The One and Only - Part 3

Group 5 being virtually a silhouette formula with extensive modifications allowed, the cars were built by race car constructors, (and in any event, BMW itself had lost interest in sports car racing, its focus by then squarely on its F1 engine programme which would lead to the M12/13 turbocharged 4 cylinders used in Nelson Piquet’s Brabham to win the ’83 drivers world championship).  From the ’81 season, a number of Procars were taken over by teams for racing in such series as the DRM - Deutsche Rennsport Meisterschaft, forerunner of the DTM.  Such cars, remaining with atmospheric engines were seen in both Group 4 and Group 5 events, the following being examples:  #4301028 – an ex-Lauda Procar, prepared by Michael Cane Racing.  It was purchased by Steve O’Rourke and run by his team, EMKA Productions/Racing.  O’Rourke himself drove the car with various partners, including Derek Bell, David Hobbs, Chris Craft and Eddie Jordan.  Two class wins were recorded in ’81 and the car ran at Le Mans in both ’81 and ’82, though failed to finish both years.  #4301269 – a car looked after by DM Engineering was entered by BMW/BMW U.S. for races in the summer of ’81 at Watkins Glen and Mosport, driven by Hobbs/Surer and Hobbs/Stuck respectively, but was a non-finisher on both occasions.

More radical cars with twin turbocharged engines were anticipated to run in Group 5, (Special Production Cars), a category replaced by Group C for the ’83 season. It has been reported that three Group 5 cars were built by March, two by Sauber and one by both Martini Racing and Schnitzer. Best documented are the Saubers. The first of these, usually entered by Sauber itself, and, sometimes, BMW Italia, was mainly campaigned in the DRM, not with much success in ’81, with five DNFs. In the hands of Walter Nussbaumer it did however finish 3rd at Hockenheim. ’82 was a little better – Enzo Calderari took it to victory at a race in Dijon, and, partnered by Kelleners and Umberto Grano, it managed 3rd overall and first in class at the Nurburgring 1,000 km WEC event. The following year, Calderari and Marco Vanoli were victorious at the Hockenheim 3 Hours. The car subsequently competed in Scandinavia, in ’86-’88, mainly driven by Jürg Bächi, recording several podium place finishes.

The second Sauber M1 – distinctive with the iconic BASF livery -  got off to a very good start, winning the ’81 WEC Round 7 at the Nurburgring (1,000 km), driven by Stuck and Piquet.  This was a significant result against strong Group 5 opponent Lancia Montecarlos and Porsche 935s.  In this race, incidentally, there was also a Group 4 M1 GT class win for Kurt König and Peter Oberndorfer.  Next up was Le Mans, but this was not a success.  Both this, (driven by Stuck, Jarier and Henzler), and the sister, (driven by Surer, Quester and Deacon), Sauber M1 mentioned above, failed to finish.  The former was out after only 57 laps with accident damage, while the sister suffered a terminal engine failure at 207 laps.  This second Sauber M1 gave Christian Danner a podium finish in the DRM at Zolder, but was destroyed by an accident at the Kyalami 9 Hours in November ’81.

Group 5 M1 Sauber #2, Le Mans, ‘81

The March involvement was quite convoluted.  Its beginnings predated the launch of the Procar series and were based on the principle that March would do all the work on the chassis creation whilst BMW focused only on the further development of the M88 engine with forced induction.  At the time, March was leaning on a man in his mid-twenties, John Gentry.  The marque’s confidence in someone with limited previous experience was evidenced by his being entrusted to design a race-purpose, aluminium M1 monocoque chassis.  Aluminium also figured extensively, along with composites, in the M1-similar body’s construction.  Initially the car, designated Mk.1, was fitted with a normally aspirated version of the M88, good for around 475 bhp.  The car was running early in ’79, but could not be readied for any existing racing class use prior to homologation of the M1 for Group 4.  However, a second chassis with normally aspirated M88 engine was entered for the Le Mans 24 Hours run on 10/11^th ’79.  Crewed by Guy Edwards, Ian Grob and Quester, it ran in class S2, but failed to qualify for the race.   Late in the year another car was built for Jim Busby, an American with a good deal of driving experience in Porsche 911/934/935 cars run by Brumos and who had plans to enter it in IMSA GTX classification events in ’80.  The car was designated #03 and first appeared at the Daytona 24 Hours, February ’80.  Busby is said to have had the engine replaced with a Chevrolet unit.  That Spring, he entered it also for races at Sebring, Road Atlanta and Riverside, but only finished at Road Atlanta, so his enthusiasm was extinguished and the car passed to Bob Gregg while Busby reverted to a Porsche 935.  Gregg also contested three GTP races, in summer ’82, but, was rewarded with three DNFs.  In February ’83 he tried his luck at the Miami G.P. but could finish no higher than 25^th.  A further car was built to replace #001 which was written off in a ’80 crash.  The details and various versions of these March M1s were not well documented at the time and I have not been able to verify, for instance, that Busby’s car did compete with a Chevrolet engine.

Second March M1, Le Mans, ‘79

The Martini M1 bore chassis number 4301059.  It competed in ’81 at Mugello, entered by BMW Italia/ORECA, at Monza (1,000 km) (ORECA), Le Mans (BMW Italia) and Kyalami (BMW Italia).  Success was limited, though Teo Fabi and Quester finished 4^th at the Monza 1,000 km.  The car was a TOTAL entry for Le Mans the following season, finishing 18^th.

Group 5 Martini M1, Monza, ‘81

The Team Schnitzer car was entered for most of the DRM events of the ’81 season, with Hans Stuck at the wheel.  There were wins at the Norisring and Salzburg, a 2^nd at Hockenheim and a couple of 3^rd places.  Stuck’s position in the end of season table was 8^th.

Group 5 Schnitzer M1, Hans Stuck, DRM

Almost half a century after the M1’s heyday, one man remains hyperactive in ensuring that the model does not exist today only in museum exhibit/garage queen form.  He is Fritz Wagner, based at Kolbermoor, south east of Munich, on the way to Salzberg.  He first became acquainted with the M1 when working at Project Four on the preparation of the Procars for the ’79 season.  Subsequently he moved to the Manfred Cassani team where he helped prepare and run the Procars driven by Hans Stuck in ’79 and in ‘80 by Manfred Winkelhock and Christian Danner.  Then, and in all the years since, Fritz has made it his main mission in life to locate, buy and store complete M1 cars and the full range of parts needed for their repair and upkeep.  In an interview by Johan Dillen for Classic Motorsports, Wagner explained:  ““I was the only one to show any interest in the old parts.”  I’d haggle with Ron Dennis over a gearbox.  I’d give mechanics some drinking money in exchange for parts.  It was no free ride, but really, they all charged just a fraction of what these parts cost – and I was the only one willing to give any money for them.  In Munich, the Motorsport guys would throw it all away.  Again, I was the only one who would come to retrieve these parts before they were destroyed.  I would just leave them here on the floor at my home.  At the time, I had no clear idea what to do with all this, but I knew it would come in handy one day.”  How right Fritz was.  In the last few years M1/Procar reunion events have become a very popular strand in the classic car/historic motorsport scene.  One especially notable example was held in ’19 at the Norisring, with several of the 14 cars visiting being run at speed on the track.  For this to be possible, there is much reliance on Fritz and his knowledge, expertise and stock of parts.  So there is a happy confluence involving a truly iconic car of the late 20^th Century and the ultimate supportive enthusiast, still so single mindedly focused well into the 21^st!

