Wasnt someone looking for a ferrari 308 here???

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

01-16-2005, 11:38 PM

#16

Friendan

Drifting

Join Date: Nov 2003

Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada

Posts: 2,310

Likes: 0

Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts

I think that front bumper should stick out a little more.

Reply Like

01-16-2005, 11:44 PM

#17

pcarfan944

Burning Brakes

Join Date: Aug 2004

Posts: 1,047

Likes: 10

Received 71 Likes on 46 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by FSAEracer03

Truer words have never been spoken, Chris.

Here's observation point #1, this car: (times are 0-60 and 1/4mi)
1977 Ferrari 308 GTB 8.2 17.0
For another point, here are other Ferraris that was made around the timeframe of the 944/951 series:
1986 Ferrari GTO 5.0 14.1
1990 Ferrari 348 tb 6.0 14.3
1989 Ferrari Testarossa 6.2 14.2

Here are the numbers for our beloved cars, stock, from their day:
1984 Porsche 944 9.0 16.4
1987 Porsche 924 S 7.8 15.8
1986 Porsche 944 Turbo 6.0 14.6

Not only are the ol' 944 and 924 S quicker than that f-car, the stock '86 951 almost matches the 348 from 4 years and about $60k later, the GTO (which was the first of the Ferrari supercar series),and the ever-coveted Testarossa . Factor in that the 951 outhandles it, and with $200 of mods falls into high 13's... why bother? Ferrari's are neat to be driven and all, but IMHO aren't up to par with shear exhilaration! The average modified 951 on these boards is most likely as quick as many of the 90's Ferraris, as the 456, 348 and 355 ran throughout the 13-second range.

Actually, Kevin, When you compare up the line, year by year, the Ferrari's always win in performance numbers. Where people here are getting confused, is the fact that you compare newer Porsche models to older Ferrari's, and did not use correct acceleration times for the 348 and the TR. The 348 was in the mid to low five second range to 60, as was the TR. Also, the TR did the quarter mile in 13.6 not 14.2.

I'd be happy to take you for a ride in our euro spec fiberglass 77 308 GTB. If the sound of that four cam V8 at 7000 RPM, the howl of the weber carbs and the crackle urgent pitch coming from the quad tail pipes doesn't give you goose bumps, nothing will. A 951 might keep up with me to 80, but past 100 the Ferrari will walk away. No offense or anything, but IMO trying to compare Ferrari's and Porsche's is a losing cause. We could argue this thread for a thousand years and get nowhere. They are both wonderful, beautiful, pieces of automotive perfection in their own ways.

Reply Like

01-17-2005, 12:35 AM

#18

Dan87951

Nordschleife Master

Join Date: Jul 2001

Location: Lansing Michigan

Posts: 6,431

Likes: 15

Received 33 Likes on 22 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by pcarfan944

A 951 might keep up with me to 80, but past 100 the Ferrari will walk away.

Don't know about that one...however power wise they seem to be fairly even depending on which 951 you compare it with. I would think the 951 would accelerate faster up top because of the force induction (turbo). But who knows would love to compare my 951 with your 308.

Reply Like

01-17-2005, 12:46 AM

#19

UDPride

Thinking outside da' bun...
Lifetime Rennlist
Member

Join Date: Apr 2002

Location: Dayton, Ohio

Posts: 11,529

Likes: 170

Received 470 Likes on 242 Posts

From my January 1986 Car & Driver Road Test Review summary table:

CAR...................................PRICE...........0-60/QTR MILE......TOP SPEED
Porsche 911 Turbo (1/86)........$49,720.........4.6s/13.1s..............155mph
Ferrari Testarossa (9/85)........$115,000........5.0s/13.1s.............181mph
Porsche 928S 5/85)................$50,000..........5.7s/14.0s.............154mph
Chevrolet Corvette (12/84)......$27,023..........5.7s/14.1s.............150mph
Porsche 944 Turbo (12/85)......$31,398.........6.0s/14.5s..............157mph
Ford Mustang GT (1/85)..........$11,391.........6.4s/14.9s..............135mph
Chevrolet Z28 IROC (10/84).....$13,208.........7.0s/15.2s..............140mph
Audi Quattro Turbo (7/85).......$35,335.........7.2s/15.5s..............124mph
Buick Grand National (7/85).....$16,289.........7.5s/15.7s..............121mph
Dodge Omni GLH Trbo (5/85)...$9,706..........7.5s/15.8s..............119mph
Pontiac Trans Am (4/85).........$17,398.........7.6s/15.6s.............135mph
Mazda RX-& GXL (11/85)........ $18,500........7.7s/16.0s..............128mph

Reply Like

01-17-2005, 01:07 AM

#20

Chris_924s

Nerd Herder
Rennlist Member

Join Date: Feb 2002

Location: Central Illinois. Cornfields a plenty.

Posts: 16,526

Likes: 1

Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts

If I wanted to zero-60 with class, I'd definetly pick a Marenello. Now for the second pass...

Reply Like

01-17-2005, 01:08 AM

#21

Chris_924s

Nerd Herder
Rennlist Member

Join Date: Feb 2002

Location: Central Illinois. Cornfields a plenty.

Posts: 16,526

Likes: 1

Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts

Chris, you are my hero.

Reply Like

01-17-2005, 02:25 AM

#22

UDPride

Thinking outside da' bun...
Lifetime Rennlist
Member

Join Date: Apr 2002

Location: Dayton, Ohio

Posts: 11,529

Likes: 170

Received 470 Likes on 242 Posts

They had braking numbers but I ran outta room. Let the congressional record reflect I put an equal premium on braking numbers and chose to omit them for the purposes of time and effort. Fuq, it, here goes.

Braking in feet from 70mph to zero:
Porsche 911 Turbo (1/86)........173
Ferrari Testarossa (9/85)........198
Porsche 928S 5/85)................175
Chevrolet Corvette (12/84)......185
Porsche 944 Turbo (12/85)......186
Ford Mustang GT (1/85)..........206
Chevrolet Z28 IROC (10/84).....204
Audi Quattro Turbo (7/85).......185
Buick Grand National (7/85).....198
Dodge Omni GLH Trbo (5/85)...201
Pontiac Trans Am (4/85).........207
Mazda RX-& GXL (11/85)........186

Reply Like

01-17-2005, 02:42 AM

#23

Serge944

Rennlist Member

Join Date: Apr 2003

Location: California

Posts: 8,022

Likes: 0

Received 55 Likes on 29 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris_924s

I am concluding that Ferarri's suck. Pretty to look at, great to drive when they are new.

If I recall correctly; the majority of the educated non-biased world of automobile enthusiasts considers the f40 to be the best drivers' car EVER produced till this day. How does that correlate to sucking?

No, Ferrari's aren't meant to be driven often. But when you are driving one, little else can match it.

Of course Porsche's are better overall...but face it, aside from a few die-hard enthusiasts, the MAJORITY of the 944 owners here would not be driving one if they could easily afford something more expensive. Myself included. "Best handling car of the 80's" is a bit outdated.

Reply Like

01-17-2005, 02:52 AM

#24

iloveporsches

Race Director

Join Date: May 2002

Posts: 13,634

Likes: 0

Received 1 Like on 1 Post

I believe the quote in Serge's avatar is in direct reference to Ferrari...

Reply Like

01-17-2005, 05:54 AM

#25

Danno

Race Director

Join Date: Jul 2001

Location: Santa Barbara, CA

Posts: 14,075

Likes: 0

Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts

"Um... Kev, methinks you need to seriously double-double check those numbers. The last GTO (a twin turbo'd beast) did NOT run 14.1 quarters; I seem to recall it being faster than Testarossa it preceded. And a flat-12 Testarossa that's marginally quicker than a new Civic VTEC?? No."

The 288GTO and Testarossas are the perfect examples I use to refute the off-used HP-to-weight ratios. They both make about same HP, about 5-10hp difference, depending upon your sources. But the Testarossa weights a whopping 1100-lbs more than the 288GTO. Yet, they both pull close to identical 0-60 & 1/4-mile times as well as top-speed...

Reply Like

01-17-2005, 06:36 AM

#26

pcarfan944

Burning Brakes

Join Date: Aug 2004

Posts: 1,047

Likes: 10

Received 71 Likes on 46 Posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dan87951

I've got more power and less weight. In Euro spec trim it's putting out around 255hp, and with fiberglass bodywork the weight drops down to around 2600lbs. Thats a pretty serious power to weight. I haven't driven a 951 at 100+ (just been a passenger) and the Ferrari was dramatically faster. In fact, after 100, i'd venture to say I could leave it firmly planted in 5th and still run away. It should be noted that the Euro cars are significantly faster than the bogged down U.S. models.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danno

The 288GTO and Testarossas are the perfect examples I use to refute the off-used HP-to-weight ratios. They both make about same HP, about 5-10hp difference, depending upon your sources. But the Testarossa weights a whopping 1100-lbs more than the 288GTO. Yet, they both pull close to identical 0-60 & 1/4-mile times as well as top-speed...

The problem with the 288 GTO was the gearing: 70, 112, 157, 189, 189 through the gears. This is NOT ideal for a twin turbo 2900cc V8. I think a lot of people look at 0-60 times of these cars and make their judgements right then and there, what they don't realize is these numbers don't do the cars justice at all. The GTO may only turn it a quarter mile time of 14 seconds, but put the GTO in a real world scenario such as a 80mph rolling start, and i'd bet the farm the GTO would smoke any other car with similar 0-60 or quarter mile times. They are NOT drag cars, not designed to be from day one, and rather average times in this area do not reflect how blindingly fast they really are.

Reply Like