Ford GT (Mk II) specs

Altitude,aero ; and superior McLaren tranny and launch control.

That's just what your Momma and Papa wear after you've had a spicy dinner Cos. My bambino is so gassy!! They say.

@Fastedee

Hahahaha

Every company has problems on occasion. If it's true pull em off the bloody road pronto.

Lol nope

I can only speak for myself - to me its the most intriguing supercar of 2017 for sure. It's a new player in Porsche, Ferrari and McLaren game.

jag boys with the xj couldn't deliver a v12 and went for v6t, ford did the same thing just being a bit more anal and using the climate change excuse to lay off some heat from democrats and obama party

They designed the chassis around the engine to keep the car light and well balanced within Lemans regulations. The carbon footprint of a small run of supercars is negligible. Not to mention this V6 isn't very fuel efficient anyhow

Fascinating. Usually Europeans mock climate change denying far right Republicans. Must be one of those Nigel Farage/Marine LaPen Europeans

Yes and no

I like how Jay Leno describes this car as "chassis car" rather than "engine car". That V6TT engine is utilitarian - it is there just to do the job of delivering 650 hp and do no more and no less. It is just a power generating appliance with compact dimensions for perfect weight distribution. It is not mechanical art like a V12.

Does that make it a shit supercar? I don't think so, it makes it "practical supercar" - like Jay said - it was designed to win Le Mans, rather than and impress with pornographic, shiny exhaust manifolds or the most amazing sound.

Either way, the "form follows function" exterior still came out very striking and visually pleasing.

It's just a shame how FIA over-reacted with balance-of-performance for this year's Le Mans and rendered turbo cars (Ford GT and Ferrari 488) almost noncompetitive.

blame the french for every single lame regulation they come up with every 6 months

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1d/68/19/1d6819a1c805f042cb8d568dd7ff7b93--special-interest-health-care.jpg

kill every control unit installed on this car and you have this, back to square one with a degraded ecoboost tech out of a focus

http://st.motortrend.com/uploads/sites/5/2013/04/2005-Ford-GT-crash-front-side-view.jpg

there's nothing special about a v6 turbo, it should be sold under srt or chrysler brand and the laughing part is the sticker price with every douche drooling all over it, later on putting it up for sale on ebay or use it as a future investment.

Must be why they served the Griswolds frozen dinners in National Lampoon.

That's an old V8 GT- probably the victim of a lead foot. The V6 is nearly as powerful as a 488s twin turbo V8. Doesn't sound quite as good though but it wasn't made for that. I'm hoping the 488's successor has an air to water intercooler as they're more efficient. A few whinging Willies think you can't design an integrated dry sump without oil starvation in fast corners but Porsche has done a great job and surely Ferrari can do even better. Remember you get more flies with honey than vinegar...but you get the most with a dead Beaver!

It's fast enough but I wonder how McLaren and Ferrari get such incredible high speed acceleration with similar power levels. I bet it will be killer on the track though.

True

488 won this year...nice try

Ford are not cheaters.

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/06/17/ford-gt-dominates-le-mans-qualifying-gets-bop-change/

this company is about on / off switch and still can't get their traction control system right on the mustang.

let's not even start about their production cars as being completely stock and ferrari / mclaren killers :)))

I dunno. Look how much slower practice laps are in F1. Sandbagging is a bold claim mister lol.I mean a Williams or Toro Rosso Q2 lap can be faster than a Ferrari first practice lap.

Ferrari doesn't exactly put snow tires on their masterpieces either. The F12 needed stickier rubber and with the TDF it has it. McLaren also does better with Trofeos but that is just equipping the car for the job not cheating.

we don't know what exactly ford does when they talk about 'adjustments' it could be a tweaked ecu, higher boost pressure, the type of cheating on turbo cars is unlimited and hard to trace without a dyno or a quick test comparing stock car to fords twerked out cars.

when you go the turbo route, it will put down jaw dropping numbers but you can print out on your spec sheet list it's a legit300 hp with sticky tires and claim to be the fastest around every track around the globe :))

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20YBMETp1Aw

corruption in the auto car business is like a line that has no end :)

488 is turbo and the legendary f40.

their official hp numbers are higher than factory specs :)

10.2? What are you smoking? Haha

Its not a bad result in anyway, This will do 10s no doubt, And even better in the hands of an independent who owns it, Magazine results arent the end all to be all, But saying its a bad result, Or slow is just retarded, 918s and P1 make ever car seem slower, But that shouldnt have a determent on how you people see ther cars, Or think how fast they "Should" so..The last one, That one was built for more acceleration then track times, A time when cars were just that, Cars and not computers that try and get the fastest laps.

This wont do a 10.2 in a magazine test, If a C7 ZO6 can pull off a 10.3@137 in the hands of an independant, Its certainly possible for this one, Maybe, But i dont expect this car to be seen at the local strips.

The pipe of wisdom

Neck and neck with ZR1 and beats both Hellcats.

This one does 0-150 in 15.7. The Hellcat 15.8-17.2 in C/D, ZR1 15.9 in Evo's testing.

The Hellcats needs slicks to go under 17 to 150.

Then the time wouldn't be up here if that were the case...smh

17 is posted as the best for the Challenger while there is no 0-150 for the Charger. FL must have deemed the 15.8 as invalid.Entertaining cars especially on the Grand Tour.

The fact is, The Charger did do the 15.8 to 150mph, Wether its no her or not, And thes times are only the best of magazine times, Which doesnt show there tru potential.

It has worse power to weight than the GT and the aerodynamics of a brick. Still 17 is crazy fast for a car like this.

And? If you can get the launch just fight it will have great times, A Charger actually has normal aerodynamics, It has a coefficient drag of Cd.34, Which is pretty much average, A Challengers is different, And 60bhp and 100lb ft more torque then the GT help too, But either way, You give a HellCat to a pro for a week who knows how to launch it And take it too a runway, You'll see it dip much lower.

Americans do suck at giving power ratings, coming from an American myself. The real C6ZR/C7Z power is between 580 and 620 hp but y'all gotta remember they're heavier than a 540C.

2004 Ford Gt was nearly a second slower to 100. Theres no way it sped up to 131 in 11.2 and then slowed down again. A real quarter time would be 11.6-7 125-126 mph

Also based on its Calabogie lap the New GT will handle way better than its predecessor. The 2004 GTs laptimes are hardly supercar level these days.

That's just numbers from different tests. It's like the instances when numbers show the car can get to 62mph quicker than it does to 60.

I guess it makes sense, although the new GT probably has more advantage in lower speeds than higher due to downforce but still 0.8 seconds difference is just too high to recover from in this case and data backs up this.

2004 Ford GT does 100-150 mph in 9.5 seconds
2017 Ford GT does 100-150 mph in 9.1 seconds

So even after after 100 mph the new GT keeps accelerating faster.

True to a degree but there are no magazines sourced for the old GT in mph except 0-60 0-100 and 0-150. 0-100 mph was estimated at 7 by Car & Driver but the fastest actually achieved was 7.4 vs 6.6. Slow Sports Auto at the other end of the Spectrum got 0-125 mph(200 kph) in 12. The modern GT must use up some of its speed for downforce. If it outlaps the McLarens and Ferraris then 6.6 vs 6.0 0-100 times won't matter but only if it outlaps the ACR and 720s.The old GT laps like a very fast modern grand touring car. The old GT quarter mile was anonymously entered and is not consistent with 7.4 and 16.9 to 100 and 150 mph. The 7 flat 0-100 still shows up when you do comparisons but not when you look at the old GT singly. That time was pending removal 2 years ago.

The old GT is seriously quick equalling a new ZO6 to 150 mph.

It also did 215mph

The fastest time with the old one was done by motortrend when it was compared to the Enzo, Carrera GT, And SLR in a comparison test, The least most powerful car with the second highest weight and far less expensive was the most impressive, 0-60, 100 and 1/4 time range from the slowest of 4.3, 9.0s and 12.3@120 by C&D to the fastest by motortrend of 3.3s, 7.3s and 11.2@132, It's a powerful manual red car where the driver actually drives the car so tests will be all over the place given different skill levels.

I mean did you people expect this thing to be faster or as fast as a 650S in acceleration?....I didnt

Nope just in laptimes.

Fortunately Car and driver doesn't haveva driver that poor these days and the GT is DCT.

True but they sold every one.

Like you said, it's no faster in a straight line even with more power more torque faster gearbox and better tires. Nobody is comparing the car to the P1s and 918s. You have the Ferrari 488 which has the similar power and more weight (if the Ford claimed weight is true) doing 10.4s runs. Both are mid engine layouts. The Porsche TS, R8, any Mclaren, and Lambo would do 10.6 runs.

The acceleration numbers for the old GT are old anonymous and probably bogus. 0-100 in 7.5 sounds closer to what I remember. plus its bodywork was for speed not handling. The old GT gets beat by a DB11 and F type R on the track and absolutely monstered at Big Willow by them. Heck even contemporaries like the Gallardo and DBS beat it at most tracks.The new GT is slowed down for track speed like the ZL1 ILE and ACR.

Those figures don't look too impressive. I am sure it can (and will) produce better numbers.

That's not the Road & Track numbers.

It's still fast enough if it monsters the track. Otherwise just a gimmick

Those are the R&T numbers in "European" language: in kph, without rollout. The numbers were taken from the acceleration graph I made based on their test data. Error is +-0.1 sec max. ;)

A Dodge Charger Hellcat can do a 1/4-mile in 11.3sec-ish (NHRA certified excluding rollout) at 215kph... so something is wrong with the Ford GT. Notice 0-96 in 3.5 and 0-200 in 10.8 for that GT, 0-96 in 3.7 and 0-200 in 9.9 or so for the Hellcat...

A car that does 120 mph in 9.3 and 130 in 11.1 does not do 125(200 kph) in 10.8. Factoring in a typical non linear slowdown .8 to 120-125 and 1.0 for 125-130 = 200 in exactly 10.1 or 9.2-9.4 with altitude adjustment. The 0-60 was standing start converting to a 3.5 0-100 kph.

A quarter mile is a quarter mile is a quarter mile so it's growth from 11.1-11.4 is not borne by any evidence.

Amusing for him to think a car that does 130-140 in 1.9 seconds takes a full 1.5 seconds to go 120-125 mph.

In fairness to you your numbers will probably be very close to SportAutos times but they have an atypical testing process with 2 people and a full tank of gas in the car.

MY numbers are with the 0.3 s rollout-time. And so the real 0-120mph time is 9,6 and the 130mph time is 11,4. The graph was made with these numbers.
You can read the 0-200 kph time quite accuratly: 10,8 s.

fastedee is a certified technician that was approved by fasteslpas beavis & butthead to always provide us his own personal opinion about super fast cars that get tested on xbox forza game.

the ford is an uninteresting car that relies on thousands of ecus to keep it from going sideways or killing a pedestrian, wait till they start delivering them all and owners sending them back to get their trims glued back, the engine ? not sure how much boost it will handle, but it will blow up for sure under full throttle at the track.

Woo hoo

Interesting. So you add the rollout time which both Road & Track and FL don't. When they put 0-60 is 3.2 that's what they mean. When they got a 3.9 for the Vantage V12 s that's what they said it did. They didn't add the .4 rollout and say 4.3. Adding the rollout time would change every Road & Track based time for the worse on this site. The graph is fundamentally flawed and even at 9.6 and 11.4 the correct 200 time would be 10.4.

Say what you will about me but not those two titans of automotive thought. Bow to their wisdom.

Yes, because outside of the US the real standing start 0-60mph time means STANDING start. From 0.00mph. Not a timing after the first 30 centimeters. :D

if this arguement continues, you know mr dump and his advisors will list you as a turrbowrist and the whole crew on fl will stand against you for mocking the murican lifestyle with 0 to 60 test which is considered world standard nowadays to set a new record, as they call it the fastest bla bla bla car in our hands did it in under 3 seconds with tons of potholes ahead lol

how many of original red muricans were slaughtered to takeover that land ? oh, it has nothing to do with turrborism it was just an indian vs cowboy game tadaaa!!

Ferrari is my favourite non British car but their test track goes downhill.

Mr Dump? There's hope for you yet lad.

Yes tge Natives
Fought them hard
They fought them well
Out on the plains they gave
Them Hell
But many came..too much
For Cree
When will we
Be set free.
Of course we made the Newfoundland natives extinct so we must hang our heads with our southern friends in the States.

so being a terrorist and man slaughtering is fine as long as you're holding the flag with stars ? mmmm yea whatever lol

it's a new nation for natzis to immigrate there with a different swastika that looks like a goat with cyclops eyes

Your Trump criticism while spot on may be pokeing the bear.

Look at the Autobild ZO6 test 0-100 3.2. Car and Driver 0-60 3.0. Only a .2 gap not .5. Car and Driver 0-130 mph11.9 Autobild 0- 200 km/hr 10.2. Gap of 1.7. The GT is nearly a second faster than the ZO6 to 130 but somehow .6 slower to 200 km\hr. This European alternative facts 0-60 is bogus and a shallow concealment of trollery.

Speciale is not particularly FAST, its more of a FEEL car,