Rumor Has It . . .

Do you think they will fix the front end? Every ‘widebody’ SPF car I’ve seen had a wide tail but narrow front?

Contrast them with ERA wide body cars, and the original wide body cars, to see what I mean.....
 

Robert S.

GT40s Supporter
Supporter
Do you think they will fix the front end? Every ‘widebody’ SPF car I’ve seen had a wide tail but narrow front?

Contrast them with ERA wide body cars, and the original wide body cars, to see what I mean.....
Hey Mike, how are you!

It's possible that some may think that FIX means to fix something that's broken; But I agree it could mean to correct something as well.

I checked the front photos of car p1076, a 1969 wide body Mark I car that was refurbished. At first glance, and without a photo of the front of a SPF Mark I wide body, I could not discern the differences. Next week, I'll attempt to get a similar front photo of both car p1076 and a SPF car. Maybe then, we can see the differences. I do know that the original wide body cars had very different rear clam shell.

GO HERE TO LEARN ABOUT THOSE DIFFERENCES: Note: the wide body is a Rare Mirage model!
GT40 Gulf|Comparison p1074 vs p2285

I'll put something together on the fronts of those cars soon. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Robert, soulcoaxer p2285
 
Robert,

Here is a link to a 2007 post here on this same subject. It shows an ERA with the optional Gulf front and rear flares.

http://www.gt40s.com/forum/213057-post8.html

I had the good fortune to spent the better part of an afternoon looking at P/1080 (factory Gulf spec car) and a mid-production 1966 car (can’t remember the chassis number offhand) a number of years ago, and in person the difference between the standard and wide front end is extremely apparent. The later cars used (I believe) 15x10 wheels while the middle ones used 15x8, and the early ones 15x7 I think. Just as there were three different rear clips, I believe there were at least two and perhaps three front clip configurations not counting the very early cars that were completely different.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Robert,

Here is a link to a 2007 post here on this same subject. It shows an ERA with the optional Gulf front and rear flares.

http://www.gt40s.com/forum/213057-post8.html

I had the good fortune to spent the better part of an afternoon looking at P/1080 (factory Gulf spec car) and a mid-production 1966 car (can’t remember the chassis number offhand) a number of years ago, and in person the difference between the standard and wide front end is extremely apparent. The later cars used (I believe) 15x10 wheels while the middle ones used 15x8, and the early ones 15x7 I think. Just as there were three different rear clips, I believe there were at least two and perhaps three front clip configurations not counting the very early cars that were completely different.

Call me clueless, but, until your above post I had absolutely no clue anyone had ever made a "wide front" MKI. I like it! From one particular angle, it almost looks like a MKII nose in a way.

Live and learn...
 

Robert S.

GT40s Supporter
Supporter
Call me clueless, but, until your above post I had absolutely no clue anyone had ever made a "wide front" MKI. I like it! From one particular angle, it almost looks like a MKII nose in a way.

Live and learn...
I knew if I lived along enough I would come in handy for someone !!! :shocked:
 

Rick Muck- Mark IV

GT40s Sponsor
Supporter
Well I really assume they mean "Dzus" and not "Zeus" fasteners.

But hey, I'm only a Superformance dealer and this is the first we have heard about these. It's on a "need to know" basis and apparently we don't need to know!
 

Robert S.

GT40s Supporter
Supporter
Robert,

Here is a link to a 2007 post here on this same subject. It shows an ERA with the optional Gulf front and rear flares.

http://www.gt40s.com/forum/213057-post8.html

I had the good fortune to spent the better part of an afternoon looking at P/1080 (factory Gulf spec car) and a mid-production 1966 car (can’t remember the chassis number offhand) a number of years ago, and in person the difference between the standard and wide front end is extremely apparent. The later cars used (I believe) 15x10 wheels while the middle ones used 15x8, and the early ones 15x7 I think. Just as there were three different rear clips, I believe there were at least two and perhaps three front clip configurations not counting the very early cars that were completely different.
Car p1080 is a wide body, but like p1074, they are both a light weight Mirage.

In any event, the upcoming anniversary cars will likely not use a MIRAGE body. Maybe the other brand wide body used a Mirage body shape. It would cost many thousands of dollars to make a new wide body front-in since the whole rear clam shell would have to be reconfigured. Not many people have made note of the front of a SPF wide body being a mistake that needs correction.
 
Last edited:
OP,
The Superformance wide body rear clip looks a LOT different than the wide body gulf cars I checked out a couple of years ago at the Amelia Island Concours. (the rear clips looked more like flairs were added to standard width bodies, rather than widening the rear deck and changing the flair proportions like Superformance has)

So, if the selling point/goal was to create a true/close authentic copy of the originals new molds would be needed for the rear clips at a minimum. JMHO, Scott
 
Car p1080 is a wide body, but like p1074, they are both a light weight Mirage.
Uh...no.

P/1080 was never a Mirage. It was built as a Gulf-spec widebody car from new.

P/1074 was originally a 1967 Mirage with a Mirage serial number, which had a completely different body from the GT40, but then it was rebuilt and rebodied and renumbered by JWA as a Gulf-spec car for the 1968 season.

There is virtually no resemblance between a Mirage and a Gulf GT40 apart from the color. All the panels are sized and shaped completely differently.
 
OP,
The Superformance wide body rear clip looks a LOT different than the wide body gulf cars I checked out a couple of years ago at the Amelia Island Concours. (the rear clips looked more like flairs were added to standard width bodies, rather than widening the rear deck and changing the flair proportions like Superformance has)

So, if the selling point/goal was to create a true/close authentic copy of the originals new molds would be needed for the rear clips at a minimum. JMHO, Scott
Scott,

Just to add to the confusion, the 1968 and 1969 Gulf rear clips were very different from each other, and they continually underwent modifications throughout each season including having aluminum spats fitted! If you look carefully at period photos of the various cars in the many books on the subject the differences become apparent.

Heck, just look at the Three Amigos photo above! The car on the left has relatively narrow flares while the one on the right has the much wider flares. I bet the body on the right-side car is a good 2-3 inches wider.

I think SPF just chose one particular moment in time and chose to replicate that look. For whatever reason they didn’t follow through with the front clip.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Robert,

Here is a link to a 2007 post here on this same subject. It shows an ERA with the optional Gulf front and rear flares.

http://www.gt40s.com/forum/213057-post8.html

I had the good fortune to spent the better part of an afternoon looking at P/1080 (factory Gulf spec car) and a mid-production 1966 car (can’t remember the chassis number offhand) a number of years ago, and in person the difference between the standard and wide front end is extremely apparent. The later cars used (I believe) 15x10 wheels while the middle ones used 15x8, and the early ones 15x7 I think. Just as there were three different rear clips, I believe there were at least two and perhaps three front clip configurations not counting the very early cars that were completely different.
I wish I never saw that picture Mike now I want one even more than before. Who made the bodies for ERA and does anyone else make one that is correct? Rod
 
Top