Production Report, Better Than COA Options

[914Sixer]

I got my Kardex report on the Creamsicle. This report has more information than the COA from Porsche. COA from Porsche on another Creamsicle. Lots of dealer stuff not listed.

[JeffBowlsby]

Still trying to make sense of the model number conundrum Dave, its fundamental information. Its not passing the sniff test. As confirmed by their Monroney labels, see exemplars below:

A 1974 914 Model 473544 is a North America-market, GA code 2.0L with Appearance Group.

A 1974 914 Model 473644 is a North America-market, GA code 2.0L Can Am Limited Edition

On the document for 4742915025 in the first post, the 473544 model number is listed as a standard 1974 2.0L, then goes on to indicate the unique Can Am paint code and Can Am equipment under the M778 LE equipment package with most items including individual M-codes. From the perspective of the 473544 model number, this document suggests that the Can Am cars were viewed as a standard 2.0L with a list of the 10 specific M778 options.

Interestingly, the M778 option package includes all 5 Appearance Group items and all 3 Performance Group items offered in 1974 so 8 of the 10 of the Can Am equipment items would overlap a 1974 2.0L car with both AG and PG options. If the above paragraph was the case then the separate need for and designation of Model 473644 would be superfluous, which we know is not accurate. They could have just reduced option M778 to the additional Can Am specific items including the U_ paint package, Targa bar side vinyl delete, black trim items (rear Targa bar trim and foglight grilles), and side lettering. However the Monroney label for Model 473644 does not present it that way.

All together all options combined equate to a Model 473644 and its not clear why the document does not indicate it that way, as the Monroney label indicates it.

Any insight?

[wonkipop]

Still trying to make sense of the model number conundrum Dave, its fundamental information. Its not passing the sniff test. As confirmed by their Monroney labels, see exemplars below:

A 1974 914 Model 473544 is a North America-market, GA code 2.0L with Appearance Group.

A 1974 914 Model 473644 is a North America-market, GA code 2.0L Can Am Limited Edition

On the document for 4742915025 in the first post, the 473544 model number is listed as a standard 1974 2.0L, then goes on to indicate the unique Can Am paint code and Can Am equipment under the M778 LE equipment package with most items including individual M-codes. From the perspective of the 473544 model number, this document suggests that the Can Am cars were viewed as a standard 2.0L with a list of the 10 specific M778 options.

Interestingly, the M778 option package includes all 5 Appearance Group items and all 3 Performance Group items offered in 1974 so 8 of the 10 of the Can Am equipment items would overlap a 1974 2.0L car with both AG and PG options. If the above paragraph was the case then the separate need for and designation of Model 473644 would be superfluous, which we know is not accurate. They could have just reduced option M778 to the additional Can Am specific items including the U_ paint package, Targa bar side vinyl delete, black trim items (rear Targa bar trim and foglight grilles), and side lettering. However the Monroney label for Model 473644 does not present it that way.

All together all options combined equate to a Model 473644 and its not clear why the document does not indicate it that way, as the Monroney label indicates it.

Any insight?

the thing is those window labels that look like some kind of computer printout of an order are only good for north american cars where they are being sold through porsche audi division of VWoA. in the rest of the world the cars, whether 4s or 6s were sold through either porsche dealers or VW dealers separately depending on the country.

somewhere there must be a depository at VW with the full details on the build for the 4s.
all of them. north american cars and ROW. likely it would also distinguish or give details on exactly how the variations of the "Can Am" were notated given they were, as you point out jeff, not quite the same in there three different market versions.