The Legend of the "914 S" & "914 SC", Myth or Fact? Options

[Tom_T]

<edit update>
For the ADHD crowd & reading challenged & the just impatient....

The `73 MY's "914S" is a "Trim Designation" or "Trim Package" - the same as was the "914 LE" in the `74 MY.

It was official by Porsche & Porsche+Audi/Volkswagen of America for North America, & likewise for th Porsche distributors of the "914S/914SL" in Japan & "914SC" in the UK.

However, in the case of North America, Porsche Germany made Porsche+Audi/VoA drop the "914S" designation after running the program for over a year - from early -1972 in the pre-release campaign - through about March 1973 - apparently after pressure from the 911 crowd at PCA objecting to it confusing them over their911S's. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

Period!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/shades.gif)

See my Post #205 on page 11 for more details - or just read on below & through the ensuing facts, then debate by the naysayers. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

<edit>
CLIFF NOTES VERSION: (IMG:style_emoticons/default/huh.gif)
- for those not interested in looking at cool old 914 stuff from back in the day"!

1. Porsche+Audi marketed the 914/4 2.0 "fully loaded" as the "914 S" in ads & sales brochures from Summer 1972 to about Jan/Feb 1973, then Porsche made them stop.

2. The British Distributor similarly marketed the 914/4 2.0 from Summer 1972 through 1976 as the 914SC, but was never told to stop.

3. Neither was ever badged as either a 914S or 914SC.

4. If one is interested, read the stuff posted here from that 1970's period.
<end edit>

There has been talk from time to time on here & elsewhere, about whether there ever really was a "914 S" &/or "914 SC"? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)
- especially amongst those of us with USA 1973 MY 914-2.0's from the first half of the 73 MY production!

Well - as many things 914 - the answer is an unequivocal "Yes & No"!

I can answer more definitively regarding the "914 S" in the USA & Canada/North America, since I researched that recently to better plan for the restoration of my early-73 914-2.0. However, I was already well aware of the "914 S" terminology back in 1975 & it's having been dropped unceremoniously at PAG's insistance during early 1973, because I'd reviewed MT & R&T road test articles on the "914 S"/914-2.0 which bracketed the change & made mention of PAG's forcing it to be dropped while researching the purchase used (3 yrs. old) of my one & only 914-2.0 which I bought in Dec. 75 & still own (2nd owner).

I also had 3+ years before that, gotten a "free" copy of the 12 page early 1973 MY 914 sales brochure from the Downtown LA Porsche+Audi dealership, from a classmate whose parents eventually bought him one for his graduation (oh to be so lucky! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif) ). In it, it referred to the "914 S", as shown in the pix on the following posts here of the similar current brochure which I had to buy last year, having misplaced the other! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

But we will have to ask that some of our Brit Teeners out there (both of you! - just kidding! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) ) to add in regarding your "914 SC".
- Yes, the Brits had "something completely different," as in the Monty Python bits!

First - "No" - 914's were never officially badged as either a "914 S" nor "914 SC" by either the Porsche+Audi US/Canada nor the British Isles distributors, and definitely NOT EVER by the factory.

North American 914s with the GA 2.0 motor were badged with the familiar separate "914" & "2.0" badges on the right rear body panel above the rear bumper & to the left of the right taillight.

Whereas the rest of the world's 2L's with the GB engine were badged with the familiar long "914-*-Porsche" between the rear trunk lock/button & right taillight (where "*" is the VW roundel Logo), with the 2.0" badge below that & aligned with the first long badge next to the right taillight.

USA/Canada - Porsche+Audi 914 2.0 Badging:


.

Rest of the World's 914 2.0 Badging:


.

<edit>
For many, this above is enough to know & take/keep the position on "no" - but it is NOT the whole story, much of which is not known today unless you were around then. If you're in the no camp, your point is taken & no need to torture yourself by reading on - unless you want to add some other documentation/pix from the period which relate to this subject - then please do so.

However, this post isn't here for a debate - although it seems that we have a lot of "master debaters" logging in here with a burning desire to prove someone - anyone - wrong. Even to the point of agreeing with me then saying I'm wrong, and one re-posting information which I'd already posted in an effort to prove me wrong! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/huh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/WTF.gif)

I'm just presenting some factual documentation here on what the "914S" thing was all about - so others will know that there is some basis to it, even if it was not a "real" 914 model nor badge name. I have also thrown in some of my own thoughts, speculation & opinions, which I hope are clear from the way I've stated things (IMO, IMHO, I speculate or suspect or estimate that ... , etc.) that they are just that - which is not to claim that they are "facts".

As you can tell by my edits here, I'm getting a bit frustrated with the "master debaters," conspiracy police, & those who consider "914S talk" as heresy - but it did exist - to a point, as the following explains & provides period documentation to back it up. To the point - it is an indisputable fact that Porsche+Audi in the USA & Canada marketed the then new 914/4 2.0L model as the "914S" from Summer 1972 through about December 1972 or January/February 1973 -period! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)
<end edit>

.

