F-430 vs. Gallardo/GT/Murcielago

*DISCLAIMER: all the numbers in this post are used from road and track to keep it more constant*

i just recieved my road and track today and they finally tested the new ferrari f-430. they didn't have the equipment to test skidpad or slalom, so all they did was straight line. so based on 1/4 mile alone, the f-430 not only outguns the gallardo, but also outraces the murcielago and the ford gt. here are the numbers from road and track.

f-430 - 11.7 sec.
GT - 12.2 sec.
Murcielago - 12.0 sec.
Gallardo - 12.3 sec.

on motortrend, they got the GT to run a 11.7 at 127mph. the one they tested was the final production version with 550hp. the ones that was on road and track was the prototype which only had 500hp.

Oh hands down the F430...it got some real balls on it...

Looks sexy to boot!

F430 takes the cake. Car and Driver also tested the F430 and it definatley breezes by the gallardo. It's real fast and is the sexiest, even with big nostrils. Ferrari all the way

am i the only one who thinks hte F430 to be a very very ugly overly styled ferrari? it looks like its trying too hard to be a enzo. i'm sorry but hte ford GT takes the cake for me. when i saw the ENZO and ford GT in person at the autoshow. i saw the ENZO for like 5 minutes. nice looking car, but didn't wow me like i thought it would. when i went to the ford booth. holy shit!! i was starring at the GT for like 15 minutes with my jaws drop. the GT was just sitting on the rotating pedestale spinning away and i'm just in awwwww. beautiful car in person.

What happens when a 360 and an Enzo share the same garage for the night? 430!! :lol: . Okay maybe it wasn't that funny........but I thought it was :icon16: .

I do feel where your coming from TatII. Its definately a no brainer to identify where its inspiration came from. But IMO the Modena style is almost apples with the C5. Meaning that the 360 was done so good the first time, it would be absolute madness to change the entire appearance. Some will say the Enzo influenced look is over justice. I say its the best cross without taking to much away from its predecessor.

But I will have to agree with you that the GT takes the cake IMO. Its not as fancy as the 430, but thats one of the main reason I like it. Its got a more sense of rawness to it that appeals to me. Its a BEAST I tell you!

Gallardo and Murcielago? Still easily the most beautiful and classy cars of the bunch.

am i the only one who thinks hte F430 to be a very very ugly overly styled ferrari? it looks like its trying too hard to be a enzo. i'm sorry but hte ford GT takes the cake for me. when i saw the ENZO and ford GT in person at the autoshow. i saw the ENZO for like 5 minutes. nice looking car, but didn't wow me like i thought it would. when i went to the ford booth. holy shit!! i was starring at the GT for like 15 minutes with my jaws drop. the GT was just sitting on the rotating pedestale spinning away and i'm just in awwwww. beautiful car in person.


an overly styled ferrari?? it IS a ferrari, they're allowed. :p

i find it hard to really compare cars like these, coz the chances of me ever gettin behind the wheel for a real good test drive are nil. so i have to outsource my opinion. haha. but here's how i rank them

1. F430
2. GT
3. Gallardo
4. Murcielago

just curious, where's porche in all this?

When you reach that level of car, over 100,000 pounds, you can buy what ever you like. There is no right or wrong, there is no better or worse really. You can quote lap times, 0-62 times, whatever. It's personal taste.

I love the 430 to death. When you come down to it, it's a Ferrari. Enough said. IMO, who'd want a Ford or an Audi when you can have a Ferrari?

And as to where Porsche? I don't know but as far as price goes, GT is too expensive, and Turbo is too cheap.

GT2 would be right in there but as I understand it, you want to be a really good driver before you get behind the wheel.

Well, easy!!! The answer is Ferrari, Ferrari,and Ferrari; taking the 1st, 2nd, and the 3rd spot ;)

F430. without a doubt. and my decision had nothing to do with the fact that it had the fastest 1/4 mile time.

by the way, am i the only one that likes the f355, 360 and f430 more than the corresponding f40, f50 and enzo (f60?)

But I will have to agree with you that the GT takes the cake IMO. Its not as fancy as the 430, but thats one of the main reason I like it. Its got a more sense of rawness to it that appeals to me. Its a BEAST I tell you!


the reason im not a fan of the ford GT; as opposed to the f430 wich is the latest form of a car that has been evolving since the f355 hit(f355->360->f430), or the murciellago wich is a continuation of what started as the countach (countach->diablo->murciellago/gallardo) [these lineages can arguably be traced back further], the FORD GT is just a shameless attempt to recapture the glory of the past to boost ford sales. the GT40 was genius back in the 60's, and now the new generation of engineers have slapped a new face on it, with some new technology and composites, and it is now fords "halo" car. do u see what i am saying? ferrari and lambo have consistently and persistently put in the hard yards to improve upon their cars which is not what ford have done.

