The restoration of J10 as a MKIV draws to a conclusion. Outstanding work.
 

Attachments

  • DSCN6791 (1).JPG
    DSCN6791 (1).JPG
    124.4 KB · Views: 847
  • DSCN6794 (1).JPG
    DSCN6794 (1).JPG
    123.8 KB · Views: 889
  • DSCN6795 (1).JPG
    DSCN6795 (1).JPG
    124 KB · Views: 761
  • DSCN6790 (1).JPG
    DSCN6790 (1).JPG
    121.2 KB · Views: 790
Some additional shots of J10
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1398.jpg
    IMG_1398.jpg
    142.2 KB · Views: 698
  • IMG_1394.jpg
    IMG_1394.jpg
    163.9 KB · Views: 758
  • IMG_1450.jpg
    IMG_1450.jpg
    133 KB · Views: 745
  • IMG_1392.jpg
    IMG_1392.jpg
    165.9 KB · Views: 959
The mark IV's were awesome looking racecars. It's too bad that money, rules and egos withdrew them from competition. I would have liked to have see a fully developed MKIV compete against the 1970's Porches.
 
The mark IV's were awesome looking racecars. It's too bad that money, rules and egos withdrew them from competition. I would have liked to have see a fully developed MKIV compete against the 1970's Porches.

In all probability Porsche would have turbo charged the motors as they did for CanAm... Ford and Chevy big block motors were no match.

But Ford had made its point and the emissions regulations and safety requirements demanded all of its engineering focus and financial resources.
 
Yes, J10 is part owned by Peter Portante (ERA), James Holden and me. Teddy (ERA GT40 fabricator) is working on it. Now it the last stage.
 
New photos of J10 MK-IV under the sun
 

Attachments

  • 20170814-PB0_3555.jpg
    20170814-PB0_3555.jpg
    180.1 KB · Views: 623
  • pb2017_GT-12.jpg
    pb2017_GT-12.jpg
    344.2 KB · Views: 551
  • pb2017_GT-14.jpg
    pb2017_GT-14.jpg
    378.9 KB · Views: 719
  • pb2017_GT-18.jpg
    pb2017_GT-18.jpg
    182.4 KB · Views: 640
  • pb2017_GT-26.jpg
    pb2017_GT-26.jpg
    257.1 KB · Views: 700
  • pb2017_GT-25.jpg
    pb2017_GT-25.jpg
    241 KB · Views: 728
Last edited:
More J10 photos
 

Attachments

  • pb2017_GT-30.jpg
    pb2017_GT-30.jpg
    214.9 KB · Views: 641
  • pb2017_GT-49.jpg
    pb2017_GT-49.jpg
    345.5 KB · Views: 690
  • pb2017_GT-50.jpg
    pb2017_GT-50.jpg
    325.1 KB · Views: 528
  • pb2017_GT-54.jpg
    pb2017_GT-54.jpg
    299.9 KB · Views: 609
  • pb2017_GT-62.jpg
    pb2017_GT-62.jpg
    365.6 KB · Views: 580
  • pb2017_GT-67.jpg
    pb2017_GT-67.jpg
    274.9 KB · Views: 665
  • pb2017_GT-27.jpg
    pb2017_GT-27.jpg
    264.4 KB · Views: 667
Last edited:

Glenn M

Supporter
Lovely job!

I've never noticed the different door shapes before. Is that a feature just on this car or do all the J cars have it and I've just had my eyes shut?
 
All J car photos or live ones I've seen have asymmetrical doors. Guess they gave up on the pretense of being a true 2 seater. If you've ever sat in one (or a replica) the cockpit is quite a bit tighter than a Mk I or II.
 
Look at the "passenger" seat that does not have any padding and is smaller just to meet the 2 seater. I did not the photo that shows the luggage box and the tiny door to remove the spare tire without opening the rear clip
 

Dave Collins

Supporter
Mk11B cars in 1967 also had aysymetrical doors with the drivers door retaining the roof cut out section and the passenger door just opening at the top of the window leaving the roof in place. I believe I read somewhere it was to make the mechanics life easier.

Dave
 
MK-IV's are fine for passengers if you remove the dead pedal.
After 67 they were no longer race legal as ACO dropped P's to 3L.
512S,MKI, Lola, 917 were "production Sports Cars" and allowed 5L.

Congrats on J10.
 
I photographed the Le Mans winning Look a like MKIV built in the late 1980's on one of the two remaining J tubs. It was being painted in Farborough and we had to extract the painters' 6 year old son from the cockpit of the car he got in but had difficulty getting out. I thought that the passengers door was modified because it was not the passengers job even if they carried one to run the Le Mans start! I though the rules meant that a certain amount of luggage space had to be available. So as well as carrying a fake luggage case more room was allocated within the cockpit i.e. in the doors to meet this regulation. This may have lead to the cut out in the roof both on the MKIVs and MKIIBs to be removed. Also by this modification the roof was strengthened?
 
I read somewhere a long time ago that the 'cut' door on the Mk2b was to give a better chance of escaping if a car had overturned onto its roof.
Steve
 
Back
Top