Mk I - Mk IV Differences?

I'm kinda new to GT40's (I have an ERA Cobra). I know that Mk I's were small blocks, Mk II's were big blocks, and Mk III's were street cars, but that's about it. Can anybody help me understand the differences in the bodies? Which one has the single large intake on the hood vs. the the double one? Any other diferences? Picture? Other websites that explain so you don't have to? Sorry for asking so many questions, any help will be appreciated.

Thanks:


Jeff

[Mark Clapp]

Jeff, try http://www.gt40.org.uk/ it has tons of pics of all the Marks as well as lots of specs and historical bits.

[jimbo]

A good place to begin also is some of the books out: David Hodge's book, or Trevor Legate's new one. Also there is a Brooklands' Gold Portfolio about GT40s that reproduced lots of contemporary articles about the cars, lots of fun and info although the illustrations are sometimes abit dim or grainy. And John Allen's book is good, too...in that one you get to see really excellent photos of lots of the cars and you can spot the differences.

In my opinion, the MKIV is so different in
construction and shape that it's hard to
view it as a GT40. So I'll ask the question...what makes it a GT40?
Just because Ford built it to supercede
the MK II?

MikeD

[Clay Wagner]

I personally feel that the beauty of the MKI is its timeless design....the sexy curves and exotic appeal are not too over the top for a classy street machine, yet it has such a respectable racing heritage! Hard to beat......All this in an American car no less! May be blasphemy to most in this room that I am surprised that Ford could produce such a machine, that but I am a Ferrari (348) and Porsche (996-C4) owner and was die hard into the european cars until I discovered this amazing GT-40 MKI.....attainable and reasonably priced with such torque and horsepower! Supurb.

Clay

[Bill D]

I agree with Clay. The Mark I is by far the best looking. The Mark II was a beast, the mark III a feeble attempt at making a street car, and the Mark IV a mutation from the original.

[ChrisL]

Mike,
The MK IV evolved directly from the GT40 Mk I. In chassis it was very similar to the MK II although it had enough differences in suspension geometry to be quite distinct. Even though, it never had the "GT40" name attributed to it - it was simply known as the Ford Mk IV. (I'm open to corrections here).

I must jump in on this one before the Brits do. In reply to GT40-Freak, an American car??? The impetus, money and engine came from the US, but the car was initially designed (adaptd from Eric Broadley's Lola) and built in the UK. Automobile books of the day list it as being built by Ford Advanced Vehicles (UK). Perhaps Anglo-American would be more apt?

Just stirring the pot.

Brian.

[Clay Wagner]

I anticipated that response Brian! [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img] And you are indeed correct! However, to the uninformed casual observer (as I was when I first laid my eyes upon one at Lyme Rock) I was in a state of pure astonishment to discover that what I was gazing longingly at was actually a product of FoMoCo!!!!!! What promptly occured after was "note to self....must have one within the year".....I am a relative youngster in this room from what I gather (just turned 27) and was not raised during the time of this cars glory and dominance, but I can respect its heritage and pedigree.....Plus its sultry curves make my girl friends knees tremble.....Its a must have [img]images/icons/cool.gif[/img]

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: GT-40 Freak ]

[Sebring GT]

Oh yes, the ultimate corporate Hot Rod: a chassis conceived by a British racer, powered by an American Ford HiPo motor, meant to beat an Italian icon, and intended to pull it off on a track in France. Forget about the other contenders, the GT40 was the first and still is the only real "World Car"!

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: Orin Meyer ]

[Mark Worthington]

Can someone tell me what relationship Carrol Shelby had to the GT40? Ford brought him out on stage earlier this week at the debut of the new GT40 concept and I saw some GT40s, originals and replicas, at the Shelby Club convention last year at Lime Rock.

Is Shelby really was involved then the Texans are gonna try to claim the fame and glory! [img]images/icons/wink.gif[/img]

I will somewhat reluctantly admit that because the majority of GT40s are right-hand drive, then they must be British cars. Does that mean they have electrical gremlins? [img]images/icons/grin.gif[/img]

[Bill D]

Mark -

Ford was having trouble with the early GT40s. He asked Carroll Shelby to help. Carroll helped by putting in one of his HP 289 or 302's (I can't remember which), changed the wheels from spokes to what you see, and changed some of the other plumbing.

Carroll was great for getting the right people involved and working 18 hour days to work the bugs out.

I can't recall if he was the one responsible for stuffing a 427 in the Mark II's.

