44 replies to this topic

[rolando]

The other day I was having an argument about Ferrari vs. Porsche with a friend, He told me that Porsche have had many more success in motorsport beside F1.
But I think Porsche was very good at winning overall races just in the late '60's and early '70's. So I ask you guys, Who is best in Sports Car racing Porsche or Ferrari?

I also said that the Ferrari 360 Modena is the most technology-advanced sports car of the world, and he just laughed, saying that the Porsche 911 Turbo is by far most sophisticated and that the Ferrari's best feature was just aerodynamics...

[John Cross]

Ferrari pulled out of sports car racing in the early 1970s and since then Porsche have had many successes. Before about 1966, Ferrari had a lot of success in sports cars.

[Todd]

When Porsche entered large displacement sportscar racing, they were immediately successful. Ferrari had already been defeated by the various Ford GT40s, but they used their sway with the rule makers to ban the big US-engined cars. Unfortunately for Ferrari, Porsche was ready to counter their 512s with the 917. So Porsche really did beat Ferrari head to head in many important races.

Looking at modern roadcars, it is hard to say who is ahead without defining your priorities. If you look back to the Group B years of racing clasification, there is no comparison. The 288GTO was an old fashioned hotrod compared to the 959 spaceship. The 959 had sequential turbos, kevlar bodywork, computer controlled torque aportionment to all four wheels, six forward speeds, and all manner of other gizmos that I can't remember at the moment. The 288GTO had, well it had a couple pretty big turbos. The later F40 had...bigger turbos still.

If you look at the 360 Modena, there isn't anything ground breaking about it's spec. It has an available sequential gearbox and a high specific output engine, but so does an M3. Honda econoboxes achieve similar volumetric efficiency too. On the other hand, the 360 Modena does apply an aluminum space frame to the world of mid-engined sports cars. It is a step forward for Ferrari in that it is a little bigger and a little lighter than the F355 that it replaces. It is considered to deliver a brilliant driving experience, but it doesn't forge new ground from a performance standpoint. The several year old McLaren F1 powered by BMW had a far more ambitious specification. It also cost 6 times as much and was not the sales success that the 360 Modena is.

Looking at the latest Porshe introduction, the new 911 Turbo is faster and employs more technical features to do it. It is much faster than the 360 Modena. Pick up last months Car & Driver for a comparison. Most of the features it has were pioneered on the 959 in the '80s, but the new 911 Turbo is much more affordable and will be built in greater numbers. Car & Driver picked the 360 Modena over the 911 Turbo because it was more fun and better looking. If I had the coin, I would do the same. But I wouldn't want to race a good driver who had a 911 Turbo. For two drivers with the same level of skill, it wouldn't even be close. The Porsche clobbers the Ferrari in a straight line and then uses all manner of stability control, traction control, 4WD, and electronic braking distribution to get through the corners.

[Michael M]

I think we cannot compare apples with pears. Ferrari for sure was the most successful manufacturer in sports car racing from end of the 50s up to the early 70s, but a direct comparison to Porsche was not possible. Ferrari always had their "big bangers" racing for overall wins, but Porsche dominated the smaller classes. One should not forget that Porsche in 1958, 1959 and 1961 had been 3rd in SCWC, and in 1960 and 1963 even 2nd, and that their small RS and RSK occasionally beat the more powerful Ferraris (Targa Florio 1959, 1960 and 1963, TT 1959, Sebring 1960, Nürburgring 1960.
And talking about the battle Ford v/s Ferrari, don't forget Porsche. In 1968 Ford won the SCWC with 56 points, Porsche was only 2nd with 42 points, but only because out of the 10 races only the best 5 counted for points. With the Scuderia entering no works cars in 1968 (afraid about loosing?) Ferrari gained only 2 small points.
In 1969 Porsche beats the allmighty Fords, from the 7 victories only the last was achieved by the 917, all the others by the small 908. Ferrari was disappointing 4th, although only for the last 2 races at Watkins Glen and Austria no works cars had been entered.
1970 and 71 had been the only years with straight comparison, fighting with equal arms, 917 v/s 512. 9 wins in 10 races for Porsche in 1970, and 8 out of 11 in 1971, a clear verdict.
In 1972 and 73 the 3 litre limit came in force, Ferrari was prepared, Porsche not, so the honours clearly for the red cars this time. After that Ferrari dropped out of sports car racing, and the Porsches dominated for years.

