Sale Pending 9140431482 Options

[Rufus]

Under Contract at a substantial loss; both financially and most importantly of 4 precious years of retirement

The seller’s advertisement was very … positive misleading … in stating: “Started no-expense spared restoration in 2014” when posting his advert in 2020 … it turns out this was 4-6 years after the seller made …“one of the few cost-control concessions” … by leaving the manufacturer’s moisture trapping tar-like floor covering rather than exposing the pans to bare metal, and just covering the floors with fresh paint ((IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) !). Two patches in the floors were found hidden under shutz underneath and fresh paint above.((IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)!). At the same time, the firewall was beautifully painted on its exposed surface in the engine compartment … right over the rusty surface! But the surface behind the seats and backpad was left as is (rusty) … something very unlikely to be discovered in any PPI. Pretty interesting that Mountainroads diligently researched online such issues as whether 1970 914/6’s had factory installed charcoal canisters; draw on the collective 914World knowledge base, but when faced with the prospect of compromised 914/6 floor pans, not.

And then going on to state …
“- Full repaint in original Tangerine (23)
- Only minor surface rust repair needed in a few spots (above left rear taillight, below windshield frame, etc.).
- No structural rust or other body damage. < Demonstrably false! There was rust damage to the floor pans, a crucial part of the body. And P.O. who was ultimately responsible for the car he sold either chose not to investigate the suspicious appearance of the floor, or worse yet, to only patch the two existing holes and leave it at that. Of course, P.O. may not have known anything about the suspect floors, neither the interior appearance, nor that 2 patches had been applied underneath, and of course NOT the rusty engine firewall which was pristinely painted over the rust. He only visited regularly to check on things: “at least once a month, and often weekly”.
- New battery tray - the only body part that warranted replacement. No damage to longitudinal, underneath.” Gotta wonder what Kerstan Rillos has to say about all this … ((IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif))

So I hired Jeff Gamroth to do a PPI for $1000. After a positive report, I bought 9140431482. It was only recently that Jeff confided in me that he’d encountered the same (recurring) driveability issues during his PPI (apparently due to fuel system debris) that I’ve struggled with. Apparently misdiagnosed by Jeff at the time of PPI, and not reported, and not mentioned by the … seller. Leaving a buyer with the advert’s first (and at best, recklessly misleading) impression of a “no expense spared restoration” (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Curiously, after the seller’s May 2020 advert description …

“Started a no expense spared restoration in 2014”, he then described it as …

“indeed a no expense spared (relatively, and within reason) body restoration” on Feb 3, 2024 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif), then as …

“a full restoration” on Feb 24, 2024. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif), and then as just …

“nicely restored” on Feb 27, 2024 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) …

So, do these 4 different descriptions all have the same meaning? Or do they constitute an epic walk back; possibly conveying a tacit acknowledgement the original May 2020 description was inaccurate?? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

After finding I was, with encouragement from the 914World community, investigating the floor pans for rust, the P.O. strongly discouraged me. Even tried shaming me for actions taken on MY OWN car … “I'm still confused why you started poking around under the seats in the first place though, unless it was a quest to find everything possibly wrong with the car?”

In discouraging my investigation of MY OWN CAR which I had repeatedly been finding flaws in for several years, he cited several shops who worked on the car during his ownership and never mentioned a concern about rust, but in one case mentioned how little rust the car appeared to have. Mountainroads went on to state:

“Lastly and FWIW: Mark Akers, the owner of Akers Porsche, became quite familiar with this car for service and regular maintenance both before and after the restoration was completed. He was interested in buying it when he found out I was selling, but the timing wasn’t good for him. It was mid-pandemic and many were being careful with their discretionary spending. I don’t know, but suspect that extended to his customers, as well. He called me about a year later to ask if I still had the car and was disappointed to learn it had been sold. He subsequently told me, and has repeated to several other folks, that he regretted not buying it.“

Well, Mark AKER’s’ and other professionals’ opinions were only based on cursory examinations; not once were they specifically requested nor paid to thoroughly examine the car for rust. The P.O.’s message was their opinions outweighed my 1st hand examination for rust in real time after finding indications I thought suspicious. Lastly, and FWIW, I provided Mark Akers access to everything I know, everything I uncovered in 3 and a half years of working futility trying to make the car driveable. So, did he have any interest in buying it? No! Just as I would NOT have if I knew the car’s condition.

