Alfa Romeo Forums banner
21 - 40 of 82 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,487 Posts
Has anyone figured out the Weber Tipo and engine number?

Should GTAj have a number stamping in the forward trunk/boot rain channel?

Ken
 
  • Like
Reactions: donrencos

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,487 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
Herr Renc are you so sure that, for example your GTA J, would be so period of production correct example?
Mr. Pajevic, As the car never suffered substantial damages, has still most of its original panels, and thanks to pictures from Periode and from restoration is good traceable, I would say yes.

A small divergence during production would be believable, but these massive differences like on the discussed example - not.

And to claim that a hydraulic clutch for a 68 GTA could be a serial feature is seems a bit too far fetched….
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,487 Posts
Yes, first the type number 105.59 and then the IGM number 5786 (Italian homologation number).
Koen, you may know this, but if not, the RHD GTA only had the Tipo number, 10504/A, on both fire wall plate and trunk/boot channel. The LHD GTA had both numbers.

Ken
 
  • Like
Reactions: Koenraad

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
Koen, you may know this, but if not, the RHD GTA only had the Tipo number, 10504/A, on both fire wall plate and trunk/boot channel. The LHD GTA had both numbers.
No, I didn't knew that, thanks!
But it makes sense as RHD cars were never intended for the Italian market, so no Italian homologation number (which was given by the Italian government, not by Alfa Romeo).
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
625 Posts
Mr. Pajevic, As the car never suffered substantial damages, has still most of its original panels, and thanks to pictures from Periode and from restoration is good traceable, I would say yes.

A small divergence during production would be believable, but these massive differences like on the discussed example - not.

And to claim that a hydraulic clutch for a 68 GTA could be a serial feature is seems a bit too far fetched….
If I understand correctly, are you saying that the two cars in the photographs are equal? The first in black and white is Dusan Velimsky's GTA J in 1969 AR775384, identical, sister car to the AR775505, now in your possession. In another photo is the AR775505 as it appears today. The two cars are different externally and internally almost completely. In 1969 when the three GTA Js were imported into Czechoslovakia, wide plastic fenders, 13 '' wheels and other visible changes on your car such as side windows for example, were not yet homologated. Based on a good and well-documented restoration you did, not even much of the mechanical parts remained original as the car you bought served as a source of spare parts for the other two in working condition. So, the 1969 car was rebuilt in 1971 shape, clearly not authentic to its original form. Apart from the invented story of Gian Luigi Picchi's seat, the rest of the story told does not hold up either. Ing. Nicola Macario did not procure and did not sell anything to the owner of the car at the time, simply because this was not his power nor his task at Autodelta (he was a track engineer), and when he went to Valtellina Corse (1973) his problems were quite different, let alone the update of the GTA J! Your GTA J has been fixed (sides, engine and set-up) in Lodi by Santino Balduzzi. Autodelta had nothing to do with it (not that this detracts from Santino's great work) and the car was subsequently always supplied with spare parts by Balduzzi. Now, the work you did is beautiful and important and from my point of view you made the right choice, since you too recognize that your car had no past to preserve. However, the fact remains that very little of your car can be considered as authentic, and not even "period correct", starting from the fenders, doors, windows, interiors, and the vast part of the mechanics. Even this does not mean that you have created a beautiful specimen close to the authentic GTA J, but teaching the authenticity lessons to others who, like you, dedicate their time and passion to the same phenomenon, is inadmissible. Personally, I see in every Alfa Romeo torn from the junkyard a noble gesture of salvation from our technological past. I find it petty playing a puritan in this area.
P.S. Where did you find my statement about hydraulic command clutch, as a serial part on GTA J? This is my text: "It is also possible that at the time the customer asked for the hydraulic version of the clutch, otherwise not provided for the "standard" GTA J,"
Wheel Tire Car Vehicle Hood
Tire Wheel Car Vehicle Sky
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 ·
You really must be bored to spend so much energy to try to compare apples with peaches.
That a race car has a certain evolution in its active time, like changed wheels, wide fenders and engine optimisations ist one thing. But the main structural things normally don’t change, like brackets, rear seat panels,… and these structural things make a quite good comparison to some claimed quite iffy cars….
still the question, what is the reason behind, that you are trying to talk a bad car good…
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
You are too strict. For heaven's sake, I do not question any of the objections, which are generally correct, but using this criterion, the majority of cars (even yours!) would not pass the exam. Almost all GTA Js (even GTAs!) Intended for use today are restored using current criteria and with recently available and produced spare parts. If I'm not mistaken, someone in this forum has posted a useful guide on how to classify “reborn” historic cars. The GTA J in question, with all the defects listed, still remains an acceptable car, it depends on the price, I repeat.
The car for sale pretends to have a genuine racing history.

