Talk:Ford GT40

American or British

I changed British-American to British American (Mk I, MkII, Mk III) or American (Mk IV) to accurately reflect the fact that these are two different designs with two different developmental and production histories. So long as both the earlier Mk I/Mk II based cars and the later Mk IV based models are covered by the same article, and this aspect of the cars design and construction is cited in the article, this is the only correct way to reference this. Syr74 (talk) 07:16, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion Ford GT40 is American car. Engines of this car were always built in the United States. Chassis MkI - MkIII were built in England, but it does not matter where chassis is physically built, this is the same story as e.g. Red Bull or Mercedes competing in current Formula One. When Red Bull or Mercedes won Grand Prix race, there always played Austrian or German national anthem respectively on the podium for winning constructor. Never British anthem, although cars are built entirely in England. Despite the British-built cars, credit for victory went to Austria or Germany respectively. Lucullus19 (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Builder

In fact the car was never produced by Ford but by John Wyer in England. I don't rember the name of his company.

But he was essentially a contractor for Ford. He didn't design the cars, but prepared the cars in a Ford workshop in Slough. Check out http://www.gt40.co.uk/gt40st15.html Hotlorp

In fact John Wyer was CEO of created FAV (Ford Advanced Vehicles) wich built the first prototypes and a was a subsidiary of Ford. Racing car development was thereafter given to Caroll Shelby. And then Wyer buyed FAV wich was renamed John Wyer automotive Ltd (I'm not 100% sure). The deal give Wyer the right to produce and sell Ford GT40 and most of the right on the GT40. I don't know if Wyer licensed the GT40 to Safir or other replicas maker or not. Some Ford GT40 where also built by Hollman & Moody in the USA and Alan Mann in UK.

Ericd

Have a look http://www.holmanmoody.com/gt40/gt40home.htm this seems to be the most authentic GT40 produced tpday

Ericd

I believe the good title is "Ford GT-40" instead of "Ford GT40". I'm I wrong ? Ericd 20:33 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

I've seen both forms, more or less in equal amounts. Perhaps Ford used both? A brochure facsimilie saying GT40 is here, so I'm pretty sure GT40 without a dash is not wrong. -- Egil 22:04 Apr 14, 2003 (UTC)

Even Ford was fuzzy I'm quite sure the logo on the car is GT-40. Ericd 09:58 Apr 16, 2003 (UTC)

If someone could find a basic GT-40 pic this would be cool ! Ericd 01:22, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There's something wrong in the table IMO. Speed doesnt match with distance ! Ericd 20:36, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I see what you mean. It's possible that they covered more distance at a slower pace with less stops, but not too logical. We'll have to check on the accuracy of the numbers. --SFoskett 21:23, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

[[

Image:GT40.jpg|thumb|right|250px]]

I've removed this (very good) pic because this is a Wyer Mirage M1 not a Ford GT-40. The Miarge M1 is a Gt-40 derivative but has a different cockpit with different air intakes and a 5,7 L engine. Ericd 15:51, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The badge on the back of the original Mk I says GT40 i.e., without the hyphen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Copyvio

Part of the text on this page seems to have been taken from other websites. Specifically: "Just as with many classic sportscars, several companies made replicas of the GT40 - of varying quality. One of the best such companies was Safir Engineering, which bought the rights to the name "GT40" in 1985, and built cars until 1999 with chassis numbers continuing the sequence where the original Ford cars stopped. http://www.motorbase.com/vehicle/by-id/1508332899/" Just wanted to bring this up.

Thanks for pointing this out. I will look into this ASAP and will try to remove the copyvio text. --SFoskett 12:37, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Serious doubt about accuracy

"The Lotus Europa was the design put forth by Lotus, who went on to win the Indianapolis 500 with the 4.2 L Fairline engine behind a Lotus 38 monocoque, the first mid-engined car to ever win at Indy. But that was in the future, and the Lola proposal was chosen by American race veterans Carroll Smith and Carroll Shelby, who prefered Eric Broadley's design for their intended V8 drivetrain." - Chapman may have proposed a design that eventually matured in the Europa but IMO that wasn't the Europa. - Shelby wasn't involved in the project at that time. Ericd 13:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No answer ? Ericd (talk)

Shelby was sent by Ford in early 1963 with a fact-finding group to interview English racing manufacturers. Chapman (Lotus) was one of the people visited but Ford had doubts he would be able to work with the Ford group and Shelby and the rest of the groups settled on Eric Broadley. Ford Advanced vehicles (FAV) was the company set up in Slough to manufacture and race the cars. Shelby indeed did take over some of the rtacing responsibility at the end of 1964 for the upcoming 1965 season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.210.176.114 (talk) 15:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Grand Tourisme/Gran Turismo

FIA regulations are written in French since the FIA exists. Ericd 13:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Photo

The GT-40 replica is a replica ;-). But worse the car doesn't match any historic accuracy. It has the Wyer/FAV stock front body that none of the authentic cars with this livery had used. Ericd 13:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The picture credits write something else, however even if its a real 1965 car this one very far from its 1965 configuration. Ericd 13:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Racing car template

I've had a stab at a template for racing cars (see template:Racing car) to summarise the usual data. I've used the F1 templates as a starting point and applied it to the Brabham BT46 article. If anyone's got an interest in this, please have a look at the template and modify or suggest changes as appropriate. After a few people have had a go at it and we have something we're happy with we could start to use it more widely. Note that it's not meant to be specific to F1, by the way. Cheers. 4u1e 10:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Internal inconsistency

The caption for the first photo says it is the 1966 Le Mans winner, driven by Ruby and Miles. But the text (and results table) indicate the race was won by Amon and McLaren. DH85868993 03:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Could someone add text listing the class the GT40 ran in?

Today, Le Mans has 4 classes. Was there only one in the 1960's? Will (Talk - contribs) 08:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

They were several classes I think that the stock (sometime seriously tuned) GT-40 was run in the Sport car class (Group 5), the MK II and MK IV were group 6. Ericd (talk)

Possible Contradiction?

The opening sentence states "The Ford GT40 was a high performance sports car and winner of the 24 hours of Le Mans four times in a row, from 1966 to 1969. It was built to win long-distance sports car races against Ferrari (who won at Le Mans six times in a row from 1965 to 1969)."

If Ford won from 66-69, how did Ferrari win from 65-69?

and this time period - assuming that le mans is run once per year - does not even cover 6 years, so how is this possible? I am completely ignorant on the subject so I wont edit this - but to me this sounds highly dubious. Anyone know the correct dates or explanation for the figures - or even a source? Gumbacious (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

The winners are listed at French wiki 24 hr entry table of results (which doesn't need knowledge of French language to be comprehensible). (I have not checked this to sources outside wiki, tho in general terms it agrees roughly with what I remember. Roughly.) Please feel free to tidy up the para in a way that works for you. Your self declared 'complete ignorance' - even if exaggerated - gives you a much better chance of coming up with something that makes sense to the intelligent generalist than anything a nerdy enthusiast such as myself could manage. Besides, I'd end up wanting to rewrite the whole thing and annoying everyone especially me. Happy day. Charles01 (talk) 16:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

So I changed my mind... Charles01 (talk) 16:11, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah I see that Micjagger has gone ahead and changed this so it makes sense. Gumbacious (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

All together Ferrari an Ford won Le Mans (an annual event) ten times between 1965 and 1969 ? Serious competition isn'it ? One more reason to love this era for me ;-D. Ericd (talk) 01:04, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ferrari won the race from 1960-1965; six races inclusive. It's a typographical error. Ford won from 1966 (McLaren/Amon), 1967 (Gurney/Foyt), 1968 (Bianchi/Rodriguez) to 1969 (Ickx/Oliver). The same chassis (No. 1075) won in both 1968 and 1969 -- the only time that's happened. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.102.164.133 (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Potential Ferrai acquisition

"In the spring of 1963, Ford reportedly received word through a European intermediary that Enzo Ferrari was interested in selling to Ford Motor Company. Ford reportedly spent several million dollars in an audit of Ferrari factory assets and in legal negotiations, only to have Ferrari unilaterally cut off talks at a late stage. Ferrari, who wanted to remain the sole operator of his companies motor sports division, was angered when he was told that he would not be allowed to race at the Indianapolis 500 if the deal went through. Enzo cut the deal off out of spite and Henry Ford II, enraged, directed his racing division to find a company that could build a Ferrari-beater on the world endurance-racing circuit."

You are free to understand it as you want but Enzo Ferrari received help from Fiat soon after. As an half-Italian, I am still crying for Ford lost dollars. :-D Ericd (talk)

Car´s nationality

Is this car considered to be the british car or the american one ? The car was built in the UK, but Ford is american company. Is it true to claim that in 1966 the first american car won 24 Hours of Le Mans ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.41.90.31 (talk) 10:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The GT40s, though British designed and built, were credited as American cars because they were commissioned and bankrolled by an American corporation. One could argue that a car built in the UK and driven by a pair of New Zealanders was not an American victory -- but they would not have been there without Ford (American) money. The 1967 winner, on the other hand, was truly the only all-American victory in the history of the race -- a car designed in the United States, prepared and run by a U.S.-based racing team (Shelby American) with two American drivers. The other races are a matter of debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.96.137.66 (talk) 21:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There's the text from the original 1966 Ford Press Release for the GT40 here: [1]

... oh, BTW - all the original 1960s Ford GT40s were right hand drive (RHD).

... and there's a clip from the cockpit of one at Le Mans in 1969 here: [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.77.70 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

There's a 1962 Flight advertisement for Abbey Panels, Coventry, the company that built the GT40 chassis, here; [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A film made by Ferodo featuring John Wyer's 1968 GT40 Le Mans entry here; [4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

1963 Lola Mk6 GT - Jay Leno's Garage; [5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.148 (talk) 17:48, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

External links

In references the link http://isr.cudlici.com/ChassisFord.html is no longer a valid site - it has been acquired by a spam site operator. I offer my site gt40.net as a replacement. If that is not acceptable then at least the link to http://isr.cudlici.com/ChassisFord.html should be removed. Sorry to place this in the external links section but I did not know how to get to any references section - could not find an edit or talk page for it. Mrrbob (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I offer my site gt40.net as an external link if the external links section is ever revived. I continue to work with gt40 people and sources to make the site as accurate as possible. suggestions for/about the site by any one here would be appreciated. Mrrbob (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I have recently reverted an addition by user talk:66.172.127.25 as I feel that it does not meet the guidelines concerning external links but I have now just checked and I feel that none of the current external links meet the guidelines. In the main they fail due to being either a blogs, personal web pages or fansites and usually have a for-sale section (please see WP:ELNO for more information on the guidelines). I propose that they are all removed. What do others think? Bjmullan (talk) 21:29, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

The website itself states the information is sourced from classiccars.com, so it seems reasonable to me that we should be linking to there instead of to a website that seems to either be copy pasting information from another source, or just poorly written and badly incomplete. Even this website has more information. The³5₉ (Talk) 18:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The359 I would be grateful if you would look at the other links as I think they all need removing. Bjmullan (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I would definitely remove all of them as none of them are official in any way. Although since that last link to gizmag looks like a good reliable source that I'd try to use in the article. Royalbroil 03:56, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Classicars is now a site that requires membership, individual chassis information and race results sections are no longer available online except from GT40.net. I have verified all the chassis information via GT 40: An Individual History and Race Record By Ronnie Spain. The site does have a for sale sub domain added for interest. Does this preclude this site from being listed here under external links? It should not, latitude should be allowed.

The main purpose of the site is as a resource for the GT40 community and anyone interested in this car. What better use for this domain could there be? What better site could there be for an external link? And please, lets get past the silly concept of adding for SEO once and for all. I own many websites and have since 1998. The site is accepted by google who sends the exact traffic it should - searches for GT40 chassis information with all types of keywords based on chassis numbers etc. This site (GT40.net) exist for one reason, I love the car and want to contribute to the GT40 community. To call this site spam is just over the top, I can not understand how you could really think that??

I am glad I was able to acquire this domain so it could be used for such a site for the good of all who love this car. I also need any and all participation from any one who is willing to help with suggestions and corrections etc as to what should and should not be on the site. Please, you guys should be able to accept another site in addition to the wiki page as a valid source of info on the GT40. What do I need? endorsement from Ronnie Spain himself? - Robert Barnes, GT40.net.

P.S, you should really allow the gt40s.com forum link also. That site is simply unequaled in the world as a community for the GT40. Spend a little time there and you will see.

Please allow some latitude in the name of useful external links as if these 2 sites do not qualify what could possibly be acceptable for external links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrrbob (talk • contribs) 22:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

May I suggest that you read the following two guidelines regarding external link and also see the comments above: Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:WikiProject External links. If you still feel that the information should be included then you may look at expanding the article. You should also read the guidelines on using multiple accounts (66.172.127.25, 207.32.196.31, Mrrbob) to get your point across (which can & will lead to a ban). The guideline can be found at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. Bjmullan (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

207.32.196.31 belongs to a friend who after discussing the situation with me came here and added the link himself. I don't know how to change my IP except within the same IP block from forcing a DHCP address change. As for the rules I think they allow my link. It is clear you will not allow any links what so ever for any reason though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.172.127.25 (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not Entirely British

There is a comment in the text which mentions that the MkI, MkII, and MkIII cars were 'entirely British'. While undoubtedly owing a lot of their development to Ford Advanced Vehicles in Britain it is no secret that the cars were rather heavily massaged at Carol Shelby's facility during their development. To be blunt, that makes them somewhat less than 'entirely British'. Even more, neither the Windsor V-8 which powered the MkI and MkIII models, or the FE big block which powered the MkIV models, was ever produced in Britain. The engine for every GT40 ever produced was sourced from the United States. Again, that makes these vehicles somewhat less than 'entirely British'. This needs to be corrected for the sake of accuracy if nothing else. Syr74 (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

J car photos?

It would be nice if the J car section had photos of the J car. The J was one of the standard cars included with Aurora XLerators slotless electric race tracks. The other one was a Chaparral 2F. Bizzybody (talk) 07:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

GT/101 and Lola Mk.6 displacement

The history section says Chassis 101 and Lola Mk.6 had a 4.2L Fairlane engine. But Lola Mk.6 had a 4.6L displacement when it raced at LeMans in 1963. Unless someone comes up with clarification/correction, I will be making a change to reflect the 4.6L displacement. Help would be appreciated. Yiba (talk | contribs) 04:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

There are several instances of 4.9L being equated to the Windsor-built 302ci V8 engine. But in 70s/80s/90s Ford lingo, the 4.9L is the 300ci straight 6; the 302ci V8 is called the ("smallblock", sometimes "Boss") 5.0L . Does this article reflect actual designations for the engines in the early 60s? Or are these designations being used by the author of this article? Steve8394 (talk) 06:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete content

"For 1967, the Mk.II's were upgraded to "B" spec; they had re-designed bodywork and twin carburettors for an additional 15 hp. A batch of wrongly heat treated input shafts in the transaxles sidelined virtually every Ford in the race, however, and Ferrari won 1-2-3." - which race exactly is this passage referring to? Monoblocks (talk) 18:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Restored content

Someone had blanked the article and I didn't see anything on the talk page suggested that needed to be done so I restored it.82.19.93.148 (talk) 20:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ford GT40. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160314065909/http://www.quadcamford.com:80/development.html to http://www.quadcamford.com/development.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:10, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ford GT40. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.quadcamford.com/development.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050302205843/http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/2102817986__Hist_App_J_69_Art_252_a.pdf to http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/2102817986__Hist_App_J_69_Art_252_a.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Mk IV Clarification

I altered a sentence in the lede for the sake of clarification. The sentence made it sound as though the GT40 Mk IV was based upon the Lola design that spawned some of the earlier cars and this isn't accurate with the Mk IV and J Cars being a completely independent design. I added some detail to the sentence to avoid confusion here. Syr74 (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Photos of pre-GT40 "Ford GT"?

Does anyone have a photo of the original "Ford GT" (prior to the GT40)? They were all white with a dark blue front hood (bonnet), and their distinguishing feature was a very thin slit for a radiator intake. (Although aerodynamically designed, in a high-pressure area, it proved to be inadequate for cooling.) BMJ-pdx (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Who wanted Ford to buy Ferrari?

The "History" section gives the impression that Enzo Ferrari approached Ford regarding a possible Ford purchase of Ferrari. That's not what I remember from contemporary reports, which were that Ford's easiest path to a Le Mans win would simply be to purchase Ferrari. BMJ-pdx (talk) 14:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

40 inch max height?

Isnt 40 inches the minimum allowable height, not maximum? Why would you want to make your car's frontal area as big as possible? The 40 was supposed to be bragging about what a LOW car they achieved, whivh is why they could only fit short drivers into it. A 40 inch max would be nonsensical, most of the cars would be sigificantly LESS than 40 inches high, and the GT40 is already ridiculously low.

64.222.110.91 (talk) 05:49, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Lola 1963

"It was one of the most advanced racing cars of the time and made a noted performance in Le Mans 1963, even though the car did not finish, due to low gearing and slow revving out on the Mulsanne Straight. " Why would it be "slow revving" if it had "low gearing"? S C Cheese (talk) 09:11, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

It wasn’t, but it’s not likely to be corrected. For example the GT40 wasn’t actually based upon the Lola Mk6 and there has never been any real evidence to suggest that it was. Rather, the Lola Mk6 was a precursor designed to secure the contract with Ford who then almost immediately bought out that contract and built the GT40 upon the design concept laid out by the Mk6. Think of the relationship between the VW Beetle and a 50’s Porsche and you’ll be in the right ballpark. This isn’t even argued within the serious enthusiast community on any side of the pond, But, this also won’t get corrected because Wikipedia is rife with people pushing agendas rather than reality. 2600:1004:B16E:1C58:6479:C0D0:9706:64D8 (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)