ok, i'm no expert when it comes to 916s, but this is news to me (interesting part in bold):





looking through the 916 VIN number list, they all had 914/6 style VINs, even the first "prototype" ...
Andy

Since you know way more about these cars than I do, I would have to say that the person you are quoting is mis guided. Thoughts?

on the one hand - the quoted text isn't all correct:



that's nonsens - at least 4 cars have/had fabric seat inlays and door panels



when the 916s were buit the 2.7 RS engine wasn't "ready" - the 916s used a 2.4 engine block with enlarged bore - and specifications later known as "RS- spec"

first Porsche planed to use a new 2.6 engine - but then they thought it could lead to problems with parts/repair and so on
therefore they decided to use more common parts






well, that's a rumor without prove yet (AFAIK)
different 916 experts are talking about that
especially the engine bay leads to this suspect

I don't know it this is a fact or not, but if Porsche took a 47 chassis to built up a 916 (remember - these cars were built at the prototype and racing devision, not at the standard car production line) they could have easily changed the 47 VIN to a 916 VIN.

Gustl

Well, they are not saying the car originally had a 914/4 VIN. The VIN was assigned well after the chassis # was stamped into the body after welding up. The 916's all had very late 1971 914/6 chassis #. In fact, one could argue that they used up the last of the 1971 914/6 chassis. Maybe that is why 11 916 were built, that was the number of chassis available. There are only a few differences between a 914/4 body and a 914/6 body. The most obvious being the engine support parts. No supporting evidence has ever been revealed as to what was noted that led to this conclusion. Was it not GH that wrote this originally?

I remember reading this article and yes it was GH's observations while examining his 916. It makes alot of sense, Porsche is frugal.

What I read (I still have the old AA catalog and can look it up tonight), was that after GH had bought the one he has, he found a bunch of "interesting" things about the prototype that he had just spent a bunch of money on. One of the things mentioned was that the engine compartment had evidence of once having engine mounts for a 4-cyl. The article also mentioned that the use of a gas axe was evident and that it wasn't done all that neatly. (All completely understandable as it was one of 11 prototype cars). I would be willing to bet that if all were gathered together, there would be some differences between even those 11 cars.

That is what I recall. (It may be wrong, but I can look at it tonight and possibly scan the article if any are all that interested.)

I know nothing about the VIN's and when they were assigned or if they were changed.



just my $0.02

I have read that article 100 times over the years. I think if you read further you'll find he mentions how relieved he was to find an actual "914" VIN# stamped in the chassis. It was only at first inspections that he "thought" his 916 started life as a 914-4.

I have the original article from Road and Track-February 1972 (I cut out the 916 article and the cover and laminated it. In hindsight, I should have kept the entire magazine, but I was young ).

I quote

"It was brought over prior to the decision not to market the car here and was obtained by Peter Gregg of Brumos Porsche/Audi in Jacksonville Florida"

I quote

"The interior is upholstered in real honest-to-goodness leather. The instrument panel is lifted straight out of the standard 914-6 with the exception of the lefthand instrument group. There, an oil temperature gauge and an oil pressure gauge have replaced the fuel gauge and idiot lights of the 914; the fuel gauge resides in a small center consolde. The seats have a rather mod fabric insert and, unlike the earlier 914 series, both seats are adjustable."

I quote

Mechanically the 916 has borrowed much from the production 1972 model 911S. It has the 2.4 LITER, 190-bhp engine, and like all 1972 Porsche 911s, the 916 will run on regular fuel.

It uses Bosch mechanical fuel injection.

Allan

just to add some flame to the fire,, if you look at the last 916 that was auction

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/Porsche-911...sspagenameZWDVW

and look at the picture of the underside , you will see the cross menber for the steering rack is steel not aluminium??? is it just me or what

and why would it be aluminum ??? *all* 914 came with the steel cross member ...

i'd be more worried that they'll forget to put the protective pan back on and leave the mounting tabs for the rack-support unbolted ...
Andy

I think the aluminum crossmember was used on the 911's after '76 maybe even as late as '78.

