Lamborghini Gallardo vs. Ford GT

The Ferrari's horsepower isn't going to be as important as the overall design of the new chasis and suspension geometry that will exist on the new one IMO. More hp will also change the attitude of the car, they will definatley need to compensate for the adjustment. And if anybody knows Ferrari, it won't be an obstacle that will not be overcome. It honestly wouldn't suprise me if Ferrari built a better or comparativly better vehicle (which I'm sure everyone will agree), but its still to soon to tell. The automobile market is so competive at every level which hasn't happened this intense in such a long time. I'm so excited to see such new inoventions and much better products of new and inspiring vehicles of the future. Even the american cars are becoming a vehicle of higher quality than ever before.

The new Ford GT has been an example of whats to come. Other exotics will fire with a rendition of their newest successors and make this even more interesting. Things will become very interesting in the near future. I'm going to the chicago autoshow and snapping some pictures of some of the cars their tomorrow. Hopfully I'll see some great new concepts. I've heard the new NSX is suppost to be their.

Anyways, I can't see anything that couldn't be done with the 5.4 than could be achieved by the 4.2. Only more maintence.

i agree with kurtdg19. ferrari isnt a company that will just sit back and see one of it's cars get beat by so many other cars. ferrari wants to be the best and imo they have the capabilities to do it. ferrari will prevail.

I agree, I think that with a year or two or development the GT will shake a lot of the early criticism off, but as for now...

but as for now...
What?

As for now I stand fast by the Gallardo, but in the next two years with the GT developements, who knows, I may change my mind (stranger things have happened). Or I may transcend this debate and pitch my chips with the Ferrari 420.

oh, ok

Chevrolet have never built a super car, they've made a cheap wannabe supercar that is the American Skyline GTR.

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

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

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

I agree Chevy has never made a supercar my point was that if GM or Dodge wanted to they could. They can throw the money around just like Ford and make a super car that could compete with the other Exoticar manufacturers if so desired.

Also some said the Viper engine was based on there truck engine. Dodge's original idea was this but by the time the first Viper's rolled of the assembly line the 2 engines only shared 2 parts which were electrical sensors nothing else. The 2 engines are that different from each other.

I think Ford using the 5.4 block design and S/C is a great thing and not a downfall. #1 The reliability of doing this has already been proven through the Lighting which lead to the 03 Cobra which now leads us to the GT. It's a proven combination in performance/cost/reliability, 2 of those the other supercar manufacturers can't claim(ex. Porsche if you count them). So thrown together the car is not... this is the evolution of Ford Mod motors that have been 10+ years in the makin.

Also saying that the GT motor is just a S/C Ford truck motor is as ignorant as the people who think a 01 Cobra engine and a 03 Cobra engine are the same except one is S/C. For everything each motor shares they have more in differences. The Mod motors are becoming Ford's strength instead of thier weakness and even me who hated them has started to love them.

I'm not saying you have to like the GT more than the Lambo or the Ferrari 360. But you can't make any real argument against the GT that isn't just an opinion thing. I agree Ferrari will fire back and prob take another step-up. But Ford has N/A 500HP and 600HP N/A Mod motors built that are pretty much drop ins for the 4.6 and 5.4 motors. So I think Ford can fire back also.

imo, i dont think ford could keep up with ferrari in making exotic cars. for one, ford has to also produce trucks, suvs, and family cars. all ferrari as to do is make exotic cars so they can spend all there time making that kind of car when ford cant. and two, ford doesnt have near the experience that ferrari does.

I can't believe people continue to harp on the 5.4L V8. It is a good engine. It produces a lot of power. It produces a lot of torque. It can be modded easily. What more do you people want? In full race trim it would easily smash it's competitors.

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


Ok, lets think about how engines work...

Keeping the number of cylinders the same, they either have to increase bore/stroke of the engine. A larger stroke length means more accelerative forces per rev. Not good. Larger bore means more friction per rev. Not good. How would they maintain that 110hp/L benchmark?

Host of other reasons why going up in cylinder number and cylinder size make it harder to achieve good hp/L numbers.

lets think a little bit about how ferrari works. they seem to get the most power out of an engine.

the 6.0L V-12 from ferrari makes 660hp. that is simple math and that is making 110hp/L. it seems they maintained the benchmark when they went up in size. so if ferrari can do it going from 3.6L to 6.0L, i think they can do it from 3.6L to 4.2L.

lets think a little bit about how ferrari works. they seem to get the most power out of an engine.

the 6.0L V-12 from ferrari makes 660hp. that is simple math and that is making 110hp/L. it seems they maintained the benchmark when they went up in size. so if ferrari can do it going from 3.6L to 6.0L, i think they can do it from 3.6L to 4.2L.

You forgot about the 4 extra cylinders. Which would make the bore and stroke smaller than a 6.0 V-8, significantly.

lets think a little bit about how ferrari works. they seem to get the most power out of an engine.

the 6.0L V-12 from ferrari makes 660hp. that is simple math and that is making 110hp/L. it seems they maintained the benchmark when they went up in size. so if ferrari can do it going from 3.6L to 6.0L, i think they can do it from 3.6L to 4.2L.

Look at how much it costs. The engine/tranny combined total more than 200K. Do they have that amount of money to put into a 4.2L V8 (which, by the way, isn't even going to be made after they realized the Gallardo decimated it easily).

the 4.2L isnt going to be made?!?!?! are they going to make a better engine? but in your post kurtdg19, didnt you say that going up in cylinder number and size make it HARDER to get the hp/L numbers. so it is achievable by what you are saying. but who knows, we will just have to wait and see.

the 4.2L isnt going to be made?!?!?! are they going to make a better engine? but in your post kurtdg19, didnt you say that going up in cylinder number and size make it HARDER to get the hp/L numbers. so it is achievable by what you are saying. but who knows, we will just have to wait and see.
Going up in cylinder number won't do anything to the hp/l IF you don't actually increase the cylinder size (bore and stroke) WITH adding the cylinders.

If you increased the size of the cylinders, issues as mentioned above, become much more apparent when you are building N/A hence bolt on power adders must be used.

good point, a little off topic though, yeah?

Going up in cylinder number won't do anything to the hp/l IF you don't actually increase the cylinder size (bore and stroke) WITH adding the cylinders.

If you increased the size of the cylinders, issues as mentioned above, become much more apparent when you are building N/A hence bolt on power adders must be used.

sorry to get off topic pontiac. but i say these numbers and know what they mean. i havent had much experience with bore and stroke yet. i know what they are, but not the numbers. the enzo's bore and stroke is 3.62x2.96 in. the 360's bore and stroke is 3.43x3.11 in. how do those numbers compare?

To be honest I'm not very familiar with the bore and stroke statistics of Ferrari, but if you have questions on Pontiac thats another story.

sorry to get off topic pontiac. but i say these numbers and know what they mean. i havent had much experience with bore and stroke yet. i know what they are, but not the numbers. the enzo's bore and stroke is 3.62x2.96 in. the 360's bore and stroke is 3.43x3.11 in. how do those numbers compare?

The cylinder bore (bore) is the diameter of the the engine cylinder. Its measured across the cylinder parallel with the top of the block.

Piston stroke (stroke) is the distance the piston moves from TDC to BDC. The amount of offset designed into the crank rod journal controls the amount of piston stroke. Basically, its how far up and down the piston moves in the cylinder.

When you get a number of bore and stroke Ex: (I'll use your Enzo numbers) A bore and stroke of 3.62x2.96 means that the bore is 3.62in in diameter, and the stroke is 2.96in. Bore is always the first value given.

If you wanted to find the displacement of the engine you can use the bore/stroke with this equation:

[(bore squared x 3.14 x stroke) / 4] x Number of cylinders = Displacement.

Ex: (Enzo) [(3.62 x 3.62) x 3.14 x 2.96] = 121.80
121.80 / 4 = 30.45

Now 30.45 (cubic inches) is the displacemnt per cylinder.

30.45 x 12 (cylinders of Enzo) = 365.4cu in.

You can also find the metric Liters using cu in. Conversion rate is:
1 cu in. = 16.387 cc.

Enzo: 365.4 x 16.387 = 5987.8098cc. Which is rounded to 6L.

thanks for the explanation, it took me a little bit though.

so if i did the formula correct, which im pretty sure i did, the displacement per cylinder for the 360 is 28.72 cu in. the enzo's is 30.45. back to the main point why i wanted to figure this out (thanx for the info). wouldnt an engine with bigger bore and bigger displacement per cylinder make the engine work harder? if so, then the 110hp/L would be harder to make in the enzo. if that is true, then that proves my point that ferrari can make the 110hp/L figure with a bigger engine. again, thanks for the help kurtdg19.

so if i did the formula correct, which im pretty sure i did, the displacement per cylinder for the 360 is 28.72 cu in. the enzo's is 30.45. back to the main point why i wanted to figure this out (thanx for the info). wouldnt an engine with bigger bore and bigger displacement per cylinder make the engine work harder? if so, then the 110hp/L would be harder to make in the enzo. if that is true, then that proves my point that ferrari can make the 110hp/L figure with a bigger engine. again, thanks for the help kurtdg19.

