Dispelling the myths about a forgotten De Tomaso supercar
I read your article on the Miura, Mangusta and Daytona with interest (C&SC, November). So much has been written about the Miura and Daytona over the years, and less about the Mangusta. I owned all three for 20-plus years, and feel it’s time the hype surrounding these cars is readjusted by hands-on experience.
Firstly, the styling. There is no doubt that all three are masterpieces. The Daytona is staid in comparison to the Mangusta and Miura, which were quite revolutionary in their way. But they were not just styling exercises: both were displayed first as rolling chassis, before Gandini penned the Miura and Giugiaro the Mangusta. They must have created quite a stir, and I still find them extraordinary. There are styling gimmicks – such as the ‘eyelashes’ on the Miura and the false gills on the Mangusta – but these do not spoil the overall effect.
The Daytona is more upright but you sit very low inside, although the interior is nicely detailed. Its front end was never resolved properly, and it does not compare with the simple purity of the previous 275 and 250.
None of these cars were very well made. More than 1200 Ferraris were built, but the Miura and Mangusta were made in small numbers with parts of the assembly farmed out. Lamborghini was a fledgling marque and the Miura was put into production far too soon. It was expensive, and the celebrities who bought them new were guinea pigs who suffered with trying to sort the cars’ deficiencies. De Tomaso was always thinking ahead to his next project, and the Mangusta was never properly sorted.
So what about drivability? Today these cars are so valuable that most are cosseted in garages and looked upon only as investments. I have always used my cars and done many miles in each. All three are still very quick but, of the three, the Miura makes the biggest impression. It really was the first supercar: fast, fragile, noisy, tricky to drive but, on a good day with everything working, a unique experience. I could compare it with riding a thoroughbred racehorse – you need to be in the right mood to master it. The gearchange is hugely stiff and, despite its power and torque, you need to be in the right gear at the right time. Miuras had a reputation for front-end lift at high speed, but I never experienced this. It is easily the most thrilling car I have owned.
The Mangusta is quite different. It is equally low-slung and visibility is even worse, but it is much easier to drive quickly. Its lazy V8 has masses of torque and will pull cleanly in any gear – my car is nearly as fast as the Miura. I have sorted the suspension and tyres, and its reputation for poor handling simply is not true. I can honestly say that I have never had a ‘moment’ with the car in 30 years.
The Ferrari lives up to its reputation as a fast lorry. It is ponderously heavy at low speeds and the gearchange is stiff unless the oils have warmed. As a fast touring car it is more practical, though 9mpg fuel consumption can be off-putting. I found the 365GTC/4 I owned much better to drive. Not so attractive to look at, but with power steering and nearly as fast.
All three are iconic and desirable. In terms of drivability, the Daytona was an unexpected disappointment. I never enjoyed driving it and was glad to sell it. The Miura was intimidating. I dreamed of taking it out each day but sometimes only did 200 miles between Mots. It became too valuable to use, so I sold it – but I miss it a lot!
And the Mangusta? It is still in my garage. A rare, underrated car, but still a real head-turner. It is a trusted friend, and I will never part with it. John Braithwaite
Via email