Ford GT versus Enzo and Carrera GT in MT

Wow, the October issue of Motor Trend says a mouthful. It may be a "top speed" story, but it is still mind-blowing to see the Ford GT rip off an 11.2 second quarter mile. More awe inspiring is that it was edged out by a mere tenth when compared to the Porsche Carrera GT, and 2 tenths when compared to the Enzo. Considering the rather large difference in price tags between the Ford and the two Europeans this is amazing. Consider also that a tenth, or even two tenths, in one test only points to a very close race at any time and not any genuine, lasting advantage.

On a different track, on a different day the Ford, or the Porsche could easily win instead of the Enzo. Keeping in mind the fact that any traction limitation is likely going to hamper the big torque, supercharged Ford GT the most, and the high revving Enzo the least, it's easy to believe either the Porsche or Ford could possibly win over the Italian given the right conditions. Any of these cars could conceivably post a 1/4 mile time that starts with a 10 given a good driver and good conditions..........ridiculously fast for sure.

The above aside, the fact that the GT is competition for the Modena, but accelerates with the Enzo, is staggering. It would appear Ford was indeed "sandbagging" with their pre-production GT's just as many had suspected. Even more amazing is just how well the Ford stacked up from a handling standpoint as well. Given the huge price advantage you would think the Ford has to give up something somewhere, but no. The top speed Ford announced for the GT was apparently "conservative" as well.

It goes without saying that Viper fans prior hopes that pre-production Ford GT performance tests were accurate was only a big lead up to dissapointment. This thing blows Dodge's snake into the weeds big-time. In it's price range the Viper is a bargain and demands respect. However, the GT would appear to be significantly faster in virtually every respect than the new Viper and has got be the the current bang for the buck marvel even at 150k. Also consider that any future Viper GTS Coupe would have to be very highly modified to make up for the newly apparent disparity in performance.

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

edit: If the new Lightning's motor is anything like this, and we essentially know that it is, then the SRT10 truck's days on the "throne" are numbered indeed.

The problem is that it's almost impossible to find a Ford GT for $150,000; most dealers are marking them up big time. Even so, it's a great value at $200,000 or even $250,000.

Carrera GT all day...sounds GLORIOUS!

I'd probably take a Gallardo over any of these.. :P

Why?

the porsche also looks the best imo lol :iceslolan

The problem is that it's almost impossible to find a Ford GT for $150,000; most dealers are marking them up big time. Even so, it's a great value at $200,000 or even $250,000.

Yea but the same thing happenend with the 2000 Cobra R's when they first came out. Dealers were getting away with selling them for $90,000 etc.., But after the first 6 months the Cobra R could be bought for the MSRP and sometimes less. Just cause a few idiots will pay way over MSRP to be one of the firsts doesn't mean it stays like that.

Why?

Because the Gallardo is just bad-ass. It reminds me of an exotic VR-4 without the clutch/tranny problems, and much better looks :)

1.Here we go acceleration numbers. And how good of a deal the GT is. If acceleration is what you are interested in get a Lingenfelter TT vette for way less it will spank the GT in the 1/4 or heck even a "lowly" evo 4 banger with 15K extra will pull low 11.

2. The price argument: GT is much cheaper than an Enzo and as retail that is true but now answer this is Form making any profit of the GT? Nobody knows Ford could even be losing huge amounts at each sale. Would Ford care? No because the GT is a rolling advertisement banner. On the other hand Ferrari is making big profits both on the Enzo and especially on the Modena.

So the whole argument Ford can make it much cheaper and faster is flawed since we have no ideea of the production cost of the GT.



If Ford want to prove their superiority to Ferrari they are free to spank them in F1 or LeMans directly againts the Enzo aka MC12.

Auarter miles are about as important to Supercar buyers as horsepower is to Westinghouse buyers.

It's not.

Everyone who has driven the GT has said it, the GT is an easy car to drive, which is not something I want in a Supercar. It's like playing FIFA 2004 in Beginner mode- You would win races, but at the same time, the car is effectively telling you that you are a moron.

I like my supercars Uncomfortable, raw and edgy, the GT isn't any of those.

1.Here we go acceleration numbers. And how good of a deal the GT is. If acceleration is what you are interested in get a Lingenfelter TT vette for way less it will spank the GT in the 1/4 or heck even a "lowly" evo 4 banger with 15K extra will pull low 11.

2. The price argument: GT is much cheaper than an Enzo and as retail that is true but now answer this is Form making any profit of the GT? Nobody knows Ford could even be losing huge amounts at each sale. Would Ford care? No because the GT is a rolling advertisement banner. On the other hand Ferrari is making big profits both on the Enzo and especially on the Modena.

So the whole argument Ford can make it much cheaper and faster is flawed since we have no ideea of the production cost of the GT.



If Ford want to prove their superiority to Ferrari they are free to spank them in F1 or LeMans directly againts the Enzo aka MC12.

1. How the car accelrates is part of the picture but not the only one. The Ford GT accelrates like a beast, can do 200+mph, and handles and brakes(magazine writers opinions) with cars the have a much larger price tag.

2. How do you know that Ferrari is making large amounts of money on the Enzo? I think you have just as many facts to prove that, as I do that Ford is making good money on the GT and not losing money. Ford has always said the would not produce a car unless in monetarily made sense for them to do so and did not approve the GT until the proved the could make a profit on it. So we have to take Ford's word for it just like we have to take Ferrari's.

Also the Enzo is Ferrari's rolling advertisement to their greatness so they would care bout losing money the same as Ford. So until you can prove otherwise the price arguement is still in play. And if you think the GT is bad now wait till you see the aftermarket parts that have already been developed for it.



Everyone who has driven the GT has said it, the GT is an easy car to drive, which is not something I want in a Supercar. It's like playing FIFA 2004 in Beginner mode- You would win races, but at the same time, the car is effectively telling you that you are a moron.

I like my supercars Uncomfortable, raw and edgy, the GT isn't any of those.

I don't see a car that can do can do more and to it better as a down side. It's just more of a credit to the quality of engineering but put into this car. But it's all opinion.

I think the GT will be a good car when it hits the dealers. Of coarse there will always be critics trying to point out their disinterests in particular aspects concerning the GT, but those are simple facts of life everyone should know by now.

Will there be dealer markups? Let me just ask this quesiton: What cars don't have dealer markups? It should be known by now the more expensive the car, the higher the markup is. Now will this prevent potential buyers? Probably not considering they probably already know and are aware of the markups anyway. There is more to this equation than just price, but I don't have all the time in the world to explain what else. Bottom line here, this 'markup arguement' if you will is just stupid because it doesn't make the GT any weaker of a car.

Now value? Value can mean many different things, so it is harder to determine whether a car offers more value. Some people may believe that a Modena for 150k is a good value, or an Enzo going for 1.4million a value. Who am I to say their wrong? If you narrow down what specific value you are looking for it would be easier to determine whether a GT does offer a better value than the Ferrari/Porsche. For instance: If you were to find out which car offers more of a value in performance per dollar. This way, there would be a more superior car in terms of performance per dollar.

And Neutrino, I'm not entirly sure what you are actually trying to point out since (unless anybody does) nobody knows the production cost on either the Enzo/Ford GT/Carrera GT. I would very seriously doubt that Ford is marking down their GT's in a ridiculous manner, but if they are, I am wrong. I do agree however; that if they want to be better at making and racing F1 cars, than Ferrari is who they need to beat.

Keep in mind if you can afford a $150,000 automobile you can afford to keep it full of 116.

330 cid + twin screw + 25 psi = Bye bye Enzo and McClaren. 1000 streetable HP is not out of the question given the owner's anticipated resources.

It's a nice time to be a gear head isn't it?

I'm sticking by my old Buick though.

A the car is effectively telling you that you are a moron.



:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


I just had to quote that for effect, incase anyone missed it.


When you pay over $100,000 for a super car, the ultimate in driving, you don't want something that feels like a Toyota Corrola.

I don't see how the GT could have cost that much to develop...... It has an engine found in the Trucks and Falcon, a Supercharger. Ferrari have a much harder time building thier engines- They don't have mainstream cars to flog the engines out of. As nice of an engine as the Alfa Romeo 3.2 V6 is, it wouldn't do too well in a Modena yet alone an Enzo.

Then they took a 360 Modena, pulled it apart and said- "Uh huh, yep, change that keep that, change that keep that." Until they were happy, then all that imagination used was such hard work, they had little originality left for the design, so they ripped off an old Lola design and made it bigger.

I can't think of one innovative feature of the GT, please correct me if I'm wrong, but from where I sit, it's (as Neutrino said) a moving advertising board for a company in deep trouble.

Once that was done, they engineered it so the typical rich Yank could drive it, hence why C&D journos manage to get such good times in it.

Damon Hill said it himself- the GT is a useable car and far more civillised than a Ferrari 360, but he'd sooner have the 360 CS for track use (CAR, August 2004).

Boy, I'm hearing a lot of sh*ttalking about feel and soul from people who drool over these cars when they pass by. I drive a sick car and I bet all three are AMAZING.

Have any of you driven an Enzo? A GT? A Carerra?

Right.

What a joke you kids are, breaking balls while you drive an economy car! There's only one thing that should matter when you are talking cars in this price range.

SPEED.

Who's faster?

ARS is right, pump some boost into that Ford and it will run away. Just like the Supras ran away for so many years.

That mighty straight six finally has some comp. Let's put a KB on the 5.4 and see some video!

Yeah....... FYI I have driven a variety of Ferrari's, certainly not an Enzo (and I'm not expecting to unless a miracle happens), but I have driven both an F355 and 360 Modena (The template for the GT). That kind of thing sort of happens when the company you used to work for holds a large share in Ferrari SpA and you belong to a car club in the very home of the Supercar. :rolleyes:

Speed is a measure of the driver, feel is the measure of the car. A real supercar embraces FEEL not numbers. A real supercar does not have a light clutch, a light Gearbox and DEFINITELY does not have light steering. A supercar is meant to feel like something else, not an econobox (i.e. Honda NSX, 996 911 Carrera and Ford GT).

You may very well beat Joe Johnson's Ferrari at the track with your 800 bhp GT, but who had more fun? Who worked harder? Whose task should feel more rewarding at the end of the day?

See my comments RE: Beginner modes in Video games to answer that question.

Like Moppie said, you don't spend all that money only to drive something that drives like a Focus, why do you think the NSX flopped? No real supercar enthusiast likes thier cars calling them a dumbass.

The NSX flopped because no one likes the idea of paying $90,000 for a Honda. There are supercars more civilized than the NSX that have done pretty well; just look at the Mercedes-Benz SL600 and Aston Martin DB9.

Yes, those are cars selling on the badge, if the NSX drove like a little more wildly, I can guarantee it'd have more success. But the hairy chested supercar buffs (Noble and Ferrari drivers) didn't want it, nor did the posers (Benz and Porsche drivers).

jeez, people seriously have to make up their minds... stock or aftermarket... you cant complain when people say "ya but if i threw a blower on it etc..." then turn around and say that a 4 banger car can be made to whoop a ford gt. honestly, a geo metro could be made to beat a ford gt or ferrari for that matter, the point of a supercar isnt the performance, its the price tag and appearance its sayin hey look at me im rich. 99% of the people who by supercars dont know jack about them they just wanna new toy to show to their friends granted there are the real car enthusiests who buy them but how many mechanics can afford a ferrari?. and as for getting a lingefelter tt vette, its still a vette (if that doesnt make sense to you re-read this paragraph)

and as for ford coppying the ferrari, name on thing they copied, they may have learned from some of ferraris mistakes, examining where another company went wrong is not copying. the car was basically built off existing parts from other cars, lots of modifying to frop weight and everything else is based on the original gt. every car company examines other cars, ford just made the mistake of making it public, you think for one second ferrari doesnt check out the competition? thats naieve (excuse me if i spelled that wrong)

and yes the ford engine started its life a truck engine. ford considered switching to the 5.0 liter cammer which would have whooped the ferraris just as easily and been N/A but they had already developed the 5.4 for it and would have cost alot of money to tune the 5.0 to 550 hp (stock is 440 and the have 500 hp applications... aka gtr) and they would have had to rebuild the front end.

now obviouslt the ferrari is an amazing car (any ferrari) and i wouldnt mind havong one in my garage, i like the fact that ferrari extracted like 460 hp from what a 3.6 liter? more than like it i respect that alot but that doesnt automatically make it better than a supercharged v8 (because it costs alot to do that) so y cant people just say hey both cars have their strong points and weak points and leave it at that? dopesnt make sense to me at all.

Just to be different, I'd Rather have an S7, Looks better than any of them, GT is a close second, Carrera GT is ugly, and I'm not really all that fond of the enzo (imo the f50 looked much better, and i'd still take a 355 spyder over any ferrari 'cept the Dino).
Anyone know the whole Retro craze? thats why ford reinvented the GT40, they kinda needed it to, looking at the crap they've been coughing out lately, who cares if isn't original, who cares if it doesn't have the most rugged feel, and who cares if it's not N/A, It's hella fast, and I doubt any of you are ever going to buy one, so it's kinda a moot point don't ya think?

That's my two cents, you can all flame now :)

Ford has always said the would not produce a car unless in monetarily made sense for them to do so and did not approve the GT until the proved the could make a profit on it. So we have to take Ford's word for it just like we have to take Ferrari's.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!

If I'm not mistaken, Ford lost $5.6 billion last year. Ferrari on the other hand, sold for big bucks when Fiat offerred 34% of it to some bank. I don't have the P/L figures for Ferrari but do you think bean counters love paying big for businesses that loose money?

I'll take Ferrari's word that they're making money. You'll forgive me for being skeptical with Ford.

E is for Enzo and enzo is for me :evillol:

Ferrari on the other hand, sold for big bucks when Fiat offerred 34% of it to some bank. I don't have the P/L figures for Ferrari but do you think bean counters love paying big for businesses that loose money?

I'll take Ferrari's word that they're making money. You'll forgive me for being skeptical with Ford.

Ferrari makes there money from le man and F1 not as to say they dont spend half of it on schumi's pay check but... :grinno:

It's like playing FIFA 2004 in Beginner mode- You would win races, but at the same time, the car is effectively telling you that you are a moron.

You may as well shut up and not say another word for the rest of your life. You'll never be able to top this one :rofl:

Yes, those are cars selling on the badge, if the NSX drove like a little more wildly, I can guarantee it'd have more success. But the hairy chested supercar buffs (Noble and Ferrari drivers) didn't want it, nor did the posers (Benz and Porsche drivers).

I agree... :biggrin:

You may as well shut up and not say another word for the rest of your life. You'll never be able to top this one :rofl:
NUMBER 1. Remember that ;)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA !!!!!

If I'm not mistaken, Ford lost $5.6 billion last year. Ferrari on the other hand, sold for big bucks when Fiat offerred 34% of it to some bank. I don't have the P/L figures for Ferrari but do you think bean counters love paying big for businesses that loose money?

I'll take Ferrari's word that they're making money. You'll forgive me for being skeptical with Ford.


LoL, Honestly Ford's yearly earnings or loses have nothing to do with what they make per Ford GT and honestly 34% of Ford would sell for so much more than Ferrari it's no even a competition. This is not saying Ford is better than Ferrari but just showing how Ford and Ferrari's economics are as different as there cars. So your theory here does not work at all.

He we all know what happend at le man when the Gt40 was reveald & those ferraris went home cryin.

GTStang ~ Ill say it once and ill say it again....

I love that avatar! :iceslolan

Use your brains for a second, fellas. He's saying Ford use the GT as a loss-leader. While this may or may not be true it's certainly a valid theory.



NUMBER 1. Remember that ;)
Cheeky bastard :grinno:

Ford is actually not doing too bad right now. Their trucks and SUVs have always sold well, the Focus was a big hit, and the Mustang has always been a good seller. The Futura (Taurus replacement) and Escape SUV are getting hybrid power soon, which should draw in some buyers. And the Mustang and Focus are new for 2005.

the ford gt is ugly as hell , i would MUCH rather have my low hp GSR over that thing , i dont care what numbers it puts down , IMHO , its very very ugly !! so this would be a easy choice for me , Enzo all the way , then the Carrera , then many many other cars before i would consider the ford GT ... :2cents:

Function over form. So it's ugly, from a non-prestigious company, and uses a supercharged truck motor. It's still fast as hell, and it's still an incredible bargain.

Ford is actually not doing too bad right now. Their trucks and SUVs have always sold well, the Focus was a big hit, and the Mustang has always been a good seller. The Futura (Taurus replacement) and Escape SUV are getting hybrid power soon, which should draw in some buyers. And the Mustang and Focus are new for 2005.
Yet they still post a loss every year. No matter how improved the performance is, a loss is still a loss.

Well, the cars they are putting out are certainly improving, but they still have a long way to go. And I don't know why they keep making all these new models, like the Freestyle and Five Hundred. They should focus on revitalizing some of their older, more well-known models, like the Taurus and the Crown Victoria.

the reason theyre coming out with all new models is because of name recognition. when u hear taurus the first word that sperings to mind is crap... the 500 makes you think of the old galaxies and fairlanes... some of the most reliable and well liked ford sedans ever built. and if uve ever seen the 500 in person and sat in it then you would see the leaps and bounds ford has made in quality and i can say that the 500 is up to par with the imports as far as quality in every way. the engine is still the 3.0 with 200 hp but in a year theyre supposed to release it with the new 3.5 liter 250 hp which is identical to what toyota uses. (the engines not identical just the numbers...)

and theyre not gonna revodalize the crown vic because like 90 % of its sales are to police agencies and they need to keep costs down so the police departments can afford them.

Revodalize? You mean "revitalize"?

The Five Hundred should have a very nice interior, seeing as how it shares its platform with the Volvo S80. The powertrain is old and unrefined, and that doesn't work well with a car as heavy as the Five Hundred, but if they put that 3.5-liter 250 hp motor in there, it should be fine.

I don't know what to make of the new Freestyle. I guess Ford is trying to get into the "wagons are more practical than SUVs" fad that has also spawned the Dodge Magnum and Malibu Maxx.

I think Ford has too many SUVs (even though they all sell well). I think two is enough, the Escape and the Explorer, but I guess I can understand them keeping the Expedition.

I've never understood the economics of these companies.

How can they post an annual loss of 5.6 Billion, and carry a long term debt burden of 34 billion and not go bankrupt?

Does that mean they have that much cash in reserve? And if that's the case, why don't they shut their factories and keep what they have instead of bleeding it out every year.

Apparently, Ford group sold about 6 million cars. That means roughly they loose $1,000 for every car they're selling. Wouldn't it then be better to not sell cars?

They're losing 5.6 billion a year? That number doesn't sound right. Because even though they don't make a lot on cars, I know they make tons through their financing (same with GM and Daimler-Chrysler).

Revodalize? You mean "revitalize"?

ya i meant to type revidalize (still spelled wrong but at least makes sense that way)

I've never understood the economics of these companies.

How can they post an annual loss of 5.6 Billion, and carry a long term debt burden of 34 billion and not go bankrupt?

Does that mean they have that much cash in reserve? And if that's the case, why don't they shut their factories and keep what they have instead of bleeding it out every year.

Apparently, Ford group sold about 6 million cars. That means roughly they loose $1,000 for every car they're selling. Wouldn't it then be better to not sell cars?
Ford lose more than that with every Focus sold, or so I hear.

It's healthcare & pension costs that are crippling the American automakers.

well tho put the concept to rest: the Ford Gt can easily outcorner a stradale and kill it on the track

As we all know the TG test track has been set up by Lotus and is designed to bring all the flaws in a cars handling to life. The folowing is a comparison between the GT and the CS around the hamerhead (a very notorious offcamber corner designed to induce understeer).

We all quoted magazines and our ideeas as how the cars handle but how about photographic evidence? As they say a picture is worth a thousand words so here are 4000:
http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/503/13360modena1.jpg
http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/503/13360modena2.jpg

http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/503/13360gt1.jpg
http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/503/13360gt2.jpg


Now you tell me which car corners better.

Well i have seen a lot of arguments that the Ford GT can outcorner the Stradale. so...

As we all know the TG test track has been set up by Lotus and is designed to bring all the flaws in a cars handling to life. The folowing is a comparison between the GT and the CS around the hamerhead (a very notorious offcamber corner designed to induce understeer).

We all quoted magazines and our ideeas as how the cars handle but how about photographic side by side evidence? As they say a picture is worth a thousand words so here are 4000:
http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/503/13360modena1.jpghttp://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/503/13360gt1.jpg
http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/503/13360modena2.jpghttp://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/503/13360gt2.jpg





Now you tell me which car corners better.

Honestly that picture doesn't prove anything to me. Is the first pics the very start of the turn? If so look at the GT entry point compared to the 360's. If it's not the entry point of the turn then where is the beginning of it and let me see a pic of that. Also what is the entry and exit speed of each car for that turn?

Honestly that picture doesn't prove anything to me. Is the first pics the very start of the turn? If so look at the GT entry point compared to the 360's. If it's not the entry point of the turn then where is the beginning of it and let me see a pic of that. Also what is the entry and exit speed of each car for that turn?

Or maybe I photoshoped them. :rolleyes: Look at the wheels and chassis position and tell me its not classic understeer.

So get the videos since aparently you dont believe me. Even Clarkson comented how much it understeered and he loves them so much he actually bough one. He also did coment that it does not handle as well as the Stradale.

But hey I'm probably a lousy liar so go to racingflix.com DL the two videos and show everyone how full of bulshit I am.

http://www.racingflix.com/getvideo.asp?v=799&p=6
http://www.racingflix.com/getvideo.asp?v=752&p=6

Here are the links, registration is free. So i made it easy for you to prove how much I lied.

Ok fine I'll put the Gt entrance pictures
.................................................. ............http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/503/13360GT3.jpg
http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/503/13360modena1.jpghttp://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/503/13360gt1.jpg
http://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/503/13360modena2.jpghttp://files.automotiveforums.com/gallery/watermark.php?file=/503/13360gt2.jpg


Quote from Clarkson: "It won't be as good trough the corners" (comparing to the CS) So maybe even Clarkson one of the biggest fans of the Gt and an owner said that. Or is everyone lying?

Honestly Neutrino, you're such a fraud :rolleyes:

The footage of the Ford GT understeering - much like a boat - was digitally modified by Neutrino before it appeared on the TG episode. That's not understeer, it's an illusion. I've been to that track and you know what? It's not even a right hand turn, it's left... Should have covered your tracks Neutrino :grinno:

Actually, the photo doesn't mean much because we already know that the GT can carry more speed into, and out of, a corner than the Modena Stradale can. No doubt, driving it like it's "set on kill", the GT is flogging that poor little standard fare 360 to death into and out of the corners.

I would expect to see a little more lean, and a bit more initial oversteer, going into a corner in a car carrying a lot more speed than in one carrying significantly less. If the Modena was fast enough, in comparison to the GT, to make the above an interesting race perhaps the photos would be more representative. And, if Ford did dial in more oversteer the throttle can cure that easily, something that cannot be said as readily of the 360 by any means.

As a matter of fact, a stable car that can be induced at any time, into controlled and productive throttle on oversteer would seem to be an enthusiast's dream come true. (hmmm, those famous old 911 Turbos that built the German's company reputation into a legend must have sucked considering they did exactly that same thing.....lol.....granted, with far less predictability) The Ford, with it's huge torque curve, no doubt offers this to a good driverat any time. No mid engined Ferrari since the Testarossa based cars (512TR, blah, blah) has done the same.

Also, "corners better in some instances" would seem more accurate as the GT slaloms better than the Modena or the Enzo! The Modena is better at long sweepers, and from what I saw in several reviews likely in reducing radius turns too. The Ford beats them both on switchbacks simply from referencing the same reviews you reference. If those prior two aspects, or it's "Ferrari-ness" make you like the 360 better..fine. I would hardly call this conclusive evidence that it is "better", especially since the guy you qoute to prove your point chose the GT. Maybe, the resident Ferrari guys have more seat time in exotics than he does, but I'll take him voting with his wallet as being more conclusive.

