What do you guys think of this one?

[HughH]

gruen911

Tobias Aichele's book "Porsche 911 Forever Young" produced with an almost unrestricted access to the Porsche achives gives the following figures for early 911 production:
Model year 1964 300 001 to 300232 produced after Sept 14 1964
Model year 1965 300233 to 303390 produced to July 1965
Model year 1966 303391 to 305100 August 1965 to July 1966
Model year 1967 305101 to 308522 August 1966 to July 1967
Model year 1967 305101S to 308523S August 1966 to July 1967 (911S)
Model year 1967 500001 to 500718 August 1966 to July 1967 (TARGA)
Model year 1967 500001S to 500718S August 1966 to July 1967 (TARGA S)


Obviously in a "normal" model year the units produced in September 1964 and later would be "1965" model year cars. However this source distinctively classifies them as "64" cars - ie the "first 230 odd cars" - maybe it is 235 but i cant confirm that as I cant find that reference and because they were not all produced in serial number order. Achiele says it is 232 cars with the last car of the year carrying chassis number 233 and the first of the new year (completed on jan 4) chassis 235.

A finer distinction can be made as all cars produced before Nov 10, 1964 (chassis 300049 - 82 cars in total - see how jumbled the chassis numbers were from a perfect sequence) are the TYP 901 cars and carried the internal designation 901. Nov 10 was the date they had to switch to 911 due to the Pugeot complaint. But as an extra twist to that the first car IN THE SHOWROOM was on Nov 16 - so by the time they hit the showroom they were officially 911's

The book also lists by chassis number each of the prototypes and gives a history of each one.

[gruen911]

Here's some more food for thought. Porsche 911 Redbook (author Patrick C. Paternie) states the following build numbers on page 8:

1964 = Chassis numbers 13321 - 13333

1965 Model Year
(built 9/64-12/64) Chassis numbers 300001-300235 = 235
(built 1/65-7/65) Chassis numbers 300236-303390 = 3,154

1966 Model Year Chassis numbers 903551-907000 = 1,709

Oddly enough, there is a footnote under the build numbers which states the following:
Porsche historians agree about the number of prototypes but they differ about the numbering of the chassis. Dennis Adler, in his book "Porsche 911 Road Cars" says that chassis number 13 330 and 13 331 were used in developing the 4 cylinder 912. Peter Morgan in his "original Porsche 911" states that the chassis numbers were 13 321-13 330, 13 352, and 300001-2. Morgan says that 235 1965 models were made during 1964 as 1965 models and agrees that 1967 production began with 305101. Tobias Aichele, in "Porsche 911, Forever Young" concurs with Morgan's prototype chassis numbers in one section of the book, but then reverts to the 13 321 - 13 333 sequence in his chronological listing. Aichele says that only 232 cars were made before production stopped on December 23, 1964. Furthermore, he maintains that the first car of 1965 bore chassis number 300 325 as of January 4, 1965. The difficulty of verifying these early chassis numbers is made even more difficult because of the factory's reliance on handwritten record keeping during this early period and the constant changes during the development and testing process.

I'm lost now....

[Jens]

Yup, that's what I used for number series and build numbers. It gets all the more murky from here on in. Good color though!

[HughH]

just to add to the confusion on these early production numbers (or at least to my confusion!) there are two other different sets of "facts" on these production numbers in Achiele's book:

A table on page 339 that lists production of 911's by year showing 13 TYP901's in 1963 (the pre-production cars although the last two had chassis numbers 300001 and 300002 further confusing the number count), 230 in 1964, 3154 in 1965 and 3724 in 1966 - This seems incorrect as the last chassis number at the end of 1966 is 305100 implying about 5100 built over that whole period not the 7108 obtained by adding up all the numbers supposedly produced. The 5100 ties up with the Peter Morgan Total but it is unclear whether he calculated that number from the chassis numbers or saw actual production records.

If the Achiele numbers had been 2154 and 2724 respectively for 65 and 66 that adds to 5108 produced - broadly consistent with the chassis number sequence.

This is also consistent with his written piece on early production which states that the last chassis produced in the 1965 production (on July 30) was 302104 along with 13 other cars produced on that day and the first in the 66 year was 302114 on 16 August.

