I believe it was Motor Trend that did the comparo between the GT vs. Enzo vs. Carrera GT. Does anyone know what issue that was? :shrug:
MT issue with FGT vs Enzo vs CGT?
- Thread starter Captain Beyond
- Start date
I can't recall what issue that was, but I believe that is the GT thought by many to be a "ringer".
Formula51 said:
I have it at home and I believe the articale is posted on the GT site, links are all over these forums.
As far as a ringer the car tested no faster then the car that ran in car and driver, Motor trend or the press car used in europe. 0-60 was in the 3.7 range. Quarter the 11.7 seen faster seen slower. I will look in my box of old mags and see if I can locate the issue?
op:
:lol:Formula51 said:
Thought to be a "ringer" by whom? :shrug: The couple of FGT haters here? Do you have confirmation on this? If you do please provide it. :read: The fact is that it performed with the Enzo and CGT. I believe it ran the 1/4 in 11.2 @ 130. Other mags have also run great times. I know other mags have run slower, but keep in mind that there are too many variables involved to duplicate the same #s every time. You have different tests with different cars with different drivers on different tracks, conditions etc. Let's use the tests on the Z06 by some of the same mags as an example. I've seen the Z go as fast as 11.5 @ 127 and as slow as 12.3 @ 116 in the 1/4. I haven't seen the fast # duplicated, so does this mean that the Z with the faster time was also a "ringer" ?
oke: Formula, please provide facts, not just your opinions. I think it's against this forum's rules to post false info. Until confirmation or proof of the so called "ringer" is provided, that's all that it is - someone's opinion and not fact.
Last edited:
Big 8 said:I have it at home and I believe the articale is posted on the GT site, links are all over these forums.
As far as a ringer the car tested no faster then the car that ran in car and driver, Motor trend or the press car used in europe. 0-60 was in the 3.7 range. Quarter the 11.7 seen faster seen slower. I will look in my box of old mags and see if I can locate the issue?
Thanks :beer:
Captain Beyond said::lol:
Thought to be a "ringer" by whom? :shrug: The couple of FGT haters here? Do you have confirmation on this? If you do please provide it. :read: The fact is that it performed with the Enzo and CGT. I believe it ran the 1/4 in 11.2 @ 130. Other mags have also run great times. I know other mags have run slower, but keep in mind that there are too many variables involved to duplicate the same #s every time. You have different tests with different cars with different drivers on different tracks, conditions etc. Let's use the tests on the Z06 by some of the same mags as an example. I've seen the Z go as fast as 11.5 @ 127 and as slow as 12.3 @ 116 in the 1/4. I haven't seen the fast # duplicated, so does this mean that the Z with the faster time was also a "ringer" ?
Formula, please provide facts, not just your opinions. I think it's against this forum's rules to post false info. Until confirmation or proof of the so called "ringer" is provided, that's all that it is - someone's opinion and not fact.
My mistake, I though this test was the one with the out of place 11.2 at 131 mph. You are right about all the variables, but the GT has trapped around 125mph in aall of the tests except for that one where it ran a 131mph. Clearly that car had more power. The 11.5 @ 127 was essentially duplicated by MT with an 11.7 @ 125. Thats track prep, conditions, driver, etc. difference territory.
I said many people believe it was a ringer, many people on this board included. You will not find facts one way or the other, thus I just said what people think. It is not fact that it was a ringer, nor is it fact that is was not. It can only be surmised by comparing the times of that test to the times of other tests. As you can say the 12.3@116 mph by the Z06 was bad driving among other possible things by comparing it to other tests of the car. You are primarily looking at trap speed when doing so, 10 mph slower! Those idiots at Road and Track shifted to 2nd gear for the 0-60mph test when the car was specifically designed so you dont have to do this. Who knows what else they did when trying to run it down the strip.
