Ron Earp
Admin
How's that different from a Tornado GT40, RCR GT40, Roaring Forties GT40, CAV GT40, SPF GT40, etc? They're all GT40 replicas, and all are available as completed cars.
SPF GT40 Genesis
- Thread starter awatkins
- Start date
How's that different from a Tornado GT40, RCR GT40, Roaring Forties GT40, CAV GT40, SPF GT40, etc? They're all GT40 replicas, and all are available as completed cars.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Ron,
The main differance, besides the fairly close mono is the fact that SAFIR (for a fee) allows it to be called a GT40 and it has a Pxxxx number. My builder plate and Vin# GT40/P2264.
They are all "replicas", but I'm not sure that that the other "replicas" are allowed use the GT40 lable.
So when I said it was a real GT40, it is, just not a real old one, I think I spoke the truth, but I'm sure you will let me know
The main differance, besides the fairly close mono is the fact that SAFIR (for a fee) allows it to be called a GT40 and it has a Pxxxx number. My builder plate and Vin# GT40/P2264.
They are all "replicas", but I'm not sure that that the other "replicas" are allowed use the GT40 lable.
So when I said it was a real GT40, it is, just not a real old one, I think I spoke the truth, but I'm sure you will let me know
Last edited:
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
OK, but in the SPF MKII wih FE the ZF+engine both are spaced an inch rearward compared to the 351 case (correct? Three FEs that I know of are like that.).
Hence the two inches of aluminum spacer between the hoop and the ZF ears, which leads to a rather precarious looking transaxle mounting and the retrofitting of a support mount between the back of the transaxle and the subframe.
I assumed all of this tomfoolery was because the FE had to be shifted up to achieve reasonable ground clearance with a wet sump, and to do so without a ridiculous firewall bulge meant that it also had to be shifted a similar amount to the rear. And even with that "kluge" (as we say in the software business), an FE-engined SPF still has a sump hanging down an inch below the tub which has led some people to mount skid plates.
(Sidebar: I've spent a lot of money on skid plate hardware for my Land Rover so I can crawl over boulders in "low range" at below walking speed. I refuse to let my GT40 share such a property with my Land Rover. So I bought a dry sump instead. :stunned
And that brings me to another point: The ZF ears on an SPF GT40 with a 351 are spaced back an inch from the hoop. Is this also true with a 289/302 SPF?
In either case, why?
Last edited:
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
Or, to paraphrase President Clinton, "it depends on what you think the meaning of "is" is."
Alan,
To your post above.
"Hence the two inches of aluminum spacer between the hoop and the ZF ears, which leads to a rather precarious looking transaxle mounting"
Note what we did to P2125 (see in SPF Forum page 4 under "Upgrades/options/mods to P2125 page 1) Custom ZF top cover was designed and cast to look like a T44 but, main reason to put the ears against the SPF hoop w/o the 2" spacer (can't see in the pic as the ears are behind the ZF breather but, they are against the hoop)..
I worked with Pedro (a longstanding member of the forum) who may still be able to get one made if you are interested as he should still have the plug and mould.
Steve C P2125
To your post above.
"Hence the two inches of aluminum spacer between the hoop and the ZF ears, which leads to a rather precarious looking transaxle mounting"
Note what we did to P2125 (see in SPF Forum page 4 under "Upgrades/options/mods to P2125 page 1) Custom ZF top cover was designed and cast to look like a T44 but, main reason to put the ears against the SPF hoop w/o the 2" spacer (can't see in the pic as the ears are behind the ZF breather but, they are against the hoop)..
I worked with Pedro (a longstanding member of the forum) who may still be able to get one made if you are interested as he should still have the plug and mould.
Steve C P2125
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
Looks like anyone offering a FE/T44 option for an SPF would have to supply a gas welding/cutting torch & instructions with the kit
The instructions would be "remove ZF, discard spacers, use torch to fabricate engine mounts that move engine forward and down where it was originally. Install T44."
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
Thoreau said in Walden we should "Simplify, simplify" although I doubt he would approve of this.
I remain optimistic until futility is demonstrated; do you know something that would imply frame modifications are necessary?
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
That's definitely the high-class fix given the existing SPF layout. However, if my theory is correct another way to fix it is to simply shift the engine 2" forward, thus killing several birds with one stone, but creating a turkey buzzard in the cabin.
BTW I have a Quaife....:sad:
JimmyMac
Lifetime Supporter
Steve,
Nice work there mate.
Did I send you a door-well gearbox warning plate with the shift knob emblem ?
If not drop me a PM with your address again.
GT40 by Ronnie Spain, Chapter 4, The Big Block Theory, first page second column, in the last 9 lines from bottom on that page..
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
Yeah, I know.
Moving the seats forward sounds like making room for the water pump bulge. Big deal.
Modifying "the rear of the chassis" I take to mean the subframe, and I have pictures of that for P1032; it doesn't worry me, it's just a network of 1" square tubing and it looks a hell of a lot like what i have, but with some additional bracing. I've already modified mine to take my Quaife. If I have to modify it some more to (for example) clear some part of a T44, I'm delighted all my problems are so small.
So I'm still optimistic. :drunk:
What I'm worried about more than anything else is that I'll discover the "hoop" is 2 inches further forward than it's supposed to be, or something stupid like that, and THAT's why the cars have the spacers even with ZF. THEN it will time to get out the cutting torch (to make it all small enough to fit into my trash bin.) and I'll go buy a corvette. :cry:
Alan,
From your post above looks like you are going with a T44.
Are you going all the way with original front cover, dry sump,original oil pump,bell housing and clutch?
If so have you sourced them yet? If not ERA might be able to help you as they have built up at least one that I know of with 100% original parts.
Let us know what you are up to.
Interesting! You would be the first SPF I know of to go 100% power train like the ERA owner.
Steve P2125
PS: You probably know but, if you move the engine fwd 2" I think it will also entail moving the engine mounts and the dizzy spacing will require notching the frame that seat belts attach to, also unless using the correct front timing chain cover H2O hoses will interfere with the SPF lower mono members?
From your post above looks like you are going with a T44.
Are you going all the way with original front cover, dry sump,original oil pump,bell housing and clutch?
If so have you sourced them yet? If not ERA might be able to help you as they have built up at least one that I know of with 100% original parts.
Let us know what you are up to.
Interesting! You would be the first SPF I know of to go 100% power train like the ERA owner.
Steve P2125
PS: You probably know but, if you move the engine fwd 2" I think it will also entail moving the engine mounts and the dizzy spacing will require notching the frame that seat belts attach to, also unless using the correct front timing chain cover H2O hoses will interfere with the SPF lower mono members?
Last edited:
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
I'd don't know what I'm doing. Seriously. Aside from trying to get the damn thing running which is mostly a self-discipline issue since, after all, I'm sitting here typing which isn't helping any.
But yes I am seriously considering the T44. The original dry sump, etc. I can get for $5K, but that's lower on my list since i have a non-original dry sump that works fine (AFAIK).
As for the dimensional stuff, I dont' actually know if there is any difference between the current "official" SPF engine position and that of a Mk II. But I really would like to know. And I need to before I go dropping another 25% of my car's net worth on a gearbox.
It's really hard to judge these things from photographs (witness the discussion about dash angles). But if you compare the following photographs you might think there are some differences in position. This first one is familiar to you. Could you check and tell me how many fingers or inches you can get between distributor cap and the shoulder belt rail? (And while you're at it the distance from the manifold surface at the base of the distributor up to the should belt rail?)
In the case of "the original" the answer is pretty clearly "none", not even a pinkie. But it does look like the top of a ford distributor cap should be level with the top of the shoulder belt rail:
In the case of my car it's several fingers but at the time there was no transaxle so who knows what angle the block was sitting at. It's probably rocking back a bit:
And then there's my friend with the webers; his distributor looks awfully high even if it is an MSD:
IAE, all this has me wanting to know what is the "correct" engine position for a Mk II. I wish I could get to one with a tape measure. Or get someone who knows to tell me.
Given that the mechanics of moving things is moot until I know where things are supposed to be. It might be two inches forward. It might be two inches backward. It might be zero.
And finally, to paraphrase Jerry Seinfeld, "What's the deal with the spacers?"
Last edited:
Alan,
Engine position of my engine (1'st pic in your post above) is same as the pic of the "original". My # 5 boot at the dizzy alllows rotation of the dizzy (for timing adjust) but, is only 1/8" away from the shoulder belt rail and is heightwise same as the original. The top of the boots are pretty much even with the seat belt rail just like original pic. My engine sits level (no front or rear tilt). We had to midify the firewall bump out (new cone and still the H2O pully almost hits).
Your engine is FAR back compared to mine. Was you roller ordered as a MKII? Are the engine mounts same as mine?
I believe my engine is in the correct position (as compared to the original).
As to the "spacers": With my engine in position there was still need for the spacers that I did not want to use. I believe the difference is that the T44 and original bellhousing bring the T44 to meet the SPF MKII hoop as in originals but, not using either I was 2" away so we designed and foundered/machined the T44 look alike top cover that puts the mounting ears where the T44 ears would be (in a position that does not require the spacers).
We decided to not go with a T44 as I wanted the better shifting (for the street) of the RBT M3 and easier repaiir if needed. Once that decision was made wouldn't be able to use the original front cover/dry sump and bellhousing ect anyway as they need to mount up to the T44 to be correct and I believe the original dry sumpo and original bellhousing mate as well.
Hope you proceed with the "all original" approach as it will be great to see a SPF with "original" drivetrain. As of now I believe it is only ERA who has done an all original MK II drivetrain.
Steve P2125
Engine position of my engine (1'st pic in your post above) is same as the pic of the "original". My # 5 boot at the dizzy alllows rotation of the dizzy (for timing adjust) but, is only 1/8" away from the shoulder belt rail and is heightwise same as the original. The top of the boots are pretty much even with the seat belt rail just like original pic. My engine sits level (no front or rear tilt). We had to midify the firewall bump out (new cone and still the H2O pully almost hits).
Your engine is FAR back compared to mine. Was you roller ordered as a MKII? Are the engine mounts same as mine?
I believe my engine is in the correct position (as compared to the original).
As to the "spacers": With my engine in position there was still need for the spacers that I did not want to use. I believe the difference is that the T44 and original bellhousing bring the T44 to meet the SPF MKII hoop as in originals but, not using either I was 2" away so we designed and foundered/machined the T44 look alike top cover that puts the mounting ears where the T44 ears would be (in a position that does not require the spacers).
We decided to not go with a T44 as I wanted the better shifting (for the street) of the RBT M3 and easier repaiir if needed. Once that decision was made wouldn't be able to use the original front cover/dry sump and bellhousing ect anyway as they need to mount up to the T44 to be correct and I believe the original dry sumpo and original bellhousing mate as well.
Hope you proceed with the "all original" approach as it will be great to see a SPF with "original" drivetrain. As of now I believe it is only ERA who has done an all original MK II drivetrain.
Steve P2125
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
Cool. Thanks for the data, that's very comforting. I think the big gap in mine is because the block was tilting back, but I'll know better in a few days when it's all in; unfortunately I took no pictures when the transaxle was in place at the time.
Mine was ordered by the previous owner as a 351. I'll post a picture of my mounts that I got from Dennis.
The apparently huge size of P1032's waterpump bulge still bugs me, but that may just be a "you can't judge dimension in a photograph" problem.
I'm going to take a closer study of the T44 and ZF drawings and see if I can sort out a precise explanation for the spacers.
I'm still puzzled by the use of spacers in the SBF (Windsor) case, and don't know if 289/302s use them. Would anyone with one of those please report?
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
We're about done. If you want to snip this out and separate it's fine with me; or i'd do it if I had the permissions.
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
Some dimensions from drawings of RBT ZF vs T44. ZF dimensions read strate from callouts on RBT's drawing. T44 dimension taken from a drawing with no callouts (scaled from flywheel ring gear OD).
ZF Distance from transmission mounting face to forward face of mounting ears 4.311";
Quicktime bell housing depth: 5.00" (Mine's out being powder coated so I'm trusting the mfr. on this)
Total: 9.311"
T44 distance from bellhousing face to forward face of mounting ears: 7.7"
So the mounting ears on a T44 are 1.6" closer to the block than those of a ZF. If we assume the chassis dimensions are identical, that then explains all but 0.4" of the spacers.
Then, a mitigating factor is that the T44 sits ~1/2" lower (relative to the mounting ears) than a ZF, which would have the effect of pivoting the engine back about the motor mounts. With a distributor about the same distance above the motor mounts as the mounting ears are behind it, that pretty much puts the distributor right back where it belongs, nestled against the should belt bar, but a little bit higher in the T44 case, which might explain why a tall MSD distributor cap ends up at the same height in an SPF as a Ford cap is in an original Mk II.
So, I think this all boils down to a pot full of nothing. Thanks for watching. :embarassed:
ZF Distance from transmission mounting face to forward face of mounting ears 4.311";
Quicktime bell housing depth: 5.00" (Mine's out being powder coated so I'm trusting the mfr. on this)
Total: 9.311"
T44 distance from bellhousing face to forward face of mounting ears: 7.7"
So the mounting ears on a T44 are 1.6" closer to the block than those of a ZF. If we assume the chassis dimensions are identical, that then explains all but 0.4" of the spacers.
Then, a mitigating factor is that the T44 sits ~1/2" lower (relative to the mounting ears) than a ZF, which would have the effect of pivoting the engine back about the motor mounts. With a distributor about the same distance above the motor mounts as the mounting ears are behind it, that pretty much puts the distributor right back where it belongs, nestled against the should belt bar, but a little bit higher in the T44 case, which might explain why a tall MSD distributor cap ends up at the same height in an SPF as a Ford cap is in an original Mk II.
So, I think this all boils down to a pot full of nothing. Thanks for watching. :embarassed:
Last edited:
Similar threads
