Ford brings the smack down to Porsche and Ferrari!
12-01-2003, 01:43 AM
#31
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Bakersfield
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]Originally posted by PedalFaster
Motor Trend's times are often so fast as to stretch credulity.
Also, you say that Road & Track's staff is incompetent because they couldn't get their car to go as fast as Motor Trend's, then you turn around and say that the car Road & Track tested was broken and actually wasn't as fast as Motor Trend's.
Motor Trend's times are often so fast as to stretch credulity.
Also, you say that Road & Track's staff is incompetent because they couldn't get their car to go as fast as Motor Trend's, then you turn around and say that the car Road & Track tested was broken and actually wasn't as fast as Motor Trend's.
12-01-2003, 04:46 AM
#32
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Easton
Posts: 5,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a Ford? Please people, get a clue. The motor is built by Rouch, the state-of-the-art aluminum chassis is fabricated by Metro Technologies and the car is hand assembled by Saleen. If that is standard Ford procedure, then I'm headed out to go buy a Tarus.
PS- where is WRS2K?? I knew it was faster around a track than the 360CS!!!!
PS- where is WRS2K?? I knew it was faster around a track than the 360CS!!!!
12-01-2003, 07:28 AM
#33
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: San Diego
Posts: 890
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
uh.....roush? since when? never heard that before.
erm...saleen? never heard that either.
in any case, having a car assembled by a prestigious manufacturer, which i would hardly count either of those as, doesn't mean it was well designed in the first place. i think this car was designed well in all ways except for the styling and powertrain, the latter of which makes it undesireable to me.
Quick2K
erm...saleen? never heard that either.
in any case, having a car assembled by a prestigious manufacturer, which i would hardly count either of those as, doesn't mean it was well designed in the first place. i think this car was designed well in all ways except for the styling and powertrain, the latter of which makes it undesireable to me.
Quick2K
12-01-2003, 10:47 AM
#34
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Easton
Posts: 5,642
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My buddy here at work makes the same point about the engine. I agree an exotic should be sexy, but at the end of the day if the thing works, it works. Besides that, the GT40 didn't have anything fancy or exotic, so it would be out of place in this car. I can't say I'd buy one over say a Gallardo, but having another option is never a bad thing.
12-01-2003, 11:11 AM
#35
Registered User
Hmmm...
Ferrari 360s bore me. Sure, they look and perform great, but they're so ubiquitous. The GT, however, harkens back to childhood memories from when I first got hooked on racing. Along with such cars as the Porsche 917 and 962, the GT40 stirs my soul like few other cars do. The new GT is even better looking than the Ferrari and appears to be a proper descendant of the actual race cars of the 60s.
Engine - 500hp supercharged V8 or 500hp V12 or 500hp inline six turbo... Doesn't really matter to me, to be honest.
Ferrari 360s bore me. Sure, they look and perform great, but they're so ubiquitous. The GT, however, harkens back to childhood memories from when I first got hooked on racing. Along with such cars as the Porsche 917 and 962, the GT40 stirs my soul like few other cars do. The new GT is even better looking than the Ferrari and appears to be a proper descendant of the actual race cars of the 60s.
Engine - 500hp supercharged V8 or 500hp V12 or 500hp inline six turbo... Doesn't really matter to me, to be honest.
12-01-2003, 12:58 PM
#36
Registered User
I think that a lot of people (magazines included) miss the point that this is a new design for Ford, everything is state of the art, while the 360 has been around quite a while, and is ready to be replaced by an upcoming Ferrari model within the next 2 years. Also, while the GT3 is somewhat new, it is essentially a GT2 (similar suspension settings) without the turbo & widebody. It has been shown time & time again that the GT2 is substantially faster than the GT3 (though quite a bit more $ too). It is .3-.4 sec. faster 0-60 & 1/4 mi. and I think because of the torque would be even faster around most tracks. The previous version (newer one has more hp & is a bit lighter) ran neck & neck with a Ferrari F50 at Tskuba.
12-01-2003, 01:53 PM
#37
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Felton
Posts: 719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've got to agree with alot of what is being said about the ford, it was designed to compete with the ferrari and porsches.... but i personally believe the car is crying to a different crowd, a crowd who wanted something like the GT but in the past settled for the likes of a porsche or ferrari. As Elistan stated, the GT just calls to me, and i'm not even from that generation. Something about it says all race..... even more than the 360. Sure the 360 CS is all race as well.... but the GT does come in a dumbed up version.... not that i would dare call the regular modena a dumbed up ferrari....!!!!LOL
I could just see the GT running for hours upon hours on end, hell, endurance races even without having any problems. Compare that to the ferrari or porsche which are extremely high tech NA engines with over 100hp per liter, i just can see the higher tuned engines lasting as long. This to me would be an acceptable trade off if the NA engines could propel their cars to wins over the GT, and put up better numbers... but we know how the three compare. All i'm saying is this... in a real race, an extremely long race, for which the origonal GT 40 was designed, who would win.... just guessing of course, the GT, the 360, or the GT2/GT3? My vote goes hands down to the GT, 1st, 2nd and 3rd, just like the 24hrs of lemans however u spell it!
Brandon
I could just see the GT running for hours upon hours on end, hell, endurance races even without having any problems. Compare that to the ferrari or porsche which are extremely high tech NA engines with over 100hp per liter, i just can see the higher tuned engines lasting as long. This to me would be an acceptable trade off if the NA engines could propel their cars to wins over the GT, and put up better numbers... but we know how the three compare. All i'm saying is this... in a real race, an extremely long race, for which the origonal GT 40 was designed, who would win.... just guessing of course, the GT, the 360, or the GT2/GT3? My vote goes hands down to the GT, 1st, 2nd and 3rd, just like the 24hrs of lemans however u spell it!Brandon
12-01-2003, 02:16 PM
#39
Again I think it is a fantastic vehicle.
An intersting poll would be in what order you would chose the cars in the review, personally I would opt for the GT3 first, given the price to performance ratio.
An intersting poll would be in what order you would chose the cars in the review, personally I would opt for the GT3 first, given the price to performance ratio.