More from the same Prancing Horse Article: 002 C was the third Ferrari constructed in 1947. (See PH #123, pages 28 and 33 and #124, page 20). Before any of us knew much about the earliest Ferraris, Stan Nowak postulated that the first cars were numbered 1 C, 2 C and 3 C. This was not correct but thats how the rumor developed that Willimans car is 3 Cbecause of its connection with the third Ferrari. The first three Ferraris were numbered 01 C, 02 C and 002 C. (See PH #123, 124 and 126.) 002 C originally carried the first spyder corsa body. In December 1947, 002 C was sold to Gabriele Besana and continued to race in Italy with different owners. Besana and Franco Cortese entered it in the 16th Mille Miglia on April 24- 25, 1949, but did not finish. See photo In late 1950, the spyder corsa body was removed from 002C. By early 1951, it was rebodied with an envelope body credited to Carrozzeria Motto and continued to race in Italy in the spring of 1951, photos #2 and #3. Next, Dr. Samuel Scher of New York bought 002 C in Florence as a new car. Scher later sold the car, but the new owner discovered that his new Ferrari was really much older and prevailed legally against the seller. Then 002 C then ran through a series of U.S. owners, including Frank Adams, Don Vitale, Dan Triumph and Richard OHare, photo #4. In an interesting twist, Stan Nowak spotted the Motto-bodied car at Bridgehampton in 1965, photos #5, recognizing it as a very early Ferrari by its unique tower gearshift. Nowak bought the car in 1968 (photo #6) from OHare for Carl Bross. Nowak persuaded Bross to return the car to its original configuration, and the Motto body was removed in 1968. However, before the project was complete, Bross died and his entire collection was sold to Anthony Bamford. Ten years later Nowak bought 002 C back from Bamford and completed its restoration to 1947 Turin Grand Prix configuration. Nowak sold the Motto body removed from 002 C to Edmond Williman of Long Island, New York
Some more from the same article: 031 S was a 166 S with a Stabilimenti Farina fastback coupe body (no. 9189) delivered new in June 1949. It was imported into the U.S. about 1954. Ron Hill and Dick Merritt remember 031S coming to Denver in 1955. A couple with children was driving the Ferrari from New York to California. By Denver, the car was not running well. At the insistence of the wife, 031 S was traded with Joe Murray, Denver, for a Ford with air conditioning. Murray owned and used the car, photo #8, and later sold it to a local resident. About 1961, the transmission broke and the engine had a blown head gasket so a Buick V-6 engine and transmission was installed. Later, Hill saw and photographed the Ferrari on a street in Colorado Springs in 1964 with a For Sale sign, photo #9. Merritt recalls that a GI owned it and speculated he was reassigned to the East Coast. Somehow, the Ferrari wound up abandoned on the streets of New York City and was impounded by the sanitation department about 1967. Merritt, who bought the engine and transmission in Denver in 1965, sold the parts to Bob Baker in June 1996 as spares for his 166 barchetta. The engine from 031 S never rejoined the chassis and is now part of Bob Lees collection. Walter Hagstrom bought the dilapidated, engineless 031 S at a police impound auction in the early 1970s and later sold the chassis to Ed Williman.
Last bit from the PH article... Please note the authors comment at the bottom. The full article with photos was sent to me in PDF format and I have been given permission to share it and will email it to those who ask. Cheers, Bill A 212 engine Williman bought an engine of unknown serial number from a 212. By 1975, Williman owned the chassis of 031 S and had acquired the Motto body previously used on 002 C. This jibes with Dick Jevons comment that it was about to get a Chevy V-8 conversion. When Williman acquired a 212 Ferrari engine, he installed it, instead. The Farina coupe body (removed earlier) was now replaced with the ex-002 C roadster body. See photo #10. In this configuration, 031 S was seen in Pittsburgh and later sold on to Howard or Howarth Gilmore. In October 1971, Walter Hagstrom sold the Farina body from 031 S for $250 to Tom Wiggins, who had moved to New Jersey. For many years, it served as a doghouse in his backyard. In 1994, Wiggins sold it along with the chassis and engine of 007 S to A. Rinaldo in New Zealand. Mrs. Rinaldo united the body from 031 S with the chassis and engine of 007 S and has since enjoyed racing and driving it forS mo,o trhee t hcaanr p2i0ct,u0r0e0d omnil epsa, gpeh o6t oo f# P1H1#.161 is chassis 031 S with an unknown 212 engine and a roadster body credited to Carrozzeria Motto that was once on 002 C. This convoluted story has many gaps and possible mistakes in it. If anyone can provide more detail, I would welcome it.
Very Interesting and I really thank you for digging it up and posting it. The strange things that still remain are why is there no 031S stamp on the chassis? Why is there an 10S stamp on the chassis? What if anything do the two 1C stamps on the chassis mean? Are they original or faked? Was there ever a Ferrari 1C? Was there ever a Ferrari 10S? Was there ever a Ferrari 031S and if so is it an entirely different car and where is it today? I've been told by Ed the SCCA log book for this car lists the chassis for this car as 1C and that's the number the scrutiner saw on the chassis and that this entry is approximately 38 years old. On the other matter if that is the Willbanks car's chassis in the photo I posted it does not have the center brace that is in the drawing. Interesting Stuff. This stuff does get shuffled. For example 002C is not stamped 002C but is stamped 002I and it's CFO is for 002I but for years it's been called 002C. Thanks To All Who Have Contributed To This Thread!
I have no idea on why there is no 031S stamp on the chassis. I looked carefully and the only proper stamp in a standard location was the 10S stamp. If I had found another number or stamping I would have photographed it and shared it without restriction. The engine has no stamp because it was at some point purposely ground and then polished away. I did not see any indication that the frame showed signs of having an original number polished off or ground away. If I had, I would have tried to photograph it. I also did not see any signs of the frame having an over-stamp or possibly hidden location stamp of 031S or any other numbers. This does not mean they were not there just that I did not see them. As for the 1C stamp, I saw just one that Ed pointed out. He stated that it was the only one he had found on the frame and that it was there before he acquired the car. I took a photograph of it with Ed's permission. It was very small in size in a very odd/unique location and on a flat piece of polished steel. (Then again when we showed him the very obvious and clearly visible "10S" stamp he stated that he had never seen it before.) To me it seemed odd that he knew of the 1C stamp in a very difficult to see location and not the obvious 10S stamp in the standard location. Someone else asked him about the car being numbered 031S in my presence. He told all of us there that he had heard this many times before. He made no other comment on it being 031S in my presence. He did say that he thought the car was 03C for awhile and thought it was Nowak who may have said that when he tried to purchase the car back again. I examined with countless others there at the show the frame in detail and photographed what was visible in detail. There were clearly no drilled shock mounts or bosses and no rear sway bar provision nor was one ever fitted to this frame. There was also no provision for front starting crank nor was one ever fitted to the frame I inspected. The size and shape of the frame was clearly not first and not 2nd generation Gilco but 3rd generation Gilco dating it to no earlier than the Fall of 1948 but likely sometime in 1949. I have been very lucky over the past two decades to have had access to and, closely inspect 01C/010I, 02C/020I, 002C/I, 004C, 006C/0076/E, and 016/I. I consider the time and patience Ed gave me this past weekend and the many answers he gave to my questions extremely kind and helpful. I will always be grateful for his assistance without restriction. I have now posted everything that I saw and photographed. I do not know the original identity of the frame fitted to this car or how the number "10S" fits the scheme of things. Based on my first hand knowledge of this car and the other early Ferrari's I have inspected, I do not believe that this was one of the first 3 early frames executed and delivered to Ferrari. I also do not believe it is one of the client 166 Spyder Corsa frames. While some may continue to doubt the nature of the frame or my own conclusions regarding it, the exact source of the body, engine by type and sequence as well as the same information for the gearbox should no longer be considered a mystery. Regards, Bill
Is this engine still installed in car or are you absolutely sure it is a 166? #160 suggests it may be a 212-motor after all. Best wishes, Kare
The engine "numero interno 160" could either be a late production 166 or standard 195-212. Without the corresponding folio di montage from Ferrari, I can not tell. Regards, Bill
Are we all having fun yet. I know I am. I guess someone needs to get hold of Starkey et al and find out the history of the chassis picture on page 251 of "Ferrari Fifty Years on the Track". I would tend to agree that it is most probably not from Bamford. However it is interesting to note that this chassis has no central cross member brace where the X members come together. Very early Colombo drawings and Gilco photos also show no central cross member which was then added later as shown in the Napolis posted drawings. These were constructed from the same oval tubing as the X member. The central cross members on 10S are clearly polished , approx 1/2" by 3" ,plate steel bars. and surely not original. From what i can see from the photos the chassis of 10S looks like an early maybe 1947 chassis. Now regarding the wheelbase I am assuming that #002 had the wheelbase of a 125 sports car chassis of 2420mm and for the Motto body to fit on Williman's 166I #031 this wheelbase would also be 2420mm which would seem to be correct for #031. We also know that when the Motto body was removed at Del's in 1969 it ended up with Williman who installed it on #031.. Now the post above about Williman getting a 212 engine [number unknown] and probably installing it in #031 along with the Motto body seems logical particularly as it has been noted that the 212 engine in #10S has had its number removed. So #031 passed on to Gilmore with the Motto body but the Farina body went to Hagstrom and then to Wiggins {doghouse] who also had the chassis and engine of #007 and who then sold the lot,engine,chassis and Farina body to nice Mrs Rinaldo in New Zealand.. The BIG question now seems to be what did nice Mr H[?] Gilmore do with #031 with the Motto body on it. It seems that #031 later ended up in Europe [Italy?] where it was seen some 20 plus years age only to disappear again until last year. Have I got all this right??? We need to know more about #031 if that is possible. My gut reaction is that #10S is not #031 but what is it?? Maybe there is someone in Italy who can shed some light on what was going on for the last 30 years. From what I can tell the chassis on 10S does not go with a 1949 166I HELP Tongascrew
What do you make of the 1C stamps? I think we can safely say this chassis is stamped 10S and now has 002C/I's Motto body on it. One point on the X crossbrace. Columbo absolutely mentions it in his book as being part of the first 125 and referenced a scientific paper written about the X and Crossbrace. Best
Sorry for my novice question, but are there any known cars that do have that cross bar in center of the chassis - and in case what S/Ns are they? I am not 100% sure but if I still remember anything of the structure analysis classes I took 20 years ago, this design reminds me of the s.c. dead beams; i.e. beam that under no circumstance carry no load and would only add cost/weight to the structure. Best wishes, Kare
Hey See Michael's post 191 in this thread. There seems to be others as well. I'll reread Colombo's description of why it was included it but I do think it would keep the chassis from torquing. Best
Also the 166/195 Inter/Sports road car series used this layout. But the rear part is different, the frame is not arched over the rear axle, but is underslung. Therefore I still believe the frame of our "mystery car" is not standard. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Someone said we should contact John Starkey---I just got of the phone with him. The pic of a bare chassis, black, with a red tool cabinet off to the left, was taken by John at Symbolic, and shows a car under restoration there which was alleged to be 01C. He is not sure when the pic was taken. Bill Noon should know. I'm hoping to look at John's very extensive research on the very early cars (first 10) and if so will report.
AFAIK, the numero internos were introduced in the beginning of 212-production. The foglios are of little help as numero interno wasn't usually listed. Factory may have the info coming from dyno sheets. Interno #160 should place this engine somewhere around S/N range 0231..0241.
Factory photo 1947-48 Jim. Copyright unknown, from La Ferrari e Modena 1997. Will take this photo off again anytime when requested by copyrightholder. Image Unavailable, Please Login
I still do not recognize the "shop" photo but it could have been our old or new shop circa late 1997 after the Mille Miglia. We were moving from our old location to our new location around this time. I will email the photo to our new shop manager but unfortunately even though it was just ten or so years ago, we have had an almost 100% turn-over of our people on that side of the business. Cheers, Bill
The complete photo shows 2 Spyder Corsas plus one chassis designed to carry a larger body. At least one of the SCs will receive engine with horizontal magnetos. If you now add all these details together you should have the solution.
The photo in post 204 was most likely taken in our new restoration department but in our old building there (now Rolls/Bentley/Lambo/Lotus/Bugatti service.) The photo is probably from the fall of 1997 prior the car being sold for the 2nd time. (After Andy Fisher and before Gallogly.) It shows 01C/010I just after the frame was primered and before being painted and reassembled for sale according to one of our paint guys who was there at the time. Cheers, Bill
The photo clearly shows that 010I/01C has a different X section that the other Spyder Corsas, see frame I have posted in #158.
Franco Cortese was quoted in 'Ferrari Tipo 166' about Ferrari's first 125S which Franco raced as well, on its performance and engine swaps: “It drove very easily [but] … it [had] a somewhat different engine. We were used to normal four- and six-cylinder motors [and] this twelve-cylinder was like an electric motor. It would ‘spin’ very easily, so one had to be careful.” Giuseppe Busso and his men made two 125s. The first was completed on May 8, 1947. It had a roadster body similar to that of the AAC 815. The second 125 was finished the next day and was a much more elementary car with a torpedo body and cycle fenders. This makes sense with the black and white factory photo below if the first 1947 125S was built with similarities to the AAC’s chassis. It would explain why its chassis is larger than the car next to it, further promoting the idea that these are in fact 01C, 02C and 002C (From right to left). Interesting I think. My only “head-scratch” is about the third car, presumably 002C/I’s (in the factory photo) cockpit design... Is there any significance to the differences in design we see in the photos below of 002C/I? _J Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Jon, Jim's car has a recreation of the original body. If you are correct that the car in the distance is 002C then the lines of the recreation body are slightly altered. Regards, Art S.
Art The door is off in the shot of 002C (Present day) That said if the caption is correct and the foreground car is 01C I rest my case. Compare it with post 191. What's different?
