'61 250 GTE Restoration Project $95k in Las Vegas s/n 2947

Moderators: 330GT, abrent

User avatar
Art S.
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 9:05 am
Location: Princeton NJ
Contact:

Post by Art S. »

I took another look at the 250 GTE pictures. It may be the good basis for a restoration assuming nothing bad is found under the cheap respray.

Regards,

Art S.
1965 330 2+2 series 2 7919
jsa330
Posts: 512
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2003 8:41 am
Location: Dallas, Texas

Post by jsa330 »

Art S. wrote:Rudy & Scott,

Pics sent.

Regards,

Art S.
Art,

Thanks, pics received.
Current: 1983 308 GTS
R.I.P: 330 2+2 s/n 5409
Rudy van Daalen Wetters
Posts: 1206
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 5:53 pm

Post by Rudy van Daalen Wetters »

Art,

Thanks for the photos. I was unaware of the silver car and assumed you meant the maroon one from a few months ago. The silver two headlight 330 GT would make a nice project car for any serious collector.

Rudy van Daalen Wetters
1963 GTE s/n 4001
1966 330 GT s/n 8705
Rudy van Daalen Wetters
Posts: 1206
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 5:53 pm

Post by Rudy van Daalen Wetters »

GTE was tapped on left rear early on in its life (1966 - 1969). Bolts and bolt holes securing trunk lid show relignment efforts to compensate for gaps in lid after hit. Perhaps the left tail light was damaged and at the time only a later series tail light assembly was available. Right tail light assembly replaced at same time to match left side is my theory.

Rudy van Daalen Wetters
1963 GTE s/n 4001
1966 330 GT s/n 8705
kare
Posts: 547
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 11:34 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland, Europe

Post by kare »

Does anyone know the serial number of this car?
250 GT 2+2 3197/GT
whturner
Posts: 255
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 10:48 am
Location: Western PA
Contact:

Post by whturner »

Rudy van Daalen Wetters wrote:Art,

After 45 years, many of these cars are fright pigs. I happen to like pigs that may have a glimmer of salvation. This may be one. Sitting in that climate, it may not be a rust bucket like so many others.

Rudy van Daalen Wetters
1963 GTE s/n 4001
1966 330 GT s/n 8705
Don't be too sure on the rust. I lived in Tucson AZ and there were/are plenty of rusty cars. Many older cars had come from the rust belt when the owner moved to AZ. For any car which has been in a climate that hot and dry, rubber, leather, plastic (especially wiring) all suffer badly.

Cheers
warren
330 GT Series II sn 10069
User avatar
Art S.
Posts: 830
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 9:05 am
Location: Princeton NJ
Contact:

Post by Art S. »

Tom Y., maybe we should start an 'available projects' thread and post pictures of both.

Both cars neet total redos. 10029 has no accident history and in my opinion is a better car than the GTE (based on condition, not type). It looks worse than the GTE because it is 'barn fresh' in other words, still filthy and not prepared for presentation. The pictures of 10029 show all the warts while the GTE pictures try to show the car in the best possible light. The accident history on the GTE also makes me nervous. Besides, the price difference is significant!

Itnterestingly, Warren is correct, 10029 was redone in the late '70s, early '80s but prior to this it was an east coast car (MD, if I recall).

Regards,

Art S.
1965 330 2+2 series 2 7919
Rudy van Daalen Wetters
Posts: 1206
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 5:53 pm

Post by Rudy van Daalen Wetters »

Warren,

The average rainfall of Tucson, Az. is three times that of Las Vegas. I'd be willing to bet that that GTE body has minimal rust issues.

Rudy van Daalen Wetters
1963 GTE s/n 4001
1966 330 GT s/n 8705
whturner
Posts: 255
Joined: Sun Sep 26, 2004 10:48 am
Location: Western PA
Contact:

Post by whturner »

Rudy van Daalen Wetters wrote:Warren,

The average rainfall of Tucson, Az. is three times that of Las Vegas. I'd be willing to bet that that GTE body has minimal rust issues.

Rudy van Daalen Wetters
1963 GTE s/n 4001
1966 330 GT s/n 8705
Hi Rudy:

Hard to say: But one has to beware.

My son moved to Phoenix from PA in his 280 ZX 25 years ago. He sold it because it was so rusty and he was not inclined to deal with it. The issue is really one of population change. There are very few old local origin cars, just as there are so few people native to Tucson. Phoenix, Los Vegas etc. from the 50's and 60's.

Actually I wish I were there right now. Can't drive the 330 until the salt is washed off the roads.

Cheers
Warren
330 GT Series II sn 10069
User avatar
330GT
Posts: 1640
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 9:30 am
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Post by 330GT »

kare wrote:Does anyone know the serial number of this car?
I don' t know if you are asking about the car that started this thread, but if so, it is 2947 according to the pictures (VIN plate and engine stamp).

However, according to Hillary Raab's book, 2947 was the first 330 GT prototype! But I can't see any signs of that in the pictures. The VIN plate (though screwed on) has 250 GTE and 128F for the model and engine types respectively. And of course the body is completely a GTE body.

Another mystery.
Regards, Kerry
http://www.330gt.com 330 GT Registry
http://www.parrotbyte.com/kbc/ferrari 250 PF Coupe 1643GT, 330 GT 2+2 8755GT, 308 GTS 23605
User avatar
tyang
Posts: 4060
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 10:28 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by tyang »

I had dreams of getting this car and getting to the bottom of the descrepancy, but at $95K, I'll pass.

This could have been one of those SNs that was initially incorrectly documented, and perpetuated because this car was a relative unkown. Who knows.

Tom
'63 330 America #5053
User avatar
330GT
Posts: 1640
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 9:30 am
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Post by 330GT »

tyang wrote:...This could have been one of those SNs that was initially incorrectly documented, and perpetuated because this car was a relative unkown. Who knows.

Tom
I've been working on this all morning. My best conclusion at this point is that 2947 is a long wheel base (2650mm vs. 2600mm, ~2") GTE, probably called a 330 prototype used to check handling, etc. with the longer wheel base that was planned for the 330 GT. It would be interesting to be able to measure body panels and figure out what parts PF stretched.

But the jury is still out.
Regards, Kerry
http://www.330gt.com 330 GT Registry
http://www.parrotbyte.com/kbc/ferrari 250 PF Coupe 1643GT, 330 GT 2+2 8755GT, 308 GTS 23605
User avatar
tyang
Posts: 4060
Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2002 10:28 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by tyang »

330GT wrote:
tyang wrote:...This could have been one of those SNs that was initially incorrectly documented, and perpetuated because this car was a relative unkown. Who knows.

Tom
I've been working on this all morning. My best conclusion at this point is that 2947 is a long wheel base (2650mm vs. 2600mm, ~2") GTE, probably called a 330 prototype used to check handling, etc. with the longer wheel base that was planned for the 330 GT. It would be interesting to be able to measure body panels and figure out what parts PF stretched.

But the jury is still out.
Well when Tom S. comes in to chop it up, maybe we can get him to take some measurements! ;-0

Tom
'63 330 America #5053
Rudy van Daalen Wetters
Posts: 1206
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2004 5:53 pm

Post by Rudy van Daalen Wetters »

Could s/n 2947 be a typo in that book? It just seems so early in the production run for another prototype to be in the works. Some of you computer wizards out there could lay together same scale photos of this car versus another GTE and see any variances.

Rudy van Daalen Wetters
1963 GTE s/n 4001
1966 330 GT s/n 8705
kare
Posts: 547
Joined: Sun Sep 22, 2002 11:34 am
Location: Helsinki, Finland, Europe

Post by kare »

[quote="330GT"]My best conclusion at this point is that 2947 is a long wheel base (2650mm vs. 2600mm, ~2") GTE, probably called a 330 prototype used to check handling, etc. with the longer wheel base that was planned for the 330 GT. It would be interesting to be able to measure body panels and figure out what parts PF stretched.[/quote]I hope somebody would try to explain why this car has early body features deleted at the end of 1960. This is why my first thought when seeing the pictures was that this car for 100% did not born with s/n 2947.

The extra chrome piece on nose was deleted when less than 40 cars had been built and the external front valance was deleted at #60 (=sometime around 2355) . It seems obvious that this car is a very early GTE (?) that has been renumbered as 2947. Reported body number "50000" matches serial number 2257. That is pretty interesting to say the least. Meanwhile I would like to see the long wheelbase 100% confirmed, I also think that would perfectly explain why this body was built outside normal production. You can't put a 2600mm body on a 2650mm chassis just like that.

I also think this car does not need to have anything to do with the 330GT development. I think this might just be a false assumption based on either 2650 mm wheelbase or eventual history as a 4-litre GT/E 2257 or both. Neither do I think that a company having built numerous cars with a wheelbase varying between 2250mm and 2800mm or so would need to check handling when changing a mass production chassis from 2600mm to 2650mm. Something else was going on.

What comes to increased wheelbase in itself, it is hardly a surprice that it happened. When designing the GT/E the engine had been moved as long forward as possible. The radiator is a very tight fit and must be assembled through grille opening. If they dreamed of putting in a bigger engine, they would instantly run into a problem and need an extra 25..50 mm (1-2") . On the other hand, even if the rear seat is roomier than most people seem to believe (now how many journalist do you think bothered to try it?) a little extra leg room most certainly would not hurt. So, whatever change you plan, you always end up thinking of an eventual increase in wheelbase. 2600mm just isn't enough for a big engine and four seats.

Best wishes, Kare

PS. what comes to the jury still being out, I wouldn't hold my breath while waiting for a verdict. Everybody seems too busy to mock the owner and the overall condition of the car.
Post Reply