CONCLUDING THOUGHTS
The Exotic Factor
Both the CGT and the GT epitomize what most people would call “exotic” cars. But have you ever stopped and thought about what that term actually means in this context? Webster’s definition serves quite well: “that which is strikingly, excitingly, or mysteriously different". If one where to place either the GT or the CGT next to an emasculated Prius or anemic Corolla, one would have no trouble agreeing they are indeed “strikingly, excitingly different.” The next question is which is the more exotic between the Porsche and the Ford? In this case, the nod certainly has to go to the Porsche. With the extensive use of carbon fiber, the race-derived inboard suspension, and the unique driving dynamics (including the wee clutch and the lack of rotational intertia of the engine) the CGT is in a league of its own. I’ve never had the pleasure of driving a Mclaren F1, an F40 or and F50, but I would guess that the CGT has more in common with these cars than it does with the GT. However, if we agree that the CGT is “strikingly, excitingly or mysteriously different” when compared with the average sports car, does that actually make it better? Could not the same have been said for the deplorable Delorean when it was released? Please stand back at a safe distance while I attempt to wrangle that dangerous question…
First, More Miscellaneous Boring Thoughts
I generally hate open cars, simply because they are such a huge compromise to torsional rigidity. I suppose some guys would never even notice it, but one of my least favorite things in the world is to drive a convertible over a railroad crossing and feel the entire car shuddering around me. However, the great benefit of that spectacularly expensive carbon monocoque in the CGT is its resistance to twisting under load. I’m not sure how accurate they are, but several websites indicate that the CGT measures 26000 Nm/degree of deflection. For comparison sake, the 2005 Mustang convertible will flex a degree with only 9500 Nm applied. The closed roof GT measures an outstanding 27,100 Nm/degree, which makes the CGT pretty darn impressive by comparison. By the way, my bung-o-meter cannot detect the difference of 1,100 Nm/degree between the two cars. They both feel wiggle free when pounding over rough pavement.
Okay, so which is the better sports car?
For that one lonely reader who may still be with me at this point, I hope your job as a night watchman at the sprinkler factory is going well. Just for you, I’ll draw the following conclusions. First, of all the reviews I have written, this one seems like it compares cars that are the most dissimilar of any that I have owned. I can see now that the technical and engineering differences between these two cars and the resultant variance in prices (the MSRP of the Porsche is three times that of the GT) places them in different categories. The last comparison I wrote, comparing the spendy and glamorous Ferrari 458 with the GT was much easier. In that comparison, I chose the GT over the Ferrari, independent of price considerations. (Looking back on the 458, I am more confident than ever that I was right about that verdict.) The CGT, on the other hand, is engineered of such exotic materials, is of such an exotic design, and is so uncompromising in its pursuit of the race car-for-the-streets ethic, that it doesn’t make for a fair comparison. GT vs. 458 was apples to apples. GT vs. CGT is apples to hand grenades.
Having said all that, I will answer the question that is most difficult but also most telling: If I could have only one, which would it be? That query is an agony, because I have so many memories in the GT and our little band of brothers is so supportive and entertaining. I love the racing history behind the GT, and the fact that the story and the car are so representative of everything I cherish about my beloved country. On the other hand, when I go out to the garage, it’s hard to deny the addictive nature of the CGT driving experience. Driving the carbon fiber delinquent is an adventure every time, and the GT seems tame by comparison. Anyone can drive a GT reasonably well. The CGT does not suffer fools and requires total concentration. Yes, the clutch is a challenge, but it does get more intuitive with time and its nice to have a car that actually “engages” the driver with such intensity. They are both great cars, but they seem to have designed to accomplish different purposes. I therefore refuse to answer the question.
Just kidding. The other day, as I was blasting down the Canyon in the CGT, I was worrying over the “which would I keep” question. I had an epiphany of sorts: If you were to put me at the top of a twisty road, or at the Nurburgring, or any other place that does not involve slogging from light to light, I would probably drive the CGT more often than the GT. It wouldn’t be an easy choice, but the Porsche is just so wonderfully intense and responsive. Therefore, in the category of “blow out the cobwebs and go for a spirited canyon drive after a crushing week at work” category, I can comfortably say that the gnarly CGT is my preference. I don’t know that I have ever really felt such a pronounced appetite for the adventure of a curvy road as I do when sitting at the wheel of the CGT. However, how many of us live in a place where we have actual access to an open, twisty road? I am inclined to believe that of the 600 or so CGTs in the US, about three actually get used as they were designed. The rest sit in private collections and will spend little if any time burning up that expensive Michelin rubber. I can tell you without pause that if I lived in an area where the only roads where crowded surface streets and freeways, I could not own a CGT. It would be the most exquisite torture to own that car and not be able to deploy it, like a Steinway with a lockon the keyboard. Lovely to look at, but no fun to use.
The GT, on the other hand, is so docile in city traffic that I would take it out as readily as my Mercedes S550. I also love the fact that I can drive the GT out of the garage on any given day, and if I lived in Germany, I could hit an easy 200. On the way to pick up the milch.
(Photo note: I did not take this picture, which captured me driving my GT doing warp speed at the Mojave Mile. It's a fine piece of photography and I'd love to give proper credit to its creator. So, if you took the picture, chime in.
This much is clear: If I needed a jaw dropping sports car that could be tolerable in city driving and still scratch the speed itch when the opportunity presented itself, it wouldn’t be a 458, or a Gallardo, or a GTR, or a Viper. I can think of no better choice than the fantastic Ford GT. City driving, cars and coffee driving, canyon driving, track driving: the Ford handles it all with aplomb. The only real hesitancy I have about driving the GT on a daily basis is the fact that it’s hard to get into when someone parks next to you, the nose can be a bit low on parking ramps (the CGT, however, is much worse), and the car attracts so much attention that can be bit irritating unless you are in PR mode, which I sometimes am decidedly not. The bottom line is that the GT is superior to the Porsche in the sense that it can accomplish most of what the Porsche can do, at about 1/3 of the cost and with much less discomfort and drama. For many of us, that settles the question right there.
So there you have it. Give the Carrera GT a piece of twisting road and it will consume it like a co-ed on a Twinky. Put it in traffic and feels as frantic as a blind dog in a meat factory. The GT is more flexible and covers more of the usage spectrum, even if it does so in a slightly less manic and driver intensive way. You will simply have to decide which you like best. Don’t you just love being a car guy?
I can't leave without at least one photo of my magnificent Zanardi. What a delightful car...
