Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
You should post some photos. As far as I know, you are the only person really trying to recreate an XJ13 with the original engine etc. A tall order, as you say, but someone's got to do it. 
1967 - GT40 vs Jaguar XJ13
- Thread starter Neville
- Start date
You should post some photos. As far as I know, you are the only person really trying to recreate an XJ13 with the original engine etc. A tall order, as you say, but someone's got to do it.
You did ask ....
The original engine in 1967:
My engine/ZF DS25-1 just before the end of last year:
Note the skinny rear tyres as originally fitted in 1966 :uneasy:
There's plenty more pics and videos at Jaguar XJ13 - Building the Legend/
Neville
Very intresting pics. I have seen the first pic before, and have tried to work out how the engine was attatched to the chassis, was it attached in the same way as the Cosworth DFV engine ?
Or was it mounted in a similar way, to the 1980s Le Mans winning Jaguar ?
Mick
Very intresting pics. I have seen the first pic before, and have tried to work out how the engine was attatched to the chassis, was it attached in the same way as the Cosworth DFV engine ?
Or was it mounted in a similar way, to the 1980s Le Mans winning Jaguar ?
Mick
Last edited:
1) Further to the my comments Cliffbeer2 I am confused no mention was made in the start of the thread to a modern XJ-13 verses GT40. It was based on the original 1966 car.
2) Sure when Ford could not buy out Ferrari money was thrown at the Ford GT total performance project. The MKII's transmission alone was $25000 there was an an advert that stated this.
3) Also Cliffbeer2 the time line of a race cars life is normally a year or two. So the 917 and 512 are outside this. That why the Ferrari 330P4 was only raced for a season!! Thats why the GT40 in 1968/69 was heavy and reliable but slow. The rules changes after the 1967 Le Mans eliminated the big block cars the Ford MKIV and Chaparral 2F were obsolete overnight. On top of that there were circuit changes at Le Mans the introduction of chicanes on the Mulsanne straight and the modification of the road past the pits to reduce the speed. Like I stated before the Le Mans 24 hours was a race of attrition
4) There was politics involved like the 1966 dead heat that denied Ken Miles the Le Mans victory. Team orders that meant that one team car might be used as a rabbit to break the opposition. While another might be used as a backup and another for the win. Dan Gurney in the winning 1967 MKIV J-5 deliberately under performed to make his rookie team mate A J Foyt go at a steady pace and not race. When Parkes Ferrari 330P4 tried to goad him into racing when there were only two MKIV's left he let him pass by parking on the grass he caught up the Ferrari in three laps and past him.
Sure there a certain amount of luck involved in winning let alone finishing the 24 hours Le Mans. The most luck was the 1968 Le Mans when even the winner was slow in comparison with the 908 Porsche and the V12 Matra. In fact P1074 No 10 was the fastest GT40 being the ex Mirage M1.
5) I am not biased I love the E type. But without proper development work and being a year late 1967 rather than 1966 would of made the opposition the 1967 MKIV as opposed to the 1966 MKII too strong and rendered the XJ-13 obsolete.
Regards Allan
2) Sure when Ford could not buy out Ferrari money was thrown at the Ford GT total performance project. The MKII's transmission alone was $25000 there was an an advert that stated this.
3) Also Cliffbeer2 the time line of a race cars life is normally a year or two. So the 917 and 512 are outside this. That why the Ferrari 330P4 was only raced for a season!! Thats why the GT40 in 1968/69 was heavy and reliable but slow. The rules changes after the 1967 Le Mans eliminated the big block cars the Ford MKIV and Chaparral 2F were obsolete overnight. On top of that there were circuit changes at Le Mans the introduction of chicanes on the Mulsanne straight and the modification of the road past the pits to reduce the speed. Like I stated before the Le Mans 24 hours was a race of attrition
4) There was politics involved like the 1966 dead heat that denied Ken Miles the Le Mans victory. Team orders that meant that one team car might be used as a rabbit to break the opposition. While another might be used as a backup and another for the win. Dan Gurney in the winning 1967 MKIV J-5 deliberately under performed to make his rookie team mate A J Foyt go at a steady pace and not race. When Parkes Ferrari 330P4 tried to goad him into racing when there were only two MKIV's left he let him pass by parking on the grass he caught up the Ferrari in three laps and past him.
Sure there a certain amount of luck involved in winning let alone finishing the 24 hours Le Mans. The most luck was the 1968 Le Mans when even the winner was slow in comparison with the 908 Porsche and the V12 Matra. In fact P1074 No 10 was the fastest GT40 being the ex Mirage M1.
5) I am not biased I love the E type. But without proper development work and being a year late 1967 rather than 1966 would of made the opposition the 1967 MKIV as opposed to the 1966 MKII too strong and rendered the XJ-13 obsolete.
Regards Allan
Great project and interesting debate. Nice article here on the various replicas...
