my 2 cents
FordJunky
07-22-2004, 06:01 AM
hmmm, sounds like a bunch of winey babies in here, seriously can anyone have a debate without getting hot headed? (that goes for both sides) as for which is better...
ford gt
0-60 3.4
1/4 11.7
slalom above 71
and it can go 0-100-0 before the ferrari even hits 100
as for for "cheating" well, all companies do that, u think for one second ferrari doesnt disect lambos? porches?
ya, ford to a look at the ferrari but as for coppying it, theyre completely different cars, u name one thing the coppied, anything... ill bet ya cant... and as far as better engineering, ill admit the ferraris engine has better enginering, as far as the body i think the gt was better engineered.
when all is said and done the ford is a supercar that people can actually afford, thats the hole point, if ford wanted to take a 3.6 litre engine and pump out 500 horses they prolly could, they went bith displacemnent and a supercharger to keep it affordable as that was the purpose... but if engineering is wut u want then look at the shelby concept, ya its a concept but it would whoop the crap out of an enzo. or howabout a 1994 10.0L boss mustang 0-60 in 1.9 seconds it was a concept but ford was prepared to sell it for 200,000+ (way less than enzo)
im not bashing on the ferrari, its a badass car but the ford makes more sense.
o, and one more thing, as for ford getting lazy and having to hire svt to build performance cars, SVT IS FORD, theyre not an outside agency, it is ford, ford took theyr better technicians and developed svt to produce performance cars.
ford gt
0-60 3.4
1/4 11.7
slalom above 71
and it can go 0-100-0 before the ferrari even hits 100
as for for "cheating" well, all companies do that, u think for one second ferrari doesnt disect lambos? porches?
ya, ford to a look at the ferrari but as for coppying it, theyre completely different cars, u name one thing the coppied, anything... ill bet ya cant... and as far as better engineering, ill admit the ferraris engine has better enginering, as far as the body i think the gt was better engineered.
when all is said and done the ford is a supercar that people can actually afford, thats the hole point, if ford wanted to take a 3.6 litre engine and pump out 500 horses they prolly could, they went bith displacemnent and a supercharger to keep it affordable as that was the purpose... but if engineering is wut u want then look at the shelby concept, ya its a concept but it would whoop the crap out of an enzo. or howabout a 1994 10.0L boss mustang 0-60 in 1.9 seconds it was a concept but ford was prepared to sell it for 200,000+ (way less than enzo)
im not bashing on the ferrari, its a badass car but the ford makes more sense.
o, and one more thing, as for ford getting lazy and having to hire svt to build performance cars, SVT IS FORD, theyre not an outside agency, it is ford, ford took theyr better technicians and developed svt to produce performance cars.
Neutrino
07-22-2004, 06:43 AM
A crusade to prove a point is not a valid comparison. Also I guess in your post you are refering to the 360 modena, this has been debated to death and we have no new information since then.
Closed.
Closed.
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2026