60s Sports cars
Discussion
shoestring7 said:
CR6ZZ said:
Interestingly enough I was talking to a friend about this very topic a couple of weeks ago. He is fortunate enough to own a very nice replica of GT40P 1046, the 1966 Le Mans winning car, complete with side oiler 427FE and T44 transaxle. He also prepares Toyota GT86s for racing and rallying. He reckons the GT40 is fun to drive and, while brutally fast on the straights, is definitely 60s technology, loud, hot, and doesn't stop that well. In his opinion if a well prepped GT86 was run at Le Mans in 1966 it would very likely have had a good chance of winning, not by being the fastest, but by being much more reliable, consistently reasonably quick, easier on tyres, less tiring to drive, and much, much more economical. I'd still have the GT40 though...
So your mates economical 1300kg 2l coupe with its 140mph top speed and 11gallon tank would have a chance of beating a 7litre Mk2 GT40 with 480bhp, 1100kgs, >200mph top speed and a 40 gallon tank? No even if my mum was driving it - it would probably struggle against the winning 2litre GT car - a 1000kg/200bhp Porsche 911S.
SS7
LaurasOtherHalf said:
shoestring7 said:
CR6ZZ said:
Interestingly enough I was talking to a friend about this very topic a couple of weeks ago. He is fortunate enough to own a very nice replica of GT40P 1046, the 1966 Le Mans winning car, complete with side oiler 427FE and T44 transaxle. He also prepares Toyota GT86s for racing and rallying. He reckons the GT40 is fun to drive and, while brutally fast on the straights, is definitely 60s technology, loud, hot, and doesn't stop that well. In his opinion if a well prepped GT86 was run at Le Mans in 1966 it would very likely have had a good chance of winning, not by being the fastest, but by being much more reliable, consistently reasonably quick, easier on tyres, less tiring to drive, and much, much more economical. I'd still have the GT40 though...
So your mates economical 1300kg 2l coupe with its 140mph top speed and 11gallon tank would have a chance of beating a 7litre Mk2 GT40 with 480bhp, 1100kgs, >200mph top speed and a 40 gallon tank? No even if my mum was driving it - it would probably struggle against the winning 2litre GT car - a 1000kg/200bhp Porsche 911S.
SS7
SS7
CR6ZZ said:
Interestingly enough I was talking to a friend about this very topic a couple of weeks ago. He is fortunate enough to own a very nice replica of GT40P 1046, the 1966 Le Mans winning car, complete with side oiler 427FE and T44 transaxle. He also prepares Toyota GT86s for racing and rallying. He reckons the GT40 is fun to drive and, while brutally fast on the straights, is definitely 60s technology, loud, hot, and doesn't stop that well. In his opinion if a well prepped GT86 was run at Le Mans in 1966 it would very likely have had a good chance of winning, not by being the fastest, but by being much more reliable, consistently reasonably quick, easier on tyres, less tiring to drive, and much, much more economical. I'd still have the GT40 though...
It really really wouldn't. Picking just one year 1969, the fastest race lap was at an average of 146mph. The pole position was at an average of 149mph. That is a faster *average* than the GT86 will manage flat out... The average speed over 24hours of the winner was 130mph. That's what the GT86 would have to beat. Do you honestly think a GT86 could manage to lap for 24 hours at >90% of it's top speed?
Fastdruid said:
CR6ZZ said:
Interestingly enough I was talking to a friend about this very topic a couple of weeks ago. He is fortunate enough to own a very nice replica of GT40P 1046, the 1966 Le Mans winning car, complete with side oiler 427FE and T44 transaxle. He also prepares Toyota GT86s for racing and rallying. He reckons the GT40 is fun to drive and, while brutally fast on the straights, is definitely 60s technology, loud, hot, and doesn't stop that well. In his opinion if a well prepped GT86 was run at Le Mans in 1966 it would very likely have had a good chance of winning, not by being the fastest, but by being much more reliable, consistently reasonably quick, easier on tyres, less tiring to drive, and much, much more economical. I'd still have the GT40 though...
It really really wouldn't. Picking just one year 1969, the fastest race lap was at an average of 146mph. The pole position was at an average of 149mph. That is a faster *average* than the GT86 will manage flat out... The average speed over 24hours of the winner was 130mph. That's what the GT86 would have to beat. Do you honestly think a GT86 could manage to lap for 24 hours at >90% of it's top speed?
CR6ZZ said:
Fastdruid said:
CR6ZZ said:
Interestingly enough I was talking to a friend about this very topic a couple of weeks ago. He is fortunate enough to own a very nice replica of GT40P 1046, the 1966 Le Mans winning car, complete with side oiler 427FE and T44 transaxle. He also prepares Toyota GT86s for racing and rallying. He reckons the GT40 is fun to drive and, while brutally fast on the straights, is definitely 60s technology, loud, hot, and doesn't stop that well. In his opinion if a well prepped GT86 was run at Le Mans in 1966 it would very likely have had a good chance of winning, not by being the fastest, but by being much more reliable, consistently reasonably quick, easier on tyres, less tiring to drive, and much, much more economical. I'd still have the GT40 though...
It really really wouldn't. Picking just one year 1969, the fastest race lap was at an average of 146mph. The pole position was at an average of 149mph. That is a faster *average* than the GT86 will manage flat out... The average speed over 24hours of the winner was 130mph. That's what the GT86 would have to beat. Do you honestly think a GT86 could manage to lap for 24 hours at >90% of it's top speed?
You will not get a GT86 to do *one* lap at an average of 128mph let alone 361.
CR6ZZ said:
but you all appear to have discounted the reliability, tyre wear and economy factors. Very few racers of the day made it through the 24 hours without some fault or other.
Nope I really haven't. The difference between not taking a single break, even for refuelling and the ~27min that the GT40 took is 27min or about 2mph on the average. But without a *single* fuel stop, driver change, tyre change, brake pad change you would have to average over 128mph for 24h straight and a GT86 could not do that over one lap let alone 360.Fastdruid said:
Nope I really haven't. The difference between not taking a single break, even for refuelling and the ~27min that the GT40 took is 27min or about 2mph on the average. But without a *single* fuel stop, driver change, tyre change, brake pad change you would have to average over 128mph for 24h straight and a GT86 could not do that over one lap let alone 360.
I'm only the messenger. He's entitled to his opinion as much as you are yours. Don't get me wrong - I think the GT40 is one of the greatest cars ever built and I love them, which is why I am building one, but he has driven both cars under racing conditions, so I defer to his expertise. However, I suspect he is not too far wrong considering the best time I have found for a historic GT40 round the Nordschleife is 8:57 back in 2006 while the best time for a GT86 is 8:44. OK, the Nordschleife is a much tighter track so top speed is less of a factor than at La Sarthe, but that is not the result I would have expected.Edited by CR6ZZ on Thursday 15th January 02:55
A friend of mine had an Elan +2 at Sepang, on slicks and lighttend but not a 26R, a basic big valve 1558 twin cam, road car but on slicks it would do 2.33, which would eat modern WRX's and Evos times. Yesterdauy a mate of mine run a race preped Suzuki Swift on Slicks and got a 2.52. So the 60 sport car won hands down agains a modern middle of the road saloon.
It all depends on preparation and driver skill. Many old sports cars weren't that quick new and are even slower now- for example a 3litre MGC from '69 would struggle to get to 60 quicker than my diesel Yeti. But on the other hand many trackday legends in their own lunchtime would be utterly gobsmacked at the pace of something like a Bugatti T35 or an ERA R5 around somewhere like Cadwell. And moving on a bit very few modern cars would see which way something like a well sorted Lola T70 went - or even a very well modded E Type like the one campaigned by the Minshaws . And what is even more shocking is that a 50 year old 1100cc Formula Junior in the right hands will run at GT40 pace at Silverstone - with a quarter the bhp.
But absolute speed doesn't really matter- would I rather watch an ultra grippy WTCC fwd Seat or whatever or a screaming sideways Lotus Cortina ? A 500bhp Shelby Mustang or a Clio Cup racer ? Old wins on both occasions .
But absolute speed doesn't really matter- would I rather watch an ultra grippy WTCC fwd Seat or whatever or a screaming sideways Lotus Cortina ? A 500bhp Shelby Mustang or a Clio Cup racer ? Old wins on both occasions .
