Countach vs Boxer, not what you think

This isn't a thread about basing either car just some interesting firsthand observations.

Im involved in an 87 Countach restoration of a car I had the option to buy last year but had just bought my 79 BB512 4 days before the CT was offered. I spent a few days thinking about it before finally passing it onto the body shop owner that paints the ferraris I restore. So now he's in deep on that car while I handle the power train sorting.

I have to say its a pretty cool setup and couldnt be more different than a boxer arrangement. They both have pros and cons but Ill show you what I think is cool and outta the box when it comes to the Lambo arrangement.

The engine in backwards (crank pulley facing rear trunk) with the gearbox in the middle of the car, shifter directly in the top of the box and power transmitted through the oil pan to the rear diff hanging behind the crank pulley. Its very long, crazy long in fact but so smartly put in the car which naturally lends itself to AWD with the gearbox just begging for a shaft going to the front of the car. I think this set up blows away the boxer in packaging and the advantage of option AWD which was obviously introduced later in the Diablo.

That said its tough to service, the clutch sucks (and costs as much as a new honda if the release bearing is shot) and its not fun to drive if you're tall and like an open window beside you that can fit more than a pop can through it sideways.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Maybe because this is a Quattrovalvole engine I should be comparing it to the Testarossa engine but its the same configuration. Heres the testarossa engine package but with the boxer treatment on the valve covers.

Height-wise the lambo is taller and twice as long as the boxer/testarossa setup. The ferrari package is so compact compared to the Lambo its ridiculous.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Interesting way to achieve a larger displacement without redesigning the block. Aside from having a timing belt issue (would need to find a longer belt) I considered this spacer plate with longer liners on the V8 and flat 12 engines.


I wonder if a thinner plate even 8mm could be employed on a boxer or Testarossa with a longer stroke to achieve 6L? Hmmmmm.........
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

weight difference between the 2 drivetrain setups?

Cool to see the varied approaches,

 

Interesting. I had heard that ferrari put the gearbox under the engine to shorten the package, but then we have the top weight issue. In the CT I imagine the drop gear to get the power back to the rear mush cause prasitic losses. Plus of course a eo is a must to change the clutch, on the other hand its got chain driven cams.

Having owned both, I found the Ct to be crude compared to the boxer, great handling like a go kart below 100 mph and above 160 the front end actualy wanted to fly. The power did not seem to have that midrange hit you get in a boxer, although stronger on top.

The boxer is way more refined, and more of a Gt car than the CT. Wheels and modern tires bring the boxer somewhere between the two, but aboxer is always going to be more twitchy on the limit and a softer/comfort option. The boxer is more useable and classicaly shaped the Ct just a more dramatic cruder machine.

 

I own both 512BB and Countach 5000S
True; 512BB is smoother car, but same time CT has more durable power line, a true tractor gearbox! Lambo V12 has always being made with chain and there for you need to take it out every 30 years. Pre QV CT's have same clutch with BMW M3 and five times cheaper then BB clutch.

Distributors are similar, most part even can be svaped, I curently run my 512BB with Countach extra magnetic pickup, as Countach has one extra. But distrubutors rotate opposite way, don't mix parts...
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u84/unknow82/projekti/512bbct5000sjakaja_zps4aa0a845.jpg

With Countach I like feeling that comes from feeling that car is more individually made, interior has better finish then 512BB that is little bit like "all parts fit all" Countach has way more head room as traditionally desing Ferrari seems to have hold idea that; no Ferrari owner should not sit on the floor. Lamborghini did not think like that and seats are lowes point in the car literally; floorpan has "special" cups that makes room for seat adjustment toward ground!

512BB Engine is very smooth and way more easier to drive. I think BB a vacation from Countach, but not as extreme as CT. I have made traficlight take of both cars side to side, there are no diffrence; where BB has more mid range torque, it needs more often gear change, where as Countach has more high end power and longer gears. BB makes performance easier, but with CT you get more experiance to get there.

 

If you run into another countach with needs please let me know I have been looking for one.
It is unfortunate that the QV throw out bearing is so reduculos I wonder if you can have your machinist make some like the differentials for the flat twelves. I can't see 6k for that part it's insaine. And as a former machinist I know it can be made.

 

Neuman, Very interesting layout. as I never seen one that close before, I thought it was like a 911 with engine hanging out the back. My thoughts also about the throw out bearing, What is so complicated about it? And speaking of cam chains, with all the exotic modifications done to some of these cars. Did any one ever consider converting a TR to chains?



Ago

 

A few potential ones may come available. If so I would get one for myself. Would love a low body with Bravo wheels.

 

Nothing special looking about it other than its attached to the 300lb pressure plate with a snap ring! Would love to see a multi-disc clutch in one with a $50 release bearing. It would last and reasonable to replace when the time came. I thought the boxer clutches sucked, these cars raise the bar in the clutch sucking department lol.

No value in changing to chains, cost would be insane. Besides, these things spring oil leaks so you're really pulling the engine to reseal it and you might as well do the timing belts while you're there! My 84 boxer has never had a belt service, belts still in tact. It's been said before but the belt service is blown out of proportion.

