Rare 914-S for sale on Craiglist?, Only 1000 imported? Options

[Tom_T]

Sounds like yours was set-up by Yenko ...

I think Eric was just using Yenko as an example. Yenko was a Chevy guy.

Actually, Tom and Eric may have stumbled on to something. Yenko did own a Porsche Audi dealership during the Seventies. I think it would be interesting to find out what dealerships did make changes to these cars. Yenko may have done their thing to some 914s and considering their history and the current value of their Camaros, a Yenko 914S could be more rare than a 916.

interesting indeed. I looked at this car about 12 years ago. The owner claimed it was some kind of special dealership built car. I thought he was delusional or trying to blow smoke up my keester. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif) If Yenko did own a dealership, could this have been one of his cars ? Don was known for putting decals on his cars, and I have never seen this decal on another 914, it also had a odd interior cloth. Not a houndstooth, but a similar pattern (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

So - was the 914 + the big "S" replacing the 2.0 badge part of Yenko's special 914 package? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Scotty - do you remember seeing the rear "S" badge on the 914 in your pic? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

PS - IIRC, Yenko only had the Chevy dealership, and bought the 914-2.0's from the local Porsche+Audi dealership - or from their distributor - and then added their upgrades package, & resold it at their usual mark-up for tweaked cars. I was born in Pittsburgh PA & still have family there, & used to go back to visit them almost every year. Many of the family being car buffs, we were well acquainted with Yenko, and it was my Dad's brother with the hot rods & `58 `Vette who moved out to Santa Ana in `57 who turned me on the the Yenko Corvair for sale from my prior post.

[scotty b]

I dont recall whether there was a s badge or not Tom. This was over 12 years ago. I was in my 20's, and just getting into these cars. At that time I had no idea of the special cars like the S, LE, Yenko etc. If only I had known then what I know now (IMG:style_emoticons/default/slap.gif)

I also have no idea if there was a direct link to Don Yenko and the S designated 914's. I would assume he just a 2.0 car whether it was the mythical S or not

[balljoint]

Yenko also owned a Porshe Audi dealer in PA. This is very common for one group to own dealerships of different manufacturers. Maybe not mixing the big three domestics but imports were another story. I grew up next door to a family that owned a Chev Olds dealership. They eventually had a Jag dealership as well but sold it when Ford bought Jaguar.

Yenko was famous for their Camaros but they had other interests as well. This is a matter of posterity. In fact IIRC there was a court case against Yenko related to book keeping with the Porsche dealership. Who knows, the record battle may have been spawned out of the unapproved rebadging of 914S's.

I maintain that the sheer value of a Yenko Camaro is evidence of the potential value of a Yenko 914S. Especially since 914s have a history of being abused by their owners. Primarily via neglect, whatever the basis. Oh yes, in my opinion, even though I am mostly only seen as a Bug expert, I feel strongly that the rarity of these cars could push them into 916ish valuations.

Tom, you grew up in PA, you don't remember Yenko owning a Porsche Audi dealership? Perhaps they bought one after you moved away?

You know Yenko may have completed various 914S vehicles and shipped them across the country. Even via other dealerships. There is still a ton of research to be done here. Eric and Tom may have opened up something very big here. This is cool.

[Tom_T]

Yenko also owned a Porshe Audi dealer in PA. This is very common for one group to own dealerships of different manufacturers. Maybe not mixing the big three domestics but imports were another story. I grew up next door to a family that owned a Chev Olds dealership. They eventually had a Jag dealership as well but sold it when Ford bought Jaguar.

Yenko was famous for their Camaros but they had other interests as well. This is a matter of posterity. In fact IIRC there was a court case against Yenko related to book keeping with the Porsche dealership. Who knows, the record battle may have been spawned out of the unapproved rebadging of 914S's.