The Jaguar XJ13 from XJ-13.Co.Uk See the new XJ13 book from Paul Skilleter Books - 'XJ13, Possibly the most beautiful Jaguar ever made' - Ian Callum
The Jaguar XJ13 from XJ-13.Co.Uk See the new XJ13 book from Paul Skilleter Books - 'XJ13, Possibly the most beautiful Jaguar ever made' - Ian Callum
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
Neville, it looks smashing. Can't wait to see her done, nothing compared to what you feel I'm sure. Congratulations on having big enough balls to attempt this; I was crazy but you are entirely further around the bend. I'm humbled.
I'm humbled.Neville,
I found this pic, and I can now see where the front engine mount is.
.
.
I found this pic, and I can now see where the front engine mount is.
.
.
Hi Mick - the picture isn't of the XJ13 but a replica (as you probably already realise). Here is a picture of the rebuilt original up on a ramp. I have coloured one of the lower wishbones and one of the engine mounts in red to make their positions clearer.
Hi Allan,
1) In the link/article there was reference to comparing a modern/current XJ13 to a current GT40 as an unfair comparison because the GT40 has had a further 50 years of development since introduction. My point was simply that the GT40 was a highly developed car 50 years ago, let alone today.
2) Huh? Sorry, not sure what your point is.
3) No, not so. Most successful race cars of that era were raced for several years, not just 1 or 2. The GT40 is a prime example of this having been first introduced to racing in 1964 and still winning (LeMans) in 1969.
4) Sounds good, would agree with all that, although I'm not sure what the point is.....?
5) If I'm following you there, I think what you're saying is the XJ13 would have been matched up against the MkIV given the relevant timeline. And, yes, agreed, the MkIV would most likely overrun the XJ13 probably both in speed and durability.
Cheers.
Hi Neville,
Thanks for posting the pic.
Im building an Alluminium, Rivited, and Bonded chassis for my GT 40, so Im allways looking for different Ideas on how to mount the chassis to the engine/gearbox.
Mick
Thanks for posting the pic.
Im building an Alluminium, Rivited, and Bonded chassis for my GT 40, so Im allways looking for different Ideas on how to mount the chassis to the engine/gearbox.
Mick
Hi Mick - I was in your neck of the woods last week for Beaulieu. I should have asked for a sneaky look at your project. A pic would be good!
Although the XJ13 chassis was all-aluminium, the chassis engine mounts themselves are steel. Here is a picture taken in 1965 showing the original mounts being built up. You can see how it is constructed using sheets of steel spot-welded together. The whole structure was then covered top and bottom with triangular steel plates. The chassis/sills are strengthened accordingly. The holes you see on the sill are for the dry-sump oil tank and its rubber tank that sits inside.
© Neville Swales - Building the Legend 2013
I have other similar photos taken of the original as well as the precise location of the pin attaching the engine mount in 3D space. You can see the pin above the wooden jig used in place of the engine (just below the "g" in "Legend").
The strength of this structure became evident after the XJ13's inadvertent "crash-test" in 1971. The was no movement at all in this area afterwards. I should add that the rollbar passes through and is bolted/welded to these sill mounts. Again, there was absolutely no movement/distortion after the crash.
Jim Rosenthal
Supporter
Neville, is there a problem with corrosion where the aluminum alloy is in contact with the steel? I wonder. This tends to set up local corrosion cells if the two metals aren't insulated from each other.
Doesn't seem to be a problem after almost 50 years?
If it was a problem, wouldn't there be issues with every alloy block/head attached using steel studs? In some cases, there is also coolant in direct contact with the studs and block/head.
Hi Neville,
Thanks for posting the pic.That is a very simple clever way of making the engine mount.It looks very strong .I havnt decided exactly how im going to mount the engine/gearbox/suspension, but your pics, have given me some more ideas
Here is a pic of my chassis
I have a build log on this site ,here is a link to it http://www.gt40s.com/forum/gt40-build-logs/36067-gt40-aluminium-mononcoque-chassis.html
I will be updating it in about 3 weeks, I will show my Rover V8 engine, the inverted Renault UN103 gearbox,and the rear suspension
I just have a few bits to finish , before I will update with some pics
I went to Beaulieu meusem. It is an amazing place, I was allowed to take some detailed pics of the Lotus 49, and 78 they had there .If you are down this way again, it would be great to meet you.
Mick
Thanks for posting the pic.That is a very simple clever way of making the engine mount.It looks very strong .I havnt decided exactly how im going to mount the engine/gearbox/suspension, but your pics, have given me some more ideas
Here is a pic of my chassis
I have a build log on this site ,here is a link to it http://www.gt40s.com/forum/gt40-build-logs/36067-gt40-aluminium-mononcoque-chassis.html
I will be updating it in about 3 weeks, I will show my Rover V8 engine, the inverted Renault UN103 gearbox,and the rear suspension
I just have a few bits to finish , before I will update with some pics
I went to Beaulieu meusem. It is an amazing place, I was allowed to take some detailed pics of the Lotus 49, and 78 they had there .If you are down this way again, it would be great to meet you.
Mick
That is one NICE chassis :thumbsup: I look forward to see your installed powertrain.