Surviving examples of both the road-going M1 and Procar models are regularly offered for resale.  The asking/estimated/realised average price of an M1 in recent years has been £435,000, while £890,000 is the average for Procars.  Seen below are examples of M1s recently marketed:

 

#4301006  As might be inferred from the chassis number, this is an early production M1.  In describing the car, vendors, Gallery Aaldering, stated: ‘It is the third M1 ever built and, according to factory records, the first street-legal version used by BMW for training sessions and promotional events before being sold to its first private owner.  Originally delivered from the factory in striking Inka Orange, it was initially used by BMW as a service training car.  Later sold to Alf Gebhardt, a former BMW works driver and Procar participant.’  The asking price was €599.500.

#4301097  Bonham’s auction lot description included: ‘At the time of cataloguing, the odometer reading was 141,000 kilometres, a testament to BMW reliability and the fact that the M1 has always been, and still is, a very useable supercar.’‘  The sale estimate was given as €390,000 - €440,000.

#4301160  This car is at the other end of the usage spectrum – Munich Legends’s advertisement for it indicating that it had covered just 5,000 km from new.

#4301170  Vendor, Broad Arrow, said that this was one of 71 M1s finished in red.  Its first owner, a figure in the German music industry, commissioned modifications to give the car the appearance of a Procar, as can be seen in the photographs below.  Broad Arrow’s auction lot value estimate was €450-€550,000.

#4301180  Sotheby’s sold this M1 in 2025 for £398,750.  The auction house noted: ‘Marked as complete by Baur in February 1980, its original colourway was Toprot over a Schwarz part-leather interior.‘

#4301226  Another sale handled by Sotheby’s.  This ’80-built example was finished in blue, ex-factory.  It was restored in recent times by Bruce Canepa’s highly respected Scott’s Valley, CA-located business.  The price tag on this one was $580,000.

#4301292  Is an example of the relatively rare commodity – an M1 listed on Bring a Trailer.  Not that the platform is an inappropriate place from which to offer such a car, as evidenced by the winning bid value of $580,000 (2024).  Thinking again of rarity, the car’s colour certainly qualifies – as the BaT description explains: ‘. . .one of three cars delivered from the factory in black, it was built on July 15, 1980, and was delivered new in England.’  It is another which has benefitted from attention at the Canepa workshop.  A low mileage – just 30,000 – car which looks both sleek and sinister!

#4301332  A late’80-built car. Reseller, Hero Motor Company, looked for £495,000, listing particular plus points of upgraded seat trimming (half leather), the Nachtblau finish, shared by only 58 other road-going M1s and only 39,500 km recorded.

#4301364  Is another M1 painted blue when manufactured in October ’80 – it has subsequently been repainted in a metallic red.  Over the years it has been in use in France, the U.S. and Singapore, but was in Monaco in 2024 when it was sold by RM Sotheby’s for €342,500.

#4301378  Gooding Christie’s sold this November ’80 manufactured M1 in January ’26, realising a price of €522,500.  Said to be the 308^th  example built and with just 53,000 km on the clock.  Its VIN plate is shown below, right.  Note that the standard, highly distinctive Campagnolo wheels have been replaced with BBS rims.  A set of the Campagnolos was recently offered on eBay for $40,000 – see below, centre.

#4301413  Originally Inka, this is a ’81-made M1.  It failed to sell at Broad Arrow’s ‘25 Concorso d'Eleganza Villa d'Este Auction, at which the estimate was €475-575,000.

Three example Procars are seen below.

#4301057  Built in May ’79, this car was race prepared by Osella.  Subsequently, it went to Vasek Polak’s Dealership at Manhattan Beach, California, remaining long term in Polak’s well-known collection.  It changed ownership in ’25 for  $1,600,000.

#4301195  First owner was Joe Crevier who started racing in partnership with Al Unser Jnr.  He used this Procar to contest the ’81 IMSA GTO Championship, finishing 3^rd in class.  He ran in this again the following season, taking in both the Daytona 24 Hours and the 12 Hours of Sebring.  However, in May ’82, he abruptly stopped competing and sold the car to Don Walker of Dallas Motorsport.  The car left the U.S. in the late Eighties when purchased by a collector located in Switzerland.  In 2020 it changed hands for $913,000.

#4301302  An ’80-manufactured M1, this car was modified up to Procar specification in ’82 by Walker Brown Racing for participation in the IMSA GTO series. It is another car which went to Switzerland in the Eighties after it was retired from full time competition use.  Originally finished in white, in recent times it has been repainted red.  In ’15 it raced in the Grand Prix de l'Age d'Or at the Circuit Dijon-Prenois, as seen, right, below.  Its last resale was in ’24, when it made $1,097,513.

As the half century anniversary of the M1/Procar launch approaches, the E26 BMW remains a highly respected car with strong resale values and appreciation for its aesthetic and dynamic characteristics.  Giugiaro’s styling job has been accorded even further favourable recognition with the passing years.  In April ’08 the M1 Hommage designed by Benoit Jacob was unveiled at Villa d’Este, and in its Liquid Orange paint it certainly drew attention.  But however striking this finish appeared, it was not enough to compensate for an overall ‘look’ which was not as successful as that created by Giugiaro.  In particular, Jacob’s interpretation of the traditional kidney grilles element, being decidedly oversized, conferred a clumsy character on the car’s front end.  This was just one aspect which robbed the Hommage of the original M1’s elegance.  But also missing was the portrayal of a machine ready to race – the E26 was both sleek and purposeful, able to be both a ‘looker’ and a racer, perfectly suited to the circuit at Monaco, whereas the Hommage would seem more at home being valet parked at Monte Carlo’s renowned Hotel de Paris.  As to the engine, the ’08 project had at one time included the incorporation of a V10.  This was revised, recalling the situation in the Seventies when the M1 lost its V8 on the drawing board.  But the substitution of a straight six then has not adversely affected the car today – this configuration helps make the M1 a relatively practical ‘supercar’ in ownership/cost terms.  And, as a significant benefit to the marque, the M88 became a very highly rated engine and a key feature of the hugely successful E28 M5 model.  So, the M1 can be appreciated as BMW’s most convincing multi-purpose product: elegant junior supercar/effective racer/halo model/legacy provider/brand icon.

BMW M1 Hommage  ©Motorsport Network

The One and Only - Part 2

 

Nevertheless, the team had not forgotten the vision that informed the earliest days of the project – a car primarily for race participation, fast and nimble enough to compete in Groups 4 and 5 and to score victories over the cars from the Zuffenhausen works of a formidable rival. So some refocus as regards the chassis/body was required. First and foremost, this sought lighter weight and reduced mass. Consequently, Lamborghini was instructed to make the body in GRP and mount it on a tubular spaceframe chassis, allowing the car’s unladen weight to be around 1,300 Kg in road trim and little more than 1,000 Kg as prepared for the track. The new format also embodied reduced dimensions for both the wheelbase and overall length in the interests of better handling characteristics. Recognising the value of drawing on very specific expertise and to achieve best possible speed in the project’s development and subsequent vehicle build process, a supplier nexus was determined – body component panels from the company, Trasformazione Italiana Resina, located 50 km west of Sant’Agata at Reggio Emilia; chassis from Modena-based Marchesi & C.; chassis/body assembly at Italdesign.

Chassis frame made by Machesi.  Courtesy MenudeiMotori

Complying with the updated specification, Lamborghini initially made good progress, producing a prototype in little more than 6 months.  It was shown to the BMW Board in early May ’77 and well received.  The evaluation was enhanced by the availability for viewing of cars considered likely to be ‘the opposition,’ De Tomaso Pantera, Maserati Merak and, inevitably, a turbocharged 911.  Hearing that the BMW people perceived ‘their’ car to be superior to these competitors, the Lamborghini team could be justified in feeling pleased with its efforts.  However, back inside the Sant’Agata factory, the mood was much less upbeat since the company’s financial fitness had been continuing to deteriorate.  Cashflow was especially poor and this militated against steady, revenue earning production.  So, though there was customer demand for the Countach and Jarama models, sales rates were constricted and income lost.  With the receipts from BMW channelled to product development, Rossetti and Leimer sought to boost revenue by contracting to build an off-road vehicle for American maker, Mobility Technology International, which had been commissioned to supply it to the U.S. Military.  From the outset of the project however, there was trouble – named the Cheetah, rights to the design were contested by Ford and this led to a litigation.  Consequently, by the time the vehicle was ready for debut in ’77, Lamborghini’s confidence in the project as a ‘lifesaver’ had already been eroded.  Though no surprise, BMW’s decision to cancel its contract with Lamborghini in April ‘78 for a second time was a further major blow.  Efforts to sell Automobili Lamborghini as a going concern were unsuccessful and by legal compulsion the business was declared bankrupt in August ’78, one month after a prototype M1 had been shown to the press in Munich at the Olympic Park  Also announced at this time, at Hockenheim, was BMW’s intention to institute a ‘Procar’ racing series in ’79.  A follow-up announcement was made in October ’78 outlining plans for the supply of Group 4 specification M1s to private entrants, it having been established that such cars would be allowed to run in German national events.  Preparation of these cars was to be entrusted to Ron Dennis’s junior formulae team, Project Four, and to Osella Engineering, inheritor of the Abarth works operation after the Fiat takeover in ’71.

’78 M1 prototype.  Courtesy Hans Lehmann

At the point of the Lamborghini contract lapse, seven pre-production M1s were under construction. Not enough had yet been learnt with these to enable the formulation of a revised series production plan/timeframe. The project was under huge pressure given the Group 4/5 racing aspirations and related homologation requirements. This would all come to nothing if 400 units could not be manufactured. Thus, the BMW M team needed to, and did, act swiftly and effectively. Firstly, influence was brought to bear such that a number of Lamborghini employees collaborated to found a new business, ItalEngineering. Its purpose was to improve/maintain relationships and working practices between the various specialist businesses already involved in the project. A key executive of ItalEngineering was Marco Raimondi whose primary responsibility was liaison/co-ordination over the wide range of technical aspects.

Left - Marco Raimondi (ItalEngineering) with (right) Dott Franco Baraldini (Lamborghini)

In addition to the design/styling work already undertaken by Italdesign, Giugiaro’s company was delegated to paint/finish the tubular chassis frames. The body panels, glass and interior trim was then assembled on the chassis frame and the completed shell painted. The wiring loom was subsequently fitted prior to the partially complete vehicle passing into the care of Karosserie Baur at Stuttgart. At Baur the remainder of the mechanical, electrical and trim equipment was installed. This stage was found to be problematic as Baur reported that because of dimensional inconsistencies and resultant fit issues, it needed substantially more time than had been agreed in order to complete its work. Thus a further delay occurred and the cost of production was further escalated. However, on completion, the cars were shipped to Munich for testing/final inspection at the factory. Despite the issues at Baur, the race car preparation programme was implemented in time for the ’79 season. But, though it had originally envisaged participation in Group 5, (Special Production cars), BMW feared a lack of competitiveness against other makers now deploying turbocharged cars. Consequently, the M1 became destined to race in the less prestigious Group 4, (Special Grand Touring cars), category.

Body panels being fitted to the chassis frame.  Courtesy 2020 BMW M1 Club e.V.

Its development supervised by Rosche, a /1, Group 4-compliant version of the M88 engine was soon running and proving effective. With a 470 bhp output, it was considerably more powerful than the standard M1 unit. As regards the chassis, suspension, steering and brake components were replaced with race-specification items, while the removal of non-essential items allowed a reduction of the kerb weight down to 1,020 Kg. Wheel widths were increased front and rear, and accommodating arch extensions applied to the bodywork. The aerodynamics were improved by the addition of a large rear wing and front spoiler. By contractual agreement, all the cars were equipped with Goodyear tyres. Eventually, 54 Group 4 M1s were built.

Three months on from the press presentation, a public launch was effected at the Paris Motor Show. Just two months beyond that, in January ’79, the first deliveries were being made to customers. By then the reality of the car’s gestation troubles and the complexity of its revised manufacturing process were reflected in the asking price – around DM 110,000. That made for a car very much more expensive than competing products such as Porsche’s 911 Turbo. Unsurprisingly, customer demand was below expectations and it quickly became necessary to discreetly offer discounts and incentives such as ‘free’ options.

Paris Motor Show, October ’78.  Courtesy Gilbert Uzan

The racing strand of the M1 project continued to progress more positively. A car in race specification emerged in December ’78. During testing, the top speed capability was found to be 193 mph with 0-60 mph achievable in just over 4 seconds. The development work went well enough to allow for a Group 4 race debut in the hands of Marc Surer at the DRM Nürburgring Eifelrennen in late April ’79. Classified 9th overall and first in class in the Rennsport Trophae (Division 1) race, it was a largely successful first showing, though Surer’s progress had been hampered by engine trouble in the latter stages.