Also, for the references on Ford "losing money every year", so far Ford is making money this year. And, Ford claims the GT makes very good money on every car, a claim easily backed up by the fact that many parts are sourced from within the standard car line. If folks doubt Ford is making money on the GT more power to them. However, you'll forgive me if I don't take this opinion as that of an expert. :rolleyes: .

IMHO the Ford GT has seemingly won the most important comparison hands down....it seems to piss off Ferrari guys in a big way. I would call that conclusive evidence of how good it really is.

GTStang ~ Ill say it once and ill say it again....

I love that avatar! :iceslolan

yea, you woundnt happen to have a bigger version? :evillol:

oh yea, i pick the ford.

Ok fuck it apparently all my efforts to bring factual verifiable evidence are useless, even pictures now don't prove anything. Its quite evident you guys do the same effort to bring proof. :rolleyes:


Fine I'll do like everyone in this forum and spew my own biased opinions without bothering to do frame by frame analysis of the cars or any other type of research.



So the ferrari is teh shiZnaT and teh gT is teh sHat. Is that slang eloquent enough to make my point understood?



Bottom line I'm done spending all this time to do proper reaserch and then formating it in a presentable fasion for the forum. Its obvious that people love to interpret the facts as they see fit, even analysing the videos without watching. Not even mentioning the facts spewed out without even one link or refernce.

So anyway enjoy this forum and and fell free to BS as much as you want with complete disregard for facts, because I'm done with it.

Enjoy!!! :wave:

Neutrino i feel your frustration man...

Actually, the photo doesn't mean much because we already know that the GT can carry more speed into, and out of, a corner than the Modena Stradale can. No doubt, driving it like it's "set on kill", the GT is flogging that poor little standard fare 360 to death into and out of the corners.

I would expect to see a little more lean, and a bit more initial oversteer, going into a corner in a car carrying a lot more speed than in one carrying significantly less. If the Modena was fast enough, in comparison to the GT, to make the above an interesting race perhaps the photos would be more representative.

How is the GT killing the Ferrari in the turns when it's trying to mow the lawn? You can't blame understeer on a car being fast on the straight. The TG track is made to test cars' limits and exposes the GT right there. The Stig had to lift in places where his foot was planted in the CS.
And yes, the CS is fast enough to make the race interesting, it only finished four tenths behind the Ford GT despite the GT's massive extra grunt, so hey, maybe its actually clawing some time back through the turns?

And, if Ford did dial in more oversteer the throttle can cure that easily, something that cannot be said as readily of the 360 by any means.

As a matter of fact, a stable car that can be induced at any time, into controlled and productive throttle on oversteer would seem to be an enthusiast's dream come true.

Did you watch the video? Did you see the GT pirouette in the rain? You want to dial in more oversteer? The guy who drove the car said it didnt handle all that great, what more do you want?

I would hardly call this conclusive evidence that it is "better", especially since the guy you qoute to prove your point chose the GT. Maybe, the resident Ferrari guys have more seat time in exotics than he does, but I'll take him voting with his wallet as being more conclusive.

He said himself the GT didnt handle with the class leaders, he bought it because he loves the grunt, looks, and the fact that it's soft-ish (certainly softer than a CS), has an a/c, and is drivable day to day.


Also, for the references on Ford "losing money every year", so far Ford is making money this year. And, Ford claims the GT makes very good money on every car, a claim easily backed up by the fact that many parts are sourced from within the standard car line. If folks doubt Ford is making money on the GT more power to them. However, you'll forgive me if I don't take this opinion as that of an expert. :rolleyes: .

Car companies - actually ALL companies - say a lot of things, usually with an eye on their share price, so they tend to avoid saying things like "yeah, we lost shit-loads on that model", even if the investment community knows it for a fact.
Most car companies make their money from selling spare parts, and the americans sell cars because that way they lose less money (they still lose money) than if they didnt. Ford using the GT as a loss-leader is a very legitimate point, because it's a great marketing asset, and yes, this is coming from an expert.

If you honestly expect to tell me with a straight face that what the GT is doing is anything other than understeering, then you may as well just head on back to the drag strip and continue driving in your lovely straight lines. In the second picture for each, the GT is coming straight for the camera (Meaning the car is going to have to slow down) and the 360 is heading around the corner (It could hold the corner at that speed easily). So basically, the GT was easily out-cornered by the Stradale and it's grunt on the straight CLEARLY was the only thing that let it beat the Ferrari by 4 tenths of a second. That is a piss poor effort, if the GT handled properly, it would easily murder the 360's track time, however it didn't, so it's inferior to the 360 in that department.

By the looks of things the F430 will have the GT for breakfast, if the GT can barely outdo a 360. Seems the GT would get slaughtered by a Viper as well....

So the Ford GT is basically a lowered SVT Lightning, eh? ;P

Yeah Essentially It's A Lowered Lightning with a CF body... Actually... It is... And I'll still take an S7 or an XJ220 (best car on earth imo) over it, the two cars appear to be fairly equally matched (the strad and the GT) what the GT lacks through the corners it makes up for in the Straightways, But thats how it always is, The car with the higher top speed usually is the car with the lower handling, so eventually you're going to have to sacrifice one or the other depending on what "rubs you right" personally I prefer the 'smear you to the window' cornering... and the drive upside downness of an S7, If I wanted to go really fast in a straight line I'd get into Nitro cars. you cant beat a 4 second quarter at 320 mph(btw they CANT turn... :P)

Let's each go buy one of each car, and compare them.

BTW:
top speed of Stradale :176 (redline limit)
GT :200(mfgrs claim (oldish data))

Skidpad tests put out the same number for both cars at .98g

Stradale has a Manual Automatic shifter...
Stradale has half the torque (less prone to wheel spin)
Stradale is Quiter and gets less fuel mileage.
GT can do a lane change maneuver at a higher speed :P

Suspensions are similar on both cars.

Oh and tires anyone?

IO'm dl-ing the video as I write this but even wit DSL it's gonna take forever.

I'm not calling you a liar Neutrino and sorry you took it that way but if you want to prove everything about two cars from handling from one turn. Then I'd like to see the whole progress of the turn from start to finish, the camera angle and position to stay the same, also the entry and exit speeds are also important. Honestly the GT looks like it's understeering but is it carrying more mph through the turn or not? These are fair questions to ask even if you may not think so.

From what's been said it sound like the GT went through the whole course quicker. So does this not make the superior all around car compared to that 360? Or do I expect to hear the normal ramblings of why the 360 is better just like you seemed to be annoyed about people defending the GT in this situation?

Grit Master: That was a joke. The GT40 may have a supercharged truck motor like the Lightning, but it's still the same old legendary Ferrari slayer of the 70's.

IO'm dl-ing the video as I write this but even wit DSL it's gonna take forever.

I'm not calling you a liar Neutrino and sorry you took it that way but if you want to prove everything about two cars from handling from one turn. Then I'd like to see the whole progress of the turn from start to finish, the camera angle and position to stay the same, also the entry and exit speeds are also important. Honestly the GT looks like it's understeering but is it carrying more mph through the turn or not? These are fair questions to ask even if you may not think so.

From what's been said it sound like the GT went through the whole course quicker. So does this not make the superior all around car compared to that 360? Or do I expect to hear the normal ramblings of why the 360 is better just like you seemed to be annoyed about people defending the GT in this situation?
But that "one turn" was designed by a firm infamous for some of the worlds greatest chassis. That "one turn" seperates the cheetas from the Hippos. I'm doubting that it's carrying any more MPH than the Ferrari, because the cars are being driven by the same drivers (The "White" Stig) add to that, the straight between the Hammerhead and the previous corner (Don't remember the name for that corner) is too small for the Ford to gain enough speed to be pushed to a speed where it is well in excess of the 360. Also, the bend takes a hammer head shape, the cars before hitting that bend, hit a slightly smaller one.

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:

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:
Another top quality post from Layla's Keeper, even managed to teach me a few things I've forgotten. :cool: