Dash Camera Captures Moment Ferrari Hits Taxi at High Speed Killing Three

Mail Online ^ | May 21, 2012 | GeorgeWashingtonsGhost

[GeorgeWashingtonsGhost]

This horrifying footage serves as a reminder of the deadly potential of one of the world's fastest sports cars.

Three people died when a Ferrari 599 GTO ploughed into the side of a taxi while speeding across a city centre junction in Singapore.

[dalereed]

Try this sleeper on for size!!!!

http://www.teamzr1.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=4288#Post4288

[Spktyr]

I have no idea how fast you were going, but you weren’t going any 160 in reality.

A *built* in modern times to ~600hp spec 430 big block (as verified on the dyno) using tech not available in the Stoned Age, sporting 295/50R16 tires not available in the Stoned Age, running a 3.50 rear end via a Ford 9” conversion, completely ignoring aerodynamics and assuming the TH400’s torque converter somehow magically grew a locking mechanism and didn’t slip, your top possible speed would have been 153. With more common 3.73 gears, top speed of 143 theoretical max.

In reality, the above combination comes out to about 125-130mph, maybe. Muscle cars were quick, but they weren’t actually *fast*.

Here’s another comparison -
A 1968 box-stock 427 Corvette had 3.70 gears and ran 13.30@108mph in the quarter mile. I think you’d have to agree this car was both faster and more powerful than your Wildcat. The 70 Chevelle SS454 ran 13.12@107.

Well, hate to tell you this, but a base, stock Mustang GT runs the quarter in 12.7 seconds at 111mph. Despite being “less powerful” and having taller gears for fuel economy.

In case you can’t tell, I’m tired of old guys claiming their old musclecars had eleventy billion horsepower and would go 300mph when in reality they couldn’t. Also tired of (though you didn’t say this) the same old guys claiming their old Stoned Age cars would beat anything on the street today, etc., etc. It especially annoys me when the same old guys then further claim that their old muscle car could beat my motorcycle any time anywhere. My Honda motorcycle is ten years old and it runs 2.8 second 0-60s and ten second quarter miles. NOTHING made as a production car in the 1970s, 80s or 90s can catch it. That doesn’t even take into consideration the Suzuki Hayabusa motorcycle which goes 212mph out of the damn box.

[Spktyr]

Sorry, forgot to add: Nothing made as a production car in the 1960s can catch it either in an acceleration contest.

[spetznaz]

There was a thread on FR a while back where some guys were posting the exact words you put up in your post. How their XXX (I can't remember the exact muscle-car they were referring to, but it was some late '60s/early '70s Detroit muscle) could beat some exotic (I am not sure whether it was a Lamborghini they were referring to, or a Veyron, but one of the two). Needless to say, a quick check of said muscle machine vs noted exotic clearly showed that, even with a head-start by the muscle car, and with the exotic carrying a pile of bricks in the passenger seat, it would still not be a contest (especially if it was the Veyron).

Anyways, I think it is simply a trick of memory, somewhat like how a big fish caught always adds a couple of inches every couple of months, to the extent that 30 years later your catch was bloody Moby Dick himself, with the Great White from Jaws caught in the whale's gaping maw! I'd say it is normal 'size creep' rather than lying, but it is always funny hearing how said '60s muscle car could defeat modern exotics costing the price of a house (or in the case of the Bugatti Veyron, a block of houses depending on one's zip code) when that same '60s muscle car couldn't even beat a C-class AMG driven by a slow-witted driver.

[Texaspeptoman]

I remember driving a friends ‘63 vette and we would constantly “peg” the needle and it felt like we still went a little faster.(spedo marked to 160 and peg was placed around the 170 area of the dial)

Heck, we ran out of gas coming into town and coasted 2.5 miles to a station... maybe the wind was behind us.

Glad there wasn’t a skunk, turtle, armadillo, deer, or a squirrel in the road - never did like grease spots.

[Spktyr]

Yup. There large family sedans and econoboxes and even trucks that are faster than those ‘muscle cars’ of the Stoned Age.

1970 Hemi Cuda 426 Hemi: 13.78@101.2mph
1969 Dodge Super Bee Six Pack (440): 13.80@104.2mph
1970 Olds 442 W-30 (455): 13.88@95.84mph
1969 Nova SS396: 13.87@105.1mph

2012 Ford Taurus SHO: 13.7@103.2mph
2012 Mitsubishi Lancer Evo: 13.3@102mph
2013 Nissan GT-R (okay, this is a bit of a ringer but it seats four and costs like a Vette): 10.87@125.26mph

[Spktyr]

Yeah, about that... even if you had the optional fuellie 327 engine, the 63 Vette topped out at 147-148mph and ran low to mid 14 second quarters. It *couldn’t* go 160.

[mamelukesabre]

A buick wildcat would literally leave the pavement and go airborn at 195mph.

I had a 69 chrysler newport that would do 135mph(hot rodded 440 with 400hp and 2.70(?) rear end) and at that speed, the front end lifted up to the fullest extent of the front suspension and steering was barely there. You could see the hood bow upwards and straining against the hood latch. It was very dangerous.

[mamelukesabre]

That’s because he changed the rear axle ratio and didn’t change the speedo

[mamelukesabre]

The average car nowdays is faster than the average car back then. Most people didn’t have 400 plus cubic inch V8 motor.

[Spktyr]

I’ve seen plenty of stock GMs from the Stoned Age that had their original rear axle ratio and wildly optimistic speedometers. I was once in a very nice numbers matching correct-to-build-sheet C4 Vette that said it was going 100mph and 1) we were getting passed by Priuses and 2) my GPS said it was only 75.

