23 replies to this topic

[Doug Nye]

Thought you chaps might be interested in reading the following - written by Bob Ash, a friend of mine who has been working on the preservation/restoration of perhaps the most original and unspoiled surviving 7-litre Ford GT Mark IIB.

"MKIIB GT40P#1031/1047... "PRESERVATION" OR "RESTORATION"?

"Often a complex question... but in the case of #1031/1047, the answer is simple:
Preservation, tempered with a prudent amount of restoration.

Making the case for "preservation" is a no brainer in the case of #1031/1047. In a world of cars that have either been restored to "Pebble Beach standards" or morphed into "modern day NASCAR racers" for vintage racing, this car is a refreshing example of neither. Considered by many to be the most original remaining MKIIB left in existence, good stewardship dictates that it should not undergo a full bore restoration. Nor should it now be turned into a weekend warrior to satisfy a latent "Walter Mitty" desire.

Another interesting twist to why this MKIIB should not be restored has to do with what turns out to be a rather common factor amongst the famous Ford MKII's... confusion about which car was which at some point in their timelines. This is no small factor and deserves some explanation. Since #1031/1047 is probably the most original MKIIB left, its unrestored state holds many unique and historical details that already have been lost on some of the other MKIIs.

During the 1960's the factory MKII teams (Shelby American, HM, etc) obviously cared more about winning races, than for example, worrying that a body latch scribed with #1032 was attached to chassis #1031 during a rebuild. Likewise, if a new front clip was needed to repair a car, one may well have been pulled from another MKII's spare parts pile to meet a deadline.

Combine the unintentional parts swapping of the 1966/67 race seasons with some 35 years of subsequent restorations (using parts culled from Shelby's and HM's leftover stockpiles), and it is not surprising that several MKIIs have come to rest with another MKII's engine, suspension components or serial number plate.

While it is not the intention of racing icons to offer definitive reasons for the twists and turns in each and every MKII's identification lineage, it is our hope that through "preservation" and the proper examination/documentation of this particular MKIIB, the knowledge base of all MKIIs will be enhanced.

Now that the main reasons for "preservation" of this car have been discussed, what about the "prudent amount of restoration" mentioned earlier? Here we need to clarify why any "restoration" is needed in the first place... and the answer goes back to good stewardship again. A very important aspect of preserving a car is simply making sure it physically survives into the future.

Like most race cars, the lifetime of a MKII was expected to be measured in the number of races entered and laps completed, not in the number of subsequent owners and decades of survival. To satisfy performance parameters, the original builders made ample use of lightweight steel panels for the tub and aluminum or magnesium to produce water tubes, suspension uprights, wheels, radiator, etc. Some 35 years later, these parts are slowly succumbing to internal corrosion, rust and galvanic reaction. This is where the "prudent amount of restoration" term comes into play... carefully restoring the affected areas for longevity, while minimizing any disturbance of authentic patina.

Now that the philosophical aspects of this "preservation/restoration" project has been presented, examining the "timeline" or specific history of this MKII is the next logical topic to delve into...

#1031/1047's HISTORY

By now you probably are thinking why the double #1031/1047 serial number?
The reason will become more obvious as the "timeline" for this MKII is presented.

As with many race cars, accurate race history is often challenging to document. This is especially true when you are searching into the 35+ year old records of a Ford MKII. While there was considerable documentation originally produced by Ford Motor Company, Ford Advanced Vehicles Ltd., Shelby American and Holman Moody, most of it has since found its way into private collections or archives. Fortunately, there were a few individuals who kindly offered to share their information for this worthwhile project... and to them we (racing icons and the present owner) are most grateful! #1031/1047's post 1960s information was also challenging to find, for after the 1967 race season the car led a fairly low key existence in a couple of private car collections in France. Nonetheless, after culling thru many pages of documents and comparing hundreds of original photos against how this car exists today, a definitive "timeline" has surfaced for #1031/1047.

Recognizing that the history of any car never seems to be really complete or 100% accurate, we welcome anyone to correct or add to the following information we've found to date...

Original documents from Ford Advanced Vehicles Ltd and Shelby American indicate that this particular chassis was originally built as GT40P/1031 (complete w/ doors, sill panels & windshield). It was scheduled for delivery by TWA flight 581 on Nov 5th. 1965 to Shelby American for final build up into a MKIIA.

Ford Motor Company and Shelby American memorandums indicate #1031 was initially scheduled to run the 1966 Daytona 24 Hour Continental as a Shelby American entry, but it now appears that its first race event was actually the 1966 Sebring 12 Hour Endurance. Pre-race qualifying went well, with Dan Gurney setting a new lap record of 2min54.9. He and co-driver Jerry Grant looked to be a dominant force in the medium metallic blue painted #2. After stalling on the starting line, records show #1031 took over the race lead after approx 1.5 hrs and held it until the very last corner... when the engine blew. With encouragement from a corner worker, Gurney pushed #1031 across the finish line... summarily disqualifying the car and costing what would have been a 2nd place finish.

#1031's next competitive event was 1966 Le Mans. After Shelby American prepped and tested #1031 at Riverside in late May 1966, the car was shipped to France where Holman and Moody assumed final qualification and race prep duty. Painted in dark metallic blue and assigned race #6, #1031 was to be co-driven by Mario Andretti and Lucien Bianchi. Prospects were looking good during qualifying as Bianchi was on the way to setting a new Le Mans track record of 3min 29 seconds... until he was caught up in heavy traffic in front of the pits. Starting the race gridded 12th, #1031 had moved up to 6th place when a dropped valve in the 6th hour resulted in a disappointing DNF.

The next chapter of history for #1031 was far less exciting than Le Mans. After Ford’s impressive 1966 1-2-3 Le Mans victory, they decided to do a "publicity tour" of GTs that would crisscross their USA dealer structure. After #1031 was shipped back to Shelby American from Le Mans, it was given some show car prep and sent out Aug 11th, 1966 to tour the central dealer region. (Quite a status change for #1031... to go from running 200mph down the Mulsanne straight to sitting on a single car trailer behind a red 1966 Ford Ranchero on Route 66).

#1031 ended up at the Holman and Moody factory Dec. 1966. As a result of testing done in December with another MKII at Daytona, #1031 acquired several new MKIIB revisions at Holman and Moody (interior/dash modifications, revised roll cage, 2-4 induction, K/H brakes, etc). Repainted in a metallic bronze and wearing #5, the car was driven by Mario Andretti and Richie Ginther at the Feb 1967 Daytona Continental 24 hours. With six MKIIs entered, 1967 Daytona was to be a hot contest between Ferrari, Ford and Chaparral.

Shortly after the start, 1967 Daytona was soon to be known as the "MKII gearbox changing marathon", with every MKII using up all of the T-44s on hand. #1031 managed to survive for 12 hours before retiring.

Shortly after Daytona, high speed testing of a MKII with the newly developed MKIIB bodywork at Kingman, Az. resulted in speeds approaching 212mph (despite 30mph crosswinds). Under the preparation of Holman and Moody, #1031 was fully updated to MKIIB specs (including the new bodywork, revised brake ducting, dry deck block, aluminum tunnel port heads, etc). Repainted in dark blue, assigned #2 and with AJ Foyt and Lloyd Ruby as drivers, #1031 was entered in the April 1967 Sebring 12 Hours event. Qualifying with a 2min53.6, #1031 was 3rd on the grid at the start. After running in 2nd place for most of the race, #1031 finally retired after some 226 laps... still good enough to claim 2nd place (based upon distance traveled).

The next event for #1031 was to be 1967 Le Mans. It is at this point in time a question arises....

While we know who prepared the car (Holman and Moody) and when it was shipped from H/M to S/A (April 20th), and when S/A shipped the car to France (May 29th)... there remains a question as to the car's serial number plate.

Due to discrepancies in paperwork between H/M, Ford and S/A, it is unclear exactly what serial number this chassis actually carried when it raced at Le Mans. Holman and Moody documents indicate the light blue MKIIB they prepped and shipped was chassis #1031. Ford's paperwork refers to the light blue MKIIB as chassis #1047. Shelby American documents list the light blue MKIIB as chassis #1047 (although there's one document where a #1031 notation is under #1047).

In all honesty, whether this car carried a serial number plate with #1031 or #1047 is a moot point... as it doesn't change its history just how we might refer to it. Until an official 1967 Le Mans entry document surfaces (or a close-up photo of the serial number plate), we won't definitively know whether #1031 or #1047 was on the car from mid April to early June, 1967.

Nonetheless, several facts help us to reach some basic conclusions:

1. This chassis was always identified as #1031 right up to shortly before 1967 Le Mans. Dozens of original 1966/1967 photographs & documents prove that. The discovery of the original paint layers from all of its races (med blue metallic, dark blue metallic, metallic bronze & dark blue) still on the pinch-welds of the greenhouse, further substantiates the car as #1031. (Yes, these paint layers will be preserved indefinitely.)

2. This MKIIB has never been restored and there are hundreds of other details still existing on the car that match with all of the original photographs of #1031 at 1966 events and early 1967 events and #1047 at post 1967 Le Mans events.

3. The chairman of Ford of France in 1967 (Henri Chemin) has stated in writing that the light blue #57 MKIIB that was given to him by Shelby American and Henry Ford was serial number #1047.

4. A little less than two weeks after Le Mans, this same light blue MKIIB (under Ford France ownership) won the June 24/25 1967 Reims 12-Hour event. Dozens of original 1967 photographs document that fact. Interestingly, original photographs of this car at the Reims event also clearly show a small FoMoCo serial number plate on the bulkhead (the car still has a small FoMoCo plate with #1047 today). According to Henri Chemin, this same light blue #1047 MKIIB went on to race at 1967 Mugello (4th place) and the Paris 1000Kms at Montlhery (4th place).

5. Official documents from Ford Motor Company and Shelby American (dated 1967) indicate the official transfer of ownership of MKIIB #1047 from Ford USA to Ford of France.

Now that we have run thru the "timeline" of this MKII as best as we are currently able... let's noodle out a summary conclusion:

An abundance of facts prove that this MKII was originally built and campaigned as chassis #1031. More facts tell us that around May/June 1967 this chassis became known as #1047. Later in 1967, this MKII was officially designated by Ford Motor Company (holder of the original MSO) as #1047 and ownership was transferred to Ford of France. Ford of France successfully raced the car in 1967 as #1047 and made an important footnote in the records books by recording the final win for a MKII and the ONLY first place finish for a MKIIB.

Now for the rationale behind identifying this MKII as #1031/1047. While a few other Ford GT40s have (for various reasons) had their original chassis numbers superseded with later chassis numbers (ie #1004 became #1084, Mirage M10003 became #1074), it would be foolish and disingenuous to do that with this MKII.

By identifying this MKII as #1031/1047, the rich racing heritage this MKII earned early on as #1031 and later as #1047 is duly honored!"

Comments - observations - quibbles - corrections - all welcome, of course...

DCN

[Don Capps]

A small breath of sanity in an ordinarily obscene world......

My vote is always for Preservation first for exactly the reasons given here. I find this a most interesting tale and most certainly enjoyed it......

[Gerr]

As I recall, there were only two MKIIB's at LeMans in 1967. Both had accidents at night.

Could this car have been repaired with parts from both wrecks ?

[Ted Walker]

Doug. What is the history AFTER Ford France ??? Did the carcome to theUK ?? I seem to remember sitting in an Ford France car under the trees in John Harpers garden . I think he sold it to John Broad.

[Peter Morley]

Originally posted by Ted Walker
Doug. What is the history AFTER Ford France ??? Did the carcome to theUK ?? I seem to remember sitting in an Ford France car under the trees in John Harpers garden . I think he sold it to John Broad.

A friend of mine who's father (Peter Anderson?) used to work for Lotus and later Ford France told me that his father turned up at home (London) with a Ford France GT40 one night - at least one of them (did they have more than 1?) must have been in the UK at some point?

[starlet]

Originally posted by Peter Morley

... with a Ford France GT40 one night - at least one of them (did they have more than 1?) ...

Ford France also had a GT40 # 1020.

[HEROS]

Ford France had three GT 40, first of all #1003 who made its debuts at Nürburgring
1000 km 1965, then the second car #1007 and finally as said it Starlet, #1020.

As for the GT 40 P 1047 Mk II, it was "lent" to Ford France who entered it under its
colors with Schlesser and Ligier who notably won the Reims 12 Hours with it.

[Don Capps]

As I read and then re-read Bob Ash's thoughts on Ford GT Mk II 1031/1047, I was struck by how reasoned and methodical it was. Patient and plodding, but very nicely orchestrating all the bits and pieces into a story which makes one sit up and go, "Well, yeah....."

What makes it even more interesting to me is that it is much what happens when a historian finds a piece of evidence or an artifact that has not been tampered with by grave robbers or "restored" by those in The Antique Business so as to eliminate any of the imperfections which make it important in helping a picture of the time and place get established. Having the Mark II largely as it was and complete with all the bits and misfit bits that are part and parcel of the real racing world was a huge factor.

This largely how I view the true utilities of these vehicles. Obviously a minority view, but last night I muddled through some of my notes and the case for 1031 and 1047 being one and the same certainly makes since in light of the evidence that Ash have presented and where he found it.

This gives me that brief moment of hope to enjoy before it gets dashed by reality again....


One thing that has always puzzled me in these sorts of circles. Say Maserati 250F 2599 gets vamped up for historic racing -- bitza stuff from here and there to make it safe you know so we couldn't use the original this or that so we used to resurrect 2588... -- and Walter Mitty Wheezer smashes 2599 into an imoveable object doing it great harm, writing off the chassis frame in fact. So, a NEW chassis frame is jigged up, welded together, and pushed out the door as, yes, 2599.... Everyone continues to call it 2599, but how can it be if the frame is a small pile of bent tubes and the engine isn't the original 2599 that was in the frame when it was delivered but is from 2577.... Oh, did I mention that at one point 2599 used the papers of 2566 for the 1956 GP of Erehwon? Or that the original chassis for 2599 had to be replaced when Lord Vader hit the only tree at the Nonsense GP in 1955? The new 2599 originally used 2575 but then became 2599. Well, I think it was 2752, maybe it was 2557...? Oh, and the original frame was used for 2590 which replaced 2580 which also used 2595 for awhile in 1957. Oh, did I tell you that we use the bent chassis of 2599 to rebuild 2593 since we have some parts from 2593 that we hand incorporate into the car? All very somple really.... From such is history written....

[David McKinney]

"only the numbers have been changed to protect the innocent"

[Peter Morley]

Originally posted by Don Capps

One thing that has always puzzled me in these sorts of circles. Say Maserati 250F 2599 gets vamped up for historic racing -- bitza stuff from here and there to make it safe you know so we couldn't use the original this or that so we used to resurrect 2588... -- and Walter Mitty Wheezer smashes 2599 into an imoveable object doing it great harm, writing off the chassis frame in fact. So, a NEW chassis frame is jigged up, welded together, and pushed out the door as, yes, 2599.... Everyone continues to call it 2599, but how can it be if the frame is a small pile of bent tubes and the engine isn't the original 2599 that was in the frame when it was delivered but is from 2577....

