Mystery MKII was 409

[Tom Kochtanek]

Importance of history and documentation

I really get jazzed about the history behind these engines, and behind X frames as well, and I really appreciate both of your knowledge bases with respect to these early engine developments. I wish we had unimpeachable documented evidence that we could all agree upon, but until that occurs (which I suspect it may not, given the records GM kept...) all we have to go on are these pieces of evidence that may or may not be gospel. I'm glad you guys have access to such information, and continue to explore and uncover new evidence. It's fun reading about these, noting the sources, and so forth, but not worth the tar and feathers that sometimes accompany these discussions .

I will continue to read and to take in the details that everyone has to offer, try to make some sense of things, and make my own deductions. I recognize that there are differences of opinion, and that's what makes things "spirited" around here. At some point we need to agree to disagree and move on. We've done this before and everyone seems to heal OK .

Being an academic, I sit in the middle of a lot of similar on campus face-to-face discussions (in this case about learning theory and technology implementations) with some national and internationally famous theorists and practitioners. We almost never agree on anything, but the discussions are really interesting, and generally worth having. Well, sometimes .

Some of my very capable colleagues can discuss the merits of such and such all day long and are capable of crafting elegent solutions to problems that don't exist and situations that will never be. They use big words like "heremeneutics" and "integration". I can follow most of what they are getting at, but prefer simpler terms. I like to make stuff work (technology stuff), and try to render complex things easy to understand. That's my gift. That's why I pride myself as a teacher of and mentor to graduate students. Some of my colleagues can't make squat, but they feel they have a solid theoretical base on which to make claims and provide evidence.

Fran has a gift, and certainly Richard has one as well. We all do. I truly appreciate these shreds of evidence/knowledge, as they add to our understanding of the underpinnings of things "W", which is important to most of us. Let's keep these discussions informative, which they have been, and subsequently we can make our own conclusions out of the available content.

I just want to get my 409 stroker running properly, and I promise not to use big words in describing the experience . BTW, all hermeneutics means is "to interpret". Seems relevant in this case . Why don't they just say that???

Cheers!
TomK

 

[MK IISS]

Fran: In case you are still reading this stuff. (no doubt everyone else is sick of it) I never said: "NASCAR put the cubic inch limit at 427 in November".

So you didn't like Ford's press release photo of their 1962 Star Lift Top? You think it's an "artist's rendering". It most likely is. So what? That is absolutely, in no way, any kind of proof that Ford didn't have some of the tops made. If you look at a '62 Ford consumer sales brochure you will note all the illustrations of the cars are "artist's renderings". During that time period Chevrolet's were also.

The truth is NASCAR allowed the Starlift top in one race. Fred Lorenzen won the Atlanta 500 on June 10, 1962 with his '62 Ford which had a Star Lift top. Don't take my word for it....look it up.... it's part of NASCAR's documented history.

 

[real61ss]

"The truth is NASCAR allowed the Starlift top in one race. Fred Lorenzen won the Atlanta 500 on June 10, 1962 with his '62 Ford which had a Star Lift top. Don't take my word for it....look it up.... it's part of NASCAR's documented history."


Richard,
Are you sure about this? I'm not saying you're wrong, I never heard it called a Starlift top until you called it that. I do know that Ford grafted a 61 Starliner top on a 62 Galaxie and wanted to run it but I thought NASCAR never allowed them to race it. Fred Lorenzen did win the spring race in Atlanta in 62 but I'm thinking he was driving a "square back" Galaxie.
The Atlanta race was on June 10. 62, at the Charlotte race in May of 62, Ford tried to race these Starliner topped cars and were not allowed to run them. The 59 -64 edition of Stock Car Racing says; "Stacy and Lorenzen, stable mates on the Holman-Moody team were forced to drive Fords set up for dirt tracks when NASCAR outlawed the new "fastback" sloped roofs which Ford unveiled for the 600. Sactioning NASCAR said the roofs were not in mass production and did not conform to "stock" car racing"

 

[SS425HP]

Nascar

What's really funny about all this today, is find me a carburated, rear wheel drive car to match any legal NASCAR "car" today. We have 4 door cars running as 2 doors, and they all have to meet the same templates. Cookie Cutter cars, basically. And, this is progress. Almost the same as in NHRA Pro Stock. Find me a factory car with 2 4bbls, rear wheel drive, And in the body styles we see running. Stock???????????????? Sure has changed the meaning of that word.

 

[MK IISS]

Tommy: I will never argue with you about NASCAR. You were involved I wasn't. I'm basing my opinion on some of my NASCAR record books and it is from memory at this moment. I can't get to the books now because they are in a storage facility. I sold my house, renting one while I have another built or possibly move to Largo.

