Then I guess here is one area we dis-agree on, because that is it what we were told..and I assume by the same person you elude to.. Who is still living in San Jose and has been providing and helping with this project over the past year. Providing lots of his very own from the start documentation as well as first hand knowledge. Just so there is no mis-understanding, he is and has been compensated financially for his assistance in this project. However we can all go on and on and on here...but it is not the correct place nor the time..I will just wait till August and then everyone can make their own decision with the information provided. I make no secrets that I have no intention of owning this vehicle after Sunday in Monterey this August...if not sooner...that I am pretty sure of.
Actually we disagree on several aspects of the story. FWIW here are three (3) principals involved with this project that have been recounting what happened, not just one. All 3 have been visited in person. Always better to get corroboration from more than one source, that's how seasoned historians perform due-diligence. The fact remains that in the Lamborghini & classic car community this is how most feel about this vehicle: http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showpost.php?p=141126496&postcount=40 Ditto: http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showpost.php?p=141130797&postcount=50 So, we are looking to you to provide documentation that can change the community's perception. After all, your stated position on this heightens expectations: http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showpost.php?p=141130668&postcount=49 Inquiring minds simply want to know. Was it or wasn't it? I guess we will have to wait till August of next year! For those interested in some facts, the Cheetah was built by US-based defense contractor Mobility Technology International. MTI lifted the design from FMC's 1970 concept, the XR 311. FMC eventually sued both Lambo and MTI. The fiberglass Cheetah was actually built in San Jose, California.
I am very confused Joe...if you are so convinced of your research then so be it...you are entitled to your words and conclusions. I don't understand you major concern...first it is just a "cool off road" thing...then you have an interested customer...but if you are so 100% sure of your research. .it would only seem in your best interest to advise your customer of your findings and move on... Unless of course your "information" may not be all that correct and the possibility of passing up on a collectors chance at this, as well as some finical gain for yourself...(I am sure that you don't work for free) weighs heavy at the future chance of this being of value to someone. I make no hidden comments, this vehicle was purchased and the undertaking of the project taken on by me for the hope that it turns out a profitable one as well as fun. Fun it has been so far, profitable...won't know till the money is counted and in the bank. If you wish to pursue this for your possible customer...you have my e-mail and we can take it off line. Regardless of my thoughts of you, your USA funds payment deposits just fine in my bank account as anyone else. I have no desire to have a he said she said back and forth here on this open forum...and you know as well as I do...neither would a prospective buyer/collector. See I have learned from you...your constant reminder that these type vehicles trade best and for the most sales amount when done privately has been taken to heart. I am sure we can have a iron clad non-disclosure document drawn up...then I am more then happy to make an appointment for you and your client to meet me with the vehicle...view it as it has progressed and review all documentation, as well as stamping numbers, casting numbers...etc etc etc..if your client wishes to "out-bid" the current FROR customer...and the FROR customer declines to match it...the vehicle can be your clients. One thing you are 100% correct on. There is no title, the vehicle is being sold on a bill of sale only. Of course this is correct as we all know prototype vehicles do not carry an issued VIN#, so a title can not be issued. Some manufactures choose to use an experiential VIN# that carries the industry standard "X" in the sequential vin..but this practice was not around in the time period this vehicle came to be.
Please don't be. This is a very straightforward matter of verifying claims made and establishing identity. Par for the course for any classic vehicle, especially one of some historical significance. Lets stick to verification of the facts - and leave thoughts, suggestions, emotions & opinions out of this. Once you have supplied the documentation to support the claims you have already made in this thread, we will have an interest. If not, we have passed once before and will pass again. Very simple. This has no bearing on the vehicle's standing, simply a reflection on our ability (or otherwise) to establish its provenance beyond doubt. This can't possibly be confusing.
You have been given an excellent public posted offer here...my toy, so we play by my rules...if not I am sure their are other interests you can pursue. Thank you for your interest and consideration.
Below is the 1977 Car & Driver article which did the most to result in the Lamborghini linkage. A little background on the vehicle is In 1969, USA defense-industry firm FMC Technologies began to develop a prototype known as the FMC XR311, nicknamed the 'GI Hotrod' for use as a militarized SUV. The US Army declined to recommend production, and the FMC XR311 program was cancelled. However, soem of the same people who worked on the FMC XR311 project went on to design & build the 1977 Lamborghini Cheetah under the entity MTI. The similarities between Cheetah and the XR311 were clear to FMC, which brought a lawsuit against MTI in 1977 after the Cheetah was spotted on the Geneva show stand. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Please clarify what offer it is that I have been made here? "My toy, so we play by rules" is a rather juvenile utterance of no relevance whatsoever in the real business world. Please stick to customary due-process as practiced by seasoned professionals dealing with rare vintage automobiles in the business world. You made a public declaration that you have discovered a historic off-road vehicle, the very same Geneva Show Cheetah, stating that it was commissioned & paid for by Automobili Lamborghini SpA. Therein lies any interest we may have. Accordingly, inquiring minds, the community-at-large and interested parties wish to know 2 basic things: 1. Can you prove with authentic original documents that this vehicle was designed & built for Automobili Lamborghini SpA? 2. Can you prove with physical evidence tied to authentic original documents that this vehicle in your possession is one-and-the-same as on the show stand at Geneva (below)? 2 very simple questions. Let me give you a simple analogy to help you understand: if you list a house and claim it was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright, you'd better be able to prove it, and understand that some people's ONLY interest in said house is because of the aforementioned association. This cat-and-mouse game of "I cant talk about it for another year" smacks of smoke & mirrors. The fact remains that you could easily PRIVATELY disseminate what documentation you have without making it publicly, so a so-called FROR only has bearing upon posting in a public forum. Yes, some of us are known for our discretion. If you know what you have, release the documentation now. Why keep everyone hanging? If you need more time to do more research & discovery, that's fair enough, but just say so. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Just my opinion, I think we should just let this thread lay to rest. All great questions BUT no answers will be coming.....at least not on a message board. And it will be fustrating to drag it on for 9 months.....like living with a pregnant woman....it's going to be rough I really never pay attention to the Cheetah, except seeing pictures of the model. So, thanks Joe for the education on it! Something shrouded in controversy since the 60!!!!! That's a long soap opera. But is has raised my interest in owning a LM
Joe, Why is it any time something of "historical value" comes into the community, if you aren't representing it, then you come on line and do this song and dance about "prove it's real and what you say it is" all the while preaching discretion and privacy? It's a true contradiction of what you say you abide by and conduct business by. If you had true interest in this, or any other historical/signifigant vehicle, then you'd contact the seller dicretely, offline and execute a NDA/Confidentiality agreement and request the documentation within a timeline with which you both agree on. But you don't do that unless you're in control of the sale. You immediately turn it into a pissing match littered with subtleties and jabs as to your perceived superior business practices and methods. It makes you a hypocrite. It makes no sense...of course this is the part where you'll take a sentence out of this reply completely out of context, copy and paste that, then reply to only that statement. I have no ties to either of you, it just seems to me that if you're going to preach discrestion and privacy, maybe you should really practice it no matter WHO you're dealing with. Ever stop and wonder why the information you requested hasn't been posted? Maybe it's because your motives are pretty apparent and that without an NDA, you simply cannot be trusted? That's how I'd perceive your intentions currently, afterall, privacy and off line mean just that don't they? Like the saying goes, "Do as you say and mean what you say". Just my two cents.
Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. For the love of Christ, where the hell have people been for the last couple of years? This is a repeat, word for word, of the same old ramblings as other people. Be it of Joe or be it of Roy. It's long rambling comments like his that gets the ball rolling again of the same ole **** that we're tire of reading over and over and over and over and over again. Nice way to stir the pot, champ. Just when Joe and Roy have been responding reasonable to each other and give all us other members some peace and quiet. Especially, this thread. It's dead, accept it. Maybe Roy will revisit later next year.
So sorry your uterus got bruised with my post Peter...given that you took the liberty of commenting on my post with your own long winded reply...LOL. enjoy your day though, I know I will. LOL. Maybe look at the dates of Joe's posts before you run your mouth...for a "dead thread", they're pretty recent.
I think its simply because the 2 questions I have asked remain to be answered in the affirmative. To refresh your memory they are: 1. Can you prove with authentic original documents that this vehicle was designed & built for Automobili Lamborghini SpA? 2. Can you prove with physical evidence tied to authentic original documents that this vehicle in your possession is one-and-the-same as on the show stand at Geneva (below)? You're forgetting one important point: I was offered this vehicle FIRST, I did my due diligence and PASSED. 6 months before anyone posting here heard of it. So, to be clear, I'm only here because Im wondering, "what's new?" Perhaps a second set of dead sea scrolls have been uncovered? Hey, anything's possible. This has nothing to do with my not having the opportunity to represent it. I clearly had the opportunity, and willingly passed on it. Personally, I think the connections of any seriously historic vehicle do themselves and the vehicles' provenance no benefit whatsoever by keeping affirmation of its history from the community if it has been requested by multiple parties. It gives the distinct impression that said affirmation does not exist.
Sorry, but it seems strange to me the whole discussion is taking place at the other side of the ocean and nobody is trying to find answers in Italy. The 3 musketeers Pedrazzi/Bevini/Benedetti told me they worked for Lamborghini (since they left in the meantime and set up their own engineering studio) on the Cheetah. I don't know what they did specifically or if the work was carried out later in the States but I think this information is in some way interesting to understand what the real contribution of Lamborghini was in this story. Perhaps someone can tell me more about this chapter ?
the Cheetah brochure clearly has the Lamborghini name on it. Also it says: 'built by Lamborghini' and 'proud to have earned the right to be a lamborghini'. Not that this 'proves' anything .... Image Unavailable, Please Login
Very cool flyer indeed, I have an original example I got 25 years ago! I really don't think the plot thickens or anything new has been learned. http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showpost.php?p=141919378&postcount=116 As Jasperlambo points out, it proves nothing. And we know this because the vehicles connections have stated this brochure was printed in California simply as a prospectus to entice Lamborgini's involvement. As with the BMW M1 project of the same era, Lamborghini's involvement as we know it (thus far) was more wishful thinking than anything else.
After viewing the Cheetah video, which does not mention anything Lamborghini, and watching many LM videos, these 2 vehicle are nothing alike. They barely look the same and sit quite differently. The structure is completely different. They are 2 totally different vehicles.
Agreed. They must be very different, Cheetah being a rear Crysler engined vehicle, and LM002/3/4 being a front Lamborghini engined one. LM001 was rear engined too btw, so this might have (had) some similarities.
A few points for thoughts.. 1) I am sure there was no "copy rights" infringment when the Logo, Name and location of Chrysler and Lamborghini was printed on the flyer..HMMMM Yea, I think they did it on their own with out any permission from either company...just saying... 2) There are many prototype after prototype from multiple manufactures that when the finished product sold and marketed to the buying public had many changes from conception to final production No claims made or implied...just my thoughts..
I wasn't making a point one way or another. Engine location alone shows that the 2 vehicles would be mechanically quite different. I'm just curious as to how similar they are, if anything carried over. IMHO, the cheetah is entwined into Lamborghini history & without it the LM's wouldn't be. I find it quite interesting. However, the actual facts & documentation would dictate its level of significance & value.
The rear-engined configuration and weak Chrysler engine both served to make the design obsolete from the start. When Lamborghini 'stole' the idea of the off-road vehicle from the MTI Cheetah, they made a mistake with the rear-engined LM001. They corrected this with subsequent vehicles by going front-engined, and from then on the design became a production reality. http://www.lambocars.com/archive/lm/cheetah.htm "The Cheetah was designed and built in San José, California, after completing the prototype, MTI sent it to Sant'Agata were the Lamborghini engineers and technicians carried out a few modifications and brought it up to the production standards. However, this was only the first of a series of mistakes made with the Cheetah, Lamborghini decided to use a big 5.9-Litre Chrysler engine, coupled to a 3-speed automatic gearbox, driving the four wheels. The engine was mounted in the rear which caused the weight balance to be completely wrong, resulting in very poor road-manners."
