![]() |
|
Porsche, and the Porsche crest are registered trademarks of Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG.
This site is not affiliated with Porsche in any way. Its only purpose is to provide an online forum for car enthusiasts. All other trademarks are property of their respective owners. |
|
![]() |
914Sixer |
![]()
Post
#1
|
914 Guru ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Members Posts: 9,186 Joined: 17-January 05 From: San Angelo Texas Member No.: 3,457 Region Association: Southwest Region ![]() ![]() |
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.
Attached thumbnail(s) ![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() |
davep |
![]()
Post
#2
|
914 Historian ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Group: Benefactors Posts: 5,289 Joined: 13-October 03 From: Burford, ON, N0E 1A0 Member No.: 1,244 Region Association: Canada ![]() ![]() |
Indeed, the stuff you find! They were prepared to continue with the 914/6; and with all three current engine levels. This would have been unprecedented. The original 914/6 had a detuned 2.0 engine so as not to compete with the 2.2 engine 911 series. A 914/6 2.4S could have compared favorably with the 911RS.
Now, the first few 916 did have the 2.4S while the majority got the 2.7RS engine. The Factory knew well before these papers were prepared what the 914/6 2.4 was capable off, and they knew the horrendously poor sales of the 1971 and 1972 914/6 2.0. It really does boggle my mind as to why the models were submitted. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 7th July 2025 - 06:04 AM |
All rights reserved 914World.com © since 2002 |
914World.com is the fastest growing online 914 community! We have it all, classifieds, events, forums, vendors, parts, autocross, racing, technical articles, events calendar, newsletter, restoration, gallery, archives, history and more for your Porsche 914 ... |