It does not explain why both references (and others) have the last number in that year as 303390 in the table of chassis numbers!!

I deliberatly stopped at the end of 66 because the introduction of the S using the same sequence but adding the suffix "S" in the chassis number complicates matters.

Regardless the car in question is an early one at 303259. HOWEVER if the real cut off in July 65 was around chassis 302100 rather than the 303390 shown in the books it makes it a definite 66 car - not a 65 production year car registered as a 66.

NeunElf says his car "was delivered in June 1965 (with April & May date stamps), and it's chassis number is 301382." That would also be consistent with the July 65 cut off at about chassis number 302100.

do any of the early car owners oiut there have further information to prove / disprove these chassis number cutoffs in the books??

[gruen911]

Hell. Now I am happy I have a 67. At least I know when it was built and how many have to rust out/crash before mine becomes one of a kind!!!

[HughH]

I don't want to get hung up on this issue but the maths suggests that the last 1965 chassis number in the reference books of 303390 may be really for CALENDAR 65 ie end of December. If the Achiele number of 302104 is correct for 30 July that would imply a production rate of about 13 cars per working day between jan and end of July and another 14 cars or so per working day to end Dec (allowing for their couple of weeks off in August) to reach the 303390.
It would also explain the low number shown for 66 in the Redbook of 1709 - again about 13 per working day

This also allows the possibility of double counting about 6 months of production (between Aug 65 and Dec65) if using both production based numbers and the chassis number cutoffs. this would explain why Achiele's table of cars produced on an cumulative basis up to the end of the 66 model year is about 2000 cars higher than the chassis numbers used

Not that it matters much as the 64, 65 and 66 cars were all basically the same ( apart from the normal Porsche running updates throughout the model life - ie Webers in 66, update of the alternator , introduction of the 901/05 engine etc)

[Eade Hopkinson]

I own Chassis number 300221. I have the had written documentation from the Porsche factory records, showing the car was made 12/22/64. I am a member of the 232 Registry, which is for any of the 911's built in 1964. We also have a letter from Porsche, stating what was quoted earlier in this post. They made 82 901 series, and 150 911 models from Sept. of 1964 - December of 1964, for a total of 232, hence the name of the club. There are only 45 of us in the club, world wide. As far as the 1965 production cars go, I will let you guys continue on that quest. The white car is the 64, which I just drove to have completely restored by Skip Shirley and Wayne Baker in San Diego. The car has 350,000 miles on it, with the original matching engine and transmission. The motor has been rebuilt 3 times, and the transmission twice. I drove it at 90mph all the way down there, and it ran like a champ.

[ttweed]

TT, let us know what the car looks like in person.

This car is VERY rough, much worse in person than in the pictures. There was very little room in the garage to inspect it thouroughly, and I suggest anyone interested in the car get it up on a lift and have it checked completely on the underside. Sticking my head under, I could not see any obvious perforations, but the underpan had the usual rumpled look with surface rust apparent. All the chrome is rusted and flaking, the paint is dull and scratched up, there is a 2" rust crater bubbling up under the left rear window, and I could see the ground thru a small rusty hole in the gas tank support (the gas tank itself was a newer replacement.) I would not bet on the paint being original, either, but I could not even open the drivers door enough to look at the paint code tag, due to the Cobra being parked so close to it. The thing that disturbed me most was that the aluminum VIN tag which is usually riveted to the front hood strike plate crossmember was placed OVER (on top of) the stamped chassis ID number above the gas tank! There was no way to verify the VIN# stamped there without removing it. Moreover, there was no sign of it being installed in the original position, which leads me to believe that the front end may have been crash damaged and repaired at some point. The odometer read 88K miles, but I am pretty sure this has been around the clock a few times in reality, maybe 188K, even 288K from the overall condition.

The interior is totally ragged, the wood on the dash and wheel is weathered, checked and cracked, the seat covers are torn, the carpet and headliner need to be replaced, the door panels are poor, the turnsignal lenses are faded and cracked, the lower crossbar on the rear bumper was used to tow something and is bowed out about 2", the hoodbadge does not look original (red crossbars, not orange), the headlights are H4s, and of course, one wiper is missing (and JENS--it has been raining cats and dogs for WEEKS here in S. Cal.)

