Skip to content

14 Which is the better racing movie Ford vs. Ferrari or Cars?

14 Which is the better racing movie, Ford vs. Ferrari or Cars?

14 Which is the better racing movie Ford vs. Ferrari or Cars?

Neither is particularly good, as racing movies go.

The cars in “Ford vs. Ferrari” ‘race’ too slow. The cars in “Cars” aren’t even real. Other notable racing movie contenders are “Grand Prix” (1966) ft. James Gardner, which used real Formula 1 car/racing of the period and had a great storyline, and “Rush,” which was an incredibly well-put-together movie about the history of Niki Lauda and James Hunt, but unfortunately, was factually incorrect on a lot of levels.

As was mentioned in another comment, “LeMans” by Steve McQueen and Solar Productions (1971) is quite likely the best racing movie ever made. It has a very basic plot… in fact, most racing fans don’t even pay attention to the plot, but if I recall correctly, it has something to do with a dead driver, his wife, and Steve McQueen trying to convince her the purpose of why racers race. It originally had over 100 hours of footage recorded for it with no plot because Steve was so obsessed with just playing with the cars on the LeMans track. It took an entirely different director to come in and write a storyline for it, to which Steve responded, “Uh yeah, sure. That works.”

It featured Lola’s, Ferrari 512s, and real Porsche 917s, all doing more than 200mph on film, on the real track for the 24 Hours of LeMans, known as “Circuit De La Sarthe.” It also used real footage from the 1970 race.

The longstanding theory amongst car guys is that the true goal of the film was to instill into viewers the sense of deep adrenaline, emotion and the focus required when racing, and to that end, I think “LeMans” definitely succeeds better than any other major racing film, despite being a box office flop when introduced.

14 Which is the better racing movie, Ford vs. Ferrari or Cars?

14 Which is the better racing movie Ford vs. Ferrari or Cars?

I love car movies, whether historical, fiction or animated. Some of my all-time favorites are Vanishing Point, Bullitt, Gone in 60 Seconds (old and new,) and Fast and Furious.

Of the two you mention, I prefer Cars, even though I am now 60. The reason is that it’s so incredibly entertaining, fun and touching. Throughout the movie, I identify with certain characters and their situations. The animation was very clever and well done as also.

Cars get my vote…

14 Which is the better racing movie Ford vs. Ferrari or Cars?


FvF has some information about actual race tactics (rabbits to coax opponents to overdrive) and informative sponsor politics, even if simplified.

Cars have one tip about handling oversteers with rear wheels that are slipping, but it is otherwise, well, a cartoon.

LeMans is still definitive.

Grand Prix is great when on track.

14 Which is the better racing movie Ford vs. Ferrari or Cars?

As somebody who spent years racing cars both as an amateur and a professional racing driver, I enjoyed Cars more than FvF. But before anybody gets worked up over this statement, let me explain my reasoning.

Cars is an animated movie meant to be fun, funny, and entertaining for children. It does NOT claim to be based on any actual events, nor does it pretend to be. The writer did his homework about the history and the personalities behind racing. There are plenty of inside jokes for adults that indicate that real research went into writing the movie.

On the other hand, FvF is based on true events but does not capture it well. It suffers from mixing up events from other racing stories for drama. The racing scenes are extremely unrealistic. In typical Hollywood fashion, it portrays racing drivers as all brawn with no brains. It suggests that racing drivers do NOT have their throttle at 100% on the straightaways, but in the scene’s climax, they suddenly develop this ability to press down on the throttle 100% to drag the other car out. Passing is only done on a main straightaway, and nobody ever outbrakes into a turn. At 200mph, drivers can also look back and forth at each other as if they’re taunting each other. A friend of mine worked on FVF and is a real racing driver. He told me that he had high hopes for the movie until he showed up on the first day of filming at Willow Springs Raceway and quickly learned that this would be another bad Hollywood portrayal of racing. Another frustrating point to me was how they felt like they had to embellish the characters in the movie with made-up scenes while omitting events that the characters did, which would have been more interesting.

FvF is another bad Hollywood portrayal of racing, no better than Days of Thunder or Driven. Cars, at least, do not claim to be realistic, like Talladega Nights. The movies that Hollywood did get fairly correct recently were Rush and The Art of Racing In the Rain (except for the final scene).

