Ferrari vs ford

Hmmm.... I'll have to do some digging. Do you have any specs on the mod motors? Diagrams photos and such? I could be wrong. (It wouldn't be the first time)

 

I'm impressed. The Ford GT is available in England at list price? Something seems strange. Got pics?

Gary

 

Got to be 430 though GT40 looks stunning but 430 is incredibly beautiful from the modification of 360. Good looking modern Ferrari.

 

What exactly do you want to know? They've been built by the millions over the last decade (I think they celebrated the 8 millionth mod motor earlier this year, and it went into a Mustang), so they're gonna be widely documented all over the web. Gobs of info on Mustang sites, Ford truck sites, etc.

 

Ya' think that any companies will offer kits to transform 360-430?

 

I definitely wouldn't use the word "clownshoe" to describe the 430, or any Ferrari.

The gizmos are great to have. And the best thing is you can not use them (LC) or turn them off (TC) as you desire, that's the beauty of it.

 

Sorry, senna21. Didn't mean that as a direct response to your post, although it may have looked that way from the order of my post. Was just responding to earlier comments in this thread.

Not sure about Jag's AJ34 V8. I think that is a development separate from Ford's modular engines. FWIW, the GT has the same bore & stroke as the Navigator from which it is said to have been closest derived. That was an iron block engine, however. The GT's engine is said to be dimensionally more massive than other Ford modular V8's though, due to its revised coolant passages and extra material intended to strengthen the block.

 

f430 any day of the week. i'd take an f355 over the ford.

 

The Blue Oval boys have thrown down the gauntlet--will Ferrari counter with a retro-330/P4???? Well??? I'm thinking obsolete V-10 F-1 engine turboed to around 1200 HP and fully-streetable, if totally uninsurable!!! Yeah, right...

 

wow, a lot of misinformation on this thread.

First off about the Ford GT engine, the only thing similar between the Ford GT engine and the lightning engine is the similar displacement that's where the similarities end. The Ford GT has 32 valves while the Lightning has 16 valves, the Ford GT has an aluminum block the Lightning has iron, the Ford GT has dry-sump lubrication the Lightning doesn't, the GT has forged internals (crank, rods, pistons) while Lightning only has forged pistons, the superchargers on both of these vehicles differs too, the list goes on.

Second, the Ford GT is underrated (by alot). Dynos have measured its horsepower at 565+ rwhp. http://www.mustangweekly.com/2004/march/news/n03-6-3rd.asp

That translates to 565 * .15 = 84.75, 565 + 84.75 = 649.75 horsepower at the flywheel.

Now the GT has 5.4 Liters so 649.75/5.4 = 120.32 horsepower per liter, that is more than current Ferrari.

also lol at calling a 3 time LeMans champion a "muscle car."

 

565 RWHP? 649 FWHP? Why isn't this thing doing 220mph? I find that incredibly difficult to believe, especially reading it off a Mustang website.

That's something I'd have to witness in person on several different, thoroughly inspected Ford GTs in moderate weather conditions.

 

Definatly the F430. I would not even consider the Ford. In fact, I don't care how good it is (and let's face it, the F430 is a fantastic car no matter what specs the GT is carrying), it just annoys me. It annoys me that Ford is putting a sixties-car on the market, safely relying on it's racing heritage, not even trying to give the car it's own merits. No matter how fantastic the car is, it will always be a very expensive replica of something that once was. I'm just not buying it. People wanting to own a genuine GT40 should go to auctions. This Ford GT is nothing but proof that Ford is creatively dead broke.

 

so Ford is relying on its racing heritage and Ferrari isn't?? So when was the last time that the F360, F355, F348, F328, F308, F40, F50, F60 won LeMans? that's what I thought.

also if you don't like the looks of the Ford GT that's fine since that's your opinion, but to criticize Ford for its lack of creativity is laughable. The Ferrari F430 looks like a 360 on steroids, its design isn't ground-breaking new.

 

i agree that ford is using lots of retro designs, and its kind of disappointing not seeing fresh faces on these cars, however pretty they may be, we've already seen them.

However, this retro thing is a trend for all car companies, and brings forth an amount of nostalgia in the crowd from the original's era, making it a brilliant marketing ploy, and as always, Ford is a business looking to make profits and that is exactly what they're doing, regardless of the 141 or so people complaining in this thread, including myself.

The Ford GT is being produced in very limited numbers, and the available cars will most certainly be rapidly purchased regardless of asking price, by GT40 fanatics, or just plain speed freaks that like the idea. There are certainly enough of them to sponge up the minimal amount of these autos.

 

Ferrari never built factorycars from the 360, 355, 348, 308, 328, F50 and Enzo to race at LM. Only the F40 LM or F40 GTE springs to mind, even though I'm not quite sure those care were truly factory-entered.

Furthermore, I am not critizising Ford for relying on heritage, I am critizising the way they went about it. The GT is so painfully clear just and only just a re-enactment of something that once was. I couldn't bare Ferrari taking the 330 P4 / 330P3 style to make it into a roadgoing supercar. Why? Because it would be too friggin easy. This is 2005, not 1965. The Ford GT40 is an iconic racingcar...when we talk about racing in the sixties. That is done now. It is about forty years behind us. Leave the car alone.

I applaude Ferrari for always looking ahead. Sure, in a design point of view, Ferrari takes from the past, but only in the form of details and details that actually serve a purpose. Ford missed that boat by brushing up a forty year old design.

I didn't say I don't like the looks of the Ford GT (allthough I don't think it is a pretty car).

Well, again I point out that Ford made no effort whatsoever to take their current supercar to a new designlevel. In stead, the just went forty years back in history and went with that.

On that note, the F430 put on the market as the logical follow up of the 360. It is only natural that the car has some of the design characteristics of the car which it is going to replace. Surely you can see the difference in giving a '99 sportscar a facelift (allthough a very extensive one) and putting a supercar on the market which looks exactly the same as a car that was succesful forty years ago.

If Ford truly was going somewhere on the designfront, they would've put their balls on the line and design and built something completely new. Just as Ferrari did with the Enzo. Maybe it would turn out as an ugly car, but at least Ford would've been looking forward instead of backwards and I will never take any manufacturer serious that honestly believes their strengths lie in the past. That is just sad and pathetic, even more so when it is a supercar we're talking about.

But since you feel it is actually laughable to say the GT isn't very creative, then you must feel it is might creative to brush up a forty year old design. So, I'm curious, how is that so utterly creative?

 

Exactly. In today's world I see no honest passion for racing where Ford is concerned. In today's world it is about marketing and about money, and I suppose, it should be that way when you are a major manufacturer. If that means a racingheritage has to be violated with a car that is styled by marketeers, thinking Ford's racingpast is a definate seller, rather than by carloving designers, ready to take that next step to the future (once again, the Enzo is the perfect example of what I mean by this), than I'll happily understand that from a business point of view, but from a carloving point of view, it is just annoying as hell.

I have no respect whatsoever for the Ford GT.

 

I am not sure it is fair to assign the current Ford GT a race lineage of the Ford GT40. From my understanding there were only a few GT40's with 427 blocks, most were 289 's with weber carburetors that weighed in around the very low 2000 pound area and had honeycomb frames.
We now have a 4000 pound car with a blown 428 I think. It does look very much like a GT40, but not at all the same car.
The articles all say it is lightening fast and stable and I would buy ine tomorrow for msrp, but not for 250 or more. They can choke on them for that. I recently had a dealer offer one to me and said the bidding started at 225K.
I like what I read about the 430 also but am waiting for either a 430 stradale or a Ford GT at 150K. Which ever comes first.

 

The MKII's had 427's as of course did the MK-IV's which were the only ones to have honeycomb frames as well.
These cars were very heavy at 2300lbs compared to the P4 at 1850lbs.

 

Well Ive seen both and got to tell you I think the 430 (I passed one on the freeway last weekend) is beautiful as a matter of fact it is the first Ferrari in a while to get my heart thumping.

The gt is cool and an oddity but just like the new stang since they have nothing new that is cool it is a remake of something they have already done that was great. I walked by a new GT at PB and barely even slowed down, I passed a gt40 at Laguna Seca and stopped, gawkwed and took pics.

At least Ferrari is still pushing the envelope, and well it is no secret I worship everything Ferrari was, is and will be and well I know the 430 has the snout of a 156 and the humps of a 250LM but still...... Now if they would make a retro car out of this next pic..........

For the rest of you there is FordChat.com
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Hmm...it seems that tyhe Ford GT will have a higher value down the road, but I try not to look at cars like that. When it does eventually come down to MSRP, the GT is definitely the winner. It's sexy, and faster than the Ferrari by a longshot. Sure, its blown...but hey, thats just American.

...But I would rather have the Ferrari.

-Doug

 

The GT is far from based off the Jag V8, its a development like you said from the 5.4, in this case, the same block as the Ford Lightning I believe. In either case, its considered a variation of the engine used in the Ford Lightning and that is the extent of my Ford engine knowledge.

The Jag V8 is hardly based on the Duratec V6. It was in testing as early as mid-1987 before Ford bought out Jaguar and its entirely a Jaguar design built in a separate section in the Ford engine plants. XJ40 test mules were using the engine for several years and the money infused by Ford allowed accelerated development of the engine.

I actually thought this was a joint Ford-Jaguar designed engine up until several months ago and I was proven wrong. I though the V8 was more a Ford product designed by Jaguar and I was forced to tip my hat. I have gained a LOT MORE respect for the Jaguar V8 than I used to have given its early beginnings before Ford had little more than interest in Jaguar.

Its a compact refined alloy V8 and when combined with forced induction puts out a very respectable bhp/liter and level of refinement against the competition. The first three production years had nikasil issues in certain sulfur rich gasoline areas which was a problem corrected late '99, most early '00 models are safe with cast iron liners instead of nikasil when hotter plug changes failed to burn off the extra sulfur that when combined with moisture formed sulfuric acid after the ignition was turned off in the cylinders.

The biggest thing Ford did was bring money to the table, $300 million pounds (or dollars, I forget) to finish the X300 slam dunk to bring Jaguar closer to being competitive and crushing the competition in J.D. Powers ratings, minus Lexus and Infiniti, in reliability. To this day, the last inline sixes in '96 and '97 are more durable than any luxury sedan made from '90 to present day. The durability began anew with the mid '00 through '03 models. The jury is out on the new 4.2L unit because so much has changed, not just to the engine, but the rest of the power train, suspension, exterior, and interior changes.

*Edit* The Jaguar V12 is a continued redesign of the original 5.3L V12 unit that first debuted in the E-Type, continued on with High Efficiency heads and porting, and then the 6.0L engine produced in special order XJS's up to '95, the XJR-S (limited production model) and '95-'96 XJ12.

Once Ford had ownership of Aston Martin, they believed (correctly) it was wise to stop development of the V12 and have Jaguar focus on its V8 and V6 engine configurations while continuing the Aston Martin tradition of V8 and V12 engines. At one point, it was being considered to use the Jaguar V8 engine for the basis of the AMV8 engine as well as a new Rover engine but those plans were scrapped for reasons unknown to me. The V6 is definitely based on a Ford engine and block. The Aston Martin 3.2L inline engine with forced induction in the DB7 is based on the 3.2L Jaguar block, with obviously a lot of modifications to the heads, induction, ad nauseaum.

Cheers,
Sunny

P.S. I voted for the Ford GT based on looks, torque, and fun factor of the two. That ass end and body kit appearance of the 430 totally ruined the car for me, looking at is as important as driving for something in this particular price range!