Page 3 of 9

Re: '65

Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2023 4:14 pm
by inaglasshouse
Nine One One wrote: Thu Sep 21, 2023 2:24 pm Can you do a Netflix version and we can then all binge view it all at once - we need more updates - drip feeding is driving me mad
Kids today. Just want instant gratification.

I remember when jtp did a, what, ten year(?) resto and nobody complained. The last two years was lining up all the bolt heads. I think. That’s how I remember it anyway ;-).

Mind you, that was pre-Netflix.

Re: '65

Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2023 8:13 pm
by jtparr
Oi……cheeky bugger……mind you might have been true…. 8)

Re: '65

Posted: Sat Sep 23, 2023 8:43 pm
by inaglasshouse
Apologies Mr P.
Actually 11 years.
Says so in your signature ;).

Re: '65

Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2023 1:23 pm
by RobFrost
Looking forward to the next instalment. I was pleased to see the slightly scruffy-looking bent over section of flange behind the petrol tank level sender. I had heretofore assumed a previous owner hacked this flange away on mine, but it now appears it is original.

Image

Sent from my SM-G988B using Tapatalk




Re: '65

Posted: Sun Sep 24, 2023 11:43 pm
by inaglasshouse
RobFrost wrote: Sun Sep 24, 2023 1:23 pm it now appears it is original.
Well, who knows! I guess it does make some sense to create clearance for the sender wiring and vent pipe. But maybe we both have cars where a previous owner had a hammer.
I realise I could go on early s and find out. There is a really wonderful thread on there about build details of 64-65 cars, tracking down some of the early production changes that took place on the fly. Perhaps more of that later.

Re: '65

Posted: Tue Sep 26, 2023 12:07 pm
by inaglasshouse
Where were we?
Oh yes:
Image
Billy no mates with his C Class in Los Angeles.

I guess it's clear from context of this little story that it was not a scam. Or not the most obvious scam anyway.

A few minutes later my gracious host appeared and issued me with a paint depth gauge, which is a good start.
Into the industrial unit we went to look at the car and the parts stash. Both of which existed.

We also looked at some Rolexes, a guitar and a gun. But that's a slight diversion. Back to the car.

Re: '65

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2023 10:09 am
by BILLY BEAN
Richard, I was going to provide a suitable salutation : " How are you" but given the above I think it is not appropriate.
Therapy you said. Electric shock treatment may be preferable to yet another resto. Are you certifiable? Good luck with this one. I am sure you will do a marvelous job and looking forward to further installments.
PS did you buy the gun as well? Might come in handy if things do not pan out.

Re: '65

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2023 10:36 am
by inaglasshouse
Hi Kirk,
How are you? Long time no see.
As you know, it takes a special kind of forgetfulness to embark on another Porsche odyssey (resto in my case). Hence the long gap - I needed to erase various ups and downs from my memory. I am told it's the same with childbirth, except that in the case of childbirth the amazing human brain automatically erases most of it.
Nope, no gun purchase. Should have bought the Rolex though, with hindsight! Actually had I bought both the Rolexes and gone home without the car, I suspect I would be very far ahead of the current financial position on this resto...
Cheers, Richard.

Re: '65

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2023 4:41 pm
by inaglasshouse
Back to the industrial unit in LA.

Long story short, which can be somewhat illustrated by pics. The car was much as described. When looked at through the rose-tinted sunglasses I had handily brought along, it could be thought of as quite original. This sort of thing:
Image
... and this:
Image

The above pic shows a few encouraging features that were a consistent theme on the car. Ignore the stupid yellow paint again, please. Instead consider general lack of rust, and presence of original bits and pieces. In this case we are enjoying the slightly wider-than-expected wheel arch lips, which are a feature of early SWB cars.
The front end seemed generally very nice indeed, leaving aside the front pan rust already noted. Wings, front slam, 4-screw horn grilles and indicator units that all fitted nicely. Nothing too untoward to see there.

Image

Image

Paint gauge showed charming lack of bondo on the front end and roof etc.

Re: '65

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2023 5:02 pm
by inaglasshouse
Front overriders with the rear slots:

Image

A little bit of blue paint underneath:

Image

Horn grilles and light units:

Image

Re: '65

Posted: Sun Oct 01, 2023 6:11 pm
by IanM
inaglasshouse wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 5:02 pm Front overriders with the rear slots:

Image
What is the purpose of the rear slots? Not seen that before.

Bali blue is a nice colour. Similar to Albert blue.

Subscribed.

Re: '65

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2023 7:31 am
by inaglasshouse
IanM wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 6:11 pm What is the purpose of the rear slots? Not seen that before.
I'm afraid I've no idea of the purpose. They are an early car thing, apparently.
IanM wrote: Sun Oct 01, 2023 6:11 pm Bali blue is a nice colour. Similar to Albert blue.
Yes, similar. I've seen a few Bali cars now in real life, and plenty more in pics. The colour looks good with the chrome, IMHO.

Re: '65

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2023 8:53 am
by inaglasshouse
BTW I'm consciously posting all this "how I thought it looked when I bought it" stuff before I get the shell back from envirostrip. It returns on Friday, at which point we can all have a jolly good laugh at how wrong I was.

Down the back the corrosion story was (or "appeared"!) much the same. Yellow overspray, tired underseal leading to surface rust in places. One of the rear seat pans not great. Possibly a few thin / pinholed bits of floor. But overall not a rusty car at all.

Image

Image

Re: '65

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2023 9:02 am
by inaglasshouse
But, as previously mentioned, the rear slam and deck lid were later items suggesting rear impact at some point. This was borne out by nastiness at the back of the rear wings:

Image

Visible evidence of filler there, leading to horrible fit of the rear lights. The paint gauge at this point proved that it had not been rigged to always say "don't worry it's all fine" - rear 30cm or so of the rear wings showed increasingly more paint / filler on both sides as you got to the back. Rest of the wings seemed sound and original.

No obvious huge trauma to the rear "chassis rails" in the engine bay. I remember, however, that on the previous resto those looked fine but were quite far off, so we must wait for bare metal and jig before drawing too many conclusions.

Re: '65

Posted: Mon Oct 02, 2023 9:08 am
by Bootsy
The anticipation for Friday's reveal is killing me