Ebay Phoenix Red 914 Questions Options

[TKO]

Can anyone share with me their thoughts on this 914? Seller says '73 2.0. The car has all black bumpers, no fog lights, etc. Is it possible it was original like this?

Many thanks!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/?cmd=ViewIt...RK%3AMEWAX%3AIT

[Tom_T]

It's actually a 72 MY 914/4 1.7 originally - according to it's VIN:
4722919815

3rd digit is for MY in 1970 & 47 denotes built at the Karmann Plant as a 914/4 (914-6s start with 914.... on VIN).

So this is a conversion to a GA or GC 2.0, or a bored 1.7 to 2.0 I would guess, but their either trying to pass it off as a 73 with the front & rear bumper tits (rear tits on 74 MY only BTW), or don't know what MY it is.

Fraud or unknowledgeable - you take your chances! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

PS - assume any odometer reading has at least 100k, 200k, 300k or more on it in reality, unless there is unbroken documentation that shows mileage from day one to today which tracks to the claimed low mileage - as well as that those service records/etc. haven't been doctored to show mileage claimed, since it's too easy to lie & change odos - esp. 5 digit ones!!!!

[porbmw]

I'm not getting this.

The door jamb compliance sticker is dated 11/72 and (4)732907446 (first number presumed/peeling)

The Porsche book and maintenance records reference a 1972 model, #472291985, and first date seems to be 09/72 and then Delivery Inspection 10/13/72, which predates Compliance Sticker date, unless book is for wrong car.

Etc

[Pat Garvey]

Well, well, well. This car is a true paradox, though it appears to be a really nice example of "something".

Obviously, the service book, and all displayed manual items, is for a 1972 model (one the would have been produced in May of that year). BTW, it could be concieved as liable to reproduce the owner of the '72 manuals info. But the VIN tag is that of a '73. All the interior appointments seem to be those of a 2.0. The wheels are obviously bogus. The rear bumper should not have "tits" for a '73 model.

I think the seller is just plain unknowledgeable about what he has. And it's a nice 914. Not to be unexpected for a nearly 40 year old car, but at the price, is unexcusable.

[eric9144]

Hmmm (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

Like Pat said a bit of a paradox, we'll chalk it up to an owner who doesn't know it as well as he presents it...

Prices are definitely on the upswing if that car is fetching that much in the bidding, almost makes me contemplate selling mine (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

[Pat Garvey]

Sent some questions to the seller.

Let's see how he responds.

[Cracker]

"I think the seller is just plain unknowledgeable..."
"...but at the price, is unexcusable." (FYI - inexcusable)

Blister - You have a knack for saying some really dumb stuff...your tag line fits you perfectly - from what I read of your opinions. I don't believe a bidding price has got anything to do with an owners "knowledge level" or obligation of such - the worst kind member on this board are the originality nuts who "know" everything. Thank God there only a few gods around the World.

Questions or bait? The guy is selling a car, not taking a test.

The car is very nice...too bad it is not perfect (like ours of course). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

[1970 Neun vierzehn]

"I think the seller is just plain unknowledgeable..."
"...but at the price, is unexcusable."

Blister - You have a knack for saying some really dumb stuff...your tag line fits you perfectly - from what I read of your opinions. I don't believe a bidding price has got anything to do with an owners "knowledge level" or obligation of such - the worst kind member on this board are the originality nuts who "know" everything. Thank God there only a few gods around the World.

Questions or bait? The guy is selling a car, not taking a test.

The car is nice - too bad it has a stock 4 cylinder.

Easy fella..........no need to (IMG:style_emoticons/default/stirthepot.gif)

Iffen I were to be spending that kinda money, I would certainly be asking some questions.....and didn't the original thread poster request a "share with me their thoughts" response?

And since this is the originality and history forum, isn't it about seeking factory authenticity and the dialogue and exchange of ideas in search of that?

And I suppose I should feel diminished and unworthy because my 914 is "too bad it has a stock 4 cylinder" as well. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

Paul

[Tom_T]

TKO -

In short - now that the seller has pix of the VIN, the best way for you to confirm this as a 73 914-2.0, would be to call Porsche's PCNA USA headquarters (800# online at the Porsche website), select Customer Care & the Certificate of Authenticity (COA) options, then tell them you are considering buying this 914, give them the VIN 4732907446, & ask them if their records show it as a 1.7 or 2.0 model.

When I looked at this evil-bay ad again early this morning, the seller had responded to the MY question as mis-typing a 2 instead of 3 .... NOT!

He entered the VIN on the owners warranty info of 4722919815, which coincides with all of those docs being for the 1972 MY.

The VIN on the car at all 4 places is 4732907446 - a completely different series of digits.

Something is amiss with the mismatched documentation & body VINs.

The Chassis number on the Karmann plate (top box) can't be confirmed with one in the rear of the trunk floor, since their is no pic of it, but the most that would show is a rear clip was replaced from damage if it didn't match (not a big deal in more rainy & rusty states on a 40 year old pre-rust-treated body cars - even if from SoCal).

The VIN sticker shows an 11/72 build month & the Chassis No. translates to 11/7/72.
FYI: 4629571 = 46th week, 2nd work day/Tues., 95 = Karmann Plant, 71st car built that day

Whereas, the warranty book shows a car sold 2 months earlier than this one was built - a 72 model sold in Sept. 72, so this clearly has the wrong documentation with it.

Could the seller figure out 72 documents vs. 73 VIN & model?
I think any reasonably intelligent person can tell there is something off, so why the seller cannot is beyond me!? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

As I & others above have stated, it has a few things off for a first half 73 MY model 2.0, as well as for it being a 65k mile 914.

Later claimed extremely low mileage first:

The wear on the drivers door top bolster, window crank handle replaced with a late 80's VW/924 version (I didn't need to replace mine on my 8/72 build 2.0 until 130k+), map box/armrest, headlight & emergency flasher switches, gas & brake pedals/pad, shifter knob, horn butterfly & emergency brake, seat adjuster loops' wear & paint chipping, etc. - all speak to me of a 165k mi. or more 914.

Compare this to the <61k mi `71 914/4 (red) & 25k+/- mi later `73 914-2.0 (sahara beige) in the Originality & History Forum's nailed thread "The few, the rare..." for what truly low mileage looks like on wear items.
(See Pat, even the non-purely "from the factory original" 914s do come in handy for members! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

.

As for the former "off" items for a 73 MY 914-2.0 model:

> Several of us have said that 73 MY 914s only had the tits (bumper guards) at the front, and 74s had them at both ends, as this one has - so the bumpers have been changed at some point.

> Most - if not all - 914-2.0's sold in the USA were marketed as the "914S" by Porsche+Audi here, with the full Appearance & Performance Groups of options (AG & PG), which continued up through Jan., Feb. or March of 1973 - & certainly within the Nov. 72 production of this 914.

The PG included: (anti-) sway bars front & rear (I don't see ANY drop links for sway bars either front or rear on the underside pix - so no sway bars), and Fuchs 2 Liter wheels (the ones shown could be either repros which were usually painted black backgrounds, & the "real" ones have a satin finish/almost whitish, but the only way to tell for sure is to see pix of the stampings on the backside of the wheels). Note that all of these items &/or groups were available individually or as groups on either a 1.7 or 2.0 model, but the "914S" in the USA up to early 1973 were most/all AG+PG equipped, as shown in the Dec. 72 advert pic at the bottom of this tirade.

The AG included: the center console with 3 gauges & the wider red banded oil temp. gauge used only in 73 MY (check), center storage box with hinged padded top center cushion (I don't think so cuz the hinged cushion is more of a straight front to mate to the center console rear, & this car has a sloped front cushion, but a pic inside will tell for sure to see the hinge & a different black vinyl covered compartment vs. a plastic compartment & lift off cushion in non-AG 914s), leather shifter boot (check), leather wrapped steering wheel (nope), loop pile carpet (check), front fog lights & dash switch (nope & nope, & not even the hole in the dash facing where the switch was if removed, as mine was by the DAPO), dual tone horns (2 horns L&R - I can't see well enough behind the front bumper grills to tell), chrome F&R bumpers & fog light/horn grills & rear tow hook hole plug (nope on all counts, but they could've been replaced or painted & the rear is definitely a 74 MY replacement with rear tits, & the grills are the non-fog light type - the dealer or DAPO had removed my foglights/grills/switch before I bought my 73 2L in Dec. 75, so stuff happens), vinyl on the sails & roll bar with "chrome" trim (check).

