Yes they were. The fact that the winner still exists and is a unquestionably a LWB 69 leaves no room for debate. FWIW, the factory documents associated with this car and its two sister cars refer to them as 911 GTS
Printable View
Dave
would this perhaps signify that they were intended as "group 4" (special GT) cars, ie the GTS referred to the racing class although in a "rally" I dont think needed to be homologated, and indeed the LWB S's were not homologated under Form 608 until late in 1968 / early 1969, even in GT class.
it does sound like a magazine article is needed.....................................:)
Also, they were indeed thin-metal bodies according to the factory docs.
Hugh, I think that a story is being prepared, but not by me. Should be a great story though because it is a mighty cool car! =)
Wow, that's fantastic!! The next obvious question being, exactly which factory docs are we talking about; kardex? build sheet? hand-written notes stuffed in a manilla folder? Also, more specifically, in those documents was there a designation or code for the thin-walled shell? if so, what was it?Quote:
Also, they were indeed thin-metal bodies according to the factory docs.
It's really great that we have brought to light some details about these three '69 cars that weren't readily apparent:
They are very early 1969 911S's, not E's, not SWB cars
They were designated Werks race cars
They are verified "lightweight" chassis cars
They have aluminum bumpers, bonnets, doors and front wings
They have 911R bonnet hinges, plexiglas side and rear windows
They were referred to by the factory as model '911GTS' or simply 'GTS'
I feel like these cars are part of a lost squadron or something... 1969 is such a pinnacle year for 911 design and development, and at the same time such a black hole for details on actual '69 MY race cars, and it feels good to shed a little light on the subject.
They have aluminum bumpers, bonnets, doors and front wings
Are you sure also front wing?
how can you prove it?
I have just found a reference in the original Ludvigsen book (page 613). It seems that Porsche were the ones who were "misleading" with what the cars were.
Ludvigsen says that they entered 3 coupes which were
"basically 911S models with the new fuel injection, and to demonstrate two features at once they were equipped with the new Boge self- adjusting front struts. To keep its newest model clearly before the eyes of the public, Porsche referred to the cars as 911E's. They were stripped for action with non standard aluminium front body parts: fenders deck lid and bumper, they weighed about 1880 pounds, some 300 pounds less than a production 911S"
so on the race on Sunday, sell on Monday philosophy Porsche had the brand new "911E" model (which was much more expensive than the previous years models) with a one two win in one of the toughest races around.
They were stripped for action with non standard aluminium front body parts: fenders deck lid and bumper
thank you Hugh!
I found and mounted on my 911S Sport Purpose car original aluminum front bumper, front and rear decklid and doors skin
but i NEVER heard about front fenders ( except SC/RS ones)
Have you more info about them? Per number racing code?
thank you
Andrea
web photos of an aluminum fender that was for sale some time ago.
Ernie
You are the number one.
Dot com.
Thank you very much
Sorry Andrea, we're sort of bouncing back and forth between threads here. I cannot personally vouch for any features of the Marathon cars, other than the obvious visible attributes in the posted photos - the items on my list were just a culmination of things that had been posted by the group. Here is the quote from which I took the list of aluminum parts:
Here is the other thread:Quote:
All three cars were run at the Nurburgring as Werks "GTS" cars. (Yes, that is what the factory called them)...
The three Nurburgring cars originally had aluminum bumpers F/R, Aluminum Hood and deck, aluminum doors and even aluminum front fenders! Truly unsung heros in the Porsche racing history.
http://www.early911sregistry.org/for...d=1#post675592