New Ford GT unveiled- Twin Turbo 600hp Ecoboost monster

[tranceking26]

The new GT looks pretty good but it's not beautiful. I can see the old GT in it.

 

Somebody made some liveries in photoshop....

 

http://www.roadandtrack.com/car-shows/detroit-auto-show/news/a24749/this-ford-gt-in-gulf-livery-will-haunt-your-dreams/

Edited January 15, 2015 by drr26

[Lurch]

I'm not into that efficiency talk. But all the companies are doing that now, and I guess people like me gotta get used to it.

 

I'm still mad at BMW for downgrading the V8s and V10s to biturbo V6s and V8s.

 

The 2006 M5 exhaust sound is the reason for my way of thinking. Here's why:

 

 

Please tell me about all these BMW V6's. I think I've yet to see one.

 

 

[GN 92]

 

 

I'm not into that efficiency talk. But all the companies are doing that now, and I guess people like me gotta get used to it.

 

I'm still mad at BMW for downgrading the V8s and V10s to biturbo V6s and V8s.

 

The 2006 M5 exhaust sound is the reason for my way of thinking. Here's why:

 

 

Please tell me about all these BMW V6's. I think I've yet to see one.

 

 

My mistake, I meant 6 cylinders, I was writing fast and didn't even notice that lol

[eroch]

If they found some way to make it without those weird arches that create an open space between the engine compartment and the rear wheels, and then correct the rear wheels' size to fit better, I'd think it would look great.

 

 

Correction, I'd look better if those arches weren't arches, but solid body panels.

Edited January 24, 2015 by eroch

[*MURDOC*]

I don't really think those arches are about looks at all, so that doesn't really matter too much.

[ARC8_1982]

Nothing will beat 1960's Ford GT thats all i know, these modern reincarnations are just far cry from what the original car was. It's great that still are legendary names on the road such as Camaro, Corvette, or Challenger, but like i said before they're not going to beat legends from 1960's, also it would be nice to see contemporary designs of these cars than retro.

Edited January 26, 2015 by ARC8_1982

[*MURDOC*]

Depends on what you mean by "beat" really.

 

Designs change as technology progresses. New materials, engine/drivetrain configurations, new aerodynamic designs etc. all have their influence on the design of modern vehicles, Supercars especially.

 

There are always companies that make kit cars that are solid recreations of classic sorts cars and race cars that fill the niche of "old but new" that you're talking about, but there's just not enough of a demand (among other reasons) to justify car makers building new versions of old cars.

[richard1997jones]

It looks beast.

[Algonquin Assassin]

Not a Ford fan, but looks like a beast. However not sure about there being no V8 powerplant. It's a GT trademark IMO.

[sivispacem]

Nothing will beat 1960's Ford GT thats all i know

[Eurotrash]

Blasphemy never looked this good...

 

Except for that rear, it's way too big

[owl-man]

(Source: AutoBlog)

[Gouveia]

 

 

This, this, this is exactly why I fell in love with this car.

 

f*cking EcoBeast, man!

 

Also, you guys seen this?

 

 

[Wastelander (Suzuki)]

I read something a while back that said Ford was thinking about racing the new GT at Le Mans, That's a bit Worrying given that Track record the F.I.A as when it comes to Non-European cars winning in European motorsports (I.E the banning of the Skyline, Supra, the Mazda 787B and a few other cars, and giving very shady reasons at best for doing so) Ferrari is most likely push to get the new GT banned from Le Man as well, seeing as Ferrari hasn't won at Le Man since the GT40 wiped the floor with them, also Ford can Buy 3.5l to 5.0l JUDD V8s if the New 3.5l V6 fails to win.

[sivispacem]

The Supra never got banned AFAIK. The Skyline was banned when AWD was and the 787B was when rotaruescwere banned- which was a bit silky granted but the FIA rules regarding displacement multipliers for rotary engines did favouritise them somewhat. The Ford GT, Viper, Corvette, Mustangs, Chargers, Moslers and several other US marques compete in, and often win, their respective classes in FIA administered events.

[TheOneLibertonian]

The Supra never got banned AFAIK. The Skyline was banned when AWD was and the 787B was when rotaruescwere banned- which was a bit silky granted but the FIA rules regarding displacement multipliers for rotary engines did favouritise them somewhat. The Ford GT, Viper, Corvette, Mustangs, Chargers, Moslers and several other US marques compete in, and often win, their respective classes in FIA administered events.

The FIA are very strict when it comes to rules. If Ford were to return to endurance racing, it's gonna be a hard task since Ferrari are also planning to return as well. The C6.R was a monster to be reckoned with in the GT category. Endurance racing has never been better since the late 90's. Audi is still unbeatable at Le Mans. Toyota and Porsche are decent competitors as well, Nissan with their radical FF layout. Honestly, I'm starting to like endurance racing over Formula One IMO.

[Wastelander (Suzuki)]

The Supra never got banned AFAIK. The Skyline was banned when AWD was and the 787B was when rotaruescwere banned- which was a bit silky granted but the FIA rules regarding displacement multipliers for rotary engines did favouritise them somewhat. The Ford GT, Viper, Corvette, Mustangs, Chargers, Moslers and several other US marques compete in, and often win, their respective classes in FIA administered events.

The F.I.A Is just a collective of Dumbasses, There is a reason I don't watch F.I.A Motorsport any more, the Favoritism is the main reason I stopped watching F.I.A Motorsports, it all came to a head in the 90s to early 2000s, starting with the way they bulls*ited Ayrton Senna out of the 1989 drivers championship title, The Skyline wasn't just banned, they gave it greater and greater weight penalties to try and stop it from wiping the floor with the European car makers (Who refused to adapt and over come), and when the Weight Penalties failed they banned AWD, that in turn indirectly banned the Skyline, they did the same thing with the Supra with weight penalties to a point, and the banning of the Mazda 787B was bulls*it, Rotary engines can't really be fully compared to piston engines as the two engines are designed and work completely differently and the Displacement formula is unfair as hell as well, that and Group C's only rule was the Fuel Cell had to hold a set amount of fuel, everything else was up to the maker, And via that Formula they pulled out of their ass they banned the 787B on the displacement when Group C had no rule on such a thing.

[sivispacem]

The Supra was never actually penalised specifically. Primarily because it simply wasn't that competitive. And the displacement rules are fairly lenient towards rotaries given most have two full power cycles per crank revolution and therefore effectively have doube their static displacement. The 1.4x multiplier is only there to make them vaguely competitive; overcoming the fact that the Wankel design is fundamentally flawed from an engineering perspective.

[Wastelander (Suzuki)]

The Supra was never actually penalised specifically. Primarily because it simply wasn't that competitive. And the displacement rules are fairly lenient towards rotaries given most have two full power cycles per crank revolution and therefore effectively have doube their static displacement. The 1.4x multiplier is only there to make them vaguely competitive; overcoming the fact that the Wankel design is fundamentally flawed from an engineering perspective.

I think the real reason for the F.I.A banning the 787B was the fact that A: they took the engine apart after the race and it was still in borderline mint condition, and B: The 787B's 26B quad rotor got 15-20 MPG compared to the just under 10 MPG of the Merc.

[sivispacem]

I think the real reason for the F.I.A banning the 787B was the fact that A: they took the engine apart after the race and it was still in borderline mint condition, and B: The 787B's 26B quad rotor got 15-20 MPG compared to the just under 10 MPG of the Merc.

The main reasons for the 787B's victory were reliability and luck. '91 C2 cars were fuel limited but not by a particularly great degree in the context of modern endurance prototypes and, whilst the need to pit less did benefit Mazda, victory only came because the two leading Mercedes C11s suffered serious mechanical issues. The 787B was some way off the single-lap pace of the Mercedes cars, generally more directly competitive with the newer, lighter and smaller displacement 3.5L C1 class which had slower lap times at Le Mans due simply to their lower power output on a particularly fast citcuit. It's also worth noting that the FIA (or FISA as it would more rightly be known in 1991-2) let the 787B run less ballast than the other C2 category cars, leading to the Mazdas running nearly 200kg lighter.

