Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Door beams 1973

  1. #21
    Couple of thoughts:
    1. There are other threads regarding door reinforcements starting in January.
    2. From everything I have been able to find in my research on this...it was a cost savings matter. If Porsche was willing to quit painting the engine bay and inside the fenders black to save a couple of bucks..then relocating the oil tank thus saving a LOT of money is easy to understand....and if that decision worked for the safety argument (ie less chance for an environmental spill on side impact) then perfect. I do not believe the oil door was relocated due to it being filled with gas.
    3. I too have the "Selling the Porsche '73" book. I also have the selling Guide with a tab for each Porsche and Audi that includes empty pages for the salesperson to write in the price of add ons like mats etc....These are great documents that give us a peek into the corporate mindset of the day....Good stuff!

  2. #22
    And another theory I have heard was that the side oil tank transferred too much heat into the interior side panel. I will go with safety standards, I think Porsche sometimes was overly scared about U.S. laws, such as roll over and the fear of a convertible ban being a contributing factor in Targa and 914 hoops. As to the 914, I was working at a Porsche dealer at that time and I remember the salesmen talking about POAC putting a quick shut down on 914 S sales information. Supposedly it was a fear of having an identity crisis with the 911S. Marketing is always sharp as a tack,,,,these same marketing people said the 73 911RS would not sell in sufficient quantities.
    Early S Registry member #90
    R Gruppe member #138
    Fort Worth Tx.

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Corvallis, OR
    Posts
    2,564
    These are all more great reasons why I love the 1972!! Haha, couldn't resist.
    72S, 72T now ST

  4. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    NoCal
    Posts
    369
    I remember long ago hearing that the oil tank moved to reduce production costs and as a result of Piech no longer influencing things. I also heard this was because of the gurgling noises you could hear in the passenger compartment [I've got damaged hearing and notice it in mine]. Also, I realize they wrote that the reason was "safety" but there's no way that forward mounted oil tank affected safety and moving it to the rear again certainly didn't improve performance.

    Yes, I also heard it was all about people filling it with fuel. Over the years I've discovered that anything you can dream up is possible- and lots you never could believe sometimes happens. I like the "noise" one best but believe it was about the money.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Kirkland, Wa
    Posts
    119
    ...72’s rule!!!! Those are fantastic documents to read and I appreciate very much they were shared. I had not heard the cost savings argument before but it makes the most sense to me. Once I realized what it is I was hearing, I’ve come to love the gurgling noise, as also can be heard in 964s and 993s, all of which have oil tanks in the same location as 1972 911s, albeit with a very long dipstick and no flapper. It’s a unique yet lovely noise to hear. The safety argument may have been true at the time but doesn’t hold up given the oil tank was relocated to its proper position in 964s and 993s. ’72s are truly unique, lovely 911’s.
    Ravi

  6. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by edmayo View Post
    And another theory I have heard was that the side oil tank transferred too much heat into the interior side panel. I will go with safety standards, I think Porsche sometimes was overly scared about U.S. laws, such as roll over and the fear of a convertible ban being a contributing factor in Targa and 914 hoops. As to the 914, I was working at a Porsche dealer at that time and I remember the salesmen talking about POAC putting a quick shut down on 914 S sales information. Supposedly it was a fear of having an identity crisis with the 911S. Marketing is always sharp as a tack,,,,these same marketing people said the 73 911RS would not sell in sufficient quantities.
    Was then (not only RS 2.7 but 930 too), and still is. Marketing severely underestimated demand for 991 lightweight bucket seats, and the GT4 too.

    Enthusiasts are funny beasts. That affection for gurgling oil makes sense to me—same as my affection for rattling gears at a stoplight in an RS 4.0. We like what we like, and good luck to the accountants…and even the engineers, in some cases.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Message Board Disclaimer and Terms of Use
This is a public forum. Messages posted here can be viewed by the public. The Early 911S Registry is not responsible for messages posted in its online forums, and any message will express the views of the author and not the Early 911S Registry. Use of online forums shall constitute the agreement of the user not to post anything of religious or political content, false and defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise to violate the law and the further agreement of the user to be solely responsible for and hold the Early 911S Registry harmless in the event of any claim based on their message. Any viewer who finds a message objectionable should contact us immediately by email. The Early 911S Registry has the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary.