Bugattibuilder.com forum
http://www.bugattibuilder.com/forum/

Frame 54216: truth or not?
http://www.bugattibuilder.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2338		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  bugatti69 [ Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:02 pm ]
Post subject:  Frame 54216: truth or not?
Image

Built in Molsheim, yes or not?
Or number allotted subsequently on an existing frame?

See: http://www.bugattirevue.com/revue13/54.htm
Author:  madola [ Fri Feb 25, 2011 6:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Frame 54216: truth or not?
Yes it's correct, because it has been imported to Switzerland in the 30s and after than the car has been returned to the factory (engine problems)
Author:  Lazarus [ Fri Feb 25, 2011 7:27 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Frame 54216: truth or not?
madola wrote:
Yes it's correct, because it has been imported to Switzerland in the 30s and after than the car has been returned to the factory (engine problems)

I dont remember it being returned with engine problems,when i sold it ,it had no engine.
Author:  Uwe [ Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Frame 54216: truth or not?
madola wrote:
Yes it's correct, because it has been imported to Switzerland in the 30s and after than the car has been returned to the factory (engine problems)


#54206 - Bucar (CH) returned and dismantled
Author:  Herman [ Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:41 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Frame 54216: truth or not?
That is 206, not 216.

Was 216 not one of the cars that you assembled, Lazarus?
Author:  Lazarus [ Fri Feb 25, 2011 9:03 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Frame 54216: truth or not?
Herman wrote:
That is 206, not 216.

Was 216 not one of the cars that you assembled, Lazarus?

As I said in my previous note,I assembled the car .it was not returned to ME with engine problems !
Author:  Herman [ Sat Feb 26, 2011 8:40 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Frame 54216: truth or not?
206 and 216 are not the same. 206 was returned in the 30s to Bugatti. I wonder what happend with the frame. Went into a type 55?
Author:  dhic001 [ Sat Feb 26, 2011 9:43 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Frame 54216: truth or not?
It hasn't been returned to you John, because dad hasn't had engine problems with it, and it would be very hard to complain about the engine when you sold us a cylinder block and numerous bits! Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the plate was an original un-numbered plate, stamped with a new Type 54 series number, the number not having been used or allocated by the factory? Of course I may have completely the wrong end of the stick.
Daniel Hicks
Author:  Lazarus [ Sat Feb 26, 2011 10:16 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Frame 54216: truth or not?
dhic001 wrote:
It hasn't been returned to you John, because dad hasn't had engine problems with it, and it would be very hard to complain about the engine when you sold us a cylinder block and numerous bits! Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the plate was an original un-numbered plate, stamped with a new Type 54 series number, the number not having been used or allocated by the factory? Of course I may have completely the wrong end of the stick.
Daniel Hicks

The plate is a BOC one or french but recent manufacture,not original.I stamped the number so as not to confuse the issue.This is clearly an impossible number for a T54.Have you driven dads car Daniel? I had five years of genuine pleasure with this car.I had to lift off twice going up Brooklands test hill ! Otherwise I was in danger of going into orbit without a spacesuit.Straight lines were not a problem but bends did require common sense.
Author:  Lazarus [ Sun Feb 27, 2011 6:17 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Frame 54216: truth or not?
dhic001 wrote:
It hasn't been returned to you John, because dad hasn't had engine problems with it, and it would be very hard to complain about the engine when you sold us a cylinder block and numerous bits! Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding was that the plate was an original un-numbered plate, stamped with a new Type 54 series number, the number not having been used or allocated by the factory? Of course I may have completely the wrong end of the stick.
Daniel Hicks

Dear Daniel,I hope that you and your family are ok after the earthquake.I only heard today.
Author:  dhic001 [ Mon Feb 28, 2011 9:45 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Frame 54216: truth or not?
Thanks John,
We are all ok, being almost the other end of the country from the earthquake. All family are ok. From the reports at our Bugatti meeting on the weekend, all Bugatti owners in Christchurch that we have had contact with are ok too. A horrible time for all down there, and will have a huge effect on our small nation.

Re 54216, no i've not driven it, but have spent much time in the passenger seat. Fantastic toy, great fun, if slightly scary, even from the passenger seat! What it would be like with the blown 4.9 in it one can only imagine! A type 50 will be a nice, if slightly more civilised alternative.

Daniel
Author:  Lazarus [ Mon Feb 28, 2011 6:18 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Frame 54216: truth or not?
dhic001 wrote:
Thanks John,
We are all ok, being almost the other end of the country from the earthquake. All family are ok. From the reports at our Bugatti meeting on the weekend, all Bugatti owners in Christchurch that we have had contact with are ok too. A horrible time for all down there, and will have a huge effect on our small nation.

Re 54216, no i've not driven it, but have spent much time in the passenger seat. Fantastic toy, great fun, if slightly scary, even from the passenger seat! What it would be like with the blown 4.9 in it one can only imagine! A type 50 will be a nice, if slightly more civilised alternative.

Daniel

a few T54 drivers died at the wheel....not the most useable Bugatti.Very scary yes,and that was just with the Jaguar 3.8 litre motor,as you say a full blown T54 must be terrifying.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC + 1 hour
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/