F-430 vs. Gallardo/GT/Murcielago

[Muscletang]

Originally Posted by engineer

ferrari and lambo have consistently and persistently put in the hard yards to improve upon their cars which is not what ford have done.

So Ferrari puts more work into their cars (like the F430) than Ford puts into their cars (like the GT)? I think the following information below will defend Ford against that comment.

2005 Ferrari F430
$170,000
490 bhp @ 8500 RPM
343 lb-ft @ 5250 RPM
0-60 mph 3.9 sec
Top Speed 196 mph

2005 Ford GT
$140,000 - $150,000 (depending on options)
550 bhp @ 6500 RPM
500 lb-ft @ 4,500
0-60 3.3 sec
Top Speed 205

From what I'm seeing from the above, Ford puts just as much (if not more) work into their car, as Ferrari does to their car.

Originally Posted by engineer

the FORD GT is just a shameless attempt to recapture the glory of the past to boost ford sales. the GT40 was genius back in the 60's, and now the new generation of engineers have slapped a new face on it, with some new technology and composites, and it is now fords "halo" car. do u see what i am saying?

As for the GT being a "shameless attempt to recapture the glory of the past", is the new Mustang a "shameless attempt" as well? What about the fact that Ford's top Mustang, the Cobra, is named after Shelby's car. Does that make it a "shameless attempt at the past"? Was the Mustang Mach 1 another "shameless attempt" by Ford? Was the Shelby A/C Cobra concept a "shameless attempt" again? It's said that the Shelby GR-1 (a car based on one of Shelby's 60s race cars and off the A/C Cobra concept) could join or replace the GT in a couple of years. Since it will be a replica (in a way) to Shelby's car, will it be a "shameless attempt at the past" yet again?

I don’t see why there would be a problem in honoring a car by remaking it. The GT was a great car back in the 60s and Ford is making it a great car again.

[Polygon]

Originally Posted by engineer

by the way, am i the only one that likes the f355, 360 and f430 more than the corresponding f40, f50 and enzo (f60?)

I like the F355, 360, and 430 more than the F50 and Enzo but the F40 is one of my all time favorite Ferraris.

As far as the poll goes I would take the F430 hands down. I would take one of the Lamborghinis second and third since Lambos just are know for poor side and rear visibility making them a pain to drive around town. I take the GT last since I don't feel it is worth its price tag and I hate the power delivery method.

[Jimster]

The Ferrari is an easy first, it is superior to the others in terms of technology to start with and it is most likely to be the most fun car around a track if the 360 Modena was anything to go by (The Lamborghini's and GT both having issues with understeer that they damn well shouldn't)

Not to mention, it's a Ferrari, it's basically the staple diet of the manufacturer, as opposed to the cynical marketing exercise, that is the Ford.


Lamborghini's are second. I dislike the new ones, Audi have dumbed them down too much, give me a Diablo GT any day of the week, but they still carry a small bit of Feruccio's legacy with them.

GT is last for reasons already explained, it may well look the best and probably go the fastest in a straight line, but it's still a cynical marketing exercise born in the boardroom and it lacks the finesse of the Ferrari.

[syr74]

Actually, Car and Driver said that the 360 Stradale (which is supposed to be the track ready version) demonstarted more of a tendency to oversteer than did the Ford GT. And, that was with a world-class race-car driver behind the wheel giving his opinion as well. So, this would apparently be a point of contention.

However, the F430 is not a 360 and a new comparison deserves to be made.

[engineer]

Originally Posted by Jimster

The Ferrari is an easy first, it is superior to the others in terms of technology to start with and it is most likely to be the most fun car around a track if the 360 Modena was anything to go by (The Lamborghini's and GT both having issues with understeer that they damn well shouldn't)

Not to mention, it's a Ferrari, it's basically the staple diet of the manufacturer, as opposed to the cynical marketing exercise, that is the Ford.


Lamborghini's are second. I dislike the new ones, Audi have dumbed them down too much, give me a Diablo GT any day of the week, but they still carry a small bit of Feruccio's legacy with them.

GT is last for reasons already explained, it may well look the best and probably go the fastest in a straight line, but it's still a cynical marketing exercise born in the boardroom and it lacks the finesse of the Ferrari.

I agree 150% with everything u said. its like u took the scrambled thoughts in my head and put them into words.

[engineer]

Originally Posted by Muscletang

So Ferrari puts more work into their cars (like the F430) than Ford puts into their cars (like the GT)? I think the following information below will defend Ford against that comment.

