 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ferrari Cars / January 2005HP per Liter?
Anyone have any neat little charts for BHP/Liter on some of the famous Ferrari engines over the years??? I know the Enzo is pretty damn impressive. Gratsi Molto -Bob  SignatureFERRARI - 14 Time World Champions SCHUMACHER - 7 Time World Champion FORZA FERRARI!!! >Anyone have any neat little charts for BHP/Liter on some of the famous >Ferrari engines over the years??? >I know the Enzo is pretty damn impressive. Easy enough, which models? > >Anyone have any neat little charts for BHP/Liter on some of the famous > >Ferrari engines over the years??? > >I know the Enzo is pretty damn impressive. > > Easy enough, which models? no. I don't really want anyone to do any WORK. I'm just looking for some existing stats.... Of course, if you've got the time: 250 GTO 333 SP 288 GTO F40/50 Enzo any others you find are 'eye popping'... Gratsi Molto. -Bob >> >Anyone have any neat little charts for BHP/Liter on some of the famous >> >Ferrari engines over the years??? >> >I know the Enzo is pretty damn impressive. >> Easy enough, which models? > >no. I don't really want anyone to do any WORK. It's only bloody long-division... (And I'm home with a cold.) >I'm just looking for some existing stats.... Couldn't find that myself. >Of course, if you've got the time: > >250 GTO 101.6hp/l. >333 SP 162.6 >288 GTO 140.1 (forced induction) >F40 162.8 (forced induction) >F50 110.7 >Enzo 108.4* >any others you find are 'eye popping'... Interesting: The 355, 108.7hp/l, greater than the Enzo. The Enzo being 2% down from the F50 is VERY interesting. The 1964 512 F1 (1.5l 180deg V-12): 147.7 ...EYE-FRIGGING-POPPING: F1-2000, 272.6 (!)** You heard the 2001, right? Along with the '67 312F1, at 133.8hp/l, iirc. ...The F2004 is said to be "more than" 300hp/l! (Values obtained from _Ferrari 1947-1997_, Rizoli; except *, R&T July 2004, and **, _Ferrari Formula 1_, David Bull.) > >333 SP > > 162.6 This is nice! > ...EYE-FRIGGING-POPPING: F1-2000, 272.6 (!)** > > You heard the 2001, right? Why, yes! I, in fact, did! ;-) >The F2004 is said to be "more than" 300hp/l! I'm really going to miss that kind of stat when they go spec... :-((( Spec V8's, tape delayed on CBS with Danny Sullivan on color. OH DEATH, WHERE IS THY STING?? -Bob >> >333 SP >> 162.6 [hp/l] > >This is nice! ...But somehow they never sounded too sharp... >> ...EYE-FRIGGING-POPPING: F1-2000, 272.6 (!)** >> You heard the 2001, right? >Why, yes! I, in fact, did! > >>The F2004 is said to be "more than" 300hp/l! >I'm really going to miss that kind of stat when they go spec... As will we all. >Spec V8's, tape delayed on CBS with Danny Sullivan on color. OH DEATH, >WHERE IS THY STING?? ..."This season, on CBS". >any others you find are 'eye popping'... Also interesting: The 430: 112.1hp/l (R&T 1/2005) +3.4% on the Enzo >> any others you find are 'eye popping'... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > +3.4% on the Enzo Don't we care more about bhp/ton? Paul SignatureHttp://www.redmist.freeserve.co.uk (Now featuring the a.a.f. directory) >>> any others you find are 'eye popping'... >> Also interesting: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Don't we care more about bhp/ton? ...Not when discussing the specific output of engines. Hp/ton is a rough gauge of acceleration and, as Car & Driver magazine put it, "if you're into drag racing Ferrari's, you're stranger than we thought". >> Don't we care more about bhp/ton? > > ...Not when discussing the specific output of engines. > > Hp/ton is a rough gauge of acceleration And response to throttle, surely? >and, as Car & Driver magazine > put it, "if you're into drag racing Ferrari's, you're stranger than we > thought". Nope - but I do like a bit of 'thrust' when overtaking. -Paul > Nope - but I do like a bit of 'thrust' when overtaking. > > -Paul Is that what you Limey's call it now? Aaron >> Nope - but I do like a bit of 'thrust' when overtaking. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Aaron Hey! I nearly said something about 'drag' racing, but thought better of it... -MCPD "Paul Duffin" <Yesits@all.made.up.com> wrote in message > Hey! I nearly said something about 'drag' racing, but thought better > of it... > > -MCPD Aaron beat me to it... As for 'drag' racing, looks like I'm still in that biz for at least the next 6 months, so no jokes from the peanut gallery. Incidentally Paulo, I just picked up a bottle of CNdP, 2001 vintage. I was going to ask when 'tis best to enjoy it but I already know what the answer will be... From Iaiaiaiaiaian: 'Bout June 30th, 2017 Guv. From MCPD: You didn't open it yet? ;-) -Matt- "*" matt borland wrote: > Incidentally Paulo, I just picked up a bottle of CNdP, > 2001 vintage. I was going to ask when 'tis best to enjoy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > From MCPD: You didn't open it yet? ;-) Again with the CNdP gags? <voice cracking with emotion> Have I not