Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51

Thread: 72 T as a hot rod candidate...looking for opinions please

  1. #21
    Xavier Petit-Jean-Boret brakekiller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    2,655
    Daisy is awesome.

    Back to the subject, I would keep narrow, lowering it a bit, 15" inches fuchs, and the usual sport purpose interior stuff, doing a lightweight S tribute. Cool color such Signal yellow.

    OR maybe T/R like wider rear wings.
    Cheers


    Quote Originally Posted by Veronica87911 View Post
    Mac, here's my 72 T in Lone Pine CA on the Targa California and my seats. When I bought it, it came with a 1977 engine rebuilt by Paul Weir (RIP), a well known engine rebuilder form Seattle.
    Attachment 443247Attachment 443252
    O-G 26 - Early911S 2407
    #ecurieclouzeau

    Porsche 911 L 1968 - Mild Sport Purpose / MG B GT -1973 - Pure Race Purpose / Mini - 1987 - Stage 2 on carb

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Posts
    1,695
    Normally, when I build an ST I like to use metal rear bumpers as well as front steel bumper but Nick wanted to use the rear fiberglass bumper he had for his ST so I did. It came out great! If you add flares it's just as much work getting the bumpers right as the flares. I like to flare the 72's as upgrades like aluminum trailing arms are a direct bolt on. Then add the big engine, brakes etc. But, I like all 72's. When you want an ST it's hard to get it out of your head until you do it.
    Quote Originally Posted by NickP View Post
    On my car I used a steel S front bumper which required modification to work with the flares. For the rear bumper, I used a Getty Design fiberglass bumper (RSR, I think) which also required some work to perfectly match up with the flares. My choice was to use a steel front bumper as I prefer the durability of steel over fiberglass up front where driveways and speed bumps can ruin your day. I used a one piece fiberglass rear bumper as I preferred the aesthetics of that look. That's why ST's are great; start looking at photos of ST's in the 70's and you will see that no two are exactly alike as the privateer racing teams used a variety of bumpers, fenders & hoods (fiberglass and steel), wheels etc. Lots of freedom to build a car to you liking and still be "correct," whatever that means....
    72S, 72T now ST

  3. #23
    Early S Reg #1395 LongRanger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    High Desert, Area 53
    Posts
    11,373

    Another Take . . .

    Quote Originally Posted by mac73s View Post
    . . . would appreciate hearing thoughts/opinions on what 'added value' (if any) the 72 model year with it's right side oil door would be vs. a 70, 71 or 73 T . . .

    . . . Car is a non-sunroof car which is a positive for build goal . . .


    . . . what about a '72 w/ M471? --- aka 'lightweight' . . .
    http://www.early911sregistry.org/for...cial-Sport-73S

    . . . prolly as rare a car as Porsche ever built . . .



    . . . + no flairs



    PS: 'MC' = Monaco




    ....
    Attached Images Attached Images

  4. #24
    Thanks guys for your continued thoughts and suggestions. At this very moment....but still SO much time available to change my mind - is perhaps to keep the stock fenders as this is a really straight and unrusted example with original sheetmetal.

  5. #25
    aka techweenie Eminence Gris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    West Los Angeles
    Posts
    2,692
    I've built a bunch of '72 hot rods. My philosophy is that if the car still has its original englne, everything you do should be reversible.

    Lucky for me, I've found a couple '72 rollers missing engines (that was back when $15K or less would buy a roller) and dropped in 3.2s, which to my mind are the perfect power balance for the chassis. The most recent '72/3.2s I'v built, I've left narrow. Matter of personal taste.

    This particular donor car was a Sepia Sportomatic with missng drivetrain. Became a Beige Gray with 3.2 Motronic/915.
    Attached Images Attached Images
    techweenie.com

    My parts fetcher: 2016 Chevy Volt | My 'other car' '04 Turbo

  6. #26
    I would stay narrow as well using the red 'M471' 2.4S as a template.
    Last edited by steve shea; 12-07-2017 at 12:38 PM.
    Steve Shea #1 joined a long time ago
    58 speedster
    66 912
    67S
    73S
    97 VW eurovan
    1132 honda snowblower

    member Jackson Hole Ski Club

  7. #27
    Senior Member michaelaiellosr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    New York/Florida
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Eminence Gris View Post
    I've built a bunch of '72 hot rods. My philosophy is that if the car still has its original englne, everything you do should be reversible.

    Lucky for me, I've found a couple '72 rollers missing engines (that was back when $15K or less would buy a roller) and dropped in 3.2s, which to my mind are the perfect power balance for the chassis. The most recent '72/3.2s I'v built, I've left narrow. Matter of personal taste.

    This particular donor car was a Sepia Sportomatic with missng drivetrain. Became a Beige Gray with 3.2 Motronic/915.
    Yeah...that's the ticket....although the 3.2 is more drivable , if you had the budget it would be more classic with a 2.7 mfi twin plug.
    72 2.7 mfi twin plug
    75 BMW 2002
    996 C2
    Cayenne S (my truck)
    Panamera (her truck)
    ...and (like most of us) way too many I wish I hadn't sold

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Posts
    1,695
    That certainly matters and would be a big factor in staying narrow body.
    Quote Originally Posted by mac73s View Post
    Thanks guys for your continued thoughts and suggestions. At this very moment....but still SO much time available to change my mind - is perhaps to keep the stock fenders as this is a really straight and unrusted example with original sheetmetal.
    72S, 72T now ST

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Posts
    1,695
    Might as well go 2.8 twin plug! I have one I'm building now. I'll start a thread soon.
    Quote Originally Posted by michaelaiellosr View Post
    Yeah...that's the ticket....although the 3.2 is more drivable , if you had the budget it would be more classic with a 2.7 mfi twin plug.
    72S, 72T now ST

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    156
    Quote Originally Posted by Eminence Gris View Post
    I've built a bunch of '72 hot rods. My philosophy is that if the car still has its original englne, everything you do should be reversible.

    Lucky for me, I've found a couple '72 rollers missing engines (that was back when $15K or less would buy a roller) and dropped in 3.2s, which to my mind are the perfect power balance for the chassis. The most recent '72/3.2s I'v built, I've left narrow. Matter of personal taste.

    This particular donor car was a Sepia Sportomatic with missng drivetrain. Became a Beige Gray with 3.2 Motronic/915.
    I couldn’t agree more! Keep it narrow bodied for that stealthy understated classic look. That’s why I just couldn’t resist buying this gem. Car is just finishing up having the fuel delivery system converted to EFI/ITB’s by Al Kosmal. Can’t wait to take delivery right before Christmas. What a great present to myself! Came with full S trim and still has original sport seats.
    AC708CA2-1913-4BBB-AFED-49C84E490D2C.jpeg
    70 914-6 #2615 (Metallic Green)
    74 US Carrera Coupe #63 (Lime Green)
    73 911 T Coupe #1891 (Gemini Blue)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Message Board Disclaimer
This is a public forum. Messages posted here can be viewed by the public. The Early 911S Registry is not responsible for messages posted in its online forums, and any message will express the views of the author and not the Early 911S Registry. Use of online forums shall constitute the agreement of the user not to post anything of religious or political content, false and defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise to violate the law and the further agreement of the user to be solely responsible for and hold the Early 911S Registry harmless in the event of any claim based on their message. Any viewer who finds a message objectionable should contact us immediately by email. The Early 911S Registry has the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary.