Got Low Body?

Well said Roy. Your outlook on exotic car ownership really resonates with me, who gives a flying F what others think. Squeeze every ounce of enjoyment out of them, if and when there is a new owner let them decide how to best experience the car.

 

You should. Here (below) is the pic from the other thread you posted and it shows the car sits as high as a later Countach. That will impact how it drives & handles, not to mention how it looks. A Low Body should be, well, LOW, and that is its whole appeal over other Countach variants.

We had the same problem with 1121038 and in our case it was because the wrong springs were installed..
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I remember a time when some people claimed that there wasn't such an animal as a lowbody Countach. We're living in a time after the Dark Ages now, having gone through the Lowbody Enlightenment.

 

1121038 in Low Body stance.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I've been meaning to point something out I noticed about 1038.

I notice that the wing stand-offs on 1038 are installed right at the trailing edge of the trunk lid, but every other Countach equipped with the rhomboid/Wolf stand-offs that I can find photos of look have them installed a small distance, perhaps 2 inches, forward of that location.

It has been this way on 1038 for some time, previous to the recent restoration.

Compare the above photo of 1038 with this photo of 1002:

Wolf 1002

I almost wonder if 1038's wing was at some point moved, perhaps when the custom white sections were added to the livery, back in the day.

1038, once upon a time...

 

Great observations. I think these wings were bolted down on-the-fly and landed where they landed. 1038's wing hasn't moved. 0148's wing is similarly close to the trailing edge, but I have to agree 1038's is the most extreme Ive seen. Perhaps that's one of the cool things about it.

 

Some people do. And it doesn't mean they are self-conscious or insecure either. It can mean they are both prudent & wise. It can also mean that they are open-minded and not self-centered.

For some people, especially in the case of old classic cars, this positive attitude can help them enjoy the cars more.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

For me, it's post like this that make no sense..and dont understand why the community would accept such a response../?

I dont know who owns this car now, but it is a beautiful car. I remember seeing it quite a bit when the previous owners had it out of Las Vegas, almost bought it at one point. Here we have a poster posting pics that show the wing, in what appears to be in two differnt locations, prior and after.

Yes in this thread and other threads, big posting and so "concerned" about what is 100% correct..yet when pointed out as in tis posting...it is just "dis-missed" with a comment like this..how can you support that kind of "sweep it under the rug" comment..I just dont understand the back and forth fence jumping..either is was wrong previous or it is wrong now..?

I am not an expert, but I have NEVER seen a Countach wing, regardless of year with the wing completely mounted all the way to the rear..??

But being the "self-centered" person I am LOL I dont really care, its still a Lambo and and a great car...

Just food for thought..

 

That is a bit strange on the wing location. One thing that I have learned, after owning a couple hand built cars is this: They must have drank hard at lunch time .

 

LOL!
Quite true

 

LOL good one...I guess I will start using that excuse on any car that does not appear to be 100% correct to any one..

 

You misread me Roy. I am saying that the wing on 1038 has been in the same location since before the recent restoration. It may have been in that location the entire life of the car, as Joe states. I'm merely pointing out that this car's wing appears to me to be in a different location than any similarly equipped cars that I can find photos of.

As far as I know the two best people to ask about this particular wing on this site would be Joe and Gary Bobeleff, both of whom I would assume would have seen the mounting area for the wing when the car was in for paint during that recent restoration. As such I fully accept Joe's post as being true to the best of his knowledge.

 

You misunderstood my post by choosing to ignore the 2 operative words "I think". I used them because I'm not sure, and I often do so. There are many historical aspects of the cars we love that we dont know about and in such an instance "I think" is my best guess.

 

I did check out the trunk and there were no other holes (welded shut etc) so I came to the conclusion that the wing had not been moved.

 

Mounted pretty far back. In fact the passenger side mount looks further back than the driver side. Looks "on-the-fly" to me...
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Sure about that?

Here is 1121030 which is the other genuine S1 car that has the Wolf wing mounted from new.

It is in exactly the same location as 1121038's.

Interestingly, it too is suffering from the incorrect (later series) springs in the rear meaning it unfortunately no longer has the Low Body stance. Of course this can be corrected.

FWIW, this car was supplied with the Periscopa roof too.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Interesting statement. Somehow I agree, but your ideas are leading to the conclusion that it is ok to put Bravos on the car only when it is standing in an owner's garage? Hey, it is a change that is reversible, and Bravos do look better.

However, the main point is that a car without questions has its advantages, and here I fully agree. A genuine S2 with the original wheels and correct set-up looks so good that there is no need for Bravos. Coming to a conclusion, I would say that you are right.

 

Thank you for posting these, Joe! I didn't have pics of 1030. It is so hard to study these rhomboid stand-off equipped cars, because it seems there are only half a dozen of them (maybe a couple more?), with three of them being the Wolf cars!

I think if you go back and look at Roy's S2 being loaded, I think you may notice that the front of 1030 is also high, the spat seems to sit over the front tire similar to how Roy's sits.

I wonder and speculate, did the factory, in true Lamborghini hinkyness, maybe change the part, but not the part number? Certainly wouldn't put it past them!

 

My posting of the pics of 1120148 and especially 1121030 prove conclusively that its important not to doubt just because we haven't seen it before.

1121038's wing mounting position is rare, but not singularly unique. Most importantly, it remains where it always was.

I'm not sure there are even 6 of them. I just don't know...

 

If I've learned anything about these cars and the company, it is not to doubt anything, and doubt everything, until we have seen it with our own eyes, at least in photos or in black and white on company letterhead, and then trust only half of it.

I've got 0148, 0202, 1002, 1038, 1030... there's got to be one more... there was that black Wolf-style LP400 Modificato, I can't recall the S/N, it's been referred to here as the Hockenhiem car because it was photographed at an event at the track. It was the center of a heated debate on whether the car was a factory conversion or a privateer conversion.

It's moot now, the car has been restored back to LP400 spec. Perhaps as it should be. I do wonder where the wing is now...

 

There was also a tahiti blue periscopa roof car in Switzerland registred in the region of Lucerne, I never saw this car except on old pictures.

 

Do you mean this car, 1092?

Picture 1

Picture 2

Picture 2

 

1092 has a periscopa roof ?

 

#1092 has a normal roof and Vitaloni Turbos, whereas the car I'm considering had a periscopy roof and sebring mirrors.
MdL took pictures of it in 1990.

 

Thanks.

I've never seen a photo of 1092 that showed the roof, so I wasn't sure.