Mark 3 Identification

[mark3kb]

Hello to all once again. I recently came across a post stating, " All 65 Mark 3s did not have the M3 preceeding the DM250. I'm assuming that would mean the 66 and 67 models did in fact have the M3 designation. Can anyone confirm this.
Would it also be correct to assume that the 65 Mark 3 also had the 7 fin hubs and the 66/67 models had the 3 fin hubs. thanks mark3kb

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= mark3kb ...
" I recently came across a post stating, " All 65 Mark 3s did not have the M3 preceeding the DM250. I'm assuming that would mean the 66 and 67 models did in fact have the M3 designation. Can anyone confirm this. "

____ Well it really depends on whether the "65" Mark-three was actually built/produced in THAT year, (which would certainly make it a 1965 model-year 'M3' version),, OR, simply a leftover Mark-III version which finally sold by 1965.
I'm quite sure that once the 1965 Mach-I first went into production, that that's when the Mark-three model-line then began to receive the 'M3' motor-case suffix-stamping. _ And that's also when the Mark-three Duke-models went-through major changes from the previous/pre-65 Mark-III model-version !
So therefore, if a Mark-three model doesn't have the 'M3' stamping designation, then it must be a 'Mark III' version,, however-though, with the 'M3' stamped onto the motor-case, THEN it's a 1965/66/67 'Mark 3' version.
__ For more related info.details, check-out the following link... viewtopic.php?t=1611#p11810



" Would it also be correct to assume that the 65 Mark 3 also had the 7 fin hubs and the 66/67 models had the 3 fin hubs. "

____ I know all the 1966 & newer Duke-models came with the 3-rib wheel-hubs, however I'm really not too sure that all older models came exclusively with just the 7-fin hubs prior to 1966. _ As I'm not very certain of exactly when the switch-over to the later hubs actually occurred.
__ I know we have at-least one other member who IS at-least fairly pretty-sure about such, so hopefully he'll also chime-in on this issue.


Duke-Cheers,
-Bob

[Ventodue]

I recently came across a post stating, "All 65 Mark 3s did not have the M3 preceeding the DM250". I'm assuming that would mean the 66 and 67 models did, in fact, have the M3 designation. Can anyone confirm this?

Hi Mark,

That would appear to be largely correct.

1. What Tom Bailey says is that the 'M3'* stamp appeared when production of the Mach 1 stopped. This he dates as being no later than the summer of 1966. He goes on:
" When regular production ended, they (Ducati) had built approximately 2,000 engines with the DM250M1 stamping. However, no one knows exactly how many of these went into European specification Mach 1s. It is believed that the majority of the engines were ... used in late 1964 Mark 3 five-speed models and the 1965 Mark 3 narrowcase machines."

2. To support this, Ian Fallon writes in connection with production year 1965:
"Five-speed Mark 3s were either stamped with DM250M1 or DM250 M3 engine numbers".
He goes on to say that the DM250M1 prefix finished with engine number 01461, btw.

So: Yes. It would appear that 1966 Mark 3s would have been stamped 'M3' (altho' that's not to say that there may have been some 'M1' stamped bikes which had been made in 1965, maybe even in early 1966, but were only sold some time later). Same goes for Mark 3s sold in 1967.

HTH

Craig

* Just to be clear: the 'M1' or 'M3' designation succeeds, rather than precedes, the 'DM250'.

[Ventodue]

I recently came across a post stating, " All 1965 Mark 3s did not have the M3 succeeding the DM250."

Hi (again!) Mark,

I think that statement can be challenged, btw.

As well as the statement from Ian Falloon that I quoted in my previous post, I note that in the register of Ducati numbers held by Robert Miller (viewable on Steve Allen's site) there are three bikes which claim to be both from 1965 and have 'DM250M3' stampings. Their engine numbers are:
94959
94998
97337

Cheers

Craig

[DewCatTea-Bob]

____ Thanks much for chiming-in with your contributing post, Craig.
__ I've never read anyone's else's published books and-so related info from any of them can cause disconcerting thoughts which inspire me to add comment.


