Would this car be a CCCA Classic?

[Guest J446]

1947 Ferrari 166 s. Chassis 002C.

(Click on attachment)

[Guest J446]

Another shot.

Ferrari bored it from 159 to 166 in late 47. (166cc x 12)

[Guest Chuck Conrad]

There are no Ferraris on the CCCA?s ?Approved Classic? list. That?s probably because they were basically raging cars, and that is not what CCCA is all about. CCCA cars are typically opulent and luxurious. It?s quite the opposite of the Ferrari which is all about speed and performance. That?s not to say that a ?47 Ferrari wouldn?t be a wonderful car to own?.

Of course any CCCA member in good standing who owns such a car is welcome to submit it to the Classification Committee for consideration as a CCCA Full Classic.

[Guest J446]

"What exactly is a CCCA Classic?" The club defines CCCA Classic cars as "...fine or unusual motor cars which were built between and including the years 1925 to 1948. These very special cars are distinguished by their fine design, high engineering standards and superior workmanship." They were usually quite expensive when new, with relatively low production figures.

1925-1948? Yes.

Fine design, high engineering standards and superior workmanship? Yes.

Quite expensive when new? Yes

Relatively low production figures? Yes

Road Registered in 1947? Yes.

Are there any "Sports Cars" on the list or are there only "Luxury Car's" ?

For example would a Bentley/sports/racecar (A Bentley Boy's car) be on the list?

Best

Jim

[Restorer32]

Perhaps none of the founders of the club who compiled the list owned Ferraris at the time?

[Guest BillP]

They have a list on their website. Mainly it's heavy, fine, large-displacement U.S. & European automobiles. Generally stuff that captains of industry or other creators or inheritors of great fortune would use to silently, elegantly motor from mansion to summer home or through the boulevards of power and prestige. Your Duesenberg is an obvious example.

Sports and racing cars, though frequently just as carefully engineered and even more expensive, would nevertheless have been playthings for the same type of individual, as would cigarette boats and quarter horses. When they stir the soul and raise the heart rate, it is in a different fashion than the classics.

It's funny, but the approach still applies.

I carefully, quietly take my classic prewar sedan to shows and sit.

My preference in owning an early sports car is to use it for its intended purpose. I drive it.

[Guest J446]

Bill P

Hi. Your point is well made but is interesting that Duesenbergs were sold as owner driven for the sportsman and woman. Their adds had that theme, depicting Yachtsmen and Horsewomen, and asking "What sort of Man/Woman drives a Duesenberg?"

My only quibble is I think all of them should still be driven as well as shown.

Shown not necessarily to win a trophy but shown so those who haven't had the chance to see these wonderful machines can.

Best

[Guest BillP]

My point may be well made but still thinly presented. There is absolutely nothing like the burble of underwater exhausts of an inboard mahogany runabout at dockside. Nothing that is, until you are booming along an inland lake at fifty knots, cutting your own wake in lazy arcs on a crisp autumn morning.

Or slithering up a dirt and gravel switchback, dual Stromberg 97s wide open in a fenderless V8 Ford roadster.

Or driving TO the show in my Packard. I don't show for cups, too much cleaning.

[Guest J446]

"There is absolutely nothing like the burble of underwater exhausts of an inboard mahogany runabout at dockside. Nothing that is, until you are booming along an inland lake at fifty knots, cutting your own wake in lazy arcs on a crisp autumn morning."

As the young people say: "WORD!"

Best

[gearboy]

As historically important as the debut Ferrari is, isn't it better represented by the Milestone Car Society and the SCCA, among many other clubs? We thought the idea of the Classic Car Club of America was to recognize fine cars, luxury, sporting, or both, produced between 1925-42, with certain exceptions through 1947 or '48 so long as they're [color:\\"black\\"] essentially unchanged continuations of prewar models.

[Guest]

J446: The first thing I would like to say of the 1947 Ferrari is THAT ITS A CAR BUILT FOR RACING. Just becasue it was built by or designed by Enzo doesn't doesn't mean that it should be considered some kind of classic. There are a lot of other race cars that where built by other people that I would consider to to be RACING CLASSICS before I would considered the 1947 Ferrari.

[JLee]

This is an interesting an appropriate discussion. I'm a bit surprised that only "Gearboy" referred to the real reason why Ferrari is not accepted as a Full Classic. A September 9, 1986 Policy statement is published in the Handbook this way: "Classic status for Post-World War II cars up to and including 1948 models will be considered only for those cars that are representative of the Pre-War Classic era." In other words, for a post war car to be considered it must have a pre-war antecendent. As the prototype Ferrari, so named, was not tested until early 1947 there is no pre-war car with which to compare.