Ergo, unless PCNA tells you it was a 2.0, or this guy can produce a window sticker &/or original dealer sales invoice for this `73 914 (not a 72) showing it was one of the model numbers for a 2.0 as shown in the list at the link below, then it's probably NOT a real 2.0 - but rather an engine swap into a 1.7.
http://bowlsby.net/914/Classic/ModelNumbers.htm

While we cannot say for sure that there were zero "de-contented" 914-2.0s produced in 1972, for the most part it appears that the US marketing arm only wanted to sell "fully loaded" "914s" models to justify the cost equal to the last 914-6's, and only changed their posture sometime around Spring 73 when the DM had escalated so much against the dollar, that the fully loaded 914-2.0s were passing $6000 & went to $7000 by the end of the 73 MY. A guy on here - dlkawashima up in San Jose? - has a documented but much later "914 Sport" de-contented 914-2.0 without the Appearance Group options, if you want to see it in that O&H the few, the rare topic.

Additional "off" clues for a "real" 73 2L are:
> the tire sticker on the gas tank is for a 155SR15 tire which was standard on 72-75 1.7 & 1.8 914s, whereas the 73-76 914-2.0s spec'd 165HR15 tires due to their higher speed capability requiring an HR tire (conclusive that this was a 1.7 originally, unless the fuel &/or expansion tank was changed for a used 1.7 one),

> a banded airbox top not used until later in 73 (+/- Mar.~June 73 builds, see sahara beige 73 2L) rather than the diamond grid stamped top (not conclusive),

> plastic 2.0 badge rather than metal (not conclusive if replaced in a repaint/body work or for better looks when old one faded),

> silver VIN sticker - not black (could be replacement at repaint),

> rear bumper/tits as noted,

> the spare is a 70-72 MY type rather than the 73-76 "star" or "Mag look" spare (dealers often "stole" the 5th alloy spares to sell to others as a set from 4 914s & replaced with a steel spare they had around, so not conclusive), etc.

The seller in his long "history" (his-story) he demonstrates an above average knowledge of 914s, so the "off" issues should be clearer to him than claimed, one would think! Where there's smoke - there's usually fire! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/dry.gif)

Since the purported owner docs are 72 MY, this could also be a "VIN transplant" as well as an engine transplant - if those truly are the correct warranty, emissions & owner manuals for this 914 (it's not unheard of for people to purport this fraud for more sales value, but more often seen with purported 914-6's due to their much higher values).

IMHO this particular 914 shows more signs of a 73 914-1.7 conversion to a 2.0, than being "born" that way, in addition to having more than 65k miles on it. "A preponderance of the evidence" comes to mind in my conclusion, but a call to PCNA's COA dept. could solve it for sure.

All that said - it may be a very nice 40 year old 914-1.7 converted to 2.0 - but not worth a real 914-2.0 with 65k mi price, but more along the lines of a mid to high value 73 914-1.7 at the NADA & Excellence price guides below, which tops out at only $12,450 - $12,800 vs. $14,350 current bid (& IMHO the wear items noted above make this 914-X.X worth less than top cond. cars).
http://www.excellence-mag.com/resources/bu...guide/856880138

http://www.nadaguides.com/Classic-Cars/197...arga-1-8/Values
(I just noticed that NADA has their model/engine options FUBAR with 1.8 in 73 MY ~ 1.8 was 74-75 only, & 1.7 & 2.0 in 72 MY when the 2.0 was NEVER available on a 73 VINed 914 - so their inaccuracies help feed confusion in the marketplace!)

If you decide to proceed with this car to bid - ask for a pic of the GA number on the top of the engine case behind the fan shroud next to the oil filler housing, then call PCNA to confirm if it's really an original 2.0 or 1.7 & a matching engine number (as I said at the top, but the engine case no. will also let them tell you if it is truly the original engine # as the seller claims). If it checks out with PCNA as a real 2.0, then get someone familiar with 914s in GA to inspect the car for any rust or other issues, or make an inspection by George Hussey at AutoAtlanta or another well reputed shop close to the seller (but NOT "his" regular shop) a requirement for the purchase to close with full payment.

Cracker - it's not that we're trying to be "originality gods," but rather trying to help a fellow member who asked for help & opinions, to not get duped by a seller & 914 which is highly probably NOT what is claimed for a wide variety of reasons. I mainly wanted to counter the claims that we don't know what to look for, and that this seller has plenty of "off" issues here to be of concern to a buyer. Pat, Paul & most of the others commenting above have been around 914s for a long, long time - some since the early 1970s when they were purchased new (Pat & Paul) or shortly afterwards as used cars (me in 75) - so we know first hand what to look for in many cases. After all, we're here to help each other out & avoid expensive mistakes - not to impress the rest with our knowledge! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/shades.gif)

TKO & anyone else looking at this claimed original 73 2.0 with only 65k miles should be duly concerned. Yes he's only a seller & not taking a test, but he knows a lot more about 914s than a simple VIN typing error allows. There is more amiss here, and only checking with PCNA & original sales docs. will clear it up for sure.

FYI - here's the Dec. 72 "914 S" ad & 2 dealer brochures' eqpt. list - which would've been out about the time this 914 was sold in the USA:




More info on the "914 S" topic here:
http://www.914world.com/bbs2/index.php?sho...=107851&st=

O&H "The few, the rare...." nailed topic here:
914world O&H - The Few, The Rare....

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/popcorn[1].gif)

TKO - You're in Coto & I'm in Orange, & I'll be around this weekend - if this long winded explanation wasn't enough for you - if you want to call me send me a PM with your number & I'll PM back with mine.

Hope this helps!?

Cheers! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)
Tom T
Orange, CA
73 914-2.0 since Dec 75
///////

[Tom_T]

FYI - I just posted the following to the evil-bay seller since I had the ad up:

<snipped>
1. Do you have a COA, original window sticker &/or dealer invoice showing it's a 73 MY 914-2.0? Your VIN mistake was more than mistyping one digit, but a completely different 72 VIN from the 72 warranty book of a car sold in 9/72 - 2 months before the VIN sticker in your pix says it was built in 11/72. So if this is a 73, then you got the wrong documents from the PO or somewhere else.

2. Can you post a pic of the GA engine case number from the topside area next to the fan shroud & oil filler housing, & do you have the COA showing a matching number 2.0 engine?

3. Do you have regular, unbroken & consistent service records showing the odometer readings since new to confirm that this only has 65k miles? The interior wear items look to be more than 65xxx miles, & a 5 digit odometer is hard to prove that it has not turned over one or more times for 165k, 265k, etc. &/or that it was inoperable, replaced, etc. at some time.

4. Can you post pix of the hell hole & battery tray?

Thanx!
<end snip>

Maybe he'll answer & add the pix? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)

Cheers! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif) & Happy Memorial Day Weekend! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/flag.gif)
///////

[Cracker]

Cracker - it's not that we're trying to be "originality gods," but rather trying to help a fellow member who asked for help & opinions, (IMG:style_emoticons/default/shades.gif)

Tom - very impressive write up and I enjoyed reading it too.

Have a great Memorial day weekend! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beerchug.gif)

[SirAndy]

Pat's remarks are not chided properly by Andy or whoever else runs things here. Moderators should generally provide the most wisdom and balance - certainly not inflammatory and offensive material.

Do you really expect me to read each and every post made here? Really?
This may surprise you, but i do have a day job and it has nothing to do with 914world.

If you feel that a thread needs cleanup, PM me about it and i might just do something.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/shades.gif)

[Cracker]

Pat's remarks are not chided properly by Andy or whoever else runs things here. Moderators should generally provide the most wisdom and balance - certainly not inflammatory and offensive material.

Do you really expect me to read each and every post made here? Really?
This may surprise you, but i do have a day job and it has nothing to do with 914world.

If you feel that a thread needs cleanup, PM me about it and i might just do something.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/shades.gif)

C'mon Andy... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/shades.gif)

[Sarastro]

Excellent analysis Tom, I really enjoyed reading your observations and conclusions.

Two things I find very curious:

1. Why would someone have such a nicely maintained car yet put a ´74 rear bumper on it?

2. Why would someone pay this much money for a car with so many inconsistencies? Even if someone knows little about these cars, the paperwork is obviously older than the production date of the car, there are important items missing within the Appearance Group (fog lights and chrome bumpers), and that rear bumper.

Maybe 914 prices are starting to finally rise a bit.

