Not very powerful.

Discussion in '1970 Ford GT70' started by deuginthesky, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. Re: Not very powerful.

    highlife420
    SkylineR33GTRveilsidE
    WakkaWu

    You are morons.
     
  2. Re: Not very powerful.

    This car didn't have a good history in racing. It didn't the speed and acceleration and it lacked sufficient hp. Thats the reason it's one of the 'FORGOTEN ONES' (cars no one really remember)
     
  3. This car isn't very fast, the old GT40 would have killed it. Only 128 hp my god that sucks espically for a race car, but maybe the rules had to be made so it has under 130 hp or something i'm not really sure. I hope to god that is the reason for this car's lack of power. <!-- Signature -->
     
  4. Re: Not very powerful.

    look at the accerlaration though, 6.5 sec from a 128horses. damn that must be a light car, and top speed to.
     
  5. Re: Not very powerful.

    I would say it's from the emissions standards... but this thing was made before emissions screwed us americans over. Every American car sucked from the mid 70's to the mid 90's. We're just now catching up and making good cars again. I look at this, and every car from that 70's to 90's window, and I know why people hate American cars.
     
  6. Re: Not very powerful.

    I agree a car this light doesn't need much power. But I think this engine is pretty lame even for 1970. They could have tuned it for a race car (I think it produced the same power in road cars too). Ford did have better 4 cylinder engines available at the time. I bet the engine had a lot of frictional losses and that would mean poor response and an unwillingness to rev. They could have taken it to Cosworth for some tuning.

    It says this car was meant to compete with the Lancia Stratos. If that's the case I think it's good that this car didn't race. It would have made Ford look bad.

    Great car. Shame about the engine.<!-- Signature -->
     
  7. #7 700bhpcaterham, Aug 9, 2002
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2016
    Re: Not very powerful.

    I dont really think people understand that this is a rally car, not a Le Man car, or a potential 200mph concept. This car was ready to go into racing, had the rules not changed, redering it unracable. At the time the competition were probably not pushing out much more in the way of horsepower, and this car will have a big whallop of torque, which you need as much as hp in a rally car. The renult Alpines at the time had 170 bhp, so the ford was not really underpowered. The engine would also have to very reliable, so it would not be advisable to have an engine tuned to the max if you were gonna bang it around for three days, and since engines were not terribly reliable in those days, high power would not be good for an engines longlivity. And anyway this car was probably, correct me if I am wrong, made in Britain so what do you expect in terms of the output, of course it is low, if British engineers designed anything other than the chassis of the GT40 it would have a 2 litre 4 cylinder. But it no doubt would have whooped ass on a rally stage

    http://www.evo.co.uk/ the thrill of driving
     
  8. Re: Not very powerful.

    Slow and ugly...bad combination<!-- Signature -->
     
  9. Re: Not very powerful.

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from SkylineR33GTRveilsidE</i>
    <b>Slow and ugly...bad combination</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    Wow what a great comment, I bet it's still WAY faster then what you drive.
     
  10. Re: Not very powerful.

    this car is a good car in the accel and the top speed range but lacks hp. if it had at least 60 more that would be a little better. i think the gt40 and gt90 concept were better
     
  11. Re: Not very powerful.

    it wasnt a successful racecar because it never raced! top speed isnt important for rallies, so that doesnt even matter. and anyone that mentioned the GT40 or GT90, one was a le mans race car with a mid mounted V8, the other is a 90s concept with a quad turbo V12, that was never built. so why the hell are you comparing it to a 70s rally car? dont be goobers.<!-- Signature -->
     
  12. Re: Not very powerful.

    I don't understand why they would put such a ostensibly bad engine in such a nice body. It sure is nice and light! but if they could squeeze out some more oomph, I'll bet it would be a lot of fun.
    <!-- Signature -->
     
  13. Re: Not very powerful.

    i agree it sucks
     
  14. Re: Not very powerful.

    Look at the weight, it doesn't have much to tote around, and therefore doesn't need a gross amount of power.<!-- Signature -->
     
  15. Re: Not very powerful.

    Power isn't everything though. I'd rather own a lighter less powerful car then say, a Hennesey 800 or a McLaren....Lighter car would be more fun, you'd save on tires etc aswell.<!-- Signature -->
     
  16. Re: Not very powerful.

    In 1970, an N/A 3.0 Liter V6 making 128 hp was probably something to talk about. An N/A 3.0 Liter V6 today doesn't make much more than that. Besides the car weighs less than 1700 lbs.! Any car that has 128 hp and does 0-60 in 6.5 is alright in my book. It's faster than a Mustang GT (not that that takes much).<!-- Signature -->
     
