[What'saCobra?]

Jamo is exactly right.

And i look forward with great anticipation to seeing the FIA homo papers on the 427 from Byots. If they exist at all, they are certainly not in GT Production, where the 289 races in Historic FIA even today. They might be in FIA Group 4, Sports.*

We have already noted that they ran in Sports, against GT40's, Porche 904's, Ferrari LM's, Chapparals and such, where they had no chance unless somebody broke. They were, however, fiercely driven.

Please note, that Trev and i are not proposing leaf srung chassis, far from it. Personally, i think the FIA cars are going to turn out to be fairly dead end once people drive them a bit...

We are proposing coil springing with ultra light weight and sb power. The argument is certainly not here and the discussion is certainly not over regarding sb and bb. Unfortunately, not everyone can afford an aly bb from Shelby. And the majority of kits use an iron slug that is, if not at least impossible to handle correctly, might make the kit quite unsafe when combined with cheap kit components required by excessive motor investment. We are proposing reason in exchange for excellent handling. But, in the spirit of honest inquiry, let's chat a bit about the results of 1965 for fun, AS IF we were proposing sb leaf-sprung cars as faster than 427's in the day.

Byots has selected only the professional races from 1965. OK, let's start there.

1965 was a long year for Shelby American. In May, FOMOCO informed SA that no further funds would come from them for 289 Cobra racing or development, so they were on their own. FORD had wiped the GT Production class and SCCA A Production to anihilation and wanted to move on to win Le Mans. So, there was little more development on 289's.

FORD did, however, continue to support the 427 versions (after all, FORD had just paid for the new chassis development), some with engines, some with other support (driver salaries, expenses, parts, stuff). As a result, the quickest professional drivers bailed and otherwise left the 289's to flounder (except the Daytonas) and migrated to the now supported (funded) 427's.

To say that the 427 teams were independent, while literally true in some cases, belies the fact that they were paid professionals, now driving 427's and acting in FORD's interests.

For example, Skip Scott, who won three (half) of the races you cite: Pensacola, Watkins Glenn and Continental Divide was a paid driver recruited by Essex Wire to build a FORD Racing Team. FOMOCO was Essex's largest customer and they wanted to promote their customer as a winner and themselves as FORD's specialist supplier. Independent doesn't quite tell the whole story, does it? Just where do you think Essex got the funds for that team?

PS, Scott had already driven for Shelby in a GT40 in 1964's Times GP race, as a paid driver. Shelby recommended Scott to Essex.

The other three races you cite (the other half), Bridgehampton (May and September) and Road America (Sept) were won by Dr. Dick Thompson (a dentist?), surely a paid professional who was also to co-drive with Scott at the 1966 Daytona in a GT40, both as paid professionals.

So, the six races you cite, wherein the heavily-funded (not true) 289's team raced against the poor little old independents (that WERE factory funded), were won by two drivers, both of which were paid professionals, as they all were in the professional races. OK, they won those races, but...

What about the other pro races where the 427's DNF'd, like Riverside, where they both failed, the Governor's Trophy and the Nassau Trophy where they also DNF'd and were trounced by 289's?

Anyway, the professional race record between the two cars does show the 427 as the quicker on some long tracks, despite the magnet in its nose. (They likely went quicker on North-bound headings.) And it couldn't catch the Daytona's, either, but that is a longer story, isn't it?

Meanwhile, the results of SCCA racing between the 289 and the 427 are even less clear, since the 289 was stripped of the 75HP from the Webers removal and FORD abandoned the 289's into B Production. Of course, the 427's were quicker against the 200 less HP 289's. But, there is a nice story here, also.

So, although i was going to lay in the weeds with this little vignette for later, you will be now aware why FORD was happy with the change and even, some say, proposed it; however indirectly, to the SCCA.

There were two reason's the Webers were removed. Just consider the position of Chevrolet, if SCCA allowed them to remain. Then FORD would have TWO different Cobras whipping Buttinskis in A Production, rather than just the Cobra 427! AND, FORD didn't want the FORD 289's pushing any FORD 427's into the weeds at Thompson and LimeRock, did they? AND, it wasn't possible to let the 289's into B Production with the Webers, since they would always win, every race, against the 327 'Vettes and Jags, so SCCA followed the nice script and dumped the 715 CFM Holley back on the 289's, to everyone's dismay in my crowd at the time.

PS: FORD was also happy to have their GT350's have at least a CHANCE to win a given B Production race, as the fastbacks were GT Production cars and the notchbacks were GT Sedans in FIA (like the FIA 911's, can you believe?)

Anyway, we were talking about today's few really sweet street cars, not professional results from 1965. But, it is always interesting to reacquaint one's self with the facts from time to time and choose to argue uphill.


-------------------------
*Shelby's Wildlife, Wallace Wyss, 1977, Revised Edition, Motorsports, p211.