RE: Spotted: Ferrari Enzo Prototype For Sale

[zebedee]

ZeeTacoe said:

zebedee said:

ZeeTacoe said:

bobberz said:

spoonoff said:

An interesting oddity, but would anyone really take this over a real Enzo?

I would. I never understood the "clout" of the Enzo; looked terrible compared to the F40 (I won't mention the F50), and was still slower than the 15 years older McLaren F1!

evo reckon it's just as fast round a track as the f1 and when new it cost less than half as much(and that's without taking inflation into account)

But a Mclaren oozes sophisticated class and ability and has racing pedigree whereas the Enzo is just a slab of horrible details. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I remember seeing one on display at the Autosport show and on saying to my mate how ugly it was I saw someone looking at me incredulously, then he looked back and it and it almost looked like it was dawning on him. It was a car that petrolheads were almost expected to love just for what it represents, so they somehow never thought about it objectively, but when you do, you think - actually, that isn't very nice at all!

No actually the F1 looks wrong and the front end is rubbish. The racing versions improved it slightly but they did nothing to change the funny location of the passenger/greenhouse in the middle. And its got the tail lights from a coach. But this like your comment is opinion and we'll never agree. What can be said though is that evo tested one on track with an F1 and for twice as much money new the f1 could only beat the enzo by 0.1 of a second(or a tenth of a percent per lap) despite having the same modern tyres and being dicked about with by one P Flemke.

I like the Enzo since I think it looks like an LMP1 car for the road.

It doesn't like an LMP1 car though. Whereas the F1 is a car that (in racing spec) won Le Mans outright. You are right, we won't agree!

[k-ink]

I mean I have never liked it at any stage. Either in photos or in real life. As you say, it's a jumble of odd random details. Aside from the name and power it doesn't seem to have much else to offer. The Maserati MC12 looks infinitely better to me. On another level all together.

[dannyj1986]

that is a work of art and should be cherished and maybe run once a year

[bobberz]

ZeeTacoe said:

zebedee said:

ZeeTacoe said:

bobberz said:

spoonoff said:

An interesting oddity, but would anyone really take this over a real Enzo?

I would. I never understood the "clout" of the Enzo; looked terrible compared to the F40 (I won't mention the F50), and was still slower than the 15 years older McLaren F1!

evo reckon it's just as fast round a track as the f1 and when new it cost less than half as much(and that's without taking inflation into account)

But a Mclaren oozes sophisticated class and ability and has racing pedigree whereas the Enzo is just a slab of horrible details. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder but I remember seeing one on display at the Autosport show and on saying to my mate how ugly it was I saw someone looking at me incredulously, then he looked back and it and it almost looked like it was dawning on him. It was a car that petrolheads were almost expected to love just for what it represents, so they somehow never thought about it objectively, but when you do, you think - actually, that isn't very nice at all!

No actually the F1 looks wrong and the front end is rubbish. The racing versions improved it slightly but they did nothing to change the funny location of the passenger/greenhouse in the middle. And its got the tail lights from a coach. But this like your comment is opinion and we'll never agree. What can be said though is that evo tested one on track with an F1 and for twice as much money new the f1 could only beat the enzo by 0.1 of a second(or a tenth of a percent per lap) despite having the same modern tyres and being dicked about with by one P Flemke.

I like the Enzo since I think it looks like an LMP1 car for the road.

Yes, but the McLaren was developed in the 1980s, long before the technology used to create the Enzo existed, and it's still faster- that was my point. Not only around a track, but let's not forget top speed: the F1 did between 232-240mph, considerably more than the Enzo. I know that I'll get a bunch of replies stating that "top speed doesn't matter because you can't realistically attain it on the road", but as a kid growing up, what performance statistic had the most clout in schoolyard bench racing? It certainly wasn't MPGs or lateral acceleration on a skidpad!

[bobberz]

zebedee said:

clonmult said:

zebedee said:

bobberz said:

spoonoff said:

An interesting oddity, but would anyone really take this over a real Enzo?

I would. I never understood the "clout" of the Enzo; looked terrible compared to the F40 (I won't mention the F50), and was still slower than the 15 years older McLaren F1!

well said, but that was too much mention of the F50! Oh no, said it again!

Was the ferrari that should not be named really that bad though? I've only seen one the one time (crawling through Kidsgrove years back), and that it looked .... quite good?

technically I think it was very good and great to drive but it is truly horrid to look at. Got up close to one in the south of France and it was just - nasty really. No real finesse on a car that should have had so much of it and a real let-down after the F40.

Well, tbh it wasn't that bad, it's just that its '90s blobby shape hasn't aged as well as the F40. That said, I've only seen an F50 close-up once, but there are several F40s around here. That raises a question, are F50s rarer than the F40? Anybody know any resources where I could find production numbers comparing the F40, F50, and Enzo?

[spoonoff]

bobberz said:

zebedee said:

clonmult said:

zebedee said:

bobberz said:

spoonoff said:

An interesting oddity, but would anyone really take this over a real Enzo?

I would. I never understood the "clout" of the Enzo; looked terrible compared to the F40 (I won't mention the F50), and was still slower than the 15 years older McLaren F1!

well said, but that was too much mention of the F50! Oh no, said it again!

Was the ferrari that should not be named really that bad though? I've only seen one the one time (crawling through Kidsgrove years back), and that it looked .... quite good?

technically I think it was very good and great to drive but it is truly horrid to look at. Got up close to one in the south of France and it was just - nasty really. No real finesse on a car that should have had so much of it and a real let-down after the F40.

Well, tbh it wasn't that bad, it's just that its '90s blobby shape hasn't aged as well as the F40. That said, I've only seen an F50 close-up once, but there are several F40s around here. That raises a question, are F50s rarer than the F40? Anybody know any resources where I could find production numbers comparing the F40, F50, and Enzo?

Was reading through the thread preparing a defence of the Enzo in my head, but when it comes to it, if I could have just one... it'd be the F40.

[suredelights]

there is something very f1 about it though.

[OlberJ]

I love that profile shot.

[AndrewW-G]

bobberz said:

Anybody know any resources where I could find production numbers comparing the F40, F50, and Enzo?

Excluding pre production and none series custom and race cars i.e. HRH the Sultan of Brunei's RHD F50's arent included in the official production figures

288 GTO - 272 customer cars in series production run

F40 - 1315 customer cars in series production run

F50 - 349 customer cars in series production run

Enzo - 400 customer cars in series production run

Compared to the number of series cars produced pre the FIAT takeover of SEFAC, there all mass produced

[will261058]

This looks much better than an Enzo but spoils the look of the 348.