Chris Harris: Ferrari Are Cheats
#76
03-24-2011, 05:51 PM
Choose what you read and believe. I usually give everyone the benefit of the doubt, and not guilty until proven otherwise. I watched the video you linked above. In the video, there were 2 people putting gas in the 458. What makes you think the guy in the vest is from Ferrari?
What makes you think he's not the same guy in this picture?
Both with wavy, grey hair. Both with sunglasses resting on top of their heads. Reasonable to guess, no?
As far as photographic evidence, you don't have to have photographic evidence of an arsonist actually setting a house on fire to convict him. If there's enough circumstantial evidence, the case can be made.
#77
03-24-2011, 05:55 PM
When someone like Corners Well comment I listen due to his extensive experience with Ferrari. So there is no point in even responding to AV2 who I am sure is responding to you on his Ferrari laptop looking upon the screen with Ferrari sunglasses. Very good post , very good!
#78
03-24-2011, 07:29 PM
If per say you considered a Superleggera heavily but a Scuderia was also very close would the numbers not perhaps sway you in either direction if the cars were equally desirable to you?
If you purchased a Patek Phillipe with a tourbillon movement and upon closer inspection realized that it was a quartz movement. It does not make it any less of a Patek Phillipe but it also is not what you were promised and what you paid for?
If you purchased a Patek Phillipe with a tourbillon movement and upon closer inspection realized that it was a quartz movement. It does not make it any less of a Patek Phillipe but it also is not what you were promised and what you paid for?
I would indeed be upset if I paid $100K for a tourbillon movement and got a $25 quartz. But, I think about it differently: is there a material difference between a Patek tourbillon at $100K and a Breguet tourbillon at $99.5K? Does one tell time more accurately? Does it matter? Either way, you're getting an amazing timepiece. One may be accurate to within 1/10000th of a second while the other is accurate to within 1/10001th. To horologists, I assume that difference matters. To the rest of us, it's interesting but mostly meaningless. OTOH, if the watch manufacturer told me it was accurate to those specs, I'd expect it to be true.
However, if I were on the track racing for money, performance would most certainly matter. So, this all really depends on what one wants out of their car. For many, owning a Ferrari (ANY Ferrari) is the achievement of a lifelong dream. Whether it performs faster and better than any other car on the road becomes lost the first time you sit in it, turn the key and hear the exhaust note. You may be reminded, from time to time, that it's not when the latest GT2 RS pulls up next to you and leaves you wondering what just happened. But, really, I don't think people buy Ferraris in the end to prove their faster. Maybe something else, but not necessarily faster.
CW
#79
03-24-2011, 07:31 PM
Ferrari is a frustrating company. They make supremely emotive cars that really do make me just smile when I drive them. OTOH, they drive me nuts with their BS.
CW
CW
#80
03-24-2011, 07:34 PM
Makes me laugh every time I see it, because I actually know guys like this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8DydFeC9BA
CW
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8DydFeC9BA
CW
#81
03-24-2011, 08:52 PM
That does make a lot of sense.
But it seems that owners of P-cars who time their cars performance (with V-box and etc.) never get close to what the mags get. For instance the new PDK cars 911TT and Pana TT are almost 1 second slower then what the mags get. Is it possible that Porsche is tuning their cars before handing it to the mags for testing.
Why does a mag do 3.3 to 60mph and 11.1 in the 1/4mile in a pana TT, and then sharkwerks can only get 4.7 with stock and 4.4 after an ecu tune to 60mph. That is a huge variance!
And others have tested their 911TT which are highly tuned and can only get 3.2 to 60mph where several different mags have gotten between 2.6 to 2.8 sec to 60mph.
People have tried to tell me that its wheather, altitude, octane, and wind but that just seems too big of a difference.
I am lacking in knowledge and experience with these things but with my limited knowledge this really confuses me.
But it seems that owners of P-cars who time their cars performance (with V-box and etc.) never get close to what the mags get. For instance the new PDK cars 911TT and Pana TT are almost 1 second slower then what the mags get. Is it possible that Porsche is tuning their cars before handing it to the mags for testing.
Why does a mag do 3.3 to 60mph and 11.1 in the 1/4mile in a pana TT, and then sharkwerks can only get 4.7 with stock and 4.4 after an ecu tune to 60mph. That is a huge variance!
And others have tested their 911TT which are highly tuned and can only get 3.2 to 60mph where several different mags have gotten between 2.6 to 2.8 sec to 60mph.
People have tried to tell me that its wheather, altitude, octane, and wind but that just seems too big of a difference.
I am lacking in knowledge and experience with these things but with my limited knowledge this really confuses me.
Its much easier with a turbo car to make interesting numbers, kind of like the one GTR trapped by Inside Line that trapped 124 mph. And no Gen 1 car has done it stock since then and the Gen 2 cars with 50 more hp don't trap that high.
If the MP4-12C performs on the level that I have read maybe it will be the go to car in the entry exotic segment. And has anyone found it odd the trap speeds as high as 134 mph for the 458 Italia? The other thing that infuriates me is the wildly varying curb weights and the sometimes use of dry weights and sometimes wet weights. Does the 458 Italia weigh 3000 lbs or does it weigh 3200 lbs or is it 3400 lbs?
If the MP4-12C performs on the level that I have read maybe it will be the go to car in the entry exotic segment. And has anyone found it odd the trap speeds as high as 134 mph for the 458 Italia? The other thing that infuriates me is the wildly varying curb weights and the sometimes use of dry weights and sometimes wet weights. Does the 458 Italia weigh 3000 lbs or does it weigh 3200 lbs or is it 3400 lbs?
What test(s) has the 458 trapping over 129mph??
Each test review happens under different circumstances and parameters, so disrepancies (10th of a second) in the results are natural.
And as far as the famous Ring Records posted by Nissan, GM, even those from Porsche are concerned, they all have to be taken with a grain of salt as they all were not really independently clocked.
But Harris is saying, that Ferrari takes this silly game to a whole new level, that they are heavily preparing their cars to make them look way faster than the production versions really are. And the level to which this all happens has obviously become ridicilous now. That`s the reason why Chris is fed up. i mean a 360 test car being 2 seconds faster to 60? 458s heavily prepared for track and other tuned 458s for straight line contests?
And as far as the famous Ring Records posted by Nissan, GM, even those from Porsche are concerned, they all have to be taken with a grain of salt as they all were not really independently clocked.
But Harris is saying, that Ferrari takes this silly game to a whole new level, that they are heavily preparing their cars to make them look way faster than the production versions really are. And the level to which this all happens has obviously become ridicilous now. That`s the reason why Chris is fed up. i mean a 360 test car being 2 seconds faster to 60? 458s heavily prepared for track and other tuned 458s for straight line contests?
2 seconds to 100mph - I can see .5 second due to a blown launch but that is 150+hp higher than stock. Should have been easily noticed all along.
atleast novitec rosso makes sense to me now, they had a twin supercharged system on the scuderia tested on EVO magazine, turns out the claimed perforemance figures were EXACTLY the same as the ones ferrari claim the standard car is capable of, exhaust note on those are amazing though
I do agree with that too.
As for the 360M, here is its performance as listed back in the day:
If you think tuning isn't involved when a 360 matches a Murcielago for 100-150 (and beats a 996 GT2), then I don't know what else there is to say. This would be akin to GM providing a ZR1 that's as fast as a Koenigsegg, which to my knowledge, has never been provided. I seem to recall that Autocar's Steve Sutcliffe also wondered how that car could have been so rapid, when asked by a reader how the subsequently tested 360CS could be so much slower (100-150 in 13.8s vs the "standard car's" 11.3).
If you think tuning isn't involved when a 360 matches a Murcielago for 100-150 (and beats a 996 GT2), then I don't know what else there is to say. This would be akin to GM providing a ZR1 that's as fast as a Koenigsegg, which to my knowledge, has never been provided. I seem to recall that Autocar's Steve Sutcliffe also wondered how that car could have been so rapid, when asked by a reader how the subsequently tested 360CS could be so much slower (100-150 in 13.8s vs the "standard car's" 11.3).
Again, it's ET his horrible. As you point out, the trap speed is about right though.
#82
03-24-2011, 10:52 PM
also remember an EVO test of the Ferrari california where there were two cars...and one car weighed over 200 pounds more than the car Ferrari provided. All the difference was the rear seats (which aren't even proper seats) and larger wheels or something.
#83
03-25-2011, 11:48 AM
I looked HARD at a Gallardo. And, I wanted to like it. It's a wonderful car. For me, though, I couldn't tell you that performance was the sole factor. It boiled down to a number of things for me, as it always does. For me, the Lambo is so angular as to be almost industrial (as opposed to curvaceous), comes in look-at-me, skittles colors (although, I think they have some cool colors!), and is SO competent on the road (with Audi's AWD system) that it's kind of, well, boring. Dare I say it's almost too competent? The Ferrari requires me to drive it, and it rewards me when I do it well. The performance? Well, the difference would be so small as to be negligible, and I cannot honestly say that I could tell unless you had a stopwatch on it. But, if the buyer had to have the faster of the two, then it might be an issue.
I would indeed be upset if I paid $100K for a tourbillon movement and got a $25 quartz. But, I think about it differently: is there a material difference between a Patek tourbillon at $100K and a Breguet tourbillon at $99.5K? Does one tell time more accurately? Does it matter? Either way, you're getting an amazing timepiece. One may be accurate to within 1/10000th of a second while the other is accurate to within 1/10001th. To horologists, I assume that difference matters. To the rest of us, it's interesting but mostly meaningless. OTOH, if the watch manufacturer told me it was accurate to those specs, I'd expect it to be true.
However, if I were on the track racing for money, performance would most certainly matter. So, this all really depends on what one wants out of their car. For many, owning a Ferrari (ANY Ferrari) is the achievement of a lifelong dream. Whether it performs faster and better than any other car on the road becomes lost the first time you sit in it, turn the key and hear the exhaust note. You may be reminded, from time to time, that it's not when the latest GT2 RS pulls up next to you and leaves you wondering what just happened. But, really, I don't think people buy Ferraris in the end to prove their faster. Maybe something else, but not necessarily faster.
CW
I would indeed be upset if I paid $100K for a tourbillon movement and got a $25 quartz. But, I think about it differently: is there a material difference between a Patek tourbillon at $100K and a Breguet tourbillon at $99.5K? Does one tell time more accurately? Does it matter? Either way, you're getting an amazing timepiece. One may be accurate to within 1/10000th of a second while the other is accurate to within 1/10001th. To horologists, I assume that difference matters. To the rest of us, it's interesting but mostly meaningless. OTOH, if the watch manufacturer told me it was accurate to those specs, I'd expect it to be true.
However, if I were on the track racing for money, performance would most certainly matter. So, this all really depends on what one wants out of their car. For many, owning a Ferrari (ANY Ferrari) is the achievement of a lifelong dream. Whether it performs faster and better than any other car on the road becomes lost the first time you sit in it, turn the key and hear the exhaust note. You may be reminded, from time to time, that it's not when the latest GT2 RS pulls up next to you and leaves you wondering what just happened. But, really, I don't think people buy Ferraris in the end to prove their faster. Maybe something else, but not necessarily faster.
CW
It may not even be a situation where someone would have picked a different car had they known that Ferrari skewed the numbers. But more along the lines of expecting that when you pay your hard earned money for the best of the best holding them accountable for what they say there product will and won't do.
This happens in many other areas, the high end home stereo world for example. The average person can't tell the difference between a $20k home system and a $100k home system. Some companies take advantage of that and publish and represent certain metrics that just are not true.
I guess the term truth in advertising is just not a term that can be used anymore.
Or the C&D pre-production GT-R that hit 130mph 1.6 seconds quicker than the next quickest they ever tested.
What test(s) has the 458 trapping over 129mph??
What test(s) has the 458 trapping over 129mph??
ACCELERATION
0-60mph 3.0sec
0-100mph 6.4
0-120mph 8.9
0-140mph 12.2
0-160mph 17.0
0-180mph 23.3
1/4-mile 10.9sec @ 134 mph
Peak g 0.96
30-70mph passing 4.2sec
BRAKING
70-0mph 143ft
Peak g 1.18
CORNERING
L 1.04g
R 1.08g
SPEED IN GEARS
I 47mph
II 66
III 89
IV 112
V 141
VI 173
VII 202
Last edited by germeezy1; 03-25-2011 at 11:58 AM.
#84
03-25-2011, 12:19 PM
Lots of good thinking here, but as my previous post suggests, I think most people are missing the real point. The issue is whether or not the "rules" of automotive journalism are being broken. If so, then shame on Ferrari for breaking them. If not, then good for Ferrari for doing whatever they can to get the best numbers.
Ferrari is competitive - what's the surprise? If the auto journalist feel like they are bullied into accepting "unfairly" prepared cars then bravo for Chris Harris speaking up about it. From what I've gathered it sounds more to me like the auto journalist and car makers have a general gentlemen's agreement about the cars that are tested. Ferrari is pushing the boundaries of that agreement. So, if stories like Chris Harris's hurt Ferrari's image (and it's clearly debatable whether it does) or if the journalists ban together and issue some sort of explicit rules for testing cars that Ferrari violates (again, possibly hurting their reputation) then Ferrari will change. If those things don't happen, then Ferrari will keep doing whatever it is allowed to get away with.
Again, I don't think the issue is whether the stories are true or whether there is more to a car than its performance numbers (I'm not sure what enthusiast would be on the other side of that argument), but whether the "gentlemen's agreement" of auto journalism needs to be more explicit.
Ferrari is competitive - what's the surprise? If the auto journalist feel like they are bullied into accepting "unfairly" prepared cars then bravo for Chris Harris speaking up about it. From what I've gathered it sounds more to me like the auto journalist and car makers have a general gentlemen's agreement about the cars that are tested. Ferrari is pushing the boundaries of that agreement. So, if stories like Chris Harris's hurt Ferrari's image (and it's clearly debatable whether it does) or if the journalists ban together and issue some sort of explicit rules for testing cars that Ferrari violates (again, possibly hurting their reputation) then Ferrari will change. If those things don't happen, then Ferrari will keep doing whatever it is allowed to get away with.
Again, I don't think the issue is whether the stories are true or whether there is more to a car than its performance numbers (I'm not sure what enthusiast would be on the other side of that argument), but whether the "gentlemen's agreement" of auto journalism needs to be more explicit.
#85
03-25-2011, 01:46 PM
Then tell me why they brought their own fuel? Do you see anyone else providing their own fuel for a test? Why else would you plug in diagnostics at a track test if the car has already been vetted by the factory? Is it absolutely preposterous to think this could be happening? Don't forget: Ferrari had already brought their car and team to that track before the test. Clearly they were not happy about coming 2nd best to the GT3 RS even after having scouted the track beforehand.
20" front wheels, done for the expressed reason of suppressing understeer. The question is not whether customers order their cars like that (I'd be surprised if an owner ordered larger front wheels for that very reason). The question is: Is this car representative of a typical production model that has been released for road use? Apparently not, or else they'd all have the same front wheels. Name for me another manufacturer that has done this in 3rd party testing.
That Murcielago didn't seem unusually slow. TopGear timed one in 10.7s for 100-150, and to my knowledge, they don't test with a passenger like Autocar does. A 360 Modena being within even 0.6s of a Murcielago is too good to be true. Just check the trap speed on that Autocar Murcielago: 119 mph. Compare with other Murcielago tests.
TopGear: 120.3 mph
Automobile Magazine: 119 mph
R&T: 121 mph
Car & Driver: 116 mph
It's not the fastest, but it's also not the slowest.
Now, compare that 360 Modena result (11.3s for 100-150, 119 mph trap) to some others.
C&D: 100-150 in 18.5s, 110 mph
R&T: 112.5 mph
Motor Trend: 113.5 mph
Autocar, 360CS: 100-150 in 13.8s, 117 mph
Motor Trend, 360CS: 114.1 mph
C&D, 360CS: 100-150 in 14.4s, 115 mph
C&D, F430 (customer car): 100-150 in 14.4s, 116 mph
Of course the grey 599 in C&D's photo has a speedo in mph. That wasn't the one that was tested for numbers.
Worn tires and breaks already on the GTO? Get real. I get it: only Ferrari customers wear out their tires and brakes. Not Porsche, GM, etc? Like I said, which other manufacturer really gives a crap?
20" front wheels, done for the expressed reason of suppressing understeer. The question is not whether customers order their cars like that (I'd be surprised if an owner ordered larger front wheels for that very reason). The question is: Is this car representative of a typical production model that has been released for road use? Apparently not, or else they'd all have the same front wheels. Name for me another manufacturer that has done this in 3rd party testing.
That Murcielago didn't seem unusually slow. TopGear timed one in 10.7s for 100-150, and to my knowledge, they don't test with a passenger like Autocar does. A 360 Modena being within even 0.6s of a Murcielago is too good to be true. Just check the trap speed on that Autocar Murcielago: 119 mph. Compare with other Murcielago tests.
TopGear: 120.3 mph
Automobile Magazine: 119 mph
R&T: 121 mph
Car & Driver: 116 mph
It's not the fastest, but it's also not the slowest.
Now, compare that 360 Modena result (11.3s for 100-150, 119 mph trap) to some others.
C&D: 100-150 in 18.5s, 110 mph
R&T: 112.5 mph
Motor Trend: 113.5 mph
Autocar, 360CS: 100-150 in 13.8s, 117 mph
Motor Trend, 360CS: 114.1 mph
C&D, 360CS: 100-150 in 14.4s, 115 mph
C&D, F430 (customer car): 100-150 in 14.4s, 116 mph
Of course the grey 599 in C&D's photo has a speedo in mph. That wasn't the one that was tested for numbers.
Worn tires and breaks already on the GTO? Get real. I get it: only Ferrari customers wear out their tires and brakes. Not Porsche, GM, etc? Like I said, which other manufacturer really gives a crap?
Thank you for providing all these times and trap speeds from varies magazines for the 360. As you see, there are variations there. Look at it this way, if Ferrari required all of these media companies to use their "special" approved cars, shouldn't the results be consistently fast?
As for the Ferrari laptop and sunglasses comment from one member, the answer is no, and I don't have those stuffs. I own Ferraris, Porsches, BMW M cars and have owned AMGs and some other JDMs. I appreciate all these makes and speak from experience.
#86
03-25-2011, 01:47 PM
Well, I, for one, would like to know if SpA intends to send out a team of technicians to go over my car so as to ensure that it will meet the tested numbers. Somehow, I doubt they will. Or, maybe they're just working down the list...
Yes, doing what they're doing is borderline misleading. Harris' telling us they're doing it may have broken some unwritten rule, but this has been going on for decades by lots of manufacturers, so it's not exactly a state secret. But, I do think the journalists owe it to the people consuming their product to be honest, too. If they aren't, they undermine their own credibility. As if journalists had any to begin with.
CW
Yes, doing what they're doing is borderline misleading. Harris' telling us they're doing it may have broken some unwritten rule, but this has been going on for decades by lots of manufacturers, so it's not exactly a state secret. But, I do think the journalists owe it to the people consuming their product to be honest, too. If they aren't, they undermine their own credibility. As if journalists had any to begin with.
CW
#87
03-25-2011, 05:07 PM
http://www.automobilemag.com/reviews...rformance.html
ACCELERATION
0-60mph 3.0sec
0-100mph 6.4
0-120mph 8.9
0-140mph 12.2
0-160mph 17.0
0-180mph 23.3
1/4-mile 10.9sec @ 134 mph
Peak g 0.96
30-70mph passing 4.2sec
BRAKING
70-0mph 143ft
Peak g 1.18
CORNERING
L 1.04g
R 1.08g
SPEED IN GEARS
I 47mph
II 66
III 89
IV 112
V 141
VI 173
VII 202
ACCELERATION
0-60mph 3.0sec
0-100mph 6.4
0-120mph 8.9
0-140mph 12.2
0-160mph 17.0
0-180mph 23.3
1/4-mile 10.9sec @ 134 mph
Peak g 0.96
30-70mph passing 4.2sec
BRAKING
70-0mph 143ft
Peak g 1.18
CORNERING
L 1.04g
R 1.08g
SPEED IN GEARS
I 47mph
II 66
III 89
IV 112
V 141
VI 173
VII 202
An expertly driven ZR-1 on it's best day ever under ideal conditions can't even trap that high. Instrument error or factory intervention or both.
#88
03-25-2011, 06:09 PM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Age: 41
Posts: 552
Rep Power: 38 
.... seems everyone else in real world is just under 130.
#89
03-25-2011, 11:21 PM
Why they brought their own fuel? Maybe they just bought the container and filled it up with gas at the race track. Who knows??? I guess you do, somehow. Maybe the fact that they are on a race track and it's JUST more convenient. It make sense to speed things up since people and race track all cost money...
Thank you for providing all these times and trap speeds from varies magazines for the 360. As you see, there are variations there. Look at it this way, if Ferrari required all of these media companies to use their "special" approved cars, shouldn't the results be consistently fast?
Thank you for providing all these times and trap speeds from varies magazines for the 360. As you see, there are variations there. Look at it this way, if Ferrari required all of these media companies to use their "special" approved cars, shouldn't the results be consistently fast?
Fueling is rarely ever an issue in mag tests. Many tracks have their own on-site fueling stations. So no, that is not a likely explanation.
Do you even accept for one moment that perhaps Ferrari's fuel is different? Or are you so hard up with Ferrari that this can never be a possibility? Why don't we see MB supplying fuel to the SLS? Or Porsche for the GT3 RS?
There are variations in those 360 tests, but none even approach the 10-150 and 1/4 mile trap speed of that Autocar 360. That car didn't merely match just about every 360 Challenge Stradale test I've seen; it flat beats them.
As to why they were not all fast, the answer is quite simple: Back in those days, you rarely ever see a Ferrari crew in support of the 360. I can't think of a single test where they have provided support like they have with the 599, California, Scuderia, and 458. If you can show a test of the 360 like that, I'd like to see it.
#90
03-26-2011, 01:44 AM
Do you think that particular car actually hit 130 mph that fast? I have reason to believe it never did, and that it was an error on C&D's part.