By on March 30, 2014
Roy Lunn (on right) receiving an award from the Society of Automotive Engineers for the Eagle 4X4

Roy Lunn (on right) receiving an award from the Society of Automotive Engineers for the Eagle 4X4

You may not have heard the name Roy Lunn, but undoubtedly you’ve heard about the cars that he guided into being. You think that’s an exaggeration? Well, you’ve heard about the Ford GT40 haven’t you? How about the original XJ Jeep Cherokee? Lunn headed the team at Ford that developed the LeMans winning GT40. Later as head of engineering for Jeep (and ultimately VP of engineering for AMC) he was responsible for the almost unkillable Cherokee, Jeep’s first unibody vehicle, a car that remained in production for over two decades with few structural changes and could be said to be the first modern SUV. In addition to those two landmark vehicles, Lunn also was in charge of the engineering for  two other influential cars, the original two-seat midengine Mustang I concept and the 4X4 AMC Eagle. If that’s not an impressive enough CV for a car guy, before Ford, he designed the Aston Martin DB2 and won an international rally. After he retired from AMC, he went to work for its subsidiary, AM General, putting the original military Humvee into production. Oh, he also had an important role in creating one of the most legendary muscle cars ever, the Boss 429 Mustang. So, yeah, you should know about Roy C. Lunn.

astonmartindb2_r

Aston Martin DB2. Full gallery here.

Roy C. Lunn was born in 1925 in England. I haven’t been able to find anything out about his childhood, but he must have been a bit of a prodigy. He  earned mechanical and aeronautical engineering degrees and served for two years during World War II in the Royal Air Force, training as a pilot, all by the time he was a legal adult. In addition to his engineering degrees he also had training as a toolmaker and designer, and in 1946 he got his first job in the automotive industry, working for AC cars as a designer at the age of 21. His talent caught the notice of David Brown, who hired him a year later to be assistant chief designer at Aston Martin. Brown put him in charge of the DB2 program. By 1949, he was at Jowett, where he helped prepare the Jupiter sports car for production and had a hand in the development of one of the earliest fiberglass bodied cars. A competitive driver, he shared the saloon class victory co-driving a Jupiter Javelin for Marcel Becquart in the 1952 RAC International Rally of Great Britain. You can see Becquart racing that car in that rally starting at about 1:55 of this video:

YouTube Preview Image

After that somewhat peripatetic early career, as Lunn approached his 30s, he settled down and hired in at Ford in 1953 and was put in charge of starting up Ford of England’s new research and development center in Birmingham. His team there developed the original prototype of what would be the 105E Anglia, a critical car to the postwar success of Ford in the UK. Moving to Ford’s Dagenham works, he took on the job of product planning manager for Ford of England and ushered the Anglia into production.

105E Ford Anglia.

105E Ford Anglia.

Emigrating to the United States in 1958, Lunn was made manager of Ford’s Advanced Vehicle Center in Dearborn. He supervised a number of projects including Ford’s first front wheel drive vehicle, the Cardinal, which was developed into the Ford of Germany’s Taunus . While the Anglia and Taunus were important cars for Ford in Europe, they’re both sedans. Lunn’s role in the development of the Mustang I concept is probably of more interest to the average car enthusiast.

P4 Ford Taunus 12M

P4 Ford Taunus 12M

In the early 1960s, an idea that had been percolating around Detroit since Chevy ad man Barney Clark first proposed that GM build a small, sporting four seater with classic long hood short deck proportions finally got the attention of some higher-ups at Ford. Lee Iacocca gave the go ahead to the development of a small sporty car designed to appeal to young adults. Because of Lunn’s experience in racing and as a chief designer, his team was tasked with designing a chassis and mechanical components to underpin a design based on sketches by a young Ford designer named Phil Clark (who quite likely also originated the Mustang name and galloping pony badge). Ford senior designer John Najjar, in an oral history given to the University of Michigan, Dearborn, described Lunn’s role in creating the first Mustang concept car:

Roy Lunn designed all the tubular structure, the suspen­sion, the engines. He got all that equipment built and shipped out to [a fabricator on] the West Coast. It was all put together, we finished our clay model in something like eight weeks’ time, and, I guess, Roy had something like sixty days to build an operable vehicle. To see that thing go from an idea to finished product was an exciting time.

Ford Mustang I concept. Full galleries here and here.

Ford Mustang I concept. Full galleries here and here.

You can read Lunn’s own account of the development of what is now known as the Mustang I. In January of 1963, he published a technical paper with the Society of Automotive Engineers titled, The Mustang – Ford’s Experimental Sports Car. While the four cylinder, two seat, midengine Mustang I didn’t really directly influence the production Mustang, it did end up influencing early production midengine cars like the Lotus Europa and Fiat X/19. Using the V4 engine and transaxle from the Taunus, the Mustang I concept was possibly the first midengine car to move a front wheel drive powertrain to behind the driver. Indirectly, positive consumer response to the Mustang I when it was on the show circuit convinced Ford executives to go forward with the production pony car. 

By 1962 Lunn had became a U.S. citizen. Also, by then Henry Ford the second had been rebuffed in his effort to buy Ferrari. Despite the American car manufacturers’ public disavowal of racing in the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Deuce wanted Ford to win, bankrolling efforts in NASCAR, and at Indianapolis with Lotus (a relationship that would also bear fruit in Formula One as the Cosworth Ford DFV engine). When Ferrari wouldn’t sell, HFII decided to beat him at his own game, at LeMans, a race important to Ferrari’s image and the racing world’s biggest stage.

The popular account of the history of Ford’s iconic 1960s racer is that to save time, Eric Broadley’s Lola Mk 6 was developed into the Ford GT40, which itself became the Mk II and Mk IV cars that won four years in a row at LeMans, 1966-69. According to the Ford engineers involved, though, while it was true that Ford used Broadley’s shop and design to jump start their endurance racing effort, the Ford GT40 was not a Lola. To manage Ford’s new GT racing effort, Lunn temporarily moved back to England, joining former Aston Martin factory racing team manager John Wyer at Broadley’s Lola, then little more than a garage. However, while Broadley’s skill at fabrication was respected, he soon was edged out and went on to develop his own very successful (and rather beautiful) competition car, the Lola T70.

One of the original Gulf livery race cars, this GT40 Mk II won LeMans as a privateer in 1968 and 1969. Full gallery here.

One of the original Gulf livery race cars, this GT40 Mk II won LeMans as a privateer in 1968 and 1969. Full gallery here.

In the Spring 1964 issue of Automobile Quarterly, an article based on another of Lunn’s SAE papers said, concerning Ford’s LeMans effort, “By July, 1963, a basic design and style had been established at Dearborn…”

Ford project engineer Bob Negstad, whose own resume includes designing the suspension of the Shelby Daytona Coupe, worked on the Ford GT project from the beginning and he was sent to the UK to join Lunn and Wyer at Broadley’s shop. Negstad, in an interview quoted at How Stuff Works, though, was adamant that the GT40′s design was Ford’s not Lola’s, though he acknowledged that Broadley did much of the prototype’s original build. A “brilliant fabricator”, is how Negstad described Broadley, who was trained as an architect, not an engineer.

“Broadley was technically naive,” Negstad said, “a trial-and-error man,” and the Lola shop was a “terribly old, obsolete building lit by a single 40-watt bulb.” He said that Ford was attracted to Broadley to save time. His ability to quickly build what they wanted, along with having a car of similar layout to Dearborn’s plans that could be used as test mule as they refined their own design was what put Ford and Lola together.

The Ford GT was introduced to the press and the public at the New York Auto Show in the spring of 1964. To say it had teething problems would be an understatement. Henry Ford II was increasingly embarrassed by the car’s lack of racing success, but he smartly turned the management of the factory team over to Carroll Shelby, who helped develop the GT40 into a dominant race car as well as putting together a professional racing team. Finally, in 1966, the GT40 finished 1-2-3 at LeMans. Again, Lunn published a technical paper with the SAE, in 1967, this time on the GT40′s development titled “Development of Ford GT Sports-Racing Car, Covering Engine, Body, Transaxle, Fuel System, Suspension, Steering, and Brakes.”

Because of the involvement of Broadley and the cars fabrication in the UK there may be some debate if the 1966 GT40 was the first “American” car with an overall win at LeMans. The next car that Ford took to LeMans, the GT40 Mark IV, was all American, designed by a team headed by Lunn in Dearborn, built at Kar Kraft in Brighton (Michigan, not England), and driven to victory by Dan Gurney and A.J. Foyt.

The 1-2-3 finish at LeMans in 1966, with that famous staged photograph showing all three cars approaching the finish line, was cause for celebration but Lunn was already focused on a new, lighter car. Two candidates were evaluated, a prototype with a tub made of aluminum sheet, designed and fabricated by McLaren Racing Ltd, and an in-house project known as the J-Car (for meeting the standards in Appendix J in the rule book), with a tub made of lightweight 1/2 thick aluminum honeycomb sandwiched between two aluminum panels, with everything bonded together. Lunn, a forward thinking engineer, liked the more modern and very stiff honeycomb material and he convinced his superiors at Ford to go in that direction.

The J-Car and GT40 Mk IV were fabricated using lightweight sandwiched aluminum honeycomb.

The J-Car and GT40 Mk IV were fabricated using lightweight sandwiched aluminum honeycomb.

The first prototype, J-1, had a chassis weight of only 86 lbs, with a total vehicle weight of 2,660 lbs, coming close to meeting Lunn’s goal of a 300 lb weight reduction from the GT40 Mk II. A second prototype, J-2, was built, with Kar Kraft of Brighton, Michigan continuing with the fabrication as Ford had sold off Ford Advanced Vehicles. Unfortunately, the very talented driver, Ken Miles, was killed in a testing accident caused by mechanical failure in the J-2 car. Lunn, working with Ford chassis engineer Chuck Mountain and master fabricator Phil Remington, continued to develop the J-Car, creating a new body with a Can Am style tail, a longer nose on the front of the car and a new roofline that flowed more smoothly, allowing the use of a back window. The restyled car was renamed the GT40 Mark IV. Cars were prepared for the 1967 LeMans race, with J-5 being assigned to American drivers Gurney and Foyt. Henry Ford II was happy with the 1-2-3 finish in 1966, but he wasn’t thrilled about that car’s British origins or the fact that the drivers of the winning car, Chris Amon and Bruce McLaren, were both New Zealanders.

Note the "Gurney bubble" over the driver's seat in the 1967 LeMans winning Ford GT40 Mk IV. Full gallery here.

Note the “Gurney bubble” in the roof over the driver’s seat in the 1967 LeMans winning Ford GT40 Mk IV. Full gallery here.

J-5 needed some special bodywork that the other Mk IVs didn’t have. Dan Gurney is a rarity, a tall racer, and to give his helmet clearance, Kar Kraft had to build in a Zagato style bump in the roof, today known as the “Gurney bubble” that makes the LeMans winner immediately recognizable. Gurney celebrated by spraying the winners’ circle with champagne, initiating a racing tradition that continues to this day.

For 1968, an engine rules change meant Ford could no longer use their big 7 liter / 427 cubic inch big block. Having made his point to Enzo Ferrari and the racing world, the Deuce shuttered Ford’s endurance racing effort, selling the team to JW Engineering, where John Wyer was one of the principals. Wyer managed to convince Gull Oil’s CEO, who had some experience racing his own GT40, to sponsor the team. Gulf had recently acquired a subsidiary that fortuitously used a similar corporate color scheme to Gulf’s orange and dark blue. It was decided that the subsidiary’s powder blue and orange made a better livery for racing cars. It indeed looks great but I have to wonder that if a car wearing those colors had not won LeMans two years running, in 1968 and 1969, 45 years ago, if today we’d still consider that livery so ideal for racing cars.

Designing and building cars that won four years in a row at LeMans would make any automotive engineer’s career a successful one. Lunn’s successful management of Ford’s LeMans effort, though, was just one of his notable accomplishments.

With Ford ending its factory LeMans effort, Lunn turned his attention back to production cars. As the 1960s came to a close, muscle cars were still popular and Detroit was undergoing one of its periodic horsepower wars. Having had success in Trans Am racing and in the showroom with the Boss 302 Mustang, Ford executive Bunkie Knudsen decided to up the ante and went ahead with putting Ford’s biggest performance engine, the big block based 429 cubic inch Cobra Jet V8, into the Mustang. The 429 CJ isn’t just a big block engine, it’s a physically large motor, with spark plugs inserted through the exceptionally wide valve covers. To shoehorn such a big engine in something based on the compact Falcon took some doing. The entire front end of the car had to be reengineered, with narrower shock absorber towers and a different crossmember. The work was jobbed out to Kar Kraft, but the modifications were done at Roy Lunn’s direction.

Roy Lunn was in charge of shoehorning that big and wide 429 Cobra Jet into the Boss 429 Mustang. Full gallery here.

Roy Lunn was in charge of shoehorning that big and wide 429 Cobra Jet engine into the Boss 429 Mustang. Full gallery here.

The Boss 429 would almost be Ford’s last hurrah for the muscle car era. The next iteration of the Boss nameplate would be the larger and slower 1971 Boss 351 Mustang. Perhaps Lunn saw the writing on the wall for the muscle era, with emissions controls starting to be mandated, or perhaps he looked at off-road, as opposed to on-track, performance for his next challenge, or maybe he was just offered more money and a bigger title, but for whatever reason, in 1971, Lunn left Ford to become director of engineering for Jeep, which had recently been acquired by American Motors Corporation.

Lunn’s most notable contributions at AMC reverberate until today. He helped invent the modern SUV and if you drive something with all wheel drive that isn’t truck based, you can thank him as well. The first of those contributions was the original Jeep Cherokee, internally known as the XJ. The XJ platform was Jeep’s first attempt to build a unibody vehicle. Concerned that traditional unibody architecture would not be up to the rigors of being a trail rated Jeep, Lunn’s team came up with what AMC marketers would call the Uniframe assembly. Instead of “body on frame”, the XJ Cherokee was more like body welded to frame. The Uniframe more or less involved integrating a traditional ladder frame into a unibody top hat, welding the two into one very strong structure. Because of those beefy frame rails, to this day some people still believe that the XJ used BOF construction.

Lunn's team designed a unibody for the XJ Cherokee so strong they were able to cut it up to make the Comanche pickup truck. Full gallery here.

Lunn’s team designed a unibody for the XJ Cherokee so strong they were able to cut it up to make the Comanche pickup truck. Full gallery here.

Some have described the Cherokee as being overengineered, which may help explain the Jeep SUV’s legendary durability, on the road and as a production vehicle. Kiplingers listed the XJ Cherokee as  one of “10 cars that refuse to die”, with many late 1980s and early 1990s models reaching 200,000 miles and more when that wasn’t commonplace, particularly with American made vehicles. Starting being built in 1984, it stayed in production in the United States into the 21st century. It lasted even longer in China. The Cherokee was the first American branded car to be made in China, the product of Beijing Jeep, also the first joint venture by an American car company in China. After AMC was acquired by Chrysler, they continued making the Cherokee in China, where it stayed in production as the Jeep 2500 until 2005.

uniframe

The Cherokee’s architecture was so strong that when AMC decided to make a small truck to compete with the Ford Ranger, the Chevy S-10 and the import trucks, they were able to hack off the back half of the Cherokee’s body, add an X-shaped reinforcement between the frame rails, and bolt on a conventional separate pickup truck bed without losing structural integrity.

The XJ Cherokee didn’t just live a long production life. It’s also said by some to be responsible for the continued survival of Jeep today. The Cherokee’s sales success convinced Chrysler that AMC had viable product that didn’t overlap with vehicles in Chrysler, Plymouth and Dodge showrooms, resulting in Chrysler buying AMC to get Jeep, which continues to thrive.

Lunn’s other major contribution to the automotive world while working at AMC, the Eagle 4X4, accomplished many firsts. Today you can’t sell a luxury car north of the Mason-Dixon line if you don’t offer all wheel drive and now that Fiat Chrysler is joining Subaru with a sub $30,000 2015 Chrysler 200 AWD model, we’re likely going to see AWD proliferate in bread and butter mass market sedans. The Eagle was the first American car based vehicle with all wheel or four wheel drive. It also could be described as the first crossover, a slightly raised passenger car capable of some soft-roading.

Rlnp11904

The Eagle started out as a skunk works project of Lunn and his team. The first drawings were done in the basement of Lunn’s Ann Arbor home (some very significant cars started out in designers’ and engineers’ basements and kitchens, by the way). Jeep had earlier introduced the first true production full-time four wheel drive system, offering it as an option on their utility vehicles. Based on the Ferguson Formula (FF) full-time all-wheel-drive system invented by Britain’s Ferguson Research Ltd, and developed by AMC/Jeep and the New Process Gear company, the first “QuadraTrac” system used a conventional differential between the front and rear axles. It could be engaged on the fly while driving on pavement, or just left in 4WD mode all the time.

Rlnp11906

Lunn’s team took a Concord station wagon, jacked it up a few inches, and installed one of Jeep’s Quadra-Trac systems. AMC chairman Gerald C. Meyers saw it and later recalled, “our initial reaction to Lunn’s concoction was, ‘What the hell is it?’ The body was raised an extra four inches for transfer-case clearance and the wheel wells were wide open.” The second oil crisis, in 1979, had caused Jeep sales to dip and Meyers changed  his mind, seeing the concept as bridging the price gap between AMC’s economy cars and their less fuel efficient Jeeps, while giving consumers an option between the lower priced Subaru AWD vehicles and more expensive truck based four by fours from the domestic automakers. It also bridged the gap between two wheel drive cars and hardcore four wheel drive trucks. Muscular plastic fender flares bridged the large gap between the tires and the wheel wells and more body cladding visually lowered the sills.

AMC Eagle 4X4 Wagons. Full galleries here and here.

AMC Eagle 4X4 Wagons. Full galleries here.

As mentioned, Lunn and his engineers used Jeep’s first Quadra-Trac system on their prototype, but a later transfer case from New Process replaced that conventional differential with a unit that used 42 discs spinning in a silicone based viscous fluid. That allowed differential action with less drag (and thus better fuel economy) than conventional units, making it more suitable for a passenger car. Drivetrain drag causing poorer fuel economy has always been an issue with four and all wheel drive systems. The latest AWD system that Fiat Chrysler is installing in the new Jeep Cherokee has a mode that allows the rear axle to freewheel when the trucklet is operating in 2WD. My guess is that Lunn would approve.

Lunn with the chassis and drivetrain from an AMC Eagle 4X4.

Lunn with the chassis and drivetrain from an AMC Eagle 4X4.

At the rear of the Eagle’s automatic transmission is a single speed NPG119 transfer case which sends power to the front and rear of the car, using a Morse Hy-Vo chain to spin the front driveshaft. The viscous couplings in the transfer case are sensitive to velocity and allow slip between the two driveshafts, allowing them to spin at different speeds. What makes everything work is a fluid made by Dow Corning that some call “silly putty” and others call “honey-like”. It is a “fluid-shear force” silicone fluid that has high shear and heat resistance, allowing consistent performance from 40 below zero to over 400 degrees F. The viscous coupling also provided some anti-skid capabilities because the system tends to equalize driveshaft speeds. The front differential was mounted via a bracket to the left side of the engine crankcase and with the lifted suspension, Lunn and his engineers were able to run the right side half shaft underneath the oil sump, allowing the Eagle to retain the Concord’s independent front suspension.

The net result is that torque is transferred to the axle with the most traction, on wet or dry pavement, or, for the matter, on unpaved roads as well. Though it’s tempting to say that the Eagle was ahead of its time, that idiom is usually reserved for market failures. The Eagle, and later the hatchback Spirit based 4X4 were moderate successes for AMC. Of course the Eagle was indeed ahead of its time, anticipating jacked up station wagons with all four wheels being powered, like the Subaru Forester, the Audi Allroad and the Volvo XC models.

Jeep_5_millionth_4.0_engine_r

As was his practice, Lunn contributed a technical paper on the Eagle to the SAE. It should be noted that at AMC, he also had a hand in the continued development of what began as the AMC inline six and ended up as the Chrysler Jeep 4.0, an engine whose durability matched that of the XJ Cherokee. Five million of those engines were made.

spec_racer_ford_a

Wrapping up his career at AMC, Lunn returned to performance cars after Renault bought American Motors. He was named president of Renault Jeep Sport, in charge of all AMC and Renault racing in the U.S. Part of that job involved the design of cars for a low-cost spec racing series in the SCCA. Some of Lunn’s 500 Spec Racer Renaults are still being raced today in NASA, while his basic design is still being used by SCCA’s Spec Racer Ford series. Returning to his rallying roots, in 1984, Lunn was in charge of the first ever American entry in the Paris-Dakar rally.

humvee

Lunn retired from American Motors Corp in 1985, but that retirement was short lived as he was immediately named VP of engineering for AMC’s AMC General subsidiary, which made mostly buses and military vehicles. The High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (HMMWV), better known as the Humvee, progenitor of the Hummer, that AM General had designed for military use was approaching production. The company was running into issues getting the Army to issue acceptance approvals and Lunn’s task was to fix those problems and get the Humvee into production.

After an accomplished career that spanned over four decades, Lunn left AMC for good in 1987, retiring to homes in Florida and later in Italy. As far as I’ve been able to determine, he’s still alive. To be perfectly frank, until I started working on a post about one of the original Gulf Oil livery cars, the Ford GT40 that won at LeMans in both 1968 and 1969, I had no idea of Lunn’s involvement in the project. Had that been the only notable car he worked on, he would have been worth profiling, but as you have seen, the GT40 was just one of a number of Lunn’s historic accomplishments. As TTAC’s managing editor, Derek Kreindler, told me when I pitched him the story, “talk about an unsung hero”. Even as I edited and buttoned up this post, I discovered additional significant contributions that Lunn made, like his involvement with the Jeep 4.0 Six. I’m hard pressed to think of many other engineers that had a role in developing so many historically important cars as Roy C. Lunn did. He’s undoubtedly a car guy you should know about.

Ronnie Schreiber edits Cars In Depth, a realistic perspective on cars & car culture and the original 3D car site. If you found this post worthwhile, you can get a parallax view at Cars In Depth. If the 3D thing freaks you out, don’t worry, all the photo and video players in use at the site have mono options. Thanks for reading – RJS

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

45 Comments on “Car Guys & Gals You Should Know About – Roy Lunn’s Resume: Ford GT40, Boss 429 Mustang, Jeep XJ Cherokee, AMC Eagle 4X4 and More!...”


  • avatar

    My first and favorite car was the AMC Eagle so I’ve been a fan of Lunns for some time. Although I strongly disagreed with his book a few years back (Oil Crisis: Sooner than you think) he’s a pretty bright guy, so there is probably a better chance that I’m wrong than him.

  • avatar
    Vulpine

    Well, now I know why I like the ’70s AMCs even when most people didn’t. I wanted one of those Eagles back then, but simply couldn’t afford it at the time. I’d probably be much more of an off-road enthusiast now if I had.

  • avatar
    Onus

    So this guy single handily made 90% of my favorite cars. Much props to this guy.

  • avatar
    Mandalorian

    If one of us ever sits down on a park bench or airplane and meets an elderly gentlemen with an english accent, he might just be responsible for 80% of the automotive landscape.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    I believe—but correct me if I’m wrong—that the platform underpinning the Discovery 3/4 and first-gen Range Rover Sport uses that same ladder-frame/monocoque hybrid structure.

  • avatar
    fallous

    A bit of a correction on the Boss 429. The 429 Cobra Jet engine was an entirely different beast and made its appearance in the 1971 Mach 1 Mustang. The Boss used the 385-series block (same as 429CJ/SCJ) but had entirely different heads that featured hemispherical combustion chambers with sparkplugs in the center of the valve cover. I believe the Boss 429 program existed to homologate the Boss heads for NASCAR use.

    • 0 avatar

      Thanks for the correction. Ford made lots of V8s and it’s hard for me to keep them all straight. Can you imagine a manufacturer today making two completely different V8 engines of the same displacement, like Ford did with the 351 Windsor and Cleveland engines.

      • 0 avatar
        fallous

        Or GM with the 400 Buick/Olds/Pontiac engine vs the 400 Chevrolet.
        Ford also continued to do such things with the V6 line such as the Duratec 3.0 vs the Vulcan 3.0 well into the 90s.

        • 0 avatar

          With so many great V8s to choose from, I think dropping a LS or SBC into a project car shows complete lack of creativity, unless the car is a Chevy. I know why it’s done, but if you’re going to build a Buick hot rod, use a Nailhead, it’s a nice looking, distinctive engine.

          I wonder if anyone’s ever created an infographic showing all of different the engines available from the Detroit mfgs in the 1960s and 1970s.

          • 0 avatar
            dswilly

            Also, The Boss 351 was faster than the Boss 9 off the dealer floor. It gets a bad rap for being a later model but is considered to be one of the fastest Mustangs ever built in the ¼ mile. Stock Boss 9’s had teething problems and needed some work to release the full potential, which was huge once sorted. Supposedly a Ford exec required all Ford cars to have the drivability of a LTD or something like that which caused them to mix up the carb/cam on the Boss 9 which caused performance issues bone stock.

      • 0 avatar
        raph

        Or the 351M – Ford had three 351 cubic engines at the time. 351 Windsor, 351 Cleveland and the 351 Modified which was a variant of the 351 Cleveland.

        I can’t decide if Ford was so cost control conscious that it did this, or maybe it was due to the UAW and some crazy contract issue or maybe Ford was just batshit crazy? I don’t know but it always struck me as odd that they would have three concurrent displacements in essentially three different engines.

        It gets even worse when you realize that the 302 is a short deck 351 Windsor that even uses different size head bolts, different timming chain cover and different distributors.

        Speaking of which there are even tall and short deck 351 Windsors (8.5 and 9.5 inch decks I believe in addition to the 302′s deck height).

        The Ford parts guy was not one to be envied when those parts were available.

        Deproliferation was a particularly dirty word in Dearborn at the time.

        • 0 avatar
          danio3834

          Ford was traditionally terrible at parts harmonization among engines. Even into the modular engine era where a 4.6L Romeo and a 4.6L Windsor had quite a few parts that were different.

        • 0 avatar
          fallous

          I think the Cleveland was planned by Ford to be the successor to the Windsor but EPA regulations and the difficulty getting the engine to pass the new emission standards killed it off. Couple that with the end of Total Performance racing efforts and the crazy high-flowing ports of a 4V Cleveland head cease to have a reason to exist. There’s a reason the 351/400M were mostly relegated to trucks, and that those heads were much closer to the 2V Cleveland heads. Ford Australia, meanwhile, managed to keep the Cleveland going for a good long time. They also kept the old Falcon Six family well into the 80s (maybe 90s) with a whole host of updates including cross-flow heads while North America switched over to the European Cologne V6 and Lima 4-cylinders.

    • 0 avatar
      raph

      Yep the Boss 429 was really there to homologate the Boss 429 engine for Nascar use. The combustion chambers were a modified hemi design and referred to by Ford as a crescent shaped combustion chamber which more or less was a truncated hemi chamber that still allowed for the superior canted valve arrangement of a hemi head ( the hemi’s real power secret ) without a large open combustion chamber.

      Another Ford engine that was originally intended for use in Nascar was the 427 SOHC “cammer” V8 even though it ended up more or less as a drag racing oddity and was not used in any production car.

      IIRC Chrysler complained heavily about the cammer motor and threatened to retaliate with a DOHC hemi if Ford had been allowed to use the 427 SOHC on the track.

      Anyways the Mustang was selected because of its comparatively light weight. Detuned for the street the Boss 429 didn’t really perform all that well and in the heavier Torino it was an especially poor performer.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        “… and in the heavier Torino it was an especially poor performer.”

        You talking hypothetically here? There never was a Boss 429 Torino.

        • 0 avatar
          fallous

          The NASCAR Ford body was Fairlane/Torino, so presumably it would’ve made sense to homologate using that platform but Ford chose the Mustang.

          I think the Boss 429, much like the Boss 302 of 1969, was an afterthought as a street car. They just wanted to get those heads/engines allowed for competition. In 1970 the Boss 302 had smaller valves and I believe the ports were modified as well. This upped torque and increased vacuum at lower RPM which made it a much more streetable package.

  • avatar
    mfgreen40

    Good story Ron. I would like to find an article comparing all 4wd and awd systems.

  • avatar
    skor

    “To shoehorn such a big engine in something based on the compact Falcon took some doing.”

    By 1969 the Mustang was based on the larger Fairlane/Torino chassis, where it grew size-wise with the Torino until the Mustang II(Pinto based) came out in 1974.

    • 0 avatar

      I hadn’t known that they switched platforms in 1969. Does that mean that there are common suspension and other components between the Mustang and Torino?

      John Clor, the Ford Racing PR guy who’s a serious Mustang II guy, says that there’s more Falcon in the first gen Mustangs than Pinto in the Mustang II. So how much do the big body Mustangs share with the midsized Fords of the same era?

      • 0 avatar
        skor

        The Mustang switched to the Fairlane chassis, itself a stretched Falcon platform, in 1967. The Fairlane grew from that point on, and the Mustang grew with it until 1974. Torino was originally a Fairlane option package. Eventually, the Fairlane name was retired and the entire line of Fairlane models were called Torino.

        The 65 and 66 Mustangs were almost entirely Falcons under the skin. The so called 64 1/2 models (all first year production Falcons were designated as 1965 models) carried over all the Falcon engine and trans options. Sixes were 170 cube and the V-8s were 260. Like the Falcon, the sixes came with 13 inch wheels. Those early cars also used generators instead of alternators. You could even order the car with a bench seat in place of the buckets that came standard in a Mustang. The horn buttons in the center of the steering wheel were embossed with the Falcon logo. Customers were asked to return cars to to the dealer to have the Mustang horn buttons fitted once they became available.

        Interestingly, if you have a 64 1/2 six cyclnder car with all the original features (no one attempted an “upgrade”), they are worth a mint.

