F50 vs. Murcielago
9eleventb0
08-08-2004, 06:01 PM
how does the f50 compare with the murci in acceleration? both cars have high to mid-3 second 0-60, high 11 quarter, and circa 200 top speed (actually i believe the murci has an even higher top speed of 205 vs. the f50's 202).....so do these numbers mean that the lambo can equal or even edge out the f50 or does the ferrari have better mid-range/top end acceleration that wouldn't be indicated by basic quarter mile and top speed figures?
also, how does the handling of the two cars compare? i think its safe to say that the f50 would soundly beat a murci around the track, but does anyone have actual track times comparing the two? after all, the murci did pull off 7:52 at the nurburgring, meaning that it could be closer to the f50 than would be expected. in fact, there is a best motoring race with several cars including a modified gt2, modified f50, stock murci, etc., and the stock murci (though it lost to the gt2 and f50) was fairly close to the ferrari.....and it was MODIFIED
if anyone could post some actual lap times, comparisons, or acceleration tests between the two, i would really appreciate it
also, how does the handling of the two cars compare? i think its safe to say that the f50 would soundly beat a murci around the track, but does anyone have actual track times comparing the two? after all, the murci did pull off 7:52 at the nurburgring, meaning that it could be closer to the f50 than would be expected. in fact, there is a best motoring race with several cars including a modified gt2, modified f50, stock murci, etc., and the stock murci (though it lost to the gt2 and f50) was fairly close to the ferrari.....and it was MODIFIED
if anyone could post some actual lap times, comparisons, or acceleration tests between the two, i would really appreciate it
Z_Fanatic
08-08-2004, 11:25 PM
Murci is better every way, handles better as well. Go figure, it's newer. Both of these cars were tested by Fifth Gear. Also Murci helluva cheaper, where as F50 has already become classic and cost more to acquire than its original value. F50 is just more raw power like the formula cars. In fact, the driver in Fifth Gear commented F40 as the better overall car, certainly for touring in the streets, even handles better.
Layla's Keeper
08-09-2004, 01:06 AM
F40 better tourer?
WHAT THE FUCK?
Umm, are you sure we're talking about the same F40? You know, lexan windows that don't even roll down (you get a little pane on a slide for ventilation), no sound deadening between you and the twin turbo V8 behind the Kevlar bulkhead. Bare Kevlar floorboards. Wafer-thin Carbon Fiber/Fiberglass composite body. Tubular steel space frame with built in roll cage, no headliner, Sparco fiberglass racing buckets with five point harnesses. No radio. The list goes on.
The F40 was famous as a bare bones Group C car for the road. NEVER was an F40 a long distance "tourer". The F50 was the attempt to civilize Ferrari supercars. A shame it succeeded, because the F40 was a Ferrari the way Il Commendatore wanted Ferraris to be. Brutish, raw, uncompromising, fast, beautiful, and demanding of their owners. It really shows that this was the last car that Enzo Ferrari personally put his name on.
WHAT THE FUCK?
Umm, are you sure we're talking about the same F40? You know, lexan windows that don't even roll down (you get a little pane on a slide for ventilation), no sound deadening between you and the twin turbo V8 behind the Kevlar bulkhead. Bare Kevlar floorboards. Wafer-thin Carbon Fiber/Fiberglass composite body. Tubular steel space frame with built in roll cage, no headliner, Sparco fiberglass racing buckets with five point harnesses. No radio. The list goes on.
The F40 was famous as a bare bones Group C car for the road. NEVER was an F40 a long distance "tourer". The F50 was the attempt to civilize Ferrari supercars. A shame it succeeded, because the F40 was a Ferrari the way Il Commendatore wanted Ferraris to be. Brutish, raw, uncompromising, fast, beautiful, and demanding of their owners. It really shows that this was the last car that Enzo Ferrari personally put his name on.
ac427cpe
08-09-2004, 01:21 AM
ah yes, touring F40...
it's not really a car unless you still are shaking when you get out.
now for my fun :D
comparison F40 v. Mk1.5 MR2
F40:
non rolling windows
no sound deadening
lots of kevlar and carbon fiber
built in roll cage
racing buckets + 5pt harnesses stock
no radio
no cooling
heater
curb weight: 2425lbs
0-60: 3.8 seconds
top speed: 201mph
bhp:478
price when new: $400,000
mr2:
windows that roll down
minimal sound deadening
lots of um... metal...
sunroof
5 adjustment points in the seats w/ stock seatbelt and now 5 pt harnesses for both passenger and driver
no radio
no cooling
heater
curb weight: 2024lbs
0-60: driver- "did you click it?" passenger- /shaking "HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT" low 4 seconds
top speed: rev limiter in 5th gear
bhp: ~260
price when new: $12,852
ferrari: 6
mr2: 7
hmmmmmm......
it's not really a car unless you still are shaking when you get out.
now for my fun :D
comparison F40 v. Mk1.5 MR2
F40:
non rolling windows
no sound deadening
lots of kevlar and carbon fiber
built in roll cage
racing buckets + 5pt harnesses stock
no radio
no cooling
heater
curb weight: 2425lbs
0-60: 3.8 seconds
top speed: 201mph
bhp:478
price when new: $400,000
mr2:
windows that roll down
minimal sound deadening
lots of um... metal...
sunroof
5 adjustment points in the seats w/ stock seatbelt and now 5 pt harnesses for both passenger and driver
no radio
no cooling
heater
curb weight: 2024lbs
0-60: driver- "did you click it?" passenger- /shaking "HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT" low 4 seconds
top speed: rev limiter in 5th gear
bhp: ~260
price when new: $12,852
ferrari: 6
mr2: 7
hmmmmmm......
