Lamborghini Gallardo or Ford GT

[levensnevel]

Never thought I would start 2004 this way but given the two options I prefer the Ford and not the Lamborghini
Those curvy lines of the GT are so much nicer than the looks of the Gallardo

[yg60m]

Very hard question ?! Not really the same , one is past design the other is futuristic. I think they performs similarly (with maybe a small advantage for the GT). I prefer the Gallardo interior but for the rest ???
I can't decide
"Hopefully" I haven't to ...

[bmwfreak]

If you stick an engine in a truck, it becomes, and will always be labelled, a truck engine, no matter where it came from.

The Ford GT is supposed to handle better than the Gallardo, as well as have steering feel that surpasses it. This is mainly due to, of course, the Gallardo using an AWD system.

Note : All the greatest ever supercars/sportscars have been RWD. F40, F50, Macca F1, XJ220, GT40. Why? to provide the most uncorrupted steering feel and driving experience possible.

I'd take the GT.

[kawa22]

i think that ford have made a commercial car without the palmarace of the original gt40


what do you think if ferrari or porsche reamake the 250 gto (1962/1964) or 917/935/962?

i vote for

[Chingachgook]

I vote for the Gallardo. Yes, the interior is too Audi, but it's still a Lamborghini! It's beautiful, aggressive, while the Ford GT is a marketing operation. Ford needed a supercar ( and the GT isn't a proper one ) to celbrate 100 years. They knows that a brand new one wouldn't be well accepted by eveyone, so they used the GT40 shape. A car that was able to beat Ferrari would be looked with other eyes compared to a new supercar without a famous name.

I totally agree with kawa, wath do you think of a 250 GTO remake?? BLEAH!!

[blah]

The GT isnt a proper one because its not Italian? thats just fucking stupid, you people seem to have some problems grasping the concept, the ford is better on track, on road, and everywhere else than the gallardo, even has better history. Ching, please explain to me why the GT is not a proper supercar? because it can be daily driven (F-150 engines are extremely durable and tough).

[kawa22]

sorry but gt40 was a race car and gallardo is supersport car but for a street use.
i think that built a car after 40 years is commercial

[jaybv6]

I have always liked the old Ford GT40 . It's what I always wanted as a kid. It was sleek, fast and raw. I always loved the car in the Gulf livery (pale blue and orange). When I saw that Ford had done a modern version that remained true to the original I was delighted. It looks superb.

The Gallardo on the other hand is an evolutionary car. It looks just like a minature Murcialgo and is way too refined. How can you say it is Italian when all that is Italian about it is the name. Everything else is German, design, engineering etc etc. The Gallardo lacks the rawness that the Ford GT has.


In that respect I say Ford GT, although I really do hate the majority of Ford Cars

[Chingachgook]

The Gallardo, and also the Ford GT are not supercars. I call supercars things like Pagani Zonda, Carrera GT, Enzo, F50, F40, Mosler MT900 Photon, Koenigsegg CC8S. The GT is a sportcar like Gallardo,GT, Ferrari 360. I don't like so much the Gallardo ( with less money I'd buy a TVR Typhon and BYE BYE Lamborghini) but I totally disagree with the idea of a car with the shape of the immortal Ford GT40. If the car had same chassis, same engine, same handling and same performances as the Ford GTm, but had a different shape and different name, I'm not sure it had be so famous.
And how can you blame the Gallardo to look like a baby Murcielago, (slightly different in truth) when the Ford GT looks like the Frord GT40, and I mean perfectly like...

[jaybv6]

[quote]And how can you blame the Gallardo to look like a baby Murcielago, (slightly different in truth) when the Ford GT looks like the Ford GT40, and I mean perfectly like...[/quot]

There is a difference between looking like a car that was produced in the same year and producing a car that looks like a car that was produced 40 years ago.

The GT 40 has attained cult classic status and although the new GT looks like it's predecessor it is endowed with features from the present era. I commend Ford in building such a car as it shows true vision, although some might just see it as jumping on the success of the original GT40. If Ford had taken a different direction in designing this beast it could have gone horribly wrong. Just look at the GT90, it was ugly and boring and never made it to production.

What I like to see in a car is rawness and pure character. Sure the Ford GT is based on a 40 year old design but the character is still there.

Just like alot of modern cars I don't think the Gallardo has that. What is does have is Refinement, Quality and Poise, just like the majority of German manufactured vehicles. Sure it's fast but beyond that it does not appeal to me.

The Gallardo may be a Lamborghini by name but it was not conceived, designed or built by the Italians and as such is a German machine not an Italian one. I have read many a review of the Gallardo and they all say the same, it lacks the spirit of it's half breed older brother the Murcielago.

[kawa22]

Lamborghini is italian more than you supposed.
i prefer this ford not gt40.
i don't know the resion about the build gt40 but 40 yers ago was race and the gt40 won much and ferrari and porsche lose somethingh! i think now is now and this car is without motivation,is a clone.the people buy this car is normal but i think this is not a supercar same this i'd like much original gt40
The Mito ferrari is build by victory in race and 250 gto is the dimostraction,gt40 won many years ago and this car now is expensive to buy.

[jaybv6]

gt40 won many years ago and this car now is expensive to buy.

So true. I think the original GT40 cost £9000.

[mugsee]

Originally Posted by snacky I'd take the Ford GT. 1.) The GT looks like the GT40 Lemans winner. (how's it possible to rip off your own design? it's not) 2.) That Ford "truck engine" has a wider (better) power band than the nonsupercharged V10 Gallardo. 3.) I'm assuming it would be easier to pick up more (american) chicks with a "down-to-earth Ford badge" than a "high falloot'n euro fancy smancy stuck up lambo badge."

You really reckon it'd be easier to pick up in the ford? I thought chicks would like the 'exotic-ness' and the 'WOW' factor of the lambo...

[BADMIHAI]

chicks with a "down-to-earth Ford badge" than a "high falloot'n euro fancy smancy stuck up lambo badge."

Are you crazy? lolollolollololo Chicks die for lambos.....I mean when they see Ford......

Just ask Jabba how chicks do anything for rides in lambos.

BTW: Jabba, why didn't you buy a Gallardo? Were you disappointed by Clarkson's review?

[Vansquish]

Every review I've seen says that the Ford GT is a bit softened compared to the Ferrari 360 Modena, even though the Ford is massively faster in a straight line and around racecourses. The Gallardo looks too much like an Audi-ized Lambo. The switchgear is very Audi-like and the design is more or less a somewhat less attractive ripoff of the Murcielago. I like the way both the GT and the Gallardo look, but from what I've read and seen, the Gallardo is not a particularly wonderful drivers car, which cannot be said of the GT. The GT has an original design, not something penned by some teutonic styling house. Even though it was produced in its original form nearly 40 years ago, the car is still beautiful, faster than ever, and like nothing else on the road. If you can say that about the Gallardo, then it is probably going to be your choice. For me, the GT is the car of the year, and as far as I'm concerned, it IS a supercar. In Road and Track or Car and Driver (I can't remember which off the top of my head) in a comparison between the GT, the Porsche 996 GT3 and the 360 Stradale, the GT recorded a 0-60 time of 3.3 seconds, faster than the Pagani Zonda C12S, faster than all bar the Mclaren F1 and the Ferrari Enzo.