A Question for everyone here... I always knew that the F40 is Faster than F50, I searched everywhere to find a lap/drag race video between the two, but I never found anything, except for chris harris F40 VS F50, Best motoring 400M Race, Best motoring Super Battle 200-5. Which Car is faster? and can you provide me with link/ facts? thanks
Probably close enough that it would come down to variables outside of the cars...Mostly academic as I doubt you'd find them matched up against each other in the real world very often with drivers willing to give it a go.
agree about mostly academic exercise, an expensive one at that. old supercars are not "fast" anymore. an affordable (relatively) car (M4 or GT3 or GT-R) can beat both of those cars around the track now, with heated seats and radio on. people buy them b/c they want to, not because they post fast lap time.
Not a race, but still one of if not the best of the two together. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sXCiBtFcu8[/ame]
I'm fortunate to own a non cat non adj F40 and an F50. And you'd be hard pushed to find two supercars more different, in just about everything except door locks. The F50 is much the sweeter car to drive, by a considerable margin. It's a beautiful car to drive. And above 5K its V12 is pure magic. The F40 is by comparison rough, it feels like a kit car. But when those turbos come in, it flies, an experience like no other. Their looks? The F40 needs no comment other than to me it's perfect. The F50 is smaller, more compact in real life and for me, looks much better with its hardtop on. The two parked together......worth every late night at the office. Which is the fastest? Previous posts are fair. But it's a question I've never asked myself.
I own a F50 and I have had time in a F40 back to back with my F50 recently. As Camlet said, the two are completely different experiences. Overall the F40 feels faster and that is a result of the way it delivers the power. First, there is a lot of resistance in the first 5% of the throttle cable in a F40. There isn't an easy way to feather the power on. So you have to push through it and that results in a rush of acceleration since your foot always goes further once the cable gets moving. Next, the turbos take some time to spool and you get a second rush of acceleration soon after. The gearbox on the other hand is notchy too so shifts take a little longer. In the F50, the gearbox is butter smooth for hyper fast shifts and the throttle reacts to every minute movement of your foot. You don't get that initial lurch forward like the F40. The power just comes on exactly like you ask for it. With no turbos the sound is so loud it seems you are going faster than you actually are. The F40 with stock exhaust is almost silent in comparison. Personally, by "feel" only, the F40 feels like the faster car in a straight line. On a road course, the F50 would feel faster because the throttle control and the gearbox in the F40 would be a disadvantage.
I find the F50 way faster when climbing curvy mountain roads. When I do the same drive in the F40 I gotta let the Porsches pass due to turbo lag. Not a problem with the F50. Straight line they're pretty much the same, but you gotta take the F50 to redline to stay in the power curve. The F40 is a bit more forgiving when short shifting.
In my experience the F40 is faster. Here in europe that situation was always confirmed by our road tests.
Exactly. European magazines, expecially Italian e German ones, were costantly around 11s in the 0 - 200 kph time and below 21s in the standing km with the F40s. The F50s were usually 1 second, and half a second slower in both times.
