[Boxer]

In general the F40 receives very positive reviews across the board. The F50 in comparision seems to be a bit unloved. In many ways it is Ferraris forgotten supercar. Any idea why ? Opinions ?

[archiegibbs]

I've no idea, although it's unlikely I'll ever drive one, I have seen a couple close up recently (one at the 60th Relay at Donington) and they look fabulous, the plexiglass screen at the back shows off the V12, and the shape marks a bold move away from the pointed wedge of the 80's and early 90's designs, far more curvy in keeping with the more rounded late 90's Pininfarina designs. I believe the F50 included far more F1 technology than the 288 and F40, but can't remember what it was.
There's one for sale at Nick cartwrights, a snip at 310K GBP or 620K USD So I don't think it's suffering from depreciation, and with only 349 examples made they'll always be in short supply.
I've seen Clarkson's reviews on TG c.1996 and he still preferred the F40.

[Andrew]

Originally Posted by Boxer

In general the F40 receives very positive reviews across the board. The F50 in comparision seems to be a bit unloved. In many ways it is Ferraris forgotten supercar. Any idea why ? Opinions ?

Funny, I was thinking about this exact topic the other day.

The strange thing is the F50 is a very raw car with not nearly as many computers as the Enzo so you would think the car would be like the F40. Boxer, I think you need to get behind the wheel of an F50 and then give us a good comparison after having driven both.

I think the F40 is more loved because it is quicker, lighter and more agile which translates into a more fun drive. The design on the F50 is also harder for some to accept.

[stile - alpine]

well, the F40 is turbo, to me that makes a difference

but I know many people that love the F50 and think it is the best Ferrari of all times

but I agree that the F50 fan-club is smaller than the F40's and Enzo's

[Ferruccio]

I've heard from some that it was because Ferrari tried to make an F1 car for the road, and it just couldn't compare.

I absolutely love the F50. What a vicious sound! I've never seen one in person, though.

[FunkyJunc]

I have heard that the F50 is maybe poorly concieved. With its direct F1 roots and compromises made to make it street worthy the car lacks some important details. Specifically Ive heard it being smashed on its 'feel'. With so much power it translates poorly through the Carbon Fiber and makes the car jittery at higher speeds and such.

I wouldnt know any of this first hand of course.

I too was also curious bout this question. Mainly because the F50 takes triple the price of the F40 at sale.

[Boxer]

Here are the main differences:

F40
Engine: V8
cc: 2936
Bhp: 478 at 7000 rpm
Power: 162.8 hp/liter
Chassis: Tubular
Weight: 1235 kg
Wheelbase: 2450 mm
Length: 4436 mm
Width: 1970 mm
Top Speed 324 km/h


F50
Engine: V12
cc: 4698
Bhp: 520 at 8500 rpm
Power: 111 hp/liter
Chassis: Carbon Fiber
Weight: 1230 kg
Wheelbase: 2450 mm
Length: 4480 mm
Width: 1986 mm
Top Speed 325 km/h

On paper, the numbers are very close. Neither car is overly encumbered by drivers aids and both have a reputation for rawness.

My guess is that the difference comes down to power delivery. The F40 on boost is savage. The F50 is progressive. Right now the F50 commands a 50% premium in Europe but the gap was wider a few years ago (F40s have been going up recently).

[Boxer]

Originally Posted by Enzo250GTO

Boxer, I think you need to get behind the wheel of an F50 and then give us a good comparison after having driven both.

.

Can I borrow the FerrariLife F50 for the weekend ?

[marlin]

IMHO the look of the F40 has the rawness, looks like its doing 200mph when its standing still, the F50 almost looks soft in comparison.

[koolaid117]

I forget about the F50 many times when thinking about Ferrari's, going from the F40 to the Enzo and I think people were expecting something truly spectacular for the 50th Anniversary of Ferrari and the F50 wasn't spectacular enough. (I can't imagine saying that about a Ferrari.) I think an Enzo type design would have made it more favorable.


Jim

[CDF]

I am still new to Ferrari discussions, but the F40 does seem to come up often, and the F50 rarely.

Nevertheless, it's the Ferrari I would choose if a genie materialized from a bottle and granted me any Ferrari I wanted. (But if the genie misunderstood my wish and an F40 materialized, I wouldn't say a word.)

I've never driven an F50, but I remember seeing a video of the thing rotating 360 degrees, and it was just the most demonic (but beautiful) thing I've ever seen. And since it superceded the F40, shouldn't it be just a hair faster overall? Has any Ferrari been slower than its predecessor?

Sometimes, when I step into the garage at night, I look at my F355 and see subtle F50 elements that I don't see in any other model. No wonder I love the F355.

Today I took the F355 to Norwood performance in Dallas for maintenance, and a mechanic there told me about an F50 they turbocharged to make 700+ bhp. Incredible that someone would feel the need to do that. Faster than I'll ever live to be.

That's my contrarian opinion; the F50 seems a little unloved, but I don't know why.

[Matthew@tingdene.net]

The F40 had fairly massive publicity when it was launched with every magazine having their view on the battle between the F40 and 959 plus the symbolic fact of being the first production car to top the 200mph. The F50 were just not seen.

[Boxer]

Originally Posted by Matthew@tingdene.net

The F40 had fairly massive publicity when it was launched with every magazine having their view on the battle between the F40 and 959 plus the symbolic fact of being the first production car to top the 200mph. The F50 were just not seen.

Unfortunately this is still the case. Your chances of seeing a F40 are 10x that of a F50.

[Vulcan F-40]

Dear Comrades,

My own view is that the F-40 would have been even more fabulous were it to have had a proper twelve cylinder engine.

With kind regards,

Vulcan

[Boxer]

Originally Posted by Vulcan F-40

Dear Comrades,

My own view is that the F-40 would have been even more fabulous were it to have had a proper twelve cylinder engine.

With kind regards,

Vulcan

Dear Comrade Vulcan,

It is an interesting proposal but I am not sure the resulting machina would be managable by us insignificant driving mortals. The 12 cylinder non turbo F50 already has skull crushing acceleration, strapping a pair of turbos onto it might result in Louis XVI type experience.

Sincerely,

Boxer

[JazzyO]

Originally Posted by Boxer

Dear Comrade Vulcan,

It is an interesting proposal but I am not sure the resulting machina would be managable by us insignificant driving mortals. The 12 cylinder non turbo F50 already has skull crushing acceleration, strapping a pair of turbos onto it might result in Louis XVI type experience.

Sincerely,

Boxer

I think he meant a normally aspirated V12 in the F40, Boxer.


Onno

[Brian]

Originally Posted by Vulcan F-40

Dear Comrades,

My own view is that the F-40 would have been even more fabulous were it to have had a proper twelve cylinder engine.

With kind regards,

Vulcan

The F40 was built during a time when it was advantageous to capitalize not only on all the attention turbocharged F1 cars were getting but also to capitalize on Ferrari's expertise in the application of such systems.

In other words it was the right car at the right time for the market place that existed.

Also no matter what we may want Ferrari is very wise in delivering to us a well rounded package. While other cars may be better in one performance catagory or another (Think Veyron) Ferrari gives us a well rounded package with a broad spectrum of brilliant capabilities that is so well packaged that it makes us look good by broadening our abilities.


There is no point in bringing to market a car that mere mortals cannot drive well.

[Brian]

Originally Posted by CDF

That's my contrarian opinion; the F50 seems a little unloved, but I don't know why.

I worked in the dealers during the time both were for sale. The F40 was an immediate hit styling wise while few ever warmed up to the design of the F50.

If you drove both you would understand that the F50 was an improvement over the F40 in ways that cannot be described by numbers generated by a stopwatch or a telemetry device. It is a display of the lack of talent on the part of automotive journalists that they are unable to describe the capabilities of a car with the written word, that they need to rely on mechanically generated numbers. Faulkner and Hemmingway didn't write for car magazines.

[archiegibbs]

Originally Posted by Boxer

Unfortunately this is still the case. Your chances of seeing a F40 are 10x that of a F50.

I've only ever seen 3 F50's, 2 at shows and 1 at a dealers. I haven't kept count of the number of F40's I've seen, but I suspect 10X is a good bet.

I've also only ever seen 3 288GTO's, again 2 at shows and 1 at a dealers.

And only 2 Enzo's both at the same event last Spring.

I've never seen any of these cars out on the open roads.

I still prefer the F40 out of all of the modern supercar Ferrari's, but the F50 come's very close, still prefer it to the Enzo and 288 GTO.

[Boxer]

Originally Posted by Brian

It is a display of the lack of talent on the part of automotive journalists that they are unable to describe the capabilities of a car with the written word, that they need to rely on mechanically generated numbers. Faulkner and Hemmingway didn't write for car magazines.

Completely agree. And the few who did get to drive it came away very intimidated. Auto journalists are not necessarily the world greatest drivers.