The (one and only) '0846' Debate Thread

Problem with using 0858 as a comparison is that is could be claimed the Can Am engine was stroked not bored to increase capacity? hence the taller block, any pics of the other untouched P4s in that location to confirm they used the same block?

 

Can Am was bored out by 2mm on each cylinder. The stroke remained the same at 71mm. A P4 engine looks the same as the Can Am in the area between the red lines.

 

Just to put that element to bed, is there any period technical confirmation of such out there Steve, any links? just to stop it being a potential red herring

I take it the extra stroke as shown by the red lines between the F1 engine and the P4/Can Am engine was where the capacity from 3 litres was gained between the two?

 

The info in my post above about the Can Am 350 only being bored out and not stroked is accepted as fact and will be in any article on these cars.

 

The difference in size of stroke is 17.5mm or 0.7 inches.

 

I will respond to the rest of these later when I have time, but for now, I'm gonna address #6. (Also, I will respond to Miura's "clue" and others later.)

It is you who is not open minded, as well as totally biased, as you have screamed from the rooftops that this case is closed many, many times before, and then guess what... something comes out and it isn't. For you, the case is always closed, as you wont look at it any other way. But time and time again your open and shut declaration has been re-opened. And for good reason.

Fact: The only 1967 photographic evidence, that could ever be considered to be close to a case closer and irrefutable evidence is if the chassis, as it sits today, was an exact match to the period photo.

Let me Quote a Little Bowie for you about the situation that sits in front of us "Time may change me."

Until you know how the car was built and modified, all this photo proves is how the car sat in 1967. To think it has to match that photo exactly, after twenty years, while enduring the known butchering of Piper (race car assembly) stewardship is, well, ludicrous.

I am not saying it is how this car came to be, but jumping to conclusions as you have basically in this entire thread, only leads your conclusions to no conclusion whatsoever.

Also per what Jim G stated, it does match that photo depending on engine position. So we'll see what he has to say about that.

But thinking that you have proven to the world that this car is 0003 is fool hearted, as it has been many times before. And will most likely be again. And possibly soon. Or... longer, as Miura states.

Your biggest mistake is that you shout victory before the other side weighs in. But however you wanna see it. Doesn't mean many here are completely sold on your tale.

As far as #1 goes, It's a couple inches above. And to call it silly is an insult. I will report your post when I figure out how to.

Thanks

Vincent Van gool.

 

I'm sure there are better ones or even better resolution pictures of this scene. P4 LM 67.
Image Unavailable, Please Login

 

Thanks Steve.

Be interesting to see what Ferrari thought this year of what seems a very different engine in Jims car than it ever ran in period, I wonder what Vincents band of Italians made of that when they went over it with their fine tooth comb!

 

Increasing stroke or a "stroked" engine does not increase the physical size of the block. Everything is done internally. You can not "add" material to stroke a block. You must build withing the confines

If you had a jar and the bottom of the car was really really thick... say an inch thick... if you could remove the material down to about a 1/4 of an inch you would gain that extra 3/4s. The outside dimensions remain the same. The jar is now being used to its maximum potential.

 

You can achieve extra cc by a stroker crank and retain the block height agreed, but you can also do the same by increasing the wall height of the cylinders as shown in the pics between the F1 and P4 engine.

It could have been argued that the Can Am engine in 0858 used a taller block than a p4 to increase the cc, Steve has now provided photos to confirm that was not the case, and the block height remained the same, hence now closing off that avenue of discussion

 

First off you are confusing left and right.. Since the view is to the rear, what is on the left side of the picture is the right hand side of the car..

Secondly, the "unused" "mount" on what you were calling the left and is actually the right side head isn't a mount. It appears to be a fluid fitting, that is tapped into the aluminum block, most likely for a pressure or temperature gage. That is why is isn't used for mounting the engine. There are already plenty of triangulated mounts there to transmit the torsional loads to the chassis.

The drop down bracket is obviously to fit the engine to the already built chassis, as is the bracket to mount the rear of the engine to the already built framework.

All of this makes sense if the chassis was built to or at some time in its life modified to a P4 standard...

 

I am not confusing anything, I am referring to the location of the heads as per the photo, the one to the left and the one to the right as viewed in said pictures.

If it is a fluid connection why is nothing shown in the hole in any of the photos when the engine is in situ? and why is it triangulated to the other two mounting holes and strengthened with ribs?

 

I have questioned what happened to the car while in the ownership of David Piper, does that mean he is being assassinated? I get that you could be upset that other posters have talked about the terrible engine mountings which is a conjunction with what still further posters have stated they are and the fact that it has been stated they must have been fitted while the car was owned by Piper. Not sure if that is entirely fair but that seems to exist as fact. Still, even that cannot be said to be assassination of David Piper. Further, it must be stated that if we cannot question people involved with #0846, then I for one will recommend to El Wayne that the thread be closed because the whole point of the one and only thread is too have all discussion and all posts in one place. This allows for a free and fair discussion of all points, not some or certain allowed, but free and fair. As stated before if there are personal attacks on anyone, a little button, top right means any post can be reported and I know the mods are severe and can and do ban people if they don't learn. Otherwise free speech is the only path to the truth.

I am aware that manufacturers can do spectroscopic testing to find out where and roughly when the steel was made based on its component parts. Mercedes SSK are of course hugely valuable and collectable and I am aware that metallurgical testing was a big factor of originality and an enterprising auto builder managed to find a sunken 1930s ship in the 1980s that had been constructed with similar metal. Multiple new SSK were apparently made from that metal in more recent times. How much of that story is true, I don't know, it may be a parable.

I would guess Ferrari knows the exact proportion of different alloy compounds and they would compare the make-up of DP0003 to what would have been used by the original chassis builder. They should have a sample that they can compare for the exact amount of carbon/nickel/iron/manganese contents etc and potentially match. For a modern or foreign build chassis this would be the smoking gun as the metallic compounds would be totally different but since Piper commissioned the build within a decade of the originals build date and potentially used the original chassis builder, the test will possibly prove they used the same alloy tubing.......

Testing will either prove Jim's chassis cannot be the same as the original OR would prove that it is made from the same alloy tubing, which means nought, but does leave the door slightly ajar.

 

It depends. When Lambo stroked the 3 liter V8 to 3.5 liters they raised the deck of the block (block height) with deck plates to install longer cylinder liners. Later castings did away with the deck plates by casting the block with a taller deck.

The aftermarket stroked Ferrari 308s with 360 crank utilize the same deck height as OEM. This can be done by using shorter connecting rods, lowering piston pin height or a combination of the two. Too short a rod can cause problems with poor rod angle. So in the end it depends on the bore, stroke, and rod ratio of the engine you are dealing with.

 

Hmm, interesting photos. I feel this may get very very embarassing for some people "in several months".

 

Jim's engine is no longer 3 litres but 4 litres, so no Nino would not have noticed the drop in power.

I believe he had a stroked crankshaft made (?)
Pete

 

this car has the chassis remains of 0846 I am convinced after 12 years (reading 445 pages and other sources)
what portion I do not know but I would say 70-80%
to claim the s/n 0846 that is another question
The engine is not the same as was in 1967.
As Piper had access to original bodies (0860 and 0858) and Alegretti the body is correct and NOS/period.

Now let us see what Ferrari Classiche has to tell Jim.

 

Who really cares what Classiche has to say. They gave their blessing to 0384. Its a 100% replica with some orig parts on a stand. Not a single orig paint chip is in that car. Clearly enough money can make anything a "real" Ferrari.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

So this would be a non Ferrari crankshaft I presume? Ferrari obviously thought it necessary to increase the size of the cylinder block by making it taller.

 

I only care if there are P3 elements in the front. Which, from what I can tell, there are.

 

Yes... you are entirely correct. However... it does not change the size of the casted block. The one piece uniform block. That in which is measurable from the day it was born to current day to help determine its original application/identification.

So yes technically... and with very poor results you can add deck plates and install longer liners etc.. however... this is not the case and not applicable to the identification/measurement in this instance.

Please don't take this in a condescending tone. That is not my intention. I am agreeing with you and supporting my original remarks... I do not mean this to come across poorly

 

well then... I've got some rolexs I would like to sell you...

I get what you are saying but just because it looks like P3 elements still wouldn't confirm the chassis to actually be 0846. It would be a good clue. But to determine it is 0846 I would imagine you would really need more substantial identification then... from what I can tell... it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

 

Timmy...

Either I wrote it too strongly or you misinterpreted what I said... but first... let me just say it wasn't aimed at you. Actually it wasn't aimed at anyone in particular.

I was more of commenting on the whole situation...

More of a drinking bears at a bar comment of... "could you imagine being that poor bastard Piper... This guy sells a car as a replica... and then the guy who buys it claims its real and now people are bringing up all sorts of crazy stories about the guys past etc... People even claimed that his P4s were dodgy and then he sells one straight up as a replica and the guy who buys it claims its real! Damn'd if you do!! Damn'd if ya don't"

Could you imagine selling your daily driver... say a BMW 528i in 2002 as a BMW 528i... the guy who buys it... puts an m5 badge on it and claims it to be an M5... and then 15 years later there is a 400 page internet thread about the used car you sold 5 years ago weather or not its an m5 or a 528i.

Yes I know its a stretch... I know its not tit for tat. I am painting with a big large broad brush to show the irony.

YA gotta see a little humor in this right?

 

So... what do you guys think of Paul 500's theory?

 

Well, that's the point you are missing then. It does not look like P3 elements.