Miura, the original supercar

Thanks. This is good news.

 

I make it standard policy to send every Miura for restoration to the frame shop for checking the frame for straightness and lateral twisting. Virtually every car sent to be checked, has a twisted chassis. I am referring to accident free cars, with no rust in the chassis. As the series develops, the chassis strength is better, but because of the thin material used , the problem still exists. That's why I feel it is so important to properly stiffen the chassis prior to restoration. When the SV series came into production, the chassis used is different than S or p400 cars. Dimensionally different, and considerably stronger. But still needs to be reinforced to a lesser degree.
Gary Bobileff

 

the early P400 cars had a thin chassis that was prone to "flex"
whit this i do not mean permanently distorted or bent, but too much flex for optimal driving

 

so the flexing would contribute to the SV being a better handling car due to its stiffer chassis. of course the tires are bigger, but i would imagine the flex inherent in the cars affect the handling alot.

 

yes, it is not just a matter of tyres
the SV is a (finally) well developed version of the miura

 

Thanks, Gary. So what I was told by Mr Eisner back in 1978 was correct.

 

Please could I ask you, Gary where the weakness is in the chassis? Is it in the middle around the cockpit section or all over? I know the Boxer and Countach use a tubed frame but do they suffer from a similar weakness or is it just the Miura?

 

When I compare my un-restored P400 to my 328gts, I find the 328 has more shuttle shake than the P400. The Miura may not have the stiffest chassis around, but in my experience it seems comparable to other cars from the sixties. Although my friend noted my car was stiffer than the one he had. His was one of the early chassis.

Cheers Jim

 

Scr... the flexing, they are meant to be driven
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Great pic. Got any more?

 

I'm really excited about getting Joe's book. It'll be with me soon I hope.

 

In my experience, I have found that the chassis on Miura's twist longitudinally, from the engine/passenger compartment bulkhead to the front. Then, typically, the chassis part in back of the motor breaks it's welds, develops cracks from the motor torque, and weak motor mounts and the motor bangs against the bottom frame on the left side as well. Once these things start happening, the whole rear structure starts to distort from it's original shape. Also remember, that the front frame removable cross bar was originally perforated with lightening holes, then a stronger solid bar replaced this, to add a little more rigidity, along with the SV style gussets welded in place on top of the front frame members as well.All these minor items helped the front get somewhat stronger. The real key is to continuous weld everything, and replace the steel with thicker material. A slight sacrifice in weight, but worth it. The standard thickness of the chassis metal is about0.026" - 0.028", and I make all the floors, front and rear chassis pieces out of 0.042", with continuous welding, as opposed to a stitch weld everywhere. In the end, the chassis is immensely stronger, and you can actually feel the rigidity when you drive the car in tight corners.
Gary Bobileff

 

miura dudes ;
If you check out the restoration photos on Garys site re the "miura s" he did it shows this stiffening in great detail.


gary
Espada
8394

 

Thank you very much for your reply. I'm extremely grateful that a man of your rare expertise, and held in such high regard, has taken the time to do so. Please excuse my inability to understand which part of the chassis were between 0.026" - 0.028" (0.028"= 0.711 mm) ? Are you referring to the sheet metal that's applied/attached to the beams of the chassis for example the floor? I've read in quite a few places that apart from the first 3 Miuras the chassis on the first 125 Miuras were 0.9mm thick and after that they were 1.0mm thick. Is this measurement referring to the actual chassis beams (the ones with the holes in) that surround the car? Also how thick were they on the SV which were thicker again?

 

Sorry no more, just the one posted above. I also would love to see more pics of that event with that "rally" Miura.

Btw, about the flexing chassis topic, love this forum when the experts chime in and share there knowledge of theese cars.

 

I think you must distinguish between chassis tubes and the sheets which are welded onto the tubes.

 

I wouldn't call them tubes on a Miura. Tubes are what you'd find on a Countach or a Boxer. What I'm referring to are the beams with holes in that run up the sides of the cockpit in the sill area and are attached to the front and back of the tub surrounding the engine and petrol tank and have the wishbones attached to. Not the sheets.

 

That 'rally' miura does look good. The rear wheels seem to fill the arches well. Was there wider spacing on the S or just on this car in particular or is it just me seeing things?

 

Flexing... even if we can notice it while jumping from one Miura generation to another, who is in fact really able to make the difference on this board against the chrono ?

I'm interested to compute on my fingers who has the b...s to throw a Miura (I don't care about the Miura generation) from one tight corner to another one over 1.500 km of a Rally like "Tour de France" organised by Peter Auto ?

In opposite to the flexing, I will argue that the 1st Miura generation gives you much more sensations & thrills because it is the lighter of all... and it is for sure the "real wild thing" as it was show at Geneva & Monaco by Ferruccio himself... and not a civilized Miura for the wealthy guys expecting Limousine A/C treatment instead of sweeting in their shirt...

 

I agree with you. The first Miuras must have been wild and fast if lighter. I love the look of the prototype with it's glass rear window too and the way the 4 exhaust pipes exited higher up in the honeycombe. Flex is fine and wouldn't be of much concern to me but the reason for my questions was to find out if the chassis can permanently warp or twist due to weakness as was told to me. I'd also like to know if it was just the Miura that was prone to this or were any of the 275GTB4, Daytona, Boxer or Countach with tubular chassis succeptible to permanent chassis warping or twisting?

 

Sorry not, I've checked in my CAR August 1966... it is not the same content that Peter gave us the link... also not in CAR => 01/67, 12/67, 01/68, 11/70, 08/71

But I would love to know which magazine and publication date ???

 

I think we are speaking of small degrees, not massive changes from flexing, and I believe that is even more true regarding permanent bending. Restorations of extremely expensive cars warrant fixing even the smallest permanent frame deflections so I get what Bobilef is saying, but like I have said, I've yet to meet a Miura with permanent bending (not related to accidents) so bad that the doors would not open and close properly. So these must be very small permanent deflections. Again, glass would break and doors would bind if the deflection was measured in degrees, not fractions of degrees. I also believe the other cars you mentioned had better developed/engineered chassis that did now flex as much as the Miura. The period Ferraris had large and heavy (overkill imo) tube/ladder frames (like period Masers). That is why they are so heavy. Boxer and Countach had better engineered chassis that were strong and light imo.

 

Olivier and All,

There seems to be some confusion about mags with Miuras in the UK. Here's my analysis of the recent posts in cronological order.

1. Countach thread, page 499, post 9974: Joe mentions CAR, Convoy article ( Gold trio ) specilying ( correctly ) Feb 1977

2. Memorabilia thread, page 19, post 374, I put up my offering with the ( UK ) Sunday Times colour supplement from mid-1966 ( Olivier liked then photo of Marisa ).

3. Then, at the suggestion of Joe, I posted the same stuff on Miura thread, page 430, post 8588 to which Alberto responded with the reference to the August 1966 CAR issue, which I do not have. However, without delving through the archives at this moment, I believe now that the August 1966 CAR featured the RR Silver Shadow.

My first Lamborghini CAR issue is December 1966 where LJK Setright did the ( proported ) first ever 1000 miles in a Miura by a journalist.

All comments / corrections and additional info welcome.

Fantastic to read such amazing detailed stories. Thanks and compliments to Joe and Gary B

Peter

 

I always remember this 1975 article (may have been late 1974) and I can't remember if it was in Autocar or Motor about the RHD SV that was then owned by Ronald Stern UK registration JLL 838K. It was lime green (now red) then but it looked yellow to me in the pics. I bought the magazine when I was about 11 and I was besotted with the car. My father bought an SV the following year but unfortunately he took the magazine off me and threw it out because I spent too much time looking at it when I should have been doing my homework. If anyone has it I'd be extremely grateful if you could post the article on here. I remember there being a pic of a red Ferrari 365 Boxer in this particular mag with registration AEN 869M.