Hi
You may like to read this.
Superformance GT40 - Classic Driver - MAGAZINE - features
Regards
Chris.
You may like to read this.
Superformance GT40 - Classic Driver - MAGAZINE - features
Regards
Chris.
Original MkII ex-Alan Mann
- Thread starter tatios
- Start date
I wonder if he tells people it is real
Just wondering whether Jack or Troy came up with any more info on the LG600 fitment in AMGT-2?
Hi Russ,
Sadly, no. Gordon's been unwell of late, and has also been fettling his biography "Gordon Spice - The Spice of Life" with his good friend Jeremy Walton (also wrote Gerry Marshall's bio "Only Here for the Beer"). From what I hear, should make a graet read - oh to be around in the politically incorrect days of old!
No word, therefore, on the LG trans. I'm hoping to get over to the uk and see Grody again - maybe for the book release (I belive it has been pushed back to just after christmas).
Sadly, no. Gordon's been unwell of late, and has also been fettling his biography "Gordon Spice - The Spice of Life" with his good friend Jeremy Walton (also wrote Gerry Marshall's bio "Only Here for the Beer"). From what I hear, should make a graet read - oh to be around in the politically incorrect days of old!
No word, therefore, on the LG trans. I'm hoping to get over to the uk and see Grody again - maybe for the book release (I belive it has been pushed back to just after christmas).
Attachments
I wish I could tell you who told me that in the first place. When I was writing "Ford GT40 SuperProfile" I talked to lots of people, and picked up many snippets here and there. It must have been a reliable source, or I wouldn't have used the information. It may well have come from one of the guys who worked on AM's cars in the 'sixties.
However, there is solid documentary evidence that the GT40 could use a Hewland gearbox, and I have no reason to believe that the car which actually did so was anything other than AM2. It was, after all, easily the quickest privateer entry.
The evidence comes from the original homolgation documents for the GT40. As homolgated, the gearbox was specified as a ZF, 5-ratio. No mention was made of which ZF, but obviously it was the 5DS25 that was used. The homologation papers were the law for GT40s, and no car could race in the "sports car" (as opposed to "prototype") category unless it complied with the homologation papers. So, Hawkeye couldn't have run a Hewland - except that, with effect from 1st May 1968, the papers were amended, with sheet 224/3/2/V being issued. This stated: "Evolution - Hewland LG600 gearbox 5-speed" and "Ford H/D limited slip differential Part Number CHD4204A". A photograph of the gearbox, alas not in situ, was included for the benefit of the scrutineers who would have to ensure compliance with the rules. I really cannot imagine there was any point in homolgating the Hewland unless it was intended to be used by somebody, can you?
Just as an aside, on the same day (1 May 68), amendment No. 2/1E was issued, this covering the "stroking" of the motor, from 289 CID to 302 CID, and a photograph of the crankshaft with flywheel and damper attached was included.
Gulf GT40s have been referred to as having, on occasion, used 305 CID engines, and I regret that I have been guilty of perpetuating that myth. They didn't use 305s - but the original technical sheets prepared by JWAE showed quite clearly that they did, and this puzzled me - but who was I to argue? The 305 (used in the Mirage) was slightly too big (just over 5-litres), and in fact the "305" referred to in JWAE's GT40 paperwork was actually a misprint, and the original paperwork, which still exists and is held by the person who created it, has now had the 305 crossed out in pencil, and replaced by a pencilled "302". Don't you just love history?!!
John S Allen
Gulf GT40s have been referred to as having, on occasion, used 305 CID engines, and I regret that I have been guilty of perpetuating that myth. They didn't use 305s - but the original technical sheets prepared by JWAE showed quite clearly that they did, and this puzzled me - but who was I to argue? The 305 (used in the Mirage) was slightly too big (just over 5-litres), and in fact the "305" referred to in JWAE's GT40 paperwork was actually a misprint, and the original paperwork, which still exists and is held by the person who created it, has now had the 305 crossed out in pencil, and replaced by a pencilled "302". Don't you just love history?!!
John S Allen[/QUOTE]
John was the rule for a 302 or for 5 liters? Thats how the trans am mustangs got to 305 cubic inches with a 4.020 bore.
5 liters is 305 cubic inches; 1 liter = 61.0237441 cubic inches
On another note. How technical was internal engine inspection during those races? Could a team claim 5 liters and run a 3.25 stroke crank and get away with it? This was all before my time and I know how much racers try to get away with these days. Would they actualy pull a head and measure bore and stroke or could they actual P&G a motor as officials do at the track these days?
John S Allen[/QUOTE]
John was the rule for a 302 or for 5 liters? Thats how the trans am mustangs got to 305 cubic inches with a 4.020 bore.
5 liters is 305 cubic inches; 1 liter = 61.0237441 cubic inches
On another note. How technical was internal engine inspection during those races? Could a team claim 5 liters and run a 3.25 stroke crank and get away with it? This was all before my time and I know how much racers try to get away with these days. Would they actualy pull a head and measure bore and stroke or could they actual P&G a motor as officials do at the track these days?
The FIA regulations were for cubic centimetres, not cubic inches.
The 1967 305-engined Mirages were recorded as having engines of 5006cc, which was fine for a prototype, but more than was allowed for a 1968-71 sports car, where the limit was 5000cc; hence the arrival of the 302. See the 1968 FIA yearbook for confirmation. I can't be certain without going back to the original regulations, but I recall that the reason for the over-5-litres size was to permit the 1967 cars to run larger fuel tanks, as the size of these was dictated by which engine-size band the car fell in to; I'd have to look it up, but from memory I think that the over 5-litres size allowed another 10 or 20 litres of fuel to be carried.
Engines for homolgation were sent to the national motor sporting club (in the UK, the RAC) where they were measured, and various components were stamped and sealed to prevent subsequent tampering. Then they were returned to the users (eg, JWAE) along with a certificate bearing the engine number and attesting to the motor's compliance with the rules. At Le Mans at least, no certificate, no race.
Whether other circuits' scrutineers were as diligent, I know not, but, at Le Mans, "pesage" (scrutineering) - or as Americans say, "Technical Inspection" - has always been incredibly difficult, and many a car which has raced all season up to mid-June has fallen foul of the ACO's inspectors. Very little passes them. For example - everywhere else on the planet GT40s could race as built, but at Le Mans, as tyres got ever-wider, the front fenders had to have small "eyebrows" fitted at the back, to hide the tyres, because the rules said that when the wheels were in the straight-ahead position, no part of the wheel/tyre should be visible when viewed vertically from above. Nobody else bothered, but at Le Mans..!
John S Allen
WOW all I can say if those guys ever showed up where I race, my cars would be back in the trailer. I was wondering just how strict they were at such a big race. I also wonder if they were even tougher on Ford as the were kinda considered an outsider. I mean 6cm over on a 5000 cm rule is like splitting hairs. You could probably get that much of a differance hot and cold altho you stated the engines were checked in advance and I and therefor cold.
Yes, but where do you draw the line? If 5006 cc is OK, then why not 5016? 5060? 5600? 6000? The FIA rules said 5000, and they meant it.