Ferrari F40 VS Porsche 959?

[Bleeding Heart]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.