suffered *enough*? </vcwe> On the other hand... (keep going) (bit further) (nearly there) ...Go f.ck your hat. -Paul > Incidentally Paulo, I just picked up a bottle of CNdP, > 2001 vintage. I was going to ask when 'tis best to enjoy [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > From MCPD: You didn't open it yet? ;-) I'm doing my best to edukate the lad, really I am! I. > Hey! I nearly said something about 'drag' racing, but thought better > of it... Heh... I can see it now... The a.a.f Limey Drag Racing Championship. Contestants will have 30 minutes to go from pasty Limey bastard to attractive lady. Judges will be TR1 and MC. Whomsoever looks the least like a male wins the grand prize of an hour alone with a real 'woman'. Aaron >>> Don't we care more about bhp/ton? >> ...Not when discussing the specific output of engines. >> Hp/ton is a rough gauge of acceleration > >And response to throttle, surely? ??? Throttle response is unrelated to power. >> and, as Car & Driver magazine >> put it, "if you're into drag racing Ferrari's, you're stranger than we >> thought". > >Nope - but I do like a bit of 'thrust' when overtaking. Downshift. > ??? Throttle response is unrelated to power. To avoid a discussion on semantics; by throttle response, I mean the response of the vehicle, in any given gear, i.e. 'foot down to car accelerating, *not* how quickly the engine revs up, which I agree is not related to power (I'm pursuing an 'all things being equal' argument here). Barring poor linkeage and/or mapping, surely the better the power to weight ratio the better the response? I confess to not being a physicist, so if you'd care to point out the error(s) in my logic, I'd be obliged... MCPD (ain't it all about overcoming inertia?) >> ??? Throttle response is unrelated to power. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >is not related to power (I'm pursuing an 'all things being equal' argument >here). I understood that. I'd venture to suggest that Harold did, too, really. SignatureDan Drake >>> ??? Throttle response is unrelated to power. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>is not related to power (I'm pursuing an 'all things being equal' argument >>here). You're still talking about acceleration, and passing acceleration is always going to be determined by where in the torque and power curves you are when you mash throttle pedal, which is why down-shifting to get your engine to it's torque peak is proper driving technique. Some cars/drivers make do by engineering motors with flat torque curves (cheaply done by M-B with turbochargers) and automatic transmissions. >I understood that. I'd venture to suggest that Harold did, too, >really. I hung up my mind reading turban and closed the weight guessing booth long ago. <<Nope - but I do like a bit of 'thrust' when overtaking. Downshift.>> The Vanquish with the paddle shifter does this neat thing... You can be in 5th gear, cruising along at 80 mph or so and suddenly decide that you need a burst of acceleration. If you put your foot to the floor and request a downshift, the car will automatically downshift to the lowest possible gear to give you maximum acceleration. It bypasses the sequential downshift. That car has oodles of power and it's such fun to play with. C. > <<Nope - but I do like a bit of 'thrust' when overtaking. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > That car has oodles of power and it's such fun to play with. ...except that last test I saw on the TV suggests that that gearbox is still, in reality, truly awful given the car its in.That said the revised Vanquish is a good deal better than the old one. When tested up against a 575 F1 the Ferrari box appears significantly better & much smoother. AFAIK here the Vanquish is about ?175K, a DB9 is a bit over ?100K. Same engine - methinks I'd save the ?75K & take the DB9! I. >> <<Nope - but I do like a bit of 'thrust' when overtaking. >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >AFAIK here the Vanquish is about £175K, a DB9 is a bit over £100K. Same >engine - methinks I'd save the £75K & take the DB9! Better yet, get two Mondeos, bodge them together yourself, and save another £60k, with that £135k buy a proper car such as an F430. <<That said the revised Vanquish is a good deal better than the old one. When tested up against a 575 F1 the Ferrari box appears significantly better & much smoother.>> Yes, I believe the 575 has next gen software in it. However, my car's even better than that. <g> <<AFAIK here the Vanquish is about £175K, a DB9 is a bit over £100K. Same engine - methinks I'd save the £75K & take the DB9!>> I spent some time at the Detroit Auto Show last week trying to wrangle my way into the DB9 race program. Didn't get thru to any of the right people. Bummer. We did get good press on the '05 show car though. It's all over the internet, but I'm not sure if it's in any Euro publications yet. C. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.