They wouldn't, would they?
beautiful..........but where are the Webers????? Doesn't look right without them
Registered User
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 4,959
Likes: 0
From: Bedford
For all of you kids born after 1966, it was a later version of the original GT40, the Mark II, that won the 1966 LeMans race. After earlier attempting to purchase Ferrari (Enzo would have none of that.), Ford combined an english design with American V-8 muscle to produce the GT-40.
The original GT-40 enjoyed a fair amount of success in club racing in it's original 289 V-8 iteration, but won LeMans sporting a Holman-Moody 427. Yes, that's right; a couple of Nascar guys prepared the engine that won the 1966 LeMans classic. There was joy in Detroit and sadness in Modena that year.
Hopefully, Ford will produce (if, indeed they do) a substantial GT, and not a pretender like the Thunderbird.
Quick, who knows why it was called a GT-40? For more on the 1966 win (including the manufacturer's chanpionship), go to:
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Pit/566...mans66to71.html
The original GT-40 enjoyed a fair amount of success in club racing in it's original 289 V-8 iteration, but won LeMans sporting a Holman-Moody 427. Yes, that's right; a couple of Nascar guys prepared the engine that won the 1966 LeMans classic. There was joy in Detroit and sadness in Modena that year.
Hopefully, Ford will produce (if, indeed they do) a substantial GT, and not a pretender like the Thunderbird.
Quick, who knows why it was called a GT-40? For more on the 1966 win (including the manufacturer's chanpionship), go to:
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Pit/566...mans66to71.html
Registered User
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 5,287
Likes: 0
It has a conflicted aesthetic to me:
It has the look of the old GT, and "parts" that elude to contemporary sports cars,
Is both sleek and "hacked up,"
Wants to be a production car [/i]and[/i] is very expensive
The aesthetic of this car is contrived, unresolved and exhibits form for form's sake. "Fad" design components are employed to make it seem to be something it isn't. VERY pretentious looking!!!
The S2k, on the other hand is NONE of the above...and doesn't need to be!! It's aesthetic is resolved, aeordynamic and expressive of what the car truely is.
That's why I love it so much!!
It has the look of the old GT, and "parts" that elude to contemporary sports cars,
Is both sleek and "hacked up,"
Wants to be a production car [/i]and[/i] is very expensive
The aesthetic of this car is contrived, unresolved and exhibits form for form's sake. "Fad" design components are employed to make it seem to be something it isn't. VERY pretentious looking!!!
The S2k, on the other hand is NONE of the above...and doesn't need to be!! It's aesthetic is resolved, aeordynamic and expressive of what the car truely is.
That's why I love it so much!!
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 1,597
Likes: 0
From: Gunma Prefecture,
Liken it very much. Certain original detail maket he difference. The doors that follow into the roof and the rear hinged boot are my fav. But 100Gs for a Ford, wow. Well you could also spend 90K on a Dodge or a Honda so I guess its justified. Pleeeasse Ford!!
Registered User
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 800
Likes: 0
From: beaverton
Originally posted by MyBad
It has a conflicted aesthetic to me:
It has the look of the old GT, and "parts" that elude to contemporary sports cars,
Is both sleek and "hacked up,"
Wants to be a production car [/i]and[/i] is very expensive
The aesthetic of this car is contrived, unresolved and exhibits form for form's sake. "Fad" design components are employed to make it seem to be something it isn't. VERY pretentious looking!!!
The S2k, on the other hand is NONE of the above...and doesn't need to be!! It's aesthetic is resolved, aeordynamic and expressive of what the car truely is.
That's why I love it so much!!
It has a conflicted aesthetic to me:
It has the look of the old GT, and "parts" that elude to contemporary sports cars,
Is both sleek and "hacked up,"
Wants to be a production car [/i]and[/i] is very expensive
The aesthetic of this car is contrived, unresolved and exhibits form for form's sake. "Fad" design components are employed to make it seem to be something it isn't. VERY pretentious looking!!!
The S2k, on the other hand is NONE of the above...and doesn't need to be!! It's aesthetic is resolved, aeordynamic and expressive of what the car truely is.
That's why I love it so much!!
