when the engine is mounted behind the driver that means perfect weight distribution and superb traction off the line, so the race against the Ferrari is a no contest...the GT40 is raw power
the shelby Daytona coupe is way better than the gt40 and they should have kept it because i mean really did the gt40 win the whole Series like the daytona coupe did. No and it was only a little more handling too and so the cobra daytona is gone
@nimaxx38 Bullship, the mid engine configuration alone makes the GT40 better, it was never campaigned to win overall, it was easily capable. Way more aerodynamic. Lower and better CG because of the mid engine.
WM-Peugeot P88, driven by Roger Dorchy. LeMans 1988. 253mph in the race itself, and 258mph in the qualifying. Google that and see for yourself.
The Porsche 917 held the all time distance record for the 24hour LeMans from 1971 to 2010. That's right they didn't beat the overall distance record for the entire race until this year. Not to mention the 917 was developed into the most powerful circuit racecar ever, the Porsche 917-30 Can-Am. So dominant it killed Can-Am.
"That's right they didn't beat the overall distance record for the entire race until this year (2010)"
U know why? it is not because they couldn't break the record, no not at all. it is because the le mans track changed because of safety. let me show u what i mean take a look here;
maisonblanche (.) co (.) uk/circuits (.) html
so u cant really say the porsche held the record from 71 to 2010 because the track canged cos of safety.
So Porsche still has the record, but we know cars today is much faster cos of technology, but why cant they break the record? cos the track has changed over the years (Mulsanne straight has split into 3) plus there has come safety rules after the mercedes accident in 1999.
It might have held the record in the 60's. Unfortunately the Porsche 917 (once voted the best ever racing car by an international jury) made the GT40 look slow. The langheck Porsche 917 reportedly did 246mph in 1971.
Besides, Porsche 956/962 saw speeds close to 250mph in the 80's, and the Sauber-Mercedes C9 saw over 250mph in practice and a timed 250mph in the race itself.
The all time record on the Mulsanne straight is by WM-Peugeot P88 with 253mph in 1988.
Henry ford, came up with the motor, the car design, and everything because ferrari at the last second pulled out, not the new gt isn't a 40 since its 43 inches off the ground, and its all American, they had it made in brit, because you guy made the product car at a cheap price, so henry came out in the long run.... you were used like mexicans, and Asians.
That was the stupidest thing I've heard in quite some time. Are you seriously believing they designed it in England because they could get if for a "cheaper price". Your are either a troll or a total fool.
First of all the original Ford GT (wasn't called GT40 until later) was based on a British designed Lola chassis. Also at that time in the 60's the best chassi builders and most innovative racecar designers were found in Great Britain. They dominated in Formula 1.
Sorry, but when Lotus arrived in Indianapolis in 1963 and Jim Clark literally ran circles around the Indy roadsters the world realized the high tech racing centre of the world was in England. Over the next 30 years, virtually all IndyCar chassis and engines were designed there. Even Ferrari moved their R&D department to England and hired ex-British teams designers to catch up in the 80's and 90's.
Sorry troll. You're flagged. For being ignorant and wasting people's time.
@silverwood2 I agree it is British, but not through and through. I would say 50-50. One half british sports car. Other half big ass push rod American V8.
@bjgulke It is british through and through, all the designers and builders were British, it was built in britain. An engine doesn't make it half American when the cars British built and built in England? For a start an american couldn't have designed this car, because it was already an all British car anyway, because the designer who drew the plans was British, he worked for ASTON MARTIN before drawing plans for the car years earlier, before henry ford invested his money.
Kid, I'm british, by a old tree line, almost everyone in America is british, in the long run....... so if I design a car now, I guess that makes it british, with my tree line, no. it makes it American.
The GT is a repro of the GT40, it's 10% larger and 1000 lbs heavier. Only 100 or so of the original. Designed completely in the USA by Ford, the first car in history designed with computers, built in England, demon-tweaked to win by Shelby. It won Lemans 4 years in a row.
The GT is mostly a different car, way more civilized and streetable, the original was race only, no safety or comfort. There are a lot of replicas of the original, about a dozen manufactures world wide.
Right, and when those cars didn't finish at Le Mans in '64 and '65 Henry Ford II put Carroll Shelby in charge, he re-engineered the chassis/suspension and threw in a Ford big-block 427. Then they took the first three spots.
And Shelby's Daytona Coupes were just as fast (designed by American Peter Brock). But Ford chose to put it's efforts on the GT40s, which is why Shelby was involved. The Cobra Daytonas were given to a Brit to run. Both were swapping fast laps until Shelby ordered the Daytonas to slow down as to not steal thunder from the GT40s.
Yeah key word Original. With out American baking the car would have been nothing. Do some research and you will notice that Shelby created virtually a brand new car. Sure the basis was a British design but that is it. Everything was American on that car. Thus being an American car.
Apologies for American people thinking smarter to use other people abilities to make a BETTER project. Wasn't aware humans weren't meant to work together to achieve something greater.
That car won 5 years in a row in the Le mans. In France! It placed 1st, 2nd and 3rd in the '66 Le Mans! "Go Like Hell"... maybe you should read it sometime.
Cooper were first rear engined in Formula 1. They were world champion in F1 in 1959 and 1960, easily defeating the front engined Ferraris. Ferrari didn't get their first rear engined F1 car until 1961. Lotus had their first rear engined F1 racer in 1960, as did BRM and Porsche. Enzo Ferrari insisted on front engined cars in 1960 even after all the others had realized rear engined cars was the future.
Excuse me but they were already using rear engined cars in Formula 1 years before that. Cooper first won with it in 1958 and took two easy world titles in 1959 and 1960. Ferrari didn't realize where the wind was blowing and kept the front engined car even when it was apparent it could never hope to compete with all the other teams in 1960. Also Cooper arrived with their rear engined cars at Indianapolis in 1961, and Lotus were fooled out of an easy win there in 1963. Rear-engined
Ford didn't teach Ferrari nothing. Rear engined cars made by Lotus nearly won the '63 Indy (some weird lap chart miss) and won it easily in '65 (braking all the previous records). FYI the Ford GT40 was based on a British Lola design(Lola Mk6), which Lola didn't have enough money to develop further or race competitively. Ford picked up the baton.
Rear-engined Porsches were beating Ferrari in Targa Florio and other sportscar races in the late 50's already. Porsche 718 won in 59&60
You know what is also funny? Ferrari actually beat Ford in 1964 and 1965 in LeMans both times using mid-engined cars. The first mid engined Ferrari sportscar for endurance racing was the 250P in 1963, which won the 12hours of Sebring,1000km of Nurburgring and 24hours of LeMans. The 64 winner was the 275P and the 65 winner was the 275LM. Both of them mid engined.
The point is the Ferrari 250P was developed before Ford even bought the Lola Mk6.
@McLarenMercedes But the 7.0L 200mph monster known as the GT40 MK I was NOT the Lola Mk6. The Mk 6 had poor gear ratios and revving issues on the straight so it didn't even finish. The GT40 Mk I was a redesign off the failed Lola Mk6 which didnt come along until '65, and from there the winning Mk IV was produced, and only ran two races, but won both. The big notion that the GT40 Mk II gets for attention isn't just that it beat Ferrari, but all three entrants finished 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in '66.
yes the ford makes saleen parts but what i'm saying is that ford has no racing spirit, i'll remember u that ford was created basically for being a city car and ferrari, as like the saleen and the mclaren, is made for racing so that's why i talk about racing spirit. u can think whatever u want about my comments and i know that they pisses u off alot cuz i hate an american car when probably it's ur mithic car
Look up the 24 hour LeMans winners from 1981 too 1987. Porsche 7 years straight. And from 1982-1987 these were all 956/962 models. The 962 won it again in 1994. Not bad for a car first raced in 1982.
I like how it's you greasy goombahs that are the only ones who don't like the Ford GT. Do you also hate the McLaren F1 and Saleen S7? Those are other cars that humiliated the supposedly best your country has to offer (to beat it all, the S7 is made from Ford parts too).
Just to clear it up: The Ford GT is the one in the video. The "GT 40" was a lot smaller (roof was 40 inches off the ground) and a little roundier near the back. They still make replicas of the GT 40 (I think).
The reason this car is not called GT40 is because its not 40 inch's tall...Has nothing to do with rights to the name....Superformance is still making replicas and legally calling them GT40's
Correction: it DOES in FACT have to do with Ford not owning the GT40 name any longer. It's true that the new GT is 43 inches tall as opposed to the original height of 40", but the ACTUAL reason that Ford called the new car 'GT', rather than 'GT40' is because they can't legally use the name without paying an insane amount of money to the current owners of it (because its new owners are apparently a**holes), which they were unwilling to do, therefore, say hello to the Ford 'GT'. You're welcome.
no this is the ford gt, and yes they didnt name it the ford gt40 bc they were wanting a rediculous amount of money to to use the name so they just used the gt, and it is i think 43-44 inches tall or somewhere right there, but the gt40 was named that bc of the height
yes but you left out 68' and 69'. the GT40 is still the only american car to win ourtight at Le Mans 4 years in a row. and yes the original GT40's with a racing pedigree are easily worth 10 million.
The Ford GT40 was built in the 60's, it was given it's name because the car was 40 inches tall. The car in the vidio is a FordGT, based on the desin of the GT40, but was not given that name because the car is over 40 inches tall, some where around 44 inches.
when the engine is mounted behind the driver that means perfect weight distribution and superb traction off the line, so the race against the Ferrari is a no contest...the GT40 is raw power
TequilaAssassin4eva 4 months ago
GT40 all the way
MrDanzer31 6 months ago
thats not a gt40 thats a heritage edition ford gt
kirk0respite 8 months ago
wow coool colours
saucypup76 10 months ago
@scorpo8900 i think i prefigure the original ;)
saffronwales 10 months ago
@scorpo8900 O.o oh the number is still on the wrong side, the one at the back its on the wrong quarter
saffronwales 10 months ago
OK, and the VS was....?
Armandtan1 11 months ago
the one is on the wrong side, if there going to copy a paint job, do it right :)
saffronwales 11 months ago
By means of photofinish, it was declared Ford GT as winner!
nativebrother 11 months ago
the shelby Daytona coupe is way better than the gt40 and they should have kept it because i mean really did the gt40 win the whole Series like the daytona coupe did. No and it was only a little more handling too and so the cobra daytona is gone
nimaxx38 1 year ago
@nimaxx38 Bullship, the mid engine configuration alone makes the GT40 better, it was never campaigned to win overall, it was easily capable. Way more aerodynamic. Lower and better CG because of the mid engine.
gt40f in reply to nimaxx38 (Show the comment) 1 year ago
was the race about getting out of a parked space ?
Xlife93 1 year ago
Looks like a good race, holy shit that was a tight corner he pulled
SeeProfileForDetails in reply to Xlife93 (Show the comment) 11 months ago
JA JA JA PAYASO ANDA A MENTIRLE A LOS TONTOS COMO VOS!!! SHUT UP CLOWN!!! DO YOU WANT KNOW YOUR ITALIAN'S NICKNAME? : PAGLACCIO!!!
GUSTAVOEEUU 1 year ago
that was a great race!
kangaroochameleon 1 year ago
@snakebite216
WM-Peugeot P88, driven by Roger Dorchy. LeMans 1988. 253mph in the race itself, and 258mph in the qualifying. Google that and see for yourself.
The Porsche 917 held the all time distance record for the 24hour LeMans from 1971 to 2010. That's right they didn't beat the overall distance record for the entire race until this year. Not to mention the 917 was developed into the most powerful circuit racecar ever, the Porsche 917-30 Can-Am. So dominant it killed Can-Am.
AlexDeLarge90 in reply to snakebite216 (Show the comment) 1 year ago 3
@AlexDeLarge90
Well Alex, u cant really argue for that.
"That's right they didn't beat the overall distance record for the entire race until this year (2010)"
U know why? it is not because they couldn't break the record, no not at all. it is because the le mans track changed because of safety. let me show u what i mean take a look here;
maisonblanche (.) co (.) uk/circuits (.) html
so u cant really say the porsche held the record from 71 to 2010 because the track canged cos of safety.
SKYLENGT in reply to AlexDeLarge90 (Show the comment) 1 year ago
@AlexDeLarge90
And actually, the Porsche 917 still has the record, it did 3:18.40 (1971)
Peugeot 908 did 3:19.074 (2010)
So Porsche still has the record, but we know cars today is much faster cos of technology, but why cant they break the record? cos the track has changed over the years (Mulsanne straight has split into 3) plus there has come safety rules after the mercedes accident in 1999.
SKYLENGT in reply to AlexDeLarge90 (Show the comment) 1 year ago
@snakebite216
Nope it does NOT.
It might have held the record in the 60's. Unfortunately the Porsche 917 (once voted the best ever racing car by an international jury) made the GT40 look slow. The langheck Porsche 917 reportedly did 246mph in 1971.
Besides, Porsche 956/962 saw speeds close to 250mph in the 80's, and the Sauber-Mercedes C9 saw over 250mph in practice and a timed 250mph in the race itself.
The all time record on the Mulsanne straight is by WM-Peugeot P88 with 253mph in 1988.
AlexDeLarge90 in reply to snakebite216 (Show the comment) 1 year ago 4
@silverwood2 No offence parts are English but the motor and Tran were no way an English part. Yes design was british
chimiechew 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@silverwood2
Henry ford, came up with the motor, the car design, and everything because ferrari at the last second pulled out, not the new gt isn't a 40 since its 43 inches off the ground, and its all American, they had it made in brit, because you guy made the product car at a cheap price, so henry came out in the long run.... you were used like mexicans, and Asians.
TheHiroCameron 1 year ago
@TheHiroCameron
That was the stupidest thing I've heard in quite some time. Are you seriously believing they designed it in England because they could get if for a "cheaper price". Your are either a troll or a total fool.
First of all the original Ford GT (wasn't called GT40 until later) was based on a British designed Lola chassis. Also at that time in the 60's the best chassi builders and most innovative racecar designers were found in Great Britain. They dominated in Formula 1.
McLarenMercedes in reply to TheHiroCameron (Show the comment) 1 year ago 7
@TheHiroCameron
Sorry, but when Lotus arrived in Indianapolis in 1963 and Jim Clark literally ran circles around the Indy roadsters the world realized the high tech racing centre of the world was in England. Over the next 30 years, virtually all IndyCar chassis and engines were designed there. Even Ferrari moved their R&D department to England and hired ex-British teams designers to catch up in the 80's and 90's.
Sorry troll. You're flagged. For being ignorant and wasting people's time.
McLarenMercedes in reply to TheHiroCameron (Show the comment) 1 year ago 4
Scares the hell out of the frogs.
Cash2112 1 year ago
@silverwood2 I agree it is British, but not through and through. I would say 50-50. One half british sports car. Other half big ass push rod American V8.
bjgulke in reply to silverwood2 (Show the comment) 1 year ago
@bjgulke It is british through and through, all the designers and builders were British, it was built in britain. An engine doesn't make it half American when the cars British built and built in England? For a start an american couldn't have designed this car, because it was already an all British car anyway, because the designer who drew the plans was British, he worked for ASTON MARTIN before drawing plans for the car years earlier, before henry ford invested his money.
kinkaid25 in reply to bjgulke (Show the comment) 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kinkaid25
Kid, I'm british, by a old tree line, almost everyone in America is british, in the long run....... so if I design a car now, I guess that makes it british, with my tree line, no. it makes it American.
TheHiroCameron in reply to kinkaid25 (Show the comment) 1 year ago
VS? What the..
Frans1Wanksta 1 year ago
wheres the VS??
Brandovibe 1 year ago
The GT is a repro of the GT40, it's 10% larger and 1000 lbs heavier. Only 100 or so of the original. Designed completely in the USA by Ford, the first car in history designed with computers, built in England, demon-tweaked to win by Shelby. It won Lemans 4 years in a row.
The GT is mostly a different car, way more civilized and streetable, the original was race only, no safety or comfort. There are a lot of replicas of the original, about a dozen manufactures world wide.
gt40f 1 year ago
so, GT40's are from 60's and has a height of 40" (that's the reason of his name), so... GT are from 00's and has a little bigger height of 44"
Iron7xIbanez 2 years ago
GT OR GT40 IS SIMILAR
nissanpatrolcs 2 years ago
W GT40
nissanpatrolcs 2 years ago
That's called a Ford GT Heritage model. Not a GT40.
dalejrfan800 2 years ago
I don't get it. Where's the "Vs."?
ryanro24 2 years ago 2
hey traveller 182, thats a Ford GT, not a GT 40, there is a difference and the GT 40's are from the 60's this is from 2006...
