Early 914/6 car Options

[SirAndy]

Factory recalls involving the early 914-6 cars:

Recall 9K, Aug 5 1970
Voltage plate cover
Install sealer to bottom of voltage plate and install new cover
1970, 914/6, 9140430001 - 9140431036

Recall 9F, Aug 25 1970
Seat Adjustment, A. Angle and travel
Replace seat angle notched disc and travel adjustment lever
1970, 914/6, 9140430011 - 9140430035

Recall 9J, Oct 14 1970
Fuel hose and battery+ cable securement, battery tray cleanup, battery cover
Secure fuel lines and battery+ cable from abrasion, repaint battery tray and install battery cover and strap
1970, 914/6, 9140430001 - 9140432668
1971, 914/6, 9141430001 - 9141430070

Recall BC, Jul 27 1972
Testing of rear view mirror mounting
Test interior rear view mirror mounting, re-glued
1970-71, 914/6, 9140430030 - 9141430394

Recall BG, Oct 26 1972
Exchange non-adjustable drivers seat belt
Replace non-adjustable drivers side seatbelt, with 15mm shorter part
1970-71, 914/6, 9140430030 - 9141430443


Like stated earlier 914.043.0001 is specifically mentioned here several times, along with 914.043.0011, 914.043.0030 and 914.143.0001 ...
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/stirthepot.gif) Andy

[Pat Garvey]

Watching & learning!

[davesprinkle]

Reading what?

Dunno, how about stuff i posted earlier in this thread? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Why does Jürgen think 11 is the first six?

Why don't you ask him? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Who has 01?

Beats me. Which i also already posted in this thread. (Reading, remember?) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Kinda testy huh?

Only with people who seem to have some sort of problem with me for no apparent reason. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/shades.gif)

Hey, you two cut it out, or I'll make you move to separate states.

[Johny Blackstain]

And the badge.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

[twash]

back to the old problem these where engineering development chassies, porsche has verified that production started with 0011 & 0012 which where production cars with a lot of hand fitted items to verify production jigs estimate sept 1969. karman production # also indicate that bodies are #12 for 0011 & #0011 for #12 car bodies. Porsche 01 thru were #10 were developmental car as test cars and as such destroyed maybe

[twash]

Well... at least you're nice. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

karmann made bodies are #12 in porsche chassie 9140430011 and karmann #11 body is in porsche 9140430012. numbers are stamped on the doors and right side of cowl, so doors and body dont get mixed up. Both cars have the same protype parts including the dash bracket that does nothing.

[Eric_Shea]

Hey, you two cut it out, or I'll make you move to separate states.

Still trying to figure out how I came out of this "having a problem with Andy for no apparent reason..." (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif)

Just asking questions and reciting how I came to understand the situation (Read: "my understanding"). Maybe if Andy doesn't understand the meaning of "my understanding" it came across like I was attempting to be some type of Internet expert on the subject. All I was saying is; this is how I was led to understand the situation. My simple post was met with a curt reply.

To me it is still not clear, no matter the amount of reading requested, if the word "production" plays a role as simply semantics herein. Even the last thread still leads me to wonder if this car is still the first -6 officially off the line (Porsche 01 thru #10 were developmental cars). I'm very sorry for this. I suppose it is because I'm really stupid. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

I'm fairly certain it's OK for me to ask questions. I'm also fairly certain it's OK for others (myself included) to be wrong here. Even you Andy... you did the exact same thing to me in the tie-rod thread. I was asking questions, when things don't make sense to me I ask more questions. This is how I learn. Maybe you don't like it when I inadvertently question your wisdom. Allow me to make this clear; "I look to you for guidence in situations like this and others because you are so knowledgable." I don't enjoy being slapped by the teacher.

E.G.: As there are others reading this thread, could it be my question about Jürgen was directed at Tony, as he seems to have first hand knowledge of the situation? My question about 01... this is the "Internet"; maybe someone else had the answer. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif) These didn't need to be met with replies as such.

This kind of banter just simply bums me out. I don't think I elicited or deserve rude/curt replies in any way shape or form. I held and hold no malice herein.

Enjoy your thread because I don't enjoy getting my ass tanned for asking questions or posting my thoughts (no matter how imposably wrong I will inevitably be). Kinda sad because I "was" interested in the subject. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

[SirAndy]

Enjoy your thread because I don't enjoy getting my ass tanned for asking questions

Oh please, stop it ... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/hissyfit.gif)


First, *if* you actually took the time to read my posts, you would see that i, by no means, claim to know all the answers.
I am merely pointing out that in my humble opinion, there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that #11 is not the first production 914-6.
We already know it's not the first /6 as there are at least two surviving /6 prototypes from 1968.

Now, the problem i'm having with you Eric is quite simple. If you go back and read through this thread you'll see that you misquoted me (deliberately i presume) numerous times.

I think i have a good idea as to why you do that (and you did the same in the other thread), and frankly, i does annoy me.

On the other hand, you now trying to make yourself look like the victim of some sort of "censorship" is laughable at best.
I never had a problem with you asking question. Or anybody else asking questions, for that matter.


So far, all i have seen from the people who support the original claim made in this thread is:

"It's true because i say so"
"I know a guy who's writing a book and he's going to say it's true in the book"


Those are the two main "proofs" presented in this thread so far, and i for one am not convinced.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/popcorn[1].gif) Andy

[davesprinkle]

Now, the problem i'm having with you Eric is quite simple. If you go back and read through this thread you'll see that you misquoted me (deliberately i presume) numerous times.

Andy, I thought about ignoring this thread and allowing it to fade away, but I'm sorry, I've got to say that you're out of line here. I went back and reviewed this thread -- Eric made 2 posts prior to your criticism and in neither of those posts did he quote you. You may perceive some belligerent intent on his part, but as a disinterested third party, I see nothing but sincere curiosity. Relax, man, Eric's not attacking you.

[twash]

karmann body #12 is stamped on 0011 ,which is the first production 914-6( euro model) karmann body # 11 is stamped on 914-6 0012 second production 914-6, both cars were factory owned production/ show protype cars. Both have special parts not on later production cars such as 911 engine # with 914 serial # and both have a bracket mounted to dash for some kind of pull switch along with different front fenders,gas tank carpet cover

[Lavanaut]

Wohhhh Andy...you're reading something into Eric's posts that isn't there man, lighten up. I didn't see where Eric misquoted you either. Seemed to me he was simply interpreting what you posted and asking for clarification. Buuuut anyway...

VIN: 914.114
Project Number: 914/11
Color: Yellow
Info: Owned by Sam Charters, 6-Cyl. 911T Engine, 2.0L, Weber carburetors
Oldest 914-6 we know of to date

Is that a stock /6 engine then? Or were these literally unmodified 911T engines dropped in as part of the test platform? It certainly sounds like the latter, I only ask because in my reading I've come to conclusion that a stock /6 engine is "essentially" a 911T engine. I'm just not clear what the "essentially" part implies.

Thanks

Reid

edit: fixed quote

[ArtechnikA]

I'm just not clear what the "essentially" part implies.

Little details that make them not quite identical and interchangeable.
e.g. - the motor number is stamped in a different location.
The oil cooler is different.
The air cleaner is a little different.
I'm sure there a few others but those come to mind...

[SirAndy]

VIN: 914.114
Project Number: 914/11
Color: Yellow
Info: Owned by Sam Charters, 6-Cyl. 911T Engine, 2.0L, Weber carburetors
Oldest 914-6 we know of to date

Is that a stock /6 engine then? Or were these literally unmodified 911T engines dropped in as part of the test platform? It certainly sounds like the latter, I only ask because in my reading I've come to conclusion that a stock /6 engine is "essentially" a 911T engine. I'm just not clear what the "essentially" part implies.

That car has a stock 911T engine with a 911T engine number ...
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/shades.gif) Andy

[twash]

cars # 0011 & 0012 engines did not have stock 911 t motors, cylinders were 906 type it appears that the factory wanted give a good impression to dealers in 1969