Chris Harris: Ferrari Are Cheats
#106
03-27-2011, 09:48 PM
For me to speculate what the manufacturers do or don't do would be crazy as I don't have any firsthand information regarding that, and I agree it is not equal comparing different tracks on different days. That being said up until the new PDK Porsche came out I never saw TT's get close to the times they were claiming in the rags and owning a GT2 myself, I was always dissapointed when I showed up at the track to watch a new TT run as it was always way slower than the magazines and I have seen many run over the years and without exception never got close to the best reported times. On the other hand the only Ferrari I actually saw make passes at a dragstrip was the 458 I posted the video of and I know that is a stock car and it seemed pretty close or better than the manufacturers claims to me! Its probably a 10 second 133 plus mph car with a harder leave and some traction. The DC transmissions make up for a lot hp as a 6speed member (Fiske GTS) in the new 2012 GTR with only 530 HP in a 4000 lb car just went 11.07 and that is not too far off from some of the best ZR1 times (.3 tenths) and it was able to run that time with 110 less hp and 500 or so more pounds to carry than the ZR1. Threads like this is why I go to the track, because I want to see if a car I like is for real or just rag BS, and from what I have seen in the Ferrari's case is its for real and if anything it was underated in the magazines I was reading.
I hold out hope that the next gen Viper will utilizie a Fiat/ Ferrari 7 speed DSG or even the last gen Magneti Marelli single clutch gearbox.
#107
03-28-2011, 12:33 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZW-fAcliPs
This video showed a list of exotic cars. The F430 actually traps faster than a Gallardo LP-560-4 in a 1/4 mile run on a dusty track and stop shorter. Magazine times are marketing efforts as well. These cars used in the tests were owned by WCD and not manufacturers' press vehicles.
This video showed a list of exotic cars. The F430 actually traps faster than a Gallardo LP-560-4 in a 1/4 mile run on a dusty track and stop shorter. Magazine times are marketing efforts as well. These cars used in the tests were owned by WCD and not manufacturers' press vehicles.
#108
03-28-2011, 03:17 AM
That's one run. Here's another:
http://www.motortrend.com/av/feature...deo/index.html
The Lambo only had 5600 miles on it too.
All you've shown is that an F430, without a passenger, traps only slightly better than a "stock" 360 Modena with a passenger. You also have no way of knowing if a Ferrari press car in the same test would have been even faster.
Also, check the other data here:
http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...rari_f430.html
100-150: 18.8s
"Stock" 360 Modena in Autocar, 100-150: 11.3s
That stock customer F430 did 100-160 in 23.1s.
Compare with Ferrari's factory F430, used in a Quattroruote magazine shootout: 15.47s (99.4 mph to 161.6 mph). This same car ran within 2s of a Ford GT tested the same day (and actually matched it in the standing kilometer).
But let's say, for a moment, that customer cars are every bit as fast as the press cars. That begs the question: Why do Ferrari fell compelled to do what they do (provide technicians, provide their own fuel, provide two different cars, one of which shall not be tested, intervene when mags test cars that they do not approve of, send teams ahead of time to set up a car, etc)? Your contention is that there is no difference between them, right?
http://www.motortrend.com/av/feature...deo/index.html
The Lambo only had 5600 miles on it too.
All you've shown is that an F430, without a passenger, traps only slightly better than a "stock" 360 Modena with a passenger. You also have no way of knowing if a Ferrari press car in the same test would have been even faster.
Also, check the other data here:
http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...rari_f430.html
100-150: 18.8s
"Stock" 360 Modena in Autocar, 100-150: 11.3s
That stock customer F430 did 100-160 in 23.1s.
Compare with Ferrari's factory F430, used in a Quattroruote magazine shootout: 15.47s (99.4 mph to 161.6 mph). This same car ran within 2s of a Ford GT tested the same day (and actually matched it in the standing kilometer).
But let's say, for a moment, that customer cars are every bit as fast as the press cars. That begs the question: Why do Ferrari fell compelled to do what they do (provide technicians, provide their own fuel, provide two different cars, one of which shall not be tested, intervene when mags test cars that they do not approve of, send teams ahead of time to set up a car, etc)? Your contention is that there is no difference between them, right?
#109
03-28-2011, 11:25 AM
That's one run. Here's another:
http://www.motortrend.com/av/feature...deo/index.html
The Lambo only had 5600 miles on it too.
