Talk:Ferrari F50
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Wikipedia Project Automobiles, a collective approach to creating a comprehensive guide to the world of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you are encouraged to visit the project page, where you can contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. | |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. | |
Is the car available for complete ownership, or is it still only available as a leased vehicle?
[edit] Some corrections should be made to this article
f50 had a lower top speed than f40, this is widely known. f50 had to look better (with inflated specs) than f40, so ferrari declared a fake top speed. Anyway the f50 is faster and handles better than f40.
Also it's considered a semi-failure in the aspect that it has a very harsh ride, even for a supercar, because of suspensions beign attached directly to engine a la f1 car.
Some kind of source for these two statements: [1]
"Sadly, F50 is now generally regarded as one of the few failures of Maranello. Compare with its predecessor, it was heavier and slower. Its naturally aspirated V12 produced far less torque than the older twin-turbo V8. Its barchetta architecture was nonsense to a 200mph supercar. Its soft roof blew off at high speed. Its vibration and harshness caused by mounting the engine directly to carbon fiber chassis was terrible even by supercar standard. Worst of all, it was the ugliest supercar ever appeared, beside Lister Storm of course." [2] --Licurgo 18:08, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
- The fact that its soft roof blew off at high speed is quite normal. You don't go 150+ mph in a convertible with its roof closed, not in the 1990's, not now, but that's no reason not to make one. As you said, the car was faster than its predecessor, the F40. The maximum torque of the F50 perhaps isn't that high, but when you'ld look at a torque graph (rpm vs torque) you'ld see there was a big improvement. I wouldn't call it a failure, unless you'ld say that not becoming as legendary as the F40 is a failure. That would make almost every car a failure though, so let's not say that. Besides, your article states it's "the only profitable supercar in the 90's", not bad for a failure. LPJ 09:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
The article is not mine, it's just an article available on the net :D.
f50 was a success (economically) because ferrari priced it right (unlike other supercars that asked for a really irrational amount of money, ironically enzo & >fxx especially< are a in this league of "expensiveness" today) and because everything ferrari touches turns into gold thanks to its giant brand recognition & fame. But a car can be a success economically while not beign-so-perfect on the mechanics department.
BTW I just wanted the inflated specs to be corrected... :D Everybody knows they aren't right.
Is there a (rational) reason for the f50 to be a targa car? I always thought that it didn't make a lot of sense for a car of that kind to be so. koenigsegg is also targa but I don't understand why (marketing maybe? rich people love convertibles :D). --Licurgo 14:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New Picture
I added the rear mesh picture of the F50 because it gives a good view of the engine. So i put it in the 'Engine' section. vipetheviper 18:33, 14 May 2007 (CST)
[edit] How many made?
In one place it says "349 made", in another "439 produced" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.129.178.46 (talk) 13:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
The correct production is 349 Dalau2 (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
