Bugatti EB 110

[taunus]

Zitat von Lamberko Ich dachte bisher immer, dass Schumi insgesamt 2 EB110SS gehabt hätte. Erst einen in gelb und später einen in silber...?

Das ist mir neu.

[croissant]

Zitat von Sveni Hallo Leute, ich bin heute per Zufall auf diese Seite verlinkt worden. Deshalb bitte nicht sofort schlagen, wenn es schonmal gepostet wurde Und zwar gibt es laut dieser Seite eine Special Edition vom EB 110 SS. Diese soll sich Le Mans nennen und über 700 Ps (!) leisten. Es sollen nur 3 Fahrzeuge gebaut worden seien, einer davon für Michael Schumacher. Außerdem soll dieser Wagen nur in der Farbe Silber Metallic erhältlich gewesen sein und die Höchstgeschwindigkeit soll bei (232 mph) 373 km/h liegen. Jetzt frag ich euch, was ihr dazu sagt, da ich bei dem EB 110 Register nichts gefunden habe... Hier ist nochmal ein Link: http://www.canepa.com/inventory/exot...bugatti_ss.pdf http://www.canepa.com/inventory/exotic/1419.html# http://www.canepa.com/inventory/exot...ugatti_ss.html

Da steht doch daß DIES der EINZIGE in silber ist.
Von daher könnte Schumis gelber theoretisch auch ein LM gewesen sein.
Habe aber noch nie vorher von EB 110 LMs gehört.

[Deltabox]

Leider habe ich nicht mehr über den Schumacher Bugatti

[Lamberko]

Ich habe zwar schon mal etwas über einen Bugatti EB 110 SS "LeMans" gehört, aber dabei handelte es sich um ein Einzelstück.

Die Text- und Bildquelle kann ich leider nicht nennen, da ich diesen Bericht über den "LeMans" mal irgendwann auf meinem Rechner abgespeichert habe. Aber der Bugatti-Club-France kann sicherlich problemlos weiterhelfen...

Some serious changes in the sportscar racing regulations gave road car derived racers a good chance at an overall victory at Le Mans again. French publisher Michel Hommell took it upon himself to converted a EB 110 SS to racing specification for the 1994 24 Hours of Le Mans. Much of the development was focused on getting the weight down as much as possible; some 300 kg were shaved off compared to the road car. To comply with the regulations engine performance was slightly restricted to 600 bhp, which was available all the way between 6200 and 7200 rpm. Fiftyfive years after the marque's last appearance Bugatti was back on the legendary track. It was not very likely that the EB 110 could repeat the victorious performance of 1939, but anticipation was still high. Behind the wheel were the experienced Alain Cudini and young guns Eric Helary and Jean-Christoph Bouillon. After a 15th position in qualifying the team gradually worked their way up to sixth place before a turbocharger failed at the creek of dawn. Over an hour was lost and the car finally retired after Bouillon lost control in the second chicane of the Hunaudieres straight. After the race Bugatti EB 110 s/n 086 was completely repaired, but never fielded again. Michel Hommell retired it to his 'Manoir de l'Automobile' museum in Loheac, France. In 1995 another EB 110 was prepared for racing and had some good outings in North American races, but never made it to Le Mans. [...] Featured is the Michel Hommell EB 110, which made a rare appearance outside of the Museum at the 2006 Retromobile show in Paris where it was displayed on the Bugatti Club stand.

BBurago 33370350 - Kit 1:18 Bugatti EB 110 Le Mans


Bugatti EB 110; race successes

If the Italian Bugatti, build in Campogalliano by Romano Artioli and his team, truly deserves the Bugatti name is something that everybody has to decide for himself. However I know that most Bugattistes have a more than average interest in this car. Here I'll try to give some info on the few Bugatti EB110's that truly raced, trying to imitate the success of their famous ancestors from Molsheim.

Introduction

It was in 1989 that the plans for the new Bugatti-revival were presented by Paolo Stanzani, of Lamborghini Miura and Countach fame. The general lay-out of the car was already known, a prestigious 12 cylinder, 60 valve, 4 turbo, 4 wheel drive rear engined supercar, better than anything known to man (in those days). The expectation was to get 550 HP out of this! Plans were tp remain the total weight below 1300 kilograms, but this turneds out to be 1620.
However, how the car should look on the outside was not known yet! This was done by Marcelo Gandini (and others) later on.

Stanzani was sent away in 1990, because of some unclear manupulations with stock, which should have given him more than 50% of the possession of Bugatti. This "coup" didn't succeed however. In the end Romano Artioli took over as the "face" of Bugatti. Maybe an article about all the political games at Bugatti should be written once.

The 15th of September 1991 the EB110GT was presented by Romano Artioli in Paris in a big show to the public, exactly 110 years after Ettore Bugatti had been presented for the first time, presumably not in so big a show! A short time later a better, lighter and more powerful monster the EB110 SS (either SuperSport or Sport Stradale) was presented, capable of 352 km/h and 0-100 km/h in 3.2 seconds. This is the version that was almost ready to race with.

As we know the Bugatti plans were set-up too ambitious, even when Mauro Forghieri came in 1993, of Ferrari Formula 1 fame, it couldn't stop the end to the entire venture in 1995. Estimations are that some 150 cars have been built.

Le Mans, 1994

It was in 1994 that Bugatti was to appear again at LeMans, after their last appearance (and win) 55 years before, with the famous T57G "tank".

1994 was the year that Le Mans would be made more popular, the specially designed race monsters would be banned, and only "normal" productions cars would be allowed to enter. However Porsche found a way out of these regulations with the "Dauer Porsche", effectively a Porsche 962 purpose built car, converted for road use, and then converted back to race. This was quite some faster than the rest, and would eventually win. Of the real GT class, the Bugatti proved fastest in training, in the GT1 class (engines up to 600HP). In the same class competed MVS Venturis, De Tomaso Panteras, Dodge Vipers, Porsches Carrera RSR (and the famous Dauer Porsches). Apart from this were the GT2 class (up to 450HP) and some others.


Drivers: Alain Cudini, Eric Helary and Jean-Christophe "Jules" Bouillon.
Did not finish

In this training, a month for the race, the Bugatti was fastest in class, looking and sounding gorgeous, and going quickly, despite the weight penalty of the four-wheel-drive. It was only just faster than the MVS Venturis, and 25 seconds slower than the Dauer Porsches.

For the race itself, I quote from Autosport: "Leading the way in the GT class should have been the Bugatti EB110SS, driven by touring car oldtimer Alain Cudini and French young guns Eric Helary and Jean-Christophe "Jules" Bouillon. The Italian supercar looked set for a top-six finish despite a very slow start...

One hour before the race, the local Synergic team, which was running the car for publishing magnate Michel Hommell, discovered a fuel leak. The only solution available to mend the car in time for the race was a tube of Araldite.



This allowed the car to do the first couple of shifts with its fuel tank half full. Once the Araldite had dried and the car was able to take on a full load of fuel, the Bugatti quickly moved through the field to take up a place in the top 10. But just as it had established itself ahead of the Larbre RSR Porsche as the leading GT car (not counting the Dauer cars), the Bugatti suffered turbo problems. All four turbos were changed, and one of them even twice for good measure. The team's ambition to finish the race came to an end in the dying laps when the car turned left into the barriers on the Mulsanne straight, a tyre failure was suspected to be the cause. The best of the rest in the GT1 class, proved to be the Dodge Viper RT/10, driven by Rene Arnoux, Justin Bell and Bertrand Balas. As far as I know no Bugatti entered the 1995 LeMans event (won by a McLaren F1).

Bei dieser Aussage...

[...] In 1995 another EB 110 was prepared for racing and had some good outings in North American races, but never made it to Le Mans. [...]

...handelt es sich wohl um dieses Fahrzeug hier:

The American WSC GT races - This is a GT class event, with 24hour and shorter races. The Bugatti competed in the Grand Touring Supreme 1 (GTS-1) class. Not really popular on this side of the ocean!



Gildo Pallanca-Pastor, 28 old, a businessman from Monaco has entered in some races, with the Monaco Racing team. Above he is seen after the Watkins Glen event, where the team got 5th place. At Watkins Glen and Sears Point co-driver was Patrick Tambay! The technical director of the Monaco Racing Team is Daniel Pernoud, formerly of the Ligier F1 team.

Watkins Glen, June 1995 - Drivers: Gildo Pallanca-Pastor, Patrick Tambay. 5th place.


Patrick Tambay, of F1 reputation (114 Grand Prix!)

