09-03-2009, 08:51 AM
|
 |
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 712
|
|
 Quote:
Originally Posted by Ritmo100S
I certainly agree with you that the 3 carburetor intakes could have been added later, and that neither of these 2 cars maight have been originally built as T256s or pre-war 6c2500SSs, but do we know this for certain?
|
Certain? I've never heard that they even might have T256 features, and in one of the two cases, I certainly would have been told if it had.
Quote:
|
Is it possible that some "real" T256s or pre-war 6c2500SSs actually have serial numbers beginning with an 8? I think so...
|
As usual, the same mantras come again and again when we deal with obsessions. I've replied above: yes, ONE 6C2300B MM has been updated at the time into a 6C2500SS/356, and retained its "815xxx" chassis number.
Quote:
|
Don't you think it is possible that some of the 106 (according to Fusi) 6c2300B MMs were not actually completed as 6c2300B MMs, and were renumbered with a S/N starting with a 9, and actually "became" 6c2500SSs or T256s??
|
I cannot tell. I believe that Fusi's accounts were based on production files, which means that the 106 2.3 should have been produced and numbered as such. I would lend toward the reasonable guess that there were 6C2300B MM frames lying unused , and that those were converted into he first 256s, while having not been previously numbered in the 815xxx range. Knowing the
common usage of renumbering frames at Alfa in those years, it could also be plausible that factory racers 6C2300B MMs could have been transformed and subsequently renumbered. But that would mean that such early 256s should show a double chassis number, one in the 815 range, another in the 915. I'm aware of double numbered 256s, but with both numbers in the 915 range.
|