| Author | Message | ||
| Paul Bianco (Paulie_b)
Member Username: Paulie_b Post Number: 391 Registered: 1-2003 |
bring it on. | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Intermediate Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 1822 Registered: 10-2002 |
L. Once again. This is not true. In addition if you put a Ferrari engine in one it would be slower. My MK-IV with it's honking 427 went 223 at LeMans. My P4 (which is 400 lbs lighter) couldn't reach 200. | ||
| Bill Sawyer (Wsawyer)
Member Username: Wsawyer Post Number: 867 Registered: 2-2002 |
Sounds like an Urban Legend to me, L. | ||
| L. (Testaroja)
New member Username: Testaroja Post Number: 23 Registered: 5-2003 |
Its known that some gt40's had ferrari motors in them, maybe they were gt40's prototypes I dont know, but I know that I saw this in a book. Im not saying that this all true but then again I know of 2 other guys that said this to me. Believe me I wish I could afford a real gt40, the new one is great but I wouldnt pay $150,000 for it, for that I would get a Lamborghini Gallardo or a F512M. | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Intermediate Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 1813 Registered: 10-2002 |
L. There weren't. | ||
| L. (Testaroja)
New member Username: Testaroja Post Number: 21 Registered: 5-2003 |
Why were there some gt40's with ferrari engines? | ||
| Vishal Soin (Vs1)
Junior Member Username: Vs1 Post Number: 103 Registered: 10-2002 |
Soul? Probably not in the same way Ferrari does. That aside - I still would love to get my hands on one of the new Ford GTs b/c even without soul - it'll be one helluva car. | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Intermediate Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 1778 Registered: 10-2002 |
L. The GT40 was based on the Lola GT designed by Eric Broadley. The GT40 was a monocoque tub. The Ferrari P4 is a simple tube chassis that Ferrari had used since 1949. | ||
| L. (Testaroja)
New member Username: Testaroja Post Number: 15 Registered: 5-2003 |
oh by the way Mark, we didnt do reverse engineering on the v1 or v2, do your homework. We brought home the "rocket scientist", his name was Wernher Von Braun 1972-1977 he was a trained mechanical engineer, he also since childhood had the vision of man in space. If it wasnt for our luck to get him in our shores the whole U.S.A. would have lost not only a man in the moon. Thank GOD he didnt end up in Russia... you should check his biography there is a lot more to learn. By the way when you are a helicopter pilot you learn a lot of little details like Igor Sykorsky or Juan De La Cierva the spanish man that invented the gyroplane, with this invention he came up with the flapping hinge, this hinge permits the rotor blades to flap and hereby equalize the lift between the advancing half and the retreating half of the rotor disc,and at last we have what we know as a modern helicopter, neat eh? I bet most people thinks that a helicopter is an american invention, poor DaVinci he was born to early, this is just to show that if its not helping each other then is competition that makes for better things in the future or perhaps sometimes is reverse engineering, •••• its all luck I think, but its only me thinking out loud in F chat... | ||
| L. (Testaroja)
New member Username: Testaroja Post Number: 14 Registered: 5-2003 |
I saw a program about the people that build the gt40 and they said that they didnt know how to build a car to build a car to win at LeMans, they said they got some ferraris and took them apart to build a better car, I dont remember the show that well but I do remember what I just told you. Now about the space race stuff or anything else you guys talked about has nothing to do with the topic. We all know that if it wasnt for germany loosing the war then we wouldnt have landed in the moon or have nasa today, thank god for those scientist that we brought home from europe. | ||
| KCCK (Kenneth)
Member Username: Kenneth Post Number: 410 Registered: 10-2002 |
Em, Ferrari does have a soul. Ferrari does have a glorious racing histroy through pure dedication. And Ferrari does have mystique. That's why it attracts most of us. But I agree with you, Mark. I see your point. Let the cars compete on terms of actual ability and quality. Let the makers be concerned about the present, and not live in the past. Stern competition is around everywhere. Ferrari must not get over-complacent. | ||
| Mark (Study)
