Page 101 of 231 FirstFirst ... 519199100101102103111151201 ... LastLast
Results 1,001 to 1,010 of 2302

Thread: 1973 Carrera RS Cars for Sale

  1. #1001
    Quote Originally Posted by john rice View Post
    I feel confident the last of the thin panels were long gone by the time this car was built, so it makes little sense. There was a discussion here about 10 years ago relating to at what point the panels actually ran out which may have been expanded upon at some point. The specifications of this particular build: plenty of customer orders are like that. It certainly isn't any lighter than a stripper 911 of the same vintage. Now that they are worth so much it's become a big deal. Back in the day..... eeeh.
    I have a Porsche Factory bulletin (which I have scanned and posted here before, probably in the thread that John refers.) Funny thing is, no matter what anybody says or proves or otherwise on this subject, people just believe what they want to believe anyway, so it's sort of pointless to debate. That said, it was at or around #1036 (April/May 1973) that the light weight panels began to run out. They did not ALL run out at the same time, so you might have a car with some lightweight thin gauge panels and some panels 'normal' gauge.
    Bahia Red '72 911S
    Meerblau PTS 2019 Speedster
    GP Silver, 2018 GT2RS WP....the BEAST
    Daytona Gray 2021 RS6 Avant....BEAST #2...Best daily EVER

    ES #333

    GONE...MANY, many great ones....

  2. #1002
    Senior Member HughH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    2,336
    Steve
    I was just going thru my records on the RSH's and I the changeover to aluminium for homologation I think was with RSH #1382 not #1470 as I stated above
    In addition according to a prior owner (but not factory records - see below) IT has a 633 engine not a 663 one: 6331355, earlier than the one on the homologation papers posted above. Also Its Vin number is slightly earlier than the one on the homologation papers

    The comment of one of the car's prior owners at the time it was being discussed was " #1382 has motor number 6331355. As many of you know, that is a 911S
    number. The factory will tell you the motor number for #1382 is 6631355
    which is verified in the RS book. The confusion was two-fold;
    #1) #1382 has the above mentioned number but is stamped very clearly with a
    911/83 type number. How does an RS case get stamped with a 911S serial number?
    #2) Was the case mis-stamped? That seemed unlikely because
    the only mis-stamped number gives the motor a different identity.
    I asked Olaf Lang about it and he concurred that it was the latter,
    saying it was not that uncommon that a number was mis-stamped.
    I reluctantly accepted this answer."

    And "About six months later I was re-reading the FIA Homologation papers for the
    RS and came across something that I had, for years, totally missed. On May
    5th, 1973 Porsche homologated the AL case and stipulated that the
    case numbers be prefixed with 633. I finally had a definitive answer to
    the question. So why does the factory not list this in their records? I think
    it might go back to my previous post about the RSH cars. I believe Porsche
    had to present this new case bearing this numbering sequence to the FIA for
    verification. They did it using an RSH chassis. It is the only thing that
    makes sense because I have never seen or heard of another RS with a 633 prefix."

    at the same time in regard to RSH's being used to homologate certain parts he stated that "If you look at the FIA Homologation Papers you will notice that when Porsche homologated something on the RS, there was a corresponding RSH car built. It might not be exactly to the day but it was close. RSH #508, which I know intimately, was delivered with 7 and 8 inch rims which coincided with 7 and 8 inch rims being homologated the same month."
    and then asked if anyone could prove or disprove his view

    To date I have seen a lot of views on this but never concrete documented proof linking it
    Hugh Hodges
    73 911E
    Melbourne Australia

    Foundation Member #005
    Australian TYP901 Register Inc.

    Early S Registry #776

  3. #1003
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,790
    Great update Hugh.

    Thank goodness I'm not in the market for one of these later RSH because tallying their chassis no. to a formal homologation requirement /event undertaken by factory seems very difficult -- despite your diligence and the earlier work of other owners.

