Enzo is the King of Supercars
 

With all the car magazines lately doing comparisons between the Enzo, CGT and SLR, it is pretty clear that the Enzo is in a league of its own. Also, I'm surprised that not much has been made of the Enzo absolutely blowing away the McLaren F1's previous 0-100-0mph record by more than half a second.

This is coming from someone who is a Porsche lover who would've loved to see the Enzo get trounced. But it didn't and so give credit where credit is due.

It accelerates better that's true but on a track, the CGT is not behind so i don't think it is in a league of its own. Wait and see if Best Motoring can compare both on the same time :wink:

I want to see a Speed 12-Enzo-Koenigsegg comparison. Those three cars are much more comparable IMO.

Its definetly better than the CGT and SLR but not in a different league ... , i would love to see it against the Koenigsegg CC8S but i think it will win also

First, i don't believe it's a league of it own. I believe the Enzo is better then the SLR(love the SLR though) But not better then the Carrera GT. I think the CGT and Enzo are equal. The Enzo wins in performance, but the Carrera GT is amazing. I also believe the Zonda is competition, it may not seem like it. But remember, the C12S develops 553 ft-lbs of torque @ 4,050 rpm. If you get the optional sports exhaust, it brings the C12S up to 600bhp and 580tq. I believe due to the weight of the Zonda, it is capable of 3.4 seconds( 0-60)

I think the Zonda/Koenigsegg/Enzo/Carrera GT are in the same league. But i think the Murcielago and SLR are in a different league.

Remember the CGT is a barebone car , the Enzo is full of amazing technology , i have no doubts that the Enzo will beat any supercar in the road today , and its definatyly better than a Zonda or a Koenigsegg ... maybe the CGT has a little chance against it

I believe the Enzo will beat most of the supercars on a track(CC8S might be able to touch it) In a straight line in think there are a few cars will be able to touch it.

"and its definatyly better than a Zonda or a Koenigsegg "

That's your opinion,.

So that means the Speed 12 would pwn both? :o

But rights, it should. The Speed 12 is amazing, but the problem i hear about the Speed 12 is it is very hard to drive and the wheels won't stop spinning.

I believe the Enzo is an enormously capable supercar, but the CGT and Zonda are extremely well built and very fast machines capable of fighting with an Enzo in a lot of aspects.

If raw speed is the issue, i think the McLaren and Koenigsegg are above the Enzo.

McLaren has flawed aerodynamics though. It's supposedly pretty scary when cornering at high speeds.

Yeah, agreed. Great post!

To my understanding the F1 doesn't have flawed aerodynamic. It's the suspension set up. It appears to body roll like crazy. The body leans out and i hear it's scary. But off course, i hear the reason for the suspension having that affect is because it is a soft. Soaking bumps and etc.

Enzo is great, but not sure that its the greatest of all time....supercar market is growing

very fast these days....competition is increasing... :)

I´m afraid it is the better of the three, I would have loved to see the CGT on top but the Enzo seems to be just a little better under most circumstances.

what about the Koenigsegg CCR??

As far as I know it hasn´t been tested against the other three jet, but I don´t think it´ll beat the Enzo anyway. Maybe just straight line speed but nothing more.

The CGT is a serious competitor for the Enzo I think. I think the Enzo has it beat, but the CGT is pretty complete as a supercar. There was even that test where the CGT beat the Enzo around that small track, but even St. Anger admitted the braking distance on the Enzo was pretty insanely terrible.

The Mclaren is likely still a little bit quicker than the Enzo. The only test where I've really seen the Enzo taken to an sort of higher speeds was one where all the cars had pretty terrible acceleration times. The Enzo was actually about a second slower to 200kph I believe than it had been previously been tested.

The Koenigsegg seems to have it on top speed, but no test has actually had the CC8S come close to even the CGT in a straightline. It's most impressive stat so far has been 16.6seconds to 150mph. The Enzo does that in about 13 seconds.

The CGT has been tested by many magasines as the Enzo too , in every comparison ive seen about the CGT and the SLR vs the Enzo , the Enzo tops them all , maybe the mclaren is better but at 1.5 million dollars its a little expensive , and about the Koenigsegg i dont think it can touch the enzo , the CCR or something like that might be faster with 806hp

Has anyone considered the enzo's price. I.E. alot more than the slr or cgt.

imo the enzo is the fastest track car, carrera can get close but never will be able to beat it...

Remember that the McLaren is designed to be a "practical" supercar - as oxymoronic as that is. That's the reason for the soft suspension. I'm sure it has more luggage capacity too. :roll: Clearly, the Enzo is not designed with "practicality" in mind, because everyone knows that there's no such thing as a practical supercar. Had the F1 been designed simply to be the best supercar without regard to comfort, things like nose-dive in hard braking would have been much better. For the year that the F1 was released, I find it amazing that a new Enzo is being compared to it.

In my own opinion, the F1 is still the benchmark for the best supercar ever made. I would love to see Tiff give back to back reviews on the Enzo, F1, Konigsegg and Zonda. Top Gear has the money (and the insurance) COME ON...DO IT!! :D

The MacF1 was a great car, but dont get ahead of youself. It was not the best car of its era. the F50 was quicker on a track, better handling and cost less the half . When buying a supercar, i dont think prcaticality matters much. Besides, if youve read anything on the Enzo, every journalist is shocked to see how comfortable it is to drive. read the Road and track review in the mag section.

It Was An OPINION
 

You're actually telling me that my -opinion- is wrong. That's pretty arrogant. :lol:

You missed the complete point of my posting. I was writing in response to someone commenting about the "instability" of the McLaren and the high amount of body roll. My response was that the McLaren was designed with "practicality" in mind - and essentially, that the body roll was probably a sacrifice for comfort. Although all supercars are supposed to have some practicality, the extent that McLaren tried to do it, is demonstrated in things like, body roll. Don't think that McLaren couldn't have dialed a lot of that out, if they wanted to.

I'm not disagreeing that in a supercar, you obviously make concessions, but the F1 was designed to be a supercar that you could actually use for regular everyday stuff. That's great that you don't think practicality matters in a supercar, but you're pointing out what I already said, that a "practical" supercar is oxymoronic. If practicality doesn't matter to you, the fact that an F50 cost half as much, also doesn't matter.

I have read various articles on the Enzo. I have the R&T article you're talking about. I'll chalk your post's insulting innuendo that I don't read shit before establishing an opinion, as an unintentional insult on your part.

What I was pointing out was that the McLaren makes more concessions to try and be more practical (as silly as that is), and that the Enzo was being compared to a car that's over 10 years old already. That, in itself, is pretty amazing to me.

Here's the info I pulled :

F50 / McLaren

Price: $480,000 / something like $1.2 million

Engine: 4699cc / 6064cc
513bhp @ 8500RPM / 627bhp @ 7400RPM
347ft-lbs @ 6500RPM / 479ft-lbs @ 4000RPM

Curb
Weight: 2710lbs / 2840lbs

Top
Speed: 203mph / 231mph

0-30: 1.8 secs / 1.7 secs

0-60: 3.6 secs / 3.4 secs

1-100: 8.0 secs / 7.7 secs

1/4 mile: 12.1 secs / 11.6 secs

Source:

http://www-atdp.berkeley.edu/9931/dfan/f50specs.html
http://www-atdp.berkeley.edu/9931/dfan/f1specs.html

(Obviously, the numbers will differ, depending on where you go and how hard you look, but that's what I found with a 5 second search on Google)

-----------

Based on those numbers, the McLaren is faster, and significantly so in the 1/4 mile, which is one of the things people use to compare a car's performance levels. I didn't find any back to back testing on a track though,which in my opinion is very important also. Whatever the case, in the end, whether either car is .2 seconds faster than the other may or may not play a part in someone's overall decision as to which car is better.

I've never driven either car. I think I'd be pretty safe in guessing that you've never driven an F50 or McLaren and that your opinion is also based on what you've read and heard (if I'm wrong, I stand corrected and you're definately luckier than I am). So in the end, you've convinced me of nothing other than the fact that you lack tact, you don't read well or your reading comprehension skills are challenged with even the simplest of writings, you're insulting (although possibly inadvertent insults) and that you're arrogant enough to tell someone that their own personal opinion is wrong. Go fukk yourself. :fist:

The F50 according to several people(including Tiff) is quicker around a track. Though if it was a really quick track I'm not sure.

Also the Euro version of the F1 did this:

0-60: 3.2
0-100: 6.3
1/4 mile: 11.1 or 11.0 not sure

The only regular supercar that has been tested independantly without slicks(mosler MT) that has come close to the F1 in a straightline is the Enzo.

0-60: 3.14 - 3.3
0-100: 6.5
1/4 mile: 11.1

I thought that the F1 got 3 seats and luggage space only because they found out it wouldn't affect the performance, so I think that's not really an argument...

And for the discussion... Wouldn't it be just perfect to have a machine which test all cars in the world and gives a specific result on all of them? I mean, that's the only way you can objectively test a supercar... A lap time gives a pretty good idea of how good it is, but if the difference is in the 1/100 of a second then you have to consider that the driver maybe had a lucky day and so on...
But maybe if there was a racing-league with all the cars involved, and the Enzo won all the races, then that'd maybe be objective enough...

One way to find out which is the quickest on the track would be the Top Gear track. I don't get it why did 5th gear test the Enzo and Top gear no?? :x
Just ask Jay Kay to bring his one for a hot lap. :D

I think the Mc F1 and the Koenigsegg are straight line speed cars, not track cars.

Yeah.. but a Top Gear track test is not very objective.... Not all of them get good conditions, and they don't really care.. The times are just for fun, although it is a way to find out that 360 Challenge Stradale IS faster then f.ex. an Evo...

HoboPie and StanAE86.....

i think ur figures are slightly unaccurate..
the enzo can do the quater mile in 11.0 secs flat and te f1 in 10.7 flat..
both are claimed by manufacturers.. i know that for sure..
apart from the buggati veryon the MC f1 is still the only stock road car that can break the 11 sec barrier...

oh sorry and the koenisseggg i forgot i think can do it in 10.9 not sure about that

Hahaha, if that EVER makes it to the market.

I'd be highly doubtful that adding two seats and luggage would do nothing to the performance numbers on a car, but even assuming that's the case, the fact that McLaren then went ahead and did that, makes the car that much more usable for daily use. The fact that the car still rips off the performance numbers that it does, and can still take two more passengers and a decent amount of lugguage is my point.

I haven't said that it's the worlds fastest car in all categories. It could have been slower in EVERY category. But the fact that it's more usable, is why I think it's still the benchmark car. If someone came out with a car that is fastest in every performance test, but you sit in an F1-style cockpit with no other space...from an "all around" standpoint, I think it's not as good as the McLaren. If the numbers absolutely smash all other cars out there, then that might be significant enough that the drawbacks of sitting in a single cockpit would be secondary to the phenomenal performance numbers. But the McLaren is still right up there within 1 second of other supercars that are not as "usable". This is certainly changing with newer cars coming to the market. But the fact that these new cars are compared with the McLaren, that came out in the 1990s is evidence of how many people still think the McLaren is a benchmark car. Some may disagree and that's fine, I'm not going to tell you you're wrong. :lol:

I think the McLaren does the task of "everything", the best, not that it's the best at everything.

Hope that helps to clarify...

Manufacturer estimates are ok numbers to work with before tests, but both cars have been tested. The Enzo has been tested several times and 11.1 has been repeated several times, even when early acceleration was sometimes a little off. The Mclaren has really only been tested once in standard setup. It was the XP5, but that is as good as we are going to get.

It did 11 seconds flat. It has never done 10.7

See what happens on the following months when the rivals get some better cars....in fact, this rivalry is a non stop challenge in order to get the best car in some sense(the 0-60 miles per hour acceleration, a lap time on the track, whatever) in the moment of of a certain car launching in the market.....for instance Koenisseg has announced its following model for the following days, the car in question has 800bhp, and some scaring performance data; Lamborghini has announced a light GT version of the murcielago as well.....every car enthusiast look forward to every launch of this type of cars anytime

Definitely, more(quality) supercars is definitely better.

I would say that the Enzo, the Porsche GT, and the McLaren F1(alongside the mercedes CLK-GTR, the Porsche GT1)...are in one league and very similar each other......very quick cars, very light, and quite short wheel base, just for racingm and skilled drivers, no matter if they have the minimun level of confort required, the equipment.....

Whereas the merc SLR has another philosophy, although it has quite similar performances, and grip to the previous cars, it has a good level of confort, equipment, easy to drive it.................