If Ford wins Le Mans with the car and the Sports Car Championship that kind of lends to the Ford holds a bit of "ego" which people will want to buy.
As some say, cars with a racing heritage are normally worth more money than those without.
If Ford wins Le Mans with the car and the Sports Car Championship that kind of lends to the Ford holds a bit of "ego" which people will want to buy.
As some say, cars with a racing heritage are normally worth more money than those without.
In reply to yamaha:
Good thing you know better than them.
bravenrace wrote: In reply to ultraclyde: So you think buyers are willing to pay the same for a Ford as they would for a Ferrari? Doesn't that go against the whole "ego" philosophy?
Go look for ads for 05/06 Ford GT's. Rebuilt salvage title cars start at $200K. Average ones are $250k+ good ones more. Go search 05/06 Ferrari F430's, a car with a far higher MSRP when new and all of that ego and unending heritage. You can pick them up all day long for $70K.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson:
Yep, there is just something about the GT....it is iconic, or perhaps being able to make 4x its original power level without a whole lot of work definitely helps. 
In reply to yamaha:
Yup, and normal real people can afford to maintain them if they managed to get one. A modeler at work, regular guy, not management, solid middle class guy has one and can afford to run it. No $10-20K service work required unlike the 'affordable' Ferrari's. I remember when they first came out, everyone was discussing them hitting the low point on their depreciation curve about the time the kids were through collage, the house was paid off and retirement was still a more than a few years off. Several of us honestly daydreamed of getting one for $50ishK once it was 15 years old. We missed that one by a hell of a long shot didn't we?
In reply to Adrian_Thompson:
You can thank collectors and guys that do this stuff..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20YBMETp1Aw
Speaking of which, I really like their car's new paint job....
yamaha wrote: In reply to Adrian_Thompson: You can thank collectors and guys that do this stuff..... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20YBMETp1Aw Speaking of which, I really like their car's new paint job....
A 'regular' 2014 662hp GT500 convertible feels scary fast from 60-130+ to me, I can't imagine what an 1,894hpp Ford GT feels like to drive.
In reply to Adrian_Thompson:
M2K is the Texas Mile record holder IIRC, 27x.xx mph in the standing mile, sketchy as berkeley is about right.
In reply to bravenrace:
Well, my point was the same as alfadriver's. If someone wants the GT it's likely that to them it is far preferable to any Ferrari simply because it's a Ford GT. And vice versa. Most buyers aren't looking at which is faster around the 'Ring per money spent(unit of measure is dollar per inverse Ring-second) or what the aftermarket support is like. To care about those you have to pub the car, and they don't.
As for which one actually has more cachet, that's totally subjective and unmeasurable although some of the points above are compelling.
Driven5 wrote: In reply to Javelin: Thank you for doing the leg work to help illustrate that the way they appear to protrude really does seem to be an exclusively Ferrari based design cue...Using them for the wastegates is pretty novel though.
Except Ferrari's don't just stick straight out the back (like the GT and the Evora), they pop out of the top. See production Ferrari's:
458 Italia
California:
LaFerrari (closest to straight out, still exposed on the top):
The F12's are flusher than the Evora's
Evora:
Adrian_Thompson wrote:Knurled wrote:I'm reall not understanding this?Adrian_Thompson wrote: No comments on the awesome air tunnels through the body?Now stop what you're doin', because I'm about to ruin the images and style that you're used to
I responded to a picture of the new GT's oddly aerodynamic rump with a meme jpeg.
The link that I posted is the original lyrics for the meme that I'd hotlinked to the Hotlink Thread. (The song is "The Humpty Dance")
I feel it is appropriate and not just amusing because that rearend... it just works. It works on a practical and functional level, and if it doesn't work on an aesthetic level, that is because it is such a radical departure from The Way Things Have Always Been Done. Or, in fewer words, it flies in the face of the image and style that we are used to.
It looks funny, but yo it's makin' money, see, so yo world I hope you're ready for... it.
In reply to Javelin:
Thanks for the additional pictures that continue to cement my opinion. For me personally, seeing a large amount of the exposed side (GT) of the single circular tail light structure is far more evocative of seeing a large amount of the exposed top of the single circular tail light structure (Ferrari) than it is just being able to see the side of the lens (Evora). Notice that you can be be looking at a view angle forward of the straight side view, and not even just see a little bit of the tail light lens poking out, but still the tail light structure as well. Honestly I'm actually not saying I think it's a complete ripoff of how Ferrari applies it, since it's side vs top and cleverly exhausts the wastegates, just that I can see a definite similarity in that particular styling cue application which (IMHO) has really just been used by Ferrari to this point. I did not initially make the observation, but I also found the pictures of random and irrelevant cars that simply had circular tail lights to have completely missed the point.
Now the area immediately surrounding the tail light, yeah I can also see how that is more evocative of the Evora, and probably a few other non-Ferrari cars...And by combining the different elements, the designers have ultimately still made the overall look of it very much their own too.
This new GT: proof positive that the twenty-teens are a great time to be filthy stinkin' rich.
It's the best time in all of recorded history to be filthy stinkin' rich, and it's only getting better at the moment.
Got one rumor here of the car running about $300k 
http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2015/01/ur-turn-haters-guide-ford-gt/
GameboyRMH wrote: Got one rumor here of the car running about $300k
I am very curious to hear Eric's analysis of his analysis.
In reply to tuna55:
Lots and lots of assumptions made by people who got the orignal story wrong. Not sure how one puts so much credence in their opinion.
I'll put it one other way- I'm not 100% sure where Adrian works (who has pointed out some self knowledge/involvement), but I am sure it's not motorsports.
In reply to alfadriver:
TTAC is pissed that their insider/traitor didn't get wind of it years ago and they ran an article saying it wouldn't happen. I'll bet it went through most of those steps somewhere, as there is always the possibility of it being a black project.
TTAC is quickly proving itself to be the automotive version of the Huffington Post.
No one has any clue to pricing. Anything in the press is pulled from where the sun don't shine.
In reply to yamaha:
They also pointed out some crap- that the GT was made at the Wixom plant using the full process. Which isn't true. The chassis was developed here in research, and much of the work was done by Roush. And that's pretty common for the low volume cars.
A lot of the stuff that the writer puked out of his keyboard has WAY more to do with making 125,000 cars a year in a single plant. Not just making a good low volume car. Heck, our hand made prototypes were quite good.
That article proves that "The Truth" can be funnier than satire!...LOL
Those who are the ultimate purveyors of the bureaucracy typically feel the need to make a show of their self-convinced outrage whenever their sense of authority is threatened by something that happens without their direct knowledge, involvement, and control.
It even sounds mean. https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3C-qSRnqUZg
It's very reminiscent of the GT40 from low angles, when all the angular stuff blends together.
Really not diggin' those taillights though...even if it had to have projecting ringed taillights with exhaust running through them, they could've looked better.
I don't think it is wastegate exhaust running through the tail lights.
1. The tailights are plastic. Exhaust is hot.
2. The tail lights are very far away from any logical engine exhaust path. See Adrian_Thompson's pic: 
The exhaust would need to go under the aero tunnel (lower in person than they appear here), around the suspension, then back up behind the rear wheel. Just doesn't make sense.
My guess is they are for a coolers of some type, or even wheel house air venting/aero reasons.
That said, the car is very much better looking in person. Pictures don't do it justice.
(Edited to mention wastegates for clarification. Main exhaust exits center of car.)
alfadriver wrote: I'm not 100% sure where Adrian works (who has pointed out some self knowledge/involvement), but I am sure it's not motorsports.
Correct. I work in the Studio and control the budget for concept cars. This isn't a concept, but it was built through my budget for the show.
You'll need to log in to post.