But how to value this? Is Ferrari better because their 4 litres beat Porsche's 2 litre? Or Porsche by defeating Ferrari on their Targa Florio home territory? Or Ferrari because against their brand new 312 Porsche's old 908 was bare of any chance? Or Porsche as they sacked in victories with no competition in sight? I believe this question cannot be answered overall, but only year by year, or even race by race.

[rolando]

I have many strange feelings about both marques, firsly I always have been a 'tifosi', but I can avoid admire Pedro Rodriguez's Porsche 917K on the rain, in the other hand talking about the 360's performance, I've read that its Fiorano's lap time is just as fast as the F40`s, something amazing considering that it lacks some 80 hp and considering that the F40 was the fastest super-car of some time, it could lap Fiorano some 10 seconds faster that the impressive 959.

[Marco94]

On the subject of road cars, were forgetting the McLaren F1. It'll be a long time before some similar comes along!

Marco.

[Marco94]

Oops, spoke before my turn on the McLaren F1. Sorry about that. Some years ago I visited a weekend at Zandvoort for only Italian cars, "Italia a Zandvoort" it was called. One of the demo's were 5 F-40's, race-prepared. After two laps we had only three left and after five laps only one was still going. Only two problems occured. Burning turbo's and a leaking gearbox. A friend told me it was the same in the Ferrari-Porsche Challenge as well. Going quick nowhere.

Marco.

[Uwe]

Todd,

maybe one should compare the 360 Modena with the Porsche GT3, not with the Turbo. Here is some fine stuff for you: http://www.oppositel...e.co.uk/wr.html.

Uwe

[Todd]

Uwe,

Thanks for the link. I would love to ride with Walter some time. The GT3 is the only current Porsche that really appeals to me. Unfortunately, they are only sold in the US as racing cars and I can't afford one no matter what. Some day I may buy a 993 or even a 3.2 liter Carrera. The 964 wasn't a step forward aesthetically, but the 993 was just so capable that I'd probably take one over the volume torsion bar models. A mid-'80s 3.2 would be a nice compromise though.

[Uwe]

Todd,

yes, even on german public roads the GT3 is rarely to see (I saw one or two until today). But go to the Ring on a sunny weekend...! You'll see at least 2-3 GT3's.

Concerning the current 911: you are right. The headlights are looking like fried eggs and you hear that its not the original aircooled flat-six.

Uwe

[Huw Jenjin]

Ferrari Vs Porsche, road cars or racing is just one of those arguments that could go on for ever with all sorts of statistics used to build the argument.
Hell, they are both great manufacturers, worship them both!

[cjpani]

I couldn´t agree more with Huw Jenjin...

Hey Rolando!!! I guess your friend was right!!!!
Just kidding...
cjpani

[Rainer Nyberg]

Porsche 959 vs Ferrari F40 (from Autocar, 8 June 1988)

Testers

Walter Brun : ex-racing driver and racing team boss who was running the successful EuroBrun Racing. He drove his Porsche 956 and 962 in Group C endurance world championship. The 959 featured in this test was his own everyday car.

Gerhard Berger : everybody knows he was one of the top Formula One drivers for many years. In 1988, he served the Ferrari F1 team and by the way participated in the testing of F40. He was invited by the company to demonstrate the F40 in this contest. He also bought a F40, but not yet delivered until September of that year.


Test Track

Ferrari's Fiorano test track, Maranello, Italy. This is a small track with many tight corners.


Test Car

The 959 under test was a Comfortable version. Since only 6 Sports version were made, compare with about 200 Comfortable version, it is very reasonable to use the 959 Comfortable as representative of the whole 959 range. The F40 was the original unmodified one, without winding windows and air conditioning.


Start testing now ...

"I have driven so many Porsches, and all the racers including the 956 and 962, " Brun said as we headed south for Modena. " I had to have a 959 for the road. " There was a sparkle in his eyes at the prospect of what lay in store : we were going to be the first to find out what happens when you pit the technical might of the Porsche 959 against the comparatively simple but even move potent Ferrari F40.

Having arrived Maranello, Brun and Autocar's Malte Jurgens parked the white 959 in front of Cavallino restaurant and went inside to have a tea. People became curious. One finally asked what we were doing. " Waiting for Gerhard Berger and a Ferrari F40, " Brun replied.

A few minutes later, the white 959 rolled through the gates of Ferrari's holy of holies. Enzo Ferrari's son Piero Lardi seemed interested and came up on a cross-country Honda. Some of the race team stayed to watch too. (Note : the F1 team had already finished testing in the track) Then Berger strolled up and climbed into the F40 that was awaiting his pleasure. I dropped into the seat beside him.

" It runs fantastically well. It bites from around 3000 rpm and upwards of 3500 it really takes off as if the turbos are constantly supplying with full boost, " said Berger.

Beyond 3500 rpm, there is such an abundance of power and torque that Berger had power oversteer any time he felt like it.... while all this was going on, the F40 stayed as flat and felt as taut as a racing car. There was no impression of the wheels rising and falling to absorb irregularities in the surface ; more as if it was doing it with its whole body. This suited Berger. " I like hard-tuned suspensions, " he said, " and the F40 has the best road chassis I have ever driven. "

The Ferrari seemed to suck in the tarmac ribbon of the test track so fast that at the end of the short straight at Fiorano, the Jaeger speedo was showing almost 160 mph. The 959's speedo would show 138 mph at the same point.

When we were out on the track again, with Berger now pitting the 959 against the curves that the Ferrari had just attacked, it was clear that in its engine characteristics the 959 is the more radical of the two. Its two-stage turbocharging system gives it performance that is more typical of a blown engine.

Up to 4300 rpm, only the first turbo puffs into the cylinders of the flat six with its water-cooled heads ; above that, the second blower ( which has already sarted spinning, thank to the elaborate bypass plumbing ) comes in. This makes the Porsche feel rather leisurely below 4500 rpm. Then it suddenly explodes as it begins to dispense real power. Its maximum torque of 369 lbft comes at 5500 rpm ( against F40's 425 lbft at 4000 rpm ) which is why the 959's six-speed transmission wants to be operated quickly. The Ferrari makes do with five gears.

A few laps of Fiorano soon showed what the Porsche, despite its open-road prowess, couldn't do : sweep around corners quite as swiftly and adroitly as the F40. On this track, especially in the tighter bends, the Ferrari's ability to be driven mroe aggressively on the throttle helped make it superior. Apart from its power-to-weight edge, the F40's better weight distribution of almost 50 : 50 front to rear (compared with the 959's 42 : 58) makes it a perfectly-balanced car which, despite its longer wheelbase (96.5 in to the 959's 89.4), could snake around the tighter bends.

By comparision, the 959 struggled through the cuit's curvier sections. This calls for an explanation. The 959 is designed to run with its drive biased towards the ear. Then, as soon as the rear wheel sensors detect a tendency to spin, the front-wheel drive is progressively activated until a power distribution of 50 : 50 front and rear has been reached.

Walter Brun remembers being told by Porsche that the 959 can easily be pushed into oversteer on dry tarmac by turning in sharply and stepping on the hrottle. This was not the case at Fiorano. The 959's engine characteristics, its weight and its four-wheel drive arrangement made it the inferior car on the smooth dry tarmac of the circuit.

The Porsche is based on the galvanised sheet steel construction of the 911. With comfort aspects like electrically adjustable seats and its heavy four-wheel drive, some models tip the scales at just under 3500 lb instead of the the 2970 lb specified by Porsche and the 2425 lb of the F40. These masses need to be accelearted and braked which, together with the four-wheel drive - not set to respond in the sportiest way - results in a handicap the 959 cannot overcome on a dry track.

"At Fiorano, the 959 is at least 10 secs behind the F40," Gerhard Berger said - and even 959 owner Walter Brun would admit to six.

By the time Walter Brun took over the F40 he had consistently run the Porsche to its limits. In the F40, he easily matched the speed Berger had posted in the 959. (Note: remember Berger's superior driving skill) "The F40 is very easy to drive," Berger explained. "If you are experienced with racing cars, you will find it very easy to handle the Ferrari." Brun's judgement, too, is based on his racing car experience : "The F40 runs nearly as well as my Porsche 962. With racing tyres and some fine tuning it would easily run at the front of category C2 (Note: FIA endurance racing Group C category 2, slightly lower than Porsche 962.) Berger chipped in again : "It is nearly an act of provocation to offer a car with so much power and so little weight to an ordinary driver."

