Well obviously if you can afford $450k you can afford $160k. This whole thread started about the GT lap times. Therefore lap times are the the main focus, in which case my point was: if you care about lap times then an ACR with slicks seems to be the better bang for the buck. This would be a different story and a harder decision if the GT was $200-$250K.
The person buying a car at $450K doesn't give a shit about lap times. They want to stroll down the boulevard and gets looks from people. If that's your thing then that's your thing. Unless you are Treynor on here who will race his cars.
Take all this with a grain of salt though, my approach to cars stems strictly from a bang for the buck and performance. Hence why I drive a 1995 Z28 Camaro (bought with 50k mi for $5K) with a bunch of doodads on it to make it handle at autocross/road race.
Scale down the price of vehicles...the Camaro is my ACR...a C5Z or a C6Z at $20K+ would be the GT. Both the Camaro and C5/C6 are capable cars. One more so than the other obviously, but at an additional cost (4X the purchase price). Can the Camaro be made to hang with a stock-ish Vette for under $20K? Yes.
I'm not shitting on the GT, it just struggle comprehending $450K for a car lol.
At this price point the last thing the buyer is thinking about is " bang for buck". Lol...stop using that term with 160k and up cars.
Ppl on this site always seem to think that Ben is the only person who tracks exotics cars when in fact it is more common than ppl think. And they spend the extra money because the ACR is a one trick pony ( not to say it isn't a good trick) while spending the extra money gets you a car to drive on the Street in comfort and still be more than most ppl can handle at the track.