Mid Engined V12 with Carbs

Possibly one of the shorter threads on Ferrarichat, but would someone care to enlighten me...Which Ferraris, if any, are Mid Engined V12s with Carbs...the 512BB?

 

For production cars, it was just the 365 GT4/BB and the 512 BB.

 

Thanks Eric, 512 BB now added to my list of wanted Ferraris!

Am tempted by this one...

http://www.pistonheads.com/sales/detail.asp?i=32914&s=204

But am supposed to be saving for Home Improvements.

 

Its on my list too.

 

Neither of these had V12 engines, rather they were flat 12's (or Boxers - hence the BB name)

The only mid-engined sports V12 I know is the 250LM from the 60's. Additionally numerous F1 racers from the 60's onwards were mid engined V12, although a lot were also flat 12's

 

They were not true "boxer" engines. They were 180 degree V-12s.

 

That is what a Boxer engine is Einstein!

 

Not neccessarily, it depends on the timing I think?

Do the Flat 12s have 60 deg cranks as opposed to 180 deg cranks?

 

Yes, it is dependant on timing. In a true boxer engine, the pairs of pistons move so that they look like they are "boxing" each other. I'm pretty sure that Ferrari did not use this design in the road car engines. There is a difference.

And name calling is not a good way to introduce yourself to this board.

 

Well someone should tell Enzo that he got the name wrong, because he called the these cars Berlinetta Boxers - that is what the "BB" in the cars title stood for!

I am always amazed at how some people offer an opinion as if it were fact when they are not reeally sure at all - its confuding for people trying to learn and frustrating for those that actually know

 

Its called marketing.

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showpost.php?p=134502223&postcount=2

 

Here is the rest of the thread.

http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=36761

Now I am sure that it is not a "boxer". When I say pretty sure, it just means I'm on my first cup of coffee.

 

Careful here. You might want to look at Erik's screen name again - judge4re, as in "I judge Ferraris at concours events." I suspect that Erik knows a thing or two about Boxers. Then again, he has been across the really big pond for so long that he actually thinks that a 365 2+2 is a real Ferrari, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

Dr "Ducking and running " Who

 

The thread you point to is exactly what I was saying "so called experts" - it would be impossible for two horizontally opposed cylinders "to share the same crank pin" (I assume he actaully means crank journal)

 

As I don't have any of my engine design textbooks in China, I'll send an email to Paolo Martinelli on Monday. My counterpart in our Rome office went to school with him.

Will that make you happy?

 

Please explain why 2 opposed cylinders can't share the same pin or journal?

I always assumed that was how they worked?

I'm no expert so would be genuinely willing to be educated.

 

Because the angle between the two conrods changes as the crank rotaes. Try and visulize when the crank journal (i.e where the con rod big ends would be) is at the top the conrods would effectively angle down in a capital A shape, but by the time the crank journal got to the bottom, the con rods would effectively angle upvards in a V shape. the only what this could happen is if bendy conrods were used - not generally the case.

Hence each con rod needs its own journal to connect to the crank to allow the crank to turn, pistons to move laterally and the con rods to connect the two planes of motion.

Easier over a beer with a pen and a beermat to draw on.

 

I am not unhappy in the slighest

Look forward to his (or her) views.

 

That's why I put production in my original reply. I know Enzo did try and claim that the LM was just a homologation special...

 

Ah, the beautiful 3-seater, centrally seater beauty - how could I!


Great picture. perfect backdrop with a few MV Augustas and at least one Ducati Pantah

 

Now a certain DR Who was warning me that you were the holder of all Ferrari knowledge being a concourse judge and all - but I nm getting increasingly worried!

1) The car in the photo is not a 250LM
2) Enso never claimed that anything was a homologation special - he always claimed the opersite to try and enale his cars to run in "production-type" categories

What type of tee have you been drinking in China?

 

No, my comment to Wayne was that the 3 seater pictured, along with the 250 LM were not production cars, but rather specials.

Homologation would allow it to run in production, not prototype.

 

True and the P4 - unless its one of the above (I bow to your obvious knowledge here)