[SirAndy]

C'mon Andy...my remarks elicit your response but "someone" being an absolute Asshole doesn't?

Believe it or not, you simply got lucky ...
I was skipping through the forums and the title of this thread caught my eye.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but this had nothing to do with you or the content of this thread.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[TKO]

Thank you Tom T. for the great observations and images. Very helpful, informative, and entertaining. I really appreciate you taking the time and I am sure I'm not the only one who will benefit from your effort.

Happy Memorial Day people ...

Tom K.

[Pat Garvey]

"I think the seller is just plain unknowledgeable..."
"...but at the price, is unexcusable." (FYI - inexcusable)

Blister - You have a knack for saying some really dumb stuff...your tag line fits you perfectly - from what I read of your opinions. I don't believe a bidding price has got anything to do with an owners "knowledge level" or obligation of such - the worst kind member on this board are the originality nuts who "know" everything. Thank God there only a few gods around the World.

Questions or bait? The guy is selling a car, not taking a test.

The car is very nice...too bad it is not perfect (like ours of course). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif)

Cracker,
TKO asked the question...in the O&H Forum. Several of us responded, as we should have.
I reviewed the eBay post and responded with my remarks (and I could have gone way further) about some of the issues with this car from an O&H stanpoint, as requested.
Tom_T took it to another level, justifiably. I asked the seller a question about the rear bumper, which he has not responded to. I noted that the 914 was apparently a very nice example, with some issues. The seller is probably not as knowledgeable as people of this forum. He/she has not responded to my question at this date.
I was NOT baiting the seller! Why would I? Bids have been cast, and he's in line to get a really nice price for the car.

Once again, this is the O&H Forum. The question was asked of this Forum. We investigated and reported out observations.

Now, regarding your attack of me. Uncalled for, quite frankly.

First, I really am dissapointed that you went to Andy to get satisfaction! I may be the moderator of this forum, but am permitted to post my knowledge of 914's.

There's a reason that I have agreed to this position. That is to protect the information, with the help of others, regarding the originality of 914's. I am an original owner. Others that help this Forum are also original owners, or close to it. Collectively, we have the knowledge, experience and research to know what we are talking about. That knowledge crosses model years and models. We are not dummies here.

Many of us in this Forum have cred's to prove what we know. What are yours? Would you care to impart your knowledge of 914 models, as original and delivered? Would you? From where do you get your knowledge?

I've tried to keep this response as positive as I can, but you need to rell me why I'm not doing my job here.

While I'm responding...don't call me "blister". I can call yopu names too.

[Cracker]

First, I really am dissapointed that you went to Andy to get satisfaction! I may be the moderator of this forum, but am permitted to post my knowledge of 914's.


While I'm responding...don't call me "blister". I can call yopu names too.

Andy - no bubble bursted...I too have a day job and life well beyond 914's. It doesn't appear all here do - at least in O/A. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[Pat Garvey]

First, I really am dissapointed that you went to Andy to get satisfaction! I may be the moderator of this forum, but am permitted to post my knowledge of 914's.


While I'm responding...don't call me "blister". I can call yopu names too.

Andy - no bubble bursted...I too have a day job and life well beyond 914's. It doesn't appear all here do - at least in O/A. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Regarding Pats comments above - you have done nothing to earn respect with me - quite opposite actually - you come across as a frustrated old man with tunnel vision - quite polarizing. I also could care less what you want to be called or not. Your tag line is a perfect fit/description, please do not change it! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/bootyshake.gif)

I'll stay out of your personal sandbox in O/A - please do the same on my posts since you have thus provided worthless drivel. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/shades.gif)

To all members of the O&H Forum......WOW!

You know, if someone disagrees with me (and it's happened), we generally have a discussion between that person and me. To, and pardon the expression "run home to mommy" is about as disrepectfull as can be.

Say it to my face! Don't drag Andy into this discussion! And never "dis" the benefactor who has provided this venue for years. Just in case Andy doesn't see this, I'll PM him about it.

WOW! Out of control!

[Qarl]

Douche Douche baby!

Cracker... I've read this from start to finish... and to be honest, you started the childish verbal diarrhea starting in post #7. I suggest adding the first line of my post as your tag line!

And I agree with Pat... the seller seems unknowledgeable about what he really has, or is at totally misrepresenting the car.