UCP Awards 2009: Car of the Decade [The Enzo Issue]

[Kitdy]

Ok so I missed putting the Enzo in one of the threads. This thread will be a simple yes/no vote, and what I am asking is whether or not the Enzo should get to the finals, in essence, a bye. If there are more yes votes than no, then it will get a bye.

[Ferrer]

No. Because there's the Veyron. And the GT-R.

[henk4]

No, because there is the C6:D

[Kitdy]

No, because there is the C6:D

I of course assume you mean the Corvette...

Or wait... Isn't there some French thing?

[henk4]

I of course assume you mean the Corvette...

Or wait... Isn't there some French thing?

A Citroen C6 was already available in the early thirties of the previous century. Any other claim to that name is a breach of copywright.:D

[Cotterik]

the enzo didnt break any boundaries or make any real breakthroughs in the supercar world compared to others that are on the list, so i say no. The F50 was in essence a formula one car with a more civilized shell. The enzo was just a modernised version of the same. While still a great car, i wouldnt say it would ever win any votes over the veyron, murcielago or the zonda F when looking amongst the class it is in.

[Ferrer]

I doubt the Murcielago is a groundbreaking car at all. Great yes, a goal posts mover no.

[Cotterik]

i'd say the sheer fact that the murcielago has been such a prominent figure in the supercar world for pretty much the entire decade despite its age it has evolved and changed with the times and hasnt shown any signs of being majorly overtaken even by the hypercars of late.

[iwmakemh]

No, because the Enzo is becoming a thing of the past I was still in second grade when the car came out. This was like 8 years ago, I remember buying a twenty dollar poser of this car though. It truly is what got me liking cars in the first place =]
Now there are cars that will give the Enzo a run for its money, and I haven't really heard much news of the Enzo in years. The last time I heard someone say the name Ferrari Enzo was on a re-run of Top Gear.

[Ferrer]

i'd say the sheer fact that the murcielago has been such a prominent figure in the supercar world for pretty much the entire decade despite its age it has evolved and changed with the times and hasnt shown any signs of being majorly overtaken even by the hypercars of late.
I love the Murci. I love the fact that it's the last old-schooler. I love its massive V12, I love the doors, I love the open gate gearshift. Everything is great. But these days it's barely faster, if at all, than a 599 GTB which isn't a supercar. The thing is it's been completely surpassed by the new-age carbonfibred supercars.

No, because the Enzo is becoming a thing of the past I was still in second grade when the car came out. This was like 8 years ago, I remember buying a twenty dollar poser of this car though. It truly is what got me liking cars in the first place =]
Now there are cars that will give the Enzo a run for its money, and I haven't really heard much news of the Enzo in years. The last time I heard someone say the name Ferrari Enzo was on a re-run of Top Gear.
It's... car of the decade... you know?

[NicFromLA]

No. Because there's the Veyron. And the GT-R.

The Enzo is a very different type of car. And it's a wonderful car at that.

[Ferrer]

The Enzo is a very different type of car. And it's a wonderful car at that.
Not denying this, but I'm not judging personal preference here.

For the record I don't like either.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I'd say no, Because I don't feel like it's the best car of the Decade.

[092326001]

No. I don't think it's special enough.

The Murcielago should have a spot because it is THE definitive supercar of the decade.

[wwgkd]

the enzo didnt break any boundaries or make any real breakthroughs in the supercar world compared to others that are on the list, so i say no. The F50 was in essence a formula one car with a more civilized shell. The enzo was just a modernised version of the same. While still a great car, i wouldnt say it would ever win any votes over the veyron, murcielago or the zonda F when looking amongst the class it is in.

I would vote for it over those. You're saying the Enzo is an evolution of the F50. How is the Zonda F not an even more direct evolution of other Zondas?


I'd say no, Because I don't feel like it's the best car of the Decade.

Neither are the other cars, really. A supercar only finale seems to be where we're going, though.


No. I don't think it's special enough.

The Murcielago should have a spot because it is THE definitive supercar of the decade.

