, u think Ferrari couldnt of done that if they wanted to,

and u dont think for 1 tiny tiny millisecond that if Ferrari made a 6.1 litre engine for F50 and a proper closed car it wouldnt absolutely rape the Mac? common even in its standard form with such a tiny engine and not a proper roof it beats the Mac on many if not most proper racing circuits, i bet it can still take on some supercars to this day ( i saw it kill a merci and gemballa porsche on that asian show thats really popular, but then again there results many times are really messed up cant trust them)

so in the End the Mac F1 in a way did win, it won in the game called "Lets Build a Car for Top Speed and Accel Who Cares about Price and all other Forms of Vehicle Dynamics", well good job Mac u did it u won too bad noone else to this day played such a stupid game, except Veyron if it ever comes out and to a certain extent Koenigsegg

You need to take a chill pill....This is just a car disscussion not life and death...Jezuz...I can just picture you like this http://perso.wanadoo.fr/xamoth/gifs/original/upload_83757.gif lol....

Didnt they make the F-40 LM???550 Maranello turned into the 575 Maranello.....The Testarossa turned into the Testarossa M...360 Modena and hipo version Stradale...Gee to me that sounds like an improved version of the same models.......Just remember the Enzo and other are barely beating or approaching some of the Mclaren F1 numbers it did on old tires, brakes, tech etc..."IF" the Mac F1 had current tires and brakes, which could easily be done by an owner, do you not see
what would happen??The Enzo beat it in the 0-100-0 by .7... Do the math...

I'll leave you to your "IF" game and Mclaren hate because its obvious you dont respect or like the car so it doesnt matter what facts or senarios are posted in its favor..Its just a one dimentional piece of overpriced shit....You win...please take it easy dont pop a blood vessel :P

[Just_me]

.... The car havent been tested there, therefore CGT faster than Enzo on the ring. End of discussion :wink:

Let's wait until Enzo is tested on the Ring officially, hence you can't conclude anything about CGT being faster or slower based on above ;)

as long we dont now the ring time for a F1 car, CGT is also faster than a F1 car on the ring :wink:

[HoboPie]

SnakeBitten, the 0-100-0 time is for the LM. With proper tires I could certainly see it competing, but the standard F1 is probably a ways behind the LM in a 0-100-0 test.

Also the 0-150mph times of 12.8 seconds for the Mclaren is from the Autocar test. There is no way a car that does the quarter mile in 11.6 @126 mph is going to pull a sub 15 second 150mph run let alone a sub 13 second time.

[dons5]

about updating i was talking about updating there limited edition supercars f40 f50 and Enzo, i wasnt talkin about the regular line of cars, and F40 LM? umm thats a race car u fuckin idiot not a street car, u think just becuase it sais "LM" like the Mac F1 lm thats its road legal also? lol and about upadting the 550 and 360 and 456 well those were after like5+ years, instead of making a new model they improved hugely on the current one, and then after another couple more years build a newer model, makin a 575m after like 6 or 7 years is not the same thing as say a car being out for a year or 2 and then going wow its not fast enough lets add more power, the 360 had the same power from 99 till now 04 , same with the 355's line, same with 550 line, and same with 456 and 456m

[SnakeBitten]

SnakeBitten, the 0-100-0 time is for the LM. With proper tires I could certainly see it competing, but the standard F1 is probably a ways behind the LM in a 0-100-0 test.

Also the 0-150mph times of 12.8 seconds for the Mclaren is from the Autocar test. There is no way a car that does the quarter mile in 11.6 @126 mph is going to pull a sub 15 second 150mph run let alone a sub 13 second time.

Thanks for clearing that up Hobopie...That is impressive on the Enzo's part...Didnt know it beat the LM in that catagory...Hmmm..That is very telling....Time for an update to the tires and brake Mr. Murray :)

Im glad you see the disparity between the Mclaren F1's we get here in the States and what Europeans get...BIIIIGG difference...Thats why I disregard the Ameritech versions numbers that Don5 keep using...That versions comparatively pathetic performance is singlehandedly responsible for people thinking that the Enzo, CGT etc can destroy it...The .86 g and all those weak numbers were from the Ameritech version....

[sentra_dude]

Ok...I didn't take time to read all of the posts in this thread, because there's a shitload of hard to read writing from dons5. I'm sorry for criticizing you if English isn't for first language, but its really hard to read posts with no puncuation.

There is A LOT of mis-information coming from dons5...

Number one, the topspeed record. That was done with a completely stock mclaren F1, the XP5, which had the same specs as the customer cars. It had stock gearing, and stock tires. The only thing they did was raise the limiter from 7500 to 8500rpm. Just so you know, they ran the car both directions and averaged the speed to get 240.1mph...

The F1 that hit 231mph was at Nardo, and that was an early prototype, which had an early version of the BMW S/70 V12 which was at least 50-60hp down from the production car version.

As has been explained...the times that R&T set for the McLaren aren't really even worthwhile mentioning. They tested the car in 100 F heat, they tested a car ~500lb heavier than the European version, R&T sucks at getting good numbers, and they burnt up the clutch because they can't drive at R&T...:roll:



Common the Mac was built from the ground up as a "lets beat the top speed record car" u can tell by no rear wing but mostly by looking at its dimensions, its sooo small, its so skinny and its frontal area which is very important for drag is absolutely tiny! I saw a pic of it with a 355 side by side, i think it was only from the rear but it looked even smaller then the 355!!


I don't even know if I want to waste my time addressing this. All you do is spout out numbers and assumptions about the cars that have no basis...its just what you are thinking at the time. You obviously know absolutely nothing about the F1 if you think that's what its purpose was.

[bmagni]

IMO it IS the ultimate drivers car and nothings gonna beat it for a long long time.


why is it the ultimate supercar ??? cause it can make 391 km/h ????
i which way nothing is gonna beat it ??? cause in everything but top speed the enzo has beaten it...

[SnakeBitten]

about updating i was talking about updating there limited edition supercars f40 f50 and Enzo, i wasnt talkin about the regular line of cars, and F40 LM? umm thats a race car u fuckin idiot not a street car, u think just becuase it sais "LM" like the Mac F1 lm thats its road legal also? lol and about upadting the 550 and 360 and 456 well those were after like5+ years, instead of making a new model they improved hugely on the current one, and then after another couple more years build a newer model, makin a 575m after like 6 or 7 years is not the same thing as say a car being out for a year or 2 and then going wow its not fast enough lets add more power, the 360 had the same power from 99 till now 04 , same with the 355's line, same with 550 line, and same with 456 and 456m

Try this out...read with understanding.....Notice the ? after the F-40 in my post...That means, say it with me now, come on you can do it......I vaguely remember someone saying they saw a guy driving a F-40 LM on another board I was on so as the ? indicated I wasnt sure.

You know what after rereading your post, you really really have no idea what you are talking about...How old are you. I can tell by how easily you lose your cool your're probably still in puberty dealing with zits and braces and coming to terms with getting a woody around guys. Your reasoning is 3rd grade level at best...Sorry to insult the 3rd graders....They didnt make the F1 LM because the reg F1 wasnt fast enough..The regular Mc F1 was faster then the LM in a straight line because of the downforce on the LM. The F1 LM was made to celebrate the Le Mans wins...

[mindgam3]

SnakeBitten, the 0-100-0 time is for the LM. With proper tires I could certainly see it competing, but the standard F1 is probably a ways behind the LM in a 0-100-0 test.

Also the 0-150mph times of 12.8 seconds for the Mclaren is from the Autocar test. There is no way a car that does the quarter mile in 11.6 @126 mph is going to pull a sub 15 second 150mph run let alone a sub 13 second time.

official mclaren numbers are a 1/4 of a mile @ 11.1s @ 138mph. So could be possible for a sub 13 second 0-150mph - i wouldnt be suprised.

[SnakeBitten]

The only thing they did was raise the limiter from 7500 to 8500rpm. Just so you know, they ran the car both directions and averaged the speed to get 240.1mph...

The F1 that hit 231mph was at Nardo, and that was an early prototype,



Thank you ...Now that makes sence...Didnt understand how a lowly 300rpm is gonna make a car overcome that drag at 231 and mystically gain close to 10mph.....That 7500 to 8500 makes much more sence..The Mclaren hater wont ever see the truth...

[SnakeBitten]

official mclaren numbers are a 1/4 of a mile @ 11.1s @ 138mph. So could be possible for a sub 13 second 0-150mph - i wouldnt be suprised.

Yet more info backing up what Ive been beating into Don5's head...I dont think Hobopie is disputing its a 12.8 car..I think if Im not mistaken that hes saying the 11.6 @ 126 from the American version is obviously off since Autocar got 12.8 to 0-150 out of the Euro [real] version...A car that only covers the 1/4 at 11.6 @ 126 physically cant do 150 in 12.8...Even with a shot of nitrous lol....

BTW with Enzo sticky rubber you do know the Mclaren would easily be a 10sec car...It did those on yesterdays radials....Folks thats almost 140mph in the 1/4 from a bone stock car....Viper putting out 800hp are trapping 140-143mph to put it in perspective...The Enzo is doing 133mph in the 1/4 and 211 flat out...Not even close to real Mclaren acceleration numbers...Handling is a different story..I believe now that the Enzo will run with if not beat the real Mclaren F1 on a track simply because of much better rubber and brakes...If the Mclaren runs with them original tires and brakes it will probably lose...

[mindgam3]

A Macca is also faster than an F1 car from its time from 180+ ;)

[sentra_dude]

IMO it IS the ultimate drivers car and nothings gonna beat it for a long long time.


why is it the ultimate supercar ??? cause it can make 391 km/h ????
i which way nothing is gonna beat it ??? cause in everything but top speed the enzo has beaten it...

No...that's absolutely not the reason...:roll:

Its the ultimate not because of out-right speed, but because its a driver's car...no power brakes, no power steering, no turbo, no traction control, no ABS, no flappy paddle gearbox...nothing to interfere...a pure driver's car.

I shouldn't have to explain this...

Regaurdless of whether the F1 is the 'best' or not...that is the reason it is not just a good car, but a great car.

[SFDMALEX]

...and in FIA GT the 360 and Porschas are always close

You've got to be joking right?

Whats so funny? Nobody is kidding as far I see.

[SFDMALEX]

And whats all the talk about?

Bottom Line is Enzo is a faster car except some top speed or a few acceleration numbers which are so marginal that Enzo makes up for it 5x with its handling.

[SnakeBitten]

And whats all the talk about?

Bottom Line is Enzo is a faster car except some top speed or a few acceleration numbers which are so marginal that Enzo makes up for it 5x with its handling.

Ok whats marginal about Enzo at 133mph to the Mclaren 138mph in the 1/4???Or how about Enzo at 211 tops and the Mclaren at 240mph...Acceleration numbers in the 1/4 arent close much less at the top end...Give the Mclaren its due peeps. Are people just choosing not to see the facts???this is simply incredible...The Enzo is a work of art and truly in the same league as the Mclaren but it will always be in the Mclarens shadow...Like Scotty Pippen was to Michael Jordan...Both great buuuuut 8)

[sentra_dude]

And whats all the talk about?

Bottom Line is Enzo is a faster car except some top speed or a few acceleration numbers which are so marginal that Enzo makes up for it 5x with its handling.

Ok whats marginal about Enzo at 133mph to the Mclaren 138mph in the 1/4???Or how about Enzo at 211 tops and the Mclaren at 240mph...Acceleration numbers in the 1/4 arent close much less at the top end...Give the Mclaren its due peeps. Are people just choosing not to see the facts???this is simply incredible...The Enzo is a work of art and truly in the same league as the Mclaren but it will always be in the Mclarens shadow...Like Scotty Pippen was to Michael Jordan...Both great buuuuut 8)

The Enzo definitely goes quicker than 211mph, Auto Motor hit ~218mph at Nardo, which equals around 220 on flat ground...


Bottom Line is Enzo is a faster car except some top speed or a few acceleration numbers which are so marginal that Enzo makes up for it 5x with its handling.

I think it would be more fun to compare the LM to the Enzo in terms of handling. :twisted:

[SFDMALEX]

I think it would be more fun to compare the LM to the Enzo in terms of handling. :twisted:

Hmm. Lets put a big ass wing on the enzo, give it a few steroids, and sure. Lets doooooooooo eeeeeeeeeeeeeet. :D

[bmagni]

The Enzo is in the same league as the Mclaren but it will always be in the Mclarens shadow...


LOL !!!! where did u get that ????


Both great buuuuut

but what ???

ur comparing the cars with basketball players so lets see it like this
the enzo scores lots of ppg, plays better, dunks better, etc... is a better player overall and the mclaren is also a great player but the only thing that does better is scoring more points per game...
which one is the best of them two ???
the better player overall for me...

[SFDMALEX]

And whats all the talk about?

Bottom Line is Enzo is a faster car except some top speed or a few acceleration numbers which are so marginal that Enzo makes up for it 5x with its handling.

