2017 Ford Gt is meh.

  • Thread starter Pururut
  • 75 comments
  • 11,706 views
P

Pururut

237
Greece
Greece
The car looks cool and great at all but how come it has worse cornering speeds then Ford gt40 mk1? I am not a car expert but isnt this car suppose to turn corners a lot better? Seems like this car has the same faith with Aston Martin Vulcan and La Ferrari.
 
The Ford GT40 weighs practically nothing compared to the new Ford GT, so theoretically it would be easier to carry speed through the corners. It has unrealistically good grip for an older model like most old cars in the game such as the 330 P.

Also make sure the tires are the same on both models before testing it out again.
 
Another point to add - the GT40 was a literal race car for the road, it was bolt-for-bolt the same as the race car minus the competition spec fire extinguishers and the like.

The new Ford GT claims to be a 'race car for the road' in the same way, however road-going regulations around safety, emissions and so forth add a tonne of weight (metaphorical, not necessarily literal) which will severely impact cornering abilities.

That said, I would expect that overall laptimes of the new GT to exceed those of the GT40 due to advances in engine technology as well as suspension geometry and other factors.
 
MrWaflz55
The Ford GT40 weighs practically nothing compared to the new Ford GT, so theoretically it would be easier to carry speed through the corners. It has unrealistically good grip for an older model like most old cars in the game such as the 330 P.

Also make sure the tires are the same on both models before testing it out again.
Click to expand...
Same tires. Both cars stock. Gt40 has better cornering speeds. Not by much but still better.
 
Pururut
Same tires. Both cars stock. Gt40 has better cornering speeds. Not by much but still better.
Click to expand...
You ignored everything said and went straight to the tires.

There's zero reason why the '17 GT should handle as well as the old GT40. Purpose built race car designed for 220+ speeds and endurance racing vs. a road car that was derived from race origins.
 
Actually, it is a good car, especially if you try to drive it around the Nurburgring and are obsessed with getting the fastest lap times. It's all about putting it to good use while being good at driving it so you can have fun with it.
 
Granadier
You ignored everything said and went straight to the tires.

There's zero reason why the '17 GT should handle as well as the old GT40. Purpose built race car designed for 220+ speeds and endurance racing vs. a road car that was derived from race origins.
Click to expand...
Ignored what?

2017 Gt40 should handle better because according to Ford, Ford gt 2017 produce 400 pounds of downforce while going at 150 mph. I dont think Old Gt40 mk1 produced that much downforce.

Still Gt40 was purposely build for race but that race mostly about straight line speed not cornering speeds. So it makes no sense that old Gt40 mk1 has better cornering.
 
Last edited:
Pururut
Ignored what?

2017 Gt40 should handle better because according to Ford, Ford gt 2017 produce 400 pounds of downforce while going at 150 mph. I dont think Old Gt40 mk1 produced that much downforce.

Still Gt40 was purposely build for race but that race mostly about straight line speed not cornering speeds. So it makes no sense that old Gt40 mk1 has better cornering.
Click to expand...

Maybe the default destup of the GT40 is better than the Ford GT's.

I mean, default setups for road cars especially are far from great.
 
Pururut
Ignored what?

2017 Gt40 should handle better because according to Ford, Ford gt 2017 produce 400 pounds of downforce while going at 150 mph. I dont think Old Gt40 mk1 produced that much downforce.

Still Gt40 was purposely build for race but that race mostly about straight line speed not cornering speeds. So it makes no sense that old Gt40 mk1 has better cornering.
Click to expand...
I....I don’t know what to say. You seem planted in your stance and won’t entertain evidence or reason. Good luck man.
 
Granadier
I....I don’t know what to say. You seem planted in your stance and won’t entertain evidence or reason. Good luck man.
Click to expand...
How about being constructive instead of writing things that means nothing?
zzz_pt
Maybe the default destup of the GT40 is better than the Ford GT's. I mean, default setups for road cars especially are far from great.
Click to expand...
Nah i dont think so. 2017 Ford gt default setup is great. This is about the lack of downforce imho.
 
Last edited:
Pururut
Still Gt40 was purposely build for race but that race mostly about straight line speed not cornering speeds. So it makes no sense that old Gt40 mk1 has better cornering.
Click to expand...

Why would you assume this?

The GT40 of the 60's rolled on bias ply tires. So, switching it to modern radial tires would be a massive improvement. It also weighs 400 pound less.

If the cars had the exact same tires, the old Ford GT40 should handle quite well. The downforce you mentioned would help to control that extra weight but it won't necessarily make it go faster around every corner.

Yes, they had to win at LeMans, but to say that LeMans was about "straight line speed" is nonsense. It had some pretty sketchy corners in the mid 60's, not to mention that it had to also race at tracks that were not called "Le Mans"
 
Pedinhuh
How much downforce the 2017 GT has in the game? I'm at work so I can't check it out.
Click to expand...
Games says 0 at front and 100 at back but we still dont know what are those numbers exactly means. Im judging the car by comparing to Gt40 mk1.
 
TS050
100 at the rear, nothing at the front.
Click to expand...

Pururut
Games says 0 at front and 100 at back but we still dont know what are those numbers exactly means. Im judging the car by comparing to Gt40 mk1.
Click to expand...

Oh no, that's literally 100 less than the LaFerrari and we all know how that thing is awful in corners!

I hope it doesn't handle worse than that since it's engine doesn't produce as much horsepower.
 
Voodoovaj
Why would you assume this?

The GT40 of the 60's rolled on bias ply tires. So, switching it to modern radial tires would be a massive improvement. It also weighs 400 pound less.

If the cars had the exact same tires, the old Ford GT40 should handle quite well. The downforce you mentioned would help to control that extra weight but it won't necessarily make it go faster around every corner.

Yes, they had to win at LeMans, but to say that LeMans was about "straight line speed" is nonsense. It had some pretty sketchy corners in the mid 60's, not to mention that it had to also race at tracks that were not called "Le Mans"
Click to expand...
I didnt assumed this. Manufacturers focused for straight line speed not cornering speed. 1966 De la sarthe had very long straight lines and few twitchy corners.
 
Griffith500
Why not? It had a McLaren-style duct in the nose and a Gurney flap on the back, as a minimum. Plenty of potential for net downforce.

And 400 lbs is exceptionally light in downforce terms for a modern racer.
Click to expand...

Can the rear end really be considered a gurney flap as that thing was "invented" in 69'? Or are you talking about the 2017 GT? If that's the case then nevermind.

https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/first-drives/a31820/explaining-the-ford-gts-five-drive-modes/

this article here describes the drive modes of the Ford GT and weirdly enough the Wing angling downwards to provide braking is only available in track mode, and in track mode, the wing is up all the time, so Polyphony put the Ford GT into some weird mix? Also, the Ford GT should be able to drop to below 3 inches. Not only that, a lot of extra aerodynamics are either not animated or represented based off what the article says. For example, the wing should be constantly adjusting itself for better downforce, yet in game you don't see it happening, it simply raises to a static position with the only shift would be during heavy braking.

So I guess you can say something is wrong? That's unless the aerodynamic values in the tuning menu are actually anything to go off by and not just... A number.
 
The car feels fine except for some rear end power induced instability.

I've only raced it sparingly so far but it doesnt feel as fast as it should... I was chasing a Huayra and I had trouble keeping up.

Stock gearfox feels a bit too long in the higher gears.

A tune and final drive tweak will do it.
 
So you're using the old Ford GT40 as a yardstick against the new one? You gotta be kidding me. They are 2 cars from 2 different automotive eras, with different weight, different horsepower, different suspension, different aero and different sizes. The old Ford GT40 is tiny compared to the new one - 4,086 mm vs 4,762 mm. The old car would be a bit more nimble purely because of this, but the new Ford GT is better in pretty much every other way.
 
I bought the '17, but haven't used it yet. I recall the GT40, in this game, has a tightly sprung suspension setting.
If the '17 is set lower than the GT40, that will no doubt be a factor as well.

The GT40 can be stiffened fairly close to the GR.4 & GR.3 cars standard spring settings.
 
The only GT40 missing out in GTS is this one:

maxresdefault.jpg


Should have the Mk2 which IMO is the best one.

I used the Forza model because you know, its perfect.
 
sumbrownkid
I like it. It did need camber up front to make it stop understeering.

Also, the fuel range in the car is set to 69 miles. Nice.
Click to expand...
I believe the car needs to be looked at again as it seems to have a lot of complex aerodynamic features that I don't believe is properly simulated. Other than that, it's nice. I don't know if 100 is the ACTUAL downforce of the rear, or it's just not taking account for the active-aero, that's what I need someone to help me check on. But from the sound of it, it sound like cars with the ducted front like that need some downforce in the front I presume?
 
Dunderbolt
I believe the car needs to be looked at again as it seems to have a lot of complex aerodynamic features that I don't believe is properly simulated. Other than that, it's nice. I don't know if 100 is the ACTUAL downforce of the rear, or it's just not taking account for the active-aero, that's what I need someone to help me check on. But from the sound of it, it sound like cars with the ducted front like that need some downforce in the front I presume?
Click to expand...

That 100 number is probably just some random number PD inserted to replicate whatever downforce they feel is equivalent in their simulation. What's odd is that the car is given 0 for front, along with many other cars, even though these cars produce quite a bit of downforce at speed.

It's no secret how much downforce the real car produces, but can the game accurately produce it is another matter. That's why setting downforce in GT games tend to be based on feel than on raw numbers.
 
Pururut
Ignored what?

2017 Gt40 should handle better because according to Ford, Ford gt 2017 produce 400 pounds of downforce while going at 150 mph. I dont think Old Gt40 mk1 produced that much downforce.

Still Gt40 was purposely build for race but that race mostly about straight line speed not cornering speeds. So it makes no sense that old Gt40 mk1 has better cornering.
Click to expand...
PD is awful for deciding which cars have front down force and which don't.

The GT40 does, along with the McLaren F1, Aventadore and a few others. But most do not, not even the LaFerrari which has movable front spoilers!

I don't know if this new Ford GT does.

edit: oops missed many responses
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Famine
  • Sticky
Forza Motorsport (2023) Master Car List
Replies
23
Views
13K
meganinja
meganinja
D
Brag about your car collection!
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
10K
BlackedoutRX7LM
B
Baka_Marimo
All N-Class categories with all cars that can be tuned to run in them.
Replies
4
Views
6K
jrbabbitt
jrbabbitt
OJT6627
How good is Aston Martin Vulcan? - Comparison test
Replies
11
Views
3K
Mark IV
M
jake2013guy
Project CARS 3 Car List
10 11 12
Replies
333
Views
32K
Bloodytears
Bloodytears

Latest Posts

Back