I can tell you this though. The '62 Starlift top did exist. In 1962 my girlfriend's father was the general manager of our local Ford store. The Ford dealership had a small brochure on the Starlift top. In my opinion the '61 Starliner grafted on top story is not correct or maybe a better explaination is the '61 top was Ford's first attempt and the Starlift top was their second attempt. Both outlawed by NASCAR.

If you go to www.62ford.com click on Galaxie Registry...scroll down to BETTER IDEAS in the left margin. The photo this website has is the same photo, as I remember it, that was part of Ford's press release on the top. I think it is a real photo of a lady in a convertible that Ford doctored by air brushing the top on. The text of the information seems quite close to my NASCAR info but I can't prove it now. As I remember it, NASCAR discovered that the convertible's side windows would not roll up completely into the Starlift top's side openings. One of the reasons NASCAR decided it wasn't really going to be sold to consumers as Ford claimed.

If you have the time please go to the web site and let me know what you think.

 

[wrench]

tops

If you go to www.62ford.com click on Galaxie Registry...scroll down to BETTER IDEAS in the left margin. The photo this website has is the same photo, as I remember it, that was part of Ford's press release on the top.

In the paragraph below that one on the site, there's yet another kind of top on a Ford.

I do remember these tops being discussed in the article about those special Ford engines in the sixties. Looks like they were trying to mimic the 62 BelAir Sport Coupe.

 

[brisbane47]

Mkii Bs

After reading all the posts in this section, it seems the right time to ask if any of you were present when the MKII was first delivered to the race shops. I was there and worked directly with Rex White and his mechanic Louie C. If there ever were a 409 CI MKII, no one ever saw it outside of engineering. The so called "Mystery Engine" came to us as a 427 CI engine. As far as the "MKIIs", it was never referred to as such. No one gave a "RAT'S A--" about all of that anyway. Ray Fox, Rex White, (supported out of the Rathmann shop in Melbourne) and Smokey (after much whining) got the MKII engines. At the conclusion of the 63 Daytona all support was withdrawn from GM on the MKII program. No matter what you read, the main problem was in the valve area, mainly the valve springs were not capable of endurance racing at that time and for that application. It is really interesting to hear people who were not involved argue about something they never put a hand on. Brisbane 47

 

[Fran Preve]

Thank you very much Hitman, exactly the point I was trying to make but Richard couldn't grasp, the Mark II was the ONLY designation used by Chevrolet and adding the "s" for stroke is not correct.

The Mark I was a designation for an engine that saw the light of day in the summer of 1962, both by drag racers and by oval track racers. The PARTS to make one were sold over the counter but the engines were never built as complete engines by the factory. To differenciate this engine from the 427 version, which was EXACTLY the same they added the small s to signify "stroke" or stroked version. This was the engine used in the Z-11 which was the RPO designation for the ENTIRE packaaage, NOT the engine. Everyone calls it the "Z-11' engine but inside Chevrolet it was a Mark Is.

And guess what, wrong again Richard (thanks Real), that 1961 roof on the 1962 body was never allowed to race in NASCAR competition simply because as Real saysa it was a "one off". Somewhere I have a picture and article on this car (not a cobbled up photo) where Ford was using this "test car" to see how much a fastback roof line worked on the squareback body. And I believe it was powered by a 482 cubic inch engine, not because Ford wanted to run that big an engine but more because they wanted to get higher speeds for test data without stretching a modified FE motor (I believe the 482 was based on a Lincoln motor).

As to what Richard said about a November statement from NASCAR aabout a 427 or 7 liter limit you go back and see what he said, My statement is they didn't just drop that limit on everyone in Novemeber of 1962, it was under discussion before that and with NHRA too. The only manufacturer with a motor bigger that 427 at the time was Lincoln so placing that limit was no problem for anyone racing.

Tom K: good attitude to take, listen to ALL sides and make up your own mind, ask some questions if you want too. Richard thinks he's the only "expert' out here, at time I do too. It's nice when people like Brisbane (who was there) and Real61 (who was there) kick in their two cents. I speak almost all the time on drag racing.my main interest.

 

[MK IISS]

As I said before, at least a half-dozen times, I was only passing on the quotes (words spoken) of the men involved with the designing, developing and testing the MKII during the early days of it's development. These quotes indicate the engine started out as a 409 and it was referred to as a MKIIS for a period of time after the 427 crank was installed. I also said the "S" label was later dropped. I also gave references where, if so inclined, a person could look this material up and decide for themselves if the information was correct.

The comments made about the MK IIs durability, who was there with Rex White, Ray Fox, Smokey and any other person who may have been in one of the outhouses at Daytona in early 1963 have nothing to do with the subject I originally posted.