Ok whats marginal about Enzo at 133mph to the Mclaren 138mph in the 1/4???Or how about Enzo at 211 tops and the Mclaren at 240mph...Acceleration numbers in the 1/4 arent close much less at the top end...Give the Mclaren its due peeps. Are people just choosing not to see the facts???this is simply incredible...The Enzo is a work of art and truly in the same league as the Mclaren but it will always be in the Mclarens shadow...Like Scotty Pippen was to Michael Jordan...Both great buuuuut 8)

If you want to talk straight line then lets talk funny cars and not supercars.


Now tell me. Were on track are you gonna go from knot to 1/4mile. Tell me. Please. I beg you.

On which track are you going to hit anything over 180?

And for your information enzo hit 228 or so at the Gumball, there is photographic proof somewere. And dont forget that it wasnt without any special prep.

And if you want to argue cornering speed then you are tottaly lost.

THe F50 cornered better/faster then Macca. And I we can just imagine how much faster the Enzo is. Actually I think it was said that F50 lapped certain places faster then the Macca. F50! Not even talking about the Enzo.

[JoeHahn]

And whats all the talk about?

Bottom Line is Enzo is a faster car except some top speed or a few acceleration numbers which are so marginal that Enzo makes up for it 5x with its handling.

Does that mean the CGT makes up for its better handling than both of them?

[SFDMALEX]

And whats all the talk about?

Bottom Line is Enzo is a faster car except some top speed or a few acceleration numbers which are so marginal that Enzo makes up for it 5x with its handling.

Does that mean the CGT makes up for its better handling than both of them?

No because were did you get the idea that it's better handling?


When I am stating the hard obvious fact that Enzo is better handling then the Macca. I dont think anyone argues that.

You come and say CGT is better handling then Enzo. Were did you get that from? Its obvious that its better handling then the Macca but we dont have nearly enough information to say that CGT is better handling then Enzo.

Both Enzo and CGT are faster then the Macca. Enzo and CGT, well we dont know about that one do we?

[SnakeBitten]

The Enzo is in the same league as the Mclaren but it will always be in the Mclarens shadow...


LOL !!!! where did u get that ????


Both great buuuuut

but what ???

ur comparing the cars with basketball players so lets see it like this
the enzo scores lots of ppg, plays better, dunks better, etc... is a better player overall and the mclaren is also a great player but the only thing that does better is scoring more points per game...
which one is the best of them two ???
the better player overall for me...


Hmm...how can I say this....It was an analogy...It was meant to show that as great as Scotty Pippen was most people will only remember Micheal Jordan a few decades down...Get it??Hey some games Scotty outpointed Jordan...Did that make him better??? :wink:


SFDMALEX you are all over the map....Its funny that you are using the same tactic to prove that the Enzo can stay with or beat the Mclaren on a track since most tracks dont have the space for the Mc F1 to stretch its legs...But Enzo fanboys wont see that the CGT can beat the Enzo on a lot of tracks since most tracks dont have mile long straightaways for the Enzo to stretch its legs....Thanks..the irony is killing me... :lol:

So the Enzo was able to hit 228 on the Gumball run but could only manage 218 at Nardo...Hmmm..Was it a downhill with hurricane Ivan providing the tail wind??? :lol: Seriously if you have the link Id like to see that substantiated....228 is wicked fast but still off the Macca numbers padawan :wink:

[bmagni]

@SnakeBitten: i got u analogy i was makin other with ur bball players parameters...

so we go back to the same thing... the f1 has a better top speed to the enzo so that makes the mclaren the pippen... hehehe... thats what it does better... the enzo did 355 at nardo which is more than 218mph (which is the factory claim)... its 221... ok still not mclaren...
bout the thing in tracks not letting the f1 to stretch out i doubt the enzo would have any problem beating the f1 there... it has better or equal acceleration... we come back to the same thing... the f1 just has better top speed...

[SnakeBitten]

the f1 has a better top speed to the enzo so that makes the mclaren the pippen... hehehe...

:lol: You flipped it on me...I guess its an argument that will never die...If I were Bill Gates I would settle this argument asap :D

[SFDMALEX]

The Enzo is in the same league as the Mclaren but it will always be in the Mclarens shadow...


LOL !!!! where did u get that ????


Both great buuuuut

but what ???

ur comparing the cars with basketball players so lets see it like this
the enzo scores lots of ppg, plays better, dunks better, etc... is a better player overall and the mclaren is also a great player but the only thing that does better is scoring more points per game...
which one is the best of them two ???
the better player overall for me...


Hmm...how can I say this....It was an analogy...It was meant to show that as great as Scotty Pippen was most people will only remember Micheal Jordan a few decades down...Get it??Hey some games Scotty outpointed Jordan...Did that make him better??? :wink:


SFDMALEX you are all over the map....Its funny that you are using the same tactic to prove that the Enzo can stay with or beat the Mclaren on a track since most tracks dont have the space for the Mc F1 to stretch its legs...But Enzo fanboys wont see that the CGT can beat the Enzo on a lot of tracks since most tracks dont have mile long straightaways for the Enzo to stretch its legs....Thanks..the irony is killing me... :lol:

So the Enzo was able to hit 228 on the Gumball run but could only manage 218 at Nardo...Hmmm..Was it a downhill with hurricane Ivan providing the tail wind??? :lol: Seriously if you have the link Id like to see that substantiated....228 is wicked fast but still off the Macca numbers padawan :wink:

Say what?

Im a fanboy? You gotta be kidding.

Last time I checked I didnt waist my time defending the Enzo....shit I dont even have an enzo in my sig. :wink:
__________________________________________________ ___________

You wanna start this again cause Im lost.
__________________________________________________ ___________


What are you defending here? CGT or Macca?

Lets throw the CGT out the window.

Lets talk Enzo Vs. Macca.
__________________________________________________ ___________

You seem to bring up the top speed argument again. :roll: Lets talk dragsters shall we?

__________________________________________________ ___________
Now with top speed out the window. What do we have left? Handling and Acceleration.

Handling Enzo wins. Big time.

Acceleration...lets bring some numbers to the table. Any volunteers?


Now I dont understand this "So the Enzo was able to hit 228 on the Gumball run but could only manage 218 at Nardo...Hmmm..Was it a downhill with hurricane Ivan providing the tail wind??? :lol: Seriously if you have the link Id like to see that substantiated....228 is wicked fast but still off the Macca numbers padawan"

Why does the Enzo need Ivan up its ass and negative slopes to reach 228?

At Nardo they hit 218. So what?

1)Nardo is banked.

2)A good old American highway can provide a longer straight then all of nardo combined.


Anyway I really dont see the relevance of top speed. Not on this forum atleast.




So, screw the top speed argument. The shit you have to go trhough to reach those speeds is not worth it.


So Enzo wins :D In acceleration they are very close and in handling Enzo straight out beats it. So Enzo wins overall.

Done.

[SFDMALEX]

Im too tired. But if you think that the Macca is a faster track car then the Enzo then wake up, take the red pill, get your self a pair of balls and admit that Macca is an outdated supercar which cannot compete with current technology.

And if you want top speed, get your self a mig 15, put some reinforced landing gear on it and head to the salt flats.


:mrgreen:

[HoboPie]

SnakeBitten, regarding the 0-150mph times and 0-100-0 you interpreted what I meant perfectly. My goal was to ensure that no one thought the Ameritech version was running 12.8 and that the European verison was going to be doing some crazy 12 seconds or something to the effect.

I still maintain that the Enzo is far more than a match for the Mclaren on the track. In the Martin Brundle DVD he does choose the Mclaren over the Enzo, but he says quite definitively that the Enzo is the far superior track car.

In French Sport Auto the F50 and F40 were tested against the Mclaren F1 and the F50 and F40 lapped Suzuka quicker.

The Enzo is over 3 seconds quicker than the F50 around Fiorano which is insanely tight. On a course with more straights, more hard braking zones and more high speed corners(average track), the Enzo would put up considerably more time per lap.

I agree that the Mclaren would be transformed by some new tires. The only comment I have on that is that even back in the day the Mclaren was not designed to be the quickest car on the track. It's tires were designed to be acceptable everywhere. I'm sure it would test better if you simply put the best tires at the time on the Mclaren. The Enzo too has compromised tires. Perhaps less so than the Mclaren, but what kind of times do you think it would get if they put on those semi-street legal tires that lose their groves after several minutes?

The point is that it doesn't matter. The Enzo's tires were designed with the Enzo in mind. It isn't the same car if you put on new tires. Or at least tires that don't keep up the spirit of the car.

Also I agree that the Mclaren is still insanely fast now. Stock Enzo's in the hands of owners have been pulling 10.8s at drag strips, so I'm quite sure the Mclaren could hit that too. As for top speed the Nardo test actually came out to 220 mph. Approx 5 miles and hour are lost on the banking. That would put it at 225mph. With different temp and air density I could see a variance of 5 mph either way. That doesn't put it quite at the Mclaren F1s 241mph, but then again the Mclaren F1 doesn't really do 241 either. The gap is probably a little less than 8 mph on any given day.

Also just a side note on the CGT vs Enzo thing. The was only track test with the Enzo and CGT indicated the CGT was a little faster. This was on a handling course(not exactly normal) and the Enzo was not exactly on par with it's normal performance.

There is no conclusive evidence that the CGT is quicker around a track. If it does make up time it is probably in slow to mid speed corners. Even Walter Rohrl(or the other Porsche TD) said that the Enzo was as quick as the CGT on a track, but it probably couldn't keep the pace up for as long.

[Neutrino]

[

And for your information enzo hit 228 or so at the Gumball, there is photographic proof somewere. And dont forget that it wasnt without any special prep..


and here it is:
http://img56.exs.cx/img56/9558/EnzoSpeed-2.jpg

[SFDMALEX]

SnakeBitten, regarding the 0-150mph times and 0-100-0 you interpreted what I meant perfectly. My goal was to ensure that no one thought the Ameritech version was running 12.8 and that the European verison was going to be doing some crazy 12 seconds or something to the effect.

I still maintain that the Enzo is far more than a match for the Mclaren on the track. In the Martin Brundle DVD he does choose the Mclaren over the Enzo, but he says quite definitively that the Enzo is the far superior track car.

In French Sport Auto the F50 and F40 were tested against the Mclaren F1 and the F50 and F40 lapped Suzuka quicker.

The Enzo is over 3 seconds quicker than the F50 around Fiorano which is insanely tight. On a course with more straights, more hard braking zones and more high speed corners(average track), the Enzo would put up considerably more time per lap.

I agree that the Mclaren would be transformed by some new tires. The only comment I have on that is that even back in the day the Mclaren was not designed to be the quickest car on the track. It's tires were designed to be acceptable everywhere. I'm sure it would test better if you simply put the best tires at the time on the Mclaren. The Enzo too has compromised tires. Perhaps less so than the Mclaren, but what kind of times do you think it would get if they put on those semi-street legal tires that lose their groves after several minutes?

The point is that it doesn't matter. The Enzo's tires were designed with the Enzo in mind. It isn't the same car if you put on new tires. Or at least tires that don't keep up the spirit of the car.

Also I agree that the Mclaren is still insanely fast now. Stock Enzo's in the hands of owners have been pulling 10.8s at drag strips, so I'm quite sure the Mclaren could hit that too. As for top speed the Nardo test actually came out to 220 mph. Approx 5 miles and hour are lost on the banking. That would put it at 225mph. With different temp and air density I could see a variance of 5 mph either way. That doesn't put it quite at the Mclaren F1s 241mph, but then again the Mclaren F1 doesn't really do 241 either. The gap is probably a little less than 8 mph on any given day.

Also just a side note on the CGT vs Enzo thing. The was only track test with the Enzo and CGT indicated the CGT was a little faster. This was on a handling course(not exactly normal) and the Enzo was not exactly on par with it's normal performance.

There is no conclusive evidence that the CGT is quicker around a track. If it does make up time it is probably in slow to mid speed corners. Even Walter Rohrl(or the other Porsche TD) said that the Enzo was as quick as the CGT on a track, but it probably couldn't keep the pace up for as long.

Marvelous post. :wink:

[gottacatchup]

I dont really mean to start another argument and i know the enzo is a faster car around a track then the F1, however i still respect the F1 greatly.

Here's my controversial statement of the day. The F1 is a better car overall because of its increased "user friendlyness". Haveing space for three occupants, their luggage, and the marvelous stereo.

[bmagni]

="gottacatchup"
Haveing space for three occupants


i just love that... thats one of the greatest ideas ive seen

[sentra_dude]

I think we all know the Enzo is a much better track car, and its not because the Enzo has 10 years of technology, its because the F1 was not designed for a race track, it was designed for a road. That's why it lacks width...have you ever tried to drive an obscenely wide & low to the ground (ride height) car on normal roads before? Or one with near racing suspension? I haven't :P, but I think, in the long run (i.e. more than an hour or so of blasting around ;)) I would take the car that has a suspension that isn't so easily upset by broken up & bumpy roads, and the car that I can actually carry a decent amount of luggage in.

I'm not trying to say I would use the F1 as a daily driver...because I wouldn't...but...for a car to drive across Europe in, I could imagine myself driving the F1 and not having too tough of a time (hehe :D). On the other-hand, cars like the F40 or Enzo or CGT...which have very little luggage space make it difficult (but not impossible) to do more than just go out for a short blast and then back to the house. They are tiring because of the hard suspension, and particularly in the F40's case, not something you want to drive for long periods because they are hot and noisy, etc.

