Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Try this. You will have to ignore the first two Wake Island photos, sorry I'm very lame.
http://flic.kr/p/ax5fDi
http://flic.kr/p/ax5fDi
P2264 is back
- Thread starter Jim Craik
- Start date
Nonsense! You did good!
As for the 'repair', it seems that they didn't address the underlying issue at all? I would have hoped they would have reverted to the original GT40 design instead of carrying on with what is obviously a compromised design. Having said that, I think it's great that SPF stood behind their product (for better or for worse) and stepped up and paid for the repairs. That says a lot about the company. I wonder if they will apply this same repair preventatively for others, or if they will only repair cars as and when they fall apart?
I know when I get mine (said the wanna-be!!!!), I'll insist on the original design so it won't be an issue.
Now, where's that $100K I need to make that big talk into a reality....? :laugh:
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Mike,
The metal guy who did the repair told me that the Spf folks told him to keep the original design. Mike it may be hard to tell, but that piece is now doubled and bolted, it's not going anywhere.
At Howards party there was a beautiful black SPF MkII (I can't remember his name) but he said it was an earlier chassis and parked nearby. We checked out the differences, but except if you looked real close, they were identical.
The metal guy who did the repair told me that the Spf folks told him to keep the original design. Mike it may be hard to tell, but that piece is now doubled and bolted, it's not going anywhere.
At Howards party there was a beautiful black SPF MkII (I can't remember his name) but he said it was an earlier chassis and parked nearby. We checked out the differences, but except if you looked real close, they were identical.
It seems that the gauge of metal used varies slightly from chassis to chassis. Some are thicker in areas than others. Obviously Jim's car is way ahead in terms of use and mileage but I'm sure most of us plan on keeping our cars for a LONG time and will eventually get there too. I truly applaud SPF, Lance, and Jim for stepping up and fixing Jim's problem. I just hope that if, more likely when, this happens again SPF will back that issue as well.
BTW, the MK II was mine. It was great meeting all of you. We should do it again sometime soon.
Rich.
BTW, the MK II was mine. It was great meeting all of you. We should do it again sometime soon.
Rich.
Jim Craik
Lifetime Supporter
Rich,
Thanks for posting, I just could not remember your name, sorry.
I loved your car, it has a great look, additionally it's "stance" seemed just right, I think it might be just a little lower than mine, the wheel tire interface just looks right.
As far as the thickness of metal, I really can't tell, but it could be. As far as Alan and the other SPF owners, my though is to enjoy your cars, keep an eye on the area and if you notice anything I would contact Lance, they are good guys and they truly care about their cars.
Anyway, Rich it was nice to meet you, if you are ever around the south bay, on Saterday mornings there is a nice group of car guys who meet up at behind Santana Row off Winchester 10:00ish to 12:00ish. The usual F&P cars but almost always a Pantera or two and a Mangusta/Mura is not unheard of. A while back somebody brought a truly lovely McLaren M6GT.
Thanks for posting, I just could not remember your name, sorry.
I loved your car, it has a great look, additionally it's "stance" seemed just right, I think it might be just a little lower than mine, the wheel tire interface just looks right.
As far as the thickness of metal, I really can't tell, but it could be. As far as Alan and the other SPF owners, my though is to enjoy your cars, keep an eye on the area and if you notice anything I would contact Lance, they are good guys and they truly care about their cars.
Anyway, Rich it was nice to meet you, if you are ever around the south bay, on Saterday mornings there is a nice group of car guys who meet up at behind Santana Row off Winchester 10:00ish to 12:00ish. The usual F&P cars but almost always a Pantera or two and a Mangusta/Mura is not unheard of. A while back somebody brought a truly lovely McLaren M6GT.
Last edited:
Seymour Snerd
Lifetime Supporter
Yes, at the very least you would hope for that.
I would hope for just a little more. Superformance caused this problem because they deviated from the design of the original cars, while faithfulness to the originals is a primary component of their marketing of this "replica." They introduced a potentially fatal weakness the original cars never had. None of you has a scientific basis for assuming yours will not fail sooner than Jim's did.
These days when a manufacturer screws up we expect them to own-up to the mistake, to communicate with the affected owners about their options for correction and to commit to correction in all future products. But not Superformance, for some reason. So my take is we add this time bomb to the list along with the suicidal parking brake: the owners are on their own to figure out what to do about it, if they know about it at all, and hopefully they find out before an expensive or injuring accident. You guys are all operating your cars on the street alongside the general public. "I'll fix it when it breaks" simply isn't acceptable. What ever happened to technical service bulletins and owner mailing lists?
Why Superformance turns its back on the opportunity to sell profitable "fixit kits" for this kind of thing is beyond me. No one has suggested these things need to be fixed for free, and I certainly would not. All I ask for is disclosure to the owner community so we at least have the information we need to head off the disaster. Why is that not happening? Do we no longer matter because our checks have cleared? Do our post-sales experiences and opportunities as further revenue sources simply not matter to the manufacturer? Is there a "face-saving" issue with admitting to the mistake?
And before anybody says "yeah but it's a 60s race car," remember: these are problems the orignal GT40s did not have. I accept that I am the owner of a misuse of a 60's race car design, and am more than willing to pay for the consequences. I just expect to be informed about factory mistakes that make that situation even worse.
As long as people tell them all they have to do is throw some free bailing wire at the gross and public manifestations like this one, then that's probably all they will do. It's a shame that the alternatives are not explored.
The stone-walling mentality exhibited here certainly leaves me with grave reservations about owning any other Superformance products.
Last edited:
Alan, very interesting comments. I'll be watching to see if it promotes a response from SPF or their hierarchy. Being a CAV owner (#82) its been well documented the early CAV's had suspension issues which I believe were rectified in the post 100 serial numbered cars. I'm unsure if CAV ever admitted/stated to its owners of those early cars there were suspension issues but if you speak to many owners they will tell you they highly recommend you change the front uprights for sure and consider the rears. The front uprights were updated on mine but the factory rears remain. One thing I've come to appreciate is how much testing on any component must be done by the BIG BOYS (GM, FORD etc) before a car goes on the market. I've dealt with many small issues on my car that leave me wondering "what were they thinking?" But to be fair to CAV I'm unsure of the REAL history of my car once it left the factory and who did what with it once it arrived in this country. In addition any issues I've had with my car I've been able to contact the factory and gotten responses from the owner. Which leads me to your concerns....do you ponder what type of time and testing SPF did on "their" suspension "changes" before sending the cars out? When it comes to small issues like minor water leaks and gaps in the doors etc I have no qualms with this as its part of the charm IMHO of owning a GT40 but suspension.....No. This is a life or death issue with these cars because SPF, CAV, RCR etc must assume these cars are going to be driven and driven very hard or raced hard by their owners so this type of failure CAN AND SHOULD NOT happen.
I watched with my own two eyeballs when Dave Briggs' rear suspension upright broke apart while he was thrashing his early CAV GT40 on a racetrack back in 2006; he got VERY lucky in that the car was only lightly damaged, didn't collect any other cars, and (most important) he was unhurt. I rode out in the tow truck and shot photos, here:
Note that the loads were being imparted by really crappy and not-particularly-sticky Goodyear street tires, not slicks. If you own a sub-100 CAV GT40 and you haven't dealt with this problem, you're driving a hand grenade with the pin already pulled.
It's very bad when something like this happens, and it's important for a manufacturer to deal with it.
I agree with Alan, that SPF engineered their own rear suspension problem by failing to remain true to the original, proper design. While their efforts to fix the first car that failed are laudable, I think more needs to be done. It would be easier/cheaper for them to abandon their weird modification and just issue a new swaybar mounting package that follows the original pattern; I don't think the fault lies with the chassis itself, but rather the severe loading that is being placed on it in a non-original fashion.