        ETA: It’s true that the Mustang II was less Pinto than the original car was Falcon…structure and suspension wise. Ford did a much better job of hiding the original Mustang’s Falcon roots…in terms of styling….when compared to the Mustang II’s Pinto heritage. When you parked a Mustang II next to a Pinto, the family resemblance was undeniable. It’s probably the main reason why the Mustang II is so reviled today.

  • avatar
    JKC

    Ronnie, what a great article. It’s obvious a lot of work went into this. Thank you.

    I don’t think it’s possible to overstate the importance or the durability of the XJ Cherokee. Here in upstate NY and in the Adirondacks (and, I suspect, New England), these cars are still ubiquitous. Some have lift kits fitted and have been modded for serious off-road use, but most of them do duty as everyday drivers, and seem to do it well. I think it’s safe to say that they far outnumber their successor, the Liberty, in these parts!

    I drove a couple of them although I never owned one. They were ridiculously quick with the 4 litre six, and handled better than any of the competition. The downside was a back seat that was torture for anyone over the age of twelve. That aside, it was and likely still is the perfect car for anyone who needs or wants a nearly indestructible all-weather all-conditions car.

    • 0 avatar
      whynotaztec

      So true. My daughter has a 98, and I borrowed it recently and only then noticed all the others on the road. For something that I think went out of production in 01, these things are everywhere.

      As for Mr. Lunn, if I can accomplish 1% of what he did in my lifetime then I will consider myself a success.

      • 0 avatar
        JKC

        I just saw one today: not a speck of rust on it, and it looked like it ran like a champ. I don’t think Jeep has built anything that good since (although you could argue that the WJ’s are a close second.)

  • avatar
    DC Bruce

    Great article, Ronnie! As an 8-year owner of one of the orginal “XJ Cherokee’s”, I can certainly testify to its virtues. The original version was offered with either an American motors 2.5 liter 4 with an electronic carburetor or a GM-sourced 2.8 liter V-6 with slightly more horsepower. The 4-liter 6 was introduced a few years later to replace the V-6, which proved to be a very unsatisfactory engine. The (which I owned) was perfectly fine hooked up to a 4-speed manual for the 55-mph speed limit era and would get up 26 mpg on the highway.

    The back seat was perfectly fine for my two kids, who were 11 and 8 by the time we traded the car in. And the “wayback” was big enough to haul our stuff for vacations and so on.

    The steering column was slightly off-center from the driver’s seat, which could get tiring on really long drives. And, for the light off-roading and driving in the sand on Nantucket and the Outer Banks (with air pressure reduced), the part time 4wd system was just fine.

    • 0 avatar

      The piece was already pretty long so I left it out, but a source said Lunn also had a major role in the design of the AMC inline four. Let’s face it, he was in charge of engineering for AMC and it was a pretty lean organization so he probably had either a hands-on or supervisory role on just about anything that AMC produced in the 1970s and into the 1980s.

      One source said that the original Cherokee came with the GM V6 because a certain AMC executive didn’t like the AMC inline six and that the car supposedly needed considerable changes to later fit the longer engine. I’m not buying that. It’s not like suddenly people discovered years later that the AMC six was one of the most reliable and durable engines ever made. It belongs in the engine hall of fame with a spot right next to Chrysler’s Slant Six. I’m not sure that anyone at AMC would have hate for that motor.

      The inline six was offered on every AMC car until they started making Renaults, and I can’t believe that GM charged less for their V6 than it cost AMC to build the 232/258 straight six.

      • 0 avatar
        skor

        The award for most durable North American made straight six evah produced was the Ford 300 used in trucks. At one time all the UPS package vans were powered by the Ford 300 I6.

        It’s a shame that Muricans never did come around to appreciating the I6. Back in the 60s GM offered a nifty little OHC I6 in the Pontiac Firebird, but no one bought it.

        Meanwhile, down in Oz, Ford managed to develop a proper I6 from the wheezy Falcon I6.

        Check this video. This is an early Mustang fitted with a turbocharged Ford Oz I6. This car ran a 147mph 1/4 on propane! Just listen to the turbo spool up. It sounds like an F14 about to launch from a carrier deck. youtube.com/watch?v=4SO5Rj1_Y9I

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          “It’s a shame that Muricans never did come around to appreciating the I6.”

          I don’t know, the Ford and AMC I6s have decent followings.

          Plus Cummins.

          It’s not like the American companies are unique in leaving the I6 either. Mercedes, BMW, Toyota, Nissan, and Jaguar were all major producers of that configuration but have moved away from it.

          • 0 avatar
            skor

            I should have qualified what I said. I mean Americans never really warmed to the I6 as a performance engine. If it isn’t a V-8, Muricans generally don’t care.

            Yup, the I6 is about to go extinct. I think Ford Oz will produce their last I6 in 2016. Fact is that the I6 doesn’t fit sideways.

          • 0 avatar
            CRConrad

            @skor: “Fact is that the I6 doesn’t fit sideways.”

            The T6 variants of various Volvo models beg to differ.

          • 0 avatar
            skor

            @CRConrad, I know that there are some sideways applications of the I6, but you need a pretty big vehicle to do that. The V-6 offers much more versatility for manufacturers. The I6 is dying for that reason.

