Mortuza,
I hadn't realised that one of your sources was the parts book, I am now working my way through it to see what I can find. I note that the pre 1609 engines are available in essential sporting and non-sporting versions, then a post 1609 engine becomes available. From the information further on, it seems that the only differences between the pre and post 1609 "non-sporting" engines are various what I would call architecture modifications - such as a different clutch housing, gearbox bracket and crankcase. The only item I could find during my first pass that could have had any performance effect is the flywheel - but even that is conjecture as there is nothing to say that it is lighter. In fact given that nearly all the differences are in and around the clutch and release bearing area, it may be a simple as a modification to correct a discovered weakness, or maybe the clutch plate was discontinued and the new one required modifications to the flywheel face and housing ?? Will we ever know !?
Regarding my car, it is chassis number 818.540.001462, engine number is 540.818.001486 (are you sure you haven't missed a digit out of your engine number ?). It is a lusso specification car (carpets, bumpers, chrome windscreen surround, Voxson radio + 8 track). Not sure if the latter is factory fit, but it is certainly period. It also has electronic iginition, not Magnetti but Bosch. Again - probably not factory fit but after checking with Bosch it is period.
The car is very low mileage (10,500 km) and has been garaged all it's life so is in remarkable original condition. I am currently stripping it to have some small rust patches repaired and to bring the mechanicals upto scratch. This gives me a good opportunity to check things like part numbers etc as I am going along, although many parts do not seem to have part numbers on them. Most of the numbers on the engine would I imagine be casting numbers. Hopefully this will add a bit to the story.
As regards Porsche, Paul was quite right - I have seen this photo myself. I had forgotten this, but was actually referring to the light weight 911's that were rallyed and raced in the late 60's and very early 70's (a small series of very lightweight cars with trick engines, RSR I think, were produced).
Regards
Neil
Variant 1016
-
Paul de Raymond Leclercq
Re: Variant 1016
Regarding the clutch housing etc., although I have never seen one, I do know that late Fanalones had the SII rather than the "piggy-back" gearbox, so I suspect that these cars would also have had the SII clutch and flywheel and of course the larger starter motor. I haven't access at present to the parts book so perhaps someone could check this?
Regarding the 911s, surely at least the 911R was homologated? After all it was fairly well known I think!
Paul
Regarding the 911s, surely at least the 911R was homologated? After all it was fairly well known I think!
Paul
-
Neil
Re: Variant 1016
I have had a look at the homolgation documents (FIA 3006) and nowhere is the V.1016 mentioned. Indeed all the specific technical detail included is for the standard 115 hp car (it states power, carb size (42mm) and compression ratio (10.5:1)). Many other available parts (strengthened and light weight panels, ltd slip diff etc) are mentioned in the original and subsequent documents (but with no requirement to produce 500 ) but I cannot find anything that would refer to the modifications required to the V1016, other than a camshaft (pt nos 1191414 & 1191415) in Jan 1971. I don't know if this is the 1016 cam, but it is bit late if it is.
This brings me back to my original comment: who says Lancia HAD to produce 500 V1016's ? I am begining to suspect that the homolgation refers to the basic architecture of the car, rather than specific performance additions. For instance I imagine that the engine would have to be homologated with a declared number of carburettor chocks (in this case 1 per cylinder), but once homologated the actual size of choke (42, 45 or 48) used in competition was free up to the limit of the Group4 rules of the time.
I am of course no expert on the homologation rules, but my (very limited) research suggests no reason why Lancia should have produced 500 V1016 just for homologation.
Hopefully there is someone out there with good knowledge of this process who could add a bit more fact to that being discussed at the moment !
As an aside, in the process of stripping my car for some attention to the sills and a resprey I have removed the heater matrix to ensure that it all works correctly. This is a job I shall only do once during my ownership of the car, and my commiserations to anyone who has been forced by failure to do the same !!
This brings me back to my original comment: who says Lancia HAD to produce 500 V1016's ? I am begining to suspect that the homolgation refers to the basic architecture of the car, rather than specific performance additions. For instance I imagine that the engine would have to be homologated with a declared number of carburettor chocks (in this case 1 per cylinder), but once homologated the actual size of choke (42, 45 or 48) used in competition was free up to the limit of the Group4 rules of the time.
I am of course no expert on the homologation rules, but my (very limited) research suggests no reason why Lancia should have produced 500 V1016 just for homologation.
Hopefully there is someone out there with good knowledge of this process who could add a bit more fact to that being discussed at the moment !
As an aside, in the process of stripping my car for some attention to the sills and a resprey I have removed the heater matrix to ensure that it all works correctly. This is a job I shall only do once during my ownership of the car, and my commiserations to anyone who has been forced by failure to do the same !!
-
Paul de Raymond Leclercq
Re: Variant 1016
Neil,
Was the Matrix leaking? If not at Evolution we had a super cure for this problem. Our splendid PHIL used to mix up some evil-smelling jollop which we oured into the matrix with the tubes slung from under the bonnet. After leaving this lash-up overnight, a flush with the hose would produce a splendid torent of filthy gunge. I rode in an S1 that we treated in this way; on a cold day it was really hot inside the car - unheard of for an S1
Paul
Was the Matrix leaking? If not at Evolution we had a super cure for this problem. Our splendid PHIL used to mix up some evil-smelling jollop which we oured into the matrix with the tubes slung from under the bonnet. After leaving this lash-up overnight, a flush with the hose would produce a splendid torent of filthy gunge. I rode in an S1 that we treated in this way; on a cold day it was really hot inside the car - unheard of for an S1
Paul
-
Neil
Re: Variant 1016
Paul,
It is not leaking but as I have everything else out I decided to take it out to check ( I found the houses were rotten) the matrix. I would like to know what you used as I intend to flush it and pressure check it. As i said it is such a nightmare to take out that I did not want to put everything back and find I had a problem!
Thanks
Neil
It is not leaking but as I have everything else out I decided to take it out to check ( I found the houses were rotten) the matrix. I would like to know what you used as I intend to flush it and pressure check it. As i said it is such a nightmare to take out that I did not want to put everything back and find I had a problem!
Thanks
Neil
-
Paul de Raymond Leclercq
Re: Variant 1016
Yes work on Fulvia heaters is foul.
I believe that the principal constituent was drain cleaner, very effective it was too.
Harry Manning used to use and recommend Harpic; perhaps a nice noxious mixture eh?
Paul
I believe that the principal constituent was drain cleaner, very effective it was too.
Harry Manning used to use and recommend Harpic; perhaps a nice noxious mixture eh?
Paul
-
Mortuza
Re: Variant 1016
Thank you Neil for your response I think you beat me to it but I was going to mention that the homologation papers 3006 don’t mention any 1016 parts and the car was indeed homologated with the standard 115CV engine. My source for this infomation which I htink is what you've been asking for is from the eminent Lancia historian Brian Long in his book ‘Sporting Lancia Coupes’ on p167 “…the 1,6HF was originally homologated with the variante 1016 engine”... he says.
My only conclusions can be that Brian Long got it wrong or the FIA paper 3006 are false. But then why would Brian Long make such an assertion being the renowned Lancia historian as he is? Surely both he and Weernink didn’t get it wrong. Further, I would have thought the works teams would have been the first to use the 1016 and thus would need FIA homologation Surely the FIA would have noticed Weber DCOE 45’s instead of Solex 42’s or the high lift cam? Perhaps the rules would allow carbs but unhomologated cams, pistons and valves? I don’t think so nor do I think that Lancia could risk that! especially with cars being disqualified for light bulbs a la Mini 1967 Monte!
It would also not be too much of a stretch of conjecture to assume the suggestion by Weernink that the 610 variante engines were in fact the first 610 engines for homologation and indeed I heard on this thread that 1016 wasn’t an option after FIAT take over some three weeks after the homologation of the 1,6HF in 1969. That is about one year from the start of production to homologation.
