Alfa Romeo Forums banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
I have a ‘67 stepnose that has a woodgrain dash, scooped out seats, but no c-pillar quad badges or a veloce badge. 15” spare, but 14” wheels. High rear wheel arch. ATE brakes. I believe the original paint was some version of white. Tan/beer seat color. Steering wheel is the same as another real ‘67 veloce here in my shop. Veloce or not?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
547 Posts
Chassis number ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,145 Posts
It could be either a GT Veloce 1600 version 3 which had high rear arches and just lost the side badges or a GTJ 1300 which has a GT Veloce steering wheel.

Both GT Veloce 1600 and GTJ 1300 had ATE brakes.
There were two types of ATE brake set ups
Type 1 was ATE calipers bolted to Dunlop uprights using a Dunlop to ATE adapter.
Type 2 was ATE calipers bolted to solid ATE uprights, no adapter.

The GTJ 1300 had both Type 1 and Type 2
The GTV 1600 (version 3 with high rear arches) only had Type 2
The GTV 1600 (FIA Group 2 or version 2) only had Type 1

Some owners likedthe look of the GT Veloce 1600 so much they upgraded their GTJ 1300 or GT Sprint to look like the GT Veloce 1600.

Regards Steve
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
30 Posts
Perhaps take a look at the carbs. GTV had the 40 DCO E 27 while the GT and GTC had the 40 DCO E 4. It’s not definitive but if the car has the 27s it’s another pointer in the genuine Veloce direction.

Regards,
Robert
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
547 Posts
A chassis number will tell you want the car is . It does not really matter what has been
added or removed.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,775 Posts
Another thing to understand is that Alfa used the term "veloce" differently over time:

- In the 750 and 101 series cars, both veloce and "normale" versions of the cars were built simultaneously. These could be distinguished by their chassis numbers. The higher performance veloce models were more expensive, fewer were built, and as a result, are much more valuable today.

- In the 105 series, "Veloce" was used more as a marketing term. 105.36 GT's have a rear badge that said "Veloce", but there were no "normale" 1600 cc GT's in the late 1960's (unless you want to call the 1300cc Juniors the "normales" of that era). The 105.36 GT's had the wood grain dash.

The 14" wheels on the car in darnellsgarage's shop are probably not original to the car and are off a '69-71 (do they have hubcaps?). Badges may have disappeared in a prior repaint.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
547 Posts
AR246546 shows on the list I have as a very late 1966 Giulia GT veloce . Probably first sold in 1967.
If the engine is between 536.00770 - 536.11033 it is as close as you will ever get to a "matching number".
You can check if the front of the car matches the back by locating the type number (10536) in the trunk gutter just below the middle of the rear windscreen .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,145 Posts
I don't agree with Jay Mackro when he said 'for the 105 "Veloce" was used more as a marketing term'.
I think when it came to the 105 "Veloce" even though had it had three versions, it was a better car. All three versions of the GT Veloce 1600were much better than the 105 GT Sprint 1600. The engines were improved, the interiors were more more stylish some versions like version 2 was a FIA Group 2 car. Today it's the 105 GT Veloce 1600 that the market seeks, not the 105 GT Sprint.
Regards Steve
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
11,775 Posts
I don't agree with Jay Mackro when he said 'for the 105 "Veloce" was used more as a marketing term'.I think when it came to the 105 "Veloce" even though had it had three versions, it was a better car. All three versions of the GT Veloce 1600were much better than the 105 GT Sprint 1600. The engines were improved, the interiors were more more stylish some versions like version 2 was a FIA Group 2 car. Today it's the 105 GT Veloce 1600 that the market seeks, not the 105 GT Sprint.
Yea yea, the 105 GT Veloce 1600 was a great car. I'm not disagreeing with that.

My point was that if you walked into an Alfa dealership in 1957, you had a choice between a Sprint or a Sprint Veloce. And the Veloce model was a very different car from the normale. But if you walked into a dealership in 1967 to buy a Sprint, your only choice happened to be called "Veloce". Sure, it was a great car, but the model name didn't distinguish it from a lesser model also available at that time.

Anyhow, I'm not trying to win a debate over whether the 105.02 or the 105.36 was the better car. I'm just trying to answer darnellsgarage's question about the '67 Alfa in his shop. From what he describes, it sounds like a 105.36, which was badged as a veloce.
 
  • Like
Reactions: f4driver

·
Registered
Joined
·
547 Posts
I have always wondered why if the GT veloce was such a better car than the GT way it only sold 14240 when the GT sold 21542 .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,758 Posts
Shane you are such a stirrer 😂. It did only have 3 extra horsepower. I think the less fussy grille was an improvement and the seat side bolsters are better but it wasn’t much of an upgrade really.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
Well, that’s good news! I have the original motor & carbs, and just scored 15” steelie wheels out of Cali, so will have a mostly original car (except for a bunch of sheet metal from Classic Alfa).
Thanks to everybody.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,145 Posts
The GT Veloce had three different versions of the car. Less interior options, later cars had 'better brakes' same say.
These GT Sprints 1600 cars were favored by Italian drivers to take advantage of the fuel credits, as there were just not enough of the 1600 101 and 750 to go around once world exports started to pick up. The 1300 GTJ was an alternative in 1966 competing with the 1966 GT Veloce 1600 So the 1300 GTJ hit the mark for the fuel credits situation in Italy. But the 1300 GTJ would be run into the ground, driven harder and tended to get scrapped at a faster rate which the factory liked my guess. So my guess is production favored the 1300 GTJ because it was cheaper to run. Not sure about more production makes a car better, may be the GT Sprint was better for the factory as they sold more, on the same token of thought the GTJ 1300 was better than the GT Sprint for the factory.
The metal presses for the GT Sprint panels would eventually wear out, especially the rear deep arch panels. By 1966/67 they needed replacing, so one of the reason to avoid replacing them they just changed to the high arches.
Next some one will tell us that the GTA 1600 at 115bhp was only 9 more than the GT Sprint
S.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
547 Posts
The Alfa museum could not tell them apart 😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: PSk

·
Administrator
Joined
·
14,473 Posts
Well thankfully the marketing men/women only slapped on a badge, and didn't chuck on a vinyl roof like the English sales fools did to the GTVs ...
Pete
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,539 Posts
Topic has drifted, but...
More GTs than GTVs? ....well, the simple explanation was surely that the production run was longer, 3ish years GT versus 2ish GTV, no? So @ 7,000 p.a. sales for each model. Not really a popularity differential, then.
GTV 3hp increase only? Yes, but ‘significantly more torque’ was the quote I remember from way back then: smaller inlet ports getting the credit, IIRC, which was kind of a surprise to the bigger-ports-are-better guys. What I didn’t see reported anywhere were the comparative torque numbers.
Having owned both cars, I don't remember interior differences other than the fake-wood dash veneer (which I don’t like) chrome dash trim, under-dash light, a redline on the tach, seats, arm rests, and sun visor and grab-handle colours. Not really much ‘better’, really. I’d say the GT seats were more comfortable, but GTV had better location with the side bolsters.
Steve105, that’s a bit of a long bow you‘re drawing re the wheel arch changes. If you don’t mind me borrowing your bow for a sec, I reckon it was a racing-related thing, maybe for fatter wheels/tyres.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,758 Posts
Next some one will tell us that the GTA 1600 at 115bhp was only 9 more than the GT Sprint
S.
Well isn’t it?... GTA differences are obviously substantial.

i doubt anyone would have felt the 3hp increase. The torque is another story though.
Cmon Steve, ya gotta admit the differences are minimal between GT and Veloce compared to the bigger model changes from 1600 - 1750 - 2000 or between a 101 normale and Veloce. And even less significant during the run of GT Veloces even though you like to try and break them up by the small improvements they made during the run. Geez that last batch with the high rear arches was the ultimate wasn’t it? With the high rear arches allowing better wheel choice, best brakes of the bunch and the 4 bolt front suspension, therefore eliminating a weak point of the earlier versions 😜
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,145 Posts
If you look at the process of making the 105 GT Sprints 1600. The factory I think tried to indulge the prospective owners so they could personalize their GT Sprints 1600 with 20 different interior options, while the GT Veloce only had 6. [fact]
To replicate those 20 different interior options was a decision that the factory did not take for the GT Veloce 1600, another reason I think the production numbers for the GT Veloce 1600 were lower than the GT Sprint 1600. The factory focused on improving GT Veloce 1600's mechanical and seating and getting the car optioned up in version 2 for FIA Group 2 for racing [fact].
The last batch of high arch GT Veloce 1600 were probably an after thought by the factory, but as you say they could have been better for racing but it was too late.
The GTJ 1300 stepnose cars were raced [fact], but clearly were not the car of choice for racing in some countries as the race class cc limits would put the 1300 GTJ at a severe disadvantage [fact].

I think there were a few things going on in 1967, the high demand for the Veloce brand[fact] and the factory was just trying to cater for this using some excess 1600 engines(which were spare parts) and may have had some spare interiors made up as well and just using the GTJ 1300 bodies and stamped them with GT Veloce 1600 body numbers [opinion]. By using GTJ 1300 diffs and brakes as it had a large supply of these parts from the 1300 GTJ production [fact] The 1300 GTJ was the car pulling in the sales with ~13,000 cars (LHD and RHD) in 1967 and again ~13,000 cars in 1968.[fact]
Along the lines of the Veloce car being discontinued in 1967 and then every one wanting one [opinion]. Unfortunately for the factory some owners did not like the high arches and insisted on deep arch cars [opinion] The only deep arch cars left were spare body shells put aside as a part number [fact]. So even these got pulled out of storage and made up into cars in some countries(probably an export /import quota issue for the destination country) [fact]. So you will find some deep arch cars have no exterior colour or interior trim (seat colours or material) details their build certificate as they never had an exterior colour or an interior when they left the factory.[fact]
S
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top