PDA

View Full Version : Ferrari F40 VS Porsche 959?



Pages : [1] 2

Spastik_Roach
02-11-2004, 12:56 AM
Porsche 959 for me. Like the way it looks like a 911 thats been stepped on.

Matra et Alpine
02-11-2004, 06:44 AM
Porsche 959 for me. Like the way it looks like a 911 thats been stepped on.
Me too, it's the only rear wing on a 911 I actually like.

Lambo r-gt
02-11-2004, 08:18 AM
i'll go with the f40 :D

turbonium43
02-16-2004, 12:04 AM
959 for me...the technology in that car is just amazing and really showed what porsche was capable of at the time

kiwitt
03-11-2004, 05:27 PM
A better comparison should have been "Ferrari 288 GTO and the Porsche 959". Both were built to similar rules (i.e. Group B).

My choice by the way is the Porsche 959.

gtsgtsgt
12-20-2007, 05:58 PM
F40 any day over 959

NicFromLA
12-20-2007, 08:50 PM
F40.

And its not just because I love Ferrari. The 959 was a revolutionary car in its time and in the late 80s I might've bought one over the F40, but 959 is pretty much what the 997 Turbo has become while there will never be another car quite like the F40.

Lotec_Sirius
12-20-2007, 08:54 PM
959 for me, and yes I agree that 959 vs 288 GTO would have been a better comparison.

kingofthering
12-20-2007, 08:56 PM
F40 for me.

Quiggs
12-20-2007, 09:08 PM
I don't know how anyone could listen to this and still want the 959 more.

YouTube - Red Ferrari F40 with Tubi exhaust on the dyno (http://youtube.com/watch?v=7t8TpyE5QI4)

CdocZ
12-20-2007, 09:23 PM
F40 for me. It's more of a driver's car from what I hear.

torque55
12-22-2007, 07:13 AM
F-40 everytime, plus ferrari's dont age in the same way that the rest of the automotive world does.

sealthadeal
01-10-2008, 04:24 PM
the 959 will only keep up with the f40 on a straight line, once they are on the race track the 959 becomes a volkswagen beatle and u dont have to believe me just research it!!!

Matra et Alpine
01-10-2008, 04:38 PM
WHich 959 ? I remember a car test in the 80s where they took a lightweight, no frills added F40 and put it up against a COMFORT version of the 959 and then proclaimed the F40 the better. Felt back then it was a clear editorial bias as they should have pitted the Sport 959 whci was the lighter and faster.

But even then, the 959 couldn't keep up with an F40, the 959 just wasn't geared enough to keep pushing hard beyond 140-150.

However, how many DAKAR did the F40 win ? :)

Ferrer
01-10-2008, 04:46 PM
However, how many DAKAR did the F40 win ? :)
Try comparing both cars endurance racing record. ;)

Matra et Alpine
01-10-2008, 06:00 PM
Try comparing both cars endurance racing record. ;)
at least it was capable and tried, winning first in class in it's race version - the 961
How many F40 entries in rallying ??
:D

Ferrer
01-10-2008, 11:55 PM
at least it was capable and tried, winning first in class in it's race version - the 961
How many F40 entries in rallying ??
:D
Well the thing is the Ferrari Group B contender should've been the 288 GTO, not the F40.

Which anyway didn't enter anything either. :p

NSXType-R
01-11-2008, 01:31 PM
WHich 959 ? I remember a car test in the 80s where they took a lightweight, no frills added F40 and put it up against a COMFORT version of the 959 and then proclaimed the F40 the better. Felt back then it was a clear editorial bias as they should have pitted the Sport 959 whci was the lighter and faster.

But even then, the 959 couldn't keep up with an F40, the 959 just wasn't geared enough to keep pushing hard beyond 140-150.

However, how many DAKAR did the F40 win ? :)

I didn't know they made a 959 sport.

Either way, both cars were blisteringly fast for their time period. Instant classics.

broken
01-11-2008, 02:09 PM
Porsche is my favorite car company and I love the 959 but I'm going to have to go with the F40 on this one. Just for the fact that it's Enzo's last design and it's the last pure Ferrari IMO. Put it this way, if you tell a little kid to draw a sports car, he'll draw an F40.

jump15vc
02-05-2008, 10:10 PM
f40 just because, a 959 looks like a stretched 911, an f40 looks entirely unique

gtsgtsgt
02-13-2008, 07:12 PM
well f40 is for me, every thing about it was so brilliant, 959 was a very good car but f40 was just better.

wt888
02-19-2008, 02:44 PM
The F40 is a great drivers car, the Porsche 959 is a great piece of engineering but does not involve you the same way the F40 does. I know two owners who recently sold the 959's and bought F40s.

dydzi
02-19-2008, 03:18 PM
I didn't know they made a 959 sport.

Either way, both cars were blisteringly fast for their time period. Instant classics.

even more surprising than you'd've thought... Porsche 959 Paris Dakar (http://www.qv500.com/porsche959p2.php)

F40 for me. better in every aspect

kigango123
02-19-2008, 04:02 PM
F40 seems the more satisfying choice in both a collector and racing aspect

Ferrer
02-19-2008, 04:16 PM
even more surprising than you'd've thought... Porsche 959 Paris Dakar (http://www.qv500.com/porsche959p2.php)

F40 for me. better in every aspect
Well that was the point. The 959 was supposed to be a development for a Group B rally car.

NSXType-R
02-19-2008, 05:36 PM
even more surprising than you'd've thought... Porsche 959 Paris Dakar (http://www.qv500.com/porsche959p2.php)

F40 for me. better in every aspect

Well I knew that it had a Dakar rally variant. I just didn't know that they had a sport version of the 959.

60Valves
02-26-2008, 08:14 AM
F40 for me. However I recent read article by a guy who owns both and says the F50 is an even better car:

Ferrari Life Quarterly, The International Magazine About Ferrari & Lifestyle - Ferrari Life (http://www.ferrarilife.com/flq/)

Issue #7

Torocojonudo
05-22-2008, 09:43 AM
The 288GTO Evoluzione never made it to a race and Ferrari took from there for the F40. A F40 is way faster than a 959 in everything, but in the rain the 959 will easily beat the F40. Anyway I don't care, just a F40 for me.

wt888
05-22-2008, 12:05 PM
The 288GTO Evoluzione never made it to a race and Ferrari took from there for the F40. A F40 is way faster than a 959 in everything, but in the rain the 959 will easily beat the F40. Anyway I don't care, just a F40 for me.

On a F1 type track, the 959 and F40 will be very close. In fact the 959 might be slightly quicker.

60Valves
05-23-2008, 01:21 AM
The 288GTO Evoluzione never made it to a race and Ferrari took from there for the F40. A F40 is way faster than a 959 in everything, but in the rain the 959 will easily beat the F40. Anyway I don't care, just a F40 for me.

On a track, the 959 has ABS. This will allow it to brake a bit later and get on the power earlier coming out of a corner. Hence it will be slightly quicker than an F40.

roosterjuicer
05-23-2008, 07:57 AM
Ill pick F40. it is by far my favorite ferrari of all time and i like ferrari waay more than i like porsche.

BTW the 959 is by far my favorite porsche.

Rapax
05-23-2008, 09:17 AM
Well that was the point. The 959 was supposed to be a development for a Group B rally car.

Compare a 959 with Lancia Delta S4. For me - F40.

roosterjuicer
05-23-2008, 09:42 AM
How do they compare numbers wise??

0-60, 1/4mile, trap speed, and top speed? i know they are pretty close but how close?

Badsight
05-29-2008, 03:29 AM
F40 wasnt a road car

it was a racer with lights

F40 would win on the track . & lose off it . 1000 km trip in a F40 ? hell no

60Valves
05-29-2008, 06:34 AM
F40 wasnt a road car

it was a racer with lights

F40 would win on the track . & lose off it . 1000 km trip in a F40 ? hell no


I have done several 1000+ km trips in an F40 and it is fine.

Rockefella
05-29-2008, 06:54 AM
I have done several 1000+ km trips in an F40 and it is fine.

Do you own an F40?

Lagonda
05-29-2008, 01:25 PM
Do you own an F40?

Probably not, but he's going to say yes. :D

60Valves
11-19-2008, 01:42 AM
Do you own an F40?

Yes. For a little over two years now. It is a 92 with cats & adjustable suspension.

60Valves
11-19-2008, 01:43 AM
Probably not, but he's going to say yes. :D

Wrong.

clutch-monkey
11-19-2008, 02:42 AM
it's customary to back up such a statement with proof...?

Q TOY
11-19-2008, 05:24 AM
F40 its about as extreme a super car as you can get!

60Valves
11-19-2008, 07:44 AM
it's customary to back up such a statement with proof...?

Here are a few pictures of the F40 at an event in Spain earlier this year and in Italy last year.

jump15vc
11-19-2008, 08:27 AM
eggnog, or those pics mean nothing

Wouter Melissen
11-19-2008, 08:33 AM
eggnog, or those pics mean nothing

Please be a little more polite and explain what you mean with eggnog. For most 'normal' people that is nothing more than yellow drink. It's also not like he is boasting his car like normal non-owners would.

60Valves
11-19-2008, 09:25 AM
Please be a little more polite and explain what you mean with eggnog. For most 'normal' people that is nothing more than yellow drink. It's also not like he is boasting his car like normal non-owners would.

Thank you.

Here are a few more pictures from the event in Italy at Mugello and one taken this spring.

Wouter Melissen
11-19-2008, 09:27 AM
How do you live with the heavy clutch? The custom here is to stick a piece of paper over the gearshift with your username on it, to show that you have access to the car. It was invented by one of our longstanding members EggNog. Hence the EggNog request.

60Valves
11-20-2008, 12:55 AM
How do you live with the heavy clutch? The custom here is to stick a piece of paper over the gearshift with your username on it, to show that you have access to the car. It was invented by one of our longstanding members EggNog. Hence the EggNog request.

Overtime you get used to the clutch. On the track or open road it is fine. It is only if you get caught in traffic that it becomes a real pain.

Per the EggNog request:

f6fhellcat13
11-20-2008, 12:57 AM
Per the EggNog request:
Epic.
:)

clutch-monkey
11-20-2008, 01:12 AM
Overtime you get used to the clutch. On the track or open road it is fine. It is only if you get caught in traffic that it becomes a real pain.

Per the EggNog request:

niiiiice.

i assume it's nice to own a dream car? :D

60Valves
11-20-2008, 01:19 AM
niiiiice.

i assume it's nice to own a dream car? :D

I have been fortunate enough to own a few special cars. Driving the F40 is always a special event, you never get bored doing it.

henk4
11-20-2008, 01:32 AM
I have been fortunate enough to own a few special cars. Driving the F40 is always a special event, you never get bored doing it.

but do you drive it only for special events or is there a portion of daily use as well?

AERO_HDT
11-20-2008, 02:36 AM
The Porsche 959 is perhaps the greatest Porsche ever built - a technological tour-de-force in the 1980's. Cabin mounted tyre pressure guages, height adjustable suspension, adjustable torque-split 4WD differential, the first road Porsche to feature the PSK - twenty years before it finally featured on a 911.

The F40 will be legendary in years to come and I think it would be a frightening car to drive at full pelt in any conditions - twin turbos, manic boost, no driver aids, mid-engined and rear wheel driven. A masterpiece.

Splitting these two cars would be very difficult. Even respected journalists shy away from making versus comparisons. They're both brilliant cars, I'd be happy if I could own either.

60Valves you are a lucky lucky man! I hope you appreciate just how lucky you are, I'd give my left leg... no my right leg - no I'd need that too....

My left arm? Nope... right arm?

Hmmmm. Need all legs and all arms to drive a car like that.

Let's just say I'd give a lot to have one drive in either of those cars!

;)

Ferrer
11-20-2008, 03:34 AM
Epic.
:)
Indeed.

EDIT I think it should feature in the official rides thread.

Bleeding Heart
11-20-2008, 06:43 AM
No contest...

I will take the Ferrari F40

For me... The F40 is the ultimate Ferrari...

http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff252/maharshishaha007/Cars/FerrariF40.jpg

60Valves
11-20-2008, 09:29 AM
but do you drive it only for special events or is there a portion of daily use as well?

It really only gets used on the weekends and for events/rallys. As a daily driver it is very impractical. Crawling in traffic is not fun in a F40. I have done it, but it is best avoided.

henk4
11-20-2008, 09:32 AM
It really only gets used on the weekends and for events/rallys. As a daily driver it is very impractical. Crawling in traffic is not fun in a F40. I have done it, but it is best avoided.
I understand, what's the main impracticality? The clutch or all-round visibility?

AERO_HDT
11-20-2008, 01:57 PM
Have you driven the F40 hard around a circuit 60Valve? There is conjecture amongst a few colleagues of mine as to whether or not the F40 has understeer if driven hard in track conditions, or is it a case of the rear always being in full-swing?

60Valves
11-21-2008, 03:44 AM
I understand, what's the main impracticality? The clutch or all-round visibility?

Not trying to be smart but the main impracticality is that it is an F40.

It is designed to be driven hard on open roads or the track. Traffic is just not good for it.

I have never had any real issues with visibilty (which might be more due to being used to not having much of it).

Clutch is heavy and does get old fast when you have to crawl along (also not cheap to replace).

60Valves
11-21-2008, 03:46 AM
Have you driven the F40 hard around a circuit 60Valve? There is conjecture amongst a few colleagues of mine as to whether or not the F40 has understeer if driven hard in track conditions, or is it a case of the rear always being in full-swing?

Yes, several times. One of the pictures below was taken on the track at Mugello.

Steering and handling is very percise. Washing wide is more a factor of how and when you feed in the power.

henk4
11-21-2008, 03:47 AM
Not trying to be smart but the main impracticality is that it is an F40.

It is designed to be driven hard on open roads or the track. Traffic is just not good for it.

I have never had any real issues with visibilty (which might be more due to being used to not having much of it).

Clutch is heavy and does get old fast when you have to crawl along (also not cheap to replace).

makes perfect sense:) (without being overly smart;))

Joao Gois
11-21-2008, 04:29 AM
Steering and handling is very percise. Washing wide is more a factor of how and when you feed in the power.

Obviously. Enzo wouldn't have done it for less. Any way, I imagine the insane sudden acceleration when you reach turbo boost must also be quite dificult to deal withif you're not used to that "kick-in", right? I mean, it must be somewhat like I used to hear the Group B rally car drivers discuss: you had to start accelerating in the middle of the corner counting with the huge turbo lag and hope you were already in a straight line when the turbo kicked in...

Eather way, the F40 would be my choice too. Not just because I'm a Ferrari fan but overall it's still possibly the most astonishing Ferrari built...

LeonOfTheDead
11-21-2008, 06:43 AM
Overtime you get used to the clutch. On the track or open road it is fine. It is only if you get caught in traffic that it becomes a real pain.

Per the EggNog request:

don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you don't actually own the car.
but, I see from the pics that the car is a RHD, while your country flag is UK, so I just would like to ask about that. it's quite usual to find here and there some old RR or Bentley in LHD in some classics/exotics dealer here.
Actually I don't know if LHD F40 were ever made.

btw, you own a masterpiece, that's for sure :D
I had the chance to stand in front of this car a lot of time, and I never get bored of its details, its shape, it is really something impressing.

AERO_HDT
11-21-2008, 07:02 AM
The car is a LHD isn't it?

60Valves
11-21-2008, 07:56 AM
don't get me wrong, I'm not saying you don't actually own the car.
but, I see from the pics that the car is a RHD, while your country flag is UK, so I just would like to ask about that. it's quite usual to find here and there some old RR or Bentley in LHD in some classics/exotics dealer here.
Actually I don't know if LHD F40 were ever made.

btw, you own a masterpiece, that's for sure :D
I had the chance to stand in front of this car a lot of time, and I never get bored of its details, its shape, it is really something impressing.

All F40s are LHD. My car is a LHD, suggest you take another look at the pictures.

The only RHD F40s were special models converted by Pininfaria for the Sultan of Brunei. Same goes for the F50.

LeonOfTheDead
11-21-2008, 03:53 PM
All F40s are LHD. My car is a LHD, suggest you take another look at the pictures.

The only RHD F40s were special models converted by Pininfaria for the Sultan of Brunei. Same goes for the F50.

oh, sorry I just inverted RHD with LHD (I was thinking about the road, not the steering wheel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_on_the_left_or_right)).:o
thanks for clearing up of there were models in the opposite configuration. :)

60Valves
11-24-2008, 07:59 AM
oh, sorry I just inverted RHD with LHD (I was thinking about the road, not the steering wheel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_on_the_left_or_right)).:o
thanks for clearing up of there were models in the opposite configuration. :)

No problem. All the recent Ferrari "Supercars" are LHD only.

P4g4nite
11-24-2008, 08:43 AM
60Valves, is your F40 in factory condition? I only ask because I sometimes read about/youtube F40s sporting big bore titanium exhausts or Koenig upgrade gear.
Turbocharger technology has come a long way in the past 20 years and I imagine a pair of modern, ball bearing units could make the same power with greatly improved response.

But maybe that is it's charm.

60Valves
11-28-2008, 05:01 AM
60Valves, is your F40 in factory condition? I only ask because I sometimes read about/youtube F40s sporting big bore titanium exhausts or Koenig upgrade gear.
Turbocharger technology has come a long way in the past 20 years and I imagine a pair of modern, ball bearing units could make the same power with greatly improved response.

But maybe that is it's charm.

My F40 is stock with two exceptions, the original IHI turbos were replaced with KKK turbos and a freer flowing sports exhaust has been fitted. Result of the two is bhp is up from 478 to 600. The factory figures are very conservative, the LM versions of the F40 develop close to 800 bhp. You can get plenty more power out of the car without to much effort.

The F40 has been featured is a few articles which can be downloaded from:

Ferrari Life Quarterly, The International Magazine About Ferrari & Lifestyle - Ferrari Life (http://www.ferrarilife.com/flq/flq.php)

Kitdy
11-28-2008, 05:26 AM
My F40 is stock with two exceptions, the original IHI turbos were replaced with KKK turbos and a freer flowing sports exhaust has been fitted. Result of the two is bhp is up from 478 to 600. The factory figures are very conservative, the LM versions of the F40 develop close to 800 bhp. You can get plenty more power out of the car without to much effort.

The F40 has been featured is a few articles which can be downloaded from:

Ferrari Life Quarterly, The International Magazine About Ferrari & Lifestyle - Ferrari Life (http://www.ferrarilife.com/flq/flq.php)

Out of curiosity, what'd you d with the original turbos and exhaust?

What boost do the KKK's put out?

60Valves
12-02-2008, 02:38 AM
Out of curiosity, what'd you d with the original turbos and exhaust?


Upgrade was done bythe last owner so I have no idea what happened to the original turbos. As they were 11 years old, probably were just disgarded.

