26 replies to this topic

[RCH]

Fifty year anniversaries seem popular at the moment so lets have a look back to 1963 and how British manufacturers outside F1 were shaping up.

Saloon car racing, early '63 very much the province of Jaguar but not for much longer. By the end of the year they were beaten by the grunt of the Galaxie and the nimbleness of the Lotus Cortina, yet did ever a successful racer fall from grace so rapidly? Presumably Jaguar felt that they needed to see their cars dominate so they made sure there was no serious attempt to race Mk. IIs after the end of the year. Where was the homologation special "S" Type? Would such a thing have been possible? It has been said that Jaguar would not have been able to afford to follow their rivals down the homologation special route but given their once pre eminent position could they have afforded not to? Around this time a company recently delivered from the jaws of bankruptcy was getting into saloon car racing seriously and from then on always maintained a presence. Didn't seem to do BMW any harm.

Let's move on to GT cars and Jaguar again. The Lightweight E was showing itself as capable of beating the dominant Ferrari GTO yet Jaguar seemingly couldn't be bothered. A fairly low key works effort could have seen them winning the GT championship, Ferrari wasn't really very interested as Shelby was to show later with their sledge hammer to crack a nut approach. Changes to the GT category for 1966 meant the cars would need to be much closer to standard production but again would it have been impossible to homologate an E Type to continue in GT racing? Remember what was appearing on the scene at that time, a car that was to go on to be the car that was always there or thereabouts in GT racing. Could the E Type and maybe succesive F and G types have taken the place of the Porsche 911? Would it have needed just a little bit of interest on high at Browns Lane?

Then we have the DP214 Aston Martin, arguably the fastest GT of them all. OK it had its reliability problems but why did Astons choose to give up at the end of 1963? Having brought the car into existence in the first place why give up after a year?

Prototypes. Why was the XJ13 never raced or the Lola Aston Martin continued with? Oh I'm sure there were reasons but I can't help feeling that in the case of Jaguar had they pursued their racing career they would have been a very different and far more successful manufacturer over the years. There has been much press comment that the new F Type Jaguar is aimed at the Porsche Boxster or even the 911. It should really be the other way round.

[RCH]

Oops, seem to have duplicated myself, where has the delete button gone?

[RCH]

Oops, seem to have duplicated myself, where has the delete button gone?

[GMACKIE]

Oh no, you've done it again.

[GMACKIE]

Oh no, you've done it again.

[Ray Bell]

Seems an easy thing to do...

Perhaps the British Motor Industry could be considered to be broader in 1963 than just what was at the top.

BMC were right in the thick of it with Minis particularly. But the 'Big Healeys' were still there in competition.

[David Birchall]

In response to the Jags-apparently they were selling quite enough cars thank you! They couldn't make the E Type fast enough so the reasons to race it just didn't rise to the top.
A great pity they didn't pursue the Low Drag Coupe and at least run a team of those.

I recently bought a copy of "Ultimate E Type-The Competition Cars" and it really is superb but that is the point that Philip Porter makes in the book-they simply were too busy selling E Types to want to spend time and money racing them.

Where is the history rewind button?

[seldo]

As is so often the case with big corporations, the bean-counters ride rough-shod over the marketing guys.
When times get a bit tight, the first thing they do is try to trim what they see as un-necessary expenditure, so the knife comes out for the marketing budget and that of course means the beginning of the end as it initiates an exacerbation of the problem. If anything, they should be ramping-up the marketing.

[Paul Newby]

1963 also saw the introduction of the Porsche 911.

Nothing more needs to be said really....

[275 GTB-4]

1963 also saw the introduction of the Porsche 911.

Nothing more needs to be said really....

Avoiding the double entendres above...50 + 50 = 100...and

March 2013 marks the 100th anniversary of the first cars made by William Morris (1877-1963).

The first was a Morris-Oxford Light Car. William Morris began making and repairing bicycles in his work and gradually went onto to hiring and repairing cars before making his own. Although his business was disrupted by the First World War, Morris went on to dominate the British car industry and was made a baron in 1934 and 4 years later Viscount for his services to car manufacturing. He would become known as Viscount Nuffield.

All around the world, car clubs (various) are celebrating this event....for example, my town will be inundated with Morris Minors at Easter (so please, be patient everyone and don't miss this opportunity! :-)

Edited by 275 GTB-4, 18 March 2013 - 02:29.

[GMACKIE]

Excuse me mick, but did you not read post #9........the man said "Nothing more needs to be said really".

[RCH]

1963 also saw the introduction of the Porsche 911.

Nothing more needs to be said really....

My point entirely, but on the face of it the 911 wasn't the obvious contender for its actual ongoing motorsport success, it must have taken a huge amount of initiative on the part of Porsche to put it there.

Edited by RCH, 18 March 2013 - 07:49.

[RCH]

Seems an easy thing to do...

Perhaps the British Motor Industry could be considered to be broader in 1963 than just what was at the top.

BMC were right in the thick of it with Minis particularly. But the 'Big Healeys' were still there in competition.

But the success engendered by the Mini was to drift away with successive mergers and take overs and the Big Healey never had a proper replacement.

[275 GTB-4]

Excuse me mick, but did you not read post #9........the man said "Nothing more needs to be said really".

Thats right, Paul is saying that the Sports VW was an elegant design for its time, minor development and cosmetic changes since those glory days (dare I venture to say...just like the Moggie!) have been produced for the loyal following

Edited by 275 GTB-4, 19 March 2013 - 07:11.

[Alan Baker]

Prototypes. Why was the XJ13 never raced or the Lola Aston Martin continued with? Oh I'm sure there were reasons but I can't help feeling that in the case of Jaguar had they pursued their racing career they would have been a very different and far more successful manufacturer over the years.

The XJ13 and the Lola Aston Martin were both overtaken by the regulation change imposing a 3 litre limit on prototypes from 1968.

[RCH]

The XJ13 and the Lola Aston Martin were both overtaken by the regulation change imposing a 3 litre limit on prototypes from 1968.

I seem to remember this was a fairly hasty change and ulimately Porsche and Ferrari were to circumvent it. XJ13 could have been running by '66. Maybe it wouldn't have worked but my whole idea of starting this thread was to ask why did Jaguar and Aston Martin give up trying? Lola were to homologate the T70 with Chevrolet engines. Did Aston Martin think, "oh well the Chevvies must be better than ours lets give up"?

[byrkus]

Then we have the DP214 Aston Martin, arguably the fastest GT of them all. OK it had its reliability problems but why did Astons choose to give up at the end of 1963? Having brought the car into existence in the first place why give up after a year?

I could be wrong, but AFAIK only two cars (DP214) were actually made, while GT regulations required 50 examples. Ferrari came out with 36 GTOs, however when they tried with 250LM in 1964, FIA made themselves clear that if they couldn't make 50 examples, they would had to drive in Prototype class. Which they eventually did.

However - they also produced modified 250 GTO/64, in very small volumes, way below 50 - and came out with it... Ditto Shelby Daytona. But I'm not so sure if Aston martin could do it with only 2 made. In 1963, certainly - but 1964? Not so certain.

[arttidesco]

I seem to remember this was a fairly hasty change and ulimately Porsche and Ferrari were to circumvent it. XJ13 could have been running by '66. Maybe it wouldn't have worked but my whole idea of starting this thread was to ask why did Jaguar and Aston Martin give up trying?

IIRC Sir William Lyons was always angling to build his business around selling world class sporting saloons than racing cars or sports cars, after the successes at Le Mans these were his priorities rather than keeping the Jaguar name at the front of the field a la Ferrari who was primarily interested in racing.

Maybe seeing how superior Edward Turners new Daimler V8 was to his own XK6 he realised it would only be a matter of time before the XK6 became obsolete in competition and that it was better to maximise the profits on his baby.

Let's also not forget that Sir William did not need much convincing to sell out to BMC in 1966 after BMC had bought Jaguar supplier Pressed Steel which pushed Jaguar down Pressed Steels pecking order.

Once Jaguar was ensconced in the machinations of the larger corporation it would have been very difficult to get the kind of consensus necessary to build 25 XJ13's.

How many at people at Porsche needed to be convinced before the go ahead was given to build the 917 ?

Probably not many and I suspect even fewer needed convincing at Ferrari/FIAT to build the 512.

[RCH]

I could be wrong, but AFAIK only two cars (DP214) were actually made, while GT regulations required 50 examples. Ferrari came out with 36 GTOs, however when they tried with 250LM in 1964, FIA made themselves clear that if they couldn't make 50 examples, they would had to drive in Prototype class. Which they eventually did.

However - they also produced modified 250 GTO/64, in very small volumes, way below 50 - and came out with it... Ditto Shelby Daytona. But I'm not so sure if Aston martin could do it with only 2 made. In 1963, certainly - but 1964? Not so certain.

The DP214 was always known in period as the DB4GT to preserve the pretence that it was nothing more than a rebodied DB4GT as the Zagatos were. It wasn't really of course but there was an awful lot of "interesting" homologation going on at the time. GT rules said that the body could be changed so long as the chassis remained the same, thus the GTO Ferrari was nothing more than a rebodied evolution of the 250GT SWB which in turn relied on different versions of the 250GT to achieve the numbers. Also the FIA appeared willing to homologate cars on the evidence that the 50 would be built in time even though nothing like that many had actually been built. They objected to Ferrari expecting them to do this which is why there was an almighty row over the 250LM.

[RCH]

I have been doing a bit of research into the racing career of the Mk. II Jaguar for a possible series of models and what has struck me is how quickly they disappeared from frontline saloon/touring car racing. For example comparing the 3 6-hour races at Brands Hatch the quickest Jaguars in '62 and '63 (Parkes, Salvadori and Salmon) were only beaten on practice times in'64 by Whitmore's Lotus Cortina. OK it's probably not a good idea to compare different years because conditions would have been different but I can't help feeling that a Mk. II with the right crew could have been on for a win in '64 or at least a decent placing yet seemingly no one even considered it. It was almost as though when the Mk. II ceased to be the dominant force they were almost deliberately removed from the scene. Yet a Mk. II was still capable of 5th. in the Spa 24 hours in '66.

[Ray Bell]

Sometimes it's easy to forget that the Lotus Cortinas were involved in the challenge to the Jags, isn't it?

We only had one Lotus Cortina here that really proved a challenge to the one Jag that was dominant. Bob Jane owned and drove the Jag, but he also had a Lotus Cortina, so they really never met. Jim McKeown threw out the challenge to it in concert with the Holden S4s and, to a lesser degree, the Cooper Ss.

But the changes to our regulations in 1965, allied to the introduction of the Mustang put paid to the Jaguar. Jane had met the challenge of the Chev Impala and the Galaxie beforehand, usually coming out on top, but not always. But he saw no future in keeping up a solo bulwark against the onslaught of the Mustang so he bought one of his own.

[RCH]

Sometimes it's easy to forget that the Lotus Cortinas were involved in the challenge to the Jags, isn't it?

We only had one Lotus Cortina here that really proved a challenge to the one Jag that was dominant. Bob Jane owned and drove the Jag, but he also had a Lotus Cortina, so they really never met. Jim McKeown threw out the challenge to it in concert with the Holden S4s and, to a lesser degree, the Cooper Ss.

But the changes to our regulations in 1965, allied to the introduction of the Mustang put paid to the Jaguar. Jane had met the challenge of the Chev Impala and the Galaxie beforehand, usually coming out on top, but not always. But he saw no future in keeping up a solo bulwark against the onslaught of the Mustang so he bought one of his own.

Ray, I think Bob Jane illustrates my point that the Mk. II didn't need to be killed off as a frontline racer as early as it was. He continued the battle against the big Yanks although the modifications he made wouldn't have been permitted in the UK. I may well be totally wrong but I suspect that any support Jaguar may have given to the better privateers disappeared at the end of 1963 and the word could almost have been, "we don't want to see them raced".

In some ways the Lotus Cortina did for the Jaguar more than the Galaxie. The Galaxies were big clumsy things and under certain circumstances like the Jaguar swansong, the Brands Hatch 6 hours of 1963, the Jaguars could make them look silly, they could never have done that to the Cortina.

[Macca]

Getting back to Jaguar and Aston.......in 1962 IIRC the capacity limit for prototypes was still theoretically 3 litres, so Aston DP212 (which was a 'toe in the water' return to racing) had to be counted as a GT. However Ferrari got away with running the 4-litre 330TRI which won, so for 1963 DP214 and 215 were an all-out attack on Le Mans, as was the Ferrari 330LMB which was essentially a coupe version of the 330TRI.

