Alfa Romeo Forums banner
21 - 40 of 78 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,035 Posts
Ken I will have a look at my files and post as you suggest.
But start a new thread please. In the upper right, right of the the NEW circle there are 5 lines. Click on those and select forum to post in, then again in upper right select CREATE A POST.

Ken
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
1,241 Posts
The benefits the closer the weight of the period correct replica GTA car is to the weight of an original GTA car means things like the suspension spring rates can be set up similar to that used on the GTAs. So the period correct replica GTA replica's lighter body will respond in the same/similar to the original GTAs when driving.

Really it just means going for a full aluminum body. Since your not thinking about a car that just looks like a GTA car but one that drives like one.
Since you want years of trouble free motoring I would stick to 6 to 6.5" wheels max. (or have a few spare steering boxes built if you go for 7" wheels with flairs (flairs not allowed in 1965)

I would use a 1600 block, from either a TI 1600 Super (526) or GT Veloce 1600 (536) and the latest version of the reproduction GTA twin spark cylinder head. Basically a FIA /historic race specs corsa engine. Similarly a close ratio gearbox to FIA /historic race specs and say at least two diffs. Don't forget those magnesium parts on the engine, gearbox and diff.

As for looks there is the 'less is more' approach which can be applied in two ways. One way is to make the car look like it's a road car with bumpers etc, but underneath it's a full on corsa, with this method you have more chance of having it road registered as everything is road legal, with correct exhaust, may vary in your country. Could be just a matter of removing bumpers and putting on side exhaust for the race meet, to get it to a Corsa look as per photo posted in first post.

Some times you will find needy GT Sprint 1600 or a GT Veloce 1600 that has been stripped of parts and some of their body panels and have even been sliced off it, so with no running gear, all their parts have gone to repairing other car/s, which makes these extremely needy cars and possible candidates for a period correct replica GTA car.

Both restorers and replica GTA car builders would like the best body shells to start with, but the reality is project cars are needy like this one example on the market of a 1965.GT SPRINT 1600

Steve
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
1,241 Posts
Alfabb is about sharing information getting to know your car and the other cars. Learning about the sources of documented information, the cultural trends of the past so you can make informed decisions.

Since building period correct replica GTAs has never been really discussed in such an open way, I thought its important to contribute to the discussion.
Of course you can build any type of car you want. But you may face dilemmas like I have. My first period correct replica GTA project has become a full on restoration of a GT Veloce 1600, should be on the road in 6 months. The second GT Veloce 1600 was on sold to be restored.

Ken's suggestions are in line with the current cultural trend for building GTA replicas. At the same time my suggestion of building a period correct replica GTA is the only way you will get to the original GTA driving experiencing.

Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
313 Posts
The second way was to use any 1750 GTV USA LHD car (starting from body number AR 1350001) that had been homologated as a GTAm and this time use the homologation FIA 1576 Group 2 variation 3/2V and have them installed to run in FIA Group 2 in 1970/71.
This sounds like a great idea, except not one car numbered like this exists. It's time to check your math.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
18 Posts
I brought a 1965 1600 GT this time last year. At first I wanted to make a replica as well. Spent so much time reading on books and research online. Making a Excel file on where to buy parts (All the Aluminum body bits etc)

At the end the person who is doing the restoration convinced me that I should just do a GTA look and rebuild using quality parts and make it as I like it to be.

Definitely not trying to demotivate you, it is possible that you can make a 100% replica of a GTA. There are YouTube videos showing what a real GTA is like (for example the riveted line behind window trim). Then you will probably find there are actually many fake GTA claimed to be a real one. The research process is very long but it is truly a history lesson
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
1,241 Posts
I'm not arguing that you should not do a 'GTA look alike'. As there are many paths to the cultural trend of 'GTA look alike' cars and if the cultural trend is what you like then go for it.

I'm arguing the following point
There are only two paths to the authentic GTA driving experience. One way is to drive a GTA car built in say 1965 and the other way is to build an authentic version of the GTA to FIA specs, that could have raced in UK/Europe in 1965 or could race in the FIA historics in 2021.

Cultural trends although do change over time, some of the effects of cultural trends in the past have have had negative impacts on the longevity of some cars. The other side of the coin to the cultural trend of say a 'GTA look alike' cars could be that these cars were never built or raced in these forms by the factory in any FIA races,
As trends change many cars like the 'GTA look alike' cars are virtually impossible to restore back to say their original GT Sprint 1600 or GT Veloce 1600 form, as many original parts don't tend to be kept with the car.
Since there is a shortage of GT Sprint 1600 or GT Veloce 1600 cars that can be fully restored partly due to lack of availability of 502 and 536 engines. I think this means these 'GTA look alike' cars are potential candidates for conversion to an authentic version of the GTA to FIA specs in the majority of cases.
S
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,955 Posts
By your argument Steve, an 8c2900B should be turned into a 8c2900 Mille Miglia because of the lack of availability of parts ... gee whiz

If you want to ruin a 105 series for a alloy bodied replica, pick the most common model and ruin that. If you genuinely only wanted the driving experience, the actual year of the donor does not matter at all

Yawn
Pete
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
1,241 Posts
What I'm saying is the final form of the 'GTA look alike' I think will eventually be turned into an authentic version of the GTA to FIA specs by one of the future owners, as it has no where else to go.

My take as a restorer would be why waste your time with a 'GTA look alike' go straight to the authentic version of the GTA to FIA specs which in effect is a restoration project.

Of course you can use any 105 coupe for the alloy body replica. I suggest pick the most sought after and limited numbers model like the RHD GT Veloce 1600 which are valued at '15k to 50k for a rusty shell and 150k + for a restored car'. The idea is these RHD/LHD GT Veloce 1600 cars command these prices partly because they are the hardest to restore of any of the 105s so why waste a GT Veloce 1600 on a below par restoration. Pick any of the following cars for restoration GT Sprint 1600, GTJ 1300, GTV 1750 or 2L GTV as these are fairly straight forward.

You can use any of the 105 1600 blocks for your GTA twin spark period correct engine. I would use a 526 block as these are more readily available as restorers of GT Sprints 1600 and GT Veloces 1600 are usually chasing 502 and 536 blocks (which tend to be sold at a premium).

So you can see an alloy bodied replica i.e. an authentic version of the GTA to FIA specs will be improving a car like a 'GTA look alike'. At the end of the day you will only know what is harder when you restore one of your GT Veloce 1600 and turn your second GT Veloce 1600 into an authentic version of the GTA to FIA specs.

The year does matter, don't use the high arch GT Veloce 1600 made in late 1967 and 1968. Also don't use any of the GTJ 1300 deep or high arch cars as you will restricted to 1300 engines.
S
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
1,241 Posts
Since we can easily ignore Pete's last post as it has no relevance to the the initial request we must not ignore the process and dilemmas in selecting an appropriate candidate donor car. Whether it's the second GT Veloce 1600 I on sold to be restored or Pete's 1750 GTAm project that he abandoned to later restore the car (around post 3000). What is evident that some body shells are so needy like in Pete's 1750 GTV case he most likely had no choice but to abandon the GTAm project. So his 'don't do it' really should have read 'you can't do it on some body shells as they are too needy'. In other cases the body shell of my second (1966) GT Veloce 1600 has some really good features that were worth preserving (as pointed out to me, like the crisp swag lines) in a restoration that would have been lost in an alloy body make over.
This leads me to clarify my reasoning behind my previous statements.
The GT Veloce 1600 was the last car to be made with deep arches and production stopped around August 1967 for deep arch cars. By this time the presses were practically worn out and the crisp swag lines you would expect to see on GT Sprints 1600s and the 1966 GT Veloces (that had only the factory paint) were now dull and rounded on the 1967 GT Veloce 1600s.
So this is another reason you would select a 1967 GT Veloce 1600 made from January 1967 to say August 1967 which had deep arches.

So the information requested was which version to build and we know that it has to be an authentic version of the GTA to FIA specs. Which donor body shell, it has to be a 1967 GT Veloce 1600 made from say January 1967 to say August 1967 which had deep arches.

What condition should the donor shell be in? You can either take on an extremely needy body shell (with severe to major rust or structural crash damage) and reinstate it's structural integrity and then start, long winded approach, okay if you are 30 or you can pick a body shell that has minimal rust and little if any crash damage.

A car that does not have it's original engine and or original running gear or interior. Sounds like 1967 GT Veloce 1600 made from January 1967 to say August 1967 which has deep arches that presents as a 'GTA look alike' or is a jigsaw puzzle 1967 GT Veloce 1600 parts car intended for a GTA look alike, with many missing parts, like missing it's 536 engine, missing it's Veloce interior and it's Veloce dash ... etc.
I hope that has narrowed it down for you.
S
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
15,955 Posts
Since we can easily ignore Pete's last post as it has no relevance to the the initial request we must not ignore the process and dilemmas in selecting an appropriate candidate donor car. Whether it's the second GT Veloce 1600 I on sold to be restored or Pete's 1750 GTAm project that he abandoned to later restore the car (around post 3000). What is evident that some body shells are so needy like in Pete's 1750 GTV case he most likely had no choice but to abandon the GTAm project.
Honestly Steve105, you, and probably I :), need to get some counseling.

This is what I said:
https://www.alfabb.com/threads/gtam-questions.1017/#post-7485 said:
Okay I have been thinking hard about a race car related project once I finish restoring my 1750 GTV to concours condition. And while I want this car to be one of the few original standard ones left I also want to return to the race track, but not obviously in this car.
But you are also not making any sense. My car, as rusty as she was, would have been a perfect GTAm replica shell to use. A perfect car to ruin for a replica.

