Talk:Ferrari F40

"The car had no traction control, and was one of the few to utilize turbochargers."
Well, rather a lot of cars use tubochargers. What are you trying to say??91.108.103.125 (talk) 20:08, 27 February 2011 (UTC) Yeah, I don't get it! [Jvelas0822] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jvelas0822 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

In popular culture - Joshua Tree (1993) featured a Ferrari F40 (which is based on a Pontiac Fiero kit car).
Can someone enlighten me before I make an edit? An F40 is definitely not based on a Pontiac. What is this sentance trying to say? If it's that the F40 in the film wasn't a real one, but a fake one based on a kit car, why have this statement in the article?

--Stanleytheman 19:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * They are trying to say that the F40 in the movie was not an F40 but a Fiero dressed up to look like one. Whether this info belong in the article, is another question.  I would say it probably doesn't. --Daniel J. Leivick 19:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice one. I've been bold! --Stanleytheman 22:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Berlinetta versus "Sports car" or other classifications
I dislike the term "berlinetta" because it's not all that common a term. "Sports car" is far more widely understood. Friday (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I also prefer "sports car" over "berlinetta". I feel it says more about the car than just using Ferrari's term for the body style.  swa  q  16:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

It is the offical term used by Ferrari, and it links directly to a description of the term. Does wikipedia have to be "dumbed down" for those who don't understand the terminology used? I certainly hope not.

Swaq, I am finding it hard to continue having good faith in your edits, you seem to be making a habit of opposing my edits. Oh well, I shall try a little harder to have good faith in all editors, I guess.Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * As a general rule we should prefer commonly used industry terms over what the manufacturer says. Sports car links to a description also, and it's a far more useful article than berlinetta.  Friday (talk) 19:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, Sennen, you might not realize this, but since you're the one who wants to make this change, it's considered your job to make a case for your version on the talk page. Until there's consensus for your change, you should not continue to revert those who put it back to the old version.  Friday (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The term berlinetta is used by a number of car companies, not only Ferrari. I feel sports car can be confusing, and many people (myself included) would read the article, and think "it isn't a sports car, it's a supercar" - supercar is a commonly used industry term, but that does not seem to be good enough for wikipedia. I thought the use of berlinetta would remove any problems relating to the classification.
 * The term Berlinetta had been on the article for around 72 hours, I was not reverting anything, this particular can of worms was not re-opened by me, so I don't see why I should be chastised for reverting it back to the edit that was in place for the last 72 hours. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't think you understand. Since you changed it from "sports car" to "berlinetta", by my count, three different editors have reverted you.  Clearly there is no consensus for this change.  Please don't edit war over it.  Make your case here on the talk page instead.  So far, nobody agrees with you.  You should change it back.  Friday (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The 72 hours you speak of was simply because I was polite. Instead of reverting your change I disagreed with, I brought it up on the talk page to get other opinions.  Then, a few days later, seeing that talk page comments favored the "sports car" version, I put this change into the article.  This is what editors are supposed to do; you're not supposed to just keep reverting to the version you prefer.  See Edit warring.  Friday (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * So in 24 hours, you have your opinion, my opinion and one other opinion (from an editor who has recent history of opposing my edits) Is that consensus? But thanks for waiting 72 hours, that was polite of you. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

<- It's not much of a consensus yet, no. It's only been a few days, and this article doesn't look like it gets much attention. But, it's more consensus than your version has at the moment. You've been reverted by three different editors, and yet you continue to revert for your change. This is not how you're supposed to edit. Friday (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to be an ass, but so far you are the only editor who has reverted my use of the term berlinetta. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * People seemed happy with "sports car". You keep changing it from "sports car" to other things, and people keep reverting you.  Friday (talk) 19:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * For 3 years people seemed quite happy with supercar. According to certain sources (EVO magazine, etc) it is not a sports car, it is a supercar. If there is some confusion about which classification to use, then a classification that is not under dispute should be used. The term supercar is an industry standard term, which is commonly used - I suggest that a good compromise would be to not use any term that is under dispute, there are suitable wordings for the article without using sportscar or supercar. My first edit along the lines of the MacLaren F1 article had no disputed terms, neither does my edit using the term Berlinetta. Sennen goroshi (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * "Sports car" is not a disputed term. It seems to be the one thing pretty much everyone can agree on.  Friday (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I have no idea where you are from, but perhaps this is a cultural difference related problem. To me a sportscar is a 2 seater, small car..more often than not, with no roof. Z3 - sports car. 911 - coupe. Ferrari 612 - GT.  Enzo - supercar. Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I am sick and tired of arguing about this, it's bed time, and we should all be striving towards the same goals. In the long term, I would love to see the term supercar being used in this article, but I am not about to hold my breath waiting. I think that the term sportscar is open to interpretation, just as the term supercar is. I like Berlinetta because it gets around both of the previously mentioned terms.  Actually its not the idea solution in my mind, I happen to like the F1 and Veyron articles' way of dealing with the problem "The Bugatti Veyron 16.4 is the quickest accelerating and decelerating street-legal production car in the world, and was the world's fastest street-legal production car until the introduction of the SSC Ultimate Aero Twin Turbo produced by Shelby SuperCars."  I propose using a similar format to the lead of the Veyron article.   BTW in the spirit of fairness, please look at the Enzo article, that also states Berlinetta.  Whatever the outcome of this discussion, I do wish to be honest. Sennen goroshi (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sennen goroshi, I do very much appreciate your open mind and your friendly way of dealing with these questions. Still, I consider all these discussions about specific terms as fruitless; Road & Track ran a whole series of articles on the topic: What is a Sports Car some 35 years ago...reaching, of course, no conclusion. The discussion on this will go on perennially, I fear. --- Berlinetta, by the way, originally was (and probably still is) the description of a body style only, not of a genre of car...just to complicate matters further. Keep up your spirits! --328cia (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

"...minor air intake modifications"
"During the 2006 Bonneville Speed Week, Amir Rosenbaum of Spectre Performance managed to take his F40 with minor air intake modifications to 226 mph."

Take a look at the description of this photo, hardly a minor modification...:P http://www.eurotuner.com/featuredvehicles/eurp_0802_1992_ferrari_f40/photo_03.html κаллэмакс 16:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The official site describes the engine as stock with small modifications on the wastegate, sensors and blow-off valve to get extra boost as well as its own brand of air intake . Donnie Park (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

File:F40 Ferrari 20090509.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:F40 Ferrari 20090509.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 3, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-10-03. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 16:24, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

external link outdated
the external link is outdated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.192.16 (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Reception
This section has very little information and refers only to the former Top Gear presenters. Many other people drove the car and there should be plenty of available references. I would have thought the most important aspect was its reception at the time it was introduced, rather than now. A lot of people drove the car and while I'm generally opposed, in general, to voicing too many opinions on Wiki, there's a place for it, especially when many people who drove it - then or since - have been so enthusiastic about it. Finding examples should present no major obstacles. Flanker235 (talk) 12:28, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * The Top Gear quote has been torn out of context and should therefore be removed:
 * http://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=top-gear-2002&episode=s16e06:


 * "... In 1986, Porsche launched the greatest supercar the world had ever seen, the 959.
 * And then, a year later, Ferrari responded with the greatest supercar the world had ever seen, the F40.
 * Oh, my word! Would you just look at that?! I can't recall ever seeing these two- together on television before.
 * So let's get cracking, beginning with this one ..." Drachentötbär (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The video is available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mFleLfedrU
 * I'm quite sure now that the section contains errors and needs to be fixed. websites probably have it from Wikipedia
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_citogenesis_incidents#/media/File:Relationship_between_Wikipedia_and_the_press.svg
 * Drachentötbär (talk) 19:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Fixed it now. Agree that older reception is more relevant than Top Gear which seems like a comedy show, wouldn't be surprised if the car failures were fake.Drachentötbär (talk) 20:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * What of magazine reviews like Road & Track or Autocar? Are there not other articles by their people who would have driven it at the time? Flanker235 (talk) 10:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I note that this section has been updated with some quotes from magazine reviews - all negative. Would someone care to balance this out as I suspect that some of these quotes are 1) cherry picked and 2) out of context. Flanker235 (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Who "ruined" this page?
It seems to me someone who is not a Ferrari fan for whatever reason edited this pages content. The issues are that the reception section is pretty much all negative, which is not the case. There were many reviewers who loved the car. Clarkson still calls it to this day his favorite car overall and many publications consider it the best supercar of all time. A quick Google search shows how favorable this car is to the car community.

Then there is the Car and Driver road test on this page. That is the worst F40 test that was conducted for the most part as it was done on a freezing cold day and the car (tires) had issues with traction like any performance car would in temps like that. Why not use the Road and Track test that is much better? Or some of the Euro tests?

Link to a tested 202.5 mph top speed:http://up.autotitre.com/b81b4e5570.jpg

Link to one of two Road and Track tests (unfortunately I can't find a link to the other slightly better test they did). but this one is still more conducive to what the car would really do: http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/car-comparison-tests/reviews/a18686/extreme-machines-ferrari-f40/

Plus, why was the fantastic main image changed to a picture of one with the pop up lights up, and in a yellow tint that very, very few countries mandate?

Thanks - — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.227.125.115 (talk) 16:15, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Reception section is totally incorrect...
Why was this edit allowed? It's obvious it was done by someone who is biased for whatever reason.

The comment about the negative press reaction is incorrect, I mean did anyone actually read the first reviews and watch the videos? The press loved the car. As for Ferrari only making this car to cash in, really? Does anybody actually know the history? Enzo wanted to make the best car in the world, and the plan was just to make a smaller amount. It wasn't Ferrari who jacked the prices up, it was the dealers and flippers...so this page contains terrible misinformation. The F40 is considered by many as the original, and best supercar. Evidence is all over the internet. Chris Harris recently did a review and said it was his favorite car - period. He also interviewed one of the original reviewers from when the car first came out who loved the car back then as well.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3MDTcXGsjuo

That section needs to be fixed. When I tried to someone edited back...no wonder so many complain Wikipedia isn't a good sourse of information... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.26.215 (talk) 14:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a WP:FANPAGE, it's not a place for one-sided fanboyism. If you don't like it, there are plenty of sites where you can muse about your favorite bedroom wall poster car and you being an IP user, you and your edits are not relevant anyway. Donnie Park (talk) 07:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying it should be one-sided, but when the press about the vehicle was overwhelmingly positive (and verifiable sources reflect that) then the positive responses should be given more weight than the negative ones to reflect the actual nature of the press response. Sure, some people have negative opinions too, and they have their place in the article, but as long as you're citing Wikipedia policy, maybe you need to reminded of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. 75.71.194.124 (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Positive views must be added in the article. I think the reviewers at Car and Drivers were very biased when they tested an F40. To be fair, the F40 is better than a poorly executed F50 and it was the F50 that received negative acclaim. U1Quattro (talk) 06:09, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ferrari F40. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130823094108/http://www.museoauto.it:80/website/en/collezione/26-ferrari/273-ferrari-f-40-competizione to http://www.museoauto.it/website/en/collezione/26-ferrari/273-ferrari-f-40-competizione

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ferrari F40. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120404103129/http://www.dreamroad.us/dream-road-ferrari-f40/ to http://www.dreamroad.us/dream-road-ferrari-f40/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:47, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

F40 US-spec
The recent edits made on the page hint the lack of proper research. Proper research reveals that the US-spec Ferrari F40 was heavier than the Europe spec, had aluminium gas tanks and had a higher power output. The statement "Most experts today agree that the engine produced a power output of more than 500 hp" hints to the US-spec Ferrari F40. Proper research should be made and rules must be followed before making edits. U1Quattro (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)


 * There was proper research prior to the changes you reverted.
 * Ferrari rates the US-Spec car at 478 HP. Car and Driver and Road & Track also say 478 in their test.
 * supercars.net/blog isn't a very reliable source, definitive not enough to contradict the manufacturer and two big car magazines.
 * The car tested 1369 kg by C&D was US-Spec (but different from the US-Spec car tested by R&T) so it doesn't make sense pretending it was not US by adding another value as US-Spec. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drachentötbär (talk • contribs) 20:24, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Car and Driver had a very biased review of the F40. The earlier US-spec cars were rated at 478 bhp but the later variants were rated at over 500 bhp to compensate for the increase in weight. The car given to testers of both of these magazines was an earlier US-spec car. U1Quattro (talk) 12:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Any evidence that those reviews were biased or is this your personal opinion ? Drachentötbär (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Car and Driver mostly gave negative opinion about the car and were biased towards the Porsche 959 as stated in the article. Also, I posted a link with a person associated to Ferrari stating that the car had over 500 bhp. U1Quattro (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2018 (UTC)


 * There was no such bias. Car and Driver didn't even mention the Porsche 959 in the tests IIRC, check the 3 sources, why should they be biased towards a car long out of production at the test dates and unavailable in the US. C&D simply road-tested the F40, a thing Autocar didn't do. Drachentötbär (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Here is a link pointing to the subtle differences: https://www.flatout.com.br/what-are-the-differences-between-euro-spec-and-us-spec-ferrari-f40/ U1Quattro (talk) 04:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Note that this is the factory supplied owner's manual information and not "invented" information. U1Quattro (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

C&D road tested the car in 1988, the 959 was in production in that year. Also their expectations that a fully stripped out sports car would handle and drive like a common sedan on country roads is out of question. U1Quattro (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * C&D road tests were from FEBRUARY 1991 and APRIL 1992 like you can easily see by looking at the sources given in the article. C&D didn't expect the the car to behave like a sedan, they just wrote about their experience driving it. Praise like in the Autocar (who exclusively got the first opportunity to drive a prototype around at Fiorano) article is a sign of bias, not the opposite.Drachentötbär (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