I think in the context of actual street driving and a driver's car, the F1 wins hands down. It was never the intent of Gordon Murray to create a track demon...if it was we would have seen a very different car. Yes, the car benefits from all kinds of racing technology, but the over-all design of the car makes it compromised on a race track, but this does not matter...because the car is built for the road.

I will say it 1000 times...the McLaren F1 was built for the road, not the track. :D

[tigerx]

^it still is a track demon though lol^

[sentra_dude]

^it still is a track demon though lol^

Well yea, but not in the sense of the Enzo or CGT...

The real track demon is the LM...:twisted:

[dons5]

ok im so tired of this Enzo way better then Mac, period

[mindgam3]

lol, as sentra_dude pointed out, your all missing the point. The Macca was designed as a ROAD and DRIVERS car, the enzo was designed for the greater track experience.

The F1 half a meter shorter in length, a quarter of a meter shorter in width and yet and yet still has a longer wheelbase with minimum overhangs making it a great road/drivers car and IMO better than the enzo is this respect.

Some times:

McLaren:

0-60: 3.2s
0-100: 6.3s
0-150: 12.8s
0-200: 28.0s

Enzo:

0-60: 3.3
0-100: 6.9s
0-150: 13.1s
0-200: ?

Obviously these were done at different venues with different drivers but they are all relatively in the same ballpark

The LM did 0-100-0 in 11.5s, ok its a more race focuseed, but is actually SLOWER to 60 and 100 than a regular F1. The road macca wasnt able to make use of carbon ceramic brakes which the enzo has. The enzo's brakes are a whole 2 inches bigger plus they're ceramic, considering the macca is lighter, with up to date brakes it would probably beat it.

So the enzo has more power? The stats show that this doesent really have an effect on speed in comparison with the 30hp less macca so thats out of the window.

What about torque? Theres only 5 lb/ft difference between the two, yet the F1 prduces it at 1000rpm less making it more accessible and usable.

At the end of the day these cars are both amazing.

The real drivers car is the McLaren F1 though.

Martin brundle chose it as his favourite supercar, and so did rowan atkinson over the porsche.

The only thing the Enzo has over the Macca is track handling - which is what it was designed for, the macca was not.

IMO, there will never be another car as uncompromised as the F1 - its still king ;)

[bmwmpower]

GT can beat time, because record is 7:19 s, radical turbo
http://www.radicalmotorsport.com/gallery/index.php

[SFDMALEX]

BTW with Enzo sticky rubber you do know the Mclaren would easily be a 10sec car...It did those on yesterdays radials.......

Are you trying to say that people are still running Macca on 10 year old rubber? That has to be some good rubber mate.

[SFDMALEX]

Theres only 5 lb/ft difference between the two, yet the F1 prduces it at 1000rpm less making it more accessible and usable.


Do you really want peak torque at 1000rpm? I dont thats for sure...

[mindgam3]

Theres only 5 lb/ft difference between the two, yet the F1 prduces it at 1000rpm less making it more accessible and usable.


Do you really want peak torque at 1000rpm? I dont thats for sure...

ay 1000rpm LESS than the enzo. I.e at 4500 not 5500

[sentra_dude]

BTW with Enzo sticky rubber you do know the Mclaren would easily be a 10sec car...It did those on yesterdays radials.......

Are you trying to say that people are still running Macca on 10 year old rubber? That has to be some good rubber mate.

Well...when was the Autocar acceleration test conducted? Haha...about 10 years ago, which would mean they were using 10 year-old tires I'd say. :P ;)

[SFDMALEX]

Theres only 5 lb/ft difference between the two, yet the F1 prduces it at 1000rpm less making it more accessible and usable.


Do you really want peak torque at 1000rpm? I dont thats for sure...

ay 1000rpm LESS than the enzo. I.e at 4500 not 5500

Opps :lol:

[SFDMALEX]

BTW with Enzo sticky rubber you do know the Mclaren would easily be a 10sec car...It did those on yesterdays radials.......

Are you trying to say that people are still running Macca on 10 year old rubber? That has to be some good rubber mate.

Well...when was the Autocar acceleration test conducted? Haha...about 10 years ago, which would mean they were using 10 year-old tires I'd say. :P ;)

well not all the tests were done 10 years ago. Im pretty sure that the car has been timed many times not just 10 years ago.

[SnakeBitten]

lol, as sentra_dude pointed out, your all missing the point. The Macca was designed as a ROAD and DRIVERS car, the enzo was designed for the greater track experience.

The F1 half a meter shorter in length, a quarter of a meter shorter in width and yet and yet still has a longer wheelbase with minimum overhangs making it a great road/drivers car and IMO better than the enzo is this respect.

Some times:

McLaren:

0-60: 3.2s
0-100: 6.3s
0-150: 12.8s
0-200: 28.0s

Enzo:

0-60: 3.3
0-100: 6.9s
0-150: 13.1s
0-200: ?

Obviously these were done at different venues with different drivers but they are all relatively in the same ballpark

The LM did 0-100-0 in 11.5s, ok its a more race focuseed, but is actually SLOWER to 60 and 100 than a regular F1. The road macca wasnt able to make use of carbon ceramic brakes which the enzo has. The enzo's brakes are a whole 2 inches bigger plus they're ceramic, considering the macca is lighter, with up to date brakes it would probably beat it.

So the enzo has more power? The stats show that this doesent really have an effect on speed in comparison with the 30hp less macca so thats out of the window.

What about torque? Theres only 5 lb/ft difference between the two, yet the F1 prduces it at 1000rpm less making it more accessible and usable.

At the end of the day these cars are both amazing.

The real drivers car is the McLaren F1 though.

Martin brundle chose it as his favourite supercar, and so did rowan atkinson over the porsche.

The only thing the Enzo has over the Macca is track handling - which is what it was designed for, the macca was not.

IMO, there will never be another car as uncompromised as the F1 - its still king ;)


Sniff Sniff....weep weep....Well said dude..weep... :)

[dons5]

"""there will never be another car as uncompromised as the F1 - its still king"""

Ummm i dont think so, i think the F50 was even more uncompromised, common that whole thing with the gearbox and engine all linked together or whatever, and the suspension being directly attached to the engine or gearbox with no rubber in the suspension etc i think thats even more uncompomised, no radio no electronics, f1 based engine, just about 0 body roll especially compared to a Mac F1, Remember Tiff i think it was " Even a Mac F1 would have steamship body roll compared to this" "nothing i know turns into a corner like this"

[mindgam3]

thats not what i meant by uncompromised.

The traits you mentioned of the F50 are all track traits....

What i meant by uncompromised was that the McLaren was going to be designed with an "unlimited" budget and whatever was necessary to make it the best road car was done - and it obviously worked.

Even the enzo and F40 had budgets

[bmagni]

Some times:

McLaren:

0-60: 3.2s
0-100: 6.3s
0-150: 12.8s
0-200: 28.0s

Enzo:

0-60: 3.3
0-100: 6.9s
0-150: 13.1s
0-200: ?


Sometimes, u said it... and as i see ur posting the enzos worst times...


with up to date brakes it would probably beat it.


uhmm brakes arent everything... theyre important but not everything... the enzos brakes arent just to stop the car quicker are also for endurance in track...


Martin brundle chose it as his favourite supercar, and so did rowan atkinson over the porsche


both of them are english so that doesnt surprise me...


The only thing the Enzo has over the Macca is track handling - which is what it was designed for


wrong. the enzo was designed for many purposes not just for track handling... if it was gonna be designed for that then the design would have been different.
also the enzo has made better accel times than the mclaren... so u cant say the only thing the enzo is better at is track handling ;) its better at braking too : :lol:

so i say it once again if it wasnt for top speed the mclaren wouldnt be as famous and liked as it is...
driving experience ??? drive an f40 and we can talk some more bout that...

[sentra_dude]

BTW with Enzo sticky rubber you do know the Mclaren would easily be a 10sec car...It did those on yesterdays radials.......

Are you trying to say that people are still running Macca on 10 year old rubber? That has to be some good rubber mate.

Well...when was the Autocar acceleration test conducted? Haha...about 10 years ago, which would mean they were using 10 year-old tires I'd say. :P ;)

well not all the tests were done 10 years ago. Im pretty sure that the car has been timed many times not just 10 years ago.

True.

But the quintessential test of the McLaren F1...the Autocar test...was conducted in May of 1994...ten years ago. ;)

[sentra_dude]

Some times:

McLaren:

0-60: 3.2s
0-100: 6.3s
0-150: 12.8s
0-200: 28.0s

Enzo:

0-60: 3.3
0-100: 6.9s
0-150: 13.1s
0-200: ?


Sometimes, u said it... and as i see ur posting the enzos worst times...


with up to date brakes it would probably beat it.


uhmm brakes arent everything... theyre important but not everything... the enzos brakes arent just to stop the car quicker are also for endurance in track...


Martin brundle chose it as his favourite supercar, and so did rowan atkinson over the porsche


both of them are english so that doesnt surprise me...


The only thing the Enzo has over the Macca is track handling - which is what it was designed for


wrong. the enzo was designed for many purposes not just for track handling... if it was gonna be designed for that then the design would have been different.
also the enzo has made better accel times than the mclaren... so u cant say the only thing the enzo is better at is track handling ;) its better at braking too : :lol:

so i say it once again if it wasnt for top speed the mclaren wouldnt be as famous and liked as it is...
driving experience ??? drive an f40 and we can talk some more bout that...

The best times I have come across for the Enzo:

0-60 3.28s
0-100 6.6s
1/4mi 11.1@133mph
0-150 13.1s

If the Enzo has quicker times, I'd love to see them...I'm almost positive those are the quickest, and although its so close it doesn't really matter...the F1 is still faster. :P

lol...how are the times mindgam3 posted the "worst times"...you must be joking, they are extremely good times. :?



so i say it once again if it wasnt for top speed the mclaren wouldnt be as famous and liked as it is...


Would the Enzo be as famous if it didn't have that special badge on the front? I don't think so...so quit going on about the McLaren only being popular because of the top speed record. People who know nothing about cars only like the F1 because of its massive topspeed.

[bmagni]

best times i know

0-60: 3.2
0-100: 6.51
0-150: n/a
1/4: 10.8 (mentioned here)

:D

so if it makes the 1/4 at 11.1 at 133 according to u i doubt it takes it 2+ seconds to reach 150


Would the Enzo be as famous if it didn't have that special badge on the front?


its not the same... the f1 became mostly known cause of the top speed it made... if it wasnt for that it would be another zonda or cc8...
the badge plays a very important part. and "sadly" ferrari is the most known brand of sports cars so that gives the enzo an extra publicity

[HoboPie]

I think there is a shift in there.

It occurred to me that the highest trap speed I have seen for the Enzo was 136mph in the Autocar test which is also the test where they got 13.1 seconds.

[mindgam3]

best times i know

0-60: 3.2
0-100: 6.51
0-150: n/a
1/4: 10.8 (mentioned here)

:D

so if it makes the 1/4 at 11.1 at 133 according to u i doubt it takes it 2+ seconds to reach 150


Would the Enzo be as famous if it didn't have that special badge on the front?


its not the same... the f1 became mostly known cause of the top speed it made... if it wasnt for that it would be another zonda or cc8...
the badge plays a very important part. and "sadly" ferrari is the most known brand of sports cars so that gives the enzo an extra publicity

and please tell me what your source is? Mines autocar, probably the most reliable magazine to get data from..... Who recorded the enzo doing the 1/4 in 10.8? And wheres the evidence? And even so, its still at a slower speed than the mclaren.

Another source i found is R and T, so at best it matches the F1 for time but not for speed.....

Road and Track Enzo 1/4: 11.1 @ 133mph

If you've got any slight drop of petrol in your blood that you should know mclaren very well..... do you watch F1 at all? Everyone knows who mclaren is and so even if the mclaren didnt have the top speed, it still would be known seeing as though thts "their" only car they ever properly produced.




with up to date brakes it would probably beat it.




uhmm brakes arent everything... theyre important but not everything... the enzos brakes arent just to stop the car quicker are also for endurance in track...



I know they're not everything, i was referring to the 0-100-0 test. The only place the mclaren looses out is the braking, and its running 10 year old technology..... The Mclaren F1 LM almost equals the Enzos time as it has decent brakes, but is actually slower the 100 than the F1 road car. If the F1 road car had the LM brakes, or even better, carbon ceramic brakes, it would easily beat the enzo.

On the track it would help to but my guesses are the enzo would still beat the macca. But as i said, the macca was designed as a road car and a road car only.




Martin brundle chose it as his favourite supercar, and so did rowan atkinson over the porsche



both of them are english so that doesnt surprise me...



So? The english love ferraris, and as i do think the enzo is an amazing car. But in mine and their opinion, the macca is easily the most rounded supercar considering its age, and also the best road car.




The only thing the Enzo has over the Macca is track handling - which is what it was designed for



wrong. the enzo was designed for many purposes not just for track handling... if it was gonna be designed for that then the design would have been different.
also the enzo has made better accel times than the mclaren... so u cant say the only thing the enzo is better at is track handling its better at braking too :

so i say it once again if it wasnt for top speed the mclaren wouldnt be as famous and liked as it is...
driving experience ??? drive an f40 and we can talk some more bout that...


Bullshit, the enzo was designed as a track/race focused car. You can hardly hustle a 360 along country A and B roads let alone an enzo. With a macca you can....

Better accelration times? where? from a decent source? I'd say the mclaren was slightly better in terms of acceleration and if not they're roughly in the same ball park as one another. I dont see any acceleration tests to 200 for the enzo? Considering the macca out accelerates and F1 car from 180+ i think its got tht in the bag too....

The F40/ sure is an amazing car, and is certainly a great drivers car, but again it is more track focussed. Plus it has power steering, power brakes, ABS and enzo and F50 add traction control to this and most likely power assisted gear change (?). The macca has none of these, its all pure direct input from u to the car.... and yet still manages to be an easy car to drive at low speeds... part of the design of the F1 was to make it user friendly and suitable for everyday, the F40/F50/Enzo? i dont think so :P

[sentra_dude]

best times i know

0-60: 3.2
0-100: 6.51
0-150: n/a
1/4: 10.8 (mentioned here)

:D

so if it makes the 1/4 at 11.1 at 133 according to u i doubt it takes it 2+ seconds to reach 150


Would the Enzo be as famous if it didn't have that special badge on the front?


its not the same... the f1 became mostly known cause of the top speed it made... if it wasnt for that it would be another zonda or cc8...
the badge plays a very important part. and "sadly" ferrari is the most known brand of sports cars so that gives the enzo an extra publicity

So you are going to use the 10.8s 1/4mi...which was a number someone threw out as what some owners are getting at drag strips...supposedly? Proof please...

the f1 became mostly known cause of the top speed it made...

Fine...if that's what you want think...fine. I don't feel like arguing it with you anymore. Its not true, but you won't believe that, so I don't care.



The F40/ sure is an amazing car, and is certainly a great drivers car, but again it is more track focussed. Plus it has power steering, power brakes, ABS and enzo and F50 add traction control to this and most likely power assisted gear change (?). The macca has none of these, its all pure direct input from u to the car.... and yet still manages to be an easy car to drive at low speeds... part of the design of the F1 was to make it user friendly and suitable for everyday, the F40/F50/Enzo? i dont think so :P

Haha...I don't think the F40 had anything like power steering or power brakes or ABS...its a pretty no-frills car actually. Didn't even have interior door handles or a radio...or even a cigarette lighter haha. :P Which is one of the reasons the F1 is even more impressive, it didn't have a stripped interior, it had a/c, it had a CD-player, but it was still lighter than the F40.

I don't think the F50 had power steering either, only the Enzo has that...which is one of the reasons I don't like it as much as some people.

[mindgam3]

my bad i just did a quick search n got some false information. Wanted to make sure but i didnt think they had all of tht either although i think the F50 did have power assisted steering? ;)

Even so, they're all track focussed cars - albeit very good track focussed cars ;)

[sentra_dude]

my bad i just did a quick search n got some false information. Wanted to make sure but i didnt think they had all of tht either although i think the F50 did have power assisted steering? ;)


No, the F50 doesn't have power steering, which is a good thing IMO. 8)

[bmagni]

and please tell me what your source is? Mines autocar, probably the most reliable magazine to get data from..... Who recorded the enzo doing the 1/4 in 10.8?

no i dont have the source...


If you've got any slight drop of petrol in your blood that you should know mclaren very well..... do you watch F1 at all? Everyone knows who mclaren is and so even if the mclaren didnt have the top speed, it still would be known seeing as though thts "their" only car they ever properly produced.


i know, ive watched f1 since loooooong ago... though not everybody knows bout f1... not everybody knows mclaren... then what made the f1 so famous ????


Bullshit, the enzo was designed as a track/race focused car.


The enzo was made as a road car. All the electronics it has are made for road use, road safety as ferrari says. What do u say bout the pumps that raise the car so that the under part of the car doesnt hit some raised road parts... thats for road use. So is the power steeing... thats for road use
a normal steering is for track use
The car aerodynamics are more for road than for track...
The MC 12 is the real track car..


The macca has none of these, its all pure direct input from u to the car.... and yet still manages to be an easy car to drive at low speeds...
so does the enzo


part of the design of the F1 was to make it user friendly and suitable for everyday, the F40/F50/Enzo? i dont think so

regarding the enzo. i say it once again. its made as a road car. costumers use it for the road. if u still believe im wrong then ferrari is wrong.


You can hardly hustle a 360 along country A and B roads let alone an enzo. With a macca you can....


What do u mean ? i dont understand :?: :?:


Considering the macca out accelerates and F1 car from 180+ i think its got tht in the bag too....


huh ??? are u saying this like "the f50 and f40 have power steering" ???
which F1 cars ??? i see that almost impossible as the wieght/power relation of an F1 dont compare to the ones of a McLaren.... if ur right please prove it.


So? The english love ferraris, and as i do think the enzo is an amazing car. But in mine and their opinion, the macca is easily the most rounded supercar considering its age, and also the best road car.


English think the best cars are english... (no offense intended).

[sentra_dude]

and please tell me what your source is? Mines autocar, probably the most reliable magazine to get data from..... Who recorded the enzo doing the 1/4 in 10.8?

no i dont have the source...


Then it doesn't mean anything...there are rumors of the F1 running below 11s 1/4mi as well, so what, they aren't verified so they don't mean anything.


Bullshit, the enzo was designed as a track/race focused car.


The enzo was made as a road car. All the electronics it has are made for road use, road safety as ferrari says. What do u say bout the pumps that raise the car so that the under part of the car doesnt hit some raised road parts... thats for road use. So is the power steeing... thats for road use
a normal steering is for track use
The car aerodynamics are more for road than for track...
The MC 12 is the real track car..


Power steering is not just for road use anymore...many, many race cars use it now, and Formula One cars use it so there is less fatigue on the driver. For pure feel, nothing beats unassisted steering. You are not understanding...he's not saying the Enzo is a car you cannot drive on the road, its just one that is designed with track performance in mind, while still being road legal, much like the F40.


The macca has none of these, its all pure direct input from u to the car.... and yet still manages to be an easy car to drive at low speeds...
so does the enzo


Huh...you just said that the Enzo has power steering...and evo has stated it is completely lacking in feel...that's not what I'd call 'direct input'.


part of the design of the F1 was to make it user friendly and suitable for everyday, the F40/F50/Enzo? i dont think so

regarding the enzo. i say it once again. its made as a road car. costumers use it for the road. if u still believe im wrong then ferrari is wrong.


Yes...its road legal...and has some concessions...but overall the bias is towards the track, it has a very hard suspension that works best on very smooth roads, and the paddle gearbox is a track item as well.


You can hardly hustle a 360 along country A and B roads let alone an enzo. With a macca you can....


What do u mean ? i dont understand :?: :?:


Both of those cars are very wide and in the Enzo's case, the suspension is very hard and easily upset by bumpy roads. The F1 isn't so wide, so you don't take up the road as much, and although the F1 does have snappy handling at the ragged edge (627hp & mid-engine rwd does that ;)), the softer suspension allows you to push it harder on less than perfect roads.



Considering the macca out accelerates and F1 car from 180+ i think its got tht in the bag too....


huh ??? are u saying this like "the f50 and f40 have power steering" ???
which F1 cars ??? i see that almost impossible as the wieght/power relation of an F1 dont compare to the ones of a McLaren.... if ur right please prove it.


Don't forget aerodynamics. Modern Formula One cars produce huge amounts of drag...that's what happens when you have two giant wings, exposed tires, and a shitload of downforce. Did you know that 600hp, 2200lb LeMans cars are nearly as fast as F1 cars on high speed tracks? Its because they have vastly superior aerodynamics.

The F1 has a Cd of .32 and 627hp, a Formula One car from 1994 was only making about 750hp and probably Cd of close to 1.00 (if not more)...it doesn't matter that the Formula One only weighed ~1400lb and the F1 weighs 2500+lb. That is just too much drag to overcome, and not enough power. Actually the F1 could out accelerate a Formula One car of its day from 150mph. Its not all about power to weight, especially when you consider speeds above 150mph.

[mindgam3]

well basically sentra has answered all your questions.

I was saying that on a regular country road, the enzo's performance is rendered basically useless, as a 360's is, although to a lesser extent. The maccas, size, direct controls, low down torque, central driving position and manual 'box all make it a better road car - on many european roads, the enzo would almsot always take up more than a lane, even more so when fast driving. Just take a look at brundles supercar dvd and compare the F1 and F40 on the road. And then consider that th enzo is even bigger than the F40....

How can you say the aerodynamics are more for road than trakc, you're never going to use the aerodynamics to their full potential on the road, you're not going to be going round corners fast enough or building up enough speed. On driving roads its more about mechanical grip than aerodynamics....

Sure the F40 and F50 were dubbed "F1 cars for the road" but they're far too stiffly rigid and low for any serious road driving. Their home is on the track - much the same for the enzo...

[bmagni]

Huh...you just said that the Enzo has power steering...and evo has stated it is completely lacking in feel...that's not what I'd call 'direct input'.



i meant that the enzo was an easy to drive in the road car... not bout the power steering...


Yes...its road legal...and has some concessions...but overall the bias is towards the track, it has a very hard suspension that works best on very smooth roads, and the paddle gearbox is a track item as well.


i wasnt refering to being road legal but to be a friendly road car.
yeah it was built with track testing. but that isnt the aim of the car. its being a road car usable for the track. not a road legal track car... which the mclaren f1 lm is.
the suspension can be adjusted.


Don't forget aerodynamics. Modern Formula One cars produce huge amounts of drag...that's what happens when you have two giant wings, exposed tires, and a shitload of downforce. Did you know that 600hp, 2200lb LeMans cars are nearly as fast as F1 cars on high speed tracks? Its because they have vastly superior aerodynamics.

The F1 has a Cd of .32 and 627hp, a Formula One car from 1994 was only making about 750hp and probably Cd of close to 1.00 (if not more)...it doesn't matter that the Formula One only weighed ~1400lb and the F1 weighs 2500+lb. That is just too much drag to overcome, and not enough power. Actually the F1 could out accelerate a Formula One car of its day from 150mph. Its not all about power to weight, especially when you consider speeds above 150mph.



which lemans cars against which f1 cars ????
vastly superior aerdyinamics in which way ???
i still doubt it can accel faster than one. i know bout the cd. and all that stuff. an f1 car with the correct tune up wouldnt be beaten by a mc f1.
anyway. theres no proof of that... and now ir talkin bout 150 mph... which is far slower than the first 180... and makes me doubt bout it more...

overall the mc f1 isnt a well balanced car... its a pure speed car or speedy road car however u wanna call it... the enzo isnt just speed and yet it does lots of stuff better or equal than the f1... thats IMO a better car...

[bmagni]

How can you say the aerodynamics are more for road than trakc, you're never going to use the aerodynamics to their full potential on the road, you're not going to be going round corners fast enough or building up enough speed. On driving roads its more about mechanical grip than aerodynamics....


i meant the enzo aerodynamics arent meant just for track use... if they were meant for that it would have a big rear wing. itd be longer...

[mindgam3]

The McLaren F1 dvd states that the mclaren can out accelerate an F1 above 180.....

The main reason why the enzo isnt a good road car is its size, this is also why its a better track car the the mclaren.

What are you trying to say about aerodynamics? Aerodynamics only work effectively on road cars at relatively high speeds, eg on track. You may as well not have them when out hoonin around country roads, its all mechanical grip as any caterham driver will tell you....


overall the mc f1 isnt a well balanced car... its a pure speed car or speedy road car however u wanna call it... the enzo isnt just speed and yet it does lots of stuff better or equal than the f1... thats IMO a better car...


Its not a pure speed car!!! Its a DRIVERS CAR!!!

Its faster than an enzo in a straight line; top speed and acceleration, period.
It has the same but more accesible torque.
Handling is debatable, the macca is set up for road and so has a softer chassis, the enzo is more stiffly sprung and so is better on track, yet the macca only will loose out in the corners and braking zones.
Its smaller - better road car.
The mclaren has a radio and can has space for luggage.
Its rarer.
Its got a gold lined engine bay for christs sake :P

The enzo is faster on a track, which it was deisgned for, the mclaren is the much better road car which evens it out on tht respect.

The enzo has better brakes; im not suprised, so it should its 10 years older, put the same brakes on the mclaren which is lighter and then we'll see where we are.

Please inform me of the many things it does better than an F1 other than the two i've mentioned? :P

And let me remind you of the biggest fact you seem to forget... the fact you are comparing a 10 year old car with the best of the latest generation of supercars.....

[sentra_dude]

Don't forget aerodynamics. Modern Formula One cars produce huge amounts of drag...that's what happens when you have two giant wings, exposed tires, and a shitload of downforce. Did you know that 600hp, 2200lb LeMans cars are nearly as fast as F1 cars on high speed tracks? Its because they have vastly superior aerodynamics.

The F1 has a Cd of .32 and 627hp, a Formula One car from 1994 was only making about 750hp and probably Cd of close to 1.00 (if not more)...it doesn't matter that the Formula One only weighed ~1400lb and the F1 weighs 2500+lb. That is just too much drag to overcome, and not enough power. Actually the F1 could out accelerate a Formula One car of its day from 150mph. Its not all about power to weight, especially when you consider speeds above 150mph.



which lemans cars against which f1 cars ????
vastly superior aerdyinamics in which way ???
i still doubt it can accel faster than one. i know bout the cd. and all that stuff. an f1 car with the correct tune up wouldnt be beaten by a mc f1.
anyway. theres no proof of that... and now ir talkin bout 150 mph... which is far slower than the first 180... and makes me doubt bout it more...

overall the mc f1 isnt a well balanced car... its a pure speed car or speedy road car however u wanna call it... the enzo isnt just speed and yet it does lots of stuff better or equal than the f1... thats IMO a better car...

The 1998 LeMans winning 911 GT1 would probably lap almost as fast as an older (mid 1990s) Formula One at a track with long sweeping corners and very high speeds because it has much less drag.


vastly superior aerdyinamics in which way ???


Much less drag but around the same levels of downforce. I'm not saying the Formula One engineers don't know what they are doing, if that's what your thinking. They just have a much tougher starting point with open wheels, and on top of that they have to contend with rules that place many restrictions on the cars in terms of aerodynamics.



i still doubt it can accel faster than one. i know bout the cd. and all that stuff. an f1 car with the correct tune up wouldnt be beaten by a mc f1.
anyway. theres no proof of that... and now ir talkin bout 150 mph... which is far slower than the first 180... and makes me doubt bout it more...


Why do you doubt it? Is it so hard to believe that 627hp in a very slippery aerodynamics package could out-accelerate 750hp in something with more drag than a flat wall driving through the air? Do you know anything about aerodynamics? Drag is proportional to the square of the velocity...so Formula One cars, with their huge Cd, have to fight much, much more wind resistance than either the F1 or LeMans cars.

I am not talking about modern Formula One cars (i.e. F2004) here either, don't forget that as well. The early to mid-1990s were a low point in power for Formula One cars, it was right after a big rules changes crippled the out-put...its really not that hard to believe that the McLaren could be faster at very high speeds.

[bmagni]

I am not talking about modern Formula One cars (i.e. F2004) here either, don't forget that as well.

thats what i was thinkin... thats why i was surprised...

just to finish this up. for me the enzo is better car than the f1... ive stated my points and opinions, facts and figures.
the f1 is a 10 yo car. and performs as a car of that age... its fast but not impressive in any other way. through history making a fast straight line car has been easier than makin a balanced car... the mclaren is done that way. just a fast straight line "drivers car" for the small lanes of highways.

[sentra_dude]

I am not talking about modern Formula One cars (i.e. F2004) here either, don't forget that as well.

thats what i was thinkin... thats why i was surprised...

just to finish this up. for me the enzo is better car than the f1... ive stated my points and opinions, facts and figures.
the f1 is a 10 yo car. and performs as a car of that age... its fast but not impressive in any other way. through history making a fast straight line car has been easier than makin a balanced car... the mclaren is done that way. just a fast straight line "drivers car" for the small lanes of highways.

Actually...I would say the McLaren F1 is impressive for other reasons besides its straight line speed (although the straight line speed is a big part, the car is so much more, and you seem to be missing that). Here's why I think its special; the quality (just look at pictures of the McLaren, everything is jewel like), the light weight, the handling, the compactness, the central driving position, the flexibility and tremendous torque of the engine, the sound of the engine, the looks of the car, the lack of driver aids (such as power steering), and the exclusivity.

[dons5]

ok can we all just shut up cause after 9 pages this isnt going anywhere

ill just say what i like better and why without dogging the other one down, and so should all of u

Id take the Enzo/F50/F40 cause when im buying a car like that i dont want a car that has been compromised for the road (well they all have been, but according to you guys the Mac F1 even more so),

i dont want a car with a cd player,

i dont want a car with all that luggage space,

it kinda wrecks part of the what makes the car so special thing, you wanna be able to say to people ya this car is almost a road legal race car, stripped down etc it jus makes the whole car/experience that much more special, and the looks of course Mac F1 is awesome to look at but with an F40/F50/Enzo beside the Mac everyone IN MY OPINION would be staring at the Ferrari's.

And most importantly in i think it was a road and car article between Mac F1 Porsche 959 and F40 in the end the guys both said by far the F40 is most exciting and fun to drive it raises your blood pressure like none of the other cars can

[sentra_dude]

^^^That's what an LM is for...;)

[mindgam3]

I am not talking about modern Formula One cars (i.e. F2004) here either, don't forget that as well.

thats what i was thinkin... thats why i was surprised...

just to finish this up. for me the enzo is better car than the f1... ive stated my points and opinions, facts and figures.
the f1 is a 10 yo car. and performs as a car of that age... its fast but not impressive in any other way. through history making a fast straight line car has been easier than makin a balanced car... the mclaren is done that way. just a fast straight line "drivers car" for the small lanes of highways.

lol, i accept that you think the enzo is a better car, and they're so closely matched that its down to a matter of opinion, but you definately have got ideas of the F1 completely wrong.

The object of the mclaren is not just pure striaght line speed, very far from it, its supposed to be a drivers car as ive said many many times, a drivers car for the road. Not straight line highways/motorways - thats what mercs are for - its for the twisties.... take a look at brundles dvd for instance, the country roads are what im talking about....

It doesent perform as a 10 year old car, the fact it could out run anything on the road, and most on the track even though it wasnt designed for that must tell you this..... Do you thinkg the F40 and F50 perform like the cars of their age? I dont think so, the same with the mclaren....

The mclaren is one of THE best handling cars in general, maybe not right on the limit on a track, but i'd put that down to the soft road set up more than anything.

Many people consider the F1 to be the greatest car in the world. Many consider it to be the most significant supercar ever since supercars began, arguarbly with the countach/mura.

The enzo never made a big of an impact on the world as the F1 did, maybe because the enzo came out in the few years we had the zonda, koneigsegg, CGT and SLR all at once, but maybe its because its the most uncompromised designed car ever?

If you think the mclaren is purely about straight line speed, then you clearly dont know anything about the mclaren, except one figure.... 240.1mph, which incidently, considering you say it performs like a 10 year old car, that figure still hasnt been beaten.... :P

The benchmark, the car that all supercars have to be compared to is the mclaren F1, the enzo, the cgt, the slr, the f40, the f50, the zonda, the koenigsegg are all compared to the mclaren. Some of them do things slightly better than the mclaren, but non are as well rounded and theres not going to be a car that can beat this well roundedness for quite some time yet.....

[mindgam3]

ok can we all just shut up cause after 9 pages this isnt going anywhere

ill just say what i like better and why without dogging the other one down, and so should all of u

Id take the Enzo/F50/F40 cause when im buying a car like that i dont want a car that has been compromised for the road (well they all have been, but according to you guys the Mac F1 even more so),

i dont want a car with a cd player,

i dont want a car with all that luggage space,

it kinda wrecks part of the what makes the car so special thing, you wanna be able to say to people ya this car is almost a road legal race car, stripped down etc it jus makes the whole car/experience that much more special, and the looks of course Mac F1 is awesome to look at but with an F40/F50/Enzo beside the Mac everyone IN MY OPINION would be staring at the Ferrari's.

And most importantly in i think it was a road and car article between Mac F1 Porsche 959 and F40 in the end the guys both said by far the F40 is most exciting and fun to drive it raises your blood pressure like none of the other cars can

Firstly, i think you mean road and track....
Secondly, i personally think road and track isnt a good mag
Thirdly, the heart BPM that they took doesent neccesarily mean a more exciting car, it could be interpreted as a more scary car to drive.
And finally in the same article, and i quote "Well, I've fallen in love with the McLaren. It is the greatest street car I've ever driven. " :P

[SnakeBitten]

I am not talking about modern Formula One cars (i.e. F2004) here either, don't forget that as well.

thats what i was thinkin... thats why i was surprised...

just to finish this up. for me the enzo is better car than the f1... ive stated my points and opinions, facts and figures.
the f1 is a 10 yo car. and performs as a car of that age... its fast but not impressive in any other way. through history making a fast straight line car has been easier than makin a balanced car... the mclaren is done that way. just a fast straight line "drivers car" for the small lanes of highways.


This is truly unbelievable.....Ive come to realize that the guys with this mentality are around 19-20 years old....I now fully understand....The Enzo is there Mclaren F1 and they will defend it to the death even if facts show otherwise....Ive never heard anyone call an F1 a straightline car...Shows a real lack of understanding and knowledge of the car....I will take any bunch of fast cars from this era and pit it against the F1 on any track and I guarantee you it will be in amoung the top 3-5 if not winning a few....It cant do that if its just a straightline car...My God..you're equating the F1 with straighline champs like a Mustang....If you were my son you'd be grounded for life for making this post :lol: j/k

[bmagni]

/\/\ First of all its not mentality its just an opinion. so dont say shit.
Second if u dont get what im saying theyll ill explain it veeeeeery easy... im not saying its a straight line car as a funny car or dragster or similar. what i mean is that it works better in the straight line (accelerating, top speed) than in the twisties AKA curves, still dont get it ???---- it doesnt handle well it just accelerates super fast... and acceleartion is everything in curves ??? no... is it in straigh lines ??? yeeeeees... yeah put it in a track with the newest cars and itd be in the top 5 but not in 1st or 2nd place, for sure.


The mclaren is one of THE best handling cars in general


M3, elise, handle better. among others


240.1mph, which incidently, considering you say it performs like a 10 year old car, that figure still hasnt been beaten....


the 200 mph line was broken some decades ago so i really doubt a car wouldnt do more than that. its just not the essential thing. i get all that u say bout being a drivers car and blah blah blah... still its not the best supercar everbuilt. it can be the fastest but not the best... above in this post u can find my explanation bout the f1 being a straight line car...
ill say this once again, the first purpose of the enzo was to go above 400kph... but it wasnt done that way cause itd sacrifice other figures... which is what the mclaren does... pure speed, with a radio and luggage room :lol:
if the enzo wuold have been done to go over 400 lots of people who like the f1 would start liking the enzo more and this kind of argues wouldnt come up because the enzos top speed would be higher than the f1's... and people would get in their square minds that just because of that its the best car ever.

[SFDMALEX]

Shesssssss

Take it east guys.

Macca is old, its been overthrown, swalow the pill and relax. :wink:

[sentra_dude]

it doesnt handle well
You know this how?

the 200 mph line was broken some decades ago so i really doubt a car wouldnt do more than that.
Umm...not to linger on topspeed, but there is a huge difference between 200mph and 240mph...

i get all that u say bout being a drivers car and blah blah blah... still its not the best supercar everbuilt.
"blah blah blah"...wow, so you don't care what the steering feels like or how a car drives? Cool.

above in this post u can find my explanation bout the f1 being a straight line car...
Yea, you did an excellent job of proving how the McLaren can't handle. :roll:

ill say this once again, the first purpose of the enzo was to go above 400kph... but it wasnt done that way cause itd sacrifice other figures... which is what the mclaren does... pure speed, with a radio and luggage room :lol:
Really...since when was the "first purpose" of the Enzo to go 400+km/h? I didn't catch that press release, sorry.

if the enzo wuold have been done to go over 400 lots of people who like the f1 would start liking the enzo more and this kind of argues wouldnt come up because the enzos top speed would be higher than the f1's... and people would get in their square minds that just because of that its the best car ever.
You are making such stupid generalizations. I don't care if the Enzo does 260mph...I would still prefer the McLaren.

The Enzo is a good car...we know that...but anything with a paddle shift just can't compare to something with a real manual transmission...that, power steering, and excessive weight are my main problems with the Enzo. If Ferrari can build a supercar under 2800lb with a real manual transmission then I would be happy. And don't tell me its not possible with today's regulations, because the Zonda does it just fine.

[tigerx]

wow 10 pages for one simple simple question.

[bmagni]

Umm...not to linger on topspeed, but there is a huge difference between 200mph and 240mph...

do some research to find when the 200mph line was broken and ull get my point... if u dont want to i dont really care



since when was the "first purpose" of the Enzo to go 400+km/h? I didn't catch that press release, sorry.

not my problem though, if u didnt catch it then i let u know... and it wasnt said at the press release


"blah blah blah"...wow, so you don't care what the steering feels like or how a car drives? Cool.

if its a lame mclaren f1 i don't...


The Enzo is a good car...we know that...but anything with a paddle shift just can't compare to something with a real manual transmission...

have u ever tried a paddle shift ??? if the answer is no then STFU

[JoeHahn]

wow 10 pages for one simple simple question.

What is the Nurburgring record for the Enzo? :twisted:

[gottacatchup]

wow 10 pages for one simple simple question.

It evolved wayyy past that question like 8 pages back

[numerouno]

wow 10 pages for one simple simple question.

It evolved wayyy past that question like 8 pages back

Yeah dudes, doesn't matter how much we discuss, some of us are diehard Ferrari fans, some others McLaren fans and some Porsche lovers and it would be hard for us to accept the superiority of another car over our fave.
Since the lap record of a car is a very useful index (Perhaps one of the most important ones IMO) for evaluating it as a real supersports car, I thought since I've seen the figure for CGT on the 'Ring, Enzo's time on the same track would be quite a good figure for comparison, specially if it's been done by the same driver under the same weather conditions (as close as it gets to an objective test).

[HoboPie]

Well, all I can say on that is that St.Anger(reinforced by Porsche test driver statements) said the Enzo was probably a few seconds slower than the CGT at the Ring.

The best time actually recorded though unofficial for the CGT was 7:25.xx so take from that what you will. Since it came from the words of the Porsche test drivers I can't see the Enzo being any slower than what they claim.

[numerouno]

Well, all I can say on that is that St.Anger(reinforced by Porsche test driver statements) said the Enzo was probably a few seconds slower than the CGT at the Ring.

The best time actually recorded though unofficial for the CGT was 7:25.xx so take from that what you will. Since it came from the words of the Porsche test drivers I can't see the Enzo being any slower than what they claim.

Yeah pal, Porsche test driver's claims are worth shit until both cars are officially timed!

[dons5]

ENZO

[SnakeBitten]

/\/\ First of all its not mentality its just an opinion. so dont say shit.
Second if u dont get what im saying theyll ill explain it veeeeeery easy... im not saying its a straight line car as a funny car or dragster or similar. what i mean is that it works better in the straight line (accelerating, top speed) than in the twisties AKA curves, still dont get it ???---- it doesnt handle well it just accelerates super fast... and acceleartion is everything in curves ??? no... is it in straigh lines ??? yeeeeees... yeah put it in a track with the newest cars and itd be in the top 5 but not in 1st or 2nd place, for sure.



You are hopeless...You really have no clue about the Mclaren based on most of your diatribe...You say it will be in the top 5 but its mainly a straight line car lol. A straight line car would not even be in the top 50 of todays cars on a track......The fact that everyone compares the Enzo to the Mclaren tells any sane person how potent the 10 year old car is...The Enzo has beaten "some" of its numbers...As a newer car it should far surpass them dont you think? That alone should make you Enzophiles wake up...Im a carguy through and through....I look at facts and numbers. I dont look at stuff through fanboy goggles :P And those facts say that on 10 year old technology the Mclaren will compete with the Enzo....That makes the Mclaren the Enzo's daddy. As I said before can you imagine what would happen on modern tires, brakes and suspension alone...No engine tweaks :D

[SFDMALEX]

Yeah dudes, doesn't matter how much we discuss, some of us are diehard Ferrari fans, some others McLaren fans and some Porsche lovers and it would be hard for us to accept the superiority of another car over our fave.


Sorry mate thats bullshit. I'm a diehard Ferrari fan but I give others credit when its needed. Now there are pussies who dont have the balls to admit that what they like is worse then something else. I wont argue in this forum anymore since its like talking to a bunch of walls. Anyone who considers Macca to be faster then both CGT and Enzo should hit them selfs on the head and snap out of that dream world they've been living in for the past 10 years or so.

[st-anger]

Well, all I can say on that is that St.Anger(reinforced by Porsche test driver statements) said the Enzo was probably a few seconds slower than the CGT at the Ring.

The best time actually recorded though unofficial for the CGT was 7:25.xx so take from that what you will. Since it came from the words of the Porsche test drivers I can't see the Enzo being any slower than what they claim.

Yeah pal, Porsche test driver's claims are worth shit until both cars are officially timed!

unfortunately i have ZERO time for an extensive discussion - be sure i´d LOVE to join in here as i´m also very interestind into that topic - but as u can read in my section things are "a bit" busy for me right now...

i just took a very quick look over the last ~10 pages and all i can say now, i know that i have said some time before that the Enzo´d be very close to the GT, BUT now and i now know quite some details from Ferrari as well, so now i´d say the Enzo´d have absolutely NO chance beating the GT...
this is NOT because i´m a Porsche guy, BUT facts are facts and i´m dead sure that the Enzo won´t be able to clock such times...
the Enzo is good for smooth tracks, F1 style layout, but on NS - sorry no...
but besides i know very little tests where the GT lost any handling track comparisons, and when someone´s saying that both cars haven´t been tested head to head by professionals, well, that´s not true...
both, Ferrari and Porsche carried out a comparison, of course no one knows about this one, but there´s been a test at Papenburg proving grounds (http://www.ifbgauer.de/veoeffmain6.html) where the Enzo lost "quite some" time on the handling course, this has been unofficially confirmed by both, Ferrari and Porsche - some weeks later the GT clocked something around close to 7:30 at the nordschleife while testing with WR behind the wheel and when he said he could have done WAY better Ferrari was "slightely" amazed that the car - again, back then this had been NO production car - could clock such fast times, because be extra sure that Ferrari had the Enzo on the "NS test rig" an extremely high sophisticated test rig where manufactorers can actually drive better said simulate the car´s lap time on NS with the full chassis on the test rig...
some time later the 360CS had been beaten by the GT3 RS - again not a very good start for the Ferrari crew to show up and drive against Porsche at NS, and when i spoke with my man some months ago he confirmed me that Ferrari definitely DOESN´T WANT the Enzo to be tested at NS, u know stressing is on "WANT"... :wink:
that´s another reason why "Sport Auto" doesn´t have an Enzo Supertest, HvS would die to get one but Ferrari won´t give him one...
quite strange don´t u think, we saw SLR, GT but no Enzo --- why...???
besides, there´d be so much more to tell about Enzo vs GT - u wouldn´t believe it...e.g. 660hp for the Enzo...quite impressive, BUT i´m dead sure NO ONE knows that this figure is just a marketing gag, the "MkI" Enzo had only ~600 hp, the GT back then 580... Porsche then decided to go for a bit more cc and power to make the engine a bit more driveable, resulting in 612hp - the first one´s reacting on that where MB, they pushed the power output to 626hp - again, this is one of the major reasons why the SLR has been considerably delayed - so also Ferrari uptuned the power output to 660hp - BUT, driving dynamics and handling where then quite worse in comparison with the 600hp version, but Ferrari said that they have to deal with that compromise to be in front with straight line performance and gain from the +50hp on the straights to be faster than the GT - well, didn´t work out that good as we know know... :|

to come to an end, i think i can say that i´m one of the "experienced" guys here on JW with some very good ties to industry and i don´t have to rely on car mags, TV shows or good friends so i know what i´m saying - with some members and posts here - i´m missing that :wink:

Ferrari Enzo is a great car with some outstanding technologies and it´s definitely one of the fastest production cars around now ( at least for some laps... ) BUT as i said before, sorry no chance against Porsches Carrera GT at nordschleife - and some other tracks :wink: ... :!:

[sentra_dude]

Thanks st-anger, you bring some clarity to this discussion.

[st-anger]

Thanks st-anger, you bring some clarity to this discussion.

well, i think it´s time for me to thank YOU for your kind posts and wishes regarding to me :P

[HoboPie]

Wow, thanks St.Anger. More information about this topic is awesome, even though I'm such an Enzo fanatic.

edit: I guess a good way to get scratched off the buyers list of any Ferrari supercar is to go ask them if you can have the 600hp version of the Enzo.

[bmagni]

i have to say i totally agree with u st-anger... ur comparing the cgt and enzo like i compare the enzo with the mclaren... just my words arent well understood ur more technical maybe... :D
im waiting too for a enzo lap at NS, though i also really doubt they will do it... but we have seen some other laps at other circuits where the cgt beats the enzo so that might say it... still i guess we all are waiting for it...

[numerouno]

Dear st-anger, thanks a lot for your comprehensive post on the topic and sorry that I couldn't reply earlier (been pretty busy with work). I agree with many parts of your post (but not all parts), and about the 600bhp thing; we can't really judge this things so easily 'cause there are and have been many of this sort of stories around many manufacturer's (I really hope that this story isn't true, otherwise I'd be very disappointed with my fabled marque).

[Vansquish]

.. but it wasnt done that way cause itd sacrifice other figures... which is what the mclaren does... pure speed, with a radio and luggage room :lol:

You haven't been doing your research...the Mclaren F1 didn't have a radio. It had a 10 disk Kenwood CD changer specifically designed for the car, and it was the lightest of its kind. I won't try and argue that the Macca would be faster around the Nordschleife than an Enzo, it is a more straight-line biased vehicle. It doesn't produce much downforce compared to either the Enzo or the CGT, or even the SLR at this point, but it has the power, torque and light weight that the others are all lacking somewhat. The fact remains, more than 10 years ago, Gordon Murray and the team he lead for the F1's development produced a car that weighs less than any of its competitors, carries more people and more of their luggage, has a reliable, powerhouse of an engine with a torque curve that's about as flat as Kansas, and the sort of steering feel that the Enzo appears to be lacking. Imagine the F1 or for that matter an F1 LM roadcar to make things a little more even on the downforce front with modern tires, and modern carbon-ceramic disk brakes. Put it head to head with the Enzo or the CGT around pretty much any circuit and if it's not at close to the laptimes of a CGT or an Enzo, I'd be quite surprised. The F1 is an engineering marvel that so far hasn't been surpassed. The closest I think you can come is the CGT. It has the same sort of insanely meticulous approach to its engineering that Gordon Murray and Paul Rosche put into the F1. The Enzo, while a very fine car, and certainly an extremely quick one, just doesn't match up. The F1 is a supercar for the ages. The F40 is a supercar for the ages...the Enzo is Ferrari's Veyron to me...all the worse for having a transmission that is a marketing ploy to the Formula 1 fans around the world.

[mindgam3]

/\/\ First of all its not mentality its just an opinion. so dont say shit.
Second if u dont get what im saying theyll ill explain it veeeeeery easy... im not saying its a straight line car as a funny car or dragster or similar. what i mean is that it works better in the straight line (accelerating, top speed) than in the twisties AKA curves, still dont get it ???---- it doesnt handle well it just accelerates super fast... and acceleartion is everything in curves ??? no... is it in straigh lines ??? yeeeeees... yeah put it in a track with the newest cars and itd be in the top 5 but not in 1st or 2nd place, for sure.


The mclaren is one of THE best handling cars in general


M3, elise, handle better. among others



I think this really proves your lack of knowledge...... You really think an M3 and Elise handle better than an F1? You've driven all 3 have you? Sure they're all great handling cars, the Elise is probably on par with the macca in terms of handling, especially on the road, but no way the M3, its a great car, but nothing compared to the F1. The M3 is closer to regualr 3 series handling than the F1.

It really is not a straight line car. Its not built for pure acceleration and straight line. It was built for road, as in country A and B roads handling and to be a drivers car, of which i cant think of a car that does this better. Im not gonna argue any more cos you clearly cant understand this concept. Please go and watch the McLaren F1 DVD and maybe that will give you a small insight into what the car is about as you clearly have no idea.

Thank you to St Anger for clearing up the CGT vs Enzo debate.... it seemed to silence few ferrari fans ;)

[dons5]

Well you said we have to compare the Enzo to the European Version of the Mac F1, well what about if Ferrari made the Enzo to only european specs too, im sure it would even be lighter and more powerfull, and Ferrari had a budget Mac F1 didnt.

[Vansquish]

Well you said we have to compare the Enzo to the European Version of the Mac F1, well what about if Ferrari made the Enzo to only european specs too, im sure it would even be lighter and more powerfull, and Ferrari had a budget Mac F1 didnt.

What are you talking about? There was only one version of the F1, the one that was available in Europe, Asia, and for import to the US. The cars in the US weren't technically road legal, so they had to go through a company called Ameritech (or something to that effect) which put on extra bumpers on the nose and replaced the headlights with some rectangular units and removed the passenger seats. This conversion could be undone at a later date and still maintained the road-legal nature of the car, but in essence, the only thing it managed to do was add to the price of the car. In the end, it was the same vehicle. The Enzo is just heavier, no bones about it. As for the budget for the Enzo, I'd be surprised if it was less than the F1's was. The Enzo is Ferrari's "halo" car, the F1 was just a dream car. From what I've read, the Enzo's engine, while more powerful and more torquey by 6 foot-pounds is actually quite a bit heavier than the F1's. The Enzo doesn't have a stereo, nore the luggage space, nor for that matter the amount of fitted luggage that the F1 has. Consider the conveniences of the F1 and then compare it to what the Enzo has. I think you'll find that the Macca is better equipped and really ought to be heavier than it is. If you want to argue weight, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Carrera GT is lighter than the Enzo as well, and even it has a stereo system with subs that fire into the carbon-fiber chassis, and it also is intended for worldwide distribution.

I'm not trying to say that th Enzo is slow, or a poor car or anything of that ilk....just arguing for the Macca because to me it seems like it's a more thoroughly engineered car which makes no compromises yet manages to strike a balance between extreme speed and handling capabilities and a certain degree of comfort and practicality that the Enzo and CGT can only dream about.

[dons5]

well its funny u say that considering all the other Mac F1 guys said Dont compare the Enzo to the Mac F1 that road and track used to compare since it was a North American legal version and the Enzo completely slaughtered it. And yes Ferrari had a budget, the Mac F1 didnt and if it did it was wayyy higher then the Enzo's. Also remember Ferrari made profit i think it was somewhere around 20 - 30 million dollars on the Enzo, Maclaren made barely any if at all any profit from the Mac F1, which means that the Enzo itself is worth prob around 450 - 550 grand and the Mac is worth 1 mill look at the difference in price, and the stereo wasnt jus any stereo it was specially made for that car to be super super light, im sorry but you really really dont know what you are talkin about.

[mindgam3]

well its funny u say that considering all the other Mac F1 guys said Dont compare the Enzo to the Mac F1 that road and track used to compare since it was a North American legal version and the Enzo completely slaughtered it. And yes Ferrari had a budget, the Mac F1 didnt and if it did it was wayyy higher then the Enzo's. Also remember Ferrari made profit i think it was somewhere around 20 - 30 million dollars on the Enzo, Maclaren made barely any if at all any profit from the Mac F1, which means that the Enzo itself is worth prob around 450 - 550 grand and the Mac is worth 1 mill look at the difference in price, and the stereo wasnt jus any stereo it was specially made for that car to be super super light, im sorry but you really really dont know what you are talkin about.

lol, you make me laugh

[dons5]

whats so funny

[Vansquish]

The fact that you are accusing me of not knowing what I'm talking about tickles me a bit, and I'm not afraid to admit it. I have the original road tests in every major car magazine that tested the Mclaren F1. In additon to those, I have books on the F1 and I have a similar collection of stuff for the Enzo, I'm a fan of both vehicles.

The problem with most of your arguments is that you're not using the same source to compare performance between the Macca and the Enzo (and when you do, you're using an untrustworthy source which doesn't try to eliminate variables for said tests). For instance, if you look in the original Autocar magazine road test, I believe you'll find that the F1 did 0-60mph in 3.2 seconds, 0-100mph in 6.3, and 0-200mph in 28 seconds dead. The Enzo covered the same increments in slightly longer times, 0-60mph in 3.3 (basically inseparable), 0-100mph in 6.7 seconds(a measurable gap) and the 0-200mph time isn't even worth comparing. The best semi-valid comparison between the two cars in a straight line is the fact that the Enzo was significantly quicker 0-100-0mph (10.9 seconds compared to the F1's 11.44) but that's almost entirely down to the fact that it has superior brakes and downforce (which means that you can apply the brakes for longer without locking the wheels up-- oh yes...I forgot to mention, the F1 doesn't have ABS and the Enzo does, so it's not an entirely fair comparison there either).

As far as handling is concerned, of course the Enzo has more outright grip, it's got much better downforce numbers and more seriously active aerodynamics. The only real comparison between it and a Macca would have to be a comparison with the F1 LM roadcar, as it was capable of producing a fair amount of downforce and produced an Enzo-beating 668bhp from it's mildly massaged 6.1L V12.

I'd say that the Macca that Road and Track used shouldn't be a basis for comparison with the Enzo either, as the car they used was not tested under the same conditions as was the Enzo (unlike the Autocar tests), and I truly do not trust the numbers that any American magazine spits out. They tend to be weighted and not representative of a car's true performance potential. The articles may be fun reading, but for the serious car enthusiast, nothing beats the likes of Autocar, Sport Auto, EVO and Car magazines.

I'm going to stress this again. The car that Road and Track tested was a "legalized" European import, and after the original conversion process, the car was refitted to original specs, so in essence, save for a few scuff marks on screw heads and the like, the car was identical to it's brethren in Europe and elsewhere in the world. Since Mario tested that vehicle there have been several others imported, including the infamous bright orange car that has made several appearances at auction and across the internet the photos of it at Laguna Seca seem to be quite popular.

[HoboPie]

You are right for the most part, but keep in the mind the track oriented LM only did the 0-100-0 in 11.5 seconds which apparently was the record until the R500(I think) came along.

So it is doubtful that the Mclaren F1 did it in 11..44 seconds

The Enzo has advantages and disadvantages, but we can't simply say they are incomparable because they don't have the same everything. Yes, Ferrari has access to more advanced technology now, but then again Mclaren had access to expensive technologies that even now most cars don't use. Also the Enzo has a lot more weight and less power than it would have had then due to regulations.

The brakes are perfectly comparable. The Enzo has abs the Mclaren doesn't. That was a choice made by Mclaren because they felt it was more involving for the driver. The Enzo has incredible aerodynamics even for modern supercars, but the Mclaren F1 had low downforce for a reason. It was designed as a low drag car and that has its disadvantages when it comes to downforce.

The Enzo has superior tires, but the Mclaren also has tires designed to be used on the road as well as the track. The Enzo does too, but they are more track biased. Mclaren made a choice. In fact they made many choices which made the Mclaren what it was. If they had gone for a more track oriented car it would not be as fast in a straightline and likely not be the "drivers" car that Gordon Murray was going for.

I'm not sure it would be better, but it would not be everything the Mclaren is now with more performance simply added on. There are tradeoffs even with a budget like Ferrari or Mclaren has.

[Vansquish]

You are right for the most part, but keep in the mind the track oriented LM only did the 0-100-0 in 11.5 seconds which apparently was the record until the R500(I think) came along.

So it is doubtful that the Mclaren F1 did it in 11..44 seconds

The Enzo has advantages and disadvantages, but we can't simply say they are incomparable because they don't have the same everything. Yes, Ferrari has access to more advanced technology now, but then again Mclaren had access to expensive technologies that even now most cars don't use. Also the Enzo has a lot more weight and less power than it would have had then due to regulations.

The brakes are perfectly comparable. The Enzo has abs the Mclaren doesn't. That was a choice made by Mclaren because they felt it was more involving for the driver. The Enzo has incredible aerodynamics even for modern supercars, but the Mclaren F1 had low downforce for a reason. It was designed as a low drag car and that has its disadvantages when it comes to downforce.

The Enzo has superior tires, but the Mclaren also has tires designed to be used on the road as well as the track. The Enzo does too, but they are more track biased. Mclaren made a choice. In fact they made many choices which made the Mclaren what it was. If they had gone for a more track oriented car it would not be as fast in a straightline and likely not be the "drivers" car that Gordon Murray was going for.

I'm not sure it would be better, but it would not be everything the Mclaren is now with more performance simply added on. There are tradeoffs even with a budget like Ferrari or Mclaren has.

Apologies...I mis-typed...the F1 LM did the 0-100-0mph dash in 11.44 seconds...for some reason the figure that gets quoted is 11.5, but that isn't exactly right, again, we're talking 6 hundredths of a second, so it's pretty much the same time.

I'd argue that the brakes really aren't comparable...while the Mclaren's may be more feelsome because of their lack of electronic additions, they are certainly less powerful, any roadtest of a Ceramic or CF-ceramic set of brakes will tell you.

I'm perfectly aware of the aerodynamic nuances of both vehicles and the reasons for which each was designed, I just happen to feel that the Mclaren is the more uncompromising of the two and as a result, the more desirable (especially since it has an honest-to-goodness manual transmission) and the room to carry not one, but two hot females in comfort :-D

[dons5]

1. "the F1 doesn't have ABS and the Enzo does, so it's not an entirely fair comparison there either" just by saying that tells me you arent very intelligent when it comes too car performance dynamics. ABS is definetely safer for the road, and on a race track would probably be more consistent but to actually shorten braking distances it should have no effect if the guys testing these cars actually know what they are doing.

2. the Carbon Ceramic brakes might,if not probably do have an effect on shortening the braking distance but it wont be a big difference from standard brakes, the CC brakes are desigend for long track life lap after lap with virtually no fade and being much lighter (which very slightly shortens braking) thats what they're actually meant for not shorten the distances

3. "but the Mclaren F1 had low downforce for a reason. It was designed as a low drag car and that has its disadvantages when it comes to downforce." - Exactly cause all they wanted to do was beat the top speed record

4. You say that super slow road and track times for the Mac F1 were just poorly tested like poor conditions or poor drivers, but how come just about everysingle other Mac fan in this forum said what I said and thats because it was N. America version

[Vansquish]

1. "the F1 doesn't have ABS and the Enzo does, so it's not an entirely fair comparison there either" just by saying that tells me you arent very intelligent when it comes too car performance dynamics. ABS is definetely safer for the road, and on a race track would probably be more consistent but to actually shorten braking distances it should have no effect if the guys testing these cars actually know what they are doing.

2. the Carbon Ceramic brakes might,if not probably do have an effect on shortening the braking distance but it wont be a big difference from standard brakes, the CC brakes are desigend for long track life lap after lap with virtually no fade and being much lighter (which very slightly shortens braking) thats what they're actually meant for not shorten the distances

3. "but the Mclaren F1 had low downforce for a reason. It was designed as a low drag car and that has its disadvantages when it comes to downforce." - Exactly cause all they wanted to do was beat the top speed record

4. You say that super slow road and track times for the Mac F1 were just poorly tested like poor conditions or poor drivers, but how come just about everysingle other Mac fan in this forum said what I said and thats because it was N. America version

Dude, don't listen to me or anyone else on the forum, go look up the data yourself, it's the only way you're going to learn. There is not, and never was, a North American version of the Mclaren F1. The poor numbers extracted by Road and Track are typical of their testing regimen, which isn't particularly scientific compared to many of the European magazines available. The fact is, R&T tested the Mclaren at a different place than it does many of its other tests...as a result, not only were the conditions different, but the track conditions were different, and the likelihood of being able to repeat those times at their normal proving grounds is doubtful indeed.

I'll grant you a proper driver is very capable of lockup-pending brake tests even in a non-ABS-equipped vehicle, and this is in practice the best way to slow a car down fast. The Enzo's brakes are more usable more of the time because of the fact that they're ABS-equipped, ergo, real-world braking distances would be shorter than the Mclaren's. The CC brakes are designed for fade-resistant use, yes, of course that's the case, I'm not as dense as you seem to think I am. Of course the fact that the rotating unsprung mass is lower helps to slow the car faster (lower moment of inertia for the disks means that following Newton's Laws, they'll stop more quickly than would heavier steel brakes), but this is a minute factor in shortening stopping distances. The fact is, CC brakes are not only fade-resistant, but more effective. Look at the ceramic-equipped stopping distances of a 996 Turbo compared to those of a non-CC-equipped car, for that matter, compare the same numbers in a CC equipped Mercedes CL versus a non-CC-equipped one. I think you'll find that the car stops not only feet, but meters shorter, not an inconsequential amount if you ask me. The F1's brakes were not stellar, they were merely adequate, even at the time and would certainly not trouble an Enzo's.

As for Point 3 on your shortlist, I beg to differ. Of course Murray was going for the fastest supercar in the world, but he was also attempting to make the best, most well-rounded one ever. In that he has succeeded brilliantly. The car is still the king 12 years after it broke cover. I hold to my earlier statement though...if you put an LM on the same track as an Enzo and told the drivers to go at it, my guess is that there would be little between them, especially if the F1 was equipped with some CC brakes.

[dons5]

first of all we should get the LM out of here, we compare the Enzo Ferrari vs Maclaren F1 PERIOD, do you see Ferrari making an upgraded version of its Enzo no. Lets talk bout the "regular" versions.

and second he succeeded brilliantly in making the worlds most well rounded super car??? BS BS BS first of all its twitchy, super low downforce, brakes like u said even for the time werent that good etc

and 3rd ur telling me its more desirable just because u can carry one more person and it has a true manual? hahaa these are supposed to be built for the road race cars who cares if you can have 1 or 2 passengers. And about the manual ok obviosuly a real manual is more purer and fun but for the track paddle shift all the way. And if i absolutely must have a real manual then get an F40 or F50, not as fast as Mac obviosuly but many people say there even more fun/exciting/thrilling to drive then Mac and it feels like your going faster, (well then again you probably will be through the turns) and noone please ever say the Mac is the purest Car, cause that would be the F50.

[mindgam3]

Firstly, the LM is SLOWER to 60 and 100 than the regular F1 but has better brakes.

The Enzo's brakes are 2 inches bigger and are carbon ceramic so they have a significant advantage over the regular mclaren. If the road F1 had the LM's brakes, let alone up to date carbon ceramic brakes then it would beat the Enzo from 0-100-0.

Secondly, the mclaren doesent produce "super low downforce", if that was the case it would be very unstable at 240 which it is indeed not.

All mclaren fans here agree that the enzo is the faster car around the track. What you are still, after 11 pages of arguing fail to see is that the mclaren was designed as a road going performance car. The enzo was designed as a road going race car.

On the country roads, because of the smaller size, the greater engine flexability, the more controlable manual box, the softer suspension set up and the superior road performance, the mclaren would easily be the winner on the road.

Please back up your sources when you say "many" believe that the F40 and F50 are more fun/exciting/thrilling to drive than the mac.... Tiff Needel, Marting brundle; both ex professional race drivers and rowan atkinson both think the mclaren is still the best, most rounded supercar money can buy.

The mclaren delivers better road performance and better straight line speed whilst still seating 3 people in comfort with enough room for luggage and a stereo system whilst still weighing less than an enzo.... and dont say this isnt important because it was designed to be used as an everyday supercar; these are advantages over the enzo. If track speed was your one and only concern, you'd buy a caterham or radical instead.....