        • 0 avatar
          Onus

          Big fan of the 300.

          If your ever at a airport those engines are still moving stuff around out on the runways.

        • 0 avatar
          JKC

          Yep, that Ford 6 was a great engine. My father had one in a mid-90′s vintage F-150. Since he didn’t tow much with it, it was all the engine that truck needed.

      • 0 avatar
        JKC

        I had a ’99 WJ Grand Cherokee with that engine. Awesome torque, smooth, and never once did I wish I’d sprung for a V8. Trading that Jeep in for a used Passat wagon was THE dumbest automotive buying decision I ever made.

      • 0 avatar
        jimble

        “The inline six was offered on every AMC car until they started making Renaults, and I can’t believe that GM charged less for their V6 than it cost AMC to build the 232/258 straight six.”

        When the XJ came out, the old 258 was only putting out about 115 hp, which is about what the GM V6 was putting out (the AMC engine did generate a lot more torque, though). So the AMC brass probably didn’t think it was worth reworking the firewall to fit the much bigger inline 6.

        When the 4.0 was introduced 3 years later, its superior power made it an obviously better choice than the unloved GM engine, and they went ahead and changed the firewall after all.

        The 4.0 was derived from the 2.5, which was itself basically a 258 (4.2) with the middle cylinders removed. It’s safe to assume that Lunn was involved with both engines in some capacity.

  • avatar
    Wheeljack

    If I’m not mistaken, the original Quadra-Trac transfer cases in the fullsize Wagoneer/Cherokee was developed by Borg-Warner, not New Process Gear.

    • 0 avatar

      Thanks for the correction. During editing I transposed that from elsewhere in the post. Lunn’s first Eagle 4X4 prototype used a Borg Warner transfer case.

      It’s nice that Borg Warner is still in business. Magna closed down New Process Gear 2 years ago, though the related New Venture Gear is still in business. NPG lasted almost a century and had an interesting corporate history. One company would be using a NPG built product designed by another company while NPG was owned by a third.

  • avatar
    05lgt

    Awesome Sunday read Ronnie. Thanks. I had no idea one guy had been so closely and essentially involved in so many cars I’ve driven, owned, and lusted after. Somehow all this knowledge makes my positive feelings towards the Eagle seem less shameful.

  • avatar
    wmba

    Great article, Ronnie. I’ve seen Roy Lunn’s name hundreds of times over the decades, but never like a mini-bio. Quite the guy.

    Back in the day, my interest in the Audi quattro led me into looking into AWD systems, and the fact that Audi’s original effort was pretty mundane. Jeep had utilized a real AWD system for some time using a center gear differential with the viscous coupling unit attached between front and rear output shafts for limited slip. Audi just had you manually lock the center differential – I know, I had one a 4000Sq.

    So I researched a bit today myself. New Process Gear was way ahead of the Germans.

    The first one in the Eagle was the NP119, which was single range AWD with the viscous coupling limited slip and the center gear differential.

    Midway through model year 1981, they changed to the NP129, which was the same as the NP119, but had a vacuum operated collet on the front output shaft to front differential. When operated, the shaft to the front differential was disconnected, leaving the vehicle in rear 2WD.

    That’s where the better highway fuel economy came from.

    A viscous coupler cannot deliver differential action, and typically cannot transfer much torque by itself, maybe 20 or 30 lb-ft, so the gear center differential remained in the NP129. Otherwise, the car would not have been AWD. The difference was the ability to go 2WD, as I mentioned.

    The other problem with viscous couplers is that they wear out. In Subarus center diff with VC on manual trans models, they tend to lock up. On Eagles and Jeeps, they just gradually stop working and thus give no limited slip around the center diff. The last couple of years of Eagles saved cash by not even including one, leaving the center differential open without a separate lock. Back to 1 wheel drive on ice!

    So in the article I think you have attributed properties to the viscous coupler it simply doesn’t have.

    Also, your picture of the Ford Anglia is the Super 123E model distinguishable by the colored side spear. Our family had both the 997cc 1960 105E and a 1964 Super. Went like stink for the times.

  • avatar
    canddmeyer

    Never heard of the guy, but what a great story!

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Kiplingers listed the XJ Cherokee as one of “10 cars that refuse to die”

    ……………………………………………………………..

    I must have bought the one that didn’t come to life then. I didn’t die because it never “lived”. This was a new vehicle.

    It was to poorest excuse I’ve ever owned for an automobile.

  • avatar
    StudeDude

    Thanks for the great piece about Roy Lunn—I knew about his role in the AMC Eagle but was not tuned into his earlier roles @ Aston Martin & Ford.
    Every time I drive my ’87 Eagle sedan, I think about how compromised the car is but, at the same time, how it’s a great piece of automotive history—and still running strong.

  • avatar
    brandloyalty

    I had the luck to drive an Eagle sedan, and it perplexed people by looking like an ordinary car but was capable of beating the 4×4′s of the day. Eagles really did have amazing traction.

    I was always offended by the Paul Hogan Subaru commercials that shamelessly claimed the first Outback was the “world’s first sport utility wagon”.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India