Ultimate ST thread

[patrick911]

(...)For the 19 M491s, the handwritten ‘+SP’ does not appear if the gearbox didn’t have an LSD fitted (these being 0495, 0550 & 0910). (...)

so you're saying the "SP" could have referred to the LSD? (as Limited Slip Differential in German is 'sperrdifferenzial')

[HughH]

Matt is correct
+SP or just SP on Porsche documentation like this always refers to the car having a sperrdifferenzial or LSD

[Nimba]

I should point out here that Mr. Barth told me personally just a month ago that no M491 vehicle on this "ST" list should have the letters SP. He also told me that these '72 vehicles were made on T shells.

Everyone is free to believe what they consider appropriate once these images and the documentation discussed in this magnificent post by different experts on the subject (where I do not include myself) are seen... where a person can come to know enough to start questioning their own doubts...

From my perspective, I don't know why Mr. Barth told me this at such an advanced time when things can be verified by different people, but I want to leave this detail here. So that it is known, what is still being said about these vehicles by the people who were responsible for making them. I hope that these sheets will continue to be discussed here as I consider them more important than the car itself, and clarifying them is "our/the forum's" duty.


Since M491 vehicles could only be issued with the M491 package, the following question comes to mind, Matteo: Of those 19 vehicles, are the ones with limited-slip differentials all noted by hand? Yes? I think this because the M491 sheets were made and then the detail of SP and the + was added to those M491 vehicles that had the differential equipped.

I wonder what he meant by that
From my understanding, looking at my own M491 car, you can´t really say it´s a T-shell (or S-shell for that matter) as the body-shell is unique from it´s
early assembly. And in 1972, all 911 shells were made by Reutter(porsche) so what would the difference be then of the different versions?
ROW´s had still carbureted engines and no need for the mfi fuel filter that sits in left side of the engine compartment, and there are three holes in the body for it´s
mounting. I dunno if the 3 holes are there for the ROW T cars. S-cars all had external front oil cooler and attachment points for oil lines and cooler
Can´t think of any other differences but maybe someone else knows?

[_gonbau]

From my perspective, when you mention the 21, what exactly are you referring to? Because I still believe that a Z-program vehicle should not be on the same list as an M491 vehicle. Then there are the M471 vehicles, all of which are 'S/T' according to the forum. Therefore, if we want to be precise on this topic, the list of those 21 should be more extensive if we are talking about the S/T from '72 or are we only talking about the 'S/T' with 2.5L engines? Those are the 21... correct? The Z-program vehicles should be excluded.


I understand that 769 (as you mentioned) had the M471 package, and I believe I’ve also read that it has been referred to as S/T in some publications. So, at this point, it’s very clear that the M471 vehicles were S/T. So, where is the list of these vehicles for the year '72? If we include the two 'types of S/T,' the M471 and the M491 (excluding the Z-program), how many S/T were produced in '72? The usual 21... they are the 2.5L, but what about all the other M471s...?


Regarding 955, it’s a translation error. Evidently, it was an emphasis made AFTER the vehicle was manufactured. Why underline and write 'SP' when it’s already noted on the build sheet, and the installation of the limited-slip differential is clearly highlighted...? From my point of view, it’s an adjustment or revision for some reason that I’m not fully aware of.


For the vehicles where you mention the LSD was not installed, I would have thought that these vehicles did have that equipment, but in the case of 550, being a Z-program vehicle, the M220 was included in the Z-program, or so I thought until now. According to what you mention, these vehicles (0495, 0550, and 0910) don’t have LSD? I thought they did due to their high engine power, so now you’ve made me doubt this. Are you certain that those vehicles you named don’t have LSD? Or was Barth referring to these vehicles where M220 is installed, but the inscription 'SP' is not...?


Regarding 538, I find it very important what you mentioned about this vehicle not having the T. I would have been 100% sure it did. Since it’s a Z-program vehicle and the other two Z-program vehicles have the T, only one question comes to mind. What was this 538 vehicle created for? Was it going to be sent directly to the American market and its competitions? Perhaps that's why the T was not noted on the build sheet, maybe because it was a vehicle that would be directly exported, but from my point of view, that shouldn’t be a reason not to write the T on that car’s sheet.


Adding the detail that the + is always typed and never handwritten. This detail is important because it shows that from the creation of the sheet, the + was noted, which would later indicate SP. Since the + is typed... Why not write 'SP' at that moment as well? I think this inscription must mean more than it seems.


Regarding Niumba, I’m completely unaware that in 1972 they were built by Reutter.

In another matter, regarding the person you mentioned, Matteo, until now, I didn’t know anyone who had 'that knowledge' aside from Mr. Barth. I understand that he obtained those documents in a 'legitimate' manner? Did Porsche sell them? I’ve been denied access to see the sheet for my vehicle, the 9112300576... even by the director of the archive, not even in person. So, it always catches my attention how third parties have access to documents that are neither their intellectual property nor their actual property. Documents that even the vehicle's owner cannot see.
Once, I was told that my sheet didn’t exist, but there was a note in the registration book. A line was sent to me, and I understand that document to be of a higher level than the build sheet. Now, you’ve made me wonder if the gentleman you mentioned is the same person who talks with Thomas and many other owners of these special vehicles. In any case, when I contacted a gentleman through a third person who had these documents, I was told that my sheet was 'destroyed,' only to later speak with the museum and, although they didn’t allow me to see it, confirm that my sheet did exist. These are curious things, so I’d like to ask you for a favor: could you ask him if he has my sheet, or if he is the same person who provides the production lines?

Lastly, I want to add something that I consider extremely important regarding the 550 and its build sheet. There are NO holes in the sheet indicating that it was stored in the same place as all the other build sheets, whether for the standard models or the M491, M471... All of them have, in addition to the stamped marks from each step, two holes that are identical in size, shape, and location. These were made for storage in an archive. If we are clear on this, we can observe the sheet for the 550, where these marks do NOT EXIST. Where does the 550 sheet come from? From what 'archive/location' separate from the rest of the sheets, and what does it mean that this one doesn’t have the storage marks? Perhaps it was the first 'example of something'?



S-ABH.C.IMF.I.WER
+
Regarding the marking of each step in the construction sheets, it can be seen that in the construction sheets themselves, the Z-program vehicles do not have the "completed" mark, while the M491 vehicles do. Therefore, the latter were assembled in a "standard" location, unlike the Z-program vehicles, which were assembled in one place and, I understand, then the Z-program vehicles were moved to another location separate from the assembly line.


M491 Basis serie.

[matteo68]

I’m exhausted after reading your post Baudett!

It seems that whenever I try and provide definitive information (including copies of the fzgs), you query and contradict them?’ What more do you need to be convinced when Hugh and I say the same thing?!

I think I’m done with this, just like monaco1 got tired of all the ‘keyboard warriors’ disputing his knowledge 10 years ago and gave up posting on here. Sorry.

[Leirbag]

Matteo,


What car is linked with the gearbox #7120023 that you have in your signature? It's surprising that it's the number right after the one linked to 0955 (I hope you can find it one day!)

[_gonbau]

I’m exhausted after reading your post Baudett!

It seems that whenever I try and provide definitive information (including copies of the fzgs), you query and contradict them?’ What more do you need to be convinced when Hugh and I say the same thing?!

I think I’m done with this, just like monaco1 got tired of all the ‘keyboard warriors’ disputing his knowledge 10 years ago and gave up posting on here. Sorry.

Hi Matteo, I don’t understand why you’ve become upset. Since when is questioning or contradicting something a reason to get angry? We’re talking about knowledge that is being widely shared these days, and you already consider it as definitive information.
It seems like you have easy access to this kind of information, and I apologize if others, like myself, don’t have the same resources to obtain documentation. Some of us have had to make our own summaries and follow our own paths, without simply accepting what we’re given. This is especially true when it comes to a topic like Porsche, where constant errors in documentation and other details have been demonstrated.
Now it turns out that none of the vehicles on the list have the "T" written, something you consider definitive, and that until recently wasn’t known, or at least wasn’t widely recognized. Questioning things allows us to understand that purely M491 vehicles didn’t have the "T" because they were manufactured under a specific standard. To me, this clearly indicates a difference between those that have the "S/T" inscription on their sheets and those that don’t.
As for concluding this topic, Matteo, I don’t understand why you’ve sent me so much documentation about different vehicles, knowing that I always ask questions. What was the purpose? To validate your arguments?
If you want to respond here, that’s fine; if you prefer to do so in private or via email, that’s okay too. And if you’d rather end the conversation here, it’s been a pleasure knowing you. I want you to know that you are one of the few people who has shared information of great value for all Porsche enthusiasts who usually don’t have access to this quality of data.

[matteo68]

Matteo,


What car is linked with the gearbox #7120023 that you have in your signature? It's surprising that it's the number right after the one linked to 0955 (I hope you can find it one day!)

Ugh, wrong digit! Should be 7120022! 7120023 was in 0987! I have the crankcases for 0955 (6622034) - damaged in period, possibly repairable but unlikely to be good enough to rebuild into a fully functioning engine! Now to find the 915/00 gearbox and the chassis one day - might actually be with the car somewhere in the world!?!…

[MPST]

Dear Baudett,

you are doing much more of a myth of this cars as they really are. Same with Mr. Barth, he is not the only one Expert, but perhaps the only so called xpert who is willing to take money for every B.S. he is telling.

I personally know 2 +1 (mine) original ST which was never on the 1.000 times copied list of 21 cars. The original list on which most cars are and always all expert are refer to was made several years after end of production and to my knowledge it was that time a copy of a copy.

[_gonbau]

I don't understand why I'm being accused of 'mythologizing' when I'm someone who's trying to clarify the 'S/T' and the M491 (which have been mixed up for years). As Matteo showed in his DDk posts, the M491 vehicles were supported by a program. The S/T vehicles, not having a 'defined program,' were marked as such S/T, not M491. The famous list of 21 shouldn't even be 21, as it mixes Z-programm vehicles (delivered on January 14) with M491 vehicles delivered months later (I don't understand the intention behind confusing them).
On the other hand, I'm not sure what you're saying about your vehicle and others, but I think this is what I'm trying to convey that there are more S/T vehicles than what is generally acknowledged, more S/T vehicles than those listed in the 'expert-prepared lists.' Finally, I don't understand how you can lump me into the Barth group, nor do I understand the intention behind it. I also don't understand why Matteo wasn't corrected when he said that those vehicles without the SP written down didn't have LSD.

For the 19 M491s, the handwritten ‘+SP’ does not appear if the gearbox didn’t have an LSD fitted (these being 0495, 0550 & 0910). Note that not all gearboxes were type 915/00, some were ‘Sondergetriebe kein 915/00’ / Special gearbox without type 915/00 designation (0495, 0910, 0983, 1155 & 1328).

Matt

*It wouldn't hurt to add that if you're talking about the 550 for example (Z-program vehicle), you couldn't include it in the "list of 19"... In that case, you would be talking about the list of 19+Z-Programm since the 550 is a Z-program vehicle, which you exclude when discussing the 19 M491.

Matt is correct
+SP or just SP on Porsche documentation like this always refers to the car having a sperrdifferenzial or LSD

I think it’s well known that those Z-programm vehicles are equipped with M220.

I did the gearbox in 495, no type number, stamped numbers only, 80% diff, special ratios and prototype style oil pump.

Perhaps this reflects a lot of what's going on here from my point of view, but I'll refrain from commenting further on that. I must point out that no matter how many comments of this kind I receive, I will continue asking about the S/T, etc. Likewise, if the STAFF believes I'm muddying the conversation, they are free to tell me, and I will stop commenting.
+

P.S.: 9112301019 recorded a change of ownership a month ago. Maybe someone finally came to find the treasure in Spain after all this time...?