The Ford GT40 is arguably one of the most famous racing cars ever. Four times a winner of the 24 Hours of Le Mans, the GT40, in its various iterations, changed the racing world forever moving the goalposts further than ever before. In the shadow of the brash, unadulterated racer, however, FoMoCo concocted something Dearborn thought could work as a Sunday driver - a road-legal version of the GT40.

Road legality was a natural feature of '60s racers

Modern racing cars are, by and large, precision tools made to go fast around a given race track. Covered in carbon fiber and befitted with numerous parts that make them infinitely adjustable, modern sports cars, touring cars, GTs, stock cars, and single-seaters are hardly ever road legal. Basically, nothing save for rally cars can be driven both in competition and on the open road without substantial modifications. There are, of course, grassroots-level race cars that have begun life as fully-fledged road cars and those can be road-legal but that's no longer the case if we talk about purpose-built vehicles.

To extract maximum performance from a drivetrain, a race car isn't conceived to be friendly to the environment. It lacks the cacophony of filters that are fitted to modern cars and it also has different types of mufflers which usually make these cars very loud. Being loud is something that is generally frowned upon and decibel meters exist to measure the noisiness of each and every car.

Getting a race car road registered - which also implies you stick some road-legal rubber on your wagon - is a hassle that makes little sense given these cars are impossibly low to the ground and are also completely impractical. The cabin can only take in one person and there's no luggage space. However, once upon a time, racing cars were closely related to road cars and, even if they weren't, they were designed to pass a basic inspection.

Take any '50s or '60s racer you like. Even the wildest of the lot - unfathomably fast stuff like the Porsche 917 or the Lola T70 - could be registered for use on the open road. The reasoning is simple and it seems from necessity. Up until 1973, the famous Targa Florio was a round of the World Sportscar Championship (today's FIA World Endurance Championship). The race was being held annually on bits of Sicilian public road that was only shut off to civilian traffic on race day. Practice sessions would usually go on while random motorists in their puny little Fiats and Autobianchis made their way down the same route as the race cars.

This meant the race cars too had to have working lights, blinkers, a luggage compartment, and everything in between to get number plates. Unless you had plates, you couldn't go out to practice on the open Sicilian route. Now, this doesn't mean a Lola T70, for instance, was a friendly, sedated car. Not even in the slightest. The Lola as well as all of its brethren were purpose-built racing cars, designed from the ground up to go racing. It just so happened that the rules and regulations that were up at the time left enough leeway for pure racing cars to have plates. This is one other reason why today you could never have the Targa Florio back in the way it was back then.

Why does the Ford GT40 road car exist?

Now that we've established that every Ford GT40 could be registered for use on public roads, you may ask yourself what's up with these so-called 'road legal' GT40s? After all, we've just taken the time to explain that all of them were road legal. Well, Ford thought there may be a market for a GT40 that was actually mildly usable as a car for the weekends. First off, a batch of 30 Mk. I-specification GT40s were modified to better suit the needs of a civilian motorist and then, a while later, the redesigned GT40 Mk. III broke cover and that version was, in truth, the friendliest GT40 of all. It had a bigger boot, a bigger cabin, and a re-tuned engine and transmission making it almost bearable on A and B roads but still a handful in the inner cities.

What's the story of this Ford GT40?

Covered in Warwick Green, a tint reminiscent of the famous British Racing Green, this Ford GT40 was born in Britain, coming through the doors of the Ford Advanced Vehicles headquarters in Slough all the way back in 1966. Chassis #P/1057, one of only 30 road-spec GT40s to be built by FAV, presents itself in its original paint scheme and also remains one of the very few GT40s of its kind that was never converted for use in racing. The car was originally sold to an American owner and, at first, FAV's plans were to build over 70 road cars.

Tom Hartley Jnr., who handled the sale of this (presumably) multi-million-dollar example, claimed the car comes with its original luggage boxes, spare wheels, its original fuel/oil lines, cams, and valves. While the car has recently changed hands and the new - and very lucky - owner will hopefully experience how this time capsule feels on the road, most of us will never be bestowed with such an honor.

Luckily, veteran journalist Denis Jenkinson used an identical GT40 Mk. I for a week back in late 1966 and took the time to write about the obviously hair-raising experience in Motor Sport Magazine for us all to enjoy. First, Jenks said, "the specification was not changed," when FAV put together the non-competition GT40s. The shape , but there was a lot of attention to 'home-comforts', such as interior trim, door pockets, radio, heaters, silencers, heavier flywheel, and a less-fierce clutch," were the things that set an FIA-legal Mk. I apart from the model Jenkinson handled.

