Yesterday I went on my Quattroruote Magazine vintage collection, checking '70 and '80 issues where all production cars data were reported. The DINO 308 GT4 and 308 GTB (from 1974 and from 1975) figure was 255 CV SAE (cavalli vapore, means steam horses). There is written the power is measured with SAE procedure of that age (no water pump, no alternator, no air filter, no muffler). In 1980 the power figure becomes 230 CV DIN (DIN measurements were WITH water pump, alternator, air filter, muffler). so, the DIN data for the Italian models were: -308 carbed (all): 230 CV -308 i: 214 CV -208 turbo (1982-85 not intercooled): 220 CV Now I hope nobody will tell anymore that a GT4 had 255 HP... ciao
So the USA 2Vi cars were likely under 200 hp using realistic conditions (unless you drive without alt, wp, etc.) I had always heard we were closer to 180 than the 205 number quoted in magazines.
As I have already written a few times... The german TUV actually tested the cars' engines on a bench as they appeared on the market. The datas can be found in period magazines, and in books, notably in Dirk-Michael Konradt's "Autos, die Geschichte machten, the Ferrari 308 und 328". These were: 235 DIN for Euro 308 GT4, wet sump 229 for Euro 308 GTB, dry sump 226 for Euro 308 GTS, wet sump 209 for Euro 308 GTB, two-valve injected 239 for Euro 308 GTB quattrovalvole A friend of ours here in France had an originak owner's manual from 1980 for a carbed car, which has the figure "255hp" covered with stickers saying "230", which tend to prove that the factory went from SAE figures to DIN figures in 1979-1980, as said by Alberto. Rgds
Dr Tommy, The figures I have for US 2 valve-injected cars (which had catalyst and emission-contro devices, contrary to "Euro") in actual DIN figures is 190. Rgds
As I drove or owned all the 3x8 models, they are data confirmed by driving them. The 254 hp 208 turbo intercooler and the 270 hp 328 are very much faster than the carbed 308. And the carbed 308 is much faster than the 308 i. And even the early 208 turbo (220 hp) is faster than the 308 i. I have to say that the 308 i is as pleasant to drive as the others, so the driving pleasure is not something much affected by engine power. Ciao
Taking into account, as for any actual test, that, according to an interview of the factory's "head of engine division" published in a special issue of the french magazine "Auto-Hebdo" from January 1986, that the factory had a tolerance of 3% variation for the engine on bench before being installed in a car, meaning that an engine giving 97% "only" of rated power output could be installed in a car, so there might be slight variation from car to car. If an engine was more than 3% down on power, it was stripped and tested again until it passed the test at more than 97%. Rgds
Also here in Italy the government tech motor department (called "IGM") tested the engine power without accepting the factory data. The drysump was rated at 229, the early turbo was 218 hp and so on. Later they stopped that as with that system you measured just one particular engine and not the average one. So later (328 and 208 turbo intercooler) IGM accepted the factory data without testing one by themselves. Ciao
I have a 1980 GTSI as well but the cats and air-pump have been removed and I installed a Tubi Muffler. My mechanic said that it feels more like a QV but who knows....or cares Whatever HP differences between the 308 series engines there may be, I don't think that it amounts to a hill of beans. I drove my friends 328 many times....I can definitely feel that it is more powerful than my 308 but nothing earth shattering. IMO, we are splitting hairs here when talking about 308 HP numbers.
Here is the sticker from a 1980 Euro manuals Nerofer was talking about... Image Unavailable, Please Login
David, In fact, that is not really the question here; the question is, "what was the actual power" not to count the horses and discuss which car is the fastest, but to understand how the factory was expressing it, and with which figures. And also at which time did the factory changeg from using SAE figures, to quote DIN. It's more or less the same subject than the weight of the glass cars, and the weight difference between glass and steel cars. Fascinating to see still today some auctions catalogues still quoting "1090 kgs", or "1150 kgs" for the glass cars' weight, saying that "the difference between glass and steel GTBs is 150 kilos", whereas the homologation papers of the first glass cars with the Italian ministry of transportation back in 1975 says: "1240 kgs", which gives more or less a 15 kilos difference only between glass and steel cars...(confirmed by those who had actually put the cars on a scale). But of course, "1090 kgs and 255 hp" looks better than "1240 and 230"...and legends die hard. Or the very often quoted "712" figures for the number of glass cars constructed, whereas the "train spotters" know that the total is closer to, if not exactly the figure, 808 quoted by the factory itself, etc... So it is not a question of 0 to 60 figures here... Rgds
I saw an official homologation document for carbureted cars with Euro cams (early US) showing power to be 229CV. From the extensive work I have completed on these things, that sounds to be exactly correct. A few years ago a major builder blueprinted an early GT4 engine with original pistons/rings/air cleaner and ran it on their DTS flywheel dyno and came up with exactly 235bhp. Further, we can approximately deduce drivetrain cost from this. An early car with 14" wheels in proper tune will make 195-200bhp on a dynojet. With 16" wheels (heavier) subtract 5-10bhp. This implies about a 15% loss with 14" wheels and 17% loss with 16" wheels. Brand of tires and their weight play a role in this as well, but only on a dynojet.
All great points. Glass cars seem to have a difference from car to car as well, as I am certain it is dependent on the person laying up the fiberglass as some glass panels are very thick indeed. Variation in weight from Euro glass to Euro steel, from what I've seen, is anywhere from 15-30kg.
Some (I say some, 'cause there are others...) arguments cited by certain authors for the abandon of fiberglass and passage to steel was indeed that consistency between cars was difficult to achieve, that it could be a problem for a change of panels, and that the network of dealerships was not very well versed in the use of the fiberglass in case repairs were necessary. All publications agreed however that the panels were thicker than what was the norm in the auto industry at the time, but that overall the finish was of a high standard. Rgds
Adding to that, I heard the primary concern was the time necessary to produce the vetro body panels was nearly 2x that of steel. Additionally, the US market at the time, was not very friendly to a glass Ferrari. Anecdotally, I spoke with the original owner of my car and he stated he waited specifically until the steel version was available, then brought a magnet with him they day he picked up the car just to make sure it was indeed steel.
I've long had a theory that the discrepancy in weight figures for glass cars vs steel came from the fact that the factory reported curb weight specs but had to register the "loaded weight" specs on certain gov't forms and the build plate in the door jamb. It's common knowledge that the GTB/S cars weighed in around 3,200 lbs, but if you look at the build plate they all say 3,600+ because they assume 400 pounds of max loading. Maybe people aren't comparing apples to apples with the weight figures they compare.
As written by Leonardo Fioravanti in his book, the 308 was allowed to be in glass just because Enzo Ferrari learned the early figures from USA for the GT4 sales and orders were a disasters so he gave green light to the frozen 308 GTB project saying "we need the GTB as soon as possible, make it even with plastic if it can help to have the car quicker". Enzo didn't stand plastic, so asked to switch to steel body as soon as possible. I heard a lot of stupid thing about the glass cars: Lighter and more powerful and so on. Glass cars aren't lighter as if there is a difference is something like 10 kg, and the engine is exactly the same. There is a lot of ignorance about the 308 story and many bullsh@ts still alive. And even more about the 208 turbo: It's time to know the story as is. Ciao
Dyno jet results of a US spec 1979 in driven condition. It belongs to 4webers (or did at the time). He later came back with freshly sync'd carbs and new ignition components and put down 190whp, but I can't find that file. Image Unavailable, Please Login
This is mine with the following: Cleaned out the air box (removed the US flapper) K&N filter no cats no air pumps some old slightly rusty, but near true-dual exhaust (I think it's an ANSA) base timing is a little advanced over stock Image Unavailable, Please Login
4webers came out and sync'd my carbs for me. Plus I played with the timing some more and got to this: Image Unavailable, Please Login
Oh I found 4weber's later pulls on my dynojet. Here's mine from your dyno. Stock exhaust w/ test pipes. 55 idles, 140 mains, 200 AC. Red=airbox on Blue= airbox lid off Image Unavailable, Please Login
