DiecastXchange Forum banner
1 - 20 of 59 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
923 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Which is the best supercar?
Pagani Zonda C12S2114.19%
Ferrari Enzo4933.11%
Koenigsegg CC 8S106.76%
Lamborghini Murcielago1812.16%
Porsche Carrera GT3221.62%
Ford GT1812.16%
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
923 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Following the rather heated debate on the best sports car on sale, which of these 200mph supercars for the Noughties would you choose?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,381 Posts
I went for the Zonda, as it looks and drives superbly, and can be bought in RHD. If either the Enzo or the Carrera GT could be had in RHD then they may have got my No1 vote, but I would find driving a LHD car in Ireland to be a complete pain in the arse!!! Plus the already sky high insurance costs would be way higher too!!!
 
G

·
Darren , you certainly know how to put the cat among the pigeons .
Heres my views ,
Theres no doubt that the Koenigsegg is the fastest of them all @ 3.4 secs and 240mph but I would be worried about buying such a mad car from such a small company.
The Zonda isnt the prettiest kid on the block in my opinion although that 7.3 V12 is supposed to be the business , but again , its from a new and little known maker .
I am a Ford man through and through , and I`d love to pick the GT , but I feel its dated 60`s styling doesnt make you feel like you were in a true supercar , although it does look to be a fantastic drive .
The Lambo is also getting a little long in the tooth , its relatively slow compared to the others and after seeing one at my local mcdonalds I think it would be totally inpractical to own(too wide).
That leaves the Porsche and the Ferrari , and although I adore Porsches I feel that Ferrari has the best all round package to be voted the best supercar.
As much as I hate to admit it , I`d pick the ENZO .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,495 Posts
That's a real tough question. For me, it's between the Murcielago and the Ford GT. I chose the Ford GT because it's so original. It's a modern car but still manages to keep it's image of being the legend that it is. The Murcielago is a beautiful car, no doubt, but it's just not a revolution like the Ford GT, it's more of an evolution.
 
G

·
i;d take em all.......
but if only one... i go for the Enzo.....
i'm a Ferrari guy
Oh no ....we chose the same car
No more arguing :cry:
MB , you really meant to choose the Porsche didnt ya...we all know how much you love em
 
G

·
Murcielago is the donkey of the bunch, 0 to 100 in 9 seconds !!! - not very impressive !

Ford has a cheap interior, not exclusive enough, 500 bhp is enough for super saloons, not hypercars.

The funny one from Sweden, broke down on Top Gear and couldn't beat the Zonda in a straight line, and only posted an 8.4 second 0 to 100 mph time when Autocar tested it. 240 mph, my arse !!!, Autocar could barely coax the wheezing heap past 200 mph.

Enzo, I like this, especially in black, but I don't like Ferrari's snooty attitude in deciding who can and who can't buy one. You had to be invited to spend your money !!!. Also, Ferrari won't let anyone do the full number on it, they ran a day at Fiarano for journalists to put one against the clock and none of them could match Ferrari's claims (of a sub 7 second run to 100 mph ). Funny that !!. They also break down lots and have obviously been engineered and assembled with the same care and attention reserved for Fiat Puntos ( See this month's CAR magazine ).

Zonda, brilliant, AMG engines and top notch build quality, 0 to 100 mph in 7.4 seconds, sounds great. Did anyone see the unpainted one that was clear laquered over the Carbon fibre !!!, that's how mine would be finished.

Porsche, I would put money on this going 0 to 100 mph in less than 7 seconds. Very light, very powerful, very handsome, properly engineered, . The daddy !
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
923 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
Ford has a cheap interior, not exclusive enough.
That's a very harsh statement - the interior was designed to keep the essence of the GT40 MkII so it needs to have that modern/retro look. Ford couldn't really make the GT's interior look like that of the Pagani Zonda, for example, without completely ruining the essence of the original car.

500 bhp is enough for super saloons, not hypercars
The Ferrari F40 and the original Lamborghini Diablo have 478bhp, and 492bhp respectively and can break the 200mph barrier - can you seriously say that they don't have enough power? Granted they are 16, and 13 years old respectively but you can question their being "hypercars" as much as you can question whether or not the Pope is a Christian.

240 mph, my arse !!!, Autocar could barely coax the wheezing heap past 200 mph.
240mph for the Koenigsegg CC8S is plausible given that you have the ideal conditions to attempt such a speed - the Jaguar XJ220 "only" managed 205mph when tested in Britain but a later test managed 217mph (on the Nardo Proving Grounds in Italy, I believe). Remember that the Koenigsegg CC8S weighs less than 1138kg (the McLaren F1's curb weight), has 655bhp compared the F1's 627bhp, 553lb/ft of torque compared to the F1's 479lb/ft and the CC8S has a lower drag coefficient than the F1 so it is almost certain that the CC8S will beat the F1's 240.14mph top speed

They also break down lots and have obviously been engineered and assembled with the same care and attention reserved for Fiat Puntos
:iagr: That's why I'm not a fan of the 456 - it has too much Fiat switchgear and is infamously unreliable, particularly the automatic version.
As for the Enzo, the build quality of the carbon-fibre panels could be a lot better. You really just pay for the engine, gearbox, brakes and the Ferrari name.
 
