Go Like Hell

Go Like Hell Plot Summary

Introduction

In the early 1960s, two titans of the automotive world stood on opposite sides of the Atlantic, each representing vastly different approaches to building cars and racing them. On one side was Henry Ford II, heir to America's greatest automotive empire, a corporate giant with seemingly unlimited resources. On the other was Enzo Ferrari, the enigmatic Italian whose small factory produced handcrafted racing machines that dominated European motorsport. Their worlds collided when Ford attempted to purchase Ferrari in 1963, setting off one of the most dramatic corporate rivalries in business history. This rivalry transcended business—it became a clash of national pride, engineering philosophies, and personal egos. The battleground was the legendary 24 Hours of Le Mans race in France, considered the ultimate test of man and machine. What began as a business negotiation gone wrong evolved into a multimillion-dollar vendetta that would revolutionize motorsport, push the boundaries of automotive technology, and cost human lives in the pursuit of glory. Through this historical narrative, we witness how personal ambition can drive innovation, how corporate might confronts artisanal tradition, and how the quest for victory can both inspire greatness and exact terrible costs from those who pursue it.

Chapter 1: The Failed Acquisition: How Corporate Pride Sparked a Racing War (1963)

In the spring of 1963, Henry Ford II, known as "The Deuce," sat in his office at Ford's headquarters in Dearborn, Michigan, contemplating a bold move. Ford Motor Company, despite its massive size, was struggling to capture the imagination of younger buyers who craved performance and style. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, Enzo Ferrari had built a racing empire that dominated European motorsport, particularly at the prestigious 24 Hours of Le Mans race. The Deuce believed acquiring Ferrari would give Ford instant racing credibility and European prestige. Initial negotiations seemed promising. Ford dispatched a team of executives to Maranello, Italy, where they were impressed by Ferrari's operation despite its small size. The Americans offered approximately $10 million for the company—a substantial sum in 1963. Enzo Ferrari, facing financial pressures and aging without a clear successor, appeared receptive. The deal progressed to final stages when suddenly everything collapsed. The breaking point came when Ferrari discovered that under Ford's ownership, he would lose control over his racing program's budget and decision-making. For a man who once said "I build racing cars first, and sell road cars to fund the racing," this was unacceptable. Ferrari abruptly terminated negotiations, allegedly telling Ford's representatives, "My rights, my integrity as a constructor cannot be bought." Henry Ford II was furious at what he perceived as a personal insult. As his team flew back to America, he reportedly told an executive, "All right, we'll beat his ass. We're going to race him." What began as a business acquisition had transformed into a personal vendetta between two proud industrialists. Ford immediately directed his company to develop a racing program specifically aimed at defeating Ferrari at Le Mans, the race Ferrari had dominated for years. This failed deal represented more than a business transaction gone wrong—it was the collision of two fundamentally different approaches to automobiles. Ferrari represented the old-world craftsman, building cars by hand with an emphasis on racing heritage. Ford embodied modern American industrial might, with mass production techniques and corporate efficiency. Their clash would reshape motorsport history and accelerate automotive innovation as each sought to prove their approach superior.

Chapter 2: Building the Impossible: Ford's GT40 Development Challenge (1963-1964)

By late 1963, Henry Ford II had launched his "Total Performance" campaign, committing vast resources to defeat Ferrari across all racing platforms. The centerpiece of this effort would be creating a car capable of winning Le Mans. Ford needed someone who understood both American engineering and European racing, and they found him in Carroll Shelby, a former Le Mans-winning driver turned car builder from Texas. Shelby had already proven his ability to merge American power with European handling by creating the Shelby Cobra, which combined a lightweight British AC chassis with Ford V8 engines. Ford executives, particularly Lee Iacocca, saw Shelby as the perfect partner for their Ferrari-beating project. By early 1964, the Ford GT40 was born—a sleek, mid-engined race car standing just 40 inches tall (hence the name), designed specifically to win at Le Mans. The development process revealed the vast differences between American and European approaches to racing. Ford threw unprecedented resources at the project—aerospace-grade computers, wind tunnel testing, and millions of dollars in funding. When early tests showed the car was aerodynamically unstable at high speeds, Ford engineers worked around the clock to redesign it. The GT40 represented a new paradigm in racing development: corporate America applying its industrial might to a traditionally European craft. Behind the scenes, the project faced numerous challenges. The initial GT40s suffered from reliability problems and aerodynamic instability. During early testing at Le Mans in April 1964, both cars crashed dramatically. Ford executives were stunned—they had assumed their resources would guarantee quick success. Instead, they learned that racing success required more than money; it demanded experience and specialized knowledge that couldn't be purchased overnight. The GT40 development process transformed both Ford and motorsport. For Ford, it represented a shift from viewing racing merely as a marketing tool to understanding it as a technological laboratory. For motorsport, it introduced corporate-scale resources and development techniques previously unseen in racing. The car itself became a symbol of American determination, with its massive V8 engine representing a distinctly American approach to the problem of speed: overwhelming power. As 1964 progressed, Shelby's team worked feverishly to solve the GT40's problems, knowing that Henry Ford II was watching closely and expecting results. The pressure was immense—this wasn't just about winning a race; it was about national pride and proving that American engineering could defeat the European racing establishment on its own turf.

Chapter 3: Early Defeats: Lessons from Ford's Le Mans Failures (1964-1965)

The 1964 24 Hours of Le Mans represented Ford's first major assault on Ferrari's dominance. The atmosphere was electric as the blue and white GT40s lined up against the scarlet Ferraris. Ford had spent millions developing their cars and had hired some of the world's best drivers. Henry Ford II himself attended, expecting to witness the beginning of an American racing dynasty. Instead, what unfolded was a humiliating disaster. All three GT40s failed to finish the race—two with gearbox failures and one with a fire. Meanwhile, Ferrari secured a comfortable 1-2-3 finish, with the winning car completing the race at record pace. The message seemed clear: money alone couldn't buy success at Le Mans. Ferrari's years of experience and specialized knowledge had prevailed over Ford's resources. Rather than retreat, Ford doubled down. They recognized that the GT40 needed significant development and that European racing required a different approach than American competitions. In a pivotal move, Ford transferred primary development responsibility to Carroll Shelby's operation in California. Shelby brought in engineer Phil Remington and driver Ken Miles, whose combined expertise would prove crucial to the GT40's evolution. The 1965 Le Mans race brought even greater disappointment. Despite a year of development and promising practice times, all six Ford entries failed to finish. The fastest GT40 lasted only 45 laps before its engine failed. Adding insult to injury, a Ferrari entered by the North American Racing Team (technically an American team, though running Italian cars) took the victory. The press was merciless, with Sports Illustrated dubbing the result "Murder Italian Style." These defeats taught Ford crucial lessons about endurance racing. They learned that raw speed wasn't enough—reliability was equally important in a 24-hour race. They discovered that European circuits demanded different engineering solutions than American tracks. Perhaps most importantly, they realized that racing success required a blend of corporate resources and specialized racing knowledge that could only come from experienced racers. After the 1965 defeat, Henry Ford II reportedly summoned his racing executives to his office. He handed each a card that read simply: "You better win. Henry Ford II." The message was clear—another failure would not be tolerated. The pressure to defeat Ferrari had only intensified with each defeat, transforming from a corporate initiative into an almost national mission to prove American engineering could triumph in this European-dominated sport.

Chapter 4: Engineering Breakthrough: Testing, Innovation, and Human Cost

The period between the 1965 defeat and the 1966 Le Mans race marked a turning point in the Ford-Ferrari war. Ford established a dedicated "Le Mans Committee" that met every two weeks, bringing together the company's best engineering minds with racing specialists. They approached the challenge with scientific precision, analyzing every component failure from previous races and systematically addressing each weakness. The most significant breakthrough came with the decision to replace the GT40's smaller engine with the massive 427-cubic-inch (7-liter) V8 from Ford's NASCAR program. This engine produced over 485 horsepower—significantly more than Ferrari's 4-liter V12. However, the increased power created new challenges, particularly with braking and handling. Ford engineers calculated that when braking from 210 mph at the end of Le Mans' Mulsanne Straight, the brake rotors would reach temperatures exceeding 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit. Testing became increasingly sophisticated. Ford created an "Indoor Laboratory Le Mans" where engines could run simulated race conditions 24 hours a day. Computer equipment—cutting-edge technology for 1966—was installed in test cars to gather data. Driver Ken Miles played a crucial role, providing detailed feedback that engineers translated into mechanical improvements. Miles had an almost mystical connection with the cars, able to diagnose problems through feel and sound that instruments couldn't detect. The human cost of this development was tragically high. During testing at Le Mans in April 1966, veteran driver Walt Hansgen lost control of a GT40 in wet conditions and was killed. His death shook the team but didn't slow the program. Ford management understood that racing carried inherent risks, and the pressure to defeat Ferrari remained paramount. This attitude reflected the era's approach to motorsport safety, which accepted driver fatalities as an unfortunate but inevitable aspect of competition. By early 1966, the Ford team had achieved significant victories at the 24 Hours of Daytona and 12 Hours of Sebring—America's premier endurance races. These wins, both achieved by Ken Miles and his co-drivers, suggested that Ford had finally solved the reliability issues that had plagued earlier efforts. The GT40 Mk II, as the 427-powered version was known, had proven it could maintain high speeds for extended periods without breaking down. As Le Mans 1966 approached, Ford prepared an unprecedented eight-car assault, split between different teams but all under Ford's corporate umbrella. This approach—pitting their own teams against each other while collectively battling Ferrari—borrowed a page from Enzo Ferrari's own management playbook. The stage was set for what would become the most dramatic showdown in Le Mans history.

Chapter 5: The Ultimate Victory: Ford's Historic 1-2-3 Finish (1966)

June 18, 1966, dawned with tension in the air at Circuit de la Sarthe. Ford had arrived with an armada—eight cars, over 100 personnel, and even a dedicated medical unit with helicopter. Henry Ford II himself was present as the Honorary Grand Marshal. Ferrari, meanwhile, had brought seven cars but was clearly the underdog against Ford's massive operation. Adding to the drama, Ferrari's lead driver, John Surtees, had quit the team just days before following a dispute with team manager. When the flag dropped at 4:00 PM, the Ford GT40 Mk IIs immediately demonstrated their superior speed, taking the lead and setting a blistering pace. The Ferraris gave chase but couldn't match the raw power of the American machines on the long Mulsanne Straight, where the Fords reached speeds exceeding 210 mph. As night fell and rain began to fall, Ken Miles in the #1 Ford demonstrated extraordinary skill, extending his lead despite the treacherous conditions. Through the night, the Ferraris began to falter. One by one, their cars experienced mechanical failures or accidents. By dawn, it became clear that barring disaster, Ford would achieve their long-sought victory. The three Shelby American-entered Fords were running in formation, with Miles leading Bruce McLaren and Chris Amon, followed by Dan Gurney and Jerry Grant. Ford executives began contemplating how to maximize the public relations impact of their impending triumph. As the race entered its final hours, Ford racing director Leo Beebe conceived a controversial plan—the leading cars would cross the finish line together in a dramatic dead heat, creating the perfect photo opportunity. Miles, who had led much of the race and was on track to achieve the unprecedented "Triple Crown" of endurance racing (having already won at Daytona and Sebring), reluctantly agreed to slow down and allow McLaren to catch up. At 4:00 PM on Sunday, after 24 hours of racing, the two leading Fords approached the finish line side by side, with a third Ford following close behind. In the final moments, McLaren's car edged slightly ahead. Due to Le Mans' staggered start format, officials declared McLaren and Amon the winners since they had started further back on the grid and therefore covered a greater distance. Miles, despite his dominant performance, was classified second. The victory represented the complete fulfillment of Henry Ford II's vow to defeat Ferrari. Not only had Ford won, but they had swept the podium with a 1-2-3 finish, humiliating Ferrari on the international stage. The image of three Ford GT40s crossing the finish line in formation became one of motorsport's most iconic moments, symbolizing American industrial might triumphant over European racing tradition.

Chapter 6: Beyond the Checkered Flag: Legacy of an Automotive Vendetta

Behind the champagne celebrations and corporate triumph of Ford's 1966 Le Mans victory lay a darker narrative of human sacrifice and tragedy. Just two months after the race, Ken Miles—the driver who had contributed more to the GT40's development than anyone and who many felt had been robbed of his rightful victory—was killed while testing a new Ford prototype at Riverside Raceway in California. His death at age 47 devastated the team and left many questioning the price of success. Miles represented the ideal racing driver of his era—technically brilliant, fearlessly fast, and willing to risk everything for victory. A World War II tank commander who had witnessed the horrors of Bergen-Belsen concentration camp, Miles approached danger with a philosophical acceptance that characterized many racers of the period. "I'd rather die in a racing car than get eaten up by cancer," he once remarked. His death highlighted the extreme dangers drivers faced in an era before modern safety standards. The Ford-Ferrari war coincided with a period of unprecedented danger in motorsport. Between 1960 and 1970, dozens of top drivers perished, including multiple Ferrari team members. These deaths occurred against the backdrop of changing attitudes toward safety in America, exemplified by Ralph Nader's influential book "Unsafe at Any Speed," published in 1965. The contrast was stark—while Ford publicly championed safety for road cars, their racing program accepted risks that would be unthinkable today. For Enzo Ferrari, the defeat at Le Mans precipitated major changes. In 1969, he sold 50% of his company to Fiat, acknowledging that the era of small, independent manufacturers competing against corporate giants was ending. Though his cars continued racing successfully in Formula One, the sports car program that had defined Ferrari's identity never regained its former dominance. Henry Ford II achieved his vendetta against Ferrari, but at considerable cost. The Le Mans program had consumed an estimated $25 million (equivalent to over $200 million today)—an extraordinary sum for what was essentially a personal grudge. While the victory generated valuable publicity and engineering knowledge, questions remained about whether the investment justified the return. The legacy of the Ford-Ferrari war extends far beyond the racetrack. It marked a turning point when corporate America fully engaged with European motorsport, forever changing its nature. The GT40 program accelerated the professionalization of racing, introducing corporate-scale resources and development techniques. Safety improvements eventually followed as public tolerance for racing fatalities diminished.

Summary

The Ford-Ferrari rivalry represents a pivotal moment when two fundamentally different approaches to automobile manufacturing and racing collided on the world stage. At its core, this was a clash between American industrial might—with its emphasis on standardization, corporate resources, and overwhelming force—and European craftsmanship that valued tradition, specialized knowledge, and elegant engineering solutions. The conflict accelerated the transformation of motorsport from a gentleman's pursuit into a high-stakes corporate battleground where millions of dollars were invested in pursuit of technological advantage and marketing glory. This historical episode offers profound insights for today's business leaders and innovators. First, it demonstrates how personal motivation—even something as seemingly irrational as a vendetta—can drive organizational achievement beyond conventional limits. Second, it illustrates that technological progress often emerges from the tension between tradition and disruption; Ferrari's artisanal approach and Ford's industrial methods each had strengths the other lacked. Finally, it serves as a sobering reminder about the human costs of progress and competition. The deaths of Walt Hansgen, Ken Miles, and countless other racers of that era force us to question what price we're willing to pay for advancement and glory, whether in motorsport or other high-risk endeavors. As we continue to push boundaries in technology and human performance today, the ethical questions raised by the Ford-Ferrari war remain as relevant as ever.

About Author

Loading...

A.J. Baime

Read more