FS: Porsche 911S in slategrey

[CarmelSkip]

Fan housing is wrong. Lots of mistakes for that big money

[VintageExcellen]

Rear latch panels changed first in 1973.5 (lots of body revisions in late 73). They put a pad for an alarm sensor push pin and that is a dead giveaway that the panel was changed. Of course a good metalworker can shrink and hammer this out although I am blown away how "the best shops" (in their own words) have left this detail in place. The next revision was later with the indentation for easier tool access to the engine mounting bolts - on earlier cars the sockets and extensions can sometimes rub this area - this is also the detail that can not easily be changed to look correct. The spot welds really show up in this panel - they should not show. The panel is superseded so all the catalogs say this fits but there are visual differences which makes it WRONG and shows that the person who changed out the rear latch panel did not know the difference. The grey car is a 67 912 and blue car is 79 930.

I will add to the fire - no timing decal on a 67 and that decal says 911L which did not yet exist, latch should be clear/silver zinc and not gold, the channel that holds the decklid seal is really ugly bodywork, fat body washers on the latch hardware not the standard small ones, motor mounts and safety washers should be black, spark plug wires should have a straight plug ends not 90 degree, its missing its SWB spark wire holders, the bodywork on the fender arch is odd, that what I see on the couple pics provided. Thanks for posting.

[BOYER73S]

Wonder if NOregrets is having regrets about posting here

At least Freddie is momentarily off the hook

[UrelferDK]

looks like the same car with a few more pictures.

https://www.hk-engineering.de/en/fah...e/?angebot=173

[NOregrets]

Just not that much time to follow up all the statements which in my eyes many (not all the) times are based on assumption
However, I in my opinion it is a beautiful car, with an amazing paint job (overall less than 800 mikron), the rims have been re-done already and the rest is nothing to put the car into bad light
But thats just my opinion

[911MRP]

Rear latch panels changed first in 1973.5 (lots of body revisions in late 73). They put a pad for an alarm sensor push pin and that is a dead giveaway that the panel was changed. Of course a good metalworker can shrink and hammer this out although I am blown away how "the best shops" (in their own words) have left this detail in place.

Interested in up this because coincidentally I have been in PM correspondence about this exact slam raised area introduction just last week. When exactly did the alarm sensor push pin raised area get introduced in model year 73?

The James Hunt RS production jan 73 one of last of first 500 series production Jan 73 didn't have it when brand new still lilac ( date of photo can be deduced from track and therefore relevant GP date).
image.jpeg

Nor does my earlier production RS nor the original UK press car both made late calendar 1972. A friend's later RS Iirc cusp of second to third series made around April that I looked at last year does however have the raised area -- assuming having been raced it retains its factory original parts.

Presumably the small rectangular raised area was phased in as a worldwide change -- term 73.5 is not official nor was it applicable to rest of world. This forum might be able to narrow introduction down from unmolested cars dating from calendar 73. Or better still from old photos from when cars were new which have less possibility of having crash repaired rear slam or messed up by restorers who it is already established haven't always been observant enough to stay faithful to original spec. Well meaning restoration losing period detail

A small change to sheet metal and therefore need press tool chsnge probably logical it coincided with the package safety related body changes as Mark suggested.

Poor focus/ contrast in this shot make it hard to see detail but this is brand new car being filled with oil at factory doesn't have it unless feature is washed out in shot? IIRC was determined elsewhere the date of the photo session was a factory tour around Spring based on west German foliage seen in other related shots on same film?
image.jpeg
Another new in factory also photo still unclear
image.jpeg
To my eye despite the new at factory location provenance reducing the risk of changes by unobservant body repairer the photo quality still makes it inconclusive -- although maybe a that is a rectangular raised area is visible in car nearest camera in second factory photo -- of course better eyes or photo enhancement technology geeks might prove otherwise?

(Moderators may wish to move this post as it is not specifically to do with the OP grey car despite its incorrect panel but I wanted to reuse the comment and two photo examples from Mark).

[210bhp]

Steve,
To my eyes the last photo in the factory show the raised area in both cars. They both have the single bolt fan strap which might put that photo around March/April 1973.

Regards
Mike

[911MRP]

Cheers Mike, tend to agree there is something there in that final photo.

Heard rumour you might know a thing or two about eyes despite confusing rumours about it being teeth -- unless I'm the one that's confused ?

From memory ESR amateur botany previously put the b/w photo about that date based on the shrubbery visible in outdoors shots assumed taken at same factory visit. That would be consistent with my friends April car having the raised areas. Original when new or nearly photos do help with correctness of such detail.

I assume by the time of your quite late car it was definately with raised areas?

[210bhp]

Hi Steve
Yes, long standing Ddk joke about my profession. I know very little about teeth.

Yes, my May/June build (invoiced from the factory June 1st) has the raised area, it’s original without a shadow of a doubt.

Regards
Mike

[911MRP]

Does the ducktail lid mates and matches that raised area?