Slow F430 in new C&D.

NSXLuvr

NSXLuvr

Legendary Member
Joined
5 March 2003
Messages
3,300
Location
N. Tx
Just got my C&D. Great comparision article testing cars in the $140-200 k range. The F430 won, but its performance #'s are lower than expected.

Some Data:

0-60MPH
3.6 - FordGT
4.0 - 911 Turbo S Cabriolet
4.1 - F430
4.1 - Gallardo
4.2 - SL65 AMG
4.8 - DB9

0-100MPH
8.4 - FordGT
9.1 - SL65 AMG
9.2 - Gallardo
9.2 - 911 Turbo S Cabriolet
9.4 - F430
10.9 - DB9

0-150MPH...always my personal favorite test
19.1 - FordGT
20.5 - SL65 AMG
21.4 - Gallardo
21.8 - 911 Turbo S Cabriolet
23.8 - F430 (A 360CS scored a 23.9 just six months ago...sad)
27.7 - DB9

Quarter Mile Result
12.0 @ 123mph - FordGT
12.1 @ 120mph - SL65 AMG
12.1 @ 117mph - 911 Turbo S Cab
12.4 @ 118mph - Gallardo
12.5 @ 116mph - F430
13.2 @ 111mph - DB9

Top Speed
205mph - FordGT - Governor limited, amazingly
192mph - Gallardo - Drag limited
186mph - F430 - Redline limited (gee the factory is only claiming 194mph...)
186mph - DB9 - Drag limited
156mph - SL65 AMG - Governor limited


Measured curb weight, no driver
3,380lbs - F430
3,520lbs - FordGT
3,520lbs - Gallardo
3,840lbs - 911 Turbo S Cab
4,040lbs - DB9
4,480lbs - SL65 AMG
 
Interesting... but it would be more meaningful to have the time around a track.

Because losing in straight line against a fat overpowered SL65 does not mean a lot to me... ;)
 
NSXLuvr said:
Just got my C&D. Great comparision article testing cars in the $140-200 k range. The F430 won, but its performance #'s are lower than expected.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen the new mag yet but checked the C&D website for their original test of the F430 (see below). BTW, I agree that 0-150 is a great test for today's cars - it is where the numbers typically show big differences.

While the engine went Bwwaaaaaa! and those crackle-red mounds twitched in the rearview mirror, the computer counted to 60 in—wait, does that say 3.5 seconds? Look, the quarter-mile is 11.7 seconds at 123 mph. Can't be. Fearing a test-box meltdown, we consulted with a rival magazine that was radar-gunning another F430 driven by a factory pilot. Results: practically identical.

The archive states that the old 360 Modena was more than a second slower to 60. The mighty million-buck F40: 0.7 second behind. The rare-as-hen's-molars F50: 0.3 in arrears. Even with some help from Ferrari's Fiorano test track (the straightaway turns slightly downhill halfway through, and tests were allowed only in one direction—north), Ferrari's cheapest model appears to be its second-quickest production car ever, behind—but not by much—the Enzo. A V-10 Lamborghini Gallardo gets a snoot full of bull dust. How's that for progress?
 
NSXLuvr said:
Just got my C&D. Great comparision article testing cars in the $140-200 k range. The F430 won, but its performance #'s are lower than expected.
Click to expand...

The Ford GT numbers seem low compared to previous tests by C&D; 0-150 in 16.9 seconds (Feb 2004).
 
Man, if AMG could put that engine in something 1,000 lbs. lighter, it would be sick! I wonder how an SLK65 or C65 would perform?
Click to expand...
It will be like an old muscle car ;) A Beast to drive on the straight... Push like an elephant in corners.....

BTW, those owners of the GT40 will embrace with the article and laminate it on the wall, and be proud... While their car is in the shop... :biggrin:
 
NSXLuvr said:
Just got my C&D. Great comparision article testing cars in the $140-200 k range. The F430 won, but its performance #'s are lower than expected.
Click to expand...

I am going to pick a copy of the mag to read the entire article, but from what you posted I must me missing something drastic: How did the F430 'win' if it was beat by 2 or more cars in all those categories?
 
Accomplice said:
Man, if AMG could put that engine in something 1,000 lbs. lighter, it would be sick! I wonder how an SLK65 or C65 would perform?
Click to expand...

SLK55 is already scary to drive.. dont want to think about driving something with even more power.
 
there was a review in Europe/UK comparing the F430 and the e60M5 and supposedly the M5 was faster and they voted it the winner.
I'll look for the link of the article.

C&D used a Turbo S cab y not the coupe ?
 
NSXBOX said:
C&D used a Turbo S cab y not the coupe ?
Click to expand...

That was a loner from the owner who supplied a couple of cars they couldn't get.

I would call BS on C&D's excuse that the "launch control" accounted for such slower times. The 0-150MPH shows the car is not near as fast as the "test" car they drove.
 
There are a lot of reasons that the times are lower than what they are. If temps were running high that day, that could account for some loss.

I know in one of the mags a couple months ago they took a SL65 to the track and it did 11.8 in the 1/4 mile. The people at the track couldn't believe the SL could break under 12 without any mods.

Let's just say that all of those cars are really really fast and it would most likely come down to the driver (except maybe the DB9) as to how a real world race would be. I would love to own any one of them. My goal is to get a Gallardo in the next few years (after the NSX of course :biggrin: )
 
Well, the original test article was at Ferrari's own test track, which was downhill to boot!

