earliest racing 914/6s - a query, relates to when factory decided to reinforce 'em |
|
Porsche, and the Porsche crest are registered trademarks of Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG.
This site is not affiliated with Porsche in any way. Its only purpose is to provide an online forum for car enthusiasts. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners. |
|
earliest racing 914/6s - a query, relates to when factory decided to reinforce 'em |
larryM |
Jan 21 2017, 06:45 PM
Post
#1
|
emoze Group: Members Posts: 891 Joined: 1-January 03 From: mid- California Member No.: 65 Region Association: Northern California |
somewhere in the vast pile of 914-6 documents i've amassed over the last 40 yrs, i dimly recall reading that the first racing sixes suffered significant chassis damage
- something to the effect that they "were nearly breaking off at the front half by the end of the race" (... at Nurburgring if dim memory serves) this is prompted by a post by GMS about 0012 & when it got flares, etc - and having just read The Racing 914s book & noting the gripes by various rallye teams from several sources about the cars' flexy-ness: one of the things the book does not get into was the cars that privateers were racing and rallying early on - many, likely "stock" 914-6s prepped only to the requirements of 1970's ADAC competition, which were minimal by comparison it would save hours of searching my files if anyone can narrow down that reference! (i'm working on a story for our local PCA Drifter) if the early chassis' were problematic, presumably Porsche noted that and then went about the GT reinforcing project ?? - or did they build 'em from the beginning with reinforcements based on the results of their own testing before any race cars were fielded (GT or other) ?? relative to this question - the first production GT was 9140430475 which Porsche displayed at RR-V 2015 (not driveable - see pic) perhaps one of y'all know the production date -0475 ? - (possibly there is a difference between "1st production" and "very 1st" of these 11 factory race cars??) here are a couple pics of that factory #1 car - interesting for the things it does not exhibit, that we all take as "gospel" - fodder for the cognoscenti . .TIA |
twash |
Jan 22 2017, 12:39 PM
Post
#2
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 63 Joined: 16-October 04 From: camarillo calif Member No.: 2,960 |
this 914-6 shown is very special, a light weight version equip with a factory 2.2 injected 6 cylinder engine,used a factory track car in Europe road races. car was shown as a display was not completed at the time but was show because its a very special light weight factory race car with history, some metal stamping are half normal thickness
|
lalee914 |
Jan 22 2017, 03:03 PM
Post
#3
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 820 Joined: 13-February 13 From: Georgetown, DE Member No.: 15,521 Region Association: North East States |
Ya know, I remember reading something in Pano many years ago about the Daytona winning Sunoco 914/6 GT being sold at the end of the 1971 season because the chassis was "shot". And I kind of remember something about Jacques Duvall switching back to a 911 for 1972 because it had a stronger chassis. I found one article about that car but there was no reference to chassis flex in it.
|
flyer86d |
Jan 22 2017, 03:31 PM
Post
#4
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 445 Joined: 12-January 11 From: Corea, Maine Member No.: 12,585 Region Association: North East States |
Interesting. Back in the mid to late 70s, the consensus was that a 2.4S was about the biggest engine that you wanted in a stock 914-6 chassis without reinforcing the chassis. Bigger than that, they would crack over the top of the half shafts. That engine made similar power to the GT race engine. What came first?
Charlie |
sixnotfour |
Jan 22 2017, 03:38 PM
Post
#5
|
914 Wizard Group: Members Posts: 10,598 Joined: 12-September 04 From: Life Elevated..planet UT. Member No.: 2,744 Region Association: Rocky Mountains |
Ya know, I remember reading something in Pano many years ago about the Daytona winning Sunoco 914/6 GT being sold at the end of the 1971 season because the chassis was "shot". And I kind of remember something about Jacques Duvall switching back to a 911 for 1972 because it had a stronger chassis. I found one article about that car but there was no reference to chassis flex in it. the windshield cracked, if I remember correct |
larryM |
Jan 22 2017, 05:30 PM
Post
#6
|
emoze Group: Members Posts: 891 Joined: 1-January 03 From: mid- California Member No.: 65 Region Association: Northern California |
following up Larry.Lee's clues - i think i read that same story - am looking for it
- the Works cars construction began Oct 1969; and the first works cars ran at Nurburgring 31 May 1970 so they knew about the reinforcing issues by then, front & rear; (or were still learning...) Long's description of "6 steel plates" is arguably different than what we have all come to understand as the "factory" 10-pc M471reinforcing kit http://www.autoatlanta.com/Porsche-10-Piec...PN-BCS1006.html here is relevant info from Brian Long's book: . |
Montreal914 |
Jan 22 2017, 07:40 PM
Post
#7
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1,684 Joined: 8-August 10 From: Claremont, CA Member No.: 12,023 Region Association: Southern California |
Ya know, I remember reading something in Pano many years ago about the Daytona winning Sunoco 914/6 GT being sold at the end of the 1971 season because the chassis was "shot". And I kind of remember something about Jacques Duvall switching back to a 911 for 1972 because it had a stronger chassis. I found one article about that car but there was no reference to chassis flex in it. Well, that's a question for fduval, a member here, as he is Jacques Duval's son. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) Francois, are you reading this? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/idea.gif) |
larryM |
Jan 23 2017, 01:29 PM
Post
#8
|
emoze Group: Members Posts: 891 Joined: 1-January 03 From: mid- California Member No.: 65 Region Association: Northern California |
additional factoids
The Porsche "Competition Parts List" has no reference to any chassis reinforcement plates https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5m5z4bls9z3l3m3/...nglish.pdf?dl=0 and best I can discern, neither does the FIA Homologation document (as best I can make out, not being a native German reader) (I am open to being enlightened) https://www.dropbox.com/sh/5m5z4bls9z3l3m3/...gation.pdf?dl=0 following up Larry.Lee's clues - i think i read that same story - am looking for it - the Works cars construction began Oct 1969; and the first works cars ran at Nurburgring 31 May 1970 so they knew about the reinforcing issues by then, front & rear; (or were still learning...) Long's description of "6 steel plates" is arguably different than what we have all come to understand as the "factory" 10-pc M471reinforcing kit http://www.autoatlanta.com/Porsche-10-Piec...PN-BCS1006.html here is relevant info from Brian Long's book: . |
larryM |
Jan 23 2017, 02:42 PM
Post
#9
|
emoze Group: Members Posts: 891 Joined: 1-January 03 From: mid- California Member No.: 65 Region Association: Northern California |
Interesting. Back in the mid to late 70s, the consensus was that a 2.4S was about the biggest engine that you wanted in a stock 914-6 chassis without reinforcing the chassis. Bigger than that, they would crack over the top of the half shafts. That engine made similar power to the GT race engine. What came first? Charlie "cracking over the halfshafts" accounts for the 10-pc kit we know of according to Long's book - Porsche did these 1972 chassis with bigger engines - no info about reinforcements . |
carr914 |
Jan 23 2017, 06:32 PM
Post
#10
|
Racer from Birth Group: Members Posts: 121,608 Joined: 2-February 04 From: Tampa,FL Member No.: 1,623 Region Association: South East States |
Ya know, I remember reading something in Pano many years ago about the Daytona winning Sunoco 914/6 GT being sold at the end of the 1971 season because the chassis was "shot". And I kind of remember something about Jacques Duvall switching back to a 911 for 1972 because it had a stronger chassis. I found one article about that car but there was no reference to chassis flex in it. the windshield cracked, if I remember correct Yep, here was the Factory Fix! This is in the #2 Nurburgring car |
flyer86d |
Jan 23 2017, 06:42 PM
Post
#11
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 445 Joined: 12-January 11 From: Corea, Maine Member No.: 12,585 Region Association: North East States |
The Gemini blue metallic 1972 914-6 was at a NNJR-PCA event (picnic) in the mid 1980s. I remember looking it over, 2.7 RS engined with MFI, GT body, ignition in the steering column but a 914-6 serial number. Obviously quite a bit different than my #311 914-6. I had driven 2.7 RS engined 911's and could only imagine that power in a car 300 pounds lighter!
Charlie |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 31st October 2024 - 07:30 PM |
All rights reserved 914World.com © since 2002 |
914World.com is the fastest growing online 914 community! We have it all, classifieds, events, forums, vendors, parts, autocross, racing, technical articles, events calendar, newsletter, restoration, gallery, archives, history and more for your Porsche 914 ... |