Ultimate ST thread

[HughH]

Baudett in reference to your post #978

· No I don’t think there was a “stock” car as you describe waiting in a warehouse with gearbox but no engine installed etc
There is no date showing on what we can see of the original order for the car (AUTOMOBIL-BESTELLUNG) but the commentary with it in 2019 says “On March 27th, 1972, the fur dealer and Porsche racing driver Claus Utz from Reutlingen signed the order for the Porsche 9112301081 on February 3rd, 1972 with "911s old car" "for 25,002.75 DM deposited at the "Sportwagenzentrum für VW and Porschefahzeuge Autohaus Max Moritz GmbH", today's Porsche Center Neckar-Alb as 911S, type "T" (see order) in 6161 Gulf Orange with 12 corduroy seats

To me that says the original order for the car (AUTOMOBIL-BESTELLUNG) was placed, and probably dated in a cropped off part, on February 3 when Utz provided a deposit in the form of a 911S valued at 25,000 DM, and then the paperwork with Max Moritz was signed by Utz on 27 March 1972 when the car was delivered to Max Moritz.

· That car was built (from production number 102 4080) with engine number 632 1607 and gearbox number 7326765 and “Delivered to Hahn Porsche central warehouse on March 1, 1972”

· It was then delivered from Hahn to Max Moritz on 27 March 1972

· However, the description also says that “The wagon had already been produced at the time of the order, was in stock in the central warehouse at Hahn, Stuttgart and was delivered to Max Moritz according to the invoice for 28424.04 DM including 11% VAT”

I don’t know what that means but it may refer to the fact that when the invoice to Max Moritz from Hahn was done the car was already at the Hahn warehouse OR when Utz signed the paperwork with Max Moritz I was already completed. Otherwise, it does not make sense to me and MAY be a misinterpretation by the person who wrote the document.

MY best GUESS is that Utz made a deposit for the car at Max Moritz on February 3 with the trade in of another 911S. At that stage Max Moritz placed the order for the car via Hahn with Porsche. The car was produced and delivered to Hahn on about March 1 and then went to Max Moritz on 27 March at which time Utz went to Maz Moritz and signed the paperwork for the order.

I do not understand why the Max Moritz invoice for it seems to have a 31 December 1972 date on it. It also shows the trade in values of the 911S and a 914/4 and another car during the year starting 3 February with the last one on 22 June 1972.

ONE POSSIBLE explanation is that as the car was essentially paid for with trade ins, AND the value of the trade-ins was 146.72DM more that the cost of the car, the paperwork was not completed and dated until the end of the financial year which, in Germany, is December 31. Utz certainly competed in the car from as early as July 1972 at Nurburgring.

If this timeline is correct “who pays for it” is obviously Utz with the initial trade in. I am sure that as a very wealthy fur trader with a history of having Porsche’s his credit at Max Moritz for the balance would have been good.

I will try to address the other issues about “911S Typ “T”” later but on the point about the 2.5 M491 cars being provided with a KFZ, the answer is NO as the factory made it clear that these were not allowed to be road registered as they were pure race cars and obviously would not need a registration document. However as with all these things there are exceptions: rally cars need to be road registered and there were probably three of those: 0495, 0550 and 0538. Of those 0550 was not going to be registered in Germany so did not need a KFZ, 0538 was also being exported and SHOULD have been registered for the Targa Florio but none of the photos there show it as ever having any registration plates.

On the other hand, 0495 WAS registered in Stuttgart, or at least was wearing Stuttgart plates (S-AJ 9233) at the Acropolis and other places while a rally car. So theoretically it should have had a KFZ. Interestingly in the documents I have for 0538 there is a note “ohne KfZ-Brief, Gutachten” or without vehicle registration document, Appraise” but there is no note for 0495.

On KFZ papers for “M471” cars in 1972 I would expect that ALL of those had the correct light weight and any other approved modifications shown in the KFZ document. I have a copy of a part of a KFZ document for a 1971 ST built on a lightweight shell. It clearly states the modified weight of that car at 930kg as well as the stock wheels and tires crossed out and “The vehicle may be equipped with the following tires at the front and rear Racing 5.00M 15 tires and 6J x 15 wheels” 2301081 would certainly have has a KFZ as it was road registered in Germany with various plate number under different owners for its whole life.

[HughH]

Baudett
In post #978 you ask about the “T” specification, in particular about its apparent use in the description “911 S Typ “T”“ used in 1972, and I presume the handwritten T found on (many?/maybe all?) Fahrzeug-Auftrag documents for “ST’s.”

These can be seen in all “ST” years – 1970 to 1972. In the document for 911 030 1151 in the Fahrzeug-typ (or vehicle type) box. There is a typed “911 S Coupe” and then a large hand written “T”.

As you note in the order for 230 1081 we also see what appears to be an order for a vehicle type "911S Typ "T"" or as described in accompanying paperwork 911S with “T” race-specification.

That specification is further described as being comprised (in 1972) of light-weight body, thin glass, alu trunk lid, sport seats, 5 speed gearbox, front spoiler and anti-roll bars.
We know that in 1970 the “base” 911 S was built as a stripped-out car as a base for a race version and then was optioned up for sales as a road car with option M470, but in the 1971 MY that process was reversed as the 911S was already homologated at the low 1970 weight and option M471 was used to take the fully trimmed car back to like a 1970 base car.
In 1972, and beyond, the M471 option and process continued as a means of stripping back a car that was normally specified as more of a luxury car. Even the full race M490 cars had in their specification M471 AND M490 as the M471 dealt with the weight removal etc. as shown below.

We also know that Porsche often used codes or descriptions to bundle up a specified number of options for a particular purpose. The most widely used is a country code that contained all the options/ modifications required in each particular country to meet their regulations. However, there were others including an option to “upgrade” the trim of a T to E or S specifications etc.

According to the 1971 document on Sports use for the 1972 season, that Matt posted the link to above, the M471 cars were designed that, despite modification, as cars that can still b registered for road traffic (including under different regulations in different countries), as opposed to vehicles designed as pure racing vehicles that can only be used for circuit racing and whose approval for the road is not possible (the M491 Cars) and
That the M471 option was itself a bundle of items including:
· 80% locking limited slip diff (option M220 by itself)
· Tachometer up to 10,000rpm
· 380mm leather steering wheel
· Lightened body design consisting of:
o Attachment points for Sports seat belts
o Reinforcement for assembly of the safety bar
o Front and rear bumpers without horns
o Instead of decorative and rubber strips on the bumpers, Tesa tape on the front and rear bumpers
o Rubber quick-release fasteners for hoods on the front and back
o PORSCHE lettering decal on the back
o Simplified interior:
§ boards; door lock operation; carpet; dashboard;
o PORSCHE lettering decals in place of decorative strips under the doors on the left and right
o Underbody protection and sound insulation mats are not required

Then other accessories such as fuel tank, suspension, seats etc were separately specified off the options list

I THINK that in 1972 (at least) the apparent use of a “model type” called 911S Typ “T” was a shorthand attempt to distinguish the base 911S competition model including option M471 and possibly bundled with more options, but at least being available with more “sports purpose” options. It is possible that, at least at the factory customer sport department, there was a special “911S Typ “T”” option list that included all the options that may be required for competition cars of any sort apart from from the “production model “911S 2.5 M491.

It is quite clear however that that designation had been used on internal documents such as build sheets and probably order sheets since at least 1970 MY BUT they were very careful in all their documentation to make sure that it was called a 911S for homologation purposes with the “Typ T” used to describe a sub model or group of options suited more for competition. What that stood for – if anything - would be interesting to know.

[matteo68]

Hugh

1019 was a rally car too wasn’t it? (Julio Gargallo in Spain) with registration 857 Z 4481.


