Our testing incomplete, we cajoled Ford to send a replacement for lap-time testing at Willow Springs. We were fairly confident in our metered test results for the first car—we can debate whether a dodgy brake booster or fading shock cost us a tenth on the figure eight until we're blue in the face—so we relented that our second vehicle's tests would be limited to high-speed laps.

Track Testing

To be clear, Big Willow is a nasty track. The pavement is old and bumpy. Its edges are jagged. There are no shark's teeth to clip at the apexes, no gravel traps to catch you at the exits. Just desert scrub, hard dirt, and concrete block walls. The lap gets meaner as you progress through the circuit, culminating in the 140-mph, no-camber Turn 8, which transitions to a short braking zone for the deceptively tight decreasing radius of Turn 9, which leads to the front straight. Top speeds of 160 mph on the front straight aren't unheard of in production cars, but hit the gas too eagerly in Turn 9, and you'll run out of corner-exit asphalt real quick (as some of racing's greatest names have discovered). It's 2.42 fast and unforgiving miles.

How did the GT do at the self-proclaimed "fastest road in the west"? With Randy at the wheel, we ran a blistering 1:23.69. Where does that fit in the scheme of things?

Fastest Production Car Lap Times at Big Willow
2018 McLaren 720S	1:21.75 sec
2018 Lamborghini Huracán Performante (Euro-spec)	1:22.53 sec
2015 Porsche 918 Spyder	1:23.54 sec
2017 Ford GT	1:23.69 sec
2017 Porsche 911 Turbo S	1:24.26 sec
2016 McLaren 675LT	1:24.29 sec
2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 (Z07, 6M)	1:25.00 sec
2014 Lamborghini Huracán LP 610-4	1:25.17 sec
2016 Lamborghini Aventador LP 750-4 Superveloce	1:25.42 sec
2015 Nissan GT-R NISMO	1:25.70 sec
2015 Chevrolet Corvette Z06 (Z07, 8A)	1:25.76 sec
2015 McLaren 650S Spyder	1:25.88 sec

The Ford GT also beats, in order, the McLaren 675LT, Chevrolet Corvette Z06/Z07, Lamborghini Huracán LP 610-4 and Aventador LP 750-4 SV, Nissan GT-R NISMO, and McLaren 650S. (The others mentioned above in the 0-60 test haven't been lapped at this track.)

"It behaves much more like an AMG GT or a Nissan GT-R, a front-engine, rear-transaxle car" Randy said, "It behaves like it's got a longer polar moment when it doesn't, and that's quite an accomplishment. I really respect that a lot. It has that stability. It does not have that traditional twitchiness of mid-engine cars. This car gives me more of an impression of downforce than most of the cars that we test. I think that downforce is quite effective, especially in the back."

It can still bite you, though.

"It will generate a little power oversteer in third, and maybe even in fourth, when the revs are up way out towards the exit," he said. "And that happens very predictably. It's got a really nice breakaway at the limit. Kind of fun. It's not twitchy. It's not a snap oversteer. It's a mild, progressive power oversteer. Still, I'd like more acceleration traction."

The culprit is in the throttle calibration.

2017 Ford GT front three quarter in motion 00

"I seem to get a lot of power in what feels like the last 20 percent of the throttle," he said. "I get 50 percent more power sometimes. I'm rolling the throttle in, and when I go the rest of the way to the floor, it wakes up and I have a lot of power. And I'm thinking, I would like to have already had that. In most turbo cars I would already have full boost and I would just be adding more throttle, whereas this car feels like it's not on full boost until that last 20 percent of throttle travel. Then the boost comes in and it's too sudden. So there's still a little bit of a lack of linear feel in the power."

It's the opposite issue on the bottom end.

"There's a little bit of lag, and then it comes rolling in and it really pulls like a bear up high," he said. "I have to drive with turbo foot—in other words deliberately start feeding power in early to spool up the turbos. It's a little bit more of a vintage feel—it's more like a classic turbo engine. It's a high-rpm engine, the powerband is strong higher in the revs, and it has a good midrange. But it's even better on the top end.

Randy's real issue, though, was with the braking.

"It just doesn't build confidence to go super deep on the brake, because there's this time element where I'm on the pedal hard and I'm expecting full brake g, and I don't have it yet," he said. "What you want for this car is instant 'Boom!' because we're going 160 mph, and we want to stop right now. So I think it's actually stopping fairly well, but there's not a linear relationship to the pedal on the initial application. It takes a while for it to build up.

"You're going 160 mph down here, and you're thinking about all the trouble you're going to get in if you go flying off the end of that corner," he continued. "To even be in a position where I'm like, 'Oh, I made it,' it tells you I'm not getting the kind of response and bite that gives me the confidence to go to an exact point and know I'm going to make it into the corner."

Randy otherwise had very favorable impressions of the GT: "It feels relatively soft for a supercar. It's not a harsh car, and I like that, especially for a spool-valve car. It's not harsh on the racetrack. This track has bumpy brake zones, and I'm not feeling it at all. The car is soaking that up nicely. It soaks up nicely all the way through Turn 8—which feels bumpy in some cars—even at that low ride height. There's not a good track program on the automatic. I'm shifting manually. That all's working beautifully. And the powerband's wide enough that it's not terribly picky. Either that or the ratios are perfect. For some reason, I find it very, very easy to find the right gear."

Rarely do my own track impressions exactly mirror Randy's, as we employ him to push the cars further and harder than the rest of us are capable of. Not that we're pikers, but there'sfast, and then there'sRandy fast. At Willow Springs in this Ford GT, though, Randy and I were in complete agreement. The wonky throttle calibration, the lack of initial brake bite, the shockingly supple ride on one of the nation's bumpiest tracks, the ease with which you can drive it fast right out of the gate … all of it. I would have loved to use this space to tell you how it drives on the street, but Ford restricted this test to the track only.

The results in, we arrive at the overriding question: Is it worth it? If this were a $200,000 car, we wouldn't even ask the question. With a starting price of $453,750 and an as-tested price estimated to be an extra set of tires south of half a million dollars, though, these factors become pertinent.

Few cars command that kind of coin, and every one that does is very special indeed. It's here the Ford GT makes its stand. It's not the quickest or fastest car we've ever tested, but then neither are most of its price peers. It is, however, every bit as special as they are, a new and refreshing take on the supercar formula we know so well. It's unique in a segment that's long figured out the optimal layout and design, and it's a uniquely American approach to an idea dominated by European thinking. Imperfect and impertinent, it's priceless.

2017 Ford GT
POWERTRAIN/CHASSIS
DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT	Mid-engine, RWD
ENGINE TYPE	Twin-turbo 60-deg V-6, alum block/heads
VALVETRAIN	DOHC, 4 valves/cyl
DISPLACEMENT	213.4 cu in/3,497 cc
COMPRESSION RATIO	9.0:1
POWER (SAE NET)	647 hp @ 6,250 rpm
TORQUE (SAE NET)	550 lb-ft @ 5,900 rpm
REDLINE	7,000 rpm
WEIGHT TO POWER	5.2 lb/hp
TRANSMISSION	7-speed twin-clutch auto
AXLE/FINAL-DRIVE RATIO	3.67:1/2.32:1
SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR	Control arms, torsion bars, push-rod actuated adj coil springs and adj shocks, anti-roll bar; multilink, torsion bars, push-rod actuated adj coil springs and adj shocks, anti-roll bar
STEERING RATIO	14.8:1
TURNS LOCK-TO-LOCK	2.7
BRAKES, F; R	15.5-in vented, drilled, carbon-ceramic disc; 14.2-in vented, drilled, carbon-ceramic disc, ABS
WHEELS, F;R	8.5 x 20-in; 11.5 x 20-in, carbon-fiber composite
TIRES, F;R	245/35R20 95Y; 325/30R20 106Y Michelin Pilot Sport Cup 2
DIMENSIONS
WHEELBASE	106.7 in
TRACK, F/R	66.7/65.4 in
LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT	187.5 x 78.9 x 41.7-43.7 in
TURNING CIRCLE	40.0 ft
CURB WEIGHT	3,354 lb
WEIGHT DIST, F/R	41/59%
SEATING CAPACITY	2
HEADROOM	35.7 in
LEGROOM	43.0 in
SHOULDER ROOM	48.7 in
CARGO VOLUME	0.4 cu ft
TEST DATA
ACCELERATION TO MPH
0-30	1.3 sec
0-40	1.8
0-50	2.4
0-60	3.0
0-70	3.7
0-80	4.4
0-90	5.3
0-100	6.3
0-100-0	9.9
PASSING, 45-65 MPH	1.2
QUARTER MILE	10.8 sec @ 130.5 mph
BRAKING, 60-0 MPH	95 ft
LATERAL ACCELERATION	1.11 g (avg)
MT FIGURE EIGHT	22.7 sec @ 0.97 g (avg)
2.4-MI ROAD COURSE LAP	1:23.69 sec
TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH	1,275 rpm
CONSUMER INFO
BASE PRICE	$453,750
PRICE AS TESTED	$500,000 (est)
STABILITY/TRACTION CONTROL	Yes/Yes
AIRBAGS	6: Dual front, side, knee
BASIC WARRANTY	3 yrs/Unlimited miles
POWERTRAIN WARRANTY	3 yrs/Unlimited miles
ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE	3 yrs/Unlimited miles
FUEL CAPACITY	15.2 gal
EPA CITY/HWY/COMB ECON	11/18/14 mpg
ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY	306/187 kW-hrs/100 miles
CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB	1.46 lb/mile
RECOMMENDED FUEL	Unleaded premium