08-09-2009, 10:44 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 8
|
|
|
Hi there
That was a quick reply.
I was using the term 'matching numbers' rather loosely, so I'm sorry if my source of information has led anyone to the wrong conclusion perhaps I should have said
"...engine & chassis numbers that were reasonably close enough together to have come out the factory at the same time & on the same car'.
I assumed the author from what has already been said on this thread would realise that a mismatch of numbers of about 10 or 20 or so would be close enough to be considered "matching" enough and most definitely matching enough for a Lancisti.
Unfortunately, I have taken it as a given that Lancia numbers from the 60's & 70's never matched. I should have added for the purpose of the author, neither did their homogolation numbers have any resemlence of truth which was the tongue in cheek reference to the bumpers. I think that the thread has made it quite clear anyway. However a car with a chassis number & engine number over a thousand... ok, 1278 apart to be clearer on the matter, should raise a flag to a prospective purchaser.
However an engine with the wrong alternator mount would be a MASSIVE clue & that is the point I'm making.
Further as you are aware, the chassis number isn't really on the chassis, it is in bonnet gutter as is rightly mentioned. I would assume a good faker - and if you know Italians as well as I do, you would know that they would take enough care to fake or replace the gutter train without anyone ever knowing that it had been done. OK having said that then a good faker would make a good fake anywhere on the car to make the number look original where ever it was on the body but where it currently is doesn't make it too difficult for a professional faker to fake/replace. The only other indication is the chassis plate inside the engine compartment which I believe are/were available blank on Ebay.
The only other suggestion towards this end would be to note the typeface used in making the chassis number but this I would believe would be beyond most people.
A really good fake would use a S1 car as a start the only body modification that would need to be made would be the front valance. There are also strengthening plates inside the engine compartment at the bottom of the posts below the engine mounts and a lack of these would be another serious tell that you do not have a Fanalone. The other modfications that would need to be made after that would not be body parts and available on S2 1600HF cars. As a note, the plastic wheel arch extentions were used because of the bigger wheels used 1,6HF. S2 1600HF used different body mouldings to accomodate the bigger wheels and this is another tell.
BTW Officially, Series 1 HF's were 1,6HF & series 2 were known as 1600HF
However assuming that someone had gone to the effort to modify the suspension brakes, engine &c to create a car that would be difficult to distinguish from the real thing - if indeed somebody had gone to the effort to clone such a car including the numbers, I would conjecture that there would be very little point for a professional faker to go to such lengths. However some 'boy racer type' the stretch would not be too far to believe and perhaps there are cars that have been cloned but not the extent of fake "mismatched" numbers.
The point I was trying to make is that no professional faker would go to the effort the make all the modifications on the car that would be required to pass, the engine being the most complicated part to fake since that is the only difficult to fake part that is completely unique to the series 1 1,6HF. Namley a 1584cc engine with the differing aforementioned mounting bracket. Other parts such as, I believe, conrods would be beyond the purchaser to check to whom my thread is aimed. I have already mentioned the cylinder head so we can keep that out of the reckoning
As for 'supposedly' it is seems that there is agreement the ovals were there for bumpers which were options on the 'Lusso' cars. However, I do believe although I was not as compendious as yourself to suggest to the author of the thread to look into the spare parts manual to search for 1,6HF/1600HF bumpers. I know that i wasn't compendious enough myself to check.
Regarding UK cars, I understand that all were sold with bumpers and owners took them off the they so desired. That is where the ad i mentioned is from. A car that came out of the factory with 132BHP would have been VAR 1016 and VAR1016 would have been stamped on the bell housing along with engine number. It is these cars that the ad references and why I made a joke about it.
Also, the engine number isn't really on the engine. It is on the bell housing which doesn't form part of the engine. It is a separate part. The point I am trying to make is that if one is going to the effort of faking a Fanalone, the engine would be the most difficult to pass as fake as the engines with the correct S1 mounts were only available on Fanalones and that is probably the only part apart from the front valance & re enforcment plates that would/should raise a flag. Nearly everything else is available on S2 car. Oh i forgot to mention the scripts on the rear and perhaps perspex rear screen & which Lusso didn't have & screen surround which S2 cars did have.
One last difference, Fanalone cam cover have the three longitudinal stripes (colours of Tornio) on the cam cover whereas 1600HF are yellow.
Please let us know if you managed to get one.
