text:
Talk:Fire ant

Why I started the article
I initiated this article because the only other reference I could find on Wikipedia to fire ants was in User:FiReAntZ. '(READER EDIT: Although a simple search for red imported fire ant would have revealed a vastly more accurate and useful information set than your own is so far. Please see the Wikipedia article in question and delete, modify or broaden this one to include ALL the fire ant species). ' And that information was not very much, or very good, in my opinion. I take a perverse pride in the fact that fire ants first came into the U.S. at Mobile, Alabama, my hometown. We always had fire ants around when I was growing up, and I have been stung many times. It is especially bad when a child or a pet happens to step in one of the mounds.

My article is based on things I already knew about fire ants, plus some facts gleaned from the Web (e.g., the scientific name). However, I do not consider it to be more than a cursory introduction to the topic. I hope that a biologist, entomologist, or agricultural expert will come along and supplement it with some serious scientific discussion. The experiments being done with phorid flies, which I alluded to but did not detail, are particularly interesting.

There are other species of red ants, by the way, including some that are native to the U.S. A discussion of these, their habits, their identification, their similarities to and differences from the imported fire ants, would also be in order.

- SteveSmith

See also the article, "ant." This was not written by me (I did add one paragraph), but it is a nice little piece.

Should I have lower-cased the "F" in "Fire ant" in my heading? If so, is it too late to change it? I'm still very new to the Wikipedia and am not sure of the style customs here.

Hey Steve, you don't need to justify the addition of an article such as "Fire ant". This is as much your encyclopia as it is mine or anyone else's. Fire away! maveric149

 * That said, this article could be better. It also has formatting issues; in particular a box that says "If bitten by a fire ant they must be treated by their doctors" which is protected or something, and needs to be removed.  Also, S. geminata, the US native fire ant, now mostly displaced by S. invicta, redirects to this page and should have an article of its own (IMHO).  Ants of the genus Pogonomyrmex are called 'fire ants' by some and this page should contain even more "see also", "see instead" and "disambiguation" information.  I think that this "low-importance" article should be a general discussion of the name "fire ant" and its use, a general discussion of the kinds of ants called fire ants, and an aid to persons who want to look up the particular kind of ant that they know as a 'fire ant' (with detailed info in the separate articles for each species).  As far as 'red ant' goes, though, that's a completely different issue. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Eric
 * Let me note as well, that when you go to the 'Mid-importance' article Red imported fire ant the first thing you read is a cross reference to the "main article" i. e. the 'Low-importance' article here. This is a design issue, I suppose one could call it. 24.27.31.170 (talk) 18:23, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Eric

Added link
I've added a link to a paper by a scientist who describes how phorid flies lay their eggs inside fire ants' heads, which eventually fall off! Great stuff, no? Would like to eventually paraphrase and incorporate directly into the article. Maybe someone else will ...? Also ... a belated thanks to the person who added the Australian info and link. I had heard about the outbreak there but didn't have the time to look it up/research it. -- SteveSmith

You're most welcome.

Hello, there is also an article here, http://www.encyclopediaofalabama.org/face/Article.jsp?id=h-1449, that might be useful. Thanks, Justin --Duboiju (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

National bias
I think this article is far too USA-centric. Btw, Fire Ants have made their way to other countries, such as New Zealand. (these comments posted by User:203.109.254.51)

Ohhhhh whine whine whine!!!!!! There is nothing preventing ANYBODY from ANYPLACE to reference fire ants in any non-USA country. Since the references so far ARE USA based with nary a mention of other countries perhaps that is proof that folks in non-USA countries are too lazy or simply don't care enough to add to this entry. The Mighty Obbop lambasted thine whining on Nov 4, 200668.13.191.153 04:25, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Agree fully. It needs more details particularly about their natural ecology in their native area, which should go at the top of the page above any details about problems with the genus as an introduced pest - MPF 23:09, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I am a fire ant specialist from Brazil, and I have been adding some information about the species to the webpage. The main thing about the article being US-centred is that most academic research is from that country, also it is where red imported fire ants (RIFA) are a major invasive pest (they are native and non-special in my country), and it is a large English-speaking country that uses EN Wiki. In Brazil, fire ant entries tend to be Brazil-centric, though there is nothing stopping non-Brazil people from adding to it. Thus, some National bias looks inevitable to me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ofoxofox (talk • contribs) 12:09, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Sting?
Unless fire ants are in some way very different from other ants, they don't sting. They bite and then spray some nasty chemical on the wound. DirkvdM 09:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

 * No reaction so far, so I've changed it. DirkvdM 11:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Not true. Actually they bite to get a good grip to better insert their stinger. But it is a true sting, from the abdomen.Pollinator 21:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Ah, I've found sources on this: point 43 and . Those were among the first google results, so I'll buy this. :) DirkvdM 08:19, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

A lot of species of ant have stingers. Yes, fire ants are vicious stingers. A source that might interest others here on stinging vs. non-stinging ants is Ofoxofox

Appropriate?
Is the stuff under "Organic control" really appropriate for this articel? I especially contend the phrasing's inappropirate. 68.39.174.238 06:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I actually just logged onto this page for the express reason of seeing if boiling water actually does work for fireants. User Zanter. Although the phrasing could be improved. 10:25, 22 April 2006

Question for those with experience with ant farms.
I just dug up a good amount of a Solenopsis Invicta nest from near my house (With eggs, pupa, workers, soldiers and all), and put it in an aquarium-style glass container for use as an ant farm (And yes, I know they're mean and dangerous... I know how to handle them). They seem to be fine now, but the problem is, I didn't see any alates, or a queen... If I didn't get them with the nest-dirt I dug up, could they produce a second queen from their existing brood, or might the nest pretty much be doomed to death? I didn't get a good chance to look at what at all I got in with the dirt I put in the container (Since my eyes were on my gloves to make sure there were no ants crawling on them as I was trasporting it to my backyard, and I covered the nest-dirt with loose soil shortly after), so it's possible I got the queen, and the ants are continuing to forage and dig their nest in their new location, so I assume if there was no queen in with them, they wouldn't bother. Thanks to anyone who can answer this question. I hope all of my work was not in vain.

Ants vs. Flies
I reverted an edit that said flies are an enemy of ants since the edit said the flies bother the ants, the ants lose interest in food, and die. A little less believable than the research noted by SteveSmith above. MeekMark 14:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

"Icky looking"?
The article included a line that said that fire ant bites are "icky looking". While it's indisputible that fire ant bites are unattractive, the phrase "icky looking" is not appropriate for any encyclopedia. I have changed it to "unattractive and uncomfortable".
 * Thanks! There was a similar edit earlier by the same user but not quite as colloquial as this one.  Good edit. MeekMark 04:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Fire ants
But I don't think that there are the only species called "fire ants"? Wasmannia species are also called by that name: Fournier D, Estoup A, Orivel J, et al. (2005). "Clonal reproduction by males and females in the little fire ant". Nature 435: 1230–34. DOI:10.1038/nature03705 --Gak 09:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

A search for the genus Solenopsis immediately redirects to the page "Fire ant", but at least one source would argue that this isn't entirely true. "...it is a relief to find that the vast majority of the roughly two hundred species comprising the animal genus Solenopsis are not fire ants at all. They are smaller, inconsipcuous creatures, many of them known as "thief ants" for their habits of nesting near or within the colonies of other ants and for taking food from the stores of their hosts." Taber, S.W. 2000. Fire Ants. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. page 13 of the introduction. The author goes on to say that a complete description of Solenopsis is a big problem and has been debated for years. He describes only 18-20 species as true fire ants: Solenopsis invicta S. aurea S. geminata S. richteri S. xyloni and the following endemic to South America as of the 2000 publication S. brusei S. daguerrei [this species is certainly no longer endemic] S. electra S. gayi S. interrupta S. macdonaghi S. megergates S. pusillignis S. pythia S. quinquecuspis S. saevissima S. weyrauchi

he is unclear about the distribution of RIFA and BIFA hybrids, as well as TFA and SFA hybrids, so I have left these out.

S. hostilis and S. solenopsidis both by his admonition needed further study to determine if they were fire ants or not.

Any further discussion by someone more familiar than me would be helpful, but otherwise Fire Ants should possibly be made a page distinct from Solenopsis. I don't know how to suggest this and at the moment I SHOULD be writing a paper so I will leave that for others, or for a future time. Nightswatch 06:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Expansion
Solenopsis redirects to this article, making this the article on the entire genus. It should therefore be expanded with information on the species under it (or else the Solenopsis article should be expanded, which might be a better idea). RJFJR 23:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

This was left by a annon in the article
'(READER EDIT: A Wikipedia search for red imported fire ant would have revealed a vastly more accurate and useful information set than your own is so far. Please see the Wikipedia article in question and delete, modify or broaden this one to include ALL the fire ant species). '

-- ZeWrestler  Talk 16:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Other names
"In Spanish, fire ants are known as hormiga colorada (red ant) or hormiga brava (surly ant).

In Spanish "hormiga colorada" means "colored ant" and hormiga brava means "brave ant".

Anyone else think this section is rather useless? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.86.14.86 (talk) 02:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I ran across an image with the title "Hormiga de fuego" which seems Spanish for Fire Ant. 71.127.23.22 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC).

Actually, in context, "hormiga colorada" translates as "red ant" (not "colored ant") and hormiga brava means something more like "fierce ant" or "rough ant" rather than "brave ant". Anyway, it's correctly stated on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.253.182.34 (talk) 00:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Fire Ants Causing Deaths
How often could a fireant kill someone? I'm deadly allergic to them but I don't know of anyone else whom has a problem with them. Also, what states are they native to? I know they're definitely in Houston, TX as well as surrounding states, but I don't really know of any other places. --Sharpay Evans 06:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

They are prevelant in Florida as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.212.60 (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

First aid
The treatment section on this is worded very poorly - the internal treatments make it sound like you should blend all of the above together. Used to have ammonia and bleach right next to each other - this is a very dangerous combination and poor wording shouldn't be the cause of someone poisoning themselves so I've removed ammonia from the list until this can be reworded.

Jesse Crouch 03:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Exoskeleton?
Is there any research indicating that the fire (red) ant exoskeleton is tougher than many other ant species? I haven't seen any, but from VERY painful personal experience, I know that the things are danged difficult to crush and kill, while I've killed other types of ants accidentally by touching them a tad too hard. If you've ever pulled a fire ant off your ankle and tried to inflict some retaliatory misery, you know what I'm talking about. You squeeze the mean little bugger between a thumb and forefinger with enough pressure to turn Kingsford charcoal into a diamond, open your fingers, and the ant is still there, alive and really ticked off.

Has anyone seen any research on this subject? If they are indeed a partictularly tough species of ant, I think it warrants mention in the article.

Helenabucket (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

 * I've crushed 'em just fine. 208.80.154.76 (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Redundancy
This article has a lot of general information about ants that is already wonderfully displayed on ant. This article should only contain information on how fire ants are different and unique from other ants.-- FUNKAMATIC   (talk) 01:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why is this page not merged with this one? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_imported_fire_ant

Also, this paragraph is nonsense and needs to be deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fireants#Spike_in_US_Population —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonahb52 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

male fire ants seems wrong - citation please
Can someone put up a citation requirement? (or find the info) As a new user I don't want to overstep. the article claims male fire ants are capable of defending the nest when attacked. This is not usual ant behavior - males are born shortly before mating & die shortly after. Is there any proof that fire ants are so radically different? Kea2 (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Klang Valley "fire ants"
The "fire ants" from Klang Valley are weaver ants, not fire ants; also, they are spread through South-East Asia and Australia, not just Klang Valley. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnwq (talk • contribs) 07:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I added a note at the beginning of the article to prevent people from making that mistake in the future. It's an extremely common misnomer among English speakers in Malaysia because one of the common names for weaver ants in Malay is "semut api", which literally means "fire ant".

If it's not OK to put that kind of note in the intro paragraph of an article please retain it somewhere else in the article, to prevent people from messing this up in the future. Xenobiologista (talk) 17:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Species
Is it REALLY necessary to try and list all 280 species of fire ants in two columns, and try and make a separate article for every single one of them? The list as it is, is almost longer than the written information. This is an encyclopedia. I came here to see the average number of ants in a typical colony, and I see an unnecessary long list of species instead? Colonel Marksman (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Old page history
Some old page history of a version of this page from early 2004 can be found at Talk:Fire ant/History. Graham 87 13:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Section: Natural predators
It's currently copied from (or has been copied to, I've yet to verify) the section "Control of fire ants" in Phoridae, without any wiki links. I was about to wiki it, myself, and turn the first 'sentence' ("Phorid flies.") into a proper sentence when I noticed the exact word-for-word copy. Instead of just wikifying it / cleaning it up, I think the whole thing should be rewritten. I'd be bold and do it myself ;) but I'm not really sure how to reword it without parts of it getting lost in translation paraphrasing. -pinkgothic (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

You Know Why they Do It?
Can you responsibly say that "Males mate with the queen ant for the purpose of producing eggs"? I doubt that. It implies more consciousness about sexual behavior than even humans have. I would wager they just enjoy sex. Heterosexual chauvenism dictates a glorified purpose in opposite-sex rutting and grunting, no matter what the species, fine-- but that's not science. CAP'M —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capmpariah (talk • contribs) 09:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Get over yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.152.178 (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

haha, yeah maybe they do it because they like it and babies are the consequence, eh -- 17:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Solenopsis vs Fire ant
Is it a article on Solenopsis or on the Fire ants?. S. molesta is not considered fire ant by any standard. Actually they have a different wikipedia page for thief ants. Let's clear up this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.103.235.148 (talk) 01:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely needs to be clarified. The vast majority of Solenopsis are not considered 'fire ants.' (Many Solenopsis are called 'thief ants' and dwell in other ants' nests). The distinction is vague in the literature, but fire ants may be loosely characterized by their aggressive swarming behavior, and make up only a handful of the Solenopsis species.. See the book Fire Ants by Stephen Welton Taber for a discussion of the subject.

HE HE firey ants —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.0.108 (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

The article also conflates fire ants (as in a set of species within Solenopsis) with fire ants as in the red imported fire ants (Solenopsis invicta). There's not even a link to S. invicta, which means most people looking up these guys will wind up on this article and no farther. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.212.129 (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What...?
Can somebody please explain to me why the fire ants in one of the pictures have wings...? 24.179.27.28 (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2011 (UTC) I mean, I have just never seen a fire ant with wings...24.179.27.28 (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Wings are perfectly normal for unmated queens and males. Dig up a fire ant (Solenopsis invicta or S. geminata) nest in the fall and you will see them.  You may also have seen the around lights at night after the mating flight and not known it.  Speaking from Austin, TX.  24.27.31.170 (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Eric

Incorrect picture
In that photo with the ants on the grasshopper those are definitely not fire ants. Looking back through the page history they've even been labeled as non-fire ants for over a year? (Not sure they're Forelius either, but...) I'd take it down myself but I am fairly wiki-illiterate. FYI, I guess. 74.196.166.206 (talk) 04:41, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Name of ant venom
The article lists Insolence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insolence)as the ant venom. This is incorrect. The actual venom is probably Solenopsin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solenopsin) and most certainly not some nu metal band from San Jose. This appears to be an act of vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.197.116.207 (talk) 06:57, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The venom has no name: it is a cocktail of compounds with different names. Solenopsin is but a major class of alkaloids which is abundant (>90%) in the fire ant venom. See here I have been editing the main article slowly, so this part might have improved a bit. by Ofoxofox

Aggressive Behaviour in Response to Threats
There's fire ants where I live, and I've noticed that if the soldier ants are alerted to the presence of a threat they will stand on their hind legs, snap their mandibles, thrust their abdomen, and flail their first two pairs of legs. Any consensus for this behaviour? 208.80.154.76 (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Bold and P'd off
There have been a number of remarks and updates, lergely either correct or at least reasonable. This article is a crying example of why common names need not and should not be used as article headings except in special cases, and in such special cases the reason should be carefully documented and justified. As repeatedly noted, Fire ant NOT= Solenopsis. I have made some corrections and edits, but as soon as I remember I shall split the article and put the bulk of this article into Solenopsis (ant) and edit the Fire ant article appropriately into a paragraph or so (or more if I decide that the species group relevant to pest status should be discussed there. Likely, and I am open to negotiation, but haven't yet decided.)

Meanwhile, anyone with views please see what I have done. It is mostly pretty sundry, the sundriest, arbitrariest, hurriedest butchery you are likely to see anytime soon. I have cut the species list down drastically, removing the nonsensical statement that the list there presented contained all species. (Someone, (dunno who) needs to study a bit of taxonomy before making such claims!) I included only those species that I could find articles for, and included a link to a dedicated check-list. I could have imported the list of course, but the linked address shows signs of being maintained. BRW, I have no objection to red-links, but not when they are only there to look futile. There is no current indication that anyone is likely to write 250++ articles on the species I removed, or maintain the list to match the accepted check lists.

Comments? JonRichfield (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Improvements
I have added a ref improve template so editors can easily help with the much needed references to make this article reliable. I'll be adding them too so the template may just stay here for a very short time, but I thought it'd be necessary to add it. Existing references will be improved in layout for more reliability and easy search in case links die, and paragraphs will be redone to make it look better. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Behavior: "do not hibernate"
The section on behavior states that they "do not hibernate." Of course they don't. Biologically, hibernation implies the organism is an endotherm, which ants are not. If this should be mentioned, then some other form of dormancy applicable to ectotherms should be used. SlowJog (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fire ant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141230080227/http://ipmworld.umn.edu/chapters/lockley.htm to http://ipmworld.umn.edu/chapters/lockley.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:29, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

"In popular culture" section?
Someone has added that fire ants are known as "spicy boys", which is a joke in the internet community. I do not believe this should be in the introduction of the article, but it could be added in a "In popular culture" section. It does have some reliable sources, such as this 2016 The Independent piece, and an entry in Know Your Meme. Surely there are other pieces of information that would fit in this new section to the article. Mateussf (talk) 02:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

tell me habitat
tell me habitat i need habitat for school tell me habitat tell me habitat'tell me habitat ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruh69bruh (talk • contribs) 19:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

but do "most of their common names" really reflect "this"???
hello, this wont take long.. the article says: "Solenopsis are stinging ants, and most of their common names reflect this, for example, ginger ants and tropical fire ants."

my question is: how are the common names "ginger ants" and "tropical fire ants" examples of common names that reflect the fact that "solenopsis are stinging ants"???

when i hear ginger i hardly think of a "sting"... tropical fire is a little bit better, but it still doesnt really reflect anything that has to do with "stings", "stinging", or "stinging ants"...

the way it reads just doesnt sound or feel right, perhaps that little blurb would be better left out? Snarevox (talk) 19:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Fire ant


text:
Ford GT40

The Ford GT40 is a 1960s high-performance endurance racing car designed and built for and by the Ford Motor Company "Ford GT" (for Grand Touring) project, an effort to compete in European long-distance sports car races, against Scuderia Ferrari, which had won the prestigious 24 Hours of Le Mans race from 1960 to 1965. Around 100 cars have been made, mostly as 4.7 litre "289" V8 mid-engined sportscars, some sold to private teams or as road legal Mk.III cars. Racing started in 1964, with Ford winning World Championships categories from 1966 to 1968. The first Le Mans 24h race win came in 1966 with two 7.0 litre "427" powered Mk.II prototypes crossing the finish line together, the second in 1967 by a 7.0 litre highly modified US-built Mk.IV "J-car" prototype. Considered too fast, a rule change from 1968 onwards limited prototypes to 3.0 litre Formula 1 engines, yet the private JW "Gulf" team collected additional Le Mans wins in 1968 and 1969 with the very same "old" Mk.I GT40 sportscar, still allowed with up to 5.0 litre engines when at least 25 had been made.

The effort began in Britain in the early 1960s when Ford Advanced Vehicles began to build the GT40 Mk I car, based upon the British Lola Mk6, at their base in Slough, UK. After disappointing race results, the engineering team was moved in 1964 to Dearborn, Michigan, USA, to design and build cars by Kar Kraft. All chassis versions were powered by a series of American-built Ford V8 OHV engines modified for racing.

In 1966, the GT40 Mk II car broke Ferrari's winning streak at Le Mans, making Ford the first American manufacturer to have won a major European race since Jimmy Murphy's triumph with Duesenberg at the 1921 French Grand Prix.

The Mk I raced by John Wyer JWA Gulf team, chassis #P-1075, won in 1968 and 1969, the oldest of the GT40s and second chassis to win Le Mans more than once. Its American Ford V8 engine, originally of 4.7-liter displacement capacity (289 cubic inches), was enlarged to 4.9 litres (302 cubic inches), with custom alloy Gurney–Weslake cylinder heads.

The "40" represented its height of 40 inches (1.02 m), measured at the windscreen, the minimum allowed. The first 12 "prototype" vehicles carried serial numbers GT-101 to GT-112. Once GT40 "production" began, the Mk I, Mk II, Mk III, and Mk IV were numbered GT40P/1000 through GT40P/1145.

The contemporary Ford GT is a modern homage to the GT40.

History
Henry Ford II had wanted a Ford at Le Mans since the early 1960s. In early 1963, Ford reportedly received word through a European intermediary that Enzo Ferrari was interested in selling to Ford Motor Company. Ford reportedly spent several million dollars in an audit of Ferrari factory assets and in legal negotiations, only to have Ferrari unilaterally cut off talks at a late stage due to disputes about the ability to direct open-wheel racing. Ferrari, who wanted to remain the sole operator of his company's motorsports division, was angered when he was told that he would not be allowed to race at the Indianapolis 500 if the deal went through, since Ford fielded Indy cars using its own engine and didn't want competition from Ferrari. Enzo cut the deal off out of spite and Henry Ford II, enraged, directed his racing division to find a company that could build a Ferrari-beater on the world endurance-racing circuit.

To this end, Ford began negotiation with Lotus, Lola, and Cooper. Cooper had no experience in GT or prototype and its performances in Formula One were declining.

The Lola proposal was chosen since Lola had used a Ford V8 engine in its mid-engined Lola Mk6 (also known as Lola GT). It was one of the most advanced racing cars of the time and made a noted performance in Le Mans 1963, even though the car did not finish, due to low gearing and slow revving out on the Mulsanne Straight. However, Eric Broadley, Lola Cars' owner and chief designer, agreed on a short-term personal contribution to the project without involving Lola Cars.

The agreement with Broadley included a one-year collaboration between Ford and Broadley, and the sale of the two Lola Mk 6 chassis builds to Ford. To form the development team, Ford also hired the ex-Aston Martin team manager John Wyer. Ford Motor Co. engineer Roy Lunn was sent to England; he had designed the mid-engined Mustang I concept car powered by a 1.7-liter V4, making him the only Dearborn engineer to have some experience with that configuration.

Overseen by Harley Copp, the team of Broadley, Lunn, and Wyer began working on the new car at the Lola Factory in Bromley. At the end of 1963, the team moved to Slough, near Heathrow Airport. Ford then established Ford Advanced Vehicles (FAV) Ltd, a new subsidiary under the direction of Wyer, to manage the project.

The first chassis built by Abbey Panels of Coventry was delivered on 16 March 1964, with fibreglass mouldings produced by Fibre Glass Engineering Ltd of Farnham. The first "Ford GT" the GT/101 was unveiled in England on 1 April and soon after exhibited in New York. Purchase price of the completed car for competition use was £5,200.

It was powered by the 4.7 L HiPo (K-code) 289 cu in Fairlane engine with a Colotti transaxle. An aluminium block DOHC version, known as the Ford Indy Engine, was used in later years at Indy, where won in 1965 in the Lotus 38.

Racing history

The Ford GT40 was first raced in May 1964 at the Nürburgring 1000 km where it retired with suspension failure after holding second place early in the event. Three weeks later at the 24 Hours of Le Mans, all three entries retired, although the Ginther/Gregory car led the field from the second lap until its first pitstop. After a season-long series of dismal results under John Wyer in 1964, the program was handed over to Carroll Shelby after the 1964 Nassau race. The cars were sent directly to Shelby, still bearing the dirt and damage from the Nassau race. Carroll Shelby was noted for complaining that the cars were poorly maintained when he received them, but later information revealed the cars were packed up as soon as the race was over, and FAV never had a chance to clean and organize the cars to be transported to Shelby.

Shelby's first victory came on their maiden race with the Ford program, with Ken Miles and Lloyd Ruby taking a Shelby American-entered Ford GT40 to victory in the Daytona 2000km in February 1965. One month later, Ken Miles and Bruce McLaren came in second overall (to the winning Chaparral in the sports class) and first in prototype class at the Sebring 12-hour race. The rest of the season, however, was a disappointment.

The experience gained in 1964 and 1965 allowed the 7-liter Mk II to dominate the following year. In February, the GT40 again won at Daytona. This was the first year Daytona was run in the 24 Hour format and Mk II's finished 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. In March, at the 1966 12 Hours of Sebring, GT40s again took all three top finishes, with the X-1 Roadster first, a Mk II taking second, and a Mk I in third. Then in June, at the 24 Hours of Le Mans, the GT40 achieved yet another 1–2–3 result.

The "orchestrated" Le Mans finish, however, was clouded in controversy: The No1 car of Ken Miles and Denny Hulme held a four lap lead over the No2 car of Bruce McLaren and Chris Amon. This disintegrated when the No1 car was forced to make a pit-stop for replacement brake rotors, following an incorrect set being fitted a lap prior in a scheduled rotor change. It was found to be a result of the correct brake rotors being taken by the No2 crew. This meant that in the final few hours, the Ford GT40 of New Zealanders Bruce McLaren and Chris Amon closely trailed the leading Ford GT40 driven by Englishman Ken Miles and New Zealander Denny Hulme. With a multimillion-dollar program finally on the very brink of success, Ford team officials faced a difficult choice. They could allow the drivers to settle the outcome by racing each other—and risk one or both cars breaking down or crashing; they could dictate a finishing order to the drivers—guaranteeing that one set of drivers would be extremely unhappy; or they could arrange a tie, with the McLaren/Amon and Miles/Hulme cars crossing the line side by side.

The team chose the latter and informed Shelby. He told McLaren and Miles of the decision just before the two got into their cars for the final stint. Then, not long before the finish, the Automobile Club de l'Ouest (ACO), organizers of the Le Mans event, informed Ford that the geographical difference in starting positions would be taken into account at a close finish. This meant that the McLaren/Amon vehicle, which had started perhaps 60 ft behind the Hulme-Miles car, would have covered slightly more ground over the 24 hours and would, in the event of a tie for first place, be the winner. Secondly, Ford officials admitted later, the company's contentious relationship with Miles, its top contract driver, placed executives in a difficult position. They could reward an outstanding driver who had been at times extremely difficult to work with, or they could decide in favor of drivers (McLaren/Amon) who had committed less to the Ford program but who had been easier to deal with. Ford stuck with the orchestrated photo finish. What happened on the last lap remains the subject of speculation. Either Miles, deeply bitter over this decision after his dedication to the program, issued his own protest by suddenly slowing just yards from the finish and letting McLaren across the line first, or Bruce McLaren accelerated just before the finish line robbing Miles of his victory. Either way, McLaren's car was declared the victor.

Neither driver had many opportunites to elaborate on the event, as both died testing new race cars, McLaren in 1970. Already two months later in 1966 Ken Miles died at the wheel of the Ford "J-car" at Riverside Raceway. The J-car was a GT40 prototype that included several unique features, most notably an aluminium-honeycomb chassis-construction and a "bread-van" body-design that experimented with "Kammback" aerodynamic theories. Miles' fatal accident was attributed at least partly to the unproven aerodynamics of the J-car design, and to the experimental chassis' strength that had no roll cage yet. The team embarked on a complete redesign of the car, which became known as the Mk IV. The Mk IV newer design, with a Mk II engine but a different chassis and a different body, won the following year at Le Mans (when four Mark IVs, three Mark IIs, and three Mark Is raced). The high speeds achieved in that race caused a rule change, which already came into effect in 1968: the prototypes were limited to the capacity of 3.0 litres, the same as in Formula One since 1966. This took out the V12-powered Ferrari 330P, the Chaparral V8, Jaguar XJ13 V12 and the Ford Mk IV.

The rule change of late 1967 meant that there would be few prototype entries in early 1968, most of them of (too) small capacity, like 2.0 litre Alfa Romeo Tipo 33 and 2.2 litre Porsche 907, later 3.0 litre Porsche 908. Ferrari remained absent in protest. Most of the few F1 engines were too unreliable for endurance, let alone 24 hours. Ford's own Cosworth V8 had been introduced to F1 in 1967, where it was a success into the early 1980s, but vibrations prevented it from succeeding in endurance racing (Ford P68 and others), even though the 1975 and 1980s Le Mans races were won with Ford Cosworth engines, after Matra had won 1972 to 1974 with their V12.

To attract more entrants that could compete for overall wins, existing sportscars like the GT40 and the Lola T70 were allowed, with a maximum of 5.0 l if at least 50 cars had been built. John Wyer's team revised the 4.7-liter, bored to 4.9 litre, and O-rings cut and installed between the block and head to prevent head gasket failure, a common problem found with the 4.7 engine. The JWA Mk I won the 24 hours of Le Mans race in 1968 against the fragile smaller 3.0 litre prototypes from Porsche, Alfa and others. This result, added to four other WC round wins for the GT40, gave Ford unexpected victory in the 1968 International Championship for Makes. The GT40's intended 3.0 l replacements, the Ford P68, and John Wyer JWA Gulf Mirage cars proved a dismal failure. While facing more experienced prototypes and the new yet still unreliable 4.5 l flat-12-powered Porsche 917s, Wyer's 1969 24 Hours of Le Mans winners Jacky Ickx/Jackie Oliver managed to beat the remaining 3.0-liter Porsche 908 by just a few seconds with the already outdated GT40 Mk I, in the very car that had won in 1968 – the legendary chassis GT40P/1075. Apart from brake-wear in the Porsche and the decision not to change brake-pads so close to the end of the race, the winning combination was relaxed driving by both GT40 drivers and heroic efforts at the right time by (at that time Le Mans' rookie) Ickx, who would go on to win Le Mans five more times in later years.

