Ford GT versus Enzo and Carrera GT in MT

don't forget that ford actually had very little to do with the last two wins.....

Bah, you Ferrari people sure do hold grudges :/

Hey K-man, you're a decade late. GT40 ruled the Le Mans roost from 1966 to 1969, failed to win Le Mans (or even finish Le Mans) in its maiden year, and only won the World Championship of Makes twice in its 1965 to 1970 run.

Hardly slaying Ferrari. The Le Mans losses were certainly an affront to Il Commendatore's pride, but the man always felt that the 1967 1-2-3 at Daytona with the 330P4, as well as reclaiming the World Championship, was more than enough to have similarly humiliated Ford.

After all, why do you think the 365GTB is called "Daytona"? :biggrin:

Let's see one year after they decide to start racing they win Le Mans 1-2-3, and continue to win it till they decide they have proven there point. Ferrari has not won Le Mans since the Ford 1-2-3 finish....

Also the Ferrari 330P4 beat the older Mark II at Daytona, when it went up against the newer Mark IV(all Ford!!!! for the picky assholes!!!) at Le Mans, Ferrari once again lost.

Let's see one year after they decide to start racing they win Le Mans 1-2-3, and continue to win it till they decide they have proven there point. Ferrari has not won Le Mans since the Ford 1-2-3 finish....

Also the Ferrari 330P4 beat the older Mark II at Daytona, when it went up against the newer Mark IV(all Ford!!!! for the picky assholes!!!) at Le Mans, Ferrari once again lost.

Oh for crying out loud. The Gt40 came strong and won in 1966 the Lemans and the world series. Then Ferrari came back just one year later and reclaimed the world series title. The ford only continued to win lemans for a few more years since the track was very favorable for them(long straights). That is it only ONE race of the series. How is that dominating? when the Ferraris were getting the world title.


Its like the F1 ferrari winning only the Silverstone GP in England and then even if, lets say Williams BMW, wins the series the ferrari claims they are BMW slayers just because of one race.

And btw in that Daytona in 67 there were more than just Mark IIs
http://www.teamdan.com/archive/wsc/1967/67day.html

FYI the reason Ford is Gt is not getting proper respect is because of Fords own attitude. Ferrari slayer, the viper is only an earth worm...etc. WTF is up with that, show me where Noble ever once bragged that his cars can beat 360s (and they can) for way way less. Or show me one Porche representative claiming that their Gt3RS can equal the stradale for way less and that makes it a ferrari slayer.

Or maybe show me a Daimler representative saying that the corvette is an earth worm compared to the viper or other similar expression.

No most companies choose to have their product speak for itself.

Same problem when ford decided to air the comercial showing an F150 towing a mustang beating a Hemi ram towing a charger to make fun of DCX own comercial. Of course that fired back when DCX used an independent testing company and prove that the Ford comercial was false and that the Hemi would've won in that particular race.

Where did I say Ford dominated the series? And wether you like it or not Le Mans was then and still is the most covered race of the series. All I was pointing out was that Ferrari's 330P4 Daytona 1-2-3 was impressive but Ford answered back with the Mark IV at Le Mans there reply to the Daytona 1-2-3.


As far as the rest LMAO I'll give you one example:

"Porsche there is no substitute" That isn't one representative that was a whole company's motto!

None of this bugs me at all about their company. But sorry Ford seems to have you all up in arms...

i think both gtstang and nuetrino have good points.

though you can tell there's understeer. like he said, if the ford gt is faster in a straight line then its pretty possible that he could have been coming around that corner at higher speeds.
and a man owning the car saying himself that it doesn't handle as good, would usually be enough for me to beleive.
but i've also seen a video were the man says that the mercialago could handle better than the pagani Zonda, which i don't beleive. because even during the test the zonda one by 6 seconds around the track. and the man claimed it only one because of the straights
i think i'll keep an open mind about this one, but still leaning more towards the ferrari

whats wrong with fords attitude? its a competitive attitude, did u ever play sports? it all starts with the attitude without the attitude theres no growth... you should be happy with ford saying things like garden snake and ferrari killer, its sh*ttalk like that that causes progress. and to be fair if dodge put a little effort into that car maybe ford wouldnt talk shit? and as for handling they both handle well, ill bet the gt was moving a bit faster but well never know so drop it (you cant debate without facts... unless your george bush...) sorry, i hate george bush... anyways back to cars, anyways this isnt just another ford vs. ferrari thread, i believe the topic includes porche... (personally id rather have a gt2 over the ferrari)

i guess nuetrino doenst like my sig.

Actually, FordJunky, it's when the competition raises the bar that progress is made. Ford's GT is, as far as the gentlemen at Maranello are concerned, little more than a retro-styled piece of automotive jewelry. A replica for those who cannot own a purebred GT40 and little else.


Mistake #1 - The car has no competition history of its own, nor does Ford choose to race it. Resting on near 40 year old laurels does not an instant classic make.

Mistake #2 - Poor exclusivity. Ford will build as many GT's as they can sell. Coletti and Mays have both said this. Compared to the Enzo's stringent requirements (which include that you must have owned either an F50 or an F40 previously) or the Carrera's limited run, the GT becomes a run of the mill excercise in sales.

Mistake #3 - Compromised design. The GT had to look like a GT40, had to be shaped like a GT40, had to have an interior reminscent of, a size comparable to, and a layout copied from the GT40. Unlike Porsche's cloaked LMP car or Ferrari's two seat F1 racer concept, the GT wasn't allowed to gestate and become incredible on its own. Instead, from the get go it had to live in the shadow of a Lola-Ford hybrid.

Mistake #4 - Price point. The GT may very well be a bargain as an exotic, but unfortunately bargain exotics tend to flounder quickly in value. As soon as the GT's newness wears off, its collector's value and status will drop like a stone, and it won't help that there will be at least two or three years worth of production examples out there, either.

