New 1966 gt40 kit available

Keith

Moderator
Nice looking car but body looks, odd to me. Perhaps it's the accenting or the paint scheme. Great chassis too and I guess that answers my previous questions regarding round tube chassis.

They might have spent a little more time getting the picture orientation right, or perhaps it was specifically designed for those down under! :laugh:
 
Another example-

Back to the topic.

Chris
 

Attachments

  • 2013-07-06(109793)_Mclaren2.jpg
    2013-07-06(109793)_Mclaren2.jpg
    220 KB · Views: 761
See? I was right. Jac can see it more clearly than I can...

Is that Corvette suspension?

Yes on the vette suspension, chassis might look 'nice', but I suspect (hope) its a work in progress, seems to have a lot of unbraced large radius bends in some of the main chassis tubes that could make it a bit of a 'flexi flyer' as is. Front end top w/bone and steering bits would be a fight to get past initial rego inspection here in NZ which is getting tougher due to a lot of cheap USA sourced crap which has failed. Welds in steering components is a big no-no without proof of qualification which seems to evaporate when enquiries are made at point of sale.
 

Randy V

Moderator-Admin
Staff member
Admin
Lifetime Supporter
Yes on the vette suspension, chassis might look 'nice', but I suspect (hope) its a work in progress, seems to have a lot of unbraced large radius bends in some of the main chassis tubes that could make it a bit of a 'flexi flyer' as is. Front end top w/bone and steering bits would be a fight to get past initial rego inspection here in NZ which is getting tougher due to a lot of cheap USA sourced crap which has failed. Welds in steering components is a big no-no without proof of qualification which seems to evaporate when enquiries are made at point of sale.

I also suspect that the chassis was a work in progress. The rear suspension can be made whole and actually quite nice with the addition of a rear block / transmission adapter that is made a stressed member. The Corvette C5 suspension is a fabulous bit of engineering in my opinion.
 
I saw this company on display at the Carlisle Foreign and Kit Car show this past Spring.

Jac-Mac called it right. They were not ready for prime time. I didn't get the feeling they had the true essence of what a GT40 should be or look like.

I noted one thing that looked quite unique (huh?), the fuel tank in their running car was mounted up front.

I must say I admire people that chase the dream of making their own cars.
 
Are you allowed to put ford on a car if it's not one? What's the rules for kits/ replicas ?

I know when the Safir MKV continuation cars where made they had to put "Powered by Ford" on their side stripes. I know a lot of the GT40's now have Ford on their side stripes. Some of the original MKI and MKIII road cars had the letters Ford on the front of there noses. I have not seen a current MKIII with Ford on the front.
Regards Allan
 

Howard Jones

Supporter
Looks like there are a few triangulation elements missing in the design. Crosswise on rear main roll hoop, side boxes along side engine/gearbox element, fuel cell boxes, bottom of front suspension chassis "box", same for foot box.

I don't like the single shear front lower control arm "tower" used for the chassis forward link mount points and the seemingly lightly constructed chassis mounts for the other lower control arm mount point. These are hard to see so a closer inspection might yield a different opinion but for now I'm negative on the front lower control arm mount design. I would prefer a nice box with the control arm bushing contained inside it and mounted in double shear.

Clearances in the rear for gearboxes looks tight also especially at the bottom between the control arm pickup points. They did use nice long lower control arms, I like that.

In the end the geometry isn't known, Camber gain, kingpin angle, etc. etc. ???????????.

Interesting to see what a round tube chassis of a GT40 looks like. It seams to waste a lot of space, but maybe its just me. I would like to see a more complete naked chassis with engine/gearbox, shocks, antiroll bars, brakes etc mounted.

Have a look at a Daytona Prototype chassis.
 

Attachments

  • 966d2737.jpg
    966d2737.jpg
    148.3 KB · Views: 764
  • 966d2729.jpg
    966d2729.jpg
    165.1 KB · Views: 1,073
  • 966d2731.jpg
    966d2731.jpg
    174.1 KB · Views: 686
Last edited:
I do like the integration of the C5 suspension bits. With that said, it kills the originality, which personally I like for these cars.

As it sits, the chassis looks as though it would be very flexible due to limited triangulation. Totally agree with the comment regarding paneling the round tubing.

Re the suspension geometry, agreed... Few people understand the dynamics and compromises in this discipline. Getting it right, or at least close, is critical to a safe and well performing car.

David
 

Doug S.

The protoplasm may be 72, but the spirit is 32!
Lifetime Supporter
Just curious...regarding the frame and the minimal bracing. If panels were attached (welded, riveted, bonded, etc.) to the framing, would that not serve to provide the additional reinforcement required to make the frame work better?

This question comes from a guy who knows absolutely NOTHING about scratch built cars...just an odd thought as I was reading comments.

Cheers!

Doug
 
I think a recreation or kit car can't be sold or advertised by the manufacture with "ford" or "Cobra" on it unless ok'd/approved by either, but after it's yours, you can put what ever you want on it!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top