    Would be neater and easier to understand role of each late RSH if the precise chassis identity/ configuration of relevant car, the actual official activity undertaken by the relevant body and the results of the activity were all clear, aligned and well documented.

    Without that, I find it hard to understand if /why the factory had specific a reason to build each such RS as homologation example at this late stage. Especially since the initial 500 plus the further 500 had collectively done their initial intended and well documented Homologation role ...thereby the RS programme had already delivered on the models stated purpose much earlier based on first two series.

    Maybe research/documentation referred to in listing makes all clear?

    Be interesting to see what this particular example fetches at auction.

    Steve
    Last edited by 911MRP; 07-27-2016 at 08:16 PM.

  4. #1004
    I think its easier to think of the first batch of 500 as cars necessary to homologate the racing version. The RSH cars were basically changes (i.e. updates) to that original homologation as required by the FIA.
    Technically, all 1973 RS models start as the RSH version, then get their Touring or Sport designations (or left alone as an RSH) afterwards along with requisite option changes and additions.
    I'm open to being corrected, but that's the way I interpret it.
    Cole Scrogham
    Porsche Restoration
    911, 912, 911R, RS, RSR, IROC

  5. #1005
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Apeldoorn, The Netherlands
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by HughH View Post
    Rick
    that is correct. i would have to go back and find the thread but it would appear that whenever a change to homologation status was required (and for the cars late in the run that seemed to be about homologation of parts for the next year like the AL case) a RSH car was produced to homologate that change. I believe that the build date of RSH#1470 coincided with the introduction of the modified rear trailing arm mounts and this last RSH built also seems to coincide with the introduction of alloy engine cases later seen on the RS 3.0. However none of the chassis numbers in the homologation papers exactly match the RSH chassis numbers and even when a chassis number and engine number are quoted in a homolgation paper they dont seem to match the actual engine fitted to either the RS number shown or the RSH produced at about the same time. in the case of the paper shown below it is not even a RS number but an S number which is probably something to do with the was the RS was presented to the FIA in the first place as an evolution of an S and they wanted the engine homologation change to apply to S engines as well.

    The exact details of all of this is something that I have never been able to get to the bottom of and i dont think it is covered in the RS book either
    Hugh

    Here an official Dutch technical documents on the rear trailing arm modification wich i found in our papers, maybe this solve some mistery about the use of parts.

    Name:  rondschrijven Carrera RS 1973_0007.jpg
Views: 456
Size:  54.0 KB

    I translated it for you for easy reading;

    Incoming 9-5-1973 from chassis number 911.360.14O9
    From the date mentioned are the cars of type 911 SC equipped with short arms made from steel part number, left 911.331.053.10
    Right 911.331.054.10 in this connection was the cross
    mounted suspension tube changed part number 911.331.039.00 and the brake lines, part number 911 355 .627.O2 left 911.355.653.01
    right.
    For the above date under the standing chassis numbers were
    already built in this embodiment


    And a document on changes on the alu front support ;

    Name:  rondschrijven Carrera RS 1973_0006.jpg
Views: 431
Size:  42.6 KB

    translation;

    from April 9, 1973

    From above mentioned date at the Carrera RS front axle auxiliary support of steel built in part 901 341 013 00

    Alumium auxiliary carrier section 911 341 013 03, which was mounted because of its low weight, can be exchanged without problem on a steel specimen.

    alumium axle auxiliary support as part no longer available.

    The can be used if any parts lying in stock.
    Wim van den Berg
    Holland

    911 2.2 E 1970
    911 2.2 T 1969
    911 2.7 Carrera 1974
    911 2.7S 1974 ex Monte-Carlo rally car 82/84
    911 3.0 RSR 1974 Replica in Progress
    930 3.0 Turbo 1976
    993 Turbo build to GT2 specs in Progress

  6. #1006
    Thanks for that clarification MRP, looks like I need to change my terminology to "Baseline" car to be correct and stop using "RSH."

    I wonder if that has any affect on future pricing, by saying I have the "base model RS" instead of a "limited edition RS Homologation model 1 of xx" that doesn't lend itself to a lot of marketing hype
    Cole Scrogham
    Porsche Restoration
    911, 912, 911R, RS, RSR, IROC

  7. #1007
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,790
    I'd be interested to see any reference to term RS "Homologation" having been used in any factory 1972/3 documentation to describe such an RS variant listed as a "product" available for sale.

    Wasn't the in period descriptor for the cheapest version simply the "911 Carrera RS" ...with (M471 , 472, 491) that could be purchased on top to create variants of the Carrera RS, each costing a figure above the base price.

    Extract from the price list German 3/2/73 that is consistent with the earlier post picture in using Carrera RS not Homologation for the baseline price before M 471/472 as incremental
    Name:  image.jpeg
Views: 413
Size:  55.5 KB

    Not clear why homologation ( like lightweight) has become accepted as a name of a variant?

    Wasn't "homologation" the goal/process /outcome achieved ....not the name for particular "RS variant" per se? If so then that should still be the case today. I'd be happy to be proved wrong if examples of factory papers /terminology actually emerge from some dusty old file with RSH being used as noun for a variant from factory back in the day. (An actual original factory document from back in day using term ...not an after the fact narrative or publication describing things afterwards).

    Confusion around the RS model can be in part due to the way terminology regarding naming the RS variations gets bandied around:

    - As was pointed out by others Carrera RS RSL was originally relating to M472 but now seems to be used incorrectly for Carrera RS M471
    - M471 was called Carrera RS Sport
    - Lightweight is often used used now to mean only / all Carrera RS M471 regardless of produced before/after panels began to run out at chassis number mentioned previously
    - All first 500 plus second 500 were demonstrably subject to the Stuttgart weighing and certification process required for homologation for Group 3/4 racing ...so is it right that these 1000 examples' role in homologation being achieved is somehow made to sound less important in wider RS model story than the role of a few so called "Homologation" that may or may not have a demonstrable link/ role in homologation process. A role if proven that related to quite specific changes to a few named components ( suspension, case materials, etc). Changes quite late in the lifecycle after the initial homologation number was achieved. I don't get it?

    To Cole's point, the market will value individual cars as sellers/ buyers see fit. Doing so based on a whole raft of factors including what buyer understands the car variant/specification / configuration to be. At times this can be based on quite ambiguous or maybe not fully understood terminology used to describe examples offered for sale. At one time, less than clear terminology was maybe not a something to be taken very seriously, but at the current price points for any RS, differences could be significant in money terms. Not suggesting any particular car is not what it puports to be -- just discussing these things in general terms

    This forum / thread is the ideal place where we can understand the segmentation of the RS model across all three series, in its main variants. We should aim to be able to correctly and accurately describe the RS nuances among knowledgable, interested enthusiasts. If we cannot get it clear and straight here, what hope is there that examples of 73 911 SC (911744) Carrera RS get marketed in precise and accurate terms by dealers, auctioneers and other folks who are not really enthusiasts /specialists in the marque/ RS model.

    I am sure RS examples that are relatively uncommon among the 1500 or so made might command a premium for some buyers. In promoting conversations about terminology on this "Carrera RS for sale" I think it is reasonable that descriptions/naming used is fact based and free of ambiguity in genetic terminology that has crept in over the years.

    I didn't mean to introducing new confusing term "base" when referring to cheapest Carrera RS from the factory list I photographed.

    I think of just four grounded in what was sold:
    Carrera RS ( the variant which all first 1000 were documented to have built to at one point in their life and some third series were built directly)
    Carrera RS Sport M471
    Carrera RS Touring M472
    Carrera RSR M491

    These four designations are short, simple and pretty clear terms without risk of confusing things by using the less clear and arguably superfluous terms to describe variants: Lightweight, Homologation, etc).
    The chassis # gives the series (allowing for the known prototypes).

    As I have said in similar posts I am not knocking any specific RS offered for sale here or having a dig anyones pride and joy RS car. In fact quite the opposite.

    I'm actually arguing the case that if we continue to use "homologation" to regarding variants then there should be parity for any RS that had a demonstrable "homologation" role to be referred to as RSH.

    To not have this parity and recognition seems wrong.

    The desired homologation outcome from the RS programme in 72/3 was not actually achieved by the factory by JUST having a few handfuls of Carrera RS cars that not in a in M*** configuration made thinly across all three of the RS series.

    For that reason: Is it right to infer from the very restricted use of the RSH that those first 1000-- examples that were certifiably involved in achieving homologation for Group 3/4 racing -- are not as important by designating just a few examples as the "RSH"?

    Yes only a few ended up having configuration without the M*** changes. Such examples are indeed rare. Rare no M*** doesn't equal RSH, does it?

    Having M471, 472, 491 work post Stuttgart scales certification does not negate the documented role those (nearly 1000 that got M***) early examples played in "Homologating" the RS!

    Arguably there is more concrete evidence of those early chassis playing a role in getting RS homologation than the late examples that actually seem to get dubbed RSH. That seems odd. As seen in the recent posts specific homologation role of a particular late chassis # is not easily and directly demonstrated with hard evidence.

    That is not to say late series Carrera RS without M*** is not actually key to homologation. Not arguing they can't be termed RSH too, but it's hard to see why these rare examples take the "high ground" for the sole claim on the "RSH"? My argument is parity.

    Small numbers vs having proven role in homologating RS. Different things. I get it when stories establish evidence of low numbers and that small numbers can impact on market price. Undoubtedly that small numbers thing is occurring in valuation of the Carrera RS chassis without M***.

    However, does it not by elevating the few often dubbed "RSH" as somehow "extra special" vs siblings (RSH term implying some technically differentiating homologation role I fail to fully understand /haven't yet seen lots of documented proof for) rather misses the whole point about the scale of effort by all those involved at factory to undertake the whole first RS 500 + 500 more activity in the overall RS homologation programme.

    A "holy grail" RS ? I don't understand why are each those few chassis dubbed RSH implying something very special in homologation story -- as opposed to them being simply a less commonly bought variant. Rarity possibly by virtue of having the least usable modt basic Carrera RS specification when new (such as front 165 tyres !)

    There might well exist some documentation / research explaining how each specific RS chassis are considered technically distinctive and so played some special well documented role in RS "homologation" process. I have the Homologation papers and note some chassis # are referenced. Other documentation may exist. I have not ( yet?) seen documentation for the uncommon "RSH" late series cars that fully explains the reason for having "high ground" claim to name RS "homologation".

    In closing I have some questions -- not asking this pertaining to any specific example just using them generically to explore the logic behind what is regarded as an RSH
    1) if an example was not sold by Porsche with the name RS "Homologation" when new in 73 can it be designated as RS Homologation 43 years later?
    2) if an example does not have a chassis # acknowledged as being among the range certified for homologation or other particular evidence of the chassis # bring used in a homologation activity, part etc, can it be designated RS "Homologation"?

    Regarding 2). Weren't all 1000 from series 1 and 2 examples specifically ordered, built, weighed , certified with much extra complexity and effort than normal processes precisely for Group 3/4 homologation purposes? If so, that fact seems to qualify all such examples to use RSH name /status.

    I'd be pleased to learn or be corrected if someone has relevant factory period documents clarifying the case for every so called RSH being regarded as "Holy Grail car. Something that that actually being truly much more important examples than the implicitly "run of the mill" example from the 1000 that no one disputes were the examples actually used to get homologation ....but then converted to M 471/472, M491.

    Just my tuppence worth. There is a lot of experience on this forum and I'm interested in understanding more about this RSH topic.

    Steve
    Last edited by 911MRP; 07-30-2016 at 06:23 PM.

  8. #1008
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,790
    Thanks Wim

    The list of specific cars getting revised rear suspension is interesting. Particularly(if I understand correctly) it shows nominal switch point but that some (but not all) specific numbered examples got the revision as it was being phased in. Hadn't appreciated that change began as early as # 1257!

    Also if I undertand other example correctly, from April 9 the Carrera RS front axle auxiliary support part no 901 341 013 00 was made in steel, it replaced the lighter RS specific auxiliary carrier section part no 911 341 013 03 because that lighter weight aluminium part was no longer available.

    Presumably this ( like thin body panels) was due to stocks of the limited edition lightweight parts developed for RS model running out. Or for possibly cost / simplicity with RS being essentially produced much like the regular series methods used cheaper steel parts.

    Probably by then weight saving was not important in same way as it was for the earlier RS -- the ones that were actually weighed / certified for homologation purposes.

    To the question in my previous post. Doesn't seem that the (translated) document overtly mentions specific a chassis being built and presented to a sporting body for technical homologation purposes regarding the particular changes?
    Last edited by 911MRP; 07-30-2016 at 01:07 PM.

  9. #1009
    Senior Member HughH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Melbourne Australia
    Posts
    2,336
    thanks for posting that Wim.

    I think that it goes to show that these cars were not made in a specific Vin number order (or probably not in a specific production number order if we knew all of those as well). The way i read that document is that AFTER VIN #1409 ALL RS cars had the new rear suspension set up. However cars with Vin numbers as low as #1257 also had that configuration. Also the closer that you get to VIN #1409 the more likely it was that a car had the revised suspension, with #1408 seeming to be the highest VIN number car without the change.
    To me this seems to be a combination of cars not being made in order AND old parts being used up before the new ones were used, but with a relatively random selection of parts for each car as the changeover occurred. It is interesting to me however that one of the lowest number Vins to get the upgrade was Ferry's car (#1281), and Peter Porsche's car (#1357) also had it - however maybe that was because their production was somewhat delayed compared to VIN numbers around them due to special treatment / features.

    It is also interesting that the PET shows the cutoff at #1409 (below) but obviously does not have the detail that Wim's document has.

    Name:  New Picture (2).jpg
Views: 429
Size:  34.1 KB
    What is confusing to me (and perhaps someone else will be able to clarify it) is that according to PET the part (LHS for ease of explanation) was upgraded from PN 911 331 053 20 to 911 331 053 10 (I always thought that subsequent parts had higher numbers) and Wim's document seems to say that they also went to 911 331 053 10 BUT this homologation document below, referencing vin 911 360 0901 and engine 6630901 (that combination did not exist however 911 360 0910 did have engine 663 0901 so maybe there was a typo in the document), says to me that they went to 911 331 053 21 (presumably from 911 331 053 20). I cant find 911 331 053 21 in my PET or anywhere else for that matter. The application date is shown as 7.2.1973 (7 February) with the "launch of serial production with the following changes" 15 March 1973, and the "valid from date" 1 May 1973. Wim's date is 9 May so I believe that this document is referring to that change.
    Name:  New Picture.jpg
Views: 420
Size:  40.7 KBName:  New Picture (1).jpg
Views: 414
Size:  27.1 KB

    So I am starting to question the accuracy of some of the detail in the homologation papers for the RS (3053) but maybe it is because I dont understand it properly.

    HOWEVER Konradsheim states in the RS book in the running changes section that on 9 May, "shorter rear control arms were installed and lengthened oval eves on the cross tubes as well as modified rear seat buckets beginning with chassis 1409 but 43 vehicles were already equipped that way". He also states that from there assembly with old control arms is not possible. This seems consistent with Wim's document (although by my count it was 42 cars in Wims document). But he states the upgrade was TO PN 911.331.053 /054.20 not to .10 or to .21

    None of this links to any specific "homologation car" although It is interesting that vin 911 360 0901 (or maybe 0910) is referenced in this document whereas in some other parts of the homologation papers the vin number references is 911 360 0001 (for wheels) or these is no VIN referenced (for most changes). However the change to a Silumin engine case also references a specific Vin (9113601490). I dont understand the different treatment unless it means that those specific changes are not homologated for cars with lower vin numbers and THAT does not make sense to me.