All you've shown is that an F430, without a passenger, traps only slightly better than a "stock" 360 Modena with a passenger. You also have no way of knowing if a Ferrari press car in the same test would have been even faster.
Also, check the other data here:
http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...rari_f430.html
100-150: 18.8s
"Stock" 360 Modena in Autocar, 100-150: 11.3s
That stock customer F430 did 100-160 in 23.1s.
Compare with Ferrari's factory F430, used in a Quattroruote magazine shootout: 15.47s (99.4 mph to 161.6 mph). This same car ran within 2s of a Ford GT tested the same day (and actually matched it in the standing kilometer).
But let's say, for a moment, that customer cars are every bit as fast as the press cars. That begs the question: Why do Ferrari fell compelled to do what they do (provide technicians, provide their own fuel, provide two different cars, one of which shall not be tested, intervene when mags test cars that they do not approve of, send teams ahead of time to set up a car, etc)? Your contention is that there is no difference between them, right?
http://www.motortrend.com/av/feature...deo/index.html
The Lambo only had 5600 miles on it too.
All you've shown is that an F430, without a passenger, traps only slightly better than a "stock" 360 Modena with a passenger. You also have no way of knowing if a Ferrari press car in the same test would have been even faster.
Also, check the other data here:
http://www.motortrend.com/features/p...rari_f430.html
100-150: 18.8s
"Stock" 360 Modena in Autocar, 100-150: 11.3s
That stock customer F430 did 100-160 in 23.1s.
Compare with Ferrari's factory F430, used in a Quattroruote magazine shootout: 15.47s (99.4 mph to 161.6 mph). This same car ran within 2s of a Ford GT tested the same day (and actually matched it in the standing kilometer).
But let's say, for a moment, that customer cars are every bit as fast as the press cars. That begs the question: Why do Ferrari fell compelled to do what they do (provide technicians, provide their own fuel, provide two different cars, one of which shall not be tested, intervene when mags test cars that they do not approve of, send teams ahead of time to set up a car, etc)? Your contention is that there is no difference between them, right?
The examples you’ve provided were 1/4 mile times and trap speeds from varies magazines. Automatically assuming the faster times on the lists were posted by “cheating press cars” the slower times were then “customer cars.” I though the arguments from Chris Harris was that Ferrari required all of these editors to use their tweaked test cars and nobody can do tests on customers‘ cars? How did Motortrend, C&D or R&T get to test customers‘ cars? It appears they still get invited by Ferrari when there has been a new model release.
Providing technicians, two different cars, send teams ahead of time to set up a car or even provide their own fuel Really JUST showed they providing technicians, two different cars, send teams ahead of time to set up a car or even provide their own fuel. You can interpret this anyway you want to buddy.
#110
03-28-2011, 11:53 AM
Registered User
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Age: 41
Posts: 552
Rep Power: 38 
For me to speculate what the manufacturers do or don't do would be crazy as I don't have any firsthand information regarding that, and I agree it is not equal comparing different tracks on different days. That being said up until the new PDK Porsche came out I never saw TT's get close to the times they were claiming in the rags and owning a GT2 myself, I was always dissapointed when I showed up at the track to watch a new TT run as it was always way slower than the magazines and I have seen many run over the years and without exception never got close to the best reported times. On the other hand the only Ferrari I actually saw make passes at a dragstrip was the 458 I posted the video of and I know that is a stock car and it seemed pretty close or better than the manufacturers claims to me! Its probably a 10 second 133 plus mph car with a harder leave and some traction. The DC transmissions make up for a lot hp as a 6speed member (Fiske GTS) in the new 2012 GTR with only 530 HP in a 4000 lb car just went 11.07 and that is not too far off from some of the best ZR1 times (.3 tenths) and it was able to run that time with 110 less hp and 500 or so more pounds to carry than the ZR1. Threads like this is why I go to the track, because I want to see if a car I like is for real or just rag BS, and from what I have seen in the Ferrari's case is its for real and if anything it was underated in the magazines I was reading.
Didn't Tommy just run at Vegas against the Cobra, but conditions there had him trapping around 120 I think? That Cobra woulda ran like a raped ape at MIR.
Last edited by Surfer; 03-28-2011 at 12:06 PM.
#111
03-28-2011, 12:36 PM
These cars were from a company that offers driving events. With 5600 miles, I am pretty sure the Gallardo has been broken-in.
The examples you’ve provided were 1/4 mile times and trap speeds from varies magazines. Automatically assuming the faster times on the lists were posted by “cheating press cars” the slower times were then “customer cars.” I though the arguments from Chris Harris was that Ferrari required all of these editors to use their tweaked test cars and nobody can do tests on customers‘ cars? How did Motortrend, C&D or R&T get to test customers‘ cars? It appears they still get invited by Ferrari when there has been a new model release.
Providing technicians, two different cars, send teams ahead of time to set up a car or even provide their own fuel Really JUST showed they providing technicians, two different cars, send teams ahead of time to set up a car or even provide their own fuel. You can interpret this anyway you want to buddy.
The examples you’ve provided were 1/4 mile times and trap speeds from varies magazines. Automatically assuming the faster times on the lists were posted by “cheating press cars” the slower times were then “customer cars.” I though the arguments from Chris Harris was that Ferrari required all of these editors to use their tweaked test cars and nobody can do tests on customers‘ cars? How did Motortrend, C&D or R&T get to test customers‘ cars? It appears they still get invited by Ferrari when there has been a new model release.
Providing technicians, two different cars, send teams ahead of time to set up a car or even provide their own fuel Really JUST showed they providing technicians, two different cars, send teams ahead of time to set up a car or even provide their own fuel. You can interpret this anyway you want to buddy.
The figures for the Murcielago and GT2 were all from Autocar, as was that 360 Modena. The law of averages tells us some customer cars should be faster, some slower. That's not what's happening. We're seeing multiple customer F430s slower than that Autocar 360, and clearly some 360s and Challenge Stradales that are slower. If you still think that is normal, then there's not much left to say.
Chris Harris did not speak for all test editors (though many will verify his claims, not coincidentally). The only thing we need to know is that Ferrari does this and that (to my knowledge) no other company does.
What reasonable interpretation can there be for Ferrari's actions? Is it unreasonable to think the cars have been tuned up? Much of the available data suggests this to be the case. At the very least, we can say these tests do not represent what happens in the real world (LP560 faster than Scuderia, let alone standard F430; SLR faster than 599; etc).
If you were invited to a mag comparo using your car, and the competitor's car was trucked in with an F1 crew, diagnostics, spare tires, etc, would you think the playing field was level? Even without the crew, if he said "Hold on while I map the ECU, put in this fuel, swap out these front wheels for larger ones," you'd still think nothing was fishy? Even if you found out the crew had already been there the week before to set the car up?
The claim was made by you that everybody does what Ferrari does. Do you still believe that? If that is true, show me cases where GM, Porsche, etc, have done all of the things that Ferrari have been accused of.
#112
04-13-2011, 02:33 PM
Yeh but thats at MIR which you of all should know that good days at MIR = conditions that pretty much blow any other track away for time and trap speed with it's large -da in nice weather. At Moroso (fl), seen one 458 run and was hitting in the 127's consistently but only saw him run 3 times, we were there in a friends cts-v. The GTR's are clicking off the low times but their trap speed says it all, massive traction and power off the line but tapers off, 12' is still a quick car no doubt. These new transmission are just so fast and efficient, look at even the new M3.. with DCT it's quite quicker and faster than the manual trans. I still prefer manual trans though, just plain more fun.
Didn't Tommy just run at Vegas against the Cobra, but conditions there had him trapping around 120 I think? That Cobra woulda ran like a raped ape at MIR.
Didn't Tommy just run at Vegas against the Cobra, but conditions there had him trapping around 120 I think? That Cobra woulda ran like a raped ape at MIR.
A turbo Porsche isn't a good comparison because the gearing is so much more aggressive than the DCT.
#113
11-05-2011, 04:58 PM
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 3,080
Rep Power: 225 
so since this story C. Harris has been banned from driving Ferraris by the ee***s from Maranello.
But that hasn`t stopped him reviewing them.
just from a different perspective
find more out here:
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/performance_car_of_the_year/274732/ferrari_ff.html
But that hasn`t stopped him reviewing them.
just from a different perspective
find more out here:
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/performance_car_of_the_year/274732/ferrari_ff.html
#115
11-19-2011, 07:59 AM
The examples you’ve provided were 1/4 mile times and trap speeds from varies magazines. Automatically assuming the faster times on the lists were posted by “cheating press cars” the slower times were then “customer cars.” I though the arguments from Chris Harris was that Ferrari required all of these editors to use their tweaked test cars and nobody can do tests on customers‘ cars? How did Motortrend, C&D or R&T get to test customers‘ cars? It appears they still get invited by Ferrari when there has been a new model release.
This is the exact same question I have. Part of the original post was that if you used customers cars you were not getting invited by Ferrari to test new models. I am not saying what ferrari does is right but now know at least part of the orignal post seems to be false.
#116
06-05-2014, 08:07 AM
Just one point out. For the '08 C&D Nissan GTR test mule they applied that unusual correction factor for turbocharged cars making the car faster because they were sure the car was "unable" to compensate for altitude. The reason was simply because during the test, engineers were messed around with the software and easily MAP sensor will be neglected impressing more load to the system. At the facts, that mule was really a fast car.
Last edited by MaxMcQueen; 06-05-2014 at 08:38 AM.
#117
09-15-2015, 10:50 AM
And if those corrections have already been calculated, then that means this particular GT-R could have been as slow as 119.1 mph (124 / 1.041103) with an ET of 11.97 (11.5 / 0.96084).
I think a reasonable guess of this car's hp is that it's not more than 489 PS (~482 hp). This is supported by the test of the GT-R by the Italian mag Auto, which were suspicious that Nissan were sending pumped-up press cars. Unlike in their other road tests, they decided to dyno-test that car, using a Maha-type dyno that can give an approximation of crank hp. It recorded 489.6 PS:
This very same press car did 0-400m in 11.94 @ 119.1 mph (no roll-out, uncorrected per European test norms):
(Thanks to mafalda on another forum for the scans.)
One might question whether that car's power should be corrected at all. According to SAE standards, it shouldn't be. SAE J1349, Section 5.5: "... boosted engines with absolute pressure controls shall not be corrected for ambient barometric pressure."
So we can see a GT-R doesn't have to have more than 489 PS to deliver those results. This is further supported by Motor Trend's test of an early press car. It ran an uncorrected 1/4 mile of 11.51 @ 120.7 mph. It also recorded 430.6 whp on a Dynojet.
Here's a customer GT-R that produced 434 whp (also on a Dynojet) running the 1/4 mile in 11.5 @ 121.7 mph.
http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index....3&#entry358503
We can see there does not need to be much more than the stated power (certainly well within production tolerances), and we can see customer cars are just about as fast as the press cars.
A reasonable extrapolation of C&D's test mule data from the last seemingly legit data point (120 mph) would put its 0-130 time at around 13.5-13.7s.
As for credits, no don't bother. Thanks anyway.
I wasn't aware of such a test. The press car they tested in Japan recorded 11.6 @ 120.9 in cool 51-degree temperature. This is not remarkably faster than their own long-term car, bought from a local dealer, which recorded 11.77 @ 118.6.
Edmunds makes an interesting comment about correcting for conditions, and this sheds some light on C&D's wonky numbers:
"SAE correction factors have undergone a revision or two in recent years, and it is our policy to use the one contained in the most recent horsepower measurement procedure, SAE J1349. Turbocharged engine performance is not corrected by this standard, because modern turbocharged engines with electronic controls essentially produce and optimize their own atmosphere.
The old standard, SAE J607, is now considered obsolete by the SAE, but the use of its correction factor produces quarter-mile times that are about 0.3 second quicker than those returned by J1349."
SAE J1349 corrects power to a standard temperature of 77°F whereas J607 corrects to 60°F. It looks like C&D uses the old standard:
"we employ proprietary empirical correction factors to adjust all results to dry air at 14.7 psi and 60 degrees Fahrenheit"
This can partially explain why C&D's result would be faster than other mags' times. The car would already be 0.3s faster due to differences in correction factors. This is on top of a rather dubious correction they applied to that GT-R, and they even note this in their test sheet comments:
"Test venue is 4200' but car seems unaffected."
Of course it should seem unaffected. Being a modern turbocharged engine, it's effectively making its own intake atmosphere. On top of this, test conditions were cold, 52°F. If anything, their correction factor should have made the car slower, not faster (like Motor Trend's test).
As for the MazdaSpeed3 limiting boost in the lower gears, that makes more sense: that car is FWD and has narrower, less grippy tires than the AWD GT-R. Imagine the torque steer it would have without it...
I think a reasonable guess of this car's hp is that it's not more than 489 PS (~482 hp). This is supported by the test of the GT-R by the Italian mag Auto, which were suspicious that Nissan were sending pumped-up press cars. Unlike in their other road tests, they decided to dyno-test that car, using a Maha-type dyno that can give an approximation of crank hp. It recorded 489.6 PS:
This very same press car did 0-400m in 11.94 @ 119.1 mph (no roll-out, uncorrected per European test norms):
(Thanks to mafalda on another forum for the scans.)
One might question whether that car's power should be corrected at all. According to SAE standards, it shouldn't be. SAE J1349, Section 5.5: "... boosted engines with absolute pressure controls shall not be corrected for ambient barometric pressure."
So we can see a GT-R doesn't have to have more than 489 PS to deliver those results. This is further supported by Motor Trend's test of an early press car. It ran an uncorrected 1/4 mile of 11.51 @ 120.7 mph. It also recorded 430.6 whp on a Dynojet.
Here's a customer GT-R that produced 434 whp (also on a Dynojet) running the 1/4 mile in 11.5 @ 121.7 mph.
http://www.nagtroc.org/forums/index....3&#entry358503
We can see there does not need to be much more than the stated power (certainly well within production tolerances), and we can see customer cars are just about as fast as the press cars.
A reasonable extrapolation of C&D's test mule data from the last seemingly legit data point (120 mph) would put its 0-130 time at around 13.5-13.7s.
As for credits, no don't bother. Thanks anyway.
I wasn't aware of such a test. The press car they tested in Japan recorded 11.6 @ 120.9 in cool 51-degree temperature. This is not remarkably faster than their own long-term car, bought from a local dealer, which recorded 11.77 @ 118.6.
Edmunds makes an interesting comment about correcting for conditions, and this sheds some light on C&D's wonky numbers:
"SAE correction factors have undergone a revision or two in recent years, and it is our policy to use the one contained in the most recent horsepower measurement procedure, SAE J1349. Turbocharged engine performance is not corrected by this standard, because modern turbocharged engines with electronic controls essentially produce and optimize their own atmosphere.
The old standard, SAE J607, is now considered obsolete by the SAE, but the use of its correction factor produces quarter-mile times that are about 0.3 second quicker than those returned by J1349."
SAE J1349 corrects power to a standard temperature of 77°F whereas J607 corrects to 60°F. It looks like C&D uses the old standard:
"we employ proprietary empirical correction factors to adjust all results to dry air at 14.7 psi and 60 degrees Fahrenheit"
This can partially explain why C&D's result would be faster than other mags' times. The car would already be 0.3s faster due to differences in correction factors. This is on top of a rather dubious correction they applied to that GT-R, and they even note this in their test sheet comments:
"Test venue is 4200' but car seems unaffected."
Of course it should seem unaffected. Being a modern turbocharged engine, it's effectively making its own intake atmosphere. On top of this, test conditions were cold, 52°F. If anything, their correction factor should have made the car slower, not faster (like Motor Trend's test).
As for the MazdaSpeed3 limiting boost in the lower gears, that makes more sense: that car is FWD and has narrower, less grippy tires than the AWD GT-R. Imagine the torque steer it would have without it...
The correction applied to the mule tested by C/D was correct. The car was fast as the article said, 11.5 @ 124 (as much as a GT-R MY12 will be later) because of the engineers messed with the software as Mr. Csaba said on the their C/D video. They applied the correction because the Manifold Absolute Pressure Sensor (MAP) will be neglected when the system is overworking impressing more load, and obviously they were sure of this.
How is possible to think that a mag as C/D is, did these kind of mistake applying a correction with no sense. I think people need to open their eyes.
Last edited by MaxMcQueen; 09-15-2015 at 10:57 AM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Kai@ELITEMS
996 Turbo / GT2
1
08-06-2016 09:50 AM
Kai@ELITEMS
997 Turbo / GT2
0
10-01-2015 04:34 PM
Kai@ELITEMS
Bentley
0
10-01-2015 04:33 PM
Kai@ELITEMS
Ferrari
0
10-01-2015 04:32 PM
Kai@ELITEMS
Lamborghini
0
10-01-2015 04:32 PM