Member Username: Study Post Number: 519 Registered: 10-2001 |
I STARTED THIS THREAD FOR ONE REASON AND NOW I REALIZE WHAT THAT REASON IS. I am in love with Ferrari. That is why I come here and that is why I like making friends with you guys. But I can't stand CHEER LEADERS...( oh I liked dating Cheer leaders in School ).. but I really don't like talking to Cheer leaders. I got very tierd of hearing the following *Only Ferrari has soul *If its not a Ferrari it has no racing history *Ferrari has mystique They are all true but if you use these to knock everything not Ferrari you are a Cheerleader. I want to raise the bar around here. I came here to have fun and maybe learn something. I want my GT40 vs. 360 thread to come up with fact s and ideas. I don't even like the FORD but I have to take its side to make the content a little more engineering and a little less air-head cute blonde cheer leader "Oh Ferrri is great!!" I KNOW! I just didn't want you guys to think I was picking on Ferrari. GT40 vs 360 should not be a contest about who is better. The GT40 will be better and then the new 360 (420) will come out and blow it away. Newest car is almost always better.. just like NSX in 91 over 348, then Ferrari beat it with 355&360. Stop worrying about who has the momentary momentum and try to enjoy the advancing technology. I like it best when you guys teach me something about cars. Instead of egos. | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Intermediate Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 1763 Registered: 10-2002 |
L. Your reverse engineering statement is flatly untrue. In 67 the MK-IV was so advanced that it beat the P4 by 135 miles. It had a honeycomb composit tub, a computer designed and simulated full race distance engine and gear box, (I have the original documents) and was so dominant that it caused Mr. Ferrari to drop out of endurance racing for several years. The P4 is lovely. It is elagant. It's not on the same planet technologicly with a MK-IV. As far as the new one goes you are right. Ford did buy and take apart a 360. If you reversed enginnered a P4 you'd wind up with a pile of tubes and an elagant engine. Best | ||
| Bill Sawyer (Wsawyer)
Member Username: Wsawyer Post Number: 864 Registered: 2-2002 |
Testaroja: You need to do your homework. What reverse engineering? Take a look at James' P4 and his Ford GT Mk IV and notice that the Mark IV is far more advanced than the Ferrari in chassis design, aerodynamics and componentry. The Ferraris were space frames and the Fords were monocoques. Exactly what did they copy? | ||
| Mark (Study)
Member Username: Study Post Number: 517 Registered: 10-2001 |
"took apart some ferraris and I think porches so they could use reverse engineering and try to "copy" and make a better car, how is that for pathetic If you want to call the American Space Program that landed a man on the moon "pathetic" go for it. We used reverse engineering on the WW II scientist and eningeers that made the V1 and V2 rockets for Germany. Engineering and science is the art of steady slow progress in imporoving things. I guess I don't get your point? | ||
| L. (Testaroja)
New member Username: Testaroja Post Number: 9 Registered: 5-2003 |
The gt 40 is for those who want it, Ferrari is and always will be far superior. The best ford the new gt40 has nothing to look for with Ferraris best road car, the Enzo Ferrari. Ford is aiming the 360 modena and they way that the media is talking is as to make most people believe that the 360 is ferraris best and that the gt40 is faster. By the way everyone should know that ford back when they wanted to win at LeMans took apart some ferraris and I think porches so they could use reverse engineering and try to "copy" and make a better car, how is that for pathetic | ||
| DGS (Dgs)
Junior Member Username: Dgs Post Number: 78 Registered: 5-2003 |
"... take notice of how twitchy the car is ..." They're _all_ rather twitchy. That's pretty much been the norm for F1 cars since I started following F1 in the '70s (When Benneton was still Alfa). (Us olde fogies even remember understeer slips around the turns.) A huge difference in modern F1 is the tire technology ... as the commentators keep saying during F1 coverage. But seeing it is different from being told. 20 years ago (when GY provided F1 tires), GY Eagle VRs were really good tires. By today's standards, though, they're garbage. Which is why I now have Bridgestones on both my Italian cars. (The OEM tires on my Celica were Bridgestone, but BR stopped making tires in that size (205/60R-14), as most cars today have gone for larger rims -- for styling purposes. Ricers have gone mainstream.  ) | ||