formber 2 years ago
american engine though
MrMasterchief666 2 years ago
you yanks dont deserve to say the ford gt40 is america's car.... the original was a british design
ducatiracing 2 years ago
Right, and when those cars didn't finish at Le Mans in '64 and '65 Henry Ford II put Carroll Shelby in charge, he re-engineered the chassis/suspension and threw in a Ford big-block 427. Then they took the first three spots.
ytykg in reply to ducatiracing (Show the comment) 2 years ago
he had no design if it wasnt for the brits in the first place
ducatiracing in reply to ytykg (Show the comment) 2 years ago
The Brits wouldn't have designed it without American money. It was a joint effort, but both sides want to claim it exclusively.
ytykg in reply to ducatiracing (Show the comment) 2 years ago 3
And Shelby's Daytona Coupes were just as fast (designed by American Peter Brock). But Ford chose to put it's efforts on the GT40s, which is why Shelby was involved. The Cobra Daytonas were given to a Brit to run. Both were swapping fast laps until Shelby ordered the Daytonas to slow down as to not steal thunder from the GT40s.
fmonk in reply to ytykg (Show the comment) 2 years ago 2
Yeah key word Original. With out American baking the car would have been nothing. Do some research and you will notice that Shelby created virtually a brand new car. Sure the basis was a British design but that is it. Everything was American on that car. Thus being an American car.
Interpol024 in reply to ducatiracing (Show the comment) 2 years ago 2
Brits working for the Americans, as is the case with Ford Motor Co, and most certainly for Mr. Henry Ford 2.
bohemianracer in reply to ducatiracing (Show the comment) 2 years ago
Apologies for American people thinking smarter to use other people abilities to make a BETTER project. Wasn't aware humans weren't meant to work together to achieve something greater.
StreikerJ in reply to bohemianracer (Show the comment) 2 years ago
You know whats funny?
Before the GT40 came along, Ferrari's had front mounted motors.
And where have their motors been ever since?
Ford thaught Ferrari every thing they know. By beating it into them!
TheCottonTop 2 years ago
Huh? 1963 Ferrari 250P V12
RalliartGT1 in reply to TheCottonTop (Show the comment) 2 years ago
ur right....that's one of the Ferrari's that were mid-mounted engines first! Not to mention the F1's in the 50's....
unlike that shitty GT40 people think it blew away ferrari Bullshit! Why did it become obsolete then by the end of the 60's!? :D
ArcticaJSM in reply to RalliartGT1 (Show the comment) 2 years ago
its actually quite simple. because ford have cars to sell to everybody not just a bunch of cashed up stuck up pricks with too much money
xr8cowboy in reply to ArcticaJSM (Show the comment) 2 years ago
Comment removed
StedySniper in reply to ArcticaJSM (Show the comment) 2 years ago
That car won 5 years in a row in the Le mans. In France! It placed 1st, 2nd and 3rd in the '66 Le Mans! "Go Like Hell"... maybe you should read it sometime.
608gamer07 in reply to ArcticaJSM (Show the comment) 2 years ago
No, it didn't because that's a GT, not a GT40.
dalejrfan800 in reply to 608gamer07 (Show the comment) 2 years ago
we were talking about the GT40. the car in the video was irrelevant to what TheCottonTop said.
608gamer07 in reply to dalejrfan800 (Show the comment) 2 years ago
@608gamer07
4 years 1966-67-68-69
Porsche won 7 years in a row in 1981-82-83-84-85-86-87
Audi has won it 5 years in a row in 2004-05-06-07-08
McLarenMercedes in reply to 608gamer07 (Show the comment) 1 year ago 2
@McLarenMercedes Very informative. Did not know about Porsche dominating for nearly a decade in a row.
608gamer07 in reply to McLarenMercedes (Show the comment) 1 year ago
@ArcticaJSM
Cooper were first rear engined in Formula 1. They were world champion in F1 in 1959 and 1960, easily defeating the front engined Ferraris. Ferrari didn't get their first rear engined F1 car until 1961. Lotus had their first rear engined F1 racer in 1960, as did BRM and Porsche. Enzo Ferrari insisted on front engined cars in 1960 even after all the others had realized rear engined cars was the future.
