Hey guys, I found an old thread comparing SRT with SVT while doing a search on google, and didn't realize that it was a really old thread, and I ended up digging it back up by replying to it. Well, I guess i'll officially do an actual comparison between the cars that I was interested enough to speak about, and that is the new Ford GT and the Dodge SRT-10 Viper.

The current specs might be a little different than what you might remember, so I'll reiterate them here:

Dodge SRT-10 Viper
Engine: Naturally Aspired 8.28L V10
Configuration: Front Engine/Rear-Wheel Drive
Power: 500hp @ 5,600rpm
Torque: 525lbs-ft @ 4,200rpm
Acceleration (0-60mph): 3.9 seconds (C/D 01-2003)


Ford GT
Engine: Supercharged 5.4L V8
Configuration: Mid Engine/Rear-Wheel Drive
Power: 550hp @ 6,500rpm
Torque: 500lbs-ft @ 3,750rpm
Acceleration (0-60mph): 3.3 seconds (C/D 01-2004)

Alright guys, what's your opinion?

i'd go for the ford gt, this car was made buy saleen, shelby and jack roush, and the head man behind the cobra. it handles like a dream, especially since they bought a modena during the making of the gt to make it eat up the modena in every single category. it runs the 1320 in 11.6. this is a supercar, and with its legendary name minus the 40, i would go with the ford gt. my 2 cents

Yah, I've been asked why I would go for the Ford GT when the Saleen S7 is supposedly superior. Whether or not the S7 is superior, to me, doesn't make much difference. I love the S7, and I know there are other supercars out there that can beat the Ford GT, but I've always been a huge fan of the old GT40, so I was really excited when I heard Ford was building a new one.

the performance numbers I've seen have the 2 cars literally dead even. Even so I gotta go with the GT. I don't like the looks of the Viper as much as the GT.

i cant stand when car companies try to bring back an old car. when i see that, it seems to me that the company has no more ideas or they know that it will sell. so that is one reason i dont like the gt. and i just don't like the styling of the gt, so i would go with the viper. i think the 0-60 time for the gt is a little bit off, i have always seen around 3.8. i don't want to start with how ford got the power foro the gt. sorry guys, but i just don't like the gt, and this is all my opinion, so don't flame.

I like what Ford has done with their entire lineup, and the GT highlights all of it. The GT is faster then the SRT-10 according to everyone except die-hard Dodge fans. Looks are a matter of opinion i guess, but I like the GT's more. The GT beat both the 360s and the GT3 in C&D's comparo. The Ford GT is quicker, handles better, and is lighter. The only real advantage the Viper has is price. In a 1/4 mile or on just about any track, the GT would smash the Viper.

Freakonleash, the 0-60 times isn't off. Notice I even cited the source of my numbers. 0-60mph in 3.3 seconds is what Car and Driver got when they drove the car, and C/D's numbers are widely accepted because they are one of the leading automotive magazines today and has been for many years.

I want a GT. Even though Vipers are pimp, there's something sexy about that Ford (I can't believe I just said that.)

Damn, I can't believe I forgot to make this a poll, there's no way to change it now right? Oh well, it's still nice to hear your opinions on this though.

I like what Ford has done with their entire lineup, and the GT highlights all of it. The GT is faster then the SRT-10 according to everyone except die-hard Dodge fans. Looks are a matter of opinion i guess, but I like the GT's more. The GT beat both the 360s and the GT3 in C&D's comparo. The Ford GT is quicker, handles better, and is lighter. The only real advantage the Viper has is price. In a 1/4 mile or on just about any track, the GT would smash the Viper.

Don't generalize.

I am a die hard Dodge fan and I will admit that the GT is faster than the SRT-10 Viper. Howerver, it isn't much faster than the Viper and not worth the $150,000 price tag. I find it amusing since the GT is built to be a no jokes performance car while the SRT-10 Viper is a convertible show boating car, yet it is able to keep up with the GT.

Give me the SRT-10.

Seeing as to how we're just comparing cars, and most of them are out of our price range anyway, reading your entire reply, I still don't see your reason for picking the Viper. I mean, if you want a convertible, then that's a good reason, since the GT would not come with that option. Or if you like the way it looks better, then yes, you should pick the Viper. But from your post, all I could see that you have said is: "The Ford GT is faster, so, in conclusion, give me the SRT-10" Obviously not your words, but that's basically what I got out of it.

But about your comment on how the Viper is "just" a show boating car, why don't you read their description of it. You don't think Dodge was being serious with performance when they built it? Of course it was built for performance, that's why they put in a MASSIVE 8.28L V10 in it.

Well, first off, Steve Saleen's involvement in ANYTHING is a direct turn-off to me. After all, this is the man who decided ABS, traction control, stability control, and active suspension were "Just gimmicks designed to mask flaws in the chassis" and thus left them out of the Saleen S7, relegating it to also ran status in the supercar wars.

Then you have John Coletti of SVT. Not a bad guy, but compare him to Jon Moss and you know which way the arrow points. Coletti just isn't much for wringing power out of an engine. After all, the Konigsegg CC8S uses the same basic engine as the GT, and somehow it manages to pump out 150-200 more horsepower.

Carroll Shelby is a masterful mechanic and I've got nothing really bad to say about him, although he's not much of an innovator (anyone who's ever heard the name Allard can tell you that big American engines in small British chassis are neither a new idea nor that revolutionary, Carroll's was just more high profile).

Cactus Jack, the cat in the hat, whichever you call him, he's a top notch guy for building race cars, which makes me wonder why there's no GT competition program.

The GT is automotive jewelry. It's designed to be a flashy throwback to days of yore. It's the same concept as the Prowler, or the Thunderbird, or the SSR, or the PT Cruiser. It just happens to also be a fast car.

It fails to impress me, particularly when I see the price sticker and know that there could be a Noble M12 GTO or Mosler MT900 Photon in my garage, two cars that could easily walk either the GT or the Viper.

The Viper gets my vote for being an FR roadster that I could beat around in on a sunny Saturday. For performance or excitement, neither car gets my vote.

I'll have an SRT-10 and a Civic Type R for the cost of a GT.


I really don't see why the GT costs so much, it's good- but it's also a parts bin special, which more or less was developed around a 360 Modena. If it were cheaper I'd love it, or if it had the right badge.

One thing I can't seem to understand is the fact that a lot of people reguard the GT as overpriced. What the Ford GT offers consumers is a pure enthusiast car. If we check the prices of many other cars of the same type, then your arguement is completely flawed. I wouldn't have to go any further than comparing it to the Modena Stradale. The Stradale is 50k more yet in C&D, its also 2 seconds slower. Not to mention the GT's superior power:weight ratio, acceleration, top end, braking, etc. Lets not forget that in the realm of enthusiast cars IMO, performance comes first, then creature comforts in a distant last. Also the Saleen S7 comes at a price of over 400k, is the Saleen overpriced? Is the Ferarri overpriced? My last quesition: How can an enthusiast car built to perform be cheaper than and outexceed its competition (not all) and still be overpriced?

it is overpriced compared to a viper. and plus, if i am going to spend almost $200,000 on a car, i would rather have a ferrari sitting in my driveway than a ford even though the ford is faster. plus, one reasone the gt is cheaper is because ford has all the other cars to make a profit off of, ferrari doesn't so they have to have higher prices on their cars.

Yah, it's weird, basically EVERY expert review of the Ford GT has made the main point that it is a wonderful deal for the performance you get. So it's weird that we get these armchair experts that have never been behind the wheel of any of these cars saying that it's way overpriced. Does anyone even know how much performance cars goes for? Car and Driver, Automobile Magazine, and others have put the Ford GT up against cars such as the Ferrari 360 Modena, Ferrari Challenge Stradale, and Lamborghini Gallardo, and the Ford GT has spanked each and every one of these cars, and they have always made the point that the Ford GT is also the cheapest of all these cars.

About the Mosler MT900, I've seen the price of this car stated to be as low as $165,000 and as high as $240,000. Either way, the Ford GT has this car beat in performance, from what I've read of this car, and please mind my memory, but I remember a best 0-60 time of 3.5 seconds, and I also remember this car not doing as well in the slalom or the skidpad. Then we are talking about some kind of engineering genius, this car has a GM LS6 engine, it's like a do-it-yourself sports car. They took some engine and suped it up. The body looks very open and flat in the front, and the rear wing looks like something off a "hooked up" Honda Civic. The car has less power, less torque, and at cheapest, costs more than the Ford GT. So to talk crap about how the Ford GT is overpriced, then to bring up an inferior car that costs more is simply not logical.

And to whomever said that the Ford GT is built around the 360 Modena, I will not even bother to address that, and most of you know why...

Freakonaleash, it's weird, I've been in other comparisons, that are comparing a McLaren F1 with a Corvette, and a Mercedes and Aston Martin, there are HUGE price gaps between them, much more than with the Ford GT and the Dodge Viper, and I just have to ask, if you've been in there protesting how the McLaren F1 or the Aston Martin is way overpriced?

Being "overpriced" is very subjective. Sure, it's a fact that the Ford GT is more expensive than the Viper, but is it "overpriced?" Well, you're getting a far superior vehicle with the Ford GT, not just in straight acceleration and speed, but also in performance since the GT has a better weight distribution. It's also made with superior materials, stiffer frame, more superior suspension, etc. etc. They are selling their Ford GT's at a price where they are barely turning a profit, if any, so you're actually getting $150,000 worth of technology with it.

But, that's just me defending my car of choice. If you're going to base your decision on price, then it's fair that you pick the Dodge Viper.

Seeing as to how we're just comparing cars, and most of them are out of our price range anyway, reading your entire reply, I still don't see your reason for picking the Viper. I mean, if you want a convertible, then that's a good reason, since the GT would not come with that option. Or if you like the way it looks better, then yes, you should pick the Viper. But from your post, all I could see that you have said is: "The Ford GT is faster, so, in conclusion, give me the SRT-10" Obviously not your words, but that's basically what I got out of it.

But about your comment on how the Viper is "just" a show boating car, why don't you read their description of it. You don't think Dodge was being serious with performance when they built it? Of course it was built for performance, that's why they put in a MASSIVE 8.28L V10 in it.

No, I said the GT is faster, but fast enough for the money.

Also, I hate to break it you but convertibles have never been regarded as performance cars. They are heavier, more prone to flex, and just can't handle as well as their hardtop counterparts. That is why I call the SRT-10 a show boating car. We'll have this comparison again when the new Viper Coupe comes out.

no, i haven't been complaining about the price gaps because the price gabs make sense. with the f1 and corvette, it is the same thing as with ford and ferrari, mclaren doesn't have any other car to make a profite but chevy does. so the mclaren has to be more. plus, the f1 simply just does outrace the corvette. i'm saying that the gt isn't good enough in my eyes to justify it's price difference.

Motor Trend Comparison

TEST DATA
Acceleration, sec
Viper/ Ford GT
0-30 mph 1.7/ 1.7
0-40 mph 2.4/ 2.3 0-50 mph 3.0/ 2.9
0-60 mph 3.9/ 3.6
0-70 mph 4.8/ 4.7
0-80 mph 5.8/ 5.6
0-90 mph 7.0/ 6.5
0-100 mph 8.4/ 8.1
1/4 mile 11.77 @ 123.63/ 11.78 @ 124.31
Braking, 60-0 mph, 97 ft/ 111 ft
600-ft slalom, 70.4mph/ 71.5mph

Maybe C&D are just better at driving the GT???

I found Motor Trend's data on the Mosler, and it keeps pace with the GT quite handily.

0-30 mph 1.4
0-40 mph 2.1
0-50 mph 2.8
0-60 mph 3.5
0-70 mph 4.5
0-80 mph 5.5
0-90 mph 6.6
0-100 mph 7.8
0-100-0 mph 12.3
1/4 mile, sec @ mph 11.54 @ 122.91
Braking, 60-0 mph, ft 114
Braking, 100-0 mph, ft 323
600-ft slalom, mph 71.4
200-ft skidpad, lateral g 0.98
Top-gear rpm @ 60 mph 2000

With a base price of $159,000. It's in the same league as the GT, has a winning competition pedigree (as opposed to wearing the laurels of a mechanically unrelated forebear from 40 years ago), and quite frankly I find its styling much more attractive and honest than the GT's kit car lines. You ask me, that's exactly what the GT is; a replica. It's a modern version of a classic built so that the poor boys who can't afford to own and couldn't stand to drive the original can have a shot at looking like they could.

There are an endless barrage of cars that keep the pace with the GT, which represent better value.

TVR Tuscan T400R, Noble M12 GTO, Caterham 7 Superlight, a Smart Roadster with a Hayabusa engine shoved in the back, etc........

But it really is beside the point, though, just getting that out in the open.

The main point I woud like to make, Demon Mustang, is that I have yet to see a proper professional review, by an accomplished race driver, not some shithead journo. If there is one I stand corrected and would like to see it, but until then, I'm still skepical.

If Ford were original and actually built thier own car with thier own design (Not some 1960's Lola design), I'd respect the car, but the Ford GT is none of that. Good car yes, but original? Not in a million years.

"The main point I woud like to make, Demon Mustang, is that I have yet to see a proper professional review, by an accomplished race driver, not some shithead journo."

That's funny to say that the Ford GT has not been tested by professionals. It's been tested by every major magazine from Automobile, Car and Driver, Motor Trend, Sprts Car International, and the list goes on. And you don't actually think some journalist with glasses sitting behind a typewriter all day is the one that goes out and drives these do you? These ARE professional drivers, and even if they aren't professional drivers, if they are able to push the GT to do 0-60mph in 3.3 seconds, isn't that saying MORE for the car if a non-professional race driver can do that? Doesn't that mean that with a professional driver it should actually do BETTER? Either way, these ARE professional driver reviews, to pretend they don't hold any credible value is just blinding yourself.

Motor Trend received an earlier build of the car than Car and Driver if I remember correctly, I own all of those magazines that mention the Ford GT BTW :iceslolan . And even Ford told them that it was unfinished, but they were free to drive it around a bit, but even then, the numbers are impressive.

Not sure if you guys were good enough to actually type out all those numbers, or you found them on the web and just copy and pasted, but thanks, and I'll spend the time to type out the numbers from Car and Driver:

0-60 mph 3.3
0-100 mph 7.6
0-150 mph 16.9
1/4 mile @ mph 11.6 @ 128 (Notice Mosler MT900 got it beat by a bit here, I'm not going to hide the truth folks, but we're not comparing it to the Mosler, and it has the Viper beat, don't know why you guys are bringing other cars into this, perhaps you should start another thread with the Mosler? :p )
rolling 5-60 mph 3.7
top-gear 30-50 mph 7.7
top-gear 50-70 mph 6.7
braking 70-0 mph, feet 153
1.9-mile road course (lap time/mph) 1:32.13/70.3
roadholding 300-foot skidpad, g 0.98
lane-change, mph 70.1

So if I'm getting this right the Ford GT is a Modena with a ford badge. :rolleyes:

That must also rule out the possible slogan, M12 "powered by ford" phrase...

