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

- 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…

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.

thank god it´s not my comment...

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?

;)

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.

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.