porsche classic release - thin gauge rs panels

[Kris Clewell]

well at these bargain basement prices I'm in for 3 of each.

[dporsche74]

Compare to a stock 72 fender 90150303123GRV $1,201.98

The New Factory Classic parts are cheaper then repops usually

[kentf14]

Compare to a stock 72 fender 90150303123GRV $1,201.98

The New Factory Classic repop parts are cheaper then repops usually

Fixed

Kent

[Louie]

thing that scares me about these parts is the fact that someone can now fake a legit lightweight...using the previously impossible to find thing gauge metal fenders etc.

[speedmat]

Any idea of the weight saving with these panels vs standard ones?

[Alan.uk]

I have the uk prices here and they roughly match. Porsche also have thin gauge door skins in stock. I am going to order a bonnet to assess it. I have some original RS lightweight panels here and would like to compare.

[Rick Cabell]

I know the rear quarters have been available for a while in the thin gauge. I bought a pair for my car and the quality was very good. The flairs are welded on the quarters nicely and correct. I paid the lower as posted prices.

[LongRanger]

Jeez --- has it been that long, already? . . .

. . . Any idea of the weight saving with these panels vs standard ones? . . .

Curious about the 'gauge,' too


And just what is the 'standard' thickness of Porsche's panels, anyway? --- versus these?

[37yrold911]

Thin Metal on RS Models

The following parts are thin metal (0.7 or 0.8 mm)* on the first 500 RS and RS Touring:

Front fenders
Front hood
Rear quarters
Door skins - frame from production
Back seat area
Door sills
Trunk floor
Top of dash (under the dashpad)
Instrument panel

French versions had the rear panel in thin metal as well, and English (RHD) cars had the center tunnel in thin metal too


* Stout 2002 claims the thin sheet metal was 0.8 mm thick; others, including Adler (1998, p. 39) claim it was 0.7 mm thick.

First, this gives us an idea of what areas the factory thought were least important in providing structural rigidity (and could thus be weakened with thinner sheet metal to save weight). Naturally, this thinking is circa 1972, but cf. cutaways of the different types of steel used in modern production cars like the 997.

Second, how much wt. did they save?

Sheet metal gauge tables (http://www.engineersedge.com/gauge.htm) show that the weight of sheet metal is not a linear function of gauge or thickness. Nor do the metric thicknesses correspond to exact US gauges. I therefore used linear interpolations within each increment between two gauges to provide closer estimates of the weight savings from the thinner sheet metal used.

0.8 mm ≈ 21+ gauge – from sheet metal gauge tables (http://www.engineersedge.com/gauge.htm), 0.8 mm steel sheet weighs 1.285 lbs/ft2

0.7 mm ≈ 22+ gauge, weighs 1.14 lbs/ft2


The stock steel in the unit body ranged from 1 mm to 1.25 mm thick.

1 mm = 0.0394” ≈ 19+ gauge, weighs 1.61 lbs/ft2

1.25 mm = 0.0492 ≈ 17+ gauge, weighs 2.01 lbs/ft2

Assuming that the parts that used the thinner steel were formerly 1 mm thick (and not the stronger 1.25 mm thickness), this means that changing from 1 mm to 0.7 mm thickness saved 0.47 pounds for every square foot of area.

Some of these areas are complex shapes – but one can easily measure the square footage of the other areas and multiply by the density figures above to get the total wt. savings in kg or lbs.

[LongRanger]

Great stuff! . . .

. . . but no mention of the roof?