That is where the concept of 'standing in the spot occupied by' comes into it.
The car has been known as XYZ and continues to be known as such.
It is of course the same story as the groundkeepers axe, or Trigger's broom.

What is a shame is that many restorers reckon that chassis (that was only designed to last a year or so) are too dangerous to use for historic racing (these tend to be the better known people who are at the front of races), so they automatically replace original chassis with new ones (more so with spaceframe onwards cars).

The fact that the new chassis makes the car go faster is of course an unfortunate consequence of their safety initiative.

If these people thought that history was more important than racing they would not do such things, but they tend to get carried away with racing rather than preservation.

Many of the cars that are called original do not have very many of the components that they left the factory with, apart from wear and tear items people tend to fit new engines and keep the originals safe (250Fs, 8C Alfas, ERAs etc etc - again the performance advantage is secondary!), and so on, but these cars do have continuous ownership history and as such are deemed to be original.

There is a lot to be said for the American style of historic racing where the emphasis seems to be on the car rather than the race, at least in terms of maintaining originality - I'm not sure what the racing is like from the public's viewpoint but they put up with modern F1 processions!

[Don Capps]

Many of the cars that are called original do not have very many of the components that they left the factory with, apart from wear and tear items people tend to fit new engines and keep the originals safe (250Fs, 8C Alfas, ERAs etc etc - again the performance advantage is secondary!), and so on, but these cars do have continuous ownership history and as such are deemed to be original.

I find this simply impossible to accept. They have continuous ownership over exactly what? A replacement part that eveything is hung on? Or am I simply and hopeless too dense to grasp the subtlety involved....?

[David McKinney]

No argument, Don from an "ideal world" viewpoint.
What Peter calls "standing on the spot occupied by" I would refer to as "original identity".
If a car had major components replaced, whether in period or not, but no other car can claim its identity. I am happy to regard that car as a continuation of the original. Certainly not as pure as one which remains in its original state, but the closest we are likely to see to the original in question.
What makes such replacements of major components aceptable, to my mind at least, is if the car is raced - I know not everyone agrees with this, but I'd far rather see a 250F driven at Goodwood by someone like Martin Stretton, near as dammit to how it would have been driven in 1957, than see a perfect original trundling around behind the Cooper-Bristols. Even if the faster car's engine might have been built the year before last. And if cars are going to be raced, things are going to break, and need replacement.
Having said that, I would much prefer a situation to exist, somehow, where 2004 engines and other replacement parts are to exact original spec, to avoid the downside raised by Peter. The problem is how to police it....

[Peter Morley]

Originally posted by David McKinney
No argument, Don from an "ideal world" viewpoint.
What Peter calls "standing on the spot occupied by" I would refer to as "original identity".
If a car had major components replaced, whether in period or not, but no other car can claim its identity. I am happy to regard that car as a continuation of the original. Certainly not as pure as one which remains in its original state, but the closest we are likely to see to the original in question.
What makes such replacements of major components aceptable, to my mind at least, is if the car is raced - I know not everyone agrees with this, but I'd far rather see a 250F driven at Goodwood by someone like Martin Stretton, near as dammit to how it would have been driven in 1957, than see a perfect original trundling around behind the Cooper-Bristols. Even if the faster car's engine might have been built the year before last. And if cars are going to be raced, things are going to break, and need replacement.
Having said that, I would much prefer a situation to exist, somehow, where 2004 engines and other replacement parts are to exact original spec, to avoid the downside raised by Peter. The problem is how to police it....

Exactly, in an ideal world this would not be an issue, but we are far from an ideal world.

A lot of problems have been created by the FIA, if they had stuck to their remit and only verified whether a car met the correct specifiactions (as they did when cars were contemporary) the cars could have been kept far more original.

But they decided that the history was an essential part of the cars eligibility. So they required owners to provide a history for their car, when this was unkown it tended to be as fabricated as the car itself.

This has led to the situation where the pretender to the throne (e.g. chassis no.) can get away with a lot if the history 'proves' the car is 'original'.

They have tried to correct some of these discrepancies - e.g. Lotus twin-cams having to have the early type of main bearing caps. The fact that the stronger ones were fitted only a couple of years after the car was made and the new ones are only a few days old is igorned. And the cost implications for a component that the spectator should never see are a subject of much debate.

You then get new components that are accepted as correct replacements for original components - but many are not as per original. e.g. Richardson Junior cylinder heads, that don't match up to original inlet manifolds! Some of these are made to original specification but many are far better than the original (in the cases of critical items like suspension components this might not be a bad thing).

But most racing cars were developed during their life - when a component failed it would be replaced by an improved version. It would be unfair to insist that early DFV cars run the early timing gears that fail regularly, or those that had faulty crankshafts still have to run them.

The best you are likely to get would be the situation where a car runs components of a specification available at the time (e.g. all Lotus 23s can run a 170 Bhp twin-cam rather than the current 200 Bhp version, or the Anglia engine they really ran).

But there are a lot of components where it is simply not possible to use the originals - Cooper wheels made from melted scrap VW gearbox cases were never any good, because the oil from the gearbox polluted the alloy. Auto-Unions were made from such poor material that all the heads were too corroded to use. In these cases fitting accurate replicas is the only way to make the car usable.

An interesting annomaly is that the 'replica' Lancia D-50s are probably more original than most of the 'original' cars they are racing against - they even use the correct style of oil hose (which on many original cars has been replaced by aeroquip!).

Establishing a homologation, or specification, form for the more common cars, that sets out the correct period specification of that type of car should not be too difficult, and a similar set of standards could be used for less well known cars of that period.

As for whether a car is original I would always tend to look at the components rather than the history.

[Barrie Hobkirk]

You know whats really scary?
I understood everything Don wrote about Maserati 250F 2599.
Welcome to my world.

Cheers,
Barrie Hobkirk

Maserati 250F History Seach, Vancouver, CANADA

[Don Capps]

I thought it would be crystal clear to Barrie and David.....

By the way, did I mention 2581 and how Petrocelli wedged the V12 into it for that one test sesssion redubbing it 2558 for the moment and then 2596 when that was all the paperwork that they had at hand and then......

[MKIVJ6]

As an aside, which some fail to do, which results in catastrophic failure, as someone at the recent Le Mans Classic recently found out NEVER run synthetic gear lube in a T44. Shell 80-90W NON synthetic is the way to go. There are precious few original T-44's around no need to destroy another one.

[Ray Bell]

Peter... you are kidding about those bearing caps, aren't you?

I mean, you simply have to be...

[RTH]

Originally posted by MKIVJ6
As an aside, which some fail to do, which results in catastrophic failure, as someone at the recent Le Mans Classic recently found out NEVER run synthetic gear lube in a T44. Shell 80-90W NON synthetic is the way to go. There are precious few original T-44's around no need to destroy another one.

Now I've heard this sort of thing said before, but modern synthetic engine and gear oils are very good, very clever and do produce much higher levels of protection.

Do you know exactly what happened in this case and exactly why the owners have attributed a mechanical breakage to a modern lubricant ?

[Peter Morley]

Originally posted by Ray Bell
Peter... you are kidding about those bearing caps, aren't you?

I mean, you simply have to be...

Unfortunately not.
In their wisdom the FIA decided that steel bearing caps were inappropriate on some twin-cam engines (Elan or Cortina I think, but can't remember).
Technically they are probably right, the caps were apparently not homologated in period for the car in question - but chances are people ran them anyway, after all they were available at the time and how many scrutineers would have checked the bearing caps!

[Ray Bell]

I would have doubted that contemporary regulations would have required them anyway!

The size of the pommie racing component industry at the time, steel cranks would have been pretty much standard, so why not steel caps?

[Rainer Nyberg]

Didn't find any thread on the J-cars, this one seemed appropriate...at least on the messy serial number part.

Some sources states that chassis J-6 won the 1967 Le Mans. Whilst some argues that J-5 was the actual winner as that car seems modified to suit Dan Gurney's lanky frame, with the floor under the seat beaten down.

Any views?

[Tim Murray]

This was posted on an earlier thread by Jim Glickenhaus, the current owner of J6:

Originally posted by MKIVJ6 on the Ferrari 330P4 thread

Don
J5/J6 error began in 67 at Le Mans. In the original scrutinising/application the drivers were listed incorrectly. As everyone knew that Gurney/Foyt were the winning drivers they assumed the chassis they were listed as driving was the car that won. Another problem was that soon after the race J5's chassis plate was stolen, as was it's steering wheel, and it's original engine was removed, dyno tested and lost as well. It's original radiator is also missing and that's why among other reasons that it has a label "Don't Start" on it's dash. After Le Mans J5, J6, J7, J8 went back to H&M. Ford had H&M "prepare the Le Mans winner for the Show circuit." They looked at the Le Mans records saw J6 was the winner and repainted it red. A clue to their mistake is the official studio shot. On the sill FORD is white. At Le Mans it was black. They also cobbled together the Andretti J7 wreck and painted it red as well. They sent "The Le Mans Winner" to various shows. If you look at the New York Auto Show photo you'll notice the H&M side windows (J7&J8) which are of course wrong as the winner J5 and J6 had Shelby side windows.
The error was compounded by Ford when they gave Foyt, their man of the year, "The Le Mans Winner J6" Foyt didn't help by adding later "Of course I have the winner I know the car I drove."
J6 still has it's chassis plate and original engine. (Shipping/Customs docs.) When I met Peter it was still painted as the winner. Even though the records and all of the GT40 books thought J6 was the winner I didn't. It just didn't seem credible that the car in the museum wasn't the winner because of the crack on the nose where I remember the fan with the large bottle of Champagne riding. The car in the Museum was examined and the place where the tub had been crushed, under the seat, to give Dan a few more inches plus the crack in the nose, plus a section of strengthening rope along the outer edge of the tail that is not on J6 convinced me that J6 was not the winner but the Donohue/McLaren fourth place finisher which was fine with me.
Peter and other's have commented that I'm the only person they know who owns a car that the records and books showed won Le Mans, said it ain't so and restored it to it's proper condition.

In light of the above I can assure you that my coming to believe that the P 3/4 I also own contains substantial parts of the chassis remains of 0846, the Type 593 P3 transmission that was originally in 0846 and raced in 0846 at Le Mans in 66, failed, was rebuilt and used as the Mule when 0846 was converted by Ferrari in the winter of 66 into the P4 prototype so that the Type 603 transmission could be cast which it was by the start of the Daytona race, (Whether or not 0846 was tested with this transmission before the 603 was finished is still being researched) and an original P4 engine which many parts of which including the heads ran at Le Mans in 67 is no idle claim and is rooted in extensive research and forensic investigation.

The first of several articles explaining this in further detail will be out soon. (Aug/Sept Vintage MotorSports) Other articles will follow in due course. In addition those in Monterey in Aug. will be able to have a look for themselves. In the end your analogy to the "Unknown Soldier" may prove to be correct and as I've said many times that's fine with me. There are very few race cars like J6 that raced in only one real race and remain relatively unchanged and as we have seen even those can be confused.

If you PM me I'll be happy to send you a copy of my 0846 research to date as well.
Best

[Rainer Nyberg]

Thanks Tim, I had missed that.

[Tmeranda]

As a young college student, I got to sit in 1031 during its dealership tour in Carbondale, IL. It had plate 1031 and was dark blue. Somewhere I have a copy of the pictures I took. The dealership ( a small Ford dealer in a rather rural area) had no idea what it was, and allowed me to climb all over it for hours!