Stradale vs. 911GT3 vs. Ford GT at Gingerman: Chart

With 1,300-1,400lbs with driver, I would hope they would be faster than the Ford GT.

The Ford GT is a 3,400lb car without driver, with A/C, power windows, comfortable seats, lots of extra equipment and suspension to deal with STREET hazards. It happens to have some agility on the track. Ever drive a Formula Mazda or a Formula Ford on the street? haha! You can't.

No offense intended. But, so what if the Formula Mazda's or Formula Fords are 10-12 or 5-8 seconds faster on the track.. The Ford GT is at least a day faster from Los Angeles to Miami. There won't be any Formula Fords or Formula Mazda's entered in the next Gumball 3000 or Player's Run.

 

My guess is between $35-50k in modifications. The question on my mind is not how close is the street Ford GT is compared to the Enzo at 1/3 the price. Rather, does the race version of the Ford GT have its sights set on being the best supercar regardless of price ever built and to hold that title for the next decade, or two, or three.

 

Something seems wrong to me here. I thought the 360CS was supposed to weigh 240 pounds LESS than a 360 or around 2820 pounds. In the article above it's listed at 3152 pounds. That's an extra 332 pounds.


That would explain some of the performance difference.

Ferrari spec 360CS, Article 360CS, Ford GT

Weight 2820, 3152, 3429
HP 425, 425, 500
wt/HP 6.64, 7.41, 6.85

By the Article specs the CS weight/Power ratio is 8% higher than the GT 40, but by Ferrari Specs it's 3% less.

Has anyone on the board ACTUALLY weighed a CS?

 

The 0-60 time is essentially the same, yes. But by 100 mph, the Enzo has seen off the GT by the tune of 1 whole second. 150 mph for the Enzo is estimated at somewhere around 13 seconds. That's McLaren F1 territory, and undercuts the GT's time by a good 4 seconds. And the C&D GT's 1/4 mile time was .6 second quicker than the one in R&T, not quite 1.2.



Which brings me to another point, and one I've posted elsewhere:
Regarding the time discrepancies, it can partly be explained by testing methods: C&D corrects data for conditions and altitude (so does MT), R&T does not. In the case of R&T's test of the GT, it was done at 970 feet with moderate wind, moderate being one step away from heavy. I don't know if R&T performs 2-way runs to compensate for wind, but C&D does.

In their test of the Infiniti M45, R&T noted:
"Hotter air is less dense; hotter, drier air puts an engine's knock sensing on high alert; both, to the detriment of power.
How detrimental? Our Q got to 60 in 6.5 sec. By contrast, our lighter, shorter-geared but extreme-conditioned M45 took 6.7 sec. Then we retested the M45 early one morning under rather more normal conditions, at 68 degrees Fahrenheit and 65 percent humidity, and got 6.1 sec."


So there is a .6 second difference in 0-60 right there. Same drivers, exact same vehicle, same venue. Only difference was time of day. I don't know what time of day C&D tested their GT, but I'm pretty sure there are far more variables involved when dealing with these 2 GT test.

I would not doubt, however, that this test mule was very well broken in, if its boost was not increased from "stock" (recall that Auto Motor und Sport's initial test of the SL55 was *extremely* quick, out-accelerating the GT2 and Murcielago; subsequent tests revealed no other SL55 specimens could duplicate those results). If R&T's test vehicle was "green" on the miles, that may have accounted for the poorer results there (combined with the atmospheric and windy conditions). In any case, I wouldn't hold these C&D test results as gospel. It is a good indication, however, that Ferrari better have something special in the 360's replacement, if they want to have a shot at retaining bragging rights.



Regarding test weights, by C&D's test scale, the 360F1 in their 11/99 issue had a curb weight of 3241 lbs. I'm pretty sure their curb weight is full of fluids and fuel, with about 20-30 lbs of test equipment.

 

"hotter, drier air puts an engine's knock sensing on high alert"
I was thinking knock sensor too...the CS may very well be in such a high state of tune that without racing gas, you'll only see 425 hp on cold days, the rest of the time you get 370 or so like the car tested in the article.

