In Autumn 1966 the Mk.II Cortina GT was released. The
body was, of course, completely restyled, along with
the entire Cortina lineup, but initially the car was
still using most of the Mk.I GT drivetrain.
The same 78 bhp engine was used, and the same gearbox
with the big gap between 2nd and 3rd, albeit with a new
diaphragm-spring clutch, and a new three-rail remote gearchange.
The final drive ratio also remained the same at 3.90:1.
The fuel tank was enlarged to 10 gallons, while 4.5" wheels
became optional, and radial tyres became an option.
Some suspension modifications were made, but mainly
because the new body required it.
As well as the new body, the car also had a new dash,
which took a lot of its design cues from the last of the
Mk.I GT dashes.
The speedo and tacho were still behind the driver's wheel,
and the Aeroflow vents, toggle switches, and under-dash
parking brake handle were still in evidence, but the auxiliary
instruments had moved to a binnacle on top of the middle
of the dash, their old location occupied by the heater
controls.
Mechanical changes were, however, to be introduced on
the Mk. II GT during its production cycle, starting in
January 1967 with the introduction of the '2000E' gearbox
ratios, as used in the Corsair 2000E and Lotus-Cortina.
In August
1967 what is now commonly called the 'crossflow'
version of the Kent engine was introduced, and the Weber
could now be found sitting on a cast-alloy inlet manifold
on the opposite side of the engine to the exhaust manifold.
With an increased capacity of 1599 cc (nominally 1600),
output went up from 78 bhp at 5200 rpm, to 88 bhp at
5400 rpm. Also introduced with the crossflow engine
was 4.5"
wheel rims and radial tyres as standard, and a new
centre console featuring a clock.
The next significant change was made in January 1968 with
the removal of the locating radius arms on the rear suspension
on all the UK models and on a lot of export cars as well.
In October of the same year the cars received a minor
facelift, with new grilles, new badges, and new seats,
plus the option of reclining seats on two-doors. The instruments were moved (again), the handbrake was
moved to the transmission tunnel, and a new gearchange
mechanism, a new gearbox casing, an internal bonnet release,
and a fully fused electrical system were introduced.
For the US market a polished wood veneer was added to
the dash, as used in the 1600E. About 80,000 Mk.II GTs
were sold. When first released, they were selling even
better than the Mk.I GTs, but when the 1600E was introduced,
the sales rate was cut in half, but they still sold respectably,
with the sales for the 1600E easily making up the difference.
The Steele 1600 GT Cortina
THE late Joe Craig once said that tuning was ninety-nine per cent perspiration and one per cent inspiration. Four decades on and there is still a great deal of truth in this. Back in the 1960's and 1970's it was not uncommond to encounter a "tuned" car which performed little better than the standard model, despite an impressive array of carburetters and extensive but haphazard modification of the cylinder head, camshaft, etc. Conversely there were some tuning specialist companies that demonstrated that careful attention to detail during the assembly of a perfectly standard engine could result in quite a worthwhile increase in performance (some of the Formula Ford engines providing good examples of this).
Although their nominal specification remained unchanged, those that received specialist attention usually developed significantly more power than their completely "stock" brethren. The Steele 1600GT was, in fact, based on Formula Ford practice. It received the same painstaking dimensional checks and adjustments, but as no formula regulations needed to be considered its power output had been further boosted by the use of a special camshaft and a moderate increase in compression ratio (from 9.0 up to 9.5 to 1).
Externally the Steele tuned version looked completely standard, save for an identification badge on the boot lid. Steele took an otherwise unmodified 1967 Cortina GT with its 1599 c.c. engine along with it's wide-ratio gearbox. There was nothing particularly wrong with this, however the taller gearing made it impossible to make meaningful comparison with later model GT's, the 1600E and Lotus iterations. The position was further complicated by the fact that the Cortina Lotus had a 3.78 to 1 rear axle ratio, compared with the 3.9 to 1 of the 1600E and the Steele 1600GT.
The Steele tuned engine was surprisingly flexible at all times, although as it warmed up some uneven running became evident at small throttle openings. This could be quite a nuisance in traffic; often necessitating a change into a lower gear to avoid unpleasant transmission snatch. It could well be due to over-richness in the progression stage, as opening the throttle instantly eliminated it. Apart from this the engine was surprisingly free from temperament. It was no noisier than the standard version and always idled reliably, if somewhat quickly.
Steele 1600GT, Cortina-Lotus and 1600E Comparison
The car's mean maximum speed of 100 mph was little better than the 98 mph returned by the 1600E, although given the size of the engine it should be remembered that even a small increase in maximum speed required a considerable increase in power - the Cortina Lotus's maximum of 104 mph illustrated that point. As previously mentioned, making comparisons between the various performance Cortina iterations could never be an exact science. From 0-80 mph through the gears the Steele 1600GT took 20.2 seconds, only 0.1 seconds more than the Cortina-Lotus but a full 6.4 seconds better than the 1600E's 26.6 sec. Over the standing quarter-mile the Steele 1600GT was fastest, taking 18.0 sec compared with the 18.2 seconds of the Cortina-Lotus and the 18.8 seconds of the 1600E.
Despite the better "step-off" which was afforded by the lower first gear of the Steele 1600GT (0-30 mph in 3.4 sec. commpared with the 3.6 sec of the Cortina-Lotus and the 4.1 sec of the 1600E), the Cortina-Lotus beat the Steele version, but only by 0.2 sec. up to 60 mph (11.0 sec for the Cortina-Lotus. 11.2 sec for the Steele 1600GT and 13.1 sec for the 1600E). The 1600E accelerated marginally faster than the Steele 1600GT over the 20-40 mph range in top gear (11.5 sec, compared with 11.8 sec). Surprisingly despite its higher gearing, the Cortina-Lotus took only 10.0 seconds, a good indication of the docile nature of the remarkkable engine.
It is in the middle speed range, 50-70 mph in top gear, that the Steele 1600 GT showed to best advantage. It took only 10.5 seconds, compared with the Cortina-Lotus' 12.4 sec and the 1600E's 12.1 sec. Relatively few special parts were used on the Steele 1600GT, but since the "Kent" series engines are even more robust than their predecessors there were no problems with reliablility. Although the Cortina-Lotus twin-cam engine was based on the old 1500 pre cross-flow engine, it incorporated a great many special parts to ensure maximum reliability. These included the crankshaft, connecting rods, pistons, clutch. flywheel, etc. In addition, there were details such as a cast-iron crankshaft pulley (instead of pressed-steel), a pressed-steel generator pulley (instead of plastic) and more robust generator mounting bracketsments not included on the Steele 1600GT.
Did that make the Lotus iteration better than the Steele? The answer was of course yes, however the Steele 1600GT was far more simple to maintain and had the advantage of being completely interchangeable with a standard push-rod unit. Certainly for such an innocent looking engine it performs remarkably well, and shows just how "tuneable" the Kent engine was.