Production of the 1,6HF officially started 15th October 1968 which was about three weeks before its debut in the Tour de Corse. Production volume of 25 cars a week, the complete number (500) for FIA came officially 19th April 1969 and the following October 1st 1969 the ‘carriage/coach’(this is the translation of the Italian word ‘vettura’ and might be quite important) received homologation grand tourismo speciale grouppo 4. This info was sourced from Altorio’s book on page 172.
New gearboxes were fitted to car after some 1001 cars were made and fitted to car after 818.540.002002 (Altorio, p.180).
One other point is the starter motor. Pre 001609 cars had Bosch starter those after had Ducellier starter.
On other anomaly I have found to do with the works cars and in particular car chassis 818/540.2054 marked TOB 49176. Now I am not sure if you are aware but Italian car registration marks went up serially as they were registered with alphabetical letters replacing numbers when they needed to depending on which city the car was first registered. Thus when TO(Torino) 99999 had been reach the next number would be TO A0001. I hope I have made myself clear!
TOB49176 /chassis no.2054 is odd because Turin B plates on the works cars are up to chassis no. 1411 Chassis No. 1453, the next work car in series is a TOD. Now this is the strange thing. If you look at the numbers on the 1,3HF car chassis no. 818.340.2053 is marked as TOB49177. That’s one number up on both chassis number for 1,3 and 1,6 AND one number up in registration for both cars. Can anyone shed any light on this? Incidentally 1,3HF 2053 is the last works 1.3HF.
Lastly, my heater doesn’t work either and any tips to get it to work would be most welcome.
My only conclusions can be that Brian Long got it wrong or the FIA paper 3006 are false. But then why would Brian Long make such an assertion being the renowned Lancia historian as he is? Surely both he and Weernink didn’t get it wrong. Further, I would have thought the works teams would have been the first to use the 1016 and thus would need FIA homologation Surely the FIA would have noticed Weber DCOE 45’s instead of Solex 42’s or the high lift cam? Perhaps the rules would allow carbs but unhomologated cams, pistons and valves? I don’t think so nor do I think that Lancia could risk that! especially with cars being disqualified for light bulbs a la Mini 1967 Monte!
It would also not be too much of a stretch of conjecture to assume the suggestion by Weernink that the 610 variante engines were in fact the first 610 engines for homologation and indeed I heard on this thread that 1016 wasn’t an option after FIAT take over some three weeks after the homologation of the 1,6HF in 1969. That is about one year from the start of production to homologation.
Production of the 1,6HF officially started 15th October 1968 which was about three weeks before its debut in the Tour de Corse. Production volume of 25 cars a week, the complete number (500) for FIA came officially 19th April 1969 and the following October 1st 1969 the ‘carriage/coach’(this is the translation of the Italian word ‘vettura’ and might be quite important) received homologation grand tourismo speciale grouppo 4. This info was sourced from Altorio’s book on page 172.
New gearboxes were fitted to car after some 1001 cars were made and fitted to car after 818.540.002002 (Altorio, p.180).
One other point is the starter motor. Pre 001609 cars had Bosch starter those after had Ducellier starter.
On other anomaly I have found to do with the works cars and in particular car chassis 818/540.2054 marked TOB 49176. Now I am not sure if you are aware but Italian car registration marks went up serially as they were registered with alphabetical letters replacing numbers when they needed to depending on which city the car was first registered. Thus when TO(Torino) 99999 had been reach the next number would be TO A0001. I hope I have made myself clear!
TOB49176 /chassis no.2054 is odd because Turin B plates on the works cars are up to chassis no. 1411 Chassis No. 1453, the next work car in series is a TOD. Now this is the strange thing. If you look at the numbers on the 1,3HF car chassis no. 818.340.2053 is marked as TOB49177. That’s one number up on both chassis number for 1,3 and 1,6 AND one number up in registration for both cars. Can anyone shed any light on this? Incidentally 1,3HF 2053 is the last works 1.3HF.
Lastly, my heater doesn’t work either and any tips to get it to work would be most welcome.