Heresy: I Like the Old (New) Ford GT a Lot More Than the New Ford GT

by Timothy Cain

Published: June 9th, 2017

heresy i like the old new ford gt a lot more than the new ford gt

13 years ago, Ford introduced a stunning V8-powered supercar. It was not affordable.

At roughly $150,000 — or $188,000 in 2017 dollars — the 2005 Ford GT was out of my reach. More than likely, the 2005 Ford GT wasn’t on your shopping list, either.

But because its price placed the reborn Ford GT in the realm of attainability, nearly 3,600 GTs found homes between the end of 2004 and early 2007. Sure, a lot of them spend much of their time parked in garages. Many scarcely move. And it’s not as though a Ford GT is daily commuter in mid-winter Des Moines.

But because of that Blue Oval badge and value-oriented pricing — hey, the GT cost a lot less than a Ferrari F430 — the Ford GT was common enough and American enough and crazy enough to be The People’s Supercar.

The new Ford GT, on the other hand, is a $450,000 beast with a pair of missing cylinders, disappointing noises, and such exclusivity that spotting one in the wild will be virtually impossible outside supercar havens in SoCal and South Beach.

Forgive me, but I prefer the old Ford GT.

The new, 647-horsepower Ford GT will be quicker. Its monocoque construction is obviously more modern. The new GT’s hydraulic active suspension is surely a wonder. The aero package will be more refined. Its racing connections are instrinsic. The hand-built assembly of a new Ford GT is a nine-day journey in that supercar bastion of ~~Maranello~~ Markham, Ontario.

But the new Ford GT, like many a modern performance car, doesn’t have a manual transmission.

The new Ford GT is so snobbish you had to apply to get one.

The new Ford GT’s F-150 Raptor-related 3.5-liter EcoBoost engine (the old Ford GT’s 5.4-liter V8 was F-150-related, too) is a V6.

V6s are fine. V6s are good. V6s can be great. But Automobile says, “The engine can sound coarse and produces a fair amount of drone if allowed to dawdle along at low-to-medium revs in a relatively high gear, and history will not remember it as an all-time orchestra.” Indeed, after the intoxicating noises of the previous Ford GT, the new GT’s sounds are hardly the stuff of which dreams are made.

On an even more subjective level, I consider the new Ford GT’s lengthy midsection to be awkward; its mouthy front end is too in keeping with 2017’s addiction to massive grilles. The overall appearance isn’t generic supercar, but it’s more in-your-face and less obviously pretty.

Perhaps all of this irrelevant. Ford will eventually sell its 1,000 Ontario-built GTs, no matter how I feel about it. (12 have found U.S. homes so far, according to Ford’s sales reports.) Perhaps the opinion of an individual who will never own a Ford GT, probably never drive one, and may not even see one is lacking validity.

Yet what made the previous Michigan-built Ford GT so great was the degree to which Ford made a world-beating supercar at a world-beating price. Impressing us at $150,000 is far more difficult than wowing us at $450,000.

To the pre-teen sitting in the back seat of his mom’s Camry, the 2005 Ford GT he saw flash by his window said something about Ford. That kid looked at Ford and saw an American company that was building a more audacious car — a more visually impressive car, a louder car, perhaps even a faster car — than the supercar elite.

That occurrence, that 11-year-old who saw a GT rumble by, was more than four times more likely than the new Ford GT making an appearance alongside your mom’s RAV4. The new Ford GT is a masterpiece, no doubt. But for $450,000, isn’t a masterpiece assumed?

Ford’s accomplishment with the 2005 GT was therefore more significant. Then again, drivers did suffer concussions after heads struck door frames before every drive, so maybe the old car wasn’t that great. Moreover, if TTAC relations want to let me drive the new GT, I’ll accept the offer.

Timothy Cain is a contributing analyst at The Truth About Cars and Autofocus.ca and the founder and former editor of GoodCarBadCar.net. Follow on Twitter @timcaincars.

[Images: Ford Motor Company]

#2005FordGT #2017FordGt #FordGT #FordMotorCompany #MultimaticMotorsports #Opinion #Supercars

Timothy Cain

More by Timothy Cain

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 45 comments

Seanx37 on Jun 11, 2017

Well, you can always wait 6 months til the mid engine Corvette debuts. It will have the proper number of cylinders. And will cost far less than $450k

Like Reply
Rreichar on Jun 17, 2017

You can always spend $120,000 or so for a Superformance GT40. I have seen them used for 80K. Great looks and sound. Lack of roll down windows is an issue but they are available with A/C and left hand drive.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

Kwik_Shift_Pro4X Thankfully I don't have to deal with GDI issues in my Frontier. These cleaners should do well for me if I win.
Theflyersfan Serious answer time...Honda used to stand for excellence in auto engineering. Their first main claim to fame was the CVCC (we don't need a catalytic converter!) engine and it sent from there. Their suspensions, their VTEC engines, slick manual transmissions, even a stowing minivan seat, all theirs. But I think they've been coasting a bit lately. Yes, the Civic Type-R has a powerful small engine, but the Honda of old would have found a way to get more revs out of it and make it feel like an i-VTEC engine of old instead of any old turbo engine that can be found in a multitude of performance small cars. Their 1.5L turbo-4...well...have they ever figured out the oil dilution problems? Very un-Honda-like. Paint issues that still linger. Cheaper feeling interior trim. All things that fly in the face of what Honda once was. The only thing that they seem to have kept have been the sales staff that treat you with utter contempt for daring to walk into their inner sanctum and wanting a deal on something that isn't a bare-bones CR-V. So Honda, beat the rest of your Japanese and Korean rivals, and plug-in hybridize everything. If you want a relatively (in an engineering way) easy way to get ahead of the curve, raise the CAFE score, and have a major point to advertise, and be able to sell to those who can't plug in easily, sell them on something that will get, for example, 35% better mileage, plug in when you get a chance, and drives like a Honda. Bring back some of the engineering skills that Honda once stood for. And then start introducing a portfolio of EVs once people are more comfortable with the idea of plugging in. People seeing that they can easily use an EV for their daily errands with the gas engine never starting will eventually sell them on a future EV because that range anxiety will be lessened. The all EV leap is still a bridge too far, especially as recent sales numbers have shown. Baby steps. That's how you win people over.
Theflyersfan If this saves (or delays) an expensive carbon brushing off of the valves down the road, I'll take a case. I understand that can be a very expensive bit of scheduled maintenance.
Zipper69 A Mini should have 2 doors and 4 cylinders and tires the size of dinner plates.All else is puffery.
Theflyersfan Just in time for the weekend!!! Usual suspects A: All EVs are evil golf carts, spewing nothing but virtue signaling about saving the earth, all the while hacking the limbs off of small kids in Africa, money losing pits of despair that no buyer would ever need and anyone that buys one is a raging moron with no brains and the automakers who make them want to go bankrupt.(Source: all of the comments on every EV article here posted over the years)Usual suspects B: All EVs are powered by unicorns and lollypops with no pollution, drive like dreams, all drivers don't mind stopping for hours on end, eating trays of fast food at every rest stop waiting for charges, save the world by using no gas and batteries are friendly to everyone, bugs included. Everyone should torch their ICE cars now and buy a Tesla or Bolt post haste.(Source: all of the comments on every EV article here posted over the years)Or those in the middle: Maybe one of these days, when the charging infrastructure is better, or there are more options that don't cost as much, one will be considered as part of a rational decision based on driving needs, purchasing costs environmental impact, total cost of ownership, and ease of charging.(Source: many on this site who don't jump on TTAC the split second an EV article appears and lives to trash everyone who is a fan of EVs.)