Fran: I did NOT say "NASCAR put the cubic inch limit at 427 in November". It would be helpful if you learned to read. What I said was: the rule was first implemented in November 4th, 1962. This was the date of the first race of the 1963 season. Implement and announce do not mean the same thing...not even close.

As for the Starlift top, I still believe it existed. I guess you say no but the 62ford.com website says it did. I'm no longer sure the top was used at the Atlanta race in 1962. Tommy says he believes it wasn't..the website says it was.

I said this before and I will repeat it again. I do not claim or even consider myself to be an expert on any of this stuff. Only reported information I discovered and a reference to look it up for yourself.

As brisbane 47 indicated, no one gives a rats a** about this stuff anyway.

 

[walkerheaders]

As brisbane 47 indicated, no one gives a rats a** about this stuff anyway.

sure we care, keep up the good work........but without doing battle amongst yourselves. i, for one find this very interesting. (unlike the 10 second 283). i like to hear stories about the factory involvement. I was not paying attention at the time,....i was a kid in 63.........but i'll NEVER forget riding in my dad's 63 aluminum nose plymouth....or my uncle Tom Snedens 63 aluminum nose dodge. or all the hemi cars and funny cars they had after the super/stockers.

 

[real61ss]

As for the Starlift top; I checked the website that Richard referred to and the website says that the top was allowed to run the Atlanta race. To be honest, I thought that the top was on the Holman Moody cars when they showed up for practice at Atlanta and NASCAR wouldn't let them run them. Only last night when I pulled the Stock Car Racing books out and read through them did I find that according to this book, it was Charlotte, not Atlanta that all of this occured. I have seen a picture somewhere of the Lorenzen car with the top installed, may have been in an old Hot Rod magazine, I'm not sure and it really doesn't matter, I should have stayed out of this. To those of you that think these two (Richard & Fran) are getting mad at each other; not to worry, these two old goats are two much alike to get along, both of them are great guys with a lot of knowledge. Let'm go at it, we can learn from listening. I like reading what they write, they both amaze me with their knowledge.

 

[brisbane47]

Mkii

MKIISS and Walkerheaders, My statement was: "No one GAVE a RAT'S A-- about all of that anyway." Meaning that at the time we did not care about numbers, paint, where it came from, or what they called it!! All that mattered was that we finally had an engine to compete on the long tracks even though we all could guess that it would be short lived. As far as the history of the MKII, all information that can be gathered that pretains to the history and time line of the MKII is important as far as history is concerned. It was a wonderful piece of iron that was pushed into service a little too quickly. On the other hand, it sure did P--- off the Ford tribe!!! I hope this clarifies my position on this engine, I could not have wished to be at a better place, at a better time. Brisbane47

 

[Fran Preve]

Richard: go back to what I said about seeing this car (1962 Ford with a 1961 roof) in a magazine, and I think Real is right it was Hot Rod but I haven't bothered to go thru mine to see what issue it was. I did NOT say it didn't exist, but it did race, it was a "test" vehicle (which may have shown up at a race but obviously wouldn't have been allowed to race). Agin, in the article in HR it was a TEST vehicle.

Tell ya what, you back off on calling the Mark II a Mark IIs and I'll grant you that in early 1962 when BOTH the Mark I and Mark II were under developement (I'm talking January/February/March) they would have been called the Mark I and II. Inside Chevrolet engineering the engine developed for the Z-11 would have been designated the Mark Is because of the increased stroke. The Mark II COULD have been being developed as a 409 in the VERY early days, then termed the Mark IIs, INTERNALLY, and for a VERY SHORT TIME, but by early summer when the Mark Is was developed for the Z-11 package to be released late in the fall the Mark II would have been stroked to the same cubic inches, and in fact, the connecting rods I saw at Smokey's shop in 1989 at his auction had the SAME 0- part number as the Z-11 engine used. I was there with a guy who restored Z-11's.

The point is, what Brisbane said, no one ever refered to the Mark II engine seen at Daytona, as a "Mark IIs". You keep refering to it as a Mark IIs, and I'm only saying that that term is inaccurate (unless your refering to explicit use inside Chevrolet during early development.

I'm sorry, explain to me what the difference is between "implement" and "annouce" is?. If they implemented it they would have had to announce it, so they either announced it AND implemented it at the same time. Or they announced it BEFORE November and then implemented it in November. Of course they COULD have implemented it in November then announced it at a later date, that doesn't make much sense tho'. I guess. I guess my question to you would be, when did they announce it?. Did they announce it BEFORE they implemented it?.

PS: I NEVER would have guessed the 1st race of 1963 was November 1962 and then the second race of 1963 being the Daytona 500, my bad.

 

[Fran Preve]

For those of you following this convoluted topic, keep in mind the time frames for all of this. The Mark I, or 409 with two piece intake/special heads, was in use in July of 1962, which means TEST parts were being developed during the late winter of 61/62. Chrevrolet would have been doing dyno runs in the spring and parts would have been being produced for distribution by May or June. The parts were in racers hands by July (limited basis).

The Mystery motor was on paper in very late 1961 or VERY early 1962. To test the "theroy" of the canted valves test parts would have been cast, including blocks and heads at the same time the "Z-11" parts were, it couldn't have been any other way. during the summer of 1962 the "mystery" motor would have been running on dynos, and, as I've said, been considered the replacement for the W block motor. The engines released for the 1963 Daytona 500 were "rushed" into use because the 409 simple couldn't cut it on the long tracks. And besides, what a GREAT way to "durability" test them!.

It would be nice if everything GM engineers did was well thought out, as it turned out there were some soft spots in the Mark II which showed up at the track (and didn't on the dyno?). Nonetheless, by late summer/early fall of 1962 the Mark II was being run on Chevy dyno's. The Mark Is was being built for the RPO Z-11 for NHRA use, and when both were first seen in January/February 1963 both had been undergoing dyno tests for up to 6 months, and been on paper for a year.

Anyway, the spring, summer and fall was a wild time for the engineers in Chevrolets motor department. And the engines were the Mark I & Mark Is, and Mark II. Did Dick Kieneth refer to the Mark II as Mark II and Mark IIs, probably, but that would have been dropped early on.

General Motors requested propsels for new big block engines from all the divisions, to replace engines designed in the 40's and early 50's. Chevrolets propsel was the Mark II, an engine with a 90 degree block angle and canted valves. From first proposel to the final Mark IV version it underwent many changes, but the BASIC architecture stayed the same.

 

[real61ss]

Well, I've been check'n and now I'm really confused about this 62 Ford thing. I found this on one of the racing web sites.


"As speedways became more common on the NASCAR circuit and manufacturers began to increase their involvement, teams began the first work on "aero-friendly" cars.

For example, the 1960-61 Starliner was noted for its aerodynamic roofline. In 1962, Fred Lorenzen ran a 1962 Galaxy with the 1961 Ford roof and won the Atlanta 500. It was the only race in which the car appeared."

 

[MK IISS]

Fran: This is what I said way back early in the thread....I was referring to the "S" after the MK II (MK IIS)

"It was simply an in house term or label used for a period of time during the engine's development."

Now I think this is quite clear that I was NOT claiming....I repeat...NOT CLAIMING...the completed engines, such as the ones sent to the race teams at Daytona, were ever called a MK IIS. All the writtings and stories, such as the one in HOT ROD magazine refer to the engine simply as a MK II.

Take it or leave it. As Brisbane would say: I don't give a rat's a**

 

[MK IISS]

Tommy:

I too, have found two Ford websites that claim the Holman Moody cars at the Atlanta race were running the new top...but it doesn't say '61 top it refers to the Starlift top. If you do a yahoo or google search you have to spell Starlift as one word. Nothing comes up under Star Lift. But I think this info may be incorrect, which means my NASCAR history book I have packed away, somewhere, is wrong about this. I don't think it's makes sense that NASCAR would outlaw the top a few weeks earlier at Charlotte and then allow it at Atlanta. We have a NASCAR store in my area that has diecast cars. A while back the guy had a Fred Lorenzen replica of his '62 Ford with the Starlift top. The wording on the back of the box claimed the car won the Atlanta race.

The only other possibilty is there were two different tops. The '61 (cut off) top, which was rejected at Charlotte and Ford's second attempt, the Starlift deal, which was allowed the one race only. This seems a little too far out though...can't believe it happened this way.

 

[chevymusclecars]

Try this web site it says that the car that the 62 car that won the Atlanta 500 has a 61 roof.

http://www.stg.thatsracin.com/mld/t...57.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

 

[Fran Preve]

Was it aNASCAR or was it a USAC race?. NASCAR was the main stock car sanctioning body but I think USAC sanctioned stock cars too.

This just muddies up the water, and it's only a thought, but ALL Fords had the same roofline while Chevy had two, the very common Impala roof and the not so common (but still common) Bel Air roof line. Could someone at Ford cry about that and try and get them to let them put a 1961 roof on a 1962 body?. If I were a sanctioning body I would say "Chevy sells the Bel Air body to anyone who wants one so you have to do that too, put it in PRODUCTION". It's only a thought, but the fact Chevy ran two body styles had to rub Ford the wrong way.

 

[MK IISS]

The race in question was the Atlanta 500 which was the 24th NASCAR race for the 1962 season. The race was shortened to a little over 300 miles due to rain. The race winner was not announced until five hours later due to a problem with the score (laps) cards.

As far as I know the top Chevrolet teams only ran the BelAir Spt Cp in NASCAR competition in 1962. At least all the '62 race photos show only that body style.