Superformance Gt40 MKI vs MK2

[SwiftDB4]

Originally Posted by ermenasce

Another question that I have is the weight of the MkI vs the MkII.
It seems the MKII is heavier because of its bigger engine.
I have been quoted 2700 to 2800 all included.
Maybe more 200 to 300 pounds more than the MkI
Are my assumptions correct?

My MkII with 427W Roush weighs 2450lbs. dry. 302W based engines might be 100-200lbs. less.
Changes I found necessary for track use include:
Track tires
Harder brake pads
Accusump or dry sump
Adjustable shocks and stiffer springs (helpful, but not essential)
I have not driven modern supercars, but have a lot of racing experience with Formula Atlantics and older production based racecars. A GT40 is definitely old school with no electronic assists. Powerslides are a blast, but braking and cornering probably don't match modern supercars. Torque out of corners probably exceeds modern cars.

[Igofastr]

Originally Posted by SwiftDB4

My MkII with 427W Roush weighs 2450lbs. dry. 302W based engines might be 100-200lbs. less.
Changes I found necessary for track use include:
Track tires
Harder brake pads
Accusump or dry sump
Adjustable shocks and stiffer springs (helpful, but not essential)
I have not driven modern supercars, but have a lot of racing experience with Formula Atlantics and older production based racecars. A GT40 is definitely old school with no electronic assists. Powerslides are a blast, but braking and cornering probably don't match modern supercars. Torque out of corners probably exceeds modern cars.

The weight issue can really be minimized by using alloy parts. In reality, most MarkII owners put in bored and stroked small blocks anyway...so no real difference there. If you wanted an FE, well, there are a number of aluminum blocks for sale (Pond, Shelby) that would bring the weight down somewhat.

One other thing to consider is how you expect to use this car...if its going to be used primarily on the track, I'd seriously consider getting one with a cage (SPF R-model?), a fuel bladder would also be a consideration (the fuel tanks are, after all, between you and whoever is T-boning you on the track). If you intend to use it as only an occasional track toy, I wouldn't bother with either of these modifications. Just something to think about.

[Mark IV]

Originally Posted by Igofastr

The weight issue can really be minimized by using alloy parts. In reality, most MarkII owners put in bored and stroked small blocks anyway...so no real difference there. If you wanted an FE, well, there are a number of aluminum blocks for sale (Pond, Shelby) that would bring the weight down somewhat.

One other thing to consider is how you expect to use this car...if its going to be used primarily on the track, I'd seriously consider getting one with a cage (SPF R-model?), a fuel bladder would also be a consideration (the fuel tanks are, after all, between you and whoever is T-boning you on the track). If you intend to use it as only an occasional track toy, I wouldn't bother with either of these modifications. Just something to think about.

We have a new cage design that Olthoff Racing does for our cars that is not as intrusive as the "R" model cage but provides additional protection. The "R" cage is NOT recommended for the street due to potential unhelmeted head to cage contact. The new cage would be ideal for occasional track use as opposed to a dedicated vintage racer. The stock stainless fuel tanks will be fine for non competitive events, if going full tilt racing you are looking at $5000 for the ATL fuel cells.

[ermenasce]

I just found out that my reply was not posted.
Therefore here it goes again.
I finally took the plunge.
Bought a GT 40 MK II, 950 miles, monza red, alcantara interior, white stripe,
White canards, red 5 point harness.
The best is in the heart of the beast.
650 Carburated HP, Holman Moody.
I think that this is a nice way to celebrate Ford's first LeMans victory in 1966.