I'd also like to comment on those Motortrend times for the GT/Viper comparisions. You should actually read the entire article, then you'll realize why I lost faith in their judgment.

And also Jimster, a Caterham 7 Superlight? Your probably right that could easily stay with a GT, but comon, its basically a go-cart. They've surely gotta be in an entire different spectrum. I guess thats why it was besides the point. :grinno:

As Jimster said those are not Profesional Drives. They are good amateur drivers but that is it.


And yes they can pull good numbers in a straight line, but what we really care about is the road course. Here we need proper pro's to judge performance. Justin Bell was a perfect candidate for the Motor Treand comparo.

Or here is another extract from an Euro magazine with proper profesional drivers. Look in the right bottom corner.
http://www.elisetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?postid=43701

I did read the entire article, I actually have it right here. Every magazine will have slightly different numbers, so it's nothing new to me, I bought the magazine, thought the comparison was cool, didn't mind it at all that in their tests the Viper came out on top.

BTW, I still don't understand why you guys keep saying it's a Modena, it shares none of it's qualities, in fact, it's been compared to the Modena, and it smokes it, 'nuff said.

The 360 Modena has much shorter stroke in their engines instead of larger bore, they have a completely different philosophy as Ford when they built the GT. Their engines are much higher winding and that's where the power is. In fact, that very reason gives the car much lower torque than a lot of the other makes of cars. Hell, my 1992 Mustang GT stock had more torque than the 360 Modena (275 lb-ft vs 300 lb-ft).

The 360 Modena, from what I know, has an acceleration time of over 4 seconds. Hello? Does anyone notice the GT does it in low 3's? The new Audi RS6 will probably do 0-60 as fast as the 360 Modena. Even the Lamborghini Gallardo has the Modena beat, and the GT can beat that, so...

Um, so you think a good comparison is if every car is driven by a different driver with different driving techniques and different driving skill? :screwy:

These types of mass reviews are probably the least reliable of them all! The fact is, if you claim these people of Automobile Magazine or Sports Car International are "amateur drivers," then wouldn't the results of the tests of the Ford GT be BETTER with a "professional driver" behind the wheel?

Tell me, what kind of point do you think you're making by saying that the drivers who have tested the Ford GT are not "good enough?" Let's pretend that I tested the car, and I got it to do 0-60mph in 3.5 seconds, does that mean, since I'm not a professional, those numbers are underestimated or overestimated? Think about it for one second, if a nonprofessional like myself can get it to do 0-60 in 3.5 seconds, wouldn't it be logical to say that a professional could do it in LESS?

So basically, even though I don't believe in what you're saying, IF you're right, then the Ford GT is even FASTER than what I have stated.

Well, thanks guys, I know the Ford GT is great, but I didn't know you guys will go all out to prove that it's even better than I have thought! :rofl:

Um, so you think a good comparison is if every car is driven by a different driver with different driving techniques and different driving skill? :screwy:

Don't get smart with me whitout knowing the rest of that article. The final word in it was given by only one of the drivers Justin Wilson current F1 driver.





Tell me, what kind of point do you think you're making by saying that the drivers who have tested the Ford GT are not "good enough?" Let's pretend that I tested the car, and I got it to do 0-60mph in 3.5 seconds, does that mean, since I'm not a professional, those numbers are underestimated or overestimated? Think about it for one second, if a nonprofessional like myself can get it to do 0-60 in 3.5 seconds, wouldn't it be logical to say that a professional could do it in LESS?

So basically, even though I don't believe in what you're saying, IF you're right, then the Ford GT is even FASTER than what I have stated.

Well, thanks guys, I know the Ford GT is great, but I didn't know you guys will go all out to prove that it's even better than I have thought! :rofl:



Please don't be obtuse. Certain cars are very hard to drive at the limit and only a pro can do it. Such is the case of the moden, the GTS viper, or the mosler. So its very posible that the Gt40 was faster around a track with an amateur driving it because its a more forgiving car. This is why we are waiting for a proper comparison done with a pro.

And stop quoting straight line numbers. All we care is about a road course. Only a pro can have a final word there. If you whant fast acceleration get a Lingenfelter TT Vette. It can do the 1/4 in 9 sec range blowing the doors off the GT40.

Um, let me remind you the comparison is between a Ford GT and a SRT Viper.

mmmkay? Thanks... :disappoin

but just for fun, basically, you're saying that since the Ford GT has good straight line numbers, then it's irrelevant, but I am willing to bet you quote them quite often in other comparisons when they are in favor of the car you're supporting, but it's ok, we all have our double standards somewhere...

Also, you're not doubting that the numbers for the Ford GT are correct, you're doubting that the numbers for the Viper are not as good as they would be with a "professional" driver behind the wheel? Alright then, but it's still a double standard to think that the numbers will improve for the Mosler and Viper, but not the GT. But, ok, you're a moderator, so I won't claim you have your biases, you're completely unbiased, yep, there are absolutely no double standards anywhere in this post. Sorry, so somehow, in a comparison between a Ford GT and the SRT-10 Viper, the winner is: Mosler MT900??? :eek7:

You said that magazine reviewers are pros. i disagreed and brought examples to further my point.

I also stated that I want to see a proper profesional to compare those cars. I did not say what the result will be, only what it might be. Who knows maybe the GT will be even faster or maybe not. Anyway I'll wait for a proper to see the real performance differences.


And in this particular comparison the GT will be faster than the SRT-10 viper.

However the convertible vipers were never the true performers. The viper coupe models were the real thing. Just look at the performace differences between an RT-10 and a GTS...It hard to believe they are both vipers.

Well, if only the Viper Coupe was made available to the public to be driven on the road...

Not to mention it's not identical except for the hardtop, there are many other differences too to my knowledge, and those differences would probably make it more expensive than the current viper. Making the price advantage much less noticable.

Either way, we are comparing road cars. At the current forms, the GT pwns the Viper in the comparison in my opinion, unless you're a die-hard Viper fan, or really love front engine cars for some reason, or really wants a convertible, etc. etc.

Performance-wise, I believe the GT has the upper hand, try as you might to find excuses as to why this is not true, but anything you can say to make the Viper sound better, can probably be applied to the GT as well.

I agree that we haven't seen a proper head to head comparo of the production GT versus...well anything. As a matter of fact only one "head to head" result has been printed regarding any Ford GT and it was pre-production. And, this was against the Modena Stradale and 911 GT3 which were horribly out-powered by the Ford. Hopefully, more representative comparos with the production GT wait in the future. And, we all know that they do.

However, IMHO none of this is really good news for the other supercars on the market as the GT will almost certainly go faster, not slower, than preliminary reports indicated with pre-production testing. Ford upped the hp rating for the production car, which was under-rated to begin with, and some say Ford literally upped the hp too.

Taking an under-rated 500hp car and turning it into a still under-rated 550hp car is only bad news for DCX or anyone else. And, Ford said they were still tweaking the suspension as well so handling should be a bit better as well. Considering that handling and acceleration were already phenomenal this is good news for Ford fans and bad news for anyone else.

The Ford GT seems to polarize people. You either love it, or you hate it. Not surprisingly, DCX fans and Ferrari afficianados generally hate it. And, I really don't care as the rivalry this car creates is a good thing, just as it was with the original.

For the first time since the J cars of the mid to late 60's Ford has decided to show the world they can compete with anyone, on any level, with a car they designed and do it for less. It is only fitting that they used that car, and earlier GT40's, as inspiration in my opinion.

