Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 23

Thread: Original muffler (exhaust silencer) material

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,847

    Original muffler (exhaust silencer) material

    In his book Frere writes this on a
    photo caption referring to corrosion protection improvements :
    Name:  7D5F1AE6-0E16-4A97-AB0D-4CEB5A7F3911.jpg
Views: 262
Size:  43.0 KB
    It seems to imply full stainless steel exhaust was used as a durability rust reduction measure*

    I have an original stainless steel Bischoff muffler (exhaust-silencer) .
    It has the correct part number per 1972/3 factory spare parts book (maroon paper edition III — not PET as latter not always helpful in tracking upgrades and supercession changes)
    Name:  3055A2F4-F4A7-49FB-B779-E8729E1C4325.jpg
Views: 262
Size:  64.4 KB
    Name:  1795A6EC-532C-4827-BACE-66316C7D0885.jpg
Views: 257
Size:  32.7 KB

    It clearly stamped 1072 after the slash of part number (October 1972 manufacture) so model year 73.
    Name:  47C2B3F0-5957-460D-B0F6-EB8DCA85E33F.jpg
Views: 261
Size:  66.4 KB

    Helpfully, Bischoff used the Porsche part number as their stamping but abbreviate it (in this case by omitting .111.)

    Four layers are visible along seam
    Name:  315BAC08-C62D-4338-8D1A-F873D2D9C4CC.jpg
Views: 263
Size:  37.9 KB
    It is stamped 911/1 version
    Name:  7F5D67BA-2DEF-4C53-AD06-848C050ECDCC.jpg
Views: 259
Size:  72.3 KB
    Allowing for inbound supply lead-time, fitted around end calendar 72. Too early and wrong shape outlet for G series onwards. It still has the correct square edge chrome tip — not so relevant here other than it’s presence along with factory welds an indication the outlet is original and not messed with in nearly five decades.

    I have another similar original Bischoff with the same maker and version stamps also same part number stamping before the slash. However this other one is regular steel. It is only four-months older — stamped 672 after the slash (June 1972 manufacture).

    Both mine are the normal OEM 911/1 series part number is per factory 72/3 parts book, they’re the usual for period :two in, one out format — not some special twin outlet / modified sports version. Both ok but condition of 1072 example other than a few small cosmetic dings testament benefits of stainless steel. The other has some cosmetic rust but not perforated.

    Haven’t weighed them. I don’t own any original Leistritz who were the other OEM supplier back then so can’t compare their contemporary product or its evolution.

    Never seen an M-Option in model 73 accessory lists to choose stainless vs regular steel.
    As shown above only one part listed on 72/3 spare parts book so no indication of stainless type for different models regular steel for other models; neither does parts book have (sw) annotation indicating a special order version was available as sometimes the case on some other parts. Despite my two examples isn’t a 1 or 2 annotation on the book showing difference for 72 vs 73 whatcha is sometimes the case. Parts books are useful reference but not always correct — in this case they don’t seem to give an answer to the two materials.

    Question: Was there a change of material for this Bischoff OEM muffler ( exhaust silencer) part during model year 73? Possibly around beginning of model 73. Possibly so based on just these two obviously limited data points June and October 72? Or was there a way of specifying an option to have stainless vs regular steel at that time or as seems more likely was it a running change introduced for durability and rust protection for cars at this upmarket price point ? Probably not immediately apparent difference visually in any period photos of brand new 73 cars if all were painted grey.

    Steve

    * don’t think Frere’s comments can be used to date introduction as he refers a series of examples introduced over time but it was only mention I found so far on material used for exhaust component. Maybe other mentions elsewhere in his or other reference books or workshop manuals might comment but I’ve not read those on detail for a while.
    Last edited by 911MRP; 10-26-2021 at 09:19 AM.

  2. #2
    Serial old car rescuer Arne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    1,841
    I'm not sure date has much to do with it. My early '72T (8/71 build) has a replacement Bischoff muffler. It was probably installed in the mid-70s - the car had some accident damage in the left rear and I suspect the original muffler was replaced as part of the repair.

    The replacement on my car has the exact same markings as yours, other than the date (1073).

    But it is only 2 layers at the seam, and is not stainless as there are a few indications of rust. So even though mine is later than yours, it is definitely not stainless.

    Name:  IMG_3467.jpg
Views: 243
Size:  52.9 KB

    Name:  IMG_3469.jpg
Views: 243
Size:  74.1 KB
    - Arne

    Pretty much done
    - 1972 911T coupe, Silver Metallic, Fuchs, Appearance Group, F&R sway bars, factory installed Frankfurt, upgraded factory A/C.

    Sold - 1984 911 Carrera coupe, Chiffon white; 1973 914 2.0, Saturn Yellow; 1984 944, Silver Metallic

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,847
    Thanks for input, Arne. It might prove interesting to see if others post to help establish timing for stainless vs normal steel versions. From Frere’s comments it seems at some point there was a deliberate move to use stainless for the entire exhaust system although that might have been during impact bumper era and with different outlet to suit the revised rear.

    Maybe there was a way of specifying stainless as an option without M # or another reason for different material being used on 911 in calendar 72. The corrosion / durability point seems obvious but not clear how it would have been specified to use one vs other. As my two examples show it seems to have been possible as both clearly exist with x72 stamp.

    I’ve read some allude to a Sport stainless steel variant on long-hood era but never clear what that was. I assumed these were maybe different to stock OEM spec e.g. dual outlet or had internal changes. Maybe here some remember how it was in the day? Also the significance of 911/x stamp beyond the part number, the ones I’ve owned have had 911/1.

    So from what you are saying it might not be a date in calendar 72 where regular steel was superseded by the stainless steel like my 1072 example. Although with yours known to be a later replacement probably following the accident maybe factory fit vs what was in network for collision repair could be a factor?
    Last edited by 911MRP; 10-26-2021 at 10:46 AM.

  4. #4
    Serial old car rescuer Arne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    1,841
    I don't know the replacement history on my muffler for sure, but since the muffler date is over 2 years later than the car, it is obviously not original. I'm just guessing that it was replaced as part of the LR corner repair.

    It is also obvious that it was made as a replacement part, since the impact bumper cars were already in production by the time my muffler was built (10/73).

    I can also say for certain that the original muffler on my '84 Carrera was stainless.
    - Arne

    Pretty much done
    - 1972 911T coupe, Silver Metallic, Fuchs, Appearance Group, F&R sway bars, factory installed Frankfurt, upgraded factory A/C.

    Sold - 1984 911 Carrera coupe, Chiffon white; 1973 914 2.0, Saturn Yellow; 1984 944, Silver Metallic

  5. #5
    Member #226 R Gruppe Life Member #147
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    2,090
    Arne, I see 4 layers on the end shot of that muffler. It’s stainless to me.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,847
    I took Arne comment at face value but on close inspection his photo seems four layers as GLED spotted and pointed out. I believe the stainless is a wrap over regular steel so magnet test would not reveal in such areas.
    Name:  0E9F1C08-C665-4993-BF9D-E5B3C8A685E0.jpg
Views: 234
Size:  40.5 KB
    So maybe there was a supercession to stainless around 72 for model 73? Although I don’t know on the absence of different part numbers between model 72 and 73 and M numbers in the papers a running change to bring the Better on service corrosion resistance might seem logical
    Last edited by 911MRP; 10-26-2021 at 11:24 AM.

  7. #7
    Serial old car rescuer Arne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    1,841
    I went back out for another look up close and personal. Looking around the back side (next to the engine) it is more obvious that there are indeed 4 layers. I tried to take a couple more pictures in an effort to show better what I see in person, but I con't get the phone close enough to capture the details and so the pictures don't really show it well.

    But I note 2 or 3 very small pinholes in the outer shell that appear to be the early stages of rust-through. So I still don't think mine is stainless, despite the 4-layer construction.
    - Arne

    Pretty much done
    - 1972 911T coupe, Silver Metallic, Fuchs, Appearance Group, F&R sway bars, factory installed Frankfurt, upgraded factory A/C.

    Sold - 1984 911 Carrera coupe, Chiffon white; 1973 914 2.0, Saturn Yellow; 1984 944, Silver Metallic

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,847
    Mine was easy to see stainless steel outer layer as paint removed. Maybe try small magnet in areas not double wrapped ?

  9. #9
    Serial old car rescuer Arne's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Posts
    1,841
    Magnet sticks everywhere I tried it.
    - Arne

    Pretty much done
    - 1972 911T coupe, Silver Metallic, Fuchs, Appearance Group, F&R sway bars, factory installed Frankfurt, upgraded factory A/C.

    Sold - 1984 911 Carrera coupe, Chiffon white; 1973 914 2.0, Saturn Yellow; 1984 944, Silver Metallic

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,847
    Fair enough maybe others have some data-points beyond our three examples

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.