Knuto
12-02-2008, 06:57 AM
Upgrade was done bythe last owner so I have no idea what happened to the original turbos. As they were 11 years old, probably were just disgarded.

Thats a shame, would make for two nice sculptures :)

Mr-Supercar
12-02-2008, 08:06 AM
F40 for me but the F50 would have demolished the 959! might have been newer but it can compete with today supercars and win most of the time.

Kitdy
12-02-2008, 08:32 AM
Thats a shame, would make for two nice sculptures :)

Yeah that's something I would keep and do something with I'd like to hope. Even if they're just in a box it's like, these two turbos are part of one of the sickest cars ever to grace the streets of Earth.

Rockefella
12-02-2008, 12:21 PM
What boost do the KKK's put out?

Jingoism, in a way.

Knuto
12-02-2008, 12:54 PM
Yeah that's something I would keep and do something with I'd like to hope. Even if they're just in a box it's like, these two turbos are part of one of the sickest cars ever to grace the streets of Earth.

Exactly. In one of the latest issues of Classic and Sports Cars I read about a guy who used the crankshaft off a Lancia D24 as a lamp on his desk. The lead went through the oil gate drillings. Also remember reading about a guy who used a segment of a Concorde wing as a drawing board

wwgkd
12-02-2008, 12:58 PM
Exactly. In one of the latest issues of Classic and Sports Cars I read about a guy who used the crankshaft off a Lancia D24 as a lamp on his desk. The lead went through the oil gate drillings. Also remember reading about a guy who used a segment of a Concorde wing as a drawing board

Ferrari sells bits of F1 cars for similar reasons. If I had more money...

Knuto
12-02-2008, 02:14 PM
Ferrari sells bits of F1 cars for similar reasons. If I had more money...

Yeah thats right. I remember i saw pistons, conrods and bits of CFRP for sale in the Galeria. Ridiculus price though... Didnt they sell working F1 V10s which you could have inside your house? (with ducting for exhaust) All ~150dB of it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBXUOomynxw)

wwgkd
12-02-2008, 02:37 PM
Yeah thats right. I remember i saw pistons, conrods and bits of CFRP for sale in the Galeria. Ridiculus price though... Didnt they sell working F1 V10s which you could have inside your house? (with ducting for exhaust) All ~150dB of it (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBXUOomynxw)

That would be the greatest piece of art ever.

60Valves
12-03-2008, 01:33 AM
F40 for me but the F50 would have demolished the 959! might have been newer but it can compete with today supercars and win most of the time.

True, the F50 is in a different league. It is built with a full carbon fiber tube, F1 derived engine, and push rod suspension. The F50s limits are significantly higher than the F40s.

GumballRunner
12-03-2008, 12:59 PM
Even if I weren't a Porsche fanboy, I would go for the 959 for practicality reasons:
- Has a trunk of some sort
- Small engine means decent fuel economy (even with twin turbo)

Ferrer
12-03-2008, 01:17 PM
Even if I weren't a Porsche fanboy, I would go for the 959 for practicality reasons:
- Has a trunk of some sort
- Small engine means decent fuel economy (even with twin turbo)
The engine in the F40 is less 100cc bigger.

Ferrari60
12-15-2008, 11:13 PM
The Ferrari F40 was the last car produced under the name of Enzo Ferrari. This man devoted his life to creating a legend in motorsport and as we know, he sure accomplished this achievement. Ferrari is more than another car manufacturer-It is a name that represents passion, charisma, winning, and the stroey of how Enzo created this beautiful thing. The Ferrari F40 showed that Enzo Ferrari wanted to build a car that would somehow revisit the brutal roots and character of earlier Ferraris. He set out to make a point to the world that even without his existence, Ferrari as a company is still perfectly able to produce amazing, charismatic, and remarkable machines. Therefore, I would surely take the car that in a way, encapsulates what Ferrari is all about in a very loud and dramatic way.


TO be honest, the 959 is a bit boring, and most people have heard more about the f40 than the 959. Also, the 959 probably doesn't have this history or symbolism as the F40.


So it's a clear decision.............The glorious Ferrari F40.

Vanishing Boy
12-16-2008, 02:20 AM
-> Ever since my tender age of 9, I've been adoring the 959 in a world of Countach's, ZR-1's, Vector W8, and especially the F40.

http://pictures.topspeed.com/IMG/crop/200602/1981-porsche-959-12_460x0w.jpg

-> Its clean, streamlined shape was the benchmark performance for Porsche that held for few years until the 911 GT1 was released to the street and was also established my love with the hi-po 911's.

http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/142/069_3724~Ferrari-F40-Posters.jpg

-> Sure, the F40 has the raw-edged performance that will separate you and your mortality. Sure the F40 has the Enzo's touch. And the F40 gives you a representation on how it feels to be in an F1 car.

http://aussieexotics.com/forum/dlattach.html;topic=320.0;attach=4680;image

-> But the 959 has the medal of honors (or should I mean trophies). The 959 conquered both road and rally, a rarity on a super car. Plus its a lot rarer, this car is not US-legal (unless if I have the $$$$$$, I can just show up in Canepa Design and get their US-legal 600hp version), a all-weather performance monster even by todays standard is still being feared, and its every day usability thrumps it compared to the F40.

http://www.autoblog.com/media/2006/07/porsche-959-rally-dakar-dusty-resized.jpg

http://www.qv500.com/Porsche%20959%20P3%201.jpg

:)

Bleeding Heart
12-16-2008, 03:57 AM
The F40 may not be an everyday car but it feels a lot more special if you drive it...

It has more soul and passion...

apple HEAD
12-16-2008, 06:58 AM
the 959 was succesfull in different motorsports and the ferrari well it just wasnt.

the 959 is the more technically advanced. the engine was fitted to the956 and962 group c racecars. the porsche also had four wheel drive with variable torque split, with manual and electronic adjustable settings for different road conditions.

it has a six speed box, double wishbone suspension with height asdjustment,hydraulic and mechanical damping, 51% of the body is of composite material and the drag co-efficient is a slippery 0.32. it also had on board tyre pressure monitors and hollow magnesium rims.

the porsche was £50 thousand cheaper even tho they only made 268 compared to the f40's 1315 units.

The porsche 959 came 7th overall in the 1986 le mans 24hr. and won the paris dakar the same year. the 959 also placed 2nd and 5th.

Bleeding Heart
12-16-2008, 07:02 AM
Ferrari was never that successful in GT racing those years... They were heavily concentrating on F1

henk4
12-16-2008, 07:04 AM
the porsche was £50 thousand cheaper even tho they only made 268 compared to the f40's 1315 units.


which turned the F40 into a profitable car and the 959 in a prolific loss maker....

apple HEAD
12-16-2008, 07:06 AM
fair enough. but why is it that the more numerous F40 commands a premium over the rarer,more sophisticated 959?

henk4
12-16-2008, 07:08 AM
fair enough. but why is it that the more numerous F40 commands a premium over the rarer,more sophisticated 959?

the whims of the market and a specific brand name....

Bleeding Heart
12-16-2008, 07:12 AM
fair enough. but why is it that the more numerous F40 commands a premium over the rarer,more sophisticated 959?

I think the 959 isn't much more sophisticated than the f40... The F40 just hve a simple lightweight construction...

apple HEAD
12-16-2008, 07:22 AM
in my opinion the 959 is a more sophisticated car. The ferrari is like a road legal race car with four wheels and a twin turbocharged 288 gto engine.

wheras the porsche can almost match its performance but do so in a more refined and well mannered way and has all the modern refinements you would expect to find on a luxury GT.

Bleeding Heart
12-16-2008, 07:24 AM
Wait... Correct me if i'm wrong but... did the 959 also had twin turbos in them?

Rockefella
12-16-2008, 07:27 AM
Wait... Correct me if i'm wrong but... did the 959 also had twin turbos in them?

Twin-Turbo 6.

1986 - 1988 Porsche 959 - Images, Specifications and Information (http://ultimatecarpage.com/car/427/Porsche-959.html)

Ferrer
12-16-2008, 07:30 AM
I think the 959 isn't much more sophisticated than the f40... The F40 just hve a simple lightweight construction...
The Porsche is quite a lot more sofisticated than the F40.

Newyorkkopter
12-20-2008, 07:12 AM
Sophistication doesn't really matter unless it works. Yes, the 959 is more sophisticated but for what reason?
The F40 is lighter, faster, and more thrilling to drive...which is what you want in a supercar. If a supercar's sophistication takes away from its performance then whats the point?

Like the Veyron with its 4 turbos, 16 cylinders, AWD, 10 radiators, that can't even beat a much less sophisticated UltimateAero TT packing 2 turbos, 8 cylinders, and 2WD.

So again, whats the point of all that sophistication?

LeonOfTheDead
12-20-2008, 09:02 AM
The Ferrari F40 was the last car produced under the name of Enzo Ferrari. This man devoted his life to creating a legend in motorsport and as we know, he sure accomplished this achievement. Ferrari is more than another car manufacturer-It is a name that represents passion, charisma, winning, and the stroey of how Enzo created this beautiful thing. The Ferrari F40 showed that Enzo Ferrari wanted to build a car that would somehow revisit the brutal roots and character of earlier Ferraris. He set out to make a point to the world that even without his existence, Ferrari as a company is still perfectly able to produce amazing, charismatic, and remarkable machines. Therefore, I would surely take the car that in a way, encapsulates what Ferrari is all about in a very loud and dramatic way.


TO be honest, the 959 is a bit boring, and most people have heard more about the f40 than the 959. Also, the 959 probably doesn't have this history or symbolism as the F40.


So it's a clear decision.............The glorious Ferrari F40.

your words about Ferrari and the F40 can be correct, but you should remember Porsche was an even more important man for the automotive history and industry. and in the same way the F40 can fit Ferrari's image, I could think the same about the 959 and Porsche itself.why should a 959 have less history and symbolism?
Porsche itself is basically as old as Ferrari as a company, and both already have a sparkling career when these two cars came out, even if the victories in F1 for Ferrari make it seems a better company, but at the same time, Porsche was basically as powerful with sportscars as Ferrari was in F1.
and talking about symbolism, the hi-tech approach of the 959 really fits Porsche own attitude. just as an example, the first electric car with 4 motors, one for each wheel, was unveiled in Paris and design by Porsche itself.


Ferrari was never that successful in GT racing those years... They were heavily concentrating on F1

BPR Championship saw many battles between the F40 and the McLaren F1. and the F40 was quite a tough competition for the British car.


I think the 959 isn't much more sophisticated than the f40... The F40 just hve a simple lightweight construction...

you just said it. the F40 is simply a lightweight car (even if it's quite reductive), the 959 is way more than that (and I0m not saying it's best or worst than the red car by this reason)


Sophistication doesn't really matter unless it works. Yes, the 959 is more sophisticated but for what reason?
The F40 is lighter, faster, and more thrilling to drive...which is what you want in a supercar. If a supercar's sophistication takes away from its performance then whats the point?

Like the Veyron with its 4 turbos, 16 cylinders, AWD, 10 radiators, that can't even beat a much less sophisticated UltimateAero TT packing 2 turbos, 8 cylinders, and 2WD.

So again, whats the point of all that sophistication?

first of all, the Veyron has 13 radiators, not that it really matters.

second, what do you mean saying the Veyron can't beat the SSC Aero? if perhaps you are referring to their top speeds, I would just say, what's the point of top speed, especially if it is so high?
I'm pretty sure the Aero is an excellent performer, and even a completely different car from the Veyron, they have just two thing in common, mroe than 1000 hp and more than 400 km/h as top speed. period, I can't even understand why they are always compared.

back on topic, even if it's true that the F40 is basically a better driver car, you can't say the 959 is rubbish, or boring, without the thrill of driving.
again we are facing to different cars, because as stated above, the F40 is basically a race car designed to be road legal (a concept taken to the next level with the F50), and it doesn't have anything that isn't specifically required for something which isn't going fast.
while the 959's approach is to use everything they were capable of designing to go as fast as possible no matter of the environment you are in a specific moment. it can face wet roads, low grip surfaces, even speed bumps while carrying you home in the city with a decent comfort and all the gizmos you could have back in the last eighties.
that's the point of it's technology and sophistication, being usable, every day, in every moment.
try to use the F40 in the traffic, with its heavy clutch or insensible breaks that barely works when cold. try to do a long journey in its racing cockpit.
then try to call the 959 pointless or useless.

LTSmash
12-20-2008, 02:25 PM
^^^ Pretty much everything he said.

Bleeding Heart
12-20-2008, 06:59 PM
first of all, the Veyron has 13 radiators, not that it really matters.

second, what do you mean saying the Veyron can't beat the SSC Aero? if perhaps you are referring to their top speeds, I would just say, what's the point of top speed, especially if it is so high?
I'm pretty sure the Aero is an excellent performer, and even a completely different car from the Veyron, they have just two thing in common, mroe than 1000 hp and more than 400 km/h as top speed. period, I can't even understand why they are always compared.

back on topic, even if it's true that the F40 is basically a better driver car, you can't say the 959 is rubbish, or boring, without the thrill of driving.
again we are facing to different cars, because as stated above, the F40 is basically a race car designed to be road legal (a concept taken to the next level with the F50), and it doesn't have anything that isn't specifically required for something which isn't going fast.
while the 959's approach is to use everything they were capable of designing to go as fast as possible no matter of the environment you are in a specific moment. it can face wet roads, low grip surfaces, even speed bumps while carrying you home in the city with a decent comfort and all the gizmos you could have back in the last eighties.
that's the point of it's technology and sophistication, being usable, every day, in every moment.
try to use the F40 in the traffic, with its heavy clutch or insensible breaks that barely works when cold. try to do a long journey in its racing cockpit.
then try to call the 959 pointless or useless.

I think you have opened my eyes now...

I didn't take into consideration about the F40's heavy clucth nd lack of creature comfort...

The porsche really is better as an everyday car...

Bleeding Heart
12-20-2008, 07:02 PM
Sophistication doesn't really matter unless it works. Yes, the 959 is more sophisticated but for what reason?
The F40 is lighter, faster, and more thrilling to drive...which is what you want in a supercar. If a supercar's sophistication takes away from its performance then whats the point?

Like the Veyron with its 4 turbos, 16 cylinders, AWD, 10 radiators, that can't even beat a much less sophisticated UltimateAero TT packing 2 turbos, 8 cylinders, and 2WD.

So again, whats the point of all that sophistication?

I have to admit I like the SSC more than the Veyron but I doubt the SSC will beat the Veyron in a lap, specially a track which is very twisty...

clutch-monkey
12-20-2008, 07:03 PM
there was a white 959 in the workshop next to my car, made me sad :( do want!
the understated looks seem to pass from memory but when you see it again you remember why it is awesome (whereas the F40 is much more vivid)

LeonOfTheDead
12-21-2008, 02:50 AM
I have to admit I like the SSC more than the Veyron but I doubt the SSC will beat the Veyron in a lap, specially a track which is very twisty...

why should a heavier car be faster on a twisty track? don't say because of the 4wd system, Lamborghini is there to tell you that it doesn't really help as a given fact.

Bleeding Heart
12-21-2008, 07:02 AM
I don't really know why I have that thought...

It's because the bugatti seems to be more stable at corners...

Also, it accelerates more quickly than the SSC...

Cyco
12-21-2008, 03:51 PM
So you have driven a 4WD Bugatti too? Was it a EB110, or a Veyron you drove against the SSC?

Why did you bring this up in a thread about 959s and F40s?

f6fhellcat13
12-21-2008, 04:06 PM
For 0nce it wasn't his fault. Newyorkkopter brought up the Bug.

Bleeding Heart
12-21-2008, 04:55 PM
So you have driven a 4WD Bugatti too? Was it a EB110, or a Veyron you drove against the SSC?

Not really, just saw a video on YouTube a few months ago... The bugatti accelerates out of the corners so quickly...


Why did you bring this up in a thread about 959s and F40s?

Actually, that wasn't me... That was Newyorkkopter..

Here is his/her post to prove it to you...

Sophistication doesn't really matter unless it works. Yes, the 959 is more sophisticated but for what reason?
The F40 is lighter, faster, and more thrilling to drive...which is what you want in a supercar. If a supercar's sophistication takes away from its performance then whats the point?

Like the Veyron with its 4 turbos, 16 cylinders, AWD, 10 radiators, that can't even beat a much less sophisticated UltimateAero TT packing 2 turbos, 8 cylinders, and 2WD.

So again, whats the point of all that sophistication?

Newyorkkopter
12-28-2008, 05:21 PM
I wasn't calling the 959 rubbish or pointless. The 959 is really hot. I actually do like it.

Its just that I took it kinda personally when I read above that the 959 is the more sophisticated car; as if that makes it better than the F40. So that's why I was like so what if its more sophisticated, its not like the sophistication does much.

Now I still stand by what I said before(that the 959 has unnecessary technology for a supercar) but that doesn't mean I'm calling the 959 garbage, but rather that it would've been more extraordinary if it weren't so techy.

The 959 has 4WD, sequentials turbos, and what not, yet it still has specs simliar to that of the F40. So imagine if it didn't have all these technologies that are more or less there for everyday usability...

Also I brought up the Veyron and the SSC because they're opposites similar to how the F40 and 959 are opposites.

And for the taking the F40 on a long journey remark; since when did supercars become GT cars?

Bleeding Heart
12-28-2008, 06:36 PM
Its just that I took it kinda personally when I read above that the 959 is the more sophisticated car; as if that makes it better than the F40. So that's why I was like so what if its more sophisticated, its not like the sophistication does much.
The 959 is more sophisticated...



Now I still stand by what I said before(that the 959 has unnecessary technology for a supercar) but that doesn't mean I'm calling the 959 garbage, but rather that it would've been more extraordinary if it weren't so techy.

I think all that sophistication is there for a reason...


And for the taking the F40 on a long journey remark; since when did supercars become GT cars?

Some supercars I think may be used everyday... I'm not very sure though...
-Lamborghini Gallardo
-Porsche 911
-Ferrari 430
-Audi R8

LeonOfTheDead
12-29-2008, 02:38 AM
I wasn't calling the 959 rubbish or pointless. The 959 is really hot. I actually do like it.

Its just that I took it kinda personally when I read above that the 959 is the more sophisticated car; as if that makes it better than the F40. So that's why I was like so what if its more sophisticated, its not like the sophistication does much.

Now I still stand by what I said before(that the 959 has unnecessary technology for a supercar) but that doesn't mean I'm calling the 959 garbage, but rather that it would've been more extraordinary if it weren't so techy.

The 959 has 4WD, sequentials turbos, and what not, yet it still has specs simliar to that of the F40. So imagine if it didn't have all these technologies that are more or less there for everyday usability...

Also I brought up the Veyron and the SSC because they're opposites similar to how the F40 and 959 are opposites.