Hey np. I without a doubt, wouldn't think that Ferrari couldn't achieve such numbers. I'm sure other car designers can choose to do the same but, with a highly tuned motor that ferrari makes also comes high maintence. I'm sure a top end engine rebuild will be required often in these motors. This may be one reason other car companies choose not to go this way.

Does anybody have any info on how often the 360 requires a top end rebuild? Maybe 20k miles? I'm not positivly sure on this, help would be appreciated.

BTW, I got some pictures from the Chicago autoshow. Their are a few gallardo pics, sweet looking car. I'd post them, but they are larger than the 80k, maybe I can shrink them down. Probably nothing nobody hasn't saw already though.

so if i did the formula correct, which im pretty sure i did, the displacement per cylinder for the 360 is 28.72 cu in. the enzo's is 30.45. back to the main point why i wanted to figure this out (thanx for the info). wouldnt an engine with bigger bore and bigger displacement per cylinder make the engine work harder? if so, then the 110hp/L would be harder to make in the enzo. if that is true, then that proves my point that ferrari can make the 110hp/L figure with a bigger engine. again, thanks for the help kurtdg19.


Of course they CAN make a larger engine with 110hp/L. Costs go up exponentially though. The engine/tranny combo in the Enzo probably goes between $150-200K. Furthermore, reliability is undoubtedly affected by having this engine in such a high level of tune.

Actually, the engine alone is 200k. And that isn't insured if you dont use the $700 synthetic oil...
Anyways, back on topic (now that we've beat the snot out of the engine discussion and gotten off topic). Previously, there was a lot of discussion about the straight speed of the two cars (Gallardo and GT... remember?) and it seems that the GT is nominally faster. Now I've heard the lambo described several times as a big lotus elise, pretty high praise in my mind; how about the GT? Let me put it this way, which do you think would win on a very winding road course? (Consider any differences in acceleration negligible).

I'd think the apex speed of the GT would be better in every sense.

with lots of twisties, i think the gallardo would win. corners is a european specialty, plus, the gallardo has awd, it is a fact that awd increases a cars cornering ability.

I think the GT will beat the Lambo in a big time twisty road course along with a road course that had more focus on striaghtaways.

it is a fact that awd increases a cars cornering ability.

No it isn't. In fact, AWD has virtually no effect on how well a car corners.

No it isn't. In fact, AWD has virtually no effect on how well a car corners.

I wouldn't say thats exactly true. AWD does have good benefits on a cars cornering abilities. Since the tractive force of the car is being shared by all 4 tires (as opposed to 2 in rwd/fwd) it enables a higher cornering limit. When a rwd car corners the tractive force on the drive tires will distort faster than an awd car which leads to quicker tire slip. A rwd will simply create larger slip angles faster.

Steering tendency is usually in favor of a rwd vehicle since it has a greater ability to promote oversteer. In a sense, some people will say that a rwd car will have more 'feel' than a awd car. This will usually make it more predictable which IMO is very important. Not that a awd couldn't promote oversteer, but you cannot set an awd car up to promote the oversteer as well as a rwd car unless your willing to do a trade off.

You also add weight to a car in awd, and you have additional power loss associated with friction. It comes down to which you prefer.

On a road course I fully expect the GT to leave the Gallardo or its big brother like they are tied to a pole. IMO Lambo's don't seem to have handling that matches their pricetag or their promise.

Simple numbers like skidpad mph are often impressive, but the package never seems to work together very well when it's time to tackle a road course. Kinda like the Minnesota Vikings in the 1980's, the parts promise a lot but never quite deliver as a team.

Interesting supposition. So the Ford exceeds the sum of its parts, while the gallardo fails to. Interesting...

I wouldn't say thats exactly true. AWD does have good benefits on a cars cornering abilities. Since the tractive force of the car is being shared by all 4 tires (as opposed to 2 in rwd/fwd) it enables a higher cornering limit. I'm gonna assume you mean more acceleration out of the corner, which is partially true...assuming you don't induce understeer (which is very possible). A variable type system is better and I don't think the Gallardo can even achieve 100% rear torque(not the ideal variable system).When a rwd car corners the tractive force on the drive tires will distort faster than an awd car which leads to quicker tire slip. A rwd will simply create larger slip angles faster. Again, if the front tires slip before the rear tires it can understeer. Considering steering is usually solely controlled by the front tires the addition of power will always decrease gripping ability unless it is the variable system.

Steering tendency is usually in favor of a rwd vehicle since it has a greater ability to promote oversteer. In a sense, some people will say that a rwd car will have more 'feel' than a awd car. This will usually make it more predictable which IMO is very important. Not that a awd couldn't promote oversteer, but you cannot set an awd car up to promote the oversteer as well as a rwd car unless your willing to do a trade off.

You also add weight to a car in awd, and you have additional power loss associated with friction. It comes down to which you prefer.

In closing, the only time AWD can benefit in cornering is on corner exit only if it has a variable torque split system which progessively adds power to the front tires as available grip increases when used lateral grip decreases.

edit: Actually, some AWD can benefit if it isn't a complete variable system. That line is often unclear though.

all this gives me a new perspective on awd. i have always heard that awd is the best for cornering. there have been a couple threads on af that have said that a awd car wins just because it can corner better than any other car.

On a road course I fully expect the GT to leave the Gallardo or its big brother like they are tied to a pole. IMO Lambo's don't seem to have handling that matches their pricetag or their promise.

Until the Diablo i would have agreed with you. But the Murcielago is a very well sorted car and the Gallardo has proved that it's at least as quick on a road course as a 996TT. Anything that can live with one of those is devastatingly fast. I dont think the GT would be able to get away from either of these cars very quickly, if at all.

Well, if the car tested is the C&D Ford GT, then it would put a world of hurt on 996TT, Murcielago, or Gallardo. If it was the R&T or Motortrend GT, then it would be comparable to the Lambos, but probably faster than the 996TT...

(Magazine racing at its finest)

I'll wait and see what the Stig does with it... or any Nurburgring tests :D

In closing, the only time AWD can benefit in cornering is on corner exit only if it has a variable torque split system which progessively adds power to the front tires as available grip increases when used lateral grip decreases.

edit: Actually, some AWD can benefit if it isn't a complete variable system. That line is often unclear though.

Yes that is the main benefit from an AWD setup. Inducing understeer is a main concern in an AWD setup. Like I also said, you can setup an AWD car to promote RWD characteristics in reducing the understeering effects prone to it (variable torque split/suspension/etc.). I would still rather be in a RWD setup. I just wanted to give credit where due.

also, looking at the amusment factor, imo rwd is the best. you can whip the tail around the corner, that is a lot more funner than just turning around a corner. but thats just me.

Yeah, I don't know that I would take any data or ideas from the C&D test of the GT. Those figures were pretty far of the mark set by every other journalist test. Statistically speaking, that data can be tossed.

Yeah, I don't know that I would take any data or ideas from the C&D test of the GT. Those figures were pretty far of the mark set by every other journalist test. Statistically speaking, that data can be tossed.

Statistically speaking, no, that data could not be tossed. We only have three separate samples. Car & Driver, Motortrend, and Road & Track. We simply do not know how this car will perform from factory.

Why is my Poll off, I set the day limit to 0, did the moderators turn it off?, and is there anyway to get it back up and running again?

Ok, strictly statistically speaking, no, the data cannot be tossed. However, while I have only seen numerical data from three sources, I have seen many other reviews of the GT. None of them place the car (even in straightline which is what the C&D test suggests) in the relm of the enzo or Koenigsegg. As a rational human being, I would say that the C&D data can be ignored. :2cents:

Why is my Poll off, I set the day limit to 0, did the moderators turn it off?, and is there anyway to get it back up and running again?
I dont remember changing it, it may have been Neutrino or another mod. But they would have been right in doing so. Polls shouldn't be open for more than a few weeks, else random votes bump the thread when it's well past its sell-by date.

Ok, strictly statistically speaking, no, the data cannot be tossed. However, while I have only seen numerical data from three sources, I have seen many other reviews of the GT. None of them place the car (even in straightline which is what the C&D test suggests) in the relm of the enzo or Koenigsegg. As a rational human being, I would say that the C&D data can be ignored. :2cents:

Come on now, you've seen "many other" sources? What, the Top Gear episode? What else? Remember, It is very hard to gauge the straitline speed by the seat of your pants. Perhaps they just assumed it was going to be slower than the Enzo or Koenigsegg. We simply don't know unless we get more data or customer cars reveal how fast the car is.

oh my god, people think that the gt will be as fast as the enzo or koenigsegg?!?!?!?!?!?!?! i dont think the sources can be that much off.

