002C

Sorry, didn't remember (long thread).

 

I completely disagree... I've learned more about the cars and the history by following these stories, than from any other reading I've done!

 

Yes, very nice, I am looking forward to reading all about it, and especially, seeing the pictures.

 

I love it as well.. the only bad part is that I sometimes feel like I'm speaking klingon when I get together with my car buds for a beer.

-Chris

 

Same here. My hot-rodding buddies just smile politely when I start talking Ferrari.

 

Technical question for Jim:
What are the exact dimensions of your car's engine (in mm)? Did you ever measured them?

 

Bore x stroke

 

That's what I wanted to hear...!
Because most literature, including the Ferrari sales folder from Dec 1947, say 60 x 58 mm.

The original tipo 125 engine (55 x 52.5 mm) was enlarged to tipo 159 by increasing both, bore and stroke, to 59 x 58 mm, meaning most probably a complete new block. It is said that it was the task to reach full 2 litres, but without major changes it was only possible to reach 1.9 litre. This is contradicting, because either the 159 block must have been completely new foundried, or it must have been bored up and needing at least new crankshaft plus rods and pistons.
So why not going immediately to 60 x 58.8 mm? As we all know there was still a lot of "flesh" available to go even much bigger in volume.
Similar questions arise when looking at the increase to 166 resp. 2 litres. Why increasing the stroke for 0.8 mm? It would have been easier to increase the bore to 60.3 mm and keep the stroke at 58 mm. Or had they been forced to use standard pistons which had been available in full millimeter sizes only?

 

It really seems they were using standard pistons available in 1 mm intervals. As far as I know the only early exceptions was the 166/F2 of 1951, which used 63.5 mm bore with 52.5 mm stroke.

One possibility is that 59 mm bore was originally chosen to go with >60 mm stroke (60.8 would have put out 1994.71 cc). It may then have turned out that it could not be done, which might explain the stroke of 58 mm. It most certainly would not have been the first or the last time a revision goes bust because the planned crankshaft doesn't fit into the block as planned. There are limits how much material can be removed to fit a bigger crank.

It may also be that black revision to take 60 x 58.8 dimensions was minimal; there is only 0.8 mm addition in stroke (that's 0.4 mm per side on crank plane) meanwhile re-stroke to 60.8 would have added 2 millimeters (1.05 mm per side).

Best wishes, Kare

 

If Jim still follows this thread - I have another question.
The documents you sent me say telaio "002" and not "002C". How is the car stamped in fact? With "C" or without?

 

Looking good.

 

How do you feel 002 "rates" compared to how it was when you got her?

 

Any plans to show her?

 

Can't wait. And I'll be based stateside too.

 

So if the correct telaio is in fact "002", why over decades this car is referred to as "002C"?

 

I believe the "C" stands for "competizione", the "corsa" meaning came only later in 1948 with the first singleseater #02C. Same number as the 1947 cycle fender car, but different meaning of "C".
Know that from #006 onwards the cars show the "I" in the telaio, but have no prove about the stampings of #004C.

 

Mr G. , in regards to the title / registration papers: when dealing with historically significant cars such as , well ALL of yours, is there a way to keep the documents and register / title the cars? by this i mean, typically for normal cars you have to surrender the previous paperwork from the other state the car was registered in. i have never dealt with anything from outside the USA, but surely you dont have to surrender valuable documents signed by Mr Ferrari or other historical figures to US Customs or the state of New York? there must be a way to "get them on the books" and keep the documents?


just to add, : Mr Muller, i have greatly enjoyed your detailed posts in this thread, you write form a point of view as if you were there for it all, more importantly, you have made me feel like I was there to see some of this history. i am too young to have ever witnessed any of the events with these cars from this era, but reading your post has been a real pleasure.

please forgive my lack of proper punctuation on your name, as my ( old) keyboard does not have the symbol for that. Michael