In qualifying Former Formula One and Can-Am driver Patrick Tambay, with Gildo Pallanca-Pastor, rolled out the Bugatti EB110 SS for its North American debut. The GTS-1 class racer was 24th fastest overall, 10th in class.



The Bugatti EB110, in its North American debut, finished fifth in the GTS-1 class.



Former Formula One driver Patrick Tambay and Gildo Pastor-Pallanca wheeled the car to the checkered flag five laps behind class winner Hoerr.

Sears Point, 1995 - Drivers: Gildo Pallanca-Pastor. 6th place.



Gildo had much fun, he finished the race. He did two laps with a hole in a tyre, big like a tennis ball and he didn't realised it right away: the car was still going well!!!

Daytona 24 hours, February 3-4, 1996 - Drivers: Gildo Pallanca-Pastor, Derek John Hill, Grouillard. 154 laps completed. Did not finish, good performance in the rain though!

The Bugatti EB110 ss driven by Gildo Pastor Pallanca (Owner), Derek John Hill (son of Phil Hill, who was advisor for the team!) and Olivier Grouillard didn't finish at Daytona, due to mechanical problems and especially Electronic System trouble after 7 hours.

DEREK HILL about the car: -- (After driver change in 7th overall) The car is running great -- I had no problems. When the track started getting wet I really started gaining coming out of the turns (Bugatti uses all-wheel drive). I noticed the Porsches were slipping and sliding and I started gobbling them up coming off the corners. The track conditions are really not that bad. (On being 7th overall.) I had no idea -- That's terrific!

Le Mans, 1996 - Drivers: Gildo Pallanca-Pastor, Patrick Tambay. Only appeared at practice.

Gildo Pallanca-Pastor, owner of the Monaco Racing team attended at the pre-qualifying for the 1996 Le Mans 24 hours. Without much success, though, as you can see in the standings below. After seven of eight hours the classification looks like this.

Gildo Pallanca-Pastor had his plan of entering the Monaco Racing Team Bugatti EB110 sport competizione in this year's running of the world's most famous endurance contest brought to an abrupt end in the last week in April when ex-F1 pilot Patrick Tambay crashed the car during practice, destroying the carbon fiber tub. Tambay was not injured in the accident. While the damage is repairable, it would upset plans to attempt to break the 24 hour distance record with a second Bugatti. Since the Buggati factory is shuttered, the second car would have to either be reconfigured for Le Mans or used as a source for parts. Neither of these options were acceptable.

The World speed record on ice - In march 95, Gildo Pallanca-Pastor, 28 old, drove a EB110 SuperSport on the frozen sea in Oulu in Finland. He reached the speed of 296.34 km/h, average speed on 1 km launched. He was using Michelin regular tyres with no spikes.



The car was heavier than a normal one to get more motricity. The track was on the frozen sea, 7 km long but not straight because it was not cold enough and there were holes.

Conclusion - So, how do we answer our question? Can the Bugatti stand up to tradition? First I must say that only very little was done to get Bugatti racing, only private teams entered EB110's. In the races where the Bugattis competed, always only ONE Bugatti raced! The results of these single entries are quite impressive, with the first position in class at LeMans 1994, before the accident, and more good results like 5th at Watkins Glen, in the first race for the Monaco Racing team!

However, the Bugatti has the weight penalty of four wheel drive, and thus in the dry will never win from, let's say, a McLaren F1. In the wet though, the situation changes, as was seen in the Daytona 24 hours, before retiring with electrical problems.

Given the few races that were entered, the Bugatti did quite well, and we can say that it's a well engineered machine, with race-potential. But is it a Bugatti?

[Lamberko]

Wie kommt ein Bugatti EB 110 regulär in die USA???

Hier mal ein sehr interessantes Dokument zu diesem Thema, das früher auch mal den Porsche 959 und andere Exoten vor eine Hürde stellte...

