Ferrari 360CS Test by "Sport Auto" ...dissapointed

[st-anger]

- Ferrari 360 Challenge Stradale test –

…well the expectations were quite high the 360CS seemed to be a really good sports car and a forerunner on lap times, ... for their masterpice, the Enzo…

and now this: :?

0-60mph ( 0-100kmh): 4.4sec.
0-124mph ( 0-200kmh): 15,5sec.
weight: 1387kg
Nordschleife: 7:56min
Hockenheim: 1:13,00min

well, some might be a bit dissapointed now, and so i am too...
just look at that weight, it´s 200kg heavier then stated, the 0-200kmh time is a major dissapointment IMO, and the NS time is just average although it´d been equipped with P-Zero Corsa´s and the weather´s been fine too ( they already tested it in summer 2003 )
just to compare:

BMW M3 CSL:
NS: 7:50min
Hocke: 1:13,5min
1421kg
0-60: 4,8sec
0-124: 16,7sec
Michelin Pilot Sport Cup

Porsche GT3:
NS: 7:54min
Hocke: 1:13,2min
1420kg
0-60: 4,6sec
0-124: 14,8sec
Michelin Pilot Sport N2

someone typed:

as always with Ferrari "Barks like a Rottweiler but bites like a Chihuahua"

as soon as i´ll get the mag i´ll post a longer review…

[stradale]

That is disappointing indeed. I'd still choose it over a GT3 though.

I'm sure SA know what they're doing, but that chihuahua comment is rubbish.

[st-anger]

....but that chihuahua comment is rubbish.

thank god it´s not my comment...

[RC45]

A Euro-car that disapoints? .... NO!!!! Can it be? And no less a Ferrari....

*crickets chirping*

It's slower than expected?

Heavier than wished for?

*yet more silence*

Bueller? Anyone?

;)

[aawil]

Those numbers don't sound right to me.That sounds slower than a stock 360 at least the 0-60 anyway.Could be driver or the method they test with.I don't put as much stock as I use to in magazine performance tests.

[Chingachgook]

mh seems a great great disappointment, but I know that this kind of test aren't always right at all... I don't believe too much to those performances. Ferrari, Porsche or anything else, magazines are wrong a lot of times

[SFDMALEX]

To be honest St-Anger I think those times are bullshit(not you, the magazine). I dont know wtf they did. EVO tested the 360CS and they said it pulled away from the GT3 like a locomotive. Plus other magazines got much lower 0-60 times. Also wtf is up with the weight being 200kg havier. 200kg is some major weight and there is no way Ferrari would lie about the weight. Common 200kg????!!!!! Even you have to agree that that sounds like bullshit. That car is stripped out to the max, I dont see were those 200kg could come from.


SLower then the CSL????LOL.

I dont even want to know what the result of the CGT Vs. Enzo will be. They will probably say that enzo is half a ton havier then stated and it can only reach 200mph.....

Those numbers are just unrealistic man, say what you want.

[1zippo1]

I thrust st-angers experience in this matter and since he seems to think that car magazine is thrustworthy... it most likely will be.

But what a big dissapointment :(

I still would take it over a GT3 anything, just because of those looks but common I expected much better ... The 0-200 time is really bad if you look at what they told about the car earlier... But the weird thing is there's so much difference with the times that Ferrari handed out themself... Were they doing the times on a downhill? Ferrari wouldn't... and If I remember correctly the times were 4.1 (0-100) & 13.5 (0-200) That's a whole 2 seconds... so very strange IMO. It's a German magazine but common they wouldn't do that, would they? :?

Oh and by the way, I didn't know the CSL posted a better lap then the GT3, quite amazing.

EDIT: Stradalé just pointed out something I forgot: the CS has launch control... so 2 sec difference ... not very likely. And yes Ferrari usually gives out a little bit more optimistic times then Porsche, but this difference is too big IMO.

[SFDMALEX]

Guys that simply cannot be right. It just cant be. Sport Auto says that THIS CAR is HEAVIER then the Modena. Modenas curb weight is 1,390. Now we arent idiots. I dont know maybe these days stripped out cars are heavier and carbon fiber weighs more then steel.....

Those 0-60 times are SLOWER then the Modena. How is that logicaly possible????

Even EVO said that the CS pulled away from the GT3 like a locomotive, they said it was hard for the GT3 to keep up.

Honestly I dont know what sport auto did. I also cant beleave that CSL runs faster then the CS or GT3 at the 'ring.

