SPF GT40 Genesis

[Seymour Snerd]

The SPF MK II front clip is actually based on a MK II "B" with the area in front of the tire more "vertical" than the "A" model. Almost all of the MK IIs differed somewhat from each other and the Shelby and Holman Moody cars had numerous differences.

Sorry, Rick, I was still editing when you posted...

If I knew nothing about the two individual cars I would guess the opposite, since to me the P1032 clips (both) look more designed for clearing wider tires than P2160's; P1032 is distinctly wider at the vertical centerline of the wheels (if we assume same track, width and offset wheels).

OTOH I do see the MKIIB-ish difference of P2160 in front; it's the transition from door forward that I'm having trouble accounting for. P1047J (MKIIB) below shows the more vertical sides at the front, and also does not show the moving-forward flare-out the P1032 does, so maybe this is all about wheel offsets and width.



Admittedly 3D objects in 2D photographs are very hard to analyze.... And in these photos P2160 has no engine. These days she is riding a bit lower.... but that shouldn't significant change her rear track.

 

[René]

what are those strange zilver knobs (ugly) on the original, i see 4 on the side and one on top/rear...

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

what are those strange zilver knobs (ugly) on the original, i see 4 on the side and one on top/rear...

Lights to identify the car and illuminate the numbers.

 

[René]

thanks, never seen/noticed that before.

 

[Pathfinder Motorsports]

Moved From: Upgrades/options and mods to P2125
________________________

Hi guys:

There seems to be some renewed interest regarding the Superformance GT40 chassis and its level of originality. As most of you know, Pathfinder Motorsports is all about building the most accurate, competitive, and race-eligible GT40s available for a fraction of the price of a Gelscoe car.

It was because of their highly-accurate chassis that we selected Superformance to provide us with their licensed continuation rollers, and also why we have an exclusive partnership with Holman & Moody - one of Ford's original GT40 racing teams - to help us engineer and build very authentic GT40s for the track and street.

On another thread regarding P/2125, Alan Watkins is correct about how Holman & Moody MK II frames are different from the Superformance frame - in the same way that the original Abbey Panels and Tennant Panels frames are different from the Holman & Moody frame. For more on this, I asked Lee Holman for some clarification and he kindly sent me the following to pass along:

Hi Alan:

Holman & Moody has been working with its partner Pathfinder Motorsports LLC for almost two years, serving as an advisor and builder of GT40R cars for both the track and street. During that time we have had the opportunity to carefully inspect the Hi-Tech/Superformance GT40 frame, and I can confirm that it is an extremely accurate copy of the 1966 frames built by Abbey Panels, and later Tennant Panels. I should know since I have almost a dozen of the original Tennant Panel frames in my shop.

What is also true is that many, if not most, GT40 frames were reinforced and modified by the various teams as a result of racing experience. Here at Holman & Moody, for example, we reinforced several areas of the original frames for our Ford GT40 Mk II program. It is for this reason that there are frequently differences between original frames as delivered from Abbey or Tennant, and those campaigned by Holman & Moody and other teams. The GT40 racing program was very dynamic with unique frame and other changes made to the different cars throughout the years. You might be interested to know that, back in the day, Ford required that after each race the race cars from Holman & Moody be sent to Shelby, and the race cars from Shelby be sent to Holman & Moody, so that each team could see the work and modifications the other team had made.

Regarding the Pathfinder Motorsports GT40Rs, we are very impressed with the quality and authenticity of the frames as they are delivered from Superformance. I believe the Superformance chassis is a very correct copy of the street GT40 that Ford built and sold in 1966. While a very good chassis, they were not intended to have, nor do they need, all of the changes or modifications required to race for 24 hours.

But just as with those original cars, Holman & Moody is making subtle but important improvements throughout the cars we are building in partnership with Pathfinder so as to offer the owner a competitive and reliable race car that is very close to the original race cars. And as you know, we are building several FIA HTP-compliant Holman & Moody/Pathfinder cars that are destined for racing in Europe.

I hope this clarifies some of the questions that have been raised regarding the Superformance GT40 frame. Looking forward to seeing you next week in Charlotte!

Warm regards,

Lee Holman​

I have got to admit, one of the really cool aspects of my job is being able to work every week with a legend like Lee Holman - one of the few honest-to-goodness experts on the GT40.