Zitat von Federal Register: March 11, 1994 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION [Docket No. 93-77; Notice 2] Bugatti Automobili, S.p.A.; Grant of Petition for Temporary Exemption From Standard No. 208 * Bugatti Automobili, S.p.A., of Modena, Italy, petitioned for a temporary exemption until November 1, 1995, from the automatic protection requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208, Occupant Crash Protection. The basis of the petition was that compliance would cause substantial economic hardship. * Notice of receipt of the petition was published on December 10, 1993, and an opportunity afforded for comment (58 FR 65008). This notice grants Bugatti's petition. Petitioner's Hardship Arguments * Under 15 U.S.C. 1410(a)(1)(A), section 123(a)(1)(A) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the Act), the Administrator may provide a temporary exemption upon a finding that ``compliance would cause substantial economic hardship and that the manufacturer has, in good faith, attempted to comply * * *.'' * The following is a summary of Bugatti's petition. Bugatti was formed as an Italian corporation in 1987 for the purpose of manufacturing automobiles. It is 80.66% owned by Bugatti International Holding, S.A., a Luxembourg corporation, which between 1987 and 1994 will have invested in excess of $115,000,000 in facilities, personnel, research and development. Four years after its founding in 1991, Bugatti presented a prototype vehicle to the public. The factory was completed in 1992. Production of its first model, the EB 110, began in April 1993. As of the date of Bugatti's petition, ``fewer than 50 cars have been produced.'' As the company only began realizing income with the commencement of sales in 1993, its cumulative net losses from 1987 through the latest fiscal year preceding the filing of its petition exceed $30,000,000. * In its early years, the company's focus was to establish itself and to commence sales in markets other than the United States. The company's permanent management team was not in place until 1991, and its permanent engineering team was finalized only in 1993. Initially, it ``seriously considered not even coming to the US at all'' because of ``product liability exposure and insurance, homologation costs, and the often volatile nature of the high performance/exotic car market in the United States.'' In the spring of 1993, however, it made the decision to enter the U.S. market and intends to do so in mid-1994. Because of the requirement in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Act of 1991 mandating the phase-in of airbags beginning in September 1996, the company decided not to develop an automatic belt system but, instead, to provide an air bag system from the beginning as a means of complying with Standard No. 208. *Lacking the in-house engineering staff capable of developing an air bag system, and concurrently with its decision to enter the U.S. market, Bugatti began a search to locate an ``engineering design and development firm to manage Bugatti's air bag project.'' Fourteen companies were approached. In September 1993, the proposal by Lotus Engineering was accepted. The cost set forth in the proposal is ``in excess of $1.2 million (not including the cost of the vehicles to be crashed).'' The company anticipates that it will be able to commence production of air bag equipped vehicles in April 1995, well before the end of the 2-year exemption it has requested. * Late in August 1993, Bugatti International Holding, signed a contract to purchase Group Lotus plc, including Lotus Engineering. Lotus is also a manufacturer of motor vehicles, whose production in 1992 was 688 units. According to the petitioner, Lotus ``lost over $35 million in 1992 on revenues of approximately $92 million.'' The purchase of Lotus would be financed by capital investments into Bugatti International Holding earmarked for that specific purpose. * In the absence of an exemption, the company projects continuing net losses through 1994. Arguments Why An Exemption Would Be in the Public Interest and Consistent With Traffic Safety Objectives * In order to grant an exemption, the Administrator must also find that the exemption is in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the Act. In support of its petition, Bugatti informed NHTSA that it ``will make every effort possible to design its air bag system so that it can retrofit with air bags all vehicles sold under the exemption.'' It also argued that it does not expect to sell more than 100 cars under the exemption. Each car, equipped with a three-point belt system, would be labeled with a seat belt use reminder. Further, all vehicles will meet all other Federal motor vehicle safety standards including amended Standard No. 214 Side Impact Protection in advance of the requirement to do so. No comments were received on the petition. * The primary finding that must be made by the agency with regard to Bugatti in order to grant its petition is that ``compliance would cause substantial economic hardship'' (15 U.S.C. 1410(a)(1)(A)). The phrase "substantial economic hardship'' is undefined, and there is scant legislative history to provide an interpretation of these words. The purpose that was cited on the House floor while the legislation was pending was the need to protect the ability of a small U.S. manufacturer to ``continue production of its automobiles while it tooled to adapt the new safety equipment, which it purchases from big automobile manufacturers, to its own automobiles.'' (Remarks of Rep. Springer, Congressional Record, October 13, 1973, 38047 and 38048). Thus, to require immediate compliance of the manufacturer in question would have resulted in a cessation of production until compliance was achieved. The obvious result of cessation of production is an eventual cessation of sales and generation of revenue. In other words, the hardship example cited by Rep. Springer is directly related to the effect of a denial upon a small manufacturer's present income. * In implementing the statutory provision, NHTSA requires a petitioner to file corporate balance sheets and financial statements for the past three fiscal years (49 CFR 555.6(a)(1)(iv)), and a projected balance sheet and financial statement for the year following any denial of a petition (49 CFR 555.6(a)(1)(v)). A petitioner is also offered an opportunity to discuss ``any other hardships (e.g., loss of market) that the petitioner