Lamborghini Gallardo vs. Ford GT

I just want to know which car you think is better, then post it and vote on it. Personally I think the Ford GT is better because both the GT and the Gallardo are in the same price range, but you get more bang for the buck with the Ford GT.

http://www.ford-probe.de/mediac/400_0/media/Ford~GT-2.jpg
http://www.bayford.com/gt40/images/gt40engine.jpg

http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/jj.wijnstok/03_lamborghini_4Gallardo_A.jpg
http://www.n-tv.de/images/200307/3173350_Motore_Gallardo.jpg

yes, the gt has better acceleration. but then again, their numbers are so close that it comes down to the all subjective looks and brand preference. i personally much rather have a lamborghini than a ford and i think that the gallardo looks much better than the gt. repeating, that is all subjective.

i agree now that I've taken a more detailed look into the statistics of both the Gallardo and the GT they are remarkably close, I'd like to see those two cars go head to head any day.

lamborghini here for sure. the stats are similar, but the gallardo has a better look(to me), not to mention you get the name lamborghini, as opposed to ford. i would kill to have a lamborghini in my garage even if its a lamborghini tercel(i hope audi never comes to that though). so yeah i'd take the lamborghini here

I honestly don't know- I know the Gallardo is a car that can cope with all kinds of roads with a shitload of refinement, nobody yet knows a hell of a lot about the Ford GT.


But I fancy my chances of getting a Gallardo better than I do a GT and the GT is Ford being Ford, so I'll take the Lambo, I guess.

Though I wish the thing'd come with RWD and Carbonfibre :D

Thanks for post, now that I think about it more Ford is "ford", you know what I mean I think I'd like to say I have a Lamborghini more than saying I have a Ford, although the Ford GT has More HP and torque.

yes, if lambo got rid of the awd, it would be a much much better car. it doesnt always matter if you have more hp, it also depends if you can use it better. take ferrari for example, they use what hp they have to its fullest. plus, i dont like the idea that ford slaps a supercharger on their fast cars (i.e. cobra and gt).

A more fitting opponent for the Gallardo is probably the 996TT - i was gonna make a thread but couldnt be bothered :D - but this is an interesting comparo nonetheless :)

I would have probably gone for the Gallardo over the Ford GT before reading this month's issue of evo, where they do pit a Gallardo against a 996Turbo. I expected it to be a one-sided contest, what with the Lambo packing an extra 60 bhp/ton, but not so...
The 996TT draws first blood in two areas: steering feel (no surprise since the Gallardo's effectively an Audi), and brake pedal feel, criticising the Gallardo's 'mushy' brake pedal. Not what you expect in a £120k supercar. Well maybe you could live with that, but i wouldnt. Very disappointing start, and to my surprise, the 996TT, the least pure of all current 911's is said to feel more "organic" than the Lambo. It also proves faster than the Gallardo on tight roads and is more confidence inspiring on fast sweepers, where the Lambo "creates an element of doubt". "The grip is there but it's a bit of a leap of faith".
Both cars get a 5* rating and the Gallardo dubiously wins the test because of its "engine and great chassis" but the picture painted isn't exactly of a perfectly sorted car.

So at these early stages, it seems the Gallardo isnt what it should be, and like Jimster, I wish they would have made it RWD, like the Ford GT. The GT gets my nod; believe me when i say i would have never thought i'd pick a Ford over a Lambo... even im still struggling to believe it... :disappoin

Yeah, it's kind of hard to conjure, wanting to say you have a Ford and not the Lamborghini(who would of guessed anyone would say that,including me?) If you think about it the 996TT would be an interesting match too.

... It also proves faster than the Gallardo on tight roads and is more confidence inspiring on fast sweepers ...


Journalists can't drive.. The Gallardo is faster than both the Turbo and the GT3. And on tighter tracks it's even faster than the GT2.

As for the GT, wheter it can compare with the Gallardo, 360 and the 911 performance wise, the price and availability killed it's chance of success over here.

Gallardo vs 996TT comparo here (http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=186801) so we don't take this one too far OT.

Deakins, you think the Ford GT is too expensive?

As for the GT, wheter it can compare with the Gallardo, 360 and the 911 performance wise, the price and availability killed it's chance of success over here.

Its only the first year, give it some time. Yeah their are only 101 GTs going to Europe, and over 2,000 people have already requested for one, its availability is diddly squat. But there is without a doubt a very high demand for it in Europe vs. supply. For any chance of success, there needs to be a demand for the car, and the GT so far isn't having problems there.

I didn't know it was in such high demand in Europe, not that its surprising, but which do you like more the GT or the Gallardo?

These two cars have two seperate purposes. And should not be compared.

Which car do I like better? The Gallardo is probably one of the best looking cars I've seen, but I'm also a fan of the GT style. I especially like the big whiteface letters on the tires, it futher extends on the muscle look of the GT. At the end of the day, I would probably end up in the GT's seat.

For one its rwd, thats a definate for me. Awd of the Gallardo doesn't grab my attention for it. I would much rather prefer to see it as a rwd vehicle. I'm a bit curious, does the Lambo share the same awd setup as the rest of the Audi lineup? That may explain why all the new Lambo's are awd. IMO driving a rwd car is a more involving experience, than an awd setup. Its merely my matter of preference behind it, nothing more.

Second, its got mean acceleration, and from what I heard, it can handle as well as any other high end European sportscar. In the GT, whether your at a stoplight, on the interstate, or taking it to a track, it can provide a thrill in any of these scenarios.

The cost is more than justifiable as is the rest of its competition. If the price were any lower you'd get the tradition cheap Ford argument. So in return, I'm glad to see it priced at where it is. Their are some specifics that I'm not entirly content with, but no matter, it would still be a great car to drive. GT gets my vote.

Deakins, you think the Ford GT is too expensive?


The price Ford quoted is fine, the price they will eventually sell for however..


Yeah their are only 101 GTs going to Europe, and over 2,000 people have already requested for one, its availability is diddly squat. But there is without a doubt a very high demand for it in Europe vs. supply. For any chance of success, there needs to be a demand for the car, and the GT so far isn't having problems there.


And there you go.
All the potential buyers will get a 360 or a Turbo because paying ridiculous dealer markups on a Ford is just not worth it.

:iagree: dealers will probably make the gt really expensive in europe just because of the demand. just like here in america with the enzo, they are selling for 1.4 million from dealers now. i think that is stupid.

I agree that many potential buyers of the GT won't be able to one and settle for something else, I don't know what Ford's rate of production of GT's is, but why not make more?

the same reason ferrari didnt make a lot of enzos and f-50s, esclusiveness. how would u like it if you saw an enzo in every city, okay, bad thought. but, yeah.

I guess exclusiveness does make a difference, but I'd still like to see a Enzo or Murcielago or GT in every city though. :smile:

I agree that many potential buyers of the GT won't be able to one and settle for something else, I don't know what Ford's rate of production of GT's is, but why not make more?

From what I've heard Ford is to make approx. 1,000 GT's a year. Which isn't bad considering they haven't established theirselves as a prominent supercar name for years. Why build a bunch when you have no feed back as to how well they sell? If you ask me its a good step to begin with.

And there you go.
All the potential buyers will get a 360 or a Turbo because paying ridiculous dealer markups on a Ford is just not worth it.

Actually what I was thinking is that all potential buyers will not be able to buy one because their already accounted for. Of coarse if you can afford a 150k car, then why hesitate on a dealer markup that they already know is going to be tacked on anyways? A dealer markup is more than likely the last thing thats going to stop any potential buyers. Supply will be the first, and markups IMO the last.

I'm sure I could buy a GT if I were to pay €200k for it. And I'm sure there are people out there willing to do so.

What I'm saying is that the GT is not a direct competitor to either the Gallardo, the 360 or the Turbo over here.

That may be the case in some places, but I think with a good reputation the GT will eventually become a direct competitor in europe.

imo, the thing that will hold the gt back is ford. i think that ford is too busy building other cars that they cant put all their time into building supercars. if you look at supercar companies, ferrari, lamborghini, mclaren, they all can spend the whole time on one car. thats what i think will hold the gt back.

that will definately contribute to the overall quality of the car, but production won't be a problem.

I'm sure I could buy a GT if I were to pay €200k for it. And I'm sure there are people out there willing to do so.

