1973 Carrera RS Cars for Sale

[Coyft]

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/19...-rs-touring-3/

Should be interesting.

It doesn't say whether it is matching numbers, so I assume not.

[fourteenten]

It is, I have older pictures from the engine number, as the ones on BaT. No idea why RScholars did not show a recent picture of the engine number.

Cees

[HughH]

it is there but in the Barth report (which I thought was not much more than a "puff piece" ) but did show the numbers and options
relevant page below
gg.jpg

[cwrm4]

It's puzzling that Road Scholars is insistent 0472 has its original rear slam panel, including posting a number of pictures of correct real slam panels on other original RS's. Yet even my untrained eye instantly saw the later slam panel when I clicked on the listing.

[sithot]

A hit to the rear end of a 911 isn't unheard of, is it?

Not the only one I've seen with the wrong panel. As these cars are used and were wrecked, sometimes given a hit or miss restoration, I'm not entirely surprised.

They're all 51 years old and there are no virgins.

[911MRP]

I’d be interested in seeing the case being made that the more scalloped version was as used 72/3. Posting picture of RS with that panel taken when new might be compelling evidence but posting pictures of RS once they are used with the panel is not convincing. We do see plenty RS with the presumed incorrect version so not hard to find photos of them but it’s it evidence to that being how they were at new that brings insight.

My understanding is the panel modified later in 70s to make accessing the rear engine mount from top easier and for a while I understand the only panels available as replacements were that revised shape. Cars needing replacement in that period therefore got these.

There is however different evolution of the rear slam panel around early calendar 73 in that small a rectangular raised section appeared on the left corner but the function of that was never clear. Seemed odd to change the panel and invest press tooling required so soon before the G series facelift. To be clear the raised section was on the earlier version not just the not just the one lower picture on prior post. Perhaps the tooling needed pacing anyway or there were other reasons? Some suggest the square was put there to provide a base fit a plunger for a theft alarm system but some we don’t see them fitted doubt that is true.

While I’m always open to learn with relevant in period evidence if it is presented there are things now considered correct possibly because they were done in earlier restorations and become accepted but are not as they were at new. That’s why I don’t simply accept pictures of later in life as evidence of how it was in the day. I am data and evidence led so would happily accept of cars at new show this feature but wiuks be apical if photos are of cars that have had work.


Steve

[RennTyp]

Steve, regarding the mysterious rectangular pad at the bottom left of the slam panel - I have seen two original paint Jan and Feb 1973 cars without that pad, and an original paint third series RS M471 with it. That would point to Q2 1973 as the introduction point.

None of these 1973 cars featured the scallop for access to the engine mounting bolts. I believe that came in around 1977. Have seen a 1976 Carrera 3 without them.

[911MRP]

The most original RS a second series I know well 22k miles original paint hasn’t got the raised square or the more angular later slam ends but I still maintain the best reference are shots of model year 73 cars still in factory or at least very new.

This period photograph whilst not brand new inside the factory is the next best thing being taken January 73 when RS is being run in:
IMG_4150.jpg
Little doubt on provenance as the incomparable Jenks wrote this in Jan 73 and the photo was from the article published February 73
IMG_4152.jpg
This is the sort of evidence that I find useful and credible when discussing matters of period authenticity. Hard evidence from impeccable source where the date is demonstrably from Jan 73. The sole concessionaire where ferry is in on the biard provided the press demo RS in question so its provenance as good as likely to find right back to coming off the truck from factory in January 73:

The shape of the end of the slam panel on the photo is very clear. I’ve only owned my similar first 500 series RS for a little over three decades so I wouldn’t use it as evidence as I don’t know for sure rear slam wasn’t changed in the two decades before I owned it however will say the rear slam shape is same as the one on the photo and my cars rear ducktail is the aluminium framed very light one as used on the 500er homologation cars RSR were weighed.

This appears be an RS being filled with oil possibly when new at the factory.
IMG_4153.jpg
It would be an even more compelling example than my previous if / when can definitively put it at factory when car was brand new in 73. It is clearly a 73 model and if GP white then an RS. But as said slam panel wasn’t specific to RS so that not a major factor. Judging from the filling equipment it is location where the oil filling workload and amount justifies having such hands off kit. Even without being tied to factory in 73 yet ( although I think it is as photo style seems similar to other black and white shots from factory an no sign of licence plate ) I’d argue it still interesting when taken together with the one by Jenks. The shape of slam panel end is a more continuous curve not the more angular hockey-stick shaped kink of the panel that I believe only appeared later in 70s.

This photo factory visit speaks for itself in having the continuous curve to end of the rear unless I’m misinterpreting might be the most compelling datapoint :
IMG_4155.jpg
Image is from someone’s thread on ESR so maybe can be precisely dated but even at a quick glance if that is black surround to tail lights it seems to be a model 73?


I’m open to being persuaded with in-period evidence that show the other shape (not opinion or shop reputation or more recent photos ). Lord knows what indignities have done at hands of restorers to numerous 911 over the 50 years. I’m not inclined to believe such folks without period proof comparable to the one from Jenks I’ve posted here to start it off. I know of one RS that sold for a very hansom price at auction that the owner told me to my face wasn’t ever touched except when spinning the yarn he didn’t realise I know for a fact it was in a storm flood where groundwater where it was stored had risen so much it entered car . Significant damage resulted significant work required; he didn’t know I’d worked on that car. I won’t reveal the VIN in that case but situations like that show why in-period shots with provenance are the touchstone in such debates how it was originally — certainly more so than pictures of cars later where provenance might be less clear!
Steve

[Coyft]

Mine has that raised rectangular shape.
Original paint/panel #1067
IMG_3469.jpg
IMG_3466.jpg
IMG_3467.jpg

[911MRP]

Interesting even if is a pictures here are of car recently so to my earlier point can’t really be sure unless in single ownership from new ….

If paint is indeed original it would suggests the raised square but continuous smooth curve was there on ( some) third series that built to the later more productionised specification and using the single step order-build ie regular series process rather than the proper homolgation RS order- build - convert. While vin 1067 is near the 1036 transition it seems reasonable seeing the presence of rippled dimpled shutz on the rear chassis arms (circled in this shot) to deduce with the weight it brings that this particular chassis wouldn’t have been one that was sent to be weighed independently as proof of 1000 making the 900kg homologation target:
IMG_4156.jpeg

Steve