Can you explain your braking comparisons? Having never pushed either my GT or the 40 to the point of putting enough heat in them to cause fade, I can't speak to the limits.
Our experience at Firebird was that side by side at the same speed, we needed to brake very slightly earlier in the GT40. In that circumstance, last to brake = first into the corner. The brakes weren't hot enough on either car to fade - I think it's just the very slight difference in the stopping capability of these two particular cars. Perhaps a different GT and a different SPF GT40 would give different results.
That said although the 40 without power steering transmits a lot more feel back to the wheel under hard braking, it seemed to me it stops as hard or even harder than the GT.
As you well know the GT40 is a much more visceral experience, giving you more sensory feedback and requiring more physical input. For instance, you have to push harder on the brake pedal in the GT40 than in the GT to get the same stopping G's. I think these factors can cause the driver to perceive actual performance through different colored lenses. I sometimes compare the two cars this way; the GT40 is a raw brute, and the GT is electric smooth. This subjective difference in perception was part of the reason that Jeff & I did the side by side acceleration and braking at Firebird after exchanging opinions between runs. Going back and forth between the two cars definitely requires the appropriate mental and physical adjustment.
I never had the GT or my 40 on the scale so I have no idea what they weighed. Has anyone actually weighed a fully fueled GT with 200lbs of driver? Given the size difference I would have guessed more than 960lbs more than a 40.
I hope I get all the numbers typed in correctly here! I have a set of Longacre Racing scales which weigh each individual wheel. This gives the ability to calculate all sorts of things like front-rear and left-right weight distribution, but for this discussion I'll just stick to total weights. I weighed both cars with full fuel, which is the only accurate way of accounting for fuel besides draining the tanks completely.
As weighed, the GT had CCW wheels and Goodyear racing slicks, an oil cooler, Borla exhaust, cockpit fire extinguisher, engine compartment fire extinguisher, and no driver. Weight was 3,457#, which translates to a zero-fuel weight of 3,353# (17.4 gallons @ 6#/gal = 104#).
As weighed, the SPF GT40 (a MkII) had Halibrand style wheels with Yokohama Avid street tires, an oil cooler, cockpit fire extinguisher, side windows removed, and no driver. Weight was #2,530#, which translates to a zero-fuel weight of 2,395# (22.5 gallons @6#/gal = 135#).
Jeff & I don't fit in the GT40 with a helmet (no Gurney bubble), so when we track the car we take the seats out and sit on a strip of fire-retardant foam cut to fit. It sounds (and looks) funky, but it's quick and easy and it works. We also take the floor mats out when tracking because don't want it potentially interfering with the pedals and foot movement. Although weight reduction is not the purpose, removing the seats and floor mats reduces weight another 14#.
The "about 960# heavier" I noted previously is based on the zero-fuel weights (with seats and floor mats installed in the GT40), 3,353# - 2,395# = 958#. I say "about" because this will vary depending on whether we take the seats out of the GT40, put the windows back in, put street tires on the GT, etc, ad infinitum.
My GT had a pulley and tune and off idle came on harder than the N/A 40 which you would think equal quicker corner exits. The 40 once on top the cam probably pulls harder than my GT did. Both cars are fantastic and a blast to drive but are very different. After putting a thousand miles on the 40, memories remind me of how gentlemanly the GT truly was.
I agree! :thumbsup
I will grab Tony next spring with his Heritage and go weigh them both on the same scale. Not much I can remove on the 40 lol. It does have A/C which I begrudgingly accepted for future resale considerations. Who in their right mind would contort themselves getting into a GT40 "race car" and then turn and say... "How do I turn the A/C on?" We live in a world of neophytes! Very soft neophytes at that...
The A/C is very nice to have here in Phoenix for non-track driving. Without A/C and with the windows installed, you would bake here in traffic without it for much of the year. Yes, I did grow up here and spent the 50's and much of the 60's without A/C, but we could roll the windows down on those cars! And back then we didn't have the heat island effect that makes summer nights so hot now. But when the weather is right, we roll down the GT40's "power windows" (i.e. use an electric screwdriver to remove the screws) and enjoy! If someone was only tracking the car, you could certainly get away without A/C installed, even here, because you don't use it on the track anyway.
My friend in the UK refers to what you say as "real motoring" or "real racing". Driving a GT40, even if it is a replica, certainly gives you an appreciation for how grueling endurance racing was in that era, and how tough and talented the drivers had to be.