Yes you are 100% right in which car to choose to get as close to a real GTA as possible ...

Best. Enjoy what you are building Steve. I really hope you do :)
Pete
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
1,241 Posts
What I'm trying to point out to Alfabb members is that there is a lot of commonality with what Pete and I have encountered, which is opting to restore needy car/s or cars that are too good as Pete mentioned for his 1750 GTV or in my case to give some cars away so some one else can have and restore them rather than I take them down the replica or race car path. Sometimes the decisions to give the cars away are a wake up calls and require sacrifices on multiple levels. Since I've gone through this process at least 3 times, I think gives me a little experience, which I'm glad to share to help Alfabb members current and future, Hopefully Alfabb members will look back through this debate and come away better equipped when picking a donor car for their authentic replica GTA project.
Steve
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
1,241 Posts
I do accept that the description of the amount of needs a car has in repairing it may have changed over the last 20 years. Every one has their own definitions I'm sure and the amount of effort that goes into doing things yourself can be rewarding at times. For a 105 coupe it tends to be a given to expect to replace all the floors and all three sills. This type of repair in 2021 is what is called a standard basic repair.

Bracing the car on a chassis jig or welding cross supports helps the door openings remain fixed, whilst removing rust and installing new sills and floors etc. Some times short cuts and lack of knowledge and not following correct method as well as having no knowledge of what an untouched factory good car's sills look like and what the doors gaps should be can result in poor outcomes like the doors no longer correctly fit in particular at the bottom of the door which most overlook and focus on the sides.

Doors frames need to be in excellent condition, any door that does not fit well around all the door opening is going to cause issues when the alloy skin is placed on it. If the door frame has been poorly repaired you have no reference as to what it should be, better to find a better door.

Check the body number and also check the number in the top of the rear channel of the boot lid opening. If the numbers are not in line with the model you have two cars.
There was an accepted practice in Australia in the 80's of doing what is called a 'cut and shut'. That is take two crashed cars one front crashed car and a rear crash car and cut them in half and weld the two good halves together. This is no longer allowed in Australia. These cut and shut cars can be difficult to detect as the weld line can be hidden under body tar and cabin carpet.

Cars that have been crashed are sometimes not repaired well, leaving the front cross member twisted. This is hard to detect and would need specialist engineering skills to repair.

If you encounter a 105 coupe that has a tow bar or some strange number of holes drilled into the boot floor (not sliding block holes) you should avoid this car as the car may have stretched thus why the door gaps could be about 8mm+ near the striker.

Steve
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
1,241 Posts
Of course it may be wish full thinking you can pick up a project car that has no rust so as to start your alloy project but the reality is these cars are already running and on the road, and with current prices of GTVeloce 1600 and GT Sprint 1600 you are forced down the needy incomplete body shell.

I do accept my first choice of a GT Veloce 1600 Jan 1967 to August 1967 may not be available as a donor car so as a second choice would be GT Sprint 1600 from 1965 to 1966 (there currently is a 1965 GT Sprint 1600 for sale with out it's original engine on e-bay in Australia for 36k) , then the third choice is GT Veloce 1600 from 1966.
If that is the case then one missing it's original engine and interior front seats would be a good second choice. Original dashes are hard to repair, so a replica dash may suit the project. If they have rust in the sills and floors that's great only if they have never been repaired before. This is the point I was trying to make if your panel guy is the first to repair rust and body deficiencies then this makes for a straight forward repair in preparing your alloy car's frame.

Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
... my first choice of a GT Veloce 1600 Jan 1967 to August 1967 may not be available as a donor car so as a second choice would be GT Sprint 1600 from 1965 to 1966 (there currently is a 1965 GT Sprint 1600 for sale with out it's original engine on e-bay in Australia for 36k) , then the third choice is GT Veloce 1600 from 1966.
Steve,
If you want to make a replica while applying to the FIA-rules (say 1965-period), does it matter if you have a 2-bolt or a 4-bolt frontal crossmember (front suspension)?
4-bolt crossmembers went into production as of sept. 1967 while the GT Veloce 1600 went out of production during 1968 meaning there might be a few GT Veloce 1600's left with 4-bolt crossmembers...

Regarding FIA's view on 2 bolt vs 4 bolts, some say It matters, some say it doesn't becaues the geometry of the front suspension is not changed and 4 bolts can be considered as an "reinforcement".
It depends on the definition of "suspension attachment point", if this means a "hinge" or "ball joint" than 4 bolts don't matter, but if "attachment point" means "point where the suspension part is attached to the chassis/body", 2-bolts are an issue...

If those bolts don't make a difference, then an good GT 1600 Junior might also be a worthwhile starting point (but it will take more efforts to achieve the desired looks).
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
1,241 Posts
Good point Koenraad.
Initially I mentioned not to use the high arch 1967 GT Veloce made in late 1967 and in 1968. The other reason not to use this car as you suggested, 'it has the 4-bolt cross members went into production as of sept. 1967 while the GT Veloce 1600 went out of production during 1968 meaning there might be a few GT Veloce 1600's left with 4-bolt crossmembers'. The 4-bolt crossmember GT Veloce 1600 also had solid uprights that incorporated the caliper adapter for the ATE brakes. This braking system is no good to you for the 1965 FIA rules, only Dunlop brakes are allowed with an adapter for the caliper thus the Dunlop version of the GTVeloce 1600. There was an intermediate Dunlop uprights and ATE adapter to ATE caliper for the GTVeloce 1600. This GTVeloce 1600 was a homologated car for racing Group2 FIA and used some of the later 1966/67 GTA homolodated parts.

Given some GT Sprint 1600 and GTVeloce 1600 two bolt cars were later retrofitted in the late 60's and early 70's with 4-bolt cross members this means that these retrofitted cars with 4 bolt cars crossmembers would not suit an authentic GTA replica to FIA specs, so best to avoid these cars.

Background: A similair Dunlop brake set up (as used on GT Sprint 1600 and early GTVeloce 1600) was uses was used on some of the early 1966 GTJ1300 stepnoses. These early 1300 GTJ Stepnoses also had deep arches.

Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
58 Posts
Thanks Steve!

In this topic I looked into the FIA documents (n° 625) for the GTA and indeed, the 4 bolt setup was (strangely) only homologated in nov. 1969, while the ATE-braking system was (also strangely) only homologated in jan. 1968.

So for period correct racing in the "1965-period", 2 bolts and Dunlops are the way to go (although FIA might accept 4-bolts these days, did someone ever asked for FIA's opinion on this matter?)

AR went from Dunlop to ATE in the first months of 1967 (feb. AFAIK) on all production models.

Early GT 1300 Juniors went to high arches (and 4 bolts) after the summer of 1967 (together with the production start of the GTV 1750 in sept. 1967).

The ATE adapter for Dunlop uprights... was this meant for racing only or also available for normal street cars?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
1,241 Posts
The 4 bolt is not what you would be looking for.

The GT Veloce 1600 had the 2 bolt front cross member for the deep arch cars. These cars came in two versions the first version had the Dunlop uprights(axles) with a separate adapter that was used to secure the Dunlop calipers.

'The ATE adapter for Dunlop uprights... was this meant for racing only or also available for normal street cars?'

Good question

I think that 1000 cars were FIA homolagated for Group 2 for racing, the factory was hoping that the racing teams and race enthusiast would purchase the cars and campaign them in 1966, giving them ATE brakes and various GTA options. So the second version of the GT Veloce 1600 homolgation of ATE brakes actually preceded the GTA's homologation for the ATE brakes by about 2 years. What happened? I don't know, may be fans of the GTA purchased the Group 2 GT Veloce 1600 as the next best thing and kept them in the garage only going out for a country drive on Sunday. Later owners of these version 2 cars not understanding their significance did the usual cultural activity of removing the original ATE brake system and installing the bigger 1750/2L ATE brakes. So the 1000 FIA homolagate for Group 2 GT Veloce 1600 are as rare as the GTA's.

The second version used the same Dunlop uprights(axles) with a separate adapter that was used to secure the ATE calipers. This second version was an option that came about when 1000 cars were FIA homolagated for Group 2 in 1966/1967.

'AR went from Dunlop to ATE in the first months of 1967 (feb. AFAIK) on all production models.'

Its possible this was earlier than first few months of 1967. I think the factory could supply you at the same time with either a Dunlop braked GT Veloce 1600 or a GT Veloce 1600 the second version that used the same Dunlop uprights(axles) with a separate adapter that was used to secure the ATE calipers. I think that the second version started in 1966 (I have seen this option on a LHD 1966 GT Veloce 1600).

For the authentic GTA replica sticking to the Dunlop set up for GTA pre 1965 as per FIA homolagation rules. In saying that if you had a version 2 GT Veloce 1600 you could keep the version 2 upright and use a Dunlop caliper and hub/disc, plus find a rear Dunlop differential/axle/brake set up to back date it to 1965 FIA specs.

So using a version 2 GT Veloce 1600 for a GTA replica would be a tough call, as it's already a rare car with only 1000 made. So if a standard 2 bolt deep arch stepnose GT Sprint 1600 / GT Veloce 1600 restored was mentioned previously at $150k, then a version 2 GT Veloce 1600 with only 1000 made would be valued say a bit more and an authentic GTA replica say valued may be more?
Steve
 
21 - 40 of 78 Posts
Top