[ATTACH] [ATTACH] [ATTACH]
Image Unavailable, Please Login View attachment 719272 View attachment 233166 View attachment 171829 View attachment 345542
It was Jas Rarewala and his partner Trefor Thomas whose company ACI (Automotive Compliance Inc) in Torrance California specialized in automotive compliance to meet USA DOT & EPA mandates. Compliance agents were all over the USA in the grey-market era, two prominent ones in Florida and Connecticut come to mind, ACI could easily have outsourced the work to another specialist using ACI's parts. Peter said earlier in this thread: "let's call it what it is......a bumper. That is what it was designed for and that's what it was used for. It simply just resembled a wing" He's 100% correct, as it relates to both the front & lower rear 'wings'. I spoke to the late Trefor Thomas about these wings, and he said they were ACI's creative way of getting around the USA DOT bumper-height mandates without subjecting Countachs to unspeakable automotive vandalism. We can draw our own conclusions about how effective these units are for the purpose for which they were designed. From an aesthetic or subjective standpoint, of course beauty is in the eye of the beholder and modding one's car for better or worse is always the owner's prerogative, I can see wing-lovers find them cool as they relate to the Countach, sort of taking the wing-fetish to the extreme. Personally, I feel that these front wings were not a redeeming feature for the Countach, past or present. Perhaps I'm one of the few that felt back in the day that the famed Cannonball Run movie car, for example, would have looked even better and much more cool in it's sinister black livery in the movie without those goofy aftermarket wings. I remember wondering why they could not have removed those silly items when I first saw the movie! From a performance perspective, it's worth noting that these wings were not aerodynamically tested and served to slow the Countach down, a sort of an air-brake. In fact, an LP400S S2 with front wing was slower than a Pantera, BMW M1 and even a Porsche 928 in a magazine test, cars that the Countach outperformed in European tests with wingless cars. From a value perspective, strictly-speaking, these wings are a post-production modification, no Countach ever left Sant Agata with them in place nor are they factory-designed & tested components, and in today's highly educated and particular market, I think you'd have a tough time selling a Countach with these on. For example, if you put one such car in a public auction next to an identical without these wings, I daresay the wingless car would bring more. Whilst these wings are definitely an interesting footnote in the complicated history of the the USA Countach, I guess the true test of appreciation would be if someone would actually go ahead and add this to their Countach today. Here below is a product of ACI's work, images in front of ACI's Torrance California facility circa 1982 Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Did you keep the wing? Your wing looks different on the ends than the others. They were made of fiberglass, not aluminum?
Yes. Still have it. I will check material. Have not paid mutdh att to it in a long time. I do think its fiberglass.
There were many off shoots/copies.. ones added on i assume just because a few people wanted to replicate the look on later cars. Im only a fan personally of the ACI one, which i would say was the first type used, and only on S2 cars as originally installed (of course Not by Lamborghini). The rest were poorly executed copies of this. They feel aluminum to me but I believe have a steel bar inside. They were meant to meet a DOT rule, and height, and of course they were not "tested" aerodynamicly (otherwise i would say they should be flat on top and curved on the bottom to produce a downward force)all that is without question, and not really why i brought this up. Of course purists will not be a fan.. and i myself always hate modifications that change the look of a car... BUT, this is My one exception- and while everyone of course has an opinion, i am simply stating mine. Would i add it on a car that wasnt run through ACI back in the day? Never.. would i keep it if i had one installed from that era? You bet! Im glad to now know the company name and sorry i was mistaken about an owners name. I appreciate the new facts of information.. still curious about the number of cars that maybe were processed with this DOT idea, as i only know of 4. Surly there more. They are a chapter in Countach history.
I think if we started calling it a "bumper" it would confuse people.. they would think of the traditional, much more popular black rubber DOT front bumper. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Yes, understood, that said, it is in fact a bumper but in the shape of a wing. I can totally see how some find it cool, not me though, and not because I am too much of a purist, more because for me because they affect performance adversely, especially as it relates to actually driving these cars. I'm also a personal believer that sometimes less is more. I recall a client who had one telling me that at night he could hardly see as the wing compromised the illumination from his headlights, and, I also recall our own FChat member Chad Bolles stating that many years ago he drove his 1980 Rame Colorado Metallizzato S2 car over triple-digits on the freeway (I don't want to say the exact speed he stated) and the front end got dangerously light! Perhaps he'll chime in and confirm this. Trefor Thomas told me personally that they never tested them aerodynamically, so unless you plan on driving your Countach slowly, this may not be a great idea.
I agree.. its benefit is ONLY for the look, and that is subjective. It certainly would decrease performance. The lights are an interesting point. Doesnt look too blocked in this shot, but leave it to the government to force the car to be "safer" while actually making it more dangerous= they excel at this Image Unavailable, Please Login