14 Which is the better racing movie, Ford vs. Ferrari or Cars?

14 Which is the better racing movie Ford vs. Ferrari or Cars?

Ford and Ferrari are more of a Documentary.

Cars are more entertaining, humorous, great animation and, like all Pixar movies, teach children and sometimes adults a valuable lesson:

It’s not about winning.

14 Which is the better racing movie Ford vs. Ferrari or Cars?

Ford vs Ferrari for me.

Ford v Ferrari (2019)

IMDB Ratings: 8.2/10

Rotten Tomato’s: 92%

American automotive designer Carroll Shelby and fearless British race car driver Ken Miles battle corporate interference, the laws of physics and their demons to build a revolutionary vehicle for the Ford Motor Co. Together, they plan to compete against the race cars of Enzo Ferrari at the 24 Hours of Le Mans in France in 1966.

Learn More about the race movies on Tune

14 Which is the better racing movie, Ford vs. Ferrari or Cars?

15 How accurate is the new Ford vs Ferrari movie? Any insiders?

The film got a few things wrong, but It’s very accurate. Ken Miles never hit Carrol Shelby. There are so many books and documentaries on Ford and Ferrari racing that give you the full story.

15 How accurate is the new Ford vs Ferrari movie? Any insiders?

Ferrari was an independent company but needed a cash infusion that sales alone could not provide, so they turned to equity investment.

Ford agreed to buy Ferrari, and Ferrari agreed to be sold. In the merger & acquisition world, this is called “agreement in principle.”

Henry II sent his team from Dearborn to Maranello during the due diligence phase to ensure Ford knew what they were getting. In the merger & acquisition world, this is called “due diligence.”

But Enzo figured out that the new owners would call the shots. Imagine that. Enzo somehow thought he could “sell the house” and “continue to live in it” as if it were still his.

So Enzo backed out of the deal. Henry II and Lee Iacocca were highly pissed. Ford wanted a high-end exotic “halo car” linked to winning at high-end endurance racing. So, they hired the semi-famous Carroll Shelby to work with British sports car maker Lola, formerly AC, to make a car that would beat Ferrari at LeMans.

Ferrari had won LeMans (the mother of all endurance races) for six years. But for the next four years (1966, 67, 68 & 69), the Shelby-designed Ford-built GT 40 won – decisively, and Ferrari has never won a LeMans since.

And Ferrari is now owned by the investment group that owns Fiat and Chrysler.

The rest is details.

BTW: I had a Shelby-designed mod car: A Sunbeam Tiger (a British Rootes Group derivative of Rootes’s Alpine) roadster with a Ford V8 carefully tucked under the hood by Shelby’s engineers. It was wicked fast and unstable (just like me, huh?) It was a Corvette killer. I’m lucky to be still alive.

14 Which is the better racing movie, Ford vs. Ferrari or Cars?

15 How accurate is the new Ford vs Ferrari movie? Any insiders?

They are better than many Hollywood bio-pics in that they get many names and details right or close enough, completely keeping with the demands of fictional narrative in fudging timelines and inventing scenarios and dialog out of thin air for dramatic effect.

Fiat didn’t completely buy Ferrari for several years later.

Miles and Shelby didn’t have a fistfight.

Shelby didn’t bet the company on Miles winning at Daytona.

Leo Beebe wasn’t the jerk portrayed.

There was a whole year of the GT-40 program before Shelby became involved.

16 Who loved Ford versus Ferrari?

Me. I loved Ford Versus Ferrari.

To set the context, I don’t know anything about cars, largely because I have never been interested in them. If someone comes to pick me up and says, “I am outside in a Porsche (or whatever),” I would not know what to look for.

When I saw the trailer for Ford Versus Ferrari, I knew right away I wanted to watch it because many of the racing scenes are taken from inside the car. I loved feeling the thrill and the vertigo without the danger of being inside a race car.

Also, I am a fan of Matt Damon. He is an incredibly talented actor because, in ways that are subtle and nuanced, he becomes a completely different person. It’s like he can alter his blood composition.

Christian Bale’s talent is less delicate. He is an in-your-face, full-body experience – almost like he assaults viewers with sheer talent. I could see, even in the trailer, how he’d change the topography of any scene he was a part of.

The movie delivered on all of this and more. The brilliant juxtaposition of talent and passion attempting to survive within the confines of a blunting corporate culture, the inherent suspense of the agile storyline, the dazzling, completely unexpected ending and the part I am most grateful for: I loved all the cars! When the Ferrari came on the scene, I gasped.

That darned thing. She sure is beautiful.

14 Which is the better racing movie, Ford vs. Ferrari or Cars?

13 Spoiler: In Ford vs Ferrari, what was the rule due to which Ken Miles lost the race?

It is explained in the movie. When the Lemans race is started, racers are lined up along one side of the road, drivers on the other – when the flag goes down, the drivers run to their car, get in, start it and go. Each car goes a certain distance (km, meters, feet) in 24 hours. When the 24 hours are up, each car has driven a certain distance. In the movie, Miles slowed down so Henry Ford could have his photo oop – all three cars crossing at once (although in real life, they were not lined up side by side like in the movie.)

Note the #2 car driven by Bruce McLaren was slightly ahead of Ken Miles #1, who had dominated the last part of the race and had to slow down for the others to catch up.

The #2 car was staged farther back along the start line than the #1 car – so it essentially traveled farther (by about 50 feet) during the 24 hours than Miles. So, McLaren was declared the winner.

It is too bad because Miles would have won the triple crown – 1st at Sebring, Daytona and Lemans – which would have probably been a cooler PR thing for Ford. Had there been enough time and the team had thought about the consequences, Miles could have added a lap instead of slowing down. But what is done is done; the photo was a poke in the eye of Enzo Ferrari and a stroke for Henry Ford, who got what he paid for.

14 Which is the better racing movie, Ford vs. Ferrari or Cars?

13 Spoiler: In Ford vs Ferrari, what was the rule due to which Ken Miles lost the race?

In the 1966 24 Hours of Le Mans race, Ford ran 3 Ford GT Mk. II’s. Ken Miles was teamed with Denny Hulme, Bruce McLaren with Chris Amon, and Ronnie Bucknum with Dick Hutcherson. The Miles/Hulme and McLaren/Amon cars were fielded by Carroll Shelby, running as the Ford “factory” team, while the third was by Holman and Moody.

Before the start of the race, final qualifying had placed the Miles/Hulme car at the Pole position, with the McLaren/Amon car in the 2nd position. In the penultimate lap of the 24 Hours of Le Mans race, the 3 Ford GT cars were running 1st (Miles/Hulme) and 2nd (McLaren/Amon) on the same lap. The third Ford GT (Bucknum/Hutcherson), placing 3rd, was 12 laps in arrears.

Ford, however, wanted to take a photograph of a sterling victory with all three cars crossing the finish line together. However, there is a little-known and probably forgotten rule that specified that the winning car at the end of the race was the car that had traveled the furthest.

In crossing the finish line together, the McLaren/Amon Ford GT Mk. I had traveled further than the Miles/Hulme car by approximately 8 meters (since it was parked far behind it for the standing start). Therefore, by the rules, the Ford GT Mk. II of Bruce McLaren and Chris Amon had won the 1966 24 Hours of Le Mans by traveling the furthest when the race ended, with the first car crossing the finish line at 4:00 PM or shortly after that.

14 Which is the better racing movie, Ford vs. Ferrari or Cars?

13 Spoiler: In Ford vs Ferrari, what was the rule due to which Ken Miles lost the race?

In the movie “Ford v Ferrari,” Ken Miles lost the 1966 24 Hours of Le Mans race due to a controversial decision by race officials. During the final laps of the race, the Ford team’s cars, including the car driven by Ken Miles, were in a dominating position. However, the race organizers decided to stage a photo finish by having the leading Ford cars cross the finish line together.

This decision was made to create a more visually appealing and dramatic finish for the race, as Ford was attempting to market their cars as winners. As a result, Ken Miles, who was ahead of the other Ford car driven by Bruce McLaren, was forced to slow down and allow McLaren to catch up to cross the finish line side by side. This decision led to a technically tied finish between the two Ford cars, with McLaren officially declared the winner due to starting the race farther back on the grid.

This ending was portrayed in the film as a bittersweet moment for Ken Miles, as he believed he should have won outright due to his performance during the race. The decision to stage the finish was a controversial and historically debated aspect of the 1966 Le Mans race.

14 Which is the better racing movie, Ford vs. Ferrari or Cars?

12 Ford spent millions for years before they beat a Ferrari, a much smaller manufacturer. Does it only prove that Ferrari is the greatest racecar team ever?

Every race series is different. There are no Ferrari’s in Drag racing. Never has been. Last year, a Top Fuel dragster did the quarter mile in less than 3.7 seconds. That’s over 388 miles per hour! That’s wild!

Lemans… it’s a 24-hour endurance race and series. As others have mentioned, Ferrari stopped racing it a long time ago….

Formula One… it’s been a long time since they have had a winning combination of car and driver.. this is embarrassing as it’s their focus. Ferrari makes beautiful, great-performance cars, but they are not the king of the hill in any racing category.

And for accuracy, the Ford GT was a Lola with a Ford engine refined and driven to the win by Bruce McLaren, along with two others! Ford paid the bills…

14 Which is the better racing movie, Ford vs. Ferrari or Cars?

12 Ford spent millions for years before they beat a Ferrari, a much smaller manufacturer. Does it only prove that Ferrari is the greatest racecar team ever?

Ford started from scratch on their Sports Car racing program when Henry Ford decided to go after Enzo Ferrari where he lived – at Lemans. Yes, they spent millions, but Enzo had been spending millions for decades before that and was almost bankrupt. Fiat bailed him out.

The ‘greatest race team ever” title has been debated for 100 years. It may vary from year to year, but you could put Porsche up there, or BMW, or Audi, or McLaren or even Ford. If you go back far enough, Mercedes, Auto Union and Bentley can take pride in dominating during certain time frames.

Ford raced in more venues than Ferrari during the Total Performance years. Besides Sports car racing – in which the Ford GT won Lemans for four years, and SCCA – which Cobras dominated, and SCORE Off Road racing with the Bronco, and Drag racing with the SOHC 427 Ford, NASCAR, Indy Car racing, Bonneville Speed records etc., etc., etc – Ford only came up against Ferrari in Sports car and prototype racing.

Yes, Ferrari ran an epic racing team in Formula 1 and Sports Car racing; after all, that was Enzo’s focus. He never ran more than a few factory race cars at any given time. And Ferrari has not dominated any series for decades.

But is it the greatest racing team ever? Go to a bar near a race track. Sit down with some other enthusiasts. Buy some beers, make your points, and prepare for a spirited debate.

14 Which is the better racing movie, Ford vs. Ferrari or Cars?

Which is a better racing movie, Ford vs Ferrari or Rush, and why?

As good as Ford v Ferrari was, it’s still no match for Rush 2013. Rush is something else. With a brilliant background theme by Zimmer and excellent cinematography, Rush is surely a better film technically. Performance-wise, Ford v Ferrari has both Damon and Bale, some of the best in Hollywood. On the other hand, Bruhl and Hemsworth probably gave their career-best performance in Rush! So it’s very hard.

Plot-wise, Rush is once again better cause it’s not just an out-and-out rivalry and adrenaline ride. It’s also about love, respect, and sportsman spirit and is more realistic than FvF. FvF stuck to familiar clichès where Ford is all good, and Ferrari is all bad and criminal.

So yeah, for me, Rush remains the best racing film ever made….

14 Which is the better racing movie, Ford vs. Ferrari or Cars?

Did Ford build a Ferrari contender in just 90 days, as suggested in the movie trailer of Ford V Ferrari?

As is often the case, few things Hollywood tells you are true. Note that as of today, the movie has not opened in the US yet, so I have not seen it, but I know the real story well enough to tell it.

The Ford – Ferrari, merger/purchase negotiations fell apart in 1963. The exact date is not available, as negotiations were secret at that time. Then Ford started looking for someone who could design and build a car for them: the chosen was Lola’s (an English team) chief designer, Eric Broadley, and the deal included purchasing two existing Lola Mk6 cars, which were powered by V8 Ford engines, to be used as development basis for the new cars. This is a Lola Mk6:

The result of Broadley’s efforts, the first Ford GT40, was delivered in March 1964. Given that Ford opened a new facility in England by the end of 1963, and by then, the project was already underway, it had to take more than 90 days.

Be that as it may, the new Ford took part in the 1964 Le Mans race, managed by John Wyer, and was a contender for the first half before destroying its gearbox. Ford engines also powered several older Cobras, and one managed to finish in 4th but wasn’t a real contender for the overall win. Ferrari finished 1 – 2 – 3. Throughout 1964, the new Ford prototype did not win a single race.

Ford returned to Le Mans in 1965, under Carroll Shelby’s management, and fielded six GT40 cars, two under direct factory control. Again, the gearboxes proved weak, plus other issues meant that all Fords were out by the 7th hour. Again, Ferrari scored a 1 – 2 – 3, followed by two Porsches and two more Ferraris: the best Cobra placed 8th.

Finally, in 1966, Ford won Le Mans, as they would for the next three years. In 1966 the Ford GT40s scored a 1 – 2 – 3; in 1967, a single Ford beat two Ferraris; in 1968 again, a single Ford beat two Porsches; and in 1969 again, a Ford beat a Porsche in a very close finish, about which there have been lots of stories, some pretty imaginative to say the least: the reality is that the Porsche was nearly out of brakes, and as a result, the slower Ford could still overtake at the end of the straights, as the Porsche had to lift much earlier.

In summary, Ford started building the GT40 car sometime in 1963, halfway through and won its first Le Mans in 1966 (the race is held in June). That’s three years, not months, developing time from the drawing board (though the fully built Lola Mk6 was the baseline, so it was more than just a design from scratch) to victory, a normal interval for any winning car.

14 Which is the better racing movie, Ford vs. Ferrari or Cars?

13 Which would win in a race: a stock Ferrari or a NASCAR car?

It is difficult to say, but I’ll give you my opinion based on my racing experience and on the feedback I have had from racers I know who have raced NASCAR stock cars.

On most road courses, that is, non-oval courses, most Ferraris would beat a NASCAR cup car. On the shorter ovals, it would be closer, but the Ferraris would come out ahead there, too. On the BIG ovals, I have to give it to the Cup Cars.

Here is why I think that. I know several racers who have tested or raced NASCAR Cup cars simultaneously. They thought the cars didn’t handle well, but that’s by design. You make up time by using all the horsepower in the straights, but the brakes aren’t all that great, and the tire and suspension combo means that turns are not the fastest things. It’s entertaining, to be sure, but other cars can be much faster in the turn.

Something like a 458 or 488 challenge car should take a Cup Car at a road course. Likewise, a Ferraris’s cornering speed should help keep it competitive on the short ovals. Take an F12 or a new Superfast out on a short oval, and you have your best shot short of the FXX cars.

On the big ovals, the Cup cars can use all their horsepower, AND they can hustle through those long turns at a very respectable clip, so they are going to dominate.

I’m least sure of my short oval conclusion. I’d love to see someone do a back-to-back comparison, but until then, all we have are conjectures.

14 Which is the better racing movie, Ford vs. Ferrari or Cars?

13 Which would win in a race: a stock Ferrari or a NASCAR car?

A race where? And what stock Ferrari?

The rather bubbly Ferrari GTC Lusso (a show-off car for rich people with little racing inclination) is heavier than a NASCAR, and as such, could be humiliated on many tracks. But a track-built beast like a 488 or the updated F8 Tributo, lighter and with great downforce, is a completely different animal.

And about those tracks…

In a tight, twisty road course, almost any Ferrari would trash a NASCAR (the “almost” goes for the GTC, which I’m not so sure…). You only know how to watch how NASCARs brake at the hairpins in Sonoma and Watkins Glen -two fast tracks. NASCARs are heavy and have little downforce, as they don’t need much -almost none – for fast banked ovals.

In a super fast track such as Italy’s Monza, a properly set up NASCAR could stay close to a racey Ferrari. Probably not beat it, as it would still be too heavy for the braking at the chicanes and the subsequent acceleration.

In a short oval, it would be the best chance to see some competition. The Ferraris would brake better, but NASCARs are set for left turns with camber, steering, and even asymmetrical tire pressures. Call it a race!

In supernovae, finally, the good ole boys from the South would have their revenge over the despicable wops. Cars designed to race on this kind of track at maximum speed, with minimal braking and no need to shift gears, would have the advantage, even with a restrictor plate. They would beat many high-pedigree race cars here, too.

14 Which is the better racing movie, Ford vs. Ferrari or Cars?

13 What does it mean to have an aura colour mix of blue and light purple?

17 Who owns the fastest jet plane in the world, and what is its top speed?

How do I use a SecureSpend prepaid Visa gift card online?

13 Why is there an annual fee at Planet Fitness?