I could be wrong though

I don't think that's quite right.

I think even after close inspection, Hussey concluded that his 914 starte life as a 914-4 chassis.

He was just relieved to find that it had the "914" vin on it, because otherwise he would have bought a fake, because of course all the 916s had "914" vins.

But, his conclusion was that Porsche took a 914-4 chassis off the line and used it to make his 916.

Also, in his opinion, it wasn't even a '72 chassis (916's are registered as '72s), but was instead originally a '71 chassis. Because it apparently had obviously added on brackets welded in for the moveable passenger seat.

did'nt the -6 had aluminum cross member, like the 911 si is it based on a -4 or -6 ,, i'd be curious to see the spline of the torsion bar(-4 or-6?)

Kellys right, the 911 didn't get the aluminum cross member until the later 70s - sort of like how they didn't get the aluminum rear trailing arms either. The 914/6, like all 911s at the time, had steel crossmembers.

The /6 used the 911 torsion bars and A-arms (which makes sense, since thats what porsche had avail to put on the cars) It would also be logical that the 916 would do the same. But, logic and what really happens don't always match;)

SMD

I know the stock 1973 911's that I have worked on had steel front axles.

I know that one 1974 that is presumably stock has an aluminum front axle. FWIW, In PET it shows both steel and aluminum starting in 1974(on 911's not 914s).

The first use of the aluminum crossmember on the street cars was on the '73 RS.
JR

From the Hussey article:

"Hussey is convinced that it is actually a 1971 914-4, a 'mistake car' which Porsche pulled off the Karmann assembly line and sent to Werk I for transformation into a 916."

He then checks the VIN. "Much to his relief, however, he reads 9142330012. At least the car does have a proper Porsche 916 chassis number, if not a proper 914-6 chassis."

"In the engine bay, Hussey discovered amateur welds which reveal the secret of a four-cylinder chassis conversion."

Etc.

What possible difference can it make.

They were ALL prototypes! They were probably slapped together with what ever they had available at the shop. As the three factory GTs were cobbled together with parts...

And to smaller or greater degrees, they were probably all different, and therefore unique from each other, and therefore any serious discussion is probably meaningless, like arguing religion or politics, which is why we do not do it here.

Afterall is the 914-6 chassis proven to be better in any way that the 4 chassis? Seam welded in some places? Woopie!

I know if you check the different references, you will find that they were all badged different on the rear and the interiors had different headliners, and sunvisors. It seemed that the prototypes were just that. What ever suited which Porsche or Piech family member that they were going to. Even the white on that escaped to England was sent back to the factory and upgraded to a 2.7 Rs engine.

In Bruce Andersons engine book there is a 2.4 engine that was developed and not used in the 916. That engine was 911/56.

Who said it makes a difference?

Now that George is online, perhaps he can shed more light on his original observations.

Rumor was that Porsche was really tight on money back then, and it certainly makes sense that they would try to put together prototypes from whatever was laying around and paid for already. From a construction standpoint, no real differences between the two chassis, so why not go for it.

That same arguement applies to anyone doing a GT conversion. In some ways, you're better off to start with a later body to get the door beams, moveable passenger seat, retractable seatbelts, etc.

Yeah, the 917 Racing program sucked up all the money so they had to kill the 914/6GT racing too.

I certainly second your observation. Plus the internal body reinforcements.

No. -6's were basically 70-71 with only a handful delivered in Europe mainly in 72. 911's didn't begin to see the AL crossbar until 73 and later. I "think" the RS was the only one to receive it in 73.

-6 spline count is the same as the 911 with a rare 17.8mm bar.

Yes, but see my previous post about the chassis numbers, they are very late 1971 914/6 bodies, so my contention is that they were purpose built for a 914/6 by Karmann. There are a few telltale differences in the bodies. So we need to now these details.