Actually, that Road and Track GT 1/4 mile time is further "off the mark" than you think. Motor Trend got a Ford GT to do an 11.2 second quarter mile in their top speed comparison. In that same test the Enzo was about 2 tenths faster.

Wether or not the F430 has another half a second in her waits to be seen, but that would be unbelievably close to Enzo times if it could muster it. I think it may be a couple tenths faster than the 11.7, but just a couple.

That said I will pick the one that is fastest so far, the Ford GT. Largely because it looks better, costs less, goes faster, and I am a Ford nut. :)

When i first saw this i thaught it was about a truck! Anyways...I hate fords but the GT is pretty nice...

the reason im not a fan of the ford GT; as opposed to the f430 wich is the latest form of a car that has been evolving since the f355 hit(f355->360->f430), or the murciellago wich is a continuation of what started as the countach (countach->diablo->murciellago/gallardo) [these lineages can arguably be traced back further], the FORD GT is just a shameless attempt to recapture the glory of the past to boost ford sales. the GT40 was genius back in the 60's, and now the new generation of engineers have slapped a new face on it, with some new technology and composites, and it is now fords "halo" car. do u see what i am saying? ferrari and lambo have consistently and persistently put in the hard yards to improve upon their cars which is not what ford have done.

I do understand what your saying, but hey, they gotta restart somewhere. Ferrari and Lambo's are true exotics, it is their nature in upping the bar time and time again. Ford on the other hand, isn't. The Ford GT at least shows there 'wanting' to be noticed (be it good or bad). Besides, the reincarnation of classics seems to be the american solution as we roll into the begining of the next millenium. Maybe there trying to say, hey! We are still hip hop yo! I'm just glad to see some more competition in an already tough crowd. All we need to wait for now is the new Z06 :naughty:

ferrari and lambo have consistently and persistently put in the hard yards to improve upon their cars which is not what ford have done.

So Ferrari puts more work into their cars (like the F430) than Ford puts into their cars (like the GT)? I think the following information below will defend Ford against that comment.

2005 Ferrari F430
$170,000
490 bhp @ 8500 RPM
343 lb-ft @ 5250 RPM
0-60 mph 3.9 sec
Top Speed 196 mph

2005 Ford GT
$140,000 - $150,000 (depending on options)
550 bhp @ 6500 RPM
500 lb-ft @ 4,500
0-60 3.3 sec
Top Speed 205

From what I'm seeing from the above, Ford puts just as much (if not more) work into their car, as Ferrari does to their car.

the FORD GT is just a shameless attempt to recapture the glory of the past to boost ford sales. the GT40 was genius back in the 60's, and now the new generation of engineers have slapped a new face on it, with some new technology and composites, and it is now fords "halo" car. do u see what i am saying?

As for the GT being a "shameless attempt to recapture the glory of the past", is the new Mustang a "shameless attempt" as well? What about the fact that Ford's top Mustang, the Cobra, is named after Shelby's car. Does that make it a "shameless attempt at the past"? Was the Mustang Mach 1 another "shameless attempt" by Ford? Was the Shelby A/C Cobra concept a "shameless attempt" again? It's said that the Shelby GR-1 (a car based on one of Shelby's 60s race cars and off the A/C Cobra concept) could join or replace the GT in a couple of years. Since it will be a replica (in a way) to Shelby's car, will it be a "shameless attempt at the past" yet again?

I don’t see why there would be a problem in honoring a car by remaking it. The GT was a great car back in the 60s and Ford is making it a great car again.

by the way, am i the only one that likes the f355, 360 and f430 more than the corresponding f40, f50 and enzo (f60?)

I like the F355, 360, and 430 more than the F50 and Enzo but the F40 is one of my all time favorite Ferraris.

As far as the poll goes I would take the F430 hands down. I would take one of the Lamborghinis second and third since Lambos just are know for poor side and rear visibility making them a pain to drive around town. I take the GT last since I don't feel it is worth its price tag and I hate the power delivery method.

The Ferrari is an easy first, it is superior to the others in terms of technology to start with and it is most likely to be the most fun car around a track if the 360 Modena was anything to go by (The Lamborghini's and GT both having issues with understeer that they damn well shouldn't)

Not to mention, it's a Ferrari, it's basically the staple diet of the manufacturer, as opposed to the cynical marketing exercise, that is the Ford.


Lamborghini's are second. I dislike the new ones, Audi have dumbed them down too much, give me a Diablo GT any day of the week, but they still carry a small bit of Feruccio's legacy with them.

GT is last for reasons already explained, it may well look the best and probably go the fastest in a straight line, but it's still a cynical marketing exercise born in the boardroom and it lacks the finesse of the Ferrari.

Actually, Car and Driver said that the 360 Stradale (which is supposed to be the track ready version) demonstarted more of a tendency to oversteer than did the Ford GT. And, that was with a world-class race-car driver behind the wheel giving his opinion as well. So, this would apparently be a point of contention.

However, the F430 is not a 360 and a new comparison deserves to be made.

The Ferrari is an easy first, it is superior to the others in terms of technology to start with and it is most likely to be the most fun car around a track if the 360 Modena was anything to go by (The Lamborghini's and GT both having issues with understeer that they damn well shouldn't)

Not to mention, it's a Ferrari, it's basically the staple diet of the manufacturer, as opposed to the cynical marketing exercise, that is the Ford.


Lamborghini's are second. I dislike the new ones, Audi have dumbed them down too much, give me a Diablo GT any day of the week, but they still carry a small bit of Feruccio's legacy with them.

GT is last for reasons already explained, it may well look the best and probably go the fastest in a straight line, but it's still a cynical marketing exercise born in the boardroom and it lacks the finesse of the Ferrari.

I agree 150% with everything u said. its like u took the scrambled thoughts in my head and put them into words.

So Ferrari puts more work into their cars (like the F430) than Ford puts into their cars (like the GT)? I think the following information below will defend Ford against that comment.

2005 Ferrari F430
$170,000
490 bhp @ 8500 RPM
343 lb-ft @ 5250 RPM
0-60 mph 3.9 sec
Top Speed 196 mph

2005 Ford GT
$140,000 - $150,000 (depending on options)
550 bhp @ 6500 RPM
500 lb-ft @ 4,500
0-60 3.3 sec
Top Speed 205



numbers are meaningless. if ferrari had wanted to give the f430 550hp or 0-60 in 3.3 sec they would have. more power is not always a good thing. go ahead and laugh, because we all know its true. and considering the F430 is only $20-30k more than the GT, IT is the bargain.

and if you want to talk numbers, have a look at where in the rpm range the power peaks. the ferrari engine peaks 2000rpm later, indicating it was designed with sports/track driving in mind. the GT engine looks more like a muscle car/truck engine.

The comparison between the GT and the Ferrari is really no different than it was back when the first GT (and the second GT for that matter) met Ferrari in battle in the 60's. Even then, the GT was fairly relaxed in it's power delivery and manner when compared to the high-strung Italians. Many of the same comments applied to those cars then apply to the new ones today.

I also think that it is kind of far-fetched for people to use the old "the Ferrari is clearly the better track car" argument when several race car drivers have picked the GT over the Ferrari. Which car you think makes the better track car has as much to do with how you drive as anything else.

Were Bondurant choosing a car to race in today, I have no doubt that he would pick the GT as it suits the kind of car he likes to drive. And, I imagine Ferrari's F-1 wunderkind Sir Michael would choose the F430 bias aside as it suits his style better.

But, both of these guys are absolutely world-class championship race-car drivers, and much better than anyone who posts on these boards could ever hope to be. How can you say that either of their choices are stupid based upon what little racing experience any of us has, or because we simply prefer a different car?

I think the best we can say and remain honest is that I prefer x car because it suits my wants and style.

That said, it is truly too bad that these cars will never meet on a race track. It would be magnificent.

the GT engine looks more like a muscle car/truck engine.

It could have just as easily simply been called "very American" in it's power delivery.

and if you want to talk numbers, have a look at where in the rpm range the power peaks. the ferrari engine peaks 2000rpm later, indicating it was designed with sports/track driving in mind. the GT engine looks more like a muscle car/truck engine.

ummm......?.....ok. So the Ferrari should definately win against a truck engine, cause it would be quite embarrasing if that weren't the case....correct? Reguardless, all 4 of these cars are still just road cars, so my question would be: Would it really be that big of a deal when there is conclusive evidence revealing the victor?

Actually, Car and Driver said that the 360 Stradale (which is supposed to be the track ready version) demonstarted more of a tendency to understeer than did the Ford GT. And, that was with a world-class race-car driver behind the wheel giving his opinion as well. So, this would apparently be a point of contention.

However, the F430 is not a 360 and a new comparison deserves to be made.

;)

but like you said, this is not the 360.

Well i pick the ford, I have no care for the Ferrari name, but my second choice is the charging bull, third is the wittle prancing pony. Now why did I pick these, performance, performace, performance. Ill never buy a car b/c of its Brand name.

Well, let's see. Ford needed a Lola chassis, a German ZF transaxle, and the combined efforts of Holman-Moody AND Carrol Shelby to develop the GT40 into a winning car, and even then it was hardly a walkover in either the World Championship of Makes OR Le Mans.

1965 was the year of the 275P and 250LM.
1966 was the year the MkII GT40 trumped the 330P3 due to a lack of top end because of the P3's lackluster aero package.
1967 was the year the 330P4 SLAPPED the MkIV and MkII GT40's, retaking the World Championship and placing 1-2-3 at the 24 Hours of Daytona (ever wonder why the 365GTB got that nickname? ;) )
1968 was the year Ferrari sat out
and 1969 was the year the 917 showed up and caught the 312P and John Wyer GT40's off guard.

The Ferraris and the Fords were topnotch competitors, but the GT40 only ever covered the 330P3. It was no match for the 275P or the 330P4.

and wasn't the more successful gt40 the john wyer ones which he carried on develping AFTER ford said, "bah, let's go home and stick a bigger engine in it..."?

and wasn't the more successful gt40 the john wyer ones which he carried on develping AFTER ford said, "bah, let's go home and stick a bigger engine in it..."?

Not quite, the small block GT40's were very successful in the hands of Wyer's privateer effort, but they were more succesful in Fords hands. And, Ford "went home" after the rules board had essentially outlawed one car and two engines in an attempt to slow Ford down. It becomes pretty clear by then that the race is no longer over who is faster, but who can "skate" the rules better.

but weren't the famous le mans wins wyer's cars?

No, the most famous Le Mans win was in Ford/Shelby/Holman-Moody's name with Dan Gurney and A.J. Foyt in 1967. This was the only year in which Ferrari AND Ford stood on equal ground equipment wise and was the only year in which the GT40 was completely Ford and contained no Lola holdovers.

http://www.nvsaac.com/photogallery/images/GT40/1967/67%20le%20mans/67lm01f%20Foyt.-Gurney%20Ford%20MkIV.JPG

Honestly, the 1964 GT40 was a pile of a chassis and and in 1965 Carrol Shelby's real concern was his Cobra Daytona coupes instead of the fledgling Ford prototype. The 1966 Ferrari 330 P3 was a decent chassis and good engine, but was cloaked in a real drag (pun intended) of a body, plus the still carbureted 3.0L V12 wasn't up to making the power of the Holman-Moody developed 427ci side-oiler V8.

And of course 1968 saw no factory Ferraris and 1969 was a year of upheaval with Ferrari developing the 312P and the 512M series.

But in 1967, you had a battle of true titans between privateer GT40 MkII's (including the Wyer cars), an ex-Mirage GT40 campaigned by Wyer (trust me, it's a wholly unique car), the shockingly fast Chapparal 2F, the gorgeous and potent (now mechanically fuel-injected and completely aerodynamically revised) Ferrari 330P4's, the stout Porsche 908's, and the blazing fast GT40 MkIV's.

1967 remains the ultimate year at Le Mans and indeed in prototype racing history. Nothing before or since has ever had the drama of the P4 sweeping Daytona, then the GT40 coming back to take Sebring, and then (save for one grand Chapparal victory at Brands Hatch) the pair trading back and forth the lead at Le Mans.

http://www.nvsaac.com/photogallery/images/GT40/1967/67%20le%20mans/67lm57y%20Bucknum-Hawkins%20Ford%20MkIIb.jpg
http://www.nvsaac.com/photogallery/images/GT40/1967/67%20le%20mans/67lmTest%2002.jpg
http://www.nvsaac.com/photogallery/images/GT40/1967/67%20spa/67spa06w%20Ickx-Thompson%20Mirage%20M1.jpg

Well, I was thinking I was going to have to blast Layla's Keeper there with his first blatantly Ferrari-biased post, but he redeemed himself nicely with the last one.

That said my only complaint is with the comment that the MkIV's/Mirage car could not compete with the 330. At Lemans the MkIV simply outran the Ferrari, especially later in the race.