G

·
I am not criticising the style of the interior, but the quality of materials used in its in construction. Yes the GT40 may have had a cheap interior, but it was a race car and it was the 60's. If I am paying 100 grand, I want leather on the dashboard and some really good switchgear. It looks cheap, and it isn't just me that thinks that way.

The unpronouncable Swedish car has had two attempts at showing how brain numbingly fast it is, but on both occasions it failed to beat the Zonda. Top speed is affected by many different factors and I don't doubt that the difference between good and bad conditions could be worth 20 mph. However, this supposed 240 mph car has barely reached 200 mph and that is a massive gap. However, this immense power and low weight combo should show itself in the acceleration figures and 8.4 seconds to 100 mph from rest is well off the pace, the heavier Zonda with nearly 100 bhp less was 1 second quicker to 100 mph from rest and that is a relatively massive gap in supercar terms. As a good comparison, a TVR Tuscan S can do zero to 100 mph in 8.8 seconds and that only had 390 bhp, this is more impressive when you realise that Tuscans actually weigh nearly 1100kgs .

So, I believe that swedish boys are either lying about the power output, lying about the weight, or both. What better way to get press for your unknown car by making outrageous claims that get the car featured in all the magazines. ?

The new M5 will have in excess of 500 bhp, all of the AMG 55's have 500 bhp ( 493 as quoted is at the lowest manufacturing tolerance band ) and the new RS family of Audi's will be pushing 500 bhp. 500 bhp is nothing special or exotic. How much of a pratt will you feel when your £ 100,000 Ford gets wasted by a £60k german sports saloon ????

As a final note, the XJ220 only achieved 217 mph with the cats removed (i.e it was pumping out more than 542 bhp )

I personally don't think the Mclaren will ever be beaten, the Bugatti may have a chance if they ever make the thing, but it takes 1000 horsepower to do it.

The one thing that sticks in my mind whenever I think of the Mclaren is the zero to 200 mph time. 28 seconds !!!

This is fun, intelligent and reasoned discussion !

Long may it continue
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
122 Posts
The one thing that sticks in my mind whenever I think of the Mclaren is the zero to 200 mph time. 28 seconds !!!
I have to mention this, the figures for the McLaren was done with the XP5, one of McLaren's prototype cars, and also that special top speed car. Notice that McLaren had them photograph the XP4 car but test the XP5 car for figures. Something fishy ? I (and I'm not alone) suspect that this car had a special little engine in it. The truer figure would be the R&T test in 1997 when they tested an actual customer car in Phoenix, Arizona. Have you seen that article ? 0-100 in 7.7 seconds. . . quite a bit slower than autocar's figures. . . .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
65 Posts
Ford has a cheap interior, not exclusive enough.
That's a very harsh statement - the interior was designed to keep the essence of the GT40 MkII so it needs to have that modern/retro look. Ford couldn't really make the GT's interior look like that of the Pagani Zonda, for example, without completely ruining the essence of the original car.

500 bhp is enough for super saloons, not hypercars
The Ferrari F40 and the original Lamborghini Diablo have 478bhp, and 492bhp respectively and can break the 200mph barrier - can you seriously say that they don't have enough power? Granted they are 16, and 13 years old respectively but you can question their being "hypercars" as much as you can question whether or not the Pope is a Christian.

240 mph, my arse !!!, Autocar could barely coax the wheezing heap past 200 mph.
240mph for the Koenigsegg CC8S is plausible given that you have the ideal conditions to attempt such a speed - the Jaguar XJ220 "only" managed 205mph when tested in Britain but a later test managed 217mph (on the Nardo Proving Grounds in Italy, I believe). Remember that the Koenigsegg CC8S weighs less than 1138kg (the McLaren F1's curb weight), has 655bhp compared the F1's 627bhp, 553lb/ft of torque compared to the F1's 479lb/ft and the CC8S has a lower drag coefficient than the F1 so it is almost certain that the CC8S will beat the F1's 240.14mph top speed

They also break down lots and have obviously been engineered and assembled with the same care and attention reserved for Fiat Puntos
:iagr: That's why I'm not a fan of the 456 - it has too much Fiat switchgear and is infamously unreliable, particularly the automatic version.
As for the Enzo, the build quality of the carbon-fibre panels could be a lot better. You really just pay for the engine, gearbox, brakes and the Ferrari name.
Actually, believe it or not, the Ferrari F40's engine produces WAYYYYYY more than 478hp. According to some video I saw, Ferrari had to detune the engine to that amount. It originally produced 600+ hp and was rather unstable with that much power.
 
1 - 20 of 59 Posts
Top