David Piper restores the Talacrest P4

I have seen 512 612 712 with 603 casting numbers on the boxes. They may have had other stampings as well.

241? I don't believe that is a 603 casting. I think it's a 593 casting.

242 F1 was derived from 237 blocks. (The same casting) Tipo 242 was 3 liter 237 4 liter. same castings different rod length and crank journal size. I believe the first casting that became many tipo's was tipo 218. (218, 237, 242, 247, F1 until 312 flat motor?)

Tooling a new casting was much more expensive than revising/modifying one.

How about you.

Do you think advertising this car today as "330" when it's 247 350 is false and misleading?

Assuming that TC/Piper haven't replaced 0858's 350 Can Am's engine with a P4 237 engine which I welcome them to prove they have.

 

My source states that the gearbox tipo for the 512S&M cars is 603S.

 

412P 0848 also uses a tipo 241 engine with Weber carburettors. It previously used tipo 216 with fuel injection when a P3.

 

Jim should know what a tipo 241 engine is as it's what is in his 412P 0854. Tipo 241 engines were used in chassis tipo 593/604 (P3/412P = P3 converted to 412P) and chassis tipo 604 (412P).

 

I don't disagree that these differences were often minor and pertained to head design, crank and rod configuration or induction on a common block. I agree that a tipo 247 is not a 330 (a "cheater" historic racing motor, perhaps a selling point ). I think I have made it clear in my comments that as this conversion has been done, it should be done completely and that would include a tipo 237 engine. The 603 gearbox is a 5 speed plus reverse where as the 612 CanAm tipo 613 was a 4 speed plus reverse. The castings are very similar.

 

They didn't manage to get Piper's P4 body and had to make one incorrectly instead. They certainly aren't off to a good start.

For $25m there should be an awful lot of original P4 in this 'restoration'.

 

Sort of an "Unfair Advantage" like Mark and Rodger's 512M.

It was the castings that Ferrari was cleaver and frugal with. They got a lot of use out of all of theirs. Surplus 603 castings that hadn't been bored out to the point that they could no longer be run as 3 liter F1's in 68 were still useful to Ferrari in 68.

Perhaps TC and David can find a nice original 68 F1 car with a dual tipo block one of which is 237...

 

I've never seen a 312 F1 car with a tipo 237 engine referenced but I'm sure Jim knows what he's talking about. Here's one I made earlier.

 

Such a famous prototype Ferrari, with an odd serial number? Them's some misinformed lawyers.

Jim has stated that RM's mistake was similar to yours. They wanted to call it a P4. Ferrari told them that that was a lie and that the car was a 350 Can Am. Then they changed their description and made the announcement.

 

603 castings weren't engine blocks were they which is what Jim must be talking about above? As far as the prototypes are concerned the tipo number 603 refers to the chassis, suspension, body, wheels and gearboxes, but not engines or engine blocks?

 

Perhaps. Best if they found the original 0858 237

I missed this earlier. Thanks for reposting.

 

Correct. In this context, 600 numbers are chassis tipo, 200 numbers are engine tipo.

 

True.

Chassis numbers are not tipo's.

Castings were used to make up many tipo's.

Some castings were two different tipo's at different times and so stamped.

Original 603 Tipo 237 blocks could be used as 3 liter F1 engines after they were no longer needed for Prototype's. Once again as per Sparling in my PDF they were run as 3 and 4 liter prototype motors at The Ring and The Targa where fuel economy mattered.

0858's original P4 237 block seems to be MIA. It's 247 block HAS NO DUAL STAMPINGS SUCH AS THE DUAL STAMPED 218/242 TIPO BLOCK I POSTED A PHOTO OF.

POSSIBLY it lives, properly dual stamped 237/??? in a 68, 69 F1 car.

As I said that's where I'd look.

 

What Jim says about the tipo 242 (3 litre 312 F1) and tipo 237 (4 litre 330 P4) engine blocks makes more sense and simpler to understand if it was stated that they share the same bore size of 77mm. The stroke must then be altered by the crank journals changing the stroke length for the difference in capacity?

 

True.

 

Below is RM's information posted on the net for the 2009 auction of 0858.


"ULTRA-RARE AND HUGELY VALUABLE LE MANS PODIUM-FINISH FERRARI 330 P4 TO MAKE AUCTION DEBUT

Ferrari – Leggenda e Passione


RM Auctions, in association with Sotheby’s, announce an ultra-rare 1967 Ferrari 330 P4 (chassis number 0858) as the latest star attraction for its ‘Ferrari Leggenda e Passione’ event in Maranello, Italy. One of only THREE original P4s built, this stunning Monza-winning and Le Mans example joins an unparalleled line-up of historic Ferraris and three magnificent Maseratis for the May 17 auction.

LONDON, England (April 20, 2009) – RM Auctions, in association with Sotheby’s, will lift the gavel on an exceptional, race-bred 1967 Ferrari 330 P4 (chassis number 0858) when the highly anticipated Ferrari Leggenda e Passione event returns to Maranello, Italy next month.

Regarded as one of the greatest sports-racing prototypes ever designed by Ferrari, the fiercely competitive 330 P4 is one of only three P4s ever built. This example has a distinguished racing pedigree including a win at the 1000-kilometre Trofeo Filippo Caracciolo in Monza and a third overall finish at the 24 Hours of Le Mans in 1967. The car has been driven by such legendary names as Lorenzo Bandini and Willy Mairesse, while Jackie Stewart and Chris Amon famously took the car to second place in the British BOAC International 500 at Brands Hatch, clinching the World Championship for Ferrari in the process. Significantly, its offering at the May 17 event marks the first time it has come to market in 38 years.

“With only three original P4s ever built, to say this car is rare is an understatement,” says Max Girardo, Managing Director of RM Europe. “There is tremendous excitement surrounding 0858’s appearance at our Maranello auction. Its offering represents a once-in-a- lifetime opportunity to acquire one of the most important race cars ever created and a highly desirable piece of Scuderia Ferrari racing history. The addition of this historic car to the auction builds on the already mounting anticipation for the event, which is now just under a month away,” adds Girardo.

0858 has a significant provenance with a well-documented international racing career spanning a number of different continents from Australia to South Africa and Europe. For the past 38 years it has been under the care of its current owner, during which it has only be shown at very few exclusive events in the United States, including an appearance at the Rolex Monterey Historic automobile races in 1995 and again in 2003.

The legendary 1967 Ferrari 330 P4 will join an unprecedented selection of important road and racing Ferraris when RM Auctions, in association with Sotheby’s, present Ferrari Leggenda e Passione, May 17 in Maranello, Italy. Now in its third year, the single-day event is the only auction dedicated to the Ferrari marque, held within the factory grounds and endorsed by the Ferrari factory. With 34 historic Ferraris all certified by Ferrari Classiche, and three Maseratis set to cross the block, this year’s historic line-up eclipses RM’s previous two record-breaking Maranello collections.

For further information or to view a full list of the cars and memorabilia on offer, please visit Classic Car Auctions | RM AUCTIONS | Offering the World's Finest or call RM’s London Office on +44 (0) 20 7851 7070. "

 

Ferrari Classiche in writing have stated that as per the report on the certification book the engine 247 type No. 2 in 0858 is the original one for the car. When asked in writing if this was previously a P4 tipo 237 engine they neither committed that it was or that is was not and only stated that the information requested is not available.

Isn't it logical or even possible that this is the 4.0 litre tipo 237 engine bored out to 4.2 litres with the 237 stamps removed and 247 stamps added and their statement, noting well the words "original one for the car," be interpreted to mean that it also applies to the original 330 P4 configuration?

 

So what we have is a mostly original chassis, or at least 70% of one and possibly an orginal type block with different internals.

Now many a great accepted car has been retsored from less than this. So if that is all that had remained(70%chassis and block)this would be a lesser P4 but aP4.

The issue here is that a rare and complete period build car was canibalised to do this. If you care about the actual machines and their preservation, their rarity, which many on the top end claim to do, then on principle what is happening here is very wrong.

And yes if the P4 bits remained and were reinstalled it would be very acceptable, if genuine and correct P4 bits of new build were installed it would also be better than what we have now but still questionable.

In any event its great to see recreations gaining acceptance at the highest levels, which this car is,even more so the 11 mill fetched for a data plate GT40 recreation. So its all a funtion nowadays of attacheable provenance as opposed to when the thing was made or what it actualy is.