They may have filled the tanks with 91 instead or 93 or 94 too, there's no way to know. Can you buy 93/94 on the west coast, I've heard it is not available? They may have picked a grade available everywhere. That could easily cause the problem. I know with my car doesn't want to hear about 91 octane (the boost is turned up to 20+ psi)

The ford has a much higher displacement so even using the blower, they are just not seeing the cylinder pressures the CS does....some day ferrari may learn that on the street are there on class displacement rules so hp/liter means nothing. It's all about hp/lb and flat torque curves and the way you do that it to use a bigger engine. The 4.2 will be a step in the right direction when it comes, but 5.0-6.0 is really where they need to be to compete these days.

 

The other advantage of Ferrari's hp/liter is that it allows you to build a lighter car (smaller engine). HOWEVER, their Stradale was not much lighter, for some strange reason.


In any case, I like the thinking in this thread... rather than the GT being a ringer, maybe the problem is that the CS was broken... somehow it was fatter and lower power than the normal CS's. Its much more appealing to think that my CS may be EVEN FASTER than what they tested (which was pretty darn fast).

I need to go find a scale I can use... I am going to weigh my Modena before I sell it and then weigh my Stradale whenever it gets here. I want to know the reality.


Brian

 

[You know, if the car magazines would put each and every car on a dyno, we could see what is really going on.

Bike magazines did about 10 years ago, and separated the poser manufactures from the high performance manufactures real fast. After a short period of time, the manufactures quit (gasp) lying about the HP and TQ numbers. Shortly thereafter, the bike manufactures started to rate their bikes in (gasp) Rear Wheel HP!

I wish car magazines would do this. The cost of rolling wheel dynos is low, and with the number of cars these magazines test each year, the dyno would pay for itself in no time. Think of the value to the consumer!

 

Napolis has pointed this out, and you all seem to have missed it:

TORQUE.

The 5.4 V8 N/A pulls a dong-load of torque - a 5.4 V8 with a centrifugal s/c pulls a massive crap-load of torque, and a 5.4 V8 with a Roots-Style s/c, which the GT has, pulls more torque than is required to lift AllanLambo's ego.

Guys - the torque is what makes this car FAST. No Ferrari, in the history of the company, has had more torque than hp - in fact, the tq numbers are usually like 50 - 75% of the hp numbers, and in a crappy RPM range.

The GT's torque band, as well as it's hp band, it truly amazing. It pulls at speeds that would cause a coronary in an F50 GT. That's the key to success on a road course, and that's what tiny, European short-stroke, big bore RPM machines don't have. Coming out of a turn, the torque curve on the GT will smash just about any engine under 5.0l in displacement.

 

Porsche tends to publish conservative HP ratings. At they have in the past. I have seen '87-'89 Carrera's with no mods, rated by Porsche at 217HP dyno out at 221-225. I have never understood why a company that competes on handling and power would do such a thing. BMW & MB as far as I know tell it like it is.

 

Mea culpa, I picked up a wrong number somehow. I stand by my basic conclusion, however. R&T 0 - 100 number is 1.2 sec slower (7.6 vs 8.8) than C&D's (THAT'S where I got that number!), which is huge when you're talking sub 10 sec times. Another data point: the Saleen S7, 550 hp, 3050 lb test weight, 7 litre V8, massive torque, and it turns an [email protected] 1/4 compared to C&D's 11.6@128 for the Ford GT with 500 hp and 3400 lbs.

I don't mean to beat this to death, but the numbers do seem out of line to me.

Gary

 

Oh no... I think this just became the longest thread in post-Last-Visited-Board history... can we just insert the last HP vs. Torque thread here?

By *definition*, any car that has a redline that is much higher than 5252rpm, and anywhere near a respectably flat torque curve, will have HP much higher than torque.

Just simplistic ratios:

360CS: 8500rpm/5252rpm = 1.62
FordGT: 6000rpm/5252 = 1.14
911GT3: 7400rpm/5252rpm = 1.41

360CS: 425bhp/274ft-lb = 1.55
FordGT: 500bhp/500ft-lb = 1.00
911GT3: 380bhp/284ft-lb = 1.39

The fact that the latter ratios are a bit lower than the former ratios is caused by failure to keep the torque flat all the way up to redline. On this, Porsche did slightly better than Ferrari... but both did much better than Ford... the Ford is dropping off quite a bit more. But that might be good news for the aftermarket crowd... it may indicate that some breathing improvements might increase top-end horsepower (though it might bring down low-end torque a bit).