Com'on, we all kno the history that Ford had under its belt. It was the first damn automobile for cryin out loud. Lamborghini is exotic, but it really dont have anything on the Ford GT 40. The Ford GT is definately the poster child for Ford. But at any rate the Ford GT probably out performs the Lamborghini in all aspects you can possibly concieve. Think about it, its the GT 40 guys!!! Its text book!!!

im really tired of that, people ragging on and on about the gt's heritage. wow, that is cool what happened back then, but that was back then. this is now. the "Ford GT probably out performs the Lamborghini in all aspects you can possibly concieve" is completely subjective. a lot of aspects are subjective, like feel, looks, brand, etc. im just tired of hearing the heritage stuff.

im really tired of that, people ragging on and on about the gt's heritage. wow, that is cool what happened back then, but that was back then. this is now. the "Ford GT probably out performs the Lamborghini in all aspects you can possibly concieve" is completely subjective. a lot of aspects are subjective, like feel, looks, brand, etc. im just tired of hearing the heritage stuff.


Well join the club cause every car the Ford GT gets compared to you have to hear about Ferrari, Lambo, whatever heritage so that makes it better even when the numbers are saying it's not true.

Official news is that the Ford GT will officially have 550hp.

Com'on, we all kno the history that Ford had under its belt. It was the first damn automobile for cryin out loud.


first automobile to be marketed towards the masses, not first per se

that is very true neutrino. i didnt even catch that. ford making the first car is one of the few things misunderstood in the car world. they were the first ones to make a moving assembly line so they could mass-produce cars.

I'm glad you pointed that out, Neutrino.

And as for those who are "tired of hearing about Ferrari / Porsche's racing heritage", tough. This heritage doesnt automatically make these cars the best, but it's also not just about badge appeal either, racing improves the breed. These companies have learnt a thing or two competing at the sharp end of motorsport for the last half century.

Note that Lamborghini doesnt have a great racing heritage although it ranks as an "exotic"...

Yeah, in actuality, many of the GM companies are quite a bit older than Ford. Oldsmobile was started by Ransom E. Olds in 1897 for example and is actually the oldest car company in the U.S.

FYI, did you know that if it weren't for Henry Ford insisting on a bit more than they were willing to offer, GM would actually own Ford right now?

Come on now, you've seen "many other" sources? What, the Top Gear episode? What else? Remember, It is very hard to gauge the straitline speed by the seat of your pants. Perhaps they just assumed it was going to be slower than the Enzo or Koenigsegg. We simply don't know unless we get more data or customer cars reveal how fast the car is.

Ok, fine. We wont discard the data. I still do not believe that that data should be used for this comparison.

.FYI, did you know that if it weren't for Henry Ford insisting on a bit more than they were willing to offer, GM would actually own Ford right now?

i learned a couple months ago that ford tried buying ferrari when ferraris started out (after enzo made his scuderia racing company). i would of died if enzo let henry buy ferrari.

I believe that this failure to buy Ferrari is why Ford built the GT40 to beat ferrari in the 60's lemans. Nice piece of history.

Yeah, the Ford GT40 was one of the earlier influences in a global operation. I believe it was call Ford of Britain at the time (not entirly sure though) along with the 427 from Shelby if memory serves me right. Soon after the GT40 a 5 Liter displacment cap was posed. Who knows, if this cap wasn't posed, maybe more cars than we can even think of would be using large displacment motors (including the ferrari's and the porsche's).

I believe that this failure to buy Ferrari is why Ford built the GT40 to beat ferrari in the 60's lemans. Nice piece of history.

Yep this is true..... goes to show even millionaires can be petty :evillol:

Yep this is true..... goes to show even millionaires can be petty :evillol:

Oh I would say that the economic super elite can be the most petty.

btw, I mean not to stereotype here, it just seems that people like Henry Ford would be petty since what else do they have to compete for?

what else do they have to compete for?

Good point...

Money= chicks, cars, mansions, yachts, world trips ect.

They pretty much have everything, I guess all that's left is competing with each other in something! Even if it's being the biggest tycoon there is! :D