1973 914 2.0 with only 5894 miles "shown" Options

[perrysan]

Dubious if the car has 5894 original miles...

https://www.diamondmotorworks.com/1973-pors...arga-c-4254.htm

Short video of the outside: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cAVkUUa1Xs

Has the VIN listed as "473291972" but assuming they mean 4732901972 which isn't in the VIN database.

Has the front euro turn signal lenses and the kit to relocate the parking light to the bottom, so some previous owner was detail oriented lol..

[JamesM]

It looks like a clean car (from the limited pictures anyways), but...

Who puts an aftermarket reflector, a rusty bursch exhaust, removes the rear trunk springs and swaps out the heat exchangers on a 6k mile car?

Also:
looks like the ignition tumbler has been swapped out.
Seems to be some questionable wiring hanging down by the trans and along the lower firewall.

and is that overspray i see on the drives door VIN sticker?

Quite a few other things seem off as well. i dont buy that its only been driven 6k miles.

106k maybe... maybe

"arguably the best in the world"??? Im not seeing a very strong argument

[wonkipop]

Who puts an aftermarket reflector, ............ on a 6k mile car?

just about everyone in the 70s. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)
i'd say its been on there since new or near new.

(fortunately it was not done to mine. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

the car was sold on BAT a couple of years back.

https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1973-porsche-914-54/

current pricing not substantially different to what present owner bought it for.

[wonkipop]

ps

i don't think anyone is trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes on the 6 K miles.
more that its done 6K since a substantial restoration. it hasn't done a lot since 99/early 2000s when you read comments in BAT ad.

the BAT ad is interesting as it implies the rear reflector was fitted as part of a "special dealer package" when the car was new!!!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) pretty funny that the dealers were tarting them up like that. if you look close the rear trunk lock is drilled through the reflector which is very unusual. most later aftermarket installs used a remote release.
also came with the bursch exhaust. all is not what it seems. ie its actually original from the showroom - maybe not factory, but showroom - (but restored).

looks to be an ok car.

its a 1.7 not a 2.0

[JamesM]

ps

i don't think anyone is trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes on the 6 K miles.
more that its done 6K since a substantial restoration. it hasn't done a lot since 99/early 2000s when you read comments in BAT ad.

the BAT ad is interesting as it implies the rear reflector was fitted as part of a "special dealer package" when the car was new!!!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) pretty funny that the dealers were tarting them up like that. if you look close the rear trunk lock is drilled through the reflector which is very unusual. most later aftermarket installs used a remote release.
also came with the bursch exhaust. all is not what it seems. ie its actually original from the showroom - maybe not factory, but showroom - (but restored).

looks to be an ok car.

its a 1.7 not a 2.0

Wow, I hadnt seen the BAT ad previously but now that I have I am moving my opinion on this car from "misleading" to "outright fraud"

Way to much fishy crap with that "Dick Barbour window sticker" not the least of which being im pretty sure Dick didnt have access to a time machine to source a laser printer to produce window stickers with.

Would love to have that paper in my had to take a close look, but as someone that spent part of my life working in both printer development and forgery investigations, this sure looks like a load of (IMG:style_emoticons/default/stromberg.gif) to me from here.

The taking a candle to the corners of the paper to make it look old is a good try though.

I can only assume the current owner realized its level of fakeness which is why it isnt included in the latest ad.

[Superhawk996]

Wow, I hadnt seen the BAT ad previously but now that I have I am moving my opinion on this car from "misleading" to "outright fraud"

Way to much fishy crap with that "Dick Barbour window sticker" not the least of which being im pretty sure Dick didnt have access to a time machine to source a laser printer to produce window stickers with.

Would love to have that paper in my had to take a close look, but as someone that spent part of my life working in both printer development and forgery investigations, this sure looks like a load of (IMG:style_emoticons/default/stromberg.gif) to me from here.

The taking a candle to the corners of the paper to make it look old is a good try though.

I can only assume the current owner realized its level of fakeness which is why it isnt included in the latest ad.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/aktion035.gif)

Nice!

Now in going back and looking at the BAT "window sticker" I notice it has "So Cal Printing 2/73" on it.



Yet, Vehicle was manufactured 4/73?



I guess they knew months, and months ahead of time how there were going to equip it at the dealership? There was a 2 month lag to when the car was built, and then there would have likely been another 2 months or longer for the car to ship from port, inland transport, etc.? No concern for exchange rate fluctuations w.r.t. pricing, etc.?

Sure would be awesome if we have an offset printing expert . . . . are the fonts even viable for that era of offset printing?

The (IMG:style_emoticons/default/stromberg.gif) smell is getting worse.

[JamesM]

Sure would be awesome if we have an offset printing expert . . . . are the fonts even viable for that era of offset printing?

Not sure about the fonts themselves (though i also questioned that) as I was not around in 1973 but I did spend a few years working for Epson in photo printer development and have spent more hours staring though a loupe at printouts than any sane person should.

I feel very confident in saying that "window sticker" came off a modern printer in a single pass vs any dealer window sticker older than maybe 20 years ago that would have had the line items entered on an impact printer of some sort (typewriter, dot matrix, etc) over a pre-printed form or card.

the paper itself also appears to be a more modern heavy weight sheet used with laser prints vs light weight perforated roll paper dealers usually use. I cant tell without having a closer look if it is ink jet or laser, but it looks like laser from here. The gradient background, the borders, the alignment, pretty much all if it screams modern computer generated printout to me.

Not to mention the fact that border perfectly encapsulates the exact number of line item options the car has...

nope, this was laid up on a computer and printed with a modern printer.


also, is it just me or do some of those prices seem a little questionable for 1973?