And for the taking the F40 on a long journey remark; since when did supercars become GT cars?

considering the 959 but without the 4wd system, the sequential turbo and so on is just like considering a completely different car. it's like saying the F40 should have comfy interiors, Bose sound system and and automatic gearbox. it wouldn't be the F40 anymore.
and, such a 959, without all the technological stuff, would result in a 962 dressed in a 911 suit, basically.
you just said it, all those "gizmos" are there just for everyday usability.
it's not that a car should be capable of doing everything, from hot laps during track days to taking you to the groceries store, but the 959 can, the F40 not.
that's the difference and that's why the 959 is more sophisticated, and even in a useful way.

I agree the Veyron VS SSC comparison is quite similar, but the Veyron is something a bit over the line even if compared to the 959.
the Veyron wants (probably) to be both a supercar and a comfy GT, the fact that is ended up being what it actually is is just because of the too long gestation and the mess the guys at VW did.


Some supercars I think may be used everyday... I'm not very sure though...
-Lamborghini Gallardo
-Porsche 911
-Ferrari 430
-Audi R8

I wouldn't consider any of these as a supercar, and just for a simple reason: if those are supercars, what about the other cars, from the 599 (just as an example) to the Zonda or the Veyron?

btw, it's true that a lot of supercars can be used and actually are used as an almost-daily drive, and that's a shame.
Why? it's again very simple. considering a lot of 550 Maranello owners were using their cars as their main drive, running more miles very year than what was happening with the former Testarossa/512 legacy, Ferrari was forced to make some heavy mods to their cars, making them for of all more reliable (arguable) and even more comfy.
it doesn't sound that bad, but creating a car which is more reliable means that you have to take an higher security index while designing it, and tht means that the car is going to be over dimensioned in every details, and so overall, and that the performance you are going to obtain from each details are inferiors to what possible with a lower index. Considering the comfy point, you already know that going to mean just one thing: weight.
so forget a new F40/F50

another point: why do you think Ferrari is considering a 4wd system for its cars? it's not for performance, they are fine with the E-diff and the likes. it's not for handling, since the cars already handle magnificently, and it's not for safety, since both Lamborghini and Ferrari can kill you no matter what.
but it's something people would like to have, even if they doesn't even know what that means.
it's like an R8 with a TDI engine, they will produce it just if the people will buy it.

the time of risking products is over a long time ago.

Bleeding Heart
12-29-2008, 05:23 AM
I wouldn't consider any of these as a supercar, and just for a simple reason: if those are supercars, what about the other cars, from the 599 (just as an example) to the Zonda or the Veyron?

Can we use the term "hypercars" for the zonda nd the bugatti???:D

BTW... Isn't the 599 considered a GT car???:confused:

LeonOfTheDead
12-29-2008, 06:10 AM
Can we use the term "hypercars" for the zonda nd the bugatti???:D

BTW... Isn't the 599 considered a GT car???:confused:

I wouldn't try to divide all cars in different categories, it's silly.
the 599 GTB has some typical aspects of what we usually call a GT car, but its performance level is actually pretty high.

for as regards me, I just like to think that each car (or brand) has its own attitude, even to the same idea, so we have pretty similar (technically) cars, like the Vaquish/S and the 550/575M, but with a completely different behavior, attitude, handling and so on.

Ferrer
12-29-2008, 06:36 AM
I think all that sophistication is there for a reason...
It's there because the 959 was meant to be an homologation special.

another point: why do you think Ferrari is considering a 4wd system for its cars? it's not for performance, they are fine with the E-diff and the likes. it's not for handling, since the cars already handle magnificently, and it's not for safety, since both Lamborghini and Ferrari can kill you no matter what.
but it's something people would like to have, even if they doesn't even know what that means.
it's like an R8 with a TDI engine, they will produce it just if the people will buy it.

the time of risking products is over a long time ago.
Costumers are imbeciles and should be removed from any engineering decisions.

wwgkd
12-29-2008, 06:38 AM
Costumers are imbeciles and should be removed from any engineering decisions.

It's funny, and yet so true.

LeonOfTheDead
12-29-2008, 06:41 AM
just noticed how awful my english was, and the funny thing is that it's been three days since I only speak english. shame on me.

btw, I don't think we will see the 4wd Ferrari anytime soon. the cars are designed so that they could use it, but the system (should be Getrag) is still in early stage of designing/testing with poor results from the technical point of view, while the next 612 is already in an advanced stage.

wwgkd
12-29-2008, 06:44 AM
just noticed how awful my english was, and the funny thing is that it's been three days since I only speak english. shame on me.

btw, I don't think we will see the 4wd Ferrari anytime soon. the cars are designed so that they could use it, but the system (should be Getrag) is still in early stage of designing/testing with poor results from the technical point of view, while the next 612 is already in an advanced stage.

That is good news. And no worries about the english, you speak it better than my grandmother, and she moved to the US (from germany) with what was left of her famiily right after WW2.

henk4
12-29-2008, 06:52 AM
[QUOTE=LeonOfTheDead;858845

btw, I don't think we will see the 4wd Ferrari anytime soon. the cars are designed so that they could use it, but the system (should be Getrag) is still in early stage of designing/testing with poor results from the technical point of view, while the next 612 is already in an advanced stage.[/QUOTE]

at the time of the 959 Ferrari was also experimenting with 4WD, one car is (was) on display in their museum, which I did see....

Bleeding Heart
12-29-2008, 06:54 AM
just noticed how awful my english was, and the funny thing is that it's been three days since I only speak english. shame on me.
Don't feel bad about it...
I'm not much on English either... And I'm even worse...


btw, I don't think we will see the 4wd Ferrari anytime soon. the cars are designed so that they could use it, but the system (should be Getrag) is still in early stage of designing/testing with poor results from the technical point of view, while the next 612 is already in an advanced stage.

Or, we wouldn't see them anytime at all in production...

AWD obviously makes a car heavier...

And weight is the last think that Ferrari might need... IMO

Ferrer
12-29-2008, 07:41 AM
btw, I don't think we will see the 4wd Ferrari anytime soon. the cars are designed so that they could use it, but the system (should be Getrag) is still in early stage of designing/testing with poor results from the technical point of view, while the next 612 is already in an advanced stage.
Good news indeed.

Even Lambo is going two wheel drive again.

LeonOfTheDead
12-29-2008, 08:01 AM
at the time of the 959 Ferrari was also experimenting with 4WD, one car is (was) on display in their museum, which I did see....

was that the 408 RM, right?

Newyorkkopter
12-29-2008, 05:20 PM
Thats another good point that the 959 wouldn't be a 959 without all the techy stuff. But then again adding that everyday technology defeats the purpose of a supercar.

Driving a supercar is supposed to be a pure driving experience. Its supposed to be you and the car without electronics coming in the way.

Adding everyday technology takes away from that experience. And as a result, turns a supercar into a sports car.

You get into a supercar because you just want to drive, you don't care for a radio, heated seats, automatic gearbox, sequential turbos, etc. because all these things take away from what you want: a drive like no other

You want to hear that ridiculously big V12 or twin turbo V8 roaring behind you, you want that direct communication between your hands and the steering wheel, you want that rush from driving a supercar because you know it can't come through any other car.

What makes supercars unique is their driving experience. And if you take that away, its like a marriage without fights. You're left with nothing.

I'm not saying that supercar should be street legal race-cars, but rather that they should only have things necessary to drive on the road. Because if you add unnecessary technology then its not a supercar anymore.

How can you even think to go grocery shopping in a supercar? Its like taking a Public Bus to the drag strip. Its going against the purpose of why it was built.
For now its grocery shopping, but whats next? Supercars should be able to go off-roading as well?

There’s a limit to how ridiculous you can get. I mean yea you should be able to pick a few things in a supercar like a bottle of water, or a some food; but to go full-out grocery shopping? Come on now

The F40 is a good example of what a supercar should be. Its drivable on the road, yet its still a wonder to drive.

4wd Ferrari? Wow I guess supercars really are dead.

Bleeding Heart
12-29-2008, 07:37 PM
Thats another good point that the 959 wouldn't be a 959 without all the techy stuff. But then again adding that everyday technology defeats the purpose of a supercar.

Driving a supercar is supposed to be a pure driving experience. Its supposed to be you and the car without electronics coming in the way.

Adding everyday technology takes away from that experience. And as a result, turns a supercar into a sports car.

Hey, isn't the 959 a sports car. I've done some researching lately and this is one of my results... So, the 959 has all that stuff because it's a sportscar, and not a supercar...
Porsche 959 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_959)


The F40 is a good example of what a supercar should be. Its drivable on the road, yet its still a wonder to drive.

4wd Ferrari? Wow I guess supercars really are dead.

I agree with you there...
If Ferrari were to make awd cars, that woulnd't end up well...
You don't need AWD in a supercar... As I said befor, that just adds weight...
Thus affecting the handling of the car...

clutch-monkey
12-29-2008, 07:49 PM
Adding everyday technology takes away from that experience. And as a result, turns a supercar into a sports car.
not necessarily, a lot of the time it simply lets you experience your supercar...more often. you shouldn't dread having to drive your supercar because it has no aircon and is jarringly harsh.


You get into a supercar because you just want to drive, you don't care for a radio, heated seats, automatic gearbox, sequential turbos, etc.
what? :confused:


I'm not saying that supercar should be street legal race-cars, but rather that they should only have things necessary to drive on the road.
with today's power figures a lot of that stuff is necessary to drive on the road..

Its like taking a Public Bus to the drag strip.
it's been done LOL

LeonOfTheDead
12-30-2008, 03:05 AM
Thats another good point that the 959 wouldn't be a 959 without all the techy stuff. But then again adding that everyday technology defeats the purpose of a supercar.

If you like your car, you would like to drive it as much as possible.


Driving a supercar is supposed to be a pure driving experience. Its supposed to be you and the car without electronics coming in the way.

Adding everyday technology takes away from that experience. And as a result, turns a supercar into a sports car.

You get into a supercar because you just want to drive, you don't care for a radio, heated seats, automatic gearbox, sequential turbos, etc. because all these things take away from what you want: a drive like no other

You want to hear that ridiculously big V12 or twin turbo V8 roaring behind you, you want that direct communication between your hands and the steering wheel, you want that rush from driving a supercar because you know it can't come through any other car.

What makes supercars unique is their driving experience. And if you take that away, its like a marriage without fights. You're left with nothing.

you are talking like if the 959 was a girly choice.
A lot of people like to think they would sacrifice all the comfort and the gizmos in order to have the ultimate drive.
actually, you aren't going to last long that way, like clutch said air conditioning is something basically mandatory to have, still the F40 didn't have it. I'm fine with that, but I can't imagine to buy a car even the fastest one without AC, or even ABS, ESP (obviously on/off capable), or even sat nav now.
Consider you have the last Porsche supercar, the Carrera GT. you want to take a trip to the Nurburgring in summer.
two options:
A - you asked Porsche for a raw car, without electronics, power-something and so on, so you need another car to tow the Carrera GT to the track. it's going to be a very long and boring trip.
B - you bought a regular Carrera GT, which is not that comfy compared to a lot of other cars, but its drivable enough to drive to the track, even living quite far from it, enjoy the day, and then come back on the same wheels, while enjoying fresh air in the cockpit, the sat nav preventing you from losing yourself in a foreign country and so on.

it's not that an F40 is pointless or useless either, but nowadays it would be completely contradictory to create such a car again, there isn't a amrket for such a product anymore basically. While back in the days, the F40 could have been created the way it is because it was something kinda acceptable in 1987. the F50 is quite more spartan consider it was unveiled 8 years later, and there already were supercars like the EB110 GT, the XJ220 or even the F1 around.

back in the days people were used to run for hundreds miles on horses. it wasn't very comfortable nor efficient, but it was the only way to travel.
20 years ago a car like the Veyron couldn't exist even because there weren't tires good enough for a two tons supercars (it's like saying the F40 had to be light just to make this much sense, apart from the performance side).

I would really like to own an old car, but I already know it would be something impossible to drive everyday in everyday conditions.
it would be an oxymoron. You should take a look at this thread: http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/forum/car-comparison/38357-your-realistic-dream-garage.html but just at the sensed posts ;)


I'm not saying that supercar should be street legal race-cars, but rather that they should only have things necessary to drive on the road. Because if you add unnecessary technology then its not a supercar anymore.

as posted before, there are things that are necessary today.
would you really drive a car without ABS, now?!
it's not something that it's impossible to do, but I wouldn't mind even an extra 50 kg for such a feature (I think it's about 5 kg tbh). Or 5 kg for power-windows, 15/20 kg for air conditioning, 0,5 kg for sat nav, 15 kg for comfier seats.
Read some of those article in Evo when they test a bunch of different cars for about a week. Even if cars like a Caterham are a joy to drive, they aren't the more contended, especially if the weather is not perfectly shining.


How can you even think to go grocery shopping in a supercar? Its like taking a Public Bus to the drag strip. Its going against the purpose of why it was built.
For now its grocery shopping, but whats next? Supercars should be able to go off-roading as well?

There’s a limit to how ridiculous you can get. I mean yea you should be able to pick a few things in a supercar like a bottle of water, or a some food; but to go full-out grocery shopping? Come on now

the McLaren F1 for example is quite drivable on everyday roads, and it even has (two) decent trunk(s). it's one of the best supercars ever made, still you can drive whenever you want. Not something you can do with the contemporary F50.


The F40 is a good example of what a supercar should be. Its drivable on the road, yet its still a wonder to drive.

4wd Ferrari? Wow I guess supercars really are dead.

the were saying even rally cars were dead when Audi came out with the quattro system.

I can understand that on a racing car an awd/4wd system can be quite pointless, but on the road, with tons of bhp and perhaps a wet road, it could help, even if something like Ferrari's E-Diff can still do the job greatly.
oh, wait, it's the E-Diff legal at your place?!


Hey, isn't the 959 a sports car. I've done some researching lately and this is one of my results... So, the 959 has all that stuff because it's a sportscar, and not a supercar...
Porsche 959 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porsche_959)

it's not that just because there is written something on Wiki it must eb the final truth.
I think no one can strictly define what a sportcar or a supercar is, there aren't scientific parameters or physics' laws to say that.


I agree with you there...
If Ferrari were to make awd cars, that woulnd't end up well...
You don't need AWD in a supercar... As I said befor, that just adds weight...
Thus affecting the handling of the car...

surely an awd/4wd car is going to weight more than an 2wd one, but not that much, and it can be even very useful if not necessary on some cases (ask Loeb&Co).
it's a matter of which behavior you want to give to the car, and which technical parameters you have to respect.

Again is silly to say that something must be done in a certain way.
saying that you prefer or would like things made in a certain way would be a better way of expressing the same idea.

for example, I don't like diesel engines, it's not a secret.
but both the cars we have are oil burners, and I enjoy driving them.
in everyday traffic, the torque at low rpm is very useful, and the high mileage is even better.
but, considering a performance car I found the noise simply awful, the lack or response terrible and the additional weight an expensive trade-off because what I'm going to achieve thanks to that, a better fuel economy, doesn't make sense in an expensive car (as it's supposed to be considering a performance car).
then I also have my technical opinions on the matter, like that the emissions of a diesel engine are higher and more difficult to control/reduce than in a petrol engine, or that the technical complexity applied to a diesel engine can generate an even better overall performance/effiiency if applied to a petrol one.
Surely I talked in a very harsh way about that in the past, but it's not that I own the truth, while I found your statements (referring to Newyorkhopter) quite strong and "definitive", without giving a serious explanation why it is like you are saying.
I could be wrong though, in which case, my apologies.

Ferrer
12-30-2008, 03:27 AM
The market for stripped out cars still is there. There may not be called Ferraris, but there some cars on the market that don't have any creature comforts whatsoever. Supercars have evolved, just like automotive industry has in general.

However I don't know if all this progress is really welcomed. Some is definitely good, like ABS or climate control. But then there are gadgets that simply aren't needed and that just add weight without really making driving easier or better. I'm thinking of automatic wipers, or active steering. We don't really need any of that but since being innovative and advanced is that then so be it.

Then there's the small matter of cars being built nowadays like tanks. There are several reasons for this but the fact of the matter is, a brand new Mini simply can't weight over 1100kg. Also linked to that is the supersizeme trend of modern cars, where every new generation has to bigger that the old one. Why? Why do we need such tall and wide cars? Surely apart from making our cities more crowded and more impossible to drive it also affect the weight, performance...

So all in all progress is always welcomed. I'm not sure all innovations in the automotive industry are really progress though.

LeonOfTheDead
12-30-2008, 03:40 AM
The market for stripped out cars still is there. There may not be called Ferraris, but there some cars on the market that don't have any creature comforts whatsoever. Supercars have evolved, just like automotive industry has in general.

However I don't know if all this progress is really welcomed. Some is definitely good, like ABS or climate control. But then there are gadgets that simply aren't needed and that just add weight without really making driving easier or better. I'm thinking of automatic wipers, or active steering. We don't really need any of that but since being innovative and advanced is that then so be it.

Then there's the small matter of cars being built nowadays like tanks. There are several reasons for this but the fact of the matter is, a brand new Mini simply can't weight over 1100kg. Also linked to that is the supersizeme trend of modern cars, where every new generation has to bigger that the old one. Why? Why do we need such tall and wide cars? Surely apart from making our cities more crowded and more impossible to drive it also affect the weight, performance...

So all in all progress is always welcomed. I'm not sure all innovations in the automotive industry are really progress though.

I agree, but consider that since cars are getting fatter, wider and taller, power steering, for example, is kinda required.
still having it on a Smart is completely senseless.
about the existence of a market for stripped out cars, of course there is one, but I think it's just for kit cars or not very expensive cars, like Caterham or Atom. I 'm not sure if there are still people willing to pay 200/300.000 euro for stripped down cars like the F40 was, just to stay on topic.
perhaps Ferrari could biuld a new F40 and probably it would sell like hot cake, but just because of the badge.
Ironically, I think the SLR is what the main part of the marlet would like.
the fact that I wasn't the astonishing success MB was looking for could be seen in a couple of things: poor interiors, especially being a MB, not excellent brakes, and, being a MB, it's not that saying MB, supercar is the first thing the comes to mind. adding the McLaren name didn't help that much, also because I suppose the average SLR buyer didn't even know about the F1 (Paris Hilton anyone?)

I would still own one :p

Man of Steel
12-30-2008, 04:55 AM
The Ferrari F40 is my all-time favourite supercar.

Bleeding Heart
12-30-2008, 05:01 AM
it's not that just because there is written something on Wiki it must eb the final truth.
I think no one can strictly define what a sportcar or a supercar is, there aren't scientific parameters or physics' laws to say that.



As to how I understand it... Supercars are "high end sports cars"

Supercars are more expensive, very fast with adequate amounts of handling, and very eye catching... Somewhat a racecar for the road...

A sportscar is somewhat a level lower in performance and somewhat more comfortable to live in every day life... Also, their a bit more economical than that of supercars...

I think it's not all about performance in some points of view...


BTW, This is harder than I though this would be...

LeonOfTheDead
12-30-2008, 05:39 AM
As to how I understand it... Supercars are "high end sports cars"

Supercars are more expensive, very fast with adequate amounts of handling, and very eye catching... Somewhat a racecar for the road...

A sportscar is somewhat a level lower in performance and somewhat more comfortable to live in every day life... Also, their a bit more economical than that of supercars...

I think it's not all about performance in some points of view...


BTW, This is harder than I though this would be...

even accepting that definition, the 959 was fast, expensive and eye catching.
definitions are there just those out of words and fantasy.

Bleeding Heart
12-30-2008, 06:43 AM
even accepting that definition, the 959 was fast, expensive and eye catching.
definitions are there just those out of words and fantasy.

yeah... It's really hard to differentiate a sports car to a super car...

I have just arrived to a conclusion that "all super cars are sports cars but not all sports cars are super cars."

I still can't separate the two even more...

wwgkd
12-30-2008, 10:14 AM
Not all of this stuff is really necessary, even if it may have been in the past, dude to advances in technology in design. Remember that the Saleen S7 does not have power steering, and it does just fine without it. In fact, in a test with the Enzo, the Murcie and the S7, the S7 was judged to have the best steering in all situations. Now, I've heard some theories but I'm still not exactly sure how they pulled that off. Still, they did. And I for one do not ever want sat nav in my car, and if it is a convertible I am more than willing to sacrifice AC. I don't have power anything (except steering, I guess) or cruise control or anything like that as it is and I don't really miss the loss. I do go on long trips too. In fact, I'm going to drive about 600 miles later today.

I'm not saying all cars should be strippers, but some should certainly be provided for those of use that want them.

LeonOfTheDead
12-30-2008, 10:31 AM
Not all of this stuff is really necessary, even if it may have been in the past, dude to advances in technology in design. Remember that the Saleen S7 does not have power steering, and it does just fine without it. In fact, in a test with the Enzo, the Murcie and the S7, the S7 was judged to have the best steering in all situations. Now, I've heard some theories but I'm still not exactly sure how they pulled that off. Still, they did. And I for one do not ever want sat nav in my car, and if it is a convertible I am more than willing to sacrifice AC. I don't have power anything (except steering, I guess) or cruise control or anything like that as it is and I don't really miss the loss. I do go on long trips too. In fact, I'm going to drive about 600 miles later today.

I'm not saying all cars should be strippers, but some should certainly be provided for those of use that want them.

unfortunately, I never read a review of the S7.
But considering the car is quite lightweight, it doesn't surprise me it doesn't need power-steering, even if I think it would be somehow annoying while in the traffic.
besides, the S7 is quite of a road legal racing car, so it's not something I would consider to use daily.
Did it sell well? in EU is not really considered, probably for prejudice, and I saw one just one time, it was exhibited in the paddock during a GT race.

again, comparing the S7 and the Enzo to the Murcielago is quite of unfair.

Don't get me wrong, the first car I drove was a very simple version of the first Renault Clio, and it was of course power-nothing (even hp lol).

but if I'm going to buy something like a Ferrari, a Lamborghini or even an S7, I want some stuff, otherwise I would head directly to an Atom or something similar, which means the simpler cars available.
btw, the S7's rear view camera isn't exactly a basilar feature.
I would have preferred ABS instead.

wwgkd
12-30-2008, 10:46 AM
Well, they did drive them in traffic and said the the steering was better than the murcies. They used some sort of voodoo in there that probably cost a lot more than power steering, but it is cool. And actually, the S7 has more luxury options than the Enzo, despite the weight difference, and is supposed to be pretty comfortable (in fact was considered more comfortable than the Enzo, and close to the Murcie.) It tends to get bad mouthed for it's lack of sophistication but in all actuallity is a better car than most super cars in many respects and many of the engineering tricks are not only clever but extremely practical. The fact that you can drive it in LA traffic without going crazy says a lot for it, too.

I am kind of biased towards them and read everything I can get about them (saw/heard one when they first came out and fell in love.) I would literally sell body parts for one (who needs two kidneys,) but that doesn't actually make it unique among cars, so take it for what it's worth.

LeonOfTheDead
12-30-2008, 10:59 AM
Well, they did drive them in traffic and said the the steering was better than the murcies. They used some sort of voodoo in there that probably cost a lot more than power steering, but it is cool. And actually, the S7 has more luxury options than the Enzo, despite the weight difference, and is supposed to be pretty comfortable (in fact was considered more comfortable than the Enzo, and close to the Murcie.) It tends to get bad mouthed for it's lack of sophistication but in all actuallity is a better car than most super cars in many respects and many of the engineering tricks are not only clever but extremely practical. The fact that you can drive it in LA traffic without going crazy says a lot for it, too.

I am kind of biased towards them and read everything I can get about them (saw/heard one when they first came out and fell in love.) I would literally sell body parts for one (who needs two kidneys,) but that doesn't actually make it unique among cars, so take it for what it's worth.

well, thanks for clearing that up, I knew the S7 was a good car but not that much. I liked it too since the first pic I saw of it, and at that time, I didn't even know Saleen at all (apart probably for the Mustang in GT2)
possibilities they were promoting an american car?
I mean, it's exactly what happen quite often here. a lot of cars tends to be undervalued just because of stereotypes like exotic = Italian, comfy or fast large sedan = German and so on.

clutch-monkey
12-30-2008, 04:18 PM
how many S7's have they sold in total? i liked them before they went turbo. i dislike power steering so props to them

it's not that an F40 is pointless or useless either, but nowadays it would be completely contradictory to create such a car again, there isn't a amrket for such a product anymore basically.


The market for stripped out cars still is there. There may not be called Ferraris,
exactly. the market/cars are still there, but you're not going to pay ferrari money for them.
if it was about the 'ultimte drive' or hardcore stripped out cars, you'd take your money down to caterham or ariel or radical..

LeonOfTheDead
12-31-2008, 07:22 AM
what I meant, is that you are going to buy cars like the Ultima ( a sort of modern F40) just because they are quite cheap being the fastest thing available for the same price of a well equipped 911.

Ferrer
12-31-2008, 08:01 AM
what I meant, is that you are going to buy cars like the Ultima ( a sort of modern F40) just because they are quite cheap being the fastest thing available for the same price of a well equipped 911.
But that doesn't detract the fact that the market for stripped out cars is still there. And probably someone who would consider one wouldn't consider a "luxury" sportscar and viceversa.

LeonOfTheDead
12-31-2008, 08:57 AM
But that doesn't detract the fact that the market for stripped out cars is still there. And probably someone who would consider one wouldn't consider a "luxury" sportscar and viceversa.

point is, the F40 cost, I don't know, ten times more than the Ultima trying to equalize the prices.

Newyorkkopter
12-31-2008, 09:11 AM
The reason why I'm so strongly arguing this point is because there is a clear difference between sports cars and supercars.

Sports cars are your performance cars that come nice, comfy, and cozy. They're drivable everyday, be it to work or to your local grocery store.

Supercars are your performance cars that come ridiculous, insane, and jaw-dropping. They're drivable only when you want to do one thing; drive.

Now, you're right that supercars should have a/c and should be comfortable enough to drive without a backache. Yes, by all means they should. After all they are road cars.

But to put things like 4wd, heated seats, automatic wipers, active steering, etc. that's all a waste. These things do nothing for a supercar but take away from its being a supercar.

Are you really going to drive your $500,000 supercar in snow, hail or even pouring rain?

Obviously not.

For groceries we have sedans, minivans, etc.
For off-roading we have SUVs, trucks, etc.
For the ultimate drive we have(or had in this case seems more appropriate).... supercars

Driving a supercar is supposed to be a drive you can't get it in any other car; mainly because other cars are filled with computers constantly butting in for various reasons (some of which may be necessary for every-day cars, but not for supercars)

The drive of a supercar is what makes a supercar, a supercar. Its a drive like no other.
And why is it a drive like no other? Because of the absence of unnecessary technology.

Technology like heated seats, active steering, 4wd is good for everyday cars; but not for supercars. For supercars thats all just unnecessary weight.

Regarding your example about the Carrera GT at Nurburgring.
Option A wouldn't be a supercar, that would be a racing car. A supercar is supposed to be drivable on the road.
Option B sounds more like a GT car than a supercar
So I would have to go with something inbetween A and B. Something like the F40.

And yea the S7 is quite under-rated. One can tell just from the fact that it makes over twice the downforce of an Enzo without active aerodynamics. And its even more aerodynamic

Bleeding Heart
12-31-2008, 10:10 AM
The reason why I'm so strongly arguing this point is because there is a clear difference between sports cars and supercars.

Sports cars are your performance cars that come nice, comfy, and cozy. They're drivable everyday, be it to work or to your local grocery store.

Supercars are your performance cars that come ridiculous, insane, and jaw-dropping. They're drivable only when you want to do one thing; drive.

Now, you're right that supercars should have a/c and should be comfortable enough to drive without a backache. Yes, by all means they should. After all they are road cars.

But to put things like 4wd, heated seats, automatic wipers, active steering, etc. that's all a waste. These things do nothing for a supercar but take away from its being a supercar.

Are you really going to drive your $500,000 supercar in snow, hail or even pouring rain?

obviously not.


But then, the presence of the Bugatti Veyron or the Lamborghini Murcielago proves that a supercar can be drivable in a daily basis considering you have a lot of money for fuel...




Driving a supercar is supposed to be a drive you can't get it in any other car; mainly because other cars are filled with computers constantly butting in for various reasons (some of which may be necessary for every-day cars, but not for supercars)

The drive of a supercar is what makes a supercar, a supercar. Its a drive like no other.
And why is it a drive like no other? Because of the absence of unnecessary technology.

Technology like heated seats, active steering, 4wd is good for everyday cars; but not for supercars. For supercars thats all just unnecessary weight.

Regarding your example about the Carrera GT at Nurburgring.
Option A wouldn't be a supercar, that would be a racing car. A supercar is supposed to be drivable on the road.
Option B sounds more like a GT car than a supercar
So I would have to go with something inbetween A and B. Something like the F40.

And yea the S7 is quite under-rated. One can tell just from the fact that it makes over twice the downforce of an Enzo without active aerodynamics. And its even more aerodynamic

That's just it... As long as it drives like no other, you can call it a supercar... Because, even if all that technology is there, you would just ignore them because your primary job is to drive...

Ferrer
12-31-2008, 10:54 AM
But then, the presence of the Bugatti Veyron or the Lamborghini Murcielago proves that a supercar can be drivable in a daily basis considering you have a lot of money for fuel...
I doubt a Murci is a good idea for a daily driver...

clutch-monkey
12-31-2008, 04:27 PM
Now, you're right that supercars should have a/c and should be comfortable enough to drive without a backache. Yes, by all means they should. After all they are road cars.

But to put things like 4wd, heated seats, automatic wipers, active steering, etc. that's all a waste. These things do nothing for a supercar but take away from its being a supercar.

that's true, probably why i can never take mercedes seriously.

Cyco
12-31-2008, 05:16 PM
I doubt a Murci is a good idea for a daily driver...

So long as you don't have a whole pile of narrow laneways in you commute I don't see why it couldn't be.

Its a very easy car to drive. Even the 'boot' is far bigger than expected.

Newyorkkopter
12-31-2008, 06:33 PM
That's just it... As long as it drives like no other, you can call it a supercar......

Yea that's true.


Because, even if all that technology is there, you would just ignore them because your primary job is to drive...

No, you wouldn't be able to ignore all that technology because that all technology would be relentlessly intervening and chipping away at your drive while you're driving.

So therefore because of all that technology it wouldn't drive like no other; and if it doesn't drive like no other, then its not a supercar.

That's why supercars can't have all that unnecessary technology. Because it ruins what you want to do; drive.

Other cars can and should have all that technology because they help in what you want to do; go grocery shopping, go to work, go cruising, go sight-seeing, etc.

The Veyron and Murcielago aren't supercars. They're just really fast GT cars

charlie_b
12-31-2008, 09:06 PM
I will have ferrari f40 any day :D

Bleeding Heart
01-01-2009, 04:51 AM
No, you wouldn't be able to ignore all that technology because that all technology would be relentlessly intervening and chipping away at your drive while you're driving.

So therefore because of all that technology it wouldn't drive like no other; and if it doesn't drive like no other, then its not a supercar.

That's why supercars can't have all that unnecessary technology. Because it ruins what you want to do; drive.

Other cars can and should have all that technology because they help in what you want to do; go grocery shopping, go to work, go cruising, go sight-seeing, etc.

I'm telling you, you CAN ignore them...

If you don't like using Traction Control, Turn it off... If you don't like AC, roll down the windows... Having problem with the sat nav, turn it off...

That's it... you can ignore all this sophistication...

because when you're driving cars like these, you wouldn't care about all of them technologies...


The Veyron and Murcielago aren't supercars. They're just really fast GT cars

Okay, you can call the veyron and the lambo GT-ish because of the sophistication they have but they're still true supercars due to their extreme performance...:confused:

Just try to drive a bugatti or a lambo and try to compare tht driving experience to driving a normal GT car, let's say a Mitsubishi Eclipse...

After that, I doubt you would call the bugatti or that lambo a GT car...


I will have ferrari f40 any day :D

Me too...:D

Cyco
01-01-2009, 06:09 AM
Just try to drive a bugatti or a lambo and try to compare tht driving experience to driving a normal GT car, let's say a Mitsubishi Eclipse...

After that, I doubt you would call the bugatti or that lambo a GT car...

An Eclipse is a GT car?

Grand Tourers have to be Grand.

A Murci is a GT car, havn't driven a Veryon, but I suspect its the same.

Newyorkkopter
01-01-2009, 07:06 AM
You do have a point there. Some technology can be ignored by turning it off, but how do you turn off power steering, permanent 4wd, paddle shifters, etc.?

You can't.

So therefore you can't get that drive like no other.
And as a result what you're sitting in isn't a supercar, but rather just a fast sports car.

Extreme performance doesn't make a car a supercar.
A 10 second Honda Civic has extreme performance but its still not a supercar.
Its still a Civic; yes its really really fast but its still a Civic.

In the same way the Veyron and Murcielago are really really fast, but they're still GTs

Bleeding Heart
01-01-2009, 09:19 AM
An Eclipse is a GT car?

Grand Tourers have to be Grand.



Sorry about that... Forget about the Eclipse there I typed...

Let's replace it with a BMW 3 series as a basis of comparison...


You do have a point there. Some technology can be ignored by turning it off, but how do you turn off power steering, permanent 4wd, paddle shifters, etc.?

You can't.

So therefore you can't get that drive like no other.
And as a result what you're sitting in isn't a supercar, but rather just a fast sports car.

Extreme performance doesn't make a car a supercar.
A 10 second Honda Civic has extreme performance but its still not a supercar.
Its still a Civic; yes its really really fast but its still a Civic.

In the same way the Veyron and Murcielago are really really fast, but they're still GTs

I think when you're driving, you wouldn't feel that AWD...

BTW, just to remind you. most AWD cars deliver a majority of the power produced to the REAR wheels... from 60% to 80% of engine power is delivered to the rear wheels... So, in some cases, it will still feel like a RWD

Power-steering is already a part of the modern automobile, so it doesn't make any significant changes to the level of sophistication of a car...

Paddle shifts??? Most cars have options if you want a stupid paddle shift or a proper stick shift manual transmission...

I forgot something about the part of extreme performance... It's the performance while the car is still stock... Untuned in other words..

I still cant' get the point why the Murcie can be classified as a GT... Yeah, I know the Veyron can be classified as a GT but I don't think the Murcie is... That car was made to battle against other supercars like the Carrera GT, and the Pgani Zonda, etc...

C'mon... Just compare the Murcielago to any other GT car like a BMW or a Maserati... It seems that there's a wide gap between them...

Pando
01-01-2009, 09:23 AM
I think when you're driving, you wouldn't feel that AWD...

BTW, just to remind you. most AWD cars deliver a majority of the power produced to the REAR wheels... from 60% to 80% of engine power is delivered to the rear wheels... So, in some cases, it will still feel like a RWD

Power-steering is already a part of the modern automobile, so it doesn't make any significant changes to the level of sophistication of a car...

I forgot something about the part of extreme performance... It's the performance while the car is still stock... Untuned in other words..
Speaking of which...

have you ever...

actually driven...

a single car...

in your entire life...?

Bleeding Heart
01-01-2009, 09:38 AM
Speaking of which...

have you ever...

actually driven...

a single car...

in your entire life...?

Considering I'm just 16 years old...

Which still DOESN'T have a license for me to drive public roads...

I have actually driven our Family car which is a Toyota Corolla...

I've also driven a 4x4...

Pando
01-01-2009, 09:43 AM
Considering I'm just 16 years old...

Which still DOESN'T have a license for me to drive public roads...

I have actually driven our Family car which is a Toyota Corolla...

I've also driven a 4x4...
Ok...

I'm sorry then...

That makes you perfectly qualified...

to compare...

among other things...

the handling...

between a F40...

and a 959...

etc...

I guess...

I was...

mistaken...

Bleeding Heart
01-01-2009, 09:50 AM
Ok...

I'm sorry then...

That makes you perfectly qualified...

to compare...

among other things...

the handling...

between a F40...

and a 959...

etc...

I guess...

I was...

mistaken...

BTW.. why are you posting like that???

Pando
01-01-2009, 10:00 AM
BTW.. why are you posting like that???Oh... The "..." and "!!!" is my trademark... At least if you see something with three dots or three exclamation points, you aready know it's me...

Bleeding Heart
01-01-2009, 10:09 AM
Oh... The "..." and "!!!" is my trademark... At least if you see something with three dots or three exclamation points, you aready know it's me...

Pls don't try to annoy me... That post was originally done by me...

Stop that, seriously...

I'm already seeing a reflection of myself in you...

Pando
01-01-2009, 11:04 AM
Pls don't try to annoy me...

I'm already seeing a reflection of myself in you...Stop and think about that for a second.

If I managed to annoy you in what - three posts? - how do you think the rest of us feel?

I will only give you this advice once, as a friend if you will:

#1 Please, don't force those three dots into every sentence you post.

You wanted to make your post recognizable? Considering your situation and contributions, being recognized perhaps isn't a good thing.

#2 Many have tried to say this to you before - please, refrain from posting when you don't have anything contributory to the thread in question. I know "everyone else" does it, but just try it for a while.

Everyone here in this forum is an individual (except Fred, he's just like everyone else), often with valuable insights and information regarding their own field, whether through work, hobbies, studies or location - and together we contribute to the enormous virtual database of knowledge and views that is UCP.

Personally, I find it hard to imagine who would benefit from comments regarding cars characteristics from a person who has never driven a single car in his life unsupervised, let alone seen the cars in question.

BUT - as I remember we don't have many Filipino members and one day when discussing your domestic matters or situation you could contribute with valuable information - If, however you continue on this path, unfortunately many of us will have blocked your posts by then.

So please, for your sake. Let us breathe.

[/off topic]

Ferrer
01-01-2009, 01:37 PM
Yes, you can ignore equipment and gadgets but they will still be there weighting your car down and therefore making everything worse.

I mean why have gadgets in the first place if you are not going to use them?

Bleeding Heart
01-01-2009, 06:31 PM
Yes, you can ignore equipment and gadgets but they will still be there weighting your car down and therefore making everything worse.

I mean why have gadgets in the first place if you are not going to use them?

Taking th gdgets out of the car. if that is advisable.

i don't really know any other solution better than that.

kingofthering
01-01-2009, 07:06 PM
I think when you're driving, you wouldn't feel that AWD...

BTW, just to remind you. most AWD cars deliver a majority of the power produced to the REAR wheels... from 60% to 80% of engine power is delivered to the rear wheels... So, in some cases, it will still feel like a RWD



I think most major car magazines would disagree with you there...

Cyco
01-02-2009, 03:19 AM
Bleeding Heart.

The 3 Series is not a GT car (or class of cars).

Please stop posting uninformed crap until you have actually driven any cars, let alone these in this discussion.

For the record I have not driven or been a passenger in a F40, a 959, or a Veyron. I have driven Merci's in both 6.2 litre and LP640 variants, Aston Martin DB9, DB9 SDP, AMV8 Vantage in both 4.2 and 4.7 litre variants, Bentley Conti GT, and Flying Spur, Ferrari 355, and 360s, BMW M3 (e36 through various stages of modification), Lotus Elise, Exige and Exige R (supercharged) and a Skyline GTR (R32). I have not driven, but have been a passenger in a Koenigsegg CCR. Unlike your twin turbo Zonda F, this list is not a lie. As a result of these driving experiences, and many more 'normal cars' (like BMW 335, Saab Turbos....) I believe I can tell the difference between a normal car, a GT car, a sports car and maybe even a super car.

Man of Steel
01-02-2009, 04:50 AM
I have driven Merci's in both 6.2 litre and LP640 variants, Aston Martin DB9, DB9 SDP, AMV8 Vantage in both 4.2 and 4.7 litre variants, Bentley Conti GT, and Flying Spur, Ferrari 355, and 360s, BMW M3 (e36 through various stages of modification), Lotus Elise, Exige and Exige R (supercharged) and a Skyline GTR (R32).

Impressive, you sound like a lucky man.

LeonOfTheDead
01-02-2009, 08:02 AM
The reason why I'm so strongly arguing this point is because there is a clear difference between sports cars and supercars.

Sports cars are your performance cars that come nice, comfy, and cozy. They're drivable everyday, be it to work or to your local grocery store.

Supercars are your performance cars that come ridiculous, insane, and jaw-dropping. They're drivable only when you want to do one thing; drive.

Now, you're right that supercars should have a/c and should be comfortable enough to drive without a backache. Yes, by all means they should. After all they are road cars.

But to put things like 4wd, heated seats, automatic wipers, active steering, etc. that's all a waste. These things do nothing for a supercar but take away from its being a supercar.

Are you really going to drive your $500,000 supercar in snow, hail or even pouring rain?

Obviously not.

For groceries we have sedans, minivans, etc.
For off-roading we have SUVs, trucks, etc.
For the ultimate drive we have(or had in this case seems more appropriate).... supercars

Driving a supercar is supposed to be a drive you can't get it in any other car; mainly because other cars are filled with computers constantly butting in for various reasons (some of which may be necessary for every-day cars, but not for supercars)

The drive of a supercar is what makes a supercar, a supercar. Its a drive like no other.
And why is it a drive like no other? Because of the absence of unnecessary technology.

Technology like heated seats, active steering, 4wd is good for everyday cars; but not for supercars. For supercars thats all just unnecessary weight.

Regarding your example about the Carrera GT at Nurburgring.
Option A wouldn't be a supercar, that would be a racing car. A supercar is supposed to be drivable on the road.
Option B sounds more like a GT car than a supercar
So I would have to go with something inbetween A and B. Something like the F40.

And yea the S7 is quite under-rated. One can tell just from the fact that it makes over twice the downforce of an Enzo without active aerodynamics. And its even more aerodynamic

you are somehow biased.

first of all, stop dividing the world in sport and supercars, it's not just black and white and those definitions don't make a sense as far as they are not definitions but something you (or me) have just written (see personal opinions).

then, besides the fact that a lot of fast cars are rwd, I can't understand what's the problem with having 4wd/awd systems apart from your own idea of car. it's not something actually useless or selfish, not technically.
you can say that you prefer rwd cars, but you can't say 4wd/awd are distracting or annoying or whatever. not without a technical background.

again, you are seeing the world not only by just your own standards, but they are even quite biased too.
I can't see the problem of having a car capable to do more than just one thing, like the 959 or the F1 can do.
in the example I gacve you about the Carrera GT going to the 'Ring, I live more than 1000 km away from there, are you still considering going there with an F40 a good idea? perhaps towing the car there sounds more sensed?
on the other side, the Carrera GT is regarded as quite an extreme car, more than what it seemed at first. but you can still drive it for a lot of miles, not something possible with other cars of the level.
you are saying that the only thing that really matters is to drive. fine, but how can you drive a car that isn't enough comfortable?

you are complaining about technological equipments that are affecting the driving experience. besides the innocent idea of Bleeding Heart (turn them off), a lot of those aren't really a problem.
heated seats, sat nav, basically don't add a sensible weight to the car. power steering is something demanded byt he car itself, it's something you can live without if the weight distribution leaves the front axle light enough to steer easily, but even if the same axle weights enough for the front tires to tend to realigned by themselves (that's how it should work), so it's not that simple. creating a race car (probably veru light at the front) is not a problem because the car si always going at ten tents so even if the steering wheel is going to feel a little dead during realignment it doesn't really matter because it's the only way the steering wheel is going to act, so it's something preventable. While speaking of a road going car, even an extreme one, calls for different situations, for differences on the surface, on the traffic conditions, even for different drivers, so basically you need to consider all the possible situations (something you don't seem to be capable of).

even saying we can live without power steering on a certain car, it's a choice made by the engineers (or even by the guys at the pr office) tog ive a specific attitude to the car, and a specific idea of the car to the people. the same is for 4wd/awd or active aerodynamic, abs, esp and so on.
you can disagree with those choices, but you can't say they are objectively wrong, they aren't made just for fun. besides the fact I would like to know why they could be actually wrong.



Yea that's true.



No, you wouldn't be able to ignore all that technology because that all technology would be relentlessly intervening and chipping away at your drive while you're driving.

So therefore because of all that technology it wouldn't drive like no other; and if it doesn't drive like no other, then its not a supercar.

That's why supercars can't have all that unnecessary technology. Because it ruins what you want to do; drive.

Other cars can and should have all that technology because they help in what you want to do; go grocery shopping, go to work, go cruising, go sight-seeing, etc.

The Veyron and Murcielago aren't supercars. They're just really fast GT cars

excuse sir, can you precisely, definitely, technically and scientifically define a super car?

no, therefore all your statements could be argued in the same way you are arguing the others.

if the head of a project decides his supercar is going to be also drivable on a everyday road, in a relaxed way, with a wet surface (it's not that you can control weather) and a gf sensible to fast driving, what's the problem.
just say you don't like the car, but that doesn't mean it's not a supercar, it could be even actually faster than what you think.



You do have a point there. Some technology can be ignored by turning it off, but how do you turn off power steering, permanent 4wd, paddle shifters, etc.?

You can't.

So therefore you can't get that drive like no other.
And as a result what you're sitting in isn't a supercar, but rather just a fast sports car.

Extreme performance doesn't make a car a supercar.
A 10 second Honda Civic has extreme performance but its still not a supercar.
Its still a Civic; yes its really really fast but its still a Civic.

In the same way the Veyron and Murcielago are really really fast, but they're still GTs

that Civic doesn't have extreme performance either, it's just fast running 400 meters, and that's not something I care of since it isn't telling me something important about the car, it's behavior, how it handles, how it brakes, if it can accelerate decently even without using 100% of the throttle and so on.

cars are more complex than what you seem to think.
you can't create or think of ideal product that don't match the reality.
I took as an example the Ultima GTR.
it's fast, it's also cheap after all, and it's pretty basic (even if you could argue with some options available I suppose).
it's probably th proof you can build a fast car, decently comfortable for short or even mid length trips, without stupidly overweighting the car or using too many gizmos and the likes.
it0s even the fastest car in the 0-160-0 test, even without using ABS, an that's something.
but it's something you see everyday on the road, even if it's pretty famous, and probably it's not something its own owners would use when taking a trip considering they could have more than just that car.


EDIT: I had to split the post in two parts due to length issue.

LeonOfTheDead
01-02-2009, 08:04 AM
EDIT: second part of the post



about the fact that some cars aren't supposed to be used on certain conditions, you should to consider even what can happen without being under you direct control (something designers and engineers actually do).
as an example, I was in Venice during New Years, and it started snowing very hard. I left the city at 2:30 am. It's about 45 minutes from my plae, but I needed actually 150 minutes to arrive at home, even if salt trucks and snow plows were working hard.
which car was I driving? my dad's Fiat Croma, equipped with everything possible in the latest passive and active technology basically.
apart from wearing 225 tires, it was supposed to be a safe car to use in those conditions, still the higher speed I reached during the trip was 50 km/h on the highay while behind of a snow plow. And even while going slower, I was controlling the car with steering wheel even while going straight.

Now, considering snow was expected I wouldn't have considered using even a 911 to go to Venice, still you can be caught unprepared by the weather, and considering how poorly my car was handling, I'm somehow afraid of how it could have been with something less capable.
I'm not saying I want to face a snow storm with a sport car (just referring to something performance oriented), nor that I want a car capable of facing every possible condition excellently (it's technically impossible), but I want to have a decent margin of safety while driving.
I would really like to have an old Alfa Romeo from the sixties or seventies, but I wouldn't consider it as something to take for long trips regularly even being quite comfortable.
let's consider you are on the highway, and there has been an accident. the car in front of you is going to break hard to avoid the impact, the thing is it's going to stop in a very shorter distance than you.
let's say I want to take a trip to the 'Ring. as said, it's going to be quite a long trip, but I like my F40 (say that I won one) and I'm fine with the inexistent comfort, with the lack of gizmos to turn on to make my trip more relaxed.
but in 1000 km, probably even divided in two days, it's somehow I possibility to face rain, traffic jams or even some road works deviating you from the road you planned before of leaving your place.
so ABS and ESP become welcomed, a not so heavy clutch and steering weel too, and even a sat nav. I would also appreciate air conditioning. if those things are an issue for you, because they add weight, you should also consider a rigid diet for yourself, assuming you are going to travel alone to save weight.

I'm pretty sure that, given the opportunity, I would buy and drive as much as possible an F40, an Ultima or even Caparo T1, but they are not going to be something I would really enjoy every time I want.
those cars are pretty similar, meaning the second two are designed in a way similar to that of the F40 (21 years old). the thing is everything else is changed: more cars on the road, other vehicles being more capable on a actual road, other drivers being possibly very stupid, and so on.
It's like pretending the only way to travel is by horse.
you can do that, and perhaps you can even prefer it to everything else. fine.
but you can't say is better period, or that's the way to go.

As I said I'm not against extreme road cars, considering the Atom is one of my favorite cars, but being realistic and thinking to the whole situation, environment and market, they are not the way to go, simply because we, as human beings, can't afford it, but just as singular individuals, perhaps even not so many.

I hope the whole thing makes sense.

wwgkd
01-02-2009, 04:12 PM
True, but you don't need active systems to do well in low traction situations. In fact, the best off road still use old school locking differentials, rather than fancy electronics to maximize traction.

Newyorkkopter
01-02-2009, 06:56 PM
In response to Bleeding Heart...


I think when you're driving, you wouldn't feel that AWD...

I forgot something about the part of extreme performance... It's the performance while the car is still stock... Untuned in other words..

I still cant' get the point why the Murcie can be classified as a GT... Yeah, I know the Veyron can be classified as a GT but I don't think the Murcie is... That car was made to battle against other supercars like the Carrera GT, and the Pgani Zonda, etc...

C'mon... Just compare the Murcielago to any other GT car like a BMW or a Maserati... It seems that there's a wide gap between them...

How could you not feel the AWD?
The added weight (ruining the car's acceleration, handling, and braking), the power being lost just to drive the system itself, the numb steering, the necessity of babying the car off line...all these things are quite noticeable while driving.

The 599 GTB, Corvette ZR1, Viper SRT-10, Nissan GTR, SLR McLaren all have extreme performance stock, but none of them are supercars.

So extreme performace doesn't make a car a supercar.

The Murcielago was not meant to go against cars like the Carrera GT or even the Zonda.
The Carrera GT is over a full second faster to hundred miles an hour, weighs over 500 lbs less, and laps Nurburgring a full 12 seconds faster(and that's against an LP640).

And the Zonda is even faster than the Carrera GT.

So forget comparing the Murcielago to supercars because the it can't even keep up with a Nissan GTR to 60 mph.

I'm sorry for being so harsh but its the truth...how pathetic is it that a Lamborghini can't keep up with a production Nissan that costs less than a third of the price?

Newyorkkopter
01-02-2009, 06:58 PM
In response to LeonOfTheDead...

Every thing that is created is created for a specific purpose.
And if that thing doesn't fulfill that purpose; then that thing is useless for that purpose.

Like a pen that can't be used for writing. Its not fulfilling its purpose of being used for writing. So therefore it's useless as a pen.

Likewise, a supercar that doesn't give you the ultimate drive. Its not fulfilling its purpose of giving you the ultimate drive. So therefore it's useless as a supercar.

You're right you can't create an ideal product that doesn't match the reality.
And the reality is that you can't have an all-in-one car that does everything.
So therefore you can't have the ideal supercar that's good for shopping, cruising, and driving.
And this shows in today's supercars. They try to do everything, but end up doing nothing.

They're not good for shopping because they hardly have any luggage space, they're not good for cruising because they're rides could be a bit harsh, and they're not good for driving because they're packed with technology that numbs the feel of almost every aspect of the car.

Your example of the Ultima GTR, you mentioned that its owner probably wouldn't use it when taking a trip.
Of course its owner wouldn't even think to use it for a taking a trip.
And why not?
Because the car wasn't built for taking trips; so obviously it doesn't have all the necessities and luxuries of taking a trip.
But that doesn’t mean you can’t take for a trip. Yes, you can still take for a trip, but it won’t be as enjoyable as a car that was built for taking trips.

And in the same way, the F40 wasn't built for taking long trips. So obviously it doesn't have the necessities of taking long trips like ESP, a light clutch, ABS and so on.

So why take an F40 for a long drive through rain, detours, and traffic? Come on, you know better than that.

Its like taking a fast 4dr to LeMans and expecting it to run circles around the competition.

The ultimate drive is something very delicate; even something like the addition of a radio could take away from it.

But that doesn't mean supercars should just be street-legal race cars
No, they're road cars so they should be drivable on the road.
That means they should have heat and air conditioning, openable windows, rear view, and even a ride that won't give you backaches(unless you take it for a long drive).
These things are necessary for a road car so therefore they should be in supercars because supercars are road cars.

Most manufacturers don’t seem to understand this. They either make a supercar with GT luxuries, or a supercar with race-car features. They don’t even try to get that ideal balance inbetween. And as a result most supercars fail in the market.

However the ones that do get that balance just right, become instant classics.
Like the F40, and the McLaren F1.

If the ultimate drive isn’t the difference between sports cars and supercars then what is?

If the purpose of a supercar isn’t just to drive it, then what is?

wwgkd
01-02-2009, 07:00 PM
0-60 is the least relevant measure of a super car, in my opinion. At least wait until 100 or the 1/4 mile if you want to judge acceleration.

Newyorkkopter
01-02-2009, 07:24 PM
Yes but a Lamborghini should be able to blow the doors off of any production Nissan in any measure; 0-60, 0-100, 1/4 Mile, Top Speed, etc.

Cyco
01-03-2009, 03:10 AM
Why?

Its Lamborghini, when you are driving you really don't care what the times are to a tenth, as you are not in a spot to reproduce them anyway, and that is totally ignoring that the average Lamborghini V12 driver just doesn't care.

LeonOfTheDead
01-03-2009, 06:56 AM
True, but you don't need active systems to do well in low traction situations. In fact, the best off road still use old school locking differentials, rather than fancy electronics to maximize traction.

I was just considering finding snow on the road, not really going off road of course. and I think the locking differentials have an issue about their dimensions, preventing the car to be both having a small ground clearance and a quite compact rear part, already overcrowded considering performance car are usually mid engined


In response to LeonOfTheDead...

Every thing that is created is created for a specific purpose.
And if that thing doesn't fulfill that purpose; then that thing is useless for that purpose.

Like a pen that can't be used for writing. Its not fulfilling its purpose of being used for writing. So therefore it's useless as a pen.

Likewise, a supercar that doesn't give you the ultimate drive. Its not fulfilling its purpose of giving you the ultimate drive. So therefore it's useless as a supercar.

therefore, since the 959 was meant exactly to do both going fast and being drivable every day, I can't see the problem.
even more, how can you say it doesn't give you the supposed ultimate drive?
how can you define precisely and indisputably the ultimate drive, apart from personal opinion?
and finally, how can you know what the car was designed for without being behind those who actually designed it?
rarely projects like these go wrong, usually we don't like them, but it's a whole different thing.
Porsche wanted the 959 to be like it is, and Ferrari wanted the F40 to be like this. you like the F40, fine.
but don't say the 959 is wrong.


You're right you can't create an ideal product that doesn't match the reality.
And the reality is that you can't have an all-in-one car that does everything.
So therefore you can't have the ideal supercar that's good for shopping, cruising, and driving.
And this shows in today's supercars. They try to do everything, but end up doing nothing.

They're not good for shopping because they hardly have any luggage space, they're not good for cruising because they're rides could be a bit harsh, and they're not good for driving because they're packed with technology that numbs the feel of almost every aspect of the car.

sure about that?
you considered the SLR.
I don't care how you call it, a supercar, a GT or whatelse, but it's very fast on the track, comfortable, and easy to use every day, almost as a standard SL.
I know the car is heavy, has the automatic gearbox and so on, but that doesn't change the fact that the car is capable to do mroe than just one thing and even in a excellent way after all.
Consider the McLaren F1. besides being an extreme design, it's kinda usable, the driving position is very good, the comfort on board is more than acceptable, it has as boot as an old Fiesta and thanks to the door is even easy to park. I would suggest you to have a look to the test drive of Tiff Niedel.


Your example of the Ultima GTR, you mentioned that its owner probably wouldn't use it when taking a trip.
Of course its owner wouldn't even think to use it for a taking a trip.
And why not?
Because the car wasn't built for taking trips; so obviously it doesn't have all the necessities and luxuries of taking a trip.
But that doesn’t mean you can’t take for a trip. Yes, you can still take for a trip, but it won’t be as enjoyable as a car that was built for taking trips.

And in the same way, the F40 wasn't built for taking long trips. So obviously it doesn't have the necessities of taking long trips like ESP, a light clutch, ABS and so on.

So why take an F40 for a long drive through rain, detours, and traffic? Come on, you know better than that.

how can you enjoy a long drive, a long ultimate drive, if the car isn't comfortable enough?


Its like taking a fast 4dr to LeMans and expecting it to run circles around the competition.

I think that if I had an F40 I would really like to go to Le Mans driving it, but it's quite far from my place. I can still do that because I'm an enthusiast and I would accept all the uncomfortable situations.
But I would really enjoy to do the very same trip in a more comfortable still fast car, like the Carrera GT, a Zonda or something else.
It would make the trip easier, less stressing, and perhaps even allowing me to focus more on driving and not preventing the car from killing me at the first distraction.


The ultimate drive is something very delicate; even something like the addition of a radio could take away from it.

stop being such a close minded extremist person.


But that doesn't mean supercars should just be street-legal race cars
No, they're road cars so they should be drivable on the road.
That means they should have heat and air conditioning, openable windows, rear view, and even a ride that won't give you backaches(unless you take it for a long drive).
These things are necessary for a road car so therefore they should be in supercars because supercars are road cars.

Most manufacturers don’t seem to understand this. They either make a supercar with GT luxuries, or a supercar with race-car features. They don’t even try to get that ideal balance inbetween. And as a result most supercars fail in the market.

you don't seem to know what balance is, in the whole sense of the world.
stop considering cars just from their figures or what you read on magazines, think about the whole project and how many other factors it involves.


However the ones that do get that balance just right, become instant classics.
Like the F40, and the McLaren F1.

sine when the F40 is a balance? seriously.
it's one of the extremest cars you can have.
you call balance when cold air can enter the cockpit trough the plexiglas side windows small opens?
or when you can see the glue used between the different carbon fiber parts?
or when the brakes don't work very well if cold, which means on everyday road, also starting being unbelievably noisy?
those are not my opinions, but those of an owner.
He loves his car, but knows it's something very difficult to appreciate because it's difficult to find a situation when you can actually enjoy it.
he knew that when he bought the car, so he wasn't actually complaining, but just saying the car isn't something easily enjoyable, even if that perhaps gives the car even more value.
I would like to know what 60valves think about, if he still posts.


If the ultimate drive isn’t the difference between sports cars and supercars then what is?

If the purpose of a supercar isn’t just to drive it, then what is?

again, in the same way you cannot technically and scientifically define the difference between supercars and sportcars (they are just two names we created, they actually don't mean something), you can't define what the ultimate drive is, let alone using it to define the differences between the two cars.

Seriously, try to give the objective definition of ultimate drive, without being selfish, contradictory, or even just stupid.
whatever definition you could give me, I could argue that, because they are both personal opinions.

Newyorkkopter
01-04-2009, 06:45 AM
The ultimate drive: A drive where its you and the car without any nonsense in between.
The communication between you and the car is unfiltered, unadulterated, uninterrupted by everyday technology.
You are (qoute Andrew Frankel)"deafened, frightened, and thrilled beyond description".

That's what the ultimate drive is.

And the ultimate drive can't be found anywhere except through a supercar.

A supercar: a car you get into just to drive.
Since all you want to do in a supercar is drive; everyday luxuries become point-less and just add weight.



sure about that?
you considered the SLR.
I don't care how you call it, a supercar, a GT or whatelse, but it's very fast on the track, comfortable, and easy to use every day, almost as a standard SL.
I know the car is heavy, has the automatic gearbox and so on, but that doesn't change the fact that the car is capable to do mroe than just one thing and even in a excellent way after all.

You proved exactly what I said. The SLR can do many things, but the one thing that matters, it can't do. And that's drive like no other.

Fact is we have cars that do shopping better than supercars, we have cars that are more comfortable than supercars, we even have cars that go faster than supercars.

So then what's the point of building supercars?

For a drive like no other.

But anyways lets hear it from you; What makes a supercar, a supercar?

LeonOfTheDead
01-04-2009, 07:55 AM
The ultimate drive: A drive where its you and the car without any nonsense in between.
The communication between you and the car is unfiltered, unadulterated, uninterrupted by everyday technology.
You are (qoute Andrew Frankel)"deafened, frightened, and thrilled beyond description".

That's what the ultimate drive is.

And the ultimate drive can't be found anywhere except through a supercar.

I could answer: who is it?
who cares what he said?
why I should definitely agree?

I could say that the ultimate drive is when I take a long trip, drive for hours, being just interested in driving, and the moment I will arrive at my destination, the destination itself wouldn't matter, being just a poit between the trip I just ended and the next one.
most of all, I should feel happy, or even more, in equilibrium with the car and the environment around me

can you argue this?
no, because it's a personal opinion
I can respect what you or Mr Frankel said, but not if you pretend those ideas to be the right and indisputable ones.
you don't seem to understand that.



A supercar: a car you get into just to drive.
Since all you want to do in a supercar is drive; everyday luxuries become point-less and just add weight.



You proved exactly what I said. The SLR can do many things, but the one thing that matters, it can't do. And that's drive like no other.

Fact is we have cars that do shopping better than supercars, we have cars that are more comfortable than supercars, we even have cars that go faster than supercars.

So then what's the point of building supercars?

For a drive like no other.

But anyways lets hear it from you; What makes a supercar, a supercar?

I don't even know if I want to continue this with you.
you don't seem to listen.
I could give you whatever definition of sueprcar, sportcar, suv, everything, and it would always be a personal idea.

you are saying the SLR is wrong because it can't do something you pointed out as the most important thing.
besides being arguable, it's also based just on your personal opinion, tastes and ideas.
is that so difficult to admit?
what's the problem of saying you prefer an F40 because you prefer cars without a lot of options and equipments complicating them?
Even by that, I could say that a turbo is something that deviate you from the direct enjoyment of the car since you have to deal with a filter, being it the turbo lag, or even the simple fact that the throttle's response has to deal not only with the revs but also with the turbo's pressure (not exactly the same thing).

as an example, give me the definition of hatchback?
if you are considering cars like the Astra or the Golf/GTI, you should consider that even the new Opel/Vauxhall Vectra (or BUick Regal) is a hatchback according to GM.

so what is a supercar?
I don't care, it's just a name some marketing guy or journalist invented just to increase the thrilling of reading an article or press release.

what really matters, to me?
- the pleasure of driving, as an enthusiast.
- the efficiency for the car, as a hopefully future automotive engineer.
- the sense of the car, being completely against marketing BSs.
- the need for the car and it's place on the market, since certain cars can create a bad image in the mind of the public opinion creating a new wave of car-haters (the same who gave us days when the circulation is not allowed, but that don't care or take a look at the pollution caused, for example, by house warming).

the first is something pretty personal, so I'm not asking you to accept it and consider it as the definition of something.
most of all, I can achieve such pleasure in so many ways, the kind of car I'm driving isn't even relevant in first place.
I found myself smiling while driving an old Nissan Micra 1.3 on a country side road, as a reference, or driving reckless on a parking lot covered with snow in a first gen Toyota Yaris 1.0

the second is something technically defined, and even if it's not something that can surelly improve the quality of the driving, it can allow us to have cars strictly designed for being just a commuter, polluting less the environment while just going to job, creating a space for less efficient car but, perhaps, more intriguing, when we want just to enjoy the ride without a precise aim or destination, say during the weekend.

the third is to prevent us from having more badly designed cars demanded just by an ignorant mass of buyers who don't know anything about what a car actually is and what means to design one.

forth, is basically the same, just from a different point of view.
it's the requirement for which every new car should add something to the market and not just being a different version from another brand of something already existing.
it doesn't mean no one can build a full size sedan after say Ford introduced one, but they should offer something that can move a step forward the idea of full size sedan, something more than some more options as standard, or more hp and higher mileage.
it's about innovation, according to the third sentence though, no stupid and senseless products just for the sake of being different.

those are just the way I judge every new car, being it a micro car (something easy to define as a very small car (no matter of its performance though)) or the latest car from Maranello.
being the way I judge the cars the market offers, it's fine if you disagree.

what I'm arguing about your posts is that you pretend (if at the beginning I was considering a misunderstanding, now I'm sure you are doing that purposedly) what you write to be right, objectively.

just say, "that's my opinion" or "what I would like to find in a car is", "in my opinion any car that provide me the ultimate driving, which in my opinion is..., is a supercar", so to not look like a kid, repeatedly.

Ferrer
01-04-2009, 08:47 AM
The ultimate drive: A drive where its you and the car without any nonsense in between.
The communication between you and the car is unfiltered, unadulterated, uninterrupted by everyday technology.
You are (qoute Andrew Frankel)"deafened, frightened, and thrilled beyond description".

That's what the ultimate drive is.

And the ultimate drive can't be found anywhere except through a supercar.
Or a stripped out, basic supermini.

LeonOfTheDead
01-04-2009, 09:02 AM
Or a stripped out, basic supermini.

this (even if a Panda 100HP is not basic, still plenty of fun)

Revo
01-04-2009, 10:33 AM
The ultimate drive: a drive where you are in a hearse. In a coffin.

kingofthering
01-04-2009, 01:58 PM
The ultimate drive: a drive where you are in a hearse. In a coffin.

So...a Porsche 911? :D

Newyorkkopter
01-04-2009, 07:34 PM
You mentioned that I'm arguing an opinion, but the fact is; we're both arguing opinions.
Its you're opinion that there is nothing that makes a supercar special.
Its my opinion that there is something that makes a supercar special.

Yes, that's true that whatever definition I give of a supercar, sports car, SUV; it would be coming from a personal view point, and therefore yes it would be arguable.

But, still there are certain implied rules in making a supercar, that make it a supercar.
Agree/disagree its up you; for now just read onward.

For example; can you build a 4dr supercar that's capable of driving, rallying, drifting and make it the size of a Hummer just because it probably go well with today's or more importantly tomorrow's market?

Can you?

All I'm saying is that there has to be something that distinguishes a supercar from the rest. (Like the reason why the F40's a supercar, while the new Civic isn't)
And from what I've come to know its the drive.
Supercars drive a certain way, a way that no other car can replicate.

That's what makes them so special, so unique, so desirable.

If you disagree then give me a reason as to why even you would consider the F40 a supercar, while a civic just a civic.

LTSmash
01-05-2009, 02:00 AM
I'm surprised how long this thread has gone on.

My two cents, I like both cars a lot. But for me I would have to say the 959 has the slightest edge. A super/rally car... now that's insane.

BTW: I over the break I picked up the SE copy of EVO Porsche Supercars, which had a very impressive article on the 959 and the Dakar plus other things too. Go take a look at it.

LeonOfTheDead
01-05-2009, 06:52 AM
You mentioned that I'm arguing an opinion, but the fact is; we're both arguing opinions.
Its you're opinion that there is nothing that makes a supercar special.
Its my opinion that there is something that makes a supercar special.

I never stated there isn't something that makes a supercar special. What I said is that there isn't a real and objective way to recognize, define or distinguish a supercar. And I even said all I was writing about the cars, every cars, is a personal opinion.


Yes, that's true that whatever definition I give of a supercar, sports car, SUV; it would be coming from a personal view point, and therefore yes it would be arguable.[quote]

But, still there are certain implied rules in making a supercar, that make it a supercar.
Agree/disagree its up you; for now just read onward. [quote]

you are just repeating your previous thoughts in different words, still those "rules" are completely arguable.
even assuming they could exist out of the personal interpretation, I suppose some strictly technically defined references should be given.
by the way, let's go on.

[QUOTE=Newyorkkopter;860117]For example; can you build a 4dr supercar that's capable of driving, rallying, drifting and make it the size of a Hummer just because it probably go well with today's or more importantly tomorrow's market?

Can you?

actually, it's not that difficult: consider one of those prototypes for the Dakar rally. they are quite big, and they could even been equipped with a 4 door sedan body. two requirements have been satisfied.
about the rallying capabilities, they are already satisfied with the fact it's a Dakar prototype.
about the drifting capabilities (are you serious?), usually rally cars are quite god at that, while those cars aren't good at driving (I assume quickly) on a track or on the road.
well, those cars are quite light, and that's really useful. second, their suspensions are designed so to face bug excursions and compressions, so there is a lot of room to work with.
considering in a rally those capabilities are less required, that room could be used to change the suspension's layout so to be more road-friendly, and even electronically adjustable. at the same time, smaller tires, with a harder compounds and a more compact design of th external surface (tread, is this the correct word?) and a smaller ground clearance would be adopted.
with differentials, both mechanical or electronic, the traction of the vehicle could be easily set to face both road and off road, and even a drifting day.
now, since it's quite difficult to say that drifting is real motorsports, I would consider that if the car is able to take corner with massive oversteering and smooking tires, the target would be achieved.
about the driving capabilities, I suppose the vehicle could be quite good at that, even if not at the level of a Group N car or of a GT car, but still pretty fast and most of all more fast than what the great majority of drivers are capable of managing.

post split in two due to length

LeonOfTheDead
01-05-2009, 06:54 AM
second part of the post


All I'm saying is that there has to be something that distinguishes a supercar from the rest. (Like the reason why the F40's a supercar, while the new Civic isn't)
And from what I've come to know its the drive.
Supercars drive a certain way, a way that no other car can replicate.

That's what makes them so special, so unique, so desirable.

If you disagree then give me a reason as to why even you would consider the F40 a supercar, while a civic just a civic.

what's a F40 to me?
it's a performance oriented car, meaning the main aspect of the design at first glance seems to have been the achievement an extremely high level of performance. the kind of performance we are talking about is derived mainly from a racing category like group C.
so it wasn't a car design to obtain the maximum performance on the road, or off road either.
there has been and eventually will be others like it, but what that distinguish the F40 from the majority of them is the fact that it took the concept of the 288 GTO a step forward, improving the specs of the car, creating a exclusive bodywork (and so image) for it, but most of all, without including in the design anything not necessary for the achievement of the maximum performance. which doesn't coincide with what is necessary for driving.
in the end the car resulted as an extreme design from each point of view, astonishing performance, lack of refinement (for enthusiasts, that is the actual refinement perhaps) for the interior, it was something the world didn't know before of that, even if probably there has been other examples before I pretty sure.
to be honest, the 288 GTO was born with Group B rallying in mind, an idea never materialized in something concrete except the 288 GTO Evoluzione Concept, which was eventually became the first step in the direction of the F40.
so, as you can see even the F40, or if you prefer its predecessor 288 GTO, were born for rallying. blasphemy? I don't think so.
guess what? the same happened with the Porsche 959, except that two different version of it entered both rallying (Dakar) and street racing (Le Mans), with excellent results, while the F40 saw, even if with very good results, only the tarmac, but just for a matter of time and luck.

useful links: 1984 - 1986 Ferrari 288 GTO - Images, Specifications and Information (http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/169/Ferrari-288-GTO.html)
1985 - 1986 Ferrari 288 GTO Evoluzione - Images, Specifications and Information (http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/744/Ferrari-288-GTO-Evoluzione.html)
1987 - 1992 Ferrari F40 - Images, Specifications and Information (http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/172/Ferrari-F40.html)
1989 - 1994 Ferrari F40 LM - Images, Specifications and Information (http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/645/Ferrari-F40-LM.html)
1991 - 1992 Ferrari F40 GT - Images, Specifications and Information (http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/car/2673/Ferrari-F40-GT.html)

I purposedly avoided using any kind of word as super or sport car, I just sticked describing, quite quickly and superficially perhaps, what the F40 undeniably is.
it has a special place in my mind because being a kind in those years obviously means that the F40 was one of the first red car I saw and it obviously impressed me.
but the same is for the 959. even being different from each other, they both are special, they both have heritage and they both were ground breaking when the have been unveiled. I could call them for these reasons supercars or perhaps exotics, but regardless of the name I could give them, that wouldn0t change what they are and what they represent to me.



what's a Civic?
a Civic is compact car (arguable considering the different markets where it's sold), basically a daily commuter, a nothing more.
it has always had something for sportiness, something clearly visible with its renown Type-R or Si versions. this, and particular styling choices (especially in the latest version), helped distinguishing it from its opponents as the Toyota Corolla, which is completely missing of that "sport" touch or of a special look.
that's what differentiate them between each other, they are aimed to different people, so besides being the same vehicle (not literally, but they are in the same segment and are even technically similar), they have completely different images.
that's why it's somehow difficult or at least rarer to see a customized Corolla, because the first thing that comes to mind after Corolla is "mom".
but that doesn't mean the Corolla is a bad car, actually is even better than the Civic because it's better at their primary purpose, commuting, meaning the Corolla is usually more reliable, cheaper to run and so on.
I would still take a Civic because I really like its new interiors btw.

how can a Civic be compared to an F40?
actually it can't, and I'm not even considering the performance of the two cars.
the F40 was meant to be a limited edition car, so emissions levels, safety, comfort were all things regarded as less important during the development.
for the Civic instead, those are part of the highest important.
then, considering the F40 was bought for its performance and even more for its name and what it stands for, there were things that were less important even for the customers, for example the overall quality, the usability, the mileage, the rude behavior or the insensible brakes, the hard suspensions or the noise invading the car.
that allowed the designers and engineers to don't care about a lot of stuff which is actually what makes more difficult to create a Civic than an F40.
forget about the production, it is impossible for a small manufacturer or even a supplier to even just design a compact car, being a Civic or a 500, while the world is full of plenty of successful examples of makers like Pagani, Gumpert and so on. that why the recent project T.25 by Gordon Murray is so relevant to the car industry.

so after having said the F40 and the Civic were different cars since the design point of view, I can't avoid talking about the difference level of performance.
obviously we are talking about to completely different worlds. no matter of how a Civic can be tuned, even being more powerful or even fast on a circuit than the F40, it's not going to be even near what the F40 is, because now the different designing point of views come to the surface.
if a lot of attention was payed during the Civic project to a lot fo details and parts simply ignored by the technicians in Maranello, when we come to performance it's the very opposite.
the F40 probably passed more time on Ferrari's tracks and local roads than the Civic in artificial weather rooms.
and it's simply difficult even for the most important guy from the tuning world o recreate the work done by Ferrari on its Civic.
even for just a simply reason, it would be focus just on making the car faster than the rest of the world, making it more showy, more customized and so on, but it would obviously fail in creating what the F40 is, that's to say a legend on wheels, the dream of every kid being him into tuning or not, creating something that bounded people paying up to 1 M $ or os for a new F40 when the factory was selling them for like a third of the price (I don't now the exact figure because I know the prices in italian currency of the time, and don't know how was the exchanging rate int he period).
am I saying the F40 is supercar? again, is just a definition, and according to yours it isn0t because I stated the car is special, it's astonishing, it's desirable and it's a legend without never talking about how it drives. it could even be a completely disappointment, but my points would be still here to stand.

what about the Civic? it's a commuter, while the F40 isn't. the have a lot of parts in common, an engine, four wheels and so on, but they are actually two different things, they are two different approaches to the idea of car. one could even argue that assuming one is car, the other isn't so much are the differences. so one of them is a supercar? perhaps, but again I never considered the drive.

I'm pretty sure there are guys in the tuning world that consider some cars that I don't even know the best in the world, real supercars even according to your definition of the ultimate drive, of being special.
I couldn't disagree more, but to each his own.

Considering even you definition of ultimate drive (still pretty vague), one could find it in a daily commuter as the Civic, or in a 7 replica, or in a fast and fat GT car.

Newyorkkopter
01-06-2009, 07:14 PM
I never stated there isn't something that makes a supercar special. What I said is that there isn't a real and objective way to recognize, define or distinguish a supercar. And I even said all I was writing about the cars, every cars, is a personal opinion.

Oh okay so there is something that makes supercars special, but its just not real, recognizable or describable?
That doesn't make sense because how can you recognize a supercar without knowing what makes it a supercar?


actually, it's not that difficult: consider one of those prototypes for the Dakar rally. they are quite big, and they could even been equipped with a 4 door sedan body. two requirements have been satisfied.
So there can be a 4dr supercar the size of a Hummer for driving/rallying/drifting as long as there's a demand for it.
Wow...and I thought the Veyron was the last nail in the coffin for supercars


am I saying the F40 is supercar? again, is just a definition, and according to yours it isn0t because I stated the car is special, it's astonishing, it's desirable and it's a legend without never talking about how it drives.
The definition that I gave was that a supercar is car that drives like no other car
Even if you never drive the F40, it still doesn't change the fact that, if driven, it would drive like no other car.
Therefore, the F40 is a supercar.


Considering even you definition of ultimate drive (still pretty vague), one could find it in a daily commuter as the Civic, or in a 7 replica, or in a fast and fat GT car.

A civic doesn't fit the definition of the ultimate drive because it has everyday technology that would get in the way of your enjoyment.
Therefore a civic isn't a supercar.

A GT car doesn't fit the definition of the ultimate drive because it has excessive luxuries that would ruin the feel of driving.
Therefore a GT car isn't a supercar

A 7 replica doesn't fit the definition of the ultimate drive because its front engined. The drive is already compromised.
Therefore a 7 replica isn't a supercar.

You're basically writing that supercars are just an opinion.
And If that's so then the term supercar should be taken out of language because its so vague that describes nothing.
To a person whose definition of supercar is a car that drives like no other car, a F40 could be a supercar
To another person whose definition of supercar is a car that can do more than one thing, a Civic could be a supercar

But that's not the case.
There is something unique to supercars that makes them supercars.
Without it they would just be cars.

You believe you can't know what makes supercars special; but that doesn't make sense because how can you recognize supercars if you don't even know what makes them supercars?

Just by personal preference?
Whatever you feel is a supercar, you call a supercar?

I feel that a Prius is a supercar because its got super gas mileage.
I feel that a Go-Kart is a supercar because its super-fun
I feel that a bumper car is a supercar because of its super ability to crash and keep on going.

See how vague it can get without a real/objective way to define a supercar?

You need to have some grounds on which to define a supercar.
Otherwise even a kid's r/c car could arguably be a supercar.

LTSmash
01-06-2009, 08:02 PM
Newyorkkopter, could you list five supercars and give your reasons why they are supercars to you? I would like to see your logic.

LeonOfTheDead
01-06-2009, 08:24 PM
since you, Newyorkkopter, decided more than one time to interpret my sentences at your pleasure, and you are continuously repeating the same thing that a supercar is the one which can give you the ultimate drive regardless of what I posted discussing the fact that it's just yor opinion and not, I guess I can say this is no longer a discussion but just an occasion, for you, to talk by yourself.
I would be very interested in a discussion in which the two parts listen to each others, but it seems this is not the case.
stick with your own ideas if that makes you comfortable, I never wanted to change them, it rather seems you don't even know them after all.
perhaps I just took you too seriously.

Joao Gois
01-08-2009, 06:31 AM
Damn! I like these arguments! Just as a curiosity, what's the age of both?

The F40 and the 959 are just different approaches of each marque's ultimeta road car at the time. While Ferrari, in the Italian way, made a raw, back-breaking, head-twisting, chest-splitting racing-breed pure machine, Porsche, in their German way, made a fast, all-round, comfortable, sophisticated and low-profile car (maybe that's why the F40 is so much more sought-after than the 959; the latter is too 911-looking. The F40 resembles nothing else). And the funny is, although the F40 was built from an aborted Group B racing project, it was always a "strictly road-going car". On the other hand, the 959 was presented since day 1 as a racing car (the original 959 prototype was presented as Gruppe B...) but refined for road use.

Anyway, concerning this wave of attacks ant counterattacks, I must say I'm more with LeonOfTheDead. Since when can anyone say the Veyron isn't a supercar (whatever that means) but just a GT car? An F40 is a supercar but not the Veyron, considering the Veyron simply obliterates the F40 in, well, everything!? And the SSC is a supercar too? I've talked to a guy who's a friend if an Arabian guy who owns a SSC and he says you just can't make corners with it because the downforce is so minimal (reduced drag to improve top speed) and its spiky behaviour due to the twin turbos make it almost impossible to deliver power through the rear wheels!

In MY book (I'll bold it to prevent LionOfTheDead to nuke me... ;) ), a supercar is an automobile which can achieve extraordinary performance and deliver the maximum driving pleasure. I'm not narrowing it down to stripped-out road-legal racing cars nor drifters/dragsters... Who can say a BMW M5 isn't a supercar! Just watch Tiff Niedel's drive on the M5... Anyway, supercar is just a type of sportscar. Like an elite among sportscars.

A thing everyone is forgeting is that the sole purpouse of producing cars is for people to buy them. If they don't have the attributes the market demands, they will be disregarded (branding can be considered an attribute, BTW...). That's why Pagani works so well! It's possibly one of the most exhilirating, joyful, intoxicating car there ever was and still it's comfy and the interior exhales class, quality and refinement. ANd that works for me. And for almost everyone. But then again, cars like the Zonda or the Veyron aren't cars. They're pieces of art!

LeonOfTheDead
01-08-2009, 07:41 AM
Damn! I like these arguments! Just as a curiosity, what's the age of both?

The F40 and the 959 are just different approaches of each marque's ultimeta road car at the time. While Ferrari, in the Italian way, made a raw, back-breaking, head-twisting, chest-splitting racing-breed pure machine, Porsche, in their German way, made a fast, all-round, comfortable, sophisticated and low-profile car (maybe that's why the F40 is so much more sought-after than the 959; the latter is too 911-looking. The F40 resembles nothing else). And the funny is, although the F40 was built from an aborted Group B racing project, it was always a "strictly road-going car". On the other hand, the 959 was presented since day 1 as a racing car (the original 959 prototype was presented as Gruppe B...) but refined for road use.

Anyway, concerning this wave of attacks ant counterattacks, I must say I'm more with LeonOfTheDead. Since when can anyone say the Veyron isn't a supercar (whatever that means) but just a GT car? An F40 is a supercar but not the Veyron, considering the Veyron simply obliterates the F40 in, well, everything!? And the SSC is a supercar too? I've talked to a guy who's a friend if an Arabian guy who owns a SSC and he says you just can't make corners with it because the downforce is so minimal (reduced drag to improve top speed) and its spiky behaviour due to the twin turbos make it almost impossible to deliver power through the rear wheels!

In MY book (I'll bold it to prevent LionOfTheDead to nuke me... ;) ), a supercar is an automobile which can achieve extraordinary performance and deliver the maximum driving pleasure. I'm not narrowing it down to stripped-out road-legal racing cars nor drifters/dragsters... Who can say a BMW M5 isn't a supercar! Just watch Tiff Niedel's drive on the M5... Anyway, supercar is just a type of sportscar. Like an elite among sportscars.

A thing everyone is forgeting is that the sole purpouse of producing cars is for people to buy them. If they don't have the attributes the market demands, they will be disregarded (branding can be considered an attribute, BTW...). That's why Pagani works so well! It's possibly one of the most exhilirating, joyful, intoxicating car there ever was and still it's comfy and the interior exhales class, quality and refinement. ANd that works for me. And for almost everyone. But then again, cars like the Zonda or the Veyron aren't cars. They're pieces of art!

agree (I could still nuke you, watch out! ;) just kidding :D)
especially, some cars as the Zonda and the Veyron, as you sayd, shouldn't be considered just as cars or lokking at their performances.
that's why I like so much the upcoming One-77 and especially the idea behind it expressed in the two released videos.
it's not the first surely, but one of those piece of art sculpted in a car form.

for as regards my age, take the time to look at my profile, it's not a secret.

LTSmash
01-08-2009, 08:02 AM
Anyway, supercar is just a type of sportscar. Like an elite among sportscars.

That says it all.

Pando
01-08-2009, 09:07 AM
Who can say a BMW M5 isn't a supercar!Me?

It just isn't. Awesome, yes. Super, no.

60Valves
01-09-2009, 03:12 AM
For all the heat that this topic is generating, has anyone else here ever driven both a 959 and F40 ?

wwgkd
01-09-2009, 03:18 AM
For all the heat that this topic is generating, has anyone else here ever driven both a 959 and F40 ?

No. I tried at a car show but the owners just laughed when I asked. Out of curiosity, have you gotten a chance to drive a 959?

LeonOfTheDead
01-09-2009, 03:39 AM
For all the heat that this topic is generating, has anyone else here ever driven both a 959 and F40 ?

obviously no.
I think your are one of the few here to have driven an F40.
I think I saw the 959 just one time. maybe.

LTSmash
01-09-2009, 07:45 AM
Indeed, much of our extensive automotive knowledge when referring to "supercars" (or "really cool cars" since that term is not established on this thread) comes from assorted readings, what we see at auto expo's, what we see at the track, or what we see on television. But most of us have never driven one, much less been inside one to offer the ultimate opinion or review of such a machine...

And here at UCP we're experts. ;)

Joao Gois
01-09-2009, 09:14 AM
Indeed, much of our extensive automotive knowledge when referring to "supercars" (or "really cool cars" since that term is not established on this thread) comes from assorted readings, what we see at auto expo's, what we see at the track, or what we see on television. But most of us have never driven one, much less been inside one to offer the ultimate opinion or review of such a machine...

And here at UCP we're experts. ;)


If we were driving them everyday and seing them all the time, they wouldn't be that special. I guess that's the enchantment about "dream cars" or "exotics": you can't afford it, you probably will never drive one and at best you'll se one very occasionally. At least I can watch a lot of exotics IRL... in my attic, my car model collection!:p

Ferrer
01-09-2009, 10:13 AM
And if we could only discuss car we've driven... we wouldn't be discussing much...

Soloracer
01-09-2009, 10:26 AM
Has anyone every read the Road and Track article from a few years back wherein Steve Millen tested a 959, F40, McLaren F1? Great read, he felt the F1 was clearly the best, the F40 was the best track car, but he lacked positive things to say about the 959 minus its acceleration which was tremendous. He said it understeered madly and felt heavy. Oh and that the brakes were to soft... Anyway thats his opinion, I agree however, I think the F40 is a superior sports car, one of the most pure Ferrari's ever.

LTSmash
01-09-2009, 10:34 AM
And if we could only discuss car we've driven... we wouldn't be discussing much...

I have a lot to say about my Mazda.... well not really. :D

Joao Gois
01-09-2009, 11:20 AM
I have a lot to say about my Mazda.... well not really. :D

As I about my nearly-18-years-old Corsa...:D

Which I love, BTW!:rolleyes:

Sledgehammer
01-09-2009, 11:39 AM
I wonder if newyorkkopter, considering his representation of a supercar, would consider that v12 golf a supercar. Since clearly, that car "drove like nothing else."

In fact, I can think of plenty of cars that drive like "nothing else" does that mean they are super cars?

Bleeding Heart
01-09-2009, 06:54 PM
I wonder if newyorkkopter, considering his representation of a supercar, would consider that v12 golf a supercar. Since clearly, that car "drove like nothing else."

In fact, I can think of plenty of cars that drive like "nothing else" does that mean they are super cars?

I think he's trying to say that it drives like nothing else in a positive way. In other words, It drives very easily even at speed and even at corners. We may consider that a supercar.

On the other hand. The Golf W12, (as said by Jeremy Clarkson at Top Gear) "it will not go round corners". YouTube - VW Golf W12 650cv Bi Turbo in TopGear (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-RQLi8iquQ)


Even if that thing could beat many other cars at a straight line, I think many of us here will still not consider the golf w12 a supercar.

Sledgehammer
01-09-2009, 08:26 PM
So to be a supercar, it needs to be easy to drive? Guess that narrows it down a bit. So basically the top three supercars under those terms (as I've read reports) are

1. Ariel atom
2. Noble m12 gto
3. Dodge viper acr10

Sorry but that doesn't work for me. Considering one of my favorite supercars, koenigsegg ccx doesn't qualify.

wwgkd
01-10-2009, 02:03 AM
True, some people like it a little crazy. I don't mind crazy, I just don't like the cars that try to kill you, or are so bad that you spend all your time cursing the handling and sweating instead of enjoying the drive. I want something almost telepathic, that still will make you pay for a mistake.

Bleeding Heart
01-10-2009, 06:19 AM
So to be a supercar, it needs to be easy to drive? Guess that narrows it down a bit. So basically the top three supercars under those terms (as I've read reports) are

1. Ariel atom
2. Noble m12 gto
3. Dodge viper acr10

Sorry but that doesn't work for me. Considering one of my favorite supercars, koenigsegg ccx doesn't qualify.

Well, the koenigsegg cn still go relatively well on corners if you are to compare that to the vw golf w12

Joao Gois
01-10-2009, 03:20 PM
Well, the koenigsegg cn still go relatively well on corners if you are to compare that to the vw golf w12

But it'll still try to kill you in every corner. Hell, even in a straight line!

And that would rule Diablo out too, one of my favourit...

Kitdy
01-10-2009, 06:47 PM
Potter Stewart of the United States Supreme Court put it well when it came to identifying a supercar: "I know it when I see it." Wait, he was talking about something else wasn't he...

LTSmash
01-10-2009, 07:26 PM
Potter Stewart of the United States Supreme Court put it well when it came to identifying a supercar: "I know it when I see it." Wait, he was talking about something else wasn't he...

Nice.

Bleeding Heart
01-10-2009, 07:37 PM
But it'll still try to kill you in every corner. Hell, even in a straight line!

And that would rule Diablo out too, one of my favourit...

I see what you mean...

YouTube - Top Gear - Jeremy Clarkson tests Koenigsegg CCX - BBC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svxRpqeqFRY)

Bleeding Heart
01-10-2009, 07:48 PM
as to how i see it, the koenigsegg has too much power for it's grip imo.

Kitdy
01-10-2009, 07:59 PM
Nice.

It somehow popped into my head that I should use that line.

By the grace of the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Cyco
01-10-2009, 08:41 PM
as to how i see it, the koenigsegg has too much power for it's grip imo.

Another useful report from an owner I see.

Bleeding Heart
01-10-2009, 08:50 PM
Another useful report from an owner I see.

nah. i just saw it from the video.

Cyco
01-10-2009, 09:33 PM
Ahh, all clear now. THE video, the only one ever shot of a Koenigsegg. This makes it easy for us all to understand.

CCR vs F430 (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=m0jTCsQmPQk) Not this one,
CCXR driven by Winding Road (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=EhRxBHKBkOw) Not this one either,
CCX driven by Winding Road (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ok_hn-LdWH8&feature=related) A burnout at 1:30, but wouldn't call it a too much power for its grip


Good thing you don't ever need to see a car to understand exactly what its like to drive.

LTSmash
01-11-2009, 12:47 AM
Ahh, all clear now. THE video, the only one ever shot of a Koenigsegg. This makes it easy for us all to understand.

CCR vs F430 (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=m0jTCsQmPQk) Not this one,
CCXR driven by Winding Road (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=EhRxBHKBkOw) Not this one either,
CCX driven by Winding Road (http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ok_hn-LdWH8&feature=related) A burnout at 1:30, but wouldn't call it a too much power for its grip


Good thing you don't ever need to see a car to understand exactly what its like to drive.

Sarcasm is awesome.

60Valves
01-12-2009, 04:09 AM
No. I tried at a car show but the owners just laughed when I asked. Out of curiosity, have you gotten a chance to drive a 959?

On the 959, yes once. At the time I was considering buying one. Very fast, very stable, and not terribly involving. Very much the opposite of the F40 in terms of drama. Personally I did not find it that exciting a car to drive.

One thing that really shocked me was the maintenance costs on the 959 when I went through the history on several (and I am used to Ferrari bills).

Octane magazine had a good article comparing the two about a year ago.

Joao Gois
01-12-2009, 04:19 AM
I see what you mean...

YouTube - Top Gear - Jeremy Clarkson tests Koenigsegg CCX - BBC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svxRpqeqFRY)

Not really. I was more talking about the high-speed test @ Nürburgring by AMuS two or three months ago. The CCX didn't even finish the first lap, it crashed right away! The driver said it had to struggle even in the straights to keep the car in line because each and every irregularity on the track's surface disturbed the car's rear stability.

The problem is not too much power for grip, it's too little downforce for power. That's why in a drag race you can't notice that.

Bleeding Heart
01-12-2009, 05:23 AM
Not really. I was more talking about the high-speed test @ Nürburgring by AMuS two or three months ago. The CCX didn't even finish the first lap, it crashed right away! The driver said it had to struggle even in the straights to keep the car in line because each and every irregularity on the track's surface disturbed the car's rear stability.

The problem is not too much power for grip, it's too little downforce for power. That's why in a drag race you can't notice that.

With that said, the thing that bothers me there is that why doesn't koenigsegg add something like a rear wing to increase the downforce of the car.:confused:

Cyco
01-12-2009, 06:53 AM
One has been on their option sheet since atleast 2004.

The issues TG had where more due to a rushed build on the car than the wing fixing it.

Joao Gois
01-12-2009, 10:31 AM
I don't think adding a rear spoiler will do that much difference. The car's behaviour is all too spiky, apparently. I'll upload the article today or tomorrow when I get home.

wwgkd
01-12-2009, 10:56 AM
On the 959, yes once. At the time I was considering buying one. Very fast, very stable, and not terribly involving. Very much the opposite of the F40 in terms of drama. Personally I did not find it that exciting a car to drive.

One thing that really shocked me was the maintenance costs on the 959 when I went through the history on several (and I am used to Ferrari bills).

Octane magazine had a good article comparing the two about a year ago.

Ah, ok. Well, whether or not they liked it, I've never heard anyone call an F40 boring. I hope some day I get the chance to drive one, but it's unlikely.

Interesting. I never would have thought that the 959 would have such high maintinance costs (at least not compared to a ferrari.)


I don't think adding a rear spoiler will do that much difference. The car's behaviour is all too spiky, apparently. I'll upload the article today or tomorrow when I get home.

Properly applied downforce is a beautiful thing.

Joao Gois
01-12-2009, 11:07 AM
Properly applied downforce is a beautiful thing.

Yes, indeed! The problem is... it's not, in the CCX's case. Even with the rear wing on!

LeonOfTheDead
01-13-2009, 04:45 PM
The problem is not too much power for grip, it's too little downforce for power. That's why in a drag race you can't notice that.

to be honest and correct, grip is generate by the loss between the tire and the ground, multiplied by the force pushing the car to the ground, which is made of the weight of the car plus the downforce generated by the car.
the downforce increase with speed, and that's (also) why cars spin at lower speeds.

60Valves
01-14-2009, 02:35 AM
Ah, ok. Well, whether or not they liked it, I've never heard anyone call an F40 boring. I hope some day I get the chance to drive one, but it's unlikely.

Sorry if I was not clear, it is the 959 that I was referring to as a bit boring. The F40 is anything but.

Joao Gois
01-14-2009, 02:42 AM
to be honest and correct, grip is generate by the loss between the tire and the ground, multiplied by the force pushing the car to the ground, which is made of the weight of the car plus the downforce generated by the car.
the downforce increase with speed, and that's (also) why cars spin at lower speeds.

The downforce only increases with speed if you have the "devices" for it, such as any kind of spoiler or ground-effect ducts. Cause if not, it'll be the opposite way, since a car works more or less like a wing, generating more lift as it increases speed.

LeonOfTheDead
01-14-2009, 06:27 AM
The downforce only increases with speed if you have the "devices" for it, such as any kind of spoiler or ground-effect ducts. Cause if not, it'll be the opposite way, since a car works more or less like a wing, generating more lift as it increases speed.

that's not correct, both drag and downforce increase with speed.
it's balance between the two, and the car can generate downforce even just with it's shape in the same way it can generate more drag just with a different design without using airplanes' flaps.

Bleeding Heart
01-14-2009, 07:02 AM
The downforce only increases with speed if you have the "devices" for it, such as any kind of spoiler or ground-effect ducts. Cause if not, it'll be the opposite way, since a car works more or less like a wing, generating more lift as it increases speed.

It depends on the shape of the car.

If you're talking about the shape of modern family cars, this may be plausible. But then, if we're talking about supercars, this would be somewhat of a stupid idea if the manufacturer was to make the car's shape perform like an aircraft wing. Most of the supercars shape is to increase downforce because they need downforce to go round corners or go fast at straight lines.

I think no manufacturer of Supercars would want their car to do things like what the Mercedes CLR did at LeMans.

LeonOfTheDead
01-14-2009, 07:20 AM
It depends on the shape of the car.

If you're talking about the shape of modern family cars, this may be plausible. But then, if we're talking about supercars, this would be somewhat of a stupid idea if the manufacturer was to make the car's shape perform like an aircraft wing. Most of the supercars shape is to increase downforce because they need downforce to go round corners or go fast at straight lines.

I think no manufacturer of Supercars would want their car to do things like what the Mercedes CLR did at LeMans.

a few errors:

- Veyron's shape acts like a wing, and Bugatti (VW) had a lot of difficulties due to the fact they first designed the look without considering it was a car and not a sculpture.

- downforce is useless in a stright line if the car doesn't have drag issues as the Veyron (relatively, a car always need downforce because of the pressure that the air speed creates under the car)

- the CLR's accidents were due to a wrong front suspension setup rather than aero issues.

Joao Gois
01-14-2009, 09:30 AM
It depends on the shape of the car.

If you're talking about the shape of modern family cars, this may be plausible. But then, if we're talking about supercars, this would be somewhat of a stupid idea if the manufacturer was to make the car's shape perform like an aircraft wing. Most of the supercars shape is to increase downforce because they need downforce to go round corners or go fast at straight lines.

I think no manufacturer of Supercars would want their car to do things like what the Mercedes CLR did at LeMans.

Yes, I meant "normal" cars. The way "supercars" are designed to prevent that is usually with Ventury tunnels to make it reversed-wing shaped, hence increasing the air speed underneath the car and creating depression/suction/downforce.

Hence, It's as wrong to say the downforce increases with speed than to say it decreases. It all depends on the car's shape. There are cars that will produce large amounts of lift (such as the 911, the Audi TT or the Beetle) and others that will produce lots of downforce (Enzo, F430, McLaren F1). And that LeonOfTheDead can't argue against.

LeonOfTheDead
01-14-2009, 09:37 AM
Yes, I meant "normal" cars. The way "supercars" are designed to prevent that is usually with Ventury tunnels to make it reversed-wing shaped, hence increasing the air speed underneath the car and creating depression/suction/downforce.

Hence, It's as wrong to say the downforce increases with speed than to say it decreases. It all depends on the car's shape. There are cars that will produce large amounts of lift (such as the 911, the Audi TT or the Beetle) and others that will produce lots of downforce (Enzo, F430, McLaren F1). And that LeonOfTheDead can't argue against.

saying downforce increases with speed is a physics law, because it's generated by the speed the car is traveling at, both considering a venturi tunnel, spoilers or whatever.
then the global force pushing the car to the ground can change in both direction (increase or decrease) only considering both the drag and the downforce.
if a spoiler creates 20 N of downforce at say 100 km/h it can only increase that value at an higher speed.
if a wing creates a drag of 20 N at 100 km/h it can only increase that value at an higher speed.
now, because the relationships between the increase of both downforce and drag with the speed can be different, it's not obvious to say the overall force is going up (drag) or down (downforce).
those are two differences ideas, because in the first cases I'm considering only the resultant force acting in the direction of the ground or of the sky, while in the second case I'm considering the resultant force of both.
talking about downforce to me means only the forces pushing the car to the ground, while you are (I think) talking about the second case.

btw, the McLaren F1 adopted also a couple of fans to increase the depression under the car, something not connected as directly to the speed to the car, as a venturi channel or spoiler effect.

Joao Gois
01-15-2009, 03:34 AM
saying downforce increases with speed is a physics law, because it's generated by the speed the car is traveling at, both considering a venturi tunnel, spoilers or whatever.
then the global force pushing the car to the ground can change in both direction (increase or decrease) only considering both the drag and the downforce.
if a spoiler creates 20 N of downforce at say 100 km/h it can only increase that value at an higher speed.
if a wing creates a drag of 20 N at 100 km/h it can only increase that value at an higher speed.
now, because the relationships between the increase of both downforce and drag with the speed can be different, it's not obvious to say the overall force is going up (drag) or down (downforce).
those are two differences ideas, because in the first cases I'm considering only the resultant force acting in the direction of the ground or of the sky, while in the second case I'm considering the resultant force of both.
talking about downforce to me means only the forces pushing the car to the ground, while you are (I think) talking about the second case.

btw, the McLaren F1 adopted also a couple of fans to increase the depression under the car, something not connected as directly to the speed to the car, as a venturi channel or spoiler effect.

OK, We were then talking about two different things giving it the same name (that's what happens when we talk different languages and express in a third language...). I always consider the vehicle as a system of forces. If the resultant pushes the car agains the floor, it's downforce; if it sends it sky-high, it's lift. Drag just sends the car back, not up, IMO.
Hope we understand each other this way...

60Valves
01-15-2009, 07:33 AM
Joao Gois,

Slightly off topic, but I drove the F40 right through Albufeira a few months ago. :D

LeonOfTheDead
01-15-2009, 09:02 AM
OK, We were then talking about two different things giving it the same name (that's what happens when we talk different languages and express in a third language...). I always consider the vehicle as a system of forces. If the resultant pushes the car agains the floor, it's downforce; if it sends it sky-high, it's lift. Drag just sends the car back, not up, IMO.
Hope we understand each other this way...

damn, lift, not drag, I got confused :p

Joao Gois
01-16-2009, 06:23 AM
Joao Gois,

Slightly off topic, but I drove the F40 right through Albufeira a few months ago. :D

Oh no, we were the ones off-topic. Sorted now.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: OMG!

You

gotta

be

kidding!

Were you on vacations? Are you ever coming back with it :D? I've never seen an F40 IRL... Please, say you'll return (and warn me when you do!!)...;)

60Valves
01-20-2009, 02:52 AM
Oh no, we were the ones off-topic. Sorted now.

:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek: OMG!

You

gotta

be

kidding!

Were you on vacations? Are you ever coming back with it :D? I've never seen an F40 IRL... Please, say you'll return (and warn me when you do!!)...;)

I wil probably be coming back through at some point over the sumemr.

There is a write up on the trip:

Ferrari Life Quarterly, The International Magazine About Ferrari & Lifestyle - Ferrari Life (http://www.ferrarilife.com/flq/flq.php)

Issue #10 under Summer Reports.

Joao Gois
01-20-2009, 03:55 AM
I wil probably be coming back through at some point over the sumemr.

There is a write up on the trip:

Ferrari Life Quarterly, The International Magazine About Ferrari & Lifestyle - Ferrari Life (http://www.ferrarilife.com/flq/flq.php)

Issue #10 under Summer Reports.

So you were in Spain and took the chance to come to Portugal? Nice.
One question. That grey car on page 42 is a Sbarro Challenge. Was it on the run too?? Coool.

Pleeeeease, if you ever pass in the Algarve again, give me a nod. Would it be asking too much to have even the smallest lift on the F40?

60Valves
01-22-2009, 05:07 AM
So you were in Spain and took the chance to come to Portugal? Nice.
One question. That grey car on page 42 is a Sbarro Challenge. Was it on the run too?? Coool.

Pleeeeease, if you ever pass in the Algarve again, give me a nod. Would it be asking too much to have even the smallest lift on the F40?

Yes, the grey car was a Sbarro Challenge. Horrible thing.

Will let you know if I drive through the Algarve again.

Joao Gois
01-22-2009, 06:00 AM
Yes, the grey car was a Sbarro Challenge. Horrible thing.

Will let you know if I drive through the Algarve again.

That would be sooo sweet!:cool::)

F1GTRUeno
01-25-2009, 07:04 PM
I've never trully been a fan of the F40, but the 959 is rare and interesting to me because it seems like it was always in the shadow of the car from Maranello. You don't hear about them much, and they seem like they were a technical marvel back in the day.

Plus I love the looks, even though admittedly it is effectively just a squashed 911.

#3 Tasman Bloke
01-26-2009, 02:41 AM
I read an article of the F40 against the 430, and the F40 won. In the 80's it was the definition of supercar. Nobody could get CLOSE. Which includes the 959.

LeonOfTheDead
01-26-2009, 05:31 AM
I read an article of the F40 against the 430, and the F40 won. In the 80's it was the definition of supercar. Nobody could get CLOSE. Which includes the 959.

any kind of comparison between cars built in such different periods can't be equal or objective.
first of all, they should have compared the F40 to the Enzo, and second, why to do that? I can't understand this pursue of the ultimate car without being fine to give to each car it's place regardless o the other cars.
even comparing the four modern top of the line cars from Ferrari, fromt he 288 GTO to the Enzo, obviously the Enzo would be the fastes, the F50 probably the better compromise between lightness and power, the F40 the more famous, and the GTO the more ignored. does it mean something? uhm, no.
even bringing the figures and specs of the cars wouldn't really help.
alf of the were basically the best or among the best we could have at their respective time. comparing them now is senseless. I can stand comparing modern cars a la COTY, even if in the end it's always a biased judgment.
for example, in last year or so, the Aston Martin DBS played really bad in the Evo COTY. They also stated the car was a pre-production one, and that even AM recognized it had some issues not related to the car's design but to the assembly and production. still the judged the car as rubbish, almost. Besides the fact I like the car and that I don't car if it is as focused as a 599 GTB because I'm not going to drive the DBS at a track day, I found the fact biased, the car has issues not related to it's nature, they told you it has a specific reason why it is so, and still you don't consider it in the final judgment. on the other hand the Murcielago LP640 stopped working in a mysterious white smoke in the middle of the test, still they gave the car the 3rd position (iirc).
I can figure why a young folk which just lately entered the car world want to read all these kind of articles, I did it too, but after a while, I think it should be time to move and try to figure out our own ideas on those cars, even if obviously we aren't going to drive them even for 1 mile.
Of course I need to read somewhere the DBS it's really not a perfect driver car, as usually required, but tbh, I never thought it was going to be a driver car. Knowing AM a little, their previous cars, their average customers, is it really a shock?
going back to the F40, comparing it to a modern car no matter which, especially considering in which period the F40 was designed is completely pointless. probably the only requirement the F40 had to face was going tremendously fast, while now the situation is absolutely different.
To those who read the thread and my previous posts, they know I had also arguments even against this very comparison with the 959, which in the end brings me to rant about the fact people always need their number ones and often also given by someone else, as if they couldn0t figured it out by themselves, let alone why they need a number one in first place.
ranking everything available isn't something I usually understood.
end of my 2 ranting cents.

Ferrer
01-26-2009, 05:37 AM
I can figure why a young folk which just lately entered the car world want to read all these kind of articles, I did it too, but after a while, I think it should be time to move and try to figure out our own ideas on those cars, even if obviously we aren't going to drive them even for 1 mile.
I agree with this completely.

ranking everything available isn't something I usually understood.

Becasue that's what we, blokes, do. We love listing things. :)

Joao Gois
01-26-2009, 07:56 AM
I don't find the need to list everything just a minimalistic way of judging; it's more like a way of trying to give sense and order to things. Don't take that too serious. ;)

LeonOfTheDead
01-27-2009, 09:46 AM
I don't find the need to list everything just a minimalistic way of judging; it's more like a way of trying to give sense and order to things. Don't take that too serious. ;)

trying to find the sense and order of things can kill the thrill and fun though ;)

wwgkd
01-27-2009, 10:32 AM
trying to find the sense and order of things can kill the thrill and fun though ;)

If you take it too seriously. If you just view these as a way of discussing your favorite cars compared to other peoples favorites, then it works out ok. At least for me. I actually have a lot of trouble listing a top 5 favorite cars or anything like that because it really is hard to put different cars (and all cars are different) on the same list. But I do like hearing what other people like or dislike about a car. Brings kind of a fresh viewpoint, especially when you can get people like 60valves to chip in.

Ferrer
01-27-2009, 12:30 PM
If you take it too seriously. If you just view these as a way of discussing your favorite cars compared to other peoples favorites, then it works out ok. At least for me. I actually have a lot of trouble listing a top 5 favorite cars or anything like that because it really is hard to put different cars (and all cars are different) on the same list. But I do like hearing what other people like or dislike about a car. Brings kind of a fresh viewpoint, especially when you can get people like 60valves to chip in.
You know, you've just described the point of the forum here. :)

Joao Gois
01-28-2009, 02:58 AM
You know, you've just described the point of the forum here. :)

Yes, he has! What would be the fun if everyone would like the same cars. Only that would make unnecessary to list cars... :p

LeonOfTheDead
01-28-2009, 09:05 AM
If you take it too seriously. If you just view these as a way of discussing your favorite cars compared to other peoples favorites, then it works out ok. At least for me. I actually have a lot of trouble listing a top 5 favorite cars or anything like that because it really is hard to put different cars (and all cars are different) on the same list. But I do like hearing what other people like or dislike about a car. Brings kind of a fresh viewpoint, especially when you can get people like 60valves to chip in.

I absolutely agree, I just wouldn't mind more interesting reasons to prefer a car and not just the usual "top 5" based n look and specs.:o

bruxell
01-28-2009, 12:03 PM
A better comparison should have been "Ferrari 288 GTO and the Porsche 959". Both were built to similar rules (i.e. Group B).

My choice by the way is the Porsche 959.

Also, the 288 was a much better looking car. But really, F40 vs. 959 is the classic debate so I think it's appropriate.

Anyway, my head says F40, but my heart says 959, which is sort of the opposite of what usually happens with Ferrari vs. Porsche polls...:confused:

LTSmash
01-29-2009, 12:31 AM
But really, F40 vs. 959 is the classic debate so I think it's appropriate.

Agreed, the comparison is fair. The 959 was also a track car, so it's a legitimate debate.

wlawson86
01-29-2009, 01:10 AM
Both are brilliant cars but I tend to prefer the looks and raw nature of the F40. It's also significantly lighter than the 959 which is one of the first things I consider when deciding what car I would prefer. All of that being said, I prefer Porsche over Ferrari in general.

60Valves
03-31-2009, 08:57 AM
So you were in Spain and took the chance to come to Portugal? Nice.
One question. That grey car on page 42 is a Sbarro Challenge. Was it on the run too?? Coool.

Pleeeeease, if you ever pass in the Algarve again, give me a nod. Would it be asking too much to have even the smallest lift on the F40?

Wasn't in the Algarve, but did take the F40 out on the track in Estoril last weekend:

YouTube - Ferrari F40 Trackday 1 of 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tiXTgaC0LdI&feature=channel_page)

YouTube - Ferrari F40 Trackday 2 of 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5khlhJAqMR4&feature=channel_page)

DesmoRob
03-31-2009, 05:45 PM
Being both thrifty and German, as well as taking into account the fact that Porsche was the brand which sparked my automotive passion, I should be leaning towards the 959. However, there is just something about a Ferrari that grabs my attention and makes me want to be unfaithful. Its kind of like having a loving, dependable wife, but falling head over heels for the seductive "girl next door." Maybe its the egotistical prick inside me talking, but I'll have the F40 :)....in red

Drifter888
04-08-2009, 04:55 AM
I have to say the ferrari is better on the track than the porsche but the porsche is better on the streets. OH YEAH!! there were a little over 200 959s made making the porsche more rare and valuble the ferrari may be newer but is not a good every day super car. if i had a choice between a super car i could drive everyday it would be the porsche.

clutch-monkey
04-08-2009, 03:06 PM
would you honestly drive a 959 everyday?
likely the only difference is that you don't have to be as careful when planning those sunday drives.

Cyco
04-08-2009, 08:19 PM
The 959 was a show piece of what Porsche technology could do.

At the time it was truly astounding. Now it is a 997 Turbo with a much higher cost to run (engine out to change the plugs).

The F40's rawness will never be captured in a car built in much higher numbers, now it its styling wildness likely to be either.

The 959 is much rarer, but I don't believe it it more desirable (look at the prices they get).