Sure, Ferrari kept the horsepower slightly under 500, but the Ferrari 430 an entry level vehicle for them. I think the 430 is a supercar on the grounds that it reaches 196mph and 60mph a knats hair under 4 seconds. Even the 200+mph Lamborghini Murcielago lp640 only reaches 60mph in 3.5 seconds. And nobody questions whether a Murcie is a supercar.

More importantly, a view of supercar must be viewed in either the context of “racing track car” or “super sports car” for street driving. Too often the two different classes of cars are lumped in the same category by car lovers and even manufacturers. For example, a murcie LP670 can burn practically any car south of a million bucks, but few people(mostly just car reviewers) are risking their expensive street lambo’s on a race track anymore than people are driving their 80k SUV’s in rough muddy off road conditions.

With stock supercars like the Bugatti Veyron (250mph)we see a clear blending of street/track classes. Most stock sports cars are not designed to travel beyond 150mph….and that by far does not include a Ferrari 430!!! Whoever needs that kind of speed in the first place is another issue. I really like the aerodynamic body style, handling, very brisk accelation, the engine sound, the feel, and yes it seems great for an occasional “brisk” run when CHiPs and traffic isn’t around!!!

Secondly, we sometimes read that the 430 isn’t super because it isn’t a V12, the engine isn’t in the precise location, the HP/L ratio isn’t optimal, and other technical arguments. Suffice it to say there are many other considerations that can make a car super fast. There are 2 kinds of fast… top speed and accelaration rate to that top speed.

Casper, 500+ HP is nice. Other considerations include body aerodynamics, weight to hp ratio, weight to torque ratio, tire type, transmission setting that allows maximum lower speed torque, how much air induction,fuel type, computer tuning, and a host of high tech/high speed gadgets to name only a few. Few cars come with “everything” considered and those that do are certain classes of extremely expensive racetrack cars. Too bad you don’t get something for nothing, in the speed game. Efficiency on some level will be sacrificed. Want a SUPERCAR??? Try a dragster. They only travel in one direction at 300+mph (remember no free lunch here) and they drink $1200.00+ per barrel rocket fuel like a thristy elephant!!!

Top speed isn’t the most important item in a car like a Ferrari 430. Used as a racer on a track with many curves, there would rarely be a chance to reach its 196mph. Then we begin to get into suspensions and balance for curves that trims time off the clock.

Finally, I would humbly suggest that minute differences among the stock street level supercars may be secondary to things like… how do you feel using them and how much do you like them.

Well, you really need to do a little research on the efficiency of a Corvette before wasting TTAC’s bandwidth. What good is HP/L when the LS7/LS9 motors are far cheaper, less complex, make more power, more torque, are more reliable, smaller, lighter, and get better fuel economy than the Ferrari 4.3 to boot?

1) The ZR1 has a supercharged 6.2, not a 7.0L.
2) The Z06 has a 7.0L.
3) The ZR1 gets better gas mileage than the F430, despite its “enormous” V8.
4) The 7.0L Z06 is still faster than the F430, and gets even better mileage than even the ZR1…plus, it’s lighter. Look up the gear ratios to see why a 7.0 can use less fuel than an exotic 4.3L motor.
5) There is no 399 GTB, it’s a 599 GTB.
6) There is no F440, but rather an F430 and the old F40.

The 430 is a magnificent car and in my humble opinion one of the best cars around these days.

Will I ever own one? Probably not, – and it really doesn’t matter since we’re talking “dream cars” here, and please don’t take away our dreams ;-)

Be it a passionate Ferrari or an honest Ranger XL, the intangibles will always guide (not override) the evaluation process for me. And most everyone here at TTAC. :)

Agreed, Sajeev. My point is the way in which cars are initially reviewed, apples to apples, stock to stock. At that level, cache isn’t a factor.

Oh my goodness! Maybe I’ve spent too much time in the customizing/hot rodding realm, but a Car/Truck/Minivan/Sports Car can be anything you want it to be. It is a canvas for your imagination, dreams, aspirations.

Be it a passionate Ferrari or an honest Ranger XL, the intangibles will always guide (not override) the evaluation process for me. And most everyone here at TTAC. :)

A car is a piece of machinery serving as the modern replacement for a horse. It’s job is to transport people and/or cargo from one point to another. Different segments serve different purposes. The pickup truck is designed to transport workers/cargo/heavy equipment/trailers. The sedan is designed to carry 5-6 people down the road comfortably. The minivan is designed to carry a family and their cargo around town. And the sports car is designed to carry a driver around the track/road faster than other vehicles running against it on a track/road. Brand cache is not the point of any vehicle. Cache is an immaterial notion conjured in the minds of buyers. To me, it has no place in evaluating a car.

p00ch, to your Q2: Where? In Yank-land, I suppose Vettes are far too common to get you noticed; in Italy, it may well be the other way around.

1) driving pleasure
2) to get ‘noticed’ by whichever gender tickles our fancy

Comparing the 430 to a Vette, 1) may be up for discussion. However, moving on to 2), which car would you rather be seen in when parking in front of the hottest nightclub/social event in the city?

How ridiculous. Is it cheating if Ferrari uses higher revs to achieve power in their engines rather than increasing mean effective pressure with a supercharger? How about using more cam, or bigger valves? Is that cheating?

I was just referring to your post above about a supercar being all about pure power not weight reduction. I don’t know that you can define what makes a supercar. To parphrase a Supreme Court Justice, it’s like pronography; you know it when you see it.

:-)

Ferrari themselves say the new F430 Stradale is as fast around a track as an Enzo. With the explosion in hp, it’s really hard to differentiate between a regular high performance car and a supercar.

What’s the performance difference between a Gallardo and a Murcielago? I wouldn’t be surprised if the Gallardo Superleggera (the lightweight version) is actually faster than Murcielago around some tracks. There’s certainly negligible difference between the 2 cars when you’re talking about legal speeds on public roads

The hp war has driven performance up so high that there are a lot of cars bunched at the top that have little to separate them. Although I am proud to drive a Corvette, even I don’t think it’s right that my Vette should be as fast in 99% of public-road situations than a Ferrari. The difference between a 5.5sec 0-60 and a 4.5 sec 0-60 is pretty significant. Now evem a base Vette with proper tires can do a low 4.1sec 0-60 so a Ferrari that can do a 3.9 sec 0-60 is barely faster. That’s not the way it should be and one of the reasons I’m anticipating the end of the hp wars, so the divine automotive order is restored

Would you then say that an F1 Mclaren isn’t a supercar? What is it then? After all, it is lighter than a Miata and “only” produces a little over 600 hp with a top speed of 241 mph (only challenged by the Veyron).

The thing is, most every car over $60,000 (or less for a Vette) has performance that rivals/destroys the supercars of yesteryear. (except fashion statements like Aston Martin) You have to go above and beyond to make a supercar statement these days. (just like the Testarossa and Countach did years ago)

Doc V8: Yeah, NOW I do know that F50/Enzo have V12s — somebody else also pointed it out before you. (Actually, I might even have known this, at some time, but just forgot. Either way, it didn’t fit into my story. :-)

Thing is… I can still not see them as “supercars”. I don’t know if they’re tainted by their 288GTO/F40 heritage — or rather, yes, I know that that’s why I can’t — but I’m not quite sure in which way it works: Is it because their forebears had only eight cylinders? That seems silly… Sure, I can be silly with the best of them — but hopefully not in exactly this illogical way. No, what I think it is, is that the GTO-to-Enzo line is too light, too racecar-y:

It’s as if the definition of “supercar” I have built-in since pre-puberty (as someone put it) includes a bit like this:

“Sure, anyone can make it go fast by making it lighter, but then it’s just a Lotus. Those things are built mostly for the track; that’s not what a ’supercar’ is all about. A ’supercar’ is all about going just (or, OK, almost) as fast as a race car, but without ‘cheating’ (i.e, doing things the intelligent way) and reducing weight. That’s precisely (a large part of) what is so ’super’ about them, that they’re so gloriously raw-power-über-alles stupid about it! A real ’supercar’ is quintesentially a big street car, not a beast that even could put in a credible performance at a race track. And never, ever, the model in its maker’s line-up with the second-biggest engine.

Or something like that.

(Not that any of this really matters in the real world, of course. :-)