| Andy Falsetta (Tuttebenne)
Junior Member Username: Tuttebenne Post Number: 189 Registered: 3-2003 |
I agree, Benetton was the first team to use the high nose/hanging wing design. They also were the first with the "fighter jet" side pods. But keep watching and take notice of how twitchy the car is and how much effort Michael has to put into keeping it on the road. If the car was that good, his team mate would have finished well but he didn't. | ||
| DGS (Dgs)
Junior Member Username: Dgs Post Number: 77 Registered: 5-2003 |
"Ford didn't give Michael anything - he drove a lousy car (the Benetton) ..." Exmuse ski? The first thing I noticed from Speed Channel's "F1 Decade" replays of the '93 F1 season is that the Benneton was the only car running around with the front wing / nose that everybody uses now. If it was all that "lousy", why did everyone else copy it? | ||
| Mark (Study)
Member Username: Study Post Number: 516 Registered: 10-2001 |
I'm just watching the 1993 Brazilian F1 race on Speed. Michael Schumacher Just made 3 passes on the last lap to get third. Senna won! Hill came in second. Senna and Schumacher both had FORD engines. McClearin and Bennaton both used ford. Also as Ken just mentioned Loutus in 4th also had the FORD engine. Renault engine in second place car. It was cool to watch the crowd mob the track and when one guy got hit as Senna's cars slowed to stop. The fans mobbed the drivers. Race car just disapeared. Ferrari took 8th and 11th FORD has Soul! They also have 4 of the top 6 spots in this F1 race. Thanks Speed. I miss Mansel, Proost, Senna battles. These replays are great. | ||
| Andy Falsetta (Tuttebenne)
Junior Member Username: Tuttebenne Post Number: 184 Registered: 3-2003 |
Mark, you wrote: "Ford made the engine that gave Michael Schumacher his 1994 first world championship in Formula One " Ford didn't give Michael anything - he drove a lousy car (the Benetton) like no other driver at the time could have. The car was powered by an engine some might call a Ford - I call it a Cosworth. Thank God The Commmandatore didn't sell the company to Ford during the 60s. We'd have to listen to claims that Phil Hill was driving for Ford when he won the 1961 World Championship! | ||
| Ken (Allyn)
Intermediate Member Username: Allyn Post Number: 1002 Registered: 10-2001 |
My Lotus TC engine is a Ford block. I believe it's bored out a bit and of course has the aluminum Lotus head. But Ford just can't have the mystique of Ferrari no matter what their engineering sucesses. If you tell some one you have a Ford GT 40 (lay person) they'll say an even "That's nice. It's a sports car, right?" But tell them you have a Ferrari and I'm sure there's a much stronger emotional response regardless of if they're into cars or not. (I tell people I have a Lotus and they always ask who makes it. I think I'll start saying "Ford".) | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Intermediate Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 1739 Registered: 10-2002 |
IMHO anyone who drives a Cayanne Trubo will be very impressed. Off road is a real part of P's racing heritage. The Paris to Dakar 963 is a stunner and did finish 1st OA. Assuming my wife will lend me hers I be happy to race anyone in any F car Paris to Dakar... Remember the 288GTO was designed to race in group B. The 288GTO is cute but it ain't no 963. | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 604 Registered: 2-2003 |
The Cayenne... well, an article quoted a Porsche exec saying that it will keep them independant and help allow them to continue making sports cars. Thats a good thing, right?? Do you want Porsche owned by Kia (for example) because they didn't tap the market and do what was necessary to stay independant? Sticky subject. Better to tolerate an SUV or whatever they dream up now and then if it means more sports cars that are their bread and butter. Sunny | ||
| Jaime T. Ferraris are sex on wheels (Chevarri)
Junior Member Username: Chevarri Post Number: 111 Registered: 1-2003 |
"What's missing are the new start-up companies" I would most def have to agree with you, although the money to start a new car is not their. It co$t$ to much money to produce a car now with all the electronics, design, chassis, and a work force. I believe I read somewhere that it took 500,000 dollars to design a single mid size to compact car. Wooden chassis's and steel body panels wont fly anymor. I think companies who share tech only do it because of its more cost efficent to use something thats already done and ready to go. "The share market and companies living to ONLY make a profit is what is ������� the world now." IMO all companies that make something are in it for money, otherwise it would be free. My freind and I got into a huge argument over this with Porshce and the Cayenne. | ||
| Mark (Study)
Member Username: Study Post Number: 515 Registered: 10-2001 |
Andy & Leonardo When Ferrari does it, its golden When Ford does it, its junk You guys are great fans! Ford made the engine that gave Michael Schumacher his 1994 first world championship in Formula One "and it is clear that this was something extraordinary for me". | ||
| DGS (Dgs)
Junior Member Username: Dgs Post Number: 75 Registered: 5-2003 |
Lens, are you comparing Ferrari to Fiat?  There are passionate people working for Ford. I've "met" several on the (Celica) GT-Four maillist. The front office is another matter. Ford makes fairly nice family sedans -- but with mediocre power. | ||
| Leonardo Soccolich (Lens)
Member Username: Lens Post Number: 304 Registered: 3-2001 |
I can't understand how you can even compare the most soulless auto manufacturer in the world (IMHO) to one founded on and driven by passion. | ||
| Andy Falsetta (Tuttebenne)
Junior Member Username: Tuttebenne Post Number: 182 Registered: 3-2003 |
Yeah Yeah yeah. So Ford wants to beat Ferrari again. So does every other car manufacturer. Ford makes mediocre family cars and might beat Ferrari on an sporadic basis but they don't have what it takes to beat them consistently. They are just snipers. I don't consider nearly 40 year old victories relevant - they're ancient history. | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 525 Registered: 11-2002 |
Andrew,
Hmmm, Holden do not use a straight six anymore ... and yes do find it strange that they have built this absolutely enormous plant in Adelaide Australia for the development, manufacture of this new v6 (24 valves, twin cam thingy) when Australia is sooooooo far away from anywhere. Maybe they are just going to make engines for the Holden down here?, but that is not what the magazines are saying ... but magazines often are wrong, I guess. Time will tell, and yes Alfa Romeo died awhile ago  Pete | ||
| Andrew-Phillip Goalen (Andrewg)
New member Username: Andrewg Post Number: 45 Registered: 9-2002 |
Here in Great Britain GM through their Vauxhall subsidiary compete in the BTCC (touring car's) and rallying, they compete in the German touring car championships as Opel, both brands that aren�t readily available in the colonies!!!! Psk wrote that the GM v6 is going to be made in Australia, at the moment its made in Ellesmere Port near Chester, as are some of the Holden straight sixes, can't see it being moved to Aus when Saab Vauxhall Opel Alfa etc are based in Europe | ||
| DGS (Dgs)
Junior Member Username: Dgs Post Number: 69 Registered: 5-2003 |
"In the end the famous, proud Alfa Romeo badge will probably end up on some tarted up GM family car ..." In 2006, actually. Word has it that the new "Alfa" will be built on the GM "Epsilon" platform -- same as the new Saab. Remember that Fiat bought Alfa after Ford's buy-out fell through. (Word I get from my Ford contacts is that Alfa wanted them to use Italian steel and Ford didn't want to deal with the people running that industry.) Fiat pretty quickly killed off the Alfetta chassis (Alfetta/GTV-6/75) -- possibly the best road-going Alfas ever built. To a purist, no front-drive car is a "real" Alfa. Alfa/Fiat was one of the first with the "retro" marketing, tagging the "GTV6" name onto a front-drive commuter box to shore up sagging sales. But buy-outs aren't exactly new. GM was formed by buying up Chevy, Buick, Olds, etc. Chrysler bought up Plymouth and Dodge long before being sold to Daimler. What's missing are the new start-up companies -- the companies that produce cars for the niche market. With all the regulations, required tests, and liability insurance, entry to the new car market is a pretty steep jump. There are all sorts of start-ups in the UK falling by the wayside, I'm told. Back in the '50s and '60s, you could show up to a "world championship" race, and if your car could qualify, you could run. That was a quick way for a start-up company to get brand recognition. It worked for Ferrari. Today, the