In Defense of Enzo, who loved Jeeps

You may buy a new Ford GT 40 that beat the pants off ferrari:
http://www.autointell.com/nao_compan...d-gt-40-02.htm
Or just take a ride in the new one:
http://www.fordvehicles.com/fordgt/m...=CURRENT_VIDEO
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

wrote:
>
> I don't think Enzo loved cars per se, he loved engineering, he loved
> good workmanship-and he thought of himself as a engine and chassis
> builder, preferring to leave coachwork elsewhere-and most of all he
> loved winning. Ford beat him, once or twice, Colin Chapman ditto,
> everyone else ditto. Enzo went the distance. Even Shel never really
> beat him-no one did. He's the Sinatra of fast cars. He really did do
> it his way.
>
> The 308 was, I think, really a Dino to Enzo-a Ferrari was a twelve
> cylinder automobile. The 365BB is to me the ultimate Ferrari, he
> couldn't sell it in America, but he'd made his point. The 308 is still
> a fun car to drive-yes, I have-but it has a 90 degree flat crank V8.
>
> I'd like to see a Chevelle (not gutted out and NASCARized) beat any
> Ferrari ever built around the Nürburgring. THAT, and not High School
> Drag Night, is what performance is about.

Yeah, they beat Ferrari. Sure did.

ONCE.

The Ford GT IS two hundred grand-but it's maybe fifty grand worth of
car, tops.

It's an overgrown Toyota MR2.

Worse, they were jackoffs about it. instead of letting Ken Miles have
the win, which he needed, they were made to cross one-two-three-Ford
came off looking like jerks, which they were. Then, he was
killed....which made it worse. It was to Ford's racing program what
"After The Fall" was to Arthur Miller. Made them pariahs.

And the new GT is a joke-no fuel cell, no AN fittings, cast bolt-on
wheels, and an interior like a Focus. However, since most of their
market didn't even know what a GT-40 was, or associate 'Le Mans' with
anything but a Pontiac, it's looking like the joke is on them.

I don't know where you're from, but we don't fix races.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
http://www.billhughes.com/

wrote:
>
> Worse, they were jackoffs about it. instead of letting Ken Miles have
> the win, which he needed, they were made to cross one-two-three-Ford
> came off looking like jerks, which they were. Then, he was
> killed....which made it worse. It was to Ford's racing program what
> "After The Fall" was to Arthur Miller. Made them pariahs.
>
> And the new GT is a joke-no fuel cell, no AN fittings, cast bolt-on
> wheels, and an interior like a Focus. However, since most of their
> market didn't even know what a GT-40 was, or associate 'Le Mans' with
> anything but a Pontiac, it's looking like the joke is on them.

Well it depends on how much you want to pay. I can't see that getting
anywhere close to the Ferrari Enzo. Probably similar to the 575.

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"L.W. (ßill) Hughes III" > wrote in message
...
> You may buy a new Ford GT 40 that beat the pants off ferrari:
>
http://www.autointell.com/nao_compan...d-gt-40-02.htm
> Or just take a ride in the new one:
> http://www.fordvehicles.com/fordgt/m...=CURRENT_VIDEO
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> http://www.billhughes.com/
>
> wrote:

wrote:

> I'dÂ*likeÂ*toÂ*seeÂ*aÂ*ChevelleÂ*(notÂ*guttedÂ*out Â*andÂ*NASCARized)Â*beatÂ*any
> Ferrari ever built around the Nürburgring. THAT, and not High School
> Drag Night, is what performance is about.

Not in America. Performance is what your car can do from a stoplight. We
don't have an Autobahn here. How many people in this country even watch
IMSA or Formula 1 racing?

We're talking about apples and oranges, of course - a Chevelle is not
aerodynamic enough or have the proper gearing to do high speed runs, and it
definitely doesn't have the handling and breaking. And, the Ferraris simply
didn't make enough torque and low-end horsepower to accelerate from a dead
stop very well. My original point was that Ferrari simply wasn't all that
powerful of a vehicle back then, as many American cars made more power, and
they had horrible quality and reliability. Sure, they used expensive parts,
but their build quality was kit car level. The point I originally made was
that because we, Americans, fell in love with them for some reason, our
money has helped them pump into R&D and vastly improve them. I made the
point across the board to all those European and Japanese cars. OUR money,
has made those companies what they are.


--

Registered Linux user #378193

wrote:

> Yeah, they beat Ferrari. Sure did.
>
> ONCE.

Ferrari got scared and didn't race again for a few years in an effort to
save themselves of the embarrassment.


--

Registered Linux user #378193

wrote:

> AndÂ*theÂ*newÂ*GTÂ*isÂ*aÂ*joke-noÂ*fuelÂ*cell,Â*noÂ*ANÂ*fittings,Â*castÂ*bolt-on
> wheels, and an interior like a Focus.Â*Â*However,Â*sinceÂ*mostÂ*ofÂ*their
> market didn't even know what a GT-40 was, or associate 'Le Mans' with
> anything but a Pontiac, it's looking like the joke is on them.

Gee...Every car magazine so far has picked the GT over the 360. I haven't
seen a comparison of the F430 against the GT.


--

Registered Linux user #378193

L.W.(ßill) Hughes III wrote:

> I don't know where you're from, but we don't fix races.

No, but Ferrari did. I think it was 1964 or 1965 when Enzo got the last race
of the year, Monza, cancelled to prevent Ford from beating Ferrari for the
season. Now that's being a cry baby.


--

Registered Linux user #378193