Crown
Board: Ferrari
Language: English
Region: Worldwide
Close
CloseForum - Thread
Re: Gallardo Spyder vs F430 Spider
>>Our F430's braking performance was even better than the Lambo's - 151 feet from 70 mph, 11 feet better than the result posted by the "Lords of Envy" coupe. This is as it should be, considering the optional $15,364 carbon-ceramic brake package.<<
2nd article that mentions Ferrari's CCM's stopping better than steel and also read one on Porsche PCCB's stopping quicker than steel. A PCCB turbo recently broke one mag.'s 60-0 all time record.
That's the way to spec. a minimum option spider F1 430 anyway. At $229k w/ CCM's, Racing Seats (no more I guess) & shields, imo the 3 most important have to have's. Good article.
2nd article that mentions Ferrari's CCM's stopping better than steel and also read one on Porsche PCCB's stopping quicker than steel. A PCCB turbo recently broke one mag.'s 60-0 all time record.
That's the way to spec. a minimum option spider F1 430 anyway. At $229k w/ CCM's, Racing Seats (no more I guess) & shields, imo the 3 most important have to have's. Good article.
Feb 5, 2007 4:03:20 PM
- Avantgarde
- Senior
-
- Loc: City State
- Posts: 708, Gallery
- Registered on: Apr 6, 2005
- Reply to: STRADALE
Feb 5, 2007 4:52:45 PM
-
SciFrog
- Rennteam VIP
-
- Loc: USA , United States
- Posts: 9870, Gallery
- Registered on: Nov 15, 2005
- Reply to: Avantgarde
Re: Gallardo Spyder vs F430 Spider
Reading the article, the G is so close yet so far...
They reversed the weight also no? The F is lighter...
4.6 secs 0-60 for the G, best time they could achieve on par with a 997S cab probably...
It would have been awsome throwing the 997TT cab and DB9 volante in the mix.
They reversed the weight also no? The F is lighter...
4.6 secs 0-60 for the G, best time they could achieve on par with a 997S cab probably...
It would have been awsome throwing the 997TT cab and DB9 volante in the mix.
Re: Gallardo Spyder vs F430 Spider
Quote:
STRADALE said:
>>Our F430's braking performance was even better than the Lambo's - 151 feet from 70 mph, 11 feet better than the result posted by the "Lords of Envy" coupe. This is as it should be, considering the optional $15,364 carbon-ceramic brake package.<<
2nd article that mentions Ferrari's CCM's stopping better than steel and also read one on Porsche PCCB's stopping quicker than steel. A PCCB turbo recently broke one mag.'s 60-0 all time record.
That's the way to spec. a minimum option spider F1 430 anyway. At $229k w/ CCM's, Racing Seats (no more I guess) & shields, imo the 3 most important have to have's. Good article.
I know this has been posted before, but there is likely to be no difference in stopping distances between ceramic and conventional brakes. Iron brakes have enough braking power to invoke abs, so the only difference will be in tires and test conditions. Now if you're talking feel and fade resistance, for sure the ceramics are superior, but for one all-out stop from 80 or whatever, where fade is not an issue, all other things being equal the iron brakes stop just as quickly.
Gary
Re: Gallardo Spyder vs F430 Spider
Quote:
Gary(SF) said:Quote:
STRADALE said:
>>Our F430's braking performance was even better than the Lambo's - 151 feet from 70 mph, 11 feet better than the result posted by the "Lords of Envy" coupe. This is as it should be, considering the optional $15,364 carbon-ceramic brake package.<<
2nd article that mentions Ferrari's CCM's stopping better than steel and also read one on Porsche PCCB's stopping quicker than steel. A PCCB turbo recently broke one mag.'s 60-0 all time record.
That's the way to spec. a minimum option spider F1 430 anyway. At $229k w/ CCM's, Racing Seats (no more I guess) & shields, imo the 3 most important have to have's. Good article.
I know this has been posted before, but there is likely to be no difference in stopping distances between ceramic and conventional brakes. Iron brakes have enough braking power to invoke abs, so the only difference will be in tires and test conditions. Now if you're talking feel and fade resistance, for sure the ceramics are superior, but for one all-out stop from 80 or whatever, where fade is not an issue, all other things being equal the iron brakes stop just as quickly.
Gary
I know, you're right it's been posted before numerous times & I keep hearing it posted based on people's guesses/opinions/what they want to be true I guess? - 'iron brakes stop the same distance as ceramics' but have seen at least three different measured tests where ceramics stop in less distance than iron. Granted they haven't been real tests of each braking system on the same car/conditions but each one seems to be the same result - ceramics stop in less distance than iron/steel. But if anything the spider should take longer to stop because of a slightly greater weight than the coupe, not the other way around but it's definitely not conclusive because of all the other factors that may have effected the results including the biggest one; the condition of the brakes on the test car.
I am however beginning to think the opinion where people keep posting ' iron stops the same distance as ceramics' may just be another message board myth like the 'ceramics costs a lot more money to maintain then steel/iron.' where the exact opposite is the actual truth.
Re: Gallardo Spyder vs F430 Spider
Quote:
STRADALE said:Quote:
Gary(SF) said:Quote:
STRADALE said:
>>Our F430's braking performance was even better than the Lambo's - 151 feet from 70 mph, 11 feet better than the result posted by the "Lords of Envy" coupe. This is as it should be, considering the optional $15,364 carbon-ceramic brake package.<<
2nd article that mentions Ferrari's CCM's stopping better than steel and also read one on Porsche PCCB's stopping quicker than steel. A PCCB turbo recently broke one mag.'s 60-0 all time record.
That's the way to spec. a minimum option spider F1 430 anyway. At $229k w/ CCM's, Racing Seats (no more I guess) & shields, imo the 3 most important have to have's. Good article.
I know this has been posted before, but there is likely to be no difference in stopping distances between ceramic and conventional brakes. Iron brakes have enough braking power to invoke abs, so the only difference will be in tires and test conditions. Now if you're talking feel and fade resistance, for sure the ceramics are superior, but for one all-out stop from 80 or whatever, where fade is not an issue, all other things being equal the iron brakes stop just as quickly.
Gary
I know, you're right it's been posted before numerous times & I keep hearing it posted based on people's guesses/opinions/what they want to be true I guess? - 'iron brakes stop the same distance as ceramics' but have seen at least three different measured tests where ceramics stop in less distance than iron. Granted they haven't been real tests of each braking system on the same car/conditions but each one seems to be the same result - ceramics stop in less distance than iron/steel. But if anything the spider should take longer to stop because of a slightly greater weight than the coupe, not the other way around but it's definitely not conclusive because of all the other factors that may have effected the results including the biggest one; the condition of the brakes on the test car.
I am however beginning to think the opinion where people keep posting ' iron stops the same distance as ceramics' may just be another message board myth like the 'ceramics costs a lot more money to maintain then steel/iron.' where the exact opposite is the actual truth.
I know what you mean, and I'm not claiming to have tested ceramic and iron brake cars back to back. But basic physics, if you grant the fact that iron brakes can apply enough braking force to lock tires (or engage abs), tells me the two cars should be identical, all other factors being equal (tires being the big variable). Where am I going wrong with that theory? I just need someone to tell me where my logic error is.
And as to maintenance costs, as long as you never have to replace anything on the ceramics they are great, but I know of several posters on FChat who have bought pads, and holy batman, they are expensive! I pay $230 for both axles on my 430, and they last 6 to 8 track days plus street miles of course. Never replaced rotors at this point, but they are not too expensive either, whereas the ceramic rotors...well, to me it's a lot of money...
Gary
Re: Gallardo Spyder vs F430 Spider
I think F430 spider is slightly better than Gallardo spider , i did not like the Gallardo too much under a spider design
For coupe i'd go for Gallardo over F430 anyday, anywhere.But i have to mention that Spider is much better looking on F430 chassis(except red color
)
For coupe i'd go for Gallardo over F430 anyday, anywhere.But i have to mention that Spider is much better looking on F430 chassis(except red color
)
Re: Gallardo Spyder vs F430 Spider
Quote:
VGA18 said:
I think F430 spider is slightly better than Gallardo spider , i did not like the Gallardo too much under a spider design
For coupe i'd go for Gallardo over F430 anyday, anywhere.But i have to mention that Spider is much better looking on F430 chassis(except red color
That is funny: I think the Gallardo really shines as a Spyder, give me the choice and I would choose a Spyder over a Spider any time, whereas I prefer the F430 as a Berlinetta.
Re: Gallardo Spyder vs F430 Spider
Car & Driver is a terrible car magazine. Take a read at the September issue of EVO and their comparison of these two cars. The Gallardo beats the F430. The main difference being styling, which I wholeheartedly agree. They call the F430 vulgar looking. I agree 100%. The F430 Spyder has to be the worst looking car that costs over $100k. Front nose is hideous. Roll hoops on a $200k convertible?!?!?!? 
David
David
Re: Gallardo Spyder vs F430 Spider
Quote:
DavidSF said:
Car & Driver is a terrible car magazine. Take a read at the September issue of EVO and their comparison of these two cars. The Gallardo beats the F430. The main difference being styling, which I wholeheartedly agree. They call the F430 vulgar looking. I agree 100%. The F430 Spyder has to be the worst looking car that costs over $100k. Front nose is hideous. Roll hoops on a $200k convertible?!?!?!?
David
What problems do you have always making such cynical comments when it comes to Ferrari?
Re: Gallardo Spyder vs F430 Spider
Quote:
Gary(SF) said:Quote:
STRADALE said:Quote:
Gary(SF) said:Quote:
STRADALE said:
>>Our F430's braking performance was even better than the Lambo's - 151 feet from 70 mph, 11 feet better than the result posted by the "Lords of Envy" coupe. This is as it should be, considering the optional $15,364 carbon-ceramic brake package.<<
2nd article that mentions Ferrari's CCM's stopping better than steel and also read one on Porsche PCCB's stopping quicker than steel. A PCCB turbo recently broke one mag.'s 60-0 all time record.
That's the way to spec. a minimum option spider F1 430 anyway. At $229k w/ CCM's, Racing Seats (no more I guess) & shields, imo the 3 most important have to have's. Good article.
I know this has been posted before, but there is likely to be no difference in stopping distances between ceramic and conventional brakes. Iron brakes have enough braking power to invoke abs, so the only difference will be in tires and test conditions. Now if you're talking feel and fade resistance, for sure the ceramics are superior, but for one all-out stop from 80 or whatever, where fade is not an issue, all other things being equal the iron brakes stop just as quickly.
Gary
I know, you're right it's been posted before numerous times & I keep hearing it posted based on people's guesses/opinions/what they want to be true I guess? - 'iron brakes stop the same distance as ceramics' but have seen at least three different measured tests where ceramics stop in less distance than iron. Granted they haven't been real tests of each braking system on the same car/conditions but each one seems to be the same result - ceramics stop in less distance than iron/steel. But if anything the spider should take longer to stop because of a slightly greater weight than the coupe, not the other way around but it's definitely not conclusive because of all the other factors that may have effected the results including the biggest one; the condition of the brakes on the test car.
I am however beginning to think the opinion where people keep posting ' iron stops the same distance as ceramics' may just be another message board myth like the 'ceramics costs a lot more money to maintain then steel/iron.' where the exact opposite is the actual truth.
I know what you mean, and I'm not claiming to have tested ceramic and iron brake cars back to back. But basic physics, if you grant the fact that iron brakes can apply enough braking force to lock tires (or engage abs), tells me the two cars should be identical, all other factors being equal (tires being the big variable). Where am I going wrong with that theory? I just need someone to tell me where my logic error is.
And as to maintenance costs, as long as you never have to replace anything on the ceramics they are great, but I know of several posters on FChat who have bought pads, and holy batman, they are expensive! I pay $230 for both axles on my 430, and they last 6 to 8 track days plus street miles of course. Never replaced rotors at this point, but they are not too expensive either, whereas the ceramic rotors...well, to me it's a lot of money...
Gary
I really can't tell you wehere you are wrong because I'm not sure I get your theory.
If you've replaced the pads then you probably should have replaced the rotors, at minimum upon the second pad change, that's where the ceramics are much different, no rotor change w/ every pad/every other pad change necessary like w/ steel. Matter of fact the same ceramic rotors last 100's of k of miles hence the difference in brake maintance costs. If you replace pads 10 times on steel brakes you're buying 5-10 sets of rotors vs. 0 for the ceramics. On a Porsche turbo the ceramics cost even less because the difference in the pad price of the 6 piston calipers steel vs. 6 piston caliper ceramics. Maintance cost for the ceramics are much less over time than steel. For the steel you save money up front but end up taking it in the rear..lol! You know what I mean, in the end.
Re: Gallardo Spyder vs F430 Spider
Quote:
Rossi said:Quote:
VGA18 said:
I think F430 spider is slightly better than Gallardo spider , i did not like the Gallardo too much under a spider design
For coupe i'd go for Gallardo over F430 anyday, anywhere.But i have to mention that Spider is much better looking on F430 chassis(except red color
That is funny: I think the Gallardo really shines as a Spyder, give me the choice and I would choose a Spyder over a Spider any time, whereas I prefer the F430 as a Berlinetta.
Exactly my feelings too. The G makes a better looking Spyder where the 430 coupe's roof, rear hatch, rear quarter are where the most beautiful lines of the entire car meet.
Re: Gallardo Spyder vs F430 Spider
Quote:
DavidSF said:
Car & Driver is a terrible car magazine. Take a read at the September issue of EVO and their comparison of these two cars. The Gallardo beats the F430. The main difference being styling, which I wholeheartedly agree. They call the F430 vulgar looking. I agree 100%. The F430 Spyder has to be the worst looking car that costs over $100k. Front nose is hideous. Roll hoops on a $200k convertible?!?!?!?
David
I love the "roll hoops". Especially cool looking in a 430 Spider w/ racing seats where the hoops follow the contours of the top of the seat.
Guess when it comes to styling it's completely subjective. What one person might love another thinks is horrible. Honestly I like the way both cars look, the Gallardo & the 430. But if you put a Ferrari Spider next to a Gallardo Spyder and told me to pick one to drive away, I wouldn't hesitate, I'd hop in the Ferrari not just because it's a better performer and more fun to drive (most everyone agrees on this part) but also because it's just so much better looking, even though I think the Gallardo Spyder looks better than the Gallardo coupe I still think the Ferrari Spider looks better than the Gallardo Spyder. And of course there's a much different feel of craftmenship to the Ferrari that the Lambo just doesn't even come close to matching especially in the interior and even in the engine compartment. The Ferrari will be timeless, already looks classic, the Gallardo already looks like........well...an 80's Lamborghini. I think the Gallardo is a cool looking ride but when looking at them head on the lambo looks smallish, doesn't have the same presence as the 430, hard to explain:
Re: Gallardo Spyder vs F430 Spider
Quote:
STRADALE said:
I really can't tell you wehere you are wrong because I'm not sure I get your theory.
If you've replaced the pads then you probably should have replaced the rotors, at minimum upon the second pad change, that's where the ceramics are much different, no rotor change w/ every pad/every other pad change necessary like w/ steel. Matter of fact the same ceramic rotors last 100's of k of miles hence the difference in brake maintance costs. If you replace pads 10 times on steel brakes you're buying 5-10 sets of rotors vs. 0 for the ceramics. On a Porsche turbo the ceramics cost even less because the difference in the pad price of the 6 piston calipers steel vs. 6 piston caliper ceramics. Maintance cost for the ceramics are much less over time than steel. For the steel you save money up front but end up taking it in the rear..lol! You know what I mean, in the end.
I'll try to be clearer on my theory:
The fastest possible stop for any car is when brake pressure is applied to the wheels to bring them to just before the lockup point (abs assures this). Both iron and ceramic brakes generate enough braking force on the first stop to bring the wheels to that exact point where the car is stopping as quickly as possible, tire grip being the limiting factor. If this is true, and I believe it is, there should be no difference in stopping difference between iron and ceramic equipped cars, except for that very small amount gained by the lower weight of the ceramics (I'm not sure that would even be measurable and repeatable). I grant there will be a difference on, say, the tenth stop, because the ceramics are more fade resistant, and the iron brakes (at least with stock pads) will no longer be able to generate enough pressure to bring the tire to the point of incipient lock-up. Clear now? I know there is probably an even better way of expressing the theory, but that's the best I can do on the spur of the moment.
My rotors are still well within limits, so they won't have to be replaced any time soon. And when I do have to replace them (the car will probably be gone by then, but let's consider it's not) the cost of iron rotors is like 5 to 10% of the cost of ceramic rotors. And with my Ferodo pads, I experience ZERO fade on my track days...so for me it still makes sense to buy the iron brakes. As to brake feel, I admit I haven't driven a ceramic 430, but it would have to be heavenly indeed to justify the huge buy-in cost, and the cost of consumables. They definitely look better, no question, and if you're floating in cash, go for it.
Gary
Re: Gallardo Spyder vs F430 Spider
Quote:
STRADALE said:
Maintance cost for the ceramics are much less over time than steel.
I had to address this in another post...I don't think this is true, even for long ownership periods, but if it is, you would have to log several hundred thousand miles to reach the break-even point. No, sorry, that doesn't fly, not with the $16000 cost of the option, and the parts being 10 to 20 times as expensive. The only thing ceramics have going for them is looks and brake feel (assuming a pad change to more aggressive pads on the irons brakes).
Gary
Re: Gallardo Spyder vs F430 Spider
Quote:
Gary(SF) said:Quote:
STRADALE said:
Maintance cost for the ceramics are much less over time than steel.
I had to address this in another post...I don't think this is true, even for long ownership periods, but if it is, you would have to log several hundred thousand miles to reach the break-even point. No, sorry, that doesn't fly, not with the $16000 cost of the option, and the parts being 10 to 20 times as expensive. The only thing ceramics have going for them is looks and brake feel (assuming a pad change to more aggressive pads on the irons brakes).
Gary
"Maintance cost". Not overall cost.
100% true for the turbo PCCB system vs. steel, haven't done the calculations on the CCM's yet.
Feb 8, 2007 2:48:43 PM
- Avantgarde
- Senior
-
- Loc: City State
- Posts: 708, Gallery
- Registered on: Apr 6, 2005
- Reply to: Gary(SF)
Feb 8, 2007 2:54:06 PM
- Gary(SF)
- Senior
-
- Loc: SF Bay Area
- Posts: 510, Gallery
- Registered on: Nov 4, 2003
- Reply to: Avantgarde
Re: Gallardo Spyder vs F430 Spider
Quote:
Avantgarde said:Quote:
Gary(SF) said:
The only thing ceramics have going for them is looks and brake feel.
Gary
And also the fact that Ceramic brakes equipped cars do not require regular washes to rid the unsightly brake dust off the wheels ever so often
Well, if that's a factor in purchasing a $16k option, you are much more financially comfortable than I am! Interestingly enough, the Ferodos I'm using don't dust much at all, much less than stock.
Gary
Feb 8, 2007 4:05:03 PM
- STRADALE
- Rennteam VIP
-
- Loc: NY , United States
- Posts: 11075, Gallery
- Registered on: Mar 9, 2005
- Reply to: Avantgarde
Re: Gallardo Spyder vs F430 Spider
Quote:
Avantgarde said:Quote:
Gary(SF) said:
The only thing ceramics have going for them is looks and brake feel.
Gary
And also the fact that Ceramic brakes equipped cars do not require regular washes to rid the unsightly brake dust off the wheels ever so often
It's not just the brake dust that forms on the wheels of F430's it's the rust that forms on the hubs that doesn't come off. The current 997 P-Car's steel set-up is where the real mess is though.
After having CCM's on my last F-Car and now my current and at the same time having steel on my P-car imo even if the CCM's weren't better performing brakes and didn't look so much better I would happily pay the option prices on both the F-car's CCM's & the P-Car's PCCB's ONLY to save myself from having to deal w/ the mess the steel brakes create and the rust that forms on the brake hubs (F430) etc. On the P-car the steel brakes create a soup of rusty water in your rims and on the 430 rust forms of the rotor hubs and on the discs that would drive me mad if I had to look at. My current P-car w/ steel w/ be the very last sports car I will ever own w/ steel brakes, going forward if the car doesn't have ceramics as an option I wouldn't even consider the car.
