Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: 68 911T Homoligation

  1. #11
    Senior Member HughH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    2,681
    thanks Don

    it sounds like some further work is required - but I suspect the information you were given may be incorrect. That said all of the competition 68T's I have records for, except the one mentioned above, have Porsche built bodies.

    i don't think i have anything else but will look for you

    One thing to ponder though is that I thought 1000 units needed to be produced in 1968 to be homologated in group 3, and that is what is showing on the page I posted above. Given Porsche only produced 928 T coupes and the other 638 were Karmann bodies, I cant see how the Karmann ones could have been excluded.

    regards

    hugh
    Hugh Hodges
    73 911E
    Melbourne Australia

    Foundation Member #005
    Australian TYP901 Register Inc.

    Early S Registry #776

  2. #12
    Senior Member gulf908's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,154
    Don,

    Just a couple of thoughts to throw into this discussion.
    Production 911 Ts -
    There should be no or little difference in the weights of a Porsche or a Karmann 911 T.
    Porsche would have asked Karmann to build 911s they were not able to do,production-wise,and given Karmann jigs and measurements so Karmann could build these excess 911s for Porsche and to Porsche's standards.
    Why would there be any significant difference in weights between the two ?
    As Hugh says,adding the two production numbers together qualifies the T for group 3.
    This should be where Karmann's involvement in the excercise would end,not on the track.
    Race/Rally 911 Ts -
    These should have been built to order in Porsche's customer race department ,or whatever it was called in the day, alongside any R and T/R orders they received.
    This is how Alan Hamilton ordered his orange 911 T/R in 1968 for Australian racing.
    I can't see Karmann being in the position to have a race car department - their business was building cars,not racing them.
    Just my 0.02c worth ...

    Cheers,
    Dennis.
    Last edited by gulf908; 11-06-2011 at 12:02 AM.
    1970 914-6 - materialised from the 'Lotto' garage into reality
    1971 2.2 911 S - now back in the UK - sob!
    1975 Carrera Targa (ROW) - missed.
    One of us is fast becoming a valuable antique.
    S Registry member 536
    Australian TYP 901 Register Member 44

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Cheshire, UK
    Posts
    780
    Don

    Sorry I didn't make myself very clear......I was suggesting that maybe the car(s) presented for weight verification (I don't believe 500 or 1000 thousand would have been weighed) were not quite "standard" and that with the additional weight saving of the deletion of the front bumper weights, cars that appeared to be of standard production established the homologation weight. If there is anything in this then it would probably preclude Karman "standard" production.

    All of the above could be way off the mark but I have noticed that even things like the photos of the car used on some of the homologation documents could raise questions:

    FIA Homologation Document No. 577 (approval date 1/1/68) shows a car with tape rather than any bumper/sill trim and I believe rubber catches on the engine lid. The car in question also looks like a '67 model year car?

    FIA Homologation Document No. 607 (approval date 1/1/69), so well into the '69 model year, shows a '68 model year car with full bumper and sill trim.

    ........the point I am trying to make is that we tend to look back at these documents etc and take the fact that they have "FIA" printed on them as a sign of definitive historical record when maybe they were subject to some "inconsistencies".
    Last edited by Bantam; 11-06-2011 at 02:54 AM.
    Tim

    Early 911S Registry #1167

  4. #14
    Senior Member 911T1971's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Switzerland
    Posts
    3,008
    Quote Originally Posted by Bantam View Post
    FIA Homologation Document No. 577 (approval date 1/1/68) shows a car with tape rather than any bumper/sill trim and I believe rubber catches on the engine lid. The car in question also looks like a '67 model year car?
    It seems form 577 was approximative and Porsche needed in advance the FIA's OK for 1968 to have generally cars homologated. Which later would be individually checked if entered into racing with compet's specs.
    While the form showed pictures of a SWB 911 in compet. spec's, the car in the form described was a basic shell and rolling on "165 HR 15" (page 6/55)
    Last edited by 911T1971; 11-06-2011 at 09:51 AM.
    Registry member No.773

  5. #15
    Senior Member RennTyp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Oxford, UK
    Posts
    301
    Quote Originally Posted by varunan123 View Post
    Also,as an outside reference Pascal's Le mans books are of great value, they show the actual weight of the cars entered-there is some interesting information-some of the weights and chassis types may surprise people.

    raj
    I had a look at the weights quoted in Pascal's Le Mans book for 1968 and 1969 and they make interesting reading:

    1968
    #43 911S (Gaban) 925kg
    #44 911S (Veuillet) 925kg
    #60 911T (Wicky) 925kg
    #64 911T (Laurent) 925kg

    1969
    #40 911T (Veuillet) 1012kg
    #41 911S (Gaban) 1012kg
    #42 911T (Wicky) 994kg
    #44 911T (Laurent) 1010kg
    #63 911T (Martin) 1014kg
    #66 911T (Egreteaud) 997kg
    #67 911S (Farjon) 1096kg

    Can anyone explain I) the similarity in weights between S and T cars and II) the increase in weight between 68 and 69?
    Early 911S Registry #888

  6. #16
    The debate about homologation procedures is quite interesting and if you dig quitely into some of the early Group 1, 2 and 3 Homologations you can find significant discrepancies.

    Early Alfasud Ti's for example hwer homologated into Group 1 at a weight that was implausible and with Brembo 4 Pot alloy calipers cna vented discs as a'Production Variant'.

    I believe that for many years cars were homolgated before the full Series Production was completed and evidence of 'intention to build ' provided to Inspectors.

    This evidience was advance production schedules, purchase orders for the specialised parts and paper trails. I don't believe the cars were ever counted.

    There dis come a time for a new generation of cars such as the Metro 6R4 and a few others when the manufacturers produced a field full of cars and there are stories of cheating and moving cars around but I don'tdon't how true this is but WRC cars nad the small build quantities make this much easier.

    With regard to the 68T - surely the T/R was only eligible for use in Group 4.

    In Appendix K terms I am not sure chassis numbers are relevant as the HTP confirms the specification and not even the year of manufacture so for a current Historic Racer the chassis number is of less importance.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by HughH View Post
    One thing to ponder though is that I thought 1000 units needed to be produced in 1968 to be homologated in group 3, and that is what is showing on the page I posted above. Given Porsche only produced 928 T coupes and the other 638 were Karmann bodies, I cant see how the Karmann ones could have been excluded.
    I know what you mean but there's a typo on that page you posted above - the typed date (30. November 1967) should have been on the 500, not 1000. Read Article 262 in the Sport Purposes manual, here:
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by blue72s; 08-12-2018 at 03:29 AM.

  8. #18
    Senior Member ejboyd5's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Southold, NY
    Posts
    821
    I believe the answer to the original question is the old standard, "paperwork" or "red tape." Would there have been any measurable financial reward for Porsche in going through the homoligation process a second time when they already had an approval for the Porsche body that would be able to provide enough cars to fill any anticipated sales demands. The time and money that would be expended in an additional homoligation application would have been important considerations for Porsche at the time.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-11-2018, 06:50 PM
  2. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-09-2014, 01:21 PM
  3. Wtb: 911t
    By Tp81 in forum For Sale/Wanted: Early 911 Cars, 1965 - 1973
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 03-08-2013, 01:13 AM
  4. Need help on car value, 70 911T
    By john wurner in forum General Info
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-16-2012, 12:28 PM
  5. WTB a 911T or 912
    By bob lee in forum For Sale/Wanted: Early 911 Cars, 1965 - 1973
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-07-2011, 06:34 PM

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 and Terms of Use
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.