International titles
In addition to four consecutive overall Le Mans victories, Ford also won the following four FIA international titles (at what was then unofficially known as the World Sportscar Championship) with the GT40 car:
 * 1966 International Manufacturers Championship – Sports prototype category (over 2000cc)
 * 1966 International Championship for Sports Cars – Grand Touring (GT) category (division III - over 2000cc)
 * 1967 International Championship for Sports Cars – Grand Touring (GT) category (division III - over 2000cc)
 * 1968 International Championship for Makes – Sports prototype category

Mk I

The Mk I was the original Ford GT40. Early prototypes were powered by 255 cu in (4.2 L) alloy V8 engines and production models were powered by 289 CID engines as used in the Ford Mustang. Five prototype models were built with roadster bodywork, including the Ford X-1. Two lightweight cars (of a planned five), AMGT40/1 and AMGT40/2, were built by Alan Mann Racing in 1966, with light alloy bodies and other weight-saving modifications.

The Mk I met with little success in its initial tune for the 1964 and 1965 Le Mans races. The first success came after their demise at the Nassau Speed Weekend Nov 1964 when the racing was handed over to Carrol Shelby. Shelby's team modified the Ford GT40 and the first win at Daytona February 1965 was achieved. Much was later modified and run by J.W. Automotive (JW) in 1968 and 1969, winning Le Mans in both those years and Sebring in 1969. The Mk II and IV were both obsolete after the FIA had changed the rules to ban unlimited capacity engines, ruling out the 427 cu in (7 L) Ford V8. However, the Mk I, with its smaller engine, was legally able to race as a homologated sports car because of its production numbers.

In 1968 competition came from the Porsche 908, which was the first prototype built for the 3-liter Group 6. The result was a resounding success for the Mk I at the 24 Hours of Le Mans, with Pedro Rodríguez and Lucien Bianchi having a clear lead over the Porsches driving the 'almighty' #9 car with the 'Gulf Oil' colors. The season began slowly for JW, losing at Sebring and Daytona before taking their first win at the BOAC International 500 at Brands Hatch. Later victories included the Grand Prix de Spa, 21st Annual Watkins Glen Sports Car Road Race and the 1000 km di Monza. The engine installed on this car was a naturally aspirated Windsor 302 cuin V8 with a compression ratio of 10.6:1; fuel fed by four 2-barrel 48 IDA Weber carburettors, rated at 317 kW at 6,000 rpm and a maximum torque of 395 lbft at 4,750 rpm.

A total of 31 Mk I cars were built at the Slough factory in "road" trim, which differed little from the race versions. Wire wheels, carpet, ruched fabric map pockets in the doors and a cigarette lighter made up most of the changes. Some cars deleted the ventilated seats, and at least one (chassis 1049) was built with the opening metal-framed windows from the Mk III.

The X-1 was a roadster built to contest the Fall 1965 North American Pro Series, a forerunner of Can-Am, entered by the Bruce McLaren team and driven by Chris Amon. The car had an aluminium chassis built at Abbey Panels and was originally powered by a 289 cu in (4.7L) engine. The real purpose of this car was to test several improvements originating from Kar Kraft, Shelby, and McLaren. Several gearboxes were used: a Hewland LG500 and at least one automatic gearbox. It was later upgraded to Mk II specifications with a 427 cu in (7 L) engine and a standard four ratio Kar Kraft (subsidiary of Ford) gearbox, however, the car kept specific features such as its open roof and lightweight aluminium chassis. The car went on to win the 12 Hours of Sebring in 1966. The X-1 was a one-off and, having been built in the United Kingdom and being liable for United States tariffs, was later ordered to be destroyed by United States customs officials.
 * X-1 Roadster

Mk II
The Mk II was rebuilt separately by both Holman Moody and Shelby American to handle the 7.0-liter FE (427 ci) engine from the Ford Galaxie, used in NASCAR at the time and modified for road course use. The car's chassis was similar to the British-built Mk I chassis, but it and other parts of the car had to be redesigned and modified by Holman Moody to accommodate the larger and heavier 427 engine. A new Kar Kraft-built four-speed gearbox replaced the ZF five-speed used in the Mk I. This car is sometimes called the Ford Mk II.

In 1966, the three teams racing the Mk II (Chris Amon and Bruce McLaren, Denny Hulme and Ken Miles, and Dick Hutcherson and Ronnie Bucknum) dominated Le Mans, taking European audiences by surprise and beating Ferrari to finish 1-2-3 in the standings. The Ford GT40 went on to win the race for the next three years.

For 1967, the Mk IIs were upgraded to "B" spec; they had re-designed bodywork and twin Holley carburettors for an additional 11 kW. A batch of improperly heat-treated input shafts in the transaxles side-lined virtually every Ford in the race at Daytona, however, and Ferrari won 1-2-3. The Mk IIBs were also used for Sebring and Le Mans that year and won the Reims 12 Hours in France.For the Daytona 24 Hours, two Mk II models (chassis 1016 and 1047) had their bodies and engines re-badged as Mercury vehicles and engines; Ford seeing a good opportunity to advertise that division of the company.

In 2018, a Mk II that was 3rd overall at the 1966 Le Mans 24 Hours was sold by RM Sotheby's for $9,795,000 (£7,624,344) - the highest price achieved for a GT40 at auction.

Mk III
The Mk III was a road-car only, of which seven were built. The car had four headlamps, raised to meet US lighting standards, the rear part of the body was extended to make room for luggage, the 4.7-liter engine was detuned to 228 kW, the shock absorbers were softened, the shift lever was moved to the centre, an ashtray was added, and the car was available with the steering wheel on the left side of the car. As the Mk III looked significantly different from the racing models many customers interested in buying a GT40 for road use chose to buy a Mk I that was available from Wyer Ltd. Of the seven MK III that were produced four were left-hand drive.

J-car
In an effort to develop a car with better aerodynamics (potentially resulting in superior control and speed compared to competitors), the decision was made to re-conceptualize and redesign everything about the vehicle other than its powerful 7-liter engine. This would result in the abandonment of the original Mk I/Mk II chassis.

In order to bring the car into alignment with Ford's "in house" ideology at the time, more restrictive partnerships were implemented with English firms, which resulted in the sale of Ford Advanced Vehicles (acquired by John Wyer), ultimately leading to a new vehicle which would be slated for design by Ford's studios and produced by Ford's subsidiary Kar-Kraft under Ed Hull. Furthermore, there was also a partnership with the Brunswick Aircraft Corporation for expertise on the novel use of aluminium honeycomb panels bonded together to form a lightweight, rigid "tub".

The car was designated as the J-car, as it was constructed to meet the new Appendix J regulations which were introduced by the FIA in 1966.

The first J-car was completed in March 1966 and set the fastest time at the Le Mans trials that year. The tub weighed only 86 lb, and the entire car weighed only 2660 lb, 300 lb less than the Mk II. It was decided to run the Mk IIs due to their proven reliability, however, and little or no development was done on the J-car for the rest of the season. Following Le Mans, the development program for the J-car was resumed, and a second car was built. During a test session at Riverside International Raceway in August 1966 with Ken Miles driving, the car suddenly went out of control at the end of Riverside's high-speed, 1 mi back straight. The aluminium honeycomb chassis did not live up to its design goal, shattering upon impact. The car burst into flames, killing Miles. It was determined that the unique, flat-topped "bread van" aerodynamics of the car, lacking any sort of spoiler, were implicated in generating excess lift. Therefore, a conventional but significantly more aerodynamic body was designed for the subsequent development of the J-car which was officially known as the Mk IV. A total of nine cars were constructed with J-car chassis numbers although six were designated as Mk IVs and one as the G7A.

Mk IV
The Mk IV was built around a reinforced J chassis powered by the same 7.0 L engine as the Mk II. Excluding the engine, gearbox, some suspension parts and the brakes from the Mk II, the Mk IV was totally different from other GT40s, using a specific, all-new chassis and bodywork. It was undoubtedly the most radical and American variant of all the GT40s over the years. As a direct result of the Miles accident, the team installed a NASCAR-style steel-tube roll cage in the Mk IV, which made it much safer, but the roll cage was so heavy that it negated most of the weight saving of the then-highly advanced, radically innovative honeycomb-panel construction. The Mk IV had a long, streamlined shape, which gave it exceptional top speed, crucial to do well at Le Mans in those days (a circuit made up predominantly of straight roads connecting tight corners)—the race it was ultimately built for. A 2-speed automatic gearbox was tried, but during the extensive testing of the J-car in 1966 and 1967, it was decided that the 4-speed from the Mk II would be retained.

The car proved to be fastest in a straight line that year, thanks to its streamlined aerodynamics, achieving 212 mph on the 3.6-mile Mulsanne Straight.

Dan Gurney, who was 6 feet 4 inches tall, requested a bubble-shaped piece of spherical bodywork extension over the top of the driver's seat so that he could fit into the car. Gurney also complained about the weight of the Mk IV, since the car was 600 lb heavier than the Ferrari 330 P4, which, combined with the higher speed, put more stress on the Ford brakes. During practice at Le Mans in 1967, in an effort to preserve the brakes, Gurney developed a strategy (also adopted by co-driver A.J. Foyt who had just won the 1967 Indianapolis 500) of backing completely off the throttle several hundred yards before the approach to the Mulsanne hairpin and virtually coasting into the braking area. This technique saved the brakes, but the resulting increase in the car's recorded lap times during practice led to speculation within the Ford team that Gurney and Foyt, in an effort to compromise on chassis settings, had hopelessly "dialed out" their car - despite Gurney having been the fastest GT40 pilot in the 1966 practice and race. Also, Gurney was developing his own Eagle V12 F1 car with which he would win the 1967 Belgian Grand Prix the very next weekend.

In 1966 and early 1967, Ford's R&D department in Detroit developed a test rig to simulate circuit laps; the rig was programmed to accurately mimic the characteristics of the target circuit. The Mk IV design was revised based on weeks of simulated Le Mans laps. This was an early example of the now-common practice of using test rigs for Formula One and Le Mans vehicle protoyping.

The Mk IV ran in only two races, the April 1967 12 Hours of Sebring and the June 1967 24 Hours of Le Mans, and won both events. Only one Mk IV was completed for Sebring; the pressure from Ford had been amped up considerably after Ford's humiliation at the 1967 Daytona 24h in early February when Ferrari staged a 1-2-3 finish in the iconical banking, and later even named a road car Ferrari Daytona. Mario Andretti and Bruce McLaren won Sebring, Dan Gurney and A. J. Foyt won Le Mans (Gurney and Foyt's car was the Mk IV that was apparently least likely to win), where the Ford-representing Shelby-American and Holman & Moody teams showed up to Le Mans with 2 Mk IVs each. The installation of the roll cage was ultimately credited by many with saving the life of Andretti, who crashed violently at the Esses during the 1967 Le Mans 24 Hours, but escaped with minor injuries. Gurney later described the Mk IV as "half-way between a road-legal passenger car and a race car; it was reliable and comfortable, but heavy".

Unlike the earlier Mk I - III cars, the chassis of which were built in Britain, the Mk IV car was built entirely in the United States by Kar Kraft, Ford's performance division in Detroit. Thus, Le Mans 1967 still remains both the only all-American victory in Le Mans history — American drivers (Dan Gurney and A. J. Foyt), team (Shelby-American Inc.), chassis constructor (Ford), engine manufacturer (Ford), and tyres (Goodyear) — as well as the only victory of a car designed and built entirely (both chassis and engine) in the United States. A total of six Mk IVs were constructed.

One of the Mk IVs was rebuilt to Group 7 (motorsport) rules as the Ford G7 in 1968, and used in the Can-Am series for 1969 and 1970, but with no success. This car is sometimes called the Ford Mk IV.

Later versions
By the late 1960s, the Ford GT40s were obsolete in international racing. After 1967, sports car prototypes had been limited to the 3.0 litre engine size used in Formula 1 since 1966, and the Ford P68 (also Ford 3L GT or F3L) was a Ford-sponsored attempt to compete in that category with the Cosworth V8 F1 engine.

There was a "loop hole", though, allowing Group 4 5.0 litre sports cars like the Chevy-V8-powered Lola T70 if at least 50 identical cars were made and approved and homologated as such. The minimum number was lowered to 25 for 1969 as nobody expected that any company would dare and succeed in building over two dozens of expensive high powered prototypes up front just to race a few of them. Porsche did so, though, and in early 1969 presented a row of 25 Porsche 917, with 4.5 litre flat-12 engine based upon the 3.0 litre flat-8 of the Porsche 908. With the need for "production first" it was an untested gamble for the annual sportscar racing season that began in January at Daytona and basically ended already in mid-June with the Le Mans 24h. The 917 was sorted out later in 1969, and for 1970, after selling half of the company to FIAT, also the Ferrari 512S was available, literally flooding international racing with dozens of V12 powered prototype-like cars.

Yet, since the 1970s, there was growing interest from enthusiasts rather than racers in Ford GT40s that could not be satisfied with the remaining original GT40s, even though around 100 had been made.

Mk V and John Wyer's modified Mk I's
For years Peter Thorp had searched for a GT40 in good condition. Most of the cars had problems including the dreaded rust issue. His company, Safir Engineering, was building and fielding Formula 3 race cars, in addition, had a Token Formula One car purchased from the Ron Dennis Company, Rondell Racing. Formula One events in which Safir Engineering competed included Brands Hatch and Silverstone. Safir was also redesigning Range Rovers modifying the unit to six-wheel drive and exporting them. Safir technical capabilities were such that they could rebuild GT40s. It was with this in mind that Thorp approached John Willment, partner of John Wyer, for his thoughts. It was soon decided that there would be a limited, further run of the significant GT40. JW Engineering would oversee the build, and Safir was to do the work. The continued JW Engineering/Safir Engineering production would utilize sequential serial numbers starting at the last used GT40 serial number and move forward. Maintaining the GT40 Mark nomenclature, this continued production would be named GT40 Mk V.

JW Engineering wished to complete the GT40 chassis numbers GT40P-1087, 1088 and 1089. This was supposed to take place prior to the beginning of Safir production, however, the completion of these three chassis’ was very much delayed.

Ford's Len Bailey was hired to inspect the proposed build and engineer any changes he thought prudent to ensure the car was safe, as well as minimize problems experienced in the past. Bailey changed the front suspension to Alan Mann specifications, which minimized nose-dive under braking. Zinc coated steel replaced the previous uncoated rust-prone sheet metal. The vulnerable drive donuts were replaced with CV joints and the leak-prone rubber gas tanks were replaced with aluminium tanks. The GT40 chassis was upgraded without making any major changes.

Tennant Panels supplied the roof structure and the balance of the chassis was completed by Safir. Bill Pink, noted for his electrical experience and the wiring installation of previous GT40s, was brought in. Also, Jim Rose was hired for his experience with working at both Alan Mann and Shelby. After the manufacture of chassis 1120, John Etheridge was hired to manage the GT40 build. The chassis was supplied from Adams McCall Engineering and parts supplied from Tennant panels.

For the most part, the Mk V resembled very closely the Mk I car, although there were a few changes, and, as with the '60s production, very few cars were identical.

The first car, GT40P-1090, had an open-top in place of roofed doors. Most motors were Ford small block, Webers or 4 Barrel Carburettor. Safir produced five Big Block GT40s, serial numbers GT40P-1128 to GT40P-1132. These aluminium big block cars all had easily removable door roof sections. Most GT40s were high-performance street cars however some of the Mk V production can be described as full race. Two road cars GT40P-1133 (roadster) and GT40P-1142 (roofed doors) were built as lightweights which included an aluminium honeycomb chassis and carbon fiber bodywork.

Continuation models, replicas and modernizations
Several kit cars and replicas inspired by the Ford GT40 have been built. They are generally intended for assembly in a home workshop or garage. There are two alternatives to the kit car approach, either continuation models (exact and licensed replicas true to the original GT40) or modernizations (replicas with upgraded components, ergonomics & trim for improved usability, drivability, and performance).
 * GT40/R Competition, United States: Authentic GT40 built by Superformance and co-designed with Pathfinder Motorsports. This is the only GT40 continuation licensed by Safir GT40 Spares LLC, the holders of the GT40 trademark. A GT40/R (GT40P/2094) campaigned by Pathfinder Motorsports with an engine built by Holman Moody won both the 2009 US Vintage Grand Prix and the 2009 Governor's Cup at Watkins Glen.
 * Southern GT: Built-in Swanmore, Southampton, UK. Specializing in GT40 Mk1 and Mk2, as well as Lola T70. Kit form or fully built to your specifications.
 * CAV GT: Originally designed for customers to build as a kit, the CAV GT has evolved into a modernized replica that is now factory-built in Cape Town, South Africa.
 * Holman Moody: GT40 Mark II won third at Le Mans in 1966, and can still manufacture a Holman GT from 1966 blueprints.
 * GT40 Spyder, United States: Built by E.R.A. Replica Automobiles in New Britain, CT, the Spyder is a MK2 Canadian American (CAN-AM) racing replica. The ERA GT is "No Longer Available" according to their website (October 3, 2021).
 * Ford GT40 By Everrati: Everatti's GT40 replica uses a Superformance body and is powered by a 700-volt electric architecture, allowing for fast charging. Everrati estimates it delivers 800 PS and 590 lbft of torque, making it almost twice as powerful as the most powerful version of the original GT40.

Ford GT
At the 1995 North American International Auto Show, the Ford GT90 concept was shown and at the 2002 show, a new GT40 Concept was unveiled by Ford. While similar in appearance to the original cars, it was bigger, wider, and 3 inches (76 mm) taller than the original 40 inches (1020 mm). Three production prototype cars were shown in 2003 as part of Ford's centenary, and delivery of the production Ford GT began in the fall of 2004. The Ford GT was assembled in the Ford Wixom plant and painted by Saleen, Incorporated at their Saleen Special Vehicles plant in Troy, Michigan.

A British company, Safir Engineering, who continued to produce a limited number of GT40s (the Mk V) in the 1980s under an agreement with Walter Hayes of Ford and John Wilmont of J.W. Automotive Engineering, owned the GT40 trademark at that time, and when they completed production, they sold the excess parts, tooling, design, and trademark to a small American company called Safir GT40 Spares, Limited based in Ohio. Safir GT40 Spares licensed the use of the GT40 trademark to Ford for the initial 2002 show car, but when Ford decided to make the production vehicle, negotiations between the two failed, and as a result, the new Ford GT does not wear the badge GT40. Bob Wood, one of three partners who own Safir GT40 Spares, said: "When we talked with Ford, they asked what we wanted. We said that Ford owns Beanstalk in New York, the company that licenses the Blue Oval for Ford on such things as T-shirts. Since Beanstalk gets 7.5 percent of the retail cost of the item for licensing the name, we suggested 7.5 percent on each GT40 sold." In this instance, Ford wished to purchase, not just license the GT40 trademark. At the then-estimated $125,000 per copy, 7.5% of 4,500 vehicles would have totalled approximately $42,187,500. It was widely and erroneously reported following an Automotive News Weekly story that Safir "demanded" the $40 million for the sale of the trademark. Discussions between Safir and Ford ensued. However, in fact, the Ford Motor Company never made an offer in writing to purchase the famed GT40 trademark. Later models or prototypes have also been called the Ford GT but have had different numbering on them such as the Ford GT90 or the Ford GT70. The GT40 name and trademark is currently licensed to Superformance in the USA.

A second-generation Ford GT was unveiled at the 2015 North American International Auto Show. It features a 3.5L twin-turbocharged V6 engine, carbonfibre monocoque and body panels, pushrod suspension and active aerodynamics. It entered the 2016 season of the FIA World Endurance Championship and the United SportsCar Championship, and started being sold in a street-legal version at Ford dealerships in 2017.

Television & movies
A right-hand drive, silver GT40 is used by the villain in The Avengers, Season 5, Episode 1, "From Venus with Love". Mrs. Peel gets in and raises the laser installed in the roof. The car is used to simulate a UFO from Venus being used to kill astronomers.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Ford GT40


text:
Glycine

Glycine (symbol Gly or G; ) is an amino acid that has a single hydrogen atom as its side chain. It is the simplest stable amino acid (carbamic acid is unstable). In the gas phase, it is a molecule with the chemical formula NH2‐CH2‐COOH. In solution or in the solid, glycine exists as the zwitterion. Glycine is one of the proteinogenic amino acids. It is encoded by all the codons starting with GG (GGU, GGC, GGA, GGG). Glycine is integral to the formation of alpha-helices in secondary protein structure due to the "flexibility" caused by such a small R group. Glycine is also an inhibitory neurotransmitter – interference with its release within the spinal cord (such as during a Clostridium tetani infection) can cause spastic paralysis due to uninhibited muscle contraction.

It is the only achiral proteinogenic amino acid. It can fit into hydrophilic or hydrophobic environments, due to its minimal side chain of only one hydrogen atom.

History and etymology
Glycine was discovered in 1820 by French chemist Henri Braconnot when he hydrolyzed gelatin by boiling it with sulfuric acid. He originally called it "sugar of gelatin", but French chemist Jean-Baptiste Boussingault showed in 1838 that it contained nitrogen. In 1847 American scientist Eben Norton Horsford, then a student of the German chemist Justus von Liebig, proposed the name "glycocoll"; however, the Swedish chemist Berzelius suggested the simpler current name a year later. The name comes from the Greek word γλυκύς "sweet tasting" (which is also related to the prefixes glyco- and gluco-, as in glycoprotein and glucose). In 1858, the French chemist Auguste Cahours determined that glycine was an amine of acetic acid.

Production
Although glycine can be isolated from hydrolyzed protein, this route is not used for industrial production, as it can be manufactured more conveniently by chemical synthesis. The two main processes are amination of chloroacetic acid with ammonia, giving glycine and ammonium chloride, and the Strecker amino acid synthesis, which is the main synthetic method in the United States and Japan. About 15 thousand tonnes are produced annually in this way.

Glycine is also cogenerated as an impurity in the synthesis of EDTA, arising from reactions of the ammonia coproduct.

Chemical reactions
Its acid–base properties are most important. In aqueous solution, glycine is amphoteric: below pH = 2.4, it converts to the ammonium cation called glycinium. Above about 9.6, it converts to glycinate.
 * Glycine-protonation-states-2D-skeletal.png

Glycine functions as a bidentate ligand for many metal ions, forming amino acid complexes. A typical complex is Cu(glycinate)2, i.e. Cu(H2NCH2CO2)2, which exists both in cis and trans isomers.

With acid chlorides, glycine converts to the amidocarboxylic acid, such as hippuric acid and acetylglycine. With nitrous acid, one obtains glycolic acid (van Slyke determination). With methyl iodide, the amine becomes quaternized to give trimethylglycine, a natural product:
 * + 3 CH3I →    +  3 HI

Glycine condenses with itself to give peptides, beginning with the formation of glycylglycine:
 * 2  →    +  H2O

Pyrolysis of glycine or glycylglycine gives 2,5-diketopiperazine, the cyclic diamide.

It forms esters with alcohols. They are often isolated as their hydrochloride, e.g., glycine methyl ester hydrochloride. Otherwise the free ester tends to convert to diketopiperazine.

As a bifunctional molecule, glycine reacts with many reagents. These can be classified into N-centered and carboxylate-center reactions.

Biosynthesis
Glycine is not essential to the human diet, as it is biosynthesized in the body from the amino acid serine, which is in turn derived from 3-phosphoglycerate. In most organisms, the enzyme serine hydroxymethyltransferase catalyses this transformation via the cofactor pyridoxal phosphate:
 * serine + tetrahydrofolate → glycine + N5,N10-methylene tetrahydrofolate + H2O

In E. coli, glycine is sensitive to antibiotics that target folate.

In the liver of vertebrates, glycine synthesis is catalyzed by glycine synthase (also called glycine cleavage enzyme). This conversion is readily reversible:
 * CO2 + NH$+ 4$ + N5,N10-methylene tetrahydrofolate + NADH + H+ ⇌ Glycine + tetrahydrofolate + NAD+

In addition to being synthesized from serine, glycine can also be derived from threonine, choline or hydroxyproline via inter-organ metabolism of the liver and kidneys.

Degradation
Glycine is degraded via three pathways. The predominant pathway in animals and plants is the reverse of the glycine synthase pathway mentioned above. In this context, the enzyme system involved is usually called the glycine cleavage system:
 * Glycine + tetrahydrofolate + NAD+ ⇌ CO2 + NH$+ 4$ + N5,N10-methylene tetrahydrofolate + NADH + H+

In the second pathway, glycine is degraded in two steps. The first step is the reverse of glycine biosynthesis from serine with serine hydroxymethyl transferase. Serine is then converted to pyruvate by serine dehydratase.

In the third pathway of its degradation, glycine is converted to glyoxylate by D-amino acid oxidase. Glyoxylate is then oxidized by hepatic lactate dehydrogenase to oxalate in an NAD+-dependent reaction.

The half-life of glycine and its elimination from the body varies significantly based on dose. In one study, the half-life varied between 0.5 and 4.0 hours.

Physiological function
The principal function of glycine is it acts as a precursor to proteins. Most proteins incorporate only small quantities of glycine, a notable exception being collagen, which contains about 35% glycine due to its periodically repeated role in the formation of collagen's helix structure in conjunction with hydroxyproline. In the genetic code, glycine is coded by all codons starting with GG, namely GGU, GGC, GGA and GGG.

As a biosynthetic intermediate
In higher eukaryotes, δ-aminolevulinic acid, the key precursor to porphyrins, is biosynthesized from glycine and succinyl-CoA by the enzyme ALA synthase. Glycine provides the central C2N subunit of all purines.

As a neurotransmitter
Glycine is an inhibitory neurotransmitter in the central nervous system, especially in the spinal cord, brainstem, and retina. When glycine receptors are activated, chloride enters the neuron via ionotropic receptors, causing an inhibitory postsynaptic potential (IPSP). Strychnine is a strong antagonist at ionotropic glycine receptors, whereas bicuculline is a weak one. Glycine is a required co-agonist along with glutamate for NMDA receptors. In contrast to the inhibitory role of glycine in the spinal cord, this behaviour is facilitated at the (NMDA) glutamatergic receptors which are excitatory. The of glycine is 7930 mg/kg in rats (oral), and it usually causes death by hyperexcitability.

As a toxin conjugation agent
Glycine conjugation pathway has not been fully investigated. Glycine is thought to be a hepatic detoxifier of a number endogenous and xenobiotic organic acids. Bile acids are normally conjugated to glycine in order to increase their solubility in water.

The human body rapidly clears sodium benzoate by combining it with glycine to form hippuric acid which is then excreted. The metabolic pathway for this begins with the conversion of benzoate by butyrate-CoA ligase into an intermediate product, benzoyl-CoA, which is then metabolized by glycine N-acyltransferase into hippuric acid.

Uses
In the US, glycine is typically sold in two grades: United States Pharmacopeia ("USP"), and technical grade. USP grade sales account for approximately 80 to 85 percent of the U.S. market for glycine. If purity greater than the USP standard is needed, for example for intravenous injections, a more expensive pharmaceutical grade glycine can be used. Technical grade glycine, which may or may not meet USP grade standards, is sold at a lower price for use in industrial applications, e.g., as an agent in metal complexing and finishing.

Animal and human foods
Glycine is not widely used in foods for its nutritional value, except in infusions. Instead, glycine's role in food chemistry is as a flavorant. It is mildly sweet, and it counters the aftertaste of saccharine. It also has preservative properties, perhaps owing to its complexation to metal ions. Metal glycinate complexes, e.g. copper(II) glycinate are used as supplements for animal feeds.

, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration "no longer regards glycine and its salts as generally recognized as safe for use in human food", and only permits food uses of glycine in certain conditions.

Chemical feedstock
Glycine is an intermediate in the synthesis of a variety of chemical products. It is used in the manufacture of the herbicides glyphosate, iprodione, glyphosine, imiprothrin, and eglinazine. It is used as an intermediate of antibiotics such as thiamphenicol.

Laboratory research
Glycine is a significant component of some solutions used in the SDS-PAGE method of protein analysis. It serves as a buffering agent, maintaining pH and preventing sample damage during electrophoresis. Glycine is also used to remove protein-labeling antibodies from Western blot membranes to enable the probing of numerous proteins of interest from SDS-PAGE gel. This allows more data to be drawn from the same specimen, increasing the reliability of the data, reducing the amount of sample processing, and number of samples required. This process is known as stripping.

Presence in space
The presence of glycine outside the Earth was confirmed in 2009, based on the analysis of samples that had been taken in 2004 by the NASA spacecraft Stardust from comet Wild 2 and subsequently returned to Earth. Glycine had previously been identified in the Murchison meteorite in 1970. The discovery of glycine in outer space bolstered the hypothesis of so called soft-panspermia, which claims that the "building blocks" of life are widespread throughout the universe. In 2016, detection of glycine within Comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko by the Rosetta spacecraft was announced.

The detection of glycine outside the Solar System in the interstellar medium has been debated.

Evolution
Glycine is proposed to be defined by early genetic codes. For example, low complexity regions (in proteins), that may resemble the proto-peptides of the early genetic code are highly enriched in glycine.

title: Glycine


text: Wikipedia:GNUStufF

title: Wikipedia:GNUStufF


text:
GeekSpeak

GeekSpeak is a podcast with two to four hosts who focus on technology and technology news of the week. Though originally a radio tech call-in program, which first aired in 1998 on KUSP, GeekSpeak has been a weekly podcast since 2004.

The program's slogan is "Bridging the gap between geeks and the rest of humanity".

History
GeekSpeak was created and originally broadcast on KUSP by Chris Neklason of Cruzio, Steve Schaefer of Guenther Computer, and board operator Ray Price from KUSP. Shortly thereafter Mark Hanford of Cruzio joined the program.

Currently, the host/producer is Lyle Troxell, who took over in September 2000.

In April 2016, citing financial difficulties, KUSP stopped broadcasting GeekSpeak with its final broadcast on May 5, 2016.

GeekSpeak episodes have been distributed as an archive on the internet since 2001. The podcast went live prior to March 5, 2005 with its first episode December 3, 2004.

title: GeekSpeak