330 America hits the spot for me. GTE looks with the 330 engine. Ultimate combo.
Wow. Very well said. This is applicable to the thread about 308s being "slow," as well: Maybe today's Toyota sedans can outaccelerate it now. . . but that's irrelevant. The Toyota is not a 1982 Ferrari 308. . . which I own not so it can be faster than anything else, but because, well, it's a 1982 308!
Exactly correct.This IS the reason some of us have more than one type. When looking for my 'real' Ferrari(the other being a Fiat as I,m reminded constantly), a small number of cars were available(it is Aussie).About 3 actually,the 330,a sad 365GT 2+2 and a 365C4. I went for the 330 BECAUSE it was so different to the GT4,yet still had the practicallity I needed for my boys to fit. It doesn,t matter which one I drive,they both thrill. For very long trips I prefer the 365,for more remarks and concours I take the 330. Perhaps,unlike the States or Europe,though we have a rich history with the marque,unfortunately very few of the 'original'type cars come out to play at general club events. We have a number of carby/V12 only runs but they are in our southern mainland state. My partner and I are driving to one in March/April...about 1200 miles to get there in 2/3 days,taking it easy,doing the rally then driving back to Brisbane. If you want to know what an enthusiast is like just ask me;my cars are housed over 1000miles away and I fly regularly(about once a month)to visit them(and the main love of my life as well).
Pardon me, but IMHO that has nothing to do with your statement. Nobody was talking about conversion of cars, at least I certainly didn't see any reference to that. You said that the GTC is less connected to heritage than the GT. I would like to know what you meant by that. Nice post! FWIW - I am a fan of the 2+2's. But as a driver's car they can't be compared with the 2 door versions of the same era, and I find the price difference between the two a logical and natural conclusion of that. Onno
Very good post. I also often try to "get in the mindset...of a middle age man", but alas reality tells me that I am already somewhat beyond middle age, so the illusion can be difficult to maintain. All blanket comparisons between technologies which existed in very different time periods and applied in very different circumstances (traffic density, road quality, social tolerance for fast driving or risk-taking, legislation, etc...) are always somewhat absurd, and yes, naive. You write about changing mindsets, and about the need for the individual to be the variable and not the car: I agree, we can and should, but the sad reality is that we are not really variable, while the cars that 50 years later are available to us definitely are. I like fast driving, but am very far from being an expert driver either in modern cars or classics; that is also something I cannot change. In 2011 comparisons are possible and inevitable, even if they are naive. In 2011 some of us are infinitely privileged to be able to jump into a classic Ferrari, drive it for an hour while trying to embrace the corresponding mindset, and then travel ten years forward in the next hour, with an entirely different technology, mindset, and driving experience. Repeat during a third hour, and add ten more years! 212 - 250 PF - 330 GTC, time travel is part of the pleasure. From a personal experience standpoint, bearing very much in mind the different periods the cars were designed for, and living in 2011 with four classic Ferraris in my garage, comparing them is neither naive nor absurd: It is necessary, wildly entertaining, and natural. Sometimes we dream, otherwise we compare. I have not yet been able to spend all my time dreaming.
I also love the 2+2's, and the Ferrari I have most enjoyed (by far) was a GTE. I also fully agree with your comments; the 2+2's handle very poorly compared to a two seater of the same period. I remember always feeling that the tail of the GTE was hanging in the air, and that the car was essentially riding on its front wheels. Of course, a very skilled driver would run circles around me even in a GTE.
Does anyone buy a classic Ferrari for the performance? The levels attainable in even the fastest cars of the period are easily eclipsed by many of today's mass produced cars. What makes them attractive to me is their place in history (whenever that may be) and the 'soul' embodied in them. Part of this is how they look, how they sound, even how they smell, but mostly how they make me feel. A 2+2 evokes many of these same emotive triggers as its faster sisters do. Of course different people buy old cars for different reasons. Some find it necessary to boost performance beyond what was available in the day. Others to "recreate" entire cars. Personally I don't see the point. Either you love them for what they are or you look elsewhere.
thank goodness she was unloved sitting on the Heritage Classics showroom floor..and thank goodness for my obsessive/compulsive disorder! Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Exactly right, and furthermore ridiculous to compare to, say, a 2010 Nissan Z. And to atone for a foolish post I made earlier in this thread (guess you can't delete posts here on FChat?) I will re-post something I wrote in an older thread started in reaction to the WSJ article whose author finally got to drive a 275GTB and was disappointed at how it compared to modern cars. http://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=308254 My post, applicable here as well: The whole premise of 'stacking up' is silly. The GTB is a fabulous period-piece and as many have said, the epitome of mid sixties sports car design, and the pinnacle driving experience of the day. One of my goals is to acquire an L-head Mercer raceabout. Although it was the supercar of 1915, it would be nonsense to ask how it 'stacks up' against today's cars. It's worth owning to enjoy as a touchstone of another era, the closest we get to time-travel.
BTW that is not only a beautiful 330GT, that top picture is the most flattering photo I have ever seen of the car. Very very nice!
I guess the answer is yes.... the pics show my GTC before I owned it (I'm guessing this is 2002). I personally have driven the car to the limit of adhesion too, although not to the level shown in the photos. I remember tackling mountain passes on the Mille Miglia Tribute last year, chasing a 275GTB that was pushing, both V12's making the sweetest music. It was a drive to die for, and in a 2+2 I would not have been able to follow, nor would I have enjoyed the drive as much. I understand not everyone does what I do with my car, and I respect that. But is the performance of my car important? Oh yes. Onno Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
Onno, The live axle on a 330 is not the same thing as a live axle on an early Corvair. If I recall, a 250GTO has a rear axle that is similarly set up to the 330GT, live axle cars are not as bad as you suggest. I really believe that you test drove a pretty 330GT that was poorly set up and that has fixed an impression in your mind. A 330GT can be put into a similar position as is shown in the pictures you posted as long as it is in a similar condition and state of tune. John V., Great post. In my view, a fair comparison to a 250GTE or a 330GT would be a Aston DB-4 or other similar cars. Personally, I think the 330GT compares favorably at a fraction of the cost. Regards, Art S.
I'll put in my 2-cents worth. The 330 GT (and in my case a series II) is not only a beautiful car but also a very nice driver. I just love this car. On this picture I am slowing down from about 180 km to 50 km to get off the landing strip. Image Unavailable, Please Login
Corvair had swing axles, like a Mercedes 300SL, but you've got a completely valid point. More accurately, the solid axle of the 330 2+2 is far superior to a solid axle on an early Corvette, or British cars. It is extremely well located by the springs and shocks.
A well located live axle is not a handicap. In fact many of the early IRS designs were a step backward in some ways.
I completely agree. I have always enjoyed the quirks of every vintage car I've ever driven. Try a 50's Jaguar in colder weather some time. I can't even get my 66 to defrost the windshield if its below 40 degrees out. The fact that these cars were once cutting edge is what makes them so fun to drive.
A few photos of what has been a great car to own and drive... Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
thanks...bought her years ago, before they were even a afterthought...and just like most- depends on the angle!
I'm sure you're right, Art. Always looking for opportunities to be proven wrong. So, the stage is yours. Onno
In a straight line, the 330 GT holds its own against the GTC. My recollection of period road tests is that the GT tended to be faster than the GTC in 0-60 tests. At the time I read them, I thought that was just the variation of individual road tests (which always vary a lot), but in comparing the stats, maybe there is a difference because of the final drive ratios. The weight of the cars is almost the same -- the GT is only 20 lbs more if the source below is accurate (published weight also seems to vary a lot). I know somebody that has driven many GT's and GTC's. He owns a GTC but I think he is unbiased and he says they feel like different cars because the GTC is more nimble. In my experience, the GT handles quite well, but it feels less competent is in bumpy curves (I expect the GTC would handle them better with the IRS, but have no experience). It's interesting to compare stats: 1964 Ferrari 330 GT 2+2 specifications - Carfolio.com 1966 Ferrari 330 GTC specifications - Carfolio.com
This RHD car is for sale. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login