| Message |
I like to read ferrarichat.com, and there are a number of F40 owners there (well OK, like 3 of them, but that's a lot of F40s!) I don't think that it's as easy to just "turn up the boost" on an F40 engine as it is to perform the same mod for a Z32 or Supra. We get to capitalize on the fact that Nissan built a margin into our engines for reliability. Ferrari didn't. I believe that some changes have been made to get the HP up over 500 or so, but I don't think that you can wring 200 free horsepower out of a Ferrari turbo V8- they were designed much closer to the limits to begin with. Maybe I'm wrong, though. Got any stats that say different? -John P :First off, F1 used turbos back then in 1987, so that's why this car has them. And as we ALL know, turbos own ;) The F40 was the first supercar (okay, the 288 GTO was the shit too). It's also the truest racecar for the road. It remains as the craziest and most racy design out of any car sold to the public. The ultimate exotic mixed with perfect proportions and beauty. Although it is "dated", for it's age at nearly 16 years old it still has timeless beauty. It is a lot easier to design a more civilized shape like the MacLaren F1, which is why the F40's exotic design is such an accomplishment. Just look at the 2 cars side by side. The F40 looks much more substantial. The engine was a work of art. Again, since Formula One used turbo cars at the time this is why the F40 had it. The true HP is closer to 500 though it was underrated from the factory for export. Contact Ferrari North America and they will tell you the same :) In fact, the turbos can EASILY be turned up to put out 700 HP, to more than match the F1 or Enzo.
:The chassis was the most advanced for any street car of the time and still is up there today. FUNCTIONAL carbon fiber and steel space frame. The only car to this day to "feel" like a racecar when sat in and driven, even moreso than the F50 and the MacF1 when compared by people who have driven all three. Light weight, but not 2400lbs like the stats say seeing as most people find theirs to be around 2,700lbs. Even so, still very light (200 more than the actual MacF1 car, and 300 less than the Enzo). 1/4 mile is 11.8 secs confirmed which is about the same for the McLaren F1 for those that actually care. Impressive for a heavier car with less HP. Michael Schumacher and other drivers tested this car, the MacF1 and F50, and the F40 was THE BEST performer in the shorts and the corners, but lost to the MacF1 in the straights but not by much. Turn up the turbos and that will be easily changed. The F40 was and is a "reasonably" priced street all-around racer, made to be affordable to wealthy people (okay, none of us will ever own EITHER). The MacF1 was designed to win Le Mans, NOT to be sold to the public. It is "relatively" easy for a factory to make a car like the MacF1 if cost was NO issue. That is why the F40 sold for (factoring in inflation) ~$400K in 1987 and the F1 sold for $1.2 million when released. All of that from little Ferrari...no huge backing from McLaren and BMW with materials that are 3X the cost :) Should I also mention that the prepped F40s (the ones running at Le Mans and GT races) almost ALWAYS ran faster lap times than the much newer and better financed Maclaren F1s. Sorry McLaren, I'll take the F40 :P
:Hehe...wow, this isn't a rant I just get very involved when it comes to Ferrari ;)
|
 |
14:59:46 06/08/03
