sport auto Supertest: Ford GT

Discussion in 'American Cars' started by ajzahn, Jan 20, 2006.

  1. Guibo belives Ford GT is the fastest car ever. He can bealive abot ehatever he wants!! <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/sad.gif"></A>
     
  2. #127 mafalda, Jan 30, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Ford GT cannot mathematically match agaist CGT. Ford has more torque, but -62hp, and +125 Kg (275 Lbs). CGT has a good aero, great chassis, great brakes. Guibo belives Ford Gt the fastest ever., but tests confirm after 100 Kph, is not like CGT, F40, Enzo ext ext
     
  3. #128 F40 Le Mans, Jan 30, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Yes mafalda, untill Guibo don't (want) undestand some importants points is difficul speak with him. Like that of Zonda's line progression over the 4th gear:

    Guibo, Zonda in this other test has archived 0-178 mph time in 29.0s (standing mile) with same 30, 60 and approx the same 100 mph.
    http://www.autocar.co.uk/RoadTest_FullData.asp?RT=176638
    http://www.supercars.net/Pics?vpf2=y&gID=0&fID=2&tID=59558&mID=1705508&l=d

    so 170 @ 20.8s is matematically not probably!
    what happens between 150-170? and 170-178 mph? 4.8s did 20 mph and only 8 mph in 8.2s? Turbo boooooosssst beetween 150-170 and after, in 170-178 use the parachute???
    Zonda go fas when torque go down? NOOOOOOOOOOOO!! there is an error!! not tasks? an error of terminal speed trap!! a print error, i don't know but in 20.8 zonda can not touch 170mph, this is true.

    but we know that Zonda did real
    0-150 16.0s
    0-178 29.0s
    becaure sid standing mile in 29.0s @ 178 mph.

    http://www.roadandtrack.com/assets/download/0509_mile_spread_carts.pdf

    compare the results of Ruf Rturbo, did standing mile in 28.6 @ 180.2 mph, so faster than Zonda, in time and speed. But look the Ruf: 169.1 mph in 23.4 secs.

    so, how can is possible for Zonda 0-170 in 20.8s ? look the Ruf's progression over 150 mph!
    For me Zonda did 0-170 mph in 24-25s, and the Km speed trap is approx 160 mph!! not to believe? and it agrees with an higher time than Carrera GT and the speed trap (162-165mph), at the enn of standing Km when Carrera GT is 266 Km/h, Zonda can approx. 257 kmh, when Carrera GT is 294 Km/h, Zonda is 280 km/h like Nurburgring long straight..

    Also the SLR performances:
    http://supercarfreak.net/gallery/album106/7_G
    In this test SLR did 0-269 km/h in 20.5s and 0-300 kmh 30.6s, (very good Cx probably)

    How can Zonda did 273 kmh (170 mph) in 20.8s if is sure 286 kmh (178mph) in 29.0s???

    When SLR is 300 Kmh (30.6s), Zonda is probably 288-290 Kmh (if 29s @ 286) so when SLR in 20.5s is 269 Kmh Zonda is sure less than 260-261 Kmh! 257,4 Kmh (160mph) for Autocar 20.8s standing Km is not so stupid considering the torque curve comparing the 4th gear.

    still not be convinced?
     
  4. MAranello,SRT-10 and C6 being beaten by less powerful cars?nothing really new and if you look at the lap times of the EVO FQ 300,320 and 400...well you know where i'm going.btw the SRT-10 lap time was on the wet and if you only have a rwd but 500hp,there might be some traction problems.
    about the ariel atom:did you know that track cars like the ariel atom are 20 or even 30 seconds faster than the CGT around the Nurburgring?30 seconds...and of course most of the cars aren't from GM so they have proof that they did it on magazins and on the internet(no,not pictures but videos).

    variables....again the ones that you like to be faster had the worse conditions.
    "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."
    ->conditions.next thing he will say:the driver.then the gearings and he goes on with the price tag.then discredit european and japanese car magazins and car shows because it is primarily meant for entertainment.to finish we will come back with the conditions till someone notices that only the cars that he would like to be faster had bad conditions.
     
  5. #130 F40 Le Mans, Jan 30, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    ...also comparing to 150 mph time, 170mph, 180mph and 200 Mph of Autocar's F1 test, Zonda not has a good line progressione for 170 @ 20.8s.
    http://www.autospinetti.it/suppl.%20sito%20AutoSpinetti/Mec.F1.htm
    0-150 3.2 secs difference
    0-180 ca. 9 secs difference

    How can 170 mph only 3.6s???????????????? whot progression line is this??? 9 secs @ 180 mph and 3.6s @ 170 mph????? NNOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!not probbaly!!!!

    And you don't find me the excuse of 580hp engine on the XP4, it has sure a full quota 627 hp engine, because in Autocar's test F1 did 0-190 Mph (305 Km/h) 23.8s, Autozeitung with XP5 sure full 627hp did 0-300 Km/h in 23.0s.

    http://www.autospinetti.it/suppl.%20sito%20AutoSpinetti/f1autozeitung.htm

    So also your old opinion on F1 XP4 and XP5 engine in comparing, not have sense!!!

    XP4 in Autocar test has sure a full 627 hp engine for this. With 580 hp not touch sure 305 Km/h in 23.8 secs. Sure!!

    Guibo,your line opinion not have sense...like this Zonda's 150-170 comparing to line progression of CGT, SLR and F1. So you must stop use illogical opinions and I don't love read illogical things and based on stubborn opinions.

    Not only take the numbers that you are preferred, why you don't have never take to report the 0-178 MPh @ 29.0s ??

    Next, tries to make in your mind a better global picture for comparing supercars in line progression! it's better.
     
  6. #131 Guibo, Jan 30, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    "I have a supercars show room in Italy (I also have try
    the Zonda with Horacio Pagani at San Cerasio Sul Panaro's factory)."

    So you have progression statistics for the CGT, Zonda S, CCR, F1, etc, along with the F40 that you tested under the same conditions? By all means post here your results.


    Haven't got time to deal with all of that stuff, but I'll address some points:

    "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."

    You're basing the performances of *all* Zondas at that speed, due to a single "dyno chart" from how many...one particular Zonda? That's brilliant.

