Yes.....and Henry II damn near broke the company in the process. You don't think Shelby and Company purposely didn't cash in on a fat cow?
I've heard variations of that rumor too..hope it's true. Ford/Chevy battle in GTLM is going to be epic in the next few years.
Isn't Jeff slated to do color commentary on the FOX NASCAR broadcasts? This will bring a breath of fresh air to the booth, at least he's got credibility. However, if he goes sports car racing, it would be major! Let's not hold our breath though. BHW
We gotta figure now that there is some oversight and accountability at Ford. You're right II nearly bankrupted FMC attempting to win Le Mans. There evidently was little to no oversight and the racing division was accountable to no one. These days though, the bean counters occupy those towers and the way they go about the business of racing has changed completely. BHW
They still spend way to much in relation to market value. NASCAR being a prime example. Sales/Expense ratio does not produce like normal marketing practices. MSM seems to still be best. Hence the reason why the cost of racing has gotten out of hand. But it does make a nice tax deduction. Why give it to the government when you can charge it off to R&D and marketing.
So, what you are telling is that Ford, which didn't manage to buy Ferrari outright, nearly bankrupt itself try to defeat it on the track? That seems a bit far-fetched to me. How a giant US multi national could ruin itself beating a small Italian artisan. I find it hard to believe...
William, it's true. There is an entire book abouth the Le Mans wars; actually two. One is called The Ford Ferrari Wars, & one I can't recall the name of. (Excuse the grammar!) The great ironies of it all are that Ferrari hasn't won since those wars and that Ford GT 40s won as many races (2) AFTER the factory pulled out as the mighty factory effort did itself. Those last two wins (1968 & 69) were with the legendary John Wyer Gulf sponsored team and were won by the same car (#1075). And, contrary to what many believe, when Wyer & Gulf started running the Porsche 917s they never won Le Mans ... unless you count the McQueen movie!
I read that book, and saw the video as well. But I have never heard that FORD went close to bankruptcy trying to beat Ferrari at Le Mans. I have problem understanding how a multi-national carmaker like FORD (world number 2 at the time behind GM) was anywhere near financial meltdown because of its effort. I was lucky to see the entire FORD effort at Le Mans, which I used to attend every year in the 60s and 70s. The Le Mans campaign was part of the Performance programme FORD launched in the 60s, with an attack on rallying, stock-car, saloon cars, GT and sport car racing as well as F3, F2, Indy and later F1. FORD had considerably more budget than Ferrari at Le Mans; that I saw. There was no expense spared in the FORD camp which even flew by private jets food and chefs from the USA so that the drivers would feel at home. FORD had 5 times more staff and equipment than the Scuderia: they could rebuild a car overnight and had tons of spares to do it: the typical American organisation, with no expense spared. FORD invested hugely in this programme, supporting various teams like Lotus, Lola, Alan Mann, Willment, Kar Kraft, Shelby, FAV, Ford France, etc...just after the launch of the Cobra, the Falcon, the Mustang, the Galaxy, the GT40, the Lotus Cortina, etc... Well, I have never heard, or read that FORD was close to bankruptcy because of its Le Mans effort in 63, 64, 65 and 66. FORD's profile improved immensely and sales shoot up immediatly, although it never overtook GM, which itself was forced to enter some competition to boost its stale image. After 2 failed attempts, FORD won Le Mans 4 times in succession (twice with the Shelby factory-sponsored team, and twice with the JWAE private team) and got massive return for its investment.
Not at all sure about the bankruptcy part of it but don't forget that Ford had already spent a few million on the failed acquisition of Ferrari. You also can't forget the development cost of the new motor and the total number of cars they brought to the party.
Ford's LeMan's involvement had little to do with increase in US sales. A car based off of a 7 year old platform and a neat marketing package is what turned Ford around. With it a Texas chicken farmer cashed in again by producing a version of said vehicle that the sporty car set liked. It then got stupid after that. Ford's "Total Performance" program is what helped push sales forward. Drag racing, SCCA, NASCAR and other forms of racing did more for the bottom line than the LeMans program. Particularly when one shoe horns a 600 pound lump into the engine bay that was designed for a 200 cubic inch six cylinder. After that, everyone came to the party. And the estimated 150 million Henry II spent to win LeMans.......was a low estimate. Those who knew said went a LOT higher.