Last edited by FanaloneFan; 08-09-2009 at 11:42 AM.
Reason: it;s a bigger post than I 1st thought
|
08-09-2009, 12:57 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 158
|
|
 Quote:
Originally Posted by FanaloneFan
A really good fake would use a S1 car as a start the only body modification that would need to be made would be the front valance. There are also strengthening plates inside the engine compartment at the bottom of the posts below the engine mounts and a lack of these would be another serious tell that you do not have a Fanalone. The other modfications that would need to be made after that would not be body parts and available on S2 1600HF cars. As a note, the plastic wheel arch extentions were used because of the bigger wheels used 1,6HF. S2 1600HF used different body mouldings to accomodate the bigger wheels and this is another tell.
|
There are rather alot more differences between the two bodyshells - the transmission tunnel for starters. The wheel arch extensions on the 1.6HF are for wider wheels - the rolled arches on the S2 are for taller and wider wheels. But I am intrigued by the strengthening plates - what are they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanaloneFan
Regarding UK cars, I understand that all were sold with bumpers and owners took them off the they so desired. That is where the ad i mentioned is from. A car that came out of the factory with 132BHP would have been VAR 1016 and VAR1016 would have been stamped on the bell housing along with engine number. It is these cars that the ad references and why I made a joke about it.
|
What ad is this ? I would be interested as I try to keep an (amateur) eye on these and have never seen a UK car advertised with this spec.
Cheers
Neil
__________________
1969 Fanalone
www.geocities.com/neil.cundy@btinternet.com/index.html
|
08-09-2009, 02:47 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 8
|
|
|
Hi Neil
The strengthening plates are situated on the body & chassis inside the engine bay.
If you open the hood and look and the the suspension mount on either side close to the fenders. There you will see the flat part where the suspension mount is situated. if you follow towards the lighting array you will see a box section that is welded to the flat section and leads down to the front & bottom of the chassis. The strengthening plates are situated at the bottom of those box section post to the front/bottom of the chassis.
I hope I have made sense I do not have photos handy but if someone could look and describe them better than me I would be most grateful.
Also, if it is any help to you, I would like to direct your attention to page 290 of Enzo Altorio Italian book "Lancia Fulvia HF". It shows a diagram of the strengthen plate as a restoration. Page 289 also has a photo though it is not completely visable but you can see it in situ.
As for anyone looking to buy a Fanalone, this is another important piece to distinguish a Fanalone from other models.
I'm going to seek out the ad and see if I can post it here.
Hope it helps :-)
|
08-09-2009, 04:27 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 158
|
|
Yes, I'm with you now (checking my book  ). But that was a modification done only on the works rally cars, not Fanlones per se so is not a recognition point for standard Fanlones. I have seen many "standard" Fanalones and non have that welded in gusset on. But it is a standard rallying mod.
Neil
__________________
1969 Fanalone
www.geocities.com/neil.cundy@btinternet.com/index.html
|
08-09-2009, 06:18 PM
|
 |
.
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: West Hollywood, CA
Posts: 2,775
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanaloneFan
I was using the term 'matching numbers' rather loosely, so I'm sorry if my source of information has led anyone to the wrong conclusion perhaps I should have said
"...engine & chassis numbers that were reasonably close enough together to have come out the factory at the same time & on the same car'.
I assumed the author from what has already been said on this thread would realise that a mismatch of numbers of about 10 or 20 or so would be close enough to be considered "matching" enough and most definitely matching enough for a Lancisti...
|
Both Neil and I have Fanalones, and I think we can both attest that any number of "facts" written about the cars are either half correct or absolutely wrong. I can personally tell you that you're being way too optimistic about how close the numbers are on these cars. I have chassis 871, and engine 804, which sits on subframe 841. In other words, my engine is a much lower number than the chassis.
And Neil and I are working on another parts number mystery that will illustrate the problem of dealing with published "facts", even those directly from the factory. According to the parts catalogue, the cast aluminum subframe uprights should be type 818.540, but on my car they are type 818.330, and on Neil's and at least two other UK Fanalones, they are type 818.300. Fanalones were 'homologation specials', and in such cases it sometimes happens that parts exist only on the pages of a factory catalogue, to convince the FIA of their legitimacy for use on competition cars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanaloneFan
The point I was trying to make is that no professional faker would go to the effort the make all the modifications on the car that would be required to pass, the engine being the most complicated part to fake since that is the only difficult to fake part that is completely unique to the series 1 1,6HF. Namley a 1584cc engine with the differing aforementioned mounting bracket. ...
|
Your general point is well taken; it's so much work to get everything right on a fake, and so hard for anyone other than a real expert to spot all the telltale details, that a completely "correct" fake is relatively unlikely. And it's just an awful lot of trouble for a car that's not valuable by comparison to others that could be just as easily faked; it's much more cost effective to fake an Alfa GTA.
Neil's right, by the way, that reinforcing gusset on the chassis legs is not standard; it was for competition cars only, and probably not even all of them. Fulvias were also for track events, not just rally, and the prep would have differed significantly; thus, some works chassis are listed as reinforced, while others are listed as lightened. And even though things were much simpler and less specialized back then, the works rally cars for Monte Carlo weren't prepped with the same reinforcing as those for the Safari. To say nothing of the fact that the Fanalones were used from early 1969 through 1974, during which time the competition specs would have changed.
Finally, it's important to keep in mind that many Fanalones have some sort of competition history--works or amateur. And, given their nature, many others were simply driven hard. (I don't race or abuse mine, but I have to say that I don't treat it particularly gingerly.) And cars that are raced are more likely to suffer some damage to major components, not least the engine. It's not at all impossible that a perfectly legitimate Fanalone may have had its entire engine replaced or even just the block replaced. And if that's the case, it could very well have a later alternator support. To say nothing of the fact that the alternator support was a failure point anyway, and may have been replaced or modified.
With Fanalones, nothing is ever quite as straightforward as it seems.
__________________
Ed
1970 Lancia Fulvia 1,6 HF
Last edited by 1,6 HF; 08-09-2009 at 06:38 PM.
|
08-09-2009, 06:36 PM
|
 |
Senior Member
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: near Pasadena, CA
Posts: 1,108
|
|
|
Ed/Adan/Shaun/etc.:
More questions from the uninitiated:
* Is the Fanalone spec running gear the same as a Fulvia Zagato?
* Was the Fulvia Zagato (I;m guessing) more of a track car, versus the Fanalone being more of a rally car?
__________________
1966 Giulia Super (current)
1966 Giulia Super (R.I.P.)
1967 GTV (R.I.P.)
1955 1900CSS (R.I.P.)
|
08-09-2009, 07:32 PM
|
|
.
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: West Hollywood, CA
Posts: 2,775
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Il Vecchio
Ed/Adan/Shaun/etc.:
More questions from the uninitiated:
* Is the Fanalone spec running gear the same as a Fulvia Zagato?
* Was the Fulvia Zagato (I;m guessing) more of a track car, versus the Fanalone being more of a rally car?
|
Peter, the answers are no, not exactly, and yes, mostly.
The Fanalone was the only S1 1600; there were no S1 Zagatos with either a 1600 engine or a 5-speed gearbox. There were about 800 S2 Zagatos with the 1600 engine (the Fulvia Sport 1600), and that car did share almost its running gear with the S2 1600HF (different final drive ratios in the gearboxes), which in turn shared its engine with the S1 1.6HF (different gearbox and front suspension geometry). So the Fulvia Sport 1600 had very similar, but not the exactly same running gear as the Fanalone.
The racing Fulvia Zagato was the S1 Fulvia Sport Competizione, and almost all of these were 1300s. On a couple of occasions, most memorably the 1969 Daytona 24 Hours, a prototype Fulvia Sport ran with a 1600 engine; a month later another prototype ran at Sebring with a 1400. These prototype Fulvia Sports would have raced with virtually the same spec as the prototype 1.6HFs that ran with them. In fact, at Daytona, the works Sport dropped a rod in practice, and it ran the race with an engine "borrowed" from a works 1.6HF.
The factory raced both the Coupé and the Sport on the track. But the Fulvia Sport had better aerodynamics than the Coupé, and therefore made a somewhat better track car. The Coupé was seen as better suited to rally than the Sport--the Coupé was a little shorter, a little narrower, and a little taller--and the factory rallied only the Coupé.
__________________
Ed
1970 Lancia Fulvia 1,6 HF
|
08-09-2009, 08:07 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 8
|
|
|
Hi there
I have the unfortunate disadvantage to be taken for my very word when discussing something as elusive as the numbers quoted by Lancia and the numbers in fact. I had mistakenly assumed that Lancia number discrepancies would be a given. I wouldn't be surprised if Alfa were the same. So please take the numbers I give be taken with a pinch of salt as should numbers/spec given by Lancia as commentators on the history of Lancia greater than us would be willing to attest to as well.
I did say
"car with a chassis number & engine number over a thousand... ok, 1278..."
From the numbers given by you they are. i would further to say, barring racing teams shinanigans, unmolested cars in their original form, without a great deal of previous repair, numbers would be relatively close - as yours are, and perhaps even Neils are. Generally some tens away & specifically 1278 if you have to pin me down to a number. My use of the word matching should not have been used since it has been taken literally as it would on a modern car. I should have added the caveat that matching give or take a couple of hundred But as I have said these numbers have to be taken with a pinch of salt and a 'matching' number would be that falls within the total production parameter - unfortunately.
This being so, presented with a car that were within the numbers of total production I would be relatively satisfied with the originality of the car. Anything more, then a flag for the prospective purchaser.
I spoke to Giorgio Cazzato recently and he informed me that that the 1st 500 cars were mostly used for racing. I too own a Fanalone and my car is well below 500, with an engine number below below 500 too but about 10 away between the two numbers but it doesn't have the VAR1016 stamp on the flywheel which it should have if Lancia were true about their homologation numbers to the FIA and if you take Weeknink book as gospel, so I am very well aware of the variation of the the numbers in fact and numbers quoted by Lancia.
I would like to say that when I bought my car from a member of the HiFi club in Italy, who by the way also had in his garage another Fanalone in Jamacia blue a rally winning Delta and a gorgeous yellow GTAm. He went to great pains to point out to me the structural supports on the chassis legs as being only on a real Fanalone. I would therefore conjecture from what Giorgio has said - who is probabaly one of the most well informed people in the world on Fanalone that cars under that chassis number (500) were intended for competition would have this structural support. I am not aware what happened to with other versions such as Lusso cars or the cars that were listed with differing competition chassis. The seller wouldn't however tell me whether there were any 1016 parts in the car of to be more specific regarding mods. However he did hint that my car was more powerful than teh standard. I will have to agree with you that nothing is straightforward with Lancia - or even perhaps their owners :-D
Also
As for the cast aluminum subframe uprights my only comment would be that the cars are over 40 years old and unless you know the precise history of the car you may never get to the bottom of odd parts here & there. Once Lancia had homologated enough cars for FIA combined with the FIAT take over at the time and the transition to the series 2 Fulvia, all of which unfortunately for us happened at the same time many parts would have be no longer available fairly quickly. Italian mechanics are very good at improvising, as well as swapping certain vital parts so don't forget to add these sort of things when trying to get to the bottom regarding originality.
I wish you all the best in trying to get to the bottom regarding Fanalone and I commend you you attempting such a Heurculian (sp.) task.
Last edited by FanaloneFan; 08-09-2009 at 08:25 PM.
|
08-09-2009, 11:50 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 158
|
|
|
My car and at least one other in the UK are within the first 500, neither have a V1016 engine (my engine is inside the first 500) and neither have the strengthening gusset. So I don't believe the "fact" that the first 500 had gussets or V1016 engines. I also don't believe that the first 500 were mostly used for racing - were there really 500ish Fanalones racing in the early '70's, they must have had full grids ?
As to your engine there are always people claiming this engine gives that or this. It is easy to check:
cam number
compression ratio
inlet / exhaust manifold
carb size
flywheel
Mine is standard - a quick check will tell you if yours is.
__________________
1969 Fanalone
www.geocities.com/neil.cundy@btinternet.com/index.html
|
08-10-2009, 01:32 AM
|
|
.
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: West Hollywood, CA
Posts: 2,775
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FanaloneFan
...I spoke to Giorgio Cazzato recently and he informed me that that the 1st 500 cars were mostly used for racing. I too own a Fanalone and my car is well below 500, with an engine number below below 500 too but about 10 away between the two numbers but it doesn't have the VAR1016 stamp on the flywheel which it should have if Lancia were true about their homologation numbers to the FIA and if you take Weeknink book as gospel, so I am very well aware of the variation of the the numbers in fact and numbers quoted by Lancia...
|
Giorgio Cazzato is indeed very knowledgeable about Fanalones, but he's simply wrong about the numbers; he's relying on the published information, and that published information is nonsense. As much research as Wim Weernink did, his figures cannot be taken as gospel; it is simply impossible that "the first 600 cars" of the 1258 Fanalones had variante 1016 engines, or were otherwise prepared for competition. In fairness, even Weernink suggests that there are questions about that claim.
For Gp. 3 and Gp. 4 homologation, the FIA required that 500 examples be produced. But nothing will get you into more trouble than the phrase "if Lancia were true about their homologation numbers to the FIA..." Of course their homologation numbers weren't true. Back then, Italian manufacturers always lied about homologation figures. It's very likely that the factory claimed that they had produced enough parts for the required 500 variante 1016 engines. The FIA would have been shown a couple dozen completed engines and a decent stockpile of parts, production schedules would have been waived around, and there would have been many assurances given. But it would have been, as they say, una truffa.
Based on the documentation of chassis numbers and registrations, we know that the Reparto Corse used only about 65 Fanalone chassis (plus the 20 'phantom' chassis produced later); we can assume that all of those had variante 1016 engines. Even if the factory sold 2/3 that many var. 1016 cars to privateers or 'semi-works' teams like Jolly Club, that only accounts for maybe 100 cars with var. 1016 engines, with the "Var. 1016" flywheel stamp. To have enough spares for the works cars, many var. 1016 parts would have been produced as spares, and it's very likely that some of these found their way onto 'normal' customer cars. But those retrofitted cars wouldn't have the "Var. 1016" flywheel stamp.
But there simply cannot have been anywhere near 500 produced, let alone "the first 600 cars".
If you believe otherwise, here are some questions you need to ask yourself: If there were 500 variante 1016 engines, what happened to them all? There are some works cars in the factory museum and a few private collections; there are even two 1972 San Remo works cars for sale at the moment. But if there were anywhere near 500 var. 1016s, where did the rest of them go? In fact, I think my assumption of 100 var. 1016s may be generous. Rallying is a very efficient way to destroy a car, and quite a few of the true competition cars were written off. But, even so, if there were many more than about 100 var. 1016s, why aren't there many more of them still around?
My answer--and I believe it's the only plausible answer--is that they never existed in the first place. As I said, I think the real number is probably much closer to 100 than 500.
__________________
Ed
1970 Lancia Fulvia 1,6 HF
Last edited by 1,6 HF; 08-10-2009 at 01:46 AM.
|
08-10-2009, 06:16 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 8
|
|
|
yes I have to agree
|
08-11-2009, 10:11 AM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 158
|
|
At the LMC dinner about a month ago I had the increadible good fortune to be seated next to Mr Weernink and his wife. Of course I didn't let the opportunity pass to ask him this specific question. His response was (and I cannot remember word for word) that no one knows, many conflicting stories, plenty of people who claim to know (but all give different answers) but certainly nowhere near 500 - 600. So of course being a bit cheeky I asked why he mentioned that figure in his books. Lack of information, a popular and traditional story and the need to mention something. However he did smile and said "I did write something but I chose my words carefully" 
I should add that he and his wife are thoroughly entertaining dinner guests. It goes without saying that he has forgotten more about Lancias than I know.
__________________
1969 Fanalone
www.geocities.com/neil.cundy@btinternet.com/index.html
|
08-11-2009, 02:55 PM
|
|
.
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: West Hollywood, CA
Posts: 2,775
|
|
|
Neil,
Very interesting, but not very surprising. In the Flavia and Fulvia collectors’ guide, Weernink expresses a fair amount of skepticism about the “first 600 cars” claim. Even with the extraordinary research he did, it’s impossible to perfectly chronicle the complex history of a firm like Lancia. As he correctly points out, in the absence of hard evidence, sometimes you’re left with no choice except to repeat a “received story,” and acknowledge that there may be some doubt.
And it’s worth remembering that gospels involve acts of belief on the part of the readers, no less than on the part of the writer. Which is why it’s always dangerous to take any such histories as “gospel”. I doubt we’ll ever know the definitive answer to the “how many variante 1016s?” question, short of a complete physical census of all the remaining Fanalones (and good luck with that). But I do know that we’ll never approach an answer if we allow repeated stories to supersede the evidence of the cars themselves.
Must have been a nice dinner, though.
__________________
Ed
1970 Lancia Fulvia 1,6 HF
|
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