I maintain that the sheer value of a Yenko Camaro is evidence of the potential value of a Yenko 914S. Especially since 914s have a history of being abused by their owners. Primarily via neglect, whatever the basis. Oh yes, in my opinion, even though I am mostly only seen as a Bug expert, I feel strongly that the rarity of these cars could push them into 916ish valuations.

Tom, you grew up in PA, you don't remember Yenko owning a Porsche Audi dealership? Perhaps they bought one after you moved away?

You know Yenko may have completed various 914S vehicles and shipped them across the country. Even via other dealerships. There is still a ton of research to be done here. Eric and Tom may have opened up something very big here. This is cool.

Yes Dave, it was a very long time ago. We moved from PGH to San Diego in `63 when I was 10 & Dad got a new job out there, and went back every summer until I moved on to college, and then it was Xmas break, and then every other year or so. Last time in PGH was passing through in July `11 while driving my son's car to him at Ft. Drum NY.

So I probably did miss that he had the P+A dealership. He didn't have it up to `63, but the Chevy one was well known. But then I'm an old fart, so maybe it's just my half-zymers kicking in! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Most of those multi-dealership ownership situations were/are tightly controlled by contracts with the mfgrs. to limit to only "sister makes" - although now the mfgrs. have less control of those limitations so now you see many with Ford, Kia, VW, etc. under one group - mostly mega-big ones like Penske, etc.

That's probably why Yenko had to sell the P+A & Jag brands back then.

[Tom_T]

Okay, I just heard back from the seller on this 73 914-2.0 "914-S", and Murray passed away 2-1/2 months ago. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

It was Murray's, but it was apart for resto/refurb work by Murray when he took ill, and eventually the seller/current owner (who has known him since the 1960's) bought it from Murray a few months ago to finish it up & sell it. He knew the PO before Murray, & linked Murray with him to buy it a few years back. So the seller knows a lot about the car's more recent history, and the PO before Murray is apparently still around, aside from some typo's etc. in his CL ad.

The seller is an older & mostly 356 guy, and he had the engine, carbs & transaxle gone thru & it's running very well now. I've suggested that he put it in the classifieds on here, and add the rebuild/refurb info & modify some of the "914-S" info.

Given what he's said has been done & it's current mechanical condition - it's a strong runner in very good looking condition - so if that all checks out & there is no tin worm issues, then it's probably a good deal at $14,900. He said he also has the OE Fuchs for the car as well.

The ATL area CL ad is still active on here...
http://atlanta.craigslist.org/atl/cto/3470677982.html

Maybe billHh needs another 914 in his stable form the right coast!? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/popcorn[1].gif)

[balljoint]

Just with a limited check I can only find records of Yenko's Porsche Audi dealer back to the Seventies. That puts it long past your date of departure.

[Tom_T]

Just with a limited check I can only find records of Yenko's Porsche Audi dealer back to the Seventies. That puts it long past your date of departure.

I probably didn't pay attention then, on short trips to visit family.

[sixnotfour]

All Yenkos records got burned, He was a Chevy man, He issued my Dad a yenko serial number so he could race SCCA in a corviar.
I wish I had kept that only piece of my corvair past.

BTW everything yenko did had his name on it.

[Eric_Shea]

They exist...



They even made them in a weird baby $hit green! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/w00t.gif)

[MDG]

Okay. I guess I eat my words then. Tom was right. I was wrong.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/mellow.gif)

[sixnotfour]

Company Name: YENKO, DON PORSCHE AUDI
Status: Active Filing Date: 04/01/1974

[scotty b]

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldo...LWAR1-1950-1985



COMMONWEALTH v. DON YENKO PORSCHE-AUDI


17 Pa. D. & C. 3d 21 (1980)



Commonwealth
v.
Don Yenko Porsche-Audi

No. 81.


Common Pleas Court of Washington County, Pennsylvania.





June 30, 1980.


Gordon F. Harrington, for appellant.

