Been reading up on the Ford GT, and performance numbers are strikingly comparable to those i've seen for the CGT....could it be that their performance will be comparable?

C&D tested the FGT at a 3.3 sec 0-60, 15.9 sec 0-150, and R&T tested it at .99g on the skidpad. I think those are better numbers than I've seen for the CGT, although I don't know if anyone's given it a full test.

Clearly the CGT outclasses it, but performance? if it goes to the FGT, ouch!

 

Performance on the track--where the CGT is meant to shine--will not be comparable.

Greg A

 

Not sure where you are getting your information on the performance #'s of the Carrera GT as Car & Driver hasn't even gotten test #'s for it yet. You can't look at one magazine's performance #'s and compare it to another. Different tests, different tracks, different weather, different times. The Ford GT pulled off a 0-60 in 3.3 sec., but the 1/4 mi. times are in the 11.6's, the Carrera GT was in the 11.3's (if you want to do it that way), in comparing cars, the Motor Trend comparo with the Viper got 11.7's out of the Ford GT. Also the skidpad was nothing special considering the GT3 pulled 1.02 on that same skidpad.

 

I think Ben who is getting a CGT posted the 3.5 0-60 and .95g lateral figures. I know this varies widely but it is impressive that the FGT pulled off a 3.3 sec 0-60. Regardless I would still prefer the CGT, but for the ground clearance.

Maybe my point is it seems that auto makers are reaching the final barriers of performance. Is the next generation of supercars going to be doing 0-60 in 2.5 sec, Pulling 1.8g on the skidpad, and reliable and comfortable as a daily driver?