SPF GT40 Genesis
- Thread starter awatkins
- Start date
Alan,
Need to be careful regarding your:
"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."
Clearance bottom of bellhousing to lower frame in my car is "close" (not touching but you don't have 1/2" if 1/2" lower is what is needed for the T44). If you are going to use the original bellhousing maybe it allows for this?
Steve P2125
Need to be careful regarding your:
"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."
Clearance bottom of bellhousing to lower frame in my car is "close" (not touching but you don't have 1/2" if 1/2" lower is what is needed for the T44). If you are going to use the original bellhousing maybe it allows for this?
Steve P2125
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
Good point. With my Quicktime it was ~1/16". I haven't compared the profile of the two bell-housings. I could do that easily if I had access to a drawing of the QT bell-housing but I don't think I do. OTOH, with a little messing around I could recreate the appropriate dimensions. If I actually had that problem I would probably just "get out the cutting torch" and either relieve the hoop or the bell housing or both, more likely the former.
However, from the academic viewpoint of answering the question relevant to this thread, i.e. "Did Hi-tech move the FE block to make it work" I'm satisfied that the answer is essentially "No" and that therefore we can cross "engine position" off the Mk II "deviations" list. I'm still interested in the 289/302 case, but not nearly as much for obvious reasons.
Alan,
I have a MKI with a 1965, 289 engine and a ZF-2 and an original bellhousing.
It looks to me that the engine is on the same position as on the original cars, but I am not close enough to the car (out of the country now) to double check that for you.
I have been checking some pictures of how my ZF sits on the chassis, and I can see that I have spacers (probably around 1" more or less) but comparing it with some of the pictures that I have of 60´s built cars, all of them have some kind of spacers between the chassis and the ears on the ZF, of a similar size.
All the ancillaries on my engine are 65/66 (the water pump, pulleys, alternator, V shape water pipe...) and the bulge on the engine cover facing the inside of the cabin (between the seats) had to be modified a little bit, but is not bigger than in any of the 60´s cars.
But mine is a MKI, ordered as an MKI with a period engine. Hope this helps.
Some pictures of my engine bay attached for you to compare. Let me know if you need additional info.
I have a MKI with a 1965, 289 engine and a ZF-2 and an original bellhousing.
It looks to me that the engine is on the same position as on the original cars, but I am not close enough to the car (out of the country now) to double check that for you.
I have been checking some pictures of how my ZF sits on the chassis, and I can see that I have spacers (probably around 1" more or less) but comparing it with some of the pictures that I have of 60´s built cars, all of them have some kind of spacers between the chassis and the ears on the ZF, of a similar size.
All the ancillaries on my engine are 65/66 (the water pump, pulleys, alternator, V shape water pipe...) and the bulge on the engine cover facing the inside of the cabin (between the seats) had to be modified a little bit, but is not bigger than in any of the 60´s cars.
But mine is a MKI, ordered as an MKI with a period engine. Hope this helps.
Some pictures of my engine bay attached for you to compare. Let me know if you need additional info.
Last edited:
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
Thanks for that; that pretty much answers the question: I see the spacers on yours and they look just like those that are used with a 351. So I guess the only remaining question is why on the originals the ZF ears are not mounted right up to the cross bar. It just seems like an odd design and I have a hard time believing it's left over from the Colotti days.
Hi again Alan,
Attached some pictures of the ears and spacers in chassis 1017, 1018, 1078, 1089 and 103 (this one © Jimbo from a previous post somewhere here).
You will notice that all of those MKI have spacers between the ears on the transmission and the chassis.
It seems to me that the spacer on the ZF-0 is smaller than in the ZF-2´s but I would not swear this, not enough evidence from the pictures.
Will check at the Festival of Speed this weekend if there are any GT 40s around
JP
Attached some pictures of the ears and spacers in chassis 1017, 1018, 1078, 1089 and 103 (this one © Jimbo from a previous post somewhere here).
You will notice that all of those MKI have spacers between the ears on the transmission and the chassis.
It seems to me that the spacer on the ZF-0 is smaller than in the ZF-2´s but I would not swear this, not enough evidence from the pictures.
Will check at the Festival of Speed this weekend if there are any GT 40s around
JP
Last edited:
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
Fascinating. One thing I wonder about is if we're also seeing differences in the way the originals provided flexibility. I've never seen exactly what kind of flexible bushing runs through the cross-member.
Unrelated to SPF, but another thing your pictures show that interests me, clearest in the 1078 picture, is the strut used to provide double-shear moutning for the upper lateral control arm. That looks like an afterthought, and I wonder when it came in, and when the subframe took over that function.
Last edited:
Alan,
Believe it. As the tub tooling and fixtures were all designed for the Coletti, the ZF install was a "make work".
Alan,
Another difference, which was pointed out to me on my car by Mike Trusty, and which I've 'fixed' by lengthening the adjustment arm with a new, longer one.
The rear sway bar arms on the SPF's that I've seen are pointed at almost a 45 degree angle towards the ground. The adjusting rods that go to the A-arms are too short.
All the pictures I've seen so far show that the original cars have the longer adjustment rods and the sway bar arms are almost horizontal.
FWIW,
Kirby
Another difference, which was pointed out to me on my car by Mike Trusty, and which I've 'fixed' by lengthening the adjustment arm with a new, longer one.
The rear sway bar arms on the SPF's that I've seen are pointed at almost a 45 degree angle towards the ground. The adjusting rods that go to the A-arms are too short.
All the pictures I've seen so far show that the original cars have the longer adjustment rods and the sway bar arms are almost horizontal.
FWIW,
Kirby
Forgot...
The front sway bar on the SPF cars is a three piece affair with splines. Or, at least, it was. They may have updated this...
Many people have had problems with the splines slipping and the front sway bar not working at all... Mike Trusty did, I did... and maybe Jack Houpe, too. Can't remember.
Usual solution is to weld the end pieces onto the bar and then use the original style two piece clamps to hold them on to the car.
The front sway bar on the SPF cars is a three piece affair with splines. Or, at least, it was. They may have updated this...
Many people have had problems with the splines slipping and the front sway bar not working at all... Mike Trusty did, I did... and maybe Jack Houpe, too. Can't remember.
Usual solution is to weld the end pieces onto the bar and then use the original style two piece clamps to hold them on to the car.
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
Good one, number 20 or 20 & 21. The FAV parts book definitely shows a conventional one-piece front bar.
It also shows cute little boots over some of the spherical bearings. I wouldn't ming having some of those....
I've seen a lot of variation in the rear bars on the originals, particularly as to how the arms are constructed and what the adjustment mechanism is. Some have cast arms with discrete adjustment positions
JimmyMac
Lifetime Supporter
Alan,
Regarding your comments on suspension, we had a rummage over a couple of SPFs recently.
Some questions:
Are any SPF cars fitted with the original style top ball joint housings or are they all fitted with a standard rod end to a stub on the top of the front upright?
Are they fitted with DREM aircraft specification bearings in the wishbones as original ?
Regarding your comments on suspension, we had a rummage over a couple of SPFs recently.
Some questions:
Are any SPF cars fitted with the original style top ball joint housings or are they all fitted with a standard rod end to a stub on the top of the front upright?
Are they fitted with DREM aircraft specification bearings in the wishbones as original ?
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
I can only speak for mine (2160) for which see attached picture up the front upper ball joint. The look more like standard rod ends than the what the FAV parts book shows.
I had one of the wishbone spherical joints out the other day but don't recall any markings that would indicate specs. How would one tell?
I have a front upper and lower take-off on the shelf. I will look at the bearings and report.
Remember the "85-90%" as original thing? These are the sort of items that were changed to allow a price point we could afford. I recal Jim Rose saying the lower rear arm inner Rose joints (no relation to Jim) were several hundred dollars each.....back in the '60s!!!!
Jim Price shared his philosophy on the design and construction of the SPF GT40 with me and some concessions had to be made to make it:
*Buildable (Go find original 1960's parts)
*Saleable (We Yanks tend to be a little bigger than we were in 1965)
* Affordable (Yes, I know, that is subjective)
So if you want a 100% GT40 I think there are some 1960s FAV cars for sale. Bring money, lots of it. In fact rob a bank first. And do some serious due diligence to avoid a Sbarro type of "original GT40".
If you want a 95 +/- GT40 see Gelscoe. Bring money, not as much but still a buttload.
If 85-90% works for you, call me. I sell Superformance GT40s...................
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
Yes, I will have to start categorizing "deviations" if we get into things like different kinds of spherical joints.
But I am interested in knowing exactly what is used in the SPF for the unrelated reason that the more I know about my car the better I can take care of it. I was able to trace the front inner spherical joints by dimension to an apparently uncommon part in the Aurora catalog.
But I am interested in knowing exactly what is used in the SPF for the unrelated reason that the more I know about my car the better I can take care of it. I was able to trace the front inner spherical joints by dimension to an apparently uncommon part in the Aurora catalog.
Last edited:
Note that the Heim joints used are Aurora units, a very high quality and well respected brand. They could easily be "Yao Ming" or so other offshore, cheaper, questionable brand. SPF in general uses known, proven quality components.
If you need to know parts I can provide information in most cases and will communicate with the factory for answers.
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
I just remembered another one: Boeing 707 wiper motors, etc.
Having said that, my real interest would be how do I get that cool looking high-frequency wiper action without paying a fortune for a 50-year-old aircraft part? What do today's endurance racers use?
Having said that, my real interest would be how do I get that cool looking high-frequency wiper action without paying a fortune for a 50-year-old aircraft part? What do today's endurance racers use?
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
Take a good look at the shape around the front wheel opening of P1032, how it flares out over the front tire as the surface transitions forward from that of the door.
vs P2160:
vs
There are some similar differences in the way the rear scoop surfaces transition rearward over the rear tire.
vs P2160:
vs
There are some similar differences in the way the rear scoop surfaces transition rearward over the rear tire.
Last edited:
The SPF MK II front clip is actually based on a MK II "B" with the area in front of the tire more "vertical" than the "A" model. Almost all of the MK IIs differed somewhat from each other and the Shelby and Holman Moody cars had numerous differences.
Last edited:
Similar threads
