Exclusive: Texas Man Rebuilds $1.5 Million Ferrari Enzo

All good points. There are some of us who do drive them at their limits and practically test what the super computer said would happen. Here's 200 mph on banking. Note what 2 G's of force can do. It put the outside fender into the tire. We tweaked the areo after that test.
Image Unavailable, Please Login
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

None of this is relevant. You are getting defensive now.

So what if NASA is down the street? They don't care, do not know about the Enzo's construction, don't have the engineering documents, and are not involved. Certainly NASA engineers have not certified your repairs in any way, even if they could. NASA down the street? Irrelevant.

Whether you have a porn star or Santa Claus or Bob the Builder or Joe the Plumber or an astronaut for a customer is also completely irrelevant.

Your uncle might not be able to understand things for me, but I am going to go out on a limb and say that my two engineering degrees and 10+ years of experience have made me somewhat handy in some engineering-related matters. So, irrelevant again.

That's three irrelevants, and as my dad used to say, third time's the charm (followed, in short order, by a smack to the head).

Smack to the head aside, it does look nice.

 

I think there's some sort of middle ground here.

Can the Enzo be repaired properly without shipping it back to the factory. Probably. I'm no expert so I won't try to judge the work that was done. In all likelyhood this car is most likely perfectly road worthy and track worthy - and a bargain hunter will come along and snap it up, even while knowing about its history.

I do have one question... (And again I'm no expert.) Was the car ever re-certified by a Ferrari dealer tech? This could put an end to the whole debate.

The reason I ask is that in 2007, I was in a front end collision in my brand new 2007 Lotus Exige S. The collision caused similar damage as was done to the Enzo. (Front end damage that didn't extend past the passenger cabin.) While the Exige is nowhere NEAR the car that the Enzo is, there are a few items that have to be checked after the crash to determine if the car is safe to be repaired.

The Exige has a fiberglass body with a carbon fiber crashbox and an aluminum tub that is basically epoxied to the frame. If any part of the tub is twisted, bent or the epoxy bonds broken, Lotus maintains that the car cannot be driven safely without replacing the enitre tub and subframe. It cannot be "repaired". (Which would mean a repair that costs more than the value of the car, thus making it "irrepairable".)

In my accident the car was first examined by a certified Lotus tech (from Lotus of Beverly Hills) to determine if the car was repairable. They worked together with the body shop (SCC) to make sure the car would and could be safely repaired. The engine was thoroughly examined and tested to make sure the car hadn't run without fluids and that the mounts were secure. The tub was measured to make sure that there was no bowing or twisting. The epoxy joints were inspected and tested. The car was painstakingly inspected to insure its safety and continued warrantability. The crashbox, front clam, headlamps, both oil coolers, radiators, wheels etc.. were all replaced.

The car was then recertified by Lotus after the repairs and the warranty remained intact.

My point is that the recertification of the car by a factory trained tech seemed to be common procedure in my "lowly" Lotus Exige. I'd be curious to know if it was done on this car. It may not have been, since the warranty was probably expired - so Ferrari had no interest in verifying the quality of the repair.

I don't in any way claim that the Enzo wasn't repaired to factory standards. From the limited pictures I've seen, the car probably only had moderate front end damage that didnt extend to the rest of the car and is likely road and track worthy. I just wonder if the seller could get a little more $$$$ for the Enzo if a pre/post op inspection by a Ferrari tech was done. Maybe it was?

 

I believe that unless the work is done at a Ferrari Authorised Body Shop specifically authorised to do Enzo repair or at the Factory the repair will not be "Certified" by Ferrari. In the case of the repaired Enzo done at the factory that Mike bought the car was "Certified" by Ferrari Classiche.

The Enzo is not the only car with these restrictions for "Certified" repair. The Alfa 8C must be returned to the Factory for repair in the event of a major crash.

Replacing the complete chassis of an Enzo isn't that big of a deal. Ricambi America an FCHAT sponsor would likely beat this price. (103K GBP)

http://www.eurospares.co.uk/partsListing.asp?M=1&Mo=642&A=2&B=36859&S=&ID4=1507799

 

The Lotus frame is bonded with Silkaflex (sp?). The Enzo frame is pressure and vacuum molded using preimpregnated carbon fiber. Entirely different. There is no "weak" point like the bonded areas in the Lotus chassis that would "give" first. It cannot be visually inspected for repair worthiness--you have to use fairly advanced techniques and technologies.

 

Why would the car have to be driven to the limits for a failure to occur? It's not like this car is a Ford Taurus. It's a highly engineered car. I am sure there was FEA done at Ferrari and they know precisely what the acceptable loads on the chassis and important other bits are. I am also sure they posess the expertise and equipment to check the carbon tub and appropriate other bits to verify they were undamaged. Does the shop that fixed it also posess this knowledge and equipment?

If a carbon fiber component has been overstressed - how does the repair shop know the part is OK and wouldn't fail several hundred miles from now unexpectedly? Just because it looks OK means nothing.

Since Ferrari are the ones taking on the liability for a repaired Enzo, they no doubt know the answer because they check or replace parts that could even potentially be suspect. Does a shop who is intenting to fix-and-sell want to spend the same $$$ to do the same test?

When an engineer is designing a car, they have to be a lot more careful when the power increases because this adds to the stress the car experiences. When it also has to be light weight, this adds to it even more. When using exotic materials like carbon fiber for structural components, this makes the engineering crucial. And when there is potential huge liability in terms of repair bills and injury liability, you can bet Ferrari is going to make sure it's right. Can the same be said for an independent repair shop? Do they have the same exposure to liability to ensure they take all steps to make the car 100%?

What background in engineering and structural carbon fiber parts for supercars are the above comments based on?




Just to be clear, I am not saying there is anything wrong with the car. I don't know that there is, or that there isn't. All I am saying is that the only people who can say the car gets an all-clear in terms of it being 100% from a structural standpoint, is Ferrari, period.

 

Rob

That is something everyone has to answer for themselves. The Pebble Judges have their rules and opinions for cars that wind up on their Lawn. Ferrari has it's rules for the cars that race in The Ferrari Historic Challenge and The Cars that receive Classiche Certification. The Villa d'Este guys have their rules (Under FIVA) for their lawn. The MM guys have their rules for the MM. The ACO decides who and what will get to contest the 24 of Le Mans. The Targa Florio guys have their rules which include if you're a friend of mine and have a cool car you can join in. Rules are Rules but the Truth of what something is or isn't is an entirely different matter. It is something everyone must study, deceide for themselves and act accordingly, or in this particular case deceide whether to buy and if so what to what to pay.

The Truth lives on long after the rule makers are gone. It hangs on the walls where Infinity goes up on trial.

Best

 

I wasn't comparing the two. I was pointing out that they both have unique substructures that their respective trained techs would best be able to determine damage on. (With the proper tools necessary.)

 

I would also ask what your qualifications are for assessing the damage of preimpregnated carbon fiber, as well as evaluating any repairs of prepreg carbon fiber to original specs, specifically in this application (ie. as used in the construction of the Ferrari Enzo). Do you simply eyeball it? X-ray? Load testing to failure? Stress tests? Chemical trace? Resonance imaging techniques? What?

Also, what are your qualifications for evaluating the performance of vehicles like the Ferrari Enzo. Do you have test-driving experience? If so, how much, how recent, how consistent, certified or evaluated by whom, for what test criteria, and with what kind of cars?

Just trying to understand what you mean by "professional" opinion.

 

More specifically high temperature cured aerospace adhesive - but it is a valid point that the chassis condition can be determined visually and confirmed true by accurate measurement.

What are these advanced technologies you mention? Are there pre-determined non-destructive test methods for the chassis (such as optic fibres layed in the matrix) that can only be assessed by Ferrari? Would be interested to know more as carbon fibre (and structural composites in general) are more able to withstand damage and avoid sudden failure than metal components.

 

With respect, you are not correct. Theories of failure for impact loadings are understood to a very limited extent. I respect your thoughts and know that you are an expert in exotics but I feel that I am qualified to make a statement here.

I've never called the quality of the repair into question. In fact I agree with you in saying that it looks great and panel fit as well as paint is spot on. However what I am questioning is that which has not been repaired. That is to say the areas that appear fine but likely are not.

A great example that should be listened to!

It is possible the car is fine but is that really something you'd want to chance?

 

I was digging through some thesis for an unrelated personal project I have and I saw one that is relevant. If you're genuinely curious I can PM it to you.

 

Don't know what Ferrari does or doesn't, so can't tell you which techniques would work on an Enzo tub. Only Ferrari would know, along with those parties that Ferrari shares it with. Did they share this knowledge with Matt's Auto? Hmmm.

Stretch/shear is entirely different for cf, cf with AL honeycomb, metals, etc, thermal properties, etc., are all different as well. You are correct, cf has a higher point of failure, but at that point, cf will snap or crack very suddenly, while metal can bend. <-- Very generally speaking, of course.

 

Gentlemen:

Relax. Lets not get carried away.

I have today conferred with 2 Ferrari dealers in the USA, one that is in the same state that this Enzo resides (Texas), the other in my home state of California.

1. On the mechanical front: they are both able to administer the hallowed SD3 tests to verify if something has gone awry as it relates to over-stressing a mechanical component internally. No big deal they both say, with an Enzo. "We do it all the time for Enzos" they say. "NO the car does not have to go back to the factory!!"

2. On the composite materials front (tub, body): they both say that their body-shops probably do work as least as competently as Ferrari SpA's does, and they both say "Yes we can test the tub, and/or any other composite components for that matter, and determine if anything needs to be replaced". Both shops indicated that they have composite materials specialists. Again: "NO the car does not have to go back to the factory!"

I am sure there are other dealers across the country right here in the good-old-USA that can afford the same tests for an Enzo.

Now if our friend Matt has a buyer, surely they'd agree to run the car along to the Ferrari dealer for a thorough inspection before sale given its history? Sounds like the thing to do, as Im sure stand-up-guy Matt would concur, and in fact Ive never sold a Ferrari without involving the local only-too-happy-to-participate Ferrari dealer (some reading this will know that to be fact). If they find something wrong, Matt simply makes a deduction of the price.
Whats the big deal?

The notion that this car needs to head back to Ferrari SpA in Italy is simply ridiculous. The chassis plate that Icemanbops purchased along with a handful of ashes in a ziploc bag labeled "Enzo" was another story.


.

 

As an aside, if I truly believed that a car had to be shipped back overseas to facilitate proper repairs (not that I do for one second), that right there would be the end of my ownership interest.

 

If they have the composite materials expertise and testing equipment, fine. This is something that should be part and parcel of the repair, not a "We will get it checked out for you if you like if you are really interested in buying the car, I am sure it will be ok" kind of thing.

Whether Matt concurs or not is not a validation. And reducing the price to keep the buyer hooked if things are a bit off seems a bit...shady. It is a big deal.

Now, about the ashes, were they factory certified? Who is this icemanbops and why did he purchase this? Is he related to the sultan of Brunei...that would explain it!

 

They gave them to Dietrich.

"WARNING
Damaged carbon fiber can fail suddenly, causing serious injury or
death. Carbon fiber can conceal damage from an impact or crash."

 

Whats a big deal is the fact that you've been nattering on without actually checking yourself (as I did) to see if in fact composite materials expertise existed within the USA Ferrari dealer network. Pick up your phone and have a chat with a couple of dealers then report back, but please spare us further proclamations until such time.

It is indeed valid if Matt concurs to having the car inspected. If he does not agree to have the car inspected at point of purchase, all bets are off. If he does, its all good.

Reducing the price of a vehicle for sale to accommodate the buyer's anticipated repair costs is not shady. Its proper protocol in the world of buying and selling cars, but you can be forgiven for your lack of understanding there. Shady? Baloney.

Icemanbops and the Enzo that rose like a phoenix from the ashes? Do some checking.

Best,
Joe



* I have absolutely no affiliation with the Enzo under discussion in this thread.

 

Going back to the beginning of the thread and the "devaluation" of the car after being wrecked and repaired. Its still a extremely rare vehicle and I bet in 30 to 40 years from now it will be worth a crapload of money. Look at how many early ferraris were crashed or totaled and rebuilt. Many having two or three different bodies put on them over the years. Most or now worth millions more than their original prices.

I am sure the same will occur to this car if its still around 40 years from now.

-Nate

 

Agreed. Im sure it will be around.

There are people posting right here on this thread that own cars whose provenance resembles the proverbial "Cat with 9 lives" in comparison to this Enzo that simply had a relatively low speed shunt and a much-publicized repair.

Big deal.

 

Abstract The method of sensing impact damage in carbon fiber polymer-matrix structural composite by DC electrical resistance measurement was evaluated by measuring the resistance of the top surface (surface receiving impact). The resistance obtained by using the four-probe method is a more sensitive, more precise (less data scatter) and more accurate indicator of composite damage than that obtained by using the two-probe method. The data scatter is low for both four-probe and two-probe resistances for impact energy up to 5 J, but it is lower for the four-probe resistance than the two-probe resistance. The data scatter increases with damage. It is attributed to electrical contact degradation. The four-probe resistance of the 8-lamina composite increases upon impact, such that the fractional increase diminishes as the distance from the point of impact increases. The four-probe resistance of the 24-lamina composite increases upon impact for the specimen segment containing the point of impact, but decreases slightly upon impact for the segments within about 20 mm from the point of impact. The two-probe resistance has less tendency to decrease upon impact than the four-probe resistance

 

Napolis, we don't need to worry. Joe Sackey says it's all going to be ok. If only he was president. We wouldn't need to "natter on" about anything.

I was once approached by a woman in Bangkok who offerred me "Sackey Sackey" at least, that's what I think she said. Imagine, two of 'em!

 

Even though I wasnt taking sides I was pretty intrigued by your intellectual posts right up until that one.

What I think this means is that this thread has runs its course. Just my humble opinion.

 

WTF did he just say? LOL!