Latest info on the Ford GT

I have trying to keep as up to date as possible on the new Ford GT. Anyway, looks like they have a running prototype of the car. I'm still waiting to hear how heavy this thing will weigh.

Here are two articles:
http://autoweek.com/cat_content.mv?port_code=autoweek&cat_code=carn ews&loc_code=index&content_code=01894669
http://www.thecarconnection.com/index.asp?article=5544

And here are some photos I waas able to track down:

Other good news: Meanwhile, members of the GT team said they’re developing options for those who think the car’s 500-plus horsepower supercharged V-8 isn’t enough. Ford is working with a number of suppliers to develop aftermarket performance components. “The market expects it, so why wouldn’t we deliver?” said John Coletti, head of Ford’s Special Vehicle Team, or SVT, unit.

[ November 28, 2002: Message edited by: Jon ]

 

[Gary Gibbs]

The only other news that I heard recently is that they will not be in full production mode until 2005. 2003 they will make 3 cars. 2004 they will make something like 500-600 cars (bet they go for an extra premium). Then 2005 full (limited) production.

 

[Dave Wharran]

A quote from the "car connection" link:

"The original GT had some serious aerodynamic issues. It developed so much lift it could barely be kept on the road at speeds over 200 mph. And it “had the drag of a brick,” laughed Kent Harrison, supervisor of performance development for the new sports car. The GT under development has plenty of downforce and significantly lower drag, largely due to a smooth underbody."

I guess the originals weren't so good, huh? I wonder how fast the new "aerodynamic" cars will be able to run with 500+ HP as compared to the "bricks" with 400 HP? Don't know about anyone else, but I love my "brick"!

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

It's true that the FIRST Ford GTs, the ones before the classic GT40 as we know it, did have a lot of lift and weren't real stable on the track at speed. Those problems were fixed rapidly and the resulting cars were very stable at high speeds. They didn't win all those races by flying off the track.
I'm annoyed that FoMoCo has had so little good to say about their previous GT car- it was a fast, reliable, good looking car that won tons of races and earned itself a permanent place in motor racing history at the top of the stack. AND, it is arguably the most beautiful sports car ever made, certainly one of them if not the best. Their "new" car is essentially a knockoff of the old one, with some nods to modern technology. We'll see how good it is, when it gets rolling. It has already lost the esthetics race. IMHO

 

[ChrisL]

There are probably lots of things that you could poke fun at if you were to compare a 1960s car against today’s cars, but it’s a big mistake to poke fun at the original GT40’s aerodynamics. The GT40 broke new ground in that field with extensive use of wind tunnels to design the body shape. In fact, it was probably these new techniques that created the pure shape that allowed the car to create the amounts of lift required to make it unstable. But to go further, they were then probably the first to prove the true value of the rear spoiler in making the car stable… and then managed to incorporate it without introducing a drag penalty. In fact, the development of this spoiler was developed so early in the industry’s understanding of aerodynamics, that the spoilerless car was likened by Ford’s Roy Lunn to “an arrow without feathers”… which we know today to be an incorrect analogy… and all that before the car was to turn a serious wheel on the race track.

 

[MWGT40]

I could be completely wrong, but when I read the articles, I thought that they were referring to the original show car having poor aerodynamics, not the original cars. If you read the articles, particularly the one in Autoweek, they talk about all the modifications between the show car and the one the production prototype - and these changes largely resulting from the results of extensive wind tunnel testing. Anybody else interpret this in the same way?

 

I agree with you John. I believe, they were refering to the "new" GT40 show car's areodynamics being rather poor. They were not talking about the original GT40's.

Doug

 

It should be noted that at the first high speed runs of the original GT in 1964 at the LeMans practice, one of the cars actually became airborne after having reached take off speed down the Mulsanne Straight. Both of the cars crashed in the rain.

The aerodynamics of the car weren't great. When it first started collecting DNFs, it was a very hard car to drive; the doors would lift at high speeds, the rear would lift at high speed, the front became squishy over 160 MPH...but the car could still go 200 mph. I would imagine that it was quite a white-knuckle ride in the early cars.

Then the rear end started growing a duck tail, eyebrows sprouted over the front edges of the tops of the doors, and the radiator and air intakes were moved around the front in an effort to get the car to stay on the track. There was some extensive wind-tunnel testing done with a 3/8 scale model (boy, I'd love to find that model today!).

After that, Shelby entered the picture. I'm not a huge Shelby fan, and I firmly believe that his contribution to the GT40 program can be summed up by saying that he decided to change the colors of the car from white to Guardsman Blue with white stripes.

Ford continued to sort the aerodynamics, a 289 was added, and the wire wheels were exchanged for magnesium ones. Phil Remington did alot of the work on the GT at this time, many of the changes were his, including switching to a quick change brake system - with even the discs being set up to switch out quickly during a pit stop. The discs wouldn't last a whole race, and switching out the original style hub/disc was too time consuming.

It was a little over two years after the original LeMans flight of the GT that Ford finally got the nose of the car set up the way it is on most of the Mk I replicas. Within another year the Mk IIs started showing up.

The original GT was an aerodynamic nightmare. Ford did, eventually, get it all sorted out. The original engine - the 255 cubic inch Indy - was replaced with the 385 HP Cobra competition 289 because it had major issues, and seemed to attract DNFs like they were going out of style.

There was a European race saying that it takes three years to make a LeMans winner, and that's about what it DID take for the original GT to win at LeMans. The GT40s you guys are making are replicas of the later Ford racing effort; not the early GT. You get the benefits of all of Ford's aerodynamic research, Holman-Moody's NASCAR experience, the people who worked for Shelby American - especially Phil Remington - all without having to invest the millions that Ford sank into the project!

Another reason that Ford may be trying to down-play the early GTs is because the replica manufacturers of the GT40 have been in business for a very long time. And, in a parallel to the Cobra, the shape of the GT40 is not trademarked or trade dressed. As nice as the new GT44 may be, it's still way more expensive that picking up a replica of the real, race proven GT40!

Your pal,
Meat.

 

[Mark Worthington]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by meat:
I'm not a huge Shelby fan, and I firmly believe that his contribution to the GT40 program can be summed up by saying that he decided to change the colors of the car from white to Guardsman Blue with white stripes. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I take it you're referring to Carrol Shelby, the individual, and not to the Shelby organization. The contributions of both Phil Remmington, some of which you've noted, and Carrol Smith, who both worked for Shelby, were extremely important to Ford's GT40 racing efforts.

 

[David]

And now for a change of pace! Have you guys seen the pictures James Baldwin, at Club Cobra, took of the Ford GT at SEMA:
http://www.clubcobra.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21835

Enjoy

Dave Lowell

Let's let old Shel, the individual, rest in peace and go wherever angry old men go. In my opinion, there is no question the Phil Remington and Ken Miles pulled the Ford GT40 program out doldrums and made it world class. Personal observation - Miles and Bondurant had the uncany ability to drive a vehicle and convey to the engineers/mechanics what was needed to fix a problem, not just report what the problem was.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Mark Worthington:
"...I take it you're referring to Carrol Shelby, the individual, and not to the Shelby organization..."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Uh...I'm not going to get into this here. This is a nice site.

I had something to contribute, and I'm pretty sure that I was clear in what I wrote.

Your pal,
Meat.

[ November 30, 2002: Message edited by: meat ]

 

[Gary Gibbs]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by meat:

After that, Shelby entered the picture. I'm not a huge Shelby fan, and I firmly believe that his contribution to the GT40 program can be summed up by saying that he decided to change the colors of the car from white to Guardsman Blue with white stripes.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me see. The GT DNFed every car in EVERY race for over a year until Shelby took over with his crew (remington, miles, etc.) and the next race they sat on the pole and won. Hum. Must have been some snake oil added to that paint job or something. Now really I think Lola is totally responsible for the success

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gary Gibbs:
"...Let me see..."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well...I'd love to get into this with you, but I notice that you're a CAV dealer. The CAV is a turnkey-minus vehicle, right? It's delivered completely finished except for the drivetrain, right?

Your pal,
Meat.

 

[Gary Gibbs]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by meat:


Well...I'd love to get into this with you, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Obviously. No need. History speaks for itself.

 

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gary Gibbs:
Gary
CAV Virginia Dealer<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, thanks for the welcome.

You're aware that the DOT is working on litigation to stop manufacturers like CAV from importing cars?

States are also cracking down on illegally registered cars.

Since your cars don't fall under most state's kit car laws, there's a good chance you could be out of a job, and your customers cars could be seized.

I hope your cars can pass all of the current safety testing! You've got airbags, retractable safety belts, 5 mph bumpers and crumple zones, right?

Good luck!

Your pal,
Meat.

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

This is getting nasty. I can read depressing contentious stuff on the Times website, or on Comcast's home page which has the (sad) news from all over. I don't come here to watch people fight or be malicious. If you guys both like cars, you have more in common than you think, and if despite that you are determined to be quarrelsome, how about doing it in private so we don't have to read it? Please...

 

[Mark Worthington]

In an effort to direct this hijacked thread back on topic, did anyone notice that the Car Connection article referenced the transaxle as being a Ricardo 6-speed? Up until now, everything I've read said that Ford was using the RBT 6-speed gearbox. I also recall reading somewhere that Ford was breaking a lot of RBT input shafts in testing. Anyone have more information about the gearbox? It would be nice to source a gearbox directly from a local Ford dealer.

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

Mark-

You wouldn't want to know what a complete gearbox will cost from Ford (Parts and Service) The mark-ups are really pretty ugly.
I have questioned the ability of RBT to provide quantities and pricing that Ford would be happy with. No knock on them but after Ford got hosed by ZF in the Pantera program (only to partner with them recently in transmission manufacturing) I think they will look closely at the supplier....plus meeting Q1 standards and such is a real hassle for a small outfit.

Meat-

Please reference or link the info regarding DOT trying to stop "turnkey minus" cars. This not meant as a challenge to your statement but rather a request for information. If this is indeed on the horizon then it bodes no good for several manufacturers.

Nobodys friend,

Rick

 

[Jim Glickenhaus]

What are you talking about Rick? I like you!
Best
Jim

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

Jim,

Dn't let my wife find out!

Rick