Since we haven't seen a real Viper versus GT comparo yet we can only make best guesstimate predictions from what we have seen so far. Mine.....look for the GT to be about half a second quicker through the 1/4 mile than the Dodge, slip through the cones a couple mph faster, with roughly similar skidpad grip and braking giving the Ford a bit more on the pad and the Viper a bit more in braking. From about 100mph on I think the acceleration story will be very bad for the big Dodge. A Dodge Viper coupe will help minimize the disparity, but it wont overcome it.

The only car I expect to outrun the GT on a road course are the Enzo and a few of the other mega exotics. Taking the GT's price-tag into consideration it is the supercar bargain of all time IMO.

All we can really do is wait and see how the numbers actually hash out, and where our predictions end up. I am pretty confident the GT will live up to mine, and likely exceed them.

I've also always thought the GT was a bargain when compared to the other cars that can actually keep up with it. In fact, both the Enzo and the Saleen S7 have similar performance specs, and both of them are either only matching or BARELY exceed the Ford GT, yet, they cost hundreds of thousands of dollars more.

Yet, people here seem to think it's a rip-off, that's strange...

My main beef with cars like the Ferrari Enzo and the Mosler MT900 is that their design is almost purely for mazimum aerodynamics, they don't really have any personality. I find both those cars to be visually grotesque, just like the Mercedes SLR McLaren, it's so gawdy, I think the Mercedes SL500 is a work of art though, if only they kept to that design for the SLR. At least the Viper's design has some sort of personality unlike the other cars mentioned here so far.

Don't get too worked up over it. The GT ruffles their feathers because it does what Ford wants it to do. And, that is a good thing.

the enzo doesn't have any attitude?!?! so you are telling me that f1 cars don't have any attitude? the enzo is a striking design that says it just wants to go. everything flows so smoothly. but hey, you like american cars, so i can see why you (demon mustang) don't get the elegance of the enzo.

Um, actually, F1 cars are not designed like that for style or attitude, it's all practicality. While I appreciate function over form, I think a car also needs personality. If every manufacturer designed their cars with only aerodynamics in mind, they will probably all look like the Enzo. Perhaps the Enzo will become a cult classic or something in time, but for right now, it's just a car that's superbly aerodynamic and was built with nothing but speed in mind. The GT has a history and a personality, which is why I prefer it's looks over the Enzo's, the Enzo is just a bit too extreme looking.

Same deal with cars like the MB SLR McLaren and Mosler MT900. Don't get me wrong, I love Mercedes Benz, and usually like all of their designs, I think the CLK series coupe is just gorgeous, and the SL500 is a beautiful work of art, but when they make these extreme designs like the SLR, it really doesn't work for me.

Actually to be clear, the GT was modeled after the GT40 right? The GT40 was a race car right? Wouldn't that also suggest that the GT40 and therefore the GT were designed very much with aerodynamics in mind? My point is not that the GT is an ugly car, quite to the contrary it is rather striking. My point is that aero and asthtics are not mutually exclusive. Another example (in my mind, clearly not in everybody's) is the Enzo. I don't care what you say, the enzo has a lot of character, it's just different fromt he character of the GT.

Anyways, back on the topic of the GT v Viper, I think we have kind of alluded to the answer but never explicitly stated it. The general sentiment is that the GT is a very fast, supreme handling car that can give cars like the C-GT, enzo and S7 a run for their money (but not quite beat mind you). Correct me if I'm wrong but if you open up a thread on this forum comparing the Viper to the enzo or C-GT, you'll be laughed off the web. Doesn't this kind of point to the fact that the GT indeed blows away the viper? Lets face it, the viper is an evolved modern muscle car. The GT is a true american supercar ready to take on Europe.

Well, the original GT40 wasn't very aerodynamic though. The original design, I think that was the original that Lola contributed to, was producing 300 pounds of LIFT at the nose, which is very, very, bad. The final design that eventually won in 1966 and 3 more times after that, was much better and they put technologies into it that produced downward lift, which is good.

Anyway, the new GT is also quite different, I guess to the untrained eye, they look the same, that's because it's supposed to take after the GT40, but for someone like me, or any car enthusiast who have followed the old GT40 and Ford's attempts at modernize it, would know that it's very different, and very much modernized without killing the spirit with technology.

The thing I like about the design is that it looks fast, yet elegant. The Enzo is very extreme, it looks fast, and that's it. It looks like a car that's ONLY for the die-hard Ferrari F1 fan, which isn't bad at all for those who are interested in that, but just not me. I'm very much aware that the Europeans have walked all over us in the high-end sports cars, so I'm really proud when an American car can take on the likes of Porsche and Ferrari like Ford did in the 60's. Being American, the Ford GT is really glorious because you can put it side-by-side with some exotic European sports car and you can be confident that you can blow their doors off while being cheaper than almost all of them.

But the topic is with the Viper, not the Enzo or MT900, and the main reason is like I said originally, While searching on the internet for Ford GT videos, I accidentally dug up an old thread called SVT vs SRT which compared, among other cars, the Ford GT and the SRT10 Viper. And I found that interesting enough to reply to. Upon being notified that it was too old, I started a new thread to hear what people had to say about the two cars.

I would start a thread comparing the Enzo and the Ford GT, but I think they are quite too different for each other. Even though I know the GT has specs that closely match cars like the Carrera GT, Saleen S7, and Ferrari Enzo, people might not even associate them closely enough to think it's worth comparing. But then again, someone compared a Corvette with a McLaren F1...

Anyways, back on the topic of the GT v Viper, I think we have kind of alluded to the answer but never explicitly stated it. The general sentiment is that the GT is a very fast, supreme handling car that can give cars like the C-GT, enzo and S7 a run for their money (but not quite beat mind you). Correct me if I'm wrong but if you open up a thread on this forum comparing the Viper to the enzo or C-GT, you'll be laughed off the web. Doesn't this kind of point to the fact that the GT indeed blows away the viper? Lets face it, the viper is an evolved modern muscle car. The GT is a true american supercar ready to take on Europe.


This might be one of the truest and most observant post I have ever seen on AF.

Watch this video (http://www.sleepy-fish.com/sleepy/TopGear_GT.wmv)

All I have to say, its an MR, and it outclasses the Viper in every way (including price :banghead: )

Its one of my favorite supercars because it still has all the comforts and luxuries of a daily driver. The steering shifting and clutch are all smooth and soft. And the car isnt about bringing back an old car. Its about reminding people that we can kick those Yuppie Ferrari asses again.

All I have to say, its an MR, and it outclasses the Viper in every way (including price :banghead: )



The GT outclasses the viper in price....mmmmm....i though 80K was less than 150K. Unless you think a bigger price is better.



Its about reminding people that we can kick those Yuppie Ferrari asses again.

Really because I could swear Ferrari is murdering ford in Formula 1. Maybe the TV channel wel all watch is edited on the fly by Ferrari

c'mon neutrino, you knew he was talking about the fordgt beating up on the ferrari's(you know what he meant) the ford gt beats up on the modena and lots of other ferrari's just like back when when the fordgt40 beat the ferrari

I think neutrino would conveniently forget the humiliation dealt to Ferrari by Ford in the mid 60's in Le Mans.

Anyway, despite this, that is not what we're talking about. We're talking about the Ford GT. And even the fastest and most expensive Ferrari now, the Ferrari Enzo, it BARELY goes faster, if any, than the Ford GT. Last I heard the Enzo was to do 0-60 in 3.3 seconds also and the performance was very similar. I don't really believe this, I believe the Enzo could do better with a better driver, but still, even being better than the Ford GT, just how much more does it cost than the Ford GT? The difference is almost unnoticable, but you'll definitely notice the difference in your pocket book...

lets see here, i will give you a set of keys. one has the prancing horse on it and the other has the blue oval on it. which one are you going to pick? the gt doesn't have near the technology of the enzo. what 1/4 mile time did c/d post for the gt? i don't really care about 0-60.

