Ferrari F-360 VS. Ford GT

somebody probably already did this comparo but i couldnt find one. so im going to start one myself.

first order is what ford did to make the gt. i read in motor trend (or r&t) the ford took a f-360 and tore it apart and looked at how it was made. that seems pretty sad to me.

second order is why is ford going after a "older" ferrari. what, can ford not keep up with ferrari.

third order is that it seems that ford had to put an engine that was almost 2 liters bigger and slap a supercharger onto the engine yet to only get 100 more horsepower than the ferrari. and people say that the ford has a lot of technology, doesnt seem so to me getting only that little amount of power with a 5.4 liter and supercharger.

fourth order is the blue oval can never ever replace the prancing horse.

fifth order, lets slap a supercharger onto the ferrari and see which one is faster then.

sixth order is why is ford making their fastest car not go against the fastest ferrari. c'mon now, the best of one company has to go against the best of another company.

so after reading that, you should figure out that i think that the ferrari f-360 is the better car.

Well, I figured out fairly early on that you believe the Ferrari is best. Which is fine as people like what they will. But, your reasoning leaves a little, okay a lot, to be desired.

First response: Ferrari was taking auch an a#$ whooping from Porsche and Ford in the late sixties/early seventies that soon after Ferrari decided to abandon every factory backed racing effort except Formula One. Not exactly a never say die attitude IMO.

Second response: The new Ford GT is much faster than the Ferrari 360 for significantly less money. Straight line acceleration is no contest, the GT exits corners much better (And it does this with more power which is very uncommon) and delivers power to the ground better out of corners. The GT also corners better than any 360 except the "stripped to race car spec" Stradale. Which is merely the GT's equal in cornering, not it's superior.

And, however old the 360 may be it is by far the fastest car Ferrari builds outside of the Enzo. A 360 will leave the much more expensive 550M or a 456GT like they are tied down. The only car Ferrari builds that is faster than the GT is the nearly one million dollar Enzo..And, the Enzo is barely faster than the GT.

Third response: People always cite peak hp specs with no consideration given to how or where it makes that power. Yep, the 360 makes a lot of power way up high in the rpm range. And, this is fine as it is classic Ferrari and many people like this style of power delivery. However, it is far from the "only" way to build an engine or the best IMO.

The Ferrari makes all that hp in a tiny rpm range that you have to work to keep the 360 within to extract maximum performance. The GT engine produces low end torque the Ferrari can only dream about and has a power curve that is as flat and as wide as Kansas.

This could be why in a run to 150 mph the Ferrari loloks like it has a boat anchor tied to it compared to the GT. Check the specs. People who constantly cite peak hp and act as though it were the end all obviously do not understand torque/horsepower/or their ratio to one another.

Put simply, the GT obliterates the Ferrari in acceleration and the faster you go the worse the 360 looks. Slap a supercharger on the Modena if you want.....the Ferrari would just lose by less unless you seriously reworked engine specs.

If all you did was the prerequisite cam and C/R adjustments their just isn't enough potential for a factory type supercharger to overcome that kind of acceleration disadvantage. Not to mention, the Modena is already a good bit more expensive than the GT. Why make it even more expensive only to lose in the end anyway?

And, as for Ford "tearing apart" a 360, you are aboslutely correct. This is something smart companies do to see what the other guy is bringing to the party.

It is of note that Ford said they thought they could do a muich better job on a chassis design than what they found in the Modena and the chassis use cery different techniques in a lot of areas. In other words the GT is far from a 360 copy.

And I will gladly compare the GT to Ferrari's most expensive car. The GT has generally been called a much better road car than even the 360, so I hold little hope for the Enzo in that comparo as it is "set on kill" compared to the 360.

The Enzo is a faster car, but not by much and I would bet not in every respect. Look at a GT's 0-150 time and I would bet by those speeds an Enzo would be looking at two big round tail lights .The GT seems to go faster the faster you go.

Oh yeah.......... For the price of an Enzo I can buy a GT, an Aston Martin BB7 GT, and a very nice house in the hills.

Definately...victory Ford IMO.

those are good arguments and i respect those, but like i said, the blue oval can never ever replace the prancing horse. the ford gt could never touch the elegance of the f-360.

those are good arguments and i respect those, but like i said, the blue oval can never ever replace the prancing horse. the ford gt could never touch the elegance of the f-360.

Absolutely. Yes the GT would out perform the Ferrari....but do you really expect for a FORD to stay in one piece in a race? I dont.

The GT doesn't outperform the Ferrari by a hell of a lot- the GT is more relaxed on the roads- while the 360 Modena (base) is better on the track- due to a tendency to Understeer within the FOrd GT- this is straight from the mouth of a Journalist friend who has driven both.........While I remain doubtless that an Enzo would anhialate (sp) a GT with relative ease- but it's that much more expensive- and sophisticated- so there's no point bringing it up.

Ford would love you to believe what syr74 has just said- but the fact is that what he is said is either untrue (about 20% of it) or exagerated (about 65% of it)

I'll take the Modena. I think the GT is a great car but i'd never buy one. The GT40, yes, the GT, not a hope in hell.

I’ll take the modena too...the modena is the best car in the world now as far as I’m concerned....its performance its nothing short of amazing and in my eyes it is the best looking car period...mixing elegance sporty looks and sexiness all wrapped in a perfect aerodynamic package....Pinifarina did a perfect job

Sure the enzo is the ultimate Ferrari and would murder a 360....I would love to own one...but I think the 360 symbolizes best the Ferrari spirit

I can find only one fault with the Modena...better power band....in my admittedly limited racing experience I’ve discovered the frustrations of not having that instant torque and getting lower exit speeds....

I know this would bug some purists but IMO the perfect addition to a 360 would be a quick spool turbo...and perhaps a longer stroke...I could live with less 1000 rpm if I could have a fatter power band

The gt40 on the other hand it’s a desperate attempt by Ford to improve its image and reclaim some won races many years ago

while being a good looking car the gt40 is not a tribute to the original gt40...the 350Z design cues are a tribute to the original; the balsa wood shifter knob in the Carrera GT is another subtle tribute to the racing division....the gt40 on the other hand it almost looks like a Xerox copy of the original...lack of subtlety which denotes lack of taste...and a desperate attempt by ford to bring back some former glory....

If ford's racing division is so good as it claims....there is no gt40 magazine article in which ford doesn't brag how it can spank Ferrari...it should be murdering Ferrari now in the ultimate road racing sport....F1...since they are present as jaguar

on the other hand it seems like Ford managed to give the Gt40 better road manners and its power band its much better...not surprisingly in a supercharged 5.4L engine

Now that our oh so "unbiased" moderhater has left his shrine to the prancing horse for a few moments let me reiterate a few points. As nobody in here has driven both cars and maybe two have driven the Ferrari (maybe at best) it is noteworthy that what journalists say is all we have to go off of.

I would point out that in the only head to head comparisons of these cars to date it has been said EVERY time that there is no comparison between the GT and the 360. And, they weren't declaring the Ferrari the winner in any of these.

One comparo even utilized Ferrari's "ultimate" 360, the Stradale, which corners far batter than a standard Modena and the differences were still glaringly obvious. As I have said, every major journalist on record has said the same thing. The GT exits corners better and delivers it's substantially greater power better out of those corners. The GT is much quicker from an acceleration standpoint, and the faster you go the worse the under-engined/over-priced Italian wonder looks. Whoa, let me add, that some (not all) journalists noted that they preferred the 360's tendency to understeer over the GT.

Lets abandon the fact that the Ford killed it in every other aspect for the sake of what only "some" of the journalists think. Do Ferrari enthusiast's record their arguments for future use? They never seem to change and sound just as contrived no matter how many times they are heard.

To insinuate that any 360 is a superior track car to the GT is blatantly untrue, and obviously contrived. Prancing horse worship has it's limits and Ford's new GT has exposed them nicely....just as the original did so many years ago. You may personally prefer the Ferrari, but everyone has the right to "prefer" to be outrun I suppose.

