Pre 66 Viable?

[Colin McKay]

This is my learning curve:

I started out 8 years ago with an uncompetitive Jaguar Mk2, had enormous fun learning to race in it and if I'd spent the money on development more wisely could have achieved much better results, but at the time that was never the point. My next car was a Jag S-type, a known car with good results in quick hands and already half way to being a well sorted car. Great fun in the midfield but I could never get near the high budget V8's although it held its own amongst other Jags (where are they now?). The HRSR/HSCC regs allowed my 'hot rod' to be competitive without the much higher cost of getting the same performance from appx K rivals. Maybe I just answered my own question.

After a couple of years with my E-type it's fair to say that if the same had been spent on developing the saloon it could maybe have been a front runner - Roger is right in saying that the V8's are relatively inexpensive to run. If you want to be near the front on the longer circuits in anything else you will need to spend a whole lot more. It was the same in period "there ain't no substitute for $$$$", or something like that.

[Al Weyman]

And if you run a Chevy v8 its even better bang for the buck sadly the Camaro is excluded from pre 66 but just as well for Mustang owners. IMHO I think hscc is missing out not organising a post 66 series to the same regs as their pre 66 instead insisting the cars are road legal and overweight etc.

[zefarelly]

Al, they do, 70's roadsports.

Colin and Roger I completely agree with . . . the last ten years has seen a lot of development also. when I first went to Spa in 2002 we ran Les LC and he was as competitive as anyone, his lap times where 3:15 . . . down to 3:12 . . .average LC was mid teens to mid 20's . . . . the front running cars now are all hookey with no provenance and now close to 3m dead. That's a bold statement, but a fact.

In that time I've managed to get my car from 3:30 to 3:16 . . .and its still bog standard underneath . . . . I think Its now at its limit and I've been seriously considering putting it into semi retirement for fear of my own desire to be competitive and ending up spoiling it. Hence the decision to build the GT car.

[GORDON STREETER]

Joe, I've found a spare engine in the back of my van, you can have it for nothing if you like !

[zefarelly]

sounds like a deal to me!

[terence]

Originally Posted by zefarelly

Al, they do, 70's roadsports.

Colin and Roger I completely agree with . . . the last ten years has seen a lot of development also. when I first went to Spa in 2002 we ran Les LC and he was as competitive as anyone, his lap times where 3:15 . . . down to 3:12 . . .average LC was mid teens to mid 20's . . . . the front running cars now are all hookey with no provenance and now close to 3m dead. That's a bold statement, but a fact.

In that time I've managed to get my car from 3:30 to 3:16 . . .and its still bog standard underneath . . . . I think Its now at its limit and I've been seriously considering putting it into semi retirement for fear of my own desire to be competitive and ending up spoiling it. Hence the decision to build the GT car.

Thanks Zef,you just backed up my point about only spending so much on a given car,and still complying with [FIA] regs.
Ideal tin top would be as light as possible,from the factory.Readily available parts,easy to set up and run.Sounds very much like a Cortina. Alfas tend to be heavier without spending large sums on lightweight panels etc.
One area often overlooked,[quite obvious when watching some drivers] is actually being able to extract the most from your chosen car. Many people only rely on the extra grunt they have over Joe Bloggs,who is often the better driver,in getting to the finish line first. Far better to learn to get your car to its limits first before spending a shedload of cash on "The latest Fashionable Cylinder Head " or what have you.

[Al Weyman]

Al, they do, 70's roadsports.

But they don't Zef read the regs, for a starter they have to be road registered and MoT'ed so thats me out for for one and where as in the pre-66's they allow the same weight from factory 1st Gen Camaro to run at about 1270kgs they want the 2nd Gen Road Sports to run at a massive 1600kgs or there abouts despite coming out the factory with half a tank of gas at around 1270, it makes no sense whatsoever. Oh and coupled to that the 1st Gen can run rear discs and four pot front calipers the 2nd Gen has to run dangerous one stop specials sliding calipers up front and rear drums the yanks all went over to in an effort to make cheaper car. The need to have a post 66 race series to the same regs as the pre 66 and I would have had some. If we are talking about viable historic racing then some flexibility has to be built into the regs. CTCRC did this for years but the championships were constantly sneered at by the purists (sometimes on here I have to say) and never mentioned in mags like Octane and we all know how people like to read about themselves. This IMHO has lead to the break down of the championship which is a big shame.

[terence]

Originally Posted by Al Weyman

But they don't Zef read the regs, for a starter they have to be road registered and MoT'ed so thats me out for for one and where as in the pre-66's they allow the same weight from factory 1st Gen Camaro to run at about 1270kgs they want the 2nd Gen Road Sports to run at a massive 1600kgs or there abouts despite coming out the factory with half a tank of gas at around 1270, it makes no sense whatsoever. Oh and coupled to that the 1st Gen can run rear discs and four pot front calipers the 2nd Gen has to run dangerous one stop specials sliding calipers up front and rear drums the yanks all went over to in an effort to make cheaper car. The need to have a post 66 race series to the same regs as the pre 66 and I would have had some. If we are talking about viable historic racing then some flexibility has to be built into the regs. CTCRC did this for years but the championships were constantly sneered at by the purists (sometimes on here I have to say) and never mentioned in mags like Octane and*{{{{ we all know how people like to read about themselves}}}}*. This IMHO has lead to the break down of the championship which is a big shame.