Hm, well, I DID post them already, but I'll be nice and look back to find them again for you... Yep, page 2, 11.6 @ 128mph.

And from what I know the Ferrari Enzo does it in 11.2 at 136mph. Hm, let's see, pay $500,000 for .4 seconds faster in 1/4 mile... don't pay $500,000 for .4 seconds on the 1/4 mile... I don't know, this is a hard one...

Not to mention the Enzo is this super aerodynamic machine with a 650hp V12 while the Ford GT is a retro style car with a 550hp V8, considering that, the "prancing horse" kind of leaves you begging for more eh?

And BTW, your little keys with the Ferrari or Ford logo thing isn't really impressive, basically you're promoting simple brand recognition instead of actual recognition of an automobile's achievements.

Kind of like hiring people for a company based on race instead of merit eh? :rofl:

ARG, wait a minute, how did we get into Ford GT vs. Ferrari Enzo?? This is Viper vs. GT! The only real discussion I had about the Enzo was about it's exterior design!

Damn freak, you're just out on a crusade to "prove" that the Ford GT is "worse" than everything aren't you? Seems like the concept of Ford taking on all the big boys is scaring you a little isn't it?

Feh, the GT40 MkII's only real accomplishment was 1966, in beating the Ferrari 330P3. The MkII got its ass handed to it on a silver platter by the 330P4, especially at Daytona. Hooboy, you want to piss off a Ford fan mention the P4 1-2-3 sweep at the 24hours of Daytona. Yes, they took Le Mans in 1967, but were denied the Manufacturer's Championship. And that's what really matters.

You'll notice I didn't mention the MkIV's. Well, Ford is conveniently ignoring the more successful MkIV in the styling and marketing of the GT, so I'll ignore it here, too. Even though it is my favorite GT40.

As far as "kicking those yuppie Ferrari asses again" is concerned. It doesn't happen until Ford puts the GT out on the track. No track record, no Ferrari defeat.

And, quite frankly, I refuse to consider the GT anything more than retro jewelry in the same vein as the Plymouth Prowler until Ford sends factory GT's to Le Mans to meet the Ferraris head on. It is an abomination to build a car on the legacy of one of the great American racing efforts of the 60's and not race it.

"Yes, they took Le Mans in 1967, but were denied the Manufacturer's Championship. And that's what really matters."

LOL, I love how if you don't like a car, the "what really matters" is what they lost in. But if you're trying to support a car that won somewhere else, then "what really matters" would be that. It's funny how "what really matters" all depends on who won what right? :rofl:

"As far as "kicking those yuppie Ferrari asses again" is concerned. It doesn't happen until Ford puts the GT out on the track. No track record, no Ferrari defeat."

So I guess beating just about all the street legal Ferrari's except the Enzo isn't "what really matters." Huh? Oh well :iceslolan

Not to mention, you act like it's cheap to simply race a car. Most likely if they are to "race" the GT, Ford would not be racing it at all, they'll have to build a whole new car, and market it to current race teams that might want to lease the use of the GT's for their races. Then it's not much a competition of the cars, but a competition of the drivers.

I think some people need to get off their soap box and just spectate like the rest of the crowd for just a few replies. We all know Ferrari builds good cars, and the Ford GT is probably the only true pure sports car to come from the US in a long long time. The topic is going to be beaten to death, and still nothing will be resolved.

On a side note: From what I heard there has been a lot of speculation that other F1 manufactures are threatening to start up a rival racing series in 2008. Though I doubt that this rival series will ever exist, I still am questioning whether F1 will be around past 07' (at least with Ferrari and other manufactures competing in it). Does anybody know anything else about this?

BTW, I know that Ferrari is probably single handly the greatest name in F1 racing, but it doesn't help competition when they have drivers like SCHUMACHER!!!!!! Can nobody beat him? He can't be human... Does anybody feel he should retire after he wins this year? (I know I'm assuming he will win, but he has a mighty lead on the rest of the pack)

"Yes, they took Le Mans in 1967, but were denied the Manufacturer's Championship. And that's what really matters."

LOL, I love how if you don't like a car, the "what really matters" is what they lost in. But if you're trying to support a car that won somewhere else, then "what really matters" would be that. It's funny how "what really matters" all depends on who won what right? :rofl:

"As far as "kicking those yuppie Ferrari asses again" is concerned. It doesn't happen until Ford puts the GT out on the track. No track record, no Ferrari defeat."

So I guess beating just about all the street legal Ferrari's except the Enzo isn't "what really matters." Huh? Oh well :iceslolan

Not to mention, you act like it's cheap to simply race a car. Most likely if they are to "race" the GT, Ford would not be racing it at all, they'll have to build a whole new car, and market it to current race teams that might want to lease the use of the GT's for their races. Then it's not much a competition of the cars, but a competition of the drivers.

You're posts make you sound like a big Ford fanboy. You say that the GT-40 humiliated Ferrari, and so do a lot of other Ford fanboys. They talk as though the GT-40 dominated GT racing in the 60s. The GT-40 only beat Ferrari in a few races. That is hardly what I call dominating. Layla's Keeper's point was if they had truly dominated they would have won the manufactures championship. Ford didn't, Ferrari did and that IS what matters. I would also like to point out that some of the most bragged about Fords aren't even Fords. They were all British cars. The GT-40, the AC Cobra, and the Daytona. None of them were Fords. Also, until the GT beats the Modena and all the other street legal Ferraris on a track using professional drivers I don't give a crap if you think it is faster. Who cares what a car can do on paper. I want to see what it can do in real life. I just don't see how you can say that the GT beats any Ferrari except the Enzo when a proper comparo has not been done. Also, currently Ford can't even come close to touching Ferrari in F1. If they knew what they were doing I would think they wouldn't have a problem with that, but they can't even come close to pulling it off.

On a side note: From what I heard there has been a lot of speculation that other F1 manufactures are threatening to start up a rival racing series in 2008. Though I doubt that this rival series will ever exist, I still am questioning whether F1 will be around past 07' (at least with Ferrari and other manufactures competing in it). Does anybody know anything else about this?

BTW, I know that Ferrari is probably single handly the greatest name in F1 racing, but it doesn't help competition when they have drivers like SCHUMACHER!!!!!! Can nobody beat him? He can't be human... Does anybody feel he should retire after he wins this year? (I know I'm assuming he will win, but he has a mighty lead on the rest of the pack)
Let's stay on topic please :)

If you want to discuss F1:

http://www.automotiveforums.com/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=551

Damn freak, you're just out on a crusade to "prove" that the Ford GT is "worse" than everything aren't you? Seems like the concept of Ford taking on all the big boys is scaring you a little isn't it?

everything?!?! the only cars i have talked about are the enzo, viper, and modena. yeah, that is everything. :rolleyes:

Hey, since we all seem to be way off topic on just about everything here (Dodge Viper, what's that?) how bout we open a new thread. Ford GT v. everything else or something of the such.

BTW: I'm serious, this is good discussion, but those wanting to come and discuss the Viper may feel a little awkward in this thread.

Well, reading that expert reply on how Ford didn't win the manufacturer's championship in ONE year. Not only specifically one year, but ONE specific race (Part 4). Ford had 1-2-3 wins at SEVERAL races, not just Le Mans, but many people, not just "Ford fanboys" would consider LeMans the deciding race, and the Ferrari was beat 4 consecutive years in a row. No need to single out any single year there. Ford also had wins in Sebring, and Daytona, but if you don't realize how all that is conveniently ignored just to focus on one instance when that wasn't so, alright then, whatever makes you happy about yourself.