Jetts
08-09-2004, 01:34 AM
haha thats my boy dan!
crayzayjay
08-09-2004, 03:37 AM
F50 handles better than a Murci. No contest there.
As for F40 being a good tourer, :lol2:
As for F40 being a good tourer, :lol2:
Z_Fanatic
08-09-2004, 03:52 AM
hey, just quoting what fifth gear reported about handling and could be considered better "touring" car than f50. how the hell does it handle better than murci? i really doubt it, and that's another thing fifth gear mentioned.
crayzayjay
08-09-2004, 03:56 AM
How much does an F50 weigh and how much does a Murcielago weigh?
The F50 is one of the most under-rated Ferraris, the reason being it did not represent a step forward (in terms of sheer speed) over the F40. Make no mistake, it's a blinding car.
The F50 is one of the most under-rated Ferraris, the reason being it did not represent a step forward (in terms of sheer speed) over the F40. Make no mistake, it's a blinding car.
Z_Fanatic
08-09-2004, 04:17 AM
How much does an F50 weigh and how much does a Murcielago weigh?
The F50 is one of the most under-rated Ferraris, the reason being it did not represent a step forward (in terms of sheer speed) over the F40. Make no mistake, it's a blinding car.
well I'd like to see some resources then based on tests measured for handling, because Fifth Gear's test-driving comparison commented otherwise. they could be wrong, who knows.
0-60: driver- "did you click it?" passenger- /shaking "HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT" low 4 seconds
top speed: rev limiter in 5th gear
bhp: ~260
price when new: $12,852
ferrari: 6
mr2: 7
hmmmmmm......
I thought the stock turbo MR2 generated about 200 BHP at the crank, 260... you call that stock?
btw, why would the passenger be shaking or the driver matter of fact? lol.
it's not a car unless you come out shaking.... hmmmm.... now clearly there is an exaggeration somewhere.
The F50 is one of the most under-rated Ferraris, the reason being it did not represent a step forward (in terms of sheer speed) over the F40. Make no mistake, it's a blinding car.
well I'd like to see some resources then based on tests measured for handling, because Fifth Gear's test-driving comparison commented otherwise. they could be wrong, who knows.
0-60: driver- "did you click it?" passenger- /shaking "HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT" low 4 seconds
top speed: rev limiter in 5th gear
bhp: ~260
price when new: $12,852
ferrari: 6
mr2: 7
hmmmmmm......
I thought the stock turbo MR2 generated about 200 BHP at the crank, 260... you call that stock?
btw, why would the passenger be shaking or the driver matter of fact? lol.
it's not a car unless you come out shaking.... hmmmm.... now clearly there is an exaggeration somewhere.
crayzayjay
08-09-2004, 04:19 AM
There's no 'measure' for handling ;)
Jetts
08-09-2004, 11:57 AM
well I'd like to see some resources then based on tests measured for handling, because Fifth Gear's test-driving comparison commented otherwise. they could be wrong, who knows.
I thought the stock turbo MR2 generated about 200 BHP at the crank, 260... you call that stock?
btw, why would the passenger be shaking or the driver matter of fact? lol.
it's not a car unless you come out shaking.... hmmmm.... now clearly there is an exaggeration somewhere.
oh dans car is wicked, motherfucker is fast
I thought the stock turbo MR2 generated about 200 BHP at the crank, 260... you call that stock?
btw, why would the passenger be shaking or the driver matter of fact? lol.
it's not a car unless you come out shaking.... hmmmm.... now clearly there is an exaggeration somewhere.
oh dans car is wicked, motherfucker is fast
ac427cpe
08-09-2004, 01:18 PM
I thought the stock turbo MR2 generated about 200 BHP at the crank, 260... you call that stock?
btw, why would the passenger be shaking or the driver matter of fact? lol.
it's not a car unless you come out shaking.... hmmmm.... now clearly there is an exaggeration somewhere.
well, i never claimed my car was stock...
as soon as you get a chance to ride in/drive a car that fun, you'll know.
as for the last post I made... it was a JOKE. not meant to be taken seriously.
btw, why would the passenger be shaking or the driver matter of fact? lol.
it's not a car unless you come out shaking.... hmmmm.... now clearly there is an exaggeration somewhere.
well, i never claimed my car was stock...
as soon as you get a chance to ride in/drive a car that fun, you'll know.
as for the last post I made... it was a JOKE. not meant to be taken seriously.
Z_Fanatic
08-09-2004, 10:20 PM
There's so 'measure' for handling ;)
huh? don't you mean "no" measure?
well, i never claimed my car was stock...
as soon as you get a chance to ride in/drive a car that fun, you'll know.
as for the last post I made... it was a JOKE. not meant to be taken seriously.
Actually, I've gone past that stage. MR2 Turbos are awesome cars, but if I had to go back and drive a 300RWHP MR2, it still wouldn't be just as much fun.
huh? don't you mean "no" measure?
well, i never claimed my car was stock...
as soon as you get a chance to ride in/drive a car that fun, you'll know.
as for the last post I made... it was a JOKE. not meant to be taken seriously.
Actually, I've gone past that stage. MR2 Turbos are awesome cars, but if I had to go back and drive a 300RWHP MR2, it still wouldn't be just as much fun.
ac427cpe
08-10-2004, 01:03 AM
well, my fastest car experience was a 500+RWHP GT40... but the mr2 as a daily is still exhilarating. Even though it is not AS much fun.
crayzayjay
08-10-2004, 03:15 AM
huh? don't you mean "no" measure?
Yep :)
Yep :)
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026