AMGT40/1 and 2...FE427 or SB289

jac mac · Sep 26, 2011

Posts on the other AMGT40/1 thread got my curiosity fired up ... Ronnie Spains GT40 book suggests in its results that these cars were 289 powered in their Alan Mann owned outings at Sebring & Le Mans trials ~ early 1966.
The results on the 'Racing Sports Cars' site show both cars as being '7000cc' eg 427 FE powered. Qualifying times on that site as follows:

1. MKII 1031 Gurney / Grant ......7000cc.. 2:54:600
2. Ferrari......Parkes / Bondurant..4400cc...2:56:600
3. AMGT/2....Hill / Stewart[.........7000cc...2:57:400
4. MKII 1032.Hansgen/Donahue....7000cc...2:58:600
5. GTX1 110. Miles/ Ruby............7000cc...2:58:600
6. Chaparral 2D.........................7000cc..2:59:600
7. AMGT/1....Whitmore/Gardner....7000cc..3:00:400

Then we go thru several Porsche, Chaparral, Ferrari & Another MKII before we get to the # 13 Qualifier

13.MKI GT40 1026.. Scott Revson. 4727cc.3:07:000

Is it likely that the cars had FE427 motors to make up that 7 or 12 second difference over the Scott Revson car, or was the ~120lb weight difference enough to allow the 289 to go that much faster.
Why were Hill/Stewart asked to also drive MKII's @ the Le Mans trials & give opinions on both cars, was this because they were both FE powered?
Was the Hewland box fitted at this time?

Whitmore & Stewart are both still topside, anyone know them well enough to ask? The Hewland would probably jog the memory since it was a dog box & require a different technique to the synchro T44 or ZF. Going by the pics on other thread there is a possibility that the AMGT 1/2 cars would have had webers as opposed to holley on the MKII../I]

Keith1 · Sep 26, 2011

Jac, I don't believe AMGT1 and 2 ever actually raced with 427, I am sure this was actually XGT1, XGT2 etc...

It is true that one or both of the AMGT lightweights were "tested" with a 427 (and probably a Hewland).

What I find most interesting in all of this, is the completely opposite philosophy of lightweight vs high torque and this also represents the Atlantic divide.

I do not wish to enter a long and ultimately fruitless debate about the whys and wherefores but it is (and always has been) my contention that the Big Block direction was in some part a panic measure by Ford to get the job done quickly. In this, they were to be proved correct, but at some cost to the original philosophy of a lightweight agile road/racer, and, if you also believe that they were only in it for very limited objectives (winning Le Mans and/or beating Ferrari) then you cannot argue with the results. However, Paul Hawkins and JWA/Gulf also proved that once they solved the dreaded 289 head gasket problem, they could have been winners too without resorting to a sledgehammer.

I also believe that Alan Mann, a long time & very successful campaigner of Ford products in Europe, got very pissed off with Ford over this, and that is why he vanished from the scene. I didn't read this anywhere by the way.. these are just my thoughts..

All in all, although the 427/T44 combo brought success, I believe it was somewhat a clumsy combination in the MKII, but perfect in the MKIV.

jac mac · Sep 27, 2011

Thats the point Keith, You dont think they did, a bit like most of us probably!, my point is that those must have been real 'killer 289' combos to have headed off all the other MK1 289 cars by about 7seconds[AMGT/1] & 12 seconds [AMGT/2] per lap especially since the setup on the AM cars would have been 'new' with all the different suspension/alloy shocks etc, I could see a couple or three seconds, not 7 or 12...which suggests either some trickery in the engine build or the FE swap, going by the pics on the Racing Icons site the chassis seems to have the necessary MKII clearance mods on the chassis center crossmember for pumps/pulleys etc and since AMGT/3,4,5 were all FE powered cars can we suggest that all five Alan Mann chassis were FE compatible in the engine bay from day one?

IanAnderson · Sep 27, 2011

Jac
I'm baffled by your numbers
The 289 is running 3.07
The best 7 litre AMGT is 2.57

So the 289 was 10 seconds slower than the 7 litre

Your post seems to be suggesting the 289 is Faster than the 7 litre

Ian

jac mac · Sep 27, 2011

Ian, the Ronnie Spain book with all the results states that the AMGT/1 & 2 cars had 289 cu in motors fitted at both Sebring and the Le Mans trials in 1966, The Racing Sports Cars site results for the same Sebring meeting has these same AMGT cars listed with FE 427[7liter] engines, all of those lap times are from qualifying @ Sebring.

My question is/was given the conflicting cubic capacity info of these sources: what motors did they actually have?, 289 or 427, if it was 289's they must have been damn good one's to have done the 2:57:400 or 3:00:400 lap times as opposed to the next fastest 289 in the MK1 GT40 [1026] driven by Scott/Revson with its time of 3:07:000.

So yes, if AMGT/2 was powered by a 289 it was faster than all bar one of the 427 powered cars , but logic suggests that it is more likely that the AMGT cars were powered by 427 [7 liter] engines...

allanfeldman · Oct 29, 2011

The Alan Mann MKI were all alumiinium bodied with narrower roof lightweights small block 289 cars. I thought that he wanted to run the small block because it would mean less pitstops (using less fuel). If he had 427 engines in his lightweights they would have to be extensively modified to accomodate them. I think Ronnie Spain said that the MKII's had extra space in the engine bay to accomodate them. Wheither I am remembering this right this is beside the point.
And we all know that he could not run the lightweights at Le Mans as he was contracted by Ford to run the MKII's after the Le Mans trials. Because Ford had a policy of running the teams to support Shelby. Holman and Moody were definately a backup to Shelby as a letter I have seen congratulating them for their effort proves. So was Alan Manns cars!?
Also the Le Mans 427 engines would be supplied by Ford to Shelby to oversee the other teams. Since all the 8 MKII's for Le Mans were assemblied at Shelby's facility at L A. True Alan Manns MKII's were assembied by his own crew there.
Since the Alan Mann Lightweights were entered in the Prototype class at Sebring getting a FE 427 engined car pased scrutineering would be would have been difficult. But I think Fords people would have known if an engine went missing. And discovery would have lead to conflict with Ford. And since Ford were running works MKII's in the race would they have wanted a private Ford team to beat them? For their time 1966 they were the fastest MKI of all. Only 2.8 seconds slower than Dan Gurneys MKII. At the Le Mans Trails the lightweights were not as fast as the MKII's and J Car! And just because you put some MKII snorkels on the rear lid does not make a seven litre engine lurk in the engine bay!
However, the fact is that Fords aim was Le Mans and factor in the 3 miles Mulsanne straight and this answers some of the questions namely Politics!!
Regards Allan

jac mac · Oct 29, 2011

allanfeldman said:
The Alan Mann MKI were all alumiinium bodied with narrower roof lightweights small block 289 cars. I thought that he wanted to run the small block because it would mean less pitstops (using less fuel). If he had 427 engines in his lightweights they would have to be extensively modified to accomodate them. I think Ronnie Spain said that the MKII's had extra space in the engine bay to accomodate them. Wheither I am remembering this right this is beside the point. The photos on Racing Icons site of AMGT/1 being restored shows the necessary clearance for the FE engine in the central engine bay x-member...whether this was done later @ HM with there experiments or right from day one raises the question...
And we all know that he could not run the lightweights at Le Mans as he was contracted by Ford to run the MKII's after the Le Mans trials. Because Ford had a policy of running the teams to support Shelby. Holman and Moody were definately a backup to Shelby as a letter I have seen congratulating them for their effort proves. So was Alan Manns cars!? Not so sure on that one as Hill/Stewart were asked to drive both AMGT & MKII cars back to back to help with final decision on Le Mans entries
Also the Le Mans 427 engines would be supplied by Ford to Shelby to oversee the other teams. Since all the 8 MKII's for Le Mans were assemblied at Shelby's facility at L A. True Alan Manns MKII's were assembied by his own crew there.
Since the Alan Mann Lightweights were entered in the Prototype class at Sebring getting a FE 427 engined car pased scrutineering would be would have been difficult. But I think Fords people would have known if an engine went missing. And discovery would have lead to conflict with Ford. And since Ford were running works MKII's in the race would they have wanted a private Ford team to beat them? For their time 1966 they were the fastest MKI of all. Only 2.8 seconds slower than Dan Gurneys MKII. At the Le Mans Trails the lightweights were not as fast as the MKII's and J Car! And just because you put some MKII snorkels on the rear lid does not make a seven litre engine lurk in the engine bay!Race reports show that Graham Hill in one of the AMGT cars actually led the first lap or two, which again raises the question, that would have to be one special 289 to outdrag a 427 for the first couple of laps?...
However, the fact is that Fords aim was Le Mans and factor in the 3 miles Mulsanne straight and this answers some of the questions namely Politics!!
Regards Allan

Dont get me started on politics, we might have to chuck the thread in the paddock!!!.... I guess we might never know..perhaps it was a screwed up typist that headed up the capacity chart on the results page...no skin off my nose, just a bit intrigued by it all..

Charlie Farley · Oct 30, 2011

Jac et all,

You are correct, the cars in question were not FE engined cars.
I checked, with the " Horse's Mouth ". ( There's a clue as to who in my phrasing )
Simple typo error.

jac mac · Oct 30, 2011

Thanks Andrew, now I can retire from the forum in peace

Charlie Farley · Oct 31, 2011

Jac,

Tee Hee, so droll.

:shy:

allanfeldman · Oct 31, 2011

Hi Jac and Andrew
Not trying to be too smart. But just because Graham Hill AM Lightweight lead for a couple of laps at the start of the race ahead of the MKII's. Does not mean that the MKII's were slower than the Alan Mann lightweights. It might be team orders because the Le Mans race was on of attrition not necessarily outright speed.The Le Mans winner had 465bhp and was not the fastest MKII! The 1966 MKII's had team orders on what lap times to make in the race (I think this applied to all three teams; Shelbys being the fastest). You cannot win the race if your are not still racing at the end of twenty four hours.
Other incidents like this occurred in the 1967 Le Mans when Paul Hawkins in one of the three MKIIB's (these cars were slower than the MKIV's and expendable) was tasked as a 'Hare' at the start to try race off and panic the Ferrari P4's into racing him and eventually breaking.
And the one incident that shows what point I am making; was in the 1967 race when the MKIV of Dan Gurney let Parkes P4 (who was trying to hassle Gurney) catch him and pass while he parked up and stopped. The MKIV (the MKIV was a good 20 mph or more faster than a P4)then proceeded to pass the Ferrari three laps later!
Is this what politics is about???
Regards Allan

ZedSea · Nov 11, 2011

I found this in an old magazine . The article is about the Le Mans Trials 1966.

Sports Car Graphic , June 1966 , page 70.

Quote " Ken Miles , who did three minutes 36 seconds with the second 7-liter of the type which he won with at Daytona. Third fastest , in the Alan Mann 4.7 liter Ford, was Jackie Steward, who did three minutes 38.6 seconds. " un quote.

Fastest was Chris Amon 7 liter three minutes 34.4 seconds . page 66

Z.C.

AMGT40/1 and 2...FE427 or SB289

Jac Mac

Keith

Jac Mac

Ian Anderson

Jac Mac

Allan Feldman

Jac Mac

Charlie Farley

Jac Mac

Charlie Farley

Allan Feldman

zollis

Similar threads