Main question is then, what do we understand under "a car with a racing history"? That history is linked to the physical parts that define a car, not to a certain VIN that can be transferred.

And that's what happened here, they simply transferred the VIN to a body (chassis, shell) that has probably never seen a race track in its life.

So, at best, this car is an incorrect replica of a GTA Junior with the extra bonus of getting the - I presume - real GTA Junior documents (car title) of VIN 775967, a car which happens to have a racing history.

The price of this car is defined by the value of the mechanical parts (engine, drivetrain, suspension,...), the value of the special aluminium body parts and some "GTA goodies" like the steering wheel, seats, etc.
The fact they used the wrong body as replacement will bring the price down, the GTA documents (car title) will probably rise the price... by how much has to be seen.

The person who buys this car can only turn the car into a correct replica but will never be able to turn this into the real GTA 775967 that once raced...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
If it helps for a comparison these are the photos of a GTA J of a very dear friend of mine recently restored is a 1969 .....
Perhaps no one has noticed but unless the author of the book does not lie to me, the photo of the naked body on the first page that you have all indicated as GTA 1600 is almost certainly the protagonist of the Pacenic book
 

Attachments

·
Banned
Joined
·
625 Posts
You really must be bored to spend so much energy to try to compare apples with peaches.
That a race car has a certain evolution in its active time, like changed wheels, wide fenders and engine optimisations ist one thing. But the main structural things normally don’t change, like brackets, rear seat panels,… and these structural things make a quite good comparison to some claimed quite iffy cars….
still the question, what is the reason behind, that you are trying to talk a bad car good…
“That a race car has a certain evolution in its active time, like changed wheels, wide fenders and engine optimizations is one thing. But the main structural things normally don’t change, like brackets, rear seat panels,…”
This is valuable advice on how to understand the cars proposed for the appraisal, even though it was not included in the questionnaire for the technical expert exam. I will make treasure of it anyway. However, it remains uncertain (to me) how to qualify the evolution of a car described as an official competition (Autodelta) version, which remained stationary after its first unsuccessful appearance on the track, and then served only as a source of spare parts, to be later completely rebuilt by a private tuner (Balduzzi) after years of absolute inactivity. If you take this as evolution, we have different concepts of the meaning of this term. And I too end up, I will repeat the question too: Where did you find my statement about hydraulic command clutch, as a serial part on GTA J?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
Where did you find my statement about hydraulic command clutch, as a serial part on GTA J?
You didn't make that claim, that's correct.

But your story about the hydraulic clutch doesn't explain why the bracket for the STANDARD air filter is missing and why there are two hooks (standard form and size, spot welded as in a production car) for the water bag installed on that specific location. That location happens to be the STANDARD location for the water bag on post Jan. '69 GT's (Veloce's and Juniors).

Be aware that the GTA Junior was built as a "homologation special" (1000 cars) and that only the mechanical clutch was FIA homologated in Jan. 1969 (FIA doc. n° 1557).
Later on, a hydraulic clutch was never added to the homologation... as stated before, this would only add more weight so it didn't make any sense to do it.

Plus, a hydraulic clutch would also imply that the header needed to be adapted...

