Exactly, just what I was trying to say. Reaching the level like that required by the group of enthusiasts that we have here requires commitment, which requires passion and enthusiasm.Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveFromNY
Cheers,
John
Printable View
Exactly, just what I was trying to say. Reaching the level like that required by the group of enthusiasts that we have here requires commitment, which requires passion and enthusiasm.Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveFromNY
Cheers,
John
Going to just throw a little pasta on the wall to see what sticks.
Now I can be more than a bit anal about things but, even I realize the need for a little reasonableness when discussing the capabilities of reproducing a part especially in this case IMO. As for the safety markings, that is entirely out of Porsche's control. They are an automotive manufacturer so, are bound by those regulations dealing with production and sale of safety rated parts. To produce and sell parts purposely disregarding those processes puts them in a liable position. They are not going to do that so, we might as well stop complaining about it. These units have those safety ratings because they passed muster for specifications we should be equally interested in them meeting. There will never be a 100% offering and it's unrealistic to even expect it.
To the comments on the mold marks, if anyone has worked on/held any of the LWB signal housings, both front and rear, it is well known that the molds changed over the years. One also needs to realize that the use of multiple molds for the same item during a production run even within the same production year is quite common. The tooling was essentially made by hand so, naturally there are going to be differences. How many molds does one think were used to create the number of units manufactured in any given year? Early housings had PNs in the mold, later they dropped suffixes and then part numbers altogether when they started marking with paper labels.
If one were to source two NOS front signal assemblies and they had mold differences between the two, would we consider one or the other incorrect? No, of course not. I've only ever held one pair of NOS front SWB signals in my hands and they were ROW. However, I do stand by what I've seen and personally documented in LWB housings over the years and I would not expect "one" mold was used to produce all of those Porsche supplied signal units over the course of what, 10+ years?
Quality of the materials used and fit should be number one. Sure, they could have done a little more on the housing shape in the corners and I agree 100% on the color of the lens. That is the first thing I can tell when looking at a signal. So, this offering fails in that regard. I could live with the pointy corners if the overall shape fit the fender shape correctly. Doubt anyone more than 15 ft away would be able to tell the difference otherwise.
Manufacturing also needs to take into account the mind set of the product user as well as ROI. There is a sweet spot in making a product that spans desirability across various demographics. Smart design of a product never considers a 100% agreement from the pool of potential customers. That's a fool's errand.
This is a different situation than a third party reproducer that is striving for a niche market offering. Even Eric designs intentional differences into his products so to be able to call out those that would fraudulently attempt to sell his units as NOS. I can tell the difference between his "Hella" lenses vs original and would have no qualms about stating his accessory light products are 95- 98%ers.
No one restoring these cars today are using 100% NOS or 100% "as per NOS". So, is 95% enough? 98% enough?
Sun lays lowQuote:
Originally Posted by LiveFromNY
With shades of fire and crimson..
Attachment 534953
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveFromNY
Talkin' 'bout amber
Medium is less intense
Deeper is stodgy
Devil's advocate:
Deeper more original
Richer, serious
Interesting thought and you got me excited for a minute so I took a look at my turn signal inventory. I have 4 NOS sets and more than a dozen used factory singles on the shelf (including the original lights from my '65 car VIN 301100). A quick look at the obvious differences - the BOSCH on the lens, the "230" font and surrounding oval on the rear, etc. - confirms that all of the turn signals in my inventory have the same markings as the NOS light I posted and, of course, none of them were screen-printed. Would be great if someone could show us a different result but based on examining 20+ factory lights I'd wager it's unlikely.Quote:
Originally Posted by 70SATMan
You are correct, of course, and I wish I could give you a definitive answer (even from a personal perspective) but I can't. I wasn't really expecting the new PC units to be perfect (despite their unintentionally hilarious musings about not being able to distinguish the new parts from original). All I was hoping for was for them to move the ball forward. But it appears didn't (at least not by much) and I agree with Eric that the best options are probably still NOS, followed by John A's restored units, followed by the new PC offerings.Quote:
Originally Posted by 70SATMan
Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveFromNY
That was probably true the day your car rolled off the lot, they are just making them and selling them, we are loving them. I do believe Porsche has passion in their product and a clear vision, but no one has ever loved a Porsche more than the person who owns it. I know, I buy them all day every day and there are cars that guys would rather cut off toes than sell.
---Adam
I wish I had more experience handling SWB parts so, can only speculate on those housings compared to what I for sure have seen on the LWB housings. I once documented at least four different lens and body differences in the early Hella rear fog lights, LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by LiveFromNY
We shoot ourselves in the foot sometimes when applying the NOS term without a very real frame of reference. 10, 20, 30, 40 year old factory parts??? Suppliers can change quite a bit and still meet the base specifications given to them from an OEM. It's like the original front and rear signal LWB lenses/rear reflectors made prior to and post '72 and when "DOT" was added to the tooling.
As I was spending way too much time considering these units and the safety markings, I got to thinking of the color and wondered about the lumen requirements that would have needed to be met. Depth of color will affect the apparent light output. A reach I know. I'm just trying to apply a rational reason to explain the fundamental failure (IMO).
Glad you made that point just now, on luminosity. Being a minority opinion, the attempt was about pro/con occasionally evening things out. A few here would know better than I how many lumens lost when the shade darkens. Also, with ivory or an off white car...is this what you want ?Quote:
Originally Posted by 70SATMan
Attachment 534979
Yep. I want lenses that match the originals so I can do something else at 2AM instead of scouring the Internet for NOS parts!Quote:
Originally Posted by 62S-R-S
We'll never fully understand what drives people to demand good or great. Likely cost. Or the desire to wait no longer for something. Even Porsche varied details over periods as short as 5 years in the production of its pieces. So as pointed out earlier, NOS really was a moving target.
Case in point, these are the two lenses that were on my car when I bought it 8.5 years ago. Left side one NOS, right side one original. You can't tell the difference at 20 ft, 10ft, 5ft or 2ft. You can only tell by putting your reading glasses on at 6 inches or less. The difference is one digit. One lousy digit. The left one has an SAE code and date of 77. The right side has a date code of 72. One digit. If you had walked into a dealer to replace a cracked lens prior to 77, you would have gotten a 72. After that it was 77. But an otherwise absolutely identical part. Haven't looked at the modern Porsche ones to see how they differ since that time, but they look different even in photos. And I can tell you a 72 is worth a heck of a lot more than a 77. I had to buy a matched pair of 72 marked ones on this forum to guarantee that the lens tints matched. It's not trivial to get that from batch to batch, though you think it wouldn't be so hard.
Why didn't I leave well enough alone? I blame "The sickness". The same sickness which lead me to hunt for a square profile rubber band to mount the black under-cowl canister instead of using the round gummis that are available everywhere. That took 2 years and the ability to find stuff in German on eBay.de.
Porsche isn't building the parts for us with "the sickness". They are building them for the thousands of other 911 drivers who just want their cars to look good and function properly. I'd argue that it really doesn't cost more to get it right. But it does. It takes more research, more molds more comparisons. How much would that add to the price of these things? Who knows? More than they thought 95% of customers would be willing to pay is my bet. They know their market.
Attachment 535000