He also went on to say that, due to the engine's less aggressive tune, Ford said the car wouldn't surpass 164 mph whereas, at Le Mans, racing GT40s topped out at 190 mph or more. Even though a top speed of 164 mph may not seem impressive nowadays, it was quite a lot when you consider that your average '60s Ferrari couldn't surpass 145 mph. Back then, the national speed limit had just been introduced in the UK (following some antics done on the M1 by the AC works team that prepared a Le Mans coupe ahead of the 1964 edition of the 24 Hours of Le Mans) and, as such, a 164 mph top speed was anyway pretty useless.

Carroll Shelby too was of the opinion that a road-spec GT40 made little sense, as Jenks recounts. "I had long discussions with about the GT40 concept as applied to an everyday GT car, he being of the opinion that it could never come about due to heat, noise, space, and comfort." However, Jenkinson's initial impression wasn't that of a quantum leap upon first mashing the throttle in the GT40. Admittedly, his usual daily driver at the time was a meaty Jag E-Type with the 4.2-liter engine installed that, as the journalist points out, helped him to " become pretty used to speeds between 100 and 140 mph with acceleration to match".

Jenkinson was, though, impressed by the car's road-holding abilities saying it also impressed some of the passengers he took on board which, in turn, could care less that the car's trunk was insufficient even for 'pajamas and a toothbrush'. " was absolutely staggered at the smooth ride and ability of the wheels to stay on the ground not only over undulations and round bumpy corners but over long brows at 120m.p.h. or more and over short humps at half that speed." He did make the point, however, that this car wouldn't feel at home in London where it is an unsuited piece of kit, especially when it comes down to start-stop traffic and parking.

Having said that, Jenks reckoned the heavily reclined seating position was "o good is the visibility through the large raked screen with its pillars wrapped around the sides, that even in heavy traffic there are no problems." Going through the knobs, buttons, and dials inside the GT40, Jenkinson notices the "horizontal hand-brake looking suspiciously like a standard Ford Anglia component." But no Ford Anglia comes with an odometer that goes all the way to 200 mph, nor does an Anglia feature a five-speed ZF box.

This transmission, the journalist noted, was at least as good as whatever Porsche and Alfa Romeo were fitting to their cars and it also helped that the car was impressively serene while traversing the landscape at 5,000 rpm or more in fifth. "Reverse and first are on the left, first being back towards you, second and third are in the center and fourth and fifth across to the right, the movement across the gate being infinitesimal. There is a very clever and foolproof interlock mechanism that only allows two segments of the 'gate' to be open at any one time," Jenkinson said of the gearbox.

Moving away from the transmission, which is only slightly annoying at low speeds, the man who co-drove Moss in the Mille Miglia was also taken aback by the GT40's acceleration. "Apart from sprint bikes and dragsters, now has a new meaning for me, for the GT40 is doing 100 mph before you can say Barbara Castle, and it feels constant right up to 150 mph." The result? Naturally, the Ford "makes the Jaguar seem dull and woolly."

At the end of the day, as Jenks pointed out, "getting this sort of performance is no great problem these days, but getting it as safely, smoothly, and confidently as the Ford GT40 does is a new conception of motoring". It was this sense of safety that made the road-going GT40 to stand head-and-shoulders above all other supercars of its day (1966's Miura included). "I have yet to find adjectives good enough to describe the way the GT40 motors about the place, and can only sum it up by saying that it is an entirely new conception of motoring," Jenkinson once more underlined.

Was the Ford GT40 Mk. III an improvement

Seeing as folks who've driven the GT40 Mk. I road car in period saw it as something really special with the only issues really only linked to the car's shape (regarding reward visibility), its 40.5-inch height, and its lackluster trunk space, one may question the mere existence of the Mk. III.

But it shouldn't be questioned. The Mk. III is 8.5 inches longer than the Mk. I and that's because Ford wanted to make the model roomier with more luggage space. Bumpers were also added to 1967's Mk. III and the shifter knob was relocated to the right-hand side of the cockpit. Behind the driver's head, the 4.7-liter, pushrod V-8 now made just 306 horsepower.

It all seemed well and good until you looked at the price tag. As MotorTrend wrote, the Mk. III cost $18,500 in 1967, about $2,000 more than the cost of a Mk. II race car. That's almost $146,000 in today's money. Not much when you consider the modern Ford GT's $500,000 MSRP but a lot of money back then when a house cost you under $15,000 and a car under $3,000.

In the end, Ford only built seven Mk. IIIs as tougher safety and emissions regulations came at odds with Dearborn's wish to push out high-performance exotics in droves. The age of the muscle car had well and truly arrived and barely anybody in the US was on the market for a mid-engined supercar and those that were probably looked at ways of importing a Lamborghini.

FAQ

Q: How Much Power Does the 2021 BMW M4 Have?

The BMW M4’s 3.0-liter inline-six delivers 425 horsepower and 406 pound-feet of torque. These figures might not be groundbreaking when you consider the Audi RS5 offers up 444 horsepower and 442 pound-feet of torque while the AMG C63 S pumps out 503 horsepower and 516 pound-feet of torque, but that doesn’t mean the M4 can’t hold its own.

Q: How Fast is the 2021 BMW M4?

The 2021 BMW M4 can hit 60 mph in as fast as 3.8 seconds when equipped with the automatic transmission. Opting for the manual transmission (come on, you know you want to!) increases that time to 4.1 seconds. With Audi RS5 and AMG C63S are only available with an eight-speed and nine-speed automatic, respectively, and can hit the same benchmark in 3.8 seconds. So, if you opt for the manual, both models will out sprint you to 60, but the tradeoff of slapping your own gears is worth it.

Q: What Is The BMW M4’s Top Speed?

In terms of top speed, the BMW M4 is electronically limited to 155 mph, just like the Audi RS5. If you opt for the M Driver’s package, though, that limit is raised to 180 mph – 6 mph faster than the RS5’s optional top speed and on par with the C63’s 180 mph top speed.

Q: What Kind of Fuel Does the BMW M4 Require

The BMW M4’s 3.0-liter inline-six is a precision engineered, turbocharged engine and BMW says that premium fuel is required. Running less than premium fuel won’t likely cause any immediate harm to the engine, but over time it could lead to problems. It’s also important to note that running subpar fuel could void your warranty, so you’re better off paying for the premium fuel from the start. It should also be noted that both the Audi RS5 and the AMG C63 S also feature premium fuel, as do most sports cars.

Q: Is the BMW M4 Available with AWD?

As of the time of this writing, the BMW M4 is only available in a rear-wheel-drive configuration, but BMW plans to start selling the M4 with its xDrive AWD system starting sometime in the summer of 2021, so if you’re interested in AWD, you’ll need to wait just a little longer before placing your order. The C63 S is also offered in RWD only, while the Audi RS5 comes standard with AWD.

Q: How Much Does the BMW M4 Weigh?

For a car with 425 horsepower, the BMW M4 delivers admirable fuel economy at 17 mpg in the city, 23 mpg on the highway, and 19 mpg combined. However, both the Audi RS6 and AMG C63 S beat it out in every category, with a 3-4 mpg difference in highway driving being a rather large gap to justify if you’re big on fuel economy.

Q: How Much Passenger Space Does the BMW M4 Have?

BMW put a lot of effort into keeping the 2021 M4 as light as possible, so the 3,625-pound curb weight isn’t too surprising. What’s really surprising is that it’s significantly lighter than the Audi RS5 at 4,057 pounds and the AMG C63 S at 3,900 pounds.

Q: How Much Cargo Room Does the BMW M4 Have?

The BMW M4 might have a rear seat, but looking at the dimensions it’s clear to see that it’s meant to be a driver’s car with passengers almost coming as an afterthought. In the front, you get 39.8 inches of headroom, 42.2 inches of leg room, and 55.3 inches of shoulder room. These figures beat out the front passenger area of the Audi RS5 and AMG C63 S, with exception of the RS5’s 55.7 inches of shoulder room. The front passenger area, however, is inferior in every metric starting with 36.1 inches of rear headroom, 33.7 inches of legroom, and 51.7 inches of shoulder room. Check out the table below to see the full comparison between the M4 and its main competitors.

Q: How Is the BMW M4’s Technology?

The BMW M4 might be a hardcore performer on the road, but there’s one thing that it really doesn’t excel at, and that’s cargo room, with a total capacity of just 11 cubic-feet. It is inferior compared to the competition, with the AMG C63 S giving you 12.6 cubic feet and the Audi RS5 giving you as much as 35 cubic-feet if your fold down the rear seats or 21.8 cubic feet with the seats up.