*{{{ Or be in a Top Gear Video}}}}*

[Al Weyman]

Yeah well that was something I was very proud tp be in especially as it put a few backs up.

[Noodle30]

Thanks for your replies. On the basis of Roger Wills' post and the fact that the over 2ltr stuff doesn't sound quite so silly, will order up the falcon homologation papers and get planning! Best and thanks again!

[Al Weyman]

A genuine usable 289 block could cost you an arm and a leg, expect to pay £15k plus (maybe a few grand more) and the VAT on top for the engine alone. I know someone who is building one in fact two different people and one baulked at what he was being asked to pay for a genuine 289 block I believe the other is going 302. Remember most Mustangs and Fairlanes in the US have a 302 fitted, a much more common and easy to find block and a sensible solution plus they allow aftermarket heads to be used again sensible (neither legal over this side of the pond in FIA Spec racing though) and I bet most that are imported as 'genuine' FIA are in fact American Historic Race spec which is something quite different so be careful! I think the whole FIA thing is daft the yankee rules much better and I recon most yank engines, Ford or Chevy have something wrong that doesnt comply if they were stripped and thats before we even start on the chassis!! There is no way these cars could be so much quicker than they were in period with factory backing if they were correct its as simple as that apart from the odd second or two here and there for track improvements and tyres.

[simon drabble]

Al its very simple - if a car or series is popular money will be chucked at it.... Mustangs are very developed now as are Lotus Cortinas. Interestingly Jaguars are very under developed (and if I am wrong please PM me with the tricks!!) and probably run pretty much as they did in period. Jaguar owners (like many other non front runnig cars) are brand/model loyal rather than pot hunting. As such its unlikely that they will recieve much development and in my eyes that is a good thing.
My Mk2 is now about 4 weeks away from completion and I cannot wait....

[terence]

Just make it "Dance" as they did in period,you'll get more people watch it than a full blown Mustang or E Type.

[simon drabble]

Terry that is something that will take time and confidence!! I clearly need to have a word with Colin who is about the only other Mk2 racer I know

[terence]

You will know when it's dancing Simon,no feeling like it!

[simon drabble]

After 4 years gestation I cannot wait to actually get in it and start playing!

[Ben Shuckburgh]

Originally Posted by simon drabble

After 4 years gestation I cannot wait to actually get in it and start playing!

Really looking forward to that too Simon

[Al Weyman]

I think the Mk 2 Jag is similar to the Camaro, double wishbones front and leafs rear, I remember Brain Stevens saying to me what a vaste difference it was between those and his XJS and trying to convince his mate not to bother with a Mk 2 as its no fun to drive, I think I agree.

[terence]

Having driven one in anger,I tend to disagree Al. Properly set up,although a little heavy,they can be a huge amount of fun.

[Al Weyman]

Yes I was also missing the point that the Mk 2 was a pre 66 car, Brian was comparing apples and pears when comparing with the later XJS. I actually have owned a few Mk 11's in the day and loved them in fact one of the nicest driving one I had was only a 2.4 but for practical everyday transport it was great.

[Chuck.U.Farley]

I am currently in parts aquisition phase to build a 65 Chevy II with a 327 Chevrolet engine and 4 speed. But the FIA website doesnt really demistify much. this combo is listed in the FIA approved list, as it came from the factory that way. But I can't find anything on whether I need to run the factory datestamp correct engine block, if cylinder heads are free or not etc. I see most competitive cars have upgraded to sturdier differentials in comparable cars (eg Ford 9 inch) and 4 wheel disk brakes in cars that would have originally come with 4 wheel drums. But I daren't start until I have confirmation.

[morninggents]

Looking on the FIA site Chevrolet Chevy II brings up homologation papers no. 1104 dated 1962. Mentioned is the 327ci (5.4 litre) V8 but the papers themselves only note the 283ci (4.6 litre) engine. 4 speed manual or 3 speed manual option also mentioned. However the brakes section only appears to show drum brakes front and rear. The later (1963/64) additions show no material difference to the original 1962 papers. Putting in Chevrolet Chevy II Nova got no hits. Perhaps Gerrard or others on here can read the FIA papers better than I have. The entire App K and App J sections really need to be read in depth to understand what is allowed.
What you can get away with is an entirely different matter.
Where are you planning to run this car? UK or Europe?

[ChrisMarks]

Form 1363 from 1965, have the 327ci, maybe that form has more info?

[Gerard C]

I could find only two corresponding homologation forms to your car, #1363 and 1104. Both clearly show drums all round.

https://historicdb.fia.com/sites/def...63_group_t.pdf
https://historicdb.fia.com/sites/def...04_group_t.pdf
No variant, no nothing about brakes.

[Gerard C]

Last appendix K update. https://historicdb.fia.com/regulations/appendix-k