Why didnt they make the enzo have more power?

I know that the Enzo is one of the greatest production cars ever, but why didnt they make it more powerful? It has around 650hp and 485 lb-ft torque, which is very good but wouldnt you expect more out of a V12 ferrari? The mercedes sl 65 amg has much more torque and around the same hp as the enzo, so im sure ferrari could have made the Enzo much more powerful, but why didnt they?

with cars like that...itz not always about power...for ex. the NSX...lacks in power compared to most cars but i heard was awsome to drive...

they could have made the Enzo with 800hp...but that probably would have messed up the dynamics of the car....when making cars like that i guess everything has to be in porportion in order to mae the car act and preform 100%

just my :2cents:

they could have made the Enzo with 800hp...but that probably would have messed up the dynamics of the car....when making cars like that i guess everything has to be in porportion in order to mae the car act and preform 100%

Exactly.


Wow, this has to be the first complaint about the Enzo's power I have ever heard.

I think the mere 660hp from the engine will have to suffice.

Did you sense the sarcasm. :evillol:

I know that the Enzo is one of the greatest production cars ever, but why didnt they make it more powerful? It has around 650hp and 485 lb-ft torque, which is very good but wouldnt you expect more out of a V12 ferrari? The mercedes sl 65 amg has much more torque and around the same hp as the enzo, so im sure ferrari could have made the Enzo much more powerful, but why didnt they?

The Enzo does have 650/660 horsepower and 485 torque, but thats from a naturally-aspirated V12. The SL65 has 604 horses and 710 torque from a twin-turbo'ed V12, thats the big difference. ferrari goes natural, while mercedes turbocharges it.

Yes.... The Ferrari Enzo has it naturally aspirated while the SL600 has twin turbos, on top of this the Enzo weighs almost half as much....

what......aint 660bhp enough for you? in the real world away from fantasy cars, my dads, 3 litre 180bhp+ 2 ton car is considered fast, so i think 660bhp and 13xxkg is SH*T hot!!

I know that the Enzo is one of the greatest production cars ever, but why didnt they make it more powerful? It has around 650hp and 485 lb-ft torque, which is very good but wouldnt you expect more out of a V12 ferrari? The mercedes sl 65 amg has much more torque and around the same hp as the enzo, so im sure ferrari could have made the Enzo much more powerful, but why didnt they?

To sum it up its called POWER TO WEIGHT RATIO! balance is the key:jump3:

don't forget that the enzo was designed in part with it's largest buyers market in mind; rich americans.

as such, in order to prevent any possible accidents from bad driving, inablilty to get in the car etc etc, they made it will small sills, paddle shift and easy to drive (hence a 'limited' power limit.)

sorry, couldn't resist a quick dig...

is all seriousness, the 'small' amount of power is all about driveability.
what good is 800 bhp if you can't ever deploy all of it on the road.
take a look at what's happening with the veyron.
we all go on about how we hate the electronics cutting in and ferrari has taken note.
apparenently, even schumacher hasn't been able to get faster lap times with traction control off, whcih says a lot about how the car is set up.

it was long observed that 600bhp is probably the maximum amount of horsepower that can be used in a car (relatively) safely.
the fact this new wave of supercars with 600+bhp means that the engineers are really pushing the limits of what they can do.

Why do so many people see this as such a big dilemma.

660hp is plenty. :screwy:

even schumacher hasn't been able to get faster lap times with traction control off, whcih says a lot about how the car is set up. :screwy:

Thats amazing!