Ferrari Mondial

Ferrari Mondial: which version to buy

The Ferrari Mondial in this catalogue is one generation (1980–1993), Cabrio only, and nine versions.

The Ferrari Mondial in this catalogue is one generation (1980–1993), Cabrio only, and nine versions. The buying question is not “which generation?” — there is only one — but which of the nine powertrains: three 2.9 MT tunes (214 hp, 240 hp without a listed engine position, 240 hp with Central), two 3.2 MT (270 hp, engine position not measured vs Central), and four 3.4 MT (286 hp and 300 hp, each with engine position not measured and with Central). All are Gasoline, 8 cylinders, V-shaped, 4 valves per cylinder, No boost, Manual, 5 gears, RWD, 84 L tank, 120 mm ground clearance, independent spring suspension, ventilated discs front and rear. Wheel sizes are not measured on every version.

Mondial versions compared (specs)

Injection is not the same across the table: both 2.9 MT 240 hp rows and both 3.2 MT 270 hp rows use Central injection (single-point or single- point). All four 3.4 MT rows use Distributed injection (multi-point). The 2.9 MT 214 hp also uses Central injection.

Engine: litres, compression, and what extra displacement buys

Specific output (hp per litre of the listed displacement):

• 2.9 MT 214 hp: 214 ÷ 2.927 ≈ 73.1 hp/L, compression 8.8, bore × stroke 81 × 71
• 2.9 MT 240 hp (both rows): 240 ÷ 2.927 ≈ 82.0 hp/L, compression 9.2, same 81 × 71
• 3.2 MT 270 hp (both rows): 270 ÷ 3.186 ≈ 84.7 hp/L, compression 9.8, 83 × 73.6
• 3.4 MT 286 hp (both rows): 286 ÷ 3.405 ≈ 84.0 hp/L, compression 10.4, 85 × 75
• 3.4 MT 300 hp (both rows): 300 ÷ 3.405 ≈ 88.1 hp/L, compression 10.4, 85 × 75

The jump from 2.9 MT 214 hp to 2.9 MT 240 hp is the same 2927 cc: +26 hp (+12.1%), +17 Nm (+7.0%), compression 8.8 → 9.2. That is more output from the same displacement, not a larger engine.

3.2 MT versus the 240 hp 2.9 MT: +259 cc (+8.8%), +30 hp (+12.5%), +44 Nm (+16.9%). Torque is the larger gain; specific output only rises from 82.0 to 84.7 hp/L.

3.4 MT 286 hp versus 3.2 MT: +219 cc, +16 hp (+5.9%), +5 Nm (+1.6%). Displacement grows more than torque. Compression steps to 10.4 and injection becomes Distributed injection (multi-point). Peak torque arrives earlier: 4300 rpm versus 5500 rpm on 3.2 MT.

3.4 MT 300 hp versus 3.4 MT 286 hp: same 3405 cc, same 10.4 compression, same 85 × 75, same multi-point injection. The extra is +14 hp (+4.9%) and +15 Nm (+4.9%), with torque peak 4300 → 4200 rpm. That is a tune, not a different engine size.

Peak power rpm: 6600 on 2.9 MT 214 hp, 7000 on both 240 hp 2.9 MT and both 3.2 MT, 7200 on all four 3.4 MT.

Performance and mpg: 0–100, top speed, consumption

Figures that exist in the data:

Arithmetic on those numbers:

• Slowest listed sprint: 2.9 MT 214 hp at 7.8 s. Fastest listed: 6.3 s, shared by 3.2 MT 270 hp Central and all four 3.4 MT. Gap 7.8 − 6.3 = 1.5 s.
• 2.9 MT 240 hp Central is 7.4 s — 0.4 s quicker than 214 hp, 1.1 s slower than the 6.3 s group.
• 3.2 MT 270 hp with engine position not measured is 7.4 s; the Central 3.2 MT is 6.3 s. Same 270 hp, same 304 Nm, same 3186 cc: the listed 0–100 differs by 1.1 s.
• Top speed span: 225 (2.9 MT 214 hp) to 255 (all 3.4 MT), a 30 km/h spread. Each step up the 2.9 → 3.2 → 3.4 ladder is +15, then +5 km/h from 240 → 250 → 255. The 300 hp 3.4 MT does not add top speed over the 286 hp 3.4 MT.
• Fuel use is measured only on 3.4 MT: 21.4 / 9.5 / 11.9 for every 286 hp and 300 hp row. The extra 14 hp does not change the listed consumption. City is 21.4 − 9.5 = 11.9 L/100 km hungrier than highway on those versions. Mixed 11.9 L/100 km with an 84 L tank implies a mixed range of 84 ÷ 11.9 × 100 ≈ 706 km if the tank were used in full; that is arithmetic on listed figures, not a separate measurement. City range on the same tank: 84 ÷ 21.4 × 100 ≈ 393 km. Highway: 84 ÷ 9.5 × 100 ≈ 884 km. For 2.9 MT and 3.2 MT, mpg is not measured.

Dimensions and weight: kerb, gross, clearance, tank

Ground clearance is 120 mm on all nine. Tank is 84 L on all nine. Wheels: not measured on all nine.

Kerb and gross (kg):

Payload where both masses exist: 3.4 MT 286 hp is 1900 − 1560 = 340 kg; 3.4 MT 300 hp is 1825 − 1505 = 320 kg. The 300 hp car is 55 kg lighter at kerb and 75 kg lighter at gross than the 286 hp car, with 20 kg less payload.

Heaviest listed kerb is 1560 kg (3.4 MT 286 hp). Lightest listed is 1430 kg (both 240 hp 2.9 MT). Difference 130 kg. The 214 hp 2.9 MT is 15 kg heavier than the 240 hp 2.9 MT and the weakest on kg/hp (6.75). Best listed kg/hp is the 3.4 MT 300 hp at 5.02.

Both 3.2 MT rows have kerb and gross not measured, so a weight-based choice between 3.2 and its neighbours cannot be made from this table.

Which version to choose

There is one generation and one body (Cabrio, 1980–1993). Choice is engine size, tune, and whether the data lists engine position as Central or not measured.

Skip if the goal is the least power for the most mass: 2.9 MT 214 hp. It is the only 214 hp row: 73.1 hp/L, 6.75 kg/hp, 7.8 s, 225 km/h. Versus 2.9 MT 240 hp Central you give up 26 hp and 17 Nm, add 15 kg, lose 0.4 s and 15 km/h, and stay on Central injection and 2927 cc. Fuel is not measured on either.

Buy 2.9 MT 240 hp if displacement should stay at 2927 cc. Two rows share that name and 240 hp. The row with engine position not measured has 0–100 not measured and top speed 240. The Central row has 0–100 7.4 s and the same 240 km/h and 1430 kg. Same 82.0 hp/L, same 260 Nm, same 9.2 compression. If you need a listed sprint time, the Central 2.9 MT 240 hp is the one of the two that has it.

Buy 3.2 MT 270 hp for the largest torque step on the ladder. +44 Nm over 240 hp 2.9 MT is bigger than the +5 Nm from 270 to 286. Specific output peaks among the non-300 tunes at 84.7 hp/L. Two rows again: engine position not measured is 7.4 s and 250 km/h; Central is 6.3 s and 250 km/h. If 0–100 is the buying filter, Central 3.2 MT matches every 3.4 MT at 6.3 s while staying 3186 cc and Central injection. Weight and mpg for 3.2 MT are not measured.

Buy 3.4 MT 286 hp if you need listed fuel figures and 95 fuel, and can accept more mass. All four 3.4 MT share 21.4 / 9.5 / 11.9, 255 km/h, 6.3 s, multi-point injection, 10.4 compression. The 286 hp rows are the heavy pair: 1560 / 1900 kg. Versus Central 3.2 MT you gain 16 hp and 5 Nm, 5 km/h, measured consumption, and 219 cc — but you also take on 1560 kg where 3.2 MT kerb is not measured, so the weight trade is only known on one side.

Buy 3.4 MT 300 hp if the numbers that move are power and weight, not sprint or top speed. Versus 3.4 MT 286 hp: +14 hp, +15 Nm, −55 kg kerb, −75 kg gross, kg/hp 5.45 → 5.02. 0–100 stays 6.3 s; top speed stays 255; consumption stays 21.4 / 9.5 / 11.9. The “extra” does not buy a faster listed sprint. It buys the highest specific output in the set (88.1 hp/L) and the lowest listed kg/hp. Two rows (engine position not measured vs Central) share those same performance and mass figures; they do not split on 0–100 the way 3.2 MT does.

Central versus not measured, same name and hp. On 2.9 MT 240 hp, Central adds a 7.4 s figure the other row lacks. On 3.2 MT 270 hp, Central is 1.1 s quicker (6.3 vs 7.4) with identical 270 hp / 304 Nm / 3186 cc. On both 3.4 MT tunes, Central does not change 6.3 s, 255 km/h, consumption, or mass. For 3.4, engine-position label is not a performance split in this data.

Short ranking by listed sprint (where measured): 6.3 s — Central 3.2 MT 270 hp and all four 3.4 MT; 7.4 s — Central 2.9 MT 240 hp and non-Central 3.2 MT 270 hp; 7.8 s — 2.9 MT 214 hp; not measured — non-Central 2.9 MT 240 hp.

Short ranking by listed top speed: 255 — four 3.4 MT; 250 — two 3.2 MT; 240 — two 2.9 MT 240 hp; 225 — 2.9 MT 214 hp.

Problems, reliability, and prices are not in this dataset and are not inferred here.