I always figured a definitive super car should compete with other super cars. Like, you know, actually be a super car.

The Enzo was crazy when it came out and was the standard by which the new wave of supercars (post F1) were measured for most of the decade. If all we're comparing is supercars, that gives it the nod for me.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Thats the problem with making arbitrary free polls like this where there are no judging criteria other than "what do you like?"

the ones with the most mass appeal will win. It's a popularity contest as opposed to something more quantifiable.

[whiteballz]

I appreciate the enzo, And I think it only got the accolade for moving the goal posts because it was the first propper supercar of the decade, ANY of the current cars would have its position if they went on sale in a different order.

Thus I think the murcielago is a contender due to its longetivity.

[wwgkd]

I appreciate the enzo, And I think it only got the accolade for moving the goal posts because it was the first propper supercar of the decade, ANY of the current cars would have its position if they went on sale in a different order.

Thus I think the murcielago is a contender due to its longetivity.

So it's the first, and it managed to move the posts, but it doesn't count as important because it wasn't in production as long? Why not the Crovette then? Much higher production numbers, too. Or the Mustang? Both of them had a more significant impact on the automotive world throughout their lives than the Murcie did.

Edit: I'm not so sure that those other cars would have taken it's place, either. After that first crop of super cars came out and the dust settled, the Enzo was still the fastest. Even at the end of the decade it's still one of the fastest of those that are available worldwide (meeting US standards is a feat that many haven't attempted.)

[Rockefella]

What if the voting changes from overall car of the year to car of the year and then supercar of the year?

... and decade I guess.

[iwmakemh]

It's... car of the decade... you know?

LOL sorry I didn't pay much attention when I was writing it. Fail haha

[Cobrafan427]

i didn't bother reading anyone else's reasons and i'm sry if i'm repeating somethin someone else already said but no b/c it's neither the fastest nor best handling nor best looking supercar of the decade and if we're gonna vote a non-practical 6 to 7 figure collectors item car of the decade then it might as well fit into said characteristics

[whiteballz]

whut.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

He says it's not the best looking or the smartest, so he says no too.

[demonrunning07]

i didn't bother reading anyone else's reasons and i'm sry if i'm repeating somethin someone else already said

I'll come right out and say it, I hate the Veyron and I would much rather have an Enzo. But Top Gear got it right; the Veyron raised the bar for all future spercars.

I don't even think we can say that the Enzo "surpassed" any of it's predecessors--the 288 GTO, F40, and F50--when taking into account advancements in technology. The Nissan GT-R is an unbelievable sportscar but is was preceded by the equally amazing R32, R33, and R34. In the world of supercars, the Veyron caused what the respective worlds of science and philosophy would refer to as a "paradigm shift". Not only did it set a new standard, it completely changed the game. And until an equally groundbreaking vehicle is produced, everything that calls itself a supercar will be compared to the Veyron. Its accolades are comparable only to the McLaren F1, which definided "supercar" for an entire decade right up unitl the Veyron.

In summation: no, the Enzo should not advance to the next round because it in no way merits the honor of "Car of the Decade".

[acfsambo]

I would also say that the cars should be (had been) available to the public, which rules out the Enzo, because Ferrari asked the people they wanted to own an Enzo to buy 1.

[NicFromLA]

No. I don't think it's special enough.

The Murcielago should have a spot because it is THE definitive supercar of the decade.

Disagree. First, there's a LOT of Diablo in the Murci's chassis and engine. Second, it didn't push the envelope in any spectacular way; it didn't set a new standard for performance or top speed or handling or performance/usability. That being said it is a GREAT looking car and I'm totally a fan.

I really think the performance car of the decade title has to be split three ways: the Ferrari 430 Scuderia for being fun, fast and beautiful; the Nissan GT-R for technological achievement in a relatively attainable and usable car; and finally the Veyron for setting a bar so high it might never be surpassed.

[NSXType-R]

Maybe we're bored of the Enzo after seeing it for almost 10 years now. The styling is so controversial that I don't see any part of the exterior that's "memorable" other than the fact that it spread its ugliness to other Ferraris after it.

