The Legend of the "914 S" & "914 SC", Myth or Fact? Options

[Tom_T]

Shortsighted in not seeing that the "914 S" would've probably helped them sell more 2.0's - and probably did so in the first half of the 73 model year, and maybe would've sold even better if badged as a 914 S!?

What you are forgetting is that the 914 was the Best Selling car Porsche EVER had for the time it was for sale, until they started cranking out Crap in the 90's.

Tom, I think you are making way too much of this, But it may & I hope it educates the Newbies. Marketing & Lawyers very Rarely mix.

T.C.

I agree it was the best selling, & sold as many in 6 MYs as ALL years of the 356's combined. Unfortunately, the VW-Porsche JV set a goal of 30k per year, so even the 27k+/- of the 73 & 74 MY's disappointed them! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

IMHO, a company like Porsche lucky to make/sell +/- 10k 911s/912s a year prior to that, was probably setting unrealistic goals for the 914. It was a true loss to drop the excellent handling 914s, in favor of the 924s IMHO! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

Anyhoo, you're right on - not a big deal I was making, just passing along the info. So thanx for posting the full article, cuz my pix of it are way too big to upload here - ergo only the excerpts!

BTW - that article is the main one which convinced me to buy my 73 914 2L over a 240Z, back in 75! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Tom_T]

............You people are overlooking , sidestepping , some basic facts.....to call the 914-S...a north-american only venture......The cars,914.s, that were produced, WITH ALL the options-WHICH WERE designated (914-S).....Had to be Purpose built ,manufactured.(during 1972,actually, and sold in 1973).....and...that process of including all of the (expensive) options HAD to have had porsche AG approval.(during 1972-1973......and.... at the same TIME other 914,s were being produced which DID NOT HAVE all the options..(offered on the 914-S)......There was a difference in the options, and, thus, the designation as these cars sold in late 1972-early 1973 in america.....as I said previously the FULLY optioned 1974 914 was the LE, can- am car.,obviously designated....do they have a special rear badge?....So the reality , and facts are....1) Porsche AG authorized SOME (1972-1973) early cars to be produced FULLY OPTIONED....2)...Porsche AG, and american distributors, had photographs, artwork,publications and broschures available for the cars...purpose built....designated 914-S...3)..the fully optioned 1974 914,s were designated LE,can-am and were ALSO purpose built.

Yes Murray, the USA marketing arm Porsche+Audi was duly concerned over the $5099 East POE & $5299 West POE cost relative to it's 71 914-6 at about the same price, so they requested them to be sent here loaded - at least early in the model year through Jan-March 73.

However, Steve Gaglione (Sahara Beige 73 2L in O&H "The Few, the rare...") recalled some late in the 73 MY which were not loaded with everything, we both speculating that it was due to the base price having been increased twice in 73 due to the DM to $ exchange rate & high inflation driving up the base price on them & P+A wanting to be able to still offer a basic 2L around the old $5100-5300 opening price - even if missing some options - from the prior year through at least the R&T 2/73 article.

I've never been able to verify that nor find any 73MY 2L window sticker with those extras not N/C or without the full AG+PG option lists, so I really don't know if they indeed sold any lesser equipped 73 2L's here. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

[Tom_T]

. . . . and the point is?

Tom starts this thread off, I gathered, as some sort of educational '914S - what's the deal' kind of thing. Did they? Tom asks . . . well yes and no. The no gets 4 lines of type. The yes goes on for pages and pages.

As soon as Pat or myself offer up some more weight to the 'no - not really' side of the story, pages more are written. Why? Are you guys trying to uncover some dark conspiracy here?

Is this all about having justification to be able to refer to your cars as a 914S? If so, go for it!

My first '73 was built in late 1972. My current '73 was built in March 1973. Both cars came with every option available.

Regardless of some short lived, North American produced sales brochure, the only difference between them is the colour.

Mike - the No part is pretty self evident, because none were ever badged as such, beyond the "for fun" 914S badges made up after the fact. Does it need more weight - only if someone can offer some other useful document or internal memo from Porsche to P+A to drop the 914S ads, because I've never seen one & it would be interesting to see something.