Formula51 said:
The GT hasn't trapped 125 in ALL tests. C&D did 0-60 in 3.3 and a 11.6 @ 128. I'll have to do some more research as I'm sure there has been more tests that have the FGT faster than 125. Does this make it a "ringer" too? Like I've said before, there's too many variables involved.
MT tested and published those #s and until proven that a "ringer" was used, those #s will stand.
Last edited:
Ment to say approximately 125mph, you know that. I believe you will see that all other tests are between 125 and the 128mph you stated, think there is a 124 or two in there as well. Of course the time stands though and it will stand for ever cause in the end, what does it really matter. Its not like that time broke any records or something worth investigating. However, if you sit back and look at the results of the FGT tests, that run certainly looks a little funny. Doesn't mean it was not just a stellar run, but it is an oddball for sure.
Last edited:
Sorry forgot to look for it last night? I work late tonight but I will find it for you.
One thing to remember about the test in Las Vegas, the cars were driven by a Race Driver, Brian Hurta? If I remember correctly. Its obvious the guy can drive so while we can bagg the magazine guys who do this day in and day out for being sh!t drivers? I dont think we can say this guy doesnt know how to drive. As a matter a fact I would say he was able to get out of the FGT what it had to give.
One thing to remember about the test in Las Vegas, the cars were driven by a Race Driver, Brian Hurta? If I remember correctly. Its obvious the guy can drive so while we can bagg the magazine guys who do this day in and day out for being sh!t drivers? I dont think we can say this guy doesnt know how to drive. As a matter a fact I would say he was able to get out of the FGT what it had to give.
Formula51 said:
I think you're confusing the mag tests with the one that MM&FF did a few months ago. In that test they admitted to testing a "ringer" as this car had a pulley 4mm smaller than stock. They ran an 11.02 @ 131 mph on street tires and a 10.92 on BFG DRs. However, they did state that the car was not tuned for the pulley and shorter DRs thus playing mind games with the car's computer. This and a bad clutch kept them from dipping deep into the 10s.
Captain Beyond said:
You see, this car was admitted to be a "ringer" and trapped the same speed as the one tested by Car and Driver I think it was? at an 11.2 @ 130-1mph. Far above the other tests.
Who said it was a ringer? Who admitted this? The car Motor Trend tested did run the 11.2, fastest I have read about. C&D ran an 11.7 as have others. Thats about a half a second.
I would think a pro race driver like Brian Herta could have a half second in him over a magazine editor? Plus a half second variance from car to car, track to track , sea level above or below. Throw in all the track , weather, sea level, different cars, break in of the car, mileage of the car, then add a pro behind the wheel and you dont think there could be five tenths in there? Three MPH in the 1/4? Hell I read a thousand tests of the Mustang Cobras, anywhere from mid 13s to low 12s. Never heard anyone scream ringer over that
Oh by the way the articale can be found on Motor Trend.com just search Enzo, FordGT.
I would think a pro race driver like Brian Herta could have a half second in him over a magazine editor? Plus a half second variance from car to car, track to track , sea level above or below. Throw in all the track , weather, sea level, different cars, break in of the car, mileage of the car, then add a pro behind the wheel and you dont think there could be five tenths in there? Three MPH in the 1/4? Hell I read a thousand tests of the Mustang Cobras, anywhere from mid 13s to low 12s. Never heard anyone scream ringer over that
Oh by the way the articale can be found on Motor Trend.com just search Enzo, FordGT.
Formula51 said:
You didn't read all my post. :read: MM&FF stated that this car was not tuned for the pulley and smaller diameter DRs. They stated that the tires were significantly shorter than the the factory Goodyears. You would think that this would benefit the car by giving it more gear off the line, right? Wrong, this caused the computer to play mind games with the car, thus hurting it more than helping it. They stated that the car desperately needed a computer reflash. They said that the car never felt as strong as it did with the stock tires. They also had a slipping clutch that just got worse with every run. After a few runs the clutch was toast. Keep in mind that Evan Smith was driving. They were expecting to go deep into the 10s with this car. Given the potential of this car, I have no reason to not believe them.