    But OK, let's look at the torque curves, etc.
    A basic standard we can use to apply to how hard a car might "push", as you put it, is torque at the wheels. The chart you show (and the ones shown in the AMS Nardo test) are in flywheel figures, so we'll reduce that by, say 10% across the board for all of these mid-engined vehicles. The actual % does not really matter; let's just keep this simple.
    For a 150-170 mph sprint, the Zonda would start in 4th gear (good for 170 mph precisely, hmmm), which gives an overall gearing ratio of 3.36:1.
    For a 150-170 mph sprint, the F40 would have to start in 4th also (but curiously only good for 158 mph according to the AMS test??); 3rd is good for only 125 mph. In 4th, the F40's overall gear ratio is 3.49:1. Better than the Zonda's, but only by a little.
    ( http://www.catherineandken.co.uk/sti/tyres.html)
    The Zonda, @ 150 mph in 4th is at about 6200 rpm, at which point in its torque curve it's producing ~600 Nm. (600 x 0.9) x 3.36 = ~1814 Nm at the wheels. And the Zonda wastes no time in getting to 170; it doesn't need a shift until after that point, at the very end of 4th gear, at which point it is still delivering about 1542 Nm to the wheels.
    The F40, @ 150 mph in 4th gear is at about 6800 rpm, at which point in its torque curve it's producing ~570 Nm. (570 x 0.9) x 3.49 = 1790 Nm at the wheels. Close enough to the Zonda S to call it even.
    What happens at 156 mph, right before the F40 takes its 4-5 gearchange according to the AMS test? @ 156 mph, the F40 is at around 7000 rpm, which correlates to 480 Nm at the crank, or 1506 Nm at the wheels. (84% of what it was making at 150 mph.)
    @ 156, the Zonda is around 6400 rpm, or 1693 Nm. (93%) Not only does the torque fall off at a slower rate for the Zonda than the F40 over this speed interval, just as importantly, it's 12% greater than the F40's figures.
    Now, this is the curious part: even though the F40, with that gear ratio in AMS, should be good for 173 mph in 4th (indeed, an old C&D article with slightly different ratios estimates 4th should be good for 176 mph), AMS shows its top speed in 4th as only 158 mph. Why is this? It can't be because of short-shifting and taking advantage of building boost (as you alluded to), because on their chart, the 158 mph speed is taken right to the redline, just like the rest of the gears. And what constitutes a standard or optional F40 gearbox?
    Using that 158 mph shift point, what happens after the shift? @ 160 mph, the F40 should be at around 5700 rpm. Which is ~550 Nm at the crank. But at the wheels, due to the shift to 5th gear and consequent reduction in torque multiplication (overall ratio now 2.78:1), the F40 has about 1376 Nm.
    @ 160 mph, the Zonda, still in 4th, is putting down about 1663 Nm. That's roughly 21% more than the F40.
    According to the calculator, the F40 should be good for 170 mph in 4th gear @ 7600 rpm, at which point torque to the wheels is 1380 Nm. The Zonda has about 1542 Nm to the wheels. However, that's a theoretical situation that actually favors the F40. If we look at AMS's actual speed in gears vs rpm chart, the F40 would be in 5th gear at 170 mph, and @ ~6400 rpm, for torque of 1324 Nm to the wheels.
    In any case, there really is not a single point from 150-170 where the F40 has any advantage in torque/gearing.


    "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"

    That doesn't really prove anything. Wasn't that lap time taken from when the CGT was on a partially wet track? In any case, there's only a 5 kmh difference between the SLR and CGT over the same section, but as we know from the Nardo test, the SLR is quite a bit quicker in the 200-300 kmh sprint.
    How long is Doettinger Hohe anyway? How straight, how flat?
     
  7. "I don't love read illogical things and based on stubborn opinions."

    The feeling is mutual (F40 faster than Enzo and McLaren F1?), but I'll go one further: if you don't love to read it, then quit reading and posting.
     
  8. DTA:
    "MAranello,SRT-10 and C6 being beaten by less powerful cars?nothing really new and if you look at the lap times of the EVO FQ 300,320 and 400...well you know where i'm going."

    Where are you going? Surely, you're not going to stand behind the theory that the TopGear track is just simple and favors higher powered cars. Because you've been doing a real shitty job of doing that thus far.


    "about the ariel atom:did you know that track cars like the ariel atom are 20 or even 30 seconds faster than the CGT around the Nurburgring?30 seconds"

    Show me where the Atom did the 'Ring faster than the CGT by 30 seconds. A real Atom. Not a car "like the Ariel Atom", with bodywork and wings.


    "to finish we will come back with the conditions till someone notices that only the cars that he would like to be faster had bad conditions"

    So why not simply defend the CGT on the basis of the 7:40 time? Surely, even Sport Auto saw the need to "correct" for conditions.
    Are you implying that I don't like the F40 or CGT? Based on what?
     
  9. Quit being an idiot.

    F40 LM had asked me:
    "If Ford GT in good contions test, Carrera GT did little better than Ford, so you think that it can pull down the 4.15 m/s^2 in the same conditions?"

    To which I replied:
    "YES, better than Ford GT. But then, I'm not saying Ford GT will outaccelerate CGT, did I? How can I, when in same conditions, Ford GT is slower than CGT??? I never said to contrary."

    How do you come to conclude that I think the Ford GT is the fastest car ever? Are you being a moron just for stupidity's sake?
     