Not to mention, the Lola design was the first GT40s if I'm not mistaken, and they actually didn't win. Ford had to modify them, including putting in a larger Ford engine before they started to win at Le Mans. The Shelby Cobra was also powered by Ford engines, even though the car itself was designed by a private contractor, Shelby was still working cooperatively with Ford. If you remember, Shelby chose to work with Ford after GM turned him down thinking he was out of his mind. :grinno: (perhaps he was, but hey, it worked didn't it?)

And it's funny that you would consider me a "Ford fanboy" when I'm supporting Ford in a Ford vs. Viper thread, I mean, if I don't think the Viper is better, who else am I supposed to support here? Should I start talking about how much I love the Infinity G35? Should I start talking about the Acura Integra I used to own before my Mustang? Should I start talking about how much I like the Mercedes Benz SL500 and SL55 AMG? Oh yah, that will be VERY on-topic here.

So perhaps you people are "Ferrari fanboys" since you so happen to be defending Ferrari this one time, right? You don't hear me calling any of you that, and for good reason! :rofl:

It seems to me, the topic went from Ford GT vs. Dodge Viper, and when people failed to really come up with any good arguments for the Viper, then someone came in and started comparing it to the Ferrari Enzo (yah, how the hell did that happen?) I already admitted in the very beginning, go back and read if you doubt me, that the Enzo is faster, despite some reported numbers being similar to the GT's, I doubt that and believe that with a better driver the Enzo would definitely come out on top, so I wasn't even defending the Ford then, but you guys know how to remember and read things selectively, don't worry, it's a normal human thing, we all suffer from some kind of selective memory and double standards, it's ok, you're only human...

Then the only discussion I had about the Enzo was regarding the styling, how it's not my cup of tea, but then, that's all subjective, and my opinion, so I wasn't trying to force anything onto anyone, but then, the topic of how the Enzo is superior to the GT was pushed and pushed. Again, a specific model had to be singled out, just like how a specific race had to be singled out, just to make it seem like the GT is so outclassed by Ferrari, of course, selective memory kicks in again, to forget that the Ford GT can outperform every other street Ferrari out there except the Enzo.

Then of course, people had to single out specific things that they knew is "better" than the Ford GT, well, considering how the GT isn't even on the race track, it got diverted to a general Ferrari vs. Ford thing in a specific arena that Ferrari dominates, which is F1. I mean, we can always find something that someone is better at than someone else. While we're at it, why don't we just argue over what is the best in the universe overall? I mean, is there any way we can remain on topic if the result isn't to your liking? :disappoin

I'll never deny that the GT40 program was a resounding success as a whole, and it gave good Le Mans drives to one of my all time favorite drivers; Chris Amon. Ford did a good job taking a Lola chassis and revamping it into a very competitive race car.

But they were not all conquering, had formidable competition from the Ferrari 330P4, and by the time Ferrari had the 312P Berlinetta designed and on track to take down the insanely fast MkIV GT40, Porsche blew everyone's doors off with the 917.

But, when you really get down to it, this has very little to do with the Ford GT or the Ferrari 360 Modena. The 360 Modena is the spiritual successor to, of all cars, the 246GT Dino. It's just another in the long line of mid-engine "bargain" Ferraris meant to keep the company's profit margins up. It's in the same family as the 308GTB and the 355 Berlinetta. The GT is a styling statement. A very fast, good handling styling statement, but a styling statement nonetheless. It's not a symbol of Ford's return to organized road racing. Hell, they won't even put their name on the Elan engines in the Panozs and Riley & Scotts in ALMS. It's not a street legal race car, built so that wealthy enthusiasts can smack around Corvette ZO6's and Viper Competition Coupes at their local club meets and then drive home. It's a styling statement that reinforces Ford's admittedly backwards trend in styling.

I don't believe that Ford should cash in on the incredible significance of the GT40 in automotive history just so that they can justify making their next small sport utility look like it was designed in 1968. The GT40 did so much more for Ford in the 1960's, and deserves so much more.

The ford gt will be $150k and the 360 modena is $160k even though the ford might be barely faster, its a ferrari. It would still only take me a split second to take it. The original thread was about an srt-10 vs. Ford gt40. Is that the truck or the viper because the viper might be almost as powerful the handling of this car is incredible. And the truck would just get stomped, besides you buy 3 of them for the same price

ummm, look at the thread name. dodge srt10 VIPER vs Ford GT, which the gt isn't the gt40. the gt is the modern version of the gt40.

Layla, I'm very aware of that. Where have you seen me ever state anything contrary? I know Ford isn't planning on racing the GT, and I know the 360 isn't the 330 from the 60's.

Also, you have to understand what us "Ford fanboys" are talking about when we say Ford humiliated Ferrari in Le Mans. We, well, at least I, don't mean that we were "all dominating" but it's just that when have Ferrari EVER lost to anything American? I don't think an American has EVER won in Le Mans, and Ferrari being defeated by an American company that wasn't even really big in auto racing at all, four years in a row, was VERY demoralizing to them, trust me, that's why they basically dropped out of auto racing all-together after that. Despite their financial situation, this was not very good for their image either. It wasn't that the GT40 was some technological marvel, it's the simple fact that Ford was probably the "little guy" in Le Mans, and we went straight to the top in a very short period of time, so considering who it was, it was quite an achievement, and it's something to be proud of.

Also, I don't really dislike Ford's recent attempts to "retro" their cars, Ford has suffered a lot of hits to their image. The Firestone-Explorer fiasco wasn't at all positive for Ford's image. Ford merely recognized that Ford's golden years were back in the past. Today, Ford has just been yet another company making trucks and family sedans, nothing too remarkable, just an American version of Toyota or Honda.

Ford simply recognized that the best way to move forward was actually to please the crowd by moving back into their glory years. Their marketing is almost proof of this. The Ford GT priced at $150,000 is not actually making much profit at all for Ford, it IS a statement, but I don't see it as a negative thing. The Ford GT40 was a big part of Ford's history, and a lot of fans would like to see an improved version of the car. I mean, seeing projects like the GT90 become utter failure proves that making some uber futuristic concept with a badge that resembles the GT40 was not a good idea. It is a better idea to directly commemorate the car directly.

Sorry to use guns, I know this is a automotive forum, but I love to shoot, and it's kind of like the 1911 pistol. Not a really good example, but hear me out. The 1911 was such a good pistol back in it's day, that Colt and other companies have tried to "modernize" it with things like the 1991, which, in my opinion, isn't very good, and almost detrimental to the 1911 name. Many reputable companies figured it's a better idea to simply make pistols with the same badge and same general design, but incorporate new technologies that make it fire more reliably and more accurate. Although they didn't "bring it back" like Ford is doing with the GT40, I think it's kind of similar in how the original classic would eventually overcome any attempts to make "future" versions of it.

Sorry, not a great example, but I shoot a lot, so I try to use guns and cars to compare things a lot, lol. I'll compare almost anything to cars, it's so weird. :rofl:

Anyway guys, don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against Ferrari, perse, but I simply would not buy one if I had the money. Simply because I know there are other cars that are just as good practically-wise, for the same money or less, just without the Ferrari badge. That's something I can live with. Also, I'm much more inclined toward performance than luxury, but if I was to buy a luxury sports car, it would be an Aston Martin. But for the price of a Ferrari Enzo, I can buy a Ford GT, AND a Saleen S7. I mean, come on, both cars are almost as fast, and one might be faster (S7), and I can have a SELECTION of both for the same price! You just can't beat that! :iceslolan

an american company has been beating ferrari in the Le Mans. and this is recent. the corvette C5-R was winning Le Mans. it hurts to say that, but if i must, i will accept it.

Well, I'm talking about the 60's, to my knowledge, Americans never ever won one of those high-profile races against the likes of Ferrari and Porsche, and if there was a win before, it was probably not like what Ford dished out with the GT40.

Basically, if my memory doesn't fail me, this was during a time when those races were normally dominated by the Europeans, and then Ford came out of nowhere and surprised the hell out of everyone.

i agree with you that the gt40 has had a great heritage and all. but what does that matter. are you going to go to the track and be like, "yeah, this car has an extra 50 horsepower because of it's heritage." i am not saying that the heritage is a big part of it, but when it comes to comparing cars, i don't really look at the heritage.

Um... why would I need to claim that it will have 50 more hp because of it's heritage? It already out performs most of the cars you have mentioned...

It seems your basis for comparison is not based on heritage, since the GT has that, and it's not based on performance, since the GT has that too, it's merely based on personal preference. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but at the very least you could admit that and stop pretending like there's something inherently wrong with the Ford GT.

Um... why would I need to claim that it will have 50 more hp because of it's heritage? It already out performs most of the cars you have mentioned...

It seems your basis for comparison is not based on heritage, since the GT has that, and it's not based on performance, since the GT has that too, it's merely based on personal preference. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but at the very least you could admit that and stop pretending like there's something inherently wrong with the Ford GT.


It's now official the GT will be rated at 550hp (still underlisted by the way) My vote GT excellent beautiful machine, I always wanted an original and want a new one even more.

i never said there was anything wrong with the gt. i personally think the gt is an okay car. there are a few reasons i don't like it a lot and i have already mentioned a couple of them. but another one is the engine. it is a supercharged 5.4L V-8 and makes 550hp, well, ferrari's next 360 is probably going to have a N/A 4.0L V-8 with 500hp. that is one way i don't like many american cars is because they have to use big engines to get a lot of power.

"that is one way i don't like many american cars is because they have to use big engines to get a lot of power."

Yet, you side with the Viper that needs a 8.28L V10 to get 500hp. Hm...

Not to mention you forget that Ferrari and Ford is almost opposite in their methods of getting their power. Ferrari, being very active and drawing a lot of what they learn from F1, will almost always build engines that are meant to rev very high. High revving engines will almost always have more efficient max power when compared to an engine Ford would make which is probably meant more for low-end torque and mid-range rev horsepower. This is nothing new, if Ford really wanted to do that, I'm sure they could, mainly they just have to shorten the stroke, it's not that the Americans don't know how to do this, it's just a difference in methods. Personally I've always favored low-end power for the quick initial accelerations, which is one reason why I would favor an American supercar over a european one. As good as high-revving engines are at putting out horsepower with considerably less displacement, it's just not my cup of tea.

Comparing the two isn't exactly a good comparison, I compared two American built engines when comparing the Viper engine and the GT engine, so that is a bit more equal, if you really want to argue numbers, let's talk about torque. The 360 Modena has less torque than my car, and my car is pretty crappy compared to anything we discuss here. Not to mention compared to the GT, the amount of torque from the 360 is almost laughable, but the performance of the 360 isn't so laughable. So really, these numbers mean very little, how it's applied means a lot. And performance-wise, the Ford GT can stand up against just about anything you throw at it, and for the most part, at a much lower price.

i never said there was anything wrong with the gt. i personally think the gt is an okay car. there are a few reasons i don't like it a lot and i have already mentioned a couple of them. but another one is the engine. it is a supercharged 5.4L V-8 and makes 550hp, well, ferrari's next 360 is probably going to have a N/A 4.0L V-8 with 500hp. that is one way i don't like many american cars is because they have to use big engines to get a lot of power.


Yeah but why invest in another family of engines, Ford just used engines from their truck family of engines it's more of a logical thing. I understand what you're saying though and you are one of those people here that make logical arguements. It's all good I love the GT because of it's timeless design and beauty. I like the Viper as well but between the 2 I'll take the GT.

i never said there was anything wrong with the gt. i personally think the gt is an okay car. there are a few reasons i don't like it a lot and i have already mentioned a couple of them. but another one is the engine. it is a supercharged 5.4L V-8 and makes 550hp, well, ferrari's next 360 is probably going to have a N/A 4.0L V-8 with 500hp. that is one way i don't like many american cars is because they have to use big engines to get a lot of power.
More likely a tuned version of the 4.2 V8 found in the Maserati Coupe ;)

They don't have to use anything, they choose too. And its not a supercharged 5.4 stupe!

Well, I'm talking about the 60's, to my knowledge, Americans never ever won one of those high-profile races against the likes of Ferrari and Porsche, and if there was a win before, it was probably not like what Ford dished out with the GT40.

Basically, if my memory doesn't fail me, this was during a time when those races were normally dominated by the Europeans, and then Ford came out of nowhere and surprised the hell out of everyone.

Yes, with a European car with an American engine. The GT-40 is no more a Ford than the Shelby AC Cobra or the Shelby Daytona.

Its a ford, no excuses.. Hell, that didn't take long. I was wondering how people would avoid stating that us Ford boys could compete with anything including vipers and other exotic cars...Its stamped Ford, thats all that matters.

Yes, with a European car with an American engine. The GT-40 is no more a Ford than the Shelby AC Cobra or the Shelby Daytona.

The original GT40 body and chassis were made in England however the new GT is completely in house motown produced.

Its a ford, no excuses.. Hell, that didn't take long. I was wondering how people would avoid stating that us Ford boys could compete with anything including vipers and other exotic cars...Its stamped Ford, thats all that matters.

OK MACH I have a 65 mustang but I'm not bragging about FORD like some irational redneck argues pro chevy. I get just as excited about a focus as I do a civic all front drive trash. However if it came down to the 2 I'd take the focus being a Detroit boy. Leave the obnoxious flag waving to the pro-chevy guys. I agree though that there's a lot of FORD bashing at this site namely from pro-chevy mullet sportin' rednecks and the ricers, but put them in their places with intelligent words. Oh yeah 69 MACHs are beautiful cars brother.

Theres alot of nice, fast cars out there, but I have been a ford guy all my life, and all my family works for Ford. But, not to say I don't love Camaro SS, WS6, and all those cars that look just like each other..lol..

Again, and I've already said this, to my knowledge, the GT40 that was designed by Lola was creating over 300 pounds of LIFT at the nose, and it needed to be redesigned. So the configuration and original idea for the GT40 was a Lola thing, but the car that actually won at Le Mans had a lot more Ford in it than the original did. Either way, Lola was contracted by Ford, and many European companies also contract other companies to design and supply a lot of their parts, so stop making it seem like only Ford did that and it wasn't Ford that won those races, because it was, live with it, a company other than the one you like most did something good, live with it.

The original GT40 body and chassis were made in England however the new GT is completely in house motown produced.

I know that, which is why I said GT-40, and not GT.

Again, and I've already said this, to my knowledge, the GT40 that was designed by Lola was creating over 300 pounds of LIFT at the nose, and it needed to be redesigned. So the configuration and original idea for the GT40 was a Lola thing, but the car that actually won at Le Mans had a lot more Ford in it than the original did. Either way, Lola was contracted by Ford, and many European companies also contract other companies to design and supply a lot of their parts, so stop making it seem like only Ford did that and it wasn't Ford that won those races, because it was, live with it, a company other than the one you like most did something good, live with it.

Live with it, that is rich.

I don't have a problem with the GT-40. I happen to like the GT-40, but it isn't a Ford. It is a Lola with a Ford engine and some minor aerodynamic tweeks. My problem is with people like you touting Ford with creating this Supercar when they didn't.

They don't have to use anything, they choose too. And its not a supercharged 5.4 stupe!

okay, then what is it?

Okay, I've done this before but I will do it yet again for the sake of historical accuracy. The MkI and MKII Ford GT's were based on a design originally done by a British engineer. Ford liked his design so they bought his company and hired him. Ford then heavily revised the car and it became the GT.( btw they are all technically named GT...GT40, Mirage, J Car were all semi-official nicknames..MkII, MkIV were designations of which generation of GT your were looking at)

The most succesful Ford GT by far was the all-American MkIV. This car was a scratch-built car by Ford Motor with no outside influences whatsoever. It's development was by order of Henry Ford II to prove yet another point. From 1967 on if you see a win in international sports car "prototype" racing it was by this car. (I think there is one exception) Ford won one of their two international championships with this car and three of their four LeMans victories.

The new Ford GT indeed looks very much like the MkII GT40. However, it also looks very much like the "Mirage" variant of the GT40 MkIV so please feel free to mention the MkIV when discussing the new GT. As a matter of fact, some people feel the new car looks more like the "Mirage" GT than anything else.

Ford won the manufacturer's championship in 1966 and 1968. It is of note that Ford's 427ci V-8's were outlawed after it's dominating 1967 Lemans win which partially explains Ford's lackluster 3rd place showing in chamionship points that year. The 427ci V-8 was outlawed due to it's sheer dominance of the rest of the field, Ferrari included, so the small block had to be readied in a hurry.

If it were not for late-race wreck in the 67 LeMans Ford would likely have swept 1st through 6th, and the International Racing body was having none of that. It is of note that the rules change only affected one major competitor, Ford. However, Ford still managed to win 5 out of 14 races running only a partial schedule. The 67 season proved the same thing 65 did..Ferrari tended to beat Ford only when the rules were changed to suit them.

Ford won the championship again in 68 with the smaller 302ci V-8. Makes you wonder what would have happened if the 427 was still being used? Actually, you don't have to wonder. Barring mechanical failure or a wreck Ford would have likely won every race as a new 3 valve per cylinder 427 was being readied before the rules change limiting displacement to 5.0L came into being. As it was, Ford won 6 out of ten races that year in route to the chamionship while Ferrari finished a dismal 7th in points

From 1966 through 1969 the GT dominated the endurance racing schedule. And, it dominated intenational racing in general from 1966 through 1968. Ford left international racing after 1969 largely because it seemed that every time they started winning somebody changed the rules. (surprise, surprise) And, Ford had already proven their point anyway.

Ford created the original mid-engined American supercar and they have done it again with the 05 GT. Vipers everywhere beware. Ferrari's too for that matter.

They don't have to use anything, they choose too. And its not a supercharged 5.4 stupe!The GT is too supercharged.. Reseach more before you throw around fact's.


IMO the GT would "Chew the Viper a new asshole"...

Yah, the GT's engine is definitely supercharged. Some people don't think it is because they don't see the typical supercharger setup. It's a newer style screw-type supercharger, that actually replaces the upper intake manifold and directly forces the air in, I believe.

Again polygon, you quote me, but didn't seem to have read any of it. The original GT40 that was designed by Lola wasn't the one that actually won in Le Mans. The only thing that really stuck from the original was a few of the dimensions and the engine configuration. The body was completely redesigned from the original Lola design. If you want to actually learn anything, why don't you actually look at photos of the original Lola design and the ones that were winning in Le Mans and tell me if they have ANYTHING in common, because they really don't. They look completely different, and everything that matters, was engineered by Ford. Other parts that could be supplied by third-party contractors were done that way, but a lot of other people do that too, so if you really want to be that technical, then technically none of the other cars were really Porsches or Ferraris.

Also, read syr74's post.

I know that, which is why I said GT-40, and not GT.



Live with it, that is rich.

I don't have a problem with the GT-40. I happen to like the GT-40, but it isn't a Ford. It is a Lola with a Ford engine and some minor aerodynamic tweeks. My problem is with people like you touting Ford with creating this Supercar when they didn't.


Whatever brother, of these 2 cars I like the GT. For those that complain it only has 550hp and it's supercharged etc. Know this there was a lot done to the engine to hold back it's numbers as well even at 550hp it's underrated. The design is timeless and I've always loved it in GT40 or GT form. Oh yeah and I'm sorry you have a problem.

They must have a support group for this somewhere. There are plenty of Ferrari fanboys that got their panties all in a bunch about the Ford GT.

There's a love/hate relationship with the Ford GT, people either love it, or they hate it. Guess it must have hit a nerve...

Hey guys, I found an old thread comparing SRT with SVT while doing a search on google, and didn't realize that it was a really old thread, and I ended up digging it back up by replying to it. Well, I guess i'll officially do an actual comparison between the cars that I was interested enough to speak about, and that is the new Ford GT and the Dodge SRT-10 Viper.

The current specs might be a little different than what you might remember, so I'll reiterate them here:

Dodge SRT-10 Viper
Engine: Naturally Aspired 8.28L V10
Configuration: Front Engine/Rear-Wheel Drive
Power: 500hp @ 5,600rpm
Torque: 525lbs-ft @ 4,200rpm
Acceleration (0-60mph): 3.9 seconds (C/D 01-2003)


Ford GT
Engine: Supercharged 5.4L V8
Configuration: Mid Engine/Rear-Wheel Drive
Power: 550hp @ 6,500rpm
Torque: 500lbs-ft @ 3,750rpm
Acceleration (0-60mph): 3.3 seconds (C/D 01-2004)

Alright guys, what's your opinion?


Ok,

Ok,

Ok, darn laptops. Do I sense something fishy going on. Has anyone ever owned a Viper? I have and its a 94 RT-10 and I have had its since 95. Look
at the stats between the Viper and the Ford GT. Are these apples for apples. Absolutely not. The Viper gets its power from raw horsepower, not souped up horsepower as is apparent in the GT. Now the GT is at its maximum power curve whereas the Viper hasn't even begun yet. May I explain. If one chose to upgrade the Viper and add the supercharger and a few other small items, the Viper would produce approximately 1068 hp at the flywheel and around 875 at the rear wheels. Why doesn't Dodge just do that, well, the car would not be street legal. The Viper V-10 is the most powerful engine in raw horsepower ever put into a production sports car and is the most popular engine exported to Europe to soup up for racing cars.

My first generation, (first jenny) Viper now boasts 875 hp at the wheels and let me tell you, I would gladly leave in the dust any Ford GT any day. The GT is kind of out of options in increasing its power curve, whereas the Viper's huge engine has just started. Add nitrous and they are producing over 1300 hp, but who wants to do that.

Besides, everywhere I go I get more looks and thumbs up driving this RT-10 even from those in Ferrari's. I have had admirers walking around this black RT-10 while in a parking lot during shopping as it is a show stopper in the looks department. I have had people photograph it while traveling down the freeways and people stop and turn their heads when this beauty drives by with that distinctive sound of the V-10.

And for the record, I did race a friend of mine with a GT against my 94 Viper and yes with 800+ HP, I blew it away in the quarter mile. My Viper has 21k miles on it so is in good shape.

Talk apples and apples... currently the stock Viper without the turbo's ect. is basically the same power configuration of the GT. Add the extras to the Viper like the GT has and bye bye GT.

You might want to consider the Viper Venom at 675 hp or the supercharged Viper and take them for a spin. Your comments about the Ford GT which I think is ugly, will soon disappear.

I hate to close this after you posted a long post but please don't bring up threads more than three months old this one is about two years old. If you want to discuss it start a new thread.