Today, one of our member vendors here - RJMII - makes custom aluminum badges in a "914 S" design, and could customize anything else - including "914 SC" - should someone want one for display purposes or fun in a temporary attachment/placement. However, IMHO I would not recommend placing one in the rear badging position, because you'd have to weld/braise/putty to fill in the mounting stud holes, which is NOT a good idea nor an acceptable "Originality" approach.

.

.

Second - "Yes" - The Porsche+Audi US/Canada distributor did in fact initially market the "new for the 1973 model year" (MY) 914/4 with the GA 2.0 engine as the "914 S" from mid-72 through early 1973.

While the British Isles distributor marketed their GB engined 2.0's as the "914 SC" from mid-72 through the end of the 914's run in 1976.

Oddly - according to both the period articles in the left book below & commentary by the second book's author - Porsche never asked them to drop the "SC" nomenclature - even after the "911 SC" was introduced later. Whereas their almost immediate objection to the US Porsche+Audi arm using the "914 S" in marketing, what that they were concerned that it may confuse the public with the 911S & detract for that far more expensive car's sales (more than 2x the 914-2.0' price in 73 MY).

A fair amount of factual back up for both of these "914 S" & "914 SC" marketing programs can be found in the 2 books whose covers are pictured below - both of which are still currently available in print from numerous sources - so I won't duplicate that information here.



.

.

Additionally, Porsche+Audi printed both 4 page & 12 page 914 full color sales brochures for the US & Canadian dealerships, both of which clearly & unequivocally referred to the "914 S" - not a "914 2.0" at that point in time (although the terminology was eventually changed to "914 2.0" by the 74 MY as seen later).

Front & Rear Covers of 4 page Porsche+Audi 914 Sales Brochure referring to "914 S":


.

... continued ....

[MDG]

Here's my perspective. As someone who has owned a printing company for 17 years, I can tell you it's amazing how many things get produced, distributed, then recalled, redesigned and re-printed. Happens all the time; with banks, pharmaceutical companies, retailers, manufacturers etc., etc. It could be legal reasons such as copyright infringement. It could be the Head Office gets wind of it and drops the hammer. In major corporations the territories often work independently from the HO. Sometimes they get their wrists slapped.

I've know of the 914S story for decades - I have the same brochure Tom has posted on several occasions that came with my first '73 I drove as my DD in the 80s. Both my 73's - my old one and my current Phoenix Red - are fully optioned (including the rear window defroster) 2.0 914's.

The story I have always heard is just what Pat has said every time this comes up; Porsche NA decided to add some marketing spit & polish by 'creating' the 914S - a fully optioned version of the then new 2.0 914. They produced the literature, sent it out and then got the cease and desist from Stuttgart. Simple. Happens all the time. Kinda like the Beatles butcher cover.

[Tom_T]

Here's my perspective. As someone who has owned a printing company for 17 years, I can tell you it's amazing how many things get produced, distributed, then recalled, redesigned and re-printed. Happens all the time; with banks, pharmaceutical companies, retailers, manufacturers etc., etc. It could be legal reasons such as copyright infringement. It could be the Head Office gets wind of it and drops the hammer. In major corporations the territories often work independently from the HO. Sometimes they get their wrists slapped.

I've know of the 914S story for decades - I have the same brochure Tom has posted on several occasions that came with my first '73 I drove as my DD in the 80s. Both my 73's - my old one and my current Phoenix Red - are fully optioned (including the rear window defroster) 2.0 914's.

The story I have always heard is just what Pat has said every time this comes up; Porsche NA decided to add some marketing spit & polish by 'creating' the 914S - a fully optioned version of the then new 2.0 914. They produced the literature, sent it out and then got the cease and desist from Stuttgart. Simple. Happens all the time. Kinda like the Beatles butcher cover.

Absolutely Mike, for the most part - (IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) - with you & Pat, that it was nothing more than a marketing gimmick - the same as the ad series of "The __[blank]__ Porsche" ad campaigns of which this was a part or subset. I believe that I stated so above, & that their reason for adding the extra AG & PG options as "included" was to make it more comparable with the 914-6 which it was replacing.

My sole purpose for posting this info was to clarify & put to rest the subject as to the facts of the matters for all those out there who are or may later be curious about the subject (prompted in fact by some questions from others), which has not been done specifically as it's own topic in O&H - & it IS part of the 914's history.

And I was there & had the brochure too back in the day 38 & 41 years ago in person as a young adult, as a car crazy teenager Junior/Senior in High School when the 914's were released in 1969 - as well as a car crazy 20-21 year old Junior/Senior in college when the 914S marketing campaign started for the release of the then "new" 2 Liter 914 model.

However, it was not a quickly retracted campaign as Mike & Pat imply. Nor do I think it should just be "blown off" as some crazy & irresponsible market guy's brash act, which got his hands slapped, and nothing more. It was in fact a well thought out, planned & executed broad based marketing campaign to introduce a new 914 (sub-)model to the North American marketplace, which lasted a long period of time as ad campaigns go! And one at least in part responsible for the best sales volume model year ever for the 914, since about 60% of them were sold here in the USA (not counting Canada), wherein more 73 MY 914-2.0's were sold than in any other of the three 74-76 by a large margin, as in the chart below prepared by PCA with data from Porsche & PCNA.



