Talk:Ford GT

Production date appears to be an error

Someone needs to review the line about Production beginning on August 17th, 2001. Ford GT concept car wasn't even exhibited until January, 2002... http://media.ford.com/newsroom/feature_display.cfm?release=18238

That seems true. I can't imagine that it took two years to build the first vehicles as they didn't go on sale until 03. As I can't find a source for the 01 production beginning, I am going to remove it for now. --Leivick (talk) 05:38, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Parts Used

though it is assembled in america, the engine and the Ford badge are the only american things about this car. The rest of it comes from Europe so technically it is a Euro Ford. Plus its a remake of the British made GT40 that was built when the deal made between Ford and Ferrari went sour. --Warhawk-mgsv-r 21/6/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.105.236 (talk) 14:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC) The above comment is incorrect. About the only part of the Ford GT from Europe is the Riccardo gearbox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.14.230.97 (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Name Change

JGTC has changed it's name to Super GT

I thought Kazunori Yamauchi drives his car known as Opera Performance S2000.

I just want to let someone know that I was searching for "ford gt" and I think I might have accidentally created a blank page at Ford_gt (instead of the legitimate article Ford_GT, note capitalization). I'm uncertain as to how to delete the blank page. --Electronbrain 17:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Most poor car in terms of Quality

This is the most poorest cars in terms of quality and fuel economy,it does 4 miles/g only. Seen all this in T.V programme "Topgear".

• You're wrong, read the specs. Clarkson is exagerratin g as usual. This car is very durable compared to its competitors. Also, in fuel economy you will find it superior to F430 AND Mucielago.

• Indeed, Clarkson was making a tongue-in-cheek jab as regards to his love/hate relationship with his own GT. It wasn't supposed to be a serious remark.

• "In the last episode of Season 7, during the Top Gear Awards, Clarkson awarded the Ford GT the "Gas Guzzler" award, beating out the Range Rover (8MPG), the Bugatti Veyron (4MPG), and (as a joke) the Hemel Hempstead Hertfordshire Oil Storage Terminal fire (60 Million gallons and never moved an inch)." - I suggest someone rephrase or remove this. It's misleading. In fact, I think the whole section should be removed. It's biased and uninformative; it's more of a series of jokes than encyclopedic material.

• Agreed. Its not encylcopedic CJ DUB 14:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have a GT, and it's my daily driver when I'm in Los Angeles. Its fuel economy is excellent if you drive it smoothly. In city driving, your gear progression should be 2-4-5-6 (6 if you can get to 40mph+). Drive smoothly, and you get 16mpg in the city, 20 average and 22-23 on the freeway. I have yet to find an easier car to drive.

If that paragraph right above this entry is true, then our minivan gets worse gas milage then you do in a Ford GT and our minivan has a V6. And also, seriously, don't post stuff like the GT gets like, .000005 mpg when it's obviously not true.

And I know that Ford's aren't worst in terms of quality.

I also own a GT, and I agree with the above poster. With smooth driving and good gear progression, it's amazing how much fuel economy you can squeeze out of it. I've easily gotten 20 average. The GT is significantly easier to drive than my (late) '99 Mustang Cobra, and is one of the smoothest cars I've ever driven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.175.167.154 (talk) 10:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sales Figures

Other editors created a monthly production table for 2004-2006, but abandoned updating the figures after March 2006. I found the sales figures for June-August and YTD. Still searching for April and May 2006 - still TBD. Production officially ends at the end of September 2006 [1], but sales of remaining inventory may continue through the end of the year, and possibly into 2007. Source for sales figures: http://media.ford.com - although the archives only go back so far. --T-dot 18:36, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

LeMans

Why is it that the Ford GT has yet to be used at LeMans? It and a few other cars would be a great revival for the good old days of LeMans.

Ford GT Shelby GR-1 (Daytona) Lamborghini Miura Chevrolet Corvette Porsche 911

All we need now is a new Dino, and we have the old LeMans again.

0-60

Are you sure the 0-60 time is 3.3 seconds?

According to this: http://www.fordstreetracing.com/cars/highperformance.asp (and other sources where I've seen it) 1995 Ford GT90 Concept does 0-60 in 3.1s and 2005 Ford GT in 3.3s --Insaneisme 16:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

With the power these cars put on the roads, 0-60 times vary wildly due to many factors: - driver quality - tire state (pressure, temp, quality) - weather (cold, hot, high/low pressure) - tarmac quality

You can often get a +/- .5 seconds due to these factors.

More importantly those are track times. You will never get anywhere remotely within those times on an everyday street surface.

That is true. Even a motorbike for less than 5000 Dollars outruns this car from 0-60, so don't buy any car if you have a fixation on acceleration. --Tubesship (talk) 18:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

video games

Edited article to show that the Ford GT is in enthusia professional racing.

Added the fact the Ford GT also appears on the retail box / DVD case of PC version of Test Drive Unlimited.

Picture of Ford GT

I'm kinda new here so I don't really know the etiquette of adding a picture, so I'll just say that you guys have my permission to add my picture of a Ford GT if you want to: http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=320210261&context=set-72157594406337776&size=l -- Mike 19:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mike - that is indeed a very nice image - far better than the ones currently used, one of the best automobile images available I think, and better than most on the Wikipedia. But the source page also says "all rights reserved", which means it is copyrighted; and copying it to the Wikipedia would likely constitute a copyright violation for which we could be sued. We would need to have verifiable "proof" that you are the creator and owner of the image, and that you have released it to the public domain as free use, before we could use it. It is very high quality though - exactly the sort of image I like to see posted, but it has to be legal. Click the "Upload file" link (see left column) if you are indeed the legal owner and creator of the image, and we'll try to help you get it posted in the article. See Wikipedia:Images and Wikipedia:Uploading images for more information. Very nice piece of work. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 11:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I did what you asked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ford_GT_High_Quality.jpg -- Mike 03:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Famous owners list

There is a discussion of having a list like the one on this one deleted, well I am totally up for it. Well it currently under discussion here. Willirennen 20.51 2 December 2006

plagiarism

You do know that copying and pasting entire segments of an article, even if you do reference it, is still plagiarism? Get a clue wikipedia, you bunch of egghead wannabes wouldn't know academic editing and referencing if it bit you in the rear end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.10.83.103 (talk • contribs)

Thank you for pointing out what you see as an apparent rule violation. The Wikipedia does not tolerate plagiarism within articles, but requires that posted information is neutral, verifiable with reliable sources, avoiding weasel wording, and not constitute original research. If you think a source has been improperly plagiarized, then please help by providing examples and evidence of your charges, so the article can be properly cleaned up. Thanks again for your comments, although you want to avoid making personal attacks on other editors. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 11:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Jeremy Clarkson Section

