Re: 2002 GT40 vs 1968 GT40

Discussion in '1968 Ford GT40 Mark I ‘Gulf Oil’' started by ferrari F40 GTE, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. 2002 GT40 vs 1968 GT40

    gt40 vs gt40..... the old gt40 has less hp and probably heavier than the new one but, the new one has better drivetrain than 68 gt40 and better wheels, but still i`d say they are pretty even
     
  2. Ya your are right about that
     
  3. Actually the new car is ~700 lbs (!!) heavier than the old cars. Target weight was 3000, the '68 was around 2200-2300. Mk1's were running in the 300-400HP range in race trim (I believe)

    I'm still not sure if I'd rather have a replica of the original (reasonably affordable??) - I'd rather have a REAL ORIGINAL, but the cost is silly... or this 2001 (if it is even produced)



     
  4. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from frachel</i>
    <b>Actually the new car is ~700 lbs (!!) heavier than the old cars. Target weight was 3000, the '68 was around 2200-2300. Mk1's were running in the 300-400HP range in race trim (I believe)

    I'm still not sure if I'd rather have a replica of the original (reasonably affordable??) - I'd rather have a REAL ORIGINAL, but the cost is silly... or this 2001 (if it is even produced)



    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->first of all thers no 2001 its 2002..... and second of all why even concider a GTD40 insted of this!!!!
     
  5. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from ferrari F40 GTE</i>
    <b><!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from frachel</i>
    <b>Actually the new car is ~700 lbs (!!) heavier than the old cars. Target weight was 3000, the '68 was around 2200-2300. Mk1's were running in the 300-400HP range in race trim (I believe)

    I'm still not sure if I'd rather have a replica of the original (reasonably affordable??) - I'd rather have a REAL ORIGINAL, but the cost is silly... or this 2001 (if it is even produced)



    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->first of all thers no 2001 its 2002..... and second of all why even concider a GTD40 insted of this!!!!</b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->


    I agree, because I think the 60s era GT40's look better, but looks are opinion. Other than looks, I would want a replica because they make the demensions the same as the original 60s era. 40.5 inches tall is pretty damn short. The height of a big rig semi tire (keep that in mind the next time you pass a semi). As for the other demensions, the original has a 95 inche wheel base the same as my escort, that's small!
     
  6. I think the extra weight for the 02 would make the difference. The 68 is race prepped.
     
  7. As some other readers pointed out, I also would consider the option buying a replica, e.g. ERA GT or a RF GT40. Why? Because the replicas are cheaper than the estimated price of the new GT (USD 150,000 is pretty expensive considering the asking prices of Porsche 911 Turbo or a Ferrari 360 Modena), and the replicas are (seemingly) truer to the original concept. Finally, the replicas look better with the old style wheels etc. 18" wheels and modern features do, in my eyes, not blend so well with the old body work.

    Still these are minor points and the new GT is so brute so that at the same asking price as a good replica I would prefer the newer car.

    Anyone have a comment on the price range of the cheapest replicas to the finest originals:

    Aussie replica: USD 35,000 - 45,000
    ERA: USD 65,000 - 80,000
    Safir: USD 200,000 - 600,000
    Holman Moody: USD 345,000 (and above?)
    Orginal: USD 600,000 - 1,500,000
     
  8. speaking of replicas this may be a little hard to swallow but the replicas actually have more performance potential than the original. and I believe all of the originals are in collectors hands or museums.
     
  9. Um, real GT40's go for 300K US all the time; a terlingua GT40 just sold at Barrett-Jackson for ~350,000 US

    If the owner of P/1074 or P/1075 decided to sell their cars today they would go for well over 3 million US.

    If Ford sold J-5 (67 LeMans winner) it would go for over 3 million as well (this will never happen).

    J cars (MK IV) start at 2 million.



    <!-- Signature -->
     
  10. An original GT40 over here (UK) costs at average of £750,000. Noel Edmunds has one, the lucky Bastard!<!-- Signature -->
     
  11. I'd take both. One's a vintage racer and one's a modern street car.<!-- Signature -->
     
  12. IS THAT AUSSIE REPLICA REALY THAT CHEAP AND WHAT MODELS OF THE gt40 DO THEY MAKE.
    IM PRESUMING THAT THEIR IN AUSTRALIA WHER I LIVE. SO COOOOOL. I WANT ONE. COZ IV GOT THE CASH<!-- Signature -->
     
  13. The 2002 GT40 is nothing compared to the REAL GT40.

    The 2002 GT40 will never be a legend
     
  14. any ford lover would choose the '68 over the '02. the 68 GT40's a legend, and in my opinion looks WAY cooler than the new one. dont get me wrong, the 2002 GT 40's look pretty nice, but i'd rather have a 68, i mean, who wouldnt?<!-- Signature -->
     
  15. I would probablly say the old one because its lighter and it's top speed isnt drag limited. The new top speed is drag limited at 185. This cars top speed is 214. So i would get this one just because of my pure research.
     
  16. ALSO FORGOT TO MENTION THE 0-60 ON THIS CAR IS 3.6. THE NEW ONE IS 4.2
    0-100 FOR THIS CAR IS 8.0 THE NEW ONE IS 9.2 SO AGAIN I SAY I WOULD PICK THE OLD ONE OVER THE NEW ONE ANYDAY
     
  17. there both so sweet and now that they are going to make the GT40 for '03 (so awsome!) you'll be able to buy them both if you have the $$$$$$<!-- Signature -->
     
  18. The 1968 GT-40 wins hands down. The new ones will always be nothing but replicas of a truly great racing machine; just like the replicas of the Shelby Cobras. Ford should have honored it enough to leave it as it was: an exclusive, super rare classic.
     
  19. <!-- QUOTE --><center><hr width="90%"></center><blockquote><i>Quote from frachel</i>
    <b>Actually the new car is ~700 lbs (!!) heavier than the old cars. Target weight was 3000, the '68 was around 2200-2300. Mk1's were running in the 300-400HP range in race trim (I believe)

    I'm still not sure if I'd rather have a replica of the original (reasonably affordable??) - I'd rather have a REAL ORIGINAL, but the cost is silly... or this 2001 (if it is even produced)



    </b></blockquote><center><hr width="90%"></center><!-- END QUOTE -->

    how much do these cars cost 1 million?
     
  20. there is no difference for me between the two cars because they are so great!
     
  21. You should always go with the original. The new GT40's are beautiful and all but are basically counterfeits in my book. I firmly believe that Ford should have honored it enough to keep it a VERY exclusive, one of a kind racecar. The new ones will never be worth as much as the 40 or so originals. Actually, I think of the new ones as nothing more than "clones" of the real ones.
     
  22. Considering the GT40 MkII can run nearly the same times as the Audi R8 I'd say the old one.
     
  23. That's the idea, isn't it?
     
  24. the most important thing to remember is that the 68 gulf was a pure sports car, and the new one is not. i would seriously doubt that this one is heavier, in fact, id think the opposite. newer cars are inherantly heavier, because of all the goodies bogging them down, all that fancy equipment wieghs them down after a while.
     
  25. The 2002 GT40 would lose, since I heard it was governed to go 190 MPH.
     

Share This Page