FS: Carello Yellow Driving Lights + Covers

[enoz05]

911MRP's Hella lights

[enoz05]

911MRP's Hella lights

[911MRP]

For potential buyers interested in facts from period factory publications regarding what were the actual genuine original round fog and driving lamps Porsche listed as original equipment for 911 in the era this is what the maroon parts book shows dates 3/69:


IMG_3123.jpg
IMG_3124.jpg
IMG_3125.jpg

Other spare parts books for other model years exist with similar content but more complexity probably due to national regualton variations
IMG_3129.jpg
I haven’t added all the detail but it exists.

The 1970 the M Options included the following for the round driving and fog lamps
M 431: Additional long range driving lights, yellow, above bumper
M 433: Halogen fog lights, white, above bumper
M 434: Halogen fog lights, yellow, above bumper
Other years exist as do images in things like accessory catalogues showing what porsche 911 equipment actually was.

In the impact bumper era only a few were approved original equipment suppliers for such round lamps. Most notably Hella — as the approved partner for these particular M-options they developed a variation of their similar general market product with improved grounding etc for Porsche 911 part application

Their product catalogues like this from the era can be used substantiated parts used down to the sub-component level:
IMG_3133.jpg
If this item in OP is to be accepted rationally as “FS: 911 Parts” I think it reasonable to expect any inference is backed up to avoid folks who might rely on ESR being mislead.

I’m all ears is somone has hard evidence that the lamps in OP are proven on the similar criteria to the Hella. There are more knowledgable folks than I regarding the OE lamps and I’m open to learn and happy to be corrected based on evidence (I’m not swayed arbitrary unclear opinion). The information here is not intended to be exhaustive but focuses on the round driving and fog lights as a case study to show there is body of information from factory sources available that can be used to avoid arbitrary . There are many threads that cover some of the ground.

A aftermarket lighting accessory simply being bolted to a 911 and having a picture of a 911 with no comment on car /accessory’s provenance does not qualify it truly as a “911 Part”. By the usual standards of scrutiny often applied on ESR a laughably low bar.

Folks who modify 911 may not care but others turn to ESR as the touchstone for inflation on matters of 911 part authenticity originality — reasonable for them to expect facts not accept woolliness or inference.

I expect this reasonable post requesting proof for why seems acceptable to infer it’s a “911 part” might get removed by moderators. If so that would be disappointing and odd — isn’t it common for posts to be reasonably challenged when things offered for sale here? Isn’t that in the spirit of a forum?

I’ll put the Hella hardback book down the back if my trousers and await the spanking for picking-on some poor innocent vendor.

Steve

[enoz05]

911MRP's Hella lights

[911MRP]

The point is the lights are posted in “FS:911 parts” but pretty sure they are not. If turns out after evidence gets surfaced that the lights in OP are indeed from a maker / brand / type Porsche used in period for fog and driving lights of this type — official original equipment — i’d be pleased to see it. I’m always open to learn.

As context I have posted factory data I have showing what are known to be the documented 911 OE parts. Hella not Carrello . Evidence here to help prospective buyers who might not have extensive factory and supplier reference material or may lack experience understand the difference. There is a difference between OE and aftermarket equipment. Something that is well understood in the industry, it baffles me why this forum would not use well understood distinctions. To do otherwise is potentially confusing!

Folks here challenge things claimed or inferred all the time and some here are in a position add factual information from their original literature etc to challenge/ enlighten on things posted for sale.

It would not be good if ESR censors factual information of that type for some vendors FS listings only but allow challenge and factual input to FS adverts of others.

You are getting a bump prospective buyers might learn. What’s wrong with that? They seem nice aftermarket lights. I am simply concerned things are inferred from where posted get put in factual context. Thought all here were allowed to share — it’s a discussion forum after all. You seem very defensive of factual information from factory sources being added as context and quick to move to censor factual comment or avoid request for the community to add — why?

Without evidence emerging it should be in “Other …. parts ” category important not mislead!


In summary: Imagine the buyer showing up to event thinking that they had bought authentic original equipment for 911 based on where the item had been classified on authoritative ESR only to be deflated to have it pointed out — not the case! That scenario ought makes it immediately obvious why important to prospective buyer and for ESR to surface the facts. For items to be classified factually not on whim
Steve