50 replies to this topic

[Redliner]

To my mind the Ford GT40 has to be the best looking Sports Car of all time, however I know very little about it in terms of results, does anyone have any information at all about this gorgeous racer? Any pics would be great too ;)

[Mike Argetsinger]

Of course they won LeMans from 1966 through 1969. It was the 7-liter Mk2 that got the job done in '66 and a Mk4 in '67. When the rules were changed that year to get rid of the big Fords and the Chaparral they came back in Gulf Oil colors headed by John Wyer and won with what was essentially a Mk1 5-liter car in '68 and '69. I can attest to the fact that they were driven on the road during their "hay-day" in full race trim. I was arrested in one in June of 1967 on the New York State Thruway while exceeding the posted speed limit by an even 100 mph. And I was only clearing the plugs.

[ray b]

THEIR BACK http://www.auto.com/.../2002/fordgt40/

[Buford]

I went to the Fort GT reunion at Watkins Glen about 10 years ago. It was fabulous. They had a couple hundred of them there.

[jondoe955]

A most beautiful car! If I remember right, they took a Lola/Eric Broadley design, designed an engine in 90 days and threw a ton of money into beating Ferrari (hadn't they try to buy Ferrari and failed?). I read here that it was the engine sound used for the mustang in 'bullit'. Just under 40" high. And Ford is somehow connected with a GT40 concept car?
http://www.pistonhea...stones/gt40.htm
They just sold one at the barrett/jackson auction last year and had a nice shot of one.
Thanks for the memory. The GT40 and Ferrari 250GTO - what a great era!!!

[Joe Fan]

Originally posted by jondoe955
A most beautiful car! If I remember right, they took a Lola/Eric Broadley design, designed an engine in 90 days and threw a ton of money into beating Ferrari (hadn't they try to buy Ferrari and failed?). I read here that it was the engine sound used for the mustang in 'bullit'. Just under 40" high. And Ford is somehow connected with a GT40 concept car?
http://www.pistonhea...stones/gt40.htm
They just sold one at the barrett/jackson auction last year and had a nice shot of one.
Thanks for the memory. The GT40 and Ferrari 250GTO - what a great era!!!

The Ford GT40 was not a Lola GT Coupe as many believe. Broadley was involved early on and the car shared some of the same ideas, borrowed a few from the 1962 Mustang I Prototype (the car that launched the Ford GT program) but it was a unique car all to itself in the end. Broadley's tenure at Ford Advanced Vehicles didn't last very long. Ford had Roy Lunn and a few of their engineers from the Mustang I Prototype project involved with the GT40 project and I think he was upset that some of his ideas weren't used. The engines were a part of a continuous process of gaining more horsepower at that was already in place with the Shelby Cobra project. Yes, it was a great car.

Sidenote, Ford is thinking about relaunching a new Ford GT40 in the future with a estimated price tag at $100,000. The new GT40 is on the cover of this month's Car and Driver magazine.

[Zawed]

An article about the car...

http://xtramsn.co.nz...1016836,00.html

[Joe Fan]

Zawed, I noticed this statement in the article you provided a link to: "The original GT40 was a Carroll Shelby car whose fame began when Ferrari U-turned out of being taken over by Ford."

This is not true. Shelby played a big role in subsequent GT40 marks (especially the Mark IV) but he had nothing to do with the original as far as I know.

[dmj]

It's not the only mistake in that article, part about Ken Miles is also crap, but it was an interesting read anyway...

[Zawed]

What part about Ken Miles is crap? I've read elsewhere that he for some reason backed off at the finishline allowing Chris and Bruce to win. I presume this is what you are talking about. And Miles never talked about why/what happened?

[dmj]

Wasn't final result calculated from their start positions - so Amon/McLaren were declared winners because they covered greater distance?

[Joe Fan]

Originally posted by dmj
It's not the only mistake in that article, part about Ken Miles is also crap, but it was an interesting read anyway...

I have heard two different stories about the 1966 Le Mans race. One was that Miles was ordered by Ford execs to slow down to enable a 1-2-3 photo finish and McLaren didn't get the message and drove past Ken's car for the win. The other was the same scenario but Ford ordered Ken to slow down to allow the McLaren/Amon car to win, since Ken had won Daytona and Sebring. I have more info to back up the first account because I found a quote from Carroll Shelby (who was the team manager for those cars) acknowledging that he really F-----d up the communication on that one and regretted it later as Ken died in a crash not long after this race and he would have been the first driver to win endurance trifecta Daytona-Sebring-Le Mans.

