Wow, the GT and CS are great looking cars - I would take either one in a heartbeat. Good to see Ford making such a great car! I love em!
Sunny, I don't understand what you're trying to say here. The GT3 is NA. Greg A why does my post appear before Sunny's?
Interesting numbers, and a little hard to believe. Road and Track figures are 0 - 60 in 3.8, 0 - 100 in 8.8, 1/4 in 12.2 @ 121.6. Still very fast but WAY slower than C&D, and more in line with what I expected of a 500hp 3400lb car. I wonder if C&D figures will be repeatable with a production version. Am I the only one who isn't blown away by the looks? That's even my era, but I've never liked retro, personally, and I much prefer the looks of the 360. Even if I could by the Ford GT at list (I'm sure that's not possible) I wouldn't change my pending 360 order. Gary
First let me say I like the Ford GT a lot, and I hope build-quality is relatively good. I hope to get one. That said, the quoted 0-60 time of 3.3 sec is not possible in the production car. The car is too heavy and the power is not there. I don't believe it will accelerate in Mclaren F1/Enzo territory. It may get well into the mid-high 3's though.
The way the clutch was dropped at 5mph. LOL! 200lbs heaver with better power to weight. The torque curve of the Ford GT is much more controllable, available through the range at 3250-3500 rpm with the s/c. vs. The GT3's peak at 7,300rpm, 91% of red line with the turbo. Its not just more power. It has better braking and better handling than the 360CS. There might be some brake balance issues and I don't know about the Ford GT weight distribution. One thing that is for sure. If the suspension is as dialed in as these road tests indicate, so what it doesn't pull more than 1.00G on the skidpad. The 360CS was being progressively left behind at each turn in tests with the prototype. You don't think the chassis was tweaked more since the prototype races? Admit it. The GT3 will have to be over driven to hang with the Ford GT. Unless the drivers are unequal, the Ford GT is the car to beat. I'll bet the farm on that. Its estimated 3.7-3.8secs. Its not the 0-60 or 0-100mph times that are impressive. Its the 0-150mph that is impressive, the F1 and Enzo do this in 12.8 and 13.1 and the Enzo can haul to a stop from 70mph in 151ft for comparison. Its Ford's equivilent to the Murcielago in performance for the working class. An ungentlemanly blown truck engine servicable at Ford rates with proven reliability. Sunny
Sometimes, Sunny, what makes a car go quicker round and round, isn't more power, but more balance. Edit: Never did I mean to imply that I spoke with actuall athority on the topic (as I"ve driven neither car back to back and compared lap times), rather I was simply pointing out the possibility. Also, if you stop to think, you'll realize what the effect of having a light car, capable of going around a corner under greater load actually translates to in the real world... Finally, my comments had no malice behind them re: the GT40, as it's plain, black on white, the better performer v. the other two contenders.
It is perplexing that the CS is lighter and has bigger brake than the GT3 and yet its 70-0 result is not as good. Aslo, the lateral G # claimed by Ferrari is, I recall, is above 1. Anyone, I hope more magazines will do similar tests.
Believe me, I know! There is nothing I'd want more than an NSX-R in my driveway. I need a new daily driver I can drive 80-100mph 25,000 miles per year (sometimes more miles, sometimes faster), withstand some track abuse, canyon race weekly, and take me across state and back in a weekend without failure. The top of the list is a Zanardi w/h Comptech go fast goodies or a Monaco Blue Pearl NSX ('97-'99) with modified suspension and Comptech goodies. Also on the list are a modified XJR, an Esprit, or an Elise. I know which you'd pick. If anything, the Elise, Exige, and the NSX's prove the downside to not providing the right blend. The way the Ford GT was designed. The Enzo is to Ferrari as the Ford GT is to Ford. Their best efforts are in this car. The Ford GT was built to be $150k worth of car, a claim that only Porsche have been able to make with the performance, reliability, style, heritage, ad nauseam that is their bread and butter. Ford said they had the 360 in their sights, but what they really meant was, they are going to try to stop at nothing to out perform everyone at a better price to put Ford back on the map because they can. Just like they did with Le Mans. Porsche should be quaking in their boots. Time will tell though! Its going to be an exciting year for sure. Sunny
They tied in braking. The Porsche had carbon ceramic brakes also. The Stradale would have won the test if it had the stripe. It is worth 50 horsepower and 3 seconds a lap at Gingerman... On a serious note, I will be shocked if a production GT can pull 128mph in the quarter mile. I drove a prototype ZR-1 Corvette in '89 and it was shockingly fast. The production car was nowhere near as quick. Overdriven supercharger, anyone?