  10. #135 F40 Le Mans, Jan 31, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    ..also i Have not time...

    Point 1) Sometimes push sensation is better than correvit results.

    Point 2) >>In any case, there really is not a single point from 150-170 where the F40 has any advantage in torque/gearing.
     
  11. #136 F40 Le Mans, Jan 31, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    ..also i Have not time...

    Point 1) Sometimes push sensation is better than correvit results.

    Point 2) >>In any case, there really is not a single point from 150-170 where the F40 has any advantage in torque/gearing.
     
  12. Guibo:

    ..also i have not time...

    Point 1) Sometimes push sensation is better than correvit results.

    Point 2) >>In any case, there really is not a single point from 150-170 where the F40 has any advantage in torque/gearing.
     
  13. ..also i Have not time...
    Point 1) Sometimes push sensation is better than correvit results.
    Point 2) >>In any case, there really is not a single point from 150-170 where the F40 has any advantage in torque/gearing.
     
  14. At high speed also aerodinamic Cx, Cz and engine gearbox resistence are much more important factors when torque go down (and not only),
    not consider only torque/gearing, also negative forces factors to embezzle. Zonda has bigger Cx (0.39 vs 0.34), 4/7 more engine capacity (liters),
    and a strong gearbox (750 Nm), but also wheels dimension and car weight..all more than F40. Consider also these points to embezzle.
    Why you don't compare with CGT terminal speed trap?
     
  15. Explain me why CGT is slower in terminal speed trap for you?
    Point 3) In Nurburgring SLR not have the same speed corner, did 128 Km/h at last curve, slower than Zonda speed corner, so is not good compared
    like CGT example, but is equally faster in Top speed, SLR did in Dottingher Hohe 292 Km/h, so +12 Km/h than Zonda 280 Km/h, and also Zonda is slower
    than Murcielago of 3 Km/h.
    Dottingher Hohe is the same for all, since 1920 if I remember, clima conditions tests are good in this 4 tests.
    Zonda is not so fast in high speed trap long straight, like Autocar wont said, like you say, like these others 3 cars.
     
  16. #141 F40 Le Mans, Jan 31, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
  17. how would you explain such big differences on the top gear lap times,aside from the conditions and the driver?
    look at the lap times of the EVO FQ,of the Golf GTI's,Holden monaro and Vauxhal monaro,the Zondas or the Ariel Atom and Ariel Atom Turbo.all the same model but with higher hp output and more recent designs.
    then look at the HR lap times of the old and new M5,Ferrari 360,355 and the Maranellos,the old and new GTI,the boxster and boxster S or the 993 turbo and 993 turbo factory tuned.again,the same cars only that the more recent cars have more hp.
    it seems that on the top gear lap times the differences are much bigger than on the Sport Auto lap times.
    also,it doesn’t seem like the cars on the top gear track spend more time in corners.newer tires and chassis can make a difference.but that again would also apply to the HT.both tracks have the same amound of corners but for the same car,the lap times between the 2 tracks is more or less 10 seconds.but,it’s a very simplistic way of seeing things.so it’s just a guessing.
    notice that i only choose cars that are comparable and nearly the same.different cars(SLR,GT3 RS)will have different results on different tracks.the Zonda S clocked the same lap time as the GT3 RS on the HR.on top gear the GT3 RS was faster.the cayman was faster than the C6 on top gear but slower on Sport Auto.apples and oranges...however,high powered cars have an advantage over low powered cars,just like i tried to show with the comparisons of new and old cars on the 2 tracks.just look at the track layout and maybe you will understand.
    now,i don't know what you did in your life.i know what i did and i trust my judgement based on past experiences.

    "Show me where the Atom did the 'Ring faster than the CGT by 30 seconds. A real Atom. Not a car "like the Ariel Atom", with bodywork and wings"
    so what do you want to say?that the radical and ariel are totally different cars?for me,those are track cars with the same advantages and disadvantages.


    "So why not simply defend the CGT on the basis of the 7:40 time? Surely, even Sport Auto saw the need to "correct" for conditions.
    Are you implying that I don't like the F40 or CGT? Based on what?"
    you surely won't believe it but it was the first time that Sport Auto had to do a lap on a partially wet track(i can post the article where they wrote it).as i said before a CGT is not a 3-series.usually Sport Auto can keep the car for a few days,which is not the case for the CGT.i don't want to know how many journalists flew to germany to drive the CGT.i don't think that those same journalists would fly to germany for the launch of the R32 or M3.they would simply wait till those cars are sold in their countries.
    BTW,Sport Auto did an official time attack in order to record the fastest lap for production cars.it wasn't for the Supertest only.


    don't get me wrong.i'm not saying that conditions don't have any effect on lap times but that it isn't as bif as you might think.

    and to finish:was i banned?for what reason?
     
  18.  
  19. Gearbox resistance...I want you to quantify that.


    "Explain me why CGT is slower in terminal speed trap for you?"

    Slower than Zonda S? When tested on the same day? Which test is that?
    Besides, difference in speed is only 5 mph (Autocar Zonda vs AMS CGT). Difference between QR Enzo and AMS Enzo: 7 mph. For the same model?!.
    Refer back to the acceleration chart I posted. The 1km trap and ET is in keeping with the trend from 0-150.


    "In Nurburgring SLR not have the same speed corner, did 128 Km/h at last curve, slower than Zonda speed corner..."

    It doesn't matter, I'm talking about the speed differential from Galgenkopf to Doettinger Hohe trap point:
    SLR: +164 kmh
    CGT: +159 kmh
    But we know SLR is much, much faster when tested head to head in 200-300 kmh sprint.


    "Zonda is slower than Murcielago of 3 Km/h."

    Oh yeah, and do you think that is representative/typical performance between Murcielago and Zonda? You seriously think Murcielago will outrun the Zonda in a straight line on a flat road? By Sport Auto figures from Galgenkopf to Doettinger Hohe, Murcielago outruns the Zonda S by 3.1 mph. However, in a TopGear test between these two on the same day, 80-150 mph acceleration figures for these two cars were:
    Zonda S: 11.5
    Murcielago: 13.6
    By your logic (and faith in Doettinger Hohe trap speeds), the Murcielago not only ERASES its 2+ second *disadvantage* in the 80-150 sprint, but in the space of the next 20 mph, it beats the Zonda S by over 3 mph?? Does THAT make sense?


    "Dottingher Hohe is the same for all, since 1920 if I remember, clima conditions tests are good in this 4 tests."

    I ask again: What is the length of the Doettinger Hohe straight?


    "Point 1) Sometimes push sensation is better than correvit results."

    And sometimes not. Ex: A mag once tested a Viper GTS ACR against a GT2 and the Viper's immediate throttle response and torque off-idle gave it the *sensation* of being faster, but you'd have to be something of an idiot to think the Viper would outrun the GT2 by any significant objective margin; if anything, the GT2 would be faster (it has been measured as such).
    But if that constitutes your *objective* comparison between the supercars you've personally driven, that's pretty piss poor. I was under the impression that you had TESTED (objectively, w/documentation) all of these cars. And now you are saying that's not the case. Then who are *you* to refute Autocar's findings w/o a shred of evidence?


    Also, tell me how those top speeds listed for the F40 in AMS's gear chart are possible with the given gearing.
    EDIT: Nevermind, you can PM me the answer about the F40's curious in-speed top gears in that AMS test. I'm not going to bother reading the rest here.
     
  20. "how would you explain such big differences on the top gear lap times,aside from the conditions and the driver?"

    I already told you: there are more variables than just conditions and drivers. If there weren't these variables, every single group of cars would have the same damn pecking order on every track in the world.