Mountainroads stated in 2024:
“All the lights, horns, wipers, headlight motors, etc. worked when I sold the car. The car was driven multiple times back and forth between Seattle and Central Washington without drama. I thought it was pretty well sorted by the time it was sold.” The lights did NOT “all” work when Mountainroads sold the car, unless you believe Rothsport replaced the RF turn signal housing & connector with damaged pieces, and switched the license plate light circuit wiring, making both inoperative. And oh, yeah, about the car’s driveability … Mountainroads did not specifically address whether or not there were recurring driveability issues during his ownership. He merely implied that by driving it back and forth multiple times between Seattle & central Washington that all was ok, and he “thought” it was “well sorted” when he sold it. If one believes that, one would believe Jeff Gamroth falsely reported to me observing driveability issues during the PPI. Mountainroads’ “multiple times” statement mirrors my own experience; several 50 mile drives were uneventful, but at other times severe bucking under part throttle recurred and only to vanish inexplicably.

After showing no interest in stopping my investigation, the P.O. posted the photo below from his “no expense spared restoration” begun in 2014.

He even quoted thoughts he first had upon seeing the (supposedly trivial) photo years earlier, “Oh, he's just cleaning up the bottom before undercoating", dismissing the oddities as something trivial. His posting was nearly 3 weeks before I exposed these areas to find floor pan patches underneath and posted the same photo … a known marketing / political psychology based strategy to get “out in front” of imminent damaging news to minimize reputational harm.

If I sold a car in the condition ‘1482 was in when I bought it, and for 4-6 years since restoration I truly believed the odd spots in the photo below were trivial, how would I react if the buyer became suspicious of rust and started investigating? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) … and would I even recall the photo (especially if I’m unable to recall whether the “new” cams installed at about the same time were actually new or reground used cams (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)) much less dig it up to post online? No, not if I’m honest. Not unless I already knew it had significance and I thought doing so would serve the purpose of helping to hide guilt.

All of which points to prior knowledge, conscientiousness of guilt, and, well, ….

I have approached several people in the Porsche business about buying the car. Even Mark Aker who is familiar with the car from times it was at his dealership for work, and who had previously expressed an interest to P.O. in buying it passed. They passed just like I would have if I’d known what was hidden beneath the surface. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Before being shipped across country to me, I had Rothsport perform work totaling $11,766 on the car.

So now, after 4 years working futilely to clean up ‘1482’s mess, including discovering 2 floor pan patches covered by paint above and undercoating underneath, numerous floor pan thin spots, and being well into retirement, I don’t have time, resources, or motivation to continue. Resources, especially time, are way too precious. Who knows, maybe some day the seller will decide to take some responsibility for the damage I suffered and reach out to offer compensation, if not for my wasted time, but for a portion of my financial loss.

P.O., Mountainroads, has stated repeatedly he thinks my purchase price was fair as he knew car’s condition to be, or even a “fire sale” price as he posted at a different time. And apparently by messaging privately with others on this board, he was able to convince others of the same.

Yet MR and others ignore a very important point. The sale price may have been “fair” in his mind; based on what he knew about the car’s condition. But, it was not fair from my perspective based on what I did not know about the car. I was deprived of that info. In fact this lack of info that neither the P.O., nor the PPI provided robbed me of my choice whether to buy the car in its existing condition or not.

I tried to tell you ...

As described and shown in my Garage thread:

http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?showtopic=368857

and in the 2020 advert link I bought it from:

http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?sho...&hl=Genuine

Sold as is, where is, with no warranty expressed or implied. Driven only 376 miles on dry pavement during my ownership.

Complete running driving car before starting work last October to address recurring carb debris problems, then SS braid fuel line leak, and then exploring rust issues. Carbs cleaned and reinstalled, but remainder of fuel system is not installed. And while moving the 914/6 in the garage to keep the tires from becoming flat spotted, the engine was accidentally turned backward (According to Jeff Gamroth in conversation on 6/5/24, it’s not a problem as I originally thought.)

In addition to the work done by Rothsport before my receipt, other work performed during my ownership (while not trying to complete reinstallation after rebuilding my ‘66 Corvette’s rear end; ‘1482 and the Corvette are garaged 60+ miles apart): new spark plugs, air filter elements, parking brake adjustment, rear caliper venting clearances checked & adjusted, removed spiral groove in gas tank outlet fitting sealing surface (like this from factory?), electric short in license light diagnosed & repaired, RF turn signal bucket replaced to restore function, low / high beam headlight malfunction repaired, Tangerine parking brake handle spring kit installed, all exterior lighting (except maybe license light?) changed over to LED’s, under dash wiring changed to isolate fog light operation from low beams, installed wiring & switch for hidden fuel pump shutoff, steering wheel shown in 2020 advert plus 380mm thick wrap (by Dallas Custom Steering Wheel) Porsche wheel included. New carb cross shaft bearing brackets included.

Tangerine Racing shift linkage included but not installed. Gates Barricade fuel hose & F.I. clamps to complete fuel line installation included. Other misc included but not installed: 3rd brake light and strobe unit.