[quote= Ventodue ...
" What Tom Bailey says is that the 'M3'* stamp appeared when production of the Mach 1 stopped. "

____ I must first admit that I-myself don't have very much first-hand experience with many of the Mark-3 models, (of which ALL have the same top-end parts as the Mach-I motor, [unlike the 'Mark-III' !),, but not-only can I not confirm that which Tom Bailey is stated to have said, I'm still fairly inclined to believe that the 'M3' stamping had been used (for Mark-3 motors) before the time when production of the Mach-I Duke/(bike)-models had finally "stopped". _ However I really don't know exactly-WHEN all the Mach-I motors were actually produced, and-so IF they had been completed near-around a whole year prior to 1965, then I suppose that quoted-claim could possibly be certainly true. _ Cuz then, by the time when both Mach-I & Mark-3 models -(completed bikes) were both being sold for 1965, both the M1 & M3 stampings could by then exist concurrently. _ And that's why my-own belief has been that the M3-stamp began about the very-same time as the M1-stamp, (as far as completed bike production goes).
It just needs to be considered whether the actual date-times of the actual stampings OR the time-period when both 1965-models were first finally released for sale, had happened to occur at. _ I'd expect that the majority of people would be most concerned with the dates when a whole/entire bike-model became available (and not so much concerning when just the motor-itself had happened to have been built).



" He goes on: "

" When regular production ended, they (Ducati) had built approximately 2,000 engines with the DM250M1 stamping. However, no one knows exactly how many of these went into European specification Mach 1s. It is believed that the majority of the engines were ... used in late 1964 Mark 3 five-speed models and the 1965 Mark 3 narrowcase machines."

____ That sparse relatively unspecific wording (alone), makes little complete-sense, in order to be fully able to pin-down exactly what it really means to convey,, thus the reader is left to assume for himself exactly what is meant to be understood. _ I-myself come-up with it making some possible sense, only IF it's true that the Mach-I motors had been produced considerably sooner than "late 1964" .
However, I-myself have never seen or even heard-of any Mark-3 model being originally produced along-with a Mach-I motor (left with a M1-stamping). - (NOTE - A M3-motor is most distinguished from a M1-motor by the installed particular electrical-parts of each of those motor-models.
Also note, there's little reason to mention "five-speed" whenever discussing either Mach-I or Mark-3 models, as ONLY the 'Mark-III' Diana-model came with 4 & 5 speed transmissions, [and the 4-speed Italian-motors were replaced before 1964] )



" To support this, Ian Fallon writes in connection with production year 1965: "

"Five-speed Mark 3s were either stamped with DM250M1 or DM250 M3 engine numbers".

____ Firstly,, it may be of some pertinence, that like the vast-majority of people (who aren't much concerned with fine-details), Mr.Fallon seems to be reliant on his wording of "Mark 3s" to represent both 'Mark-III' AND actual Mark-3 models, since his chosen wording included "five-speed", which ALL Mark-3 models actually are ANYHOW.
I have had relatively much contact with a fair number of 5-speed Mark-III models, and NONE of them were ever seen to be stamped with any M1 or even M3 stampings ! _ So this should counter any possible misinterpretation which his rather nonspecific wording allows a reader to assume.
__ I do indeed agree with the "DM250 M3" designation being found on 1965 Mark-3 motors, but I can't & will-not confirm the 'M1' being seen on any Mark-3 motor (which was intended for the US.market).
__ I'd sure like to hear from ANYONE who has ever had a Mark-3 Duke-model with a motor which has the 'M1' stamping (in place of the M3-stamping) ! _ (Although such a happenstance kind-of seems familiar to me.)
(However I'm quite positive that NO Mark-III model (either 4-speed or-EVEN 5-speed) ever had any M1 or M3 stamping ! _ So we should-not hear anything of such as THAT.)



" He goes on to say that the DM250M1 prefix finished with engine number 01461, btw. "

____ This brings-up a good/relevant point ! ...
The Mach-I production-line motor-numbers were (for some reason) kept distinguished & separated from all the rest of the 250-motor line-up. _ So the fact that real M1-motors have 5-digit motor-numbers which begin with a '0', is another way to distinguish a Mach-1 motor from a Mark-3 motor.




" I note that in the register of Ducati numbers held by Robert Miller (viewable on Steve Allen's site) there are three bikes which claim to be both from 1965 and have 'DM250M3' stampings. Their engine numbers are:
94959
94998 "

____ This info.data is in correct correlation with my-own beliefs on the 'M3' stamping always being present on 1965 Mark-3 motor-models.



" 97337 "

____ This last (supposed Mark-3) motor-number most-likely cannot be for a 1965 model-year, (although I suppose it's possible that it could've been actually created in 1965), as it is only consistent with being a 1966-model.


Dukaddy-DUKEs,
-Bob

[Ventodue]

Thanks Bob for all the above - and for your postings on the other thread at viewtopic.php?t=1611#p11810.

I note the distinction you make between 'Mark III' and 'Mark 3'. This is something I can't remember having seen before, but it sure would have been useful if Ducati had done likewise ...

From the 1966 owner's handbook: 'Mark III' in the caption, but side boxes with 'Mark 3'.

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= Ventodue ...
" I note the distinction you make between 'Mark III' and 'Mark 3'. This is something I can't remember having seen before, but it sure would have been useful if Ducati had done likewise "

____ I think at-least the motor-production & Duke-model creation departments at Ducati, had always actually intended to do so,, however it seems that the publication & promotion departments weren't so keen about firmly maintaining the pure integrity of the slight name distinction.
Before they started using the "M3" label & the "Mark 3" name on that particular Diana-version itself, (beginning with the 1965-model),, the 'Mark III' designation had been quite consistently pinned to the previous-version -(the then discontinued pre-1965 MkIII.Diana-model).
__ It would be interesting if everyone with n-c.Mark-three Diana-models (which are KNOWN to still have their ORIGINAL frame-sticker/tags), would report whether the stated model-name (seen on those factory-tags) is stamped with either 'Mark III' or 'Mark 3' , (thusly denoting the model-change switchover) !



" From the 1966 owner's handbook: 'Mark III' in the caption, but side boxes with 'Mark 3'. "

____ Obviously though-however, your presented drawing-picture is-not of an actual '1966' Diana-model (or any other REAL-version) !
So there's further proof that the publication-department was unconcerned with their accuracy concerning specific details,, as the shown drawing seems to be that of a pre-65 Mark-III model, with the 'Mark 3' side-cover/tool-boxes later drawn-in over-top-of a previously established pre-65 picture-drawing, (as is clued by the shown front-wheel's pre-65 hub-cover, for one clue,, and the M.III's foot-pedals for another, amongst other such clues).


Diana-Cheers,
-Bob

[Ventodue]

I think at least the motor production & model creation departments at Ducati had always actually done so. However it seems that the publication & promotion departments weren't so keen about maintaining the pure integrity of the slight name distinction. Before they started using the "M3" label & the "Mark 3" name on that model beginning with the 1965 model, the 'Mark III' designation had been quite consistently pinned to the previous version, the then discontinued pre-1965 MkIII Diana. <snip>

Obviously though however, your presented drawing/picture is not of an actual '1966' model (or any other REAL version) ! So there's further proof that the publication-department was unconcerned with their accuracy concerning details. <snip>

Excellent, Bob! That all makes perfect sense, in a Ducati Meccanica S.p.A kinda way ...

Thanks again - I much appreciate your insights.

Craig

[DewCatTea-Bob]

[quote= Ventodue ...
" Excellent, Bob! That all makes perfect sense,
I much appreciate your insights. "

____ THANK-you ! _ And I much appreciate your ability to appreciate my attempt(s) to maintain such sense & order ! ...
It's always been my endeavor to hold-the-torch (with minimal flickering) in the murk of darkness surrounding otherwise overlooked details concerning Duc.single-facts.



