Philosophical question--the big picture, re Ford vs. Ferrari

I don´t think it works that way. In F1 Ferrari has -for example- recently been beaten by the likes of Renault, but that doesn´t take anything away from Ferrari´s status as a manufacturer.

 

2013? That hasn't even started yet. How a car from the future can do anything to change your perception of the past is beyond me. And it seems you think that top speed gives definition to how well a car performs. That is by no means the case.

Ferrari became a legend because they won everything on their own merit, with their own designs. He started as the little guy too, you know. In the late '50ies and early '60ies, they won LeMans 6 times in a row, they won the F1 championship 6 times, and all this was done in their own cars, with their own chassis, with their own engines (except for the D50 which had a Lancia chassis). Added to that they catered for the rich and famous building them bespoke road cars with racing-derived engines. And for the 'series-produced' cars, like an SWB, you could take your wife to the opera in it on Saturday and race competitively on Sunday.

What Shelby did, or even will do, cannot be compared. Neither can you paint Ford with the same brush. Sure, they did great work at the track (based on other people's cars BTW, certainly initially) but they never transplanted that into succesful newly designed road cars. Since 1970, how many times has a performance car magazine been trying to get the new Ford or the new Shelby on the cover of their magazine, trying to out-scoop the competition?


Onno

 

Read "Go like hell" or wait for the film to be ready.

This was not just Ferrari against Ford but a battle between the old world and the new world, a war of continents, unlimited resources against craftsmanship.

 

Ford Ferrari Wars Video


http://fliiby.com/file/569026/rl9mwcwim3.html

 

I didn't read the book but bought the DVD. In that Shelby is painted as the little guy going after the giant Ferrari. That bugged me because even though Ferrari had huge successes on the track his means were quite limited.
Maybe without the backing of Ford the picture is true but that was not the case. At least I can't imagine Ford not playing a major part in the success of Shelby/Cobra.

 

With the Ford GT's and MK-IV's Ford did. With the Cobra and Cobra Daytona Coupe much less and as Shelby said:

"Ferrari's ass is mine."

 

When Ford went to Le Mans, they brought the same problem to sportscar racing that Ferrari had been facing in Formula 1 since 1959: the model of 'garagiste' teams marrying lightweight chassis designs to engines from outside suppliers -- and then aggravating Ferrari's woes by giving the effort a space race budget. Ford started with a Lola Mk6, stuffed a lump of Detroit iron in the back, and went from there. Through all its iterations, the GT40/MkII series just developed this theme. The aborted J-Car and winning MkIV did depart from this approach with more sophisticated technology generated in-house, but represented only a year and a half of a program which ran for five years.

Leo Levine's book, 'Ford: The Dust and the Glory', presents the whole story in fantastic depth and with great insights into the personalities involved.

 

Going back to Wally's original premise that comes from Mike Schoen's book the question does raise some interesting ideas. For those not familiar with the book it is about the GT racing side of the efforts - Cobra versus the GTOs. It does also look at the other GT cars that attempted to compete but none of them ever became significant competitors. The 250 LM is discussed somewhat because it was intended to become Ferrari's competitor in GT.

I would speculate that:

1. Enzo did not like that this relatively unsophisticated Cobra based around an older design AC Ace was trying to challenge him. Sophistication versus brute force.

2. Carrol Shelby was vocal about his specific quest to beat Ferrari; he was making it personal. In part you can see a difference of style of a Texas chicken farmer in bib overalls versus the always properly attired man with all the connections to the most important people in Europe. Old World - crass New World.

3. Enzo hated to lose.

4. One can question how much the idea that a (in US market prices) $6,000 Cobra could soundly defeat $10,000+ Ferrari would hurt the desirability of his creations. One must think it reasonable to think that the GTOs sales made money for him. If they were no longer winners and the other near racers (SWBs, Californias and later the 275GTBs) that "mere mortals" were able to buy could no longer could considered competitive or close enough in DNA would this be a problem for Ferrari production? He needed to sell cars to fund his activities.

5. If Ferraris weren't winning or nearly winning would Enzo have the ability to negotiate for maximum appearance money for the races?

6. With the Cobra Shelby was able to use Ford's supply of money and resources. Shelby was going to be able to replace decades of knowledge with cubic dollars that were able to by expertise and the best drivers. Ferrari was having to fight someone that had fundementally altered his traditional playing field.

7. One of the points of discussion on the sale to Ford had been what to do with Carrol Shelby and the Cobra.

Jeff

 

I view the Cobras and GT-40s as completely different propositions and what they may have meant to Enzo and the general car world.

Cobras had started before the take over talks of Ferrari by Ford. The Cobra is a reconstituted AC Ace with a small block motor (first choice for the engine was not Ford anyway). In some ways one could look at the Cobra as a later day Allard. It did certainly work the concept of the European sports car with a Detroit motor that gave cheap horsepower. A fairly unsophisticated approach and, as described in Schoen's book, it took a lot of develoment work to make this into a competitive car.

