Post cool automotive stuff here
-
sx4rocious
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:31 pm
Ford completely ruined the GT. It's a completely awesome looking car, and the numbers look to be rather incredible, but it isn't a GT IMO...
Why do you say that?sx4rocious wrote:Ford completely ruined the GT. It's a completely awesome looking car, and the numbers look to be rather incredible, but it isn't a GT IMO...
That it is, but it moves into the arena of modern racecars like the formula 1s that have their nose up above the front airfoil.bootymac wrote:While not "completely ruined," I do agree that it's vastly different from the GT40 and first gen GT.
I would've preferred a V8 as well
Wait, there's no v8 in the ford gt?!?
If that's the same engine that's in the Rossion, that's no joke even though it doesn't sound great. 70-140mph in 5th gear in that car still pulled pretty hard. I have a friend with one in OH and he brought it down one weekend to HSV and we rode around town to different events like rock stars.
-
sx4rocious
- Posts: 485
- Joined: Mon Jul 22, 2013 8:31 pm
Everyone has mostly touched on it already, but you have to consider what the "Ford GT" name implies. The original was the GT40, and it was a car built to be a Ferrari killer. That's exactly what it was, beating Ferrari in nearly every race it entered. The "GT" part of the name implied that the car was a "Grand Tourer" which meant reliability and that the car was designed and built to withsatand the harsh rigors and torture of the grueling 24 hours of Le Mans and several other endurance races. The "40" moniker implied the car was 40 inches tall. When designing the gen II GT, Ford wanted the car to be true to the original, however, a 40 inch ride height severly limited the car's audience, so Ford stretched the roof to a whopping 43 inches. Insted of calling the call a Ford GT43, they stayed as true to form as the could, and simply dropped the 40 entirely.SamirD wrote:Why do you say that?
While Ford streched the roofline and added a rather comfortable interior to the car, the left as much of the grassroots racing heritage to the car as they could. Even the engine, a supercharged 5.4 liter V-8, was sourced from the Lightning. You really can't get more grassroots that a big V-8 from a truck... The car also kept as many of the original lines and shapes as possible. Honestly, the car really isn't all that technologically advaced, and that was the original intent all along. Basically, the car is the original with more creature comforts making it able to ACTUALLY be driven. It was as beautiful as the orginal (because it looked almost exactly like it!), has the same monster supercharged (again with the simple grassroots, turbos are too complicated) trucker V-8, and just enough tech to warrant the $100+ price tag.
Now let's look at the Gen III. It's beautiful yes, but completely redisigned with sexy curves, odd air inlets everywhere, and even the strange "makes-more-headroom" passenger door frames are lost. What's a Ford GT without the wierd blob attached to the passenger doors? It was the only car in existence with that very identifiable feature and Ford dropped it. I don't get it...
And don't even get me started on the engine... OK, you asked, so here it is anyway. Ford put a *GULP* V-6 in it!! WHAT?!!?? I understand that Ford is really wanting to show what can be done with their new Ecoboost engines, but they really pushed the envelope with the Ecoboost in the Mustang. OK, we can accept that one, it has 300+ horsepower and it's still RWD and mated to a traditional 6MT. They're pushing it, but not quite over the line. Putting a V-6 in something as iconic and 'Murican as the GT sould be a sin. Yeah, the Ecoboost 3.5 V6 is twin turbo and still sourced from a truck, but hey, so does the 4.6 and the 5.0 (and I think you can still get the 5.4 right?) v8s. There is no excuse for this in my oppinion.
Oh wait, there's more...
There is no longer a **double gulp** traditional manual transmission!!!! Someone shoot me now, the world has ended. Instead, they desided to go with a 7 speed blah-blah dual clutch blah-blah just like everyone else does now in an effort t appeal to techno geeks and give the car better efficiency. Now someone explain to me exactly where the words "efficientcy" and "Eco" belong in the same pamphlet as "Ford GT" anyway.
This may sound harsh, but if Ford would have introduced the car as the new Ford "EcoThunder Supercar 5000" I would think it's a technological marvel worthy of it's upper $200K price tag. As I already said, it really is a beautiful car with many impressive specs, but a Ford GT, it is not. There's no grassroots nostalgia, no gut-rumbling supercharged truck V8, no adrenaline enducing "chink-chinking" gated manual transmission, and absolutely no hillbilly soul to this new car. Sorry, Ford has officially ruined "Murica...
Mullet not required.
Ahh, now I get where you're coming from. 
Yes, I think you're dead-on that it has lost a lot of the soul that made the car a success to begin with. Having the honor of spending some time with a Gulf paint-schemed GT (and a very lovely woman who was willing to take some pictures), I got to see a lot of exactly what you are talking about. The cockpit still even felt like a race car with toggle switches and a lot of no-nonsense controls. The new car may have its merits, but I see what you mean about slapping the GT name on it--faux pas.
Yes, I think you're dead-on that it has lost a lot of the soul that made the car a success to begin with. Having the honor of spending some time with a Gulf paint-schemed GT (and a very lovely woman who was willing to take some pictures), I got to see a lot of exactly what you are talking about. The cockpit still even felt like a race car with toggle switches and a lot of no-nonsense controls. The new car may have its merits, but I see what you mean about slapping the GT name on it--faux pas.
