Example of Porsche Classic lacking knowledge on their own early cars ?

[911MRP]

… despite what says on the tin …. it is incorrect bulb for 65- 71 911. The H4 pair would have been used in Europe (and the so called rest of if the world excluding USA) from March 1972. Not correct main bulb pair for 911 until a later model. Ironically it is more correct for the RoW longhood model years they specifically exclude on the date range printed on the lid of tin (some of 72) and 73.

Shoddy effort by Porsche Classic to put this product offering into the market with incorrect information / contents.

If it had been incorrectly labelled H4 bulb in regular parts supply chain in normal spares packaging where somehow “ the plot” got lost due to supersession relabelling of inventory etc still not impressed if mistake made but more understandable maybe? But made worse by the fact someone has spent time and effort on a little project to do this product and design and make “fancy packaging”. Sloppy work in the Division of Porsche AG set up expressly to address and support their many classic cars.

Did no one in the process of designing developing sporting and making the offering catch a very basic glaring mistake? With the design of the tin containing the bulb having the incomparible date range actually printed on its lid the product as offered is plain wrong in its configuration.

Incidentally the £75 asking is high for compared to generic H4 lamp and fuse sets in many parts of world with a premium for it that buyer might expect OEM had got things right from ! With some shopping around probably could get an H4 spare set in box for fraction of that asking price.

If some owners have changed original 65-71 headlights such that the set as produced happens to fit that doesn’t absolve the lack of quality management by Porsche classic in what they bring to the market — they should get such things right imo. What else is being missed?