However, what is NOT around & is far less obvious because it never gained or held traction in the Porsche marketing scheme - and of which many of the younger Teeners may not be aware because they weren't around back then when we were - is the documentation which I chose to share by doing this write up on it which you state goes on for pages. That way others can read it, see the documentation from the actual period, & go from there.

This doesn't have to be some nefarious scheme nor process to justify sticking a 914S badge on my car! .... believe me, if I'd wanted to do so, I could've & would've long ago with no justification required! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Sometimes you guys just try to read too frigging much into somebody posting some 914 related info. In my mind, posting this sotrt of historical stuff is no different than posting a cherry 914 like Steve's in "The few, the rare ..." or wheels, tires, or anything else in the nailed forums. It's just info & facts man - nuttin more!

So I encourage other to post some useful 914 info. which you have around, rather than just looking to make commentary on others, in order to keep this O&H section alive. So far I've tried this & the vintage ads to little positive reception, so I'm beginning to feel why Pat G. got so frustrated here! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

Still no Brits with info on the 914SC????
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/popcorn[1].gif)

[Tom_T]

Frankly, I'm confussed by all this. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/WTF.gif) Is there a conclusion in less than 25 words?

1. Porsche+Audi marketed the 914/4 2.0 "fully loaded" as the "914 S" in ads & sales brochures from Summer 1972 to about Jan/Feb 1973, then Porsche made them stop.

2. The British Distributor similarly marketed the 914/4 2.0 from the outset through 1976 as the 914SC, but was never told to stop.

3. Neither was ever badged as either a 914S or 914SC.

4. If one is interested, read the stuff posted here from that 1970's period.

More than 25 words, but I'm sure you can wade through the 4 points if you're reading this.

[Tom_T]

[quote name='carr914' date='Jun 6 2010, 07:48 AM' post='1328762']
[quote name='carr914' date='Jun 5 2010, 05:13 PM' post='1328473']
[quote name='Tom_T' post='1328275' date='Jun 5 2010, 07:04 AM']
[/quote]
Well, I thought that this thread would educate Newbies, BUT, when people post "Facts" that are Not facts, it will not educate, but confuse.

[/quote]

TC - you're coming around the bend on that one, & don't know where you're coming from with that sort of spurious accusation, and then repost something I had already posted to make your point!? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/WTF.gif)

I posted original material from that 1972-73 period & those were facts which are/were facts - period!

Moreover, I clearly stated when I was writing something which was speculation or a personal opinion, and no facts.

The paragraph above from the R&T article was what I posted myself to make the point on the timing & why of the end of the 914S marketing campaign.....so again (IMG:style_emoticons/default/WTF.gif)

Let me make a fine point here, this kind of running down somebody for putting up info here from the period, instead of adding something constructive yourselves really is uncalled for & frankly P.O.'s people. It's no wonder others reading these things are reluctant to participate, which is precisely at least part of why Pat quit as moderator. Think about beyond you and whomever's post you want to run down, to how others will read it & take the general tenor of the group.

And Nobody likes to be called a liar my friend: "when people post "Facts" that are Not facts" .... which that implies! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)

[Tom_T]

My initial post has been edited with a "Cliff Notes" version for impatient types who want everything in 25 words or less, as well as a disclaimer for the "master debaters" looking for conspiracies to disprove! So you can't say I'm not responsive to your comments & criticisms. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Signed -
One ticked member (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

[Bleyseng]

Porsche didn't "kill" the 914, VW did as they owed the Karmann plant and forced Porsche out as VW wanted the line for the new water cooled Scirroco. Porsche tried and failed to find a suitable affordable place to setup the line to keep production going but failed. The 76 MY cars bodies were made in 1975 and at the Christmas break the line was switched over to Scirroco producion. This is why Porsche came out with the 912E, to fill the gap in their line with a inexpensive car after the 914's were sold out. So you could add the 2100 912E cars to see about how many 76 914's should have sold. The question is how long would Porsche continue selling the 914 at 6-7000 cars a year? What would they have done to upgrade the model line "IF" VW hadn't pulled the assembly plant from under them...
Remember, Porsche fully owned the 914 from mid 74 as they had bought out VW at that time. They had plans for the 914 but when VW announced their plans in 1975 for the Karmann plant Porsches plans went up in smoke. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

The 924 is another story as VW pulled out of the production of this car at the final moment and the Audi plant were the cars were going to be made came to Porsche with a sweetheart deal to distribute the cars as Porsches.