Conclusion: your story about the hydraulic clutch makes no sense at all.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
17,090 Posts
Play nicely? Huh? What's wrong with my style (English)?
Nothing, I'm just concerned that this thread might move from the current debate to an argument. Maybe being preemptive does not work so well in moderating threads. Carry on :)
Pete
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
625 Posts
You didn't make that claim, that's correct.

But your story about the hydraulic clutch doesn't explain why the bracket for the STANDARD air filter is missing and why there are two hooks (standard form and size, spot welded as in a production car) for the water bag installed on that specific location. That location happens to be the STANDARD location for the water bag on post Jan. '69 GT's (Veloce's and Juniors).

Be aware that the GTA Junior was built as a "homologation special" (1000 cars) and that only the mechanical clutch was FIA homologated in Jan. 1969 (FIA doc. n° 1557).
Later on, a hydraulic clutch was never added to the homologation... as stated before, this would only add more weight so it didn't make any sense to do it.

Plus, a hydraulic clutch would also imply that the header needed to be adapted...

Conclusion: your story about the hydraulic clutch makes no sense at all.
Nice to have a thorough explanation from an expert. However, I take the opportunity to take advantage of your vast knowledge of the subject to ask you for some additional explanations. Starting from the fact that Alfa Romeo confesses to have produced only 447 examples of the GTA J (of which 363 registered in various registers), and that since 1969 the bodywork had entered production with small differences compared to the previous version (these are the various hooks, brackets and anchor points that you have so meticulously listed), which at the chassis level has remained the same for all the cars in production. Well, the GTA J was produced in 136 units since the beginning of 1969 and all (or almost all) were equipped with these aforementioned hooks, brackets or anchor points that GTA did not need at all. The question is: What were they doing in the factory with these superfluous hooks, brackets, and anchor points? Did they cut or eliminate them? Or was this the customer's job? I have seen similar hooks and holes on some cars of the period (775 984 of my friend Violati, 776 016 of Mario Litrico and 776 089 of my brotherly friend and co-author of my book, Gian Luigi Picchi). Now that you've explained to me how things are, I just can't explain that. Then, as you rightly argued that the hydraulic control was an unbearable weight for the GTA J (the brake booster was not?) I beg you to quantify the difference in weight between the mechanical and the hydraulic system (considering that the diaphragm disc of the hydraulic system weighed less of the three-segment mechanical one), and then please also explain to me what the change on the exhaust consisted of and what precisely it concerned; high pedals or low pedals, ATE, Dunlop or Bonaldi clutch pump? Which of the headers it concerned, 10500.30.002.98, 10532.01.500.E08, or 10559.01.071 / 072 / .00? Then as regards the homologation, I probably misread but you check what Apendix J for 1969, Title II, Series Production Touring Cars, Art. 257. Letter I, says about and correct me if necessary. One never stop learning.
Motor vehicle Automotive tire Automotive fuel system Automotive design Automotive exhaust
Font Material property Paper Magenta Circle
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
276 Posts
@ARGTAReg,

You need to read page 1 of the FIA Homologation document n° 1557, in order to compete in Group 2 in the 1969 season, AR had to build 1000 GTA 1300 Junior's between October 1967 and the end of 1968.

And ALL those 1000 cars had to comply with the technical requirements as written down in that FIA Homologation document.

So, even if the other AR GT's got modifications (like a hydraulic clutch, different air filter, etc.), AR was simply not allowed to integrate these modifications into the GTA Jr unless they applied for the homologation of each modification which they didn't.

Be aware that most of the GTA Juniors were built in 1968... on paper they built at least 1000 cars before the end of 1968. And certainly almost all race cars were built in 1968, Stradale's probably later...

Regarding the exhaust header... I was wrong, it's the other way around, a header for a mechanical clutch will fit on a car with a hydraulic clutch and standing pedals but in reverse you have to check the clearances.