 

Rotaries were banned for the 1992 season, but that was a pre-existing decision made before the Le Mans win which saw the FIA implementing a 3.5L displacement limit on Group C. The 26B engine, at a claimed 2262cc, had a comparable displacement of 3933cc when the 1.5x (not 1.4x, that's the multiplier used by the British MSA in lower racing classes) multiplier was used- hence why it was in the C2 class during the 1991 season (when the first 3.5L cars were introduced in the C1 class, advantaged by lower weight and no fuel limits) rather than the C1 class which won pretty much every other race in the 1991 season (the Jaguar XJR-14 being the main victor). But even that isn't really accurate as rotaries don't have conventional bore and stroke and have multiple power cycles per rotation- the actual calculated displacement is for one face of each rotor, even though there are three rotor faces per rotor and therefore three power cycles (analogous to cylinders in this instance) per shaft revolution. The actual effective swept displacement of the 26B was 6786cc (565.5cc per rotor face, three rotor face power cycles per crank revolution, four individual rotors, so 565.5 x 3 x 4).

[TheOneLibertonian]

 

I think the real reason for the F.I.A banning the 787B was the fact that A: they took the engine apart after the race and it was still in borderline mint condition, and B: The 787B's 26B quad rotor got 15-20 MPG compared to the just under 10 MPG of the Merc.

The main reasons for the 787B's victory were reliability and luck. '91 C2 cars were fuel limited but not by a particularly great degree in the context of modern endurance prototypes and, whilst the need to pit less did benefit Mazda, victory only came because the two leading Mercedes C11s suffered serious mechanical issues. The 787B was some way off the single-lap pace of the Mercedes cars, generally more directly competitive with the newer, lighter and smaller displacement 3.5L C1 class which had slower lap times at Le Mans due simply to their lower power output on a particularly fast citcuit. It's also worth noting that the FIA (or FISA as it would more rightly be known in 1991-2) let the 787B run less ballast than the other C2 category cars, leading to the Mazdas running nearly 200kg lighter.

 

Rotaries were banned for the 1992 season, but that was a pre-existing decision made before the Le Mans win which saw the FIA implementing a 3.5L displacement limit on Group C. The 26B engine, at a claimed 2262cc, had a comparable displacement of 3933cc when the 1.5x (not 1.4x, that's the multiplier used by the British MSA in lower racing classes) multiplier was used- hence why it was in the C2 class during the 1991 season (when the first 3.5L cars were introduced in the C1 class, advantaged by lower weight and no fuel limits) rather than the C1 class which won pretty much every other race in the 1991 season (the Jaguar XJR-14 being the main victor). But even that isn't really accurate as rotaries don't have conventional bore and stroke and have multiple power cycles per rotation- the actual calculated displacement is for one face of each rotor, even though there are three rotor faces per rotor and therefore three power cycles (analogous to cylinders in this instance) per shaft revolution. The actual effective swept displacement of the 26B was 6786cc (565.5cc per rotor face, three rotor face power cycles per crank revolution, four individual rotors, so 565.5 x 3 x 4).

 

What was the reason why Group C got replaced by GT1? Anyway the FIA(FISA) is always corrupt. Mosley and Balestre just wanted that money. They were truly corrupt. Look at what Balestre did to Senna in '89. That made Prost the World Champion. Todt was a bit better, but at least he wasn't as worse as both of them.

Edited April 25, 2015 by The_Ghost

[sivispacem]

What was the reason why Group C got replaced by GT1?

Lots of manufacturers were unhappy with the transition to naturally aspirated 3.5L engines. They'd spent huge sums of money investing in highly developed, very reliable and extremely powerful twin turbocharged V8s and suddenly all their investment was basically worthless. Many also felt that the new rules favoured any producer with an existing working relationship with a Formula 1 engine producer, as F1 engines at the time were also 3.5L maximum displacement. Therefore Jaguar, as part of Ford, got the newest versions of the DFV, Peugeot were able to use their V10 F1 engine, and many other smaller manufacturers and privateer teams folded as they simply couldn't afford to buy or run the new engines.

[TheOneLibertonian]

 

What was the reason why Group C got replaced by GT1?

Lots of manufacturers were unhappy with the transition to naturally aspirated 3.5L engines. They'd spent huge sums of money investing in highly developed, very reliable and extremely powerful twin turbocharged V8s and suddenly all their investment was basically worthless. Many also felt that the new rules favoured any producer with an existing working relationship with a Formula 1 engine producer, as F1 engines at the time were also 3.5L maximum displacement. Therefore Jaguar, as part of Ford, got the newest versions of the DFV, Peugeot were able to use their V10 F1 engine, and many other smaller manufacturers and privateer teams folded as they simply couldn't afford to buy or run the new engines.

 

Thank's for the info. I'm not really familiar with endurance racing compared to Formula One. Innovation is always the key in motorsports. Peugeot's tweaked V10 engine for F1 was crap, and unreliable. It did work in the 905, but not in F1. The McLaren MP4/9 was slow compared to others in 1994. I miss the 80's were motor racing was at it's peak with the Monstrous V6 Turbo's in F1. Group B in World Rallying, easily one of the most dangerous era's in motor racing. Then there's Group C, one of the fastest behemoth's to run Le Mans. Today, they went into focusing on fuel efficiency and safety after the deaths of Ayrton Senna, and Roland Ratzenberger. The rest was history. I'm really amazed by the world of motorsport.

 

Going back to the GT, it's a great looking car, but it's not as good as it's predecessor.

[Niko Montana]

I'm really excited for this, but I do think it should have resembled the older Ford GT more. It's gonna be a f*cking beast!

Edited April 30, 2015 by thedriver111

[hvcciookay]

 

What was the reason why Group C got replaced by GT1?

Lots of manufacturers were unhappy with the transition to naturally aspirated 3.5L engines. They'd spent huge sums of money investing in highly developed, very reliable and extremely powerful twin turbocharged V8s and suddenly all their investment was basically worthless. Many also felt that the new rules favoured any producer with an existing working relationship with a Formula 1 engine producer, as F1 engines at the time were also 3.5L maximum displacement. Therefore Jaguar, as part of Ford, got the newest versions of the DFV, Peugeot were able to use their V10 F1 engine, and many other smaller manufacturers and privateer teams folded as they simply couldn't afford to buy or run the new engines.

Ahh, I always thought safety was the main reason. I remember my dad talking about how Nissan would up the boost in their cars during qualifying and would run so much horsepower that the tires could only last a lap or 2.

[sivispacem]

That may have been a contributing reason for the move to 3.5L N/A engines. I know the Mercedes-Sauber C9s were nearly 1,000bhp in qualifying trim. But I suspect it was mostly to try and introduce a bit more parity between privateers and manufacturer teams. Clearly didn't work though.

[Hyperglide]

This is a perfect explanation as to why the GT is a beast.

 

 

[ainsz]

They should have called it the ST or the Fusion C-Max sports edition or the Escort Coupe or maybe The Fiesta R+ or the Granada 500, or something. But not GT. The new styling has slightly grown on me since unveiling but it can never live up to that amazing GT40 body. Ford did an unbelievably good job of bringing that shape back in 2005 and it showed just how a fantastic and timeless shape it is.

 

But this just tarnishes it. It's not a bad looking car itself, but the efforts Ford have made to harken back to the GT40 styling haven't really worked and could have gone create an even better original super car for the future.

[*MURDOC*]

You're f*cking lame.

[LeFox]

 

https://media.ford.com/content/fordmedia/fna/us/en/news/2015/06/12/ford-gt-le-mans.html

Edited June 18, 2015 by ihavcandygetinthevan