 

I would be in for a CT too, its on the list and I am in a buying phase.

Was the GT40 and pantera able to put the mtotr in front of the transaxle because the V8 is so much shorter, because it seems a much better setup than the Ct or Boxer.

 

Lamborghini tax on parts, would not be too hard to adapt probably 930 turbo clutch and bearing to fit. The clutches can be rebuilt but the release bearing is the problem although again there are a few places that will rebuild the bearing.

 

Interesting about the belt change. My belief is that newer belts are so much ebtetr than the ones back in the day. My EO's have come eaver 7-9 years, brought on by the oil leaks, but I must admit to feeling a little gun shy when the 5 year period rolls around.

If memeor servs the Tr had a 30k belt service, or 5 years whichever came first.

 

7 years isnt an issue on belts or bearings so drive it like you stole it, 10 is probably fine its the oil leaks that force the service!

 

The CT assembly is very tall so Im not sure the CG is an issue when thinking about the boxer layout. Yes the crank is high but the heads are on the same plane. The CT has a lot of engine above the crank but better tires than the boxers ever had. Could a boxer be a better handling car if it had 13" wide tires like a CT?

 

Please let me know it you need me to contact you so we can talk some more pm me. We can go from there. But I defiantly want one that needs work.

Thanks!

Johnny

 

12"
And "no"
Wide tyres have grip due to surface, but you loose that agility what makes BB's essence.

 

The boxer has always suffered from the tires it came with. Maybe a P7 or 5 isnt the answer but more than it was equipped with would be an improvement. I will say the countach (periscopa specifically) is a car I prefer to look at over the boxer but the boxer wins when it comes to actually driving it or living with it.

 

345mm = 13.5"

 

Newman, Lambo did this with the V8. The late Urraco and Silhouette were 3 liters. The Jalpa was stroked out to 3.5 liters. The first 75 or so Jalpas had deck plates added until the old stock was used up and new blocks were cast with higher decks.

 

Another Newman thread I have to subscribe to! Curious - how much does the CT engine weigh? Looks massive; my best friend owns an '84; (Ralph Lauren's old car) I can guarantee he did not know about the engine layout....

 

Top four pics are the oil pan from the CT vs the boxer "oil pan" which is a dry sump tray essentially as well as a gearbox! The ports in the boxer gearbox are for oil transfer to and from the engine and dry sump tank. The thin rectangular slots are where the oil returns from the engine above and down into the scavenging area below.

The CT has the large silver tube running through the oil pan which is essentially a tunnel for the propellor shaft to pass through taking power from the gearbox at the front to the differential at the rear. That tube is a source for oil leaks and its not fun to access, especially the pinion seal which is leaking on this one.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

I dont know about this. The key to agility with a boxer on modern tires is castor and camber in the front end. Stock they run huge castor and little to no camber.

On a BBI youa lready have 240 section front tires, suitable moderns like a ps2 are 245's hardley a differentce, plus moderns with a stiffer sidewalls are far far more reactive to steering input. On the rear I am up to 275 as opposed to the stock 240's, all this does is give you more grip and predicatbility when you slide from the rerar at the limit.

In fact the snap handiing of a boxer can be largley attributed to the elastic sidewalls of the stock tires, on a BBI, and yes also the big motor out back with camber changes as the suspension moves, but this can all be dialed out to a large degree with new wheels and tires.

If one looks at the flaws of the BBLM there were two, power compared to porche race cars and a weak gearbox, handling was not an issue. A BBLM runs essentialy the same suspension pieces and any BB, and Nick masons BBLM was 4 secs per lap faster than his F40 same driver same track same day. It gives you an idea of the potential in these cars. No BB is going to be a slight as a BBLM, but you can certainly get the same grip with modern tires and a BBLM was only about 450hp, seems a tunes Bb is not that far off.

Tires are the greatest single upgrade that can be made toa BB, it transfoirms the car, like gettign a new car, and unlocks the potenbtial of the suspension, once done you wonder why you never did it before.
Consider that the other place a TRX went was on to BMW sedans, these simply are not supercar tires. One could say the mid engined street cars came out before there werte suitable street tires for them, and then in the mid 70's along came the p7. Porche and Lambo both went to the P7 with huge results, the old man for reasons of politics or age refused to do so. Some say it was a comitment to Michelin as they did the race car tires, otehrs say that he so doubted the ability of mortals to handle mid engine cars that the boxer was saddles with sedan tires and a weird alignemt to make it blunt. All I kniow si that there is another 100% of handling to be unlocked with tires.

That all being said below 120 or so, the CT is liek a giant go kart, hard to beat.

 

...and CT has 18 liters engine oil, 3.2 liters gerabox oil and 6.4 (!?!) liters of diffrential oil.

 

Whats your opinion on the quality of the motor?

I have heard from a long time Ferrari mechanic who called the older Lambo V12s in Countaches "junk" said the blocks twist and warp.