I do not find the idea of ultimate top speed or a 1/4 mile time a real consideration. It is at best interesting but far more important is overall balance. This is why all the discussions with the FIA team drivers for the Cobra preferred the 289s to any of the 427s.

What the contemporary Ferrari GTclass racers represented was a fundamentally different approach to a solution. Many of the significant European races (and Sebring) were based upon endurance. In the case of the Tour de France it was endurance combined with the ability to continue performing with damage too. This type of racing, versus short sprints, will value durability of components. Ferrari was using sophisticated 3 liter motors that could withstand lots of abuse. The basic build of the cars was based upon nearly a decade of development from the rigors of racing on the LWB, SWB and finally the GTO series.

I guess Wally's question could be boiled down to if the Cobras which used a 4.7 liter cast iron lump of a motor could go whip the sophisticated SWBs and GTOs would that have taken the luster of desireability off the production GT Ferraris?

Jeff

 

After Ford built the GT40 it was the standard that most race cars used to win. Ford even marketed the Pantera a car that was very similar but made for street and track, but after a few years they dropped it. Now the GT and history repeats it's self again, maybe it's just not in Ford's DNA to have a long term exotic sports car. I think your Burger King analogy may be spot on.

If were luck maybe somebody at Fiat will piss Ford off and we get another shot at it

 

People who want a rare exotic car don't want a Ford. Also they perhaps care less about maintenance costs since they'll probably sell the car when the warranty is up. I heard Ford stopped making the GT because they got a special exemption to certain safety laws for less then a 5000 car production. Also Ford dosent need to do something they aren't good at to make money. Hell they got rid of Volvo and Land Rover too.

 

Wally, what you are fundamentally describing is the difference of a halo car versus a commitment to the long term. Of course Ford has a long history of loosing interest quickly. At least GM has continued with the Corvette and kept true to the concept of being a 2 seater sports car. Yes, it has mutated to be more and less sporting according to the the various time. Ford on the other hand created the original Thunderbird and kept mutating into somehting that had no relationship, beyond the name, to the original. Ford seems to hate continuing development after they introduce a model.

Halo for Ford seems to always mean a short duration and then they are quite willing to walk away afterwards. They won LeMans and then promtly quit endurance racing. Pantera, could have been intersting (did get GM's serious concern until Ford lost interest). Ford GT, a great start but again showed a lack of commitment to the long term. I guess Ford must be happy with magazine covers and shilling "the first whatever" on the Barrett Jackson podium for a short lived halo then moving on to making cars for the rental car fleets. Why they havbve no attention span would be a good question for some of the current and former execs that might be willing to be honest.

Jeff

 

Ford did not build the GT40, Lola (UK) did. Ford funded the project and supplied the engines.

Sorry, I'm a Lola bigot as well as a Ferraristi.

 

Both companies are in business to make money, they just go about positioning their brands differently.

Performance is quickly becoming ubiquitous as automotive technology evolves, but brand names appear to be as strong as ever.

The key to future success is whoring out your brand name to perfume makers and lifestyle manufacturers, LOL!

 

One of the things I find fascinating about cars is how the essence of the builder, and in many ways the culture, permeates this inert, mechanical thing. How is that?

I have a fair bit of experience with Porsche and Audi, and both are so very German. Meticulously engineered, logical, capable, functional, and just a bit cold. You can always sense the form following function. And as a daily driver I absolutely love what they do and how they do it.

I had a Peugeot growing up. It still feels French to me! It was pretty with some fun and some comfort and it seemed to say "enjoy life!" With some of the mechanicals and controls you could almost here the engineer saying "why are you worried? Have some of this delicious cheese! Look at that beautiful girl!"

American sports cars - Mustangs and Corvettes - have always been about performance for the dollar. And that's the way they feel, that's the way they look, that's the way they drive. And I don't there is anything wrong with it, it just is. It's almost as if being faster for less money is the whole point. In the current economy, there is even more to appreciate in that philosophy than ever.

In my opinion, Ferrari of the past and also of today, considers very carefully the emotion of the car. I think there is evidence that Mr. Ferrari did this with his race cars as well; I think you can see that he wanted to win but also with a certain flair that Ford/Shelby did not really care about. I know that there is some intangible essence to the cars that is tough to put a finger on but is clearly there. I get this picture of a German engineer saying "but if you do it like this, it will be more difficult to perform this service at the 1 year mark" and his Italian colleagues just staring at him like they don't really understand the words that are coming out of his mouth.

 

Same difference, Ford paid for the engineering. Notice when it raced it was a "Ford GT40"

 

At the time Ford owned Lola.

Ford made the MK-IV's in the US.

 

Jim,

What is the number of your GT40?

I have read "Go Like Hell" and am now reading "Racing in the Rain" by John Horsman. The entire story is just amazing. Hard to imagine we would ever see anything like that again.

Thanks, Gerry

 

My MK-IV is chassis J6. Fourth OA at Le Mans in 67 Donohue/McLaren.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Very cool. Thanks