Procar chassis# 4301063, winner Nurburgring, April ’79.  Courtesy Wolfgang Clemens

Both road and race versions counted towards the homologation target of 400 units, though, as mentioned above, it had been seen in ‘78 that the quota would not be achievable in time for the ’79 season. Neerpasch had thought around this problem and come up with the idea of a racing format not constricted by the sport’s governing body’s (FIA) regulations. Making use of their existing good rapport from the F3 engine supply programme, Neerpasch engaged Max Mosely’s interest in the creation of a GT series to be run as support races to Formula 1 Grand Prix events. Mosely in turn enlisted Bernie Ecclestone as an advocate, enabling rapid progress on the scheme’s implementation. With support from the F1 constructors, a Procar Association was set up and agreement reached for races to be run at the European Grands Prix. It was envisaged that each race would be contested by 20 cars, 5 to be entered by the BMW factory and the remaining 15 by a variety of teams, including Project Four Racing, Osella, Schnitzer Motorsport, Eggenberger Racing, GS Tuning, Tom Walkinshaw Racing, Team Konrad and Ecurie Arvor. With this number of cars, it was decided to entrust some preparation also to BS Fabrications, a Luton-based business familiar to Ecclestone and through which he promoted Nelson Piquet’s driving career. Sales to the teams were based on the price of a Procar being $60,000.

The competition format encompassed a two day event on the Friday and Saturday of each Grand Prix – practice on the Friday, race on the Saturday. The BMW factory team on each occasion would comprise the 5 drivers fastest in Formula 1 practice and, irrespective of Procar practice times, they would be assigned the first five grid slots. Series points/prize sums were awarded as below:

The series rounds for ’79 were to be held at the following Grands Prix:

The series championship would be taken by the highest points scorer over the 8 rounds, a M1 being their principal reward for the feat, with other BMW models to be gifted to the other five drivers finishing in the first six places in the season-end standings table. 

The teams entering cars in the series were: BMW Motorsport, Project Four Racing, Franz Konrad Racing, Osella Squadra Corse, Schutz Racing, Eggenberger Motorsport, BMW Italia, Alimpo Sport, GS Team, Manfred Cassani, BMW Schweiz, Brun Motorsport, Heidigger Racing Team, Ecurie Automobile Arvor, Memphis Team International, Team Krebs, Team Winkelhock, Toleman Group Motorsport and Tom Walkinshaw Racing.

Over the eight events in the ’79 season, a total of 29 drivers took part – Toine Hezemans did seven, Stuck, Regazzoni and Helmut Kelleners, six, Niki Lauda, five. De Angelis, Fittipaldi. Beltoise, Mass, Konrad, Brun, Reutemann, Cheever, Needell, Jarier, Hotz and ‘Winter’ each did just one. Winners were: Belgium, de Angelis; Monaco, Lauda; France, Piquet; UK, Lauda; Germany, Lauda; Austria, Laffite; Netherlands, Stuck; Italy, Stuck. The top three in the Championship’s closing standings were, 1st Lauda, (78 points); 2nd Stuck (73 points); 3rd Regazzoni (61 points). Both Lauda and Stuck were presented with a M1 road car, Regazzoni and Hottinger with BMW 528s, and Hezemans and Piquet with BMW 323is.

Procar race, Hockenheim, July ’79.  Courtesy 2020 BMW M1 Club e.V

The season had seen some hard racing with consequent spats and shunts, raising the profile and perceived entertainment value of the series.  With some instances of lesser-known drivers, (notably Markus Höttinger, for example) out-performing top line Grand Prix stars, there was speculation that the cars were far from being all of equivalent specification/competitive set-up.  Unsurprisingly, it wasn’t long before the ‘private’ teams began to complain that the ‘factory’ cars had a power advantage.  In response, a revs limit increase was sanctioned – going from the previously-specified 8,500 to 9,200.  Disquiet rumbled on however, and at the German event it was openly suggested that winner, Lauda’s, car was ‘special,’ in response to which ‘The Rat  said: “Nonsense, after the race at Silverstone my car windows were cleaned and the car was brought to Hockenheim. The cars are all equally fast.  If at all, you can only make a difference with the tyres. Although they are all the same, there are small differences and if you are lucky enough to find a set of tyres that are a bit faster, because they are simply made that way, then you can drive faster.”

Procar race, Zeltweg, August ’79.  Courtesy 2020 BMW M1 Club e.V.

Lauda, Stuck and Regazzoni arrived at the final race, at Monza, all in the running to take the championship.  Stuck, though classified as a ‘private’ driver had proven the series meister, especially in the later races, though Lauda was very nearly as quick and with consistency had racked up points on occasions when Stuck had suffered a DNF.  At Monza, Stuck won with a 20 seconds advantage over Lauda, with the remarkable Höttinger in 3^rd.  It made for a close finish to the championship, but was clear enough given Lauda’s 5 points advantage. 

’79 Procar champion, Niki Lauda with M1, German Grand Prix, ’08.  Courtesy BMW Group

There was an additional Procar race, run at Donington Pak in June, as a part of a meeting commemorating Gunnar Nilsson.  It was won by Nelson Piquet, but no championship points were awarded for this event. 

It was generally agreed that Procar had in ’79 fulfilled BMW’s ambitions and was widely regarded as a properly competitive series, not just a demonstration exercise run for marketing purposes.  In helping to consolidate BMW’s standing as a major player in global motorsport, it provided encouragement to the management in the Four Cylinder Tower to rekindle the company’s F1 aspirations.  Somewhat ironically, as a consequence, BMW itself ceded ‘ownership’ of the Procar series to the Formula One Constructors Association in order to focus effort and resources on a F1 engine programme.  At the same time, it was decided to entrust all the preparation of the ‘works’ M1s (i.e. those allocated to the F1 drivers) to BS Fabrications for the ’80 season.  Also revised for ’80 was the qualifying format by the removal of the privileged pre-determined starting grid positions allocated to the Grand Prix drivers. 

While the primary focus in ’79 was on the Procar series, wider utilisation of the race version M1 evolved with success.  Four years previously, French entrepreneur and amateur racing driver, Hervé Poulain had successfully proposed and implemented the ‘Art Car’ programme, in which contemporary artists were commissioned to apply a ‘livery’ to various BMW models destined to compete in the 24 Hours of Le Mans events.  The ’75 entry was a BMW 3.0 CSL painted by Alexander Calder and driven by Poulain, Sam Posy and Jean Guichet.  For ’79, an M1 with decoration by Andy Warhol was entered.  Group 4 compliant and in the IMSA GTX .25+ class, it was taken to 6^th overall, 2^nd in class by drivers, Poulain, Marcel Mignot and Manfred Winklelhock.

BMW M1 of Hervé Poulain, Le Mans, ’79.  Courtesy Classic and Vintage BMW

At National level, no M1s were ready to compete in the Deutsche Rennsport Meisterschaft, (Rennsport Trophäe,  Group 4 Division 1), until the fourth round at Salzburg in May.  In the eight remaining races of the season there were intermittent entries for Stuck, Lauda, Regazzoni, Jochen Mass, Franz Konrad, Wolfgang Schütz, Ralf-Dieter Schreiber, Walter Brun, Markus Höttinger and Lili Reisenbichler.  Class wins were achieved by Stuck (twice), Schütz (twice) and Mass.