THUS, your point above can be reworded:

No Ferrari, in the history of the company, has had redline less than 5252rpm. In fact, the redline is usually 50% higher than 5252rpm!

True, perhaps... but doesn't really lead to the conclusion you are driving to.

 

i seem to remember c&d testing an early prototype of the zr-1? vette (one with the 32v mercury engine) in the early 90's that had stats way above what made sense for stated hp #'s. result was that chevy sent a ringer with much more hp than customers got. hope ford doesnt go this route.

 

"...a 5.4 V8 with a centrifugal s/c pulls a massive crap-load of torque, and a 5.4 V8 with a Roots-Style s/c, which the GT has, pulls more torque than is required to lift AllanLambo's ego"

A centrifugal s/c does less for low end torque than a turbo, which does nothing, and drives the upper torque curve to a very non-flat state, althought the peak hp number looks good in an add. Roots type blowers do a great job across the rpm band, but make a lot of heat above 5-6 psi of boost (I was pushing my old one to 10, but intake temp was around 260F). The Gt is using a lysholm 2300 screw type compressor (exactly the same one I just fitting to my 308) which like a roots makes good boost across the rpm band, but makes much less heat. Ford is running it to 12 on the GT, I'm pushing it to just over 20 on my car. So I think the first thing the aftermarket will do to the GT is change the blower drive pulleys. Spinning a lysholm 2300 blower to it's redline is good for about 650hp, although they may need more intercooler to deal with the extra heat.

 

Mark
How is your car? How much do you think they're making with this engine looking at these #'s? (At the crank)
Best
Jim

 

Sunny-

I vote you get the Ford and we take it through the twisties at Ortega.

 

My point isn't about ratios or redlines: it's about hp vs. torque. I know guys running 5.0's that have 8000rpm redlines and the torque is astounding.

The fact is, F-cars use a short-stroke, big-bore design that, while making possible a higher RPM, kills low and mid-range torque. Regardless of the ratios you speak of, unless an F-car is turbocharged, its torque is relatively crappy.

Now, you can tell me all day long that F-car torque is good, but from the F-cars I've driven (TRs, 360s, 550s, 456s, 355s, 348s), I never got a feeling of lots of torque. I would drive the F-cars during my shift at the dealer, then hop in my 99 Cobra to go home, and the difference in torque was amazing. It wasn't from gearing, either, as the 99 Cobra had a relatively weak 3:27 rear axle gear - nothing to brag about.

Ford could put the redline of the GT a lot higher if it wanted, and it would STILL produce a much higher torque figure than the GT3 and 360CS; why? Displacement and longer stroke. Period. End of story.

 

Jerry, if I could afford to, I would. If I had the keys for a day, you can be my passenger but you'd have to fight Jordan for the spot. Or how about I run the both of you through Ortega and Palomar and back?

I constantly have 200-225lbs under my foot and its a split second to peak 300lbs with a light massage of the throttle, rev range easily controlled with a movement of the J-gate. Mix that in with knowing the balance of a car learned by driving its limits, and the traction limits of your tires, its not fast but I make it fast.

The Ford GT will be sublime to drive, deadly in the right hands, and as "uncontrollable" as the Viper is in unskilled hands. Once you climb the torque ladder with successive cars, you try very hard never go back down it.

Let me scare you behind the wheel of an XJR, a car twice as powerful and capable as mine, before you volunteer me to get behind the wheel of an exotic. For my own sake, I don't think its a good idea either. I've never made it past "Oh" in "Oh ****" and I don't want to with a passenger, trust me.

 

Ferrari's are traditionally lighter. In this case, not light enough to combat the gains the Ford GT's tremendous torque curve and ballpark weight make. I think of driving a Ferrari like driving a turbo car, unless those rev's are past a certain point, when you release the clutch, you hang there for a precious instant. The Ford GT is going to pull, and pull, and pull.

For those people who say turbo's provide more low end torque, yes, they do, but at idle?

The Ford GT provides the same output as the Viper SRT-10 from 5.4L V8 instead of a 8.0L V10. It might be lighter overall, too.

