Mk1/mk2
- Thread starter Wreckage
- Start date
MKII won the "Big Class" (prototype) at Le Mans, whilst MKI won Group 4 Class 2 years in a row (not prototype)
Both were good track cars but MKII was designed for one specific project, to win in Endurance Racing and Le Mans which it did.
For everyday racing on all kinds of tracks the MKI was a winner.
But you could put a twat in a Red Bull F1 car and it would come last.
Both were good track cars but MKII was designed for one specific project, to win in Endurance Racing and Le Mans which it did.
For everyday racing on all kinds of tracks the MKI was a winner.
But you could put a twat in a Red Bull F1 car and it would come last.
George, I must admit I sometimes ponder if your questions are serious or if you're just trying to wind everyone up. In this instance I'll give the benefit of the doubt to you and answer in this way. The Mk II was a further development of the MKI as the MKIV was in many ways a further development of the MKII. So that leads one to believe that each was better then its predecessor. But in saying that and using the 24 hours of Lemans as a barometer the MK 1 won in 68 & 69 while the MKIV won in 67 and the MKII's won in 66. Changes in rules and regs and restrictions changed things for all the cars mentioned so comparing these cars IMHO becomes almost impossible. I'll just say they are all great cars and having reviewed many of your previous posts and questions add.....anyone of these cars can be made better or improved to whatever spec's you and your wallet will allow. Every model is available in some form or another so buy one, put an 8000 HP motor in it, make it entirely of CF add some wings, splitters , diffusers, etc and make sure you post pics because frankly I can't bloody wait to see what you end up with after compiling all the free info you've gotten from this forum. Much luck in your endeavors....but lets be honest...you're not really serious are you?
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
It's just like with transmission speeds, caliper pistons and horsepower: the higher the number the better.
Rick Muck- Mark IV
Supporter
Excluding the mark IV, I doubt that there is a significant performance difference, or at least difference in potential between the different versions of GT40s.
One can fit a modified windsor motor making as much HP has all but the most extreme FEs...beyond that, I doubt the extra power would be usable. Given the extra "areo" development that the Gulf cars recieved, I don't think that the Mark II had any significant advantage over the mark I...they're just not that different. Any significant changes, and they are just not GT40s anymore.
That said, I too have to question your seriousness here, George. No problem with you sharing your interest and enthusiasm, that's what we're all here for. But you present yourself as a potential owner, with lots of rather extreme ideas about potential modifications, all the while asking for input from us. No problem with that, per se, but some of us get the feeling that you are just blowing smoke, with no real plan or ability to carry out your dreams.
I don't quite grasp your profession, but these cars are not exactly inexpensive. Choose your own path, but until I was pretty secure in my family's future and well-being, I wouldn't consider buying one of these "toys". Until you reach that point...dreaming is free, but it is what it is.
One can fit a modified windsor motor making as much HP has all but the most extreme FEs...beyond that, I doubt the extra power would be usable. Given the extra "areo" development that the Gulf cars recieved, I don't think that the Mark II had any significant advantage over the mark I...they're just not that different. Any significant changes, and they are just not GT40s anymore.
That said, I too have to question your seriousness here, George. No problem with you sharing your interest and enthusiasm, that's what we're all here for. But you present yourself as a potential owner, with lots of rather extreme ideas about potential modifications, all the while asking for input from us. No problem with that, per se, but some of us get the feeling that you are just blowing smoke, with no real plan or ability to carry out your dreams.
I don't quite grasp your profession, but these cars are not exactly inexpensive. Choose your own path, but until I was pretty secure in my family's future and well-being, I wouldn't consider buying one of these "toys". Until you reach that point...dreaming is free, but it is what it is.
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
Oh Alan, you are a very bad man!!
Oh yeah? Well u just wait until I finishing building my Mk V. It's got an 8-speed Lexus transmission with carbon fiber shift knob. I haven't installed the engine yet cuz I need the bike to get to school:
Last edited:
Mike
Lifetime Supporter
You forgot about the chiznit valve where again, bigger is better! How about muffler bearings?
George
CURRENTLY BANNED
Thanks for the serious replies
Being a person that owned mopars all his life, i think the question is very serious. Obviously the compny itself designed more than just the MK1, so I wondered why. If the MK2 was built for endurance (in a way implying the mk1 wasnt hence the new design/idea), what made it last longer? I genuinly want to know to be able to appreciate them more. Not to cause some fire between MK1-2 ppl.
No im not asking to stir anything, its a legeit question.
Thanks Ron E, will have a look at the book.
Igofaster Ron, I know there not inexpensive, but its either an F355 Ferrari or the GT40. I found the GT40 to be cheaper, so compare to the amount already considered to be spent, this was a good option + its not euro exotic which just costs $$$$$$$ on anything and the 40 can be built my way while the F355 is what it is for the price.
Alan only if it were that easy (more hp = faster), and lol at that bike.
Jimmy, I have a friend who races proffessionaly in the US and hires out tracks for the day for the general public. He is going to work with me and the company that is going to build the car to achieve the dream (if it is possible to achieve it with a GT40 body). The car will therefor by him recieve track testing and thus Dial all the parts, cambers, shocks, spring rates etc in perfectly to achieve the handling desired. The underbody would also need to be totaly covered with those Defusers out back for improved aeros. Then all thats left is to see howmuch downforce is produced with the stock body and see whether perhaps a wing (removable) 1 is doible so for track days it can receive the downforce needed to keep it planted around corners while being removed for normal driving as the car looks good without it. Given the force it would receive though, maybe its not a removable thing.
I also know what I want, I just dont know what is needed to get it there. Simple question to u, people that just go out and spend 250 000 pounds on an Eventador Lamborghini, do you think they know why it handles the way it does in technical terms? Probbably not, they just paid out that lump some of cash to have a car that does what they are happy with. I can also pretty much gurantee most of those owners wont take it to the track and the ones that did would NEVER see the cars full potential. They still baught it though cause it gave them the buzz they were after. Same thing for me, I know I want the GT40 up there (a GT40 body bolted to an F1 handling package so to speak), do I need to know all the technical stuff in depth before I am alowed to build it to that goal? No, the company building it needs to know it, I just need to pay the $ like the Lambo ppl walked into a dealer and paid to get what was desired. This is where my friend will come in and help. So im very serious.
Given I was going to spend 200,000 on a Diablo, I believe had I redirected 200,000 to a GT40 it could come very close to what I wanted in performance and thus exceeding the Diablo itself (same money). THis is why Im looking at the GT40 as a supercar rather than a standard GT40 for 80k-100k.
And im sure to post the build when it starts.
Thanks for the replies once again
Being a person that owned mopars all his life, i think the question is very serious. Obviously the compny itself designed more than just the MK1, so I wondered why. If the MK2 was built for endurance (in a way implying the mk1 wasnt hence the new design/idea), what made it last longer? I genuinly want to know to be able to appreciate them more. Not to cause some fire between MK1-2 ppl.
No im not asking to stir anything, its a legeit question.
Thanks Ron E, will have a look at the book.
Igofaster Ron, I know there not inexpensive, but its either an F355 Ferrari or the GT40. I found the GT40 to be cheaper, so compare to the amount already considered to be spent, this was a good option + its not euro exotic which just costs $$$$$$$ on anything and the 40 can be built my way while the F355 is what it is for the price.
Alan only if it were that easy (more hp = faster), and lol at that bike.
Jimmy, I have a friend who races proffessionaly in the US and hires out tracks for the day for the general public. He is going to work with me and the company that is going to build the car to achieve the dream (if it is possible to achieve it with a GT40 body). The car will therefor by him recieve track testing and thus Dial all the parts, cambers, shocks, spring rates etc in perfectly to achieve the handling desired. The underbody would also need to be totaly covered with those Defusers out back for improved aeros. Then all thats left is to see howmuch downforce is produced with the stock body and see whether perhaps a wing (removable) 1 is doible so for track days it can receive the downforce needed to keep it planted around corners while being removed for normal driving as the car looks good without it. Given the force it would receive though, maybe its not a removable thing.
I also know what I want, I just dont know what is needed to get it there. Simple question to u, people that just go out and spend 250 000 pounds on an Eventador Lamborghini, do you think they know why it handles the way it does in technical terms? Probbably not, they just paid out that lump some of cash to have a car that does what they are happy with. I can also pretty much gurantee most of those owners wont take it to the track and the ones that did would NEVER see the cars full potential. They still baught it though cause it gave them the buzz they were after. Same thing for me, I know I want the GT40 up there (a GT40 body bolted to an F1 handling package so to speak), do I need to know all the technical stuff in depth before I am alowed to build it to that goal? No, the company building it needs to know it, I just need to pay the $ like the Lambo ppl walked into a dealer and paid to get what was desired. This is where my friend will come in and help. So im very serious.
Given I was going to spend 200,000 on a Diablo, I believe had I redirected 200,000 to a GT40 it could come very close to what I wanted in performance and thus exceeding the Diablo itself (same money). THis is why Im looking at the GT40 as a supercar rather than a standard GT40 for 80k-100k.
And im sure to post the build when it starts.
Thanks for the replies once again
Last edited:
Perhaps George could ask the question "who makes the best replica? Superformance? RCR? CAV? Tornado?"....
Just poking a bit of fun George.
Just poking a bit of fun George.
The original MkIs did not fare so well at the longer races for various reasons, with its line victory at Feb 1965 at the Daytona 2000. Shelby took control of the GT40 racing program, and decided to drop the NASCAR 427 into the MkI. This necessitated a number of changes - dumping the ZF for a T44, adding more/bigger vents/scoops into the body to get more air in, and some other minor changes. The challenge was to win Le Mans - anything else was incidental. The move to the BB 427 and T44 was due to the belief that the SB engines were too fragile for Le Mans (at the time), and that the power BB could be run well below its limit and still be a force to reckon with, which would improve its longevity during the race . Then, after the BB was outlawed by the FIA, and Shelby and Ford had proven their point in 1966 and 1967, Wyer took over and reinvented the Mk I, demonstrating that the SB + ZF and some modifications to the original design made it a very competitive car, winning Le Mans in 68 and 69.
Ian
George
CURRENTLY BANNED
That has already been asked :laugh: and quickly realised there was no point to it because no company is ever going to say "They make it better than us". So it was more about, who can produce what I am after. Tornado do the CF body/monocoque im after, so it seems to be them for my needs.
The only real question is, wanting to go the way I am, who best has the track experience to produce what I am after. RCR example seem to perade there involvement in racing, Tornado not so much. However RCR dont produce the CF Monocoque, but sure they could if someone was to pay to get it done, so all thats left is, who better understands (or both equal) performance in a track environment to achieve the desired goal.
Thanks Ian. So basicaly in the 60s it was easier to put a big engine in for sake of 'life' of the engine than to work out how to make a SB live longer, which today how far technology has gone, is irrelivant as both would last thus bigger/last longer is not so the case anymore.
Last edited:
Pat
Supporter
George, read "Go Like Hell: Ford, Ferrari, and Their Battle for Speed and Glory at Le Mans"
by A.J. Baime it will answer all your MKI vs II questions. The MKIV is really a different car.
If you want to go fast on a race track with a GT40 body, put one on a used Shelby Can-Am sports racer and you'll go as fast as your skills will take you. They can be easily had for $30KUS.
If you have plans to be the next Henry Ford, remember for every Carroll Shelby, there is a John DeLorean.
by A.J. Baime it will answer all your MKI vs II questions. The MKIV is really a different car.
If you want to go fast on a race track with a GT40 body, put one on a used Shelby Can-Am sports racer and you'll go as fast as your skills will take you. They can be easily had for $30KUS.
If you have plans to be the next Henry Ford, remember for every Carroll Shelby, there is a John DeLorean.
Charlie Farley
Supporter
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
Oh no, the guy that built this bus is getting me my chiznit valve and it's like 6 feet tall. I know all about buses because I ride one every day. They're the best vehicles because they have the most seats. But the one I ride is shorter.
Mike
Lifetime Supporter
Do you sit up front Al lol?
Georgy, I for one enjoy reading your ramblings. Whether you are for real or just some bong smoking dreamer, you are at least entertaining. Please don't stop. I realize before I suggested the opposite but that was before I grasp the breadth of your fantasy. Have you considered purchasing one of the Matech cars? I believe that unfortunately they folded up shop last year and most likely have cars for sale. I believe they would meet your high tech requirements to a tee! I can hook you up with a contact if you have cash on hand just let me know.
Georgy, I for one enjoy reading your ramblings. Whether you are for real or just some bong smoking dreamer, you are at least entertaining. Please don't stop. I realize before I suggested the opposite but that was before I grasp the breadth of your fantasy. Have you considered purchasing one of the Matech cars? I believe that unfortunately they folded up shop last year and most likely have cars for sale. I believe they would meet your high tech requirements to a tee! I can hook you up with a contact if you have cash on hand just let me know.
George
CURRENTLY BANNED
Andy LOL!
THanks for the pic Michael, that is 1 hot looking car. Very Very nice. It just looks like a computer game for some reason, the colours etc.
Alan - can you picture that rocket on the back of a GT40? Im sure nobody would beat that. Maybe I should stick a rocket in my build rather than a tank of Nitro with rocket fuel. Press the button on inside (like the Aventador start button) and An afterburner kicks in, can even call it the "emergency need to win" button, yep sounds plausible.
THanks for the pic Michael, that is 1 hot looking car. Very Very nice. It just looks like a computer game for some reason, the colours etc.
Alan - can you picture that rocket on the back of a GT40? Im sure nobody would beat that. Maybe I should stick a rocket in my build rather than a tank of Nitro with rocket fuel. Press the button on inside (like the Aventador start button) and An afterburner kicks in, can even call it the "emergency need to win" button, yep sounds plausible.