Bill D

[ January 11, 2002: Message edited by: Bill D ]

[ChrisL]

The MK II was very much a Carrol Shelby car. The US thinking of the day was "if it aint winning then there aint enough cubes". CS made the decision to drop the Cobra project because he felt it had been developed to the point where they could beat the GT40s (which is debatable) – but didn’t want to rub Ford up the wrong way.

The GT40 in its original form had problems with the transaxle. Apparently - the story goes - the GT40 was developed with the Lola Chilotti (spelling???) transaxle, while the specially designed ZFs were being built. But just before it was ready to race in anger, it was realised that the order for the ZFs had not been placed!!! AHHH!!! They were then forced to run with the totally inappropriate Lola derived transaxles which could not handle the horsepower. All GT40s qualified well but all transaxles failed during the race.

By the time they had sorted that debacle, Carrol Shelby was on the scene.

[Hershal Byrd]

I thought that the GT40 was the first car
designed on a computer. If this is true
was it designed on the Ford Co computers or
somewhere else. Was Mr. Broadley involved
in all the design aspects of the body. I know
Mr. Broadley was english and a genius in my
mind. There also seems to be no doubt that
it is a very very English design whether
designed in the States or the UK. It seems
to me that during the hey day of this car
the roll of the Brits was down played. I think Edsel wanted it to look more like the U.S. was responsible so that if they won
they could take the credit for Ford and
the U.S.
I do remember that Ford insisted on the
frames being made of steel not aluminium.
I don't know if this had a connection but
it sure seems that way.
I also believe that the GT's would not
have been as successful if weren't
for Mr. Wyer. That man could do more with
less than anyone else in racing.

[Gary Gibbs]

My understanding was that Shelby was brought in to make the car a true competitor and work out all the bugs, etc. I believe he organized to top team for competition, etc. In 1966 Ford decided to back Holman and Moody to sponsor another team. That would provide a "friendly" competition and result in better overall performance (Fords thought). I believe that the Shelby run teams won in 66 and 67. This is all from my vague memory as I have not read up on this in a while, etc.

[Wayne Presley]

Here is a fairly good page explaining the differences, Roaring Forties. From what I've read the GT40 originally was designed for the Ford aluminum Indy motor but that motor wouldn't last the 24 hour races reliably. So they turned to Shelby's team who had plenty of experience with making power with the 289 AND making them live.

[Ian K]

CS was reaponsible for the MkII development
AFAIK. He threw the 427 in. FoMoCo had
put 289s in the MkIs first. The MkIIIs had
289s as well, and the MkIV had the MkII 427.
Then, when the big blocks were banned, and
FoMoCo pulled out, and JW tookover, the MkIVs
were rebuilt as MkIBs, and given 302s. Also,
this was the first time the ZFs were used at
LeMans since the MkIIs and MkIVs used
different transaxles.

BTW, Ferarri had pulled out of LeMans
competition by '67, with his tail tucked
betwixt his legs [img]images/icons/tongue.gif[/img]


Ian

[norman falkiner]

A great read is "The certain sound" by John Wyer. Out of print and hard to get but puts a lot of imput into the UK/US discussion. My humble input is on reading most available info is that Ford could not have done it without the UK contribution and vice versa...regards

[ChrisL]

Hershal,
You are correct in saying that the GT40 was the first car to be designed on a computer (it was also the first car to be designed with the use of a wind tunnel normally used for aircraft). However, they did not start with clean sheet, using the Lola as a basis. Having said that, there was almost nothing of the original Lola by the time that they had finished.

With regards to naming, only the first and last of the race cars carried the GT40 name. All others were FORD Mk ??.

Most of my information comes from...
FORD GT40 - An Anglo American Supercar Classic - by David Hodges

I used to work for Ingersoll Rand back in the early sixties, and did a lot of work in the pits. Most of the cars I saw were of british or european design. I would say that there was one car that I would call American and that was Jim Halls car. The americans at Indy said the rear engine cars were dangerous, Braham and Lotus showed them the way. After that they got rid of the roadsters. Ford got into Indy using Lotus and the same goes for Lemans with british cars (lola). Even the engine work was done in England. I dont know of any rear engine cars that ford built back in the sixties. Why then did they want to take over Ferrari?.
Cosworth was the man in England that did fords overhead cam and engine work. If you want to see advanced designs, go to Doddington England, nothing like it in the US. Its just the way cars evolved in the world. In the US cars were produced for the masses and in Europe they were produced for the rich in the early days.