Harry's Garage - YouTube
Discussion
I've always thought a GT4 would be great fun to tear about in. I've driven plenty of GTB/GTS but never one of these. The only thing is, I can't get on with mid-engined stuff. You look out of the windscreen and the world is just.....right there in front of you. I find it a bit alarming.
ChocolateFrog said:
Not for me.
It reminds of the TopGear supercars for £10k. I bet its really slow compared to modern cars. Probably hardwork maintenance wise too without genuinely beautiful classic looks, just another generic looking 70's Gandini wedge.
And those ergonomics
How are they hard work maintenance wise? They are pretty basic cars and many DIY them.It reminds of the TopGear supercars for £10k. I bet its really slow compared to modern cars. Probably hardwork maintenance wise too without genuinely beautiful classic looks, just another generic looking 70's Gandini wedge.
And those ergonomics
The top gear 10k thing was typical top gear with "engineered in" peril. I spoke with the owner of one of the cars and they assured me things were made to go wrong.
Caddyshack said:
ChocolateFrog said:
Not for me.
It reminds of the TopGear supercars for £10k. I bet its really slow compared to modern cars. Probably hardwork maintenance wise too without genuinely beautiful classic looks, just another generic looking 70's Gandini wedge.
And those ergonomics
How are they hard work maintenance wise? They are pretty basic cars and many DIY them.It reminds of the TopGear supercars for £10k. I bet its really slow compared to modern cars. Probably hardwork maintenance wise too without genuinely beautiful classic looks, just another generic looking 70's Gandini wedge.
And those ergonomics
The top gear 10k thing was typical top gear with "engineered in" peril. I spoke with the owner of one of the cars and they assured me things were made to go wrong.
“I bet it’s really slow compared to modern cars.”
Yep, it’s a slow old donkey.
Acceleration 0 - 100 km/h (62mph) in a brisk 7.7 seconds, and maximum speed was 220 km/h (137 mph).
All that from, a tiny naturally aspirated 1990.64 cc engine (albeit a V8, singing its self all the way to 7700 rpm), 50 years ago.
Yep, it’s a slow old donkey.
Acceleration 0 - 100 km/h (62mph) in a brisk 7.7 seconds, and maximum speed was 220 km/h (137 mph).
All that from, a tiny naturally aspirated 1990.64 cc engine (albeit a V8, singing its self all the way to 7700 rpm), 50 years ago.
daqinggregg said:
“I bet it’s really slow compared to modern cars.”
Yep, it’s a slow old donkey.
Acceleration 0 - 100 km/h (62mph) in a brisk 7.7 seconds, and maximum speed was 220 km/h (137 mph).
All that from, a tiny naturally aspirated 1990.64 cc engine (albeit a V8, singing its self all the way to 7700 rpm), 50 years ago.
Are those figures not for the 3 litre?Yep, it’s a slow old donkey.
Acceleration 0 - 100 km/h (62mph) in a brisk 7.7 seconds, and maximum speed was 220 km/h (137 mph).
All that from, a tiny naturally aspirated 1990.64 cc engine (albeit a V8, singing its self all the way to 7700 rpm), 50 years ago.
daqinggregg said:
“I bet it’s really slow compared to modern cars.”
Yep, it’s a slow old donkey.
Acceleration 0 - 100 km/h (62mph) in a brisk 7.7 seconds, and maximum speed was 220 km/h (137 mph).
All that from, a tiny naturally aspirated 1990.64 cc engine (albeit a V8, singing its self all the way to 7700 rpm), 50 years ago.
This one was a 308, not a 208.Yep, it’s a slow old donkey.
Acceleration 0 - 100 km/h (62mph) in a brisk 7.7 seconds, and maximum speed was 220 km/h (137 mph).
All that from, a tiny naturally aspirated 1990.64 cc engine (albeit a V8, singing its self all the way to 7700 rpm), 50 years ago.
2926.90cc
If you're considering speed and ergonomics though, it's missing the point of cars like this.
I know I do.
Most if not all of Harry's cars have at least a single underlying feature which makes them worthy of a space in a car collection. I don't think this car would even get on the considered list. Not when they were new and certainly not now.
I don't dislike the car but it's holds little appeal to me.
I suspect many will feel the same.
I know I do.
Most if not all of Harry's cars have at least a single underlying feature which makes them worthy of a space in a car collection. I don't think this car would even get on the considered list. Not when they were new and certainly not now.
I don't dislike the car but it's holds little appeal to me.
I suspect many will feel the same.
Caddyshack said:
ChocolateFrog said:
Not for me.
It reminds of the TopGear supercars for £10k. I bet its really slow compared to modern cars. Probably hardwork maintenance wise too without genuinely beautiful classic looks, just another generic looking 70's Gandini wedge.
And those ergonomics
How are they hard work maintenance wise? They are pretty basic cars and many DIY them.It reminds of the TopGear supercars for £10k. I bet its really slow compared to modern cars. Probably hardwork maintenance wise too without genuinely beautiful classic looks, just another generic looking 70's Gandini wedge.
And those ergonomics
The top gear 10k thing was typical top gear with "engineered in" peril. I spoke with the owner of one of the cars and they assured me things were made to go wrong.
But maybe they're a doodle to work on. I just don't know who has £50k and decides that's the car I'm buying.
Must be an age thing, 70's cars do almost nothing for me. None of the looks of 60's metal, none of the performance of 80/90's cars.
Even the Countach looks like a horrendously built kitcar in my eyes but atleast that has a V12.
Not in red but other than that I think they are a lovely thing, IF all ponies are still there or can be put back in it should have around 190-200hp/tonne so in gear performance will be more than enough and should be better than the 0-60 suggests, I love the wedge styling and pop up lights and think they suit a non traditional colour (not red)
Red9zero said:
AJLintern said:
I wonder if the wipers are a spline out? Looking at pics of other cars they do appear to be a bit flatter when parked
That was my first thought. Might have made them slightly less obvious.WPA said:
From another thread:
surprising how few red are on the production line , and how refreshing to see some vibrant colours ..........If that was a normal run of the mill car production line today , it would be all greys williamp said:
Lovely car. A compact 2+2 with a 3 litre V8 and a boot.
Reminds me of this photo
[Img]http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/510257/19598006/1343311278967/GT420factory20pic20Medium.jpg?token=kzMd1WNMSBkNPifR6PZzTY9Np6M%3D[/thumb]
...from the days when you didnt need to order a red Ferrari..!!
Reminds me of this photo
[Img]http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/510257/19598006/1343311278967/GT420factory20pic20Medium.jpg?token=kzMd1WNMSBkNPifR6PZzTY9Np6M%3D[/thumb]
...from the days when you didnt need to order a red Ferrari..!!
WPA said:
From another thread:
I maintain that most Ferraris look better when NOT in red. Some even look all types of wrong in red.williamp said:
Lovely car. A compact 2+2 with a 3 litre V8 and a boot.
Reminds me of this photo
[Img]http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/510257/19598006/1343311278967/GT420factory20pic20Medium.jpg?token=kzMd1WNMSBkNPifR6PZzTY9Np6M%3D[/thumb]
...from the days when you didnt need to order a red Ferrari..!!
Reminds me of this photo
[Img]http://static1.1.sqspcdn.com/static/f/510257/19598006/1343311278967/GT420factory20pic20Medium.jpg?token=kzMd1WNMSBkNPifR6PZzTY9Np6M%3D[/thumb]
...from the days when you didnt need to order a red Ferrari..!!
The seating position looked rather uncomfortable. Not being able to sit up straight would be a problem for some people. Having to slouch down the way Harry had to means you need arms like a chimpanzee. Of course, as he stated that was the traditional Italian car driving position back in the day, but I never quite understood it. Also, the seat rocked alarmingly when Harry leaned back, making me wonder how robust its construction was.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff