Poll
Then we'll make statements about which is faster.
Neither of these cars is meant to be a daily driver, so that's not much of a concern for most people.
I believe the Mark IIIs could accomodate gurney even without the bump- and that was actually a design consideration for them!
Go buy a Camry, kid. Go buy a Camry.
ignorant post of the year??
SoupDude has eloquently made the point that any comparison would be lopsided without modern rubber on the Ford GTs of yesteryear.
There were about 55 GT-40s built by Eric Broadley's establishment--street-legal at the time since the FIA required it for GT cars--as well as room for two modest-sized FIA spec suitcases.? All that differed between the race GT-40 and the street GT-40 were vinyl floor mats, mufflers, legal road tires, air filters, and possibly a camshaft with the same lift but a little less duration (this cam may have been an option).? This figure includes the first three LeMans racers, which had a different nose than did the subsequent GT-40s (the later nose looked like the nose on the modern Ford GTs--the first nose didn't show so much radiator opening).
Incidentally, although the first three prototypes were also only 40" high, they were called "Ford GT"--the "GT-40" moniker came with the introduction of the newer nose (which may have been chassis number four and later).
The first 427 Ford GTs were built in 1966--around a dozen or so were built--and they were called "Ford GT Mark II".? Rarest of all were the "Ford GT Mark III"--street versions of the Ford GT Mark II and I believe only three were built .? In 1967 the "Ford GT Mark IV" was introduced, which was good for 218 MPH in the Mulsanne Straight at LeMans--faster than any previous Ford GT and faster than today's Ford GT, which has attained 218 MPH at the Nardo test track in Italy--but that's a faster track than LeMans so the 1967 Ford GT Mark IV could beat that speed if it were at Nardo on the same tires as the current Ford GT.? The 1966 Ford GT Mark II and the 1967 Ford GT Mark IV were not Grand Turismo class (the "GT" in "Ford GT") vehicles because Ford had no plans to build a minimum of fifty per year to qualify either as a "GT" vehicle.? They were instead "SP" class vehicles (Sports Prototypes), although the rules at the time may still have required room for the two suitcases.? Maybe a dozen of the Ford GT Mark IVs were built.? Some website somewhere would have the numbers...
There was to be another Ford GT Mark something to be built for the 1968 endurance racing season, but it was canceled when the FIA ruled that Sports Prototypes were to be limited to 3.0 liter engines.? GT class cars were limited to 5.0 liters, and the Gulf-sponsored Mirage racing team put 302 crankshafts into Ford GT-40s and won LeMans outright in '68 and '69 with the same car!?
The Nethead here knows of no pics or even sketches of the Ford GT that would have ran at LeMans in 1968 but working models of the all-aluminum engine it was to have were built and tested--3-valve pushrod 427s with eight throttle bodies cast integrally with the cylinder heads.? Because of the 24 pushrods, the engine was nicknamed "porcupine".? The 427s in the Mark IIs, Mark IIIs, and Mark IVs were iron-block NASCAR 427s with aluminum heads.? The Mark IIs used a single four-barrel (to the absolute astonishment of the French FIA officials at LeMans) on an aluminum intake manifold.? The Mark IVs may have used two four-barrels, but I'm just not sure anymore.? The record set for miles traveled in 24 hours at LeMans by the Ford GT Mark IVs has only been bettered three times in the thirty-nine years (and thirty-nine races) since the 1967 race.
CMan: ? Th' Hell you say!? CJ won it fair and square, and there aren't any iffy issues that would allow for a rematch!
Question: which would you prefer
Option 1: Ford GT40 
votes: 6
votes: 6
Option 2: Ford GT 
votes: 11
votes: 11
Title: Ford or Ford
Post by: etypeJohn on May 10, 2007, 11:30:30 AM
Post by: etypeJohn on May 10, 2007, 11:30:30 AM
You choose
Title: Re: Ford or Ford
Post by: CMan on May 10, 2007, 12:29:09 PM
Post by: CMan on May 10, 2007, 12:29:09 PM
GT. Again, faster=better. (Sticks tounge out at Raza.)
Title: Re: Ford or Ford
Post by: Soup DeVille on May 10, 2007, 09:43:02 PM
Post by: Soup DeVille on May 10, 2007, 09:43:02 PM
Quote from: CMan on May 10, 2007, 12:29:09 PMI'd actually die to see a comparison between a new GT and a classic GT40 Mark II road car on modern rubber.
GT. Again, faster=better. (Sticks tounge out at Raza.)
Then we'll make statements about which is faster.
Title: Re: Ford or Ford
Post by: the Teuton on May 10, 2007, 09:46:03 PM
Post by: the Teuton on May 10, 2007, 09:46:03 PM
The GT44 is a better DD. I can't use the 40 except that I'm short enough that I wouldn't need a Dan Gurney bump.
Title: Re: Ford or Ford
Post by: Raghavan on May 10, 2007, 09:46:43 PM
Post by: Raghavan on May 10, 2007, 09:46:43 PM
I thought we already had one of these.
Title: Re: Ford or Ford
Post by: Laconian on May 10, 2007, 11:22:05 PM
Post by: Laconian on May 10, 2007, 11:22:05 PM
Oh no, the GT without racing stripes is positively NSFW! That poor car looks completely naked!!
Title: Re: Ford or Ford
Post by: Raghavan on May 10, 2007, 11:22:56 PM
Post by: Raghavan on May 10, 2007, 11:22:56 PM
Quote from: Laconian on May 10, 2007, 11:22:05 PMI agree. It looks a bit dull. This is one of the cases when i'd take both the stripes.
Oh no, the GT without racing stripes is positively NSFW! That poor car looks completely naked!!
Title: Re: Ford or Ford
Post by: Soup DeVille on May 10, 2007, 11:31:40 PM
Post by: Soup DeVille on May 10, 2007, 11:31:40 PM
Quote from: the Teuton on May 10, 2007, 09:46:03 PM
The GT44 is a better DD.? I can't use the 40 except that I'm short enough that I wouldn't need a Dan Gurney bump.
Neither of these cars is meant to be a daily driver, so that's not much of a concern for most people.
I believe the Mark IIIs could accomodate gurney even without the bump- and that was actually a design consideration for them!
Title: Re: Ford or Ford
Post by: Raza on May 11, 2007, 08:46:34 AM
Post by: Raza on May 11, 2007, 08:46:34 AM
Quote from: CMan on May 10, 2007, 12:29:09 PM
GT. Again, faster=better. (Sticks tounge out at Raza.)
Go buy a Camry, kid. Go buy a Camry.
Title: Re: Ford or Ford
Post by: JYODER240 on May 11, 2007, 08:48:38 AM
Post by: JYODER240 on May 11, 2007, 08:48:38 AM
Quote from: CMan on May 10, 2007, 12:29:09 PM
GT. Again, faster=better.
ignorant post of the year??
Title: Re: Ford or Ford
Post by: CMan on May 11, 2007, 10:58:47 AM
Post by: CMan on May 11, 2007, 10:58:47 AM
I'll take that. :lol:
Title: Re: Ford or Ford
Post by: Nethead on May 11, 2007, 12:23:25 PM
Post by: Nethead on May 11, 2007, 12:23:25 PM
Quote from: Soup DeVille on May 10, 2007, 09:43:02 PM
I'd actually die to see a comparison between a new GT and a classic GT40 Mark II road car on modern rubber.
Then we'll make statements about which is faster.
SoupDude has eloquently made the point that any comparison would be lopsided without modern rubber on the Ford GTs of yesteryear.
There were about 55 GT-40s built by Eric Broadley's establishment--street-legal at the time since the FIA required it for GT cars--as well as room for two modest-sized FIA spec suitcases.? All that differed between the race GT-40 and the street GT-40 were vinyl floor mats, mufflers, legal road tires, air filters, and possibly a camshaft with the same lift but a little less duration (this cam may have been an option).? This figure includes the first three LeMans racers, which had a different nose than did the subsequent GT-40s (the later nose looked like the nose on the modern Ford GTs--the first nose didn't show so much radiator opening).
Incidentally, although the first three prototypes were also only 40" high, they were called "Ford GT"--the "GT-40" moniker came with the introduction of the newer nose (which may have been chassis number four and later).
The first 427 Ford GTs were built in 1966--around a dozen or so were built--and they were called "Ford GT Mark II".? Rarest of all were the "Ford GT Mark III"--street versions of the Ford GT Mark II and I believe only three were built .? In 1967 the "Ford GT Mark IV" was introduced, which was good for 218 MPH in the Mulsanne Straight at LeMans--faster than any previous Ford GT and faster than today's Ford GT, which has attained 218 MPH at the Nardo test track in Italy--but that's a faster track than LeMans so the 1967 Ford GT Mark IV could beat that speed if it were at Nardo on the same tires as the current Ford GT.? The 1966 Ford GT Mark II and the 1967 Ford GT Mark IV were not Grand Turismo class (the "GT" in "Ford GT") vehicles because Ford had no plans to build a minimum of fifty per year to qualify either as a "GT" vehicle.? They were instead "SP" class vehicles (Sports Prototypes), although the rules at the time may still have required room for the two suitcases.? Maybe a dozen of the Ford GT Mark IVs were built.? Some website somewhere would have the numbers...
There was to be another Ford GT Mark something to be built for the 1968 endurance racing season, but it was canceled when the FIA ruled that Sports Prototypes were to be limited to 3.0 liter engines.? GT class cars were limited to 5.0 liters, and the Gulf-sponsored Mirage racing team put 302 crankshafts into Ford GT-40s and won LeMans outright in '68 and '69 with the same car!?
The Nethead here knows of no pics or even sketches of the Ford GT that would have ran at LeMans in 1968 but working models of the all-aluminum engine it was to have were built and tested--3-valve pushrod 427s with eight throttle bodies cast integrally with the cylinder heads.? Because of the 24 pushrods, the engine was nicknamed "porcupine".? The 427s in the Mark IIs, Mark IIIs, and Mark IVs were iron-block NASCAR 427s with aluminum heads.? The Mark IIs used a single four-barrel (to the absolute astonishment of the French FIA officials at LeMans) on an aluminum intake manifold.? The Mark IVs may have used two four-barrels, but I'm just not sure anymore.? The record set for miles traveled in 24 hours at LeMans by the Ford GT Mark IVs has only been bettered three times in the thirty-nine years (and thirty-nine races) since the 1967 race.
Title: Re: Ford or Ford
Post by: CJ on May 14, 2007, 07:40:08 PM
Post by: CJ on May 14, 2007, 07:40:08 PM
I'll take the GT40..then sell it.
Title: Re: Ford or Ford
Post by: CMan on May 14, 2007, 09:15:09 PM
Post by: CMan on May 14, 2007, 09:15:09 PM
I now pass the ignorant post of the year award on to CJ.
Title: Re: Ford or Ford
Post by: Nethead on May 15, 2007, 07:09:17 AM
Post by: Nethead on May 15, 2007, 07:09:17 AM
Quote from: CMan on May 14, 2007, 09:15:09 PM
I now pass the ignorant post of the year award on to CJ.
CMan: ? Th' Hell you say!? CJ won it fair and square, and there aren't any iffy issues that would allow for a rematch!