The good news is that it does run and drive pretty well for a car that has sat neglected for so long. The 901/01 motor feels strong for its type, with only slight smoking that I could see, and I don't think it could have any compression problems with that much grunt. Maybe worn valve guides, as mentioned. The Webers are working pretty well, as it started easily and ran smoothly up to redline. There is an abandoned Facet electric fuel pump in the engine compartment, and I could hear another one clicking away from underneath up by the tank. The engine is very dirty. The tranny has a second gear synchro problem, but shifts still. I think we got up to fourth on a short test drive in the neighborhood. The suspension felt solid around corners and over bumps.

The Fuchs wheels are definitely 4.5", but I did not take one off to look at the back for part numbers to make sure they were not replicas. The spare is a steel wheel, so I'm sure these were added in the aftermarket and not original. If a dealer had put them on the car, I would think they would have done the spare as well. They look correct, but there is no paint on them at all, so they were probably polished at one point. I saw spacers under the front wheels, and the lugnuts are mismatched (some silver, some black.) Those wheels and the foglamps would be the highpoints of the car, if they are real.

In my opinion, this is a $5,000 car. If someone pays $7,000 for it, and sells the Fuchs for $2000, they will have an OK driver at an OK price, if there are no problems with the VIN# that is concealed not matching, etc.... It will take a LOT of work to put it back into good original condition. If someone has $40K to throw at a project, go for it! I don't see this as a "special" car that deserves that kind of investment, certainly nothing like Eade's #221, but it might make a fun driver for fairly cheap if you did all the work yourself.

Myself, back in 1997, I bought a '66 911 #304126 for $6500 and it was in WAY better condition than this. Granted the cars have appreciated a bit in the intervening years, and my '66 was far from original, but all of its modifications were desireable updates and it had NO RUST. It had complete '67S running gear-- 901/02 engine, trans, suspension, wheels and brakes, instruments, etc. Its performance was indistinguishable from my original '67S. I sold it in 1999 to a Rennlister in Australia for $11K, after putting many performance improvements into it.

YMMV,
TT

[gruen911]

TT,
Thanks for the effort in checking the car out for the pack. Now that the true condition of the car has been verified by a qualified pair of eyes and ears, we can all go back to our garages tonight and be happy with what we already have....

[Bobs 67S]

TT, thanks for the review. Sorry it is worse than it looks. Did you get a chance to look at the steering wheel?

As to the numbers for the 1965/1966 911, many of the books are filled with typos and just wrong information. The biggest difference seems when trying to rectify build dates (model year/build year) with quantities and serial numbers. Go to the foot notes of each author and they should give the references and an indication of Model Year (spans two calendar years) or Year of Build (spans two model years).

I'm looking forward to the revised Red Book (which is promised to be republished soon) and you'll see a number of revisions. Morgan used numbers from the little factory spec book, which should be revised with newer factory info. Tobias Achiele seems to be the most recent and accurate information so I would defer to his counts. Prior to that I'd defer to Lothar Boschen and Jurgen Barth's "The Porsche Book".

Prototypes:
I have seen Kardex for the four official 901/911 prototypes 13 330, 13 326 H. Piech, 13 327 Richard von Frankenberg (Don Meluzio), and 13 328. The other mock ups and test beds were not given Kardex (birth certificates) and were not tracked by the factory. I also have heard about the 11 prototypes but the factory chose to track only 4.

The first 901 produced was 300 007 on 14 Sept 1964. 300 001 was built on 17 Sept 1964. 300 002 was built on 18 Sept 1964.

There are two additional prototype numbers 13 360 the test bed/mock up for the Targa (it was pulled from the production line and sent to Research). It was shown at the Parade in Texas and writen up in one of the magazines. And, a special 13 433 (never painted) used for mechanics training. You may be hearing about this car in the next few years, a very reputable east coast restorer now has this car.

Eade:
Great to hear your going into restoration on 221. Yeah, the 2 Ltr. just sing at about 90 mph, 4500 rpm an just cruzing. Long live the early cars.

Bob