The Race car issue was also addressed with a Policy statement in 1993. "Race Car Configuration" is spelled out as:" a vehicle which is missing...fenders, lights, windshield, bumpers, top...doors, reverse gear, starting motor...exhaust other than a straight pipe, instrumentation and upholstery. it would not be considered a legal, road worthy vehicle licensable in most states." While a bit less precise that the Post War statement, this describes a track racer, as usually seen in the U.S. as opposed to a European road racing car, such as the Ferrari. Or for that matter, my '26 Bentley that is prepared to LeMans racing specification. The Ferrari is excluded, not because it is a racing car, rather because its manufacture does not fit into the time period on which the Club has chosen to focus.

I hope that helps explain why a wonderful and significant car like the Ferrari cannot be considered for Full Classic status.

Jon Lee

[Guest J446]

JD

Thanks. As you point out this car has full road equiptment and was registered for road use in 1947 as it is today. I now realize as per what you and Gearhead have pointed out NO Ferrari is eligable for the CCCA.

I'm enclosing another photo for those who are interested. Those who wish to see her in person she and several others of mine will be at Lime Rock this weekend. Please stop by and say hello.

Best

[Guest J446]

With friends who will also be at Lime Rock.

[Guest J446]

This one will also be there. (Lime Rock-Ferrari of Long Island Transporter)

[Guest]

J446: Are you going to have any of your Ferrari's at Watkins Glen this weekend. My grandson I will be there on sunday as we have been for the last four years.

[Guest J446]

Sorry no. We were there last year with my MK-IV.

(click)

Best

[Barry Wolk]

I am new to the car show game and I learned a hard lesson last year when I approached the woman that heads the CCCA at last year's National Meet.

"Young man" she says, (I'm 52 if that gives you some idea) "While your car is considered a Milestone Car it does not represent the Classic Era". I guess I've been told.

The Continental Mark II meets all the other criteria except it's age. It was outrageously detailed and expensive. It was a rich man's toy. It was built in limited numbers using the finest materials. It was, and still is, a vehicle that elicits a response from passers-by.

Actually, the Concours circuit is more to my liking. Our cars are judged on beauty, style and grace. A car that shows the effects of being driven are often given additional consideration. I won't participate in a Concours that uses a points based system. I once participated in a Lincoln and Continental Owner's Club National Meet and I was dinged for my coil wire being black instead of brown and I lost a full point for having radial tires. I'm sorry, my life is more important than a trophy.

Cars are meant to be driven!

Mark II convertible

[Guest J446]

This weekend I went to a very nice show in Westport, Conn. which had a great range of cars including some CCCA "Full Classics"

http://ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=32899

[Guest Chuck Conrad]

I'd be the first to admit that the Continental Mark II is a very desirable and handsome car, but "The Woman" was correct, although possibly overly blunt. Speaking as someone who is in their late 50's, I take being called "young anything" as a compliment, but since you didn't take it that way, I apologize on behalf of the Club..

CCCA is a club that is specifically about the cars of the Classic Era, which was a very unusual time in history between the two World Wars. It's really centered in the Great Depression. I don?t think anyone will argue that it was a very unique time loaded with paradoxes. There were people standing in bread lines while others still had servants and lived in mansions. Most people couldn't afford the gas to fill the tank of a Model A, but the automotive manufacturers proceeded to built some of the most spectacular (and expensive) cars of all time during this same period.

Originally, CCCA only accepted cars built before World War II. It was much later when a few post war cars were admitted. In hind site, that change may not have been the best thing for the Club. It certainly does make it harder to explain what CCCA is about. In any case, it is water under the bridge. We do accept some post WW II cars, up to and including 1948. Our rules are quite clear about the 1948 cut off date. Cars that we do accept made after the War must have some per-war antecedent. In other words, they are supposed to be similar to a car made before the War. If someone had introduced a car that looked like a MK II before Pearl Harbor, I suspect it would have been as significant an event as alien space hardware falling to the ground today. It certainly would have had huge ?Wow!? factor.

The fact of the matter is, no car that looks like yours was made prior to WW II. That?s why CCCA doesn?t accept them. It?s as simple as that. That does not mean that many of our members wouldn?t love to own your car. If it looks half as good in person as it does in the picture, who wouldn?t?

My best advice is to enjoy your wonderful MK II for what it is, and enjoy CCCA for what it is. Both have their merits.

[Barry Wolk]

Thank you for your insight. I was not at all offended by her "young man" remark and the CCCA has nothing to apologize for. It is a fine organization with a very loyal following.

Yes, it is as good in person as it is in pictures. I take no credit for its remanufacture. It is virtually a new car with an extraordinary paint job.

This car is special in its own right as it was a prototype made for Ford by Hess & Eisenhardt. The only other Mark II convertible was made for Ford by Derham.

"Best of Class" 2004 Meadow Brook Concours d'Elegance

Mark II convertible

[gearboy]

I think our auld friend Peter Hartmann was right on the money when he pointed out on this forum last year that people today are eager to have their cars considered "Classics" because it helps resale value, ego, etc. Monsignor Hartmann's also right that when the CCCA was formed 52 years ago, NO ONE cared about "Classic" cars. The term "Classic" was, if anything, effete in those days.

Fast forward a few decades. Prewar Classics finally have their day in the collecting sun, so by the 1970s, mainstream America $ee$ a good thing and calls their '57 Chevrolets, T-Birds, '62 Impalas and anything else no longer in the current Kelley Blue Book "Classic." (In the late 1950s, early '60s, Simplex Speed Cars, Locomobiles, Pierce 66s, Chadwicks and the like were the blue chip cars, Duesenbergs still second-tier in most circles.)

Why is it so difficult for some people to understand that the Classic Car Club of America was established in 1952 to celebrate and support the maintenance, preservation and faithful [color:\\"black\\"] rebuilding of fine automobiles of 1925-1942 [color:\\"black\\"] , the only postwar cars accepted being warmed over '42 models?

You wouldn't show up at an 1861-65 US Civil War reinactment in a WWI doughboy uniform.

Most of us with Classics have friends with (or own ourselves) equally fine cars built AFTER the CCCA years. My friend with a '59 Ferrari Pininfarina coupe doesn't whine about his car not being a CCCA Classic. He's too busy enjoying his car.

This isn't rocket science. Anyone visiting a website who's too self-absorbed or dizzy to read the description of the organization on the homepage shouldn't merit an apology that his 1949,1950/60, etc. [color:\\"black\\"] wheeled alter ego isn't a CCCA Classic. I enjoy certain old Bentleys, but i don't take umbrage that my Packard isn't allowed into the Bentley Drivers' Club.

[Buicksplus]

Barry:

I think all the Continental Mk II and especially those two convertibles would be excellent candidates for postwar Classics -- if and when the CCCA ever considers to dispense with the notion that the "Classic Era" ended in 1942. No doubt there are other interesting postwar cars that meet all those criteria for excess, quality and uniqueness held by more traditional prewar "Classics".

They may change someday, though I expect CCCA will stay in defensive mode as long as their membership continues to grow or hang in there.

All the best,

Bill.

[gearboy]

Why is it so urgent that the MKII or any other '50s car be admitted to a club for, essentially, prewar automobiles? Does the word "classic" have that much cachet? Instead of insisting that the CCCA recognize your out-of-the-era car, handsome as it is, why not join the Milestone Car Society, a respected organization created specifically to celebrate such automobiles?

Why would you ask a group reinacting the 1861-65 US Civil War to include you, when you have a WWI doughboy uniform? Why not join the club reinacting WWI?

Sounds like this is all about glomming on to the word "cla$$ic" instead of "mile$tone."

These are all nice cars, and there are already clubs for all of them.

It's not complicated. www.milestonecarsociety.org [color:\\"black\\"]

[juddman]

The man was merely asking a legitimate question and I don't think he was whining as one of you said. As far as I can tell from his posts in other forums, he enjoys his cars - including his CCCA recognized Duesenberg - enormously. I think he may have something of a point as the BMW 328 is also recognized as a CCCA classic, yet it is no luxury car and has an enormous number of racing victories to its credit. Granted, it was made first in '36, but I don't think you can discount the Ferrari for its status as a racer. For the fact that it wasn't based on a prewar car, maybe, but not for the fact that it raced. I haven't checked the particulars, but I suspect there may be some race winning Bugattis on the list, too..

[Matt Harwood]

Oh, my, what a beautiful car that Mk II convertible is. It makes me want to cry it's so perfect.

Kudos, Barry.

[Guest J446]

As an aside here's a photo of the cockpit of 002C which recently won the "Mayor's Choice Award" at the French Quarter Classic in New Orleans.

In the BG. is my P 3/4 0846.

[Bill Stoneberg]

Jim,

I wish I would have known you would be down south with some of your cars. I sure would like to see them.

Will you be in this parts of the states again sometime soon ??

[Guest J446]

Hi

I'll let you know next time I'm around

I love to see your's as well. There's a great exibit of Buicks at the Sarasota Auto Museam. (Bulgari's)

Best

[Guest J446]

For those interested in photo's of engine out service.

http://ferrarichat.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44512