I think I read before the Vipers have way more than 200lbs of torque at idle. As someone said a while ago in another thread, think about that. More torque than the 360 or Stradale have at peak.

In real world conditions, which would you prefer if the car with the most torque has the braking ability second to the Enzo, the supple suspension akin to the GT3, the balance of the Stradale, and a less expensive price tag? Its aerodynamic. It has excellent gearing. Its domestic and arguably less expensive to maintain than a Ferrari, Lambo, or Porsche.

It will give drivers that "Oh, baby..." from deep within your lungs at the instant press of the pedal and that change from 1st gear redline to 2nd.

No one would want it, its only a Ford. Come on, splash, so resale drops and I can have one as my beater.

 

I agree. The numbers do seem out of line. And if production GT's don't reasonably match what this test has found, then Ford's reputation will be severely diminished. It's in Ford's best interest, then, to make sure the production ones do put out quite a bit more than the stated 500 hp (or, lose a couple of hundred pounds).
On the S7, C&D managed an 11.6 sec @ 126 mph. 0-100 was identical to their GT: 7.6 seconds. So comparing the S7 and GT within the context of each magazine, independent of the other's results, we see they're very closely matched.


Regarding comments about grades of fuel, C&D (like other mags) will use the grade of fuel recommended by the manufacturer. Seeing how this test was done around their editorial offices in Michigan, and not California, chances are very good they got something above 91 octane.

As for the 360CS being broken, it was quite a bit quicker in 0-60 and -150 than previous Modenas tested by C&D. This one turned in a time of 23.9 seconds. Not too terribly far off from a Viper or 550 Maranello. Their previous 360 Modena took 27.1 seconds to get to 150 mph.

About the GT's times at tracks, versus those of the 360CS and Enzo, Ford was saying the GT is 5-7 seconds quicker than the standard 360 Modena at Laguna Seca, where a very fast time for stock Z06/Vipers is about 1:45-1:50. Gingerman seems to be more in line with times at Fiorano, so maybe the GT is also around 2 seconds quicker there than the CS. But probably not. Regardless of venue, it's safe to say the Enzo has nothing to worry about.

 

Another data point to compare:

C/D Challenge Stradale VS MotorTrend 360 F1 (test 11/00)

Weight lbs. 3152 VS 3241

0-60 4.0 VS 3.92

Qtr Mile 12.4/115mph VS 12.25/113.53


****These cars appear to be remarkably similar !!!

 

Agreed! I would love to see that happen!

The more and more I read about and see the Ford GT, the more Im loving it --even as a die-hard Ferrari fanatic! Its going to be quite a car

 

Motor trend seems to test faster with most cars. I am willing to guess that MT numbers for CS will be quicker.

If you look at the Road & Track test of the 360 F1 in 08/ 99.

Price as tested came in at $169,600 US and that price was in 1999!!

360 F1:

0-60 was 4.3
0-100 was 10.2
Qtr Mile 12.8 @112.5
Top speed was 189 MPH

The only issue regarding the testing of the 360 CS I can not understand is why the top speed was only 176 MPH? I understand the gear is a little lower but 13 MPH slower when the CS has 30 more HP and a lighter test weight!!!

 

Well the other thing is that there is only an 89 pound weight difference, unless Motor Trend's scales are lighter too ?

I really want to know exactly how much weight savings and rear-wheel horsepower gain actually exists with the CS vs a standard F1 Modena (without extra options).

 

You and me both!!

Yep, based on the C&D numbers, it would appear Ferrari is the one blowing BS. They basically built us a 360 Modena with some styling changes and an awesome exhaust. To give the illusion of improved performance, they made grand weight savings claims, and then lowered the gear ratios, reducing top speed but increasing acceleration to the typical speeds tested by magazines. And of course, the track claims are then just BS. (Note that the 176mph is redline limited, so extra HP and reduced weight is not a factor.)

If all that is accurate, while Ford was building an awesome new sportscar, Ferrari was busy pretending to be in the same game. Oh how I hope that is NOT true!!

Obviously, I am hoping C&D numbers are way off somehow. Any how. Very concerned!

 

Motor Trend is the worst in regards to tests. Did it not strike you as odd that the car ran 0-100mph in 10.2 (semi quick) but needed another 2.6 seconds to go an additional 12 mph?