Here's my perspective and personal opinions as someone with my own business since 1983, involved in some major corporations before that, and some formal education in marketing during my MBA program - but it's still just IMHO & some Sherlock Holmes style deductive reasoning 4 decades later.

My other point in responding to Pat's comment (other than agreeing with him), was that IMHO the US marketing gurus probably were on the right track & more consistent in "branding" terminology & better for marketing the 914 2L's as a "914S" - as opposed to PAG's schizophrenic "branding" of the 911 series with letters (T, L, E, S, SC), while the 914 series was "branded" with numbers denoting engine type/size (-6, 1.7, 1.8, 2.0).

Clearly today we can see that it was a mistake for them to have branded this fine sports car as a "VW-Porsche" in the rest of the world - even if everybody cannot agree that the individual sub-models' inconsistent branding was detrimental. However, you all should take note that since that time - sub-models in all series have instead been consistently branded by Porsche by the letter convention - not engine size convention (924S, 928S, Boxster S, etc.).

If I had been PAG's Director of Marketing back in the day, then I would've strongly recommended using the same system as the predecessor 911 series & 356 series, by adding letters to denote sub-models - which has the added benefit of not needing to be changed as the 1.7 changed to 1.8, or for various 6 cylinder displacements. In that hypothetical case & assuming that you started in the initial 1970 MY, then the 2.0 (& later 72 MY 2.2/2.4) 914-6 would've instead been the 914S (so the guy with the dremeled badge had the right idea), then the 1.7 & 1.8 would've instead both been the 914T or 914L or maybe just 914 for all MYs, and then the 73-76 914/4 2.0 would've been the 911E or 914T if not used on the 1.7/1.8 (say! ... now there's a whole new set of "custom badges" we can all get to thoroughly confuse everybody).

But this is all just an academic hypothetical discussion on this point on my part, so don't other CW's "get your shorts in a bunch," nor those new to the world of 914s think that Porsche ever considered this way of denoting the 914's (as far as I know, they may or may not have ever even discussed it).

And I certainly would've "avoided like the plague" the ill-conceived co-branding of the VW-Porsche anywhere, even if the JV produced it and marketed it in certain regions. Again - Porsche+Audi NA had a far better handle on & were much less naive about market perceptions, than were their German counterparts at either VW or Porsche!

Where I disagree with Mike's & Pat's reasoning on this matter, is that in most cases it doesn't take 6+ months to effect the recall of the incorrect collateral materials, as happened in this case. Make that 9+/- months - if you figure that in the pre-digital printing age, they would've needed to produce the brochures & artwork/copy for the print ads 60-90 days in advance of that, in order to have them distributed to the dealerships by say July 72 when we first saw the 2 Liter 914s on the dealer's lots.

Marketing campaigns like that were not just thrown together willy-nilly, but were well thought out marketing strategies with coordinated ad campaigns, collateral sales materials, sales tactics, etc. And the US marketing staff at Porsche+Audi were trying to do their best to work around awkward model branding & marketing as pursued by their European counterparts.

Somebody from Porsche must have at least seen an ad with the 914S in a US or Canadian magazine before the end of the year in 1972 - even if nobody breathed a word about everything before then. Standard operating procedure would be to at least send copies of the marketing & sales info. produced to the home office. Ergo, it must've collected dust for 9 months - & nobody looked at a US/Canadian magazine or newspaper with their 914S ads in that time span either - in order to have ignored & not stopped the 914S sales & marketing program here.

I think that it is far more likely and reasonable to assume or guess, that someone at Porsche/PAG's executive suite was indeed aware of the 914S marketing campaign here in the US & Canada prior to the release of the materials - or at least shortly afterwords, and they instead elected to sit back awhile to see what happened. Then later at some point in early 1973 someone on top pulled the plug - because it was clearly "gone" as a 914S within the ONE month between the publication of the Jan. 73 Motor Trend article noting the "914S", and the Feb. 73 Road & Track article noting the "914/2" & going further to discuss the change & a complete lack of a substitute model designation supplied by Porsche!

In fact, Porsche/PAG pulled the plug late in the game a bit more than halfway through the 1973 model year, but did it so fast that two "promotional" road test articles in consecutive months from major auto industry publishers were using two names for the car, & Porsche did so without the forethought to even suggest using the 914-2.0 designation until the following 74 MY - as evidenced by the two post-change 73 MY ads which I posted above, which merely refer to a 2.0 engine - not even a 914-2.0 at that point!

Clearly somebody from PAG acted quickly, and could certainly have done so back in Summer of 72! Moreover, they acted without any plan of action to redirect the marketing campaign & branding of their new flagship 914 model! IMHO - that was an ill conceived & amateurish move on whomever's part!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/idea.gif) ... and then there's that nagging "WHY" did they allow the Brits to continue to use the 914SC term in marketing the 914-2.0's in the British Isles (and perhaps elsewhere in the Commonwealth)?? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Again - where are the Brit's to add their two pence?? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/shades.gif)
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/popcorn[1].gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/popcorn[1].gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/popcorn[1].gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/popcorn[1].gif)