ID? My very old Ferrari..

If somebody reworked the trunk lid covering up the extra holes and stuff, he may have done many small mods and repairs before repainting. There would also be a 12 year gap between George and Ron; for a car that's a long time. The real problem is, however, that we seem to have nowhere to go from here. Does Ron remember where he got this car? Best wishes, Kare

 

now theres ANOTHER story we want to hear about!!!!


doug

 

Here's a couple more logs for the fire.

The first ad shown is from Road & Track, June 1953. George says he obtained the car from Michele Vernola in Italy, and here we have an ad from "Mike" Vernola in Italy, selling a 4.1 Ferrari for $7375. Same car?

The second ad is from Road & Track, May 1954, and it goes along with the ad pictured in post 119, which was from July 1954. But this ad contributes a few more details. First, the car is described as being "ex-Kimberly", which was not stated in the later ad, and second, it is stated that the car was "donated" to the Music Academy by Stuart Sherman, a name which has not yet appeared in this discussion. I googled the name Stuart Sherman, and found that he also owned a Siata 208 Coupe at approximately the same time in question (1953-55).

That's about as far as I can take this. Does it mean anything to you experts?
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

This was posted one month ago - still no sure answer!

It's not my area of expertise but is it not very possible that this could be a 166 or 212 touring barchetta that was re-engined?

 

"Kimberly car" is 0124A.

 

Tasman246,

I'm not sure, don't the 166 and 212 have other significant differences under the skin?


Miltonian,

The first ad must be the car. However, the second ad MAY be the car, how many 4.1 Ferraris were in California at the time?

Regards,

Art S.

 

I wouldn't jump into conclusions. While 340 Americas were not built in great numbers, how many professional or semi-professional car slugs would keep a $7375 car in their inventory for 4 years? I mean how do we make sure that Vernola was not involved in selling one 4.1-litre into USA in 1953, and grabbed another as soon as he found one in 1957? 0196A for one came into USA between 1952 and 1955; the likelyhood of going through hands of someone exporting cars into USA and being advertised somewhere is quite high after all...

Charles Brown advertised 0118A for sale in USA in 11/53 and 0124A was being advertised for sale in USA 07/54 (that other add) so if George's car was advertised by Vernolas as early as in 1953, it would eliminate both candidates. That is not fun.

Best wishes, Kare

 

I'm sorry to bang on about the possibility of re-engined 166 or 212's, but is this not quite possible? I bring this up because of the difficulty of attributing this car to the known 340's.
I believe 030MT & 032MT were both converted by the factory from the 275S, which had the same wheelbase as the 212's and nearly as the 166MM's (50mm shorter).
If this is possible this gives another 31 cars which were originally built as Touring Barchettas, not to say that some other chassis couldn't have had a TB body put on later either.
Or am I missing something?
Kare?

 

With all respect, yes, you are missing something.
0030A has a wheelbase of 2420mm (I measured it myself only two weeks ago!).
I can also confirm that unlike general believe it is not possible to fit a 4.1 Lampredi in a 166/212 chassis without major surgery.
Bart340

 

Thanks.
I guess the factory upgraded the chassis to full 340 spec when they fiited the Lampredi engine.
As a matter of interest what do you call major surgery?
I know the engine is a few inches longer but that doesn't neccessarily mean it's not feasible to swap it.
Altering a couple of crossmebers or whatever is no big deal.
An example is the 330 America which is basically a 250 GTE fitted with the long block engine without any external change as far as I know.
Ceratinly the wheelbase is the same.

 

I was looking through the old Road & Track ads again last night, and I think I have solved a "mystery in the history" on 0124A. You may have noticed that the ownership records for 0124A in the online sites go from Hastings Harcourt to someone apparently named "Ben", in 1958. Check out this ad from R&T, March 1955. "Ben" is a gentleman named Phil Taylor, who lives on Ben Avenue in North Hollywood!

According to what I have seen so far, that would mean that 0124A went from Kimberly, to Stuart Sherman, to the Music Academy, to Harcourt, to Taylor, to ?????

I'll have something else in a few minutes.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

OK, this one is a "what if?". The next ad I found was from Road & Track, February 1956 - a year after the ad posted above. I have no way of knowing if this is the same car. The ad does not mention a connection with Kimberly, instead it mentions a connection with the Geneva Auto Show. But it's a 4.1 with a Touring body, and it has a damaged connecting rod. And it's in Los Angeles.

What if..... Taylor, or someone that Taylor sold the car to, damaged the engine and unloaded the car to Universal Motors? Then, what if the car was shipped back to Italy and ended up with Michele Vernola, who sold it to George and shipped it back to the States to George in July 1957. As far as a timeline, wouldn't that all fit?

Does anyone know if a 340 Touring roadster appeared at Geneva in 1951? Of course, that could have been bull advertised by Univeral Motors, who may have wanted to advertise a show heritage instead of a racing heritage.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

330 America engine used a bored out 3-litre block. It is not the same engine as used in 330GT (tipo 209).

 

Could that be 0032MT? It seems to have stopped racing in 1955, had engine problems (and replaced) at some point and was located in California. I have no 340 Touring displayed in Geneva, but 0032/MT appeared in Turin in 1952 and was restyled for the show, which might also explain why it was recognized being an old show car.

 

It's way OT, but my grandmother lived on the same Ben Avenue when I was growing up. Thanks for giving me a run through memory lane on a house I hadn't thought of in years. Back to your regularly scheduled mystery..

 

Kare, are you sure? I admit I haven't seen a 330 America but according to Godfrey Eaton in The Complete Ferrari (1986):

'......the traditional 90mm between bore centre lines of the Colombo short-block engine had to be extended to 94mm for the type 209 engine of the 330s. So there was an installation problem with the longer engine although in retrospect it was apparently not too difficult to overcome. The type 209 engine in its early examples used the timing case of the Type 163 engine which had been used for the 400 Superamerica. Because of this it has been concluded by some that the 330 America was powered by that engine (ie 163 rather than the 209), but this was in fact not the case.'
My comment in brackets.
I just found a photo of a 330 America engine bay on M Sheehan's site. Sure looks like a 209 to me.

Irrespective of this I take it you don't consider it feasible that the mystery car could be a re-engined 166 or 212.

Is this because:
1. You don't believe the bigger engine (and maybe gearbox) could physically be fitted in those cars.
or
2. If it could be it's very unlikely it was.
or
3. You can tell from the photos that the body is not that of a 166/212 with their shorter wheelbases.
or
4. All 166 & 212 are reliably accounted for.
or
5. Something else I haven't considered?
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Per numero internos engine blocks were picked out of 250-production. First batch of engines was around 1716..1722/62E and the 2nd batch around 1798..1866/62E. It seems unlikely that these would have been longer blocks and 77 bore would reduce the wall between two cylinders from 17 mm to just 13 mm, which was incresed back up to 17 mm on "real" tipo 209. This goes well together with that 330 America engines are often thought to be a little fragile. I admit though that in pictures engine look more like a "real" tipo 209 than tipo 128. I am sure someone can either deny or confirm all this.

1. 166 hardly, 212 maybe.
2. Very unlikely, yes.
3. I don't think wheelbase can be reliably estimated on an angled photo, but 166 body is very different; tail lights in trunk only.
4. Not so. 0158ED has a tempting gap from 1956 on.
5. Think so: all possible 212 exports has the nose badge installed very close to the bonnet edge. George's car has it further back. It is actually funny that the only car that has the badge installed further back is 0124A.

 

I have been trying to establish which 4.1 was being offered by Vernola. There is reference to Dabney Collins at the top of the photocopy. He was the driver of 0140 at one point but I am assuming there is no connection with him to the Vernola 4.1.. Anyone out there have an idea which 4.1 Venola was selling?? Considering the date of the ad it has to be an early Touring or Vignalle spyder. tongascrew

 

I am glad you realised afterall that the 330 America engine is NOT a Lampredi but a Colombo engine so the comparison you made is not valid.
The chassis length difference between a 212 and a 340 is in the engine area only. As the engine can not be moved forward, fitting a Lampredi engine in a 212 chassis reguires the firewall and gearbox to be moved rearwards about 125 mm. with all the consequences for the interior. That is what I call major surgery. This can not be done unnoticed and I think was never done by the factory as some people have suggested in the past. (meaning also that 0030MT and 0032MT were born with 2420mm wheelbase)
Kare mentioned already that no proper sideview of the complete car is available to measure the wheelbase like I was able to measure the airfilter pitch to confirm the engine to be Lampredi. But careful comparison with other pictures taken under the same angle will show you that the distance between the front wheel arch and the door corresponds to a 340 wheelbase.
Bart

 

I've just spoken to a friend in Scotland who has a 330 America (#5013). It is fitted with it's original engine which is a long block, and is stamped 209B.
Of course the 330 engine is not a Lampredi but a stretched Colombo (I lost the plot there), but the point is that it is longer than the 250, so the comparison I made is somewhat valid. Another example is the 209 engine fitted in 4 of the 250GTO's.

(Can someone tell us the difference in length between a 212 and 340 engine, and also between a 250 GTE and 330 engine?)

I still maintain that fitting a longer engine is not such a big deal and could easily have been done if someone had really wanted to.

 

Tipo 209B is supposed to be the protoype version of "real" tipo 209 and seems to use 4-litre internals installed into a 3-litre block. Can you get the internal enigne number of engine 5013? It is still missing and would further solve how these cars were built! Best wishes, Kare

 

I will see what I can get. The owner is adamant it's not a 250 size block so I'll get some dimensions too.

 

It is possible that they did produce a longer block for the early tipo 209B and numbered them in 250-sequence just because it was they were cast among normal production. It is perfectly normal to make a proto-series by replacing the casting patterns in the middle of a production series to get the needed special pieces done so they donät really need to be the same block. The tipo 209B seems not to be identical with the "real" tipo 209 however, but maybe they did lengthen the block first and some other changes (wider heads maybe?) later. There must be some differences as tipo 209B is thought to be a little fragile because things are getting packed a little too tight there, they say...