sport auto Supertest: Ford GT

"if WR has good race results he will also be fast on a time attack."

Wait a minute. Where did I say he would *not* be fast on a time attack? I would like for you to show me *where* I ever said (or even implied) that he would be slow. This is the second post now where you seem to think I feel WR is a slow driver, when I haven't said a single thing to that effect. Show me where I said it.


"when Stuck was racing,WR was developing porsches on the Nurburgring....think,use your brain.ok...orsches-Sport Auto-lap times....."

And when WR was developing Porsches on the Nurburgring, Stuck was racing and developing BMW's on the Nurburgring (and at other tracks as well). He even managed to get his name to a 1-2 finish in the 24H Rennen some years back, didn't he? Are you trying to tell me that von Saurma has more experience behind the wheels of BMW's than Stuck?


"you want me to know every lap time that Stuck and WR did in theirs carreers by heart??????"

Did I ask for that????? No. I asked a simple question, as it relates to street cars in this thread: When's the last time these two went head to head in the same production car under identical conditions? If you don't know, just say it. You don't need to ramble on pointlessly about some races they took part in a decade and a half ago.


"top gear track has bigger straights and technicaly it looks easy.just look at the lap times of the celebrity guests."

I suppose little cars like the Cayman S and Lotus Exige took advantage of the big straights and lack of technical difficulty to beat cars like the Corvette and Viper (by 2+ seconds), while at the HRing, they are actually slower than those two cars, huh?
Looking at the celebrity lap times is pretty pointless. What happens when you overcook a corner in that econo sedan? You get some understeer, you might get two wheels off the ground if you're incredibly sloppy with your line. And celebrity motorheads like Jay Kay and Jodie Kidd should be futher up the chart, but curiously they're not. You can't really draw any conclusions from celebrity lap times. If the track is easy, Ellen MacArthur in a CGT should set a lap time on a par with the Stig. Do you think that's likely?


"Sport Auot weighs their cars with the tank full and no driver or luggage.
Sport auto measured a difference of 80kg between the M5 and M6."

And Sport Auto found that the M6 weighed less than BMW claimed. Who's lying?
I could swear that Porsche weighed the CGT (at 1380 kg) under the DIN standard. Is that not the case?
In any event, Porsche has updated the CGT's weight at its site in accordance with the EU standard:
http://www.porsche.com/germany/models/carrera-gt/modelinformation/technicalspecifications/
And yup, it's +68 kg (for driver) and +7 kg (for luggage) for a grand total of 1455 kg as expected. However, Sport Auto weighed the CGT at 1475 kg in their Supertest. That's without driver, without luggage, and 90% fuel, yet it weighs 20 kg *more* than Porsche claims the CGT weighs with a driver, full tank, and 7kg's of luggage?? That's an even greater discrepancy than between Sport Auto and BMW weights. Yet, why don't you call Porsche "liars" for not listing the correct weight of the CGT?


"the carbon fiber roof doesn't explain a difference of 20,000 euros.also the 6 doesn't have any particular parts that aren't in other BMWs(except of course for the body."

Whoa, where did I say the fiber roof alone explains the difference of 20,000 Euros? I never did. I put it as *one* possible explanation after the production aspect for a reason. From the BMW press release, there are other areas that were lightened:
"A tour around the car reveals weight-saving on every plane, including the world’s first carbon fibre (CFP) roof in series production, CFP front and rear bumper supports, aluminium doors and bonnet, thermoplastic front wings and a sheet moulding compound (SMC) boot lid."
Apparently the rear window is also thinner and lighter, there are different (lighter) wheels, and can you even get a full leather dash and leather central shifter console in the standard 6?
And the body is still a very important (some would say the single most important) part of a car, so of course there will be expense in building it. They also had to make modifications to the body to accept he new engine and roof.
BMW will obviously pass some of the cost of development onto the consumer.

 

you said it was pointless to show you race results when you had asked for lap times.

i think Stuck never developed stock BMW's.

have i ever wrote that BMW are liars?

you listed some of the options available for M6 but even if the M5 and M6 have no option there is still a difference of 20,000 euros.

 

And how do you come to the conclusion that I think Rohrl is a "slow" driver??

I've read a while back that he's had a hand in testing a lot of BMW's over the years, particularly the M cars.

No, what you wrote was:
"do you have evidence of it not being a lie or at least misinterpretated"
Well, it can't really be misinterpreted. It's written in plain letters and numbers in the link I provided. That implies you think the lap time is a lie, just as you've pointed to the M5's weight not matching up as BMW somehow being "inaccurate" with their claims. Well, shit, guy, that applies to other companies as well. Including Porsche, yet you have no problem ignoring that fact.

No, most of things aren't options (aside from the full leather interior in the M6, which you can't really get in a standard 6 from what I've seen). Those are standard items, and are naturally important aspects that differentiate the M6 from the standard 6. Considering the standard 6's dashboard and shifter console is different from the standard 5's, and considering there are all of those other *standard* modifications that make an M6 an M6, then your statement "also the 6 doesn't have any particular parts that aren't in other BMWs" is rather specious as it pertains to the standard 6, and even more so as it regards the M6.
But like I said, the main difference in price is probably due to more limited volume. And BMW would be stupid to not pass the cost of additional testing and development over the standard 6 onto the consumer.

 

you asked for lap times.i gave you race results to prove you how fast he is.but you absolutely want lap times.i wondered why.maybe because race results weren't enough to prove which driver is faster and that Stuck is faster because he did the pole position?

i haven't heard or read about anything like that.i read many german magazines and i think that this is a noticable detail that deserves to be mentioned.but i really never heard of it.

if you believe in that lap time,it's fine for me.but even at m5board.com you won't find many people that will agree with you.
about porsche:you know why i have the tendancy to believe some of the rumoured lap times?there isn't a 15 or 22 seconds difference between the rumoured lap time of porsche and Sport Auto.and as far as i know,porsche never confirmed the CGT lap time of 7:28.they make publicity with the 7:32.you know why?because people can't argue if it is true or not.it's a fact.they want people to be able to look at the evidence and not wonder if it is possible or not.maybe porsche should let Stuck or a GM test driver driving the CGT.maybe a 7:10 is possible...or maybe they should claim a 7:10,make some pretty pictures of WR posing in front of the CGT,Bild will publish the article and it will be used as evidence.

true these aren't BMW options.

why do you belive in the 7:52 of the M5?let me guess....because it would be the only way to explain other fantastic lap times??

 

PLease stop talking about THAT 7:52. It's not true.
and about weight of CGT, Porsche declairs 1380 Kg: kerb weight, but WITHOUT A/C and HiFi system, free optionals...

 

Già mafalda, ma qualcuno non diceva che la Ford GT doveva andare più dell' "F" nel 100-200 Km/h e oltre 200 Km/h??? 7.8-8 sec di passaggio e 0-250 Kmh 20.1 sec!! hai ragione, la punizione gli stà bene!!! AH AH AH AH AH

http://www.autobild.de/test/neuwagen/artikel.php?artikel_id=10389&artikel_seite=3

http://www.autobild.de/aktuell/reportagen/artikel.php?artikel_id=6450&artikel_seite=4

Idem per la SLR, CGT, S7 e Zonda 7.3 S...AH AH AH AH AH..

 

DTA:
Uh, you said WR is one of the best drivers ever. (As if that makes the difference as to whether or not Stuck would be faster than von Saurma in a BMW. LOL!) Then you talk about WR's race history, as if that makes a damn difference, considering these two rarely overlapped in the same series, and when they did, Stuck seemed to hold his own pretty well.


"but i really never heard of it."

Stuck is now one of the 'Ring taxi drivers of the new E60 M5. He's been a factory BMW racer in both production-based and prototype cars. He set lapped the 'Ring in the that X5 LM prototype. It's not really a stretch for him to be among the BMW production car test drivers.
Yeah, and some of those m5 board members also believe Sabine can lap the 'Ring in the low 8's in the old E39 M5 (well, she *did* say it after all). What's your point?


"there isn't a 15 or 22 seconds difference between the rumoured lap time of porsche and Sport Auto.and as far as i know,porsche never confirmed the CGT lap time of 7:28.they make publicity with the 7:32.you know why?because people can't argue if it is true or not.it's a fact."

It's a fact *on that day*. Remember that initial CGT test that Sport Auto did in less than ideal conditions? They figured a time of 7:40. That's 12 seconds off Porsche's lowest known figure. As I remember, it was WR who mentioned in some article that the 7:28 was merely an estimate from hand-timing one of the laps, and he said he could have gone faster. How much faster is anyone's guess, but your 7:10 estimate sounds almost as dumb as the van + handbrake example.
Obviously, the faster you go around the 'Ring, the smaller the discrepancies will be in lap times, as it gets that much harder to gain the extra edge lap after lap.


"why do you belive in the 7:52 of the M5?let me guess....because it would be the only way to explain other fantastic lap times??"

Errr...wrong guess. Look at the guy in this thread who fantastically dismisses the *variables* of conditions (even on parts of the track at the same time), drivers, particular vehicle condition, etc. You don't have a shred of proof, but of course, it's all lies! This is the same guy who takes TopGear lap times as gospel (the SLR *must* be faster than a GT3 RS), Best Motoring "battles" as gospel, and 'Ring lap times as gospel. There can *never* be any variation in these lap times, and if there is, it must be a lie! /sarcasm

 

You were at every single one of those BMW test sessions? Amazing.
How do you know it was WITHOUT A/C and HiFi? Do you have an interior pic of a CGT without those items? I'm wondering what that even looks like.

 

CGT & SLR: ~452.000 Euro
Ford GT: 177.000 Euro
<A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/confused.gif"></A>

 

yes it makes a difference to be slower than one of the greatest drivers ever by an average of 4-5 seconds.being slower than agood driver by 21 seconds is very very unlikely.

Is there any proof of Stuck being the test driver for BMW?did you know that he's a co-commentator for the german TV in the F1 events?and he still makes races....he seems to be very busy.

the 7:40 was clocked when the track was partially wet and the traction couldn't be switched off.
i don't know what's wrong with my 7:10 lap time.i believe in it.i saw pictures of the CGT on the Nurburgring.

"You don't have a shred of proof, but of course, it's all lies!"
you don't have any proof if it's true,so it must be true,right?
Best Motoring,Topp Gear and Sport Auto...well for there are enough different sources to make my personal opinion.you can add Quattroruote in the list.

noticed that Sport Auto and Porsche never had good conditions and good drivers?only GM and BMW.

 

mafalda, ma qualcuno non diceva tempo fa che in progressione sia la Ford GT, sia la Saleen S7 aspirata, sia la Zonda 7.3, sia la Carrera GT che la SLR andavano di più in progressione della vecchia Ferrari biturbo da 478cv??? mi sfotteva quasi e diceva di metterle a fianco nel 1a, 2a, 3a, 4a..5a... rispetto alla vecchia Ferrari?? è quello il modo per capire il valore di cosa ti può "offrire in movimento" una vettura? non vede la superiorità che ha rispetto a molte già dopo lo stacco della frizione o 40/60 Km/h anche partendo in movimento dalla 1a? ora: non credi che questa persona si sia letteralemte sbagliata? e abbia insistito un pò troppo sulla sua versione? ti ricordi quando mise in evidenza la Ford GT col test di Motortrend? e dette troppo valore al test della Carrera GT di Road&Track? insistendo in maniera testarda sul test della Saleen S7 aspirata di MotorTrend? mi aveva scassato coi suoi inutili e infondati calcoli al metro al secondo!!! basta legggere e valutare i tempi intermedi per verificare il livello di progressione o incremento di velocità!!!non importa rompersi il capo con la 'chimica'..(AH AH AH)..leggi, valuti i tempi intermedi e ti chiarisci!!! bene, mafalda, come possiamo vedere, il tipo in realtà si è preso una bella passata, spesso su questo forum c'è gente un pò troppo di parte su alcune vetture (lo saro anche io, ma..) e fanno valere un pò troppo le loro versioni insistendo su opinioni dalle basi non proprio reali. basta. questo per dire che tanti di questi tipi, inizialemnte devono imparare a leggere gli articoli e valutare bene i tempi e i tests, poi magari anche qualche volta il sederino sopra alle vetture o alcune vetture questi tizzi ce lo devono mettere prima di fare voce grossa, almeno si renderebbero meglio conto, se appunto gli è difficile leggere i numeri, le vere differenze che ci possono essere tra l'una e l'altra. Riguardo alle prestazioni, i tempi, ecc, ecc, a mio avviso per farsi un quadro generale completo, non bisogna prendere un solo test, anche per farsi l'opinione di una vettura, ma dobbiamo averne valutati molti, e valutarli attentamete, clima, temperatura,... solo in questo modo hai realmente un quadro generale della singola vettura e/o del grosso parco di supercars che abbiamo oggi. Valutando bene, capisci dove quella vettura ha il suo punto di forza e dove l'altra ha il suo punto debole. Ma c'è chi in questo forum è davvero pietoso nel valutare tutto ciò e non lo ammette.
Riguardo alla Ford GT, mafalda, come hai visto il suo passaggio 100-200 Km/h è stato evidenziato da Autobild in 7,8 sec, mentre il raggiungimento dei 250 Km/h in 20,1 sec, confermando che il 100-250 Km/h (dato che in altre prove fece 8 sec) si può archiviare bene in 16,1 sec.
Tempo fa qualcuno non volle ammettere che la vecchia Ferrari F40 fosse più rapida, come lo è, anzi lo è più rapida anche della Zonda 7.3, S7 aspirata, SLR e minimamente anche rispetto alla Carrera GT se le confronti nel range di progressione che va da 100 Km/h fino ai 240-245 Km/h. Ma questo qualcuno non era intenzionato a capirlo, dava voce grossa e prendeva solamente in considerazione progressioni fortuite o effettuate in condizioni ottimali, insomma progressioni che non stanno ad evidenziare il suo medio e concreto livello di progressioni, anzi lo sopravvalutano. Come abbaimo visto la Ferrari F40, nonostante la sua anziana età è ancora capace di offrire prestazioni di elevatissimo livello, con passaggi 100-200 Km/h nei pressi dei 6.4 sec, toccare 260 Km/h in 20 sec (NON 250 Km/h) ed effettuare i 100-260 Km/h in ca. 15.5s, il tutto migliorabile dal test che effettuò la risvista FastLane nel '93 quando dopo alcuni tentativi venenro raggiunte le 170 Mph in 22.33sec con 0-60 mph nei pressi dei 3.9-4.0 sec. Capacità che per una bella fetta sono migliori e/o di pari livello rispetto alla Ferrari Enzo, escluso sul veloce, della quale noi abbimo molti tests, ma nel suo 'migliore test', 'più convincente test' effettua passaggi 100-180 Kmh e 100-200 Kmh di 4.8s e 6.3s, peggiore nel primo caso e migliore o uguale nel secondo caso al più convincente test della F40. In tutti gli altri è mediamente di maggior vantaggio la vecchia Ferrari, ripeto, escluso sul veloce. E rispetto alle altre Supercars elencate, quali ottengono realmente ("""dico: realmente""") tempi inferiori ai 6.4s e 18.4s rispettivamente nel 100-200 Km/h e nel 60-170 Mph???
Ma ancora qualcuno non ammette. Ciao mafalda, ci sentiamo.

(NB. la traduzione, se vi interessa leggere il mio tread, fatevela voi a questo giro che io mi sono rotto...arrivederci.)

 

177.000: buy ford
452.000: buy Porsche!!
You has told us some months ago "The Ford GT is faster than F40". The European (AMuS, autobil, Sport Auto) test has been showed to you and to the world the opposite: 0-200 ~12.0 and 0-250 20.1s strarting better than F40 (F40 did 200 Kph 11.0 - 11.6 and 260 Kph 20.0s)
I was right, you was wrong.

 

Si mafalda e non solo, mi venne a comparare insistentemente la F40 alla Saleen S7 col test di Motortrend, me lo ricordo bene
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0309_v8_sal/index4.html
http://www.autospinetti.it/suppl.%20sito%20AutoSpinetti/f40%204r.htm
http://www.autospinetti.it/suppl.%20sito%20AutoSpinetti/f40%20ams.htm
e ripetutamente con i suoi calcoli per farmi notare la spinta in m/s, ma si vede in maniera evidente che già nell 80-160 Kmh (50-100 mph), la S7 non compete con la F40, poi mi venne a dire dell'uscita dal 1/4 miglio, ma la S7 è in quel caso in vantaggio di un cambio di marcia in meno. La S7 in questo test effettua il 30-100 Mph (48-160 Km/h) in 6.2s nel test che SportAuto fece con la F40/962C la rossa ottenne 5.8s, Fast Lane ha abbassato a 5.1s. E' evidente che la Ferrari sia più rapida. Poi la Zonda 7.3 di Autocar, cadde nell'inganno dell'errore all'uscita del Km da fermo, rilevarono erroneamente 170 Mph invece dei più verosimili 160 Mph, ma analizzando è evidente che la F40 in progressione è leggeremente più rapida della Pagani. Fece 20.8s sul Km da fermo partendo molto meglio. Poi è evidente quello detto sopra se gli mettiamo in confronto alla Pagani, la progressione dei tests europei della Carrera GT, in confronto ai 20.4s della Porsche, la Pagani non avrebbe fatto 20.8s se avesse progredito meglio della Porsche, infatti a 150 mph la Zonda è dietro 0.2s alla CGT, 4 decimi perchè evidentemente oltre 150 mph la Pagani cede bruscamente alla Porsche (e 160mph in uscita non 170mph).
http://www.autocar.co.uk/RoadTest_FullData.asp?RT=176638
http://www.autocar.co.uk/RoadTest_FullData.asp?RT=206481
http://supercarfreak.net/gallery/album106/7_G


20.4s Porsche (0-60mph 3.7s)
20.8s Pagani (0-60mph 3.7s)

la Porsche spinge di più, dalle 60 mph alla fine dei 1000m !!point!! e non solo, la prima esce a 165 Mph, la seconda sicuro non 170, ma 160 Mph!!!

Poi se giustamente la Porsche Carrera GT è la più performante della lista, CGT, SLR, S7 aspirata e Ford GT basta solo prendere lei in considerazione nel confronto che già le altre sono matematicamente spacciate.

La risposta VERA di tutto la dette Autobild (non i vari R&T, Motortrend etc, etc..), la Ford GT quando tocca 100 Km/h la F40 tocca 95 Km/h, ma quando la ford GT tocca 250 Km/h la F40 tocca 260 Km/h, + 15 Km/h tra 100-250 Km/h in piena progressione!!!
http://www.autobild.de/test/neuwagen/artikel.php?artikel_id=10389&artikel_seite=3
http://www.autobild.de/aktuell/reportagen/artikel.php?artikel_id=6450&artikel_seite=4

Autobild rilevò per la Porsche Carrera GT tempi collimanti perfettamente coi test di AMuS e Autocar, li potremmo mettere uno sopra l'altro che combacerebbero i dati benissimo.
La Porsche Carrera GT, la più performante della lista (CGT, SLR, S7, Zonda 7.3 e Ford GT) ha ottenuto
0-100 Km/h 3.8s
0-200 Km/h 10.7s
0-250 Km/h 17.2s

Ai quali dovremmo aggiungere
0-241 km/h 15.8s (0-150 mph di Autocar)
20.4s @ 266 KmH (per lo standing Km di AMuS)
0-300 Km/h 34.2s (AMuS)

Insomma affiancando questa curva di dati a quelli forniti dai test della F40 arriviamo a notare che:
http://www.autospinetti.it/suppl.%20sito%20AutoSpinetti/f40%204r.htm
http://www.autospinetti.it/suppl.%20sito%20AutoSpinetti/f40%20ams.htm

la F40 rispetto alla Porsche Carrera GT, la più performante della lista delle altre supercars concorrenti, riece a essere più rapida nel 100-200 Km/h e a tenere bene fino a quasi 250 Km/h, figuriamoci raffrontata con le altre!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Porsche Carrera GT
0-100 Km/h 3.8s
0-200 Km/h 10.7s
0-250 Km/h 17.2s
0-266 Km/h 20.4s ( 0-260 KmH circa 19.1-19.2s)

Ferrari F40 (Quattroruote 32°C temperatura)
0-100 Km/h 4.56s
0-200 Km/h 11.30s
0-240 Km/h 16.39s
0-260 Km/h 20.23s

La Carrera GT potrebbe effettuare il suo 100-260 Kmh in circa 15.3-15.4s.
La F40 di Quettroruote ha impiegato 15.67s
La F40 di Auto ha impiegato 15.56s
Ma sappiamo che Fastlane fece meglio considerando che per 0-60 Mph 3.94s è arrivata a 170 Mph in 22.33s

Resoconto: Se la F40 è più rapida nel 100-200 Kmh della Porsche Carrera GT e riece a tenerla bene fino alla soglia dei 250-260 Km/h figuriamoci in confronto alle altre: SLR, S7, Zonda S e Ford GT.
Sempre considerando che ottiene anche miglori 80/100-180 Km/h e/o 80/100-200 Km/h rispetto alla Enzo.

Buona serata. - F40 Le Mans -

 

No, I didn't say the Ford GT is faster than the F40. I said there is at least one test out there that shows the Ford GT, in the right conditions, can produce a time faster than some times produced by the F40.
Are you seriously dumb enough to think this is the best the Ford GT has ever done?

 

DTA:
"Is there any proof of Stuck being the test driver for BMW?did you know that he's a co-commentator for the german TV in the F1 events?and he still makes races....he seems to be very busy."

I read that somewhere a long time ago, around the time the E46 M3 was released. If I find it, I'll let you know. And no, he's not *the* test driver for BMW, just like WR isn't the only Porsche test driver.
The guy also managed to co-pilot the top *2* cars at the 24 Hours of Nurburgring some years back. Considering the time it takes for testing for, qualifying, and racing in that race (not to mention his race schedule in North America), and now combined with his duties as 'Ring taxi driver and BMW driver training, it's not a stretch to think he'd have some hours of testing BMW road cars.


"the 7:40 was clocked when the track was partially wet and the traction couldn't be switched off.
i don't know what's wrong with my 7:10 lap time.i believe in it.i saw pictures of the CGT on the Nurburgring."

Did you see pictures of the CGT on the 'Ring with Rohrl or Porsche claiming a 7:10? Didn't think so.


"Best Motoring,Topp Gear and Sport Auto...well for there are enough different sources to make my personal opinion.you can add Quattroruote in the list."

But there are contradictions in lap times between them. Your only explanation (because we know it *can't* be due to variations in drivers, conditions, track, etc) is that one of them *must* be lying. But then you think the SLR is faster around a short track than the GT3 RS, even though you won't come right out and say it. Haha.


"noticed that Sport Auto and Porsche never had good conditions and good drivers?only GM and BMW."

That's not so, you said so yourself up there: the CGT's first test was done on a damp track. How often does Sport Auto re-test the same model to take advantage of better conditions? How often does von Saurma *beat* Rohrl's time? If the two are that close in skill behind the wheel of a Porsche, the laws of probability dictate that half of the time, von Saurma should be faster.

 

"But there are contradictions in lap times between them. Your only explanation (because we know it *can't* be due to variations in drivers, conditions, track, etc) is that one of them *must* be lying. But then you think the SLR is faster around a short track than the GT3 RS, even though you won't come right out and say it. Haha"
the top gear track is longer and is more simple than the Hockenheimring.power wins over cornering speed.the Enzo beated the CGT by 0.8 seconds.in the test of Quattroruote the CGT was faster and in their conclusion they said that the CGT would simply have a better handling.and as far as i know the GT3 RS has a better handling than the SLR.btw Quattroruote is an italian magazin.
what about the difference of 4 seconds between a F1 driver and an amateur around the top gear track?you haven't said anything about that but you simply believe that 5 seconds between 2 drivers,that nearly do that for a living,is absolutly normal.haha

"That's not so, you said so yourself up there: the CGT's first test was done on a damp track. How often does Sport Auto re-test the same model to take advantage of better conditions? How often does von Saurma *beat* Rohrl's time? If the two are that close in skill behind the wheel of a Porsche, the laws of probability dictate that half of the time, von Saurma should be faster."
It was actually the first time that Sport Auto had to test a car in wet conditions because it was a CGT they couldn't keep it a few days more to have a dry track.so they had to wait a few weeks and made it an official time attack.
actually Sport Auto re-test some cars quite often.the SRT-10 has now a lap time 1:14,3 around the HR.

this was my last post.i have other things to do.time will prove you wrong...again.

 

mafalda, quello non ha terra sotto i piedi, ora si mette in difesa e prova il contrario. Tipico di chi ha capito di aver spacciato delle cavolate. Prima diceva che la Ford GT (come tutte le altre..) era più veloce o rapida della Ferrari F40 , ora c'ha da dire che lui intendeva che produceva tempi migliori. Si..si..si...
Speriamo l'abbia capita e gli serva di lezione...

GUIBO(in Italiano):
alcuni mesi fa tu dicesti che vetture come la Ford GT, Saleen S7, Zonda S, Carerra GT e Mercedes SLR erano più rapide della Ferrari F40 e mi smentisti ripetutamente la mia opinione.
Ora dici che la ford GT produce in alcuni casi tempi migliori.
Ok, sui tempi dei 1/4 mile!!, la Ford GT, Saleen S7, Zonda S, Carerra GT e Mercedes SLR producono tempi più bassi della F40, ma ciò NON vuol dire che siano PIU' RAPIDE IN PROGRESSIONE!!
Infatti la F40 è quella che si sposta in movimento più rapidamente delle elencate nel range di velocità che va da 80/100 Km/h fino alla soglia dei 240/260 Km/h!!

Perciò ottengono SOLO tempi 1/4 mile migliori per la miglior trazione in partenza da fermo, NON perche hanno miglior progressione.
Esempio:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0506_blood/index5.html
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0401_vipandgt/index5.html
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0410_lemansintro/index5.html

La Ford GT ottiene tempi miglori (11.2, 11.6,.11.7)rispetto ai 11.7-11.9 della F40 sul 1/4 mile perchè si muove più rapidamente da fermo, ha migliore trazione in partenza nei peimi metri, ma NON progredice più rapidamente.
Se vedi l'esempio del test Ford GT vs F430, la Ford per produrre un tempo 1/4 mile di 11.6 @ 126.2sec tocca 64 Km/h (40 mph)in 2.4s, 97 kmh (60mph) 3.6s, ma tempo a 160 Kmh (100mph) di 7.8s e tempo 0-124,3 (200kmh) di circa 11.3s.
la F40 (Quattroruote 32 gradi temperatura) si muove peggiore da fermo, tocca 60 KmH in 2.55s, i 100 Kmh in 4.56s (almeno 0.8s di differenza a parità 100kmh) poi è in recupero rispetto alla Ford GT, 0-160 kmh 8.03s e 0-200 Kmh 11.30s, poi taglia i 400m 11.9 @ 202 kmh.
Perciò, tra 60, 80, 100 Kmh, la F40 quendoè a 200 Kmh ha recupetato la Ford GT di motor trend e bene!!
Questo test della GT è uno dei migliori, Quettroruote della F40 NON è uno dei migliori. In europa la Ford GT ha fatto tempi 0-200 kmh 11.8-12s.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupe/112_0410_lemansintro/index5.html
Questo è il migliore per la Ford GT, ma Fast Lane con la F40 ha ottenuto ancora migliori tempi 30-100 Mph (2.3s e 7.4s). Perciò la F40 è migliore in progressione della Ford GT.

Lo stesso discorso è se mettiamo in confronto la Carrera GT, SLR, S7 550hp, Zonda 7.3 vs F40.

carrera GT
http://supercarfreak.net/gallery/album107/7_G
http://www.autobild.de/aktuell/reportagen/artikel.php?artikel_id=6450&artikel_seite=4
Autobild rilevò per la Porsche Carrera GT tempi collimanti perfettamente coi test di AMuS e Autocar, li potremmo mettere uno sopra l'altro che combacerebbero i dati benissimo.
La Porsche Carrera GT, la più performante della lista (CGT, SLR, S7, Zonda 7.3 e Ford GT) ha ottenuto
0-100 Km/h 3.8s
0-200 Km/h 10.7s
0-250 Km/h 17.2s

Ai quali dovremmo aggiungere
0-241 km/h 15.8s (0-150 mph di Autocar)
20.4s @ 266 KmH (per lo standing Km di AMuS)
0-300 Km/h 34.2s (AMuS)

Insomma affiancando questa curva di dati a quelli forniti dai test della F40 arriviamo a notare che:
http://www.autospinetti.it/suppl.%20sito%20AutoSpinetti/f40%204r.htm
http://www.autospinetti.it/suppl.%20sito%20AutoSpinetti/f40%20ams.htm

la F40 rispetto alla Porsche Carrera GT, la più performante della lista delle altre supercars concorrenti, riece a essere più rapida nel 100-200 Km/h e a tenere bene fino a quasi 250 Km/h, figuriamoci raffrontata con le altre!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Porsche Carrera GT
0-100 Km/h 3.8s
0-200 Km/h 10.7s
0-250 Km/h 17.2s
0-266 Km/h 20.4s ( 0-260 KmH circa 19.1-19.2s)

Ferrari F40 (Quattroruote 32°C temperatura)
0-100 Km/h 4.56s
0-200 Km/h 11.30s
0-240 Km/h 16.39s
0-260 Km/h 20.23s

La Carrera GT potrebbe effettuare il suo 100-260 Kmh in circa 15.3-15.4s.
La F40 di Quettroruote ha impiegato 15.67s
La F40 di Auto ha impiegato 15.56s
Ma sappiamo che Fastlane (e Auto Motor und Sport e Sport Auto) fecero meglio in progressione considerando che per 0-60 Mph 3.94s è arrivata a 170 Mph in 22.33s

chiaro?

 

1/4 mile time is a thing, progression times are others things!! do you understand??

Ford GT, like CGT, SLR, Zonda 7.3, S7 550hp produce better 1/4 mile times than F40 because they have better start traction, but they are NOT quicker than F40 in speed progression.
Between 60-150 Mph F40 is sure quicker than the others. You can see simply if you compare a better progression time of one of these cars with the better time of F40. But also if you compare a worse time of these cars with the worse F40's time or similar conditions times.

you cannot only consider valid 11.2 @ 131,2 mph for Ford GT and his progression times, they could be optimal conditions.
Or if you wont see this, We had to see as it was behaved to 131,2 Mph the Fast lane F40's times in comparing to 30 or 60 mph. But we can see that also in this test F40 is quicker in 30-100 mph than Ford GT!! so better than MotorTrend Ford GT progression times.

Guibo, remember that in Fast Lane F40's progression times are:

0-30 mph 2.3s
0-60 mph 3.9s
0-100 mph 7.4s
0-170 mph 22.3s


In this 30-100 Mph time test F40 is quick like C&D Enzo's time (Enzo has F1 gearbox).

so, do you understand?? Ok??

