2017 Ford Gt is meh.

  • Thread starter Pururut
  • 75 comments
  • 9,797 views
Alright, just drove it at Sardegna A. It has to be driven slowly then, speed up lap after lap. Reminds me of the Enzo. Especially with the rpm lights on the steering wheel.

It's a fast, flappy paddle super car.
 
Just got the GT and took it for a Time Trial session around Laguna Seca. Best time in stock tune was a 1:31.862 on SH tyres with TCS 0.

Have to say it is a fun and challenging car to master. Lots of power (as one might expect), but quite heavy on turn-in and tail-happy if you smash the throttle too hard. Really requires gentle brake/throttle inputs in order to keep it stable and make the most out of its torque and straight-line speed. Highly recommend upshifting before exiting slower corners to stop the rears lighting up.

With suitable power and weight reductions, this could be a bomb in N500 races...
 
One thing i don't understand about the Ford GT is the suspension settings, it should be in track mode where the springs are stiff AF and the ride height is 70mm, but the lowest you can tune it too is 90mm which is annoying, really takes away from a strong point of the car
 
I've only driven it in a straight line at Route X so far, but I would kind of expect the Mk I to corner better, as others have said, it's lighter, combined with (considerably) less power I would expect it to be more manageable through corners.
 
Dunderbolt
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.
Click to expand...
Good point. I suppose a Gurney flap proper is a small perpendicular extension on a wing. The Mk.IV did have a flat "fence" on the rear of the car, as did the Mk.Is after the rule changes for '68.

EDIT: Interestingly, this source states it wasn't invented until '72.
https://autoweek.com/article/car-li...-gurney-bobby-unser-pilots-his-olsonite-eagle

Perhaps properly what we are looking at is simply a good old fashioned "spoiler".​


A rearward downforce bias can feel like a lack of downforce (something else Gurney and Bobby Unser quickly discovered), and a lot of cars have a rearward bias in this game by default - possibly because it's more stable.
The apparent lack of modeling of active aero would exacerbate that further, I'm sure, well put.
 
Last edited:
8l23ub
I've only driven it in a straight line at Route X so far, but I would kind of expect the Mk I to corner better, as others have said, it's lighter, combined with (considerably) less power I would expect it to be more manageable through corners.
Click to expand...
Im not talking about manageablity. Im talking about cornering speeds. You can turn the corners faster with Gt40 because it has more grip while cornering then 2017 Ford gt. 2017 Ford Gt is still very manageable but carries less speed while cornering.
 
I like this car. It may be about 20 seconds slower at Nordschleife than the Zonda R, but it was a thrilling ride nonetheless.
Comparable to the Veyron in 'Ring time but more fun.

What livery are you using? I went with white (possibly affected by the 2000s Ford GT on GT4's cover) and blue stripes.
 
AlexDB9
I like this car. It may be about 20 seconds slower at Nordschleife than the Zonda R, but it was a thrilling ride nonetheless.
Comparable to the Veyron in 'Ring time but more fun.

What livery are you using? I went with white (possibly affected by the 2000s Ford GT on GT4's cover) and blue stripes.
Click to expand...
Always buy the red one. It's faster. Trust me. You don't believe me? Ask your car insurance agent and a highway patrol officer. ;)
 
Love the car. I've tried it on Laguna Seca, Spa and Autopolis - that's was fun with my Angry GT Birds! :)

Angrybirds3.jpg

Angrybirds.jpg

Angrybirds2.jpg
 
So let me get this straight, OP:

You're trying to anti-hype the 2017 Ford GT, a modern road-going supercar that clocks in at almost 650hp and weighs 1385kg, because you don't think it corners as good as the 1966 Ford GT40, a homologation model of a Le Mans sports car that makes 300hp less and weighs 300kg less.

Aside from sharing the Ford GT name, you're comparing apples to oranges here. Plus everyone else here seems to be satisfied with the '17 GT on the other hand. It's quite clear you're trying to be a contrarian here, OP, especially with such a weak argument to try to "prove" your point.
 
Not about the performance, but anyone else noticed that the inner part of the tail lights aren't as detailed as most cars' stuff? I hope it's just a graphical/LOD issue.
 
I think also the fact that the new GT is much faster in straight line speed and acceleration, with Gran Turismo Sports cars that have faster acceleration and top speed tend to be harder to drive. I think if your going as fast as you can the car becomes tricky around corners it wants to understeer or oversteer when your planting the throttle because that power is kicking in so you have to be more patient. I don’t know how realistic that is just speaking from the games perspective.
 
Yep, I found like danimac it picks up speed very quickly when you get on the throttle mid corner, and it rapidly makes the turning circle wider so you have to be a bit patient, but once you get it right you can get a lot more speed out of it.

With regard to cornering speeds at LeMans in the 60's GT40 - heres an interesting video where it is discussed in the commentary, though there is some debate over accuracy in the comments. I couldn't keep my eyes off the trees right next to the track down Mulsanne though, scary stuff at 200mph!
 
I spent some more time with this car.... obviously untuned with various power levels and final drive and I do agree with the OP... I'm not going to compare it to anything but its comtemporaries... ie. other MR super/hypercars.

The GT has inconsistent and unconvincing unpredictable turn in and turn out.

I want to contrast with other recent models... eg. the RUF CTR which has only one flaw and that's odd "Porsche like" pendulum rear end oversteer which it shouldnt have given its MR not RR like a real 911.

The Huayra.. is perfect... out of the box its fantastic.

The GT is much less so. I would assume it gets better with a tune but why the hell am I fighting the front end of this car??? I have done well to cure the power induced loose rear end but I just dont like the front end stability in corners.

Put it like this... I didnt like the LaFerrari but once you get a handle on it, its so quick. Its front end is flawless though.

The McLaren F1? or any McLaren road car? They work. That's it. They're competitive, They're good to go. They're a bit boring but that's not on them, that's on me.

I guess you might levy the dislike of the GT at me, I'm not a very good virtual driver you might say. That's fair enough. But then why does this car single itself out over every other MR car which I think is fine.
 

Latest Posts

Back