Ferrari Testarossa
#16
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
By 2002, Ferrari was getting 400HP out of a 3.6L V8, so with 15% less displacement, Ferrari achieved 30% more HP. They also offered the Enzo with a V12 putting out 660HP, a 3.6 second 0-62 mph, and a top speed of 220 mph.
The 2002 Modenas and Spiders, both with the 3.6L 400HP V8, were low to mid 4 second cars, 0-62 mph, 25% quicker than a SC430, and a top speed in the 180 mph range, all for an extra $100k.
The 2002 Modenas and Spiders, both with the 3.6L 400HP V8, were low to mid 4 second cars, 0-62 mph, 25% quicker than a SC430, and a top speed in the 180 mph range, all for an extra $100k.
#17
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
That being said, most figures that I recall reading on Testarossas was a 0-60 time in the low 5s (5.2 seems to come to mind but I am too lazy to google it) and a top end around 180. A Testarossa isn't hitting 190+ unless it's had a trip to Bob Norwood.
Regardless, the Ferrari certainly feels MUCH faster than an SC430, you can't compare a screaming V12 right behind your head at WOT versus a heavily sound insulated V12 in front of a dual skinned firewall
![Wink](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif)
Besides, and no offense intended, I also own a Lexus, but let's face it, you're comparing a car that's considered to be something of an automotive isolation chamber to a car that's designed to offer a very raw and involving driving experience, it's not just about performance figures with a Ferrari, they are just... special
![Big Grin](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
#18
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
By 2002, Ferrari was getting 400HP out of a 3.6L V8, so with 15% less displacement, Ferrari achieved 30% more HP. They also offered the Enzo with a V12 putting out 660HP, a 3.6 second 0-62 mph, and a top speed of 220 mph.
The 2002 Modenas and Spiders, both with the 3.6L 400HP V8, were low to mid 4 second cars, 0-62 mph, 25% quicker than a SC430, and a top speed in the 180 mph range, all for an extra $100k.
The 2002 Modenas and Spiders, both with the 3.6L 400HP V8, were low to mid 4 second cars, 0-62 mph, 25% quicker than a SC430, and a top speed in the 180 mph range, all for an extra $100k.
The cars you mentioned get the following mpg (city/hwy):
2003 Enzo: 8/12
2002 360 Modena: 11/16
I find it interesting that people are comparing an SC430 to Ferraris. Let's be honest here; in stock form, the handling of the SC430 is abysmal. While there is not much to argue about regarding acceleration comparisons, the handling of a car is a major component that can't be ignored. Any post-1985 Ferrari will out handle an SC430 hands down. So while it can be argued that the SC430 is 75 percent as fast as a Ferrari for 30 percent of the price etc., that comparison omits significant criteria that factor into the evaluation of a car. With that said, I would never own a Ferrari due to the horrendous maintenance and repair costs. That, and I can't afford to purchase one. A Corvette, however, will do almost anything a comparable Ferrari can do, will get better gas mileage, is actually reliable, and will look good doing it (I am a bit biased. though).
#19
Moderator
![](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/ranks/rank-mod2.gif)
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I drove a friend's Audi R8 a few months ago, and the handling was spectacular, but is certainly not something I would want for my use at any price.
For me, the way the SC430 handles at 60-100 (highway speeds) is perfect: smooth, quiet and dignified. I don't throw it around corners at 65 mph, and don't need track-worthy shocks or high speed mud flaps. I like getting on the expressway (ROAD TRIP!!) for a fast, reliable, quiet ride to my destination where I can put the top down and everybody wants a ride (one at a time, please - although little kids fit on the package shelf without complaint). For general use as a touring vehicle it meets my needs better than anything else I can think of.
Still, having a Ferrari in the garage also would be nice.
For me, the way the SC430 handles at 60-100 (highway speeds) is perfect: smooth, quiet and dignified. I don't throw it around corners at 65 mph, and don't need track-worthy shocks or high speed mud flaps. I like getting on the expressway (ROAD TRIP!!) for a fast, reliable, quiet ride to my destination where I can put the top down and everybody wants a ride (one at a time, please - although little kids fit on the package shelf without complaint). For general use as a touring vehicle it meets my needs better than anything else I can think of.
Still, having a Ferrari in the garage also would be nice.
#20
![Default](https://www.clublexus.com/forums/images/icons/icon1.gif)
While I think that getting more power out of a smaller engine is an achievement of sorts, the associated gas mileage is terrible. I suppose the advantage of a smaller engine is less weight, and that's about it.
The cars you mentioned get the following mpg (city/hwy):
2003 Enzo: 8/12
2002 360 Modena: 11/16
I find it interesting that people are comparing an SC430 to Ferraris. Let's be honest here; in stock form, the handling of the SC430 is abysmal. While there is not much to argue about regarding acceleration comparisons, the handling of a car is a major component that can't be ignored. Any post-1985 Ferrari will out handle an SC430 hands down. So while it can be argued that the SC430 is 75 percent as fast as a Ferrari for 30 percent of the price etc., that comparison omits significant criteria that factor into the evaluation of a car. With that said, I would never own a Ferrari due to the horrendous maintenance and repair costs. That, and I can't afford to purchase one. A Corvette, however, will do almost anything a comparable Ferrari can do, will get better gas mileage, is actually reliable, and will look good doing it (I am a bit biased. though).
The cars you mentioned get the following mpg (city/hwy):
2003 Enzo: 8/12
2002 360 Modena: 11/16
I find it interesting that people are comparing an SC430 to Ferraris. Let's be honest here; in stock form, the handling of the SC430 is abysmal. While there is not much to argue about regarding acceleration comparisons, the handling of a car is a major component that can't be ignored. Any post-1985 Ferrari will out handle an SC430 hands down. So while it can be argued that the SC430 is 75 percent as fast as a Ferrari for 30 percent of the price etc., that comparison omits significant criteria that factor into the evaluation of a car. With that said, I would never own a Ferrari due to the horrendous maintenance and repair costs. That, and I can't afford to purchase one. A Corvette, however, will do almost anything a comparable Ferrari can do, will get better gas mileage, is actually reliable, and will look good doing it (I am a bit biased. though).
The only time any Ferrari and a SC430 are close, is if they happen to be next to each other at a red stop light.
As for the Vette, always has been the best buy for your performance $.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
14, 1985, 2008, aftermarket, beach, ferrari, mile, millenium, pebble, performance, problems, staggered, stats, testarossa, wheels