Jump to content

Some tutorials on the new software have been pinned here.

  • Custom Search


coupe3w

What happened to the GT

Recommended Posts

Nothing it seems . . . . The GT was built to specifications to win Le Mans, not VIR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing it seems . . . . The GT was built to specifications to win Le Mans, not VIR.

LOL. That's like saying my street car is only good for back roads, but not on the Highway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL. That's like saying my street car is only good for back roads, but not on the Highway.

 

I know a lot of street cars like that. People running 4.30 or 4.56 (or higher) gears in certain mustangs (or other cars) run all day around town, and try to never run them on the highway.

Edited by IMSA-XJR9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I know a lot of street cars like that. People running 4.30 or 4.56 (or higher) gears in certain mustangs (or other cars) run all day around town, and try to never run them on the highway.

Well, that is because they are not running an overdrive transmission. I have 4:30 gears in my '67 Mustang and cruise on the Highway just fine with a 5 speed. The GT street car was built for speed and not just one track. And neither was the GT race car built for just one track. That would be just dumb. Yes they wanted to win at Le Mans, but they also wanted to win a championship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that is because they are not running an overdrive transmission. I have 4:30 gears in my '67 Mustang and cruise on the Highway just fine with a 5 speed. The GT street car was built for speed and not just one track. And neither was the GT race car built for just one track. That would be just dumb. Yes they wanted to win at Le Mans, but they also wanted to win a championship.

 

Not for one track, for one series. The corvette supercharged 6.2L is not race legal. The Corvette race cars use a 5.5L NA powerplant that’s not even available on the production vehicle while the GT uses the same 3.5L twin turbo in both their street and race cars albeit detuned to meet BOP rules.

 

Look at it this way - both vehicles were forced induction but the Corvette needed almost twice the displacement to beat the GT. The GT was right there with the Huracan and GT3 RS. I’m sure on a different track those vehicles would outperform the Corvette. There is a reason GM is moving to a mid engine vette for racing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just talking street versions of the cars. The Corvette ZR1 is faster than the GT and it cost $120K to start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just talking street versions of the cars. The Corvette ZR1 is faster than the GT and it cost $120K to start.

 

Well, you don't buy a SuperCar for bang for the buck.

 

The Mustang is 1/3 the cost of the ZR1 and does just fine on the track.

 

Oh, and the GT blows them all away in looks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just talking street versions of the cars. The Corvette ZR1 is faster than the GT and it cost $120K to start.

 

Not arguing that. It’s also faster than most other supercars. Just saying that the GT was created specifically for the track and LeMans/endurance racing. Street performance was not a priority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not arguing that. It’s also faster than most other supercars. Just saying that the GT was created specifically for the track and LeMans/endurance racing. Street performance was not a priority.

But VIR is a race track and it should do better than it did for the price. I think it's kind of an embarrassment to get beat on a race track by a car costing a quarter as much with a front engine pushrod motor. I know you are going to say but it's a bigger engine and all. But Ford knew what the competition was going into this thing and went with a V6 TT to showcase their technology. I think they came up short. Leaving the race car out of the equation. I'm talking street car to street car.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But VIR is a race track and it should do better than it did for the price. I think it's kind of an embarrassment to get beat on a race track by a car costing a quarter as much with a front engine pushrod motor. I know you are going to say but it's a bigger engine and all. But Ford knew what the competition was going into this thing and went with a V6 TT to showcase their technology. I think they came up short. Leaving the race car out of the equation. I'm talking street car to street car.

 

This is the type of overreaction that is infuriating. The production GT was only built to satisfy the requirement of a racing series of having a production car and be a halo technology vehicle. The fact they use the same engine spec, in my opinion, adds to the car. Plus the GT production car is why more race car than the ZR1. The ZR1 is built on the same platform (with significant changes) as the base vette. I would absolutely guarantee that if the GT had roughly the same HP than the ZR1 (versus being down 100hp and over 150tq) it would beat the times. Only an internet benchmark racer would call the GT a failure.

 

The fact that everyone that drives the ZR1 calls it scary and on the verge of being too much engine for that platform, says a lot. It's a success in your eyes because of lap times though.

Edited by jcartwright99

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if it's way more race car than the ZR1 it should have handed the Vett's ass in a sling. It's not and Ford blew it putting the V6TT in that car just to show off the technology. Look I have had Fords all my life and want nothing but to have Ford succeed, but they keep getting beat by less costly and inferior cars consistently. But in a few more years it won't matter because everything will be electric and the wars will start all over again. I just hope Ford comes out on top this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if it's way more race car than the ZR1 it should have handed the Vett's ass in a sling. It's not and Ford blew it putting the V6TT in that car just to show off the technology. Look I have had Fords all my life and want nothing but to have Ford succeed, but they keep getting beat by less costly and inferior cars consistently. But in a few more years it won't matter because everything will be electric and the wars will start all over again. I just hope Ford comes out on top this time.

 

I think you are missing the point and I'm done trying to explain it to you. If you think the Ford GT is a failure, ask the 1000 people paying 500,000 bucks for it. There won't be a GT sitting on the showroom floor, like there will be with ZR1's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the last time, they used the 3.5LTT because it fits the race rules. Race corvette is limited to 5.5L NA for the same reason. They weren’t just “showing off”. That vette is typical GM - stuff a huge displacement engine in it and call it a day. Ford (and Lamborghini and Ferrari and Porsche) don’t subscribe to that same philosophy. If this Vette is so great then why is GM making a mid engine version just like the GT?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the last time, they used the 3.5LTT because it fits the race rules. Race corvette is limited to 5.5L NA for the same reason. They weren’t just “showing off”. That vette is typical GM - stuff a huge displacement engine in it and call it a day. Ford (and Lamborghini and Ferrari and Porsche) don’t subscribe to that same philosophy. If this Vette is so great then why is GM making a mid engine version just like the GT?

Because GM wants to build a Supercar and not just a Sportscar. And they won't be using a V6 that's for sure. They are moving it upmarket like Ford did with the GT. They could have gone NA at 5.0L. It was a marketing decision to push the ECOBoost technology period. And in my opinion it was a mistake. Do you think the Mid engine Corvette is going to cost $400K ? I bet not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think you are missing the point and I'm done trying to explain it to you. If you think the Ford GT is a failure, ask the 1000 people paying 500,000 bucks for it. There won't be a GT sitting on the showroom floor, like there will be with ZR1's.

I never said it was a failure. It just isn't faster or better handling then a ZR1 at 1/4 the cost. And for has only produced what 136 cars so far? Oh 137 they had to replace the burnt one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And for has only produced what 136 cars so far?

You do understand that is intentional right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, that is because they are not running an overdrive transmission. I have 4:30 gears in my '67 Mustang and cruise on the Highway just fine with a 5 speed. The GT street car was built for speed and not just one track. And neither was the GT race car built for just one track. That would be just dumb. Yes they wanted to win at Le Mans, but they also wanted to win a championship.

 

Yes, and no. I won't run 430s (or higher) in the Mach, as they would inhibit my driving on the twisties. If I did more 1/4 runs, I'd switch in a minute.

 

None-the-less . . . yes it stinks a ZR1 can beat a GT at some places. However, FMC and Multimatic built the GT for a specific series, as noted above, to the limits of the regulations to race for a certain number of years in GT2. The street car is a by-product of the race car, plain and simple . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do understand that is intentional right?

No I didn't know that. Please explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm...let's see.......Do we put in a big engine so we can beat Corvette in a meaningless car magazine test or do we win LeMans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No I didn't know that. Please explain.

They are limiting production to 250 a year. They have admitted they fell behind because the car proved to be a little more difficult to build than they thought it would be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm...let's see.......Do we put in a big engine so we can beat Corvette in a meaningless car magazine test or do we win LeMans?

Why not both? The GT is a supercar or is it? Maybe just supercar priced. And getting beat by a sportscar on a track that both cars were designed for handling, balance, and power and aerodynamics on the part of the GT (which is touted by Ford) at 1/4 the price is okay? Got it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I've had enough of this ridiculous argument based on one race and completely ignoring the past 2 years of results and IMSA's BOP rules....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because winning some meaningless magazine test is irrelevant to Ford. And Lamborghini. And Ferrari. End of discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×