desires the agency to consider.'' (49 CFR 555.6(a)(1)(vi)). * The touchstone that NHTSA has used in determining the existence of substantial economic hardship is an applicant's financial health as indicated by its income statements. NHTSA has tended to consider a continuing and cumulative net loss position as evidence per se of hardship. See, e.g., Ferrari, Docket No. EX89-5 (55 FR at 3786); Maserati, Docket No. EX88-2 (53 FR at 34630). The theory behind NHTSA's rationale is that, if a company with a continuing net loss is required to divert its limited resources to resolve a compliance problem on an immediate basis, it may be unable to use those resources to solve other problems that may affect its viability. The agency has considered this especially important in its treatment of corporate petitioners during their infancy. * NHTSA has considered all these foregoing factors in the finding that it has reached with respect to Bugatti. The petitioner's income statements indicate the company's cumulative net losses to date of $30,000,000. Under ordinary circumstances, that fact ought to enable the Administrator to conclude that the company has made a persuasive hardship argument. Yet there are other factors here which must be weighed in reaching a decision that is consistent with the hardship legislation as NHTSA interprets it. The most important of these factors is the effect of a denial upon the company. A denial will not force the company to terminate production until compliance with Standard No. 208 is achieved, because the United States is only one of a number of markets that the company is pursuing. A denial will not result in the withdrawal of funds by investors as completion of a total of $115,000,000 investment is scheduled for the current year. A denial will not result in loss of market in the United States or create hardship for its dealers here because the company has not yet imported vehicles for sale through a franchised dealer network. The primary recognizable effect of a denial is that the company will be unable to introduce itself to the American market until if fields a fully complying car. According to the petition, it anticipates that compliance will be achieved during April 1995, approximately 9 months after it would have begun importation of an exempted vehicle. Given the nature of the EB110, it appears that sales which would otherwise have occurred during this period will only be deferred rather than lost. * In search of a rationale for an affirmative finding of hardship, NHTSA returns to the criterion implicit in Rep. Springer's example, the effect of a denial upon present income. The effect of a denial, according to Bugatti, is that it will experience a net loss of $2,000,000 rather than the $10,000,000 profit projected with the exemption in place. Thus, a denial would have a potential $12,000,000 impact upon the company, contributing to an increase, rather than a decrease, in the cumulative net loss figure of $30,000,000. Even though the profits might eventually be realized with the sale of conforming cars were the petition denied, the delayed profits will have the effect of deferring down the line the additional profits that would be realized, and will not affect the net losses attributable to a denial. This has an impact upon the company's cash flow situation. NHTSA has been given to understand that the petitioner has been able to sell only approximately 30 vehicles as of mid-January 1994 because of the economic situation in Europe, and that this is below the sales that had been projected for the EB 110. Thus, it is the effect that a denial would have upon current income that NHTSA believes would create substantial economic hardship. This situation is to be contrasted with the agency's denial of a similar petition by Ferrari where the effect of the agency action was to reduce anticipated profits from $20,000,000 to $10,000,000, and no loss of cumulative loss position existed (55 FR 3785). * With respect to the company's good faith efforts to meet Standard No. 208, the company has argued that it did not commit itself to entering the American market until early 1993. While it might be assumed that a motor vehicle would not be designed today without the American market in mind, the United States is not invariably attractive to small manufacturers. The EB 110 appears to be one of a number of expensive, high performance vehicles that have been developed with no original intention of sale in the United States. Examples of such vehicles include Britain's Jaguar XJ220, McLaren, and Lister. Accepting the petitioner's statement that the decision to offer the vehicle for sale in the United States was not made until 1993, the agency is led by the solicitations and decisions reached in the period preceding the filing of the petition, and Bugatti's anticipated ability to comply by April 1995 to conclude that the petitioner has made a good faith effort to meet the automatic restraint requirements of Standard No. 208. * The agency must also find that an exemption is in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the Safety Act. In providing the authority to establish safety standards, Congress expressed its intent that the public continue to be afforded a wide choice of motor vehicles. The agency is cognizant that granting the petition would not appear to have a discernible impact upon safety. Bugatti now anticipates that, at the most, about 50 vehicles would not be provided with automatic restraints. Further, it is actively pursuing the possibility that these could be retrofitted to comply with driver airbags. * For the reasons expressed above, it is hereby found that to require Bugatti to comply with Standard No. 208 would create substantial economic hardship, and that the petitioner has made a good faith effort to comply with the standard. It is further found that an exemption for Bugatti would be in the public interest and consistent with the objectives of the Act. Accordingly, Bugatti Automobili S.p.A. is hereby granted NHTSA Exemption No. 94-1 from paragraph S4.1.4 of 49 CFR 571.208 Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 208 Occupant Crash Protection, expiring November 1, 1995. Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1410; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.40. Issued on: March 8, 1994. Christopher A. Hart, Deputy Administrator. [FR Doc. 94-5774 Filed 3-10-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4917-59-M

