Richard Hammond drives 959 and F40

Discussion in 'Videos and Sounds' started by F50Fanatic, Feb 28, 2011.

  1. #1 F50Fanatic, Feb 28, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    The Porsche fanboy from Korea is gonna queef all over this thread at 6:27

     
  2. F40 <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/PnutSpecial.gif"></A>
     
  3. Richard Hammond is a baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad driver...
     
  4. These two cars needed footage together but cmon with a real drag race !

    And a powerlap with rain and no times? !!!

    Top Gear don't do that to us !
     
  5. Go back to the indies.
     
  6.  
  7. I seriously doubt both cars broke down before the power lap. I think they just made that up.

    Also, Hammond's gear shifting is appalling. You can tell the F40 was going to be faster.
     
  8. the gated shifter cant be easy when trying shift really hard and fast.
     
  9. ..959 (comfrt version!) faster than F40...?
    someone call R. Harris to explain this! <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A>
    even so, they're completly different: 959 is very use-friendly (and fast), F40 seems as like as a H-bomb!
     
  10. Had massive potential but I really disappointing video, especially the lack of a lap.
     
  11.  
  12. I feel sorry for the owners.
     
  13. This F40 is a catalytic version. It's slower than non-catalytic car, but still faster than the 959. This video is stupid!
     
  14. This post is stupid
     
  15. Your post... I owned the two cars, and the 959 isn't quicker..

    From rolling start the non-cat version can compete with the 458
     
  16. Your post... I owned the two cars and the Porsche, and the 959 isn't quicker..

    From rolling start the non-cat version can compete with the 458
     
  17. Your post is stupid. I owned the two cars and the Porsche, and the 959 isn't quicker..

    From rolling start the non-cat version can compete with the 458, being even faster.
    The 959 is fast but it can compete just with the first type of 997 turbo.
     
  18. I never said The 959 was quicker, it's just that this vid isn't about proving one of the cars is quicker.
     
  19. F40 and 959 are old cars. The ones featured in the video, we don't know what kind of conditions they are in. If that F40 was driven a lot over the years, it might be slower than when it was new.

    When it comes to power to weight ratio, 959 is not even in the same league as F40. 959 has similar power to weight as a modern day 911 Turbo, while the F40's power to weight is hard to beat even by today's exotic car standards because of its feather weight. F40 is definitely faster than 959. But I rather have a 959 in my garage.
     
  20. This point could be right, but also it could be wrong. Nick Mason's F40 was tested two times, and tested at kms 23.000 it was faster than new.
    This car is about +30.000 kms so it's not driven a lot. The point is the injection/ignition
    engine conditions over the years. But this point could be reparable with a good service.

    An important point is the F40's version, and looking the gearing on the video, I'm sure this car is the cat-Euro version.
    It's not the fastest F40's version available.

    Yes, when we are talking about F40's performance, we could be in a particular world, because the non-cat version of that car
    is particulary powerful and particulary light, that, how are you saying, is hard to beat even by today's exotic car standards expecially by the range of torque of its engine.
    The 959 is fast, but it's too heavy and it's engine is not so generous like the F40's non-cat engine. But it can compete anyway with its modern 911 turbo.
    I prefer have the F40 in my garage, because it's much more investment. The F40 is a great car for historic enthusiasts, the 959 is not so much at the moment.
    Is possible to look that on the value of both cars. An F40 could be sold at a double price of the 959.
     
  21. This point could be right, but also it could be wrong. Nick Mason's F40 was tested two times, and tested at kms 23.000 it was faster than new.
    This car is about 37.000 kms so it's not driven a lot, 959 is 57.000 kms. The point is the injection/ignition engine conditions over the years. But this point could be reparable with a good service.

    An important point is the F40's version, and looking the gearing on the video, I'm sure this car is the cat-Euro version.
    It's not the fastest F40's version available.

    Yes, when we are talking about F40's performance, we could be in a particular world, because the non-cat version of that car
    is particulary powerful and particulary light, that, how are you saying, is hard to beat even by today's exotic car standards expecially by the range of torque of its engine.
    The 959 is fast, but it's too heavy and it's engine is not so generous like the F40's non-cat engine. But it can compete anyway with its modern 911 turbo.
    I prefer have the F40 in my garage, because it's much more investment. The F40 is a great car for historic enthusiasts, the 959 is not so much at the moment.
    Is possible to look that on the value of both cars. An F40 could be sold at a double price of the 959.
     

Share This Page