Alex, As you may know I have been dealing with and studying this issue on multiple Daytonas in past 10-15 years already and have personally become convinced that their originally designed/engineered, i.e. intended (front) “ride height” specs vs. what the cars actually ended up with are quite different. As to how and why, I have my own theories, but since I wasn't there ... Due to these differences and my interest (obsession ?) to see these cars can be corrected to match originally designed/engineered/intended "ride height" without having to resort to aftermarket coil-overs, etc, I ended up developing/engineering a "cure" which allows retaining all the original suspension components (shocks, springs, etc). While my research and studies of this is inconclusive and still ongoing, I've successfully managed to “cure” several Daytonas and recently an 330 GTC, although latter ended up (by owners choice) with less than factory intended “ride height”. And prior to implementation of the “cure”, all but the 330, received a full suspension system rebuild or replacement of everything, including all bushings, joints, shocks AND new springs, only to find out that while it provided improvements, it still wasn't anywhere near enough to bring (front) "ride height" to factory specs. P.S. If you look at (& choose to believe ?) factory “ride height” specs, the inner bolts (i.e. a-arm pivot points), both in front and rear, should be higher than outer ones, when the car is "fully loaded", which IMO should make the (fully loaded) car appear almost perfectly horizontal, especially with correct wheels and tires. I think I've previously posted reference pic(s) of the result of "correctly"(?) set (fully loaded) car. P.P.S. @of2worlds If a Daytona suspension is set-up anywhere near what factory intended or implied in their engineering drawings, it inevitably gives an appearance of "off-roading", especially when comparing to countless cars or their photos with what I personally believe to be incorrect (too low) settings.
Very interesting thoughts on the suspension settings backed by 'hands on' experience is a very valuable reference point. Thank you! This 1970 picture seems to illustrate a 'nose up' attitude for the suspension Ferrari was running at the factory testing back then. There even seems to be a fair amount of vertical space around the rear tire to. The off road look seems prominent on Daytona models with new springs and suspensions that have had no street use yet? Typically those newly restored cars are photographed empty to... Image Unavailable, Please Login
were there any factory bulletins to update the original settings? maybe the off road look wasnt appealing to the factory line workers and adjustments made? brand new daytona magazine road tests do not show an off road appearance and these cars were factory fresh.
Hi Timo, The only spec that I noticed in the Owner's Manual was the spring/shock compression under load. I don't have Technical Manual with me here, but I imagine that there are more specs there; I'll have to take a look. That said, the diagrams in the Owner's Manual don't give the impression that the inners are "super high" compared to the outers. Regardless, my guess is that crushed rubber bits likely account for much of my "inner low" readings; and even if they don't, I'm not inclined to worry too much about it. I personally doubt that the factory was super-picky about such things, and unless I find some clear evidence of tampering, I think there is actually an argument for just "letting the car be". Cheers, Alex
I would not give too much weight to photos of "mules" of any sort. Who knows what else the factory might have tweaked on a car that was not meant to be a production unit.
Fair enough. Here is a 1973 new delivery picture though 'empty' of passengers... Image Unavailable, Please Login
right on cue Karel Steiner shared this image of the factory views of a 365 GTB/4 visual stance > Image Unavailable, Please Login plus the advertising for the 365 GTB/4 in period image though looking a bit low rider here > Image Unavailable, Please Login
The Spyder had much higher [ taller ] springs, well the new ones from Ferrari are, they are a different part number to the coupe, they looked so odd on my car I put coupe new springs on! Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
The wider rear wheels really give a purposeful look and a more muscular stance. Regards, Alberto Image Unavailable, Please Login
The Mistress together with 250 SWB 3605gt a couple of weeks ago on the Hope Classic rally Image Unavailable, Please Login
A Special one, this weekend at Knokke Concours in Belgium. The 365 GTB/4 Michelotti N.A.R.T. Spider. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Too bad it has been heavily "modified" or "upgraded" (or should I say "improved" or rather "personalized"?) and the entire nose changed, also the tail. Marcel Massini
13901, born Bianco Polo with Rosso VM 3171, converted 2003 into a Group 4 comp car by Piet Roelofs Engineering in The Netherlands for a Swiss collector. Sold this year to another collector in Switzerland. Marcel Massini Image Unavailable, Please Login
Just to confirm and add to the story. While it is likely that the car Chinetti ran in '71 (12467) had some engine mods, when I go the car in '77,(after time spent at Holman & Moody), it did not have P6 cams, the larger jetting, or the 42mm exhaust; 9" fronts and 11" rears (and flares), nor the full side exhausts. With all of that completed it became a very different "beast"!
Remember when age, dry rot and cracking were your worries? now its soft rubber. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login All better now. Image Unavailable, Please Login
How many years and/or miles ? Just curious, because I recently experience something similar with anti-sway bar link bushings I replaced about 15 years and 2K-2.5K miles ago (I know, I know, not enough driving during that time span and all chassis/safety related rubber items should be replaced every 10 years or less, regardless of mileage).
Interesting. Thanks for the reference. Almost begs a question if both instances (yours and mine) would’ve survived better with more frequent use ?
Taken March 1970 in Geneva, Switzerland. Note additional center section of rear bumpers, plus antenna on trunk lid. Marcel Massini Image Unavailable, Please Login