Ferrari-the Ultimate classic (Ferrari Lovefest Topic)

Mr_Shiftright

Well that's what the book says. You have to remember a 1970 car is pretty primitive by modern standards.

As for "tweaking", I know that valve adjustments are required often and they are tedious (shim method). Also balancing a bunch of Webers isn't any fun. Parts tend to be expensive as well. You could easily pay $100 for a drive belt.

im_brentwood

But better than a 348!

Valve adjustements? Every 3K in the 356s!

Bill

ghulet

I loved this car as a teenager ('80s) and remember seeing a convertible in a mall 'drop off circle', running, with nobody inside. The friend I was with and I just looked at each other, grinning, apparently without the sack to 'take it away'. I guess I don't regret that decision.

I know these aren't the fastest, most beautiful or most rare Ferrari, but I do love them, I guess for their styling restraint (especially versus the Testarossa), the fact that they're inexpensive (relatively, to purchase, anyway) and that they have four seats (not a plus for most Ferraris, I realize).

merckx

I agree;I think it is a very pleasant-looking car.It's not as dynamic as the two place "door-stop"308s,348s,etc.,which is probably why I like it. It's got a bit of restraint. Not many agree;I understand used ones are surprisingly affordable.
But those overly low-slung coupes I often find to be just a bit ridiculous,even though we car lovers are supposed to be mad for them.

I think a Mondial 2+2 would be a great way for a working joe to have a Ferrarri.

jrosasmc

I noticed long ago that every Mondial has the exact same outside door handles as the Alfa Spider. Any reason for this?

Mr_Shiftright

Italians love beauty and spread it around?

The big trap with Mondials is that you have the same, or worse, maintenance costs than with the sexy Ferraris, but none of the resale or investment value. I believe that to service a Mondial you take the engine OUT. You know that's not cheap and you haven't even done the service yet!

speedshift

Sounds like a candidate for "enemies of the (relatively) poor".

Not a Ferrari but I saw an ad for a 1969 Lambo Espada with 41k for $26,500. If you squint it looks a little like a '71 Mustang Mach 1. Is this a snare and a delusion to the unwary or a nice car to have in your garage? Might be worth the money just to be able to roll it out to your driveway and slowly and publicly wash it.

tsaupe1

I'm not sure about having to remove the engine to service a Mondial. I looked at several coupes prior to buying my GT4 and, if memory serves correctly, there was just as much room around the engine as in mine. Plugs, belts and most things are pretty available either from the top or through the passenger side wheel well.

Regarding Speedshift's questions on maintenance, The pre-electronic V8's have dual point distributors, so yes, four sets of points. The belts should be replaced every five years or 15,000 miles. And yes, it's a belt not a chain from the GT4 onwards.

Off subject, I, too, always thought the Lamborghini Espada was a beautiful car. However, from what I've heard, Lamborghini's make Ferrari's look like maintenance free motor cars!

tsaupe1

I'll bet the door handles on the Mondial are the same as the Alfa. The latches on my Dino are Fiat. I think they're the same as the Fiat X1.9. Another Bertone design.

I'm sure if they were proprietary designs, the car would have cost an extra $2000.

Tom

Mr_Shiftright

Alfa door handles are beautiful. You couldn't get much better than that anyway.

andys120

to borrow trim items such as tailights, side markers, door handles etc. from lesser makes
particularly Fiats. The tailights from a 124 Spider show up on several Ferraris and the Daytona uses the tls from the 850, I think.

jrosasmc

Yeah, compared to a Chevy, I've heard Lamborghinis require a ton of maintenance to keep them going.

andys120

I saw a silver 250 Lusso back in '64 (details in an earlier post) and quickly realized that Rosso Red would not improve the looks of it. Ever since I've been inclined to prefer Ferraris in other colors.

There are many colors in my personal stable of Ferraris, which unfortunately are only 1/25 scale.

Here are some of the colors I've chosen for my Ferraris:

-250 GT SWB-Rosso Red
-250 GT Spider California-Metallic Burgundy
-206 Dino Coupe-Black
-246 Dino Spider-Fly Yellow
-275 GTB-Silver
-275 GTB/Spider-Rosso Red
-365 Daytona GTB-Fly Yellow
-365 Daytona GTS-Metallic Dark Blue
-365 BB-Rosso Red
-Testarossa (1985)-Silver
-328 GTS-Metallic Teal
-355 GTS-Rosso Red
-F40 Rosso Red

If I had 'em to do again I might have picked different colors for some of these (I've already re-sprayed a couple). I'm interested in your opinions on the best colors for these or any particular Ferraris. I assume you won't be afraid to tell me they should be Red!

Incidentally there are some racing cars in my collection in factory livery which are all of course Rosso Red.

BTW I'm pretty sure they changed the red in the 80s and went to a more pinkish hue that had some
flouresence to it. I've never been able to confirm this but I paint my models different shades according to year.

speedshift

Why do they call it Fly Yellow? Do I want to know?

tsaupe1

Speedshift, I'm pretty sure the expression started with a yellow exotic in the blaxploytation movie "Superfly" in the early 70's. The car was actually a yellow Lamborghini Countach, I think, driven by a black detective in Italy. I'm not sure about that, never saw the movie, only remember the car in the previews! Anyway, I think the name stuck after the movie was forgotten.

Andy, yes, the red has been changed, at least on the racing equipment. the F1 cars were re painted to a red that is closer to the Marlboro cigarette red. I guess for the right amount of donation towards Shuey's salary, even the Scuderia will accommodate!

By the way, My Dino's Black on Black. It's IMHO, the best colour for the car as it hides the ugly federal bumpers by making them blend with the rest of the car.

andys120

but I don't know what they called it in the 50' & 60s although I think they called it that on Daytonas which came out in '69. Fly Yellow is almost as much of a "signature" color for Ferrari as Rosso Red IMO.

tsaupe1

Andys120, I think I have the answer. The actual name of the colour is Giallo Modena. Modena is where Enzo grew up and the areas official colour is yellow. However it is also known at the factory as Ferrari Light Yellow!

You're right, it is a signature colour. On alot of models it's actually more appealing than red.

Tom

andys120

You are truly a knowlegeable Tifosi.

tsaupe1

Getting back to the original premise of this board, which Ferrari's are the "ultimate" classics. Which of these very special cars are the most special? What makes a classic? Performance? Styling? Competition heritage? All of the above?

I'll stick my neck out with three. These are not in order and the list changes from day to day, maybe hour to hour, but for now, here goes;

250 GTO. This was not only a beautiful Pinifarina shape but it is one of the legendary racing machines of all time. It's accomplishments are too long a list to post here, but remember, this is the car that forced Ford to build the Gt40.

275 GTB4 Long Nose. Again, a beautiful Pinifarina shape that perfectly blends elegance and aggression. A great handling, fast car that was comfortable. It's an immediately recognizable motorcar and, IMHO, a Ferrari icon.

250 California Spyder. Sports cars are supposed to be open and this beauty just looks fabulous in top-down mode. I've been fortunate enough to spend time at Concorso Italiano each summer and the few example of this model that are there each year stand out from the pack! Amongst the hundreds of Ferraris, not to mention all the other spectacular Italian sheet metal on the field, the California Spyder just seem to be in a class of there own.

So there's my short list. What would you add or subtract?

Tom

Mr_Shiftright

My rules for classics are:

Power
Prestige
Beauty
Rarity

Hopefully all of the above in one car (which is difficult), and it large amounts.

jrosasmc

You wouldn't use a Ferrari on a daily commute to work, would you?

tsaupe1

I drive my '79 308 GT4 Dino to work 11 miles each way during the good weather. It never sees snow or rain (unless I'm caught in it) and gets an occasional day off when I have to take my pick-up.

It's so great to drive that I get antsy if a few days go by without a run in it. I'd say at least 3 out of 5 or 4 out of 7 days a week the car is being driven. I will admit that the drive to work is over rural roads with little traffic. Ferraris aren't happy in continuous stop and go City traffic, and neither would your left foot and leg with the extremely heavy clutch!

Tom

im_brentwood

In 1997 I put well over 10K miles on my 1992 348TS...

Bill

andys120

Beauty-IMO the most beautiful CAR I've ever seen
let alone the most beautiful Ferrari.

Rarity-Not as unusual as a GTO but still relatively rare.

Power-well, a little on the mild side for a 250 but still it's a 12 cyl. Ferrari.

Prestige-it's a beautiful 12 cyl. Ferrari from the 250 series.

Mr_Shiftright

The Lusso isn't rare by Ferrari standards (about 350 cars) and the GTO is therefore just about ten times as rare with 39 cars. What's amazing is the price difference. About $125K for a Lusso and about $8 million for a GTO.

Here again, POWER and PRESTIGE and RARITY give the GTO a lot more value.

andys120

the GTO is the ultimate Ferrari Classic.

Given the choice I would probably still take the Lusso but I wouldn't mind if it had the GTO motor in it.

tsaupe1

I think I agree, the 250 GTO is probably the ultimate Ferrari. But, just as the SJ is probably the ultimate Duesenberg, there are many other Duesy's that fall into the classic category.

How's this for a more "modern" classic. the 365 GTS4 Daytona Spyder.

Beauty: What can you say, it's as satisfying a design now as it was then, still very contemporary and decidedly elegant.

Rarity: fewer than 100 actual factory Spyders. Most that you see are actually converted coupes. Although I haven't got the numbers in front of me, the actual number may be in just double digits.

Power: In its day, it was one of the two fastest road cars in the world with a top end around 180 MPH.

Prestige: well, it's probably hard to judge, but I'm in awe of the car and certainly would consider the ownership of an example to be very prestigious indeed!

What's your choice?

Tom

andys120

not that it's a real choice that I have. I think you're right about the number of Spiders being low- I recall it being in the 20s.

The number was so low that my references call it the 365 GTB/4 Spider (not GTS)-Ferrari nomenclature never being very consistent.

The Daytona does look incredibly contemporary for a 1969 car although some (not me)criticize the styling as "Italian Corvette". It's not really much more "modern" than a GTO (1963-4).

tsaupe1

Andy120, you're right about the Daytona, of course. Technilogically, it's not a huge jump from the GTO. More of a refinement really. But remember that it was supposed by many, including the factory, I think, to be the last front engined Ferrari road car. It nearly was. It was a long stretch between the Daytona and the 550.

Any thoughts on the new FX or F60 (which ever designation it finally ends up with)? It looks pretty exciting to me and the rumored performance figures look pretty impressive.

I'm sure some will hate its F1 inspired design. Personally, I love it. Can't wait to see it in the flesh. My wife and I will be in Maranello in June and I have high hopes for a glimpse!

andys120

the looks of the ultra-Ferraris has gone steadily downhill since they retired the F40. The performance has of course gone up, but you can't use it in the real world, even in Europe.

Tsaupe, I hope we can count on a full report from Maranello, have a great trip!

andys120

The death of Rob Walker the other day reminded me of a story about Stirling Moss driving a Rob Walker Ferrari. Moss (now Sir Stirling) never drove for Ferrari in F1 but in 1960 he drove Rob Walker's 250 GT SWB in the Goodwood Tourist Trophy Sports car race. Moss and the 250 were quite fast that day and before too long they had lapped the entire field. According to the story (which was recounted in a Legends of Motorsport episode), Moss staved off boredom by turning on the car's radio and listening to music whilst he lapped and relapped the field.

I love this story because it comes from the "golden age" of racing. It illustrates the prowess of Stirling Moss, my first driving hero and illustrates the fact that there was a time when street performance cars could be and where successfully raced. It also illustrates the capabilities of the 250 GT Short Wheelbase Berlinetta, a car that to me is the quintessential Ferrari, the car I see in my mind when you say the word "Ferrari".

Rob Walker's racer was identical to the street version except for a lightweight alloy body, the addition of a competition gas filler, racing tires (on Borrani wires) and the substitution of sliding plastic side windows for roll-down glass. Truly a "Bella Machina."

