Author Topic: Penske, Godsall, Titus relationship?  (Read 320 times)

mikebaronehouston

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Penske, Godsall, Titus relationship?
« on: April 30, 2020, 03:40:56 AM »
 Looking at the Penske cars at Amelia Island, I noticed something new.  Besides how pretty and successful the cars were...

One of the First-Gen Camaros has Penske Godsall on the fender.  In '70 Godsall partnered with Titus for the Pontiac effort.  Titus left a successful Mustang team and Godsall left the Captain.

What's the story? 

Simple as uncharted territory and opportunity to shine?  Was this marriage started with the intent to court BFGoodrich as Ford/Shelby/Terlingua and Chevy/Penske were too expensive or unwilling to take the BFG risk to break into?

Thanks to all for the incredible sharing on this site.
 
Mike Barone
Houston, TX

Jon Mello

  • CRG Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4288
    • View Profile
Re: Penske, Godsall, Titus relationship?
« Reply #1 on: May 31, 2020, 03:02:20 PM »
Godsall and Titus joined up for the last race of the 1968 season after Titus left the team due to his unhappiness with the Tunnel-Port 302  This is well before BFG had anything to do with Trans-Am racing.  Godsall wanted to be the Roger Penske of Pontiac and he had already been racing in Trans-Am with Craig Fisher first in a Camaro in '67 and by the summer of '68 he had Fisher in a Firebird.  Godsall was looking for a more high profile star driver for his team and knew of Titus' unhappiness at Ford so that's how the T/G team came about.
Jon Mello
CRG

mikebaronehouston

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: Penske, Godsall, Titus relationship?
« Reply #2 on: June 15, 2020, 01:28:22 AM »
Jon,

As always, thanks for the inside baseball.  Interesting story on many levels.

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp-1305-the-story-behind-fords-iii-fated-1968-tunnel-port-302/
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a15142639/1968-tunnel-port-ford-mustang-vs-chevrolet-camaro-z-28-archived-comparison/

I suspect my 303 will be the same; too high of a RPM band without enough mid-range torque.  Pontiac valve train should do better than shafts.  The 303 picked up 100+ hp in 366 NASCAR dress; I bet the same was true for Ford entry.

Thanks for all you contribute.  It is appreciated.
Mike Barone
Houston, TX

crossboss

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 349
  • ^ My old heap.
    • View Profile
Re: Penske, Godsall, Titus relationship?
« Reply #3 on: June 15, 2020, 04:55:17 PM »
Jon,

As always, thanks for the inside baseball.  Interesting story on many levels.

https://www.hotrod.com/articles/hrdp-1305-the-story-behind-fords-iii-fated-1968-tunnel-port-302/
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/comparison-test/a15142639/1968-tunnel-port-ford-mustang-vs-chevrolet-camaro-z-28-archived-comparison/

I suspect my 303 will be the same; too high of a RPM band without enough mid-range torque.  Pontiac valve train should do better than shafts.  The 303 picked up 100+ hp in 366 NASCAR dress; I bet the same was true for Ford entry.

Thanks for all you contribute.  It is appreciated.



Mike,
The 'real' reason Ford's Tunnel Port 302 was a failure was not so much of the design, it was the politics involved. Top teams like Shelby were told from Ford engineering NOT to touch the engines. Yes, really! A Ford rep was there to make sure it was enforced. When Shelby received early engines, they did their own tear down and rebuilds. No failures occurred. Later, during a routine check after receiving the engines from Ford (and secretly from the rep), one of Shelby's mechanics noted missing valve train components. It appears the engine guys at Ford were either lazy, or deliberately omitting  essential parts. Who knows. Lastly, Ford never 'produced' a street version as per the SCCA's requirements.
Just another T/A fanatic. A new project in the works.

 

anything