But there is another side to all this. The F40's advantage is clear when the sky is blue and the tarmac fairly smooth. The 959, however, is a car which permits massive acceleration and deceleration even on wet surfaces, slush or gravel. The Porsche, with its interior noise levels reduced allows just a rumble of the staccato of its firing order into its cabin, whereas the F40 smacks at you with each rev. The hoarse howl of the Ferrari V8 is so dominant that very wisely there is no space for a radio in the dashboard.

"The 959 is a civilised two-plus-two with amazing driving performance," Berger and Brun agreed.
"The F40 is a racing car for the road."

- - - - - - - - -

I think the conclusion made by Berger and Brun really says that they are different kinds of breed, as Michael said, apples and pears...

Rainer

[rolando]

Fantastic article Rainer, especially this comment:

[QUOTE]"The 959 is a civilised two-plus-two with amazing driving performance," Berger and Brun agreed.
"The F40 is a racing car for the road."[QUOTE]

Thanks

Ps. Cjpani, I guess you already know who my friend of the original argument was.

[mhferrari]

Ferrari makes much better looking cars, since Porsche has a the same look for their cars, unless the Carerra at the Paris show becomes reality.
Performance is another thing, Porsche has a notoriety in Sports Cars, especially LeMans. In the 50s' and 60s' Ferrari was on top, but after I say Porsche.

[Alvega]

I think it is a pitty that direct race confrontation between Porsche and Ferrari was actually restricted to a handfull of years.

The late 60's/early 70'were transition times for the scuderia, wich after a painfull gestation process was not able/willing to develp the 512, preferring instead to concentrate on the development of the 312 PB, due to the upcoming changes in the technical regulations.

So, the last year of direct confrontation was 1971, and though Porsche won the championship with the 917, the 312PB was clearly faster, especially in the hands of Jacky Icks.

Comparing the overral involvement of the two makes in motorsport, IMHO nothing matches the continous presence of Ferrari in F1 and it's overall sucess in this discipline.

As far as the technological content of the 360 Modena, if you don't think that with an aluminium space frame, full aluminium body, aluminium suspensions, integral underfloor with rear diffuser, 40 valve V8 with 111 HP/L, 6 speed robotized transmission, electronicaly controlled suspension, ABS, EBD and ASR it is ground braking...

The Porsche 911 has to use two turbochargers in order to achieve similar specific power output from it's engine. And of course, we are talking here of the entry level Ferrari going head to head to the top-of-the range Porsche.

And if you look at the technical specifications of the new Carrera GT, wich will eventually be produced in 2003, it barely outperforms the F50 of 1995...

[cjpani]

Although I agree with Alvega´s comment on the restricted direct confrontation between both marques, and the "transition" times for the scuderia, I do not agree with the statement referring to the 917´s being clearly slower (contrario sensu) than the 312 PB. Doesnt´t the champinship itself of such year proves that wrong?

As for the immaculate hands of Jacky Ickx, you are absolutely right, but what about Elford, Bell, Rodriguez,Oliver, LArousse????.

Now to the heart of the matter...
The original post, by Rolando, stated "beside F1", so, your asseveration "...nothing matches the continous presence of Ferrari in F1 and it's overall sucess in this discipline. "
I believe it´s a little out of place, although I recognise that it´s your opinion, wich I respect.

Now, to illustrate my point, as of the "technological content" of the 360, I really do not consider that aluminium space frame and full aluminium body are "ground braking" elements on a 2000 model car, considering that these elements have been used for a long time (i.e. Porsche 917 Kurzheck coupe, with a welded aluminium spaceframe chasis weighing only 47 Kg.)not only in race cars, but on street cars as well.

I cannot deny the excelent results that these elements bring to the 360 Modena, but they most definetly don´t add up points to the Ferrari in the most technologically advanced car in the world subject.

To my opinion, only the advanced aerodynamics, and the wind-tunnel hours spent at Fiorano (resulting in the underfloor of the 360; and the huge, ugly front air intakes which erase the "smile" grille of almost every other Ferrari) are valid elements in the technological aspect.

No other element that Ferrari implements in the 360 is a technological breakthrough.

On the other hand, I believe that there is no such thing as a $155,000 USD "entry level" car but, again, it´s my opinion, although it´s engine it´s the most powerful normally-aspirated V8 Ferrari has ever produced.

Bu what strikes the most, is fhe following: "The Porsche 911 has to use two turbochargers in order to achieve similar specific power output from it's engine"
Why not put it these way: "The Ferrari has to use TWO MORE CYLINDERS in order to fail in every performance number against the Porsche" (i.e. 0-60 mph, lateral acceleration, top speed etc.)

Wanna talk tech??? Let´s see... 4 wheel drive, Vario Cam Plus, Triptonic S, a drag coefficient of only 0.31, Porsche Stability Managment, ceramic composite brakes and so on. Now that´s ground braking!!!!

Finally, as for the F50, you might as well compare it to the GT-1 road version, i think it´s a more ballanced comparison.

Best regards,
cjpani

[Ray Bell]

911 and two turbochargers?
That would be to keep the individual units: a. closer to the cylinders of each bank, for improved performance, and; b. smaller so they have less lag.
Now, if they were double stage, then you'd be making a point...

[pinchevs]

cjpani,
I agree that the porsche 911 is more technically advanced as it should be to counter an engine in the wrong place.
However, to compare the Triptonic S to the 360 F1 transmition ???
In my eyes the 360 is the pure sports car.

[Alvega]

cjpani,

The 917 is an all time great racing car. It's racing pedegree, built at a time when sports car racing was the real stuff, speaks for itself. It certainly is one of my favorites.

In 1971, it looked though as if the 312 PB was really faster; it lead most of the races until reliability problems (it was it's first season out) and racing accidentes prevented it from having a better score.

As for the 360 Modena versus 911 turbo, I think we must take into acccount the differente approaches in their basic design. Ferrari focusing more on performance, an Porsche making a compromise between performance, comfort and roominess.

It really seems that Porsche had to pile up all sorts of technical gizzmos (4WD, turbocharging) to overcome the initial design compromises (aka the rear mounted engine), in order to achieve similar levels of performance.

I would of course be more than glad to compare the 911 turbo with the 360 Modena turbo, if ever a turbo version of the Modena is launched (I don't think it will ever be though).

Just imagine, a 360 Modena turbo would have at least 500 HP ! That's already supercar territorie...

[david_martin]

To be honest, I suspect that the 911 GT3 is probably a fairer car to compare to the 360 Modena. Normally aspired engine, lighter body, 2wd, lower geared steering, closer ratio gearbox. Passive suspension and drivetrain tuned by Walter Röhl for quick lap times are the old Nurburgring - a pure sports and track car.

The 996 turbo is more of a 2+2 grand tourer than a sports car and probably better put up against the 550 Maranello or the 456 GT. Plush interior, sound proofing, at home cruising at insane speeds on autobahns and more open roads. As Ray points out the twin turbochargers have been set up for driveability rather outright performance, unlike the sequentially turbocharged 959, for example.

Both Porsche and Ferrari are marques with unrivalled engineering and sporting heritages, and in todays world of mega-corporate car manufacture and synthetic branding, we should be thankful there are at least two companies still making cars that little (and not so little) boys can dream about and ogle at motor shows. If Santa is planning to put any of those in my stocking I would have no quibble with whichever he chooses for me

[cjpani]

Once again I do not agree with Alvega´s "supposed" comparisons:

"I would of course be more than glad to compare the 911 turbo with the 360 Modena turbo, if ever a turbo version of the Modena is launched (I don't think it will ever be though). "

It would be the same that stating that I would be happy to compare a V8 911 with the Ferrari.

As for the "design compromises" (the engine on the 911 being on the rear), i don´t think there could be a better place to fit an engine for achieving excelent levels of performance (i.e. acceleration, top speed). Where the performance can be a little diminished by this fact, I consider, is in handling, but then again there´s the 4wd factor...

Alvega, just imagine a V8 twin Turbo 911!!!! You tell me where the horsepower of this machine would be!!!!

Apples and Pears...

Best regards,
cjpani

[Alvega]

enjoy...

[cjpani]

Fine lines yo depict Alvega...

Also enjoy this one

[cjpani]

Reviving old stuff.... that´s what Nostalgia is all about.

How about the recently launched GT2 to compare with some of the Ferrari models. Surely a thoroughbred car, no turbocharging, etc, etc.

What do you make of it??

Regards,
cj

[BRG]

This is an interesting thread and well argued throughout. I have to admit to being on the Porsche side of the great divide, which dates back to my earliest years of following motorsport. The Ferraris were still top of the sport car heap more or less, with Ford. But Porsche were breaking through from class winners to outright winners, and I was enthralled by these little white 2.2 litre cars trouncing the big-bangers at Brands Hatch. As one who always like to support the underdog, I think this established a pro-Porsche viewpoint that has stayed with me ever since. And perhaps also colours my view of Ferrari as well.

Now I am older and (a little) wiser, I know that Ferrari are a special part of automotive and motorsport heritage and also make some really nce cars. Thier currrent range is I think extremely desirable. Biut I also know that they have a well earned reputation for being fragile and temperamental. Whereas Porsche are the thoroughbred off-spring of the good old VW Beetle and will reputedly therefore go on forever and always start on a cold wet morning. The practical part of me prizes such a combination of utility and performance.

I am sorry that Ferrari were out of sportscar racing for so long. It almost seemed like they gave up, once Porsche arrived and challenged them, but I am sure there was rather more to it than that. But it has been nice to see the 333SP winning in open-top sports races as well as the belated use of the F40 in GT races. Now the Rafenell-run Maranello is starting to look a bit competitive in this year's GT series, perhaps Ferrari are getting back to their real roots, which is good to see. Perhaps there are some classic Ferrari-Porsche duels to come in the future. I can't wait!!

[FLB]

Originally posted by BRG
Perhaps there are some classic Ferrari-Porsche duels to come in the future. I can't wait!!

For that to happen, Porsche would have to get back to its roots and forget about SUV's...

[Bernd]

I've seen people mention that Ferrari make better looking cars than Porsche. Wrong! Ferrari make engines and chassis, Pininfarina are responsible for the visual delights that are most road going Ferrari's.

[Ray Bell]

...and Bertone and a few others.

Good point, Bernd. And if you choose your car for its appearance alone (except if you have a good eye for aerodynamics and that's the kind of appearance you want...) you aren't making a rational choice.

[Keith Young]

Hey, I've worked at a car lot selling many know name cars. One of the sweetest I saw was a Porche 930. Porches seemed more popular, although this could have to do with the cost. In the showroom poeple tend to awe at the F-50 more than the 930. I got to drive both, but only in the lot to wash them. Both were quit nice.

[Carlos Jalife]

First let's correct the mistakes, as usual. In 1968 the Ford vs. Porsche battle was won at Le Mans, only the best 5 results counted and after Pedro Rodriguez/Bianchi winning at LM they were 5 to 5 but Porsche won the half points race at Austria (500K instead of 1000K) so they were gven half points and lost the title because of that. Actually 45 was the maximum amount of points you could get. And ferrari didn't build a car, the P5 was in order, because regulations changed Don Enzo, again, fought with the CSI and not because of fear, that's ridiculous.
Next to say Jacky Ickx was fastest in 1971 is not true. The 312PB has a power/weight ratio slighty superior t the 917K but Porsche had Pedro. Just remember, for example, the race at Austria where pedro lost about 3 laps early on and then drove takins at least 3 seconds every lap to Ickx and Regazzoni and finally got himself in the same lap as Rega and pressure caused him to spun (the official reason was something broke in the suspension) but Rega had just been presented with a "faster" sign at the rail because pedro was going to catch him in the next to last lap. Same thing in Brands, Pedro didn't care that much for qualifying, no use if you are going to run 1000K, but at LM the Ferrari never ever approached the speed of the 917LH, over 404 kph according to Rico Steinemman, in Pedro's hands. Ickx was good but no way he could match Pedro. And the defeats in 1971 two were to Alfa, the TT33/3, one after Pedro died, the other when fuel contamination took him out after he had dominated the race. Again, a good 512M was a better bet than the 312PB, just think of the Penske one in which Donohue could run at Daytona with the 917K, though not at Le Mans.
Still, I agree with the man, worship them both, be glad they both exist. And isn't everybody forgetting about the ferrari 333SP prottype? The were launched in late 93 and are still winning in the FIA Sport championship, just this weekend.

