221 replies to this topic

[Joe Fan]

What a great sports car this was in the 1960's. A descendent of a Ford Mustang experimental car. Does anyone have any recommendations on good books about this car? I seen one today at Barnes and Noble bookstore titled "FORD GT40" but it cost $50 and it was a rather small book.

If anyone has any other comments to add about the Ford GT40 I would love to here them. I seen in the book above that the author felt the Mk IV version wasn't used as much as it should have and was in his opinion the better version. Does anyone know why the Mk IV version wasn't used that much in comparison to the other versions?

[f li]

Joe,

That was no Mustang/Maverick/Pinto. The 40 was an "Lola" under a different name. (If I'm wrong, you can put it down to "parity errors" - "bad sectors" or something of the like.

[Joe Fan]

The book I seen today had a chart which showed the evolution of the car. The first one apparently was derived from an experimental Ford Mustang in 1962 according to the book. The experimental Mustang was one that was never produced as far as I know by looking at the picture of it in the chart. Didn't Lola build the car for Ford?

[f li]

Joe,

From what I recall the actual GT40 was derived from the Lola. I think there was a Ford prototype (concept car) that looked sort of like the later GT40. Try and find a book on the Lola - you may have to mix and match to get at the truth.

This was the period when Ford was trying to buy Ferrari. The 40 came about after the buyout collapsed and Ford realized that they had to make their own name. I can't remember whether they went to Lola or Lola went to them.

[This message has been edited by f li (edited 03-05-2000).]

[Fast One]

According to Big John Surtees, who had more than a little to do with design and development at Lola in those days, the Ford GT was basically a variation of a Lola GT design. Surtees was amused that he had to race against a car he helped create.

The May, 1965 issue of Road & Track, which just happened to be sitting next to my PC says in an article on the GT-40, "...Ford began looking about for someone to build cars for its project, finally picking Englishman Eric Broadly, whose Lola GT coupe was very similar to designs on the boards at Ford, but was already in the testing stages.

Broadley is a construction engineer by training, who got into race car building as an avocation. Quiet and unassuming by nature, he is probably quite the equal of Colin Chapman as an engineer and, although he has received little credit for the project, he is the father of the Ford GT.

The next step was to undertake an extensive program of testing and research on the existing Lolas."

While the car naturally evolved from the original Lola design, it seems pretty clear that the original design and test sleds were Lola products. Naturally Ford's PR department would have loved for everyone to believe the car was home grown, but the truth is it was not.

[f li]

Fast One,

Do I get the points or credit for the assist?

Really, I don't think of it in terms like that - but it's nice to know that the brain has not yet turn "to mush."

[Joe Fan]

f li, the book I got this information from was printed in the UK and judging by author's writing and use of words, so was the author. So I believe that the information would be objective information. The first Ford Mustang that was introduced to the public was in the 1964 with the 1964 1/2. The experimental concept Ford Mustang that the book had shown on its chart stated that it was a 1962 car. The 1964 1/2 Ford Mustang was much smaller from what I could tell than this 1962 experimental Ford Mustang which looked alot more like the Ford GT40 than the 1964 1/2 Mustang. Judging by Fast One's post above, it probably was a hydrid.



[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 03-07-2000).]

[f li]

Joe,

I'd say they were rebadged "Lola" based on the R&T article. (I'm convinced that the 40 descends from two parents - Broadley's pen and Fords' money.)

Fast One,

I think Surtees' nickname is Fearless John. Yes, he had to drive Ferrari prototypes against the GT-40s. (Too bad the Italians couldn't deny Ford those lovely Weber carbs! - America Cup style - race what you make!)

[Fast One]

F li--

All points and credit are yours for the taking. Fearless John was known in Italy as Il Grande John, Big John. He went by both, and he went by pretty fast.

Joe--

I think what the article in R $ T made clear is that Ford had a design similar to Broadly's, but not as far along. So what they did was take the Lola design and develop it. The original design was NOT a hybrid, but the final product was a development of the Lola. That from an American magazine about an American car. They had no bias either. I think Ford's PR guys did a little creative rewriting of the facts afterwards to imply that the car was based on the Mustang prototype. That would sell cars, after all, n'est pas?

[f li]

Fast --

In his later years, he was hired by J. Hall to drive the "White Whale". He wasn't so fearless from what Hall said about him. But to go from a bike (you're totally un-enclosed) to the totally enclosed Chapparal apparently was too much. It must have been like driving a Gran Prix car while wearing binoculars!

[Joe Fan]

Here are some pictures I found of a 1962 Ford Mustang Prototype on the internet. I am not sure that this is the one identified in the book.







[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 03-05-2000).]

[f li]

Joe,

Have a look at http://www.gt40.org.uk/

Maybe someone there can settle the question.

Wasn't K. Miles was killed in Mark IV?


[This message has been edited by f li (edited 03-05-2000).]

[This message has been edited by f li (edited 03-05-2000).]

[Fast One]

F li--

I saw him drive that piece of **** in the Can Am. Not one of Hall's better efforts. Not one of John's either. One would have thought they would have been a formidable force together, but two strong wills don't necessarily mix. Hall was an innovator, while Surtees was more conservative in his approach to design. He hated that car and never had confidence in it, while Hall blamed the changes Surtees insisted on for ruining the car's performance. I admired the hell out of Jim Hall and John Surtees, but I've always felt Hall missed the boat with the 2H. Surtees said it was the worst car he ever drove, and describes its behavior in his autobiography: " It was immensely difficult to handle; when you got it up to speed it began pivotingaround its nose, so their answer was to fit bigger and bigger rear wings,which in turn killed the straight line speed." After Surtees walked away, no one else did anything with it, and I believe it was destroyed in a testing shunt.

Joe--

The front end of the concept car you show had a big influence on the design of the original GT-40 body. The Lola chassis was underneath, where it was not so obvious. If I recall right, that early body was treacherous at high speed. I seem to remember that it wanted to lift off the ground as it approached terminal velocity.

[Joe Fan]

f li, they look very similar to me.

The Ford GT40 (which was first introduced in 1964):



The 1962 Ford Mustang prototype car:
`



[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 03-05-2000).]

[f li]

Joe --

Would this convince you?

Ford Motor Company partnership deal results in legendary GT40, direct descendent of Mk 6 and eventual Le Mans winner. Wins 1966 - 1969.

see http://www.lolacars....frame-start.htm
select 1957-1965.

PS. Thanks for the memories!

[Ray Bell]

The Mustang was a toy, with a 4-cylinder engine. Only the name lived on, and in a much different car, as we all know.
At the time there was a lot of talk of Ford's massive computers being of great help in suspension design as the Lola GT (that was the proper name) was re-engineered to become the Ford GT 40.
Yes, Ken Miles was killed testing a 'J-Car' - a one-time name for the Mk 4 - at (I think) Riverside.
The other factor with the Lola GT was that it already had the Ford 260/289 V8 engine built in... the marriage was perfect.

------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

[Joe Fan]

Fast One, no because the Lola Mk6 GT was developed in 1963, one year after the 1962 Ford Mustang prototype. I am still convinced that the book is correct in naming the 1962 Ford Mustang prototype as the car that spawned the Ford GT40 (ie. the grandfather of the GT40).

click here: www.race-cars.com/utility/lolar.htm

It also states that Ford set up its Ford Advanced Vehicle division in Slough, England and purchased two of Broadley's Lola GT's to speed up the development of the car but it also states that the frame design was wholly revised. So the GT40 was as much its own car as it was anything else.

Check out paragraphs four and five here: www.gt40.org.uk/gt40st16.html



[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 03-05-2000).]

[Fast One]

Don't ever confuse our Joe with the facts!

[f li]

Fast One -

He has a book that indicates his line of thought is not wrong. It's up to us to bring up other relevant information to set the record straight in his mind.

[buddyt]

The Lola GT designed and built England's Eric Broadley is the forerunner of the Ford GT 40. The 40 number came about because the car measured at the roof was 40 inches high. Remember Ford had to put a bump in the roof for Dan Gurney in the car he and Foyt won Lemans,I think it was a Mark 7 version. That car may have been called the J car.

------------------
"Speed cost money, how fast do you want to go?"

[f li]

Joe,

If that Ford Mustang was the grandfather - it must have been the maternal grandfather! I'm convinced that the Lola GT was the father. (Joe, that's a Ford press release from 1966! Talk about bias - BIGOTTED would be more appropriate!)

Would Broadley have gone back to blank paper - or would he have resumed where he left off? I'd bet the latter! (Remember that he was under the gun!)

I'd bet that if the engine on that Mustang was not mid-engine, Joe, you'd drop your argument.

Now all we need to know is where is the engine on that "prototype."

[This message has been edited by f li (edited 03-05-2000).]

[Joe Fan]

f li, the Ford press release was from Ford of Britain, not the U.S. so biased could it be? Also I am sure that the 1962 Mustang prototype was mid or rear engined. Look at the photo above. It would be stupid to put side vents where they are located on that car, to cool and get air to what? The trunk? No, the engine (especially with the vent openings that big) as there is no grill in front of the car or vents on the hood.

Like I stated earlier, the Ford GT40 probably was a hydrid of the 1962 Mustang prototype car that Ford developed and the Lola Mk6 GT car but it was as much of its own car as anything else.



[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 03-05-2000).]

[Joe Fan]

Buddyt, the J car had a 7 liter engine if I remember correctly (that is probably where you got the Mk 7 from) but went by the name Mk IV. It was initially designed by Ford's styling department but suffered aerodynamic problems. The car was further developed by Kar-Kraft in Dearborn, Michigan were it was improved aerodynamically with wind tunnel testing. As you indicated in your post, this car (the Mk IV version) won the 1967 Le Mans race as a completely all-American entry: American drivers (Gurney and Foyt), with an American designed and built car and engine.

[Art]

Was the Lola GT not raced at Speedweek in the Bahamas with a Chevrolet engine just before Ford took over the car? And Ford also had the new Calliope engine ready when the rules were changed? Twin cams in the block and five valve heads about 630Hp?

Art NX3L

[Ray Bell]

I've never heard of a Chev-powered Lola GT, but at Nassau and during those wonderful weeks of post-season racing in the US, who knows what decent things anyone might have done to such a car?

Certainly that little Mustang was rear (or mid) engined, but at the time there was nobody, absolutely nobody, who gave any credit whatever to it giving anything at all to the GT40. Joe, you have to get off this case, or you will be WRONG!

I had a chance to look up details on this piddly little thing (relative to the GT40, that is):

Engine: V4 1500cc Taunus, 1x dual choke Solex carby, headers, 9.5:1 comp, 90mm x 50.88mm bore & stroke, pushrod ohv.
Power: 85bhp** & 89 ft lbs torque.
Gearbox: transaxle with 4-speeds, 4.02; 2.33; 1.48; 1:1.
Final drive 3.3:1
Brakes: Disc front drum rear, both 9.5"
Chassis: Multi tube chrome moly, body in aluminium. Chassis design by ex-Aston Martin man, Roy Lunn
Suspension: Front: dual wishbones. Rear: dual wishbones with torque rods. Springing medium: combination of torsion bars and coils, I don't know what combination.
Wheels: Lotus wobblies with 4 studs, 5.50 x 13 tyres (Dunlop SP on test car)
Steering: rack & pinion, 2.9 turns lock to lock, 30' turning circle.
Weight of prototype: 1900lbs (wet & with driver, I think).
Wheelbase: 90" Track: Fr: 48", Rear: 49"
Overall specs: 154.3" long, 61" wide, 39.4" high.
Performance: 0-30, 4.1s; 0-50, 8.0s; 0-60, 11.1s; 0-80, 19.4s; 0-100 - 34.1s.
Stdg qtr: 17.4 @ 76mph; Km: 32.5s.
Speedo error. Grows to 2% optomistic @ 100.
Speeds in gears: 38; 60; 80; 111mph.

** In Bernie's test he assumes this to be the power. The spec sheet says 100bhp, but the people who gave him the car said it had the standard 65bhp engine from the Taunus 12M. He estimated they were lying and said he though 85.

In all. this car was a competitor to things like the Lotus Elan. But it would have lost something in the translation to production, for the body would have gone to steel, probably with some variation to the chassis as the body took some of the torsional stresses. The prototype only had a plastic windscreen, so more weight there... It would have finished up at around a ton, perhaps.

Most interesting is just what the gearbox was. Perhaps it was simply a ZF production transaxle, as used in so many things in those days. Which means a big, heavy box capable of handling small V8 torque and much too big for this car. Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying a bigger engine would have been shoe-horned in at all - though the stablemate V6 would have probably gone close - but very tight.

Details from SCG, January 1964 - which means this car was first seen in 1963. Wasn't that the same time as the Lola GT?

------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

[Art]

Ray Bell.

I remember it quite well As I was a GT40 fan and my buddy would stick a magazine in my face With a picture of the chevy powered Lola at Nassau. And from what I have read the MK 1,MK 2,and MK 3s were made in England and the twelve MK IVs were built by Kar Kraft with honey combed bonded chassis. And the J came from the car serial number. But thats only from this senile mind.

Art NX3L

[Joe Fan]

Ray Bell, are those specs suppose to be for the 1962 Mustang prototype? I am assuming so.

I have been able to find that the air scoops found on the side of 1962 Mustang prototype were developed by Ford and thus were used on the Ford GT40. Possibly, the front suspension too but the rear suspension was from the Lola GT. If the above specs are for the Mustang prototype then I have found conflicting information on the weight. BTW, the 1962 Mustang prototype was a mid-engined car as I had thought. Check www.safezone.net/~darrylc/mustang1.htm

Also perhaps since the prototype Mustang was 39.4 inches in height, perhaps this also can be attributed to the design concept for the Ford GT40 (where the "40" in GT40 was for 40 inches in height) since the Lola GT was 42 inches in height. I seriously don't think that the Ford GT40 book I seen would include a 1962 Ford Mustang experimental/prototype car as being one of the cars that the GT40 descended from unless there was some validity to it.



[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 03-06-2000).]

[Ray Bell]

I repeat, the Mustang prototype was a baby car, nothing - repeat, NOTHING - would have carried over to the GT40.
As to weight, the weight I have is from the SCG test, which says "weight as tested," so probably includes driver, full tank etc.
Yes, it is mid-engined, never said any different to that, excepting that this is loosely termed 'rear engined'.

------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

[Fast One]

Ray--

We all know by now that Joe's parallel universe allows for nothing that is not American to be good. For the Great American Racing Car to be British is more than Joe can take! Airscoops indeed!

Joe-- We love you but you can't win this unless you are in one of Turtledove's alternate realities. There was no shame in Ford taking over the Lola GT. They still built the engines and evolved the car. And they won Le Mans! There's plenty to be proud of without obsessing on that Mustang Toy Car prototype. Ford of Britain is still FORD. It was still in the companies interest in selling Mustangs to imply a connection between the Ford GT and Mustang. Car companies fudge like that all the time. Trans Am and NASCAR cars have almost no parts at all made by the manufacturer the pretend to be. Those PR releases are about selling cars, not writing history.

P.S.- Hope your Mom is doing well.

[This message has been edited by Fast One (edited 03-06-2000).]

[f li]

Art, buddyt, Fast, Joe, Ray

Many thanks for bringing back some old memories! And Ray, to my ears Kendall sounds very "bittersweet."

[Jonathan]

Joe Fan

The Mustang I concept car shares absolutely NOTHING with either the GT-40 or the Ford Falcon sourced production Ford Mustang.

The Mustang I concept car used a 1700 cc 60 degree V-4 engine origionaly developed for Fords "Cardnal project". Ford had spent roughly 30 million on the Cardnal project - a serious attempt to develope a small Front Wheel Drive production enconomy car for use in the United States - before a cetain Mr. Lee Iacoca, in his infinite wisdom killed this project and set about designing a car that appealed to American tastes. The resulting Mustang had abosulutly no revolutionary engineering, and in fact used existing Ford Falcon power train and suspension components extensivly. As we all know the Mustang proved to be a phenomenal success.

The 60 Degree V4 and V6 engines developed for the Cardnal project were eventually either sold or given to Ford of Germany. The V4 was used in the German Ford Taunas before being sold to SAAB of Sweden. The V6 surfased in 2.6 and 2.8 Litre form in the Ford Capri of the early 1970ies. This Same V-6 later resurfased (in 4.0 Litre form) in the Ford Bronco II and Explorer Sport Utility Vehicles sold in America.

