Porsche for sale of the day..........

[Bootsy]

Seems like a decent project or at least worth a look.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/9685878 ... 0299155403

[Nine One One]

https://www.carandclassic.co.uk/auction ... 11e-knrZQn

[Lightweight_911]

/\ /\ /\

Some interesting inconsistencies :

Described (including on the CoA) as a 911E but VIN indicates it's a '73.5 USA 911T

Engine number is for a '73.5 USA 911T (CIS)

Engine type no on CoA (911/51) is for an earlier mfi 2.4T

Photos show what looks like a CIS engine



- plus it's been converted from LHD to RHD ...


.

[Slope330]

All of the above .......u got there first!

[deano]

Was looking at that yesterday and came to the conclusion that the CoA was either completely wrong or, dare I say it, fake?

When I received my CoA back around 1991, I think it only gave model number and colour 'blue' initially. After a prod, they magically discovered another level of detail, but still not what you would call comprehensive and worth the £50. I always wondered whether PUK just made it up to make me go away For example, the engine serial number was the same as the chassis serial number - my searches suggested that that is not normal and I doubt that it is a coincidence... I think they got my engine number wrong, at least...

[Lightweight_911]

.

If you search here on DDK you'll find numerous old threads outlining how unreliable (or just plainly wrong) the CoA can be...

.

[IanM]

If you search here on DDK you'll find numerous old threads outlining how unreliable (or just plainly wrong) the CoA can be...

Even the engine number?

[Lightweight_911]

.

Yes, I've had a CoA where (amongst other things) the engine number was incorrect ...

.

[PaulF]

964 anyone.

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-detail ... 5he&page=1

[Boydyrs]

Not sure giving it a wash was a good idea but at least you can see it in metal now!

[Sam]

964 anyone.

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-detail ... 5he&page=1

I blooming love that car.

If I had the means I’d buy it and drive it daily.

[deano]

.

Yes, I've had a CoA where (amongst other things) the engine number was incorrect ...

.

How did you work out that the engine number was wrong on the CoA please?

[Lightweight_911]

.
The first CoA I ever got had the wrong engine no. on it (2 digits out) - I disputed it & told them the actual no. & they changed it (without inspecting or having the car inspected) ...

.

[deano]

.
The first CoA I ever got had the wrong engine no. on it (2 digits out) - I disputed it & told them the actual no. & they changed it (without inspecting or having the car inspected) ...

.

Lucky !

My actual engine serial # and the one on the CoA differ in the last 3 digits (Actual#6131278 versus CoA#6131613) suggesting an engine swap, but I have no record of it. Both serial numbers are correct for the car (USA 73T MFI Targa), as is the engine type 911/51 and the MFI pump serial number etc. I have to wonder if the CoA is wrong, although I suppose that is just wishful thinking. The DVLA reg certificate shows the engine number as same as the chassis number, so that doesn't help.

Interestingly, the Red Book suggests 1252 cars produced and chassis number range 0001-1252 but engine numbers went from 6130001 to 6131926... this huge discrepancy between the engine number range and the number of cars produced (674) seems to be a common theme across all model years and types in the Red Book.... perhaps they lost a couple of number punches along the way and had to skip some combinations

[Lightweight_911]

.
There were actually 781 '73 USA mfi 2.4T Targas + 1252 Coupes ...

.