911 Normale Cars for Sale

[rstrahota]

title of the advert says "1965 911 matching number 302702 Calif Arizona Price: $100000" It is not a 1965 911.

Properly represented would say

1966 911 matching number 302702 Calif Arizona...

I can agree that it would have been better for the seller to have at least been more clear in the ad title that the seller is referring to "year of production" being 1965. But since he does make that point in the text of the ad, it is my opinion that he has not misled. In my mind, there is an important difference between being imperfect and being misleading. If it were my ad, I would change the title to reflect year of production as 1965 and or model year as 1966.
Ds

[Peanut]

Don't the '65 cars get more attention (money) than the '66 cars? I would tend to think this seller is hoping someone wants to believe they have something a bit more special, and his advert is leading in that direction. They are, after all, trying to $ell $omething. I can imagine a casual purchaser getting a bit misled by this. It's all OK, I guess, but... the seller probably knows it's NOT considered a true '65 911.

[oscillon]

This is my point exactly. If you know something is, by definition, not what you are advertising, then you are misrepresenting it. There is no place in his ad any description other than 1965, (except an image of a work order that has the correct model year) so the uninitiated will be deceived. I think this is wrong.

Don't the '65 cars get more attention (money) than the '66 cars? I would tend to think this seller is hoping someone wants to believe they have something a bit more special, and his advert is leading in that direction. They are, after all, trying to $ell $omething. I can imagine a casual purchaser getting a bit misled by this. It's all OK, I guess, but... the seller probably knows it's NOT considered a true '65 911.

[rstrahota]

Don't the '65 cars get more attention (money) than the '66 cars? I would tend to think this seller is hoping someone wants to believe they have something a bit more special, and his advert is leading in that direction. They are, after all, trying to $ell $omething. I can imagine a casual purchaser getting a bit misled by this. It's all OK, I guess, but... the seller probably knows it's NOT considered a true '65 911.

Perhaps, but I can't speak to the sellers motivation. And I am not convinced, for my money at least, this car is any less valuable than one made 3 months earlier but legitimately called a MY 1965. Now if it were one of the first 750 cars or so, that might be a different matter entirely as then maybe you start to get some pull from the 1964 cars, depending on features. As an owner of a couple of these cars on the transition points of model years, that's how I see it. Cars produced in 1965 being worth a bit more to me than those produced in 1966. And then among those produced in 1966, I would value the solex models (whether currently so equipped or not) as being slightly more desirable than the later cars in 1966 due to their potentially broader acceptance for certain historic events. This is just my opinion based on no facts. Others are free to disagree. I guess the main point I am trying to make is that the car in question looks pretty decent to me and I think there is value lurking there at the right price.
Ds

[rstrahota]

Perhaps, but I can't speak to the sellers motivation. And I am not convinced, for my money at least, this car is any less valuable than one made 3 months earlier but legitimately called a MY 1965. Now if it were one of the first 750 cars or so, that might be a different matter entirely as then maybe you start to get some pull from the 1964 cars, depending on features. As an owner of a couple of these cars on the transition points of model years, that's how I see it. Cars produced in 1965 being worth a bit more to me than those produced in 1966. And then among those produced in 1966, I would value the solex models (whether currently so equipped or not) as being slightly more desirable than the later cars in 1966 due to their potentially broader acceptance for certain historic events. This is just my opinion based on no facts. Others are free to disagree. I guess the main point I am trying to make is that the car in question looks pretty decent to me and I think there is value lurking there at the right price.
Ds

I emailed the seller to tell them about the concerns being expressed here. They said the would change the ad and I believe they have done so. Because they changed the ad, i would tend to believe they had no intent to deceive anyone.
Now, about the car... I like it!
ds

[Peanut]

I emailed the seller to tell them about the concerns being expressed here. They said the would change the ad and I believe they have done so. Because they changed the ad, i would tend to believe they had no intent to deceive anyone.
Now, about the car... I like it!
ds

That's pretty cool of the seller. I like the car as well.

[oscillon]

ditto and I do like the car (reminds me of my car).

That's pretty cool of the seller. I like the car as well.

[luke-44]

The 302xxx cars were all made in 1965 and are transition cars that are different from those made in calender year '66 in a few critical ways. They did have solex carbs, nadella axles and 4 screw horn grills - all these features being more associated with and the same as the pre September '65's.

Strangely this car does not have the 4 screw horn grills. Anyone know when that changeover was made?

[VA_alfa]

Hello everyone, sorry to drop that bomb and then leave the room, I had to get back to work. Now that I am back, I would like to take a look at this situation from a world view. I saw the advertiser of the car in question promoting his car in a world market and trying to attract buyers from Europe. Yes, he is advertising on a US website, but some (many) readers of Samba are from Europe. Porsche 911's manufactured up to Dec 31, 1965 have a special interest there being that they are eligible for FIA-Period F class events and will bring premium $$ over a car manufactured after 1/1/66. Consider cars with a manufacturing date pre-dating 1966 as "event eligible".

I am aware of a September 65 car selling for $105k (went to Europe) that needed more work than this car (as seen from the photos) and I have turned down $80k for my October 65 car from a European buyer when I was not even advertising mine for sale.

Here in the US, we see this car as a 66 model year car but for the ROW, this car is a 65 and will sell in the world market for 65 prices. I wish the seller the best of luck with the sale; it's a beautiful car.

Now for a question, were all cars distributed to the US in 1965 advertised as 1966 model year cars? I had read that one time...

[VA_alfa]

The 302xxx cars were all made in 1965 and are transition cars that are different from those made in calender year '66 in a few critical ways. They did have solex carbs, nadella axles and 4 screw horn grills - all these features being more associated with and the same as the pre September '65's.

Strangely this car does not have the 4 screw horn grills. Anyone know when that changeover was made?

Around 303468 on the changeover from 4 screw to 2 screw.