Yesterday on Car & Driver TV they did a short segment on the Ferrari Enzo (I think), 0-60 in 3.3 seconds and only 90 to be imported here. At any rate they said the oil was a special Shell grade which costs $60 per quart. Now this would be worthwhile getting a quart of just to have it analyzed. That would be your "cost is no object" motor oil.
Ferrari oil
- Thread starter dickwells
- Start date
- Status
Actually, I'm pretty sure they said 10K for the brake pads.
Anyway....it might be a tad faster than the F50, but it is uglier than a Chryler Gremlin. The F50 had much much gracious and flawless lines. This new car is just butt ugly, especially the nose.
Rick
Dickwells,
Your post brings up an excellent point. I am sure that at $60/qt this oil is very close to what Ferrari uses in their Formula 1 cars (if not the same stuff in maybe a more "streetable" grade)...now if this is an accurate representation of what at true "race proven" synthetics cost, how close REALLY are the "race proven" $5 oils we see on the store shelves to the oils that actually flow through the engines of the competition cars? I'm guessing Redline and Amsoil are close if not exact, but for the big time racing efforts: Penske, Porsche, Williams, etc how close are M1, Castrol and Shell to the formulas actually raced?
[ August 04, 2003, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: pscholte ]
Your post brings up an excellent point. I am sure that at $60/qt this oil is very close to what Ferrari uses in their Formula 1 cars (if not the same stuff in maybe a more "streetable" grade)...now if this is an accurate representation of what at true "race proven" synthetics cost, how close REALLY are the "race proven" $5 oils we see on the store shelves to the oils that actually flow through the engines of the competition cars? I'm guessing Redline and Amsoil are close if not exact, but for the big time racing efforts: Penske, Porsche, Williams, etc how close are M1, Castrol and Shell to the formulas actually raced?
[ August 04, 2003, 10:49 AM: Message edited by: pscholte ]
My second thought was that the car looks close enough to those older VW conversion bodies to change the badges on it to "VW" and go crotch rocket hunting. If was suprised that the quarter time was not lower. I would have thought it would get into the "10s". **** , I remember when a Dodge 426 hemi would run in the "11s" off the showroom floor. (Not the low 11s I give you)
Patman
Staff member
Yep, if you look at the overall gear ratios on many of the high end supercars, they are not geared for off the line sprints at all, but more for top speed. So they'd suffer in the 1/4 mile, but have a tremendous top end surge.
The Enzo is pure function - no real concessions made to make it look good. That's a beauty all it's own. It does nothing to disguise it's F1 technology. Ground effects and active aerodynamics.
Some of the European magazines have gotten 0-60 times of 3.3 seconds! I don't think there is any way a 426 Hemi would beat it in the 1/4 mile unless the Hemi was VERY heavily modified.
Some of the European magazines have gotten 0-60 times of 3.3 seconds! I don't think there is any way a 426 Hemi would beat it in the 1/4 mile unless the Hemi was VERY heavily modified.
Patman
Staff member
A friend of mine raced an Enzo the other day on the highway and beat it! Mind you my friend's Firebird is heavily modified and has run the quarter mile in a best time of 11.1 seconds at 125mph. The guy who owns the Enzo is actually a neighbor of another friend of mine, he owns the only Enzo in Toronto that is actually on the road, the other two that are here are kept in the garage and never driven.
Ferraris are not built for the 1/4 mile. Sure it might lose the inital drag race aginst a 426 Hemi, but it'll pass it at the 1st corner.
QUOTE:
"A friend of mine raced an Enzo the other day on the highway and beat it!"
Street racing stories never convince me of anything. I hear these types of stories all the time on the various car forums. People make all kinds of barely believable claims.
In this case, what were the circumstances? Was the Enzo owner going for broke or holding back?
Road & Track tested the Enzo and ran the 1/4 mile in 11.1 @ 133 mph. Pretty amazing for a car that is geared for top speed. If this "race" was on the highway it probably wasn't a standing start drag race and they were already at highway speed when the race began, in which case the Enzo would have an even greater advantage and would likely have the potential to leave the Firebird far behind.
The sequential shift transmission will change gears in 150 milliseconds - far faster than any manual or conventional auto can shift.
"A friend of mine raced an Enzo the other day on the highway and beat it!"
Street racing stories never convince me of anything. I hear these types of stories all the time on the various car forums. People make all kinds of barely believable claims.
In this case, what were the circumstances? Was the Enzo owner going for broke or holding back?
Road & Track tested the Enzo and ran the 1/4 mile in 11.1 @ 133 mph. Pretty amazing for a car that is geared for top speed. If this "race" was on the highway it probably wasn't a standing start drag race and they were already at highway speed when the race began, in which case the Enzo would have an even greater advantage and would likely have the potential to leave the Firebird far behind.
The sequential shift transmission will change gears in 150 milliseconds - far faster than any manual or conventional auto can shift.
Patman
Staff member
In all fairness to my friend, he's easily the best manual transmission drag racer I know, he's got such experience in the f-bodies that he can jump into anyone else's car and easily better their times.
The Enzo driver was definitely trying, he even told my other friend how surprised he was that this guy beat him. But at the same time, this guy weighs over 300lbs, plus his car is not broken in yet, it's got less than 500 miles on it.
And like I mentioned, my friend's Firebird is heavily modified, and considerably lighter than stock too. It's not like he blew his doors off, it was a close race, but the Firebird won by half a car length to a car length approximately. They raced on the roll from about 50-100mph. Had it been faster, I'm sure the Enzo would've easily prevailed.
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2002
- Messages
- 4,341
The amazing thing is that the Ferrari will twist the needle past the 200 mph mark while still wearing a license plate.
I think the Firebird would shake itself to pieces while trying to go 3/4ths that speed for any length of time.
[ August 05, 2003, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: FowVay ]
I think the Firebird would shake itself to pieces while trying to go 3/4ths that speed for any length of time.
[ August 05, 2003, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: FowVay ]
Patman
Staff member
True, there is a big difference in build quality between the two, even my 95 Firebird is pretty shaky at speeds above 125mph (it'll top out at about 155).
But I can buy 100 Firebirds like mine for the price of one Enzo! (seriously, my car is worth about $10k CDN, the Enzo is about $1 MIL CDN)
But I can buy 100 Firebirds like mine for the price of one Enzo! (seriously, my car is worth about $10k CDN, the Enzo is about $1 MIL CDN)
Patman
Staff member
I can't even afford the air for one of those tires!quote:
Originally posted by FowVay:
haha Patman, I couldn't afford to buy a tire for that Ferrari.
1969 ~ 70 Hemi's ran in the mid to low 13's stock. The limiting factor was the tire technology of the day. There is no way an Enzo would loose to a stock "as the factory built it" Hemi in any measurement of speed. Not saying it's worth the money, just that it wouldn't loose.
My contention was that the hemi would run in the 11s and I clearly stated "not the low 11s". Since the Enzo is at 11.1 I don't see how it could be beaten by a hemi, nor did I say as much. I have however seen a 64 2dr 4 speed Dodge run in the 11s. Of course there were "street hemis" and track hemis. Maybe I exagerated when I said off the show room floor because he did put a set of tires on it, which made a huge difference.
[ August 05, 2003, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: dickwells ]
[ August 05, 2003, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: dickwells ]
I hate to say it, but during the late 60's early 70's most of the muscle cars that were reviewed were modified by the factory before they were provided by the manufactures to the magazines. This was true also of Lamborgini and Ferrari during that time (per interviews with Bob Wallace, Lamborgihni's factory test driver at the time). Subsequent tests have shown that customer cars never seemed to post the same numbers.
The result, most muscle cars (i.e. 383 Mopar, Mustangs with 351W, and Chevys with 327 % 350) were 14-15 second cars. A Mopar 426 hemi (show me any of these that were actually running around, they were very rare) would break into the 13's, but even today on modern tires they are still 13 second cars. This also goes for the rare 429 Ford CJ cars, Camero 427s, Olds 455, etc..
The new Ferrarri Enzo is an 11 second car. I believe it puts out 660 brake HP, compared to the Hemi's old SAE gross measurements of 425HP (about 375 by modern SAE measurements). The Ferrari weighs about 3000 pounds, versus the 3800 for the Hemi car. No contest.
Cars with the benifit of modern engine electronics, are putting out more power, being more reliable, and getting better milage than ever. Look at the number of fast cars out there today. Car and Driver says the mustang cobra does the quarter in 12.9, a Suburu WRX does it in 14.6, with the new STI version probably breaking into the 13's.
So back to your original statement that there is now way that the Mopar car would lose to the Ferrari, I believe you have it backwards. There is not one aspect of the Mopar car that objectively outperforms the Ferrarri, Acceleration, top speed, breaking, slalom speed, lapping speeds,lateral acceleration.
Along those same lines, one of the car magazines (I forget which one) recently did a test comparing a couple of performance cars from the late 1960's. One was a Jaguar XKE and I forget the other.
They compared them to a current mini-van, a Honda I think.
The mini-van actually outperformed the old performance cars in every single category.
I think the performance of the old cars tends to be exagerated in most of our fond memories. It's amazing just how far cars have come in 30 years.
If you go back and look at the 0-60 times of most of the muscle cars of the late 60's early 70's, you'll find that they weren't really all that fast. A car like the WRX is actually way quicker than most all of them.
[ August 05, 2003, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: harrydog ]
They compared them to a current mini-van, a Honda I think.
The mini-van actually outperformed the old performance cars in every single category.
I think the performance of the old cars tends to be exagerated in most of our fond memories. It's amazing just how far cars have come in 30 years.
If you go back and look at the 0-60 times of most of the muscle cars of the late 60's early 70's, you'll find that they weren't really all that fast. A car like the WRX is actually way quicker than most all of them.
[ August 05, 2003, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: harrydog ]
- Status