An editor removed the Clarkson section by noting "popular assent." I reverted it back to get an explanation as to why one editor felt that he had good reason to delete it. If its because several editors expressed concern about the section, then I could completely understand. But seeing the closest thing that I can see on the talk page is "Oh, we cant have lists of famous owners" im perplexed at this editors reasoning. --293.xx.xxx.xx 06:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Its nothing to do with a list of owners. It is meaningless trivial tripe from 1 owner, who happens to be an quasi auto journalist. Clarkson is also sensationalist and non-objective. He does not deserve a whole section in this article that is supposed to be about the Ford GT automobile. His comments on the car warrant as much space in the article as lame fan cruft. Remove it. CJ DUB 18:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As I said earlier, it's misleading, biased, uninformative, and unencyclopedic. But if there's any good reason to keep it, let's hear it.SilverDistortioN 18:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Reasons to include it: 1) The show is watched by hundreds of millions of people. Thus its exposure on Top Gear (which is NOT limited solely to his anecdotes and quips about the reliability and flakiness of his own personal car and customer service experience) is a more relevant source of information than almost any other source in the world, with the possible exception of its inclusion in a variety of video games. Few if any magazines, billboards, TV commercials (if there are any) or OTHER TV shows see circulation/viewership in the multi hundreds of millions, not including rebroadcasting by affiliates, DVD sales, or cut-and-pasted segments replayed on the internet or TV. the "saga" occurred over the course of YEARS and involved many many separate incidents (again, this is not limited to his sporadic lamentations about his personal car). 2) Clarkson has had personal experience with 4 separate examples of the car (DIFFERENT CARS). The original cars, reviewed and displayed on normal segments of the show (S03E01 and S04E8), the car that was driven across Europe (S07E03), and his personal car which has undergone well publicized terrible reliability issues. Thus it is almost guaranteed that he has more personal driving and ownership experience than almost any other driver unaffiliated with Ford. Other GT owners may have owned and driven the car longer, but they probably did not drive 4 separate chassis over the course of the production run. This is merely what we know about from the show itself. It does not include Clarkson's own personal research and experience talking to other owners of Ford GTs (such as the many celebrities he has befriended through his role on the show). If you think his opinions and the coverage itself is irrelevant, non-encyclopedic, or biased..... Im sorry but you are either biased yourself, you are a basement dweller, or you are simply stupid.68.6.76.31 (talk) 06:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Clarkson's "terrible reliability issues" revolved around an aftermarket alarm system malfunctioning and Roush's inability to satisfy his concerns. Not exactly noteworthy material for the FGT entry. TheBalance (talk)

Pricing

The price figures are very confusing as figures are sometimes given in reference to the recommended price, and the chronology is broken. I do not understand the section well enough to fix it, and there are no sources given for the figures Canterwoodboy 13:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The edit that took place here: 21:51, 11 October 2007 97.66.0.154 altered the pricing and states that people paid as much as $100,000,000 premium over suggested retail. This edit also changed other numbers, and my guess is it was not malicious, but I'm not sure what the accurate numbers are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeilCoughlin (talk • contribs)

fuel economy

are you sure that 12 and 19 for fuel economy is correct? cars.com puts fuel economy for both 05 and 06 at 13 and 21.70.91.74.9 (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Fuel economy listing is the manufacturer's recorded values. Consider that the manufacturer(s) retain a handful of professional drivers, and over a fairly short period of time, they will drive a small population of vehicles (often prototypes) during the collection of the data for the listed figures. Now consider a publisher, employing what is often a retired professional race car driver, using one single production model car, over the course of one or two days collecting data. Cars.com has the luxury of both these collections of data, plus the collecive reports of consumers from every possible variation of driving skill level, as well as reports from new cars, used cars and cars used in professional race venues. Cars.com has years worth of data to compile, resulting in a more accurate mean value...manufactures and publishers do not. Cars.com uses data from vehicles that have been abused, pampered, maintained properly, driven in a state of disrepair, driven carelessly, wrecked, driven by poorly skilled drivers, professional racers, and everything in between. Simply put, any figure such as this will change over time as the population of useable data increases. Fuel ecomony is most often directly relevant to the mechanical state of the vehicle and the skill and driving habits of the driver. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.235.198.91 (talk) 15:42, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Production numbers table

There are egregious arithmetical problems. Can someone with access to raw data fix them? Huw Powell (talk) 00:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Y Done. Ford has confirmed the total production run at 4038 cars here, but the actual month to month US sales figures came from monthly press releases that may be hard to recover. Looking for a reliable source for the collective sales totals. Note that the difference between the total sales and the total production run is at least partially attributable to sales outside the US. --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 12:22, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Why did Ford stop production at 4,038 cars instead of the planned 4,500? It's not like they couldn't sell 'em. Captain Quirk (talk) 18:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Top Speed

I'm new here, so please forgive me if I'm making a mistake. I was reading the article and I noticed that the GTs top speed is appearently greater than that of a Bugatti Veyron Super Sport. I checked out the source and the speed that is written in this article does not match the speed posted in that article. Should something be done? Sigridundset (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

2nd Generation: Power Figure

720hp power figure stated but citations at end of the sentence pertain to other information stated therein. As the manufacturer states "600-plus horsepower" (https://www.ford.com/performance/gt/), this should arguably be the power figure of record unless a reliable source can prove otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scalapaedia (talk • contribs) 22:53, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

2010 Ford GT Matech GT1 section add?

BaT Article

Toneron2 (talk) 05:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Please explain to me how the AMS test for the new Ford GT is a hoax

I have been collecting American, British, German, Swedish, and Italian magazines since 1995. Also, if there's a reason why I upload some scans to Imgur, it's because downloading directly from the magazine costs too much money. I do not intend to infringe copyright in any way. The AMS test appears in the English version of the 18/2016 issue of Auto Motor & Sport.

Although some PDFs do fly by directly from magazines and can be downloaded for free. 2607:FB90:A44F:251B:0:5:5DA3:801 (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Jason when are you going to stop with this garbage? What satisfaction do you get out of vandalizing pages? What a waste of a life you have Jason that you continue to make these hoaxes for years. Your hoaxes are written with the grammar and editing skills of a 1st grader. Not to mention the new Ford GT hasn't even been tested yet by anyone.2601:601:600:4E4C:748E:4183:47A3:F6DD (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

If this is Jason Haddad, stay off Wikipedia. If not, add this content only when it becomes available here. Until then, leave it off per WP:VER and WP:BRD. Bahooka (talk) 17:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Who is he? 2607:FB90:A485:1F0B:0:49:BFE5:2101 (talk) 21:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Who do you think you're fooling Jason? You've been adding your easy to spot very amateurishly made hoaxes here since 2009, IIRC, so people here have had enough of you. As evident by the fact that it's not just the regular vandal hunters here who revert you, but also casual readers. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 22:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, if there is one thing I need to correct, you need to add a comma between the question and the name in that context. It is kind of like a huge difference between letting Uncle Jack off the horse and letting uncle jack off the horse, or being aggressive and saying crap, and being aggressive and saying "crap." This is why grammar is very important. 2607:FB90:2701:EC70:0:49:B195:ED01 (talk) 23:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Besides, take a current look at the Lamborghini Huracán and Koenigsegg CCR. None of those have their performance edits reverted, and some of the sources are Imgur and Flickr. Nobody seems to care about those pages. 2607:FB90:2701:FA2C:0:4B:AB1B:A201 (talk) 22:18, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Bahooka (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Why are people here acting like losers? You all know damn well you can't just guess who someone is. I never made an account on Wikipedia before. But all you guys are just wasting time browsing through edits and afraid of reality. I never made a single hoax for someone to read. I never make the info, it's the magazines adding the details. In fact, in some cases, some parents are strict and won't let their children download on their computers, and in other cases, sometimes it's just easy to spot one thing or section and just read the entire thing. There is this thing we have called "technology." Back in my day, there were no "trolls," no "butthurts," and no overreactions towards facts or even opinions. No educated person has ever been as much of a loser as some of you have. 2607:FB90:2701:EC70:0:49:B195:ED01 (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The only loser here is you, having wasted seven years on creating crappy hoaxes. And not only here but on other web sites too, which is about as pathetic as anything can get. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me, but one doesn't simply track through every website* (you get that, not "web site") or call something a hoax just because they haven't researched anything. I am not going to make any excuses or troll someone or browse through every person who has similar (extreme) car hobbies because that's immature behavior. I hang out with my friends, but this stupid reverting and replying and patheticism is all what you guys do?! 2607:FB90:2701:EC70:0:49:B195:ED01 (talk) 23:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Also, I can write much better than all of you guys. These "casual readers" are actually just one of you hopping through IP addresses, using fake proxy servers, and making up one account to disappoint a fully educated magazine collector who had graduated from college with a Master's Degree at age 26. In reality, all of you guys' grammar and photoshopping skills suck more than a first grader. Besides, I'm not even a fan of photoshopping. I've only ever had photoshopped three times, but they were just relatable memes, nothing to even do with cars. 2607:FB90:2701:EC70:0:49:B195:ED01 (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

As I said: who do you think you're fooling, Jason? - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 23:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)