The GT is flawed, woefully flawed, and will continue to be flawed. I have much more respect for projects like the Chrysler ME412 that are all or nothing ventures at an ultimate supercar rather than this blatant attempt by Ford to push sales by reminding us all that once upon a time they did something good with their money.

The cool part is that the Viper RT10 is right up there with the GT40 in terms of performance.
this might have been mentioned but im lazy to look through post

Who's the best of the group?


I dunno... read this quote.

"I love my Ferrari Enzo. The Enzo at maximum speed drives like a sport sedan at 120 mph. It's by far the best car o the market in terms of aerodynamics. On a winding mountain road, it's maybe too big--a Lotus elise is best for that -- but it's still fabulous." - Bernd Pischetsrieder


Do you folks know who Bernd Pischetsrieder is?


Bernd Pischetsrieder is the Chairman of Volkswagen, Volkswagen owns Audi, Bently, Buggati, Lamborghini, Seat, and Skoda. Lamborghini and Ferrari are long time Italian rivals. The man who keeps Lamborghini alive, loves his Ferrari. That right there should tell you which car is best. ;)


Oh, and that quote can be found on Page 31 of the same Motortrend magazine this triple supercar article is in. :D

i agree with you that competition raises the bar but in MANY cases people are contempt with where there at and see no reason to improve (as is true with life) and a little shittalkin gets the gears turning, shit talking helps to bring about the competition which makes way for improvement (so it all starts with shit talking).

as for the gt... yes its a trophy car, its heritage inspired, ford isnt racing it because it is in fact a trophy car (because its the first of its kind) but it definately wont be the last of its kind (aka the new shelby), racing it would take away from that... you gotta remember ford and ferrari are completely difeerent companies, how many 200+mph cars does ferrari have and how many does ford have? a 200+MPH super car produced by ford is a HUGE thing and u gotta admit for a truck company and for the value its not a bad first attempt (in fact its a really good first attempt)...

i must say i like your post fordjunky, which i agree with.

I finally finished dl-ing it watching both those videos Nuetrino posted. By the way Neutrino they were very entertaining and thank you for the links.

I don't get how you can bash the Ford GT after watching those videos. The Ford GT posted a faster lap time than both the Ferrari 360 CS and the Porsche GT3RS on a track where the GT's power could not decided everything. Also the Ferrari 360CS and Porsche GT3RS are both no carpet, no radio all out track machines!

This Ford GT was full street trim... imagine if we took the radio out, the carpet, sounding deading and threw two ultra light racing seats in the GT?


I'm not saying that you can't like the Ferrari or Porsche more from their looks or feel of the vehicle or percieved feel expressed by authors test drivers ect.., Or cause it's Ferrari and not Ford

But as far as the on a track the Ford GT has proved itself the better machine. The times are what counts on tracks not anythign else.

Anything short of a full on, mega-exotic may as well keep it in the garage if a Ford GT is on the road.



GTstang is trash talking like this from many ford fans and even worse Ford offcials that gives Ford GT a bad name.

Basically acording to Ford claims, the Stradale is not even worthy of being compared to the GT. This kind of dismissal is higly insulting. How is the stradale not worthy when it put up quite a good fight. It was only .4 seconds behind. if the Gt would trully murder the Stardale as they claim both in handling and power (we already know it does overpower the 360 by a bigh amount) the Gt woud've been much faster than the Stradale.

Basically Stradale put up a very good fight despite being much lower in power and its clearly not something do be dismissed.

Also call me old fashioned byut i still believe in sportmanship. By all means bring forth a good product and create some good old fashioned competition but refrain from shit talking. If ford wants to prove they superiority beat Ferrari on the track. Ferrari is present both in LeMans with the MC12 and in F1. So either bring and mod the GT and beat the MC12 (aka enzo) or do something and make Jaguar(ford) beat them in F1

Also there is a big differnce from using advertising lines such as: "Ultimate Driving Machine" or "Porsche there is no substitute" and coming out and claming you managed to humiliate another company.

nameless i don't have a problem with your sig. But do find it quite lame for Colleti to claim such a thing of a car costing half as much. Look at us we created a better car that cost twice as much...well duh i would hope is better.

PS. Its normal that Ford beat Ferrari at the price game, even considering that the GT is not sold at a loss. Ford can outsource from their mass production lines. Ferrari has no mass production lines, for them to play the price game they would have to go to a mass manufarcturer and outsorce parts like noble for example. But that would cause Ferrari to lose their exclusivity. As another example could ferrari ever produce an SRT4 at that price...absolutelly not. They don't have any 4 bangers just lying around or any econo cheapo platforms they could just upgrade. All Ferrari does is exclusive cars designed from scratch and that is very expensive.

I saw some thing on TV where Steve Saleen said the S7 was the fastest street car in america... is he smoking something?

Hmmm.... Good post Neutrino

it is.................................. or was

Despite my love of the car, it isn't.
Maybe it was an old show, but even when the car was new it wasn't....
Weird.

well, i believe if ferarri wanted to mass produce cars they could (henry ford did it with alot less cash than ferrari has) but ferraris not in the cheap car game, theyre in the supercar game so that being said no they cant compete... but that doesnt mean ford should be penalized for offereing a better deal than ferrari just because they can. now then back to the shittalking aspect, y doesnt ferrari talk as much shit is cause generally theyre cars speak for them selves where as no one was even willing to give the ford a chance, needless to say the ford engineers were prolly a little pissed that after all that hard work people blindly turned a shoulder to it... and lets not forget y theres bad blood between ford and ferrari, a deal that went bad like 45 years ago... ferrari backed out and screwed over ford... id be pissed if i set up a multi million dollar deal and the person backed out to, ford had alot invested in that merger. so ferrari deserves to get a little shit talked to them... but really who cares, are we talkin ethics or cars?

and as for the dodge thing, ford flat out challenged the viper cause dodge flat out challenged the lightining, bragging how dodges srt10 out performed and out classed the ford lightining which is just a slap in the face and before the new lightining came out knowing the new model would whoop it... so if they attack the lightining ford attack the viper (granted ford was a little crueder but hey it doesnt matter wut words u use its the message your trying to get across). and you cant hold a hole company responsible for wut colletti said, hes an individual.

Henry Ford II proposed to buy Ferrari. Enzo Ferrari wanted to maintain control of the F1 team (all that Il Commendatore was ever interested in). HFII said no, and Enzo laughed at him and told him to get the fuck out of his office.

HFII, having an atypically big ego for someone who inherited one of the world's largest manufacturing concerns and did nothing but throw money around, was insulted and went to Lola to see if they could build him a car to beat that prideful man from Italy.

The project was a marginal success.

Ferrari on its own does not have much money at all (why do you think they've been redeveloping the same damn engine since the Dino 308/GT4 was introduced?) but it's through sugar daddy Fiat's immense Italian nationalistic pride in the fact that Ferrari is automotive aristocracy that Ferrari continues as it does - developing the world's finest sporting automobiles for the road, and constructing the finest of the world's elite racing cars (which honestly they do more on Marlboro's dime, but who's counting?)

And in any case, trouncing the Challenge Stradale is not the question here. The question posed is if the GT is comparable to the Enzo Ferrari and the Carrera GT. It isn't. The GT may well be one of the finest of the mid-range exotics, welcome to come play with the Moslers, Nobles, Challenge Stradales, Vipers, and Porsche GT2's of the world, but once you start putting it alongside Enzos, McLarens, Saleens, Paganis, Carreras, and Konigseggs, it's out of its depth and shown to be an underachiever.

ya no crap it doesnt compete with cars that cost like wut upt to more than 5 times as much... the ford wasnt built to be the fastest or best supercar in the world it was built to be the best bargain which it is... since people like comparing cars that have no business being compared. as long as it proves your point right? thats the best thing about the ford, you dont have to compare it against cars it costs 5 times as much as, u compare it against cars that cost more... thats bargging rights

I've said this before.

When was the 360 released and when was the GT released?

The CS is based on a car designed in 1998. That's 6 years of R&D for Ford to up the game.

You want to compare? Wait for the F430 and see the GT have its ass handed to it.

so what, the gt is based off a 40 year old car and runs off a truck motor... (lots O sarcasm) ya, trust me i know how much it sux when companies dont update their platforms (mustang) im sure the next shelby cobra well hold its own just fine against ferrari. (since the gt is so inferior because it doesnt cost half a million dollars) but time will tell.

I noticed you didn't respond to my F430 comment. Any confidence there?

BTW, the 360 and the 430 both cost significantly less than the GT so what was your point with the half a million dollars?

#1 I'm very tired of hearing about Ferrari racing in F1 and here there and other places and why isn't Ford etc.., Look Ferrari needs to race and win to survive hence all the factory supported Ferrari racing programs. Ford does not need to, nor really wants to, that's not their main business and while it may help GT sales it wouldn't help anything else. A Ford car winning NASCAR helps Ford sales more than an F1 car powered by Ford winning.

#2 The video's that were posted have the GT winning agianst two cars that were basically pure race versions of the two repsective cars(bare metal floors, Lexan windows) on a track were the Ford GT's power could not decide things and still won. The Ford GT won a race where it's percieved weakest points would be exploited. Imagine if you stripped the GT to bare metal floors, Lexan windows,etc, and ran a course with some nice long straightaways where the 360CS would end up?

#3 As far as Ford trash talking and whatever.... I can understand this may leave a bad taste in your mouth but it still does not take away from the the impressive numbers the GT continually spits out.

#4 The 360 MSRP $151,000-186,950 so how is the 360 cheaper?
Also 360CS MSRP $200,000

#5 What about the F430.... we'll just have to wait and see and that is the fun of being a car enthusiast.

#6 I'm done with the GT vs 360CS arguement cause like some1 said that is not what this thread was suppose to be about. And we already now know that answer anyway.

yea , the ford gt doesnt compete ... not at all !!

"I noticed you didn't respond to my F430 comment. Any confidence there?"

from wut ive read the ferrari focused on everything but the suspension with that car so handling could go either way, the ford is still quite a bit more powerful (and like 200lbs heavier) and every site ive seen has it listed as faster than the f430. and i hope ferrari was being conservative cause fords conservative specs are better than the f430s... so yes i am very confident.

yea , the ford gt doesnt compete ... not at all !!

doesn't compete with what?

like layla said, it is definitely the(what i call) mid class champ, but can not step in the domain of the enzo, carrera gt, koenigsegg, mclaren, zonda etc....

Fordjunky

The projected price of a GT in England is about 200k pounds. The 360 is 100k and 360CS is about 130k. How is that not cheaper?

About the F430, if you're reverting to the typical American attitude of quarter mile times determine everything, then yes the GT is faster. But the rest of the world happens to care about a few other things. The F430 with its light weight construction and incorporating so much F1 technology (love the E-diff) would most likely outperform the GT.

But you're right about one thing. Anything said about the 430 can't be backed up at the moment. So we'll have to wait and see. But I'm confident too.

i said as for handling and all around performance we dont know who is the better car and wont know till they both come out, what we do know is that the gt will be faster, i wasnt saying straightline speed is all that matters but for the time being its the only comparo we have... but if you feel you have to put words in peoples mouths to make a point then by all means dont let me stop you.

erggg, i tried editing my topic and it keeps deleting wut i edit so i post it here... all that i care about is the prices in the u.s. there are always price increases when selling cars in others countries however i doubt ford marked it up that much and if it was marked up that high ill guaruntee theres some other reason like a third party...

like layla said, it is definitely the(what i call) mid class champ, but can not step in the domain of the enzo, carrera gt, koenigsegg, mclaren, zonda etc....

Amen.

Alrighty, I didn't say the GT did not understeer (at speed) more than the 360 into a corner. I said that the GT carries more speed into and out of a corner, and that this factor alone does not make the 360 "better". And, we do know that the Ford carries much more speed out of a corner as the only other race track reference we have comes from 'Car and Driver' who gave a turn by turn break down of the differences between the cars at Gingerman raceway.

Out of every corner but one the Ford GT had the ability to lay down it's (significantly greater) hp better than did the Ferrari with the Ford exiting at noticeably more speed. In essence, more hp would not have helped the Italian as it apparently had serious issues, relative to the Ford, laying down what it already has. And it is noteworthy that this particular 360 was the supposedly "track ready" Stradale model. If we are going to debate what makes a car great this is a vital aspect of any race car, or serious street car, and a seriously unimpressive issue for a company like Ferrari to be dealing with in a "competition" model. How much worse would the standard 360 be compared to the GT in this respect?

I await the new 430 with great anticipation. I am certain, however, that many of you in the "ferrari" crowd have already deemed it superior before it even lays tire to the track. As an aside, citing video games does not exactly lend much credibility to ones argument.

Also, this is not really on the subject, but since the moderators posting in this thread saw fit to discuss it I wont be shy either......Referring to the historic Ford GT40's as moderately successful is akin to calling Al Gore moderately un-charasmatic.

The GT won the World Championship in 66, 67, and 68. Or, three out of five of it's full racing seasons. It won LeMans four years in a row, 66-69, with 66 providing a 1,2,3, and 67 providing a 1,2,5. It is worth mentioning that barring a very late race wreck the 67 finishing order was going to be a 1st thru 6th sweep for the Ford.

Before you discount this as brand "propoganda" understand that Ferrari apparently believed this as they used this situation when they went whining to the rules committee that their car could not compete with the Ford arguing that rules limiting displacement should be adopted. The rules were changed, and in a move unprecedented in racing history Ford was not even allowed until the end of the season to make these changes, instead they were enforced immediately. However, Ford continued winning with their pushrod smallblock anyway.

With the smallblock cars Ford still won two more races that year, and the overall championship as well. Over the years total wins were seven in 66, 5 wins in 67, 4 wins in 68, and 2 wins in 69. Each of these years, with the exception of 69, Ford had more top 5 finishes than any other make, including Ferrari. This in spite of several additional rules changes intended to slow the Fords down, and thereby aid the lagging Ferrari's. (none of these helped Ferrari in the long term)

The early Ford GT's aere loosely based on a design Lola utilized. The engineer who devloped the chassis for Lola sold his work and facilities to Ford, and promptly went to work for Ford bringing his design along with him. The most successful of the GT's, the models that won the vast majority of races from 67 on including 3 of the 4 LeMans wins as well as 2 of the overall championships, were Ford of North America designed and built.

Ford eventually left this form of racing with Henry II feeling he had proven his point, (that Ford could dominate this form of racing whenever and wherever it chose) and the rules committee having also proven that it was going to do it's worst to legislate out any advantages Ford might implement. I personally find it very interesting that Ferrari left International sports car racing not long after this chain of events.

Please, if you must cite history, cite it correctly.

id take the carrera gt

also to be said about the ferrari 360.
just to mention again, though i'm sure most of you already know this. during the making of the ford gt, shelby ordered in a 360, so that they could make sure the ford gt beats it in every category. if the ford gt didn't out perform it in something, then they went back to the drawing board.

The GT won the World Championship in 66, 67, and 68.

Please, if you must cite history, cite it correctly.



That last sentence in your post its very interesting. You might want to follow it yourself. Because the GT did not win the World Championship in 67 the Ferrari 330P4 did.

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.php?file=car.php&carnum=708

This is the Ferrari 330 P4, as used in the 1967 World Championship for sportscars. The 330 P4 was more than an improved 330 P3, it had a redesigned body and a completely new engine. This new engine was based on the 3 litre V12 engine found in the Ferrari F1 cars. This engine had 3 valves per cylinder. The P4 won the World Championship, but didn't beat the GT40's at LeMans. This one is owned by David Piper and is rebuilt from a burned 330 P4.

Actually, you are "technically" correct..........my mistake. I forgot that Ford, according to the FIA, finished third that year behind Porsche. I sometimes get 67 mixed up as Ford contested their championship finishing position due to what they cited as "unfair" rules changes made mid-year (read my post above).

Basically, Ford was saying "we beat Ferrari again, and you simply collaped under their protest and cost us the championship by giving in to their demands". Which, while essentially accurate, didn't change the order the FIA gave. You'll also have to forgive me as I actually reference a good deal of this stuff from knowledge and not web searches.

However, does it make Ferrari fans feel better that Ferrari finally won a chamionship against the GT40 after they convinced the rules commitee to essentially hand it to them? So actually, I will stand by my last sentence. Ford really did beat Ferrari in 67, until the FIA essentially broke their own rules to assist them. Sad really. Especially since this was by no means the first time old Enzo had convinced the FIA to "tweak" the rules so he would come out on top.

Accurate enough.....????/ ;)

Eheh, then explain how the 330P4 1-2-3'd the 1967 24hours of Daytona while the GT40's failed.

Let's take a look at the rest of the races in the World Championship. Nurburgring, Monza, Sebring, Donington, Brands Hatch. Need I remind you that the GT40's (as well as the Ferraris) both suffered losses to CHAPPARALS at the Sebring 12 hours (1965) and Brands Hatch (1967).

I can post the race wins for each season of GT40 competition if you like. Then tell me if it was "all conquering". Matter of fact, here's the top five. For allof our sakes, I'll forego the hillclimbs and other events that were primarily contested by Abarths.

1965

Daytona
1 - Ford GT40
2 - Cobra Daytona
3 - Ford GT40
4 - Cobra Daytona
5 - Porsche 904 GTS

Sebring
1 - Chapparal 2A
2 - Ford GT40
3 - Ferrari 250LM
4 - Cobra Daytona
5 - Porsche 904GTS

Monza
1 - Ferrari 275P2
2 - Ferrari 330P2
3 - Ford GT40
4 - Porsche 904GTS
5 - Iso Grifo A3C

Oulton Park
1 - Brabham BT8 Climax
2 - Lola T70
3 - Ferrari 250LM
4 - Shelby Cobra
5 - Ferrari 250GTO

Targa Florio
1 - Ferrari 275P2
2 - Porsche 904/8
3 - Porsche 904/6
4 - Porsche 904/8
5 - Porsche 904 GTS

Spa
1 - Ferrari 250LM
2 - Ferrari 250LM
3 - Porsche 904 GTS
4 - Ferrari 250GTO
5 - Cobra Daytona

Nurburgring
1 - Ferrari 275P2
2 - Ferrari 330P2
3 - Porsche 904/8
4 - Ferrari Dino 166P
5 - Porsche 904/6

Le Mans
1 - Ferrari 250LM
2 - Ferrari 250LM
3 - Ferrari 275GTB
4 - Porsche 904/6
5 - Porsche 904 GTS

Reims
1 - Ferrari 365P2
2 - Ferrari 365P2
3 - Ferrari 250LM
4 - Ferrari 250LM
5 - Cobra Daytona

Pergusa
1 - Ferrari 250LM
2 - Ferrari 250LM
3 - Cobra Daytona
4 - Cobra Daytona
5 - Ferrari 250GTO

Bridgehampton
1 - Chapparal 2A
2 - Ferrari 365P2
3 - Shelby Cobra
4 - Ferrari 330P
5 - Shelby Cobra

I'll give you Ford guys a break on 1965 since the GT40 was a new beast, but only one win (compared to TWO for the underfunded Chapparal team) is hardly a good foundation for the argument. Let's continue.

1966.

Daytona
1 - Ford MkII GT40
2 - Ford MkII GT40
3 - Ford MkII GT40
4 - Ferrari 365P2
5 - Ford MkII GT40

Sebring
1 - Ford X1 Roadster
2 - Ford MkII GT40
3 - Ford GT40
4 - Porsche 906
5 - Ferrari Dino 206S

Monza
1 - Ferrari 330P3
2 - Ford GT40
3 - Ford GT40
4 - Porsche 906
5 - Porsche 906

Targa Florio
1 - Porsche 906
2 - Ferrari Dino 206S
3 - Porsche 906
4 - Alfa Romeo Giulia TZ2
5 - Porsche 906

Spa
1 - Ferrari 330P3
2 - Ford MkII GT40
3 - Ford GT40
4 - Ford GT40
5 - Ford GT40

Nurburgring
1 - Chapparal 2D
2 - Ferrari Dino 206S
3 - Ferrari Dino 206S
4 - Porsche 906
5 - Ford GT40

Le Mans
1 - Ford MkII GT40
2 - Ford MkII GT40
3 - Ford MkII GT40
4 - Porsche 906 Langheck
5 - Porsche 906 Langheck

Zeltweg
1 - Porsche 906
2 - Porsche 906
3 - Porsche 906
4 - Ford GT40
5 - Porsche 906

1966 was Ford's year. The P2 was obsolete at the beginning of the year, and the P3 came on too late to make a difference. Pesky Chapparals and Porsches made things interesting, too.

1967

Daytona
1 - Ferrari 330P4
2 - Ferrari 330P4
3 - Ferrari 330P4/3
4 - Porsche 910
5 - Porsche 906 Langheck

Sebring (worth mentioning that the fastest race lap was recorded by Mike Spence in a Chapparal 2F)
1 - Ford MkIV GT40
2 - Ford MkIIB GT40
3 - Porsche 910
4 - Porsche 910
5 - Ford GT40

Monza
1 - Ferrari 330P4
2 - Ferrari 330P4
3 - Porsche 910
4 - Ferrari 330P4/3
5 - Porsche 910

Spa
1 - Mirage M1 Ford
2 - Porsche 910
3 - Ferrari 330P4/3
4 - Lola T70
5 - Ferrari 330P4

Targa Florio
1 - Porsche 910/8
2 - Porsche 910
3 - Porsche 910
4 - Ferrari Dino 206P
5 - Ford GT40

Nurburgring
1 - Porsche 910
2 - Porsche 910
3 - Porsche 910
4 - Porsche 910/8
5 - Alfa Romeo T33

Le Mans
1 - Ford MkIV GT40
2 - Ferrari 330P4
3 - Ferrari 330P4
4 - Ford MkIV GT40
5 - Porsche 907 Langheck

Brands Hatch
1 - Chapparal 2F
2 - Ferrari 330P4
3 - Porsche 910 2.2
4 - Porsche 907 Langheck 2.2
5 - Ferrari 330P4 Spyder

1967 is the height of the Ferrari-Ford battle, and clearly Ferrari came out on top. Still, it's also apparent that the MkIV and the 330P4 were equals and that this was a clear fight. Also, notice the serious challenge Porsche brought to the table with the 910 and the 907. Clearly, there's a fight brewin there, too.

1968

Daytona
1 - Porsche 907 2.2 Langheck
2 - Porsche 907 2.2 Langheck
3 - Porsche 907 2.2 Langheck
4 - Ford Mustang
5 - Alfa Romeo T33/2

Sebring
1 - Porsche 907 2.2
2 - Porsche 907 2.2
3 - Chevy Camaro
4 - Chevy Camaro
5 - Ford Mustang

Brands Hatch
1 - Ford GT40
2 - Porsche 907 2.2
3 - Porsche 907 2.2
4 - Ford GT40
5 - Ferrari 250LM

Monza
1 - Ford GT40
2 - Porsche 907 2.2
3 - Alpine A211 Renault
4 - Porsche 910
5 - Porsche 910

Targa Florio
1 - Porsche 907 2.2
2 - Alfa Romeo T33/2
3 - Alfa Romeo T33/2
4 - Porsche 907 2.2
5 - Alfa Romeo T33/2

Nurburgring
1 - Porsche 908
2 - Porsche 907 2.2
3 - Ford GT40
4 - Porsche 907 2.2
5 - Alfa Romeo T33/2

Spa
1 - Ford GT40
2 - Porsche 907
3 - Porsche 908
4 - Ford GT40
5 - Porsche 910

Watkins Glen
1 - Ford GT40
2 - Ford GT40
3 - Howmet TX Continental (a turbine car)
4 - Porsche 906LE
5 - Porsche 906LE

Le Mans
1 - Ford GT40
2 - Porsche 907 Langheck
3 - Porsche 908
4 - Alfa Romeo T33/2
5 - Alfa Romeo T33/2

Notice something funny about 1968? No Ferrari. Ferrari pulled out of the World Championship of Makes in 1968 to concentrate on Formula One. Not surprisingly, the only real threat to the GT40 was the Porsche. Thus Ford only beat Porsche for the Championship by 3 points.

1969

Daytona
1 - Lola T70 MkIII
2 - Lola T70 MkIII
3 - Pontiac Firebird
4 - Porsche 911T
5 - Porsche 911T

Sebring
1 - Ford GT40
2 - Ferrari 312P
3 - Porsche 908/2
4 - Porsche 907
5 - Porsche 908/2

Brands Hatch
1 - Porsche 908/2
2 - Porsche 908/2
3 - Porsche 908/2
4 - Ferrari 312P
5 - Ford GT40

Monza
1 - Porsche 908 Langheck
2 - Porsche 908 Langheck
3 - Porsche 907 2.2
4 - Ford GT40
5 - Lola T70 MkIII

Targa Florio
1 - Porsche 908/2
2 - Porsche 908/2
3 - Porsche 908/2
4 - Porsche 908/2
5 - Alfa Romeo T33/2

Spa
1 - Porsche 908 Langheck
2 - Ferrari 312P
3 - Porsche 908 Langheck
4 - Porsche 908 Langheck
5 - Lola T70 MkIII

Nurburgring
1 - Porsche 908/2
2 - Porsche 908/2
3 - Porsche 908/2
4 - Porsche 908/2
5 - Porsche 908/2

Le Mans
1 - Ford GT40
2 - Porsche 908 Langheck
3 - Ford GT40
4 - Matra M650
5 - Matra M630

Watkins Glen
1 - Porsche 908/2
2 - Porsche 908/2
3 - Porsche 908/2
4 - Matra M650
5 - Ford GT40

Zeltweg
1 - Porsche 917 (the legend begins)
2 - Lola T70 MkIII
3 - Porsche 917K
4 - Porsche 908/2
5 - Porsche 908/2 Langheck

1969 was the last hurrah of the GT40, and the first of many championships for Porsche. The arrival of the 917 towards the end of the season, coupled with Ford's complete pull-out of racing (the GT40's were campaigned by John Wyer's Gulf team) signaled the end of the Ferrari-Ford battle and the beginning of the 917's reign. The fragile Ferrari 312P proved fast but insufficient, and the 512M series would carry on the fight in 1970 to no avail.

Well, Layla....I find it amusing that 67 was the "height" of the Ford/Ferrari battle since that is the only time Ferrari beat the GT40 in a full racing season for the Ford. And, note that any GT40 loss after LeMans in 1967 was by a smallblock powered Mirage or MkII, and not a MkIV as had been racing against the Ferrari's prior to that.

Once again, this was due to the rules change instituted in response to Ferrari's protests that his car couldn't compete. What makes this truly ironic was Enzo had already thrown a temper tantrum previously that year complaining that Ford was skipping several races (they were) because they did not need them to win the championship (only certain races counted in the championship points) and Ford had no interest in running at those events. If 67 was the height of anything it was the height of FIA interference to help a weak Ferrari effort.

I would tend to agree that Ferrari saw the writing on the wall with the new Porsche though, and certainly knew this was very likely their last chance to get a championship if they could get something done about the GT40. It was Enzo's apparent desire to "get" the championship wether or not he actually won it that amazes me. (actually, given Ferrari's history of things like this it really doesnt amaze me)

Ferrari was strangley complaining to the sanctioning body that if he had the championship "wrapped up" after LeMans he wouldn't compete in any more races that year in protest. (You have to have a knowledge of which races counted toward championship points and how to understand what I am saying, so you may have to research this one for quite a while.) The funny thing is that the factory GT40's were whipping his ass at most major events they did run so the argument was a total load of bull.

If you doubt how fast the GT40 was please note, and then explain, that Ferrari cried like a baby for the FIA to outlaw the 427 powered GT's after LeMans because he felt his cars were uncompetitive. (He was right btw). Enzo certainly knew that he was out matched, but perhaps you have more insight into the season than he did. When Ferrari is saying "we cannot beat this car", I would call that definative.

And, as I mention above, The FIA did indeed outlaw the 427 powered cars and Ford had to spend the rest of the season running, for the most part, year old cars with engines that had not seen any development for at least that long. Ford still won two more races with a car 40mph slower and with weaker acceleration. Everybody knew Enzo was going to lose the 67 season, apparently even Enzo, to the big block powered Fords and the FIA helped his uncompetitive cars win one more championship. (this was the same racing body that cancelled the last "points" race just a couple years earlier because Ferrari complained that his cars were not competitive and knew very well that the Cobras were almost certain to outrun him clinching the title.)

Ferrari has always seemed far more concerned with simply getting the trophy than in actually beating their competitor and truly winning. The debate is as much as won by the fact that Ferrari fans seem to avoid the issue of Enzo's complaining getting the 427 outlawed like the plague. This is obviously because they know it was a blatant attempt, and an unfortunately successful one, by Enzo to slow down a superior competitor. Every time the Ford GT's met Ferrari's in competition without FIA meddling, like 66 and 68, the Ford's were superior overall. That says it all in a nutshell.

Every time the Ford GT's met Ferrari's in competition without FIA meddling, like 66 and 68, the Ford's were superior overall. That says it all in a nutshell.

Again what are you talking about??? "Every time the Ford GT's met Ferrari's in competition without FIA meddling, like 66 and 68"


For crying out loud Ferrari withdrew factory support that year so what are you talking about Ford Meeting Ferrari in 68? Layla even wrote that in his post.


Seriosuly you are killing your own credibility.

syr, you sound like a fricking All Blacks fan. "But the Springboks DID food-poison them before the 1995 Rugby World Cup Final!!!!"

i was always under the impression that the le mans winning cars in 67 and 68 were developed and prepared independently by john wyer
and
the base car was the unsuccessful ford mk1
(i.e the smaller engined one).

i mean, practically no ford involvement there.....

Syr, I gave you my proof, now give me yours that there was "Ferrari meddling" in the rulebook. By the way, here's some interesting food for thought.....

The Mirage won at Spa which was BEFORE Le Mans. There were no MkIV's entered at Spa. Nor were there MkIV's entered at Daytona, Monza, the Targa Florio, or Nurburgring. In fact, the MkIV SAT OUT most of the season after its win at Sebring until Le Mans. After that, the races contested WERE NOT Prototype class events, but hillclimbs and short distance GP's contested by privateers.

Shot yourself in the foot.

i was always under the impression that the le mans winning cars in 67 and 68 were developed and prepared independently by john wyer
and
the base car was the unsuccessful ford mk1
(i.e the smaller engined one).

i mean, practically no ford involvement there.....


For 1968 you are technically correct, it was not a factory effort. (it did have Ford support as most indpendent racing efforts do) However, how does that diminish the fact that a team driving Fords won the championship soley because it wasn't "Ford's" team? If anything it makes it more impressive as Ferrari never even came close without a full factory effort.

You are incorrect on 1967. Perhaps you were thinking about 1969?

not sure on the years but i'm talking about the gulf gt40s.

well, the point i was trying to make, was that john wyer's gt40 was based on the old 'failed' car.
this smaller engined car was outperforming the shelby engined cars.

i'm not saying that they're not ford.
just making the point that the really successful car wasn't american....

Syr, I gave you my proof, now give me yours that there was "Ferrari meddling" in the rulebook. By the way, here's some interesting food for thought.....

The Mirage won at Spa which was BEFORE Le Mans. There were no MkIV's entered at Spa. Nor were there MkIV's entered at Daytona, Monza, the Targa Florio, or Nurburgring. In fact, the MkIV SAT OUT most of the season after its win at Sebring until Le Mans. After that, the races contested WERE NOT Prototype class events, but hillclimbs and short distance GP's contested by privateers.

Shot yourself in the foot.

Do you actually read the posts you reply to? Ford indeed did not contest any of the events after LeMans, and I never said that they did. They constested the rules change that wouldn't allow them to race 427ci powered cars after this. Technically, this was a 1968 rule change, but it went into affect immediately by some strange twist of fate. (yeah right, wonder how that happened) Not much point in contesting the event when you already protested long ago the rules that would not allow you to run what you originally entered .

On the contrary...your post "proved" nothing in your post, surely not your "point". It was very nice of you to copy down the finishing orders of those races, but I essentially knew the majority of them and they change nothing in regards to what has been said?.?.?.The MkIV sat out from Sebring to LeMans? Really? You know, that sounds amazingly similar to my previous remark that Ford didn't have its cars compete in every race that year as not every race mattered in the points chase. Did you mean to qoute me or something? :rolleyes:

Since the Ferrari (or really European) bias the FIA had is apparently lost on you it is also worth mentioning that the FIA rules committee suddenly decided, out of nowhere, that the "Mirage" GT40 wasn't "100% Ford" and changed awarded points accordingly. This is truly strange because the Mirage was one of the first Ford GT's that essentially involved virtually no outside involvement! Not to mention, the FIA decided this immediately after/during the 1967 LeMans (only they know exactly when they made up their minds, but I imagine, as Ford did, it was right after Ford finished 1 and 2) a point at which Ford had already been racing the car for more than a year. Supposedly the FIA had missed it's "un-Ford-ness" all this time...roflmao. This was used to statistically eliminate Ford from the points chase.

This is made especially "ironic" as the last points race of the year was to be Brands Hatch. Each make of car does better at certain tracks and Fords tended to run very well at Brands Hatch. With the reliability issues apparently worked out of the Fords the last track Enzo wanted to contest the new Fords at was B.H....and the FIA granted him his wish.

In 1967 the FIA was determined that Ford would not win the championship and everybody who seriously follows historical international racing knows this story. Enzo had been yelling from the mountaintops that he would not be back unless changes were made, and EVERYONE knew what "changes" meant. (This was the second time Enzo had made this threat to the FIA rules committee...both were over the possibility of losing to a Ford btw) I will concede that with the "new rules" regarding the Mirage GT the issue with displacement was virtually pointless to rally behind as the championship had been made unwinnable by the stroke of a pen. This is largely the reason that Ford's effort was as laid back as it was after LeMans even with the smallblock cars.....no chance to win the championship so there was very little point in spending a lot of money making a run for Brand's Hatch. However, two wrongs do not make a right and it was really just the FIA safeguarding their little "favor" to Ferrari.

As for Neutrino...Ford's 68 effort was essentially an independent effort as well, just as the Ferrari's that were running were. So, what is your point? If it is that Ferrari would have won had their been factory support in 1968 keep dreaming. They only won 67 because of the FIA, and they knew they were going to take an ass whipping if they ran in 68 for several reasons.