Gurney even pulled off the track daring the fastest Ferrari to pass! When he did, Gurney overtook the Ferrari and ran away from it. I would call that proving a point about speed.

As a matter of fact, the 67 LeMans win is what got the MkIV essentially banned as if it were not for a crash there was a genuine fear within Ferrari that the GT's would create a bigger sweep of the top positions than they did in 66.

Enzo feigned dissapointment that the big-inch engines went away. But, after the Monza debacle in 65 nobody but the Ferrari faithful bought it.

..it's always nice to get a better complete picture of the events.
when you read the ford articles, they only tend to say that they won this and this and this.
then you read the ferrari articles and they say they won that and that and that.

it's not often you get something that tells you who won what in relation to everything else.

oh,
and it's nice to hear people mention the chapparals once in a while...
chapparal 2 and the birdcage rank as two of my favourite cars of that type.

personally i'm a bigger fan of the lighter and smaller engined gt40s of john wyer as opposed to the (over) engined and heavier american ford efforts
(as you might've noticed...)

Syr, I'm Tifosi, it's forbidden for me to admit just how fast the GT40 MkIV was. :lol:

Seriously, though, the MkIV was an incredible car, but doesn't change the fact that it was only a factor at Sebring and Le Mans. It wasn't ready in time for Daytona, and the MkII's couldn't keep pace with the P4 at Daytona, and sat out the European circuit until Le Mans (and sat out the rest of the European circuit until it and the Chapparal were snubbed by displacement regulations afterwards).

And, actually, Enzo was genuinely disappointed when the new displacement regs came into play. At the time, he was using Can Am as a testbed for a new 6.0L V12.

http://www.bruce-mclaren.com/images/ferrari_612P_amon1968_LasVegas.JPG

Say hello to Chris Amon in the 1968 Ferrari 612P Can Am. A 650hp, 6.0L (later 6.9L with 720hp!) V12 that Enzo wanted for the successor to the 330P4. However, rule changes brought about the 312P and ultimately the 512S and 512M instead.

[QUOTE=Layla's Keeper]Syr, I'm Tifosi, it's forbidden for me to admit just how fast the GT40 MkIV was. :lol:

Seriously, though, the MkIV was an incredible car, but doesn't change the fact that it was only a factor at Sebring and Le Mans. It wasn't ready in time for Daytona, and the MkII's couldn't keep pace with the P4 at Daytona, and sat out the European circuit until Le Mans (and sat out the rest of the European circuit until it and the Chapparal were snubbed by displacement regulations afterwards).

And, actually, Enzo was genuinely disappointed when the new displacement regs came into play. At the time, he was using Can Am as a testbed for a new 6.0L V12.



The MkIV was obviously not ready for Daytona, and if it was not for the fact that it obviouly helped ready the car for the future Ford would have been better off to simply run the MkII's at Daytona IMHO. However, development work was so often done in the real world (on the track) back then and the MkIV eventually, as you indicate, showed it's full potential.

In light of Ferrari's apparent 6.0L V-12 ambitions it would appear that the rules board stopped the fun just as it was starting though. You see, Ford had a 3-valve 427ci V-8 under development for the MKIV for the upcoming 68 season. Believe it or not this was only very loosely related to the pushrod V-8 used in the MkIV, and was virtually ready when the rules changed.

6.0L V-12 Italians versus 7.0L 3-valve V-8 Americans...it would have been one for the history books. And of course you know, Ford would have kicked Ferrari's ass......lol ;)

That said I want add one more thing. For those who don't know the history this was the golden age of racing.

Ford versus Ferrari.........every time I hear that I have to grin.

That said I want add one more thing. For those who don't know the history this was the golden age of racing.

Ford versus Ferrari.........every time I hear that I have to grin.

:biggrin: . Fortunately/Unfortunately (however you look at it), things nowadays are quite lopsided if you know what I mean. Ferrari is like the Yankees. You love to hate them!! Or you just love them!!

My analogy would be that the GT40 was the equivalent to the 04' RedSox. If anybody follows america's pastime, you'll know what I mean.

What do you mean Kurtdog? Because as you likely know, Ford guys loved to hate Ferrari even back then...lol. :)

Ford and Ferrari just do not seem to have an international forum for racing that both actually like. For all the guff Ford took about leaving F-1, the reason Ford was never overly interested is obvious. F-1 does virtually nothing to help Ford in America which just is not going to fly very well with FoMoCo brass.

Too bad too, as these two companies really seem to like to go at it on the track.