This is old, but I don't remember reading this one.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0506_exotic_coupe_comparison/index.html
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/coupes/112_0506_exotic_coupe_comparison/index.html
Motortrend F430 vs. Ford GT
- Thread starter BlackICE
- Start date
mousecatcher
GT Owner
meh.
interesting, but typical car mag review -- don't say anything bad about any car, only feign mild criticism. i did find it very interesting that they started off (3rd or 4th paragraph) on the F430 with
of course it makes sense compared to the FGT but you don't know that yet in the article and it's just weird as the F430 A-pillars aren't "thin" they are just normal.
On the track, the F430 is an understeering pig compared to the FGT and I find it hard to believe corner entry speeds are faster. IMHO, the only thing good about the F430 on track, relative to the FGT, is it's very hard to get yourself into trouble.
interesting, but typical car mag review -- don't say anything bad about any car, only feign mild criticism. i did find it very interesting that they started off (3rd or 4th paragraph) on the F430 with
of course it makes sense compared to the FGT but you don't know that yet in the article and it's just weird as the F430 A-pillars aren't "thin" they are just normal.
On the track, the F430 is an understeering pig compared to the FGT and I find it hard to believe corner entry speeds are faster. IMHO, the only thing good about the F430 on track, relative to the FGT, is it's very hard to get yourself into trouble.
BlackIce, I'm glad you posted this and here's why. I don't mean to start a fistfight about car mag reviews, but one thing that gets under my skin is the relatively biased reporting against a given car or brand by some auto publications. I am referring specifically to a number of tests/reviews of the GT by Road & Track, some of which have been pointed out here before. If memory serves, the official R&T guide times of the GT are still among the slowest tested by any review even thought the GT has tested better in other editions of R&T (against an F430 no less. A Heritage car ran consistent 11.7s against the 430, yet the test #s of an earlier car still show up in the guide).
What really bugs me, and I'm no stat nut, is that 5 years later, most of the high $$ and high horsepower cars are no faster than the various GTs tested in '04 and '05. This begs the question: were most of the GTs tested in '04 (the C&D car that ran numerous 11.5-6-057s and eventually 11.3 @ nearly 130) or the Motor Trend car from the article above (for all I know the same car) ringer cars? Were these times not to be realized by any other drivers?
Here's what I'm asking forum members. Do you think a STOCK GT could actually run the times that the aforementioned publications provided, and if so, how would the car stack up against the newer and higher hp rated ZR1, Viper, and F 599?
Again, I'm no stat fanatic. It's just that 5+ years later, I don't see what's such a big deal that a $460,000 12 cyl Lambo breaks 11.2 or a $240,000 10 cyl Lambo does 11.4s when a 5 year old Ford did damn near that while bone ass stock for a lot less bread. Furthermore, as happy as I am that GM makes the ZR1, with nearly 90 hp more than our beloved GT, it is barely breaking 200 mph in all the various mags.
Just asking...
What really bugs me, and I'm no stat nut, is that 5 years later, most of the high $$ and high horsepower cars are no faster than the various GTs tested in '04 and '05. This begs the question: were most of the GTs tested in '04 (the C&D car that ran numerous 11.5-6-057s and eventually 11.3 @ nearly 130) or the Motor Trend car from the article above (for all I know the same car) ringer cars? Were these times not to be realized by any other drivers?
Here's what I'm asking forum members. Do you think a STOCK GT could actually run the times that the aforementioned publications provided, and if so, how would the car stack up against the newer and higher hp rated ZR1, Viper, and F 599?
Again, I'm no stat fanatic. It's just that 5+ years later, I don't see what's such a big deal that a $460,000 12 cyl Lambo breaks 11.2 or a $240,000 10 cyl Lambo does 11.4s when a 5 year old Ford did damn near that while bone ass stock for a lot less bread. Furthermore, as happy as I am that GM makes the ZR1, with nearly 90 hp more than our beloved GT, it is barely breaking 200 mph in all the various mags.
Just asking...
Cyclenirvana
GT Owner
I am continually amazed at how easy our Ford GT is to drive (steering, shifting, clutch, etc.), especially considering the amount of power and the absence of all of those modern aids (traction control, stability control), which seemed to be adored by mag editors. The F430 and, more recently, the GT-R are really totally dependent on those driver's aids to keep the average spirited driver out of trouble. As long as you have at least one neuron communicating with another you can drive the Ford GT. Whenever I begin to have doubts about how good of a car she actually is, I take her for a test drive...and fall in love all over again...