The whole frame issue boils down to this: The frames we use on our GT40Rs are almost exact duplicates of the original frames as they were delivered from Abbey and Tennant Panels, but those original frames were rarely raced without some enhancement and structural modifications by the various racing teams. Just like today's race cars, improvements are made race-to-race, and so too was it back in the 1960's.

A good example is the Pathfinder GT40 shock reinforcement plate that was designed and built for us by Holman & Moody: It wasn't on the original Abbey Panels or Superformance chassis but evolved from street and track experience. This is just one of the upgrades that is now included in the Pathfinder/Holman Moody GT40R.

Interesting conversation guys! I hope this adds to it.

Alan

 

[Seymour Snerd]

What started all this was yet another discussion in another thread about the design SPF uses for rear anti-roll bar "system". I threw out, probably against my better judgement, the comment that "You'll be surprised how different the [Holman & Moody] frames are, all in the direction of increased stiffness and strength." This comment of mine was not particularly relevant to the original subject. However, any comment about "originality" always gets everyone's attention, and in this case it produced Alan P's and Lee Holman's very interesting post above. For that I am thankful.

So just to make sure we're clear about something: my complaints about the SPF rear-anti-rollbar system are only incidentally about the design of the frame. In particular, the problems are caused by the use of a "Mk II style" anti roll bar mount on a "Mk I style" frame, and by bad anti-roll bar geometry due to a short vertical link. So in short the problem isn't really a frame problem: it's a suspension design problem. But enough about that. This is really about frame design.

So back to the interesting points Alan P and Lee make above. "Originality" is an inflammatory term around Superformance because a large part of their value proposition is based on originality. But in the GT-40 world we always have to qualify the word by answering "originality compared to what?"

To me the pivotal statement from Lee Holman is this one:

" the Superformance chassis is a very correct copy of the street GT40 that Ford built and sold in 1966. While a very good chassis, they were not intended to have, nor do they need, all of the changes or modifications required to race for 24 hours"

The really key phrase being "the street GT40 that Ford built and sold". I would have just used the phrase "GT40 Mk I" but to insist on that distinction is to quibble.

I don't have any serious complaints about the SPF frame as a Mk. I copy. That is, if it's used to build a Mk I and if the resulting car is really a copy in all other significant respects (suspension, 5-liter small block engine, etc.).

Where I get a little edgy is remembering that no Mk I frame hosted a 7-liter 600 ft-lb motor. But that seems be the default engine choice for SPF.

Also, the ways we use the cars are sometimes harder on them than the life led by the original Mk II 24-hour cars or current race cars. Our cars do not get torn-down & inspected; worn, cracked or broken parts replaced, and then carefully cleaned and reassembled after every 24 or fewer hours of use. And race tracks are (by and large) clean and smooth. And race cars get started up, heated really well and used hard for a long time, and shut down; all of that infrequently. They don't get run cold to the grocery store in the rain and then garaged. Thus, we can have shock, fatigue, thermal-cycling and corrosion-related failures the originals, or current race cars, would never have. Add to that a design mistake like the rear anti-roll bar, 600 ft-lb of unanticipated torque on the chassis, and you may still wish your Mk I frame had some of those Mk II "racing" features.

So, my dream from all of this is that Superformance someday offers a real (accurate and race-capable) Mk II, rather than a Mk I with Mk II fiberglass and an even bigger than Mk II engine with a Mk I transaxle. They also would offer a list or package of explicitly non-original comfort and "robustness" upgrades like moisture seals for the front uprights, cabin weather-proofing, glass rear window, etc. That would allow the purists and racers to have the car they need while the street drivers get the reliability, longevity and comfort they need. Both get it all from one source (Superformance) who make money from all the different options (and retrofits) while not needing to do so much hand-waving and dancing around the word "originalty."

 

[Charlie Farley]

Alan,
Interesting and well thought out reply..... hats off to you.

 

[John]

Regardless of the true meaning of "originality" when talking about race cars delivered to different teams then used at a variety of venues, the other day I needed a headlight for my SPF. I removed the bulb then called NAPA with the part number. The counter person, Dan, couldn't find a cross but asked, "what's it on?"

"It's a Cibie headlight," I said.

"But what kind of car?" he asked again.

"It's a '66 Ford GT40," I responded timidly.

I heard keyboard taps in the background before Dan came back with, "I don't have one in stock but I can get one to you on Thursday."

So one definition of "originality" might depend on NAPA's ability to get you the correct parts by looking them up in their database.

 

[Seymour Snerd]

Back on the rear anti-roll bar problems, we have a new development: in this post
http://www.gt40s.com/forum/original-gt40s/35430-1103.html#post357298
the thickness of the top shock mount on an original Mk III street car P1103 is two laters of steel totaling 0.150", while that on my SPF P2160 is one layer 0.075" thick.

To see how visibly obvious this is, see below photographs of that area from P1107, from an HM Mk II chassis, from original mk II P1032, and lastly SPF P2160:



So, does anybody out there still want to describe the last picture of an SPF frame, even regarded as a Mk I replica, as being "OK" because it's original?

 

[John]

And back to the body, SPF didn't fit the doors correctly either.

 

[Ron R.]

And back to the body, SPF didn't fit the doors correctly either.

:drunk::drunk: Yep, they fit too well. I think I'll go out to the garage and yank on them until they are correctly aligned. I hope I don't have to break out the bondo.

 

[Jim Craik]

Ron,

Good one, I really glad to see that your blue beauty will be on the road soon!

 

[Ron R.]

BTW, Have you taken a look at the paint? Total crap, all shiny and such!! Oh, and don't get me started on panel gaps!!

Guess I'll have to break out the brillo pads too now. Damn, this originality stuff is really a slippery slope.

I'm glad I'm not really into concours...

 

[Charlie Farley]

:thumbsup::laugh:

 

[Mike]

Not sure if this is sarcasm or not but my SPF2161 paint is brutally bad. The front bonnet alignment is horrible. Driver doors rubs when opening. I'm going to have to do something with the driver side alignment pin. Bodywork, paint, and panel alignment is not a strong point with Superformance. It's awful!

 

[Steve C]

Mike,

Why did you take the car with those flaws?

My cars paint, panel alignment and attention to details is great (these are strong points with SPF on all their products).

Again I ask why did you take the car with those flaws?

Steve P2125

 

[Rick Muck- Mark IV]

Not sure if this is sarcasm or not but my SPF2161 paint is brutally bad. The front bonnet alignment is horrible. Driver doors rubs when opening. I'm going to have to do something with the driver side alignment pin. Bodywork, paint, and panel alignment is not a strong point with Superformance. It's awful!

Mike,

I have not had nor seen a SPF GT40 with the issues you mention. I don't doubt that they exist, but as your chassis has been through another owner I wonder if maybe something happened?

My first three GT40s were spot-on for paint and fit as have been the rest of the chassis' I have received. Only one had a very small spot that when viewed in the exact correct way and light could a sanding mark under the paint be seen.

The front clip can be adjusted forward with the eccentric on the front mounting. Perhaps a little tweek there will give the door clearance you need? Call me if I can help.

 

[Jim Craik]

Michael,

I'm sorry your SPF has body issues.

In their defense, I'm more that happy with the paint and body alignment on P2264. I think Ron has a point, if anything it's too nice. After seeing some original cars, the main difference I see is mines too nice. It needs some road rash and gap miss-alignment to give it that real GT40 look

 

[mike16]

600 ft-lb of unanticipated torque on the chassis, ."

Sorry, but I just had to chuckle about this

 

[Mike]

I'm not sure what you guys are comparing to. I am comparing mine to my Ford GT. It is not even close. The previous owner did nothing to the car as it simply sat in his shop for a couple years in roller form before I bought it. Why did I take it? Because I did not hold it to the same standard I held my GT to. The front bonnet alignment and door rub issue I thought was simply an adjustment away from being corrected. After sending it down to Olthoff with instructions to correct that, it came home with the same problem. I won't elaborate on why I took it like that from Dennis but it's here now. What is easily seen now is that the alignment pin on the driver side is off by at least a 1/4" causing the fender to be aligned too far inside which then causes the front of the door to catch when opening. I'm going to have to remove the pin and see if it's possible to drill new holes or somehow correct it's position. The surface prep for the paint is not even close to the GT. It is uneven with imperfections every where. Most scoop/vent openings are not even prepped at all nor painted. Compared to the GT it is a kit car fit and finish at best. I knew that when I bought it and accepted that. I have not had a chance to take a look at any other SPF cars the way I have examined mine but I doubt they are much different. I'm happy to post pictures if that would help? My point is it is hard for me to understand how someone could suggest these cars have excellent fit and finish. They do not or least mine does not.