By 2002, Ferrari was getting 400HP out of a 3.6L V8, so with 15% less displacement, Ferrari achieved 30% more HP. They also offered the Enzo with a V12 putting out 660HP, a 3.6 second 0-62 mph, and a top speed of 220 mph.
The 2002 Modenas and Spiders, both with the 3.6L 400HP V8, were low to mid 4 second cars, 0-62 mph, 25% quicker than a SC430, and a top speed in the 180 mph range, all for an extra $100k.

 

Yup.

That being said, most figures that I recall reading on Testarossas was a 0-60 time in the low 5s (5.2 seems to come to mind but I am too lazy to google it) and a top end around 180. A Testarossa isn't hitting 190+ unless it's had a trip to Bob Norwood.

Regardless, the Ferrari certainly feels MUCH faster than an SC430, you can't compare a screaming V12 right behind your head at WOT versus a heavily sound insulated V12 in front of a dual skinned firewall

Besides, and no offense intended, I also own a Lexus, but let's face it, you're comparing a car that's considered to be something of an automotive isolation chamber to a car that's designed to offer a very raw and involving driving experience, it's not just about performance figures with a Ferrari, they are just... special

 

While I think that getting more power out of a smaller engine is an achievement of sorts, the associated gas mileage is terrible. I suppose the advantage of a smaller engine is less weight, and that's about it.

The cars you mentioned get the following mpg (city/hwy):
2003 Enzo: 8/12
2002 360 Modena: 11/16

I find it interesting that people are comparing an SC430 to Ferraris. Let's be honest here; in stock form, the handling of the SC430 is abysmal. While there is not much to argue about regarding acceleration comparisons, the handling of a car is a major component that can't be ignored. Any post-1985 Ferrari will out handle an SC430 hands down. So while it can be argued that the SC430 is 75 percent as fast as a Ferrari for 30 percent of the price etc., that comparison omits significant criteria that factor into the evaluation of a car. With that said, I would never own a Ferrari due to the horrendous maintenance and repair costs. That, and I can't afford to purchase one. A Corvette, however, will do almost anything a comparable Ferrari can do, will get better gas mileage, is actually reliable, and will look good doing it (I am a bit biased. though).

 

I drove a friend's Audi R8 a few months ago, and the handling was spectacular, but is certainly not something I would want for my use at any price.
For me, the way the SC430 handles at 60-100 (highway speeds) is perfect: smooth, quiet and dignified. I don't throw it around corners at 65 mph, and don't need track-worthy shocks or high speed mud flaps. I like getting on the expressway (ROAD TRIP!!) for a fast, reliable, quiet ride to my destination where I can put the top down and everybody wants a ride (one at a time, please - although little kids fit on the package shelf without complaint). For general use as a touring vehicle it meets my needs better than anything else I can think of.
Still, having a Ferrari in the garage also would be nice.

 

Agree 100%. The point of my post was to compare the engine technology/performance relative to the same model year (2002). Ferrari's engine technology has evolved (improved) quite a bit since then, while the 4.6l in the SC430 has remained stagnant, and for good reason. The original engine met Lexus' performance design criteria for the car.
The only time any Ferrari and a SC430 are close, is if they happen to be next to each other at a red stop light.
As for the Vette, always has been the best buy for your performance $.