I just realized I don't have any idea how to properly enunciate the numerical designation for my Italian car in her native language. My guesses: Tre Zero Otto (Three Zero Eight) Trecentotto (Three Hundred Eight) Tre O Otto (Three Oh Eight) I'm sure someone here knows the right answer. Might as well tell us how to say 328 as well, while you're at it. Thanks!
I don’t know in Italian but in Roman it’s CCCVIII = 308 Hey! This would be god for my personalize license plate
Funny that Peugeot had a patent on the 308 name and Ferrari basically told them to stuff it an owned it. If you say "three oh eight" who thinks of a Peugeot?
three-0-eight is only in English. In Italian it's "trecento otto", three hundred eight. Maybe anyone wants to know how in Maranello they call it in local vulgar speech (dialetto, local dialect): it's "tarzeint ot" (in English something like reading "turzaint ot") ciao
I don't actually know if there is a Peugeot "Trois-cent-huit' (= Three hundred eight, which is how we call a "308" here) but what I do know is that Porsche never did manage to come to an agreement with Peugeot about the use of "901", which was how Porsche wanted to call the "911" initially. Might seem rather suprising, but Peugeot and Ferrari were actually "somewhat close" during the sixties and seventies; Peugeot used Pininfarina quite often (and with some success: the very nice 504 coupé and especially the cabriolet: too bad they are such rustbuckets, otherwise I would have one) and Enzo Ferrari himself sometimes drove Peugeots; Phil Hill also, when he was a member of the Scuderia. Rgds
Yea I think Peugeot was trying to own any name that had a zero in the middle but isn't there a Peugeot 308 sedan? In English we say "Three Oh Eight" because "Three Hundred and Eight" would sound pretty silly.
2.926 cm3 to be pedantic... Ferrari used the same liners, pistons and con-rods than for the "365 GTB 4" V12 engine (same bore, same stroke, even if 365 x 8 is only 2.920). It was easier for parts procurement, and cheaper than going to a full 3,0 l engine and having to order, or manufacture, a whole set of new, different parts. Some people actually tend to forget hat there was not so many money at Ferrari in these days than there is today. Rgds
Here (Modena) we call 328 "three and twenty eight" more often than three hundred twenty eight: "tre e ventotto". But both ways are correct. Ciao
Same in French, but the order of preference is reversed: more often the fully spelled "trois-cent-vingt-huit" ("three-hundred-and-twenty-eight") and sometimes the shortened "trois-vingt-huit" ("three twenty-eight"). Rgds
Maybe there is a Peugeot 308 sedan, honestly I don't know; it's been a very long time since I have payed attention to any other car than a Ferrari, Lamborghini or some Aston-Martins; I really have no clue of what modern cars in the streets are; have not the faintest idea of the range of any constructor today, not even Porsches. The last time I did pay attention to a modern car was for the new "Fiat 500" in 2007. If I had to buy a daily, I wouldn't even know where to start from... Rgds
If Ferrari had anything like a competiton-derivative in mind, I guess they would have gone to the full allowed spec, 2.999 cm3 or something like that. The "3 litre" limit was very common at the time, especially in Formula One. Everytime I have a look at the engine of a QV or a 328, I am always reminded how close to the Ford-Cosworth DFV (2.997 cm3...) they look; not that surprising for a 3 litre 90° V8, but they are really look-alike... Rgds
Well...I see...they say it was the replacement for the Peugeot 307; didn't know about that one either! Usually, when I take a cab, I have zero clue about the car I'm riding in...the cabbie might say this is "such and such" car in "such and such range", but I have no clue of what they are talking about; no clue about the current range of cars from the main manufacturers also; I mean, no clue at ALL. Rgds
I wonder if the 3.0L legal limit needed to include (or they thought it needed to include) the maximum bore (2nd oversize) and the maximum possible stroke due to tolerances (rather than the nominal stroke)? Or they just liked using integer nominal numbers, and it was close enough without going over .
