The rear of the Mach 2B clay seems to take a cue from the Torino and Mustang Mach 1. A more pronounced ‘fastback’ appearance has been created by extending the rear window surround. The bumper appears to still be from the 1966 Mustang. The clay model in the background is likely the first Mach 2B clay version. The shorter gentleman in the photo, with glasses, is believed to be Roy Lunn.
Gregorich had been deeply involved in developing the 4-speed transaxle for the all-conquering Ford GT Mk IV Le Mans car. Whether he considered that unit for the Mach 2 is open to speculation. That race-specific transaxle was most likely way too expensive, and not conducive to production on a large scale. A “conventional” 4-speed manual transmission was designed, said to be by Kar-Kraft, and sent to Ford’s Transmission and Chassis Division for evaluation. No further mention appears.
On June 10, 1968, Don Frey wrote a letter to Donald Tope, Ford’s Vice President of the Transmission and Chassis Division. Frey referred to an earlier study of the feasibility, timing, tooling and costs of proposed manual and automatic transmissions and asked that the study be reinvestigated. He mentioned the transmission as a critical factor in Mach 2 development and that, perhaps, an outside supplier might be considered. (Other internal documents infer that outside suppliers had already been contacted.) Also mentioned was the Job One date, now set for September of 1970, and the projected production volume of 10,000 units annually. To some, the letter was a carefully worded plea for help, and shows how desperate the situation was.
The Mach 2B progressed as far as three clay models. There is no evidence that an actual unit was built on a Delta platform. All advanced engineering work was done on the two Mach 2A prototypes, and that work would have been easily transferred to the Maverick platform. As late as September 30, 1968, the basic product package design was nearly complete, a staff organization chart was in place and cost studies were in full swing. However, a Third Quarter Performance report states, “… completion of the product proposal has now been postponed until the year-end to enable alternative programs and drivelines to be evaluated.” There’s that pesky transaxle issue again! Unfortunately, no further mention of the Mach 2B appears in available documents.
.jpg)
The Mach 2C had a certain Italianesque look to it, likely possibly influenced by Larry Shinoda’s previous work at GM.
A third Mach 2, known as the Mach 2C, surfaced early in 1969, rendered by stylist Larry Shinoda. Shinoda arrived at Ford in 1968, well after the Mach 2A and during the Mach 2B programs. Whether this was an extension of the Mach 2B or a totally independent project isn’t known. His design featured a mid-mounted big-block engine with a rear-hinged deck like the GT-40’s. But quite probably the transaxle was still an issue.
The Mach 2C ended up as a design and costing project only, although a non-functional model was made and a product proposal submitted to satisfy top management’s interest. As usual, “top management” are not identified in any of the available documents. Certainly, the big players included Shinoda and likely his pal, Bunkie Knudsen, a GM exec who had replaced Lee Iacocca as Ford Division president. As of June 30, 1969, formal presentations seeking approval to build a Mach 2 prototype went to management. Projected costs eventually far outweighed the perceived market price as the final gasp of the Mach 2 saga, which then died. Sadly, the Mach 2C closed out Ford’s Sports Road Car adventure of the 60’s.
The Mach 2A prototypes showed a lot of potential, both on the road and on the race track. The design was stylish, the car was reportedly fun to drive and there seemed to be a market for this kind of vehicle. The studies indicated that the car might be rather easy and inexpensive to build, and it was well-received by the media. The Mach 2B looked even more promising. So, why was the program dropped when it was so close to being launched? Transmission issues aside, no single major reason has been found to specifically answer that question.
Despite its finished appearance with an engine and finished interior, the Mach 2C was a non-running mock-up. It was most likely built on a simple flat platform, not on a DeTomaso Pantera or other production chassis. Its fate is not known, but it probably disappeared when Shinoda left Ford.
Based on the information available to the hobby today, several issues contributed to the fall of the Mach 2 program. All three segments of the project were beset by delays, changing objectives and drawn-out planning. The program always seemed to be one platform behind production. By the time the 2A was ready to go, its platform was going away. By the time the 2B was close to reality, the platform had not been fully developed and the Pantera was coming on board. The DeTomaso Pantera was supposed to be a ready-to-go car (although it needed Ford re-engineering before launching). With its 351 v-8 engine and existing transaxle, it fit the market which the Mach 2 had targeted. The biggest factor seems to have been the elusive transaxle. It was a major financial and engineering stumbling block all the way through the program and, apparently, it was never resolved. What’s more, Ford’s decision to get out of racing at that time could have played a part, and may even have been the final nail in the coffin.
Whatever the reason, or reasons, behind the demise of the Mach 2, automotive fans lost out on a remarkable little sports car.
FORD PERFORMANCE PHOTOS / COURTESY FORD ARCHIVES and AUTHOR SOURCES
References:
--- Kar-Kraft – Race Cars, Prototypes and Muscle Cars of Ford’s Special Vehicle Program (2017 – Car Tech Books)
--- Various released Ford internal documents
--- Car & Driver magazine: May 1967
--- Don Eichstaedt, Larry Elliott, Lee Dykstra and Bud Magaldi