Reason for differences between MkI and II front end?
- Thread starter Jonathan
- Start date
Lynn Larsen
Lynn Larsen
Jonathan,
There were a couple of different MK II front ends as well (a & b) for the same reasons.
Lynn
There were a couple of different MK II front ends as well (a & b) for the same reasons.
Lynn
The MKIIs were heavier and at Daytona, the tops of the front tires actually wore through the top of fenders. The center hatch also opened on hinges from the rear. Hatch openings were also provided for access to the brake/clutch reservoir as well.
The MKIIBs had several other changes as well. The air ducts on either side of the radiator opening were closed up. Warmer brake cooling air was taken from behind the radiator as on the MKIVs to prevent cracking of brake discs and the lower lip of the radiator opening was deleted. It also appears as though the sides of the nose in front of the front wheels was made slightly more vertical as well.
Jim
The MKIIBs had several other changes as well. The air ducts on either side of the radiator opening were closed up. Warmer brake cooling air was taken from behind the radiator as on the MKIVs to prevent cracking of brake discs and the lower lip of the radiator opening was deleted. It also appears as though the sides of the nose in front of the front wheels was made slightly more vertical as well.
Jim
Jonathan said:
Yes, ( these dimensions from R Spains GT40 book), tyre size on; Mk1-550x15 F/700x15 R, Mk2a-9.75x15 F/12.80x15 R ( not sure what aspect ratio applies here as both dunlop & goodyear were used)
Rim widths; Mk1- 6.5" F/8.5" R, Mk2a- 8.0" F/9.5" R, Mk2b- 8.0" F/12.0" R
Weights( f/r dist in brkts);Mk1-2000lb ( 46/54 ), Mk2a-2682lb (38/62 ), Mk2b-2505lb ( alloy heads so assume closer to mk1)
Im sure Lynn will be able to add lots to this data!!!
Jac Mac
So, where does the extra 600 odd lbs come from? Surely a big block and T44 and maybe bigger brakes, wheels and driveshafts can't account for all of that much extra? Can it?
Cheers
Cheers
Dry Sump etc & extra cooling plus those bits you mention.
take the 2000 lb of the Mk1 & the weight dist you get approx 920lb F/1080lb R, now on Mk2 you get approx 1020lb F/1662lb R., so the bulk of the increase is in that area( motor/trans etc). Brakes etc were also increased in size.
Like a fool I forgot the Fuel; 5 extra US gallons on Mk2.
Jac Mac
take the 2000 lb of the Mk1 & the weight dist you get approx 920lb F/1080lb R, now on Mk2 you get approx 1020lb F/1662lb R., so the bulk of the increase is in that area( motor/trans etc). Brakes etc were also increased in size.
Like a fool I forgot the Fuel; 5 extra US gallons on Mk2.
Jac Mac
Last edited:
Ah fuel!
I don't think the extra fuel is relevant when we're discussing dry weights :dead: Yeah I know, the bladder probably weighs more!
oke:
I think you're right though, it's amazing how a few 'simple' upgrades push the weight skyhigh!
Cheers
I don't think the extra fuel is relevant when we're discussing dry weights :dead: Yeah I know, the bladder probably weighs more!
oke: I think you're right though, it's amazing how a few 'simple' upgrades push the weight skyhigh!
Cheers
On the "B" viewed from the back, the distance from the tail lights to the edge of the fender is wider. Also the there is more of a curve to the top of the fenders when viewed from the side. On the "A", that area ( top of the fenders ) almost goes straight back from the roof to the back. On Fran Kress's MKII "B" the spoiler is molded in with a movable plate spoiler where there is none on the "A".
There is not a central Nascar Duct in front of the widscreen on the MKII clip the MK1 have this feature.
As Jim (ERA) state correctly the MKII tyres fouled the body work on the banking (at Daytona 1966) and on the driver side a hole had to be cut out and patch over. However, at Sebring one of the MKII's with the side vent on the front clip seems not to be modified.
The Rear clips were modified on the MKIIa and b. Most notabily to allow in the case of the MKIIB the tyre and luggage box to be stored on a cradle upright. This actually meant splitting the grill into seperate sections to accomodate this.
The rear clips for the 1966 Le Mans MKIIa had a plexiglass scoop in the middle. This might have been made to satisfy the scrutineer for rear vision? The MKII's racing at Sebring prior to Le Mans did not have this feature.
The give away for the MKIIB is the way the body work is widened for the wider wheels. I have a monochrome picture of the Number 5 Ford France entry 1967 Le Mans. The width can best described as a MKIIa being on testorone! The only example that comes to mind is the Cobra 289 and the 427SC Cobra(the 289 on testorone).
Regards Allan
As Jim (ERA) state correctly the MKII tyres fouled the body work on the banking (at Daytona 1966) and on the driver side a hole had to be cut out and patch over. However, at Sebring one of the MKII's with the side vent on the front clip seems not to be modified.
The Rear clips were modified on the MKIIa and b. Most notabily to allow in the case of the MKIIB the tyre and luggage box to be stored on a cradle upright. This actually meant splitting the grill into seperate sections to accomodate this.
The rear clips for the 1966 Le Mans MKIIa had a plexiglass scoop in the middle. This might have been made to satisfy the scrutineer for rear vision? The MKII's racing at Sebring prior to Le Mans did not have this feature.
The give away for the MKIIB is the way the body work is widened for the wider wheels. I have a monochrome picture of the Number 5 Ford France entry 1967 Le Mans. The width can best described as a MKIIa being on testorone! The only example that comes to mind is the Cobra 289 and the 427SC Cobra(the 289 on testorone).
Regards Allan
Mk II's also included a roll cage not present on the Mk I.
The wheel sizes for the MKI went from narrow (6.5f 8.5r) in 1964 to wide (10f and 14r) on the Gulf cars in 1969. Such was the evolution of tire technology during the 60s.
Jim
Jim
Similar threads