Car is due for oil change and new brake fluid, the steering column mast jacket’s broken & held on with duct tape, and a clip’s missing from the LR caliper venting adjustment shaft.

Clear NC title in my name in hand.

Selling with my word of honor; no disappointments or surprises. I will be an open book to the future owner on my experience with and knowledge of ‘1482 … info back to and including a discussion with former owner Jay Hadley.

PM if interested.

“Oh, he's just cleaning up the bottom before undercoating” (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/134.gif) Yeah, right!!

Good thing this kinda misleading, deceptive advertising to gain an unfair advantage doesn’t happen in the food industry! …… Oh wait !!!!

Some have criticized me harshly for bringing to light the failures of P.O. and the individual who I paid $1000 for the PPI. That’s their opinion. But they weren’t involved day-by-day throughout the time. From when I first considered buying the car till now. They don’t know what was said in my phone calls with both parties. Nor are they likely to recall every little detail as one who lived thru the nightmare would. They also might not assign much importance to adductive reasoning, or even know what it is. Everyone living today, in fact all mankind, owes immensely to adductive reasoning.

I’ll explain. In Sept 1983 Stanislav Petrov, a Soviet officer made a decision based on adductive reasoning that likely saved mankind from nuclear annihilation. While working at a Soviet early-warning facility, the system reported an incoming missile strike from the U.S.. It reported a small number of ICBM’s headed for the USSR. His orders were to inform his superiors of such a warning. But he concluded thru adductive reasoning the report was false, and disobeyed orders. He expected a 1st strike would involve hundreds, not just a few missiles. Petrov is credited with avoiding a possible nuclear disaster.

Likewise adductive reasoning based on all info I gathered in the past 4 years that led to my conclusions. Would that be sufficient to convict of a crime in court? No. Would it be sufficient to win judgement in a civil case? Yep. And with the abundance of statements made here that either don’t make sense or are even contradictory? I.e. in a setting where irrelevant distractions like wheel chairs, framed photos, Harvey Wiedman RSR finished wheels, NOS GT rotors, how much Mountainroads spent on the car, etc., etc., etc. don’t matter and would NOT be allowed? Yeah, VERY likely ...

And speaking of adductive reasoning, here are more examples of Mountainroad’s actions useful in sharpening one’s own adductive reasoning skills and understanding his motivation:

A search shows Mr Mountainroads has started a number of threads seeking technical advice here. Here’s a list of thread titles:

“Carpet adhesive?”

“Fire extinguisher recommendations?”

“Another novice question” “How hard is it to replace the engine bay seals..”

“Any difference between 914-6 and same-year 911 dipsticks?”

“Speedometer cable replacement?”

“Recommendations on fresh paint protection?” “seeking tribal knowledge”

“A couple of technical questions for the “GT” cognoscenti” “Seeking wisdom”

“Interior carpet input requested” “Perlon vs. "German Squeare Weave" ??

“Rear window defroster” “Technical question”

Mountainroads when 1st addressing rust and my floorboard investigation:
“Unless things have dramatically changed, I firmly believe what looks like floorpan rust is only damage to the sound deadening material on top. I noticed that during painting and asked Kirsten about it. He reassured me it wasn’t serious and there was no evidence of damage from the underside when he removed the old undercoating.”

MR referring to the two floor panels patches applied from underneath:
“… it appears Rillos might've (I can't tell for sure) used body filler to "fix" the floorpan from below (Post #127). If so, I don't know why he did that instead of welding and he never said anything to me about it at the time. Had he said "This should be welded up.", I would've immediately said "Do it.".”

So the question adductive reasoning poses is: Mountainroads is not shy about asking for technical advice here on a broad range of things related to the car; from minor to significant. One involved “fresh paint protection”. This, an area his body man should be expert on. Certainly MR considered him expert enough to accept his supposed response to his question about the interior sound deadening material, and if it was serious.

So the adductive reasoning questions are:

1. why did MR seek advice here on fresh paint protection (even if only to double check what Rillos may have told him) but chose NOT to do so on the sound deadening material and rust?
2. Does it make sense the body man would lie to MR saying “there was no evidence of damage from the underside when he removed the old undercoating” when in fact there WAS such evidence?

Maybe it really was as MR said: “It became a (SIC) “Oh well, that’s under the seats and not visible” thing. It was one of the few cost-control concessions … “

3. And is that the answer? “not visible” = hidden?

I will report here IF Mountainroads decides to “Man up” and make amends for what he did.

Finally, I’ll leave you with another adductive reasoning question: Why did Mountainroads ask me a couple of times soon after I first drove the car specifically whether it “met my expectations?” Was he fishing for something? … and why?? Maybe he knew all along ???

VVV