    On the question of whether a special car with no conversion would have been shown to the FIA for this change IF it was presented when they were still making vin 0901 referenced in the document all the cars were being made with no conversion and then being converted later at that stage so no special car would have been necessary anyway.

    I am not going to get into the "RSH" versus " 0 conversion number" etc debate except to offer yet another variation used by Konradsheim in the RS book using what he says are "internal descriptions". He states that the homologation version RSH has to be the basis of every Carerra RS (up until they were not needed). They went to the weighbridge etc and the cards with the weight and chassis number and weight etc were collected and sent to the FIA as evidence of the numbers produced. in that form the cars had narrow 165 80 profile tyres and lots of things deleted. He does call these RSH though. Then he states that the M471 conversion was internally called the "RS" but also called the "sports" package. He then calls the M472 conversion the "touring" package and internally as the RSL which can be viewed as the replacement for the originally planned 911S 2.7. Finally he calls the racing version RSR which were based on a RSH. (I suspect the only agreement here is on the use of RSR )

    there were however different order forms for the "RSH" up until group 3 homologation had been achieved compared to late series "RSH's". the latter however still had 165 tyres specified (where most of the weight savings was) according to the example shown in the RS book (for #1430)
    Last edited by HughH; 07-30-2016 at 11:05 PM.
    Hugh Hodges
    73 911E
    Melbourne Australia

    Foundation Member #005
    Australian TYP901 Register Inc.

    Early S Registry #776

  10. #1010
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    436
    I think this RSH debate will go on forever. However, if the general consensus is that the RS is the Holy Grail of 911's, the RSH must be the Holy Grail of RS's. One can correctly say that of the 1580 RS's produced only 17 LEFT THE FACTORY as homologated by the FIA. And that is a big deal to most Porsche enthusiasts and collectors. This, combined with the fact that these cars were never intended to be sold to the public (see letter) adds to their appeal. This discussion/debate has been going on for a LONG time and will not end here.

    911MRP asks where the "Homologation Car" moniker came from and questioned any Factory use of the term. I know it was used in the 1980's and 90's. I had correspondence from both Jurgen Barth and Olaf Lang describing these very few unconverted cars as such. The actual number of 17 was not known until 1991 if I remember right. Identifying the last few took a while.

    Regarding the last question in post #1068, several months ago I asked Jurgen Barth if he remembered if homologation changes required an example to be built and inspected. He could not remember. He did say that the RSH's were not built as race cars. (Which is not quite true for a couple of them!) I think we assume these guys should be able to still answer all these 43 year old questions. I just started reading Roland Kussmauls new book on his years with Porsche. it's a 400 page interview. I have never read a book like this before. His memory about certain things is great and others, by his own admission, not so good!

    Mark
    Attached Images Attached Images   

Similar Threads

  1. 1973 Carrera RS 0172 for sale in Switzerland
    By Ghost Chaser in forum For Sale/Wanted: Early 911 Cars, 1965 - 1973
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-13-2012, 10:10 AM
  2. 1973 Carrera RS for Sale
    By stuntmanmike in forum For Sale/Wanted: Early 911 Cars, 1965 - 1973
    Replies: 80
    Last Post: 07-12-2012, 02:33 AM
  3. Porsche Carrera RS 2,7 1973 for sale
    By Thomas lundeval in forum For Sale/Wanted: Early 911 Cars, 1965 - 1973
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 10-16-2011, 09:46 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-03-2011, 04:06 AM

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.