Last edited:
Big 8 said:
There is no proof that car was a ringer. I think that rumor might have been started by some FGT hater. A Ford GT could never post a faster 1/4 mile time than the almighty Z06. Right? :rollseyes
You make a good point about driver, track, weather conditions, different cars etc. Like I've always said there are too many variables involved to run the exact same times all the time. I'm sure most of us can agree that Brian H. can drive better than your average magazine writer.
You're also correct about the published Terminator 1/4 mile times. I've seen times ranging anywhere from 12.4 @ 113 to 13.0 @ 106. I don't see the ringer theory being used here. :beer:
Last edited:
Big 8 said:
Guys, this has nothing to do with the Z06. Noithing at all.
You make a very valid point about track conditions, but we are not talking about the difference between two or three tests here. There have been 10-20 tests of the FGT and in all of those tests it has run between 11.6 and 12.2 I believe, except the pullied MM&FF car that ran an 11.02 and the one test of an 11.2. What is more stricking is the trap speeds, 124-128mph versus roughly 131mph. You would think that 10-20 tests would account for all types of track conditions and elevations as these tests were done all over the country at different times of the year.
If we were comparing two or three tests, and two were an 11.6@128 and 11.8@125 and the other an 11.2@131 by a professional driver, then I would say it is very possible that it was the driver and track conditions. However, when you have 10-20 tests of 11.6 to 12.2 and 124mph to 128mph, then it is a lot less likely that the time was due to track conditions as the high number of tests essentially account for all track conditions. Thus, the question becomes is that driver (with the track conditions of his test day) 4 tenths and 3mph better than the best driver/track conditions of all those other tests? Maybe, but maybe not.
Last edited:
+ the version w.o the sterio systems have an 80 pound advantage on the ones with the system.
Formula51 said:
You have answered the question yourself. You see 11.6 to 12.2 all over the place dont you? Thats 6/10ths difference! MPH you also have in you 10-20 tests varying as much as seven MPH!
The car has no TC no Active electronic aids for launching it etc :shrug: The car was at or below sea level. I think it was at the AZ proving grounds. So lets say 1/10th for the elevation and lets say the weather was perfect. Lets factor in 1/10th for a great track, not too much to ask, especially if you have been to more then one track. A tenth isnt anything to give from track to track. Now you get another tenth for having a pro race driver banging the gears! You would be one tenth off at this point, is it really that hard for you to imagine?
Besides if they were to have built a ringer I highly doubt it would have been simply 3mph faster and 4/10ths in the hands of a great driver. :shrug:
There is no , none, absolutly nadda ounce of proof for a ringer. Its just gossip over the internet. What happend was a great driver drove a great car to a great time. Just have to deal with it?
Big 8 said:
You did not understand what I was saying, but thats ok because I may not have been clear.
What I was trying to say was that the 6/10ths difference and 4 mph (124-128) difference, not 7mph, from NUMEROUS tests should account for differences in driver ability, track conditions, and track locations. Essentially, the 11.6@128 representing the best combination of driver and track conditions as it is the best of ALL the tests conducted except for the one in question.
The 11.2@131 represents a serious outlier in a very large amount of test data, which makes one question the validity of that result. Hopefully you were able to follow my logic and whether or not you agree with it, I think it is perfectly good logic.
Big8, you seam to have a lot of argumentativeness (dont think thats a word) and antagonism in your posts. Most of the people you are responding to, myself included, are only trying to have an enjoyable and interesting discussion, be it factual or hypothetical in nature. I welcome the ideas of your posts as they are typically different from mine, which makes for a good discussion. We can't talk about much if we all think the same thing, now can we?
The same would hold true for the rest but these motors must be really tight for the first 5000miles. The GT they tested was driven to and from Ford's proving grounds. Not sure how far but they specifically mentioned the GT was the only one in the test that was.
Users who are viewing this thread