SteveSpicerPortsmuth in reply to ArcticaJSM (Show the comment) 1 year ago
And Enzo had to change the rules (to cancel a race) in order to steal a championship from the Brock designed Daytona Coupes.
fmonk in reply to TheCottonTop (Show the comment) 2 years ago
@TheCottonTop
Excuse me but they were already using rear engined cars in Formula 1 years before that. Cooper first won with it in 1958 and took two easy world titles in 1959 and 1960. Ferrari didn't realize where the wind was blowing and kept the front engined car even when it was apparent it could never hope to compete with all the other teams in 1960. Also Cooper arrived with their rear engined cars at Indianapolis in 1961, and Lotus were fooled out of an easy win there in 1963. Rear-engined
McLarenMercedes in reply to TheCottonTop (Show the comment) 1 year ago 4
@TheCottonTop
Ford didn't teach Ferrari nothing. Rear engined cars made by Lotus nearly won the '63 Indy (some weird lap chart miss) and won it easily in '65 (braking all the previous records). FYI the Ford GT40 was based on a British Lola design(Lola Mk6), which Lola didn't have enough money to develop further or race competitively. Ford picked up the baton.
Rear-engined Porsches were beating Ferrari in Targa Florio and other sportscar races in the late 50's already. Porsche 718 won in 59&60
McLarenMercedes in reply to TheCottonTop (Show the comment) 1 year ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
@McLarenMercedes Half the story, as usual. You are just as bad as my fellow Americans who think its ALL American.
HaleFire7 in reply to McLarenMercedes (Show the comment) 4 months ago
@TheCottonTop
You know what is also funny? Ferrari actually beat Ford in 1964 and 1965 in LeMans both times using mid-engined cars. The first mid engined Ferrari sportscar for endurance racing was the 250P in 1963, which won the 12hours of Sebring,1000km of Nurburgring and 24hours of LeMans. The 64 winner was the 275P and the 65 winner was the 275LM. Both of them mid engined.
The point is the Ferrari 250P was developed before Ford even bought the Lola Mk6.
Ford didn't teach racing nohing.
McLarenMercedes in reply to TheCottonTop (Show the comment) 1 year ago 4
@McLarenMercedes But the 7.0L 200mph monster known as the GT40 MK I was NOT the Lola Mk6. The Mk 6 had poor gear ratios and revving issues on the straight so it didn't even finish. The GT40 Mk I was a redesign off the failed Lola Mk6 which didnt come along until '65, and from there the winning Mk IV was produced, and only ran two races, but won both. The big notion that the GT40 Mk II gets for attention isn't just that it beat Ferrari, but all three entrants finished 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in '66.
twbgx2 in reply to McLarenMercedes (Show the comment) 1 year ago
not a gt40,it's a 2005 GT.i hate it when people confuse those two,especially when there's 40 years difference.
DVGTS1 2 years ago 2
gt40
arnold4life476 2 years ago
wtf i know about that race lol
assburgers95 2 years ago
lol, that ford stomped those peice of shit ferraris lol.
gearhead2k6 in reply to assburgers95 (Show the comment) 2 years ago
lol, ford can do every shit it wants to do but for me ferrari is a true pureblood
assburgers95 in reply to gearhead2k6 (Show the comment) 2 years ago
uh p.s. sry my english is bad as like my comments about ford bye
assburgers95 2 years ago
yes the ford makes saleen parts but what i'm saying is that ford has no racing spirit, i'll remember u that ford was created basically for being a city car and ferrari, as like the saleen and the mclaren, is made for racing so that's why i talk about racing spirit. u can think whatever u want about my comments and i know that they pisses u off alot cuz i hate an american car when probably it's ur mithic car
see u around boys
assburgers95 2 years ago
Look up the 24 hour lemans winners from 1966 to 1969...
Neverletgo177 in reply to assburgers95 (Show the comment) 2 years ago
@Neverletgo177
Look up the 24 hour LeMans winners from 1981 too 1987. Porsche 7 years straight. And from 1982-1987 these were all 956/962 models. The 962 won it again in 1994. Not bad for a car first raced in 1982.
WASPTexas in reply to Neverletgo177 (Show the comment) 1 year ago 3
sonnn. i saw the eiffel tower!
lololzak 2 years ago
Do you know what "vs" means? It means a race, not a comparison.
jeffgooloolie 2 years ago
Yeah, thats not a GT40, there's decades in difference, it's a 2005 GT
monsterhockey7 2 years ago
there's no way a ford can outrun a ferrari
assburgers95 2 years ago
hey, learn your freakin history. Ford whooped Ferrari's ass from 1966-1969, using that car ^
MustangMan427 in reply to assburgers95 (Show the comment) 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
the ford gt40 is not a car is a piece of shit
assburgers95 in reply to MustangMan427 (Show the comment) 2 years ago
I like how it's you greasy goombahs that are the only ones who don't like the Ford GT. Do you also hate the McLaren F1 and Saleen S7? Those are other cars that humiliated the supposedly best your country has to offer (to beat it all, the S7 is made from Ford parts too).
Idoloish in reply to assburgers95 (Show the comment) 2 years ago
@Idoloish
The McLaren F1 is a British car. Although the guy who designed it, Gordon Murray, was born in South Africa. The engine in it is from BMW.
Porsche has won LeMans a record 16 times from 1970 onwards. Ferrari has won 9, and none after 1965.
WASPTexas in reply to Idoloish (Show the comment) 1 year ago 4
anyone who knows what a gt40 looks like will tell you,
that the rear lights are not the same
and the gt40 never had rear exhaust splitters
covGuk 2 years ago
is that the gulf oil livery on the gt40 :O
skorlkid 2 years ago
no
(char limit)
uyesu in reply to skorlkid (Show the comment) 2 years ago
do not use trickery on me
skorlkid in reply to uyesu (Show the comment) 2 years ago
I apologize. I didn't intend to do so. The car above is actually a Ford GT.
The paint scheme looks similar to Gulf Oil on this car, obviously, but the colors here are too saturated and too dark.
tinyurlDOTcom forwardslash ojymek
uyesu in reply to skorlkid (Show the comment) 2 years ago 2
There probably both replicars but I d still take the GT-40 .
maddogtannen1966 2 years ago 3
DUDE ITS A REPLICA!!! They do make those things... dumbass
justino415 3 years ago
no its not. see the bumper. GT40"s dont have those
kclpj2759 in reply to justino415 (Show the comment) 2 years ago
yes i thought that too
well spotted
covGuk in reply to kclpj2759 (Show the comment) 2 years ago
I DONT THINK YOU GUYS REALIZE THIS IS A "GT 40" not a " FORD GT "
imonlineandlikeit 3 years ago
You are wrong. It is Ford GT.
yaroukh in reply to imonlineandlikeit (Show the comment) 3 years ago 3
YEp i agree. easily a FORD GT
jbrady95 in reply to yaroukh (Show the comment) 2 years ago 2
dude, that's totally a ford gt
DEF90JAM in reply to imonlineandlikeit (Show the comment) 3 years ago 2
Everyone can see this is a Ford GT not a GT40. They are two diffrent cars.
abanks1959 in reply to imonlineandlikeit (Show the comment) 3 years ago 2
They're right man, it's a GT
somekidwithanm4 in reply to imonlineandlikeit (Show the comment) 3 years ago 2
Just to clear it up: The Ford GT is the one in the video. The "GT 40" was a lot smaller (roof was 40 inches off the ground) and a little roundier near the back. They still make replicas of the GT 40 (I think).
wslx0195 in reply to imonlineandlikeit (Show the comment) 2 years ago 32
that gt40 owned ferrari in lemans itll do the same here !
sheblycobra1967 3 years ago
Was it a race?
wordreet 3 years ago
Just what we need. Another real "VS" video
superallye 3 years ago 2
WOW!introducing the nob jockeys
cover1919 3 years ago
wow what a clip dam nobjockeys
cover1919 3 years ago
um thats the ford GT
pitviper12345 3 years ago
what kind of "vs" is that
myyvaine 3 years ago 2
Wow let me clear this up very quickly.
This is a NEW 2006 Ford GT Heritage Edition.
...There was no LED taillights in 1966-68.
The reason this car is not called GT40 is because its not 40 inch's tall...Has nothing to do with rights to the name....Superformance is still making replicas and legally calling them GT40's
TheSkylineShopVancou 3 years ago
Ford sold the Gt40 name to Gulf
tomshez99 in reply to TheSkylineShopVancou (Show the comment) 3 years ago
Correction: it DOES in FACT have to do with Ford not owning the GT40 name any longer. It's true that the new GT is 43 inches tall as opposed to the original height of 40", but the ACTUAL reason that Ford called the new car 'GT', rather than 'GT40' is because they can't legally use the name without paying an insane amount of money to the current owners of it (because its new owners are apparently a**holes), which they were unwilling to do, therefore, say hello to the Ford 'GT'. You're welcome.
aivilik in reply to TheSkylineShopVancou (Show the comment) 3 years ago 3
And IF U ThinkThat U Are Dumb- N The Only ReasoN They Didnt Name It a GT40 again is BecaUse They Couldnt Get The Rights Back To The Name
garrettmixing 3 years ago
This is A old FoRD GT40, Every1 That ThinkS thiS is A Gt is a MOROn, I Bet IT Was 62 inchs Tall ALso HuH!
garrettmixing 3 years ago
no this is the ford gt, and yes they didnt name it the ford gt40 bc they were wanting a rediculous amount of money to to use the name so they just used the gt, and it is i think 43-44 inches tall or somewhere right there, but the gt40 was named that bc of the height
default15405 in reply to garrettmixing (Show the comment) 3 years ago
That's a Ford GT, not a GT40
annama123 3 years ago 3
right
000triplezero in reply to annama123 (Show the comment) 3 years ago
yes but you left out 68' and 69'. the GT40 is still the only american car to win ourtight at Le Mans 4 years in a row. and yes the original GT40's with a racing pedigree are easily worth 10 million.
seniorcat03 in reply to bufbarbnaby (Show the comment) 3 years ago
I'm sorry, but you cannot race a new GT against a classic Daytona. That's not a fair race.
mustangman442002 3 years ago
its not a new GT, read pleas, gt40
traxxxas in reply to mustangman442002 (Show the comment) 3 years ago
I'm pretty sure that's one of the Heritage Gulf GT's. One of the new ones.
mustangman442002 in reply to traxxxas (Show the comment) 3 years ago
yes it is a new GT, 'read pleas'
tomshez99 in reply to traxxxas (Show the comment) 3 years ago
wow um not a race and not vs and if it was a race very unfair one lol
oxcide101 3 years ago
thats the new ford gt, not the classic gt40. get your facts straight dumbasses.
DOEboi15 4 years ago
HISTORY LESSON.
The Ford GT40 was built in the 60's, it was given it's name because the car was 40 inches tall. The car in the vidio is a FordGT, based on the desin of the GT40, but was not given that name because the car is over 40 inches tall, some where around 44 inches.
device222000 4 years ago
was it 43? inches or 44?
musikTECH in reply to device222000 (Show the comment) 3 years ago
the car was not given the gt40 name because another company had the legal rights to use it.
SpyderRios in reply to device222000 (Show the comment) 3 years ago
who cares nice cars.
ottocars 4 years ago
FORD GT not 40
oxcide101 4 years ago 2
dude its called a gt40 its been that way...that was the origonal name dumb ass
waltherp22freak1 in reply to oxcide101 (Show the comment) 4 years ago
wasnt the gt 40 the old one?
in that vid you can see the new one
and in my opinion the new one is just called ford GT
dumbass
MaSqUeRaZ in reply to waltherp22freak1 (Show the comment) 4 years ago 2
well one u need to do a little better reserch on your cars and the origonal name for it was gt40
waltherp22freak1 in reply to MaSqUeRaZ (Show the comment) 4 years ago
walther, yes, the original name was the gt40, but the new models (aka the one in the video) are called ford GTs. not gt40s.
colbyyoung16 in reply to waltherp22freak1 (Show the comment) 3 years ago
i think you are wrong this is a ford gt. do some reasearch.
SpyderRios in reply to waltherp22freak1 (Show the comment) 3 years ago
it's the ford gt.... it would eat that Ferrari...
device222000 4 years ago
it's the gt40
lolinternets1 in reply to device222000 (Show the comment) 4 years ago
well we all know it by gt40
saleenxxx 4 years ago
traveller182, Thats a Ford GT, not a GT40. Can't anyone tell the difference?
Spyker88 4 years ago
yeah spykers right u can tell by the back lights and the wingmirrors
MaxHusky in reply to Spyker88 (Show the comment) 4 years ago
The GT40 looks a little different and is older.
SuPeRcAr250 in reply to Spyker88 (Show the comment) 4 years ago
Love the heritage edition GT
BrianZuk 4 years ago