Acceleration: F40, F50, Enzo, CGT & Veyron

I know some say acceleration is not important for these cars. But who wants a super car that doesn't have thrilling acceleration? That's always the first thing my passengers want to feel when I give them rides, and, personally, I enjoy it also!

So I'm collecting the acceleration numbers for these cars as published since 1988 from Motor Trend, Road & Track, and Car & Driver. I should have the F40 and F50 within a week or so.

I'll do my best to get the 60-100 and 60-130 times since that negates any hard-start issues. I've measured the Enzo and CGT myself with GPS and get very close to the magazine times. And all the magazines agree pretty closely on these numbers.

Here's what I have so far:
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I think you'll see the CGT is much faster than an F40. I've raced F40s several times in my 993 Ruf Turbo R and have found we're about the same. For example, from your best numbers above:

F40 60-126.5 mph = 8.2 seconds.

That means the 60-130 for the F40 is likely in the 9s. That's about the same as a Scuderia.

Here's a pic of one of our many runs with an F40:
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I added the Scuderia (there is no R&T test). The 60-100 times are more indicative of how the Scuderia compares with the other cars on the list because that negates the start technique:
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Thanks for the clarification. The CGT needs to be brought to redline in each gear. Its low RPM power is not that great.

 

BTW, we tested an Enzo, CGT and Scuderia (among many others) at very high speeds at the Mojave Air and Space Port. They just finished a pretty good DVD for that (search for "Runway Titans" using Google).

Here's a video from that event...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj5b7eGKUfk

The CGT started several cars ahead at a rolling 30 MPH. The Enzo passed it around 130 MPH and then crossed the end point at 188 MPH (6,000' later) many car lengths ahead. The temperature was 88 degrees and the altitude was 2,670' to 2,610' over that distance. This is primarily because of the Enzo's lower drag (Cd x front surface area) and extra HP and low-end power.

BTW, what you see here is about the same as what happened when the CGT raced the Scuderia (CGT pulled ahead about the same amount on the Scuderia). We didn't race the Enzo and Scuderia.

 

Thanks! I didn't check the Scuderia tire wear, but I didn't hear anything unusual from the owner, and the Enzo and CGT tires looked the same before and after.

 

Yes, I like the F40 (and 959) very much for that reason.

You may have different feelings about the newer super cars if you ever get to drive them. For me, much of the beauty of a car is in the engineering, especially when its form is for function. For example, it's amazing that the Enzo can reach 220+ mph with a downforce of nearly 2,000 lbs, with no wing! When Ferrari began to realize they had the entire underbody of the car to work with, huge improvements in top speed, acceleration and stability were realized in a short time. The stability and road handling of the Enzo, CGT and F50 are really amazing.

The MC12 and FXX have taken the Enzo to the next level.

 

Maybe...

1. Ferrari may have tested that at actual speed with chassis/suspension stress/position sensors or with an advanced particle computer simulation (most likely the latter from their F1 software aero simulations). The wind tunnels probably don't reach those speeds.
2. The car's chassis and suspension configuration changes significantly at higher speeds... that's something that can't be replicated in the wind tunnel with lower-velocity air.
3. Blowing air across a static surface (wind tunnel) may not exactly simulate a car traveling on a surface through a body of static air. Some manufacturers (e.g. Nissan) use wind tunnels with a very large moving surface to get closer. Advanced super-computer particle simulations can replicate this very well, especially when the chassis and suspension dynamic behavior is included in the simulation.
4. Did you take the car to 200 mph+ in the wind tunnel? That's when the car's computer changes the aerodynamics.

 

Here is a CGT racing a Scuderia under the same conditions in Mojave, except they started more even. Although the Scuderia 0-60 is faster than the CGT, there is no comparison at higher speeds when the extra HP and aerodynamics of the vehicle really start to matter. They both started at about 40 mph.

Google "Runway Titans" if you want to see more acceleration tests on the DVD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhRNSO05TsU

 

Thanks Jim. Why do you think Ferrari would make such an error (and potentially very dangerous error) in desigining their super car? I've taken it to 188 mph+ several times and it's been rock stable even in 30 mph crosswinds and with some minor steering. Why would they mis-quote their downforce numbers?

Why are the shapes of the FXX and MC12 similar to the Enzo?

BTW, the Maserati MCC project car is 2.6" wider, 2.2" taller, 5.9" longer wheelbase, and 17.4" longer overall then the Enzo.

I thought Ferrari spent hundreds of hours using their own moving belt wind tunnel with a 1/3 scale model which offered plenty of space around the vehicle for more accurate measurement of the aerodynamic behavior?

BTW, there are several new tunnels in the US (Windshear is one) doing the same with full-size mockups. Also, the University of Southampton’s School of Engineering Sciences has several wind tunnels which have been used extensively by Formula One, Indy Racing League and CART racing teams. That's consistent with what I thought Ferrari did with the Enzo (?)

Of course, I don't have access to the Ferrari Enzo engineering analysis data like you do, so my observations are just that.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Jim, I said "nearly 2,000 lbs". Here are the published values:

At 124mph, the Enzo generates 758 lbs of downforce. This rises to the maximum 1,709 lbs at 186mph, and then eases back to enable higher top speed. At 217mph, the downforce is reduced to 1,290 lbs.

At 217 mph, this translates to (1290/3265) = .40 for an Enzo with a full fuel tank, and (1290/3083) = .42 for an Enzo with an empty fuel tank. So .41 is right in the midle.

So, the downforce/weight ratio you provided above agrees with the bolded downforce data above. Does that mean you are now OK with the bolded numbers and that your own wind tunnel results do not agree with the Ferrari wind tunnel results for some unknown reason?

BTW, I've participated in many situations where a smaller organization tries to replicate the work of a much larger engineering organization. In many cases, it's very good. In other cases, they forget some important stuff. I usually tell by reviewing the math, simulation results (and simulation software), and/or test results and test conditions. Have you published any of that for engineers to critique? That may help us understand the discrepancy between your results and Ferrari's results.

 

Thanks Jim. I guess I was thinking about the 1,709 lbs at 186 mph when I said "nearly 2,000". Sorry for the confusion.

BTW, P 4/5s 0-100 kph (0-62 mph) in 0.3 seconds is pretty impressive.