[Ray Bell]

Jonathan - I'd be very surprised if the Capri V6 went on to bigger and better things. In fact, there were two (as far as I know) distinctly different engines in the V6 Capris.
The German one was 2.6-litres and a much lighter block than the 3-litre that came out originally in the Mk 4 Zephyr in about 1964. There was the later Cosworth variants up to about 3.2 litres, and I'm sure they were built on the German block. Once again, it was much lighter.
There remains the V4 possibility, therefore, that the British V4 (Transit vans, Consul) was a lump with two cylinders chopped off their Zephyr engine. They were dreadful things.
SCG's specs and story repeatedly go for 1500cc for this Mustang prototype, by the way, but it would not surprise me if the Taunus 12M had a 1700cc version. But later on.

------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

[Joe Fan]

Well Jonathan and others, looks like I am going to have to buy the book (GT40) to see why they included the 1962 Mustang prototype at the top of their GT40 progression chart. If the car had asolutely nothing in common with the GT40, then why would it be included in their book? I have found information that the side air scoops from the 1962 prototype were developed by Ford and subsequently carried over to the GT40.

Here are some things to be aware of.

1) Roy Lunn designed the 1962 Mustang prototype and then later moved to the Ford Advanced Vehicle division as a Manager where the GT40 was designed. Hmmm...

2) It should be very obvious that the 1964 1/2 Mustang design-wise looked nothing like the 1962 prototype plus the the actual production Mustangs were front engined when the 1962 prototype was mid-engined as I mentioned above.

3) The knowledge that I have found is pretty convincing that the GT40 was not a rebadged Lola GT car. Ford bought two of the Lola GT cars from Broadly mainly to test new components and try different things with them in his cars. The whole frame design was revised. Plus the body of Broadley's Lola GT's were all one piece--not the case with the Ford GT40.

[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 03-06-2000).]

[Joe Fan]

Ok, I just bought the book and here is how the chart shows the progression:

1) 1962 Mustang I (Experimental Sports)-->
2) 1964 Ford Mark I GT-40 (F.I.A. GT Prototype)--->
3) 1965 Ford Mark I-A GT-40 (F.I.A. GT Prototype)--->
4) 1966 Ford GT-40 (F.I.A. Production Sports)-->
5) Mirage (J.W. Engineering F.I.A. Sports Prototype)

3) 1965 Ford Mark I-A GT-40-->
A) 1965 Ford Mark II (F.I.A. Sports Prototype)-->
B) 1966 Ford Mark II-A (F.I.A. Sports Prototype)->
C) 1967 Ford Mark II-B (F.I.A. Sports Prototype)

3A) 1965 Ford Mark II led to two cars--->
(i) 1965 Ford X-I (Experimental Modified Sports which was open cockpit)
(ii) 1966 Ford "J" Car (Experimental Sports Prototype) which led to--->1967 Ford Mark IV (F.I.A. Sports Prototype)

4) 1966 Ford GT-40 led to--->
A) 1967 Ford Mark III



[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 03-06-2000).]

[Roger Clark]

I am sure that the GT40 had no resemblance to any Mustang and that Eric Broadley and lola cars were under contract during 1963 to develop it. THe basic concept was the Lola Mk6. However, even Anglophiles have to admit that the GT40 only became succesful in 1966 and 67 when it was American through and through: run by Shelby American, Hollman and Moody and KarKraft. THe Le Mans winning cars followed the American idela of no substitute for cubic inches (and dollars). They really were all-American victories (with some help from the All Blacks in '66)

[Duane]

Looks like you just wasted $50.00!

Whoever wrote that has obviously done very little research. To whom or what do they attribute that chart!?

Maybe they are just proclaiming that this was Ford's 'thought progression' for producing a mid engined car.

Joe, as stated many times above, the GT 40 started, as a design and engineering process, with the Lola.

Don't believe everything you read, including what's here, but just because something is printed does make it gospel, Heck, even gospel isn't gospel! Unfortunately, it seems you have chosen to believe the incorrect source.

As to why they would print something incorrect or misleading - maybe they assumed there had to be a Ford progression, or maybe Ford sponsored the book, or maybe they didn't do research, maybe they just wanted to steal your money...

[This message has been edited by Duane (edited 03-06-2000).]

[Joe Fan]

Roger, you are correct. The Ford GT40 Mark II that won the 1966 Le Mans was a GT40 car that was completed as a Mark II at Shelby American (chassis number-GT40P 1046). The 1967 Le Mans winner was a product of the U.S. Ford Division and Kar-Kraft.

Duane, basically the 1962 Mustang I prototype shown in pictures in one of my posts above played a part GT40 program as a lead in. The first clay models of the original design study of the GT40 looked very much like this 1962 Mustang I prototype but the shape was not adopted because the smooth nose lines would have been broken up by the pop-up headlamps. However, the shape of the first GT40 didn't vary that much this design study. The body of the first GT40 was designed in the USA and a clay master was shipped to England where very few changes were made before moulds were taken for the glassfibre panels according to the book. The GT40 was first visualized as a car with side radiators like the Mustang I prototype. The 1962 Mustang I played a conceptual role for the GT40 in the beginning but the author proclaims the Lola GT as the "progenitor" of the first GT40. However, he states later that the first GT40 was not a refined Lola GT.

Overall, my feeling is the 1962 Mustang I prototype served as a starting point for the GT40 conceptual-wise. Roy Lunn (who designed the Mustang I prototype) was the manager of the Ford Advanced Vehicle division in Slough, England, he along with other Ford executives basically sought more highly specialized help in the collaborated effort for the GT40 program. They looked to Lotus and Lola. Concern was that the GT40 might become another Lotus-Ford, so this led them to Eric Broadley who had the Lola GT which met what they had in mind (ie. similar to the 1962 Mustang prototype)--a low, sleek GT coupe already fitted with a more powerful Ford V8 engine. At the time, Ford didn't have that much experience producing mid-engined cars (mid-engined cars were alien to American tradition) and mid-engined cars were becoming the trend in sportscar racing with a mid-engined car (a Ferrari 250P)being victorious in the 1963 Le Mans for the first time.

[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 03-06-2000).]

[Ray Bell]

Okay, Joe, I'll bow to the side scoops. They were probably an aerodynamic twist that worked and that the stylists could see to be of some value.
However, wasn't the Mirage a Cosworth-powered thing, probably borrowing more from F1 practices?

------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

[Joe Fan]

Ray, I'll check but this book doesn't have an index so I have to comb through the book.

[Roger Clark]

Ray,
John Wyer's first Mirage was a modified GT40 in 1967. It was modified sufficiently to be ineligible for Gp5 when the rules changed at the end of that year. JW rreverted to a standard GT40 in 68 for the successful Gulf sponsored programme. The Cosworth pwered Mirages were later, after the completion of the Porsche 917 programme I think.

[Joe Fan]

Ray, here is what I have found so far:

"The Mirage programme continued in the face of disillusionment at the power outputs of BRM V12s, a high drag coefficient, and many lesser short comings. However, it had been designed to accept the Ford-Cosworth DFV as an alternative, and when these V8s eventually became available to JWA a DFV-powered Mirage appeared. It suffered the vibration problems that sportscar teams using the DFV and DFL a dozen years later were to experience, but late in 1969 an open Mirage M3 was competitive, and won a secondary race. However, that was almost academic, for months earlier Porsche had approached Wyer to run their 'official' 917 team in 1970."

So, guess this is how those Gulf-colored Porsche 917's evolved that are famous in the Steve McQueen movie "Le Mans." Note: John Wyer was one of the initial people involved with the GT40 program as he was the European manager of Ford Advanced Vehicles. I always thought these cars looked to much like the Gulf colored GT40 that Jackie Ickx and Jackie Oliver won the 1969 Le Mans with.

[This message has been edited by Joe Fan (edited 03-07-2000).]

[f li]

Joe,

You've driven me to drive to Border's, where I found a book on Lola's racing and endurance cars. Art's right about a Chev powered Lola at Nassau with A. Pabst driving. The quote from E. Broadley about the Ford job goes along the lines of it was a step backwards as the powers to be required a steel chassis. Another book uses the term "Lola-derived" in its writeup of the GT-40. The third tells how Ford was on the verge of buying Ferrari in 1963 when talks collapsed. The Ford higher ups at Le Mans that year were impressed by the Lola that got as high as 6th before failing and approached Broadley.

PS. If you saw that Lola 6 and didn't know better you'd swear it was a GT-40. If you want to go on believing that that concept car was the father of the GT-40, I can't stop you!

[Joe Fan]

f li, I have already seen a picture of the Lola GT that supposedly was the progenitor of the Ford GT40. The original clay model design of the GT40 looked the 1962 Mustang prototype, especially the nose if you were to see it. However, I guess that they had to change the shape to allow for the headlights. So, the final body shape looked like a hybrid of the Lola GT and the 1962 Mustang prototype. The Lola GT had a shorter more bug like nose. Call me stupid or naive but I still believe the 1962 Mustang I prototype to be the starting point for the creation of the Ford GT40. There even was an open cockpit version produced of the GT40 that looked alot more like the Mustang I prototype.

[Ray Bell]

Good old Augie! Had the sense to fit a Chevy...

------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

[Jonathan]

Joe

You may well be correct that the same people responsible for the Mustang I concept later moved on to bigger and better things and used some of these same concepts on some of the design & styling elements of the GT-40.

However suggesting that the Mustang I is somehow related to the Lola designed GT-40 really made my skin crawl !


Ray Bell

I am not familiar with the English Ford "Zepher" 3.0 Litre engine so I really can't comment much on this engine. Did this engine ever find its way in America ? From your comments about it, I think we are actually very fortunate !

I am however very certain that the German Ford Capri (as imported into the US in the early and mid 1970ies) was available in BOTH 2.6 Litre and 2.8 Litre form. It may well have been worked over somewhat before being expanded to the now currently available 4.0 Litre displacement (although I think they all they did was bore it out some). This engine is instantly recognizable in that is features slightly 'off-set'/staggered valve covers. Pehaps Art has one of these engines in his wife's SUV ?

A very popular hot-rodders engine swap for die hard ICE RACERS in the US used to be to remove the whimpy (but extremly durable) SAAB V4 engine from a SAAB Sonnet 'sports car' and replace it with the Ford V6 (after relocating the radiator in back, out of the airstream). These engines were directly interchangeable so it was a fairly easy swap, although the V4 did use special 'balance shafts' to try and smooth out some of its inherent imbalance...

[Ray Bell]

Not having been to the US, I couldn't really say if the Zephyr V6 made it there.
But, even though the 'Cologne' V6 (that was the current terminology to distinguish it from the 'Dagenham' unit) did go to 2.8 and larger in the Cosworth version, I really don't believe it would have gone to 4 litres.
Remembering that it was engine weight that was the problem with the British version, it's highly unlikely that the Cologne engine carried that kind of surplus size with it.
You will notice that all (or at least almost all) rocker covers are offset from side to side. The reason for this is that one set of rods has to preceed the other on the crankshaft - and they usually don't offset the rods and pistons to compensate. This is the case with virtually all vee engines.

------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

[buddyt]

This is a great discussion we have going. Keep it up, I haved learned more about one of my favorite cars than from many books. Never saw a GT 40 race in real life just a couple in the historic races I have been to. There was a kit car company, can not remember its name but they had a kit for a VW frame that looked like a GT 40.

------------------
"Speed cost money, how fast do you want to go?"

[Ray Bell]

I sure hope a VW-powered GT40 didn't turn you on, Buddy.
I recall seeing those advertised in R & T etc in the late sixties and seventies.

------------------
Life and love are mixed with pain...

[Ray Bell]

Seeing as we're all trying to learn:
Did any of those books establish what gearbox either the Mustang prototype or the GT40 had, or the Lola GT for that matter?
Was it a ZF?

[f li]

buddyt,

If you think the GT-40 was nice, we'll have to find you a 904 or a Carrera 6! Either of them approaches BB in her prime!

PS. If you don't know who BB is - you don't belong in Nostalgia! (But we'll let you lurk!)