Ford GT 40 - somewhat surprising.....
Discussion
As a youngster in the 1960s, I remember the GT 40 as being a 'racing car for the road', with quite amazing performance.
Imagine my surprise when I found an old advert on the back of a magazine clipping of 1967-ish:
The Ford GT 40. £7539. 0-60mph: 6 secs. 1st gear: 58 mph. Top gear: 164 mph. Boot space: laughable. Petrol consumption: wicked.
Only goes to show how cars have improved. 0-60 in 6 and 164 max is still quick, but not remarkably so. My little Merc will beat that quite handsomely, for example.
But the styling of the GT 40? Still to die for!!
Imagine my surprise when I found an old advert on the back of a magazine clipping of 1967-ish:
The Ford GT 40. £7539. 0-60mph: 6 secs. 1st gear: 58 mph. Top gear: 164 mph. Boot space: laughable. Petrol consumption: wicked.
Only goes to show how cars have improved. 0-60 in 6 and 164 max is still quick, but not remarkably so. My little Merc will beat that quite handsomely, for example.
But the styling of the GT 40? Still to die for!!
nickwilcock said:
As a youngster in the 1960s, I remember the GT 40 as being a 'racing car for the road', with quite amazing performance.
Imagine my surprise when I found an old advert on the back of a magazine clipping of 1967-ish:
The Ford GT 40. £7539. 0-60mph: 6 secs. 1st gear: 58 mph. Top gear: 164 mph. Boot space: laughable. Petrol consumption: wicked.
Only goes to show how cars have improved. 0-60 in 6 and 164 max is still quick, but not remarkably so. My little Merc will beat that quite handsomely, for example.
But the styling of the GT 40? Still to die for!!
I have the latest Ford GT - can I take on your 'little Merc'? Imagine my surprise when I found an old advert on the back of a magazine clipping of 1967-ish:
The Ford GT 40. £7539. 0-60mph: 6 secs. 1st gear: 58 mph. Top gear: 164 mph. Boot space: laughable. Petrol consumption: wicked.
Only goes to show how cars have improved. 0-60 in 6 and 164 max is still quick, but not remarkably so. My little Merc will beat that quite handsomely, for example.
But the styling of the GT 40? Still to die for!!
That would be a more level comparison.Ah, but you're missing my point. What I mean is that over the 40-ish years since the GT 40 first appeared, similar (or better) performance can be had from something like a little SLK32 AMG. What we used to think of as stratospheric 'racing' performance can now be obtained at a used car dealership for less than £20K!
The current Ford GT is one of the most attractive high performance cars around. I hope you enjoy yours!
The current Ford GT is one of the most attractive high performance cars around. I hope you enjoy yours!
Hmmm,
Whilst the type of car with which I made the comparison with the GT 40 is pretty irrelevant, the point is how our expectations have changed in 40-ish years.
Back in 1970, I thought that 0-60 in 10 and 100+ top speed would do me fine. Nowadays I'd think that woeful. People forget how truly dreadful most cars were back then.
As for the Ford GT, I agree it's a pretty car. But 'class leading'? I remain to be convinced of that.
Whilst the type of car with which I made the comparison with the GT 40 is pretty irrelevant, the point is how our expectations have changed in 40-ish years.
Back in 1970, I thought that 0-60 in 10 and 100+ top speed would do me fine. Nowadays I'd think that woeful. People forget how truly dreadful most cars were back then.
As for the Ford GT, I agree it's a pretty car. But 'class leading'? I remain to be convinced of that.
nickwilcock said:
Hmmm,
Whilst the type of car with which I made the comparison with the GT 40 is pretty irrelevant, the point is how our expectations have changed in 40-ish years.
Back in 1970, I thought that 0-60 in 10 and 100+ top speed would do me fine. Nowadays I'd think that woeful. People forget how truly dreadful most cars were back then.
As for the Ford GT, I agree it's a pretty car. But 'class leading'? I remain to be convinced of that.
The Ford GT won both FIA GT3 races at Silverstone and at at Oschersleben. A double victory in the FIA GT3 European championship at Monza along with setting a lap record at Snetterton.Whilst the type of car with which I made the comparison with the GT 40 is pretty irrelevant, the point is how our expectations have changed in 40-ish years.
Back in 1970, I thought that 0-60 in 10 and 100+ top speed would do me fine. Nowadays I'd think that woeful. People forget how truly dreadful most cars were back then.
As for the Ford GT, I agree it's a pretty car. But 'class leading'? I remain to be convinced of that.
As Clarkson said in 2004 "The limited-edition Enzo aside, the 360 is Ferrari’s fastest-accelerating car and the Ford murders it. It’s quicker outright but, more important, it is quicker still in the real world: come up behind a slower car in the Ferrari and, while you’re deciding how many gears to change down, the GT has already gone in one flex of its driver’s foot. Any speed, any gear, it just flies.
But while this Ford can outpower a Ferrari in a straight line, you’d expect Italy’s finest to win it all back in the turns. And you’d be wrong. The Ford is so reassuring on the limit and the Ferrari so twitchy, the GT is quicker here too. And it’s got better brakes."
Buy one and see what you think, it's a little more than a pretty car.....
NDA said:
I haven't missed your point at all. I'm merely saying that you're comparing apples and oranges. The GT40 was, in the 1960's, class leading. The Ford GT in the 00's is class leading.
In the 60's your Mercedes equivalent would have been 'ordinary' in comparison as it is today.
Think you have missed the point of the OP actually (which I whole heartedly agree with) which was , I think, simply making the point that cars in general have moved on so much over the last few years that looking back can come as something of a shock. Think the Merc. bit was just to illustrate this and not meant as a comparison of two cars? Not sure why you're so sensitive about the abilites of you GT either. A truly amazing car which for some reason often seems to be missed out of group comparisons by the motoring press. Maybe a Ford finishing first lacks the impact of something supposedly more exotic? Either way, you certainly don't need to defend it by picking on an poor ickle Merc! In the 60's your Mercedes equivalent would have been 'ordinary' in comparison as it is today.
Edited by Pugsey on Monday 29th December 12:36
I'm not defending the GT, but can see it might appear so. Not intentional.
My point is that say you looked at the very latest military aircraft design of the 1900's - it would be quite pedestrian when measured against the average Cessna today.
However, compare the latest military aircraft today to the Cessna and there's no comparison. My point, clumsily made as it is, is that the very latest 'then' was, of course, fantastic. And the very latest today, remains fantastic - leagues ahead of the ordinary. So to say 'my Cessna can beat a biplane from the 1900's' would be entirely unremarkable. However, if the Cessna could beat an F1-22 Raptor (the equivalent of the 1900's biplane), then it would be something of note. Both to us and the US air force!
Charles Babbidge's difference machine of 1848 could perform less functions than my watch, but the IBM Bladecenter (today's difference machine) would kick my watch into touch.
nickwilcock said:
As a youngster in the 1960s, I remember the GT 40 as being a 'racing car for the road', with quite amazing performance.
Imagine my surprise when I found an old advert on the back of a magazine clipping of 1967-ish:
The Ford GT 40. £7539. 0-60mph: 6 secs. 1st gear: 58 mph. Top gear: 164 mph. Boot space: laughable. Petrol consumption: wicked.
Only goes to show how cars have improved. 0-60 in 6 and 164 max is still quick, but not remarkably so. My little Merc will beat that quite handsomely, for example.
But the styling of the GT 40? Still to die for!!
I think the Ford GT 40 you mention was the street version of the LeMans winning car. It was highly detuned and a very distant cousing of the famous racing GT40.Imagine my surprise when I found an old advert on the back of a magazine clipping of 1967-ish:
The Ford GT 40. £7539. 0-60mph: 6 secs. 1st gear: 58 mph. Top gear: 164 mph. Boot space: laughable. Petrol consumption: wicked.
Only goes to show how cars have improved. 0-60 in 6 and 164 max is still quick, but not remarkably so. My little Merc will beat that quite handsomely, for example.
But the styling of the GT 40? Still to die for!!
In race trim the GT40 would hit 200mph on the Mulsanne straight.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=KmA01dUhdPY
Gassing Station | Ford | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff