Ford GT coming back, Again.

[zray]

Originally Posted By: HerrStig
Originally Posted By: zray
Originally Posted By: HerrStig
"The only substitute for cubic inches is cubic money" - A guy named Yunick. I believe he said that after looking over one of the Jim Hall Cam Am V8 monsters. Smokey, as he was known, knew a bit about NASCAR.


I met him when I was just a kid in the late 1950's at my uncles shop. My uncle was building some engines for some of the NASCAR crowd at the time, when NASCAR was a south only racing thing. I went with my Uncle several times to the Ford dealer and picked up engines that were drop shipped there from Ford Dearborn, and marked experimental .

Z.
THE last of those was, as I recall, the Ovehead Cam 427 Ford which was not allowed to run a NASCAR RACE.


All the NASCAR "type" Ford engines that we saw were the medium and hi rise 427 side oilers. The cammers never were in wide distribution. We prepped,many cars for the popular outlaw races in southern Kansas and northern Oklahoma, They used pretty much the same engines as the NASCAR races. These events were not sanctioned by ANY racing organization, hence the term "outlaw race". The main reason for going outlaw was money. The promoter and the drivers didn't have to give NASCAR or any lessor sanctioning body a cut of the proceeds. Back in those days NASCAR sanctioned many races that were not part of any championship series. But the outlaw races were much more prevalent than sanctioned races.

Z

 

[hattaresguy]

Originally Posted By: zray
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: zray
Originally Posted By: kkspeed
In my opinion, the problem with the new Ford GT will be the build quality of the car. In short, it will be the same standard as a $40,00 Mustang GT. Up to the current industry standard for a $40,000 car, but no where close to the super-car standard.

I work as a part-time race car mechanic on a race team that runs in the SCCA.

The rich owner of the team drives the race cars and periodically keeps some of his "toys" in the race shop. He has a dark blue Ford GT. Great to look at, but open and shut the doors and it feels like a Mustang. The build quality is not there... The paint and fit of the body panels scream Mustang, not Porsche. No where close to the quality of his Ferrari's.


the 2005/2006 Ford GT retailed for $149,995 when new, Now one of them will set you back $250,000.

Any 2005 Ferrari's selling for that when new ? No there weren't. The 2005 Ferrari 612 sold for a cool $250,000 when new. And the current value is $121,000.

I'll take the Ford.

Z.


http://www.classicdriver.com/en/car/ferrari/enzo-ferrari/2004/279311

The 612 is a better car than the GT BTW.


kinda funny how the 2005 Ferrari 612 has lost 50% it's value, while at the same time the 2005 Ford GT has gained 65%.

However great the 612 is, The demand for the 612 is weak, and as it turns out, a lousy investment. I'll take the Ford.

Z


Car's are not investments.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy


Car's are not investments.


Generally? No. But the right ones can be

 

[zray]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy


Car's are not investments.




Maybe not to you, and possibly because of the type of car you buy. I don't buy "modern cars", as most of them are depreciating assets. I drive and buy classic cars, for my everyday transportation needs for which they are superb, to enjoy for their historical value, and for investment purposes

I've owned over 30 classic cars. Unfortunately I've not been able to keep them all. But I purchased wisely, Kept them for a reasonably lengthy period of time, and never panic sold them, I made money on all but one. My last sale was a 1966 Shelby GT360, not a show car, just an original, and a driver. It was bought in 1999, and maintained, including driving expenses such as gasoline and oil changes, for a total of 40K including the purchase price of course. Sold in 2012 for 107.5K.

The recent '05/'06 Ford GT being discussed is an exceptional modern car as it has not depreciated, and not likely to. It didn't take an Einstein to see from the beginning it would gain in value. If I hadn't been deep into Shelby's at the time I certainly would've purchased one. Is is a shame other modern era supercars such as the Ferrari have not fared as well. But they are like most Corvettes made since 1969, another poor investment as they are overproduced as are the Ferraris as far as investment potential is concerned.

No, cars are not investments if you want to play the new car game. I don't play it, and do nicely as a result.

Z.

 

[SteveSRT8]

I have been driving and collecting since 1970 and have owned a few cars.

I have NEVER, repeat never bought a car for my personal use with any worries about it's investment potential. That does not mean I don't want my LS6 Chevelle back, but I didn't buy it to try and profit from it, either.

Cars for me are about entertainment value, very emotional purchaser...

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: zray
Originally Posted By: kkspeed
In my opinion, the problem with the new Ford GT will be the build quality of the car. In short, it will be the same standard as a $40,00 Mustang GT. Up to the current industry standard for a $40,000 car, but no where close to the super-car standard.

I work as a part-time race car mechanic on a race team that runs in the SCCA.

The rich owner of the team drives the race cars and periodically keeps some of his "toys" in the race shop. He has a dark blue Ford GT. Great to look at, but open and shut the doors and it feels like a Mustang. The build quality is not there... The paint and fit of the body panels scream Mustang, not Porsche. No where close to the quality of his Ferrari's.


the 2005/2006 Ford GT retailed for $149,995 when new, Now one of them will set you back $250,000.

Any 2005 Ferrari's selling for that when new ? No there weren't. The 2005 Ferrari 612 sold for a cool $250,000 when new. And the current value is $121,000.

I'll take the Ford.

Z.


http://www.classicdriver.com/en/car/ferrari/enzo-ferrari/2004/279311

The 612 is a better car than the GT BTW.


The only thing the 612 is "better" at is making trips to the grocery store and breaking down.

 

[SteveSRT8]

^^^Hey Ben, good to see you.

At the last Florida Mile I attended the Ford GT's were really running. But one of the crew told me that the quality issues were very real, the cars came delivered with very poor build and finish.

Very little of the stock car was left in those twin turbo AND supercharged machines running an effortless 200 mph. Not really a street car at all, just a thinly disguised race car!

And how many YEARS is the waiting list for GT's?

I have been a Ferrari fan for decades and I repeat that if you sit in one and really dissect the details they are one of the very few cars that have true quality in them from the ground up...

 

[3311]

Originally Posted By: Joel_MD
That looks like an awesome car. I still remember that commercial aired during the Superbowl (2004?) for the Ford GT, with a driver going around a test track. I thought it was the coolest car I had ever seen.

EDIT: Here is the ad I was thinking about for the old GT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYOxA-5mxhI

Nice link, that car is best modern classic IMHO.

The new one looks underivable as heck. Visibility looks like it would be on par with the Lamborghini of the 80's.

 

[MalfunctionProne]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: hattaresguy
Originally Posted By: zray
Originally Posted By: kkspeed
In my opinion, the problem with the new Ford GT will be the build quality of the car. In short, it will be the same standard as a $40,00 Mustang GT. Up to the current industry standard for a $40,000 car, but no where close to the super-car standard.

I work as a part-time race car mechanic on a race team that runs in the SCCA.

The rich owner of the team drives the race cars and periodically keeps some of his "toys" in the race shop. He has a dark blue Ford GT. Great to look at, but open and shut the doors and it feels like a Mustang. The build quality is not there... The paint and fit of the body panels scream Mustang, not Porsche. No where close to the quality of his Ferrari's.


the 2005/2006 Ford GT retailed for $149,995 when new, Now one of them will set you back $250,000.

Any 2005 Ferrari's selling for that when new ? No there weren't. The 2005 Ferrari 612 sold for a cool $250,000 when new. And the current value is $121,000.

I'll take the Ford.

Z.


http://www.classicdriver.com/en/car/ferrari/enzo-ferrari/2004/279311

The 612 is a better car than the GT BTW.


The only thing the 612 is "better" at is making trips to the grocery store and breaking down.


Ferrari 612? Sucks. And I love Ferrari and I am saying that.

I will take a 2001 Ferrari 550 Maranello, please. Or a 575M, if we want REAL speed with that "pretty to look at" Italian work of art...

I even like the 456.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: MalfunctionProne


Ferrari 612? Sucks. And I love Ferrari and I am saying that.

I will take a 2001 Ferrari 550 Maranello, please. Or a 575M, if we want REAL speed with that "pretty to look at" Italian work of art...

I even like the 456.


I like the 458, 599, etc. The 612 will be an asterisk in the history books of what Ferarri should never be.

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
^^^Hey Ben, good to see you.

At the last Florida Mile I attended the Ford GT's were really running. But one of the crew told me that the quality issues were very real, the cars came delivered with very poor build and finish.

Very little of the stock car was left in those twin turbo AND supercharged machines running an effortless 200 mph. Not really a street car at all, just a thinly disguised race car!

And how many YEARS is the waiting list for GT's?

I have been a Ferrari fan for decades and I repeat that if you sit in one and really dissect the details they are one of the very few cars that have true quality in them from the ground up...
.

The Ford GT is more of a work of art with those CNC billet control arms than 9/10 of the Ferarris built in the last 20 years, if you really look at them from the ground up, IMO.

So Steve, you're saying the standing mile GT's had very little of the stock car left? What exactly was so far removed from stock? Mark Hiedaker's FGT which went 278 mph at the Texas Mile is remarkably stock for the capability. In fact, I'd wager you won't find a 250+ mph standing mile car with a more stock chassis.

 

[mcrn]

Here is a video with sound

https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-cl=84359240&x-yt-ts=1421782837&v=3C-qSRnqUZg

 

[3311]

Originally Posted By: Ben99GT
Originally Posted By: MalfunctionProne


Ferrari 612? Sucks. And I love Ferrari and I am saying that.

I will take a 2001 Ferrari 550 Maranello, please. Or a 575M, if we want REAL speed with that "pretty to look at" Italian work of art...

I even like the 456.
I just got the look over a 458 at work an it is definitely an awesome car.

I like the 458, 599, etc. The 612 will be an asterisk in the history books of what Ferarri should never be.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Ben, what world do you live in where an extremely limited run of cars with CNC machined billet parts is "stock"?

The GT is an extremely limited production Halo car, far from anything even remotely mass produced. No parts bin special...

 

[Ben99GT]

Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Ben, what world do you live in where an extremely limited run of cars with CNC machined billet parts is "stock"?

The GT is an extremely limited production Halo car, far from anything even remotely mass produced. No parts bin special...


Those billet control arms came installed on many GTs Steve, so I live in the world where stock parts come on stock cars, hence "stock".

Have have I ever suggested that the Ford GT is a parts bin special? No. The GT is a very special car reflected in its ever increasing value.