All this in order to understand that we must consider the medium performance of a car, not best or the worse one, and to compare them on these medium times.
For example Ferrari Enzo has 0-200 Km/h times, between ca. 9.7s and 10.7s times, so 10.3s of Auto Motor und Sport Times are good medium times.
For example Carrera GT has 0-200 Km/h times between 10.1s to 11.4s, so the 10.7s of AMuS, Autobild is a good medium time, AMuS, Autocar, Autobild are good medium probability times.
For Ford GT the Motor Trend 11.2s on 1/4 mile times are not medium, but optimal times. Are truer the 11.6s Motor Trend's times in comparing with F430, also comparing with the other Ford GT european tests.
For F40 a medium good test is Quattroruote test, with 0-62 4.56s and standon Km 20.98s, and because is hot temperature condition,therefore sure not favorable.

So, if you honestly compare all the medium performance times of progression of all these cars, you you to understand what I want to say from months..the F40 is a very quick or quiker progression speed times between "low and high speeds" in movement push comparing to the others...... only this.
If you compare Quattroruote F40's test with 89,6 °F temperature to the others medium times or same condition times, you can see weel what I want to say. Like you compare the best Fast Lane F40's times to the others cars best times.

Bye Guibo.

 

"what about the difference of 4 seconds between a F1 driver and an amateur around the top gear track?you haven't said anything about that but you simply believe that 5 seconds between 2 drivers,that nearly do that for a living,is absolutly normal.haha"

4 seconds at the Top Gear Track is like 20 seconds at the 'Ring.

 

"the top gear track is longer and is more simple than the Hockenheimring....and as far as i know the GT3 RS has a better handling than the SLR."

Then why is it slower around the TG track than the SLR, if the TG track is so simple and caters to cars with power? How is it the Cayman beats the 575 GTC and Corvette, or the Exige beating the SRT-10? Or the Ariel Atom beating both the SLR and the CGT? You touted the TG track times before as gospel, yet here you're having a hard time explaining the discrepancies: your explanation runs contradictory to the results (if you refuse to allow the variables mentioned).


"what about the difference of 4 seconds between a F1 driver and an amateur around the top gear track?you haven't said anything about that but you simply believe that 5 seconds between 2 drivers,that nearly do that for a living,is absolutly normal.haha"

I already answered that question, look a page back or two. The jist of it was:
I say it's normal if we allow for VARIABLES in conditions. Have you not been listening? Anyway, Julian Bailey may be an ex-F1 and touring car driver, but I doubt he's had as many rounds of the TG track as the Stig.


"actually Sport Auto re-test some cars quite often.the SRT-10 has now a lap time 1:14,3 around the HR."

I meant re-testing cars around the NRing, obviously.


"this was my last post."

Thank god!

 

Look, F40 LM / mafalda:
That F40 BS was done months ago, so I'm not going to rehash every single damn thing about it here. I'll summarize here what I said then, breaking it down into the basic points:
"I will not be surprised if AMS's Ford GT is slower. AMS is almost always slow with US cars, and if they use 'EU 04 CWV', then that car is already slower by Autocar tests than those used in US. Ford (in UK) didn't even bother to give it fresh tires for Car's PCOTY comparo, LOL."

"Your F40 there did 0-170 in 22.3 seconds. Autocar's Zonda road test did 0-170 in 20.8 seconds. Even if you ignore 0-60 to account for F40's traction disadvantage (difference of only .1s anyway), F40 did
60-170: 18.5s
Zonda S did
60-170: 17.1s"
And that's with Zonda S with only 286 miles. What do you think it will do once broken in? Remember, first time Fast Lane tested this F40, it was 2.65s slower to 170 mph..."

True, Fast Lane result with F40 was fast. But faster than CGT or Zonda S when tested on the same day?? You will NEVER know.

"Regarding Zonda's KM trap speed, if you look at the acceleration chart I posted, and compare 130-150 mph increments, you'd see 160 MPH trap (for Zonda) is too low to be reasonable. 170 mph looks to be more likely KM trap speed. From 100-140, its acceleration looks *almost* as strong as Enzo in AMS."

http://www.supercars.net/pitlane/pics/1670621d.jpg


"Ford GT has also done 0-150 in 16.9, but nevermind. If you talk only of 100 - 260 kph, then F40 might very well beat Ford GT. BUT, look at these cars: they are 200-mph supercars. 62 - 162 mph shows only ONE HALF of what these cars are capable of. See what I mean?? Narrow range.
Consider what happens before 100 kph: Ford GT is quicker. That also has result of quicker time to distance at that point. @ 100 kph, F40 may be catching up, but Ford GT is still ahead and still accelerating. By 1/4 mile mark and @ 127-131 mph, Ford GT is still ahead. But what happens after that?
Consider:
Ford GT: 170 in 23.0 sec - 150 in 16.9 sec = 6.1 sec; 1.47 m/s^2.
F40: 149.1 to 163.8 mph in 4.59 seconds = 1.43 m/s^2."


Anyway, I wasn't talking about only 1/4 mile times. I already KNEW you were talking about "progression", so why even bring it up in this thread??? For what purpose??? To confirm you shut your eyes to reality that F40 is NOT "still today's fastest"? (See F1/F1 LM, CCR, S7 Turbo, etc, for clear cases.) You were bragging about 100-200 kmh times of the F40, yet failed to recognize that F40 has ideal gearing for 200 kmh time, while other cars noted trapped in the 1/4 at 127-133 mph. And if you hate 1/4 mile race so much, I propose another: 0-212 mph. Is F40, then, still today's fastest?