This relates to my previous post. I think my lack of enthusiasm for the "F" cars (F40/50/60?) stems from the fact that they are neither fish nor fowl. They have too much performance and are too bare-boned to be useful on the street yet they aren't much use in serious competition.

im_brentwood

Rob Walker died?



Bill

speedshift

He's the Rob Walker who wrote for Road & Track?

andys120

one of the interesting participants in the golden age. You'll find an interesting discussion thread on him in the F1 forum at www.motorsport.com

tsaupe1

It was with enormous sadness that I read of Rob Walker's death. I grew up in that era with heros like Moss and Hill, both Phil and Graham. It truly was a golden age in my mind.

Although I never met Rob Walker, I have had the good fortune to have met Sterling Moss and Phil Hill. Both are often in attendance at the Monterey Car weekend events. They are accessible, pleasant gentlemen who still appreciate their fans, even after all these years. Both of these men are legends and could easily act as such, but they remain the enthusiasts they always were and will be.

Somehow, as much as I admire him, I don't see Schuey in the same "place" 20 years from now.

Speaking of legends. I recently had my car in the shop and there was a pontoon fendered Tessa Rossa in for service. I agree with you Andy, the older cars have so much more personality than the newer ones. However, I just can't stop marvelling at the technology that continuese to evolve!

Mr_Shiftright

Probably one big difference between the older and newer Ferraris is that the new ones are mass-produced (for the most part). This is why, for instance, 80s Testarossas are still falling in value, because they made a lot of them and they are pretty much all the same. Not only are the older cars very rare in number, but there are amazing differences between the supposedly same type of car.

tsaupe1

Mr. Shiftright,

I think in many ways you're right. the TR and even more so, the 308 in all its variants were "mass produced." It's true that there are not the variants that you find in earlier cars. There is also not the quality variations that were prevelant as well.

The old saying was that you didn't want a Ferrari built on a Monday or after lunch. To a certain extent that was true. "Mass production" (please, let's not confuse this with GM) eliminated some of these QC problems. Moreover, had it not been for the 308 series (including my car, a lowly Dino GT4) and the other mass-produced cars, Ferrari might not have survived.

I don't think that you'll find the same production numbers in the 360 and the 550 that occurred for the 308 series and the TR. These high production number cars served their purpose. Ferrari has gone back to exclusivity because they can afford to!

Yes, when Fiat took over things changed. The cars became more available and less individualistic, but had that not happened, I think we'd be talking about the marque, as a whole, in the past tense.

Tom

Mr_Shiftright

You got that right. Ferraris today are in many ways far better automobiles. I think the appeal of the old ones lies not in their mechanical prowess, but their beauty and their history.

Ferraris are still a unique experience. Just about anyone who you hear these days talking trash about Ferrari on these boards or in the local tavern have never been in one, much less been taken for a ride by an expert driver. If they did, they wouldn't be comparing them to Camaros and Corvettes and Toyota Supras on the basis of 0-60 times or "value for the dollar".

When you've had the complete Ferrari experience, such things don't really matter, because when you buy into a Ferrari you get something that no one else experiences in another type of car.

andys120

I just got the new issue of Autoweek with a cover story on a most unusual car. It's called the Torpedo Roadster it was commissioned by a super wealthy fellow, Eric Zausner.

This car features a 550 Maranello drivetrain, V12 and all, under a custom designed roadster body that borrows design elements from cars as disparate as the '32 Ford "High Boy", Alfa Romeo 8C F1 car, Ferrari 166MM and Barchetta.

I checked the Autoweek web site and they don't yet have this week's issue posted but check it out and let us know if you agree with me that this is one of the coolest customs ever built.

tsaupe1

andys120, I just looked at the photos and read the article. You're right, it's an amazing feat and a beautiful car.

But I have to admit, my first impression wasn't positive. I really had to go through all the photos to really appreciate it. I hope that he brings it to Pebble, or the Concourso Italiano this August. I'd love to see it in the flesh!

So, what would you do different, if you had the money?

Tom

Mr_Shiftright

My friend just saw this car in the flesh (it's right here in the Bay Area) and he said it looks great in "person", and he has pretty good taste. When he first passed the car he only saw the rear end and he thought it was a 166 Barchetta from a distance.