I wonder how many laps they do at the 'ring before they take the time. For a car to set its best time at the ring, you have to do a shit load of laps. I dont think they do.

But it did run the fastest at Hockenhiem.

[lakatu]

The difference between the CSL and the GT3 appears to be a combination of the test track conditions and the difference in tires. On the different days the test were conducted the asphalt temperature was 34 degrees celsius for the CSL and 16 degrees for the GT3. Additionally, the CSL rides on tires with a more aggressive tread design that resembles racing slicks with few channels to expel water. This allows the CSL to pull 1.4g verses 1.25 for the GT3 in a steady state curve.

IMO if the the GT3 and the CSL were tested under the same conditions with the same tires the GT3 would be victorious.

[alondahan]

To be honest St-Anger I think those times are bullshit(not you, the magazine). I dont know wtf they did. EVO tested the 360CS and they said it pulled away from the GT3 like a locomotive. Plus other magazines got much lower 0-60 times. Also wtf is up with the weight being 200kg havier. 200kg is some major weight and there is no way Ferrari would lie about the weight. Common 200kg????!!!!! Even you have to agree that that sounds like bullshit. That car is stripped out to the max, I dont see were those 200kg could come from.


SLower then the CSL????LOL.

I dont even want to know what the result of the CGT Vs. Enzo will be. They will probably say that enzo is half a ton havier then stated and it can only reach 200mph.....

Those numbers are just unrealistic man, say what you want.

I agree. those numbers look like they forgot to release the handbrake :wink:

[veilsidebr]

GT3 is better, but he sound from the exhaust of the 360 CS is soooo much better.

[Ivanhoe]

how bout the gt3 rs? i know that car can kick the cs' ass like none other... figures anyone?

[hemi_fan]

Its not dissapointing to me, then again, I've never been a ferrari guy. Dont like the look, sound, or ideal of owning one. Id prefer the GT3 or CSL over a 360CS, but thats just me :D

[schnell318]

I think those times are right, maybe they tested the cars in very different conditions... and if not, maybe the 360CS is not as good as it was supposed to be.
Anyway i`m a BMW guy, so my pick would be the CSL.

[SFDMALEX]

how bout the gt3 rs? i know that car can kick the cs' ass like none other... figures anyone?

That is NOT what Evo said.



Shit people....read magazines or something.

[blah]

wow it ran the same time as a Z06, and its cost what 2x as much?

[SFDMALEX]

wow it ran the same time as a Z06, and its cost what 2x as much?

wow...do you read....that whole test was bullshit.

[DeMoN]

This is disappointing indeed, however, in a way I hope it disappoints. There are too many variants of the 360 already. Maybe that will make them stop reproducing it. Anyway, I am sure Ferrari wont let this stay this way. Lets just wait for another review and hope to see it in Top/5th gear.

[Hawk]

Wow that is dissapointing. Would have expected more than that from ferrari. Never been a big fan of 360 anyway.

[RC45]

Maybe now you yahoos will realize that unless tests are conducted on the same day, back to back, they are little more than numbers on paper

When 2 people start throwing HP number in each others faces, for diff. cars, measured on diff. days, only the ill-informed will believe that each dyno chart is an absolute.

The only absolutes you have in car comparisons are things like measured curb weight, the fuel, coolant etc volumes and the measured passenger and luggage capacities.

All the rest, acceleration, braking, skid-pad numbers, slalom speed etc - are so impacted by variables - just use the results as an indication of what the conditions of the day allowed

I am really struggling to understand how a group of supposedly intelligent folks get so bent out of shape - and also fail to understand all the mitigating factors surrounding performance results.

Do you doubt the length, width, height numbers they publish? If not, why would you doubt the number they read off the scale (unless they print a retraction for a typo at a later date) - I already tried to share with everyone that claimed and actual curb weights are VERY different numbers.

Any way - I am just going to sit back and laugh at all y'all struggling to comprehend reality. The reality of tests conducted in different ambient conditions.

LOL

[yg60m]

This is not the only magazine to have recorded these times :
Sport Auto (french mag.) times : 0-62 mph : 5.4 ; 0-124 mph : 15.9 ; standing quarter and km : 13.3 and 23.5.
Le Moniteur Automobile (french and Belgium) : 0-60 : 5.1 ; 0-124 : 15.6 ; 1/4 mile : 13.2 ; standing km : 23.3 not really better than the stock 360 they tested.
NOw on the Autocar they tested it twice, they compare the GT3 RS and the Stradale 2 weeks ago :
GT3 RS Stradale
0-60 mph : 4.4 4.4
0-100 mhp: 9.7 9.7
standing qtr: 12.7 12.7
standing km: 22.8 22.6
Slightly better but not that impressive yet, the RS is heavier and less powerful.
They tested it on September in Italy too :
GT3 Stradale CSL
0-60 mph: 4.5 4.8 4.8
0-100 mph: 9.3 10.5 10.9
test on same wet track : 1:56.7 1:54.6 1:59.5
test on same dry track : 1:12.0 1:12.6 1:11.5
The CSL is faster and it has the same Pirelli Corsa tyres.

[HoboPie]

I don't like the test much myself, but it doesn't seem to really be all that outrageous. I mean the Nurburgring time is a little unexpected, but it is a direct competitor with a car like the GT3, but was never really tested at the ring.

At Hockenheim where it is probably more in its element it beats both of its immediate rivals, the GT3 and CSL. In fact it is closer to the Pagani Zonda at Hockenheim than the Zonda is to the CGT.

I think the conditions or car might not have been perfect and it seems a little odd that even on paper it is only competitive with the 360, but in track times it sits right with its rivals.

[levensnevel]

RC,

you took the words rigth out of my mouth :wink:

[Chingachgook]

I don' believe the Stradale is so heavy, and it's so slow. It's faster than the standard 360, it has more bhp, less weight and it's stripped down. The GT3 has a little advantage in acceleration because of the engine behind the rear wheels, so it has a lot more traction, but c'mon! I don' believe it at all! I don't believe those performances figures, there are too much differences between wvery test that the 0-60 and so on times are only useful to make an idea of how fast the car can go, but the essence of every car isn't in cold numbers.

[noosee]

I can't beleave that M3 was the fastest :)

[HoboPie]

I could see it happening at the Ring. Not all normal conditions come into play as much there. For I example I think confidence is more a factor there than at another circuit.

That said, I was under the impression the Stradale was perhaps not quite as quick turning in as the GT3 for example, but felt more planted in the corners, more confidence inspiring.

Maybe on a lot of corners at the ring that just translated into massive understeer, but it does seem a little odd. I guess we will have to wait for someone to translate some of it when the article is available.

I know someone at supercars.net did that with CGT supertest

[st-anger]

...well, before i want to talk about all that in detail i want to read the article by myself, i´ve only got these figures from a guy with close ties to "Sport Auto" but i´m sure the figures are correct...
about the credibility of that article or generally about "SA"..., well IMO "SA" is THE car mag, definitely. i know EVO and all the competitors too, but the “Supertest” figures from “SA” are all set up by one and the same driver, Horst v. Saurma and not from various editors.
and one thing is for sure, any one who knows HvS will tell you that he´s definitely THE man for the “Supertest”. He´s probably one of the most experienced drivers on the NS and clocked thousands of laps there and on many other tracks round the world. He´s also a pro race driver, e.g. every year he´s driving the 24h race on the NS, so he really knows how to drive a sportscar, so it couldn´t have been the driver, definitely NOT!
about the weight, well all what I can say is that “SA” has always been 99% right with their weight figures, I know that, because I know how heavy the Porsche modells are due to my work, and all the figures in the mag have been right so far when we compared them with our figures. As someone already pointed out, “SA” weight figures are DIN figures, the 1180kg stated by Ferrari might be the dry weight, i´ve heared that some times before that Ferrari´s quoting the dry weight in their specifications, so I don´t know if other mags like EVO actually really measure the weight of the car before they test it and if this´s really the DIN weight…
about that lap times, especially in Hocke, i´ve already posted that some weeks ago in “Porsche news” that i´m quite sure that the Ferrari´s ( 360CS & Enzo ) will be faster at Hockenheimring, but slower on the NS, and now we know it for sure…
so I believe in the “SA” figures and in HvS, but I ´ll wait for the mag to arrive to know it for sure…

[yg60m]

I beleive the "SA" figures too because it's a very serious mag and as i already post it, these figures have been recorded by other mags too, and they have the same opinion about the sound but very linear acceleration. In fact they were much impressed by the GT3 engine (except the sound).
For me, everything is coherent even the weight that was quoted at 1380 kg by "Le moniteur automobile".

[dylan99]

the other reviews of the car were great so I think they didn't tested it right or they did an other sort of review. it is still a great car if it is true

[SilverPhoenix]

A Euro-car that disapoints? .... NO!!!! Can it be? And no less a Ferrari....

*crickets chirping*

It's slower than expected?

Heavier than wished for?

*yet more silence*

Bueller? Anyone?

;)


I think that is the same time the new Z06 got for NS

[st-anger]

it is still a great car if it is true

that´s definitely for sure, the 360CS is my favourite Ferrari nowadays and i´d love to see some better figures from it, but as i said, i´m sure there wasn´t anything wrong with the "SA" test...

[BACR]

Figures arnt that good, GT3 would probs be my pick, i like the styling of the 360 tho

[yg60m]

the other reviews of the car were great so I think they didn't tested it right or they did an other sort of review. it is still a great car if it is true

We only talk about times not the pleasure it gives, all the mags i read are agree to say the Stradale is a wonderful car to drive and that the accelerations are not that importants regarding the sensations they get from driving this Ferrari.
We are only talking from acceleration times wich are disappointed, not driving sensations. On this subject, all the mags are agree to say it's one of the most fantastic Ferrari.

[scubywrxr]

thats such a disappointment, i hope those figures are wrong.... especially after the evo article. RC has a good point, the 3 cars need to be tested under exactly the same test conditions for the time to be relevant.

[SFDMALEX]

thats such a disappointment, i hope those figures are wrong.... especially after the evo article. RC has a good point, the 3 cars need to be tested under exactly the same test conditions for the time to be relevant.

For sure.

Those figures just sound wrong to me. Especially the accleration. Mainly because of the EVO article were they said that the car pulled away from the GT3 on straights quite fast.

[HoboPie]

For me the figures are not that far off. I slightly off test would get these figures. I mean didn't top gear get like 4 seconds 0-60 for the Enzo when did the media Fiorano test. Same say, probably same car with a pro driver.

I just want to hear some of the subjective comments. I do see evidence though that the Ferraris are designed almost exclusively for performance on an F1 type track because it really does excel in that part of the test. Some might say there performance is biased a little too far that way, but I like it.

[HoboPie]

sorry I have only have a second to post, but the scans are here

http://speed.supercars.net/Board?viewThread=y&fID=3&tID=100492

[SFDMALEX]

After taking another look at the overall picture we really cant believe anything. I mean it is clear that the 360CS beats both competitors around Hockenheim, but how is it possible when its so "slow" on paper, and how is it possible when its as "heavy" as the 360M?

Those numbers just look wrong to me. And to be honest those Nordschleife times are irelevant, because to set a cars best time around the 'ring you REALLY need to know your car, and now the track. The 360 is a very twitchy and tough car to drive. Who ever tested that car Im sure does not know the car well. Just think about it. It takes about 8minutes to get around the ring, you need to do a lot of laps do get the best time down, I dont think they spend a lot of time.

Second of all, Im not going to fall for the figures since this seem to be the only magazine that got such bad numbers.

Third of all how the heck did they get the CSL to be the fastest. I mean...how???Lol? How?

Even by looking at the ring times in the thread HoboPie posted link to, the times set dont make sense.

Ohh and getting back to the CSL...It got almost slick tyres on, so that may be the case of the result, but I dont see how its far to compare a car with slicks to cars without slicks.

Just look at these times. Do they make any sense to you?
http://speed.supercars.net/boardpics/2003-10-23/1721108-ajzahna.jpg

[HoboPie]

The thing is the CS beats the CSL by about the same percentage at Hockenheim as the CSL beats the CS at the ring.

The Ferrari cars do seem setup with very impressive, but limited suspension settings. If they are run where they are designed for they are almost unbeatable, but not anywhere else.

The F1 influence is massive, some might say too massive.

[SFDMALEX]

The thing is the CS beats the CSL by about the same percentage at Hockenheim as the CSL beats the CS at the ring.

The Ferrari cars do seem setup with very impressive, but limited suspension settings. If they are run where they are designed for they are almost unbeatable, but not anywhere else.

The F1 influence is massive, some might say too massive.

True. Very true when I think about it.

Ferraris are setup to be very responsive for tight short circuits. The 360 is very twitchy and VERY hard to drive fast. NOt hard in way that its imposbile, you just need to know the car well to drive it fast.

NOw twitchy is not good for Nordshcleife. For the ring you need a numb, dull setup sinse its very highspeed and you dont want your card to change direction extremly fast at 270+ or else it will fly.

And yes it does accel at HOckenheim, but the numbers this magazine got are just wrong.