Regarding "Appendix J for 1969, Title II, Series Production Touring Cars, Art. 257, Letter I"... that has nothing to do with the actual problem of the car that's for sale. The car for sale has simply a body without the racing history linked to VIN 775967.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,086 Posts
@ARGTAReg,

You need to read page 1 of the FIA Homologation document n° 1557, in order to compete in Group 2 in the 1969 season, AR had to build 1000 GTA 1300 Junior's between October 1967 and the end of 1968.

And ALL those 1000 cars had to comply with the technical requirements as written down in that FIA Homologation document.

So, even if the other AR GT's got modifications (like a hydraulic clutch, different air filter, etc.), AR was simply not allowed to integrate these modifications into the GTA Jr unless they applied for the homologation of each modification which they didn't.

Be aware that most of the GTA Juniors were built in 1968... on paper they built at least 1000 cars before the end of 1968. And certainly almost all race cars were built in 1968, Stradale's probably later...

Regarding the exhaust header... I was wrong, it's the other way around, a header for a mechanical clutch will fit on a car with a hydraulic clutch and standing pedals but in reverse you have to check the clearances.

Regarding "Appendix J for 1969, Title II, Series Production Touring Cars, Art. 257, Letter I"... that has nothing to do with the actual problem of the car that's for sale. The car for sale has simply a body without the racing history linked to VIN 775967.
1000 cars? By the Fusi book only 447 cars built. By Tabucchi - 167 from 1969 to 1975 without any numbers for 1968. How Alfa could start to built them from October 1967 if the production by Fusi started in early June of 1968. Tabucchi just put the car under 1968. In the book "Alfa Romeo tutti modelli del novecento" by Quattroruote mentioned that the total production was 493 cars which looks right to me

I suspect the homologation sheet is not complete or another homologation exists for the cars with injection and other mods. Where are 4 valve head, double ignition narrow head, spica/lucas fuel injection and other parts? 1300 GTA has been used actively in competitions till 1977 with the most advanced Autodelta parts but they are not on the homologation sheets.

TabucchiFusi
1967​
1968​
320​
1969​
84​
82​
1970​
4​
8​
1971​
21​
22​
1972​
14​
15​
1973​
22​
1974​
7​
1975​
15​
Total
167 (from 1969 to 1975)​
447​

From the Fusi book
Font Monochrome Art Pattern Graphics



Font Brand Graphics Logo Monochrome


Automotive parking light Motor vehicle Car Vehicle Hood


Font Parallel Number Document



And from Alfawiki (Archivio Storico AR)

GTA 1300 JUNIOR

The same operation that transformed the Giulia Sprint GT into the GTA, was performed in 1968 on the smaller GT 1300 Junior: thus the GTA 1300 Junior was born.

In addition to the light alloy body, the most significant modification was the new 1290 cc engine. Despite the fact that the cylinder capacity was identical to the series cars, the cylinder bore and stroke measurements were completely new (78 x 67.5), creating the first Alfa Romeo “superquadro” road engine. Single fuel feed, twin spark ignition and specific valve timing raised the power to 96 HP at 6000 rpm.

Externally the body was distinctive for the supplementary air intakes in the radiator grill, the simplified door handles (as on the GTA) and the stickers applied to the sides (line and four-leaved clover), the hood (Biscione) and the boot lid ("GTA 1300 Junior").

Once again, the street vehicle would be just the starting platform for the race tuning performed by Autodelta: 160 HP at 7800 rpm and 210 km/h. In 1971 the "testa stretta" (narrow cylinder head) version with 45° inclined valves (as opposed to the usual 80°) and Spica mechanical fuel injection (occasionally Lucas) would increase the power to 165 HP at 8400 rpm. In 1974 a final cylinder head was fitted with four valves per cylinder that would produce a maximum power of 180 HP at 9300 rpm.

The vehicle did not disappoint in competition: widened wings and wide tyres helped the GTA 1300 win two European Championships in 1970 and 1971. Dozens of victories all over the world would further embellish the distinguished racing record of the GTA 1300 Junior.

447 cars were made in total.
 
21 - 40 of 82 Posts
Top