"Official 365 GTC/4 pictures" thread ?

Also worth keeping in mind that almost all (vintage) cars, regardless of make or model, exhibiting any chassis or coachwork corrosion, a.k.a. rust, will almost always have at least 4-5 times larger areas requiring to be repaired, i.e. replaced, than what can initially be seen by casual observation or in photos of fully assembled car(s).
Not to mention, 99 out of 100 rust repair/restoration efforts on any antique/classic/vintage cars doesn't address or has never addressed all of it anywhere near adequately, mainly due to their owners reluctance to allow adequate funding for it (due to cost-benefit analysis mindset).
More often than not, corrosion/rust problems in vast majority of vintage cars, (again, regardless of make/model/year/etc), are or have only been addressed to a level of bare minimum, even in most of those that have allegedly been "completely/fully restored".
I could probably fill an encyclopedia or two with countless concours-level/show quality, "fully restored" vintage cars, including Ferraris, with hidden/patched up/looming corrosion/rust problems which even their owners are or might be blissfully ignorant or completely unaware of.

 

I'm still waiting for clarifying & conforming details of this ^^...

... or is this one of those claims (well known among non-shade tree mechanics) like the one with certain brand of oil filters single handedly destroying vintage Ferrari V6 & V12 engines ?

Or had Scaglietti employed methods utilized by Pininfarina and vice versa, would that had made Scaglietti build quality better than PF ?

 

Thank you Marcel.
I'm fully aware and understand all this and appreciate your "differs a lot" (i.e. certainly different, but not necessarily "better") sentiment.

 

Perhaps he does or not, but I prefer to think he might be more cautious than making such blanket claims/statements without providing factual, firsthand proof.

I mean if one believes PF build quality is/was considerably “better” than Scagliettis or any of the other “small” coach builders Ferrari used, wouldn’t that suggest if California Spiders, SWB Berlinettas, GTOs or 275 GTBs had been constructed by PF, they would’ve been much “better”(?).
And would they perhaps be as or more valuable now ?

Like I said, I’m not advocating one being “better” than other(s), but based on my personal experience & firsthand observations, just different.
Perhaps other than Touring’s “Superleggera”, I see overall construction methods & technologies for limited/small production runs of all ‘50s/‘60s/‘70s Italian coach builders being fairly similar, regardless of which manufacturer commissioned them.

I’m presently standing next to (and earlier today was under) a very much original, unmolested/-restored, single owner since new C/4 & a Daytona I did a truly “complete restoration” on few year ago and comparing their construction.
Other than few secondary features, like use of adjustable door, hood & trunk-lid hinges, front seat construction or welded-on inner front fenders (& tub ?), etc, I don’t really see significant differences in them, but perhaps I don’t have correct colored lenses to view through ?

Also, as an example, about 10-15 years ago I had an opportunity to take a closer look at the coach work construction of a friends collision damaged 550 Maranello he had purchased for himself and was repairing (he’s a very experienced body & paint guy and had worked other Ferraris, including couple of Daytonas for me).
At the time we both agreed the overall coach work structural construction of the 550 wasn’t that much different than Daytona.

But then again, what do I know ? I’ve never taken a vintage era PF built Ferrari completely apart yet and have only been (professionally) restoring vintage cars, including Ferraris, and their components full-time over three decades now (45+ years as a personal hobby) and counting.
I also learned long ago not to make any claims I can’t personally prove.

 

Dear Marcus, post #220 doesn’t really provide any definitive proof, just conjecture and opinions based on what ?
For “definitive proof”, I for one would expect to see more detailed explanations accounting firsthand experiences with both constructions accompanied by side-by-side photographs, also taken firsthand by same individual, showcasing various areas, including those not readily visible in assembled cars.
Have you or your friends with Daytonas & Dinos taken any of this era Ferraris apart and had a chance to really study their coachwork component & construction differences or similarities ?

 

I apologize if my comments & inquiry came across accusatory, which wasn’t my intention.

I’m merely trying to understand where this belief of PF constructed cars having allegedly “better” overall built quality comes from since I personally can’t see it beyond few minor(?) components, features or materials they seem to have.

I even noticed today one of my cautiously offered comment or suggestion about the tub perhaps being constructed out of welded on steel turned out to be inaccurate. It appears to be clearly fiberglass, just like in Daytona, except some joining seams seem to be assembled more crudely or less attractively than those in Daytonas.

 

Also worth keeping in mind that there might be cars which have had their steering columns switched, for whatever reason, i.e. due to damage or loss, US-market car modified to non-US specs or vice versa, etc, over the decades.

 

Besides the black & white, grainy R & T image Christian posted, I've received a few photos of low milage, mostly original, unrestored engine bays privately, but still haven't been able to confirm all the details of OEM plug wire routing or the configurations and locations of all associated support brackets in a dual distributor engines and would greatly appreciate any additional information & photos.

 

Vast majority of engine bay images I've found on the inter webs are usually from restored or re-worked cars and appear to feature what I believe to be likely incorrectly routed plug wires along with incorrect grommet bracket types & locations.