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.

A SAAB for America - the Sonett II

Saab’s automotive manufacturing activity began with the 92 in 1949. The model incorporated the basic vehicle format and many of the signature features that would characterise Saab’s road vehicle products over the succeeding two decades: compact, aerodynamic body, two stroke engine, (later replaced by a V4 four stroke), and front wheel drive. It was superseded in ’55 by the 93 which had similar – though ‘modernised’ - looks, but with numerous improvements, both mechanical and body-wise. Significantly, modifications to the 3 cylinder engine endowed it with 30% more power. While the new model had been in development, a small group of engineers/designers operating as a skunkworks team established a concept for a sports car based on the 93. With competition use in mind, it was a roof-less lightweight – likely inspired by the Porsche 550 Spider even though technically very different in terms of the drivetrain. However, whilst a production run was commenced following first presentation as the 'Saab Sonett' in Spring ’56, the model was cancelled after only six examples had been completed. Focus was to be on the replacement for the 93, a much improved model launched in ’60 – the Saab 96.

Whilst the 93 had established Saab in export markets, including the U.S., the more sophisticated 96’s increased sales level gave rise to a dynamic American dealer network. This community, knew from its experience with the products of other European makers that its hunger for incremental volume and profit could best be satisfied by having sports models available for their customers. Representatives of the dealers successfully lobbied Saab’s management for the creation of a Saab coupe/GT. Design, under leadership by Sixten Andersson, was commissioned from Malmo Flygindustri, a company based in the Bulltofta locality of Malmo and specialising in the manufacture of light aircraft. The company produced a prototype, code named MF113, which was presented at the Geneva Motor Show, March ’66 as the Saab Sonett II.

Sonett II, Geneva Show ’66  Courtesy David Phipps/Motorsport Images

The Type 97 Sonett II had a fabricated sheet steel chassis, fibreglass body (with front clamshell) and running gear mostly derived from the 96.  The engine was the Sport version – 841 cc with triple Solex 34W2 carburation and lubricated by oil injection rather than petroil fuel.  It was 42% more powerful than the standard 96’s motor at around 58 bhp.  Kerb weight was 710 Kg, allowing a 0-60 mph time of 11.4 secs and a top speed of around 105 mph.  The chassis number range of Two Strokes is 000001-000258 (’66 and ’67).  The four stroke 1498 cc Ford V4 version was introduced in mid-’67 and was in production until ’69.  Production numbers have been reported as: Two Stroke: 257 (’66/’67); V4: 1610 (’67-’69), total 1867.  All these cars were left hand drive and most were exported to the U.S.

#000190 rolling chassis; #000178 clamshell; #000048 841 cc engine   Courtesy Cute Italian Posteriors (Pinterest); Conceptcarz; Marc Vorgers

The earliest Sonett II of which I have an up to date photograph is #000048, built in ’66.

#000048  Courtesy Marc Vorgers

One of the aspects of the Sonett II Two Stroke is that it carries no model-identifying badge.  However, there is a marque badge front and rear to make sure you know it’s a Saab:  Near the leading edge of the clamshell, the script SAAB/aeroplane symbol is mounted centrally.  A SAAB script badge is affixed to the boot lid, between the number plate and the left hand tail lamps.  Both badges were bright alloy or chrome plated.

With this feature a major aesthetic difference between the Two Stroke and V4 is obvious.  The V4 has a script SAAB badge on the clamshell just about in line horizontally with the centre of the headlamp and aligned vertically with the steering column’s position, (left, below).  Near to the centre of the clamshell is a badge, (centre, below), with the script SONETTV4 on a black ground, in a form analogous to an air intake as present near to the panel’s trailing edge.  Most Sonett V4s have no badge affixed to the rear, though there are many examples of customisation whereby a SAAB script badge has been applied to the boot lid, (right, below), or the SAAB/aeroplane symbol badge has been mounted on the horizontal surface between the rear screen aperture and the top edge of the rear panel.

#001189  Courtesy Saabfactory (BaT); 001358  Courtesy Lug_Nut (BaT); #000503  Courtesy H&H Classics

As evident in the photographs above, the bulge in the V4’s bonnet centre is considerably more pronounced than that seen on the Two Stroke, (below), reflecting the greater height of the four stroke unit. 

#000048  Courtesy Marc Vorgers

Standard road wheels, (left, below), were steel with chrome plated hub caps featuring an embossed SAAB/aeroplane symbol, 15” diameter and carrying 155 width tyres.  Optional alloy rims, more usually seen on the Sonett II V4, include the ‘Soccerball’ (second left below), Roal Minilite-style (second from right, below) and JP Cromodora-style (right, below):

The standard steering wheel is as seen left, below on V4 #001417.  Aftermarket wheels, e.g. Momo (#000052) (second left, below), Nardi (#001757) (second right, below) and Britannia (#000408) (right, below) are common on surviving Sonetts.

Courtesy  BrochureMuseumNL; Bonhams Cars; BiddersHighway; Mrtorgue (BaT)

The specification of the Sonett II was summarised in a brochure published in ’69:

The car’s features were extolled in the same publication as below:

Recently sold/offered Sonetts:

Two Strokes:

V4s:

 

1970 saw a new model – the Sonett III, seen below.  This had significantly revised styling and increased – to 1699 cc – engine capacity.  It was in production through to ’74 with over 8,000 examples manufactured.  The Sonett III was not a good looking car, continuing a trend, for the V4 was less successful aesthetically than the Two Stroke  – just look at that disproportionate bonnet length.  And that was that – Saab never again dabbled with ‘sportscar’ manufacture.

Saab Sonett III  Courtesy Petrolicious

The Series 1 BMW 2002 tii

I’d only been at BMW Concessionaires GB a couple of weeks when I encountered my first 2002 tii.  Production of the model had begun in late Spring, so in August ’71 examples were still a rare sight in and around our HQ at Chiswick.  While I was preparing it, I was very taken with the engine bay.  The ‘look’ of the fuel injected engine with its distinctive bright aluminium intake manifold was so different – ‘space-age’ to my eye – from the carburetted M10s we were used to.

Courtesy Samboss (BaT)

The PDI completed, I drove it up to our Park Lane Showroom for handover to the customer.  Now it wasn’t just my vision that was seduced.  The performance from the new  M15,130 bhp, engine seemed exciting, enabling me to negotiate a relatively clear Marble Arch corner just as rapidly as I’d learnt to do in the 2800/3.0 six cylinder E3s and E9s.  That car was in the very common finish of the time – Polaris silver.  However, as more and more Tiis arrived from Germany, I found that they were even more exciting to be around and drive if in Inka (orange) or Golf (yellow/very light green).  These two colours and this particular model could not have been more zeitgeist-emblematic of the London of the early Seventies.

Courtesy Samboss (BaT); LR90 (BaT)

But now, half a century on, I wonder if my feeling that I was king of the West London road network was more to do with the extra fizz those funky paint colours pumped into my speed sensibilities rather than any increased accelerative capability possessed by the new engine.  Thanks to the car’s mass, (around 1000 Kg kerb weight), gear/final drive ratios, and relative high revs at which peak torque (132 lbs-ft @ 4,500), was derived, the 0-60 mph time was a not exactly lightning 10 seconds (approximately).  Despite this, a BMW press ad copy of the time was able to include, ‘Fastest accelerating production saloon in U.K.’  Maximum speed in the same advertisement was given as 119 mph.

Apart from the engine, the Tii incorporated some other features new to the 02 model family.  The bumpers were elongated to wrap round further at the rear, whilst rubber inserts were applied to both bumper bars and the overriders.  Also featuring a black rubber insert were rubbing strips on the front wings, doors and rear ¼ panels at the same height as the bumpers.  The front grilles were revised with seven of the slats coloured black and the remaining two in bright metal finish.  Also at the front, the lower panel bottom edge was re-formed to function as a spoiler.

Courtesy Samboss (BaT); LR90 (BaT)

It might be noticed that both the examples so far illustrated are not equipped with standard wheels.  The steel 5J rims were fitted with 165 HR 13 tyres and featured a chrome finish hub cap with BMW roundel, (below, left).  A factory alloy option by Ronal was available, (below second from left) and it was not unusual for customers to request the BBS Basketweave (second from right below) or Minilites, (below right):

The preference was for Michelin XAS tyres, but many cars arrived from Munich with other makes fitted, the least welcome being Metzelers or Firestone Phoenix, both of which didn’t work well on British road surfaces, especially when damp or fully wet.

The Tii had a distinctive steering wheel, (left, below) – three (alloy) slotted spokes and black leather rimmed; this was one of the features, (along with the rear light units) that was aesthetically superior to their replacements on the ’73 facelifted cars, (steering wheel, right, below).  Popular options specified by customers were the more overtly ‘sporting’ wheels from Momo and Moto-Lita.  Similar to the latter, there were further factory options such as the especially handsome Petri Sport, (centre, below).

Courtesy Samboss (Bat); Tony Wawryk

In ’73 we thought the facelift successful, in particular seeing the rectangular rear light units as ‘modernising.’  But before long, and very definitely today, the original circular lamps are greatly preferred.  They give rise to the affectionate nickname of ‘Roundie’ for the pre-’73 cars.  But it is the totality of the rear panel and boot lid which so appeals aesthetically.  The lamps, script/roundel badges and bright horizontal strip all work together extremely well on the ‘71.

Courtesy Samboss (BaT); OldenzaalClassics (BaT)

Courtesy LR90 (BaT); Samboss (BaT)

Much as I enjoyed these visual niceties, the best of the Tii was the way it performed.  And, exhilarating as it was to fly through the streets of London, jinking around slower moving traffic, (nearly everything else was!), the most fulfilling experiences were those had at the track days we organised at Silverstone, Brands Hatch and Thruxton, in most instances to promote the cars for fleet purchase by UK police forces.  Like most of the other staff members attending, I revelled in being able to get behind the wheel of the 3 litre E3s and E9s, especially on the high speed Silverstone and Thruxton circuits.  However, the most fun I recall was in Tiis, in which the up-on-the-cam engine pickup and general nimbleness enabled me frequently to lap faster and pass the bigger cars.  Driving flat out brought forth all that was good about the Tii whereas in street driving there were a couple of ‘issues.’  By the time my job role had changed to that of ‘troubleshooter,’ one of the most common customer complaints to which I picked up the phone was of engine hesitation at around 2400 rpm.  Neither the factory nor Kugelfischer seemed able to come up with a solution for this, though one of our field service managers devised a pump cam reprofiling mod that appeared to resolve matters.  We also had a number of long running dispute sagas with customers who would not accept the level of noise (whine) emitted by the car’s rear axle on the overrun.  There was no way we could test a diff prior to installing and the factory maintained that it was unable to build special close tolerance units as replacements in cases of severe customer dissatisfaction.  The factory delegate was however authorised to help (and supervise) us, with multiple substitutions and, on a few occasions, we had to try three or four units before we found one quiet enough for the customer’s acceptance. 

The Tii’s specification and behaviour in the first press road test reports of ’71, indicated a considerable motor sport potential.  This was soon proved realisable in ’72 when races for a new class – Group 1 – saw BMW Concessionaires-backed/Mathwall Engineering-prepared Tiis to be highly competitive.  Motor Sport magazine reported in its June ’72 issue:

. . . the division into purchase-price classes and the near-standard nature of the competing cars (apart from their tyres) has focused attention on them, for the overall benefit of BMW 2002 Tii saloons . . . having completely dominated these Group 1 races so far— writing after eight such races have been contested. 

And the following month:

 

(BMW GB) are also behind the exceptionally successful Group 1 assault mounted by various dealers in the marque. At the time of writing they have enjoyed most success with the MLG 2002 Tii for Roger Bell, backed by a similar Mathwall Engineering prepared Tii for John Bloomfield.  . . . there was plenty of scope for improvement in the 2002 unit as the homologation tolerances were extremely favourable for maximum power. In fact, after balancing and final assembly, the first engine was found to give 143 bhp. at 5,800 rpm., up at least 13 bhp. over the production DIN rating. Because of the space needed for a slant engine’s exhaust system on a test bed, it was found that the engine actually performed even better in open exhaust racing form, which partially explains why, even when the uprated 3-litre Capris came into Group 1 after four or five races had already been run, they did not immediately seem that much faster than the BMW 2002: both cars weigh almost the same at something over 2,300 lb.  . . . new, shorter and stiffer rate coil springs allowing the 2002 to run rings round the opposition, especially on bumpy tracks. The limited-slip ZF differential and live-speed gearbox don’t do the car’s competitiveness any harm either. Theoretically one would suppose that the answer to the 2002 would be the 2000 GTV Alfa Romeo, but the Wallace suspension, plus Mathieson’s engine, has just made the Mathwall 2002 untouchable except by bigger capacity cars—recently the Ford Capri 3-litre and Chevrolet’s monstrous Camaro.

Courtesy Motor Sport; Motorsport Images

Beyond the UK motor sport arena, the Tii was also competing in ’72 in high profile events such as the Spa 24 Hours, where one of the Mathwall cars driven by John Bloomfield, Tony Lanfranchi and Roger Bell ran competitively, but failed to finish because of an engine failure.  Across the various European saloon/touring car series, the Tii was quickly into its stride, with tuners such as Alpina and GS (Gerhard Schneider) coaxing 225 bhp from the 1990 cc power unit. 

The Tii had been perceived very favourably at its launch in ’71.  Some felt that the UK list price was high at £2313, especially in the light of a domestic value of DM 12,765 (£1495).  The car was however thought characterful, fast and ‘fashionable,’ so sales were plentiful and profitable.  At this time BMW was not so well known as a marque in the UK and BMW Concessionaires’ marketing activity was very effective in creating a buzz of prestige and trendiness, led by the desirability of, in particular, the Tii and the E9 Coupes, most notably the 3.0 CSL, (from ’72). 

The Tii was facelifted in ’73, as mentioned above, with relatively minor styling changes and no change to performance.  A hatchback version named Touring also became available with the 130 bhp engine, though this never seemed to attract the cachet that was intrinsic to the 2 door saloon.  Up to ’75 when production ended, something like 38,700 Tiis were built, nearly 10% of which were RHD.  To replace the 2002 models, BMW launched the 3 Series in the early summer, ’75.  A Tii ‘equivalent’ was a while in gestation, it not being until Autumn ’77 that the six cylinder M20 engined E21 323i was unveiled at the Frankfurt Show.  Faster certainly than its predecessor, but, initially at least, not so forgiving to drive and lacking the hard-to-define charm that had been such a strong feature of the Tii. 

Some recently sold/photographed Tiis:

Small Scale Style from Scaglione

During the late 19^th and first half of the 20^th centuries, Neckarsulm Strickmaschinen Union – NSU – dabbled with automobile production, but was mainly known for its motorcycles.  However, a more concerted fresh new start with cars began in 1957 with a model type named Prinz.  A small saloon, the Prinz was powered by an air cooled, rear located 583 cc twin cylinder engine.  A distinctive feature of the NSU twin was its utilisation of a connecting rod driving the overhead camshaft from the crankshaft.  The system, known as ‘NSU Ultramax,’ clearly had reliability/durability advantages compared with the more usual chain, gear or belt drive, but would have added to costs somewhat significantly. (See here).

Despite the limitations of its size and small capacity powertrain, the Prinz was successful in terms of sales, with about 95,000 units made in the period ’57-’62.  Not quite a microcar – more a super-compact - it met the needs of a large, city-dwelling demographic seeking economic motoring.  Such owners had no need for full four seat capacity for lengthy journeys.  The ‘economy’ criterion was met by the Prinz being a car that cost all of £425 brand new.  But, as throughout the history of automobile manufacturing and marketing, modesty is never absolute and it wasn’t long before designers at Neckarsulm were doodling sporty body shapes over the basic Prinz platform.  After all, Volkswagen had not long ago put a sports coupe body jointly developed by Carrozzeria Ghia and Karmann GmbH onto the Beetle chassis, and the resulting car had proven an aesthetic and commercial success.  NSU turned to another fast-developing carrozzeria to explore a similar project.  This was Bertone, where Nuccio, son of the firm’s founder, was intent on modernising and expanding its operations, especially in terms of vehicle assembly in addition to body styling and construction.  And Bertone had been benefiting since ’52 by having the talented stylist, Franco Scaglione, in-house.  Scaglione was at the time riding a crest of success and acclaim through his recent work for Alfa Romeo, (the startling Berlinetta Aerodinamica Tecnica (BAT) concepts, the Giulietta Sprint and the Sprint Speciale), Abarth and Aston Martin.  Confident and adventurous, Scaglione drew a distinctively attractive fastback body which the NSU management found very much to its liking.  Little wonder as Scaglione had flattered the executives at Neckarsulm by presenting them with the opportunity to market a Prinz that had a similar look to the glamorous Maserati 350 GT Bertone which was on his drawing board around the same time.  The Sport Prinz was first presented at Frankfurt in ’58, with series manufacture and deliveries beginning in ’59.

Left: Sport Prinz; right: Maserati 350 GT – both by Scaglione

According to most sources, Bertone built the first 250 Sport Prinz bodies in the Carrozzeria’s Grugliasco workshops near Turin. This operation was then transferred to the firm of Drautz, conveniently also located in Neckarsulm.

From the outset until ’62, the 583 cc engine with Bing carburettor was rated at 30 bhp DIN (or, claimed, 36 SAE), with torque at 42 Nm.  The car’s kerb weight was quoted as 530 Kg, allowing a top speed of over 80 mph, though the 0-60 mph acceleration time was over 20 seconds.  However, being nimble and handling well, the model was to be seen on race circuits in 1960 and with some success, for example at the Nurburgring in September, where Siegfried Mullers and Bernd Degner were GT600 class winners in the 500 Km. 

In ’61 two cars ran in the Monte Carlo Rally. Eugen Schaefer/Henri Benveniste’s #116, which finished 60^th, is seen below:

Courtesy Getty Images

The second car, in the hands of Jose Behra/Jean Berges, was an excellent 8^th . 

During 1960/61/62, SCCA racing in the U.S, saw Sport Prinz participation from time to time, notably with Alfred Zantzinger at the wheel.  At the Sebring 12 Hours in ’61, Fred Fischhof and John Eisenhauer took the GT600 class honours.  Remarkably, in June ’63, six Sport Prinz entries were seen at the Nurburgring 6 Hours, a round of the European Touring Car Challenge.  Most successful was the Isar Racing Team car driven by Ernst Hamberger and Manfred Gieth to 1^st in the up-to-600 cc class – indeed, the model recorded a 1-2-3 finish at this arduous event.  The winning car is #8, centre, in the photograph below.

’63 Nurburgring 6 Hours Courtesy Holger Vogel

A few weeks later, Hans Braun won the same class at the ETCC round at Zandvoort.  In the Tour de France, Sport Prinz cars were 2^nd and 3^rd in class.  There was some Sport Prinz representation at the major hillclimb events at Rossfeld and Mont Ventoux in ’64, while Christian Chauvin was class winner at the ’65 running of the Coupes de Paris. 

The Sport Prinz was the subject of a road test report in the November ’60 issue of Motor Sport magazine.  Comments included: 

(The engine) . . . idles unevenly but once under way smooths out, although the noise is still very reminiscent of a two-stroke engine.  The gearbox operates in the rather disconnected way of so many rear-engined cars, and the synchromesh tends to obstruct gear selection, especially in first gear.  To obtain good downward gear changes it is advisable to double-declutch, a manoeuvre which is aided by reasonably sensibly placed pedals. With 36 b.h.p. to move just over 10 cwt. along, the acceleration is more than brisk and the Sport Prinz will certainly never get in the way of other traffic.  Normal cruising speed is an indicated 60 m.p.h., while the needle will swing round to 80 m.p.h. on a slight downgrade, and a more fully run-in car (our test car had covered 1,500 miles) would probably reach the claimed 85 m.p.h. top speed. Remember, this car has a capacity of 583 c.c. ! 

On first acquaintance handling appears fussy but this is due to a combination of fairly firm suspension and rack-and-pinion steering having only 2.4 turns lock-to-lock. When the driver becomes more accustomed to the car he begins to fling it about in complete confidence, and although the Sport Prinz oversteers quite strongly it is difficult to make the rear end break away. 

On the open road it becomes a very pleasant car to drive . . . cornered with great verve . . . it is possible that the claimed 47 m.p.g. could be reached if a less aggressive driving technique was employed. The brakes of the test car required quite heavy pedal pressures and fade could be induced after two or three stops from above 60 m.p.h., but in normal use they appeared to be adequate. 

Rather expensive in this country the sporting version of these interesting economy cars from Neckarsalum will obviously find a limited market, but the man who wants to own a car of individual character could well consider the Sport Prinz. 

The magazine’s observation about expense was driven by the test car being priced at £970 – nearly twice that of the Prinz saloon.

 

An early-production (probably ’60) survivor is #4102499, sold for restoration in September ’24.

Courtesy Hagerty - RacineJoe

Two other ’60-made cars have featured in recent media coverage.  Another red one, chassis number unknown, is owned by a resident of Foley, a town to the North West of Minneapolis, U.S.  The owner’s experience with the car and details of his restoration work can found at https://www.oldcarsweekly.com/features/car-of-the-week-1960-nsu-sport-prinz.

Courtesy Active Interest Media

Another, again finished in red, was recently photographed as body/paint restoration was concluding.  Location of this one was Astoria, New York, U.S.

Courtesy Peter Kumar

The quality of classic car restoration standards has benefitted from technological advances in recent years, with some stunning results to be seen at the premier international concours events.  At the same time, an appreciation of ‘naturally aged’ cars and their patina has gathered momentum, generating interest in preservation as a principle just as valid as craft/artisan based restoration.  For those liking patina-porn, the ’62 Sport Prinz below will surely prove attractive.

Courtesy Wannenes

The ’63 #4112286 displays the various badges/plate in rather better condition:

Courtesy Artcurial

The car was sold by Artcurial in ’21 in Monaco for €7,748.  This was below an estimate of €10-15,000.  It appears to be in reasonable, usable condition, but the winning bidder was no doubt anticipating the need for substantial expenditure on a thorough restoration.  This would likely be fully justifiable given that the car apparently has no areas of very serious deterioration.

Courtesy Artcurial

Produced the following year, #4122861 was offered by Osenat (Fontainebleau, France) in 2013 with an estimate of €5-7,000.  A successful, above-reserve bid was however not recorded.

#4122861 Courtesy Osenat

Also a ’64 Sport Prinz, #4113783 was offered at auction in 2023, but the highest bid, €11,500, was short of the reserve.

#4113783 Courtesy Classic.com

#4117939 is unusual in being right hand drive.  First registered in the UK in ’65, it was apparently built to a factory ‘GT’ specification which included front discs and a reprofiled camshaft.  Much later, around ’08, a subsequent owner had the engine replaced with a 4 cylinder NSU unit.  At the same time chassis improvements were made and competition-use modifications – including a roll cage – were carried out.  There are also some bodywork alterations, most notably to the engine deck lid – Abarth GT style - to allow greater air intake/circulation for cooling purposes.  Engine performance is significantly increased at 52 bhp with peak torque of 53 lbs/ft.  Despite these various modifications and expenditures, the car made just a modest £6.900 when sold at auction in February ’24.

#4117939 Courtesy Manor Park Classics

In contrast, #4119347, a ’66 car, appears to be a good example of a Sport Prinz in preserved standard specification.  Bonham’s lot description for its auction sale in ’18 includes the statement, ‘(the car was) comprehensively restored in 2004, though the interior was in such good condition that it was decided it did not need renovation and as a result possesses a lovely patina.’  It was estimated to sell for €18-25,000 but the reserve was apparently not reached.

#4119347 Courtesy Bonhams Cars

Another inconclusive auction involved the ’67-manfactured #4118719, offered on Bring a Trailer in ’20.  High bid – unsuccessful – was $9.400.

Courtesy AaronCCG, BaT

 

The engine bay and front trunk of this car are in particularly pleasing condition:

Courtesy AaronCCG, BaT

Of the same age, #4117627 made for a more successful auction lot when offered also on Bring a Trailer in September ’20, selling for $16,040.

#4117627 Courtesy 246dinoguy, BaT

As with the immediately preceding car, a clean bay allows a good view of the engine’s simplicity and the ease of accessibility for service/repair work.  Given the modest power output, the deployment of twin coils – seen at the bottom of the photograph, might seem somewhat ironic!

#4117627 Courtesy 246dinoguy, BaT

Another ’67 car is #4121650 and, like #4117939, is right hand drive and used in the early years of the century for some historic rallying, though without any serious competition-related mechanical or bodywork modifications.  The car was sold in ’18 for £5,060.

#4121650 Courtesy Brightwells

Once again, a rhd/’67 Sport Prinz, #4121694 was sold in ’21 by Iconic Auctioneers for £8,769.  No other details are currently available, though the car appears to be in good, running condition, as seen below:

#4121694 Courtesy Iconic Auctioneers

The latest-made, (’68), car of which I have a photograph is #4122062.  In describing the car for a sale in July 2012 of cars owned by the Prince of Monaco, Artcurial included a note about the interior: (It) 'has not been touched and offers all its period freshness, with its impeccable carpets, its two-tone cloth and leatherette seats with white piping, its delightfully sporty dashboard nicely painted, the steering in black bakelite with circular chrome-horn, chrome door handles and bellow-like door pockets.’  The hammer price realised was €25,023.

Courtesy Artcurial

As seen in this survey, the NSU Sport Prinz does not generally command high values in the current classic car market.  A clear limitation is the modesty of motive power type since this not only makes for a vehicle with limited dynamic characteristics, but also robs it substantially of technical interest.  However, whilst the provenance, (ownership by the Monegasque monarchy), of #4122062 was no doubt a positive contributing factor, the price realised for this vehicle indicates the potential for well-preserved/original specification examples.