Ferrari 330 P4 v GT40
Discussion
Looking at the GT40 one of the most successful race road cars at LeMans of all time - yet how did it best the simply superb Ferrari 330P4?
The Ferrari was much quicker, vastly superior looks (even though the GT40 is a great looking car).
Was it simply the case Henry Ford 2 employed the best drivers and that made the difference?
The Ferrari was much quicker, vastly superior looks (even though the GT40 is a great looking car).
Was it simply the case Henry Ford 2 employed the best drivers and that made the difference?
Welshbeef said:
Looking at the GT40 one of the most successful race road cars at LeMans of all time - yet how did it best the simply superb Ferrari 330P4?
The Ferrari was much quicker, vastly superior looks (even though the GT40 is a great looking car).
Was it simply the case Henry Ford 2 employed the best drivers and that made the difference?
Given that they only made four P4's, compared with how many GT40's......such a comparison is hardly objective (and looks don't win races - granted the P4 was/is a stunning piece of automotive art)The Ferrari was much quicker, vastly superior looks (even though the GT40 is a great looking car).
Was it simply the case Henry Ford 2 employed the best drivers and that made the difference?
The GT40 also employed more simple and robust mechanicals for endurance racing which helped.
Welshbeef said:
Looking at the GT40 one of the most successful race road cars at LeMans of all time - yet how did it best the simply superb Ferrari 330P4?
The Ferrari was much quicker, vastly superior looks (even though the GT40 is a great looking car).
I'm guessing that Ford bribed the Le Mans Beauty Contest judges.The Ferrari was much quicker, vastly superior looks (even though the GT40 is a great looking car).
I remember reading an article around 10 years ago from one of the Le Mans GT40 drivers (forgotten which one to my embarrassment).
The one thing from the whole article that stuck in my mind to this day was his comments that in the end Le Mans is an endurance race and that the Ferrari drivers were trying to goad the Fords into driving flat out for the entire race. The GT40 drivers drove at "nine tenths" and saved the cars from a mechanical drubbing.
The one thing from the whole article that stuck in my mind to this day was his comments that in the end Le Mans is an endurance race and that the Ferrari drivers were trying to goad the Fords into driving flat out for the entire race. The GT40 drivers drove at "nine tenths" and saved the cars from a mechanical drubbing.
Edited by TheProfessor on Friday 13th February 11:51
It's not the first time I've linked to this, but AJ Baime's 'Go Like Hell' ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/Go-Like-Hell-Ferrari-Battl... ) is well worth a read, Welshbeef. Details how Ford went to war and beat Ferrari at Le Mans with the GT40, but shows also how Ford didn't get it all it's own way.
A brilliant read for anyone interested in motorsport.
Mirroring the 'Go Like Hell' story (but with more historic photos), and slightly more expensive, is Trevor Legate's GT40 history ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/Production-Racing-History-... ). I have a signed copy of this!
In a nutshell, though, I'd say the GT40 beat the 330 P4 after over two year's of development and poor racing results before the big victories in 1966 - coupled with careful driving (if hitting 220mph on the Mulsanne Straight can ever be considered 'careful'), tactics and, what was by 1966, a pretty reliable engine and gearbox.
Edited to add: Ford didn't have all the best drivers by any means - the legend that is John Surtees was the main pilot of the 330 P4.
Another blasted edit: The GT40's demolished the 330 P4's on the Mulsanne Straight, by the way. Even at the failed 1965 attempt at Le Mans, Phil Hill shattered all the records in his GT40 and the Ferrari's couldn't keep up... until his transmission failed. The big MkII (7-litre) cars of 1966 were even quicker.
A brilliant read for anyone interested in motorsport.
Mirroring the 'Go Like Hell' story (but with more historic photos), and slightly more expensive, is Trevor Legate's GT40 history ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/Production-Racing-History-... ). I have a signed copy of this!
In a nutshell, though, I'd say the GT40 beat the 330 P4 after over two year's of development and poor racing results before the big victories in 1966 - coupled with careful driving (if hitting 220mph on the Mulsanne Straight can ever be considered 'careful'), tactics and, what was by 1966, a pretty reliable engine and gearbox.
Edited to add: Ford didn't have all the best drivers by any means - the legend that is John Surtees was the main pilot of the 330 P4.
Another blasted edit: The GT40's demolished the 330 P4's on the Mulsanne Straight, by the way. Even at the failed 1965 attempt at Le Mans, Phil Hill shattered all the records in his GT40 and the Ferrari's couldn't keep up... until his transmission failed. The big MkII (7-litre) cars of 1966 were even quicker.
Edited by MikeT66 on Friday 13th February 11:44
Edited by MikeT66 on Friday 13th February 11:54
Welshbeef said:
Looking at the GT40 one of the most successful race road cars at LeMans of all time - yet how did it best the simply superb Ferrari 330P4?
In simple terms, the answer is, "It didn't".The Ferrari 330P4 raced in 1967 only. Of the Championship races for prototypes, they won at Daytona and Monza. Porsche won the Targa Florio and Nurburgring 1000km, Chaparral won the BOAC 500 and the Gulf Mirage won at SPA. Sebring and Le Mans were won by the Ford GT MkIV - the only 2 races it competed in - but this was a completely different car to the GT40, apart from the engine and gearbox.
The Gulf Mirages were prototypes developed from the GT40, with a lighter chassis, different bodywork above the waistline and bigger engines. Despite the fact that they were actually converted back to standard GT40s for the following season, the FIA decided they were not Fords, thereby gifting the championship to Ferrari. Nothing changes.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff