Ultimate ST thread

I think the designation S/R is more appropriate for those 21 vehicles.
But it's just a thought!
*Since I haven't seen any internal document where S/R is mentioned.
My message is incorrect if we understand the '72 ST as a vehicle homologated for both track and rally use.
+
What I don't understand is why homologate M491 for all the S/Ts. That implies (if I'm not mistaken) a 2.5 engine from those listed in various documents. I understood that the sports purpose manual indicates the 2.4 engine as correct (with its improvements) instead of the 662 (2.5) engine. So, if a driver wanted to request one of those S/Ts with the improved 2.4 engine instead of a 2.5, would that not be possible? Since those 21 vehicles carry M491? (I understand M491 as, in short, the "track" engine, which in the context of '72 would also be used in rally).
When a vehicle was requested from the factory in '72 for 100% rally, was one of these M491s delivered, or was there something more specific for that type of vehicle in '72? From the text, it is understood that the ST was used in both track and rally cases, but when it was a rally driver who didn't want the 662 engine, what did they get? I suppose, if at some point an internal document mentioning S/R appears, just as the one mentioning S/T as a "base model" to be equipped later did, some things will be clarified. However, I don't know if such a document exists, especially for the year '72.

Baudett
Whatever we might think might be more appropriate naming these days the factory named them 911S 2.5 M491. I am fairly sure that was for homologation reasons but also may have had a marketing input.

So far as Homologation went, they HAD to call it a 911S as that was what was homologated (in 1969) under FIA 3025 which was still current in 1972 and beyond – Indeed in October 1972 they updated it to include vins beginning with 911330 and engines beginning with 633 – ie 1973MY 911S’s just as they updated it effective July 1971 for vins commencing 911230 and engine numbers 632.

The M491 engines and 2.5 capacity as well as the rest of the upgrades for that car were homologated under the Gp4 additions to FIA 3025 so to have called it anything else than they did may have put the homologation status at risk which they could not afford to do in a limited production run of competition cars instead of offering bespoke competition builds from a parts list. I am sure the lessons of the 911R would have been front of mind in that decision.
The cars were used for both rally and track use but the homologation is for FIA competition use for whatever purpose. Indeed, a number of the cars participated in both rally and track events with different setups.

Factory car 230 0041 competed at the 1972 Monte Carlo rally then at the 1972 Nurburgring 1000kms then was used as a practice car at the Tour De Corse and then later as a rally car for Larousse
Factory car 230 0047 also was a Monte Carlo car and then was at the Swedish rally and following that the Acropolis rally. Later in 1972 it was 5^th overall in the Olympia rally in 1972 before also being used as a recce car at the Tour de Corse like its sister car. Finally, it was use as a practice car at the 1973 African Safari Rally
Three of the four the factory cars, 230 0041, 2300047 and 230 0769 were “just” a M471 and had a 632-engine number rather than a M491 662 engine so really were more suited for rallies even though for other events they had different engines fitted including 2.8RSR ones. So, they are never a good example to use.

However, ALL the 21 customer 2.5 M491 cars has 662 engine numbers but some competed in both rally and track events.
230 0495 was initially used on the 1972 Acropolis rally for Alexandros "Leonidas" Maniatopoulos and then on some other Greek and Turkish rallies winning the International Aegean Rally in 1972 (all as rough a rally event as any but the African safari) then it was used as a track car in the USA by Vasek Polak
230 0550’s first event was the 1972 Arctic rally which it won. Then later that year it raced in the Keimola 500 track event before resuming a long and successful career as a rally car in Scandinavia.

The 2.4 engine with upgrades was still homologated under FIA 3025 for 1972 and 73 as mentioned above – it is just that the philosophy of what would be supplied as factory-built customer race cars changed in 1972 to a short run of near enough identical cars instead of just bespoke cars ordered individually.

Therefore, a car could still be ordered as a M471 car from the factory as that was a valid option available from the factory, and any other options listed in the general list would also be available of course, BUT to convert it to a full race car it had to be done by someone else outside like Hahn or Mahag or Kremer (especially for their own cars). Of course, when Porsche and competition customers are involved, there are always exceptions likely to be had but a production run of same spec cars instead of a full bespoke service would be the rule for 1972 and beyond.

For example, the car you quote, 230 1081 was ordered as a M471 car and THEN converted with factory parts at Max Moritz. It was still a Gp4 car BUT was not constructed as one at the factory.
Kremer converted 230 0444 to full 2.5spec after it being ordered as a 2.4S by Franz Josef Reider and built their own 2.5’s (green and yellow car) rather than buying a factory built one.
Similarly, Brumos in the USA constructed a couple from either road cars or similar bases

It is most likely that a “normal” rally customer, especially for use on dirt roads, would be looking for a group 3 car and a lower spec engine so could go via the normal practice of ordering a M471 2.4 car with available options and having it completed to competition readiness by themselves but I don’t know how much support the factory was giving to rally customers at that time

Hugh....your knowledge on this subject is mind boggling. Have you ever though of writing a book on the subject. ? Best regards. Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stretch

Hugh....your knowledge on this subject is mind boggling. Have you ever though of writing a book on the subject. ? Best regards. Dave

---

What Dave said!

I’d thought about it myself but my knowledge pales into insignificance compared to Hugh’s!

As I always tell you when I read your posts, it is a pleasure to have you in this forum and to benefit from the information you have been providing over the years! It is quite enjoyable (in my case) to learn in such a didactic manner and with such depth on some very specific topics, where questions and documents help to complete and clarify information that I (we) consider quite relevant for Porsche itself! Therefore, I join the rest of the forum members in saying that if one day you decide to write a book or something similar, you will not lack people who want to get a good document! Regarding the response, I will add some questions throughout the day, as I find the three factory vehicles with the 2.4 engine interesting and relevant. Those, apart from the group of 21... Were those 3 considered S/T...? If they were... From my point of view, there is a great distinction between those 21 STs and the other factory S/Ts. If the type had been "homologated" (in an imaginary world), would those 21 vehicles and the others (made 100% in the factory) have the same S/T designation? In my opinion, there should be some difference to distinguish the vehicles...IIN YEAR 72

What am I missing now? 1081, based on the documents, was it ordered with M471? Why is it not listed in them...?
The "T" specification is a term that should be clarified over time. Both what is mentioned in the order document and what Barth names in the letters. I know it has its explanation, but I don't fully understand the connection made with the "T" for the year '72 in that vehicle
Max, with such little time between Hahn's invoice and Max's to the customer, could work have been done on the vehicle? If I remember correctly, when I looked at the dates, it seemed like too short a time between deliveries for Max to have done work on the vehicle. That's according to my thinking.

Hahn's invoice to Max is dated March 28th, and on the 29th the KFZ is completed (I understand by the owner) although Max's stamp appears on it, meaning it could already circulate. Therefore, there are some questions regarding this. Were these vehicles delivered with a KFZ already completed, or was it the owner who filled it out once they had the car? According to my theory, if the KFZ number was close to January instead of March, I could think that this KFZ was already filled out by the 28th, awaiting the authority's signature to assign the license plate. But I'm not sure what to think about the work Max did on the vehicle. Does it mean that the KFZ brief was stamped and work was still being done on the car? Or could Max have done those modifications mentioned in just one day?

And I would say that the price it was sold to Max for is closer to the price of a base 911 S.
Hahn charged Max for the KFZ processing.
.

Yeah it’s a wonder he has time for his day job����

Baudett


I agree that you must look at the 21 cars separately to the 4 factory use cars. I would say that the 4 cars (three with standard – as far as I am aware - S engines to begin with and the fourth delivered without an engine) should be considered “ST’s in todays context but, like all “ST’s” back in the day, were referred to as S’s albeit competition versions for G3 or Gp4 . Yes, there is a big distinction between the 21 and any other competition oriented 1972 911S, including the factory use cars, as the 21 were built as a limited production run of supposedly identical cars. They had to be called S’s and be presented as a “S” not with a different name as otherwise they may not have been considered to be homologated under FIA 3025 as to be homologated in any other name there would need to be 500 identical cars built to be a Gp 4 car. Each of the “types” of cars S, T, and E coupes AND targas had their own homologation number and these had to fit in under the S coupe papers.


There was something to distinguish these cars from the others in 1972 – they were called 911S 2.5 M491 an accurate description of how the GP4 car appeared in the paperwork. They could have been called 911S Gp4. However I cannot recall if any other marques Ford, Lancia etc ever called one of their Gp4 cars with that Gp4 description – even the Lancia Stratos for example, possibly the first car specifically designed and built from the ground up as a Gp4 homologation special rather than a converted road car, was called either the “Stradale” or road version or the “Competizione” or race version but the only name used was “Lancia Stratos HF”. The Porsche RS was similar but not quite the same – they initially aimed at 500 cars for Gp4 with a separate name “Carrera” and separate homologation papers but the car was based on a tried-and-true road and competition car.

On 1081 I agree that the invoice does not say M471 on it at any point that I have found. The Hahn invoice shows options 220 (limited slip diff) 402 (Koni Shock absorbers) 420 (roll bar) and 424 (85 litre fuel tank) only. I have never seen the build sheet but it is normal that the “standard options for an order type” are not shown on the sales invoice. The other sports options (10,000 tach and speedometer) seem to have been purchased separately. However the original the Automobil-Bestellung or original order also shows options M473 (S spoiler) M404 (front and rear anti roll bars) M411? (911S instruments and oil tank?) as well as M220.

I got my opinion that it was a M471 from the sales material in 2019 which included a detailed German history PDF including the sales documents (AUTOMOBIL-BESTELLUNG) etc which I think is the source of what you have posted here before.

My understanding of what it says that led me to think it has option M471 is

“This car – with VIN-Nr 911 230 1081 (we will refer to it as #1081) – was delivered by the factory as a Gulf Orange Porsche 911S with “T” race-specification (see sales order) to Max Moritz on 27 March 1973 for delivery to fur trader and racer Claus Utz from Reutlingen.

The “T” race spec was comprised of light-weight body, thin glass, alu trunk lid, sport seats, 5 speed gearbox, front spoiler and anti-roll bars to which Claus Utz then added in his purchase order an 80 liter fuel tank, special speedometer (up to 300km), special rev counter (up to 10,000 rpm) and a limited slip differential. The engine number was 6321607 and gearbox nr was 326765”.

So I think that M471 was a standard part of the "911S Typ "T"" spec. along with some or all of the other parts mentioned and thus not shown separately.

The photo of the actual sales order, both on this site and in the original 2019 sales material, is cropped off on the LHS. However just under the PORSCHE VW-PORSCHE heading (which has the latter crossed out) there is a hand written (I presume) model name that is mostly cut off but the last letter is clearly a separate “T” and there is obviously a word before it. I am assuming, (maybe incorrectly) that the full word there is 911S, Typ “T” as written in the text.

On the timing of the KFZ my understanding (which one of the German members should be able to confirm) is that the KFZ is simply the registration documents for any car that is going to be domiciled in Germany. It is filled out at the original point of sale by the manufacturer or their representative – not the owner- and stays with the car from then on. It would therefore be dated when the car left the factory (or maybe Hahn as the factory distributor or handler) to go to Max Moritz. Therefore, it would have no bearing on when the car had the modifications completed and was given to the eventual first owner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HughH

Baudett




On the timing of the KFZ my understanding (which one of the German members should be able to confirm) is that the KFZ is simply the registration documents for any car that is going to be domiciled in Germany. It is filled out at the original point of sale by the manufacturer or their representative – not the owner- and stays with the car from then on. It would therefore be dated when the car left the factory (or maybe Hahn as the factory distributor or handler) to go to Max Moritz. Therefore, it would have no bearing on when the car had the modifications completed and was given to the eventual first owner.

---

When a new car was registered at the time you get 1. the KFZ-Brief and 2. the KFZ-Schein. The KFZ-Brief is the most important document, because only with this KFZ-Brief you can register the car at the „Zulassungsstelle“ ( Car registration office ) for the first time and every time the car changes ownership. When the car is new from the factory the KFZ-Brief comes with the car with all technical information already populated. The sales representative ( for example MAHAG ) or the owner then has the owners Name, Adress, license plate number and date of first registration added to the KFZ-Brief when registering it for the first time. Every new owner and new license plate is documented on the KFZ-Brief. Without the KFZ-Brief you legally can‘t register the car. If you make technical changes to the car for example wider rims, different tire size and so on that change the height, width or anything that is different to the original homologation of the car by the manufacturer, it needs to be documented in the KFZ-Brief.

The KFZ-Schein is a small copy of the KFZ-Brief with the current owner and current license plate documented on it. Any driver is supposed to have the KFZ-Schein with them driving the car. It is not a proof of ownership. It is the document the police is going to ask the driver to show in a police control.

Hope this helps.

Regards, Oliver

So, was there a stock Porsche with "T" specification, lightweight body, and other additions, waiting for an owner in a warehouse with the gearbox installed? Does this specification mention the gearbox but not the engine? So, was the "T" specification requested for this vehicle to equip M471? Could M471 include the parts indicated, such as the aluminum rear lid, etc.? Then why specify "T" instead of just ordering the M471 extra?

I understood that these vehicles were made to order! Who paid for that vehicle before it was acquired by someone? Perhaps the factory, which is where Barth's letters and the stock (0) come from?

I would like to delve deeper into the "T" specification someday as I find it quite unusual. Why does the "T" specification include the S spoiler, gearbox, stabilizer bars (all standard on a 911S)? The "T" specification was aimed at other 911s that were not the S... This is what I think, but I have not seen anything beyond Barth's letters and the sales documentation! From what you say, the "T" specification adds M471 as "standard" in the options and is not mentioned in the sales invoice, nor are any of those other options mentioned. (The only place I "think" I see something is in that cut document where I think it says 911T.) Nothing regarding the "T" specification is mentioned in that document, which, in my ignorance, makes me want to clarify the "T" specification a bit more.

Lastly, the selling price of a vehicle with those characteristics is something that ultimately confuses me. I'll add something regarding the KFZ since I think this "T" specification, the car's characteristics, and its weight changed, so which homologation did this "T" specification car use? The one used for the S, as its VIN number indicates, I understand.

Regarding what Oliver comments, I think I have read a document (not for the year '72) where it states that these sports vehicles were not provided with a KFZ brief. I believe it is the document that talks about the ST, mentioned a few pages back. I understand that things have changed from '70 to '72, but then, for the M491 vehicles, was the brief also delivered with its characteristics filled in, such as weights, thin windows, wheel spacers... awaiting the owner's signature? As I indicated before, I think Hahn charged Max for the brief as it is listed on the invoice, which answers some of these questions...
So, should I understand that the owner did not have the car later than what those documents indicate in the case of 1081?

Is there any more documentation on the "T" specification where it is mentioned as such? It could be asked in the archive, but from my point of view, I think they might not be aware of it. Has anyone ever discussed this topic with them...?
+
Did Porsche then have manufactured vehicles in stock with specification T to be sold? Given that it is understood that when Pelske placed the order, the vehicle was already manufactured and in stock in Hahn's warehouse.

If this is the case, Porsche itself was manufacturing 911S vehicles with T specification for public sale without a prior order, as indicated by being in stock and Pelske's purchase. Porsche's response to their order of (in my opinion) a 911T with S equipment. I understand that this vehicle was going to be offered at a dealership or similar, so I wonder if Porsche manufactured more vehicles of this type (911S with T specification) in 1972. If the vehicle's sales sheet is requested, the T specification would not be observed, waiting for the construction sheet of 1081 to be seen someday.

Sorry if the question about whether modifications are noted in the KFZ is being repeated, I had started writing the message yesterday.
Attachment 621037Attachment 621038
clearly, if you wrote 911T on that 911 S/T form

So here’s an interesting one - I was trawling through Porsche News on their website, particularly for the history of the S/T in connection with the new 992 S/T and found a reference to M494 ‘Rally’ option in 1972…

https://pmdb.porsche.de/newsroomzips...ce9a95a78f.zip

I’ve never heard of this option before and wonder if it’s been invented somehow by the factory as I’m not convinced that the present marketing team are fully conversant with these old race and rally cars. However we do know that M491s 0495, 0550 and 1019 were converted to rally spec with (as far as I can tell from studying photos and MY72 Competition Spares List):

1. Internal braided oil cooler lines rather than the usual S hard oil lines below the passenger door sill;
2. Reinforced jacking points;
3. Front and rear stone protection plates on underside;
4. VDO clock retained rather than deleted in instrument panel;
5. Halda Tripmaster for navigator;
6. Reading lamp for navigator;
7. Combination stopwatch and clock (Heuer?) for navigator above Tripmaster;
8. Map pocket on passenger door card for navigator;

Some photos in support:
Attachment 619540
(0550 Interior)

Attachment 619541
(0495 Reinforced jacking point)

Attachment 619536
(0495 Instruments)

Attachment 619537
(FIA 3025 Homologation - stone protection plates - photos 9&10)

Attachment 619538
(‘72MY 911 S Competition Spares List - stone protection plates)

Attachment 619539
(‘72MY 911 S Competition Spares List - Twinmaster)



Anyone know of anything else?