OV9

Not watched it yet, but thought it deserved a thread on its own.

I always think / thought of the 288 GTO as being a slightly more refined F40. I was amazed how much slower it is!

4.8 to 60 - that has not aged well has it! Utterly fantastic-looking car though, proper 328 on 'roids.

F40 0-100 8.7s
288 0-100 11.0s

That is quite a void....

Full second slower to 100 than a CountachQV.

I am shocked that the more powerful, more aerodynamic F40 is faster than the GTO .

The 288 GTO is my favourite car. I had a passenger ride in one once when I was a kid, it was amazing.

Quite a bit slower that my M3 to 100...

Still, just look at it!!

ZedLeg wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:01 am I am shocked that the more powerful, more aerodynamic F40 is faster than the GTO .

You're deliberately missing the point.

It was a joke mate, simmer down.

It's apparently fairly easy to make them much faster, the Evos would embarrass a lot of modern cars.

ZedLeg wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 9:10 am It's apparently fairly easy to make them much faster

Chev small block or 13B?

I'm a big 288GTO fan, but I'm really quite surprised by those numbers.

Weight is always quoted around 1160kg.

Assume that is dry weight and real life is closer to 1400kg. Even then you'd expect it to be quicker than 11s to 100 if it really has 400bhp. Confusing.

Same 0-60 as my old M5 that weighed 700 kg more with the same power, more or less. It's really odd!

I wonder if it's a gearing issue. An extra gear change that drops it off boost would kill the times.

I remember reading something in Evo about driving the F40 being a game of trying to avoid gear changes and keep the revs up through corners so it doesn't drop off boost when you need the power.

ZedLeg wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 10:06 am I wonder if it's a gearing issue.

Has to be.

Alpine A110 is 1100kg, with just 248bhp, but mag test figures of 4.7 to 60 and 10.8 to 100.

mik wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 8:53 am 288 0-100 11.0s

Are we sure this figure is actually correct?

The back end of these look awesome.

I always imagined the GTO would handle being a fast road car better than an F40 despite the difference in performance, no idea if that is true or not though.

Dave!

Rich B wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 10:20 am

mik wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 8:53 am 288 0-100 11.0s

Are we sure this figure is actually correct?

Seen it quoted in a few articles. F40 has a 6spd box, whereas the GTO has a 5spd.

Rich B wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 10:20 am

mik wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 8:53 am 288 0-100 11.0s

Are we sure this figure is actually correct?

Cant find much info.

That is apparently the figure Road & Track got from it.

See WIKI

Rich B wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 10:20 am

mik wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 8:53 am 288 0-100 11.0s

Are we sure this figure is actually correct?

From Road and Track:

"The GTO just takes off headed for such intermediate times as 5.0 seconds to 60 mph, 11.0 seconds to 100 mph and on to the factory's claimed top speed of 305 km/h (189 mph)."

Most other pages are just Wikis or fan pages but the above looked pretty authentic.

click

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 10:32 am

Rich B wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 10:20 am

mik wrote: Tue Mar 26, 2019 8:53 am 288 0-100 11.0s

Are we sure this figure is actually correct?

Seen it quoted in a few articles. F40 has a 6spd box, whereas the GTO has a 5spd.

looking through the net there seems to be a whole load of different figures, but this one does say it’s from a road test.

Mad that my daily driver is a pretty much even match for it - and some hot hatches now are even faster.

Space frame with composite panels is going to be light but weren't manufacturers loose with power figures back in the day ?

I reckon mainly the tyres, the GTO is on skinny 255s and the F40 on 335s. I imagine on shit period tyres it couldn’t put all it’s power down till it got in 3rd.