It's the rare custom "rod" that is done in really good taste. Most automotive fantasies aren't thought out very well and look "stuck together".

andys120

According to today's NY Times continuing poor sales and revenue at the Fiat Group have caused them to consider offering shares in the Ferrari SPA subsidiary to the public.

Having once made a tidy profit on Jaguar stock when Ford bought it in the 80s, I find this to be an interesting investment possibility which I will be discussing with my investment counselor.

Mr_Shiftright

You gotta be a bit careful with Italians. On the map of Europe it really looks like this is a single cohesive, prosperous country called "Italy", but in fact it is a hundred medieval duchies and principalities, which can, and have, shot themselves in the foot many times throughout history.

tsaupe1

My understanding is that Fiat will, obviously, retain a controlling interest. they are also concerned about a hostile takeover by Bimmer or the like.

I've also read that Fiat is laying off something like 5000 workers in the automotive group. It doesn't sound like the corporation is very healthy.

I might be interested in a few shares. Heck, they're probably a lot cheaper than parts!

Tom

andys120

They are bleeding red ink to such an extent that
Gianni Agnelli's brother, Umberto who chairs the holding company that actually owns Fiat is said to be urging that they get out of the car biz (sell to GM?). Gianni is said to favor retaining the car-building business.

A behind the scenes struggle may determine the fate of Fiat, Alfa, Lancia, Maserati and
Ferrari.

andys120

My motorcycle calendar has a 1954 Ferrari bike on it. It's red, has what appears to be a one lunger with a small carb and drum brakes with
"FB Brecia Italy" on the drums.

Anyone know if it's the same Ferrari and anything else about Ferrari motorcycles?

Can you help Shifty?

Mr_Shiftright

Here's a post from a motorcycle board that may clear up the problem. I cannot verify the accuracy of it but it certainly sounds plausible and well-researched.

(post from other board follows):



"As the story goes, in 1953 it was rumored that Ferrari would unveil a motorcycle at the Motosalone di Milano. It was a 125cc
single-cylinder two stroke with a two speed gearbox. Naturally what was on display was painted bright Italian racing red and
sported a genuine Ferrari logo, probably for about the duration of the show. Just long enough to get some orders from the
more gullible enthusiasts. Unfortunately what they were ordering wasn't a product of Enzo Ferrari, but Fratelli Ferrari instead.
They were just two brothers who happened to share the popular Italian surname. Meanwhile the real Ferrari (Enzo) was not at
all pleased.

The bike itself lacked any remarkable performance and simply sported an engine that was more or less a direct copy of a
Parilla 125/250cc. Apparently one of the brothers had worked in the Parilla factory for a while.

I only hope that the Ferrari motorcycle seen at the All-Italian Concours didn't win a prize because people mistook it for the
Ferrari of sportscar fame....but, on the other hand, a genuine "Fratelli Ferrari" is not only rare, but has a unique story behind it.

Noel Leavitt -- mleavitt@tiac.net

jrosasmc

Even though the last Testarossas in 1991 cost in excess of $180k when new, I see some examples from that era going for way less than $100k, like around $75k to $90k? Any reason for this, or is it just that the Ferrari fans don't care about this beautiful car anymore?

Mr_Shiftright

The problem with the Testarossa is that they made a lot of them. They are essentially Ferrari's first mass produced car.

So given that there are thousands and thousands of them out there, and that maintenance and repair costs are shocking, the depreciation will continue and eventually bottom out, I'd say at around $35K.

andys120

cars. They made a lot more of those than TRs.

IMO the TRs are tanking because they were replaced by the front-engined 458 and 550. The introduction of these cars caused a redirection of the whole Ferrari gestalt toward the "classic" front engine cars.

The market never fully embraced the Boxer Berlinettas either so the idea was always there that the pure Ferrari was front engined and a V12
(not a mid-mounted Flat12).

The Testarossas are hard to see out of, hard to get in and out of and only marginally good-looking (some think they're ugly-I don't) oh...and hideous to work on.

Some years from now a middle class tifosi will go into cardiac arrest when presented with $10k tune up bill for the TR he acquired for only $35k.