[borsari]

i would rather push my 1998 Ford Taurus station wagon (estate) than drive a porsche !

[cjpani]

Originally posted by borsari
i would rather push my 1998 Ford Taurus station wagon (estate) than drive a porsche !

Now, THAT makes sense.....

[Alvega]

I haven't been able to post for quite a while, so only now can I ad another 2 cents to this Epic topic.

For some really interesting Ferrari-Porsche battles, stay tuned to the FIA N-GT championship, featuring 996 GT3 RS and 360 Modenas in hot action.

[cjpani]

Hey Alvega, nice to see you around in this thread again.

When will such event take place?? Will it be transmited in speedvision??

Regards

cj

[FLB]

15 minute highlights of the FIA GT Championship are sometimes featured on the Speedvision program Motrosport Mondial.

[Alvega]

cj,

Eurosport gives full coverage of the FIA GT races here in Europe.

[Martin Krejci]

I am convinced that Porsche is definitely more successful than Ferrari in sportscar racing. That however doesn't solve if Porsches were better than Ferraris or not, but reflects which make was more active in sportscar racing. Let's have a look at some interesting statistics (points counted by 20-15-12-10-8-6-4-3-2-1 system):

Le Mans 1923-2000:
1 Porsche 525 pts.
2 Ferrari 333
3 Jaguar 200
4 Aston Martin 150
5 Alfa Romeo 124
6 Bentley 119

World Sportscar Championship 1953-1992:
1 Porsche 4866
2 Ferrari 2619
3 Jaguar 1058
4 Alfa Romeo 969
5 Lancia 606
6 Ford 566
7 Lola 452
8 BMW 431

IMSA 1971-1998
1 Porsche 5121
2 Jaguar 1498
3 Chevrolet 1332
4 Nissan 1193
5 BMW 957
6 Spice 839
7 Lola 811
8 March 810
9 Ferrari 782

BPR 1994-96
1 McLaren 412
2 Porsche 369
3 Ferrari 228
4 Venturi 107
5 Lotus 44

FIA GT 1997-2001
1 Chrysler 476
2 Porsche 433
3 Mercedes 368
4 Lister 237
5 McLaren 197
6 Panoz 86
7 Ferrari 34

ISRS/SRWC/FIA SCC 1997-2001
1 Ferrari 587
2 R&S 245
3 Lola 177
4 Tampolli 86
...
26 Porsche 4 (not counted TWR-Porsche that won in its only race)

American Le Mans Series 1999-2001
1 Audi 302
2 BMW 272
3 Panoz 236
4 R&S 90
5 Lola 80
6 Ferrari 67
7 Dodge 54
8 Porsche 50

These are in my view the most important ever sportscar championships. Only in two of them got Ferrari more points (unofficially) than Porsche: In ALMS where Porsche will probably get in front of Ferrari before end of this season and at FIA SCC where only one GT Porsche (this year at Monza) represented the make as Porsche hadn't built any open-top Prototype awailable for this championship yet.

In numbers of entries Porsche is far most common car on sportscar racing scene too. In my database it leads ahead of Chevrolet (with many IMSA and Trans-Am entries during 70-ies and 80-ies) and Ferrari:

1 Porsche 23226 participations
2 Chevrolet 7427
3 Ferrari 6526
4 BMW 4788 (including touring class cars within SC events)
5 Fiat 4626 (mostly touring cars raced in SC events of the 50-ies like Mille Miglia etc.)
6 Lola 4572
....
10 Jaguar 2655

Historicaly I would say that the third most successful sportscar make behind Porsche and second Ferrari is Jaguar but unfortunately there is no Jaguar in current sportscar scene.

[Brian O Flaherty]

I'd have to side with Porsche on this one. Ferrari have not excelled consistently when put up against Porsche. Even in Formula 1 where Ferrari have had their best days Porsche's intermittent visit to the land of F1 have had lots of success like in the 80's which coincided funnily enough with one of Ferrari's barrenest spells.