Just goes to show how impressive of a supercar one can build with the amazing resources that Ford has. As to balance, let's not get started on ANY 911's. The fact that the engine is BEHIND the rear axle should blow any balance out of the water. As the Porsche rep told me "It's a horrible design executed brilliantly." Why does Porsche still use that setup? And why are the MacPherson struts up front and to wishbones in the back? Stubborness, plain and simple. Were Porsche able to drop the retarded engineering, it would create a car that would blow the doors of just about everything. A la: Carrera GT. Engine mid mounted, double wishbones all around, and something BIGGER THAN A WEAK-SUCK 6 CYL. Is the 911 an amazing car? Hell yes, but each penny spent on R&D by Porshce on the 911 is spent to overcome BAD ENGINEERING. Plain and simple. The Carrera is an example of what kind of car P could produce if it opted to use more advanced engineering. The Ford GT is an amazing car. Period. It'll beat the 360CS. Period. It encroaches on Enzo performance territory. Period. It *should* force Ferrari to build something that'll beat the pants off it AND be reliable, but I doubt it will antime soon.
I don't believe so. They haven't made a prototype with a fully tuned engine, rather then over driving an engine to spin speed records. The rest of the car's performance doesn't match up for them to pull a cheap stunt such as this. They did state they already detuned the engine for reliability and can produce in excess of 650bhp. The engines in the mules were not the 5.7L but less than that and still performed admirably. This car is a serious as a heart attack. Sunny
Napolis, Please show me how to get a new ford GT. You can post the info here or call me at 559-675-5540 at my office. I called ford and they had no information on delivery date or how one goes about buying one of these cars. Todd
So can the Ford GT, a lot easier I might add due to cubic inches. Can you stroke a flat-6? You can dial in boost but so can the Ford GT. Power is nothing without balance, as Hubert implied earlier and the crux of this issue. Balance that was built into the Ford GT. How much? We'll see. The GT3 is already coming into a power and braking disadvantage, if the 360CS is out cornered, without a doubt, the balance is there to take on the GT3. What if they sell them and keep selling them and there becomes a profit margin in the Ford GT. They plan a faster or improved version, but seeing is believing. If the price remains the same, where does that leave other, smaller manufacturers, who might have money and niche market issues? Its a game that in the end, if Ford wants to win on the track and on the road, it will. What better way to celebrate the marque then make a return to racing and performance. The Ford GT could be a one off or it could be the first step. Bean counters love profits and we love fast cars. Its a win for us, for Ford, and bad for just about everyone else! Todd, the dealerships are involved in a lottery. You might have a big one get none and a smaller one end up with two. A big dealership here locally already said if they get one, he's buying it.
Until the car is on the floor (or computer) for sale, it doesn't exist. It is a prototype at this juncture, pure and simple.
So is the C6 corvette, then? The Ford GT is car is coming to market, even if they did auction off a prototype, rather than the first, for half a million. Sunny
Re-test the car against a 911 with another 100 hp and let's revisit. That's really it...all other things aside.
Re-test the car against a 911 with another 100 hp and let's revisit. That's really it...all other things aside.
If that's true, and I hope it is, then the car will be way beyond its predicted capability. The difference between 3.8 and 3.3 sec is huge from an engineering perspective.
The reason a car is quicker from 0-60 than it is from 5-60 is because the cars are forced to accelerate from idle without the aid of a clutch slip or high-rev, tire-spinning power. The 5-60 test is a good test of usable power and not just a test of who has the most traction. The car(s) are already rolling in first gear and the loud pedal is pushed to the floor. Vehicles like the Viper, with more torque at idle than a 360 has at peak, do especially well in this test. Bill
Porsche has tried several time to locate the engine at other points in the car. Porsche-philes refused to buy them, so Porsche decided to sell the customer what they wanted! As to latteral grip/Gs. On the skidpan, many cars are not capable of putting down the latteral acceleration possible when full power is applied (like comming out of turns). So, instrumented cars driving around racing tracks often have 1.2-1.3Gs register on the instruments whil the same car with the same instrumentation on a skidpan may be down in the 0.95-1.0 range. Ferraris, in general, have better traction and grip under big (linear+latteral) acceleration than under constant latteral acceleration.