A road race between the GT and the Enzo would be much closer than a road race between a GT and a Modena. Yes, the Enzo would win, but not by as much as the GT would defeat any Modena. Not once, in any public venue, has the Ferrari 360 ever outrun the new Ford. I would call that definative evidence that Ferrari is once again proving itself a peddler of over-priced, badge-inflated wares.

But what is so new here? Porsche has been proving this for some time now. What difference does it make if Ford has gotten into the act again.

As for F1. Ferrari is indeed wise to limit itself to one major factory racing effort where it doesn't have to expose it's oh so frail road cars to the kind of abuse they took in the late sixties and early seventies. The fact that Ferrari 550's are currently racing Vettes a fraction of their price and not dominating by any means is a perfect example of this.

The more things change the more they stay the same. And, as for journalists friends we may have...I would welcome any evidence that substantiates such claims, like an article that backs up what has been said. Until that time I will remain, respectfully, skeptical.

You know what? I just read a load of pure, unadulterated, biased bullshit!

1. The GT had better have faster acceleration and exit speeds in the turns than the 360. It has a bigger engine with a damn supercharger, which seems to be Ford's answer to everything. This is the only way they seem to be able to get performance, not pure engineering.

2. The GT is not substantially less than the 360. If you think that it is then you have been looking at prices for the wrong cars. Also, if you want to throw around price, the GT is only mere tenths of a second faster than a SRT-10 in the turns and pretty much even in acceleration. However, the SRT-10 is nearly half the price and a convertible. Sorry, but that doesn't impress me much concerning the GT. The reason that you pay more for the 360 is the fact that you're getting a car that has some great engineering behind it like the sequential manual gearbox. That is something you will not find in any Ford yet it is far superior to any other type of gearbox. The 360 also looks much better in my opinion. Ford simply took an old design of a car that wasn't even theirs and copied it, something Ford is good at doing.

3. You have to also think about age here. The 360 is a much older platform while the GT is brand-new. Also, you know they did tear apart a 360 just to get ideas for the GT? That is quite flattering if you ask me.

4. Ferrari has not limited itself to one form of racing. They are in Formula 1 and they are also in GT racing. As for your comment about the 550 and the Corvette, don't be an ass; you know that the 550 can't handle as well as the 360. On the same note why is the GT not in GT racing, or any other form of racing for that matter?

5. The GT-40 was not a Ford. It was a British car with a Ford engine just like the Daytona and the Cobra. They were not Fords so don't talk like they are part of Ford's proud racing heritage. I get so sick of hearing that. Also, the GT-40 only won like eight races that year, which is hardly domination.

6. Get over yourself; the Enzo would murder the GT in every way.

I think you can tell which I would take. I would take the 360, and I don’t even care if the GT is faster, there is more to being a better car than being fast. If you think otherwise then you’re a fucking moron.

i agree with polygon. fords answer about power is a v-8 with a supercharger, uh hum, mustang cobra. he is also right about ford copying cuz the gt-40 wasnt actually fords body style. i never really thought about that one before.

lets get some hard numbers about the enzo and gt so we know that the enzo could easily smoke the gt in a road course.

1/4 mile- enzo-11.0 gt-11.7
slalom- enzo-73 gt-71
horsepower- enzo-660@7800 gt-500@5250
top speed- enzo-217 gt-190

so it looks like the enzo has it beat in acceleration, cornering, speed, and power. so the enzo will smoke the gt, not jus barely.

[QUOTE=Polygon]You know what? I just read a load of pure, unadulterated, biased bullshit!

1. The GT had better have faster acceleration and exit speeds in the turns than the 360. It has a bigger engine with a damn supercharger...

:Hp is hp and only losers whine about how someone else got there. A psuhrod V-10 isn't exactly my idea of cutting edge, but it gets the job done.

2. The GT is not substantially less than the 360. If you think that it is then you have been looking at prices for the wrong cars...........

:The GT is substantially less than the Modena Stradale which is the fastest 360 by far. The Stradale is 200lbs lighter, 30hp stouter; and utilizes uprated brakes, suspension, and tires in comparison to the standard 360. Considering that even the Stradale cannot take a GT, I strayed away from the standard 360 thinking Ferrari fans might want to minimize the differences. But, if Ferrari guys would rather compare the standard 360 to the GT be my guest

As for "copying" designs, by your standards Mother Mopar should be stoned. Lets see, a bad rendition of a 427 Cobra, a 32 Highboy with a token shovel nose...what's next...a Model T? Apparently Dodge thinks Ford's history is more interesting than their own and I tend to agree. B.T.W., the GT's of past fame were indeed Fords and I will make my point later.

3. You have to also think about age here......

:The GT40 MkIV won Lemans when it was four years old so save the lame "it's too old" excuse. And yes, Ford did tear apart a 360 to see what Ferrari was "packing" Ford looked at the car, and by their own admission felt they could do a much better job. The fact that the GT is a very different design than the 360 only affirms this. Flattering that the Modena was good enough to warrant a look.... Of course. Flattering that Ford then decided to go a totally different route with their car?.... Huh?

4. Ferrari has not limited itself to one form of racing. They are in Formula 1 and they are also in GT racing. As for your......

:Ferrari has had a policy of no factory efforts outside of F1 for some time now. Ferrari's GT effort undoubtedly receives factory money and even support. But, it is not a factory effort so my point stands.

5. The GT-40 was not a Ford. It was a British car with a Ford engine....

:Ford took a look at a 1962 Lola GT show car done by a tiny British racing firm. Soon after Ford bought the firm and hired the engineer responsible for the car. The small firm was renamed FAV (Ford Advanced Vehicles) and soon took on different task's that the name makes self explanitory.

That show car was extensively redesigned by the time it became what we commonly know as the GT40. By the time the The GT40 MkII debuted the car was completely redesigned compared to that original Lola GT. The Mk II is the car the new GT is modeled after, and the first of what most people would consider GT40's. With respect, you wouldn't recognize the Lola GT or a pre MkII GT40 if they ran you over.

The GT 40 Mk IV was a completely new, clean sheet design that was a U.S. job start to finish by order of Henry Ford II. This is the GT40 that Ford won 3 of their 4 Lemans victories with. I get sick of hearing people who know nothing about the car or it's history speak as though they were an authority. It is advisable to learn something about a vehicle before discussing it. Wouldn't want to look like an ass ;)

As for GT40 racing history

1966: 1-2-3 finishes at Lemans, Sebring, and Daytona. Ford won the three most significant races and the majority of races. I can see how someone might not think of that as domination....lol

Ford GT's won Lemans from 1966 to 1969. One Ford GT40 MkIV claimed wins at Lemans, Spa, Watkins Glen, and Brand's Hatch in 1968. That was just one car, and by the 1968 season the GT was supposedly "obsolete". Shouldn't I be complaining that the car was too old, and therefore racing against it was unfair?

6. Get over yourself; the Enzo would murder the GT in every way.......

:I totally agree. The Viper proves that fast cars can be lacking in many areas (like taste) all the time.

BTW for freakonaleash...nobody knows what the GT's top speed is yet. Any numbers are just estimates and Ford just says "think 200"

And Polygon, as for the Ford GT going racing. Well, it was just finished so let's wait and see wether Ford races it before we complain that they don't. lol

about the top speed thing for the gt. even if the gt does reach 200, the enzo would still beat it with the 217 mark.

Once again freak, for all we know it will top 200mph. Like I said, these are all just estimates.

Syr74, don't bother trying to argue any car against a ferarri. It seems that everyone who is a fanatic of one, is also slightly ignorant to (just like those Z06 guys eh). Until I see a 360 Modena (or Stadale) finish with consitently better lap times against at Ford GT, then i'll say its the better track car.

And who cares if a company tore apart a car to see what its all about. Many car manufactures do this, not just ford.

Also, give the argument of a car being supercharged a rest. Hp is Hp, reguardless of how you get it. A Ferarri's engine may very well be one of the finestest tuned engines that are made, but I wouldn't say its the best. A GT3 3.6L boxster engine produces 380hp. Thats 2 less cylinders and 16 less valves than a modena with nearly the same result. With that in mind would you say porsche's engines are tuned better? Oh yeah, and on a side note: that GT3 also outlapped the mighty 360 stadale as did the GT.

Seriously having a prancing horse on your car will not improve the performance on your car. Its almost as worse as those people who think that putting a wing on the back of their cavalier adds 20hp.

To many people are living on cloud 9.

yeah, all of us here thinks the prancing horse improves horsepower..........and the geo metro is cool, ha. we arent saying that the blue oval can never replace the prancing horse cuz it improves performance, we are saying that cuz having a ferrari is like nothing else in the world.

i agree, the porsche engine is a beautifully engineered engine. but it is the same size as the 360 engine even though it has two less cylinders. and size does have a big part in engines, so the gt3 should keep up to the 360's power.

also, syr74, dont listen to kurtdg19 cuz i like to hear other peoples opinions even if i dont agree with them. i like to broden my view of things.

Syr74, don't bother trying to argue any car against a ferarri. It seems that everyone who is a fanatic of one, is also slightly ignorant to (just like those Z06 guys eh). Until I see a 360 Modena (or Stadale) finish with consitently better lap times against at Ford GT, then i'll say its the better track car.

And who cares if a company tore apart a car to see what its all about. Many car manufactures do this, not just ford.

Also, give the argument of a car being supercharged a rest. Hp is Hp, reguardless of how you get it. A Ferarri's engine may very well be one of the finestest tuned engines that are made, but I wouldn't say its the best. A GT3 3.6L boxster engine produces 380hp. Thats 2 less cylinders and 16 less valves than a modena with nearly the same result. With that in mind would you say porsche's engines are tuned better? Oh yeah, and on a side note: that GT3 also outlapped the mighty 360 stadale as did the GT.

Seriously having a prancing horse on your car will not improve the performance on your car. Its almost as worse as those people who think that putting a wing on the back of their cavalier adds 20hp.

To many people are living on cloud 9.
What the hell are you on about with a "Boxster" engine??? Unless you mean a Boxer- aka- Horizontally opposed six- then yeah......But Boxster is a good one :lol:

I don't know why people are giving off the impression that the Stradale is a hard-core road-racer- all it adds is some adjustable struts, No radio/Aircon, some visual upgrades, minor wieght savings and a small boost in horsepower- it is hardly a 360 Challenge is it? EVen still I have not a clue how quickly a 360 Stradaleor the GT lap anywhere- but I have heard from first hand experience, that the GT's track driving experience is severely numbed by understeer- and this was comparing to a standard 360 Modena!!!! yes- the base model. That is what happens when you make a supercar that is designed to be easy to drive.......

Tearing a 360 Modena apart, shows Fords absolute inability to do anything for themselves- it figures though- the worlds most successful ever Formula one manufacturer, sends its design teams to build a road car- 5 or 6 years later, Ford are in trouble again- they decide to build a supercar OH HEY- SOMEBODY'S DONE ALL THE WORK FOR US- LET'S JUST PULL IT APART THIER WORK AND DO EXACTLY AS THEY DID!!!!!! all of a sudden you have some Carbon-copy Yank-tank that is desperately trying to revive the sinking fortunes of a once-great company, by digging into its glory days. While the interior quality and apparent fit and finish of the GT seem top notch, the rest of the car stinks of Yank cost-cutting and inoriginality. Need I even say that the orignal GT40 wasn't even a Ford in the first place??? Kind of cheeky don't you think????


Yes the Ford GT is an excellent car- DO NOT get me wrong, it would be better if it wasn't made by cost-cutting uncreative Ford- but hey- take a look at Fords current range- Mustang, Windstar, Expedition, Explorer, Escape, Crown Vic, Taurus- Sheeit- only the European Focus can do any decent in the US, they're all terrible cars (Though the 'Stang has great V8's)- It's Fords fault that they are getting done over by Toyota- and the supposed image booster given by the GT simply reeks of that- hence why I can never really show any real passion towards this car.


The FOrd lovers of course will revell in the glory of this car- since thier ever-loyal mothership hasn't given them anything to bask in since the days of the Mustang Boss, or the Fairlane Skyliner- They are the new Z06 fanboys, more or less- we will hear about how the Porsche Turbo, 360 Modena and Murcielago get "murdered" by this, thing. Even though the lap times are minimal in difference- yes the Lap times will be used- they will then vlaim it handles better, purely on the basis of lap times, without having driven the thing............Enjoy the future people.........

that is another good point, ford has gone to long without producing a supercar to have one now. they need to stick to their family oriented cars, hahaha.

another point i thought about is why is the gt the first ford in a very long time that is fast as a non-svt model. i noticed that all fast fords, which is very limited, has that svt name. what, ford is too busy trying to make suv's and trucks that they cant even make their own performance cars, they have to have a special group do that. that is pretty funny.

What the hell are you on about with a "Boxster" engine??? Unless you mean a Boxer- aka- Horizontally opposed six- then yeah......But Boxster is a good one :lol:

I don't know why people are giving off the impression that the Stradale is a hard-core road-racer- all it adds is some adjustable struts, No radio/Aircon, some visual upgrades, minor wieght savings and a small boost in horsepower- it is hardly a 360 Challenge is it? EVen still I have not a clue how quickly a 360 Stradaleor the GT lap anywhere- but I have heard from first hand experience, that the GT's track driving experience is severely numbed by understeer- and this was comparing to a standard 360 Modena!!!! yes- the base model. That is what happens when you make a supercar that is designed to be easy to drive.......

Tearing a 360 Modena apart, shows Fords absolute inability to do anything for themselves- it figures though- the worlds most successful ever Formula one manufacturer, sends its design teams to build a road car- 5 or 6 years later, Ford are in trouble again- they decide to build a supercar OH HEY- SOMEBODY'S DONE ALL THE WORK FOR US- LET'S JUST PULL IT APART THIER WORK AND DO EXACTLY AS THEY DID!!!!!! all of a sudden you have some Carbon-copy Yank-tank that is desperately trying to revive the sinking fortunes of a once-great company, by digging into its glory days. While the interior quality and apparent fit and finish of the GT seem top notch, the rest of the car stinks of Yank cost-cutting and inoriginality. Need I even say that the orignal GT40 wasn't even a Ford in the first place??? Kind of cheeky don't you think????


Yes the Ford GT is an excellent car- DO NOT get me wrong, it would be better if it wasn't made by cost-cutting uncreative Ford- but hey- take a look at Fords current range- Mustang, Windstar, Expedition, Explorer, Escape, Crown Vic, Taurus- Sheeit- only the European Focus can do any decent in the US, they're all terrible cars (Though the 'Stang has great V8's)- It's Fords fault that they are getting done over by Toyota- and the supposed image booster given by the GT simply reeks of that- hence why I can never really show any real passion towards this car.


The FOrd lovers of course will revell in the glory of this car- since thier ever-loyal mothership hasn't given them anything to bask in since the days of the Mustang Boss, or the Fairlane Skyliner- They are the new Z06 fanboys, more or less- we will hear about how the Porsche Turbo, 360 Modena and Murcielago get "murdered" by this, thing. Even though the lap times are minimal in difference- yes the Lap times will be used- they will then vlaim it handles better, purely on the basis of lap times, without having driven the thing............Enjoy the future people.........

That is possibly the single largest collection of weak arguments, on any topic, that I have ever read. I especially appreciate the fact that you basically ignore every point I made, essentially proving that you cannot refute them.

Ah, the satisfaction. :)

i do'nt know what your talkin about jimster. a GT's lap time is around 1.5 seconds faster then a GT3 and the F360 stradle. the aceleration times from the Stradle is much improved over the standard 360.

standard F360: 0-60 = 4.5 seconds, and 1/4 mile in 12.8
stradle F360: 0-60 = 4.2 seconds, and 1/4 mile in 12.4

so cleary the weighr reduction and slight bump in power did make a noticable difference. yet the ford GT still manage to hit 150 over 7 seconds faster. and still laps around 1.5 seconds faster then the ferrari. yes hte GT is not as lively but its more easier to drive fast.

yes hte GT is not as lively but its more easier to drive fast.



now the question is: Was the Gt faster just because its an easier car to drive?

note that the test was made by journalists....which while undoubtelly experienced.....are still amateurs

i'm not saing that is the case...but till an actual race car driver will drive them side by side we cannot tell which is ultimatelly faster

maybe motor trend can get justin bell to do a side by side again


this is the case with a viper and the corvette...many people consider the viper to a horrible handling car due to their unability to control it and consider the vette to be a much better handling platform...and that is true as far as the average joe is concerned...however in the hands of a pro the viper trully shines

hey tatII, your 0-60 times are incorrect. the 360 is 4.2 seconds and the stradale is 4.0 seconds.

and i just remembered the koenig f-360 which is a twin-turbo f-360. the 1/4 is the same as the gt at 11.7 seconds. and it goes over 200. so for those who think that the gt could still beat a 360 with forced induction, you guys are wrong.

What the hell are you on about with a "Boxster" engine??? Unless you mean a Boxer- aka- Horizontally opposed six- then yeah......But Boxster is a good one :lol:

I guess syr74 is right when he says your arguments are very weak. Over exploiting simple mistypes as such shouldn't even be brought up.

Even still I have not a clue how quickly a 360 Stradaleor the GT lap anywhere- but I have heard from first hand experience, that the GT's track driving experience is severely numbed by understeer- and this was comparing to a standard 360 Modena!!!! yes- the base model. That is what happens when you make a supercar that is designed to be easy to drive.......

I find it odd that when compared to the base Modena the GT has more understeer, then when compared to the Modena Stradale the Ford GT is argued to have less tendency to understeer. So in this case, its hard to make a good judgment giving the many different results of comparing the two.

Tearing a 360 Modena apart, shows Fords absolute inability to do anything for themselves- it figures though- the worlds most successful ever Formula one manufacturer, sends its design teams to build a road car- 5 or 6 years later, Ford are in trouble again- they decide to build a supercar OH HEY- SOMEBODY'S DONE ALL THE WORK FOR US- LET'S JUST PULL IT APART THIER WORK AND DO EXACTLY AS THEY DID!!!!!! all of a sudden you have some Carbon-copy Yank-tank that is desperately trying to revive the sinking fortunes of a once-great company, by digging into its glory days. While the interior quality and apparent fit and finish of the GT seem top notch, the rest of the car stinks of Yank cost-cutting and inoriginality. Need I even say that the orignal GT40 wasn't even a Ford in the first place??? Kind of cheeky don't you think????

Once again lots of car companies look at other companies cars to find out about it. Checking your competition isn't being lazy, its being smart. For one you save time and money, one thing that seems to be very important in any business.

Yes the Ford GT is an excellent car- DO NOT get me wrong, it would be better if it wasn't made by cost-cutting uncreative Ford- but hey- take a look at Fords current range- Mustang, Windstar, Expedition, Explorer, Escape, Crown Vic, Taurus- Sheeit- only the European Focus can do any decent in the US, they're all terrible cars (Though the 'Stang has great V8's)- It's Fords fault that they are getting done over by Toyota- and the supposed image booster given by the GT simply reeks of that- hence why I can never really show any real passion towards this car.

Yes the Ford GT is an excellent car. Yes Ford in the past hasn't been the highest quality. Maybe this is just a taste in which direction Ford is going to in the future, and this is why your so distane over the Ford GT? Its almost impossible for Ford to promote their company without critics shoved so far up their asses criticizing the past that if they were to spit it would come out of their mouth.

The FOrd lovers of course will revell in the glory of this car- since thier ever-loyal mothership hasn't given them anything to bask in since the days of the Mustang Boss, or the Fairlane Skyliner- They are the new Z06 fanboys, more or less- we will hear about how the Porsche Turbo, 360 Modena and Murcielago get "murdered" by this, thing. Even though the lap times are minimal in difference- yes the Lap times will be used- they will then vlaim it handles better, purely on the basis of lap times, without having driven the thing............Enjoy the future people.........

I will enjoy the future :biggrin:. Yes there will be fanboys, but there are fanboys for EVERY car.

Tell me what wins races? Better laptimes, better handling?

Handling like styling, is subjective, yes one with bugger all experience belting something around a track (Read: Journalists) will find the GT to be that of a better handler, yet one who knows how to tame the Stallion (like myself) will probably enjoy that untame and twitchy aspect of the 360 Modena, which we have all come to love.

Like Nuetrino so wisely pointed out, I want to see what a proper race driver did- not some unknown C&D roadtester......Or Jeremy Clarkson or Any other journo for that matter. Since the GT's are predominantly in North America, then I'm inclined to agree that Justin Bell should be the man to do it. Until I see what he did, I won't change my postition on the matter.

So yes- the question is dying to be asked, is the GT faster or just easier to drive???

I've driven the base 360, but never the GT- and probably won't get to, but I find it hard to believe that anything can live up to the raw driving experience offered by the 360 and if Ford have gone and made the GT "easy" then my cynicism about the car can only increase.

I seriously doubt this is going to be any future direction for Ford- the US market is either too hung up on SUV's or too hung up on bland-assed sedans (Camry, Accord and Taurus anyone?) surely you remember Fords last attempt a making something new edge, the 1995 Taurus, that went down a hit (not). The GT will be around for two years, before it is flagged (To preserve it's value) and by that time Toyota will be comfortably out doing Ford.
That's how I see Fords sinking future......


syr- WTF??? When was I even bothering to try and rebute your points in the first place??? Everything you had written was

1. Unreadable due to your misuse of the quote feature
2. Addressed to Polygon
3. Biased and made you sound like you work for Ford

But from what I can read, I have some points to make about your lovely piece of biased crap that I wouldn't even wipe my ass with........

1. You say a 360 Stradale corners far better than a 360 Modena- have you even driven either??? Because there is, as I said- little difference between the two cars- the adjustable suspension is about the only handling feature I can think of that have been added over the standard model to add to the lighter weight of the car.

2. You say the 360 isn't a better track car- yet haven't driven either??? wtf- then why are you making silly statements like this???

3. You refer to the GT40 as the original....Don't please!

4. You call Ferrari road cars- "Oh so frail" wth?? Please explain. Most of Ferrari's Formula One technology finds its way into it's road cars anyway.....

5. I can provide the article you are after- from December 2003's NZ Autocar magazine, which is on my coffee table, it'll be a matter of (1) Getting the scanner working (2) getting permission to reproduce that portion of the article, which I'm sure I can get, very simply by emailing the publisher

6. As for the GT40's race victories- I wasn't alive when it was in LeMans- but whenever I see the images of a Black GT40 Mk II winning at the 1966 Le Mans (I think it was that year) it brings out some extreme patriotism- why? because the drivers of that car were Chris Amon and the late Bruce McLaren- both New Zealanders- so don't think for a second that I aren't proud of the original Ford GT40 and it's Le Mans victories- even if the reasons are purely Patriotic- so, yes there is many a soft spot for the original GT40- but there are no soft spots for the silly knock-off. But I don't need to remind you what a disaster the Mk I was don't I ???

oh and any other points I wanted to make- Nuetrino or Polygon already made- so theres no point in pulling a Ford- and reproducing someone elses hard work is there???? :lol: damn I'm funny :headshake

i do'nt know what your talkin about jimster. a GT's lap time is around 1.5 seconds faster then a GT3 and the F360 stradle.