John J. Kennedy, Jr., Deputy Attorney General, for Commonwealth.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------











[ 17 D. & C. 3d 22 ]


RODGERS, J., June 30, 1980.
This is an appeal by Don Yenko Porsche-Audi, of Canonsburg, Pa., from the order of suspension issued by the Director of the Bureau of Traffic Safety of the Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, suspending appellant's certificate of appointment to inspect motor vehicles "for a period of six (6) months for violation of Section 4731 of the Vehicle Code for fraudulent record keeping (records poorly kept, stickers missing and unaccounted for)."

For reasons hereinafter stated, the appeal is sustained and the suspension set aside.

On or about October 1, 1979 Yenko was notified by the Director of the Bureau of Traffic Safety that a report of September 14, 1979, received from the Pennsylvania State Police, indicated Yenko was charged with "improper record keeping (records poorly kept, stickers missing and unaccounted for).. . ."

After administrative hearing, Yenko's certificate of appointment was suspended for "a period of six (6) months for violation of Section 4731 of the Vehicle Code, for fraudulent record keeping (records poorly kept, stickers missing and unaccounted for)."

At the hearing de novo before this court, the Commonwealth presented evidence that Yenko's copy (TS-431) for the first cycle of 1979 showed 220 inspections, but its work records showed 270 actually performed, and that for the last cycle of 1978, 251 inspections were shown on Yenko's copy of the official form, and the work records showed 241 inspections actually performed. These were errors caused by one mechanic incorrectly interpreting the numbers written in by the prior mechanic.






[ 17 D. & C. 3d 23 ]


The Commonwealth also showed that in the last cycle of 1978 one sticker, P48 . . . 912 was not shown on the TS-431 form. Yenko submitted work records showing this sticker had been affixed by the then service manager who was qualified to perform inspections for a vehicle of Dennis Lehman, but the service manager had failed to note the inspection on the official form.

In addition, the Commonwealth showed that Yenko's mechanics had erred in showing that five stickers had been affixed to ten different vehicles, thus causing the official form TS-431 to fail to account for five stickers actually and properly affixed to five other vehicles.

While other charges were included in the letter of October 1, 1979, the suspension was for fraudulent record keeping, which the bureau equated with records poorly kept, stickers missing and unaccounted for.

While the investigating state police officer, who was the inspection station supervisor and auditor, admitted that he found no fraud and no intent to falsify, nevertheless he stated it was the policy of the Commonwealth to equate fraudulent record keeping with improper record keeping, and that the Commonwealth had concluded the petitioner was guilty of fraudulent record keeping, thus justifying the six month suspension.

This court must decide only whether Yenko has committed the violation for which the sanction was imposed: Com. v. Cormas, 32 Pa.Commw. 1, 4, 377 A.2d 1048, 1050 (1977). The six month suspension has been imposed for fraudulent record keeping (Com. Exh. 2). To be sure, in the initial letter (Com. Exh. 1), the charge was "improper record keeping". Section 4731 of the Vehicle Code, 75




[ 17 D. & C. 3d 24 ]


Pa.C.S.A. §4731, says this: "A record shall be made of every inspection and every certificate issued and the record shall be forwarded to the department in the manner and at the time the department shall specify by regulation. An official inspection station and its records shall be open for inspection by any police officer or authorized department employee." The Department of Transportation has implemented the Vehicle Code by regulations found at 67 Pa. Code, Chapters 471-490. Section 490.1 of Chapter 490 reads, in part, as follows:
"§490.1* Cause for suspension.

"The complete operation of an official inspection station is the responsibility of the owner. Failure to comply with the appropriate provisions of the Vehicle Code or department regulations shall be considered sufficient cause for suspension of all inspection privileges. In addition thereto, violators are also subject to criminal prosecution. . . .
"(1) Duration of Suspension

. . .

3rd and
1st 2nd Subsequent
Type of Violation Offense Offense Offense
. . .
Fraudulent record keeping 6 months 1 year 3 years
. . .
Careless record keeping Warning 3 months 1 year

"(2) Second and subsequent violations as listed above are determined on the basis of previous offenses of the same nature within a three year period."






[ 17 D. & C. 3d 25 ]


It is apparent that the Department of Transportation, by its regulations duly enacted under section 4731 of the Vehicle Code, has distinguished a charge of fraudulent record keeping from careless record keeping. Duly authorized regulations have the force of law: Com. v. Locust Point Quarries, Inc., 27 Pa.Commw. 270, 275, 367 A.2d 392, 394 (1976). See, also, Crary Home v. DeFrees, 16 Pa.Commw. 181, 329 A.2d 874 (1974).
Words shall be construed according to rules of grammar and according to their common and approved usage: 1 Pa.C.S.A. §1903(a). Fraudulent record keeping necessarily involves an intent to deceive, an intent obviously absent where the charge is mere neglect or inattention.

Laws and regulations should be construed, when possible, to give effect to all of their provisions: Com. v. Locust Point Quarries, Inc., supra, at 394. Statutes and regulations in pari materia shall be construed together and the particular controls the general: 1 Pa.C.S.A. §§1932, 1933.

The attempt by the Department of Transportation to equate fraudulent record keeping with improper record keeping strikes from its regulations the charge of careless record keeping. The omission of the proviso to section 819(b) of The Vehicle Code of April 29, 1959, P.L. 58, as amended, 75 P.S. §819(b), from section 4724 of the present Vehicle Code, 75 Pa.C.S.A. §4724, does not have the effect of equating fraud with negligence. Cf. Walker Pontiac, Inc. v. Com., 37 Pa.Commw. 614, 413 A.2d 375 (1978).

The belated claim by the Commonwealth that the finding of fraudulent record keeping was based on a previous warning that the petitioner had "failed to utilize required tools when inspecting motor vehicles.




[ 17 D. & C. 3d 26 ]


All tools extremely dirty and cluttered over the entire garage," by letter of March 8, 1977 is not a prior offense of the same nature as required by section 490.1(2). Even if the alleged prior offense had been for careless record keeping, a second offense of careless record keeping does not support a charge of fraud.
Elementary due process requires the Commonwealth to specify initially whether the charge is careless record keeping or fraudulent record keeping, and whether the Commonwealth is claiming that the inspection station has committed a prior offense of the same nature within a three year period. To allow the Commonwealth to determine in its sole discretion whether the petitioner's action was fraudulent or careless under the rubric "improper record keeping" would be arbitrary and capricious.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





The court finds that the Commonwealth failed to prove that appellant was guilty of fraudulent record keeping, the alleged violation for which the sanction was imposed.



ORDER

And now, June 30, 1980, the appeal of Don Yenko Porsche-Audi is sustained and the suspension by the Bureau of Traffic of the Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is set aside.

[dlkawashima]

Here's an excerpt from the book, Yenko: The Man, the Machines, the Legend ..

In the meantime, Don Yenko began to look into
other franchises for the Pike Street location. "My Dad was
fascinated with the Porsche," said daughter Terri. "That
car had been his main rival in sports car races. If my dad
didn't win a race, no doubt the title had gone to someone
racing a Porsche. Well, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
My dad acquired Porsche/Audi and later Fiat franchises
for the Pike Street location. It really was my dad's baby. I
don't think my grandfather was too enamored with foreign
cars. I think he probably considered them un-American.
It took some convincing but Dad did finally talk his father
into looking beyond Chevrolet."

[turk22]

I can't believe the legs of this thread, and the cool turn it has taken.

I never had any idea that Yenko did anything with Porsches at all, and 914s at that!

[MDG]

I can't believe the legs of this thread, and the cool turn it has taken.

I never had any idea that Yenko did anything with Porsches at all, and 914s at that!

I can't quite believe it either.

[Woody]

I can't believe the legs of this thread, and the cool turn it has taken.

I never had any idea that Yenko did anything with Porsches at all, and 914s at that!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

[sixnotfour]

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[442nd914s]

Look what I found in the 1973 publication of Clymer repair handbook

[914Eric]

Look what I found in the 1973 publication of Clymer repair handbook

That settles it then.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Tom_T]

My 73 914-2.0 was built 8/31/72 by chassis no., and it's original rear trunk back wall panel has the 2 holes for the 914 machine punched & flat on the back/inside - whereas the 2 holes for the 2.0 badge has "push-through at the holes from being drilled after-the-fact & probably after assembly. It's harder to see from the outside in the pic below, but the inside is immediately obvious when you rub your hand over the surface. Sorry no pic of that inside - but the rightmost hole below definitely shows the tell-tale rounded in shape from drilling, & the glue residue was from the 1980 repaint when the studs were broken off. I've talked to a few other early 73 MY built in Aug/Sept 72 owners who had this drilled 2.0/1.7 mounting stud holes situation too.



.

That would seem to coincide with the written articles of that day which I've read (both then & recently) which stated that Porsche/VW-Porsche initially didn't plan to differentiate the 1.7 from the 2.0 with different badges. It's also possible that the badges were just late in production & receipt by the OEM supplier who cast the badges and so some 914s were shipped from the factory without them.

Ergo, there is a possibility that some early production 1.7's & 2.0's were shipped to the USA & elsewhere without any engine/model badge - but just the "914" badge, but I've never seen any proof of this. If so, then it's probable that Porsche would've released a service bulletin or circular instructing dealers & distributors on how to drill holes & add the 1.7/2.0 badges if not installed at the factory, as well as shipping the badges.

If any/all of the above is/are the case, then it's also possible that some renegade or "free thinking" Porsche+Audi dealer might have commissioned their own "914-S" badges like the above, which could mount using the 2 "914" badge stud holes only. I don't know if Eric's example is one of the "modern" repro "914-S" badges like those by Jim M/Carrie, or a TIG welded/glued cut-apart "911-S" + "914" badge, or one that was custom made back in the 1970's by/for a dealer.

(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/uploads/post-1110-1355700130.jpg)

.

They also could've cut off the "S" from the "911-S" badges & drilled just the single hole for the one stud on the S/right-hand portion of the 911-S badges, since they were relatively cheap at $2.50 or $5.00 back then. The single stud of a cut 911-S badge could also explain why Murray's looks wanky vs. the red one's badge in the pics below.

(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/uploads_offsite/images.craigslist.org-12234-1355463348.2.jpg)

(IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/uploads/post-900-1355616085.jpg)

.

In any/all badge cases above - thereby saving them drilling the 1-2 additional holes, as well as better fitting with VoA/Porsche+Audi's USA marketing campaign for the "914 S" as shown in that 12/72 magazine ad which I posted above, as well as with the dealer sales brochures printed by VoA/Porsche+Audi USA & used in the 1st half of the 73 MY up to maybe March/April `73, depending on the dealer & how long it took them to use up their supply of the first printing.

1973 MY P+A Dealer 4 Pg. & 12 pg. Sales Brochures:

> Back & Front Covers (same as at 12 pg. version):


> Inner Spread pgs. 2 & 3 @ 4 pg version:


> Inner Spread on "914 S" on pgs. 10 & 11 of 12 pg. version:


.

> Note that the Center Console Gauges in the Sales Brochure Pix vary from Actual Production at the OT Gauge:

~vs.~


.

I don't recall seeing any back in 72-73 when we took our "field trips" from college at USC up to LA Porsche+Audi or down to Circle or Chick Iverson P+A down south, but there may have been a few out there.

But you just never know what those "cowboy" US Porsche+Audi dealers would do!

So for the ultra-CW purisits - if the factory actually left off 1.7 & 2.0 badges on the first few hundreds/thousands of 914's, does that mean for absolute correctness we'd need to go without!!?? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/shades.gif)
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/stirthepot.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)