 

Man DTA got ass raped something fierce.

 

Ok, Guibo, you not have undestood. Is not a problem for me. But still today
you not have a god real 'picture' of reals supercars performances list.
In some points you not consider some cars in the true real position of the list.
You confuse the realty because you take some points in some tests that not tally
with realty. Continue with your opinion but you not have right because I have try a big parts
of these supercars, I know well because is my job, I have a supercars show room in Italy (I also have try
the Zonda with Horacio Pagani at San Cerasio Sul Panaro's factory).
Explain me fo example how can not understand that Zonda 7.3 liters can not have a faster standing Km speed trap
of carrera GT, since is higher the final time standing Km? At 150 Mph they have approx the same time, but over 150 the Zonda can not is faster than
CGT for the torque/power curve conformation at high revs in 4th gear.
http://www.paganiautomobili.it/english/curva.htm
Also comparing to Porsche CGT and Ferrari Enzo caracteristics. Torque curve,
power curve, aerodynamic cx and cz and gears ratio. Untill you not undestand some points like this, for example, you confuse the real
performances line progression capacity of the difference between some of these cars.And logically you consider some cars little faster than others in total times
performances or only in parts of perfomances, but in realty are little slower or probably slower. Untill you not undestand this points, you make mistakes like
that of Zonda 150-170 mph time passage., considering the torque curve at high revs of Zonda. Zonda in 4th can not push more than Carrera GT or like Enzo for the curve
conformetions of torque. Zonda has limiter at 7000 rpm but over 5900-5950 rpm the torque go down and also the power curve, so in not possible that in 4th Zonda
can push more the Carrera GT or Enzo. Zonda did 170 Mph in 4th at 7000rpm, so in 4th over 5950 or 145 mph can not push more or faster, quicker!!!!!! Carrera GT at 150-170 mph passage is in half 5th gear, but shorter gear, and put down a better performer mix of torque and power.
also anticipating the gearshift in 5th for Zonda, not earn nothing in push indeed it lengthen the times. You also can see it in the difference os speed in a long straight like the Dottingher Hohe in Nurburrging, http://www.track-challenge.com/comparison1d_e.asp?Car1=50&Car2=69 in fact when you can put down, Carrera GT is 294 Km/h when Zonda is 280Km/h like this example, with only 1 Km/h at last curve. So is impossible that Zonda is has faster terminal Km speed trap than Carrera GT that did speed between 261-266 Km/h (162-165 mph).
The Zonda is sure slower than CGT in this part of progression, but untill you not put it in your mind and there is a probably (print) error, we can speak together for years, because consider a 0-170 mph time for Zonda not real comparing to Fast Lane F40's time and also comparing to
the real time of standing Km 20.8s (+ 0.4s) with 20.4s of Carerra GT and 266km/h (165,3 Mph)!!

How can speak with a person that not want undestand cases of tests like this, not physically logical in some numbers or a person that consider Ford GT a car faster in performace line progression than F40. A car like Frod GT,
heavier and with 550 hp can compete side by side with Carrera GT in line progression. So is most logical a difference line like Autobild than exlapin 3 sec differenze between 0-250 Km/h. less logical than your best times for ford GT like you say.
Between Carrera GT and Ford GT there is a greater difference in 60-150 Mph like you want to say. Ford GT is not so near. So, untill you not undestand some points like this you consider Ford Gt near F40, or CGT and Enzo line progression. But is not this the realty.
If you make really side by side Ford GT vs F40 in 2nd in highest percentage when F40 is 265 Km/h, Ford GT is sure not more than 255 Km/h!! but in the better chance!! If Ford GT has also done 0-150 in 16.9, one time, is a medium fortuitous case, not give justification 1 of 10. but did also 19.5s in hot temperature (F40 Never did time so long also in hot temperature), so...
>>look at these cars: they are 200-mph supercars. 62 - 162 mph shows only ONE HALF of what these cars are capable of.


I know that there are (F1/F1 LM, CCR, S7 Turbo,...) cars faster than the F40 today, i Know, but I referred to that list, CGT, SLR, S7 550hp, Zonda 7.3.
probably at that time I exaggerated generalizing, but F40 is litte sure faster in line progression than carrera Gt and logically than the others in this list, and can compete
with Enzo in part of progression.
I know also that F40 is sure not the fastest in very high speed, high speed progression,but I want to inform you than when is in 2nd gear and put down the trottle it can compete with Enzo until 200-220 Km/h and quicker to the others (little list) until 270 or 300 Km/h.

But untill you dont wish understand the sense of all that I have said, we can speak for years.. it does not interest me, but displeasure when the persons speak with little wrong sense.
I konw this, because i Know whot is a real difference between these supercars. because I know the difference between a 1200kg/480hp car in compare to 1650kg/550hp car and/or a 1450kg/600-650hp car.
The difference between a good start traction car and a good progression car or good lengthen car.
evidently if you had tried that I have tried you would think it like me and clear and give real sense to you to many points of these tests.

But you are always on your stubborn opinion...

bye Guibo.
(probably we will be able ourselves to be found in agreement on other things)