If you own a newer Ford vehicle, you regularly get an issue of My Ford magazine. In the current issue, the attached picture is displayed. I was really unaware the the Mark IV was so evolutionary in design to the 40. I had previously thought that the Mark IV was a totally different design. Interesting.
Mark IV
- Thread starter Foowowee
- Start date
It really is different and technically is not a "GT40". Very little carries over from the MK I/MK II to the "J" car/Mark IV (save for the Corvair tailights
)Some small items and pieces are the same, but all uprights, suspension, tub, etc. is different. I would think the biggest shared piece MK III to MK IV is the T44.
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
That's partly a quirk of the perspective. Try comparing them either direct front, direct side or direct rear. There's not much resemblance.
Liberal application on alcohol internally helps.......
It really is different and technically is not a "GT40". Very little carries over from the MK I/MK II to the "J" car/Mark IV (save for the Corvair tailights
Some small items and pieces are the same, but all uprights, suspension, tub, etc. is different. I would think the biggest shared piece MK III to MK IV is the T44.
The MK III is a street version of the MKI with small block (four headlights in the front) and very few were produced (7) and the tail was longer to fit luggage. The T44 was the 4 speed Magnesium case Transaxle built by Ford for the MK-II and MK-IV which shared the 427 V8 big block.
The Corvair Taillights were only on the Kar Kraft US Built MK-IV. The taillights were the lightest a shop assistant could buy at a local auto parts. The MK-IV was the only Ford GT built in the US by Kar Kraft and the tub is honeycomb panels.
.
Jose,
That was a typo, I meant MK II. I am familiar with the MK III street car and the MK IIs also had the Corvair lamps.
See http://www.gt40s.com/forum/all-gt40/34917-we-here-already-knew.html for why I call "bogus" on the "auto parts store by weight" story.
My simple view on the 1967 MKIIB shown in the line up. Is that the 1966 MKII is like the Cobra 289 and the 1967 MKIIB is like the Cobra 427S/C in evolution. Its a 1966 MKII on Testrogen!!! The MKIV is an all new design completed by Phil Remington and colleagues in record time from the failed 'J' Car. It as other have said is not a GT40!!!!
Also a question if the tail lights for the MKII are Convairs. Are they the same as the pre 1966 twin taillights found on the MKI? I thought they were Lucas units!???
Regards Allan
Also a question if the tail lights for the MKII are Convairs. Are they the same as the pre 1966 twin taillights found on the MKI? I thought they were Lucas units!???
Regards Allan
Last edited:
MK I units are Lucas, the MK II/MK IV units are the GM Corvair "Guide" lamps.
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
Allan --
What do you see as the changes from GT40 Mk IIA to Mk IIB that are analogous to those between the 289 and 427S/C Cobras?
Ron Earp
Admin
The rumor sounds like some urban automotive legend. Your theory as to "why that parts picking never happened" seems very logical.
Sorry for the delay in reply
I speak only my opinion the 1966 MKIIA was similar to the 289 Cobra when compared to the 1967 MKIIB which due to wider wheels had a much wider bodywork at the rear. I have a monochrome picture of the Ford France car from above that confirms this. Although the 289 Cobra had a smaller engine than the 427 and this indirectly lead to the bodywork changes. The 1966 and 1967 MKII's had the similar 427 so this comparison is not similar. But due to the more powerful 1967 engine with twin holleys the power gain lead to wider wheels being fitted at the rear necessitating the wider bodywork; similar to the 427 Cobra need for modification. Also the 427 is a testerone charged 289 and that can be said for the MKIIA and MKIIB as well.
Regards Allan
Last edited:
Similar threads