*Mental Note To Self: Don't let Mick ever see my own horribly untidy workshop*
Cliff All my comments apply to the Le Mans 24 hour race which is what the GT40 was developed for
My point No 2 was that Ford threw money at the project.
Point No 3 That politics played a big part in the race
Point No 4 Most successful race cars of that era were developed over a period but their winning life was limited to a couple of years it was the rule changes and a decent amount of luck that let the cars compete after a few years GT40 1964 -1965 One win at Daytona none at Le Mans small block.
Big Block win at 1966 Le Mans after development. Gulf GT40 P1075 two wins at Le Mans when it was slow but reliable. But it was a totally different car to the 1966 MKII. Its true predecessor was the 1967 Mirage MI which was a faster car. Also Ford after the two wins at Le Mans had pulled out because they had achieved an all Amercian car and driver win that Henry Ford wanted. Sure they gave up all the special parts to Gulf i.e.Gurney Weslake Heads. But the Gulf success was a bonus acheived with as all Le Mans wins a certain amount of Luck
So it was really a three wins at Le Mans for the true GT40 small and big block. 1966, 1968 and 1969 two different cars with different development times sharing the same name.
1967 MKIV J-5 not a GT40 but a rehashed J-car. The MKIV only had one season 1967 after being transform from the 1966 J-Car. Although it had a 100 percent success rate winning both races it entered.
The Ferrari 330P3 was around for the 1966 season only the same as the Ferrari 330P4 was there for the following season winning Daytona.
The Chapparal 2F only appeared for one season 1967. Won BOAC 500
By 1969 the Porsche 917 never won anything in its first year it needed too much development time. But did win in 1970 and again in 1971 with a special chassised car. Rule changed Two years winning!!
Cannot remember a car type lasting the full 4 years and winning!!
Regards Allan
My point No 2 was that Ford threw money at the project.
Point No 3 That politics played a big part in the race
Point No 4 Most successful race cars of that era were developed over a period but their winning life was limited to a couple of years it was the rule changes and a decent amount of luck that let the cars compete after a few years GT40 1964 -1965 One win at Daytona none at Le Mans small block.
Big Block win at 1966 Le Mans after development. Gulf GT40 P1075 two wins at Le Mans when it was slow but reliable. But it was a totally different car to the 1966 MKII. Its true predecessor was the 1967 Mirage MI which was a faster car. Also Ford after the two wins at Le Mans had pulled out because they had achieved an all Amercian car and driver win that Henry Ford wanted. Sure they gave up all the special parts to Gulf i.e.Gurney Weslake Heads. But the Gulf success was a bonus acheived with as all Le Mans wins a certain amount of Luck
So it was really a three wins at Le Mans for the true GT40 small and big block. 1966, 1968 and 1969 two different cars with different development times sharing the same name.
1967 MKIV J-5 not a GT40 but a rehashed J-car. The MKIV only had one season 1967 after being transform from the 1966 J-Car. Although it had a 100 percent success rate winning both races it entered.
The Ferrari 330P3 was around for the 1966 season only the same as the Ferrari 330P4 was there for the following season winning Daytona.
The Chapparal 2F only appeared for one season 1967. Won BOAC 500
By 1969 the Porsche 917 never won anything in its first year it needed too much development time. But did win in 1970 and again in 1971 with a special chassised car. Rule changed Two years winning!!
Cannot remember a car type lasting the full 4 years and winning!!
Regards Allan
Hi Tim it might have been too quick.
It was only after reading so many books and seeing the interviews with drivers and team managers and their thoughts that outside factors such as race orders, strategy and politics and luck have played in winning the 24 Hours of Le Mans in this period of the mid to late 1960's.
I also missed out on my crusade of calling the early cars Ford GT. Since the 1965 Daytona winner was GT/103 it was a win for the Ford GT not officially a GT40 since this was a preproduction chassis car (I think they ran in the Prototype class). The GT40 was accepted in 1965 (but later than Daytona) into Group Four. GT40/P1006 being the first definitive production chassis GT40 seen in public it was the FAV No 14 Innes Ireland entry painted in Linden Green and running on Borrani wires wheel at the 1965 Le Mans in May of that year.
See now my summary is long winded; back to normality!!!
Regards Allan
It was only after reading so many books and seeing the interviews with drivers and team managers and their thoughts that outside factors such as race orders, strategy and politics and luck have played in winning the 24 Hours of Le Mans in this period of the mid to late 1960's.
I also missed out on my crusade of calling the early cars Ford GT. Since the 1965 Daytona winner was GT/103 it was a win for the Ford GT not officially a GT40 since this was a preproduction chassis car (I think they ran in the Prototype class). The GT40 was accepted in 1965 (but later than Daytona) into Group Four. GT40/P1006 being the first definitive production chassis GT40 seen in public it was the FAV No 14 Innes Ireland entry painted in Linden Green and running on Borrani wires wheel at the 1965 Le Mans in May of that year.
See now my summary is long winded; back to normality!!!
Regards Allan