First thing: That F50 in the video is soooo non-standard, I cannot tell you. Aside from having the rear straight through exhaust option, it probably has the cat-less manifolds too. I think Scuderia in the UK sell the exhaust kit. Keep your original systems by all means for Classiche etc but for goodness sake, don't keep it stock as you're doing the car a huge disservice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SI8auCUiQZQ Next thing: I have been banging on for YEARS that the F50 is quite easily the most satisfying and exciting hyper-Ferrari made. I first drove the car in 2008 and have spent hours and hours in both F40 and F50 in the intervening years: See my review here: My Ferrari F50 driving impressions (long!) - FerrariChat.com The fact is the F50 is a just a SWEET car to drive. People say the engine shares the architecture with the Prost's 1990 F1 car but actually the engine is really the engine from the 333SP LMP1 Ferrari. And once you take the appalling original exhaust off (which had to have cat after cat and HUGE silencers to homologate it) you can actually HEAR the similarity. Furthermore it's bespoke - that V12 is not in ANY other road car. It shares some gearbox gubbins with the later 360 but that's it. There's nothing in the F50 really that you'll find in any other Ferrari. From a driving experience POV it is exciting and visceral and engaging in a way that NOTHING I've ever ever driven is. It's wild, furious, noisy and yet strangely friendly too. The driver/car interface is outstanding, the brakes actually work, it's well damped (but firm) the steering tells you everything, the driving position is tight but straight, the gearbox is outstanding and the linearity of the power delivery never means it will through you off the road. By comparison the F40 (which I believe to be grossly overrated) thrills for one reason only. BOOOOST. The brakes are laughable and I used my words carefully. The steering is good and I love how the light nose bobs about on road) but aside from the looks and outright performance it's really not a complete car. Take the boosted turbo power delivery away and you've got a bit of caricature of car which is built badly (unlike the F50) and doesn't do anything well. And yes I AM being serious. It clearly has a following because for a certain generation of owners and journalists it was THE iconic Ferrari which the F50 wasn't. It very interesting to see how they reverse their opinion as soon as they drive both.... We then have segment of "reviewers" that say the F40 is raw. Sorry but no. the F40 is just badly finished purporting to being raw. Actually its the F50 which is raw. The N/A V12 on the F50 makes the F40 sound like a hair dryer and indeed, I don't know any other road car where the engine is mounted to the tub and the rest of the car is mounted to the engine. Even on the fabulous Carrera GT (which is one of only a handful of modern cars up there with the F50 on driving enjoyment), Porsche chickened out and hung the amazing V10 on a Carbon Subframe. Ferrari were brave with the F50 the reward is, you feel EVERYTHING in the F50.... Montezemolo said they'd never build anything like it again and they haven't. The Enzo/LaF are just old man's video games by comparison. As for performance, the F40 not just feels faster, but IS faster. But frankly that's a total irrelevance. FYI, cars like the Enzo, the LaFerrari and the 599GTO etc don't even get a look in when it comes to sheer driving pleasure in comparison to either the F40 or F50.. Just my two cents having driven everything.... Brain dump over.
Great post. The F50 was always the dark horse amongst the Ferrari Supercars, but its getting recognition these days, and that's reflected in values. Its a very special car, and it does indeed represent the end of an era, being the last manual gearbox Ferrari Supercar.
F50 was my first car love. No question which one I'd take regardless of the speed difference but man is it nice to hear people loving the F50. If I had the means I'd buy one over any of the modern hypercars.
Agree with all of the above. Shame the F50 arrived in an era post the McLaren F1, and never gained that reputation it deserved. F40 had it easer against the 959.
Um no, that was the contemporary competition, the best any other car manufacturer could produce at the time.
interesting views. i only have f40 experience so i cannot make any worthwhile comment, other than agree with the others on theirs. i intended to buy an f50 and even had one picked out in italy, but then other things came in between....too bad.
They say you should never buy your dream car. F50 was my dream car and for the most part a disappointment. It felt wide and heavy and didn't have the sublime steering feedback I get from the F40. F40 feels lighter and more nimble. F50 is better built in every way but not as much a drivers car. I think it looks better but half the people I talked to as various car shows did not, which was surprising. The previous owner had the same comments, loved looking at it but didn't really enjoy driving it.
Thank you to all the posters and especially Murcielago_Boy for the "brain dump" - I enjoyed reading. I can only confirm the other's comments regarding to the F40. The only thing I would add is I find the throttle stiffness- indeed the stiffness of all the controls- is really only an issue at lower speeds/ when warming up. Once on the move, the car flows beautifully and is quite an experience.
F50 gets my vote. The F40 is a beautiful car, but all the bodywork and green glue in the world can't hide it's 308 underpinnings. It's a thrilling car, but it's a far cry from the F50, which is by comparison a gorgeously finished no-compromise supercar. F50 didn't get the love because many didn't like the looks, which is their loss. It's nice to see nowadays that the love has finally arrived. I grew up in the 90s, and for me, the F50 was the end-all, be-all Ferrari. I never had the opportunity to drive a 50, but my time in both cars is memorable. Driving the 40 is an incredible experience, even if the brakes are terrifying, and even if the throttle never lets you give less than the beans.
