The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Nathan,

I personally question Pipers sales documents that were given to Jim on purchase of #0003 ... why?, because he stated that the car was a 1967 Ferrari 330 P4, which he knew it 100% wasn't (at the time) cause he had it made in 1974 (?).

Thus the document is ............., it should have said 'REPLICA' of a 1967 Ferrari 330 P4. I'm not saying something new, it's all there for all to see and ponder ...

Again not wanting to disrespect Piper, but he is a wheeler and dealer ... and a damn good one, cause he is racing prototype Ferraris and I'm working my butt off and don't even own a Ferrari key ring


Anyway, again, all Jim has stated is that the BLOCK is 100% P4 ... probably one of the many unstamped spares that Ferrari seem to produce.

Pete

 

Are we now going to "slice and dice" the semantics even further by analyzing the ACTUAL date that 0846 was officially constructed? (probably some time in late 1966 maybe?) It's not like the P4 Ferraris were appearing on the showroom floor every September like Fords or Chevys. Did they really even HAVE a particular model year? It's like arguing over the build date of a Saturn V rocket.

 

First race was in March, 1966.
IIRC, mod to P3/4 spec was in December, 1966.

I am REALLY looking forward to seeing 0846 in Spyder form.

 

When I sell a replica I put down the date that I built it ... not the date of the original.

Even if we ignore the date completely, Piper cannot say that car (#0003) is a Ferrari P4. It is not, it is a replica of such a car.

If he can, then Paul (P4Replica) also owns a Ferrari P4!, and can advertise it as such.
Pete

 

Your self included, obviously.

Nathan, you've written a book on these Ferraris, (and have another one coming) along with several other books and articles, so you have some obvious expertise here. (As an aside, do a search for Nathan on Amazon.com.)

What exactly, (maybe a list would be helpful for us amateurs) doesn't ring true to you on Jim's car? Can you put your finger on what isn't right to you? Put them all in one post to summarize your position.

Then maybe Jim can rebut, point by point.

I happen to enjoy both of your posts, and love Jim's car. I'd like to think that you two guys can come to some kind of terms, even if it's only to state your positions clearly, and then walk away from the table.

DM

 

Dave

The bottom line remains that Nathan was challanged to do this long ago and he hasn't.

GTE
Formula 3
Silver Subscribed Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: The Netherlands
Full Name: Marnix
Posts: 1,702

Quote: (Nathan)
"The chassis was built to P4 plans but modified by David Piper to fit a P3 engine."


Mr Piper is obviously not talking about the chassis in Jim's P4 when he refers to this particular chassis.

A P3-chassis modified to P4 specifications is quite different from a P4-chassis, modified to fit a P3-engine. Almost the exact opposite in fact.

This was hundreds of posts ago. Nathan nor any "Expert" has ever refuted this. No one has because no one can. It is absolute proved fact that the chassis in my car is not built to P4 Plans.

Nathan is the one who proved that David did not counterfit 0846's P3 Chassis and he is the one who also proved that I didn't either.

Start at Nathan's post 389. It's all there and has been for a long time.

 

And I met the challenge long ago. You answer your own accusations in your own post!!

Go back far beyond post #389 in fact. It’s all there and has been for a long time. All my questions and doubts have been there a long time - many of them spread throughout this thread. In fact, we’ve all been here before.
So here's my challenge to you - answer the question in post #923

Nathan

 

Dave
Thanks for the compliment.

Dave, there's so many questions, and they're all here in this and other threads. No point in going through it all again.

I also happen to think it's a great car. I just don't think it has been proven to be what Napolis claims it is, and there are many well respected Ferrari people who feel the same.
Nathan

 

I do agree with you that you are slow.

Nathan

A reckless disregard for the truth ??

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Napolis
(Post #915) Nathan,
Jim said he had his motor 'rebuilt as a 4-liter'.
Paul M

Paul
You mean that the 3L F1 engine that Napilos bought in 003 was actually a genuine P4 engine reduced to 3L?
Nathan

Yes.

It’s interesting that you quoted your cheer-leaders in answering this question. But the fact that you quoted them shows that you agree with what they wrote - that the engine originally in 003 WAS NOT a (4L) 330P4, but according to the above it was a “250P4”.
And yet the inference of your reply repeated below is that the engine in 003 when purchased WAS a (4L) 330P4, and how dare I question it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Napolis
(Post #911) By parsing you are showing a reckless disregard for the truth.
The ENTIRE DOCUMENT is under the header:
1967 FERRARI 330 P4
Chassis No. "0003"
Engine No. "0003"
Gearbox No.595A N7
Is there any part of: "330 P4" that you find unclear?


So, who’s right? You in post #915 (it was a 3L) or in Post #911 (it was a 4L)?
Nathan

Paul M clearly states in #915 what I said, what displacement, the engine was when I bought it, and what displacement I had it built to years ago.

As Pete said and I have proved there is no question the heads, block, etc. of the engine David sold me turned out to be exactly what David swore they were: P4.

Your reckless disregard for the truth was the claim that Piper did not refer to, under penalty of law, that, in addition to being P4 the engine he sold me was 4 liter. Piper swore to the displacement being 4 liter I didn't and that is quite clear in #911.. As I said so far as I know David did not knowingly commit a crime in so doing but was mistaken. So once again are you stating that when David swore that statement he was knowingly lying under oath?
That is a serious charge you're making. Max made the same charge but when confronted retracted it.

Your referring to Paul M and Pete as "cheerleaders" is pathetic.

You have never met the challenge I posted nor have any experts or historians.

That remains fact. No matter how many times you say it, the chassis in my car was not built to P4 plans and it was your research, among many others things proves it beyond the shadow of any doubt.

 

And again, we’ve all been here before.

NEXT POINT

Let’s get one thing straight. Post 911 was about the engine capacity and that's all, as this quote shows;

So your post 911 was misleading, to say the least. Post #911 was posted to infer that you bought 003 with a 4L engine, and now you say that post #911 meant something else - Piper's statement.

NEXT POINT

It is not quite clear. What is quite clear is, as I said in post #908;

He doesn’t describe the engine at all. He doesn’t swear to it being 4L, 3L or any size.

NEXT POINT

I have NEVER said that David lied under oath. What I said is quoted in Post #908. (see above).
I’ll repeat it so it’s clear. Although the document is under the heading ‘330P4’ it doesn’t alter the fact that this document doesn’t state the engine specifications at all. It doesn’t even state that it’s a P4 engine. It doesn’t state that it’s 4L. It simply states "an original 1967 Ferrari engine Nr. *0003*, ..." Of course he didn't lie. How could he lie about the engine type or capacity when he doesn’t state what it is?
REPEAT: I have NEVER said that David lied - under oath or at any other time.
**** Stop twisting what I've said, and making out that I’ve said things that I've never said. ****
Nathan

 

piloti - when someone says:

"CloseUp toothpaste"
"Brown vs. Board of Education"
"an original 1967 Ferrari engine Nr. *0003*"

- they do not need to specify what the contents thereof are.

 

Once again you remain wrong. The ENTIRE DOCUMENT IS UNDER THE HEADER
330 P4. The legal meaning of a document being under a header is absolutely clear and understood in courts of law especially when the engine is listed directly under that heading with absolutely no modification at all. In addition there is NOTHING in the document that refers to the engines displacement or type except "330 P4". I am not twisting what you said.

Once again are you stating that David signed this document knowing that the engine he was selling listed under the header 330 P4 wasn't a 4 liter P4 engine?

Your referring to Paul M and Pete remains pathetic.

 

Especially when that "original 1967 Ferrari engine Nr.*0003*" is LISTED DIRECTLY UNDER THE HEADER 1967 FERRARI 330 P4

 

I've explained my comments. REPEAT: I have NEVER said that David lied - under oath or at any other time.
You've twisted what I've said and you're still trying to twist it.
Nathan

 

Nathan
Put aside whether or not you or I am right about what the header on the document does or does not mean. (330 P4).

Are you saying that when David signed that document you have personal knowledge that he believed that the engine he sold me under that document was not a 4 liter P4 engine but was instead a 3 liter F1 engine?

 

Then it's settled:

1967 FERRARI 330 P4
Chassis No. "0003"
Engine No. "0003"
Gearbox No.595A N7

all with then-unknown 0846 Chassis

 

The suggestion came from Max's comment as recorded in your document - p.48, and all the chat about 3L P4 engines.
Nathan

 

Funny thing remains however that allthough Piper sold the car under the "330 P4"-header, it is pretty clear that at least the chassis is NOT a P4-chassis and never was a P4-chassis. It is a modified P3-chassis. So in this view, it would not be unlogical for the engine also not being in compliance with the "330 P4" header. Fact remains however that an engine sold as being a "330 P4"-engine, must be a 4L 12 cylinder, since that is -to my understanding- the only configuration used in P4´s.

 

Interesting comments? Do these comments suggest that this document is unreliable at best?
Nathan

 

I wonder if part of the problem is the possible legal ramifications over the bill of sale not agreeing with what is actually there

 

No, if anything, I am implying that Piper didn't have his paperwork in order.

Since this circumstance didn't work out in Jim's disadvantage, I see really no legal dispute here.

 

RE Paperwork: Mr. Piper sold Jim a replica (at least to Mr. Piper’s & Jim's knowledge at the time), I assume Mr. Piper listed the car as a '67 P4 as a courtesy to Jim. As Jim has pointed out, cars titled as '67s are completely exempt from emissions and other government regulations. If the car was registered as a continuation car created by Mr. Piper in the early ‘70s, registration would likely be more difficult.

Therefore, although the bill of sale documents the pieces, I wouldn't think it is a very good piece for proving the pieces history beyond that they came from Mr. Piper. However, the Bill of Sale combined with the other documentation would probobly provide much more detail.

Regards,

Art S.

 

Nope. All of the documentation is exactly the same. Date of Pipers mfg. (74)
is/was no problem and is clearly listed on all documents.


1. Vehicles 21 Years Old Or Older

If the vehicle is at least 21 years old, there are no EPA compliance requirements upon importation. The age of the vehicle is determined by subtracting the calendar year of manufacture from the calendar year of importation. If the calendar year of manufacture is unavailable, the importer may substitute the model year or year of first registration. For instance, to qualify in 2001, the vehicle must have been manufactured in 1980 or earlier.

DOT isn't/wasn't a problem either.

 

Jim,

I thought the reason you gave for not getting a 917 was that it was made after 1967 and that it would be difficult to get road legal.

Art S.

PS. Sorry to all for the slight diversion.

 

http://www.a-cross.jp/us_motor_vehicle_import.html
EMISSION STANDARDS

The following passenger cars, light-duty trucks, heavy-duty engines and motorcycles are subject to federal emission standards:

- Gasoline-fueled cars and light-duty trucks originally manufactured after December 31, 1967.
-
-
-

Vehicles must be certified to U.S. federal emission standards by their manufacturers for sale in the U.S. Vehicles that do not meet these requirements are considered nonconforming. A currently certified ICI, a list of which is available from the EPA, must import nonconforming vehicles for you. The only EPA-authorized ICIs are located in the U.S. It is therefore recommended that you contact an ICI to discuss costs for modification and testing before you decide to import a nonconforming vehicle. The ICI will be responsible for assuring that your car complies with all U.S. emission requirements. (As of July 1, 1998, EPA no longer has the one-time exemption for vehicles five or more model-years old.) Be aware that EPA will deny entry to certain makers, models, and model year if an ICI is not certified or is unwilling to accept responsibility for the vehicle(s) in question.


You may obtain additional information on emission control requirements or on ICIs from the U.S. EPA Vehicle Programs and Compliance Division/Imports at tel. (202) 564-9660, FAX (202) 565-2057; or visit the Web site on page x.

x - perhaps this page? www.epa.gov/otaq/imports/factmtop.htm