1964 Falcon Sprint - FIA regs

[Camaro pilot]

Much grumbling about FIA interpretations of regs for Falcons over past 12 months.
Everyone has their own idea of how the 'up and over' exhaust headers should look. Some say the headers shown in the homologation papers are papier mache and could never fit.
Ford listed headers in their "Optional Competitive Event Components" list as part nos. C4HM-9430-1 and C4HM-9431-1 - HM being Holman-Moody presumably.
Has anyone actually ever seen a set of these or must Falcon racers continue to try their luck that FIA will accept their interpreation

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by Camaro pilot

Much grumbling about FIA interpretations of regs for Falcons over past 12 months.
Everyone has their own idea of how the 'up and over' exhaust headers should look. Some say the headers shown in the homologation papers are papier mache and could never fit.
Ford listed headers in their "Optional Competitive Event Components" list as part nos. C4HM-9430-1 and C4HM-9431-1 - HM being Holman-Moody presumably.
Has anyone actually ever seen a set of these or must Falcon racers continue to try their luck that FIA will accept their interpreation

Have had a look at the papers & they look like they were actually real fitted exhausts .
PM me if you want a copy of the Homologation papers .

[Camaro pilot]

Thanks Tel
We have homologation papers for this car. I agree the pipes look genuine (particularly the pictures off the engine) but there's an awful lot of speculation about how the Falcon got its papers, especially about its race weight and whether it ever had these headers. The part numbers I found are the first reference I have ever seen to actual race headers.

[Tel 911S]

There were some devious goings on with Homologation , mainly about production numbers etc . But an FIA official must have seen the car & demounted engine etc when the original inspection was done .
As the up & over exhaust is the one in the pictures , that must have been on the checked car so is a production item .
As for weights , well , the factory Homologation weights were often difficult to get down to with some cars , so there might have been a little bit of nudging of the original weighbridge at some factories .
I believe the Falcon was one of the first saloon race cars that the [ US ] factory was promoting , so it could have had a lot of help with them making it as competitive as possible within the rules .

[terence]

Several years ago we (CMS) ran one of the "original" cars.That had cast manifolds that looked quite standard, until you picked one up! Turns out that Ford had some specialy cast that were in effect bored out , quite a bit lighter and more efficient. Dont know if anyone ever had them copied?

[Camaro pilot]

Originally Posted by terence bower

Several years ago we (CMS) ran one of the "original" cars.That had cast manifolds that looked quite standard, until you picked one up! Turns out that Ford had some specialy cast that were in effect bored out , quite a bit lighter and more efficient. Dont know if anyone ever had them copied?

That's interesting. Perhaps they are the mysterious HM parts listed by Ford. I wonder what Bo Ljungfeldt's car (sold in 2012 by Bonhams I think) had for exhausts?

[terence]

More than likely exactly the same
They were better than any tubular type we tried on the dyno and didn't weight that much more either.
We did manage to get another new pair for a Mustang we built the next season, they came direct from the states but no idea if they are still available.From memory one bank was slightly smaller diameter maybe just a cock up by the makers?

[Mike Bell]

Apologies for possibly going OT, but have you seen this, Terence? Not sure if the ad is current, but what chance car still has the headers?

http://www.vrmotors.com/ford_falcon_1964.html

[morninggents]

I doubt they would have kept those headers if they put a 5.7 litre engine in. Most likely used tubular items tuned to optimum lengths.
In the ad it states the car ran in BSCC with a 5.7 litre. I can't think of any period (even the Group 5 period) that it would have been allowed unless it ran as a cheat.

[terence]

Originally Posted by Mike Bell

Apologies for possibly going OT, but have you seen this, Terence? Not sure if the ad is current, but what chance car still has the headers?

http://www.vrmotors.com/ford_falcon_1964.html

Thanks Mike, didn't know it was still about.I knew Martin sold it but lost track of it.Headers? Probably have been changed as the thinwall versions were prone to cracking, different material needed? It should have had its alloy bumpers but they had been lost be we got the car.

[Camaro pilot]

Originally Posted by morninggents

I doubt they would have kept those headers if they put a 5.7 litre engine in. Most likely used tubular items tuned to optimum lengths.
In the ad it states the car ran in BSCC with a 5.7 litre. I can't think of any period (even the Group 5 period) that it would have been allowed unless it ran as a cheat.

There is almost no room for any type of exhaust between the suspension towers so fitting a 351 (with taller deck height i.e. wider engine) would be next to impossible without tower mods.

If Ford only listed cast manifolds in their performance parts, how did the tube headers ever become homologated?

[Peter Mallett]

Wasn't pre 65 run to Group 2 regs? If so then manifolds may have been free.

[Tel 911S]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Wasn't pre 65 run to Group 2 regs? If so then manifolds may have been free.

Not sure about that one Peter .
As you said , there was a major change in FIA regs in 66, & cars then had to be Homologated in Gp 1 and/or Gp 2 , where before they were just listed as Touring or Grand Touring .
But have had a quick look through 1961 Appendix J & it looks like Touring could be Gp 1 or Gp2 , & the Gp 1 regs were similar to the later ones in not allowing much to be changed at all .

[johnh875]

Originally Posted by Camaro pilot

There is almost no room for any type of exhaust between the suspension towers so fitting a 351 (with taller deck height i.e. wider engine) would be next to impossible without tower mods.

If Ford only listed cast manifolds in their performance parts, how did the tube headers ever become homologated?

It is likely that it has a stroker 302 at 347ci or 5.7L, keeping the standard, lighter, block size.

[morninggents]

Peter, gp 2 regs still required the car to comply with homologation papers and appendices.

[Mike Bell]

Originally Posted by morninggents

Peter, gp 2 regs still required the car to comply with homologation papers and appendices.

Yup, Gp2 early 60s was very restrictive compared with 70s. No mention of being allowed to change manifold from homologated type.

[JonWolfe]

Reference the whole FIA and Falcons thing, as stated this is currently being addressed by the FIA technical committee because a number of Falcon owners have been asked to alter their cars for 2014, mine included. Official complaints were made about certain cars in 2012 and early 2013 which lead to the action being taken. At the 2013 Silverstone Classic (and maybe other events) all the App K Falcons were inspected and each owner individually written to accordingly. Exhaust manifolds were a hot topic. My car's manifolds were judged to be fine and a number of owners were sent over to look at my car as being acceptable, lots of pictures were taken.

Interestingly, the manifolds shown in FIA 1250 papers would never actually fit in the car so I have no idea where they were from; maybe test/dyno pipes. The design as shown would put the down pipes through the front bulkhead so clearly an exact copy from the papers would not work. I can put some pictures up if people are interested, PM me or let me know via this thread.

Another common issue was engine pulleys. I think every Falcon was picked up for having billet alloy ones and we've all had to change to billet steel ones; the pressed steel ones being too weak to use apparently.

Lastly, engine mounts - we were all told they had to be standard mounts, which mine are (and always have been) anyway so don't believe anyone who says they are not strong enough.

Hope this is useful.