Why do you think it couldn't beat CGT? It is 280 kg lighter. By the way - CGT
lap time does not show the full potential of that car. The driver (Gan San from
Best Motoring) said he wasn't pushing it to the limits. I think CGT can beat
that time by a second or two. It's got potential. Especially in such a fast,
wide open track as Suzuka.
In the video it was said that the track had had some slight changes to it since
they drove on it with the F40 and F50 and that that caused the slower time.
No, acceleration figures are not wrong. 4,6 is from AMS, but Quattroruote set
4,56 (11,3 0-200) and Auto, another italian magazine, set 4,50 (11,59 0-200).
0-60(96,5km/h) under 4 second is test result from same english and american
magazine, but they didn't set a 0-100 time, but a 0-96,5 time. However you can't
take a time (0-60 for example)from a magazine and another (0-200 for example)
for a different time. All acceleration figures must be from the same test.
There is a reason. But it basically.. well... it sucks. The additional weight
comes mostly from additional reinforcement in car bodies. They have to make cars
that succeed NCAP crash tests. And safety nowadays is more important than
performance. And don't forget about luxuries. Things like climate control are
essential even in very hardcore sports cars like Porsche 991 GT3 RS. People
become more and more addicted to those luxuries.
Just a few years ago AutoBild clocked 0-100km/h in 4.0s incl. shift to 2nd gear
(you cannot reach 100 in 1st).
AutoMotor&Sport needed only 6.4s for 100-200km/h (only 1 shift to 3rd). 4.6 to
100 and 321 vmax.
Quattroruote recorded 326.5 km/h vmax.