2005 Ferrari F430
$170,000
490 bhp @ 8500 RPM
343 lb-ft @ 5250 RPM
0-60 mph 3.9 sec
Top Speed 196 mph

2005 Ford GT
$140,000 - $150,000 (depending on options)
550 bhp @ 6500 RPM
500 lb-ft @ 4,500
0-60 3.3 sec
Top Speed 205

numbers are meaningless. if ferrari had wanted to give the f430 550hp or 0-60 in 3.3 sec they would have. more power is not always a good thing. go ahead and laugh, because we all know its true. and considering the F430 is only $20-30k more than the GT, IT is the bargain.

and if you want to talk numbers, have a look at where in the rpm range the power peaks. the ferrari engine peaks 2000rpm later, indicating it was designed with sports/track driving in mind. the GT engine looks more like a muscle car/truck engine.

[syr74]

The comparison between the GT and the Ferrari is really no different than it was back when the first GT (and the second GT for that matter) met Ferrari in battle in the 60's. Even then, the GT was fairly relaxed in it's power delivery and manner when compared to the high-strung Italians. Many of the same comments applied to those cars then apply to the new ones today.

I also think that it is kind of far-fetched for people to use the old "the Ferrari is clearly the better track car" argument when several race car drivers have picked the GT over the Ferrari. Which car you think makes the better track car has as much to do with how you drive as anything else.

Were Bondurant choosing a car to race in today, I have no doubt that he would pick the GT as it suits the kind of car he likes to drive. And, I imagine Ferrari's F-1 wunderkind Sir Michael would choose the F430 bias aside as it suits his style better.

But, both of these guys are absolutely world-class championship race-car drivers, and much better than anyone who posts on these boards could ever hope to be. How can you say that either of their choices are stupid based upon what little racing experience any of us has, or because we simply prefer a different car?

I think the best we can say and remain honest is that I prefer x car because it suits my wants and style.

That said, it is truly too bad that these cars will never meet on a race track. It would be magnificent.

[syr74]

Originally Posted by engineer

the GT engine looks more like a muscle car/truck engine.

It could have just as easily simply been called "very American" in it's power delivery.

[Kurtdg19]

Originally Posted by engineer

and if you want to talk numbers, have a look at where in the rpm range the power peaks. the ferrari engine peaks 2000rpm later, indicating it was designed with sports/track driving in mind. the GT engine looks more like a muscle car/truck engine.

ummm......?.....ok. So the Ferrari should definately win against a truck engine, cause it would be quite embarrasing if that weren't the case....correct? Reguardless, all 4 of these cars are still just road cars, so my question would be: Would it really be that big of a deal when there is conclusive evidence revealing the victor?

[Kurtdg19]

Originally Posted by syr74

Actually, Car and Driver said that the 360 Stradale (which is supposed to be the track ready version) demonstarted more of a tendency to understeer than did the Ford GT. And, that was with a world-class race-car driver behind the wheel giving his opinion as well. So, this would apparently be a point of contention.

However, the F430 is not a 360 and a new comparison deserves to be made.

but like you said, this is not the 360.

[RedLightning]

Well i pick the ford, I have no care for the Ferrari name, but my second choice is the charging bull, third is the wittle prancing pony. Now why did I pick these, performance, performace, performance. Ill never buy a car b/c of its Brand name.

[Layla's Keeper]

Well, let's see. Ford needed a Lola chassis, a German ZF transaxle, and the combined efforts of Holman-Moody AND Carrol Shelby to develop the GT40 into a winning car, and even then it was hardly a walkover in either the World Championship of Makes OR Le Mans.

1965 was the year of the 275P and 250LM.
1966 was the year the MkII GT40 trumped the 330P3 due to a lack of top end because of the P3's lackluster aero package.
1967 was the year the 330P4 SLAPPED the MkIV and MkII GT40's, retaking the World Championship and placing 1-2-3 at the 24 Hours of Daytona (ever wonder why the 365GTB got that nickname? )
1968 was the year Ferrari sat out
and 1969 was the year the 917 showed up and caught the 312P and John Wyer GT40's off guard.

The Ferraris and the Fords were topnotch competitors, but the GT40 only ever covered the 330P3. It was no match for the 275P or the 330P4.

[drunken monkey]

and wasn't the more successful gt40 the john wyer ones which he carried on develping AFTER ford said, "bah, let's go home and stick a bigger engine in it..."?

[syr74]

Originally Posted by drunken monkey

and wasn't the more successful gt40 the john wyer ones which he carried on develping AFTER ford said, "bah, let's go home and stick a bigger engine in it..."?

Not quite, the small block GT40's were very successful in the hands of Wyer's privateer effort, but they were more succesful in Fords hands. And, Ford "went home" after the rules board had essentially outlawed one car and two engines in an attempt to slow Ford down. It becomes pretty clear by then that the race is no longer over who is faster, but who can "skate" the rules better.

[drunken monkey]

but weren't the famous le mans wins wyer's cars?