New Ford GT...

I think it's kind of ugly, this one.

I dug the body styling of the last one more. But at least they're making something fun (as has been stated)

With modern technology, I'd think that Ford could make that engine sound like one of the three tenors if they wanted to.

I'm not in love with the nose, but the overall shape works for me. Most of all, it stands out. The new Honda NSX looks like an AUDI with a grille for Transformers, and a number of other "supercars" suffer from sameness as well. I'd think that most people who are going to shell out six figures for a toy car don't want it to be confused with three other brands. I think that Ford's going to loose a few sales due to the pedestrian origins of the engine though. If Ford is smart, they'll put the turbos right on top instead of hiding them, and create some visual excitement around the motor, because you don't want your customers going "wow, I could have had a V12!

In reply to B. Choate:

Since the previous GT also had a pedestrian truck engine in it, and it was very popular, I doubt that this one will have a tough time selling due to the roots of the engine. Heck, before the truck, it was also in the SHO.

V12? The only Ford that ever got that was an Aston Martin. This car just has a big V8 from a pedestrian car or truck. That never hurt it.

The engine is also the same one that is used in Gran Am racing- and won a few races last year. So it has racing history behind it.

From a package, I would never put those turbos above the engine. Why hide the engine under that?

Actually the more I look, the more I like. The buttress reminds me of a Merak, and the nose is very Pantera-esque with hints of a Miura. But still unquestionably modern. Well done!

A 6 just lacks the cachet of a 12. My comment was placing it in comparison to the Italian and German makes. My feeling is that 70 percent of the people who purchase a car like this aren't hard-core motor-heads, but more international versions of "Corvette Guy"; which is to say is that the overall greatness of the car is incidental to the bling, respect, skirt appeal and such. Said guy likes a bunch of cylinders. Note that this is my marketing self speaking, not my motorhead self.

And you are right about the turbos. Especially with those big heads, there's no good place to put them up high, and it raises the COG.

I just like seeing some mechanical eye candy. At the last SF auto show, there was some hot-E36 M3 Japanese Supercar there, and the engine was hidden underneath a plastic cover. Instant turn-off.

alfadriver wrote: V12? The only Ford that ever got that was an Aston Martin.

Not to be picky, well actualy yes, I'll be picky. If you count Aston as Ford then I think we need to include Lincoln and Jaguar too.

Remember F1 is currently powered by a V6 turbo, exotic connections are out there

aussiesmg wrote: Remember F1 is currently powered by a V6 turbo, exotic connections are out there

Not just does Indy and F1 use V6 twin turbo's, but for a better does of street cred, the engine in this car has already won the 24 hours of Daytona and the 12 hours of Sebring. That should be more than good enough for any real enthusiast, anyone still not impressed can go shop for knuckle guards to protect their hands as they walk down the street.

In reply to Adrian_Thompson:

Since you are going to nit-pick, of those engines, only the Linconln would be a realistic version of a V12 from this company.

The Jag engine pre-dates Ford's involvement by a couple of decades.

The V12 in the GT90 was also made by Ford, but other than a couple of engines, it never got very far. Heck I did a great job breaking one of them.

I don't see any point in a V12 for an F product what so ever. Never part of the DNA. Lincoln, perhaps, previous parts- sure. But, realistically, I'd even pass on Aston's V12 at this point- I know where that came from, and we stopped that motor with the previous boxy shaped Escape.

Funny how people focus so much on LeMans. Winning Daytona and Sebring were REALLY big deals, too. From what I read, LeMans is on top, with Daytona, Sebring, and Targa Florio close behind. Then the edurance races at Spa and Monza. There's a lot in the Daytona and Sebring races- which is just fine for this car, since that's where this engine came from right now. (there were some ideas to have this motor power a P2 car, but it never happened)

It will be interesting to see the actual engine. Is it really the DP engine, or is it the truck engine? They are not actually the same.

alfadriver wrote: The V12 in the GT90 was also made by Ford, but other than a couple of engines, it never got very far. Heck I did a great job breaking one of them.

Care to provide a bit more detail on that event?

alfadriver wrote: It will be interesting to see the actual engine. Is it *really* the DP engine, or is it the truck engine? They are not actually the same.

Eric, you're in a better position than any of us to elaborate on this. I thought the current IMSA/Tudor United Sports Car/Daytona proto whatever rules required production based engines. How far does this production base go? The block is the same basic casting? heads? proportions? How much? I've no idea.

petegossett wrote:

alfadriver wrote: The V12 in the GT90 was also made by Ford, but other than a couple of engines, it never got very far. Heck I did a great job breaking one of them.

Care to provide a bit more detail on that event?

That I can do- back when the first 60deg v12's were being put together, we were doing control experiments on one of the 90 v12's that were for the GT90. While doing that, I must have dropped a small retaining bolt down an injector hole. First crank over, it spun a little and stopped.

When we inspected it with a bore scope, you could clearly see the broken intake valve in the piston. oops.

Turned out that the engine was really damaged from other use- a couple of the liners slipped. This was way back in 1995.

Adrian_Thompson wrote:

alfadriver wrote: It will be interesting to see the actual engine. Is it *really* the DP engine, or is it the truck engine? They are not actually the same.

Eric, you're in a better position than any of us to elaborate on this. I thought the current IMSA/Tudor United Sports Car/Daytona proto whatever rules required production based engines. How far does this production base go? The block is the same basic casting? heads? proportions? How much? I've no idea.

It is production based, but the DP engine is based off of the SHO engine, not the truck engine. They are not the same. Close, but not the same. So is the GT engine from the SHO/Flex/MKT/MKS or the F150?

I'm not sure about how much is production, but suspect that the block is largely stock (it's really beefy), the heads are massaged, as well as modified to have a second high pressure pump. I thought I heard that the race engine is a single turbo, but am not sure.

I don't know, I'm much more excited about the Mustang GT350 R when it comes to cars I can't afford. The GT's styling is...confusing. It's like a fat person crammed into some really wrinkly, tight clothing. All kinds of strange bulges and sharp edges in one visually massive and heavy package.

In reply to gearheadE30:

Massive and heavy?

The car is tiny. There's a picture of it next to Bill Ford, Mark Fields, Joe Hinrichs, and Raj Nair, with the car behind them. They are not big people- and the car is really small sitting next to them.

And the car is made more out of carbon fiber than the previous GT. So it's probably lighter than the GT. That car fully trimmed was 3300lb, which isn't light, but not that heavy, either. It's the same weight as the C7 for the most part.

Busy styling, sure. But I don't see massive and heavy.

When I look at the GT I see airflow. I suspect this version (like the original, but not the last one) was designed to win races. Ford wants to make a statement by winning international motor racing and selling a couple of them to people to build image.

mazdeuce wrote: When I look at the GT I see airflow. I suspect this version (like the original, but not the last one) was designed to win races. Ford wants to make a statement by winning international motor racing and selling a couple of them to people to build image.

The image is already there, there's no need to build it again. The GT sold out, and currently sells for more than sticker price, and it never won a race. Every special edition Mustang sells, in spite of the fact that the races it does win are not exacly well known or popular.

It may very well go racing. But there's no need at all to build an image that already exists.

If this car wins Daytona and/or LeMans, it wont likely sell a significant increase of Fusions or F150's, as those owners don't care.

I'm somewhat conflicted on the design but overall I think it's a fantastic looking car and I like it. The pass through design of the fenders for aero is a work of art for sure, but it feels like the traditional GT40 type design elements are kind of forced onto something that has a much greater aero focus with a more organic body. The previous GT was a beautiful exercise in minimalistic retro styling. This definitely has a different feel.

As for the motor, it's clear that they had a specific goal to go racing with it, and if it meets those class requirements then it makes sense. I would still rather see the flat plane v8 from the GT350R in this, but perhaps that's something that comes in the future.

alfadriver wrote: In reply to gearheadE30: Massive and heavy? The car is tiny. There's a picture of it next to Bill Ford, Mark Fields, Joe Hinrichs, and Raj Nair, with the car behind them. They are not big people- and the car is really small sitting next to them. And the car is made more out of carbon fiber than the previous GT. So it's probably lighter than the GT. That car fully trimmed was 3300lb, which isn't light, but not that heavy, either. It's the same weight as the C7 for the most part. Busy styling, sure. But I don't see massive and heavy.

I meant that it looks massive and heavy. Not the taut bodywork that, say, the new NSX was graced with. In actuality, yeah, I know it's not a big heavy car by modern standards or anything.

Which one looks heavier? To me, the Ford. It's just too blobby. Everyone else seems to love it, though, so maybe I'm just crazy.

That angle makes its butt look big, it is true. But by the wonders of perspective we can make a Miata look larger than a supertanker as well. In other words, it's only a picture. The Acura is handsome, but IMO resolutely generic. If you changed the nose treatment and called it an AUDI, one would have to squint to tell the difference.

I like that it stands out. It hosts a number of vintage styling cues, while looking
very modern to boot:

-Windshield and roof line: GT40

-Flying buttress: Merak

-Nose: Pantera & Miura

et cetera.

Based on pictures only.....Home run.

In reply to gearheadE30:

The NSX...it looks taller than the GT. The pass throughs on the Ford make it seem more trim. Anyway, these are all opinions and you know what they say about those. Between the two, I like the Ford better. I would take either though if someone was handing me the keys.

In reply to singleslammer:

I suppose it's worth pointing out that I think the high points of automotive styling are such boxy vehicles as the Ferrari F40 and 288 GTO, and the Lancia 037 Rally, and as far as I'm concerned, the facelift C4 was the best looking modern Corvette haha.

In reply to B. Choate:

I don't think the nose has anything from either Miura.....

At least they're building the GT, versus not building it. I wish Lambo had built that concept Miura....absolutely stunning car.

Yes I work for Ford so you can say I'm biased. But honestly when you see the GT in the flesh it's a work of art, it's just gorgeous. It's one of those car you can just soak up the details. It has also dodged the bullet of looking fussy which is something that the Japanese keep getting wrong.

The NSX above isn’t a patch on the original design, it looks tall and overwrought. If you were to look at a silhouette of that raised front ¾ view and look at an Audi R8 from the same viewpoint I can see a lot of similarities in the outline, which is a good thing as I love the R8. The issue is that they’ve thrown so much fussy styling at it, it looks a bit of a mess.

I just can't wait til I see it in person tomorrow!