0495 had registration AAV 911 and 1195 had registration TÖL-Y 25. 0538 took part in the Targa Florio as you say along with 0818 and 0872 and none of them wore registration plates. I’m not sure that the Targa Florio could be considered a rally actually as they did several laps of the 44 mile circuit - the only reason that the cars started at 15 second intervals being down to the fact that the start line was too narrow to fit more than one car alongside each other. This account by Michael Keyser’s article in ‘Vintage Motorsport’ magazine is insightful:

https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/omjvi...zoktosqjf&dl=0

Matt

[HughH]

Yes Matt 1019 was used in rallies - both initially in Germany at the rally Bosch in 1972 and then in Spain. It is questionable if it was ever officially registered. It wore Zoll plates both in Germany and later in Spain and at least until the 1976 Monte Carlo it was wearing the same Zoll plates. In my view for all but the first 3 or 6 months (I am not sure how long the Zoll plates were valid for at that time) it was unregistered despite being raced on public roads. According to Baudett it is now registered as a "SC" in Spain but it would be interesting to know if it could be legally registered as a 2.5 M491 car.

With 1195 I agree that it has almost always worn the TOL Y 25 plates. Fischhaber had a number of cars all registered similarly such as TOL L 520 and TOL U 52. He even had a Gp5 BMW with TOL plates on it at Mugello in 1979, TOL XC 57 - there is no way that could be road registered so maybe it was a "thing" with him to put TOL plates on a car registered or not. Again TOL Y 25 was almost exclusively used for track and hill climb events neither of which required the car to be road registered if transported to the event. So it may never have been legally registered in Germany despite wearing those plates but it would be interesting to know
Despite the "not allowed to be registered for the road" decree from Porsche (and I assume the TUV) I know of a number of these cars that are road registered (usually on club plates or similar) these days.

[matteo68]

Oh, that's the picture I found on the internet a few month ago ; )

Here is a picture of 0955 at Le Mans 1972 :

Attachment 619564


Thank you Hugh, Matteo and Baudett for your findings and knowledge, that's really interesting to read and to think about.

Hi Gabriel

That’s a great shot of 0955 in the paddock and shows one of the GeLo mechanics painting the race number issued during scrutineering on the bonnet (it was unloaded wearing no number - see presentation photo below) but in the event it only wore this for practice as Jean Sage withdrew his 911 S with #44 after practice, joined Loos and brought #44 with him along with his sponsors:

[niall1]

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…

MY72 Competition Spares List:

3. Front and rear stone protection plates on underside;

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

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

These parts are also on my car. Richard Reventlow referred to these and the wing flares as a Rally Pack that he bought, along with the other (effectively) Group 4 parts that he purchased from the factory, when he planned the car's build with Helmutt Bott in Autumn '72.

It's fascinating to read the above posts, but Porsche was a much smaller company back then and customers got whatever they were willing to pay for. The original base for my car was an E (because Lance thought the S would be too highly strung to be reliable at altitude in the Colorado Rockies) but the car was spec'd with Koni shocks, Michelin tyres, different anti roll bars, forged lightweight wheels. So anything is possible. I don't think back in the 1960's and 70's that there was a truly 'standard' car as these cars weren't mass produced in the context that we think of today.

[matteo68]

Referring to the inner wing where the fuel filler pipe would have gone to on a standard fuel tank,rsr also.

You’re quite right Paul.

Standard shell:



M491 shell (0495):

[Leirbag]

Matteo,

Thank you for the explanation of #78 and #44

I feel like the first picture is your 72T Matteo, am I wrong ? : D

[matteo68]

You’re quite right too, Gabriel!

We shall be welding up the fuel hole in the inner wing but leaving the fuel flap in place on the new outer wing.



Matt

[_gonbau]

The Repsol vehicle is also registered in Spain, as an ST model. I believe this registration was done around the year 2000 or so.