Q: How Big is the BMW M4?

BMW’s infotainment system is one of the best in the business at any price point. The system’s interface is both powerfully responsive and easy-to-read in any light letting. Phone integration is super easy, but that only holds true if you’re using an Apple device. Voice recognition and controls picks up natural speech and dictation quite well, however, if you speak with a very heavy accent or perhaps even a certain dialect you may not find it to be the most responsive.

In terms of safety, the BMW M4 is pretty well equipped. The best stuff, like a top-view camera, blind-spot monitoring, and proximity sensors are all optional add-ons. The standard stability control system works well most of the time, but you’ll find that it intervenes fairly regularly and very bumpy roads can overwhelm or confuse it, especially when you’re putting the hammer down.

Q: Is the BMW M4 Better Than the [Audi RS5->art187266]?

The BMW M4 is a compact car, but it sits on the higher side of the compact segment, measuring 184 inches long, 73.6 inches wide, and 54.4 inches tall. It also rides on a 110.7 inch wheelbase. These figures actually make it just a bit smaller than both the Audi RS5 and the Mercedes-AMG C63 S, and the smaller wheelbase means that it doesn’t handle quite as well, either, despite being several hundred pounds lighter. In terms of garaging, the M4 will fit in most garages, but smaller one-car garages will probably be a tight fight if not in depth in width. So, it would be best to measure out your parking area in the garage if you have a smaller unit. Check out the table below to see how the M4 compares to the RS5 and C63 S in detail.

Q: Is the BMW M4 Better Than the [Mercedes AMG C63 S->art136111]?

The Audi RS5 isn’t quite as new as the M4, but it still boasts a very attractive and somewhat aggressive look. Despite the lack of controversy surrounding the nose, the RS5 isn’t without a large grille either. In its defense, however, the sleek headlights and bulky corner air intakes help to offset the look of the front end a bit. A lot of people tend to argue that the RS5 looks better despite its age, but there’s a lot to say about personal opinion. The interior of the RS5 is on par with what BMW offers. You’ll find plenty of leather with contrasts stitching and a driver-centric cabin. Audi’s Virtual Cockpit pairs up nicely with the infotainment display and, even though it doesn’t have as much of a sports car feel inside, the flat-bottom steering wheel goes a long way to giving you that feeling when you sit in the driver’s seat.

Under the hood, the Audi RS5 pumps out 444 horsepower and 442 pound-feet of torque from a 2.9-liter V-6. Sent exclusively through an eight-speed automatic transmission to all four wheels, you’ll make the sprint to 60 mph in 3.8 seconds. Top speed comes in at 155 mph, but with the right configuration and selection of options, Audi will raise that limit to 174 mph. It’s not quite as fast as the M4 with the M Driver’s Package at 180 mph, but you’re probably not going to go that fast anyway so this point in negligible at best. The RS5 does garner slightly better fuel economy at 18 mpg in the city, 26 mpg on the highway, and 21 mpg combined. All of this comes with an MSRP of $75,400, which makes the RS5 a bit more expensive than the M4 but, potentially, a better car for you.

Q:

Of all the compact sports coupes on the market, the Mercedes-AMG C63 S is probably the most humble in terms of exterior design. The airdam is thin but is integrated with the smaller corner air intakes. The radiator grill actually fits the shape and size of the car and the larger headlights work really well from an appearance standpoint thanks to their sunk integration into the corners. The interior is clearly inspired by the AMG GT with the circular vents, high-sitting center console, and the flat-bottom steering wheel. The technology doesn’t look quite as fresh as it does in the M4, but you’ll find the infotainment system is also one of the best in the business.

Under the hood sits a beefy, hand-built, 4.0-liter V-8, and this is probably what makes the C63 S stand out ahead of the M4 and RS5. It pumps out 503 horsepower and 516 pound-feet of torque, all of which is channeled through a nine-speed automatic transmission to the rear wheels. Fuel economy is, surprisingly, better than what you get in the M4 at 18 mpg in the city, 27 mpg on the highway, and 21 mpg combined, while the sprint to 60 mph takes just 3.8 seconds. Top speed is pinned at 180 mph, putting the C63 S on par with the M4 with the M Driver’s Package. If you want that feel and sound of the V-8, however, it won’t come cheap. You’ll have to pay a little over $4,000 extra over the M4, with the entry price kicking off at $76,200.