Production Figures, It's all relative, baby. Options

[lapuwali]

In another thread, Hammy noted this:

QUOTE

That worries me. Only 119k 914's made?

This is actually a big number for Porsche for the period of time the car was in production. Only 80,000 356s were made over their 15 year production run. About 35K 912s were made in 6 years of production. In the first 6 years, only 30K 911s were made. Yet for the 6 years of 914 production, nearly 120K cars were made, which was a rate way higher than Porsche ever made for any other model up to that time.

People forget just how small a company Porsche was at that time (still is, really). As recently as 1998, total production was still under 40K, which includes the Boxster as well as the 911 (these are fiscal year, summer '97 to summer '98). I couldn't find any production figures, but I'd be willing to bet that no more than 150K Boxsters have been made to date (about 7 model years). During most of the production run, more 914s were made each year than 911s, meaning there are fewer '75 and earlier 911s in the world than 914s.

Porsche's figures dwarf those for any of the real exotic manufacturers (including Ferrari), which are frequently only 100s per year, at most. Lotus went for years making 100-200 cars per year. On the other hand, GM made more Fieros in 1984 (first year) than all of the 914s made in their entire run, and GM considered the Fiero a sales flop.

[Rhodes71/914]

QUOTE

GM considered the Fiero a sales flop.

Really, can't imagine why. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/laugh.gif)

[Hammy]

Well then that is a lot! but I'm seeing so many salvaged for parts and so many are rust buckets in grandpa's backyard. That's what I meant (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/smile.gif) (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/unsure.gif)

[airsix]

QUOTE (Rhodes71/914 @ Dec 30 2004, 02:46 PM)

QUOTE GM considered the Fiero a sales flop. Really, can't imagine why. (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/laugh.gif)

Sales was a sucess. It was the engineering that was a flop.

-Ben M.

[Aaron Cox]

why did they make 912's to 69 , and again in 76?


didnt sell?

[Bleyseng]

VW pulled the plug at the Karmann plant for assembling the 76 914's soo Porsche had all these 2.0l motors laying around and needed bodies to stick them in. Aha! presto! the 912e.


Geoff

[Aaron Cox]

QUOTE (Bleyseng @ Dec 30 2004, 10:41 PM)

VW pulled the plug at the Karmann plant for assembling the 76 914's soo Porsche had all these 2.0l motors laying around and needed bodies to stick them in. Aha! presto! the 912e. Geoff

but they were L jet 2.0's, not d jet..... (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/idea.gif)

[lapuwali]

The official company line was they needed a stop-gap "entry-level" model because the 924 wasn't coming out until '77. But why the 914 and the 912E in the same year?

My guess is this: 914 production ended in 1975 (none made in '76, they were all "leftovers"). The 924 was originally going to be an Audi product, but Audi demurred. Porsche developed it as their own, and built them at Neckarsulm (an Audi plant). This process probably delayed the 924 by a year or two, and Porsche figured the 914s would all be gone in '75, so '76 would be 911s only (928s late in the year?). The 914 sold reasonably well by Porsche standards, so there was obviously a market for a low-end Porsche.

Thus, they developed (probably in mid 75), the 912E, by using the already available 2.0 Type IV. The L-Jet system had already been proven on the 1.8. Add a unique gearbox, a unique exhaust system (using the same thermal reactors they so cleverly nearly sank the 911 with), shove the whole mess into a bodyshell that was substantially heavier than a 914, and you have an entry-level Porsche that won't compete even with the strangled 2.7 911, and certainly not with the brand-new 928.

However, they produced more 914s for '75 than sold, so they had to dump that inventory in '76, and ended up with two entry-level models for that year. They dropped the 912E when the 924 came out since the company was convinced they needed to go water-cooled (hence the 928, which was supposed to replace the 911 in the 70s).

The early 912 actually sold very well, outselling the 911 for the first few years. They cost 20% less, weren't all that much slower in a straight line, and the 911 had a weight distribution problem at first as the engine was way over the original design weight, so it was 200lbs heavier than the 912, all of it in the ass end. So the 912s handled better than the 911s, too. They fixed the problem in the 911 for '69 by lengthening the wheelbase, and by that time had developed the 911 engine to the point where the performance gap was much bigger, and the 912 was dropped.

[MattR]

QUOTE (lapuwali @ Dec 30 2004, 11:01 PM)

...So the 912s handled better than the 911s, too...

Thats what I tell everybody (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/smile.gif)

Ive never driven an early 911, but my 912 is really a dog... its a LOT of fun driving though, and a lot of people mistake it for a 911 and give me thumbs up (IMG:http://www.914world.com/bbs2/html/emoticons/smile.gif)