BMW M1 of Niki Lauda, Norisring, DRM, June ’79.  Courtesy Harry Maurer

For ’80, a calendar of nine races was announced, including two UK races and three in Germany:

New teams for the season were: BMW Nederland, Schnitzer Motorsport, Sauber Motorsport, Team Merzario, Kannacher GT Racing, Team Austria, Team Lepitre, Ralf-Dieter Schreiber, Racing Team Jurgensen and Peter Oberdorfer.  No less than 40 drivers took part, though 17 entered only a single event. 

These five F1 drivers competed in both Procar seasons; left to right: Laffite, Pironi,, Jones, Piquet, Reutemann.  Courtesy Motorsport.com

The opening race at Donington showed that the revision of the qualifying rules was capable of causing quite a shake up in the relative competitiveness of the F1 drivers, with several strong performances from the ‘private’ drivers contributing to a close fought and incident-packed event won by Jan Lammers.

Winning Procar of Jan Lammers, April ’80, Donington Park.  Courtesy 2020 BMW M1 Club e.V

At the second round, the peculiar nature of the AVUS circuit, with its exceptionally long straights, brought the engine revs limit back under scrutiny. Although a maximum of 8,700 was again recommended in the interests of reliability, there was plenty of enthusiasm for going to 9,000-9,300.  Hans-Geog Bürger’s GS-entered car won the pole with 8,700 set, though other drivers claimed they were not competitive if restricted to less than 9,000.  However, the main talking point at the race’s conclusion was the performance of the Cassani driver, Manfred Schurti who beat Lammers to the win by six seconds.  Schurti was an accomplished driver with the Gelo, Martini and Porsche works teams, though with a less high profile than many of the Procar participants.  At Monaco, Stuck was back to his ’79 late season form, finishing ahead of Kelleners, 2^nd and Piquet, 3^rd.  Stuck won again at the Norisring but was down to 7^th at Brands Hatch, with 5 F1 drivers – including winner, Reutemann – ahead of him.  Didier Pironi found himself under a good deal of criticism in regard to collisions at the Hockenheim event, infuriating Stuck in particular, but emerged as the victor, and appeared not too bothered by the controversies!  However, such an incident-packed race once again proved that Procar was a full-bloodied racing series.  The final three races of the ’80 series – and the last Procar events of all time – were dominated by Nelson Piquet, the man who would win the F1 World Championship the following year, being first across the line in each.  This late run of form served to propel Piquet’s points total to 90, putting him well clear of Jones (77 points) and Stuck (71 points) and thus more than enough to secure his standing as the ’80 Procar champion.  His reward from BMW was a 635CSi,while Jones was presented with a BMW 528i, and Stuck received a BMW 323i. 

Race and Championship winner, Nelson Piquet, Imola September ’80.  Courtesy Getty Images

With the conclusion of the Procar series, the M1’s period as a BMW model was coming to an end.  Production was discontinued in ’80, though the last examples were not delivered to their first owners until into ’81.  453 M1s had been built, (some say 457), of which 54 were to Procar or Group 5 specification.  As regards the Group 5 cars, despite the homologation problem, BMW had been at work since ’78 on a suitable engine for the category.  Announced that year, a twin turbo version of the M88 had been developed and this was utilised from ’81.  Designated 88/2, it had a reduced cubic capacity – down to 3,191 cc – enabling M1s to run in the 4.5 litre (naturally aspirated) class.  Subject to boost pressure, the M88/2 could output almost 1,000 bhp.  The key to unlocking the M1’s entry to Group 5 competition was obtained in December ’80 when the FIA issued homologation papers under reference #670 with acknowledgement of completion of the required 400 units.

Part 3, to follow, covers the Group 5 M1s and a survey of M1s marketed for resale in recent years.

Enzo's Skunkworks

The Automotive Industry of the 20^th Century was known for some very extrovert and assertive leaders, – Henry Ford, Colin Chapman, Bob Lutz and Enzo Ferrari being just four examples.  And, regarding the last named, Italy has not in this field been short of charismatic personalities – Gianni Agnelli, Carlo Abarth and Luca Di Montezemolo, for example, readily coming to mind.  On the other hand, some of their most innovative and influential compatriots have been notable for their relative modesty and restrained behaviour – think of Marcello Gandini, Giampaolo Dallara and Giorgetto Giugiaro.  But perhaps the exemplar of such a figure is Giuliano Michelotto.  In appearance and manner today you might easily imagine that Michelotto is a master chef of the highest order, or, perhaps, a university professor with impeccable scholastic credentials.  Yet, despite his apparent quietness and gentle demeanour, his has been a lifetime of achievement and entrepreneurship in the demanding sphere of the engineering required for the most high-performing type of road cars and for success on motorsport tracks and rally stages.  And in conducting such an exceptional career, Michelotto successfully developed and maintained a relationship with the notably volatile Enzo Ferrari, gaining his complete trust to carry out programmes on behalf of the Maranello manufacturer with the utmost discretion and diligence.  As a result, several of the most famous/high achieving Ferraris were in effect developed and made by Michelotto ‘in secret,’ rendering his Padova-based premises the ultimate in-house skunkworks, even though they are 160 km down the road!

 

In terms of cars on the road, by how you define what constitutes a ‘Michelotto’ is not a straightforward notion.  As specialist components made by third parties and used by Michelotto in its own work, (and parts made and/or modified at the Via Chiesanuova officina), were made available to other constructors, tuners and garages, we see cars advertised today with ‘Michelotto’ included in the model name which have never even turned a wheel in Padova.  It is also necessary to bear in mind that in period Michelotto itself often modified an initially standard, ex-Maranello car and sometimes upgraded – e.g. from Group 4 to Group B form – a car sold to its first owner as a ‘Michelotto.’  In this survey I have sought to exclude any car that is not a full blown Michelotto, but in a field of plentiful uncertainties, I’d welcome feedback concerning any car I’ve cited which you know to be other than ‘pukka.’

 

One other introductory note – my interest in Michelotto is focused on the Ferrari 308, 328, 288 GTO and F40 models.  I am aware and appreciative of the other cars with which the business has been involved in more recent times, e.g. Ferrari 333 SP, 348, 360, 430, 458, Osella PA16 and the Isotta Fraschini Tipo 6 LMH.  All cars of considerable distinction, but not subjects for my current programme of research.  Thus, they are not covered within this survey.

 

Born in 1948, Michelotto was only just into his third decade when he established his business in central Padova, ‘Officina Michelotto.’  Without much elaboration, most accounts of the business’s early days simply say that its motorsport focus was on the preparation of Minis and DAFs, with progression in ’73 in being appointed as a Ferrari service point.  As a further diversification, Michelotto also began to offer tuning and preparation for rally competitors running Lancia Stratos models.  The quality of Michelotto’s work is evidenced by sustained success in the Italian Rally Championships.  The ’76 Championship was won by Antonio Fassina/Mauro Mannini, usually in a Scuderia del Grifone-entered Stratos, (by Jolly Club in Sicily).  Also highly competitive in a Michelotto Stratos that year were Adartico Vudafieri and Stefano Bonaga in another Scuderia del Grifone/Corse Padova-entered car.  The following year the winning Stratos was crewed by Mauro Pregliasco and Vittorio Reisoli.  In ’78 the promise shown by Vudafieri two years previously, was fulfilled by his taking of the Championship together with Mauro Mannini in their Jolly Club Stratos.  That year was also notable for Vudafieri – on this occasion paired with Massimo de Antoni – in his 2^nd overall finish in the Targa Florio Rally.  As the decade closed out, the National Champions once again were Fassina/Mannini.  As an example of a Michelotto Stratos, shown below is the car driven by Anna Cambiaghi and Mariagrazia Vittadello to 6^th place overall in the ’79 Targa Florio Rally.

Courtesy RS 65

On the world stage, the Stratos was a dominant rally car from ’73 to ’81 and in the latter part of that period continued to be highly competitive despite Fiat shifting its main support to the 131 model, and the improved technology incorporated in more recently introduced rivals from other manufacturers.  Private/amateur owners tended to be very loyal to the Stratos, but, by the mid-Eighties, were looking for something different when the time came to replace a car.  Thus, to many people’s surprise given the marque’s perceived status and focus on circuit-based motorsport, the Ferrari 308 began to be considered for rally participation.  The model’s first iteration, introduced in ’75, had a 250 bhp rating for its V8 engine on carburettors, down by 25 bhp on the 12 valve Stratos V6, but with much inherent ‘reserve,’ making tuning to around 300 bhp relatively straightforward.  In ’76 the French Ferrari importer, Charles Pozzi SA, commissioned Michelotto to prepare a 308 for Group 4 rallying.  Key to the project was work to lighten the car, which in standard form was 1050 Kg (glass fibre)/1200 Kg (later, steel bodied version), while the power : weight ratio was further enhanced with a high compression version of the engine.  The power unit also benefited from the adoption of fuel injection and high lift cams.  The gearbox was replaced with a close-ratio unit.  Apart from the (mainly body) structural modifications, chassis components were mostly left as standard, though wider wheels were run, necessitating the additionally-flared wheel arches which contributed significantly to the distinctive ‘look’.

 

This became an ongoing programme quite swiftly as competitive successes accrued and saw Michelotto eventually complete 11 examples.  Capability in terms of reliability as well as pure performance was validated by overall victory in the Targa Florio Rally two years in succession, crewed in ‘81 by Jean-Claude Andruet/Christian Gilbert, and in ’82 by Antonio Tognana/Massimo De Antoni.  With the consolidation of Michelotto’s reputation for excellence, he came to the attention of Ferrari and a business relationship between the Maranello and Padova businesses was fostered and progressively formalised.  Subscriber JAM1 on FerrariChat has posted a list of chassis numbers/first owners of the 11 Michelotto 308 GTB rally cars:

Chassis #	Date	Client		Chassis #	Date	Client		Chassis #	Date	Client
20951	01-78	Michelotto		19051	05-80	Grosoli		19913	09-80	Liviero
26713	04-81	Pozzi		21071	02-82	Pozzi		20373	04-82	Pozzi
31559	07-82	Garage Francorchamps		08380	01-83	Wide Word of Cars		31135	02-83	Pozzi
18905	08-83	Cobra Racing		21883	02-85	Wiener

#20951 – The first Michelotto Group 4 308 (Tour de France, ’22)  Courtesy Barchetta Images

And the last - #31135  Courtesy Wouter Melissen

Ferrari, especially in the era about which I am writing, was closely associated in all body design/making matters with Pininfarina.  Such concerns were however handled by Carrozzeria Cognolato on the models for which Ferrari delegated development to Michelotto.  Dino Cognolato had started his business in Padova in ’64 and became known for particular expertise in working on aluminium bodied cars.  Michelotto and Cognolato formed a close working relationship which, as with Ferrari/Michelotto, was characterised by a high level of mutual trust. 

The FIA Group 4 category was revised in ’70 as being for production-based Special Grand Touring cars of which 500, (subsequently 400), examples were required for homologation.  In ’83 a further revision adopted the title Group B, (which specified 200 examples for homologation).  The Group B regulations enabled performance potential different from that of the Group 4 cars, so Michelotto switched its build programme to Group B compliance.  Michelotto built 4 Group B (recently a claim has been made that a 5^th car exists) 308 GTBs.  For homologation compliance these were bodied in steel/glass-fibre, (though #18869 was all-glass-fibre), and thus were not just as lightweight as would have been ideal.  Power was, however, increased to approximately 290 bhp from the engine, helped by a revised Kugelfischer fuel injection set-up.  Going further still, #18971, #22409 and #18847 were fitted with the ’82-introduced Quattrovalvole engine, good for 310 bhp.  The Group B 308s featured an upgraded transmission, suspension/steering and wheels, in the form of 5 spoke Fondmetal Canonica rims. 

JAM1’s FerrariChat-posted list for Group B 308 GTBs is shown below:

Chassis #	Date	Client		Chassis #	Date	Client
18869	02-83	ProMotorSport		18971	05-83	ProMotorSport
22409	08-83	ProMotorSport		18847	04-84	ProMotorSport

(#18869 had originally been built as a Group 4 car in ‘76).

#18847  Courtesy Girardo & Co

The success of the Michelotto 308s, sustained for the best part of a decade, must have been a leading factor in the consolidation of Ferrari’s reliance on the services of the Padovano’s officina for its ‘special’ projects.  And in ’85 an especially special ‘special’ landed on Giuliano’s plate.  Ferrari had decided that the 308 would be a good basis for a new higher performing model with designed-in circuit racing potential and this was realised with the emergence of the 288 GTO in ’84.  As a ‘production’ model, the GTO was intended to appeal to the Ferrari customer who wanted more performance for the road together with relative exclusivity, the latter delivered by a planned run of just 200 examples.  This number would however, facilitate FIA homologation which would in turn enable the creation of a full-blooded Group B racing version.  In fact, the level of customer demand for the 288 was such that 280 were eventually built. 

Central to the 288 GTO project was Ing Nicola Materazzi, recruited to Ferrari in ’79.  Prior to that, Materazzi had spent most of the decade at Lancia, where he made key contributions to the design/specification of the chassis of the Flavia, Fulvia and Stratos models.  In the course of this, Materazzi became acquainted with Michelotto and a solid friendship was established.  It was no surprise therefore that when it became time for the race version of the 288 to be designed/developed, Materazzi was confident in assigning the work to Michelotto in ‘85.  The two major strands of the project were a substantial reduction in kerb weight and a big – target = 625+ bhp – increase in engine power.  The car would be designated ‘GTO Evoluzione.’ 

The first prototype - #50253 - was built on the standard GTO chassis.  This was shown at the Geneva Show in March ’84.  Two modified chassis examples, #70167 and #70205 were completed the following year.  Subsequent prototypes were #79887, #79888 and #79889.  According to the FIA regulations, the number of Evos required for homologation purposes would be 20.  However, the production programme never started – the new Group B category being cancelled by the FIA in the wake of concern about the safety of such very high performing machines crystalised by the deaths of Henri Toivonen and Sergio Cresta in their Group B Lancia S4 on the Tour de Corse rally in May ’84.  Thus, only 6 GTO Evos were built:

#50253 ‘84 –2^nd 288 GTO prototype, converted in ‘85 to GTO Evoluzione #1 

#70167 ‘85 GTO Evoluzione #2.  F114 CR (550 bhp) engine.  Fully refurbished at Michelotto in ‘14/’15 

#70205 ‘85 GTO Evoluzione #3.  Standard 288 GTO (395 bhp) engine.  Utilised for F40 development 

#79887 ‘88 GTO Evoluzione #4.  F114 CK (650 bhp) engine.  (Is easy to identify from the six holes drilled in its rear quarter windows. (Michael Call)) 

#79888 ‘88 GTO Evoluzione #5.  F114 CK (650 bhp) engine.

 

#79899 ‘88 GTO Evoluzione #6.  F114 CK (650 bhp) engine.

Where the 308 had been in basis a monocoque, the 288 GTO’s chassis was in essence a spaceframe constructed with small diameter steel tubing.  The 308 as modified by Michelotto had featured weight saving with the use of materials other than the basic steel/glass-fibre fabrication of the production version.  This approach was substantially extended for the Evoluzione thanks to the newly available alternative materials – Kevlar complementing the glass-fibre elements of the body, carbon fibre for the tub and rear wing.  More conventional, but effective features included aluminium for the floor and lighter gauge frame tubing.  All in all, the savings were substantial – at 940 Kg, the Evoluzione’s weight was just 81% of the 288 GTO’s. 

The 288 GTO was powered by the 2,855 cc F114 V8 with twin turbochargers, good for 395 bhp.  During development, #70167 carried a ‘CR’ version of the unit with turbo boost increased by 75% and a compression ratio hiked by 2.5%, enabling an output of 530 bhp.  Finally, a ‘CK’ version was introduced – this gave 650 bhp @ 7800 rpm, facilitating a tremendous top speed capability of approaching 230 mph. 

The body incorporated a number of modifications to that of the 288 GTO, some, such as the front spoiler, had aerodynamic functionality, while most were for the purpose of inducting and internally managing cooling airflows. 

With the revision of the rules by the FIA in ’84, the GTO Evoluzione’s reason for being was removed.  These cars would not compete in circuit racing as had been intended.  However disappointing this may have been – even now in distant retrospect – the programme was soon serving a new purpose and a potentially more significant one for the marque at that.  Note in the list above that #70205 was utilised for F40 development.  As is nowadays observed as a received wisdom, the model was the ‘bridge’ between the Tipo F114, 288 GTO and the Tipo F120AB/F120D (U.S. version), F40.  Its exploration of the use of composites technology enabled the F40’s further increase in power to weight ratio.  Where, as mentioned above, the Evoluzione, a car specified towards the extreme end of race car standards, was 19% lighter than the 288 GTO, the F40, with various concessions to comfort and convenience ‘on the road,’ weighed-in dry at just 1,235 Kg (European specification).  That the structure benefited from the materials pioneering applied to the Evoluzione is clear when the weight of the Michelotto-built F40 CSAI-GT is considered – 1,050 Kg.

The F40 project got underway in early ’86 with the by now 88 years old Enzo Ferrari being content to leave the creation of the model to Materazzi.  He was fully in approval of Materazzi’s inclination to specify and design this vehicle on a race car basis despite the commercial intention being to market it as a prestige-priced road car with a planned production run of 400 units.  Establishment of the concept was a triumph for the spirit of Ferrari, given that this would not have sat easy with Fiat’s top management and notwithstanding that since ’69 Enzo himself had progressively ceded management control and influence over the business, as the Stabilimento di Mirafiori culture increasingly took over at Maranello. 

Styling of the F40 was entrusted to the care of Leonardo Fioravanti in collaboration with the senior Pininfarina team of Brovarone, Camardella and Ramaciotti.  Their proposal emerged quite rapidly and secured initial approval around the mid-year point of ’86.  This laid the ground for the construction of a prototype at Michelotto which was running by late Spring ’87.  This was powered by an enlarged (to 2,936 cc) version of the 288 GTO engine, rated at 471 bhp.  Though some aspects of the F40 were ‘mild’ in comparison with the GTO Evoluzione, this was a model in which out and out performance was emphasised and in recognition of this, Pirelli developed the P-Zero for fitment as the OE tyre.

As Michelotto created a reality from the design renderings, it was found that some aspects could not be fabricated feasibly in three dimensions.  It was second nature to the officina to simply get on with determining and then making modifications.  However, when Pininfarina learnt of this, considerable offence was taken, the famous carrozzeria feeling it had been disrespected and that the F40 ‘in the metal’ was not representative of the design submitted to and approved by Ferrari.  As an expression of its displeasure, it was decreed that the ‘Pininfarina’ script badges were not to be mounted, as had been specified, adjacent to the leading edge of the rear wheel arches.  A further confirmation of the high esteem in which Enzo held Michelotto was delivered by his backing of the Padovano in the spat.  And, in any case, reception of the F40 at the launch was so favourable that the Pininfarina name was not about to be linked to any sort of aesthetic faux pas, so it wasn’t long before fitment the badges on the rear quarter panels was just another unremarkable item on the standard build checklist. 

Most sources give 21^st July ’87 as the date of the F40’s unveiling in Maranello’s Civic Centre, with Enzo Ferrari in attendance.  (However, Keith Bluemel – well-known F40 owner and writer – has indicated that the event took place in June ’87 and was held in the factory Museum).  Most accounts suggest that #73015 and #74045 were present.

It is generally reported that Michelotto completed 7 F40 Prototypes between June and November ’87,  Interviewed by David Cironi, Ferrari test driver, Dario Benuzzi, recalled there as having been 8 Prototypes. 