Lap times can't be quoted like 0-60 times unless you say what circuit you're talking about.

Lap times can't be quoted like 0-60 times unless you say what circuit you're talking about.
Gadammit!!!! It's 0-100. Metric system for life y0! :D


As for this thread :rolleyes: Far as I'm concerned I don't know what to think. Jimster is right about the article in Autocar noting the tendency with the GT for slight understeer, it praises the 360 Modena as more at home on the track, but I haven't driven either and I don't expect to for quite some time. But hell- I'll go for the Ferrari, if I want a 5.4 Ford V8 I'll buy a Falcon XR8 and put a damned blower on the thing- same effect.......I don't see why anyone'd buy an NZ$300,000-odd car with the same engine as a Ford Falcon, minus the blower, which is a whole lot cheaper even with a blower and not trying to dig into an ailing Auto empires Glory days...........(Rather it's trying to get back sales from Holden- because previous Falcons were crap) I don't give a fuck how fast the GT goes, far as I'm concerned it's a cross between a retro-revival, a 360 Modena, a Formula Ford n00b racer, and a parts bin special.


Ford should try harder if they want to make a believer out of me and put in a geniune effort, like we have seen with the Viper and am expecting we should see with the new Corvette.

First of all Jimster, if there were a law against run-on sentences you would likely be sentenced to death. I wouldn't comment on someone elses grammar, as yours most closely resembles that of a fifth grade drop-out.

Second of all I have not driven a 360 Ferrari just as you imply. Neither has virtually anyone on this board. And, neither have you for that matter. (Yes, I know you will claim to have driven one. Please, feel free to make as big a fool of yourself as you feel necessary.)

Utilizing the experience of automotive journalists is an unfortunate necessity when referencing vehicles so "out of range" for the majority of us. There is no doubt whatsoever that nobody in these forums has driven a Ford GT. And yet, you too refer to it's track performance as inferior to the 360's. Please, try to avoid hypocricy in the future.

You will have to clarify the comment about me referring to the GT as the "original". Your english is horrible, and is therefore extremely difficult to read. That comment of yours could mean many things, please try to write more "clearly".

As far as your statement that you never attempted to refute my claims....well....that is exactly what I said in my post. You indeed did not try to refute my claims, because you can't.

And actually, you are absolutely correct. The GT40 MkII of Amon and McLaren did indeed cross the line first. Um, so what? What does that have to do with anything in this thread? Their GT40 MkII was followed by the GT40 MkII of Miles and Ruby. The track at Lemans has curves in it. Somewhere in Tokyo a little boy was petting his dog.

I feel very strange advising a moderater that he might want to focus on the topic. Are you trying to avoid the issue?

I am still waiting for an argument from you in the 360's favor that actually makes sense. I made my points, and supported them nicely. Most of these points you have simply ignored in your responses which tells me one thing. You know nothing about GT's and little more about Ferrari's.

I am actually quite dissapointed to find so little real knowledge from someone who could become a moderator. I hope that at least some of your 6000+ posts are superior in content to the few I have seen.

If you are done proving how little you know about performance cars of any lineage, you may be excused.

our points not making sense? wtf, our (360 guys) points are the most understandable. the 360 has the performance and the elegant looks, the gt jus has performance.

i very well believe that Jimster has driven the 360. 360s arent THAT rare that nobody has driven one.

OK, that's funny- firstly what do you know about what I have or haven't driven- need I remind you that I am an ex-employee of the company that owns Ferrari????? So naturally I have driven a majority of the latest ones, with the exception of the 456, but anyway, don't make such stupid claims if you don't even know me, hell you probably wouldn't even know where I live without looking at my profile. So I would like to ask you to kindly shut the fuck up, thanks. :)

Now just because I'm an ex-employee of FIAT, doesn't mean that I am in any way biased to Ferrari- I am more sour towards the company, if anything. The prancing horse is a life long passion for me, but that still doesn't mean I am biased in any way. I'll gladly admit that a Murcielago or 911 GT2 can kick a Ferraris ass, they have been proven to do so, at the hands of proper drivers. I seriously don't see what is so hard about Car & Driver/Motor Trend/Road & Track getting someone like Justin Bell or anybody of similar experience, to come and belt the cars around the track??? Whenever Top Gear are handed a car to test- the Stig always, without fail will take them around the TG Test track- so why can't the US Auto press do it???? Pathetic.

You bought the fucking Le Mans victories up- in your reply to Polygon, so don't fucking accuse me of taking the thread off topic, you did, moron.

I don't know what you want, when you say you want me to support my points about the Ferrari 360, trust me you didn't support your points nicely- all I've seen is you attacking other members, like Polygon, Nuetrino or myself with you biased load of bollocks.

And, I can bet you, that I know a damn-site more about Ferraris than you do.



You're so big and tough, looking like a big man, attacking other peoples points, to make your own mediocre ones look better. Damned e-thugs :rolleyes:

Actually, I think the mindless e-thug in this debate is obviously you. All you have done is rant and rave and bullshit...a LOT of bullshit....without making more than two decent points at a maximum. I have made my points and backed them up quite nicely. Only a Ferrari enthusiast, or someone with a bias against Ford, would conceivably argue that your posts made a substantial contribution to this debate.

Next time you plan to enter a debate that involves the need for knowledge, you may want to obtain some first.

Simple logic as for wether or not you are likely to have driven a Ferrari. Generally speaking, it is safe to assume that the majority of people who regularly drive newer exotics posses an above average intellect. Simply by reading your posts, I can safely excluded from this group.

I've made my point, and I've obviously bested you in this debate. If you want to continue with your pointless rambling please feel free. It only reaffirms that you are woefully inadequate to debate this subject with me. (And, I enjoy IT)

B.T.W., I am secretly waiting for your next post where you reveal that you are a top-secret, sub-contractor for NASA. That journalist friend of yours is probably even in on it with you. :)

dude, syr74, shut the hell up. he is right about u attacking other peoples points. i believe he knows that much cuz there are people out there that are better than you, syr74.

how bout we stop attacking each other and get back to the topic. i really do like to read other people's opinions.

Absolutely, I began retaliating against other people's "points" (could this possibly mean point of view?) right after I was first attacked by them...basically in sequence. If you, the Jimster, and the rest of your little cronies cannot finish something then maybe next time you should consider not starting it.

As I said, "blinded" Ferrari enthusiasts would be the vast majority of any defenders he might get....and here you are to prove my point. Yes, there are people better than me out there, but they sure as hell aren't you or him. I do not judge people or their posts according which brand they profess loyalty to.

I enjoy reading other people's opinions as well. However, I have this little hang-up with appreciating them more when they are informed and respectful. I showed respect right up until I was showed a lack of respect at which time I responded in kind. I certainly would not insult someone when I had nothing solid to back up my point as some have done.

I would love to get back to topic. But, I made my points, backed them up, and basically got an infantile first response from Jimster (He refuted my claims, called me a liar, but then provided zero legitamate basis for why my claims were bogus! What class, what tact, what......whatever.)

After I informed Jimster of the error of his ways, Polygon chimed in with his opinion. The accuracy within his post was wanting to say the least, especially concerning the Ford. However, I have no problem with this as everyone still has a lot to learn, no matter how learned they are. The problem was yet again, (As I have now found is common) there were Polygon's little insults that always seem to appear in his initial posts.

Neutrino, I have to say I have no issue with Neutrino. He has not insulted me and, in response, I have (surprise!!!!) not insulted him. Jimster brought him up and mentioned that I somehow took a pot shot at him. However, I must have missed it and that insult apparently does not exist anywhere in any of these posts.

I have encountered several very good mods on these forums. And now, I can honestly say that I have encountered a couple that are obviously on a power trip and suprisingly uninformed.

Does anyone believe that the 360 Modena (or any of the street legal iterations of that car) can best the Ford GT in the performance department?
Objective straightline performance. Ford (unquestionably).
Objective handling performance. I would think Ford(based on road tests), but if people have data suggesting otherwise, share it.
Subjective handling performance. Ferrari. I would think the lighter, more expensive car with sweet aero would be nicer driving. If not, pathetic, really.
Looks. Subjective.
Badge. Subjective.
Racing Heritage. Irrelevant.

Engine. Highly strung smaller displacement NA DOHC V8 with high redline vs. relatively untuned large displacement supercharged DOHC V8 with huge tuning capability(for a relatively small amount of money). I'm making this judgement based on the current tuning capabilities of the 4.6L Modular V8 in the 2003 Cobra. Here is the question, other than sound, what tangible reason would you want the 3.6L V8?

Ford GT MSRP. 140K
Ferrari 360 Modena. 160K?
Challenge Stradale. 200K.

Plus Ford does it all at a lower price, that is impressive to me (the Viper more so, though).

im gonna say screw syr74. he still got off the topic with talking about the people and not the car, cant say that wasnt a bad point. so, onto the topic.

i would like the 3.6L V8 cuz its different and greatly engineered. getting 395 (base) and ever more spetacular 445 (GTC) out of a 3.6L has to be great engineering. its different cuz it seems all sports and exotics are going to big engines (except porsche) and the smaller engine is different.

yes, ford does it at a lower price, but they probably use cheaper parts, in turn, making it not last as long, making it as expensive or more than the 360. thats the way i look at it, the long-term, not short-term.

im gonna say screw syr74. he still got off the topic with talking about the people and not the car, cant say that wasnt a bad point. so, onto the topic.

Can you ever see this comparision from both sides? People have different taste for the car they want. One car to sombody may not meet the same excitment reached by a different car to somone else.


yes, ford does it at a lower price, but they probably use cheaper parts, in turn, making it not last as long, making it as expensive or more than the 360. thats the way i look at it, the long-term, not short-term.

You seriously think a Ford is going to be more expensive than a Ferarri? I would like to see that. How costly would you think it would be to maintain both of these highend sports cars?

freakonaleash. you have no clue on often a ferrari needs to be serviced and is in the shop for repairs. granted a ford isn't much better, but just cause its more expensive dont' think its more reliable.

I skimmed the entire post to get the jist of what was being discussed. No one, unless I missed it, mention Clarksons test drive in the GT. Go to racingflix if you haven't seen it. The GT is hardly an american car. Almost all of the parts of the car and manufactured in other countries. Watch the video and Clarkson discusses it. While I like the sound of Mustangs, I'd expect better sound from a $100K car.

yes, ford does it at a lower price, but they probably use cheaper parts, in turn, making it not last as long, making it as expensive or more than the 360. thats the way i look at it, the long-term, not short-term.

Oh really?!??!?! Have you seen a service schedule for Ferraris? Maybe Jimbo should enlighten your mind with the costs associated with maintaining a Ferrari.

Does anyone believe that the 360 Modena (or any of the street legal iterations of that car) can best the Ford GT in the performance department?
Objective straightline performance. Ford (unquestionably).
Objective handling performance. I would think Ford(based on road tests), but if people have data suggesting otherwise, share it.
Subjective handling performance. Ferrari. I would think the lighter, more expensive car with sweet aero would be nicer driving. If not, pathetic, really.
Looks. Subjective.
Badge. Subjective.
Racing Heritage. Irrelevant.

Engine. Highly strung smaller displacement NA DOHC V8 with high redline vs. relatively untuned large displacement supercharged DOHC V8 with huge tuning capability(for a relatively small amount of money). I'm making this judgement based on the current tuning capabilities of the 4.6L Modular V8 in the 2003 Cobra. Here is the question, other than sound, what tangible reason would you want the 3.6L V8?

Ford GT MSRP. 140K
Ferrari 360 Modena. 160K?
Challenge Stradale. 200K.

Plus Ford does it all at a lower price, that is impressive to me (the Viper more so, though).
I'll agree with you on the Viper- but sadly it isn't a part of this topic

im gonna say screw syr74. he still got off the topic with talking about the people and not the car, cant say that wasnt a bad point. so, onto the topic.

This is pretty damned accurate- as they say in the politics forums, attacking someone/thier argument is a sign that you don't have one yourself.


Mr Payne- costs associated with a Ferrari=hellishly expensive- but if you spend that much on a car, then you should be able to afford to get the thing serviced. Tat FRom my experience with owners of the newer (F355, 550 Maranello, 575 Maranello, 350 M etc) models have had a relatively trouble free experince- when you compare it to the ones before about 1990 (as well as the 348 and Testarossa) This came as a result of Gianni Angelli's 1991 decision to hire a lawyer (Luca di Montezemolo) to run Ferrari- He in turn went to experyones favourite FIAT wizz Franco Canna and two gurus from Toyota, who in turn got some organisation going around the place and eventually made three "teams" design, improvement and assembly line. The results do speak for themselves, really. What prompted this??? Approaching bankruptcy and the Acura/Honda NSX. Just a little bit of useless Ferrari history for you.


Texas I haven't caught Clarkson test driving the GT, yet- but Clarkson isn't the man to do it- his driving ability is remarkably average- Jay Kay and Ross Kemp have similar driving ability to him; if they put the Stig in the car, then I'd be interested to see what happens, I did however, in the first season, watch as they looked over the prototype.


You have to understand economics, to understand why big makers (Like GM, Daimler-Chrysler, Ford, Honda, Toyota etc.) can price these cars lower- there is a huge demand for a Ferrari (3 year waiting list for most), Ferrari only have 1 factory, where they choose to handbuild thier cars, if Ferrari were to make a car priced at around US$80,000 then what will happen to demand?? It will skyrocket, what will happen to supply??? It'll remain the same unless they build another factory, which in turn will involve a huge setup cost, with more Ferraris on the road, it'll kill the desitrability and lower brand value and more or less destroy what the brand previously stood for. EXCLUSIVITY Need I mention that parent company FIAT is well in the red as well?

As for syr, sure buddy, think what you like I could draw you a fucking blueprint for a 360 and you'd still fucking spout your bullshit, yet if I said "auuw a GT rocks eh b0e?" you'd probably praise my great argument.

Your intellect marks, simply degrade your intellegence. Half the exotica owners I know, don't have a brain in between the three of them. I like to think of my intellect as average, I finished seventh form, went to Uni, got my BCA, got a job- very average IMHO, oh wait I'm off topic, oppsy, spank me please.


What a tool :rolleyes: Far as I am concerned I'm done with you, you know piss all about Ferraris and by golly it shows, hell with all the crap you post I could probably ban you, but I won't even bother warning you.


I'll monitor the rest of this thread to see if it warrants a closing :cool:

I'll agree with you on the Viper- but sadly it isn't a part of this topic

So what parts do you disagree with? :)
I wish to know where I am incorrect...:)

I explained the reasoning behind cost, the lead-in to your first post is all very correct and on the engines, I think Moss was actually kind of right here, it's more a factor of the fact that he engine is in cheaper cars (Falcon, Navigator, trucks) no denying it works, but a little originality usually works nicely too, oh and the soundtrack really is to die for in the Ferrari, once you hear it, it is really hard to get over it.

I do think the time is near when Ferrari are going to have to replace the ageing 3.6, though it'd be nice if they could lighten the 5.75 V12 and drop it in the Modena, or maybe stroke the original block at the very least

I'm sure you mean 5.75 V12.......but ok, the mass production argument certainly is correct. I don't really have a problem with Ferrari charging higher prices, because they can obviously sell them. If it was simply my money though, I would definitely look at what the fastest car in that price range would be. I'd probably go for the Viper or the Mosler anyways.

Shit sorry, V12- I doubt it'd work though, the engine'd still be far too heavy, yet if Ferrari increased the block size, they risk losing the Ferrari scream, but anyway, it's fair logic, I'm not too sure about Moslers, but if it were costs I was worried about, I'd buy a 911 Turbo, Vipers and the rest of the Euro-super car breed are similarly priced over here, it's not really even what goes the fastest when I buy a car, it's what I feel best in.

Oh, I agree.......I wouldn't even buy new though. 96 Viper GTS......an absolute beast. :) And if 450hp ain't doing it for me.......supercharging can always be an option.

Thread officially hijacked! Ok, no one respond to this.

Shit sorry, V12- I doubt it'd work though, the engine'd still be far too heavy, yet if Ferrari increased the block size, they risk losing the Ferrari scream, but anyway, it's fair logic, I'm not too sure about Moslers, but if it were costs I was worried about, I'd buy a 911 Turbo, Vipers and the rest of the Euro-super car breed are similarly priced over here, it's not really even what goes the fastest when I buy a car, it's what I feel best in.


well the mosler perfomance wise its the best choice if you live on a track...its literally a race car that has been legalised....especially the photon version...its most impresive feat is its weight which is slighty more than an elise...of course that comes at at price its not very suited for the streets...it literally makes the stradalle and gt3 look like an s500 mercedes as far as luxury comfort and ametities go since the mosler has none

the viper again is a performance deal since it only costs 80 k here....and daimler chrysler really listened to customers for the new srt10 i think the germans are a very positive influence on chrysler

of course when all is said and done i would still get the modena....its just something about that car that makes my knees go weak

btw jimster my choice would not be to put in the v12 since it might add just too much weight....personally i would add a turbo...can you image a ferrari tuned turbo(ahh f40 nostalgia) i know some purists might come after me for saying this but i really don't see a turbo as cheating....i really don't know why so many companies are obssesed to show just how much hp they can put out only NA

look at porsche they love to use Turbos and their cars are insanelly fast...gt2 anyone;)(i'll not bring the gt1 here since its performance its way out of those cars league)

Damn, I want to find out more about these Moslers, any links?? I'm guessing it'd be like a Radical SR3 with a brawny engine. You guys are lucky your Vipers come so cheap, the new ones have one hell of a bad-ass look about them oh and a ballsy engine.


ANYWAY I guess the Turbo'd V8 could work, the F40 definitely packed a killer punch with 2 snails, as did the 288GTO, so now we have the general agreement of what we want, it's now a matter of getting Ferrari to make it :(

here is their main site

http://www.moslerauto.com/

they have three versions of it

the s....most stretable....the photon which is an s on a diet and with a hewland straight cut sequential, titanium springs and a few other goodies

and the r which is racing only

its not quite as extreme as the radical....its more car like...and its true looks a bit rough but as i said its a freakin race car....reminds me of the gt1 of course i doubt its quite that fast

http://www.moslerauto.com/images/mt900/photo/photon/photo_006.jpg

After two seasons of racing and development the MT900S has emerged for road use. Weighing in as low as 1,980 lbs. (plus 21 gallons of fuel), and powered by a mid mounted 435 hp Corvette Z06 V8, this ultra light weight high performance vehicle sets new performance standards as it delivers a uniquely exhilerating driving experience.

Primary structure is provided by a carbon fiber monocoque integrated into the striking exterior crafted in cyberspace by Unigraphics design. On a typical 2 mile road course, the MT900S is capable of laps many seconds per lap quicker than any other sports car manufactured US legal.

Delivery can be arranged for early next year.

Pricing
MT900S - $159,000

Photon - $209,000
(includes upgrade to Hewland transmission, carbon seats, thinwall subframes, BBS magnesium wheels, titanium springs, carbon fiber bodywork)

Specs at a glance

Wheelbase 109 in.
Length 189 in.
Width 79 in.
Height 44.5 in.
Track 66 in.
Ground Clearance 4.5 in.
Fuel Capacity 21.7 gals.
Weight (without fuel) 2,200 lbs.
Weight, Photon Version
(without fuel) 1,980 lbs.

AC, electric locks, electric windows, am/fm/cd stereo

Advanced composite primary structure, chrome-moly front and rear subframes

Double wishbone, Corvette aluminum upper, chrome-moly lower, three-way adjustable coil-over shocks, adjustable-blade anti-roll bar

Front
19x10-inch, aluminum wheels
P255-40ZR-19 tires

Rear
20x11-inch aluminum wheels
P295-40ZR-20 tires

Photon Version:
Front
18x10-inch, aluminum wheels
285/30ZR-18

Rear
18x11-inch aluminum wheels
305/30ZR-18

Four wheel vented 13" disc


Type 90 degree OHV V8, aluminum block and heads

Make General Motors Corvette LS6

Displacement 5.7L (346 ci)

Intake System Corvette electronic sequential fuel injection

Ignition Distributorless, eight-coil

Output 435 hp (est)

Redline 6800 rpm

6 speed manual

damn, the front end looks a lot like a McLaren F1........As for the specs........Wooooooowww any road testing been done yet? I'd think with such a high power/wieght ratio that the thing would probably fly like no other.

damn, the front end looks a lot like a McLaren F1........As for the specs........Wooooooowww any road testing been done yet? I'd think with such a high power/wieght ratio that the thing would probably fly like no other.


yeah it was by far the winner in that Motor Trend test with Justin Bell...it pretty much destroyed all their records

the only two tests it got beat were the top speed won by the murcielago since the mosler is not really a top speed type car and the braking test in which the viper did a record 60-0 in 97 feet which is ridiculous of course the mosler was a close second with a 100 feet

i'll try to find that issue and post the results

EDIT:here is the article...it is the most cromprehensive side by side test done with a profesional race car driver

http://www.motortrend.com/features/scenes/112_0306_spdint/index.html

here are some extracts:

The Photon, introduced at the Los Angeles auto show in January, is the perfect fourth or fifth car for a wealthy, speed-obsessed driving enthusiast. At a lofty $210,000, the Photon version is a barely disguised race car with titanium springs, dragon-howling Hewland six-speed sequential manual gearbox, Lexan windshield, and rock-hard racing buckets. The only concessions to comfort are a radio (that can't be heard over the gearbox roar) and a strong air-conditioning system that's essential to maintaining somewhat reasonable temperatures in the sun-flooded cockpit. With some important--but, let's face it, ladies--rare exceptions, this is not a girly car. It's a mid-engine rear-drive rocket that separates the men from the boys and the ladies from the more exotic Nomex-wearing driver babes.

http://www.motortrend.com/motor/roadtests/coupe/112_0306_spdtest_060_z.jpg http://www.motortrend.com/motor/roadtests/coupe/112_0306_spdtest_quartm_z.jpg http://www.motortrend.com/motor/features/scenes/112_0306_spdtest_0_100_0_z.jpg http://www.motortrend.com/motor/roadtests/coupe/112_0306_spdtest_slalm_z.jpg http://www.motortrend.com/motor/roadtests/coupe/112_0306_spdtest_total_z.jpg

yeah, i remember that issue. it was fun reading it but to bad the enzo wasnt in it. i think it would of been a better competition with the enzo in it. yes, the mosler probably would of still won, but at least a car would of been able to keep up with the mosler.

It looks like I have a lot to touch bases on here. I think I'll start off with you syr74.

You're right; HP is HP, who cares how you get it? Now, you see, your problem was that you thought I was complaining. Well, I wasn't, I was simply stating that a car with higher horsepower and torque with both lower in the power-band better have faster acceleration and exit speeds from the turn. It is a bigger engine with forced induction. I am saying that it is nothing to be surprised about. Perhaps next time you should read what I typed, and not make your own impressions of what I meant. You took my statement into the wrong context.

Please tell me how the GT is "substantially' less than the 360 Modena? It isn't, it is only $10,000 less and $50,000 less than the Stradale. To you, ten grand might seem like a lot of money, but when you're talking about cars at that price range it isn't.


I would love to see these examples of Mopar copying Ford. Also the 427 Cobra is NOT a Ford so just shut the hell up! You talk about straying off topic, what the hell do you call bringing Mopar into it? Perhaps it was a childish attempt to make me mad because you have no valid point to make. Ford took it to the extreme by taking apart a 360 Modena and using the ideas behind the 360 to build the GT. Also, the 360 was Ford's target from the beginning so don't give me that "warrant a look" bullshit.

When I was talking about age I was referring to the fact that the GT is brand new while the Modena is not. So Ford takes one apart and is able to improve because of the newer technologies available. Once again, I'm not complaining, just making a point as to why it should be better you idiot.

Who cares if Ferrari is doing a full factory backing outside of F1 or not? Ford hasn't even hinted at using the GT in racing at all. Also, Ford's only factory effort I know of is NASCAR, which in my opinion isn't the pinnacle of handling. They are in F1 as Jaguar, but they can't even touch Ferrari there.

The GT-40 was as much a Ford as the Daytona and Cobra were, it wasn't. There is a reason they can't call the new GT the GT-40 and that is because the company that made the GT-40 owns the rights to the moniker. Also, a few races are NOT what I call dominating. I call what the Viper GTS-R did in 1998 and 1999 dominating or what the Superbird/Chager Daytona did in the early 70s in NASCAR dominating. That was domination to the point that they were deemed to have an unfair advantage. Domination is what Ferrari has been doing for years in Formula 1. So put that in your pipe and smoke it.

I sure loved that Viper tasteless comment. Proves you're just as ignorant as I thought. So, the GT might reach over 200MPH as you said, "these are all just estimates." So you're saying that the GT is the better car based off estimates. Talk about a weak point.

You once again stray off topic just to flame Jimster by saying he has no knowledge of performance vehicles. Well, he sure has a hell of a lot more knowledge in one hair than you do in your whole body. Also, be sure that he has driven a Modena, so his views are quite better than yours being someone who hasn't driven either.

I also don't care what journalists say about handling either since I would consider myself a better driver than most of them. So they need to get Justin Bell to drive both. After that I will trust which is faster. Like Neutrino said, the GT might just be easier to drive for some moron, but the Modena might handle better. It is easy to confuse the two. Try driving a Formula 1 car. You would probably say it handles like shit.

Now Jimster posed his opinion with his first post and didn't insult you. You got all defensive and lashed out against him. I only came to his defense with my opinion that you were being biased. You came back, again, all defensive replying to my post. You have been the one attempting to do most of the insulting, so enough with the poor you bullcrap.

Like I said before, it is my preference that I would take the Modena to the GT regardless of price, and even if the GT is faster. It is a matter of preference. I feel the Modena is a better looking, better built, and better-engineered car. Performance isn't the only thing that I base car-buying decisions off of. Also, I am not biased against Ford or any other car company, just certain cars. I happen to think the GT is a good car, just a far cry to the original.

As for Clarkson, Jimster, you give him more credit than I do. I think he is a below average driver and a horses ass to boot. Anyone that would call the BMW sequential gearbox rubbish is a moron. Besides, we all know that the Stig and Tiff would drop him like a bad habit on the track.

:biggrin:

one thing i have to add about the turbo f-360. there is one. the koenig f-360. ive mentioned it early but maybe ppl miss it with all the insulting. here are the specs.
0-60 - 3.6
1/4 mile - 11.7
slalom - 68.2 mph
top speed - 205 mph
that can keep up with the ford gt. and plus, it looks even better than the base 360 let alone the gt. pics are at http://www.fast-autos.net/koenig/koenig360.html.

Also, IMO, turbo much better choice than super.

polygon i mean i think jermey clarkson is a good reviewer. he is brutally honest. sure his driving isn't the best, but he does beat the shit out of each car he drives throughly and he is pretty expierenced at driving all types of super cars since he has reviewed the koniegsegg, the ford GT, the porsche carrera GT, the Jaguar XJ220, the Jaguar XJR16, the Mc laren F1, the Pagani zonda C12, driven every top of hte line Lamboghini, the Ferrari F40, and F50, and F355, the bughatti EB something i forgot. so he has quit a bit of cars to compare it to, and he does thourghly drives them. so its not like he doens't know anything about it. and like i said, he is brutally honest. he made the jaguar XJ220 look like crap, he showed that the brakes sucked, and that the car at its limit is almost uncontrollable. yet when he drives the F40, or F355 the car is dancing from corner to corner (and yes it was at its limits cusae the cars were drifting).

Can anybody tell me exactly what Ford is using from ferarri? I hear a lot of this Ford being a 'not so ford', so please expand further onto this subject. I would like to know exactly what Ford did to copy the Modena? Please, make sure its credible, not just some weak inobjective argument. I don't want to hear any quotes from a journalist on what they believe, I want the facts. This way there will not be any confusion.

1. I think that Clarkson is an idiot because he does stupid things like calls the M3 sequential gearbox "rubbish." In his review of the 350Z he had so many complaints and most were just plain silly. Then he drives the STi and the Evo, he then admits the Evo is a much better car, but prefers the STi, but he can't explain why. I only like to watch the ones where Tiff reviews the cars. He is a much better driver and not an asshole. Clarkson can only been seen driving down the airstrip taking hard turns or driving a car leisurely on public roads because they won't let him drive them on the track because he is not capable. That is what Tiff and the Stig are for.

2. The reason I say the GT-40 is not a Ford is because it is a British car with a Ford engine just like the Daytona and Cobra. The GT is a Ford, I am just saying that they bought a Modena, took it apart, and modeled their designs off that.

Polygon, I agree with you. Clarkson isn't my favorite. And does call everything rubbish that everyone else seems to call remarkable. But that of course is his opinion. He doesn't really drive the GT 'hard' if I remember correctly. He's on the streets of Detroit. But he is very impressed with the car. And if Clarkson is impressed with a car, then I usually take his word on it b/c of his stubborness or sorts.

Aside from that. The Mossler isn't that great of car. When car and driver tested it they had a hard time handling the thing. It kept getting squirrly on them and spinning out. There's not enough weight balance in that car to make it 'good'.

2. The reason I say the GT-40 is not a Ford is because it is a British car with a Ford engine just like the Daytona and Cobra. The GT is a Ford, I am just saying that they bought a Modena, took it apart, and modeled their designs off that.

What did parts did Ford model from the Modena? Specific components, please.

Well Clarkson often seem just too biased and outspoken....it seems he takes his own personal opinions and presents them as facts.Stig testing the cars is by far the best part of the show. Tiff Needell on the other hand besides being an insanely good driver he criticizes but in a constructive manner.

about the gt copying the modena...you have to agree it shares the same basic layout...mid engine RWD with double wishbones at all corners...but many super cars have this setup. Now how much further did Ford go with the inspiration it’s hard to say unless you are an international pattent officer


Aside from that. The Mossler isn't that great of car. When car and driver tested it they had a hard time handling the thing. It kept getting squirrly on them and spinning out. There's not enough weight balance in that car to make it 'good'.

Remember that the mosler is a barely disguised race car....those are notoriously hard to control by amateurs....just look at what Justin Bell did with it

Like you said Neutrino, there isn't anything oddly peculiar about a MR design on an uneven double wishbone suspension package. Since this is arguably the best setup for this type of car, I see no reason why Ford wouldn't do otherwise.

As for Ford copying a Ferarri, I'm still waiting. Indeed Ford did buy a Modena. They probably even evaluated its characteristics to find out where they were at compared to its competition (ferarri). What better idea to find out where the competition stands, so you can only further make a better car. The Japanese companies have a history for studying the same prexisting market only to make a more refined car that is as good or better than its previous. Seriously, I feel like I'm repeating myself and nobody seems to even listen, LOTS OF COMPANIES DO THE SAME THING. Ford does it, and now everybody seems to have a problem. I'm still waiting for sombody to show me what was ripped off.