Concorde Agreement pretty well blocks that. Touring car racing has so many different venues that none of them get a manufacturer much publicity -- except LeMans. And the brand mixing has the average buyer expecting to find dealers in every town. Small start-ups have to align with an established company or build their own distribution network -- a pretty large investment for a small company. Alfa has been looking for a dealer network to ride on in the US since before the Fiat buy-out. The GM deal just shows that Fiat hasn't learned anything from the GM deal in the '70s that killed Fiat's brand presence in the 'States. (Ever see a Fiat worked on by Conan the Buick Mechanic? Some wrenches don't understand aluminum.) | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 523 Registered: 11-2002 |
Hmmm, one of the very sad things that is happening to the automotive world at the moment is the consuming of companies by bigger companies and the technology sharing. For example GM has a share in FIAT, which own Alfa Romeo, plus others ... In 2006 some Alfa Romeo's are going to use a v6 engine that GM designs. This engine is going to be built in Australia in Adelaide, and also going to be destined for the boring Holden Commodore family car. While Alfa Romeo have tried very hard to ensure all that they will heavily revise this engine it still will NEVER be an Alfa Romeo engine designed with the goals Alfa Romeo normally design engines to. Personally I will never own one of these Alfa Romeos, and while I am aware that the current 4 cylinder twin spark engine is a FIAT engine, atleast it has Italian heritage. In the end the famous, proud Alfa Romeo badge will probably end up on some tarted up GM family car ... like many English brands were soiled in the 70s. Jaguar are very close now to the same abuse of a proud brand. The X-Type Jaguar IS built on a Ford Mondeo's platform and from what I understand (though no proof) uses a Ford v6 engine. In the end I hope FIAT sorts their company out and kicks GM out, or GM sees sense and runs from FIAT and thus Alfa Romeo can die proudly, or stand on it's own 2 feet. Yes cars cost alot of money to develop, but we customers want the large selection or varied design ideas ... we do not want to be selecting cars like you select toasters. Thus hire some workers and slow down the production line and reduce expectations of exagerated profits for your share holders and get the automotive field back to making individual and interesting cars. The share market and companies living to ONLY make a profit is what is ••••••• the world now. Companies/businesses need to exist for far more important reasons like fostering communities through events/sponsorship/employment and thus proving support for people and the area/country NOT just to make some fat rich person richer who does not give a damn about anything but profits. Idealistic maybe but think about the quality of life we all have versus what we used have back in the 60's ... ie. working weekends now versus watching your daughter/son play their sport as my father used to watch me. Pete | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 601 Registered: 2-2003 |
Jaime, a modified Trans-Am engine V8 or the Rocketsports Racing mofified 3.0L V6 road going engines, they are still based on a Jaguar engineered engine. The former pushrod Ford V8's were used in Jaguars in Trans-Am, but does that make my own Jags which will never use that technology Fords? No.  Unlike Ferrari, Jaguar distanced themselves from their racing heritage when the E-Type went out of production, the XJ became the halo car, and the E-Type replacement was a GT that could barely keep in front of the sedans. Its the ROAD going cars providing the technology to the RACING cars, not the other way around. Fords my ass! Sunny | ||
| Bill Sawyer (Wsawyer)
Member Username: Wsawyer Post Number: 860 Registered: 2-2002 |
Jim Hall's Chaparral's were a pseudo-factory effort by Chevy. They won the BOAC 500 at Brands Hatch in 1967 and the 1000 km race at Nurburgring in 1966. They also ran at Sebring, Daytona, the Targa Florio and Le Mans during the same period. For more information read "Chevrolet=Racng" by VanValkenburg or "Chaparral" by Richard Falconer and Doug Nye | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 520 Registered: 11-2002 |
Please inform me of any racing GM participates in outside of the good old USA. Holden race against Ford in Australia, but in this series that changed the rules so nobody else can play ... thus in my opinion GM only races when there is hardly any opposition. I am aware that some Corvettes had a go at Le Mans and still are ... which is great, but I think that is it. Hopefully I am wrong about GM, but Ford have been racing all over the world almost continuously ... like Ferrari and Alfa Romeo, etc. Pete | ||
| Jaime T. Ferraris are sex on wheels (Chevarri)
Junior Member Username: Chevarri Post Number: 110 Registered: 1-2003 |
Hey Sunny I remember reading and seeing that Ford 4.6's were being used in some Jags last year. I remember seeing a Supercharged 4.6L in a Jag on Motor Week TV. I also remember reading that Jags would be using the 4.6l to race in one of my mags. I remember reading that because in the headline it had the Jaguar symbol streaked(like it was going fast), the car was entirely green(Jag racing green), and it was to be racing in the Trans-Am series, oh yeah it looked really neat. As with Range Rover, I was mistaken their. BMW owns RR, and I was thinking of Land Rover. Some of the new LR's use the 4.6, because the old LR engines were deemed "unreliable". I also saw this on Motor Week as well. | ||
| Frank Parker (Parkerfe)
Advanced Member Username: Parkerfe Post Number: 2506 Registered: 9-2001 |
Sunny, my Ferrari BB512i IS a Fiat and that's what I often call it. | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 600 Registered: 2-2003 |
Frank, no. For a spin on your example, just because Lucas electrics may be found in Ferrari's doesn't make them British. If you agree to call your Ferrari a Fiat, I'll agree to call a newer Jag a Ford, etc. It takes a lot more to define a car then just the powertrain. I don't think Ford isn't going after Ferrari again. I'll believe otherwise if they build something exotic from the ground up or after the Ford GT aimed at the same customer base. Sunny | ||
| Frank Parker (Parkerfe)
Advanced Member Username: Parkerfe Post Number: 2504 Registered: 9-2001 |
Since Ford owns Jaguar wouldn't all Jaguars therefore have Ford engines ? Isn't the fact that Dinos have Ferrari engines the reason why some insist on calling them Ferraris ? | ||
| Sunny Garofalo (Jaguarxj6)
Member Username: Jaguarxj6 Post Number: 599 Registered: 2-2003 |
Jaime, that info is incorrect. There are no 4.6L Jaguar engines. The AJ-V8 is a Jaguar engineered engine, built in a separate part of the engine plant, though it may utilize some Ford parts. It has 3.2L, 4.0L, and now 4.2L variants. It may possibly form the basis of a new Rover engine but its not confirmed, only talked about amongst the PAG execs in an effort to drop the BMW engine contract and associated costs. It is confirmed as the engine in the new Aston Martin AMV8. The AJ-V6 is also a Jaguar engineered engine in 2.5L and 3.0L variants for the X-Type and the 3.0L for the S-Type. The only non-Jaguar engine in a Jaguar is the Citreon/Ford 2.7L diesel unit going into the X-Type recently unveiled for production for the Euro market if not North America as well. Almost forgot.. there is also a 3.5L inline six for the Euro-only market and is a return to the traditional inline six engines (for the new alumnium XJ, or factory designation X350). Sunny | ||
| Jaime T. Ferraris are sex on wheels (Chevarri)
Junior Member Username: Chevarri Post Number: 109 Registered: 1-2003 |
Rich, If Im not mistaken the Chevy IRL cars were also "underpowered" compared to the other cars. | ||
| rich (Dino2400)
Member Username: Dino2400 Post Number: 261 Registered: 10-2001 |
Ford may "own" Cosworth but I don't think that's going to prevent there being Cosworth engines badged as Chevrolets in IRL racecars very soon. (BTW, chevrolet won all but two IRL races between 97-02). Me? My first car was a '67 Mustang 289, but these days I prefer that other four-letter company that starts with an F. | ||
| James Glickenhaus (Napolis)
Intermediate Member Username: Napolis Post Number: 1676 Registered: 10-2002 |
The MK-IV was built entirely in the USA by Ford. Not only did it win LeMans it came in 135 miles ahead of the nearest Ferrari. It went futher 36 years ago in 24 hours at a higher lap speed than the winning Bentley did last weekend. (The course was different not having chicanes on the Mulsanne) Today Ferrari doesn't have to worry so much about Ford. They really have to look out for VW... | ||
| Jaime T. Ferraris are sex on wheels (Chevarri)
Junior Member Username: Chevarri Post Number: 108 Registered: 1-2003 |
The companys Ford has had large stakes in have all got Ford engines in them. The Jags have the 4.6, the Range Rover have the 4.6. What does this tell you? That Ford wants their engines in marques of the auto world. Do you guys like the thought of a 4.6 in a Fcar? As with PSK, GM does have a racing history, most of it however consits of Chevrolet wins, but thats besides the point. | ||
| Mitchel DeFrancis (4re308)
Member Username: 4re308 Post Number: 925 Registered: 6-2001 |
I would certainly prefer Ford to have a large stake in Ferrari, than crappy GM!! | ||
| DGS (Dgs)
Junior Member Username: Dgs Post Number: 64 Registered: 5-2003 |
I'm still a tad miffed that Ford only sells their best cars in Europe. For the US market, they sell SUVs and other cattle cars. Do a search for "AWD Focus" on the Ford web site, and it crashes. ;^) The GT is a step in the right direction -- and maybe a lesson for Ford management: They dumped the GT-40 name for cheap, and now can't afford to get it back. But the lesson for the industry should be: The cars that become big ticket classics happen when design groups build cars for themselves instead of for some condescending view of "the market": The GT-40, 'Vette, etc., weren't built for the public -- but the public wants 'em. The "market analysts" came up with the "K-car". Did anyone at Chrysler want that car? Turns out the public didn't want it either. The industry has turned to "retro" machines, trying to recapture the days when their cars weren't anonymous cattle boxes, and motoring still evoked passion. Car industry: Send the self-appointed pronouncers of "public opinion" for a long walk on a short pier, and build the cars you'd like to drive. The motorheads pursuing a career in the auto industry are "the public", too. When the Ford plant has a bunch of Toyotas in the parking lot, the warning bells should be going off in the front office. Just my tuppance worth. | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 517 Registered: 11-2002 |
All good points Andrew, but I still give credit for Ford being so involved with motorsport and interesting cars ... Never seen GM do anything related to REAL motorracing like Ford have, but maybe I am not up to speed on that being a New Zealander and thus associate GM with crap brands like Holden and Vauxhall. We could get really, really picky and stuff the whole history of Ferrari and Alfa Romeo up and remind everybody that the greatest designer of them all Jano was poached from FIAT and that the Alfa Romeo P2 was basically a copy or continuation of the FIAT (805 I think) that he was working on and this lead to the P3 which is where Ferrari started ... (stretching it a little for fun ) Thus is it where the money and direction comes from or who actually designed it? I think it is the direction myself. As after all Enzo Ferrari did not design and build the cars he hired quality engineers to do that for him, just as Ford did. Pete | ||
| Andrew-Phillip Goalen (Andrewg)
New member Username: Andrewg Post Number: 42 Registered: 9-2002 |
Yes ford has been a big player, what with writing all those cheques to the specialist companies that actually built the cars and Engines, Oh and as for the GT40 (mk�s I II and III!) being an American car apart from the engine castings wasn�t it built in England and based on a Lola!, As I've said before the Ford Cosworth DFV V8 was a Cosworth V8 with a ford badge in the same way that the Petronas engine in a Sauber is a Petronas Ferrari engine, Ford only bought Cosworth engineering in the past couple of years and where have they been since! The cobra was built on an AC (English) chassis with bodywork that Tojero readily admits was copied from the Ferrari Vignale bodied 166mm, Ferrari said his favourite car is his next one, guess Fords is one designed and built by somebody else 40 years ago | ||
| PSk (Psk)
Member Username: Psk Post Number: 516 Registered: 11-2002 |
I think we should be careful here as we could end up proving that Ford is far superior to Ferrari on the race track, because even I can list many saloon car championships, rally championships, and the list would be a very long list indeed. But that does not mean they are better or worse. We need to look at Ford's and Ferrari's original purpose and continuing vision. Ford always (even though he obtained the money to start his company by winning a race) intended to make production cars for the masses. Ferrari used to make race cars and high end road cars with strong performance, etc. Now they do not make race cars, unless you include F1 cars but they still make high end performance cars. This is the same marketing imagine problem that Toyota suffered when they decided to make high end cars, and thus invented Lexus. But I for one do not think all Ford's are cheap sh!t, because I have read or followed alot of their history. Yes they produced mass produced sh!t, but cars like the following were great vehicles: GT40. Shelby Mustangs. Shelby Cobras ... er, Ford Cobras. Sierra Cosworth ... fantastic drive. Escort versions such as BDA, Lotus, Mexico, etc. Their relationship with Lotus, De Tomaso, AC, etc. That little pushrod 4 cylinder engine in the Ford Escorts is a fantastic little engine ... and the BDA is just awesome! The real problem is that usually the inside is very cheap and if they are aiming at the same buyer as a Ferrari guy they better make the trim of the new GT40 a far bit better than a Fiesta. Thus maybe they should brand these cars GT and leave off Ford and create a Ford equivalent of Lexus ... Pete | ||
| Paul Loussia (Bumboola)
Junior Member Username: Bumboola Post Number: 94 Registered: 3-2003 |
http://www.autoweek.com/butwait/2002/1104_butwait.pdf | ||
| Patrick Denonville (Arizonaguy)
Junior Member Username: Arizonaguy Post Number: 246 Registered: 4-2003 |
Any pictures? | ||
| Paul Loussia (Bumboola)
Junior Member Username: Bumboola Post Number: 93 Registered: 3-2003 |
I have seen Ford's 360 Modena at the local dealership several times. It is quite beaten up. It used to have a bumper sticker on it that read "I'd rather be driving a Ford GT-40," which the mechanic at the dealership changed to "I'd rather be driving an F-40." It has a new one now which says "I'd rather be driving a Ford GT." | ||
| Patrick Denonville (Arizonaguy)
Junior Member Username: Arizonaguy Post Number: 245 Registered: 4-2003 |
Not to mention that in 64' Bob Bondurant and Dan Gurney beat out Ferrari for top GT honors at LeMans. | ||
| Mark (Study)
Member Username: Study Post Number: 514 Registered: 10-2001 |
To say Ford has been a major player in auto racing for the last 100 years is a bit of an understatement. No Soul? Nothing less than Ferrari�s 360 Modena. Ford�s keenly competitive car guys are so intent on beating the Italian marque, as their peddecessors did four decades ago with the immortal GT40 at Le Mans, that they bought a 360 and ripped it apart, benchmarking it. They�re determined their new Ford GT will be a superior performer in every respect. Michael Schumacher: Obviously my most memorable racing experience with Ford was in 1994. I was driving with a Ford engine to my first world championship in Formula One, and it is clear that this was something extraordinary for me. If somebody would have told me I would become world champion when I was young, I would have burst out laughing. I remember I was standing there at the podium with totally mixed feelings, I could not really understand what had happened. It was just crazy. That year clearly is strongly linked to Ford. Mario Andretti: Well, I won the Indy 500 with Ford power, the Daytona 500 with Ford power, six championships with Ford power, Sebring with Ford power and Monza with Ford power, which for me was incredible satisfaction. I could go on and on. I don't really know where to stop. A.J. Foyt: My big moment had to be being the first American driver, with [Dan] Gurney, to win Le Mans with an American car and an American team [1967 in a Ford GT40]. That had to be the biggest, even though I won Daytona for them. Parnelli Jones: I've driven a lot of Fords. Won Pikes Peak in a Mercury. Won the Baja 1000 twice in Fords, my cars won Indy with a Ford. In Trans-Am I won the championship for them in 1970 Bobby Rahal: For me as a fan, Ford's memorable moment in racing history. I certainly won a lot of races with Cosworths, and if it hadn't been for Ford there would probably be no Cosworth. Jackie Stewart: I suppose winning my first world championship with Ford, in 1969, would be the highlight. But there are so many. Of my 27 wins [in 99 starts], 25 were with Ford power and all three of my titles, 1969, '71 and '73, were with Ford and I finished second in '72. So I was very much part of the Cosworth DFV's domination as the winningest F1 engine. Today I am a consultant to Ford, doing things such as training vehicle dynamic engineers who are developing future product. So I've gone from sport to the production-car side, which is, I think, a unique relationship in the automobile business. It's a relationship I cherish. |