I definitely appreciate the mechanical bits of it, but from an aesthetic point of view, it's garbage.

So yes, I hate it too.

[Kitdy]

Disagree. First, there's a LOT of Diablo in the Murci's chassis and engine. Second, it didn't push the envelope in any spectacular way; it didn't set a new standard for performance or top speed or handling or performance/usability. That being said it is a GREAT looking car and I'm totally a fan.

I really think the performance car of the decade title has to be split three ways: the Ferrari 430 Scuderia for being fun, fast and beautiful; the Nissan GT-R for technological achievement in a relatively attainable and usable car; and finally the Veyron for setting a bar so high it might never be surpassed.

I'd substitute the Enzo for the F430, but otherwise I'd agree.

[NicFromLA]

Maybe we're bored of the Enzo after seeing it for almost 10 years now. The styling is so controversial that I don't see any part of the exterior that's "memorable" other than the fact that it spread its ugliness to other Ferraris after it.

I definitely appreciate the mechanical bits of it, but from an aesthetic point of view, it's garbage.

So yes, I hate it too.

I can't remember who I had this discussion with before, so if it was you forgive me for repeating myself: First, I really don't think the Enzo works in red; there's a dark blue on in NY and a medium blue metallic in France and I think those two are fantastic looking, it also looks nice in black or yellow. Second, I like the Enzo because it's very design-y, where I think most people like the F40 because it's very race-y looking and looks great in red.

[Dino Scuderia]

I can't remember who I had this discussion with before, so if it was you forgive me for repeating myself: First, I really don't think the Enzo works in red; there's a dark blue on in NY and a medium blue metallic in France and I think those two are fantastic looking, it also looks nice in black or yellow. Second, I like the Enzo because it's very design-y, where I think most people like the F40 because it's very race-y looking and looks great in red.


Very few modern Ferrari's look good in red IMO...it mostly hides the lines...all those older smooth body shape F-cars looked okay in red.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

I think it actually has the opposite effect.

It allows the aerodynamic slashes and panel gaps to stand out too much through shadow. Lending the cars a messy aesthetic.

You either have to go Silver or Dark. Either completely accentuate or hide.

[NSXType-R]

I can't remember who I had this discussion with before, so if it was you forgive me for repeating myself: First, I really don't think the Enzo works in red; there's a dark blue on in NY and a medium blue metallic in France and I think those two are fantastic looking, it also looks nice in black or yellow. Second, I like the Enzo because it's very design-y, where I think most people like the F40 because it's very race-y looking and looks great in red.

Maybe, but it doesn't help that I don't like the car any much more even after changing the colors. :D

[Kitdy]

You either have to go Silver or Dark. Either completely accentuate or hide.

Dark hides the ugly.

[Ferrer]

Bright exposes it.

In any case I'd rather have the slower, more cumbersome and heavier raging bull from Sant'Agata.

[cmcpokey]

Bright exposes it.

In any case I'd rather have the slower, more cumbersome and heavier raging bull from Sant'Agata.

with awd? your consistency is faltering. i'd take an enzo over pretty much anything out there. veyron included. i am with you that it is hideous, but sometimes you have to look past the form to get to the function.

[Ferrer]

with awd? your consistency is faltering. i'd take an enzo over pretty much anything out there. veyron included. i am with you that it is hideous, but sometimes you have to look past the form to get to the function.
I'm not too interested in the Enzo to be honest. Yes it is fast, but it's also ugly and there's no proper manual and on top of all it is a Ferrari. Ideally I'd rather have a Zonda, which has everything you want in a supercar, including style, speed and charisma and drama. And in second place lies the good ol' Murcielago. Yes, it is four wheel drive, and it is slow and it's too wide and it is an anachronism in these day and age of exotic material. But, like the Zonda it has this little something which makes you overlook all its defects and just love it for what it is. There are few cars which can do this, and that's what makes it great in my opinion. It's a bit like the Arnage, a dinosaur and clealry surpased by all its rivals objectively but it had such character that it didn't really matter.

[NSXType-R]

with awd? your consistency is faltering. i'd take an enzo over pretty much anything out there. veyron included. i am with you that it is hideous, but sometimes you have to look past the form to get to the function.

I agree, he seemed to have flip flopped. :D


I'm not too interested in the Enzo to be honest. Yes it is fast, but it's also ugly and there's no proper manual and on top of all it is a Ferrari. Ideally I'd rather have a Zonda, which has everything you want in a supercar, including style, speed and charisma and drama. And in second place lies the good ol' Murcielago. Yes, it is four wheel drive, and it is slow and it's too wide and it is an anachronism in these day and age of exotic material. But, like the Zonda it has this little something which makes you overlook all its defects and just love it for what it is. There are few cars which can do this, and that's what makes it great in my opinion. It's a bit like the Arnage, a dinosaur and clealry surpased by all its rivals objectively but it had such character that it didn't really matter.

Fair enough. But I don't like the Arnage.

I notice the Ferrari because it' s crazy expensive, not because I actually like it.

[cmcpokey]

the arnage is brilliant because it is because it doesnt compete with any other car out there. people who want an arnage buy an arnage, and nothing else. it is like a morgan in that regard. the murcielago et al tries to compete with the upper crust ferraris (sans enzo) and does so as an anachronism and for that it will always be behind the red cars. they dont develop technology, they use it after it has been proven. compare that to ferrari who are often the first company to put a technology on the street. even the lowest level ferrari often brings tech the highest level lambo cant even dream of.

the enzo sought to be the best all around car, without trumping anyone. do the fast 0-60, go over 200 (but not bother with 250), but they designed it to go around a track faster than damn near anything. it isn't an icon of good design, and it didnt set any records that will stand for ages like the F1. but it is a car, like the F1, that people will try and match for decades.

[f6fhellcat13]

I think you overestimate its importance. A mere hotted-up F430 can beat it around Fiorano.
Other than the engine I'm really not a fan.

[Ferrer]

the arnage is brilliant because it is because it doesnt compete with any other car out there. people who want an arnage buy an arnage, and nothing else. it is like a morgan in that regard. the murcielago et al tries to compete with the upper crust ferraris (sans enzo) and does so as an anachronism and for that it will always be behind the red cars. they dont develop technology, they use it after it has been proven. compare that to ferrari who are often the first company to put a technology on the street. even the lowest level ferrari often brings tech the highest level lambo cant even dream of.

the enzo sought to be the best all around car, without trumping anyone. do the fast 0-60, go over 200 (but not bother with 250), but they designed it to go around a track faster than damn near anything. it isn't an icon of good design, and it didnt set any records that will stand for ages like the F1. but it is a car, like the F1, that people will try and match for decades.
But that's the thing precisely. I don't want my italian supercar to be perfect. To have the most technology.

I want my italian supercar to look good, to make a lot of noise and to break down every hundred yards. To me this is why I don't like the Enzo. And why precisely, despite all, I like the Murcielago.

Look at the first 50 or so seconds of this video. It explains perfectly my point.

YouTube - Lamborghini Gallardo Spyder supercar review - Top Gear - BBC

[cmcpokey]

But that's the thing precisely. I don't want my italian supercar to be perfect. To have the most technology.

I want my italian supercar to look good, to make a lot of noise and to break down every hundred yards. To me this is why I don't like the Enzo. And why precisely, despite all, I like the Murcielago.

Look at the first 50 or so seconds of this video. It explains perfectly my point.


and that is precisely why lamborghini exists (as the video says), for people who dont care that it isnt as good, isnt as fast. here's the thing though. i do. i want to be the fastest. i want to work to get that last 10th. i want a car that i can take the track and abuse, and it doesnt break down at the end of the first straight. thats why i would never have an old ferrari, and why i desperately want a new one. i don't care how it looks. i don't really care how it sounds, although there is something magical about a ferrari engine. i just want it to be fast, and be rewarding to drive.

lambos have always been too 'look at me' for my taste. in fact i find them to have a complete lack of taste. but thats fine if you are a new moneyed, wanna be racer with no clue about racing. i think that is why i dislike them. they are designed purely for the poseurs. they are slower than they could be, performance is a an afterthought, and driving position is compromised to say the least. that is not what i want.

[wwgkd]

I second pokey. Just not as eloquently.

Edit: @ Hellcat 1. An F430 is never "merely" anything. 2. Fiorano rewards a lot of tire grip. Since tire technology has improved quite a bit in the intervening years, that and the combination allow the Scuderia to match the times of the Enzo. At other tracks the Enzo is still faster since it brings a more well rounded performance envelope than even the Scuderia.

[092326001]

Disagree. First, there's a LOT of Diablo in the Murci's chassis and engine. Second, it didn't push the envelope in any spectacular way; it didn't set a new standard for performance or top speed or handling or performance/usability. That being said it is a GREAT looking car and I'm totally a fan.

I don't think that any of that matters at all. I'd like to think that the Murcielago was the representative for supercars, the one that did not excel in any area but showed what supercars were about. It's been alive for the larger portion of the decade and its performance has evolved over time to compete, from 570 to 630 to 660, it's never been a low point of supercars.

[wwgkd]

I don't think that any of that matters at all. I'd like to think that the Murcielago was the representative for supercars, the one that did not excel in any area but showed what supercars were about. It's been alive for the larger portion of the decade and its performance has evolved over time to compete, from 570 to 630 to 660, it's never been a low point of supercars.

It didn't excel in any performance area, and never really competed with the other supercars. Even its various evolutions were just trying not to fall too far behind, rather than bumping it anywhere near the front of the pack. It's really more a competitor of the 550/575/599 than the Enzos, Carrera GTs, S7s, Zondas and Veyrons.

[cmcpokey]

It didn't excel in any performance area, and never really competed with the other supercars. Even its various evolutions were just trying not to fall too far behind, rather than bumping it anywhere near the front of the pack. It's really more a competitor of the 550/575/599 than the Enzos, Carrera GTs, S7s, Zondas and Veyrons.

exactly. unlike the ones you mentioned (although i would be loath to include the S7 and Zonda in there), they never once moved the game on. they merely fought irrelevance, and sought to bolster slumping sales at the end of very long model lives by adding hp and trim options. the reventon was a highlight of their decade, but was merely an interesting styling exercise. unfortunately the murcie and gallardo are still just rehashes of the diablo, which was itself a rehash of the countach.

the same could be said of the 430/360/355/348 et al. but we are discussing the enzo, and there is very little other than insane styling that connects it with its F50 predecessor.

[Ferrer]

and that is precisely why lamborghini exists (as the video says), for people who dont care that it isnt as good, isnt as fast. here's the thing though. i do. i want to be the fastest. i want to work to get that last 10th. i want a car that i can take the track and abuse, and it doesnt break down at the end of the first straight. thats why i would never have an old ferrari, and why i desperately want a new one. i don't care how it looks. i don't really care how it sounds, although there is something magical about a ferrari engine. i just want it to be fast, and be rewarding to drive.

lambos have always been too 'look at me' for my taste. in fact i find them to have a complete lack of taste. but thats fine if you are a new moneyed, wanna be racer with no clue about racing. i think that is why i dislike them. they are designed purely for the poseurs. they are slower than they could be, performance is a an afterthought, and driving position is compromised to say the least. that is not what i want.
Don't get me wrong I probably like handling and speed as much as you do. But since there's almost no trackday infrastructure here and they main use for road cars are public roads, I'm not interested in that last 10th.

I also don't want a car that's perfect but which leaves me completely cold. This is the reason why I don't like the Veyron or the GT-R and I'd wouldn't want to have them. Yes, they are very good, and very fast and very advanced, but somewhat it feels like they are just fast moving objects, with no character, soul or passion.

To be honest if I had to choose between objective capabilities and subjective enjoyment, I'd choose the latter even if that meant ending up with a bad car.

[Kitdy]

The Enzo will not be in the finals.