Question re: inside of F40 rear valance

Euro vs. US spec is my guess...?

 

Alex,

some cars were made with the kevlar weave showing, others not. I saw this first hand when 9 F40's were shown at Cavallino this year. Mine and Phil Bachmans F40 both had the blackened rear valence and this was attributed to a later build.

 

Interesting, I never noticed that. On the first F40 I had the area you are referring to has the black covering. The one I currently own does not. They are both 92s.

 

That is absolutely the case. rest easy my friend !

 

As with most things about the F40, it depends whether it was Antonio or Guiseppe working on your car that day, and how much wine they drank the night before!

 

I've seen both as well, not a big thing IMO.

I THOUGHT I read somewhere it was because they used two different suppliers who prepped that particular part?

 

On one hand I think the all black valance looks more refined and better quality, which feeds into the later model theory and what you would expect from a $1M supercar. On the other hand I like the carbon to show, which feeds into the raw unrefined lightweight mystique of the F40 (albeit in ounces, fweerf). Either way its another prime example of the many cool facets to the F40.

 

My 1992 car and all other models should have the kevlar weave showing with only small amounts of black. I believe most if not all the fully blacked out ones have been repaired. When repairing the damaged kevlar, the weave can never be matched perfectly, so people black out the area to hide the evidence of repair.

 

It can't be an age related thing because the two F40's shown are both early examples.

 

Interesting topic...

Joe
www.joesackey.com

 

The back of the F40 is the *MOST* likely place to sustain damage!

Not wanting to feed into the damage theory, I can add that of the 2 92's I had, the one that had the rear area fully blacked definately had rear end damage (not by me), and the rear of the car was replaced with a brand new one, much later than 1992. Again I'm not implying it means *anything* relating to damage, just that I know that car had a very very late build of the rear end.

 

Well, lets think about this statement. The parts come to the dealer primed but unpainted. If it was replaced with a new piece, it would not be painted till the body shop touched it.

If it was repaired, rather than replaced, you are correct only way to hide the repair is to paint it.

I never had damage on my F40, but I did get alot of track rash on the outside of this area that had to be constantly retouched.

I was referring to damage limited to that area, but I see your point.

lol I will say you maybe right about the ass getting hurt first, going backwards in a F40 is a very interesting ride!

 

Dear Comrade Stradman,

My only comment here, and please, I purport no expertise whatsover, is that the F-40 was a car that was contiually under development and that is why many say that the 1992 car is the one to have. This will of perhaps cause a whole tirade to erupt regaling tales of why a particular year of F-40 was better than those before or/and after. However, you should bear in mind that the F-40 is perceived by many as a hastily cobbled together motor car with a gestation period from inception to production of a mere eighteen months. The production line, such that it may have been, would be most unlikely to have been some sophisiticated computer controlled affair with parameters controlled to the nth degree. And all these years later there are the 'experts' that set themselves up seemingly as scions of Ferrari, who allege, assert, claim, declare, proclaim and profess in such a profound and eruditely sagacious manner bordering upon profligacy. And the more they expound their views and opinions, the further it becomes entrenched and established and therefrom their overt promulgation is perceived beyond doubt that they are indeed the fount from which outpours all wisdom F-40.

And as for the 'expert' technician at your dealership? Well, if he has seen one F-40 and the others have not seen one then I suppose it is fair to say that he is an expert - of sorts. However, who is to say that such negative opinions that he so readily communicaed to you were no more than schadenfreude?

However, I am able to confirm that my 1992 F-40 does have the rear valance painted in a manner precisely matching that of both yours and RufMD's F-40 along with other 1992 models on this Forum.

My car is totally original, is possessed of the Classiche Certification and if you would wish to place your car alongside my car to make any comparison thus to clear any doubts that you may have, then please contact me so that a mutually convenient arrangement may be made.

All good wishes.

With kind regards,

512 Tea Are

 

Quite

Joe
www.joesackey.com

 

Did you know that in the USA, of the 3 model years 1990, 1991 & 1992, the 1990 model year has the lowest production by some significance?

Of the USA F40 production, there were 60 1990 cars built, 80 1991 units and 73 1992 examples. This would mean that 1990 is the rarest model year for USA F40s. Did you know that this is a fact that cannot be disputed?

You are correct in that you have inadvertently commenced a Model Year Holy War and I suggest that the ensuing slugfest be moved to a new thread entitled: "What Model Year of the F40 is the one to have?"

Naturally it will receive posts by owners extolling that the model year of THEIR F40 as best, so no conclusion of any merit will be reached. I promise I am not trying to cause any trouble...

Joe
www.joesackey.com

 

Who cares about what year is the "year to have". Stradman asked a very good question to which there has been no answer! As I said earlier I've had 2 92s, and one was one way, one was the other. So its not model year. I dont see how painting that small section would have anything to do with build quality. Hiding the kevlar for asthetics makes no sense because they didn't do under the hood, or other visible places on the car. I think crash damage can be ruled out on some cars (but not all) as its seen on the ultra low mileage car. Obviously the classiche department isn't having any trouble with it. Ferrari wouldn't do it unless there was a reason, so what is it?!