I

[Bleyseng]

sorry, stupid Surinamese provider did it!
I

[Bleyseng]

double post
I

[Bleyseng]

double post

[Tom_T]

Porsche didn't "kill" the 914, VW did as they owed the Karmann plant and forced Porsche out as VW wanted the line for the new water cooled Scirroco. Porsche tried and failed to find a suitable affordable place to setup the line to keep production going but failed. The 76 MY cars bodies were made in 1975 and at the Christmas break the line was switched over to Scirroco producion. This is why Porsche came out with the 912E, to fill the gap in their line with a inexpensive car after the 914's were sold out. So you could add the 2100 912E cars to see about how many 76 914's should have sold. The question is how long would Porsche continue selling the 914 at 6-7000 cars a year? What would they have done to upgrade the model line "IF" VW hadn't pulled the assembly plant from under them...
Remember, Porsche fully owned the 914 from mid 74 as they had bought out VW at that time. They had plans for the 914 but when VW announced their plans in 1975 for the Karmann plant Porsches plans went up in smoke. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

The 924 is another story as VW pulled out of the production of this car at the final moment and the Audi plant were the cars were going to be made came to Porsche with a sweetheart deal to distribute the cars as Porsches.

I

Okay - I got your point after the 4th one posted! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) ... twitchy finger I guess!? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/type.gif)

I was aware the Porsche switched to the 924 after VW backed out & that before that they explored various options with the 914, but was not aware that they were booting the 914 from the Karmann plant to make room for Scirocco production.

I think that Porsche probably would've moved to the 924 though, even if they still had the Karmann plant's line available, because they wanted to try out water cooled.

What theneeded was to continue the 73 & 74 sales volume in the 20,000+ range, but the prices had just climbed too high by 75 to sell that many, plus we had a pretty bad recession here then too, depressing sales (as today).

One huge problem for all imported car makers were threatened tariffs, bad monetary exchange rates (for them importing), & the runaway inflation of the 70's, which had 76 914's selling for about what the 911s did when the 914s came out in 69/70! By 76 a 914-2L with the option cost for the AG & PG options was north of $8000 out here in CA, but smog detuned to 86 hp.

While in Fall 75 I could've gotten a new 76 2L on 100% loan vs. 75% used for my 73 2L & have about the same payments, I didn't like the big bumpers nor the lower power engine ~ & today I'd still be required to smog it every other year! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

[carr914]

Tom, 1st of all, my comment about the Facts was Not aimed at you, so don't get your panties in a Wad and I didn't call anybody a liar.

My point is when people offer up opinion as "Fact", then it misleads everyone that comes along. That is what is wrong with Wikipedia for instance,.

T.C.

[carr914]

.......Thank you carr914,....for the posting of the r/t article..what was the date ,as I can not see /find it......and the specific small paragraph ,you posted previously, is not in the article you posted last.....could you help out again by providing the full page , source and date, of the small posting you made earlier....thank you.

I have the R&T On Porsche 1972-1975, which states the date of the article as Feb 1973, But they reference 1974 in the article. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

The small paragraph Tom & I earlier referenced is on the 2nd page of the article to the right of the Headlight picture.

T.C.

[ME733]

...THANKS carr914..........so what I get from the road and track article is this. ROAD and TRACK states THEY changed the designation, (as THEY THOUGHT, the the 911-S and 914-S designations were too close.) and in their article ,DATED 1974, the use of the 2.0 script on the rear was enough to have them (R/T) use THAT designation.(and then apply it retroactivally to late 1972-early 1973)...914-S cars., which ALSO may have had the 2.0 script. No factory, Porsche AG, RETRACTION of the ORIGINAL 914-S advertising, sales broschures, marketing, and SALES of the 914-S exists...therefore R/T published their opinion....only....and in 1974.......Now you ask what is the point of all this....a part of the point is my curosity over IF ALL... 1973 2.0 ...cars... had ALL of the OPTIONS INCLUDED in the original introductory-914-S.. and advertisd as such. DID ALL 1973-2.0 914,s have ALL the options?....I don't think so.................

