What car would you trade for your prosche?

[VINMAN]

Detomaso Pantera or Shelby GT500

[cak]

More Dino love....

Stunningly beautiful cars. Prices are through the stratosphere again, though. Decent drivers were around $60K for several years until about 12 months ago... now you pretty much can't touch a 246 GTS for under $120K. Ouch.

[cak]

Ferrari 330 guys have you seen the website that chronicles the restoration of one of these?

You're thinking of Tom Yang, http://www.tomyang.net - he found a disused 330 America (that's a 250 GTE with the early 4 liter motor, they made 50 as a transition), partially in boxes, and spent years doing the restoration. He was lucky in that he had a Pebble Beach winning restorer as a mentor, who opened a lot of doors for him.

Tom did a ton of beautiful work on his car, and did the community a service by documenting it carefully.

Until I had to get that first tune up. Typical cost for a tune up not involving repairs is over $7000.00.

Hmm. I guess it depends on what you mean by a tuneup. Distributor caps have gotten very hard to get - $500 to $1000 each - and the car takes two. But you don't replace them often.

A valve adjustment is about 4 hours of labor, and that might be part of a "tuneup" - the factory recommends every 5000 miles. It takes about an hour just to strip off the air cleaner and throttle linkage so you can start removing the valve covers! The rocker linkage on the SOHC cars is similar to the 911's, but the adjusters are a stupid design that tend to need replacement - probably 10 out of 24 will have failed every time you go in there.

10 quarts of oil in the sump. That part's familiar, no?

What I learned early on about working on 'vintage' Ferraris is that they're really pretty simple - but there's more of everything, and the parts are very expensive. I mean, there were a total of 1000 330s made, period, in three different body styles. There's no such thing as factory support (though that's changing over the past few years). Many parts carry over from previous models (especially true for engine parts) or were subcontracted out (our car has a ZF tranny, Bonaldi booster, Ate master cylinder and reservoirs, Girling calipers, a funny mix of Lucas and Marelli electrics, and York a/c). Trim parts are essentially unobtanium. I was lucky to find a NOS fender when I needed one 10 years ago.

Yet the Ferrari world thinks these are cheap cars, worth cutting apart to make 250 replicas.

Now an engine rebuild is a scary prospect. General consensus is that it takes 200 hours of labor to rebuild a SOHC Ferrari V12 - if nothing goes wrong. And the real trick is knowing what to do when something goes wrong (like, for starters, the aluminum heads sticking to the block). Plus machine work. And, of course, parts are hideously expensive, pistons are typically custom made, blah blah blah.

[Z-man]

Originally posted by Dantilla
Realistically, I'd be tempted by the Lotus Elise.

Setting reality aside, a Miura.

Both would work for me too.

But I would prefer a Lotus Exige S.

Or, if I would want to "keep it in the Porsche family" a 996 GT3 would be just perfect.

-Z

[cak]

I split this into a different post because it's a different train of thought to my Ferrari rantings

I mentioned in my first response in this thread that I liked the sweet spot of the sports cars of the early 70s. One thing I didn't mention and should have, is "utility".

I, too, lust after a 246 or 330 spider, and the Ariel Atom, and the Elise. They're stunning, each for their own reason, having pushed out to different edges of the design envelope.

But the thing I find missing from all of them, and many of the other driver's cars of the moment, is the sheer utility of the sports cars of my youth.

I can and have taken two week road trips, with a passenger, in my Triumphs (yes, there's plenty of room for luggage after loading the spare parts and tools ), and won autox and rally trophies while on those trips. I can certainly imagine doing that in my 911, though we haven't had the opportunity yet.

I can't imagine doing that in a Miata, or a Cayman, or an Elise (you can barely get two bags of groceries into an Elise). And not in an Atom.

I've done a week in a Seven, though that was a lot more spartan (two of everything, wash one set every night). You could do that in a Miata or Elise, I guess, but who would want to?

Our 330 is a 2+2 and holds four adults in comfort, along with their stuff. We've taken a week-long trip in her (with four up), but I probably won't do it again - the per-mile cost on that car is just too high. That's a different measure of utility, but it's part of my reality. The same is true for the spiders, multiplied by about 10 - because there you have to worry about how much you're depreciating the car for every mile on the clock.

Boxsters and Caymans are big, but how much of that space is usable load/luggage carrying space?

Sure, sure, the modern cars are lighter or safer or something. I get it. It's just not what I love.

The sports car of years ago could be and often was a do-it-all car. I existed comfortably with only my TR4A for several years. How many of today's sports cars could do that? Would you carry lumber in your Boxster or Elise?

[Rich76_911s]

Originally posted by thrown_hammer
Hands down. Unimog radio truck.

Shawn,

I could try talking my old man into parting with one of his Unimogs (not radio trucks though). They are in Durango really close to your dream town of Ouray! ! ! ! ! !

[JCF]

Equal trade maybe an E30 M3 - but it would have to be a nice one.

John