2017 Ford GT, now. . . with specs

[crysalis_01]

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

So, now we should judge a car based on how many they make and the residual value?

The GT is absolutely gorgeous.. I saw it at NAIAS two years ago.. However..

McLaren is most likely quicker and faster in a straight line. McLaren weighs less, while Ford stated they were going for best power to weight in class, McLaren also gets much better fuel economy..

I very much appreciate the car based on its looks. Dont appreciate some specs due to the fact that they hyped another of their products and didn't deliver and even costs more than competition..

Got a link to that statement. Because as I recall and have found, it was "Ford claimed it would have "one of the best power-to-weight ratios of any production car.""
Maybe you just mistook this quote and overhyped the outcome in your own head?


As for its weight:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...n-3000-pounds/

[ChefBorOzzy]

Originally Posted by crysalis_01

Got a link to that statement. Because as I recall and have found, it was "Ford claimed it would have "one of the best power-to-weight ratios of any production car.""
Maybe you just mistook this quote and overjoyed the outcome in your own head?


As for its weight:
http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars...n-3000-pounds/

Sorry, I was wrong. They weren't going for best power to weight on class, they were going for best power to weight of a production car..

[ChefBorOzzy]

Originally Posted by Grabber

People really hate the new GT. Despite numbers showing it's faster in early stages of it being raced excuses are made and it is apparently a failure and disappointment.

Oh well. I guess C5 doesn't have many enthusiasts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now you're just making things up. The car is gorgeous and puts up solid numbers, but one doesn't have to lick any of the manufacturers' behinds.

[Bhobbs]

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

Sorry, I was wrong. They weren't going for best power to weight on class, they were going for best power to weight of a production car..

I'm going to guess they fell well short of that goal.

[djcolopi]

Not a production car in the sense since only 7 were made, but with that attachment it states Ford was targeting the best power to weight ratio of any car. However, the one:1 produced by Koenigsegg takes the crown. "The hp-to-kg curb weight ratio is an astonishing 1:1. This is the “dream” equation, previously thought impossible when it comes to fully road legal and usable sports cars. The One:1 is the first homologated production car in the world with one Megawatt of power, thereby making it the world´s first series produced Megacar." Not smashing on the new GT supercar, I actually like it; however, they can not claim the best p/w ratio of any car.

Did the metric to imperial conversions for the power and weight.

SPECIFICATION
PERFORMANCE
Power output: 1 MW at 7500 rpm – rpm limiter @ 8250 rpm = 1342hp
Torque: over 1000 Nm from 3000 to 8000 rpm = 738+ft*lbs tq
Max torque: 1371 Nm at 6000 rpm = 1012ft*lbs tq
0 – 400 km/h approx. 20 sec
400 – 0 km/h approx. 10 sec
Braking distance: 28 m (100-0 km/h)
Max lateral g-force: 2.0 g
DIMENSIONS
Total length: 4500 mm
Total width: 2060 mm
Total height: 1150 mm
Ground clearance: Rear: 74-90 mm Front: 59-100 mm plus 50 mm lift system
Wheelbase: 2662 mm.
Front track: 1700 mm. Rear track: 1650 mm.
Front overhang: 944 mm Rear overhang: 900 mm
Fuel capacity: 74 litres
Curb weight 1360 kg (complete car ready to drive with 50% fuel,
100% fluids) = 2998lbs
Weight distribution: 44% front, 56% rear
CHASSIS
Advanced high modulus carbon fibre chassis with F1 style honeycomb core and integrated fuel tanks for optimal weight distribution and safety.
Monocoque torsional rigidity: 65,000 Nm/degree.
Weight: 72kg.
Double wishbones, active ride height control and bevel carbon fibre springs with variable spring ratio.
Triplex damper in the rear.
Needle bearings and o-ringed wishbone bushings.
Fully machined aerospace grade aluminium uprights with SKF LeMans specification 150mm angle contact ball bearings.
GKN hollow/gun-drilled driveshafts.
Koenigsegg Z-style progressive and lightweight anti-roll bars front and rear.
EQUIPMENT
Lightweight glass system, power windows, adjustable pedals and steering column, One:1 stitching, adjustable light weight race seats, carbon ceramic brakes, Sport ABS, ESC, active ride height, power steering, power brakes, 6 point racing seatbelts, intelligent LifePo4 battery, USB connection, climate control, digital warning and info system, G sensor, alarm, tyre monitoring system, proximity key, car cover, rear view camera, 3G telematics system.
AERODYNAMICS
Cd 0.45-0.50 with adaptable rear wings
Frontal Area: 1.910 m2
Total Downforce at 260km/h: 610kg at 440km/h: 830kg
Flat underside of chassis. Venturi tunnels at front & rear of chassis/body
Active aero front and rear underside
Active triplex suspension
Maximized intercooler flow
TRANSMISSION
Specially developed 7-speed dual clutch, 1 input shaft transmission with paddle-shift.
Electronic differential.
ENGINE
Koenigsegg aluminum 5,0L V8, 4 valves per cylinder, double overhead camshafts with flex-fuel capability.
Compression: 9.0:1
Bore: 92 mm Stroke: 95.25 mm
Sequential, multipoint fuel injection.
Variable geometry twin turbo chargers.
1.8 bar boost pressure.
Dry sump lubrication.
Carbon fibre intake manifold with optimized intake tracts.
Tig-welded ceramic coated Inconel exhaust system manifold with merge collector.
Weight: 197 kg

[djcolopi]

Koenigsegg one:1 p/w ratio = 1:1 (kg:hp)
1360kg
1360hp (rough calculation is 1342hp)

Ford GT using the 'race dry' weight of 3,173lbs =1440kg
1440kg
647hp

p/w ratio = 2.23:1 (kg:hp)

[Grabber]

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

Now you're just making things up. The car is gorgeous and puts up solid numbers, but one doesn't have to lick any of the manufacturers' behinds.

Not really making things up.

You are one of the people that while saying the car looks great, it is a huge disappointment because Ford hyped it up for so long and it really didn't blow you away.

I see it a bit differently since it compares to cars such as the 675LT and the Speciale and is similarly priced, weighs more and performs better on a track (one track so far, at least)

Not saying you hate the car, just that you're countering repeatedly by saying "it's gorgeous, but....."

All good, not saying anything bad about you. Just pointing out an observation.

[72MachOne99GT]

NOBODY.. literally nobody, should have been expecting this car to match (or come close) to the Koneigzigwigxeilhail 1 in terms of power : weight

Let's be real.

[Grabber]

I mean, the One:1 is only double the HP, couple hundred pounds lighter and roughly 10x the price and extremely few production numbers.

[Snoman]

Originally Posted by Grabber

Source?
...
Horsepowerkings just released ....

Did you just credit a known click bait, fake news website that has zero credibility?

[Grabber]

Originally Posted by Snoman

Did you just credit a known click bait, fake news website that has zero credibility?

T'was sarcasm, how bah dah.

[ChefBorOzzy]

Originally Posted by Grabber

Not really making things up.

You are one of the people that while saying the car looks great, it is a huge disappointment because Ford hyped it up for so long and it really didn't blow you away.

I see it a bit differently since it compares to cars such as the 675LT and the Speciale and is similarly priced, weighs more and performs better on a track (one track so far, at least)

Not saying you hate the car, just that you're countering repeatedly by saying "it's gorgeous, but....."

All good, not saying anything bad about you. Just pointing out an observation.

That's what happens when people keep accusing someone of something when they aren't impressed. To me there is nothing to be impressed by or blown away by about the car other than its looks.. Now, maybe it drives way better than the McLaren, maybe it is way more comfortable.. I'll personally never know so all I can go by is the spec sheet and what others say.

Things that bug me is when people or companies state what they will do or what they are gunning for and then don't execute. So, that's where my disappointment comes from.

Yes, it weighs more than McLaren so they failed. It also gets significantly worse fuel economy.. Go figure. Just don't see how it's an engineering marvel that many tried to make it out to be.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by ChefBorOzzy

Things that bug me is when people or companies state what they will do or what they are gunning for and then don't execute. So, that's where my disappointment comes from.

It's great for hype and attention for a company to shoot for the stars and tell everyone about it...

But there's a great deal of wisdom to be found in the phrase: "Under-promise, and over-deliver."....

[djcolopi]

Originally Posted by Grabber

I mean, the One:1 is only double the HP, couple hundred pounds lighter and roughly 10x the price and extremely few production numbers.

Originally Posted by 72MachOne99GT

NOBODY.. literally nobody, should have been expecting this car to match (or come close) to the Koneigzigwigxeilhail 1 in terms of power : weight

Let's be real.

I know the difference in price and they are not direct competitors. I just posted it up since someone posted a source saying Ford was targeting the best power to weight ratio of any car. Not within a class, or more of a mass produced car, or below 500k, etc but of any car produced. I just pointed that out.

On a side note, I think the Ford GT looks 10x better than the one:1