Got this image from a previous F-Chatter's post, but seems to apply....... Image Unavailable, Please Login
Just note that on Giotto's pix of post #131, Violati's 0118 still shows the pins for a tonneau. It could also be that the awfull rear view mirror was used to hide the hole for the Jag windscreen. I double my bet on 0118.
I was able to scan another photo that may or may not help. Also as an aside I found a shot of one of the other cars we imported in 1958, a oneoff NARDI FIAT VIGNALE 750 by Michelotti. Looking for more pictures to post. We'll see. The mystery continues??? Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Your color picture above is almost identical (certainly taken at the same time) as the cover photo for issue #1 of "Motor Trend's Sportscar Quarterly", from Winter 1958. Photo credit to Bob d'Olivo. The other car in the same picture (foreground) is a Lotus XI with a Fiat/Nardi engine of 750cc - same engine as the Nardi coupe! I see that the Nardi is wearing a license plate frame from "Fiat Universal" of North Hollywood.
You hit the nail on the head. I was actually in the photo on the cover of that issue. Now that you asked..............George Image Unavailable, Please Login
Actually, because that is issue #1 it sits at the top of the first stack of my collection of "Sports Car Graphic" in the bookcase right behind my desk at home, and I see it every day without fail, so I couldn't help but recognize the picture. Now, if it was issue #2, it would ring a bell that I had seen it somewhere, but I might not place it right away.
Still, you'd have to admit that it's a bizarre coincidence that George popped up on FChat fifty years after that issue was published with him on the cover. Aside from a few racing legends and auto builders, this probably isn't a normal occurrence. Personally, I just think it's pretty cool.
Still waiting to hear from M.M. but these observations lead me to this conclusion. Existing taneau cover snaps, front small turn lights, dash being redone, rear deck emblems and mirrors hiding XK120 ws mount all seem to say 0118A. The side emblems and chrome rocker strips are very strange?? All in all the feeling I have is unless there is a real mystery Ferrari outthere, 0118A so far gets my vote. The door is still open for M.M. to really set us straight. Thank you all for a mind blowing response.....We'll see?? George
Marcel is extremely busy at the moment (moving). After that he'll be at the Cavallino event and will be back 2nd February. We'll just have to be patient.
OK, you dudes. I've looked up Linc Cabraloff and left a message on his machine. We'll see if he responds and if he had pix. Zabasearch is wonderful.
All right, folks, I think we can eliminate 0118. I spoke w/ Linc Cabraloff, and he said no extra lights, and no sign of XK w/s. He got the car from Ron Kellogg, another friend of mine and a great car nut. Ron said he got the car from a "guy in Downey" (a suburb of LA). Ron installed the mahogony dash himself, and saw no sign under the cowl of another w/s having been installed, at least not of the XK variety. Funny side note: All this brought back the memory of this car being advertised in the LA Times. Now, we have maybe a half dozen Ferraris in the Times, but in the day (pre-FML) there used to be 1 to 2 columns of F-cars. I would go out and buy the sunday issue on sat afternoon to get a jump on the others, but when I called about this car it had already been sold---to a press-man at the Times! That must have been the guy in Downey, a working-class community.
I know that this all was not a figment of my imagination. I really thought 0118 was the answer. Well, more input I guess???
Today I'm meeting with Ron Kellogg who just happens to live 10 minutes from me and also owned 0118 in 1971. I had a phone conversation with him last eve. and he has a treasure trove of photos etc. that might help us find the mystery Ferrari. It really is a small world. I'll post more after the meet........George
After meeting with Ron Kellogg and viewing some photos of 0118, there are way too many contradictions for this to be the mystery Ferrari. Tail lights, front parking lights, chrome rocker strips, side emblems, w.s., rear decklid fasteners, dashboard etc. too many changes had to be made from 1957 to 1971 when Ron owned 0118A. We need M.M.'s help?? Any more ideas? Anybody?....................George PS: by the way Ron is the ultimate car guy. Nice guy, too.......
Glad you were able to meet him. Yes, Ron and Sonya are truly great people, and man have they had some super cars go through their hands.
After talking with Ron Kellogg and viewing some photos, I feel 0118 is a real longshot if not out altogether. Someone modified this Ferrari to be a street legal driver with W.S. taillights, top etc. and also put emblems and chrome rockers along the sides. If Hastings Harcourt of Santa Barbara did these mods and then something broke so it was sent back to Italy, this might work?? Now we are back to 0124. Could it be that someone does not want us to find the real truth about this mystery Ferrari? The missing 340 America?? Who knows? I usually don't spend time on way out theories but I really thought FerrariChat would grab this by the tail and problem solved. Keep thinking..................George
There are those who are probably hot on the trail with other motives in mind. $$$$$$$$$$$ Somebody could very well know exactly where the car is located but don't want other hounds on the trail. Silence is golden. Loose lips sink ships. I was also curious about the Ferrari script on the rear of the front fenders. Could this have been some aftermarket logo from a speedshop catalog of the 50s, and perhaps nothing from the factory at all?
One should be very careful when judging by what former and current owners have noticed, agree on and what they care to remember. Very few people have the gift to see what they are not looking for and this is why I am a little sceptic about statements over whether a car somebody owned decades ago did have a trace of this or that. Sometimes I am sure my car does not have this or that - until I go and have a look. With existing info, photos on your car and the fact that the dash board of 0118A has been modified over the years, I am now 99,4% sure your car was 0118A. It is possible we can't get further on with this, which is why I am going to stick to this until proven false. We now have: - It would be very difficult to explain how the car got the original style folding screens back if they were gone in 1957. 0124A has em, 0118A does not. - The plate light cover is located higher on 0118A compared to 0124A. This also matches your car. Why would someone relocate this thing? - Your car had a tonneau. 0118A still has one. 0124A never had one, it seems. Forget the theory about a mystery car. This car is a spot-on 1951 340 America. It definitely is one of the limited production series and we have ruled out every car except 0118A and 0124A. As I think we have also ruled out 0124A, only 0118A remains. Where do we go from here? Best wishes, kare
Thank you Kare, I believe you have stated the real facts and I'm with you so far until new info. tells us different...........George
I have just received some pix from Ron Kellogg, showing 0118 when he owned it around '69 to '71. I've scanned some into my CPU but can't seem to figure out how to save. Duh! Anyway, here are some of the numerous differences I see between 0118 and the mystery car: 0118 has no chrome strip; has no front turn signal lights; soft tonneau cover with snaps around cockpit; inside -laced rear wheels; trunk handles are vertical instead of horizontal; 2 locks are installed on trunk lid (higher and ouboard from where the extra lights are on the mystery car); "Superleggera" script instead of winged logo on trunk; "Ferrari" script instead of "V" logo on trunk; taillights are pointier and have a longer chrome bezel; 4 tailpipes instead of 2. I agree that all these things could have been changed, but with SO many differences I have to think that 0118 is not our car. Ron is a great guy and a real car enthusiast, and I think he agrees with this conclusion. Thanks, Ron!