832ark said:
TheConverted said:
To add alittle perspective. I have a 1996 840CI its a range topping flagship
I guess it is if you exclude the other range topping flagship, the 850csi :-)Still not a fast car by today's standards.
380ish bhp and 0-60 in 5.8 seconds, and it was still a bit of a boat. Fast in its day not so much now.
annsxman said:
I've driven a fully restored from the ground up E type. Lovely to look at but not nice to drive.
100% right.I always wanted to drive an E Type and when I did, (a early Series 1) it was awful. Slow (even by modern family hatch standards), hopeless brakes, vague steering and headlights like a glowing cigarette end. Looks amazing though.
I had an MGB as a daily driver for a while and found it a lovely car to drive. Sure it's slower (both in a straight line and around corners) than most modern diesel hatchbacks but it's far more fun than most modern sports cars I've driven.
The 60s Elan remains the best driver's car I've ever driven, although again it's not monstrously quick my modern standards.
ETA: I would however agree with the comments about the E-type. It feels very much more GT than sports car and can actually be quite alarming if driven enthusiastically. I'd love to own one but it'd be for cruising around in the sun, not for thrashing.
The 60s Elan remains the best driver's car I've ever driven, although again it's not monstrously quick my modern standards.
ETA: I would however agree with the comments about the E-type. It feels very much more GT than sports car and can actually be quite alarming if driven enthusiastically. I'd love to own one but it'd be for cruising around in the sun, not for thrashing.
Edited by kambites on Thursday 15th January 09:23
CR6ZZ said:
Fastdruid said:
Nope I really haven't. The difference between not taking a single break, even for refuelling and the ~27min that the GT40 took is 27min or about 2mph on the average. But without a *single* fuel stop, driver change, tyre change, brake pad change you would have to average over 128mph for 24h straight and a GT86 could not do that over one lap let alone 360.
I'm only the messenger. He's entitled to his opinion as much as you are yours. Don't get me wrong - I think the GT40 is one of the greatest cars ever built and I love them, which is why I am building one, but he has driven both cars under racing conditions, so I defer to his expertise. However, I suspect he is not too far wrong considering the best time I have found for a historic GT40 round the Nordschleife is 8:57 back in 2006 while the best time for a GT86 is 8:44. OK, the Nordschleife is a much tighter track so top speed is less of a factor than at La Sarthe, but that is not the result I would have expected.Edited by CR6ZZ on Thursday 15th January 02:55
gt40s said:
Results show fastest lap done by Minshaw in his E-Type in 8.30min during the Challenge.
Weather was changing from heavy rain to bright sunshine, all very local. Rain in Breitscheid could mean Sunshine on the Brünnchen and Thunderstorm at Start and Finish.
A far more indicative time would be the 8:37.400 set for Ford GT40 #1075 in 1968. Weather was changing from heavy rain to bright sunshine, all very local. Rain in Breitscheid could mean Sunshine on the Brünnchen and Thunderstorm at Start and Finish.
Edited by Fastdruid on Thursday 15th January 09:50
annsxman said:
I've driven a fully restored from the ground up E type. Lovely to look at but not nice to drive.
The steering wheel appeared to have some connection with the way the front wheels pointed.
Likewise if you stood on the brakes then after a while the car started to slow down.
More show than go. My 535d Touring would outperform it in every way imaginable other than the looks department, which I have to admit were stunning.
In 1983 I visited an apple farm in Worcestershire. The owner was a fully paid-up petrolhead with a Jaguar 'E' Type numbered lower than tenth off the production line and still in showroom condition. He also had a new 2.8i Capri and said that in every respect the Capri was better than the Jaguar except in looks. If you've driven a 2.8i Capri as I have over 150,000 miles (two company cars both new at acquisition) you'll know just how damning of the 'E' Type that is.The steering wheel appeared to have some connection with the way the front wheels pointed.
Likewise if you stood on the brakes then after a while the car started to slow down.
More show than go. My 535d Touring would outperform it in every way imaginable other than the looks department, which I have to admit were stunning.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
annsxman said:
I've driven a fully restored from the ground up E type. Lovely to look at but not nice to drive.
100% right.I always wanted to drive an E Type and when I did, (a early Series 1) it was awful. Slow (even by modern family hatch standards), hopeless brakes, vague steering and headlights like a glowing cigarette end. Looks amazing though.
SS7
Fastdruid said:
A far more indicative time would be the 8:37.400 set for Ford GT40 #1075 in 1968.
OK... that was before the track was reconfigured by the addition of a slow left-hand corner after Metzgesfeld, among other changes. However, that aside, I will concede that a GT40 is likely quicker round the Nordschleife than a GT86. What surprises me is that the margin between a full race GT40 driven by a professional race driver, and a reasonably standard GT86, driven by a part-time racer, is only 7 seconds, and likely much less if we figure in the slow additional corner. Which brings us back to the OPs original question - " how would a modern but normal car fare against a 60s classic on a track." As others have said, probably very, very well, given some of the modern cars that can beat 8:37 at the Nordscleife. If you add economy, comfort, reliability, better braking and better handling, as my friend suggested, over the sort of distances covered in endurance racing, I believe many of the 60s sports racers, let alone the 60s classics, would have fared extremely poorly against relatively run of the mill moderns. Indeed, a GT86 running faultlessly at Le Mans in 1966 would have beaten no less than 10 GT40s, 12 Ferraris, 2 Porsche 906s and a Chaparral 2D. Maybe my friend is being a bit optimistic contending it would be a possible winner, but it is very likely it would have finished in the top 10.Edited by Fastdruid on Thursday 15th January 09:50
CR6ZZ said:
Fastdruid said:
A far more indicative time would be the 8:37.400 set for Ford GT40 #1075 in 1968.
OK... that was before the track was reconfigured by the addition of a slow left-hand corner after Metzgesfeld, among other changes. However, that aside, I will concede that a GT40 is likely quicker round the Nordschleife than a GT86. What surprises me is that the margin between a full race GT40 driven by a professional race driver, and a reasonably standard GT86, driven by a part-time racer, is only 7 seconds, and likely much less if we figure in the slow additional corner. Which brings us back to the OPs original question - " how would a modern but normal car fare against a 60s classic on a track." As others have said, probably very, very well, given some of the modern cars that can beat 8:37 at the Nordscleife. If you add economy, comfort, reliability, better braking and better handling, as my friend suggested, over the sort of distances covered in endurance racing, I believe many of the 60s sports racers, let alone the 60s classics, would have fared extremely poorly against relatively run of the mill moderns. Indeed, a GT86 running faultlessly at Le Mans in 1966 would have beaten no less than 10 GT40s, 12 Ferraris, 2 Porsche 906s and a Chaparral 2D. Maybe my friend is being a bit optimistic contending it would be a possible winner, but it is very likely it would have finished in the top 10.Edited by Fastdruid on Thursday 15th January 09:50
Don't forget that that 68 laptop would have been on 60's rubber! I'd expect a quicker time now on modern rubber (although you'd need to find some to fit! I'm going up to larger wheels on mine for that reason alone, getting hard to find decent wide 15in tyres.
If we say that the GT86 could manage a 110mph lap and had a very reasonable 30min's of pitting then it could have come in 10th or so. It's just not fast enough no matter how good the handling to manage to have come first.
(PS Really nice work on your build, you're rather further on than me
) shoestring7 said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
annsxman said:
I've driven a fully restored from the ground up E type. Lovely to look at but not nice to drive.
100% right.I always wanted to drive an E Type and when I did, (a early Series 1) it was awful. Slow (even by modern family hatch standards), hopeless brakes, vague steering and headlights like a glowing cigarette end. Looks amazing though.
SS7
I maintain that a good E-Type is a good car to drive. Their motorsport reputation both past and present surely supports that.
I'm not suggesting it's fast by today's standards. It isn't. It is however a very enjoyable way of spending some time. If you prefer modern cars that drive by themselves then you're inevitably not going to like the intimate and somewhat muscular approach to driving a car like an E-Type will offer. You're unlikely to find much pleasure in a Lamborghini Miura, a Ferrari Daytona or an original spec Ford Escort Mk1 either though because they'll all have old-car characteristics.
Edited by jamieduff1981 on Friday 16th January 06:22
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff