sport auto Supertest: Ford GT

Discussion in 'American Cars' started by ajzahn, Jan 20, 2006.

  1. So a journalist could slip in a time of 7:32, and you're saying he still wouldn't question it? Of course he would. Are journalistic standards in Germany somehow looser than in other parts of the world? Somehow, I doubt it. You're telling me that instead of correcting a rumour when given the opportunity, Goeschel not only fails to squash the rumour, but even plays along with it? OK, so maybe it was not a journalist, but a magician...

    You didn't explain to me the part about how the time is a lie, yet it (the lie) was set by Sabine...

    BM...This was in July of 2005? Or 2004? Because as early as July 2004 (the date of the Autocar road test), if not even earlier, Ford had already uprated the hp rating of the GT. There was only a few short months when the production versions (with the front and rear spoilers) were rated at 500 hp. Not that that means anything anyway, as most of the test numbers bear out.
    Then how do *you* explain the 8 seconds?
    Yes, I've looked at the TopGear times. Just as an example, ex-F1 driver Julian Bailey set a 1:35.5 in the Lotus Exige (Series 2) in the dry, while the Stig did it in 1:26.9. That's an 8.6 second difference for the same model, on the same track (which compared to the Willow Springs 2.5-mile course has got to be relatively small). Was TopGear (the magazine) lying when it recorded that time for Bailey? Or was TopGear (the show) lying when it recorded the time for the Stig?
    But nevermind, I see what you're saying: the old C5 Z06 is not only faster than the C6 Z06, but both are faster than the Ford GT driven by Gan San. Who's lying? Pilgrim? edmunds.com? Best Motoring? Is it really necessarily true that one of them *must* be lying? Is there no room for the possibility of (gasp!) conditions playing a role as well?

    And who's to say the Zonda S and Gallardo also wouldn't lap any faster with a different setup?
     
  2. Regardless of the validility its true he wouldnt speak out. Presumably with a project like the new Z06 confidentiality agreements would have been signed.
     
  3. How close to 8 minutes do you think that it will be?
     
  4. 1st off, Jan Magnussen, a professional race car driver for 18 years, was driving the Z06. Some test driver from the magazine was driving the Ford GT.

    Obviously the Z06 is going to be quicker w/ that kind of advantage.
     
  5. Detailed summary from the test

    NS:

    round the ring the GT is definitely no bluff package but more a serious high-performance sports car. the GT even challenges the driver with its uncomplicated, neutral and safe handling behaviour. the lap time of 7:52 is kinda outstanding as the car wasn�t equipped with sports tires during the Supertest. the high topspeed at D�ttinger H�he also indicates a very powerful engine in combination with a proper aerodynamic package.

    HHR:

    after the first few corners the GT feels kinda dull due to kinda high weight (1599kg) but mainly due to the undefined steering feel, nevertheless even on a kinda narrow track like HHR the GT feels home, the suspension setup is nearly perfect here.
    only the tranny won�t work on the test car, that�s why the whole lap�s been done in 3rd gear � in the end this�d been no major problem or time affective, maybe 2 or 3 tenths at Ameiskurve

    acc/breaking:

    due to the gnarly gearbox on the test GT it may have lost a tenth or so, but 3.9sec from 0 to 100 not only shows the performance of the engine but also the enormous traction of the Ford GT, the clutch is not very easy going and requires quite a strong foot but works perfect. de-acceleration with the steel discs is of course not up to the ceramic brakes like used in Ferraris or at Porsche but they operate at a very high and safe level.

    aerodynamics:

    due to the airflow layout that the escaping cooling air is flowing over the windscreen and whole car the GT generates 435N downforce at the front, the 20N lift at the back are negligible. with a good cw-value of 0.348 the GT can easily reach 330km/h top speed.

    max. lateral acc.:

    not only the aerodynamical but also the weight distribution are balanced very well on the GT, a plus for fast cornering, the �Goodyear Eagle F1 Supercar� is a good compromise between street and sport tire but definitely more on the street side than on the racetrack, nevertheless the GT is good for 1.3g lateral acc. mainly because of its good overall setup and construction

    36m slalom:

    of course with 1599kg the GT is not as agile as a Carrera S, main reason for that is the �lazy� steering, nevertheless the car can be positioned through the cones very precise and after the 5th cone the GT still feels and is very stable, neutral and a good handler.

    110m evasion test:

    although the GT comes with a kinda soft suspension setup there�s hardly any roll in the chassis, the steering � as lazy as it is � is on the other hand precise and the overall handling is therefore very good natured. tricky load-cycle changes are no problem to deal with and catching the car back.

    wet handling:

    the GT comes without any el.aids only a ABS system is installed and it is to say that the GT doesn�t need any aids due to its good overall setup. this is also valid for wet conditions, hardly any understeering and when the car starts oversteering everything is very predictable and under safe conditions � here the �not so nervous and direct� steering is helping of course in combination with the Goodyear Eagle tires with their kinda high negative tread contingent.

    verdict:

    who ever had doubts that the Americans can�t build sport cars!!!?
    no one here in good old Europe would have bet that the GT is performing that good, quite some thought that it�ll just be another �show car� from over the pond but Ford did a really good job on either building the GT and of course also on preparing the GT that it is useable on both, strolling around in the city in front of the caf�s but also at demanding tracks like N�rburgring Nordschleife, a lap time of 7:52 is definitely an argument!
    what a pitty that only 19 of the 101 cars for Europe will be seen in germany�
     
  6. When sportauto drives the new Z06 I bet it will be a similar time to Ford GT. somewhere between 7.50-8.00 min
     
  7. well,the journalist surely asked Goeschel what he thought of that lap time.so,yes he questioned that lap time.

    i'm not saying it's a lie.i said it was a rumour.i read in a nother forum that it was sabine schlitz.i thought it could be her because she "lives" on the Nur with her M5.if someone could make a very good lap time with that car on this car,it would be her.

    i don't expalin the 8 seconds difference.i don't know for you but this is a HUGE...ASTRONOMICAL difference.
    who the #$%# is julian bailey?maybe he didn't knew the track very well.i was speaking of the current F1 driver,mark webber.he clocked a lap time on the wet track and they say he would be 4 seconds faster if it was dry(so he could do it 1:43).Ellen McArthur clocked 1:48.in case you didn't know,a mistake in a slow car costs more time than on a more powerful car.
    no i wasn't saying that.i wrote only about the drivers.
    condidtions can play a role...maybe a second but 5.

    man...even the CGT could lap it even faster.but then it somehow wouldn't be very drivable on the roads.

    you have a serious problem.you must be thinking that a difference of 5-8 seconds is OK.wtf??or is it me?everyone?


    edit: on the BM video the showed the specs of the engine,which were 500hp and 69mkg
     
  8. maybe 7:58-8:00,something like that.
     
  9. the driver of Sport Auto is a race driver.he also holds the record for production cars on the Nur.on 3 different porsche models he was only 4-5 seconds slower than the porsche chief test driver,who was elected by rally drivers the best rally driver of all time.Walter Röhrl,the Porsche test driver,even beated F1 drivers on the track and won DTM races.
    i started to think that the GM lap times were fake because they are 15 seconds faster than on the Sport Auto test.
    don't get me wrong,i'm not saying that GM drivers wouldn't be faster than the Sport Auto driver.only that they wouldn't be that much faster.
     
  10. Uh, no, he didn't question the time at all. Nor does the article say it was the journalist who presented the time to Goeschel.

    It is a "rumour" that when presented *directly* to Burkhard Goeschel is not denied.
    I've also read this in another forum:
    "Q: In the Jeremy Clarkson video she mentioned she can lap the ring in the M5 in 8:16. Is that true?
    Sabine: No faster! <A BORDER="0" HREF="http://www.supercars.net/PitLane?displayFAQ=y"><IMG BORDER="0" SRC="pitlane/emoticons/smile.gif"></A>"
    She goes on to say that a "low 8 minute lap is possible". That would put it well over 12 seconds faster than the best time acheived by Sport Auto. Surely, she is a liar.
    What, BMW's test drivers (of which one is Hans Stuck) could never set a faster time than Sabine?

    Julian Bailey is a former Forumula Ford, Formula 3, Formula 3000, BTCC, British GT, FIA GT, and Formula One driver (for Tyrrell and Lotus). He might not know the track (I doubt Webber, Damon Hill, or Mansell know the track well either), but in that same session, he tested 18 other variants of the Exige/Elise, 340R's, and Vauxhall VX220's.

    I'm saying a 5-8 second difference can come down to MANY variables:
    Driver skill.
    Driver familiarity with a track.
    Driver willingness to push a car to the absolute limit.
    Weather conditions.
    Track conditions.
    State of tune of the test vehicle (is it broken in yet? Is it a tired press car? Are the tires shot?)
    *It doesn't necessarily have to mean the difference is explained by one party lying.* Does it??

    Yeah, I saw the video. I also saw NBC's coverage of the Detroit auto show not more than an hour ago, and on the screen, they put up the Saleen S7 Turbo's specs: 250 hp. It must be true!
    But like I said, the Ford GT's hp numbers aren't an issue: even at 500 rated hp, it's ~2 seconds quicker than the 360CS and GT3 in a same-day, same-driver test, and is just as fast to 150 mph as the ones rated at 550 hp.
     
  11. so Goeschel mentioned the lap time...he surely isn't putting his car under a good light.if you believe in that 7:52,take some pills.that would simply mean that if horst von saurma was driving a gallardo and Stuck a M5,the M5 would be able to keep up with the gallardo.

    if the M5 lap time was true,that would mean that "the driver" was 21 seconds faster than the Sport Auto test.
    as i said in a previous post,Horst von Saurma was on 3 different Porsches always 4,5 or maybe 6 seconds slower than Walter Röhrl.he is probably the guy that knows a porsche the best,because he did the setup.know what i mean?

    about julian bailey,it's humiliating to be 8 seconds slower on the same car.i would die of it.
    and i'm sure that Ellen McArthur didn't knew the track either.as a pro race driver,the ability to be fast right away is more developed than amateurs.

    so BM not only made a typo mistake on the hp figure but also on the torque figure.but it's possible.
    why are the differences between european and american cars so big in america?because when i look at the lap times of top gear and sport auto,the GT isn't 2 seconds faster than the porsche and ferrari.

    i don't know but when you come up with differences of 2,5 or 8 seconds i simply have the feeeling that you don't know what you are talking about.
    "*It doesn't necessarily have to mean the difference is explained by one party lying.* Does it??"
    no.but when they start to come up with 7:42s and 7:52s,yes.

    edit:i read about the 7:52 lap time on a m5/6 forum and someone said that maybemeasured the lap time differently.while sport auto used the full lenght of the track,the BMW test driver(or whatever),was measured with 1.5km less,the layout when the track is opened to the public.
     
  12. "that would simply mean that if horst von saurma was driving a gallardo and Stuck a M5,the M5 would be able to keep up with the gallardo."

    Actually, without knowing test conditions, you wouldn't be able to conclude that at all. And who's to say that a Lamborghini test driver with as much intimate knowledge of the 'Ring as those two wouldn't be faster still in the Gallardo?


    "he is probably the guy that knows a porsche the best,because he did the setup.know what i mean?"

    You mean the driver (among other factors) can make the difference? You don't say?! Do you think von Saurma knows a BMW the best? Better than Hans Stuck?


    "so BM not only made a typo mistake on the hp figure but also on the torque figure.but it's possible."

    It's not only possible, it's *very* likely. For unless they dyno'ed the car themselves (pretty unlikely, and pretty funny how it'd come out to exactly 500 hp), they'd have nothing to go on but the manufacturer's figures. Which, for that time, was 500 lb-ft. Come to think of it, isn't the torque figure still the same even today? That's what it says on the Ford website, that's what it says in the R&T test when the GT was rated at 500 hp, and that's what it says in the Autocar road test. Curiously, the Autocar test GT is the same exact GT in this Sport Auto test ("EU04CWV"), yet there is a 70 lb-ft discrepancy between them, even though hp is the same. In short, forget about the claimed hp/torque figures for the GT.


    "because when i look at the lap times of top gear and sport auto,the GT isn't 2 seconds faster than the porsche and ferrari."

    Why don't you post up those same-day tests between all of these cars? Because I haven't seen them. If you trust the TopGear lap time as gospel, you'd have to agree the SLR is really that close to the CGT on such a short track. Do you really think so? (And the test between the SLR and CGT was done just days apart.)


    "no.but when they start to come up with 7:42s and 7:52s,yes."

    And that's your "evidence" of lying?


    "while sport auto used the full lenght of the track,the BMW test driver(or whatever),was measured with 1.5km less."

    And I've read similar things, though no one (to my knowledge) has ever proven the theory even when asked point blank how they know this.
     
  13. Stop bench/mag-racing the shit out of two cars you have little practical knowledge of.
     
  14. Seriously, DTA. You need to shut up.
     
  15. The Nurburgring is a huge track, simply because of its length differences between even consecutive laps can be quite large. Although its only a game, in Gran Turismo I often get laps varying by as much as 5-10 seconds, even though there are no issues with the track or driver familiarity and the car is always perfect. Funnily enough, I often think I'm doing quite well until I see +6.562 on the screen. Think about it, if you were 0.5 seconds every kilometer, slower than another lap you'd end up 10 seconds behind. Now think, if a car was 0.5 seconds behind another on the Top Gear track you'd say they were very close in performance. In summary 10 seconds over the course of 8 minutes isn't that big a difference.
     
  16. That would be slower than the 996 GT3. That's pretty odd when you consider that the C5 Z06 tied the 996 GT3 when tested by a German car mag at Hockenheim. Do you expect the C6 Z06 to be slower than the C5 Z06?
     
  17. He's entertaining. It's like when your favorite sports team beats your friend's favorite team, and your friend whines about it and claims that there was cheating. That's the smell of victory.
     
  18. i never said that horst von aurma is the best driver on the Nur.only that he is a ver good driver and that such big differences are a bit strange.

    walter röhrl is one of the best drivers ever.hans-joachim stuck isn't.

    and why should i take the track times from R&T or C&D more seriously than the ones of Top Gear?
    and 1.1 second is not really close.

    do you have evidence of it not being a lie or at least misinterpretated?

    i didn't say it was like that but the theory explains such a big difference.
     
  19. look at the ferrari maranello lap times.
     
  20. the difference is that in a stadium there are,let's say 30,000 people plus the ones that watch the game on TV.now,how many people were on the Nur when the Z06 did that lap time?

    edit:how fast to you you expect the Z06 will be on the Sport Auto test?
     
  21. guess what?i won't...

    edit:muhahahaha...hahahahaaa
     
  22. Is the Maranello a major step up from a car that has lap times similar to the GT3?
     
  23. I don't think that Jan Magnussen can be misled as easily as you say.

    I don't expect him to be as fast as Jan magnussen. I expect it to be between 7:45 and 8:00 if the weather's good.
     
  24. When was the last time Rohrl and Stuck went head to head in the same car at the same track? What were their lap times?

    TopGear...
    So, you really *DO* think the SLR is that fast compared to other cars? 2.5 seconds faster than a GT3 RS? Do you remember how slow the SLR was compared to the CGT when both were tested at the same time on a circuit during the AMS comparo (with the Enzo, Murcielago, Continental GT, and DB9)? On a roughly 55-second lap, it was already 3.59 seconds behind. That's a pretty sizeable difference. Why don't you go ahead and post up their HRing lap times as well, and then tell me that 1.1 seconds is not really close?

    So a lack of evidence proves your lack of evidence? OK. BMW also claimed the M5 would hit 100 kmh in 4.7 seconds, did they not? Is that also a lie?
     
  25. Whoa, way to totally ignore his question, guy.

    Yeah, let's look at the Ferrari Maranello lap times when done with the same driver at each track.
    Nurburgring
    550 - 8:07
    575M - 8:05
    C6 - 8:16

    HRing
    550 - 1:16.1
    575M - 1:14.7
    C5 Z06 - 1:14.9
    C6 - 1:14.8

    TopGear
    575 GTC - 1:26.8
    C6 - 1:26.8

    Thunderhill (same-day test)
    550 - 2:09.25
    C5 Z06 (385 hp) - 2:08.39

    On the shorter, more typical tracks, the C6 is about even with the 575's. And on the fairly long Thunderhill Road course, even the old 385-hp Z06 is about even with the 550. There is no way an old Z06 will take any of the 550's in a straight line. Some 60-150 times from C&D show:
    550 - 19.3s
    575M - 17.9
    385-hp Z06 - 23.7
    This should tell us that the C6 and old C5 Z06 are making up time in the braking and/or handling zones. A look at the NRing cornering speeds shows the C6 is about as fast in most sections as the 575M. On the Doettinger Hohe straight, however, the 575M can hit 177 mph. That's about 3-6 mph greater than the old Z06's *top speed*.

    So one would expect that the C6 Z06 should outhandle the old Z06 and C5 Z06, and on top of that, it's much, much faster in a straight line.
    60-150: 13.9s
    Top speed: ~198 mph
     

Share This Page