Oh and seeing as this is a nostalgia forum and you're throwing up pictures of cars I just thought I'd give you Auto-Union's tribute to one of the very best racing drivers of all time Bernd Rosemeyer.

I give you the Audi Rosemeyer

[Schummy]

From 70s to now, I think Porsche was far more succesful than Ferrari. I can remember one (brief) epoch of domination for Ferrari (312PB) in 1972 and then without "official" Porsche opposition. Even Matra was more succeful in 73&74. After that, Ferrari plainly abandoned Wordl Sports Car Champ; that's a lot of years, I have to considerar Ferrari sports car relevance is something in the past. In recent DECADES Ferrari just doesn't appear.

I remember being a Ferrarist in 70-71, and getting "angry" with those damn 917s winning as ther wanted. I adored Andretti when he beated them in Sebring'70 . Honestly, I can't remember 312PB being faster than 917Ks in some circuits (surely Targa&old Nurburgring against 908/3?), but my memory can be inexact. Then they had a good set of really quick tracks, and in them 917K (5l) were in another category respect 312PB (3l). BTW, fastest lap in (old) Spa'71: 261kph (162mph, faster than fastest QUALIFY lap in F1 history) If we consider that 917 was a (comparatively with current cars) bitch to drive and the lack of safety levels in old Spa, we will have to agree those drivers were really brave!

In F1, I can't say Ferrari is the most succesful team in history, certainly better than Porsche (who seems wary of fighting in F1), but Porsche beated everybody when it was there... Considering the amount of years, the sort of money threw and the level of domination and continuity, I prefer McLaren and Williams in my personal history book. Anyway, as you can see in my nick, I am a supporter of Ferrari F1 team,... but I'm not blind ;)

[cjpani]

Martin:

Amazing statistics, thank you very much

Regards,

cj

[Alvega]

ok, let's add some spice to this topic.

Since the departure of Ferrari from sports cars racing, Porsche has indeed amassed an impressive record in this categorie, and specially at Le Mans.

However, one must take into account that overall the competitive level of sports cars racing in this period has been quite unimpressive, to say the least. An every time one manufacturer or another stepped in and tryied to give Porsche a run for it's money, usually they succeded ! Examples:

Renault
Jaguar
Mercedes
Mazda
Peugeot
BMW

This meaning that one must be carefull when dealing with Porsche's achievements in this period.

I'd rather settle for the 917 era, when Porsche indeed proved it's value in front of a mighty oposition.

[ehagar]

I get the impression though, that the spirit of Porsche, the racing spirit, is today beginning to die.

The haven't brought a prototype to Le Mans, and their GT3R's are on the verge of getting their asses kicked at Le Mans by BMW. They lost to the Vipers. Instead of rolling up their socks and Engineering a new Le Mans car, they seem content to produce SUV's, boxters and other money making automobiles.

It seems like the coporate board room is stiffling the Engineering department. Kinda sad if you ask me.

Just saw somebody beat me to it... indeed several automotive heavyweights have beaten Porsche as of late. But lay of the Mazda. I love rotaries! (It was the aerodynamics and downforce that won it for them though...)

[Bernd]

Sad to say but I can't disagree Porsche have moved away from the thoroughbred Sports Car and have gone towards luxury and Grand Tourers instead. The Carrera 'S' used to be a thoroughly scary car now it is just another 911, the Turbo is so weighed down with luxurious extras that it is on even ground with cars like the F360.

No more GT1's no factory GT2's the GT3-R's seem a half hearted effort. Sad really

[C F Eick]

Bernd, if you think that the new 996 turbo is so weighed down with extras that it is on even ground with the 360 Modena, think again. With merely 20 bhp extra, the 996 turbo is 13 seconds faster than the Modena around the Nürburgring-Nordschleife! (7.56 min vs 8.09 min) And the 996 GT3, with 40 bhp less than the Ferrari is as fast as the turbo (which of course could be used as a proof for your point on the turbo... ) Then there is the brand new 996 GT2 which smashes the turbo/GT3's lap time around the fearsome Nordschleife by another 10 seconds!

The way I see it, there is no other sports car manufacturer in the world today who produces as competent sports cars as Porsche. Nevertheless, I agree that they should be more active in the racing scene as well...

/Christian