During the C&D road test,the car didn't gave the expected performance and had problems with the spark plugs due to the cold weather that day. The Porsche 959 was produced till 1993 if you have seen the article. Auto car already mentioned that they didn't knew how the car handled among traffic or on streets. That removes the bias. Taking C&D's road test as a benchmark for the F40's road and daily performance is a bias in itself for the reason aforementioned. Then comes the controversial Motor Trend review. Murray was already inclined towards the Honda NSX when he tested out an F40. U1Quattro (talk) 04:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, when the C&D road test was performed, the owner was driving the car as there was no press car available in the US for the journalists to test and the owner of the car was hesitant to give the car in the hands of the author of the article. So the C&D review is basically a passenger's point of view and not the driver's point of view. U1Quattro (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Production of the 959 ended in 1988, only a few cars were made from spare parts in 1992, at the C&D F40 tests this car wasn't even mentioned.

C&D performance-tested two F40s, the other car wasn't faster to 60 mph. I don't know where you got your conspiracy theories from, "the C&D review is basically a passenger's point of view and not the driver's point of view" is simply not true (like anyone can see by reading it) and the Motor Trend article doesn't care about the Honda NSX at all. Drachentötbär (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It was established that Murray was biased towards the NSX and he wanted the F40 to have the same characteristics. When it didn't deliver, he stated "It's not even '60s technology, from a frame point of view, it's '50s twin-tube technology, not even a spaceframe. It's only got local frames to hold the bulkhead to the dash, attach the front suspension, rear suspension and rollbar. And then you have the marketing Kevlar glues in with a quarter inch of rubber." U1Quattro (talk) 03:56, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, here is the full excerpt from the article. Those cars were produced by Porsche and count as production 959s. You cannot deny that the 950 was out of production when the F50 came out: In 1992/1993, Porsche built eight 959s assembled from spare parts from the inventory at the manufacturing site in Zuffenhausen. All eight were "Komfort" versions: four in red and four in silver. These cars were much more expensive (DM 747,500) than the earlier ones (DM 420,000). The later cars also featured a newly developed speed-sensitive damper system. The cars were sold to selected collectors after being driven by works personnel for some time and are today by far the most sought-after 959s.

U1Quattro (talk) 04:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, I was at mistake about C&D mentioning the 959. As far as the "passenger point of view" goes, you can see in the beginning of the article that the author of the article wasn't driving the car. Also, the weather was cold, which was established earlier in the article and the car was having problems due to that. U1Quattro (talk) 04:04, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, now Murray has created the F1, he wouldn't consider any car to be better than the car which he created. That makes him a fairly biased reviewer. U1Quattro (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Curb Weight definition
Wikipedia states the definition of curb weight as "the total weight of a vehicle with standard equipment and hardpoints, all necessary operating consumables such as motor oil, transmission oil, coolant, air conditioning refrigerant, and sometimes a full tank of fuel, while not loaded with either passengers, cargo, or weaponry.". Accordingly, shouldn't this mean that the curb weight section should state the weight with fluids and not the dry weight? It would seem that listing the dry weight could skew people's perceptions, or at least those who don't have extensive knowledge of curb weight definitions, of the F50's weight compared to other cars. TKOIII (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree and suggest putting 1254-1369 kg as curb weight there instead. 1254 kg was measured by AMS for the European lightweight version and 1369 was measured by C&D for an US-version, I suspect there were even heavier F40s since later cars had equipment the C&D car didn't but I don't know of any other test measuring the F40's weight. Drachentötbär (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Chris F120A motore.jpg
 * Chris GTOEvo F40.jpg
 * Chris Pirelli gomme F40.jpg
 * NicolaMaterazzi F40.jpg

Section about "F40 US Patent For Ornamental Design"
This article currently has a section titled "F40 US Patent For Ornamental Design", which contains some sort of legal information about the patent for the car's design filed with the USPTO. This is presented totally without context. I don't see how this is useful encyclopedic content. I'm inclined to remove it entirely. Your thoughts? Prova MO  (talk)  19:43, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and removed the section. Prova MO   (talk)  20:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Correctly so.  Mr.choppers &#124;   ✎  22:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

No Credit to Designer Leonardo Fioravanti
Why does Mr. Fioravanti not receive credit as a designer? Quite an oversight considering he is responsible for shaping the production design and listed as the inventor on the patent￼ 73.43.37.224 (talk) 05:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)