True, because they don't share drivetrain AND suspension as well. However you look at it, the MkIV is a rechassied, rebodied MkII.
I'll make this my last comment on this and agree to disagree.....
Cheers
Last edited:
Real GT40s End Where?
- Thread starter josvdp
- Start date
True, because they don't share drivetrain AND suspension as well. However you look at it, the MkIV is a rechassied, rebodied MkII.
I'll make this my last comment on this and agree to disagree.....
Cheers
Russ,
Ford has a tendancy to change model years every so often.......lets use the Mustang as an example......65-66.....67-68......69-70, ect. The body styles are pretty close to each other, but when the 66 to 67 and 68 to 69 changes occurred, the body styles really were changed in appearance and the majority of the mechanical components. I would venture to say the lower A-arm on a 1970 Boss 302 would not fit a 1965 "K" Mustang Fastback. So if I understand your thought process, every Mustang made is a "rechassied, rebodied" Mustang? Sorry, but I don't agree with your explaination. Too many components in each Mustang are different in the model years to go along with your analogy. Now lets talk about Henry Ford...well, lets not.......
The people that built the MkIV "J" car, were totally in a different place and at a different time frame producing a totally different vehicle as compared to the MkI & MkII. I am pretty sure Ford computers were very benificial in the construction path the MkIV was subjected to. So I would say the MkIV is a totally different vehicle from the MkI & the MkII, and we can thank Henry Ford for that.
Ford has a tendancy to change model years every so often.......lets use the Mustang as an example......65-66.....67-68......69-70, ect. The body styles are pretty close to each other, but when the 66 to 67 and 68 to 69 changes occurred, the body styles really were changed in appearance and the majority of the mechanical components. I would venture to say the lower A-arm on a 1970 Boss 302 would not fit a 1965 "K" Mustang Fastback. So if I understand your thought process, every Mustang made is a "rechassied, rebodied" Mustang? Sorry, but I don't agree with your explaination. Too many components in each Mustang are different in the model years to go along with your analogy. Now lets talk about Henry Ford...well, lets not.......
The people that built the MkIV "J" car, were totally in a different place and at a different time frame producing a totally different vehicle as compared to the MkI & MkII. I am pretty sure Ford computers were very benificial in the construction path the MkIV was subjected to. So I would say the MkIV is a totally different vehicle from the MkI & the MkII, and we can thank Henry Ford for that.
Russ
You are perfectly entitled to your viewpoint and I agree to disagree with you. But I do side with Gary's last comments. And as well as saying the quote from Ronnie that the J car (and so the MKIV) was a 'totally new car'. Why when during its emnergence was the J car program stopped for evalution and the sad death of Ken Miles while testing J2. Yet the MKII was still being developed when the J car programm was halted? Even when The J car was being developed the MKII was also being developed. In my view the drive train engine and transaxle were being used on both cars not because the cars were developments from one another but because Ford had a proven and tested Engine and Drivetrain. Le Mans was imminant and why would they need to go for a new engine and geartrain? When their latest totally new car was available in the form of the MKIV. Henry Ford II did not care what Ford GT variant won Le Mans but he wanted an all American car and drivers to win. That's why the MKIIB's were in the race as backups and to try and break the P4 Ferraris. That why Bucknum raced away at the start in his MKIIB. His race was short lived. And the superiority of the MKIV was proven when Parkes P4 tried to unsettle the winning MKIV of Gurney/Foyt. Gurney let the P4 through by parking on the grass and caught up and repassed the P4 with ease.
Regards Allan
You are perfectly entitled to your viewpoint and I agree to disagree with you. But I do side with Gary's last comments. And as well as saying the quote from Ronnie that the J car (and so the MKIV) was a 'totally new car'. Why when during its emnergence was the J car program stopped for evalution and the sad death of Ken Miles while testing J2. Yet the MKII was still being developed when the J car programm was halted? Even when The J car was being developed the MKII was also being developed. In my view the drive train engine and transaxle were being used on both cars not because the cars were developments from one another but because Ford had a proven and tested Engine and Drivetrain. Le Mans was imminant and why would they need to go for a new engine and geartrain? When their latest totally new car was available in the form of the MKIV. Henry Ford II did not care what Ford GT variant won Le Mans but he wanted an all American car and drivers to win. That's why the MKIIB's were in the race as backups and to try and break the P4 Ferraris. That why Bucknum raced away at the start in his MKIIB. His race was short lived. And the superiority of the MKIV was proven when Parkes P4 tried to unsettle the winning MKIV of Gurney/Foyt. Gurney let the P4 through by parking on the grass and caught up and repassed the P4 with ease.
Regards Allan
Ron Earp
Admin
Whoa! Look out!
Start bringing that up and the next thing you know we'll be talking about that overly large over weight car that Ford just stopped production on. That one definitely will not be discussed in this sub forum!
FACT: ONLY MK-1 AND MK-II CARS UP TO 1083 WERE PRODUCED BY FAV/JWA IN PERIOD. THE LAST OF THESE WAS 1083. (AT LEAST ONE LATER CHASSIS NUMBER WAS A RE-BODY OF AN EARLIER CAR; THUS IT HAS AN ORIGINAL LOWER IN-PERIOD CHASSIS NUMBER 1004, AS WELL AS A LATER, IE OUT-OF-PERIOD, HIGHER CHASSIS NUMBER 1084.)
WITH THIS EXCEPTION, ALL NUMBERS AFTER 1083 WERE ASSEMBLED LATER THAN 1969 BY OTHER THAN FAV/JWA. A FEW OF THESE CAN LEGITIMATELY CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN ASSEMBLED FROM ORIGINAL COMPONENTS, AND THE REST ARE RE-CREATIONS.
THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE J-CARS (MK-IVs), IN THAT THE FIRST 10 WERE BUILT IN-PERIOD, THE LAST 2 (J-11 & J-12) WERE BUILT LATER BY AC CARS FROM ORIGINAL TUBS, AND ANY OTHERS (INCLUDING ONE MASQUERADING AS J-1) ARE LATER RE-CREATIONS.
WITH THIS EXCEPTION, ALL NUMBERS AFTER 1083 WERE ASSEMBLED LATER THAN 1969 BY OTHER THAN FAV/JWA. A FEW OF THESE CAN LEGITIMATELY CLAIM TO HAVE BEEN ASSEMBLED FROM ORIGINAL COMPONENTS, AND THE REST ARE RE-CREATIONS.
THE SAME IS TRUE OF THE J-CARS (MK-IVs), IN THAT THE FIRST 10 WERE BUILT IN-PERIOD, THE LAST 2 (J-11 & J-12) WERE BUILT LATER BY AC CARS FROM ORIGINAL TUBS, AND ANY OTHERS (INCLUDING ONE MASQUERADING AS J-1) ARE LATER RE-CREATIONS.
Your entitled to your opinion even if its factually incorrect if you ask any expert on the Ford GT40 John Allen, Ronnie Spain, etc They will tell you as I will that there was a properly name Ford powered car called the 'Ford GT' long before the 2005 concept car was named or for that matter the use of it generatically on the MKII, MKIII and MKIV. From 1963 -1965 the first twelve chassis that were preproduction were designated GT. They were as Carroll Shelby says Ford GT's. Therefore GT103 at Daytona in 1965 the first major win by a Ford GT. The name Ford GT40 is for the production run and started with the first car to be fitted with the definative nose GT40/P1006 the FAV entry for the 1965 Le Mans as far as I can tell this car existed in May of 1965. And was the first car that was in this form and therefore the first to be called a Ford GT40. This unless some one can correct me was the only Ford car to be known by it's height. All the others that followed were either by there date of construction i.e. GT70, GT90 Ford P68, P69, or by letters and numbers G7A, C100, etc.
The MKIV was derived from the J car and was only hastly modified for the 1967 Le Mans though on its first outing it did win the Sebring race. In the context of the time 1967 the Ford GT's had been replaced by the production run Ford GT40's. Therefore the MKIV could be called a Ford GT along with any other car that Ford raced i.e. Cortina, Galaxie, Falcon, Torinio. It was at that time a generic name. Also it was used I think as the name for Fords Total racing program? Except that I am sure it was referred to as a Ford MKIV but occasionally as the Ford GT MKIV. The MKIV name was only used to supercede the car being know as the J car originally being called Ford GTP (Grand Tourer Prototype). They might have named it the MKIII only that went to the run of the seven road cars produced in 1967. To my mind its the same as the name the MKV given to the continuation car in sequence but not a linked name yet is the MKV a GT40 I think not?
We have to be careful with history. There was a MKII but was the Big Block 1965 Le Mans car a MKII? I do not think it was called it!! Also if you go back to 1963/4 onwards was our naming of the small block car really known or called a MK1?? The Americans in their magazines always called the small block a Ford GT or Ford GT40 and the big block a MKII.
