Printable View
Few Gonbau
One thing porsche never stuck to the sportspurpose specs for all cars,my st was supplied with 3 engines,it was a 471 & 491,plus it had the double inner steel front wings/fenders and plastic outer wings/fenders,used for racing in the targa etc and rallying.
Yes, the fzgs for 0495, 0550 and 0538 all state: “Execution as M471 + M491 from the D program or as memorandum BAP-scha-b from 16.09.1971; no approval for road traffic, expert opinion!”. The rest all state: “ 491 Racing execution”.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow491
Does anyone have that memorandum from 16.9.71? After so many years, it’s easy to assume that this document might be in several hands. I doubt it hasn’t surfaced by now, but I don’t recall seeing any document of that type. In 1970, the S/T is mentioned in the internal circular (intended for private racers), and in 1971 (by the end, already working on the 72 series) a "program" is created via a Z-Programm that combines the M471+M491 package. Those vehicles equipped with this program are definitely S/T, correct?
The vehicles that were manufactured before 16.9.71 as "S/T", rally or circuit, how were they recorded in the construction sheet when, for the 1972 model, the Z-Programm M471+M491 had not yet been considered? (The vehicles started to be manufactured in August or later?) VINS below 450, for example... Weren't there S/Ts in those or orders for private racers, etc.?
Were they still recorded as a T annotation between the S and coupe, adding M491 in the case of the circuit ones but, in the case of the rally ones with a 2.4 engine? Only the T in the construction sheet?
Because if that were the case, it’s the same process that was used for the rest of the private customers M491 (the 21).
Why revert, having created the "perfect" program that contained M491+M471 via the Z-Programm, to only naming the M491 options and nothing else...?
knowing that M491 excludes the possibility of driving on roads or rallies.
So, to be clear, the S/T 72 (the famous list of 21) was a vehicle that couldn't be road homologated due to the parts it contained, according to the responses. Therefore, the S/Ts were intended (with few exceptions) purely for the circuit/race? This, as I mentioned earlier, conflicts with my vision of an S/T.
It would be interesting to document what you're saying. From my perspective, I'm quite interested in learning about how your vehicle was produced, and especially about those double-skin parts you mentioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yellow491
And I must understand that initially, your vehicle was made as something clear, 471, 491, 471+491, the subsequent transformations, later ones!
And yet 0495, 0550, 1144, 1155 and 1195 were registered cars on the road. Some cases can be discussed, like 0550 and 1195, but 1155 was really used on the road, and not on the circuit... I think there must be a list of cars that could be road registered, but I've never heard of itQuote:
Originally Posted by matteo68
Gabriel
i agree that 1155 WAS used on the road from the mid 70's to the mid 80's in Switzerland and did have what appeared to be "normal" Swiss registration plates.
What did happen (and happens now also with some of the 1973 and 74 RSR's which had similar "restrictions" to road registration in all of their official paperwork) may have been allowed due to lack of disclosure by the person seeking to register them, or possibly due to differing registration rules (for example at least one 917 was road registered).
I think that paperwork accompanying those cars said they were for racing purposes and not to be registered on roads because Porsche knew they would never meet the TUV rules in Germany and probably not the country rules in most other countries
SO it was a legal move to stop Porsche being legally liable for selling a car that did not meet roadworthy standards . Then if any client wished to attempt to register them the legal liability was firmly on them, not on Porsche who could point to the documentation (and I understand an acknowledgement signed by the initial owner at least in the case of 73 and 74 RSR's)
The unitary consent according to the Porsche documentation. So these things that are being said here and now regarding the ST and those issues are extremely important
https://www.early911sregistry.org/fo...Brief-Nr/page3 information. By the way, perhaps the 917 was the one from Pforzheim?
"He lived about 15 km from Pforzheim. the 917 was converted in the Porsche factory to be street legal in the 70s. I wrote once this story."
This
Attachment 619682
I would like to ask hughh directly, regarding the STR. Could something be documented (even in the private sphere regarding that designation)? In a Spanish forum one of the "knowledgeable" people from that place says that 7 were manufactured.