[MDG]

Not really wanting to belabor this . . . . but your supposition above has zero value. You've misread the article, in particular the paragraph both Tom and TC singled out.

R&T coined the 914/2 moniker only and only for the purposes of having a name for the damned thing so they could write a story about it. By the time this article was written - and I'd wager it was written summer/fall of '72 - Porsche (or as R&T states the 'Home Office'), had already killed the 914 S attempt by NA

[URY914]

Frankly, I'm confussed by all this. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/WTF.gif) Is there a conclusion in less than 25 words?

1. Porsche+Audi marketed the 914/4 2.0 "fully loaded" as the "914 S" in ads & sales brochures from Summer 1972 to about Jan/Feb 1973, then Porsche made them stop.

2. The British Distributor similarly marketed the 914/4 2.0 from the outset through 1976 as the 914SC, but was never told to stop.

3. Neither was ever badged as either a 914S or 914SC.

4. If one is interested, read the stuff posted here from that 1970's period.

More than 25 words, but I'm sure you can wade through the 4 points if you're reading this.

WOW, all this bandwith summed up in 4 points. Thank you. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

[MDG]

1. Porsche+Audi marketed the 914/4 2.0 "fully loaded" as the "914 S" in ads & sales brochures from Summer 1972 to about Jan/Feb 1973, then Porsche made them stop.

And Tom, I'm not trying to give people a hard time for giggles here but to use as an example of what T.C. was referring to, where does the above 'fact' come from?

Is this based on the MotorTrend and R&T articles? If so, with all due respect, this is an opinion based on an assumption. MT's January article calls it a 914S and a couple of months later R&T explains if differently?

I don't buy that at all. Those articles could have been - and probably were - written months before. The MT bit could have been written, edited and mocked to print by the time word came down on the name change. If they are anything like the publications I deal with, those mags are printed 2-2 1/2 months in advance of pub date which means final art for layout is a month plus ahead of that.

[ME733]

.........mgd YOU missed the point ....and intentionally, in my opinion.....what I was getting to , or at....as my LAST post clearly stated is.....were ALL 914-2 cars produced in MY 1973 constructed as ...FULLY OPTIONED CARS...(thats clear isn't it.?)...meaning ,again,.... were ALL the OPTIONS ,(as were advertised while the 914-S was being sold as such)......WERE... all the options included in EVERY 914-2, produced in MY 1973.( Is this clear enough for you to understand?).....IF NOT... then a conclusion CAN be made that the 914-S cars (produced for a period of time,)and Advertised as such, are different., by virtue of the fact they have MORE OPTIONS. Is this clear enough.

[MDG]

This has gone from the sublime to wa-aaaay beyond ridiculous. You think I 'intentionally' misread it because . . . . . . ? seriously? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

The reason I stated you had misread it is from the opening line of your post. The way it reads is you took it that R&T decided to can the 914S name. If that's not what you meant, it's sure how your post reads. And as this is clearly not what they actually wrote, you can see how I came to the conclusion that you misread it . . . . .

..........so what I get from the road and track article is this. ROAD and TRACK states THEY changed the designation, (as THEY THOUGHT, the the 911-S and 914-S designations were too close.) .................

Anyway, enough of this nonsense. The 914S has been a pet theme of Tom's since some of his earliest posts. More power to him for putting his thoughts down.

There is nothing further of value here for me so I'm done with this time waster.

cheers, mike.

[Tom_T]

Tom, 1st of all, my comment about the Facts was Not aimed at you, so don't get your panties in a Wad and I didn't call anybody a liar.

My point is when people offer up opinion as "Fact", then it misleads everyone that comes along. That is what is wrong with Wikipedia for instance,.

T.C.

Okay TC, I've pulled my panties out of my crack & feel much better this morning! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

All of those seemingly negative responses piled on top of each other just hit me wrong late last night, after spending the weekend trying to figure out whether or not the "mysterious disappearing clunk in the crankcase" of our 88 Westy is a bad bearing/etc. - needing a new engine - taking more $$'s away from my 914 resto!
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif) M#@$%%F$^*%$#@S*&O%$B*&@#!!!!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/headbang.gif)

So folks -

Sorry, but the only documentation which I've found on the Porsche AG putting an end to the 914S marketing campaign in the US/Canada, was the paragraph from the Feb 73 R&T, as well as other similar 2nd & 3rd hand sources in those 2 books in my first post referring to the "word from on high" to stop using it. Nothing first hand nor an official PAG document, but it's pretty clear what did happen from the R&T quote & I have no doubt that it did happen pretty much the way stated & P+A passed along the request to R&T not to use the "914S" in their article.

I think that MDG/Mike G, Pat G., TC (& maybe URY) got mislead skimming through the write-ups documentation of the period on the 914S story, & then focused more on some later opining about marketing strategies that I was doing as part of the "discussion" - thinking that I was instead trying to make that the focus of the topic post or trying to justify calling/badging 914-2.0's as "914S" (I was not, but anyone who wants to do so "for fun" should at least know the actual details of the story as much as can be known) - instead of what I intended: a clarification to others new to the subject that the 914S marketing campaign wasn't a few week long sidebar internal primarily or only to the Porsche AG & Porsche+Audi (US/Canada) entities.

I think that some folks are just the types who put the "914S" into the category of NARM (Not A Real Model - which it was not as far as the factory was concerned, even if P+A would've preferred that be the model name) - similar to the way the 356/911/912 fanatics put all 914's as NARP (Not A Real Porsche) - and so in their minds they just write it off as some silly marketing gimmick - which in truth it was, in the same way as was the "The __[blank]__ Porsche" series of the period! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

But I didn't want newbies to the history on this reading their comments as if it was a few week long "flash in the pan," which it was was not.

However, their concern is probably that someone will then think that it was somehow a "real model" - which I do not believe is the case in the way in which I chose to present it - particularly with the short & sweet "No" side of the issue put first from the outset & supported further in with the Feb. 73 R&T paragraph posted, which is pretty straightforward & obvious - i.e.: not really needing further "documentation" than showing the only 2 ways in which 914/4 2.0s' were badged & the later R&T statement.

Whereas, the "yes" side merely is presenting contemporaneous documentation (P+A ads & sales materials) which is not readily available to everyone today without digging for it over the months it took me to read & collect it all (i.e.: saving others the time & trouble).

My intent again in posting this topic, is basically to present the story/history of the 914S & 914SC marketing campaigns with period documentation - NOT to debate it's pro's, cons, nor pooh-pooh the idea.

What I would've expected from other 914 enthusiasts in such a presentation - & still hope will happen - would be to add to the documentation posted on either side of the story & add constructively to the knowledge base - NOT to try to debate it, complain about being too much to read through, cast it off with flippancy, nor to run me down for having the nerve to post such "official heresy" in the first place.

As far as I know, the USA only sold fully loaded 914 2L's for the first half of the model year or maybe as far as Feb.-March 73 or so, but unfortunately Porsche+Audi here couldn't convince Porsche AG to use the 914S badging. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

At least Porsche+Audi here WAS successful from the start in convincing them only to market them as a "PORSCHE" only without that confusing & eventually counterproductive VW-Porsche badge on the back! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

So we have to be satisfied that it is a provable point that Porsche+Audi here at least marketed them & talked about them as "914S" for the first half of the 73 model year! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

... and that IS exactly what the sales guy at LA Porsche+Audi called them when I went in there in December 72 for a "Winter Break Field Trip"!!!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) - with my classmate whose parents eventually got him one for graduation in Spring 73!

So - let's put the debating of the issue of it aside, & focus on filling in any missing details instead, as well as adding pix of period documentation - especially for the "missing" 914SC side of the story which so far is not covered except by a few of my references.

Again - Thanx TC for posting the additional pages of the full R&T article - yes it was Feb. 73, but the 74 reference I think might have been either a misprint or reference to the next coming model year.

And come on the rest of you out there - dig through your 914 archives & add some interesting related period documentation to add to the "knowledge base" here.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/popcorn[1].gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/popcorn[1].gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/popcorn[1].gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/popcorn[1].gif)

Cheers! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)
Tom
///////