[st-anger]

Dear st-anger, thanks a lot for your comprehensive post on the topic and sorry that I couldn't reply earlier (been pretty busy with work). I agree with many parts of your post (but not all parts), and about the 600bhp thing; we can't really judge this things so easily 'cause there are and have been many of this sort of stories around many manufacturer's (I really hope that this story isn't true, otherwise I'd be very disappointed with my fabled marque).

...hi again - just wanted to know which parts u can´t agree...???

...and well, the 600hp thing ... is from a Ferrari engineer - and i think he should know... :wink:

[Chingachgook]

St-anger, it's alwais a pleasure to read you, you finally told us some interesting new (and astonishing news) about some cars we love so much !
If those things are said by you, I can only believe withoud any doubt :wink:

And also in Auto Motor Und Sport test in te little Levante track in south Italy the CGT was faster on the track compared to the Enzo :wink:

Only one question... I read that the CGT is difficoult to control, a bit nervous specially when the road has some bump ... is it true or it's an error from car magazines ?

Thanks in advance and another time good luck and good work ! keep on building FANTASTIC CARS !!!

:P :P :wink: :wink:

[dons5]

the whole Ferrari Mac thing will never end cause u guys dont know anything when it comes to passion exotica and all that stuff, and how is a regular manual better/faster then a paddle shift on a regular road, maybe more comfortable/smoother but thats it

[Vansquish]

the whole Ferrari Mac thing will never end cause u guys dont know anything when it comes to passion exotica and all that stuff, and how is a regular manual better/faster then a paddle shift on a regular road, maybe more comfortable/smoother but thats it

Good lord you're having a bit of trouble with your PMS (Privately wanting a Mclaren Syndrome/ Pretentious Maranello Snob etc...) this month aren't you? I'm not sure why you'd accuse a bunch of relatively well-versed people on a website geared (you'll have to pardon the pun) towards auto-enthusiasts, of not knowing about passion and exotica.

Nor for that matter does it make any sense to argue about the Manual vs. Paddle-shift thing either. Shift times are faster in the electro-hydraulic systems, but you've got much less flexibility there, as you can't control the clutch, feed in the power appropriately or anything of the sort, you just have to let the car's electronics sort it all out for you. Now I don't know about you, but I'd much rather be in control of those bits of my car, it makes the driving experience that much more fun and challenging. Oh...I guess I could be assuming too much, I mean, you DO know how to drive a stick don't you?

edit: I'm also fairly confident that if you stopped churning up the water the seas would be calmer. You're the source of the debate and the sole reason that the argument has kept up for so long.

[dons5]

yes i do and properly, but if i was tryin to go as fast as i can on real roads i would still be changin gears as fast as possible i wouldnt be playin with clutch for smoother or more exciting funner etc. i want as fast as possible

[Vansquish]

yes i do and properly, but if i was tryin to go as fast as i can on real roads i would still be changin gears as fast as possible i wouldnt be playin with clutch for smoother or more exciting funner etc. i want as fast as possible


Then you're dumb, shouldn't be driving like an idiot on public roads in the first place.

[dons5]

so your tellin me if u wanted to go as fast as possible on a road u would want the shifting to be nice and comfortable and want to be able to controll clutch etc, yes if u were cruising on road but for racing on road no

[mindgam3]

lol, we never said the F1 box was slower than the manual, we know for outright speed the f1 box will be faster.

On a track theres no doubt a f1 box will generally make for a slightly faster car if u had an equivalent manual car but on the road when you dont want to be spinning off or you may have to up/down shift in irregular positions because of varying road conditions/traffic, a manual is more appropriate as you contorl the clutch.

An f1 box just rams the gears in as fast as possible, theres no intermediate that you can control between gears....

[Vansquish]

so your tellin me if u wanted to go as fast as possible on a road u would want the shifting to be nice and comfortable and want to be able to controll clutch etc, yes if u were cruising on road but for racing on road no

No, I'm telling you that you're stupid for wanting to go as fast as you can on a road rather than on a track. It's idiotic and dangerous. As for what I would want to do in such a situation, I'd want a real manual transmission, just because I'd be driving fast doesn't mean that I wouldn't want to be enjoying it. Playstation buttons and paddles are all very well and good, but they take a lot of the enjoyment out of driving.

Mindgam3 hit the nail right on the head, sequential trannys may be faster, but you lose a degree of control. I'd be willing to put bets down on a manual transmission vehicle outpacing an F1-style vehicle on a wet track given a skilled enough driver.

[dons5]

lol u guys make me laugh

[gobs3z]

I always understood that CC brakes were better because they worked in all weather conditions on the spot and didn't have to be heated up. They dont neccessarrily break better or worse, but they are more efficient for racing just because you don't have to heat them up to get their full strength, they work right away. I wouldn't compare how good the breaks are on the car if they're CC or not. Once the non-CC breaks heat up they'll work just as good.

[Vansquish]

I always understood that CC brakes were better because they worked in all weather conditions on the spot and didn't have to be heated up. They dont neccessarrily break better or worse, but they are more efficient for racing just because you don't have to heat them up to get their full strength, they work right away. I wouldn't compare how good the breaks are on the car if they're CC or not. Once the non-CC breaks heat up they'll work just as good.

Actually...carbon brakes work best when they're warm or hot, hence the reason that the Mclaren F1 was NOT outfitted with them. The team behind the Mclaren F1 wanted to use CF brakes, but was unable to do so because they couldn't get them to operate efficiently at relatively low temperatures. When you have conventional steel brakes the opposite tends to be true. When you heat them up enough, this is when they begin to become more slick and this is when one experiences brake fade. CF brakes don't fade as easily because they dissipate heat better, but they also require more heat to work well. When they are working however, they are much more effective.

[dons5]

hey guys i cant remmeber where i read this from but please tell me its total bullshit

"When stopping with conventional steel brakes, you want to apply hard pressure at first, then ease off as the ABS activates. But with the ceramic brakes, you brake lightly at first--then, after the ABS jiggles, you brake harder--but, compared with steel brakes, you are braking for a shorter overall amount of time"

easing off doesnt that mess up the abs? dont u want it planted? brake lightley at first then after abs activates u press harder?? lol what the fuck

[Vansquish]

It depends on what you're trying to do. If you pump the brakes like people were/are trained to do when their cars aren't ABS equipped, you can "fool" the ABS into not kicking in at all. I very nearly had an accident because of this phenomenon, though I wasn't intentionally pumping the brakes, it was just because the guy pulling out of the parking lot in front of me couldn't figure out what the hell he wanted to do. All the same, I don't know that easing off would have the same effect, I think actually releasing the brakes is the only way that it can entirely be defeated.

If you want the brakes to function optimally with ABS, you just hit them and keep your foot planted when the ABS kicks in...works much better that way.

[dons5]

ya exactly, and all this pumping with non abs i think is bs too, i think its jus made for ppl that dont know what there doin to not lock up. I remmeber i was flying down this street one day in my dad junk car and when i went over the crest of the lil hill ( i know stupid of me) there was a car parked, i smoothely but quickly applied brakes really hard i heard them lock for lil a millisecond quickly relases brakes (not all the way) and reapplied. Stooped so quickly. lol if i would of pumped, the only thing pumping now would be a machine pumping my heart in a coma lol

[RC45]

i smoothely but quickly applied brakes really hard i heard them lock for lil a millisecond quickly relases brakes (not all the way) and reapplied.

that is what the 'pumping' method is trying to ask you to do.. ;)

[dons5]

no, i think when they tell ppl to pump he brakes they dont mean press th brakes as hard as possible and if u hear a lockup slightly lift and then reaplly, most ppl arent skilld enough doin that, i jus think it means pump then like on off on off on off, they dont mean brake as hard and long as possible and if u lockup then lift slightly

[deth]

^^^may we all bow down to your infinite knowledge and wisdom. we 'commoners' happen to know nothing. please enlighten us with your 'super-awesome braking skills'. you are clearly the master of all things automobile related.


3. "but the Mclaren F1 had low downforce for a reason. It was designed as a low drag car and that has its disadvantages when it comes to downforce." - Exactly cause all they wanted to do was beat the top speed record

odd how mclaren with their apparently infinite budget could barely best a g35 in terms of Cd, 0.32 and 0.35 respectively.

[dons5]

ok what the hell was the point of that? what is ur problem

[red bullet]

OMG, why does there have to be fighting between tifosi and the rest in F1 and now also in other stuff? :shock:

The F1 was, when it was created, a beast. Nothing came close. Murray had a dream of making the perfect supercar: great downforce, great suspension, great engine, and combining that with the ability of being roomy for tranporting goods and/or people. This last is maybe brilliant, but I find it excessory. A supercar doesn't need that. It's the total opposite of a supercar. Nevertheless, Murray succeeded and made a car, with all the technology Mclaren then had, and since there were the best in F1 then, it was a freakin fast car. It was a glory for Mclaren and a shame for all the other supercar constructors, even Ferrari. It was the beginning of a period when more and more F1technology was used in road cars. Other companies did it too at the moment, but to a far lesser extent than Mclaren. That explains the succes in normal tests. Murray was an F1guy, and had that knowledge. (in other companies, like Ferrari, road cars and F1 were very much seperated) And once they made a raceversion of it, it blew everybody away on the track too. Although I'm a Ferrari fan, that is why I love the F1, it' so damn fast and very good looking too.

The competitors struggled for years to make something like a Mclaren F1. And since they weren't used to using F1tech in roadcars that much, it took them years.
And now, they finally reached a stage where they can beat the F1 in some aspects. Nor Ferrari nor Porsche never intend tot have much luggage room in such cars (why should it), but they could do it. Getting the performance of an F1 into the Enzo or CGT is something else. Problem is that somehow their approach is wrong. If they did it the Mclaren-way (putting a F1designer that wanted to make a dreamcar, onto it), the cars would be even better. Would they beat the F1? Probably not. Murray is still one of the best F1designers in history, although he wasn't a very pleasant man.

Hails to all three of the cars, since they are damn nice and fast supercars, no matter who's fastest. I don't like only because they're fast, they must also have some aura around it, it must have some 'history' and off course beauty. They should be special cars, not average joe cars.

[dons5]

i agree with some pf ur points. but the Mac F1 didnt have great downforce, actually it was known for its lack of downforce (talkin bout the regular version), and second, why is the Mac the fastest car because its top speed is higher? that doesnt mean its "the fastest car". some cars are faster then others at 0-100, or 0-200 or 100-200, or through the "so and so" turn, or under braking from 200-100, or under braking from 100-0, but just because a car can hit a higher top speed doesnt make it the fastest car. Look at F1 in 01, 02 and probably 03 and 04 also, Williams-BMW had the potential to be the car with the highest top speed, but did that mean it was the fastest car no, it got slaugtered. And other way around with renault defenetely not the car with highest top speed in a stragiht line but they were defenetely still competitive. Im not dogging the Mac down here as i love racing cars in general so i love all supercars, but the Mac defenetely wouldnt be my choice around a track Even if the Enzo and CGT were never made i still wouldnt choose the Mac for a track. And lets face it, these are supercars so there supposed to be there best on a track, not on a public road or long straightaway.

[red bullet]

i agree with some pf ur points. but the Mac F1 didnt have great downforce, actually it was known for its lack of downforce (talkin bout the regular version), and second, why is the Mac the fastest car because its top speed is higher? that doesnt mean its "the fastest car". some cars are faster then others at 0-100, or 0-200 or 100-200, or through the "so and so" turn, or under braking from 200-100, or under braking from 100-0, but just because a car can hit a higher top speed doesnt make it the fastest car. Look at F1 in 01, 02 and probably 03 and 04 also, Williams-BMW had the potential to be the car with the highest top speed, but did that mean it was the fastest car no, it got slaugtered. And other way around with renault defenetely not the car with highest top speed in a stragiht line but they were defenetely still competitive. Im not dogging the Mac down here as i love racing cars in general so i love all supercars, but the Mac defenetely wouldnt be my choice around a track Even if the Enzo and CGT were never made i still wouldnt choose the Mac for a track. And lets face it, these are supercars so there supposed to be there best on a track, not on a public road or long straightaway.

The victories in Le Mans prove it's a fast car, especially in straight line. But the downforce should have been good too, since no matter how long the straights are in Le Mans cornering is important, besides the F1 was also good in other GTraces, where more downforce is required. I don't say the F1 is the best in terms of downforce, but it is a sort of low subtop.

And you're that one single aspect of the car, that no other car can match, doesn't make it a great racecar. The total package is important. Look at Formula 1, Ferrari is in every aspect very good. They have one of the best engines, best chassis', best tyres (although that's not entirely correct, Michelin is in fact better)... Only when the whole puzzle fits, you have a great racecar. A great engine doesn't make it a good racer, nor does a great chassis, but all the bits and pieces together can.

[dons5]

exactly ur right about the last paragraph, but about the first paragraph just because a car was extremely succesfull in a race version doesnt mean the road version has tons of downforce too, the downforce of a race car with its front,side and rear body kit, rear wing, and if it had a diffuser which it probably did would all give it wayyyy more downforce/stability then the road car. Look at a Ferrari 360 not a whole lot of downforce as a road car probably less then 200 pounds of downforce but as a race car its making like 2000 pounds of downforce, same thing with the 550/575M which probably has even less downforce then a 360 but as a race version has over 4000 pounds of downforce simply because thats what the rules allow.