[mamelukesabre]

You are neglecting one important FACT.

Those times were show room stock vehicles with factory tires. Those old muscle cars improved SUBSTANTIALLY merely by rejetting the carbs and removing the mufflers and adding better tires. most people did even more than that. A cam. header pipes. aftermarket manifold. shave the heads. traction bars. And even more.

So, your are grossly underestimating those old musclecars. however, they did not do no 160 or 190 mph. You are correct on that.

[Spktyr]

And you can improve a modern car immensely by a chip, pulley, dyno tune and so forth. The only fair way to compare is stock to stock - unless you want to put your ‘typically improved’ muscle car up against something like the ‘typically improved’ Toyota Supra (650+ RWHP), Terminator Mustang Cobra (600+), Corvette Z06 (750+), etc., etc.

[mamelukesabre]

No, you don’t get it. You do not have any experience with old fashioned V8 motors, apparently.

SUBSTANTIAL improvements

You cannot substantially improve a modern car by taking off the mufflers. In fact, in many cases you will hurt performance.

The old cars were tuned for low end torque and had seriously undersized peripheral components...ie intake, exhaust, brakes and tires.

Using old factory stock performance numbers from old cars with those pathetic old tires is nonsense.

[Spktyr]

Actually, I do have experience with them. You evidently don’t have much experience with modern cars, though.

But all you have to do is go look at an old copy of Hot Rod, which showcased typical and wild builds of the day and you can look at the quarter mile times. Which were still not all that great.

Cars today still have undersized intakes, exhaust paths, brakes and tires. Better than they used to be, but quite often they’re still undersized. No, taking off the mufflers often doesn’t help - because the actual restrictions are elsewhere. Putting an X-pipe, dual 3” and freeflow cats on a Mustang GT still helps today. Big brake packages are still quite popular. Cold Air Intakes and larger intakes are still de rigeur.

A ‘wild’ build back then would put out maybe 7-800 on a dyno. A ‘wild’ build today can put out upwards of *1500* with no more effort than you would have given to that ‘wild’ build back in the Stoned Age.

Want proof? How about a 1508 horsepower Toyota Supra? That’s not a typo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRY6MwxepIs

[Spktyr]

Or a 1500hp+ Corvette that actually does do 231mph?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jZ-Ep_er728

[wardaddy]

None of those are family boxes

They are all performance cars

And you know that....you are not ignorant

The SHO is a performance add on....used to hava Yamaha fancy motor....Super High Output

The Evo is a Rally Car....best there is for the money

The GTR.....i mean really.....the hottest Jap car ever made?.....very poor comparison.......

Your attempt to discredit 60s muscle cars is flawed at its core....none of those modern ....comparisons are plain jane.....every one is an advanced performance car ...even if a bargain.....compared to a Ferrari

[Spktyr]

The SHO is a basically a large family car with an engine upgrade and some suspension . The Lancer Evo is a basically an economy sedan with an engine and driveline upgrade. The performance boosts don’t change the fact of what they are, any more than getting the V8 in a 1959 Bel Air made it a muscle car. Both offer nearly identical cheaper and lesser versions - the basic non-turbo Taurus is found in rental car lots and college campuses are littered with non-Evo Lancers.

I did say the GT-R was a ringer outright, though.

[Spktyr]

Also, if I were to reference *real* performance cars of this day and age, they'd be even faster still.

Anyway, here's proof of what I said:

2012 Taurus non-SHO family sedan-

2012 Taurus SHO-

Sure looks like the same family car to me.

Oh, and the Lancers:

2012 Lancer econobox, often found on sale for $12-14K-

2012 Lancer Evo-

Again, pretty much the same car, just that they tacked on a few things in the case of the Evo. Also, I think Subaru might want to have a word with you about the 'best' rally car...

[wardaddy]

Basically my butt...I'm gonna surmise old farts don't show proper respect for your WRX.....and u ain't happy.....i feel yer pain....i had to deal with greasers in 57s and rat buckets.....thought my euro cars sucked and my Dick Mann cycles were for sissies

Every muscle car u deride seated 4-6 folks and more comfortably...so they too were family cars....i saw plenty of Cudas...and Road Runners and GTOs etc used as family cars

Further.....the other poster is right....those cars were not geared for top speed and were factory tested with crap tires and untuned carbs etc...everyday driving...not track ready

Put PS2s on any of them and your times will equal all but the GTR

however....the Cobra 427 indeed did do over 160 ...the L88 around 170

The power was there if geared right

Today's cars have weight loss....man do they ever.....supreme handling.....skidpans 40 years ago were always won by Europa Specials @ .725....lame for today......and better tires....even crappy kumhos beat the best factory tire in 68

Cars were cheaper then...even adjusted

I never had a muscle car....wish i had...my folks killed that

I had a 68 GTB and an old grey BMW 1600....some old Saabs and a Subaru 4-wheel wagon

As a grown man....pickups for me and Nazi for wifey....drive a Dodge 1500 crewcab now and a 996 convertible for fun...only been around 155 or so in it....with my oldest lad...PS2s mind you....they say it'll do 177

Did over that in a RUF tuned 928 20 years ago tween Stuttgart and Winterthur CH.....preggers wifey next to me...till she wake up at over 300km

I did have fast bikes....raced cafe sportsman...70s

Again....they did not come that way then like now.....you need to meet Kenny Roberts come to think of it....work on those old man issues and all

Enjoy yer cars....drive fast as u want....just not in crowds..