I would rather have a new build but otherwise real P4, the fun folks should be in the driving which recreations are better for, and the fun for the old builds in the preserving showing and $value pose.

 

To me it means it is the original engine for the original 350 Can Am which the car is and not the P4 that it hasn't been since 1967. Therefore Classiche's statement makes sense.

 

I respect and understand the reasoning in your reply.

 

There is NO evidence that the block in 350 Can Am was EVER in P4 0858. NONE.

There are real very original cars that get driven and shown.

I understand your point but still think that all that matters is FULL disclosure and I'm glad that Ferrari made RM clearly state just before the auction began that the car being auctioned was Ferrari 350 Can Am 0858 not Ferrari 330 P4 0858.

Advertising this car as "330" remains misleading and false. It is NOT full disclosure.

 

Ok so what we have then is a 70% complete chassis.

I know there are origional cars driven, but not necessarily(p3/4) historic raced in anger, nor should they be. Driving in anger ontrack is a big part of the fun for the driver and crowd, but near criminal for an origional limited prod historic artifact. From an $$$ perpective a shunt repair is a fraction of the value so probably not a big $ deal, but if we dont think the can am should be chopped then racing/crashing/blown motor an irreplaceable artifact is in a similar category.

Therefore from a drivers and spectators perspective santioned recreations can add to the fullness of the experience, with period builds on a pedestal kept for posterity and driven carefully in rallies etc. That is if we believe in the custodian theory and really value the artifact for what it is(period builds), while still also appreciating that race cars a physicaly experiential objectsfor a track(recreations).

In any event it will be interesting to see what this car(chassis) fetches, and if its bought by an "informed" buyer.
Discloure may well be a good legal nicety, it may well affect value here down and elevate the value of other more origional cars. But even full disclosure does not alter the fact of the destruction of a surviving piece, which to me is far more of an issue. Now maybe full disclosure will so negatively impact the value that it will be worth restoring back to a can am, but somehow I doubt it. If someone gets ripped because they did not realise what this car is, then perhaps they should not really be buying such machines anyway. Interesting to see whther we have an informed educated buyer.

Based ont he discussion here, perhaps an informed buyer will find that building a correct body(hand hammered no bondo) and adding the right bits(motor transmission) will net a huge profit free of controversy as we will all see it as an improvement.

 

I would guess that the chassis is a lot more than 70% to the same specification as how it was when in P4 configuration originally, tipo 603? As far as I am aware it only had a section at the rear removed when it was converted to the Can Am specification, tipo 603C, as the regulations for that series did not specify the need for a spare wheel and some storage space as the prototypes had to have. As a result the Can Am car's bodywork became shorter, and partly due to this the car became lighter. If this is incorrect please could somebody specify the actual differences between the 2 chassis tipos rather than just saying that the Can Am chassis is getting chopped up and butchered etc as has previously been said. It's not getting chopped at all. If anything it's having a section that was removed added back to to it along with a spare wheel and storage space?

 

Steve,

The percentage of how correct the chassis is is hardly the point, IMO.

1)
Ferrari themselves killed 0858 P4 in 1967. That car no longer exists.
2)
Ferrari used parts of 0858 P4 to build a new car, 0858 350 Can Am. This car has a different chassis tipo and different engine tipo.
3)
0858 350 Can Am survives as an original 350 Can Am until 2009, when it is offered at auction WITH a Classiche red book certification.
4)
Ferrari state that they will NOT grant 0858 red book certification if returned to P4 specification. That is rather logic, as they themselves destroyed that car 42 years earlier.
5)
Notwithstanding point 4, TC acquires the car and sets about recreating 0858 P4, butchering the red book certified 0858 Can Am.
6)
The result of this operation has the wrong tipo engine, a lookalike body made using the wrong methods and standards, and is marketed as something that ceased to exist in 1967, destroying an undisputed original piece of Ferrari competition history in the process.
7)
The marketing of the result is misleading at best.

Best,

Jack.

 

You forgot:
8) some people are so besotted with the shape of the P4 spyder they will forgive anybody anything and to h*ll with history

9) and some people think the involvement of an ex-Ferrari driver adds to the provenance rather than detracting from it


Paul M