motor

SFDMALEX · 10-11-2004, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by 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

Watch it.

Cheap shots are not necessary.

SFDMALEX · 10-11-2004, 11:30 AM

Originally Posted by mindgam3

Originally Posted by SnakeBitten

Originally Posted by 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

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

HoboPie · 10-11-2004, 05:44 PM

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 · 10-11-2004, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by 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

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...

mindgam3 · 10-11-2004, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by SFDMALEX

Originally Posted by mindgam3

Originally Posted by SnakeBitten

Originally Posted by 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

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

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

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

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 · 10-11-2004, 06:33 PM

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 · 10-11-2004, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by 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!!

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 · 10-11-2004, 08:38 PM

Originally Posted by 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!!

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 · 10-11-2004, 08:40 PM

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 · 10-11-2004, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

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/h...april/enzo.asp

SnakeBitten · 10-11-2004, 09:07 PM

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...