For the heck of it, I bought an original article from Sports Car Graphic's January 1967 issue off of Ebay. It's a very nice read. I was about to pour myself a glass of wine last night and transcribe the entire thing to share with you guys, but I (luckily) decided to see if it was already on Kerry's excellent website first. It was. And here it is:
http://www.parrotbyte.com/330GTRegistry ... 196701.htm
Here's a paragraph I like a lot:
"Cornering is a frustrating experience, especially in the high-speed sweepers. You go in a little hot, figuring it’ll get loose and you’ll correct a bit with wheel and throttle. But it doesn’t. It just settles in mildly and goes around. So you up the next approach by 10 mph and it still does the same thing, with very slight understeer, and absolutely no fuss. Finally, we decided we really didn’t want to find the limit. It was too damned fast already, and to lose it at those speeds would have to be 'with drama'."
Judging from the cover photograph, the car looks to be cornering pretty rapidly...
I'd also like to thank Kerry, as always, for offering such great resources on his website.
--Matt
1967 Sports Car Graphic 330 article
1967 Sports Car Graphic 330 article
1967 330 GT 2+2 #9453
I think I missed that particular article back the 60's.
Interesting points:
A 1967 Series II 330 2+2 with overdrive? I thought that was phased out with the interim Series I 4-headlight 330's.
The slow synchros do limit off-the-line performance. I'm not about to do a standing dump-the-clutch start to find out, but my guess is absolute best 0-60 time for my car would be in the 7.5 second range, and it's in optimum tune. With a musclecar drivetrain behind the V12, this could probably be cut to six seconds flat.
Interesting points:
A 1967 Series II 330 2+2 with overdrive? I thought that was phased out with the interim Series I 4-headlight 330's.
The slow synchros do limit off-the-line performance. I'm not about to do a standing dump-the-clutch start to find out, but my guess is absolute best 0-60 time for my car would be in the 7.5 second range, and it's in optimum tune. With a musclecar drivetrain behind the V12, this could probably be cut to six seconds flat.
Current: 1983 308 GTS
R.I.P: 330 2+2 s/n 5409
R.I.P: 330 2+2 s/n 5409
SCG Article
Hi :
I think the reference to O/D was a mistake - other parts of the text appear to have it right.
As far as 0 - 60 times are concerned - there was a track comparison between Pontiac 2+2 vs Ferrari 2+2. If memory serves me right, I think the Ferrari turned a mid 6 sec time, but limited by excessive axle tramp. (This could be cured by tire choice/pressures and other tweaks, I expect).
The track test result that said it all for me (as a touring rather than a race driver) was that the Pontiac had more acceleration and top speed, but the Ferrari still turned in better lap times. Especially if you are not a professional race driver, which would be easier to drive and faster over the road?
Cheers
Warren Turner
I think the reference to O/D was a mistake - other parts of the text appear to have it right.
As far as 0 - 60 times are concerned - there was a track comparison between Pontiac 2+2 vs Ferrari 2+2. If memory serves me right, I think the Ferrari turned a mid 6 sec time, but limited by excessive axle tramp. (This could be cured by tire choice/pressures and other tweaks, I expect).
The track test result that said it all for me (as a touring rather than a race driver) was that the Pontiac had more acceleration and top speed, but the Ferrari still turned in better lap times. Especially if you are not a professional race driver, which would be easier to drive and faster over the road?
Cheers
Warren Turner
Re: SCG Article
You're right about the O/D...after rereading I see they're talking about a true 5-speed.whturner wrote:Hi :
I think the reference to O/D was a mistake - other parts of the text appear to have it right....
As far as 0 - 60 times are concerned - there was a track comparison between Pontiac 2+2 vs Ferrari 2+2. If memory serves me right, I think the Ferrari turned a mid 6 sec time, but limited by excessive axle tramp. Warren Turner
I know the Car & Driver 2+2 comparison. It was between a Series I 330 and a big honker Pontiac Grand Prix that they called a "2+2". It was not an appropriate test; the Pontiac 2+2 was a full-size car in 1960's terms and around 1,000 lbs. heavier than the Ferrari. A better 2+2 comparison test would have been with the Pontiac GTO, which was much more similar to the Ferrari 330.
C&D had something about comparing name-to-name and had previously done the (in?)famous Pontiac GTO vs Ferrari GTO test, another ridiculous mismatch.
"axle tramp"?...sounds like the rear wheels wouldn't spin when the clutch was dumped. Enough to make me cringe in horror.
Current: 1983 308 GTS
R.I.P: 330 2+2 s/n 5409
R.I.P: 330 2+2 s/n 5409
Comparison Tests.
Yes, the test was silly - a Nascar-ized Pontiac vs a stock sports car. And yet, the Ferrari looked very good (I would say won), when the now obsolete references to the price differential are factored out. The price of muscle cars these days suggests that our Ferrari GTs, in a head to head comparison, might have the price advantage also. And that would change the entire value vs. performance equation, if one were comparing cars available right now.
As an aside - I think the results of the 1/4 mile time show we may underestimate just how quick a 330 can be. My late 330 (series 2) could not perform with the early models.
Cheers
Warren
330 GT - S/N# 10069
As an aside - I think the results of the 1/4 mile time show we may underestimate just how quick a 330 can be. My late 330 (series 2) could not perform with the early models.
Cheers
Warren
330 GT - S/N# 10069