  17. Re: Not very powerful.

    you people are so closed minded. It doesn't suck, (I'm not the biggest fan of american muscle cars cause they were, on avrege really heavy and that is why they didn't accelerate fast) It takes skill to make a car like this, it's completely unlike Ford. they usually make a tank of a car, and try to cram it with as much power as possible. 0-60 in 6.5 is not bad at all, and for that little power. you have to appreciate it. and just imagine putting in a little more powerful engine in this *****, I'm not saying anything crazy, maybe up to 180 horsepower, 200 max, it would fly, so stop being ignorant idiots, and judge a car for what it is not for what number is in front of the letters "bhp"
     
  18. Re: Not very powerful.

    you people complaining about it not haveing enough powere are complete and utter dick heads. seriously...cars arent just about brute force power. cars have to be able to handle too. and thats what rally is about. its not about how how much rubber you can leave behind you or weather you can beat a Le mans car in top speed *your a FU*^ING IDIOT!!!!! if you compare this to a Le mans car* i bet you this car can take corners faster and harder than almost any other car of that era. (except the Mini of course)<!-- Signature -->
     
  19. Re: Not very powerful.

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from highlife420</i>
    <b>This car isn't very fast, the old GT40 would have killed it. Only 128 hp my god that sucks espically for a race car, but maybe the rules had to be made so it has under 130 hp or something i'm not really sure. I hope to god that is the reason for this car's lack of power. </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    1680 lbs smart one.<!-- Signature -->
     
  20. Re: Not very powerful.

    well, this proves it. people are morons if they think that horsepower makes the car. 128 horsepower is pretty damn good, if they changed the gearing even more, I bet it would reach 160 MPH! If you put more then 200 horsepower into such a tiny car, you couldn't drive it! it would have too much torque, then all you could do is make big burn outs, and then you wouldn't be able to get a good start off the line. oh, and people, it's a 6 cylinder, not 4.

    I think it's a good little car, I think perhaps the Americans kinda did something right and got help from their european counter part to make a real car, because no american car company can do such a thing on their own.

    good day!<!-- Signature -->
     
  21. Re: Not very powerful.

    Most of the people in this forum seem to know what they are talking about. Rallying is all about how fast you can get from 60 - 160 kmh, and how fast you can change direction. It is also more punishing than any other form of motorsport, so cars also need to be utterly reliable. Anyone comparing this to the GT40 and GT90 are absolute morons.<!-- Signature -->
     
  22. Re: Not very powerful.

    <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from TownshipRebellion</i>
    <b>well, this proves it. people are morons if they think that horsepower makes the car. 128 horsepower is pretty damn good, if they changed the gearing even more, I bet it would reach 160 MPH! If you put more then 200 horsepower into such a tiny car, you couldn't drive it! it would have too much torque, then all you could do is make big burn outs, and then you wouldn't be able to get a good start off the line. oh, and people, it's a 6 cylinder, not 4.

    I think it's a good little car, I think perhaps the Americans kinda did something right and got help from their european counter part to make a real car, because no american car company can do such a thing on their own.

    good day!</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->
    As I was reading through your post, I was agreeing with everything you had to say. Then, in your last paragraph, you started talking with your ass. Chevrolet created the Corvette Z06 themselves, Dodge created the Viper GTS/GTSR themselves, Ford created the NEW GT-40 themselves, Saleen created the S7/R themselves, Panoz created the Esperante themselves, Vector created the M12 themselves. Whatever dumb pride you have has led you astray from the truth... American automobile manufacturers CAN and HAVE created their own supercars that CAN be and HAVE been competitive and in some cases out-did the competition whether it be performance-wise or price/sales-wise or both. Don't get me wrong, I like European, Asian/Japanese, AND American cars, so I'm in no way bashing on any car or country. I am just telling you to get your head out of your ass.<!-- Signature -->
     
  23. Re: Not very powerful.

    word


    <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/emoticons.html"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="http://speed.supercars.net/cboardhtml/emoticons/PnutSpecial.gif"></A>
     
  24. Re: Not very powerful.

    what i don't see is why eveyone thinks that this car sucks? it looks pretty nice and for 120hp it's very fast!
     
  25. Re: Not very powerful.

    Looks like a Ferrari ripoff.
     

Share This Page