I would put the ZR1 against a 90 testarossa in the 1/4 any day of the week

 

Actually I believe an F40 was $400,000.00. The 1996 Corvette listed at about $40K. The 1988 Corvette started at about $30K. So comparing a car that costs from 10 to 13 times as much - is it 10 to 13 times better. Absolutely not. The 1989 328 was about $85k plus a gas guzzler tax of $1500. Was it 2 to 3 times better? Nope.

This whole comparison and debate started because of a truly stupid ad for a Ferrari 328 claiming it was a "corvette killer". Okay which generation? Not C7, C6 or C5. Maybe "walks away" from an early c4 in a straight line (that doesn't make it a "corvette killer") but certainly not a ZR1 or LT4; probably not an LT1. And handling - C4 takes it in the twisties. And at $70K asking for a used one - I can get a nice ZR1, a C5, a used Harley bagger and have lots of change left over.

As for beating all of the GM products of the eighties and early nineties in a straight line - again ZR1; 1987 GNX to name two.

 

I'll take a ZR-1, or Callaway, or the Turbo 89 TA against any of the prancing ponies.

Also the 288 GTO really?

 

$28,000? The were over $36,000 at the time, back when a third gen camaro could be had for $15,000. And yes, of course a fine piece of high quality Italian engineering will cost more than a production GM

Who gives a rats *** about 1/4? I can make a john deere tractor smoke a zr1 in the 1/4 mile


1.) Agreed; but people started chiming in saying that a corvette can take down Ferrari's, but that would be only a half truth. My point is that a corvette of that vintage (gm's stallion of the time) could only toy w/ the bottom of the barrel ferrari's.

2.) Again, nobody besides select Americans give a rats *** about 1/4 mile, straight racing times. The rest of the world likes to turn the steering wheel and use the brake pedal.

A 288 gto has half the engine (2.8 liters), but more horesepower than the famed "zr1". Sounds like a decent gig to me?

Not to mention they weight over 1,000lbs less than that piggy ZR1.

 

The hell you say... Really?? Any prancing ponies???
The F40 was considered by most as the ZR-1's arch rival in the day:

Ferrari F40 Specs: 1987-1992
Engine
Configuration Type F120 A 90º V8
Location Mid, longitudinally mounted
Construction alloy block and head
Displacement 2.936 liter / 179.2 cu in
Bore / Stroke 82.0 mm (3.2 in) / 69.5 mm (2.7 in)
Compression 7.8:1
Valvetrain 4 valves / cylinder, DOHC
Fuel feed Weber-Marelli Fuel Injection
Aspiration Two IHI Turbos with two Behr intercoolers
Power 478 bhp / 357 KW @ 7000 rpm
Torque 577 Nm / 426 ft lbs @ 4000 rpm
BHP/Liter 163 bhp / liter

Drivetrain
Chassis kevlar body on steel spaceframe, integrated with composite materials
Suspension (fr/r) unequal A arms, coaxial springs, Koni hydraulic shock absorbers, anti-roll bar
Steering rack-and-pinion
Brakes ventilated discs, all-round
Gearbox 5 speed Manual
Drive Rear wheel drive

Dimensions
Weight 1100 kilo / 2425.1 lbs
Length / Width / Height 4430 mm (174.4 in) / 1980 mm (78 in) / 1130 mm (44.5 in)
Wheelbase / Track (fr/r) 2450 mm (96.5 in) / 1594 mm (62.8 in) / 1610 mm (63.4 in)

Performance figures
Power to weight 0.43 bhp / kg
Top Speed 324 km/h (201 mph)
0-60 mph 3.5 s
0-100 mph 8.2 s

JMO, but the Turbo 89 TA wouldn't even hold a candle to the 328's handling capability (but I digress...)

When we Corvette enthusiasts start to compare the Corvette to Ferraris et al, we're on thin ice! The Ferrari caters to an entirely different market, and their most potent weapon is that cost is NOT a primary concern to their target clientele. When money is "no object" (or at least there is considerably more head room), a lot can be done to tip the scales in Ferrari's favor, to be honest.

However, you can bet your last cubic inch, whenever a Corvette vs. Ferrari comparison comes up, 1/4 mile performance will dominate the comparisons; totally ignoring any other aspects - as tho that were the sole measure/means for comparing any "sports" car. And, that absurdity extends to even suggest the TA or GN be included in the analysis. To me, that is absolutely ignorant to say the least - even to compare a TA or GN to a standard Corvette (all aspects considered) is just as absurd! (Does anyone think a TA or GN is going to show up an F40 or the Corvette at the 24 hourLe Mans or Road America/Road Atlanta, etc? I doan tink sooo!)

Comparing a Ferrari to a TA/GN is like comparing a Rolex to a Timex, or a Thoroughbred to a Clydesdale: there are some regions of cross comparison, but their purpose and bulk of their value reside in different arenas.

 

I agree...and great post!

Precisely why I said earlier, that:

 

People use Ferrari (and a lot of European cars, Porsche, BMW, etc) as a generic term. There are big differences between the cars they make, and they are not interchangeable. It would be like calling every car Chevrolet makes a Z06.

 

And if you tried flogging the F40 like you could a ZR-1 you'd have to pay the cost of a ZR-1 in repair costs. Same with any other Ferrari.

Who holds the endurance speed records? It isn't Ferrari. There's a reason for that, especially Ferraris from that period. They aren't exactly the most reliable cars, and for the cost involved? Lets just go with a 512 TR (assuming you aren't trying to buy a 30k Beater 512. The better ones start at 50k) vs the ZR-1... for the cost of the TR, you could buy a ZR-1 and go a modding. (the TR being one of the cheapest F cars from that era) and still have enough room left over to buy a Turbo TA.

And that ZR-1 Will curbstomp an F40.

Money is no object, the F cars still would lose out. Let alone god, the cost of an F40. (should watch the episode of Top Gear with the F40. THAT was hilarious) for the cost of an F40 these days you could have bought the Sledgehammer probably.

 

Unfortunately, none of ^that^ was the premise of this conversation. It's wasn't "for the money..."

Obviously, we all agree that "for the money"...which is why WE all own Corvettes. But that wasn't the original point.

 

exactly

 

Well the original original point was that the 328 doesn't have a prayer against a Corvette
Then it became that the 328 would Stomp Any GM Car from that period.
Which is obviously not the case

 

A 328 wouldn't 'annihilate' a Corvette, but thats still comparing a bottom of the barrel old Ferrari to the top car in AMERICA at the time. Nowadays, I'd take ANY ferrari over ANY corvette.

 

Nice little 85 video,

http://www.vettetube.com/video/1985-...te-commercial/

 

Yeah, I think I would too. Well, at least up until the first periodic tuneup/overhaul was due! (but I guess I'm keeping my ZR-1!! )

 

^haha! Hell, I barely want to maintain my daily driver let alone an exotic

 

They are built for women,try and sit in one, bad when the drivers seat comes with a vanity mirror.lol

 

From volkswagens-for-Life - "Again, nobody besides select Americans give a rats *** about 1/4 mile, straight racing times. The rest of the world likes to turn the steering wheel and use the brake pedal."

You were part of the argument about acceleration - you apparently gave a "rats ***". I am not a "select American" and I don't particularly give a "rats ***" what YOU think of me.

And comparing an F40 which is really a streetable racecar to a Corvette was not part of the original comparison or even a valid comparison. The F40 was a great car but not a daily driver - short on comfort or amenities but a great car nonetheless. And there are no "bottom of the barrel" Ferraris - nearly 90 grand for a 328 was never a bottom of the barrel price.

This comparison quickly went from apples to oranges to strawberries to "bananas".

 

Where did I partake in an argument over acceleration? I never compared the f40... that was one of about 5 cars that I did mention as being zr1 destroyers though.

There are indeed bottom of the barrel ferrari's. Like the boxster is the bottom of the barrel porsche. The 3 series is the bottom of the barrel bmw. The c series are the bottom of the barrel mercedes. Every manufacturer has bottom of the barrel cars. The 328, amongst a few others, just happen to be bottom of the barrel 80's Ferrari's.

And if your still confused, I repeat that comparing the BEST THE UNITED STATES HAD TO OFFER in the 1980's (al la Corvette) to the bottom of the barrel, entry level 328 Ferrari is humorous.

 

That commercial does a great job in illustrating everything that was/is right & wrong with the way American car companies look at making performance cars. You don't try for technical competence. If you want to go faster or be quicker than the Europeans, you put in the biggest engine. If you want to corner better, you slap on the fattest tires on the stiffest suspension. The result is the early C4s.

What have you proven? That a 5.7 liter V8 can outrun a 2.2 liter turbo, a 2.5 liter non turbo, a 4.7 liter V8 in a German touring GT & a bottom line Ferrari with a small 3.2 liter V8. What else have you proven? That if you're willing to slap on the fattest tires on the stiffest suspension that you can ultimately outcorner on a smooth track, cars that are unwilling to make those compromises. On a real road, with bumps & all not so much of an advantage & certainly not so much fun with the bone jarring ride that we endure compared to the cars in that video, all of which I've driven at one time or another.

 

I am not confused but apparently you are. But keep trying. And your references to select Americans and my alleged confusion are not humorous and neither are you.