SPF GT40 Genesis

[Seymour Snerd]

The 'R' dash seems to have the original angles to me. ...

....Keep in mind that, apart from the 30-odd road cars, few of the racecars had similar dash layouts and there were at least three fiberglas molds that we've heard about....

The angles don't look the same to my eye. Compare in particular the area just below and to the right of the speedometer. But I'll be the first to point out it is very dangerous to try to judge these things from photographs.

It would be great to have a picture of P2094 taken from exactly the same perspective as the P1076 photo. I would do that myself except that my car is LHD and I'm afraid that would just muddy the waters. Anybody with RHD want to take such a photo?

As for the three original molds, can you characterize at all the differences among them?

 

[Tim Kay]

As for the three original molds, can you characterize at all the differences among them?

Ditto^

Alan W & Alan P.,

Thanks for the pics of the SPF dash vs the original. Albeit, I am splitting hairs here but the difference is noticeable. If you’re to zoom in to the area around the speedo in both pics I can point out where it’s evident. Compare the contours around the speedo and see that the SPF contours make the speedo bezel appear ‘recessed’ within the dash vs the original has the contour ‘leading’ away from the bezel (I realize the gauge is different in your original pic but you can imagine having a speedo bezel there). It all starts there, with the contour leading away it creates a different angle for the switch panel. Very small change here effects appearance across the entire width of the dash. Now go to Alan W’s pic of his SPF right hand drive and do the same zoom in on the speedo area and notice even more pronounced is the ‘slight’ angle of the switch panel. It’s very hard to compare pictures unless the camera is shooting from the same angel, as Alan W mentioned, but when viewing in person it is quite evident. And like anything, if your specifically looking for it you’ll notice it that much easier.

I’ve only experienced the BP “R” up close and personal at Road America 2009 and can’t remember if I got a good look at the dash or not but unless it’s a different mold than the six or seven lhd SPF’s (MkI and MkII) I’ve personaly seen then Alan W’s picture is representative of the noticeable difference (obviously it’s RH not LH, but you know what I mean).

Further, take a look at the top “brow” of the dash, above the gauges. The upper leading edge is noticeably blunter on the SPF giving it a softer appearance. It also has more cantilever appearance ‘hanging’ over the gauges effectively appearing deeper.

I’ll concede that my observation comes from my ten years of looking at my Tornado dash which, although closer to the originals I’ve seen, has an influence here. Conversely, someone not tainted with any preconceived idea would hardly notice what I’m talking about. If David Briggs is reading this he could give his analysis for he’s previously owned a CAV, which is very similar to my Tornado in this regard, and now owns an SPF.

Final point, the SPF dash is extremely appealing and accurate, no doubt, but certainly not of the same mold as an original. And in all fairness, I could be wrong but, I don’t know for certain any current replica manufacturer has a dash splashed off an original either.

BTW, this is a great thead too Alan P http://www.gt40s.com/forum/superformance-gt40s/34651-how-authentic-pathfinder-gt40r.html Thanks.

 

[Pathfinder Motorsports]

It would be great to have a picture of P2094 taken from exactly the same perspective as the P1076 photo. I would do that myself except that my car is LHD and I'm afraid that would just muddy the waters. Anybody with RHD want to take such a photo?

I'll leave it to you guys to discern any difference, so here is a photo of P/1076 and from (about) the same perspective P/2094.

P/1076 Dash

P/2094 Dash

 

[Tim Kay]

Now your pick'n up what I'm put' down Alan! From that set of pics I discern very little, if any, difference. Makes me happy as a clam :thumbsup:

Now tell me, is it possible that the "R" mold is different from earlier non-R cars I have seen in the flesh?

 

[Seymour Snerd]

From that set of pics I discern very little, if any, difference. Makes me happy as a clam :thumbsup:

Same here. Maybe I need to get a booster seat. :stunned:

 

[Pathfinder Motorsports]

Hold on guys, I'm not sure you were wrong.

Hi-Tech had to fab up a dash for the left hand drive cars as no original was available to splash. Also, the LHD non-'R' model has a larger/wider driver's seat than the original to accommodate a 'wider' demographic. It's still very accurate, but not 'spot on' as this thread has revealed.

On the other hand, it is our understanding that the dashboard on the RHD GT40R is taken from an original GT40. Both it and the seat dimensions are highly accurate - great for those who value authenticity, not so great perhaps for those with generous girth (though Pathfinder has made custom seats for fuller figured drivers).

 

[Seymour Snerd]

Hi-Tech had to fab up a dash for the left hand drive cars ....

Of course... (now that you point that out) And if I were in their shoes I might take the opportunity to create more knee room without raising the whole dash which might result in a somewhat flatter switch surface.... Damned left-hand-driving oversized Americans... oh wait....

 

[Olivier S]

Hi guys,

As this post originally began about SPF genesys, as a mechanical engineer, and, I must confess that since I come to this forum, I'm more and more fan of GT40, I would like to see some light shed over some details.

1: Does anybody able to list ALL the actuals diferences between MkI, II, III chassis? Mention them, and even more interesting, show them.

2: Without unveiling secrets, is there any shots availables of the tooling made by High Tech for the chassis? I mean that I really would like to see the stamping tools IE the roof stamps, and the floor stamps. Would be very curious to see them.

3: Among the differents steel chassis builder, did they ALL had the tools made for their own use or was there some associations made.

Would be very curious to read Jimmy Mac's opinion about this, as well as Jay Cushman's one an all the others ones involved in this business.

Olivier.

 

[David Briggs]

Do you mean to tell me that my $80,000 SPF roller is not an exact copy of a multi million dollar FAV GT40?
What is the world coming to?
Who gives a rats ass? The car is unlike any else I could ever afford to drive.
Even a hugely expensive Holman & Moody car will not be a 60's race veteran and is just another replica.
IMHO
Dave

 

[Jack]

Right-on David! Couldn't have said it better. I decided on an RCR SL-C build primarily because it is NOT a replica of anything.

 

[Jim Craik]

David,

I agree, for the money, nothing is close to the SPF in looks, build quality and perfomance. It attracts more admirors and comments than any other cars. In the end Ferraris and Lambos are just expensive cars, none of them have won Le Mans.

The SPF GT40 is what it is...................

I am going to make as little modifications as possable, in 10 to 20 years when my daughter inherits it, its value will be because it is a SPF GT40.

Just like most "collector" cars, the most value goes to the most original ones. In the furure, an unmolested SPF GT40 will be valued for what it is, an ORIGINAL SPF car!

 

[Tim Kay]

Who gives a rats ass

David, your right regarding the simple issue of replica vs original. With all due respect, I think you've missed the point of this thread.

You won't find this level of discussion with any other manufacturer. SPF is staking claim of 'top to bottom' authenticity and the ability to "interchange" a substantial percentage of parts with originals. Along with that comes warranted scrutiny. From what I see SPF is doing a fine job of openly and proudly supporting their position.

 

[Jim Craik]

Another advantage to the SPF GT40s is the simple fact that it is a GT40. When you get the questions that we all get.......

What is it?

What kit is it?

Is it an original?

I answer its not a kit, its a real GT40, (short pause while eyes get big) but not a real "old one".........

The only part of this car that saw the 1960s' is me! I then go on to explain the new construction of GT40s' in Port Elizebeth South Africa.

 

[Seymour Snerd]

What is the world coming to?
Who gives a rats ass?

David --

The obvious response to "who gives a rats ass" is "That's a little harsh, but I do and no one is requiring you to read this thread."

As for what the world is coming to it's ironic that you react that way since it was your earlier comment that the authenticity debate would go on forever that motivated me to pursue the topic.

But let me try to clear the air by saying it again:

"... I don't consider "deviation" to have a negative connotation, and I don't think anyone should. As I've said before, I don't disagree with any of the deviations that I am aware of. If I were SPF/Hi-Tech I would have made all the decisions the same way they did."

and:

"I just want to know and understand my car better in relation to the thing(s) it is replicating."

If the topic is not of interest to you I understand completely. But as far as I can see no one in this thread has said anything that corresponds to your implied complaint.

 

[Seymour Snerd]

So, just to update the list in light of what's beens stated so far:

1. Wilwood brakes with drum-type parking brake, cables and center lever vs. Dunlop or Kelsey-Hayes
2. AC evaporator box where oil tank or spare tire might be, AC condenser in front of radiator; reciever-dryer, hoses, etc., AC compressor on motor vs no A/C
3. Ventilated seats simulated out of foam vs. webbing-suspended parachute cloth; no brackets to support original-style seats.
4. Cable shift in center-shift cars vs. rod shift. (no deviation for RHD)
5. Fuel tank crossover by flexible hose across engine bay vs. (this seems to vary among originals)
6. Stainless steel fuel tanks vs. form-fitting bladders
7. Pedal cluster welded steel vs. cast aluminum
8. Sponson ribs slightly different (debatable, see other thread).
9. Bilstein shocks vs. whatever
10. Aluminum wheels (vs. Magnesium)
11. Aluminum uprights (vs. Magnesium)
12. MK II exhaust in carbon steel, vs. stainless
13. Muffler vs. straight megaphone
14. Engine variations (eg, Windsor. Listed for completeness, although technically not under SPF's control)
15. Ford interior mirror vs. Lucas
16. Galvanized frame (I think Mk V's did as well, but then they have their own set of differences some of which are substantial).
17. ZF vs T-44 transaxle in Mk IIs. (again, not under SPF's control)
18. Rounder front fender opening profile (Mk I, not sure about Mk II)
19. Dash profile difference in LHD cars, less so in RHD cars (corner and edge profile)

Not a very long nor terribly profound list....

 

[Seymour Snerd]

1: Does anybody able to list ALL the actuals diferences between MkI, II, III chassis?

The differences between Mk I and Mk II particularly interest me as well. Various books and people make allusions to frame changes to accomodate the 7-liter engine, but I've never seen those specifically identified. I'd love to know.

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

The differences between Mk I and Mk II particularly interest me as well. Various books and people make allusions to frame changes to accomodate the 7-liter engine, but I've never seen those specifically identified. I'd love to know.

There are differences on the Mk I to MkII Chassis on the Abbey tubs but not on the Superformance.

 

[Seymour Snerd]

There are differences on the Mk I to MkII Chassis on the Abbey tubs but not on the Superformance.

Any idea what they are, and which ones the SPF matches?

And that reminds me....

Looking at P1032 pictures there are definitely some details around the the way the rear subframe double-shear-mounts the suspension arm bolts, along with some obvious triangulation that my SPF doesn't have:



Oh, I know one big difference: the "water pump bulge" in P1032 is huge compared to what I have (which is actually an aluminum fabrication from Dennnis O; I've never seen an official SPF FE bulkhead). Check it out:



And this leads me to a topic I completely forgot to mention, which is relative engine positions. I'm suspicious that the standard SPF MK II FE engine mounting places the engine to the rear and/or higher than it is in a real Mk II (due to wet sump ground clearance issues, I presume). But I haven't been able to prove that to myself (yet).

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

Any idea what they are, and which ones the SPF matches?

And that reminds me....

Looking at P1032 pictures there are definitely some details around the the way the rear subframe double-shear-mounts the suspension arm bolts, along with some obvious triangulation that my SPF doesn't have:

View attachment 53640

Oh, I know one big difference: the "water pump bulge" in P1032 is huge compared to what I have (which is actually an aluminum fabrication from Dennnis O; I've never seen an official SPF FE bulkhead). Check it out:

View attachment 53639

And this leads me to a topic I completely forgot to mention, which is relative engine positions. I'm suspicious that the standard SPF MK II FE engine mounting places the engine to the rear and/or higher than it is in a real Mk II (due to wet sump ground clearance issues, I presume). But I haven't been able to prove that to myself (yet).

Yes,

Rearward as compared to FAV tubs. The ZF has less mounting to ring gear centerline dimension than the T44 so the engine can be more rearward.

 

[Jac Mac]

Looks like anyone offering a FE/T44 option for an SPF would have to supply a gas welding/cutting torch & instructions with the kit