#73015    Eventually destroyed in crash test process

#74045    Subsequently converted to LM specification.  (RM Sotheby says 3^rd made)

#75580   

#75052    Given to Marco Piccinini as a thank-you for his management of the F1 team in ‘87 and ‘88

#74049   

#74047    Restored at DK Engineering.  DK says this was 6^th built; ,Supercar Nostalgia says it was 3^rd

#75034   

 

At least one other source suggests two more from this date window: 

#74327

#76354

Also, Marcel Massini has provided some additional Prototype chassis numbers, which were produced after November ‘87:

 

#76687    This has been said to be one of a batch of ten cars built at Michelotto prior to start of series production

#77107

#78206

#83405

#83406

#84517

#99401    

Detail aspects of the Prototypes varied car to car as the build and development processes ran in parallel and there was a good deal of retro uprating as new solutions and improvements were discovered on an ongoing basis. The Prototypes were in general characterised by such detail points as the lower rear quarter panel vent slots being five in number, (usually 4 for series production); the Plexiglass engine cover had 11 vents, while once in production form the number was 20; door mirrors were consistently mounted on the front side window quarterlight of Prototypes; as can be seen in the first photograph below, the rear fog lamps, where fitted, were mounted in the transverse lights/registration plate panel, whereas they were in the rear valance on the series production vehicles; Prototype steering wheels carried the script of maker, Momo, (not replicated on series production cars). As with other detail features, there were variations – the wheel on #73015 for instance being trimmed in black suede and with unpainted spokes/no ‘Momo’ script.

Left: Prototype, #74049 Courtesy Joe Sackey; right: series production #83249 Courtesy Autocar NZ

Left: Prototype, #73015 Courtesy Supercar Nostalgia; right: series production, #83783 Courtesy Collectors Car World

Left: Prototype, #75052 Courtesy Tom Hartley Jnr; right series production, #83620 Courtesy Bonhams

Prototype, #75052 steering wheel with ‘Momo’ script on lower spoke Courtesy Tom Hartley Jnr

Before very many series production F40s, (about 50 it has been suggested), had been built, it became obvious that most customers were finding the racing-style small Lexan sliding windows highly inconvenient.  The only feasible counter measure was the introduction of manually cranked, full frame tumbledown glass panes.  (James Cottingham of DK Engineering is adamant that the sliding window remained as an available, customer-chosen option throughout the F40’s production run).  As seen in the second image below, a Kevlar interior door trim card is fitted to cars with the winding windows.

Prototype # 74047, sliding side window  Courtesy Concours of Elegance.co.uk

Left: Prototype sliding window  Courtesy Sterling Sackey; series production right cranked window  Courtesy F40 Parts.co.uk

Even before the close of ’87, pressure was being exerted on Ferrari’s Managing Director, Giovanni Rastrelli, to initiate an F40 racing programme.  But this was not forthcoming from Materazzi or any other competition enthusiast within the Maranello factory community.  Harking back to the 308 era of the mid-80s, it was once again the lobbying by the Charles Pozzi firm in Paris that persuaded Ferrari to contemplate versions specified for the track.  And when it was time to move from just ‘thinking’ to creating, Ferrari turned once again to Michelotto.  Though Rastrelli had agreed in principle to a race version, he insisted that Pozzi set up a contractual arrangement with Michelotto and this was limited – initially at least – to the build of just two examples, and their legal ownership was assigned to Ferrari.  These cars were #79890 (built in October ’88) and #79891 (January ’90).  Frustratingly, an original intention to run the model in the World Sportscar Championship proved not to be feasible and so entry to the U.S. IMSA Championship was substituted.  Although this now meant that the type would not compete at Le Mans, it was nevertheless designated,F40 ‘LM,’ Tipo 120B.  The LM was 53 % up in power terms on the standard F40, boasting 471 bhp, whilst weight was down to 1,050 Kg, against the 1,235 Kg of the road car.  However, during testing at very high speed stability was a problem and various countermeasures were tried – mechanically with a lower ride height/revised springs and dampers, and, aerodynamically, with additions such as a splitter – but no improvements big enough to provide full confidence for running on the Mulsanne Straight were achieved and thus the intention to run at La Sarthe lapsed.

 

17 more LMs were eventually completed between May ’90 and April ’94.  Additionally, F40 Prototype, #74045 was converted in May ‘92 to LM specification.  It ran in the ’95 24 Hours and finished 12^th, 6^th in class.   The following month Ferte/Thevenin drove it to victory at Anderstorp. Subsequently, in ’96, #74045 confirmed its status as the Chameleon F40 when it was further converted, now to GTE specification.      Of other LMs, #79890 was driven to three podium finishes in the IMSA GTO Series in ’89 and ’90.  In the same series, LM #79891 chalked up a 2^nd and a 3^rd in’90.  In summary, LMs competed in the following series/seasons: IMSA GTO, ’88, ’89 and ’90; BPR Endurance, ’95 and ’96. 

On the Italian national racing scene the 90s saw increasing interest in the GT category.  The governing body, CSAI, defined and promoted a series known as the Italian Supercar GT Championship for which the F40 was thought highly suitable.  To some extent the cars were of the silhouette type, i.e. externally very similar to the road-going model, but with scope for a degree of engine performance enhancement, chassis/body lightening and suspension/brake system upgrading.  Michelotto built four 550 bhp/1,050 Kg F40 CSAI-GT cars in ’93 and a further two in ‘94 and ‘97.  The first car completed for Jolly Club, #80742, recorded 12 wins in the ’93 and ’94 seasons.  A sister car, also mainly run by Jolly Club, #94362, won twice in ’94 and was 2^nd or 3^rd in ten events over the two years. 

Following on from the initial batch of CSAI-GTs, Michelotto was tasked with a programme designated F40 GTE, mainly using a larger, 3.6 litre, version of the F 120 B V8 and an Xtrac #105 sequential transmission.  The GTE was in effect an evolution of the LM model, six being built between ’95 and ’98 at Michelotto.  There was quite a lot of variance in the specification of this batch of cars and with ongoing upgrading/modifying, a standard specification is not really definable.  However, the power output with the 3,600 cc engine could be as high as 800 bhp, though some cars at varying times were equipped with 2,936 cc or 3,495 cc, less powerful variants.  Weight was around 1,050 – 1,100 Kg. 

The final international races in which the F40 GTE competed were the two Brazilian events comprising the Temporada Series – the GTE taking a podium place in the race at Brasilia.

For many Ferrari enthusiasts, the F40 is the marque’s ultimate interpretation of the ‘supercar’ concept.  However, at Maranello there has always been a ‘could we go one better?’ outlook, and this was manifest in the creation of the F50.  The Tipo F130 was presented in ’95 and, given its V12 atmospheric engine and carbon fibre tub construction, it had the on-paper potential to outdo even the fabulous F40.  A decision to develop a competition version was quite speedily reached and Michelotto and Dallara were charged with the project.  However, whilst the F50 GT was in the initial development phase, the FIA made changes to the parameters of the GT1 class in which it was intended to race.  These changes facilitated a specification/homologation package which enabled Porsche to create the 911 GT1 – in effect a full blown racing prototype against which the F50 GT would be uncompetitive.  Thus, the project was abandoned with only three cars built and no race participation experience acquired.  As a measure of compensation, Ferrari maintained a sports car racing presence with another Michelotto collaboration project which had got underway in ’94 – the F333 SP.