I'm at Jen's place. Things must have been pretty lame around here if anything I post is interesting...
I think they must have broken my rear window when it was painted resale red as my rear window has the "A" you mention above. Or would it have been a requirement to have it replaced when it was imported?? I estimate my car was imported around 82-83.
Hard to say big boy. It's very easy to break the rear window when the engine is removed, I suspect that's what happened. Chances are either 1. That's what was in stock here at the time or 2. The shop didn't know there was different glass. It's pretty hard to spot unless you look for it. The legal requirement for glass to be clear was well and truly over by 1979. Love and kisses, Carl.
Fair enough, always thought 40 rhd dry sump glass sounded a bit low, maybe the guy l spoke to just meant UK delivered cars. When did they stop putting dry sumps in 308's?
It's a good question birthday boy. The tooling involved to make the dry sump block would have been quite expensive, even the transmission case is different, not to mention the different bracketry for the tank, radiator and hoses. Perhaps the reason to go wet sump for the lot was to simply unify the production procedure and save costs. Plenty of Fiat accountants worming their way around the factory then.
I also suspect the dry sump arrangement may have had something to do with motorsport? There was a factory works car produced in 1976/77 labelled the 308 gtb/4. It was never proceeded with as a factory program...and the GTS models didn't have the bodyshell rigidity for that use. The dry sump arrangement being much more suitable for racing/rallying etc; Then the beancounters decided to standardize everything as Carl said!
Hi Pete, all the Michelotto 308's were dry sump for example, even after 1980. Note, the 308 GT/4 Le Mans car retained the wet sump, but with extra baffles. Here I am trying to steal parts from a Michelotto 308 Regards, Carl. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Mystery solved. My car sits higher at the rear than any of the cars i've measured so far, but I just discovered that the rear springs for the aussie and US cars are 17mm longer than the euro spec cars, but otherwise identical. At a ratio of 1.5:1 that means that the guards are 25mm higher than the euro cars, which is exactly what I've found. That means that despite my car looking 'odd', it's completely normal for an aussie delivered car. Set of new springs coming up thanks! Image Unavailable, Please Login
no...front springs are 10mm longer and my car sits 10mm higher...so maybe front ratio is close to 1:1?
That's weird, why would they have used longer springs on the US and Aus cars? Is it because they are heavier with extra anti pollution stuff, or is it because those customers expected a softer ride?
The spring rate is the same. They're just longer. I can't see why an Aussie car would be heavier than a UK/euro car. Sure there was the anti pollution stuff, but the dry sump arrangement is heavier i think. Very odd. Maybe the Italians think our roads are like goat tracks and we need the ground clearance.
Yes, it was lovely, and fast. About a second a lap faster than the Group A Daytona's at Hockenheim too. But for 650,000 Euro, it would want to be good! A few more pics, and the driver. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
I think the ground clearance was the issue. Aussie Qv have higher ride height too thanks to small spacers at the top of the spring perches.