Like someone said on another topic there was not a MK1 except in my opinion in hindsight!!!?
As for the new Ford GT I think that if Ford had the right's the car would of been called the New GT40 (even if it was a third bigger all the way round) they needed the Gulf link.
As for the Lola MKIII I am no expert, but visually the heritage of the Lola T70 MKIII coupe with single headlighted could still be seen in the revised double headlighted Lola T70 MKIIIB coupe. Or are you talking about the ultimate development of the Lola T70 Spyder the MKIII? Where all sorts of spoilers an aerodynamic devises were used to keep it compeditive before the Lola T160's came along?
Regards Allan
Last edited:
FACT: ONLY MK-1 AND MK-II CARS UP TO 1083 WERE PRODUCED BY FAV/JWA IN PERIOD. THE LAST OF THESE WAS 1083. (AT LEAST ONE LATER CHASSIS NUMBER WAS A RE-BODY OF AN EARLIER CAR; THUS IT HAS AN ORIGINAL LOWER IN-PERIOD CHASSIS NUMBER 1004, AS WELL AS A LATER, IE OUT-OF-PERIOD, HIGHER CHASSIS NUMBER 1084.)
Archie I do not understand P1004/P1084. In P1004 form it raced at the 1965 Le Mans under the Rob Walker team driven by among other Bob Bondurant. It toured with the Shelby Cobra Caravan and was mothballed until 1968. This car naturally was rebodied as it was renumbered P1084 by JWAE and brought up to to race spec at Spa in 1968. Making it an original car in period.
In fact in his book "Racing in the Rain" John Horsman says he only considers Forties built at Slough as originals. He states the last chassis number to be built was P1084!!!! In fact JWAE as Ronnie Spain says still use the number P1004 in their race report. Except it could have been a Typo P1004/P1084???
Also from 1964 the first two big block cars were built by Kar Kraft Dearborn from bare supplied chassis these raced in the 1965 Le Mans as GT106 and GT107. Also in 1965 P1011 was shipped out to Shelby for construction as a MKII it was completed in December 1965. It crashed at the 1966 Le Mans trials and was destroyed. P1012 was also completed as a MKII by Shelby in December 1965 due to late arrival of parts. It was used as a spare at the 1966 Le Mans All the Le Mans MKIIA were constructed in America from bare chassis shipped out to Shelby then handed over to the team. Shelby P1015, P1047 Holman And Moody P1016, P1031, P1032,P1047 and Alan Mann XGT-1, XGT-2 (built at Shelbys Los Angeles plant by Alan Manns crew around a bare chassis). So all the MKII's were built in the USA mainly by Shelby from bare chassis!!
Regards Allan
Archie I do not understand P1004/P1084. In P1004 form it raced at the 1965 Le Mans under the Rob Walker team driven by among other Bob Bondurant. It toured with the Shelby Cobra Caravan and was mothballed until 1968. This car naturally was rebodied as it was renumbered P1084 by JWAE and brought up to to race spec at Spa in 1968. Making it an original car in period.
In fact in his book "Racing in the Rain" John Horsman says he only considers Forties built at Slough as originals. He states the last chassis number to be built was P1084!!!! In fact JWAE as Ronnie Spain says still use the number P1004 in their race report. Except it could have been a Typo P1004/P1084???
Also from 1964 the first two big block cars were built by Kar Kraft Dearborn from bare supplied chassis these raced in the 1965 Le Mans as GT106 and GT107. Also in 1965 P1011 was shipped out to Shelby for construction as a MKII it was completed in December 1965. It crashed at the 1966 Le Mans trials and was destroyed. P1012 was also completed as a MKII by Shelby in December 1965 due to late arrival of parts. It was used as a spare at the 1966 Le Mans All the Le Mans MKIIA were constructed in America from bare chassis shipped out to Shelby then handed over to the team. Shelby P1015, P1047 Holman And Moody P1016, P1031, P1032,P1047 and Alan Mann XGT-1, XGT-2 (built at Shelbys Los Angeles plant by Alan Manns crew around a bare chassis). So all the MKII's were built in the USA mainly by Shelby from bare chassis!!
Regards Allan
Last edited:
Allan, thanks for going to the trouble to type all of that and it is interesting to read, but my point remains that for the purposes of this forum, they are all Ford GTs (MK I, MKII, MKIII, MIV) and "OK" to discuss in my opinion. Nobody has hired us to define an original GT40 and loopholes are OK.
Archie Urciuoli has a beautiful original GT40p1083 and I know he does not post much on forums, so if he types in all caps, he is not shouting, he is just trying to read what he types, right Archie? Let's not scare him off or this is going to start looking like a Monty Python skit. We actually have a guy here that has a car and he is ready to talk. Archie ?
I sat in this car back in the late 1980s as it was sitting in George Stauffers shop. It was beautiful then as well as now. One of my favorites !
Archie Urciuoli has a beautiful original GT40p1083 and I know he does not post much on forums, so if he types in all caps, he is not shouting, he is just trying to read what he types, right Archie? Let's not scare him off or this is going to start looking like a Monty Python skit. We actually have a guy here that has a car and he is ready to talk. Archie ?
I sat in this car back in the late 1980s as it was sitting in George Stauffers shop. It was beautiful then as well as now. One of my favorites !
Its great to another owner of an original car on the forum,..welcome Archie..
I also had the opportunity to crawl all over 1083 when it resided in Detroit...very cool car indeed.
I also had the opportunity to crawl all over 1083 when it resided in Detroit...very cool car indeed.
Just noticed this car advertised for sale in the December 2007 "Classic and Sportscars" Mag and wondered about the two chassis number thing.
thanks
Fred W B
MK4 thing?
I think that this is a great forum where all of us can get along. Original car are well known as Bill says, the truth comes out and as long as there is full disclosure and discussion what's not to like?
Fred I will repeat my answer to Archie The car described for sale is the ex Martin Corvill P1084
Archie I do not understand P1004/P1084. In P1004 form it raced at the 1965 Le Mans under the Rob Walker team driven by among other Bob Bondurant. It toured with the Shelby Cobra Caravan and was mothballed until 1968. This car naturally was rebodied as it was renumbered P1084 by JWAE and brought up to to race spec at Spa in 1968. Making it an original car in period.
In fact in his book "Racing in the Rain" John Horsman says he only considers Forties built at Slough as originals. He states the last chassis number to be built was P1084!!!!
Johan, J what?, MIV J6 (Jim)
I never had any intention of bad mouthing the MKIV. Its part of the Ford Family at the time. All I was saying that its a parrallel design to the Ford GT, GT40, MKII and MKIII evolution. In its orginal form J1 was fitted with a 2 speed auto gearbox. So it did not have the same 4 speed manual box that the MKII did. It was only when this failed that the complete engine gearbox and drive train was used. Since it was a question of reliabity and standardisation that these components were used in both the MKIIB and MKIV by the time the 1967 Le Mans comes around. But was the MKIV a MKIIC I personally do not think so. Mainly because it was design exclusively for the J appendix regulations of 1967. It was a totally new car of its time and unfortunately only lasted that season.
I only typed that information to help someone earlier in the thread that thought the MKII were built at Slough!! Just trying to be helpful and informative.
Regards Allan
Archie I do not understand P1004/P1084. In P1004 form it raced at the 1965 Le Mans under the Rob Walker team driven by among other Bob Bondurant. It toured with the Shelby Cobra Caravan and was mothballed until 1968. This car naturally was rebodied as it was renumbered P1084 by JWAE and brought up to to race spec at Spa in 1968. Making it an original car in period.
In fact in his book "Racing in the Rain" John Horsman says he only considers Forties built at Slough as originals. He states the last chassis number to be built was P1084!!!!
Johan, J what?, MIV J6 (Jim)
I never had any intention of bad mouthing the MKIV. Its part of the Ford Family at the time. All I was saying that its a parrallel design to the Ford GT, GT40, MKII and MKIII evolution. In its orginal form J1 was fitted with a 2 speed auto gearbox. So it did not have the same 4 speed manual box that the MKII did. It was only when this failed that the complete engine gearbox and drive train was used. Since it was a question of reliabity and standardisation that these components were used in both the MKIIB and MKIV by the time the 1967 Le Mans comes around. But was the MKIV a MKIIC I personally do not think so. Mainly because it was design exclusively for the J appendix regulations of 1967. It was a totally new car of its time and unfortunately only lasted that season.
I only typed that information to help someone earlier in the thread that thought the MKII were built at Slough!! Just trying to be helpful and informative.
Regards Allan
It makes for a tired brain and aching wrist. I only type with one hand!!!
PS Thanks to Ronnie, John and Gordon for their books.
Regards Allan
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Ditto.