____ Somewhat off-topic,, I note that you have (off)-quoted my very-own chosen-wording by altering it from my usual detail-advanced modified English-wording by down-tuning it towards mere standard-type written-English... Which is fairly interesting because that indicates some clue as to how you-yourself likely interpreted my chosen-wording's intended-meaning.
__ My readers ought-to gather that ALL my specifically-placed sentence-spacing and somewhat superfluous-punctuation, etc., is all PURPOSELY done so as to enhance my wording's actual intended-meaning, for improving on proper-interpretation.
For instance, I realize that many writers & readers seem to ignore the use of a 'comma' -( , ),, so whenever a comma's location within a sentence is especially functional, I then insert a double-comma -( ,, ). _ I use a double-comma instead of a 'period' because each complete-sentence is supposed-to contain it's-own completed main-point,, and I don't think it's ever been publicly-taught that consecutive-sentences (placed head-to-tail) may be allowed to contain & complete one-another's main-point.
And, conversely,, whenever a pair of words ought-to be rather strongly associated-together (within their containing sentence), I then insert a 'hyphen' or 'dash' -( - ) right-between them, (for expressing the OPPOSITE-effect of a comma) so that the reader doesn't have-to assume whether I actually intended for the paired-words to be conceived-of as a single-meaning, OR for each individual word to be left understood standing-alone. - (Sometimes, that seemingly insignificant difference CAN possibly make a BIG-difference in some cases [when trying-to interpret the INTENDED-meaning] !)
__ Due-to the relatively great number of posts I've placed within this w.site (with my-own additional/enhanced punctuation),, I figure it's pertinent enough to explain it once-in-a-while, for any of those readers who don't happen-to auto-realize the purposely intended-functionality on their-own.
Everyone here has had to read-through the posts of some-OTHERS with their lack of purposefully properly-placed punctuation, and-so had to pretty-much guess-at whatever the post-writer had actually MEANT to convey (out of multiple conceivable interpretations), with his-own posted chosen-wording.
I-myself try to stick-closely to proper written-English as it was once taught & meant to-be, back before the internet came-along & screwed-up much of the long established written-English rules. _ I just-merely add-to that same-old (insufficient) punctuation, so as to intensify it (for still-further improved interpretation) !
__ The specific-manor in which I worded my very-own post, definitely states that which I actually-MEANT for it to state, considerably better than the std.English edit-job that was done & quote-posted in the following-post by Craig.
I hope this explanation pretty-much clears-up any fogginess concerning my purposely consistent post-writings.


Hopeful-Cheers,
-Bob

[double diamond]

The first Mark 3’s were Mach 1’s with the “magneto” (as commonly referred to, but not a true magneto) ignition and the minimal electrical system in place of the Mach 1 battery/coil ignition and more road worthy electrical system. This model had the earlier Diana type large capacity fuel tank with Diana paint pattern, (definitely offered in red, perhaps also available in kingfisher blue), SSI 29 Del’lorto, provisions for rearsets welded to the frame and an engine number of the format DM250 M1 0XXXX. These had the Campagnolo 7 fin hubs supplied, laced with double butted spokes to M. Baruzzo rims. The 1966 owners handbook pic posted by Ventodue is an accurate depiction although if the color reference to “bright black” describes the tank color, I’ve never seen a black gas tank of this type. The M3 engine numbers succeeded the M1 engines, presumably after Ducati had discontinued the Mach 1. M3’s are quite similar but used the smaller tank with clearance “dent” for the carb and a different shade of red paint as well as the “swift” pattern silver stripe. The M3’s had the Grimeca 3 fin hubs installed, as Ducati had transferred procurement of brake components for all models to this supplier by then. Although I don’t have the Falloon book to verify the context of his statement regarding when the M1 engine number series concluded, production exceeded 01461 by at least 400+ units.