Attachment 619719
https://www.soloporsche.com/xf/index...C.61110/page-2
Attachment 619720
That's exactly what I think about this road-registered cars. Some were registered, but most weren't, and Porsche wanted to absolve themself of all responsibilities concerning a possible accident of one of them. They were racing cars, not road cars...Quote:
Originally Posted by HughH
I would like to talk about the production times (in weeks) indicated in the provided documentation. Do I understand correctly that it refers to the week of manufacture of that series? Or is it the week once the year begins? I am interested in this because I believe it is crucial for identifying something in the M491 series... To clarify this, I would like to know what the first day was according to the documentation when these "special" vehicles could be delivered. I would like to identify the order, which I know exists, but I understand it was ordered according to this documentation where the "weeks" are indicated?
Attachment 620328
+
Did this vehicle exist before being created as an S/T? Or was it made using 'spare parts'? It is understood that the replacement body, sold by Porsche, is already modified in the S/T style as indicated, so did Porsche have S/T replacement bodies in 1972? Or was the body ordered (from an unnumbered S chassis) and Porsche itself modified it in the S/T style and then sold it?
I didn't know about this process by Porsche; I always thought that when you ordered a replacement body, you would receive a kit and assemble it yourself in your workshop.
From the description of this vehicle, it is understood that Porsche had S/T bodies (that you could order), and I don't think this was the case.
I think, in such a case, a body and an S/T kit were ordered, which was then assembled in some workshop. Because if it weren't like this, then Porsche was selling S/T bodies. And with that alone... were you an S/T? That seems strange to me.
But perhaps there were 'T type' empty bodies waiting to be assembled, as replacements (which is how many things were imported to Spain), for example. But it seems strange to indicate that this vehicle is an S/T when the electrical cutoff is not in the place where it was installed at the factory for 1972... On the other hand, was the engine also issued as a replacement?
From my point of view, this vehicle might have been a race car with a great history, etc., but calling it an S/T from my perspective adds further confusion to the matter of S/T for 1972.
From what is understood about this vehicle, there were engines and bodies in the S/T style to make your own S/T (I don't know if the style means 'wide' or 'narrow'...) (sold by Porsche), ordered as replacements but made in the factory, with an 'S/T' (m491) engine. Therefore, it doesn't even follow the m491 method for its creation.
To be clear, S/T was a Porsche designation, often written by hand on specific vehicles and marked. S/T is not a construct; it is something marked and noted on each vehicle. It did not 'reach the public', but if the factory noted them, I recommend, depending on what you want to interpret from S/T, not to mix these vehicles (as with the Kremer ****m471 ) with the S/T or 'S/R' (I'll leave the addition of S/R but don't consider it whoever reads it).
Calling this type of vehicle an S/T is not correct, in my opinion. It might be a race car made with an 'm491' engine, but it is like if I went to Ferrari to order 'if they existed' all the spare parts for a Ferrari Enzo, not because of doing so would it be a Ferrari Enzo. Not by doing so does a construction sheet appear saying Enzo...
In this case, and with this vehicle, understanding that there is no T notation on its 'non-construction sheet', it continues to mix vehicles
Attachment 620395
Does anyone know if this image is the oldest of the vehicle? It catches my attention that it still has the covers, even while in competition.
Not because they are identical, they are homologable, but because these 21 vehicles were removed from the assembly line, which was completely contrary to the homologation according to my thoughts. For this reason, it was said that the parts to be used were "not approved"Quote:
Originally Posted by HughH
It is understood then, that what is homologable on the road for an M491 vehicle (without individual acceptance) (if we segment it between chassis and "engine") is the vehicle's own shell (flares and fiber/metal pieces). This is also supported by vehicle 1081 where the M491 engine did not exist, but it was already an S/T "type T" with engine 632, which were already homologated by January 19, 1972, and not the engine or other parts.
Therefore, those 21 vehicles would be a clear example contrary to what you are referring to. I do not know if it is due to confusion or lack of knowledge about the homologation and road permit for the M491 vehicles.
+
Attachment 620669
Attachment 620670
https://www.flickr.com/photos/chrisk48/9824830875/
Has the original sheet from when it was 769 ever been seen? Did it include the T on that sheet?
+
"In 1969, a competition-oriented version of the 911 was released, known internally as the ST (the name stood for Sport Touring). The original was based on the 911 T with a 2.3-liter engine, while the later 2.5 was generally based on the 911S and was known internally as the SR; however, most are now referred to as the 2.5 ST."
https://www.classicdriver.com/en/car...1/1971/1009917
To be conclusive regarding my thoughts on this topic, I agree with this description. I think by 1972, the concept of S/T was very well developed. In 1972, they were dedicated to circuit racing, so I would understand that these vehicles were different from the S/T models that had been produced since 1970. These vehicles were not built on a 911T, and they did not have the T annotation in their build sheets compared to the earlier S/T models and the 1972 Z-program factory rally vehicles,Or so I believe.. From my perspective, the factory did indeed make both S/T and S/R in 1972. It would be interesting to document the 1972 S/T vehicles for private customers "From this perspective.".
And I would like to delve deeper into the use of the 911T for the S/T, especially the 1972 models, to see if those vehicles were based on a 911T shell or, as I believe, in 1972 an S shell was used.
All of this is my perspective, not a statement of fact.
+
I should understand this citation as a copying error from the abbreviated document that accompanies the vehicle. If we look at the extensive documentation in the PDF file, the correct date is 1972, NOT 1973.Quote:
Originally Posted by HughH
It is important to highlight this, as one of the invoices is dated late December 1972... This could cause confusion.
+
Was M491 available in 1970?
+
987 changes the power outage to the area where those from 71 would have it. What is the reason for this change in the location of the power outage?
Attachment 622000Attachment 622001
https://pbase.com/archive_racing_porsche/n_911_230_0987
+
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leirbag
I believe that those 5 vehicles you mentioned went through the sports department before their complete finalization. Maybe that has something to do with it? Two of those vehicles are Z-antrag vehicles, not "purely" M491, so I can understand that the Z-antrag vehicles were completed on the M491 assembly line and also in the sports department, unlike, in my opinion, the majority of the M491s which were only completed on the "STANDARD" M491 assembly line. So I think, the Z-antrag vehicles should be set aside and only look at the M491 vehicles 1144, 1155, (1195**Individual aprobal,not necessary departament Sport). Can anyone confirm if all these vehicles went through the Porsche sports department before being delivered...? I think it's important...
+
S/T 72 1155
Attachment 622040
Understanding the M491 as vehicles that could only equip that specific equipment and for any other modifications they went to the Porsche sports department. Starting from vehicle 1144, I understand that apart from the M491, an additional side mirror was installed. Therefore, I can infer that from a certain date, something changed so that the M491 could also be equipped with some items from the factory and not just from the sports department.
In the case of 1155, I would like to ask a very clear question. Considering that an M491 vehicle could not have "rubber" on the rear bumpers, only a black strip... It is observed that this vehicle has rubber and I wonder, was this modification done later in the Porsche sports department to give it a more "road" appearance, or was it an improvement made by the owner in an external place to Porsche? I believe that in this detail and others lies the importance of whether it could be roadworthy or not.
Could the rear bumper rubber strips be related to making it road-legal? Perhaps the addition of the rubber strips was for pedestrian protection and was added to meet registration requirements, or could it be simply an aesthetic feature?
In summary, why does the M491 1155* vehicle have those rubber pieces on the rear bumpers? Among other things, not mentioning the 2.4L badge. So, can we talk more in-depth about the vehicle 9112301155?
+
Was the vehicle 230 0769 an M471? I have read in various places that it had a 2.5L engine, so I think it might be a vehicle with a Z-Program 471+491 instead of just a 471 or a 491 (*I think only m471 no Z-Programm in momment life 769)... Does anyone know the answer to this? Considering the driver who ended up with it, I think the vehicle would have a commit prefix of 100 or lower.
-->I think, the construction sheet for 769 included the handwritten letter T. Does anyone know where the 2.5L engine mentioned in some publications came from?
+
Attachment 622121
?
Attachment 622125
http://porscheclub.pl/forum/patryk-m...19261-640.html
+
There is a very good page on the internet which is solely about a car—a 'documentary' page on a 1971 Porsche 911 ST. I believe this is the vehicle you're talking about. If so, I would like to expand my knowledge about this vehicle. I also think that the documents accompanying this car should be explained here, both their contents and the process used. I must say, this Porsche m471 is one of the most well-documented cars I've seen. I believe every document related to this vehicle is original, and the history provided by its owners is also authentic. For once, I'm not providing a link because I consider it easy to find this vehicle on the internet if the correct 'criteria' are applied. Congratulations to the photographer/director for creating a video of great value, both for the owners of the vehicle and for the vehicle itself.Quote:
Originally Posted by HughH
That vehicle directly contradicts the version that 471 is not mentioned in the M of 1081 because it is included. The vehicle we are discussing specifically mentions the M471 package in its M package, along with its price.
Attachment 622199
I still think they simply wrote "911 T" there and nothing more.
+
Regarding 115 002 mentioned on the invoice from Hahn to Max, I think it might be Hahn's warehouse. If anyone has something to corroborate this, it would be interesting.
I've read Monaco1's definitions. I think that in their 10 posts on this forum, just what I’ve copied here from their responses provides more clarity than many other users (myself included) who claim to talk about S/T, etc. So why, knowing this, have people spent years trying to include the M491 group in the S/T category? I think that, for a long time, certain people have known that M491 vehicles are not "S/T"... why has this been "forgotten/covered up" based on the knowledge of "supposed" experts? There are various publications where certain people suggest that these vehicles had a different designation from S/T, just as the STR designation existed (written in pencil). Why have the M491 vehicles from '72 continued to be called S/T vehicles when they were purely race cars and assembled on the same production line with NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEM?
Can someone show me a vehicle sheet for an M491 that contains the letter T or the ST designation? Can someone clearly explain the T chassis used to build all the M491 vehicles and thus made them S/T? These questions come from a conversation with a person in charge of all this, so I would like to delve into the use of T chassis for M491 vehicles. I think... the T chassis might have been used in earlier S/Ts, but in my opinion, not in the M491 vehicles. Maybe there’s something I’m not seeing clearly. Maybe... But from my perspective, I would like to clarify if anyone knows of any PURELY M491 vehicle that has the T annotation on its sheet. And similarly, from my point of view, having the T annotation, in my belief, does not necessarily mean the use of a T chassis. What is clear, though, is that if that annotation appears, it's an S/T.
"In 1969, a competition-oriented version of the 911 was released, known internally as the ST (the name stood for Sport Touring). The original was based on the 911 T with a 2.3-liter engine, while the later 2.5 was generally based on the 911S and was known internally as the SR; however, most are now referred to as the 2.5 ST."
https://www.classicdriver.com/en/car...1/1971/1009917
https://www.early911sregistry.org/fo...530#post788530
Quote:
Originally Posted by monaco1
The reason for the confusion, from my perspective, was the trendiness of the S/T name and the ease of acquiring T vehicles on the market. None of this should be taken as clear, far from it. It's all just absurd speculationQuote:
Originally Posted by monaco1
Don't throw stones at me for these words.
An interesting point that i was unaware of regarding these 2.5 cars. Fellow member Matt pointed out that these cars were not permitted to use a GRP plastic front hood in 1972. GRP flares, front fenders and front GRP bumpers were allowed. Seems strange that nearly all 72 cars seem to run with the front Rubber hold down straps.? Does anyone on the board have a period photo of a 72 car with it's hood open.? Thanks. Dave