I think i would od done something like the bread van but with less side windows. Eg the door window and one extra possibly angled back , bit like the silver car in the ealier pics. And a hatch to go with it. If the wheelbase was lengthened some rear seats like the ff i think its called with the funny 4x4 system

You are quite right Zaggers!

Pobodys nerfect................. Especially Olivier Decatoire

Just found another SWB side window treatment that looks interesting -

http://i1301.photobucket.com/albums/...ps42737ea3.jpg

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/3709221332...84.m1423.l2649

Bit of an oddity this car though, besides the three piece side windows it's also got Pininfarina badges on the sides, but the only reference I can find to Pininfarina designing a 250 is the 250 GT Pininfarina Coupe Speciale -

http://i1301.photobucket.com/albums/...ps868ef00b.jpg

Could be a development hack I suppose?

OK, just found this and answered my own question -

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/ferrari-250-gt-swb.htm

A Pininfarina design indeed it was then.

That's a 250LWB which is different behind the doors to suit the longer 2600mm wheelbase.
At the time , Ferrari GT cars had either the LWB chassis 2600mm wheelbase or the shorter 2400mm, like the SWB.

Here's one I photographed at Goodwood:

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s...D36DD05F97.jpg

mgb donor
 

I love the swb shape and looking at the mgb it seems a great donor. The z3 is good but the modern windscreen shows up the modern element. I don't possess a photoshop programme but would really like to know what the 250 swb would look against the mgb base apart form the wheelbase the roadster would make a good period donor.

Can someone fit the swb side profile on the mgb profile line drawing as per the previous one done on the z3.

Striker, spend 30 mins and read the whole thread. Everything's been discussed ad nauseum ;-)

I recently saw a photo of an Austin Healey 3000 which was fitted with a period fixed head roof which was clearly modeled on a SWB. It retained the big healey front end. It looks amazing!
Possibl in C&SC a month or so back?

Al

Here's a good replica I spotted at the Ferrari racing day at Silverstone, mind you it is a rebody of a 250 GTE!


https://scontent-b-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/...6b&oe=54CD960B

Nice colour and a very pretty car. Converting a 250GTE into a 250SWB is a bit like turning a silk purse into a silk purse though, whereas the Z3 is a proper sows ear of a car and really, desperately needs to be given the Tribute SWB treatment (imho).

Especially when it has a 1.9l motor:boink:

Well if the engineers had done a good job it could of had 170/80bhp like the Honda vtec equivalent . 1.8 i think it was.

I hope you don't mean the above replica spotted by Neil?

Nope i meant the thing about the 1.9 z3being a slow to respond. Maybe it just needs a good thrashing to get them moving. :-)

I had a 1.8 Intergra Type R which kicked out 197bhp. It was a wonderful car, possibly the best balanced I have ever owned.

Conversion to ?
 

Agreed. People did that conversion because it was easy and the result was more valuable than the one they started with. My own preference is for the Ferrari 275GTB shape but the Z3 conversion is quite difficult because the profile is so different. The Z3 wheelbase is 45 mm more, the 275 bonnet is mu-u-uch longer and the windscreen curves around into the door opening.

For several decades now BMW, in common with other European volume car manufacturers, have followed a strategy of offering each model with a range of engines to attract buyers with different requirements regarding purchase price/insurance/economy/etc.

Thus, Z3's were variously available with:
1.8/118bhp;
1.9(8v)/118bhp;
1.9(16v)/140bhp;
2.0(6cyl)/150bhp;
2.2(6cyl)/170bhp;
2.8(6cyl)/198bhp;
3.0(6cyl)/231bhp;
3.2(6cyl)/321bhp;
3.2(6cyl)/325bhp

Obviously, the smaller, lower powered cars are going to be slower, but not that much slower compared to the entry level six - even the humble 1.8 is only 1.5 seconds slower to 60mph and gets to within 8mph of the two litre's top speed.

Throw a slush box into the mix and things aren't so clear cut. A manual 1.9(16v), the most common (and cheapest) variant, is only 2.2 seconds slower to 60 and 11mph shy of a 2.8 auto's figures. What did BMW do with all that extra capacity and two extra cylinders?

Looking at the figures, they only managed to squeeze another 53
bhp out of a 900cc increase. This gives the 2.8 only 69bhp/litre while the 1.9 pumps out a far more healthy 74bhp/litre, so it's a more highly tuned motor than the wheezy old 2.8, which is clearly underpowered for its capacity.

If only the 2.8 was as well developed as the 1.9 it would make an easy 207bhp, which, coincidentally, is pretty much what Porsche got out of the 2.5 it put in early Boxsters, which are generally considered to be a bit slow.

Unsurprisingly, given its highly tuned nature, the 1.9 is actually half a second faster to sixty than the auto two litre, and there's only 1mph difference in top speed. So a manual 1.9 will easily get away from a 2.0 auto on a fast B road blast. Does that make the 2.0 auto shit?

Only if your sole criteria for making the judgement is speed. This would, of course, mean that the 2.8 is shit compared to the 3.0, which is shit compared to the 3.2M, which is, of course, shit compared to a TVR Cerbera at a similar price point.

I've done a bit of research on the much maligned 1.9 and it seems that its major issue is a heavy flywheel, which blunts its ability to pick up revs. That's it.

As a kit car builder there are other considerations when choosing an engine. I will be building a 250 at some stage in the not too distant future, and, believe it or not, tyre availability will have a major impact on the donor I choose. You see, the wheels I want to fit will be wearing 215/65/15 tyres. Right now, I can only find one 'V' rated tyre of that size while there are a dozen or so 'H' rated options, so I'd be reluctant to use a donor capable of more than 130mph. That limits me to the 1.8, 1.9's or a two litre six.

Having said all of the above, it will, of course, be...

A two litre six.

Call me a hypocrite if you like, but I rather like the noise it'll make. :)

Very good article Mr T, but I think the major issue with the 1.9 is actually WCA!

My views on the 1.9 are just my views. It is a sluggish unresponsive engine that doesn't suit the character of the car.

I am not too fussed about top speeds as they are largely irrelevant during normal use. The 1.9 is slow to respond and doesn't seem to have the torque to give the car any umph. I agree it will make the car move but I am more concerned about how it feels when driving.

I used to have a 1.8 Honda that lacked torque but screamed round to 9,000rpm and was an absolute blast.

I have a 5.5 Supercharged Merc that has so muchg power and torque it makes me giggle.

Two totally different engines with totally different characteristics but both really enjoyable.

Please drive a 1.9 Z3 and then tell me if you can describe the engine as enjoyable. I am relying purely on my experience rather than the numbers published so it is subjective.