Ferrari F-360 VS. Ford GT

[freakonaleash1187]

somebody probably already did this comparo but i couldnt find one. so im going to start one myself.

first order is what ford did to make the gt. i read in motor trend (or r&t) the ford took a f-360 and tore it apart and looked at how it was made. that seems pretty sad to me.

second order is why is ford going after a "older" ferrari. what, can ford not keep up with ferrari.

third order is that it seems that ford had to put an engine that was almost 2 liters bigger and slap a supercharger onto the engine yet to only get 100 more horsepower than the ferrari. and people say that the ford has a lot of technology, doesnt seem so to me getting only that little amount of power with a 5.4 liter and supercharger.

fourth order is the blue oval can never ever replace the prancing horse.

fifth order, lets slap a supercharger onto the ferrari and see which one is faster then.

sixth order is why is ford making their fastest car not go against the fastest ferrari. c'mon now, the best of one company has to go against the best of another company.

so after reading that, you should figure out that i think that the ferrari f-360 is the better car.

[syr74]

Well, I figured out fairly early on that you believe the Ferrari is best. Which is fine as people like what they will. But, your reasoning leaves a little, okay a lot, to be desired.

First response: Ferrari was taking auch an a#$ whooping from Porsche and Ford in the late sixties/early seventies that soon after Ferrari decided to abandon every factory backed racing effort except Formula One. Not exactly a never say die attitude IMO.

Second response: The new Ford GT is much faster than the Ferrari 360 for significantly less money. Straight line acceleration is no contest, the GT exits corners much better (And it does this with more power which is very uncommon) and delivers power to the ground better out of corners. The GT also corners better than any 360 except the "stripped to race car spec" Stradale. Which is merely the GT's equal in cornering, not it's superior.

And, however old the 360 may be it is by far the fastest car Ferrari builds outside of the Enzo. A 360 will leave the much more expensive 550M or a 456GT like they are tied down. The only car Ferrari builds that is faster than the GT is the nearly one million dollar Enzo..And, the Enzo is barely faster than the GT.

Third response: People always cite peak hp specs with no consideration given to how or where it makes that power. Yep, the 360 makes a lot of power way up high in the rpm range. And, this is fine as it is classic Ferrari and many people like this style of power delivery. However, it is far from the "only" way to build an engine or the best IMO.

The Ferrari makes all that hp in a tiny rpm range that you have to work to keep the 360 within to extract maximum performance. The GT engine produces low end torque the Ferrari can only dream about and has a power curve that is as flat and as wide as Kansas.

This could be why in a run to 150 mph the Ferrari loloks like it has a boat anchor tied to it compared to the GT. Check the specs. People who constantly cite peak hp and act as though it were the end all obviously do not understand torque/horsepower/or their ratio to one another.

Put simply, the GT obliterates the Ferrari in acceleration and the faster you go the worse the 360 looks. Slap a supercharger on the Modena if you want.....the Ferrari would just lose by less unless you seriously reworked engine specs.

If all you did was the prerequisite cam and C/R adjustments their just isn't enough potential for a factory type supercharger to overcome that kind of acceleration disadvantage. Not to mention, the Modena is already a good bit more expensive than the GT. Why make it even more expensive only to lose in the end anyway?

And, as for Ford "tearing apart" a 360, you are aboslutely correct. This is something smart companies do to see what the other guy is bringing to the party.

It is of note that Ford said they thought they could do a muich better job on a chassis design than what they found in the Modena and the chassis use cery different techniques in a lot of areas. In other words the GT is far from a 360 copy.

And I will gladly compare the GT to Ferrari's most expensive car. The GT has generally been called a much better road car than even the 360, so I hold little hope for the Enzo in that comparo as it is "set on kill" compared to the 360.

The Enzo is a faster car, but not by much and I would bet not in every respect. Look at a GT's 0-150 time and I would bet by those speeds an Enzo would be looking at two big round tail lights .The GT seems to go faster the faster you go.

Oh yeah.......... For the price of an Enzo I can buy a GT, an Aston Martin BB7 GT, and a very nice house in the hills.

Definately...victory Ford IMO.

[freakonaleash1187]

those are good arguments and i respect those, but like i said, the blue oval can never ever replace the prancing horse. the ford gt could never touch the elegance of the f-360.

[chicago_guy]

Originally Posted by freakonaleash1187

those are good arguments and i respect those, but like i said, the blue oval can never ever replace the prancing horse. the ford gt could never touch the elegance of the f-360.

Absolutely. Yes the GT would out perform the Ferrari....but do you really expect for a FORD to stay in one piece in a race? I dont.

[Jimster]

The GT doesn't outperform the Ferrari by a hell of a lot- the GT is more relaxed on the roads- while the 360 Modena (base) is better on the track- due to a tendency to Understeer within the FOrd GT- this is straight from the mouth of a Journalist friend who has driven both.........While I remain doubtless that an Enzo would anhialate (sp) a GT with relative ease- but it's that much more expensive- and sophisticated- so there's no point bringing it up.

Ford would love you to believe what syr74 has just said- but the fact is that what he is said is either untrue (about 20% of it) or exagerated (about 65% of it)

[crayzayjay]

I'll take the Modena. I think the GT is a great car but i'd never buy one. The GT40, yes, the GT, not a hope in hell.

[Neutrino]

I’ll take the modena too...the modena is the best car in the world now as far as I’m concerned....its performance its nothing short of amazing and in my eyes it is the best looking car period...mixing elegance sporty looks and sexiness all wrapped in a perfect aerodynamic package....Pinifarina did a perfect job

Sure the enzo is the ultimate Ferrari and would murder a 360....I would love to own one...but I think the 360 symbolizes best the Ferrari spirit

I can find only one fault with the Modena...better power band....in my admittedly limited racing experience I’ve discovered the frustrations of not having that instant torque and getting lower exit speeds....

I know this would bug some purists but IMO the perfect addition to a 360 would be a quick spool turbo...and perhaps a longer stroke...I could live with less 1000 rpm if I could have a fatter power band

The gt40 on the other hand it’s a desperate attempt by Ford to improve its image and reclaim some won races many years ago

while being a good looking car the gt40 is not a tribute to the original gt40...the 350Z design cues are a tribute to the original; the balsa wood shifter knob in the Carrera GT is another subtle tribute to the racing division....the gt40 on the other hand it almost looks like a Xerox copy of the original...lack of subtlety which denotes lack of taste...and a desperate attempt by ford to bring back some former glory....

If ford's racing division is so good as it claims....there is no gt40 magazine article in which ford doesn't brag how it can spank Ferrari...it should be murdering Ferrari now in the ultimate road racing sport....F1...since they are present as jaguar

on the other hand it seems like Ford managed to give the Gt40 better road manners and its power band its much better...not surprisingly in a supercharged 5.4L engine

[syr74]

Now that our oh so "unbiased" moderhater has left his shrine to the prancing horse for a few moments let me reiterate a few points. As nobody in here has driven both cars and maybe two have driven the Ferrari (maybe at best) it is noteworthy that what journalists say is all we have to go off of.

I would point out that in the only head to head comparisons of these cars to date it has been said EVERY time that there is no comparison between the GT and the 360. And, they weren't declaring the Ferrari the winner in any of these.

One comparo even utilized Ferrari's "ultimate" 360, the Stradale, which corners far batter than a standard Modena and the differences were still glaringly obvious. As I have said, every major journalist on record has said the same thing. The GT exits corners better and delivers it's substantially greater power better out of those corners. The GT is much quicker from an acceleration standpoint, and the faster you go the worse the under-engined/over-priced Italian wonder looks. Whoa, let me add, that some (not all) journalists noted that they preferred the 360's tendency to understeer over the GT.

Lets abandon the fact that the Ford killed it in every other aspect for the sake of what only "some" of the journalists think. Do Ferrari enthusiast's record their arguments for future use? They never seem to change and sound just as contrived no matter how many times they are heard.

To insinuate that any 360 is a superior track car to the GT is blatantly untrue, and obviously contrived. Prancing horse worship has it's limits and Ford's new GT has exposed them nicely....just as the original did so many years ago. You may personally prefer the Ferrari, but everyone has the right to "prefer" to be outrun I suppose.

A road race between the GT and the Enzo would be much closer than a road race between a GT and a Modena. Yes, the Enzo would win, but not by as much as the GT would defeat any Modena. Not once, in any public venue, has the Ferrari 360 ever outrun the new Ford. I would call that definative evidence that Ferrari is once again proving itself a peddler of over-priced, badge-inflated wares.

But what is so new here? Porsche has been proving this for some time now. What difference does it make if Ford has gotten into the act again.

As for F1. Ferrari is indeed wise to limit itself to one major factory racing effort where it doesn't have to expose it's oh so frail road cars to the kind of abuse they took in the late sixties and early seventies. The fact that Ferrari 550's are currently racing Vettes a fraction of their price and not dominating by any means is a perfect example of this.

The more things change the more they stay the same. And, as for journalists friends we may have...I would welcome any evidence that substantiates such claims, like an article that backs up what has been said. Until that time I will remain, respectfully, skeptical.

[Polygon]

You know what? I just read a load of pure, unadulterated, biased bullshit!

1. The GT had better have faster acceleration and exit speeds in the turns than the 360. It has a bigger engine with a damn supercharger, which seems to be Ford's answer to everything. This is the only way they seem to be able to get performance, not pure engineering.

2. The GT is not substantially less than the 360. If you think that it is then you have been looking at prices for the wrong cars. Also, if you want to throw around price, the GT is only mere tenths of a second faster than a SRT-10 in the turns and pretty much even in acceleration. However, the SRT-10 is nearly half the price and a convertible. Sorry, but that doesn't impress me much concerning the GT. The reason that you pay more for the 360 is the fact that you're getting a car that has some great engineering behind it like the sequential manual gearbox. That is something you will not find in any Ford yet it is far superior to any other type of gearbox. The 360 also looks much better in my opinion. Ford simply took an old design of a car that wasn't even theirs and copied it, something Ford is good at doing.

3. You have to also think about age here. The 360 is a much older platform while the GT is brand-new. Also, you know they did tear apart a 360 just to get ideas for the GT? That is quite flattering if you ask me.

4. Ferrari has not limited itself to one form of racing. They are in Formula 1 and they are also in GT racing. As for your comment about the 550 and the Corvette, don't be an ass; you know that the 550 can't handle as well as the 360. On the same note why is the GT not in GT racing, or any other form of racing for that matter?

5. The GT-40 was not a Ford. It was a British car with a Ford engine just like the Daytona and the Cobra. They were not Fords so don't talk like they are part of Ford's proud racing heritage. I get so sick of hearing that. Also, the GT-40 only won like eight races that year, which is hardly domination.

6. Get over yourself; the Enzo would murder the GT in every way.

I think you can tell which I would take. I would take the 360, and I don’t even care if the GT is faster, there is more to being a better car than being fast. If you think otherwise then you’re a fucking moron.

[freakonaleash1187]

i agree with polygon. fords answer about power is a v-8 with a supercharger, uh hum, mustang cobra. he is also right about ford copying cuz the gt-40 wasnt actually fords body style. i never really thought about that one before.

lets get some hard numbers about the enzo and gt so we know that the enzo could easily smoke the gt in a road course.

1/4 mile- enzo-11.0 gt-11.7
slalom- enzo-73 gt-71
horsepower- enzo-660@7800 gt-500@5250
top speed- enzo-217 gt-190

so it looks like the enzo has it beat in acceleration, cornering, speed, and power. so the enzo will smoke the gt, not jus barely.

[syr74]

[quote=Polygon]You know what? I just read a load of pure, unadulterated, biased bullshit!

1. The GT had better have faster acceleration and exit speeds in the turns than the 360. It has a bigger engine with a damn supercharger...

:Hp is hp and only losers whine about how someone else got there. A psuhrod V-10 isn't exactly my idea of cutting edge, but it gets the job done.

2. The GT is not substantially less than the 360. If you think that it is then you have been looking at prices for the wrong cars...........

:The GT is substantially less than the Modena Stradale which is the fastest 360 by far. The Stradale is 200lbs lighter, 30hp stouter; and utilizes uprated brakes, suspension, and tires in comparison to the standard 360. Considering that even the Stradale cannot take a GT, I strayed away from the standard 360 thinking Ferrari fans might want to minimize the differences. But, if Ferrari guys would rather compare the standard 360 to the GT be my guest

As for "copying" designs, by your standards Mother Mopar should be stoned. Lets see, a bad rendition of a 427 Cobra, a 32 Highboy with a token shovel nose...what's next...a Model T? Apparently Dodge thinks Ford's history is more interesting than their own and I tend to agree. B.T.W., the GT's of past fame were indeed Fords and I will make my point later.

3. You have to also think about age here......

:The GT40 MkIV won Lemans when it was four years old so save the lame "it's too old" excuse. And yes, Ford did tear apart a 360 to see what Ferrari was "packing" Ford looked at the car, and by their own admission felt they could do a much better job. The fact that the GT is a very different design than the 360 only affirms this. Flattering that the Modena was good enough to warrant a look.... Of course. Flattering that Ford then decided to go a totally different route with their car?.... Huh?

4. Ferrari has not limited itself to one form of racing. They are in Formula 1 and they are also in GT racing. As for your......

:Ferrari has had a policy of no factory efforts outside of F1 for some time now. Ferrari's GT effort undoubtedly receives factory money and even support. But, it is not a factory effort so my point stands.

5. The GT-40 was not a Ford. It was a British car with a Ford engine....

:Ford took a look at a 1962 Lola GT show car done by a tiny British racing firm. Soon after Ford bought the firm and hired the engineer responsible for the car. The small firm was renamed FAV (Ford Advanced Vehicles) and soon took on different task's that the name makes self explanitory.

That show car was extensively redesigned by the time it became what we commonly know as the GT40. By the time the The GT40 MkII debuted the car was completely redesigned compared to that original Lola GT. The Mk II is the car the new GT is modeled after, and the first of what most people would consider GT40's. With respect, you wouldn't recognize the Lola GT or a pre MkII GT40 if they ran you over.

The GT 40 Mk IV was a completely new, clean sheet design that was a U.S. job start to finish by order of Henry Ford II. This is the GT40 that Ford won 3 of their 4 Lemans victories with. I get sick of hearing people who know nothing about the car or it's history speak as though they were an authority. It is advisable to learn something about a vehicle before discussing it. Wouldn't want to look like an ass

As for GT40 racing history

1966: 1-2-3 finishes at Lemans, Sebring, and Daytona. Ford won the three most significant races and the majority of races. I can see how someone might not think of that as domination....lol

Ford GT's won Lemans from 1966 to 1969. One Ford GT40 MkIV claimed wins at Lemans, Spa, Watkins Glen, and Brand's Hatch in 1968. That was just one car, and by the 1968 season the GT was supposedly "obsolete". Shouldn't I be complaining that the car was too old, and therefore racing against it was unfair?

6. Get over yourself; the Enzo would murder the GT in every way.......

:I totally agree. The Viper proves that fast cars can be lacking in many areas (like taste) all the time.

[syr74]

BTW for freakonaleash...nobody knows what the GT's top speed is yet. Any numbers are just estimates and Ford just says "think 200"

And Polygon, as for the Ford GT going racing. Well, it was just finished so let's wait and see wether Ford races it before we complain that they don't. lol

[freakonaleash1187]

about the top speed thing for the gt. even if the gt does reach 200, the enzo would still beat it with the 217 mark.

[syr74]

Once again freak, for all we know it will top 200mph. Like I said, these are all just estimates.

[Kurtdg19]

Syr74, don't bother trying to argue any car against a ferarri. It seems that everyone who is a fanatic of one, is also slightly ignorant to (just like those Z06 guys eh). Until I see a 360 Modena (or Stadale) finish with consitently better lap times against at Ford GT, then i'll say its the better track car.

And who cares if a company tore apart a car to see what its all about. Many car manufactures do this, not just ford.

Also, give the argument of a car being supercharged a rest. Hp is Hp, reguardless of how you get it. A Ferarri's engine may very well be one of the finestest tuned engines that are made, but I wouldn't say its the best. A GT3 3.6L boxster engine produces 380hp. Thats 2 less cylinders and 16 less valves than a modena with nearly the same result. With that in mind would you say porsche's engines are tuned better? Oh yeah, and on a side note: that GT3 also outlapped the mighty 360 stadale as did the GT.

Seriously having a prancing horse on your car will not improve the performance on your car. Its almost as worse as those people who think that putting a wing on the back of their cavalier adds 20hp.

To many people are living on cloud 9.