This text should be understood as written by someone who is still asking and learning. Unreservedly... I know there are many questions in the following text, so feel free to answer what you deem appropriate and to think what you deem appropriate regarding the issues I raise. I can understand that the image of what an ST is is fully formed today, but from my beginner's understanding, I see issues and questions that I think are interesting to answer both for me and for public knowledge. I was away for a while and didn't see much activity on this post, so I think with the right questions (if people get involved... and not just me) we can make this post very valuable. For everyone.


I understood that the philosophy behind the S/T model was that it was useful for any sporting use and "normal" road use. Until now, I have always thought that whenever I heard the word ST and, above the ST, always the M491 vehicles with an engine FOR racing. From what I understand (from the answers), the factory made a distinction between racing S and rally S (internally naming in one case M491 and in the other M471,""""""" both carry the "TYP T" """"""" as they are ST). So, any M491 is understood to include the M471 package? If we understand that TYP T was noted on the construction sheet as T between S and coupe. Is there any other internal document that talks about S/T except for the one shown from 1970? From my point of view, again, from mine, I think that perhaps the word S/T should only be used for those factory vehicles that were used for rallies and had their KFZ-Brief to drive on the road. From my point of view, that for me is what an S/T is. A vehicle equipped for events and for the road. Without offending anyone...


Today, from what I understand from these answers, an S/T from 1972 is understood as a vehicle that was only intended for track with M491 (without KFZ-Brief and without being able to compete in rallies, except for those "later transformed to rally"). An S/T is also considered a vehicle that had a (2.4L) engine prepared for rallies (by the factory and exclusively for it) and with its KFZ-Brief in order to return home by road after the event. """""""It is understood then that the 21 vehicles have in their construction sheet the annotation of T or in its "omission," something that refers to it (T) in those sheets""""""". Not all sheets may have it (I think I've been told this before, ****although someone also told me that this T in the construction sheets means Tourist Delivery when it referred to ST in my questions...****This reference to T and a tourist is wrong. I have reread the post, I don't know how I could understand that T was a tourist.). It should also include (the construction sheet) the M491 package if I'm not mistaken (except for vehicles ordered through a Z-Programm).


Why are some vehicles named in the construction sheet as Z-Programm (including certain M packages) and other vehicles instead of containing the Z-Programm only contain the M package in their construction sheet or the annotation "T"? Is there no difference between them? Internally? Same designation?


Why order TYP T on a 911 S (knowing that it is an S and adding in the same order sheet the extras that a standard S would carry)? That leads me to think that the order sheet was equipping a 911T and not a 911S. And I indicate that this document as well as the Typ T seems something to look at carefully. This order I understand was picked up by Hahn (as you indicate). A seller more experienced in 911 and especially racing vehicles, so I understand that in this document there should not be "many" confusions. I think if the document was filled out that way it was to follow a procedure that is not clear to me. As indicated, 911534 for S but the Typ is 911T. It is equipped (by someone knowledgeable on the subject, the seller) with the extras of a 911S knowing that what he has ordered is a 911S. This includes the calculations of each equipped package, etc., thinking about it and that everything is simply a confusion, it seems strange to me.


Regarding 1081
From your publication #990, the description literally says that the vehicle was already in STOCK in Hahn's warehouse as you yourself indicate. From my point of view, there is no confusion in that phrase as also in my theory of the (0) it may indicate STOCK in Germany in its Versandart by the invoice we observe from Hahn to MAX where I think (something that also coincides with the documentation provided in this post where it indicates that these vehicles like 1081 Typ "T" that includes M471 must be delivered with Versandart code 0 or 5), next to the model is the versandart. Regarding the date of the invoice provided by Max Moritz about his work on the 1081 vehicle, it is observed that the invoice number is 554 for December 72. For the dates of November of the year 72, the invoice number is 539, so from my point of view, it would give credibility to the date and the invoice itself if it were not for the fact that it RADICALLY COLLIDES with the history of this vehicle, but if in November 72 they were on invoice 539, I think invoice 554 for December 31, 72 would be correct or approximate in sales volume. There is the theory that to give the invoice number of 1081 they made an estimate from the previous year, but due to the sales volume, I understand that they could not do this as they could overlap an already created invoice number.


In Max's invoice, the Brief number is also included, but before this, it was already included (I think) when Hahn sold it to Max as it is also in the distributor's invoice, so after delivery to Max, the vehicle would have been updated and the KFZ (its content also). How could one have created a KFZ brief if these vehicles, according to the Sport Purpose, were not delivered with registration papers...******For this type of vehicle, it is understood as an M471 vehicle if there were KFz papers
Excluding my theory that the KFZ referring to number 45 150076 is close to January (I believe, and ACCORDING to what I believe, hence Barth's mention of being manufactured before January) and understanding that the vehicle is made for Pelske (according to comments), it is delivered to Max on March 27 already "manufactured and equipped with T" but not with "other sporting equipment." Pelske placed the order to Porsche and "secured with 10,000 marks or more, his Porsche 911" the order on 3.2.72. So, according to what we see, Porsche processed the order of the 911S "Typ T" and already, by March 1, 72, it was manufactured (we would have to see to what extent the rechnungsdatum is faithful to the real date or just to the month). If it is faithful to the real date, the order was processed and manufactured in less than a month from the order date and delivered a day later (I set the order date as the moment when this "special" 911 order is "secured" with a monetary amount).


Would those be correct construction dates?


FROM THE DOCUMENT and starting from the first page where point 1 indicates:
Vehicles that can still be registered for road circulation despite modifications (DIFFERENT REGULATIONS IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES (I put special interest in this)
Point 2:
Vehicles that as PURELY racing versions at the highest level of "tuning" and whose road homologation is not possible.


These sections are very clear... So, can we then exempt the M491 vehicles that were later adapted for rallies (in this context)? And, it is understood by S/T point 1 (M471 or type "T") and point 2 (M491) according to what is indicated in the answers. Although (in my thinking, it would be S/T only point one and point two would be something like an S/R in M491). But understanding as S/T both points (1, 2 "as explained in this post by different users"), how many S/T from group one existed for the year 72, that were created directly for it "rally" or other events (being able to circulate on normal roads) (without subsequent transformations like those previously mentioned that were "originally M491") with their KFZ-Brief? Only the factory ones?


"Three of the four factory cars, 230 0041, 2300047, and 230 0769, were "only" an M471 and had an engine number 632 instead of an M491 662 engine."

From what I understand, these vehicles supposedly had the handwritten notation "T" between 911 S and coupe. T indicates "TYP T." """"T was also present in the 21 M491 vehicles."""Not comprobed

If an M491 vehicle did not have the "typ T" or if the T was not noted between 911S and coupe on its construction sheet (these features were not added, and only M491 was added), does that also make it an S/T? Yes, because M491 includes M471, or M491 could exist on its own.


What makes a vehicle a '72 S/T? Its engine? Its body? The ability to drive on normal roads (M471) or only on the circuit (M491)? Having a legal Brief? The combination?


I'm not saying that the term S/T is being used incorrectly, but I think today it encompasses too many terms and different vehicles for very different and "exclusive" uses in sports fields, which is what most distorted my view of what an S/T was when reading the responses.


Porsche makes it very clear in the last document the disclaimer it makes for M491.
"The vehicles in RACING VERSION M491 and RACING PARTS are delivered under exclusion of any warranty or LIABILITY. They are not intended for use on public roads and do not meet general safety standards."


From my point of view, and without being able to compete in rallies or drive on the road, the M491 would be something to consider. The distinction between rally vehicles and circuit vehicles must exist internally at Porsche when manufacturing them and at the Brief level. (In the Sport Purpose for 1972, a distinction is made between vehicles with an engine for rally (M471) and normal road and vehicles for races, for use only in motorsports (M491). So I wonder if that year Porsche tried to distinguish in its production these two types of vehicles (road-homologated or not) version rennausführung or sportausführung. In both cases (according to responses in this forum), they carry (forgotten or not) the T written between the 911S and Coupe, so it is strange that in such special vehicles and being only 21 more (factory ones), this annotation does not exist in some vehicles. It would be interesting to see if more construction sheets of these vehicles can be obtained. Maybe that T in its construction sheet is what turns these vehicles into ST whether it has an M491 engine or not.


When they manufactured a factory vehicle (for example, 047) and it was complemented as S and the T was written on its construction sheet (TYP T), how did they differentiate it from the construction sheet of a (21 client M491)? If the process and inscription were the same (writing T between S and coupe) and equipping it with an M491 engine.


As you indicated earlier, the 21 clients were manufactured on another assembly line (extracting the chassis at an early stage). Those 21 clients were made on another line (they carry a different VIN stamp) because they were not made with road-homologable parts, while the factory ones were.


If some clients (private racers) instead of 21, suppose there were 25 and instead of the M491 "S/T" they wanted their "S/T" to be able to drive on the road (like those made by the factory for the year '72). Those clients would have to order an M471 with a 2.4 "standard" engine as indicated by the Sport Purpose for 1972 (TYP T). What about those clients who ordered such vehicles, are those STs made with a 2.4 engine for "special" clients listed? Or is the ST designation for 1972 exclusively for the list of 21 STs for non-road-homologable circuits and the factory-named ones?


Where are the S/Ts built in 1972 that were road-homologable? The factory made them. But there isn't a list of S/Ts that could be used on normal roads like the list of the 21? 21 M491 S/Ts not road-homologable (exceptions aside).


If the factory made an S/T that could drive on the road and also compete in rally, it is strange that no private client was interested in that option...


According to Sport Purpose, vehicles were not delivered with registration papers.

+

That Porsche sold 1081 with Brief papers, if we know it includes M471 (TYP T) and at that time did not have the M491 engine. Does it mean that the "TYP T" were road-legal and therefore eligible for rallying, as I understand it?
Therefore, in my opinion, there should have existed "TYP T" with a 2.4 engine (as 1081 was at the time of its production, and there must be more), """"as well as there should have existed (as shown by the list of the 21) "TYP T" with a 2.5 engine.""""
The TYP T with the 2.4 engine (M471) could be used in rallies, and the ""TYP T with the 2.5 engine (M491) only on circuits"", so from my perspective, calling these two types of vehicles completely different as S/T is complicated.
On one hand, we have a vehicle M471 with the inscription T (TYP T) on its sheet, "and we also have vehicles M491 that also have the T handwritten (which means they are equipped with the type T)"((I have not seen any M491 vehicle with the handwritten T inscription. Does anyone have an example? Therefore, the information in the previous sentence is incorrect.)).
Then, we have the Z-program cars that encompass both options 471+491, something that would exclude them from rally-type events according to Porsche's own documentation. Three types of cars are grouped under the same "designation": those created from a program, those created exclusively from 471, and those created from 491+471 without an attached program in their construction sheets. In all these cases, the T inscription is present on the construction sheet, both for M471 and ((M491 vehicles)) I have not been able to verify this information about the M491 with any document. That is to say, from the little that can be seen of these vehicles, so far, none contain the handwritten T inscription..
Are there records of any Porsche M471 without the handwritten T on the construction sheet for the year 72? If so, does it mean that the T on the construction sheet does not simply indicate M471, in my opinion? 1081, as a vehicle not extracted from the assembly line and assembled as "a normal vehicle," carries the T inscription on its construction sheet (according to Barth's explanation). Therefore, normal assembly line vehicles could potentially receive the "TYP T," as I understand from the information regarding 1081.
Do the 21 Carrera clients have a knee number according to production norms, or do their numbers not follow "normality"?


As I said above, don't get upset; I'm just trying to reason and think, and even though it has been explained to me many times, more questions arise each time it is explained. And with that, I learn. I hope many of you do too.
+
531 is decided to be overlooked, omission, I suppose I won't be the only one who noticed the detail in the documentation.