It turned out that the Ferrari 250P with a 3-litre engine was the fastest way round Le Mans, so there wasn't any point in anyone continuing with front-engine cars or with anything that resembled an existing road car.

It was only at the 1963 Goodwood TT that DP214 had to be a GT, hence the problem when put back on the narrow rims that were on the homologation papers.

(Maserati also were able to run the 4-litre V8 Tipo 151 coupes at LM in 1962)


Paul M

[RCH]

For 1962 the old 3 litre World Sportscar Championship was to come to an end, the World Championship was to be for GT cars. At this point Jaguar and presumably Aston pricked up their ears because there was a possibility of further Le Mans wins without needing expensive prototypes. However the organisers of the "Classic" sports car races; Le Mans, Sebring, Nurburgring etc. were horrified at the idea and cobbled together a prototype class which was for cars nearer to production standards with initially a capacity limit of 4 litres. The 4 litre limit only lasted for a year but the class was to be the origin of prototype racing to this day.

The DP212 Aston was run as a prototype in '62, but I can't help thinking it originated in someone's mind as a GT for the GT only Le Mans. The "Low Drag" E Type would presumably have been raced in the GT only '62 Le Mans but Jaguars immediately lost interest when an overall win wasn't on the cards. The 2 DP214s were built as GT cars but how on earth they got away with it I'll never know! The wheel row at Goodwood was because the scrutineer was being picky when presumably no one had noticed before, even at Le Mans!

[AJB]

I could be wrong, but AFAIK only two cars (DP214) were actually made, while GT regulations required 50 examples. Ferrari came out with 36 GTOs, however when they tried with 250LM in 1964, FIA made themselves clear that if they couldn't make 50 examples, they would had to drive in Prototype class. Which they eventually did.

However - they also produced modified 250 GTO/64, in very small volumes, way below 50 - and came out with it... Ditto Shelby Daytona. But I'm not so sure if Aston martin could do it with only 2 made. In 1963, certainly - but 1964? Not so certain.

GT Regs at the time required 100 cars to be made in a 12 month period, but you were allowed to "rebody", hence the 64 GTO and the Daytona Cobra. The only difference being that there really were more than 100 Cobras built in the first place .
The homologation requirement was reduced to 50 for the 1966 season; did Ferrari actually build 50 250LMs in a 12 month period, or even during the whole life of the car?

[RCH]

GT Regs at the time required 100 cars to be made in a 12 month period, but you were allowed to "rebody", hence the 64 GTO and the Daytona Cobra. The only difference being that there really were more than 100 Cobras built in the first place .
The homologation requirement was reduced to 50 for the 1966 season; did Ferrari actually build 50 250LMs in a 12 month period, or even during the whole life of the car?

As I recall there was a complete change of regs for 1966 and the old GT cars were either Group 3 GT, 500 off or Group 4 Sports 25 off. I think the FIA relented and allowed homologation of the 250LM in Group 4 before the requisite number was built although they did eventually build enough. I suspect they didn't allow the original GT homologation of the 250LM because they felt the category was nicely balanced; GTO, E Type, Cobra and Aston 214, when the 250LM would have thrashed them all. On the other hand the GT40 was the only car in the later Group 4 and needed a rival.

[Alan Baker]

As I recall there was a complete change of regs for 1966 and the old GT cars were either Group 3 GT, 500 off or Group 4 Sports 25 off. I think the FIA relented and allowed homologation of the 250LM in Group 4 before the requisite number was built although they did eventually build enough. I suspect they didn't allow the original GT homologation of the 250LM because they felt the category was nicely balanced; GTO, E Type, Cobra and Aston 214, when the 250LM would have thrashed them all. On the other hand the GT40 was the only car in the later Group 4 and needed a rival.

Not quite right. The new for '66 Appendix J regs did indeed specify 500 off for Group 3 GT cars, but the Group 4 figure was 50 off. The GT40 meet this but the 250LM did not, total production only reaching, IIRC, 32 by 1967. Notwithstanding this failure to comply with the rules, the LM was homologated into Group 4 in '66 anyway (largely because, as you say, the GT40 needed a rival). The number was reduced to 25 off in 1968 as a sop to Lola, who would otherwise have no market for the T70 Mk.III (although they didn't build 25 of them, Group 6 T70s being taken into account). Of course, that opened the door for Porsche.....