For anyone that's considering which way to go just fyi- Obviously I'm fed up w/ steel brakes so you may want to learn something from my mistake. Who knows why but the older versions like my 996 turbo didn't have this steel brake issue & imo unless you're using your very last nickel and the ONLY way to afford your F430 or 997 turbo is to get steel brakes - get the CCM's and not just because they perform better.
ps: Besides the above in my area if you get the CCM's you get that option money back when you trade/sell so it would be crazy not to enjoy the better brakes the entire time of ownership. Return on investment on Porsche's PCCB's is another story.
Feb 8, 2007 9:39:55 PM
- STRADALE
- Rennteam VIP
-
- Loc: NY , United States
- Posts: 11075, Gallery
- Registered on: Mar 9, 2005
- Reply to: bostonmini
Re: Gallardo Spyder vs F430 Spider
Quote:
bostonmini said:
...Does the value of the CCM brakes make a resale difference, do ppl care in general?
The guys I ride around w/ feel the same way I do basically being car nuts every one of them have CCM's now. If you've been there, done it you probably have CCM's. If it's more important to you that you just own a Ferrari and not really caring about the go- stop- handling performance & looks than it's not important. Regarding re-sale I've heard in some parts of Europe you don't get all your money back, in the NY area you get back in trade-in/sale based in sticker price of the car so you get back your CCM option money and then some that's partly why it's silly not to get CCM's. good night.
Feb 8, 2007 10:05:57 PM
- Testarossa86
- Junior
-
- Loc: SC
- Posts: 58, Gallery
- Registered on: Mar 8, 2006
- Reply to: STRADALE
Re: Gallardo Spyder vs F430 Spider
Quote:
STRADALE said:Quote:
DavidSF said:
Car & Driver is a terrible car magazine. Take a read at the September issue of EVO and their comparison of these two cars. The Gallardo beats the F430. The main difference being styling, which I wholeheartedly agree. They call the F430 vulgar looking. I agree 100%. The F430 Spyder has to be the worst looking car that costs over $100k. Front nose is hideous. Roll hoops on a $200k convertible?!?!?!?
David
I love the "roll hoops". Especially cool looking in a 430 Spider w/ racing seats where the hoops follow the contours of the top of the seat.
Guess when it comes to styling it's completely subjective. What one person might love another thinks is horrible. Honestly I like the way both cars look, the Gallardo & the 430. But if you put a Ferrari Spider next to a Gallardo Spyder and told me to pick one to drive away, I wouldn't hesitate, I'd hop in the Ferrari not just because it's a better performer and more fun to drive (most everyone agrees on this part) but also because it's just so much better looking, even though I think the Gallardo Spyder looks better than the Gallardo coupe I still think the Ferrari Spider looks better than the Gallardo Spyder. And of course there's a much different feel of craftmenship to the Ferrari that the Lambo just doesn't even come close to matching especially in the interior and even in the engine compartment. The Ferrari will be timeless, already looks classic, the Gallardo already looks like........well...an 80's Lamborghini. I think the Gallardo is a cool looking ride but when looking at them head on the lambo looks smallish, doesn't have the same presence as the 430, hard to explain:
Well said.
430 > Gallardo
Re: Gallardo Spyder vs F430 Spider
Quote:
STRADALE said:
If it's more important to you that you just own a Ferrari and not really caring about the go- stop- handling performance & looks than it's not important.
Strangely enough, I take a certain amount of umbrage to that comment. How many track days did you run in your 430 last year? One of the biggest reasons I chose iron brakes is because I like track days and didn't want to have to replace the ultra-expensive ceramic pads every 5 or 6 track days (which is what I'm hearing their practical life is since it's not wise to go below the 50% wear point). I am completely happy with my 100% fade-free iron brakes, and haven't seen or heard anything yet to change my mind. Still waiting for the chance to drive a ceramic-equipped 430, however, so that may change...
Gary
Forum
About Rennteam | Help | Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Support | Contact | Imprint | Archive
Powered by
Community
and