    "then look at the HR lap times of the old and new M5,Ferrari 360,355 and the Maranellos,the old and new GTI,the boxster and boxster S or the 993 turbo and 993 turbo factory tuned.again,the same cars only that the more recent cars have more hp."

    If you think that I'm saying hp doesn't make a difference, then you're incredibly stupid because I haven't said anything like that.
    Also,
    Did you know that the old Stig was slower than the new Stig? Did you also know there has been a change to the layout of the track since the first season?
    Old Stig, in the M3 (dry): 1:31.8
    New Stig, in the M3 CSL (semi-slicks, in the wet): 1:28.0
    I suppose it's the CSL's extra 100 hp that makes the difference...


    "the Zonda S clocked the same lap time as the GT3 RS on the HR.on top gear the GT3 RS was faster.the cayman was faster than the C6 on top gear but slower on Sport Auto.apples and oranges...however,high powered cars have an advantage over low powered cars,just like i tried to show with the comparisons of new and old cars on the 2 tracks."

    The Zonda time was set with the old Stig, but nevermind. It sounds like you're saying the TG track is still technically demanding and doesn't necessarily favor higher hp cars: the RS doesn't beat the Zonda S at HR, but on the TG track it's faster.
    "the cayman was faster than the C6 on top gear [a technically easy track that favors high-hp cars] but slower on Sport Auto [a twistier, more demanding track]..." Wonderful. ~:



    "i know what i did and i trust my judgement based on past experiences."

    So you've driven the TopGear track?
    Also, the CGT's average speed at the TopGear track was 128 kmh. Isn't it something like 136 kmh for the HRing?


    "for me,those are track cars with the same advantages and disadvantages."

    Aerodynamically, I don't think the Ariel is all that much better than a Caterham R500 (which has set a best time of, what, 7:55 around the 'Ring?). They didn't put those wings on the Donkervoort for shits & giggles, did they? Are you saying the Radical has ZERO aero advantage over the Ariel? All that bodywork on there is just for looks and to increase the mass of the vehicle?


    "i don't think that those same journalists would fly to germany for the launch of the R32 or M3.they would simply wait till those cars are sold in their countries."

    R&T editors (among others) flew to Germany to test the M3 when it came out. They recently tried the M5 and M6 there as well. MT flew to Germany for the regular 5 Series release. BMW also often has releases for world media in southern Europe. Hell, Mazda had journalists fly to Hawaii (from Europe) for the release of the new MX-5. BFD!


    "don't get me wrong.i'm not saying that conditions don't have any effect on lap times but that it isn't as bif as you might think."

    TopGear lap times, all done by the "black" Stig:
    Murcielago: 1:29
    Zonda S: 1:23.8
    That was for the TV show, same episode.
    Around the same time as the show, they also tested these 2 (among others) in their magazine. Again, the "black" Stig was driving:
    Murcielago: 1:26.2
    Zonda S: 1:24.5
    And these were the same not only the same models, but the exact same particular cars.

    And the Murcielago has subsequently lapped in 1:23.7. Must be the new 700-hp version then?

    I think variables in NUMEROUS conditions explain better the discrepancy in 996 ('98 vs '02) times than your excuse that Porsche "made a mistake" simply because the revised 996 was no faster at NRing (and actually slower at HRing) despite having more power. I mean, what would you have them do...send a ringer just to make the extra power more apparent? All they can do is provide a standard car, and if von Saurma gets a slower time, well tough shit. It doesn't mean Porsche necessarily "made a mistake."


    "and to finish:was i banned?for what reason?"

    I haven't a clue, but I wouldn't be against it.
    "To finish..." LOL. I thought you were done some 3 posts ago.
     
  21. you always amuse yourself to try the opposite one, this is obtuse and stubborn of you. I am making evidence the logical to my opinion,
    until that they do not come tried togheter 20 supercars in same conditions, we cannot answer, this you cannot be always defended behind
    this sense when you have advantage and not when you do not have advantage your sense...
    this would give always a sense of stupid justification to your opinion trying to sink the others,that they are based on a logical line and also on lived experiences.

    Like weight and cx factors examples: at high speed an heavier car can be faster than a lighter car but less penetrating, evidently opposite difference is in other surrounding.
    Estimating better all the factors we arrived to a truer result, not consider only torque/gearing factor. Cx factor? Ok we can not calculate, but therse is, and important. We can not calculate
    but in Zonda S 7.3 vs F40 example is 0.40 (not 0.39, is carrera GT) vs 0.34, Zonda's Cx is +15%!! So, the sense, in high speed that Zonda not put
    down the real "difference torque/gearing" campared to F40. The real differenze is sure less, similar or favorable to the F40...you know how much is important a very smaller weight and a very smaller Cx, and a mix of these for 60-170 Mph?
    Look 286 Kmh for Ford GT in Nurburg top speed trap va 280 kmh of Zonda. Why? nevertheless similar engine numbers caratteristics and Ford GT weigh more.
    Look, the Cx? 0.35 Ford GT vs 0.40 Zonda, and here an example that how is important CX factor, also compared to opposite weights.

    So Zonda can have the same high speed progression than Murcièlago for CX caratteristics, Zonda is 0.40, Murcièlago 0.36. So look hwo is important Cx factor in high speed. why not?
    Gearbox resistance? we can not quantify, but a 800Nm gearbox has sure little more resistance than a 600 Nm gearbox! also the transmission is study for more torque, but has also sure little more resistance.
    Engine? a 7.3 litres has sure more inside resistance than a 3 liters, ext, ext, ext..



    All these are important example, they are not calcolable with your calculator, but important negative factors in contrast of torque/gearing, for total torque down result ON STREET, and if you not consider it, you go only in one way in important factors in order to arrive to true sense and true result, pregression line result.

    The real gears ratio is the *shorter* for F40, but in some USA cars are made with the longer ratio. F40 was introduced with longer, but after sold really with shorter in Europe, and in a big numbers of 1311 exemplares pruduced. So for F40 the real torque/gearing at high speed is more approached at Zonda's example result, but considering the negative factors.




    In other way, if not tried all together,also you cannot give one real version of comparison therefore to stop yours calculates bases to you logically on what it is favorable to say.
    Not being able to try they all togheter in the same conditions, we must try 'logical' in the general picture of the list but you do not seem yearning.
    it only seems yearning to determine the opposite sense to the others. always. amuse yourself, but I do not understand as you amuse yourself.I do not want to say that you are one not competent person in field,
    but you are who give sense only your stubbornly opinion, but often being, we do not make honor towards the others..
    Initially made a better general picture of the sense and then if you want, we speak newly..
     
  22. When I said, some months ago, "After the start Ford GT is slower than an old F40" YOU, like an Armaggedon said "NO IT'S NO TRUE, Ford GT is faster ext ext ext", and with your calculator you've tried to demostrate it (looking the tests you like it.... <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/wink.gif"></A> ).
    But unfortunally (for you) the latest tests show us the truth...
    When AMuS has been tested the FGT, its 100-200 Kph (8.1s) was worse than F40's 80-200 7.2s (attention: starting from 80 Kph!!), and is the same thing about Sport Auto (similiar to AMuS about FGT and F40 both)!!
    About autobild, FGT runs 100-250 Kph 16.1s, f40 has no data, but
    Quattroruote 100 - 260 Kph (260 Kph, not 250...) 15.67s
    Auto 100 - 260 Kph 15.56s
    Ruoteclassiche 100 - 262.4 Kph 16.4s
    The thesis of mine ("after the startin Ford GT cannot compete against the F40) is correct, but you've wanted the war...
    Bye
     
  23. mafalda, Guibo is a person who obstinate itself to having reason in every point..always.

    initially he has looked only his preferred numebers tests, after he has taken the calculator and ext ext ext.. now, he calculate the torgue/gears and no consider others factors like Cx..

    from stables to stars...


    are months that he contrast every my small opinion..
    I not believe that I have always twisted.. so...you make the conclusion...

