05 CGT silver/black with 187 miles, for sale
01-18-2009, 05:44 PM
#16
Drifting
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,464
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-21-2009, 12:16 AM
#17
Burning Brakes
01-26-2009, 02:56 PM
#23
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Miami, Florida
Posts: 1,241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01-26-2009, 06:43 PM
#24
Racer
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oakland, MI, USA
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering he owns both I think you should value his opinion. I have driven both and the CGT will beat an F40 in all performance categories.
01-28-2009, 12:53 AM
#25
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Official Jack off extinguisher
Posts: 1,173
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Noob.
It would help actually driving both cars which you with absolut certainty have not done, and I am not talking around the block or so. The F40 is like the 930 , a lot of noises and big butt dyno "ah" but that is about it if you compare them to modern cars. Major lag and then full boost around 4500 rpm, a lousy 5 speed straight out of a truck, akward seating position and so so brakes. THey are relative save when you crash them..........Willow Springs has claimed a few,witnessed by yours truly.
The Carr GT will beat the F40 in EVERY category. Period. Straight, corners, braking, adhesion bla bla ..it is not even close. The only thing both cars have in common is that both of them are tricky when driven above fast.
BTW, the LM / or Michelotti modified cars are retty fragile........you dont want to start a mini enduro with them against the Porsche.
Enzo is a worthy contender and in the right hands will be faster than the Carr GT, as long as the surface is fairly smooth.
As far as you "much lighter " comment, the F40 cornerbalances around 2850..........not THAT much lighter, certainly not enough to make up a ~ 140 hp deficit.
It would help actually driving both cars which you with absolut certainty have not done, and I am not talking around the block or so. The F40 is like the 930 , a lot of noises and big butt dyno "ah" but that is about it if you compare them to modern cars. Major lag and then full boost around 4500 rpm, a lousy 5 speed straight out of a truck, akward seating position and so so brakes. THey are relative save when you crash them..........Willow Springs has claimed a few,witnessed by yours truly.
The Carr GT will beat the F40 in EVERY category. Period. Straight, corners, braking, adhesion bla bla ..it is not even close. The only thing both cars have in common is that both of them are tricky when driven above fast.
BTW, the LM / or Michelotti modified cars are retty fragile........you dont want to start a mini enduro with them against the Porsche.
Enzo is a worthy contender and in the right hands will be faster than the Carr GT, as long as the surface is fairly smooth.
As far as you "much lighter " comment, the F40 cornerbalances around 2850..........not THAT much lighter, certainly not enough to make up a ~ 140 hp deficit.
01-28-2009, 02:35 AM
#26
Noob.
It would help actually driving both cars which you with absolut certainty have not done, and I am not talking around the block or so. The F40 is like the 930 , a lot of noises and big butt dyno "ah" but that is about it if you compare them to modern cars. Major lag and then full boost around 4500 rpm, a lousy 5 speed straight out of a truck, akward seating position and so so brakes. THey are relative save when you crash them..........Willow Springs has claimed a few,witnessed by yours truly.
The Carr GT will beat the F40 in EVERY category. Period. Straight, corners, braking, adhesion bla bla ..it is not even close. The only thing both cars have in common is that both of them are tricky when driven above fast.
BTW, the LM / or Michelotti modified cars are retty fragile........you dont want to start a mini enduro with them against the Porsche.
Enzo is a worthy contender and in the right hands will be faster than the Carr GT, as long as the surface is fairly smooth.
As far as you "much lighter " comment, the F40 cornerbalances around 2850..........not THAT much lighter, certainly not enough to make up a ~ 140 hp deficit.
It would help actually driving both cars which you with absolut certainty have not done, and I am not talking around the block or so. The F40 is like the 930 , a lot of noises and big butt dyno "ah" but that is about it if you compare them to modern cars. Major lag and then full boost around 4500 rpm, a lousy 5 speed straight out of a truck, akward seating position and so so brakes. THey are relative save when you crash them..........Willow Springs has claimed a few,witnessed by yours truly.
The Carr GT will beat the F40 in EVERY category. Period. Straight, corners, braking, adhesion bla bla ..it is not even close. The only thing both cars have in common is that both of them are tricky when driven above fast.
BTW, the LM / or Michelotti modified cars are retty fragile........you dont want to start a mini enduro with them against the Porsche.
Enzo is a worthy contender and in the right hands will be faster than the Carr GT, as long as the surface is fairly smooth.
As far as you "much lighter " comment, the F40 cornerbalances around 2850..........not THAT much lighter, certainly not enough to make up a ~ 140 hp deficit.
01-28-2009, 06:10 PM
#27
I've raced an F40 in my Ruf Turbo R. The Ruf is faster, and the CGT is much faster. The F40 is about a 120-125 MPH 1/4-mile car. The CGT is 130+, about the same as an Enzo. Motor Trend tested the Enzo and CGT on the same day, side-by-side:
Enzo: 11.0 @ 133.9
CGT: 11.1 @ 133.4
And that's with the Enzo having a 0-60 of 3.4 vs 3.6 in the CGT. That shows how fast the CGT really is.
Enzo: 11.0 @ 133.9
CGT: 11.1 @ 133.4
And that's with the Enzo having a 0-60 of 3.4 vs 3.6 in the CGT. That shows how fast the CGT really is.
01-29-2009, 11:47 AM
#28
Racer
Thread Starter
I've raced an F40 in my Ruf Turbo R. The Ruf is faster, and the CGT is much faster. The F40 is about a 120-125 MPH 1/4-mile car. The CGT is 130+, about the same as an Enzo. Motor Trend tested the Enzo and CGT on the same day, side-by-side:
Enzo: 11.0 @ 133.9
CGT: 11.1 @ 133.4
And that's with the Enzo having a 0-60 of 3.4 vs 3.6 in the CGT. That shows how fast the CGT really is.
Enzo: 11.0 @ 133.9
CGT: 11.1 @ 133.4
And that's with the Enzo having a 0-60 of 3.4 vs 3.6 in the CGT. That shows how fast the CGT really is.
And you can buy two CGTs for the price of an Enzo and have money left over to invest.
01-29-2009, 12:14 PM
#29
01-31-2009, 07:33 AM
#30
Rennlist Member
I drive both the F40 and CGT regularly, sometimes back to back just for grins.
We don't need yet another comparison, so I'll net out my view:
- The CGT is the better car in every category of driving dynamics with exception of steering feel which the F40 wins hands down.
- The CGT is really only fun driven fast
- The F40 is a blast to drive slow, relishing memories of Enzo's past glories
- The CGT is a modern car, the F40 is a relic...but relics can be a lot of fun!
We don't need yet another comparison, so I'll net out my view:
- The CGT is the better car in every category of driving dynamics with exception of steering feel which the F40 wins hands down.
- The CGT is really only fun driven fast
- The F40 is a blast to drive slow, relishing memories of Enzo's past glories
- The CGT is a modern car, the F40 is a relic...but relics can be a lot of fun!