Another new GT40 company....

Well, somebody else gas thrown their hat into
the ring. It's supposed to be a replica
of a Mark III but with an open top. http://www.ventureautosports.com/htmls/gt3.htm
Hersh
smile.gif
 
G

Guest

Guest
Not very pretty. I thought the Mk. III was ugly, but this one is worse. Sorry.


Jeff
 
Hersh,

This is John Donley's(ex Sabre) creation. I think he sold the molds etc to a guy in Houston. Jay knows the whole story. He's in Corpus today but I'll have him fill you in when he gets back.

keith
 
Is this what you do when you can't get the doors to fit They also market a thing called the Urban Gorilla. Nuff said....
 
Convertibles are notorious for having strutual problems because of no top. All have to have added stiffness in the frame and pillars to accomodate the "no top". No where in the website was this addressed.

Not for me.

I assume that John is out of the GT40 business?

Bill D
 
I think if done right, the top can be chopped from a GT40, and it won't look that bad, I think there are some pics of Ray Christopher's Spider in one of these threads. As for structural rigidity, I think I remember being told that the space frame cars utilize the body only for aerodynamics. Now back to the GT3, not my cup of tea...for some reason reminds me of the American GT I received a flyer on a while back..Wheels maybe?
 
G

Guest

Guest
Don't forget Ford did make GT40 spyders.
Reports were that they were fun to drive
(lots of vision..lots of cool air).
In fact Fran Kress was selling some original
GT40 spyder windshields and frames (they are different).

The problem with the GT3 (in my opinion)
is that the Mk III tail really makes the
car look longer/lower and chopping the top
accentuates that fact too much.

As far as structural rigidity...space frame
cars don't rely on the body at all.
In fact the are purposely designed that way
to prevent stress fractures of the glass.

So it's just an aesthetic issue...
beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

MikeD
 
G

Guest

Guest
OK, I'll jump in here to defend John somewhat. I have seen the car close up and it is head and shoulders above the Sabre MK I in quality and fit. There are MANY improvements to chassis and body in this car. To address the convertible issue: these cars (replicas with fibre glass bodies) never got ANY structural stiffness from the roof. Period - end of discussion. The car is longer and, to suite UK's new regulations, has a hatch back rather than a tilt clip. John said he planned to have insertable top(s) for it. The windshield is standard MK I. (I know because he was using my windshield to test fit in the frame- mine till a corner got cracked out of it.) As to styling, I prefer the MK I myself, but it isn't bad looking either, IMHO.

I haven't talked to John in a while, so I don't know the particulars of his arrangement with Venture, but I know that he was anticipating having to move back to the UK for personal/family reasons. He had intended to remain involved with the Mk III project though.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Accidental repost - Ron, please delete

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Lynn Larsen ]
 
Back
Top