Miura, the original supercar

The above is corroborated by Heinz Steber himself in the video below:



Being that the SVR Jota is actually based on a Miura SV chassis, to me it has a higher status and better suited to that of being based on an early P400S chassis that the 3781 chassis number implies. The SV chassis is stronger than the S chassis, especially the early non reinforced S chassis that 3781 would have. I had always thought that the unmodified chassis of a P400S was not up to the job of handling the extra grip of the very wide wheels and wide, low profile P7 tyres and the more powerful engine, so obviously an SV chassis is more suitable. However, it does not sound like the SV chassis has been modified/strengthened/tuned or adapted for the very much more substantial and capable rubber of the SVR that would put more stress on the chassis.

Apart from the gifted Walter Wolf Wing from the Countach, the SVR Jota modifications were designed and supplied by Steber himself using mostly parts of non Lamborghini origin, fitted by him with the help of some of the staff from the "Servizio Clienti" and NOT designed by the Lamborghini Factory Engineers such as Dallara, Stanzani and Wallace or Bertone's Gandini. There was no help from the Lamborghini men in the White Overalls. The limited help that he got was from the men from the workshop in Blue Overalls. I do not want to sound as if I am being critical of the car. I'm not. It is what it is and is a very famous car, but had the Factory Lamborghini Engineers, the Men in the White Overalls, been involved and had input, the Jota SVR would have been a more developed and different car.

See pic below: Lamborghini Jota SVR. DESIGN BY HEINZ E STEBER.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

Also, it clearly lost its original matching numbers split sump engine and gearbox, to be replaced by a tuned single sump engine that needed to be and was converted to a split sump. Did Steber know that the engine already in his car had a split sump? If he knew that would he have gone ahead with the engine swap? As the original engine is said to have ended up in the Millechiodi P400S #4302, does the SVR have the engine from that car?

At Raymond's suggestion I contacted Heinz Steber via Facebook and asked him if he knew what the SVR was based on: the 1972 Miura SVJ #5084 or the 1968 Miura S #3781 and he replied "the nr. is 3781." So he may well be oblivious to its real origin. Telling the story as it really was without any embellishment to make the car sound any more than it was, he himself seems like a very likeable, charming, honest and no BS larger than life type of character, who obviously very much enjoyed the journey of transforming the car into what, for him, went quite some of the way to becoming the car he wanted it to be.

 

Came across this picture. Stunning car color combo
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Attached more photos of this particular car:


Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Does anyone know the name of that color?

 

Regarding your statement that Dallara wanted a lightweight chassis with 0.8 mm frame thickness in your above post, is the 0.8 mm gauge you quoted a mistake/typo?

 

.

 

Yes, I’ve wondered that, as well. Even in the new Kidston book, the thickness of the early cars is stated as 0.8 mm, whereas I’ve read previously it was 0.9 mm on the early cars, and later increased to 1.0 mm. I have a vested interest in this information, as my car is #54.

 

Exactly the reason for my question.

 

Hans Steber personnal SVR video with periods pics of the modifications =

 

Again, more evidence in this video that Heinz thought his car was 1968 3781, not 1972 5084.

No mention of the dry sump and pump being added in the 1975 conversion to SVR that the car now has, which is a recent addition. See pic below by Cairati.

Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Here is a better (Cairati copyright) pic of 3781's SV lower rear suspension arms shaped more like a capital N than an A, and arm mounting. Note also the non original, even for the SVR, sump (dry) area and compare the sump with SV 4866 in the next pic.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

Look at the sump area in Fantasy Junction pic of SV 4866 and compare with SVR 3781's non original dry sump.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

Now compare the lower rear suspension A arm and trailing link type as found on a P400 and P400S in the Fantasy Junction pic of P400S 4629 below.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

Below is the bare front chassis of SVR 3781. (Pic Copyright Cairati) You can see the reinforcement of the chassis around the front arrowed in red that a P400S chassis in the 3781 chassis range would not have. The P400S did not get this reinforcement until much later in S production. Can anyone see any SV specific features in this pic?
Image Unavailable, Please Login

Here is Miura P400S 3814's NON reinforced front chassis. Fantasy Junction pic. This is how the front of 3781's chassis would be if it really was chassis number 3781.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Miura SV #4878.

From Devon MacNeil's IG page.

Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Has anyone experience of reviving the gold finish on carburettors? I have heard that hard anodising is the way to go. Or Alochrome 1200.

 

Scroll down to the bottom of Joe's post in the link here to see the colour of triple choke Weber and then scroll down the page and read posts by vfinaldi and bb4635 regarding this.

 

Salon Prive last weekend-quite a car park!
Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

@karlwinhuang


Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

#4311, one owner-blue notte

 

Which Miura S is this - winner of the Sydney Concouse? Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

It's chassis number 4554. RHD with Air Conditioning.

 

Miura SV Prototypes #4758 and #4856.

Does anyone know if the SV Prototypes have the N shaped SV lower rear suspension arms that are without the trailing links of the P400 and P400S?

 

Just wanted to clarify that Ing. Zampolli was not so sure that the Dry Sump on 4878 was done at the factory, but it could have been, and if it was, it would have been done by the Servizio Clienti, and after production.

 

The way I wrote it, my previous post implied that Ing. Zampolli confirmed 4878's Dry Sump was done at the Factory/Servizio Clienti, which he did not. I wanted to clarify that he was not so sure about the Factory/Servizio Clienti installing it at all, but it could have been, and if it was, it would have been done by Servizio Clienti, not on the Factory Production Line.

 

Are you in contact with the current owner of 4758?

It might be my eyes, but the haunches on 4856's rear clam do not look as wide as on other SVs and more like P400/S???