    PS. my line progression opinions are strongly based.
     
  24. Giubo you say:
    >>~1814 Nm at the wheels fpr Zonda vs 1790 Nm of F40 @ 150 mph...
    1693 Nm for Zonda vs 1506 Nm at the wheels of f40 @ 156...ext ext..
    ..In any case, there really is not a single point from 150-170 where the F40 has any advantage in torque/gearing..>>

    you to believe this is the true real torque on street? and negative factors?

    there are also things that your calculator can't do.
     
  25. Guibo
    "If there weren't these variables, every single group of cars would have the same damn pecking order on every track in the world."
    so every track is the same?the Stig has constantly bad and good days?i mean he is/was a pro afterall and i don't think that driving stock cars is very challenging for him.

    "If you think that I'm saying hp doesn't make a difference, then you're incredibly stupid because I haven't said anything like that."
    i never said that.i showed you how big the difference between the same cars is on the HR and TG track to show that the TG track favours more powerful cars more than the HR.

    "Also, the CGT's average speed at the TopGear track was 128 kmh. Isn't it something like 136 kmh for the HRing?"
    where is it more difficult to drive?in slow or fast corners?how many fast corners does the TG track have?

    "It sounds like you're saying the TG track is still technically demanding and doesn't necessarily favor higher hp cars..."the cayman was faster than the C6 on top gear [a technically easy track that favors high-hp cars] but slower on Sport Auto [a twistier, more demanding track]..." Wonderful"
    no.it sounds like different cars on different tracks will have different results.of course both cars were fast and probably be fast on other tracks but compared to each other the differences would change.the cayman doesn't have a LSD.i don't now if it's good for corners but i guess no.did you notice that i tried to compare similar cars to each other?i can't do more than that to prove you my point.

    "They didn't put those wings on the Donkervoort for shits & giggles, did they? Are you saying the Radical has ZERO aero advantage over the Ariel? All that bodywork on there is just for looks and to increase the mass of the vehicle?"the radical didn't had 300hp.i think it was the 250hp version and i think that 50hp difference on a 500kg car is not negligeable.advantages and disadvantages.if the ariel had a body i don't think it would make a difference in a track with low average speeds.on the Nurburgring it would be another story.if you're among those that believe that at 100km/h there are huge aerodynamical forces pressing the car to the ground,then change you opinon.

    "R&T editors (among others) flew to Germany to test the M3 when it came out. They recently tried the M5 and M6 there as well. MT flew to Germany for the regular 5 Series release. BMW also often has releases for world media in southern Europe. Hell, Mazda had journalists fly to Hawaii (from Europe) for the release of the new MX-5. BFD!"
    i didn't make my point clear.did they do any tests on tracks and publish lap times and acceleration times and skid pad figures....cause that's what sport auto did on a time where everybody wanted to drive the CGT.they simply didn't want to wait another 10 months to drive with a CGT that was driven by every idiot.

    "Old Stig, in the M3 (dry): 1:31.8
    New Stig, in the M3 CSL (semi-slicks, in the wet): 1:28.0
    I suppose it's the CSL's extra 100 hp that makes the difference..."
    have i mentioned these lap times?comparing a "semi"track car to a road car...you know the story of apples and oranges.

    Zonda S: 1:24.5
    Zonda S: 1:23.8
    cool,both times slower than the GT3 RS.as for the murcielago lap time...are you sure it wasn't raining when the 1:29 was clocked?if not i simply couldn't explain this neither would you.

    "LOL. I thought you were done some 3 posts ago"
    LOL me too but you kept coming with stupid arguments.
    this is definitly my last post.but please don't insult me.i don't like that and makes me think that you're an idiot.
     

Share This Page