Scuderia test in EVO mag
#2
08-03-2008, 09:05 AM
hmmm, impossible. clearly has ferrari has hired the same PR firm that nissan uses to strong arm auto journalists & rig tests.
#5
08-03-2008, 11:53 AM
I don't see why it's so hard to believe that the Scuderia is faster than the GT2. The Scud is faster than the Enzo (around Fiorano, anyway), the Enzo is faster than the CGT (except when Walter Roehl is driving), so I guess the question comes down to how much faster the GT2 is compared to the CGT.
Either way, I'll be looking forward to reading this issue!
Either way, I'll be looking forward to reading this issue!
#6
08-03-2008, 12:27 PM
F430 Scuderia should definitely be faster than GT2. It weighs only 2,770lbs and is much better balanced with mid-engined layout, so its fast lap times will be more consistent and much easier to achieve. And like alzilla300 mentioned, according to Ferrari, it is actually faster than Enzo around its test track. Also remember that GT2 didn't do very well in the recent R&T multi track comparison, loosing to Lambo LP560 on many tracks. I wouldn't be surprised if GT2 is actually slower than GT3RS on most tracks. (http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=6939)
Trending Topics
#8
08-03-2008, 03:58 PM
F430 Scuderia should definitely be faster than GT2. It weighs only 2,770lbs and is much better balanced with mid-engined layout, so its fast lap times will be more consistent and much easier to achieve. And like alzilla300 mentioned, according to Ferrari, it is actually faster than Enzo around its test track. Also remember that GT2 didn't do very well in the recent R&T multi track comparison, loosing to Lambo LP560 on many tracks. I wouldn't be surprised if GT2 is actually slower than GT3RS on most tracks. (http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....ticle_id=6939)
the enzo was NOT faster around the ring than the CGT, the scud isnt faster around the ring than the GT2. It really depends on which track type youre comparing them on with regards to which will post better times. Ferraris are more built for tight tracks like fiorano, while Porsches are built to tackle any track (tight track, track with lots of straights, etc).
And R&T said the GT2 was great, but just needed some suspension adjustment, which is why it comes adjustable from the factory.
#9
08-03-2008, 04:51 PM
You are sorely mistaken. 2770 lbs? YEA RIGHT! Ask ANY 360 Challenge owner who actually weighed theyre car. Ferrari said the 360 CS weighed 2800 lbs, but there wasnt one owner that weighed in anywhere close to that weight. Most got 3100-3200 lbs. Why? Because ferrari weighs the car without fluids (dry weight)...so while technically theyre not lying, they are deceiving the public and buyers. The same case applies here as well.
the enzo was NOT faster around the ring than the CGT, the scud isnt faster around the ring than the GT2. It really depends on which track type youre comparing them on with regards to which will post better times. Ferraris are more built for tight tracks like fiorano, while Porsches are built to tackle any track (tight track, track with lots of straights, etc).
And R&T said the GT2 was great, but just needed some suspension adjustment, which is why it comes adjustable from the factory.
the enzo was NOT faster around the ring than the CGT, the scud isnt faster around the ring than the GT2. It really depends on which track type youre comparing them on with regards to which will post better times. Ferraris are more built for tight tracks like fiorano, while Porsches are built to tackle any track (tight track, track with lots of straights, etc).
And R&T said the GT2 was great, but just needed some suspension adjustment, which is why it comes adjustable from the factory.
The "great" GT2 was not as great as three other cars in the R&T test as it finished 4th in the final tally behind the Gallardo, Viper and GT-R respectively.
#10
08-03-2008, 07:16 PM
A GT3 RS wont beat a GT2 anywhere. Unless Nissan now makes the RS. 
In fact I'd bet the 996 GT2 would beat the GT3 RS in most places.
As for the balance of the Ferrari's, tell that to the ALMS teams, their "better" balance isnt helping them too much now is it.
In fact I'd bet the 996 GT2 would beat the GT3 RS in most places.
As for the balance of the Ferrari's, tell that to the ALMS teams, their "better" balance isnt helping them too much now is it.
Last edited by heavychevy; 08-03-2008 at 07:25 PM.
#11
08-03-2008, 07:36 PM
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Philippines
Posts: 877
Rep Power: 59 
i'm nos surprised its quick... but the margin over the GT2 at Bedford was bigger than I thought, especially considering it is a smallish track.
#12
08-03-2008, 07:42 PM
My message to Scuderia owners: Bring it on.
Cars should be pretty close, with edge going to GT2 since it has more power, torque
Sport Auto tests GT2 faster than Scud in Super Test on both Nring and Hockenheim. Top Gear's Clarkson says GT2 is faster than Scud on track as well.
I laugh when people cite the Road and Track garbage test with senile Steve Millen behind the wheel. Where the guy pulled 1:33 in a 997 GT2, behind the underpowered Audi R8. I was talking with Cort Wagner the other day and he was saying that R&T should hire someone who has actually raced recently. CW did sub 1:30's in a 996 GT2 on Cup tires and 1:30 flat in a stock 996 GT3 with Cups, and 1:32-3 in a stock Elise. Even without much effort, I did high 1:30's in my old 996 GT3. So to cite the R&T test is a joke, and seems to contradict just about every other test out there.
Cars should be pretty close, with edge going to GT2 since it has more power, torque
Sport Auto tests GT2 faster than Scud in Super Test on both Nring and Hockenheim. Top Gear's Clarkson says GT2 is faster than Scud on track as well.
I laugh when people cite the Road and Track garbage test with senile Steve Millen behind the wheel. Where the guy pulled 1:33 in a 997 GT2, behind the underpowered Audi R8. I was talking with Cort Wagner the other day and he was saying that R&T should hire someone who has actually raced recently. CW did sub 1:30's in a 996 GT2 on Cup tires and 1:30 flat in a stock 996 GT3 with Cups, and 1:32-3 in a stock Elise. Even without much effort, I did high 1:30's in my old 996 GT3. So to cite the R&T test is a joke, and seems to contradict just about every other test out there.
#13
08-03-2008, 07:45 PM
Actually more like 6 seconds. 7:33 vs. 7:39. Slower at Hockenheim by 0.7 seconds, 1:10.3 vs. 1:09.7