Obviously, the original cars were ringers. 3.5 for a 430 is bordering on the ridiculous and I predict it'll never be replicated. Does anyone really believe it's a quicker car than a F50?

There's a fairly large discrepancy between the original test numbers and those in this recent shootout. I think the shootout numbers are a little better measure of the F430's mettle.

The SL65 is disappointing for a 600hp car. But, hell, it does weigh 1000lbs more than the Ford.

Just so's y'all know, 0-60 is decided by torque and weight. 0-150 gets decided by drag and horsepower.

But, what are all these guys gonna do when the Z06 smokes them all?
 
Sig said:
Act like us and complain about the interior :biggrin:
Click to expand...

LOL! However, the interior is much improved. I wish the interior of the C6 was as nice as my 33K TL. I don't see why it could not be. The doors are tragic.
 
NetViper said:
LOL! However, the interior is much improved. I wish the interior of the C6 was as nice as my 33K TL. I don't see why it could not be. The doors are tragic.
Click to expand...

I think because it's a GM product. Why they do not just buy the interior components from a Civic, I have no clue.

We landed on the goddamned moon. No other nation has done that. We invented the transistor, the laser, the computer, the airplane. We have TWO robots on Mars driving around by remote control 40 MILLION miles away. The EU agency's robots exploded and died.

Yet...our car companies cannot produce a decent interior. WTF is wrong w/ this picture?!?!?!
 

We have TWO robots on Mars driving around by remote control 40 MILLION miles away. The EU agency's robots exploded and died.

Yet...our car companies cannot produce a decent interior. WTF is wrong w/ this picture?!?!?!


Maybe GM hired the same NASA engineers who crashed the $125M Mars Climate Orbiter because they got confused between metric and imperial units :tongue:
 
liftshard said:
We invented the transistor, the laser, the computer, the airplane.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be so sure on the last two items - there are several serious sources that can tell you that the first plane (without engine by Lilienthal) and the first computer (Zuse Z 1 in 1936) may have been in Germany.

Oh, and of course every Russian will say that they invented everything of the above and all the rest you can think of, even the corruption :wink:
 
NSX-Racer said:
I wouldn't be so sure on the last two items - there are several serious sources that can tell you that the first plane (without engine by Lilienthal) and the first computer (Zuse Z 1 in 1936) may have been in Germany.
[..]
Click to expand...

Score! :biggrin:
 
ccns23 said:
There are a lot of reasons that the times are lower than what they are. If temps were running high that day, that could account for some loss.

I know in one of the mags a couple months ago they took a SL65 to the track and it did 11.8 in the 1/4 mile. The people at the track couldn't believe the SL could break under 12 without any mods.

Let's just say that all of those cars are really really fast and it would most likely come down to the driver (except maybe the DB9) as to how a real world race would be. I would love to own any one of them. My goal is to get a Gallardo in the next few years (after the NSX of course :biggrin: )
Click to expand...

I agree with you the hot temp. could of affected those numbers. BTW the SL got 11.8 sec for 1/4 at a dragstrip.
 
NSX-Racer said:
I wouldn't be so sure on the last two items - there are several serious sources that can tell you that the first plane (without engine by Lilienthal) and the first computer (Zuse Z 1 in 1936) may have been in Germany.
Click to expand...

I agree about the wing-man Lilienthal but even if we speak about more airplane-like devices, more and more historician agrees that the first human flight was done in 1902 by Richard Pearse from New Zealand:

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/pearse1.html

I saw a nice feature about him on BBC sometime ago.

Furthermore the Wrights needed headwinds or catapults to start their planes, so they were not fully self-powered
 
liftshard said:
We landed on the goddamned moon. No other nation has done that.
Yet...our car companies cannot produce a decent interior. WTF is wrong w/ this picture?!?!?!
Click to expand...
I forgot to answer this question. Landing on the moon wouldn't have been possible (at least that early in the late 60s) without major starting help from some german rocket scientists (mainly Wernher v. Braun) who went straight from building the V 1 and V 2 weapons that destroyed parts of U.K. into the U.S. space program. The first U.S. rockets were somewhat V 2s with another paint scheme.

So that may give you a hint about who's able and willing to build something that's not only "a little bit cheesy but nicely displayed" (quote Frank Zappa about american products in "Flakes"). The latest failures in the space shuttle program may also be an indication that there's something wrong. You may also have seen the latest comments of Toyota about U.S. workers here - not very pleasant.

Of course I have no doubt that the average american can have the same skills as everybody else in the world but there may be a small error in the education, motivation and workflow system - but that goes way beyond my knowledge and the original topic of this thread :wink: . I can only confirm that nowadays also some of us german managers and workers are on the wrong track - building something cheap and unreliable for a high price is not the way to success in the long run (e.g. the latest quality issues at Mercedes, VW and BMW).
 
Last edited:
NSXLuvr said:
The F430 won, but its performance #'s are lower than expected.
Click to expand...


The article states that the F1 setup on the US cars doesn't have the launch control like the Euro-spec car tested before. In addition, the car used for this test was a loaner from a dealer's personal collection. So of course they didn't want to launch too aggressively with this one. They kept the launch revs low and the numbers suffered.
 

Similar threads

prova4re
Honda NSX lead car on the Gumball
Replies
3
Views
3K
myguitar
myguitar
nsx1164
400 hp club: where to set the bar ??
Replies
8
Views
3K
NSXrebel
NSXrebel
Back
Top