[tobi550]

Dieser hier soll anscheinend der letzte gebaute EB110 sein.
Den habe ich 2005 in Monaco am Rennwochenende gesehen, dort wollten Sie einen Käufer für den Wagen finden.









Gruss Tobi

[croissant]

http://www.tv-plattform.de/5Archiv/T.../9801texte.htm

Weltweites Aufsehen erweckten schließlich die Hochgeschwindigkeitstests in einem Bugatti EB 110 Supersport (720 PS, 360 km/h), bei denen RTL die Grenzen des mobilen Empfangs auslotete. Bis zu einer Geschwindigkeit von 300 km/h konnte dabei das Programm in einwandfreier Qualität empfangen werden.

[servicemann]

Habe durch Zufall heute mit einem guten Bekannten über Bugatti EB 110GESPROCHEN UND WAR MAL AUS NEUGIERDE HIER DRINNEN UND WIE DER ZUFALL WILL IST MEIN BEKANNTER BEFREUNDET MIT DEM BESITZER DES Schumi Bugattis Im Gespräch stellte sich heraus das das Fahrzeug beim richtigen Preis auch verkauft wird.Sollte dieses Auto so begehrt sein kann ich Wunsch nachfragen

[Stig]

...habe mich vorhin mit einem Kollegen über den EB110 unterhalten.

Schade, das Ding vergisst man immer wieder. Fasziniert mich aber immer wieder von neuem. Optisch zwar relativ unspektakulär, dafür technisch umso faszinierender.

Bekannter Schweizer Lotus-Händler (siehe Bild) besass schon mehrere EB's, hat immer noch einen im Besitz und fährt diesen regelmässig. Habe mir kürzlich mit ihm darüber unterhalten, seiner hat schon mehrere 10t km und läuft/lief immer einwandfrei. Einzig mit der Klimaanlage hatte er mal Probleme.
Er wartet übrigens regelmässig EB's für Kunden.

Wie seht ihr die Preisentwicklung des EB110?

Für mich sind alle Szenarien denkbar:

Die Preise steigen
Bugatti-Besitzer anerkennem den EB110 in der Typenhistory und Volkswagen trägt mit dem 16.4 wesentlich zum aktiven Überleben/Weiterbestehen der Marke bei.

Die Preise fallen ins Bodenlose
Der EB110 gerät wegen des 16.4 völlig in Vergessenheit. Service und Fahrbetrieb wird durch mangelnde ET's eine verdammt teuere Sache.

[S.Schnuse]

Zitat von Stig Die Preise steigen Bugatti-Besitzer anerkennem den EB110 in der Typenhistory und Volkswagen trägt mit dem 16.4 wesentlich zum aktiven Überleben/Weiterbestehen der Marke bei. Die Preise fallen ins Bodenlose Der EB110 gerät wegen des 16.4 völlig in Vergessenheit. Service und Fahrbetrieb wird durch mangelnde ET's eine verdammt teuere Sache.

Ich glaube mehr an etwas zwischen beiden Szenarios, tendenziell aber Richtung Szenario 2. Der EB110 hat ja seinen preislichen Zenit schon lange überschritten und war in den letzten Jahren als Wertanlage überhaupt nicht zu gebrauchen. Er ist also was zum Fahren, und für ganz wenige eingefleischte Enthusiasten auch was zum Sammeln.

Der EB110 teilt sein Schicksal mit dem Jaguar XJ220, der ist preislich auch deutlich unter Neupreis zu bekommen.