Having found out about what Ford was up to with the GT40 projects a few years ago when dealing with (what I was being told) was an original GT40 that was for sale, it sounds as though it was a gawd awful mess from a business stand point. As noted, Ford threw tons of money at the program which no doubt Shelby was eager to take to the bank. There seemed to be very little in the way of any sort of accountability. Not much in the way of records on the cars themselves, nothing in terms of money spent. And, when it came down to the car I was dealing with (which I was being told participated at Le Mans, leading for a time before breaking), it turned out that the original car had been literally (get this) cut in half after the metal in the tube frame was discovered to be fatuiged to the point of being dangerous. Once the metal fatigue issue was discovered, they just cut the car in half, keeping the cockpit section and welding on a new rear section which utilized stronger (heavier) metal and the car was then used as a test mule from then on. This sort of stuff was common evidently at the time as it certainly seems impossible to even imagine happening these days. Try to dig a little further, contact these GT40 "historians" and find out they'll write anything as long as they're being paid by said current owners. Ask Ford Motor Company about the histories of any of the GT40s and you're told that all of the records were "lost" when the project folded. Ask a historian at Shelby, they run for the hills. It certainly seemed to be a crazy way to go racing in those days but the obesssion with winning Le Mans and upstaging Ferrari seemed to be more important than any real business sense. BHW
Really? That comes as a surprise to me. For Negotiations to Buy Ferrari Ford Buy Ferrari Ford sent over Donald Frey, Ford Division's general manager, with a team that included an assets determination specialist, a manufacturing expert and two lawyers to begin the official negotiations. Ferrari placed a figure of $16 million on what Ford would purchase, and at the time negotiations ended, the Ford group had arrived at a figure of $10 million. The talks ended abruptly on Saturday morning after ten days of negotiations. I fail to see how 10 days wage for 3 FORD executives and 2 lawyers (even with their inflated fees) plus their expenses, could amount to "a few millions". $ 1 million was a lot of money back in 1963 . For example, FORD valued Ferrari at $10 million. So, where this story that "Ford had already spent a few million on the failed acquisition of Ferrari." comes from ?
Sending people to inventory Ferrari costs $$$.Things didn't move as fast then as they do today. Send a couple dozen people worldwide to determine the value of a motor company along with accountants, bookeepers, inventory counters, etc and the bills mount up very quickly.
But that's not what happened; didn't you read? There were not "a couple dozen people". The FORD delegation to Maranello comprised 5 people, and they stayed for 10 days. Also, back in 1963, Ferrari was a very small firm producing 400 cars a year at most, with all its facilities and production in one place, so not much to inventory there. The balance sheet, which is mostly what a potential buyer would like to see, must have been easy to peruse for what was a tiny business, by FORD standards. Really, I don't know where that story that FORD had spend several $ million trying to buy Ferrari comes from. Like for all myths, the origins are mysterious ...
Let's ask Dan Gurney! He is the most inner-circle person that's still alive, other than FoMoCo people themselves, and obviously they aren't/can't talking. Dan, "where you at" as we say here in Louisiana?
I can well believe that FORD spent several $ million trying to defeat Ferrari, but not trying to buy it. It probably spent more than the $ 10 million it proposed to Ferrari back in 1963. Just building Ford Advanced Vehicles at Slough in 1964, and recruiting many designers, engineers and technicians must have cost a bomb; most of them were "poached" from Lola, Lotus, Aston Martin and even Porsche. Ford also supported several private teams. So yes, it was a colossal budget for that time, far in excess of what Ferrari was spending. After 2 Le mans failures, the competition arm was repatriated to the US where Shelby had promised to do better than the "limeys". The 1966 Le Mans FORD effort was truly remarkable. It broke Ferrari's back in endurance. Nowadays, a top endurance team fields 3 cars like Porsche or AUDI; FORD entered 6 prototypes and 5 GT40 in 66 and 67! Something never seen before ...
With all due respect....what you read isn't always the truth. My boss at Ford had a different story to tell and as stated earlier...he was right in the middle of the Lemans program and later the CanAm. Considering the people he knew and those I was introduced to, I will take his word for it over an authors book where the story is distorted to suit the needs of the author and the company involved. Both parties want to look good. Nobody wants a bad light shined upon them when money matters.
My favorite part of the story was and remains that after the GT 40s kicked butt 4 years in a row, Ferrari never won again. It's been since what, 1965? That does it,; here comes a new thread!!!
For the sake of accuracy, I will say that - a FORD MKII, derived from the GT40, won on 1966 with a 7L engine. The MKII was built by Kar Kraft in the States. - a FORD MKIV won in 1967 with a 7L engine too. It had nothing in common with the GT40, but was derived of the J-car with a honeycomb chassis which was to be the next generation of cars. The MKIV was built at Shelby in the States under Phil Remington's supervision. - the same FORD GT40 won in 1968 and 1969 with a 5L engine with Gurney heads. It was based on the original GT design from 1964, with steel chassis designed by Ford Advanced Vehicles, built and raced by John Wyer Automotive Engineering in England.