First (and least important really), Porsche had developed a real interest and any further...ahem..."rules developments" were likely to hurt them which would not assist the anti "American" cause of the FIA and serve to piss off a European who was not as hard to deal with as Enzo btw. Also, the FIA had figured out that they had pretty much cut off their nose to spite their face in helping Ferrari they way they did as the Ford following (and Chaparral, etc.) was pretty large and they had helped "kill" it to a large extent. Put simply Ferrari withdrew factory support in an effort to avoid embarassment with what were uncompetitive cars. I would also say that my credibility is just fine as everything I have said is supported by history. However, your "web search" based arguments do appear to be catching up with you.

You can find sources all over that will tell the same story that I am. The FIA was not especially happy about Ford success in "their" series and they were going to bring it home to Europe one way or the other in a manner of speaking. Again, if this impresses you....good for you. But it tends to only impress domestic/Ford haters or Ferrari/import lovers in my experience.

What is truly sad is that the Ferrari crowd seems to care as little for truly "beating" somebody as Ferrari does. All that matters is the trophy. Ferrari should use that as a motto. As for Moss106GTI I listed two "strange" changes the FIA made to their rules after openly stating their dislike for the "yankee brands" that were threatening European makers. These two changes are historical fact (um, hence that they were written rules) and commonly known both then and now. My advice, stick to soccer.

Here is a Porsche sites take on the issue (which backs me completely, even if it did take a while to find a well written site on the subject)


http://www.962.com/history/917/?Screen=CTGY&Store_Code=962&Category_Code=apparel

And yet another large, well done site that backs me up completely...strange how that happens....lol

http://www.imca-slotracing.com/1967-PART3.htm

You know, seriously.....looking this stuff up for you guys is getting kind of old. If you want to seriously challenge what I have said...perhaps you should invest the time to research it instead of providing the typical, knee-jerk, Ferrari rules reaction?

not sure on the years but i'm talking about the gulf gt40s.

well, the point i was trying to make, was that john wyer's gt40 was based on the old 'failed' car.
this smaller engined car was outperforming the shelby engined cars.

i'm not saying that they're not ford.
just making the point that the really successful car wasn't american....

First, the smallblock car was hardly "failed". It performed very well indeed and would still have been competitive, for the championship, in 1967 if Ford and their teams had kept developing the car. However, by this time the car (mostly the engine) was not exactly top priority as the 427 had replaced it and a new, 3-valve 427 was on the way for 68.

The design was solid, but a year of staganant development left a wee bit of catching up to do. Ford (mostly their teams) had done a good job of getting it ready for 68 basically using the remainder of the post LeMans 67 season to do it. By 1968 Wyer's cars were in top form due to the above, and it showed. However, it is also worth mentioning that by this time the car was without doubt in it's golden years as Ford had quit developing it altogether.

Also, in 1968 there were really no "Shelby engined" cars for Wyer's team to out-perform. As you alluded to in a prior post Wyer's effort was really the lion's share of the 68 GT40 effort and some of is cars were previously part of Shelby's team. Wyer, btw, put up one hell of a season.

I would hesitate to call these cars not American, just as I would hesitate to call them 100% American. A very large part of the engineering in these cars was done by Ford of North America and Shelby American. By the time these "standard" GT40's (MkI's) started racing there was honestly little left of the European car it was initially based on, and the European company that had developed the intial chassis was now owned by Ford. However, it isn't fair to shun the European element in the car by any means either. The best way to describe it is as some kind of colonial/British mix.

Before you discount this as brand "propoganda" understand that Ferrari apparently believed this as they used this situation when they went whining to the rules committee that their car could not compete with the Ford arguing that rules limiting displacement should be adopted. The rules were changed, and in a move unprecedented in racing history Ford was not even allowed until the end of the season to make these changes, instead they were enforced immediately. However, Ford continued winning with their pushrod smallblock anyway.


Please, if you must cite history, cite it correctly.

Ok you said that Ferrari demanded that the displacement be limited.

Group 6 will be restricted to 3-litre prototypes and that Group 4 will be restricted to 5-litre sportscars manufactured at at least 50 units per year. A better way to kill long distance racing is hardly thinkable. With one pen stroke the Chaparral 2F, Ferrari P4, Ford MkIV, Mirage and Lola T70 are banned from the circuit. Ten days later constructors, organisers and racers learn the CSI decision from the press

Enzo Ferrari is the first to react upon the flagrant idiocy of the CSI: he announces that if this decision is maintained he will stop any further effort in endurance racing.

http://www.imca-slotracing.com/1967-PART3.htm


This is from your own link. Do I sense again a flagrant discrepancy? Enzo himself fought the decision and his car the P4 was also banned. So how did ferrari ask again for lowering the displacement?

why dont yall give it up ?? who cares what happened in races over 40 years ago , the ford gt is a piss poor attempt at making a supercar from a piss poor company ... the Ferrari is a supercar known nation wide as being bad-ass , they have a mystique about them that ford cant even comprehend with ... even if the gt puts down better numbers it is out classed so greatly here its not even funny ...

why dont yall give it up ?? who cares what happened in races over 40 years ago , the ford gt is a piss poor attempt at making a supercar from a piss poor company ... the Ferrari is a supercar known nation wide as being bad-ass , they have a mystique about them that ford cant even comprehend with ... even if the gt puts down better numbers it is out classed so greatly here its not even funny ...


It only took 8 pages but here it is folks.... The undisputed heavyweight champ for dumbest post in this thread!!!!

Everyone can I have your attention.......

Welcome to the Internet!

If your smart you won't take any of this as balanced fact; however, I did hear the word propaganda which is exactly what the majority of these 8 pages are.

The undisputed heavyweight champ for dumbest post in this thread!!!!



Flame another member like that and you will go the same way as this thread :)