911 2.7RS

[Spydermon]

In terms of what's not correct on the Tangerine 'Lightweight', it depends on what photos you're looking at - the spec is different on Bootsy's photos as opposed to those on Russell's website...

You can't say that and not explain why! How is the spec different? I can't tell the difference?

Out with it, c'mon I need to know!



Steve.

[Gary71]

OK here is my serious guess!

1. Over padded steering wheel rim
2. Seat runners on body should be black
3. Black painted finish on front calipers
4. Gearshift boot looks way too big

Anal or just wrong?

[richkaz]

Also dont think that car has the original air in its tyres !
Anyhow you have less than 4 hours to bag ebays 200202090031 at a fraction of the price and in a great colour .

[Spydermon]

Also dont think that car has the original air in its tyres !
Anyhow you have less than 4 hours to bag ebays 200202090031 at a fraction of the price and in a great colour .

Are you sure about that RichKaz, I mean we are talking about experts here, and 1970's air is highly prized, it promotes chest-wigs and taches and 'birds' fancy you proper like. I really thought a cognoscenti like you would know this?


Steve.

[Spydermon]

Why is there only Gary71 spouting up about the detail faults with the Tangerine dream machine? C'mon James, and Mike210 and Mike, fess up, or is it hard to criticise a car that is supposed to be non pareil?

I need more input -I'm like Johnny Five the robot here- surely if this car can command such a premium the prospective buyer can at least expect it to be authentic?


Answers by PM gleefully accepted.



Steve.

[Gary71]

...and I'm only guessing! I'm no expert

[Vic Cohen]

Without wishing to be contentious , everyone from new ,took the 7" put them on the front and bought 8" for the back ............well almost everyone !
Not so sure abt the glove box cover .........Fuel tank finish is an open book and tends to tone down a bit , i ve suffered myself , but that does take time ................Porsche did nt tend to go to the sheleves ,take an armful and bolt onto these cars what was there ..................we re not talking Aston Martin variances but there were a few .............

[paulyb]

Mine is a Dec '72 car and I've got a photo of mine at about a year old with no glovebox cover.

[Spydermon]

Without wishing to be contentious , everyone from new ,took the 7" put them on the front and bought 8" for the back ............well almost everyone !
Not so sure abt the glove box cover .........Fuel tank finish is an open book and tends to tone down a bit , i ve suffered myself , but that does take time ................Porsche did nt tend to go to the sheleves ,take an armful and bolt onto these cars what was there ..................we re not talking Aston Martin variances but there were a few .............

Thanks Vic, and James too,

I love this 'Horses-mouth' stuff Vic, loved the 'George-Bernard' comment too, coffee over keyboard....! Reminded me of when I was working in the smoke....oooooh a long time ago.

Makes me think though: Bootsy you could perhaps come in on this? You know this car and the restorer.

When somebody is restoring a 'known' car, just how fastidious are they? Don't they know about the DDK? What would the temptation be with detail stuff, to stick in an available part now, rather than delay the restoration for a month or more say, looking for a correct glove-box lid?

Is there a ratio of correctness to visible look that might apply, what can be put past rather than what needs to be done for authenticity's sake? E.g. Gary71 sent me a comparison of some wheel arches that pointed this out perfectly. I would not have seen the obvious difference even if I had seen the cars consecutively. Together, maybe, but that's not the point. (Thanks again G71 BTW.)

For me to go for this car, and I would not be paying that price, I'd 'really' have to know that it was properly 'kosher.'

Does anybody remember that 'Not the Nine O-clock' news sketch from the 80's where Mel Smith was being ridiculed in a Hi-Fi shop for not knowing the correct details about Hi-Fi? "He said he wants Woofers on 'is tweeters....!" and so-on?

That's my only fear here; if I was that buyer, and it turned out to be wrong.........I can just see it......"Look at them heater pipes Kev, 'an 'e payed 260 farsand parnds for it...."

And there is no mention of the engine yet, or the eleventy-thousand pound rebuild if that's the case....?



Steve.

[Spydermon]

Slightly OT, but still relevant IMHO;

How do insurers look at cars with this rarity and value with reference to the volatility of the market? Do they insure the vehicle as per the price you paid for it, or do they have a perceived Glass's guide type price that is what they will give you, heaven forfend?

Would they have garaging and security limitations, and would they impose a limited mileage on the owner? Or would they deal with a car like this in a 'case-by-case' manner?

Say, for instance, that you payed this price (260k) and two years later the market value was say (175K) -heaven forfend yet again- and then somebody half-inched it, would they pay out what you paid, or argue for what it was worth now?

Apols ahead if this is a spodey question,


Steve.

[hot66]

remember Steve, I might be completely wrong with my observations and to be honest we're playing being 'train spotters'. Spotting inaccuracies is a game some us play , not to slag a car off but to see who is the more knowledgable / saddest Mike ( 210bhp) is always 'sadder' than me

There is nothing wrong with this car at all and these stupid little details are of no consequence really. Looking at it from behind a computer screen is no way to judge a car. Personally I think it looks fantastic

I could count loads of 'incorrect' stuff on my 2.4S if I was being really anal , but it doesn't really matter.

What matters is you get a good car that you can have fun with. Its the problem cars you need to avoid. Remeber the enjoyment is as much about driving them as it is about the owning of them

[Gary71]

remember Steve, I might be completely wrong with my observations and to be honest we're playing being 'train spotters'. Spotting inaccuracies is a game some us play , not to slag a car off but to see who is the more knowledgable / saddest Mike ( 210bhp) is always 'sadder' than me

There is nothing wrong with this car at all and these stupid little details are of no consequence really. Looking at it from behind a computer screen is no way to judge a car. Personally I think it looks fantastic

I could count loads of 'incorrect' stuff on my 2.4S if I was being really anal , but it doesn't really matter.

What matters is you get a good car that you can have fun with. Its the problem cars you need to avoid. Remeber the enjoyment is as much about driving them as it is about the owning of them

Totally agree. None of the things any one of us have mentioned would cost more than £200 to fix, not really relavent in the scheme of a £250K car!

[IanMcLeod]

Say, for instance, that you payed this price (260k) and two years later the market value was say (175K) -heaven forfend yet again- and then somebody half-inched it, would they pay out what you paid, or argue for what it was worth now?

Each year you should be getting an agreed value on the car for insurance. And that doesn't mean you get one of your mates to write you out a valuation. The insurer would look for an industry expert to have written that valuation. And if the industry expert said the car is only worth 175K then that's what you would get back. The insurer is in effect paying out what it would cost you to replace in the market at that time ... not insuring you for overpaying or purchasing when the market is at a higher level.

[Spydermon]

remember Steve, I might be completely wrong with my observations and to be honest we're playing being 'train spotters'. Spotting inaccuracies is a game some us play , not to slag a car off but to see who is the more knowledgable / saddest Mike ( 210bhp) is always 'sadder' than me

There is nothing wrong with this car at all and these stupid little details are of no consequence really. Looking at it from behind a computer screen is no way to judge a car. Personally I think it looks fantastic

I could count loads of 'incorrect' stuff on my 2.4S if I was being really anal , but it doesn't really matter.

What matters is you get a good car that you can have fun with. Its the problem cars you need to avoid. Remeber the enjoyment is as much about driving them as it is about the owning of them

Thanks James,

Partly my point is just that: Right now, I know just as much from behind this computer screen as I do looking at them in the flesh. I've seen a few now, and I wouldn't have spotted most of what I 'knew' was wrong. My enthusiasm way outranks my knowledge.

James said;

"What matters is you get a good car that you can have fun with."

I agree, and for that reason I have been looking intently at RS911's fun cars and wondering intently......That's the whole thing, where do we draw the line between having the 'real' thing and fun in a facsimile?

I have a strong desire to own a slice of history, that is correct in its details, but how correct is really necessary? I'm not sure yet, though I nearly am...and I really enjoy the trainspotting stuff.

You forget how much you know that I don't, it's a lot.


Cheers,


Steve.

[Spydermon]

Say, for instance, that you payed this price (260k) and two years later the market value was say (175K) -heaven forfend yet again- and then somebody half-inched it, would they pay out what you paid, or argue for what it was worth now?

Each year you should be getting an agreed value on the car for insurance. And that doesn't mean you get one of your mates to write you out a valuation. The insurer would look for an industry expert to have written that valuation. And if the industry expert said the car is only worth 175K then that's what you would get back. The insurer is in effect paying out what it would cost you to replace in the market at that time ... not insuring you for overpaying or purchasing when the market is at a higher level.

Thanks Ian_UK,

Right then; lightbulb moment.

Are there, or have there been, many cases of valuations disagreeing with owners that have payed over the odds as it where? So, if something did happen to the car, you'd end up paying the premium over-the-odds twice. Sobering stuff.

Thanks again for the clarification,


Steve.