Then to make matters worse, there was speculation that the race finish was too close to call and so the McLaren/Amon car was awarded the win since they started behind the Miles car and had travelled the furthest distance. Which I have seen pictures of the race finish and Amon's car appeared to passed the start/finish first way before Miles's car, so it shouldn't have been in debate.

[AndreasNystrom]

I have the GT40 story by Wyer on video, with all lemans-races they attended too.

I can look it up if they say something about that. I cant remember it really.

What i do remember is the onboard GT40-footage of the car around LeMans in 66 ;) Wonderfull!.
The sound is really cool too.

Btw, Wyer had a ride in the first GT40 around LeMans cause he didnt beleive his drivers when they said that the chassi flexed at high speeds, and that they could spin the wheels at topspeed.
So, Wyer got a ride around the track, and at the long straight, the driver showed how the chassi flexed by setting his hand thru a big gap in the car.
Wyer said to the driver to keep concentrating on the driving, and then *FLOP* the front loose on the car and Wyer almost had to change underwear and the driver laughed for the rest of the lap.

It was something about the car making to much downforce at the front, or if it was to much lift at the back of the car. Anyway, it wasnt aerodynamic balanced. It got changed later.

I will look at the tape tonight, and write down everything!.

[dmj]

One of my most prized possesions is a diorama of that 1966 LM finish with three very well made 1/43 scale GT40s crossing the finish line.

[Viss1]

Originally posted by Mike Argetsinger
I can attest to the fact that they were driven on the road during their "hay-day" in full race trim. I was arrested in one in June of 1967 on the New York State Thruway while exceeding the posted speed limit by an even 100 mph. And I was only clearing the plugs.

I believe the Mk. III was spec'ed for road use...

[Mike Argetsinger]

Originally posted by Viss1



I believe the Mk. III was spec'ed for road use...

You are correct that the Mk3 was designed for road use. But the car I am referring to - that I put several thousand road miles on (and some fast laps on the Watkins Glen circuit as well) - was a Mk1 in full race prep - it was an out and out race car - Don Frey wanted to prove it could be driven on the road - and it could - sort of - with the gearing that it was in it top speed was 185 mph - although that day on the NY State Thruway I was only touching 165 - just clearing the plugs you see - I never drove a Mk3 but it is my understanding that they were slightly tamer.

[aportinga]

Although I never saw any reference for this... I strongly feel that the V-12 BMW powered McLaren was built to reflect the GT40s lines. Both very beautiful machines to drool over!

[Redliner]

Indeed they are incredibly beautiful, but for me the GT40 will always win it the the sex appeal stakes. Purely because it was thrown around when men were men and Armco was fragile.

[karlcars]

Heads up, guys! My new book on Bruce McLaren explains, for the first time, exactly how and why one Ford beat the other at Le Mans in 1966!

As well, my book on the GT Fords -- The Inside Story of the Fastest Fords -- has just been republished by Mercia and is widely available.

Seems to me to be relevant!

All the best for the new year!

[rdrcr]

The GT40 was and still is one of the best examples of form not necessarily following function. The sleek and muscular lines are still eye catching to this day.

The story of Henry II trying to buy Ferrari out and then resorting to building his own cars to "steal" away the championship and win Le Mans is one of the most intriguing stories in modern day motorsports.

Some interesting tidbits....

The Ford GT-40 is so named due to it's overall height of 40 inches.

MK-I

The first GT-40s, the MK-Is, were designed after Eric Broadley's Lola prototype, resident in England.
They were powered by a variety of engines.

Among the many engines available in the First GT-40s:

A 255 indy 4-cam
289 small block
302 small block
and into 1968 and 1969...

351 Windsor

The 289 was the most popular of the blocks, and was designed to develop between 380 and 400 horsepower for 24 hours (how convenient!).

MK-II

The second GT-40s were aptly named the MK-IIs and were also built in England.
Engines for the MK-II include:

Exclusively a NASCAR 427 (not the cammer).

These are the cars that won at Daytona, Sebring, and Le Mans in 1966.

MK-III
Along comes the third generation, the street-able MK-IIIs.
Hmm, I guess they only built 7 of these ones.

Engines:

All had 289s in them.
The MK-IV
There were 12 of these built by Kar Kraft in Michigan.

Engines:

All 427s.
These were American cars and an American team won the 1967 24 hours of Le Mans. It was a two man team of Dan Gurney and A. J. Foyt driving MK-IV serial number J-6.

This is the last model that was offered by Ford.

The number 6 car was driven to the closest Le Mans victory to date in 1969 by Jacky Ickx, despite being outdated. Chassis number 1007 is currently owned privately in France. The car took part in the 24 hours of Le Mans in 1966, 67, and in the Targa Florio and Monza races in 1966. It also has been driven by Jo Schlesser, Henry Grader, Richard Atwood and Ines Ireland.

I've got a friend here in town with an ERA replica with a Holman Moody 289 and weber carbs that's really cool.

[Buford]

How did you keep your license Mike?

[AndreasNystrom]

wwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

GT40 is REBORN!. Look here http://autoshow2002....iclesFord2.aspx

COOL!. Not like the original, but it looks like it

[2F-001]

I have a 48-page, self-covered booklet entitled ''The American Challenge: Ford's Le Mans Program'' published by Quicksilver. All the photography appears to owned by Ford. No writers credited. The copyright date is 1980, but the bulk of the text appears to have been prepared after Sebring '67 but before Le Mans '67.
I think it's the only copy I've seen - does anyone know the provenance or validity of this?
Part of it is ''typeset'' monospaced on a typewriter. It also briefly charts the ''Evolution of Ford Motor Co experimental and sports prototype vehicles'' from ''Mustang 1'' to ''Ford Mk IV''.

On a tangent...

Also, is it right to refer to the Mk. IV as a ''GT40'' ? Everything I've seen and read suggests that it's an entirely different machine in most respects. I'm prepared to ''flamed'' for this if I've misunderstood somewhere, but I can't see them being any more closely related than, say, a McLaren M26 and a carbon-chassied McLaren MP4... (Be gentle with me... I'm still new around here...)

[Megatron]

My feelings on the car manufacturer are well documented, but I have to admit, the Mk series and the GT40 are really great looking cars.

The American teams won in 1966 and 1967, and if that weren't enough for Ferrari privateer teams won the next two years for good measure.

Ferrari never did win Le Mans after 1965 and judging by how much they invest in F1 and how much it costs to win Le Mans, I would say that will be true for some time (though I still think that the 333SP might have won in 96 had it not had problems, Van de Poole set fast lap).

[Big Jim]

I'm glad someone finally came to their senses and made a car that doesn't look like an overgrown trash can or toaster.
GT40's Forever!!!

[dmj]

Van de Poole??? It seems like some new chap to me...

[Megatron]

You know what I mean.

Don't send the man out on cold tires. The 333SP was pretty quick that year, though in reality the victory would have been a Dallara/Ferrari, as Dallara builds the 333SP. (though its always been known as the Ferrari 333SP).

[Roger Clark]

I am reviving this old thread to pose a new question. While reading John Wyer's "A Certain Sound" in connection with the "On this Day" thread, I came across the following:

"This is perhaps the right time to correct certain widely held misconceptions about the Ford GT40. The first is that it was a thinly disguised and only slightly modified version of Broadley's Lola GT. Nothing could be further from the truth....The Lola GT was a simple concept which set a trend and for which Eric Broadley is entitled to great credit...But the GT40 was an original concept and by contrast with the simpicity of the Lola GT it was extremely sophisticated and, for its purpose, over-engineered"

I haveleft out some sentences which I don't think alter his meaning.

I am not concerned with the technical similarities or otherwise between the GT40 and the Lola, but with Wyer's statement that the GT40 was extremely sophisiticated and over-engineered. He is writing here about the early cars, not the J-Car and the Mark 4s.

I always thought of the GT40 as an essentially simple design, even by the standards of the time. Can anybody enlighten me?

[Joe Fan]

Originally posted by Roger Clark
I always thought of the GT40 as an essentially simple design, even by the standards of the time. Can anybody enlighten me?

I think what he was probably referring to was the aerodynamics of the early versions. The Ford engineers I think were too enthusiatic about putting their styling concepts on the car (which grew from the Mustang I prototype concept car, to clay models, then to the first versions), that they overengineered themselves. The first version had to undergo a nose change because, if I remember right, made it unstable at high speed. They did experiment with wings on the front fender but that didn't solve the problem.

[Dennis Hockenbury]

I would recommend "Shelby GT-40" by Dave Friedman as a good resource on the origin and development of the GT-40.

While not an authoritative work on the subject, very worthy nonetheless.

Alas, no longer in print.

[cjpani]

This is a superb example ot the GT40 prowess

http://members.iinet...s_1969_UkF1.wmv

It is a lap of Le Mans , 1969 aboardt a Ford GT40.
It is part of a video included in the free CD that comes in the Motorsport magazine.

Hope you like it as I did.

cj

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by Joe Fan


I think what he was probably referring to was the aerodynamics of the early versions. The Ford engineers I think were too enthusiatic about putting their styling concepts on the car (which grew from the Mustang I prototype concept car, to clay models, then to the first versions), that they overengineered themselves. The first version had to undergo a nose change because, if I remember right, made it unstable at high speed. They did experiment with wings on the front fender but that didn't solve the problem.

I think all this is more appropriate to a bunch of garage owners thn the seond largest car company in the world - quite the opposite of the point Wyer was trying to meet.

[Doug Nye]

Qute right Roger - in period the fumbling, bumbling, top-heavy Ford GT programme was regarded in the UK as being run by a bunch of over-confident, self-regarding, pompous legends-in-their-own-minds who over-engineered their car and dropped repeated and often palpable clangers.

The fact that Ford swallowed the disappointments and set-backs and kept funding the hiccuping programme came as a major surprise to the practical racers such as Eric Broadley.

He was aghast when Ford engineering policies dictated construction of a steel monocoque chassis as opposed to the aluminium monocoque 'pure racer' he espoused. Relations were particularly bad between him and Roy Lunn of Ford, whom the Brits in Ford Advanced Vehicles nicknamed 'Captain Queag' after the self-defeatingly loony autocratic central character played by Humphrey Bogart in 'The Caine Mutiny'...

In purebred motor racing terms Eric was right, they were wrong. The fact that Ford's people stuck to their guns and constructed ways of salvaging corporate pride and 'image' was a tribute to sometimes uncharacteristic American tenacity, but through 1964-65 the Ford GT programme caused us endless mirth.

John Wyer had patchily impressed with Aston Martin but he was never in truth as much a race management genius as the publicity - and in many respects his own self-image - happily assured us. He always had excellent management, logistics and engineering people around him who subsequently papered over some of the cracks his own autocracy created.

It all worked - eventually - but in the early period it was, as I say, and as many, many prime participants have confirmed to me...a costly joke. And one that Mr Ferrari HUGELY enjoyed....'til he got his come-uppance.

DCN

[Ray Bell]

What you are really saying, Doug, is that this sphere has areas that are covered with a veneer of what people wanted them to be... and that the veneer is still what most see?

I think that many parts of motor racing history are like that. While we may get all misty-eyed about the things that once took place and the people who made them happen, there were more than just a few times and places where it wouldn't have stood up to the legends that we hold dear.

Standing alone from this, of course, are the drives that have gone down as miracle performances...

[JtP]

The GT40 / Mk2 situation was discussed in Motorsport a few years back, I will see if I can find it. Although often referred to as GT40s, the Mk2s and Mk4s were not GT40s and were derived from the J car and designed in the States. The first true GT40 victory is 68.

The Ford exectcutives wan't a dead heat in 66, but were told that this would not be allowed. So the decision was taken by them that McLaren/ Amon would win, as they had been the most dedicated team players among the drivers and were largely responsible for the victory. Again, the organisers had stated that as Mclaren/ Amon had started further back, that if the leading cars crossed the line together M/A would be declared the winner.

I preferred the Mk4 to the GT40, nicer nose. But nothing compared to a Ferrari P4.

[cjpani]

Originally posted by rdrcr
Carlos,

Thanks for link to the great in-car video clip, even though it took a while to download - and that's with broadband. The lap around Le Mans in Peter Sadler's GT40 was really something. Cool narratives by Elford, Amon and David York too.

It sounded like a 427 to me...

Richard,

Yes, I should have mentioned it´s a 18 MB download; but well worth it.
I never did answer your last couple of emails,sorry about that; all i can say is

Alas , I can understand your desire to return it to it´s original conception.
Congrats

Carlos

[Gerr]

Originally posted by Doug Nye
Qute right Roger - in period the fumbling, bumbling, top-heavy Ford GT programme was regarded in the UK as being run by a bunch of over-confident, self-regarding, pompous legends-in-their-own-minds who over-engineered their car and dropped repeated and often palpable clangers.

Who were these "legends-in-their-own-minds" ? And what were the "palpable clangers" ?
It reads like a description of BRM.

The fact that Ford swallowed the disappointments and set-backs and kept funding the hiccuping programme came as a major surprise to the practical racers such as Eric Broadley.

He was aghast when Ford engineering policies dictated construction of a steel monocoque chassis as opposed to the aluminium monocoque 'pure racer' he espoused. Relations were particularly bad between him and Roy Lunn of Ford, whom the Brits in Ford Advanced Vehicles nicknamed 'Captain Queag' after the self-defeatingly loony autocratic central character played by Humphrey Bogart in 'The Caine Mutiny'...

I don't understand this, at all. The Lola Mk. 6 GT, that the GT40 was based on, had a steel monocoque that Broadley called "gratifyingly stiff". The first GT40 was over 10,000 lbs-ft per degree, according to David Phipps in C/D.

Perhaps, Roy Lunn ( an Englishman, ex AC, Aston Martin, Jowett ) should have been nicknamed "Captain Bligh" by those Brits in FAV, not after an American. Seems unfair.

In purebred motor racing terms Eric was right, they were wrong. The fact that Ford's people stuck to their guns and constructed ways of salvaging corporate pride and 'image' was a tribute to sometimes uncharacteristic American tenacity, but through 1964-65 the Ford GT programme caused us endless mirth.

John Wyer had patchily impressed with Aston Martin but he was never in truth as much a race management genius as the publicity - and in many respects his own self-image - happily assured us. He always had excellent management, logistics and engineering people around him who subsequently papered over some of the cracks his own autocracy created.

It all worked - eventually - but in the early period it was, as I say, and as many, many prime participants have confirmed to me...a costly joke. And one that Mr Ferrari HUGELY enjoyed....'til he got his come-uppance.

Mr. Ferrari must have had to have spent a lot of money to compete with Ford's racing program in those days. I doubt that he found spending that money "enjoyable".

DCN

[Dennis Hockenbury]

Originally posted by Doug Nye
In purebred motor racing terms Eric was right, they were wrong. The fact that Ford's people stuck to their guns and constructed ways of salvaging corporate pride and 'image' was a tribute to sometimes uncharacteristic American tenacity, but through 1964-65 the Ford GT programme caused us endless mirth.

Thanks Doug. I did not know about the early days of program from this perspective.

What is your view on Shelby American's contribution to making the program a success. The development drivers, McLaren and Miles in particular, made an invaluable contribution to the Ford effort in my opinion.

[doc540]

Thanks for the vid clip.

Can anyone help me with a GT40 related question?

I've read that some roadsters were converted to spyders. Can anyone confirm that?

Dean Jeffries is currently restoring a sypder #109, and I'm trying to contact Ford to insure the restoration is properly documented prior to Pebble Beach in August, '03.

Thanks for your help.
First post here.

The Lola forerunner of the GT40



A dozen more pics for those interested:

Lo lo lo lo LOLA!

[Don Capps]

108, 109, '110,' and 111 were all Spyders or Roadsters as were J9 and J10. Other than those, I am unaware of any others being converted to Spyders.

[Gerr]

doc540, thanks for the Lola pic and link. I do like the vendors boast "it has not been modified at all since that year " (1963). Too funny !

[Roger Clark]

Originally posted by JtP
The GT40 / Mk2 situation was discussed in Motorsport a few years back, I will see if I can find it. Although often referred to as GT40s, the Mk2s and Mk4s were not GT40s and were derived from the J car and designed in the States. The first true GT40 victory is 68.

The Mk2 wasn't based on the J-Car

[275 GTB-4]

Originally posted by Mike Argetsinger
Of course they won LeMans from 1966 through 1969. It was the 7-liter Mk2 that got the job done in '66 and a Mk4 in '67. When the rules were changed that year to get rid of the big Fords and the Chaparral they came back in Gulf Oil colors headed by John Wyer and won with what was essentially a Mk1 5-liter car in '68 and '69. I can attest to the fact that they were driven on the road during their "hay-day" in full race trim. I was arrested in one in June of 1967 on the New York State Thruway while exceeding the posted speed limit by an even 100 mph. And I was only clearing the plugs.

Priceless !!! reminds me of a time when the cops pulled over a friend of mine and after saying something like "we estimated you to be travelling at 60 mph in a 30 mph area" the dummy inthe passenger seat says "hey, i thought we were going much faster than that!!!!"

[doc540]

"108, 109, '110,' and 111 were all Spyders or Roadsters..."

Forgive me if I missed it, but were some Roadsters converted to Spyders?

And saying 108-1111 were Spyders or Roadsters confuses me (often easily accomplished). It's the "or" that's thrown me.

Spyder count: Where are the remaining three apart from Jeffries?


Thanks for the discussion.

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by doc540
"108, 109, '110,' and 111 were all Spyders or Roadsters..."

Forgive me if I missed it, but were some Roadsters converted to Spyders?

And saying 108-1111 were Spyders or Roadsters confuses me (often easily accomplished). It's the "or" that's thrown me.

Spyder count: Where are the remaining three apart from Jeffries?

Thanks for the discussion.

These were all originally built as Spyder/Roadsters -- plus 112. If there were any others converted, I am unaware of it. J9 and J10 were also known as the "G7A" Can-Am cars. '110' was the McLaren-built chassis which became the 'GTX-1' (or whatever) and won the 1966 Sebring race, after a generally lacklustre Fall Pro Season in 1965.

108 was in the hands of John McCaw (1992) last I heard.
109 is the Dean Jefferies car, of course.
110 was said to be scrapped by SAI, but a chassis with that number is said to be lurking somewhere in the Keystone State...
111 was said to be scrapped by FAV
112 was a Spyder/Roadster converted back to coupe form -- I thought I had put this on my original list, sorry. Used on the road and now in the hands of Ken Senior in Surrey the last I heard.
J9 was a Mark IV converted to Can-Am and sold for $1 to Charlie & Kerry Agapiou in 1969....
J10 was also sold to the Agapiou brothers and sold to the combine of Holden/Velez/Portante and redone as a Mark IV

[Frank S]

Which is this?




It is labeled: "Ford GT 40 Prototipo Miles-Ruby - La Mini Miniera - Italy Serie Speciale Limitata OXA01P."

Frank S

[Don Capps]

Originally posted by Frank S
Which is this?




It is labeled: "Ford GT 40 Prototipo Miles-Ruby - La Mini Miniera - Italy Serie Speciale Limitata OXA01P."

Frank S

The 1966 Sebring Ford GTX-1, the chassis '110' that McLaren built.

[Alan Baker]

I can't say how pleased I am that the "new" car that Ford are building is to be called plain "Ford GT". Happily Ford don't have the rights to the massively over used "GT40" tag. As I have been telling people for years, Ford GT40's did not win Le Mans four years running! If the car that won LM in '67 was a GT40, then the car that came second was a 250LM. The whole original programme (as Doug Nye states in his post) was simply "Ford GT" and that is how the cars were always referred to (check out Dinky Toys catalogue no. 215!). I don't believe that any official Ford entry was ever referred to as a "GT40" even though that may have been the internal FAV terminology. "GT40" only came into general usage with the advent of the 1000 series "standard production" cars. The 100 series cars were always just Ford GT's. The 7 litre Ford GT Mk. II was based on bare shells shipped to the States for completion by Ford's Kar Kraft outfit. The "GT" tag was dropped altogether by Ford in 1967 and the cars raced as Ford Mk. IIB's. The Ford Mk. IV was an entirely different machine which had nothing in common with the GT40 except the Ford name and was based on the 1966 J car (so named because it was built to comply with the new for '66 Appendix J regulations). The Mk. IV was an all American car with no input from FAV Slough at all.

[Magee]

Here's a link to some footage of GT40 street and track models back in the mid-60s among other racing scenes.

http://world.std.com...ks/westwood.htm

[Tweddell]

there is a very good book from Ronny Spain, which contains period pictures and today shots (so far it is a survivor) of each gt 40 (and J-cars), following the chassis numbers from the very beginning, also showing pictures of the prototypes and studies.
yes, the gt4o was a exeptional car in his period, but it must be said, that this car was superior on very fast circuits with long straits and less curves,
but: it was not a fast car on circuits with many bends, demanding not for pure power, but more for good suspension design and less weight.
when i saw the gt 40 in 1964 at the 1000km at the Ring ( this was the first race of a gt40), you could see the speed differences to the ferarri, a it looked a bit tired. and all the following years, gt40s never were able to get pole in practice or during race, although formula 1 drivers were driving them, and even the only 2litre powered porsches and ferraris (dino) could beat them easily.
at targa florio it was the same, by the way.
Alan Mann , who also was involved in the development, later said, there were too many men developing the car, one working against the other, so he was very unsatisfied with all.
nevertheless, eric broadley and his mk 6 is the key to all (why always shown pictures of the ugly and completly unhistoric fake MK 6 as above), and at the end, the gt40 is shurly the sports-car of the sixties, as it was in good action from 1964 to 1969, what a time!!!!!!