What I'm saying is that the GT is not a direct competitor to either the Gallardo, the 360 or the Turbo over here.
I dont think Ford wanted it to be. In a way, yes, they want to show they can compete on the top stage. But the GT, imo, is really only there to revive Ford's dull image, which will certainly happen when very rich people (willing to pay €200k) are fighting over which one gets to buy a Ford.

the GT could also help Ford's overall sale of the rest of the Ford line.

imo, ford is still a ford. so thats one reason i dont like the gt (not trying to start a flame war, so dont start one, im just saying my opinion). plus, can ford make their own car, the had to bring back the gt40 (wich really isnt even a ford, its a british body with a ford engine), and now they are trying to bring back the shelby, c'mon now, make your own from the ground up fast cars.

If you got ask "how much it costs" then you not going to drive away with either. Make mine a GT.

the gallardo was built with such attention to detail, the GT was by comparison thrown together. Because of that and styling, I'd go with the gallardo.

If you got ask "how much it costs" then you not going to drive away with either. Make mine a GT.
I like that, thats all I have to say.

the gallardo was built with such attention to detail, the GT was by comparison thrown together. Because of that and styling, I'd go with the gallardo.

"Right."

i also think that the gt was just thrown together. seems like typical ford imo.

Well damn, if two people think it, it must be true.

The Gallardo is like a rolling gold chain IMO. Flashy and expensive, but not particularly tasteful. In other words, it is the perfect Lambo.

Whereas the GT just says class and heritage to me, the Gallardo says "rap video". Just my two cents.

And, just a correction for freak here. The GT40MkIV, the most famous one, was designed totally in house by Ford Motor Company entirely within the United States on the explicit order of Henry Ford II. It was the most succesful GT40 design ever done, and was built to prove a point much like the new one. Not to start a flame war, just thought I'd let you know.

Ford has indeed "built their own car from the ground up before". And, they beat the world with it three years in a row..

Well damn, if two people think it, it must be true.
:lol:

I think people have it the wrong way around. The fact that Ford completed the GT in such a short time is a credit to them and not something to criticise :screwy:

Whereas the GT just says class and heritage to me, the Gallardo says "rap video". Just my two cents.

Ford has indeed "built their own car from the ground up before". And, they beat the world with it three years in a row..
:sly: :eek7: Rappers have no understanding of Lambo's or any exotics. The heritage of Lamborghini, I feel is far more regarded than Ford.

They may have built the first GT by themselves, but not this one.

ddd

i also think that the gt was just thrown together.
The Ford GT wasn't just thrown together. :nono:

Okay Texas, then who exactly did new one one because Ford is under the impression they did. :screwy:

what are you talking about?

[QUOTE=TexasF355F1
...........They may have built the first GT by themselves, but not this one.[/QUOTE]................This comment by TexasF355F1 is what I was talking about 1965Pontiac.

I hope nobody is under the impression that the GT was just thrown together. It sounds very far fetched for any company to produce a 150k+ car to just weakly throw it together and hope nobody notices. Little bit screwy if you ask me. :screwy:

Also as others said, the amount of time it took Ford to design the GT is nothing of a dissapointment. Do you think other companies try not to complete their cars as fast as possible? "Time is money", I think that fits in here. The longer it takes to design the car may possibly reflect the to-be cost of it. Every car company tries to be as efficient as possible. Ford just happend to produce the GT in a very astounding time, congrats to them.

imo the longer a car is in r&d, the better it will be because the longer it is in there, the more time they had to perfect it. unless the company is experts in that type of car (which i dont think ford are complete experts in fast cars), it should take a little longer.

Well, the GT would seem to defy that logic judging from what has been written about it so-far. The car seems to be very well conceived indeed.

I think ford got it's butt in gear and was sick of everybody passing them by. When you have the resources a huge company like that has, you can manufacter a car like the GT from drawing board to reality in a short amount of time.

imo the longer a car is in r&d, the better it will be because the longer it is in there, the more time they had to perfect it. unless the company is experts in that type of car (which i dont think ford are complete experts in fast cars), it should take a little longer.

It already puts out the numbers. What more do you want?

I heard that Mr Payne. True, the Europeans have pretty much owned the exotic car segment for quite awhile, the pure performance that the GT is putting out is great in my eyes. Slapped together the GT isn't...

It comes down to the diehard fans of european supercars would hate to have to admit for one minute that Ford, GM, Chevy can build a supercar just as well and cheaper, and quicker when it's not even thier forte. It's not that hard when you can throw money into it that Ferrari and Lambo could only dream of.

As for it saying Ford... I would like nothign better than to have a GT and go smoke a guy in a 360(which it can) and then be able to look at him and say "And it's a Ford too!" Hell I'd love to if it said Chevy or Dodge!!

I know it's hard to admit that a American car can beat the "super cars" at their own game but... Hey, don't hate cause you ain't.

As for it saying Ford... I would like nothign better than to have a GT and go smoke a guy in a 360(which it can) and then be able to look at him and say "And it's a Ford too!" Hell I'd love to if it said Chevy or Dodge!!

then lets pull up to a club or somin and see who likes which one more, a ford or a ferrari. with exotics, you arent paying all that money for speed alone. you are buying the looks and the name too. i cant wait till the 360's succesor in a year. it will outrace the gt, and do it with a n/a 4.2L v-8, no supercharger or anything, except the fine tuning of europeans.

It comes down to the diehard fans of european supercars would hate to have to admit for one minute that Ford, GM, Chevy can build a supercar just as well and cheaper, and quicker when it's not even thier forte. It's not that hard when you can throw money into it that Ferrari and Lambo could only dream of.

As for it saying Ford... I would like nothign better than to have a GT and go smoke a guy in a 360(which it can) and then be able to look at him and say "And it's a Ford too!" Hell I'd love to if it said Chevy or Dodge!!
Chevrolet have never built a super car, they've made a cheap wannabe supercar that is the American Skyline GTR.

The Ford GT on the other hand is certainly more competent than the ZO6, OK a LOT more competent. But do you honestly see the GT being cheaper than a 360 by the time the dealer sells it to you??? I certainly don't.

Besides we've gotta remember that the 360 is ageing at the moment, it's in a holding pattern as the replacement is due around a similar time the GT is released (2005-2006).

I'm more interested to see if Chryslers Detroit '04 Supercar concept will go into production, personally.

I know this is off topic but Chevrolet should make a supercar or make an option besides the Z06 on the Corvette where the corvette much better performance and is still made by Chevrolet.

then lets pull up to a club or somin and see who likes which one more, a ford or a ferrari. with exotics, you arent paying all that money for speed alone. you are buying the looks and the name too. i cant wait till the 360's succesor in a year. it will outrace the gt, and do it with a n/a 4.2L v-8, no supercharger or anything, except the fine tuning of europeans.

Nobody is disagreeing with you for the fact that a ferrari is more than a car meant for speed. Everybody knows this by now, its been beaten into the heads of probably ever AF member unless they just became one. (if they haven't already knew to begin with)

One thing I do have to ask you is: How do you know that the 360s succesor will out race the GT? Please elaborate.

Tell me how is the Ferrari's 4.2 engine is better than the GTs? Leave the supercharger alone, its weak.

Hey, I'm not saying that that GT is shoddy, it really is a great car. What I said was that "relatively" it was thrown together. However, you can't deny that the Ford engineers cut some corners (the used a freackin pickup truck engine, albeit it a good one).

Again, the GT is a good car, I just prefer the Gallardo. :2cents:

im just saying that the 4.2L will probably outrace the gt. lets thing about statistics. most ferrari's get about 110 hp per liter. with a 4.2L engine, the ferrari will make about 460 hp. with that much hp and a n/a, the 360 (420 it might be called) would probably outrace the gt. but dont take my word for it.

Lamborghini all the way. It looks better. Its pimper. Its fast enough.

moslerporschefreak the used a freackin pickup truck engine Its a pretty damn good pickup truck engine though, yeah?

yeah, it is. But its derivation has to hurt not only the sound quality but also how it performs in relation to a serious road car's needs. The lightening doesn't have the same needs from an engine as the GT does, and granted the Ford made some changes to the engine, you still have to admit that it does say something about the time put into the car. But as Crayzayjay said, maybe that's a testiment to the Ford engineers.

yeah your right, it doesn't sound that good. And what about the Viper's engine, that was originally a truck engine and then refined by a Lamborghini engineer, but no one talks about that anymore.